 Notice. New forum software under development. It's going to miss a few functions and look a bit ugly for a while, but I'm working on it full time now as the old forum was too unstable. Couple days, all good. If you notice any issues, please contact me. |
Forum Index : Solar : nuclear power might be coming
| Author | Message | ||||
| dwyer Guru  Joined: 19/09/2005 Location: AustraliaPosts: 574 |
No Way and what a shame 
Ziggy predicts nuclear power in 20 yearsBy Norrie Ross May 12, 2007 12:00am VICTORIA will have its first nuclear power station in 20 years, the head of the Federal Government's nuclear taskforce has predicted. Dr Ziggy Switkowski said eight nuclear power stations would be built in the state by the middle of the century. But Dr Switkowski said he believed a framework for carbon emissions trading would come first from the debate over climate change. "I think the decision to go nuclear can be made in the next few years and then you add 15 before you see the first reactors," he said yesterday. "We'll have eight in Victoria by 2050." Speaking to Rotarians at Sandown Racecourse Dr Switkowski said he could not predict the outcome of the Government's emissions trading taskforce. But he said carbon trading was a more pressing problem if deciding to go nuclear. "I know from an industry point of view that they are encouraging the development of a framework (carbon trading) in order to establish certainty in the rules," he said. Dr Switkowski told his audience Australia was such a small contributor to global warming that nothing we did would affect climate change. And the nuclear move would become viable only when a price was put on carbon emissions. He said putting a cost on emissions would also make alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power more viable. 
Dwyer the bushman |
||||
Storm Regular Member  Joined: 12/09/2005 Location: AustraliaPosts: 43 |
Easy money and better books for the gov't, eventually it will run out too... what then? move planet? |
||||
| dwyer Guru Joined: 19/09/2005 Location: AustraliaPosts: 574 |
Hi Everyone I have just finish reading News about little johhny Howard tells business to build reactors wherever it likes NEWS.com.au Network Mr Howard tells business to build reactors wherever it likes 118 Comments | 0 Trackbacks | Permalink Blogocracy Blog By Tim Dunlop Friday, August 17, 2007 at 10:00am John Howard made a stunning revelation on Thursday in answer to Labor requests for a plebiscite on where his proposed nuclear reactors will be built. Labor argued that if he is willing to pay for people in Queensland to vote on whether they want council amalgamations, surely he would be willing to pay for them to vote on whether they wanted a nuclear reactor in their electorate. He not only refused to fund plebiscites, he seemed to suggest that the government would not to seek to regulate the building of nuclear power plants: With a Government report suggesting that up to 25 nuclear reactors would be needed around the country, Labor called on Mr Howard to let voters know which sites were being planned before the federal election. But Mr Howard said the decision was not up to the Government. “We are not as a government going to indicate that a nuclear power station goes there or there or there,” Mr Howard told parliament. “Decisions as to where nuclear power plants might be located in the future will not be decisions of the Government. It will be decisions of commercial investors. The notion that some business will just be able to “decide” to build a nuclear reactor somewhere without first passing through a Federal Government approval process is, um, highly unlikely. Thus the idea that the location of nuclear reactors is entirely a matter for the market, as Mr Howard claimed in parliament yesterday, is, therfeore, um, highly deceptive. To get some idea of the process that could be involved in building the reactors, you only have to look at the guidelines the US government sets out. Rob Merkel (of View from Benambra) emailed me the relevant links: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/clinton.html http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/s r1844/ http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/s r1815/ So presumably Australia will have some equivalent to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Let’s hope so, because the idea of letting the market decide where the reactors go doesn’t bear thinking about. In the US, the NRC describes its role in these terms: What We Regulate NRC regulates the construction and operation of new commercial nuclear power facilities. The NRC is responsible for issuing standard design certifications, early site permits, construction permits, operating licenses, and combined licenses for commercial nuclear power facilities. How We Regulate NRC regulates reactor siting, construction, and operation through a combination of regulatory requirements, licensing, and oversight, including inspection. NRC considers the current regulatory infrastructure adequate to support new licensing. However, NRC is making minor revisions to the infrastructure to make new licensing reviews more effective and efficient and to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on future applicants. And yet, here is what Mr Howard said in parliament yesterday (pdf): We, as a government, are not going to indicate that a nuclear power station will go in one location or another. The Labor Party has spent all of this year trying to kid the Australian public that it believes in the market. If it really believes in the market, it must understand that decisions as to where nuclear power plants might be located in the future will not be decisions of the government; they will be decisions of commercial investment. Therefore, whether they are located in the magnificent Municipality of Randwick, the Shire of Shoalhaven, the Municipality of Waverley, the City of Ryde or, indeed, wherever you might go, it will be a matter of commercial decision making and not a decision of the government. Is he serious? The Federal Government is going to have no say in where a nuclear reactor might be built? It is all going to be down to commercial operators with no regulatory oversight? For nuclear reactors? Well, now you know. And who knew the US government didn’t believe in the market? Have Your SayYour Comments Show Oldest | Newest first Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 > Last » Bloody Hell, Tim. I had to get a couyncil permit to build a shed in my backyard-and that process took several months! Should I, perhaps, have just plonked a nuclear reactor on the backlawn instead? I’m sure I could have built it big enough to store the lawn mower and the wheelbarrow. Dean of MelbourneFri 17 Aug 07 (10:47am) PRIME Minister John Howard has labelled as irresponsible so-called sub-prime mortgages, which have sparked falls on world share markets. But John, it’s the Market and we don’t want to interfere in the Market. Cause Worhchoices isn’t interference in the Market. Nor is tax premiums on uninsured health, interference in the Market. Nor is Tasmanian Hospitals intereference in the Market. Nor is ...... jo of queanbeyanFri 17 Aug 07 (10:54am) The Liberals are most definitely in the camp of big business....JWH time and time again has put the interests of capitalists in front of the average working person.Nuclear power generation is most definitely big business.Who wants a nuclear reactor next door and more to the point will protestors be rounded up and treated like potential terrorists.you know just disappear for a fortnight,your family not knowing anything...just gone...wonderful world the small minority of the right wing elite have given the rest of us. paul Fri 17 Aug 07 (10:58am) Will the government have a say in the location of the international nuclear waste dump the Libs have agreed to build or will that be a matter for business to decide as well? After the government shifts the aborigines off their land via the indigenous children wedge, there will be plenty of land outback to choose from. But what if the transportation costs are too high and business, being the utility maximisers they are, say it would be much cheaper to store the stuff just off the highway near a major port. They would save on all that fuel and depreciation of trucks. It should be a Northern port too since it costs too much to sail to Perth or Adelaide. I reckon one adjacent to Darwin and one near Townsville will do the trick. Maybe even one at Rockhampton. Howard and Costello won’t mind that, they are Southerners. Cripes Ahoy! cripes ahoy! Fri 17 Aug 07 (11:10am) JHo should be careful on this one otherwise this could be his next global warming political blunder. In this case, I think he’s going to seriously underestimate the power of the NIMBY syndrome and this could backfire on him. Something as serious as nuclear power stations needs government regulation. Heck, the most liberal market economy in the world even has their nuclear industry regulated! One of the most infuriating things about JHo is his selective use of “government intervention”. He only sees it fit to intervene when it’s politically expedient. Obviously he’s in the pocket of some big business. Danielle of WAFri 17 Aug 07 (11:18am) This is yet another compelling reason to vote the despicable Howard out. Australia doesn’t need the nuclear option and the people are entitled to a say in this crucial issue. The fact he is prepared to sell yellow cake to India which has not signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty shows that he has nothing but contempt for our safety and that of the region.If there is a hell I hope a very dark recess is reserved for Howard.He has trashed our values for far too long and his just deserts are long overdue. Pollwatcher of BrisbaneFri 17 Aug 07 (11:18am) The world’s gone crazy! The market can never be allowed a free reign, it has no morals, ethics or humanity. To quote John Quiggin again “The right (at least in Australia and the US) has entered the kind of self-reinforcing pattern of disconnection from reality that long characterised the Marxist left.” kittylitter Fri 17 Aug 07 (11:22am) We knew he had contempt for the truth {never ever GST, children overboard, WMD, etc, etc), BUT, to have comtempt for democracy? And the gall to make it plain and clear. That makes me glow in the dark. Mr. Howards so out of touch , I reckon he will do a Meg to the Libs just like she did to the Democrats. Peters only opportunity of becomming PM is to roll Mr. Howard now, before the election, as the Libs will out of office for a generation after this, in my opinion. don Fri 17 Aug 07 (11:24am) If this is what he’s going to do with our uranium here, (build a reactor in RYde) I’d rather he sent it to India! OMG, is this man really thinking? I mean which “capital investor” will build a reactor in the isolated parts with all the infrastructure investment required, when they can sit next to their client base?? Please, please lets get his man and his team OUT now… I don’t care if Kevin doesn’t have policies ( which I highly doubt anyway) but at least he’s got brains which THIS moron clearly does not. lekhni of adelaideFri 17 Aug 07 (11:43am) This is just a cop-out to avoid telling us which of our communities are going to get their own Three Mile Islands. Of course the Government’s not going to let power suppliers build them where they bloody well like. As Dean of Melbourne points-out, you can’t even put a new dunny on your house without getting the appropriate permit. Imagine the regulation one of these things is going to attract. He’s just avoiding the question. Too clever and tricky. Evan Fri 17 Aug 07 (11:56am) I dont know, Tim - coming to this blog is at times akin to stepping into a parallel universe Now maybe I got it wrong (or maybe you did) But could it not be that in the context of the questions asked and the replies given that the message he was sending was that the decision to locate the reactors - if at all - would be a state and not a Federal issue??? Sure...he made reference to the commercial interests but, in the first instance that will be exactly the motives and impetus for a reactor. Then the process of application at a state level will surely commence Are you suggesting which you appear to be that the PM sees it as an unbridled commercial decison or perhaps he saw it as a commercial proposal that is not within the Feds control but rahter the States. And again wouldnt it behove you to find out before you just stir the pot for the sake of well...just a stir???? bob of qldFri 17 Aug 07 (11:58am) Wondered how long it would take for the apologists to try and pretend he didn’t say what he said. Predictable and amusing. And all the while insisting that it is others who are one-sided. Could you get much more lame? Look, he could’ve said whatever he wanted and made completely clear all the issues about regulation (you don’t seriously think that will happen at state level do you?). But he didn’t. He mocked Labor for not believing in the market and said categorically that the government would leave it up to business to decide where they would be located. He said, “it will be a matter of commercial decision making and not a decision of the government.” I just want to know if that is true or not. If location is an issue that will escape regulatory control—which is the very clear intent of what he said—he needs to offer a full explanation of how that will work, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect him to do so. Tim Dunlop Fri 17 Aug 07 (12:23pm) Has debate finished on having nuclear power in Australia? I don’t recall hearing about it, in fact I didn’t think it had properly started. Have the people had a say or are we waiting for the election to have our say? Re selling yellow ckae to India: John Howard siad he told the Indian PM that *Australia has decided* to sell it to them. I don’t recall agreeing to this, I don’t recall being given a choice in many of the policies Howard has pushed through. There is mention of it, a huge tome arrives to be decided on within twenty-four hours and then it is through, that is bad government. In fact it is not government at all it is dictatorship with a small tip of the hat to democracy. This government must go. Give them another term and Australia will turn into a full-on dictatorship, especially with the current Liberal front bench. The Nationals are melting further and further into their seats, like last week’s ice cream, too weak or witless to stand up for the people they were voted to protect from people like the John Howards of this world. Eyes Open of MelbourneFri 17 Aug 07 (11:59am) John Howard is doing exactly what his whacko neo-con mates - Cheney and Bush - have ordered him to do. Neo Con Glove Puppet of KirribilliFri 17 Aug 07 (12:01pm) We should ask those pesky councils & state governments to hold plebiscites as to where the little lying rodent & his federal government gang should be able to site their nuclear power stations. What’s good for the rat (council amalgamations) is just as good for the rest of us (nuclear power stations). Andy T of SydneyFri 17 Aug 07 (12:07pm) I am agape at this crazy stuff. I have been pondering JH’s state of mind over the last month or so, but given this nonsense, I have to conclude that he has lost the plot completely. Where is Arthur Sinodinos when his country needs him? Maybe Mr Utzon could be commissioned, at taxpayer’s expense in the marginal seat of Bennelong, to come up with an elegant reactor design to complement the Opera House, on the lawns of Kirribilli House! Crikey Whitey of Hove SAFri 17 Aug 07 (12:35pm) But Tim, you are misjudging me. I am not apologising for him But rather than running around like chooks with their heads lopped off flailing about, all I’m suggesting is a check of what really is going to be the methods used perhaps would be in order Now, maybe I’m wrong. But it would seem to me that the odds of the placement of a nuclear reactor on Aussie soil to be an unbridled, unfettered, uncontrolled, unsupervised and unregulated process simply at the beck and call of a corporate giant - with no state or federal input or oversight - is (I hope you agree) laughable beyond belief So clearly...CLEARLY....that isnt the case. And checking on it before one stirs the pot might have been a good thing. Particularly as the context of the questions being answered was somewhat tangential to the content but even that aside… bob of qldFri 17 Aug 07 (12:36pm) The context is perfectly clear. His comments are unequivocal, as even you now seem to accept. There are no headless chooks, just a reasonable reaction to what our PM told parliament, an institution he takes an oath not to mislead. Tim Dunlop Fri 17 Aug 07 (01:03pm) Tim Dunlop, excellent response to bob of qld. The assault on our democratic values and the total disregard Howard has shown towards our constitutions has reached a crisis. I believe the time is long overdue for Australia to have a Bill of Rights or a Human Rights Charter with teeth. This is more likely to gain traction if there is a change of government.Your thoughts? Pollwatcher of BrisbaneFri 17 Aug 07 (12:38pm) But could it not be that in the context of the questions asked and the replies given that the message he was sending was that the decision to locate the reactors - if at all - would be a state and not a Federal issue??? I have read the transcriptTim linked to and invite you to do the same. Howard says nothing about the States deciding where reactors will go, he says very clearly that is will be a matter of commercial decision making and not government. Either he meant it or he did not. Telling the truth or lying. With Howard, who can tell? michael of melbourneFri 17 Aug 07 (12:39pm) Hmmm, Ryde eh? If this map remains current, that’s smack bang in the middle of the electorate of Bennelong. Wonder what Howard’s voters will make of that when it comes to polling day? Lotharsson Fri 17 Aug 07 (12:44pm) Gee, what planet is bob of qld on? He seems to be the only one to have heard something entirely different in JH’s speech than everyone else. Maybe JH was sending subliminal messages and only bob of qld can hear what he’s REALLY saying. Interesting! col of sydFri 17 Aug 07 (12:53pm) Dont worry about Nuclear reactors in your backyard, I heard a rumour that Labour has developed a fantastic alternative. Its a special power plant that generates no pollution whatsoever, its very small, it takes up as muuch space as a loaf of bread and can provide unlimited baseload power for free and never runs out of energy. I hear Kevin Rudd himself developed the secret magic technology for it, he calls it a Krudd Reactor. Labour is just waiting to get elected before they’ll give one to every Australian family. Andrew of MelbourneFri 17 Aug 07 (12:57pm) They should feed KING RAT some yellow cake and even then he would not shine in the dark.Then export him to India then they will maybe make him a god that he thinks he is now.PERISH THE THOUGHT. I hear he prefers to be called SIRE instead of PM. Brasso of Ballina NSWFri 17 Aug 07 (01:02pm) Seems pretty clear what Howard meant: the utility companies will decide where they want to put the plants and the government will roll over for them. It’s their usual pattern, anyway. Greg of http://crosswords.blogspot.comFri 17 Aug 07 (01:02pm) Thats why he is clearing the land in the N.T. For the waste and he can charge for that too. Swamphagg of Gold CoastFri 17 Aug 07 (01:06pm) I doubt that anyone will fully realise except in hindsight the John Howard is simply being Prime Minister for corporate business and has always been. He has on the nuclear issue been evangelical for a few years and it is obvious his determination is to force a nuculear industry on to Australia regardless. His driving force is not the needs of Australia but the desires of global coropations who have always dominated him. It wont matter what Australians say - Howard will make you have nuclear powerstations regardless of the dangers, costs etc. It is not for you,it is for big business. Just as WorkChoices is a policy designe by and for business. How long I wonder will it take for media and Australians to understand these things? Mona of MelbourneFri 17 Aug 07 (01:07pm) Edited for length. Tim Dunlop Fri 17 Aug 07 (04:56pm) If Howard will not conduct plebiscites on this issue, then we just turn the election into one… just like it will be on WorkChoices. PS. Andrew - it’s Labor not Labour joni Fri 17 Aug 07 (01:11pm) Bob of Qld will take three whether he likes it or not jo of queanbayanFri 17 Aug 07 (01:14pm) I hope the SE Queenslanders who are getting their knickers in a knot over (gasp) amalgamating with a neighbourhood council are aware that Bribie Island has been identified as a site for a nuclear power station. Should look good right next to the golf course. From: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/01/353155.shtml January 30, 2007: Possible nuclear power sites tagged: Canberra-based think tank, the Australia Institute, has identified at least 19 potential locations for nuclear power plant sites. Two thirds of Australians oppose nuclear power plants in their local area according to new research by the Australia Institute. The finding is made in Who Wants a Nuclear Power Plant?, a paper analysing support for nuclear power in Australia by Institute Deputy Director Andrew Macintosh… “We can not have this debate without considering siting issues...” Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, the Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island have been named in the Australia Institute’s final list of possible sites around Australia. Deputy director of the left-wing institute Andrew McIntosh says the sites all met four primary criteria. Gabriella Fri 17 Aug 07 (01:15pm) Wondered how long it would take for the apologists to try and pretend he didn’t say what he said. Predictable and amusing. And all the while insisting that it is others who are one-sided. - Tim Dunlop Tim, you did notice that these apologists are conspicuous by their absence on the Uranium to India and How to Lie blogs - obviously at a loss for defence in the face of clear bloopers by their “idols” lekhni of adelaideFri 17 Aug 07 (01:15pm) Andrew of Melbourne, what a pathetic and sarcastic response. You are obviously ignorant concerning alternative clean technologies and are totally indifferent to the democratic principles and values of this country. Although I am not a member of the ALP, I believe the correct spelling is Labor. The inclusion of the u is incorrect when referring to the ALP. Pollwatcher of BrisbaneFri 17 Aug 07 (01:21pm) Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 > Last » Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide a name, you may use a screen name – this will be published with your comment, and a working email address – not for publication, but for verification. The suburb/location field is optional. ( Read our publication guidelines ). Submit your comments here: Screen Name:* Email Address:* Suburb/Location: Bold Italics Quote Link Close Tags Your Comments:* How to add a link: Enter the text you wish to be clickable, select it and click the 'Link' button to enter the link details in the popup box. Maximum of 2 links. * Required Fields Insert an emoticon Profile Tim Dunlop Rapid-fire commentary and discussion of politics, values and culture that doesn't suck. Advertisement Ads by GoogleThe Nuclear Debate Full Coverage of all the Nuclear Debate Issues. In Depth News. www.News.com.au/Nuclear-DebateNuclear Power Plants Nuclear News Wall Maps of Commercial Nuclear Power Plants www.ans.orgNuclear Free Australia Help ACF keep Australia nuclear free - become an EarthVoice www.acfonline.org.auLatest ArticlesArticle The wrong response to 911 13 The PM’s morning constitutional 35 Gypsy Lee Rudd 130 Weekend talkback 188 Mr Howard tells business to build reactors wherever it likes 118 Haneef transcripts 28 Some fairness test 48 Parties behaving badly 34 How to lie 45 Rudd housing plan attacked 25 Queensland local councils 47 Recently PopularArticle Not a terrorist, apparently 518 Kevin Andrews and the chamber of secrets 405 It’s WorkChoices or it’s the end of life as we know it... 310 People don’t like WorkChoices 302 Haneef case: still many unanswered questions 296 Newspoll open thread 279 Don’t blame me, I’m just the prime minister 240 Happy birthday, Happy Feet 214 Time for an election 195 Weekend talkback 190 Weekend talkback 188 Monthly ArchivesAugust 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 Most Recent CommentsSo Much For Subtlety says: HeatWaveDanger Sun 19 Aug 07 (03:25pm):"It’s a bit friggen scarey for a hot country like Australia… (Mon 20 Aug 07 at 09:36am) Pollwatcher says: Bruso of Grafton, well said. My sledge hammer is waiting. Let us hope there are many others. (Sun 19 Aug 07 at 10:06pm) Ian says: Given that it is 5-10 years before any decisions are likely to be made, if in fact they are… (Sun 19 Aug 07 at 08:59pm) spewing says: How quickly we forget. Does anyone remember Chenoble, in Russia? I remember the children that… (Sun 19 Aug 07 at 06:05pm) spewing says: Now guy’s don’t be to hard on Mr.HOWARD it’s his way of apoligising to India for the F---… (Sun 19 Aug 07 at 04:35pm) HeatWaveDanger says: Try this on for size, I just found it over at Slashdot.com. mdsolar writes “In a first… (Sun 19 Aug 07 at 03:25pm) Often Bark says: Bob of Queensland, you are just one big blast of fresh air on this blog. Here we all are wondering… (Sun 19 Aug 07 at 02:19pm) Subscribe Subscribe to receive the latest from Blogocracy What is this? BlogrollAndrew Leigh Antony Loewenstein Barista Bartlett Diaries Catallaxy Club Troppo Crazybrave Daily Dish Deltoid Eschaton Instapundit John Quiggin Larvatus Prodeo Normblog Oz Politics Blog Personal political Polemica Political Animal Poll Bludger RWDB Stoush Tim Blair View from Benambra War and Piece Whiskey Bar ToolsEmail a friend News.com.au Blogs Latest The Revolution Will Not Be Televised 0 BlackBerrys: love them or hate them? 5 The wrong response to 911 13 Have you visited a strip club? 169 The PM’s morning constitutional 35 Strippers - empowered proto-feminsts or victims of a patriarchal system? 5 Gypsy Lee Rudd 130 Most Commented Weekend talkback 188 Have you visited a strip club? 169 Gypsy Lee Rudd 130 Mr Howard tells business to build reactors wherever it likes 118 Some fairness test 48 The PM’s morning constitutional 35 Haneef transcripts 28 Reader Comments Eyes open says: Help with this people, did I read that even with 25 nuclear power stations Australia would only be able to... Mr Howard tells business to build reactors wherever it likes 118 Tomarn says: I have always referred to John Howard as a dictatorial ‘little ba****d’, and have been proven right time and time... The PM’s morning constitutional 35 From around the News Blog Network Latest Rudd digs deeper 4 Rudd critic sacked 7 The Top 24 - decision time 0 Sven’s revenge 0 Your home and workplace carbon neutral - Live blog 0 Parenting help - Live Blog 0 Don’t overlook CGT 0 Most Commented It’s a Rudd awakening 306 John Winston has a dream 223 Christian socialist found in strip bar 175 Sisterhood silence? 161 Rudd’s curious memory blank 143 If he wasn’t there, she wouldn’t be, either 88 Off the record, we’re on the fence 86 Reader Comments J. Hansford says: LoL… I don’t think Mr Steley thought that comment through very well. Perhaps he’ll do better second time round? Hmm... If he wasn’t there, she wouldn’t be, either 88 Sam says: Glenn, I am very glad the question was asked of you on Insiders yesterday whether or not it was hypocritical... To err is only human 37 Email a friend To email this article to a friend, fill in the form below Your Name:* Your Email:* Recipient's Email:* Subject: Message: Your friend has suggested you might be interested in this blog post: Mr Howard tells business to build reactors wherever it likes Friday, August 17, 2007 John Howard made a stunning revelation on Thursday in answer to Labor requests for a plebiscite on where his proposed nuclear reactors will be built. Labor argued that if he is willing to pay for people in Queensland to vote on whether they want council amalgamations, surely he would be willing to pay for them to vote on whether they wanted a nuclear reactor in their electorate. He not only refused to fund plebiscites, he seemed to suggest that the government would not to seek to regulate the building of nuclear power plants: With a Government report suggesting that up to 25 nuclear reactors would be needed around the country, Labor called on Mr Howard to let voters know which sites were being planned before the federal election. But Mr Howard said the decision was not up to the Government. “We are not as a government going to indicate that a nuclear power station goes there or there or there,” Mr Howard told parliament. “Decisions as to where nuclear power plants might be located in the future will not be decisions of the Government. It will be decisions of commercial investors. The notion that some business will just be able to “decide” to build a nuclear reactor somewhere without first passing through a Federal Government approval process is, um, highly unlikely. Thus the idea that the location of nuclear reactors is entirely a matter for the market, as Mr Howard claimed in parliament yesterday, is, therfeore, um, highly deceptive. To get some idea of the process that could be involved in building the reactors, you only have to look at the guidelines the US government sets out. Rob Merkel (of View from Benambra) emailed me the relevant links: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/clinton.html http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/s r1844/ http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/s r1815/ So presumably Australia will have some equivalent to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Let’s hope so, because the idea of letting the market decide where the reactors go doesn’t bear thinking about. In the US, the NRC describes its role in these terms: What We Regulate NRC regulates the construction and operation of new commercial nuclear power facilities. The NRC is responsible for issuing standard design certifications, early site permits, construction permits, operating licenses, and combined licenses for commercial nuclear power facilities. How We Regulate NRC regulates reactor siting, construction, and operation through a combination of regulatory requirements, licensing, and oversight, including inspection. NRC considers the current regulatory infrastructure adequate to support new licensing. However, NRC is making minor revisions to the infrastructure to make new licensing reviews more effective and efficient and to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on future applicants. And yet, here is what Mr Howard said in parliament yesterday (pdf): We, as a government, are not going to indicate that a nuclear power station will go in one location or another. The Labor Party has spent all of this year trying to kid the Australian public that it believes in the market. If it really believes in the market, it must understand that decisions as to where nuclear power plants might be located in the future will not be decisions of the government; they will be decisions of commercial investment. Therefore, whether they are located in the magnificent Municipality of Randwick, the Shire of Shoalhaven, the Municipality of Waverley, the City of Ryde or, indeed, wherever you might go, it will be a matter of commercial decision making and not a decision of the government. Is he serious? The Federal Government is going to have no say in where a nuclear reactor might be built? It is all going to be down to commercial operators with no regulatory oversight? For nuclear reactors? Well, now you know. And who knew the US government didn’t believe in the market? The full post with comments is available at: http://blogs.news.com.au/news/blogocracy/index.php/news/comm ents/wheres_the_reactor/ thanks |
||||
| dwyer Guru Joined: 19/09/2005 Location: AustraliaPosts: 574 |
Hi everyone John Howard is finish now as we shouldn't worried about bulding Nuclear Power plant for the time be
and hoping other party will drop the ideas on Nuclear Plant in near future so everyone should try to go on solar, windpower maybe gas power or anythings that is safe to our environment than having Nuclear power and yellow cake that will end up in our backyard 
dwyer that bushman |
||||
sPuDd Senior Member  Joined: 10/07/2007 Location: AustraliaPosts: 251 |
Yeah, now we'll export it to anyone who wants a few kilo's of bang steel.  It should work ...in theory |
||||
| petanque don Senior Member Joined: 02/08/2006 Location: AustraliaPosts: 212 |
Nuclear will always be on the table as long as it is cost effective. Part of the reason nuclear is cost-effective is that the power plant produces are allowed to doge the cost of storing the waste in a proper manor and the final decommissioning of the plant. |
||||
Art_ Newbie  Joined: 22/10/2007 Location: AustraliaPosts: 30 |
I have a strong feeling the price of solar power would come down dramatically, and technological advancements would be made in leaps and bounds if anyone actually cared. Mobile phones are a good example of the phenomena I suggest. We have a whole new technology of batteries due to the popularity of mobile phones, and a new generation of mobile devices that were perfected through the design and manufacture of mobile phones. This is only because people accepted and embraced the technology in the first place without any regard for their cost. Now they represent value for money hardware-wise. If not actually, then potentially. |
||||
| Art_ Newbie Joined: 22/10/2007 Location: AustraliaPosts: 30 |
Oh yeah, That's the other thing about solar panels... Fancy a fuel company leading the market in Australia. I'm suprised solar panels aren't more expensive on a Thursday, than they were the day before ;) If not actually, then potentially. |
||||
Gizmo Admin Group  Joined: 05/06/2004 Location: AustraliaPosts: 5078 |
Becareful. They might find a way to charge us for sunlight! I do remember something last year about some government department wanting to charge us for the rain that fell on our own land. I wondered if I could get a rebate for the water that flowed off my land and into the government owned street. Glenn The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago, the second best time is right now. JAQ |
||||
| Art_ Newbie Joined: 22/10/2007 Location: AustraliaPosts: 30 |
Lol! I guess that's how they get a little back for all the money they put out subsidising water tanks. If not actually, then potentially. |
||||
 Print this page |
