Archive for the ‘Nuclear Power’ Category

Kevin Rudd needs to pay attention to a planet that is a super organism and will save itself.
April 17, 2008

Kevin Rudd is far behind on climate change and has no respect for the environment, but he loves kids. The need to talk to them, educate them and look after them shines in all his meeting with children. It’s good to watch. He also likes old people and just about anyone who comes across his path. It’s a pity he’s not doing enough to ultimately help them survive on this planet. Respected scientists are now saying by the end of the century that 60% of humanity will have disappeared from the planet because of lack of food, water and a continuing devastation¬† by horrendous storms. Remember those who think the planet is a super organism and will always survive. I used to laugh at them. This dust beneath my feet isn’t doing much thinking, I thought. Kevin, pay attention to those allegedly radical scientists. That way things will begin to happen. Not that I agree with them on nuclear power. But if the super organism is intelligent it may help us to help ourselves.

Advertisements

A nuclear facility providing nuclear fuel is a dud
March 14, 2008

The Guardian is such a great newspaper. It always covers – unknowingly – the results on many of my speculations. This time they report on a nuclear plant, built for over a $1 billion, to provide atomic fuel for foreign power stations has produced almost nothing since it was opened six years ago.

And where did they get this information? From the government. The Sellafield plan which was opposed by green groups as uneconomic – was predicted to produce 120 tons of the stuff annually. It barely managed 2.6 tons. Notice how green groups’ predictions are mostly proved right.

My prediction was a little different. It was that the plant would lay waste to the surrounding countryside and, finally, cost billions to clean up. That announcement is still to come. It’snot quantum physics to establish such logic, America’s Washington State is in such shock over its nuclear waste it will be getting rid of future stock to Australia.

Nuclear power should frighten investors who finally have to decommission and look after waste
February 19, 2008

Finland’s new nuclear power station (well still being built) is way behind timetable. These delays are adding to costs and so it is already overspent it’s original 2002 budget by 25 percent. France started a similar plant not long after and although dedicated nuclear power country it is leery of continuing costs.

Strange that neither company had considered the increasing cost of decommissioning a nuclear power station after its 20 odd year life. Well, the reason that Australia won’t go anything but storing other countries waste, is that it costs three times the amount to decommission a power station. And then there’s looking after the waste for 500,000 years. As the Americans know from their Washington state abortion the costs of trying to make waste stop leaking just go on and on (see Washington State website). So far they have stored waste there for sixty years (on the Columbia river) and they have never been without a leak or contamination of the river.