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 > General Discussion > Nuclear power the only viable option to reduce carbon emissions.

Nuclear power the only viable option to reduce carbon emissions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. All
Nuclear power is not the "cheaper and safer" option, suggested by the opposition leader. The cost of security to keep the stations safe is huge. In every country in the world, nuclear power is heavily subsidised by their Governments. He says that they have less carbon emissions. I didn't think the opposition were serious about carbon emissions. In any case, nuclear power stations do emit substantial measure carbon emissions. Safe? Where are you going to build it? Newcastle? It's on a fault-line, yes it has earth quakes. Brisbane? It floods there. Sydney? High population, and in the same fault line as Newcastle, yes Sydney can have Earthquakes. The Opposition leader spoke an agenda, not facts and figures in the real world.
Posted by saintfletcher, Tuesday, 15 November 2011 8:57:12 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
Lake Burley Griffin would have to be the perfect place.

Mid way between the biggest power users, water for cooling, no tsunamis, & it might frighten those Green twits into running away.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 15 November 2011 12:25:11 PM
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
What I usually find is that the more fixated the poster is that renewable energy can replace fossil fuels, the less he or she knows of power generation or distribution. This thread is no exception in that it has attracted the uninformed to indulge their fantasies about what renewable energy is capable of. For example "Steam produced by friction is instant and regulatable". This is fantastic. Where can I find this friction, and how can I harness it. It has certainly eluded the finest minds for decades.

As for "existing" technologies, I hear people banging on about the "hot rocks" project. It has failed over decades to produce a single commercially viable plant, but is Australia's saviour. The next furphy is the solar storage system, which can produce power for an extended period (about 16hrs) but generates power at about 20x the cost of coal, or more than 2x the cost of nuclear.

Similarly the two nuclear accidents while economically very expensive skilled fewer people than a single large plane crash, and happened in plants that were built before most of us were born. The outrage that Pelican expresses is out of proportion to the event. The damage from the Tsunami that killed nearly 30 000 and devastated thousands of sq km completely dwarfs the nuclear incident.

Nuclear is still safer per kW generated than solar or wind, and certainly far cheaper. Until renewable energy moves from the possible (but hugely expensive) to the practical, without nuclear, the carbon tax can only push up the cost of energy without any significant reductions in emissions.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 15 November 2011 3:27:32 PM
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
SM
You are being disingenuous. How could my response be described in any way as outraged? I am merely stating the facts as I see it in the same way as you are expressing your pro-nuclear stance. I thought you to be better than that despite the fact we disagree on almost every issue. If the pro-nuclear power argument is so weak as to invite ad hominem attacks on those who are anti-nuclear power maybe you need to revisit your assumptions about nuclear.

It is not difficult to put forward a POV in any discussion without resorting to personalities. Play the ball and all that.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 15 November 2011 4:17:11 PM
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
Mind you I would be outraged if a nuclear power plant was based on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin especially as it would probably be done without consultation with residents.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 15 November 2011 4:18:05 PM
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
Pelican,

You delicate flower.

That was not an ad hominem attack, firstly it was my assessment of your blustering, and not a personal attack (thus not by definition ad hominem) and secondly, using grandiose language like " was evidence enough for me that incompetency cannot work with nuclear" is a far cry from rational debate, and so my opinion stands.

As far as facts are concerned, perhaps you could give ma a body count from Fukushima, as compared to the Tsunami? How many years will it take to clean up the thousands of square kilometres of farmland from the salt contamination.

In 25 years since Chernobyl, there has only been one accident, with almost no casualties after the plant was destroyed not by human error, but by the biggest wave in recorded history. If the Fukushima reactors had been in Queensland, they would not not have even hiccuped. So you are being disingenuous.

The issue is that nuclear is still by far the safest generator of electricity, as flying is now the safest form of travel. An accident no matter how spectacular does not change this fact.

Without nuclear the war against climate change is a lost cause.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 15 November 2011 7:48:33 PM
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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. All

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