You think Australia has a Nuclear Future

[Grunt]

This is an excellent Photo Essay of the Chernobyl Legacy. Well worth watching the whole thing through.

Chernobyl Essay


It's ok, it won't happen here.

[Two-Words]

This is an excellent Photo Essay of the Chernobyl Legacy. Well worth watching the whole thing through.

Chernobyl Essay


It's ok, it won't happen here.

greeny propaganda :mad:

[Schtoo]

It's ok, it won't happen here.

What, the nuclear power plant or the accident?


If we, as a species, continue to live as we like to live, then we will need to find a means to produce more electricty than we do today, and from a means that is sustainable. For good or bad, that includes nuclear energy at or near the top of the list.

Don't get me wrong here, I am no big fan of nuclear anything (besides medicine), but we are running out of genuinely viable options really &%$$^% quickly.


(I am not a fan of nuclear energy, but I am a realist for better or for worse. I have also stood at 'Ground Zero, Hiroshima'. Cures any positive nuclear leanings in anyone pretty ^^%$^% quick...)

[Guy]

I worked at Sizewell in the Uk for about 6 months and felt perfectly safe. the problem here in Aus is that we are using fossil fuels that are causing probs to the atmosphere.
We need to look at alternatives such as Neuclear and wind power, the Vic govt plans to stick the wind farms on land is sheer stupidity, they should be placed out in the bass starit or between mainland and tassie. If many european countries can iinstall them in the north sea why cant we install them offshore.
Practically every state has desert in them and with the amount of open space solar farms could be built.
All and every options have there merits and faults

[Zed]

this is not excellent, this is terrible.

warning for those soft of heart, many of the images in the essay are disturbing.

[Dan_574]

I remember when they were looking at a third runway option in sydney years ago someone suggested one out at sea using a serious of concrete cups turned upside down with generators inside that used the tide and swell to produce electricity.
Howard has jumped on the nuclear option without exploring other options. Im all for nuclear power stations.

[bitingmidge]

I haven't had time to watch the lot, but will do so later.

A few things stand out. It's a photo essay by a bloke who doesn't speak the language, he's taking pics in an institution for disabled kids.

We don't have those institutions any longer in this country, but in the 60's and 70's it would have been easy to have put together a similar album here.

Nice pics, but probably vouyeristic claptrap.... I'll wait till I've seen it all, and read his scientific backup before I make judgement. (For instance, has he analysed the chemicals used to fertilize the turnips their mothers ate before jumping to conclusions about the cause?)

On the other hand http://www.kiddofspeed.com/ still does it for me, despite a huge wave of conspiracy theories when the pics were first published.

The potential for disaster is great, sure, but it's not just nuclear reactors which cause disruption. Just ask the people of Bopal:

The report from London-based Amnesty International said "new research" revealed that more than 7,000 people had died immediately after the gas leak, while a further 15,000 people had died of related diseases since 1984.

"More than 100,000 people are suffering from chronic or debilitating illnesses," the report said.

I wouldn't particularly like to be living within 5k of a fuel refinery if there was a major accident either!

Personally, I'd support HUGE increases in power costs so that consumption would be reduced and the world's resources would be used more prudently, but the same bleeding hearts that moan about damage caused by a nuclear accident, would then be filling their websites with graphic pictures of kids in rags, sheltering against the freezing cold.

I'll go over the whole site in detail before making up my mind though!


Cheers,

P

[Andy Mac]

Little Johnny seems to be jumping to some push from overseas, surprise surprise.
Like Schtoo, I'm not keen on the nuclear powerplant 'alternative', but we're running out of options. It appears that the plants themselves have a limited life span, so not only the waste to dispose of, but the plant itself?! Never mind, we've got great tracts of desert, and an empty ocean just on the doorstep.
We are going to need more power, especially with the push for desalination, so there is a link between water supply and power needs. I've heard that the Perth desalination plant will be fired by natural gas.
Cheap coal seems to be all the go here in Qld, another short sighted attempt.
Like the water debate, I don't think we should rely on one source for all our power needs, spread it around to what is most suitable in the locality. I've always liked the idea of solar and wind power, but there are high initial costs involved, which aren't offset by power returns...certainly not in the short term.

Cheers,

[Iain]

Chernobyl is an unfair comparison as we are talking Russian technology (oxymoron).
Just take a look at the cars and aircraft they produce, I have been for a ride in a Russian military chopper and that was the ultimate in crude.
Even the Lada Samara, to make a point, was still using a generator and blew headlights over a certain speed as regulation didn't work.
I dread to think what happens within a reactor, near enough is good enough......Comrade Homer.
At this point Solar is not an option as it is not efficient enough unless you run a few acres of panels to power one home.
The only decent things I have had out of Russia where the flight home and Borsch.

[Zed]

Nice pics, but probably vouyeristic claptrap.... I'll wait till I've seen it all, and read his scientific backup before I make judgement. (For instance, has he analysed the chemicals used to fertilize the turnips their mothers ate before jumping to conclusions about the cause?)

midge, get serious - this is irrefutable - are you just trying to cause an argument here ?:mad: this deserves a red if ever!:mad:

everybody knows too many electrons whizzing about a nucleus is bad for you,. so is beryllium, cynenide, nicotine, crossing the road etc. however we dont ban elastic metals (beryllium), ciggies (nicotine), battery factories & gold smelters (Cyenide), busses and roads do we ? is greenhouse emmisions the only way ? obviously not. this thread alone mentions heaps of options (solar, tidal, wind)

we need power, or we need to get off the planet and as grunt so elequently put it previously "Strip mine other plantets instead". "Paying higher power bills" is short sighted and is simply a nose thumbing at poor folk. its not about cost u goose, its about sustainability and alternatives...

[bitingmidge]

are you just trying to cause an argument here.

Yes.

this deserves a red if ever

Go for it, but it's a pretty gutless way of responding to a serious argument, or showing that you don't have a better answer. So come on... give me an alternative. Show me how YOU would get the message across to your neighbours that they really should be insulating their house better and creating solar dams, rather than heating it, or that airconditioning is completely unnecessary at the office.

Go on... show me.
.

we need power, or we need to get off the planet .

Why?
We've only had power for a hundred years or so, why not ration it and treat it as a valuable commodity instead of lighting bridges and buildings in pretty coloured lights all night. Why should we burn coal at 25,000 tonnes a second just so our kids can leave a light on in their bedroom all night?

.

"Paying higher power bills" is short sighted and is simply a nose thumbing at poor folk. .

No it's not, it's far sighted, and the simplest way for Joe Bloggs to get the point. We can introduce a safety net for poor folks. I'm not that harsh, but once apon a time living rooms had a single 60 watt bulb in the centre of them....and power was so expensive my old man used to rant and rave about us leaving the lights on, and even took the bathroom bulb out once. We no longer think of it as something of value.
.

its not about cost u goose, .

I'm an insect you ape!

its about sustainability and alternatives...

AND efficient use of resources. The most sustainable source of power will still drive consumerism which in turn keeps the merry go round turning... more aircon, more consumption, more resources used ...

Get real Zeddy, the source of the problem is the REASON for the power use, not the creation of power itself.

Same goes for fuel.

And even for "renewable" resources. Time for a wholesale shift.

Tonight, I'm going to a football match. The power consumed by the stadium lighting could probably keep a small town alive for a month, complete with all functioning emergency services. Does that not seem wasteful to you?? All those tons of coal burnt on a football match for crying out loud.

Cheers,

P

[bitingmidge]

this deserves a red if ever

Go for it, but it's a pretty gutless way of responding to a serious argument, or showing that you don't have a better answer. So come on... give me an alternative.

Like I said Zeddy,

Gutless.

P

[echnidna]

No matter which course the Government takes there will be heaps of whingers and opponents. So they can't avoid a big brawl.

In that scenario going for nuclear is the easy course for the Government of the day. (regardless of party politics)

[bitingmidge]

It doesn't matter what the topic, dams, fuel, power, there is no shortage of people who:

a) think what we have is bad
b) think that change to what we have is bad
c) think "they"(someone else) should do something about it
d) don't want a solution which will in any way affect the way they presently live
e) throw stones (or red squares ) at anyone who proposes an alternative which has an impact on them, but never propose an alternative.

At the same time we have governments who are elected by the above people, and want to stay in power, so just keep responding.

Time for a benevolent dictatorship I think, or a true republic??

Cheers,

P

[silentC]

So what IS the answer? Overthrow the government? Things will only get to that point when it's already too late to do anything. Try to educate the masses? Waste of time. Most people are either too complacent, too dumb, or have too much to lose. The way I see it, collapse is inevitable. All we can do is sit back and watch. Behaving yourself will not change a thing but at least it will give you a clear conscience. Which will be cold comfort when the last drop of oil or last lump of coal is gone and they come to break down your door and steal your stash of baked beans.