The future of Australian coal

[Nuggs Bunny]

And this sadly, is why Australia will never have a nuclear reactor. Or should never have one.

I don't trust the country to run what should be a relatively safe form of power generation. Even worse if it ends up in private hands.

Two workers exposed to unsafe radiation dose at Lucas Heights nuclear facility

Two workers exposed to unsafe radiation dose at Lucas Heights nuclear facility

Exclusive: production at Australia’s only nuclear medicine facility halted after ‘safety incident’

www.theguardian.com

What are your thoughts on air travel?

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

What are your thoughts on air travel?

It's essential for global commerce and there are numerous larger systemic low hanging fruit that can be targeted for emissions cuts.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

It's essential for global commerce and there are numerous larger systemic low hanging fruit that can be targeted for emissions cuts.

Isn't the inherent danger of air travel to both passengers and the public an insurmountable risk for dopey Australians to safely manage? Particularly the bottom end of the bell-curve that could be employed by soulless commercial enterprise?

 

[Craven Morehead]

I have provided a number of specific examples.

No, no you haven't.
You've crapped on with stuff that makes you feel good, but the only link you've provided was where two people copped a very minor radiation exposure last night.
Stop lying.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Isn't the inherent danger of air travel to both passengers and the public an insurmountable risk for dopey Australians to safely manage? Particularly the bottom end of the bell-curve that could be employed by soulless commercial enterprise?

I don't see why.

It's not a public utility/or public-private infrastructure build.

Different industry, conditions and supply chain.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

No, no you haven't.
You've crapped on with stuff that makes you feel good, but the only link you've provided was where two people copped a very minor radiation exposure last night.
Stop lying.

I gave very specific examples, which have been well covered in the press, like the NBN build, the disrepair of existent or recently decommissioned coal fire generators or, the provision of frontline services (health) with the Fionna Stanley hospital.

I'd have to actually respect your opinion, to humour you. Given you've accused me of being an ardent Greens supporter, and posting who knows what about religion, why would I bother. You are an angry, belligerent idiot who goes off half cocked, throwing out completely unverified accusations.

You don't be lazy, I will engage respectfully.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

I don't see why.

It's not a public utility/or public-private infrastructure build.

Different industry, conditions and supply chain.

Well, this is, sadly, why we should immediately wind down our domestic air travel industry. Unfortunately, Australians are not capable of managing aircraft as seen in incidents like this, and the many others that have happened over the years. It's such an unnecessary risk given that you can drive anywhere in Australia and otherwise, there's usually a ferry. Cannot stand for this any longer.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06...stination-awake-24-hours-atsb-report/11244160

 

[Craven Morehead]

I gave very specific examples, which have been well covered in the press, like the NBN build, the disrepair of existent or recently decommissioned coal fire generators or, the provision of frontline services (health) with the Fionna Stanley hospital.

I'd have to actually respect your opinion, to humour you. Given you've accused me of being an ardent Greens supporter, and posting who knows what about religion, why would I bother. You are an angry, belligerent idiot who goes off half cocked, throwing out completely unverified accusations.

You don't be lazy, I will engage respectfully.

It's pretty difficult when you've been asked for specific, linked, examples it seems.
Even, despite the incredibly diverse topics you've raised, (which have * all to do with anything).
Anyway, continue.
I'm sure you'll find some firm footing somewhere.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Well, this is, sadly, why we should immediately wind down our domestic air travel industry. Unfortunately, Australians are not capable of managing aircraft as seen in incidents like this, and the many others that have happened over the years. It's such an unnecessary risk given that you can drive anywhere in Australia and otherwise, there's usually a ferry. Cannot stand for this any longer.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06...stination-awake-24-hours-atsb-report/11244160

The two situations are not at all comparable.

For example Australian airlines like Qantas, have fairly strong safety records. Even despite some sourcing issues. Now why was Victoria removing those level crossings? Due to the long term danger many posed. A complete public policy failure and a noted planning failure given the time it took to proceed with their removal.

Likewise consider the case of both NSW and Victoria having issues with recently sourced rail stock. Victoria in assembly and testing and NSW purchasing carriages too large for pre-existing infrastructure.

There are specific political conditions that lead to this kind of mismanagement. These thankfully aren't experienced by Australian airlines.

But, to further hone in on why it's a poor comparison, it's the permanency and cost of nuclear accidents. A *up like too broad carriages, can be rectified. It's very hard to undo or ameliorate a nuclear accident. Worse though is the cost. It's indisputable that coal fire power is far far worse in terms of death toll. But Australia would have to think very carefully about the risk given the astronomical potential costs associated with an accident, especially because the state will likely have to underwrite any insurance.

Most recent estimates put the cost of amelioration for a single reactor meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi at between approx. $450 billion to $1 trillion AUD.

Think tank puts cost to address nuke disaster up to 81 trillion yen：The Asahi Shimbun

Which would cripple our economy.

The point being that we are completely on the hook for potentially disasterous costs associated with the plant or waste for its extensive life cycle and beyond. I simply do not trust either state/federal governments or oversight of private operators to be at the level required for the duration required.

A great example of why not is the current mine tailings bruhaha. For years we have been lectured on the stringent conditions in place around management of Australian mines and their operators. Seems the situation is more precarious than we have been led to believe.

Australian mine tailings dams identified as 'high risk' in the case of failure

Mining giants Rio Tinto, BHP and Glencore have listed several of their tailings dams across Australia as being at "high" or "extreme" risk to public safety if they fail.

www.abc.net.au

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

It's pretty difficult when you've been asked for specific, linked, examples it seems.
Even, despite the incredibly diverse topics you've raised, (which have **** all to do with anything).
Anyway, continue.
I'm sure you'll find some firm footing somewhere.

It'd be pretty easy actually.

I just think you are a ******* and a blowhard. Apologise to me and I might help you out.

 

[Craven Morehead]

The two situations are not at all comparable.

For example Australian airlines like Qantas, have fairly strong safety records. Even despite some sourcing issues. Now why was Victoria removing those level crossings? Due to the long term danger many posed. A complete public policy failure and a noted planning failure given the time it took to proceed with their removal.

Likewise consider the case of both NSW and Victoria having issues with recently sourced rail stock. Victoria in assembly and testing and NSW purchasing carriages too large for pre-existing infrastructure.

There are specific political conditions that lead to this kind of mismanagement. These thankfully aren't experienced by Australian airlines.

But, to further hone in on why it's a poor comparison, it's the permanency and cost of nuclear accidents. A ****up like too broad carriages, can be rectified. It's very hard to undo or ameliorate a nuclear accident. Worse though is the cost. It's indisputable that coal fire power is far far worse in terms of death toll. But Australia would have to think very carefully about the risk given the astronomical potential costs associated with an accident, especially because the state will likely have to underwrite any insurance.

Most recent estimates put the cost of amelioration for a single reactor meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi at between approx. $450 billion to $1 trillion AUD.

Think tank puts cost to address nuke disaster up to 81 trillion yen：The Asahi Shimbun

Which would cripple our economy.

The point being that we are completely on the hook for potentially disasterous costs associated with the plant or waste for its extensive life cycle and beyond. I simply do not trust either state/federal governments or oversight of private operators to be at the level required for the duration required.

A great example of why not is the current mine tailings bruhaha. For years we have been lectured on the stringent conditions in place around management of Australian mines and their operators. Seems the situation is more precarious than we have been led to believe.

Australian mine tailings dams identified as 'high risk' in the case of failure

Mining giants Rio Tinto, BHP and Glencore have listed several of their tailings dams across Australia as being at "high" or "extreme" risk to public safety if they fail.

www.abc.net.au

LOL

It'd be pretty easy actually.

I just think you are a ******* and a blowhard. Apologise to me and I might help you out.

It's so easy.

But you can't.


LOL

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

The two situations are not at all comparable.

For example Australian airlines like Qantas, have fairly strong safety records. Even despite some sourcing issues. Now why was Victoria removing those level crossings? Due to the long term danger many posed. A complete public policy failure and a noted planning failure given the time it took to proceed with their removal.

Likewise consider the case of both NSW and Victoria having issues with recently sourced rail stock. Victoria in assembly and testing and NSW purchasing carriages too large for pre-existing infrastructure.

There are specific political conditions that lead to this kind of mismanagement. These thankfully aren't experienced by Australian airlines.

But, to further hone in on why it's a poor comparison, it's the permanency and cost of nuclear accidents. A ****up like too broad carriages, can be rectified. It's very hard to undo or ameliorate a nuclear accident. Worse though is the cost. It's indisputable that coal fire power is far far worse in terms of death toll. But Australia would have to think very carefully about the risk given the astronomical potential costs associated with an accident, especially because the state will likely have to underwrite any insurance.

Most recent estimates put the cost of amelioration for a single reactor meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi at between approx. $450 billion to $1 trillion AUD.

Think tank puts cost to address nuke disaster up to 81 trillion yen：The Asahi Shimbun

Which would cripple our economy.

The point being that we are completely on the hook for potentially disasterous costs associated with the plant or waste for its extensive life cycle and beyond. I simply do not trust either state/federal governments or oversight of private operators to be at the level required for the duration required.


A great example of why not is the current mine tailings bruhaha. For years we have been lectured on the stringent conditions in place around management of Australian mines and their operators. Seems the situation is more precarious than we have been led to believe.

Australian mine tailings dams identified as 'high risk' in the case of failure

Mining giants Rio Tinto, BHP and Glencore have listed several of their tailings dams across Australia as being at "high" or "extreme" risk to public safety if they fail.

www.abc.net.au

This is an odd argument because Qantas, let alone the aviation industry in Australia in general, has had a number of high profile accidents over the years both inside and outside of Australia and it's only through providence that many of those incidents weren't fatal because they all had the potential to be. On the other hand, regarding those dams that you're highlighting as proof of poor management in the mining industry in Australia, none of them have failed or are even highlighted as deteriorating and the report merely shows that they have a much higher risk to population in the event of a probable maximum flood event. Furthermore, I'm guessing the safety record of OPAL and HIFAR surpasses every private industry in Australia by a fair margin so it seems highly contradictory to say Qantas has a strong safety record, the nuclear industry in Australia can't be trusted and the mining industry is proof of failing government oversight when the actual incidents resultant from all three don't correlate with that at all.

Anyway, Qantas owes it's reputation of safe operation CASA and before that CAAA, no different to the safety relationship of any other company and any other regulatory body in any other industry in Australia. You may not have noticed but there isn't a single industry that operates within Australia that isn't a respective world-leader (or very close to) in safety and environmental protection. I've worked in construction management both in Australia and in the US and I an attest to the legislative driven approach working much better than the absence of bureaucracy elsewhere. Suffice to say that the level of state and federal government oversight on private operators in Australia has produced far safer industries than mostly any other country in the world so I have total faith in the system continuing to lift standards. The more high profile the industry is, the higher the standards are too. The nuclear industry like aviation and high profile construction works would be at the top of the watchlist.

And as always, these allusions to the damage caused Fukushima and Chernobyl are bunk unless we're talking about building a reactor of the same design with the same flaws and same oversights that the Soviets and the Japanese were both guilty of. Passive core cooling systems, independent of external power and using liquids that don't contain hydrogen, didn't exist when Fukushima was built, but they do now. Reservoirs designed to entrap corium didn't exist in 1987, but they do now. It's pointless using Fukushima as a baseline for the level of maximum probable risk that we expect to face from a nuclear reactor in Australia when it's practically impossible that an accident could eventuate like that from a modern reactor.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Nuclear advocates in Australia will be taken seriously when they're prepared to put an honest figure on the immense Government subsidy needed to get any nuclear generation off the ground.

 

[Craven Morehead]

Nuclear advocates in Australia will be taken seriously when they're prepared to put an honest figure on the immense Government subsidy needed to get any nuclear generation off the ground.

That would not be needed if we took the obvious step of becoming a repository for nuclear waste.
That would change, and indeed supercharge, our entire economy.

 

[Gough]

That would not be needed if we took the obvious step of becoming a repository for nuclear waste.
That would change, and indeed supercharge, our entire economy.

Fine, it can go in your backyard if it's going to be so good for the economy. You won't mind that sacrifice for the sake of the country.

 

[Craven Morehead]

Fine, it can go in your backyard if it's going to be so good for the economy. You won't mind that sacrifice for the sake of the country.

Well it's not as if it doesn't already exist all over the world and it's only a matter of time before a really serious incident occurs. Even our waste facilities, from our tiny industry, are nearing full.
We have 5,000 cubic metres of waste stored at over 100 different locations, which is just madness.
Hence your nimby argument is just silly, especially as Barndioota is about to open next year.
We have the geology and the seismic stability to be a global repository, just because most of the most suitable sites are located in SA is just unfortunate for a good ole Green, such as yourself.

 

[Maggie5]

Well it's not as if it doesn't already exist all over the world and it's only a matter of time before a really serious incident occurs. Even our waste facilities, from our tiny industry, are nearing full.
We have 5,000 cubic metres of waste stored at over 100 different locations, which is just madness.
Hence your nimby argument is just silly, especially as Barndioota is about to open next year.
We have the geology and the seismic stability to be a global repository, just because most of the most suitable sites are located in SA is just unfortunate for a good ole Green, such as yourself.

Not sure you answered Gough's question. Would you be willing to have it in your backyard?

 

[Craven Morehead]

Not sure you answered Gough's question. Would you be willing to have it in your backyard?

It's not relevant as all of the proposed sites are in Nthn SA, Eastern WA and Sthn NT.
But to appease you, as long as all the research had taken place with regards to its safety, I would not have an issue with it.

 

[Maggie5]

It's not relevant as all of the proposed sites are in Nthn SA, Eastern WA and Sthn NT.
But to appease you, as long as all the research had taken place with regards to its safety, I would not have an issue with it.

I think that you may find that despite being reassured about safety concerns, not many people would be as accepting as you.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

I think that you may find that despite being reassured about safety concerns, not many people would be as accepting as you.

I guess it's just as well there's no serious proposal to build one in somebody's backyard!

 

[Craven Morehead]

I think that you may find that despite being reassured about safety concerns, not many people would be as accepting as you.

And those same people would be outraged if an ecological disaster occurs from nuclear waste in a country which isn't as developed as ours, or if waste is stolen to create a 'dirty' bomb, (which may have happened already, depending on who you believe).
The fact remains that this isn't going away, is growing and Australia, far and away, has the safest geology, seismic stability and remote sites to safely store it at a great cost, (of course), to the originating countries.
Hawke advocated for it in the '80's but the NIMBY crowd howled him down.
There will come a time where the NIMBY's will have to be ignored and action taken.

 

[Maggie5]

And those same people would be outraged if an ecological disaster occurs from nuclear waste in a country which isn't as developed as ours, or if waste is stolen to create a 'dirty' bomb, (which may have happened already, depending on who you believe).
The fact remains that this isn't going away, is growing and Australia, far and away, has the safest geology, seismic stability and remote sites to safely store it at a great cost, (of course), to the originating countries.
Hawke advocated for it in the '80's but the NIMBY crowd howled him down.
There will come a time where the NIMBY's will have to be ignored and action taken.

I seriously don't get the word in block letters - does it make your post more effective?

I guess it's just as well there's no serious proposal to build one in somebody's backyard!

I am supposed to laugh?

 

[Craven Morehead]

I seriously don't get the word in block letters - does it make your post more effective?


I am supposed to laugh?

sigh
Not
In
My
Back
Yard.

 

[Gough]

Easy to say when it won't be in your's.

 

[Craven Morehead]

Easy to say when it won't be in your's.

You're in Adelaide, yes?
You must have one helluva big backyard!