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

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 42395
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #315 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 10:05am

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 8:45am:

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...

Nobody is 'against renewables. Fact'. People are against expensive, subsidy-dependent renewables that are more expensive and less effective than idologues would want you to beliebe.

I also think anthropogenic CO2 induced climate change is crap. I do not take it to an incontrobertible orthodoxy but I and others like me are regarded as heretics. That tells me about the politico-religious core of this particular AGW orthoxy.

The TEALS are the doctors' wives, winning the most affluent seats where the cost of living is a non-issue. I would not treat them as the 'voice of the people'. Nor the Greens.

The rush to renewables is ideological. Gas is a necessary intermediate source. It is efficient, plentiful, existing power plants can be converte to it. I do not see why some people are against it, other than blind ideolgy.

Setting targets is a good thing if they are well thought out and achievable. Net zero ( a stupid slogan, nothing more) by 2030 is an idiotic, unachievable deadline.

The blind, deaf shouting of 'nyah, nyah, nyah' about nuclear is childish, as are many of the 'arguments' against it, summed up as 'Australia, uniquely among continents, is unsuitable for nuclear power because ... er... er.... the Lib/Nats want it and .... er.... that's it'.

If you do not want nuclear BECAUSE you say we have plenty of very high quality coal, gas, could do more hydro as well as have lots of household and small business solar, fine.

Wind is stupid and ugly and a blight on the landscape. Hideos scars.

An entire continent with a mere 26 million people in a developed, high-resource country with high energy prices STILL facing blackouts because of ideological clamouring and panderings is the ultimate proof of the stupidity and politically motivaed nonsense of the AGW orthodoxy. and the 'transition to net zero by 2030'. OF COURSE it is crap, utter, unalloyed ideological crap.

The Lib/Nats were stupid to sign up to it but at least now they have called out the nakedness of the emperor.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 81640
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #316 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 10:07am

Ah - the good old privatised model..... there's your failure.... France, high costs dividie says from nuclear.... they could get much higher here under the privatised model from a failing network? One in which coal etc fall out day after day, 'renewables' are nowhere near taking up the slack.... and the end user pays and pays...

Jeez - what happened to all the 'clean coal burning' techniques... oh - too costly... jeez... oh, well - whichever way 'they' decide to go without your leave - rest assured they'll find the money somewhere in your dwindling pocket....

It's the Neo-Feudal way - simply apportion to a favourite of the moment any number of koku of rice over a few sake`s.... you don't know what I'm talking about do you? You never did... some of you never will but I'm bringing a few to reality at a time............ this 'koku' is not an aircraft - it is a quantity of rice produced in the 'lord's' fields through the work of his 'crofters' - those share-farmers who do the work on that land and pay their dues for doing so...... they pay a certain amount, variable at the whim of the Overlord .. the Overlod gives it out as giftings to his underlings in the hierarchy to keep them sweet or as reward for service to the 'cause' .... just like Albo hands out a governor-generalship or governorship of the Reverse Bank or anything else , such as an appointed PS Supremacy to an old bum chum, or tongue chum, or school chum, or old flag waver on the barricades etc (as opposed to a promotion on merit) ....

So - over a few drinks the Overlord, a little tipsy, give out a chunk of largesse to an Underlord ..... who makes up for the slack and inability of overlapping koku to cover all these giftings? You guessed it... yond peasant has a lean and hungry look - he thinks too much - and such men are dangerous... he'll just have to work harder to support his Feudal Lords...... or it's the chop one way or another... produce or we'll put someone else in on that land and your family will starve ..... literally ... if we see it as disobedience or 'disrespect' we'll chop off your head....... (now think of all the lands King Charles inherited...... in the 21st Century? SS-DD, and even Her Maj was the same, ancient Feudal right) ..

When will you take back the farm, the asylum, and the treasury? When will you put a stop to the vile Lawfare such as is happening in Queensland right now, where a small group of long term residents are forced not only to take on unwarranted demands for control over their land and movements on an island from those who are demanding it without merit but funded by the government fully - but also find that they must oppose a massive government bureaucracy with countless millions of budget dollars, to try to handle what reads already as a done deal behind their backs - and ultimately be forced to contest this - as a tiny group of individuals - in a massively costly court action at a cost of millions, against not only their own government, but against a stacked bench of lying, sycophantic 'judiciary' appointed in the same way?

Someone, some time will find a better way to resolve these things. Be careful for what you wish. If you don't stop these insane governments NOW, your grand-children will have to ..... at massive cost in many ways.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 81640
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #317 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 10:12am

When did the Public NEVER apply the same level of scrutiny to both LNP and Labor - Labor are in the Hot Seat, Pals - they'll take the hits for their failures.... the LNP's plan is already being scrutinised... and yet YOU ideologues claim it's all about victimising Labor.

I can't think of any body that needs more direct victimisation that the body politic at this time.... in so many ways and for so many reasons it's becoming near impossible to count them, let alone lay them all out for you.

How many examples of sheer idiocy in every arena of government of this country do you need before you wake up?

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

SadKangaroo Gold Member Offline #FightStupid Posts: 15320 Mianjin (Brisbane)	Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants Reply #318 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 10:17am thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 9:50pm: At least Senator Roberts did just that in the Senate today. He's been saying the quiet part out loud for the last few days. But as a former coal miner and coal industry consultant, I would expect nothing less.
Back to top	IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 19703
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #319 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 10:23am

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 10:05am:

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 8:45am:

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...

Nobody is 'against renewables. Fact'. People are against expensive, subsidy-dependent renewables that are more expensive and less effective than idologues would want you to beliebe.

I also think anthropogenic CO2 induced climate change is crap. I do not take it to an incontrobertible orthodoxy but I and others like me are regarded as heretics. That tells me about the politico-religious core of this particular AGW orthoxy.

The TEALS are the doctors' wives, winning the most affluent seats where the cost of living is a non-issue. I would not treat them as the 'voice of the people'. Nor the Greens.

The rush to renewables is ideological. Gas is a necessary intermediate source. It is efficient, plentiful, existing power plants can be converte to it. I do not see why some people are against it, other than blind ideolgy.

Setting targets is a good thing if they are well thought out and achievable. Net zero ( a stupid slogan, nothing more) by 2030 is an idiotic, unachievable deadline.

The blind, deaf shouting of 'nyah, nyah, nyah' about nuclear is childish, as are many of the 'arguments' against it, summed up as 'Australia, uniquely among continents, is unsuitable for nuclear power because ... er... er.... the Lib/Nats want it and .... er.... that's it'.

If you do not want nuclear BECAUSE you say we have plenty of very high quality coal, gas, could do more hydro as well as have lots of household and small business solar, fine.

Wind is stupid and ugly and a blight on the landscape. Hideos scars.

An entire continent with a mere 26 million people in a developed, high-resource country with high energy prices STILL facing blackouts because of ideological clamouring and panderings is the ultimate proof of the stupidity and politically motivaed nonsense of the AGW orthodoxy. and the 'transition to net zero by 2030'. OF COURSE it is crap, utter, unalloyed ideological crap.

The Lib/Nats were stupid to sign up to it but at least now they have called out the nakedness of the emperor.

So climate change is crap and dotting Nuclear power plants accross Australia with no details or costings is a good policy in your limited opinion....You believe Australia should just ignore the rest of the world and go it alone....Why would you advocate for the most expensive energy source available when you think climate change is crap anyway....What is the purpose of Nuclear power when coal and gas are already available and it would make no difference to the environment anyway according to you ya dickhead!!!

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

SadKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

#FightStupid

Posts: 15320
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #320 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 10:29am

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 10:05am:

Nobody is 'against renewables. Fact'. People are against expensive, subsidy-dependent renewables that are more expensive and less effective than idologues would want you to believe.

Tell that to Barnaby.

Quote:

I also think anthropogenic CO2 induced climate change is crap.

That's why you like this policy.

Quote:

The TEALS are the doctors' wives, winning the most affluent seats where the cost of living is a non-issue. I would not treat them as the 'voice of the people'. Nor the Greens.

It doesn't matter how you treat them, the point is the Libs need their votes back otherwise the Coalition won't have the numbers to win outright.

Quote:

The rush to renewables is ideological. Gas is a necessary intermediate source. It is efficient, plentiful, existing power plants can be converte to it. I do not see why some people are against it, other than blind ideology.

Because you think climate change is crap.

Quote:

Setting targets is a good thing if they are well thought out and achievable. Net zero ( a stupid slogan, nothing more) by 2030 is an idiotic, unachievable deadline.

The blind, deaf shouting of 'nyah, nyah, nyah' about nuclear is childish, as are many of the 'arguments' against it, summed up as 'Australia, uniquely among continents, is unsuitable for nuclear power because ... er... er.... the Lib/Nats want it and .... er.... that's it'.

You're trying to change the goal posts. Nuclear isn't the issue, it's just Dutton's implementation is less about energy and more about mining.

Quote:

If you do not want nuclear BECAUSE you say we have plenty of very high quality coal, gas, could do more hydro as well as have lots of household and small business solar, fine.

Wind is stupid and ugly and a blight on the landscape. Hideos scars.

And you're not an ideologue...

Quote:

An entire continent with a mere 26 million people in a developed, high-resource country with high energy prices STILL facing blackouts because of ideological clamouring and panderings is the ultimate proof of the stupidity and politically motivaed nonsense of the AGW orthodoxy. and the 'transition to net zero by 2030'. OF COURSE it is crap, utter, unalloyed ideological crap.

The Lib/Nats were stupid to sign up to it but at least now they have called out the nakedness of the emperor.

If you can't accept the risks of the coalition's plan based on the details they've currently provided then you're letting your emotion cloud your judgement.

For the record, Nuclear can play a role in our energy security, but currently, it's being proposed as a bait and switch to push for gas usage, hurt the renewables industry, innovation and further cost reductions and justify ignoring emissions targets because of the inevitable blowouts in cost and schedule for any Nuclear construction forcing the "bridging options" into the permanent baseload.

Their plan is to benefit their mining benefactors, not provide reliable, affordable and clean energy to the people.

And we'll all have to pay for this, multiple times over.

We have every right to call a spade a spade.

You've pretty much proved that those points I raised aren't conspiracy theories as you stated in your attempt to dismiss them.

Thanks.

Back to top

IP Logged

SadKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

#FightStupid

Posts: 15320
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #321 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 10:32am

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 10:12am:

When did the Public NEVER apply the same level of scrutiny to both LNP and Labor - Labor are in the Hot Seat, Pals - they'll take the hits for their failures.... the LNP's plan is already being scrutinised... and yet YOU ideologues claim it's all about victimising Labor.

I can't think of any body that needs more direct victimisation that the body politic at this time.... in so many ways and for so many reasons it's becoming near impossible to count them, let alone lay them all out for you.

How many examples of sheer idiocy in every arena of government of this country do you need before you wake up?

To sum up both of your posts, you couldn't help but sook about your usual bugbear no matter how off topic, and you're projecting your victimhood tactics onto others.

Pointless, would not recommend, zero stars.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 42395
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #322 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:13am

Just re[eating demagoguery doesn't make it true:

Quote:

Their plan is to benefit their mining benefactors, not provide reliable, affordable and clean energy to the people.

This is such juvenile, adolescent 'fighting tories' from the 1960s crap. I am amazed that anyone over 25 thinks like this.

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: 15320
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #323 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:16am

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

Just re[eating demagoguery doesn't make it true:

Quote:

Their plan is to benefit their mining benefactors, not provide reliable, affordable and clean energy to the people.

This is such juvenile, adolescent 'fighting tories' from the 1960s crap. I am amazed that anyone over 25 thinks like this.

Until they can provide more detail, which Dutton has already stated won't be until after we're to vote at the next election, it's the only conclusion you can draw from the plan as we know it today.

They're not even talking about generation capacity in a way that will allow us to compare with other options...

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 133247
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #324 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:17am

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

Just re[eating demagoguery doesn't make it true:

Quote:

Their plan is to benefit their mining benefactors, not provide reliable, affordable and clean energy to the people.

This is such juvenile, adolescent 'fighting tories' from the 1960s crap. I am amazed that anyone over 25 thinks like this.

The statement is 100% correct.

Quote:

Their plan is to benefit their mining benefactors, not provide reliable, affordable and clean energy to the people.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 42395
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #325 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:25am

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:16am:

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

Just re[eating demagoguery doesn't make it true:

Quote:

Their plan is to benefit their mining benefactors, not provide reliable, affordable and clean energy to the people.

This is such juvenile, adolescent 'fighting tories' from the 1960s crap. I am amazed that anyone over 25 thinks like this.

Until they can provide more detail, which Dutton has already stated won't be until after we're to vote at the next election, it's the only conclusion you can draw from the plan as we know it today.

They're not even talking about generation capacity in a way that will allow us to compare with other options...

If you could, you would explain how 7 nationalised nuclear power plants 'benefit their mining benefactors'.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 19703
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #326 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:39am

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:25am:

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:16am:

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

Just re[eating demagoguery doesn't make it true:

Quote:

Their plan is to benefit their mining benefactors, not provide reliable, affordable and clean energy to the people.

This is such juvenile, adolescent 'fighting tories' from the 1960s crap. I am amazed that anyone over 25 thinks like this.

Until they can provide more detail, which Dutton has already stated won't be until after we're to vote at the next election, it's the only conclusion you can draw from the plan as we know it today.

They're not even talking about generation capacity in a way that will allow us to compare with other options...

If you could, you would explain how 7 nationalised nuclear power plants 'benefit their mining benefactors'.

Do you think mining uranium and storing the waste for thousands of years will be free Fwank....Do you think the Mining Companies and Power generators will not charge the public for the storage of the toxic waste they produce....We do not know the cost because the Coalition either do not know or will not tell us until after the election....Why would anyone accept a policy that does not exist and cannot be scrutinized???

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

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48374
At my desk.

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #327 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:44am

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:25am:

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:16am:

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

Just re[eating demagoguery doesn't make it true:

Quote:

Their plan is to benefit their mining benefactors, not provide reliable, affordable and clean energy to the people.

This is such juvenile, adolescent 'fighting tories' from the 1960s crap. I am amazed that anyone over 25 thinks like this.

Until they can provide more detail, which Dutton has already stated won't be until after we're to vote at the next election, it's the only conclusion you can draw from the plan as we know it today.

They're not even talking about generation capacity in a way that will allow us to compare with other options...

If you could, you would explain how 7 nationalised nuclear power plants 'benefit their mining benefactors'.

Another two decades of delaying tactics would benefit them. They are already benefitting from the skyrocketing electricity prices caused by the coalition crippling new investment with uncertainty.

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: 42395 Gender:	Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants Reply #328 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:46am Mining companies are mining and exporting a lot of uranioum ALREADY!!! Using some of it here makes zero difference to the mining companies.
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: 15320
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #329 - Jun 26^th, 2024 at 12:18pm

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:25am:

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:16am:

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

Just re[eating demagoguery doesn't make it true:

Quote:

Their plan is to benefit their mining benefactors, not provide reliable, affordable and clean energy to the people.

This is such juvenile, adolescent 'fighting tories' from the 1960s crap. I am amazed that anyone over 25 thinks like this.

Until they can provide more detail, which Dutton has already stated won't be until after we're to vote at the next election, it's the only conclusion you can draw from the plan as we know it today.

They're not even talking about generation capacity in a way that will allow us to compare with other options...

If you could, you would explain how 7 nationalised nuclear power plants 'benefit their mining benefactors'.

The reactors themselves will benefit us. Yes there are risks and long-term waste storage to worry about, but those things, and their associated costs can be worn.

But given we know the Liberal opposition to climate change, the Nat's ideological opposition to renewables and everything Dutton has said previously about Gas as a "transition fuel", they will prioritise this over further investment and roll out of renewables if they get to implement their plan.

Let's also look at the generation capacity, and we have to be generous since we've got no numbers yet, and those that are estimated aren't great, but let's assume that we'll get more than a 3.7% of our energy needs met with Nuclear by 2050, if they're pushing gas as the "transition" technology and pushing away from renewables (which they are), where will the rest of the power generation come from?

If they've invested in Gas, or removed "green tape" to make it more attractive for the private sector to do so, it will already exist, especially with all this talk of converting coal to gas.

If not renewables, then it must be coal or gas, right?

Where does that come from?

And we're assuming the Nuclear plants will come online within 25 years, which again is being generous.

If they're moving away from renewables, which they are, and pushing more gas, which they are, that means 25+ years of gas being the baseload power generation as a minimum.

Are you following?

When you put in realistic timelines, from planning to regulatory and legislative changes to the construction process, who benefits if that blows out?

Who provides the gas?

Dutton's plan is reliant on SMRs. If that technology turns out not to be viable, nearly of of the proposed sites are not suitable for full-scale reactors.

So we'll have 1 additional nuclear power station in that outcome, and what else, Gas.

Who provides the gas?

Are you seeing it now?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 26^th, 2024 at 12:26pm by SadKangaroo »

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 »