Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Most Aussies oppose nuclear power

Following up our recent posting on how the nuclear debate in Australia is simply a Howard wedge tactic designed to split Labor, is a Newspoll showing 51 percent of Australians opposed to nuclear power in Australia. :::[SMH]

Other results:
  • More people opposed uranium enrichment than approved of it (46 per cent to 34 per cent)
  • 44 per cent were against the opening any new uranium mines
  • 22 per cent wanted no uranium mining at all
  • supporters of nuclear power stations were mostly men or Coalition affiliates
  • majority opposition came from women, people aged between 18 and 49, and Labor voters
  • there has been a dramatic closing of the gap in the past 20 years
There has been a dramatic closing of the gap in the past 20 years of those who oppose or support the idea of enriching Australian uranium for nuclear reactors before enriching it.
  • A 1988 poll showed 59 per cent of people were against uranium enrichment in Australia and only 25 per cent supported it
  • In the latest poll 46 per cent opposed to uranium enrichment (13-point drop), and there has been a nine-point rise to 34 per cent for those in favour
On another point it is interesting to note that Howard's popularity is going in the same direction as Bush's, Blair's and Berlusconi's. The Iraq war disaster may not have seemed to initially affect Howard as much as his coalition cohorts, but it is a slow burn as Australians realise that a) Iraq seems to only go from worse to worse as we pass each new heralded milestone with lowered hopes and no respite, b) petrol prices keep going up while oil companies make record profits, c) we turned our largest wheat importer into an enemy and wasted much by the way of military resources, while we ignored problems in East Timor, who we have a duty to help after exposing them to Indonesia's revenge.
Other posts on nuclear in Australia:Other blogs on:

1 comment:

giordano bruno said...

Fission-Steam can not be cheap, if all subsidies and insurance let-outs are public.

Fission-Steam should only be chosen if it is sure to reduce CO2 emissions.
And, the construction cycles mean years of concrete-CO2 emissions - do we have time?

"The lower the ore grade, the more energy is consumed in the fuel processing, so that the amount of the carbon dioxide released in the overall fuel cycle depends on the ore grade. Only Canada and Australia have ores of a sufficiently high grade to avoid excessive carbon releases and to provide an adequate energy gain. At ore grades below 0.01% for ?soft? ores and 0.02% for ?hard? ores more CO2 than an equivalent gas-fired station is released and more energy is absorbed in the cycle that is gained in it. Ores of a grade approaching the "crossover" point such as those in India of 0.03%, if used, risk going into negative energy gain if there are a few "hiccups" in the cycle."