Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 11
Send Topic Print
NUCLEAR POWER (Read 37826 times)
enviro
Senior Member
****
Offline


Taking Out The Trash

Posts: 323
Weethalle NSW
Gender: male
Come now Mantra...
Reply #15 - Jan 11th, 2007 at 12:52pm
 
For one it wasn't an impressive report as it was full of negatives. The media is the one that is pulling the positives out and twisting the negatives around to favor Howard.

Yes, he has spent years running, successfully, multicorporations and this only highlights his uncanny ability to achieve. Don't forget, running a country is like running a business. People will say that businesses forget about the people but this is not true, a successful business includes the people and looks after their staff, especially in a country where it is hard to find good staff with low unemployment figures and high non english speaking immigration.

Howards not aloud to have any friends?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: nuclear report misleading
Reply #16 - Jan 11th, 2007 at 5:45pm
 
From the reports we have heard about Telstra - it was in bad shape when Ziggy left.  According to the 3 amigos - the company had been run down and wasn't making a profit for the shareholders - they were actually being paid out of the capital or anticipated profits of the company.  Something to that effect anyway.

Of course Howard's allowed to have friends - he just doesn't need to put them in high and influential positions.  The Federal Government isn't a "boys own" club - well it is - but it's not supposed to be.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
enviro
Senior Member
****
Offline


Taking Out The Trash

Posts: 323
Weethalle NSW
Gender: male
Re: nuclear report not misleading
Reply #17 - Jan 12th, 2007 at 8:13am
 
It's strange how the media attacked him in Telstra. Ziggy focused on Research within Telstra which was an investment for Telstra in competition with privatisation of the communications sector.

Yes, he was paying shareholders out of anticipated massive profits which are now starting to come to light. He kept Telstra competitive and leaders in the Mobile and Broadband areas. If Telstra was doing so bad do you think they would have had Telstra 3 share listings?

The media ruthlessly got behind the attack on Ziggy the same way they tarnish him by making out that he is 100% behind the feasability of Nuclear Energy in Australia. I wonder what he did to earn the bashing from the media? Yes, his friend Howard is probably his protector but that is how the elite work.

We tend to run in circles made up of classes. Most of Howards friends would be influential people, that's the world we live in. It's who you know not what you know... and the same be said of Ziggy.

Can you really imagine Howard or Ziggy having a brickies labourer over for dinner and a chat on nuclear physics or economics etc?

Smiley
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: nuclear report misleading
Reply #18 - Jan 16th, 2007 at 4:15pm
 
No I can't see Howard socialising with the "underclass" although I suppose he makes the effort around campaign time and at his sporting events.

I think Ziggy has been overrated, but if it isn't true about Telstra being in such bad shape after his reign - surely the media wouldn't have portrayed it as that?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.
PM denies conspiracy over nuke reactor
Reply #19 - Feb 28th, 2007 at 11:12am
 
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/PM-denies-conspiracy-over-nuke-reactor/2007/02/28/1172338635234.html

The government denies there is anything sinister about the fact it launched a review into the pros and cons of nuclear power around the same time a Liberal powerbroker set up a nuclear energy company.

Prime Minister John Howard admitted in parliament to knowing that former Liberal Party treasurer Ron Walker was setting up the company, which was registered just days before the establishment of the nuclear taskforce.

Mr Howard refused to elaborate on the issue on Tuesday night as he headed into a function organised by the Menzies Research Centre.

Mr Walker and fellow businessmen Robert Champion de Crespigny and Hugh Morgan registered Australian Nuclear Energy (ANE) Pty Ltd on June 1 last year, five days before Mr Howard set up his prime ministerial taskforce.

ANE was forced to deny newspaper reports that it was planning to build Australia's first nuclear power station in either Victoria or South Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Nuclear-power-a-cleaner-energy-source/2007/02/28/1172338630687.html

If Australians were serious about tackling global warming then embracing nuclear power was a logical next step, the man who headed the government's nuclear taskforce said.

Prime Minister John Howard admitted on Tuesday knowing that Liberal powerbroker Ron Walker was setting up a nuclear energy company around the same time he announced the taskforce, headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski.

"If as the direction of the mood is at the moment and we decide that global warming is a serious international and local matter and we in Australia are going to do something about it and therefore progressively deploy cleaner and cleaner source sources of energy ... then it's a very small step to accept there are very few other alternative for clean energy generation," he said.

"At the top of the list is nuclear."
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Nuclear Power for Australia
Reply #20 - Apr 28th, 2007 at 10:17pm
 
Does our government care about the real dangers of nuclear power?  The threat being made today by the PM that nuclear power stations are definitely going to be a reality - one way or another - no discussion - no bipartison support, just get them established now before the next election.

Regardless of the positive side preached by pro-nuclear groups, the negative side is rarely mentioned and far outweighs anything good about NP. 

We do need an alternative to coal, but NP will just be working alongside it.  There are no plans to get rid of fossil fuel.  The government is still investing heavily in it, even though there is so much healthy green technology out there, Howard is reluctant to support it.

Once we open up more mines to increase our export, establish Chinese technology to build our reactors (not even our technology) - we are commissioned to open up a World Nuclear Waste Dump in the NT to take back nuclear waste from the countries we export to.

There is no effective technology for nuclear waste and we can't expect or trust future generations for the next few hundred years to manage it safely.  We are also geologically fragile.

Once the dump is established here - spills en route from Russia, India or wherever, and accidents are inevitable,  and will cause irreparable damage to our oceans ecosystem and consequently us.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Scaly
Ex Member


Re: Nuclear Power for Australia
Reply #21 - Apr 28th, 2007 at 10:30pm
 
What else are you going to use for base load power?

Of course technologies are going to operate side by side. It not just flipping a switch.

How important is global warming to you. All generation of power will have a detrimental effect on the environment directly and indirectly and all the environmental inputs and outputs need to be weighed up

Nuclear is a proven base load power source and the waste products are more easily sequestered than our current power source

/scary music "We haven't got much time"
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: Nuclear Power for Australia
Reply #22 - Apr 28th, 2007 at 10:47pm
 
There is solar power technology being developed right now in Australia which is only getting the tiniest bit of investment from our government.  They are ignoring it, but the US isn't, so they will be the ones investing in this company as they are confident it will cope as the base load in some of their major cities.

There is also geothermal power.  This is being commercially used in more than 70 countries.  We have a company right here in Australia who has developed energy through geothermal technology, which is capable of working alongside solar at little cost with no emissions.   This company is struggling and can't replace essential machinery quickly, because they receive so little funding from this government.

There are a dozen other alternatives, but the new technology for solar is capable of meeting our needs if we are careful.

That's the big word "careful" - too few want to be careful and demand a prolificness of energy, no matter where it comes from.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Scaly
Ex Member


Re: Nuclear Power for Australia
Reply #23 - Apr 28th, 2007 at 11:00pm
 
Neither of those has been commercially tested for supplying the base load power requirements of major cities, that's not saying they couldn't be eventually, but at this point in time nuclear is our best option for supply and saving the world from global warming given the time frame to avert disaster.

It goes against the grain of the traditional environmentalist because anti-nukes has been their form of revenue over some of the last 30 years, but with the realisation that pumping gases from burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere has a profound buildup effect, the best we can do is to get more bang for our buck while shrinking and containing the waste product.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: Nuclear Power for Australia
Reply #24 - Apr 28th, 2007 at 11:17pm
 
We may not be emitting too many gasses through nuclear energy, but the gasses and toxins produced by the mining of uranium, processing, building reactors, disposing of reactors and storing a terrible, long lasting, toxic waste far outweighs any benefits.

We need to get rid of coal fired power stations as well.  There are healthy alternatives - that are environmentally safe and sound, but there is too much money to be made by multinationals and friends of politicians and politicians themselves, that they are diminishing the competition before it's given a chance. 

As far as solar being commercially tested in Australia, this could be a reality very quickly with a bit more interest and support from this current government.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 40703
Gender: male
Re: Nuclear Power for Australia
Reply #25 - Apr 29th, 2007 at 12:24am
 
Renewable energies are capable of supplying base load power.
Google "Pinnacle battery", yet another novel Aussie invention that has mostly been lost/stolen.

There are also solar towers, a town called whitecliffs in west NSW has has only solar power for well over a decade. More reliably than city power.
Hot rocks is used overseas reliably.

The Coal industry has a LOT of political leverage.

By focussing on assisting the current system we have with renewables, I believe that would be ample.



In the real world though, I see nuclear power with assistance from renewables eventually.
Which is a pity.
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
IQSRLOW(Guest)
Guest


Re: Nuclear Power for Australia
Reply #26 - Apr 29th, 2007 at 12:53am
 
Renewable energies are capable of supplying base load power.

No they aren't

There are also solar towers, a town called whitecliffs in west NSW has has only solar power for well over a decade. More reliably than city power.

Pfft..Whitecliff only catered for 200-500 people and generated 25-45kW. Even then the township wanted to be connected to the grid to alleviate shortcomings.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
IQSRLOW(Guest)
Guest


Re: Nuclear Power for Australia
Reply #27 - Apr 29th, 2007 at 1:08am
 
Not too mention the detrimental environmental aspects of battery manufacture and disposal...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 40703
Gender: male
Re: Nuclear Power for Australia
Reply #28 - Apr 29th, 2007 at 1:10am
 
Hi IQSRLOW,
How are you ?

Given power storage methods (flow batteries) base load capacity is very possible.
As it is, all we need is assistance to the existing system anyway, not a whole new thing.
Even if renewables are assistance to base load, that is good and means many extra power stations  do not have to be built.
By generating power close to the demand the system is a lot more efficient.
Lots of losses occur the further power is transmitted.
By allocating renewable systems in more remote locations the energy saved is significant.

Yes, the locals at whitecliffs did not want solar power initially.
It was the most economic method though. Now the locals are more than happy with it.
With virtually no running costs for a decade and good reliability , I'ld be pretty happy also.
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 40703
Gender: male
Re: Nuclear Power for Australia
Reply #29 - Apr 29th, 2007 at 1:16am
 
Hi IQSRLOW,

Flow batteries last pretty much forever. They are used with a wind mill plant in Tassie.

Flow batteries are also scaleable. ie add more fluid resevoirs for more capacity to store more electrical energy .

The aussie company (Pinnacle) got caught up with a canadian company. 
Canada has no sembalance of company law.  They are pirates.
Possibly the worst deal I have ever seen an aussie  company make. They are idiots.
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 11
Send Topic Print