It's a complicated issue and I wouldn't have a clue. Naturally, we are all worried about our electricity bills. Why are we keeping coal fired power stations, why not go nuclear, England has done it quite successfully and we export uranium all over the world so what's wrong with it? Is there anyone out there who knows about this complex issue? What about the tax on carbon? It's a flipping nightmare!



First is to relax. There still is no definite global warming plan. The climate is always changing. Coal can be used with little filth getting into the atmosphere. some plants collect even the CO2 as well as mercury, ash, etc., and it is quite cheap compared to nuclear. What are you going to do with that 1,000 year danger with the nuclear waste?



The carbon tax will only cause the expenses of living go up and will do nothing to clean up the air. Wind mills and solar cells are just not up to maintaining a constant and dependable power source. Carbon taxes are nothing more than a power grab for the politicians. Another way of making all people poor so the government can pretend to take care of them and make the people vote their way.



The worlds biggest liar is making millions each year selling carbon credits. What will carbon credits do to clean up the environment? Nothing, it just makes it possible for dirty plants to buy credits from clean plants with out having to clean up one bit.



Time to relax and just enjoy the many ways nature turns itself. We have trouble understanding the past and absolutely lousy means of predicting.

.

Hi Bob, lots to learn about this subject but I have a feeling that nuclear power will be the way to go for the future but as you say, the waste is going to be a big problem.



It seems our waste from the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney is currently sent to France for reprocessing but the issue about what to do with the residue when it returns six years later remains.



There's a legal challenge going on about the government's plan to establish a national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory on Muckaty Station, north of Tennant Creek. The traditional owners are screaming and I don't blame them, who'd want a live on a radio-active dump? It seems the government signed a deal with some traditional owners for the land before it was properly talked through so it's going to court.



So there will be lots of problems for countries about where to put the dumps. In the UK, the councils have to get permission from all the ratepayers before they put their town/city forward to house a dump facility. It's going to take England another 30 more years to build a repository deep underground to store their waste from decades of nuclear power plant operation and production of nuclear missiles. Scientists hope that the construction of deep underground caverns can be started in 2025, with the first consignments of waste to be buried there in 2040.

Everyone freaks out at the word nuclear but I think it's got to be the logical way to go, but if it gets out into the atmosphere, we're all dead ducks.

I agree with Bob on this, the climate has been changing since time began--and will continue to do so--we should take better care of it but I agree that carbon credits are a money making rort.



Nulclear worries me as to the waste.

climate change all bull s..t



jessej

Yes I tend to agree Jessei

This is the Greens policy on nuclear power, we are all going to have to decide which way to go in the future, even though we will all have probably dropped off the perch by then. I know it's a moral issue but one that ultimately must be made. I just can't see wind turbines and solar energy filling the gap efficiently so I see nuclear as the only answer otherwise the lights are going to go out.



The Greens want -

No nuclear power

No uranium mining

No uranium export

No nuclear weapons No nuclear power, weapons or mining. Future generations must not be burdened with toxic nuclear waste for which there is no safe disposal.

The Cattenom Nuclear Power Plant in France produces 77% of its electricity by nuclear power. Have a look at the world map and see who already has it and the proposed construction of more nuclear power plants. Little old Oz is still a virgin and I can understand that many people want to keep it that way.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country

This is the Greens policy on nuclear power, we are all going to have to decide which way to go in the future, even though we will all have probably dropped off the perch by then. I know it's a moral issue but one that ultimately must be made. I just can't see wind turbines and solar energy filling the gap efficiently so I see nuclear as the only answer otherwise the lights are going to go out.



The Greens want -

No nuclear power

No uranium mining

No uranium export

No nuclear weapons No nuclear power, weapons or mining. Future generations must not be burdened with toxic nuclear waste for which there is no safe disposal.



In my opinion, these folks in this world that refuse to accept oil, coal, natural gas, or other available and useful fuels are just not realist. Nuclear is something the US once was using and expanding but since we had a couple bad events there is much resistance to building more. I once lived just thirty miles from a nuclear plant that was constantly getting radical and needing shut down. Eventually, after a couple years of use, it was decommissioned and was replaced with natural gas.



A real big cavern was dug in Nevada to store our waste materials. Then just as it was supposed to be used, it was closed. Just a year or so ago. More money wasted.



I hope we keep our coal, oil, natural gas, and other available fuels going for as long as they last. By then there might really be some reliable alternative ways to keep our lives comfortable, safe, and most important, cheap enough for all to use effectively.

.

I am not for Nuclear either too many bad accidents and no answers for waste

Bob you obviously didn't look at the world map, look at north America, the latest figures say you have over 100 nuclear reactions and the UK has 67.

Bob you obviously didn't look at the world map, look at north America, the latest figures say you have over 100 nuclear reactions and the UK has 67.



So look at how old most of them are. It has been several years now since the big accidents and I don't believe there have been any built recently. The shut down near where I once lived has been probably 15 years ago. Maybe more, maybe less, I just do not intend to waste my time looking. UK is just a small spot compared to the US. So maybe UK has proportionately more units than the US.



The current government is trying to get enough interest to start more but there is strong resistance.



In the past they were mostly built by private companies in the US. But now they are so expensive to build and run I don't think many companies really want to take a chance. So should the government attempt to run failing businesses when there are many much cheaper options available?

.

What do you do with your nuclear waste Bob, do you do what we do and sent it to France?

Two years have gone by since these figures, your waste has got to be going somewhere.



As of 2008 Nuclear power in the United States is provided by 104 (69 pressurised water reactors and 35 boiling water reactors) commercial nuclear power plants licensed to operate, producing a total of 806.2 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, which was 19.6% of the nation's total electric energy consumption in 2008. The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States

It's a complicated issue and I wouldn't have a clue. Naturally, we are all worried about our electricity bills. Why are we keeping coal fired power stations, why not go nuclear, [b]England has done it quite successfully[/b] and we export uranium all over the world so what's wrong with it? Is there anyone out there who knows about this complex issue? What about the tax on carbon? It's a flipping nightmare!



Read this google page and its reports on the various accidents with Nuclear Power Stations all over the world and in England too as well as Japan and dont forget Chernobyl which is still a worry as its concrete tomb is cracking up and the area around is still contaminated for thousands of years.



[url=http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client;=firefox-a&hs;=IAs&rls;=org.mozilla:en-US:official&&sa;=X&ei;=FXNKTMHZDseXcayQldEM&ved;=0CBQQvwUoAQ&q;=Nuclear+Power+Stations+UK+accidents&spell;=1]google-nuclear-power-stn-accidents[/url]



I for one do not want to live near any Nuclear Power Stations and they take years to build and we are not yet ready for these as the accidents and melt downs show - like asbestos we failed and all we get is 'its inevitable' well it aint! Like the Republic! Like AGW and Copenhagen! - all we were told were inevitable -

all failed to be.



Also AGW or global warming is still an unproven idea since they discovered that it was all based on data which was flawed and left out weather stations over the Russian and Siberian areas and even NASA admits their data was flawed - so why is there no inquiry?

Because they're all ashamed of the scam they tried to play and are still trying to on all of us via ripping us off for energy and someone always profits and it aint us!



Julia Gillard cannot go ahead with an ETS so is trying on this idea of doing nothing for the next 3 years.



(now lookee here that is of course the actual length of the next term of government of which she hopes to be elected as PM)



So she is feeding the mushrooms with bullshit of having a 100 or 200 random people off the electoral role to discuss in committee

(that beloved diversion of Labor who consult, then call for a committee, whose result is then put to another consultant, whose result will call for a committee and that will call for a discussion and nothing will be done because by that time it is a dead duck which it was anyway but they wanted the mushrooms to think well not to think as they don't do that much rofl... - just accept something is being done and vote Labor)



Oh and if you believe random - I have a really nice bridge going cheap so email me with your bank details and I will send you a sample piece



Shades of Summit for ideas - just following the Leader Rudd down the same path to more debt deficits and high interest rates and with 3 ore years then yes the usual thing under Labor/Democrat type governments.



Recession.