Jump to content

What benefit does Australia get from the non-proliferation treaty?


Bruce
 Share

Recommended Posts

Do you mean to say that non-nuclear country A was guaranteed the protection of non-nuclear countries B,C & D?

 

Who was going to attack A,B,C,& D? E, F & G? Surely the nuclear armed countries (the First Grade) wouldn't be worried about the players in Second and Third Grade.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nuclear non proliferation treaty is purely to reduce or keep down the number of countries with nuclear weapons. the aim being to maintain the role of those with nuclear weapons and to bully those without.

 

Australia has chosen to be non nuclear and leaves itself unable to oppose USA, China N. Korea, India Pakistan, Israel and others, so we have decided to hang on the coat tails of USA, leaving ourselves completely at risk. To ensure we get the US protection we therefore jump in to fight all USA wars and arm ourselves with equipment of little use to defend ourselves, but great to defend USA.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To ensure we get the US protection we therefore jump in to fight all USA wars and arm ourselves with equipment of little use to defend ourselves, but great to defend USA.

Why don't we just ditch the Monarchy; resign from the Commonwealth of Nations, and become the 51st State?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The nuclear non proliferation treaty is purely to reduce or keep down the number of countries with nuclear weapons"

 

How come Nuclear vessels that are not armed, but powered are Not allowed into our ports,?

 

The "Dirty oil" ships are poisoning us, with that Crude oil pollution, (was on the news)

 

spacesailor

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess what! It was Little Johnny Howard who killed off nuclear power in Australia. He got the ARPANS Act 1998 through by horsetrading with the Greens and the Australian Democrats resulting in the ‘prohibition on certain nuclear installations’ included in the Act. The next year he really put the nail in the coffin of nuclear energy with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 The clincher here is Section 140A:

 

The Minister must not approve an action consisting of or involving the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations:

 

(a) a nuclear fuel fabrication plant;

 

(b) a nuclear power plant;

 

© an enrichment plant;

 

(d) a reprocessing facility.

 

End of Section 140A

 

The nuclear ban can be reversed with a single amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth). The removal of four words – ‘a nuclear power plant’ – in Section 140A (b), or by the deletion of Section 140A altogether. Remember when overwhelming public pressure brought about change to the Marriage Act by omitting the words "man and a woman" and replacing them with the gender-neutral "2 people".

 

Although this document, https://minerals.org.au/sites/default/files/180605%20Removing%20the%20prohibition%20on%20nuclear%20power.pdf was produced by the mining industry, I respect your ability to come to your own conclusions about statements in it that are said to be "fact."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do not need nor can we afford nuclear power. No country has ever made a nuclear plant that did not involve massive subsidies, incredible cost over runs and leave a incredibly expensive mess for the public purse to pay for cleanup afterwards.

 

It is not free power nor even cheap and you are stuck with it for at least 40 years. No plant has ever been built without a government indemnity for any damage it may cause, so no matter what happens the company is not responsible for it.

 

The only reason Japan has Tepco help pay for the disaster is it is a government owned operator.

 

Besides these problems, where would we build it? They need huge amounts of water for cooling and must be located near the user to save transmission losses. Which coastal city is willing to have a bunch of them in their backyard?

 

It is estimated the only way they can get enough water is either take it from farmers or the environmental flows needed to keep river systems alive or build super large sized desalination plants which wreck the ocean at the outfall point and use huge amounts of power.

 

It is never going to happen even on economic grounds forgetting all the problems it comes with. Just like a new coal power plant, no bank would lend for it unless the government pays big time, and contracts a high power price for 40 years, forcing the consumer into forever expensive power.

 

About as practical as a bridge to Tasmania.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stipulated figures as to the cost for the British Nuclear proposal is around 60 cent/KW HR at source when a small area of the Sahara would provide all of Europe with enough power where there's no real Fear of pollution or security involved. The source will last as long as the earth does, and it's energy that's coming here in any case. Nuclear energy release is extra to the system, and ADDs energy. If anyone has updated cost figures please put them here.. Vested Interests always behave like "vested" interests.. The OIL and Insurance Companies know what's going on as does the US armed forces.Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While being open to the argument about the total cost of nuclear power, I reckon that if Australia had a few hundred nuclear bombs with delivery via drones, we could dispense with most of our armed services and save billions.

 

It was always my understanding that the non-proliferation treaty meant that the nuclear nations all agreed not to attack signatory countries and further, agreed to punish any country that did attack us.

 

This understanding was never based on studying the treaty itself, only from an intiution at what would have to be in such a treaty in order to persuade countries like Australia into signing it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see your logic Bruce but it would be a tad excessive solution and might prove a bit off a problem.

 

Given our current pollies love for privatisation. They would jump at the chance to contract out our defences. Welcome to Serco been paid the same as our defence budget to protect and service said nukes. But naturally as commercial on confidence, and no oversight or responsibility.

 

Finding the 200 high speed drones to deliver them could also be a issue, at least ones that could be trusted not to be hacked and used to drop it on us instead or even to not become lost nukes.

 

And then our only response to any problem with be hit it with a nuclear hammer. Throwing rocks at other country's will be the war after that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No country has ever made a nuclear plant that did not involve massive subsidies, incredible cost over runs and leave a incredibly expensive mess for the public purse to pay for cleanup afterwards."

 

I believe "Calder Hall" Britons first nuclear power station is still working.

 

I could be wrong as it's LONG ago.

 

One country has built theyr's upside-down, as the water needs pumping OUT not in, in a fault situation the reactor gets flooded & cooled, unlike "Chernobyl",

 

Spacesailor

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My father-in-law worked on building the Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex during the early 1960's. The general design was probably based on coal-fired power stations, just using nuclear fission as the heat source. It worked without emergency for about fifty years. Bradwell nuclear power station - Wikipedia Bradwell was built on the edge of a former World War II airfield, 1.5 miles from the Essex coastline. Its location was deliberately chosen, as the land had minimal agricultural value, offered easy access, was geologically sound and had an unlimited source of cooling water from the North Sea.

 

On 21 October 2015, it was reported that Britain and China have reached Strategic Investment Agreements for three nuclear power plants, including one at Bradwell. On 19 January 2017, the UK Office for Nuclear Regulation started their Generic Design Assessment process for the Hualong One design, expected to be completed in 2021, in advance of possible deployment at Bradwell. The target commercial operation date is about 2030.

 

Regarding RAF Bradwell Bay: RAF Bradwell Bay - Wikipedia

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, too, worked at Bradwell.. About 20 years ago now...Wasn't there long as I spent most of my time at Heysham (Lancashire), Sizewell and Hinkley Point. Never got to work at Sellarfield, though. I was shuffliong between those sites and sites in the US (including Three Mile Island) and central Europe (ex USSR states) for about 5 - 6 years. Most were very safe; there have been near misses (as one would expect) and the odd flash.. but I would like to compare the like for like damage to fossil plants... Of course, the problem with Nuclear is the issues are instant and concentrated.

 

[Edit]

 

Oh, yeah.. What benefit does Australia get from the non-proliferation treaty? Reduced Uranium sales is one (if you can call it a benefit), I guess...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bradwell had a very good safety record while it was in operation. The only serious incident occurred when two plonkers knocked off some rods.

 

In 1966, twenty natural uranium fuel rods were stolen from Bradwell. The rods were stolen for their scrap value by Harold Arthur Sneath, a worker at the plant. The theft was discovered by the local police when a van driven by Dennis Patrick Hadley, who was transporting the rods to their final destination, was stopped due to its defective steering. The rods were recovered and, in the subsequent court case, Sneath and Hadley were bound over for five years, each fined £100, and were required to contribute to the costs of the court case. Neither was said to have understood the consequences of the theft.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe they didn't understand the consequences of the theft unless the induction courses were materially different in the 60s to the late 90s... (delivery may have been - but doubt the content was too differnt).

 

Although, it has to be said... that incident was not in the induction material that I recall..

 

Maybe they would have got away with it if they replaced their steering rods with the stolen items (OK.. not a good one)...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, the amount they pay compared, to say finance, for the same quals, I am not surprised. I have met some of the most gifted engineers.. who are traders or pricing quants. Real shame they are working on an artificial creation of man because it pays. more. In my nuke days, there some some darned fine engineers to.. they decided they preferred the serentiy of Lancashire, Kent, Essex or Suffolk to London and so they did OK.. But anyone who was at all driven more by £ went to London, got themselves a job in pricing or risk, and where, apparently a £1m bonus was not out of the ordinary. Compare that to £45K a year (£65k - £100K for a plant director) and it's not hard to see why. Unf, I joined banking after the financial crisis.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...