You know, I think I'd rather not, if you don't mind. I've heard a lot about this subject being tossed around lately. I don't think I like the idea that we're even considering nuclear power plants here... and for so many different reasons. There's the very real danger it poses... there's the fact that there are so many better and cleaner alternatives... there's the deadening of our senses and sensibilities that will result... the closing of the eyes... the complacency that's already started... then there's the ugly side-businesses and profiteering that is sure to come with it. Maybe as a child of the 80's I just see conspiracy theories everywhere I look... but then again... maybe because I'm a child of the 80's I can also offer some validity to my argument by saying that I remember the very sad, human side of Chernobyl first hand. But then... I'm a bleeding heart. Now, I don't even know if I'll be able to convey what I think, or even make sense of why it all worries me, but I'll try.
First... Typical Johnny and his stupid-ass liberal profiteering campaign again. Now, I hate making comment on political issues because I tend to get carried away. Besides, in my experience, politics (and religion, for that matter) can make enemies of even the best of friends. I almost didn't start this rant, but I'm going to make one comment, then I'll pass over the political side of this argument and move onto the environmental. As far as I can see, this is an idea that is only being considered because a bunch of liberal pollies want to fatten up their profit margin. I keep hearing about how this is going to reduce our country's debt, how it's the way of the future, how it's going to bring Australia in line with the rest of the world. Crap. We ARE in line with the rest of the world... ahead, in my eyes. If we didn't have a weed as a PM maybe we'd realise that ourselves. We're following little Johnny, blindlessly swallowing the drivel pumped out by his liberal politicism, but is that really the way we want to go? He's not the decisive leader he keeps telling us he is. He doesn't care about what's best for Australia or the average bloke. Nor does he really give a flying fart about what the majority of Australians think. If he did he'd stop lying to us about his party's policies. He'd stop promising one thing, then turning around and changing his mind as soon as he gets his own way. He'd give us the chance to have our say via referendums, rather than pump out more crap about how expensive it is to organise one. Instead, he's quite happy to follow the example of his 'US god'... happy to pick up the crumbs that that particular 'super power' leaves scattered around for him. And happy to drag the rest of us along on the ride. He's the kind of bloke that sounds very convincing when he's making us promises... then when we give him what he wants, turns around to us, sticks his tongue out, blows a raspberry and gives us the forks. "Suckers! Hyuck. You can't tell me what to do 'cause I'm the boss. Nah nah nah nah."
Oh, listen to me. Boy. So much for politics. Let's get back to my point.
Ok then... debt... the future... the rest of the world. We have more natural resources than most of the other countries in the world. The simple fact is that we COULD produce everything that we need right here... we could completely cut off foreign exchange if we really wanted to. Now, before you all get up on your high horses and tell me that that would be unrealistic, I know that. It wouldn't particularly be good for foreign relations, but still... we have enough backing us that we could sure as hell demand a greater say in the whole shebang than we give ourselves credit for. Who knows, maybe the rest of the world might show us a little more respect if we did. We're not a poor country by any means.... so why do we allow ourselves to be told that we need to do it for that reason?
Now lets tackle the cost of this type of power... is it really as cheap as we're led to believe? And should the cost be measured purely in monetary terms anyway? How much is the knowledge of a secure and safe environment worth? A shipload more than a bit of cheap electricity, I think. Besides, how much cheaper will this electricity end up being for the average bloke anyway? I really doubt it'll make much difference, in the long run. Take a good look at the US (and other countries)... they didn't get the massive cuts that were promised to them, so why, in our ignorance, should we believe that we will? I'd rather learn from mistakes than repeat them, if you don't mind.
Now, back to our resources. Another argument that I hear thrown up time and time again is that we have all this 'useless' land that we're not doing anything with. Who decides if it's useless? Politicians? Foreign politicians? Businessmen? Nuclear physicists? Spin doctors? They're all going to give us an un-biased opinion, aren't they? Let's be realistic. Aboriginals have been using this land for centuries... animals and birdlife use it... those who appreciate the fact that we have a wealth of unspoilt wilderness (albeit hot, dry wilderness)... it's not useless to them. I've never been to most of this land, but it's not useless to me either. However, there are a bunch of businessmen in some highrise somewhere who know that this idea is a massive gold mine. Think about this... If we build some reactors and start dumping waste in a big pit in the middle of the desert, is the next step to take in waste from every other stupid country in the world too? Why not? It'll make us some money... be good for business... line the pockets of some already very rich people. And it's only going to be waste for what... 500, 600, maybe 1000 years max, right? We're not going to be here in 500 years, but we can make some dollars off it now, and forget everything that might come after us, right? Right! Sure! But how do we know? What if all of those calculations are wrong? Even if they're spot on... who knows how valuable that land may end up being in the next 500 years? At the rate our population is booming, who's to say that we won't need to claim that land sometime, just to support our own numbers. And who's to say that some time in the next 500 years we won't be able to improve it sufficiently enough for it to become just as viable as the east coast. Let's use this analogy... it's like a kid taking his dollar down to the shop to buy lollies that he'll eat in two minutes, rather than putting it in the bank to accumulate and potentially... eventually earn enough interest to sustain him through his retirement. It's just stupid to give up on something that we have, just because we can't see an immediate benefit from it.
And now for the safety aspect. This is NOT a safe way to produce power. Nuclear reactors DO blow up. It takes a lot to keep these installations running efficiently... I won't pretend that I know even half of the technicalities but I am not blind enough to discount that fact because of my ignorance. There may not be a HUGE risk, so most of us are happy to close our eyes to the potential ramifications. I hear about acceptable risk... but what is an acceptable risk? One nuclear accident? One nuclear accident in the next hundred years? One nuclear accident in an un-populated area? One very, very distant nuclear accident that occurs on the other side of the country and only kills a bunch of people that you don't know? But what if it's not? What if it's right in your own back yard? Would you think harder about the ramifications if that nuclear plant were to be built right next door to your house... your kids' school... your favourite camping grounds? I think most of us would. The fact is that they will need to be built somewhere. Somewhere next to someone... or someTHING's home. It's not just us we should be thinking about... nor is it just our children or our grandchildren either. The potential for disaster sometime in the next thousand years is actually massive. The fact is that there is too much risk involved. Even a tiny risk is too much... we should NOT become complacent about that.
Now, I've already said that we're not a poor country. Well, we're not a stupid country either. We are so lucky to have the chance to educate our children... and ourselves... as well as we do. It's about time that we start to use some of that education... those brains that we've given ourselves... and think. There are all these methods of sustainable energy at our disposal, so why not consider them first.
Solar, for a start. Why not push that? Each of us could sustain enough solar panels in our house to supply ourselves with power. More than enough. And with solar battery banks, most of us would even be able to store our left-overs for rainy days (pun intended). A tiny percentage of us, potentially, might not be able to make enough, fair enough. But a rather large percentage of us would be able to produce more than we can use... and more that we can even store. Why not re-circulate that power back into a community power grid of sorts?
Right, what about wind power. That falls down because people don't like living next to wind farms. Why? The windmills are noisy. So what? Get over it. For that matter, set one up in the desert. I mean, that's not going to deplete our potential natural resources.
Then we have hydro-power. Not as innovative... not as great, but it beats nuclear hands down. By leaps and bounds.
Now, my favourite, and personally preferred source would be thermal towers. These are not attractive installations, I'll give you that, but who really cares about the aesthetics of it... especially if we were to build them in the desert. These are tall cylindrical towers, as tall as a kilometer high I think, if I recall correctly. These towers, once they're built, would cost almost nothing to run. They work via a series of massive turbines inside the tower, which are turned by the rising of hot... or thermal... air. So where does the hot air come from? At the base of the tower is a massive clear plastic 'skirt', which is funnelled upwards slightly towards the tower. The sun shines through the clear plastic and heats the air underneath, then the air is 'sucked' up the inside of the tower, turning the turbines and producing energy. It's that simple. Oh, and there's another added bonus. Since the air underneath the skirt becomes heated, it produces a seperate micro-environment underneath. So... grow plants under there. You'd have to find something that can stand the hotter environment, I guess. I don't know what, I'm not that into plants. But, watering the plants creates a thicker atmosphere. You get evaporation, condensation, and eventually, rain. It doesn't matter where it's going to be built, but for argument's sake let's use the desert again. Not only could we use this 'useless' land to produce safe energy without damaging the environment... but we could also improve and use the land underneath. We kill two birds with the one stone.
Cheap... efficient... and good for the environment. Why would you not consider something so beneficial? Why? because there are a bunch of businessmen in some highrise somewhere who know that this idea would break them. Suddenly the poor would get richer, and (at least some of) the rich would get poorer. Not good for liberalism.
Check out this website about thermal towers. Read the info and have a really good think about it. If you want to know more there's other websites you can check out too. Do it! Then... if you agree with me... get onto the government and tell them that nuclear is NOT the way to go. At the very least, demand a referendum on this issue. Then tell all your friends to do the same. Not only do we owe that to ourselves and our children, we owe that to all Australians... present and future.
|
• Tuesday 6 June 2006 - Exellent idea...
P.S. I don't think hyperlinks work on whitepage... either that or I'm getting the code wrong. Probably the latter.
Edited by arseface on Tuesday 6 June 2006 at 10:02 PM