Nuclear power coming soon to Qld perhaps...

mick_dundee · Post by **mick_dundee** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:33 pm

Canberra-based think tank, the Australia Institute, has identified six Queensland locations as possible nuclear power plant sites.

Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, the Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island have been named in the institute's final list of 17 possible sites around Australia.

Deputy director of the left-wing institute Andrew McIntosh says the sites all met four primary criteria.

"First one was sites near the national electricity market or electricity grid," he said.

"The second was near centre of demand, the third one was near transport infrastructure and the final one was near the coast, because you need water or you need sea water for cooling purposes."

But research by the institute suggests two-thirds of Australians are opposed to having a nuclear power plant in their local area.

Their paper found 50 per cent of people are against having nuclear power plants in Australia, but opposition increases when people consider the prospect of a plant built in their neighbourhood.

Mr McIntosh says opposition is highest in middle income households and among women.

"One of the real blockages to nuclear power being an option is the extent of opposition to it," he said.

"But it's mainly because we need to solve climate change rapidly and with this amount of opposition you're just not going to get there.

"It's going to take you two decades to get anywhere near the position where you're going to be ready to establish a large scale nuclear power industry."

javaman · Post by **javaman** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:36 pm

Good. keep em off victoria

I rather see apocalyptic green house emmission

...let's wait the feb 2nd report

maybe I'll put my racing can on again

J.B · Post by **J.B** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:43 pm

I still don't under stand why people are so nuclear/radiation phobic

Woody69 · Post by **Woody69** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:57 pm

The Government will just force it on the Population, The same as the Recycled water, Weather anyone wants it or not will be Irrelevant !

Woody

Daisy · Post by **Daisy** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:07 pm

J.B wrote:I still don't under stand why people are so nuclear/radiation phobic

Hiroshima, Chernobyl ... 3 Mile Island ...

J.B · Post by **J.B** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:30 pm

Daisy wrote:
J.B wrote:I still don't under stand why people are so nuclear/radiation phobic
Hiroshima, Chernobyl ... 3 Mile Island ...

did u watch the doco on chernobyl on sbs on Jan 7 ?

Duane · Post by **Duane** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:30 pm

Daisy wrote:
J.B wrote:I still don't under stand why people are so nuclear/radiation phobic
Hiroshima, Chernobyl ... 3 Mile Island ...

Just look at frankston, redfern, & canberra - they'd improve with a nuclear power station!!!

MickLC · Post by **MickLC** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:35 pm

Duane wrote:
Daisy wrote:
J.B wrote:I still don't under stand why people are so nuclear/radiation phobic
Hiroshima, Chernobyl ... 3 Mile Island ...
Just look at frankston, redfern, & canberra - they'd improve with a nuclear power station!!!

You missed the important criteria of water...Canberra doesn't have any water

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:02 pm

J.B wrote:I still don't under stand why people are so nuclear/radiation phobic

Possibly because it will cost us billions, and at most be good for only around 70 years or less.

But I really think it is a non-issue...

javaman · Post by **javaman** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:05 pm

Hiroshima was not a power station LOL ...

J.B · Post by **J.B** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:28 pm

Felix wrote: Possibly because it will cost us billions, and at most be good for only around 70 years or less.

But I really think it is a non-issue...

This is true for the current usage and currently known supply, but the expected supply (given in a report from the IAEA/NEA) suggests 200 years supply at the current usage. Not to mention a different style of reactor could yield a 60-fold increase in the amount of energy extracted from the uranium.

And what will the cost of relying of coal for the next 70 years be?

Daisy · Post by **Daisy** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:46 pm

javaman wrote:Hiroshima was not a power station LOL ...

He asked why they are radiation phobic...

It doesn't need to be a power station. People are quite rightly afraid of the consequences of this radiation being unleashed on them - be it by accident or design. This includes the radiation from the waste - for which nobody has yet found a safe method of disposal.

J.B · Post by **J.B** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:58 pm

the radiation from a nuclear meltdown cannot be compared to that of a nuclear weapon. There is a reason they are called dirty bombs.

Daisy · Post by **Daisy** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:53 pm

The average Joe in the street cannot differentiate. To him, radiation is a bad thing. It is very similar to the recycled water debate, in that most arguments against are emotive, not scientific.

mrmina · Post by **mrmina** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:01 pm

Daisy wrote:
J.B wrote:I still don't under stand why people are so nuclear/radiation phobic
Hiroshima, Chernobyl ... 3 Mile Island ...

u have 1000 times more chance of being killed in a car accident than being effected by explosion of a nuclear reactor.

maybe u watch too much tv. also lets not forget that these were the start days of nuclear technology. These days i believe it works well with may saftey precautions in place. i dont think we will see another chernobyl.

the world needs to move to cleaner energy. coal will keep farking up the earth. Wind energy would be ideal but god damn hippies oppose wind farms.

The positives outweigh the negatives on the nuclear debate.