I don’t know what is more toxic between Bernardi, a stick of Uranium, or joining Bernardi/Leyonhjem/Abbott’s call for Nuclear.
Could give us some appeal to the far right though? At least it’s better than coal. If the far right support this over coal then that must count for something.
pretty sure nuclear is still less competitive so might be time we support removing bans as we kinda libertarian but I think require high insurance or something…as well as taxing any pollution
There is no way the far-right would support a pollution tax. They want to drive down the cost of energy. Just lift a ban on research. Get them to do it right next to Pine Gap, that would guarantee it’s safety.
Don’t see why. We’re in the business of adopting ideas that make sense, not being arbitrarily against anything some group says. That sort of partisan bullshit is the Green/Liberal playbook. There’s a perfectly sensible non-partisan SA Royal Commission we can refer to that recommends repealing the nuclear ban.
Also, lol at Claire Moore in that article. Clearly she has never heard of Banqiao.
Economics are malleable to a large extent. My current impression is that mass production counts for a lot and therefore if a smaller, more modular, mass produced design was pursued it would bring the cost down quite a bit. Also as Simon mentioned, there’s advantage in having some level of nuclear power industry around for submarines as well.
There’s a big difference between “I don’t like it but sure, go ahead, because it’ll never work” and “it’s a reasonable option, so if someone can make the economics work then go ahead”. That kinda bothers me.
Wanting to remove the ban on nuclear deployment is a pro-science position. It doesn’t equate to supporting nuclear power. It simply allows the issues to be assessed within a scientific framework. Blindly banning things on political grounds denies that role for science and evidence. It’s the definition of anti-scientific.
What do they intend to use to replace it ?
capitalise on renewables?
France is substituting Russian gas mostly.
So no more energy independence for them. Costs will be higher and emissions too.
So if we take the “fear factor” out, what does the $$$ for energy, equation tell us? would one reactor power all of SA needs?
Positive aspects of nuclear energy:
Extremely safe - Except in cases of natural Disasters - https://www.realinsurance.com.au/life-insurance/community/bushfires-floods-earthquakes-top-10 (just fingers crossed they dont happen in the wrong place at the wrong time)
Extremely safe - Except in cases of bad Maintenance anytime in its life time due to owners increasing profits
Extremely safe - Except in cases when they keep extending it’s life in the name of profits.
Guaranteeing the safety of a Nuclear facility for 30years + is just seems impossible to me, and not worth the risk, War, natural disaster and and man failing to maintain it is just to risky.
Considering solar/wind/Wave/Thermal and advances in battery tech there are better options for the same investment.- one example - https://www.iflscience.com/technology/new-fluoride-battery-could-be-charged-just-once-a-week/
You can just say it’s extremely safe relative to other forms of energy. Statistics and mathematics will do the rest.
Don’t you think it odd that that Wikipedia page leaves out the numbers for Solar (not rooftop, as in big arrays for public generation) ? Maybe because it all stops in 2012.
So I checked out the original source for the Wikipedia statistics Mark linked to and only got as far as a forbes article that is extremely non-transparent about where those statistics in the table actually came from, even as there is a whole list of references at the bottom relating to fossil fuels. Someone would have to try and dig up the book that may be the source to try and see if the numbers have any merit at all, but I’m not gonna be that person today.
I just want to say that when discussing policy of such a high stakes issue, we should really be looking at properly peer-reviewed academic articles before evaluating different sources of energy. Articles that have verifiable validity of data, but also take into account things like the dark number of unknown deaths, the degree of uncertainty, and discuss the relevance of different types of statistics that can be used and what can safely be inferred from them. Absolute number of deaths, deaths per capita, or, in the case of the forbes article, deaths/trillionkWhr, etc.
Statistics are meant to help us form informed decisions, but we need to learn to recognise when they are presented to give an air of objectivity in order to cover up a bias, what data it is based on, what information is left out or hidden or not even gathered in the first place.
This thing that we’re trying to discuss here, is something that takes an entire thesis to understand how everything relates.