Reports are that the ALP Conference will drop th epolicy preventing a nuclear waste dump in Austrlaian allowing the Rudd government, after due consultation of course, to foist on on the NT regardless of local community wishes.

A nightmare brought to the land where the people of the dreamtime remain closes to their dreaming.

Along with such changes if the Minister for Resources extolling the virtues of dirty fuels and deriding alternative low carbon paths.

Blinded by the wealth of coal mining the ALP right will continue to ensure this is the party of climate business as usual dressedd up with party streamers, bright bushfires, storms and floods.

“We are doing all we can” they will cry whilst ensuring failure here and in Copenhagen by their failure to hkeep their per-election promises about the degree of carbon pollution reduction or to take heed of their stalking horse Garnaut, who bolted into Green pastures because the evidence was clear for any who cared to look.

Of course Rio Tinto recommend the use of Nuclear technology and fuels.  Why wouldn’t they when they can expect to benefit from it?  Sure, it’s viable to the point that it’s relatively efficient in comparison with other current energy production methods.  Ostensibly, it’s also “greener”.  But, I fail to see the point.  Carbon now or long term radioactivity in to the future.  Either carry their own long term risks. 

Now as to the so called long term and “safe” storage of spent fuel.  Consider the record to date.  Abandoned cities, leaking drums, poisoned aquifers and companies that no longer exist to take responsibility for their actions.  The earth is a dynamic and changing body.  There is no “safe” long term storage on this planet where concentrated waste radioactivity is concerned.

I really do wish those luddite anti nuclear relics from the 70’s and 80’s would shake off their intellectual laziness and actually research developments in nuclear waste disposal, particularly in Europe. Geologically stable Australia is actually the most suitable location in the world. Arguably, it is our duty as global citizens to offer central Australia for that purpose, as the most significant contribution we could ever make to fight global climate change. But will it happen? No it won’t because Luddism is like any other extreme sect or political party, an excuse to ignore science,logic and balance in favour of emotion.

Ironically, Australian luddites are the unwitting pawns of the very big business interests they claim to despise. Indeed they are part of the global warming problem, not the solution. Coal is the real enemy, not uranium.

Luddism is basically “Rage against the machine” mpd.  Get your facts right.  My problem is with so called educated empericists who insist that a technology that is less than 60 years old can ensure a 10 thousand plus year safety.  Our current civilisation is less than three thousand years old for goodness’ sake. No one can responsibly make that sort of guarantee.

“Potentially” is a big difference from certainty and safety only seems to mean something when you think of the future and risk.  The new technology for both energy production and storage seems to promise a lot.  It hasn’t PROVEN a thing!! Should I give it a chance?  Why should I when those who stand to benifit are the same ones who abused the legacy of coal?

#3. The coal barons offer CCS as solution once their is a price put on CO2 emissions, supposedly allowing coal to remain competitive.

I agree that there have been technolgical advances in both power generation and waste disposal, although the problem of disposing of early power plants and rehabilitating sites remains along with the ? #4 raises. 

What I fail to see is why a country drowned in sunshine, with abundant wind and wave, hot rocks and coal, if it can be captured and stored would want to go down the nuclear power road except to benefit a vested interest, be it in the field of waste storage or PRing a nuclear power plant in the western suburbs of any Austrlaian city.