SAY NO TO A NUCLEAR AUSTRALIA

66% of surveyed Australians DO NOT want nuclear power. WHY ARE WE STILL HAVING THIS DEBATE?

Totally Sinister

12:43 PM, Thu 1 Feb 2007 .. Posted by rrpl

I was thinking of setting up such a site myself. But best if we all get behind one forum such as yours.

I also think there are some sinister issues which have yet to surface in the nuclear power debate. Why is the Australian government considering nuclear power when cleaning up coal power would be a cheaper alternative? Also why not look forward to renewable energies to suppliment coal power in the future?

I think the answer lies in an as yet unstated desire by the Australian government for nuclear weapons. Without nuclear power stations there is no prospect of having enough raw radioactive material suitable for upgrading to weapons grade materials. Australia is a rapidly growing country, and any government considering long term security and a rising place in the world stage would have to be considering the possibility of nuclear weapons. The people of Australia need to say NO now!!

Alternatives

12:54 PM, Thu 1 Feb 2007 .. Posted by plonka

No site they choose in Victoria can be far enough away from Melbourne, it simply isn't big enough and Mt. Gambier is closer to Melbourne than it is to Adelaide. So none of the Vic sites you've mentioned and one of the Sth. Aus sites, are all to close for my taste.

Did you see the 7:30 report last night? It seems that as soon as someone in Australia develops some sort of new and funky solar technology, they have to take it offshore so they can develop it. We saw an EVAPORATION generator, all done with mirrors and tubes of water at the focal point of the light from the mirrors. Mr. Mills, the owner of the company and designer of the technology, went through the figures and showed us how much steam it makes and how hot that steam is. He can design and build plants that can replace our coal fired systems and negate the need for nuclear.

What does the Australian Government think? Well, there's a small project in Mildura, funded to the tune of about 3 million (Pfft! That's all? With a percieved energy crisis? With the surplusses we've been generating? Nice one Johnny...)

So the net result was that just like half a dozen other solar technologies (two seperate technologies have gone to China, one to Spain, and three to America, leaving us bereft!), Mr. Mills has taken his technology to Califormia where Mr. Schwarzenegger is more than happy to fund lots of research and get some of these plants up and running. A "B" grade movie star and his government are currently leading the world in trying to reduce emisions and find alternatives.

Our minister for industry, Mr. MacFarlane tried to tell us, on national tele, that Mr. Mills company would remain in Aus. When they asked Mr. Mills, he said "Ah...No... We are moving the headquarters, but we will keep a presence in Australia. There are a couple of small projects here." Sheesh...

So it seems to me that we are simply being lied to on all fronts concerning this issue and are being played for the fools that we are. Keep on posting about this Tina, it needs all the exposure it can get and you're doing a bloody good job of it...:)

There was one extremely interesting fact though. Did you know that in one sunny summers day, enough energy shines on Australia to provide two thirds of the worlds energy needs for one year. I'll say that again, because it blew me away and I had to go check it. ONE sunny Australian day = TWO THIRDS of the worlds energy requirement for ONE YEAR... Damn but that's a serious amout of energy. So why aren't we using it?

Poll

1:59 PM, Thu 1 Feb 2007 .. Posted by jd

on SkyNews this morning there was a poll and over 60% of viewers chose nuclear as their preferred choose over clean coal, solar and wind. I have always suspected SkyNews has a high right wing audience but this still suprised me.

Keep up the good work you obviously still have plenty of people to convince

I had my say before

2:11 PM, Thu 1 Feb 2007 .. Posted by snowy

Just one comment though. It's all very well saying how much power can be generated by sunlight. Nobody asked Mr Mills how much he can generate at night and on rainy days. Does everything just stop then? By all means push for renewable energy use, but the advocates need to say how they are going to overcome the obvious shortcomings. They'd have more credibility if they did.

Clean coal supplemented by renewable energy is the way to go, with the proviso that clean coal is achievable. If it isn't....nuclear.

But don't worry about the siting of reactors. They're all going in John Howard's back yard.

Then have it again

3:35 PM, Thu 1 Feb 2007 .. Posted by plonka

I agree Snowy. I also doubt Mr. Mills is to sure about those aspects either. But hats off for trying and actually producing something, I reckon. And think of how much less you'd have to burn.

But there are places in the Little Desert where the sun has shone every day for more than 50 years and I'm sure there are plenty more places like that in the centre of our continent. Then there's the issue of energy storage, another expensive technology that's still in it's infancy. Time and research is what it will take Snowy, but we have to encourage the buggers somehow.

Then of course, there our logistics problem. Hey, maybe he could design one that uses salt water and makes fresh to use to make electricity then dump it into irrigation channels? Nah... One thing at a time...:)

It still doesn't shine at night in the desert, plonka

4:03 PM, Thu 1 Feb 2007 .. Posted by snowy

And it just isn't possible using existing technology to store the amount of energy to provide for power needs at night or on rainy days. The pot of gold is there if they can deliver the goods, and venture capitalists are always looking for pots of gold. But the product has to deliver before this can happen. And solar hasn't.

But it isn't enough to say we don't want nuclear if we don't have somethng to use as an alternative. And that "something" is what I want to know about. I don't like nuclear either, but if there is no alternative....

My reply...

5:21 PM, Thu 1 Feb 2007 .. Posted by tinacee

will be forthcoming, let me assure you. But free time is a rare thing these days. I want to reply to some of the points that have been made here today, and good points they all are. I'd like to start a discussion on alternative energies and any reasonable steps that we could take to integrate them into our lives. I want to check out that story on the 7.30 report that Plonka mentioned (I missed it as I don't watch TV), and possibly even add the link here. I also want to do a bit of digging and find some good alternative energy links... if anyone knows of any, I'd appreciate the heads up. Likewise, if anyone hears of any interesting issues that I don't get to first, I'd like to hear about them also. Being that we live in a smaller city we don't hear a lot about this type of thing... at least not as much as I would imagine larger cities with bigger newspapers would (that's one of the reasons I was hoping to find some others who would like to add entries to this blog). I was also thinking about sending this out to some major newspaper syndicates (as well as several government departments) in the hope that we might be able to generate some more interest in the general population. Any other suggestions would also be welcome.

Anyway, thanks for the input today, guys. Let's see if we can come up with enough ammunition to worry this government.

The Sun doesn't shine at night, but...

6:13 PM, Thu 1 Feb 2007 .. Posted by gryphonn

Hey gang
Yep, it's true that the sun doesn't shine at night. However, if we can implement the sunlight dependant technologies, we can still supplement that with natural gas and/or coal. The reduction in pollutants and green house gasses that could be achieved by using the sun during the day should be reason enough to get behind the alternatives. Unforunately there may not be enough money in it to get the govt interested.
Oh, the sun shines somewhere on the planet in any 24 hour period. We've developed efficient international communications in under a hundred years. Why can't we develop international energy sharing? Hell, we went from a glider to a space shuttle in a very short period. Surely we can use our imagination to develop new energy sources.

Edited by gryphonn on Thursday, February 1, 2007 at 1:03 AM

That's right...

1:09 AM, Fri 2 Feb 2007 .. Posted by plonka

We burn coal and clean the exhaust at night. Like I said, imagine how much less we'd have to burn.

But we also need to spare a thought or two for the coal industry. How many people are employed mining the coal we burn for energy production and where do they go when we cut the need for it in half? It's another major, major part of the problem and it will figure heavily in any government's plan for alternatives. Massive unemployment in any given sector doesn't do much for popularity, even if it does help the environment. When was the last time we had a Prime Minister that was prepared to make the hard decisions?

Here ya go Tina. Best I could find was the transcript...

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1837616.htm

Problem is though that if we don't encourage (yes, that means "spend the money") research, development and people like David Mills to do what he's doing, we won't have anything except nuclear.

Like I said, I want to reply...

9:59 AM, Fri 2 Feb 2007 .. Posted by tinacee

but this time of the week is always busy (not a bad excuse... an oldie but a goodie). I think I have enough material here for quite a few entries. But for now, I just want to put this in and then I'll open up this discussion a bit more today.

Now, Plonka's absolutely right... every little bit makes a difference. Harnessing the sun while we can must surely make a hell of a difference... at least it would if we were all doing it. I'm hoping that with some sensible discussion we might be able to point out that it's really only going to be to our own advantage to figure something out. Hence this blog... there are some very intelligent, wonderfully aware and caring people out there in BlogNow land. I don't know what might come out of a serious discussion like this on this medium, but who knows... one of us just might come up with a solution that no one has thought of before... and chances are that it'll be something ridiculously simple.

I'll admit, I don't know much about the needs of the whole country, when it comes to power usage... and I don't know exactly how much we could really save by using solar during days only... but it MUST be a good stepping stone, at least. I'll also admit that we need to research and refine the technologies that we currently possess a lot more before we have any chance of completely adopting any kind of renewable energy. But sooner or later we will have to accept that it's a step we'll have to take... no, there's no later any more, it's too late for that. It has to be soon!

Now, a good point has also been made about the unemployment factor... it's always an issue, as it should be. There's no use leaving a whole heap of people out in the cold, so to speak, is there? But surely those who are already employed in the power industry could integrate into the new system. I mean, if you already have a specialised knowledge of the workings of an industry, upgrading with the implementation of new technologies will sooner or later become a necessity. What would they do when coal burning stations are replaced by nuclear anyway? Their jobs as they are now will be defunct and they will have to learn new stuff anyway. Why not learn about renewable energies rather than nuclear? I understand their concerns, I really do... but whatever power source we use will bring employment opportunities anyway, won't it?

So much for a quick comment. I have to go or I'll never get everything done today. Have a good day guys... get that grey matter working.

Not energy

7:19 PM, Fri 2 Feb 2007 .. Posted by plonka

I was thinking more about the mining industry that supports the energy industry, not the energy industry itself. If we go nuclear, we'll need to ramp up uranium mining so a lot of those guys would simply move to uranium. If we go solar however, a lot of miners won't have anywhere to go.

Argh

12:42 PM, Tue 6 Feb 2007 .. Posted by iCE654

Urgh another one of these anti-nuclear blogs.

Seriously, piss off with your anti-nuclear ideas. Would you rather suffer from the effects of global warming?

Go back to hugging tree's and worshiping animals you hippy! Were did you even get all of your statistics from? Let me guess; you made them up? Ha thought so.

Edited by iCE654 on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 7:34 PM

Nice Ice...

1:40 PM, Tue 6 Feb 2007 .. Posted by plonka

I see we've made a new friend. Mr. Censorship himself...:)

Ah. The impetuosity of youth

8:33 AM, Wed 7 Feb 2007 .. Posted by petermcc

Goodonya TINACEE.

Aside from that bizarre comment from a person who prefers not to consider the problem, there has been some interesting comments made here. Apparently a comment like "Tree hugger" absolves the utterer from having to think about the issue and then add something intelligent.

One alternative that never seems to get a mention is Geo Thermal energy. For starters it deals with Snowy's complaints about Solar and considering how much heat is stored in the planet, it would seem to me to have great potential when developed.

Energy can be created by fairly small temperature variations. Geothermal has the potential for large differences. Hope it gets some study.

Spot on comment about Mr Censorship, Plonka. Gee these guys leave themselves open for easy points.