PDA

View Full Version : Australia - nuclear weapon capable state?



longbow66
19 Oct 04,, 18:49
Hello Everyone - I would like to put forward the proposition that Australia is a nuclear weapons capable state.

The reasons for this belief is as follows;

1) Australia allowed the UK to conduct nuclear weapons testing on Australian territory in the 1950's & 60's - on the proviso that Australian scientists (and therefore, by logical extension, the Australian Government) were party to the program and data.

2) In the 1960's, Australia purchased F-111 aircraft, which were nuclear-strike capable. This was an unusual purchase, given Australia's geopolitical position and military needs. Australia has subsequently been reluctant to relinquish these aircraft. These aircraft are now due for retirement. Despite objections from neighbouring countries, Australia is intending to replace these aircraft with Tomahawk cruise missiles - another weapons system capable of nuclear weapons delivery.

3) Australia is a major producer of Uranium

4) Australia has steadfastly maintained a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. The justification for this to maintain Australia's expertise in nuclear science and medicine. Currently the government is seeking to replace the Lucas Heights reactor, the only reactor in Australia.


The proposition is this;

1) Australia is well positioned, as a result of its involvement with British nuclear testing, to have the scientific expertise to manufacture nuclear weapons.

2) Australia sought, purchased and retains a weapons system capable of delivering nuclear weapons. It is seeking to replace the existing system with a new delivery system, despite objections from its neighbours.

3) Australia produces the raw materials for the construction of nuclear weapons.

4) Australia retains a nuclear reactor which may be capable of producing fissile weapons-grade material for use in nuclear weapons.

5) Australia is an advanced industrialised nation with an well-educated workforce - and has the technical ability to manufacture the specialised equipment needed to produce weapons components.

6) Australia has a highly secretive government.

6) Whilst there is no empirical evidence to suggest that Australia has an actual assembled nuclear weapon, it is not unrealistic to suppose that it COULD have the required components in an unassembled form, thus adhering in fact (if not in spirit) to it being a signatory to the NPT.

Are the Aussies hiding something?... any comments?

Officer of Engineers
19 Oct 04,, 20:00
For auxillary forces like Canada and Australia, nukes make no sense. Though I wouldn't be surprised if the ADF had plans to employ nukes back when nobody knew any better (50s and 60s). Canada was a nuclear weapons state up until the early 70s, most dominating in the 50s to early 60s with American designed nukes and warheads. Canadian ground forces had tac nukes. The CF-101 Voodoo carried the nuke tip GENIE AAM (never mind fire-and-forget, it's fire-and-run), and the CF-104 Starfighter were nuke missioned against Warsaw Pact assembly and staging areas.

As weapons and knowledge evolved, alot of these weapons simply did not make sense. Nuke tip AAMs? And precision has replaced the blind usage of fire. TOT was found to be just as effective as a tac nuke. Cluster munitions can deliver just as much kill as a tac nuke though with far less environmental damage.

Jay
19 Oct 04,, 21:27
Sir,
Not to mention that a CBU97 is way cheaper than a tact nuke :)

-{SpoonmaN}-
20 Oct 04,, 10:30
While it is true that we once wanted nukes, Australia was a very different nation back then. We were fundamentally a racist state, in which Indiginous people couldn't vote and anyone who wasn't of European ancestry wasn't allowed entry.
We were paranoid about communism (Who wasn't in the West?) and we figured that nukes would be a good way to fight of the "Communist Asian masses" that we were so certain would attack us.
Now of course we know better and I doubt that we have any serious plans to produce nuclear weapons. If anything we have the reactor as a fall back in case there is a regional arms race, say between the USA and China.

Franco Lolan
20 Oct 04,, 23:11
is their an arms race presently in SE Asia?
doesnt it seem PLA is "racing" to catch up w/ US + may have surpassed already?

Jay
20 Oct 04,, 23:41
China catching up with US?? Quantitatively or qualitatively?? US will win in both the categories. Remember China still needs Russia for its advanced weapon needs. But we cannot discount the fact that China has built a lot of clones in the recent past and will do the same in recent future. It'll take a giant leap for China to catch up with US.

Officer of Engineers
21 Oct 04,, 01:50
Not a chance in hell in both qualitive nor quantitive nor does it seemed the Chinese want to.

The Chinese are aiming for SURVIVABILITY of their retallitory force, not superiority. By this, they mean stealth and mobility, not numbers.

Franco Lolan
21 Oct 04,, 13:12
dont they already have superiority in some area? as sea surface missiles and attack subs? they dont need 2 match Us though, right? they need 2 b able 2 wage littoral warfare w/ massive missile salvos. isnt US in bad shape in dealing against that right now? everything indicates carriers would get scratched

Officer of Engineers
21 Oct 04,, 14:58
dont they already have superiority in some area? as sea surface missiles and attack subs? they dont need 2 match Us though, right? they need 2 b able 2 wage littoral warfare w/ massive missile salvos. isnt US in bad shape in dealing against that right now? everything indicates carriers would get scratched

They have 4 KILOs that have not seen much sea time. There's a new YUAN dissel attack sub. Have not gone to trials yet. They have 2 SSBNs that has not been put to sea in 2 years.

Most of their AShM batteries are shore based. None has been nuke tipped.

Against a CVBG, not a chance in hell.

Ziska
25 Oct 04,, 01:53
I guess it's possible we have nukes, but personally I think it would be too expensive.

We don't need them, especially since the US and the UK have them.

Franco Lolan
25 Oct 04,, 04:09
Officer of Engineers,
I understand their Kilos aren't ready on a training level; however, in 3-5 yrs they will, and the updated-Kilos that they have are reputed to be as quiet or quiter than even Seawolf class.
They don't need missile strike, although they would prob anyways, torpedo hits, especially wake homing torpedoes they have. look at USN exercises w/ Dutch+Australians. i think US needs to get away from Red flag + do it all blue v. blue.

Officer of Engineers
26 Oct 04,, 20:14
Officer of Engineers,
I understand their Kilos aren't ready on a training level; however, in 3-5 yrs they will, and the updated-Kilos that they have are reputed to be as quiet or quiter than even Seawolf class.

Until they get more seatime, anything else is just pure speculation.


They don't need missile strike, although they would prob anyways, torpedo hits, especially wake homing torpedoes they have. look at USN exercises w/ Dutch+Australians. i think US needs to get away from Red flag + do it all blue v. blue.

You can add in the Canadians. However, the context is that these were unit prosecutions, not force prosecutions, which are two very different things. Just because you can suceed against unit prosecution does not mean you can suceed against force, not by a long shot.

What do you mean by blue v blue? That's a term for friendly fire.

Jay
26 Oct 04,, 20:29
I understand their Kilos aren't ready on a training level; however, in 3-5 yrs they will, and the updated-Kilos that they have are reputed to be as quiet or quiter than even Seawolf class.
China has 2 Type 636, the other 2 are 877EKM. Seawolf is old, so Type 636 cannot be compared with them. USN's new attack submarine is Virginia class, and it is nuclear powered for a start. Remember Kilo's dont have AIP, so how ever quiet they may be, they dont have the endurance to stay submerged.


look at USN exercises w/ Dutch+Australians. i think US needs to get away from Red flag + do it all blue v. blue.
Again you have to really look in to the units they deploy during these exercises and the limitations of the exercises. They are trained for any eventuality, and they would never see/experience most of them. Surprises are always there, so I dont want to really go there. So MK-1's beating F-15 or F-16's may not work in favour of India, If India is to ever fight USAF as a whole.

Franco Lolan
27 Oct 04,, 02:30
type 093 + kilos DO have AIP

Franco Lolan
27 Oct 04,, 02:31
what are "wake homing torpedoes" ? how do they work? i hear PLAAN subs r bein equiped w/ them

Officer of Engineers
27 Oct 04,, 03:44
type 093 + kilos DO have AIP

The infamous 093 again. Thus far, the rumour has not been confirmed though it has been suggested that the YUAN is the 093 .

And Chinese KILOs don't have AIP.

Franco Lolan
27 Oct 04,, 04:03
The infamous 093 again. Thus far, the rumour has not been confirmed though it has been suggested that the YUAN is the 093 .

And Chinese KILOs don't have AIP.


http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/yuan.asp

chinese subs have upper hand right now. more,getting better,own waters.

China's Subs Lead the Way

Proceedings, March 2003
By Dr. Lyle Goldstein and Lieutenant Commander Bill Murray, U.S. Navy



"Even the U.S. submarine force must expect losses, however, given improvements in Chinese submarine platforms, training, weaponry, and the sheer weight of numbers."

Officer of Engineers
27 Oct 04,, 04:20
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/yuan.asp

Read it carefully. The article states that it has been reported that the PLAN has acquired AIP, not that it was confirmed nor was it ever confirmed to be deployed.


chinese subs have upper hand right now. more,getting better,own waters.

Vis-a-vi what?


China's Subs Lead the Way

Proceedings, March 2003
By Dr. Lyle Goldstein and Lieutenant Commander Bill Murray, U.S. Navy

"Even the U.S. submarine force must expect losses, however, given improvements in Chinese submarine platforms, training, weaponry, and the sheer weight of numbers."

Expect losses, not defeat. Don't try to twist Bill's words around. CDF is helping him with his articles and sources and he is helping us to get published about the Taiwan scenario.

Jay
27 Oct 04,, 04:52
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/yuan.asp



From the above link....


From the photos of the submarine it can be seen that Yuan class may have been based on, and derived from China’s indigenous Type 039/A (Song class) and the Russian Kilo class SSK. Other reports indicated that the boat may be fitted with air-independent propulsion (AIP) system but this cannot be confirmed.

Yuan class has a tail with diving planes similar to those of the Type 039A, and a Kilo-style teardrop shaped hull with a raised hump on top, which suggests that the submarine may be as quiet as Kilo class.

The only operational AIP boats are with Sweden. And we really need to know more to even talk about the endurance of those ships. Forget endurance, still these ships are diesel-electric.

PLAN is still a brown water navy, it needs massive courage to just fight against 7th fleet let alone the whole of USN. PLAN is emerging fast, but it doest mean that it can beat USN anytime soon.

Blademaster
27 Oct 04,, 23:05
China has 2 Type 636, the other 2 are 877EKM. Seawolf is old, so Type 636 cannot be compared with them. USN's new attack submarine is Virginia class, and it is nuclear powered for a start. Remember Kilo's dont have AIP, so how ever quiet they may be, they dont have the endurance to stay submerged.


Again you have to really look in to the units they deploy during these exercises and the limitations of the exercises. They are trained for any eventuality, and they would never see/experience most of them. Surprises are always there, so I dont want to really go there. So MK-1's beating F-15 or F-16's may not work in favour of India, If India is to ever fight USAF as a whole.


Seawolf is old!!??? What are you talking about!? Seawolf is the best technological boat out in the world. They stopped producing Seawwolf class submarines after the 3rd one because they were so damn expensive. Virginia class is the degraded version of Seawolf class which was pretty dump b/c looking at an overal cost benefit analysis, Seawolf comes out top every time in terms of operations, maintenance, and versalility.

I know that Seawolf is at most 8 years old but that does not change anything. Seawolf is still more capable than a brand new Virginia class submarine. I would not take on Seawolf in anything less than an Akula III submarine.

Jay
28 Oct 04,, 00:51
Well, may be "old" was a wrong choice of word. :tongue:
But yeah, Virginia class is the latest, smallest, chepest attack submarine desgined to hunt the Akula's.

Other than the size and well displacement, I dont think seawolf is that superior to a Virginia class boat.

By the way did you see USN's SSGN's??

Blademaster
01 Nov 04,, 07:05
Well, may be "old" was a wrong choice of word. :tongue:
But yeah, Virginia class is the latest, smallest, chepest attack submarine desgined to hunt the Akula's.

Other than the size and well displacement, I dont think seawolf is that superior to a Virginia class boat.

By the way did you see USN's SSGN's??

Yeah I heard about the conversion of the Ohio class to SSGN. If you ask me, it is not much of a gain but it gave the Navy some excuses to keep more Ohio class in services. Ohio class submarines are awesome. I love them.

Seawolf packs a bigger punch and more firepower than a Virginia class submarine. Also she has way more advanced sensors than a Virginia class submarine.

stevenmeyer
13 Feb 05,, 03:58
US is deploying F/A 22 Raptor which is the best air superiority weapon currently flying. Each raptor should be able to take on half a dozen or so Mk I's at a time.

Trooth
13 Feb 05,, 12:38
Whichever class of ship/sub is best, i think the rudder has gone on this thread! :)

Australia is more than likely allowing itself, almost certainly through accident rather than design :), to become a nation that can quickly come to a nuclear position.

As has been pointed out, it has two strong nuclear allies (UK and US) and it might happen to be that Australia has no interest in nukes but that if a conflict looked like it needed some Nuclear weight on its side, it could have its own delivery mechanism for them. Even if it didn't have its own stockpile.

IMHO nuclear reactors for eneergy production are something all nations should retain an ability to build. I know there are weapons implications, but going forward there are also going to be power generation implications for most countries.

Confed999
13 Feb 05,, 17:54
I wouldn't be worried if Australia had nukes.

Intelligences
20 Apr 05,, 08:39
South Australia is a major producer of Uranium.

Australians ("Aborigines") such as Elder Kevin Buzzacott
have vigorously protested against EuroRussian Uranium-mining activities
but almost NO ruling EuroRussians here seem to take any notice.

EuroRussians in Australia had a limited U-mines policy for many
years or decades but now, even under a "Labour" government,
it is Full-Steam-Ahead for more U-mining and the
consequences of Major Environmental Disaster.

"What Goes Around Comes Around"
e.g. 911

Confed999
21 Apr 05,, 01:30
What's wrong with mining uranium?

Selective
21 Apr 05,, 02:45
Estimated Recoverable Resources* of Uranium

*tonnes & percentage of world

Australia 889,000 27%
Kazakhstan 558,000 17%
Canada 511,000 15%
South Africa 334,000 11%
Namibia 256,000 8%
Brazil 232,000 7%
Russian Fed. 157,000 5%
USA 125,000 4%
Uzbekistan 125,000 4%
World total 3,340,000

"Although known to exist in Australia since the 1890s, uranium was first discovered at Mount Painter in the Flinders Ranges in the early 1900s. It was not until the 1930s that uranium ore was mined at Radium Hill in South Australia. The radium extracted from the uranium ore was used for medical purposes. The first major producer of uranium in Australia operated from 1954 - 1971. It was the Government-owned Rum Jungle project, in the Northern Territory.In 1958, mining started at Mary Kathleen in Queensland.

After much exploration, discoveries of uranium were also made at Nabarlek, Ranger, Jabiluka and Koongarra in the Northern Territory, Yeelirrie and Kintyre in Western Australia, Olympic Dam, Beverley and Honeymoon in South Australia and Ben Lomond and Westmoreland in Queensland.

Most of Australia's known uranium reserves are in South Australia. In fact, Olympic Dam is the world's largest known uranium resource."

Summary of in situ resources* available in operating and prospective Australian uranium mines

*Deposit- Ore/Resources, Grade U3O8, Contained U3O8, Category

Olympic Dam- 606 Mt, 0.05% 315,800 t Proved & Probable Reserves
1150 Mt, 0.04% 460,000 t Indicated Resources
Ranger- 22.0 Mt, 0.19-0.29% 57,000 t Proved & Probable Reserves
Jabiluka- 13.8 Mt, 0.51% 71,000 t Proved & Probable Reserves
Beverley- not available, 0.18% 21,000 t Resources
Honeymoon- not available, 0.15% 6,800 t Resources
Billaroo West- not available, 0.12% 17,600 t Resources
Koongarra- not available, 0.8% 14,540 t Proved & Probable Reserves
Kintyre- not available, 0.2-0.4% 35,000 t Reserves & resources
Yeelirrie- 35 Mt, 0.15% 52,000 t Indicated Resources

*Some policy info*


Safeguards to Prevent Military Use

"Among uranium exporting countries Australia has some of the strictest conditions relating to the use of its uranium. These safeguards (inspections and accounting procedures) ensure that uranium exported from Australia is used for peaceful purposes only and is not diverted for military purposes or used in a way which adds to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Agreements to this effect between the Australian Government and each country wishing to import Australian uranium are therefore necessary before sales contracts can be completed. Such agreements are in addition to the application of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards arrangements administered under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Australia has in force 17 bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements covering 27 countries - Argentina, Canada, Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Hungary, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Philippines, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA and EURATOM (including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain in addition); and Taiwan.

The safeguards required under these bilateral agreements with Australia are additional to those under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Among other things they permit the reprocessing of used fuel only as part of a recipient country's nuclear energy program that has already been approved by Australia. Any reprocessing must be done under IAEA safeguards. The further transfer of nuclear material is only permitted to countries which have bilateral safeguards agreements with Australia."

More for u all to digest..


Friday March 18, 2005, 7:54 pm

Australian Uranium Miners Set For China Export Deal

By Stephen Bell and Veronica Brooks Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

PERTH (Dow Jones)--In a move that could provide energy-hungry China with access to the world's biggest uranium reserves, Australian and Chinese diplomats are trying to hammer out a bilateral nuclear trade deal.


Officials in Canberra believe an agreement could be thrashed out inside 12 months, allowing Australian uranium exports to Asia's biggest consumer of energy to start much sooner than previously thought.


Australia's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said this week he is confident his government can strike a pact with China, throwing open a potentially huge market for the likes of mining heavyweight Rio Tinto Plc. (RTP) and takeover target WMC Resources Ltd. (WMR.AU).


"If China opens up for Australia, that will bolster uranium exports as well as global prices," said Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Mitch Hooke.


China aims to boost nuclear power development to meet the country's surging demand for electricity. The issue has become more urgent as the energy-hungry eastern provinces suffer increasingly severe power shortages.


The country currently operates nine nuclear power plants with a total rating of 7,000 megawatts, about 1.8% of the country's total power generating capacity. According to government plans, 32 new 1,000 megawatt reactors are expected to be brought on line by 2020.

Uranium would diversify Australia's energy exports to China, which consist mostly of thermal coal used in power stations. From late next year China will also begin importing Australian liquefied natural gas as an alternative fuel.


A Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman said a bilateral safeguards agreement with China could be finalized in three to five months but realistically it will probably take about a year.


He noted there is no urgency on China's part, as Beijing is looking to secure long-term supplies of uranium, a fuel that has doubled in price over the past year.

Global Uranium Shortfall Set To Widen

Although second to Canada in production, Australia has the biggest reserves of uranium and is close to the rapidly expanding Asian market.

But because of Canberra's tight control over the supply chain, export earnings from uranium are a fairly modest A$360 million a year. This is dwarfed by the billions of dollars the economy draws from gas and coal customers abroad.


Ian Hore-Lacy, manager of the Melbourne-based Uranium Information Center, said that it "makes sense" for uranium-rich Australia to pursue a trade deal with China, where nuclear power is growing.


"There is no reason that a bilateral agreement with China can't proceed, though Australia needs to have the ability to audit where the uranium goes - to see that it is not used for military purposes," he said.


There is already a "broad" international framework in place, in that Australia and China are both members of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty that came into force in 1970, he said.


And Australia already has bilateral uranium export deals with more than 20 countries, including France, the U.K. and the U.S., he noted.


Nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases, which has prompted some countries to consider uranium as an alternative to fossil fuels such as coal and oil.


The renewed demand, along with falling stockpiles of former weapons material, has caused a shortage of supplies.


WMC chief executive Andrew Michelmore told a recent seminar that current global uranium production meets only 58% of demand, with the shortfall made up largely from shrinking stockpiles.


The shortfall is expected to run at 51 million pounds a year on average from next year to 2020. Uranium prices have doubled in the last year to over US$20/lb and are forecast to settle at US$25-30/lb in the longer term, he said.


"A uranium supply squeeze is looming and the market is set to remain tight as nuclear power programs expand," Michelmore said.


"Japan is planning 16 new plants, with India and China building another seventeen. This will come on top of the global supply shortfall facing the current 438 reactors," he said.


The resultant uranium price boom has fired up the share price of several Australian companies, including WMC, which has agreed to a A$9.2 billion (US$7.3 billion) friendly bid from BHP Billiton (BHP).


BHP's timing could be perfect as WMC - which holds 38% of the world's known uranium resources at its Olympic Dam mine - plans to treble uranium production just as a China export deal beckons.

China is trying to join that list, with China International Trust & Investment Corp. (CI.YY) having visited Olympic Dam before Christmas as WMC fought a hostile takeover bid by Xstrata Plc.


At the time, CITIC was looking at taking a stake in Olympic Dam or WMC, people familiar with the situation told Dow Jones Newswires.


"We believe there is significant interest in China in purchasing Olympic Dam uranium," said WMC corporate affairs manager Richard Yeeles.


"Olympic Dam is seen as a long-term supply option because of the very long life of the mine."


Melbourne-based WMC also held talks with French uranium group Areva (427583.FR) before BHP showed its hand earlier this month and trumped Xstrata.


Olympic Dam is Australia's second largest uranium producer. The biggest is Ranger, owned by Energy Resources of Australia Ltd. (ERA.AU), a unit of Rio Tinto.


ERA declined to comment on whether it is looking at exporting uranium to China, following the developments in Canberra.


But Ranger's production, which is due to run out around 2012, is mostly tied up in long-term contracts with customers in Japan, South Korea, the U.S. and Europe, a person familiar with the situation said.


Any future sales into China would likely come from ERA's Jabiluka deposit, 22 kilometers north of Ranger, which began development in 1998 but stalled because of disputes with traditional owners.


Following a deal unveiled last month, ERA needs to secure the consent of the Mirra Gundjeihmi Aboriginal people before Jabiluka - regarded as one of the world's richest uranium deposits - can be developed.


The next official talks between ERA and the traditional owners are not due until mid-2006.

glow
21 Apr 05,, 16:16
Whichever class of ship/sub is best, i think the rudder has gone on this thread! :)

Australia is more than likely allowing itself, almost certainly through accident rather than design :), to become a nation that can quickly come to a nuclear position.

As has been pointed out, it has two strong nuclear allies (UK and US) and it might happen to be that Australia has no interest in nukes but that if a conflict looked like it needed some Nuclear weight on its side, it could have its own delivery mechanism for them. Even if it didn't have its own stockpile.

IMHO nuclear reactors for eneergy production are something all nations should retain an ability to build. I know there are weapons implications, but going forward there are also going to be power generation implications for most countries.
It's friggin Australia, despite what fox news has told you solar power does work.

ZFBoxcar
21 Apr 05,, 16:21
It doesn't work at night or when there are clouds, and it works less well during winter, even in Australia. But I agree that solar energy is well worth pursuing. But nuclear power is also good, and much cleaner than fossil fuels.

Selective
22 Apr 05,, 04:36
Well take your pick... uranium, natural gas, oil, coal, solar, wind farms, hydro... we got it all ..especially large reserves of raw materials.


Even if it didn't have its own stockpile.

We have been doing that since the 1950's. I would dare say that the nuclear warheads on aus soil would contain aussie uranium anywayz. LOL

Confed999
23 Apr 05,, 19:11
It's friggin Australia, despite what fox news has told you solar power does work.
Trooth is from the UK, I doubt he gets Fox news. BTW, when did Fox news say solar power doesn't work?

Intelligences
08 May 05,, 04:55
It doesn't work at night or when there are clouds, and it works less well during winter, even in Australia. But I agree that solar energy is well worth pursuing. But nuclear power is also good, and much cleaner than fossil fuels.

It can also cause


MASSIVE genetic mutation


Cancer


and


EXTREME environmental pollution.*

Better to rely on Soul Power than Nuke Power
.

This is why many Australians ("Aborigines") and Others
are smart enough to avoid involvement with Uranium.

Intelligences
08 May 05,, 04:55
It doesn't work at night or when there are clouds, and it works less well during winter, even in Australia. But I agree that solar energy is well worth pursuing. But nuclear power is also good, and much cleaner than fossil fuels.

It can also cause


MASSIVE genetic mutation


Cancer


and


EXTREME environmental pollution.*

Better to rely on Soul Power than Nuke Power.


*This is why many Australians ("Aborigines") and Others
are smart enough to avoid involvement with Uranium.

ZFBoxcar
08 May 05,, 05:28
um no...they just don't know how to make any sort of power plant.

Selective
09 May 05,, 05:09
um no...they just don't know how to make any sort of power plant.

Look out ... drunk man talking.

ZFBoxcar
09 May 05,, 20:19
I'm not talking about Australia, I'm talking about the Aboriginal Australians. Saying they don't build nuclear power plants because they use "soul power" is ridiculous. Besides, who knows which power plants their electricity comes from? Or were you calling Intelligences drunk?

Selective
10 May 05,, 01:12
Soul power..
wtf???
Looks like I directed the drunk comment at the wrong person. :confused:

Ziska
11 May 05,, 02:00
.... solar power is not nearly efficient enough. Yes, it can power some outback towns, but a city the size of sydney or melbourne needs far more power than solar can realistically supply. Nuclear power is clean, by far the cleanest source we have.

I see nothing wring with exporting uranium to china, especially if they use it for power plants, and consequently burn less coal.

Intelligences... how about a bit of proof about the 'massive genetic mutations'?

Yes, nuclear energy can be harmful. But I could be burnt to death in a coal plant, or electrocuted by solar or wind power. The point is, nuclear energy is completely safe, as long as nothing goes wrong. And the chances of something going wrong? Even the biggest disater, Chernobyl, killed like, 500 people. Considering thaat was communist russia, an australian death toll would be like, 1 or 2.

BenRoethig
11 May 05,, 19:09
Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain, Italy, and a couple others are more than capable of producing nuclear weapons. They've made the choice they they don't want to have them.

Trooth
11 May 05,, 23:56
Even environmentalists are starting to come aorund to the fact that Nuclear might be the only viable alternative to fossil fuels. The reaosn is that anything else has to have a backup.

Solar power doesn't work at night, as has been pointed out. Wind turbines don't work when it isn't windy. Hydroelectric only works if you can have massive dams and there are environmental implications of flooding valleys as most countries have already experienced.

The costs of the backups often mean that "free" enrergy is as expensive as the polluting kind. Oh nd of course the backups are the polluting kind.

The problem with Nuclear energy is that if my coal power station "goes bad" then i get a fire or some such that affects a reasonably localised area.

If my nuclear plant goes bad i could have a direct connection between my power plant and the earth's molten core in an alarmingky short period of time. Most people wouldn't welcome a volcano in Kent spewing molten rock over the golf courses. Obviously i would be safe, i live on a hill :). Even if it doesn't melt down i have potentially a radioctive cloud that irradiates massive areas of land. Chernobyl radiotion affected sheep in Wales. for example. The areas around Chernobyl are still lethal and will be for decades. We don't know how many people are going to die because of that one incident.

And that is when it goes wrong. When it goes right you have very dangerous
waste material. Yes 95% of a nuclear power plant's waste can be reprocessed. but there aren't many places that can do it. So to get the waste from the nuclear plant to the reprocessing plant requires long and potentially risky overland / oversea journeys.

And then you have to deal with the 5%.

Personally i believe the future currently lies with Nuclear Fission (isn't it about time for another Cold Fusion story to hit the press?) the problem is that the commies are not the only ones who are politically driven. The US had 3 mile island, and that revealed the whole political brinkmanship played between the contractors and the fact that the designs of the plants where, essentially, flawed but allowed to go ahead through politics.

And this is the problem. For such important and costly and time intensive projects, politics comes into play. Nimbyism fuels the politics as well, which doesn't help.

At some point we are going to have to address the fact that that the fossil fuels will run out, and on the way to running out they are contributing to clmate change. Then we have to be sensible and say that "i love being able to use my nice powerful computer, and my nice broadband internet connection, at night and to do this i have to understand i might need to live within 100 miles of a nuclear power station. And that i should get off the backs of the people trying to build the thing so that they can build safe versions and address the nuclear waste processing issues without moaning about the fact that it costs so much and is going to take so long." Because otherwise you will have another Chernobyl or 3 mile island.