The nuclear debate...

[glenc (Glen)]

With the proposed Rudd ETS (CPRS) the electricity generators will get free pollution permits, then pretend they never got them, and charge us all extra for electricity anyway.

[marki]

Originally Posted by renormalised

I
What would you do, or more to the point, what do you think most people would do if their power bill went up by 50%, or 100, 200, 300%, in order to pay for all of this?? Regardless of its environmental credentials or how kind it was to nature, they'd riot. Because it wouldn't only be the power bill that went up.

I imagine they would just do this, the clever ones anyway.

http://www.affordable-solar.com/larg...-6560-watt.htm

I mean with the current prices of houses it would not add that much more to the cost would it. Carl they have just hiked gas prices up here by 50% and there has yet to be a revolution.

Mark

[TrevorW]

As long as it's affordable we will pay for it no matter the cost

however the rise must be gradual over time (so it's hidden) otherwise no doubt we would see power consumption go down which would be intolerable is as far it would affect the producers income

it's all relevant

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by marki

I imagine they would just do this, the clever ones anyway.

http://www.affordable-solar.com/larg...-6560-watt.htm

I mean with the current prices of houses it would not add that much more to the cost would it. Carl they have just hiked gas prices up here by 50% and there has yet to be a revolution.

Mark

Exactly right, I know that if I was to build house I would invest in a solar solution, currently I rent so out of the question. The only bit I can do is building a solar charger for my astro battery system. Other system in the house can't be done because the owner won't allow it.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

BTW I believe the solar production has a high greenhouse effect but that part i am sure about. It may be offset over time though, how long not sure though.

[Solanum]

Originally Posted by jjjnettie

Not everyone has this built in protection. This chromosome pair is absent in some people, a condition called "Lynch Syndrome". What causes these silent mutations to occur?????

The various DNA repair systems aren't perfect, they will inherently vary between people and in effect some wear out, it's untrue to assume you can take a certain amount of radiation (and presumably then all will go wrong?). It's all about probability and risk. The probability of a single high energy particle causing you lasting damage is very small, but it is there. Likewise, some people smoke heavily until a very old age and don't get cancer, doesn't make it a sensible thing to do though. Given enough data we can assess those risks and say perhaps (note this isn't a real risk estimate!) "only one in a million people living within 10 miles of a nuclear plant is likely to get cancer as a result" that assessment cannot tell us who that person would be though and as a risk it would probably be acceptable to most (far more likely to die in a car accident driving home from work). One problem is the lower the risk the more data we need to identify it.

By the way, I doubt a foetus with a chromosome pair missing would be viable. Lynch syndrome is more likely to be a single gene that is defective.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by marki

I imagine they would just do this, the clever ones anyway.

http://www.affordable-solar.com/larg...-6560-watt.htm

I mean with the current prices of houses it would not add that much more to the cost would it. Carl they have just hiked gas prices up here by 50% and there has yet to be a revolution.

Mark

Honestly Mark, how many can afford to shell out nearly $35K just for the sake of putting some PVC's on the roof?? It's not that it will add too much to the cost of a house, it's the initial cost burden to begin with. If it was that affordable or relatively cheap, everyone would have one. For new houses, I think they should be a mandatory inclusion, much like the plumbing. But you can't expect people to go out and just part with what for many is a year's (or more) wages just so they can feel better about their environmental impact. They simply won't do it. You have to make this sort of thing a lot cheaper before people will ultimately commit to making the leap. Especially when they're going to be installed in existing homes.

What price do you pay for gas??

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Honestly Mark, how many can afford to shell out nearly $35K just for the sake of putting some PVC's on the roof?? It's not that it will add too much to the cost of a house, it's the initial cost burden to begin with. If it was that affordable or relatively cheap, everyone would have one. For new houses, I think they should be a mandatory inclusion, much like the plumbing. But you can't expect people to go out and just part with what for many is a year's (or more) wages just so they can feel better about their environmental impact. They simply won't do it. You have to make this sort of thing a lot cheaper before people will ultimately commit to making the leap. Especially when they're going to be installed in existing homes.

What price do you pay for gas??

I know 3 people in my immediate group of friends that have done just that and are glad they have done it.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

I know 3 people in my immediate group of friends that have done just that and are glad they have done it.

Good on them, but that still doesn't mean the majority of people will. Most people can't afford it...simple as that. In any case, most people would probably buy a car before they bought a panel (or panels) of PVC's.

[GrahamL]

The uranium industry from what I've read over the years mirrors a lot of other buisness models , profit first people second , and in THIS industry like no other the long term legacy is well outside any accountability for individual companies .

What would the girls have to say ?
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/05/radium-girls/

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

I've heard the story of the Radium Girls.
Unbelievably shocking treatment.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by jjjnettie

I've heard the story of the Radium Girls.
Unbelievably shocking treatment.

Yes.. shocking. Because people will almost always put short-time profit before everything else... Someone on that blog mentioned asbestos - same story, just different stuff.

As far as nuclear power is concerned, I have no problems with that.
I lived for almost 10 years very close to one (50km or so) , the only effect we saw was a slightly risen temperature of the river ( water from river was used for cooling).
This plant is still operating, almost 30 years so far, and only once there was a small accident involving leakage of water from primary circuit (but no radiation). Actually, the real scare for us was Chernobyl incident, and it was thousands of km away..
This technology (not the one used in Chernobyl) is very mature and safe.. it also creates jobs (highly skilled, though) and it is cheap in the long run.
Australia has enormous deposits of uranium.. and a lots of deserts that could be used to store waste, and even employ locals, after proper training.. I am sure this will happen sooner or later.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by nightstalker

The uranium industry from what I've read over the years mirrors a lot of other buisness models , profit first people second , and in THIS industry like no other the long term legacy is well outside any accountability for individual companies .

What would the girls have to say ?
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/05/radium-girls/

The treatment of these women was indeed criminal. Thalidomide - involving no radiation at all- was equally so, some decades later.

But for heavens sake, things have move on a bit since then.

The (radium) author's argument is akin to the reverse of " eating Nutrigrain is good as it is full of iron and will help develop our Northwest, and so help our economy"

The popular mindset of: nuclear power = cancer + bombs
....is really very dumb.

As has been mentioned earlier, the low level emissions for coal fired plants
is *higher* than the nuclear variety.

In a well regulated environment, the technology is incredibly safe, zero deaths in the French operations in over 40 years....and still we on planet Oz baulk.

Our motto " Shippers of yellow-cake to the world" !

[GrahamL]

No argument there Pete

But theres so many unknowns in this industry that are only just starting to become relevent with the operating life of many of these reactors coming to an end .

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

After a facility has been taken out of service it allows its release from regulatory control and relieves the licensee of his responsibility for its nuclear safety.

In that is what I see as the worry , sure nuclear power plants are safe enough , but down the road ?.. when the money isn't there ?

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by nightstalker

..... sure nuclear power plants are safe enough , but down the road ?.. when the money isn't there ?

4th generations plants are apparently good for 40-60 years.

Setting up a "decomissioning fund" as part of the operators licence would seem a reasonable solution.

Taking the mean figure, and say a $1billion decomissioning cost... I'm guessing..a ball park figure...20 million a year would be all that is required?

I think the janatorial bill at Parliment house is not far off that

(I seem to recall it being about 1 million...but that could be way off)

[marki]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Honestly Mark, how many can afford to shell out nearly $35K just for the sake of putting some PVC's on the roof??

What price do you pay for gas??

Carl I posted that in repect to your comment of huge rises in power costs. If power went up by 500% it would certainly be worth considering. Houses around here have increased in value by 25K in the last 3 months so I am assuming 35K extra on a loan is not going to break the bank. I will let you know what the extra gas cost is when the bill arrives. Considering we produce so much of it in this state you would assume it would be cheap but that only goes for overseas buyers I am affraid.

Mark

[AG Hybrid (Adrian)]

Originally Posted by marki

Carl I posted that in repect to your comment of huge rises in power costs. If power went up by 500% it would certainly be worth considering. Houses around here have increased in value by 25K in the last 3 months so I am assuming 35K extra on a loan is not going to break the bank. I will let you know what the extra gas cost is when the bill arrives. Considering we produce so much of it in this state you would assume it would be cheap but that only goes for overseas buyers I am affraid.

Mark

$35K, thats alot of money for something that will pay itself off in how many years? 15-20?

$35K ontop of the cost of a house on the west coast may not seem so much. But on the east coast? $35,000 is what it is. $35,000!! Thats family saloon money, or a 4WD or a huge swimming pool (yes luxury items), even a private observatory. It could be the difference between being able to afford a house with 4 bed rooms instead of 3.

Also, alot of people on the east coast are scraping by just to pay their current mortgage. They get by month after month with out any savings at all! 35K can and probably will break the bank. With interest rates rising now, that money will be spent else where. Of course in most cases, they have only themselves to blame for putting themselves into so much debt. That being said, the majority of Australias population lives on the east coast.

Ideally yes its great. My father is planning to purchase a smaller one purely for running the refridgerator when he retires in 6 months. Its fine for him he can dip into his super.

As mentioned previously by renormalised, I think the best way around it is to have the house built with it manditory, so when the buyer purchases the house, it is included in the price without a further or added burden. Either they can afford the whole package or they cant.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by marki

Carl I posted that in repect to your comment of huge rises in power costs. If power went up by 500% it would certainly be worth considering. Houses around here have increased in value by 25K in the last 3 months so I am assuming 35K extra on a loan is not going to break the bank. I will let you know what the extra gas cost is when the bill arrives. Considering we produce so much of it in this state you would assume it would be cheap but that only goes for overseas buyers I am affraid.

Mark

The price of gas follows OPEC oil pricing condition, so unfortunately it goes up and down with oil prices. Ever look at the petrol station and wonder why gas prices fluctuate.

I know this because I made a complaint with ACCC, and they were the ones that told me about gas pricing structure, as well as there was nothing I could do.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by AG Hybrid

$35K, thats alot of money for something that will pay itself off in how many years? 15-20?

$35K ontop of the cost of a house on the west coast may not seem so much. But on the east coast? $35,000 is what it is. $35,000!! Thats family saloon money, or a 4WD or a huge swimming pool (yes luxury items), even a private observatory. It could be the difference between being able to afford a house with 4 bed rooms instead of 3.

Also, alot of people on the east coast are scraping by just to pay their current mortgage. They get by month after month with out any savings at all! 35K can and probably will break the bank. With interest rates rising now, that money will be spent else where. Of course in most cases, they have only themselves to blame for putting themselves into so much debt. That being said, the majority of Australias population lives on the east coast.

Ideally yes its great. My father is planning to purchase a smaller one purely for running the refridgerator when he retires in 6 months. Its fine for him he can dip into his super.

As mentioned previously by renormalised, I think the best way around it is to have the house built with it manditory, so when the buyer purchases the house, it is included in the price without a further or added burden. Either they can afford the whole package or they cant.

$35,000 solar system are for the high end houses that would consume a lot of electricity. General house power consumption would not be as much.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by marki

Carl I posted that in respect to your comment of huge rises in power costs. If power went up by 500% it would certainly be worth considering. Houses around here have increased in value by 25K in the last 3 months so I am assuming 35K extra on a loan is not going to break the bank. I will let you know what the extra gas cost is when the bill arrives. Considering we produce so much of it in this state you would assume it would be cheap but that only goes for overseas buyers I am affraid.

Mark

I agree with you there...if the price for power went up that high it would be worth considering. Wouldn't even have to go that high. Like I said, I think the installation of PVC's on new houses should be made mandatory and included in the price of the house. But for most people, shelling out $35K just to put them on an existing building would be considered an expense they couldn't afford. That's why the prices need to come down.

Oh, that's nothing new....governments making us paying more for the damn stuff than overseas customers, yet we produce it in bucket loads!!!. Rather curry favour with the neighbours than look after their own.