http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-19/senator-bob-day-encouraged-by-support-of-nuclear-power-proposal/6707402


Quote:

Family First senator Bob Day insists he has broad support for lifting a ban on nuclear power stations even though he has failed to get the move through Federal Parliament. The South Australian senator put forward a proposal to amend legislation that bans nuclear power stations and uranium enrichment in Australia on Tuesday, but it was defeated. Despite it failing, Senator Day said he was encouraged by the amount of support he received for the proposal elsewhere. "Any change is always met with resistance, but also by the same token it's met with a lot of support," Senator Day said. "In fact I've been very encouraged by the level of support by people both in South Australia and other states, particularly people who are forward looking, future thinking, encouraging the development of a nuclear industry. "My amendment was not supported yesterday in the Parliament but suffice to say I was encouraged to revisit it, so watch this space." Senator Day said the restrictions on the nuclear industry in Australia was stifling worthwhile investigations into the industry. He said his first objection to the act was the prohibition on considering nuclear power at all. "I have a bit of a science background and to sort of make it unlawful to consider one particular aspect of science it goes against the grain," Senator Day said. "So I just think we should not rule out any consideration or exploration or investigating of any particular aspect of science. "Given the pace of change at the moment and leaps and bounds we're seeing in science who knows what might develop."

The paranoia about nuke power has to end.

It just demonstrates that the threat of CO2 concentrations is not a critical issue in Australia whilst nuclear power generation is off the table.

Nuke power has the potential to cut Co2 emissions significantly yet our bozo politicians are too gutless to even talk about it..... :( :(

bullsh1t ... Australia is one country that does NOT need nuclear energy... we have plenty of safer alternatives.

Australia needs renewable energy.   ;)

I believe even some of the ALP and the unions in SA are looking at nuclear options for jobs.

If cutting carbon pollution at any cost is the religious right's agenda, then go straight to their main plan ... a nuclear armageddon, killing out humanity.

Enriching uranium and starting a nuclear arms race in our own backyard.


This way, by the religious right killing out humanity, AGW is no longer an issue we have to confront.

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

bullsh1t ... Australia is one country that does NOT need nuclear energy... we have plenty of safer alternatives.

No, we really don't.

Port Kembla, Swag?  Central Coast with its burgeoning population and plentiful water supply?

____ wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 9:47am:

If cutting carbon pollution at any cost is the religious right's agenda, then go straight to their main plan ... a nuclear armageddon, killing out humanity. Enriching uranium and starting a nuclear arms race in our own backyard. This way, by the religious right killing out humanity, AGW is no longer an issue we have to confront.

We already have a nuclear reactor on the outskirts of Sydney. That hasn't started a nuclear arms race in this region. I think it's clear to everyone but you that an Australian nuclear program would only be used for the purposes of power generation. Australia doesn't have any ambitions of becoming the next nuclear power, even though we most definitely have the technical capability to do so.

bogarde73 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 9:40am:

I believe even some of the ALP and the unions in SA are looking at nuclear options for jobs.

Nuclear power would bring a lot of highly skilled jobs with it.

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

bullsh1t ... Australia is one country that does NOT need nuclear energy... we have plenty of safer alternatives.

Aust is likely the best country to exploit it.

Benign seismology, wide open spaces and massive reserves of uranium and thorium.

Nothing stopping anyone from utilising or developing 'safer' alternatives if they 'choose' to.   

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:01am:

____ wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:47am: If cutting carbon pollution at any cost is the religious right's agenda, then go straight to their main plan ... a nuclear armageddon, killing out humanity. Enriching uranium and starting a nuclear arms race in our own backyard. This way, by the religious right killing out humanity, AGW is no longer an issue we have to confront. We already have a nuclear reactor on the outskirts of Sydney. That hasn't started a nuclear arms race in this region. I think it's clear to everyone but you that an Australian nuclear program would only be used for the purposes of power generation. Australia doesn't have any ambitions of becoming the next nuclear power, even though we most definitely have the technical capability to do so.

Don't let Adam Goodes know that - he might want an imaginary warhead on that imaginary spear...

bogarde73 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 9:40am:

I believe even some of the ALP and the unions in SA are looking at nuclear options for jobs.

and? is that supposed to convince people that it's a good idea?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 9:59am:

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:34am: bullsh1t ... Australia is one country that does NOT need nuclear energy... we have plenty of safer alternatives. No, we really don't.

yes we do .... idf you ever pulled your head out of your arse you'd see that!

Swagman wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:02am:

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:34am: bullsh1t ... Australia is one country that does NOT need nuclear energy... we have plenty of safer alternatives. Aust is likely the best country to exploit it. Benign seismology, wide open spaces and massive reserves of uranium and thorium. Nothing stopping anyone from utilising or developing 'safer' alternatives if they 'choose' to.

Australia has one of the largest deposits of uranium in the world. It makes perfect sense to produce nuclear power in this country and would lead to considerably lower electricity costs for consumers.

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:04am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:59am: Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:34am: bullsh1t ... Australia is one country that does NOT need nuclear energy... we have plenty of safer alternatives. No, we really don't. yes we do .... idf you ever pulled your head out of your arse you'd see that!

Prove it - list these safe and FEASIBLE alternatives.

Swagman wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:02am:

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:34am: bullsh1t ... Australia is one country that does NOT need nuclear energy... we have plenty of safer alternatives. Aust is likely the best country to exploit it. Benign seismology, wide open spaces and massive reserves of uranium and thorium. Nothing stopping anyone from utilising or developing 'safer' alternatives if they 'choose' to.

so we should go nuclear because we can? what sort of dumb logic is that?

Nuclear is a short term fix with some major long term problems.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:01am:

____ wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:47am: If cutting carbon pollution at any cost is the religious right's agenda, then go straight to their main plan ... a nuclear armageddon, killing out humanity. Enriching uranium and starting a nuclear arms race in our own backyard. This way, by the religious right killing out humanity, AGW is no longer an issue we have to confront. We already have a nuclear reactor on the outskirts of Sydney. That hasn't started a nuclear arms race in this region. I think it's clear to everyone but you that an Australian nuclear program would only be used for the purposes of power generation. Australia doesn't have any ambitions of becoming the next nuclear power, even though we most definitely have the technical capability to do so.

Claimed Lucas Heights was desperate for Medical Reasons ... then it was closed down for ages showing this was another nuclear camp lie.


If Australia wants nukes in our backyard then we might as well have nuke missiles as well since nukes are big welcoming signs for terror groups to attack.

Since nukes are so safe to the religious right, why not enrich the uranium and nuke bomb Australia up?

____ wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:07am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 10:01am: ____ wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:47am: If cutting carbon pollution at any cost is the religious right's agenda, then go straight to their main plan ... a nuclear armageddon, killing out humanity. Enriching uranium and starting a nuclear arms race in our own backyard. This way, by the religious right killing out humanity, AGW is no longer an issue we have to confront. We already have a nuclear reactor on the outskirts of Sydney. That hasn't started a nuclear arms race in this region. I think it's clear to everyone but you that an Australian nuclear program would only be used for the purposes of power generation. Australia doesn't have any ambitions of becoming the next nuclear power, even though we most definitely have the technical capability to do so. Claimed Lucas Heights was desperate for Medical Reasons ... then it was closed down for ages showing this was another nuclear camp lie. If Australia wants nukes in our backyard then we might as well have nuke missiles as well since nukes are big welcoming signs for terror groups to attack. Since nukes are so safe to the religious right, why not enrich the uranium and nuke bomb Australia up?

You need to do better (or any) research...


The High Flux Australian Reactor (HIFAR) was Australia's first nuclear reactor. It was built at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (later ANSTO) Research Establishment at Lucas Heights.

Based on the DIDO reactor at Harwell in the UK, HIFAR was cooled and moderated by heavy water, and the fuel was enriched uranium. There was also a graphite neutron reflector surrounding the core. Like DIDO, its original purpose was nuclear materials testing, using its high neutron flux to give materials intended for use in nuclear power reactors their entire expected lifetime neutron exposure in a relatively short period.

HIFAR was used for research, particularly neutron diffraction experiments, production of neutron transmutation doped (NTD) silicon, and for production of medical and industrial radioisotopes.

HIFAR went critical at 11:15 pm local time on 26 January 1958, and was first run at full power of 10MW (thermal) in 1960. The initial fuel was highly enriched uranium, but over the years the enrichment level of new fuel was steadily reduced, in line with international trends designed to reduce the danger of diversion of research reactor fuel for weapons programs. HIFAR completed conversion to low enriched uranium fuel (LEU) in 2006. Of the six DIDO class reactors built including DIDO itself, HIFAR was the last to cease operation. Permanent decommissioning of HIFAR commenced on 30 January 2007 and is expected to be completed by 2025.

On 12 August 2006 OPAL, the 20MW replacement reactor located on an adjacent site, went critical. OPAL is served by the same complex of research, isotope production and remote handling laboratories. The two reactors ran in parallel for six months while OPAL was being tested. HIFAR was then permanently shut down and OPAL took over HIFAR's role of Australia's only operating nuclear reactor.

Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Flux_Australian_Reactor

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:11am:

____ wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 10:07am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 10:01am: ____ wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:47am: If cutting carbon pollution at any cost is the religious right's agenda, then go straight to their main plan ... a nuclear armageddon, killing out humanity. Enriching uranium and starting a nuclear arms race in our own backyard. This way, by the religious right killing out humanity, AGW is no longer an issue we have to confront. We already have a nuclear reactor on the outskirts of Sydney. That hasn't started a nuclear arms race in this region. I think it's clear to everyone but you that an Australian nuclear program would only be used for the purposes of power generation. Australia doesn't have any ambitions of becoming the next nuclear power, even though we most definitely have the technical capability to do so. Claimed Lucas Heights was desperate for Medical Reasons ... then it was closed down for ages showing this was another nuclear camp lie. If Australia wants nukes in our backyard then we might as well have nuke missiles as well since nukes are big welcoming signs for terror groups to attack. Since nukes are so safe to the religious right, why not enrich the uranium and nuke bomb Australia up? You need to do better (or any) research... The High Flux Australian Reactor (HIFAR) was Australia's first nuclear reactor. It was built at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (later ANSTO) Research Establishment at Lucas Heights. Based on the DIDO reactor at Harwell in the UK, HIFAR was cooled and moderated by heavy water, and the fuel was enriched uranium. There was also a graphite neutron reflector surrounding the core. Like DIDO, its original purpose was nuclear materials testing, using its high neutron flux to give materials intended for use in nuclear power reactors their entire expected lifetime neutron exposure in a relatively short period. HIFAR was used for research, particularly neutron diffraction experiments, production of neutron transmutation doped (NTD) silicon, and for production of medical and industrial radioisotopes. HIFAR went critical at 11:15 pm local time on 26 January 1958, and was first run at full power of 10MW (thermal) in 1960. The initial fuel was highly enriched uranium, but over the years the enrichment level of new fuel was steadily reduced, in line with international trends designed to reduce the danger of diversion of research reactor fuel for weapons programs. HIFAR completed conversion to low enriched uranium fuel (LEU) in 2006. Of the six DIDO class reactors built including DIDO itself, HIFAR was the last to cease operation. Permanent decommissioning of HIFAR commenced on 30 January 2007 and is expected to be completed by 2025. On 12 August 2006 OPAL, the 20MW replacement reactor located on an adjacent site, went critical. OPAL is served by the same complex of research, isotope production and remote handling laboratories. The two reactors ran in parallel for six months while OPAL was being tested. HIFAR was then permanently shut down and OPAL took over HIFAR's role of Australia's only operating nuclear reactor. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Flux_Australian_Reactor

Nothing to do with the point I made.
What the hell are you on?

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:06am:

Swagman wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 10:02am: Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:34am: bullsh1t ... Australia is one country that does NOT need nuclear energy... we have plenty of safer alternatives. Aust is likely the best country to exploit it. Benign seismology, wide open spaces and massive reserves of uranium and thorium. Nothing stopping anyone from utilising or developing 'safer' alternatives if they 'choose' to.    so we should go nuclear because we can? what sort of dumb logic is that? Nuclear is a short term fix with some major long term problems.

If you read the OP, the 'dumb logic' is that people won't even discuss it as an option.  Labor in SA seem to be the only ones, and they should be commended.

Swagman wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:24am:

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 10:06am: Swagman wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 10:02am: Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:34am: bullsh1t ... Australia is one country that does NOT need nuclear energy... we have plenty of safer alternatives. Aust is likely the best country to exploit it. Benign seismology, wide open spaces and massive reserves of uranium and thorium. Nothing stopping anyone from utilising or developing 'safer' alternatives if they 'choose' to.    so we should go nuclear because we can? what sort of dumb logic is that? Nuclear is a short term fix with some major long term problems. If you read the OP, the 'dumb logic' is that people won't even discuss it as an option.  Labor in SA seem to be the only ones, and they should be commended.

It's like having feasible, cost-effective, large-scale wind power generation technology but refusing to even discuss utilising it.

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:03am:

bogarde73 wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:40am: I believe even some of the ALP and the unions in SA are looking at nuclear options for jobs. and? is that supposed to convince people that it's a good idea?

No, but it does indicate that even minds previously closed can be opened.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-02/nuclear-waste-dump-best-economic-option-business-sa-says/6666212

Since new battery technology will revolutionise the energy sector away from the current model, surely smaller scale green renewables are the logical path.

Also the time span for phasing out ageing coal and the time span for rolling out risky nukes don't inter fit.

And thirdly, how will the religious right spin the risk that no insurance is available for households against a nuclear accident. Who here is willing to risk their health, their bricks and mortar when safer renewables make better financial sense for every household.

---

We don't need nuclear - we have solar, wind, wave and hydro power.

Not to mention Coal - it's good for humanity :) :) :)

21st Century Dialup Network wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:49am:

We don't need nuclear - we have solar, wind, wave and hydro power. Not to mention Coal - it's good for humanity :) :) :)

All of which are expensive, unreliable and unsuitable for large-scale electricity generation in their present form.

The only reason the right love Nuclear Power is that it continues mining.

Why should we use by far the most expensive power source, that takes 15-20 years to build a single reactor?

Nuclear Power was viable in the mid 20th century, it is not viable here now especially when we have much cheaper, cleaner options.

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

bullsh1t ... Australia is one country that does NOT need nuclear energy... we have plenty of safer alternatives.

QUICK, LOOK OVER THERE!!!

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/themes/Mr%20Skeptic/images/theinconvenientskeptic_header.png

..BYE BYE ABORT!!

bogarde73 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 9:40am:

I believe even some of the ALP and the unions in SA are looking at nuclear options for jobs.

Isn't it known that there are more jobs in renewables as well as less risk ?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 12:02pm:

21st Century Dialup Network wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 10:49am: We don't need nuclear - we have solar, wind, wave and hydro power. Not to mention Coal - it's good for humanity :) :) :) All of which are expensive, unreliable and unsuitable for large-scale electricity generation in their present form.

ARMCHAIR DOESN'T EVEN KNOW  :D

QUICK,...LOOK OVER THERE!

Swagman wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:24am:

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 10:06am: Swagman wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 10:02am: Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:34am: bullsh1t ... Australia is one country that does NOT need nuclear energy... we have plenty of safer alternatives. Aust is likely the best country to exploit it. Benign seismology, wide open spaces and massive reserves of uranium and thorium. Nothing stopping anyone from utilising or developing 'safer' alternatives if they 'choose' to.    so we should go nuclear because we can? what sort of dumb logic is that? Nuclear is a short term fix with some major long term problems. If you read the OP, the 'dumb logic' is that people won't even discuss it as an option.  Labor in SA seem to be the only ones, and they should be commended.

QUICK LOOK OVER THERE!

Nuclear Power has been using climate change to flog its wares even in little ol' Perth since the 60s!

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/themes/Mr%20Skeptic/images/theinconvenientskeptic_header.png

____ wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:37am:

Since new battery technology will revolutionise the energy sector away from the current model, surely smaller scale green renewables are the logical path. Also the time span for phasing out ageing coal and the time span for rolling out risky nukes don't inter fit. And thirdly, how will the religious right spin the risk that no insurance is available for households against a nuclear accident. Who here is willing to risk their health, their bricks and mortar when safer renewables make better financial sense for every household.

!co-generation is the word!

Fossil fuels will never completely disappear: the idea is to use co-generation and storage technologies are obviously a big part of that so yes batteries(and other storage techniques of which we have never heard) will continue to improve and Tesla will clean up in the process.

VOTE GREENS 1  ;) ;)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:05am:

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 10:04am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:59am: Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:34am: bullsh1t ... Australia is one country that does NOT need nuclear energy... we have plenty of safer alternatives. No, we really don't. yes we do .... idf you ever pulled your head out of your arse you'd see that! Prove it - list these safe and FEASIBLE alternatives.

wind, solar, wave, hydro

and please don't tell me they aren't feasible ... put as much money into them as we do into mining the uranium or building the reactor and they'll be just as feasible if not more so. Tell me, when you work out the cost of nuclear, do you include the cost of securing and storing the used fuel rods for one million years? Or do we pretend that cost doesn't exist?

Swagman wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:24am:

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 10:06am: Swagman wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 10:02am: Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:34am: bullsh1t ... Australia is one country that does NOT need nuclear energy... we have plenty of safer alternatives. Aust is likely the best country to exploit it. Benign seismology, wide open spaces and massive reserves of uranium and thorium. Nothing stopping anyone from utilising or developing 'safer' alternatives if they 'choose' to.    so we should go nuclear because we can? what sort of dumb logic is that? Nuclear is a short term fix with some major long term problems. If you read the OP, the 'dumb logic' is that people won't even discuss it as an option.  Labor in SA seem to be the only ones, and they should be commended.

no need to discuss it .. discussing it mean you are willing to risk the dangers associated with it ... thats one step to far for ANY sane person

Nausicaa wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 1:39pm:

The only reason the right love Nuclear Power is that it continues mining

And being a highly efficient energy source has naught to do with it? 

Either Co2 emissions are a threat or they aren't?  Ignoring an effective method to reduce Co2 emissions like nuke power is just admitting that Co2 emissions are not the doom event that the prophets of the Climate Church are predicting... ;D :D 

http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/06/03/3772092.htm


Quote:

THE USE OF NUCLEAR power instead of fossil fuelled power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths and over 60 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide between 1971 and 2009. That's one of the key results of a paper we recently published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Environmental Science and Technology. We were motivated to write it after witnessing the widespread backlash against nuclear power from much of the world public and some governments following the Fukushima nuclear accident. Several previous scientific papers have quantified global-scale greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions avoided by nuclear power, but to our knowledge, ours is the first to quantify avoided human deaths as well as avoided GHG emissions on global, regional, and national scales.

Quote:

We conclude that nuclear energy — despite posing several challenges, as do all energy sources — needs to be retained and significantly expanded in order to avoid or minimise the devastating impacts of unabated climate change and air pollution caused by fossil fuel burning. Pushker Kharecha is a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Columbia University Earth Institute. James E. Hansen, Goddard's former director and one of the world's foremost climate scientists, is an adjunct professor at the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.

bogarde73 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:31am:

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 10:03am: bogarde73 wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:40am: I believe even some of the ALP and the unions in SA are looking at nuclear options for jobs. and? is that supposed to convince people that it's a good idea? No, but it does indicate that even minds previously closed can be opened. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-02/nuclear-waste-dump-best-economic-option-business-sa-says/6666212

or does it indicate that they've been bought?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 12:02pm:

21st Century Dialup Network wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 10:49am: We don't need nuclear - we have solar, wind, wave and hydro power. Not to mention Coal - it's good for humanity :) :) :) All of which are expensive, unreliable and unsuitable for large-scale electricity generation in their present form.

lets ignore the cost of building a reactor, maintaining it and then securing and storing the used fuel rods for ONE MILLION YEARS

Swagman wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 1:53pm:

Nausicaa wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 1:39pm: The only reason the right love Nuclear Power is that it continues mining And being a highly efficient energy source has naught to do with it?

No, for Australia, it doesn't.

Nuclear Energy is already the most expensive form of energy, more expensive than renewables and construction and running costs brunt completely by the Government.

By the time a reactor comes online in Australia, it will be between 2030 to 2040. Renewables will already have already surpassed Coal by that point and many of the issues with storage would be sorted out.

Nausicaa wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 1:56pm:

Swagman wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 1:53pm: Nausicaa wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 1:39pm: The only reason the right love Nuclear Power is that it continues mining And being a highly efficient energy source has naught to do with it?  No, for Australia, it doesn't. Nuclear Energy is already the most expensive form of energy, more expensive than renewables and construction and running costs brunt completely by the Government. By the time a reactor comes online in Australia, it will be between 2030 to 2040. Renewables will already have already surpassed Coal by that point and many of the issues with storage would be sorted out.

So what exactly are you worried about?  If renewables are so much more efficient at generating power than nuclear power stations then nuke power won't get a look in?  :-?

If renewables were more efficient than coal and nuke power we wouldn't need RETs?  :-?


Quote:

Nuclear power currently avoids the emission of 600 million tonnes of carbon per year. If the world were not using nuclear power, CO2 emissions from electricity generation would be at least 17 per cent higher and 8 per cent higher for the energy sector overall. By 2030, the cumulative carbon emissions saved due to the use of nuclear power could exceed 25 billion tonnes.

Source

It would be crazy if Australia didn't utilize the uranium we have at our disposal. Nuclear power is a must.

____ wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:37am:

Since new battery technology will revolutionise the energy sector away from the current model, surely smaller scale green renewables are the logical path.

This is the game changer. This makes nuclear power irrelevant.

The advent of affordable and practical battery technology is why we are living in the last decade when grid-connected power is the cheapest option for most. Within 10 years, the cheapest power option for many households will be stand-alone off-grid solar power systems with battery storage. Within 10 years, we will reach a point when more people in Australia are leaving the electricity grid than are being connected.

The idea that we must have "baseload" power is an artificial constraint that assumes we cannot store power cheaply. This is no longer true. This is why we no longer need nuclear power.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:02am:

bogarde73 wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 9:40am: I believe even some of the ALP and the unions in SA are looking at nuclear options for jobs. Nuclear power would bring a lot of highly skilled jobs with it.

Glowing credentials.....

Australia need nuclear power about as much as humanity needs Armageddon.

Phemanderac wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 5:35pm:

Australia need nuclear power about as much as humanity needs Armageddon.

Armageddon disappointed (but not surprised) at the lack of credible Lefty arguments.... :D

Australia needs to put a lot of research into safe Thorium reactors.

The Indians are way ahead of us:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbt4AlYQfdI

Published on Jul 29, 2013

http://patreon.com/thorium Dissolving thorium into molten salts allows more efficient conversion into energy than today's uranium oxide fuel rods.

The amount of waste generated, the amount of energy generated, and the expanded versatility of this new "Molten Salt Reactor" call into question our perception of nuclear power.

How safe can a nuclear reactor be, if we free ourselves from the "technological lock-in" of uranium oxide solid fuel?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kBCMEUuSNw

Why aren't we researching Thorium?

Published on Jul 29, 2013

http://patreon.com/thorium Dissolving thorium into molten salts allows more efficient conversion into energy than today's uranium oxide fuel rods.

The amount of waste generated, the amount of energy generated, and the expanded versatility of this new "Molten Salt Reactor" call into question our perception of nuclear power.

How safe can a nuclear reactor be, if we free ourselves from the "technological lock-in" of uranium oxide solid fuel?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kBCMEUuSNw

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 6:34am:

Why aren't we researching Thorium?

SHHHHH..... you're not allowed to speak about nuke power..... :D

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/Thought%20Police_1.jpg

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 6:34am:

Why aren't we researching Thorium?

With abundant sunshine and wind energy available? We don't need it.

India has 400 people per square kilometre. Thy don't have enough room for sufficient renewable energy with current technology so they are exploring sources like thorium out of necessity.

Swagman wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 6:19pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 5:35pm: Australia need nuclear power about as much as humanity needs Armageddon. Armageddon disappointed (but not surprised) at the lack of credible Lefty arguments.... :D

I'm not surprised that you have indulged in lazy handwaving, rather than rebutting the arguments that have actually been made. Perhaps you should go back and rebut each of the arguments individually.

Bam wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:25am:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:34am: Why aren't we researching Thorium? With abundant sunshine and wind energy available? We don't need it. India has 400 people per square kilometre. Thy don't have enough room for sufficient renewable energy with current technology so they are exploring sources like thorium out of necessity.

What if we get hit by an asteroid and the abundant sunshine and wind (well maybe not wind) disappears....

Do we go back to coal?  :D

Bam wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:28am:

Swagman wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 6:19pm: Phemanderac wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 5:35pm: Australia need nuclear power about as much as humanity needs Armageddon. Armageddon disappointed (but not surprised) at the lack of credible Lefty arguments.... :D I'm not surprised that you have indulged in lazy handwaving, rather than rebutting the arguments that have actually been made. Perhaps you should go back and rebut each of the arguments individually.

Chalk up another Lefty bodgie argument for the list.....

Swagman wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:29am:

Bam wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:34am: Why aren't we researching Thorium? With abundant sunshine and wind energy available? We don't need it. India has 400 people per square kilometre. Thy don't have enough room for sufficient renewable energy with current technology so they are exploring sources like thorium out of necessity. What if we get hit by an asteroid and the abundant sunshine and wind (well maybe not wind) disappears.... Do we go back to coal?  :D

This is the area of space that would need to be covered in solar panels to power Australia. Note that is almost the size of Tasmania (geographically, not population, Gweggy!)...

http://www.energymatters.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/how-many-solar-panels-to-power-australia-solarpanelsaustralia.jpg

Swagman wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:29am:

Bam wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:34am: Why aren't we researching Thorium? With abundant sunshine and wind energy available? We don't need it. India has 400 people per square kilometre. Thy don't have enough room for sufficient renewable energy with current technology so they are exploring sources like thorium out of necessity. What if we get hit by an asteroid and the abundant sunshine and wind (well maybe not wind) disappears.... Do we go back to coal?  :D

what if you get hit in the head by a brick? will your arguments then start to make sense?

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:16pm:

Swagman wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 8:29am: Bam wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:34am: Why aren't we researching Thorium? With abundant sunshine and wind energy available? We don't need it. India has 400 people per square kilometre. Thy don't have enough room for sufficient renewable energy with current technology so they are exploring sources like thorium out of necessity. What if we get hit by an asteroid and the abundant sunshine and wind (well maybe not wind) disappears.... Do we go back to coal?  :D what if you get hit in the head by a brick? will your arguments then start to make sense?

QUICK: LOOK OVER THERE  :D :D

** TONY ABBOTT IS bugger** AND EVERY VOTER IN JULIE BISHOPS KEMPT ELECTORATE OF WELL PARENTISED CRACK SMOKERS KNOWS IT  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bam wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:25am:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:34am: Why aren't we researching Thorium? With abundant sunshine and wind energy available? We don't need it. India has 400 people per square kilometre. Thy don't have enough room for sufficient renewable energy with current technology so they are exploring sources like thorium out of necessity.

Yes, we do....Thorium, or even the more standard nuclear power generation opinions, take far less space than solar and wind, and are also 24/7, which solar and wind are not.

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:16pm:

Swagman wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 8:29am: Bam wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:34am: Why aren't we researching Thorium? With abundant sunshine and wind energy available? We don't need it. India has 400 people per square kilometre. Thy don't have enough room for sufficient renewable energy with current technology so they are exploring sources like thorium out of necessity. What if we get hit by an asteroid and the abundant sunshine and wind (well maybe not wind) disappears.... Do we go back to coal?  :D what if you get hit in the head by a brick? will your arguments then start to make sense?

Why don't you experiment on yourself and let us know how you go.... :D ;D

The same Thorium technology that the UK Government was researching and found to be largely bunk in it's report back in 2013?

Nausicaa wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:27pm:

The same Thorium technology that the UK Government was researching and found to be largely bunk in it's report back in 2013?

They likely had a similar report on electricity back in the 19th century.... :D

Swagman wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:29am:

Bam wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:34am: Why aren't we researching Thorium? With abundant sunshine and wind energy available? We don't need it. India has 400 people per square kilometre. Thy don't have enough room for sufficient renewable energy with current technology so they are exploring sources like thorium out of necessity. What if we get hit by an asteroid and the abundant sunshine and wind (well maybe not wind) disappears....

An unlikely scenario ... and if it were to happen, our source of power would be well down the list of things to worry about.

For example, you probably think fiat money would still be worth something.  ;D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 9:08am:

Swagman wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 8:29am: Bam wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:34am: Why aren't we researching Thorium? With abundant sunshine and wind energy available? We don't need it. India has 400 people per square kilometre. Thy don't have enough room for sufficient renewable energy with current technology so they are exploring sources like thorium out of necessity. What if we get hit by an asteroid and the abundant sunshine and wind (well maybe not wind) disappears.... Do we go back to coal?  :D This is the area of space that would need to be covered in solar panels to power Australia. Note that is almost the size of Tasmania (geographically, not population, Gweggy!)... http://www.energymatters.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/how-many-solar-panels-to-power-australia-solarpanelsaustralia.jpg

Citation needed.

Bam wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:43pm:

An unlikely scenario ... and if it were to happen, our source of power would be well down the list of things to worry about

Depends on the size of the asteroid and where it hit?

I should think that a source of power capable of supplying cities would be very high on the list in an asteroidic winter?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:22pm:

Bam wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:34am: Why aren't we researching Thorium? With abundant sunshine and wind energy available? We don't need it. India has 400 people per square kilometre. Thy don't have enough room for sufficient renewable energy with current technology so they are exploring sources like thorium out of necessity. Yes, we do....Thorium, or even the more standard nuclear power generation opinions, take far less space than solar and wind, and are also 24/7, which solar and wind are not.

Ah, those old furphies. I wondered when they would appear.

We have affordable battery technology and thermal solar ... and you post as if technology has made no progress since the 1980s.  ;D

Solar uses no fuel, wind uses no fuel. Once installed, we pay no more (except maintenance) and are beholden to no one. Can't say that about coal, gas, uranium, thorium, etc.

IBC Solar turning solar power into fuel

Solar power can be used to produce renewable methane as a fuel or combustible. The basic concept is just as ingenious as it is simple: Gas is produced from electricity. Water molecules are split into hydrogen and oxygen by means of electrolysis. The hydrogen is fed into a reactor together with climate-neutral carbon dioxide in which both gases react with one another. The result of this reaction is methane gas and water.

A PV plant supplies solar power generated from a renewable source for this power-to-gas procedure. The power-to-gas plant produces a full tank of fuel for a gas vehicle in 20 hours, which enables it to run 400 kilometres.

www.pv-magazine.com/services/press-releases/details/beitrag/ibc-solar-turning-solar-power-into-fuel_100020600/#axzz3jKNUuYQo

Green renewables ... a path for independent Australia, no longer funding ISIS via Saudi Oil.

Pro nuke nuts have no such transport agenda ... unless they are planing a nuke powered car ?

Swagman wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:52pm:

Bam wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 2:43pm: An unlikely scenario ... and if it were to happen, our source of power would be well down the list of things to worry about Depends on the size of the asteroid and where it hit? I should think that a source of power capable of supplying cities would be very high on the list in an asteroidic winter?

I would be more concerned with food, water, clothing, shelter and survival. You're talking about a hypothetical extinction-level event. Do you really think maintenance of an electricity network would get priority when there's no stable food supply?

If all you're worried about is electricity, others will find your rotting corpse in the streets before too long.

Bam wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 3:01pm:

Swagman wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 2:52pm: Bam wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 2:43pm: An unlikely scenario ... and if it were to happen, our source of power would be well down the list of things to worry about Depends on the size of the asteroid and where it hit? I should think that a source of power capable of supplying cities would be very high on the list in an asteroidic winter? I would be more concerned with food, water, clothing, shelter and survival. You're talking about a hypothetical extinction-level event. Do you really think maintenance of an electricity network would get priority when there's no stable food supply? If all you're worried about is electricity, others will find your rotting corpse in the streets before too long.

The cannibals will probably want oven roasted meals, aye swagman

____ wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:54pm:

IBC Solar turning solar power into fuel Solar power can be used to produce renewable methane as a fuel or combustible. The basic concept is just as ingenious as it is simple: Gas is produced from electricity. Water molecules are split into hydrogen and oxygen by means of electrolysis. The hydrogen is fed into a reactor together with climate-neutral carbon dioxide in which both gases react with one another. The result of this reaction is methane gas and water. A PV plant supplies solar power generated from a renewable source for this power-to-gas procedure. The power-to-gas plant produces a full tank of fuel for a gas vehicle in 20 hours, which enables it to run 400 kilometres. www.pv-magazine.com/services/press-releases/details/beitrag/ibc-solar-turning-solar-power-into-fuel_100020600/#axzz3jKNUuYQo Green renewables ... a path for independent Australia, no longer funding ISIS via Saudi Oil. Pro nuke nuts have no such transport agenda ... unless they are planing a nuke powered car ?

I wouldn't be putting that gas into cars. That would be far better running our gas stoves. We have something else for our cars - synthetic diesel.

However, I like this kind of technology a lot. It's similar to Audi's new process that makes diesel from electricity. This kind of technology works extremely well with renewable energy from intermittent sources. Once we can put wind energy into a holding tank, it no longer matters that the wind doesn't blow all the time.

Bam wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:52pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 2:22pm: Bam wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:34am: Why aren't we researching Thorium? With abundant sunshine and wind energy available? We don't need it. India has 400 people per square kilometre. Thy don't have enough room for sufficient renewable energy with current technology so they are exploring sources like thorium out of necessity. Yes, we do....Thorium, or even the more standard nuclear power generation opinions, take far less space than solar and wind, and are also 24/7, which solar and wind are not. Ah, those old furphies. I wondered when they would appear. We have affordable battery technology and thermal solar ... and you post as if technology has made no progress since the 1980s.  ;D Solar uses no fuel, wind uses no fuel. Once installed, we pay no more (except maintenance) and are beholden to no one. Can't say that about coal, gas, uranium, thorium, etc.

THE FACTS ARE ACTUALLY MORE STARK THAN YOU SAY: battery technology really never made no significant leap since the early 2Os... that is why the investment is going towards it as so many unexplored avenues are available, atleast seemingly so: what the bugger would I know ??  ::)

Swagman wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:24pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 2:16pm: Swagman wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 8:29am: Bam wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:34am: Why aren't we researching Thorium? With abundant sunshine and wind energy available? We don't need it. India has 400 people per square kilometre. Thy don't have enough room for sufficient renewable energy with current technology so they are exploring sources like thorium out of necessity. What if we get hit by an asteroid and the abundant sunshine and wind (well maybe not wind) disappears.... Do we go back to coal?  :D what if you get hit in the head by a brick? will your arguments then start to make sense? Why don't you experiment on yourself and let us know how you go.... :D ;D

it won't work ... my arguments already make sense so if the brick works, you'll never notice

you on the other hand are a ideal candidate to test my hypothesis.

Nausicaa wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:27pm:

The same Thorium technology that the UK Government was researching and found to be largely bunk in it's report back in 2013?

Then you never researched Thorium yourself.

You didn't watch the video I posted either:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kBCMEUuSNw


Thorium has to be the answer -
clean, safe, abundant, cheap - can never melt down.
It can  use up nuclear waste & render it harmless 1 million times
faster than just leaving the waste lying around.

forgiven

namaste

Bam wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:52pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 2:22pm: Bam wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:34am: Why aren't we researching Thorium? With abundant sunshine and wind energy available? We don't need it. India has 400 people per square kilometre. Thy don't have enough room for sufficient renewable energy with current technology so they are exploring sources like thorium out of necessity. Yes, we do....Thorium, or even the more standard nuclear power generation opinions, take far less space than solar and wind, and are also 24/7, which solar and wind are not. Ah, those old furphies. I wondered when they would appear. We have affordable battery technology and thermal solar ... and you post as if technology has made no progress since the 1980s.  ;D Solar uses no fuel, wind uses no fuel. Once installed, we pay no more (except maintenance) and are beholden to no one. Can't say that about coal, gas, uranium, thorium, etc.

Which still doesn't reduce the amount of area needed, OR the fact that sun and wind don't produce 24/7.

I'm fairly sure the Sq Kilometres need to produce enough megawatts to run Australia hasn't changed since the 1980s...regardless of improved battery storage technology.

And yes, we DO still 'pay more' since solar panels (and possible wind turbines) do NOT last as long as coal, gas, uranium, thorium etc power does.

Swagman wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:42pm:

Nausicaa wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 2:27pm: The same Thorium technology that the UK Government was researching and found to be largely bunk in it's report back in 2013? They likely had a similar report on electricity back in the 19th century.... :D

Link please!!! One of these days you might stop trying to BS people for your political ideology

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 6:35pm:

Swagman wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 2:42pm: Nausicaa wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 2:27pm: The same Thorium technology that the UK Government was researching and found to be largely bunk in it's report back in 2013? They likely had a similar report on electricity back in the 19th century.... :D Link please!!! One of these days you might stop trying to BS people for your political ideology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Australia needs lots of things - but nuclear power is NOT one of them.

Kat wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 6:49pm:

Australia needs lots of things - but nuclear power is NOT one of them.

Yes, actually it IS, it's one the only viable low-carbon power sources available

How foolish it is to accept (just because those who have a financial interest say so) that nuclear is clean energy. What BS!!! Nuclear is amongst the filthiest if not the filthiest energy source ever devised by humanity.  Just because it stores up all its filth to spray out into the environment every 10 years or so doesn't make it clear.  How impressionable do you have to be to believe that. When nuclear goes wrong it destroys vast tracts of usable land (and ocean, as in Fukushima) and renders them unliveable for decades  and costs heaps to monitor and maintain so that the danger does not spill over and spread.  Chernobyl is still an ongoing cost for the Russians and Fukushima is still spilling metric tonnes of radioactive water into the the ocean killing marine life and they don't know how to stop it.  And we haven't even started on the huge and growing stockpiles of nuclear waste they're collecting and don't know what to do with.

And don't give me the garbage about the mew generation of nuclear plants being safer.  That's what we are always told and invariable something goes horribly wrong and more nuclear sh!t is sprayed into our world and renders more tracts of land unsafe for people to even venture into.   

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 6:52pm:

Kat wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:49pm: Australia needs lots of things - but nuclear power is NOT one of them. Yes, actually it IS, it's one the only viable low-carbon power sources available

Horse-sh1t!

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 6:55pm:

How foolish it is to accept (just because those who have a financial interest say so) that nuclear is clean energy. What BS!!! Nuclear is amongst the filthiest if not the filthiest energy source ever devised by humanity.  Just because it stores up all its filth to spray out into the environment every 10 years or so doesn't make it clear.  How impressionable do you have to believe that. When nuclear goes wrong it destroys vast tracts of usable land (and ocean, as in Fukushima) and renders them unliveable for decades  and costs heaps to monitor and maintain so that the danger does not spill over and spread.  Chernobyl is still an ongoing cost for the Russians and Fukushima is still spilling metric tonnes of radioactive water into the the ocean killing marine life and they don't know how to stop it.  And we haven't even started on the huge and growing stockpiles of nuclear waste they're collecting and don't know what to do with. And don't give me the garbage about the mew generation of nuclear plants being safer.  That's what we are always told and invariable something goes horribly wrong and more nuclear sh!t is sprayed into our world and renders more tracts of land unsafe for people to even venture into.

And how foolish is it to accept (just because of those who have an ideological problem with nuclear power) that nuclear energy isn't a viable option..

Kat wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 6:57pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:52pm: Kat wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:49pm: Australia needs lots of things - but nuclear power is NOT one of them. Yes, actually it IS, it's one the only viable low-carbon power sources available Horse-sh1t!

Yes, most the things you post are indeed Horsesh!t..

Bam wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 3:01pm:

Swagman wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 2:52pm: Bam wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 2:43pm: An unlikely scenario ... and if it were to happen, our source of power would be well down the list of things to worry about Depends on the size of the asteroid and where it hit? I should think that a source of power capable of supplying cities would be very high on the list in an asteroidic winter? I would be more concerned with food, water, clothing, shelter and survival. You're talking about a hypothetical extinction-level event. Do you really think maintenance of an electricity network would get priority when there's no stable food supply? If all you're worried about is electricity, others will find your rotting corpse in the streets before too long.

An abundance of electric power can fuel light to grow food for ape descendants and fodder for farm animals.


Bam wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 3:01pm:

You're talking about a hypothetical extinction-level event

...you mean like anthropogenic global warming?  :D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:35pm: Swagman wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 2:42pm: Nausicaa wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 2:27pm: The same Thorium technology that the UK Government was researching and found to be largely bunk in it's report back in 2013? They likely had a similar report on electricity back in the 19th century.... :D Link please!!! One of these days you might stop trying to BS people for your political ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Still lying as always.  That link says nothing about a report that electricity is bunk.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 6:58pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:55pm: How foolish it is to accept (just because those who have a financial interest say so) that nuclear is clean energy. What BS!!! Nuclear is amongst the filthiest if not the filthiest energy source ever devised by humanity.  Just because it stores up all its filth to spray out into the environment every 10 years or so doesn't make it clear.  How impressionable do you have to believe that. When nuclear goes wrong it destroys vast tracts of usable land (and ocean, as in Fukushima) and renders them unliveable for decades  and costs heaps to monitor and maintain so that the danger does not spill over and spread.  Chernobyl is still an ongoing cost for the Russians and Fukushima is still spilling metric tonnes of radioactive water into the the ocean killing marine life and they don't know how to stop it.  And we haven't even started on the huge and growing stockpiles of nuclear waste they're collecting and don't know what to do with. And don't give me the garbage about the mew generation of nuclear plants being safer.  That's what we are always told and invariable something goes horribly wrong and more nuclear sh!t is sprayed into our world and renders more tracts of land unsafe for people to even venture into.    And how foolish is it to accept (just because of those who have an ideological problem with nuclear power) that nuclear energy isn't a viable option..

How is it an ideological problem sh!t for brains.I told you the problem, its about it being too dangerous but you want to put that aside and lie that nuclear is clean and efficient when you know the opposite is true but there is money to be made.   

Swagman wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:01pm:

you mean like anthropogenic global warming?

;D ;D ;D
no one ever claimed global warning would lead to the extinction of mankind  :D :D :D :D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 5:33pm:

Bam wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 2:52pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 2:22pm: Bam wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:34am: Why aren't we researching Thorium? With abundant sunshine and wind energy available? We don't need it. India has 400 people per square kilometre. Thy don't have enough room for sufficient renewable energy with current technology so they are exploring sources like thorium out of necessity. Yes, we do....Thorium, or even the more standard nuclear power generation opinions, take far less space than solar and wind, and are also 24/7, which solar and wind are not. Ah, those old furphies. I wondered when they would appear. We have affordable battery technology and thermal solar ... and you post as if technology has made no progress since the 1980s.  ;D Solar uses no fuel, wind uses no fuel. Once installed, we pay no more (except maintenance) and are beholden to no one. Can't say that about coal, gas, uranium, thorium, etc. Which still doesn't reduce the amount of area needed,

Quote:

I'm fairly sure the Sq Kilometres need to produce enough megawatts to run Australia hasn't changed since the 1980s...regardless of improved battery storage technology.

Which is a tiny proportion of our landmass.


Quote:

sun and wind don't produce 24/7.

We don't use energy at a constant rate either. With such technologies as cheap batter storage, we no longer need to consume electricity when it is produced. Electricity to fuel technologies are now available which allows the creation of entirely new industries that can utilise spare generation capacity at the time when the electricity is cheapest.

You really need to keep up. It's not the 1980s anymore and technology has advanced.


Quote:

And yes, we DO still 'pay more' since solar panels (and possible wind turbines) do NOT last as long as coal, gas, uranium, thorium etc power does.

Rubbish. It costs more to decommission a nuclear plant than it costs to built it. The total long-term cost of waste disposal and storage for nuclear waste is more than it costs to buy the fuel.

We don't need nuclear, not at all.

Australia needs nuclear power

like we need a hole in the head  :D :D :D :D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 6:52pm:

Yes, actually it IS, it's one the only viable low-carbon power sources available

viable? no one yet explained to me what the cost of storing and securing the used fuel rods for ONE MILLION Years will be? cause that's how long it will take for the fuel rods to become safe again ...

or are we only looking at the positives and ignoring the negatives in this argument?

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:27pm:

Swagman wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 7:01pm: you mean like anthropogenic global warming?  ;D ;D ;D no one ever claimed global warning would lead to the extinction of mankind  :D :D :D :D

This lefty rag does..............

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-could-make-humans-extinct-warns-health-expert-20140330-35rus.html

Swagman wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:38pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 7:27pm: Swagman wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 7:01pm: you mean like anthropogenic global warming?  ;D ;D ;D no one ever claimed global warning would lead to the extinction of mankind  :D :D :D :D This lefty rag does.............. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-could-make-humans-extinct-warns-health-expert-20140330-35rus.html

ahh, so it's worse than I though .....

just remember Swag, If I become extinct, I'm going to haunt you!

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:42pm:

just remember Swag, If I become extinct, I'm going to haunt you

his ghost may be heard as you pass by that billabong nuclear power station...
You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.   ;D

Swagman wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:47pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 8:42pm: just remember Swag, If I become extinct, I'm going to haunt you his ghost may be heard as you pass by that billabong You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.   ;D

my 6 yr olds favourite song :D :D :D

Plenty of new ideas here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaEk_6E8L0s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIDytUCRtTA

No replies?

We should be doing research into Thorium reactors.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 8:01am:

No replies? We should be doing research into Thorium reactors.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/Fonz.jpg

Why, when electricity production is going the way of decentralisation.
A thorium reactor for each house ?
All that U238 being sold at Aldi, so to start the reaction.

____ wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 11:54am:

Why, when electricity production is going the way of decentralisation. A thorium reactor for each house ? All that U238 being sold at Aldi, so to start the reaction.

Giving u-238 would prove useless.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 11:56am:

____ wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 11:54am: Why, when electricity production is going the way of decentralisation. A thorium reactor for each house ? All that U238 being sold at Aldi, so to start the reaction. Giving u-238 would prove useless.

Is it U233?

CHOPPER-INTERNET-GATE NEEDS A DISTRACTION

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/04/10/1226617/322803-cheaoper-nbn-plan-meme.gif

Personally I have no issue with nuclear power of itself. The waste bi product on the other hand I am very concerned about. I don't think our species has demonstrated a consistent enough approach to minimising human error and to monitoring, particularly over the lengthy periods of time we are talking about.

Now upon reflection and after some research, I acknowledge that research into the production of nuclear power has come a long way. Arguably, reactors are in fact safer today than at any other time, of course, there is no indication to improvements to minimising human error (maybe we are the problem  :)). It is also arguable that nuclear power produces less overall waste, however, the downside is, that waste is demonstrably more dangerous by a significant degree and that waste is potent for decades (at the most conservative end of things), some nuclear waste has half life measure in hundreds of years and some in thousands of years - will we really remember to monitor this for generations?

So, I see some big risks.

I am curious about what seems to be an all or nothing kind of argument, meanwhile, both sides of the all or nothing teams claim, at some level at least, an interest in discovery, new technology and/or knowledge.

I wonder if renewable energy can't be more broadly researched.

____ wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 11:54am:

Why, when electricity production is going the way of decentralisation. A thorium reactor for each house ? All that U238 being sold at Aldi, so to start the reaction.

If I watch the videos I see that Thorium reactors
could be made a lot smaller that the giant monoliths
we see nowadays.

Maybe we could have one in every suburb providing
power for 10,000 homes with one tiny & very safe reactor?

Research has to be done.
China & India are putting their money into it.
The Yanks aren't - they are sticking with the
dirty technology of Uranium.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kBCMEUuSNw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kybenSq0KPo


Published on Jan 8, 2015

Kirk Sorensen stumbled across thorium while doing research on how to power a lunar community. Thorium is a cleaner, safer, and more abundant nuclear fuel—one that Kirk believes will revolutionize how we produce our energy.

Kirk Sorensen began his work with thorium while working as an aerospace engineer at NASA. In 2010, he left NASA to work as the chief nuclear technologist at Teledyne Brown Engineering. In 2011, he founded Flibe, a company focused on developing modular thorium reactors.

Phemanderac wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 12:26pm:

Personally I have no issue with nuclear power of itself. The waste bi product on the other hand I am very concerned about. I don't think our species has demonstrated a consistent enough approach to minimising human error and to monitoring, particularly over the lengthy periods of time we are talking about. Now upon reflection and after some research, I acknowledge that research into the production of nuclear power has come a long way. Arguably, reactors are in fact safer today than at any other time, of course, there is no indication to improvements to minimising human error (maybe we are the problem  :)). It is also arguable that nuclear power produces less overall waste, however, the downside is, that waste is demonstrably more dangerous by a significant degree and that waste is potent for decades (at the most conservative end of things), some nuclear waste has half life measure in hundreds of years and some in thousands of years - will we really remember to monitor this for generations? So, I see some big risks. I am curious about what seems to be an all or nothing kind of argument, meanwhile, both sides of the all or nothing teams claim, at some level at least, an interest in discovery, new technology and/or knowledge. I wonder if renewable energy can't be more broadly researched.

The best reason to use Liquid fluoride thorium reactors is that they can actually use, or rather reuse, the by-products (nuclear waste) from the more 'traditional' solid fuel reactors.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 1:05am:

Phemanderac wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 12:26pm: Personally I have no issue with nuclear power of itself. The waste bi product on the other hand I am very concerned about. I don't think our species has demonstrated a consistent enough approach to minimising human error and to monitoring, particularly over the lengthy periods of time we are talking about. Now upon reflection and after some research, I acknowledge that research into the production of nuclear power has come a long way. Arguably, reactors are in fact safer today than at any other time, of course, there is no indication to improvements to minimising human error (maybe we are the problem  :)). It is also arguable that nuclear power produces less overall waste, however, the downside is, that waste is demonstrably more dangerous by a significant degree and that waste is potent for decades (at the most conservative end of things), some nuclear waste has half life measure in hundreds of years and some in thousands of years - will we really remember to monitor this for generations? So, I see some big risks. I am curious about what seems to be an all or nothing kind of argument, meanwhile, both sides of the all or nothing teams claim, at some level at least, an interest in discovery, new technology and/or knowledge. I wonder if renewable energy can't be more broadly researched. The best reason to use Liquid fluoride thorium reactors is that they can actually use, or rather reuse, the by-products (nuclear waste) from the more 'traditional' solid fuel reactors.

Good post Gizmo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZf6e0ntFrw


How Thorium can save the world: Salim Zwein at TEDxBeirut 2012

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZf6e0ntFrw


And a comment from the above video:


Quote:

Here's the real reason Thorium Generators where scraped. Thorium is a fuel you can't monopolize, its' everywhere it will be like trying to monopolize sunshine. The energy cartels (barons) didn't like this at all because it would put them out of business and their globalist aspirations will be destroyed because if you don't control the power supply you don't control the world. Thorium fuel is also much easier to process you don't need complicated nuclear processing plants so all nations on Earth will have the necessary expertise to use Thorium energy to power their civilizations. The only way to stop Thorium energy from becoming a reality is to abort it, to kill it in the womb because once it's developed the genie is out of the bottle and there will be no stopping it from people have thorium energy. Thorium energy is also super cheap it will be a 2nd revolution, imagine all people of Earth having cheap clean power you could turn deserts into gardens it will end starvation and poverty. The globalists can't have this they can't control people who are independent and free. So Thorium was killed.

____ wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 12:10pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 11:56am: ____ wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 11:54am: Why, when electricity production is going the way of decentralisation. A thorium reactor for each house ? All that U238 being sold at Aldi, so to start the reaction. Giving u-238 would prove useless. Is it U233?

Really? I had a similar argument with a Greenpeace moron when I was working at Lucas Heights, not one thing he said to me abiout the reactor was true, but he was just spouting it because he was being told it.

We need a royal commission into why we never developed Thorium reactors.

It's a scandal.