The Nuclear debate

[nut]

Err my post (and the link it reference)d makes reference to the growing shift to renewables in China but the 'reality' is that whilst coal consumption is not rising exponentially like solar - instead it's just grinding higher - mainly because it's starting from a much higher base.

Here's the reality. And data to back it up. As I said, take the time to read the whole thread. It will provide you, as it did me, with a fuller understanding of the whole picture, not just the bits that fit the renewable narrative.

Chinas energy demand is increasing but experts are still predicting peak coal in 2025…
The amount of solar they are producing is massive… 44% green energy and that figure will continue to climb.

 

[Rob R]

All Dutton and his front bench have is the politics of division - imported directly from Trump HQ.

BTW, this month marks the 50th anniversary of the groundbreaking work that made solar a viable source of renewable energy. It was pioneered at the University of NSW by one of Australia’s unsung heroes, Professor Martin Green.

Subsequently stolen by a student who then set-up with support with another governments support one of the largest solar companies in the world. Whilst our government dithered.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SaintsSeptember]

This sentiment is not reality.
China is closing petrol stations by the thousands..
in China Clean energy generated a record-high 44% of China's electricity in May 2024, pushing coal's share down to a record low of 53%, despite continued growth in …

There is not a country on the planet that has done more for climate change in the last 10 years…
They are rolling out more solar than any other country.

Despite all that they broke records for generating the most electricity from coal.

And you keep carrying on about being able to go out and charge your car somewhere cheap and bring it back home and plug it into your battery, ( reminds me of when my father in law used to fill a jerry can when he came to the city, because petrol is cheaper here ).

In the first 10 months of 2024, China's coal plants produced 4,838 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity,
Maybe they need to extra electricity to charge all the electric cars.

If Australia did nothing it would take us 40 years to produce as much CO2 as China did this year.

The atmosphere doesn't care who's making the CO2. It doesn't care about per capita.
It cares about how much.

 

[Festerz]

Pretending to be concerned about the carbon footprint of materials used for renewables is the new climate change doesn't exist for the knuckle draggers.

Seriously Gough? I'm more than a bit disappointed.

Don't really see myself as one of the 'knuckle draggers' and maybe you do.

But regardless, I reckon a genuine discussion based on facts about the source and long term sustainability of those solar panels, wind turbines and EVs and everything that goes into their construction, lifelong maintenance, operation and eventual scrapping only adds to the collective understanding and transparency of the life long cost and impact of alternative energy options.

Demonising those who dare to raise them for discussion, without addressing the content, seems to me to be pretty lazy regardless of what side of politics you imagine the comments are coming from.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Seriously Gough? I'm more than a bit disappointed.

Don't really see myself as one of the 'knuckle draggers' and maybe you do.

But regardless, I reckon a genuine discussion based on facts about the source and long term sustainability of those solar panels, wind turbines and EVs and everything that goes into their construction, lifelong maintenance, operation and eventual scrapping only adds to the collective understanding and transparency of the life long cost and impact of alternative energy options.

Demonising those who dare to raise them for discussion, without addressing the content, seems to me to be pretty lazy regardless of what side of politics you imagine the comments are coming from.

 

[nut]

China is expected to add up to 400 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity in 2024, which is 28% more than the previous year.

Seriously Gough? I'm more than a bit disappointed.

Don't really see myself as one of the 'knuckle draggers' and maybe you do.

But regardless, I reckon a genuine discussion based on facts about the source and long term sustainability of those solar panels, wind turbines and EVs and everything that goes into their construction, lifelong maintenance, operation and eventual scrapping only adds to the collective understanding and transparency of the life long cost and impact of alternative energy options.

Demonising those who dare to raise them for discussion, without addressing the content, seems to me to be pretty lazy regardless of what side of politics you imagine the comments are coming from.

solar panels last 40 years and are recyclable
Batteries are recyclable
80-90% of wind turbines are recyclable

There is no debate on what’s better for the planet.

There is no disputing that China is doing most of the heavy lifting when it comes to decarbonising the planet.

The US, Canada and the EU are putting tariffs/taxes on renewables… but that’s ok?

 

[Festerz]

There is no debate on what’s better for the planet.

Well that's not true is it?

When it comes to economics, physics, chemistry, medicine, history and just about anything else that matters in our lives, there's ALWAYS debate.

And just as well. Because what was once considered undeniable fact on things like the environment, gender and even things as fundamental to our existence as gravity and the nature of light have been seriously challenged and debunked over the course of the past century.

And those changes have come from those challenging the orthodoxy, sometimes at great personal cost, backing their hypotheses with data and evidence.

History tells us that we're best served as a species by promoting the evolution of alternative viewpoints (backed by credible data and facts of course). And opening up new perspectives to scrutiny and debate rather than shutting them down because they don't fit with current thinking.

 

[nut]

Well that's not true is it?

When it comes to economics, physics, chemistry, medicine, history and just about anything else that matters in our lives, there's ALWAYS debate.

And just as well. Because what was once considered undeniable fact on things like the environment, gender and even things as fundamental to our existence as gravity and the nature of light have been seriously challenged and debunked over the course of the past century.

And those changes have come from those challenging the orthodoxy, sometimes at great personal cost, using data and evidence as their platform.

History tells us that we're best served as a species by promoting the evolution of alternative viewpoints (backed by credible data and facts of course). And opening up new perspectives to scrutiny and debate rather than shutting them down because they don't fit with current thinking.

Ok what’s your alternative to renewables? And please present facts.
If you include destroying capitalism and its complete reliance on growth and consumerism … then I’m likely to agree.
But as a race we are demanding more and more energy so I can’t see us not destroying the planet unless we embrace renewables/recyclables ..

 

[Festerz]

Ok what’s your alternative to renewables? And please present facts.

You missed my point. I'm not an opponent of renewable energy sources as an alternative to fossil fuels, far from it. Just that imho our understanding of their long term role in Australia's long term energy needs is best served by critical assessment of the assumptions underpinning their roll out and the shutting down of alternative options

But let me try and explain it another way.

When Albert Einstein overturned Isaac Newton's theory of gravity that had been accepted for centuries, he used facts and evidence and a bit of maths to show that the prevailing accepted understanding of how gravity worked was flawed. In doing so he was not saying that the thinking of gravity as a force was wrong but that our understanding of how that force worked across the universe was flawed. The science of gravity and relativity still isn't settled btw- it's an evolving puzzle .

And so it is, or might be, with the science and economics of renewables. If solar panels, wind turbines and battery storage really is the long term future of Australia's energy future we should welcome the transparent and critical assessment of the assumptions underpinning it on both economic and environmental terms.

To do so isn't knuckle dragging but simple critical thinking and assessment. And an understanding that asking questions and doing more research to understand what's happening is NEVER a bad thing if you're focussed on the long term.

 

[peetoo]

Nuclear which is not de facto needs to prove its bettter than renewables not the other way around.

I think it fails

 

[nut]

You missed my point. I'm not an opponent of renewable energy sources as an alternative to fossil fuels, far from it. Just that imho our understanding of their long term role in Australia's long term energy needs is best served by critical assessment of the assumptions underpinning their roll out and the shutting down of alternative options

But let me try and explain it another way.

When Albert Einstein overturned Isaac Newton's theory of gravity that had been accepted for centuries, he used facts and evidence and a bit of maths to show that the prevailing accepted understanding of how gravity worked was flawed. In doing so he was not saying that the thinking of gravity as a force was wrong but that our understanding of how that force worked across the universe was flawed. The science of gravity and relativity still isn't settled btw- it's an evolving puzzle .

And so it is, or might be, with the science and economics of renewables. If solar panels, wind turbines and battery storage really is the long term future of Australia's energy future we should welcome the transparent and critical assessment of the assumptions underpinning it on both economic and environmental terms.

To do so isn't knuckle dragging but simple critical thinking and assessment. And an understanding that asking questions and doing more research to understand what's happening is NEVER a bad thing if you're focussed on the long term.

This is almost as bad as “if you don’t know vote no”.

All the the facts you need to know about how renewables work is easily assessable.
So what parts of the roll out dont you understand? Be specific, the vibe of the thing doesn’t cut it.

 

[nut]

Renewables are
Cheaper
Decentralised
Scaleable
Recyclable- decommissioning costs are offset by the value of the components.
More reliable
Require virtually zero maintenance compared to anything else.
Anyone can become a producer.
Off grid systems for developing countries and remote communities are affordable.
Almost all the time there will be excess power that can be absorbed by new and old industries.
Continued technological advances will see constant improvements in cost, performance and innovation.
Advancements in using materials that are plentiful… and recyclable.

Nuclear
More expensive
Produces radioactive waste
Centralised
Creates a security risk
Does not mix well with renewables at a large scale.
Decommissioning costs billions
Takes along time to commission whilst other cheaper and more efficient technologies are developing.


Unless you can provide facts, then there is no debate.

 

[peetoo]

Just on the Microsoft thing. Seem to be resuscitating mothballed plants which were shut down because renewables smashed them for pricing. Three mile island.

But the touted appetite for massive amounts of power by AI means renewables aren’t coming quick enough. game is changing, but can we really say this is relevant to australia, when renewables seem almost infinite?

Just so long as Microsoft software never gets anywhere near the core of these things.

Microsoft signs historic nuclear power deal to fuel AI data centres

The owner of the infamous Three Mile Island nuclear plant in the US has announced a $1.6 billion plan to restart part of the operation to power a series

smallcaps.com.au

 

[Mofra]

Nuclear which is not de facto needs to prove its bettter than renewables not the other way around.

I think it fails

There is the massive lag factor to consider as well - nuclear plants take decades to become operational.

If we follow the nuclear route, it means a 10-20 year extension to our coal fired plants to fill that gap. Given global finance is shying away from carbon intensive power generation, that means government funding in the meantime. That's a hidden cost that is not being discussed enough.

If we started in the 90s, nuclear would have been great. The opportunity has passed and it's now simply too expensive with too long a timeframe to be a viable option in any country that doesn't already have a mature nuclear power generating industry.

 

[Carringbush2010]

This is almost as bad as “if you don’t know vote no”.

All the the facts you need to know about how renewables work is easily assessable.
So what parts of the roll out dont you understand? Be specific, the vibe of the thing doesn’t cut it.

Your reply, to put it like this is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling to yourself la la la la la la in a futile attempt to ignore what you don't like.

The fact that it can't be avoided fossil fuel / digging stuff out of the ground, which also requires fossil fuel, is required to create renewable components.

All of this has been put out in detail with evidence based links by Festerz and you choose to ignore it.

 

[peetoo]

Hard to work out from our media, but plenty of people who support the transition to more renewables aren’t in the ‘just stop oil’ cohort.

Mining and oil extraction will continue, we’ll just be a lot smarter what we do with it

 

[Mofra]

Hard to work out from our media, but plenty of people who support the transition to more renewables aren’t in the ‘just stop oil’ cohort.

Mining and oil extraction will continue, we’ll just be a lot smarter what we do with it

A lot of economists are in the pro-renewables camp, simply because the numbers stack up.

 

[nut]

Your reply, to put it like this is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling to yourself la la la la la la in a futile attempt to ignore what you don't like.

The fact that it can't be avoided fossil fuel / digging stuff out of the ground, which also requires fossil fuel, is required to create renewable components.

All of this has been put out in detail with evidence based links by Festerz and you choose to ignore it.

When have I denied any of that?? I don’t believe in magic either… The fact it more and more renewable energy is making more renewables.
Alot of mine sites are leading the way to becoming 100% carbon neutral..
ITS CALLED A TRANSITION!!!!!

 

[nut]

A lot of economists are in the pro-renewables camp, simply because the numbers stack up.

Yes and as I mentioned above so are mine sites… saving millions in fuel costs by using onsite solar to power electric equipment, accomodation etc.,

 

[Seeds]

Your reply, to put it like this is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling to yourself la la la la la la in a futile attempt to ignore what you don't like.

The fact that it can't be avoided fossil fuel / digging stuff out of the ground, which also requires fossil fuel, is required to create renewable components.

All of this has been put out in detail with evidence based links by Festerz and you choose to ignore it.

The mining part for renewables only happens once in its entire life cycle. During the capital construction phase. The mining aspect for fossil fuel generators happens every day of its life as it burns fossil fuels that need to be dug up every day. We are takling 100s of fold difference here. You cant even remotely equate the two.

Also, fossil fuels are only used to create renewable capital if the miners/manufactors use fossil fuel energy. If they switch to renewables, as is the plan, then there will be zero fossil fuels involved in renewable generation, both directly and indirectly. This is why we say renewables can be 100 percent fossil fuel free. Cos it can and should be.

 

[Carringbush2010]

When have I denied any of that?? I don’t believe in magic either… The fact it more and more renewable energy is making more renewables.
Alot of mine sites are leading the way to becoming 100% carbon neutral..
ITS CALLED A TRANSITION!!!!!

Posting, 'ok what's your alternative to renewables', kinda suggests you think that festerz is opposed to renewables because of the pointed out fact of the cost of creating renewable components

And now you're claiming 'when did I deny that?!'

How is one supposed to read your posts then?

 

[Seeds]

A lot of economists are in the pro-renewables camp, simply because the numbers stack up.

Not just cos the numbers stack up (and on the numbers the alternatives arent even close anymore). But cos many of us also care about the climate and the existential risks of nuclear power.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The mining part for renewables only happens once in its entire life cycle. During the capital construction phase. The mining aspect for fossil fuel generators happens every day of its life as it burns fossil fuels that need to be dug up every day. We are takling 100s of fold difference here. You cant even remotely equate the two.

Also, fossil fuels are only used to create renewable capital if the miners/manufactors use fossil fuel energy. If they switch to renewables, as is the plan, then there will be zero fossil fuels involved in renewable generation, both directly and indirectly. This is why we say renewables can be 100 percent fossil fuel free. Cos it can and should be.

Yeah I'm not arguing any of that. I don't know why you feel the need to explain to me what doesn't need explaining to me.

If you read the posts, clearly I'm supporting festerz in the fact providing that renewable components require fossil fuel / hole digging to create them because no one wants to talk about that fact.

That doesn't equate to Festerz or I are opposed to renewables, just pointing the uncomfortable truth that needs to be talked about.

Msm, fail big time here, and by not reporting these facts, it enables the counterproductive of some of the public not being aware of the cost of creating renewable components.

 

[nut]

Yeah I'm not arguing any of that. I don't know why you feel the need to explain to me what doesn't need explaining to me.

If you read the posts, clearly I'm supporting festerz in the fact providing that renewable components require fossil fuel / hole digging to create them because no one wants to talk about that fact.

That doesn't equate to Festerz or I are opposed to renewables, just pointing the uncomfortable truth that needs to be talked about.

Msm, fail big time here, and by not reporting these facts, it enables the counterproductive of some of the public not being aware of the cost of creating renewable components.

I don’t think anyone needs to be reminded that going from one form of energy to another relies on the original source of energy.. it’s no secret, and really what are we ment to discuss? Should we consider stopping the transition?
Of course there will still be fossil fuels in the mix… Net zero doesn’t mean zero fossil fuels.
There are a million things we need from the extraction of oil.. stopping burning fossil fuels at the rate we are is the goal.

 

[QuietB]

Seriously Gough? I'm more than a bit disappointed.

Don't really see myself as one of the 'knuckle draggers' and maybe you do.

But regardless, I reckon a genuine discussion based on facts about the source and long term sustainability of those solar panels, wind turbines and EVs and everything that goes into their construction, lifelong maintenance, operation and eventual scrapping only adds to the collective understanding and transparency of the life long cost and impact of alternative energy options.

Demonising those who dare to raise them for discussion, without addressing the content, seems to me to be pretty lazy regardless of what side of politics you imagine the comments are coming from.

But it is a disingenuous argument.

Building an electric vehicle now might create huge amounts of CO2, but what happens when the energy you use to build it is carbon neutral?

Running an electric vehicle now might create huge amounts of CO2, but what happens when the energy you use to run it is carbon neutral? This is achievable right now.

The same applies to solar cells, wind turbines, it could all be mined and manufactured with renewable, carbon neutral energy.

That is the whole point of the transition.

And an argument that this transition is not viable because the carbon footprint is too big at the start is bogus.

The carbon footprint of the alternative - keep building petrol cars, coal power stations, gas power stations, etc. - is equally as big and goes forever.

As demonstrated in the post above we have solar and wind trending up and coal trending down in China. One day coal in China will end, and Solar and wind will do the whole lot.

If China achieves close to full carbon neutrality in their energy market, what will the CO2 impact be of building solar panels and wind turbines then?

Yes we need to be better at recycling, yes we need to solve all the base load issues and storage issues. It seems China are the only ones genuinely trying. And the west would be more inclined to start whaling again for street lighting.