Australia - you're standing in it
Supre you must dream about spud lol ;)
Ha ha, got me hook line and sinker.
Supafreak wrote:John Hewson
The courage of a scoundrel It’s time to cut through the posturing and focus on Peter Dutton’s real strategy. It should now be clear the opposition leader’s basic motivation is a power grab. He will say or do whatever it takes to win the next election……………..His latest ploy has been to advocate nuclear power as an alternative to renewables. To understand this fully, it’s important to recognise Dutton doesn’t plan to implement this idea. He has three motivations. First, he aims to undermine the government’s energy transition, and second, to demonstrate he is capable of bold, strong, decisive, visionary and imaginative leadership, as a contrast to Albanese’s timidity and beigeness. He is, of course, ignoring the government’s Future Made in Australia plan, which he has denigrated since its announcement – he is certainly not willing to concede the vision of that agenda. Dutton’s third aim is to stick with coal and gas as a pay-off to his fossil fuel donors. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/topic/2024/06/26/the-courage...
These articles are so interesting in just how out there and misleading they are.
Like how on earth is a small percetage of nuclear in oposition to renewables???
It's not at all its the total oposite it's complimentary to renewables.
And how on earth does a small pecentage of nuclear somehow equal to contuning with coal and gas?????
It doesnt, its the opossosite it replaces coal and gas, without nuclear we will be stuck with gas much longer.
indo-dreaming wrote:Supafreak wrote:John Hewson
The courage of a scoundrel It’s time to cut through the posturing and focus on Peter Dutton’s real strategy. It should now be clear the opposition leader’s basic motivation is a power grab. He will say or do whatever it takes to win the next election……………..His latest ploy has been to advocate nuclear power as an alternative to renewables. To understand this fully, it’s important to recognise Dutton doesn’t plan to implement this idea. He has three motivations. First, he aims to undermine the government’s energy transition, and second, to demonstrate he is capable of bold, strong, decisive, visionary and imaginative leadership, as a contrast to Albanese’s timidity and beigeness. He is, of course, ignoring the government’s Future Made in Australia plan, which he has denigrated since its announcement – he is certainly not willing to concede the vision of that agenda. Dutton’s third aim is to stick with coal and gas as a pay-off to his fossil fuel donors. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/topic/2024/06/26/the-courage...These articles are so interesting in just how out there and misleading they are.
Like how on earth is a small percetage of nuclear in oposition to renewables???
It's not at all its the total oposite it's complimentary to renewables.
And how on earth does a small pecentage of nuclear somehow equal to contuning with coal and gas?????
It doesnt, its the opossosite it replaces coal and gas, without nuclear we will be stuck with gas much longer.
Aah @Indo, Nuclear and Renewables don't co-exist very well, particularly in a country like Australia with large rooftop solar.
Some reading for you..
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201005112141.htm
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-24/rooftop-solar-potentially-lethal-...
PS if I was in the Telos I wouldn't even look at swellnet forums or care about any of this shit, but like I've said to you before, we are different humans.
Hope you are scoring.
Editorial
How the media facilitates Dutton’s nuclear lies
The fault is the media’s also. It entertains the nonsense, repeats it until it is real. It pretends there is debate where there is none. It leans too heavily on conflict. It mistakes credulity for balance.
It is in these false equivalences that Peter Dutton finds his purpose. Here, on these glib plains, he is reinvented as a politician. His lone policy announcement is given the status once reserved for an alternative government.
In journalism, the answer to any question in a headline is almost always no. The hope is that a reader might settle for maybe. The question mark itself bends over in embarrassment.
Last week, the ABC used its leading news podcast to ask: “Could nuclear power really lead to cheaper bills?” Similar questions have been asked across the media. The answer is no, but the headline has already done its work. It has already lent credibility to a fantasy.
According to the latest Lowy polling, two thirds of Australians now support the use of nuclear power. As many as 27 per cent support it strongly. A decade ago the opposite was true: 62 per cent did not want nuclear as part of the energy mix.
The difference is not science. It is mischief. The case for nuclear has not grown stronger. The cost argument has not been won. Uranium has become no safer or less finite. All that has changed is the desperateness of the Coalition and the fecklessness of the press.
Peter Dutton cannot name the experts who advised on his policy. This is most likely because they do not exist. Imaginary reactors are the preserve of imaginary scientists. The policy is not costed and relies on developments that are presently illegal.
Findings from the Australian Energy Market Operator, published this week, make clear that the power grid would fail before even the most optimistic projections of when these reactors might be operational. They are not a solution. They are a distraction.
Cost is another lie. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation notes that nuclear power is twice as expensive to produce as renewables. These figures don’t allow for blowouts in construction and time, which are almost inevitable. If everything went right, the answer would still be wrong.
Dutton knows all this. So does the media that asks fallaciously if nuclear power could lead to cheaper bills. They have conspired to solve a problem that exists now with a solution that is never coming.
There is little enough being debated that this is taking up all the space. It is interrupting the inevitable shift to renewables. That is its sole intention.
Once again investment is being slowed. Once again the obvious is being treated as uncertain. This is played out as if it were a game, but it is not: the world is being pushed closer to catastrophe.
No wonder the question marks cower in their headlines, ashamed of their role in this whole sordid scam. ……… https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/editorial/2024/06/29/how-the...
to comment on cost, well i have to say i live in california and it seems that we are always in a drought even when it rains non stop back to back winters,, yes debatable tho the point is the water bill never went down always up and never ending reasons continue. Good luck guys.
Humans can think of so many ways to spend money , but it doesn't grow on trees .
We could build a bridge to Tassy , but is it a smart way to spend our $ ?
Energy is what Powers Human success !
We worked out to harness it and are reaping the benefits , as a species .
A Supernova exploding creates Power and lots of pollution as well as Gold .
Watched a doco yesterday , that said the Earth was covered in Fallout from an explosion 220 million years ago .
There is a layer of sediment all over the world and it was radioactive , for a million or so years .
Created an Extinction , got the big Mega Shark .
Point is , our existence is fragile and Shit happens .
While we are here , let's be sensible and don't waste money or time .
Melbourne COULD be powered by an Ocean of Solar , the batteries could be built , but the Cost of doing it , world wide , is ridiculous imho .
A new Energy source , Nuclear Fusion , is just around the corner .
Let's use Gas and its existing network , while we wait .
If we all stopped using fossil fuel , how long does it take for CO2 levels to reduce to levels that are OK ???
100 years , 150 or 200 years ?
Gosh , and that's the Solution to how we deal with Climate Change lol !
The Climate always changes and all species have to deal with it and survive , the best way they can .
That's a species job !
Melbourne hasn't had a drought for 20 years !
adam12 wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Supafreak wrote:John Hewson
The courage of a scoundrel It’s time to cut through the posturing and focus on Peter Dutton’s real strategy. It should now be clear the opposition leader’s basic motivation is a power grab. He will say or do whatever it takes to win the next election……………..His latest ploy has been to advocate nuclear power as an alternative to renewables. To understand this fully, it’s important to recognise Dutton doesn’t plan to implement this idea. He has three motivations. First, he aims to undermine the government’s energy transition, and second, to demonstrate he is capable of bold, strong, decisive, visionary and imaginative leadership, as a contrast to Albanese’s timidity and beigeness. He is, of course, ignoring the government’s Future Made in Australia plan, which he has denigrated since its announcement – he is certainly not willing to concede the vision of that agenda. Dutton’s third aim is to stick with coal and gas as a pay-off to his fossil fuel donors. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/topic/2024/06/26/the-courage...These articles are so interesting in just how out there and misleading they are.
Like how on earth is a small percetage of nuclear in oposition to renewables???
It's not at all its the total oposite it's complimentary to renewables.
And how on earth does a small pecentage of nuclear somehow equal to contuning with coal and gas?????
It doesnt, its the opossosite it replaces coal and gas, without nuclear we will be stuck with gas much longer.
Aah @Indo, Nuclear and Renewables don't co-exist very well, particularly in a country like Australia with large rooftop solar.
Some reading for you..
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201005112141.htm
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-24/rooftop-solar-potentially-lethal-...
PS if I was in the Telos I wouldn't even look at swellnet forums or care about any of this shit, but like I've said to you before, we are different humans.
Hope you are scoring.
Google the topic and you find many articles saying the opossite, in fact you will find the countries with the most realistic chance of going 100% carbon free are countries with nuclear or hydro energy in the mix.
If you don't have either to go 100 carbon free is a bit of a hail mary on hoping something like Green hydrogen is going to get you through one day, but until then its pretty much cementing in gas for a long time to fill some very big gaps.
But yes roof top solar is a very problematic energy source in any mix because its so up and down very boom or bust often at the opossite times of energy demand needed and requires the grid to be totally redesigned, even now we are already having issue's.
BTW. There is even a whole other area of nuclear- renewables hybrid systems
Even the UNCEC has said if the world doesnt ramp up the use of nuclear the world wont make its carbon free goals.
Last swell was real fun overhead no wind and lining up real nice, but i cut my foot so playing it safe and giveing it a rest keep it dry and clean ready for a bigger swell for mid to late week.
Lots of down time here when not surfing guest are good guys but i need my space, sometimes i will read a book but im in denial of needing glasses for reading so not this year, so podcast, music & a little online time it is.
@ indo , if spud wins the election do you believe he will go nuclear ? Get the laws changed and reach his goals by 2050 ? What new taxes will be introduced and how will this impact a country that’s having a “ cost of living crisis “ where will the expertise come from to build these plants ? So many questions that need answering . Will it be worth it ?
indo-dreaming wrote:A Salty Dog wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:A Salty Dog wrote:Pop Down wrote:bonza
When we were sold the Green Transition Scheme , 15 years ago , there was NO mention of Electricity Prices going Up 4 or 5 times , as a result .
No explanation of US reducing Electricity or Air Cons , to reduce emissions .
No discussion on the disastrous effect this has , on our productivity as a Country .
U seem to want us to Reduce Business , stop driving and flying and put on a fn Carbon Tax , on Everything ffs !
We are now 15 years into the Green Shift and the rubber is hitting the road .
Let's see if Australia agrees with you , going Back to the Dark Ages !
Pop,
You could ask yourself a question.
What would the cost of energy be if we had decided to refurbish all existing coal fired power stations and build new CFPS to meet demand?
Cheers.
Lets prentend there was no such thing as global warming.
In that cases we would just go with coal and there would have been a stagering of new plants being built and older ones refurbished, we woupd most likely just have a very gradual increase in energy prices in line with the rise in cost of labour/wages etc.
Indo,
We cant pretend.
You have to include operation and maintenance costs over the life of the plant.
CSIRO Gen Cost Report claims coal is more expensive.
I was only replying to your comment, im not saying its realistic to still use coal.
But the whole coal is more expensive thing is bullshit its not comparing apples with apples.
Coal powered energy generation is 100% proven, the cost for Australia to produce 100% carbon free energy 24/7 with no support from non renewables like gas cant even be costed its still theory only, countries that are close to 100% carbon free all have large amounts of hydro energy or nuclear.
Maybe one day things will be different but not for a long time, unless you have solar pannels your energy bill isnt going down anytime soon.
I still cant believe Labor tried to claim energy bills would reduce by $275 by 2025 and it was based on so called expert's data, we all know the opposite had happened.
BTW. Australia has the most roof top solar per capita in the world and it mostly happened under LNP and our renewable uptake rate has also been one of the fastest in the world during thr last LNP era. Article from a few years ago.
"Australia is the runaway global leader in building new renewable energy"
https://theconversation.com/australia-is-the-runaway-global-leader-in-bu...
IndoDreaming. Hi. Hope you and your family are having a good time in the Telos.
Yes, you’re correct about Australia’s statistics regarding the uptake of solar to rooftops. It’s admirable and should continue with haste.
These setups may provide adequate power for households but its industry and infrastructure I’m concerned about.
Maybe I didn’t explain myself very well.
I’m referring to industry, State and Federal governments, getting their shit together, finances together, investment from within and investment from outside
to construct major facilities that will provide power at all times, day or night.
There’s nothing stopping this bar rhetoric.
We know how to do it, we just need to commence it now, stop this folly of entertaining Nuclear packaged with old fossil fuel methods, let’s get gas out of our mindsets, it’s seems all that Australians are talking about is access to gas, fuck it off.
We only chatter about gas because we think it’s cheap, most Australians are tight arse’s the average Joe or Joanne in the street doesn’t give a fuck about the environment, they only worry about their hip pocket.
Alas, they still have no problem buying expensive piss, slabs, ciggies, useless shit from Amazon and other on line junk shops. etc
I think it’s all down to the type of human you really are, you either care about where you live and the environment around you or you don’t.. AW
Supafreak wrote:@ indo , if spud wins the election do you believe he will go nuclear ? Get the laws changed and reach his goals by 2050 ? What new taxes will be introduced and how will this impact a country that’s having a “ cost of living crisis “ where will the expertise come from to build these plants ? So many questions that need answering . Will it be worth it ?
Dutton wont get elected this coming election, Aussies dont and wont change governments after just one term.
But yeah if he did get in he could continue down that path if its what Australians want.
And like i just posted in the other thread, in the future when we havent gone carbon free and have all kinds of issues with blackouts and cost etc, LNP is going to be able to say, well things would be different if we had invested in some Nuclear and no doubt there will be experts saying the same and there will be countries carbon free or much closer with nuclear in the mix that LNP will be able to use as examples.
In regard to is it worth it?
Depends how important you think going carbon free is?
Or how serious do you see the threat of climate change being?
I dont think you can be totally serious about climate change if you dont support nuclear or all forms of carbon free energy.
Personally im not too worried about climate change, but i still support, nuclear, solar, wind, offshore wind, batteries, pumped hydro, hydro energy etc im not in oposition to any even being built near me and im.also quite happy to drive an EV if i had the choice beteeen both at the same or similar price id buy an EV
I wonder why the “ experts “ from CSIRO and other scientists don’t agree with you and spud . 600 billion to create 3.5% of energy sounds a bit excessive to me . Not to mention the cost to the environment & taxpayers if something does happen to go wrong . Maybe spud could roll out the “ safe & effective “ logo .
indo-dreaming wrote:It doesnt, its the opossosite it replaces coal and gas, without nuclear we will be stuck with gas much longer.
Indo the problem is that nuclear doesn't replace coal and gas, nuclear has no flexibility (low turndown ratio) it can be useful if you have a very large base load 24hrs and to get it to some sort of manageable cost you need large scale stations.
adam12 wrote:[
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-24/rooftop-solar-potentially-lethal-...
PS if I was in the Telos I wouldn't even look at swellnet forums or care about any of this shit, but like I've said to you before, we are different humans.
Hope you are scoring.
Great article from the abc. Just shows the resistance to NE is not evidence based but just a political challenge. If anything the article supports NE as part of an essential mix in our transition to carbon free energy.
Highlights the hypocritical taxpayer incentives to RE that artificially favours RE over nuclear.Also points out how the privileged home owner class once again kicks the can of addressing inequality by refusing to help pay for grid stability that penalises the growing larger share of non home owners who don’t have the luxury of stable place to live let alone panels.
I reckon Labor will have to give this notion of caucus solidarity the arse if they’re to survive in modern Australia. That or give their commitment to diversity and diversifying the flick.
Younger members from diverse backgrounds will be increasingly committed to representing their own slice of the intersectionality framework. Less so to the merits of cabinet government. The likes of Penny Wong and her decision to uphold the cabinet position on same sex marriage won’t age well under the diverse New Labor coalition of communities. Have to take a Menzies-like position on crossing the floor. Yikes.
Same for the ABC. The charter’s already a farce. At least the current partisan Hillarian matriarchy (Crabb, Ferguson, Tingle, Trioli, etc - the list is endless) are consistent. They all look the same, sound the same, think the same, live blissfully in the same Green/Teal electorates, went to the same schools etc. They got rid of the white middle aged patriarchy only to install their own privileged bourgoise progressive group-think.
The diverse emerging generation won’t even make a pretence of upholding the charter. Unashamed in their zeal to promote the interests of their own identity group and those of aligned and approved oppressed communities.
Evident during The Voice coverage with Bridget Brennan and Dan Bourchier. No pretence of objectivity. Ditto Chantelle Al-Khouri on the Gaza conflict.
The latter's own words on the broad question: “Commitment to diversity in the media cannot be skin deep. Culturally diverse staff should be respected and supported even when they challenge the status quo”
Yeah. Sounds fine and dandy. Certainly if you’re working for a private media organisation. Dunno about the ABC – as it’s currently constituted.
To read between the lines even a little I’d say that’s not exactly a commitment to dispassionate analysis and neutral reporting.
These are just the vanguard. Time to stop the gas-lighting and reflect reality. Get rid of the charter altogether. Or at least stop claiming it has any relevance.
I focus wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:It doesnt, its the opossosite it replaces coal and gas, without nuclear we will be stuck with gas much longer.
Indo the problem is that nuclear doesn't replace coal and gas, nuclear has no flexibility (low turndown ratio) it can be useful if you have a very large base load 24hrs and to get it to some sort of manageable cost you need large scale stations.
If tommorow we had 20% of our energy in nuclear we could also do away with 20% of coal fired energy.
Otherwise what energy do you think it would replace?
Yes Nuclear doesnt have the flexibility of say gas that can be brought online and offline very quickly (coal much slower)
But you always need energy in some decent percentage having that constant percetage of nuclear provides something that is very hard to put a price on and thats energy security, something that wind and solar lacks.
Yes there would also be times when there is excess energy from solar and wind which will happen no matter what, but this would not be wasted as after batteries are charged it can go into green hydrogen that can be used in many ways.
All energy sources have pros and cons the smartest way forward is a diverse energy mix to balance things out, if we were a country with lots of water or snowfall we could look at a decent chunk of hydro energy to help fill the shortfalls, but for most of Australia this isnt a realstic option which leaves us looking at nuclear.
indo-dreaming wrote:If tommorow we had 20% of our energy in nuclear we could also do away with 20% of coal fired energy.
Unfortunately coal will be long gone before you could build the 20% of nuclear and in operational terms you would be limited where you could build it but let's say you could.
For the same price you could conservatively build 400% plus required renewables with gas as a backup right now.
All the design / engineering / trades expertise required are available right now including all the government agencies that oversee it all.
All equipment to build is available right now or the vast majority would be as soon as design is finished. Long lead time equipment wouldn't be any more than 4 years.
I would think you would want hydro with the option of pumped hydro before nuclear.
Nuclear on the other hand there is virtually nothing you would be starting from ground zero for every aspect and to only achieve 20%.
I am not against nuclear power because of any ideological or political reasons simply the current technology won't solve the transition away from fossil fuel at any cost.
Duttons policy is absolutely overtly political and a nonsense which is a pity because at some point I would expect if and when the subs turn up then at least a sensible conversation will have to be had on regulation, waste, storage etc and a long shot would be an improvement in the technology of nuclear power generation.
The Nuclear conversation should have been had years ago both Labor and LNP are to blame and even more so the Greens especially in regard to Australia's fears etc.
FFS if the greens have had their way we wouldn't even have Hydro energy.
At the very least the ban on Nuclear should be lifted.
Everything is poltical and its a smart move by LNP in the long run, because in the future when all these countries around the world have gone carbon free and have nuclear playimg a part and we haven't and are relying on things like gas to get us through, LNP will be able to say, we did suggest it but Labor opossed it.
“ You can’t prevent people from having bad ideas and you can’t prevent people from talking about their bad ideas.
But sometimes, a piece of legislation can prevent bad ideas from taking up large amounts of money and community time. This is what Australia’s ban on nuclear power achieves.
Nuclear power is a bad idea in Australia. “ https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/nuclear-power-in-australia-is-a-r... ….. @indo said “ Everything is poltical and its a smart move by LNP in the long run, because in the future when all these countries around the world have gone carbon free and have nuclear playimg a part and we haven't and are relying on things like gas to get us through, LNP will be able to say, we did suggest it but Labor opossed it. “ ….. Well indo do the Australian public get to have a say ? Fortunately yes and they look likely to be voting on it . If dicktator spud gets his way he reckons nothing or nobody will stand in his way . #bettereconomicmanagers
It's incredible how much discussion is dedicated to centralised power source solution. However, is that the best way to go? We started so good with solar on the roof, batteries etc. I have a feeling we are hitting a roadblock and too much energy is wasted on this idea that centralised power generation (whatever the energy source, coal, nuclear, wind...), distributed with a wast distribution network is unavoidable. I tend to disagree with that. Sure, it is a must in certain cases but local, decentralised solutions should be exhausted to the maximum before investing elsewhere.
flollo wrote:It's incredible how much discussion is dedicated to centralised power source solution. However, is that the best way to go? We started so good with solar on the roof, batteries etc. I have a feeling we are hitting a roadblock and too much energy is wasted on this idea that centralised power generation (whatever the energy source, coal, nuclear, wind...), distributed with a wast distribution network is unavoidable. I tend to disagree with that. Sure, it is a must in certain cases but local, decentralised solutions should be exhausted to the maximum before investing elsewhere.
Follo cannot remember the numbers but think it was around 50% is domestic and the rest is for industry / everything else.
Like everything bigger the scale lower the cost so there is an argument for any thing that can be scaled up. Having said that roof top solar certainly has a place the "but" being it requires more infrastructure that doesn't make money to be installed like batteries, synchronizers, hi level fault protection systems etc to deal with faults and system stability.
If you can connect it to a really big fly wheel so much the better.
I focus wrote:flollo wrote:It's incredible how much discussion is dedicated to centralised power source solution. However, is that the best way to go? We started so good with solar on the roof, batteries etc. I have a feeling we are hitting a roadblock and too much energy is wasted on this idea that centralised power generation (whatever the energy source, coal, nuclear, wind...), distributed with a wast distribution network is unavoidable. I tend to disagree with that. Sure, it is a must in certain cases but local, decentralised solutions should be exhausted to the maximum before investing elsewhere.
Follo cannot remember the numbers but think it was around 50% is domestic and the rest is for industry / everything else.
Like everything bigger the scale lower the cost so there is an argument for any thing that can be scaled up. Having said that roof top solar certainly has a place the "but" being it requires more infrastructure that doesn't make money to be installed like batteries, synchronizers, hi level fault protection systems etc to deal with faults and system stability.
If you can connect it to a really big fly wheel so much the better.
100% agree with that.
The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.