The Nuclear debate

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

California, the sixth largest economy in the world has managed 100% renewables for 17 out of the last 18 days.
We simply don't need nuclear energy here. It is very expensive, has terrible risks and there is currently no solution to the problem of disposing of dangerous radioactive waste. I really can't understand why Dutton has made such a big deal about it. The numbers don't stack up.
 
Dutton should stick to the immigration refugee FUD.

Like when they lambasted the Gillard govt for letting it run out of control but did everything they could in parliament to make it hard to resolve it…with patsy Green support

Maybe the teals should not only entrench their seats, but go after green seats too?


I like to think the electorate is smarter now though
 
I wasn't sure where to post this, there was no thread that really suited it. Hydrogen resources are a factor in the nuclear debate so here it is. A number of Australian firms are starting to drill for 'natural' hydrogen both here and the US


For those who don't know, 'natural' or gold hydrogen often occurs in association with traditional fossil fuel deposits, though it can be created in other geological ways. For decades it was believed hydrogen didn't accumulate underground as it is a small, slippery molecule. This turned out to be wrong. Natural H2 was discovered while drilling a water well in Bourakébougou, Mali in 1987 and by 2012 it was used as an energy source. Estimates of reserves are pretty foggy and it's not clear whether it will live up to the hype. Time will tell.
 
It's not only the cost to build, but we literally have no nuclear energy industry, its starting from scratch, So ignore the 370 Billion dollar estimate, It's much higher. The figure of 300-400 billion is just to build and start, nothing to do with basically no established industry

it's cost is higher then wind/Solar, We ignore other alternatives like tidal which would be amazing for places like north queensland, North West Australia and the NT

it's just a "whataboutism" There is a debate to be had, that's fine, but to launch it as policy is insane, Just say "Hey we want a look into if we could do this", yeah fine, or "We should make baby steps in the industry incase" yeah fine

proposing it? Batshit insane
 
California, the sixth largest economy in the world has managed 100% renewables for 17 out of the last 18 days.
We simply don't need nuclear energy here. It is very expensive, has terrible risks and there is currently no solution to the problem of disposing of dangerous radioactive waste. I really can't understand why Dutton has made such a big deal about it. The numbers don't stack up.
did you miss the Dick Smith debacle.

Smith made a claim, which was wrong, for fact checked, got upset, got on Sky news

Then tried to rephrase it and still got it wrong.


All in all, Sky News backed another loser (topic)
 
It's not only the cost to build, but we literally have no nuclear energy industry, its starting from scratch, So ignore the 370 Billion dollar estimate, It's much higher. The figure of 300-400 billion is just to build and start, nothing to do with basically no established industry

it's cost is higher then wind/Solar, We ignore other alternatives like tidal which would be amazing for places like north queensland, North West Australia and the NT

it's just a "whataboutism" There is a debate to be had, that's fine, but to launch it as policy is insane, Just say "Hey we want a look into if we could do this", yeah fine, or "We should make baby steps in the industry incase" yeah fine

proposing it? Batshit insane
What seems to be lost in any talk of nuclear and the costs to set up is, the amount the French, Chinese or American company will charge in order to get a return on investment for funding the project.
 
Australia is the worlds largest exporter of gas, yet we pay one of the highest prices in the world, politicians and lobbyists constantly use the high price of gas to push for the opening of more gas fields, which is then shipped overseas.

So when I hear anyone say nuclear wil be cheap, I think of the above and think it’s just another con
 
Australia is the worlds largest exporter of gas, yet we pay one of the highest prices in the world, politicians and lobbyists constantly use the high price of gas to push for the opening of more gas fields, which is then shipped overseas.

So when I hear anyone say nuclear wil be cheap, I think of the above and think it’s just another con
Australian gas is 87% foreign owned as well.

Young people pay more revenue from HECS than the government receives in Petroleum Resource Rent Tax.

It is beyond a con - it is a national disgrace.
 
Australian gas is 87% foreign owned as well.

Young people pay more revenue from HECS than the government receives in Petroleum Resource Rent Tax.

It is beyond a con - it is a national disgrace.
I work in the Power industry, we are Hong Kong owned, the same company owns 3/4 of the Vic electricity grid, all profits go offshore and guess what, they don’t pay tax.

Great job and place to work though but people would be shocked at how old some of the stuff is, nuclear would be no different, foreign owned and run for max profit.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top