Surfing by the big cooling towers

[Grooter]

Just read this in todays Age

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... ntentSwap1

It's not enough that we have a sewer outfall destroying Gunnamatta and Rye on the East Coast but now some dumbass think-tank has come up with the wonderful notion that Western Port Bay is an ideal place for a nuclear reactor in Victoria.

I think there is a curse on East Coast Victorian surfers.

[bookster]

If these things are such a great idea (as the government seems to want us to believe) then all the liberal MP's should be clamouring to have reactors built in their electorates....

[puurri]

If these things are such a great idea (as the government seems to want us to believe) then all the liberal MP's should be clamouring to have reactors built in their electorates....

res ipso loquitor (the thing speaks for itself).....................

[snakes]

Just read this in todays Age

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... ntentSwap1

It's not enough that we have a sewer outfall destroying Gunnamatta and Rye on the East Coast but now some dumbass think-tank has come up with the wonderful notion that Western Port Bay is an ideal place for a nuclear reactor in Victoria.

I think there is a curse on East Coast Victorian surfers.

Better to have a nuclear reactor than watch Western Port Bay become part of the Southern Ocean like we will with global warming knobwrench.

snakes

[Kel]

The processes involved in constructing a nuclear power plant emits much more greenhouse gases than the difference it supposedly makes.

You have to think of all the processes involved rather than the end result. Where do you think all the energy is going to come from to produce all that concrete, mine all that uranium etc etc......

[el gringo rattis]

Just read this in todays Age

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... ntentSwap1

It's not enough that we have a sewer outfall destroying Gunnamatta and Rye on the East Coast but now some dumbass think-tank has come up with the wonderful notion that Western Port Bay is an ideal place for a nuclear reactor in Victoria.

I think there is a curse on East Coast Victorian surfers.

Better to have a nuclear reactor than watch Western Port Bay become part of the Southern Ocean like we will with global warming knobwrench.

snakes

hmmmmmmmmm sounds like a short term solution. The pollies will be praised..... and then when the shit hits the fan down the track they will be retired on their property away from the reactor and waste lands

[Beanpole]

Just read this in todays Age



I think there is a curse on East Coast Victorian surfers.

The curse may be the curse of nuclear waste.
I love how snakes likes calling people who disagree with him knobwrenches.
Suddenly there is no alternative and years of sustained opposition is irrelevant. Really convincing argument. Planning on buying shares snakes?

I don't trust any civilisation to last long enough to eternally contain the radiation poisoning. Look at Russia's nuclear fleet

[Grooter]

Knobwrench?
Here's a cut down version of the nuclear energy cycle:

a) Mine uranium
b) Transport it to an enriching plant
c) Enrich the uranium
d) Transport it to the nuclear power plant
e) Use it
f) Take it out of the plant
g) Bury it somewhere under the ground
h) Wait 250,000 years or more for it to break down enough that it may be considered safe (no-one has ever lived long enough to see it happen)

The process of digging brown coal out of the ground, chucking it in a furnace produces the same amount of emissions incidently.

Better alternatives are wind, solar and wave power. Nuclear fusion is another altrernative to nuclear fission but that's another story.

Love the knobwrench comment Snakes, I think you read to much Murdoch press mate. Cut down on your commercial mediums too. You are a tool, a product. And I mean that in the literal sense of the words. There is no future in nuclear fission.

[munch]

The process of digging brown coal out of the ground, chucking it in a furnace produces the same amount of emissions incidently.

well no that depends on where you get the energy from if you get it from a nuclear power plant you'll be getting zero emissions like the mine, trains ... all run off electricity (and hopefully cars/trucks/jetski's ... ) from the nuclear power plant once it's up and running.

And before you flame me I agree with most of your comments, but this argument, about emissions, which seems to be popping up every where is just, well dumb

p.s at least the water will be warm (you can flame me for this if you wish)
p.p.s I think this push for nuclear energy has come from bush/blair because they are sick of being held to ransom over oil (and other things such as the global warming, which was supposed to affect other countries not em but after New Orleans :? ), me thinks it's a bit late and misdirected ...

[murrum]

Knobwrench?
Here's a cut down version of the nuclear energy cycle:

a) Mine uranium
b) Transport it to an enriching plant
c) Enrich the uranium
d) Transport it to the nuclear power plant
e) Use it
f) Take it out of the plant
g) Bury it somewhere under the ground
h) Wait 250,000 years or more for it to break down enough that it may be considered safe (no-one has ever lived long enough to see it happen)

The process of digging brown coal out of the ground, chucking it in a furnace produces the same amount of emissions incidently.

Statements like that are meaningless without references.
I could just state the complete opposite - and, without references waste everyones time.
I have a feeling that people (including yourself) need to take a leaf out of your book, and not believe everything they are fed - either from Murcdoch press or the green left weekly.
The idea of "nuclear" has a lot of inherent fears, "mutations" "Mushroom clouds" "radiation burns" that cloud our ability to judge the merits of nuclear power.

[murrum]

Your assessment also fails to take into account external (Mainly environmental) costs as well - as munch touched on. Here is a quick grab from the a study done for the EU.

"The methodology considers emissions, dispersion and ultimate impact. With nuclear energy the risk of accidents is factored in along with high estimates of radiological impacts from mine tailings (waste management and decommissioning being already within the cost to the consumer). Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average."

Even allowing for any bias, the "cost" of environmental impacts for Nuclear are an order of magnitude less than coal - and this was undertaken in 1991 - so you would imagine the difference is even greater now with the prospect of global warming.

[Jamoe]

....
h) Wait 250,000 years or more for it to break down enough that it may be considered safe (no-one has ever lived long enough to see it happen)

Are you sure? Occy is getting pretty old

[snakes]

The processes involved in constructing a nuclear power plant emits much more greenhouse gases than the difference it supposedly makes.

You have to think of all the processes involved rather than the end result. Where do you think all the energy is going to come from to produce all that concrete, mine all that uranium etc etc......

Gee, probably the same places that provide energy to make a traditional coal based power station idiot.

snakes

[snakes]

The curse may be the curse of nuclear waste.
I love how snakes likes calling people who disagree with him knobwrenches.

I only call people who display no concept of thinking knobwrenches, knobwrench

Suddenly there is no alternative and years of sustained opposition is irrelevant. Really convincing argument. Planning on buying shares snakes?

There are alternatives, but none that with our current level of technology, offer a similar level of power output, except hydro. Funny, you weren't capable of thinking of that one

I don't trust any civilisation to last long enough to eternally contain the radiation poisoning. Look at Russia's nuclear fleet

Again, if you had bothered doing any reading before bashing your head against the keyboard, you would be aware that nuclear based power production methods have made significant inroads over the last 10-20 years. Also comparing Australia's safety record against Russia's is further proving that you are not capable of insight, but you don't need me to tell you that.

snakes

[snakes]

Better alternatives are wind, solar and wave power. Nuclear fusion is another altrernative to nuclear fission but that's another story.

A better alternative would be to not make comments on topics you appear have no real understanding of.

Love the knobwrench comment Snakes, I think you read to much Murdoch press mate. Cut down on your commercial mediums too. You are a tool, a product. And I mean that in the literal sense of the words. There is no future in nuclear fission.

Obviously you are suffering from some sort of severe physical trauma to the head which is causing you to make irrational, unsubstatiated statements. And I mean that in the literal sense. I'm glad my mind, which by the way, yes is a tool that I use & rely on, has been able to bring some common sense to this thread. Unfortunately, we can't say the same for you.

snakes

[Grooter]

Even allowing for any bias, the "cost" of environmental impacts for Nuclear are an order of magnitude less than coal - and this was undertaken in 1991 - so you would imagine the difference is even greater now with the prospect of global warming.

Absolutely. Nuclear power is going to produce less emissions than coal but only during the production of the energy. The before and after costs tend to weigh down the benefits. I don't support the notion that we should stick with burning coal to produce power.

I don't want to get into the whole debate either to be honest, because there is enough information out there to support nuclear or not.

The whole point of the post is that the idea of hazardous nuclear waste being processed in my backyard is very unsettling. And it's not just Chernobyl either, America had the same problem with three mile island too.

Rather than appease the mining giants and global market demands we should be focussing on wind, solar and hydro energy.

Compared to other renewable energy sources nuclear power produces 4-5 times more carbon dioxide anyway so we should be looking at wind farms for a start which are very efficient.

Also when you consider current estimates predict there is only enough uranium in the ground to last 50 years (think of that in terms of the time it takes to dispose of the waste generated) then usuage of nuclear power in Australia is short sighted and driven by profit, not environmental concerns.

[snakes]

Your assessment also fails to take into account external (Mainly environmental) costs as well - as munch touched on. Here is a quick grab from the a study done for the EU.

"The methodology considers emissions, dispersion and ultimate impact. With nuclear energy the risk of accidents is factored in along with high estimates of radiological impacts from mine tailings (waste management and decommissioning being already within the cost to the consumer). Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average."

Even allowing for any bias, the "cost" of environmental impacts for Nuclear are an order of magnitude less than coal - and this was undertaken in 1991 - so you would imagine the difference is even greater now with the prospect of global warming.

Why Murrum, I think you have just torn Hatchman's argument to shreds

[Kel]

Gee, probably the same places that provide energy o make a traditional coal based power station idiot

Exactly, In Australia, the energy to build both would come from the burning of fossil fuels which emits greenhouse gases. Therefore both options contribute to climate change, Nuclear power just does it indirectly. Both options are as bad as eachother.

What about after the power plant has been built, what do you want to do with all the waste it produces?.....bury it underground so you don't have to deal with it but your grandchildren will?

Furthermore, uranium isn't a renewable resource, it will eventually run out....some have even said that there is only about 20 years worth of uranium left in Australia. What are you going to do with all your amazing nuclear power plants then?

Nuclear power plants just solve one problem to create more, don't you think its time to think in the long term and look at the whole picture?