|
Post by smartarse on Apr 5, 2006 12:25:22 GMT 10
Ok so i went on a rant about prepping for Easters, and now i feel some obligation to help. Here it is, a thread on the most obvious issues in Australian politics - Nuclear power. If you read everything i'm about to post, take some notes, and think about it, you will be so ready for a debate on nuclear energy, but also on any debate about energy at all! So, deep breath, lets get started... Firstly it seems that very few people understand the status quo. Read this to bring yourself up to speed: www.theage.com.au/news/national/government-rejects-nuclear-power/2006/04/04/1143916526955.htmlAnd here's the view from the Opposition benches: www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1585831.htmBut the nuclear issue in Australia is more complex than that. If you haven't heard of the Lucas Heights nuclear (research) reactor in Sydney, then you need to read these links: news.sbs.com.au/insight/archive.php?daysum=2000-08-10www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s10730.htmWhat are the alternatives to nuclear energy? Well if you haven't heard of Australia's only nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, then there is no way you will have heard of Australia's only geothermal power station in Queensland. Just like LH's is being expanded, there are plans to expland the geothermal station in Birdsville. www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1608950.htmAnd if geothermal sounds a bit wacky, check out this story about the world's leader in geothermal: www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s949324.htmAnyway, back to Australia and nuclear energy. You MUST watch this: abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20050822/Take note of the interview with Peter Garrett - his "sustainable energy bank" (about the 4 min mark) is the outline of a great model for an anti-nuclear team. And things like geothermal and wind power (also discussed in detail on this program) would be the examples you would use of what we should fund with the 'energy bank'. Also note what Garrett is saying about the problems of the Fed Govt's 5% renewable energy target. There is another good model (raising the target to 15-20%, like Northern European states, in the next decade. Then use the "sustainable energy bank" to help business and governments achieve it) you just need to take a moment to think it through and maybe write out some of your ideas beforehand. Ok, i don't have time now to post stuff on uranium sales to India and/or the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but maybe some other kind soul will do it before i get around to it. In any event, thats lots to read already!
|
|
|
Post by Old Man Sashi on Apr 5, 2006 12:47:10 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Apr 12, 2006 12:42:42 GMT 10
Well it was exactly a week ago that i posted the first comment on this thread, and in it i mentioned geothermal power as a viable alternative to nuclear energy (or at least part of a suite of clean alternatives) and i posted a story to remind people that there actually is ONE geothermal station in operation in Australia (and has been there for 20 years) Now this happens: theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18791030-2702,00.htmlI'm psychic... i'm gifted.... I'm something... Now if EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU doesn't do good, strong analysis of geothermal's potential in a debate about nuclear energy, then i'll give up!
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Apr 24, 2006 14:12:26 GMT 10
I'm pretty sure i posted something about thorium on this forum recently, but i can't seem to find it. Anyway read this www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1616273.htmIts interesting. I'm not sure how you'd run it in a debate, maybe as an alternative to nuclear... it was be a pretty soft neg because thorium seems to basically be uranium, except the waste problem is less bad (but still bad) and there is no risk of nuclear weapons being built. so running this would be soft, but you might get desperate. Also someone might run this against you, so its worth knowing about!
|
|
|
Post by panda666 on Apr 24, 2006 14:59:25 GMT 10
I do love this wuote from the Lateline transcript:
IAN LOWE, PRESIDENT, AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: Well, thorium has some advantages over uranium but, in a sense, it's like being run over by a diesel train rather than a steam train.
If I remember correctly, the "inert" version of Thorium (which is Th232) has a half life of (a huge number of years, like LOTS of years) but synthetic versions don't and are highly radioactive. Thorium can be used as a base supply for Uranium-233, which, like our friendly Uranium-235, can be split. Technology to commercialise Thorium is still a way off (since uranium is still the cool thing amongst nuclear building powers). Ironically, India's developing a lot of tech to try to use Thorium.
|
|
|
Post by Staggy on Jun 7, 2006 9:08:22 GMT 10
Was reading a little bit about this issue today. And i think there are a couple of great Negs to run (Geothermal for electricity generation, and Ethanol (vehicles) if the aff's focus is on greenhouse gas)
My question for all you experts out there is, what do you run from the aff? On a debate 'that this house endorses nuclear power' or something similar.
I think I did a debate on this recently from aff, and we ran an environmental stance - that emissions were at an unnacceptably high level, right now, and that alternative energy wasnt ready for mass production yet, so we needed to move to nuclear in the interim (almost a stop-gap approach, for lack of a better word)
Obviously in the real world this argument is bogus, and I don't personally agree with it. But if you don't run this line, what do you run? Any suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Sept 28, 2006 19:35:16 GMT 10
Any further discussion about why Australia should embrace Nuclear Power would be much appreciated!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Old Man Sashi on Sept 29, 2006 11:55:11 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Dec 17, 2006 16:40:21 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Apr 18, 2007 13:16:22 GMT 10
Hey folks, State parliament is sitting this week so i'm over in the House and this press release just went out which has made my jaw hit the floor!
I have a lot of sympathy for the Greens, but since getting elected they have done some pretty stupid shit. Firstly, every single time that the Libs and the government have split on a vote, the Greens have voted with the Liberal Party... amazing and then second they do this...
Media release from the Minister for Energy and Resources 18/4/07 GREENS GO FLAKY ON ANTI NUCLEAR BILL SAYS BATCHELOR
Energy and Resources Minister Peter Batchelor said today he was astonished that the Greens Party in Victoria’s Upper House had plans to water down the Bracks Government’s Nuclear Plebiscite Bill
Mr Batchelor said Greens leader Greg Barber planned to introduce amendments to the Government Bill later today that would narrow the scope of the Bill and reduce the opportunity for Victorians to have their say on nuclear power.
“Supporters of the Greens would be amazed that their Upper House members are planning to weaken the Victorian Government’s defences against any Commonwealth plan to establish nuclear power or waste facilities in this state,” Mr Batchelor said.
“We want to ensure Victorians can make their feelings known should the Commonwealth move to build a nuclear plant in Victoria. The Commonwealth is keen to embrace the nuclear industry. The Bracks Government opposes nuclear power in Victoria.”
“The Greens’ amendments would reduce the number of triggers for holding a plebiscite and it would bog the wording of the plebiscite question down in Parliamentary debate, where a hostile Upper House could delay and obfuscate, denying Victorians the opportunity to influence the Federal Government through a referendum.”
Mr Batchelor said this was an extraordinary position for any political party to take, particularly one that professes Anti-Nuclear credentials.
“The Greens are once again choosing to side with the Liberals, repaying the Liberals for the preference deal that got them into Parliament. Are they just naïve or are puppets of the Liberal Party?” Mr Batchelor asked.
The Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Amendment (Plebiscite) Bill allows for a plebiscite if the Federal Government tries to override long-standing State laws and establish a nuclear power plant in Victoria.
Mr Batchelor said nuclear energy was a recipe for high-cost energy with serious environmental concerns unanswered. “Victorians are anxious about the risks associated with nuclear power. Even in countries that have nuclear power industries, for example France and Japan, two thirds of the population oppose the construction of new power plants,” Mr Batchelor said.
Mr Batchelor said the Bill would give Victorians a chance to express their views, through a referendum, should the Commonwealth Government move to override Victorian laws and allow construction of a nuclear plant in Victoria.
|
|
|
Post by bookeditor on Jul 11, 2007 20:13:44 GMT 10
I think that your strongest case for nuclear power would be to get statistics on how much Australia's power use, especially industrial, will increase over the next 50 years. Then argue "will renewables ever totally bridge this need?" Surely there is a place for nuclear, a technology that is computer controlled, missile proof, and totally different from Chernobyl. I think that the disposal of waste and its transportaion would be the hardest parts to argue against a good negative team. Certainly, if I were on the negative side I would rebutt using those arguments. I mean, what if that smash up at Kerang had involved the transportaton of nuclear waste and/or waste on the truck or train??? Surely ther e is a VERY strong argument for saying that Australia's transport infrastructure is nowhere near ready for the risiks of nuclear power. [ note that nuclear power is quite a different thing frommedical usage justifying Lucas Heights]
I guess that you would have to argue "world's best practice" as in other countries that hhave used nucleasr power and disposed of waste for many decades. It would need a good team to pull that off.
|
|
|
Post by panda666 on Jul 11, 2007 20:52:58 GMT 10
To answer Staggy's question, you run a economic cost evaluation argument of why Australia would benefit to utilise its nuclear resources. This is one out of Tim Flannery's book, but in a nutshell, in some areas where nuclear resources are in abundance (like Australia and Canada) it makes logical sense to utilise the resource in light of problems with utilising other resources.
For example, while Australia has fantastic wind and solar resources, Canada does not, and has abundant nuclear and mineral resources with which to use. Tim's argument goes along the lines of maximising the resources that are readily available and do not require enormous transport costs (so something similar to what Australia exports in LNG to other countries would be cost-prohibitive in Tim's model).
Of course, this creates a counterargument about resource usage and the problem of haves and have nots etc. etc. etc.
This is a bit thin on the ground right now, since it was a long time since I read his work, and I don't know why I didn't post a proper response when I had it in the back of my mind last year...
|
|
|
Post by panda666 on Jul 11, 2007 21:45:38 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by bookeditor on Jul 11, 2007 23:20:39 GMT 10
IMO I do not support Australia developing a nuclear power industry.
What frightens me A LOT is the disposal of the radioactive waste. While there may be scientifically sound methods of doing it in theory, in reality a comapny would be very tempted to cut corners to save money.
|
|
|
Post by maverick on Jul 17, 2008 19:49:37 GMT 10
Has anyone ever seen/tried a negative on nuclear power using a counter-model of clean coal, geosequestration and natural gas?
|
|