"I refuse to use less power"

That's your right.

"Whatever happened to freedom of choice?"

You have a choice to live the way you want - just pay more.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 5^th, 2010 at 7:51am:


They are designed to last 30-40 years - notice the 30 - just in case.

Of course the Directors of Global Nuclear Energy spruik that they could last a lot longer with strict vigilence. Mind you we won't have Australians operating them - because we don't have the expertise.

Yes - the oldest nuclear reactor is 60 years old.....and are you suggesting that we treat them as old cars, just patch them up until we get our money's worth.

The only organisation regulating them is the Nuclear Commission.

Oyster Creek, the nation's oldest commercial nuclear power plant, began operating in 1969 and is literally rotting at its core. Experts say that Oyster Creek is past its time and the plant's design is unsafe. Its existing license will expire next April, however, a 20-year license renewal is currently undergoing appeals, which - if passed, would allow Oyster Creek to run until 2029.

Rutgers Law Clinic attorney Richard Webster has filed a court challenge to suspend the re-licensing plan. Webster believes the government's re-licensing process limits public input and largely ignores pressing safety issues at aging plants. "We hope that the NRC will wake up and protect people and not the interests of the nuclear industry," he states.

Well Gillard has canned the idea of nukes because adam bandt doesnt like them...

so remind me again who is PM?? It obviously isnt Gillard.

SOME Federal Government MPs are talking-up the prospect of nuclear power in Queensland after Prime Minister John Howard said he wouldn't mind living next door to a reactor.

Liberal backbencher Peter Lindsay said people in his north Queensland electorate based on Townsville were "coming around" to the idea of atomic energy.

Another Queensland Liberal, Steve Ciobo, said that if the Gold Coast were shortlisted for a reactor there would need to be extensive public consultation.

The calls came after Mr Howard yesterday strongly backed a final report into nuclear energy that said 25 reactors by 2050 could supply a third of the nation's energy.

"Nuclear power is part of the solution both to Australia's energy and climate change challenges," Mr Howard said.

He said that with Australia's uranium reserves, it would be "crazy in the extreme" not to consider nuclear energy.

On the key issue of where reactors should built, Mr Howard said he would not mind a nuclear plant next to his own home.

"I wouldn't have any objection, none whatsoever. I'm serious, quite serious," he said.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd condemned Mr Howard's support for atomic power.

"This is not strong leadership – it's wrong leadership for Australia's future," he said.

"There will be no nuclear reactors under a future Labor Government – end of story."

The dramatic developments yesterday set the stage for nuclear energy to be a key issue at next year's election.

Mr Howard argues nuclear power is part of a broader solution to climate change as reactors have almost zero emissions of carbon dioxide.

But Mr Rudd has ruled out nuclear power under Labor and has signalled he will step up the campaign warning people they could be forced to live near nuclear plants.

The Labor leader said he would be interested to know how many people in Mr Howard's own electorate "or anywhere in coastal Australia" wanted a reactor nearby.

Premier Peter Beattie, who is strongly opposed to nuclear energy, said many Queenslanders would not feel comfortable living next door to a reactor.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/howard-pushes-nuclear-power/story-e6...

Quote:





SOLAR power is "clean"

WIND power is "clean"



ANY power source that produces waste with a half life of around 100,000 years cannot be defined as "clean"

'Below ground' is not an infinate resource as a dump for nuclear waste - as we discovered 'above ground' with carbon waste