The Nuclear debate

Remove this Banner Ad

The debate is only gotten political now because Labor has gone all in on renewables and it's coincided with our economy going down the toilet in real time. If the answer is that nuclear isn't for us after all then so be it. But it's an absolute traversty that the debate hasn't been had before we landed ourselves with among the highest energy costs on earth.

It’s high because the LNP didn’t have an energy policy for 9 years… 9 years and no talk of nuclear.

Whats it like living in fairyland?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It has no other goal than to keep coal going
Also to sell false hope to the communities that relied on the old Coal Fire plants to trick them into voting Coalition. There is no economic or technical reason to build them where the Coalition is planning, if fact there are probably far more reasons to not build them in those locations. Those locations were chosen for one primary reason it was where the Coal was.

If you're going to build them (and on its face that's farcical decision) they should be built in locations that suit the requirement of a nuclear power plant.
 
You have to sort of give kudos to Dutton for promoting this policy. It's a gamble, but it's getting them headlines and a clear differentiation from the government. They will be promoting the saving money thing heavily but surely - surely - the ALP isn't stupid enough to not capitalise on the fact that setting up nuclear power plants are f***ing expensive, the incidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the nuclear waste generated, and that most other OECD countries around the world are phasing theirs out.
 
As costings aren't necessary to announce such a bold scheme, I'm surprised Mr Dutton didn't make the nuclear reactor thing even grander and say the Libs will build 47 nuclear reactors and supply the whole world with power into the 22nd Century and beyond.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
 
As costings aren't necessary to announce such a bold scheme, I'm surprised Mr Dutton didn't make the nuclear reactor thing even grander and say the Libs will build 47 nuclear reactors and supply the whole world with power into the 22nd Century and beyond.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
Could have gone so far as to say Mexico would pay for them 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
The fundamental problem with nuclear is this;
  1. It is NOT cheaper
  2. It is NOT safer
  3. It is NOT cleaner
  4. It is NOT easier
Other than that - have at it :drunk:

good point. So why does Dutton want to go Nuclear?

He wants nukes doesnt he?

Nuclear missiles to hit mainland China?
 
The fundamental problem with renewables is this;
  1. It is NOT cheaper
  2. It is NOT safer
  3. It is NOT cleaner
  4. It is NOT easier
Other than that - have at it :drunk:
fixed

Nuclear provides some 30% of the worlds total power and the technology involved has come a long way since the 50s, given its also used in submarines and boats since the 60s as well its some what safe

renewables havent worked any where and what materials are required to manufacture them and where do they come from?
 
I love the notion that it’s time to have a conversation about nuclear. Like it hasnt already been discussed. And when you engage in the conversation and start asking questions to those wanting the conversation, they can’t answer any.

Are there any nuclear experts here that actual want a conversation or a debate?


Meanwhile renewables are getting cheaper and cheaper and storage is getting better and better….
 
fixed

Nuclear provides some 30% of the worlds total power and the technology involved has come a long way since the 50s, given its also used in submarines and boats since the 60s as well its some what safe

renewables havent worked any where and what materials are required to manufacture them and where do they come from?
Are you the same pop up sprinkler that already got banned earlier?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

fixed

Nuclear provides some 30% of the worlds total power and the technology involved has come a long way since the 50s, given its also used in submarines and boats since the 60s as well its some what safe

renewables havent worked any where and what materials are required to manufacture them and where do they come from?

The difference between a nuclear-powered submarine or aircraft carrier and a nuclear power plant is enormous (like comparing a steam train to a coal-fired power plant) - same principle but vastly different and far more complex mechanisms.

And I guess nuclear power plants are made out of thin air too I suppose...
 
I love the notion that it’s time to have a conversation about nuclear. Like it hasnt already been discussed. And when you engage in the conversation and start asking questions to those wanting the conversation, they can’t answer any.

Are there any nuclear experts here that actual want a conversation or a debate?


Meanwhile renewables are getting cheaper and cheaper and storage is getting better and better….
Every time it's looked at by credible folks like the CSIRO, energy economists or the energy providers themselves the numbers don't add up. The libs are going all in to discredit the CSIRO, just like they tried too about the science of global warming. I would ask folks to consider would they trust an energy policy from a racist ex-Queensland cop or the CSIRO? Do you trust the financial projections of the folks that brought you robodebt and thought bringing a lump of coal to parliament as good energy policy?

Ignoring it's expense, danger, risk and complexity, the Libs only logical, positive argument that I can see is 'we can use the old power lines', well, even that may not be true.' According to South Australia energy minister Tom Koutsantonis:

“The myth that a nuclear reactor could just plug into the old Pt Augusta coal power station transmission lines is not true. The transmission lines are already nearly full from new renewables. In truth, a nuclear reactor at Pt Augusta would need new transmission lines.”
 
The difference between a nuclear-powered submarine or aircraft carrier and a nuclear power plant is enormous (like comparing a steam train to a coal-fired power plant) - same principle but vastly different and far more complex mechanisms.

And I guess nuclear power plants are made out of thin air too I suppose...
like how so?
 
The difference between a nuclear-powered submarine or aircraft carrier and a nuclear power plant is enormous (like comparing a steam train to a coal-fired power plant) - same principle but vastly different and far more complex mechanisms.

And I guess nuclear power plants are made out of thin air too I suppose...

Would you endorse a Liberal Government Brandishing nuclear missiles in the Northern Territory or in the Northern Point of Queensland?

Imagine Indonesia doing a full scale invasion.
 
fixed

Nuclear provides some 30% of the worlds total power and the technology involved has come a long way since the 50s, given its also used in submarines and boats since the 60s as well its some what safe
Que? its under 10% and falling.

There is an argument for very large container ships to be nuclear, only way to do global trade low carbon. Needs a massive change of regulations to ensure responsibility and also the military ships use borderline weapons grade(Houtis rubbing their hands lol), RMBK reactors?
renewables havent worked any where and what materials are required to manufacture them and where do they come from?
They do work to generate power, storage is still a question. Yes the materials and manufacture are all fossil fuel based, without energy rationing/de industrialisation/de growth etc these are all nebulous arguments
 
The difference between a nuclear-powered submarine or aircraft carrier and a nuclear power plant is enormous (like comparing a steam train to a coal-fired power plant) - same principle but vastly different and far more complex mechanisms.

And I guess nuclear power plants are made out of thin air too I suppose...
It's steam engines all the way down, some just use the spicier rocks lol

Except for hydro, the true satan of energy production
 
Explain this in detail please.

Buying time for more coal?
Nuclear plants take a decade to build at miniumum.

We have no industry, no construction plans, it's illegal in most states and so on. So we sit on the current grid for twenty years without looking at the construction required for decentralised generation(aka renewables). Gonna have to build a few coal/gas plants in the meantime
 
Unfortunately this isn't from the Dad Joke thread. How do you know when a politician is lying? When he opens his mouth. Dutton should have kept his mouth shut.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The Nuclear debate

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top