Australian Politics Forum - The Role of Nuclear Power

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: The Role of Nuclear Power
Reply #15 - Sep 5^th, 2013 at 8:30pm

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 8:23pm:

muso wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

...
I guess where I see it is that globally there is absolutely no sense in closing down Nuclear stations that have operated safely for many years, and replacing them with coal fired power stations.

Has anyone suggested anything of the sort?

The alternative is renewables plus storage. I'm no fan of batteries, but see them as the lesser evil. We've been over this before:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1377496253
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375942286

muso wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

In all honestly, U238 based fission is unlikely to become a commercial reality in Australia because of the cost over-runs and the perception of risk in the general population.

Th-232 is an entirely different prospect, and there are potential advantages.

Is it necessary? What makes it desirable?

Taking renewables plus storage as the alternative, every component is realistically reusable or recyclable. Can something similar be said of any nuclear technology?

I'm looking at sustainability in perpetuity. Can any nuclear technology offer that potential?

Of course not...providing you are a completely retarded 'anti-nuke' communist dickhead (green voter)

p.s Anytime some idiot (like you) uses a spurious argument against nuclear power, I automatically consider them an retarded , ideologically challenged green dimwit..

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 5^th, 2013 at 8:38pm by gizmo_2655 »

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: The Role of Nuclear Power
Reply #16 - Sep 5^th, 2013 at 8:59pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 8:30pm:

...
Of course not...providing you are a completely retarded 'anti-nuke' communist dickhead (green voter)

p.s Anytime some idiot (like you) uses a spurious argument against nuclear power, I automatically consider them an retarded , ideologically challenged green dimwit..

Which establishes a need for nuclear power - how?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Role of Nuclear Power
Reply #17 - Sep 5^th, 2013 at 9:20pm

Let's cut out the personal insults and concentrate on the facts.

Th-232 fission is not sustainable per se, but we have enormous reserves of the stuff. It potentially provides a way of cleaning up fission products from U-238 reactors if we can progress to cyclotron based reactors, and the fission products are much safer.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/feb/09/accelerator-nuclear-reactor

I like sustainable energy with storage too, but I would have no objection to Thorium based reactors in Australia. It's a stop-gap measure.

In terms of fatalities per Megawatt hour of electricity generated, nuclear fission is actually the safest, despite Chimp's anti-nuclear activist reports. Surprisingly more people die from domestic PV arrays. (They burn down houses and people fall from roofs) by a factor of 8.

I am not particularly interested in giving nuclear priority over sustainable energy, but it makes me see red when people misrepresent the true risk. It's another example of backward reasoning.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Bobby. Moderator Offline Australian Politics Posts: 116126 Melbourne Gender:	Re: The Role of Nuclear Power Reply #18 - Sep 5^th, 2013 at 9:51pm Dear Muso, I am surprised that you'd support nuclear power after what is still happening at Fukushima.
Back to top	IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Backwards Reasoning
Reply #19 - Sep 5^th, 2013 at 10:47pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 8:17pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 7:35pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 10:33am:

Same old vomiting of 1950s propaganda and avoiding the stark difference between internal and external exposure to radionuclides.

Chernobyl death toll during the period 1986 - 2003 was about 985,000 deaths.

It is now well over 1.1 million deaths and should settle down by the year 2280. Provided of course that the chernobyl sarcophagus maintains its sealing integrity for the next few hundred thousand years.

Actually, the Chernobyl death toll wasn't even close to that number..it was more like 4000 from cancer and 47 (yes FORTY SEVEN from direct exposure). The 985,000 number came from EVERY cancer (or other) death in the area, whether or NOT it actually had anything to do with the accident at Chernobyl or not..(the 50 to 100 cigarette per day smokers probably weren't affected by the accident)

That's an incorrect and misleading statement on your behalf gizmo.

The 985,000 estimate for the 1986-2003 post chernobyl period is referred to as ADDITIONAL deaths attributable to the chernobyl radiological event. In other words its 985,000 deaths on top of what would normally occur.

Good try though. Youre very talented when you publicly try to mislead others.

Fortunately that particular skill doesn't impress everyone in here

No, actually it's not at all misleading..unless you are a complete dickhead..which of course you are...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: The Role of Nuclear Power Reply #20 - Sep 6^th, 2013 at 6:39am Bobby. wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 9:51pm: Dear Muso, I am surprised that you'd support nuclear power after what is still happening at Fukushima. You need to read up on Thorium based reactors. Sub critical reactors give us the ability to clean up the mess from Fukushima.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Bobby.

Moderator

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 116126
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: The Role of Nuclear Power
Reply #21 - Sep 6^th, 2013 at 7:04am

muso wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 6:39am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 9:51pm:

Dear Muso,
I am surprised that you'd support nuclear power after what is still happening at Fukushima.

You need to read up on Thorium based reactors. Sub critical reactors give us the ability to clean up the mess from Fukushima.

Dear Muso,
I started a whole thread about thorium reactors:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1300890835/15

Quote:

Thorium reactors are the answer.
Mar 24th, 2011 at 12:33am

I thought you were supporting a standard nuclear reactor?

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: The Role of Nuclear Power
Reply #22 - Sep 6^th, 2013 at 7:46am

Bobby. wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 7:04am:

...
Quote:

Thorium reactors are the answer.
Mar 24th, 2011 at 12:33am

...

The answer or just a different bunch of problems? I've been around long enough to be supremely cynical of any technology that is claimed to be the infallible and prefect solution.

Bring on the Black Swans.

I've yet to see convincing evidence that any form of nuclear power has any part in our future. In that, I include Thorium and fusion, although fusion might have a place off-planet.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: The Role of Nuclear Power Reply #23 - Sep 6^th, 2013 at 8:14am Bobby. wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 7:04am: I thought you were supporting a standard nuclear reactor? It's a very expensive option in Australia, although I don't see the point in getting rid of them overseas where they are already operating. I was just trying to put the record straight on the disinformation.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Ajax Gold Member Offline CO2 has never controlled temperature on Earth Posts: 11064 Australia Gender:	Re: The Role of Nuclear Power Reply #24 - Sep 6^th, 2013 at 11:17am # wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 1:45pm: The nuclear power industry seeks to exploit concerns for the environment to promote its products. For mine, nuclear technology is a different set of problems, not any part of a solution. Is that because we don't need a carbon tax / ETS system if we go nuclear...?????
Back to top	1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax 2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos IP Logged

# Gold Member Offline A fool is certain: an ignorant fool, absolutely so Posts: 2603	Re: The Role of Nuclear Power Reply #25 - Sep 6^th, 2013 at 1:56pm Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 11:17am: ... we don't need a carbon tax / ETS system if we go nuclear...????? Can you substantiate that assertion?
Back to top	IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11064
Australia
Gender: male

Re: The Role of Nuclear Power
Reply #26 - Sep 6^th, 2013 at 4:40pm

# wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 1:56pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 11:17am:

... we don't need a carbon tax / ETS system if we go nuclear...?????

Can you substantiate that assertion?

My statement was..........

Quote:

Ajax wrote:
Is that because we don't need a carbon tax / ETS system if we go nuclear...?????

Can you annul this statement.....????

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: The Role of Nuclear Power
Reply #27 - Sep 6^th, 2013 at 4:57pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 4:40pm:

# wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 1:56pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 11:17am:

... we don't need a carbon tax / ETS system if we go nuclear...?????

Can you substantiate that assertion?

My statement was..........

Quote:

Ajax wrote:
Is that because we don't need a carbon tax / ETS system if we go nuclear...?????

Can you annul this statement.....????

Nuclear power is the most inefficient, costly and dangerous method of producing electrical power.

Ask the Japanese how many of their 54 nuclear reactors are currently online. One

Ask the Japanese what the cost will be to decommission and clean up the fukushima mess? If its possible at all.

You don't even understand what nuclear power entails and yet you promote a deranged model for the future of mankind

Open your eyes

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: The Role of Nuclear Power
Reply #28 - Sep 6^th, 2013 at 5:02pm

muso wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 8:14am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 7:04am:

I thought you were supporting a standard nuclear reactor?

It's a very expensive option in Australia, although I don't see the point in getting rid of them overseas where they are already operating. I was just trying to put the record straight on the disinformation.

You mean try to disguise the dangers of exposure to radionuclides especially internal exposure.

You almost got away with it there muso.

But as we know when a person disseminates untruths and distorted appraisals in public in order to advocate a biased politically motivated position, they are invariably exposed.

Aren't they muso.

Back to top

image_140.jpg (27 KB | 23 )

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Role of Nuclear Power
Reply #29 - Sep 6^th, 2013 at 5:10pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 5:02pm:

You mean try to disguise the dangers of exposure to radionuclides especially internal exposure.

You almost got away with it there muso.

But as we know when a person disseminates untruths and distorted appraisals in public in order to advocate a biased politically motivated position, they are invariably exposed.

Aren't they muso.

I'm dealing with the facts. You are dealing with anti-nuclear activists whose currency is lies.

No agenda is justifying in corrupting the truth.

The anti-nuclear brigade, led by Arnie Gundersen is as much pseudoscientific as Anthony Watts.

You continually deny the facts as presented.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged