Steve I tearing it up . https://instagram.com/p/C8G3odOyD_p/

bonza wrote:

Putting aside the politics - At the very least the coalition has brought the topic front and centre to the national conversation around our energy needs, challenges, security and climate change mitigation. It's a great step towards the inevitable of bringing nuclear into our energy mix. Based off the polls - encouragingly - the youth agree. The ones who have the most to lose in the climate emergency, biodiversity & habitat collapse, rental & home ownership and cost of living crisis we are living through. Tired of listening to NIMBY middle aged men with (multiple) multi-million properties with their rooftop panels and batteries who are all for renewable virtue signalling unless of course it impacts their property value or Greenpeace wet dreams from decades ago. We may need to wait for the dinosaurs and ideologs to die off.. but first step - get the legislation through. Lift the ban. Bring it.

The problems with Duttons position re nuclear are I am afraid is total BS or for want of a better term politics nothing more.

The best current nuclear tech in Australia is good for is the minimum base load (pick a number) as current tech has a terrible turn down ratio still leaves a massive hole.

Now Dutton has said he will not set a target for 2030 because simply he cannot using current nuclear tech meeting 2050 is reliant on further development of SMR's or possibly fusion type reactors neither of which is anywhere near commercial production SMR's are facing severe problems with efficiency among other issues note a major program in the US got scrapped recently.

In other words the Coalitions plan will not solve the energy crunch problems coming even though the costs will be astronomical. Keep in mind we do not have the technology to produce the fuel (no one will give it to us either) which will be required to be purchased from overseas note the cost and sovereign risk.

Somewhere in the future nuclear will almost certainly be used when its viable to do so until then renewables, hydro and gas will need to be used in the interim, the costs and engineering is clearly understood (hence investment from private capital) with very low risks unlike the extreme risks associated with nuclear (no investment from private capital will require all government financed).

The Coalition are big on having any public funds spent on the proviso of a good business case there is no such thing with nuclear power.

And the environmental concerns with renewables fails when compared to just the maintenance of the current coal power stations.

I focus wrote:

bonza wrote:

Putting aside the politics - At the very least the coalition has brought the topic front and centre to the national conversation around our energy needs, challenges, security and climate change mitigation. It's a great step towards the inevitable of bringing nuclear into our energy mix. Based off the polls - encouragingly - the youth agree. The ones who have the most to lose in the climate emergency, biodiversity & habitat collapse, rental & home ownership and cost of living crisis we are living through. Tired of listening to NIMBY middle aged men with (multiple) multi-million properties with their rooftop panels and batteries who are all for renewable virtue signalling unless of course it impacts their property value or Greenpeace wet dreams from decades ago. We may need to wait for the dinosaurs and ideologs to die off.. but first step - get the legislation through. Lift the ban. Bring it.

The problems with Duttons position re nuclear are I am afraid is total BS or for want of a better term politics nothing more.

The best current nuclear tech in Australia is good for is the minimum base load (pick a number) as current tech has a terrible turn down ratio still leaves a massive hole.

Now Dutton has said he will not set a target for 2030 because simply he cannot using current nuclear tech meeting 2050 is reliant on further development of SMR's or possibly fusion type reactors neither of which is anywhere near commercial production SMR's are facing severe problems with efficiency among other issues note a major program in the US got scrapped recently.

In other words the Coalitions plan will not solve the energy crunch problems coming even though the costs will be astronomical. Keep in mind we do not have the technology to produce the fuel (no one will give it to us either) which will be required to be purchased from overseas note the cost and sovereign risk.

Somewhere in the future nuclear will almost certainly be used when its viable to do so until then renewables, hydro and gas will need to be used in the interim, the costs and engineering is clearly understood (hence investment from private capital) with very low risks unlike the extreme risks associated with nuclear (no investment from private capital will require all government financed).

The Coalition are big on having any public funds spent on the proviso of a good business case there is no such thing with nuclear power.

And the environmental concerns with renewables fails when compared to just the maintenance of the current coal power stations.

"Somewhere in the future nuclear will almost certainly be used when its viable to do so"

But when do we start that process? 10 years from now? 50? Or is it when the Greens and or Labor finally wake up and announce it when the pending changing demographic electorate demand it? is that more preferable?

In terms of public investment - have you noticed the amount of taxpayer money being handed the renewable sector to get a move on the Net Zero targets? We ain't seen nothing yet. The more inevitable NIMBY push back & legislative delay will only add to that.

A good "business case" and all the assumptions based on it can change rapidly due to unforeseen or ignored circumstances - war, reliance on disgruntled trading partners, pandemics, the sudden realisation that we need to clear and mine a shit load of habitat in a current period of time that is referred to as the sixth mass extinction. I am assuming you have seen a map of where all the rare earth mine mines are overlaid where all the all the rare earth minerals are (untapped)?

Anyway what is wrong with investing public money into a secure reliable energy source and technological advanced industry that builds and supports a STEM industry. Australia's nuclear scientists and agency is of the most regarded in the world. Maybe some prefer we just continue to dig holes, sell houses and import people for a dodgy education sector?

We most certainly have lost the race to <1.5C IPCC targets and there is a good chance we will miss the 2.5C the way we are going. We are not on track to meet our renewable energy targets by 2030, and even then we will have a <20% shortfall. So we are expected to use Gas and aging Coal fired stations to get us through to when? Then what?

But that's ok because we can use creative accounting to ensure we meet net zero.

Net zero: dependent on an enviro market system so fundamentally flawed and manipulated by charlatans, wall st bankers, opportunists and the most important fail - Dodgy Science.

AlfredWallace wrote:

soggydog wrote:

AW,

Dutton is in with the Gas lobby up to his shiny dome. What do you think about the idea is it’s a front for the fossil fuel lobby.

Vows to throw out targets, gets the public arguing a about something he has a one page plan for and greases the track for the gas/oil lobby to keep shafting Australia. Casts a shadow on renewables and gets us thinking about something that already was (not) the solution along time ago. If it was that good/safe/viable we would already an old one.

He’s playing tricks on behalf of a different interest entirely. I think that is worth considering.

Soggydog. Hope ya well.

Firstly, I can’t even believe that Dutton was elected to his current position.

I wouldn’t know, probably a front, he gives nothing because he’s got nothing.

Don’t we have anything better in the stockyards than this clown?

Nothing credible or original comes out of that tiny little mouth and brain.

All his rebuttals just throw shit at the opposition with nothing new or fresh from his.

How about some original or promising new ideas, not ones pedalled by him for his ‘mates’ in industry . He’s such a reactive figure, nothing proactive.

Where are all the smart people in Queensland, hello, anyone home ?

We are rooted.AW

How he and his colleagues was not pulled up on this yesterday in the press conference is mind blowing.
He was just given a platform to bag Labor and throw personal insults to Chalmers and Bowen without backing up any of his claims. Just a rant really.
Journo's in Australia are bloody useless or ridiculously partisan, or both.

bonza wrote:

AlfredWallace wrote:

bonza wrote:

Well you dig a big bloody hole and wrap it in concrete.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/swedish-government-approves-plans-fo…

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/finlands-spent-fuel-repository-a-g…

You do realise how little material is required to generate electricty don’t you from radioactive material?

https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste

You also do realise that how fuel rods can be reduced and recycled?

https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-safety-conventions/joint-convention…

Safety?

https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#:~:text=A%20death%20rate%20of….

"Combined death toll from Chernobyl

To summarize the previous paragraphs:

2 workers died in the blast.

28 workers and firemen died in the weeks that followed from acute radiation syndrome (ARS).

19 ARS survivors had died later, by 2006; most from causes not related to radiation,

15 people died from thyroid cancer due to milk contamination.

There is currently no evidence of adverse health impacts in the general population across affected countries, or wider Europe"

What else you got?

I’ve got this, very little materials are used to generate electricity you say, you’re avoiding the question.

Where will the waste go from that production ?

Leaving it for the future , hardly a progressive society . I was married to a Scandinavian, she remarked on many occasions that most of Sweden were against storing waste. You gotta have some moral conscience don’t you ?

I’ll scribe to you when there’s a disaster. Thanks for chatting, I’ve my view, you’ve, yours. A short term mental society, that’s what we’ve become. Only worrying about ‘the now’ AW

No worries aw. Good chat thanks. Like I said - the very little waste goes in the ground. Safe. simple scientific. Check the links I posted

But economically and logistically the whole thing does not stack up.
End of story.

andy-mac wrote:

bonza wrote:

AlfredWallace wrote:

bonza wrote:

Well you dig a big bloody hole and wrap it in concrete.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/swedish-government-approves-plans-fo…

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/finlands-spent-fuel-repository-a-g…

You do realise how little material is required to generate electricty don’t you from radioactive material?

https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste

You also do realise that how fuel rods can be reduced and recycled?

https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-safety-conventions/joint-convention…

Safety?

https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#:~:text=A%20death%20rate%20of….

"Combined death toll from Chernobyl

To summarize the previous paragraphs:

2 workers died in the blast.

28 workers and firemen died in the weeks that followed from acute radiation syndrome (ARS).

19 ARS survivors had died later, by 2006; most from causes not related to radiation,

15 people died from thyroid cancer due to milk contamination.

There is currently no evidence of adverse health impacts in the general population across affected countries, or wider Europe"

What else you got?

I’ve got this, very little materials are used to generate electricity you say, you’re avoiding the question.

Where will the waste go from that production ?

Leaving it for the future , hardly a progressive society . I was married to a Scandinavian, she remarked on many occasions that most of Sweden were against storing waste. You gotta have some moral conscience don’t you ?

I’ll scribe to you when there’s a disaster. Thanks for chatting, I’ve my view, you’ve, yours. A short term mental society, that’s what we’ve become. Only worrying about ‘the now’ AW

No worries aw. Good chat thanks. Like I said - the very little waste goes in the ground. Safe. simple scientific. Check the links I posted

But economically and logistically the whole thing does not stack up.

End of story.

We'll see.

https://rivertreefilm.org/

bonza wrote:

andy-mac wrote:

bonza wrote:

AlfredWallace wrote:

bonza wrote:

Well you dig a big bloody hole and wrap it in concrete.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/swedish-government-approves-plans-fo…

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/finlands-spent-fuel-repository-a-g…

You do realise how little material is required to generate electricty don’t you from radioactive material?

https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste

You also do realise that how fuel rods can be reduced and recycled?

https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-safety-conventions/joint-convention…

Safety?

https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#:~:text=A%20death%20rate%20of….

"Combined death toll from Chernobyl

To summarize the previous paragraphs:

2 workers died in the blast.

28 workers and firemen died in the weeks that followed from acute radiation syndrome (ARS).

19 ARS survivors had died later, by 2006; most from causes not related to radiation,

15 people died from thyroid cancer due to milk contamination.

There is currently no evidence of adverse health impacts in the general population across affected countries, or wider Europe"

What else you got?

I’ve got this, very little materials are used to generate electricity you say, you’re avoiding the question.

Where will the waste go from that production ?

Leaving it for the future , hardly a progressive society . I was married to a Scandinavian, she remarked on many occasions that most of Sweden were against storing waste. You gotta have some moral conscience don’t you ?

I’ll scribe to you when there’s a disaster. Thanks for chatting, I’ve my view, you’ve, yours. A short term mental society, that’s what we’ve become. Only worrying about ‘the now’ AW

No worries aw. Good chat thanks. Like I said - the very little waste goes in the ground. Safe. simple scientific. Check the links I posted

But economically and logistically the whole thing does not stack up.

End of story.

We'll see.

https://rivertreefilm.org/

Looks interesting, would like to see this film.
One of my favourite areas on earth, yep do not want a mine there.

Yeah, reading ^^ it seems Labor want to wreck the environment while the LNP with their un-clear policy are also calling for more gas ( presumably involving the fracking of primary agricultural land or putting at risk the great artesian basin) and now this https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/19/cattle-a…

Wouldn’t it be cheaper and better to bring back the solar hot water rebate ( hot water uses around 30% of our base power) Rudd got rid of it and no one knows why as it wasn’t that expensive to govt compared to the power it saved….
….and we already have a daytime glut of rooftop generated solar power we could share to industry for free to make us more competitive in manufacturing.
I also have no idea why people hate wind turbines and don’t want them out to sea etc…..while I’m sure nuclear power is better than it used to be who wants it ?…
Certainly not me and I won’t vote for it either…..Perhaps both sides of Govt especially the LNP could concentrate to develop new non lithium home battery systems made in Australia and subsidise them instead of dumping billions in “ one day a way off” nuke plan.
While Labor has good plans for the turbines they really need the balls to just go ahead and build them regardless of the whiners. The country is going really well.
Ya just can’t please everyone and you’ve gotta stick to your plan…..
And put the trees back….new rule…if you cut down a tree you plant two…end of story.

bonza wrote:

But when do we start that process? 10 years from now? 50? Or is it when the Greens and or Labor finally wake up and announce it when the pending changing demographic electorate demand it? is that more preferable?

No forget the politics and think about the risk, with Duttons plan (off the back of cigarette pack) the lack of detail or the unknown equals unlimited risk.

Project viability always starts with understanding the risks and how you manage them.

Then comes cost.

The risks with nuclear in the Australian context is pretty much open ended we know that because private capital have already said they will never fund it.

In the end let's say it's all squared away stations built you will still require another 50% minimum of power supply to cover the shortfall the Coalition hinting it will be gas until nuclear tech improves.

On the other hand you can built renewables now, today, no risk using private capital combined with gas to more than cover Australia's requirements at little to no risk plus massively reduced cost.

On top of that hydrogen is much further down the road than nuclear as a means to produce energy and is far more flexible.

On SMR's for anyone not aware are required to fill the gap left by Duttons plan to built nuclear stations its not a given they will eventuate but lets say they do, you would never buy the 1st generation maybe even avoid the 2nd generation that's 5 to 20 years alone plus minimum of 10 to 30 years for them to be commercialized.

Duttons nuclear plans are simply unmanageable just in risk terms alone.

As I said sometime in the future I would expect nuclear power will be used in Australia but in the meantime if and when the lights go out as I expect they will being the result of the Coalitions obstructions regarding renewables nuclear power will be the last option on the list regardless of who is in power.

Great post @I focus ^

Thanks for your response IF.
private capital will invest in it –You have already said twice now that NE will be inevitable or likely in Australia so are you suggesting that if the government is backing it through investment, incentives & or legislation it would by default refuse Private investment? That doesn’t make sense.
Your arguments on risk and cost and technology are vague at best and mute at worst. They don’t address the fundamental flaws in the anti NE risk budget business case global economics assumptions. See previous posts. Nor do they acknowledge the STEM and economic benefits and risk management of diversification.
What’s the plan to meet 2030 RE 82% targets given we are running late.
How will you meet the min <18% shortfalls? With gas alone? Confident?
How do you deal with the above while not undermining Net Zero targets?
Really what are you worried about? The RE industry is on its way – its doing exactly the thing that the RE energy and CC proponents said it would do. Be the economically competitive energy industry it is – despite the government hand outs we all said it never needed.
Does anyone think by overturning a ban in NE legislation it is going to suddenly suggest to the industry to down tools on Solar and wind and go to NE?
The distraction investment argument just doesn’t hold weight if one at the same time argues how strong the economics on solar and gas are.
Dutton will lose the election but he has put the issue front and centre despite his questionable motives. Hopefully within the decade we will see a change in federal and or state legislation now that people can get educated on the topic.

What’s the minimum time, if work started in 2025, that we’d see NE feeding into the grid? Absolute best-case scenario.

I feel it’s measured in decades anyway.

I focus wrote:

bonza wrote:

But when do we start that process? 10 years from now? 50? Or is it when the Greens and or Labor finally wake up and announce it when the pending changing demographic electorate demand it? is that more preferable?

No forget the politics and think about the risk, with Duttons plan (off the back of cigarette pack) the lack of detail or the unknown equals unlimited risk.

Project viability always starts with understanding the risks and how you manage them.

Then comes cost.

The risks with nuclear in the Australian context is pretty much open ended we know that because private capital have already said they will never fund it.

In the end let's say it's all squared away stations built you will still require another 50% minimum of power supply to cover the shortfall the Coalition hinting it will be gas until nuclear tech improves.

On the other hand you can built renewables now, today, no risk using private capital combined with gas to more than cover Australia's requirements at little to no risk plus massively reduced cost.

On top of that hydrogen is much further down the road than nuclear as a means to produce energy and is far more flexible.

On SMR's for anyone not aware are required to fill the gap left by Duttons plan to built nuclear stations its not a given they will eventuate but lets say they do, you would never buy the 1st generation maybe even avoid the 2nd generation that's 5 to 20 years alone plus minimum of 10 to 30 years for them to be commercialized.

Duttons nuclear plans are simply unmanageable just in risk terms alone.

As I said sometime in the future I would expect nuclear power will be used in Australia but in the meantime if and when the lights go out as I expect they will being the result of the Coalitions obstructions regarding renewables nuclear power will be the last option on the list regardless of who is in power.

Reckon ya nailed it ...

etarip wrote:

What’s the minimum time, if work started in 2025, that we’d see NE feeding into the grid? Absolute best-case scenario.

I feel it’s measured in decades anyway.

Heard 2037

But the science lol ;) Someone tell Albo 19/20 of the best economic countries in the world use Nuclear.

One of Australia’s top nuclear scientists has accused Anthony Albanese of running a “deeply embarrassing” scare campaign on the renewable energy source, as another expert at a leading university backs Peter Dutton’s campaign.
A chorus of nuclear experts have also debunked claims around the cost of nuclear energy and the risks associated with radiation from power plants and their waste.
The experts blasted Labor figures for attempting to suggest nuclear power plants will lead to deformed koalas and fish with three eyes.

Award-winning nuclear researcher Dr Adi Paterson, who is the former boss of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, said recent social media posts from the Prime Minister — posted before the coalition’s nuclear policy was unveiled — showing Australia’s iconic locations were “under threat” because of nuclear energy were fuelling a “scare campaign”.

“For the Prime Minister of Australia to put his name behind a scare campaign that is not true is deeply embarrassing for Australia when for our national defence we are going to have nuclear submarines,”
“I can’t understand why the PM would put out a scare campaign when he should be telling people it’s not scary.”

ashsam wrote:

One of Australia’s top nuclear scientists has accused Anthony Albanese of running a “deeply embarrassing” scare campaign

C'mon...solar experts want the gravy train to have solar panels, nuclear experts want the gravy train to have a reactor.

No difference.

stunet wrote:

ashsam wrote:

One of Australia’s top nuclear scientists has accused Anthony Albanese of running a “deeply embarrassing” scare campaign

C'mon...solar experts want the gravy train to have solar panels, nuclear experts want the gravy train to have a reactor.

No difference.

Not my words, quote from DT this morning.

I've done my bit and paid for solar panels was good 7 years ago, not sure it's worth it now.
Just yesterday origin dropped FIT from 7c to 5c from 1/7 tight arses lol.
All going up again. something has to give.

Is it any different to "dark satanic mills" or "tradies will lose their utes" and "spell the end of the weekend"?

Both sides play the game but it would pay to remember that we're in this mess because for more than a decade it has been a case of just let the market decide what happens with no strategic input from the government in power

ashsam wrote:

stunet wrote:

ashsam wrote:

One of Australia’s top nuclear scientists has accused Anthony Albanese of running a “deeply embarrassing” scare campaign

C'mon...solar experts want the gravy train to have solar panels, nuclear experts want the gravy train to have a reactor.

No difference.

Not my words, quote from DT this morning.

I've done my bit and paid for solar panels was good 7 years ago, not sure it's worth it now.

Just yesterday origin dropped FIT from 7c to 5c from 1/7 tight arses lol.

All going up again. something has to give.

No, what I mean is that it's not really news.

Someone who'll obviously benefit from a shift, believes said shift is a good thing.

You lot, like the rest of the country, have all fallen for Dutton's bullshit.
There will never be a nuclear power station built in Australia.
It falls over at the first hurdle, the second, the third...
Dutton and the LNP know it will never happen, even if the LNP win the next election.
You are all being played into the "debate".
There isn't one.

haha, yep ^
addam's razor.
spot on.

News interlude: An Australian chase

That QLD border doesn't look so impassable with a truck

adam12 wrote:

You lot, like the rest of the country, have all fallen for Dutton's bullshit.

There will never be a nuclear power station built in Australia.

It falls over at the first hurdle, the second, the third...

Dutton and the LNP know it will never happen, even if the LNP win the next election.

You are all being played into the "debate".

There isn't one.

Sadly this is the truth of it all, the boys over at Betoota tell the truth as well

"Man Who Was Paralysed With Fear Over Lack Of Details About Indigenous Voice Provides A One-Page Media Release For His Half A Trillion Dollar Nuclear Plan"

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/entertainment/man-who-was-paralysed-wit…

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/headlines/running-just-a-poorer-millenn…

Have noticed the number of runners in the pre-dawn off-to-work hours.

I focus wrote:

adam12 wrote:

You lot, like the rest of the country, have all fallen for Dutton's bullshit.

There will never be a nuclear power station built in Australia.

It falls over at the first hurdle, the second, the third...

Dutton and the LNP know it will never happen, even if the LNP win the next election.

You are all being played into the "debate".

There isn't one.

Sadly this is the truth of it all, the boys over at Betoota tell the truth as well

"Man Who Was Paralysed With Fear Over Lack Of Details About Indigenous Voice Provides A One-Page Media Release For His Half A Trillion Dollar Nuclear Plan"

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/entertainment/man-who-was-paralysed-wit…

That’s a good joke. It’s funny. It’s on point. I agree. Duttons a dick. He’s politicking. Insincere.

Just for shits and giggles maybe you could both put your politics aside and discuss debate the point?

bonza wrote:

That’s a good joke. It’s funny. It’s on point. I agree. Duttons a dick. He’s politicking. Insincere.

Just for shits and giggles maybe you could both put your politics aside and discuss debate the point?

Unfortunately it points to the absurdity of the current debate.

What's increased the absurdity if that's possible is the Coalition with Dutton as defense minister made a commitment to the US not to proceed to develop nuclear weapons or domestic nuclear power as one of the conditions of signing up to AUKUS so as to contain nuclear proliferation.

Hard to believe the commitment over nuclear power was given for starters, now Dutton will break it does that mean no Subs?

Realistically if Australia wasn't saddled with so much debt (actually received proper payment for its nature resources like some Arab states or Norway) and had some spare cash laying around you would certainly look at building one power station simply to get the technology and technical expertise over the long term.

Final comment, it used to be the fact and I suspect still true to some degree is the only reason nuclear power made sense is if you had or were trying to obtain nuclear weapons. A spin off from making weapons grade material is fuel that can be used in power generation and if you look at all the countries using nuclear power that still looks largely the case.

adam12 wrote:

You lot, like the rest of the country, have all fallen for Dutton's bullshit.

There will never be a nuclear power station built in Australia.

It falls over at the first hurdle, the second, the third...

Dutton and the LNP know it will never happen, even if the LNP win the next election.

You are all being played into the "debate".

There isn't one.

Yup. Reminds me of another debate recently, where there wasn't supposed to be a debate but bipartisan support.
Oldest liberal trick in the book. Divide and conquer.
Hope lifes treating ya well @adam12.

100% chance of no nuclear power in Australia in our lifetime
Liberal desperation and no policy to offer so 'let's build a monorail( Nuke power plant)' wild idea politics kicks in.
Dutton has finally found his hill to die on (and it is in Collie WA of all places...)

I focus wrote:

bonza wrote:

That’s a good joke. It’s funny. It’s on point. I agree. Duttons a dick. He’s politicking. Insincere.

Just for shits and giggles maybe you could both put your politics aside and discuss debate the point?

Unfortunately it points to the absurdity of the current debate.

What's increased the absurdity if that's possible is the Coalition with Dutton as defense minister made a commitment to the US not to proceed to develop nuclear weapons or domestic nuclear power as one of the conditions of signing up to AUKUS so as to contain nuclear proliferation.

Hard to believe the commitment over nuclear power was given for starters, now Dutton will break it does that mean no Subs?

Realistically if Australia wasn't saddled with so much debt (actually received proper payment for its nature resources like some Arab states or Norway) and had some spare cash laying around you would certainly look at building one power station simply to get the technology and technical expertise over the long term.

Final comment, it used to be the fact and I suspect still true to some degree is the only reason nuclear power made sense is if you had or were trying to obtain nuclear weapons. A spin off from making weapons grade material is fuel that can be used in power generation and if you look at all the countries using nuclear power that still looks largely the case.

Really?

My understanding is 50 countries have more than 200 reactors that use nuclear energy.

only the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea are known to have nuclear weapons. Israel unofficially as well?

Bonza. Hi mate.

Last we spoke , you provided me with some stats about Chernobyl.

I’d say, society got off lucky.

It’s very rare for me to upload from the internet, I prefer reading books, solicited publications are the go.

Here’s something you may or may not like to consider. All the best.AW

AlfredWallace wrote:

Bonza. Hi mate.

Last we spoke , you provided me with some stats about Chernobyl.

I’d say, society got off lucky.

It’s very rare for me to upload from the internet, I prefer reading books, solicited publications are the go.

Here’s something you may or may not like to consider. All the best.AW

Does anything exist without an observer?

andy-mac wrote:

AlfredWallace wrote:

Bonza. Hi mate.

Last we spoke , you provided me with some stats about Chernobyl.

I’d say, society got off lucky.

It’s very rare for me to upload from the internet, I prefer reading books, solicited publications are the go.

Here’s something you may or may not like to consider. All the best.AW

Does anything exist without an observer?

Andy-Mac. That’s very nice mate.

I think you get my drift, the decisions we make !!! .AW

Hi AW.

Let's look at the data.

Roughly 50 people TOTAL have died as a direct result from nuclear energy accidents. an additional 15 deaths from thyroid cancer in the 25 years post Chernobyl. The WHO estimates up to 16,000 thyroid cancer within the next 40 years. Of those they predict a 1% fatality rate.
https://thebulletin.org/2020/08/dont-let-nuclear-accidents-scare-you-aw…

Lets compare that to predictions of human deaths as a result from climate change"

"Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress alone."

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-hea….

So i guess it depends on whether you think humans face an existential crisis from Nuclear energy disasters - iof which there have been only 2 major ones to date. Or you think climate change poses a greater threat to human health, wellbeing and economic stability.

There are rational arguments for not investing in NE in Australia. Safety is not one them.

if one cares about the environment then one should embrace NE. Its that simple.

I think you'll find Cox, Krauss, Dawkins et al agree.

bonza wrote:

Hi AW.

Let's look at the data.

Roughly 50 people TOTAL have died as a direct result from nuclear energy accidents. an additional 15 deaths from thyroid cancer in the 25 years post Chernobyl. The WHO estimates up to 16,000 thyroid cancer within the next 40 years. Of those they predict a 1% fatality rate.

https://thebulletin.org/2020/08/dont-let-nuclear-accidents-scare-you-aw…

Lets compare that to predictions of human deaths as a result from climate change"

"Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress alone."

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-hea….

So i guess it depends on whether you think humans face an existential crisis from Nuclear energy disasters - iof which there have been only 2 major ones to date. Or you think climate change poses a greater threat to human health, wellbeing and economic stability.

There are rational arguments for not investing in NE in Australia. Safety is not one them.

if one cares about the environment then one should embrace NE. Its that simple.

I think you'll find Cox, Krauss, Dawkins et al agree.

Especially when considering those nuclear related deaths are from extremely old tech a time when computers with the same capacity as our phones filled a whole room.

If there is an argument against nuclear for safety reasons, its more to do with the risk of being targets in a war or even a target in a big terrorism attack like 9/11.

bonza wrote:

Hi AW.

Let's look at the data.

Roughly 50 people TOTAL have died as a direct result from nuclear energy accidents. an additional 15 deaths from thyroid cancer in the 25 years post Chernobyl. The WHO estimates up to 16,000 thyroid cancer within the next 40 years. Of those they predict a 1% fatality rate.

https://thebulletin.org/2020/08/dont-let-nuclear-accidents-scare-you-aw…

Lets compare that to predictions of human deaths as a result from climate change"

"Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress alone."

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-hea….

So i guess it depends on whether you think humans face an existential crisis from Nuclear energy disasters - iof which there have been only 2 major ones to date. Or you think climate change poses a greater threat to human health, wellbeing and economic stability.

There are rational arguments for not investing in NE in Australia. Safety is not one them.

if one cares about the environment then one should embrace NE. Its that simple.

I think you'll find Cox, Krauss, Dawkins et al agree.

Bonza . Hi. Thank you for your reply.

“If one cares about the environment then one should utilise the power of the sun to
to supply all the energy that’s required for human life on earth.”

We (humans) are very good at placing the appropriate stumbling blocks ( mostly political, and biased greed oriented) in front of sanity.

It couldn’t be any more simple, who are we to think we can just leave toxic waste behind for the rest of the biological world to deal with.

It wouldn’t be toxic if man hadn’t manifested raw materials in a manner that’s gone before us.

Who gives us carte blanche here on earth to assume that all biota are beheld to human activities.

The biological world (power of genes) is way more powerful than anything else we’ve seen.

As Stephen Jay Gould once remarked in an interview with some loser British TV host, when asked the question ‘ What would happen to life on earth if humans ceased to exist ? “

He replied simply, over a very long period of time, there would eventually be no trace of human activity at all, plants with acids would dissolve all concrete structures, all metallic objects would eventually corrode and vegetation would grow over all our previous existence.

I’ll cease this yo-yo replying now, we will simply hold two different points of view.
Thanks for engaging. AW

Fission, fishin'...bah!

I keep reflecting on why Spud wants to nationalise a great whack of the energy sector, and more so, what that says about his belief in the free market.

stunet wrote:

Fission, fishin'...bah!

I keep reflecting on why Spud wants to nationalise a great whack of the energy sector, and more so, what that says about his belief in the free market.

Hi. Stu. Hope ya well.

Agree, I really don’t think he (Spud) knows what he’s talking about, maybe bitten off more than he can chew and he is getting way more questions than he’d ever previously thought, of which he really isn’t is that intelligent to provide coherent answers.
Time will tell.

I understand Bonza’s points of view, but I just can’t see how going down this path is good for Australia ( small population ), economically and most importantly, environmentally.
I’m shit with economics, I’d need someone to fully explain its viability to me, but I have my doubts.
Surely the equity required good be better spent on the ever increasing research across the range of renewables.
Enjoy your day. AW

Julian Assange released from prison, WikiLeaks says, after striking deal with US justice department https://www.theguardian.com/media/article/2024/jun/25/julian-assange-pl…

AlfredWallace wrote:

stunet wrote:

Fission, fishin'...bah!

I keep reflecting on why Spud wants to nationalise a great whack of the energy sector, and more so, what that says about his belief in the free market.

Hi. Stu. Hope ya well.

Agree, I really don’t think he (Spud) knows what he’s talking about, maybe bitten off more than he can chew and he is getting way more questions than he’d ever previously thought, of which he really isn’t is that intelligent to provide coherent answers.

Time will tell.

I understand Bonza’s points of view, but I just can’t see how going down this path is good for Australia ( small population ), economically and most importantly, environmentally.

I’m shit with economics, I’d need someone to fully explain its viability to me, but I have my doubts.

Surely the equity required good be better spent on the ever increasing research across the range of renewables.

Enjoy your day. AW

I don't think Spud has any belief that nuclear power will happen in Australia in short to mid term.
Being a broken record, but I reckon it's a dead cat to disrupt the roll out of renewables and keep coal and gas going for as long as possible.
Even if we take Spud's best case scenario, it will only have minimal impact of prices and the energy market, whilst knee capping investment in new renewable technologies.
It's really quite amazing with all the people with actual expertise in nuclear energy and economics are writing it off as not practical for Australia that it is still getting a run....

Supafreak wrote:

Julian Assange released from prison, WikiLeaks says, after striking deal with US justice department https://www.theguardian.com/media/article/2024/jun/25/julian-assange-pl…

Good news.
Now fix up Australia's whistle blowers law....

Lets do some numbers on Duttons nuclear plans, happy to be corrected and note I am not impressed with Labors efforts either albeit somewhat better than the Coalitions no plans.

Duttons nuclear power stations are projected to produce 5% to 15% of supply requirements at a cost of some $300 to $600 bil lets be generous and say they get 30% leaving a 70% lights out black hole remembering Dutton is anything but renewables.
Also there is the slight issue of the coal generation long departed before Dutton builds his nuc stations.
Note nuclear cannot replicate coal power operationally.

It may do in the future but nowhere near at present.

Renewables cost projections are around 80% for $120 bill lets say $200 bil total leaving $100 to $400 bil to spend on the last 20% and to shore up firming all of which can be built right now at low risk.

The whole nuclear so called debate is just painful such are the reality gaps around the arguments.

I thought blowing poisonous chemicals into the air was a bad thing especially for the lungs…..
….and yet the greens have watered down Labor’s vaping ban so you can still get them.
Referral or not, the kids will still get their hands on them 100% and the black market will once again thrive….unbelievable pussies running our country.

Optimist wrote:

I thought blowing poisonous chemicals into the air was a bad thing especially for the lungs…..

….and yet the greens have watered down Labor’s vaping ban so you can still get them.

Referral or not, the kids will still get their hands on them 100% and the black market will once again thrive….unbelievable pussies running our country.

Vaping demographic is the very same demographic green votes come from. Green votes are perfectly acceptable irrespective of destroyed lungs. Votes are more important than health for kids.

Optimist wrote:

I thought blowing poisonous chemicals into the air was a bad thing especially for the lungs…..

….and yet the greens have watered down Labor’s vaping ban so you can still get them.

Referral or not, the kids will still get their hands on them 100% and the black market will once again thrive….unbelievable pussies running our country.

So if the kids will "still get their hands on them 100%" what is the point you're trying to make?

“ I thought blowing poisonous chemicals into the air was a bad thing ….”

Well you would know @opti, you blow plenty from your arse oh pious one

Stu, after October you don’t need a script ….and kids can get a script easily if they convince people they need them for whatever reason.
We were nearly there….again…but then ….there are the greens….again….oh and wise guy cough cough…again…
More plastic more toxic crap more addicts stuck in a cycle of dependence more money made on human pain.

I still don't know the point you're trying to make - besides Greens = Bad.

If kids can get them 100%, and a blackmarket will thrive, both points you've made, then what does it matter if government parties ban them or not?

Worth a read.

https://theconversation.com/no-costing-no-clear-timelines-no-easy-legal…

AW.