Well, I think if the effort and incentives were put in by government and industry, I know we can do it with renewable energy, but I suspect, some in government and industry to really drag their heels, so they personally don't lose money from burning oil, coal and gas. So if we had to go nuclear, I would prefer, it to be Thorium powered plants, not as "dirty" as uranium powered plants.

-- Edited by Bicyclecamper on Tuesday 7th of June 2022 09:15:46 PM

South Australia, says so, 92% renewable. The other thing is, John Smiths dad, owns a coal powered power plant. His dad pays $140 per ton of coal to generate 2.5 kw, of power, Fred Jones's dad owns a renewable power plant, he pays $0.55 to generate power from 2.5 kw of solar panels, who is making the most money here and doing it cleanly, it is the customer of that renewable power, because he has more money in his pocket at the end of the day.

Why one spreads the inputs around. At about 2.5% transmission loss per 1000km we could run a cable to New Zealand, Singapore, Christmas Island, Noumea etc, apart from spreading it around Australia. Problem solved.

Corndoggy wrote:

---

And on a cloudy overcast winters day, or week, those same solar panels can only make 0.5 kw of power.

---

 Very true and to makes thing worse than that one of our biggest solar farms in the NT has been there since 2016 but according to current reports is still not connected to the grid.

I think it was on another topic on here from some time ago that it was claimed by a member that this project could supply power to our northern neighbours but if we cant even connect it to our own grid then what the hell is the point.

Is having these solar panels and other projects of wind farms etc just like a bloke with a shiny belt buckle. It looks impressive, it makes a statement but his trousers could have been still held up with an ordinary belt and buckle.

Another thing to consider is the life of the panels themselves. It appears to me that we could take 6 years off the value of these panels.

Bycycle dude, this fact eats away into your claims of Fred Jones dad and his cost.

It is amazing but not surprising how good these projects look on paper but in practice they appear to be an entire different kettle of fish so to speak.

I wonder could we add to Fred Jones dads profits with the monies that has been paid to him by Australian Governments or in reality, us, the tax payer, to build this project.

If watching the link in the first post it covers a lot of these anomalies and asks the question of whether we will survive as a country while trying to live with a deficit in our ability to provide the power we need to all Australians.

All this and this major upheaval to our power supplies is a fruitless exercise particularly when we had the resources and the infrastructure to keep our country running.

 

I like how people quote SA on how green they are. they never mention that state has the most expensive power of all states.

Everyone wants to be green, in my case I equate that to clean air to breathe when I go for a walk with the family on weekends.

It will happen, but I don't understand why it has to happen today.

mixo

I don't mind the look of wind farms, have been around a few in SA & northern Qld, but then again there are people who fine coal fired power stations & the mountains of coal & infrastructure attractive.

Ivan 01 wrote:

---

Gundog wrote:

---

Think about this, the big push to have net zero comes from urban cities.

Funny its rural Australia that has to bare the ugly wind farms, and prime agriculture land is being over taken by massive solar farms, so isnt it about time the city puts some wind and solar farms in their parklands.

---

 You might mean like this gundog.

---

 Yes 

but you will hear the cries oh you have ruined the ambience of our street, I cannot sleep because of the noise of the thjings.

Ivan 01 wrote:

---

Tony Bev wrote:

---

I am always reluctant to take the results of a Poll, as gospel

Especially a Poll which I, or any of my friends, knew nothing about

---

 I Have to agree with your comment on polls.

I can not remember when I was ever asked a poll question on any subject at all.

However the poll was not the entire subject of the interview.

There were points raised in the content of the broadcast which have merit and are worthy of discussion.
It is a shame that from the entire report you only gained the lack of coverage of a poll.

-- Edited by Ivan 01 on Wednesday 8th of June 2022 08:20:35 AM

---

 Hi Ivan 01

My opinion, of what I was listening to, (and I could have misinterpreted what was said).

I thought that the gentleman was pushing his own wheelbarrow, and asked a loaded question

He was saying that in a poll of over 1,000 people (1,005), which asked "Australia should build nuclear power plants to supply electricity and reduce carbon emissions"
Agree 53% Disagree 23% Neither 24%

I honestly do not believe that the views of 1,005 Australian people, should warrant a discussion on building a Nuclear Power Station

On the other hand, if someone was to bring up two topics, such as 

1. Should we build Nuclear Power Stations in Australia
   And
2. Should we Reduce Carbon Emissions in Australia

Then I would probably participate in those two topics

Getting back to the  uTube vid
The gentleman also said something about a section of an Act that stops a minister from approving a new Nuclear Power Station, and wanted us to debate it, or words to that effect 

Once again my own opinion is that:-

There is a very simple solution, at the next election, those 53% who wish to have Nuclear Power Stations, could vote in their own candidates

 

I was very surprised to near the results of the survey because, from memory, the majority of Australians did NOT support nuclear fission power plants. The major concern was the waste problem and the fallout problem from accidents such as Fukushima and Chernobyl. It may be different for fusion.

 

So I looked up that institute's details on Wikipedia:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Public_Affairs

 

It certainly seems more political than scientific so, like others have mentioned, I am also suspicious of the poll. Were the people selected to give desired results? How many people were polled? Was it only a thousand? Is a thousand really representative of tens of millions?

 

Nuclear fission power plants are certainly polarising. Almost as polarising as... wait for it... jam then cream or cream then jam on scones?    (I certainly hope that this discussion doesn't deteriorate like others.)

 

It is also interesting that nuclear power plants are decreasing world wide. Daniel Wild was quick to point out the increase in nuclear power in some countries, such as, France and USA but didn't mention the decline in other countries such as Germany and Japan.

We certainly have to do something about base load electricity. That's probably why the IPCC and the IEA think that nuclear is needed to meet net zero CO² targets. However, it takes 10 to 21 years to build a nuclear plant and we need to do something within the decade to meet net zero.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25433881-800-do-we-need-nuclear-power-in-the-energy-mix-to-stop-climate-change/?utm_campaign=RSS%7CNSNS&utm_source=NSNS&utm_medium=RSS&utm_content=currents

 

There are alternatives that could be implemented much faster and potentially less dangerous. (Many new nuclear plants are a decade or so behind on delivery. However, China, and other countries, do regularly deliver on time.)

For instance, community batteries can help balance the local loads.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-05/community-battery-in-melbourne-unveiled/101127080

 

We've recently seen, I think it was Dorian, mention using windlass like generators in disused mine shafts.

https://thegreynomads.activeboard.com/t68502125/excess-solar-into-grid/?page=1#comment-68502125

There are also thermal blocks developed but the Queensland University that can be used in old coal power stations to store excess energy. Pumped hydro.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-08/thermal-blocks-technology-to-convert-coal-fired-power-station/12638462

Maybe these technologies could be used to supply that base load whilst we wait for the supposedly cleaner nuclear fusion power plants.

Personally I'd prefer not to have nuclear fission power plants considering that there are other safer and cleaner alternatives.

I should add in fairness that Buzz has at least given us his views and some findings on helping with suggestions for base load power as he put it while we may wait for the reliable or a cleaner alternative.

I did read your links Buzz as you did listen and watch the interview in the original post by Clarky.

In the interest of good debate I was not going to make a mockery of Nett Zero

We can barely raise a comment so maybe this may provoke some thought.

120 trillion dollars watch if you want another view

https://fb.watch/dB78AxY52O/

It looks like it about time that a government should something to ensure energy security rather than business as usual.