Thread: Nuclear Power - debate / poll

hey we got plenty of coal, lets burn it now and in 100 years time we still got the good old yellow cake standing by for whatever power system they say is good.

man has been polluting the planet since the first man took a crap in his cave, and unless we all become Armish we will be continuing to pollute the planet via our needs for energy sources.

Originally Posted by Ace

In the end everyone wont agree but coal wont be around for ever and it is the most inefficient means of producing power, we need an alternative.

Agreed but we need a good alternative not a massive feild full of wind mills that will produce enough power to boil a couple of kettles, if the wind is blowing that is

Originally Posted by grumpybastard

In the news of late has been about Australia building a Nuclear power station?

I thought it makes for an interesting topic for debate.

Once upon a time i was proud Australia didn't have nuclear power, but these days after doing a fair bit of reading on the evils of coal fired power stations im not so sure.

It appears to be a choice between evils..

Opinions?

I couldn't leave without some comment on the Posts on this topic, seems most of you have no idea of the impact of Chernobyl, one said, "without the sky falling in", well maybe you should speak to the families of the THOUSANDS that died, and the 100's of thousands that have been exposed, all the way to Finland and the UK and the millions that have to live with the fact that a major part of Europe has been contaminated FOREVER with Radioactive fallout.
Some say that Solar and wind power are too expensive, compared to the COST of Nuclear power stations it is a drop in the ocean, try and get past the material cost and think about this, would you like a Nuclear power station in your backyard, or better still a nuclear Waste Dump that has to be secure for a MILLION years, think of that time scale, humans haven't existed for that length of time. Coal can be made acceptable and if it isn't wind, Wave and Solar power are VIABLE alternatives, so PLEASE take the time to investigate Nuclear and the alternatives, as it is abundantly clear that little thought has gone into these posts, Regards Frank.

Originally Posted by Reads90

It has been proven time and time again the the items used to make power from the sun/ sea/ wind. use more power to make them than they will ever produce in the their life time. So not really that green are they. Also do not procduce enough power to really make a differance still would have to run with something else, as can not be counted as a regular power sourch. Ie it is not sunny no sloar p[ower, if it not windy no wind power and if it is claim as sea then no wave power.

Wave power works on tidal movements and if that ever stops it will mean that the earth no longer exists, probably from Nuclear explosions, Regards Frank.

i say bring it on - nuclear is the way to go - specially witht eh idck heads protesting AGINST wind mills - ever been to a suburb where they have them? i went to two towns in victoria and there are signs up everywhere - no windmills - i love them but the mutton heads in this world wont see reason until we are all dead or that sick from pollution it will be too late

Mick

Originally Posted by Tank

I couldn't leave without some comment on the Posts on this topic, seems most of you have no idea of the impact of Chernobyl, one said, "without the sky falling in", well maybe you should speak to the families of the THOUSANDS that died, and the 100's of thousands that have been exposed, all the way to Finland and the UK and the millions that have to live with the fact that a major part of Europe has been contaminated FOREVER with Radioactive fallout.
Some say that Solar and wind power are too expensive, compared to the COST of Nuclear power stations it is a drop in the ocean, try and get past the material cost and think about this, would you like a Nuclear power station in your backyard, or better still a nuclear Waste Dump that has to be secure for a MILLION years, think of that time scale, humans haven't existed for that length of time. Coal can be made acceptable and if it isn't wind, Wave and Solar power are VIABLE alternatives, so PLEASE take the time to investigate Nuclear and the alternatives, as it is abundantly clear that little thought has gone into these posts, Regards Frank.

France and the Uk have had Nuclear power sataions older than chernobyl was . It was just that the russians did not have the strict protical that ther UK and France has .
Chernobyl was a very bad probelm and still is but should not have been . That was all down to Human error and if it was not for that accident then we would not be having this argument as we would already have nuclear and have no problems with it. But it is just every time this subject comes up people bleat on about Chernobyl. Which was in Russia a country that was very very pooor and almost a 3rd world country and not the most techno contry at the time. And never mind the fact it was falling to bits politcaly

Originally Posted by HSVRangie

Solar and wind will never supply enough.

Perhaps not enough for our current consumption but surely in a country that receives so much sun and so little water, and in a very unpredictable world climate state, we should at least consider altering how we use and conserve energy and resources and try to take advantage of what we have to hand.
Other countries are doing it very sucessfully so why can't we. I tell you, when I build my next house it will be built as self sustainably as possible including water storage/saving solar/wind power generation etc and if this means I have to reduce my usege to avoid paying exorbitant amounts of hard earned cash to a power company, then this is what I will do.

I think people often forget how much we as a society "need" to consume to go about our daily lives......frightening

As for Nuclear, I am encouraged by how clean it is initially but it's the by products that are the scary part.....very much what doesn't hurt us now doesn't matter

Interesting debate though and funnily enough one that has been discussed for 10 or years globaly, yet there is still no real steps forward....not that I can see anyway. Still just politicians kicking the idea about every now and again.

My 10c

I have not voted for the labour party since the last time Hawk was elected.

Come the next election, even though I still hate some of the scum in the labour party, I WILL be voting Labour in the hope that enough people will do the same to stop Howard and his rich mates from building a fission nuclear power station in this country.

My reasons for not wanting this type of reactor are many but some of the reasons are as follows.

If we stopped using coal fired power stations tomorrow, it would take another 50 years before the planet would be clear of the pollution these power stations have pumped into the atmosphere.

If we stopped using fission nuclear power tomorrow, 500 generations from now will still have the legacy of monitoring and guarding the waste that we generated today, just to run our air conditioners and the likes.

Now I’m not a tightarse but to make coal fired power stations much MUCH cleaner, it will cost use all about 20 to 30% more in our power bills.

To use nuclear power will cost us a huge 300% more for electricity and the cost DOES NOT include the cost of maintaining the nuclear waste for at least the next 10,000 years and someone is most definitely going to have to pay for that.

The worlds first full sized FUSION reactor is under construction right now in France. The cost of building this reactor is being carried by 6 nations including the USA, but Australia is NOT a part of the development of this new SAFE power supply, why not?

A few more facts, the Three Mile Island accident occurred in 1973, it will be unsafe and have to be monitored, maintained and guarded at least till the year 2973.

Chernobyl, as we all know, nearly had a melt down and many thousands of lives have been lost since that accident occurred but are you aware that the reactor is on the verge of another melt down and they are not sure how to “ FIX “ it this time around.

As for the waste, every time some scum politician or businessman brings up the potential benefits of nuclear power and gets asked the cost of such power, they ALWAYS neglect to include the cost of safely storing the waste.

The USA still has not finished the worlds FIRST permanent nuclear waste storage facility and containers designed to protect the waste for 500 year ( even though they know it is dangerous for at lest 10,000 years ) had to be replaced after just 9 years.

The biggest single factor working against the use of nuclear power use is the fact that we are fed more lies than truths.

Here one more point of interest, there is a power source that is available almost everywhere on earth that could be producing electricity tomorrow but for some unknown reason ( to me ) is used very little and thats Thermal heat from the earth’s core, why not.

Cheers.