Ralf “Troublemaker” Andrews,

This is my last post in this topic either, not because I am pro-green and surprised with opposition to further exporting Australian-produced pollution but using own nuke resources locally, quite opposite: majority of disputants have only emotions expressed, while as usual in Australia, being very short of a factual, engineering especially, approach to the issues.

Thank you for your e-address, maybe, one day.

Troublemaker should take the trouble to have a look at the Australian uranium production figures on UIC's website. Production in 2006 was 20% down on 2005, while in Canada it was down 15%, with only Kazakhstan producing more than the year before. Overall global production was down 5%. Ranger the Australian biggest is due to close in 2008, working out its ore stocks by 2014, but is flooded meanwhile. Olympic Dam underground is failing, dropping around 25% over a year.

To match the loss of the secondary sources from ex-weapons highly enriched uranium under the US-Russia agreement, there needs to be opened new capacity of 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes a year by 2013/14 - no chance of that. Can Troublemaker tell us where it is going to come from, especially if the Olympic Dam expansion is turned down?

Like daysab, I too am bemused at the notion that solar power is not an inexhaustible source of energy.
This is my last post too. like most of OLO 'discussions' it has deteriorated into combatants firing arguments from entrenched positions... little point. better to write to your MP.

Dickie

a) It is your prerogative to hold any opinion that you chose to adopt.

b) You are free to propagate any opinion that comes into your mind. You are also free to quote any number of pseudo authorities and individuals. [People that have no standing in the wider scientific community].

c) Please forgive me, for profoundly disagreeing with your misguided posts.

d) This is my last response to your messages. This thread is becoming more and more tedious

Ybgirp/Ludwig

It appears the combatants have resigned their posts anyway.

I refer to the unprovoked attack from Troublemaker where he told me to "get a life."

Anti-green refers to those who are anti-nuclear as "Conspiracy theorists" despite those posters raising issues which can be easily supported by documentary evidence.

Another problem with nuclear as a magical panacea to global warming. The public resources and sacrifices required to develop nuclear energy exclude more appropriate forms of energy. One of the worst things is that public investment would be consumed by large corporations at the detriment of diversity and smaller energy businesses. More appropriate energy infrastructure will not be developed and so will undermine this country when the nuclear energy industry inevitably collapses.

Alternative energy industries such as wind and solar, tide and wave generation do not require large companies to supply energy. Owner generation is the only long term sustainable possibility. All of these will be destroyed by heavily subsidised nuclear energy effectively creating energy monopolies as we see today.

Hydro , thermal, tide, wave and wind power generation have to be intergrated with catchment, coastal or local environmental management. Such management in Australia integrates stakeholder imput with public management. Environmental management is impossible with nuclear energy as the area of degradation is on a severely large scale and risk centres are diversified to include transport routes and waste depots. With this aspect along with security issues stakeholders have no imput in the environmental management of the land (and sea) affected by the plant and yet stakeholders are forced take on all the risk. Nuclear poses a disaster risk for governance and democracy.