- Jun 7, 2015
- 7,558
- 15,031
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Thread starter
- #26
... absolute role model.
Last edited:
AUKUS nuclear waste to be stored in Port Adelaide
- Thread starter Interstater
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
This makes the AFL look like nice guys in comparison.
Butler has to go for allowing this on his watch.
One leak, one bloody leak, and SA's reputation for fresh quality food is Chernobyled.
What is the point of defending this country when our own politicians are attacking it from the inside?
'It's madness': Residents just learned nuclear waste from AUKUS subs would be stored locally
The $368 billion AUKUS pact is promising to return submarine construction to Australia. But residents have just learned the deal also means nuclear waste will be stored on their doorstep.www.abc.net.au
View attachment 2168094
Where do you think nuclear waste is stored in SA at the moment?
Adelaide CBD? Elizabeth? Glenelg? Noarlunga? Stirling?
You will find there will be half a dozen locations in Adelaide with most hospital car parks and defence facilities
What waste do you think they will have from a sealed nuclear propulsion system?
- Jun 7, 2015
- 7,558
- 15,031
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Thread starter
- #28
How many of your kids need be bit by a brown snake before you have it removed?
How many people do you have shit on your carpet before you decide its a bad idea?
Its not a matter of quantity.
Try again.
Radioactive waste sites in SA | SA news | InDaily
SA's environment regulator reveals how many sites are storing radioactive materials across the state with no long-term storage plan.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
For perspective here.............
A traditional nuclear reactor runs at 4 to 6% enriched uranium (U235)
A SMR reactor runs at 19.9% (this is called HALEU) which is below the nuclear regulatory thresholds
The submarines are likely going to be closer to 90-97%, meaning they will be fail safe sealed units
The reality here is the nuclear waste stored at Port Adelaide will be more akin to the radioactivity of green emergency exit lights
A traditional nuclear reactor runs at 4 to 6% enriched uranium (U235)
A SMR reactor runs at 19.9% (this is called HALEU) which is below the nuclear regulatory thresholds
The submarines are likely going to be closer to 90-97%, meaning they will be fail safe sealed units
The reality here is the nuclear waste stored at Port Adelaide will be more akin to the radioactivity of green emergency exit lights
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
the majority of deaths in the nuclear industry are dental surgeries. are you suggesting we should get rid of dental surgeries?
wind and solar has a higher risk of death than nuclear. are you suggesting we should get rid of solar and wind?
FYI - I'm in the solar, battery and hydrogen game but also pro nuclear (as it works)
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Green hydrogen from electrolysis = PFAS
PFAS = forever chemicals related to cancer, diabetes and foetal mortality
The Australian government is committing $8B to rolling out PFAS after spending billions cleaning up PFAS, closing dams and then banning the PFAS they just spent $8B just spent rolling out
PFAS = forever chemicals related to cancer, diabetes and foetal mortality
The Australian government is committing $8B to rolling out PFAS after spending billions cleaning up PFAS, closing dams and then banning the PFAS they just spent $8B just spent rolling out
- Apr 27, 2008
- 65,933
- 80,424
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Chael Sonnen: Moral Champion
Both growing making wine and making nuclear power need water, it seems they are situated near rivers
- Apr 27, 2008
- 65,933
- 80,424
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Chael Sonnen: Moral Champion
When my dog shit on the carpet I didn't get rid of the dog. I just trained the dog to shit somewhere else.
A better plan for storing waste within SA is needed, not a ban on it.
The absolute scare campaign around Nuclear Energy is astounding. The fact that people can't see that a country, as politically, economically, socially, ecologically and seismicly stable, compliance obsessed, containing 28% of the world known souce of the fuel that runs it, can't somehow do it yet around 35 countries around the world, who don't have such elite parameters seem to pull it off just fine is mind blowing to me.
- Apr 27, 2008
- 65,933
- 80,424
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Chael Sonnen: Moral Champion
The only scare campaign needed is the reality of the economics.
Aus should have jumped on the bangwagon in the 60s like everywhere else worth a shit before it went the way of house prices.
- Aug 21, 2007
- 33,321
- 110,540
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
Agree, but for the opposite reason.
Nuclear is insanely expensive and unnecessary given how much space we have to run solar, wind and batteries in this country. That's why the government should avoid it.
By scaremongering about safety and radioactive waste concerns, if those concerns become largely solved (which they already are) and the people advocating for Nuclear can cut through the hysteria and fearmongering, suddenly the fear based argument against nuclear disappears and the anti-nuclear campaign look moronic if they continue to campaign against it.
The argument against them should be economic. It's clear, undeniable and it doesn't even need to enter into the scare campaigning. Renewables are much, much cheaper.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
To turn a turbine, but not necessarily for 24 hours straight and for 100 years and when you factor in initial capital cost and then capital replacement cost over that 100 years.
If you want 1 megawatt of power for 24 hours for 365 days a year and for 100 years, you can't just build a 1 megawatt hour wind turbine. You might have to build 3 of them in different areas so that when 1 or 2 of them aren't turning because of no wind, or very little turning because of lights winds, you still get 1 megawatt produced. Yet the cost of 1 megawatt wind turbine cost is compared to other base load power for 1 megawatt of fossil fuels and ignores the capital costs needed to guarantee 1 megawatt 24/7.
Its dishonest costings.
As Danny Price of Frontier Economics produced last week - the costs of renewables to transform the economy has been greatly down played, because they are released as discounted cash flow ie net present value (NPV) costings. He took AEMO's spreadsheets and costings, and worked out that $122 bil NPV for renewables, is actually $650 bil of real cash that has to be spent by 2050.
Price has worked for both sides of politics, produced reports for both sides to help formulate their renewables policies, and wants an honest debate. That's why he gone off and done his own costings on both renewable and nuclear, not funded by any one. He releases his nuclear costings later this week.
The $368 bil for nuclear subs isn't a NPV calculation, its the estimated actual dollars that have to be forked out over 40 years.
There is so much money at stake in this debate, that it is full of spin and half truths. Even the CSIRO report didn't do apples for apples comparison over the life time of nuclear vs renewables. It just costed things to 2050. After 2050 renewables infrastructure has to be replaced, some before that, yet the carbon and climate change issues just don't all of a sudden stop in 2050.
Here is Price's page
Danny Price - Frontier Economics
Danny Price is an economist, and the managing director, of Frontier Economics. He is a leading expert in energy economics, leading a number of major projects on energy industry regulation and reform in Australia.
www.frontier-economics.com.au
Here is the link to his renewables report which has a download link
Independent economic assessment of nuclear power in the National Electricity Market
The first of two independent reports, to help inform the debate about the economics of including nuclear power in the National Electricity Market (NEM).
www.frontier-economics.com.au
There is a large amount of ill-informed and misleading cost comparisons being shared about nuclear power in Australia, and Australian’s deserve better analysis and commentary to make the right decisions for our energy future. - Danny Price, Managing Director, Frontier Economics
Here is the link to the report he did for the SA government on Hydrogen, which is supposed to be driven by electricity produced from renewable sources and he/Frontier Economics concludes - Frontier Economics’ modelling showed that this plant would reduce the wholesale electricity price in SA by 8%.
Hydrogen storage and power plant combination proposed by SA Labor - Frontier Economics
Frontier Economics provided economic analysis for a proposed hydrogen storage and power plant in SA.
www.frontier-economics.com.au
Last edited:
- Jun 7, 2015
- 7,558
- 15,031
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Thread starter
- #40
If you add one more word to your statement I'm ok with it.
Even that is an issue though if by our it means all of australia vs all of south australia, simply because the Venn Diagram of clean fresh food and nuclear waste has no overlap.
Five years down the track, good luck marketing your consumables against the non-nuclear dump site states.
Imagine the lol SA 2 headed carrots that glow in the dark marketing from our eastern cousins.
Perception.
---------
If other countries dump even 1m3 of their shit here then hell no.
---------
Thank Fk.
Bad enough fracking the groundwater basins and letting mining companies drain them, why add to it?
The libs plan isn't really about building nuclear power anyway, it's about stalling the halt to using coal and gas while their donors keep making dough.
And if it's just what comes out of hospitals and from sub construction - fine.
Even that is an issue though if by our it means all of australia vs all of south australia, simply because the Venn Diagram of clean fresh food and nuclear waste has no overlap.
Five years down the track, good luck marketing your consumables against the non-nuclear dump site states.
Imagine the lol SA 2 headed carrots that glow in the dark marketing from our eastern cousins.
Perception.
---------
If other countries dump even 1m3 of their shit here then hell no.
---------
Thank Fk.Bad enough fracking the groundwater basins and letting mining companies drain them, why add to it?
The libs plan isn't really about building nuclear power anyway, it's about stalling the halt to using coal and gas while their donors keep making dough.
Last edited:
