Next Federal Election
of course it was a joke frownyman
and quite a clever one... for you...
I just know if the players were reversed, or if I dare call a labor woman an old bag, or a witch, or the like...
you'd be the first woke wanker hissy fitter on here
no standards, but double standards...
but you carry on with your little cultue war frown... because, the difference is, I actually enjoy it...
not your tediousness... but your hypocrisy, flabberghastedness, and general vitriolic nastyness...
go your hardest, because you cannot win... not talking about me - but your little culture war game - because clowns like you already broke the gauges...
hey Blackers
The Nuclear Industry can never prove that Waste can be stored safely .
I have heard no big problem with Waste Storage , EVER !
Nothing has happened in 50 years with proper Storage , that I am aware of .
Another 50 years , hopefully nothing has happened again , but that still can't prove it is safe .
Australia has vast Gas Reserves and still undiscovered resources .
We don't Nuclear .
I think we can store waste safely for other countries , no worries .
At least look at it .
Maybe near some USA Bases in the middle of Australia ?
Thanks blackers. Undoubtably solar pv is cheaper than current proposed SMR modelling. Yet budget forecasting is highly reliant on human assumptions based on bias and human error, prone to failing considerations of changing political and social circumstance.
Clean energy proponents have long argued the inequitably of fossil fuel assistance in the form of government subsidies and taxes yet mute when the current government recently announces a supercharged taxpayer funded payment plan due to the realisation that the “market” is not enough to help meet mandated renewable energy targets. Levilised costs of renewables don’t factor in change in policy or global uncertainty like war, trade route disruption, pandemics, technology or NIMBYS.
Economics is a valid argument. Safety less so. As indo pointed out - we have all been fear mongered (by the fossil fuel industry) into fearing Nuclear. There was a movie I linked a while ago called Nuclear Now on youtube which I recommend. TBH I was expecting more and was cautious watching it given Oliver Stone previous sympathies to Putin (not that I saw the film or have insight into that war). Nevertheless it’s an ok introduction to the subject for those still stuck on the fear.
bonza wrote:Thanks blackers. Undoubtably solar pv is cheaper than current proposed SMR modelling. Yet budget forecasting is highly reliant on human assumptions based on bias and human error, prone to failing considerations of changing political and social circumstance.
Clean energy proponents have long argued the inequitably of fossil fuel assistance in the form of government subsidies and taxes yet mute when the current government recently announces a supercharged taxpayer funded payment plan due to the realisation that the “market” is not enough to help meet mandated renewable energy targets. Levilised costs of renewables don’t factor in change in policy or global uncertainty like war, trade route disruption, pandemics, technology or NIMBYS.Economics is a valid argument. Safety less so. As indo pointed out - we have all been fear mongered (by the fossil fuel industry) into fearing Nuclear. There was a movie I linked a while ago called Nuclear Now on youtube which I recommend. TBH I was expecting more and was cautious watching it given Oliver Stone previous sympathies to Putin (not that I saw the film or have insight into that war). Nevertheless it’s an ok introduction to the subject for those still stuck on the fear.
Bonza. We should fear nuclear energy. How many more Fukushima, Chernobyl, Harrisburg, the list goes on ?
We can’t deal with the waste. It’s been suggested here to take it out into deserts of Australia and bury it because nothing lives there. What shit that is, there’s life everywhere, doesn’t necessarily always mean human life.
We’ve got to move on from this irresponsible mindset of wanting nuclear, there’s nothing clean about it at all. AW
FS sippy you need to lighten up.
Post a similar cleverly captured photo at the expense of the left and I’ll snigger at it like any other person would. Big difference between clever and crass thou sippy when it comes to what’s funny and what’s not but by even saying that you get to accuse me all over again of cancelling culture under that tinfoil hat you wear I guess.
We can and currently do deal with the waste with the already 100 sites around Australia.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/14/australias-nuclea...
It is an irony that those who oppose the safe storage of nuclear waste, which is based on international scientific agreement on a country that is geologically stable with large areas of unpopulated land, risks the government's decision and ability on how to manage and store it correctly.
Habitat loss was considered the number 1 threat to global biodiversity until very recently which was recently overtaken by climate change. How do we build 10,000km of transmission lines in the next 20 years without impacting the death by a thousand cuts to our flora and fauna species that will undoubtably be subject to?
Have you read about the Chernobyl recovery? Nature is doing just fine. if not better.
if your concerned about human death toll then save it for a rainy day - 1 x death from Fukushima. 78 x Chernobyl
if those deaths still look scary to you then think about the hundreds of thousands of humans that die related to fossil fuels each year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by...
https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-oth...
Apart from dealing with the waste, nuclear doesn’t appear to be cheaper than renewable’s. Renewables win. Cheaper. No radioactive waste. Less risk. Both have similar inputs as far as land clearing construction materials and outputs like mechanical waste.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-21/nuclear-energy-most-expensive-csi...
.
ok so what people are saying is that all the following countries with a high proportion of nuclear in their domestic energy provision mix are somehow stupid, irresponsible, dangerous, making a huge mistake, evil, unsafe, etc...and somehow Australia is "onto it"...
Some pretty respectable, highly developed and advanced, clean and green, high living standards, beautiful countries on the list:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/270367/share-of-nuclear-power-in-the...
AlfredWallace wrote:bonza wrote:Thanks blackers. Undoubtably solar pv is cheaper than current proposed SMR modelling. Yet budget forecasting is highly reliant on human assumptions based on bias and human error, prone to failing considerations of changing political and social circumstance.
Clean energy proponents have long argued the inequitably of fossil fuel assistance in the form of government subsidies and taxes yet mute when the current government recently announces a supercharged taxpayer funded payment plan due to the realisation that the “market” is not enough to help meet mandated renewable energy targets. Levilised costs of renewables don’t factor in change in policy or global uncertainty like war, trade route disruption, pandemics, technology or NIMBYS.Economics is a valid argument. Safety less so. As indo pointed out - we have all been fear mongered (by the fossil fuel industry) into fearing Nuclear. There was a movie I linked a while ago called Nuclear Now on youtube which I recommend. TBH I was expecting more and was cautious watching it given Oliver Stone previous sympathies to Putin (not that I saw the film or have insight into that war). Nevertheless it’s an ok introduction to the subject for those still stuck on the fear.
Bonza. We should fear nuclear energy. How many more Fukushima, Chernobyl, Harrisburg, the list goes on ?
We can’t deal with the waste. It’s been suggested here to take it out into deserts of Australia and bury it because nothing lives there. What shit that is, there’s life everywhere, doesn’t necessarily always mean human life.
We’ve got to move on from this irresponsible mindset of wanting nuclear, there’s nothing clean about it at all. AW
Nuclear wont happen because of the economics.
But comparing 60 year old nuclear tech to nuclear tech of today is crazy.
Just like my mobil phone is more powerful than a computer that filled up a whole room from 60 years ago, there has been big advances in nuclear tech especially the safety.
And the waste buried in the desert in sealed stainless steel/concrete containers is going to have far less effect on the environment and animals than even just one wind turbine that kills about 17 birds a year.
Not that im against wind turbines at all, but if the economics stacked up these other arguments would be completely invalid.
AW is right .
We all need to look Up !
Our wonderful Sun is Up there trying to tell us Humans how to Energise US ( so is Mother Earth :) .
She wants us to build , 100's of HER , down here .
She knows we can't tap INTO her 24/7 and knows her rays can't get down to US sometimes ( like 536 ad ) .
She knows we will do it and everything we are doing today , will NOT be needed .
I read a few years ago Bank of America estimated ( took a Big guess ) at the cost of moving to Zero CO2 in 2050 , $US250 Trillion .
Put a Trillion of that , into developing the Real Renewable Energy .
If we get it right in 15 years , we will save 100 Trillion dollars !
Musk has already offered Millions .
I have lived on a Coast Line , a TV last 2 or 3 years , a Windmill ( lucky they are renewable ) ? 5 years ?
For some reason Nuclear Waste , gives me the heaby jeebies .
Others can use the energy , well can sell U308 , we can help with research , BUT , keep the shit waste , out of Oz imho .
We have Gas , Oil , Iron Ore , Coal , Rare Earths , Copper , Nickel , Lithium etc , shit , we don't need to bother about Nuclear .
We can go OFF , with out it .
The World has Trillions of dollars Invested in its Energy System that runs of Fossil Fuels .
We are Investing Trillions into Renewables .
I want just 1 T , and ALL that MONEY will be burnt , except the Transmission Lines .
It's too much money and doesn't add UP .
Something has to give , electricity prices will have 2 go UP .
As there are all these T's floating around , Trump may fix it lol !
Strange things sure are happening :)
based on 2008 figures: Waste from the UK's 10 x Nuc reactors has a volume of 840 ml per person per year. Slightly larger than a tallie of beer. Most of that is low level waste. The bad stuff that needs to be cooled in the reactor for 40 odd years amounts to 25 ml per person per year. Compare that to UK figures of 80 odd kg per person per year of hazardous waste and over 500 kg per person per year to council rubbish they send to the tip.
the construction materials argument used against nuclear is another myth. see table 10.4 page 390.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/09/f26/Quadrennial-Technolo...
The combined material inputs of nuc vs solar pv for example is less than 16 fold. check out the steel and cement.
Few material inputs mean very small amounts of waste.
Land use? using wind farms as an example requires roughly 500 times more footprint than nuc to generate the same amount of power. Solar PV lower but similar.
Australia has a projected 83 per cent uptake of firmed renewables to be reached by 2030 and net zero targets by 2050. do we really think with people like dutton and co, frothing at the bit to flog the climate wars horse that just keeps giving, and with population projections of "34.3 and 45.9 million people by 2071" we are going to get there with renewables alone? as i have said - I thought we were in a climate emergency?
and economics change.
indo-dreaming wrote:And the waste buried in the desert in sealed stainless steel/concrete containers is going to have far less effect on the environment and animals than even just one wind turbine that kills about 17 birds a year.
Yeah, but if you buried a decommissioned wind turbine in the desert next to the nuclear waste, I'm sure whoever is living on this planet 10,000 years from now might not see that as a valid comparison.
bonza wrote:based on 2008 figures: Waste from the UK's 10 x Nuc reactors has a volume of 840 ml per person per year. Slightly larger than a tallie of beer. Most of that is low level waste. The bad stuff that needs to be cooled in the reactor for 40 odd years amounts to 25 ml per person per year. Compare that to UK figures of 80 odd kg per person per year of hazardous waste and over 500 kg per person per year to council rubbish they send to the tip.
the construction materials argument used against nuclear is another myth. see table 10.4 page 390.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/09/f26/Quadrennial-Technolo...The combined material inputs of nuc vs solar pv for example is less than 16 fold. check out the steel and cement.
Few material inputs mean very small amounts of waste.
Land use? using wind farms as an example requires roughly 500 times more footprint than nuc to generate the same amount of power. Solar PV lower but similar.Australia has a projected 83 per cent uptake of firmed renewables to be reached by 2030 and net zero targets by 2050. do we really think with people like dutton and co, frothing at the bit to flog the climate wars horse that just keeps giving, and with population projections of "34.3 and 45.9 million people by 2071" we are going to get there with renewables alone? as i have said - I thought we were in a climate emergency?
and economics change.
Reckon your last sentence is spot on, but the reality is that renewables and battery storage will become a lot cheaper, also who knows what other technologies will come online, hydrogen, nuclear fusion etc.
Reckon investing in nuclear as it is now would be the same as investing in an upgraded horse carriage with the invention of the car, or electric typewriters with the development of PC computers.
I agree Bonza with everything U say .
BUT , Gas Economics and Coal Economics can easily compete with Nuclear .
We don't NEED it .
We don't HAVE 2 have another divisive debate ffs .
I have seen the Simpsons .
The Waste shit glows green in the dark .
We can bury the shit a gazillion miles underground , case it more shit , but it is still shit , that glows in the dark , for a gazillion years .
We don't need any more shit , in our backyards imho .
garyg1412 wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:And the waste buried in the desert in sealed stainless steel/concrete containers is going to have far less effect on the environment and animals than even just one wind turbine that kills about 17 birds a year.
Yeah, but if you buried a decommissioned wind turbine in the desert next to the nuclear waste, I'm sure whoever is living on this planet 10,000 years from now might not see that as a valid comparison.
"The radioactivity of nuclear waste naturally decays, and has a finite radiotoxic lifetime. Within a period of 1,000-10,000 years, the radioactivity of HLW decays to that of the originally mined ore. Its hazard then depends on how concentrated it is. By comparison, other industrial wastes (e.g. heavy metals, such as cadmium and mercury) remain hazardous indefinitely."
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear...
gsco mkII wrote:ok so what people are saying is that all the following countries with a high proportion of nuclear in their domestic energy provision mix are somehow stupid, irresponsible, dangerous, making a huge mistake, evil, unsafe, etc...and somehow Australia is "onto it"...
Some pretty respectable, highly developed and advanced, clean and green, high living standards, beautiful countries on the list:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/270367/share-of-nuclear-power-in-the...
Not at all just that as far as the introduction of nuclear as a new source of generation in Australia, economically they’re not as efficient as renewables. Not bad or good, just more expensive.
Pop Down wrote:I agree Bonza with everything U say .
BUT , Gas Economics and Coal Economics can easily compete with Nuclear .
We don't NEED it .
We don't HAVE 2 have another divisive debate ffs .
I have seen the Simpsons .
The Waste shit glows green in the dark .
We can bury the shit a gazillion miles underground , case it more shit , but it is still shit , that glows in the dark , for a gazillion years .
We don't need any more shit , in our backyards imho .
The problem is we cant keep burning coal or even gas long term, we and the rest of the world need to cut emissions to zero or close.
And as great as wind and solar are they are unlikely to be the complete solution, if you are a country with lots of hydro energy you can quite easily get too 100% carbon free energy combined with wind and solar, or if you are a country with some nuclear energy to support wind and solar you can do the same.
The above is proven and 100% a sure thing.
But solar & wind alone supported by storage is much harder and takes much longer to achieve, the problem is you dont just need hours or a day of storage you need days to weeks of storage (energy security), which is expensive and unviable with batteries and pumped hydro etc
So the reality is if relying on wind and solar alone you would probably need a back up system like gas peaking plants which like i said we already have 50 plus, which you would assume in time would be converted to green hydro peaking plants.
But currently about 96% of the world’s hydrogen comes from coal, so we and every other country are long way off and you would expect becomes more of a thing when you get to the point that you have excess renewable energy during the day so then use that to make green hydrogen.
In an ideal world where economics didn't matter we would be building up renewables and storage and also nuclear and the whole world could go carbon free(or low carbon) much much quicker
Then by the time those nuclear plants had reached the end of life cycle, we would probably have enough renewables and even better tech to not need to have nuclear anymore.
But economic's matter more than the environment, so we will take the long route instead.
BTW. I always find it kind of annoying how the price of renewables is compared to other energy prices, because its not comparing apples with apples.
For instance, coal, gas, nuclear can run 24/7 and the price is based on the average.
While the price of renewable's is just based off the price that it can provide when wind or sun, but if you took a whole complete stand alone system(or close) of wind and solar with back up systems like shit loads of storage, no way on earth would that energy price be the same, because the energy price would have to factor in the cost of storage (which is huge) and maintenance and also the life span of the batteries.
reckon andy-mac's on it, waste/danger aside. You know those developing countries/regions that never gridded-up to have telephone wires all over them? And then just went to mobile and satellite 10 years ago? skipping decades of infrastructure that we now see as redundant? well surely even fans of nuclear see that Aus can do that, skip nuclear, and avoid future de-funded plants & waste facilities to maintain or 'çlean up'.
(each home just needs a couple of big water-tanks set up like an egg-timer, with a turbine generator in a long neck between. Bury the bottom tank. pump water to the top tank when the sun shines and the wind blows, haha. personal mini snowy hydro battery)
#unscalablehippybackyardsolutions
basesix what you're describing is called the "advantages of backwardness" in the book Why the West Rules - For Now.
Could also be called the "advantages of the late starter".
The idea could be applied to nuclear: Australia could consider the technology now and we have avoided decades of development.
indo-dreaming wrote:BTW. I always find it kind of annoying how the price of renewables is compared to other energy prices, because its not comparing apples with apples.
For instance, coal, gas, nuclear can run 24/7 and the price is based on the average.
While the price of renewable's is just based off the price that it can provide when wind or sun, but if you took a whole complete stand alone system(or close) of wind and solar with back up systems like shit loads of storage, no way on earth would that energy price be the same, because the energy price would have to factor in the cost of storage (which is huge) and maintenance and also the life span of the batteries.
I don't even care anymore. What is the cost of the kWh to the end consumer? Everyone is talking about renewables being cheap. So what does that mean? Will I be able to subscribe to a <$0.20 kWh plan with renewables?
gsco mkII wrote:basesix what you're describing is called the "advantages of backwardness" in the book Why the West Rules - For Now.
Could also be called the "advantages of the late starter".
The idea could be applied to nuclear: Australia could consider the technology now and we have avoided decades of development.
yup, early-adopter, late-adopter. That list of countries you posted, with only a couple of exceptions, are often sunless, relatively resource poor and have high population density. I can see why they were early-adopters. Gives us some genuinely interesting questions to ponder in Aus. Drivers of the inevitable future, or benefactors of early adopters?
flollo wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:BTW. I always find it kind of annoying how the price of renewables is compared to other energy prices, because its not comparing apples with apples.
For instance, coal, gas, nuclear can run 24/7 and the price is based on the average.
While the price of renewable's is just based off the price that it can provide when wind or sun, but if you took a whole complete stand alone system(or close) of wind and solar with back up systems like shit loads of storage, no way on earth would that energy price be the same, because the energy price would have to factor in the cost of storage (which is huge) and maintenance and also the life span of the batteries.
I don't even care anymore. What is the cost of the kWh to the end consumer? Everyone is talking about renewables being cheap. So what does that mean? Will I be able to subscribe to a <$0.20 kWh plan with renewables?
Probably depends on the time of day as time goes on im betting we will see a huge flip in energy pricing structure.
Off peak prices will be during the day when there is lots of solar feeding into the grid, and at night prices will be expensive as we struggle to get enough energy from wind and storage and will need to be supported by gas peaking plants that aren't cheap to run.
This discussion on cost whatever the power generation has never fully “accounted” for the cost to the environment. Just saying if it did the discussion would be totally different, think about it
Yeah true but let’s be realistic, most won’t/can’t pay $1+ per kWh (I’m not saying it will cost this much, a hypothetical number) to improve the environment. So how much will the kWh cost? Does anyone know? Because politicians are full of ‘cheap, reliable’ renewable electricity without actually telling people what this cheap actually means.
Thanks Guy, was thinking the same thing.
When Indo said "I always find it kind of annoying how the price of renewables is compared to other energy prices, because its not comparing apples with apples", I thought that's what he was talking about too at first, but I quickly came to my senses.
^^ 'beneficiaries', sorry, @gsco ; )
GuySmiley wrote:This discussion on cost whatever the power generation has never fully “accounted” for the cost to the environment. Just saying if it did the discussion would be totally different, think about it
Wind turbines kill a lot of birds and if offshore can have other environmental impacts.
Solar use's up a lot of land and need's batteries that need mining for rare minerals,
Hydro energy affects natural water ways.
Nuclear needs some mining and has some waste (through can be stored with very little environmental impact)
“There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.”
bit of shade and water capture. solar sounds spiffy!
wish we'd spearheaded the movement : )
(haha, land and minerals option for aus? sold!!)
indo-dreaming wrote:GuySmiley wrote:This discussion on cost whatever the power generation has never fully “accounted” for the cost to the environment. Just saying if it did the discussion would be totally different, think about it
Wind turbines kill a lot of birds and if offshore can have other environmental impacts.
Solar use's up a lot of land and need's batteries that need mining for rare minerals,
Hydro energy affects natural water ways.
Nuclear needs some mining and has some waste (through can be stored with very little environmental impact)
“There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.”
I was thinking more along the lines of carbon emitted into the atmosphere (but not exclusively) when I raised the proper cost accounting of the environmental costs in power generation. E.g. what would the true cost of power generated by coal or gas if customers had to pay for polluting the air? If people want to compare the relative costs of all power generation systems then given what we now know about man made climate change isn’t reasonable to “account” for all input costs from construction to operation to waste disposal and how those stages negatively impact the climate and planet? Clearly we can’t afford to be so pure right now but surely this approach would directly us to be all in with renewables. Nothing else compares but that’s only my opinion.
If environment was the priority factor above all else then Nuclear would win hands down. If only we did it at scale decades ago.
bonza wrote:If environment was the priority factor above all else then Nuclear would win hands down. If only we did it at scale decades ago.
That's not how I understand it. The huge impact to initially build the things outweigh any environmental plus once completed. Never mind the waste storage etc.
Again waiting for any politician in Australia to promote a reactor in their electorate.
Nuclear doesn't stack up environmentally, economically, socially or politically in my view.
The talk in Australia by promoters is just that, talk. Another diversion from the FF industry.
And should add cost of decommissioning plant and end of life span.
The cost 2 our Environment of Humans Burning Coal , in the Longterm , is ZERO .
Chernobyl is a GREAT example , of what will happen , after humans become extinct .
Everything we Build will be gone , everything we used to build it , will be back .
The Circle of Life .
In a 100 million years ALL the Oil etc that we use , will be replaced .
Only Mother Earth , will remember us and , am guessing , she will miss us , as thought we were HER most Outstanding Species .
She saw that we hunted whales for their oil , to light out homes .
She was very happy we started using Oil and Coal ( instead of wood and Whale Oil ) , instead .
Just loved that we saved them .
Mother Earth thinks Human are SO Cool imho !
Even the Chinese Government KNOW their people DEMAND a good environment 2 live in .
They Turn their Whole Steel Processing Business OFF , if pollution is too bad .
Their people demand it .
bonza wrote:If environment was the priority factor above all else then Nuclear would win hands down. If only we did it at scale decades ago.
100% imagine if in the 80-90s period if we had invested in even say 25% nuclear, right now we would be in a far far better position to realistically transition to 100% carbon free energy.
Ironically most of the opposition came from the Greens, same deal with hydro energy, if the Greens had gotten their way there would no hydro energy and would be even further behind.
I do think we missed the bus though, so we will be struck in doing things the hard long way which means lots of gas to support things for quite some time.
When I walk along a beach , I leave a footprint , that will soon be washed away .
Humans are walking on Earth and leaving footprints .
Earth knows we can't hurt her or change her .
With one little fart , she could show us how she can produce CO2 .
She thinks we should just do what everything else does .
Adapt as best we can , as things change .
She is on the look out for BIG Asteroids only .
She thinks humans are really STRANGE 2 think they can have ANY affect of her .
Can't work out why we would tell children that we HARM HER .
Adults know she has been here for a billion years and will be here a billion more .
Nothing that Humans CAN do will make the slightest difference to her so , STOP telling kids that SHE is Burning to Death ( she has gone through her burning phase 3 billions years ago ? ) .
andy-mac wrote:The talk in Australia by promoters is just that, talk. Another diversion from the FF industry.
[imghttps://imgur.com/a/qVUtdfg/img]
edit - i can never figure out the upload
bonza wrote:andy-mac wrote:The talk in Australia by promoters is just that, talk. Another diversion from the FF industry.
[imghttps://imgur.com/a/qVUtdfg/img]
edit - i can never figure out the upload
Once you have uploaded the photo go to top right of photo, ignore the copy link and click on the three little dots.
Select "get share links"
Select "BBCode (Forums)" and copy link.
bonza wrote:andy-mac wrote:The talk in Australia by promoters is just that, talk. Another diversion from the FF industry.
[imghttps://imgur.com/a/qVUtdfg/img]
edit - i can never figure out the upload
Interesting, but looks like Labor propaganda/ campaign .乁( •_• )ㄏ
andy-mac wrote:bonza wrote:andy-mac wrote:The talk in Australia by promoters is just that, talk. Another diversion from the FF industry.
[imghttps://imgur.com/a/qVUtdfg/img]
edit - i can never figure out the upload
Interesting, but looks like Labor propaganda/ campaign .乁( •_• )ㄏ
Oh FFS the man made climate change/power generation debate has moved beyond protecting old technology/yesterday’s world jobs surely.
It’s from 2007 guy. And it was an attempt to show andy Mac that the fossil fuel industry are not and have never been pro nuclear. In fact the origins of anti nuclear positioning can be traced back to the funding of the Friends of the Earth greenies by the petrochemical barrons. I wonder why?
Remember to breathe guy..
indo-dreaming wrote:bonza wrote:andy-mac wrote:The talk in Australia by promoters is just that, talk. Another diversion from the FF industry.
[imghttps://imgur.com/a/qVUtdfg/img]
edit - i can never figure out the upload
Once you have uploaded the photo go to top right of photo, ignore the copy link and click on the three little dots.
Select "get share links"
Select "BBCode (Forums)" and copy link.
thanks indo
bonza wrote:It’s from 2007 guy. And it was an attempt to show andy Mac that the fossil fuel industry are not and have never been pro nuclear. In fact the origins of anti nuclear positioning can be traced back to the funding of the Friends of the Earth greenies by the petrochemical barrons. I wonder why?
Remember to breathe guy..
Yeah, I don't think it's as easy as that. My hunch, and that's all it is, is that invested people are running the nuclear power line knowing it hasn't a hope in Hades of getting up.
I mean, where's Matt Canavan and his protestations?
He dons black face every time someone starts up a Tesla, solidarity with the brothers up in Bowen, but not a peep about nuclear putting them out of work?
Why...?
Because he knows, as most everyone else does too, that a nuclear industry will never happen.
It perhaps should happen, but reality being the bitch it is, and Australians both hating change and loving their backyards means it won't.
Fossils fuel being pro Nuclear is like Coke being pro Pepsi .
They are both sugary drinks and both like people drinking them .
Add add for 1 is a promotion of sugar drinks , the other sells .
Coke and Pepsi hate each other , hope the other dies and compete very hard , for the same dollar .
It's funny how this debate on SN , flows off onto tangents that are , often , impossible 2 agree on .
Was hoping most would agree that sometime needs to be done now .
Gas always comes up as the easiest solution , for Australia .
The Industry we can start tomorrow with a statement from Albo 2 the markets , as I have suggested before .
SN can't even agree if we should build a Natural Gas Plant .
Building Windmills in Bunbrey , Solar Farms in Melbourne and in other places won't help electricity prices go down , soon .
Nuclear , no way !
Black ( not Brown ) Coal is being used and is an option that is to fn hard ffs .
Not much Big Oil in Oz , so not an option .
There is ONLY 1 option left of my page .
Building ONE Gas plant WILL help faster than anything else .
Perhaps we can start with Anglesea and at least get that , off the list ?
Think about that , please .
god, I love your stream of consciousness posts @Pop,
adam12's vouching has given you bonafides, and lotsa respectable people been hit by trains.
(sad Ethan's new film is stanky, but that's yin without yang. hopefully Joel's sucks too.)
I agree, sometime, anytime even, needs to be done now.
All plants are natural, even gas ones, the world will cough us off, and the solar system will collapse and she (the world) will have a food-nap bigger than we had in 2007 post GFC, the best hot servo snack.
regarding photos, my camaraderie club just transitioned! (we have a float this weekend), now a cameraderie club, and we keep stock of each other's visuals from memory.
Stay firm and fruity! (please answer by editing your above post).
Pop Down wrote:Fossils fuel being pro Nuclear is like Coke being pro Pepsi .
They are both sugary drinks and both like people drinking them .
Add add for 1 is a promotion of sugar drinks , the other sells .
Coke and Pepsi hate each other , hope the other dies and compete very hard , for the same dollar .
It's funny how this debate on SN , flows off onto tangents that are , often , impossible 2 agree on .
Was hoping most would agree that sometime needs to be done now .
Gas always comes up as the easiest solution , for Australia .
The Industry we can start tomorrow with a statement from Albo 2 the markets , as I have suggested before .
SN can't even agree if we should build a Natural Gas Plant .
Building Windmills in Bunbrey , Solar Farms in Melbourne and in other places won't help electricity prices go down , soon .
Nuclear , no way !
Black ( not Brown ) Coal is being used and is an option that is to fn hard ffs .
Not much Big Oil in Oz , so not an option .
There is ONLY 1 option left of my page .
Building ONE Gas plant WILL help faster than anything else .
Perhaps we can start with Anglesea and at least get that , off the list ?
Think about that , please .
One gas plant would be almost as pointless as building a big new coal power plant, but even more expensive to run.
Gas is better to use purely as support and a safety net to renewables, like i mentioned before there is already over 50 gas peaking plants in Australia, they come on only when needed unlike coal gas fire up very quickly especially when smaller generators.
Here is an example of a recent new one.
"Newest peaking gas plant fires up for first time: At least it’s connected to a pipeline"
"Australia’s newest peaking gas generator – the 316 MW Tallawarra B power station on the shores of Lake Illawarra in NSW – has fired up for the first time and expects to be fully operational in early 2024.
The gas-powered peaking plant is being built by EnergyAustralia next to the existing Tallawarra A gas fired power station, and is expected to play a crucial role helping meet peak demand in what is expected to be a long, hot El Nino summer.
Peaking gas generators do not get switched on very often, and work between 1 and 5 per cent of the time. When they are switched on, it’s because demand is very high, other generators have gone offline, or wholesale prices are also very high. Or all of the above."
https://reneweconomy.com.au/newest-peaking-gas-plant-fires-up-for-first-...
BTW. That is surprising only 1 to 5% of the time, you would expect as coal plants get shut down they will take up more slack at night etc (Edit: I just read an article that suggest differently? will post below)
Also surprising because if you look at the NEM watch that shows energy use live across Australia, there is always some gas that really ramps up at night.
hey base 6
I try and stay on track ( lots of veering ) , am impatient ( not with children :) and are way too much of a Fruit Cake , to know what I should edit .
There was stuff in your post I don't get .
I would like to say I have NFI how to debate on Social Media .
I could almost edit OUT , everything I write !
Guy's like U will point out my big f ups and I will either pop down , or apologise .
I am good at that .
What's good it that I am a nobody , just a name and some views .
Other people on here are somebodies that are not anon .
I need to keep trying to remember that .
Thats is much harder , my personal reputation is not at stake on SN .
Indo
You say Gas plants won't help .
Then U point out a Gas plant that will fn help the ILLAWARRA .
Provide Electricity in case of El Niño ffs .
I hope the Plant will work 24/7 as I bet it will be needed ffs .
The region is growing !
No easy detail about the economics , or where the gas supply come from .
The only supply the Illawarra has that is guaranteed 24/7 is Gas .
U then say we need it as a back up for Safety ???
After all u point out , U say it's not to be used elsewhere .
Mate , it should be everywhere !
I like all the other stuff in the post ( I think :) !
Especially letting me know ONE new Gas Plant is being built in Illawarra .
Now they have two , one as back up and that sounds smart imho .
The Economies added up 2 Energy Australia 2 !
As The article points out , those people are now SAFE , from outrageous Electricity prices .
edit for base 6 , I now get your editing advice but gave it up lol !
Edit ALL the above , again !
@Pop Down
I think you misread my post, i didnt say Gas plants wont help.
More that when you said "Building ONE Gas plant WILL help faster than anything else" you seemed to be thinking of gas in the wrong way, thinking more of it like traditional coal power plants where you have one or two big power stations like the Latrobe valley in Vic that power whole states.
The use of gas moving forward is more in having a large number of smaller gas peaking plants that can be fired up quickly and support renewables when needed.
Anyway the article i was reading before was this, quite a good read will post below.
Might as well put this up in the politics subforum, to spare the front page. It's 18 months away or so, but here we go.
This is how Dutton wins:
https://www.afr.com/politics/enter-the-liberal-party-working-class-heroe...