Nuclear power is the answer - Liberals

[pakistani_dalek]

Nuclear power is the answer - Liberals

By Cathy Alexander
August 19, 2008 06:31pm

THE Liberals have reignited the nuclear debate, with a frontbencher saying Australia must have nuclear power if it is to slash greenhouse gas emissions.

But the government has vehemently rejected the push and says people do not want nuclear power plants in their suburbs.

Liberal frontbencher Ian Macfarlane opened the latest round of the radioactive debate when he talked up "yellowcake'' in a speech.

"It's a black and white answer. Or should I say a black, green and yellow answer,'' he said in the speech, to be delivered in Brisbane tonight.

"Clean coal, renewables and yellowcake - we must include nuclear in our future baseload clean energy mix.''

Mr Macfarlane, who was resources minister in the Howard government, said it was an "inconvenient truth'' that only nuclear power could provide baseload electricity while cutting emissions.

He dismissed fears of a Chernobyl-type disaster, saying that "burying mere tonnes of radioactive waste in geological stable rock'' was low-risk.

In his speech to the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Mr Macfarlane said Australia should make full use of its generous uranium reserves."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24 ... 21,00.html
---------------------------->>>>>>>
So here we go again..I think eventually Rudd will go down the Nuclear path..
Convenience, proven effectiveness and perhaps the cheapest option will most likely be the reasons.

Cost will win out over clean and green..

[boxy]

Nuclear is clean and green, compared to any other power source that is viable in the medium term future. Solar, wind, geothermal... wave power... they just don't cut the mustard, I'm afraid.

[JW Frogen]

Nuclear is clean and green, compared to any other power source that is viable in the medium term future. Solar, wind, geothermal... wave power... they just don't cut the mustard, I'm afraid.

And nuclear is mean and lean, just ask Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Japan may have asked for it, but should we?

[skippy]

Nuclear is clean and green, compared to any other power source that is viable in the medium term future. Solar, wind, geothermal... wave power... they just don't cut the mustard, I'm afraid.

Says who? are you an expert on power sources? you are wrong.
The line that nuclear is the answer becouse the others dont stack up is pushed by those usually of the right whinge becouse they have somthing to gain or worse still have no idea and just spew the lines becouse the Libs and the former PM thought it a good idea.
All of these things are not just viable but much more practical and safer than nukes.
I know solar works ,I live on it, I know wind and hydro work as well as I know people living like this, do you?

[freediver]

Nuclear is clean and green, compared to any other power source that is viable in the medium term future. Solar, wind, geothermal... wave power... they just don't cut the mustard, I'm afraid.

What's wrong with geothermal boxy?

[boxy]

It's an emerging technology, which will take decades to perfect (perhaps a century, who knows?). Wind and solar, can do their part, but are only scratching the surface, despite turbines being erected as fast as they possibly can already. Nuclear is a well known technology, that has been proven to be able to produce the power needed to actually start scrapping coal fired stations, rather than just keeping up with the increases in demand that is continuing.

[pakistani_dalek]

It's an emerging technology, which will take decades to perfect (perhaps a century, who knows?). Wind and solar, can do their part, but are only scratching the surface, despite turbines being erected as fast as they possibly can already. Nuclear is a well known technology, that has been proven to be able to produce the power needed to actually start scrapping coal fired stations, rather than just keeping up with the increases in demand that is continuing.

This is true of most of the alternatives at present..to get them to a point where thay can actually takeover from coal etc..its going to take a long time...

Thats why I think Rudd will eventually have to go to Nuclear to meet his set targets.

[freediver]

It's an emerging technology, which will take decades to perfect (perhaps a century, who knows?).

The only thing holding it back is that coal is so cheap. Even that is changing. If we put the same money into it that would be needed for nuclear, it would be up and running in a few years.

despite turbines being erected as fast as they possibly can already

You mean as fast as the economic conditions dictate? There is no technical limit on how rapidly we can erect turbines.

than just keeping up with the increases in demand that is continuing

Keeping up with demand would be a good start. We are currently doing that wiht more coal fired stations. Demand side control would be even better, from an economic perspective.

[pakistani_dalek]

http://www.freeyabb.com/australianpolit ... alianpolit

[Deathridesahorse]

Nuclear is clean and green, compared to any other power source that is viable in the medium term future. Solar, wind, geothermal... wave power... they just don't cut the mustard, I'm afraid.

?