Howard's Nuclear Plan (1 Viewer)

[Captain Gh3y]

PRIME Minister John Howard today revealed his strategy to increase uranium mining and prepare Australia for nuclear power.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21636462-1702,00.html

• Mr Howard promised to remove restrictions on mining and processing uranium, to increase uranium exports and to overturn laws prohibiting nuclear activity.
• New nuclear power regulations would be made to govern future potential nuclear energy facilities in Australia and an information campaign would explain to the nation what needs to be done and why, he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-unveils-nuclear-plan/2007/04/28/1177460025506.html

• Mr Howard said expert advice to the government clearly showed Australia was giving up a major economic opportunity as a result of the excessive barriers on uranium mining and export.
• [Nuclear power] already supplied 15 per cent of the world's electricity and was set to grow.
• It will also make a firm commitment to Australia's participation in the Generation IV advanced nuclear reactor research program.
• The government will also move to lift skills and technical training to address for a possible expanded nuclear energy industry and embark on enhanced research and development.
• Mr Howard said Australia had 36 per cent of the world's low cost uranium reserves.

Howard on nuclear power:

"Policies or political platforms that seek to constrain the development of a safe and reliable Australian uranium industry - and which rule out the possibility of climate-friendly nuclear energy - are not really serious about addressing climate change in a practical way that does not strangle the Australian economy,'' he said."

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Mr Howard promised to remove restrictions on mining

Oh my

 

[_dhj_]

Yes we definately need to increase uranium mining and invest in the enrichment of uranium in order to profitise on the global warming euphoria and rise in the demand for alternative energy around the world. Howard is stating the obvious.

 

[Optophobia]

Rudd is a moron. He announced today that he will abolish the 25 year old policy banning Uranium mines.

I'm afraid he's stepped into the same trap that the previous Labor leaders stepped into. Not following the reality ofthe situation and simply saying and doing things because he thinks it's what voters want. He can go to hell.

He has failed.

Crean.
Latham.
Beazley.
Rudd.

NEXT!

 

[_dhj_]

Rudd is a moron. He announced today that he will abolish the 25 year old policy banning Uranium mines.

I'm afraid he's stepped into the same trap that the previous Labor leaders stepped into. Not following the reality ofthe situation and simply saying and doing things because he thinks it's what voters want. He can go to hell.

He has failed.

Crean.
Latham.
Beazley.
Rudd.

NEXT!

???

Mining is obviously consistent with Labor ideals. Maybe not with Greens ideals but certainly with Labor's.

 

[Optophobia]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=afEg9eM5DXbQ&refer=australia

Australia's main opposition Labor Party has dropped its 25-year-old ban on new uranium mines, paving the way for industry expansion.

Delegates at the party's annual conference voted today to support Labor leader Kevin Rudd's motion to overturn the ban and allow the uranium industry to develop ``under the most stringent conditions.'' State governments have the power to reject proposals for new mines under the policy.

It's sad, because they voted in that way simply because it's what Rudd wants. And they do that simply because they think that Rudd is the messiah who is is going to help them gain power.

It's a sad day indeed.

Rudd, with his smugness/pretentiousness can go jump off a cliff.

I can tell you now these opinion polls are nothing to go by. Latham also had strong support in the opinion polls. It will be delicious to see Rudd crushed in the polls, even if it is by Howard. Loser.

Easy come, easy go.

 

[jb_nc]

Rudd is a moron. He announced today that he will abolish the 25 year old policy banning Uranium mines.

I'm afraid he's stepped into the same trap that the previous Labor leaders stepped into. Not following the reality ofthe situation and simply saying and doing things because he thinks it's what voters want. He can go to hell.

He has failed.

Crean.
Latham.
Beazley.
Rudd.

NEXT!

hello mining union fuck you and fuck all your workers i want the inner city lefty vote sweet tia

 

[Bacilli]

It's an excellent plan. If completely fissioned, one pound (0.45 kilograms) of uranium-233 will provide the same amount of energy as burning 1,500 tons (1,350,000 kilograms) of coal.

http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele092.html

 

[Optophobia]

Nuclear waste = lasts hundreds of thousands of years.
Coal pollution = lasts how long?

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I heard on the radio some politician complaining about this... saying how nuclear is evil and nobody wants it. Unfortunately for whoever that was not only do we need nuclear but the rest of the world needs it and we are in a position to make plenty of money from selling our uranium.

I am getting really sick of the opposition against nuclear. I can't believe this is 2007 and people still have the nuclear = chernobyl idea stuck in their heads. I don't know what it is but it seems that people just can't think for themselves anymore. Some greeny tells them nuclear is bad and they just believe it.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Nuclear waste = lasts hundreds of thousands of years.
Coal pollution = lasts how long?

Nuclear Waste - not harmful if managed properly
Coal Pollution - harmful to the environment, harmful to people

In terms of deaths involved in using coal to generate power nuclear is far safer than coal.

 

[Optophobia]

Asbestos Waste - not harmful if managed properly
Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (Agent Orange) Waste - not harmful if managed properly.



The issue isn't whether it can be managed properly. It's about how dangerous it is out right. And with time, humans lose their ability to "manage" nuclear waste that has a huge half life.

Coal waste is reasonably tame.. compared to nuclear.

Would you be willing to hold nuclear waste in your hand?

I would be willing to hold burnt coal in my hand.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

The issue isn't whether it can be managed properly. It's about how dangerous it is out right.

That is a ridiculous argument.

 

[Sparcod]

What happened to the argument that Australia has heaps of coal? It turned into....what about the argument that Australia has large uranium reserves??

I don't know about this issue but are more people in favour of nuclear power these days?

 

[Optophobia]

That is a ridiculous argument.

No it isn't. Because the ability to manage it in total (not just here and NOW) is determined by its out right level of potency. Coal pollution dimishes. Nuclear pollution, like plastic, does not.

No More Muslims!

and who do you vote for then? Australians Against Further Immigration?

 

[Sparcod]

Optophobia- wasn't it the CDP who wanted to ban Muslim immigration? The AAFI does that too though.

States 'won't be forced to open mines'

LABOR premiers said they would not be forced into opening uranium mines in their states despite the federal party's decision to dump its "no new mines" policy.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

No it isn't. Because the ability to manage it in total (not just here and NOW) is determined by its out right level of potency. Coal pollution dimishes. Nuclear pollution, like plastic, does not.

I'm not getting into a debate about it. It is a ridiculous argument.

and who do you vote for then? Australians Against Further Immigration?

Relevance?

 

[Optophobia]

I'm not getting into a debate about it. It is a ridiculous argument.

Backing away because you know you're wrong?

Relevance?

Your ignorance affects not only that issue, but your view on this issue as well.

 

[_dhj_]

The issue isn't whether it can be managed properly. It's about how dangerous it is out right.

Surely a decent measure for "out right" danger is the number of deaths caused (or likely number in the future considering magnitute of the risk and degree of harm).

Would you be willing to hold nuclear waste in your hand?

I would be willing to hold burnt coal in my hand.

Don't be ridiculous....

 

[Optophobia]

Surely a decent measure for "out right" danger is the number of deaths caused (or likely number in the future considering magnitute of the risk and degree of harm).

Well, even going by this narrow minded view on the issue, all you have to do is look at Chenobyl to get a reality check,

but no. Because Nuclear waste is more potent than coal waste. The containers used to house the nuclear waste cannot last as long as the waste that is contained with in them. It is leaving a Nuclear legacy to future generations.

Don't be ridiculous....

I'm not. That's your job.