Queensland Election

[facthunter]

IF Private enterprise won't do it doesn't THAT tell you something?   We will give you ALL the  details AFTER WE are elected. Yeah right. What could  possibly go wrong?  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

Nuckear done properly, even with SMRs is not terribly economic in these times.. The problem with central power generation is that it concentrates economic resources of a major denpendecy of the economy into the hands of the few.

 

20 or so years ago, yes, operating nuclear plants would ave been better..

 

There are undoubtedly brown paper bags, or the equivalent, changing hands somewhere...

 

Edited October 28 by Jerry_Atrick

[Marty_d]

It's complete rubbish. Either Voldemort knows it's rubbish, in which case he's a liar, or he doesn't know it's rubbish, in which case he's pig-ignorant.

Either way he's proved unfit to lead.

 

One of his... "alternative facts" was to point to Ontario as an example of nuclear power giving cheaper power bills than anywhere in Australia.

Well, according to a Canadian professor who's an expert in power generation, from Ontario, it's been incredibly expensive and the power bills are highly subsidised by the government, which means by the taxpayer.

When asked if other Canadian provinces had cheaper generation, the answer was most of them, the cheapest being the ones using hydro power. (Radio National Breakfast this morning).

 

Solar / wind / storage is THE CHEAPEST form of power, with the added bonus that it's simple, renewable, and doesn't produce radioactive waste, take 20 years and billions of dollars to build.

As Jerry said the brown paper bags are changing hands.

Never ceases to amaze me that conservative voters don't realise that the ultimate aim of the LNP is to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich.

[pmccarthy]

It is surprising that someone's political views can distort their understanding of facts. Much of the above discussion is of the form ‘I hate the LNP  or Libs therefore what they say is rubbish'.

Edited October 28 by pmccarthy

[Jerry_Atrick]

Give us the facts or sources that disprove what was claimed. At least Marty quoted a source.

 

Ontario Power Generation operates all of Ontario's nuclear power stations, and guess what.. it is state owned (they used to be a client of mine).

 

But, just to make it easy for you, here is the evidence from the financial accountability office of Ontario: https://www.fao-on.org/web/default/files/publications/FA1907 Electricity Sector Review/Ontario's Energy and Electricity Subsidy Programs-EN.pdf

 

And to make it even easier for you:

 

BTW, I think this is not limited to nuclear, but as it is the most expensive, you can bet it gets the most - I haven't read the full report.

 

Are you telling me the Canadian Government is doing this just because they don't like the LNP?

 

If Aus was to go nuclear, I could pick up some lucrative work.. I stand to benefit from it personally.. I guess it does come down to values, though.

 

 

Edited October 28 by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

8 hours ago, Marty_d said:

Never ceases to amaze me that conservative voters don't realise that the ultimate aim of the LNP is to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich.

Of course most of them realise it is their intention... It's just they are still taken by the trickle down effect, and at the end of the day, if it gives them a gurantee of food ont he table now as opposed to a banquet later, they will always take the food food on the table now.

[pmccarthy]

I have long since given up expecting that facts will prevail on this forum. For just one example:

 

fact 1 a list of all the existing nuclear plants around the world and those in construction ( has been posted before)

fact 2 Australia has the largest resources of uranium in the world

fact 3 Australia has no nuclear plants and is not building any

 

Labor voters will conclude that Australia has the best advised and wisest government in the world.

 

I just can't argue with people who do not use logic.

 

[Marty_d]

We also have the best sunlight in the world and lots of space to have solar arrays.  Plus great areas for wind farms and heaps of coastline for pumped hydro backup.

This has the advantage of not costing hundreds of billions and producing radioactive waste.

If you're saying I'm not using logic, then where is your logic in wanting to spend billions more for the same result?

 

Rather than seeing the Ontario post as simply an attack on the LNP, what is your reasoning for why Vol... (ok, I'll call him Dutton) - is claiming that power bills are cheaper instead of showing the entire cost to the population?  Misinformed, in the pocket of the minerals council, or just pushing an ideological line because he hates renewables?  Because if it's not one (or all) of those, I'd love to know what it is.

[old man emu]

44 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

fact 1 a list of all the existing nuclear plants around the world and those in construction ( has been posted before)

fact 2 Australia has the largest resources of uranium in the world

fact 3 Australia has no nuclear plants and is not building any

 

Labor voters will conclude that Australia has the best advised and wisest government in the world.

Just an explanation:

I accept that the three facts are true. However, the suggested conclusion is what is called a a non sequitur in logic. Non sequitur means, "It does not follow." In the context of logical arguments, this type of fallacy occurs when no logical connection can be drawn between the premises of an argument and the conclusion.

[pmccarthy]

Exactly my point.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Illustrated very well, I may add

[facthunter]

We don't refine Yellow cake. Where is that going to happen?.  Where does the waste get stored? Near you? It's only for 30,000 years or so. What is the cost of decommissioning a Nuclear  power station  and how do you "War Proof" IT

  It's still reliant on a grid . Coal for another 30 years is what they are really at.  The only instant power is from a battery.  Next best pump hydro and GAS. Nev

Edited October 29 by facthunter

[Siso]

The bad spent fuel is only bad for a small number of years. After 300 it is only as radioactive as normal. It gets less radioactive everyday. The long lived spent fuel is only long lived because it is not very radioactive. There is still a lot of potential energy left in the spent fuel that can/should be recycled. Hopefully new reactors will be built with decommissioning in mind. Yes I would quite have a Nuclear spent fuel facility next to me. Not saying we should use NPPs, but it should seriously looked at.

[willedoo]

Day three and the sky hasn't fallen in yet.

[Jerry_Atrick]

9 hours ago, Siso said:

The bad spent fuel is only bad for a small number of years. After 300 it is only as radioactive as normal. It gets less radioactive everyday. The long lived spent fuel is only long lived because it is not very radioactive. There is still a lot of potential energy left in the spent fuel that can/should be recycled. Hopefully new reactors will be built with decommissioning in mind. Yes I would quite have a Nuclear spent fuel facility next to me. Not saying we should use NPPs, but it should seriously looked at.

I don't think that is an entirely accurate statement. Spent fuel is normally considered high level waste and is by far the smallest amount of waste produced. There is low level and medium level (and I think VLLW and VHLW, as well, but let's leave these out of the equation.

 

High Level waste, according to the WNO takes 30 - 50 years to be safe for transport to storage. From teh WNO's website (https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities)  :

 

"Most nuclear waste produced is hazardous, due to its radioactivity, for only a few tens of years and is routinely disposed of in near-surface disposal facilities (see above). Only a small volume of nuclear waste (~3% of the total) is long-lived and highly radioactive and requires isolation from the environment for many thousands of years."

 

It just so hhappens the 3% is made up of largely spent fuel. In the US, it is about 2000 tonnes a year that is produced.

 

To put things into perspective, though, storage of nuclear waste is a mature science and engineering discipline and as far as I am aware, at least in the western world, excecpt for the drums of it stored in one of the rivers in the US, there has been no major incident to do with transport or storage.. that is a pretty good record.

 

But it doesn't detract from the fact to accommodate all this is flipping expensive - far more so on a per kilowatt basis than renewables, and renewables are oing going to get cheaper as there is plenty of room for technical development in a relative immature industry. SMR is the only real development on the horizon, ex fusion, and it is not going to materially drop costs (IMHO).

Edited October 29 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

If we step away from the economics of nuclear power and think about the safety of nuclear power, you would have to conclude that worldwide it is safe. As Jerry said, storage of nuclear waste is a mature science and engineering discipline. Considering the number of nuclear power generation plants that exist, and you have to include nuclear-powered naval vessels, the safety record is not too bad. Globally, there have been at least 99 (civilian and military) recorded nuclear power plant accidents from 1952 to 2009 (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage, and only one or two since.

 

I think that the idea that a nuclear power plant is an activated time bomb is a hangover of Cold War USA propaganda-driven paranoia. 

[facthunter]

I don't share your lack of concern. Disposal is still a world wide problem. and a microgram of Plutonium will kill you and decommissioning a plant is costly and dangerous.. .  Boiling water and using steam is inefficient, Nev

[spacesailor]

Disposal of dangerous waste is easy .

With all those obsolete dangous coal mines. 

Has no one  thought about making those empty holes in the ground safe , some are 3 miles deep & run for many miles outwards , look at the subsidence , ( Newcastle NSW ) . They will make a safe depository for ' long term  nucler burial plots .

spacesailor

[Marty_d]

Solar is even safer.

[willedoo]

I'm not sure whether it was a statewide directive from the Greens in the Queensland election, but in my region all the roadside corflute signage for the Greens had them dressed up in khaki uniform. It was a bit comical with them all looking like the Irwins in the Australia Zoo ads. The signage made it look a bit fake, but then again most campaign signage looks a bit dodgy. I can just see Adam Bandt sitting in the Qantas Chairman's Lounge with his short sleeve khaki shirt on.

[facthunter]

spacey, there are water tables to consider. Out of sight  is not the whole answer.  Solar is nuclear from a safe distance. 93 million miles and it's heat energy that's coming here already. CLEAN and FREE to anyone who wants to collect it   Thats why some don't like it.. they lose control and seek monopolies so they can screw you.  Nuclear needs cooling water which is waste just going to the environment. . Nev

[old man emu]

Which is worse for the planet - a few tonnes of a natural substance whose dangers are well known and catered for, or millions of tonnes of manmade chemicals which have only existed for 80-odd years at most and whose long term effects on everything on the planet are nor fully comprehended?

 

I was talking to the blokes at the Men's Shed today about the bans on commonly used herbicides and pesticides due to their being the causative agent in diseases like Parkinson's. The consensus was that it was the improper handling of these chemicals that caused the greatest dangers. Their thought was that it was user incompetence in very many forms that let them harm the planet,as they acknowledge that the chemicals were life-threatening, because that is what they were made for.

[willedoo]

16 minutes ago, old man emu said:

I was talking to the blokes at the Men's Shed today about the bans on commonly used herbicides and pesticides due to their being the causative agent in diseases like Parkinson's. The consensus was that it was the improper handling of these chemicals that caused the greatest dangers. Their thought was that it was user incompetence in very many forms that let them harm the planet,as they acknowledge that the chemicals were life-threatening, because that is what they were made for.

Paraquat is the one that has been in the news a lot lately with possible links to Parkinson's mentioned. I'd agree on the improper handling part of it. I used to see it here all the time, farmers spraying with no cabs on the tractors, out in the open without a mask, shorts and short sleeved shirts. One farmer with Parkinson's was being interviewed on the ABC radio yesterday and he said that's how he sprayed for years. It's difficult to have sympathy for stupidity.

 

Paraquat in it's concentrated form is very deadly. One young bloke was adding it to a tank and spilled it on the front of a football jersey or some similar tight fitting top he was wearing. His sister found him dead no more that 15 minutes after she last saw him. It appeared he's tried to take the shirt off and passed out by the time he had it up over his face. In another case up north, someone put paraquat in a coke bottle and put it in the fridge. When this bloke had a swig of it, he spat it out but still died in hospital a few days later. I think it wrecks your organs and there's no real antidote for it.

[facthunter]

 A lot of these attack the nervous system. IF it kills insects it WILL kill you. Malathion is another and a herbicide Sprayseed on your skin will kill you fast. Even Glyphosate is suspect. (Known as Roundup to most).  Nev

[old man emu]

8 minutes ago, willedoo said:

It's difficult to have sympathy for stupidity.

Stupidity or lack of proper education by the manufacturers? The very things you describe about the clothing worn when these chemicals are used on farms are the very comments the old cockies made at the Men's Shed. They also spoke of being splashed by arsenicals which dipping sheep.

 

Just think of when you started operating under OH&S regulations.  The Robens Report, released in 1972,  was a major turning point in Australian OHS laws. Based on similar moves happening around the world at the same time, this report saw Australian OHS laws change from highly technical to more generalised. Previously, Australian OHS laws were focused entirely on factory-based hazards. Worse, by focusing purely on static features in the workplace, they completely overlooked matters such as the way work is organised. Instead of focusing on details like exactly how high safety barriers had to be, the new approach towards workplace safety was much broader, encouraging proactive measures and more comprehensive solutions.

 

For those who entered the workforce before the 1970s, the change in culture to accept OH&S practices has been hard. Most of those pre-1970 workers are retired or dead. However, it is not hard to enter a workplace today and identify unsafe practices. For example,next time you are the Men's Shed, look for the test tag on a corded, portable electric tool. Was the tool tested within the previous 6 months?

 

Since 1972 greater emphasis has been placed on safety in the workplace with a much wider emphasis than on merely preventing physical injury. Just look at the numbers of workers who are treated for stress and psychological ailments.