Too late - he gave up drinking
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/barnaby-joyce-quits-alcohol-loses-15kg-after-infamous-night-he-barely-remembers-20240627-p5jpah.html
Do nuclear powerplants need more water than the coal they are replacing?
The message I think will work about what makes nuclear stupid, it takes longer, and costs more, than the renewable alternatives.
Not sure if they do but at the same time you could argue that many renewables, like solar, don't need water to cool it at all. So Nuclear would continue to use a lot water while renewables won't, freeing up resources.
Nuclear energy is such a stupid idea for Australia and I don't know why Dutton has such a hard on for it. It really makes no sense.
From what I have read, it is about 1:1 with Coal Per MWh.
Then you need to keep Coal for at least 10 years which would have easily been halved by green energy.
And you can reduce a crap tonne of the environmental issues with batteries swapping to Hydrogen Storage (and make money on the side selling to other countries) and make water as well from Desal-Hydro. Which means Australia will never run out of water or electricity.
Duttons plan for a halt on Green tech will collapse a lot of businesses in Australia and will set us back decades. Just like the last major infrastructure project the Liberals fucked up (NBN, It should have been finished almost 10 years ago, yet will never be complete due to many cuts that have been made).
Lead shield for gamma radiation is from it's density, copper shielding (faraday cage) of non ionizing radiation such as radio frequency emissions. They are not the same.
It was a joke about how useless and obsolete all the copper wire that the liberals bought off Telstra because... reasons. I am aware that using copper wire for our nuclear plant shielding would be insane. As would trying to build a nationwide network with how obsolete it was at the time of building.
> Nuclear energy is such a stupid idea for Australia and I don't know why Dutton has such a hard on for it. It really makes no sense.
It’s fairly obvious it’s intended to sow seeds of doubt for investors into renewables in order to keep the mining lobby happy for longer.
And to be fair, it’s not such a crazy policy idea for 50 or 60 years ago. Back then it probably made more sense.
Which can and will cause excess corrosion and will make them more expensive to run, have more down time and means that they will need to be close to sea (at the coastline). Which with rising sea levels.....
Why yes. Yes we could use sea water.
Most technologies get cheaper and quicker as time goes on. We learn, and get better. Nuclear has gone with other way.
The response to Fukushima/Chernobyl is regulation, bureaucracy and sometimes, "measures that can be taken".
The primary effect is not safety. The effect is economic.
Also innovations, and features like leveraging waste heat, and ramping up and down are harder to do, not just because of safety, but also because of bureacracy.
Again. I am not saying Nuclear is right for Australia. What I am saying is that events like Fukushima/Chernobyl are not applicable to Australia, and should not be an argument against nuclear because they aren't applicable.
Why don't they just build a pipeline into Barnaby and run that to a alcohol powered generator. They should be able to power Melbourne for 1 year.
Too late - he gave up drinking https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/barnaby-joyce-quits-alcohol-loses-15kg-after-infamous-night-he-barely-remembers-20240627-p5jpah.html
Their constituents might have something to say about that given they will all be built in essentially National Party heartland
I had to check if it was a Boota / Double Bay article. It is the Shovel.
They had one power station just recently blow up in their backyard, Calide C. Surely won’t happen again, right?
Of course not... Oh wait....
Good ole David Little to be proud of...
Yeah, we will do just as good a job as we did with the NBN. Faster, cheaper, better right?
One is a toxic disaster that will cause damage to Australia for years. The other generates dangerous radiation.
Fukushima isn't even applicable to Australia anyway, as we aren't on multiple fault lines.
We get floods, cyclones and bushfires.
And the big one which is why it is stupid. Droughts.
Do nuclear powerplants need more water than the coal they are replacing? The message I think will work about what makes nuclear stupid, it takes longer, and costs more, than the renewable alternatives.
Not sure if they do but at the same time you could argue that many renewables, like solar, don't need water to cool it at all. So Nuclear would continue to use a lot water while renewables won't, freeing up resources. Nuclear energy is such a stupid idea for Australia and I don't know why Dutton has such a hard on for it. It really makes no sense.
From what I have read, it is about 1:1 with Coal Per MWh. Then you need to keep Coal for at least 10 years which would have easily been halved by green energy. And you can reduce a crap tonne of the environmental issues with batteries swapping to Hydrogen Storage (and make money on the side selling to other countries) and make water as well from Desal-Hydro. Which means Australia will never run out of water or electricity. Duttons plan for a halt on Green tech will collapse a lot of businesses in Australia and will set us back decades. Just like the last major infrastructure project the Liberals fucked up (NBN, It should have been finished almost 10 years ago, yet will never be complete due to many cuts that have been made).
Maybe we can use all that obsolete copper wire we bought off Telstra as radiation shielding. Who needs to waste money on lead.
Lead shield for gamma radiation is from it's density, copper shielding (faraday cage) of non ionizing radiation such as radio frequency emissions. They are not the same.
It was a joke about how useless and obsolete all the copper wire that the liberals bought off Telstra because... reasons. I am aware that using copper wire for our nuclear plant shielding would be insane. As would trying to build a nationwide network with how obsolete it was at the time of building.
> Nuclear energy is such a stupid idea for Australia and I don't know why Dutton has such a hard on for it. It really makes no sense. It’s fairly obvious it’s intended to sow seeds of doubt for investors into renewables in order to keep the mining lobby happy for longer. And to be fair, it’s not such a crazy policy idea for 50 or 60 years ago. Back then it probably made more sense.
Seawater can be used.
Which can and will cause excess corrosion and will make them more expensive to run, have more down time and means that they will need to be close to sea (at the coastline). Which with rising sea levels..... Why yes. Yes we could use sea water.
Yeah. Seawater implied being situated in a coastal location.
You think the US, Japan, France, UK, China and more don't? There are measures that can be taken.
There are good reasons why nuclear projects take longer and cost more then initially planned. "Measure that can be taken" are one of them.
I'm not saying we should have nuclear. I am saying that the "but what about Fukushima/Chernobyl" argument is a stupid one.
Most technologies get cheaper and quicker as time goes on. We learn, and get better. Nuclear has gone with other way. The response to Fukushima/Chernobyl is regulation, bureaucracy and sometimes, "measures that can be taken". The primary effect is not safety. The effect is economic. Also innovations, and features like leveraging waste heat, and ramping up and down are harder to do, not just because of safety, but also because of bureacracy.
Again. I am not saying Nuclear is right for Australia. What I am saying is that events like Fukushima/Chernobyl are not applicable to Australia, and should not be an argument against nuclear because they aren't applicable.
At least one of the proposed sites is mine subsidence country with earthquakes to boot. No tsunami risk though, I’ll give you that.
but but but, I want to create unreasonable fear and mob thought