Nuclear Think Again.

[petersj]

Now that the old arguments about climate change are pretty well finished and the sceptics against climate change now look like moronic fools we can now decide the best way of tackling it.

Climate change is real and man made. Hough not exclusively

The issue is do we tackle it with a carbon tax or an ETS. Certainly we need to be exploring alternatives. Water power, wind solar the possibilities are exciting.

Obviously not nuclear as I have been researching this and the track record is bad very bad.

There has been in excess of one hundred nuclear accidents.

Most will recall the devastating effects of three mile island in 79 but America has has well over fifty nuclear accidents. Of course in 86 we had Chernobyl and the effects are till evident. Since Cherpbyl there have been 57 accidents.

Of course in 2009 there was leakage of radio active water in Japan and the Fukushima disaster of 2011 had an amazing impact. Its likely the planet will be experiencing the effects of Fukushima for ever.

The Karachi nuclear power plant imposed a seven-hour emergency after heavy water leaked from a feeder pipe to the reactor. The leakage took place during a routine maintenance shut down, and the emergency was lifted seven hours later, after the affected area was isolated.

[petersj]

On the other hand nuclear is not without merit. It is in many ways cleaner BUT we have the perennial problem of waste. Dumping in the ocean is NOT a solution.

[petersj]

From 1946 through 1993, thirteen nuclear capable countries used the ocean as an ends to dispose of nuclear/radioactive waste. The waste materials included industrial, medical and weapons, both liquids and solids housed in various containers, as well as reactor vessels, with and without spent or damaged nuclear fuel.

 Patrick Kozakiewicz

[petersj]

The problem of waste remains an almost insurmountable problem. The practice of dumping i in the ocean practiced often needs to stop.

I m doig a lot of reading about solar and its potential is remarkable. 

[POWERZONE]

Australia has vast resources for clean energy: solar, tidal generation, hot rocks, wind power.... but there's no profit to be made here, so we just keep burning. Nuclear isn't clean nor is it safe or cheap.

[POWERZONE]

42

[POWERZONE]

G'day.

 

If we stay nuclear free we might just get to 1000

[petersj]

I think using the old you cant stop so accept it argument should be put to rest.

Other countries are not doing much on climate change there for we should do nothing.

It is a dangerous nonproductive way to think.

Everyone else has nuclear so we should too. No way.

[Aloysius]

That's one of those everyone is out of step except me claims.

 

French Nuclear power provides 80% of their power - has done for years and safely too.

 

Many countries enjoy safe relatively clean nuclear power.

 

To some these folks are wrong and dangerous.

 

But the facts remain - they are only challenged by scare campaigns based pretty much on emotion - you know - Hiroshima - irrelevant, Chernobyl - a classic example of socialist government progressively overriding safety systems to maintain production never mind the risk - irrelevant to modern day well run plants - Fukushima - an old plant built in a known earthquake zone - crazy I guess.

 

But all these actual nuclear scare events could have been avoided by minimal apolitical safeguarding.

[petersj]

Of course they will still be buying houses in St Kilda. People bought houses in Pompei humdreds of years ago and the were ALWAYS rumousthat Vesuvius would erupt. P buy in San Franisco too despite claims another earth quake is coming.

What is your point?

I am guessing you still dont believe in science so please install some asbestos and ake up smoking.

[Aloysius]

Their are those who believe in science and then there are those who only belive the science they beleive in - it's all a matter of faith baby