4 ms·

You missed the point of my questions: > How long does nuclear (fission) waste need to be managed? > How long do you believe that AU has had a stable, first-wo

by Jedd 10y ago

You missed the point of my questions: > How long does nuclear (fission) waste need to be managed? > How long do you believe that AU has had a stable, first-world government? Federation was (to a rounding error) a century ago. Some would argue that it's been stable since then -- I'd argue it hasn't, but the boom/bust left/right vacillation so common in western ersatz democracies evidently is what counts as stable these days. It's kind of besides the point, though, since it's a comparative exercise. How long does nuclear fission waste need to be managed, and how does that compare to 'around a hundred years'? You also make a less than compelling case that we have no choice but to have waste from nuclear fission -- we have plenty of options that don't involve nuclear fission. Consider, for example, the fact that Australia has no nuclear fission plants generating electricity.

Pxtl 10y ago
But it is burning coal, which is far worse at this point. That's what I'm getting at - Australia is uniquely well equipped for nuclear power and has not substantial begun moving away from fossil fuels. If solar is cheaper than nuclear, then by all means build that. But if not? Why not move to nuclear energy?
- Jedd 10y ago
  Yes, I pointed out that AU has a regrettable fixation with digging up and burning coal. But just because we have access to relatively cheap Uranium doesn't mean we should be digging it up and processing it. One of the reasons I rail against the suggestion that AU has a 'stable long term government' (ie. that could be said to be sufficiently grown up to handle fissile waste) is that right now that same government is very publicly committed to fossil fuels, despite the leader of same being on record only a few years ago asserting - loud and wide - that green energy should be our priority, and we should be moving away from fossil fuels. Append usual concerns about the various people involved in getting us to, and then maintaining, this unfortunate situation.

by Jedd 10y ago

Pxtl 10y ago

But it is burning coal, which is far worse at this point. That's what I'm getting at - Australia is uniquely well equipped for nuclear power and has not substantial begun moving away from fossil fuels. If solar is cheaper than nuclear, then by all means build that. But if not? Why not move to nuclear energy?

Jedd 10y ago
Yes, I pointed out that AU has a regrettable fixation with digging up and burning coal. But just because we have access to relatively cheap Uranium doesn't mean we should be digging it up and processing it. One of the reasons I rail against the suggestion that AU has a 'stable long term government' (ie. that could be said to be sufficiently grown up to handle fissile waste) is that right now that same government is very publicly committed to fossil fuels, despite the leader of same being on record only a few years ago asserting - loud and wide - that green energy should be our priority, and we should be moving away from fossil fuels. Append usual concerns about the various people involved in getting us to, and then maintaining, this unfortunate situation.