Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 26
Send Topic Print
Coalition's 10 Year Nuclear Claim Is A Dream (Read 10296 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49091
At my desk.
Re: Coalition's 10 Year Nuclear Claim Is A Dream
Reply #120 - Mar 14th, 2024 at 6:10pm
 
How long would it need to be stored for Lee?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 29677
Gender: male
Re: Coalition's 10 Year Nuclear Claim Is A Dream
Reply #121 - Mar 14th, 2024 at 6:12pm
 
Belgarion wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 8:33pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 3:30pm:
Belgarion wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 12:19pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 11:19am:
lee wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 9:30pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm:
Mosaic G2 was later described as an "exceptionally dirty explosion", whose fallout contaminated large areas of mainland Australia, as far away as the Queensland towns of Mount Isa, Julia Creek, Longreach and Rockhampton.


And the fatalities or cancers from that? Roll Eyes

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm:
Yeah, real safe, hey, Lee?


So what is the residual radiation? Interested people want to know. Were they using LNT safeguards?

"The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has classified the area as an “existing exposure situation” with radiation levels “not considered to be excessively dangerous”."

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/08/radiation-hotspots-legacy...


What that article tells us is that we just don't know what the long -term effects of nuclear testing are.  As contamination was detected as far away as Gladstone in Queensland, we have potentially hundreds of thousands affected.  You want more affected.  What happened to your claims about Operation HURRICANE and MOSAIC sites being now safe enough for camping, Lee?  Dead in the water, hey?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


You are conflating nuclear weapons tests half a century ago with nuclear power plants of today. There is no comparison whatsoever.  Roll Eyes


No, I am not, Belgarion.  You are the one doing the conflating.  What I am doing is stating that we still do not know the long-term effects of Radiation and the nuclear tests are just one example of that.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


You are ignoring the fact that there is NO dangerous radiation emitted by nuclear power plants.  Roll Eyes


And your ignoring the fact that when you replace reliable power(coal generated) with unreliable power(renewables) that an alternative reliable source is required.

If we can't have coal according to the green & Labor nutters then we need to seriously consider nuclear.

The only people making money out of wind & solar are the manufacturers & installers ...

they have a short life span compared to coal fired power & nuclear power stations.

Recycling is non existent & maintenance & replacement of solar & wind will only drive up the price of power....... it's also unreliable.

There are so many negatives attached to so called renewables it should have been cast into the scrapheap of bullshyte ideas.
Back to top
 

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17710
Gender: male
Re: Coalition's 10 Year Nuclear Claim Is A Dream
Reply #122 - Mar 14th, 2024 at 6:14pm
 
"Naturally, safety is the main requirement for the viability of these technologies. In this context, one inherent design detail is of major importance. SMRs have exceptionally small nuclear cores – one of the technology’s most compelling by-design safety feature. Given its small size, cooling of the core can be easily ensured by natural convection, and consequently, the continued control of the core temperature is no longer dependent on external factors in an abnormal situation.

The inherent safety design also means that the potential of radioactive aerosol releases in an accident is inherently smaller in SMRs than in conventional NPPs. Owing to this and because SMRs have low rated thermal power levels, the exclusion zone (EZ) around SMRs can be significantly reduced. Whereas standard NPPs have EZs that are on average 5 to 10 km in radius – depending on the country, NPP type and production capacity – SMR EZs can be minimized to a few kilometers, or even to the site boundaries. But as is the case in all nuclear accidents, the same general safety precautions apply, including community emergency measures and off-site responses."

https://www.sustainability-times.com/low-carbon-energy/de-mystifying-small-modul...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Belgarion
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5429
Gender: male
Re: Coalition's 10 Year Nuclear Claim Is A Dream
Reply #123 - Mar 14th, 2024 at 7:46pm
 
Let's have a read of this:

The Spectator Australia 11 March 2024
In recent days, headlines from Net-Zero-inclined publications have become increasingly unhinged. Why nuclear power is ‘madness on steroids’! Peter Dutton wonders when batteries will be ‘discovered’, and if wind turbines are sentient… There are lots more, but those two made me laugh. Perhaps you have also noticed an online scare campaign doing the rounds asking, Would you live next to a reactor?
Most appear to be unaware that ANSTO exists, as does the Climate Change and Energy Minister, given some of his bizarre comments about Saos and blenders. (What is Bowen cooking?)
The reason for this panic is a tangible mood-shift in favour of nuclear energy.
As wind farms and solar farms march across the landscape, localised objections have become a nationwide grumble. By now, everyone knows someone whose life has been (or is about to be) destroyed by renewable energy.
It has long been suspected that objection to nuclear energy from the renewable industry has nothing to do with cost, nothing to do with how long it takes to build, and nothing to do with safety.
Rather, nuclear energy is opposed because its existence in the grid invalidates wind turbines, solar panels, and battery backups. All those lucrative government grants … cancelled. Random Net Zero projects like carbon capture and green hydrogen? Bye-bye.
Do nuclear plants need 10s of 1,000s of kilometres of transmission lines? Nope.
Do they need thousands of acres of rainforest or 70 per cent of Victoria’s agricultural heartland? Nope.
Do they need to sit in the middle of whale migration sites? Nope.
Do they enjoy shredding endangered birds? Nope.
Do they cost a bit to set up? Sure. Most things of high value carry a cost, but it is nothing compared to the cheap renewable transition which, at low estimates, is set at $1.9 trillion to reach by 2050 and then repeat that every 20-odd years and increase for an expanding population and demand, such as ecars plugging in.
A handful of reactors, powered by Australian uranium, is all that’s required to create a fully functioning, reliable energy grid with enough fuel for several billion years. It is not only renewable, it is eternal.
There’s no need to bulldoze rainforests.
Destroy coastal waters with wind turbines.
Or cut up farmland with transmission lines.
It also means that renewable energy companies, mining giants, and Labor’s mates in the myriad of Net Zero industries have no reason to drain the Treasury.
As a bonus, it frees Australia from the incalculable risk of relying on China for replacement parts.
Nuclear energy is the saviour of birds, bats, bugs, and koalas.
This a huge problem for Chris Bowen, who runs around pretending that nuclear is some random impossible technology that no one can use despite New South Wales having a nuclear facility for longer than Bowen has been alive. It is so well behaved most people have never heard of it even though it provides lifesaving isotopes to Sydney hospitals for cancer treatment.
We hear a lot of Greens talk about free healthcare, and almost none who realise more than 90 per cent of the pharmaceutical industry is built on fossil fuels, while specialty treatments often come from nuclear science. Just stop oil? Please…
Chris Bowen makes the argument that we have to carpet bomb Australia with wind turbines to ‘save the Pacific’ because Australia has been conned into believing it is a regional saviour with the power to stop the tides. Meanwhile, the Pacific region is full of nuclear power plants and the ‘drowning’ islands are selling their fossil fuel reserves to China who use them to make … wind turbines … for us. It’s an excellent scam.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is finally taking good advice and dipping his toes into the nuclear conversation.
‘If there’s a retiring coal asset, so there’s a coal-fired generator that’s already got an existing distribution network, the wires and poles are already there to distribute the energy across the network into homes and businesses, that’s really what we’re interested in,’ said Dutton.
‘We just can’t pretend that solar panels work of a night time, and we can’t pretend that wind turbines – 260 metres out of the seabed – are environmentally conscious. And we can’t pretend that it is a baseload energy It’s just not. Hopefully, the battery technology is about to be discovered, but not yet.’
Comments like these have upset various die-hard renewable publications, countering Dutton with comments like, ‘…actually, the grid is moving away from baseload.’ This is said as if it is some kind of rebuttal rather than a declaration of idiocy.
The entirety of the renewable grid – every wind turbine, solar panel, and battery – will be rotting in landfill by 2050. Think about that for a moment.
Bowen is building a renewable energy grid to reach Labor’s Net Zero 2050 targets with infrastructure that will be in landfill by that date.
So, what exactly is Bowen building?
A renewable money tree for mining companies and wind turbine manufacturers?
A pile of junk?
Why doesn’t the government release energy costing over a hundred-year period?
The rest of the world has embraced nuclear, but for some reason Australia is trapped in a backwards, Cold War mindset that believes ‘the world is ending because of emissions’ while pouring emissions into the atmosphere in one of the biggest mining booms we have ever seen.
Back to top
 

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire.....(possibly)
 
IP Logged
 
Belgarion
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5429
Gender: male
Re: Coalition's 10 Year Nuclear Claim Is A Dream
Reply #124 - Mar 14th, 2024 at 7:48pm
 
Continued:

Either the world is ending because of carbon emissions, forcing us to destroy our energy grid at huge expense – or it’s not.
Net Zero ideology cannot have this both ways, not while the taxpayer is picking up the bill.
If the world is ending, nuclear is the answer. If the world isn’t ending, then politicians have some explaining to do.
Peter Dutton’s proposal to build traditional nuclear reactors on the sites of old coal-fired plants is an election-winning proposition if he takes his message to the millions of Australians facing the destructive and ugly reality of wind turbines, solar panels, and transmission lines.
They will all vote for Dutton if it means keeping their beautiful valleys, oceans, and forests free of scrap.
Back to top
 

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire.....(possibly)
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 41954
Re: Coalition's 10 Year Nuclear Claim Is A Dream
Reply #125 - Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:16pm
 
lee wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 6:14pm:
"Naturally, safety is the main requirement for the viability of these technologies. In this context, one inherent design detail is of major importance. SMRs have exceptionally small nuclear cores – one of the technology’s most compelling by-design safety feature. Given its small size, cooling of the core can be easily ensured by natural convection, and consequently, the continued control of the core temperature is no longer dependent on external factors in an abnormal situation.

The inherent safety design also means that the potential of radioactive aerosol releases in an accident is inherently smaller in SMRs than in conventional NPPs. Owing to this and because SMRs have low rated thermal power levels, the exclusion zone (EZ) around SMRs can be significantly reduced. Whereas standard NPPs have EZs that are on average 5 to 10 km in radius – depending on the country, NPP type and production capacity – SMR EZs can be minimized to a few kilometers, or even to the site boundaries. But as is the case in all nuclear accidents, the same general safety precautions apply, including community emergency measures and off-site responses."

https://www.sustainability-times.com/low-carbon-energy/de-mystifying-small-modul...


SMRs do not exist.  You are wishing on a star, Lee.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17710
Gender: male
Re: Coalition's 10 Year Nuclear Claim Is A Dream
Reply #126 - Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:19pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:16pm:
SMRs do not exist.  You are wishing on a star, Lee.



There are companies building them. But seeing as you are so opposed perhaps you have an energy solution that will actually work, as you reckon SMR's won't.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 41954
Re: Coalition's 10 Year Nuclear Claim Is A Dream
Reply #127 - Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:29pm
 
lee wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:19pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:16pm:
SMRs do not exist.  You are wishing on a star, Lee.


There are companies building them. But seeing as you are so opposed perhaps you have an energy solution that will actually work, as you reckon SMR's won't.


If they are building them and they are safe, my only concern with them is their accident rates and their costs.  Who is building them and where, Lee?  I bet you don't know.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17710
Gender: male
Re: Coalition's 10 Year Nuclear Claim Is A Dream
Reply #128 - Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:37pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:29pm:
I bet you don't know.


Making foolish bets? Try Canada. Expected delivery 2025.

Then of course there is Westinghouse.

"Only SMR based on Licensed, Operating & Advanced Reactor Technology

The Westinghouse AP300™ Small Modular Reactor is the most advanced, proven and readily deployable SMR solution. Westinghouse proudly brings 70+ years of experience developing and implementing new nuclear technologies that enable reliable, clean, safe and economical sources of energy for generations to come."
https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/ap300-smr
But I see you don't have a clue about another reliable energy supply. Why is that. Too much tsk,tsking. Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 41954
Re: Coalition's 10 Year Nuclear Claim Is A Dream
Reply #129 - Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:44pm
 
lee wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:37pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:29pm:
I bet you don't know.


Making foolish bets? Try Canada. Expected delivery 2025.

Then of course there is Westinghouse.

"Only SMR based on Licensed, Operating & Advanced Reactor Technology

The Westinghouse AP300™ Small Modular Reactor is the most advanced, proven and readily deployable SMR solution. Westinghouse proudly brings 70+ years of experience developing and implementing new nuclear technologies that enable reliable, clean, safe and economical sources of energy for generations to come."
https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/ap300-smr
But I see you don't have a clue about another reliable energy supply. Why is that. Too much tsk,tsking. Wink


None of those is operational as yet, Lee.  The only operational SMRs are in Russia and soon in China.  There are none in the US or any other Western country.  So, should we buy from Russia or from China?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Belgarion
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5429
Gender: male
Re: Coalition's 10 Year Nuclear Claim Is A Dream
Reply #130 - Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:46pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:44pm:
lee wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:37pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:29pm:
I bet you don't know.


Making foolish bets? Try Canada. Expected delivery 2025.

Then of course there is Westinghouse.

"Only SMR based on Licensed, Operating & Advanced Reactor Technology

The Westinghouse AP300™ Small Modular Reactor is the most advanced, proven and readily deployable SMR solution. Westinghouse proudly brings 70+ years of experience developing and implementing new nuclear technologies that enable reliable, clean, safe and economical sources of energy for generations to come."
https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/ap300-smr
But I see you don't have a clue about another reliable energy supply. Why is that. Too much tsk,tsking. Wink


None of those is operational as yet, Lee.  The only operational SMRs are in Russia and soon in China.  There are none in the US or any other Western country.  So, should we buy from Russia or from China?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Every nuclear powered submarine has effectively an SMR..... Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire.....(possibly)
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 41954
Re: Coalition's 10 Year Nuclear Claim Is A Dream
Reply #131 - Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:57pm
 
Belgarion wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:46pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:44pm:
lee wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:37pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:29pm:
I bet you don't know.


Making foolish bets? Try Canada. Expected delivery 2025.

Then of course there is Westinghouse.

"Only SMR based on Licensed, Operating & Advanced Reactor Technology

The Westinghouse AP300™ Small Modular Reactor is the most advanced, proven and readily deployable SMR solution. Westinghouse proudly brings 70+ years of experience developing and implementing new nuclear technologies that enable reliable, clean, safe and economical sources of energy for generations to come."
https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/ap300-smr
But I see you don't have a clue about another reliable energy supply. Why is that. Too much tsk,tsking. Wink


None of those is operational as yet, Lee.  The only operational SMRs are in Russia and soon in China.  There are none in the US or any other Western country.  So, should we buy from Russia or from China?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Every nuclear powered submarine has effectively an SMR..... Roll Eyes


And how many accidents have they had, Belgarion? Unless you are proposing that the military run all nuclear power stations, submarines are completely different to civilian run reactors.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 41954
Re: Coalition's 10 Year Nuclear Claim Is A Dream
Reply #132 - Mar 15th, 2024 at 10:45am
 
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17710
Gender: male
Re: Coalition's 10 Year Nuclear Claim Is A Dream
Reply #133 - Mar 15th, 2024 at 12:38pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:44pm:
None of those is operational as yet, Lee.


What part of operational 2025 didn't you understand?  And you still can't provide a source for reliable energy. Grin Grin Grin Grin

Don't you think 70 years after nuclear tests, we have that data? How long do you think? 1,000 years? Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17710
Gender: male
Re: Coalition's 10 Year Nuclear Claim Is A Dream
Reply #134 - Mar 15th, 2024 at 12:46pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 10:45am:


So have a look at the CSIRO's CostGen 23-24. Table B.9 Column C, to be specific.

It shows Wind and solar 100% efficient. Nuclear 30% efficient.

Do you agree with those figures? I will even give the url again.

https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2023-24Consultdraft_20231219-...

I provided it to phil, he has gone quiet since. You?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 26
Send Topic Print