No new mines?

[Sojourner]

Should Labor drop the no new mines policy and begin mining Uranium in Queensland?

Should Labor support Uranium being enriched in Australia?

Finally, should Labor support the building of nuclear power plants for electricity in Australia?

[BenchedEagle]

As a former member of the greens, i found i was at the oppisite spectrum of their views. I would love to see Australia run on Nuclear fuel. Its the only viable alternative. Just has to be done properly.

Nuclear has this stigma around the word, that as soon as u hear the word iu associate it with bombs, waste etc

Also would like to see as many wind farms and solar power injected into the grid as well. A combination of the 3 would be our best option.

[Coorong]

Should Labor drop the no new mines policy and begin mining Uranium in Queensland?

Should Labor support Uranium being enriched in Australia?

Finally, should Labor support the building of nuclear power plants for electricity in Australia?

Not a labor voter (as you know) but if they want to seriously contest the election then the answer must be yes-yes & yes.

Why sit at home hungry when you have a loaf of bread in the cupboard?

With all the jobs going overseas, Telstra, 3, Hills, Rover Mowers, we need find employment and especially in rural Australia.

WHY these jobs are going overseas is a whole different argument, and now about 2 or 3 decades too late to stop or change.

[PhilG]

..

[Wedgie]

As a former member of the greens, i found i was at the oppisite spectrum of their views. I would love to see Australia run on Nuclear fuel. Its the only viable alternative. Just has to be done properly.

Nuclear has this stigma around the word, that as soon as u hear the word iu associate it with bombs, waste etc

Also would like to see as many wind farms and solar power injected into the grid as well. A combination of the 3 would be our best option.

Agreed fully.

[heater31]

No, to all.

For one very simple reason. Where would we put the facilities? No one would want them anywhere near them. It's unsellable. The old "not in my backyard" syndrome. It's already driven the toxic waste dump out of northern Victoria as an example.

Wind farms and solar power are the way to go. And we can't just shut down the coal fired system just like that. I'm hearing a lot about "clean coal" but not enough detail.

tell the NIMBYS to f**k off and move elsewhere

[TroyGFC]

I am all for nuclear energy but after they work out how to safely dispose of spent rods or reuse them to there is nothing left. I dont like idea of burying them for the future generations to have to worry about.

[PhilG]

..

[therisingblues]

I have read that the Australian of the Year, prominent conservationist and scientist, Tim Flannery is actually an advocate of using Nuclear power to answer our energy needs. My guess is that he's going down that track as there is something that needs to be done urgently to stop the pouring of carbons into the atmosphere. I agree that would go a long way to fixing that problem. It will also help the economy.
Lizbeff Eagles has hit on two of my greatest fears about mining uranium however. There is a problem with the waste. And it does get used to make weapons.
I think it is hypocritical of some countries, that are loaded to the eyeballs with enough nukes to destroy this planet many times over, to tell other countries that they can't have them. Ironically the most vocal country on this issue is the only country to have ever used nukes on actual living people in an act of aggression. The second most vocal country on this issue actually placed a heap of Aussie troops, within range of the radiation of a nuclear blast, to see what would happen to them.
I mention this as two examples of "responsible use of nuclear power", by the two most active nuclear police in the world today.
I think it is wrong for Australia to be supplying these countries with the fuel that goes into those weapons. If you can't stop the users then you should stop the suppliers, and we will become a bigger supplier with every mine opened. It will be just a matter of time before countries such as Iran, North Korea and others begin making their own Nukes. Sure there are other places they can get their fuel for them, but by becoming a major supplier we are making the stuff more available.
The cons outweigh the pros heavily in my view.
Then there is the problem of waste. Phil G correctly mentioned "future generations".

[Psyber]

Thorium reactors are the way to go - you can't make bombs out of the by-products. We are only second to India in Thorium reserves, and may have the edge in Uranium.

Waste! The ultimate solution is the get industry going in space, ship the waste up, and drop it in the sun by simply decelerating it and letting it spiral in, thus incidentally increasing the life of the Solar Systems centrally located fusion reactor.

[Sploosh]

Thorium reactors are the way to go - you can't make bombs out of the by-products. We are only second to India in Thorium reserves, and may have the edge in Uranium.

Waste! The ultimate solution is the get industry going in space, ship the waste up, and drop it in the sun by simply decelerating it and letting it spiral in, thus incidentally increasing the life of the Solar Systems centrally located fusion reactor.

Are you quoting ideas from the plot of some new science fiction movie?

[heater31]

I'd like to see you try and say that to the entire population of Mildura, Heater!

don't have to tell mildura, Port Augusta is keen to investigate it as they have two coal power stations and it would be far better than what they currently have

[PhilG]

..

[Psyber]

Now that's interesting about Thorium, Psyber! Never mind the science fiction mumbo jumbo - that just might work! Are there any Thorium reactors already in operation anywhere?

What people forget is that uranium isn't the only radioactive element. It may be the most radioactive (I can be corrected on that) and if so if we can make use of a less radioactive product any major objections may be allayed.

On the other idea though - we would have to be careful not to overdo it and cause the sun to do something that puts us in any danger. I don't think we know as much about the sun as we think we do.

Heater, I can't see Port Augusta liking it any more than Mildura. And what has the coal fired power stations got to do with nuclear waste?

Phil & Sploosh,

India is now starting to build Thorium reactors, I think the first in the world, because they have the reserves of Thorium, and the non-bomb end products are reassuring to Pakistan.

The increase in mass in the sun would be slight even over many years and would only act to prolong its life. It is the ultimate furnace and all matter is just fuel. It continually absorbs asteroids and other stray rocks, and is already radioactive. The proposal was floated many years ago by Jerry Pournelle, former astronaut with degrees in Physics, Engineering, and Politics. [Now there is an interesting man!]

Thorium: Atomic Wt 232, Boiling Point 4500 degrees Kelvin Density about 11 g/ml
Uranium: ...............238 [& 235]..........4091.................................................19


Jerry Pournelle also encouraged the idea of massive solar energy collectors in space and beaming energy down to collector stations in the deserts by microwave laser. When Jimmy Carter was US president the US and Russia were well along the way to making a joint effort to achieve this and gradually move industry off the planet where waste disposable into the sun would be easy. The idea was mine the moon and asteroids, use electro-magnetic cannon powered by the solar energy to move it, smelt it and manufacture in space, and to quote Jerry, "Turn the planet into a park!"

It had actually gotten to the stage where mixed groups of Russians and Americans were training together in the Antarctic for coping with getting on with each other in a harsh environment - a Psychiatrist from Boston University, Chester Pierce, was running the training. Then Ronnie Reagan got elected and dumped it for the "Star Wars" defence programme and a new arms race which ultimately bankrupted the Russian economy.

[PhilG]

..

[Psyber]

What is Thorium's atomic number, Psyber? I know Uranium is 92.

90

[therisingblues]

That was a good read Psyber! Thanks for that
I never knew about that space project during Carter's administration, but I did know that he'd put solar panels on the roof of the White House, as he was trying to kick along any form of energy that didn't involve Oil or having to deal with the Middle East. Reagan, when he got in, promptly ripped up the panels, just to spite the previous administration.
All the things you are talking about connected with that space program would have to be science fiction today, it would take so long to set up, and even if some willing partners were found, their reign would most likely not last long enough to ever push the project to fruition. The U.S has really stuck its heels in about its love of Oil.
I don't know much about Thorium. But if it can't be used for anything destructive why isn't it being considered instead of Uranium for future mines? Or is there discussion about this taking place now in the political sphere?

[Psyber]

That was a good read Psyber! Thanks for that
I never knew about that space project during Carter's administration, but I did know that he'd put solar panels on the roof of the White House, as he was trying to kick along any form of energy that didn't involve Oil or having to deal with the Middle East. Reagan, when he got in, promptly ripped up the panels, just to spite the previous administration.
All the things you are talking about connected with that space program would have to be science fiction today, it would take so long to set up, and even if some willing partners were found, their reign would most likely not last long enough to ever push the project to fruition. The U.S has really stuck its heels in about its love of Oil.
I don't know much about Thorium. But if it can't be used for anything destructive why isn't it being considered instead of Uranium for future mines? Or is there discussion about this taking place now in the political sphere?

Uranium was probably the first controllable fission system developed, following from the technology of making the original A-bomb, and there is now a lot of world infrastructure in reactors and mines devoted to it, and countries and companies don't like the economics of changing direction. India has limited nuclear power and needs more, has lots of Thorium compared to its Uranium supplies and doesn't want to scare the Pakistanis into a pre-emptive war, so it is prepared to develop a newer technology. We have Uranium mines going, and neither the companies nor the government, nor the unions want to spend the money to change horses. But if we decided to open more mines some of them might be Thorium ones. The "3 mines" policy and anti-nuclear expansion movement lock us in where we are now. I think India and world pressure will encourage it though unless we solve the fusion problems and can skip fission.

The space development - yes I think we have missed the boat and didn't put the money in when it was there to use. Mind you, it may be resurrectable if we bite the bullet and use the hydrogen bomb powered heavy lift space rockets designed by George Dyson. People are worried about using H-bombs to drive rockets from Earth's surface to orbit, despite the fact that Dyson has calculated that 10 more years of coal use would add more to background radiation than this would. [One of these rockets featured in a Pournelle/Niven sci fi story "Footfall". The science is sound and it could be done, but it scares people and that scares politicians. But if we don't do it, to quote the poet T S Eliot out of context, "This is how the world ends......Not with a bang but a whimper", due to overpopulation and limited resources.

[PhilG]

..

[Psyber]

Not wanting to divert the direction of the discussion, but if Iran is genuine about using the Uranium enrichment for non weapon purposes - India should be jumping in and giving them the Thorium option. I'd be interested to see the reaction!

Psyber, maybe it's about time those who are against uranium mining because of the options open on weapons have Thorium brought to their attention. One assumes at the moment it would be cheap to buy - I have no idea what the price of Uranium is (because of demand I would expect it to be somewhat pricey) so that would save a bit.

I think the aim should be for no more new Uranium powered power stations. Obviously keep using the current infrastructure for those who have it, and any new stations should be Thorium powered. That would give us a short term fix while waiting for the long term fix that will shut down the Uranium powered stations - and at less cost.

Agreed - I suspect Iran is not genuine in its declared intent, but I am not for a pre-emptive invasion! Yes, I think we should be all pushing the Thorium option if it does turn out to be a s good as it appears on the information available so far.