Nuclear power: yes or no?

General discussions that don't fit in other forums can go here.
Forum rules
Feel free to discuss any topics here. Please use the Politics sub-forum for political conversations. While most topics will be allowed please be sure to be respectful and follow our normal site rules at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/rules.php.

Base load power generation

Coal
0
No votes
Gas
0
No votes
Nuclear fission
24
52%
Nuclear fusion
8
17%
Battery storage and renewables
11
24%
Other (?)
3
7%
 
Total votes: 46

Message
Author
Wusti
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:12 pm
Karma: 186

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#81 Post by Wusti » Wed Dec 29, 2021 12:50 pm

Lying is a strong word Octavious, and even I haven't used it in reference to anyone else, and I'd ask you not do the same to me. I have a good faith belief in everything I've said. Stating that I might be wrong would be an opinion of yours, but asserting that I knowingly publicise falsehood is something else again.

I also stick by my primary assertion that total emissions reduction is the only real measure, and that per capita comparisons are used more for political purposes than anything else.

If you really think I'm lying - cite your sources, and then go on to tell everyone exactly how I knew all about it and told a lie anyway.
Octavious is an hypocritical, supercilious tit.

Octavious
Posts: 2726
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2088
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#82 Post by Octavious » Wed Dec 29, 2021 8:47 pm

Just the silly little lie about me saying that shipping has negligible emissions. Nothing to get excited about, and not worth mentioning if it not for you repeating it despite it being pointed out, and then taking the holier than thou line in the later post :razz:

But no, it's not a particularly strong word. Just don't do it ;)
1
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience

Wusti
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:12 pm
Karma: 186

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#83 Post by Wusti » Wed Dec 29, 2021 11:43 pm

Octavious wrote:
Wed Dec 22, 2021 8:17 am
Shipping is remarkably light in terms of carbon emissions...
That's really not true is it? Liar, liar pants on fire.
Octavious is an hypocritical, supercilious tit.

Octavious
Posts: 2726
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2088
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#84 Post by Octavious » Wed Dec 29, 2021 11:56 pm

Yes, it is.

What you said, by contrast, is not
1
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience

Wusti
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:12 pm
Karma: 186

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#85 Post by Wusti » Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:21 am

Octavious wrote:
Wed Dec 29, 2021 11:56 pm
Yes, it is.

What you said, by contrast, is not
Haha OK so 20% is light? Gee

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport

Australian figures are 18.9% and falling against both per capita and per GDP$

https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/defau ... gure-1.png

But in absolute terms, not so good:

https://images.theconversation.com/file ... 0&fit=clip

So Octavious, if 18.9 - 20% is light, Australia contributing 1% to global emissions must be less than negligible no?

To those who also cite per capita emissions - well it's not the whole story is it?

Seriously nit-pickers who provide no sources or proof of their own, I'm done responding to you.
Octavious is an hypocritical, supercilious tit.

Octavious
Posts: 2726
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2088
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#86 Post by Octavious » Thu Dec 30, 2021 9:59 am

I'm seeing your links, but I'm not seeing where they contradict me. I'm also not seeing why you're so fixate on percentages when they don't strike me as being at all relevant to my statement.
1
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience

kestasjk
Co-Owner
Co-Owner
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:13 pm
Location: Perth, Australia
Karma: 383
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#87 Post by kestasjk » Fri Dec 31, 2021 3:45 am

flash2015 wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 4:46 pm
Using nuclear power in Australia is pure fantasy. Australians are some of the worst NIMBYs on the planet. No-one will want this near them AT ALL. Just look at the fight that went on with Sydney airport. It took almost 50 years to break ground on it (it was originally proposed in 1973). I remember the Bondi locals blocking a train link to the beach only because they didn't want the great unwashed to have access.

While Australia is a massive country, it is very dry. Nuclear relies on a reliable water source. Likely you would need to put it on the coastline somewhere so that it can use seawater for cooling. Where specifically would you put it? You can't just say Australia is big and wave hands. If it isn't the NIMBYs which will stop this it will be the environmentalists (or NIMBYs claiming they are environmentalists)...guaranteed they will tie any proposals for years, if not decades.

If someone asked me which would come first - a permanent human settlement on Mars or a nuclear reactor in Australia...I would go with the Mars settlement.
It’s sad but I think you’re right .. We tried to build a highway to service the growing port of Fremantle for West Australia. At the moment to get to our port you’ve got to go through a dozen traffic lights; every WA export has a trucks-braking-12-times-along-leach-hwy-tax , with big carbon emissions associated..
But in came the people who didn’t want their house prices at risk from a big highway, and they attacked it by pretending to care that a swamp / “wetlands” would get a road through it (and also a bike path). The alternative was to build a new deep water port, involving massive dredging, or the status quo of trucking everything via a tiny road with way too many stops.. but that didn’t matter.. they had to protect the swamp.

@Wusti: Are you still trying to justify how you can ignore that our per-person carbon output is so high by saying Australians can’t help it? You’re giving examples like our shipping or inter-capital travel being way higher, I can’t vouch for that really Ive probably done fewer miles / year here than in I did when I lived in the UK (except when I did a road tour .. of Europe) but that might just be me.

But you know where we do have a choice? Our choice to use fossil fuel based electricity, and that’s a huge part of our total carbon output, whether you say your city hopping lifestyle is unavoidable or not.
In part it’s because renewables are only just coming in, that’s probably 30-50% of the problem and we’re overcoming it, but the rest of the problem is that we’re not adopting nuclear.
2

Wusti
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:12 pm
Karma: 186

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#88 Post by Wusti » Fri Dec 31, 2021 6:40 am

@ Kestas, I'm not saying that at all.

I've said all along that we need to take action on global warming.

My arguments were against the singular use of per capita emission as the only benchmark - and I demonstrated why above: per capita emissions falling, but overall emissions increasing. IN an immigrant driven, vast country like Australia, I simply don't believe per capita is the best measure, and we need to bring down total emissions, and measure ourselves on THAT, not a politically driven, biased measure like per capita. Guess what? If you reduce overall emissions, per capita should go down too, and in an immigrant driven nation like Australia - even more so. So what the literal fuck is your problem?

I also argue with your premise that Nuclear is the only answer. As per a link I provided (you mustn't have read it I guess?) AEMO, and the government have both estimated Australia's total energy generation capacity will feature 60-70% renewables and storage by 2030. That's not incredibly fast, but its not shabby either. With the continued development of alternative hydrogen based fuels, its entirely feasible to lift that to 90% by 2035-40.

I make mention of transport and shipping because its currently a BIG contributor (@ 20% or thereabouts globally), and the absolute hardest to do anything significant about - particularly for freight. I know Tesla is working on large electric vehicles but to make a dent it needs to be feasible universally, and use market signals to price old style haulers and freighters out (both land and sea).

I'm doing my bit, threw out all my petrol powered gardening equipment today and replaced it with all electric tools. I am also ditching one of our petrol cars in favour of a Tesla next month, and installing solar to my new house.

I am a committed global warming believer, I am doing my bit to reduce my personal emissions, and expect governments to do theirs by implementing a sane and reasonable path to de-carbonising our economy.

Apparently this makes me a liar, a fossil fuel lobby apologist, an environmental vandal and unwilling to listen to inconvenient truths - then told that I'm the loony one.

Seriously you guys, I don't even know why you are arguing with me.
Octavious is an hypocritical, supercilious tit.

Octavious
Posts: 2726
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2088
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#89 Post by Octavious » Fri Dec 31, 2021 7:06 am

Buying a luxury car and a load of new gardening tools is doing your bit???

You're just taking the piss now, aren't you? Well played, for a while there I thought you were being serious :lol:
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience

MajorMitchell
Posts: 1289
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:05 am
Location: Now Performing Comedic Artist Dusty Balzac Bush Philosopher from Flyblown Gully by the Sea
Karma: 674

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#90 Post by MajorMitchell » Fri Dec 31, 2021 1:20 pm

Thanks flash, I am happy to agree in general terms with your recent post. Commendable balanced, sensible effort and "on target "

Octavious
Posts: 2726
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2088
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#91 Post by Octavious » Fri Dec 31, 2021 2:01 pm

Let's take a moment to say a fond farewell to the nuclear reactors of Brokdorf, Grohnde and Gundremmingen C that are being turned off today as part of Germany's short sighted Green movement

Isar 2, Emsland and Neckarwestheim II will continue the fight against climate change for another year before they too are terminated before their time.

By way of contrast Germany has given itself nearly two more decades to turn off its coal fired power stations, that have the green light to continue generating power until 2038.

Huzzah for Germany's glorious Green Party and its exciting future as part of the ruling coalition. :eyeroll:
1
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience

Wusti
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:12 pm
Karma: 186

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#92 Post by Wusti » Fri Dec 31, 2021 2:35 pm

Fossil and fissile fuels are as bad as each other.
Octavious is an hypocritical, supercilious tit.

Wusti
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:12 pm
Karma: 186

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#93 Post by Wusti » Fri Dec 31, 2021 2:37 pm

Octavious wrote:
Fri Dec 31, 2021 7:06 am
Buying a luxury car and a load of new gardening tools is doing your bit???

You're just taking the piss now, aren't you? Well played, for a while there I thought you were being serious :lol:
Oh and exactly what the fuck have you done lately to reduce your personal carbon footprint? Oh and btw its a fucking Model 3 you spurious turd.
Octavious is an hypocritical, supercilious tit.

Octavious
Posts: 2726
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2088
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#94 Post by Octavious » Fri Dec 31, 2021 3:18 pm

Wusti wrote:
Fri Dec 31, 2021 2:37 pm
Oh and exactly what the fuck have you done lately to reduce your personal carbon footprint
That's kinda my point. I've done feck all, aside from not flying anywhere which wasn't really my choice. And yet I can confidently say that my carbon footprint is considerably lower than yours because you're the sort of person who thinks replacing one of your cars with a Tesla is a good environmental option.
Wusti wrote:
Fri Dec 31, 2021 2:37 pm
Oh and btw its a fucking Model 3 you spurious turd.
I suspect you are making what you believe is a winning point here, but I can't for the life of me work out what it is. The relevance of it being a Model 3 is what?
1
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience

Wusti
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:12 pm
Karma: 186

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#95 Post by Wusti » Fri Dec 31, 2021 3:54 pm

Hahaha - its comparatively cheap ( about $60K AUD capex)

Also - thank you for proving your spurious turdity (turdness? not quite sure but I'm sure you'll set us all straight).
Octavious is an hypocritical, supercilious tit.

kestasjk
Co-Owner
Co-Owner
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:13 pm
Location: Perth, Australia
Karma: 383
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#96 Post by kestasjk » Fri Dec 31, 2021 11:20 pm

Seriously you guys, I don't even know why you are arguing with me.
*facepalm* This is why:
Wusti wrote:
Fri Dec 31, 2021 2:35 pm
Fossil and fissile fuels are as bad as each other.
They are not.

All the absurdity about per capita emissions not mattering was you squirming out of the "fossil and fissile fuels are as bad as each other" argument by trying to argue that your per capita emissions don't matter, so fossil fuels are a valid option. You make that into an argument about whether a car is a Tesla model 3 or not, to ignore the fundamental point that you are arguing for fossil fuels, I am arguing for nuclear.


(Hope that little recap helped: Just as a reminder; we've already been over nuclear being safe, how we need base load electricity, etc.

You've also acknowledged nuclear is a fine option in other countries, and other countries shouldn't use fossil fuels because their emissions matter more somehow, so we're only arguing for nuclear in Australia and we agree it's a good solution for other countries where emissions do matter, but here it's an abomination we should never resort to.


You don't seem to remember what we're arguing about here, so just want to try and keep us from going in circles.)
2

Wusti
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:12 pm
Karma: 186

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#97 Post by Wusti » Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:01 am

Selective reading is all the rage these days eh?

For absolute clarity, since you lot who disagree with me seem to only want to cherry pick bits of what I have said:

1. I believe Fission is every bit as bad as fossil fuels, as they swap qty for toxicity and longevity. It is the ultimate curse to hand to future generations, long half-life nuclear waste. Nothing you have said anywhere in this thread has made an even token attempt to disprove it.

2. I have always said that the future energy mix will be geography specific, based on local natural resources and advantages

3. In the Australian context, we have such an abundance of alternatives that Nuclear here is a ridiculous proposition (whether it be Uranium or Thorium-based). I provided supporting evidence that both the Australian Energy Market Operator, and the government expect with project on line and underway, Australia will see 60-70% of all energy fed into the grid will be from renewable sources by 2030. Why on god's earth would you then insert Nuclear for the rest? It's a totally nonsensical idea.

4. I also stated that your concepts of baseload and massive central power generation is changing, and the new normal, will be de-centralised, distributed grids with many more smaller contributors. This will be part of the enabling platform for alternative energy sources

5. I also said that in other geographies, particularly those without our wealth of renewable sources, it may make sense to go nuclear as the only reasonable route to de-carbonising their economies. That's not to say I like it, but if the higher priority for them is de-carbonisation, then in some instances it may be the only feasible route. I would caveat this by saying if renewable resources exist in sufficient abundance, then I would push Nuclear off the table there too.

6. Given the AEMO and Government forecasts of 60-70% renewables in the Australian grid by 2030, I stand by allowing (preferably Gas) power generation to continue during the transition period. This is because investing in Nuclear in a country with literally ZERO nuclear industry (ANSTO doesn't really classify here), or power generation is about as stupid as stupid gets. That's not to say I am advocating building new fossil fuel power facilities - they will retire as their capacity is replaced, and yes, I'm fine with that.

7. In reference to Australia, after being whacked with the per capita stick, I argued it is not the only benchmark, and that it places Australia at a comparative disadvantage. I went further to say its a political tool rather than objective one, and cited sources showing why. Per capita measures can decrease when the total gross amount increases - and that therefore total net emissions is the benchmark we should set.

THAT IS NOT SQUIRMING, and not one of you has disproved my assertions.

8. No I'm not a NIMBY, I can see the lone Australian nuclear reactor facility from the top story of my house, and actively support it for research and medical isotope production.

No inconsistency, no squirming, just realism and common sense.

Oh, and Kestas - just saying "No it is not" is proof of nothing.
Octavious is an hypocritical, supercilious tit.

Yonni
Silver Donator
Silver Donator
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:55 pm
Karma: 278

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#98 Post by Yonni » Sun Jan 02, 2022 4:19 am

I don't think storing spent nuclear fuel in a deep geological repository is as large of a technical challenge as you believe it is.

I also think that the scale and immediacy of climate change is greatly understated in your comparison to the dangers of spent nuclear fuel.

(But I likewise don't have much faith in the sluggishness of the nuclear industry to solve climate crises)

Wusti
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:12 pm
Karma: 186

Re: Nuclear power: yes or no?

#99 Post by Wusti » Sun Jan 02, 2022 7:54 am

Yonni wrote:
Sun Jan 02, 2022 4:19 am
I don't think storing spent nuclear fuel in a deep geological repository is as large of a technical challenge as you believe it is.

I also think that the scale and immediacy of climate change is greatly understated in your comparison to the dangers of spent nuclear fuel.

(But I likewise don't have much faith in the sluggishness of the nuclear industry to solve climate crises)
I wouldn't say I object to it on technical grounds, but large scale storage remains part of it.

My main objection is one of inter-generational transfer.

Our industry and convenience relies on energy now, but the costs associated with fossil fuels seem to be universally acknowledged, whereas the sheer timespan that nuclear waste remains dangerous is denied due to lower volumes of waste. My point against both fossil and fissile fuels is that our utility now, incurs a cost to those who follow (whether it be climate change or the lasting perils of nuclear waste).

Both fossil and fissile fuels should be at the bottom of the pile of alternatives, and that all other options should be exhausted before resorting to them.
Octavious is an hypocritical, supercilious tit.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests