Uranium sales to India?

What else would we do to make a dollar....
While most of the western world is looking for ways to reduce on nuclear power, we again turn a blind eye. Obviously, Chernobyl and Japan weren't enough.

http://www.news.com.au/business/bre...m-sales-to-india/story-e6frfkur-1226195175017

Gillard, Howard, all the same... As long we can gain on something, everything is fine.
I hope Bob Brown gains momentum in the next election, time for us to get into the 21 century...

Any thoughts on this topic?

 

It is a bit of a tricky one.

India won't sign the non-proliferation treaty - so we really shouldn't sell them stuff to make bombs (or - sell them stuff for power - to free up the stuff they buy from Russia etc to make bombs)

...then again

we sell it to China. Sure they are party to the NPT - but WTF is the NPT really?


And

while I certainly do not support the use of nuclear power in Aus - because there are much better alternatives available - I also acknowledge that in the short term anyway - nuclear power may be of some use in other countries, such as Japan and China - and maybe India as a low carbon alternative to coal

....then again

if Japan can't run nuclear safely - can we really trust India?!?! (remember Bhopal anyone?)


...then again

isn't India supposed to be leading the world in thorium reactors?

Why do they want uranium?!?!


So - yeah - it's a bit of a tricky one.

 

Are you debating yourself? Forgive my obtuseness.

I just wish to make one point. Why would India be a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, they already have nuclear weapons?

As for the Thorium reactors, as I am not versed on this, could they not work with Uranium? could there be benefits using this type of fuel?

Not so tricky, the government on both sides have no problem with selling this stuff all over the world. The question is, do you agree?

 

It's only tricky for some because their Labor idols have gone and done something really stupid that most Australians and in particular the Greens would not support. They were silly enough to announce this before telling all their obedient followers what to say about it. So Buggs is a bit lost, better call your Labor masters and ask them to tell you what to say.
Oh dear! looks like big Tony is going to support it, what should you do! Can't mimick your idol Juliar and call him a wrecker! Never mind buggs, when you have a pretend tea party this morning with your Gillard doll you can ask her what to do.
As for me, I think uranium should stay in the ground.

 

It's only tricky if you think we should have nuclear anything, save for the medical isotopes etc.

If we were to just stop all nuclear power production, research and development, and especially weapons. Put this much money, brains, energy and passion into safe, renewable and environmental energy. Energy saving goods, especially motor vehicles, planes etc.. Rationalised our usage, curb our destructive practices and greed, looked at the FACT that we all are living on a finite space with finite natural resources, acted in a humanitarian way towards each other and truly cared that our children and their children have a better and sustainable future, then it would be all academic!!!!

Cha bhi fios aire math an tobair gus an tràigh e.

 

I am in favour of both selling uranium and using it ourselves to create power

 

power can be created with far less dangerous ingredients.....

 

Yes - I am debating myself. Forgive my obtuseness.

USA, UK, France, Russia and China are all signatories to the NPT. They already have nuclear weapons

No. Thorium reactors use thorium. That is why they are called "Thorium Reactors".

I agree that if we sell U to China, it makes no sense not to sell it to India
I agree that while the use of U as a fuel in Aus is unwarranted, it may be important in the short term in some countries to reduce carbon emissions.

I no not agree with an action which may increase the prevalence of nuclear weapons in the most politically unstable region on earth.
I do not agree with an action that may discourage further investment in renewable energy

 

I agree with this. But this wasn't the question here.

 

We have absolutely no reason to waste money using it ourselves. But where U-based power already exists, - it may as well be used as a transition power source to more sustainable energy.

 

It seems to be a pretty cynical piece of wedge politics from Julia. One that appears to be paying off.

BTW - Try again. I do not vote Labor. Never have.

 

There are two points here.

1. India itself. I have no problems selling it to India because even the irrational Indian government would not risk international backlash it would get if they ever used a nuclear weapon.

2. However India is not a very secure place (we have seen muslim terrorists go on attacks there in the past) so I am afraid that uranium could fall into the wrong hands.

Just want to see how labor gets out of this one. They can no longer make ads criticising the Liberal party of lying when they have done the same thing on many occasions.

 

India also has a lot of seismic activity - especially in the north

Well - they are not "in" anything yet. It is to be discussed at the party conference. Maybe the Left will prevail

 

Another boot in the arse for Kevin O'Lemon.

My goodness he must hate her.

 

Heh! Yes, you are right there.

 

Firstly, the NPT is a total sham. Most of its signatories are still building nuclear weapons. It is a treaty that does not form any national law. So to say we wont sell U because of it is stupid.

India is going to be dependant on nuclear for its massive and increasing energy needs

Australia should have nuclear power. It is one of the most ideal places on earth for nuclear.

Renewable supplies are not currently the answer. They simply do not generate sufficient energy. Even the greens admit this and give the answer that increasing use would drive innovation. Sorry, but you can not plan the nations energy based on the hope that in the future someone will invent something. What if they dont? Do we go back to rubbing sticks together.

 

Yes - probably

India can use thorium instead of uranium. There really isn't much recoverable U left "for its massive and increasing energy needs"

Australia should not have nuclear power. It is one of the most ideal places on earth for solar in combination with wind.

Renewable supplies are currently the only answer.

Yes they do

No they don't

Baseload solar thermal with molten salt storage is already operating and billions of dollars of investment is building more plants as we speak.



Get with the times. U based nuclear is old, failed technology.

 

oxy have you seen the tv series At Home With Julia.

Not the funniest tv I have every watched but it was good for a half hours worth of my time.

One suspects that the machinations of the labor party shown or satirised in that series is not far off the truth.

 

It is disingenuous for australia to sell uranium to India. India have their own slow breeder reactor program using Thorium. The only reason for selling Uranium to India is so India can use foreign resources while concentrating on their nuclear weapons program.
Also, there is over 500 000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste currently stored at existing nuclear reactors world wide. This waste will remain dangerous for thousands of years; modern civilisation ( measured from the invention of AC electricity ) is barely over 100 years old. India has huge reserves of thorium. What is to stop other nations, third parties, from receiving Australian uranium transhipped through India.
The problem with nuclear power is nuclear power itself, It is dirty, dangerous and less reliable than wind.

 

OMFG, you can not be serious!

During the peak electricity load in summer, OZ is often covered by large slow moving high pressure systems with barely a breath of wind.

Try again.

 

dragon,
I do agree, but in Australia we will do everything to make a profit, sorry to say...

 

bull(*)(*)(*)(*),
if every roof in Australia is covered with solar panels, we could drive all our aircons by ourselves. Try again, ignorer....

 

Geographical diversity is the key.

Australia is a big place. Always windy somewhere

 

Wind was an analogy! If the carbon tax were to be reduced to $9.00 per tonne with no cross subsidies then the revenue should all be used to establish installation of renewables. India has a billion lights program where they are giving rural villagers solar panels with low wattage lamps for lighting.
As for that high in summer, we now have in progress a national grid. It is always windy somewhere. Wind alone will not sustain our needs. Leadership is required to allocate resources for installation of tidal ( there's terrawatts to be exploited in the north ) geothermal, numerous hotspots with patchy commitment from our 'leaders', solar and wave. Needed is a protracted implementation of a defined program for installing and utilising renewables through distributed generation and distributed storage. Unfortunately our 'politicians' have sold off the power generation plant that we spent over 100 years developing and created oligarchs who run them. There was no need for this. The reasons are quite messy, but never in the public interest. If we do not commence to implement a system of renewables we will grind to a halt.

 

They were talking about wind FFS. Wind.

They said WIND was more reliable then nuclear power.

Why don't you try and read comments before making yours, hey?

Ignorer! Ignorer of WTF was actually written!