Should Australia Go Nuclear? (or at least move further down that path)

[D.T.]

Countries using Nuclear power (we should really be joining this list or be left behind):

US, Canada,France, Japan,Russia,South Korea,Germany,Ukraine,China,United Kingdom,Sweden,Spain,Belgium,Taiwan,India,Czech Republic,Switzerland,Finland,Bulgaria,Hungary,Brazil,South Africa,Slovakia,Mexico,Romania,Argentina,Iran,Pakistan,slovenia,Netherlands,Armenia.

13% of the worlds power now comes from nuclear which produces no greenhouse gas. Isnt this a stat you want to improve? Don't you think this can become an exportable commodity to help Australia progress (if manufacturing, mining and agriculture dont last forever, what will we have afterwards?). Massive amount of jobs (broaden tax base!) in building the facilities and in running them afterwards.

96% of the waste can be re-used to create more energy.

 

[wategos]

Some countries with nuclear power have implemented programs to phase it out, the risk is being seen as too high.

 

[Dazz]

What are you doing wategos to reduce that perceived risk ??

 

[wategos]

What are you doing wategos to reduce that perceived risk ??

Nothing, Fukushima has shown that risks are very real not perceived.
Some densely populated countries like Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Spain do not want to take these risks. Many countries have banned new reactors, Austria never even started theirs up after they built it.

 

[D.T.]

Nothing, Fukushima has shown that risks are very real not perceived.
Some densely populated countries like Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Spain do not want to take these risks. Many countries have banned new reactors, Austria never even started theirs up after they built it.

Fukishima is an awful example and not comparable to what we're talking about.

All the countries I listed above are into it.

 

[Dazz]

Countries using Nuclear power

US, Canada,France, Japan,Russia,South Korea,Germany,Ukraine,China,United Kingdom,Sweden,Spain,Belgium,Taiwan,India,Czech Republic,Switzerland,Finland,Bulgaria,Hungary,Brazil,South Africa,Slovakia,Mexico,Romania,Argentina,Iran,Pakistan,slovenia,Netherlands,Armenia.

Gotta say Wategos, your "some countries" list looks quite pathetic against that huge list of pretty much every important developed country in the world....all the biggies are listed.


In fact, your "some countries" argument looks very similar to the deceit of the countries that have a Carbon Tax. Most of the big important countries do not, but that doesn't stop those with a certain voting pattern from twisting the stats to suit their ideologue.


The delicious irony is the extreme Green voters wail against the burning of fossil fuels, but the only realistic alternative that stacks up on a global scale to generate base load requirements is nuclear and yet they've already wiped that from the table and refuse to even consider it....so are stuck with irrelevantly small and totally uneconomic alternatives like wind and solar....and hence, due to their capital intensive and yet tiny scale leading to massive loss making for anyone trying to get it up and running....the whole ideology dies a pretty quick and painful death.


The "some countries" argument is a well proven 8.65% green voting zealots tactic that never stacks up. It'd be far quicker to just declare your Green voting status and then the other 91% plus of the public could summarily ignore your extremist views and more constructively get on with the rational debate.


It's painful (but amusing) to watch them beat their head against their own brick wall.

 

[D.T.]

My real first preference would be for solar, wind, or wave generated energy. We get plenty of all 3 in Australia... but its just so far from being viable with the cost to develop and not really any pay off.

Getting that across it to the masses is a hard task - that getting nuclear going, it being much better for the environment and much safer than our current energy methods, and will perhaps allow us time to develop the 'green' way.

 

[new]

Nuclear is better than coal. It reduces emissions, has prevented more deaths than it has caused (NASA study), cheaper to run, Aus has an abundance of the required raw material, will stimulate a number of sectors and will likely improve our standing as a small global player.

There are legitimate arguments against nuclear plants; if not built to a high enough standard (Chernobyl) or are unlucky enough to experience mother nature (Fukushima) there can be some nasty consequences. However, consequentially they're the obvious option due to their low anti-enviro outputs and the risks are relatively easy to mitigate.

Any Green who tries to claim that nuclear power is worse for the country and/or the environment needs to update their outlook on life and realise that we cannot continue using coal and the other current 'environmentally friendly' forms of energy production as they're often worse than nuclear or are simply unsustainable due to high costs and low outputs.

 

[wategos]

Gotta say Wategos, your "some countries" list looks quite pathetic against that huge list of pretty much every important developed country in the world....all the biggies are listed.
...
The "some countries" argument is a well proven 8.65% green voting zealots tactic that never stacks up. It'd be far quicker to just declare your Green voting status and then the other 91% plus of the public could summarily ignore your extremist views and more constructively get on with the rational debate.

Actually I've never voted green and often vote conservative so I don't know how you make the connection, I'm pointing out that a lot of countries (more than I listed) see the risk of nuclear power as too high and have blocked new developments or implemented phase outs. Italy for example has finished their phase out and is now nuclear free.

 

[HotRod]

Just wondering, how many coal fired power stations in Australia have been destroyed by earthquake/tsunami?

 

[Dazz]

From my geology lecture days, I seem to recall the Yilgarn block, upon which the vast majority of WA is situated, is recognised by all around the world as being one of the oldest and most tectonically stable geological formations.


We have the following three attributes that puts Australia well in front of most countries to capture the opportunity that presents itself ;

• best geologically stable formations
• an abundance of uranium rich ore
• a stable political environment compared to most

Those 3 attributes make for a very attractive basis for any future discussion on the subject.

 

[HotRod]

From my geology lecture days, I seem to recall the Yilgarn block, upon which the vast majority of WA is situated, is recognised by all around the world as being one of the oldest and most tectonically stable geological formations.


We have the following three attributes that puts Australia well in front of most countries to capture the opportunity that presents itself ;

• best geologically stable formations
• an abundance of uranium rich ore
• a stable political environment compared to most

Those 3 attributes make for a very attractive basis for any future discussion on the subject.

Except nuclear is dangerous and kills people and destroys the environment.