Nuclear power for Vic.

[Tiger74]

So they do tend to build heavy industry in suburbia then? Is that what you are saying? I wasn't making an absolutist statement.

Just pointing out these kind of things DO get put in suburbs, just not the suburbs of the wealthy.

Funny enough the wealthy like yourself love reactors because they know it will be nowhere near them

 

[lukeanddad]

Another set of facts. I got this from a Blog called 'The triumph of coal marketing)

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

 

[evo]

Funny enough the wealthy like yourself love reactors because they know it will be nowhere near them

It can't be much fun living down wind from Hazelwood

 

[Tiger74]

It can't be much fun living down wind from Hazelwood

No argument there, hazelwood was a relic a decade ago. Have family in the area so know it well

Actually talk was putting a vic nuclear plant in the latrobe valley, the idea being the precedent of hazel wood would mean just about anything could be built there without objection.

 

[evo]

it would make sense given all the infrastructure like transformers and high voltage powerlines are already there.

 

[Tiger74]

it would make sense given all the infrastructure like transformers and high voltage powerlines are already there.

Yeah, but when it came out the backlash was instance, Latrobe Valley residences pissed they were being treated as Victorias dumping ground, ag companies saying it will kill our dairy Anshan export credentials, and then the polis jump on board.

IMO we will never have a nuclear plant outside the small scale unit at Lucas Heights simply because no poli would risk the backlash of allowing it in his electorate.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

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

With our expanding cities, quite often heavy industry is in a location first and residential development comes later

 

[Giardiasis]

Just pointing out these kind of things DO get put in suburbs, just not the suburbs of the wealthy.

Funny enough the wealthy like yourself love reactors because they know it will be nowhere near them

So you didn't prove I was wrong then, thanks.

I wouldn't want to live near a nuclear power plant because of land value, not because I fear for my safety. I'm not a hypocrite. Power plants have to be located somewhere.

 

[Tiger74]

So you didn't prove I was wrong then, thanks.

I wouldn't want to live near a nuclear power plant because of land value, not because I fear for my safety. I'm not a hypocrite. Power plants have to be located somewhere.

It's impossible to prove an absolute wrong, so hardly a great acheivement to hang your hat upon there.

Falling land value is just another nimby reason. Like those freaks who thought the world would end because of a apartment complex being built at Camberwell station. All for high density development to stop the urban sprawl, but not in their suburb because it will effect their lifestyle and property values.

I wonder how many would freak if they replaced the power plant Out at Newport with a reactor?

It's replacing dirty coal with a "clean" source, it is replacing an asset that already would be depressing property prices, and it's convenient for distribution.

I suspect the fact that any meltdown would not just impact Footscray, but also Kew and Toorak would kill it in a heartbeat.

It's one tng that posses me off with the environmental movement. They are all for water recycling, but as long as they don't have to drink it. All for high density living, as long as it doesn't crowd their roads. All for stopping timber plantations, but miss that the replacement materials come from a massive hole in the ground or are derived from oil. Nuclear just happens to be the mother of them all, as many love the concept, but no one can agree where to put it.

Again, I can never see it happening just on planning grounds. If we cannot agree to build a repository for nuclear medical waste in this country, no chance we can agree on a reactor.

 

[Giardiasis]

I will hang my hat on it, big cat lover made the point for me, thanks again.

 

[mld]

For those interested in the topic beyond safety arguments, This is a thought-provoking piece on the economics of nuclear power.

 

[evo]

For those interested in the topic beyond safety arguments, This is a thought-provoking piece on the economics of nuclear power.

My gripe with that article is that it is saying nuclear is 'expensive' compared to coal. But why is he comparing it to coal? We already know coal is the cheapest way to generate electricity. But the whole point of the discussion is that we want to phase out coal. Same goes for natural gas. They're the ones that produce Co2.

Compare it to other non-carbon based sources that produce base load power and then decide the economics.

 

[mld]

Just found it interesting on its own merits, is all. It wasn’t intended to be part of the multi-thread climate change debate.