News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[abc]

The options have been put on the table and Nuclear was taken off because its not worth it.

Its ideology that's put it back on the table.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

irony considering the so called 'renewable sector' is the biggest ideological cult in existence today outside of established religious orders

I see that from the boomer brigade on facebook

I understand new technologies can be scary, but don't worry in a few years time you'll get comfortable with it.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

What's your education level Waewick? I'm curious.

[Waewick]

Renewables aren't there yet because we started a decade later than we should have.

It's too late for Nuclear, we've been told enough now. Why waste more time on it.





Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Waewick]

irony considering the so called 'renewable sector' is the biggest ideological cult in existence today outside of established religious orders

I see that from the boomer brigade on facebook

I understand new technologies can be scary, but don't worry in a few years time you'll get comfortable with it.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

What's your education level Waewick? I'm curious.

My education level has nothing to do with being comfortable trusting the experts on the topic.





Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[claybro]

I see that from the boomer brigade on facebook

I understand new technologies can be scary, but don't worry in a few years time you'll get comfortable with it.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

What's your education level Waewick? I'm curious.

My education level has nothing to do with being comfortable trusting the experts on the topic.





Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Well strap in Warwick, because you are going to hear from a lot more experts, and not just from one side. The trick is to listen carefully to the other experts as well, not just those rolled out by the government, and their associated think tanks. And look to what is clearly alreadyhappening in other countries, not just modelling.

[Waewick]

What's your education level Waewick? I'm curious.

My education level has nothing to do with being comfortable trusting the experts on the topic.





Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Well strap in Warwick, because you are going to hear from a lot more experts, and not just from one side. The trick is to listen carefully to the other experts as well, not just those rolled out by the government, and their associated think tanks. And look to what is clearly alreadyhappening in other countries, not just modelling.

Nuclear wasn't feasible long before the LNP decided to want to start the climate wars again.

Experts in their field aren't on a side either. Nuclear will never be built in Australia (apologies if you were being sarcastic)

[SouthAussie94]

There's no compromise on ones position.
And then when they are unable to sway someone else, the silly insults about peoples intelligence and mathematics skills are rolled out, along with attacking news sources as not being credible.

5 minutes earlier...

I was doing some more reading today and came across a prediction if all Duttons small nuclear power plants were built then in the 2040's nuclear would be providing 3% of Australia's electricity needs.

You mean you read it on the Guardian tabloid site.

Anyhow, actual news on the topic instead of propaganda and clickbait.

[mattblack]

I'm not going to quote your whole post. Really good work putting that together.

My only thought is you keep stating the current policy has failed. Why do u think it has failed when it has been shown that when there is greater than 100% renewables the price is negative.?

Surely it has been established that renewables has been proven, wouldn't it be a more prudent course of action to extrapolate the current system and develop system stability and storage?

[rev]

I'm not going to quote your whole post. Really good work putting that together.

My only thought is you keep stating the current policy has failed. Why do u think it has failed when it has been shown that when there is greater than 100% renewables the price is negative.?

Surely it has been established that renewables has been proven, wouldn't it be a more prudent course of action to extrapolate the current system and develop system stability and storage?

I assume you're talking to me with this matt.
I think it's failed because we are continually told every next renewable project will bring down electricity costs for consumers, but the opposite tends to happen.
I don't see it as purely an opportunity to just build some nuclear power plants to replace coal fired power plants, but as an opportunity for the country to put aside the stupid politics and ideologies, and for once have a proper non-partisan look at this stuff.

The royal commission report clearly says it shouldn't be ruled out, it should be kept as an option to be considered in the future.

A lot of the responses in here are that "the experts said so". Well, an expert also said that nuclear power is viable for Australia.
The report also says that nuclear could be viable in the future.

It shouldn't be ruled out. If the government actually was doing what was in the interests of this country and its people, it would be continually reviewing all its options.
But the way these hardcore ideologues behave, you can almost guarantee that in 50 years time they'd still be citing the few lines in the report that said it's not viable as a valid reason why nuclear shouldn't be considered.

A responsible government keeps all its options on the table.

We can't sit back and say the report said it's not viable and that's the end of that, as it clearly doesn't say only that. It clearly says a lot more then that and doesn't shut the door on nuclear energy, and any responsible government would be acting on what's in the report, not just cherry picking the bits that suit its ideology.
The problem though is that the Labor party has gone balls deep into renewables, they're now just as scared to do anything different now as they are of the Greens and Teals, and anyone whose suffering (and that's the majority) be damned.

[Waewick]

oh boy

Don't worry, I'm sure your Facebook group will still love your pseudo expertise.

I don't find it as enthralling

I'm not in a Facebook group. I see you only have basic template insults to support your argument at this point because you're incapable of rational discussion at an educated level.
As I said, its dogma with your kind.

Well isn't facebook missing out on another psudeo expert.


But there is no need for a rationle debate. Thats been had, many times over the last 50 years.

Everyone who should know if Nuclear stacks up in Australia tells us it doesn't.

That leaves us with people like you or Peter Dutton telling us all the experts are wrong.

[Waewick]

oh boy

Don't worry, I'm sure your Facebook group will still love your pseudo expertise.

I don't find it as enthralling

I really wish that abc would put a coherent argument supporting their position...or at the very least explain what their position is, rather than shouting at clouds.

I don't get it either.

The crux of their argument is the experts are wrong, its a hard slog from there and relies on conspiracies and misinformation to even get to the starting line.

I assume its also a dislike of people smarter than them saying things they don't like.

[abc]

Don't worry, I'm sure your Facebook group will still love your pseudo expertise.

I don't find it as enthralling

I'm not in a Facebook group. I see you only have basic template insults to support your argument at this point because you're incapable of rational discussion at an educated level.
As I said, its dogma with your kind.

Well isn't facebook missing out on another psudeo expert.


But there is no need for a rationle debate. Thats been had, many times over the last 50 years.

Everyone who should know if Nuclear stacks up in Australia tells us it doesn't.

That leaves us with people like you or Peter Dutton telling us all the experts are wrong.

so little old Australia which can't even build a modern motor car knows something the rest of the developed world doesn't...

[Waewick]

I'm not in a Facebook group. I see you only have basic template insults to support your argument at this point because you're incapable of rational discussion at an educated level.
As I said, its dogma with your kind.

Well isn't facebook missing out on another psudeo expert.


But there is no need for a rationle debate. Thats been had, many times over the last 50 years.

Everyone who should know if Nuclear stacks up in Australia tells us it doesn't.

That leaves us with people like you or Peter Dutton telling us all the experts are wrong.

so little old Australia which can't even build a modern motor car knows something the rest of the developed world doesn't...

The rest of the world is investing more and more in renewables and less and less in nuclear

So yes, Australia knows exactly what the rest of the world know, in fact we were way to slow on the uptake.

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/claims ... nt-add-up/

So given you think we should be doing what everyone else is, its great to have you onboard the renewables push.

[rev]

Don't worry, I'm sure your Facebook group will still love your pseudo expertise.

I don't find it as enthralling

I'm not in a Facebook group. I see you only have basic template insults to support your argument at this point because you're incapable of rational discussion at an educated level.
As I said, its dogma with your kind.

Well isn't facebook missing out on another psudeo expert.


But there is no need for a rationle debate. Thats been had, many times over the last 50 years.

Everyone who should know if Nuclear stacks up in Australia tells us it doesn't.

That leaves us with people like you or Peter Dutton telling us all the experts are wrong.

What qualifies you to dictate who is an expert that should be listened to and have the final say and which parts of experts reports are relevant and valid and which aren't?
The report clearly says nuclear should not be ruled out. You can ignore those bits because you don't agree with them. But the report doesn't end where the bits you don't like start.
I posted about a said expert who says nuclear is viable in Australia. Lets ignore that too right.

[rubberman]

I'm not in a Facebook group. I see you only have basic template insults to support your argument at this point because you're incapable of rational discussion at an educated level.
As I said, its dogma with your kind.

Well isn't facebook missing out on another psudeo expert.


But there is no need for a rationle debate. Thats been had, many times over the last 50 years.

Everyone who should know if Nuclear stacks up in Australia tells us it doesn't.

That leaves us with people like you or Peter Dutton telling us all the experts are wrong.

so little old Australia which can't even build a modern motor car knows something the rest of the developed world doesn't...

So, if we can't build a car...I don't like the chances of being able to build a nuclear plant.

[Waewick]

I'm not in a Facebook group. I see you only have basic template insults to support your argument at this point because you're incapable of rational discussion at an educated level.
As I said, its dogma with your kind.

Well isn't facebook missing out on another psudeo expert.


But there is no need for a rationle debate. Thats been had, many times over the last 50 years.

Everyone who should know if Nuclear stacks up in Australia tells us it doesn't.

That leaves us with people like you or Peter Dutton telling us all the experts are wrong.

What qualifies you to dictate who is an expert that should be listened to and have the final say and which parts of experts reports are relevant and valid and which aren't?
The report clearly says nuclear should not be ruled out. You can ignore those bits because you don't agree with them. But the report doesn't end where the bits you don't like start.
I posted about a said expert who says nuclear is viable in Australia. Lets ignore that too right.

I think if you are asking that question you probably aren't looking for real answers.


But nuclear isn't being ruled out, nuclear power in its current form, to produce energy by when its needed is being ruled out.

Nuclear one day in the future may be viable, but now it isn't as we have better alternatives.