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

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 73763 Gender:	Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants Reply #300 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 7:43pm lee wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 7:40pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 7:37pm: We just agreed you're incapable dumbarse. No petal. You not "we". Just shows the depths to which you sink. Backpedalling already dumbarse? I'll bet you're an expert in running backwards
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57686
Here
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #301 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 8:14pm

Setanta wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 7:25pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 7:16pm:

lee wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 6:03pm:

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?

You had a point? Grin

How long do you think that storage system will be safe for?

Perhaps it should put it back in the Uranium mine they dug it out of? Was it safe there? Is it safer once depleted of U235? Just asking...

Uranium is relatively safe until it is mined and processed.

There are a few situations where Uranium in its natural form can be dangerous. It is a very heavy metal that will hurt if you drop it on your foot. An amount in soil around buildings can be reactive with the building footings - extremely rare. Spent uranium is very radioactive and putting it back into a mine would create a very dangerous situation. Natural uranium in the ground mostly has very low radioactivity.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 25^th, 2024 at 8:42pm by Dnarever »

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57686
Here
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #302 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 8:38pm

Frank wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 7:42pm:

Peter Dutton’s announcement that the Coalition will build seven nuclear reactors on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations is good policy and it will work. In response, the Albanese government has nothing but lame memes and a $1.3 trillion renewables policy that shows no signs of providing reliable, affordable electricity for industry or consumers.

Indeed, under Albo’s watch, Australia is in the worst shape it’s ever been, considering the cost-of-living crisis is an own-goal by Albo and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen. Even the much-maligned RMIT ABC Fact Check is now saying that Bowen’s claims about nuclear plants are ‘exaggerated’.

Labor is scared because it knows its ideologically driven energy policy is a grifter’s paradise that has nothing to do with providing cheap and reliable energy.

Putting nuclear reactors near coal mine sites ignores the associated geological hazards and virtually all coal power plants have associated coal mines.

Putting nuclear plants on top of a compromised geological structure is real stupid.

The politicians see the advantages of jobs for the community and already existing electricity interfaces and distribution networks.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 57686 Here Gender:	Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants Reply #303 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 8:38pm .
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48814
At my desk.

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #304 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 8:52pm

Setanta wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 7:25pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 7:16pm:

lee wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 6:03pm:

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?

You had a point? Grin

How long do you think that storage system will be safe for?

Perhaps it should put it back in the Uranium mine they dug it out of? Was it safe there? Is it safer once depleted of U235? Just asking...

I think it is a lot more likely to leech into aquifers or similar if you dig it up and put it back.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Captain Nemo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9416
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #305 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 8:52pm

Dnarever wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 8:38pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 7:42pm:

Peter Dutton’s announcement that the Coalition will build seven nuclear reactors on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations is good policy and it will work. In response, the Albanese government has nothing but lame memes and a $1.3 trillion renewables policy that shows no signs of providing reliable, affordable electricity for industry or consumers.

Indeed, under Albo’s watch, Australia is in the worst shape it’s ever been, considering the cost-of-living crisis is an own-goal by Albo and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen. Even the much-maligned RMIT ABC Fact Check is now saying that Bowen’s claims about nuclear plants are ‘exaggerated’.

Labor is scared because it knows its ideologically driven energy policy is a grifter’s paradise that has nothing to do with providing cheap and reliable energy.

Putting nuclear reactors near coal mine sites ignores the associated geological hazards and virtually all coal power plants have associated coal mines.

Putting nuclear plants on top of a compromised geological structure is real stupid.

The politicians see the advantages of jobs for the community and already existing electricity interfaces and distribution networks.

As far as I know every coal-fired power plant in QLD is Open Cut. So I don't see any issue with "compromised geological structure".

Here in Victoria, the Latrobe valley coal stations are also Open Cut mines. There are underground mines around but not where these power stations are.

Back to top

The 2025 election could be a shocker.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12097
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #306 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 9:50pm

Frank wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 7:42pm:

Peter Dutton’s announcement that the Coalition will build seven nuclear reactors on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations is good policy and it will work. In response, the Albanese government has nothing but lame memes and a $1.3 trillion renewables policy that shows no signs of providing reliable, affordable electricity for industry or consumers.

The trouble with nuclear is it's dearer than sun, wind, and pumped hydro. Electricity prices in (nuclear powered) France weren't known to be cheap.

Might be necessary in some countries but not Oz, other than (perhaps) to power heavy industry.

Quote:

Indeed, under Albo’s watch, Australia is in the worst shape it’s ever been, considering the cost-of-living crisis is an own-goal by Albo and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen. Even the much-maligned RMIT ABC Fact Check is now saying that Bowen’s claims about nuclear plants are ‘exaggerated’.

Er... closing existing coal will raise the cost of electricity regardless of which zero emissions technology you use, because the necesary new infrastructure - nuclear or renewables - is expensive. And greedy private companies are selling Oz gas at inflated prices on overseas markets, making the problem worse.

Stop pretending you want a zero-emissionms economy.

At least Senator Roberts did just that in the Senate today.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57686
Here
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #307 - Jun 25^th, 2024 at 10:47pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 8:52pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 8:38pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 7:42pm:

Peter Dutton’s announcement that the Coalition will build seven nuclear reactors on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations is good policy and it will work. In response, the Albanese government has nothing but lame memes and a $1.3 trillion renewables policy that shows no signs of providing reliable, affordable electricity for industry or consumers.

Indeed, under Albo’s watch, Australia is in the worst shape it’s ever been, considering the cost-of-living crisis is an own-goal by Albo and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen. Even the much-maligned RMIT ABC Fact Check is now saying that Bowen’s claims about nuclear plants are ‘exaggerated’.

Labor is scared because it knows its ideologically driven energy policy is a grifter’s paradise that has nothing to do with providing cheap and reliable energy.

Putting nuclear reactors near coal mine sites ignores the associated geological hazards and virtually all coal power plants have associated coal mines.

Putting nuclear plants on top of a compromised geological structure is real stupid.

The politicians see the advantages of jobs for the community and already existing electricity interfaces and distribution networks.

As far as I know every coal-fired power plant in QLD is Open Cut. So I don't see any issue with "compromised geological structure".

Here in Victoria, the Latrobe valley coal stations are also Open Cut mines. There are underground mines around but not where these power stations are.

Open cut mining destroys the aquifer and uses thousands of explosions - its not a lot better.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 43516 Gender:	Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants Reply #308 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 8:37am thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 9:50pm: Stop pretending you want a zero-emissionms economy. Net zero is an idiotic slogan, nothing more. Life is not net zero, never has been.
Back to top	Estragon: I can’t go on like this. Vladimir: That’s what you think. IP Logged

SadKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

#FightStupid

Posts: 16141
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #309 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 8:45am

Frank wrote on 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!

The Nats are against renewables: Fact.

The Liberal Party have prominent members who flat-out reject climate change, calling it "absolute crap" and while publicly, because they have to, will claim to accept that human activities contribute to it, their policies and voting record say otherwise, Fact.

They are also currently and historically bank rolled by the minerals and fossil fuel industries. A low-carbon future is not in their best interests, Fact.

They also lost a big chunk of their base to the teals, primarily around the desire to see actual policy to reduce emissions, and they want those voters back, they need them, Fact.

So they have to design an "energy" policy that will not push renewables, hurt them if possible (for the Nats), pretend to have the goal of reducing emissions (for the Teals) and at the same time push the use of more coal and especially gas (for Gina).

And that's exactly what they've done.

They want more gas used in the interim before their Nuclear plants can come online, less focus on renewables to slow down their implementation and cost reductions, talk of reducing emissions while abandoning the 2030 targets all while setting unrealistic timelines for Nuclear in legislative deadzones, on sites they'll have to nationalise, that rely on so far unproven and vastly more expensive reactors that if they aren't viable, those sites have no access to seawater and won't be suitable for full-scale reactors unless their reliability tanks because of water availability and temperatures.

If they were serious about Nuclear, it's a terrible plan to achieve it, but if all they want to do is tick the 3 boxes of hurting renewables, pretending to care about climate change while pushing for more gas reliance, they've nailed it.

But sure, it's a conspiracy...

Back to top

IP Logged

SadKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

#FightStupid

Posts: 16141
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #310 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 9:27am

Setanta wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 5:39pm:

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.

So what you're saying is the thing the Coalition and Atoms have in common is that they make up everything?

It seems reductive but it's not entirely inaccurate.

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19872
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #311 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 9:49am

Belgarion wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 5:38pm:

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.

What 'detail' to you want exactly? While I'm sure Dutton and co. would drop nuclear in a second if it became politically expedient to do so, they have announced lifting the ban and proposed sites for seven nuclear power stations. That's about all that can be done at the moment. No detail can be worked out until the ban is lifted. When it is the nuclear industry can make its proposals and the detail worked out.

The Coalition cannot tell the public....how much their fantasy will cost....how long it will take to complete....how much electricity they will produce....where and how the waste will be disposed of....the public are expected to take Dutton's word for it and the details will be worked out if the Coalition wins the next election....If Dutton does not know the answers to these questions how does he know Nuclear stacks up against renewables....Without these details how can the public make an informed decision on Nuclear power???

Huh

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/power-prices-wont-fall-with-nuclear/10399...

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

SadKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

#FightStupid

Posts: 16141
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #312 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 9:54am

Frank wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 7:42pm:

Peter Dutton’s announcement that the Coalition will build seven nuclear reactors on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations is good policy and it will work. In response, the Albanese government has nothing but lame memes and a $1.3 trillion renewables policy that shows no signs of providing reliable, affordable electricity for industry or consumers.

Will you apply the same scrutiny to the Coalition's plan as you have to Labor's?

Quote:

Peter Dutton’s announcement that the Coalition will build seven nuclear reactors on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations is good policy and it will work.

That is making a lot of assumptions.

We assume the SMR technology will work as advertised, as costed.

We don't have many real-world examples to point to, and those we do aren't without their problems in terms of cost and construction blow outs.

If they cannot be built and we have to default back to traditional Nuclear reactors, 6 of the 7 sites don't have access to sea water.

This means that the plant operation relies on rainfalls and catchment.

Since they're dams and rivers, water temperature also plays a role with the higher temps, 25 degrees or higher, means either reduced output or even reactor shutdown.

It's a lot to gloss over by saying "it will work".

And then the cost. I haven't been able to find any modern nuclear plant that has met the budget in both cost and schedule.

A budget blow out has us paying more, either in taxes or per kwh and a schedule blow out has us burning more gas rather than renewables (at least under this plan).

But, "it will work".

The reliability concerns for renewables exist for Nuclear, but in different ways.

We need to accept those rather than pretending they don't exist.

Nuclear isn't bad, that's not the issue.

The opposition is to their plan and proposed implementation.

Those who don't support Climate Change or have an ideological opposition to renewables are full of criticism for those, but look at Dutton's plan and are just all "it will work".

Yeah nah.

Back to top

IP Logged

SadKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

#FightStupid

Posts: 16141
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #313 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 9:55am

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 9:49am:

The Coalition cannot tell the public....how much their fantasy will cost....how long it will take to complete....how much electricity they will produce....where and how the waste will be disposed of....the public are expected to take Dutton's word for it and the details will be worked out if the Coalition wins the next election....If Dutton does not know the answers to these questions how does he know Nuclear stacks up against renewables....Without these details how can the public make an informed decision on Nuclear power???

Huh

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/power-prices-wont-fall-with-nuclear/10399...

That's pretty much where we're at and you've said it more eloquently than me.

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19872
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #314 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 10:00am

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 9:55am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 9:49am:

The Coalition cannot tell the public....how much their fantasy will cost....how long it will take to complete....how much electricity they will produce....where and how the waste will be disposed of....the public are expected to take Dutton's word for it and the details will be worked out if the Coalition wins the next election....If Dutton does not know the answers to these questions how does he know Nuclear stacks up against renewables....Without these details how can the public make an informed decision on Nuclear power???

Huh

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/power-prices-wont-fall-with-nuclear/10399...

That's pretty much where we're at and you've said it more eloquently than me.

Thank's Mr Roo....If Dutton knew the details of his fantasy and the proposition stacked up he would release the details tomorrow....Either Dutton does not know how his fantasy stacks up or he is deliberatly being vauge because he knows his plan is bullshit....Either way how can the public put trust in Dutton's opinions without and detail....Making an informed decision is something Dutton has not even undertaken himself!!!

Roll Eyes

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Are you supportive of Nuclear power in Australia?
Yes 13 (50.0%) No 10 (38.5%) Undecided 3 (11.5%) Total votes: 26 « Created by: Captain Nemo on: Jun 20^th, 2024 at 10:45pm »