Hooray! http://tinyurl.com/y4hnay7b

If SHY says it's bad it must be good. She says nuclear is old hat, but if she had a shred of scientific nous (she knows more about superannuation! :->) she'd know solar, water, wind and storage are much much older and with miniscule energy density requiring humongously massive infrastructure to tap them.

For the LNP to gain more cred on climate it must embrace nuclear by the next election and bring the public along. It must do this by, amongst other things:

1) dissing the renewables plus fossil-fueled or grid-storage backup non-solution to lowering emissions and consumer prices while maintaining reliability and Australia's international competitiveness.

2) dealing sensibly with the concept of acceptable risk and fears over safety, waste and proliferation issues, meeting the 'Remember Chernobyl' brigade head-on who won't acknowledge advanced nuclear.

3) make the case for coal-mining to aid the third-world into affluence until they too can afford to nuclearize.

4) sack the Chief-Scientist, who is a closet anti-nuker and dotty-eyed renewablista.

5) investigate the employment practices of the CSIRO that cause its unquestioning renewables focus. "The Transition" is no such thing!

6) Clean out the education system of pro-renewables, anti-nuke ideology and materials and replace it with scientific skepticism.

7) adopting the eco-modernist, affluent-world position spruiked by the likes of Shellenberger and get out and sell it over the degrowth depopulation guff that underlies much of the anti-nuclear thrust.

8) doing a turnaround on a carbon-tax with income-tax and welfare payment offsets to make coal plants and renewables plus fossil-fueled backup less competitive, while enforcing a reliability standard upon electricity retailers equal to nuclear's capability.

The developing voting demographic is a threat to the LNP. It must also look at where it can compromise on NG, franking credits and CGT, which Labor will do better the next time around.

SHY also knows a lot about 'Sea Patrol".

SHY is no different than Hanson, both are not worth the air they breath
Sarcasm? no honestly held view their voters are vote wasters
Nuclear is our long term future

with so much cold and snow around we might need to mine more cold to stop us all freezing.

Dear Luciferase,

I used to be very concerned about the safety
aspects of nuclear reactors especially after
Chernobyl and also about the storage of
nuclear waste.

I've come across the following link that discusses
the pros and cons of nuclear power. I thought it
may help people understand things better - as it did
for me.

http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2017-01/NuclearPower-Pros&Cons_EATalk-13Jul06.pdf

"For the LNP to gain more cred on climate it must embrace nuclear by the next election and bring the public along. It must do this by, amongst other things …."

Not sure why the LNP needs any credibility on climate change: they didn't start the hysteria on climate change; it was the LEFT - the ones who, if they think it's the greatest moral question of all time - should be embracing nuclear power, because it is the only RELIABLE source of EMISSION FREE energy there is.

What the LNP should be doing, in appreciation of the unexpected second chance given to Morrison, is dropping the whole crap show on climate, and returning to cheap energy - coal.

If LNP really wants to do something for our environment, it should also be scrapping mass immigration, especially now as our pathetic economic performance (1.8% growth this financial year) exposes the LIE that immigration boosts growth and the economy. We have had massive immigration, yet we are on the bones or our arse economically.

There is only one form of power generation we should use, & that is the cheapest.

There is no credible evidence that CO2 has any detrimental effect on our climate or life style, so if coal is cheapest, & it is right now, that is what we should use.

There is lots of evidence that nuclear can be as safe or safer than any other form of power generation, so as long as it is reasonably competitive with coal, we should be using that, at least to some extent.

If we could throttle the Victorian & NSW parliaments, & start harvesting the massive gas available in each state, it might be the cheapest, as it is in the USA, & should be used.

Our problem is a political one, not climate, & while B grade politicians don't have the guts to chose the best long term option, we are heading for the scrap heap of history.

Nice link, Foxy.

The other problem is unselling the pup that renewables are an alternative to nuclear but without the nasties.
The strategy should not only be to spruik nuclear, but to highlight the immense short-comings of renewables as a solution to the trilemma of emissions, consumer cost and reliability.

Too many people think all they need is some solar panels and a battery to go off-grid, thanks to the lala-land promotion going on out there. Deficiencies in scientific literacy, and the absence of a counter-campaign to this nonsense allows the notion to flourish, along with notion that Australia can be feasibly and economically viably powered with renewables without an enormous scientific break-through.

Hasbeen,ttbn,

We've got a generation coming through that will vote coal off the map, regardless of what you think, when Labor gets its pitch right. However, they'll listen to the right nuclear narrative.

Hi there FOXY -

Thank you very much indeed for that Link on Nuclear Energy. It was sufficiently simple, even a dullard like me could understand. Thanks again.

Lucifrase,

You might be right, although predictions for the future are not turning out very well lately.

When the ridiculous lowering of interest rates to fix our economy is proven to be ridiculous, the government is going to have to react to the nonsense about coal and get back cheap energy to create wealth and jobs. Whether or not Labor gets its act together, as you suggest it might, is irrelevant for the next three years; they were rejected largely over the coal issue and unreliable energy and, with Albanese picking some real loo loos for his front bench, we won't be seeing them as alternative during the next three years - in which time Morrison has to go back to the tried and true to keep us out of penury.

Foxy,

You're right, we shouldn't be using the sixty-year-old technology of Chernobyl. Maybe there have been some advances in safety since the fifties ? How is nuclear going in France and Finland ?

Joe

Luciferase,

If Australia is to go all out nuclear, what would you propose as the safe method of disposal of nuclear waste, and how would you sell your disposal idea to the public?

Luciferase, we have 3 years to start to re-educate the brain washed generation, & if the sunspots keep up their present games, we might have some very cold weather to help us.

I agree nuclear is much better than unreliable wind or solar, but some reports suggest it is about twice the price of coal or gas. Perhaps we have to find a Trump to help us save our finances.

Here's a primer (three very short parts) on waste (unused fuel) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUvvIzH2W6g

Reprocessing is a possibility rather than storage, a la France.

Oz has a geologically stable basis for storage until Gen 4 reactors are here to burn the "waste"(e.g. Elysium Industries is developing molten chloride salt reactors, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqVt8cxx-44 ).

The younger generation have less fear of nuclear than we were raised with after WW2 and I think can be de-programmed from the renewables brain-washing if the facts are put before them with a narrative they like. Their minds are more pliable to combining the needs of climate and the high energy lives they want to lead, rather than the hair-shirted existence the Green pied-pipers have in mind for them.

We do have to meet them somewhere over NG, etc, along the lines I've espoused on OLO. The next election will not be won by the LNP applying the tactics employed in the last one.

'When the ridiculous lowering of interest rates to fix our economy is proven to be ridiculous, the government is going to have to react to the nonsense about coal and get back cheap energy to create wealth and jobs'

you are right of course ttbn however what company in their right mind would invest in Australia these days with economic vandals like Labour/Greens, Turnulls and a weak kneed Liberal party who put barrier after barrier in the way of cheap reliable energy. I mean the QLD Government has just stolen 300000 plus off the tax payers so Jaki Trad could go weak at the knees hosting the charlatan from America Al Gore. Talk about destroying one's own future!

Luciferase,
Instead of just replacing one lot of crackpot ideas with anther, we should look to the truth, wherever it takes us. Your arguments have been peppered with incorrect assumptions and logical inconsistencies throughout this thread, starting with the very first sentence:
>If SHY says it's bad it must be good.
...which is totally illogical. SHY says things for a reason. Though she often gets it wrong, assuming her to always be wrong will land you even further from the truth than assuming her to always be right.

Before rushing to dispel the notion that Australia can be feasibly and economically viably powered with renewables without an enormous scientific break-through, have a closer look at what's already happened: there have been lots of little breakthroughs, together making renewables cheaper than coal. But as investing in new generation capacity reduces prices, it's more profitable for existing power generation companies to not add new capacity. Meanwhile the lack of any preferential treatment for domestic gas supply over exports means gas prices, and hence electricity prices, have soared, and toothless regulators let the electricity transmission and distribution companies rip off their customers. Yet there's still a widespread perception that it's renewables that are responsible for the high electricity prices.

'Tis time to end the dissing of renewables and tell the truth.

The idea that coal fired power could somehow "aid the third-world into affluence" is very far fetched, but even if it were true, its effects on the climate mean it would still be a bad strategy. And your assumptions that nuclear power would be good value for Australia contradict the experience in England. Why are you so convinced it would be much cheaper here than there?

And on what basis do you claim "The Transition" is no such thing?

You have to grin! if not burst out laughing, sun spots
Closely monitored for over a hundred years
The length the strength even that the average cycle is eleven to thirteen years
The world is not about to be burned up Hassy
Ham feast tomorrow Wauchope [port Mac club]
Will raise a grin there

runner,

I can't see Australia being attractive to investors now. If they wait long enough, though, they'll be able to buy the whole shebang cheap they way things are going.

As for the nuclear waste that seems to worry people, there have been nuclear power plants since since 1954, so there's a lot of it around, and I don't recall any problems with waste in 65 years.

Has anyone ever been concerned about waste from Lucas Heights, I wonder.

There is non so dumb as those who refuse to see.

Not sure hasbeen who you target, it is a big group
But until death know,Nuclear is the path
Yes others took risks and wesaw the results
We can and will, use it with safety

Nuclear waste? About a cubic meter per GWH generating capacity per year for the current reactors using about 1% of the energy of the fuel. If all our electricity came from nuclear we would have less than fifty cubic metres of waste to deal with annually. Australia should be taking the world's nuclear waste while countries are willing to pay so much to dispose of it. With gen 4 reactors the waste could become a valuable resource.

As for renewables being cheaper than coal, when you start calculating the cost of 24/7 supply, renewable energy is many times the cost of coal fired power. It is multiples of the cost of nuclear as well, even using the dodgy cost estimates of the CSIRO.

Interesting news from the UK on energy production. Since all subsidies on roof top panels were dropped in April of this year, orders and installations have plummeted by 94%. That says a lot about the sincerity of punters and their planet-saving enthusiasm

Hi Fester,

Fifty cubic metres per year ? That's barely a container-load - 2 metres high, 3 metres across and 8 metres long. Wouldn't it be possible to load that up, ship it out into an uninhabitable area, and stick it in a hole wrapped in lead ? Until the technology is available to completely process it ? Shows how much I know :)

Joe

Of further interest from the Old Dart, is this:

"Studies show every green job created caused two useful jobs to go away, or possibly even four. In Scotland the VERSO study showed for each Green job created, 3.7 were lost. When electricity costs more, every other business in the country makes less, does less or has less money to pay workers."

What we really need to be doing in Australia is not arguing about different types of energy, but accepting that climate change is a natural phenomenon, and adapting to nature, which is much more powerful than we are; and, by using the cheap power source we are blessed with to employ the consequent wealth generated to deal with change.

Government spending of money on a few rent-seekers and consumers at huge cost to the public has merely raised the price of electricity to alarming levels; and the effect on climate change has been? ….. bugger-all.