''Nuclear Power is the best alternative to Fossil Fuels''

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

A) Australia doesn't need it so you can take that attempt at diversion elsewhere...

So, take out fossils and nuclear.
Where would the UK, Australia, or anywhere else get energy on a remotely comparable scale?

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

So, take out fossils and nuclear.
Where would the UK, Australia, or anywhere else get energy on a remotely comparable scale?

You have no idea of the timetable for supposed implementation of Nuclear Power in Australia do you?!?

The Libs, Federally, have been arguing that we only contribute just shy of 2% of the worlds GHG emissions and yet they argue that Nuclear Power is needed in Australia: but the timetable of implementation weakens such an imperative... the smarter of the Libs have backed away from Nuclear Power/Waste in Australia as they know all arguments they have put forward for it look very weak and disingenious!

State Liberals in W.A. have just joined Labors voice in saying that there will never be Nuclear Power/Waste in Western Australia...there is an election coming up in W.A.!!!

Recently, some of the Libs have been calling for a 'Solar Continent'.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Baron Von Schweinehart

Actually it would encourage proliferation, because the nuke industry would feel emboldened to put their hand out for ever increasing welfare for corporate parasites. So far electricty generation via nuclear power has failed to break even, let alone make a profit anywhere on the planet, but hasn't stopped nuke proponents lining up for government handouts.

The fact that the only countries currently singing the praises of nuclear power are the very same countries possessing or coveting nuclear weapons, and that non nuclear armed nations formerly sucked into the nuclear power farce are all implementing 'Nuclear Phase -out' is proof positive that Nuclear Power exists primarilly to legitimise manufacturing radiological materials for nuclear and radioactive weapons.

Is that why France is doing so well?
If demand for nuclear energy increased, it would actually have the opposire effect, as demand for the fuel would squeeze the supply for weapons grade material. Also, the type of plant that is built for energy production would be hard pressed to make nuclear weapons.

The fallacy that nuclear energy is not economic has been addressed here many times, so I'll be brief.

There are two main reasons that its not seen as economic:
1. A lack of fuel reprocessing in the US thanks to Carter meant that the the industry was losing money, while stocks of spent fuel built up that could be re-processed.
2. The nuclear industry (in the UK and US) has largely been ran as a government operation for decades, with all the inefficiencies that that entail. Modern plants with the designs and management techniques that are employed today are far more efficient. There are plants in the UK and US that are efficient, but of course, the anti-nuke people never cite such operations.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

A) Australia doesn't need it so you can take that attempt at diversion elsewhere...

And your alternative would be?
Reducing energy consumption will only acheive a small amount, and doesn't solve the problem of how to supply the actual needs.

B) You seemingly seek to misrepresent the magnitude of expansion of Nuclear Power necessary to combat Climate Change as the proposed rationale for a so called "Nuclear Renaissance".

Where?

C) What position are you in to give any such guarantees?
I'll tell you: a very weak one!

And that's based on what exactly?

D) Your second paragraph is pure an unadulterated bulldust!

[/quote]
Do you have anything of any substance to contribute?

I said:

Renewables' limitations are geographical, cost, and techincal (among other issues). None of which will be reduced by the not going nuke. Infact as energy costs will increase, and by extension, the cost of living and manufacturing, the cost of renewables will also increase (exclamation mark).

Is true. Renewables (eg. wind, solar, wave, tidal....) are dependant on what I have listed (among other things). The cost of manufacturing these technologies will increase as fossil fuel costs increase, and we put off going nuclear, as they will use energy to produce them, and the cost of living increases.

Remember, no one has said we should just replace all energy sources with nuclear. But as long as there are blocks to it, we will lose out economically, and the environment will suffer as we burn more fossil fuels.

[Besoeker]

[quote=Deathridesahorse;246671]You have no idea of the timetable for supposed implementation of Nuclear Power in Australia do you?!?[quote]
That's somewhat irrelevant to my question.
Without fossils or nuclear, where would Oz get its energy on a remotely comparable scale?

Anyway, to address your point, if timescale from approval to on line is anything like that in UK, nuclear power in Australia is a decade or more away.

But the UK situation should be a wake up call. We already have a shortfall. Old nuclear power stations are being de-commissioned. Replacement generating capacity, mostly gas turbines, is ad hoc and totally inadequate. The power crunch is inevitable. Successive governments, from the time of Maggie T, sat on their hands over the issue of nuclear power.

Perhaps one of the problems is that nuclear power doesn't sit well with the general population and the gestation period is longer than the permitted term between general elections. Maybe, just maybe, the incumbents want to get votes rather than be proactive on longer term policy that might hurt them at the ballot box.

[Deathridesahorse]

[quote=Besoeker;246712][quote=Deathridesahorse;246671]You have no idea of the timetable for supposed implementation of Nuclear Power in Australia do you?!?

That's somewhat irrelevant to my question.
Without fossils or nuclear, where would Oz get its energy on a remotely comparable scale?

Anyway, to address your point, if timescale from approval to on line is anything like that in UK, nuclear power in Australia is a decade or more away.

But the UK situation should be a wake up call. We already have a shortfall. Old nuclear power stations are being de-commissioned. Replacement generating capacity, mostly gas turbines, is ad hoc and totally inadequate. The power crunch is inevitable. Successive governments, from the time of Maggie T, sat on their hands over the issue of nuclear power.

Perhaps one of the problems is that nuclear power doesn't sit well with the general population and the gestation period is longer than the permitted term between general elections. Maybe, just maybe, the incumbents want to get votes rather than be proactive on longer term policy that might hurt them at the ballot box.

You say a decade or more away....it's not a very thorough answer!

The Fibs have backed an Emissions Trading Scheme, but why?!?

They back Nuclear Power as the technology that above all will deliver carbon mitigation, but when?!?

The smarter, and less disingeneous, of the Liberal Party have backed away knowing that their arguments do not amount to an imperitive for Nuclear Power/Waste: therefore any, and all, calls for Nuclear Power/Waste damage their already bruised brand name.

The Western Australia state Libs have already rolled over on their pro-Nuclear Power/Waste ambitions for my home state...and I say, "HUZZAH!!!"

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

You say a decade or more away....it's not a very thorough answer!

Maybe there isn't one.

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Maybe there isn't one.

Well, John "the little Poison Gnome" Howard advertised McNuclear McPower/McWaste as the 'only' solution.

They have a serious branding problem now that can only be made worse when not in power and your words carry implicitly less gravitas.

I say, "Huzzah!"

Nuclear Power does not address the underlying issue of overconsumption and greed. It only feeds the notion that the earth is to be raped and pillaged and that the issue of sustainability will never announced itself: until it's too late, of course.

Well, it did: John Howard lost his seat- only the second PM to do so! He destroyed his party at the same time....[larfs out loud!]

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

Nuclear Power does not address the underlying issue of overconsumption and greed.

What does?

[LMagic007]

Why nuclear power is not a sustainable source of low carbon energy ?

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) also recognises that regular mined supplies of uranium are limited and sees the survival of its industry in the universal occurrences of uranium in the earth’s crust and in seawater.

In judging the sustainability of nuclear power the continuing availability of its uranium-based fuel is the main consideration. As will also be shown, the carbon emissions from the overall nuclear fuel cycle are inversely-exponential to the grade of ore from which its uranium source is extracted, the lower the grade, the more energy to retrieve it is needed and the more carbon dioxide is emitted.

http://www.after-oil.co.uk/nuclear.htm