A future for nuclear power In NSW/Australia? (3 Viewers)

[TerrbleSpellor]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/060519/2/z0x3.html

Nuclear power is Howard's fantasy: Labor
Labor says it will contest the use of nuclear power in Australia, describing Prime Minister John Howard's nuclear fantasy as "Australia's nightmare".

Mr Howard has said the rise in petrol prices and the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions meant nuclear power could be used in Australia in the future.

He said after talks with his Canadian counterpart Stephen Harper that it was time for a "full-blooded" debate on nuclear power and uranium mining.

But opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said nuclear power in Australia was inevitable only if the coalition was re-elected next year.

"John Howard's nuclear fantasy is Australia's nightmare," Mr Albanese told reporters.

"Intractable problems with nuclear energy when it comes to economic costs, safety, disposal of waste and contribution to nuclear proliferation remain up to some 50 years."

Mr Albanese said that if Mr Howard was serious about nuclear power he should be forthcoming in saying where a nuclear power plant would be built and where the waste it produced would be stored.

"If he's so confident that nuclear energy is safe ... I'm sure he'll have coalition MPs volunteering to have a nuclear reactor in their electorate and to store their waste in the electorate," he said.

Mr Albanese said the nuclear power issue had created divisions within the coalition while current Labor policy remained opposed to nuclear energy in Australia.

And it was unlikely that existing policy would change ahead of the 2007 election.

"I don't know anyone of any significance in the Labor Party who is arguing for a domestic nuclear energy system for Australia," he said.

"There is a debate in the Labor Party in regards to whether Labor should allow any new mines and that's a debate we'll have at the national conference next year."

Mr Albanese said he was confident most rank and file members and union affiliates supported Labor's notion that Australia was as far into the nuclear cycle as the public wanted it to be.

A nookeler future for Australia? Eh..

 

[transcendent]

I'm skeptical about the use of nuclear power in Australia but see it as a possible neccessary viable source of power.

 

[SuNrIsE_oVa_sEa]

NO TO NUCLEAR POWER

 

[davin]

NO TO NUCLEAR POWER

i completely agree. MORE FOSSIL FUELS!

 

[_dhj_]

i completely agree. MORE FOSSIL FUELS!

No to that aswell.

Back to the stone age.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

If even high school level nuclear physics were made compulsory then opposition to [green, glowing] nuclear power would disappear.

 

[davin]

yeah, but see, you're assuming a lot of education there. if basic math was taught the world would be a different place, too

 

[Optophobia]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/060529/2/p/z5xi.html

Tuesday May 30, 09:03 AM
Most Aussies oppose nuclear plants: poll

Photo : AAP
Most Australians are opposed to nuclear power stations, a new poll shows.

And while there is greater opposition than support for uranium enrichment, approval for the idea has grown since the late 1980s, according to a Newspoll of 1,200 voters, published in The Australian newspaper.

It showed 51 per cent of respondents were opposed to nuclear power stations in Australia.

More people opposed uranium enrichment than approved of it (46 per cent to 34 per cent), while 44 per cent were against the opening any new uranium mines, and 22 per cent wanted no uranium mining at all.

Majority opposition to nuclear power stations came from women, people aged between 18 and 49, and Labor voters.

Supporters were mostly men or Coalition affiliates.

While more people still oppose enriching Australian uranium before exporting it for nuclear reactors, there has been a dramatic closing of the gap in the past 20 years.

A 1988 poll showed 59 per cent of people were against uranium enrichment in Australia and only 25 per cent supported it.

In the latest poll, there was a 13-point drop since 1988 to 46 per cent opposed to uranium enrichment, and a nine-point rise to 34 per cent for those in favour.

---------------

The people of the modern era should not leave behind a horrific legacy for generations to come, in the form of nuclear waste.

 

[davin]

then please give your solution. or is it just that you are in support fully of the only viable alternative right at the moment, which are fossil fuels?
or will you stop your own personal energy consumption?

 

[Optophobia]

Thermal power from rock beds has proved to be a viable alternate energy source.

It is also known that if as much money would be poured into renewable energy research as would be required to fund the building of the nuclear power infrastructure, then Australia would have another viable source of renewable energy.

The world does not need long-lived radioactive waste and permanent environmental contamination.

People who support nuclear power are too short sighted. By short sighted, i mean, in 80 years time will it matter what is made in a factory now? Yet in 80 years time, even 80,000 years time, the nuclear waste remains. It cannot be contained, as its potency outlives anything that it can be housed in (no matter what the barrels are made out of, they are destroyed over time. The radiation from Nuclear waste is to... but only after hundreds of thousands of years.)

 

[davin]

since you seem to be referring to geothermal energy, i would point out that the costs involved are greater than current energy sources. the specific sort of geothermal energy you seem to be talking about was determined to be economically unviable in 1989 by the U.K., since you're talking about heat sans water source present.
of course, if you want to talk short sighted, i could point out that in the process of using some types of geothermal energy, you're depleting the heat in the earth somewhat. a gradual process, but it will still have an effect on that region. granted, this heat drain is somewhat balanced out by nuclear radiation in the earth.

also, my challenge was for something that is, right now, a better option than fossil fuels or nuclear power, esp when there is a need for more energy now. alternative sources, while good, take time to research.

 

[Xayma]

So it's a choice out of leaving nuclear waste that is buried and contained and changing the climate.

Nuclear waste isn't that bad. The main problem will be ensuring that warning signs are still understood in the future.

But if fusion can eventually be made to work then nuclear in the interim shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Also some have minimal waste outputs particularly the latest generation of theoretical ones.

 

[Captain Obvious 1]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/060717/21/zt2i.html

Monday July 17, 03:14 PM

Howard outlines energy superpower vision

The Prime Minister has outlined his vision for energy and water, saying the nation has the makings of an energy superpower.

Mr Howard, in an address to the Committee for Economic Development in Sydney, has again put forward a case for nuclear power as a way of controlling greenhouse gases.

He also says Australia needs to aspire to be a world leader in clean coal technology.

Mr Howard has defended not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

On the issue of water, the Prime Minister says people in cities should not tolerate water restrictions.

He says there are no reasons why cities should be gripped by water problems.

Mr Howard says he will be writing to all premiers and chief ministers about water management.

 

[Ennaybur]

Thermal power from rock beds has proved to be a viable

People who support nuclear power are too short sighted. By short sighted, i mean, in 80 years time will it matter what is made in a factory now? Yet in 80 years time, even 80,000 years time, the nuclear waste remains. )

short sighted? okay, so there the possiblility of a say 100 km of land being uninhabitable for some thousands of years (POSSIBLY - its not like they're goin to do a chernobyl again lets face it ), or the entire earth being uninhabitable in a hundred years because of fossil fuels?

 

[Justin]

short sighted? okay, so there the possiblility of a say 100 km of land being uninhabitable for some thousands of years (POSSIBLY - its not like they're goin to do a chernobyl again lets face it ), or the entire earth being uninhabitable in a hundred years because of fossil fuels?

Which is why we need to invest our money not into nuclear power, which is ultimately fruitless, but renewables.

I would like Fossil fuels over nuclear anyway. The chemicals from burning fossil fuels, while toxic, are not as potent as nuclear waste, which lasts for millions of years.

 

[Ennaybur]

"I would like Fossil fuels over nuclear anyway. The chemicals from burning fossil fuels, while toxic, are not as potent as nuclear waste, which lasts for millions of years"

as far as i know, nuclear power is clean (minus the waste). that is why nuclear power> fossil fuels


i agree with someone above, nuclear power then the phasing out as we got efficient alternative sources of energy sounds good to me