Because our pollies are too gutless to consider a nuclear option for cheap
electricity production. Instead we sell our bauxite and uranium overseas
where they can use the uranium to make electricity which they can then use
to turn the bauxite into aluminium and sell it back to us.
There's no real risk though.
Buy something cheap. Process it is using cheap power. Sell the end product
at a premium.
Where's the risk in that?
And we get a very minor benefit, compared to what's possible.
You clearly know nothing at all about nuclear power if you're prepared
to argue that it is risk free! Sure, it is beneficial in many ways, but
why not let those who are prepared to take the risks continue to do so?
In the meantime, we can keep buying aluminium at prevailing market rates
and know that it's still cheaper than trying to dispose of nuclear waste
Any argument that relies upon stats alone for proof (as yours seems to
do) is pretty worthless, and only a fool would think otherwise.
You're really not going to get very far by continuing to argue that a
full-scale nuclear meltdown is somehow safer than an ordinary fire at a
You can try to save your argument by desperately pulling in all the
stats you like about secondary deaths from various if that's what makes
you feel good about yourself. But when talking about a pound-for-pound
comparison of primary deaths directly attributed to a major explosion,
the only idiotic claims are the ones you are making.
If the only way you can beat me is to make up claims on my behalf that I
never made, or argue points that I have never contested, then it doesn't
really say much about the strength of your case, does it? :-)
I'm not trolling. I'm just too stupid to ignore bigger idiots than
myself, that's all. :-)
You tell me, just where *did* I say that we should *not* go nuclear? All
I've ever said was that there are risks involved that these other
tossers seem hellbent on ignoring completely - which, as they seem to be
unaware, is precisely the way that otherwise safe activities become
absolutely lethal. Not my fault they're too stupid to recognise that
there is a difference between being opposed to something and to simply
pointing out important factors that they want only to ignore.
Probably not, but I don't think he was doing that.
Perhaps you can put up something that proves he's wrong, instead of just
saying he is?
Hey, if you don't fancy a nuclear power plant being builtn in your
neighbourhood that's fine. But if you've got any *valid* reasons as to why
the rest of the country shouldn't enjoy the benefits of one then we'd be
delighted to hear them.
Oh, and "Because I don't like them" isn't really going to cut it.
Tell me just where they would actually go if we decided to seriously do
something about building some?
There's no way it would ever be near a major population centre for
starters. Even if you didn't give a toss about risks, or were able to
somehow come up with a guaranteed foolproof design, it would be
electoral suicide for any government or opposition to support such
But you couldn't build one away from major population centres either.
Nuclear power plants require considerable volumes of water for their
operation and safety. But the only places where you'd be able to build
one due to the relative isolation from people are also ruled out for
their isolation from reliable and sufficient water supplies.
So just where are you going to put it then, hmmm?
One could go in my back yard if they paid me enough money. I couldn't care
less about living 20 feet from it.
That has never stopped them from doing such things before.
The bigger danger would be getting a government to commit to one, as they
would be highly unlikely to see the benefits in a single term and if they
get the arse before it's finished the incoming government gets all the
Wherever they like. I couldn't care less.
The Latrobe valley in Vic would be perfect, plenty of water for a power
station especially if they shut down some of the coal fired power
stations and the transmissions lines are already in place.
Is there a point?
I mean, what form of proof would you be prepared to accept? The fact that
there already are a number of power stations in use using *salt* water for
cooling, or that there already are nuclear power stations in use using waste
water for cooling?
What *specifically* is it that you're not getting here?
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.