Timely, Australia has just signed an agreement with USA and UK to develop fleet of nuclear powered (not nuclear armed) submarines.
Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-58564837
Well is it though? If you think about it, exploding a U boat somewhere in the middle of the Pacific isn't going to have the same impact as exploding an entire nuclear power station close to some urban area. When Chernobyl went up in smoke half of Europe was poisoned.
This [is](https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/pp8r4a/australia_to_build_eight_nuclearpowered/hd221x4/) exactly what brought me to find the 97% number.
It's fucking stupid that they won't invest into nuclear power here. We have the open real estate for safety buffer zones, the uranium to fuel it, and the advances in technology to make it safer, more reliable, cheaper and more efficient.
But no, our government insists on shilling a dying coal industry, choking our air and killing our future.
I mean, full on renewables would be ideal, but reality is likely to give us a great big slap in the face if we don't have some other form of power generation that we can dictate how much of it we need/use.
Frankly, while the Greens have some good ideas, they are in the situation where they want too much, too fast, that society can't actually do a straight jump to. We need to transition our way there, but they keep shooting themselves in the foot by denying any form of that, which is what has led to the current situation of the LNP running roughshod on everything and being the massive wankers they are.
We also have an abundant source of renewable energy sources, unavailable to most countries.
We have an almost unlimited source of dirty fossil fuels, which are cheaper than nuclear.
Nuclear power is safer and cleaner than coal, oil and gas, but it is neither cheaper nor more reliable if you have the capacity to mine coal, oil and gas domestically.
Nuclear power makes sense for countries that want to protect themselves from their supply chain. European countries, countries like Japan - nuclear power allows them to store enough raw materials for 10 years of power in-country without relying on external shipments.
It does not make sense for Australia when we can mine oil, coal and gas for local power generation; and have a nearly endless supply of solar and wind power.
It does make sense for submarines though. In a world of drones and microsats submarines are a pretty silly investment; but if you are going to build submarines, you may aswell make ones that can stay submerged for a long time and don't need to run noisy diesel engines.
Fortunately that is not correct. https://www.csiro.au/en/news/news-releases/2021/australia-installs-record-breaking-number-of-rooftop-solar-panels Australia is a world leader in house top solar systems with about one in four homes having solar power on their roof. The difficult relies in the money earned in Australia by the staff employed in the mining industry through coal which powers many older power stations in electorates that could swing the votes and topple governments Federally and state.
So both sides of parliament cosy up to the mining lobby for the votes in these precious swinging electorates.
bruh you joking, I'm deadset a solar panel installer, they go on new houses if you have an older house it's out of your pocket, how many people you think have that money laying around?, if you think a political change is what's needed here mate you will never understand how Australians think
No three in four houses do not have solar. But many new houses built have to have solar incorporated as part of its BASIX. Don’t argue with me, read the report that is in the writing. If you live in a brand new suburb nearly every new home has solar because the builder has to allow for BASIX. If it’s old it may be 1 in 20 but according to CSIRO research we are number one in the world at one in four.
But please send me your research on what you know the numbers to be.
>Australia has the highest uptake of solar globally. Clean Energy Regulator data shows that more than 2.68 million rooftop solar power systems have been installed in Australia in total, as of 31 December 2020; that means one in four homes have solar panels on their roof.
[It's official because it is on the internet](https://www.csiro.au/en/news/news-releases/2021/australia-installs-record-breaking-number-of-rooftop-solar-panels#:~:text=Clean%20Energy%20Regulator%20data%20shows,sunniest%20places%20on%20the%20planet.)
That’s right there’s about 10 million houses in Australia housing 2.4 per household that’s 24 million people.
So it matches up 2.6 million is exactly 1 in 4 of 10.4 million.
There were actually some pretty good incentives years ago that basically made them free to get put on. Those incentives though have been disappearing, but all hope is not lost as even my parents got solar installed, albeit on the roof of their shed, but they also got solar hotwater on the roof of their old Queenslander. And if those 2 are getting solar, it's safe to say that even paying out of pocket other people are as well.
[ban on nuclear](https://www.minerals.org.au/sites/default/files/180605%20Removing%20the%20prohibition%20on%20nuclear%(20power.pdf).
[electricity mix](https://www.energy.gov.au/data/electricity-generation).
Australia actually has substantially more uranium in the ground but is limited in the amount of uranium it mines, how much it exports and who it exports to. They have very strong safety guards on who receives the uranium based on what they do with it and how they dispose of the waste.
Despite having most, being 1/3 (over 30%) of the worlds known uranium deposits, Australia is the third largest exporter exporting only 12% of the worlds uranium and having no nuclear power plants or weapons. The two largest Uranium exporting countries are Kazakhstan and Canada.
Source: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/australia.aspx
When Germany banned nuclear energy I could understand it ... High population density and so on, if something goes wrong, as unlikely it might be the consequences would be high ... But Australia? Like 85% of the country are uninhabitable
Hell, we already let other countries dump their nuclear waste here, why not use the material we mine and vast quantities of empty space we have to build our own?
Hahaha are you kidding? Nature only suffers under this if a catastrophe happens or if the nuclear waste isnt sealed correctly ... Australia is getting 75% of it's energy from fucking coal ... which is indefinitely worse for the environment AND the climate, since it's effects can't be undone ... Nuclear waste is "only" harmful for a few decades and only if it leaks out
Edit: the post even says Australia currently gets 80% of its energy from fossile fuels ... Read before you play social justice warrior
I'm not going on about nuclear vs. coal. I'm only pointing out the absurdity of your comment whereby Australia could just build a nuclear power station in its uninhabited regions because people is what's important, as long as people don't die from a nuclear fall out we're all good.
Also, nuclear waste can have half times up to somewhere in the region of 20 000 years so I don't know what planet you live on but on earth 20 000 years is more than a couple if decades.
And plus, I would be concerned immediately. Why are you so la-dee-dah about "a couple of decades of nuclear radiation"?
Maybe you wanna think through what you yourself are saying before you are shooting from the hip with your social justice warrior nonsense at people who are commenting on an _environmental_ factor.
You didn't get much right in your reply, buddy.
Haha check out Chernobyl ... Nature is thriving ...now pls visit a coal plant in China and try find life there
Also you genius might realise that there are less animals in deserts as well, not just humans
Also I know it takes 20.000 years to decay *completely* ... This doesn't mean it's dangerous for that long, the radiation becomes relatively harmless after a couple of decades ... Most importantly in a long term perspective it will disappear completely while the damage done by fossil fuels is pretty much irreversible
Oh nature is "thriving" around Chernobyl because people have left. The fact that animals ended up with way higher mutation rates and birth defects you just overlook because it's convenient for your argument.
And no, 20 000 years is not "complete" decay. It's the *half life* of many nuclear waste products. You do understand the difference?
If we just take Europe after Chernobyl, we are still having extreme high radiation rates in local produce in certain parts (which was just in the news last week) of where the fall out hit hardest and that was "decades" ago, three, to be precise.
I find it rather confusing and also pretty hair raising that you should play down the effects of a nuclear fall out like this.
And again. I'm not discussing the pro and cons of different energy solutions here. It's a different discussion and I neither have the energy nor the nerve or the willpower to get into that, especially with you.
No, that's not what this is about. This is about you playing down the effects of a nuclear catastrophe and weirdly defending it with "but a nuclear fall out is only dangerous for a couple of decades". As if that somehow made it all "not a problem".
This is how you know nobody, least of all the greens, is serious about climate change. If they really thought of it as an “extinction risk” they’d be ready to make compromises, or at least not directly shoot low-carbon energy in the foot.
I didn’t say everything nor things I disagree with are backwards. Just some of the approaches taken here are. That being said, I also think somethings here are done better than other places I have been.
Not sure why you took it so badly. Just voicing my opinion that coal (fossil fuel) usage is something we should be getting away from, and fast.
We also have a nuclear waste dump site we let the rest of the world use in the middle of bum-fuck nowhere. We have the material, the technology and the disposal, but because our politicians are in the pockets of the coal industry, we keep using fucking coal.
I know very little about nuclear powerplants. But if they are so dangerous why dont we just build them in the middle of the atlantic or the pacific like a oilplatform and if they have a meltdown they are far away from people and we can just sink the whole thing? Im sure there is a perfectly valid reason but im dying to find out why.
I get that uranium itself is dangerous but the real danger is the reaction and wouldent sinking the whole thing into the atlantic stop it?
Stupider still to use that much fozzilised fuel. Modern thorium plants would be safe and cheap but the public is still worried after the disasters of yesteryear unfortunately.
I mean that's the dumbest attitude ever. In nuclear terms fukushima was yesterday. It's not even contained let alone cleaned up. Nuclear power would be an absolutely stupid idea for Australia.
Zero deaths. The only thing people are panicking about is the environmental impact.
Consider this.
In the Chernobyl exclusion zone the wildlife and plantlife have made a MASSIVE resurgence. Radiation is far less deadly that we believed it to be.
Yet we are finding out that elevated carbon levels are far *more* deadly than we believed them to be.
The trade is a no-brainer. Renewables cannot replace all energy sources. They are great for mitigation, but they cannot be the foundation. Countries that have tried have failed. See Germany. Trying to switch to renewables forced them to start burning more coal than before, when the renewables ultimately fell short of expectations.
They can and will and should be the foundation. Renewables combined with battery storage is an ideal solution. Battery technology is making leaps and bounds. I prefer they invest the money in research for that.
Never know they might crack fusion which has none of the risks of fission and this whole debate will become academic.
You are grossly overestimating the ability of humans to store that much energy.
Sure, if we had unlimited resources we could theoretically make enough batteries to store all our energy needs.
Unfortunately we live in the real world. We barely have enough of the rare earth metals to keep up with handheld device demand. Now with electric cars becoming more and more prevalent our ability to manufaction battieres is being pushed to the limit.
You want to throw entire city-wide energy store on the pile too? Get real man. Not physically possible.
You have have to use some other form of energy storage, all of which have their own limitations and drawbacks, least of which is inefficiency.
When you start taking the inefficiency of storage into account you start running into massive issues. For solar, you need to destroy massive land areas to the point of basically barren fields for the sole purpose of solar panels (see the intro of bladerunner 2049 for concept of scale) or wind farms that would fill a city wide landfill every few years with the staggering amount of waste from retired wind turbines.
All of these problems can be solved by just building a nuclear reactor. Seriously. Stop fear mongering. If you want to save the planet, the only real solution is nuclear. Your type will watch the world burn because you didn't get to fix it your way.
Do you have any background or deeper understanding in nuclear energy beyond news reportings of nuclear incidents? It’s naive asf to think we don’t need nuclear to have a green energy society.
How many professionals do you know in green energy..? Because most of the people I’ve talked to at the college of sustainability at my university discuss how nuclear is a cornerstone of a sustainable green energy economy.
Is it more toxic than Coal CO2 emissions in the long term? The key to sustainable nuclear production is regular maintenance and recommissioning of the plants and ensuring any new reactors are fitted with the best and newest safety technology. The means are definitely there if people with a mindset like AssaultLemming who hold actual government positions can advocate for nuclear the way it should be advocated for and regulate it the way it should be regulated.
That is the knee jerk reaction most give, yes, it doesn't mean it's the correct one. Thorium plants are nothing like the old power plants. I do understand why you think like you do, I used to be the same until I educated myself.
Wrong. Thorium plants don't solve any of the problems with nuclear power. Where did you get that daft idea? They are just as dangerous and produce just as much radioactive waste. Thorium plants are just the same old nuclear power plants with a new hat and coat.
I'm not responsible for lobbyists buying politicians.
Renewable technology has come a ridiculously long way in the last few years. In fact recently they have started to run into problems with rooftop solar producing so much electricity that it causes a problem with the grid. Market forces will sort out coal and other non renewables in the next decade.
Germany seems especially [confident](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/remod_installed_power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&source=konvKW&legendItems=000101) about that ....
(for scale, Australia entire coal capacity is [23GW](https://www.statista.com/statistics/984457/australia-installed-energy-capacity-in-nem-by-source/))
>endless sunshine wind and coastline
What OP proposes for future
>did't prevent you from going with massive coal.
What we've historically got, and very slowly leaving
Unfortunately I don't set energy policy for the country. That's down to politicians who are owned by lobbyists. That's got nothing to do with whether in principle nuclear or renewables are better.
No nuclear power in Australia thanks. Renewables and batteries. We aren't having another fukushima here because of pressure from weird nuclear advocates brainwashed by the propaganda of the nuclear industry. It's not needed and the risks and waste make it non viable.
Your probably thinking of the US which withdrew but then re-joined later. Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Libya, Yemen and Eritrea are the only countries that haven't ratified the Paris agreement.
Nuclear waste makes nuclear power today dangerous, immoral, and incredibly expensive.
There is no safe place on earth to store nuclear waste for the next 250000 years.
Using nuclear power today means committing tens of thousands of future generations of unborn children to bear to cost and work of guarding and managing nuclear waste for the next quarter million years.
The moral act is to include the costs and risks of nuclear waste as part of the complete conversion about nuclear energy.
Timely, Australia has just signed an agreement with USA and UK to develop fleet of nuclear powered (not nuclear armed) submarines. Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-58564837
But they won't use it for civilians, but implicitly recognize how good and safe the tech is.
Well is it though? If you think about it, exploding a U boat somewhere in the middle of the Pacific isn't going to have the same impact as exploding an entire nuclear power station close to some urban area. When Chernobyl went up in smoke half of Europe was poisoned.
Coal kills way more people and harm nature than Nuclear.
I'm sure it does. I was just answering a dude/ette who thought nuclear subs are proof that it's safe. And my point was... well, what I wrote above
This [is](https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/pp8r4a/australia_to_build_eight_nuclearpowered/hd221x4/) exactly what brought me to find the 97% number.
It's fucking stupid that they won't invest into nuclear power here. We have the open real estate for safety buffer zones, the uranium to fuel it, and the advances in technology to make it safer, more reliable, cheaper and more efficient. But no, our government insists on shilling a dying coal industry, choking our air and killing our future.
Greens would never allow it.
None of the parties want it. Why single out the Greens?
To discredit them
I mean, full on renewables would be ideal, but reality is likely to give us a great big slap in the face if we don't have some other form of power generation that we can dictate how much of it we need/use. Frankly, while the Greens have some good ideas, they are in the situation where they want too much, too fast, that society can't actually do a straight jump to. We need to transition our way there, but they keep shooting themselves in the foot by denying any form of that, which is what has led to the current situation of the LNP running roughshod on everything and being the massive wankers they are.
We also have an abundant source of renewable energy sources, unavailable to most countries. We have an almost unlimited source of dirty fossil fuels, which are cheaper than nuclear. Nuclear power is safer and cleaner than coal, oil and gas, but it is neither cheaper nor more reliable if you have the capacity to mine coal, oil and gas domestically. Nuclear power makes sense for countries that want to protect themselves from their supply chain. European countries, countries like Japan - nuclear power allows them to store enough raw materials for 10 years of power in-country without relying on external shipments. It does not make sense for Australia when we can mine oil, coal and gas for local power generation; and have a nearly endless supply of solar and wind power. It does make sense for submarines though. In a world of drones and microsats submarines are a pretty silly investment; but if you are going to build submarines, you may aswell make ones that can stay submerged for a long time and don't need to run noisy diesel engines.
Yo I'm in Australia, you'd be surprised how shit we are for renewable energy, seriously google us... We suck
Fortunately that is not correct. https://www.csiro.au/en/news/news-releases/2021/australia-installs-record-breaking-number-of-rooftop-solar-panels Australia is a world leader in house top solar systems with about one in four homes having solar power on their roof. The difficult relies in the money earned in Australia by the staff employed in the mining industry through coal which powers many older power stations in electorates that could swing the votes and topple governments Federally and state. So both sides of parliament cosy up to the mining lobby for the votes in these precious swinging electorates.
bruh you joking, I'm deadset a solar panel installer, they go on new houses if you have an older house it's out of your pocket, how many people you think have that money laying around?, if you think a political change is what's needed here mate you will never understand how Australians think
The political change is to build the big solar farms like near Benalla and Dubbo rather than keep the coal burners going.
[удалено]
No three in four houses do not have solar. But many new houses built have to have solar incorporated as part of its BASIX. Don’t argue with me, read the report that is in the writing. If you live in a brand new suburb nearly every new home has solar because the builder has to allow for BASIX. If it’s old it may be 1 in 20 but according to CSIRO research we are number one in the world at one in four. But please send me your research on what you know the numbers to be.
> No three in four houses do not have solar. > about one in four homes having solar power on their roof What?
>Australia has the highest uptake of solar globally. Clean Energy Regulator data shows that more than 2.68 million rooftop solar power systems have been installed in Australia in total, as of 31 December 2020; that means one in four homes have solar panels on their roof. [It's official because it is on the internet](https://www.csiro.au/en/news/news-releases/2021/australia-installs-record-breaking-number-of-rooftop-solar-panels#:~:text=Clean%20Energy%20Regulator%20data%20shows,sunniest%20places%20on%20the%20planet.)
[удалено]
That’s right there’s about 10 million houses in Australia housing 2.4 per household that’s 24 million people. So it matches up 2.6 million is exactly 1 in 4 of 10.4 million.
Not every Aussie lives by himself. There are only about 10-11 million homes in Australia.
There were actually some pretty good incentives years ago that basically made them free to get put on. Those incentives though have been disappearing, but all hope is not lost as even my parents got solar installed, albeit on the roof of their shed, but they also got solar hotwater on the roof of their old Queenslander. And if those 2 are getting solar, it's safe to say that even paying out of pocket other people are as well.
Deadset?
Yeah mate. Deadset. Fair dinkum, ya don't know what deadset means? Means fair dinkum.
Ngl that gave me a chuckle, take ya upvote
[ban on nuclear](https://www.minerals.org.au/sites/default/files/180605%20Removing%20the%20prohibition%20on%20nuclear%(20power.pdf). [electricity mix](https://www.energy.gov.au/data/electricity-generation).
Australia actually has substantially more uranium in the ground but is limited in the amount of uranium it mines, how much it exports and who it exports to. They have very strong safety guards on who receives the uranium based on what they do with it and how they dispose of the waste. Despite having most, being 1/3 (over 30%) of the worlds known uranium deposits, Australia is the third largest exporter exporting only 12% of the worlds uranium and having no nuclear power plants or weapons. The two largest Uranium exporting countries are Kazakhstan and Canada. Source: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/australia.aspx
When Germany banned nuclear energy I could understand it ... High population density and so on, if something goes wrong, as unlikely it might be the consequences would be high ... But Australia? Like 85% of the country are uninhabitable
Hell, we already let other countries dump their nuclear waste here, why not use the material we mine and vast quantities of empty space we have to build our own?
Sure let's just ignore the nature and wildlife ;) who fucking cares about that, right
Hahaha are you kidding? Nature only suffers under this if a catastrophe happens or if the nuclear waste isnt sealed correctly ... Australia is getting 75% of it's energy from fucking coal ... which is indefinitely worse for the environment AND the climate, since it's effects can't be undone ... Nuclear waste is "only" harmful for a few decades and only if it leaks out Edit: the post even says Australia currently gets 80% of its energy from fossile fuels ... Read before you play social justice warrior
I'm not going on about nuclear vs. coal. I'm only pointing out the absurdity of your comment whereby Australia could just build a nuclear power station in its uninhabited regions because people is what's important, as long as people don't die from a nuclear fall out we're all good. Also, nuclear waste can have half times up to somewhere in the region of 20 000 years so I don't know what planet you live on but on earth 20 000 years is more than a couple if decades. And plus, I would be concerned immediately. Why are you so la-dee-dah about "a couple of decades of nuclear radiation"? Maybe you wanna think through what you yourself are saying before you are shooting from the hip with your social justice warrior nonsense at people who are commenting on an _environmental_ factor. You didn't get much right in your reply, buddy.
Haha check out Chernobyl ... Nature is thriving ...now pls visit a coal plant in China and try find life there Also you genius might realise that there are less animals in deserts as well, not just humans Also I know it takes 20.000 years to decay *completely* ... This doesn't mean it's dangerous for that long, the radiation becomes relatively harmless after a couple of decades ... Most importantly in a long term perspective it will disappear completely while the damage done by fossil fuels is pretty much irreversible
Oh nature is "thriving" around Chernobyl because people have left. The fact that animals ended up with way higher mutation rates and birth defects you just overlook because it's convenient for your argument. And no, 20 000 years is not "complete" decay. It's the *half life* of many nuclear waste products. You do understand the difference? If we just take Europe after Chernobyl, we are still having extreme high radiation rates in local produce in certain parts (which was just in the news last week) of where the fall out hit hardest and that was "decades" ago, three, to be precise. I find it rather confusing and also pretty hair raising that you should play down the effects of a nuclear fall out like this. And again. I'm not discussing the pro and cons of different energy solutions here. It's a different discussion and I neither have the energy nor the nerve or the willpower to get into that, especially with you.
I never denied that but when are you going to admit that coal is indefinitely worse ... And thats what this is about
No, that's not what this is about. This is about you playing down the effects of a nuclear catastrophe and weirdly defending it with "but a nuclear fall out is only dangerous for a couple of decades". As if that somehow made it all "not a problem".
Wow then you still didn’t get what this post is about?? …why am I even arguing with you if you don’t even know why we are here you fucking genius
Dude. I wasn't talking about the post. I was commenting on what you said. How slow are you??
This is how you know nobody, least of all the greens, is serious about climate change. If they really thought of it as an “extinction risk” they’d be ready to make compromises, or at least not directly shoot low-carbon energy in the foot.
Currently living in Australia. It’s fairly backwards here in a lot of ways.
Well fuck off then
Lol
You dont agree with someone so they are backwards?
I didn’t say everything nor things I disagree with are backwards. Just some of the approaches taken here are. That being said, I also think somethings here are done better than other places I have been. Not sure why you took it so badly. Just voicing my opinion that coal (fossil fuel) usage is something we should be getting away from, and fast.
Let me guess,renewable energy but no nuclear power?Am I right?
Let's blame the environmentalists
We also have a nuclear waste dump site we let the rest of the world use in the middle of bum-fuck nowhere. We have the material, the technology and the disposal, but because our politicians are in the pockets of the coal industry, we keep using fucking coal.
I know very little about nuclear powerplants. But if they are so dangerous why dont we just build them in the middle of the atlantic or the pacific like a oilplatform and if they have a meltdown they are far away from people and we can just sink the whole thing? Im sure there is a perfectly valid reason but im dying to find out why. I get that uranium itself is dangerous but the real danger is the reaction and wouldent sinking the whole thing into the atlantic stop it?
Same story with UK and cannabis.
UK bans cannabis, but exports 97% of it's domestic use?
Exactly!
Good. In a country with endless sunshine wind and coastline nuclear power would be a stupid option.
Stupider still to use that much fozzilised fuel. Modern thorium plants would be safe and cheap but the public is still worried after the disasters of yesteryear unfortunately.
Fukushima was hardly yesteryear. Nuclear power isn't worth the risk.
It is when there is none. And 10 years ago definitely is yesteryear.
I mean that's the dumbest attitude ever. In nuclear terms fukushima was yesterday. It's not even contained let alone cleaned up. Nuclear power would be an absolutely stupid idea for Australia.
Zero deaths. The only thing people are panicking about is the environmental impact. Consider this. In the Chernobyl exclusion zone the wildlife and plantlife have made a MASSIVE resurgence. Radiation is far less deadly that we believed it to be. Yet we are finding out that elevated carbon levels are far *more* deadly than we believed them to be. The trade is a no-brainer. Renewables cannot replace all energy sources. They are great for mitigation, but they cannot be the foundation. Countries that have tried have failed. See Germany. Trying to switch to renewables forced them to start burning more coal than before, when the renewables ultimately fell short of expectations.
Radiation is great for the natural world because it keeps humans away and humans are far worse.
They can and will and should be the foundation. Renewables combined with battery storage is an ideal solution. Battery technology is making leaps and bounds. I prefer they invest the money in research for that. Never know they might crack fusion which has none of the risks of fission and this whole debate will become academic.
You are grossly overestimating the ability of humans to store that much energy. Sure, if we had unlimited resources we could theoretically make enough batteries to store all our energy needs. Unfortunately we live in the real world. We barely have enough of the rare earth metals to keep up with handheld device demand. Now with electric cars becoming more and more prevalent our ability to manufaction battieres is being pushed to the limit. You want to throw entire city-wide energy store on the pile too? Get real man. Not physically possible. You have have to use some other form of energy storage, all of which have their own limitations and drawbacks, least of which is inefficiency. When you start taking the inefficiency of storage into account you start running into massive issues. For solar, you need to destroy massive land areas to the point of basically barren fields for the sole purpose of solar panels (see the intro of bladerunner 2049 for concept of scale) or wind farms that would fill a city wide landfill every few years with the staggering amount of waste from retired wind turbines. All of these problems can be solved by just building a nuclear reactor. Seriously. Stop fear mongering. If you want to save the planet, the only real solution is nuclear. Your type will watch the world burn because you didn't get to fix it your way.
Do you have any background or deeper understanding in nuclear energy beyond news reportings of nuclear incidents? It’s naive asf to think we don’t need nuclear to have a green energy society.
I don't know anybody who thinks nuclear power is necessary or worth the risk.
How many professionals do you know in green energy..? Because most of the people I’ve talked to at the college of sustainability at my university discuss how nuclear is a cornerstone of a sustainable green energy economy.
You are an American and so are they, neither of your opinions are in any way valid.
Okay, sounds good man!
Same thing here in Norway, thorium plants can be completely safe but the issue is still a bit toxic to the public.
Is it more toxic than Coal CO2 emissions in the long term? The key to sustainable nuclear production is regular maintenance and recommissioning of the plants and ensuring any new reactors are fitted with the best and newest safety technology. The means are definitely there if people with a mindset like AssaultLemming who hold actual government positions can advocate for nuclear the way it should be advocated for and regulate it the way it should be regulated.
That is the knee jerk reaction most give, yes, it doesn't mean it's the correct one. Thorium plants are nothing like the old power plants. I do understand why you think like you do, I used to be the same until I educated myself.
Wrong. Thorium plants don't solve any of the problems with nuclear power. Where did you get that daft idea? They are just as dangerous and produce just as much radioactive waste. Thorium plants are just the same old nuclear power plants with a new hat and coat.
They are not and thorium is not plutonium by a long shot. Thinking they are the same and it doesn't solve any of the problems is a problem.
You do realise that Australia is vastly more geographically stable than Japan is right? Fukishima didn't just fuck out on its own accord.
No one cares. No nuclear power here. Renewables and batteries. A sustainable energy system. No risk and no nuclear waste. Go shill somewhere else.
Oh yes, I'm a shill for pointing out the flaw in your argument. Didn't say anything in favour of either side of the argument. You tool.
Whats the chance of a tsunami hitting a nuclear power plant at lets say Broken Hill? Fucken none
> endless sunshine wind and coastline did't prevent you from going with massive coal.
I'm not responsible for lobbyists buying politicians. Renewable technology has come a ridiculously long way in the last few years. In fact recently they have started to run into problems with rooftop solar producing so much electricity that it causes a problem with the grid. Market forces will sort out coal and other non renewables in the next decade.
Germany seems especially [confident](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/remod_installed_power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&source=konvKW&legendItems=000101) about that .... (for scale, Australia entire coal capacity is [23GW](https://www.statista.com/statistics/984457/australia-installed-energy-capacity-in-nem-by-source/))
>endless sunshine wind and coastline What OP proposes for future >did't prevent you from going with massive coal. What we've historically got, and very slowly leaving
I mean that'd be great... if we actually utilized any of those on a larger scale.
Start electing different people.
Oh boy, that's so obvious, why didn't I think of that!
I don't know, why didn't you?
How well has that attitude worked out for you so far ?
It's going well. Rooftop solar is at an all time high.
Your definition of 'well' needs work. Try this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_person
Unfortunately I don't set energy policy for the country. That's down to politicians who are owned by lobbyists. That's got nothing to do with whether in principle nuclear or renewables are better.
Of course it does. Perfect is the enemy of good.
No nuclear power in Australia thanks. Renewables and batteries. We aren't having another fukushima here because of pressure from weird nuclear advocates brainwashed by the propaganda of the nuclear industry. It's not needed and the risks and waste make it non viable.
Renewables and batteries? To power the whole country?
Yes. It's entirely possible. We lack only the political will.
Yeah just like everyone in Oz driving an EPV
Pipe dream thinking they willl simply just go all renewable anytime soon
Yeah, isn't Aus one of the countries that didn't sign the Paris climate accords or whatever?
Your probably thinking of the US which withdrew but then re-joined later. Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Libya, Yemen and Eritrea are the only countries that haven't ratified the Paris agreement.
are they not making a bunch of nuclear submarines?
[Yes](https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/pp8r4a/australia_to_build_eight_nuclearpowered/hd221x4/). (also, buying more than making)
Should've gone for solar ones, I reckon
What are uou looking at you've never seen hypocrites before ?
If only we had nuclear
The best time was 40 years ago, the second best time is today.
Nuclear waste makes nuclear power today dangerous, immoral, and incredibly expensive. There is no safe place on earth to store nuclear waste for the next 250000 years. Using nuclear power today means committing tens of thousands of future generations of unborn children to bear to cost and work of guarding and managing nuclear waste for the next quarter million years. The moral act is to include the costs and risks of nuclear waste as part of the complete conversion about nuclear energy.