Prev
Next

Greens think locally, act stupidly on uranium

Cameron England

by Cameron England

17 Sep 05:30am

Must Reads

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses - this is a caption

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

14

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this - this is a caption

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

50

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

121

Filed under: Greens, Nuclear Power, Olympic Dam, Uranium

116 comments

The Australian Greens want to stop all uranium exploration, close all of Australia’s existing uranium mines, oh, and while they’re at it, they’d also like a nuclear free world.

For starters, we can close Olympic Dam.

Guess what: It’s not going to happen. It’s bad policy, naive politics, and exhibits an undergraduate response to federal politics which is unbecoming in a party soon to hold the balance of power in the Senate.

Added to that, it’s a stance which assumes that the debate about the utility of nuclear power for climate change reduction is over, and that it’s been found wanting. This is far from the case.

Green commentators around the world are split on whether nuclear should be part of the mix when it comes to climate change mitigation on of the Greens’ key concerns mind you.

The Greens may take some succour from the situation in Belgium, where a law to phase out nuclear power is in force. It will be quite the challenge, what with the country’s seven nuclear reactors providing more than half of the country’s power.

Elsewhere the situation is a little more grim, from a Greens’ perspective. Globally, according to the World Nuclear Association, there are 440 nuclear reactors in operation. There are another 59 under construction, 149 planned and a further 344 at a more distant level of planning.

It’s safe to say, that as far as nuclear energy production goes, the genie is out of the bottle.

The world is rushing headlong into a nuclear renaissance whether the case for climate change reduction stacks up or not. And the Greens want us to forgo billions in export earnings each year because nuclear weapons are bad? Please…

The fact that nuclear weapons are ``bad’’ is exactly the reason Australians should be mining uranium.

Personally I would rather that the lion’s share of the world’s uranium is produced by two of the world’s most stable and regulated democracies in the world Australia and Canada than pretty much any of the other jurisdictions in the world where uranium deposits exist.

Shut down all of our mines and Kazakhstan, Namibia and Russia round out the top three.

No offence but I have more faith in Australian companies and officials regulating where our uranium ends up than those in any of those three countries.

And then there’s the small matter of Olympic Dam - the world’s single largest uranium resource, situated in the South Australian outback. Trouble is, the uranium is tangled up with copper and gold, and there’s no way to mine the three minerals separately.

Any move to phase out uranium mining would involve shutting down one of Australia’s largest mines, which could soon be expanded into the largest mine in the world, creating more than 10,000 new jobs and generating billions of dollars in export revenues for a mine life estimated to be more than 100 years.

And don’t forget, while we’re phasing out our uranium industry, according to the Greens, we’ll also be working on a way to develop radio-isotopes for nuclear medicine without using nuclear reactors. A significant task in itself, one would have thought.

The Greens are in a position to drive real change in Australian policy, consistent with their own views and those of their voting bloc. Putting forth naive, extreme policy positions which have no chance of translating into legislation or policy change is a waste of their potential influence. If they continue to do this, they may find that the historic surge in voter support for them exhibited at the last federal election begins to wane.

Most commented

429Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
333Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
265Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

116 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      05:46am | 17/09/10

      Good article. Before the inevitable “Oh but Chernobyl” whining starts, it should be pointed out that modern reactor designs are much safer than those of the early years.

      Pebble bed reactors are inherently meltdown-proof, because the reaction slows down as heat increases. They can also be made small enough to power remote towns.

      Next-generation thorium reactors use a common waste element from mining, of which there is enough to last hundreds of thousands of years. There is currently little interest in building them because of commitment to the uranium fuel cycle - and because thorium can’t be used to make bombs.

      The Greens lack both vision and realism when they reject proven carbon-neutral energy resources in favour of failed ideas like wind turbines.

      Reply

    • Macca says:

      09:00am | 17/09/10

      Ah, the Chernobyl argument, I wouldn’t feel safe using a spoon made in 1960s Russia. The Safety developments in past 50 years result in Nuclear power being amongst the safest heavy industries in the world.

      Australia is very fortunate to have the natural resources we do; our entire electricity grid has been built on the back of increadibly cheap Coal.

      We have been constantly nagged about the potentially dire consequences of climate change, told that Australia needs a more mature approach. Yet the Greens refuse to have an open debate on the benefits of alternate power, including Nuclear. This, from a party that wants a public debate on our role in Afghanistan. Their behaviour is as childish and hypocritical as either of the major parties.

    • Adam Diver says:

      10:11am | 17/09/10

      I just realised the irony (or hypocrisy) of the greens and the warmists pushing for a carbon tax or an ets and not discussing nuclear. If this abomination of a tax ever comes into being the result will to make nuclear even more popular and far more cost effective than any of the other methods of producing power.

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:57am | 17/09/10

      @ Adam Diver

      We have deadlines for meeting GHG reduction targets, and nuclear won’t be here in time to help us.  That’s why I’m against putting govt money into nuclear energy in Australia in the near future.

    • Macca says:

      11:27am | 17/09/10

      @Steely Dan, that is a really short term view. We have a 5 year target to meet, so we won’t invest in technology that could benefit the country for many many decades. Thats pretty pathetic

    • Jimmy says:

      11:53am | 17/09/10

      @Macca, it’s not just that it won’t be ready in five years, it’s that it has long-term ramifications (waste) that are not going to be safely resolved, so it would be better to invest in research into alternatives.

      No matter how safe, efficient of cheap nuclear energy is, it seems like a backward step in terms of finding a viable energy source for the longer term. It’s been around for many decades and, despite the massive leaps in safety and engineering around the physical plants, the question of waste has not been progressed much at all. Storing it on our planet is not viable long term, and shooting it into space or onto other space objects is childish and not an option for a mature culture.

      Additionally, the premise of Cameron’s article that Australia should mine it because we’re less evil than others seems a bit shallow to me. Shouldn’t we help lead/inspire change by looking at better practical alternaitves than nuclear power? I don’t presume to know what they may be, but there are many options to consider and explore.

      Cameron’s last paragraph mentions (correctly) that there is an opportunity to drive real change - shouldn’t we then use this to drive real change?

    • Jim says:

      12:38pm | 17/09/10

      @Jimmy; while I appreciate your heartfelt ideology, the bottom line is in terms of cost-effective, bulk production of energy, coal ranks number 1, coal/oil generators number 2, nuclear number 3. Then there is a huge gap to the ‘renewables’ the greens bang on about. A huge wind farm might power a small country town, a geothermal plant might generate enough power to keep its own lights on, solar panels on every houses roof might help but won’t eliminate the huge power demands from factories and processing plants. Biomass still needs to be burnt. About the only renewable that is worthwhile at this stage is tidal, but there will be groups objecting to that.
      For the life of me I cannot see why the Greens do not take this opportunity to set the world standards in nuclear power safety.
      As to the storage, 25 years ago it was a problem that was continually used in every argument against it…but things have advanced since then.

    • Eric says:

      12:45pm | 17/09/10

      Jimmy, as others have pointed out, the waste issue is vastly exaggerated. And there are some new types of reactors that could turn waste into fuel.

      Nuclear technology has a proven past and a brighter future. Ignoring it shows a lack of seriousness on behalf of those who clamour about climate change.

    • zatnikatal says:

      12:52pm | 17/09/10

      For once I agree with Eric, huh, feel wierd now

      @ Jimmy, how is putting nuclear waste into space childish? Just curious why you would say that?
      @Adam Diver, screw the damn commitments. We need to focus on what is best for us and our enviroment. If nuclear means less coal then that is good for less strip mining of our land, less smashing our water tables and less polutions in the air and water

    • Jimmy says:

      01:08pm | 17/09/10

      @Jim: agreed that current alternatives are not viable. Wind power is laughable in its inefficiency and huge land requirements and solar power needs a seismic shift in technology to make it feasible. However, I do see harnessing and exploiting solar energy as currently the most promising area to supply our future energy needs.

      @Eric: ignoring nuclear is not a common sense option, I agree with you there, as a post of mine further down the page indicates. I’m glad to hear of the advances made in waste minimisation and management, I think it’s critical that efforts also need to be focussed on this if nuclear energy is to remain an option.

      @zatnikatal: maybe my comment was in itself a bit childish smile, but I feel that choosing to jettison our waste into space, or desecrate other space objcts (planets, asteroids etc.) with our waste, indicates a level of immaturity on our part. It just seems that we’d once again but putting it out of sight, out of mind, rather than looking for a solution to the problem. I hope that clarifies my comment a bit further.

    • Eric says:

      03:47pm | 17/09/10

      Jimmy, I’m glad to see that you have an open mind. Sadly, I am a proselytiser, so I can’t claim to be as open to new ideas as you are. I just say what I think.

      As for nuclear waste - it’s dangerous because it’s radioactive. But radioactivity is a form of energy. Therefore, some scientists are working on ways of harnessing this energy for good uses, rather than just letting it leak out to contaminate the world.

      Greatly simplified I know, but then I’m not a nuclear physicist (I dropped out two years into the course).

    • Steely Dan says:

      04:35pm | 18/09/10

      @ macca

      I’m not talking about the politically-imposed 5-year target.  I’m talking about the targets that the leading scientists in the field say we need to reach.

    • Against the Man says:

      06:51am | 17/09/10

      The greed for power which drove Gillard to form a partnership with the Greens is one of the many reasons that I feel the ALP is bad government.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      07:08am | 17/09/10

      I was at work in Melbourne when Butler Transport burnt down in Dynon Road.  I stood on Spencer Street Station and copped a lungful of fumes - NO WARNINGS, NO DISASTER PLANS!  If Australian engineers cannot cope with normal hazardous substances, how will they ever cope with isotopes with half lives of thousands of years, which emit high levels of radiation? As usual, it’s going to be ‘Whoops, Sorwry’!!!!!!

      Reply

    • TimB says:

      07:51am | 17/09/10

      You copped a lungful of of fumes? That explains an awful lot.

      And I believe we’re under some sort of agreement to store much of the nuclear waste that’s generated overseas from our uranium anyway (stupid if you ask me, but eh). If we’re already storing and mining the stuff for others, it’‘s utterly stupid to not take advantage of what we have.

    • Macca says:

      09:27am | 17/09/10

      @Acotrel, without getting too hysterical for once, could you please explain why you oppose the debate on Nuclear Power, and what other measures would you consider to reduce our Carbon Emissions, whilst doing your best to maintain Australian Jobs and keep the cost of living acceptable

    • Ben81 says:

      02:27pm | 17/09/10

      acotrel compare the amount of people who die or get sick every year around the world as a result of nuclear power generation and waste transport/storage (zero), with the amount of people who die and end up with respiratory diseases/cancer etc and die from just one other method of power generation ignoring all the others, coal, (tens of thousands of premature deaths every year), and tell me why you think you have a rational argument there.
      We are talking about one of the safest and cleanest industries in the world.  If you really cared and it wasn’t about some idealistic political argument to you, you’d be concerned about industries that are actually harming people.

    • Senior Australian says:

      07:09am | 17/09/10

      The new nuclear power generators are cheaper, more efficient and safer and can be built in about two years.  Bring thorium into the equation and there is a huge reduction in waste materials none of which is suitable for nuclear weapons.  Nuclear power is the obvious way to combat climate change without having to implement a carbon tax.  The Greens need to get with the times.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:21am | 17/09/10

      ’ If we’re already storing and mining the stuff for others, it’‘s utterly stupid to not take advantage of what we have. ‘

      Which raises a serious question!  Which port does the stuff come through, and how is it controlled?

    • acotrel says:

      08:25am | 17/09/10

      What I really like is the idea that ‘it all just happens’, seemingly put up by people who’ve never done anything!  Some of us have to get our hands dirty.

    • L. says:

      11:03am | 17/09/10

      “Which raises a serious question!  Which port does the stuff come through, and how is it controlled? “

      Why does it raise that question..? I would be pretty confident that the stuff is being handled adaquately as per whatever regs and standards are in place, all of which would be heavily audited on a regular basis.

    • Jimmy says:

      12:19pm | 17/09/10

      Thorium seems like something worth looking at more closely, although it’s still not clean and safe, just cleaner and safer than uranium. Some good info on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium

      If we do decide to continue down the nuclear path, options like this would need to be explored more seriously.

    • Macca says:

      02:14pm | 17/09/10

      @Jimmy, if I was Tertiary education minister, I would be asking one of the major Physics departments in Australia to do a serious bit of research on the viability of Thorium. the potential!

    • Kordez says:

      04:03pm | 17/09/10

      Whether we like it or not, thorium is not a renewable resource and requires harvesting, preparation and transportation prior to being able to be used.

    • Eric says:

      04:32pm | 17/09/10

      Well, duh, Kordez. Of course thorium is not renewable. But we have enough of it to last for many hundreds of thousands of years - during which we could develop better sources of energy.

      Solar power isn’t renewable either - the sun will burn out, three or four billion years down the track. But in the meantime, there’s plenty of opportunity to come up with useful energy sources on a human timescale.

    • Gregg says:

      02:12am | 18/09/10

      @ acotrel
      ” ’ If we’re already storing and mining the stuff for others, it’‘s utterly stupid to not take advantage of what we have. ‘

      Which raises a serious question!  Which port does the stuff come through, and how is it controlled? “
      What makes you think we are storing radioactive waste for others?
      http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/online/radioactivewaste.htm

    • Russell says:

      07:18am | 17/09/10

      Trouble is Cameron, naivety is part of their DNA; it’s the core of their entire belief structure.

      I once had an interview with a leading local Greens politician who was standing in a (now) winnable inner city seat. I had asked her about her opposition to a particular development, one that would have had immense benefit to local workers, residents and entry-level homebuyers.

      “People will make money,” she told me. I waited for her to make her point, to explain what exactly was the problem. But that was it.

      Reply

    • Sherekahn says:

      08:49am | 17/09/10

      While now is the age where “to make money” is defunct as a reason to do anything, there must be sensible reasons put forward for ANY development anywhere.
      GDP is the unacceptable face of Capitalism causing a ponzi cycle of needs.
      We must PAY to protect our world therefore some development projects should go ahead regardless of cost if it is to the greater good of our way of, looking after our planet.
      Meanwhile, the Greens must stop their predilections to become ‘just another Religion!’
      Perhaps they should first attempt to de-nuclearise Israel, when they succeed at that, perhaps their dreamy ideology will be worn out.

    • fairsfair says:

      09:24am | 17/09/10

      I feel the same everytime I see Christine Milne. She is just unbelieveable - waffles, irritates and goes round and round in circles. She offers no positive contribution to a debate - is a poor communicator (in general and in terms of policy) and she is one of the most senior members of the party. I don’t mean this to sound like a personal attack - because it is honestly directed at all of htem - how do they expect the educated public (and those who actually see past the surface) to take them seriously? They are a romantic notion in themselves and there is no place for that in politics.

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:53am | 17/09/10

      @ Russell

      “People will make money,” she told me. I waited for her to make her point, to explain what exactly was the problem. But that was it.”
      Sorry, not buying it.  Yes, I am calling you a liar.

    • Jimmy says:

      12:37pm | 17/09/10

      @Russell, your story seems a bit of a stretch, let alone the extrapolation of that one (alleged) statement into becoming an integral part of their philosophy.

      If it is true, and this politician’s depth of policy understanding is as shallow as that, why haven’t we heard it reported when she put her objections on the record during the campaign?

    • Tim says:

      02:08pm | 17/09/10

      Jimmy,
      it’s highly plausible.
      You have heard Christine Milne and Sarah Hanson Young speak haven’t you?
      To call them wafflers is an understatement.
      I don’t like Bob Brown, but compared to these two he looks like a mensa member.

    • acotrel says:

      02:25pm | 17/09/10

      ‘Why does it raise that question..? I would be pretty confident that the stuff is being handled adaquately as per whatever regs and standards are in place, all of which would be heavily audited on a regular basis. ‘

      L, - That’d be a big first !
      Get yourself a job in industry, preferably at Lucas Heights ! You need the experience.

    • Jimmy says:

      02:45pm | 17/09/10

      @Timmy, anything is potentially plausible, but the probability in this instance is low, or it would have been reported and exploited.

      Yes, I have heard Christine Milne and Sarah Hanson Youing speak, and they can waffle like any professional politician, but compared to the obfuscatory experts in the Labor and Coalition parties, they are rank amateurs.

      Maybe the Greens’ are a bit too amateurish in their attempts to “stay on message”, and need to get some more pointers from the major parties…

    • Russell says:

      04:51pm | 17/09/10

      @ Steely Dan. Cripes, nothing like a challenge, I went back to my notes. Her exact words were , “You have to understand that there are people there who will make a great deal of money”. I don’t care if you believe me or not, but calling someone a liar from the safety of an assumed name is gutless. (They were a crap band too)

    • Steely Dan says:

      04:49pm | 18/09/10

      @ Russell

      “I went back to my notes.”
      Oh, your notes.  My bad then.

      “I don’t care if you believe me or not, but calling someone a liar from the safety of an assumed name is gutless.”
      Then call me gutless, Mr Russell No-Surname-Or-Personal-Details-Provided.  But when you quote an unnamed Greens politician, using ‘your notes’ as a reference, for something that (had it been said in front of a camera and within the context you framed) would have been instantly pounced on by her political opponents and the media, I think I’m allowed to be skeptical.

      “(They were a crap band too)”
      The name’s older than the crap band.

    • thatmosis says:

      07:18am | 17/09/10

      The Greens are showing their true colours and its not Green. Nuclear free world, it is to laugh except these clowns believe it. Australia has an abundance of uranium and shouls mine and sell it as this makes money for the country, but the Greens want to stop it all, put the companies out of business, sack all the workers because the idea of nuclear doent fit into their view of utopia. What a bunch of morons. Time to have a look at their other policies that will impact badly on the Australian Tax Payer?????

      Reply

    • Jim says:

      07:46am | 17/09/10

      Unfortunately Cameron, the fear and misinformation about nuclear power has spanned generations. A 15MW coal powered station pumps about 6 tonnes each of uranium and thorium into the atmosphere each year. A 15MW nuclear station generates about 2 tonnes of ‘contaminated’ waste a year - including boot covers, broom heads, clipboards, overalls etc. Having a nuclear power station at places like Mt Isa, Gladstone and Weipa would save so much carbon it’s not funny. But the Greens just don’t get it.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:33am | 17/09/10

      What YOU don’t ‘get’, is that there must be a change in the industrial paradigm.  The answers to poverty provided by the industrial revolution are unsustainable in the long term. The Coalition intends to obstruct the NBN, the very thing which can dramatically improve education to the levels needed to run a nuclear/hi-tech economy. (Talk about ‘disappear up your own fundamental’?)

    • TimB says:

      09:45am | 17/09/10

      AUGH! “Paradigm”

      Blech.

      I love how you claim that the we need super-fast internet in order to have a chance at understading this new-fangled nyu-kyu-leer energy.

      Quick Julia! Build our NBN quick smart or we’re doomed to become a nation of imbeciles!

      I guess all those nuclear scientists who got their education long before the internet gained prominence just fluked it, hey Acrotel?

    • AdamC says:

      09:58am | 17/09/10

      Jim, hear hear. I couldn’t agree more.

      I find it extraordinary that people will literally claim that human civilisation is at risk of total collapse due to climate change, but then flat out refuse to consider low-carbon nuclear power as an alternative. It just doesn’t add up, and is one of the reasons I am highly sceptical of many of the more aggressive climate claims.

      Acotrel, you are unintentionally hilarious.

    • Adam Diver says:

      10:00am | 17/09/10

      Good point Acetrol, we need people leaning advanced nuclear sciences over the internet. Perhaps we should just be able to buy the degree over the internet as well.

      People want a “like” button on the comments here, I feel it is time to have a “moron” button installed to save many of us having to reply.

    • Joe Blow says:

      12:30pm | 17/09/10

      @ acotrel It’s simply amazing that many developed countries have managed to develop and operate safe nuclear power industries for years without broadband internet. How DID they do it??

    • Elphaba says:

      01:18pm | 17/09/10

      @acotrel

      You seem quite mad.  This amuses me.

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      07:54pm | 17/09/10

      @Jim - totally agree.

      @AdamC - I’m with you there

      @alcotrel - if the NBN can be built using 100% renewable energy with zero carbon emissions and zero radioactivity from that energy source, then I’m with you too - provided Greens supporters chip in and pay the difference if done using conventional means.

    • Peter says:

      07:52am | 17/09/10

      Olympic Dam could operate without producing uranium for sale Cameron. The processing circuit is capable of being adjusted to ensure the facility spat out LME-grade copper and gold only.
      Problem is, the mountains of uranium-loaded by product would have to be stored and the cost of stockpiling and managing that massive volume of semi-processed oxide would eat into the profits earned from the copper and gold streams.
      But the Greens hate nuclear power not just for the waste and weapons issues. They hate it because it would deal big science, big capital and big industry into the very centre of national and global energy policy. That’s a space they want to rule. Can you imagine them holding their own against private industry expertise when the discussions get technical and complex? The last thing the Greens want is a society with abundant and cheap energy which is the prospect offered by a flourishing nuclear industry. Fusion sooner. A hydrogen economy based on abundant cheap electricity. In this scenario, renewables and the stultifying conserve-and-eke-out-a-life philosophy of the Greens is irrelevant. Which would mean an end to the Greens as a political force. That’s why they don’t want nuclear.

      Reply

    • The Badger says:

      09:21am | 17/09/10

      What’s a “fusion sooner” and where can I run out and get one?

    • Peter says:

      09:47am | 17/09/10

      @The Badger. Home fusion. Great idea! Stick an AGL family fusion reactor in the broom cupboard and run a plasma on every wall.

    • The Badger says:

      10:41am | 17/09/10

      Peter, where can I get one?
      Do I have to have plasma everywhere? Is that a driver for sooner fusion?

    • Paul says:

      10:41am | 17/09/10

      ... and a ‘Mr Fusion’ attached to every Delorian….

    • Michael says:

      11:15am | 17/09/10

      Only point to make here is that, whatever you think about nuclear fission reactors, opposition to them is also very stupidly stifling research into nuclear fusion, which is the absolute antithesis of nuclear fission: extremely high power yield, no radioactive fallout, waste product is water, and if controllable solves the planet’s energy problems at a fell swoop.  Hydrogen’s even more common than uranium on the planet, too.

      It’s still decades away, I grant you, but there are several processes underway across the world to try and get a sustainable and controllable fusion reaction going.  If we put all the stupid money from solar and wind research into fusion, we’d have the resources to finally make the leap to a society with abundant and cheap energy.

    • Jimmy says:

      01:16pm | 17/09/10

      @Michael: good point, the hysterics and hyperbole are always getting in the way of funding for research into the potential of many energy sources, nuclear energy included. How do we stop the politicians continually running this debate into the ground for the wrong reasons?

    • Peter says:

      06:21pm | 17/09/10

      @michael and @Jimmy. Agreed. For me fusion is the obvious answer and investment in fission would take the industry to a commercial fusion option much sooner than if taxpayer funds are frittered away on renewables that can’t get close to break even with the assistance public subsidies. Which is what the carbon tax revenue is earmarked for I guess.

    • GreenGoblin says:

      11:05am | 18/09/10

      Michael @ 11:15am. I agree with nuclear fusion research, what I don’t understand is why we are not harnessing the power coming from the massive nuclear fusion reactor I can see out of my window. Wouldn’t it make more sense to use what we have, why try and emulate what we already have available to us. In other words we’ve got the ‘Sun’ why do we need to build another one?

    • TimB says:

      07:56am | 17/09/10

      Brilliant article.

      Honestly it’s time we had a proper open debate on the subject, free from the ignorance of NIMBY-ism.  A few nuclear power stations properly planned and built could do wonders for this country.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:38am | 17/09/10

      TimB, Your job could be to polish the fuel rods!

    • Sherekahn says:

      09:14am | 17/09/10

      AGREED, in the European news great ‘stock’ is being made of Belgium’s wish to denuclearise by shutting down its 6 or 7 nuclear power stations, even though they supply 50% of the country’s electricity.
      Woah!  Wait a minute, what would be the reason when the country is surrounded by at least 100 other nuclear plants a few kilometres away?
      My guess is that it may satisfy Dreamers, (Greens) in Belgium, while the Government will then purchase electricity from France’s nuclear abundance, which they already offer abroad to those ready to purchase.
      Such is the sleight of hand that the dreamers call progress.

      There maybe another reason, that they fear for the BEER!

    • Macca says:

      09:31am | 17/09/10

      @Sherekahn, I read an article when I was in the UK about a year ago stating that if Britian failed to increase its base-power options, up to 30% of their electricity use could come from French Nuclear power stations.

    • Andrew says:

      03:52pm | 18/09/10

      @acotrel,

      Your job can be to shovel coal into the boilers at the power station then.  Mind you, your chance of contracting lung cancer from breathing coal dust will be approximately 200x that of the average person (ie, almost guaranteed).  Or you can go an mine the coal, that’s a fun job too.  Or you can deal with the billions of tons of ash that results from the combustion process, that should be a blast for you.  Yes, nuclear is a hazardous work environment, but no more so than coal.  And considering the relative maturity of the technologies (hundreds of years for coal, less than 50 for commercial nuclear) I’d say nuclear has a lot more improvement in store than coal based power sources do.  Deaths due to nuclear power generation have been almost non-existent over the entire life of the industry.  Compare that to coal, which still causes thousands of deaths each year, and probably hundreds of thousands indirectly due to pollution, etc.  If you want a tour, I’d be happy to show you around a few coal-fired plants, and you can see for yourself what a clean, sterile environment it is (not).  Compare that to the almost hospital grade sterility in a nuclear plant, and then tell me where you’d rather work.

      Nuclear power has a few arguments against it - safety of the workers is NOT one of them.  As regards waste, the options for waste disposal in Australia are endless.  We have billions of hectares of empty, useless land to store it in.  Land that is not going to be used in the next few thousand years for anything productive, and has no value at all.  Or we could just put it back in the great holes in the ground caused by the mines themselves - you know, where the original radioactive fuel was dug up from in the first place?

    • Denny Crane says:

      08:09am | 17/09/10

      Nuclear Power is the cheapest form of power, we also have bundles of uranium, we should be exporting this like there is no tommorrow.

      This could decrease the debt of the country, and creat more jobs for our country, the coal industry would not be effected int hat any new mines opened we could allow the coal companies first crack at the mines if they want.

      Uranium - Nuclear Power is clean and safe, and correct me if i am wrong, a governement is in office to make life better for every australian.

      Through nuclear Power -
      Debt goes down
      Exports go up
      Balance of Trade improves
      Electricity if we use nuclear power here goes down
      Job Creation

      We could position ourselves as a power in the field, and yet show that again Australia is a world leader

      Reply

    • Bruce says:

      12:13pm | 17/09/10

      Denny, i couldn’t agree more.

      Investing in development into N-power, and also renewable energy like solar, is something that would pay off massively from Australia for generations to come. We are uniquely positioned due to our geography, and mineral and human resources to become leaders in this field. This is exactly what the greens should be fighting FOR not against.

    • Eric says:

      12:51pm | 17/09/10

      Absolutely, Bruce and Denny.

      Did you know that Australian scientists at the HIFAR facility in Lucas Heights have developed a revolutionary new technology for refining uranium isotopes? It makes the production of enriched uranium vastly cheaper and saves huge amounts of power over current techniques.

      A Japanese company is planning to implement this new Australian technology - why are we ignoring it?

      Oh, by the way, this massive technological advance was spawned from the facility that the Greens want to shut down for no good reason.

    • L. says:

      08:12am | 17/09/10

      I once read ..(can’t remember where)...tht anuke power would actually be muh more expensive than coal generated power due to the costs associated with build, running and storing the waste.

      Can someone point to me where I can see such figures? (Cost per Kw of modern nuke Vs Coal fired).

      Reply

    • Macca says:

      09:37am | 17/09/10

      @L. this is partly true, the initial set-up and creation of a Nuclear power plant is quite expensive. However, A Nuclear Powerplant producing the same power as a Coal power plant will require far less fuel and produce far less emissions. If we want really cheap electricity, via currently available plants, with little care for Carbon emissions, Coal is the way to go.

      However, if we want to plan ahead, reduce our emissions and our reliance on Coal, Nuclear seems like a potential option

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:28am | 17/09/10

      I am still unsure at what the opposition to nuclear power is fom a green perspective.

      The biggest environmental issue facing the planet is global warming (as they say) caused by human activity emitting carbon.

      The greatest source of carbon emissions - power supply and motor vehicles.

      Answer to both - nuclear power, proven, reliable, safe, relatively cheap.

      The problem with the greens is there is no comprimise. Its either utopia or nothing. The other problem is thier idea of utopia differs to many others. I would like cheap electricity to run all my modern luxuries, not giving up my modern luxuries so that I can afford electricity.

      Reply

    • Jim says:

      10:12am | 17/09/10

      The Greens would have us living out of caves…remember, they even stopped a wind farm going ahead because of a parrot that was sighted there in 1953, and a solar tower for some other equally obscure reason. Wave power also will be obstructed with a ‘save the jellyfish’ rant.

    • iansand says:

      08:35am | 17/09/10

      Nuclear may, or may not, be part of the answer.  It should be examined.  To refuse to consider nuclear because of some ideological baggage that some of the Greens brought with them when they joined the party is very, very stupid.

      Reply

    • Ginger says:

      08:54am | 17/09/10

      idealist politics is not bad politics. Bad politics is when you develop policy from the perspective of what you think will get you elected…

      Reply

    • Sherekahn says:

      10:15am | 17/09/10

      That’s the Greens ginger.
      Sarah Hansen Young’s cuddling of the boat people, in particular the Sri Lankan Tigers got her all their votes.  Little does she realise, they have more political organisation than the Greens.
      The Nuclear debate has a lot of alarmist adherents also, log on to, “UN Climate Trackers” to see.

    • incervisiaveritas says:

      09:16am | 17/09/10

      A very timely article.
      Nuclear Power Stations require a LOT of water (for cooling purposes). The Canadians have developed a method to use seawater to perform that function efficiently. A side-effect of that is that the water is desalinated.
      So here’s an idea:
      Build a Nuclear facility near the headwaters of a major river - for instance, the Murray (Toowoomba comes to mind). Pipe the seawater there. Some use could then be made of “Beattie’s Folly” - the pipeline built to [supposedly] send water to Wivenhoe Dam and further afield.
      Use the seawater; pump the desalinated water into the headwaters; double benefit – power generation and water into one of the major river-systems in Australia.
      There are probably other places in the country where this could be done.
      Think about it Folks.

      Reply

    • Markus says:

      10:56am | 17/09/10

      Interesting stuff.
      Does regularly using seawater for cooling purposes have any significant effect on maintenance requirements for the plant, due to rust or corrosion etc?

    • Macca says:

      11:31am | 17/09/10

      @Markus, I think its ok because it is desalinated… but I understand Desalinated Water is “Harder” than “fresh Water” and that can impact on the maintenance required in some of the machinary. So yes, it requires a rigourous approach, but not for the reasons you’ve outlined

    • Richard says:

      12:15pm | 17/09/10

      Toowoomba is nowhere near the headwaters of the Murray. Crackpot ideas like this are even worse than Green obfuscation and backwardness.

    • incervisiaveritas says:

      04:47pm | 17/09/10

      @Richard
      Check your facts.
      Condamine / Darling / Murray

    • Richard says:

      09:41pm | 17/09/10

      Sorry incervisiaveritas, you are 100% correct. I had a momentary attack of NIMBYism, but on further reflection your ideas do seem sound.

    • Senior Australian says:

      09:19am | 18/09/10

      Funnily enough, back in the fifties when the use of nuclear power was a household word, it was suggested that a series of nuclear generators should be positioned along the Great Australian Bight to generate electricity which in turn would be used to pump water to Lake Eyre.  This presumably woul create a microclimate which would increase rainfall in the desert region.

    • Steely Dan says:

      09:29am | 17/09/10

      Yep, I support the Greens but this is clearly their worst piece of policy.

      I do want to point out though that a nuclear energy industry would take a long time to get going in Australia.  Renewables are still the way to go in the short term (next few decades) to bring our carbon emissions down - unless carbon capture actually works.

      Reply

    • Adam Diver says:

      10:59am | 17/09/10

      Renewables in the short term? They don’t even work yet on any economic scale. At best they still require backup generation so essentially serve no purpose and definately won’t be reducing carbon with coal burning consistently to cover the intermittent failures or new expensive gas back up generators.

    • Tim says:

      02:16pm | 17/09/10

      Come to Canberra and see how the local Greens (in coalition with Labor) are promoting renewables with their solar feed in tariff.

      Yay, we get to feel good about paying the equivalent of $400/tonne of CO2 saved, so well off people can put solar panels on their roof.
      Meanwhile electricity bills are rising exponentially and the majority of our power still comes from those evil coal power stations.

    • Justin says:

      09:33am | 17/09/10

      You should have seen Bob Brown on The Drum the other night. He was savaged by a bloke from The Spectator regarding the wild rivers situation in Queensland & was made to look like a blithering idiot. He just kept repeating “high speed rail” over & over again.

      The Greens are like a university degree - lots of theory, but lacking in practical skills. Their success may ironically be the start of their decline as their policies will now be genuinely scrutinized as they have some real chance of being implemented.

      Reply

    • Scarneck says:

      11:23am | 18/09/10

      “their policies will now be genuinely scrutinized as they have some real chance of being implemented.”  NOT BEFORE TIME

    • Kordez says:

      09:36am | 17/09/10

      There are other alternatives to nuclear which will meet Australia’s energy plans for 2050 and the waste that comes from these sources? None.. They are naturally occurring, sustainable and pollutant free. Also the materials used in the harvesting equipment/process are 100% recyclable. Labor F’d up insulation installations and you want them to install nuclear reactors?

      Reply

    • Elphaba says:

      09:41am | 17/09/10

      Yep, the Greens are truly retarded on this one.  I’m all for the warm and fuzzy solution, but we need a decent baseload power to pick up the slack from green power - otherwise electricity will become compltely unaffordable.

      Mine it like it’s going out of fashion, and get us off coal now.  I am SO sick of the “Oh Chernobyl” argument, which other people have echoed as well.  It was 24 years ago, in a country using ancient technology, because there was no money to upgrade, and who paid their workers a pittance.  Australia isn’t like that.

      But this kind of hysteria is exactly what I would expect from the touchy-feely, pie-in-the-sky, ridiculous face that is the Green Party….

      Reply

    • Elphaba says:

      10:17am | 17/09/10

      *completely
      *farce

      It’s a fat finger day today…

    • Brian says:

      12:51pm | 17/09/10

      More than that, Elphaba, it was during a poorly advised operational test in which all safety systems were bypassed and the experienced crew who were meant to be performing the test had been replaced by an inexperienced one (due to a delay in the test being performed). Even in this case it’s not like it just blew up without a lot of stupid decisions being made.

    • Elphaba says:

      01:15pm | 17/09/10

      @Brian, absolutely.  It certainly was a clusterf*ck, and completely unlikely to happen again.

      We can become a major world player with our uranium.  Who’s to say our the uranium we sell OS now doesn’t end up as part of an enrichment program, or used for less friendly practices?

      The solution to our energy crisis problems is right there, we should just take it.

    • Zaf says:

      09:56am | 17/09/10

      Funnily enough opposition to Nuclear power is the one Greens policy that is probably widely popular in Australia.  Focusing on the Greens is (pointlessly) shooting the messenger - you need to change how the general population feels about it.

      Last time I looked, Labor and the Coalition could pass any legislation they both agreed on, even if the Greens voted against it.  How come they haven’t passed any legislation re nuclear power or increased uranium mining?  What has it got to do with the Greens?

      Reply

    • Jim says:

      10:16am | 17/09/10

      Because the Greens are the ones most voal about it, able to whip up a frenzy in the media by transporting an army of ferals at a moments notice to anywhere in the country to protest. The media feed off the controversy - they are not interested in the facts. Ergo, the public form the wrong opinion on nuclear power.

    • The Badger says:

      11:25am | 17/09/10

      “whip up a frenzy in the media”
      “The media feed off the controversy - they are not interested in the facts. Ergo, the public form the wrong opinion.”

      Excellent, this is exactly how the conservative murdoch press manipulate public opinion.

      Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

    • Zaf says:

      02:08pm | 17/09/10

      My goodness, Jim.  If the Greens have so much power we’re sure to have death duties, gay marriage and decriminalised drugs policy in Australia!  Oh wait….

      Back to my question: neither Labor nor the Coalition has come out in favour of nuclear energy.  Blaming the Greens for this seems…intellectually ‘eccentric’.  Surely there is another reason?

      Rgds

    • Jim says:

      02:32pm | 17/09/10

      Don’t worry Zaf, Comrade Brown will be pushing hard for all those. But you miss my point; neither major party will commit political suicide by publicly backing nuclear energy because of the fuss the green faction will create. There simply cannot be constructive talk on this technology while the media gives headlines to these ferals.
      And Badger…“don’t let the facts get in the way of a good argument”; that straight out of your union handbook is it?

    • Zaf says:

      03:03pm | 17/09/10

      Jim,

      Despite Greens support for marriage equality (just for eg), neither Labor nor the Coalition have supported gay marriage, and this hasn’t resulted in their political suicide - all the feral demos-on-tap that you refer to notwithstanding.  The difference lies not the position of the Greens on these issues, rather in the general public’s opinion of the issues.

      If your objective is for Australia to invest in nuclear energy, and I think it is an arguable case to make, you need to focus on changing the public’s mind rather than wasting your time blaming the Greens for how Australia thinks about this issue (although demonstrably not about others). 

      Giving the Greens a spray will not change the general public’s mind about nuclear energy, it won’t change Labor or Coalition policies about nuclear energy, in fact it won’t even change Green voters’ minds about nuclear energy and/or voting Green.  So….why?  Genuine question.

      Rgds

    • The Badger says:

      04:20pm | 17/09/10

      No Jim
      I read it in the dummies guide to liberal policy.

      Along with this one.

      My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts!
      and this one

      My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right

      I don’t have a union manual because I’ve never been in a union.

    • Anjuli says:

      10:20am | 17/09/10

      They are not going to go nuclear any time soon ,if coal companies keep getting there way by gaining access to where the coal is. They are wanting into the Margret River area of WA which is a major wine growing, lovely part of the world .  People can easily travel on weekends from the metropolitan hassle and bustle to enjoy what the region has, beside all the heavy trucks that will be on the roads in that area if this comes to pass there will be the dirt and the dust to contend with from this industry .
      I am a coal miner’s daughter and witnessed first hand what this dirty industry   can do to peoples health , then there is the environmental issue .The world is shouting about man made climate change yet we are still mining the stuff that pollutes enormously, and selling it to the countries that are using it the most , there by polluting the atmosphere to a greater extent.

      Reply

    • Super D says:

      11:03am | 17/09/10

      The Greens will never change their policies.  Progressives have a strong aversion to facts and logic. 

      As the old saying goes “Never argue with an idiot, he’ll drag you down to his level then beat you with experience”

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      11:44am | 17/09/10

      The Greens as an ...‘undergraduate response ?’
      You betcha. And the editorial in the Australian refers to them as a ‘protest Party’.
      Why oh why the middle class mums and dads of Oz voted for them is one of the great mysteries. I mean, if you didn’t like the major partys, you’d do a ‘mark latham’ wouldn’t you ?
      (But soon things will revert to their natural order, birds will ‘swoop down on extended wings’ and gays will get married. Bliss in Heaven.)

      Reply

    • GreenGoblin says:

      12:08pm | 18/09/10

      What exactly is a ‘protest Party’ stephen?  Would that make reference to the 60,000 people (from 1.4 million plus) who voted Green this election but didn’t in the 2007 election? Your ‘mark latham’ comment says far more about your IQ level than it does about Green voters.

    • Joe Blow says:

      12:42pm | 17/09/10

      Fact:  Countries will continue to use nuclear energy
      Fact:  Nuclear power generation is environmentally friendly
      Fact:  Australia has a huge supply of Uranium and is well-placed to supply it in a safe manner
      Fact:  The Greens would rather Uranium be mined and supplied from countries with less environmentally safe processes
      Fact:  People will pay lots of money for storage of nuclear waste
      Fact:  Australia is potentially the safest place on earth to store nuclear waste
      Fact:  The Greens would rather nuclear waste be stored by third world countries in less safe environments.

      Reply

    • Kordez says:

      01:14pm | 17/09/10

      @Joe Blow, Just because you put Fact in front of a statement does not make it true. Look.. Fact: Nuclear waste stored according to current Australian standards will have no effect on the surrounding environment now or in the future.

      It is concerning that you believe that Australia is an ideal place for a toxic waste site. In fact we have one, we bought it from the original land owners for 12 million dollars, it’s in the middle of the South Australian desert. Fairly sure that they wouldn’t have sold it if they knew our intentions were to completely isolate the site from normal human use almost indefinitely.

      What I don’t understand is, why does Australia need Nuclear power? We live in a nation surrounded by naturally occurring energy, more than meeting our power consumption requirements for the next 50 years. You don’t have to believe me… Read it yourself..

      http://beyondzeroemissions.org/

    • Adam Diver says:

      07:38pm | 17/09/10

      @ Kordez - Have your ead the actual report from that link

      Fact: the energy proposed does not even exist, currently the closest thing to the model represented has capacity at 10%

      Fact: It involves retrofitting every building in the country at ??? expense

      Fact: It assumes a totally electric fleet of vehicles in less than 10 years

      Fact: Its total BS with no common sense applied and no regard for economic or even financial consideration.

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      08:27pm | 17/09/10

      @ Kordez
      “What I don’t understand is, why does Australia need Nuclear power? We live in a nation surrounded by naturally occurring energy”

      So we’re sweet in Australia then - we have an abundance of coal, (uranium, but we can’t use that - yet) and forests to burn.  Are these the naturally occurring energy you meant?

      Other nations lacking these resources -  well, according to you, that’s just their bad luck.

    • acotrel says:

      02:39pm | 17/09/10

      For the information of you lot - nuclear power generation in Australia will not be controlled by nuclear scientists.  In the mid-sixties the engineers mounted a wage case on the basis that they claimed to be the managers.  They gained a 10% loading, and that has been the status for the last 40 years.  A little knowledge is dangerous, and that’s all many of them have! I oppose an Australian nuclear industry because the morons amongst the engineers make disaster inevitable.

      Reply

    • Aitch B says:

      04:20pm | 17/09/10

      Ahhh… so you ARE a nuclear engineer, acotrel?

    • TimB says:

      07:35pm | 17/09/10

      How could he be? We dont have the NBN t that’s apparently required for him to learn his trade.

    • Andrew says:

      04:02pm | 18/09/10

      So now engineers are morons?  That is seriously your argument?  Here’s a newsflash for you - an engineering degree has higher admission standards, is longer, and is considerably harder than a science degree, regardless of major.  Newsflash #2 - reactors are built by engineers, not scientists.  Scientists work in the realms of theory and experiment - when it comes to making things work in the real world, engineers are the ones who make it happen.  So if you want somebody to look after your nuclear power plant, I think I’d choose the guy who built it, rather than the guy who knows the equations.  That said, a nice mixture of both would be ideal.

      Your argument still blows me away by it’s sheer stupidity though..

    • Truckle the Uncivil says:

      03:34pm | 17/09/10

      This is the very reason I left the green movement thirty five years ago.  It would be ironic if the Green anti-nuclear movement was responsible for allowing so much CO2 to hit the atmosphere.

      By obstructing nuclear power for forty years they have resulted in many species disappearing for all time.  Morally they are in no better position than active polluters.

      Reply

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      07:27pm | 17/09/10

      For perspective, just thought I’d mention recent reports indicating residue from coal mining is more radioactive than nuclear energy for the energy delivered.  Perhaps nuclear energy is not the bogeyman it’s made out to be.

      Disclaimer:  I’m not a nuclear engineer like some here, but I have been photographed with a 44 gallon drum of yellow cake in QLD and a 5 storey coal stack in VIC (guess which had the least radiation).  So I am an expert in the field, in a touristy way.

      Reply

    • Daniel says:

      09:49pm | 17/09/10

      The Greens policy against uranium has been very clear for a very long time. The public and the News Ltd media shouldnt be shocked by this. They should be more shocked about Abott and Abetz.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      02:48am | 18/09/10

      Give it a decade or so when the existing crop of coal fired power stations are about falling down into the coal open cuts adjacent and the Sh#t is hitting the fan regularly re rolling power rationing which will equal blackouts etc. with not even power for the NBN and the public might start to have a change of heart on both new Coal PS and Nuclear ones.

      There has not been a new major base load power station commenced construction for about twenty years now and the last big commissioning was about 15 years ago so with power stations having a nominal life of 30-40 years, maybe a bit more with substantial overhauls, population increase and a liking for airconditioning and plasma screens is forever getting us closer to D day and we have been able to put it off on the east coast courtesy of minor peak load gas turbine installations and interconnection of state grids that has given greater flexibility of load management including wider scheduling of plant outages.
      When that comes around, the problems ought to be laid squarely at the feet of the Greens and those who form an alliance with them.

      Reply

    • kim carsons says:

      04:58pm | 19/09/10

      nuclear fusion is an absurd propisition for a dry continent such as Australia, given the tremendous water usage of this energy provider. Australia needs firstly to get behind the renewables industries which will become easily the most competative way of providing electricity, instead of stonewalling the renewable industry, and living in dreamland with “clean coal”.
      As far as nuclear fusion goes, the digging up of uranium will indirectly fuel the arms race. Our uranium will be used for legitimate purpose, enabling countries to buy their uranium for the arms program, from more dubious sources.
      A blanket ban would squeeze the arms industry on a global scale.
      NUCLEAR FUSION is the only nuclear energy source that the earthlings should be thinking about as a model for the future.
      Australia should focus on leading the world in renewables instead of our 19th century fixation on exporting cheap coal to the rest of the world.
      Australia the MYOPIC,  colonial outpost looking to the rest of the world to lead us out of the proverbial wilderness is cemented into our psyche, and of course is perpetuated by compromised and coerced media outlets who ENFORCE this vision-less piece of fraudulance on an ill-informed sector of the public.
      BASE LOAD power from the biggest and most important energy provider human beings have ever known (the sun - what else) is already proven to be possible, depite the anti-renewable organisations (corporations, mainstream media, and the governmental forces who walk out like manaquins mouthing their mining mates phrases and ideologies) claims to the contrary.

      Reply

    • Gen Y says:

      05:54pm | 19/09/10

      What a capitalist pig you are, Mr England.  Ignorance is bliss.  Isn’t it?

      Reply

    • No Immediate Danger says:

      06:33pm | 21/09/10

      Urbanus says:  “you do realise that coal power plants produce more nuclear waste than nuclear power plants, right?” 

      Oh so your nuclear waste is better than mine right?  Wrong!

    • Hiroshima Joe says:

      06:19pm | 21/09/10

      Patience my fellow posters.  When Australia’s several hundred uranium projects, (ranging over tens of thousands of square kilometres) that are currently reporting to the financial market, are in operation,  you may then rejoice.  Then as you move closer to the abyss,  reflect on your noble and altruistic desire to clean up other nations while turning these arid brown lands into a radioactive wasteland.

      Reply

    • MikeyG says:

      08:12pm | 22/09/10

      Wow, there’s debate somewhere in here.  But it’s pretty clear that if you don’t agree with “certain posters” points of view , then they will try and tear you down, and a number of others with you.  The reality is it’s “about the economy stupid”.  The arguments against nuclear power are tired and outdated, noble as they were some time ago.  Better sources of energy are being researched as we post, but to ignore the cleanest source of baseload power (currently available)  on ideological grounds is just so tired now.  No need to take these guys seriously because their debate is not grounded in reality.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 25 May 12 10:37PM

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 10:00PM

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:58PM

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:52PM

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

by Claire Mallinson

14

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

by The Punch Team

50

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

by Tory Maguire

121

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed