Nuclear - The Debate We Have To Have?

Thanks Maelinar, maybe I should have used a more benign country as an example.
(as far as I know) was the qualifier and my homework re your subject, allied/others’ WMDs, depleted uranuim in Iraq, Zionism etc. obviously needs some attention.
But figured the thread was related to the nuclear power debate – in the pleb blender, shaver, washing machine, air cond., coal, enviro context.
Be happy to go down your path if you want to share a link or 3.

Equalitarian, do some homework before you inform the world that the french don’t sell nuclear material to terrorists.

It’s probably off most peoples radars but a while ago (end of world war 2) they allowed a small terrorist organisation to ‘steal’ nuclear material in order to become a self-protecting nation.

It later turned into a place called Israel.

They had one of these only a few months ago.

It is a debate we have to have, but will there be consensus which will carry through into policy? Hmmmm.
If renewable energy ideas and practices were to be given the same levels of funding as the 19th century clumsy infrastructure, Australia could be way ahead of the game.
Solar alternatives equals photovoltaics, wind equals dead birds, end of story. What a pity the Governments can’t see the potential of OTHER versions of these two sources. There is so much creative potential, yet it’s all branded as dumb, hippy science that is only good for powering a caravan.

I wonder if JWH will make a promise at the next election that the rate of climate change under a “JWH led government” will be slower than under a Labor govt.

Let’s face it, folks, Shrub certainly knows how to appeal to the masses. He doen’t confuse them with facts or the truth just tells them that he’s ” … sure he speaks for all fair minded Australians when I say …” and that’s that.

Global warming? It’s a beat up to bring industrial unrest to Australia and undermine our strong economy. I’m sure all fair minded Australians will agree.

Is that the best you’ve got Wagga? We’ve all seen where this debate goes – the left will trot out its bullshit agenda like some rancid wet fart … it’s going no where. That’s probably why real people have moved in to push the agenda forwards after 50 years of wankfest.

Now go away and dont’t bother coming back until unitl you’re a grown up.

This is another Howard wedge policy for the next election. It has the potential to make Beazley and co. look like head in the sand luddites. Also, climate change is on JWH’s side in this issue.
He can bray that “at least we are doing something to address climate change”. Ziggy, you’re a gem.
Guess what? Like babes overboard and immigration policy, David Hicks et al. NOTHING will happen. Just Alan Jones stuff.
If 100% of Australia urge nuke energy starting tomorrow, it will take 15 years for the ink to dry on the first feasibility study.
France has 60 nuclear plants, do not sell waste to terrorists (as far as I know) and seems to be reasonably resigned to the energy source( the waste is in Mururoa).
Be aware, but far from alarmed. Let me know when something besides hot air is generated from this little exercise.

What pandy said but for Mr McMullan

I would go to the debate if Deb Foskey wears a boa and nothing else.

I have a lot of difficulty understanding the Green’s position on energy. They say no to nuclear, coal (and ‘clean coal’), gas and hydro (cause of dams).

Australia doesn’t have the geothermal option and solar and wind cannot provide base load power.

Where in the world does that leave us??

I can’t believe how closeminded conservation groups are that they can dismiss nuclear out of hand and not engage in any meaningful debate.