The expected Labor scare campaign against nuclear power has begun. Why can't they debate the pro's and con's with fact instead of resorting to bare-faced lies? Easy - they'd lose the debate every day of the week. The latest scare campaign advertisement has a former GP and now anti-nuclear activist claiming (without offering any evidence whatsoever to back up her claims) that nuclear power causes cancer, strokes and heart attacks.

An UNSCEAR factoid said exposure to nuclear radiation, known as ionising radiation, can increase the incidence of certain types of cancer years or decades after exposure at low doses below the levels associated with early onset injury or death. However, the effects on human health, including unborn children, were untraceable at levels between 0-10 millisieverts (mSv), the unit which measures radiation absorbed by the body. According to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), people living within 50 miles (about 80km) of a nuclear power plant would receive an average radiation dose of about 0.01 millirem per year – a hundredth of a millisievert. - Source: https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/radiation-faq.html#:~:text=Depending%20on%20the%20dose%2C%20the,with%20the%20radiation%20dose%20received

I really hope that voters will seek the truth from Labors lies when they head to polling booths next year.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/labors-latest-nuclear-scare-campaign-warns-coalitions-energy-proposal-causes-cancer-strokes-and-heart-attacks/news-story/48b063d15ac87ca9b290515653b29d5a

this is the best you could come up with for todays 'labor is bad' rant?

You need to try harder :D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 12:21pm:

I really hope that voters will seek the truth from Labors lies when they head to polling booths next year.

Funny - coming from you who was getting his knickers in a knot about 'Labor deficits' a couple of days back; and you now want taxpayers to fund nuclear in Oz....

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 2:27pm:

Funny - coming from you who was getting his knickers in a knot about 'Labor deficits' a couple of days back; and you now want taxpayers to fund nuclear in Oz....

Funny - coming from you, where there is no impact on the economy when we have the resources. So much for renewables. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 2:48pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 2:27pm: Funny - coming from you who was getting his knickers in a knot about 'Labor deficits' a couple of days back; and you now want taxpayers to fund nuclear in Oz.... Funny - coming from you, where there is no impact on the economy when we have the resources. So much for renewables. ;D ;D ;D ;D

 
Er...haven't you heard: fossil combustion poisons the atmosphere AND causes AGW climate change.

The first is sufficent to ban fossils, the 2nd may prove essential in the near future (as if the massive destruction in recent years isn't enough...) 


Do try to keep up.

They've just granted more new Mines to open up in regards to the need for more steel. Their propaganda is that "we need more steel", but in truth they'll be supplying China for its War machine.
The same China the ALP fear mongers as an excuse for a $600m NRL team in PNG.
Yep. When China invades, the Papuans will be throwing footballs at them. ::)

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 3:00pm:

Er...haven't you heard: fossil combustion poisons the atmosphere AND causes AGW climate change.

Yes I have heard it. Show us where it has been proven. Oh that's right it doesn't fulfil your mantra. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 3:00pm:

The first is sufficent to ban fossils, the 2nd may prove essential in the near future (as if the massive destruction in recent years isn't enough...)

You haven't shown which poisons, in what concentrations etc. Just your usual fallacies. Which massive destruction? Something that has never happened before? Or merely something that is reported more in the digital age? ::)

Quote:

An UNSCEAR factoid said exposure to nuclear radiation, known as ionising radiation, can increase the incidence of certain types of cancer years or decades after exposure at low doses below the levels associated with early onset injury or death. However, the effects on human health, including unborn children, were untraceable at levels between 0-10 millisieverts (mSv), the unit which measures radiation absorbed by the body. According to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), people living within 50 miles (about 80km) of a nuclear power plant would receive an average radiation dose of about 0.01 millirem per year – a hundredth of a millisievert. - Source: https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/radiation-faq.html#:~:text=Depe...

This seems to be saying that people working with nuclear have poor health outcomes.

But it goes on the say that the increased health incidents in the community around power stations can not be proven to link back to the power stations. An example it is known that children living within 50K of a nuclear plant statistically suffer increased risk of Leukemia but the link for this to the power station is not known.

It is just a coincidence that all over the world this coincidence occurs in the vicinity of nuclear power plants.

It isn't a scare campaign when it is mostly true. There are known health outcomes related to nuclear power plants.

The Potatoes plan is a particularly poor / unsafe one.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 7:48pm:

This seems to be saying that people working with nuclear have poor health outcomes.

ONLY IF you use the Linear No Threshold model approach. And yet that has been proven wrong. The human body is a wonderful thing with the ability to heal itself. People suffer from UV rays, get sunburned and the skin fixes itself. The organs also heal themselves. The one size fits all is merely a leftover from the Cold War. ::)

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 7:59pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 7:48pm: This seems to be saying that people working with nuclear have poor health outcomes. ONLY IF you use the Linear No Threshold model approach. And yet that has been proven wrong. The human body is a wonderful thing with the ability to heal itself. People suffer from UV rays, get sunburned and the skin fixes itself. The organs also heal themselves. The one size fits all is merely a leftover from the Cold War. ::)

Except that people working with nuclear do coincidentally die in statistically high rates all over the world.

The thought is that nuclear plants attract dodge Kebab shops to the neighbourhood? Irradiated Kebabs are the best.

https://i.imgur.com/r7li5Pi.jpg

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 11:00pm:

https://i.imgur.com/r7li5Pi.jpg

Exaggerating does not mitigate the real risks.

One day Nuclear in some form will very likely be the answer but that day isn't today.

Our she'll be right nature makes us a poor candidate for unproven Nuclear technology.

An idiot pushing the prospect with a risky plan only makes it worse.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 11:06pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 11:00pm: https://i.imgur.com/r7li5Pi.jpg Exaggerating does not mitigate the real risks. One day Nuclear in some form will very likely be the answer but that day isn't today. Our she'll be right nature makes us a poor candidate for unproven Nuclear technology. An idiot pushing the prospect with a risky plan only makes it worse.

Unproven?

Nuclear power generation has been in operation since 1954.

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 11:09pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 11:06pm: Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 11:00pm: https://i.imgur.com/r7li5Pi.jpg Exaggerating does not mitigate the real risks. One day Nuclear in some form will very likely be the answer but that day isn't today. Our she'll be right nature makes us a poor candidate for unproven Nuclear technology. An idiot pushing the prospect with a risky plan only makes it worse. Unproven? Nuclear power generation has been in operation since 1954.

And almost every country using it has had a major disaster or two. Even the most careful people and still the technology is dangerous and in constant development. People are still trying to find a version that works safely.

It isn't even close to having a solution to manage the waste.

Looking at the total per watt cost of nuclear how do you factor in the ongoing waste management for  10,000 years ?

It could end up costing a $billions per watt. Current nuclear power supply is being sold at thousands under its eventual cost. The future is subsidising nuclear power.

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 11:09pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 11:06pm: Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 11:00pm: https://i.imgur.com/r7li5Pi.jpg Exaggerating does not mitigate the real risks. One day Nuclear in some form will very likely be the answer but that day isn't today. Our she'll be right nature makes us a poor candidate for unproven Nuclear technology. An idiot pushing the prospect with a risky plan only makes it worse. Unproven? Nuclear power generation has been in operation since 1954.

Quote:

Unproven?

These nuclear plants are not in production for sale. Potato cannot even buy one yet.

The type being pushed by the Potato (SMR's) is a system which is not in production use anywhere in the world, they are not even commercially available. Yes it is unproven. There is no plan to use a 1954 nuclear plant in Australia, these were never safe to begin with.

Nuclear accidents by country:

Pakistan 1

South Korea 1

Serbia 1

Switzerland 1

Sweden 1

Taiwan 1

Ukraine 2

Germany 3

India 6

Belgium 6

Russia 7

UK 8

Canada 10

France 12

Japan 20

USA 54

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 2:27pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:21pm: I really hope that voters will seek the truth from Labors lies when they head to polling booths next year. Funny - coming from you who was getting his knickers in a knot about 'Labor deficits' a couple of days back; and you now want taxpayers to fund nuclear in Oz....

It's clear to all (but you, obviously) that so-called renewables aren't up to the task of keeping the lights on when we have blackouts and brownouts in Sydney and other cities on hot days because there isn't enough baseload power to cope with increased demand.

Question 1:-  Which one?

Oh - that one... we'd need to know the details of 'accidents' first - not all or even most of them are catastrophic.  There are accidents in coal fired stations as well.

https://media.tenor.com/fF2hHLdZLJMAAAAM/homer-simpson-nuclear-meltdown-stopped-by-fluke.gif

Let's be fair and actually look at this - this is a valid discussion site - not a blog ad hom rampage.... those people aren't out of bed yet ... outstanding input from the Usual Suspects in the past week or so, given that it is holidays time - how odd.... office hours - who actually employs these people to rant and rave and insult and abuse others to try to push their 'narrative' and 'agenda'?

https://environmentalprogress.org/nuclear-deaths

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-are-the-effects-of-nuclear-accidents

https://www.processindustryforum.com/energy/five-worst-nuclear-disasters-history

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479720307106

Got more chance of dying in an air crash or on the roads this Christmas....

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 6:33am:

It's clear to all (but you, obviously) that so-called renewables aren't up to the task of keeping the lights on when we have blackouts and brownouts in Sydney and other cities on hot days because there isn't enough baseload power to cope with increased demand.

You had those blackouts WITH coal power stations :D :D :D :D

In both China and the US, the cheap fuel that actually powers their economies comes from coal and gas. Both understand the limits of wind and solar. Both have decided there is no road to net zero and stable grids that does not run through nuclear power.


Australia has abundant coal and gas resources and one-third of the world’s uranium. Our energy ministers have condemned all three power sources because they are way smarter than the Yanks and the Chinese and it’s sunny here.

These ministers, and the uncountable legions of advisers, agencies and advocates responsible for the grid under construction, are inflicting the greatest act of self-harm in our nation’s history. They have set us on a pathway to poverty. When the sun sets on this idiocy we will, too late, have to use nuclear energy or continue to burn coal and gas.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 7:50pm:

It isn't a scare campaign when it is mostly true

the truth scares the con-alition

John Smith wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 9:22am:

You had those blackouts WITH coal power stations

And you think it won't happen without them? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 6:46am:

Let's be fair and actually look at this - this is a valid discussion site - not a blog ad hom rampage.... those people aren't out of bed yet ... outstanding input from the Usual Suspects in the past week or so, given that it is holidays time - how odd.... office hours - who actually employs these people to rant and rave and insult and abuse others to try to push their 'narrative' and 'agenda'? https://environmentalprogress.org/nuclear-deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-are-the-effects-of-nuclear-accidents https://www.processindustryforum.com/energy/five-worst-nuclear-disasters-history https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479720307106 Got more chance of dying in an air crash or on the roads this Christmas....

Nuclear power is used in submarines that travel to great depths and operate under immense water pressure and have done for decades. New nuclear energy technologies have made it just as safe as operating coal-fired power plants, albeit without the harmful emissions.

John Smith wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 9:22am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 21st, 2024 at 6:33am: It's clear to all (but you, obviously) that so-called renewables aren't up to the task of keeping the lights on when we have blackouts and brownouts in Sydney and other cities on hot days because there isn't enough baseload power to cope with increased demand. You had those blackouts WITH coal power stations :D :D :D :D

Because ALP state governments have been closing coal fired power stations and there aren't enough to take up the slack, and wind/solar sources are simply too unreliable. China is building new coal fired power stations regularly.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 6:33am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 2:27pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:21pm: I really hope that voters will seek the truth from Labors lies when they head to polling booths next year. Funny - coming from you who was getting his knickers in a knot about 'Labor deficits' a couple of days back; and you now want taxpayers to fund nuclear in Oz.... It's clear to all (but you, obviously) that so-called renewables aren't up to the task of keeping the lights on when we have blackouts and brownouts in Sydney and other cities on hot days because there isn't enough baseload power to cope with increased demand.

Because coal is unreliable and Dutton want's to keep coal runnng longer until Nuclear is viable in a couple of decades....You really are a dickhead mate!!!


Quote:

Sydney risks blackouts as heat soars and coal power plants falter Sydneysiders were asked to reduce energy usage on Wednesday afternoon and evening to avoid blackouts on the hottest November day since 2020 in a stark demonstration of the increasing unreliability of the ageing coal power fleet. Four of the 12 power-generation units at the state’s coal power plants were offline for maintenance or breakdowns, while demand soared because of the need for air-conditioning as the temperature neared 40 degrees in parts of the city.

::) ::) ::)

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/sydney-risks-blackouts-as-heat-soars-and-coal-power-plants-falter-20241127-p5ktvv.html

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 7:18am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2024 at 9:22am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 21st, 2024 at 6:33am: It's clear to all (but you, obviously) that so-called renewables aren't up to the task of keeping the lights on when we have blackouts and brownouts in Sydney and other cities on hot days because there isn't enough baseload power to cope with increased demand. You had those blackouts WITH coal power stations :D :D :D :D Because ALP state governments have been closing coal fired power stations and there aren't enough to take up the slack, and wind/solar sources are simply too unreliable. China is building new coal fired power stations regularly.

What is the point of your rant....Australia is not going to build and new coal fired power plants and the existing coal plants are unreliable when most needed....The cause of the blackouts you are bitching about was from coal generators failing you smacking dickhead....The climate cannot afford Peter Potato Head Dutton's fossil fuel solution!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 9:31am:

Quote: Sydney risks blackouts as heat soars and coal power plants falter Sydneysiders were asked to reduce energy usage on Wednesday afternoon and evening to avoid blackouts on the hottest November day since 2020 in a stark demonstration of the increasing unreliability of the ageing coal power fleet. Four of the 12 power-generation units at the state’s coal power plants were offline for maintenance or breakdowns, while demand soared because of the need for air-conditioning as the temperature neared 40 degrees in parts of the city.

You mean renewables can't cut it? Who knew? ::)

According to Anero.id, solar produced 2.0Gw on 27 November, Wind 2.0W and coal 5.25GW.

https://anero.id/energy/2024/november

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 11:55am:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 22nd, 2024 at 9:31am: Quote: Sydney risks blackouts as heat soars and coal power plants falter Sydneysiders were asked to reduce energy usage on Wednesday afternoon and evening to avoid blackouts on the hottest November day since 2020 in a stark demonstration of the increasing unreliability of the ageing coal power fleet. Four of the 12 power-generation units at the state’s coal power plants were offline for maintenance or breakdowns, while demand soared because of the need for air-conditioning as the temperature neared 40 degrees in parts of the city. You mean renewables can't cut it? Who knew? ::)

You mean effective government management - NOT the "market" beloved by obsolete mainstream economists -  is required to transition from fossils to renewables  - who knew?  :o

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 12:07pm:

You mean effective government management - NOT the "market" beloved by obsolete mainstream economists -  is required to transition from fossils to renewables  - who knew?

So you have found a way to make renewables reliable? Please tell us how and how much. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

10 Suncables wasn't it at $30 billion a pop? ::)

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 12:09pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 22nd, 2024 at 12:07pm: You mean effective government management - NOT the "market" beloved by obsolete mainstream economists -  is required to transition from fossils to renewables  - who knew? So you have found a way to make renewables reliable? Please tell us how and how much. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 10 Suncables wasn't it at $30 billion a pop? ::)

Maybe they'll place a bunch of colossally enormous solar panels in front of the sun in space with an umbilical cable running back here to earth for 24/7 power from the sun direct?

or use wifi. Everyone knows wifi works. ;)

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 9:31am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 21st, 2024 at 6:33am: thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 2:27pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:21pm: I really hope that voters will seek the truth from Labors lies when they head to polling booths next year. Funny - coming from you who was getting his knickers in a knot about 'Labor deficits' a couple of days back; and you now want taxpayers to fund nuclear in Oz.... It's clear to all (but you, obviously) that so-called renewables aren't up to the task of keeping the lights on when we have blackouts and brownouts in Sydney and other cities on hot days because there isn't enough baseload power to cope with increased demand. Because coal is unreliable and Dutton want's to keep coal runnng longer until Nuclear is viable in a couple of decades....You really are a dickhead mate!!! Coal is extremely reliable and can run 24/7 every single day of the year regardless of the weather (unlike solar or wind). The issue with coal is that there aren't enough coal-fired power stations to meet demand because Labor and the Greens won't build any new ones and kill any plans by others to do so. You're the dickhead... mate!!! Quote: Sydney risks blackouts as heat soars and coal power plants falter Sydneysiders were asked to reduce energy usage on Wednesday afternoon and evening to avoid blackouts on the hottest November day since 2020 in a stark demonstration of the increasing unreliability of the ageing coal power fleet. Four of the 12 power-generation units at the state’s coal power plants were offline for maintenance or breakdowns, while demand soared because of the need for air-conditioning as the temperature neared 40 degrees in parts of the city. Again, if Labor and the Greens had built or permitted to be built more coal fired power plants, there would've been enough reserves to pick up the slack when other generators are down for maintenance or repairs. But the ALP and Greens won't do it, preferring to stick to their precious and unreliable renewables. ::) ::) ::) https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/sydney-risks-blackouts-as-heat-soars-and-coal-power-plants-falter-20241127-p5ktvv.html

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 9:31am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 21st, 2024 at 6:33am: thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 2:27pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:21pm: I really hope that voters will seek the truth from Labors lies when they head to polling booths next year. Funny - coming from you who was getting his knickers in a knot about 'Labor deficits' a couple of days back; and you now want taxpayers to fund nuclear in Oz.... It's clear to all (but you, obviously) that so-called renewables aren't up to the task of keeping the lights on when we have blackouts and brownouts in Sydney and other cities on hot days because there isn't enough baseload power to cope with increased demand. Because coal is unreliable and Dutton want's to keep coal runnng longer until Nuclear is viable in a couple of decades....You really are a dickhead mate!!! Quote: Sydney risks blackouts as heat soars and coal power plants falter Sydneysiders were asked to reduce energy usage on Wednesday afternoon and evening to avoid blackouts on the hottest November day since 2020 in a stark demonstration of the increasing unreliability of the ageing coal power fleet. Four of the 12 power-generation units at the state’s coal power plants were offline for maintenance or breakdowns, while demand soared because of the need for air-conditioning as the temperature neared 40 degrees in parts of the city. ::) ::) ::) https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/sydney-risks-blackouts-as-heat-soars-and-coal-power-plants-falter-20241127-p5ktvv.html

You have the gall to call someone a dickhead after making that statement ::)  ;D ;D

Coal/coalfired power stations are our most reliable and cheapest form of energy production.

The coal fired stations are only aging because no new ones have been built because of climate change scaremongering & a crazed renewables agenda.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 9:36am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 22nd, 2024 at 7:18am: John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2024 at 9:22am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 21st, 2024 at 6:33am: It's clear to all (but you, obviously) that so-called renewables aren't up to the task of keeping the lights on when we have blackouts and brownouts in Sydney and other cities on hot days because there isn't enough baseload power to cope with increased demand. You had those blackouts WITH coal power stations :D :D :D :D Because ALP state governments have been closing coal fired power stations and there aren't enough to take up the slack, and wind/solar sources are simply too unreliable. China is building new coal fired power stations regularly. What is the point of your rant....Australia is not going to build and new coal fired power plants and the existing coal plants are unreliable when most needed....The cause of the blackouts you are bitching about was from coal generators failing you smacking dickhead....The climate cannot afford Peter Potato Head Dutton's fossil fuel solution!!! ::) ::) ::)

And whose fault is that dickhead?

If re-newables are so good why would coal fired stations ever be "most needed"? And why didn't they take up the slack when the coalfired plants failed?

The answer is because they can't ..... renewables will only ever be supplemental. As opposed to you just being "mental".

You know 7/8ths of 4/5ths of 3/4rs of SFA.

Gnads wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 1:10pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 22nd, 2024 at 9:36am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 22nd, 2024 at 7:18am: John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2024 at 9:22am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 21st, 2024 at 6:33am: It's clear to all (but you, obviously) that so-called renewables aren't up to the task of keeping the lights on when we have blackouts and brownouts in Sydney and other cities on hot days because there isn't enough baseload power to cope with increased demand. You had those blackouts WITH coal power stations :D :D :D :D Because ALP state governments have been closing coal fired power stations and there aren't enough to take up the slack, and wind/solar sources are simply too unreliable. China is building new coal fired power stations regularly. What is the point of your rant....Australia is not going to build and new coal fired power plants and the existing coal plants are unreliable when most needed....The cause of the blackouts you are bitching about was from coal generators failing you smacking dickhead....The climate cannot afford Peter Potato Head Dutton's fossil fuel solution!!! ::) ::) ::) And whose fault is that dickhead? If re-newables are so good why would coal fired stations ever be "most needed"? And why didn't they take up the slack when the coalfired plants failed? The answer is because they can't ..... renewables will only ever be supplemental. As opposed to you just being "mental". You know 7/8ths of 4/5ths of 3/4rs of SFA.

Storage capacity has not been built dickhead....Renewbles alone were never meant to power the grid on there own....Coal fired power plants failed when they were needed and it will only get worse under Potato Heads bullshit Nuclear Fantasy which will keep coal failing longer....Do you know what storage is dickhead???

::) ::) ::)


Quote:

NSW rethinks storage needs to replace coal: More short duration batteries might do the trick

https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-rethinks-storage-needs-to-replace-coal-more-short-duration-batteries-might-do-the-trick/

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 4:25pm:

Quote: NSW rethinks storage needs to replace coal: More short duration batteries might do the trick https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-rethinks-storage-needs-to-replace-coal-more-shor...

Just how long will 400MW hour batteries last? Don't forget this is weather dependent generation.

From your reference -

"According to this new analysis, nearly 96 per cent of forecast “unserved energy” events are for periods of eight hours or less. Around two thirds, or 63 per cent, are for four hours or less."

What about those events that last longer than eight hours? 4% sounds good; is that an average? Calculating that 4% means about 350 hours a year over 8 hours.  If there was a wind or solar drought for 7days, how would that affect it? ::)

According to the Australian Energy  regulator, NSW has an average daily consumption of over 16,000MWhs

https://www.aer.gov.au/industry/registers/charts/annual-electricity-consumption-nem

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 6:46am:

Let's be fair and actually look at this - this is a valid discussion site - not a blog ad hom rampage.... those people aren't out of bed yet ... outstanding input from the Usual Suspects in the past week or so, given that it is holidays time - how odd.... office hours - who actually employs these people to rant and rave and insult and abuse others to try to push their 'narrative' and 'agenda'? https://environmentalprogress.org/nuclear-deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-are-the-effects-of-nuclear-accidents https://www.processindustryforum.com/energy/five-worst-nuclear-disasters-history https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479720307106 Got more chance of dying in an air crash or on the roads this Christmas....

Quote:

Got more chance of dying in an air crash or on the roads this Christmas..

Yes but is there a better way to depopulate a whole suburb or 3.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 6:52pm:

Yes but is there a better way to depopulate a whole suburb or 3.

Where and how? Cite references. ::)

Gnads wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 1:10pm:

And whose fault is that dickhead?

The LNP for chopping and changing energy policy, with no clear direction for companies to invest in,  for well over the decade that they were in government

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 6:56pm:

Where and how?

chernobyl :D :D

John Smith wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2024 at 7:54am:

lee wrote on Dec 22nd, 2024 at 6:56pm: Where and how? chernobyl :D :D

Oh dear. Wants to go to a gen1 design that featured poor maintenance. And he can't even cite one suburb of Chernobyl.

"A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004."

https://www.who.int/news/item/05-09-2005-chernobyl-the-true-scale-of-the-acciden

Of course there are some here who don't believe WHO. ;)
Fewer than 50 doesn't sound like one suburb, let alone 3.

"50,000 of them lived in Pripyat city, 15,000 in Chernobyl town and the rest lived in the villages all over the zone. "

https://chernobylstory.com/blog/chernobyl-remote-villages-of-30km-zone/

Poor Guido, doesn't research , AGAIN. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2024 at 3:09pm:

Oh dear.

yes, thats how stupid your question was


lee wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2024 at 3:09pm:

And he can't even cite one suburb of Chernobyl.

the whole city is off limits you moron

John Smith wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2024 at 3:20pm:

the whole city is off limits you moron

Yes, but you were pontificating about deaths. Of course you are free to pontificate about removing people as opposed to deaths. ;)

Chernobyl is a TOWN not a city. ;)

John Smith wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2024 at 7:54am:

lee wrote on Dec 22nd, 2024 at 6:56pm: Where and how? chernobyl :D :D

Fukashima  ;D ;D

Let's take a break from all the anti nuclear 'experts' here spewing their drivel and listen to someone who actually knows what he's talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-AmlC6_K1s

lee wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2024 at 4:00pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 23rd, 2024 at 3:20pm: the whole city is off limits you moron Yes, but you were pontificating about deaths. Of course you are free to pontificate about removing people as opposed to deaths. ;) Chernobyl is a TOWN not a city. ;)

no one mentioned deaths, only depopulating

and Chernobyl is a wasteland, not a town

John Smith wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2024 at 4:19pm:

and Chernobyl is a wasteland, not a town

It is still a town, it exists. But it certainly is no city.

"Although Chernobyl is primarily a ghost town today, a small number of people still live there, in houses marked with signs that read, "Owner of this house lives here",[5] and a small number of animals live there as well. Workers on watch and administrative personnel of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone are also stationed in the city. The city has two general stores and a hotel. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl

The only depopulated town with a small population. Poor Guido, the fact free zone. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2024 at 4:46pm:

It is still a town,

no it's not, no matter how much you pretend otherwise. 4 or 5 people do not make a town and the workers are transient and not allowed to stay for extended periods of time.

John Smith wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2024 at 4:50pm:

no it's not, no matter how much you pretend otherwise. 4 or 5 people do not make a town and the workers are transient and not allowed to stay for extended periods of time.

I am not sure where you get the 4 or 5 from, maybe the citation? ;)

Two general stores for 4 or 5? They would only need one. Or more likely drive the 30km to outside the exclusion zone. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D