Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[Hojuman]

Am I right in my memory that the victims didn’t know a deal was struck?

Yep.

 

[ferball]

Am I right in my memory that the victims didn’t know a deal was struck?

What Hoj said.

 

[Val Keating]

Yep.

****en pricks.

 

[Hojuman]

fu**en pricks.

Amen to that brother ☺

 

[Del191229]

Great. Now I have to read up on Iranian politics and theocracy

It is well worth it, start with the 1953 overthrow of Mossadegh by the CIA and British security services.

 

[Val Keating]

It is well worth it, start with the 1953 overthrow of Mossadegh by the CIA and British security services.

I learned a bit about that a few weeks ago through a podcast called throughline. Highly recommend it to anyone who wants to learn about things that have shaped the current political landscape around the world.

Four Days in August

Podcast Episode · Throughline · 07/02/2019 · 36m

podcasts.apple.com

 

[Del191229]

Another example of MSM painting a narrative and protecting those in higher places. The world becomes a better place when these media corporations are held accountable and being complicit in all of this.

It was the Miami Herald that broke it all open again, putting Epstein jail.

 

[ferball]

Chalk it up to another "conspiracy theory" that Alex Jones got right. 10 years ago he brought up Epstein and highlighted that Epstein was used as an informant that would use this pedo stuff against big wigs - big sex cult that also involved branding women.

NXIVMK-Ultra.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Coalition requests first study of nuclear power in Australia in over a decade

Energy Minister Angus Taylor insists the moratorium on nuclear energy will remain in place, but asks the bipartisan Environment and Energy Committee to look at what would be needed for "any future government's consideration" of the technology.

www.abc.net.au

'They actually started to build': Why this place was chosen as the 'perfect' site for a nuclear reactor

Jervis Bay — one of Australia's world-renowned coastal tourist hotspots, celebrated for its idyllic white beaches, nearly became home to Australia's first nuclear power plant.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Del191229]

Nuke power is never ever going to happen in Straya.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

^ I'm not sure you can say that. It's only a matter of time before it is widely accepted that nuclear is the most efficient method of power generation. Unfortunately, renewables such as solar, wind and hydro are not efficient.

 

[Del191229]

^ I'm not sure you can say that. It's only a matter of time before it is widely accepted that nuclear is the most efficient method of power generation. Unfortunately, renewables such as solar, wind and hydro are not efficient.

Nuclear is the most expensive in the world, it would take three decades to get online.

Solar, wind and hydro are all efficient, what's required is upgrades to the grid.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

^ I'm not sure you can say that. It's only a matter of time before it is widely accepted that nuclear is the most efficient method of power generation. Unfortunately, renewables such as solar, wind and hydro are not efficient.

The Germans have come around to that conclusion. Most if, not all, renewables are far too reliant on high public subsidies. The Berlin government is planning on scaling back their wind turbines because of the huge public subsidies and that they are killing far too many birds. That is not to mention the stubborn large-scale public opposition to expensive, and seemingly limited, subsidies for inefficient renewable power generators that take up large tracts of land for seemingly limited energy output.

Nuclear presents the best option for rapidly cutting emissions at this moment, which is a tad ironic for the Australian Greens, who completely oppose all things nuclear, as does the majority of the Australian population.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Nuclear is the most expensive in the world, it would take three decades to get online.

Solar, wind and hydro are all efficient, what's required is upgrades to the grid.

Solar is marginally efficient in some areas. Wind is inefficient (mainly due to the land requirements to have sufficient turbines operating). Not sure about hydro, but it's uncommon so that's indicative of a reluctance to commit to using it.

If you are right about 30 years for nuclear, we should start it now. Expensive investment outlay, sure, but (very) long-term low cost power generation.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Solar is marginally efficient in some areas. Wind is inefficient (mainly due to the land requirements to have sufficient turbines operating). Not sure about hydro, but it's uncommon so that's indicative of a reluctance to commit to using it.

If you are right about 30 years for nuclear, we should start it now. Expensive investment outlay, sure, but (very) long-term low cost power generation.

Would not be as bad as 30 years, but it would still take a long time and high initial investment for nuclear power. Our Lucas Heights reactor and high uranium reserves make things a little easier on the time and development front.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Of course, a nuclear Australia doesn't deal with the big international polluter elephants in the room, namely India and China.

 

[Themanbun]

Of course, a nuclear Australia doesn't deal with the big international polluter elephants in the room, namely capitalism.

FTFY

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

FTFY

Soviet Union was one of the worst polluters going around and China is still counted as socialist nowadays.

It’s not looking good for Russia now on the ecological front.

 

[Themanbun]

Soviet Union was one of the worst polluters going around and China is still counted as socialist nowadays.

It’s not looking good for Russia now on the ecological front.

The USSR punched far above its weight in nuclear energy and was leading the world's push to replacing coal with nuclear.

You and I both know that at least since Dengism, China has been using state capitalist means to pursue growth.

Plus, non-capitalist regimes in isolation can do little to meaningfully address pollution. They're still forced to compete in a global market that values price cost above all else. The cheapest producer wins the contract.

I'm not even a pro-nuclear man, I agree with JeanLucGoddard on this. But for someone advocating nuclear energy I think it strange to be criticizing the USSR for their energy policy. They built the first grid connected reactor despite being 9 years out of a war which devastated their economy and country, and consistently advocated for nuclear energy on environmental grounds from the 1950s-1980s when the rest of the world was laughing at environmentalism. Yes, they polluted a lot in order to industrialise. You can't just arbitrarily say that the late industrialisers are more responsible for this than the early industrialisers. When Britain industrialised, it couldn't care less about researching for more environmentally sound methods. Ditto the USA. It probably couldn't have due to the lack of economic planning and the profit motive reigning supreme. At least the Soviet Union tried to incorporate those aspects.

Global development has become a world issue in terms of its impact on the environment. We need to find a way to recalibrate the economic system so as to incentivise clean development.

 

[Del191229]

The Germans have come around to that conclusion. Most if, not all, renewables are far too reliant on high public subsidies. The Berlin government is planning on scaling back their wind turbines because of the huge public subsidies and that they are killing far too many birds. That is not to mention the stubborn large-scale public opposition to expensive, and seemingly limited, subsidies for inefficient renewable power generators that take up large tracts of land for seemingly limited energy output.

Nuclear presents the best option for rapidly cutting emissions at this moment, which is a tad ironic for the Australian Greens, who completely oppose all things nuclear, as does the majority of the Australian population.

No it doesn't.

The best option for rapidly cutting emissions is using far less power.

 

[Del191229]

Solar is marginally efficient in some areas. Wind is inefficient (mainly due to the land requirements to have sufficient turbines operating). Not sure about hydro, but it's uncommon so that's indicative of a reluctance to commit to using it.

If you are right about 30 years for nuclear, we should start it now. Expensive investment outlay, sure, but (very) long-term low cost power generation.

At the rate battery and renewable tech is going, in 30 years nuke plants wouldn't be used.

Seriously, it is never ever going to happen here.

 

[Themanbun]

At the rate battery and renewable tech is going, in 30 years nuke plants wouldn't be used.

Seriously, it is never ever going to happen here.

Australia is going to get a big test of its future thinking on this issue. We have most of the elements available to us for a somewhat stable renewable energy regime, yet also have heaps of uranium that can lead us down the path of nuclear. This will come down to whether or not we think about the next 30 years or the next 200. At the moment we're still stuck on coal!

 

[ferball]

Solar is marginally efficient in some areas. Wind is inefficient (mainly due to the land requirements to have sufficient turbines operating). Not sure about hydro, but it's uncommon so that's indicative of a reluctance to commit to using it.

If you are right about 30 years for nuclear, we should start it now. Expensive investment outlay, sure, but (very) long-term low cost power generation.

One of the reasons hydro is so uncommon is that we hate dams. Another is Australia's lack of water. Dam's need to be full to generrate power. There was an issue with tassie's hydro power a couple of years ago as low rainfall dreied up the Dams that generate power. Otherwise hydro in Tassie is pretty good isn't it?

We should be investigating tidal power.

 

[ferball]

Solar is marginally efficient in some areas. Wind is inefficient (mainly due to the land requirements to have sufficient turbines operating). Not sure about hydro, but it's uncommon so that's indicative of a reluctance to commit to using it.

If you are right about 30 years for nuclear, we should start it now. Expensive investment outlay, sure, but (very) long-term low cost power generation.

We will need nuclear weapons to maintain our sovereignty soon enough imo.

 

[Themanbun]

I found this article from earlier in the year really interesting in considering how economic and political imperatives influence energy policy. Solar going from banned to subsidised in NK due to international sanctions and wanting to insulate themselves against the volatility of the world market:

Redirect Notice