Martin Ferguson is demonstrating a very un-Labor like trait . . .he's talking common sense.

"Mr Ferguson said the government's own clean energy strategy was his first priority, but he was also "very much focused on what is happening outside Australia". "Other countries are making the progress in nuclear opportunities that we have to make in terms of our own clean energy," he said.

"If those clean-energy options are not proven to be viable commercially . . . there will be a far more seriously focused nuclear debate in Australia.

"If we don't make the breakthrough in the period 2015-2020, then what is the alternative for Australia?

"It doesn't matter if it's carbon capture and storage being viable, geothermal, solar thermal or whatever."

Mr Ferguson backed the right of Labor members to debate the nuclear power issue at the party's national conference in December. "Open discussion is good for the party."

Whether there are enough intelligent people in his party to have an open discussion is questionable. Still, hopefully they won't be around for too long.

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 8:21am:

Martin Ferguson is demonstrating a very un-Labor like trait . . .he's talking common sense. "Mr Ferguson said the government's own clean energy strategy was his first priority, but he was also "very much focused on what is happening outside Australia". "Other countries are making the progress in nuclear opportunities that we have to make in terms of our own clean energy," he said. "If those clean-energy options are not proven to be viable commercially . . . there will be a far more seriously focused nuclear debate in Australia. "If we don't make the breakthrough in the period 2015-2020, then what is the alternative for Australia? "It doesn't matter if it's carbon capture and storage being viable, geothermal, solar thermal or whatever." Mr Ferguson backed the right of Labor members to debate the nuclear power issue at the party's national conference in December. "Open discussion is good for the party." Whether there are enough intelligent people in his party to have an open discussion is questionable. Still, hopefully they won't be around for too long.

Really? The Labor Party actually debate their policies? I thought they were like the Liberal Party where Tony gets a thought bubble and puts it down on a napkin and then they try to roll with it!  WOW...

Deputy Prime Minister Bob Brown please ring your office.

Good to see Ferguson thinking outside his labor 'box'.

One smart Aussie company is about to start mining a huge uranium deposit in Wyoming. It has already lined up customers in the US nuclear industry, so it won't have to worry about Australia's stupid policies. Others are in the process of doing the same thing in Africa, if the Chinese don't beat them to it or buy them up.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 9:09am:

Good to see Ferguson thinking outside his labor 'box'.

Except he talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk.

Some people want the debate - so bring it on, start, raise the issues, make some proposals, answer some questions.

Stop talking as if there was someone or something stopping a putative debate, because there isn't.

Please delete wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 10:04am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 9:09am: Good to see Ferguson thinking outside his labor 'box'. Except he talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Some people want the debate - so bring it on, start, raise the issues, make some proposals, answer some questions. Stop talking as if there was someone or something stopping a putative debate, because there isn't.

Sadly debates are only set up to keep the minions happy.  Look at the one of Afghanistan, talk about WOFTAM.  Decision was made long before any debate happened.

Also, a debate on gay marriage.  Whats the point in having it as the agenda is already set for a "no" with no conscious vote option on the table.

I used to think parlimentary debate was a good thing.  Sadly my views have changed.  I reckon we could do away with question time.  No one answers the questions asked of them unless its one from their own party, and it makes us as a nation look childish and petty.

Our politics ARE childish & petty . . .may as well look the part

Energy generation is an issue affecting all Australians. Why not discuss all potential systems?  Not to do so is reminiscent of the method of presentation of ACC, anyone who isn`t a faithful believer is howled down like a medieval witch.  

Al Gore isn`t the Messiah.

mavisdavis wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 1:05pm:

Energy generation is an issue affecting all Australians. Why not discuss all potential systems?  Not to do so is reminiscent of the method of presentation of ACC, anyone who isn`t a faithful believer is howled down like a medieval witch.   Al Gore isn`t the Messiah.

I simply don't understand - who is stopping anyone from discussing, arguing, or even proposing to build, any sort of power station?

The best thing that could happen re Nuclear is that some proponent put forward a concrete proposal, for Australia to discuss.

Quote:

Why not discuss all potential systems?

UMMMMMM, we are discussing it.
It has been discussed for years.
It has been shown that it is not a financially viable alternative in OZ.
Even if we started planning a plant today, it would be 20 years before it was in operation.

Recommends you to stay focused on Co2 emitin reduction.

Nuclear to me has always been the prime highlight of how far behind the rest of the world Australia can be at times.

We have had nuclear since I was a kid in England.

We had Oldbury, Hinckley Point A, B and now C all within distance of my hometown - completely safe, completely accident free and producing emissions-free power for the country.

But you ask Aussies, who admittedly suffer from cabin fever of being the other side of the world to everyone else, and they conjure up thoughts of Mad Max and Chernobyl.

Nuclear is safe, low emissions and sensible.

Get involved.

Please delete wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 1:15pm:

mavisdavis wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 1:05pm: Energy generation is an issue affecting all Australians. Why not discuss all potential systems?  Not to do so is reminiscent of the method of presentation of ACC, anyone who isn`t a faithful believer is howled down like a medieval witch.   Al Gore isn`t the Messiah. I simply don't understand - who is stopping anyone from discussing, arguing, or even proposing to build, any sort of power station? The best thing that could happen re Nuclear is that some proponent put forward a concrete proposal, for Australia to discuss.

Are you saying that there is no "political" opposition to the consideration of nuclear power for electricity generation in Australia? If so, you are completely wrong, there is an ostrich like attitude shared by all of the Greens, and most of the ALP, that prevents them even considering this option.

I`m not a proponent of Nuclear power, but I would like to see the issue sensibly discussed.  Sorry, but I just can`t mindlessly accept Peter Garrett, or Bob Brown`s word as holy scripture, I need to see the facts.

Quote:

But you ask Aussies, who admittedly suffer from cabin fever of being the other side of the world to everyone else, and they conjure up thoughts of Mad Max and Chernobyl. Nuclear is safe, low emissions and sensible.

That's right. Mad Max took place in Australia.  Maybe they're afraid of the Liberal party.  It could be a social democracy addiction.  Minnesota is has a social democracy addiction 50 years+  before the rest of the United States had same thing.  The Minnesota Farmer Labor Party was democratic socialism.  Rumor it came from Norwegians.

mavisdavis wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 1:34pm:

Please delete wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 1:15pm: mavisdavis wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 1:05pm: Energy generation is an issue affecting all Australians. Why not discuss all potential systems?  Not to do so is reminiscent of the method of presentation of ACC, anyone who isn`t a faithful believer is howled down like a medieval witch.   Al Gore isn`t the Messiah. I simply don't understand - who is stopping anyone from discussing, arguing, or even proposing to build, any sort of power station? The best thing that could happen re Nuclear is that some proponent put forward a concrete proposal, for Australia to discuss. Are you saying that there is no "political" opposition to the consideration of nuclear power for electricity generation in Australia? If so, you are completely wrong, there is an ostrich like attitude shared by all of the Greens, and most of the ALP, that prevents them even considering this option. I`m not a proponent of Nuclear power, but I would like to see the issue sensibly discussed.  Sorry, but I just can`t mindlessly accept Peter Garrett, or Bob Brown`s word as holy scripture, I need to see the facts.

So what is stopping the discussion by everyone else?

Surely you have to acknowledge Ziggy's advocacy - he said it was all good, but nothing happened.

So what is stopping discussion?

As I said, it's not discussion that's missing, it's concrete proposals.

There is nothing to discuss.

It should be decided to go ahead and pushed through.

End.

Truly, it isn't the job of Brown or Garrett to give the nod to discussion.

It's up to the proponents.

Sometimes I really wonder why it seems to be only me that has Australia's future interests at heart.

Nuclear will move Australia into the future for goodness sake.

Please delete wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 10:04am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 9:09am: Good to see Ferguson thinking outside his labor 'box'. Except he talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Some people want the debate - so bring it on, start, raise the issues, make some proposals, answer some questions. Stop talking as if there was someone or something stopping a putative debate, because there isn't.

pu·ta·tive/ˈpyo͞otətiv/
Adjective: Generally considered or reputed to be: "the putative father of a boy of two".  More »
Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary

I don`t understand what this has to do with debates?

Doesn't mean what I thought it meant ... oh well.

Please delete wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 1:49pm:

Doesn't mean what I thought it meant ... oh well.

One thing I give credit to you is that you don't cover up an error.
Several times now you have admitted errors.

We had a conference last week and part of it was regarding 'accepting responsibility' etc.

Well done.

I recall my ex using the word "enervate" in the same context as "energize", when it means the exact opposite.

Her uni professor corrected her ....

Language is a slippery thing, sometimes.

Please delete wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 10:04am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 9:09am: Good to see Ferguson thinking outside his labor 'box'. Except he talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Some people want the debate - so bring it on, start, raise the issues, make some proposals, answer some questions. Stop talking as if there was someone or something stopping a putative debate, because there isn't.

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!  What I want is a fair open and balanced debate - no ideological scare-mongering. I want to know the facts and then see a decision made on them.

The facts have already been built around the world longie, and functioned smoothly for years in the US, France, Germany etc.
I don't know how many nuclear power stations the Chinese are building each year but I seem to remember it's a lot.
The same people who are against nuclear would have been afraid to invent the wheel in case the gods didn't like it.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 1:33pm:

Nuclear to me has always been the prime highlight of how far behind the rest of the world Australia can be at times. We have had nuclear since I was a kid in England. We had Oldbury, Hinckley Point A, B and now C all within distance of my hometown - completely safe, completely accident free and producing emissions-free power for the country. But you ask Aussies, who admittedly suffer from cabin fever of being the other side of the world to everyone else, and they conjure up thoughts of Mad Max and Chernobyl. Nuclear is safe, low emissions and sensible. Get involved.

Your attitude is typically anti-australian and it gets old! The facts (remember those??) is that australias coal and gas reserves are the biggest in the world and by far the cheapest. Because of that the price of our fossil fuelled electricity has always made nuclear an uneconomic alternative. It has nothing to do with 'being behind the rest of the world'. there simply was no need and no economic value to it. The economic argument you hold so dear would have come to the same unequivocal conclusion. But now, with cost and demand pressures and environmental/social pressures coming to bear, the nuclear question is being raised again. It's a new world with new parameters in play. the nuclear question needs to be looked at again. If a decision were made to embrace nuclear power it would not be a case of 'cathing up', but rather embracing a suitable technology for a changing world.

Please delete wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 1:15pm:

mavisdavis wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 1:05pm: Energy generation is an issue affecting all Australians. Why not discuss all potential systems?  Not to do so is reminiscent of the method of presentation of ACC, anyone who isn`t a faithful believer is howled down like a medieval witch.   Al Gore isn`t the Messiah. I simply don't understand - who is stopping anyone from discussing, arguing, or even proposing to build, any sort of power station? The best thing that could happen re Nuclear is that some proponent put forward a concrete proposal, for Australia to discuss.

Ernie, didn't we have this discussion before???

The Australian Federal Government/s has a "NO Nuclear Policy"...

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 2:41pm:

The facts have already been built around the world longie, and functioned smoothly for years in the US, France, Germany etc. I don't know how many nuclear power stations the Chinese are building each year but I seem to remember it's a lot. The same people who are against nuclear would have been afraid to invent the wheel in case the gods didn't like it.

The facts I refer to are cost, location, environmental considerations and a host of others. I just want to see how it all looks without the bias and ideology colouring everything.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 2:42pm:

Your attitude is typically anti-australian

My argument has nothing to do with being anti-anyone.

It is a matter of fact that Australia lags behind the world on this subject.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 2:42pm:

Please delete wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 1:15pm: mavisdavis wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 1:05pm: Energy generation is an issue affecting all Australians. Why not discuss all potential systems?  Not to do so is reminiscent of the method of presentation of ACC, anyone who isn`t a faithful believer is howled down like a medieval witch.   Al Gore isn`t the Messiah. I simply don't understand - who is stopping anyone from discussing, arguing, or even proposing to build, any sort of power station? The best thing that could happen re Nuclear is that some proponent put forward a concrete proposal, for Australia to discuss. Ernie, didn't we have this discussion before??? The Australian Federal Government/s has a "NO Nuclear Policy"...

So? This stops what? How is that policy to be overturned if the only thing that happens is a alot of people bleat about the lack of debate?

Create a television series, get ACA or 60 minutes to do an in depth analysis. Write to your local member, politicize!

But STOP saying there needs to be a debate.

Just BTW, Howard could have reversed the nuclear policy, and didn't do so.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 2:42pm:

Please delete wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 1:15pm: mavisdavis wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 1:05pm: Energy generation is an issue affecting all Australians. Why not discuss all potential systems?  Not to do so is reminiscent of the method of presentation of ACC, anyone who isn`t a faithful believer is howled down like a medieval witch.   Al Gore isn`t the Messiah. I simply don't understand - who is stopping anyone from discussing, arguing, or even proposing to build, any sort of power station? The best thing that could happen re Nuclear is that some proponent put forward a concrete proposal, for Australia to discuss. Ernie, didn't we have this discussion before??? The Australian Federal Government/s has a "NO Nuclear Policy"...

Gizmo, can you point me to the legislation, again.

Sorry to trouble ...

I'll try to find it again...

Might take a few minutes..

Please delete wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 3:07pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 2:42pm: Please delete wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 1:15pm: mavisdavis wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 1:05pm: Energy generation is an issue affecting all Australians. Why not discuss all potential systems?  Not to do so is reminiscent of the method of presentation of ACC, anyone who isn`t a faithful believer is howled down like a medieval witch.   Al Gore isn`t the Messiah. I simply don't understand - who is stopping anyone from discussing, arguing, or even proposing to build, any sort of power station? The best thing that could happen re Nuclear is that some proponent put forward a concrete proposal, for Australia to discuss. Ernie, didn't we have this discussion before??? The Australian Federal Government/s has a "NO Nuclear Policy"... Gizmo, can you point me to the legislation, again. Sorry to trouble ...

Found it ernie...

It was in http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1291150760/all, post 168...

And is http://www.oecd-nea.org/law/legislation/australia.pdf

First section...

Gizmo

I think I said this at the time - there is nothing specifically stopping the licensing of a NPP.

There are many restrictions on the operations of Commonwealth entities, but nothing specifically preventing the issue of a licence.

States, who are more logical entitites to think about building new Power plants, have only their own policies, which, of course, can be reversed by the government of the day.

Correct me if I'm wrong?

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 8:21am:

Martin Ferguson is demonstrating a very un-Labor like trait . . .he's talking common sense. "Mr Ferguson said the government's own clean energy strategy was his first priority, but he was also "very much focused on what is happening outside Australia". "Other countries are making the progress in nuclear opportunities that we have to make in terms of our own clean energy," he said. "If those clean-energy options are not proven to be viable commercially . . . there will be a far more seriously focused nuclear debate in Australia. "If we don't make the breakthrough in the period 2015-2020, then what is the alternative for Australia? "It doesn't matter if it's carbon capture and storage being viable, geothermal, solar thermal or whatever." Mr Ferguson backed the right of Labor members to debate the nuclear power issue at the party's national conference in December. "Open discussion is good for the party." Whether there are enough intelligent people in his party to have an open discussion is questionable. Still, hopefully they won't be around for too long.

The terrorists are here!!!!!

Please delete wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 6:03pm:

Gizmo I think I said this at the time - there is nothing specifically stopping the licensing of a NPP. There are many restrictions on the operations of Commonwealth entities, but nothing specifically preventing the issue of a licence. States, who are more logical entitites to think about building new Power plants, have only their own policies, which, of course, can be reversed by the government of the day. Correct me if I'm wrong?

the politics is what will hoild it back and you can absolutely bet the politics of this would be HUGE. THAT is what  is holding it back. First the ALP is anti-nuke, the union movement is anti-nuke, the Greens make the ALP look PRO-nuke and the liberals are lukewarm - mainly because of alack of a convincing economic argument AND the possible politicla backlash.

Please delete wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 10:04am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 9:09am: Good to see Ferguson thinking outside his labor 'box'. Except he talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Some people want the debate - so bring it on, start, raise the issues, make some proposals, answer some questions. Stop talking as if there was someone or something stopping a putative debate, because there isn't.

Where is the debate on why solar thermal isn't being pushed?!!?

Lots of people don't believe in 'democracy'!

More roads, anyone?!!?

Jevons Paradox anyone?!!?

There's a billion people out there without electricity and the born-lucky-hardcore-crackheads argue over a pissant flood levy!

The terrorists are here for a reason!!!!!

Harden the f*&%-up Australia!

Look at how energy inefficent the food system has become: too many middlemen!

Philosophically you could argue it's a population problem but you'd be missing a whole lot of inbetween moves there!

The dismal science doesn't care for energy efficiency: THAT LITTLE CONUNDRUM IS THE VERY HEART OF JEVONS PARADOX!

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 6:39pm:

Please delete wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 6:03pm: Gizmo I think I said this at the time - there is nothing specifically stopping the licensing of a NPP. There are many restrictions on the operations of Commonwealth entities, but nothing specifically preventing the issue of a licence. States, who are more logical entitites to think about building new Power plants, have only their own policies, which, of course, can be reversed by the government of the day. Correct me if I'm wrong? the politics is what will hoild it back and you can absolutely bet the politics of this would be HUGE. THAT is what  is holding it back. First the ALP is anti-nuke, the union movement is anti-nuke, the Greens make the ALP look PRO-nuke and the liberals are lukewarm - mainly because of alack of a convincing economic argument AND the possible politicla backlash.

And still nothing stopping a debate, nor proposals by proponents.

To be fair, if there is still over 130 years worth of coal and gas left - why not keep using that?

I don't see the hurry for Australia to change if it doesn't need to.

Verge wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 10:28am:

Please delete wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 10:04am: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 9:09am: Good to see Ferguson thinking outside his labor 'box'. Except he talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Some people want the debate - so bring it on, start, raise the issues, make some proposals, answer some questions. Stop talking as if there was someone or something stopping a putative debate, because there isn't. Sadly debates are only set up to keep the minions happy.  Look at the one of Afghanistan, talk about WOFTAM.  Decision was made long before any debate happened. Also, a debate on gay marriage.  Whats the point in having it as the agenda is already set for a "no" with no conscious vote option on the table. I used to think parlimentary debate was a good thing.  Sadly my views have changed.  I reckon we could do away with question time.  No one answers the questions asked of them unless its one from their own party, and it makes us as a nation look childish and petty.

i THINK YOU ARE SAYING YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY!

 ;) ;)

I do, but it is obviously corruptible! GO Foreign INVESTMENT and IMMIGRATION and Greed!

Oh, and metrosexuality and its hardecoredness! GO CRACK!!!! yay!!  :D

gO SOUR REAL ESTATE AGENTS AND THEIR PROGENY WHO GET THE GREEN LIGHT TO SELL CRACK FROM LOTS OF DIFFERENT PLACES! WHATEVER PAYS THE RENT GOES!

YAY!!!!!

SHOVE A GLASS IN YOUR MATES FACE TODAY! YOU'LL WAKE UP BETTER IN TWO DAYS! ......................................NOT!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 6:44pm:

To be fair, if there is still over 130 years worth of coal and gas left - why not keep using that? I don't see the hurry for Australia to change if it doesn't need to.

dOES the Devil pay your wage?!!?

 :D :D :D :D :D  :'(

(....Do you actually say this stuff in public?!!?)

some greenies and hippies probably do think my overall employer is the devil.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 1:33pm:

Nuclear to me has always been the prime highlight of how far behind the rest of the world Australia can be at times. We have had nuclear since I was a kid in England. We had Oldbury, Hinckley Point A, B and now C all within distance of my hometown - completely safe, completely accident free and producing emissions-free power for the country. But you ask Aussies, who admittedly suffer from cabin fever of being the other side of the world to everyone else, and they conjure up thoughts of Mad Max and Chernobyl. Nuclear is safe, low emissions and sensible. Get involved.

How much do you get paid?

How much do you get paid?
How much do you get paid?

How much do you get paid?

Seriously, we all want to know:

How much do you get paid?

How much do you get paid?
How much do you get paid?

How much do you get paid?

 8-) 8-) :-?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 1:38pm:

There is nothing to discuss. It should be decided to go ahead and pushed through. End.

Where are you from, tosshead?

 :o :o :o

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 1:39pm:

Sometimes I really wonder why it seems to be only me that has Australia's future interests at heart. Nuclear will move Australia into the future for goodness sake.

Sorry, where?????

 :o :o :-?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 1:51pm:

Please delete wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 1:49pm: Doesn't mean what I thought it meant ... oh well. One thing I give credit to you is that you don't cover up an error. Several times now you have admitted errors. We had a conference last week and part of it was regarding 'accepting responsibility' etc. Well done.

Gay people should hang themselves in shame!

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 2:36pm:

Please delete wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 10:04am: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 9:09am: Good to see Ferguson thinking outside his labor 'box'. Except he talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Some people want the debate - so bring it on, start, raise the issues, make some proposals, answer some questions. Stop talking as if there was someone or something stopping a putative debate, because there isn't. ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!  What I want is a fair open and balanced debate - no ideological scare-mongering. I want to know the facts and then see a decision made on them.

Yeh, bullshite!

You love miners telling the country they give a shite about this country when all they give  a shite about is overseas investors!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 6:54pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 1:33pm: Nuclear to me has always been the prime highlight of how far behind the rest of the world Australia can be at times. We have had nuclear since I was a kid in England. We had Oldbury, Hinckley Point A, B and now C all within distance of my hometown - completely safe, completely accident free and producing emissions-free power for the country. But you ask Aussies, who admittedly suffer from cabin fever of being the other side of the world to everyone else, and they conjure up thoughts of Mad Max and Chernobyl. Nuclear is safe, low emissions and sensible. Get involved. How much do you get paid? How much do you get paid? How much do you get paid? How much do you get paid? Seriously, we all want to know: How much do you get paid? How much do you get paid? How much do you get paid? How much do you get paid?  8-) 8-) :-?

Loads

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 2:41pm:

The facts have already been built around the world longie, and functioned smoothly for years in the US, France, Germany etc. I don't know how many nuclear power stations the Chinese are building each year but I seem to remember it's a lot. The same people who are against nuclear would have been afraid to invent the wheel in case the gods didn't like it.

You should be careful whenst talking bullshite!

Was Einstein pro, or anti-, Nuclear?!!?

Keep that chin up won't you son!  ;) ;) :D

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 2:42pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 1:33pm: Nuclear to me has always been the prime highlight of how far behind the rest of the world Australia can be at times. We have had nuclear since I was a kid in England. We had Oldbury, Hinckley Point A, B and now C all within distance of my hometown - completely safe, completely accident free and producing emissions-free power for the country. But you ask Aussies, who admittedly suffer from cabin fever of being the other side of the world to everyone else, and they conjure up thoughts of Mad Max and Chernobyl. Nuclear is safe, low emissions and sensible. Get involved. Your attitude is typically anti-australian and it gets old! The facts (remember those??) is that australias coal and gas reserves are the biggest in the world and by far the cheapest. Because of that the price of our fossil fuelled electricity has always made nuclear an uneconomic alternative. It has nothing to do with 'being behind the rest of the world'. there simply was no need and no economic value to it. The economic argument you hold so dear would have come to the same unequivocal conclusion. But now, with cost and demand pressures and environmental/social pressures coming to bear, the nuclear question is being raised again. It's a new world with new parameters in play. the nuclear question needs to be looked at again. If a decision were made to embrace nuclear power it would not be a case of 'cathing up', but rather embracing a suitable technology for a changing world.

oH NOES: the pro-nuclear are working the angles!

I tells ya, investment buys motsa brainpower.... WOW!

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 2:46pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 2:41pm: The facts have already been built around the world longie, and functioned smoothly for years in the US, France, Germany etc. I don't know how many nuclear power stations the Chinese are building each year but I seem to remember it's a lot. The same people who are against nuclear would have been afraid to invent the wheel in case the gods didn't like it. The facts I refer to are cost, location, environmental considerations and a host of others. I just want to see how it all looks without the bias and ideology colouring everything.

Ideology colours everything.

What is a conservative?!!?

Whya re their rules regarding the applications of technologies such as genetic engineering.

Blow me you think we're as high as you!

Get off the crack and the old man! Why don't you get off one or the other atleast!?!!?

You can't! Sorry to hear that!!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 2:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 2:42pm: Your attitude is typically anti-australian My argument has nothing to do with being anti-anyone. It is a matter of fact that Australia lags behind the world on this subject.

Where, pardon?!!?

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 6:39pm:

Please delete wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 6:03pm: Gizmo I think I said this at the time - there is nothing specifically stopping the licensing of a NPP. There are many restrictions on the operations of Commonwealth entities, but nothing specifically preventing the issue of a licence. States, who are more logical entitites to think about building new Power plants, have only their own policies, which, of course, can be reversed by the government of the day. Correct me if I'm wrong? the politics is what will hoild it back and you can absolutely bet the politics of this would be HUGE. THAT is what  is holding it back. First the ALP is anti-nuke, the union movement is anti-nuke, the Greens make the ALP look PRO-nuke and the liberals are lukewarm - mainly because of alack of a convincing economic argument AND the possible politicla backlash.

So, where do you go from here???????

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 6:52pm:

some greenies and hippies probably do think my overall employer is the devil.

You are seriously gay.

Don't think that anyone missed you not replying to my last assertion that you were gay.

You are gay and hate yourself for being so!

THE END!  :-? :-? ;D

Go find a rope, gaylord!

Please delete wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 6:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 6:39pm: Please delete wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 6:03pm: Gizmo I think I said this at the time - there is nothing specifically stopping the licensing of a NPP. There are many restrictions on the operations of Commonwealth entities, but nothing specifically preventing the issue of a licence. States, who are more logical entitites to think about building new Power plants, have only their own policies, which, of course, can be reversed by the government of the day. Correct me if I'm wrong? the politics is what will hoild it back and you can absolutely bet the politics of this would be HUGE. THAT is what  is holding it back. First the ALP is anti-nuke, the union movement is anti-nuke, the Greens make the ALP look PRO-nuke and the liberals are lukewarm - mainly because of alack of a convincing economic argument AND the possible politicla backlash. And still nothing stopping a debate, nor proposals by proponents.

Yes there is Ernie....Gillard has ruled out debate on Nuclear power several times, recently...

And it's not really any point to putting forward a proposal that you know in advance will be knocked back.....all it does is waste money...

"Yes there is Ernie....Gillard has ruled out debate on Nuclear power several times, recently...

And it's not really any point to putting forward a proposal that you know in advance will be knocked back.....all it does is waste money... "

Gee, she's more powerful than I thought - she can dictate what we think and say?

Debate is what will change the ALP's policy. If you are waiting for the ALP to change on this, well, you're right.

But if I was determined, and convinced of the worth of my argument, it wouldn't stop me.

the mining industry has $22M to stop a tax, but someone who wants to spend hundreds of BILLIONS doesn't have $20m to mount a PR campaign?

My opinion? It's all hot air - there is no company or organisation who thinks nuclear has legs in Australia.

Please delete wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 1:58pm:

"Yes there is Ernie....Gillard has ruled out debate on Nuclear power several times, recently... And it's not really any point to putting forward a proposal that you know in advance will be knocked back.....all it does is waste money... " Gee, she's more powerful than I thought - she can dictate what we think and say?Debate is what will change the ALP's policy. If you are waiting for the ALP to change on this, well, you're right. But if I was determined, and convinced of the worth of my argument, it wouldn't stop me. the mining industry has $22M to stop a tax, but someone who wants to spend hundreds of BILLIONS doesn't have $20m to mount a PR campaign? My opinion? It's all hot air - there is no company or organisation who thinks nuclear has legs in Australia.

No, but she can in fact say what's 'legal' to be built in this country.....as ANY government can...

You can't build an inground pool in your backyard without local council approval, can you?
You can't build a carport for that matter...

Hell there's a family that have been trying to paint their HOUSE for 10 years (in Wagga Wagga) that can't get council permission....So why is it surprising that power station (using nuclear power), can't get clearance without the Government signing off on it???
Try building an abbattoir or a car factory...

"So why is it surprising that power station (using nuclear power), can't get clearance without the Government signing off on it???"

First step - ask. You can't get approval to build anything unless you apply. That would put the heat on the government.

There is no serious proponent. Not one.

And if they're waiting for a Labor government to invite them to apply, it'll be a long wait.

You can't change government policy unless you get serious.

And people calling for a debate are just flapping their gums.

Please delete wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 2:22pm:

"So why is it surprising that power station (using nuclear power), can't get clearance without the Government signing off on it???" First step - ask. You can't get approval to build anything unless you apply. That would put the heat on the government. There is no serious proponent. Not one. And if they're waiting for a Labor government to invite them to apply, it'll be a long wait. You can't change government policy unless you get serious. And people calling for a debate are just flapping their gums.

No Ernie, HOW do you know there hasn't been any applications???

The 'People' can't change Government policy at ALL...unless the Government is serious about looking at change.......The people calling for a debate 'ARE just flapping their gums' if the group in power refuse to even discuss the options...

I simply don't accept that debate begins and ends with the government.

I've said numerous times - if some company has a desire to introduce this industry to Australia, they should announce that plan.

Then the debate can begin.

Until that time, no one in the pro side will answer any questions, and no-one in the anti side needs rebutt anything.

There's nothing to debate.

Such a straw man - "oohh the big bad boogey man won't let us debate".

We've tried here to argue various technicalities, like location, type of reactor, waste, water, cost - and got absolutley nowhere because there's nothing to discuss, no proposal.

It's all just steam.

Please delete wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 2:22pm:

"So why is it surprising that power station (using nuclear power), can't get clearance without the Government signing off on it???" First step - ask. You can't get approval to build anything unless you apply. That would put the heat on the government. There is no serious proponent. Not one. And if they're waiting for a Labor government to invite them to apply, it'll be a long wait. You can't change government policy unless you get serious. And people calling for a debate are just flapping their gums.

Sometimes I think you 'just dont get it'. on almost any subject. a nuclear power plant in australia ias a massively controversial and political issue. you seem to have close to zero understanding on that. the australian governments policy is NO nuclear power plants. that is hardly a promising start. anyone with half a brain knows that the ALP ill NEVER approve such a facility. business also knows that unless they can keep the alp out of office for the 15 years needed to construct one they couldbe cancelled part-way thru. Just like your approach to life-and-death scanario speeding, you see everything - EVERYTHING - in black and white with no shades of gray or any real understanding of the complex issues involved. The community would need to massively endore a nuke plant here for there to be any chance of pushing the ALP to allow it. and by massive I mean 80%. there isnt that support and probably never will be.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 5:40pm:

Please delete wrote on Feb 4th, 2011 at 2:22pm: "So why is it surprising that power station (using nuclear power), can't get clearance without the Government signing off on it???" First step - ask. You can't get approval to build anything unless you apply. That would put the heat on the government. There is no serious proponent. Not one. And if they're waiting for a Labor government to invite them to apply, it'll be a long wait. You can't change government policy unless you get serious. And people calling for a debate are just flapping their gums. Sometimes I think you 'just dont get it'. on almost any subject. a nuclear power plant in australia ias a massively controversial and political issue. you seem to have close to zero understanding on that. the australian governments policy is NO nuclear power plants. that is hardly a promising start. anyone with half a brain knows that the ALP ill NEVER approve such a facility. business also knows that unless they can keep the alp out of office for the 15 years needed to construct one they couldbe cancelled part-way thru. Just like your approach to life-and-death scanario speeding, you see everything - EVERYTHING - in black and white with no shades of gray or any real understanding of the complex issues involved. The community would need to massively endore a nuke plant here for there to be any chance of pushing the ALP to allow it. and by massive I mean 80%. there isnt that support and probably never will be.

So what is the impediment to a debate? Why don't those in favour start the ball rolling?

"unless they can keep the alp out of office for the 15 years needed to construct one they couldbe cancelled part-way thru. "

Garbage. These would be built by state governments, under their own licences. And no-one in their right mind would suggest that an incoming government would renege on such a substantial contract. It would set Australia back for decades - corporations would run a mile.

And good to see you admit the 15 year build cycle. Now to get you to be realistic about the costs.

"Just like your approach to life-and-death scanario speeding" - you mean your "friend of a friend twice removed" story about someone who stubbed their toe being raced to hospital by a gallant knight in an FPV?? More make believe.

Please delete wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 2:48pm:

Such a straw man - "oohh the big bad boogey man won't let us debate". We've tried here to argue various technicalities, like location, type of reactor, waste, water, cost - and got absolutley nowhere because there's nothing to discuss, no proposal. It's all just steam.

Ernie, your thinking is completely unrealistic, your mind is closed.  To expect companies to spend millions of dollars on planning and estimates without an in principal approval is not an intelligent representation of how the real world works.  Anna Bligh wasted 80% of one billion dollars on the Traverston Crossing Dam in this way.

How old are you Ernie? You seem very young, especially with little remarks about boogeyman etc.  Ernie, energy generation is one of the great challenges of our time, we need to keep an open mind, and not be led around like sheep by politicians, or others, with their own agendas.

mavis

Again I say - what are we going to debate? You want a hollow debate about in principle agreement allowing the construction of multiple reactors of unknown type, size etc, in unspecified locations ....

My mind IS closed - but I'm just one person. Irrelevant in the scheme of things.

I'm just expressing my puzzlement about this "debate" that is somehow being refused or denied or subverted.

HAVE THE DEBATE - what's stopping anyone?

Howard started it, and it fizzled for lack of interest. It all smacks of a drunk staggering down an empty street demanding that someone fight him.

Please delete wrote on Feb 5^th, 2011 at 5:28am:

mavis Again I say - what are we going to debate? You want a hollow debate about in principle agreement allowing the construction of multiple reactors of unknown type, size etc, in unspecified locations .... My mind IS closed - but I'm just one person. Irrelevant in the scheme of things. I'm just expressing my puzzlement about this "debate" that is somehow being refused or denied or subverted. HAVE THE DEBATE - what's stopping anyone? Howard started it, and it fizzled for lack of interest. It all smacks of a drunk staggering down an empty street demanding that someone fight him.

THIS is what's stopping it...
"A new report showing nuclear power could become financially viable in Australia within 20 years has reignited debate in the ALP over the party's nuclear ban.

But Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan have been quick to play down the chances of Labor changing its policy at next year's national conference.

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering report, which canvasses low-carbon energy options, says nuclear power could be a viable option after the government reaches an agreement on a carbon price mechanism....

Ms Gillard said she remained opposed to nuclear power, adding anyone who would argue to scrap Labor's longstanding policy "is setting themselves up for a pretty tough argument".

"In this country ... nuclear power doesn't stack up as an economically efficient source of power for our nation," she said"


http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/nuclear-debate-heats-up-in-alp-20101201-18ft8.html

"In this country ... nuclear power doesn't stack up as an economically efficient source of power for our nation," she said"



That's that then, it must be true because gillard said so and brown the clown would be in full support, so let's keep firing up the coal burners. ;D

Please delete wrote on Feb 5^th, 2011 at 5:28am:

mavis Again I say - what are we going to debate? You want a hollow debate about in principle agreement allowing the construction of multiple reactors of unknown type, size etc, in unspecified locations .... My mind IS closed - but I'm just one person. Irrelevant in the scheme of things. I'm just expressing my puzzlement about this "debate" that is somehow being refused or denied or subverted. HAVE THE DEBATE - what's stopping anyone? Howard started it, and it fizzled for lack of interest. It all smacks of a drunk staggering down an empty street demanding that someone fight him.

This is the standard warped "logic" that opposed the notion of a spherical Earth.

mavisdavis wrote on Feb 5^th, 2011 at 8:22am:

Please delete wrote on Feb 5th, 2011 at 5:28am: mavis Again I say - what are we going to debate? You want a hollow debate about in principle agreement allowing the construction of multiple reactors of unknown type, size etc, in unspecified locations .... My mind IS closed - but I'm just one person. Irrelevant in the scheme of things. I'm just expressing my puzzlement about this "debate" that is somehow being refused or denied or subverted. HAVE THE DEBATE - what's stopping anyone? Howard started it, and it fizzled for lack of interest. It all smacks of a drunk staggering down an empty street demanding that someone fight him. This is the standard warped "logic" that opposed the notion of a spherical Earth.

Explain where my logic is warped. Or is that just a lazy insult?

Gillard does not control debate in Australia.

In relation to nuclear power, the only reason for the "industry" to look to the government is for the mssive subsidies it will need, and to take away the difficult task of convincing the public.

Look at how desal plants were built - at public cost, extremely advantageous PPP's that hevily favoured the builder, riding rough shod over the electorate.

That's the OPPOSITE of debate, and that's what seems to be happening here.

Calls for debate are actually demands that the government make the announcement, WITHOUT debate.

Please delete wrote on Feb 5^th, 2011 at 8:54am:

mavisdavis wrote on Feb 5th, 2011 at 8:22am: Please delete wrote on Feb 5th, 2011 at 5:28am: mavis Again I say - what are we going to debate? You want a hollow debate about in principle agreement allowing the construction of multiple reactors of unknown type, size etc, in unspecified locations .... My mind IS closed - but I'm just one person. Irrelevant in the scheme of things. I'm just expressing my puzzlement about this "debate" that is somehow being refused or denied or subverted. HAVE THE DEBATE - what's stopping anyone? Howard started it, and it fizzled for lack of interest. It all smacks of a drunk staggering down an empty street demanding that someone fight him. This is the standard warped "logic" that opposed the notion of a spherical Earth. Explain where my logic is warped. Or is that just a lazy insult? Gillard does not control debate in Australia. In relation to nuclear power, the only reason for the "industry" to look to the government is for the mssive subsidies it will need, and to take away the difficult task of convincing the public. Look at how desal plants were built - at public cost, extremely advantageous PPP's that hevily favoured the builder, riding rough shod over the electorate. That's the OPPOSITE of debate, and that's what seems to be happening here. Calls for debate are actually demands that the government make the announcement, WITHOUT debate.

No Ernie, Gillard doesn't control 'debate' in Australia.......But unless the Gillard Government gives approval, no power station (be it fossil fuel, alternative OR nuclear) can be built..

WE can sit here on these boards (or in any other public forum that you choose) and debate the pros and cons of nuclear power til we're blue in the face...and it won't make any difference..

Even if 98% of Australia said we won't nuclear power, the final decision is STILL with the Government.....Unless the debate happens in Parliment (or at the Party Conference or whatever) and the policy is changed as a result.....no one can get permission to build a nuclear power station, even if it's entirely privately funded...

"But unless the Gillard Government gives approval, no power station (be it fossil fuel, alternative OR nuclear) can be built.."

See, that's where your analysis and mine differ.

The fed govt control what its entities can do. That's all.

Power generation is primarily a state concern, and states are still free to set their own policy (the way I read it).


"WE can sit here on these boards (or in any other public forum that you choose) and debate the pros and cons of nuclear power til we're blue in the face...and it won't make any difference.."

Agreed. But my puzzlement about these thwarted "debates" remains.


"the final decision is STILL with the Government.....Unless the debate happens in Parliment (or at the Party Conference or whatever) and the policy is changed as a result.....no one can get permission to build a nuclear power station"

I don't agree, based on your posts about the framework in Australia. Correct me if I'm wrong.

States control power generation. ANSTO is empowered to issue licences.

Please delete wrote on Feb 5^th, 2011 at 8:54am:

mavisdavis wrote on Feb 5th, 2011 at 8:22am: Please delete wrote on Feb 5th, 2011 at 5:28am: mavis Again I say - what are we going to debate? You want a hollow debate about in principle agreement allowing the construction of multiple reactors of unknown type, size etc, in unspecified locations .... My mind IS closed - but I'm just one person. Irrelevant in the scheme of things. I'm just expressing my puzzlement about this "debate" that is somehow being refused or denied or subverted. HAVE THE DEBATE - what's stopping anyone? Howard started it, and it fizzled for lack of interest. It all smacks of a drunk staggering down an empty street demanding that someone fight him. This is the standard warped "logic" that opposed the notion of a spherical Earth. Explain where my logic is warped. Or is that just a lazy insult? Gillard does not control debate in Australia. In relation to nuclear power, the only reason for the "industry" to look to the government is for the mssive subsidies it will need, and to take away the difficult task of convincing the public. Look at how desal plants were built - at public cost, extremely advantageous PPP's that hevily favoured the builder, riding rough shod over the electorate. That's the OPPOSITE of debate, and that's what seems to be happening here. Calls for debate are actually demands that the government make the announcement, WITHOUT debate.

Ernie : "Explain where my logic is warped. Or is that just a lazy insult?"

To begin with, you keep insisting that someone goes to great expense and effort to formulate a definite proposition before you are even willing to discuss the issue.  This attitude is unthinking and shallow, this attitude deserves to be amongst the agendas of the "Flat Earth Society".  

With an attitude such as this, nothing would ever be done, this is the equivalent of a bureaucrat saying, don`t ask if it`s legal, go and spend 50 - 100 million on a proposition and I might look at it.  Do you see now how silly this approach is?  Please don`t reply with a meaningless little time wasting twisted silliness.

"Ernie : "Explain where my logic is warped. Or is that just a lazy insult?"

To begin with, you keep insisting that someone goes to great expense and effort to formulate a definite proposition before you are even willing to discuss the issue.  This attitude is unthinking and shallow, this attitude deserves to be amongst the agendas of the "Flat Earth Society".  

With an attitude such as this, nothing would ever be done, this is the equivalent of a bureaucrat saying, don`t ask if it`s legal, go and spend 50 - 100 million on a proposition and I might look at it.  Do you see now how silly this approach is?  Please don`t reply with a meaningless little time wasting twisted silliness. "

Situation: State govt calls tenders for the construction of a new power station.

EVERY TENDERER invests large amounts developing their business case.

One or more of them is nuclear - what's the problem?

I have repeatedly SUGGESTED that the best way to clear the air and discuss the issues, in a real world context, is for someone to mount a serious proposal. Doesn't have to be a $50 business case, but tht would be best.

That way, we have something to discuss.

Why is that illogical? I remind you again about the ridiculous way govts developed the desal plants.

Your scenario gives some sort of blanket approval without any context - an unrealistic way to proceed. My first question would be "what type of reactor", my second question would be "where". Without answers to those questions, how could anyone consider the problem?

Back to my mantra - have your debate. Nothing is stopping like minded people from arguing their case.

Situation: State govt calls tenders for the construction of a new power station.



ernie read gizmo... the States or Business men cannot make announcements on Nuclear power... its for the Fed govt only.

it would be the B.all and end.all for the Feds..

nuclear power is not something you would sell on EBay.

it isnt something someone will play with in their shed.

it is and so it should be very much controlled by Govt.

in the right hands marvellous in the wrong hands...well!!!

Please delete wrote on Feb 5^th, 2011 at 5:48pm:

"Ernie : "Explain where my logic is warped. Or is that just a lazy insult?" To begin with, you keep insisting that someone goes to great expense and effort to formulate a definite proposition before you are even willing to discuss the issue.  This attitude is unthinking and shallow, this attitude deserves to be amongst the agendas of the "Flat Earth Society".   With an attitude such as this, nothing would ever be done, this is the equivalent of a bureaucrat saying, don`t ask if it`s legal, go and spend 50 - 100 million on a proposition and I might look at it.  Do you see now how silly this approach is?  Please don`t reply with a meaningless little time wasting twisted silliness. " Situation: State govt calls tenders for the construction of a new power station. EVERY TENDERER invests large amounts developing their business case. One or more of them is nuclear - what's the problem? I have repeatedly SUGGESTED that the best way to clear the air and discuss the issues, in a real world context, is for someone to mount a serious proposal. Doesn't have to be a $50 business case, but tht would be best. That way, we have something to discuss. Why is that illogical? I remind you again about the ridiculous way govts developed the desal plants. Your scenario gives some sort of blanket approval without any context - an unrealistic way to proceed. My first question would be "what type of reactor", my second question would be "where". Without answers to those questions, how could anyone consider the problem? Back to my mantra - have your debate. Nothing is stopping like minded people from arguing their case.

Ernie, it doesn`t matter if the front door is painted blue or pink.  What does matter is solving the environmental, and the power generation issues.  If you want to cop out of the discussion, so be it, just be honest about the fact and don`t try to blame others for your lack of community spirit.

"Ernie, it doesn`t matter if the front door is painted blue or pink. "

If, by that silliness you mean what sort of reactor it is, or its' location, it most certainly DOES matter.

"What does matter is solving the environmental, and the power generation issues. "

Agreed

" If you want to cop out of the discussion, so be it, just be honest about the fact and don`t try to blame others for your lack of community spirit. "

Another lazy attempt at an insult? Fail.

"ernie read gizmo... the States or Business men cannot make announcements on Nuclear power... its for the Fed govt only."

Yes they can. The operator then would have to apply for a licence, which I see no impediment to.

If you READ the links that gizmo posted, the "embargo" by the fedral government is limited to its own agencies.

There is no barrier to any other agency - in this case, the most logical proponent, a state government.

IMO it won't be the feds proposing to build these. Again, utilities are the responsibility of state governments.

Please delete wrote on Feb 6^th, 2011 at 5:46am:

"Ernie, it doesn`t matter if the front door is painted blue or pink. " If, by that silliness you mean what sort of reactor it is, or its' location, it most certainly DOES matter. "What does matter is solving the environmental, and the power generation issues. " Agreed " If you want to cop out of the discussion, so be it, just be honest about the fact and don`t try to blame others for your lack of community spirit. " Another lazy attempt at an insult? Fail.

Ernie, I`ve exposed your "logic" for the farce that it is, you can fool yourself, but no one else with an ounce of sense will fall for your desperate denialism. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

In your dreams, mavis.

We're discussing this important matter, just like you purport to want, and you are casting childish insults (attempts at insults, anyway).

You've added nothing to counter my observations - and there is SO much you could counter, if you knew anything about the whole thing.

Go for it - show me the legislation, show me the opinions that support whatever your position is - I'm still not really sure.

There is an urgent need to develop regulations for nuclear power plants and other commercial
nuclear-fuel-cycle facilities. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency,
which regulates the safe use of nuclear materials by Commonwealth entities, including new
research reactors, is specifically prohibited from licensing nuclear power plants. The
Commonwealth environmental legislation requires all nuclear matters to be considered by the
Commonwealth, as for the whole country, so there is a total lack of regulation for dealing with
large nuclear power plants or nuclear-fuel-cycle facilities. This lack of regulation for major
nuclear plants is a major disincentive for any commercial proposal for nuclear power. The
legislative and policy issues need to be resolved so that licensing processes, environmental and
safety requirements for commercial nuclear power plants are established.


www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12601.pdf

"The technology for nuclear power was available in Australia but there would be regulatory issues between the States/Territories and the Commonwealth should nuclear power be approved as some
jurisdictions currently prohibited nuclear power."

From ARPANSA

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/nsc/nsc_feb07.pdf

That comment is ambiguous, but it does NOT indicate ARPANSA is prohibted from issuing licences, just that there would be difficulties between jurisdictions.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/Regulation/Branch/what.cfm

Here is ARPANSA's list of what they regulate.

If you can point me to the prohibition of Nuclear Power, I'd be grateful.

"For example, Section 10 of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANS Act) prohibits the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) from issuing a licence in respect of a nuclear fuel fabrication plant, a nuclear power plant, an enrichment plant or a reprocessing plant."

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/regulatory/conventions/cns_rpt2011.pdf

"7.1. The Commonwealth Parliament passed the ARPANS Act in 1998. The Act applies only to Australian Government entities, their contractors, or persons in a prescribed Commonwealth place. It provides that, under certain conditions, ARPANSA may license an entity to undertake activities in relation to radioactive material and nuclear reactors. ARPANSA cannot, however, license nuclear power reactors.

7.2. Australia is a federation of six States and two self-governing Territories. Constitutional responsibility for radiation health and safety in each State and Territory rests with the respective State/Territory government, unless the activity is being carried on by an Australian Government agency. State and Territory legislation currently prohibits the construction or operation of nuclear installations, including research reactors, although the relevant NSW legislation contains an exception in respect of ANSTO."

These excerpts are more interesting. One seems definite, then it goes on to what I have been saying.

Saw on the Pacific Hwy today on the way home from Syd.
Ziggy is holding a public forum at Pymble on the 27/2/11 on this very subject.
Australia's nuclear future.
Big sign on the church before the railway bridge for those interested.

Please delete wrote on Feb 6^th, 2011 at 3:03pm:

In your dreams, mavis. We're discussing this important matter, just like you purport to want, and you are casting childish insults (attempts at insults, anyway). You've added nothing to counter my observations - and there is SO much you could counter, if you knew anything about the whole thing. Go for it - show me the legislation, show me the opinions that support whatever your position is - I'm still not really sure.

You are the one who keeps saying that you can`t function untill someone spends millions on a proposal plan.  Why?  Your position makes no sense at all.

mavisdavis wrote on Feb 6^th, 2011 at 8:25pm:

Please delete wrote on Feb 6th, 2011 at 3:03pm: In your dreams, mavis. We're discussing this important matter, just like you purport to want, and you are casting childish insults (attempts at insults, anyway). You've added nothing to counter my observations - and there is SO much you could counter, if you knew anything about the whole thing. Go for it - show me the legislation, show me the opinions that support whatever your position is - I'm still not really sure. You are the one who keeps saying that you can`t function untill someone spends millions on a proposal plan.  Why?  Your position makes no sense at all.

Firstly so we know whether any organisation believes it has the desire to go nuclear.

Secondly so we have some context in which to debate.

Yours is the bizarre position - debate nuclear and approve the theoretical construction of plants, without any answers - who, what, where etc.