Great debate on ABC Counterpoint, run by the token non-lefties on the roster, Michael Duffy and Paul Comrie-Thomson, Does Being Green mean Going Nuclear? Featuring Ian Lowe in the red NO corner, and in the blue YES corner, Barry Brooke, who is also a green but in favour of nuclear power.
A key feature of the debate is the revelation that modern nuclear power does not have to involve materials that can be made into bombs without using a plant equivalent to the Manhattan Project. The Plutonium produced from reprocessing nuclear fuel is not weapons grade.
Is there a convenient reference work on the history of the nuclear mining and power debate in Australia?
Barry is doing a great job of countering the bullshit non-science stuff about nuclear power.
I would argue that one can’t be green unless you’re in favor of nuclear power. You’re really just an anti-science, anti-development misanthrope.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 5:45 pm
There is no coherent position against nuclear power.
daddy dave
31 Aug 10 at 5:46 pm
Dad:
Left alone to a reasonable degree fully scaled up nuke would put coal to bed as it’s output would end up being cheaper to produce.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 5:51 pm
There is no coherent position against nuclear power.
Is there a reliable method of waste disposal? One that goes the distance it has to? Just a question.
Adrien
31 Aug 10 at 6:09 pm
Is there a reliable method of waste disposal?
Heard of the Great Victoria Desert or the Great Sandy Desert?
daddy dave
31 Aug 10 at 6:12 pm
Countries are not necessarily treating it as waste any longer because newer reactors can use the fuel remaining in the present “waste” and leave little. themselves.
Sweden is storing it’s waste with a view to reusing it as ta future date.
We basically lost 30 years of full-on R&D because non-science zealots in the US stopped the use in its tracks.
The US could have very well been 80% nuke by now because after 3 Mile the producers were back back into coal and gas.
It’s the silent unspoken tragedy of our time.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 6:16 pm
oops were forced back…
JC
31 Aug 10 at 6:17 pm
Yes. Have you heard of the water table?
Adrien
31 Aug 10 at 6:18 pm
Countries are not necessarily treating it as waste any longer because newer reactors can use the fuel remaining in the present “waste” and leave little. themselves.
Ah cool.
What I’d like is a good debate on this issue. The tendency is either to be hysterically opposed or treat it as if it’s inevitable and let’s not talk about the waste. Our ancestors did plenty of things that’ve made our lives more difficult but none of ‘em ever poisoned us. I don’t want to do that to my grandkids’ grandkids.
Adrien
31 Aug 10 at 6:21 pm
Adrien
Technology does NOT remain stationary unless it’s forced. If there was a need to neutralize waste and what little is left I’m pretty sure that in the near future that can be done without too much trouble if there was a need.
Don’t panic.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 6:22 pm
The new new generation of nuclear is actually not even uranium based and there is little to no concern over the issue of waste.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 6:24 pm
I haven’t panicked since I bought The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy.
I know technology doesn’t remin stationary. But I also know that resource companies have a way of making sure that any of it that goes against their interests ends up in a locked box next to the film canisters that show us who actually shot Kennedy.
And we shouldn’t assume that it will fix this or that problem. A lot of people are confident, courtesy of Star Wars and Trek that we’re all going tio zap around the galaxy one day like the morning shuttle to Canberra. It’s just possible that that will be impossible. In fact as far as we know it is.
I favour a market where firms can harness energy however they want because different concerns competing to solve the same problem will probably do a better job than some committee-led, white paper’d, public debate debacle. There’s no real reason to keep nuclear energy off the table.
But there is a reason to be cautious about it. It’s not crazy or chickenshit to point it out. I reckon I should have the right not to buy the stuff if I don’t want to. And if I do I should know the risks.
A well-informed public is an incentive, yeah?
Adrien
31 Aug 10 at 6:31 pm
Go here and read through the presentations by USEC which is developing the American Centrifuge project that will be well on its way to lowering the cost of enrichment by 75% with the newer centrifuge, as it uses a ton less electricity than the current 50′s/60′s centrifuges technology.
Nuclear power is moving ahead. there are 350 reactors at the proposal stage by 2030 and if this accelerates as I believe it will it could be multiples of that by 2050.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=93662&p=irol-presentations
JC
31 Aug 10 at 6:32 pm
I reckon I should have the right not to buy the stuff if I don’t want to
It’s not that easy saying that if you live in a large city where people demand cheap and plentiful energy supply. In fact you can’t live in an industrialized civilized and make that demand. Perhaps you could go live out bush.
The subsidy whores are not going to provide it.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 6:34 pm
Perhaps you could go live out bush
Perhaps. But if nuke’s on the table at an election and I vote for them that want it I’m buying it.
It might not be possible right now. But that never stopped me demanding things before.
Adrien
31 Aug 10 at 6:37 pm
The best way to handle the waste is to put it in a shed in the desert with a fence around it, patrolled to keep wildlife and Greens out, until it becomes very valuable to recycle in new plants.
We could make megabucks by storing the waste of the world, if necessary building a new port facility and railway in the NW to handle it.
Rafe
31 Aug 10 at 6:37 pm
Perhaps. But if nuke’s on the table at an election and I vote for them that want it I’m buying it.
By that logic, you’re against all infrastructure spending because you’re “buying it.”
daddy dave
31 Aug 10 at 6:42 pm
Pangea was proposing just that. We could be rich beyond the dreams of avarice if it weren’t for the green scare mongers.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf21.html
Infidel Tiger
31 Aug 10 at 6:45 pm
Adrien,
A drum ecased in cement, cemented into a deep burial plot in a geologically stable bedrock foudnation in the middle of nowhere.
No risk unless you dig it up.
.
31 Aug 10 at 6:55 pm
This stuff from the presently older nukes is supposed to last 300,000 years. In the unlikely event that human life will remain the same on earth over this period of time are we really expected to believe the unlikely proposition there won’t be any technology to reverse the toxic effects of the waste.
Quick, where’s Christine Milne when we need to her to tell us how in what the fat dolt referred to ‘The Age of Stupid”, which is all us, we can run our lives propeller on a stick and magnified panels waiting for the sun to shine.
Jeez don’t get me started with these freaking Gangreens.
Fme.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 7:15 pm
Christine Milne may be the result of a nuclear spill.
Infidel Tiger
31 Aug 10 at 7:20 pm
Listen to the offensive idiot telling us that we’re living in “the age of stupid”.
http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au/content/tv/premiere-the-age-stupid
Yea we are Christine because there are enough dopey Tasmanians to have sent you to represent them in the senate. But we’re not all like them thank God.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 7:26 pm
Milne is the second speaker in our series, the Audacity of Stupid.
.
31 Aug 10 at 7:26 pm
oops …..when we need to her to tell us how we live, in what the fat dolt referred to, ‘The Age of Stupid”, which is all us…. how we can run our lives using propellers on a stick and magnified panels waiting for the sun to shine.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 7:29 pm
“There is no coherent position against nuclear power”
What about the government subsidies and liability guarantees that hang around pretty much every project?
PSC
31 Aug 10 at 7:51 pm
Joe – This stuff from the presently older nukes is supposed to last 300,000 years. In the unlikely event that human life will remain the same on earth over this period of time are we really expected to believe the unlikely proposition there won’t be any technology to reverse the toxic effects of the waste.
It doesn’t become deadly in 300 000 years it stays deadly for 300 000 years. I don’t think ignoring these questions and assumiong that technology will fix things is good enough. I’m afraid that the resource business is ethically a little shaky. I don’t trust ‘em
Dot – For storage I believe this is the stuff. Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi!
Adrien
31 Aug 10 at 8:08 pm
Yea we are Christine because there are enough dopey Tasmanians to have sent you to represent them in the senate.
Tasmania. They take our money, and send us green senators in return. How’s that for gratitude?
daddy dave
31 Aug 10 at 8:20 pm
Adrien:
Ignoring these question would mean sticking this stuff in someone’s backyard.
We’re NOT ignoring it. No country that i know has. Can you think of one?
So saying that we need to ask questions about waste means we go for another trip around the mulberry bush chasing our tail.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 8:30 pm
Dad:
I’m for throwing those fuckers out of the federation and telling them to sink or swim.
It’s one state sized Centrelink office.
That way I like to see them survive on “eco-tourism” as that bullshitting idiot Bob Brown has suggested.
Let them “eco-tourist” their way to paying their own freaking bills for a change.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 8:34 pm
Yes that’s right, put the waste in someone else backyard – the mythical desert.
But to be responsible put it in your backyard.
O No! I hear you cry! it’s not that safe
rog
31 Aug 10 at 8:35 pm
I vote that it all goes in JC’s backyard – that’s if his landlord will let him.
rog
31 Aug 10 at 8:36 pm
We’re NOT ignoring it.
Okay, then everything’s just peachy.
Adrien
31 Aug 10 at 8:42 pm
- Rog, September 2005.
Hear hear!
C.L.
31 Aug 10 at 8:43 pm
Wodge:
Try and add to a discussion instead of thread wrecking like the other Eastwoodlian does. You may even be treated a little nicer, you nimbus.
Yes wodge, I would be fine with the crap in my back yard if I had a back yard buried a feet feet down in a concrete drum.. However I don’t have a backyard because i can’t stand them, as it plays up with my sinus.
—————-
There’s no mythical desert, you idiot. They really do exist.
Didn’t they teach you that at the carpentry academy?
JC
31 Aug 10 at 8:43 pm
Sorry, I forgot that CL wants some too, in his tool shed
rog
31 Aug 10 at 8:44 pm
Hey Wodge, who did you vote for? Senate too please.
Please don’t tell us you Harry Clarked the ballot. Say it ain’t so.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 8:46 pm
JC doesn’t believe in AGW unless it involves nuclear power – he has gone long on nukes (and short on solar, which didnt happen – oh dear)
rog
31 Aug 10 at 8:46 pm
“the mythical desert”
LOL. That’s right rog, it’s a jungle from coast to coast. Populated by baby seals and koalas too.
daddy dave
31 Aug 10 at 8:46 pm
- Rog, August 2005.
Read the whole thread. Rog goes nuclear against nuclear naysayers.
HEAR HEAR!
C.L.
31 Aug 10 at 8:48 pm
Hands up all those who want some nukes in their backyard? C’mon CL, man up, JC has gone out looking for some crutches
rog
31 Aug 10 at 8:50 pm
rog – serious question – does your backward expand across the great australian central deserts?
Wind power or death?
http://www.radicalgreenwatch.com/main/?p=415
.
31 Aug 10 at 8:50 pm
Wodge.
I’m long USEC, US Ecology and Energy solutions. I HAD First Solar on as a short but took it off.
I’ll be long those three stocks for the rest of my life, god willing.
So what?
So what if I’m long nuke, Wodgie.
Oh let me guess. I shouldn’t go long nuke because I believe in nuke energy and I should instead go long the subsidy whores so I can lose money.
That’s great investment theory they taught at the carpentry academy.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 8:51 pm
JC’s definition of a desert is what follows the main course – jelly n ice cream
rog
31 Aug 10 at 8:51 pm
Hands up all those who want some nukes in their backyard? C’mon CL, man up, JC has gone out looking for some crutches
Wodge is a nimby. How much more despicable can you be, Wodge.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 8:52 pm
Now you say that you dropped shorting solar – after you lost
rog
31 Aug 10 at 8:52 pm
Not at all JC, I want the nukes in your backyard – do you feel the love?
rog
31 Aug 10 at 8:54 pm
Wodge
How do you go from supporting nuke in 2005 to being an anti-nuke activist in 2010?
What the fuck happened in between?
Did homer get to you? ummm.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 8:54 pm
You really are a conflicted tool, JC
rog
31 Aug 10 at 8:56 pm
I’d recommend storing it in Rog’s one bedroom housing commission flat. Afterall, how much more toxic can this c-nut get?
Infidel Tiger
31 Aug 10 at 8:56 pm
Not at all JC, I want the nukes in your backyard – do you feel the love?
Fair enough, But there are ways around that. What if the people were paid to have the nukes in their areas out in the bush on private land like they pay people in France and Sweden in provinces and regions bid for them?
You’re not thinking straight again. You seem to want to wear that dunces cap and never take it off.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 8:57 pm
He really is very toxic this evening, isn’t he Infidel?
In a thoughtful, nuanced sorta way
JC
31 Aug 10 at 8:58 pm
Wodge the thinking person’s anti-nuclear activist who I suspected clarked his ballot. Lol.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 9:02 pm
rog, we use .02% of solar for energy
It’s not a goer. France gets 70+ from nuke and exports the surplus. The US about 20-25%.
.
31 Aug 10 at 9:25 pm
Rog one third of Australia is arid and another third is semi-arid. That is a lot of open space outside of people’s back yards. Please try to make sense.
Rafe
31 Aug 10 at 9:50 pm
Hands up all those who want some nukes in their backyard?
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1651377.htm
C.L.
31 Aug 10 at 9:57 pm
Is nuclear competitive if it has to pay its own insurance?
Boris
1 Sep 10 at 3:03 am
Adrien, I thought you are a reasonable person. Japan can find a solution for nuclear waste, but Australia can’t?
Boris
1 Sep 10 at 3:07 am
@Boris . Yes, the nuclear industry is competitive paying their own insurance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act
Karl Kessel
1 Sep 10 at 8:54 am
Surely it is not for the state to choose technologies for the generation of electricity. If nuclear power is competitive then it will happen, unless the State interferes. At the moment the State prohibits nuclear power, which is strange given that the technology is widely used overseas and we are one of the major suppliers of its raw materials. The question of its economic competitiveness, which takes up much the discussion above, should be outside the State’s purview.
Timothy Can
1 Sep 10 at 9:32 am
“#
Wodge
How do you go from supporting nuke in 2005 to being an anti-nuke activist in 2010?
What the fuck happened in between?
Did homer get to you? ummm.
JC
31 Aug 10 at 8:54 pm
#
You really are a conflicted tool, JC
rog
31 Aug 10 at 8:56 pm”
rog,
Just answer the question.
.
2 Sep 10 at 8:24 am