Politics Should Australia go nuclear?

[Maddhew]

i really dont think so.

then give up....

 

[not a warmonger]

then give up....

cc is already here. just a question of how bad itvcan get andvthe ability to take action quickly. Either we die or capitalism dies.

 

[little graham]

Pro-nukers used to talk wistfully about the French nuclear program. Indeed, the plant under construction at Flamanville was to be the flagship of the new nuclear industry.But construction costs have tripled, it’s already five years behind schedule and just recently flaws were discovered that – about $8 billion later – may cause them to abandon the project completely. They don’t talk about the French as much these days.

New nuclear plant estimates are on the order of $12 billion to $24 billion. Construction cost overruns are typically on the order of 209 to 381 percent. The excess costs to Maine taxpayers for another nuclear plant would make the $16 million cost of the Cate Street scandal look like lunch money.

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/05/...heaper-safer-and-faster-than-nuclear-options/

 

[ydraw]

your mate abbott just had a carbon auction handing out tax payer money to polluters for VOLUNTARY CUTS. this is capitalism.?

Not really, no.

 

[not a warmonger]

Not really, no.

then why do the rest of us have to put up with captalism??

 

[ydraw]

then why do the rest of us have to put up with captalism??

You don't. There's no law stopping you from creating a voluntary socialist community. Go for it.

 

[not a warmonger]

You don't. There's no law stopping you from creating a voluntary socialist community. Go for it.

why do the rich have socialism? Its not fair

 

[Todman]

why do the rich have socialism? Its not fair

 

[ydraw]

why do the rich have socialism? Its not fair

??????

 

[not a warmonger]

I would rathe

??????

socialise the losses privatise the profits Todman??

 

[Power Raid]

September 4, 2015

Japan's Kyushu Electric Eyes First [Half-Year] Profit in 5 Years with Nuclear Restart

Japan's Kyushu Electric Power said on Friday it expect to report its first interim net profit in five years, helped by the restart of nuclear power production and a decline in energy input prices that cut costs at fossil fuel-fired plants. Kyushu Electric said in a statement it expected a net profit of ¥45 billion (US$376 million) for the six months ending September 30, compared with a net loss of ¥35.9 billion yen in the same period a year ago. The company restarted the 890 MWe No.1 reactor at its Sendai nuclear plant on August 11, the first attempt to reboot Japan's nuclear industry in nearly two years after the sector was shut down in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster. It has been operating at full capacity since August 31.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/09/04/japan-kyushu-electric-idUKL4N11A1N520150904

 

[Power Raid]

September 6, 2015

UK: David Cameron Gives Go Ahead to Build Chinese Nuclear Reactor in ESSEX

David Cameron is poised to sign a landmark deal next month to allow China to build a prototype nuclear reactor in Bradwell, Essex, which would become the first Chinese-operated facility in the West. The deal, part of a wide-ranging civil nuclear pact between Great Britain, France, and China, may be sealed in October during the Chinese president's state visit. The plant is the price Beijing wants in return for its agreement to help pay for two new plants to be built by France's EDF Energy—one at Hinkley Point in Somerset and the other at Sizewell, Suffolk.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/603390/China-nuclear-reactor-Essex-nuclear-power

 

[Power Raid]

the good and the bad


September 5, 2015

Evacuation Order Lifted Completely for Town of Naraha near Wrecked Fukushima Plant

The town of Naraha in Fukushima Prefecture celebrated Saturday, following the midnight lifting of the government’s evacuation order 4.5 years after the eruption of the March 2011 nuclear disaster. Naraha became the first of seven radiation-tainted municipalities in the prefecture to be entirely cleared for repopulation since the triple-reactor meltdown following the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami. “The clock that was stopped has now begun to tick,” Naraha Mayor Yukiei Matsumoto said at a ceremony held to promote the early return of local residents as well as the reconstruction of their hometown.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/09/05/national/japan-to-lift-evacuation-order-for-fukushima-town-of-naraha/#.Ve5aMxFVikp



September 7, 2015

Tainted Water Flows into Sea for Sixth Time from Fukushima No. 1

Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) said rainwater contaminated with radioactive substances flowed Monday into the Pacific Ocean from the Fukushima No. 1 power plant through a drainage ditch. This is the sixth time that radioactive water has made its way into the sea from the plant, which was heavily damaged in the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami. TEPCO had raised the height of the weir in the ditch’s outlet from 70 cm to 85 cm, but it failed to prevent the latest outflow. It occurred between 2:55 a.m. and 4 a.m., according to TEPCO. The amount of outflow and the level of water contamination was unknown as of Monday evening.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/09/07/national/tainted-water-flows-sea-sixth-time-fukushima-no-1/#.Ve5a0xFViko

 

[Power Raid]

is this the renaissance? what a great time to be in South Australia if it is!


September 7, 2015

Saudi Arabia and Russia Agree Nuclear Energy Tie-Up

Russia and Saudi Arabia have signed an agreement to work together on “peaceful” nuclear energy projects, according to local media. [Saudi Arabia] intends to form a committee with Russia to implement mutually beneficial nuclear energy schemes, the Saudi Gazette reported, citing Arabic daily Al Watan. It quoted Nikolai Drozdov, international projects director at Rosatom State Nuclear Energy Corp., as saying: “We are interested in projects that will benefit Russia and Saudi Arabia. The agreement [with Saudi Arabia] includes expansion in the field of nuclear fuel, establishment of desalination plants, exploring the interdisciplinary fields of nuclear energy and other domains such as medicine and agriculture and training sessions between the two countries.”

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-russia-agree-nuclear-energy-tie-up-605211.html



September 8, 2015

Australia’s Proposed India Uranium Deal Given Cautious Green Light Despite ‘Risks’

The [Australian] government-dominated treaties committee has given a cautious green light to a proposed uranium deal with India, but only if the nuclear-armed nation agrees to a number of safeguards. India is not a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty nor the comprehensive test ban treaty, yet the emerging world leader is in dire need of energy. As such, the committee report notes that: “It would be fair to say that, in this debate, there are no small risks or benefits. Every issue the committee has dealt with in this inquiry bears significant potential benefits and risks. “The question for the committee is, then, given the benefits for Australia and India from the proposed agreement, can the risks be tolerated and ameliorated,” the report asked.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/sep/08/australias-proposed-india-uranium-deal-given-cautious-green-light-despite-risks


September 8, 2015

Mid-Term Prices on the Rise

Uranium spot market activity is on the rise, industry consultant TradeTech reports. Last week saw seven transactions concluded totaling 1.1 million pounds U3O8 equivalent. Traders accounted for the majority of the buying, with intermediaries and producers on the sell-side. Demand in term markets is robust, TradeTech reports, although the concentration is in the mid-term delivery period. Longer term demand is less dominant at this time. TradeTech’s Mid-Term U3O8 Price Indicator rose $1.75 to $40.00 per pound U3O8 on August 31, 2015, while the Long-Term Price Indicator dropped $1.00 to $44.00 per pound U3O8.

http://www.fnarena.com/index2.cfm?type=dsp_newsitem&n=77704F4F-AFC1-03DB-6DFC24AFC76E6DF5

 

[black28]

Yes

 

[little graham]

Evidence given to royal commision last week into nuclear energy clear stated reknewables are much cheaper and quicker, as well as safer than nuclear. The royal commission was told, there's no need for nuclear power.

What looks like happenning is SA will process al the waste from the products it exports. Which is the moral thing to do. The right thing is not sell anymore uranium until a solution to the world wide plague of radioactive waste is fixed.

 

[Power Raid]

Evidence given to royal commision last week into nuclear energy clear stated reknewables are much cheaper and quicker, as well as safer than nuclear. The royal commission was told, there's no need for nuclear power.

What looks like happenning is SA will process al the waste from the products it exports. Which is the moral thing to do. The right thing is not sell anymore uranium until a solution to the world wide plague of radioactive waste is fixed.

evidenced by china and the rest of the world rolling out a fleet of nuclear power plants never seen in the history of man kind......and they are doing this because despite renewables being much cheaper and quicker as well as safer? well actually let's stop and analyse each of those statements and back that up with facts.

Nuclear is safer, nuclear is cheaper, nuclear is more reliable, nuclear provides base power, nuclear generates the amount of power required for the electric car. I'm not sure quicker is a sensible measure but yes, you can install a solar panel in a day.

I have little doubt renewables will provide an important solution within the energy mix but so too will nuclear. They are very different and thus form potential solutions to each jurisdictions needs.

 

[Papa G]

Evidence given to royal commision last week into nuclear energy clear stated reknewables are much cheaper and quicker, as well as safer than nuclear. The royal commission was told, there's no need for nuclear power.

What looks like happenning is SA will process al the waste from the products it exports. Which is the moral thing to do. The right thing is not sell anymore uranium until a solution to the world wide plague of radioactive waste is fixed.

Was this "evidence" given by the pro renewables lobby by any chance?

 

[Power Raid]

looks like SA is in the box seat

http://www.mining.com/web/thomas-dr...eficit-and-shares-three-ways-to-profit-by-it/

 

[JHF1870]

evidenced by china and the rest of the world rolling out a fleet of nuclear power plants never seen in the history of man kind......and they are doing this because despite renewables being much cheaper and quicker as well as safer? well actually let's stop and analyse each of those statements and back that up with facts.

Nuclear is safer, nuclear is cheaper, nuclear is more reliable, nuclear provides base power, nuclear generates the amount of power required for the electric car. I'm not sure quicker is a sensible measure but yes, you can install a solar panel in a day.

I have little doubt renewables will provide an important solution within the energy mix but so too will nuclear. They are very different and thus form potential solutions to each jurisdictions needs.

Safer? And where are your references? Those other points are likely correct.

Sent from my SM-P605 using Tapatalk

 

[Power Raid]

Safer? And where are your references? Those other points are likely correct.

Sent from my SM-P605 using Tapatalk

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

 

[JHF1870]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Thanks for the reference, however I have seen several if not dozens of articles highlighting the opposite. See what that article has done, and you, is to use part factual information to state that nuclear is safer than wind or solar energy. You define "safe" as deaths, but we know that safety also includes health and well being, so this information is flawed. Furthermore the radiation; both from power plants and nuclear waste has a greater negative effect (general assumption) on health and well being. Did you include the people with long term health effects from Chernobyl and Fukoshima? Do you think those people with radiation poisoning consider nuclear to be safe?

 

[Power Raid]

Thanks for the reference, however I have seen several if not dozens of articles highlighting the opposite. See what that article has done, and you, is to use part factual information to state that nuclear is safer than wind or solar energy. You define "safe" as deaths, but we know that safety also includes health and well being, so this information is flawed. Furthermore the radiation; both from power plants and nuclear waste has a greater negative effect (general assumption) on health and well being. Did you include the people with long term health effects from Chernobyl and Fukoshima? Do you think those people with radiation poisoning consider nuclear to be safe?

yes and those same numbers were good enough for greenpeace, so they are good enough for me

 

[Play by Numbers]

yes and those same numbers were good enough for greenpeace, so they are good enough for me

Since when is nuclear cheaper? It is easily one of the most expensive and is the most heavily subsidised form of power. In the US, it has been argued that combined public investment in nuclear may outstrip revenue from power generated.

When people talk numbers, they often omit cost of insurance (full coverage is not provided by insurers, so the state often enters third party agreements with operators), security by the state and waste disposal, which can be several times larger than outlay, the supply chain for fuel and maintenance.

The costs of solar are approaching coal, depending on technology.

Likewise, that random blog post you quoted is horridly slanted. It spends paragraphs discussing broader dangers of working in building and construction, ignoring that a) these plants need to be built, b) that sourcing uranium requires mining, c) the discussion is largely unrelated and then tries to play down the wider health impacts associated with accidents at nuclear plants.

Why not argue honestly and on merit, why are you so dishonest?

 

[Power Raid]

Since when is nuclear cheaper? It is easily one of the most expensive and is the most heavily subsidised form of power. In the US, it has been argued that combined public investment in nuclear may outstrip revenue from power generated.

When people talk numbers, they often omit cost of insurance (full coverage is not provided by insurers, so the state often enters third party agreements with operators), security by the state and waste disposal, which can be several times larger than outlay, the supply chain for fuel and maintenance.

The costs of solar are approaching coal, depending on technology.

Likewise, that random blog post you quoted is horridly slanted. It spends paragraphs discussing broader dangers of working in building and construction, ignoring that a) these plants need to be built, b) that sourcing uranium requires mining, c) the discussion is largely unrelated and then tries to play down the wider health impacts associated with accidents at nuclear plants.

Why not argue honestly and on merit, why are you so dishonest?

I can only quote the stats and numbers

I can't help it if the facts don't reflect your views