Viability of renewable energy

[CaptainPanic]

It doesn't sound like an efficient alternative, but at least a particle accelerator could never be used as a weapon.

It might not be efficient from an energy point of view, but you need so much less regulations/paperwork/security than a nuclear facility that it might actually be cheaper.

[JohnB]

Can you make I-131 that way too? And the others?

 

We have one tiny reactor at Lucas Heights that does nothing but do a bit of research and produce the nations medicinal radioisotopes. The Greens want it shut down whether or not there are viable alternatives. Your article was from 2008, they've been bitching since the 70s about Lucas Heights. I appreciate your point that this is "non reactor" creation of radioisotopes, but they want OPAL shut now and "promote the development" of alternatives later. People will die from those policies, possibly including me so I'm not too well disposed towards the Greens ATM.

 

For these fools radiation=nuclear=big no no and must not be allowed in any way.

 

These are the same twits who are against sterilizing food with ionising radiation and who believe that "1.genetically manipulated organisms (GMOs), their products, and the chemicals used to manage them, pose unacceptable threats to natural and agricultural ecosystems." They claim to want more testing and data but when their hooligan friends from Greenpeace break into a contained area and trash a CSIRO experiment designed to test GM seeds and get the data, the Greenpeace louts are some sort of hero to them.

 

Make no mistake on this swansont. Greenpeace trashed a $2 million scientific experiment with the full support of the Greens. Do you really think that you can talk sense to those with such an anti science ideology?

 

Edit. Phi, we won't get a tea party, it's just not our style. The problem is that our moderate left has left it's traditional base, the working man. They still have their ties with the unions but control is now with the PC brigade. The vast majority of their pollies have never held a "real" job in the eyes of the voters. They went from school to Uni, from Uni to the party or a pollies office and from there to a safe seat ticket. The average working joe simply can't identify with them any more and they are getting creamed in the State elections. I think this is very bad. Under our system the two sides in Parliment are called the "Government" and the "Opposition", but the correct term for the opposition is "Alternative Government". If the ALP numbers get too low, then they can't put themselves up as a credible alternative and this will effect the political balance for many years.

 

They'll have to build their numbers back up over 3 or 4 election cycles to be credible because nobody will vote them in and have a government of first timers to run a State or the nation. We have a State election next year. Of the 89 seats the ALP currently hold 51. Unless the numbers change, and there is no reason right now to think they will, by late next year the ALP will hold 19 at most. It has taken the Lib/Nats nearly 20 years to recover from when they were in the same position and the ALP won't be much faster if any.

 

While a moderate righty myself, I simply don't like to see such an imbalance for an extended period. It's just not healthy.

Edited October 3, 2011 by JohnB

[Phi for All]

It might not be efficient from an energy point of view, but you need so much less regulations/paperwork/security than a nuclear facility that it might actually be cheaper.

Very good point.

[swansont]

Can you make I-131 that way too? And the others?

 

We have one tiny reactor at Lucas Heights that does nothing but do a bit of research and produce the nations medicinal radioisotopes. The Greens want it shut down whether or not there are viable alternatives. Your article was from 2008, they've been bitching since the 70s about Lucas Heights. I appreciate your point that this is "non reactor" creation of radioisotopes, but they want OPAL shut now and "promote the development" of alternatives later. People will die from those policies, possibly including me so I'm not too well disposed towards the Greens ATM.

 

For these fools radiation=nuclear=big no no and must not be allowed in any way.

 

These are the same twits who are against sterilizing food with ionising radiation and who believe that "1.genetically manipulated organisms (GMOs), their products, and the chemicals used to manage them, pose unacceptable threats to natural and agricultural ecosystems." They claim to want more testing and data but when their hooligan friends from Greenpeace break into a contained area and trash a CSIRO experiment designed to test GM seeds and get the data, the Greenpeace louts are some sort of hero to them.

 

Make no mistake on this swansont. Greenpeace trashed a $2 million scientific experiment with the full support of the Greens. Do you really think that you can talk sense to those with such an anti science ideology?

 

I don't have much use for extremists, period. If you ever want to tweak their nose a little, you can point out that all living things, including human beings (and, specifically, the green in question) are naturally radioactive.

[JohnB]

What an evil thought. I like it.