Thread: Nuclear Power - debate / poll

Originally Posted by shorty943

With even the greenies carrying on about wind and solar farms blocking their view or some such nonsense. What the ?
Shorty.

We voted Yes to a local wind turbine. I even hope it does go through. Would be nice to see more solar and wind to help relieve the system. I'm also hoping that the turbine means the lines round here will be more reliable.

I would say that it has to be a yes,
we are now in a dive with global warming and it is estimated that even with countries that have turned a blind eye (australia, the USA) getting onside it could take 50 years to eventually pull out of the dive.

that is not taking into account the Indians and chinese, who may well take a dim view of the rest of the world insisting that they put a brake on their industrialization, just when they can see the lifestyle of the west on the horizon.

So, every bit is going to help. If the 50 year thing is correct, some states will have to go to desalination plants as the place gets drier. Desalination plants use large ammounts of electricity I think!

Am I right in thinking that the argument in a few of the posts in favour could be summarised as, "We have to do something about global warming therefore we have to accept nuclear power with all its faults"?
Isn't there a fair bit of evidence in the posts in this thread to cast doubt on whether nuclear power is cheap enough, clean enough and safe enough to do the job, especially when there are cheaper, cleaner, safer proven alternatives that are already making a significant contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gases.
It suits some vested interests to perpetuate the myth that nuclear is the only answer, but I am not convinced that it is an answer at all let alone the only answer.

I think I heard on the radio this morning that a nationwide survey showed about 40% in favour of nuclear power in Aust.
Does our 60% in favour make us an atypical group in more ways than just our choice of offroad transport?
I thought it was interesting that the level of support was lower in Vic and SA, the two most frequently mentioned locations for the reactor.

Christ is this a hot topic, you go away for a day or two and there are 14 more pages.

Its a controversial topic, however the only controversial part of it is the disposal of the waste, being a chemistry teacher i understand the problems and the life of such waste.

I agree with drivesafe though, why not harvest geothermal energy, this is one i overlooked. Sure solar is good for hot water systems and the like but to power every house in the country wouldnt be feasible, neither would wind. Yes coal works, but its dirty, each option has its limitations or downfalls so either way we are stuffed. Matt

As I said in my first post, I am unsure. One of the reasons I am unsure, is that as kowari has said, what Australia does will have virtually zero effect on global warming - Australia makes an insignificant contribution to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The only countries that really matter, are the US, China, and India, and perhaps the European union. Australia's biggest contribution to solving the problem is that it has a small population and growth is low by world standards.

For this reason I think it is pretty irrelevant whether we "go nuclear" or not, although I think we are unlikely to because of the pressure against it. But Australia will inevitably become an even more important supplier of uranium, simply because this is where it is.

John

Originally Posted by Ace

Christ is this a hot topic, you go away for a day or two and there are 14 more pages.

Its a controversial topic, however the only controversial part of it is the disposal of the waste, being a chemistry teacher i understand the problems and the life of such waste.

Your first comment is obviously spot on, but I disagree with your second point.
There is also controversy about whether the extra cost of nuclear is acceptable, how much CO2 is produced in all the processes involved, how safe some of the new designs and some of the old designs are, the cost of decommissioning a reactor, whether weapons proliferation is a problem and possible a couple of other issues.

I may be wrong but isn't there an old nuke power station already in Aussie, somewhere outside Sydney.