“If you don’t know how to build, run, fund, fix, earthquake proof, a nuclear plant, Vote Yes!”
1 Like
Just giving you a look at your alternate possible self
The source is unreliable. You’re just highlighting my point that you need to build gigantic infrastructure to capture and supply due to the intermittent nature of the source.
1 Like
Ffs.
1 Like
Deep breath.
A combination of a wide variety of renewables, along with gas firming and batteries will produce a 100% reliable energy grid for a fraction of the cost of building that amount of nuclear.
Again, because I know you didn’t read this last time, you can validate the reasoning yourself.
3 Likes
Solar alone can be built on appropriate scale 12 times faster than equivalent nuclear. The ceiling for renewables is virtually non existent. Nuclear is known, as are all its MASSIVE problems. Getting close to trolling.
1 Like
Why is this always a problem for certain types when it’s something like renewables, but it’s manly duty and proud expansion of the human endeavour when it’s a great big ■■■■ spewing death into the atmosphere?
very curious on the venn diagram of people who voted no to SSM, no to the voice and yes to nuclear
May your curiosity never be sated on that count.
1 Like
Over the last decade, the most unreliable power source has been coal, because the plants are well past their retirement date and simply cannot be refurbished any more. They continually break, and when they do they dump a huge amount of generation capacity out of the grid all at once. THAT’S what causes blackouts and power outages, not the more measured and predictable ramping up and down of renewables as their output varies according to local conditions.
What (among many other things) the Dutton ‘plan’ and other nuclear proponents have failed to explain is the transition plan to nuclear. Dutton is claiming that the first nuclear plant will open in 2035. There is absolutely no credible evidence anywhere that this is remotely plausible, but even so. What covers power needs in the meantime? Time and demand won’t stop until then (or, more likely, 2055), but the coal plants are dying, and it’s explicitly coalition policy to limit new renewable installation. Is the plan to build entirely new gas plants, at ludicrous expense, to keep the grid functional until nuclear is ready? Is the plan seriously to run the ENTIRE grid on gas for a decade, or two? Because that’s beyond nuts. Gas is, at best, a firming fuel. Running the whole grid on it is crazy. But you need to generate power SOMEHOW through the 2030s and 2040s.
3 Likes
That’s plenty on the B1408, DMS, MagillaGorrila scale of Opinion driving
But it isn’t
1 Like
You actually do not. If every home had 10 to 14 kW on their roofs and a battery then all of the domestic load would be catered for. Add in a small wind turbine to supplement during winter.
Industry could do the same with the large expanses of roof they have. And m any small towns around Australia could generate most of their energy needs with one wind turbine with a battery storage.
You could do a lot with $368 billlion instead of submarines.
4 Likes
Can nuclear be classified as a renewable compared to wind and solar?
Waste disposal has never been resolved. It’s divisive in countries where nuclear has become part of the energy mix.
With one reactor we still have temporary storage. It’s particularly divisive here, with the history of Maralinga reflected in the opposition of Native Title holders, not wanting their lands to be just another dumping ground for the waste from a commodity to produce energy which delivers to them little to no benefit.
Would the Federal Government have compulsory powers to overcome the opposition of Native title holders?
Yes we have this huge landmass, sparsely populated except for the coastal regions, but how much of it is suitable geologically, which of our communities would bear the cost?
That’s part of the detail that Dutton is holding back on. It’s a societal cost as well as economic which needs to be factored in.
3 Likes
Did that Aussie mob ever get the Thorium reactor project in the Philippines off the ground or did that end up dead in the water too?
Thorium was supposedly the next breakthrough but seems that due to cost that everything has gone quiet on research and implementation.
They use a different type of reactor to Uranium plants, which no one really wants to invest time and resources into. Renewables are where the money is moving forward
That said, I think India and China are trying to invest into thorium though, for obvious reasons
Lets unpack this.
-
You often dispute that C02 is causing CC, but here you say “im not BP” which would indicate that you do think C02 is the cause, so what do you actually believe. Youre just a troll.
-
You have next to zero impact? Thats incredible, but what you do do is repeat the same disinformation bull ■■■■ that the FF companies and RW zealouts have seeded into the public discource. Which means that where should be having a public disource into proper solutions, we are dealing with crap like this. And its delays, delays, delay.
-
Lastly, your remind of the year nine bullies iIdeal with in my teaching every day… you gaslight and rev up people with your nonsense untill they break, and then cry “calm down”. Classic teenage tactic
1 Like
The word ‘renewable’ is actually kind of a funny relic of previous decades’ energy debate, back when the main concern was us actually literally running out of oil, and people were trying to find an energy source that self-renewed rather than being finite.
Since then, of course, we’ve gotten more technically able to extract oil from difficult reservoirs (especially shale in the US), so raw supply isn’;t an issue any more. And of course there’s more than enough coal in the ground for us to destroy ourselves with quite comprehensively with plenty left over, and there’s NEVER going to be a shortage of uranium. And using the word ‘renewable’ as a gold standard allows ■■■■■■ polluting methods of power generation like biomass to greenwash themselves, so i think we need to move off it.
Clean power, low-emissions power is the goal now, not ‘renewable’ power.
End of pedantry, for the moment at least.
5 Likes
We aren’t even halfway through the year! I reckon we’re a shot of breaking the record set 2 years ago during peak La Nina.
1 Like
THIS!!
I don’t know enough to say what is better out of renewables v nuclear or combination of both.
What I do know is that the money for the subs could and should be used elsewhere.
Energy, food sustainability and climate. These are our challenges.
1 Like