We indeed have a backward looking government, A solar cell on every new building is a great idea and it was feasable even as far back as the eighties but no. The great men and women who infest parliament house holds sway to the lobby groups and money men.
Having such a small population establishing nuclear power now would cause the price of electricity to rise dramatically, with minimal reduction on green house gasses and the problem of disposing the toxic waste (also very expensive).
I cannot see the advantages of setting up nuclear power in our country. Its a red herring.
Really, I don't know where some of this stuff comes from. Solar cells are an emerging technology, reliant on battery storage when the Sun shines for use when the Sun doesn't. Battery technology is very primitve and expensive. If it was economically beneficial to have solar cells on every roof, they would be there. It is an individual's decision as to whether to install them, nothing to do with lobby groups or money men, whoever they are.
For many countries, nuclear power is the only option. It is cheaper, safer and more reliable than most of the alternatives. As this site from Stanford University points out:
the waste products from reprocessing only last 500 years and take up minimal storage space.
Australia is fortunate in having substantial amounts of coal to fire power stations, meaning that a nuclear option would not be economically feasible. The only problem is the emmission of CO2 from this technology, which fundamentalist environmentalist are trying to stop. If the world goes down the hysterical path laid out by the Kyoto protocol, Australia may need to turn to nuclear power to restrict emission of "greenhouse gases", or alternativelty reduce living standards. Do you want a modern health, education and transport system? or maybe not? Prefer to live and die like your great grandparents?
Unfortunately, this is based on the myth of "climate change". It you would like to look at the data:
Onya Argonavis - there the links that should of been posted much earlier, particularly that first one, perfect antidote to the greenie mumbo jumbo superstitous native claptrap, out of date anti-nuke propoganda, that permeates our world
What maybe some people dont realise is that there are mining projects of significant value to this country that are currently shelved ( here in SA ) due to lack of power and water (desalination).
Seeing we won't have a manufacturing industry of significance pretty soon, due to unprecedented and unmatchable competition, I dont see were the future employment/revenue ect. is gonna come from, do you? if indeed you do, please share it with us
Onya Argonavis - there the links that should of been posted much earlier, particularly that first one, perfect antidote to the greenie mumbo jumbo superstitous native claptrap, out of date anti-nuke propoganda, that permeates our world
What maybe some people dont realise is that there are mining projects of significant value to this country that are currently shelved ( here in SA ) due to lack of power and water (desalination).
Seeing we won't have a manufacturing industry of significance pretty soon, due to unprecedented and unmatchable competition, I dont see were the future employment/revenue ect. is gonna come from, do you? if indeed you do, please share it with us
The 1978 Fox report is a good starting point into the nuclear industry as it covers the fuel cycle, but since then the technology has moved on. This was the basis of the 3 mines policy. South Australian may prefer more mines to generate further employment, perhaps.
If we look at our economic history over the past 100 years, as one industry declines others take their place and our standard of living has steadily improved. The decline of manufacturing will be replaced by service industries (which includes service provision to mining).
Thanks Argonavis - acknowledged, but surely mining (in its varying guises) has been a consistent integral and underwriting part of Australia's history the whole time? along with the sheeps back and all that.
Thanks Argonavis - acknowledged, but surely mining (in its varying guises) has been a consistent integral and underwriting part of Australia's history the whole time? along with the sheeps back and all that.
My economic history is a little rusty, but I remember that Australia has been primarily a minerals exporter most of the last 200 or so years. Wool was only a major export earner in the 1830's and sometime in the 1900's - once gold was discovered in 1850 it made Australia the wealthest nation on earth for a time, and since then most exports have been minerals - iron ore, copper, silver, bauxite. The stock exchanges in the last century were dominated by BHP, Pancon, RioTinto etc. This mineral wealth has made Australia a lucky country despite the poor agicultural soils and harsh climate. Uranium is one part of this mix.
I have deliberately avoided buying into this thread so far, and I haven't waded back through every post so maybe this observation has been made already — and hell, maybe I'm just plain wrong... but does it strike anyone else as strange or ironic that for so many years the commercial sector used to downplay the severity of global warming but now they are actually emphasizing how bad it is because they want to sell nuclear energy?
(Conspiracy theory number 3752 in a continuing series.)
Some Impressive solar technology there !
Yep ! I got my letter published too, But my scanner is malfunctioning
I will have to reload the software AGAIN! MS Windows!!!
wonder why the Chinese and Indian's arent after that solar technology, but rather after our yellow cake? they all must be completely stupid? and the environazi's are the only smart people in the world? funny also the tradionally tightwad economic rationalists are all for it also? very strange?
interesting there was a phone poll in the advertiser on wednesday on this, and only 97 ppl responded, and pro nuke power won 60% to 40% - those figures sound about right to me, yay for democracy!. never thought I would be so glad of the inherent apathy in oz and the nazi party being in power (instead of the stalinist bolshies) I am shocked for the first time I actually agree with them on something! well you live and learn
btw councils all over SA are putting there hands up very vigorously indeed - its oo ooo ooo pick me pick me LOL its a bunfight actually
and this expense angle thats used so frequently, is negated when you explain not all nuke plants have to behemoth full sized monsters - there are little boutique ones that cater to small localised area's/needs too
bad luck anti-nukers, youll have to leave the country now? oh hang what first world country will you go to that doesnt have nuke power in the world?
I have deliberately avoided buying into this thread so far, and I haven't waded back through every post so maybe this observation has been made already — and hell, maybe I'm just plain wrong... but does it strike anyone else as strange or ironic that for so many years the commercial sector used to downplay the severity of global warming but now they are actually emphasizing how bad it is because they want to sell nuclear energy?
(Conspiracy theory number 3752 in a continuing series.)
Cheers,
Brian.
I have had that thought as well and it may well be close to the truth
I have had that thought as well and it may well be close to the truth
what? are the environazi's complaining that the powers that be have finally aknowledged this issue?
sheeesh no satisying you guys until we are back in the 15th century BC is there?
what? are the environazi's complaining that the powers that be have finally aknowledged this issue?
sheeesh no satisying you guys until we are back in the 15th century BC is there?
Sorry , I am just trying to have a friendly debate on the issue.
you should know by now Mick not to take me too seriously nobody else does, why should you? lol
The term environazi is just my way of making the point that people who seek to control things, even for what they believe is right, can seem totalitarian from a different point of view.
I feel that the extreme enviromentalists can be a little condescending at times too.
Along with Ving and others we are just bringing the other side of the aurguement into the debate, so its all not just a one sided 'living in the '70's greenie love-in'.
The fact that it took over 20 years to decide on whether Sydney needed a 2nd airport (Badgery's Creek from memory) and that went down the gurgler.
The fact that Morris Iemma has just announced that another rail extension to the northwest corridor of Sydney will not be ready until 2017 (railway line here, not something in the magnitute of the Apollo project and that took less than 10 yrs!)
And the simple fact that we're even debating about a lousy water desalination plant.
Does anyone really think a Nuke Reactor will ever see the light of day in OZ.
Remember Children Overboard, Tampa Crisis. John Howard just wants another trump card in the impending election to divide Labour and what better way than a debate on Nuclear energy knowing too dam well it will split and divide them up.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the 3 mines policy that Labour endears to itself so much!
Mick's right, its a red herring, but for other reasons too.
fair and interesting comment Norm, but hey they talked about the darwin to adelaide rail link for 100 years, and then along came johnny (EDIT:srry:and his old mate tim fischer!!) and in no time flat hey presto it happened - we were all stunned here in adders.
With big money having a huge interest and willingness to invest in at least one or two happening (ironically they need one to mine even more uranium here in SA and all the other much more abundant goodies copper and gold ect. that they get at the same time) I'm not so sure about that - I certainly cant see lots of them being built, just the one or two small jobs to start with.
The main problem is they can't take much more water out of the great artesian basin for mining processes, hence the desalination interest. There's something going on with that, not sure of the full story. And I would like to see whats left of that preserved for sure, so I do have an ecological interest there.
Last edited by fringe_dweller; 27-05-2006 at 12:13 AM.
they all must be completely stupid? and the environazi's are the only smart people in the world? funny also the tradionally tightwad economic rationalists are all for it also? very strange? 
, I am just trying to have a friendly debate on the issue.
