PM Pushes for Nuclear power in Australia

[Fordman1]

The PM has revealed his vision for Nuclear Power in Australia today.

Here is one of today's first stories:

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.as...ontentID=27249

[Airmon]

Uranium export will be good for the economy, but whether we get Nuclear power stations or not I think is another issue.

[mrniceguy]

Originally Posted by Airmon

Uranium export will be good for the economy, but whether we get Nuclear power stations or not I think is another issue.

Absolutely Uranium export would be good for our economy. Just maybe not so good for our long term energy needs here in Australia.

[jimmy_c]

The way this is going we will all end up as a pile of radio active ash. We have clean technologies that dont even require us to Burn or fuse anything together and I am not talking about Solar.

I feel sorry for each new generation of children who have to live here.


I for one do not want to live near a Nuclear power plant, processing, enrichment or anything to do with it at all. I dont care how safe people recon it is. After watching the chernobyl video.

I dont think even with 2007 standard we should be playing with Uranium for power. Let alone have pollys in canbera decideing stuff like this without a fair debate. Such as a Referendum.

[Dave_au]

The following countries use nuclear reactors for power generation, somewhat successfully:

Argentina
Armenia
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
China
China: Taiwan
Czech Republic
Egypt
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran
Israel
Japan
Kazakhstan
Korea DPR (North)
Korea RO (South)
Lithuania
Mexico
Netherlands
Pakistan
Romania
Russia
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
USA
Vietnam

So as you can see most of the western world countries use Nuclear power, and even some developing countries in Asia. So why on earth do we have a massive scare campaign against nuclear energy? For sure it has waste issues, so does coal.

The issues of Chernobyl have been well identified and addressed, the way the reactors are built these days are almost completely bulletproof and failsafe. The Chernobyl reactor in particular had a couple of design faults which ultimately proved to be an achillies heal when the incident occurred.

Like most major industrial disasters, including the Union Carbide chemical leak in india, it's due to poor management and supervision. I really can't see a nuclear reactor in Australia being mis-managed.

[sprjenkins]

Originally Posted by jimmy_c

The way this is going we will all end up as a pile of radio active ash. We have clean technologies that dont even require us to Burn or fuse anything together and I am not talking about Solar.

I feel sorry for each new generation of children who have to live here.


I for one do not want to live near a Nuclear power plant, processing, enrichment or anything to do with it at all. I dont care how safe people recon it is. After watching the chernobyl video.

I dont think even with 2007 standard we should be playing with Uranium for power. Let alone have pollys in canbera decideing stuff like this without a fair debate. Such as a Referendum.

Ok, yes there are clean technologies to provide power, however.
1: They are more expensive
2: They do not produce anything like the required power
3: Some of these technologies, such as geothermal are a long way off being able to produce power let alone be commercially viable

Next, why did you even join a car forum if you don't like the idea of things being burnt to produce power.

Nuclear power can go along way to solving Australia's drought problems. Nuclear powered water Desalination. I know people are going to ask what will you do with the salt left over.

Three options,
1: Back in the ocean, I'm not sure if the salt would have a localised affect or not however.
2: Sell as table salt.
3: Take to an existing salt lake (Lake Gardiner) where its not exactly going to change the existing ecosystem now is it.


Lastly Nuclear Power is very safe, OK, accidents have happened. However not for a long time now. Nuclear power is used succesfully all over the world, on ships and even in submarines with no hassles. I personally wouldn't care if I did have to live near a nuclear power plant. The science is very well understood and there will be no accidents.

[mrniceguy]

Modern nuclear reactors cannot be compared to Chernobyl or any soviet era reactor. Modern ones are much more reliable and safe.

And as far as the old "I dont want to live near a nuclear reactor" argument well i wouldnt want to either. But neither would i want to live next to a coal fired plant, or a wind farm, or a heavy machinery manufacturer or a steel blast furnace. These things are located appropriately as would be a nuclear power plant.

And what renewable energy source can provide a proven alternative baseload power supply?
Answer:none

[XRated]

Originally Posted by mrniceguy

And as far as the old "I dont want to live near a nuclear reactor" argument well i wouldnt want to either. But neither would i want to live next to a coal fired plant, or a wind farm, or a heavy machinery manufacturer or a steel blast furnace. These things are located appropriately as would be a nuclear power plant.

And I'd much prefer to live 5kms-100kms from a Coal-fired plant/wind-farm than a nuclear power plant.

Sure they're considered "safe," but it doesn't make them bullet-proof. I just don't think the risks involved are worth it. Sure modern nuclear reactors might have a "one in a ten million risk," but it's one very big risk; with even bigger repercussions.

[Bill_R]

Originally Posted by mrniceguy

Modern nuclear reactors cannot be compared to Chernobyl or any soviet era reactor. Modern ones are much more reliable and safe.

And as far as the old "I dont want to live near a nuclear reactor" argument well i wouldnt want to either. But neither would i want to live next to a coal fired plant, or a wind farm, or a heavy machinery manufacturer or a steel blast furnace. These things are located appropriately as would be a nuclear power plant.

And what renewable energy source can provide a proven alternative baseload power supply?
Answer:none

Even reactors around at the time of Chernobyl were safer than the one at Chernobyl. The British evaluated the Chernobyl reactor and considered it unsuitable before the accident.

I also don't want to live near a Reactor but am aware of how "safe" they are in use.

If we look into the future longer than the next 15-20 years we will see Fusion Reactors come of age and in production. Most of the debate now will fade into irrelevance.

It won't happen that we get Fission reactors soon - Howard wont' be in Gov't.

Info on ITER Fusion Reactor project at: http://www.iter.org/

[Fordman1]

I Agree that Nuclear Power is the only real alternative to Coal Power at this stage.

I think we should do it.

The long term future lies with Clean Fusion Nuclear Power, but that is many, many years away.

[XRated]

It was only a matter of time...

The Chernobyl reactors are vastly different to what will be built here. In saying that, I still don't like the idea of nuclear power plants dotted around our country. I think nuclear power/technology is out of the capabilities of humans. I don't think politicians or the government particularly care about the future and fate of the Earth, and if they ever do; it'll probably be too late.

I believe Australia is the last remaining inhabited continent that doesn't have a nuclear power plant as a source for energy (aside from Lucas Heights which is for research/study). It's just one of the many reasons I felt like we lived in the "lucky country."

[volcom20]

Well if we're going to do anything for the polution we're suffering at the moment and the ozone nuclear is a very good option.

Look it up, how much damage are coal fired plants doing?

Nuclear is a very clean energy except for the waste that is produced, which can be safely stored in say, the centre of australia in a bunker underground. Also the amounts of waste are very small for the amount of energy they produce.

Lucas hights is a current nuclear power plant in south sydney - Sydney being the highlighted word, that's the most densely populated area in Australia, so it's obviously safe.

But I do carry the general "bad vibes" attached to living 5km next to one, I would personally never want to be there. But as techology advances nuclear power will become somewhat more of a standard if anything else.

Just a matter of time before we take it on.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Its an utter act of hypocrasy to be "ok" with mining of nuclear fuels such as uranium and sale to other countries, but to gasp in shock and horror at the thought of having a nuclear reactor set up in the country. i.e. I think drugs are bad, but i dont have a problem selling drugs to people for a profit?? Come on now.

Secondly, the PM has opened up the options... or rather, removed the inherent restrictions. Do we all know how long it takes to build a reactor, let alone navigate the political landscape to a point where we are in a position to build it?

Thirdly, nuclear fuel is a very finite resource on this planet. Uranium is expected to peak in a very similar fashion to oil - the expected timeframe for this peak is still only a two digit number.

Lastly, we are a country of contradiction. "I demand that the government resolve the current reliance on dirty energy - but I refuse to have a nuclear reactor established". Of course its perfectly reasonable to expect howard/rudd to procure a magic wand and make the problem disappear... but in reality we need to have this debate and it can be restricted to nuclear power alone.

Personally i dont think nuclear power will ever get up in this country. Too much of a stigma about it and i dont think australians are great at overcoming stigma.

[King Nothing]

Renewable/environmentally friendly technology, as it stands today, would not meet the required baseload as mrniceguy said. So we wait. What do we do in the meantime? If we keep burning coal, we will emit too much CO2 and potentially cause more global warming. Nobody is happy with that, especially the greenies. So what can we do in the meantime? I think Nuclear should be used in the short to medium term to supply baseload power whilst technology like geothermal and clean coal gets up and going. As to whether it is politically possible to do such a thing is another matter. But if people are serious about tackling climate change, we can't expect that next week some scientists will come out with a discovery that will solve all our problems. We need a real solution. Nuclear is one of them, and I can't see another. However I would love to be proven wrong.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Lastly, we are a country of contradiction. "I demand that the government resolve the current reliance on dirty energy - but I refuse to have a nuclear reactor established". Of course its perfectly reasonable to expect howard/rudd to procure a magic wand and make the problem disappear... but in reality we need to have this debate and it can be restricted to nuclear power alone.

Obviously Martin you are unaware of the governments secret solution to global warming.

The Bippity Boppity Boop Energy Station located in the latrobe valley is the Liberal Governments new plan to supply the country's energy needs completely using nothing but fairy dust, prayer and happy thoughts.

[Gunns]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

Obviously Martin you are unaware of the governments secret solution to global warming.

The Bippity Boppity Boop Energy Station located in the latrobe valley is the Liberal Governments new plan to supply the country's energy needs completely using nothing but fairy dust, prayer and happy thoughts.

This must be the one next door to the one the runs on hopes and dreams.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by Gunns

This must be the one next door to the one the runs on hopes and dreams.

you mean this one? Its due for decomission due to carebears union strike actions.

[Hardtopxb]

Australia contributes about 2% to 3.5%to the worlds pollution on it's best day,(we sit on a virtual seem of coal running along the east coast of OZ).This will not change in the future.Can you imagine having say 20 potential sources of a radiation issue on your door step( not to mention the terrorist drawcard)Then there is the problem of storeing TONS of radioactive material SAFELY.I don't profess to know the answers, but we do need to balance our solutions to this problem..imo..

[DivHunter]

Originally Posted by Hardtopxb

Australia contributes about 2% to 3.5%to the worlds pollution on it's best day,(we sit on a virtual seem of coal running along the east coast of OZ).This will not change in the future.Can you imagine having say 20 potential sources of a radiation issue on your door step( not to mention the terrorist drawcard)Then there is the problem of storeing TONS of radioactive material SAFELY.I don't profess to know the answers, but we do need to balance our solutions to this problem..imo..

In the 40 year life-span of a nuclear reactor it produces 10m^3 of radioactive waste. Weight doesn't really have much to do with it as you're talking about very dense materials.

[GreenMachine]

See, I like the idea of clean, safe(ish) energy, but I have problems with nuclear waste. I don't like the idea of creating something so bad that it won't break down for 500,000 years.

I mean, the worst thing Ford ever made was the XF, and whilst they are a blight on humanity, they break down frequently, they're not particularly harmful and will all have bio-degraded by 2020.

Is a power plant fired by burning XF's clean technology?

[Sapper]

Of all the people who are complaining about the greenhouse emissions from coal plants (especially if they're complaining about nuclear power as well), I wonder how many of them have forked out to put solar panels on their roof. I dare say it won't be many...

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by hot xr6

Of all the people who are complaining about the greenhouse emissions from coal plants (especially if they're complaining about nuclear power as well), I wonder how many of them have forked out to put solar panels on their roof. I dare say it won't be many...

True, but you need to keep the solar panels for 20 years until the energy and materials required in the construction are offset by the energy savings relative to coal fired power stations. Better pray it doesn't hail.

[Sapper]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

True, but you need to keep the solar panels for 20 years until the energy and materials required in the construction are offset by the energy savings relative to coal fired power stations. Better pray it doesn't hail.

Yeah, thats true. That said, if someone is going to whinge about coal (especially if nuclear as well), then they should put their money where their mouth is.

[the_scotsman]

I am all for nuclear power...back in Scotland I lived 25 minutes from a nuclear power station...never gave it a second thought...as was stated above, it is used in most of the western world countries...and has been for many years...without any real drama...

I don't know the ins and outs of it, but Australia seems to have a real scare factor towards it...

[Ringo]

Suckers.....Howard (the master media manipulator and politician) keeps on talking about nuclear to gain media exposure and print space.

Australia has said no loud and clear and consistently....so why is he still beating the nuclear drum after 6 months or more?

The answer is simple - The more the media is focusing on it the less they are focused on the unpopular Workplace Agreements and less space is devoted to Labor Party policy and whatever Rudd is saying.

Australia will never have nuclear power - it would cause a change in Government.

Notice how the states have all been completely silent on the issue and have been talking about 'water' instead?

[mrnsx]

i say go for nuclear power, the risk is minimal and either way, coal and fossil fules will be replaced in 1 way or another

[Outbackjack]

I haven't made up my mind on nuclear for Australia. But all the experts that dont have a political barrow to push, keep saying that it is a short term fix to a long term problem. It's good that the subject is being discussed.

[xr6ist]

Nobody wants nuclear power lets face it no matter how safe it is unless there gonna fly the left over **** to the moon im not interested and if money is the problem as in we would need more of this to make the same power as is who gives a *** money isnt everything only to the rich and greedy it is id personal pay more for my electricity to be run by greener solutions and id think everybody would so **** off nuclear power and bring it bicycled powered bike teams to run homes.

[Gunns]

Originally Posted by xr6ist

Nobody wants nuclear power lets face it no matter how safe it is unless there gonna fly the left over **** to the moon im not interested and if money is the problem as in we would need more of this to make the same power as is who gives a *** money isnt everything only to the rich and greedy it is id personal pay more for my electricity to be run by greener solutions and id think everybody would so **** off nuclear power and bring it bicycled powered bike teams to run homes.

*edited*
I have no problem with Australia having Nuke energy, has been a proven power source in many other countries and works well compared to the coal solution that we are currently using.

[RIPGMH]

Two of Australias largest deposits of uranium are within a 40k radius of my place, so nuke away. There are many more unsafe things in this world than nuclear power, I am not a nuclear scientist and I doubt any of you are however we are all entitled to an opinion lets just keep them realistic and objective.