Kiwi303 Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 Your problem is you don't have enough hydro. Over here in NZ we can utilise wind when it's blowing (which isn't always) and when the winds die down, just open the stopcocks on the dams a bit more. Over there if the wind isn't moving you need to start shovelling coal in the furnaces again to keep up with demand. The best storage is generation capacity sitting idle, water behind a dam is great power storage.
Marty_d Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 Tassie's existed on hydro power for years. Then they went and put an underwater cable across the Bass Strait and sell our hydro power cheaper to Victorians than us. Not sure how that works. In regards to nuclear, there'll be an interesting proposal in SA shortly about 4th generation liquid metal fast breeders. Basically we get the "spent" fuel rods from other countries, run 'em through the reactor and use the other 97% of uranium left in them, charge them a motza for the privilege and get rid of nuclear waste at the same time. Be a win win if the government doesn't f*ck it up like they do most things. I'm not generally a fan of nuclear but if 4th gen works as specified, it actually reduces the nuclear waste problem rather than exacerbating it. As far as I know it doesn't need to be near the coast for cooling either so can be planted somewhere geologically stable and not subject to tsunamis.
fly_tornado Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 relevance???....what's the point in spending up on stuff that wont work? I love the idea of renewable energy, but it has to be feasible. assuming power network gets sold off and nuclear is a big money spinner for them, who picks up the tab when it gets blown by extremists? I love the idea of nuclear and big corporations running our lives but only if they pay our way. Ergon are expecting the house battery to get really big by 2020
Marty_d Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 X spurts. They may well do, Teckair, I don't know anyone called X.
Marty_d Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 assuming power network gets sold off and nuclear is a big money spinner for them, who picks up the tab when it gets blown by extremists? I love the idea of nuclear and big corporations running our lives but only if they pay our way. Ergon are expecting the house battery to get really big by 2020 How many nuclear power plants have been blown up by extremists? Chernobyl was a botched shut down after a power spike and Fukushima was a tsunami. 31 people died in Chernobyl (not counting or making light of the ongoing cancers, birth defects etc) - most market-place car bombs result in a higher death rate. There's easier targets than power plants for extremists. Look I agree that solar/wind/battery storage are the way to go, but IF the science comes in that 4th gen actually reduce nuclear waste with a byproduct of electricity, then it may be part of the solution.
coljones Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 It's a 36 seat wipeout for abbot if an election was held today. Can't see Our glorious leader staying much longer. "The backbenchers are revolting" Only them?? Nev Most of his backbenchers are very revolting. I am sure that the party knows that they are nasty little thugs just busting for a fight - even among themselves.
M61A1 Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 assuming power network gets sold off and nuclear is a big money spinner for them, who picks up the tab when it gets blown by extremists? I love the idea of nuclear and big corporations running our lives but only if they pay our way. Ergon are expecting the house battery to get really big by 2020 You know your country has gone to crap when whether or not you can insure it is more important than the technology.
cscotthendry Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 Yep that is what you think it is, I think it is more LWL crap. Can you substantiate any of your comments? Teck Really? I mean REALLY? Tones actually said that! It was reported in the papers and tv everywhere. Are you out of the country and missed the mass coverage of that statement?
Phil Perry Posted August 17, 2015 Author Posted August 17, 2015 Bugger this lot,. . . . Too serious. . . . .Way to skientifik for me. . . . . . Everone has an equal and opposite argument. . . . Stale Meat comes to mind. . . . What a twart was I for starting a thread about bloody British politix. . . . .however humorously intended. . .. I'm off to Aviation Laughter to lighten the mood somewhat. . . . . .
dutchroll Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 Yep that is what you think it is, I think it is more LWL crap. Can you substantiate any of your comments? The "quote" attributed to Hockey in the picture was again satirical, not literal, and it is clearly a "meme" (a meme being a particular idea or concept) which was designed to highlight both Hockey and Abbott's philosophical objections to wind farms based on "unsightliness" whilst also being heavily in favour of investment in coal mines and conventional power, in a humorous way - though clearly not so humorous for conservatives. They have expressed these views on the public record on a number of occasions. I can substantiate each and every one of my own comments which I have written on this thread, however I would prefer not to do your own research for you. If you wish to stick your fingers in your ears and filter out all the appallingly stupid stuff Abbott and Hockey say (poor people don't drive cars, after all) , be my guest.
fly_tornado Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 You know your country has gone to crap when whether or not you can insure it is more important than the technology. Nuclear technology is bad, we already know that, that's why no one will insure against a nuclear accident. Fukushima sent the Japanese economy into a recession
Marty_d Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 Nuclear technology is bad, we already know that, that's why no one will insure against a nuclear accident. Fukushima sent the Japanese economy into a recession While I don't want to labour the point, saying all nuclear technology is bad because of Fukushima is like saying all jet aircraft are bad because of the Comet. There are already huge stockpiles of nuclear waste, in many cases stored unsafely (because the cost of storing it safely is prohibitive). If this particular nuclear technology uses existing waste to generate electricity, and in the process reduces the amount of nuclear waste in the world, how is it worse than leaving that waste in unsafe storage?
fly_tornado Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 What if we haven't seen the worst of the nuclear problems yet? Who would have predicted Fukushima? The greens? but they think nuclear is a bad option because the technology is bad
fly_tornado Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 There are 2 seperate issues here, they both leave our society open to a massive financial risk if something goes wrong
Russ Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 A more important issue...........fresh water. Compromise that..............we're done for. Then this "fracking......coal seam burnings" and the like.......scary stuff, our under ground water aquafiers once compromised,are gone.......for good. I'm worried..........
M61A1 Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 There are 2 seperate issues here, they both leave our society open to a massive financial risk if something goes wrong And that is why nothing of substance happens here any more. Lawyers and accountants run the shop. We're so safety conscious/risk averse, we don't do anything.
facthunter Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 Spent fuel is not waste. It can (and must ) be reprocessed and reused. The way the Power stations were operated in Fukushima is a lesson in negligence and bad planning. 10, 000 admitted deaths in China's Coal mines annually, and pollution related deaths not included. Chernoble and Fukushima are bad examples of the technology. Why base your total views on the absolute worst examples technically and operationally. The French have operated high rate of nuclear for generations. Plenty of improvements are on the table and you will get more if there is a chance of improvement in the Industry in terms of acceptance. Smaller units offer more reliability of supply and less distribution costs and availability in remote areas. By all means have an inquiry like is advocated in SA and do it considering ALL aspects of the matter. Nev
fly_tornado Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 When it comes to the state taking on the liability for private enterpirse going wrong, yeah its all about the bottom line. Substitute the phrase "nuclear power" for "asbestos products". As a society managed to make progress without asbestos goods, it was unthinkable in the 1950s but there you go.
facthunter Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 Not logical ft. Medico's used to say there was no benefit in insoluble fibre in the diet. Things change. We don't paint watch dials with radioactive paint but it's invaluable in medical imaging. Too much salt or sugar may kill you, but we are supposed to be intelligent and work around the problems when the good may be worth it. I had ancestors die of silicosis in coal mines. Nev
fly_tornado Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 but nuclear power generation isn't a viable option, it requires the state to take on all the liability and the private sector to take all the profits. At least renewables offers a balance to the community, higher costs lead to employment which at least generates some income tax. With nuclear, the wealth is all filtered out to the US, tax free. And the taxpayer picks up the tab for waste storage and cleanup
facthunter Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 Why does that HAVE to be? Anyhow the state ends up with the liability for COAL mines or any mess left by the people who exploit without concern for damage. In any case, I'm not against renewables. Quite the contrary.. It's totally exciting to think what could be done in Central Australia with the solar capacity A small part of the Sahara would power all of Europe . Humans will find a way to muck everything up. Dog didn't do much of a job designing them, but actually evolution explains a lot of their problems. Nev
fly_tornado Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 because we HAVE to buy the nuclear technology from the yanks.
facthunter Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 Does it say that in the free trade agreement? Nev
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now