"Speaking personally, I have every faith in the ability my children and grandchildren or their peers, to find a solution."
I have to admit, I think it is very sensible of you to anticipate your children being smarter than you are, Col Rouge.
I'm not sure the enforced sterilisation of those who disagree with you is entirely original though... Perhaps you should give credit to your predecessors, where credit is due?
It is wonderfully convenient, having absolute faith that someone else will fix your stuffups -even when the solutions haven't been invented yet.
Yes, I think you're definitely right about your children, Col Rouge.
For those slightly less certain of their children's infallibility might I recommend this video:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4364780292633368976&ei=dP2LSorwAoKgwgPuruWpDg&hl=en
It's not about nuclear power, directly; it's really about simple arithmetic.
In summary, if you have steady growth of say 2% pa (which is the rate world energy consumption has increased pa since 1980) that means energy consumption will double every 35 years.It also means in each 35 year period, with each doubling, we will use more power (more non renewable energy) within that period, than all the previous periods put together.
Oh, and about Malthus? What a silly man, suggesting that if people keep multiplying, billions could starve.
How crazy can you get.

Ten years from now , when Prime Minister Rudd has found his way to back down and start to build our first nuclear power station.
The opposition leader Mrs Turnbull[ his wife not an insult] will say why are we so far behind the rest of the world?
We already are you know.
And yes much less uranium in the ground than coal, but surely it is understood how little compared with coal it takes?

Examinator,

In the 60s people became aware of the dangers of radioactivity and the consequences of a major incident. The codes for plant construction were revised so severely that the cost of the plants increased tenfold.

The major changes were that all systems were to be redundant and triple redundant where critical, stringent training and maintenance requirements, and finally a containment wall so strong that an aircraft could crash into it and not penetrate.

Comparing the Chernobyl reactor to modern reactors is like comparing the Wright brothers strut and cloth plane to a modern airbus.

A incident similar to chernobyl at a modern reactor would have caught by the redundant systems, and even if there had been further multiple system failures, the containment wall would have meant that you could have had a picnic outside with no risk.

These low level "whoops" to which you refer are almost always system failures that are caught by the redundant systems, or internal leaks that never escape to the outside. Long term cumulative studies would be pointless.

Like wise reactors don't have to be close to population any more than the coal fired stations do. However, given their ability to generate drinking water from seawater using the waste heat, it would not be a bad idea.

Grim “It is wonderfully convenient, having absolute faith that someone else will fix your stuffups -even when the solutions haven't been invented yet.”

1 Our “stuff-ups” – or do you absolve yourself for using electricity and if you do… where does your PC get powered from?
2 Thomas Malthus used similar criticism of those who had the foresight to challenge his reasoning and was, clearly, equally as wrong as you.

“Perhaps you should give credit to your predecessors, where credit is due?”

Well I am the product of my predecessors genes so there is credit there… but I am not so sure what “credit” your predecessors could claim.

“I'm not sure the enforced sterilisation of those who disagree with you is entirely original though”

Maybe you could identify where I suggested your vasectomy should be “enforced”… putting words into other peoples statements is not good debating… I suggested you seek sterilization without qualification (voluntarily), for the sake of future generations and to save your own offspring the anguish of existing with the burden of being born with such a “grim” and pessimistic outlook on life.

“Oh, and about Malthus? What a silly man, suggesting that if people keep multiplying, billions could starve.”

Yes but Malthus ignored the “uninvented” developments in farming technology, disease control, medical research and a plethora of other changes which made the number of people being supported on the planet grow exponentially. Malthus even missed the “oil” revolution and had no concept of either a humble motor car or telephone.


I would agree the extent of human population numbers will seriously deter future "life quality" but the expectations of "life quality" considered common these days is something which Malthus would have been completely ignorant of.

Like you said “How crazy can you get.”

Yes well….… “How ignorant can you be?”

In Grims case, as ignorant as Malthus.

Shadow minister,
Your point about Chernobyl has been noted but you still ignore the facts Chernobyl to me highlighted the human element.
Poisoning of the ground water in The US has occurred from two Gen 3 reactors.

France has also had triple system failures. Perhaps you need to consider the airline industry as an example human element failures..or perhaps the oil industry...One could ask by what means do you seem to assert that human nature and motivation will be different in the nuclear power industry?

Likewise "pro nuclear" lobby have no defense against the fact that the industry will need massive support from the tax payer....subsidies guarantees, ongoing waste storage,decommissioning, mothballing costs of spent reactor and site/whoops remediation No where in the world has a commercial entity covered all these costs.

What effective nuclear remediation methods are there? ones that guarantee say 50% success. With the right controls (which effectively don't exist) the fossil fuel industry has bio, chemical and mechanical remediation methods. the human element (corporate imperatives etc) always hobble the possible.

Why then would we want to take the clear risk with a non solvable problem?

The commercial reality regarding spares manufacture and timely supply is another failure point (see Chernobyl history on malfunctioning dials valves etc). As the reactors age the real profit shifts to the newer reactors.

I ask if the same funding was expended on less toxic alternatives they too may be just as viable.

Likewise decentralized generation and a mix of technologies will probably turn out to be the best for the people. As opposed to the C19 solution big, centralized,profit maximized opportunities is always the best.

In the interest of a rounded objective discussion it would be nice if pro nuclear were to answer my points...(NB not necessarily criticisms).

In essence I am calling for an open mind approach that thinks laterally out of vested interest's frame work and objectively considers all options. eg vertical wind generation, tidal, hot rocks solar panels and furnace the lot. So far it hasn't been done.
I await to read pro team to address these issues properly.

any alternative energy supplier has clearly a vested intrest in their prodiuct being used...nukes as much as petro chemicalor wind power..its all multinationals selling us their product[on their grand scale....we used to have many small suppliers[local coincils ran them and water for pennies

but they have all been shut down...turned to thearters of the mindless

anyhow the joe fuel cell has liquid water HH20...that neutralkises radiation instyantly/...its a unique fuel replacement that runs petro moters on water...via a system of stainless steel circles under self sustaining electololic sepperation of elements...

that run the petro by vacume inlue of explosion...the only modification needed is to advance timming to the compression stroke[25 degrees]...then drive your vehicle petro free