The Nuclear debate

Remove this Banner Ad

Dollar shop scomo talks about Dutton will have a mandate to go nuclear if voted in.

So don’t labor have a mandate now to not, but increase renewables responsibly?

Can we not say wide changes in energy investment policy every 3 years is madness?

Power generation is a state matter too. Did any state govt ever get a mandate to sell it off? Would the neocons agree Dan Andrews got a mandate to re nationalise power then? The SEC?
 
Last edited:
I used an electric vehicle to travel across France and Germany last week. I know that Germany uses coal and France uses nuclear. The price of electricity was double in Germany compared to France.

Even if it was as black and white as the scenario I have just presented; I’m certainly not an advocate for nuclear fission in Australia, particularly with ITER’s nuclear fusion project almost coming to fruition in south-eastern France. Having fission plants completed in Australia by 2037 would be just in time to lock ourselves in to an inferior technology than what should be available when fusion should be ready. If a nuclear fission program isn’t rolled out, then we continue burning coal. If it is rolled out, then perhaps then the mining companies could continue to mine uranium meanwhile Europe transfers to nuclear fusion which simply requires… seawater.
 
Last edited:
Further to the last point…

How much would a full energy transition to renewables (with firming via batteries and back up generators) affect our future prosperity as a nation?

Currently almost all of our coal used in steel making processes (coking coal) is exported, and 70% of our coal used for generating electricity (thermal/steaming coal) is exported. This means 30% of our steaming coal is used for our energy production or reserves. I don’t think that a full transition to renewables would be the ‘death’ of coal mines. Even after those countries in Asia which import our coal follow suit, there is still a need for coking coal. The Bowen Basin contains both.

Yes, coal is a major export of ours, but shutting down coal-fired power plants in Australia won’t shut down coal mining.

Onwards with the renewables.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

rjslcM said:
Further to the last point…

How much would a full energy transition to renewables (with firming via batteries and back up generators) affect our future prosperity as a nation?

Currently almost all of our coal used in steel making processes (coking coal) is exported, and 70% of our coal used for generating electricity (thermal/steaming coal) is exported. This means 30% of our steaming coal is used for our energy production or reserves. I don’t think that a full transition to renewables would be the ‘death’ of coal mines. Even after those countries in Asia which import our coal follow suit, there is still a need for coking coal. The Bowen Basin contains both.

Yes, coal is a major export of ours, but shutting down coal-fired power plants in Australia won’t shut down coal mining.

Onwards with the renewables.
Click to expand...

Have you read Bluescope steels statement?
 
rjslcM said:
I used an electric vehicle to travel across France and Germany last week. I know that Germany uses coal and France uses nuclear. The price of electricity was double in Germany compared to France.

Even if it was as black and white as the scenario I have just presented; I’m certainly not an advocate for nuclear fission in Australia, particularly with ITER’s nuclear fusion project almost coming to fruition in south-eastern France. Having fission plants completed in Australia by 2037 would be just in time to lock ourselves in to an inferior technology than what should be available when fusion should be ready. If a nuclear fission program isn’t rolled out, then we continue burning coal. If it is rolled out, then perhaps then the mining companies could continue to mine uranium meanwhile Europe transfers to nuclear fusion which simply requires… seawater.
Click to expand...

Fusion has been developing since the 1950s. It is also still largely theoretical (commercial fusion plants, that is) and I bet my life savings and my first born son that it won't be ready on a commercial scale in just 12 years.

And - hear me out - what if we do something else in the transition to cleaner energy? Like - say - building up the solar and wind network? I heard rumours they have even less carbon emissions than nuclear :think:
 
Is it not a coincidence that Gina Rhineheart ages ago started pushing that Australia needs to go nuclear to meet emissions targets and the big Pete comes out with this BS idea?

Pete that has been going to Gina’s parties as a guest speaker and Gina who owns all of Australia’s uranium mines
 
Forward Press said:
Fusion has been developing since the 1950s. It is also still largely theoretical (commercial fusion plants, that is) and I bet my life savings and my first born son that it won't be ready on a commercial scale in just 12 years.

And - hear me out - what if we do something else in the transition to cleaner energy? Like - say - building up the solar and wind network? I heard rumours they have even less carbon emissions than nuclear :think:
Click to expand...


Forward Press said:
Fusion has been developing since the 1950s. It is also still largely theoretical (commercial fusion plants, that is) and I bet my life savings and my first born son that it won't be ready on a commercial scale in just 12 years.

And - hear me out - what if we do something else in the transition to cleaner energy? Like - say - building up the solar and wind network? I heard rumours they have even less carbon emissions than nuclear :think:
Click to expand...
On a commercial scale - no. But within the lifetime of the proposed nuclear fission reactors, I’d take the bet.

I’m with you - primarily (90%+) renewables, stabilised using battery storage, and some backup generation via gas for the remaining <10% seems possible within the next 12-15.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I know I have been banging on a bit about the waste issue, this article linked below from The conversation details it more. It also has a paragraph that starts with a truth that needs to be spelt out before any discussion ls had about nuclear industry.

'No permanent and safe storage for high-level nuclear waste is yet in operation.'

theconversation.com

Nuclear energy creates the most dangerous form of radioactive waste. Where does Peter Dutton plan to put it?

Nuclear power stations produce high-level radioactive waste. It is dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years — and so far, the world has failed to deliver a safe, permanent storage method.
theconversation.com theconversation.com

Why make a problem that lasts thousands of years when we don't have to?
 
Johnny Bananas said:
"Another energy advisory, Lazard from the US, calculated the levelised cost of nuclear and renewables – which means the average net present cost of electricity generation for a generator over its lifetime. It found that one-megawatt hour from solar power, including back-up storage, costs between $72 to $160 per megawatt hour, while a traditional nuclear plant costs from $220 to $347."
Click to expand...
The total cost of rooftop solar will also plummet as take-up increases and panel and battery technology advances.
Nuclear will only ever increase as the build and running costs which increase over time.

The only real hope for Nuclear long term economically is if we can get "fusion" reactors to work viably.
This would be the "Holy Grail" of energy production, with the theoretical possibility of powering an entire city on a teaspoon of water.

Fusion is yet to be realised let alone harnessed.

Fission Reactors are already being phased out in many countries.
 
rjslcM said:
Having fission plants completed in Australia by 2037 would be just in time to lock ourselves in to an inferior technology than what should be available when fusion should be ready.
Click to expand...
Echoes of the moronic Liberal roll out of the copper NBN.

Guess which network now requires a complete upgrade to fibre, less than 9 Years after the most expensive network upgrade in Australian history?
 
Pie eyed said:
The only real hope for Nuclear long term economically is if we can get "fusion" reactors to work viably.
This would be the "Holy Grail" of energy production, with the theoretical possibility of powering an entire city on a teaspoon of water.

Fusion is yet to be realised let alone harnessed.
Click to expand...
The joke about fusion is that it's always 30 years away. Beautiful concept though, and the half life of its waste is only 12 years rather than thousands, so it won't remain hazardous after about a century.
 
Pie eyed said:
Echoes of the moronic Liberal roll out of the copper NBN.

Guess which network now requires a complete upgrade to fibre, less than 9 Years after the most expensive network upgrade in Australian history?
Click to expand...

And all the usual suspects lined up behind them, finding technical critiques of fibre optics.

Wasn’t it going to be replaced by 5g? Now the cookers have decided that’s woke too

Woke bing anything they decided they don’t like
 
Who ever is for Nuclear, please watch this and if you can debunk anything that they have put forward And can prove nuclear is viable than show us.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

anchor man
Gina the politician.
Replies
0
Views
188
anchor man
anchor man
Bunk Moreland
The major parties versus social media
Replies
7
Views
434
Pakenhamsaint
Pakenhamsaint
M
How the coalition can win the next Victorian election
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
3K
Johnny Bananas
Johnny Bananas
anchor man
The Nightly
Replies
8
Views
747
anchor man
anchor man
Aristotle Pickett
Vic The joke that is the Victorian Liberal Party.
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
177
Views
9K
evolved2
evolved2
Geoff
The Joke that is the West Australian Liberal Party
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
4K
E Shed
E Shed
Seeds
Australias tax system takes from the young to give to the old
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Syd
Syd

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top