-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Nuclear power for Vic.
- Thread starter Rosy
- Start date
these are similar to what i think you are talking about. They are a cool idea that would work well in australia. They are like big greenhouses whereby the land is heated up during the day then the rising air goes up the chimney.
The chimney's have to be really high though. Would work great in SA/ WA.
Forgot to mention you can also grow crops in it as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLIiGTZxH5s&feature=related
The chimney's have to be really high though. Would work great in SA/ WA.
Forgot to mention you can also grow crops in it as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLIiGTZxH5s&feature=related
evo said:
Thanks for that evo. Nice interview. About sums it up (unless of course you don't see an issue with burning fossil fuels).
Liverpool said:
I believe there will be plenty of 'natural' resources to harness. The BIG question is whether these will be effectively harvested by Australian governments, Federal & State, with the intestinal fortitude to do so.
Immediately, I am disappointed that the Bailleau Victorian government appears in its early stages to be merely, as some expected, a short-sighted conservative government only interested in serving the its S.E. Bayside constituents. Considering the severity of our climate, to ditch the water restrictions so that 'Brighton Billionaires' can refill their swimming pools........ We can thank Louise Asher for that.
On a Federal level, the decision in 2009/10 to make all Australian property available for unrestricted foreign purchase, including water rights, will severely compromise Australia, though nearly all can't see it yet.
The key issue in human history, civil wars & revolutions has been land rights for individuals, for the common people. In a few years, when the Australian farm has been completely sold off overseas and future generations will want to embark on buying their first homes, well those homes just won't be affordable and possibly not available.
Already the Federal government, in its desperation is paying hand over fist to buy back the water rights that they'd previously sold overseas, at prices much higher than what they sold at.
Anyway that's Australian governments for you.
I digress.
We have resources, it's how efficiently and equitably we use and share those resources.
But doesn't that apply to the whole world.
BTW, did you know that Australia now has one of the biggest gaps between the rich and poor?
I always like this Youtube video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9zExtkK9vU&feature=related
Especially the part which shows those who are the 'have nots' and the needy.
Does that figure change if you are living down the road from Fukushima?
No-one is worried about nuclear when its working well, the NIMBY attitude is due to the potential issues for when the crap hits the fan.
Same with nuclear waste storage. Currently its stored in hospitals and the like, but no one is up in arms because its not an official nuclear waste repository. Talk about a national secure facility though, and no council or state will allow it to be on their turf because of the fear of "what if it goes wrong"
No-one is worried about nuclear when its working well, the NIMBY attitude is due to the potential issues for when the crap hits the fan.
Same with nuclear waste storage. Currently its stored in hospitals and the like, but no one is up in arms because its not an official nuclear waste repository. Talk about a national secure facility though, and no council or state will allow it to be on their turf because of the fear of "what if it goes wrong"
Giardiasis said:
again, its not about a properly working station, its the perception of the risk IF something melts down
would you vote for a poli who green lighted a reactor for your electorate, or let me guess, you think it is better suited somewhere else
evo said:
Thanks for this. Good, sane piece. Nuclear is much safer/cleaner than coal - and far more efficient than solar/wind, the cost-benefit for which is probably decades away.
So you don't consider what happened in Fukushima as "crap hits the fan"? It is the 9th listed.Tiger74 said:
No that would be hypocritical, I wouldn't have any fears living near a reactor, the only thing is I doubt they are going to put one in a nice suburb that I'm more likely to be living in.
You have the extra costs of transmission (power lines, transformers etc) plus electricity losses through the transmission.dukeos said:
Giardiasis said:
Correct, and also those people don't want them there too (SA has passed laws banning nuclear waste repositories in the desert when it looked like the feds would build one there).
Also you are wrong on heavy industry in suburbia. Plenty of suburbs like Dandenong with major industrial complexes. Just those voters lack the resources and clout to block development like those in the leafier suburbs
So they do tend to build heavy industry in suburbia then? Is that what you are saying? I wasn't making an absolutist statement.Tiger74 said:
