AUKUS deal allowing Australians to discuss nuclear power
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 сер 2024
- Women in Nuclear Australia President Jasmin Diab says the AUKUS deal has allowed Australians to start discussing nuclear power.
Ms Diab joined Sky News host Chris Kenny to discuss a nuclear workshop which was held on Monday.
“It’s been really great here having people engaged in asking some of the technical questions and understanding what is peaceful nuclear technology,” she said.
Never again Labor . Never ever ever again . For the sake of Australia .
All we need is credible leadership and and credible policies, VOTE ONE NATION 🇦🇺 PROBLEM SOLVED 👍
Its the only way to power industrial output that IS low carbon.
Long term investment? No longer than a hydroelectric dam.
It seems to me looking at the Nuclear Option, that nuclear power's greatest ally is Chris Bowen. The more he talks down nuclear and talks up wind & solar, the more Australians are likely to look at the nuclear alternatives.
I think it's fair to say that many of us are now so convinced that whatever Bowen wants = the opposite is the way to go. I would like genuine economists to have a serious discussion with us and just lay out that actual costs (along with likely increases due to delays), what nuclear can and can't deliver, where these plants would need to be located (can they really just be built at the old coal fired locations?) and the fear of nuclear. In other words a warts and all approach.
A little knowledge can be dangerous. I have spent most of my working handling hazardous substances. Nuclear can be a ticket to hell. Since when did Australians ever have a mindset which was dedicated to perfection ? Australian engineers generally regard ISO9000 to be an inmpost, when it is the KEY ISSUE ! - Nuclear would require that technology in Austalia move forward. For the past 40 years, technology in Australia has gone backwards, and mainly due to the actions of luddite conservatives - The 'Liberal' Party are full of shit !
Omg! For a start, its not carbon that's the problem with climate change. When countries pursue cloud seeding, isn't that climate change as well? Let alone the Australian tectonic plate is moving to the north east at 750mm per year! If it wasn't for incentives in Australia, renewables would not be considered. But the Nuclear issue! I learnt way back in the mid 70's that electricity produced from nuclear is cheaper, but what keeps the cost high is the disposal, transport and research! Majority of that has been conducted by other countries! Finland, although going over budget and taking far longer that it should have, is rated at 1600Mw, that's one reactor! How many renewable systems are required to achieve that? Then there's the grid, all these grid connections scattered all over the country side, raping our environment, upsetting farmers! But the threat to sovereignty of our power is all about labor. Manufacturing needs cheap energy, (won't get it in Australia), but meanwhile Australia sells coal to China, their energy costs are lower than here. But we're not allowed coal or nuclear. So dependence on china to manufacture goods is well known. Why, oh why, would anyone invest in Australia where energy costs are so high??????? Labor is destroying this country, that twat Dutton couldn't do a worse job if he tried!
Does anyone think Nuclear energy will reduce electricty costs any or at all.
As long as you have a guaranteed supply of nuclear energy it will be cheap, I would say go ahead if the LNP would guarantee an Australian reserve be held from our uranium mines.
Remember there are billions of peoples world wide looking for power options.
The other issue is we keep threatening china and just one hypersonic missile could reduce a nuclear power plant to rubble, so we will need to up our missile detterents 6 nuclear subs wont cut it.
On Aukus I really cant see it going ahead in reality, I think it was a stunt aimed at China that didn't work.
Aukus Quantum Energy Deal
Well there are some legit concerns over Nuclear.
1 if you have an inland reactor where is your coolant coming from?
2. if you have an ocean reactor what about the reefs?
3. are we unfairly distributing power supply to regional parts of australia?
i can see there are basic logistical and design flaws in nuclear drive.
So maybe the green energy grid is the better solution in the end.
Since it will cost to move water.
or it may cost to the environment tourism
or it may distribute unfairly to parts of aus.
while Green energy will supply an equal unit of energy in every where they are established.
with no ongoing cost comparable to coolant transport.
and with no potential for environmental damage
The thing about green energy is , its not very green . Wind turbines blow up all the time putting dangerous toxins in the air . They are expensive to maintain . They produce very little energy ( funny about that ) . They destroy landscapes . They remove tones of organic soil from the earth . They kill wildlife both marine and air . The turbines are not recyclable . Their manufactured in China ( the 2nd biggest polluter on earth )which emboldens their economy That's just one example of green energy . I'm glad you support that . And Nuclear is the exact opposite of that by the way . If you actually know anything about safe nuclear reactors and the benefits they provide .
You need to do a bit more homework, not all reactors require huge amounts of water, thorium molten salt reactors are air cooled and the Artesian Basin is a really huge volume and area of water covering several states.
I’m not sure why you think it will affect the reefs.
Coolant would be a negligible cost if any measurable amount in the picture of things.
Green energy is not that green for a start and has large infrastructure and extra grid costs you can’t realise, it does have a high overall maintenance costs, is not reliable, recyclable or provide any base load, it doesn’t fair well in storms or bushfires, is expensive and only has a 10-30 year life if all goes well and the only reason it seems cheap is because it gets lavish grants & budget handouts that nuclear does not, solar and wind are derived from many toxic chemical processes, require large areas, sometimes destroying protected habitats of birds & wildlife or impacting on farming area’s.
Pumped Hydro is okay, but also requires huge investment input and land impact is great, takes a long time to build but also makes a great storage for excess solar & wind input and is at least a long term asset.
Nuclear is the winner for good stable, high density energy that will last for 100 years or more of cheap clean power, it could be placed near the coal powered stations and utilise some of its gear, cooling towers etc with little extra grid upgrades required which is an expensive part of solar/wind that is paid for by govt but not counted as part of the solar upgrade in costings, another false data field on solar/wind.
As far as distributing unfairly around this big nation, we have to start some where & won’t be able to flick a switch so everyone has it all at once, that will just be part of the shifting to nuclear process, one or a few at a time.
@@evil17 Current Status:
While MSRs are not yet widely deployed for commercial power generation, there is renewed interest in their development.
Countries like China are actively researching and investing in MSR technology. China’s TMSR (Thorium Molten Salt Reactor) project aims to develop a liquid-fueled thorium MSR.
Research institutions and private companies worldwide continue to explore MSRs, focusing on safety, efficiency, and sustainability.
China’s Experimental Thorium Reactor:
In August 2021, China announced the completion of its first experimental thorium-based nuclear reactor.
Located in the Gobi Desert, this reactor is currently undergoing testing.
@@evil17 it is not air cooled. It is cooled by salt flouride. Additionally. spent coolant in this case does not evaporate and is exposed directly to the radioactive core. Leaving questions of replacement logistics, aswell as disposal issues
AUKUS 😨 due to testicle loss... St.Thomas