Opinion AUSTRALIAN Politics: Adelaide Board Discussion Part 5

[n4sir]

Has Dutton released his costings for nuclear yet?

Of course not.

 

[Doctor B]

I was fishing for a Cwissy, it came in so fast it bit my hook off

 

[Mutineer]

I was fishing for a Cwissy, it came in so fast it bit my hook off

You're still full of it Doc...

 

[n4sir]

nowhere near the expense of the runout of the infrastructure to bring all these far flung windmills and solar farms onto the grid...and I'd be surprised if you didn't already know that. The infrastructure is mostly there at the sites of the decommissioned coal fired power stations already.

The fact that we are even considering nuclear as a viable alternative is a sign of the huge mess we got ourselves into.

We have massive coal assets, but coal is bad... mmm okay.

We have massive gas assets... but a most are privatized and sold OS. Initially at ridiculously low prices that we were subsidizing, and now the top of the market. Both ways, we are getting screwed while we are being r*ped and pillaged by multinationals. WA is the only state that withheld a 15% reserve for local consumption, and not surprisingly they have the cheapest energy costs because of it.

So we're caught in between a transition from fossil fuels to renewables because there's been no set direction from prior governments, and energy companies are winging it based on where they think things will head and what's the best margin they can make.

The big battery in SA was a canary in the coalmine as far a delivering stability into what was an increasingly unstable grid. We're already talking about over-capacity, when there is way too much solar and wind for what our relatively small population demands - nuclear is just going to be more of the same. You cannot completely switch it off, and you can only dial it down so far - it has to keep working, it has to pump out energy if you want it or not. Plus it's expensive, hideously expensive for 27 million people spread out coast to coast, a similar distance of the USA with 9 times the population.

It would be cheaper to buy out a chunk of the gas companies reserves to service us (from our own resources that we should own) along with renewables, than going the nuclear route.

Mr Potato Head is trying to sell nuclear by saying a Coalition Government will subsidize the cost to consumers to make it affordable! Really? The masters of privatization? There's a better chance of pigs flying to Mars before that happens!

 

[Mutineer]

The fact that we are even considering nuclear as a viable alternative is a sign of the huge mess we got ourselves into.

We have massive coal assets, but coal is bad... mmm okay.

We have massive gas assets... but a most are privatized and sold OS. Initially at ridiculously low prices that we were subsidizing, and now the top of the market. Both ways, we are getting screwed while we are being r*ped and pillaged by multinationals. WA is the only state that withheld a 15% reserve for local consumption, and not surprisingly they have the cheapest energy costs because of it.

So we're caught in between a transition from fossil fuels to renewables because there's been no set direction from prior governments, and energy companies are winging it based on where they think things will head and what's the best margin they can make.

The big battery in SA was a canary in the coalmine as far a delivering stability into what was an increasingly unstable grid. We're already talking about over-capacity, when there is way too much solar and wind for what our relatively small population demands - nuclear is just going to be more of the same. You cannot completely switch it off, and you can only dial it down so far - it has to keep working, it has to pump out energy if you want it or not. Plus it's expensive, hideously expensive for 27 million people spread out coast to coast, a similar distance of the USA with 9 times the population.

It would be cheaper to buy out a chunk of the gas companies reserves to service us (from our own resources that we should won) along with renewables, than going the nuclear route.

Mr Potato Head is trying to sell nuclear by saying a Coalition Government will subsidize the cost to consumers to make it affordable! Really? The masters of privatization? There's a better chance of pigs flying to Mars before that happens!

Did you leave out we have massive, massive uranium assetts on purpose...strange.

Uranium Reserves: Top 5 Countries (Updated 2024)

Uranium is an important commodity in the energy sector, and knowing the countries with the top uranium reserves is key. Mined uranium resources have provided fuel for nuclear power generation for more than 60 years, and today nuclear power serves 10 percent of global energy needs. Global uranium...

investingnews.com

 

[n4sir]

Did you leave out we have massive, massive uranium assetts on purpose...strange.

Uranium Reserves: Top 5 Countries (Updated 2024)

Uranium is an important commodity in the energy sector, and knowing the countries with the top uranium reserves is key. Mined uranium resources have provided fuel for nuclear power generation for more than 60 years, and today nuclear power serves 10 percent of global energy needs. Global uranium...

investingnews.com

Having raw uranium assets is not the issue, it never was, and it never will be.

It's due to the cost of infrastructure, cost of generation, distance this has to cover, and the amount of population you have to cover that cost.

While we were burning coal and gas it was an absolute no-brainer. Do those instead. Nuclear is just way to expensive. Full stop.

Even now, without coal, it is still way to expensive. Plus it still has the same problems as an excess amount of renewables - but on steroids.

Unless we fill out the middle of Australia with about 200 million people, it just doesn't make economic sense.

 

[Mutineer]

Having raw uranium assets is not the issue, it never was, and it never will be.

It's due to the cost of infrastructure, cost of generation, distance this has to cover, and the amount of population you have to cover that cost.

While we were burning coal and gas it was an absolute no-brainer. Do those instead. Nuclear is just way to expensive. Full stop.

Even now, without coal, it is still way to expensive. Plus it still has the same problems as an excess amount of renewables - but on steroids.

Unless we fill out the middle of Australia with about 200 million people, it just doesn't make economic sense.

So are you telling me the cost of infrastructure for all these far flung windmill and solar farm will be less when the decommissioned and soon to be coal power stations where the infrasture is mostly already there?

 

[n4sir]

So are you telling me the cost of infrastructure for all these far flung windmill and solar farm will be less when the decommissioned and soon to be coal power stations where the infrasture is mostly already there?

The cost of the infrastructure needed for nuclear will be even worse again.

The whole nuclear power argument for Australia sits somewhere between a brain fart and a delusional pipe dream. The benefit just doesn't justify the cost. It's the country's biggest white elephant in the making, and that's saying something.

 

[Mutineer]

The cost of the infrastructure needed for nuclear will be even worse again.

The whole nuclear power argument for Australia sits somewhere between a brain fart and a delusional pipe dream. The benefit just doesn't justify the cost. It's the country's biggest white elephant in the making, and that's saying something.

I disagree.

You think you know more than an absolute expert in the nuclear field? I don't.

 

[StonesThrow]

Nuclear stacks up, if not why are so many countries relying on it as at least their baseload to keep their lights on and businesses operating..

Going to be a massive graveyard of windmills, solar panels and spent batteries and their toxic metals and chemicals in the not too distance future. I'm yet to see any reduction in my power bills as promised by that clown Bown, in fact they continue to go the other way. And I got news for you they will continue to rise with the new infrastructue required to service all these far flung windmills and solar farms. $$$$$$$$$$$$$ Billions and billions and billions.

I know how much infrastructure is required as I work in that area. It's a lot and it's going to cost a lot. It may well offset the future reduction in wholesale costs from low cost renewable generation. No one close to the energy market believes that prices will ever come down close to what they were 10-15 years ago in real terms. No one close to the energy market also thinks nuclear is a sensible idea at this point in time either.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

I know how much infrastructure is required as I work in that area. It's a lot and it's going to cost a lot. It may well offset the future reduction in wholesale costs from low cost renewable generation. No one close to the energy market believes that prices will ever come down close to what they were 10-15 years ago in real terms. No one close to the energy market also thinks nuclear is a sensible idea at this point in time either.

In July the U.S. Senate passed a bill to accelerate the deployment of nuclear energy capacity. I wonder if they don't know what the Australian government knows that Nuclear is uneconomical.

 

[StonesThrow]

In July the U.S. Senate passed a bill to accelerate the deployment of nuclear energy capacity. I wonder if they don't know what the Australian government knows that Nuclear is uneconomical.

Are you referring to the inflation reduction act (what a stupid name)?

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Are you referring to the inflation reduction act (what a stupid name)?

No.
Fire Grants and Safety Act

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/newly-signed-bill-will-boost-nuclear-reactor-deployment-united-states

The U.S. wants to triple nuclear power by 2050. America's coal communities could provide a pathway.​

The U.S. currently maintains the largest nuclear fleet in the world with 94 operational reactors totaling about 100 gigawatts
of power.

The U.S. wants to triple nuclear power by 2050. America's coal communities could provide a pathway.

The U.S. currently maintains the largest nuclear fleet in the world with 94 operational reactors totaling about 100 gigawatts of power.

www.nbcnews.com

Also
Microsolt wants to get 3-mile island operation again.



Those Yanks need to contact the Australian government to be told they are wasting their money.

 

[StonesThrow]

No.
Fire Grants and Safety Act

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/newly-signed-bill-will-boost-nuclear-reactor-deployment-united-states

The U.S. wants to triple nuclear power by 2050. America's coal communities could provide a pathway.​

The U.S. currently maintains the largest nuclear fleet in the world with 94 operational reactors totaling about 100 gigawatts
of power.

The U.S. wants to triple nuclear power by 2050. America's coal communities could provide a pathway.

The U.S. currently maintains the largest nuclear fleet in the world with 94 operational reactors totaling about 100 gigawatts of power.

www.nbcnews.com

Also
Microsolt wants to get 3-mile island operation again.



Those Yanks need to contact the Australian government to be told they are wasting their money.

When was the last large scale reactor they built? How did that go for cost and time?

The last I heard is that they were trying to incentivise prolonging existing reactors and that new nuclear generation had stalled over the last few decades.

 

[PeterSalt]

When was the last large scale reactor they built? How did that go for cost and time?

The last I heard is that they were trying to incentivise prolonging existing reactors and that new nuclear generation had stalled over the last few decades.

Worth a read

This 1 in the US went way over budget and construction time according to this article (seems like pretty much every nuclear construction project has had budget and time challenges)

Also talks about SMR's (small modular reactors) also in the US. I thought they were more advanced down this path

Peter Dutton says this is the kind of nuclear reactor Australia needs. How is it working for the US?

As Australia considers the possibility of a nuclear-powered future, the US gives us insights into what does, and doesn't, work.

www.abc.net.au

 

[StonesThrow]

Worth a read

This 1 in the US went way over budget and construction time according to this article (seems like pretty much every nuclear construction project has had budget and time challenges)

Also talks about SMR's (small modular reactors) also in the US. I thought they were more advanced down this path

Peter Dutton says this is the kind of nuclear reactor Australia needs. How is it working for the US?

As Australia considers the possibility of a nuclear-powered future, the US gives us insights into what does, and doesn't, work.

www.abc.net.au

Thanks.

I read this as well.

https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/power/why-a-new-era-for-us-nuclear-looks-unlikely/

It seems like the LNP position is: it's not stacking up now, but we have hope that it will in the future (albeit in a different country with different circumstances and a different market).

Sounds like good economic management.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Our government. Someone should be sacked.

Palestinian man’s visa called into question due to terror links​

A Palestinian man granted a visa to Australia has previously hosted political members of listed terror organisation at his Gaza art institute, and had multiple brothers and sons affiliated with the same violent groups.

A Palestinian man was granted a visa to Australia despite once hosting political members of Hamas and other terror organisations at his Gaza art institute, and having brothers and sons linked to banned groups.

The Opposition has demanded an explanation for how visual artist Fayez Elhasani was let into the country in July, questioning how he passed the visa character test.

VISA CONCERNS​

The Opposition has questioned the artist’s visa approval, given past comments by ASIO director-general Mike Burgess that an example such as liking a pro-Hamas tweet could constitute a security red flag

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/palestinian-mans-visa-called-into-question-due-to-terror-links/news-story/da77c0f854d0017ad0c6fd75ace3a6ea?campaignType=external&campaignChannel=syndication&campaignName=ncacont&campaignContent=&campaignSource=the_advertiser&campaignPlacement=edm&utm_source=AdelaideNow&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Editorial&utm_content=ADV_PREM-AM_CUR_01&net_sub_id=285893080&type=curated&position=5

 

[Mutineer]

Worth a read

This 1 in the US went way over budget and construction time according to this article (seems like pretty much every nuclear construction project has had budget and time challenges)

Also talks about SMR's (small modular reactors) also in the US. I thought they were more advanced down this path

Peter Dutton says this is the kind of nuclear reactor Australia needs. How is it working for the US?

As Australia considers the possibility of a nuclear-powered future, the US gives us insights into what does, and doesn't, work.

www.abc.net.au

And in typical ALPBC/Four Corners style not one nuclear expert was asked for comment...not one.

Mind you they did get comment from a uber wealthy renewables proponent Simon Holmes a Court and the old miserable ghost Malcolm Turnbull who no doubt has sunk millions of his ill gotten gains into renewables along with his son Hedge Fund Manager Alex Turnbull who also no doubt has sunk millions into renewables. Didn't bother to even approach a nuclear expert in his field Adi Paterson who has said he was very available but in typical ALPBC fashion they only give the one side of the story that they favour to absolutely nobody's surprise.

 

[PeterSalt]

And in typical ALPBC/Four Corners style not one nuclear expert was asked for comment...not one.

Mind you they did get comment from a uber wealthy renewables proponent Simon Holmes a Court and the old miserable ghost Malcolm Turnbull who no doubt has sunk millions of his ill gotten gains into renewables along with his son Hedge Fund Manager Alex Turnbull who also no doubt has sunk millions into renewables. Didn't bother to even approach a nuclear expert in his field Adi Paterson who has said he was very available but in typical ALPBC they only give the one side of the story that they favour to absolutely nobody's surprise.

I'm open to a nuclear industry here. On some levels it makes perfect sense

I think there needs to be more discussion on the topic. No side is being entirely honest about the debate though

 

[StonesThrow]

And in typical ALPBC/Four Corners style not one nuclear expert was asked for comment...not one.

Mind you they did get comment from a uber wealthy renewables proponent Simon Holmes a Court and the old miserable ghost Malcolm Turnbull who no doubt has sunk millions of his ill gotten gains into renewables along with his son Hedge Fund Manager Alex Turnbull who also no doubt has sunk millions into renewables. Didn't bother to even approach a nuclear expert in his field Adi Paterson who has said he was very available but in typical ALPBC fashion they only give the one side of the story that they favour to absolutely nobody's surprise.

There are two in that article and one of them is talking up nuclear. Do you need me to quote it?

Edit: and by talking it up I mean he's saying 'hopefully things will be better next time', which is what the LNP is also gambling on.

 

[Mutineer]

There are two in that article and one of them is talking up nuclear. Do you need me to quote it?

Edit: and by talking it up I mean he's saying 'hopefully things will be better next time', which is what the LNP is also gambling on.

Are you referring to Peter Bradford the guy with a Law degree?

He's an absolute lightweight compared with Adi Paterson, not even in the same league but it makes sense that's who the ALPBC would seek as their go to guy. Couldn't have someone that disagreed with their obvious agenda.

Just like the ALPBC's Mike Willacy with his story on the SAS soldier Heston, even stooped as low as doctoring videos to support his agenda.

Might pay to go watch it on Iview.

Adrian Paterson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Peter A. Bradford - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[StonesThrow]

Are you referring to Peter Bradford the guy with a Law degree?

He's an absolute lightweight compared with Adi Paterson, not even in the same league but it makes sense that's who the ALPBC would seek as their go to guy. Couldn't have someone that disagreed with their obvious agenda.

Just like the ALPBC's Mike Willacy with his story on the SAS soldier Heston, even stooped as low as doctoring videos to support his agenda.

Might pay to go watch it on Iview.

Adrian Paterson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Peter A. Bradford - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The guy's career was in energy policy and in particular nuclear energy. He would probably know ten times more than the south African guy on the US energy market and the history of nuclear in its mix.

Knowing how atoms work doesn't make you an expert in the dynamics of energy markets.

It's kind of like saying Adi knows more about Australia's energy market than Justin Oliver.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

 

[n4sir]

And in typical ALPBC/Four Corners style not one nuclear expert was asked for comment...not one.

Mind you they did get comment from a uber wealthy renewables proponent Simon Holmes a Court and the old miserable ghost Malcolm Turnbull who no doubt has sunk millions of his ill gotten gains into renewables along with his son Hedge Fund Manager Alex Turnbull who also no doubt has sunk millions into renewables. Didn't bother to even approach a nuclear expert in his field Adi Paterson who has said he was very available but in typical ALPBC fashion they only give the one side of the story that they favour to absolutely nobody's surprise.

Funny enough... quite a few (pro) nuclear experts were asked for comments. Including a whole lot of students at Georgia Tech.

It seemed like you only watched parts of this, or after the fact conveniently ignored a lot of content to make an argument that this was unfairly biased?

Just like the way you conveniently ignored the simple fact that the USA has approx 235 miillion more people than we do (over roughly the same land mass) to try and spread the massive cots. Which they have failed to do with the flagship Westinghouse reactors built in Georgia that the Coalition is trumpeting as being the new, cheap, clean way of power generation for the future (while they are wholly Government funded at a huge public cost). Until the Bill Gates backed SMR in Wyoming is approved and up and running, that whole area of the industry is just a pipe dream... it's potentially decades away.

Sure, drag up a couple of completely unbiased posts (sarcasm alert) by Adi Paterson, the former CEO of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (funded by... who exactly?) that you take as gospel. As opposed to the CSIRO, who have considerably less bias in their findings.