Forum

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

Poll Poll
Question: NUCLEAR POLL (choose ALL options that apply): -



« Last Modified by: Equitist on: Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:15am »

Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power (Read 20537 times)
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Dec 1st, 2010 at 6:59am
 
One of the ALP's main policies was No Nuclear Power.
I say WAS as looks like that is about to change.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/labor-ready-to-say-bewdy-nuke/story-e6freuy9-1225963533476


Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
chicken_lipsforme
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #1 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 7:13am
 
Well, they will have to run that one past their Green friends first.
Back to top
 

"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government"

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #2 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 7:35am
 
chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 7:13am:
Well, they will have to run that one past their Green friends first.


They dont HAVE Green friends. plus in the lower house they wont need them nor in the senate. if both parties agree - and they do - then the Greens become irrelevent.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #3 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 7:46am
 
Labor will have to move quickly - there's a new senate in July next year.

Nuclear power legislation will be blocked - and so it should be. The cost of one station will equal that of the NBN and it will be 15 years before it's up and running.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
skippy.
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20882
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #4 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 7:49am
 
LOL, you are a imbecile, MISS, at least you're in good company with Longy,you got that quote about the GREENS  "disaster "yet?

Two backbenchers and Martin Furguson, who has been on record for years advocating Nuke power and "MISSY" and the Muppet's  call it an ALP "back flip". no wonder everybody laughs at you muppets,LOL.

Quote:
Federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said those advocating nuclear power had as much right to have the issue debated as those backing changes to gay marriage laws.

"They have as much right to discuss nuclear at the 2011 conference as other people have to debate the issue of gay and lesbian marriage," he was quoted as saying.

A number of Labor MPs have gone public in their support for the low-carbon energy source, including former frontbencher Mark Bishop and NSW senator Steve Hutchins
Back to top
 

  freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #5 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 7:53am
 
I love this call - let's have a debate about having a debate.

OK, I'll start - where is a specific proposal for one of the NPPs?

68% or so of Australians don't want one in their back yards - so there's a question to be answered.

What technology, and where, and who is going to build it?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:09am by Please delete »  
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #6 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:08am
 
And if there is one MP that this labor supporter dislikes more than most, from either side, it is mutton ferguson.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #7 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:09am
 
mantra wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 7:46am:
Labor will have to move quickly - there's a new senate in July next year.

Nuclear power legislation will be blocked - and so it should be. The cost of one station will equal that of the NBN and it will be 15 years before it's up and running.



If libs and Labor agree no one needs the Green vote in the senate
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #8 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:13am
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 7:53am:
I love this call - let's have a debate about having a debate.

OK, I'll start - where is a specific proposal for one of the NPPs?

68% or so of Australians don't want one in their back yards - so there's a question to be answered.

What technology, and where, and who is going to build it?


No one ever wants ANYTHING in their backyard so thats nothing special. no development or infrastructure EVER gets local support. And in australia here is PLENTY of space so that it is not close to anyone.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
skippy.
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20882
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #9 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:17am
 
longweekend58 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:09am:
mantra wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 7:46am:
Labor will have to move quickly - there's a new senate in July next year.

Nuclear power legislation will be blocked - and so it should be. The cost of one station will equal that of the NBN and it will be 15 years before it's up and running.



If libs and Labor agree no one needs the Green vote in the senate

WOW hey, THREE Labor MPs on record as saying nuke power should be "CONSIDERD" and its a done deal, back flip, all over bar the shouting, LOL Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 

  freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #10 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:20am
 
"No one ever wants ANYTHING in their backyard so thats nothing special. no development or infrastructure EVER gets local support. And in australia here is PLENTY of space so that it is not close to anyone. "

And to date, no one has applied to build a NPP - so what is the debate about?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #11 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:20am
 
Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 6:59am:
One of the ALP's main policies was No Nuclear Power.
I say WAS as looks like that is about to change.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/labor-ready-to-say-bewdy-nuke/story-e6freuy9-1225963533476




I hope so. We need it.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #12 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:21am
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:20am:
"No one ever wants ANYTHING in their backyard so thats nothing special. no development or infrastructure EVER gets local support. And in australia here is PLENTY of space so that it is not close to anyone. "

And to date, no one has applied to build a NPP - so what is the debate about?


They can build it in my backyard if they want. I just want royalties.  Wink
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 1st, 2010 at 1:12pm by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #13 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:22am
 
"And in australia here is PLENTY of space so that it is not close to anyone. "

Between Newcastle and Wollongong, where one person opined there would be six NPPs needed, next to water.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #14 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:27am
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:22am:
"And in australia here is PLENTY of space so that it is not close to anyone. "

Between Newcastle and Wollongong, where one person opined there would be six NPPs needed, next to water.


ONe thing that we are learning about Renewable Energy is that we need distributed energy tranmission systems because wind farms and geothermal etc are rarely cnveniently placed. from that experience we can plance nuclear power plants well away from towns and cities.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #15 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:28am
 
But not away from water.

Which part of the east coast would you nominate?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #16 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:32am
 
Let me guess - Botany Bay - NSW's dumping ground for unwanted industries.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #17 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:33am
 


I thought a poll was in order - you may choose several options.

Edited:
Correction: PLEASE choose multiple options!
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:58am by Equitist »  

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
codswal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2070
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #18 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:35am
 
longweekend58 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:13am:
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 7:53am:
I love this call - let's have a debate about having a debate.

OK, I'll start - where is a specific proposal for one of the NPPs?

68% or so of Australians don't want one in their back yards - so there's a question to be answered.

What technology, and where, and who is going to build it?


No one ever wants ANYTHING in their backyard so thats nothing special. no development or infrastructure EVER gets local support. And in australia here is PLENTY of space so that it is not close to anyone.

----


well they dont want dams either do they... so now they find out they will be drinking water contaminated by sewage thanks to the desalination plants..give me a dam any day..

as for the dingaling that thinks 3 people make a policy...lol..
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
codswal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2070
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #19 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:38am
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:28am:
But not away from water.

Which part of the east coast would you nominate?





ernie you are always flat chat asking the Libs... read the op again its LABOR that is changing its tune......ask THEM where they propose to build??.. then ask the Libs do they agree..

you keep forgetting whos calling the shots here...for the moment.

balls in your side of the court.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #20 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:44am
 

mantra wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 7:46am:
Nuclear power legislation will be blocked - and so it should be. The cost of one station will equal that of the NBN and it will be 15 years before it's up and running.



That is the crux of it!

Nukes are an unnecessarily costly and risky option...

BTW, I wonder how many right whingers have noted the proviso that Nukes will not be viable unless and until there is a price on carbon...

I say we need a referendum - one which combines the issues of carbon pricing and nukes...


Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #21 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:45am
 
Cods, I'm debating - isn't that the pro NPP lobby wants? A debate?

And my question was directed to longweekend, so what is your problem?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #22 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:48am
 



Hmmnnn....it seems that the 2 who support Nukes 100% chose not to select whose backyard they would put them in...
Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #23 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:48am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:44am:
mantra wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 7:46am:
Nuclear power legislation will be blocked - and so it should be. The cost of one station will equal that of the NBN and it will be 15 years before it's up and running.



That is the crux of it!

Nukes are an unnecessarily costly and risky option...

BTW, I wonder how many right whingers have noted the proviso that Nukes will not be viable unless and until there is a price on carbon...

I say we need a referendum - one which combines the issues of carbon pricing and nukes...




That's an interesting idea Equit,....
Considering most referendums are single issue Yes/No questions, how would you word it???
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #24 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:49am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:48am:
Hmmnnn....it seems that the 2 who support Nukes 100% chose not to select whose backyard they would put them in...


it's a one choice poll Equit...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
codswal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2070
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #25 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:51am
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:45am:
Cods, I'm debating - isn't that the pro NPP lobby wants? A debate?

And my question was directed to longweekend, so what is your problem?





really!!! you ask questions usually from the wrong people. or side...

let me ask you a question where do the Labs that are talking about this... planning on sites?..I mean when you go down this road thats the first thing isnt it?

how do you expect longy to know the answers??.. he isnt a pollie or is he..he has an opinion just like the rest of us..he happens to think its a good idea. doesnt mean he has all the answers as well..

these govt plans..... should have the answers dont you think... maybe GETUP has them...or wikileaks..


but maybe like the NBN we will find out when its all a done deal!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #26 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:53am
 

Hey, the Libs reckon we need a costs-benefits analysis on the NBN - so: -

How does one do a costs-benefits analysis on Nukes!?

One thing's for sure: the costs are so high that insurance actuaries won't touch it with a barge pole...

No premium loading is big enough to warrant underwriting a nuke plant - nor for insuring the property and people located in the regional neighbourhood of a nuke plant...

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #27 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:54am
 

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:49am:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:48am:
Hmmnnn....it seems that the 2 who support Nukes 100% chose not to select whose backyard they would put them in...


it's a one choice poll Equit...


Nah - it's my poll and I set it up to include multiple options (I chose 4 options)!
Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
viewpoint
Gold Member
*****
Offline


A joke is a very serious
thing. [Winston]

Posts: 2209
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #28 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:55am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:48am:
Hmmnnn....it seems that the 2 who support Nukes 100% chose not to select whose backyard they would put them in...


True to form, “it seems”, that when things don’t go your way, like all leftards you either whinge and whine or make up excuses………


Back to top
 

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
- Sir Winston Churchill
 
IP Logged
 
codswal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2070
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #29 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:56am
 
Hmmnnn....it seems that the 2 who support Nukes 100% chose not to select whose backyard they would put them in...



xxxxxxxxxxxxx


you make me laugh nem.. for the most part when a lib says anything on here you dont want to hear you call them liars.. or at least say they are not telling the full truth...lol..

but you believe unbelivable polls..lol..

whats a Darwin Award??...you have got me there.. not that I would vote anyway I dont do polls.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #30 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:56am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:54am:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:49am:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:48am:
Hmmnnn....it seems that the 2 who support Nukes 100% chose not to select whose backyard they would put them in...


it's a one choice poll Equit...


Nah - it's my poll and I set it up to include multiple options (I chose 4 options)!


Ahh ok, didn't realise....and now I can't change it...

So put me down for My backyard and Your backyard as well then...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #31 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:05am
 

codswal wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:56am:
whats a Darwin Award??



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Awards

Quote:
The Darwin Awards: A Chronicle of Enterprising Demises is a tongue-in-cheek honor named after evolutionary theorist Charles Darwin. Awards have been given for people who "do a service to Humanity by removing themselves from the gene pool" (i.e., lose the ability to reproduce either by death or sterilization in an idiotic fashion).

According to Wendy Northcutt, author of the Darwin Award books: "The Awards honor people who ensure the long-term survival of the human race by removing themselves from the gene pool in a sublimely idiotic fashion." The Darwin Award books state that an attempt is made to disallow known urban legends from the awards, but some older "winners" have been 'grandfathered' to keep their awards. The Darwin Awards site[1] does try to verify all submitted stories, but many similar sites, and the vast number of circulating "Darwin awards" emails, are largely fictional.[2]

[...]


Rules

Wendy Northcutt, owner of the DarwinAwards.com web site, has stated five requirements for her Darwin Award:

Inability to reproduce

   * Nominee must be dead or rendered sterile.

   Sometimes this can be a matter of dispute. Potential awardees may be out of the gene pool due to age; others have already reproduced before their deaths. To avoid debates about the possibility of in-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, or cloning, the original Darwin Awards book applied the following "deserted island" test to potential winners: If the person would be unable to reproduce when stranded on a deserted island with a fertile member of the opposite sex, he or she would be considered sterile. Winners of the award, in general, are either dead or become unable to use their sexual organs.

Excellence

   * Astoundingly stupid judgment.

   The candidate's foolishness must be unique and sensational, likely because the award is intended to be funny. A number of foolish but common activities, such as smoking in bed, are excluded from consideration.[5] In contrast, self-immolation caused by smoking after being administered a flammable ointment in a hospital and specifically told not to smoke[6] is grounds for nomination. One 'Honorable Mention' (a man who attempted suicide by swallowing nitroglycerine pills, and then tried to detonate them by running into a wall) is noted to be in this category, despite being intentional and self-inflicted, which would normally disqualify the inductee.[7]

Self-selection

   * Cause of one's own demise.

   Killing a friend with a hand grenade would not be eligible, but killing oneself while manufacturing a homemade chimney-cleaning device from a grenade would be eligible.[8] To earn a Darwin Award, the candidate must have killed him- or herself, rather than a third party.

Maturity

   * Capable of sound judgment.

   The nominee must be at least past the legal driving age and free of mental defect (Northcutt considers injury or death caused by mental defect to be tragic, rather than amusing, and routinely disqualifies such entries). After much discussion, there also exists a small category regarding deaths below this age limit. Entry into this category requires that the peers of the candidate be of the opinion that the actions of the person in question were above and beyond the limits of reason in their opinions.

Veracity

   * The event must be verified.

   The story must be documented by reliable sources: i.e., reputable newspaper articles, confirmed television reports, or responsible eyewitnesses. If a story is found to be untrue, it is disqualified, but particularly amusing ones are placed in the urban legend section of the archives. Despite this requirement, many of the stories are fictional, often appearing as "original submissions" and presenting no further sources than unverified (and unreliable) "eyewitnesses". Most such stories on Northcutt's Darwin Awards site are filed in the Personal Accounts section.

In addition, later revisions to the qualification criteria add several requirements that are have not been made into formalized 'rules': innocent bystanders cannot be in danger, and the qualifying event must be caused without deliberate intent (to prevent glory-seekers from purposely injuring themselves solely to win a Darwin).

Examples of Darwin award winners include:

   * Juggling active hand grenades (Croatia, 2001)[9]
   * Leaving a lit cigarette in a warehouse full of explosives (Philippines, 1999)
   * Three Palestinian terrorists accidentally blowing themselves up because of their refusal to live on "Zionist Time" (Israel, 1999)[10]
   * Jumping out of a plane to film skydivers without wearing a parachute (U.S., 1987)[11]
   * Trying to get enough light to look down the barrel of a loaded muzzle-loaded gun using a cigarette lighter (U.S., 1996)[12]
   * Using a lighter to illuminate a fuel tank to make sure it contains nothing flammable (Brazil, 2003)[13]
   * Attempting to play Russian roulette with a semi-automatic pistol that automatically loads the next round into the chamber[14]
   * Attempting Russian roulette with an unexploded landmine[15]
   * Crashing through a window and falling to one's death in trying to demonstrate that the window was unbreakable[16]


Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #32 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:07am
 
"really!!! you ask questions usually from the wrong people. or side.."

Am I? To whom, besides NPP advocates, should I address my questions?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #33 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:13am
 

viewpoint wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:55am:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:48am:
Hmmnnn....it seems that the 2 who support Nukes 100% chose not to select whose backyard they would put them in...


True to form, “it seems”, that when things don’t go your way, like all leftards you either whinge and whine or make up excuses………



Perhaps I should have put the 100% option at No.3 instead of No.1 - since 3/3 (that's 100%) right whingers aren't capable of reading more than one option...


Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
nichy
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1812
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #34 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:19am
 
I'm not sure how I feel about nuclear Power -  So will have to make two posts to fit all the Pro's and Cons in.


Is nuclear power safe for humans and the environment?
PRO (yes)

James Lovelock, PhD, Honorary Visiting Fellow at Oxford University Green College, wrote the following in his Mar. 2005 article “Our Nuclear Lifeline,” published in Readers Digest:
“Every time we click a light switch or start a car, something sinister happens. From power station chimneys and car tail-pipes, immense volumes of gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) are pumped into the sky...
If only we could avoid burning these 'fossil' fuels, global warming would lose momentum. . .A lifeline does exist and it’s dangling in front of us. . .It’s safe, proven, practical and cheap.

Our lifeline is nuclear energy…
We know nuclear energy is safe, clean and effective because, right now, 137 nuclear re-actors are generating more than one-third of Western Europe’s electricity and 440 in all are supplying one-seventh of the world’s [electricity]…
Radiation is part of our natural environment and we can live with it. All of us are exposed to natural radioactivity every minute, mostly from rocks and soil. The radiation bombarding us goes up 10 percent when we sleep next to another human. A weekend at a beach with granite rocks in Brittany or Cornwall increases it three-fold, a skiing holiday ten-fold.
How do nuclear power stations compare? The radiation from a reactor is tiny: about as much as that from our own bodies. According to the UK’s National Radiation Protection Board, doses from the entire nuclear industry amount to less than one percent of our total exposure. Medical uses such as X-rays account for 14 percent and the remainder is natural. Compared with known cancer risks such as smoking and poor diet, it reports, the risk from non-medical, man-made radiation is about 1/100th of one percent…
The Chernobyl accident is painted as one of the great industrial disasters of the twentieth century…
The fall-out from the radioactive cloud that swept Western Europe was really nothing: only one-tenth of a chest x-ray or ten days on holiday in the Alps…
Why are we so frightened? After all, if nuclear power were really as dangerous as people believe, isn’t France—with its 59 nuclear reactors making 78 percent of its power—grossly polluted and doomed? Far from it. The world’s nuclear champion is safe and its health is among the world’s best…
A Swiss study of deaths related to power generation came up with astonishing results. Nuclear turns out to be five times safer than oil, ten times safer than gas and 100 times safer than hydro-electric dams. According to the World Health Organisation, worldwide fossil-fuel pollution is responsible for three million deaths a year."

Mar. 2005 - James Lovelock, PhD 




Back to top
 

"He who does not value life does not deserve it." -- Leonardo da Vinci&&&&
 
IP Logged
 
nichy
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1812
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #35 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:20am
 
CON  (no)

Helen Caldicott, MBBS, President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, wrote the following in her 2006 book Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer:
"Miners, workers, and residents in the vicinity of the mining and milling functions, and workers involved in the enrichment processes necessary to create nuclear fuel are at risk for exposure to unhealthy amounts of radiation and have increased incidences of cancer and related diseases as a result...
Relatively small but significant amounts of radiation are released on a daily basis into the air and water during the course of mining, milling, and enriching uranium for fuel to create the nuclear energy. Additionally, a nuclear power plant cannot operate without routinely releasing radioactivity into the air and water through the normal operation of nuclear reactors. Finally, and most frighteningly, accidental releases of even more radiation are commonplace in the nuclear industry…
Radioactive gases that leak from fuel rods are also routinely released or 'vented' into the atmosphere at every nuclear reactor. These gases are temporarily stored to allow the short-lived isotopes to decay and then released to the atmosphere through engineered holes in the reactor roof and from the steam generators. This process is called 'venting.' About 100 cubic feet of radioactive gases are also released hourly from the condensers at the reactor...
Although the nuclear industry claims it is ‘emission’ free, in fact it is collectively releasing millions of curies [the standard unit of radioactivity measurement] annually. . .By contrast, coal plants release some uranium and uranium daughter products in their smoke but very little radiation compared to atomic plants, and certainly no fission products…
Quite apart from these routine radioactive releases is the almighty problem of radioactive waste. Each regular 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant generates 30 tons of extremely potent radioactive waste annually. . .the nuclear industry has yet to determine how safely to dispose of this deadly material, which remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years…
Strontium 90 is an isotope released from reactors in small amounts on a daily basis, mostly in the waste water but sometimes in air. It is often released in larger quantities when accidents occur at nuclear power plants. It is a beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of twenty-eight years—radioactively dangerous for 600 years. As a calcium analogue, strontium 90 mimics calcium in the body. After release from a nuclear power plant, it lands on the soil, where it is taken up and concentrated by orders of magnitude in grass, concentrated further in cow and goat milk and in the breasts of lactating women, where it can induce breast cancer many years later."

2006 - Helen Caldicott, MBBS  




[b]We need to weigh up both I guess to have any idea.

Although from the little I know -  the disposal of waste is a worrisome and huge factor
[/b]
Back to top
 

"He who does not value life does not deserve it." -- Leonardo da Vinci&&&&
 
IP Logged
 
viewpoint
Gold Member
*****
Offline


A joke is a very serious
thing. [Winston]

Posts: 2209
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #36 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:24am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:13am:
viewpoint wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:55am:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:48am:
Hmmnnn....it seems that the 2 who support Nukes 100% chose not to select whose backyard they would put them in...


True to form, “it seems”, that when things don’t go your way, like all leftards you either whinge and whine or make up excuses………



Perhaps I should have put the 100% option at No.3 instead of No.1 - since 3/3 (that's 100%) right whingers aren't capable of reading more than one option...





It appears that you're not capable of posting a poll to your own advantage genius.......lol
Back to top
 

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
- Sir Winston Churchill
 
IP Logged
 
aussiefree2ride
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3538
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #37 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:25am
 
Anyone who believes in AGW would at least consider nuke. It not they`re hypocrites.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #38 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:29am
 
"Anyone who believes in AGW would at least consider nuke. It not they`re hypocrites. "

I just puzzle over this "let's have a debate" garbage, as if someone is denying someone else their chance to speak.

I still haven't heard one corporation propose a plant - not one - it's all just talk by non players.

Personally, I worry about the opportunity cost of spending $300B or so on Nuclear.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #39 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:30am
 

nichy wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:19am:
I'm not sure how I feel about nuclear Power -  So will have to make two posts to fit all the Pro's and Cons in.


Is nuclear power safe for humans and the environment?
PRO (yes)


James Lovelock, PhD, Honorary Visiting Fellow at Oxford University Green College, wrote the following in his Mar. 2005 article “Our Nuclear Lifeline,” published in Readers Digest:
“Every time we click a light switch or start a car, something sinister happens. From power station chimneys and car tail-pipes, immense volumes of gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) are pumped into the sky...
If only we could avoid burning these 'fossil' fuels, global warming would lose momentum. . .A lifeline does exist and it’s dangling in front of us. . .It’s safe, proven, practical and cheap.

Our lifeline is nuclear energy…
We know nuclear energy is safe, clean and effective because, right now, 137 nuclear re-actors are generating more than one-third of Western Europe’s electricity and 440 in all are supplying one-seventh of the world’s [electricity]…
Radiation is part of our natural environment and we can live with it. All of us are exposed to natural radioactivity every minute, mostly from rocks and soil. The radiation bombarding us goes up 10 percent when we sleep next to another human. A weekend at a beach with granite rocks in Brittany or Cornwall increases it three-fold, a skiing holiday ten-fold.
How do nuclear power stations compare? The radiation from a reactor is tiny: about as much as that from our own bodies. According to the UK’s National Radiation Protection Board, doses from the entire nuclear industry amount to less than one percent of our total exposure. Medical uses such as X-rays account for 14 percent and the remainder is natural. Compared with known cancer risks such as smoking and poor diet, it reports, the risk from non-medical, man-made radiation is about 1/100th of one percent…
The Chernobyl accident is painted as one of the great industrial disasters of the twentieth century…
The fall-out from the radioactive cloud that swept Western Europe was really nothing: only one-tenth of a chest x-ray or ten days on holiday in the Alps…
Why are we so frightened? After all, if nuclear power were really as dangerous as people believe, isn’t France—with its 59 nuclear reactors making 78 percent of its power—grossly polluted and doomed? Far from it. The world’s nuclear champion is safe and its health is among the world’s best…
A Swiss study of deaths related to power generation came up with astonishing results. Nuclear turns out to be five times safer than oil, ten times safer than gas and 100 times safer than hydro-electric dams. According to the World Health Organisation, worldwide fossil-fuel pollution is responsible for three million deaths a year."

Mar. 2005 - James Lovelock, PhD  



Driving and crossing the road are safe, until one has an altercation with a vehicle - all it takes is one inattentive, rushing, arrogant, complacent and/or reckless motorist to destroy or snuff out a life...

The problem with nukes is that accidents can and do occur on a much larger and uncontrollable scale...

Nukes are safe, until one experiences a nuclear meltdown - all it takes is one inattentive, rushing, arrogant, complacent and/or reckless programmer or operator to destroy a region and snuff out countless lives...

The recent NAB fiasco occurred because one individual uploaded a corrupt file, Chernobyl occurred because safety procedures were ignored, Three Mile Island occurred because of what!?

I, for one, hope that the next Nuclear meltdown occurs sooner rather than later - and in close proximity to a large population - cos inter/national complacency has become rampant...
Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
viewpoint
Gold Member
*****
Offline


A joke is a very serious
thing. [Winston]

Posts: 2209
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #40 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:31am
 
Well Australia can just continue supplying other nations with uranium so they can take advantage of nuclear power and grow their economies whilst this country carries on hugging fking trees…….
Back to top
 

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
- Sir Winston Churchill
 
IP Logged
 
viewpoint
Gold Member
*****
Offline


A joke is a very serious
thing. [Winston]

Posts: 2209
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #41 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:41am
 
Posted by: Equitist:
Quote:
I, for one, hope that the next Nuclear meltdown occurs sooner rather than later - and in close proximity to a large population - cos inter/national complacency has become rampant...


You need help!
Back to top
 

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
- Sir Winston Churchill
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #42 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:41am
 

Both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were caused and/or exacerbated by the actions, inactions and misunderstandings of mere mortals...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Quote:
The Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear accident of catastrophic proportions that occurred on 26 April 1986, at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine (then in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, part of the Soviet Union). It is considered the worst nuclear power plant accident in history and is the only level 7 event on the International Nuclear Event Scale.

The disaster occurred on 26 April 1986, at reactor number four at the Chernobyl plant, near the town of Pripyat, during an unauthorized systems test. A sudden power output surge took place, and when an attempt was made at an emergency shutdown, a more extreme spike in power output occurred which led to the rupture of a reactor vessel as well as a series of explosions. This event exposed the graphite moderator components of the reactor to air and they ignited; the resulting fire sent a plume of radioactive fallout into the atmosphere and over an extensive area, including Pripyat.

The plume drifted over large parts of the western Soviet Union, and much of Europe. As of December 2000[update], 350,400 people had been evacuated and resettled from the most severely contaminated areas of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.[1][2] According to official post-Soviet data, up to 70% of the fallout landed in Belarus.[3]

Despite the accident, Ukraine continued to operate the remaining reactors at Chernobyl for many years. The last reactor at the site was closed down in 2000.[4]

[...]

Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have been burdened with the continuing and substantial decontamination and health care costs of the Chernobyl accident. A 2006 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the World Health Organization (WHO) states, "Among the 134 emergency workers involved in the immediate mitigation of the Chernobyl accident, severely exposed workers and firemen during the first days, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS (Acute Radiation Syndrome), and 19 more persons died in 1987-2004 from different causes. Among the general population affected by Chernobyl radioactive fallout, the much lower exposures meant that ARS cases did not occur". It is estimated that there may ultimately be a total of 4,000 deaths attributable to the accident, due to increased cancer risk.[6]

[...]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

Quote:
The Three Mile Island accident was a partial core meltdown in Unit 2 (a pressurized water reactor manufactured by Babcock & Wilcox) of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania near Harrisburg. The plant was owned and operated by General Public Utilities and the Metropolitan Edison Co. It was the most significant accident in the history of the American commercial nuclear power generating industry, resulting in the release of up to 481 PBq (13 million curies) of radioactive gases, but less than 740 GBq (20 curies) of the particularly dangerous iodine-131.[1]

The accident began at 4 a.m. on Wednesday, March 28, 1979, with failures in the non-nuclear secondary system, followed by a stuck-open pilot-operated relief valve (PORV) in the primary system, which allowed large amounts of nuclear reactor coolant to escape.

The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant operators to recognize the situation as a loss of coolant accident due to inadequate training and human factors, such as industrial design errors relating to ambiguous control room indicators in the power plant's user interface.

The scope and complexity of the accident became clear over the course of five days, as employees of Metropolitan Edison (Met Ed, the utility operating the plant), Pennsylvania state officials, and members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) tried to understand the problem, communicate the situation to the press and local community, decide whether the accident required an emergency evacuation, and ultimately end the crisis.

In the end, the reactor was brought under control, although full details of the accident were not discovered until much later, following extensive investigations by both a presidential commission and the NRC. The Kemeny Commission Report concluded that "there will either be no case of cancer or the number of cases will be so small that it will never be possible to detect them. The same conclusion applies to the other possible health effects."[2] Several epidemiological studies in the years since the accident have supported the conclusion that radiation releases from the accident had no perceptible effect on cancer incidence in residents near the plant, though these findings have been contested by one team of researchers.[3]

Public reaction to the event was probably influenced by the release of the movie The China Syndrome 12 days before the accident, depicting an accident at a nuclear reactor.[4] Communications from officials during the initial phases of the accident were felt to be confusing.[5] The accident crystallized anti-nuclear safety concerns among activists and the general public, resulted in new regulations for the nuclear industry, and has been cited as a contributor to the decline of new reactor construction that was already underway in the 1970s.

[...]

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #43 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:48am
 

viewpoint wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:41am:
Posted by: Equitist:
Quote:
I, for one, hope that the next Nuclear meltdown occurs sooner rather than later - and in close proximity to a large population - cos inter/national complacency has become rampant...


You need help!


Clearly, humanity has become so complacent about the inherently grave risks, that only a devastating reality check will put a stop to the reckless proliferation of nuke facilities...

The A380 aircraft engines were widely accepted as safe and reliable - until the recent wake-up call when one of them blew up and then it was found that several of them were ticking time-bombs...

The sooner another major nuclear accident occurs, the sooner the proliferation will stop - and ultimately fewer lives and livelihoods will be put at unnecessary risk...

Besides, what do you care, since you think I am wrong to be concerned about the risks of nukes!?

Alas, time will vindicate one of us - I remain hopeful that it won't be me...
Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
aussiefree2ride
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3538
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #44 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:55am
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:29am:
"Anyone who believes in AGW would at least consider nuke. It not they`re hypocrites. "

I just puzzle over this "let's have a debate" garbage, as if someone is denying someone else their chance to speak.

I still haven't heard one corporation propose a plant - not one - it's all just talk by non players.

Personally, I worry about the opportunity cost of spending $300B or so on Nuclear.


Ernie, you obviously don`t understand standard operational proceedures.  You can`t expect anyone to spend millions on feasability studies, etc. for no reason other than your own entertainment.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #45 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:58am
 
"You can`t expect anyone to spend millions on feasability studies,"

So tell me - what do you want? Some sort of blanket permission to build NPPs?

What are we debating?? No proposal, no locations, no technology, no players, nothing.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #46 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:01am
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:58am:
"You can`t expect anyone to spend millions on feasability studies,"

So tell me - what do you want? Some sort of blanket permission to build NPPs?

What are we debating?? No proposal, no locations, no technology, no players, nothing.


The truly pathetic thing is that we are still debating on whether or not to have a debate on the topic! There has been NO hysteria-free debate on nuclear energy in australia. it is totally emissions free and the technology is available now. it at least deserves serious consideration.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #47 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:01am
 
Hinkley Point A, B and now C.
Oldbury

Three separate power plants that were within 20 miles of where I grew up.

Not a single accident.
Not a single damaging leak.

What do they provide?

Emissions free power.

Such a problem?

Australia here suffers from insularity and ignorance on the nuclear issue. They seem to think a Chernobyl will happen every year.

That's like not getting on a plane from Melbourne to Sydney because of what happened to the Air France flight.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #48 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:02am
 

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:55am:
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:29am:
"Anyone who believes in AGW would at least consider nuke. It not they`re hypocrites. "

I just puzzle over this "let's have a debate" garbage, as if someone is denying someone else their chance to speak.

I still haven't heard one corporation propose a plant - not one - it's all just talk by non players.

Personally, I worry about the opportunity cost of spending $300B or so on Nuclear.


Ernie, you obviously don`t understand standard operational proceedures.  You can`t expect anyone to spend millions on feasability studies, etc. for no reason other than your own entertainment.


WTF!?

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #49 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:03am
 
"The truly pathetic thing is that we are still debating on whether or not to have a debate on the topic! There has been NO hysteria-free debate on nuclear energy in australia. "

Can you explain lonweekend? What is the debate that you want? What about?

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #50 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:04am
 

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:01am:
Hinkley Point A, B and now C.
Oldbury

Three separate power plants that were within 20 miles of where I grew up.

Not a single accident.
Not a single damaging leak.

What do they provide?

Emissions free power.

Such a problem?

Australia here suffers from insularity and ignorance on the nuclear issue. They seem to think a Chernobyl will happen every year.

That's like not getting on a plane from Melbourne to Sydney because of what happened to the Air France flight.


So, you would be happy for your offspring to be devoured in that Nuclear triangle today!?


Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
aussiefree2ride
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3538
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #51 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:07am
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:58am:
"You can`t expect anyone to spend millions on feasability studies,"

So tell me - what do you want? Some sort of blanket permission to build NPPs?

What are we debating?? No proposal, no locations, no technology, no players, nothing.


You can`t be serious.
Do you really mean to tell us you STILL don`t get it?
Aren`t you embarrassed?
I`m actually embarrassed for you, so you should be embarrassed.
Alright, I`ll explain it.

All ideas, policies, proposals, projects etc. begin with discussion.  We know how tardies think everything is just automatically done for them, but it does actually take work.  You see, it`s like this, picture ancient Rome for example.  Do you really think a company of exceptionally nice Romans got together and just built the Colosseum, and then said to the people, "well, do you like it?". 

We all know that tardies think milk just happens to get into milk containers by itself, and that cornflakes just grow in those cardboard boxes, but that`s not how it works.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
aussiefree2ride
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3538
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #52 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:10am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:02am:
aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:55am:
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:29am:
"Anyone who believes in AGW would at least consider nuke. It not they`re hypocrites. "

I just puzzle over this "let's have a debate" garbage, as if someone is denying someone else their chance to speak.

I still haven't heard one corporation propose a plant - not one - it's all just talk by non players.

Personally, I worry about the opportunity cost of spending $300B or so on Nuclear.


Ernie, you obviously don`t understand standard operational proceedures.  You can`t expect anyone to spend millions on feasability studies, etc. for no reason other than your own entertainment.


WTF!?




Oh no, another one.  I can`t think of a simpler way to explain it. Shocked
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
codswal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2070
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #53 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:11am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:04am:
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:01am:
Hinkley Point A, B and now C.
Oldbury

Three separate power plants that were within 20 miles of where I grew up.

Not a single accident.
Not a single damaging leak.

What do they provide?

Emissions free power.

Such a problem?

Australia here suffers from insularity and ignorance on the nuclear issue. They seem to think a Chernobyl will happen every year.

That's like not getting on a plane from Melbourne to Sydney because of what happened to the Air France flight.


So, you would be happy for your offspring to be devoured in that Nuclear triangle today!?





oh nooooooooo.. not the old PANIC BUTTON again..

andrei has a point nem   are you boycotting Qantas after the engine falling off..lol..

dont you know more people die in bed.

you believe mankind can change the climate......OK....

so why dont you believe mankind can make a foolproof nuclear power station...safe for everyone... come on its all in the science after all..
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #54 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:12am
 


May the debate continue - and may the LibLabs wedge themselves firmly at odds with the broader electorate...

I'm happy for a referendum on nukes - as long as a price on carbon is a precursor and that the nuke question is phrased such that pro-nuclear electors must also agree for a nuclear plant to be located near them...

Heck, I reckon that the votes should be tagged by electorate - such that those seats with the highest pro-nuclear vote must by default accept a plant to be located at the centre of those electorates...

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #55 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:12am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:04am:
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:01am:
Hinkley Point A, B and now C.
Oldbury

Three separate power plants that were within 20 miles of where I grew up.

Not a single accident.
Not a single damaging leak.

What do they provide?

Emissions free power.

Such a problem?

Australia here suffers from insularity and ignorance on the nuclear issue. They seem to think a Chernobyl will happen every year.

That's like not getting on a plane from Melbourne to Sydney because of what happened to the Air France flight.


So, you would be happy for your offspring to be devoured in that Nuclear triangle today!?




I would be happy for my daughters to grow up where I did and have no concerns that those power plants provide anything other than emissions free power.

Indeed, right now in California, we live probably not that far from one.

Scare tactics have over-shadowed the debate for too long down in Australia.

Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #56 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:19am
 

codswal wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:11am:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:04am:
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:01am:
Hinkley Point A, B and now C.
Oldbury

Three separate power plants that were within 20 miles of where I grew up.

Not a single accident.
Not a single damaging leak.

What do they provide?

Emissions free power.

Such a problem?

Australia here suffers from insularity and ignorance on the nuclear issue. They seem to think a Chernobyl will happen every year.

That's like not getting on a plane from Melbourne to Sydney because of what happened to the Air France flight.


So, you would be happy for your offspring to be devoured in that Nuclear triangle today!?





oh nooooooooo.. not the old PANIC BUTTON again..

andrei has a point nem   are you boycotting Qantas after the engine falling off..lol..

dont you know more people die in bed.

you believe mankind can change the climate......OK....

so why dont you believe mankind can make a foolproof nuclear power station...safe for everyone... come on its all in the science after all..


Speaking of beds, a cousin of mine died in her own bedroom - because she tripped over a mat and hit her head on a chest of drawers...

Sadly, my father (an OH&S Officer), had previously warned about the dangerous placement of mats in that household - because he had had the unfortunate experience of losing 2 workmates whom had died at work in similar circumstances...

The sister-in-law of an acquaintance died in her lounge room from death by mat near coffee table...

The son-in-law of another acquaintance died in his stationwagon from death by briefcase - apparently, he had a bad habit of speeding up to traffic lights and stopping suddenly...

You see: accidents happen - and nukes are definitely not worth the risk!
Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #57 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:24am
 

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:12am:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:04am:
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:01am:
Hinkley Point A, B and now C.
Oldbury

Three separate power plants that were within 20 miles of where I grew up.

Not a single accident.
Not a single damaging leak.

What do they provide?

Emissions free power.

Such a problem?

Australia here suffers from insularity and ignorance on the nuclear issue. They seem to think a Chernobyl will happen every year.

That's like not getting on a plane from Melbourne to Sydney because of what happened to the Air France flight.


So, you would be happy for your offspring to be devoured in that Nuclear triangle today!?




I would be happy for my daughters to grow up where I did and have no concerns that those power plants provide anything other than emissions free power.

Indeed, right now in California, we live probably not that far from one.

Scare tactics have over-shadowed the debate for too long down in Australia.



I am not using scare tactics:  I genuinely fear the uncontrollable energy of nukes - and I don't trust my fellow human beings to design and operate a sufficiently fool-proof and fail-safe system...

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #58 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:24am
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:03am:
"The truly pathetic thing is that we are still debating on whether or not to have a debate on the topic! There has been NO hysteria-free debate on nuclear energy in australia. "

Can you explain lonweekend? What is the debate that you want? What about?



A serious debate without the hysteria. fact filled and with genuine opinions expressed AND permitted. we have never got anywhere near there. all we end up with is equitist-style paranoia and exaggeration.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #59 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:27am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:12am:
May the debate continue - and may the LibLabs wedge themselves firmly at odds with the broader electorate...

I'm happy for a referendum on nukes - as long as a price on carbon is a precursor and that the nuke question is phrased such that pro-nuclear electors must also agree for a nuclear plant to be located near them...

Heck, I reckon that the votes should be tagged by electorate - such that those seats with the highest pro-nuclear vote must by default accept a plant to be located at the centre of those electorates...



and how about the nuclear rejecting electorates being forced to accept a coal power station in their electorate OR be denied electricty at all?

Fair to you?
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #60 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:28am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:24am:
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:12am:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:04am:
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:01am:
Hinkley Point A, B and now C.
Oldbury

Three separate power plants that were within 20 miles of where I grew up.

Not a single accident.
Not a single damaging leak.

What do they provide?

Emissions free power.

Such a problem?

Australia here suffers from insularity and ignorance on the nuclear issue. They seem to think a Chernobyl will happen every year.

That's like not getting on a plane from Melbourne to Sydney because of what happened to the Air France flight.


So, you would be happy for your offspring to be devoured in that Nuclear triangle today!?




I would be happy for my daughters to grow up where I did and have no concerns that those power plants provide anything other than emissions free power.

Indeed, right now in California, we live probably not that far from one.

Scare tactics have over-shadowed the debate for too long down in Australia.



I am not using scare tactics:  I genuinely fear the uncontrollable energy of nukes - and I don't trust my fellow human beings to design and operate a sufficiently fool-proof and fail-safe system...



all you have is uncontrollable FEAR. period. hardly the basis for rational discussion.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
viewpoint
Gold Member
*****
Offline


A joke is a very serious
thing. [Winston]

Posts: 2209
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #61 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:28am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:48am:
viewpoint wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:41am:
Posted by: Equitist:
Quote:
I, for one, hope that the next Nuclear meltdown occurs sooner rather than later - and in close proximity to a large population - cos inter/national complacency has become rampant...


You need help!


Clearly, humanity has become so complacent about the inherently grave risks, that only a devastating reality check will put a stop to the reckless proliferation of nuke facilities...

The A380 aircraft engines were widely accepted as safe and reliable - until the recent wake-up call when one of them blew up and then it was found that several of them were ticking time-bombs...

The sooner another major nuclear accident occurs, the sooner the proliferation will stop - and ultimately fewer lives and livelihoods will be put at unnecessary risk...

Besides, what do you care, since you think I am wrong to be concerned about the risks of nukes!?

Alas, time will vindicate one of us - I remain hopeful that it won't be me...



Anybody who can think in those terms needs to be committed to a secure facility where they can be kept away from sane people!




Back to top
 

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
- Sir Winston Churchill
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #62 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:29am
 
Longweekend, again I ask - about what? What is the question?

"Shall we have x number of NPPs in Australia"? Sans any other detail?

I don't get it.

Maybe I'm missing one thing - is there legislation preventing the state govt approval of a NPP?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #63 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:30am
 
"A serious debate without the hysteria. fact filled and with genuine opinions expressed AND permitted."

Again - who is denying anyone the right to speak on this matter?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #64 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:34am
 

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:28am:
Quote:
I am not using scare tactics:  I genuinely fear the uncontrollable energy of nukes - and I don't trust my fellow human beings to design and operate a sufficiently fool-proof and fail-safe system...



all you have is uncontrollable FEAR. period. hardly the basis for rational discussion.


Says one who is in irrational denial over the inherent risks posed by nukes...


viewpoint wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:28am:
Quote:

Clearly, humanity has become so complacent about the inherently grave risks, that only a devastating reality check will put a stop to the reckless proliferation of nuke facilities...

The A380 aircraft engines were widely accepted as safe and reliable - until the recent wake-up call when one of them blew up and then it was found that several of them were ticking time-bombs...

The sooner another major nuclear accident occurs, the sooner the proliferation will stop - and ultimately fewer lives and livelihoods will be put at unnecessary risk...

Besides, what do you care, since you think I am wrong to be concerned about the risks of nukes!?

Alas, time will vindicate one of us - I remain hopeful that it won't be me...



Anybody who can think in those terms needs to be committed to a secure facility where they can be kept away from sane people!



Says another who is in irrational denial over the inherent risks posed by nukes...

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
codswal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2070
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #65 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:35am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:19am:
codswal wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:11am:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:04am:
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:01am:
Hinkley Point A, B and now C.
Oldbury

Three separate power plants that were within 20 miles of where I grew up.

Not a single accident.
Not a single damaging leak.

What do they provide?

Emissions free power.

Such a problem?

Australia here suffers from insularity and ignorance on the nuclear issue. They seem to think a Chernobyl will happen every year.

That's like not getting on a plane from Melbourne to Sydney because of what happened to the Air France flight.


So, you would be happy for your offspring to be devoured in that Nuclear triangle today!?





oh nooooooooo.. not the old PANIC BUTTON again..

andrei has a point nem   are you boycotting Qantas after the engine falling off..lol..

dont you know more people die in bed.

you believe mankind can change the climate......OK....

so why dont you believe mankind can make a foolproof nuclear power station...safe for everyone... come on its all in the science after all..


Speaking of beds, a cousin of mine died in her own bedroom - because she tripped over a mat and hit her head on a chest of drawers...

Sadly, my father (an OH&S Officer), had previously warned about the dangerous placement of mats in that household - because he had had the unfortunate experience of losing 2 workmates whom had died at work in similar circumstances...

The sister-in-law of an acquaintance died in her lounge room from death by mat near coffee table...

The son-in-law of another acquaintance died in his stationwagon from death by briefcase - apparently, he had a bad habit of speeding up to traffic lights and stopping suddenly...

You see: accidents happen - and nukes are definitely not worth the risk!




LOL nem with a history like that I think you are more to be avoided than any nuclear plant...sorry but you could be the jinx... hahahaha.. oh lighten up nem try thinking on the positive side for a change all that negativity makes wrinkles.....
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #66 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:38am
 

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:27am:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:12am:
May the debate continue - and may the LibLabs wedge themselves firmly at odds with the broader electorate...

I'm happy for a referendum on nukes - as long as a price on carbon is a precursor and that the nuke question is phrased such that pro-nuclear electors must also agree for a nuclear plant to be located near them...

Heck, I reckon that the votes should be tagged by electorate - such that those seats with the highest pro-nuclear vote must by default accept a plant to be located at the centre of those electorates...



and how about the nuclear rejecting electorates being forced to accept a coal power station in their electorate OR be denied electricty at all?

Fair to you?


LOL...it's not a question of coal or nukes - and you know it!

Renewables (and responsible consumption) are the long-term answers - and the sooner we that we make the paradigm shift towards renewables (and sustainability) the better...

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #67 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:42am
 

codswal wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:35am:
Quote:
You see: accidents happen - and nukes are definitely not worth the risk!




LOL nem with a history like that I think you are more to be avoided than any nuclear plant...sorry but you could be the jinx... hahahaha.. oh lighten up nem try thinking on the positive side for a change all that negativity makes wrinkles.....



Yer, well...I have felt somewhat jinxed...that Murphy is always travelling with me...

So, I guess that rules out a nuke plant for my neighbours too!

Now, there's just the small matter of those 3 nearby coal-fired power plants and Murphy's antics to contend with...

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #68 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:47am
 


OK, Ernie...I've been ruled out of the debate for being too irrational and paranoid - so, I'll leave it to you to deal with the pro-nukes...
Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #69 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:49am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:47am:
OK, Ernie...I've been ruled out of the debate for being too irrational and paranoid - so, I'll leave it to you to deal with the pro-nukes...


If being irrational rules people out of debates, I am not sure you'd ever be allowed to open your mouth.

Hysteria, irrationality, ardent socialism, left wing nutjob is pretty much your mode du jour.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #70 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:54am
 

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:49am:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:47am:
OK, Ernie...I've been ruled out of the debate for being too irrational and paranoid - so, I'll leave it to you to deal with the pro-nukes...


If being irrational rules people out of debates, I am not sure you'd ever be allowed to open your mouth.

Hysteria, irrationality, ardent socialism, left wing nutjob is pretty much your mode du jour.


Awww shucks - from you, Android, I'll take that as a compliment...

Roll Eyes

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #71 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:56am
 
I think possibly the worst thing in all that is to be labelled a Socialist.

That's one of the most offensive labels someone could have nowadays in my book.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #72 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:56am
 
"I'll leave it to you to deal with the pro-nukes..."

Hmmm .... if any of them would attempt to answer my questions without broad, sweeping, paranoid sounding statements, I might make some progress.

They seem to want a "debate", without really saying what that entails.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #73 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:02am
 
How about the fact we have enjoyed emissions free power in the UK and USA for decades without incident?

How about Australia being one of the worst polluters per capita in the world may actually be related to the fact you don't have any nuclear power plants?

How about the fact the Green lobby and assorted nutcases jump on the bandwagon of unfortunate accidents in third world conditions to state this will obviously happen?

The USSR was a banana republic in all but name with their funding in the late 1980s - if you don't keep up the controls then accidents will happen.

The answer to that?
Don't have any power-plants at all?

So planes crash. Is the answer to ban aeroplanes?

Or how about having regulations? Shocking huh....
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #74 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:03am
 
Did anyone deny you the opportunity to say those things, hicks?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
nichy
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1812
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #75 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:04am
 
Australia seems to be lagging behind the rest of the world.


The United States has by far the most nuclear power plants, with more than one hundred currently in operation. All told, nuclear power in the United States accounts for just over 20% of the country’s energy needs. A large push is being made by some factions to ramp up the number of nuclear power plants in the country, hoping to add another thirty plants in the coming years, to wean the nation off of a dependence on foreign oil.

Both France and Japan have more than fifty nuclear power plants each in their countries, France with fifty-nine and Japan with fifty-five. France is one of only a handful of nations to produce the majority of its energy using nuclear power, and meets some 77% of its needs that way, the largest percentage of any nation in the world. Japan covers roughly 30% of its energy needs through nuclear power.

Russia has thirty-one nuclear power plants in its country, producing just over 15% of its total energy needs. After a period of relative stagnation in nuclear power development, following the catastrophic meltdown at Chernobyl, Russia has undertaken plans to grow its nuclear power generation immensely. Sixteen new plants are either currently being built or have been ordered, while another nineteen have been proposed, making it one of the most ambitious growth projects currently underway.

Only a handful of other nations have more than fifteen nuclear power plants, many of them countries which built their plants years ago. Germany produces roughly a quarter of their energy through their seventeen nuclear power plants, but they are currently decommissioning them and moving to other energy production methods. The Ukraine has fifteen power plants, responsible for roughly half of their energy needs, and are planning on adding another thirteen plants by the year 2030. Canada, India, the United Kingdom, and South Korea also each have more than fifteen power plants, with both India and South Korea planning on growing that number substantially in the future.

Only four countries aside from France generate more than half of their energy through nuclear power. Sweden’s ten plants account for just over 50% of their energy, Belgium’s seven make up 54% of their energy, although they are considering decommissioning them, Slovakia’s six plants generate just over 50% of their energy, and Lithuania’s single nuclear power plant meets 64% of their energy needs.

A number of countries have undertaken ambitious programs to grow their nuclear power generation enormously in the coming years. Both Brazil and China are at the forefront of this movement. With only two current nuclear power plants, Brazil generates very little of their energy through nuclear power, but they have plans to build another fifty plants soon. China has the most ambitious growth program, aiming to add another hundred nuclear power plants to their existing ten, which would cover roughly a fifth of their energy needs, and make them the top producer of nuclear power in the world.


http://www.wisegeek.com/which-countries-have-nuclear-power.htm

Back to top
 

"He who does not value life does not deserve it." -- Leonardo da Vinci&&&&
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #76 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:04am
 

Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:56am:
"I'll leave it to you to deal with the pro-nukes..."

Hmmm .... if any of them would attempt to answer my questions without broad, sweeping, paranoid sounding statements, I might make some progress.

They seem to want a "debate", without really saying what that entails.


I know: they want a thorough costs-benefits analysis on nukes - and they won't support any nuclear legislation until they've got one!?
Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #77 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:06am
 
"I know: they want a thorough costs-benefits analysis on nukes - and they won't support any nuclear legislation until they've got one!?"

Lol.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #78 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:07am
 


nichy wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:04am:
Australia seems to be lagging behind the rest of the world.


The United States has by far the most nuclear power plants, with more than one hundred currently in operation. All told, nuclear power in the United States accounts for just over 20% of the country’s energy needs. A large push is being made by some factions to ramp up the number of nuclear power plants in the country, hoping to add another thirty plants in the coming years, to wean the nation off of a dependence on foreign oil.

Both France and Japan have more than fifty nuclear power plants each in their countries, France with fifty-nine and Japan with fifty-five. France is one of only a handful of nations to produce the majority of its energy using nuclear power, and meets some 77% of its needs that way, the largest percentage of any nation in the world. Japan covers roughly 30% of its energy needs through nuclear power.

Russia has thirty-one nuclear power plants in its country, producing just over 15% of its total energy needs. After a period of relative stagnation in nuclear power development, following the catastrophic meltdown at Chernobyl, Russia has undertaken plans to grow its nuclear power generation immensely. Sixteen new plants are either currently being built or have been ordered, while another nineteen have been proposed, making it one of the most ambitious growth projects currently underway.

Only a handful of other nations have more than fifteen nuclear power plants, many of them countries which built their plants years ago. Germany produces roughly a quarter of their energy through their seventeen nuclear power plants, but they are currently decommissioning them and moving to other energy production methods. The Ukraine has fifteen power plants, responsible for roughly half of their energy needs, and are planning on adding another thirteen plants by the year 2030. Canada, India, the United Kingdom, and South Korea also each have more than fifteen power plants, with both India and South Korea planning on growing that number substantially in the future.

Only four countries aside from France generate more than half of their energy through nuclear power. Sweden’s ten plants account for just over 50% of their energy, Belgium’s seven make up 54% of their energy, although they are considering decommissioning them, Slovakia’s six plants generate just over 50% of their energy, and Lithuania’s single nuclear power plant meets 64% of their energy needs.

A number of countries have undertaken ambitious programs to grow their nuclear power generation enormously in the coming years. Both Brazil and China are at the forefront of this movement. With only two current nuclear power plants, Brazil generates very little of their energy through nuclear power, but they have plans to build another fifty plants soon. China has the most ambitious growth program, aiming to add another hundred nuclear power plants to their existing ten, which would cover roughly a fifth of their energy needs, and make them the top producer of nuclear power in the world.


http://www.wisegeek.com/which-countries-have-nuclear-power.htm




Hmmnnn....why is Germany decommissioning their nuke plants?

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #79 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:21am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:34am:
longweekend58 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:28am:
Quote:
I am not using scare tactics:  I genuinely fear the uncontrollable energy of nukes - and I don't trust my fellow human beings to design and operate a sufficiently fool-proof and fail-safe system...



all you have is uncontrollable FEAR. period. hardly the basis for rational discussion.


Says one who is in irrational denial over the inherent risks posed by nukes...


viewpoint wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:28am:
Quote:

Clearly, humanity has become so complacent about the inherently grave risks, that only a devastating reality check will put a stop to the reckless proliferation of nuke facilities...

The A380 aircraft engines were widely accepted as safe and reliable - until the recent wake-up call when one of them blew up and then it was found that several of them were ticking time-bombs...

The sooner another major nuclear accident occurs, the sooner the proliferation will stop - and ultimately fewer lives and livelihoods will be put at unnecessary risk...

Besides, what do you care, since you think I am wrong to be concerned about the risks of nukes!?

Alas, time will vindicate one of us - I remain hopeful that it won't be me...



Anybody who can think in those terms needs to be committed to a secure facility where they can be kept away from sane people!



Says another who is in irrational denial over the inherent risks posed by nukes...



Quick question Equit...
WHEN was the last nuclear reactor accident that injured a civilian????
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #80 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:28am
 

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:21am:
Quick question Equit...
WHEN was the last nuclear reactor accident that injured a civilian????


More to the point: -

WHEN was the last disclosed nuclear reactor accident that injured a civilian????

WHEN and WHERE will be the next nuclear reactor accident that injures a civilian????

Feeling lucky????

Hint: most people buy lottery and lotto tickets on worse odds of winning the big one - KABOOM!!!!

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Verge
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6329
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #81 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:34am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:28am:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:21am:
Quick question Equit...
WHEN was the last nuclear reactor accident that injured a civilian????


More to the point: -

WHEN was the last disclosed nuclear reactor accident that injured a civilian????

WHEN and WHERE will be the next nuclear reactor accident that injures a civilian????

Feeling lucky????

Hint: most people buy lottery and lotto tickets on worse odds of winning the big one - KABOOM!!!!



How can we hace debate when this kind of fear mongering goes on.

I'd put money on it more people have died from backyard swimming pools in a year than nuclear power related deaths
Back to top
 

And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #82 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:36am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:28am:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:21am:
Quick question Equit...
WHEN was the last nuclear reactor accident that injured a civilian????


More to the point: -

WHEN was the last disclosed nuclear reactor accident that injured a civilian????

WHEN and WHERE will be the next nuclear reactor accident that injures a civilian????

Feeling lucky????

Hint: most people buy lottery and lotto tickets on worse odds of winning the big one - KABOOM!!!!



Sim-cities and other (otherwise marvellous) action games aside, what's the mechanism for Kaboom? I know of none.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
darkhall67
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1935
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #83 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:39am
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/461446.stm

"Japan is facing an unprecedented nuclear emergency after a major uranium leak.

Radiation levels at the Tokaimura nuclear fuel-processing plant in north-east Japan are 15,000 times higher than normal.


The authorities have warned thousands of residents near the site of the accident to stay indoors and to wash off any rain that falls on them."

"Three workers from the plant have been taken to hospital and hundreds have been forced to leave their homes.



One of the three workers in hospital is reported to be in a serious condition, suffering from continuous vomiting."



http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0810-02.htm

"Japan's worst accident at a nuclear power plant has shaken public confidence in the industry's safety record with activists blaming the country's lax nuclear regulations for the mishap that killed four and injured seven others at the plant west of the capital.

''The lives of the workers could have been saved if proper checks were carried out on the plant. The accident has revealed a blatant disregard for protecting people from nuclear power accidents,'' Kazue Suzuki, a nuclear power expert at Greenpeace Japan, told IPS.

The accident occurred on Monday after super-heated steam leaked through a hole in a pipe that feeds steam in the turbine facility of the Mihama Nuclear Power Plant, the second reactor among three operated in Fukui Prefecture, 300 kilometers west of Tokyo."
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #84 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:40am
 
mantra wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 7:46am:
Labor will have to move quickly - there's a new senate in July next year.

Nuclear power legislation will be blocked - and so it should be. The cost of one station will equal that of the NBN and it will be 15 years before it's up and running.



You think it will be built with public money?

If it's going to be government run, I'll change my vote.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #85 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:41am
 
"How can we hace debate when this kind of fear mongering goes on."

Now YOU want to censor people?

There is nothing stopping debate on this issue in Australia.

And, as I keep saying, we would all be better off if someone on the PRO side came up with an actual proposal.

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



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #86 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:43am
 
darkhall67 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:39am:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/461446.stm

"Japan is facing an unprecedented nuclear emergency after a major uranium leak.


11 years ago? How many thousands of people have died as a result of coal fired power stations since that one fatality?
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Verge
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6329
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #87 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:44am
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:41am:
"How can we hace debate when this kind of fear mongering goes on."

Now YOU want to censor people?

There is nothing stopping debate on this issue in Australia.

And, as I keep saying, we would all be better off if someone on the PRO side came up with an actual proposal.



How about thy show some proof on these allegations first.

Those kinds of allegations is like saying "all cops are crooks".  Its baseless.
Back to top
 

And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13
 
IP Logged
 
darkhall67
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1935
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #88 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:45am
 
The second one was in 2004
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
darkhall67
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1935
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #89 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:46am
 
The second one was in 2004
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #90 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:47am
 
"How about thy show some proof on these allegations first."

So you don't like what one person says, so "end of debate"???
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
darkhall67
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1935
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #91 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:48am
 

two fatalities in the first one , four fatalities in the second.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
darkhall67
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1935
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #92 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:51am
 
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/IG20Dh01.html


Jul 20, 2007

"Japan's nuclear plans in disarray
By Suvendrini Kakuchi

TOKYO - Reports of radiation leakages at a nuclear power plant after the Niigata earthquake on Monday have raised widespread public alarm and dealt a devastating blow to the Japanese government's plans to boost the nuclear-power industry, both domestically and abroad.

"The problems now being reported from the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant are deeply alarming. They prove that Japan is not prepared for a nuclear-power disaster, especially during an earthquake, and can never be,'' said Professor Hiroaki Koide, a



nuclear-safety specialist at Kyoto University"
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #93 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:54am
 
Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 6:59am:
One of the ALP's main policies was No Nuclear Power.
I say WAS as looks like that is about to change.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/labor-ready-to-say-bewdy-nuke/story-e6freuy9-1225963533476





Was this an election promise?


Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #94 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:54am
 
muso wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:40am:
You think it will be built with public money?

If it's going to be government run, I'll change my vote.


Of course there will be a massive amount of government funding going into it - although I assume it will be privately owned. We don't have the expertise here to run a NP station and all personnel will be imported. We have nowhere to store the waste and if you remember - Howard was spruiking that 25 NP stations should be littered up and down the east coast.

I believe that a deal was signed with the GNEC - Global Nuclear Energy Partnership - with Bush at the 2007 APEC meeting for these NP stations and that we are destined for them whether we want it or not.

All the deals made by the Coalition are being fulfilled by Labor. Martin Ferguson is a nuclear lobbyist and a possible Liberal plant - although who can tell the difference between either party's members these days.

We should be well on the way to huge investments in renewable energy at present - but here we are opening more and more longwall coal mines and considering Nuclear Power plants.


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


Australian Politics

Posts: 6329
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #95 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:55am
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:47am:
"How about thy show some proof on these allegations first."

So you don't like what one person says, so "end of debate"???

It makes it impossible to counter an baseless claim, hence there is no debate to be had.
Back to top
 

And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #96 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:56am
 
codswal wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:35am:
longweekend58 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:13am:
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 7:53am:
I love this call - let's have a debate about having a debate.

OK, I'll start - where is a specific proposal for one of the NPPs?

68% or so of Australians don't want one in their back yards - so there's a question to be answered.

What technology, and where, and who is going to build it?


No one ever wants ANYTHING in their backyard so thats nothing special. no development or infrastructure EVER gets local support. And in australia here is PLENTY of space so that it is not close to anyone.

----


well they dont want dams either do they... so now they find out they will be drinking water contaminated by sewage thanks to the desalination plants..give me a dam any day..

as for the dingaling that thinks 3 people make a policy...lol..




I guess that the aboriginals will claim for compensation for destroying "native" grasses
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #97 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 12:04pm
 
"It makes it impossible to counter an baseless claim"

Gee, is this the first time you've experienced that?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #98 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 12:07pm
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:28am:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:21am:
Quick question Equit...
WHEN was the last nuclear reactor accident that injured a civilian????


More to the point: -

WHEN was the last disclosed nuclear reactor accident that injured a civilian????

WHEN and WHERE will be the next nuclear reactor accident that injures a civilian????

Feeling lucky????

Hint: most people buy lottery and lotto tickets on worse odds of winning the big one - KABOOM!!!!



Do you not travel on planes because some have crashed?
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #99 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 12:09pm
 
Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:56am:
codswal wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:35am:
longweekend58 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:13am:
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 7:53am:
I love this call - let's have a debate about having a debate.

OK, I'll start - where is a specific proposal for one of the NPPs?

68% or so of Australians don't want one in their back yards - so there's a question to be answered.

What technology, and where, and who is going to build it?


No one ever wants ANYTHING in their backyard so thats nothing special. no development or infrastructure EVER gets local support. And in australia here is PLENTY of space so that it is not close to anyone.

----


well they dont want dams either do they... so now they find out they will be drinking water contaminated by sewage thanks to the desalination plants..give me a dam any day..

as for the dingaling that thinks 3 people make a policy...lol..




I guess that the aboriginals will claim for compensation for destroying "native" grasses


Those layabouts woulf lay a claim if someone sneezed in the wrong direction.

If we're going to talk about technology and advancement, I am not sure those useless fkers can contribute with anything meaningful.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #100 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 12:17pm
 


Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 12:07pm:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:28am:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:21am:
Quick question Equit...
WHEN was the last nuclear reactor accident that injured a civilian????


More to the point: -

WHEN was the last disclosed nuclear reactor accident that injured a civilian????

WHEN and WHERE will be the next nuclear reactor accident that injures a civilian????

Feeling lucky????

Hint: most people buy lottery and lotto tickets on worse odds of winning the big one - KABOOM!!!!



Do you not travel on planes because some have crashed?



Yes, occasionally I do - I plan to fly to California in a matter of weeks...

Which reminds me: I must find our passports - pronto - or fork out over $600 for new ones!


Verge wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:55am:
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:47am:
"How about thy show some proof on these allegations first."

So you don't like what one person says, so "end of debate"???

It makes it impossible to counter an baseless claim, hence there is no debate to be had.



This answer applies to everyone who has challenged my opposition to nukes: some risks are not worth taking - period!

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #101 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 12:18pm
 
darkhall67 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:46am:
The second one was in 2004


And if you mean THIS...
"Japan's worst accident at a nuclear power plant has shaken public confidence in the industry's safety record with activists blaming the country's lax nuclear regulations for the mishap that killed four and injured seven others at the plant west of the capital.

''The lives of the workers could have been saved if proper checks were carried out on the plant. The accident has revealed a blatant disregard for protecting people from nuclear power accidents,'' Kazue Suzuki, a nuclear power expert at Greenpeace Japan, told IPS.

The accident occurred on Monday after super-heated steam leaked through a hole in a pipe that feeds steam in the turbine facility of the Mihama Nuclear Power Plant, the second reactor among three operated in Fukui Prefecture, 300 kilometers west of Tokyo." 

Then it doesn't really count....it was a leaking STEAM pipe, not damage to the reactor...The same accident could occur at a natural gas or coal fueled turbine power plant...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #102 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 12:23pm
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 12:17pm:
Yes, occasionally I do - I plan to fly to California in a matter of weeks...

Which reminds me: I must find our passports - pronto - or fork out over $600 for new ones!



But there have been plane crashes and people killed.
Surely you are recklessly putting your children at risk?
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
darkhall67
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1935
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #103 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 12:24pm
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 12:18pm:
darkhall67 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:46am:
The second one was in 2004


And if you mean THIS...
"Japan's worst accident at a nuclear power plant has shaken public confidence in the industry's safety record with activists blaming the country's lax nuclear regulations for the mishap that killed four and injured seven others at the plant west of the capital.

''The lives of the workers could have been saved if proper checks were carried out on the plant. The accident has revealed a blatant disregard for protecting people from nuclear power accidents,'' Kazue Suzuki, a nuclear power expert at Greenpeace Japan, told IPS.

The accident occurred on Monday after super-heated steam leaked through a hole in a pipe that feeds steam in the turbine facility of the Mihama Nuclear Power Plant, the second reactor among three operated in Fukui Prefecture, 300 kilometers west of Tokyo."  

Then it doesn't really count....it was a leaking STEAM pipe, not damage to the reactor...The same accident could occur at a natural gas or coal fueled turbine power plant...





Furry muff
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #104 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 12:27pm
 

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 12:23pm:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 12:17pm:
Yes, occasionally I do - I plan to fly to California in a matter of weeks...

Which reminds me: I must find our passports - pronto - or fork out over $600 for new ones!



But there have been plane crashes and people killed.
Surely you are recklessly putting your children at risk?


Indeed, and we will be going on two flights of less than 24hours on two days in one month of one year of one decade - our second international trip in 2 decades - which is not quite the same as living within 2km (or even 24km) of a nuclear power plant, day in and day out, month after month, year after year, decade after decade...

Now, assuming that we arrive safely, are you gonna come and watch my son perform or not!?
Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #105 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 12:55pm
 
List of civilian nuclear accidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents


List of aviation accidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercia...


You should pray for a nuclear power plant in your backyard and don't even think about going near an airport.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #106 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 12:57pm
 
Since this silly analogy keeps running, can you tell me

When do they stop counting the people injured in a nuclear accident?

When a plane crashes, is it normal practice to evacuate hundreds of square miles and prohibit entry for decades?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
skippy.
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20882
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #107 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 1:38pm
 
The questions need to be asked
1 how much will one cost? then times it by how ever many we need.
2 Why have one in this country? we have more sunshine than most countries in the word. We can build an industry of solar power and supply the world. We are surrounded by sea, so wave power could be a much cheaper option.
3 We have sh it loads of natural gas, already there., not to mention Geo thermal, all at a much lower cost than nuke.
The list goes on, why pour sh it loads of money into something that even if we began building it today would be 10 plus years and BILLIONS of dollars away( is the correct muso?)
4 Nukes may be good for countries without natural energy sources ,like Aus, but even then, countries like Germany, hardly a tropical paradise,are embracing solar energy, why wouldn't we?
Back to top
 

  freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #108 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 2:58pm
 
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/nuclear-power-failing-price-test-20101130-18fjb.html

Dr Diesendorf, the deputy director of the Institute of Environmental Studies, said the cost of building a nuclear power plant has risen rapidly since 2002, from more than $US2000 per kw of generation capacity installed, to about $US7400 per kw.

The latest capital cost translates to about US15¢ per kwh of electricity generated, which is projected to rise to about 20¢ per kwh over the next decade, if costs continue to rise at current rates.

The figures do not count subsidies for nuclear energy such as loan guarantees, land acquired for buffer zones around reactors or decommissioning costs.

By comparison the study cites big falls in the capital cost of onshore wind power last year, from $1900 per kw to $1700 per kw, and in solar from $7000 per kw to $5120 per kw (and as low as $3000 for utility-scale projects).

None of the projections assume a carbon price.

Dr Diesendorf said the cost of nuclear energy was rising because the industry was "not expanding".

Nuclear's share of global power generation had fallen from 17 per cent in 2001 to 14 per cent last year with the main growth coming from China, Russia, India and South Korea.

Only two reactors were under construction in western countries – in Finland and France – and both were over-time and over-budget.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #109 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:04pm
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:07am:
nichy wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:04am:
Australia seems to be lagging behind the rest of the world.


The United States has by far the most nuclear power plants, with more than one hundred currently in operation. All told, nuclear power in the United States accounts for just over 20% of the country’s energy needs. A large push is being made by some factions to ramp up the number of nuclear power plants in the country, hoping to add another thirty plants in the coming years, to wean the nation off of a dependence on foreign oil.

Both France and Japan have more than fifty nuclear power plants each in their countries, France with fifty-nine and Japan with fifty-five. France is one of only a handful of nations to produce the majority of its energy using nuclear power, and meets some 77% of its needs that way, the largest percentage of any nation in the world. Japan covers roughly 30% of its energy needs through nuclear power.

Russia has thirty-one nuclear power plants in its country, producing just over 15% of its total energy needs. After a period of relative stagnation in nuclear power development, following the catastrophic meltdown at Chernobyl, Russia has undertaken plans to grow its nuclear power generation immensely. Sixteen new plants are either currently being built or have been ordered, while another nineteen have been proposed, making it one of the most ambitious growth projects currently underway.

Only a handful of other nations have more than fifteen nuclear power plants, many of them countries which built their plants years ago. Germany produces roughly a quarter of their energy through their seventeen nuclear power plants, but they are currently decommissioning them and moving to other energy production methods. The Ukraine has fifteen power plants, responsible for roughly half of their energy needs, and are planning on adding another thirteen plants by the year 2030. Canada, India, the United Kingdom, and South Korea also each have more than fifteen power plants, with both India and South Korea planning on growing that number substantially in the future.

Only four countries aside from France generate more than half of their energy through nuclear power. Sweden’s ten plants account for just over 50% of their energy, Belgium’s seven make up 54% of their energy, although they are considering decommissioning them, Slovakia’s six plants generate just over 50% of their energy, and Lithuania’s single nuclear power plant meets 64% of their energy needs.

A number of countries have undertaken ambitious programs to grow their nuclear power generation enormously in the coming years. Both Brazil and China are at the forefront of this movement. With only two current nuclear power plants, Brazil generates very little of their energy through nuclear power, but they have plans to build another fifty plants soon. China has the most ambitious growth program, aiming to add another hundred nuclear power plants to their existing ten, which would cover roughly a fifth of their energy needs, and make them the top producer of nuclear power in the world.


http://www.wisegeek.com/which-countries-have-nuclear-power.htm




Hmmnnn....why is Germany decommissioning their nuke plants?


Because they were built 30 or 40 years ago???
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #110 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:08pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:29am:
"Anyone who believes in AGW would at least consider nuke. It not they`re hypocrites. "

I just puzzle over this "let's have a debate" garbage, as if someone is denying someone else their chance to speak.

I still haven't heard one corporation propose a plant - not one - it's all just talk by non players.

Personally, I worry about the opportunity cost of spending $300B or so on Nuclear.



It's mostly that the Labor Government has refused to even 'discuss' nuclear power for years...
Which is the whole point to this thread, some people IN Labor now want to have a debate on the nuclear power issue..
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #111 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:11pm
 
gizmo, what do you want government to do? Beg someone to build a NPP?

I don't get it - either we are in a free market, where a corporation can make a proposal, or we are not - which is it?

No corporation has made a proposal, so I just don't understand what this is all about.

Or is it that everyone expects the government to build the plants?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #112 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:13pm
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:24am:
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:12am:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:04am:
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:01am:
Hinkley Point A, B and now C.
Oldbury

Three separate power plants that were within 20 miles of where I grew up.

Not a single accident.
Not a single damaging leak.

What do they provide?

Emissions free power.

Such a problem?

Australia here suffers from insularity and ignorance on the nuclear issue. They seem to think a Chernobyl will happen every year.

That's like not getting on a plane from Melbourne to Sydney because of what happened to the Air France flight.


So, you would be happy for your offspring to be devoured in that Nuclear triangle today!?




I would be happy for my daughters to grow up where I did and have no concerns that those power plants provide anything other than emissions free power.

Indeed, right now in California, we live probably not that far from one.

Scare tactics have over-shadowed the debate for too long down in Australia.



I am not using scare tactics:  I genuinely fear the uncontrollable energy of nukes - and I don't trust my fellow human beings to design and operate a sufficiently fool-proof and fail-safe system...



Equit, you ARE using the 'greens' scare tactics......Humans have managed to control the "uncontrollable energy" of nuclear reactors for some 60 years....and there've been TWO 'major' incidents in that time...and a few lesser incidents...There have been far more 'accidents' involving coal/gas and hydro power plants in that same time frame..
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #113 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:18pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:11pm:
gizmo, what do you want government to do? Beg someone to build a NPP?

I don't get it - either we are in a free market, where a corporation can make a proposal, or we are not - which is it?

No corporation has made a proposal, so I just don't understand what this is all about.

Or is it that everyone expects the government to build the plants?


No ernie...in order to build a nuclear power plant, a private company STILL needs Government permission to do so...

Even if a private corporation has the money to build a nuclear power plant, if the Federal/State Government says 'NO'..then they can't do so...

It's the same as if YOU want to build a swimming pool, if the council refuses permission...then you CAN'T..
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #114 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:21pm
 
"No ernie...in order to build a nuclear power plant, a private company STILL needs Government permission to do so..."

That's a process - what else would you expect?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #115 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:22pm
 
"It's the same as if YOU want to build a swimming pool, if the council refuses permission...then you CAN'T.. "

Yes? And?

I'm waiting for your point - what is the problem there??
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #116 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:24pm
 
Let me make this plain, as I see it.

There is NO IMPEDIMENT to a corporation putting forward a plan to build a NPP.

There is also no impediment to a debate on the matter.

I can't understand - do Ferguson et al simply "want a debate" and no-one will take them on?

What is the problem?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #117 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:26pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:22pm:
"It's the same as if YOU want to build a swimming pool, if the council refuses permission...then you CAN'T.. "

Yes? And?

I'm waiting for your point - what is the problem there??



The problem is that the Labor Government hasn't approved the 'idea' of nuclear power plants...so until Labor/Parliment actually approves the idea of nuclear power...NO-ONE can build a nuclear power plant..
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #118 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:29pm
 
"The problem is that the Labor Government hasn't approved the 'idea' of nuclear power plants...so until Labor/Parliment actually approves the idea of nuclear power...NO-ONE can build a nuclear power plant.. "

On what basis? What legislation stops someone initiating a plan to build a NPP in, say, Wollongong? For wholesale supply of electricity?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #119 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:30pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:24pm:
Let me make this plain, as I see it.

There is NO IMPEDIMENT to a corporation putting forward a plan to build a NPP.

There is also no impediment to a debate on the matter.

I can't understand - do Ferguson et al simply "want a debate" and no-one will take them on?

What is the problem?



AHH so you DON'T see the idea clearly...

Ferguson et al...NEED the idea of nuclear power to be ok'd by the Government before anyone can actually build a nuclear power plant..(at this moment nuclear power IS illegal)...which IS why they want the debate..
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #120 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:33pm
 
"at this moment nuclear power IS illegal"

Show me the legislation.

It is against the ALP platform, but where is it illegal?

If Bailleau or Barnett decided to approve one, who could stop them and how?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #121 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:41pm
 

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:13pm:
Quote:
I am not using scare tactics:  I genuinely fear the uncontrollable energy of nukes - and I don't trust my fellow human beings to design and operate a sufficiently fool-proof and fail-safe system...



Equit, you ARE using the 'greens' scare tactics......Humans have managed to control the "uncontrollable energy" of nuclear reactors for some 60 years....and there've been TWO 'major' incidents in that time...and a few lesser incidents...There have been far more 'accidents' involving coal/gas and hydro power plants in that same time frame..


I hear what you are saying - but I remind you that the absence of a memorable accident does not point to a reduction in risk...

Moreover, there are many 30-40 year old plants which have exceeded the original productive lifespan for which their were engineered - and some of them have been given Govt approval to operate for a further decade...

I especially wouldn't wanna be living near any of those ageing plants - all of which have the ongoing potential to go into meltdown at any time...

The next big meltdown may well be the trigger to shut down the entire industry - this is as much due to physics, business and economics as it is the risk to life, limb and regional neighbourhood...

I wouldn't invest in a nuke plant because it is an inherently bad investment and I wouldn't want my Federal or State Govt to mortgage our nation or state or underwrite the insurance risk of nukes either...

That said, since we have Lib Govts in WA and Vic, I nominate their backyards and their State Budgets to bear the brunt of all associated costs!
Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
viewpoint
Gold Member
*****
Offline


A joke is a very serious
thing. [Winston]

Posts: 2209
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #122 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:47pm
 
Well it looks like YOUR poll hasn't turned out the way you intended genius..........lol
Back to top
 

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
- Sir Winston Churchill
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #123 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:51pm
 
Soren wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 12:55pm:
List of civilian nuclear accidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents


List of aviation accidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercia...


You should pray for a nuclear power plant in your backyard and don't even think about going near an airport.



- and flying is several magnitudes safer than driving. Don't even think about driving, or walking near the road as a pedestrian.

The risk associated with nuclear power generation is incredibly low - lower than the risk of a single individual choking to death on a hotdog (except in my case, because it's greater than zero).
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #124 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:53pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:33pm:
"at this moment nuclear power IS illegal"

Show me the legislation.

It is against the ALP platform, but where is it illegal?

If Bailleau or Barnett decided to approve one, who could stop them and how?



Show me How many nuclear power plants have been approved in Australia??
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Verge
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6329
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #125 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:54pm
 
I personally would like to see fair dinkum costs analyisis  on this subject, only for I have read its so efficient.

If we can keep the fear mongering out of it at a federal or state level we might get some real answers.

The same people who seem to oppose nuclear use the same fear mongering tactics that those who oppose climate change do for theirs.

People need to be realistic that solar engery is far from cost benefical at the moment to capture and wind farms seem to have little support.
Back to top
 

And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #126 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:54pm
 
Gizmo - Show me how many applications have been rejected?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #127 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:55pm
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:41pm:
Moreover, there are many 30-40 year old plants which have exceeded the original productive lifespan for which their were engineered - and some of them have been given Govt approval to operate for a further decade...



That was a financial lifespan, not an engineering lifespan. Many industrial plants are operated beyond their projected lifespan.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #128 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:57pm
 
Verge wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:54pm:
I personally would like to see fair dinkum costs analyisis  on this subject, only for I have read its so efficient.

If we can keep the fear mongering out of it at a federal or state level we might get some real answers.

The same people who seem to oppose nuclear use the same fear mongering tactics that those who oppose climate change do for theirs.

People need to be realistic that solar engery is far from cost benefical at the moment to capture and wind farms seem to have little support.


Solar Thermal is actually more cost beneficial than nuclear generation based on current US designs, however the new generation US nuclear plants are projected to be more cost effective.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #129 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:01pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:54pm:
Gizmo - Show me how many applications have been rejected?



Basically ALL of them...


How many nuclear plants have been approved??
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #130 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:18pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 10:30am:
"A serious debate without the hysteria. fact filled and with genuine opinions expressed AND permitted."

Again - who is denying anyone the right to speak on this matter?


You are taking an absolutist approach to the question. govt WILL NOT be involved in a deabte on nuclear energy. If you think the neclear question has bene opened up to fair and reasonable debate then Id love to hear when that happened? one bob brown debate with Ziggy Swit doesnt constitute debate. Where is the govt report into it? where are the parliamentary debates or the industry enquiries.

THAT is the debat we are looking for.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #131 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:20pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:33pm:
"at this moment nuclear power IS illegal"

Show me the legislation.

It is against the ALP platform, but where is it illegal?

If Bailleau or Barnett decided to approve one, who could stop them and how?


do you REALLY think it is that simple? you dont think the feds would stop it if they wanted to? the power of canberra over the states is extremely strong but legislatively, constitutionally and via other pressures.

is is actually illegal? without a permit, yes. can that permit be gotten from the existing fed govt? no. answer your question?
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #132 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:24pm
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:41pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:13pm:
Quote:
I am not using scare tactics:  I genuinely fear the uncontrollable energy of nukes - and I don't trust my fellow human beings to design and operate a sufficiently fool-proof and fail-safe system...



Equit, you ARE using the 'greens' scare tactics......Humans have managed to control the "uncontrollable energy" of nuclear reactors for some 60 years....and there've been TWO 'major' incidents in that time...and a few lesser incidents...There have been far more 'accidents' involving coal/gas and hydro power plants in that same time frame..


I hear what you are saying - but I remind you that the absence of a memorable accident does not point to a reduction in risk...

Moreover, there are many 30-40 year old plants which have exceeded the original productive lifespan for which their were engineered - and some of them have been given Govt approval to operate for a further decade...

I especially wouldn't wanna be living near any of those ageing plants - all of which have the ongoing potential to go into meltdown at any time...

The next big meltdown may well be the trigger to shut down the entire industry - this is as much due to physics, business and economics as it is the risk to life, limb and regional neighbourhood...

I wouldn't invest in a nuke plant because it is an inherently bad investment and I wouldn't want my Federal or State Govt to mortgage our nation or state or underwrite the insurance risk of nukes either...

That said, since we have Lib Govts in WA and Vic, I nominate their backyards and their State Budgets to bear the brunt of all associated costs!


RISK is generally calculated on the basis of ACTUAL events. if there are no accidents then an industry is assessed as being low risk. Insurance and Workers compensation operates on that basis. If you want a risk-free life then you are living in the wrong universe. Ours has risks and so far there is a far higher risk of death from just breathing than from nuclear power. Im not saying it is risk free or we shouldnt acknowledege those risks. But we shoudl be ACCURATE and no hysterical about them - as you are.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #133 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:26pm
 
muso wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:55pm:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:41pm:
Moreover, there are many 30-40 year old plants which have exceeded the original productive lifespan for which their were engineered - and some of them have been given Govt approval to operate for a further decade...



That was a financial lifespan, not an engineering lifespan. Many industrial plants are operated beyond their projected lifespan.


and it isnt like they havent been maintained and upgraded since. just because something is built to last 30 years doesnt mean it becomes dangerous afterwards. The snowy Mountains scheme also had a 30 year life. they expected however that future generations might maintain upgrade and enhance it - and they did.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #134 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:27pm
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:01pm:
How many nuclear plants have been approved??


None. Julia Gillard announced today that "nuclear power was not a viable option for Australia".

Fantastic decision and a brave one especially with the rumblings coming from her Ministry.

Let's see what the media does to her now?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Verge
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6329
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #135 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:28pm
 
mantra wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:27pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:01pm:
How many nuclear plants have been approved??


None. Julia Gillard announced today that "nuclear power was not a viable option for Australia".

Fantastic decision and a brave one especially with the rumblings within her Ministry.

Let's see what the media does to her now?


Gillard is also on the record for saying there will be no Carbon Tax in the government she leads, but guess what they are investigating now.

Her word isnt worth much.
Back to top
 

And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #136 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:33pm
 
mantra wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:27pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:01pm:
How many nuclear plants have been approved??


None. Julia Gillard announced today that "nuclear power was not a viable option for Australia".

Fantastic decision and a brave one especially with the rumblings coming from her Ministry.

Let's see what the media does to her now?


Of course she did. The Greens are 1000% against it and she needs EVERY vote she can get. it has nothing with 'viability'. it is EVERYTHING to do with her inability to govern with teh gay greens in tow.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #137 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:35pm
 
Verge wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:28pm:
mantra wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:27pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:01pm:
How many nuclear plants have been approved??


None. Julia Gillard announced today that "nuclear power was not a viable option for Australia".

Fantastic decision and a brave one especially with the rumblings within her Ministry.

Let's see what the media does to her now?


Gillard is also on the record for saying there will be no Carbon Tax in the government she leads, but guess what they are investigating now.

Her word isnt worth much.


her word is worthless. you can predict her position on ANY policy on how it affects her govts liklihood of surviving. Compared to her, even Rudd looks like a man of principle.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
skippy.
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20882
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #138 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:47pm
 
Quote:
you can predict her position on ANY policy on how it affects her govts liklihood of surviving


LOL, what percentage of Australians have you seen that are 100% behind nuke power? I've never seen any poll that has the numbers at even 35%. Thats because unlike you, most aussies realise we have better options in THIS country, I'm not saying nuke power isn't suitable for some countries, its just not suitable for here when we have so many more options than others.
Back to top
 

  freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #139 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:52pm
 
Verge wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:28pm:
mantra wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:27pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:01pm:
How many nuclear plants have been approved??


None. Julia Gillard announced today that "nuclear power was not a viable option for Australia".

Fantastic decision and a brave one especially with the rumblings within her Ministry.

Let's see what the media does to her now?


Gillard is also on the record for saying there will be no Carbon Tax in the government she leads, but guess what they are investigating now.

Her word isnt worth much.




Is Julia a role model advocate for when a woman says no, she really means yes?
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #140 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:54pm
 
skippy. wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:47pm:
Quote:
you can predict her position on ANY policy on how it affects her govts liklihood of surviving


LOL, what percentage of Australians have you seen that are 100% behind nuke power? I've never seen any poll that has the numbers at even 35%. Thats because unlike you, most aussies realise we have better options in THIS country, I'm not saying nuke power isn't suitable for some countries, its just not suitable for here when we have so many more options than others.


and you think Gillard's position is a PRINCIPLED one??  her position on ANY policy is about keeping her govt together and nothing else.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #141 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:56pm
 


Longy, a risk assessment is a function of the severity and likelihood of any accident occurring...

Where the consequences can involve the serious injury or death of a person, the precautionary measures must be rigorous and comprehensive - so as to limit the coincidence of risk factors...

Where danger is towards the extreme end of the scale -involving dangerous substances, reactions, intense heat and potentially the deaths of a large number of people - the best solution is to avoid the activity altogether...especially when there are infinitely less risky and more cost-effective and sustainable options available...

Nuke plants are unnecessarily risky - as is the transportation, handling, storage and disposal of nuclear fuel and decommissioning plant...

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 40710
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #142 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:57pm
 

alp flipflops for any greeny homo with a vote
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #143 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:59pm
 
mantra wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:27pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:01pm:
How many nuclear plants have been approved??


None. Julia Gillard announced today that "nuclear power was not a viable option for Australia".

Fantastic decision and a brave one especially with the rumblings coming from her Ministry.

Let's see what the media does to her now?



Then Julia is an idiot...Nuclear power is the BEST power that doesn't have a 'carbon footprint'...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #144 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:08pm
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:59pm:
mantra wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:27pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:01pm:
How many nuclear plants have been approved??


None. Julia Gillard announced today that "nuclear power was not a viable option for Australia".

Fantastic decision and a brave one especially with the rumblings coming from her Ministry.

Let's see what the media does to her now?



Then Julia is an idiot...Nuclear power is the BEST power that doesn't have a 'carbon footprint'...




Are you sure about that?


Considering the costs involved in the infrastructure it would certainly allow Wayne Swan an opportunity to pass off a few blackholes in his budget and attribute them towards any Power Plant.
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #145 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:11pm
 


Serious question: can the Federal Govt legislate against any State approving a nuke plant?

If not, then the pro-nuke Libs can propose and approve the first two Oz plants in Victoria and WA...

I'm betting that neither of them will have the guts to go that way any time soon - lest they wanna risk being turfed out after only 1 term...

That said, unlike Victoria, WA is a large state with a small population - so they may have a better chance of to bribing and incentivising a remote and under-resourced electorate...
Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #146 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:22pm
 
"You are taking an absolutist approach to the question."

In response to overblown claims - "illegal" "genuine opinions (not) permitted".

"is is actually illegal? without a permit, yes. can that permit be gotten from the existing fed govt? no. answer your question? "

Needing a permit is not the definition of "illegal".

Show me one application that has been rejected - I am trying to show you that there is NO COMMERCIAL INTEREST in this.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #147 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:22pm
 


There's probably nothing stopping the pro-nuke Libs from putting up a private member's bill for the Productivity Commission to conduct some sort of review into the nukes v's renewables...

Meantime, which Aussie company or companies is/are interested - cos I wouldn't wanna risk a multinational that might stuff up and jump ship leaving Aussie taxpayers to clean up their mess...

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #148 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:24pm
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 4:56pm:
Longy, a risk assessment is a function of the severity and likelihood of any accident occurring...

Where the consequences can involve the serious injury or death of a person, the precautionary measures must be rigorous and comprehensive - so as to limit the coincidence of risk factors...

Where danger is towards the extreme end of the scale -involving dangerous substances, reactions, intense heat and potentially the deaths of a large number of people - the best solution is to avoid the activity altogether...especially when there are infinitely less risky and more cost-effective and sustainable options available...

Nuke plants are unnecessarily risky - as is the transportation, handling, storage and disposal of nuclear fuel and decommissioning plant...



and yet the world manages to run nukes all the time without accident. Chernobyl doesnt count because you beloved USSR didnt even CONSIDER safety an issue. Nukes are the safest industry about since there are no deaths from it.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #149 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:27pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:24pm:
and yet the world manages to run nukes all the time without accident. Chernobyl doesnt count because you beloved USSR didnt even CONSIDER safety an issue. Nukes are the safest industry about since there are no deaths from it.



That's how the ALP approached the pink batts!
SO if the ALP got their hands on a nuclear power plant then would you think that the ALP would approach safety any differently?
Or would it be open for any derolict interested.
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #150 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:27pm
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:11pm:
Serious question: can the Federal Govt legislate against any State approving a nuke plant?

If not, then the pro-nuke Libs can propose and approve the first two Oz plants in Victoria and WA...

I'm betting that neither of them will have the guts to go that way any time soon - lest they wanna risk being turfed out after only 1 term...

That said, unlike Victoria, WA is a large state with a small population - so they may have a better chance of to bribing and incentivising a remote and under-resourced electorate...


it probably hasnt occured to you yet - so much doesnt - that in WA they could put a Nuke hundreds of Kms from a town. same is true of much of australia. your arguments remain hysterical and nonsensical. there isnt a measureed argument yet that you have brought forth.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #151 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:29pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:27pm:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:11pm:
Serious question: can the Federal Govt legislate against any State approving a nuke plant?

If not, then the pro-nuke Libs can propose and approve the first two Oz plants in Victoria and WA...

I'm betting that neither of them will have the guts to go that way any time soon - lest they wanna risk being turfed out after only 1 term...

That said, unlike Victoria, WA is a large state with a small population - so they may have a better chance of to bribing and incentivising a remote and under-resourced electorate...


it probably hasnt occured to you yet - so much doesnt - that in WA they could put a Nuke hundreds of Kms from a town. same is true of much of australia. your arguments remain hysterical and nonsensical. there isnt a measureed argument yet that you have brought forth.




I'm surprised that you read them longy, as most people just ignore it and/or laugh at it.
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #152 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:31pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:22pm:
"You are taking an absolutist approach to the question."

In response to overblown claims - "illegal" "genuine opinions (not) permitted".

"is is actually illegal? without a permit, yes. can that permit be gotten from the existing fed govt? no. answer your question? "

Needing a permit is not the definition of "illegal".

Show me one application that has been rejected - I am trying to show you that there is NO COMMERCIAL INTEREST in this.


seriously... if i build something without a permit it is ILLEGAL and a court would confirm it and has done so. so you are wrong there.

as for 'no commercial interest', that is a statement of your opinion knowing almost none of the facts.  NO power company is going to put up a proposal for a nuke power plant in an environment when there is zero chance of it being approved. there is already a lot of pro-nuke lobbying by industry already. and there wil be no application until the political environment is such that it is a possibility. Does that make any sense? they arent building a road or a bridge. this is a $10B project. no one spends tens of millions on a cost benefit analysis, business plant and preliminary designs on something that has zero chance of being approved. An application to build is a LONG way away still.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #153 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:33pm
 
Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:29pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:27pm:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:11pm:
Serious question: can the Federal Govt legislate against any State approving a nuke plant?

If not, then the pro-nuke Libs can propose and approve the first two Oz plants in Victoria and WA...

I'm betting that neither of them will have the guts to go that way any time soon - lest they wanna risk being turfed out after only 1 term...

That said, unlike Victoria, WA is a large state with a small population - so they may have a better chance of to bribing and incentivising a remote and under-resourced electorate...


it probably hasnt occured to you yet - so much doesnt - that in WA they could put a Nuke hundreds of Kms from a town. same is true of much of australia. your arguments remain hysterical and nonsensical. there isnt a measureed argument yet that you have brought forth.




I'm surprised that you read them longy, as most people just ignore it and/or laugh at it.


nemesis has several good points, but alas, logical and balanced non-hysterical reasonsing is not one of them!
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #154 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:37pm
 
"if i build something without a permit it is ILLEGAL"

Well duhhhh.

Are you having a slow day?

"An application to build is a LONG way away still."

And so you want a debate in absence of ANY parameters.

The difference between this and your fury about the NBN is bizarre.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #155 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:39pm
 
And I note you have repeated the argument about NPs being located hundreds of kms away from towns - so I'll repeat my question.

Where? Where can they be located that has sufficient water? Especially on the east coast.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #156 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 6:04pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:37pm:
"if i build something without a permit it is ILLEGAL"

Well duhhhh.

Are you having a slow day?

"An application to build is a LONG way away still."

And so you want a debate in absence of ANY parameters.

The difference between this and your fury about the NBN is bizarre.


we want a debate that ESTABLISHES the parameters or is that too difficult for you to understand.  and there is no comparison between this and the NBN. I dont even know if i support nukes or not but I despise the way any debate on the topic is squashed just as Gillard did (again) today. Frankly I'd like to form my opinion after and open and honest public debate on the pros and cons of the issue.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #157 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 6:06pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:39pm:
And I note you have repeated the argument about NPs being located hundreds of kms away from towns - so I'll repeat my question.

Where? Where can they be located that has sufficient water? Especially on the east coast.


did yuou know that we have 3000kms of coast? we also have rivers. and here's a clue for you... it is just possible that much brighter people than you in the nuke lobby and industry have actually thought about that!
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #158 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 6:11pm
 
"we want a debate"

Go for it. You're like children, "we want a debate, we want a debate, we want a debate".

"Frankly I'd like to form my opinion after and open and honest public debate on the pros and cons of the issue. "

Have the damned debate then! What on earth is stopping you? Labor? They have the power to stop you thinking, researching, debating?

"3000kms of coast? we also have rivers."

Name ONE PLACE in NSW or Victoria that meets those criteria.

Hundreds of miles from a town, with sufficient water (that isn't in a national park? Is that a factor).
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #159 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 6:19pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 6:11pm:
"we want a debate"

Go for it. You're like children, "we want a debate, we want a debate, we want a debate".

"Frankly I'd like to form my opinion after and open and honest public debate on the pros and cons of the issue. "

Have the damned debate then! What on earth is stopping you? Labor? They have the power to stop you thinking, researching, debating?

"3000kms of coast? we also have rivers."

Name ONE PLACE in NSW or Victoria that meets those criteria.

Hundreds of miles from a town, with sufficient water (that isn't in a national park? Is that a factor).


You truly are an idiot. If you dont know what the term 'public debate' means then there is probably no way you'd understand the rest of the argument. You are anti-nuke. we get it . and you are anti it because of... oh yes. YOUR OPINION... formed after decades in the power industry and engineering.

You are just a small mind, spruiking your uninformed opinion and unwilling to investigate and consider an alternative. Some of us actually want a genuine debate that answers the questions we and the rest of australia has.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #160 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 6:23pm
 
"we want a debate, we want a debate, we want a debate".

Switkowski wasn't enough, under a sympathetic government? The debate happened then, and went absolutely nowhere.

And if you want to be so childish as to start name calling .... Why don't you hold your breath until you turn blue?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #161 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 6:24pm
 
And at least I have a clear position without pretending I haven't made my mind up yet, like yourself longweekend - more BS
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #162 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 6:26pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 6:24pm:
And at least I have a clear position without pretending I haven't made my mind up yet, like yourself longweekend - more BS


Well I guess 'uninformed and dogmatic' IS a position - just not one most people would adopt.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #163 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 6:28pm
 
Unlike yrself - "I'm not decided yet" - what a load of garbage.

You've NEVER done anything except argue FOR nuclear power.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #164 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 6:37pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 6:28pm:
Unlike yrself - "I'm not decided yet" - what a load of garbage.

You've NEVER done anything except argue FOR nuclear power.


quite the contrary. It probably just seems like it to you when you adopt the 'never, ever, anywhere in my lifetime' position. I'd like to know the economic and viability assessment points. Im not anti-nuke in principle (as you are) nor am I pro-nuke. Im interested in the details and whether or not it is right for australia. I actually run a company that deals with  renewable energy and nuclead IS a technology that forms part of the mix in a low-emission energy environment overseas. You cant just cover the country in wind farms and solar cells. its alittle more complex than that!
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #165 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 6:44pm
 
"Im not anti-nuke in principle (as you are) nor am I pro-nuke. "

Wrong on two points.

Have the debate! What are we doing now? I keep asking questions, most of which you won't answer, and I'm none the better for it.

What on earth is it you want?

And if there is to be some sort of "public discussion", let it be wider than ziggy's agenda. Let it be an economic discussion about how to power Australia, without an emphasis towards one technology.

Ziggy only answered one question -  how many NPPs would he like to build.

That's why the discussion went nowhere after his pronouncement.

Even you have to accept he was given a good run by Howard, and it went nowhere.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #166 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 7:47pm
 

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:29pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:27pm:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 5:11pm:
Serious question: can the Federal Govt legislate against any State approving a nuke plant?

If not, then the pro-nuke Libs can propose and approve the first two Oz plants in Victoria and WA...

I'm betting that neither of them will have the guts to go that way any time soon - lest they wanna risk being turfed out after only 1 term...

That said, unlike Victoria, WA is a large state with a small population - so they may have a better chance of to bribing and incentivising a remote and under-resourced electorate...


it probably hasnt occured to you yet - so much doesnt - that in WA they could put a Nuke hundreds of Kms from a town. same is true of much of australia. your arguments remain hysterical and nonsensical. there isnt a measureed argument yet that you have brought forth.


I'm surprised that you read them longy, as most people just ignore it and/or laugh at it.


LOL, Macca - trust a right whinger to presume the right to speak for others...

Roll Eyes

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #167 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 11:11pm
 


So, why is Abbott saying that the nuclear debate will "tear Labor apart"!?

Does he think that his party is 100% united on their pro-nuke stance!?

We'll see, how many supporters the LibLabs lose to the Greens over nukes, shall we!?
Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #168 - Dec 2nd, 2010 at 7:20am
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 3:29pm:
"The problem is that the Labor Government hasn't approved the 'idea' of nuclear power plants...so until Labor/Parliment actually approves the idea of nuclear power...NO-ONE can build a nuclear power plant.. "

On what basis? What legislation stops someone initiating a plan to build a NPP in, say, Wollongong? For wholesale supply of electricity?


Read this link...the first bit is about Australia
http://www.oecd-nea.org/law/legislation/australia.pdf
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #169 - Dec 2nd, 2010 at 7:41am
 
In section 13, the Act defines “controlled persons” as:

    * a Commonwealth entity;

     This term is further defined in the legislation and includes:
         o Commonwealth Departments
           (eg Department of Defence, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade);
         o bodies corporate established for a public purpose by or under an Act (eg CSIRO, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation);
         o a company in which a controlling interest is held by the Commonwealth (eg Telstra); and
         o an employee of a person or body covered by any of the above.
    * a Commonwealth contractor;

     Means a person (other than a Commonwealth entity) who is a party to a contract with a Commonwealth entity. Refer to section 11 of the ARPANS Act 1998 for further information.
    * an employee of a Commonwealth contractor; and
    * a person in a prescribed Commonwealth place.

If you don't fit one of these definitions then you may need a licence with one of the state or territory regulators.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/regulation/applicants/require.cfm#2

My reading is that the ARPANS act only covers commonwealth entities.


In section 13, the Act defines “controlled persons” as:

    * a Commonwealth entity;

     This term is further defined in the legislation and includes:
         o Commonwealth Departments
           (eg Department of Defence, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade);
         o bodies corporate established for a public purpose by or under an Act (eg CSIRO, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation);
         o a company in which a controlling interest is held by the Commonwealth (eg Telstra); and
         o an employee of a person or body covered by any of the above.
    * a Commonwealth contractor;

     Means a person (other than a Commonwealth entity) who is a party to a contract with a Commonwealth entity. Refer to section 11 of the ARPANS Act 1998 for further information.
    * an employee of a Commonwealth contractor; and
    * a person in a prescribed Commonwealth place.

If you don't fit one of these definitions then you may need a licence with one of the state or territory regulators.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #170 - Dec 2nd, 2010 at 7:45am
 
Thanks gizmo - interesting reading.

It's obviously going to be very difficult for anyone to get past that regulation, so I stand somewhat corrected.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #171 - Dec 4th, 2010 at 10:31pm
 
Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 6:59am:
One of the ALP's main policies was No Nuclear Power.
I say WAS as looks like that is about to change.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/labor-ready-to-say-bewdy-nuke/story-e6freuy9-1225963533476



Jebus, how much credibility are you actually really trying to gain on the internets???

I'm guessing NONE!

I think you  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy  must be the weakest link!   Undecided Undecided Undecided Lips Sealed

  Smiley Smiley
Back to top
 

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is.  It wouldn't be there without the tax payer.  Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know....  (swaggy) *
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #172 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 5:23am
 
Julia Gillard said "In this country ... nuclear power doesn't stack up as an economically efficient source of power for our nation,"

How wrong Julia Gillard has been proved.
Julia's speech writers failed to do sufficient research.

So will the ALP do the right thing and overturn their ban on nuclear power? As after all it is the most logical and cheapest alternative to non-coal energy (coal is the cheapest)
Or will the  ALP obstinately defy logic and go with rising energy costs and inflict their legacy onto the economy/voters. Just to prove that the ALP will do what they say.
The ALP policy is for cleaner emissions and Julia is stubbornly sticking to Solar, yet Nuclear is just as clean and a whole lot cheaper to implement.
Does Labor know how much Solar is costing, it would appear that they don't as per the rebates/subsidies that were available and are now being withdrawn by Greg Combet.
All Julia Gillard knows is that her government is investing, some may say wasting, over $100 million per year into Solar - another white elephant perhaps?
No, as although Solar is ludicrously and unnecessarily expensive it does work, when there's sun.
Perhaps though Julia Gillard needs to stick with Solar so that Wayne Swan can hide or shift across other non-solar related costs, like those from the Billions of debt caused by Rudd, to be incorporated into the costs of Solar.
Nothing would surprise me with this inept and incompetent Labor govt.
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #173 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 7:24am
 
Quote:
Julia Gillard said "In this country ... nuclear power doesn't stack up as an economically efficient source of power for our nation,"


She's right. Have a look at the cost of setting up a NP station. $25 billion plus. How many NP stations do we need in each state to supply them. Two, three, four? How long do they last - 20 years?

You're whinging about the cost of the NBN - the cost of nuclear power will far exceed this per state - let alone nationally. For the 25 stations Howard declared we would need - that's a cost of $625 billion nationally for infrastructure with a short life span.

Go look the costs up for yourself before you spruik misinformation.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #174 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 7:46am
 
mantra wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 7:24am:
Quote:
Julia Gillard said "In this country ... nuclear power doesn't stack up as an economically efficient source of power for our nation,"


She's right. Have a look at the cost of setting up a NP station. $25 billion plus. How many NP stations do we need in each state to supply them. Two, three, four? How long do they last - 20 years?






As usual you are wrong mantra, no surprises there.


Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #175 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 7:51am
 
mantra wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 7:24am:
Quote:
Julia Gillard said "In this country ... nuclear power doesn't stack up as an economically efficient source of power for our nation,"


She's right. Have a look at the cost of setting up a NP station. $25 billion plus. How many NP stations do we need in each state to supply them. Two, three, four? How long do they last - 20 years?

You're whinging about the cost of the NBN - the cost of nuclear power will far exceed this per state - let alone nationally. For the 25 stations Howard declared we would need - that's a cost of $625 billion nationally for infrastructure with a short life span.

Go look the costs up for yourself before you spruik misinformation.



I think you'd better do some research yourself mantra...
The lifespan of a nuclear power station is a minimum of 40 years....up to 60 years..
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #176 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 8:07am
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 7:51am:
I think you'd better do some research yourself mantra...
The lifespan of a nuclear power station is a minimum of 40 years....up to 60 years..


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


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #177 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 8:12am
 
The average age of the 435 nuclear power plants that are currently operating worldwide is 25 years and in Western Europe, 75 percent of the plants are in the last half of their operating life, according to the Ifo Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.

If the number of active nuclear power plants is to remain constant, many new reactors will have to be built in the coming years. Given a life expectancy of 40 years, about 40 new plants will be necessary by 2015 -  - in addition to those already planned. Up to 2025, ca. 190 new reactors would have to go on line. With a planning and construction time of 15 to 25 years for a new reactor (estimate by Prognos AG in 2008), it seems difficult that these numbers will be attained.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1018651.shtml

You are right Gizmo - the life expectancy is about 40 years, but I can't see how that makes so much difference to the argument. 25 years - 40 years - does it really matter in the scheme of things? They still have to be replaced after a relatively short period.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 5th, 2010 at 8:18am by mantra »  
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #178 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 8:22am
 
Once again you are wrong mantra about the life expectancy of a nuclear power plant.

One of the first plants installed was in the 1950's and lasted nearly 50 years.

Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #179 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 8:50am
 
Read my response to Gizmo.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 5th, 2010 at 10:09am by mantra »  
 
IP Logged
 
tickfen
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1405
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #180 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 11:22am
 
Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 8:22am:
Once again you are wrong mantra about the life expectancy of a nuclear power plant.

One of the first plants installed was in the 1950's and lasted nearly 50 years.


yeah they last 50 years but hey whats 20-30 years inaccuracy when you are trying to make a biased point against nuclear


Surprised they havent brought up Blinky the 3-eyed fish yet!


Bwaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


Back to top
 

Yeah, I know I'm right, so I guess you just have to learn to live with that!
 
IP Logged
 
aussiefree2ride
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3538
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #181 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 11:49am
 
mantra wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 8:50am:
Read my response to Gizmo.


Mantra`s response to Gizmo : "You are right Gizmo - the life expectancy is about 40 years, but I can't see how that makes so much difference to the argument. 25 years - 40 years - does it really matter in the scheme of things? They still have to be replaced after a relatively short period."

Mantra, by your pwn admission, your assessment was out by 75%, or 15 years, and you have the nerve to try to fob your error off as insignifficant?   Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #182 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 12:04pm
 
aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 11:49am:
mantra wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 8:50am:
Read my response to Gizmo.


Mantra`s response to Gizmo : "You are right Gizmo - the life expectancy is about 40 years, but I can't see how that makes so much difference to the argument. 25 years - 40 years - does it really matter in the scheme of things? They still have to be replaced after a relatively short period."

Mantra, by your pwn admission, your assessment was out by 75%, or 15 years, and you have the nerve to try to fob your error off as insignifficant?   Grin Grin Grin Grin


mantra seems to be under some illusion that other major plant and equipment lasts for centuries! other power generation plants are decommissioned or completely rebuilt far more often than 40-50 years.

The SNowly mountains scheme has been rebuilt since it originally was put together.

40-50 years is actually pretty damned good for major infrastructure like that.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #183 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 12:05pm
 
aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 11:49am:
Mantra`s response to Gizmo : "You are right Gizmo - the life expectancy is about 40 years, but I can't see how that makes so much difference to the argument. 25 years - 40 years - does it really matter in the scheme of things? They still have to be replaced after a relatively short period."

Mantra, by your pwn admission, your assessment was out by 75%, or 15 years, and you have the nerve to try to fob your error off as insignifficant?   Grin Grin Grin Grin



How many 50 year old reactors do we have globally?

How long does it take us to build and replace an existing reactor?

While we can hope that a reactor has a life span of 50 years (rare) - we have to start building another one 15-20 years before it expires.

So do we leave it until it expires (whenever) or do we wait until it's 25 years old and then spend billions building another one to be ready 20 years down the track?

Once we've finished building the replacement - we then have to decommission the original. Can we afford both the cost of continually building and decommissioning.

Where is the waste going to go?

Do we have a finite source of uranium?

Don't you think solar power would be a more economical option?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #184 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 2:40pm
 
mantra wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 12:05pm:
aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 11:49am:
Mantra`s response to Gizmo : "You are right Gizmo - the life expectancy is about 40 years, but I can't see how that makes so much difference to the argument. 25 years - 40 years - does it really matter in the scheme of things? They still have to be replaced after a relatively short period."

Mantra, by your pwn admission, your assessment was out by 75%, or 15 years, and you have the nerve to try to fob your error off as insignifficant?   Grin Grin Grin Grin



How many 50 year old reactors do we have globally?

How long does it take us to build and replace an existing reactor?

While we can hope that a reactor has a life span of 50 years (rare) - we have to start building another one 15-20 years before it expires.

So do we leave it until it expires (whenever) or do we wait until it's 25 years old and then spend billions building another one to be ready 20 years down the track?

Once we've finished building the replacement - we then have to decommission the original. Can we afford both the cost of continually building and decommissioning.

Where is the waste going to go?

Do we have a finite source of uranium?

Don't you think solar power would be a more economical option?


So tell me mantra. Has it ever occured to you that JUST PERHAPS power companies - and for that matter ALL COMPANIES - actually might plan in advanced for replacements and so on? It is unbelieveable that you dont understand that it is current practice for major companies to plan for the replacement of major assets 20-30 years in advace. It is good solid and unremarkable commercial practice to do so.

and solar as it stands at the moment is NOT a better economic proposition. Its costs per kw/hr are about double (or more) of nuclear power. Thats not to say solar is bad because it isnt. but nuclear is cheaper and fossil fuel cheaper still (in australia). the economics of power generation are not what people wish it to be. That doesnt change it tho.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #185 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 2:44pm
 
mantra wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 12:05pm:
aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 11:49am:
Mantra`s response to Gizmo : "You are right Gizmo - the life expectancy is about 40 years, but I can't see how that makes so much difference to the argument. 25 years - 40 years - does it really matter in the scheme of things? They still have to be replaced after a relatively short period."

Mantra, by your pwn admission, your assessment was out by 75%, or 15 years, and you have the nerve to try to fob your error off as insignifficant?   Grin Grin Grin Grin



How many 50 year old reactors do we have globally?

How long does it take us to build and replace an existing reactor?

While we can hope that a reactor has a life span of 50 years (rare) - we have to start building another one 15-20 years before it expires.

So do we leave it until it expires (whenever) or do we wait until it's 25 years old and then spend billions building another one to be ready 20 years down the track?

Once we've finished building the replacement - we then have to decommission the original. Can we afford both the cost of continually building and decommissioning.

Where is the waste going to go?

Do we have a finite source of uranium?

Don't you think solar power would be a more economical option?




Stupid questions mantra, but that's no surprise.
All have already been answered to the ALP, and the ALP don't even bother to try and raise such ignorant questions anymore.

But the first was built in the 50s and that lasted about 50 years.
It is not even debatable that nuclear is cheaper than sola/wind and just as clean.

But you can keep head in the bucket of sand.
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #186 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 2:52pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 2:40pm:
mantra wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 12:05pm:
aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 11:49am:
Mantra`s response to Gizmo : "You are right Gizmo - the life expectancy is about 40 years, but I can't see how that makes so much difference to the argument. 25 years - 40 years - does it really matter in the scheme of things? They still have to be replaced after a relatively short period."

Mantra, by your pwn admission, your assessment was out by 75%, or 15 years, and you have the nerve to try to fob your error off as insignifficant?   Grin Grin Grin Grin



How many 50 year old reactors do we have globally?

How long does it take us to build and replace an existing reactor?

While we can hope that a reactor has a life span of 50 years (rare) - we have to start building another one 15-20 years before it expires.

So do we leave it until it expires (whenever) or do we wait until it's 25 years old and then spend billions building another one to be ready 20 years down the track?

Once we've finished building the replacement - we then have to decommission the original. Can we afford both the cost of continually building and decommissioning.

Where is the waste going to go?

Do we have a finite source of uranium?

Don't you think solar power would be a more economical option?


So tell me mantra. Has it ever occured to you that JUST PERHAPS power companies - and for that matter ALL COMPANIES - actually might plan in advanced for replacements and so on? It is unbelieveable that you dont understand that it is current practice for major companies to plan for the replacement of major assets 20-30 years in advace. It is good solid and unremarkable commercial practice to do so.

and solar as it stands at the moment is NOT a better economic proposition. Its costs per kw/hr are about double (or more) of nuclear power. Thats not to say solar is bad because it isnt. but nuclear is cheaper and fossil fuel cheaper still (in australia). the economics of power generation are not what people wish it to be. That doesnt change it tho.



Exactly right longy.
The cheapest energy sources are:
1) Coal bya country mile to second
2) Nuclear
then a wide margin to third
3) Wind
4) Solar
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #187 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 2:54pm
 
It doesn't cost much to build a nuclear reactor either
"According to Michael Kruse, consultant on nuclear systems for Arthur D. Little, the Chinese are ready to spend $511 billion to build up to 245 reactors. "
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-02/china-nuclear-boom-sees-reactor-builders-risk-know-how-for-cash.html

So that's about $2-3 billion per reactor.

Pretty cheap.
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #188 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 3:24pm
 
Do not allow alarmists in Australia who have never left the country, nor understand how widely and successfully nuclear power is used, to sidetrack the need for it in Australia.

Like I said, I grew up with Hinkley Point A, B and now C and Oldbury power stations within 30 miles of our town.

Never had an accident, never had an incident.

Just emissions free power for the region.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #189 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 3:59pm
 
Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 2:52pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 2:40pm:
mantra wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 12:05pm:
aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 11:49am:
Mantra`s response to Gizmo : "You are right Gizmo - the life expectancy is about 40 years, but I can't see how that makes so much difference to the argument. 25 years - 40 years - does it really matter in the scheme of things? They still have to be replaced after a relatively short period."

Mantra, by your pwn admission, your assessment was out by 75%, or 15 years, and you have the nerve to try to fob your error off as insignifficant?   Grin Grin Grin Grin



How many 50 year old reactors do we have globally?

How long does it take us to build and replace an existing reactor?

While we can hope that a reactor has a life span of 50 years (rare) - we have to start building another one 15-20 years before it expires.

So do we leave it until it expires (whenever) or do we wait until it's 25 years old and then spend billions building another one to be ready 20 years down the track?

Once we've finished building the replacement - we then have to decommission the original. Can we afford both the cost of continually building and decommissioning.

Where is the waste going to go?

Do we have a finite source of uranium?

Don't you think solar power would be a more economical option?


So tell me mantra. Has it ever occured to you that JUST PERHAPS power companies - and for that matter ALL COMPANIES - actually might plan in advanced for replacements and so on? It is unbelieveable that you dont understand that it is current practice for major companies to plan for the replacement of major assets 20-30 years in advace. It is good solid and unremarkable commercial practice to do so.

and solar as it stands at the moment is NOT a better economic proposition. Its costs per kw/hr are about double (or more) of nuclear power. Thats not to say solar is bad because it isnt. but nuclear is cheaper and fossil fuel cheaper still (in australia). the economics of power generation are not what people wish it to be. That doesnt change it tho.



Exactly right longy.
The cheapest energy sources are:
1) Coal bya country mile to second
2) Nuclear
then a wide margin to third
3) Wind
4) Solar


solar and wind are getting cheaper and geothermal threatens to actually match coal's price. one of the oft-ignored problems is transmission infrastructure./ often R/E generation soruces ar not near existing transmission lines or they are inadequate. this need for additional transmission expense adds to the cost of R/E generation beyond the actual generator itself.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #190 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 4:46pm
 
"So that's about $2-3 billion per reactor."

In China, while enjoying the economy of scale of building 500 odd. With their cheap labour.

We can't build ANYTHING in Australia any more. No fridges, no TVs, no trains, no ships (except some very expensive warships, which we had to get someone else to design!), no aircraft.

The USA is looking at $7b or so each, and they have the skills to do it.

In Finland project prices have doubled.

"Today Areva estimates that building the same 1.6 gigawatt reactor would cost $US8 billion ($A9 billion). The US loan guarantee is for 70 to 80 per cent of the total cost of the two 1.1 gigawatt Georgian reactors, thus putting the construction cost at between US$10.4-$11.9 billion. This is broadly comparable with the French costs (US$5-$5.4 billion a gigawatt). Of course, the American reactor has not been built and will not be for almost another decade, based on previous experience. In fact the AP1000 design intended for Georgia has not yet been certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is not expected to be until the end of next year."

"Yesterday Professor Leslie Kemeny again urged that Australia construct five 1 gigawatt reactors . Based on current estimates, this would cost at least $A28 billion. Most likely, the cost will be much, much more because Australia would have to build nuclear infrastructure from scratch, and because "overnight costs" ignore the construction delays and safety issues that invariably arise — the reasons dozens of reactors have been begun and abandoned in the US and elsewhere in the past 30 years."

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/nuclear-its-just-too-expensive-for-us-and-the-rest-of-the-world-20100225-p4y3.html
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #191 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 4:55pm
 
"    AECL’s $26 billion bid was based on the construction of two 1,200-megawatt Advanced Candu Reactors, working out to $10,800 per kilowatt of power capacity.

    By comparison, in 2007 the Ontario Power Authority had assumed for planning purposes a price of $2,900 per kilowatt, which works out to about $7 billion for the Darlington expansion. During Ontario Energy Board hearings last summer, the power authority indicated that anything higher than $3,600 per kilowatt would be uneconomical compared to alternatives, primarily natural gas.

    Much of the dramatic price increase relates to the cost of labour and materials, which have skyrocketed over the past few years. Nuclear suppliers and their investors also have less tolerance for risk.

    The bid from France’s Areva NP also blew past expectations, sources said. Areva’s bid came in at $23.6 billion, with two 1,600-megawatt reactors costing $7.8 billion and the rest of the plant costing $15.8 billion. It works out to $7,375 per kilowatt, and was based on a similar cost estimate Areva had submitted for a plant proposed in Maryland….

    Stevens said Areva’s lower price makes sense because the French company wasn’t prepared to take on as much risk as the government had hoped. This made Areva’s bid non-compliant in the end. Crown-owned AECL, however, complied with Ontario’s risk-sharing requirement but was instructed by the federal government to price this risk into its bid. “Which is why it came out so high,” said Stevens."

"This just gets to the heart of the problem with nukes – the safety issues are so high that they have to be built “perfectly”. The problem is that there is nobody you can get to build them perfectly. The government can’t do it, and private industry can’t do it (or, more accurately, won’t even try) without massive profit motive, which we are now seeing priced into the equation.
It’s actually a bit sad that we are now at the point in history where no amount of money can buy something done right, on time, on budget."

http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/15/nuclear-power-plant-cost-bombshell-ontario/
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #192 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 5:02pm
 
Why not use -

1) Nuclear
2) Coal
3) Gas
4) Solar
5) Wind
6) Tidal

Why does it have to be just one and throw all the eggs in the one basket?

I'd like to see all of the above used for our power.
At the end of the day, the answer is not to consume less. I refuse to use less power. It is how we deliver it to people is where the answer lies.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #193 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 5:09pm
 
"I refuse to use less power"

That's your right.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #194 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 5:13pm
 
Quote:
In China, while enjoying the economy of scale of building 500 odd. With their cheap labour.

We can't build ANYTHING in Australia any more. No fridges, no TVs, no trains, no ships (except some very expensive warships, which we had to get someone else to design!), no aircraft.


This article is from 2006 and is no doubt the reason the UK government isn't subsidising any more NP reactors.

The cost alone of clean up and decommissioning 7 reactors was estimated at 160 billion pounds.




On Thursday, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the body set up to clean up the UK's nuclear sites, increased its estimate of how much it would need by £14bn to £70bn.

However, this giant figure is only around half of what will be required. It excludes decommissioning British Energy's seven nuclear power stations, the first of which is due to close in 2011, dealing with the Ministry of Defence's nuclear sites and the long-term storage of the waste. Adding those all in would bring the total cost to around £160bn.

The Government has not released up-to-date estimates of the clean up costs.

The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management will produce an interim report this month recommending what the Government should do.

Its various options - from surface storage to a deep geological repository - have been priced by the committee at between £7bn and £30bn. Adding all those estimates together comes to a worst-case scenario of £160bn to deal with all the outstanding nuclear issues.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/true-price-of-uks-nuclear-legacy...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #195 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 5:16pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 5:09pm:
"I refuse to use less power"

That's your right.


Not if the Greens party had their way.

The thing about these people is they are never content with living a certain way, which is their right.

They seem to think they should force the rest of us to do the same.

Whatever happened to freedom of choice?

If people want to use solar power, wind turbines, live in caravans, live off the land - then good luck to them.
Some of us would like to do nothing of the sort.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #196 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 5:18pm
 
"Whatever happened to freedom of choice?"

You have a choice to live the way you want - just pay more.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #197 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 5:19pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 5:18pm:
"Whatever happened to freedom of choice?"

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


Why should I?
I don't in the USA.

The answer why is in the title.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #198 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 5:22pm
 
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 5:02pm:
Why not use -

1) Nuclear
2) Coal
3) Gas
4) Solar
5) Wind
6) Tidal

Why does it have to be just one and throw all the eggs in the one basket?

I'd like to see all of the above used for our power.
At the end of the day, the answer is not to consume less. I refuse to use less power. It is how we deliver it to people is where the answer lies.




Fair comment Andrei, but it's the cost factor especially the infrastructure.
Sure Nuclear plant is relatively cheap and not an issue. But the solar and wind are quite expensive by comparison.

So of course we would be best going for the cheapest and cleanest, and that'd be coal, but we are being forced to go for second best which would be nuclear.
So why is Gillard pushing for the most expensive - solar?
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #199 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 5:22pm
 
Live in the USA then - another choice available to you
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #200 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 5:46pm
 
"do as we say or go somewhere else, you have no choice on this"

Does anyone wonder why the Left created a wall and kept people behind it?
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #201 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 5:51pm
 
Democracy is the ability to make choices - you are a lucky person to have so many options.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #202 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 5:53pm
 
And why is it not enough for Lefties and Hippies to live a certain way and get on with it?

Why do they feel the need to try and force the rest of us to do so?
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #203 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 10:12pm
 
mantra wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 8:07am:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 7:51am:
I think you'd better do some research yourself mantra...
The lifespan of a nuclear power station is a minimum of 40 years....up to 60 years..


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.



Tell me mantra.....how much of the Oyster Creek plant do you believe is still 'original equipment'?????
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #204 - Dec 5th, 2010 at 10:16pm
 
mantra wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 12:05pm:
aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 11:49am:
Mantra`s response to Gizmo : "You are right Gizmo - the life expectancy is about 40 years, but I can't see how that makes so much difference to the argument. 25 years - 40 years - does it really matter in the scheme of things? They still have to be replaced after a relatively short period."

Mantra, by your pwn admission, your assessment was out by 75%, or 15 years, and you have the nerve to try to fob your error off as insignifficant?   Grin Grin Grin Grin



How many 50 year old reactors do we have globally?

How long does it take us to build and replace an existing reactor?

While we can hope that a reactor has a life span of 50 years (rare) - we have to start building another one 15-20 years before it expires.

So do we leave it until it expires (whenever) or do we wait until it's 25 years old and then spend billions building another one to be ready 20 years down the track?

Once we've finished building the replacement - we then have to decommission the original. Can we afford both the cost of continually building and decommissioning.

Where is the waste going to go?

Do we have a finite source of uranium?

Don't you think solar power would be a more economical option?


The 'current' design generation III reactors have a base life span of 60 years of operation, extendable to 120+ years of operation prior to complete overhaul and reactor pressure vessel replacement..

And that doesn't count maintenance and smaller overhauls...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #205 - Dec 6th, 2010 at 5:39pm
 
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.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #206 - Dec 6th, 2010 at 7:04pm
 
I speak here from personal experience -

Oldbury
Berkeley
Hinkley Point

All nuclear power plants that I have grown up within 30 miles either way and all have provided accident-free nuclear emissions power to my region.

Nuclear power is clean and it works.
It has done for decades.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
buzzanddidj
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14169
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #207 - Dec 6th, 2010 at 8:30pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Dec 6th, 2010 at 5:39pm:
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.





It was Liberal Party policy, for a fleeting moment
(bit of a weired phase they were going through)

It was NEVER Labor policy





Quote:
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...




Back to top
 

'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'


- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
 
IP Logged
 
buzzanddidj
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14169
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #208 - Dec 6th, 2010 at 9:41pm
 
Quote:
Nuclear power is clean






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




Back to top
 

'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'


- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
 
IP Logged
 
Verge
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6329
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #209 - Dec 6th, 2010 at 11:32pm
 
buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 6th, 2010 at 9:41pm:
Quote:
Nuclear power is clean






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



Solar might be clean, but its not economically viable.

In NSW, 8 years before the cost of the installation pays for itself and thats after all the rebates.  Instead, if I drop the $20k in the bank at even the paltry 5% in 10 years Im much further in front and I still have my $20k where the solar panels will be worthless.

Wind, gotta admit I know nothing about it, but those big windmills look pretty cool.

Its nice to want to be green, but it needs to be viable too.
Back to top
 

And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #210 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 4:59am
 
"but its not economically viable."

But I note none of you wants to respond to the links about NPP costs that I posted.

What is the payback period for a $10B power plant?

I also like the "tri-generation" solutions that are being rolled out in Sydney at the moment.

A micro power plant, providing power to a small precinct or club.

Once the work is done, and the reticulation of the power within the precinct is in place, we will have a solution that wind, solar, turbine (ie low GG emission power solutions) can be plugged seamlessly.

An excellent model of power generation away from the "power station" paradigm. Encouraging businesses to look at the economics and sense of generating their own power.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #211 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 6:35am
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 4:59am:
"but its not economically viable."


What is the payback period for a $10B power plant?





Do you have a link for the $10billion.

As last I discovered a power plant was $2billion

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-02/china-nuclear-boom-sees-reactor-builders-risk-know-how-for-cash.html
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #212 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 7:30am
 
And I answered you, with links and quotes.

Feel free to read my response.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #213 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 7:35am
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 4:59am:
"but its not economically viable."

But I note none of you wants to respond to the links about NPP costs that I posted.

What is the payback period for a $10B power plant?


It depends on who builds it.....Once it becomes permissible to build a nuclear power station I'd imagine at least one of the privately owned (well mostly private) power companies would look at it....in which case, there isn't a 'payback' period that affects the tax payer....
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #214 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 8:01am
 
"there isn't a 'payback' period that affects the tax payer.... "


Gizmo, except for the cost of their product, and the huge tax breaks (and direct subsidies) they will have to receive to get operational.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mozzaok
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #215 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 8:34am
 
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 5th, 2010 at 5:53pm:
And why is it not enough for Lefties and Hippies to live a certain way and get on with it?

Why do they feel the need to try and force the rest of us to do so?


Are any of you so young, or so uninformed about our recent history, as to not know the contribution that 'the left and hippies", actually have made to this world?

Without the left and hippies, we would have dead rivers, polluted beyond recovery, oceans used as legal, uncontrolled dumping grounds for toxic waste, and the millions more species extinctions that naturally follow from such abuse.
No health care, in fact, no welfare at all, for the sick, old, or needy.

Just as an exercise, can anyone name a humane, moral, or charitable social advancement that was championed by the right wing of politics?
Have there even been any of these social reforms that they have not just, not introduced themselves, but also not actively been opposed to?

So try and imagine, if you can, a world where no lefties, or hippies, had ever had any influence.
It would be a dark, cruel, and dying world, wouldn't it?
So while the extreme left can actually transform into an evil totalitarian dystopian nightmare, when they take on unfettered power, like they did in the Communist regimes, a totally Capitalist world without the humanising influence of the left, is similarly unthinkable.

Back to top
 

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #216 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 8:53am
 
I disagree.

I class myself as on the Right side of the political spectrum and I believe in social justice and a fair advancement for all.

Thing is though, I have never been given a free ride in my life, never received any help from the Government and had to work hard.
The hippies and the Left seem to think that people shouldn't have to work hard and just be given things. I don't agree with that and I speak from personal experience of having to do things tough at times.

The cause of the Right is not an 'evil, dark one'.

It is about rewarding hardwork, it is about driving forward supply-demand economics, looking after your own people, creating innovation, the family unit, traditional moral values etc

The championing of social values is the not the sole domain of the Left.

Thing is every hippy I have seen (usually in England they were chained to some tree trying to prevent a by-pass being built) seems to have no concept of hard work.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
mozzaok
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #217 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 11:07am
 
Well if that is the case Andrei, perhaps you can rise to the challenge and point out the advances in Social Justice and Equity that have been delivered by the right?
Any environmental causes they have championed?
I also agree with the principle that people deserve to be rewarded for hard work, but that is not an over arching belief that necessitates that you also believe that all who do not live financially successful lives are just lazy.
Back to top
 

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #218 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 11:53am
 
Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 6:35am:
Please delete wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 4:59am:
"but its not economically viable."


What is the payback period for a $10B power plant?





Do you have a link for the $10billion.

As last I discovered a power plant was $2billion

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-02/china-nuclear-boom-sees-reactor-builders-risk-know-how-for-cash.html




Still no link?


The cost of a nuclear power plant is just over $2billion.
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #219 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 11:54am
 
Are you blind, man hater?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #220 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 11:57am
 
If nuclear power is sooooo bad - please would anyone care to explain why my hometown had 3 major nuclear power plants within 30 miles which have operated for decades without the slightest hint of an accident?
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #221 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 11:57am
 
The cost of a nuclear power plant is just over $2billion.
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #222 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:00pm
 
The cost (IN CHINA) of a nuclear power plant is (PROJECTED TO BE) just over $2billion.

If you genuinely believe it can be done in Australia for that little, against the experience in the USA and in Europe ..... well, go for it! Seek some backers!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #223 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:02pm
 
Baffles me how anyone can think emissions free power is a bad thing.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #224 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:06pm
 
I haven't attempted to argue against Nuclear Power - just adding to the debate, most usually in regard cost, which I would have thought would be interesting to you as a money man, and to coalition supporters in general, who are arguing that cost benefit analyses should be a starting point in such a large project.

(very clumsy sentence, but I'm not gonna rewrite it)
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
buzzanddidj
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14169
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #225 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:07pm
 
REPOST ....



buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 6th, 2010 at 9:41pm:
Quote:
Nuclear power is clean - Andrei Hicks






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





Back to top
 

'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'


- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #226 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:08pm
 
Re-post -

I grew up within short ride of Hinkley Point, Oldbury and Berkeley.

Emissions free, accident-free, clean power for our region.

Get out of the dark ages and use nuclear like the rest of us.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #227 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:10pm
 
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 11:57am:
If nuclear power is sooooo bad - please would anyone care to explain why my hometown had 3 major nuclear power plants within 30 miles which have operated for decades without the slightest hint of an accident?




No one is saying that nuclear power plants are bad, just that some are just being anti-nuclear with no logic.
Nuclear is cheaper and cleaner (apart from coal) so that defeats their complaints.
And the infrastructure for nuclear $2billion is easily cheaper than solar and wind
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
buzzanddidj
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14169
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #228 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:11pm
 
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:08pm:
Re-post -

I grew up within short ride of Hinkley Point, Oldbury and Berkeley.

Emissions free, accident-free, clean power for our region.

Get out of the dark ages and use nuclear like the rest of us.






Do you have the information on where the decades of nuclear waste was being dumped - or did the brochure tell you there WAS none ?



Back to top
 

'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'


- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #229 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:13pm
 
"I grew up within short ride of Hinkley Point, Oldbury and Berkeley."

And look at how YOU turned out - case closed.

(Couldn't resist)
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #230 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:14pm
 
"And the infrastructure for nuclear $2billion"

Ignorant repitition doesn't make it true.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #231 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:16pm
 
Bordered by the Bridgwater Bay National Nature Reserve, Hinkley Point power station encompasses some eight different wildlife habitats and a surprising diversity of wildlife species.

A nature trail is usually open daily, 9am until 4pm. The nature trail should take around 45 minutes to walk. A complete circuit of the site via the public footpaths would take approximately one and a half to two hours. Click on the following links to download our guide to the nature trail and map of the nature trail walk.

http://www.british-energy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=486


Don't let people fool you into thinking everything is radioactive and its like Chernobyl.
These power plants are just like any other.

Well regulated and part of the community.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #232 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:16pm
 
And the $2billion for a nuclear power plant has been proved with the link.


Lot better than the unlinked higher costs. Wonder which tree they plucked their figure from.
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #233 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:17pm
 
Where is the waste stored, hicks?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #234 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:19pm
 
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:16pm:
Bordered by the Bridgwater Bay National Nature Reserve, Hinkley Point power station encompasses some eight different wildlife habitats and a surprising diversity of wildlife species.

A nature trail is usually open daily, 9am until 4pm. The nature trail should take around 45 minutes to walk. A complete circuit of the site via the public footpaths would take approximately one and a half to two hours. Click on the following links to download our guide to the nature trail and map of the nature trail walk.

http://www.british-energy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=486


Don't let people fool you into thinking everything is radioactive and its like Chernobyl.
These power plants are just like any other.

Well regulated and part of the community.




It is amazing that they are pushing for an NBN because the rest of the world has fast internet speed.
And yet they do not want what the rest of the world has with energy.

There are over 440 nuclear power plants currently operating in the world, and another 60 under construction.

Australia has to catch up with the 21st century.
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #235 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:20pm
 
The relatively low levels of radiation experienced at our nuclear stations is further illustrated by the fact that on a one hour tour, a visitor receives a dose of less than a tenth of a millionth of a Sievert, but on a one hour visit to a typical show cave in the UK the dose is about 600 times higher! Guides in show caves may get as much as 15mSv per year –higher than the maximum dose allowed for any British Energy radiation worker (10mSv/Year).


The UK population’s average annual radiation exposure from all the activities of the nuclear industry is less than 0.1% of the total dose received. If all the UK nuclear plants were closed down, it would clearly have a negligible effect on our radiation dose.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #236 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:20pm
 
"And the $2billion for a nuclear power plant has been proved with the link."

In China.

FFS, have you got any logic at all, or is it all just partisan ranting?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #237 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:22pm
 
Not sure what it is that you are failing to understand, but a nuclear power plant costs $2billion.

Pretty straight forward.
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #238 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:22pm
 
Currently, all spent fuel from Hinkley Point is taken to the British Nuclear Fuels plant at Sellafield for 'reprocessing'. This process extracts any unused uranium and the plutonium formed during fission in the reactor.

Fuel is considered spent after about five years, when it is no longer capable of efficient fission due to the partial loss of fissile material and the build up of impurities such as fission products and actinides. In some respects the word 'spent' is inappropriate, as there is still a significant uranium 235 content.

Since the fuel continues to change once removed from the reactor, due to radioactive decay it is stored for a further four years before reprocessing. This reduces the amount of fission products which have to be dealt with by waste processing.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #239 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:30pm
 
"but a nuclear power plant costs $2billion."

How much do they cost in the USA?

Or in Finland, where one is under construction?

Or in France?

Or Japan?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #240 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:32pm
 
It depends on the size of course.
But what China demonstrates is that a nuclear power plant costs $2billion, maybe a little more for Australia, but no where near the silly claims of $10 billion or $25 billion. Be able to get quite a few for those prices.
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #241 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:34pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:30pm:
"but a nuclear power plant costs $2billion."

How much do they cost in the USA?

Or in Finland, where one is under construction?

Or in France?

Or Japan?



So you pick and choose when you talk about cost?

Emissions free power.
That is what this provides.

Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #242 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:34pm
 
"In 2009, estimates for the cost of a new plant in the U.S. ranged from $6 to $10 billion. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Economics

Does your style of flaming have a name?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #243 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:37pm
 
wikipedia = "bloke down the pub said"
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #244 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:40pm
 
So Hicks, you agree with the man hater that we could build NPPs for $2B?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #245 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:42pm
 
"So you pick and choose when you talk about cost?"

Huh?

I nominated the most equal economies to ours, NOT China.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
buzzanddidj
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14169
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #246 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:42pm
 
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:22pm:
Currently, all spent fuel from Hinkley Point is taken to the British Nuclear Fuels plant at Sellafield for 'reprocessing'. This process extracts any unused uranium and the plutonium formed during fission in the reactor.

Fuel is considered spent after about five years, when it is no longer capable of efficient fission due to the partial loss of fissile material and the build up of impurities such as fission products and actinides. In some respects the word 'spent' is inappropriate, as there is still a significant uranium 235 content.

Since the fuel continues to change once removed from the reactor, due to radioactive decay it is stored for a further four years before reprocessing. This reduces the amount of fission products which have to be dealt with by waste processing.



Abd the FINAL resting place for the sealed containers of what is the final 'processed stage' of STILL radioactive waste rests where ?



Back to top
 

'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'


- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #247 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:43pm
 
"Emissions free power."

If you don't count the waste.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #248 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:50pm
 
Last week President Barack Obama announced a a US$8.3 billion (A$9.3 billion) government loan guarantee to a private company to build twin nuclear reactors in the southern state of Georgia.

What more conclusive proof does one need to demonstrate the economic inviability of nuclear power, even in an industry that is 50 years old? Without such a massive financial crutch, private companies and their investors have declined to fund any new nuclear plants for 37 years — not just in the US, but anywhere in the world.
Advertisement: Story continues below

As previously outlined, nuclear plants routinely have such financial problems because it is a hugely capital intensive industry. Delays greatly add to the cost of capital long before any revenue is generated. Construction is extremely complex, compounded by safety regulation.

Every new plant or new design is promised to be simpler, cheaper and quicker to build but proves to be the opposite. The most notable example is the plant being constructed by the French state-owned company Areva at Olkiluoto, Finland, which has doubled in costs and construction time.

Today Areva estimates that building the same 1.6 gigawatt reactor would cost $US8 billion ($A9 billion). The US loan guarantee is for 70 to 80 per cent of the total cost of the two 1.1 gigawatt Georgian reactors, thus putting the construction cost at between US$10.4-$11.9 billion. This is broadly comparable with the French costs (US$5-$5.4 billion a gigawatt). Of course, the American reactor has not been built and will not be for almost another decade, based on previous experience. In fact the AP1000 design intended for Georgia has not yet been certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is not expected to be until the end of next year.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/nuclear-its-just-too-expensive-for-us-and-the-rest-of-the-world-20100225-p4y3.html
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #249 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:51pm
 
Diesendorf found the cost of building a new nuclear power plant had risen rapidly since 2002, from more than $US2000 per kw of generation capacity installed, to about $US7400 per kw in 2010 (these are real, not nominal figures), and he expects the trend will continue. (The figures don't count subsidies for nuclear energy such as loan guarantees, land acquired for buffer zones around reactors or decommissioning costs, which would push the cost up.)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-cost-of-nuclear-power-is-debatable-20101203-18jwf.html
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #250 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:53pm
 
In various forums, including this one on Scitizen, the issue of the cost of constructing new nuclear power plants in the United States has become polemic and controversial. The nuclear industry generally reports construction costs of about $2,000 per installed kilowatt (kW). In one of his posts on Scitizen, Charles Barton points out that the quoted costs of new nuclear plants may be even lower. He argues that construction expenses vary widely and depend on the cost of local labor and government regulation. He estimates that the average cost of building new AP-1000s in China is about $1,200 per installed kW.

A collection of new studies, however, suggest that these figures may underestimate the cost of building new nuclear units by more than a factor of 3. Researchers from the Keystone Center, a nonpartisan think tank, consulted with 27 nuclear power companies and contractors, and concluded in June 2007 that the cost for building new reactors would be between $3,600 and $4,000 per installed kW (with interest). They also projected that the operating costs for these plants would be remarkably expensive: 30 ¢/kWh for the first 13 years until construction costs are paid followed by 18 ¢/kWh over the remaining lifetime of the plant. (For comparison, the average residential price for electricity was about 10 ¢/kWh last year).

Just a few months later, in October 2007, Moody’s Investor Service projected even higher costs due to the quickly escalating price of metals, forgings, other materials, and labor needed to construct reactors. They estimated total costs for new plants, including interest, at between $5,000 and $6,000 per installed kW. Florida Power & Light informed the Florida Public Service Commission in December 2007 that their estimated the cost for building two new nuclear units at Turkey Point in South Florida was $8,000 per installed kW, or a shocking $24 billion. And in early 2008, Progress Energy pegged its cost estimates for two new units in Florida to be about $14 billion plus an additional $3 billion for T&D.

http://scitizen.com/future-energies/how-much-will-new-nuclear-power-plants-cost-_a-14-2287.html
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #251 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:59pm
 
6 May 2010-- Progress Energy Inc increased the estimated cost of its proposed 2,200 MW Levy nuclear power plant in Florida and delayed its start-up until 2021 due to a delay in licensing the reactors, uncertainty about federal and state energy policies and a recent credit rating downgrade of Progress Energy Florida.

The company estimates the project could cost up to $22.5 billion, up from its previous estimate of $17.2 billion. The first reactor is now expected to enter service in 2021 and the second, 18 months later. Progress originally estimated the first unit to enter service in 2016 but pushed that date back a year ago.

http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/0954299218/articles/powergenworldwide/nuclear/reactors/2010/05/Progress-plant-delayed.html
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #252 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 1:41pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 8:01am:
"there isn't a 'payback' period that affects the tax payer.... "


Gizmo, except for the cost of their product, and the huge tax breaks (and direct subsidies) they will have to receive to get operational.


Which really applies to ANY sort of power/utility infrastructure...

But unless it's government constructed, the payback period is amortised into the costings to the consumer.....just the same as now, part of the powerbill is for construction/maintenance costs..
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #253 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 1:46pm
 
"Which really applies to ANY sort of power/utility infrastructure..."

I don't think that's true any more.

If I'm wrong, feel free, but all power stations in Victoria, for instance, are private, and the new brown coal station is entirely private, is it not?

Of course, in NSW they are owned by the government, but they aren't building any, either. Under the new coalition govt, I expect they'll be privatised post haste, and then we'll see what becomes of taxpayer involvement.

Also, I note that, in other countries, NPPs are insured by the government, since no insurance compamy would take them on.



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #254 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 1:52pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 1:46pm:
"Which really applies to ANY sort of power/utility infrastructure..."

I don't think that's true any more.

If I'm wrong, feel free, but all power stations in Victoria, for instance, are private, and the new brown coal station is entirely private, is it not?

Of course, in NSW they are owned by the government, but they aren't building any, either. Under the new coalition govt, I expect they'll be privatised post haste, and then we'll see what becomes of taxpayer involvement.

Also, I note that, in other countries, NPPs are insured by the government, since no insurance compamy would take them on.



I don't know about the Vic power industry, but I think the NSW ones are part-owned by the government...

Mind you, that does help my argument that the costs of building a reactor would be borne by private industry, not taxpayer funded (directly at any rate)...All major businesses get tax concessions, grants etc because they bring employment and huge amounts of revenue to the state/country they're in..
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #255 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 2:01pm
 
"All major businesses get tax concessions"

The experience in the USA is that these things can't get started without huge, upfront subsidies.

I am still to hear anyone argue where private enterprise is going to find the capital to build these things in Australia, let alone the equipment and expertise.

25 NPPs at a conservative $5B each (more likely $10B or more) is anywhere between $125B and $300B.

Where are they going to get the capital??

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #256 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 2:05pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 2:01pm:
"All major businesses get tax concessions"

The experience in the USA is that these things can't get started without huge, upfront subsidies.

I am still to hear anyone argue where private enterprise is going to find the capital to build these things in Australia, let alone the equipment and expertise.

25 NPPs at a conservative $5B each (more likely $10B or more) is anywhere between $125B and $300B.

Where are they going to get the capital??



Probably the same way all other big business does....Loans from either local or overseas finance groups...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #257 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 2:10pm
 
It's all just a political pipe dream. Bankrupt the country so you can thumb your noses at greenies.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #258 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 2:26pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 2:10pm:
It's all just a political pipe dream. Bankrupt the country so you can thumb your noses at greenies.


How is it going to bankrupt the country if private enterprise is paying for it???

Oh and on the costs you posted earlier for the Florida plant, 2x 1.1gigawatt reactors for AU$9.3 billion.....

A 57megawatt PV power plant that will supply 10,000 homes would cost about AU$454 million to build and require 75ha of land

A 22 megawatt solar thermal trough power plant would cost AU$141million and need 120 ha of land...

1.1 gigawatt = 1100 megawatts..so you'd need 50 thermal trough plants to equal one nuclear plant

$141million x 50 = $7.05billion
1.1 gigawatt nuclear =$4.65billion (2 plants for AU$9.3billion
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #259 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 2:43pm
 
Who pays for it? WE DO! The companies aren't going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts! We'll pay directly and indirectly.

We don't have the expertise, and prices of nuclear are rising, whereas the costs of PV and thermals are dropping.

Can you please provide a link to your costings for solar?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #260 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 2:46pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 2:43pm:
Who pays for it? WE DO! The companies aren't going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts! We'll pay directly and indirectly.

We don't have the expertise, and prices of nuclear are rising, whereas the costs of PV and thermals are dropping.

Can you please provide a link to your costings for solar?



Sure. It's a couple of years old though..

http://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/154054/Solar_Power...


Yes, but no company is going to build solar or wind power plants out of the 'goodness of their hearts' either.....
And we'd still pay, directly and indirectly, for renewables too...

Expertise is importable....Hire the engineers from overseas to build the first reactor, and train OUR own people...then we can build the other ourselves....
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #261 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 2:48pm
 
Thanks, I'll read it later.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #262 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 2:52pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 2:48pm:
Thanks, I'll read it later.



The costings are in the Executive Summary...page 8/100

Pretty much the first page after the index..
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #263 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 3:10pm
 
"Expertise is importable....Hire the engineers from overseas to build the first reactor, and train OUR own people...then we can build the other ourselves.... "

It doesn't work like that.

For a start the furnaces are produced in the USA or Russia or Japan - that's all. They're VERY special bits of gear.

And I doubt VERY much that you can train a legion of nuclear techs by building one reactor.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #264 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 3:14pm
 
"Japan Steel is the only company in the world “capable of producing the central part of a nuclear reactor’s containment vessel in a single piece, reducing the risk of a radiation leak,” but it can only produce four per year. Even if Japan Steel increases its capacity, American power companies would be buying components in a global market at a time when China and India are increasing their nuclear capacity to meet growing energy needs."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/07/nuclear_energy.html
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #265 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 3:17pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 3:10pm:
"Expertise is importable....Hire the engineers from overseas to build the first reactor, and train OUR own people...then we can build the other ourselves.... "

It doesn't work like that.

For a start the furnaces are produced in the USA or Russia or Japan - that's all. They're VERY special bits of gear.

And I doubt VERY much that you can train a legion of nuclear techs by building one reactor.


So buy the equipment from overseas...How is that different from buying fridges from China and washing machies from NZ??

The skills to RUN a reactor can be learned at any Australian university....it's fairly simple, when the red light goes on, push THIS button.....the engineering skills to build one can be taught by 5 visiting specialists to 5 local specialist quite easily....the grunt work of construction isn't that different whether it's a nuclear plant or a coal plant or a solar plant....

Welding doesn't really change from job to job, neither does pouring concrete, running wiring or installing computers...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #266 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 3:20pm
 
And that's how the Lucas Heights small reactor progressed? Not a chance.

I think you are oversimplifying. I mean, as I said earlier, we don't build anything here - what makes you think we could build something as complicated as a NPP, even with someone showing us how?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #267 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 4:35pm
 
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:37pm:
wikipedia = "bloke down the pub said"




LOL

And still no link.

Although has suggested a twin nuclear being $8b, but no link for a singular being $10b
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #268 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 5:07pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 3:20pm:
And that's how the Lucas Heights small reactor progressed? Not a chance.

I think you are oversimplifying. I mean, as I said earlier, we don't build anything here - what makes you think we could build something as complicated as a NPP, even with someone showing us how?



No Lucas Heights was entirely Australian built, but it's pretty old technology, so we might need some advice on the lastest and greatest designs..

After all, Lucas Heights was built in 1958 and was first run at full power in 1960, so she's a pretty old girl..And the secondary reactor came online in 2007 as a medical research reactor....so we'll need some help building a power reactor..
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
mozzaok
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #269 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 5:35pm
 
We have abundant natural gas, all over australia, we could convert all our base load power to gas far more quickly, and far more inexpensively, than with nuclear.

Nuclear makes no sense in a country with so much natural gas that we sell it to california for 3 cents a litre.
Back to top
 

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #270 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 5:46pm
 
mozzaok wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 5:35pm:
We have abundant natural gas, all over australia, we could convert all our base load power to gas far more quickly, and far more inexpensively, than with nuclear.

Nuclear makes no sense in a country with so much natural gas that we sell it to california for 3 cents a litre.




It may make no sense, but that is what the Greens and the ALP are forcing upon Australia. An alternative to the ultra cheap coal energy.

And the BEST alternative to coal is nuclear.
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #271 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 7:29pm
 
"And still no link." - the man hater.

Supplied TWICE, once before you asked for such.

Idiot.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #272 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 7:33pm
 
And still no link

Maybe Ernie is the missing link?
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #273 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 7:35pm
 
What sort of link would you like, man hater?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #274 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 7:36pm
 
Where's the link that a nuclear power plant costs $10billion
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #275 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 7:37pm
 
Posted twice, in this thread.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #276 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 7:38pm
 
So where is the link?
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #277 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 7:39pm
 
In this thread, twice.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #278 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 7:40pm
 
Still no link.
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #279 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 7:41pm
 
Flamer.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mozzaok
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #280 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 7:42pm
 
Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 5:46pm:
mozzaok wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 5:35pm:
We have abundant natural gas, all over australia, we could convert all our base load power to gas far more quickly, and far more inexpensively, than with nuclear.

Nuclear makes no sense in a country with so much natural gas that we sell it to california for 3 cents a litre.




It may make no sense, but that is what the Greens and the ALP are forcing upon Australia. An alternative to the ultra cheap coal energy.

And the BEST alternative to coal is nuclear.

Are you really that stupid, or is this deliberate obtuseness some charade you play just to annoy people?

I just told you we already have abundant Natural Gas, that is far, far cleaner than any coal powered generation, about 60 odd percent cleaner from memory, that we can utilise far more quickly, and far more cheaply, than any Nuclear option.

What is difficult to comprehend about that?
Back to top
 

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #281 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 8:05pm
 
mozzaok wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 7:42pm:
Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 5:46pm:
mozzaok wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 5:35pm:
We have abundant natural gas, all over australia, we could convert all our base load power to gas far more quickly, and far more inexpensively, than with nuclear.

Nuclear makes no sense in a country with so much natural gas that we sell it to california for 3 cents a litre.




It may make no sense, but that is what the Greens and the ALP are forcing upon Australia. An alternative to the ultra cheap coal energy.

And the BEST alternative to coal is nuclear.

Are you really that stupid, or is this deliberate obtuseness some charade you play just to annoy people?

I just told you we already have abundant Natural Gas, that is far, far cleaner than any coal powered generation, about 60 odd percent cleaner from memory, that we can utilise far more quickly, and far more cheaply, than any Nuclear option.

What is difficult to comprehend about that?




So you claim that the natural gas is cheaper than coal.
Do you have a link to that or are we merely meant to accept your ignorant comment?
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
mozzaok
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #282 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 8:38pm
 
Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 8:05pm:
mozzaok wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 7:42pm:
Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 5:46pm:
mozzaok wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 5:35pm:
We have abundant natural gas, all over australia, we could convert all our base load power to gas far more quickly, and far more inexpensively, than with nuclear.

Nuclear makes no sense in a country with so much natural gas that we sell it to california for 3 cents a litre.




It may make no sense, but that is what the Greens and the ALP are forcing upon Australia. An alternative to the ultra cheap coal energy.

And the BEST alternative to coal is nuclear.

Are you really that stupid, or is this deliberate obtuseness some charade you play just to annoy people?

I just told you we already have abundant Natural Gas, that is far, far cleaner than any coal powered generation, about 60 odd percent cleaner from memory, that we can utilise far more quickly, and far more cheaply, than any Nuclear option.

What is difficult to comprehend about that?




So you claim that the natural gas is cheaper than coal.
Do you have a link to that or are we merely meant to accept your ignorant comment?


Quote:
far more cheaply, than any Nuclear option.


Your replies are just confirming the view that is building about your comprehension skills.
Back to top
 

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #283 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 8:44pm
 
mozzaok wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 5:35pm:
We have abundant natural gas, all over australia, we could convert all our base load power to gas far more quickly, and far more inexpensively, than with nuclear.

Nuclear makes no sense in a country with so much natural gas that we sell it to california for 3 cents a litre.


Natural gas produces Co2, which nuclear doesn't...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
mozzaok
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #284 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 9:05pm
 
Yes it does, but far, far less. My previous recollection of more than 60% less is accurate.

Quote:
Gas vs Coal

The CO2 emissions from Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) plants are reduced relative to those produced by burning coal given the same power output because of the higher heat content of natural gas, the lower carbon intensity of gas relative to coal, and the higher overall efficiency of the NGCC plant relative to a coal-fired plant (1).

“The average emissions rates in the United States from natural gas-fired generation are: 1135 lbs/MWh (Mega Watt hours) of carbon dioxide, 0.1 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 1.7 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides. Compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulphur oxides at the power plant.”(


http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/gas-vs-coal.html

You can see the basics at that site.

I think we should have transitioned to Natural Gas years ago, and I know they are building  plants down near Warrnambool,(one at Orford, across the road from my friend's house, and one near Mortlake) as there are massive amounts of gas there.
Back to top
 

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #285 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 9:07pm
 
Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 8:05pm:
mozzaok wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 7:42pm:
Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 5:46pm:
mozzaok wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 5:35pm:
We have abundant natural gas, all over australia, we could convert all our base load power to gas far more quickly, and far more inexpensively, than with nuclear.

Nuclear makes no sense in a country with so much natural gas that we sell it to california for 3 cents a litre.




It may make no sense, but that is what the Greens and the ALP are forcing upon Australia. An alternative to the ultra cheap coal energy.

And the BEST alternative to coal is nuclear.

Are you really that stupid, or is this deliberate obtuseness some charade you play just to annoy people?

I just told you we already have abundant Natural Gas, that is far, far cleaner than any coal powered generation, about 60 odd percent cleaner from memory, that we can utilise far more quickly, and far more cheaply, than any Nuclear option.

What is difficult to comprehend about that?




So you claim that the natural gas is cheaper than coal.
Do you have a link to that or are we merely meant to accept your ignorant comment?




The energy options are in order or costs:
1) Coal (Cheapest)
2) Nuclear
3) Wind
4) Solar (Dearest)

Gas isn't even on the radar
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
mozzaok
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #286 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 9:24pm
 
You really are clueless.
Natural Gas is a local product, where sitting on heaps of it, and it's price has been dropping.
Nuclear however has been getting dearer, and dearer, and the most likely probability is that by the time we actually could get a nuclear plant producing, solar will actually be far cheaper than it.
Solar has halved in cost over the last twenty years, while nuclear has doubled, and the trends show no sign of changing.

Natural Gas went through a price spike a few years ago, but has dropped considerably since 2007, as well we have to take into consideration that the guys are building these power plants right on top of massive Gas Fields, so there is no great shipping and storage costs added on, like there is if you were providing Liquid Natural Gas to companies overseas to then utilise for power production.

The long and the short of it is that on any criteria you look at it, Nuclear is a bad option for Australia.
Back to top
 

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #287 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 7:09am
 
mozzaok wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 9:24pm:
The long and the short of it is that on any criteria you look at it, Nuclear is a bad option for Australia.


How about the criteria of fuel consumption??

Nuclear uses a lot less fuel to generate each megawatt than natural gas does...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #288 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 7:37am
 
Gizmo

If your extrapolations of that report for the ACT are valid, and I am a little sceptical, to whit:

"larger plant size would significantly improve the economics by spreading the infrastructure costs over a larger productive plant and capturing economies of scale of the production plant itself. For example, doubling the plant to 44 MW would lower electricity cost by about 25%;"

And if it turns out that building a 1GW solar plant costs the same as 1GW NPP, which do you build?

One that, once built, has only maintenance, without further inputs or harmful outputs?

Or one that requires a mining industry, a refining process (which we currently don't have) and produces a terrible waste product, for which there is currently no solution?

Do you build the systems that need to be on our waterways, or the one that can be anywhere the land is cheap, and the power infrastructure already exists or can be economically installed?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 8th, 2010 at 8:19am by Please delete »  
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #289 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 10:29am
 
You'd have to ask yourself why Australia remains so behind the play on nuclear power.

We have been running on emissions free nuclear power, accident free in Britain for decades.

Not as if Australia is a tin-pot third world nation is it?

The arguments on here against it are just so insular.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #290 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 10:35am
 
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 10:29am:
You'd have to ask yourself why Australia remains so behind the play on nuclear power.

We have been running on emissions free nuclear power, accident free in Britain for decades.
Not as if Australia is a tin-pot third world nation is it?

The arguments on here against it are just so insular.


So why has Britain decided not to build any more NP stations?



No reactors have been built since the 1980s, due to:

concerns about accidents
spiralling decommissioning costs
the problem of nuclear waste


http://www.slideshare.net/tudorgeog/nuclear-power-stations-in-britain-presentati...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Life_goes_on
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4772
400kms south of Yobsville, Qld
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #291 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:44pm
 
I've lost count how many times I've voted in the poll in this thread.
Back to top
 

"You're just one lucky motherf-cker" - Someone, 5th February 2013

Num num num num.
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #292 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:50pm
 
mantra wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 10:35am:
So why has Britain decided not to build any more NP stations?

]


Actually love the Government has decided to build new nuclear power plants.

Good news.   Smiley

Also the new Cameron Government is a strong supporter of nuclear power as well.....



The government has approved 10 sites in England and Wales for new nuclear power stations, most of them in locations where there are already plants.

It has rejected only one proposed site - in Dungeness, Kent - as being unsuitable on environmental grounds.

A new planning commission will make decisions on the proposals "within a year" of receiving them, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told MPs.

Nuclear was a "proven and reliable" energy source, he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8349715.stm
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #293 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 2:38pm
 
Quote:
The government has approved 10 sites in England and Wales for new nuclear power stations, most of them in locations where there are already plants.

It has rejected only one proposed site - in Dungeness, Kent - as being unsuitable on environmental grounds.

A new planning commission will make decisions on the proposals "within a year" of receiving them, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told MPs.

Nuclear was a "proven and reliable" energy source, he said.


Your news article is a year old. My information on the reintroduction of reactors wasn't up to date either.

The plants haven't been built yet and the number of potential sites have been reduced. There appears to be a lot of controversy at present over these proposed plans and there will be no public money - a huge disincentive to the nuclear industry.

The GFC has affected the bottom line of the budget - so these "proposed" reactors will have to be privately funded.


September 27, 2010

The nuclear debate is a political hot potato within the coalition as Conservative members are in favour of a new generation of nuclear plants, whilst the Lib Dems have traditionally opposed such a view.

A government spokesman said: "We are keen to ensure that operators of new nuclear power stations meet in full their waste management, waste disposal and decommissioning costs."



Will the nuclear industry be prepared to do this at their own expense? It will be years before they receive dividends from their investment and the billions of pounds needed to begin building in Britain's poor economic climate is quite risky.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #294 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:34pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 7:37am:
Gizmo

If your extrapolations of that report for the ACT are valid, and I am a little sceptical, to whit:

"larger plant size would significantly improve the economics by spreading the infrastructure costs over a larger productive plant and capturing economies of scale of the production plant itself. For example, doubling the plant to 44 MW would lower electricity cost by about 25%;"

And if it turns out that building a 1GW solar plant costs the same as 1GW NPP, which do you build?

One that, once built, has only maintenance, without further inputs or harmful outputs?

Or one that requires a mining industry, a refining process (which we currently don't have) and produces a terrible waste product, for which there is currently no solution?

Do you build the systems that need to be on our waterways, or the one that can be anywhere the land is cheap, and the power infrastructure already exists or can be economically installed?


Yes I see your point....but since a solar plants Mw value is size dependant, doubling the Mw means doubling the physical area needed..
The 22Mw Solar/Thermal plant requirse 120ha, doubling it to 44Mw would mean 240Ha......where as a 1.1 Gw plant is the same physical size as a 500Mw plant, only the internal structure is different...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #295 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:41pm
 
"The 22Mw Solar/Thermal plant requirse 120ha, doubling it to 44Mw would mean 240Ha......where as a 1.1 Gw plant is the same physical size as a 500Mw plant, only the internal structure is different... "

The cost of land undoubtedly contributes to the high cost of Solar/Thermal.

One of the advantages is that the plants can be closer to rural and regional users, whilst still feeding the cities.

I can see that MY preference has problems - but they are problems Australians can solve, without buying offshore, without necessarily employing highly paid experts from O/S.

And it would be damned interesting AND FEASIBLE to solve this problem ourselves.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #296 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:44pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:41pm:
"The 22Mw Solar/Thermal plant requirse 120ha, doubling it to 44Mw would mean 240Ha......where as a 1.1 Gw plant is the same physical size as a 500Mw plant, only the internal structure is different... "

The cost of land undoubtedly contributes to the high cost of Solar/Thermal.

One of the advantages is that the plants can be closer to rural and regional users, whilst still feeding the cities.

I can see that MY preference has problems - but they are problems Australians can solve, without buying offshore, without necessarily employing highly paid experts from O/S.

And it would be damned interesting AND FEASIBLE to solve this problem ourselves.


But doesn't Solar Thermal still use steam turbines to generate electricity??

I know PV uses direct conversion, but as far as I know, Solar Thermal generates heat to convert water to steam for turbines..
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #297 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:46pm
 
It's a closed system - once the turbine is "full" it justs cycles between steam and water.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #298 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:48pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:46pm:
It's a closed system - once the turbine is "full" it justs cycles between steam and water.


And the same system is used by nuclear power...the heat from the fission reaction heats the water to steam etc...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #299 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:48pm
 
Whereas NPPs (from what I remember) use water to cool the chamber, then flush the heated water into a river or whatever.

It needs LOTS of water.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #300 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:49pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:48pm:
Whereas NPPs (from what I remember) use water to cool the chamber, then flush the heated water into a river or whatever.

It needs LOTS of water.


Most of them have cooling towers though...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #301 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:50pm
 
http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/2006-07/07rn12.pdf

You are better at reading these things than I ...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #302 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:56pm
 
Nuclear reactors in numerous European countries have been periodically taken off-line or operated at reduced output in recent years because of water shortages driven by climate change, drought and heat waves. Nuclear utilities have also sought and secured exemptions from operating conditions in order to discharge overheated water.

The water consumption of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency and conservation measures is negligible compared to nuclear or coal. Operating a 2,400 Watt fan heater for one hour consumes 0.01 litres of water if wind is the energy source, 0.26 litres if solar is the energy source, 4.5 litres if coal is the energy source, or 5.5 litres if nuclear power is the energy source.

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20072910-16508.html

Another reason for a dry country like Australia to consider renewables over coal OR Nuclear?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #303 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:58pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:50pm:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/2006-07/07rn12.pdf

You are better at reading these things than I ...



The BWR or 'Boiling Water Reactor' is a closed system too, just like the solar thermal turbines...

The cooling water is used as steam to drive the turbine, then cooled and used again..

The type of reactor that dumped the cooling water is a pretty old design and not the only design now..

It'd work well where there's a good supply of water, like beside a river....But there are other designs that use less (or no) water for cooling...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #304 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:59pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:56pm:
Nuclear reactors in numerous European countries have been periodically taken off-line or operated at reduced output in recent years because of water shortages driven by climate change, drought and heat waves. Nuclear utilities have also sought and secured exemptions from operating conditions in order to discharge overheated water.

The water consumption of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency and conservation measures is negligible compared to nuclear or coal. Operating a 2,400 Watt fan heater for one hour consumes 0.01 litres of water if wind is the energy source, 0.26 litres if solar is the energy source, 4.5 litres if coal is the energy source, or 5.5 litres if nuclear power is the energy source.

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20072910-16508.html

Another reason for a dry country like Australia to consider renewables over coal OR Nuclear?


Another specious reason anyway...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #305 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 4:00pm
 
I agree, but then you have to choose your nuclear design with that in mind.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #306 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 4:01pm
 
"Another specious reason anyway"

You mean you don't think water usage is a parameter??
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #307 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 4:02pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 4:00pm:
I agree, but then you have to choose your nuclear design with that in mind.


Then lets DO so.....You can even use sodium for coolant, or gas, liquid metal or molten salts...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #308 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 4:05pm
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 4:01pm:
"Another specious reason anyway"

You mean you don't think water usage is a parameter??


No I don't...The European reactors are all bult close to water supplies, so naturally, they'd use the 'once through' cooling system rather than spend the extra money on condensers and water cooling systems....it's appropriate for the location....


In drier areas, you use a 'closed loop' cooling and turbine system..


It's like complaining that hydro electric isn't viable in the Simpson Desert......of COURSE it isn't, so you use some other system....
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #309 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 4:47pm
 
Knowing Labor they would build a nuclear power plant right next door to a desalination plant.
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 38532
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #310 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:22pm
 
Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 4:47pm:
Knowing Labor they would build a nuclear power plant right next door to a desalination plant.



And that would be an error because?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #311 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:26pm
 
Aussie wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:22pm:
Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 4:47pm:
Knowing Labor they would build a nuclear power plant right next door to a desalination plant.



And that would be an error because?



You need this explained to you?
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 38532
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #312 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:28pm
 
That would be a 10/4 Big Buddy.  That is why I asked the question!

Cheesy

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #313 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:30pm
 
Aussie wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:28pm:
That would be a 10/4 Big Buddy.  That is why I asked the question!

Cheesy




If you need to ask such a basic question then you wouldn't be able to comprehend the answer.

But, just think about the two types of plants and see if you can work it out yourself.


“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. 
Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime”
—Author unknown
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 38532
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #314 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 7:18pm
 
Quote:
If you need to ask such a basic question then you wouldn't be able to comprehend the answer.

But, just think about the two types of plants and see if you can work it out yourself.


Come on Big Buddy.  Teach me how to fish.  You have the floor, and I am all eyes.

Smiley
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Miss Anne Dryst
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2296
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #315 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 7:19pm
 
Aussie wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 7:18pm:
Quote:
If you need to ask such a basic question then you wouldn't be able to comprehend the answer.

But, just think about the two types of plants and see if you can work it out yourself.


Come on Big Buddy.  Teach me how to fish.  You have the floor, and I am all eyes.

Smiley




Alreadyhave, you just have to use the skills now.
Back to top
 

It's hard to soar like an eagle when conversing with turkeys
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 38532
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #316 - Dec 8th, 2010 at 7:23pm
 
Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 4:47pm:
Knowing Labor they would build a nuclear power plant right next door to a desalination plant.


Nah, come on Big Buddy, you need to explain why that would be an error.  No shame if you can't, but I do expect that you can back up your rhetoric at least to some small extent.

Over to you, Big Buddy.  10/4 and all that. 

I am all eyes looking for your explanation.

Shocked
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #317 - Dec 9th, 2010 at 4:17am
 
"You can even use sodium for coolant, or gas, liquid metal or molten salts... "

Gizmo, just a technical point - those are not coolants, they're heat storage media.

You've made your point about the water, though I believe solar thermal would be better than coal or nuclear.

But until someone proposes an actual plant, we won't know what we are arguing for/against.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print