John Howard and nuclear power plants.?

Question

Before the election was announced John Howard commissioned a report into nuclear power headed by ex Telstra chief executive Ziggy Switkowski. The report concluded that 25 reactors could be built by 2050.
Considering that all our major trading partners use nuclear power (US, UK, France, China, India, Germany, Israel, Mexico)
why shouldn't Nuclear power be an option.
Australia' s greenhouse gas emmissions are the worst in the world per-capita and we have large supplies of uranium.
Shouldn't nuclear power be looked at as a stop gap until renewables can bring base load power into the grid at an acceptable price.
I accept waste, proliferation, water usage and public perception are against nuclear power.
Would you accept a nuclear plant in your neighbourhood?

Answer 1

well everyone has thier own views, but remember what happend in russia? when a power plant leaked or something ( i cant really remember the story) but people got sick and died because it is deadly and image if their was a natural disaster which lead to unfortunate events.. such as it leaking or exploding, millions of people would be affected, and whats worse it gets passed down through familys so your children who havnt been born could end up disabled/retarded
but if its in the middle of the desert, but i dont know where they are going to build it, might not be such a problem, though the fact is once its thier i dont think you can get rid of it.
i think that instead of polluting the world more, with nuclear power plants which are extremely dangerous
the world should get thier act toghether and help reduce emissons
then thier wouldnt be a need for them

but yeh i could be wrong, thats just how i see it
good question though

Answer 2

i'm no longer a loopy Greenie in that i'm crushing up egg shells to make compost and applying windpower to generate electrical energy in my residing house or something. yet to tell you the fact if green means grew to become into extra extremely and handy for the fundamental residing house... i might positioned it in. in spite of if putting in a nuclear plant or in spite of might generate 1000's of 1000's of jobs, i might vote no. ok... extra advantageous sturdy and all that. yet we could take a stand here. we are extremely f-ing up our planet. The planet needs to bypass green earlier we expend each and all the components and we poison ourselves. Does cancer easily ensue for sure? Or is it for the time of our ecosystem and issues we are uncovered to in spite of if that's telephone wires or the hormones in hen? detoxification is sooo common in diets and wellness enthusiasts in modern times. yet why isnt detoxification our planet basically as common? we'd desire to start finding into each and every achieveable green selection. Australia has soo plenty sunlight it somewhat is each and every residing house had a photograph voltaic panel. There wouldnt be a means concern. And hi? Why no longer set up some wind means plant life interior the dessert or sunlight means plant life or some thing the place the gap doesnt remember? - Aussie residing in Greece worried approximately the two international places whilst it is composed of the enviroment.

Answer 3

I live in an area that was linked with getting one, and I will tell you this if one comes I will leave the area. I will not live with the likelihood of a nuclear bomb waiting to go off in my backyard only a fool would. Unless they are made safer I don't see anyone wanting one within a 1000 miles of them.

Answer 4

Nuclear power can be used as the alternative to dwindling supply of power which the Australians must consider.

Answer 5

nuclear free NZ, we dont want them or a long island incident,

really who cares Howard is the past in 2 weeks, if it suits australia and the risks are acceptable why not

a

Answer 6

Its the only realistic way we are going to beat climate change.