Forum

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

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 7
Send Topic Print
Nuclear the 'only viable clean power' (Read 20594 times)
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 40778
Gender: male
Re: Nuclear the 'only viable clean power'
Reply #30 - Jan 19th, 2009 at 9:25am
 

Good point muso.

time may be of the essence.
Back to top
 

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


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Nuclear the 'only viable clean power'
Reply #31 - Jan 19th, 2009 at 11:45am
 
How long does it take to build a "pebble-bed" reactor?  10 years?

How long till Thorium become viable?  10 years?

Unfortunately short term thinking pollies are our biggest problem.  Mind you One Nation had a policy in its last election or the one before I think that pushed Nuclear power and car gas conversion...  not that anyone would know of course.  Apparently they are backwards thinking or just imbeciles.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49496
At my desk.
Re: Nuclear the 'only viable clean power'
Reply #32 - Jan 19th, 2009 at 11:52am
 
Even imbeciles can pinch other party's policies.

A ten year payback could be pretty poor, or it could be really bad, depending on how you calculate it. I think some people ignore interest and inflation and only consider recouping the capital, so after ten years you are actually still a long way behind. That's when the PV systems need replacing....
Back to top
 

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


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Nuclear the 'only viable clean power'
Reply #33 - Jan 19th, 2009 at 6:14pm
 
Oh dear...  bitter and twisted.

No other party has such a policy  Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49496
At my desk.
Re: Nuclear the 'only viable clean power'
Reply #34 - Jan 19th, 2009 at 6:21pm
 
That's a lot of parties you are speaking for Grendel. Something tells me you haven't done your homework. You like to make big claims don't you?
Back to top
 

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


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Nuclear the 'only viable clean power'
Reply #35 - Jan 19th, 2009 at 7:03pm
 
Name one party with any chance of getting a sitting member and I'll concede the point.

BTW I know the policy of lots of parties...
that's what happens when you have a real interest in politics and the future of your country and vote based on policy not tribalism.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49496
At my desk.
Re: Nuclear the 'only viable clean power'
Reply #36 - Jan 19th, 2009 at 7:16pm
 
Do you think I vote based on some sort of tribalism?
Back to top
 

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


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Nuclear the 'only viable clean power'
Reply #37 - Jan 19th, 2009 at 8:00pm
 
No..  but apparently you are clueless about me and just like making ignorant negative assumptions, inferences and statements..

So how about that party fd?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49496
At my desk.
Re: Nuclear the 'only viable clean power'
Reply #38 - Jan 19th, 2009 at 8:17pm
 
Quote:
So how about that party fd?


Yes, I see you've shifted the goalposts already. How about that.
Back to top
 

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


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Nuclear the 'only viable clean power'
Reply #39 - Jan 19th, 2009 at 9:58pm
 
I haven't shifted anything...  you made a statement...  now backi up.

No use voting for the Nuclear power Party you'd be the only one.

Soooo back it up.

Now don't run away, prove your assertion right.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49496
At my desk.
Re: Nuclear the 'only viable clean power'
Reply #40 - Jan 19th, 2009 at 10:18pm
 
Quote:
I haven't shifted anything...


Oh really?

Quote:
No other party has such a policy


Quote:
Name one party with any chance of getting a sitting member and I'll concede the point.


Quote:
you made a statement...


Which was?
Back to top
 

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


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Nuclear the 'only viable clean power'
Reply #41 - Jan 19th, 2009 at 11:31pm
 
Quote:
That's a lot of parties you are speaking for Grendel. Something tells me you haven't done your homework. You like to make big claims don't you?


Well I have done my homework...  now it's time to show us all you did yours or were you just mouthing off.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: Nuclear the 'only viable clean power'
Reply #42 - Jan 20th, 2009 at 6:28am
 
Quote:
I pay the extra for clean energy, but do I think that it's being apportioned to pay for a clean source of energy? No. I suspect that it may be going to some kind of slush fund for whatever passes as clean energy research, including some half-hearted sequestration projects that don't have a snowflakes chance in hell of working out.


Yes obviously it has - a huge amount of cash has gone into research for "clean coal" - but it was announced yesterday that it can't be done.  As if we didn't already know that.  So now we have ATSE making noises about NP.  I don't think we have any choice in this matter.

Rudd promises us that there will be no NP stations and he'll get out of any deals that Howard made, but he can't.  Howard would have ensured all deals were tied up securely in his last term - that was his mission.

We've got the waste tip sorted out with Haliburton, the Railway's in place and in a matter of days we hear ATSE's recommendation for NP and learn that clean coal is not an option.

What happened to that idiot Garrett and his promises that every house in Australia would eventually have solar energy?  It won't happen because the coal industry has too much to lose especially seeing as we have directors of BHP on the board of ATSE.

Whether we want it or not - we'll get NP stations and as far as becoming a global waste tip goes - what sort of legacy are we leaving behind for future generations?  Who's going to guard this waste for the next half million years.  

Uranium processing will also commence here - that was on Howard's agenda as well.  The nuclear industry is very powerful and heavily subsidised.  What it costs us, especially in environmental damage,  is irrelevant as long as these powerful corporations continue to thrive and make massive profits for their shareholders.




Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49496
At my desk.
Re: Nuclear the 'only viable clean power'
Reply #43 - Jan 20th, 2009 at 7:19am
 
Quote:
but it was announced yesterday that it can't be done


Where?
Back to top
 

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



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Nuclear the 'only viable clean power'
Reply #44 - Jan 20th, 2009 at 7:28am
 
Grendel wrote on Jan 19th, 2009 at 11:45am:
How long does it take to build a "pebble-bed" reactor?  10 years?

How long till Thorium become viable?  10 years?

Unfortunately short term thinking pollies are our biggest problem.  Mind you One Nation had a policy in its last election or the one before I think that pushed Nuclear power and car gas conversion...  not that anyone would know of course.  Apparently they are backwards thinking or just imbeciles.


Probably more like 20 years for Thorium. You need an accelerator based reactor - totally untried technology. The pebble bed reactor is already working in China.

This is scary. The only other person who supports nuclear energy on here. Maybe I misjudged you Grendel.  Shocked
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 7
Send Topic Print