English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

8 answers

cos theyre noses are too high in the air and theyre complete **** !

2007-08-15 12:18:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

One of the reasons that nuclear energy is not by itself an answer to the world's energy woes is that it is prohibitively expensive - ask France who is the most nuclear country in the world. Simply put it can't compete without huge government subsidies and oversight which tends to take it out of the private sector. Government does not tend to be efficient and competitive running business concerns.

Another problem is that the known uranium reserves in the world are not sufficient and even at current rate of use will run out in less than a century. The waste is also extremely expensive to to look after and is a long-term affair - not good in a world with unstable governments when you consider it can be refined into weapons grade plutonium. We would have to find a different way to create nuclear power.

I'm not sure if Australia has nuclear power plants but this is an issue that is currently being reviewed in Ontario Canada as well. The government wants to build a new generation of Candu reactors such that almost all power would be nuclear and hydro by getting rid of the coal fire plants. Coal is vastly abundant on Earth. It seems like gasified coal plants or newer technologies to burn it cleaner are the more astute approach over nuclear. The future of energy is likely going to be a mix of hydro, tidal, wind, solar, thermal, clean coal etc.

Right now there is only one way known to get rid of spent nuclear fuel - refine it into weapons grade plutonium and blow it up!

2007-08-15 13:30:40 · answer #2 · answered by USA_USA_USA 2 · 1 0

Because it is yet another short sighted, old fashioned and destructive technology that can in no way address the long term power needs of the people of Australia.

The biggest problem that confronts the nuclear industry is how to get rid of the waste! This is something that no-one can solve. The way that nuclear waste is dealt with now is that it is put into a big hole in a rock and when the hole fills up it is sealed with some more rock! Then they make another big hole in some rock ............and so on and so on.
What happens when the world runs out of rock holes? Eventually the whole planet will become one big toxic nuclear waste dump. That is not the future I want to be responsible for creating for my children's children.

2007-08-16 01:37:58 · answer #3 · answered by cutsie_dread 5 · 0 0

High risk investment for a small population, is it really nessecary we ask, ask yourself that question, we are a smal population by world standards and we are consideing nukes for power, this is absurd when there are green opportunitiees that just need a bit of investment, but just like the oil industry(petrol/automotive fuels), there is alot of ignoring of suitable new options in favour of old ideas.
It is infact an old idea, and Labour is supporting the ideas of NEW technologies!

2007-08-16 03:34:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The people working coal plants could transition over to the nuclear plants, thus keeping their job.

I think many people oppose nuclear power because they think of Chernobyl. A horrible situation, yes, but...erm...that was due to very poor Russian engineering and bad decisions.

2007-08-15 12:26:53 · answer #5 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 0 1

Because of all the people employed by the coal and oil companies. There would be alot of jobs lost if we went completely nuclear powered. And the coal and oil companies have alot of sway over the government.

2007-08-15 12:20:52 · answer #6 · answered by tithonaka 2 · 0 1

What do we do with the waste? For me it's as simple as that. Until we can figure out a safe way to dispose of the waste, it only creates bigger problems then we already have.

2007-08-15 12:26:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

it's efficient and would make life easier, they hate freedom and happy people. you can't be for government intervention if your happy.

2007-08-15 12:17:33 · answer #8 · answered by NEOBillyfree 4 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers