A Nuclear reactor in your back yard?

Question

The Australian Institute has worked out the best Location for these Nuclear Power Stations Eg : the Most Suitable

Queensland: Townsville, Mackay, Rockhamton, Gladstone
Bunderberg, Sunshine Coast, Bribie Island.

New South Wales : Port Stephens,Central Coast,Botany Bay,Port Kembla, Jervis Bay / Sussex Inlet.

Victoria : South Gippsland, Western Port, Port Philip, Portland.

South Australia : Mt Gambier / Millicent, Port Adelaide, Port Augusta / Port Pirie.

I wonder how many of these Location would like such Nuclear Power stations in their back yards, And who are the sitting members in these locations.

Source can be found at

www.readersdigest.com.au

on the pros and cons of such .

But there is no mention of Western Australia, Tasmania , ACT, or the NT.

It would be very interesting to see how many are a liberal seat. or a labour seat.

What you say about in the middle of nowhere now does not mean that area will not be populated in those years to come and its those generation of people will have the problems of the waste that this generation has put on their survival as this would be in their distance past , so some would like but never actually thinking about those to come .

Answer 1

Interesting how there is no talk of WA and NT considering that is where the uranium to fuel these nuclear reactors will come from.
Instead our states will probably became a nuclear waste dumping ground for all the others.
What amazes me is the people that say they are safe wont be affected by the waste and if they are so safe why do we have bury it right out in middle of nowhere in safe containers.
So if you want nuclear power be prepared to dispose of the waste in your backyard not mine for your children and grandchildren to dig up in the future.

See the thing is Uracil the WA bush is my backyard and the point I am trying make is we need to stop pandering to the majority that consume our power and water without any thought for where it comes from and make them accountable instead the minority who don't.
So each state should be responsible for its own waste but ironically it probably will end up in SA because they don't have a very big bargaining chip like WA's' gas and minerals.

Answer 2

I've got no problems at all with having a nuclear reactor "in my backyard", which happens to be South Australia (although I'm currently overseas!). Incidentally, I have a PhD in physics, so I'd like to think I have an educated opinion on this issue. And no, I don't work in the nuclear industry!

Nuclear reactors release far less radioactive material into the environment than coal-burning power stations (there's a tiny amount of naturally occurring radioactive material in coal, when you burn a LOT of coal, that adds up to a significant amount of radioactive material expelled as ash/smoke). And modern reactor designs can be made so that it is physically impossible for them to meltdown.

Of course, any power station needs to be located reasonably close to the population it serves, to make power distribution easy and efficient. Hence the large distances/low populations of Tas/NT/WA make them bad places to generate power. Much better to do it somewhere close to the majority of the country's population (i.e. QLD/NSW/Vic/SA).

Molly, normally I think you say sensible stuff, but... nuclear waste _can_be_ nasty (there's a difference between low-level, mid-level, and high-level waste), and should be disposed of sensibly. That means putting it in the best place possible - the middle of nowhere! It's precisely those reasons of low population/long distance from cities/geological stability that make WA and NT good places to dispose of the waste. Currently there is spent nuclear material sitting around in the basement of the Royal Adelaide Hospital, and in who-knows-how-many other sites in the suburbs of major Australian cities, and yet when someone says we should dispose of it in a properly-constructed storage facility, people who live 700km from the intended site start complaining that they don't want it "in my backyard"!

We're all already (probably) experiencing the climatic effects of fossil fuels being burnt by people living in other cities, other states, and other continents! The by-products of power generation already spread across political borders. Nuclear power can actually reduce the environmental impact of power generation for people who live far from the site of the generator. In the interests of clean power, the NIMBY attitude has got to go.

What _does_ make me uneasy about nuclear power is the prospect that any reactor(s) would be built by a company with ties to the government (rather than the best engineering qualifications), and built in a location that would cause maximum embarassment to the opposition (rather than a site with the least environmental impact/best access to the power distribution grid).

Answer 3

Well as someone who has a target on their back for one of these bombs waiting to happen living in the LaTrobe valley, in Gippsland if it comes I will leave good thing I am currently on a month to month lease in a rented house. At this point in time I can tell you that at the moment the Latrobe valley is cut in half as far as electorates go the half I live in is the seat of Gippsland held by nationals Peter McGauran and the other half is the seat of McMillan held by Liberal Russell Braodbent.

Answer 4

When was the last time one blew up? The threat of nuclear power is over-hyped, probably by the coal and oil industries to make nuclear seem as if it were not a viable option, when clearly it is a great option. Not the best, but definitely better than coal. I would rather have the produced waste buried deep inside a mountain, than floating around in the air we breathe. I would feel fine having one in my backyard.

Answer 5

It's not in my backyard, so yeh great idea ! I was amazed with Bribie Island though I lived there a few years ago and 90% of it is National Park.

Answer 6

What about putting it in Howards backyard.....
go kevin07