Kevin Rudd - never ever any nuclear power in Australia.

[Resinence]

Oh man, I'm starting to like Australia. They make me feel so much better about the flock of retards that we have in the United States.

Hilariously, swap US with Australia and vice versa and that's my thought's on most threads about American politics

Duchess: Yay scare-mongering simply for the sake of it, yes, it does look bad. No, mass-death's is extremely unlikely, Australia is nowhere near as crowded as most countries. Although I guess you DO have a reputation to keep up, and it is entertaining/useful as a warning. That said, I agree; this is a monumentally idiotic stance taken by Rudd's government when you think about it in relation to public opinion also suppressing desal plants, he may as well grow a handlebar mustache and make a big monologue about taking this country down the shitter for the future.

While I am pro-nuclear, I think Solar is a possible option with sun we get and the huge amounts of land we have with nothing on it. Unfortunately, rudd hasn't shown any serious intentions of embracing that or tidal power, which is sad. Speaking of sad, nuclear is just such a better option, sigh, thanks greenpeace for destroying the planet in your attempts to "save" it.

And even after this shit, I'd still rather have Rudd. And that just shows how much I loathe the liberals (and before I get shanked, the liberals are the conservative party).

[Darth Wong]

Well, I'm planning to move to Paris when I finish my education, anyway. France will be the best off country in the entire world against the twin hammers of Peak Oil and Global Warming.

How do you figure that? They have extensive nuclear power generation facilities but they don't have large domestic uranium supplies. They aren't equatorial but they will find themselves under enormous migratory pressure from North Africa. Political and regional instability resulting from climate change will seriously affect them.

[thejester]

Ah yes... the kind of article which reminds me of one of the reasons why I sometimes get these desires to vote Liberal. With them, I get the feeling that it's 'only' massive antipathy towards nuclear power in public opinion which is stopping them from building nukes. Given that we could have a whole nuclear life-cycle (from mining through use in power plants to long-term storage) without moving the nuclear material more than about 1km from its original location, this whole anti-nuclear thing is... well... even more dumb than you can imagine.

If this map is correct, the only cities that could be supplied like that are Darwin and Adelaide. One of the major objections to a move to nuclear power a few years ago was the cost of shipping the stuff the length of the country when the Eastern seaboard has more coal than you can shake a stick at.

[Lusankya]

Ah yes... the kind of article which reminds me of one of the reasons why I sometimes get these desires to vote Liberal. With them, I get the feeling that it's 'only' massive antipathy towards nuclear power in public opinion which is stopping them from building nukes. Given that we could have a whole nuclear life-cycle (from mining through use in power plants to long-term storage) without moving the nuclear material more than about 1km from its original location, this whole anti-nuclear thing is... well... even more dumb than you can imagine.

If this map is correct, the only cities that could be supplied like that are Darwin and Adelaide. One of the major objections to a move to nuclear power a few years ago was the cost of shipping the stuff the length of the country when the Eastern seaboard has more coal than you can shake a stick at.

... I'm from Adelaide. I don't give a shit about you guys.

[mr friendly guy]

While once we get a carbon tax on, nuclear might be more cost effective.

To reiterate some of Resinence points, despite this, I would also still prefer Rudd over Howard. Heck I prefer him over the Liberals current crop. Brendan Nelson is changing from a joke, to a joke which no longer amuses me but now I am starting to loathe.

Moreover despite some the things myself and other Australians complain about, I would still prefer to live here than the US.

There are certain things I admire about the US which we don't have here, I just can't see them outweighing the other crap you guys have to deal (as I can see from various posts in N & P).

[Anguirus]

They make me feel so much better about the flock of retards that we have in the United States. They recently narrowed the Presidential options to two men. One of them is openly, blatantly, flamingly pro-nuclear; and the other is the closeted bitch of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power corporation. Their raging hard-ons for the power of the atom means that fission power should make good penetration over the next 4-8 years.

Hah, this is one of the best things about our presidential election. Even if McCain sleazes his way into office, we'll get some damn power plants built.

Sign me up for wanting affordable heating in my home after the oil runs out. I don't think wind and solar will cut it anytime soon.

[PainRack]

Except I don't see us buying any nuclear power plants or technology from China at this present mind set. We may as well make money from uranium. Hey, maybe when China sets up commercial pebble bed reactors (they only have a working prototype, although they plan to build commercial ones too), we might end up buying that if we eventually go nuclear.

To be fair, I was thinking more along the lines of Australia acting as a Third World Country when it comes to its resource extraction industries.

It always seems that for most of Australia products, they choose to act like a Third World country and simply sell the unrefined resources to others.

It would seem that even a simple nuclear refining capacity here would earn valuable capital and jobs for Australians, but a ban on nuclear power of all types would stop those jobs.

So, what they're planning to do with all that uranium deposits? Sit on it?

No. Sell it to China. Maybe India as well.

Rudd's ruled that out too, unless they sign up to the non-proliferation treaty.

True, in regards to the Indian thing, which is why I said maybe. It depends on what India does. That being said, its not like China is going to be short of funds in the next few years, what with their 1.75 trillion reserves, so we will still make good money that way.[/quote]

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, I'm planning to move to Paris when I finish my education, anyway. France will be the best off country in the entire world against the twin hammers of Peak Oil and Global Warming.

How do you figure that? They have extensive nuclear power generation facilities but they don't have large domestic uranium supplies. They aren't equatorial but they will find themselves under enormous migratory pressure from North Africa. Political and regional instability resulting from climate change will seriously affect them.

The French still more or less rule an informal Empire of West Africa through their West Africa common currency and francophone language institutions--that's why the French were machine-gunning protestors in a couple African cities a few years ago. They may be under migratory pressures (and are to an extent already) but their population decline is also sharp enough to deal with some integration, and most integrate rather consistently well. That area happens to include Niger, and thus uranium deposits. The more people who die in those regions, the easier it will be for them to control again.

The French government however has the advantage of a fully intact canal network and the largest food production in all of Europe. The later will fall, but they have extreme measures of slack in their system to compensate, and the former will provide low-cost transportation beyond even railroads, of which, I might add, their rail grid is extensive and fully electrified. In short they're better prepared than any of us, and they can put in solar in the south as conditions change, and the increasing volatility of the oceans will just provide more avenues for tidal and current based power generation on the notoriously temptestuous Biscay coast.

The final key, though, is that exploitable Monazite reserves exist straddling the Valais region which is laid out along the borders between France, Italy, and Switzerland, Monazite is the main source of thorium, so while they would have to import uranium from the countries in West Africa they control, they can in fact mine thorium and are indeed working on thorium MSRs.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh man, I'm starting to like Australia. They make me feel so much better about the flock of retards that we have in the United States.

Hilariously, swap US with Australia and vice versa and that's my thought's on most threads about American politics :lol:

Duchess: Yay scare-mongering simply for the sake of it, yes, it does look bad. No, mass-death's is extremely unlikely, Australia is nowhere near as crowded as most countries. Although I guess you DO have a reputation to keep up, and it is entertaining/useful as a warning. That said, I agree; this is a monumentally idiotic stance taken by Rudd's government when you think about it in relation to public opinion also suppressing desal plants, he may as well grow a handlebar mustache and make a big monologue about taking this country down the shitter for the future.

While I am pro-nuclear, I think Solar is a possible option with sun we get and the huge amounts of land we have with nothing on it. Unfortunately, rudd hasn't shown any serious intentions of embracing that or tidal power, which is sad. Speaking of sad, nuclear is just such a better option, sigh, thanks greenpeace for destroying the planet in your attempts to "save" it.

And even after this shit, I'd still rather have Rudd. And that just shows how much I loathe the liberals (and before I get shanked, the liberals are the conservative party).

The ironic thing is that if you just all moved to the North Coast you could institute extensive rice permaculture.

[Adrian Laguna]

How do you figure that? They have extensive nuclear power generation facilities but they don't have large domestic uranium supplies. They aren't equatorial but they will find themselves under enormous migratory pressure from North Africa. Political and regional instability resulting from climate change will seriously affect them.

Migratory pressures can be easily dealt with if the public is willing to tolerate a ruthless approach to the problem, and international opinion is either irrelevant or apathetic. If both those things are true, then they can just shoot anyone crossing the border outside an authorized checkpoint.

Assuming, that is, that they don't need the extra population. I expect industry and agriculture to become rather more labour intensive in the future, so they may actually be looking to expand their work force. Thus migration would actually be welcome.

The French still more or less rule an informal Empire of West Africa through their West Africa common currency and francophone language institutions--that's why the French were machine-gunning protesters in a couple African cities a few years ago.

Also why the French armed, trained, and supplied the Chadian Army when Lybia invaded, and why the French Air Force grounded the Lybian one in that same war. They didn't do more because of concerns about being too overt.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

To be fair, I was thinking more along the lines of Australia acting as a Third World Country when it comes to its resource extraction industries.

It always seems that for most of Australia products, they choose to act like a Third World country and simply sell the unrefined resources to others.

It would seem that even a simple nuclear refining capacity here would earn valuable capital and jobs for Australians, but a ban on nuclear power of all types would stop those jobs.

Processing the uranium will require a fair bit of investment and it isn't cheap or easy to manufacture it. Not to mention the insurance bills for the workers.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

They may be under migratory pressures (and are to an extent already) but their population decline is also sharp enough to deal with some integration, and most integrate rather consistently well.

Sharp enough decline? France's birth rate is nearly replacement level, and with immigration, the population is currently increasing by .6% annually.

[Lusankya]

The ironic thing is that if you just all moved to the North Coast you could institute extensive rice permaculture.

Actually, I was reading about that the other day. Apparently, aside from all of the crocodiles and the jellyfish and the cassowaries up there (which all want to kill you), the soil is shit.

[Spyder]

I don't get it. It's not like they'd struggle to find somewhere to put it.

[Darth Wong]

I don't get it. It's not like they'd struggle to find somewhere to put it.

The nuclear waste?

Terror of nuclear waste is one of those ridiculous irrational bogeyman situations which paralyzes public policy. Yes, it's very bad for you. But so are a shitload of other chemicals which we carelessly dump into the air, rivers, and ground. So why do we seriously believe that nuclear waste must be somehow kept in perfectly hermetic storage for a quarter-million years and that anything less than this absurd standard is unacceptable? We used to put lead in the goddamned gasoline for fuck's sake.

[Stark]

Why, because nuclear waste (and to a lesser extent other high-level toxic wastes) are the villains in movies! You never see sulphur dioxide causing any problems, so it's outside the perspective of your average idiot. Remember, most people link 'nuclear waste' to 'rusty barrels in a cave leaking green stuff' and propose laughable 'solutions' like 'fire it into the sun'.

[Winston Blake]

Someone needs to make an 'An Inconvenient Truth' for nuclear power. Show people the facts - not just words, show the skilled people and the technology behind it all, explain why people fear it and why they're wrong, and have a list of references at the end that can support every claim made in the film.

[weemadando]

They did - I forget the name of the doco - I'm sure it was a Beeb sponsored one featuring the former head of Greenpeace touring various nuclear power stations and discussing it all with them.

Comparing the costs per kW generated etc over the lifetime of the plant to everything else and coming out saying that "Nuclear power isn't perfect, but it's the only option we have, not to mention the safest, cheapest and 'greenest' option that we have unless we want to go back to the dark ages."

[weemadando]

Oh yeah - the most telling part was the guy who maintains the sarcophagus at Chernobyl saying that he believes the nuclear power is the best option that we have.