Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 146

Thread: Nuclear power plants

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South East Tasmania
    Posts
    10,705
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Slunnie View Post
    There should be a poll for/against nuclear power - then we can make an executive decision!
    Yes I am for that ......

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Adelaide Hills
    Posts
    13,383
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Tombie View Post
    Put it at Pt Augusta where the old (idling) power stations are.

    Rail direct from the Ore body, cooling water...

    And that's "in my back yard" (sub 75km)

    would be a good place for it

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South East Tasmania
    Posts
    10,705
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Eevo View Post
    would be a good place for it
    But were you will dispose the waste, in Gilles Plains ?

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    under a rock, next to a tree, at Broadmarsh
    Posts
    6,738
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Adelaide? they could feed the hot water into a duplicate water mains.

    Just think, Adelaide then would have clean, hot and cold running water.
    .

  5. #45
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    459
    Total Downloaded
    0
    For anyone interested in finding out more about nuclear power and various aspects of the nuclear industry, is worth checking the World Nuclear Association website www.world-nuclear.org
    Last edited by mox; 25th July 2013 at 09:46 PM. Reason: Forgot hyphen in website title quoted

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Adelaide Hills
    Posts
    13,383
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucaro View Post
    But were you will dispose the waste, in Gilles Plains ?
    coober pedy.

    its a big hole as it is

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    4,684
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Nuclear power is really the only answer for future power if we like it or not.


    Aus should do what France does and that is off a small town to have plant near them and the town gets free power and lots of free local services by the government.
    So in France you will come across small towns with huge sports centres and cinemas . All really cheap and of course no one pays power bills.

    As you imagine they have towns queued up to have a nuclear power plants on their door step.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
    95 300 Tdi Defender 90
    99 300 Tdi Defender 110
    92 Discovery 200tdi
    50 Series 1 80
    50 Series 1 80


    www.reads4x4.com

  8. #48
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    114
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Bring it on. As a Pom, I grew up surrounded by nuclear power stations and the Australian objection to them just, for me, doesn't compute.

    Chernobyl, even at the worst realistic estimates, killed maybe 60,000 people (by which I mean, shortened the lives of) since it went off. More people have died on Australia's (just Australia's) roads in the same period.

    The natural background radiation in e.g. parts of Cornwall is higher than around, say, Dounreay nuclear power station. And so on.

    And everyone is worried about the half life of nuclear waste, and how long this toxic material will have to be stored for. What about ocean acidification (I'll leave alone climate change for the moment) and its impact on the global food chain? The oceans take up CO2 and their acidity levels rise. We can see it happening just now. The problem with that is that we can also see a decline in the amount of plankton, which means that everything higher in the food chain also declines. Snapper for dinner? Only while stocks last...

    Ultimately, if we don't embrace nuclear, the half life of waste doesn't matter. We will have been swamped much sooner by all the other environmental impacts we're generating.

    And no, solar is emphatically NOT the answer. And no, we will not be reducing our energy consumption any time soon.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,842
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by London Boy View Post
    Bring it on. As a Pom, I grew up surrounded by nuclear power stations and the Australian objection to them just, for me, doesn't compute.

    Chernobyl, even at the worst realistic estimates, killed maybe 60,000 people (by which I mean, shortened the lives of) since it went off. More people have died on Australia's (just Australia's) roads in the same period.

    The natural background radiation in e.g. parts of Cornwall is higher than around, say, Dounreay nuclear power station. And so on.

    And everyone is worried about the half life of nuclear waste, and how long this toxic material will have to be stored for. What about ocean acidification (I'll leave alone climate change for the moment) and its impact on the global food chain? The oceans take up CO2 and their acidity levels rise. We can see it happening just now. The problem with that is that we can also see a decline in the amount of plankton, which means that everything higher in the food chain also declines. Snapper for dinner? Only while stocks last...

    Ultimately, if we don't embrace nuclear, the half life of waste doesn't matter. We will have been swamped much sooner by all the other environmental impacts we're generating.

    And no, solar is emphatically NOT the answer. And no, we will not be reducing our energy consumption any time soon.
    +1. Makes good sense to me.
    What was the name of the 1st Nuclear Power Stn in the UK.?..Was it Harwell...I think my Brother In Law worked there....one of the oldest...yet NO problems there at all.
    Cheers, Pickles.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    brighton, brisbane
    Posts
    33,853
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by London Boy View Post
    Bring it on. As a Pom, I grew up surrounded by nuclear power stations and the Australian objection to them just, for me, doesn't compute.

    Chernobyl, even at the worst realistic estimates, killed maybe 60,000 people (by which I mean, shortened the lives of) since it went off. More people have died on Australia's (just Australia's) roads in the same period.

    .
    I'm afraid you are mis-informed. Grossly so. WARNING- children should not watch this video.
    I am an advocate of Nuclear power, but of the type China, and some others, are developing. None of it would be 100% safe, but for the future we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. But not at any cost. And certainly not by putting a figure of 60,000 lives as being acceptable. Bob
    Chernobyl Decay and Deformed - YouTube
    I’m pretty sure the dinosaurs died out when they stopped gathering food and started having meetings to discuss gathering food

    A bookshop is one of the only pieces of evidence we have that people are still thinking

Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!