Coalition Policy still Pro Nuclear ?

[Magpie Jack]

I can remember John Howard openly backing Nuclear Power plants in Australia in preference to more Solar and Wind farms. With the events unfolding in Japan I’m wondering if this is still the Libs policy. Actually it would be nice to know Labours policy on Nuclear Power plants as well. I can see this turning into a big election issue.

[Black_White]

Even if we went nuclear, it would take a decade or two to design and bukid even one plant.
The events in Japan show that this is not going to be an option.

[Piethagoras' Theorem]

Not that I'm a fan of nuclear, we are far less susceptible to tsunamis of that magnitude. You could always put it on a hill?

[MJ23]

[HAL]

It sounds like it to me too.

[stui magpie]

Nuclear is the cleanest and best option, except when something goes wrong.

I'd be happy to look at some nuclear plants in Australia, provided they were located hundreds of km from any civilisation.

[Tannin]

it really pisses me off to see some muppet from the Conservation Foundation complaining about the Australian uranium that has got loose in those Japanese reactor accidents. STFU you tool! Nuclear power is not, repeat NOT a conservation issue. Whether we use nuclear p[ower or not has SFA to do with protecting our vanishing wildlife.

Mind you, this is not an endorsement of the nuclear lobby's view either. The point is, nuclear power should be employed or not employed on the same basis as any other source: cost, greenhouse effect, risk, social cost, and so on. On that basis, I think the weight of evidence is that nuclear is not a good option (for obvious reasons, it has to be done exactly right, and the required safeguards simply make it too expensive) .... but that might change over time, especially as the technology improves. Pretending it is a conservation issue, however, is complete bullshit.

[stui magpie]

^

hey, ya get opportunists everywhere when this kind of stuff happens. Didn't one of the greens try to claim the QLD floods/Cyclone were a direct result of coal fueled power stations?

[Tannin]

Two part answer, Stui.

(I) No. You have got your facts wrong. No-one claimed that the floods and cyclone were "a direct result" of coal-fueled power stations. The actual statement was that revenue from the mining tax (which only applies to gigantic coal and iron mines) could go to the flood appeal because the coal industry is "a major contributor to global warming". This a much more modest claim than the one you are reporting. (In fairness to you, there were some hysterical beat-up headlines which were highly misleading.)

(II) Bob Brown's flood response was different in another way - it made perfect sense because there is a direct link between the extent of the natural disasters and climate change. (Bob Brown didn't say that, I did. Brown should have said it though, because the scientific evidence for that link is very strong indeed. We know that the ENSO cycle brings Australia highly variable weather and thus that floods and cyclones are inevitable during the La Nina phase. We also know that the the amount of energy powering these destructive weather systems is dependant on the amount of heat in the system - i.e., warmer temperatures increase evaporation and increased evaporation leads to increased precipitation. And we know that temperatures in the relevant parts of the western Pacific Ocean are higher than ever before. (2010 was the equal hottest-ever year in all of recorded history, remember.) And finally, we know that the storms and floods of 2010/11 were more severe than just about anything recorded in the past. It isn't hard to join the dots.

In short, it is perfectly rational to connect coal-fired power (a massive global warming contributor) with the consequences of warming (extreme weather). In contrast, it is completely irrational to pretend that nuclear power is a conservation issue.

[pietillidie]

^Unless you mean conservation of homo sapiens

[pietillidie]

[Tannin]

[sq3]

Bob Brown would more than likely link the Nuclear Power plant issues with the 'so called near extinct' Schnapper rather than the clear fact that Japane suffers 20% of the globes earth tremors.

Then again using the BB logic it may a protest by the Land Right for Gay Whales movement.

[HAL]

I know a lot of Bobs. How long have you been using the BB logic it may a protest by the Land Right for Gay Whales movement ?

[Bruno]

According to the SMH...

CONS
- Nuclear power is not a renewable source of energy. High-grade, low-cost ores will run out in 50 years.
- It is not "greenhouse gas" free, producing more emissions than some renewable power sources such as wind.
- It would take at least 10 years and several billion dollars to build Australia's first nuclear power station.
- Plants are potential targets for terrorists attacks.
- No complete solution to the disposal of radioactive waste has been found.

PROS
- Greenhouse gases from nuclear power are about 12 times less than gas power stations and about 30 times less than coal stations
- Australia has a large percentage of the world's high grade uranium ore that could service a domestic market.
- Australia could reap billions of export dollars if uranium mining was expanded.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nuclear-power-pros-and-cons/2005/09/09/1125772675462.html