The Nuclear debate
- Thread starter nut
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Mar 16, 2002
- 23,015
- 14,368
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #727
I remember reading something about 25 years ago that given how much we rely on oil for so many things in the economy, it is actually ridiculous that we burn it for cars.
But there is easy money in it so
I think fossil fuels one day might be needed to Save the race.. ice age or something else… people in a thousands years or so will look back and ask WTF were we just burning it for no reason.
Jesus, could you imagine?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 seriessmallcaps.com.au
Really? How many times do I have to spell it out that this does not equate to me wanting or believing the transition should be stopped?
You asking this displays you're not comprehending my posts or you're just not reading them.
Read the post you replied to again.
You'd be naive to think every single person does know this, forums like this, yeah everyone knows. How often do you see reporting of in msm to the general public? I haven't seen any, and it wouldn't do any harm to point it out.
Again, you're explaining something to me that doesn't need explaining to me.
- Mar 16, 2002
- 23,015
- 14,368
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #730
That’s great. But you were defending a post about how renewables currently need a portion of the current energy supply for it to be produced.
If people dont understand how the transition to renewables is being implemented than they can easily find out.
We know how shit our MSM is, so we don’t really need people who do understand pointing out negatives that really aren’t negatives. It shouldn’t be apart of the debate…
Yes because the post points out what no one talks about (except on here), it's all 'renewables don't emit'. Every dog and its leash knows this.
No one ever talks about 'renewable components require emissions to build'. Unless I'm wrong and they don't require emissions, in that case we don't need fossil fuels at all then.
Don't see any harm in it being part of the discussion.
That's very dismissive, why are you afraid of negative fact being part of the discussion?
Regardless of how 'negative' it may appear it won't hurt to have it in discussion, otherwise it's just a case of trying to ignore the fact.
- Mar 16, 2002
- 23,015
- 14,368
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #732
It’s just idiotic … of course you’ll need current energy supplies to build renewables … unless we ban all renewables from being produced from fossil fuels??? … are we really discussing this?? What a stupid concept ….
Using fossil fuels to build renewables that are replacing it, is a positive!!!!
it’s just dumb and shouldn’t be in the debate …
Last edited:
I think fossil fuels one day might be needed to Save the race.. ice age or something else… people in a thousands years or so will look back and ask WTF were we just burning it for no reason.
If civilization was to fall, its virtually impossible that it could rebuild.
Bronze age, Iron age, they found the ore poking out of the ground.
Now its so far underground they'd never get to it.
It is not idiotic.
If you burnt coal to make the energy to manufacture solar panels there would be smoke.
If you used those solar panels to make the next solar panels there would be no smoke.
Burning the coal is the problem. Not the solar panels.
It really is not that hard.
Read the post you replied to again, you haven't comprehended it.
- Mar 16, 2002
- 23,015
- 14,368
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #739
What are you on about? What negative truth are you talking about?
I give up, we've been going around in circles agreeing with each other that building renewable components requires emissions (the negative bit) and the fact that msm never report that to the general public.
And then you ask this.
It's clear you can't comprehend simple discussion, so I'll leave it there.
- Mar 16, 2002
- 23,015
- 14,368
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #741
So you want MSM to report that currently we are using more fossil fuels to make renewables so we don’t have to use fossil
Fuels in the future? Hmmmm and this is something the MSM is hiding .. I’m glad you are leaving it there.
Not even the LNP are using that as a negative .. and that’s saying something.
- Mar 16, 2002
- 23,015
- 14,368
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #743
If the general public are too stupid to work that out themselves then we really are stuffed as a race…
I can see the HS Headline now…
“Dirty Solar panels polluting the planet” - real cost of renewables.
Yes that’ll help the transition.
Boosting education funding is definitely needed.
Its not an uncomfortable truth though. The percentage is ridiculously small that its not even worth talking about and the fossil fuel share will go to zero as industry and mining also decarbonizes. Renewables are the solution to zero emissions energy use. That is a fact.
By talking about mining and fossil fuel content in captial creation without providing the comparitive percentages over the lifecycle of the generation plant and without highlighting that the indirect use of fossil fuels will go to zero you are actually creating misinformation because people believe the share is significant and permanent because why else would you bring it up unless it was actually significant and permanent?
Note there is also minerals and fossil fuels used in the creation of nuclear and fossil fuel generation plants. As in pretty much all types of physical capital. Yet no one talks about them. At all. Thats because in emissions accounting those emissions are accounted for in mining and manufacturing sectors. Not power generation. Yet for some reason people want to double count in regards to renewables.
Last edited:
- Mar 16, 2002
- 23,015
- 14,368
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #745
Yes.
And we will ALWAYS need oil to make a million different things… including making solar panels, EVs, wind turbines …. Etc..
But thats misinformation as it implies the amount of fossil fuels is roughly the same in either case. Its so far from the truth that its not even funny.
- Mar 16, 2002
- 23,015
- 14,368
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #747
1 x 500w solar panel can produce 12.7MWh in Victoria in 20 years.
I believe about 50g of CO2 to make one.
What exactly is the point of highlighting what you want?
What it implies is that there'll be emissions to create them as Festerz has linked earlier, does nothing to imply 'misinformation' just coz some of the public may misinterpret it, like you're suggesting.
And now in your previous post your contesting the 'emissions are so small it's not worth talking about'. I mean that's opinion.
How do you know the public that don't know wouldn't wanna know? Why is it such a taboo to have the numbers out there? Sure are goin hard in defending the silence on it though, this is out or character for you seeds.
I mean, you and others are sure defending hard something that isn't much. It's like you've all got fear if this gets out in the public and it's a shock to some.
I'll leave you guys to hide under your bed about something you don't want msm to report on. Strange hill to die on.
