DSLRUsers.com

It's sounds like Little Johny likes the idea.

Who's looking forward to a Reactor in their backyard Oh how I sometimes wonder why I brought kids into this world

Mic

Personally I don't see it as necesseraly a problem. People hear nuclear and they start to panic without proper understanding what it is. If operated properly, not like Chernobyl, nuclear is probably one of the cleanest forms of energy there is and also most efficient. As long as people know what they are doing and don't play Russian roulette there is no problem.

Alex

With emissions being what they are it looks like wind, solar or nuclear

There is an impression that nuclear is in league with the devil but we use isotopes to great effect in ships and medicine - if the byproduct could be effectively disposed of then I, for one, would prefer the cleaner power

Thats the key Alex, as long as people know what they are doing

Goodbye Australia I say.

Mic

mic wrote:Thats the key Alex, as long as people know what they are doing

Goodbye Australia I say.

Mic

 LOL. Mic.

There are several forms of nuclear reactors. Yes there will always be the thought of Chernobyl and 3 mile island at the back of our minds everytime we hear nuclear power plant, but the thought of a plant meltdown isn't the only thing that puts people off.

What do we do with the waste? Don't forget that radioactive material takes a long time to breakdown. I'm more worried about the "guarantees" to ensure that the wastes doesn't leak out into our water supply and air.

Australia doesn't need more nuclear power plants. It has a huge landmass which gets smacked by the sun pretty much all year round and the coast lines are always windy as anything. I really think we should look at other alternative power sources rather than jump straight to nuclear. 25 nuclear reactors by 2050...how about more alternative power plants by 2050.

You may be the inverter Mic but please don’t be negative

Very good Chris

PiroStitch wrote:There are several forms of nuclear reactors. Yes there will always be the thought of Chernobyl and 3 mile island at the back of our minds everytime we hear nuclear power plant, but the thought of a plant meltdown isn't the only thing that puts people off.

What do we do with the waste? Don't forget that radioactive material takes a long time to breakdown. I'm more worried about the "guarantees" to ensure that the wastes doesn't leak out into our water supply and air.

Australia doesn't need more nuclear power plants. It has a huge landmass which gets smacked by the sun pretty much all year round and the coast lines are always windy as anything. I really think we should look at other alternative power sources rather than jump straight to nuclear. 25 nuclear reactors by 2050...how about more alternative power plants by 2050.

Solar and Wind would be perfect but unfortunately it is all driven by economics and that's where these two forms of energy lose out to nuclear due to efficiency issues.

Alex

PiroStitch wrote:There are several forms of nuclear reactors. Yes there will always be the thought of Chernobyl and 3 mile island at the back of our minds everytime we hear nuclear power plant, but the thought of a plant meltdown isn't the only thing that puts people off.

What do we do with the waste? Don't forget that radioactive material takes a long time to breakdown. I'm more worried about the "guarantees" to ensure that the wastes doesn't leak out into our water supply and air.

Australia doesn't need more nuclear power plants. It has a huge landmass which gets smacked by the sun pretty much all year round and the coast lines are always windy as anything. I really think we should look at other alternative power sources rather than jump straight to nuclear. 25 nuclear reactors by 2050...how about more alternative power plants by 2050.

What water The air, that’s buggered too. It’s time for a revolution to get rid of the pollies through strong polemics

Why nuclear and not Biomass?? Why dig up something that is harmful but not burn something that is made everyday, fresh?


For those who have not heard about biomass energy generation. It is a process of breaking down energy from living waste and convert them into waste. Such as dead leaves, dead organisms, and ofcourse -- human waste we produce every day at large amounts.

It is a new form of power generation, still at its infancy, but if we get to develop further on, we can make this a reality. And we all help to power our own lights every time we flush

I guess another question is how long will all these different energy sources take to construct?

Also, how long will it take to undertake more research into other technologies such as biomass?

more of a tactical smoke screen to divert attention away from the fact we aren't even close to the agreements we made outside of the kyoto protocol.
to get the paperwork, planning, inevitable legal action by whatever community it will be built next to and then actually build the thing, you will be looking to at least 10 years. And thats optimistic given that the contract would probably go to a buddies of the pollies and then be faced with delays, budget blowouts and strikes.

mic, i don't think the nuclear reactor will get your kids, give it 15 years and mother nature will take care of us all.

I think Nikon have actually come up with a way to use the spent nuclear isotopes...



I hear that similar to the D70's red issue, this model has a problem with green...

Such an interesting topic and one that's just been waiting to burst out in Australia.
The advent of technologies is not going to go backwards and I see nuclear power getting bigger and more common around the world in the next 20 years or so.
It's now becoming apparent that whilst all the major corporations were busy coming up with all those electrical items we desperately need to fill our lives with, no-one really stopped to think how we would continue to power all these in the future.
If all computers were shut down for a year (which would of course never happen - just a hypothetical), I wonder what affect that would have on electrical demand from the power stations ? It's only been the last 20 odd years that computers have grown in enormous numbers around the world.

Everything these days is electric, your fridge with built-in internet access, your home theatre system, your 3 TV's, not to mention all the PC's around the world. With demand growing, fossil fuel power cannot keep up without completely destroying our atmosphere....which in turn will eventually destroy us.

The downside is the management and storage of spent radioactive waste, but if we keep on going the way we are now what will kill us first, leaking nuclear waste in the indefinite future or the gaping hole in the ozone layer (that is only getting bigger and worse) ?

What is more interesting is that the US are looking at Australia as a potential "perfect site" to house their radioactive waste. I'm not sure if anyone saw the "Sunday" program last weekend, however it appears that there is some speculation that it would be in Australia's interest to look at producing radioactive waste sites to house other countries waste....which could make Australia Billions of dollars per year. With this money, we could produce our own reactors and possibly even strengthen our economy (if done correctly - which is a big ask of any politician).
If this were to happen and Australia did begin housing waste from other countries, it could be seen as foolish for us not to have our own reactors and store our own waste along with the rest of it.

Is nuclear safe ? Do we all really know the "facts" behind it all ? If not, it's all just speculation until it comes to fruition. If the government want it to happen, it will happen...regardless of what the public have to say (IMHO).
The downside is a tremendously scary thought, should a leak ever occur....however choosing between that and ruining the planet we live in, it somehow seems a more sensible choice....

As for other "greener" choices, I agree that economics come into it and if it's not cost competitive to nuclear it is likely to be overlooked.

Interesting topic though....

The misinformation (and prerhaps blatant lying as I can not believe some pollies can be that ingorant) surrounding this is just amazing...

The fearmongering is all about political manouvering and not securing an environmentally sustainable future...

Did you know about the same amount radioactive isotopes are realeaed during the mining of coal as is produced in a nuclear reactor...

Coal is killing this world... it is the worst alternative behind gas, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass hydro (small hydro, large hydro is not particularly environmentally friendly)

Kim is very quickly losing my vote over his stubborn un-educated rejection of even contemplating the idea...

MHD wrote:Kim is very quickly losing my vote over his stubborn un-educated rejection of even contemplating the idea...

Unfortunately with our antiquated form of governing that's his job.
Even if he firmly believes in nuclear power his party and his position in it make him have to denounce anything the government comes up with as 100% pure crap. If he gets into power, give 15 months and you can bet that nuclear power is labours answer to solving everything.

One of the things that continues to amaze me is how the public at large continue to believe the constant stream of lies told to us by our elected leaders and then line up for another serve.

It's now widely accepted that politicians lie to us, as a culture we have even begun to make jokes about it.

Why then would we trust them to tell us anything close to the truth on the issue of nuclear power and the subsequently generated nuclear waste?

When you look at the list of ACA (Australian Coal Association) Member Companies and cross reference it with the Australian uranium mining and exploration companies list here one thing is more than obvious, BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto are involved in both practices. We know for fact that both of these companies have good relations with our government due to their export earning potential and the sceptic in me says that the Australian government has handed them a free kick in driving us towards nuclear power generation over other forms of proven green power generation sources such as wind, solar, biomass and the like.

For another scientific generated report on nuclear energy that is not tainted by politics and the need for governments to serve their masters (corporate entities) check out the Greenpeace report here.

I personally have many reasons for not wanting to see the proliferation of nuclear as a power source these are just a few of them.

1. As yet there is no single repository in existence anywhere in the world for the disposal of high-level waste from nuclear power.

2. Radioactive waste is one of the most dangerous forms of waste known to mankind and we have no real solution at this point for its disposal other than storage and waiting. How big will this waste pile become in the years to come and where will it be housed?

3. Most importantly, mining of uranium is dangerous and tailings produced are extremely dangerous. I had a friend who worked in Roxby Downs in the mid 1990's for 18 months on a 5 week on 5 week off basis. She was a happy vibrant 25 year old who was struck down by an aggressive and unusual cancer in her uterus and died within 4 months of being diagnosed. She was convinced that her exposure to radiation was the cause and she was aware of others who worked at Roxby that also developed unusual cancers in the prime of their lives. IMHO no-one should loose their life so that you and I can have power on tap.

What can we do about it?

Ring your energy supplier today and switch to green power, remember that in the world of economics supply and demand dictate directions of markets and if there was a sudden demand for alternate power generation then the supply will follow generating jobs, income and reducing the need for nuclear power generation.

The cost to switching to green power should only add approx $1 per week to your power bill, which seems insignificant by comparison to the 50% increase to the cost of supply as nuclear power comes on stream being banded about by our politicians today.

Lets all use this opportunity to do the right thing now so we aren't dealing with a bigger more difficult environmental mess in 30 years time.

If you ever have the opportunity, go down to Yallorn, Gippsland in Victoria where the huge coal fields and electrical generation is done.

There is a tour of the complex performed by ex staff who have been made redundant by technology.

Have a listen to the information about coal fired power generation.

I for one can't understand the need for Nuclear power generation in Australia. On economic credibility alone it doesn't make sense even with the so called "carbon trading credits".

It can only may make sense in other countries that are energy resource poor.

WHAT!?!?!
After seeing the scarred landscape and smelling the sulphuric air I can not fathom why you can not see a need to wean off coal?

Nuclear may not be the answer but burning coal is certainly not... It is what we have been doing so far and now there is very good scientific evidence that it is causing great harm to the very equilibrium that keeps us alive...

Burning coal and fossil fules has got us in the predicament we are in now.

Frankly there are just as many reports and studies that say that green energy is better than nuclear as there are vice versa. What you hear all depends on the self interests of either the Government or the media.

I trust NEITHER....

The best thing to do is make your judgement based on your own research and common sense.

Over the past year we have seen an amazing shift in public opinion towards green ideas. The global warming, drought and the energy crisis will see environmentalism become the main point in the next and further federal and state elections.

I see this as a good thing.

We need to start caring for the Earth otherwise will will either end up destroying it, or it will destroy us.

SOONER rather than LATER.

(Nuclear sucks)

Both main political parties have lost the plot. I will be voting Green next time. (Come to think of it i did last time too)

(PS. Hey Labor caucus. If you swap Kim Beazley for Peter Garret as leader, you might even win the next election)



Go Green!!!!!

Hear Hear!

Peter Garrett for PM!

By the time the pollies get off their arses to do something about constructing nuclear power stations, global warming will have already melted the polar ice caps.

Maybe then we can store the radioactive waste there!

I remember having an argument with a Green’s supporter who wanted me to join the org - my answer was get rid of your smoke belching VW combi and I will join - he did not get it [/i]

I thought people might have a view on this subject

Good to see all the different thoughts though.

Mic

Just my two cents.

The whole "Nuclear debate" is about politics plain and simple and has NOTHING to do with whether it's good or bad for Australia. I quite liked this comment from Crikey

Crikey wrote:If a government wanted to figure out how best to defend the country, it wouldn’t hold an inquiry into the air force. It would hold an inquiry into … defence. So if a government wanted to figure out how to plan for responsible energy consumption in an age of climate change you’d assume it would hold an inquiry into energy consumption. Instead, the Australian government holds an inquiry into … nuclear energy.

That single fact tells you almost as much as you need to know about the value of the Switkowski inquiry into nuclear power. It’s a political con job perpetrated by a government which is less than a year away from an election and is being dragged kicking and screaming into the debate about climate change.

In fact, Australia did hold an inquiry into energy in 2004 which produced the white paper Securing Australia's Energy Future. This told us what we already knew – that, economically speaking, renewables are a hard sell in Australia. Our embarrassment of fossil fuel riches means that low-emission technology will be more expensive for the foreseeable future. That includes nuclear energy. Nuclear and "other forms of energy like renewables probably can only be competitive" with a carbon tax, acknowledged Ziggy Switkowski yesterday.


If the Howard government was genuine about climate change it would conduct a comprehensive inquiry into all energy sources, all technologies, all emissions and all the economics.

In the meantime it’s just window dressing and Labor Party wedging tarted up with false gravitas.

And here's another 2 cents worth...which now totals 4 cents! The Prime Minister commissioned an inquiry that cost taxpayers one million dollars. Member of the commission travelled overseas and they spoke....to nuclear experts. Not renewable energy experts. They then returned and made outrageously inaccurate comments that understated the true cost of developing nuclear technology in Australia. They did not include the cost of developing and training skilled scientists and technicians, of which we have none in this field. They did not include the cost of decommissioning the plants after 35 years. This cost is greater than building the plants in the first place, and they did not include the cost of storing the hideously dangerous wastes for the next 5000 years. They also did not include the cost of securing the plants from terrorists!. In my opinion this is 1 million dollars wasted! It could have been better spent on health care! And it is an insult to the intelligence of the Australian public…voters. It also diminishes the office of the Prime Minister and Australian politics in general. It’s a sad day when politics takes precedence over the welfare of the Australian public. Bring on the ballot box. Oh...and finally....we know that when the government takes on large projects then the costs blowout by a factor of 2 or 3 as a matter of course. Just look back at some of the woeful contracts signed over the last 15 years. Let the Prime Minister now establish commisions to look into solar and wind generated enegy. That would at least present a balancing of views.

Excellent post Matt K, I am with you all the way.

Government may be a problem (large) but the combining of RTZ and CRA (2 major players in Uranium) in 1997 into, guess who - Rio Tinto puts money in shareholders pockets. The wheel revolves, and the shareholders control the game

What everybody fails to see here is this.

1 : Man will always find a way to out do himself one way or another.

2 : Greed.

3 : No respect for his fellow neigbour.

4 : Man will not learn from mistakes.

5 : Lust for power will always overcome every rational thought and prevoius mistakes made.

In a nutshell man is stupid & ignorent.

Thats my view anyway.

Mic

mic wrote:What everybody fails to see here is this.

1 : Man will always find a way to out do himself one way or another.

2 : Greed.

3 : No respect for his fellow neigbour.

4 : Man will not learn from mistakes.

5 : Lust for power will always overcome every rational thought and prevoius mistakes made.

In a nutshell man is stupid & ignorent.

Thats my view anyway.


So I guess you are of the female gender mic
Mic