Nuclear power stations are latest must have seemingly

Has anyone heard the latest discussions on this topic?

Why when we just had a rerun of the Chernobyl disaster can anyone even contemplate building one here and risking it? It beats me.

And of course the USA for one would be real pleased if we did because they are wanting us to take their tonnes of waste which has to be stored for hundreds of thousands of years. So is France and others who have waste they want rid to get of - something no-one is mentioning as an outcome. 

Hawke said no to nuclear way back and Howard confirmed it by three bits of legislation which will have to be repealed to build here.

If you didnt watch Chernobyl on SBS just recently - go watch it On Demand. 

Then make a decision for or against in your state, your country and risks to your family.

FirstPrev123(page 3/3)
39 comments

There's a lot of subjective hysteria running loose on the subject of nuclear power and a lot of it is missing honesty and facts.

The current television program running about Chernobyl is NOT a documentary.  It is a fictionalised recreation of the drama of mismanagement and incomptetence by senior technicians who got out of their depth in an old generation power station.  The death toll from radiation exposure beyond the power plant and it's immediate employees is subject to conjecture, but it cannot be confirmed as being as high as some disaster proponents claim.

The death toll from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident from radiation exposure remains as zero.  The extended unsafe area around it was an artificial construct forced on it by extreme elements within the Japanese Parliament.  The leakage of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean is not regarded as at a level that can cause harm either directly or indirectly.  Remember that the "safe" and "unsafe" levels of radiation exposure are all guesses on the extremely safe side.

On Terrawatts of power generated over the past 60 years, nuclear remains the safest on lives lost.

The old "killer" waste argument needs to be considered objectively.  There need be no waste from a nuclear power plant.  Thanks to efforts by the old USSR to curtail the development of nuclear weapons, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaties drawn up in the late 1950's and early 1960's prohibited the recycling of otherwise exhausted nuclear fuels for re-use.  It can be recycled almost continuosly and the French do do this with their own and other depleted fuels.

The old Soviet Union spent many millions of Rubles over a period of over 30 years financing the anti-nuclear protests throughtout the west and we are now paying the price of their campaign of misinformation.

There are a number of objective and factual sources of information on nuclear power and one such is http://hiroshimasyndrome.com/ .  Spend a couple of hours reading the full story, including the links if need be.

You may learn a few things.

At present there are two operational nuclear power staions operating in Brisbane and no-one seems to care.  They are part of a fleet of many hundred that regularly tour the world providing safe and high quality reliable electricity to thousands of people every day.

 I thought that there was only one nuclear scientific research reactor (OPAL) at Lucas Heights in Sydney that produces, among other things, isotopes for use in nuclear medicine. ...  ????

Suze, USS Ronald Reagan.

Couldabeen,

You should have been an advisor to the US State Department.  Because it has been struggling with this wicked problem for decades.  See here,

'US GAO - Key Issues - Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste' [click for link]

 

Just think, all the US State Department needs is some of those easily seduced long-in-the-legs-and-thick-in-the-head Oz politicians to allow it to use Australia as its nuclear dump.

PS, Gerry, the cleverest country in the world would not have voted  for somebody in Parliament who rubbed coal over his body, you can't be talking about Australia.

"When China takes over we will have nuclear at the stroke of a pen"...if anyone thinks that is a stupid comment you have not been taking note of how far China has come!  I hope I am dead before I am forced to learn Mandarin.

China currently has 46 working nuclear power plants with 11 under construction.

China currently has 46 working nuclear power plants with 11 under construction.

 

Yep  China has 46 operational nuclear reactors, with more than 20 others under construction. 

They are capable of building a reactor in just 60 months, and hope to build 8 new ones each year to reach their goal.

Suze, I think he meant visiting American Warships, - not Lucas Heights.Often, when American Warships come to Australia, they don't mention to anybody that they are Nuclear, - it's all Military Secrets and all that stuff, wink wink nudge nudge.

There are 453 operational nuclear power stations currently in the world.

There are 55 nuclear power stations currently under construction in the world.

And all you can talk about is chernobyl and Fukishima both of which had problems relating to them.

The new technology reactors are much more manageable.

Someone said that they only last 50 years, well guess what solar panels and batteries are only warranteed for 15 years.

Bazza, Solar Panels are warranted for 20 to 30 years, the best batteries only 5 years, with design life 20 years, conditions apply.

As lithium batteries spend more time in the market, certain qualities may allow some of them to have longer warranties, but it is a bit like a tank full of water, no one will warrant a tank to stay full of water for a specific time as you may leave the tap on by mistake, empty overnight, - just imagine dragging your brand new empty tank back to the supplier and demanding he fill it up again? - he would probably place you within :)

I have never seen any warranty for a Nuclear power station, however some in the USA are 60 years old, not much lasts that long, but dams with Hydro can last more than 100 years, some must last a lot longer as if they fail whole cities will be washed away, - never seen a warranty for a hydro either.

Interestingly, Nuclear Power stations can not afford or get private insurance, Govenments have to do it, so I am told.

And Global Warming, Insurance companies don't insure you against global warming either, - they don't take that sort of 'risk'.

Maybe in a few years time you will be offered houses with a 5, 10, or 20 year warranty against Global Warming caused destruction.. but best read the fine print.

There are 453 operational nuclear power stations currently in the world.

There are 55 nuclear power stations currently under construction in the world.

And all you can talk about is chernobyl and Fukishima both of which had problems relating to them.

The new technology reactors are much more manageable.

Someone said that they only last 50 years, well guess what solar panels and batteries are only warranteed for 15 years.

Two words: SPENT RODS

https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-waste/safer-storage-of-spent-fuel

 

How long will they have to be stored?

What disasters can happen with leaking old storage facilities?

Haven't we already got a pile of plastic rubbish and other rubbish to deal with first?

And why are we not going to use safer methods of energy instead?

What about the cost of building power stations of any kind compared to renewable energy plants?

Spot on Musicveg, also of note, new designs of Reactors based on mistakes of past design, are untried technology..

And those here who are in favour of Nuclear are not answering my questions, because there is no answer to the waste products of nuclear. Not too mention how much water is used which is why they build them near oceans. At least coal can go back into the ground. We can move towards more efficient renewables and also hydrogen. 

From what I can glean about the subject of this debate, - 'Nuclear Power Stations must have seemingly' - it is based on the dubious statements of a Hugh White who argued on Q an A that Australia should have an Independant Nuclear Defense capacity.

This somehow got turned around by the controllers of Australian Commercial Media to mean that Australia should build Nuclear Reactors, despite that Nuclear Power stations do not produce Weapons Grade uranium, - nor help same.

Nor does that concept fit in with what I have been reading about America and China in that China is gearing up for a Defensive war with America, so America must wage an Offensive war, whereas Offensive wars require far more military capacity/expenditure, with far greater risks.

As for Australia helping America destroy the world 10 times over with America's Nuclear arsenal, it would not help at all, -we would all be dead and Australia's addition to us all being dead is some sort of sick joke.

Defensive military is something Australia could achieve, but more of our weapons made in Australia, stimulating jobs and the economy, not buying from America or whatever, reducing our balance of payments, - which is the International measure of health in an economy. 

It is perhaps significant that most of Australia's Uranium mines are Owned - although very indirectly, but still, by the 36 families in America that own most of the Western World's economies, the point naught naught one %, who have the same greedy fanaticism as the super rich in Rome that decided to no longer pay their armies, and just party till they died. - it is very important to us that we do not follow in the same woeful depraved footsteps, nor allow the .001% to lead us down that same no-where path.

The US State Department has cleverly come with the 'Cradle to Grave' narrative to help Australian politicians to sell the concept of using Australia as the world's nuke dump.  The foolish rationalisation being that the country where the product was minded is obliged to take it back, notwithstanding their conversion of it to highly poisonous waste and in the process, accumulating tonnes of radioactive containment and building products. 

The other narrative is that Australia could make squillions out of storing or somehow reprocessing the waste into something useful.  Taking the first, once the waste is here the incoming governments of those countries find it easy to change and deny contracts that were made by others or are historical.  GB could easily walk away from its commitments following the testing of nuke bombs in Australia for example. - Check the history of that!  Taking the second part, that Oz could make dough out of the waste. Well, that just suckers in the venal and those who hope that taxes might be reduced.  But, if there was any chance of making money out of waste, wouldn't Uncle Same be first in best dressed and it would be happening already?

 

BTW, if anyone wants to argue 'cradle to grave' should apply, they can first give Australia back all of that gold that was mined here.  No chance of that though is there?

Perhaps Australia should NOT be mining uranium or selling it

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/why-the-fukushima-disaster-is-worse-than-chernobyl-2345542.html

 

Interesting to read what UK papers says about Fukashima and its 'accident' that some here have said - and that this isnt a disaster at all. 

As usual time will tell as radiation is a creeping disaster over years to see if and what it does to any human.

Cancer has been arround for centuries we are told when we say radiation fm Nuclear accidents or explostions or tests cause it - and then comes the denials. 

As someone said if it isnt dagerous - why do technicials duck for cover when doing X Rays.

And we are told to limit the number of get enough rads - or now called different name but back when this was the name - it was limited to a number during our lifetime. 

Now see 1 rad = a lot more than the number of this new measurement says OK. 

Again - how much is true and how much are lies due to Greed - money being the root of all evil. 

Again why the different stories re no of working nuclear power stns and numbers of new "Helli" coal fired power stns being built. Again 2 different stories. 

And again if carbon dioxide which are the emmissions that we have to avoid - why then are they required to 'green the planet" which is what is happening and our food supply diminishes if not sufficient carbon dioxide - and seeing as population of the world is exploding we need all the carbon dioxide going to feed them - not long ago that was the worry - remember?

And think of this. God made the planet. He designed it - it works fine - except when man disrupts it somehow. 

He made trees to take in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen which we need to breath to live

Many more of us here today are exhaling carbon dixide with every breath and we need more trees not less.

Which is why Bob Hawke planted a million trees. And Howard then planted more. 

Both men were correct in their thinking and as between then represent the 2 major politiacl parties - no one here can argue that surely.

Again IS AGW aka climate change real or a likely source of revenue to be collected via UN for redistribution to poorer nations.? Which is what is said re AGW or was on google if still there which I havent checked lately but the Petition by most of th 52 scientists disappeared. It is said it was thought up as a way to collect billions for redistribution. And one can bet a 'handling charge' goes to UN who alway sneed money for their people - 1st class travel hotels etc - as well as lots of social events and not forgetting a fat pay role to pay their salaries etc 

So WHY is CARBON DIOXIDE THE ENEMY? 

Because if so, then we need to reduce the worlds population ie limit the number of babies being born which wouldnt work as Muslim women have no choice and bear many more than western women. 8 to the 1.3 etc. So would end up with Islam dominating the world which is its chosen path anyway. 

Lots to think about but this business of Carbon dioxide really is one of the most puzzling and adds to the scam many have posted all over the web that this is not happening but a UN scheme to grab money. 

Julia Gillard once said she was sending 7 billion to the UN collected via energy prices. 

Hi Berry, your' letter is a mixture of different political positions, it might be better to check these statements for yourself, - a number of them, this fantasy about the UN making up Global Heating to get money for poor people, - just how can that happen?  and how does that miniscule anount of money compare to the Hundreds of Billions the .01% the Super rich, are making from selling fossil fuels? - that is just Global Warming Denier propaganda, funded by that same tiny group to protect themselves.

What I want to talk to you is the Carbon Dioxide thing, as that is also a Denialist argument.

Firstly, there is always two sides to an argument, One, that extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can increase crop growth, - wheat 11%, corn 8.4%, see Scientific America article,  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

But as you see in that article, it may only work for one year, as the extra growth requires more eg Nitrogen. And that is the real point, that plants need quite a range of different nutrients, so only if it has absolutely everything already, can it benefit from more carbon

Well, the amount of Carbon Dioxide has now doubled, and the Earth mean temperature is creeping up year by year, but agricultural ouput has not significantly altered, - not surprising as 10% is not so much, whereas adding nitrogen can see a rise of 50%. - Adding Biochar can get a great deal more than that, and then the plants can get their extra carbon direct, not have to take it out of the atmosphere, and without all the bad side effects as reported in that article.

PS if you can't open that article, I have copied it and will send it to you as a PDF if you write to me at wind@iig.com.au 

FirstPrev123(page 3/3)
39 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment