Is the ABC left, right or centre?

[qldfrog]

Yes, you are right, it's not the question as every country is different. And we will need gas to firm up the renewables for a long time.

But whether nuclear is a viable option for us, as opposed to say hydro is another question.

No doubt that renewables are the things most companies want to invest in, simple infrastructure, immediate return.

Is there any nuclear power company that will build a reactor in Australia without massive subsidies?

You know my view on nuclear, it is just the propaganda ABC goes on relentless and the lies, the pretence of "fact checkers " actually looking at facts
I just want honesty, errors can happen, I do not even ask any journo to be an expert, but please stop it.
Based on the ABC, Dick Smith and Elon are dangerous far right environment hating big corporate stooges..enough..
Dick Smith who is not a watermelon but a true environment loving person, who enabled me and many to discover the beauty of Australia via the Australian Geography magazine...
And the labelled Green party during that time pushing for unlimited migration..
What a crazy world, what a shame

 

[IFocus]

Dick Smith would know that engineering wise total energy requirements using renewables is not that hard in fact simpler than most coal fired power stations certainly simpler and far easier than nuclear.

What is hard is the politics, environment processes and who pays for it.

Dr Alan Finkel explains about nuclear here, he must have been reading ASF as he just copied us

 

[sptrawler]

Dick Smith would know that engineering wise total energy requirements using renewables is not that hard in fact simpler than most coal fired power stations certainly simpler and far easier than nuclear.

What is hard is the politics, environment processes and who pays for it.

Dr Alan Finkel explains about nuclear here, he must have been reading ASF as he just copied us

Agree 100%, the only thing that makes me nervous is, if H2 becomes the go to fuel as both sides of politics and Finkle say it will and high temp nuclear has the ability to firm renewables plus make massive amounts of H2 as a by product.

We will be toast IMO, we will be at a huge disadvantage, if we can't sell our LNG and coal anymore, plus can't compete with H2 production, it doesn't leave us with much left to sell does it?

Hopefully that isn't the end result, but poo pahing nuclear without considering that eventuality, isn't very smart IMO.

Just my thoughts and it really wont matter in my lifetime probably, but technolgy moves very quickly and ideology doesn't, also technology pays something whereas ideology usually costs something.

 

[Smurf1976]

Dick Smith has the temerity to tell some truth: a country can not run solely on renewables
and the ABC fact checkers "prove" him wrong by saying that..the electricity grid can be
this is not the question morons...

The bit people forget, is that nuclear is in the same category as renewables and is not a solution to the point you raise. It generates electricity as does wind, solar, hydro, geothermal etc.

Electricity is not coking coal or jet fuel.

So whilst it's true that nowhere is running solely on renewables, it's also true that nuclear doesn't of itself fix that since it has the same end product.

The big problem in the context of media isn't the detail but rather the loss of informed, intelligent discussion which isn't pushing a pre-determined conclusion.

 

[SirRumpole]

Agree 100%, the only thing that makes me nervous is, if H2 becomes the go to fuel as both sides of politics and Finkle say it will and high temp nuclear has the ability to firm renewables plus make massive amounts of H2 as a by product.

We will be toast IMO, we will be at a huge disadvantage, if we can't sell our LNG and coal anymore, plus can't compete with H2 production, it doesn't leave us with much left to sell does it?

Hopefully that isn't the end result, but poo pahing nuclear without considering that eventuality, isn't very smart IMO.

Just my thoughts and it really wont matter in my lifetime probably, but technolgy moves very quickly and ideology doesn't.

I'll put a post in the "Future" thread, but small modular thorium reactors are currently being developed.

 

[sptrawler]

I'll put a post in the "Future" thread, but small modular thorium reactors are currently being developed.

Yes I don't think Australia is very well informed with regard nuclear and Dutton isn't helping either.

It really needs a honest and open bipartisan approach to the issue.

I keep saying energy density is the key to power production, but there is way too much ideology driving the agenda, both for and against.

It is another example of ideology and politics driving the narrative, rather than technical expertise and critical thinking, all energy sources have to be considered IMO.

 

[SirRumpole]

It is another example of ideology and politics driving the narrative, rather than technical expertise and critical thinking, all energy sources have to be considered IMO.

Reading that article by Alan Finkel, he agrees.

"

​

"The big opportunity in thinking small​

In Australia, we would be looking to use SMRs because of the enormous cost and construction delays of large-scale nuclear plants. But we will want the reassurance of first seeing SMRs work safely and well in the UK, Europe, Canada, the US or another OECD country.
The trouble is, there are no SMRs operating in the UK, Europe, Canada, the US or any other OECD country. Nor are any SMRs under construction or approved in an OECD country.
There is no data to support any claims about how much SMRs will cost when deployed as operating power stations.
Still, introducing nuclear power when we can, starting in the 2040s, would bring benefits. Most importantly, nuclear power generation would reduce the ongoing mining footprint for the regular replacement of solar panels, wind turbines and batteries and the expanded electricity generation to support decarbonising our exports and population growth.
For these reasons, it would be worth removing the ban on nuclear power so that we can at least thoroughly investigate the options."

 

[sptrawler]

Reading that article by Alan Finkel, he agrees.

"

​

"The big opportunity in thinking small​

In Australia, we would be looking to use SMRs because of the enormous cost and construction delays of large-scale nuclear plants. But we will want the reassurance of first seeing SMRs work safely and well in the UK, Europe, Canada, the US or another OECD country.
The trouble is, there are no SMRs operating in the UK, Europe, Canada, the US or any other OECD country. Nor are any SMRs under construction or approved in an OECD country.
There is no data to support any claims about how much SMRs will cost when deployed as operating power stations.
Still, introducing nuclear power when we can, starting in the 2040s, would bring benefits. Most importantly, nuclear power generation would reduce the ongoing mining footprint for the regular replacement of solar panels, wind turbines and batteries and the expanded electricity generation to support decarbonising our exports and population growth.
For these reasons, it would be worth removing the ban on nuclear power so that we can at least thoroughly investigate the options."

Yes, I'm on the phone so didn't read the article, but he is showing the same thoughts.

Even nuclear as we know it, is finite, this is the issue that people can't seem to get their heads around.

We are consuming the planets resources, if humans are going to survive we have to work out how to slow that usage, so that we give ourselves time to improve our technology and get more energy density from our renewable and become self sustaining.

So the best way forward IMO, is to use our available fuel in the smartest way, to reduce emissions, while increasing and improving renewable technology, LNG is a very versatile fuel, it can be used in heating, vehicles, cooking, processing etc. To burn it through a gas turbine in huge amounts is crazy IMO.
But if that has to be done, so be it, but it is still hugely wasteful.

People just need to keep an eye on the big picture, rather than the next election IMO, it is getting to the pointy end for Australia any blunder now and it will make recovering from it very difficult.

Australia's population is growing, our resources are depleting, our welfare is increasing and our productivity is decreasing.
Ideology needs to be tempered down a bit IMO.

 

[moXJO]

Why do they keep dragging "20 years" our every time they mention "nuclear". I'm sure it can be built in 7-8 years.

 

[sptrawler]

Why do they keep dragging "20 years" our every time they mention "nuclear". I'm sure it can be built in 7-8 years.

Because they remember Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Fukushima and can't move on from that, it is an age related thing, old people run the narrative both left and right and it is bogged up to the diffs.

If people were living to 140 years old, there would be people saying, "look at the number of road deaths, I told you these cars would kill people".

 

[Smurf1976]

Because they remember Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Fukushima and can't move on from that

Basic problem with all media is they put the narrative ahead of science on this and indeed most subjects.

 

[sptrawler]

Basic problem with all media is they put the narrative ahead of science on this and indeed most subjects.

Yes IMO it is really sad, but on a brighter note that is why the media is going down the gurgler, I have 4 kids and eight grandkids and none are interested in mainstream media.

The fact is, if they were giving informative, intelligent content, the parents would be encouraging their children to watch it, but they aren't.

It isn't because the kids aren't clever, it's because the media is dumb IMO.

 

[sptrawler]

Basic problem with all media is they put the narrative ahead of science on this and indeed most subjects.

Science doesn't pay for the advertising, that keeps the media in business.

 

[qldfrog]

Yes I don't think Australia is very well informed with regard nuclear and Dutton isn't helping either.

It really needs a honest and open bipartisan approach to the issue.

I keep saying energy density is the key to power production, but there is way too much ideology driving the agenda, both for and against.

It is another example of ideology and politics driving the narrative, rather than technical expertise and critical thinking, all energy sources have to be considered IMO.

Indeed and that includes gas and coal...

 

[sptrawler]

Indeed and that includes gas and coal...

The problem is they are playing to the fanatical audience, which is great for the ratings, but not so good for a sensible, measured, intelligent outcome.
But hey, when the hell have the media worried about that?

My guess is the Government is paying more now to the coal generators, than they were ever going to pay under the previous Government, mainly due to the fact that financing since the new Govt got in would be impossible due to them legislating targets.

Just ideological dumb stuff, to get a vote, that now will be costing the voters heaps more.
Dumb and dumber, but hey that's politics, apparently.

It's a bit like immigration, $hit we need more people to get critical mass and we haven't any tradespeople, because we make everyone go to university so they will owe us money, for degrees in careers that don't exist.

Look I tell you what, take the pizz out of the nuclear issue, we are in more $hit than Ned Kelly, we need a diversion.
Jeezus we are the clever country.

 

[Smurf1976]

The problem is they are playing to the fanatical audience

Bearing mind this is the ABC thread not a nuclear power thread, the overlooked thing is the media is doing this across all subjects.

People who know about x think it's just them, it's just the thing they know about that's being messed up.

In truth it's far broader than that.

 

[moXJO]

The problem is they are playing to the fanatical audience, which is great for the ratings, but not so good for a sensible, measured, intelligent outcome.
But hey, when the hell have the media worried about that?

My guess is the Government is paying more now to the coal generators, than they were ever going to pay under the previous Government, mainly due to the fact that financing since the new Govt got in would be impossible due to them legislating targets.

Just ideological dumb stuff, to get a vote, that now will be costing the voters heaps more.
Dumb and dumber, but hey that's politics, apparently.

It's a bit like immigration, $hit we need more people to get critical mass and we haven't any tradespeople, because we make everyone go to university so they will owe us money, for degrees in careers that don't exist.

Look I tell you what, take the pizz out of the nuclear issue, we are in more $hit than Ned Kelly, we need a diversion.
Jeezus we are the clever country.

Trades are hard work. No one wants to do it anymore. Large amounts of kids quitting in 3rd-4th year. We have an idiotic education system in this country though.

 

[sptrawler]

Bearing mind this is the ABC thread not a nuclear power thread, the overlooked thing is the media is doing this across all subjects.

People who know about x think it's just them, it's just the thing they know about that's being messed up.

In truth it's far broader than that.

It is and in some ways the subject has drifted, but the issue is the same, Australia is like a rudderless ship just floating along on a wave of populism and feel good sentiment.

In reality Australia has for a long time lived on its reputation and its small population relative to its intrinsic wealth, I came here as an 8 year old kid and a couple of years later my Dad took us to Dampier when it opened up.

Back then the population of Australia was 12 million, now that grew to 24 million not long ago, now I hear it is nearly 27 million.

Going back to my journey, I've worked in mining, construction, blast furnaces, hydro installations, I see a lot less options available today than what was available through my life and it has to support an ever increasing population.

Something has to give, despite the kumbaya cult crowd chanting IMO.

 

[sptrawler]

Trades are hard work. No one wants to do it anymore. Large amounts of kids quitting in 3rd-4th year. We have an idiotic education system in this country though.

Well that was brought about by moving teaching to a degree, to break the pay ceiling, just another brain fart.

The apprenticeship system was stuffed up by competency standards and State corporations deciding that they would outsource their work and weren't there to provide the private sector with a training ground for their workforce.

Like that worked out well, now we want to recognize Bombay tickets, that's the next catastrophe IMO.

I'm just grateful I'm at the end of the journey, not the beginning, the loonies are in charge of the asylum.
But hey, maybe that is part of the plan.

 

[IFocus]

Why do they keep dragging "20 years" our every time they mention "nuclear". I'm sure it can be built in 7-8 years.

It is possible 7-8 years if you have a site already approved, if you have the regulatory and oversight structures in place, if you have financing in place, if you have completed the engineering design and got sign off, if you have all the environmental approvals in place for waste management, if, if ...you get you idea.



None of this exists in Australia 20 years would be a good result.