At the risk of observing the obvious it seems we travelled rather quickly from “anyone not considering Nuclear Power is “not real” (or lets read between the lines with that comment and substitute “insane”) to a position asking where the many reactors will be placed
. No longer any views of those from the “unreal” department will be considered and the case for going nuclear has clearly been established, guess that happened whilst I was in the bush for a little under 48 hours. I thought it must be my imagination …a list of sites being presented on the ABC radio took me by surprise but confirmed when I saw Glen’s post. But it obviously has been done by experts taking into account all the relevant criteria for the placement of a power plant
… more likely put together by someone aware that folk wont want them in their backyard and will stop complaining when the proposed site near their house is moved elsewhere... at that stage they wont argue about if we should have NP or not … just get it out of my back yard will be the view… and the powers know that aspect of human nature and will work it to get them somewhere.
For those who see it similar to me I say it is the old divide and destroy tactic being employed to take the debate from one of national interest and concern to a level where individual communities will be fighting simple against a single plant and its placement within a district
. For those who think different.. go back to sleep your elected representatives have nothing but your interests at heart.. you have nothing to fear
.
Needless to say when asked if he would object to a nuclear power plant next to his house the PM offered a prepacked view for “the people” if any are still awake and need nice words to aid their drift into dreamland…. Saying he would not worry if a nuclear power plant was to be place next door to his house
. I don’t believe our PM need worry about that happening for many reasons and he may be happy to live next door (taking him at his word) but I bet if it was to be placed anywhere in his electorate his view would change
. In fact it will come down to an electorate by electorate battle and I suspect those electorates that have not supported the Government will get “power” but not in the way they have been working for
.
Will local councils have a say? Will the words environmental impact study mean anything? And if they do will any studies be more than a rubber stamp to a program obviously already in place, a program that we are told a little more about each day.
I think the problem of climate change is not imaginary however wasting time and effort on vested interest solutions will leave us with plenty of power (maybe) but the real problem of what to do will not have been addressed
. We may end up with an air conditioner in every house, pulp trees on all our best agricultural land but looking at the figures the planet will still be hotter
. The suggested solutions are laughable... placement of CO2 into rock for example seems an impossible dream but its investigation drains the resources that could be used better. I say lets counter the rise in Ocean level by digging a big hole to drain the excess Ocean into
… well that has a better chance of a happy result than placing CO2 into rock and how crazy is that as an idea still a committe should start work on determining the size of the hole
.. find it is not a perfect solution and say .. go nuclear it is the only way..or you are "unreal" "not real" or "insane"
Still on the bright side taxes that would be wasted on public education and health issues can be redirected to supporting “studies” as to where to place the power plants…and the question if we should store nuclear waste has been hidden as a political question
... we have nuclear power stations of course we need to store our waste
.... so we may well make some cash by taking everyone elses waste.. after all they will not be silly enough to keep it in their countries. At least ash from a coal furnace can be disposed of relatively easy
.
Why has the benefits hydro power been passed by
... the environmental impact to our rivers takes it off the table I guess
. One day in the future you go to the sea side what would you rather see a nuclear power plant or a hydro plant (taking power from the tidal action). And of course there will never be any accidents but a leak of radioactive material into the sea could be of a concern one would think
.
The real worry with all this is, we the people don’t seem to have any control of our future. I heard 50% of the people don’t want Nuclear Power so their minds still have to be changed for they are after all are “not real”… I hate the condescending "we know best” crap we are dished out particularly when it’s only to sell a product, a produce owned by someone employing lobbyists and politicians to sell the goods.
One other worry! Whilst we are wringing our hands over this what are they really trying to take our attention away from... ?
alex
. Needless to say when lobbying one must make it sounds as if you are only concerned for the greater good, you will employ folk generate income etc etc but in truth it is the personal gain that motivates issues
