New chief scientist - in favor of nuclear and fracking!

Has someone watched this yesterday night?:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-...el-touts-vision-for-coal-free-economy/6887578

We got rid of mega idiot Abbott, however Turnbull is playing the same game. The new chief scientist Finkel is in favor of nuclear energy and fracking, despite the majority of us being against. And you believed Turnbull is doing us good? He serves a minority industry, not the Australian people.
Think again - we need the Greens more than ever.....

Cheerio

 

What's so horrible about nuclear and fracking? Australia has A LOT of empty barren desolate land.

And isn't it kind of hypocritical for Australia to be against nuclear energy when they are the world's MAIN exporter of uranium ore?

 

You cannot have it both ways, complain about how bad our emissions per capita might be compared to other nations, and then not conisder measures those other nations use to have such low emissions!!!

Here is the list of countries using nuclear for power;
France
Slovakia
Hungary
Ukraine
Belgium
Sweden
Switzerland
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Finland
Bulgaria
Armenia
South Korea
Spain
United States
Russia
Romania
United Kingdom
Canada
Germany
South Africa
Mexico
Pakistan
Argentina
Netherlands
India
Brazil
China
Iran
Japan
Taiwan

While I don't support its use, we gotta be realistic about it. I'd love to see solar and wind grids in the outback, but if it was affordable why has no-one done it? Perhaps because the Green's are a do nothing bunch of lefty sensationalists... and talk the talk but don't walk the walk. They should work more with industry instead of existing solely to complain and whinge and purport some moral high ground we'd all love but most of us realize to live in the real world means actually dealing with the problems - not just talking about it idealism.

 

No, it would be hypocritical if we sold it to someone and then told them they should not use it. It's not hypocritical to sell something to someone but choose not to use it ourselves.

The problems with nuclear is the ongoing waste issue primarily, but also the threat to unexpected facility failure for unexpected reasons. Sometimes unlikely risks are so bad that they counter the nigh impossible odds of it happening - better safe then sorry. The planet (and its future inhabitants) is not a dumping ground for our waste to 'any' extent, humans are bad enough as it is. That won't stop humans from doing it though, but it might stop some humans from doing it until something better comes along

 

How many of the countries in the list are in the process of shutting down their nuclear reactors, or given a deadline when all the reactors will be closed?

Germany will have all nuclear reactors closed by 2022. Countries are turning away from dangerous toxic nuclear power, and Australia is going to start up?

Australia would have to be the most braindead country on the planet right now. Its like there is a bunch of mentally challenged people making all the wrong decisions.

 

Then we will see how their emissions change as a result, it doesn't address my point in that post.

There has been no decision on nuclear power in Australia.

 

Nuclear is a thing from the past, and I as an Aussie think we should move on. What is wrong about that?

Fracking only works if you push enough chemicals into the ground and in the process stuff the soil up for God knows how long. Never heard about it?

Regards

 

Australia is destined to become the food-bowl for other countries, and right now they don't really give a squirrels nut how Australia produces its energy, as it will never effect them directly.

If every property in Australia had the ability to generate their own renewable power, and the facility to store a few days worth of power, then the whole county could easily go 100% solar and wind renewable power.

Next time you are driving around, have a good look at all the empty roof space on buildings that could be used to generate solar power requirements, and put back into the grid.

 

When was the last time you traveled overseas?
The northern part of Europe is covered with windfarms, and solar is going up everywhere. It is 2015.....
Stay in the past if you like, I however look forward....
Regards

 

The mediterranean countries with decent amounts of sunshine are spending $billions on converting to solar.

Why in hell would anyone in Australia be willing to pay energy companies $500,00 per quarter for energy, when they could get it all for free by converting to solar?

Australia is really a braindead country.

 

In Germany now, no one can build a new home unless its 100% solar efficient. If the same building codes and standards were adopted in Australia, the burden for power and energy would be massively reduced.

 

Perth is going 100% solar

 

When, in a 100 years? The government is not behind it, typically Libs.....
Regards

 

Thorium by all accounts is a safe source of nuclear energy, but the worlds super powers require the byproduct that comes from uranium.

I'm not convinced that fracking is as risky as what opponents are leading us to believe either.

 

Hi TV,
not really a hit, Thorium. Can't make bombs from it, so what the f.....

If gas can be extracted from our soil without using chemicals, fine. As long we have to use chemicals, leave it alone....

My biggest fear is that Australia will become the dumping ground for nuc waste, all signs are there, it has started under Howard, who only wanted to reignite the discussion. Libs back in power, and (*)(*)(*)(*) is back on the blackboard....

Sometimes I have to admit, CD is right. We are not really that bright......
Regards

 

Perth has local government building codes in place regarding new homes being built to be 100% solar efficient?

 

Prospects for Australia:

Australia: hottest, driest continent on the planet.

Australia’s geographical location: isolated - in the middle of nowhere.

Australia: natural resources nearly all use up

Australia: no self-sustaining manufacturing or Agriculture.

Australia: no one wants their natural resources, because the majority of other countries have gone renewable power and energy.

Australia: primary use - short-term use; food bowl for other countries.

Australia: what better place to use as the planets toilet to discard dangerous and toxic products.

Australia: prostituted itself as a nuclear test site in the 1960's, so the damage has already been done.

Australia: started as a convict settlement - may as well finish its days as being one.

 

Speaking of Germany, and its efforts to phase out nuclear. The phase out is going to cost them around 1 trillion euros ($1.54 trillion) by 2040. But for now, coal still plays a significant role in power production in Germany, with new plants under construction, in a nation that is one of the world's biggest miners of brown coal.

Residential power is one thing, but its industry which uses most power and solar cannot meet those needs. So dropping a trillion bucks and going back to coal - is Germany saying coal is better then using nuclear? Perhaps clean coal is actually viable with new tech!?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-29/germany-pays-the-price-for-switching-off-nuclear-power/6895192

 

The barren desolate land is not where you want to be fracking - takes lots of water and that means our fertile coast

 

at,
you are certainly one of a kind. I have never seen someone hanging on to the past they way you do.
You know, one day, when the rest of the world has done the switch and we wake up to this challenge, it might costs us much more then the forward thinking Germans. There are times, and you have to take risks, in money terms speaking.....
I am happy to do it for my children and grandchild! Come on, the future is not that bad....
Cheerio

 

shut up AT!

 

Only monumental idiots actually think you can power the world on wind and solar. Germany spent $300 billion and the best they could achieve was 50% on two hot sunny august days on a holiday where most businesses were shut down. Germany is no longer subsidizing solar as of 2017. Meanwhile Finland builds a new nuclear plant that has massive cost overruns and its still cheaper electricity than Germany's.

The only two options are either nuclear or fossil fuels. Pick one.

 

Solar is much more economical when it is used combined with backup conventional power plants, to supply electricity in the dark evening time and on cloudy days. What many people who want to go 100% renewable do not understand is that it is not economical to temporarily store all that energy. The batteries to store all that solar energy would be many times more expensive than the solar panels themselves (and there would probably be a negative environmental impact from all the material that would be required to go into those batteries, something else to consider).

 

With your mindest we would still be riding donkeys. Noone said it gona be easy, but the future must be without fossil fuels and without nuc.
Chernobyl and Fuku will always serve as our reminder.....
Regards

 

More rantings and ravings from someone who clearly does not understand the concept of energy density. Come back when you have taken a few chemistry and physics courses and then tell me with a straight face that solar and wind can provide enough power. Then tell me how you plan on transporting it since both of those technologies are highly location dependent. You are clearly someone who has no concept fo the very basics of science and how the universe actually works.

Fortunately, more and more green organizations are slowly coming to the realization that nuclear power WILL have to be the key component of any future power network if you truly want to be rid of fossil fuels.