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

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

It's all just steam.

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


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

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

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

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

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

mavis

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

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

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

HAVE THE DEBATE - what's stopping anyone?

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

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



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

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


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

Gillard does not control debate in Australia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EVERY TENDERER invests large amounts developing their business case.

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

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

That way, we have something to discuss.

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

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

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

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



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