Will Rudd tear it up?

You like those odd acronyms don't you keithy?

freediver wrote on Sep 6^th, 2007 at 2:36pm:

You like those odd acronyms don't you keithy?

Don't you know about this?

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

Hopefully Rudd will not agree to becoming a member of the GNEP.  I believe there has been pressure on Howard to join up - and he may very well have by now.

If Howard has or does join it - it means that as a member of the nuclear club, we will begin enriching uranium.  Under this agreement we will also be obliged to take back all uranium that we sell - which means one thing - GLOBAL WASTE DUMP IN AUSRALIA.

This will occur if Howard wins the next election.

I think Rudd may have said that if he becomes PM - he will not be a party to a few new agreements Howard may have signed us up to - the nuclear club being one of them.

mantra wrote on Sep 6^th, 2007 at 5:56pm:

Hopefully Rudd will not agree to becoming a member of the GNEP.  I believe there has been pressure on Howard to join up - and he may very well have by now. If Howard has or does join it - it means that as a member of the nuclear club, we will begin enriching uranium.  Under this agreement we will also be obliged to take back all uranium that we sell - which means one thing - GLOBAL WASTE DUMP IN AUSRALIA. This will occur if Howard wins the next election. I think Rudd may have said that if he becomes PM - he will not be a party to a few new agreements Howard may have signed us up to - the nuclear club being one of them.

So how do we get answers...the people at polanimal.it.net.au aren't answering!??

That is the question.

Actually I don't think it was Rudd who said he would change the agreements, but I did hear an analyst or a politician saying a couple of days ago that Rudd can back out of some agreements if he becomes PM.

We will have to wait and see whether Howard agrees to become a member and if he does - whether Rudd will state that if he becomes PM, he will not enforce the agreement on behalf of Australia.

He has said that we won't have nuclear reactors under his government, but he hasn't said anything about enriching uranium.

GNEP - Extract from a transcript about reviving a dying nuclear industry.  This conversation was held earlier this year - and is the brainchild of George Bush.  He is dragging other countries into it to support it by allowing Australia to sell uranium to India and Russia.  

Tom Morton: US president, George Bush, speaking at a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania earlier this year.


No new nuclear power plants have been built in the United States in the last 30 years. So the Bush Administration is offering some incentives to get the industry's spirits up, amongst them, loan guarantees, tax credits, and indemnities against legal action.


George Perkovich.


George Perkovich: What's happened now at GNEP is the nuclear industry and the Department of Energy have been scrambling to find ways to revive nuclear power, and so they came up with this new package that says 'Look, we'll invent internationally because we actually can't afford, or we can't get Americans to invest in nuclear power, but if we get everybody in it together, we might revive this industry. And we'll invent some really cool, new reactors that will have these magical properties that they won't allow nuclear proliferation, there won't be an environmental mess, it'll be really cool and if everybody pitches in together, and spends hundreds of billions of dollars, we'll have a rebirth of nuclear energy.'


Tom Morton: To assist this rebirth of nuclear energy, the US is now going back to a policy it abandoned 30 years ago. Reprocessing of nuclear waste is a central part of the GNEP package, and it will cost a projected $US100 billion.


Critics of GNEP say this is a bad case of the tail wagging the dog; the industry's intractable problems with waste driving a massively expensive welfare program for nuclear power. But Jack Edlow doesn't agree.


Jack Edlow: Well I'm sorry Tom, I don't agree with you. GNEP was conceived of because of the US interest in engaging other countries such as India, and also frankly Iran, in a way to try to find to give them a way to access to the nuclear power business without turning over to them materials or technology that they could use in a proliferation way. That to me was the original way forward with GNEP.


Later, this waste reduction became a potential and was added to it as a longer term objective. That's why I say I think there's a nearer term objective of non-proliferation issues and a longer term objective also going forward on waste reduction.


George Perkovich: I think you have to be really naïve about history and about technology and about bureaucracies to believe that much of this is actually going to come true. The US government, the Department of Energy, is already backing off in their private briefings in terms of saying that this will have non-proliferation benefits. It's becoming more and more clear that this is about promoting a dying industry.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2006/1726921.htm#

 Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott

Then enjoy your global warming and quit your bitching

If we export uranium (which we already do), I would prefer to do all the preprocessing and waste disposal here and just rent out the rods. I'd rather have a waste dump than nuclear bombs.

Doing all the preprocessing here increases our expertise and massively increases our profit.
Renting out the rods on a "swoppa-rod' scheme makes the world as safe as we can, at this stage.

IQSRLOW wrote on Sep 6^th, 2007 at 10:15pm:

Then enjoy your global warming and quit your bitching

Doubling the worlds Nuclear Power will decrease GHG emissions by 5-7%.

To go down that path they need a waste dump because to decrease emmissions by any large degree via Nuclear Power will require thousands of Reactors--->it is a scam!

Those who use Nuclear Power should dump their own shite: we don't need it!

Doubling the worlds Nuclear Power will decrease GHG emissions by 5-7%.

Not doubling the worlds nuclear power will increase GHG by how much??

Obviously you are one of the 'glass is half full' types that abound from the left...no real solutions but vehemently protest against anything that might work  ::)

Isn't it about time we started trying to preserve this planet.  Haven't we got enough reactors, toxic dumps - not to mention arsenal globally to inflict future generations for thousands of years?  We don't need it.

Australia has many natural resources and we have the perfect opportunity to keep our country a bit cleaner than the rest of the world by putting more effort, time and money into renewables.

The thought of enriching uranium - sending it overseas and then bringing DU  back here to store is obscene.  We haven't even got the technology to store uranium waste safely - let alone transporting it by ship - which leaves it vulnerable to accidents or attacks.  It remains toxic for half a billion years.

Obviously those who think uranium enrichment, NP and waste dumps aer the way to go haven't got children - so why would you give a damn about the future of Australia being a safe place - let alone the planet?

This argument is pointless as it's obvious short term goals are all you can think of.  As long as your generation is comfortable, b.gg.r the rest of them.

IQSRLOW wrote on Sep 8^th, 2007 at 12:16pm:

Doubling the worlds Nuclear Power will decrease GHG emissions by 5-7%. Not doubling the worlds nuclear power will increase GHG by how much?? Obviously you are one of the 'glass is half full' types that abound from the left...no real solutions but vehemently protest against anything that might work  ::)

Growth economies, eh!??

It is this rape and pillage attitude that causes blood for oil.

Constant war over resources mean we will inevitably meet our match.

It's time for a change of tack.

mantra wrote on Sep 9^th, 2007 at 11:29am:

whiiiiine whiiinge complain- I have no viable solutions so I'll continue to pump out motherhood statements that mean little and will achieve nothing...but I'm against everything that could work

::) ::) ::)

I have children and I am more concerned that head-in-the-clouds socialist hippies will do more damage to this country than uranium ever will

Quote:

It is this rape and pillage attitude that causes blood for oil. Constant war over resources mean we will inevitably meet our match. It's time for a change of tack.

Exactly right Keithy - and the opportunities are here in Australia to do this.  Hopefully if Rudd gets in the Greens could have some influence, so we can hope that they begin looking at a long term viable future.

IQ - Is that the best you can do - write misleading information and pretend it's mine.  I don't believe you have kids, otherwise you'd care a bit more about their future.

By the way - uranium is a finite resource.  It will come to an end in the next few decades - possibly less.

The uranium industry is a failing industry that requires billions of dollars to prop up.  By the time those countries with NP are completely polluted with the by-products, uranium mining will be almost at an end.  This is excluding the fact that a nuclear war will possibly be entered into eventually when a leader is finally insane enough to start an indiscriminate invasion.

Have the major parties thought beyond that?  The Greens have.  

By the way - uranium is a finite resource.  It will come to an end in the next few decades - possibly less.

Check your facts mantra.

IQ - Is that the best you can do - write misleading information and pretend it's mine.

As Freediver points out, you are more than capable of writing your own misleading information...in fact I'd say you are extremely experienced in it.

Freediver and IQ - instead of criticising everything I write - how about you spell out how much uranium is left - firstly in Australia.

It's easy to disagree - but how about you both provide some information of consequence?

You're the one making the asinine statements- Do your own research

I'm not criticising everything you write. Only a very small part of it. Obviously no-one knows how much is left, bet we do know that there is far more than you suggest.

I've heard that there's possibly only 50 years, maybe less left in Australia.  We are now increasing our export of uranium.  The chances are by the time we have built 25 nuclear reactors, supplied to an increasing number of developing countries, we may have to import it ourselves to maintain these power stations.

If that isn't possible, we then have to dismantle these reactors at an enormous cost financially and environmentally.

Nuclear enrichment may seem like a great idea in the short term - but long term disposal, along with the waste from other countries, isn't creating a healthy future for Australia.

I've heard that there's possibly only 50 years, maybe less left in Australia.

That's all? You heard it one day, then kept repeating it as if it were fact?

How very Malthusian of you...he was also wrong  ;)

Quote:

I've heard that there's possibly only 50 years, maybe less left in Australia. That's all? You heard it one day, then kept repeating it as if it were fact

Well until you can prove otherwise Freediver - it is fact.  You obviously don't have a clue.

Freediver and IQ- if your so knowledgeable on the subject--please put forward some facts and stop nitpicking.

Its petty nitpicking ans not neccessary. You ought to know better FD.

Well until you can prove otherwise Freediver - it is fact.

I don't think so mantra. You made the claim first. The onus is on you to back it up, especially as it seems so absurd. If I stated that the world was about to end it would not be a fact until you proved otherwise.

Oceans it is not petty nitpicking. It is getting the facts straight. Whether we have enough uranium is hardly a petty issue. If the facts are nothing but an inconvenience then we might as well give up now. The worst thing you can do to someone is reinforce their ignorance.

According to you freediver - there are no facts - so you can't make a statement either way.

If you think uranium mining, building reactors, disposing of reactors, enriching uranium and disposing of the waste in this beautiful country is good - that's fine - you're entitled to your opinion.

But if you don't have the information to contradict me, then you don't have an argument, regardless of whether you believe I'm ignorant.

Quite frankly - I don't give a damn.

According to you freediver - there are no facts

Please quote me rather than putting words into my mouth.

If you think uranium mining, building reactors, disposing of reactors, enriching uranium and disposing of the waste in this beautiful country is good - that's fine - you're entitled to your opinion.

Again, quote me. Don't put words into my mouth.

But if you don't have the information to contradict me, then you don't have an argument

Yes I do, my argument is that you don't have one, ie that your assertion that we are about to run out of uranium has no basis.

freediver wrote on Sep 9^th, 2007 at 4:03pm:

According to you freediver - there are no facts Please quote me rather than putting words into my mouth. If you think uranium mining, building reactors, disposing of reactors, enriching uranium and disposing of the waste in this beautiful country is good - that's fine - you're entitled to your opinion. Again, quote me. Don't put words into my mouth. But if you don't have the information to contradict me, then you don't have an argument Yes I do, my argument is that you don't have one, ie that your assertion that we are about to run out of uranium has no basis.

FD are you really that bored - ?

Has your Playstation packed up?

This discussion is not the next big thing on the political agenda- shheeesshh.!! Lighten up.

But if you don't have the information to contradict me, then you don't have an argument, regardless of whether you believe I'm ignorant.

You are either ignorant because you choose to ignore facts or deceitful because you deliberately misconstrue them to suit your agenda.

So are you ignorant or deceitful  :-?