Scotty from Marketing

[nomadpete]

So I question the assertion that dam failures can generally be blamed for a significant risk to life and limb compared to solar panels (or other 'alternative ' energy sources). It was been suggested that hydro electric systems are more hazardous to Human lives than nuclear.

 

And it seems that some 'experts' are ignoring the fact that nuclear waste can pose a significant risk to life for thousands of years. Something that is impossible to quantify, but is unquestionably significant.

 

 

[old man emu]

And opening the debunking for the Nuclear Industry we have: https://www.anl.gov/article/10-myths-about-nuclear-energy

 

 

[octave]

And opening the debunking for the Nuclear Industry we have: https://www.anl.gov/article/10-myths-about-nuclear-energy

 

OME i am not anti nuclear however I think the old model of nuclear power is not viable, look up Hinkley Point C. I do however believe that new nuclear will be an inevitable part of our energy mix.  The most persuasive argument for nuclear is CO2 mitigation but the most enthusiastic supporters of nuclear power are those who deny the most powerful reason to adopt it.

 

I have often posted links to Bill Gates who accepts climate change and renewables but also beleives we need new nuclear. Gates funds renewables and nuclear. Not in a position to post links but look up travelling wave reactor.

 

The reasons Australia has not adopted nuclear power are not as simple as hysteria. My understanding is that the economics are questionable at this point in time.

 

 

[old man emu]

The reasons Australia has not adopted nuclear power are not as simple as hysteria.

 

But hysterical propaganda is number one on the list. Also, where there's a will, there's a 

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I know a few people working on Hinkley Point C.. and I don't live too far from the site (about 15 miles or so as the crow flies).. I can say the cost os astronomical party because EDF are wedded to the EPR design,which has yet to work reliably. There are plenty of sites that turn a reasonable operating profit. Of course, one shoudl (but usually leave it to the government) factor in the decommissioning costs -which are huge. Unf, the UK has allowed all of its nuclear infrastructure to go well past oriignal life and are building in a "hurry".

 

Small module reactors are coming on stream (e.g https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/nuclear/small-modular-reactors.aspx#section-the-opportunity) and offer a relatively quick and cheap way to get nuclear going. Of course, having existing site licences helps, so for Aus, it would be abit more work, but you van get decent generation fairly quickly up and running, as, unlike the massive EPRs wth all their technical complexity that comes with large scale, these are fairly quick and, lie a pre-fab house, (will) have a proven and repeatable emthod of construction - local site issues are more likely  to the be problem.

 

The  other advantage to SMRs is that you have a fuel cell literally waiting on a secured flat-bed truck. A refuelling takes a day rather than shutting a whole unit for c. 30 days. As they are sealed units, it makes waste handlong a little easier - still a problem, though..

 

 

[Litespeed]

The big problems still exist.

 

These reactors do not yet exist and are at last 9 years away.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

A little sooner than 9 years: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/small-modular-reactors-a-challenge-for-spent-fuel-management

 

Waste is still an issue...

 

 

[facthunter]

Not sure designs are finalised yet . Cost of the power is still not being mentioned. I understand the brits put out a tender at about 60 somethings /MW hr to underwrite a nuclear project, when solar  is about 8. You can "waste " a lot of solar/ wind ( Use it inefficiently) without much angst. Whether we go via  a nationally linked network is the main issue as it has crazy costs for remote areas and is unreliable as well. Diesel (fill in/ standby)) is still having to be considered and I understand nuclear is around the same cost.  Some keep talking carbon sequestration but where are any serious results? (with real cost figures).  We still have ASH disposal issues. ( hardly ever mentioned). Nev

 

 

[old man emu]

Can't fly ash be incorporated in a macadam road surface? They are recycling rubber tyres that way.

 

 

[facthunter]

Doubt they have the heavy metal issues ash has. Road (tar) compounds are pretty iffy already. Nev

 

 

[old man emu]

Doubt they have the heavy metal issues ash has.

 

No issues with Trad Jazz 

 

 

 

 

[Litespeed]

Anyone think of the potential problems a truck sized nuclear container has?

 

A very very juicy target for bad actors ie terrorists or foreign armies. 

 

Is it likely? who knows but we spend billions on things that have very low impact but seem scary.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

How does fuel asssemblies get shipped to power stations today? By truck, I believe (well, have seen). There are strict regs and security requirements. 

 

A good article of the different lifecycle of and what containment is used is here: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/small-modular-reactors-a-challenge-for-spent-fuel-management

 

 

[Marty_d]

The banks are voting with their feet.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-28/why-finance-is-fleeing-fossil-fuels/11903928

 

 

[Litespeed]

You know the writings on the wall, when the bankers flee.

 

But the gov scream how good is Adani.

 

 

[Yenn]

I wonder how long it will be before people see what a mess our governments are creating.

 

 

[old man emu]

Before a political Party can form a government, it has to develop a philosophy that people will accept as the best way to give those people a better life. We don't hear much anymore of what the philosophies of our politicians are, although one can infer which Parties are for the creation hordes of wealth for the individual, and which Parties are for the creation of wealth for sharing with the whole community. Unfortunately, our Parties are concentrating on currying favour instead of developing plans to take the country ahead. To paraphrase Henry Lawson's "The Man From Ironbark",

 

There were some gilded coves that sat in Canberra's Chambers,

 

Their eyes were dull, their heads were flat, they had no brains at all;"

 

So we have the politics of popularity - the Celebrity Game. Just look good; talk the talk, but don't have an original idea.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Ho, you mean like,

 

Whitlam !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[old man emu]

Of course Whitlam didn't have a clue!

 

Medicare, end Conscription, get out of Vietnam, promote Film and the Arts, 

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Of course Whitlam didn't have a clue!

 

Medicare, end Conscription, get out of Vietnam, promote Film and the Arts, 

 

For all its many faults, the Whitlam government could have prevented the mess we are currently in.

 

We would still own our minerals, big corporations would pay tax and our universities and CSIRO would be world leaders.

 

 

[willedoo]

Of course Whitlam didn't have a clue!

 

Medicare, end Conscription, get out of Vietnam, promote Film and the Arts, 

 

As much as I like Gough, the getting out of Vietnam thing is an urban myth in some ways. Gorton started the phased withdrawl in1970 by not replacing a battalion. In 1971, McMahon announced that 1 ATF would cease operations that year. By early 1972, all regular troops were home and only the advisors and embassy troops remained. When Gough was elected in December 1972, he announced a couple of weeks later that the advisors would come home, leaving only the embassy troops in Vietnam. Compared to Gorton and McMahon, Gough did almost F.A. in bringing troops home. But Gough getting us out of Vietnam remains a good story in pubs to this day. Technically, it was under his government that combat operations ceased, but it's amazing how many people think that Gough and Gough alone brought the troops home.

 

In reality, it was Gorton and McMahon that brought them home, and Gough mopped up the few remaining advisors and signed off on it.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Please remember that Gough cancelled conscription. I was one whose life would have been rooted if I had gone to Veit Nam. I know now that as a naieve teenager, I had no idea how to cope with the reality of war in a foreign country. It was wrong to send young kids there.

 

 

[spacesailor]

AND lots more who don't realise the enormity of the moment !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[willedoo]

Pete, I was glad he cancelled it as well. Also bearing in mind that anyone of conscript age after Whitlam's election wouldn't have gone to Vietnam as there was only the Team left there. I could be wrong, but I don't think the AATTV would have had any conscripts the whole time they were there..

 

 

[Bruce]

My marble was in there but it didn't come up. I would have gone without complaining, being  young and silly at the time.

 

Conscription was greatly favoured by the voters who thought it would make men out of the long-haired layabouts they saw down the street. But the army only wanted clean, fit and smart kids as they reckoned it was hard enough to train good kids let alone the hippy types. Conscription was favoured but the war much less so.

 

Before the Gough election, there were many street protest marches against the war and it seemed to me at the time that the Libs were dragged very reluctantly out of that war. I'm sure williedoo is right, but I still think they were forced.

 

At that time, I knew a colonel and I asked him why they conscripted such young kids, 20 year-olds. He said that at that age, they think they are invulnerable and so will obey orders to attack better. Well the motor insurance companies already knew this, they charged extra if you were under 25. Apparently your brain doesn't properly process risk until 25.