Australian Politics Forum - Ferguson serious about nuclear

Please delete

Gold Member

Offline

Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936

Re: Ferguson serious about nuclear
Reply #75 - Feb 6^th, 2011 at 5:46am

"Ernie, it doesn`t matter if the front door is painted blue or pink. "

If, by that silliness you mean what sort of reactor it is, or its' location, it most certainly DOES matter.

"What does matter is solving the environmental, and the power generation issues. "

Agreed

" 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. "

Another lazy attempt at an insult? Fail.

Back to top

IP Logged

Please delete

Gold Member

Offline

Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936

Re: Ferguson serious about nuclear
Reply #76 - Feb 6^th, 2011 at 5:51am

"ernie read gizmo... the States or Business men cannot make announcements on Nuclear power... its for the Fed govt only."

Yes they can. The operator then would have to apply for a licence, which I see no impediment to.

If you READ the links that gizmo posted, the "embargo" by the fedral government is limited to its own agencies.

There is no barrier to any other agency - in this case, the most logical proponent, a state government.

IMO it won't be the feds proposing to build these. Again, utilities are the responsibility of state governments.

Back to top

IP Logged

mavisdavis

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1512

Re: Ferguson serious about nuclear
Reply #77 - Feb 6^th, 2011 at 2:52pm

Please delete wrote on Feb 6^th, 2011 at 5:46am:

"Ernie, it doesn`t matter if the front door is painted blue or pink. "

If, by that silliness you mean what sort of reactor it is, or its' location, it most certainly DOES matter.

"What does matter is solving the environmental, and the power generation issues. "

Agreed

" 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. "

Another lazy attempt at an insult? Fail.

Ernie, I`ve exposed your "logic" for the farce that it is, you can fool yourself, but no one else with an ounce of sense will fall for your desperate denialism. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Please delete

Gold Member

Offline

Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936

Re: Ferguson serious about nuclear
Reply #78 - Feb 6^th, 2011 at 3:03pm

In your dreams, mavis.

We're discussing this important matter, just like you purport to want, and you are casting childish insults (attempts at insults, anyway).

You've added nothing to counter my observations - and there is SO much you could counter, if you knew anything about the whole thing.

Go for it - show me the legislation, show me the opinions that support whatever your position is - I'm still not really sure.

Back to top

IP Logged

nichy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1812
Gender: female

Re: Ferguson serious about nuclear
Reply #79 - Feb 6^th, 2011 at 4:23pm

There is an urgent need to develop regulations for nuclear power plants and other commercial
nuclear-fuel-cycle facilities. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency,
which regulates the safe use of nuclear materials by Commonwealth entities, including new
research reactors, is specifically prohibited from licensing nuclear power plants. The
Commonwealth environmental legislation requires all nuclear matters to be considered by the
Commonwealth, as for the whole country, so there is a total lack of regulation for dealing with
large nuclear power plants or nuclear-fuel-cycle facilities. This lack of regulation for major
nuclear plants is a major disincentive for any commercial proposal for nuclear power. The
legislative and policy issues need to be resolved so that licensing processes, environmental and
safety requirements for commercial nuclear power plants are established.

www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12601.pdf

Back to top

"He who does not value life does not deserve it." -- Leonardo da Vinci&&&&

IP Logged

Please delete

Gold Member

Offline

Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936

Re: Ferguson serious about nuclear
Reply #80 - Feb 6^th, 2011 at 4:40pm

"The technology for nuclear power was available in Australia but there would be regulatory issues between the States/Territories and the Commonwealth should nuclear power be approved as some
jurisdictions currently prohibited nuclear power."

From ARPANSA

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/nsc/nsc_feb07.pdf

That comment is ambiguous, but it does NOT indicate ARPANSA is prohibted from issuing licences, just that there would be difficulties between jurisdictions.

Back to top

IP Logged

Please delete Gold Member Offline Please delete this smacking PROFILE Posts: 2936	Re: Ferguson serious about nuclear Reply #81 - Feb 6^th, 2011 at 4:45pm http://www.arpansa.gov.au/Regulation/Branch/what.cfm Here is ARPANSA's list of what they regulate. If you can point me to the prohibition of Nuclear Power, I'd be grateful.
Back to top	IP Logged

Please delete

Gold Member

Offline

Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936

Re: Ferguson serious about nuclear
Reply #82 - Feb 6^th, 2011 at 4:57pm

"For example, Section 10 of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANS Act) prohibits the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) from issuing a licence in respect of a nuclear fuel fabrication plant, a nuclear power plant, an enrichment plant or a reprocessing plant."

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/regulatory/conventions/cns_rpt2011.pdf

"7.1. The Commonwealth Parliament passed the ARPANS Act in 1998. The Act applies only to Australian Government entities, their contractors, or persons in a prescribed Commonwealth place. It provides that, under certain conditions, ARPANSA may license an entity to undertake activities in relation to radioactive material and nuclear reactors. ARPANSA cannot, however, license nuclear power reactors.

7.2. Australia is a federation of six States and two self-governing Territories. Constitutional responsibility for radiation health and safety in each State and Territory rests with the respective State/Territory government, unless the activity is being carried on by an Australian Government agency. State and Territory legislation currently prohibits the construction or operation of nuclear installations, including research reactors, although the relevant NSW legislation contains an exception in respect of ANSTO."

These excerpts are more interesting. One seems definite, then it goes on to what I have been saying.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dsmithy70 Gold Member Offline ire futuis vobismetipsis Posts: 13147 Newy Gender:	Re: Ferguson serious about nuclear Reply #83 - Feb 6^th, 2011 at 5:23pm Saw on the Pacific Hwy today on the way home from Syd. Ziggy is holding a public forum at Pymble on the 27/2/11 on this very subject. Australia's nuclear future. Big sign on the church before the railway bridge for those interested.
Back to top	REBELLION is not what most people think it is. REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself. Gavin Nascimento IP Logged

mavisdavis

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1512

Re: Ferguson serious about nuclear
Reply #84 - Feb 6^th, 2011 at 8:25pm

Please delete wrote on Feb 6^th, 2011 at 3:03pm:

In your dreams, mavis.

We're discussing this important matter, just like you purport to want, and you are casting childish insults (attempts at insults, anyway).

You've added nothing to counter my observations - and there is SO much you could counter, if you knew anything about the whole thing.

Go for it - show me the legislation, show me the opinions that support whatever your position is - I'm still not really sure.

You are the one who keeps saying that you can`t function untill someone spends millions on a proposal plan. Why? Your position makes no sense at all.

Back to top

IP Logged

Please delete

Gold Member

Offline

Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936

Re: Ferguson serious about nuclear
Reply #85 - Feb 7^th, 2011 at 4:49am

mavisdavis wrote on Feb 6^th, 2011 at 8:25pm:

Please delete wrote on Feb 6^th, 2011 at 3:03pm:

In your dreams, mavis.

We're discussing this important matter, just like you purport to want, and you are casting childish insults (attempts at insults, anyway).

You've added nothing to counter my observations - and there is SO much you could counter, if you knew anything about the whole thing.

Go for it - show me the legislation, show me the opinions that support whatever your position is - I'm still not really sure.

You are the one who keeps saying that you can`t function untill someone spends millions on a proposal plan. Why? Your position makes no sense at all.

Firstly so we know whether any organisation believes it has the desire to go nuclear.

Secondly so we have some context in which to debate.

Yours is the bizarre position - debate nuclear and approve the theoretical construction of plants, without any answers - who, what, where etc.

Back to top

IP Logged