The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Nuclear vision - from inevitable to invisible > Comments

Nuclear vision - from inevitable to invisible : Comments

By James Norman, published 23/11/2007

During this election campaign, Howard's nuclear push has come to a grinding halt.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. 17
  10. All
Sure nuclear is slow and expensive but it works. Just ask the French who have numerous neighborhoods with reactors, no doubt with much of their uranium sourced in Australia. On the other hand there is no compelling evidence that clean coal will work anytime soon, that windpower can fill more than a fraction of the gap, that experimental technologies (geothermal, solar thermal, wavepower) are ready for a massive scale-up or that we will happily become extremely frugal with energy. Northwest Shelf gas is proving slow to develop and appears to be effectively pre-sold to Asian customers who are lining up.

Add to that the prediction of battery cars charged from a beefed up grid and the hypocrisy of exporting so much uranium. Therefore I believe the massive coal phase-out needed to meet climate targets is unattainable without a recession. Nuclear is the lifeline and should start now.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 23 November 2007 10:14:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People are uncomfortable with nuclear power. As long as the Greens and Labor continue to promise the energy equivalent of bread and circuses, acceptance of nuclear power will not be forthcoming.

If Labor are elected tomorrow, people may have to start facing reality, as the Labor leadership discovers, if they don't know it already, that it's much easier to talk about a non-nuclear CO2 reduced future than to achieve one.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Friday, 23 November 2007 10:28:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James Norman has well outlined the way in which the Howard government's sudden discovery of climate change became the occasion for their enthusiastic push for the nuclear industry.

This coincided quite remarkably with Howard's supposedly "social only" visit to George W. Bush last year. Almost immediately the U.S.A's continuing problem of radioactive waste suddenly became Australia's responsibility.

By another remarkable coincidence, Howard suddenly paid attention to the "Little Children Are Sacred" Report on aboriginal social problems. Never mind that Howard had ignored aboriginal requests for help, over the past 11 years. Also, never mind that he ignored all recommendations of that report.
Howard suddenly found it necessary to take over aboriginal communities, change the communal land ownership and remove the permit system.

By means of this legislation and legislation for nuclear waste dumping in the Northern territory, Howard set the scene for the uranium/nuclear bonanza to get going. And the Hugh Morgans, Michael Angwins, Ron Walkers, Robert de Crespignys, Rod Carnegies etc salivated.

But then – as Norman says – it all faded away, with the resistance of public and politicians to nuclear power plants.

So – Howard’s nuclear Achilles’ heel has indeed become invisible, during this election campaign.

But what I want to know is this: Given that Howard’ nuclear push, (and Rudd’s uranium push) have become unpalatable subjects for the politicians – why does this silence have to be adopted also by the mainstream media?

Why don’t we hear about the pickle (especially financial) that Japan’s nuclear industry has been in, since that earthquake?

Why don’t we hear about the time and and financial blowout of the supposedly great “new generation” nuclear reactor in Finland?

Why don’t we hear about the UK’s continuing problem trying to restart the nuclear industry?

Why don’t we hear about the U.S. schronic nuclera waste problem?
Why don’t we hear about the legal actions being taken by indigenous people in the U.S. (the Navajo), or about the military veterans, (U.S., Canada, U.K. and Australia) seeking compensation for their uranium-caused cancers?
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com
Posted by ChristinaMac, Friday, 23 November 2007 10:30:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taswegian says "Just ask the French" about nuclear power.Well. a recent poll did just that:

French Shun Nuclear Energy, Choose Conservation
Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research November 04, 2007- "The overwhelming majority of people in France agree there is a need to conserve energy and favour renewable sources.

According to a poll by CSA. 96 per cent of respondents think conserving energy should be a priority, and 94 per cent think the European country should focus on developing solar and wind power.

Polling Data
On the topic of energy, do you think (the following) should be a priority?

Conserving energy: yes - 96%, no -4% not sure -- 0
Developing renewable energy: yes - 94%, no - 5% not sure - 1%

Developing nuclear energy: yes - 35%, no - 61% not sure - 4%

As I continue to investigate the French situation on nuclear power, it becomes more apparent that:
1. French nuclear power is actually very expensive - but debts are covered up and the government regulates the price of electricity.
2. Disposal of nuclear waste is a murky and expensive thing.
3. There is a very strong push among communities in France to develop energy efficiency and renewanble energy.

Taswegian doesn't seem to know about the remarkable advances with Concentrated Solar Power - happening in Spain, Algeria, China.

I don't think that you are bothering to keep up to date, Taswegian.
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com
Posted by ChristinaMac, Friday, 23 November 2007 10:39:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Or Cloncurry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloncurry_solar_power_station

Shame about the $90 per MWh, compared with about $40 per MWh from nuclear. Also a shame that after a day of overcast sky (and they do occur in Cloncurry), the plant will produce no power, which means it will require 100% backup (whether via the grid or otherwise).

Finland's new nuclear plant is suffering first of kind costs. The existence of such costs were identified in the Switkowski report. The idea is that you don't keep building first of kind reactors. If Finland were to build another reactor like the Olkiluoto that's had delays, things would go more smoothly. A third even more so, and so on.

Sylvia.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Friday, 23 November 2007 10:59:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. Easily won, near surface, high quality oil and coal was virtually a free energy source. It was a gift.

2. Uranium power is a boutique energy source, wholly dependant on massive inputs from the above.

3. Any world-scale attempt to replace the former with the latter will result in a bonfire of precious remaining oil energy.

4. And when all the reactors, processing facilities and dumps begin to rot from the inside out, as they must inevitably do in a radioactive environment - there may be insufficient precious liquid fuel to devote to the monumental task of cleaning it all up.

This is the way the world ends -

- with an insane whimper.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Friday, 23 November 2007 11:14:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. 17
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy