You think Australia has a Nuclear Future

[silentC]

If she was on a bus, how do they explain the presence of her bike in some of the shots?

[bitingmidge]

If she was on a bus, how do they explain the presence of her bike in some of the shots?

Her bike? HER bike?

Photoshop.

It's all lies, I read that somewhere.


P

[woodbe]

Actually, I don't really doubt that the photo's in kidofspeed are real, and of items in the exclusion zone. I just think that Elena has been very clever in massaging her photo-essay into a daredevil motorcycle ride. She probably was on a bus! I read somewhere that one of the debunkers was on a tour with her, and she and her boyfriend were annoying the guide by moving things and taking photos with the helmet etc. Sounds likely.

Motive? Fame; the next bike payment; a dare; or relief from boredom?

Photographers can indeed manipulate their photographs, but I have no trouble believing about the effects of the Chernobyl disaster. It was reported widely from many sources. You don't have massive population movements, radiation exclusion zones and international nuclear disaster teams assembling because a couple of kids sufferred individual mishaps.

woodbe.

[Bushmiller]

Woops! My naievety and implicit belief in the integrity of human nature just took a king hit. I will investgate further.

However if all the negative aspects of the "Kidd's" site are considered, surely you also attribute similar cynical motives to those in power who wish to propagate the benefits of nuclear power.

If you were one of those persons and suddenly something like this came along, how would you go into damage control? Your best chance would be to discredit the whole endeavour.

Australian 60 minutes visited Chernobyl recently in one of their programmes. Perhaps somebody saw the programme. I only saw clips. The sarcophagus looked real to me. I believed they identified the problems with concrete cracking and high radiation levels. How are birth defects X200 normal levels exlpained?

I feel quite sure powerful authorities with limitless funds would really like to play down such far reaching effects. Are they also denying Three Mile Island? Is the radio active half life of Uranium 235 now back to a managable level from the 730 million years it used to be?

A few too many issues to be a complete beat up, but like I said in a previous post, everybody has an angle; Everybody has a predjudice.

Here is another thought. Nuclear power stations have generally been built under the auspices of government control. The last stations in the US were built in the 70s. They were expensive to build and had to be subsidised.

The current trend is for privatisation. Private companies have to foot the bill and they expect a financial return. In Australia Victoria has privatised most of their stations (not very successfully). NSW wanted to sell off their power stations and corporatised to facilitate that process, but after nearly 10 years have not sold a single station.

Queensland falls somewhere between the two and is arguably the most successful in this regard, but by no means perfect. South Australia I am not sure about but it is the smallect player in the equation. Oh and there is the newcomer Tasmania, which predominantly relies on hydro power, the one time panacea, but now known to be an ecological disaster particularly in fragile ecosystems.

Now we have to find a private investor willing to fork out between two and three times the cost of a thermal station for a nuclear one. Same power, same return but three times the establishment cost.

A recent report estimated nuclear power stations would be viable when the wholesale price for power was between $44 and $70, but this was using new technology that is both untried and untested. It also did not take into account the cost of nuclear waste disposal. It also added that coal would have to suffer a penalty (carbon tax) to make a competitive playing field.

This financial year the best average price for power on the East coast was in South Australia at $37. Queensland was more like $27. Is the economics of the situation starting to come home?

Nuclear power in most countries is heavily subsidised and has grown up in an environment of expensive alternatives (see France). It was pointed out that France exported their nuclear power. I am not sure who we would export power to. We have difficulty just tranmitting small quantities across our state borders!

Enough for now. I think my predjudice may be showing like a 60s petticoat.

Regards
Paul

[bitingmidge]

Photographers can indeed manipulate their photographs, but I have no trouble believing about the effects of the Chernobyl disaster. It was reported widely from many sources. You don't have massive population movements, radiation exclusion zones and international nuclear disaster teams assembling because a couple of kids sufferred individual mishaps.

I wanted to say that!

cheers,

P

[mic-d]

Bushmiller, thanks for your posts.

It's good to hear some thoughts from someone in the industry. Please try not to scare us about nuclear accidents, haven't you heard that nuclear reactors are safe now? What were you thinking?

woodbe.

Neanderthal Times Report - Hunter named grug, discoverer of how to make fire - sacrificed by tribal leaders this week. "He was offending the God of Fire, and besides, this thing - fire - it's dangerous and might hurt or kill someone. Young adults are spending entire nights graffitti-ing the caves by firelight instead of concentrating on breeding. We can't have people lighting fires willy nilly, the risk to our way of life is too great." A spokesman from the tribal comittee for risk management was quoted as saying...



If that's a dig at my previous posts, you better reread them... and may your timber stocks be infested by termites, if not, well may you timber stocks be infested with termites, but nice termites.

[bitingmidge]

Interesting report in the Financial Review today (sorry!) to the effect that the Govt is going to fine Electricity Suppliers for not keeping up with demand.

Pity they haven't been reading this thread and started finding people for using too much instead, and giving suppliers bonuses for undersupply!

Cheers,

P

[woodbe]

If that's a dig at my previous posts, you better reread them... and may your timber stocks be infested by termites, if not, well may you timber stocks be infested with termites, but nice termites.

It's not a dig at anyone. It's a light hearted way of shining a light on the fallacy that Nuclear power stations are now somehow 'safe'

There's a few local woodworkers picking up 30+ logs of cypress here soon, I'm not sure they would like termites with that

woodbe.

[reeves]

Inevitably yes, we have a lot of the worlds Uranium and its more eco friendly than coal or gas power. Of u have concerns about Chernobyll style ####ups, yes they ####ed up and the tin shed thye had the thing in melted and the could not contain the fire...solve the saftey and waste issues effectively and wow, cheap clean power....mmmm

wouldnt mind a small personal reactor in the yard..nothing too flash....

mmmm

[echnidna]

Inevitably yes, we have a lot of the worlds Uranium and its more eco friendly than coal or gas power. Of u have concerns about Chernobyll style ####ups, yes they ####ed up and the tin shed thye had the thing in melted and the could not contain the fire...solve the saftey and waste issues effectively and wow, cheap clean power....mmmm

wouldnt mind a small personal reactor in the yard..nothing too flash....

mmmm

Al Quaeda would like one in their yard too. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Grunt]

Inevitably yes, we have a lot of the worlds Uranium and its more eco friendly than coal or gas power. Of u have concerns about Chernobyll style ####ups, yes they ####ed up and the tin shed thye had the thing in melted and the could not contain the fire...solve the saftey and waste issues effectively and wow, cheap clean power....mmmm

If you take in to the equation how much greenhouse producing energy is required to build the reactor, mine and process the uranium and safely(?) dispose of the waste it isn't so green.

The cost of producing energy from a reactor isn't cheap. You've got to take in to account the huge cost of building a reactor. The only way they are competitive is when they are heavily subsidised by the tax payer.

I'd be happy for Australia to look at ways of producing power from coal in a clean manner. This is possible but just more expensive. If we're going to subsidise anything subsidise this and wind power.

[bitingmidge]

I'd be happy for Australia to look at ways of producing power from coal in a clean manner. This is possible but just more expensive. If we're going to subsidise anything subsidise this and wind power.

It's presently only three times the cost, so all it would take would be a 50% reduction in consumption, and the volume would hopefully reduce the cost to the extent that electricity would not cost the consumer any more!

Cheer,

P

[Bushmiller]

If you take in to the equation how much greenhouse producing energy is required to build the reactor, mine and process the uranium and safely(?) dispose of the waste it isn't so green.

The cost of producing energy from a reactor isn't cheap. You've got to take in to account the huge cost of building a reactor. The only way they are competitive is when they are heavily subsidised by the tax payer.

I'd be happy for Australia to look at ways of producing power from coal in a clean manner. This is possible but just more expensive. If we're going to subsidise anything subsidise this and wind power.

Aye. There's the rub! Add the cost of mining the ore and the nuclear waste disposal too.

[Bushmiller]

A couple of atomic issues:

Nuclear power is not cheap.

The safe disposal of nuclear waste has not been satisfactorily resolved. It is only deferred.

Safety is dependent on people. People make mistakes because they are human. This is exactly what happened at Three Mile Island. Unfortunately, with nuclear power, mistakes have humungus ramifications with the contamination of food sources etc by radioactive fallout.

Twenty and thirty years on the porblems are still there. If these issues were resolved I suppose we would be half way to considering nuclear. It would then only leave economics, weaponary implications and terrorist strategic target issues to deal with.

Couple? One, two.........

Regards
Paul

[Greg Ward]

From what I understand, Chernobyll environs has turned into a wonderful wildlife sanctuary, now that the humans have left and won't hunt there as N Europeans are wont to do. And no, the local species don't have four eyes....

Perhaps I'm being optomistic, but for all us nature lovers out there, perhaps a good nuclear war or major radioative pollution (say around all cities having more than 10 million population) would not only resolve the problem of global warming (no humans, therfore no warming), it would also provide respite for the wildlife of the world and allow the next generation of dominant species (Dinosaurs being 1, humans 2, indian mynah birds No. 3???) to take over in around 65 million years.

And maybe they will have better luck communicating with their brothers and sisters in another galaxy, so at their future millennium party they can blow this planet just up for fun.
Regards
Greg