Nuclear Power

[Culprit]

With yesterdays news that three of the richest men one who is ex Liberal Treasurer are looking at a being at the forefront of the Nuclear power station business the question is being ask. Do you want it? Yes or No?

I for one don’t, I do not believe the spin and if John Howard and his party wish to have it let them name where and go to the electorate on the platform of Nuclear Power at the coming election. Bracks comes out with the spin of the people will have to vote whether we can have the station here. Sorry Mr Bracks, the High court ruling last year has given the Federal Government the Power can do as they please.

[Proud Pies]

And interesting to note, that the Commission or whatever it was, that was run by Dr Ziggy wasn't set up until AFTER the meeting he had with the 3 Richest men who are all Liberal Members. And what was Ziggy's ruling........sure, go ahead, we need a nuclear power plant.

hmmmmmmm

[sherrife]

It's such a difficult question. It's all about the waste in my eyes, if we can find a way to use up more and more of the uranium so that there's less and less waste in the final output, it becomes increasingly feasible.

I think we have to accept that renewable sources are not going to be able to handle ALL of the power needs we have for the increasingly power-hungry appliances we're running. Think about somewhere like Bangladesh, where population density is just ridiculously high, there's no way you could have enough renewable sources in that country to supply each family with a fridge, computer, washing machine, etc. Yes they don't have them now, but we have to allow them maximum opportunities for development, not restrict THEM in the name of environmentalism and allow ourselves to do whatever the hell we want.

That's the crux for me, its a choice between the evils of coal or nuclear, and nuclear is less damaging (on the assumption of course that a waste disposal solution exists) and more long-lasting. I think if we accepted it as necessary, research into waste management would begin getting serious funding, and a viable, environmentally friendly solution would be found.

However i think the problem with accepting nuclear power would be that the renewable sources (which are expensive and relatively inefficient at the moment) would be on the sidelines again as everyone rushes off to build reactors. Essentially, since everyone knows coal power is filthy, there's quite a bit of incentive to use other sources. Nuclear power is pretty clean in the short term, so it's much harder to keep motivated about using renewable sources.

Really really tough.

[David]

Good to see you back Sherrife
Nuclear power may have its downsides, but it still seems like a smart option - better for the environment, and more efficient. As long as the safety concerns are met more than adequately (obviously we don't want a Chernobyl in Australia), I would support it.

[Gazza05]

The only question I have is would you want it near where you live ?

[Dr Alf Andrews]

The key to meeting our energy needs is in simplifying our lives. If renewable energy sources are insufficient to support our lifestyles, then it's our lifestyles that are at fault ... not renewable energy.

A big fat NO to nuclear.

[Joel]

So we keep using coal in the meantime while everybody in the world changes their lifestyle Alf? I think you're on a one man crusade.

[David]

It is all very well to champion the simplification of our lifestyles, but who is actually committed to doing it?

Alf, would you sacrifice TV (actually these days that's not really much of a sacrifice ) and the internet, to save on power, for example?

Neither would I.

Sure, I'm not a big fan of materialism, but that air conditioner would certainly be nice on hot afternoons.

Essentially, whether our lifestyles are at fault or not, they're probably not really going to change. Therefore, the question must be asked what is the best way of accomodating this.

Gazza, I'm not sure where they're planning to build them, but one would assume they would be a fair way from residential areas... or are they? I don't know.

[Culprit]

Nuclear won't happen in Australia in our lifetime.

[Dale61]

Seeing as though we mine (and export) the fuel, and now are looking at somewhere to dispose of it, we may as well start using it.

I really don't give a rat's where it's built as I'll be dead and buried before the pollies give it the go-ahead.

[PeterWH]

With this nuclear crap it appears that when Howard gets a 'bee in his bonnet'he dosent stop til he gets what he wants....You can see why Ziggy says yes,didint he run Telstra for a few years before they threw him out???and that other bloke Ron ??? well he is an ex Liberal backbencher,so of course he would have to agree with Howard.

Out her,we are stuck with Nationals and they all say NOP,the people say NOPE,BUT knowing Howard....well anythings possible.Any way I cant see nuclear power in my life time,BUT christ I pity the next generation under a liberal/coalition government

[Culprit]

Ron is an ex Liberal Tresurer PeterWH.

Political suicide for Howard.

[nomadjack]

[PeterWH]

No wounder he is up Howards bum with this nuclear crap....Ziggys not far behind (excuse the pun) either

[London Dave]