WARNING - ACF CORE MELTDOWN
RESTRICTED AREA - ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK

Thanks David

"The spectre of a nuclear debate will delay and potentially damage Australia's pathway to a clean, renewable energy future.

It will unnecessarily absorb large amounts of political capital, energy and attention."

Nuclear energy has given France about 80% of its base-load energy for decades. No problems. China is committed to expanding its nuclear generating capacity, as are many other countries, from the USA to Finland.

Japan has 30+ other reactors that are operating OK. My understanding is that the current (serious) problems with one of them has nothing to do with nuclear technology per se, and much more with its location - in an area within reach of tsunami.

Australia must have a debate about this proven and safe energy source. Important issues surely deserve the expenditure of "political capital, energy and attention."

In an energy-starved world that will have a population of 9,000 million by 2050, do you (and the ACF) seriously believe the country can justify quarantining its 35+% of global uranium reserves and prevent other countries using it based on irrational fears?

Ironical that you seek a zero-carbon world and yet reject the only proven technology that will at least give you a start on the long and winding road to Ecotopia.

Alice (in Warmerland)

NO!

Newer Pebble bed reactors are not dangerous like the Japanese units. They need fluid to sustain fission. They shut-down when fluid levels fall.

Nuclear is not a dead option. Government lobbying Entrpreneurs & INVESTORS will make money from PBRs before long.

Nuclear ain't over. But there is a multidisciplinary GEOTHERMAL/THERODYNAMIC/GENETICS lesson here.

The Earth's core is getting gradually cooler and smaller. It is dying. And when it goes so will complex life on this planet.

There are reasons why huge populations thrive around the GEO-unstable Himalayas, Euro Alps, Pacific Ring, Apalachias, Rockies, Andes & African-Rift-Valley. The bulk of humanity depends on Geological free-energy for maintainence of of its Biological pulse. A corollary is, despite greedy fools, Australia's thermodynamics will never sustain large populations.

The trick is to harness GEOTHERMAL energy via Hot Rocks(5Km-7KMdepth) and move populations laterally away from the danger-zones. The tapping of such GEO-energy will have a core calming effect. Its the Earth's THERMODYNAMICS trying to get rid of excess heat by the 'second-law of-thermodynamics' that causes earthquakes. Try holding the lid on a boiling pot and see!. Remove and use that heat to drive your civilisations and the danger zones become a lot safer.

The real problem over the next 1-2 millenia, IF we humans don't overbreed and wipe ourselves out in a flurry of sexual competition and greed, is that when Geothermal energy is too deep to tap, we are going to need to find a new planet. Solar energy was barely enough to sustain paltry Neanderthals. It will not carry billions of 4WD, Iphone toting, 3-children monsters such as we.

So, lets all pray that the Earthquakes keep coming regularly. And get heavy with property-investors wishing to make quick bucks squeezing more people into danger zones.

The reality? Seismic events are our Godsend, NOT our Nemesis.

Be warned and look to a new crop of leaders who have the scientific insight to lead us to a GEOTHERMAL future. Even if we need a few PBR nuclear reactors in the mix to get the ball rolling.

Oh, Want to talk Solar-Wind-Power? Talk to a NEANDERTHAL!

Building reactors in a highly active seismic/earthquake areas like Japan is intrinsically dangerous, hence longterm plans to build reactors in Indonesia in an equally active zone are dangerous.

Very low earthquake areas like Australia are much safer places to build reactors, oil refineries or any other types of large factories.

Pete

Oh My God.

There ARE Neanderthals!

I will show more respect for the nuclear argument when they will talk about the ineffeciencies.

That argument is used against solar when nuclear has not even got close to the efficiency of solar.

By product of petro companies owning the patents perhaps?

Seems to me a bit more regulation of the petro companies ownership of alternate energy technology may be a good thing.

Not holding my breath as it is probably to late.

However Nuclear does not stack up on efficiency, only convenience.

I think it's fair to say that whilst we all agree this is a tragedy, there needs to be a balanced and considered resolution at the end of it all. Whilst I think many would agree that there are "significant risks" involved with nuclear power generation when incidents like this one occur; but that's true of every alternative if you get the right combination of extreme events that triggered this one - huge earthquake + resultant tsunami = ruptured power plants & major disaster.

The idealists have their points of view on halting the mining of uranium - that's going to ease their conscience, but uranium will be sourced from elsewhere so it won't stop the problem.

The alternatives of gas and coal powered generators present their own set of problems with pollution and the ongoing issues there.

Wind and solar options are nice; but are they practical - can they achieve what's needed? I honestly don't know the answer to that one; I can only hope.

If we accept that nuclear power generation is the only "practical" solution today, then we have a responsibility to ensure that (as a minimum) we:-
- Don't build them on a known fault line!
- Ensure that the critical "fail-safe" systems (like a supply of water to cool the rods) is incorporated into the contruction process.
- Ensure that these systems are NOT dependant on other forms of infrastructure that are prone to failure (i.e. gravity is pretty reliable!)

I think we have to live with the reality that nuclear is something we will have to continue to use until we develop the safer, cleaner alternatives. Sadly, it takes a diaster like this to bring this whole issue out into the public forum for debate.

I wonder if any of our politicians and the other people that can actually make a difference read these forums? Maybe they should; it's a great place to get real "public opinion"?
Thanks