Australian Politics Forum - Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57549
Here
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #270 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 9:20pm

Frank wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 9:03pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:58pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:35pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:31pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:20pm:

This isn't about discussing Nuclear v other options.

This is about the dangerous garbage the coalition are pushing.

Not recognising the difference could see us all glowing in the dark.

Like the people in dozens of other countried with nuclear energy? Glow like them?

2024 Nuclear incident at Khabarovsk, Russia
2022-2023 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant leak
2019 Radiation release during explosion and fire at Russian nuclear missile test site
2017 Airborne radioactivity increase in Europe in autumn 2017
2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
2001 Instituto Oncologico Nacional radiotherapy accident
2000 Samut Prakan radiation accident, Thailand.[3]
1999 and 1997 Tokaimura nuclear accidents
1996 San Juan de Dios radiotherapy accident
1994 Theft of radioactive material in Tammiku, Estonia.[4]
1993 Tomsk-7 accident at the Reprocessing Complex in Seversk, Russia, when a tank exploded while being cleaned with nitric acid. The explosion released a cloud of radioactive gas (INES level 4).[5]
1990 Clinic of Zaragoza radiotherapy accident
1987 Goiânia accident
1986 Chernobyl disaster and Effects of the Chernobyl disaster
1985 Explosion during refuelling of the K-431 (formerly K-31) submarine
1982 Lost radiation source in Baku, Azerbaijan, USSR.[6]
1980 Houston radiotherapy accident.[6][7]
1979 Church Rock uranium mill spill
1979 Three Mile Island accident and Three Mile Island accident health effects
1974-1976 Columbus radiotherapy accident.[6][7]
1969 Lucens reactor
1968 Thule B-52 crash
1966 Palomares B-52 crash
1964 SNAP 9a satellite releases plutonium over the planet earth, an estimated 6300GBq or 2100 person-Sv of radiation was released.
1962 Thor missile launch failures during nuclear weapons testing at Johnston Atoll under Operation Fishbowl
1961 SL-1 nuclear meltdown
1961 K-19 nuclear accident
1959 SRE partial nuclear meltdown at Santa Susana Field Laboratory
1958 Mailuu-Suu tailings dam failure
1957 Kyshtym disaster
1957 Windscale fire
1957 Operation Plumbbob
1954 Totskoye nuclear exercise
1950 Desert Rock exercises
Bikini Atoll
Hanford Site
Rocky Flats Plant, see also radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant
Techa River
Pollution of Lake Karachay
1945 and 1946 Demon core
1942 Leipzig L-IV experiment accident

So?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll

Natural disasters are not man made or 100% avoidable.

I bet you anything that in any country with nuclear power, more people die in car accidents every year than because of nuclear accidents in the lifetime of all their nuclear reactors combined.

One day Nuclear will be the best option and nobody will need to die for it.

That day will not be based on untested technology in a shonky political plan with no waste management plan involved.

The problem isn't nuclear it is that this is an incredibly flawed and premature plan.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 57549 Here Gender:	Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants Reply #271 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 9:20pm .
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48686
At my desk.

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #272 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 9:22pm

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 4:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 4:38pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 3:12pm:

Labor is having a good time in questions in parliament right now
putting down Dutton and his new nuclear plan.

Has Dutton made a big mistake?

Dutton himself is a big mistake but yes, I believe he's got this wrong

Australians are happy to have the conversation about nuclear power, but they aren't ready to start building just yet.

It might change if we have blackouts under Labor from their energy mismanagement.

Labor couldn't run a milk bar.
At least Pauline ran a fish and chip shop. Roll Eyes

We would have blackouts, and we do have high prices, because the coalition has given us crippling uncertainty in the power industry. This nuclear fad will not last long and will just add to that uncertainty.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 5:26pm:

Wind and solar providing 13% of our energy needs right now.

Coal and Gas providing 73%

https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-ne...

The anti nuclear luddites haven't factored in storage costs for renewable rubbish.

2 tesla powerwalls cost over $30K installed giving 27KwH. They will drive a 2000 Watt heater for just over half a day.

How much are these batteries going to cost and since they only last 2500-3000 cycles how many times will they be replaced before 2050?

Why do you keep posting this rubbish. You know it's a lie. Wind power with storage is already way cheaper than nuclear. Same as solar with storage.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 73463 Gender:	Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants Reply #273 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 9:28pm Quote: I bet you anything that in any country with nuclear power, more people die in car accidents every year than because of nuclear accidents in the lifetime of all their nuclear reactors combined What an absolutely absurd argument.
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 16969 Gender:	Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants Reply #274 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 2:35pm Dnarever wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 8:56pm: There was only one death but they got that result by evacuation 100,000 people many have never gone home. So the many that returned have not died of cancer. Good to know.
Back to top	IP Logged

Belgarion Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5395 Gender:	Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants Reply #275 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 3:18pm This is Madison Hilly. She is a scientist. She is pregnant. She is rubbing her belly on a container of spent nuclear fuel. She is doing this to show that stored nuclear material is perfectly safe. Please let's hear no more from the ignorant about how dangerous it is to store spent fuel.
Back to top	Pregnant_nukes.jpg (81 KB \| 1 ) "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire.....(possibly) IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 16969 Gender:	Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants Reply #276 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 3:56pm Belgarion wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 3:18pm: This is Madison Hilly. She is a scientist. She is pregnant. Obviously not a Climate Scientist^TM
Back to top	IP Logged

SadKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

#FightStupid

Posts: 15723
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #277 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 4:21pm

You're all debating the wrong thing.

This is not an argument against Nuclear, or at least it shouldn't be.

The problem is Dutton's plan.

The Nats are against renewables. The Coalition won't accept climate change (although now want to trust scientists when it comes to nuclear all of a suggen) and their mining benefactors want more coal and especially gas forced into the market.

He's even trying to pretend to care about climate change and carbon emissions to try and win back the teals, but all he's doing is being more attractive to the cookers, the one constituency they have left to tap, nobody else is interested.

The only way to keep all of them happy is to pretend to push ahead with Nuclear, relying on SMRs that haven't been proven yet, at sites that aren't suitable for full-scale Nuclear reactors if SMRs fall through while trying to stifle investment into renewables to slow down their innovation and cost reductions to make the more expensive nuclear option seem relatively more affordable, while locking us into more reliance on gas that we have to pay more for than the countries we export it to.

That's it.

That's what this plan is.

You can talk about pregnant scientists all you like, but that's not what the issue is.

It's a scam, hence zero detail until after we're meant to vote on it.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48686
At my desk.

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #278 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 4:21pm

Belgarion wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 3:18pm:

This is Madison Hilly. She is a scientist. She is pregnant. She is rubbing her belly on a container of spent nuclear fuel. She is doing this to show that stored nuclear material is perfectly safe. Please let's hear no more from the ignorant about how dangerous it is to store spent fuel.

Will it still be safe in 100,000 years?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 16969 Gender:	Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants Reply #279 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 5:01pm freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 4:21pm: Will it still be safe in 100,000 years? Will there be an earth in 100,000 years? Will there be humans or human derivatives?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48686 At my desk.	Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants Reply #280 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 5:04pm lee wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 5:01pm: freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 4:21pm: Will it still be safe in 100,000 years? Will there be an earth in 100,000 years? Will there be humans or human derivatives? You don't get the point, do you?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

SadKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

#FightStupid

Posts: 15723
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #281 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 5:05pm

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 5:04pm:

lee wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 5:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 4:21pm:

Will it still be safe in 100,000 years?

Will there be an earth in 100,000 years? Will there be humans or human derivatives?

You don't get the point, do you?

Of course he does, that's why he deflected to humanity's life span.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48686
At my desk.

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #282 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 5:06pm

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 5:05pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 5:04pm:

lee wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 5:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 4:21pm:

Will it still be safe in 100,000 years?

Will there be an earth in 100,000 years? Will there be humans or human derivatives?

You don't get the point, do you?

Of course he does, that's why he deflected to humanity's life span.

I think he actually supports the coalition, which suggests to me he does not understand.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 43127
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #283 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 5:08pm

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 4:21pm:

You're all debating the wrong thing.

This is not an argument against Nuclear, or at least it shouldn't be.

The problem is Dutton's plan.

The Nats are against renewables. The Coalition won't accept climate change (although now want to trust scientists when it comes to nuclear all of a suggen) and their mining benefactors want more coal and especially gas forced into the market.

He's even trying to pretend to care about climate change and carbon emissions to try and win back the teals, but all he's doing is being more attractive to the cookers, the one constituency they have left to tap, nobody else is interested.

The only way to keep all of them happy is to pretend to push ahead with Nuclear, relying on SMRs that haven't been proven yet, at sites that aren't suitable for full-scale Nuclear reactors if SMRs fall through while trying to stifle investment into renewables to slow down their innovation and cost reductions to make the more expensive nuclear option seem relatively more affordable, while locking us into more reliance on gas that we have to pay more for than the countries we export it to.

That's it.

That's what this plan is.

You can talk about pregnant scientists all you like, but that's not what the issue is.

It's a scam, hence zero detail until after we're meant to vote on it.

Ah... conspiracy theories!

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 134556
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #284 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 5:19pm

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 4:21pm:

You're all debating the wrong thing.

This is not an argument against Nuclear, or at least it shouldn't be.

The problem is Dutton's plan.

The Nats are against renewables. The Coalition won't accept climate change (although now want to trust scientists when it comes to nuclear all of a suggen) and their mining benefactors want more coal and especially gas forced into the market.

He's even trying to pretend to care about climate change and carbon emissions to try and win back the teals, but all he's doing is being more attractive to the cookers, the one constituency they have left to tap, nobody else is interested.

The only way to keep all of them happy is to pretend to push ahead with Nuclear, relying on SMRs that haven't been proven yet, at sites that aren't suitable for full-scale Nuclear reactors if SMRs fall through while trying to stifle investment into renewables to slow down their innovation and cost reductions to make the more expensive nuclear option seem relatively more affordable, while locking us into more reliance on gas that we have to pay more for than the countries we export it to.

That's it.

That's what this plan is.

You can talk about pregnant scientists all you like, but that's not what the issue is.

It's a scam, hence zero detail until after we're meant to vote on it.

An excellent, honest analysis.

Back to top

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Are you supportive of Nuclear power in Australia?
Yes 12 (52.2%) No 8 (34.8%) Undecided 3 (13.0%) Total votes: 23 « Created by: Captain Nemo on: Jun 20^th, 2024 at 10:45pm »