Malcolm Colles, please be quiet and let us enjoy the best ever Punch and Judy show in town

Abbott may feel the N-word is the kiss of death. As some have pointed out the PM is taking 'direct action' by using Federal money to replace coal fired power stations in Victoria and South Australia with gas fired. In theory that was supposed to happen all by itself after the introduction of carbon tax.

It's early days though. These new gas fired power stations will produce fairly expensive electricity even compared to carbon taxed coal. There will be no rush to convert other power stations. I suspect in a year or two the Germans will be dragging their feet on the nuclear phaseout. Either that or burning more coal or importing nuclear electricity from France. Perhaps 2013 might be a better time for Abbott to talk about nuclear for Australia. By then we'll have a clearer idea just what can realistically replace coal.

[Deleted for abuse.]

I agree with Taswegian in the sense that concerted discussion of nuclear power for Australia should wait until 2013. A compelling reason for this is not the "N" word but the "F" word - by that I mean Fukushima.

The risks of natural disasters or terrorism to nuclear power stations might result in incredibly high cleanup and public health costs. No Australian politician in his right mind would fly nuclear until a better idea of the impact of Fukushima on the Japanese economy and radiation sickness levels are known.

Apart from that Abbott would do well to let the already unwieldy hung-Labor parliament implode over the next two years. Opposition Parties like Abbott's usually do better sniping at poor Government policies rather than Opposition early on presenting alternative policies (like post Fukushima nuclear) that are so easily shot down.

Pete
see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/search/label/Fukushima%20nuclear%20disaster

While I am a huge supporter of nuclear power, with the ALP kicking in own goals on a regular basis, why on god's earth would the liberals want to take the focus off Labor's stuff ups.

As plantagenet mentioned, when the Fukishima plant is back under control, the hysteria dampens down, and Labor is in an irredeemable position, then the coalition can begin tackling the real issues.

One wonders what parallel univewrse Mr Colless is inhabiting. It is not a question of allowing the "hysteria" about Fukushima die ddown. That particular disaster disclosed some uncomfortable ralities about the nuclear industry, including but not limited to their capacity to lie about the scale of the disaster; the willingness of the government to be a party to that lie; the rapidity (as in the UK) where the nuclear industry and the government conspired to present a reassuring story to the public etc etc.
Fortunately there are saner heads in the world including the German government that immediately reversed its previous policy of developing nuclear energy. If only a similar level of sanity and concern for human welfare could be found in Australia. With cheerleaders like Mr Colless one might wait a long time.

Australia does not need to go down the nuclear path. There is limitless engery available in solar, geothermal and other renewables. Remaining with some coal powered stations with renewable options is far preferable to turning to nuclear.

How many nuclear accidents have to happen before it dawns that there are too many risks in nuclear and human error or greed and failure to ensure safety standards will always be an issue.

Fukishima won't 'die down'. Chernobyl still has a no-go zone of some hundreds of kilometres. Those affected by these accidents won't be thinking 'oh well when it all dies down' - what about the ongoing medical problems, contamination and reduction in agricultural land.

Australia has already been clever enough not to go nuclear. People often say they support nuclear until some bureaucrat tells them it will be built in their backyard.

The proposed sites in recent discussions under the Howard Government were all in cities and larger urban regional cities and towns.

Another nuclear plant has gone into meltdown at Fort Calhoun Nevada.This too is being covered up. http://fairewinds.com/
They have top get the technology right and proper safeguards in place.The full disaster of Fukushima has yet to be realised.

Shadow Minister,

I'm intrigued by your reference to when Fukushima is "back under control". I'm wondering what you mean by that? As far as I can discern, three reactors at that plant experienced full meltdown. We don't know yet what sort of long-term impact this will have on the surrounding environment or the wider implications.

Some cover-up, Arjay.

>>Another nuclear plant has gone into meltdown at Fort Calhoun Nevada.This too is being covered up.<<

I wouldn't have thought that a thousand-word article in the New York Times represents a particularly competent cover-up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/us/21flood.html

Another version of this event appears on the "News Worldwide" site. The reason I am attracted to this particular source is because it states categorically that...

"All stories posted on News Worldwide have been verified for their accuracy."

http://newsworldwide.wordpress.com/about/

Right next to it, when I looked, there was the headline "H.A.A.R.P. Was a Direct hit on Japan March 11, 2011 Causing Earthquake, Inside Government Sources Say. Exclusive!"

These must be definitions of "verified" and "accuracy" that exist only in certain dimensions of the space-time continuum, to which I am denied admittance.

These stories have forced the operators to become far more transparent in their information releases, which can only be a good thing. In doing so, they perform the most useful function of educating the public on the basics of running a nuclear facility.

http://www.oppd.com/AboutUs/22_007105

I particularly liked this rumour that they have heard - possibly from you, Arjay, who knows...

"Rumor: A no-fly zone was set up around Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station because of a release of radiation, similar to what happened with the Fukushima reactors in Japan."

The concepts of "no-fly zone" and "flight restrictions" are of course identical in the vocabulary of the sensationalist. As the Utility puts it...

"The flight restrictions were set up by the FAA as a result of Missouri river flooding."

One thing is for sure, Arjay. You live in a very exciting, and highly dangerous world, that keeps you perpetually on the edge of your seat, waiting for the next disaster to occur. Meanwhile, sadly, the rest of us are forced to live a life of mere humdrum normality.

The problem with the neclear plants that are in trouble is that they are old and outdated and should have been replaced long ago.

As with most technology it makes advances in design and construction over time, the more modern plants are generally safer and have a much lower risk of meltdown and possible release of radiation.

Nuclear should be talked about more often, we dont discuss nuclear power we only hear what is happening with OLD TECHNOLOGY no discussion about NEW TECHNOLOGY.

There is even ideas that new technology could even use and reduce the radioactice rods left over from the OLD systems.

<< … Abbott should be proactive, step up to the plate, and call for a full scale debate on the role that nuclear power could play in meeting the future energy demands of a rapidly growing population. >>

No way Malcolm!

Abbott should be looking at how we can deal with this scourge of rapid and never-ending population growth, which by the way would NOT be difficult, and WOULD resonate with the majority of Australian voters.

He should be trying to out-green the Greens with policies directed at achieving a sustainable Australia, which again would not be difficult.

Population stabilisation is an essential part of this. Nuclear power has no place in it.

Ludwig

>> Population stabilisation is an essential part of this. Nuclear power has no place in it. <<

Makes no sense to invest in an energy source that is so fraught with dangerous side effects, not the least of which is the disposal of spent fuel rods.

Part of the raft of solutions, including action on unmitigated human breeding, is research into wind (whether the turbines are a health hazard and how this can be solved), step up investment into solar (which continues to advance its technology), further investment into thermal and hydro.

We do not need nuclear, while there are other options just waiting for the vision, interest, investment and the resultant job opportunities. Where can workers in fossil fuel industries find new jobs? In renewable fuel industries - Duh!

REACTORS WOULD BE PANACEAS IF THEY WEREN'T SO DANGEROUS

- terrorists or disgruntled reactor operators will appreciate blowing up MODERN reactors.

- and also there is War - a sequence 2,000 lb laser guided bombs aimed at a reactor may make life 50 km around brutal and lingering. Just imagine an Osirak style bombing raid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera - but this time on a live fissioning reactor.

The destructive power of fast-fission nuclear weapons correlates with the slow-fission nature of nuclear reactors. A matter of degree but very significantly on a highly elevated scale of danger and RISK.

Pete

Poirot,

By under control, I mean that they are sealed and no longer contaminating the environment.

As for their danger, coal fired boilers have emitted far more low level radiation in their ash into the air than nuclear reactors ever have. The difference is that there is no hysteria around this process.

Pericles they initially covered up the Fort Calhoun melt down and now admit that Fukushima is many times worse than they were reporting.Do what's you definition of cover up?

Pericles,when I read rubbish I ignore it.When you view something as nonsense,you go to great lengths to discredit the author with very little substance in your attack.Ad hominem doe not make an argument.

That's truly hilarious, Arjay.

>>Pericles,when I read rubbish I ignore it<<

No you don't.

You believe every single word of the rubbish that you read, and promptly regurgitate it on this forum.

But there is a serious point to be made here about your accusations of ad hominem. The quality of the source is becoming a matter of critical importance, given the manner in which we have become increasingly selective in the way we "read the news".

In the days when we had less choice, it was patently obvious. People who only had Pravda or Izvestia to read, would see the world differently to those who had La Stampa, or FAZ. Today we have an order of magnitude more sources to choose from, at the click of a mouse.

And what do we do with that massive increase in volume? We become self-selecting. Rather than be involuntarily "fed" the news straight from the Supreme Soviet, we choose to focus on the publication that meets our personal foibles and prejudices.

That, in short, is why I consider that a reference to the origin of your "information" is at least equally as important as the information itself. Examining the organ's credentials can be useful in determining whether or not there is likely to be a scrap of truth in it.

And, out of interest...

>>Pericles they initially covered up the Fort Calhoun melt down and now admit that Fukushima is many times worse than they were reporting.Do what's you definition of cover up?<<

Who are "they" in this sentence? And which "meltdown" at Fort Calhoun was initially covered up?

Ludwig, sad as it may be, I think you need to replace your screen name. the Ludwig bit is not doing you or your credibility much good at the moment. Not that you had much cred. to start woth but this is not helping

Ooow!

( :>|

There you go again Pericles.More ad hominem.You have failed dismally in the past to address the science of freefall of the Towers of 911 and the forensic proof of nano thermite.Also the Statements of Robert Baer whom Nick Caldis the Deputy Commissioner of security and terrorism NSW highly recommends.Robert Baer who says the evidence points to Govt involvement in 911. http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Do your best Pericles,the truth will survive even your best efforts of subversion

I think you may have to check on the definition of "ad hominem", Arjay. It might help you frame your arguments better, and to recognize that talking through your hat is inadmissible as evidence.

>>You have failed dismally in the past to address the science of freefall of the Towers of 911 and the forensic proof of nano thermite.<<

On the contrary, I have refuted every single one of your fanciful suppositions. You simply fail to recognize basic logic when it comes a-calling, that's all.

>>Also the Statements of Robert Baer whom Nick Caldis the Deputy Commissioner of security and terrorism NSW highly recommends.<<

You have mentioned this before. The Deputy Commissioner's name is Kaldas, by the way. And there is no record, anywhere of him "highly recommending" Robert Baer.

Not only that, but Baer himself has stated "for the record, I don't believe that the World Trade Center was brought down by our own explosives, or that a rocket, rather than an airliner, hit the Pentagon."

Once again, it leads one to ask exactly whose 9/11 conspiracy theory you subscribe to, Arjay. And why that one, particularly, when there are oh-so-many to choose from?

What worries me is the psychological impact on you, when you discover that www.911truth.org/ is actually a disinformation point, established by the CIA as a honeypot, to help them identify any potential threats among the nutjobs who join up.

So far, they have been thoroughly disappointed.