Nuclear Power: A Very Short Introduction Paperback, $19.06 + Delivery ($0 with Prime/ $59 Spend) @ Amazon UK via AU

140
Nuclear Power: A Very Short Introduction Paperback, $19.06 + Delivery ($0 with Prime/ $59 Spend) @ Amazon UK via AUAffiliate
Go to Deal
Cashback
henrus on 19/06/2024 - 10:38 amazon.com.au (81 clicks)
Last edited 19/06/2024 - 13:33 by 1 other user
This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

Cheaper than the current camel tracking and many local bookstores have it for $20-23, get your short introduction to nuclear power today.

The description seems to be rather fitting today:

With the World desperate to find energy sources that do not emit carbon gasses, nuclear power is back on the agenda and in the news, following the increasing cost of fossil fuels and concerns about the security of their future supply.

Price History at C CamelCamelCamel.
Books & Magazines Book Paperback

Related Stores

Amazon AU
Amazon AU
Marketplace
Amazon UK Store
Amazon UK Store

Comments

  • PainToad on 19/06/2024 - 10:39
    +6

    🍿

  • chrism238 on 19/06/2024 - 10:40
    +1

    Too soon?

    • WatchNerd on 19/06/2024 - 10:44

      The Chernobyl disaster was 1986.

      • Jack D Price on 19/06/2024 - 10:47
        +14

        This is the Dutton disaster of 2024

      • onlinepred on 19/06/2024 - 10:57
        +5

        The Fukushima disaster was 2011

        • Clear on 19/06/2024 - 11:53
          +1

          Fortunately the background radiation in most of the surrounding areas there is lower than the background in many places of Australia.

          • onlinepred on 19/06/2024 - 11:59
            +1

            @Clear: Unfortunately, the USD$2,000,000,000,000 in costs directly related to the disaster was not found in many places of Australia. It's not all about radiation…

            • alidli on 19/06/2024 - 12:14
              +1

              @onlinepred: THIS

            • Clear on 19/06/2024 - 12:31
              +1

              @onlinepred: Yes I have spent extensive time in Fukushima. Both at the reactors and surrounding areas. I could write an essay here on why nuclear power isn't our best option. I'm sure you agree?

              The background radiation is a bit of a fun fact many people don't know. I've found many parts of Australia has more background radiation than many parts of the Fukushima prefecture.

            • 1st-Amendment on 19/06/2024 - 12:41
              +2

              @onlinepred:

              Unfortunately, the USD$2,000,000,000,000 in costs

              I think you have mixed up you USD with Yen. Actual cleanup costs are hard to find figures I've seen are around $180B

              directly related to the disaster was not found in many places of Australia

              Nor are there any Gen 1 reactors, so that scenario can never possibly exist. Crisis averted. Phew!

              • Clear on 19/06/2024 - 12:54
                +2

                @1st-Amendment:

                Actual cleanup costs are hard to find figures I've seen are around $180B

                The figures will be endless because they'll never truly cleanup the whole area. They're digging up to 3m of top soil everywhere and moving it into storage. There's so many dense and lush areas of the wilderness that this will never happen.

                On a positive note many of the old rice fields have turned into solar farms and there's a lot of hydrogen cars. They're pushing renewables hard.

                • Cmatthew on 30/06/2024 - 17:04
                  -1

                  @Clear: Nah you're just a nutter.
                  For nutters, high price only matters for nuclear, but renewables? Nothing to see here, no matter how laughably flawed wind farms are.

                  • Clear on 30/06/2024 - 17:09

                    @Cmatthew: So everyone who believes in nuclear is a nutter? Alright champ.

                    • Cmatthew on 30/06/2024 - 17:11
                      -1

                      @Clear: No, it's people like you living in fantasy land thinking windfarms and solar panels are reliable enough for baseload power, and peddle absolute nonsense about radiation being a risk on the basis of Chernobyl and Fukishima.

                      • Clear on 30/06/2024 - 17:12

                        @Cmatthew:

                        No, it's people like you living in fantasy land thinking windfarms and solar panels are reliable enough for baseload power,

                        Where did I say this? You're just peddling shit and trying to pass it off as something I believe in when it's simply not true.

              • onlinepred on 19/06/2024 - 13:30

                @1st-Amendment: Nope not mixed up. But I did add an extra zero out of error haha. It turns out that if things go wrong, it's really freaking expensive!

        • Bdawg on 19/06/2024 - 13:16
          +3

          Who knew that building a nuclear plant on the beach in an area prone to earthquakes and tsunamis was a bad idea?

  • ozbs25 on 19/06/2024 - 11:07
    +2

    Thanks for the post. Would like more details on what they have planned. If done properly why not have Nuclear in Australia?

    • PainToad on 19/06/2024 - 11:10
      +2

      I suggest a quick Google to find information about the plan instead of relying on comments here that are sure to be biased (on both sides of the argument).

      • ozbs25 on 19/06/2024 - 11:13
        +1

        Yeah, I don't mean from here. I mean from Dutton and whoever else is involved. If anywhere in the world should be doing Nuclear, it's probably Australia but I still want to know what contingencies they will have in place if things go sideways. It'll probably all go over my head but I would still like them to go over it all, then the real experts can poke holes in their plans.

        • WatchNerd on 19/06/2024 - 11:20

          why not have Nuclear in Australia?

          The main argument I've heard is by the time it's up & running there will be better cheaper alternatives.

          • ozbs25 on 19/06/2024 - 11:23

            @WatchNerd: Possibly. I'd like to at least look into it seriously. I don't think we've really had a proper discussion/proprosal yet have we?

            • soan papdi on 19/06/2024 - 11:32
              +6

              @ozbs25: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/16-billion-and-16… is an illuminating read. Each plant will cost $16B about 20 years to build. Dutton is proposing 7 of these but won't release costing of his own. Plus we don't have extensive building skills for nuclear plans, so that has to be bootstrapped. Spending $112B on solar and wind will be much more productive overall and faster to boot.

              • ozbs25 on 19/06/2024 - 11:39

                @soan papdi: Thanks, I'll try to read it later. If nuclear is best then let's go with nuclear. If there are better alternatives then that's even better. I am just saying I am open to all avenues.

              • Cmatthew on 30/06/2024 - 17:07
                -1

                @soan papdi:

                Spending $112B on solar and wind will be much more productive overall and faster to boot.

                LOL

                People like you just refuse to acknowledge all the problems with solar and wind farms.

          • 1st-Amendment on 19/06/2024 - 12:42
            -1

            @WatchNerd:

            there will be…

            Wishful thinking is not a strategy

            • SBOB on 19/06/2024 - 18:12
              +1

              @1st-Amendment:

              Wishful thinking is not a strategy

              If course it is.

              The lnp did if for a decade while in power assuming energy policy and future planning didn't matter.

              And they doing it again now they aren't in power, claiming it's a problem we don't have any future planning involving nuclear and we are way behind by not having it already under way.

          • Cmatthew on 30/06/2024 - 17:06
            -1

            @WatchNerd:

            The main argument I've heard is by the time it's up & running there will be better cheaper alternatives.

            Which is nonsense.

            If anything, Nuclear is set to become far more attractive long term as fusion technology develops.

        • onlinepred on 19/06/2024 - 11:26
          +7

          From any experts point of view,
          "we should be open to the technology, but it’s not going to help us in the next 20 years. "
          "Nuclear power does not currently provide the most competitive solution for low emission electricity in Australia."
          "Long development times mean nuclear won’t be able to make a significant contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050."

          Nuclear is like an Australia wide railway, it's just an election fib.

          • ozbs25 on 19/06/2024 - 11:29

            @onlinepred: Don't care about the election. If it's going to help Australia down the track then let's look into it seriously. Others have suggested we should have done it long ago but if it still helps future generations then I don't think we should just dismiss it.

            • onlinepred on 19/06/2024 - 11:40
              +3

              @ozbs25: The consensus is that there is better tech to invest in now that we will see benefits from earlier. We are going to have to update/maintain our coal in the 20 year lead up anyway, which will also cost tens of billions, so why not just keep it going as our fallback to renewables until we find something better. Much better to just invest into other tech now, and reap the rewards later and assess what the next best thing to do is in 10-20 years as there may be even better solutions. If Nuclear power plants could be created instantly, I would agree with you, but they aren't, so it doesn't make sense financially, or at all honestly. Like others said, if we had a plant up and running 50 years ago, then we could be attaching renewables to take some of the load, that would make sense, but right now making that choice for now and the future, it doesn't make sense.

              • ozbs25 on 19/06/2024 - 11:42

                @onlinepred: Ok, fair enough. Thanks for the detailed response.

              • 1st-Amendment on 19/06/2024 - 12:50
                +1

                @onlinepred:

                is better tech to invest in now

                Name it.

                Much better to just invest into other tech now

                Such as?

                If Nuclear power plants could be created instantly, I would agree with you, but they aren't, so it doesn't make sense financially, or at all honestly.

                I had this same argument 20 years ago, and we'll be having again in another 20 years. I'm happy hear all options on the table. So far the only ones that exist in reality for baseload are Coal, Gas and Nuclear. Nuclear being the cleanest option.

                Others like hydro, geothermal, wind, solar, can be used a supplementary sources, but none of them scale to satisfy the hard requirement of 24/7/365 energy.

                The funny thing is that is the hippies hadn't have interfered in the 80's, Australia's energy generation would've already met is Kyoto/Paris targets. So the mess we are in now is directly because of them. What a spectacular own goal.

                making that choice for now and the future, it doesn't make sense.

                It does until you can suggest a better option. That option is conspicuously absent here.

              • Cmatthew on 30/06/2024 - 17:08
                -1

                @onlinepred:

                The consensus is that there is better tech to invest in

                Consensus among nutters like yourself with no real idea.

    • Bdawg on 19/06/2024 - 13:18

      Nimbys and people that look at chernobyl and fukishima and think that will happen here. We can avoid that by not letting the soviets design it, using the latest technology and not putting the plants on a beach where the land is prone to earthquakes and tsunamis.

    • alidli on 19/06/2024 - 20:09
      +1

      …Would like more details on what they (the LNP) have planned….

      Let me enlighten you.

      Dutton is spouting that one of the main drivers for his nuclear push is for the domestic consumer to get cheaper electric and that when all the reactors are built they will all be owned by the government.
      With the LNP both of these things are just NOT going to happen.

      My prediction -

      We'll get bombarded with the BS spiel about "more competition in the market will reduce prices".
      The facilities will get built with borrowed government money at a cost overrun of 3-5 times the original estimates.
      Initially the public will see a small reduction in power bills, however after 5-10 years of them all being operational the LNP will do one or a combination of these-
      1) Sell them to the City, private equity or their donor mates who have lost their coal revenues (eg. BHP, Glencore, Gina Rinehart).
      2) Privatise them.
      3) Offer shares of the company(s) to the public, who will then sell them to make a quick profit (the majority of the shares will again end up in the hands of big companies).

      The final result with anything involving the LNP- we will end up paying higher electricity prices not cheaper.

      • ozbs25 on 19/06/2024 - 20:54

        To be honest I don't really care about electricity prices that much. I just want to move away from fossil fuels and find a good alternative.

      • Cmatthew on 30/06/2024 - 17:12
        -1

        Don't care, wind and solar is not a solution for baseload power.

        • INFIDEL on 01/07/2024 - 01:20
          +1

          Baseload power is just not necessary!

          "baseload power" is an archaic steam age concept. Very industrial revolution era.
          Keep up!

          Because coal & nuclear generators are expensive & near impossible to quickly turn on & off - they needed to be run continuously.

          Hence baseload power was seen as normal & necessary. Because that's what the generators supply. Even when it's not needed!

          It's just an artifact of the old technology.

          What is needed is power to meet the demand. Supplied fast in the right amount when needed.

          Renewables with storage & distribution may supply that. I've lived off grid for many years with solar + wind + batteries.

        • INFIDEL on 01/07/2024 - 01:43
          +1

          Remember Scomo's
          "This is coal - don't be afraid"…

          Unfortunately the NUCLEAR OPTION is primarily another attempt to prolong the life of fossil fuel use.
          To retain that status quo.

          Strangely for the LNP, their plan is to nationalise much of electricity production - away from private companies.
          Something they have vigorously campaigned against!! Selling up most State electricity production & networks.

          • alidli on 01/07/2024 - 18:36

            @INFIDEL: Yes strange indeed that they would want to buy it back…must all be about control.

  • RecklessMonkeys on 19/06/2024 - 11:08
    +3

    Bring on fusion.

  • Gdsamp on 19/06/2024 - 11:24
    +12

    should have done this 40 or so years ago. Too late now

    Sadly we are heading down the UK path of getting nothing done, sending all $$ to top end of town hwhile living standards go backwards
    hwhat a decade-odd of conservative 'leadership' do to a western democracy

  • bchliu on 19/06/2024 - 11:32

    Fusion tech is the way to go along with renewables where possible. Fallback though would be Thorium Salt based Fission as maybe a short term gap while the other tech is getting more mature.

    • LeDangles on 19/06/2024 - 11:37

      Fusion tech is incredible and exciting, but it's legitimately 30+ years away from being possible in a power generator format no?

      • bchliu on 19/06/2024 - 11:39
        +1

        That's why alternative is to go with Thorium Salt Fission for now. Much more safer from explosions and also controlled that it can't become weapons grade. Mixed with renewable energy investments as well.

        I think they will get "higher output than input" Fusion by the turn of the decade.. but realistic implementations will be 20 years away, while mainstream will be 30 years as you say.

        • Bdawg on 19/06/2024 - 13:19

          We should do it and also get nukes to protect from you know who…

        • Russ on 20/06/2024 - 09:16

          Thorium Salt Fission

          I'd like to believe that will work, but real-world performance says no.

          India has huge thorium reserves, and have been trying for decades to get thorium-fueled reactors going. They have the world's only thorium-powered reactor with 30kW power output:
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAMINI

          But it isn't really fuelled by thorium. It's a uranium-233 reactor, and that uranium did come from thorium, but only by putting the thorium into a much larger reactor (13.2MW, 440 times larger) that is fuelled by uranium and plutonium:
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBTR

          also controlled that it can't become weapons grade.

          Not true either, thorium reactors produce their power by "breeding" thorium into uranium-233 which is what produces the power. Uranium-233 can be used to make a bomb, and such a bomb was made and tested in 1955, read the bit about the "MET" test:
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Teapot

          The US also had a go at thorium reactors, and gave up. Wikipedia says:

          The reasons were that uranium-fuelled reactors were more efficient, the research was proven and thorium's breeding ratio was thought insufficient to produce enough fuel to support development of a commercial nuclear industry.

          TL;DR: Thorium is a better fuel for idealistic reasons, unfortunately uranium is cheaper and much easier to use. No reactor purely powered by thorium has ever been created, tests have found it's not a great fuel.

          • bchliu on 20/06/2024 - 11:32

            @Russ: Nah.. Thorium Salt reactors have come a long way and has got so much advantages over the conventional Uranium based reactors. The Thorium salts doesn't need huge liquid cooling solutions from heavy water etc. and much more compact with Thorium being much more abundant in general. Thorium salt generators have passive anti-meltdown safety features that will basically cut the process even if every system fails through its design too.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElulEJruhRQ
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf4XahwtJUk

            The whole "cheaper" argument is subjective - it's about economies of scale. The focus is on Uranium mining as it is used not only for power, but more towards weapons. Once there is more demand for Thorium, it will bring down the TCO quite considerably. I remember back in the 80s where people knew about the oil fields in Alaska for example, but it was too expensive to filter out since it was mixed with bunch of other chemicals etc. Now through technology, better designs etc, it is reasonably economical to mine oil from Alaska as a result.

            • Russ on 20/06/2024 - 19:27

              @bchliu: You're misunderstanding the "cheaper" bit, it's not about the price of uranium versus thorium. It's about the complexity and difficulty of getting a thorium reactor to even work, let alone put out power.

              The neutron absorption cross-section of thorium is much worse than uranium, so you need incredibly high neutron efficiency to keep the nuclear reaction going. You are facing two opposing problems: you need a moderator to slow the neutrons down, so they're more likely to be absorbed by a thorium nucleus, but at the same time, you can't afford to lose any neutrons, and all moderators lose neutrons.

              It's very telling that there are still no operational thorium reactors that can be fuelled entirely by thorium. Not even research reactors. Or even mostly by thorium, as evidenced by the India example I gave above.

              Lots of people would love LFTR reactors to work, but it's more likely we'll have fusion working before we have a working LFTR.

              And of course the other problem is that LFTRs will always be way more expensive than uranium BWRs, so they simply won't be made. Much of that expense is because fluorine salts are incredibly corrosive, so all the piping has to be made of superalloys. LFTRs do have some advantages, like the ease of separating out used nuclear fuel, but they don't outweigh the disadvantages.

              All of the safety claims you have made also apply to CANDU reactors, and they are well-known, working, inexpensive uranium reactors with an excellent track record.

      • Cmatthew on 30/06/2024 - 17:14
        -2

        Fusion tech is incredible and exciting, but it's legitimately 30+ years away from being possible in a power generator format no?

        Why shouldn't we be planning for 30 years ahead?

        Why are Albo and his goons so keen to dismiss Nuclear entirely when the future projections are so promising?

        I'm still waiting to hear legitimate arguments that aren't just seething about Dutton. I'm so sick of dumb people insisting baseload power can be driven by wind and solar.

  • OfTheOverflow on 19/06/2024 - 11:44
    +12

    Gotta love this country. In the same way that the dream in the USA is 'anyone can be president', Aussies seem to think 'anyone can be a scientific institution' at a moment's notice.

    CSIRO has already weighed-in and said "yeah, the technology is fine I guess, but it just doesn't stack up vs. renewables so there's no point" punters still think "hmm yes. Well while I'm not a scientist whose job it is to literally have the definitive and objective view, I RECKON WE GIVE IT A RED HOT CRACK BOYZ".

    🤡 Leave it to the experts ffs

    • Jack D Price on 19/06/2024 - 11:58
      +7

      "Yeah but SkyNews said…."
      "Yeah but this Youtuber said…."
      "Yeah but, Dave down the road, the one with the VB short, he reckons…."

    • 1st-Amendment on 19/06/2024 - 12:57
      -5

      Aussies seem to think 'anyone can be a scientific institution' at a moment's notice.

      Actually anyone can question the science, that is the beauty of it. It's just a method that welcomes questions, in fact questioning is built-in to the method because the truth does not fear questions.
      This idea that there only high priests who work in ivory towers can think about things and make decisions is how religions work, not Science.

      "I would rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned." - Richard Feynman

      whose job it is to literally have the definitive and objective view

      Like how the CSIRO gender affirmation policy lol…

      Leave it to the experts ffs

      This is the argument from authority logical fallacy. If you're going to make the case for something, you should at least know the basics.

      • sammyjj on 19/06/2024 - 13:56
        +8

        You just kicked an own goal to @OfTheOverflow

        Your argument is one of false equivalence - if you're going to make the case for something, you should at least know the basics.

        Asking questions and whataboutism is fine, but it isn't science. Doing actual science using the scientific method is science. If you want to prove a scientific theory wrong the burden of proof is on you - and your scientific paper.

    • Aureus on 19/06/2024 - 14:50

      And by punters you mean Dutton right?

    • Cmatthew on 30/06/2024 - 17:15
      -2

      Why do nutjobs like you always insist everyone must blindly trust your preferred source of data? You know the CSIRO aren't the only scientific body in the world? Nor are they the most credible.

      • OfTheOverflow on 30/06/2024 - 17:37
        +1

        Ah yes, believing in our peak scientific institution who is uniquely qualified to assess this exact scenario with local data. Yes truly I am a nut job. 🥴 Christ alive, covid really broke the brains of a lot of people.

        • Cmatthew on 30/06/2024 - 23:40
          -1

          How are they any more credible than the hundreds, if not thousands of institutions across the world, far more qualified than you or me, who strongly advocate for nuclear and provide more than enough data for it's reliability and viability?

          How about instead of appealing to authority, you actually make an evidence-backed case… oh wait, that's clearly well beyond your capabilities.

          • Nom on 30/06/2024 - 23:51
            +1

            @Cmatthew: What a strange post.

            There are not "hundreds, if not thousands of institutions across the world" advocating for Nuclear Power in Australia.

            you actually make an evidence-backed case

            That's what the CSIRO just did. I suggest you read it.
            If you have a paper that makes a better case for Australian Nuclear Power, then please post it here.

            • OfTheOverflow on 30/06/2024 - 23:58

              @Nom: God, don't bother engaging them. People like this aren't interested in sober analysis leading to a rational conclusion. They're looking to cosplay as an expert.

  • Mr BoMBAStiG on 19/06/2024 - 11:45
    -6

    Wind and solar are a farce and not a feasible solution. Nuclear is the best baseload option we have that is palatable to the masses. Personally I think coal is the answer for the next couple of decades until we figure out the next gen of baseload power.
    Burning carbon has been the best thing for mankind over the last century. We are silly to think we can just switch it off quickly because a teenager with FAS told us she doesn't like it.

    • teatea on 19/06/2024 - 18:54
      +1

      If you understand what baseload power is and what industries need it, then you'll find that we really don't need that much baseload power. Here's a hint, the coal plants all need baseload power.

  • Stuj on 19/06/2024 - 12:07
    +2

    Oh to have solar on every roof and community battery banks at local substations I for 1 would be happy not to pay a big corporation for energy if I didn’t need to, no matter what technology.

    • 1st-Amendment on 19/06/2024 - 12:58
      -2

      I for 1 would be happy not to pay a big corporation for energy if I didn’t need to

      Who do you think you will paying for your solar panels and battery? Old Granny up the road, do you think she'll be baking them in her kitchen?

      • Stuj on 19/06/2024 - 13:10
        -1

        I certainly wouldn’t be living near you with that attitude. I assume you are intelligent to figure the panels are a one off cost. Second thoughts I’ll be buying a battery for myself again a one off cost.

        • Bdawg on 19/06/2024 - 13:21
          +1

          Solar panels are probably economically viable/good investment for most households but batteries not really, yet.

        • 1st-Amendment on 19/06/2024 - 13:24
          -3

          I certainly wouldn’t be living near you with that attitude.

          What attitude? The ability to think?

          I assume you are intelligent to figure the panels are a one off cost

          Are they? So in your head how does this work? The panels required to supply 8 billion people on earth won't come from 'a big corporation'? The constant building of new homes with solar panels and batteries won't require 'a big corporation'? Do you think solar panels last forever? Or at some point they will need to be replaced? And can you guess who will be supplying the replacements? Will it be Granny up the road, or 'a big corporation'?

          I’ll be buying a battery for myself again a one off cost.

          From who? Tesla? LG? Aren't they 'big companies'? And when that battery dies in 10 odd years, what then? You'll go back to Tesla or LG and pay them for another one?

          So the scenario is either pay big corporation each month for use of centralised energy, or pay big corporation for 10 or 15 years for distributed energy. At no point does 'big corporation' not take your money.

          Let me give you a real world example. I have solar and battery. Cost was about $18k for which I might get 15 years of use if I'm lucky. I could also just pay for electricity and it would cost me $18k over the same period. How has 'big corporation' not won in this example? I'm out of pocket $18k in both scenarios, and 'big company' is $18k better off.

          I assume you are intelligent enough to figure out how this works…

          • onlinepred on 19/06/2024 - 13:51

            @1st-Amendment: You got ripped off with your solar and battery!

            Also no, I assume if you use your intellect like you suggest others do, you would realise the average Australian spends $411 per quarter on electricity. Over 15 years that is $24,660. In your example, $18k is not more than $24k. So no.

            • 1st-Amendment on 19/06/2024 - 13:54
              -1

              @onlinepred:

              You got ripped off with your solar and battery!

              Since you don't know the capacity of either, nor the date when they were installed, you have just confirmed that you have no idea what you are talking about. Thanks for confirmation.

              • onlinepred on 19/06/2024 - 13:54

                @1st-Amendment: Also no, I assume if you use your intellect like you suggest others do, you would realise the average Australian spends $411 per quarter on electricity. Over 15 years that is $24,660. In your example, $18k is not more than $24k. So no.

                • 1st-Amendment on 19/06/2024 - 13:56
                  -1

                  @onlinepred:

                  I assume if you use your intellect like you suggest others do, you would realise the average Australian spends $411 per quarter

                  Why did you assume I was an average user? Something about intellect…

                  • onlinepred on 19/06/2024 - 14:00

                    @1st-Amendment: And there we are, this whole argument of yours rests solely on your own individual interests. Peace out!

                    • 1st-Amendment on 19/06/2024 - 16:07
                      -1

                      @onlinepred:

                      this whole argument of yours rests solely on your own individual interests

                      Reading is not your thing is it…

                  • CrowReally on 19/06/2024 - 14:05
                    +3

                    @1st-Amendment: If it makes you feel any better, I'm willing to assume you're a below average user

                    In fact, given the way you've presented your arguments here today, maybe a lot of us will

                    • 1st-Amendment on 19/06/2024 - 16:04

                      @CrowReally:

                      In fact, given the way you've presented your arguments here today

                      Wake me up when you have one…

                      • CrowReally on 19/06/2024 - 16:21
                        +2

                        @1st-Amendment: How about we wake you up when you're ready to take in "knowledge" that hasn't come from Telegram or David Icke?

                        • 1st-Amendment on 19/06/2024 - 16:26

                          @CrowReally:

                          How about we wake you up when you're ready to take in "knowledge"

                          You are yet to provide any.

                          that hasn't come from Telegram or David Icke

                          I have no idea what they are. Sound like yet more false assumptions and still no actual argument…

          • SBOB on 19/06/2024 - 17:48
            +2

            @1st-Amendment:

            Let me give you a real world example. I have solar and battery. Cost was about $18k for which I might get 15 years of use if I'm lucky. I could also just pay for electricity and it would cost me $18k over the same period. How has 'big corporation' not won in this example? I'm out of pocket $18k in both scenarios, and 'big company' is $18k better off

            Is this like a 'self burn' where you show how poor your ability to make wise financial decisions is ?

            • CrowReally on 20/06/2024 - 12:23
              +1

              @SBOB: Are we even certain it was actual solar panels he was investing in? Maybe it was $18k of aluminium foil for hats?

  • alidli on 19/06/2024 - 12:20
    +1

    With all our major cities near the coast, can someone explain why we aren't utilising wave energy more?
    Clean, an endless supply, no expensive pollution, produces energy night and day, etc…..I'm sure AI could help develop a safe, workable solution that would cost much, much less than (potentially unsafe) nuclear and not leave highly radioactive waste for future generations to deal with.

    • 1st-Amendment on 19/06/2024 - 13:03
      +4

      why we aren't utilising wave energy more?

      Because it's shit. It costs a lot, produces little, and breaks easily.

      and not leave highly radioactive waste for future generations to deal with.

      This is mostly FUD. For an average human that lives 80 years, if you were to use nuclear power for your entire life, the waste product could fit into a can of coke. Think about that, all of you waste for an entire lifetime in a single can. For newer prototype Gen 4 reactors this is much less. Nuclear is as clean as energy gets.

      • RecklessMonkeys on 19/06/2024 - 13:35
        +3

        I'd rather not have to worry about 25 million radioactive cans of coke.

        The tail risk of a solar panel malfunction doesn't compare to the tail risk of a nuclear meltdown. And I'm not interested in taking on the risk of 'prototype' fission reactors and being the next three eyed guinea pig only for the fission industry to dictate energy prices.

      • illogicalerror on 19/06/2024 - 13:38
        +3

        Except for energy that doesn't produce radioactive waste or carbon waste. Like, if we were using it and we were making many millions of cans of waste every generation that's an issue. I really big issue. One that will eventually mature and fark us.

        Mining industry doesn't want people to believe that renewables are feasible. It's really important that they keep digging stuff up and being the sole controller of all the energy. Renewable industry says it's the only way but has major shortfalls as it isn't consistent

        So the race is on between batteries and reactors to see who comes up with the best solution, and also who has the biggest brown paper bags passed to the right people.

        • 1st-Amendment on 19/06/2024 - 13:50

          Except for energy that doesn't produce radioactive waste or carbon waste.

          Lol, EVERYTHING does. Once you grasp that, then the rest becomes clear.

          eg did you know that common house bricks emit radiation? This might shock you: https://xkcd.com/radiation/

          many millions of cans of waste every generation that's an issue

          Not really. An old mine site in the desert could safely store it for a 1000 years without issue. If the Ancient Egyptians managed to store stuff for thousands of years, I'm sure we can work it out.

          Mining industry doesn't want people to believe that renewables are feasible

          Sounds like a kooky conspiracy theory….
          Renewables require mining too. Everything does. Only hippies don't seem to understand this fact.

          So the race is on between batteries and reactors to see who comes up with the best solution

          That race was won about 50 years ago, but hippies didn't like the result so here we are.

          • illogicalerror on 19/06/2024 - 19:35
            +3

            @1st-Amendment: Because house bricks we should make thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste. Right. lol

            The battery merchants are moving in and there's moving pressure to stop burning stuff, and to bring nuclear up and running takes many years and is incredibly expensive. You're sorely mislead if you think we've even started to see what battery technology is capable of.

            Hippies everywhere, in the highest ranks of government, listening to climate scientist warnings. They're coming for your mining shares, gonna give it to other miners… dig in mate.

            https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-17/nuclear-investment-ca…

        • Cmatthew on 30/06/2024 - 17:19
          -2

          Except for energy that doesn't produce carbon waste

          Jesus christ, it is terrifying knowing people like you are voting…

    • Bdawg on 19/06/2024 - 13:22
      +1

      "Studies show that ash from coal power plants contains significant quantities of arsenic, lead, thallium, mercury, uranium and thorium[1].

      To generate the same amount of electricity, a coal power plant gives off at least ten times more radiation than a nuclear power plant."

      https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2022-00356…

      • 1st-Amendment on 19/06/2024 - 16:22
        +1

        I posted this above. https://xkcd.com/radiation/
        Eating a banana gives you more radiation than living next to a Nuclear power plant for a year.
        The irrational fear of nuclear power is off the charts.

        • Bdawg on 19/06/2024 - 16:26

          Interesting chart, if a little hard to read. Eating a banana haha, who woulda thunkit.

        • illogicalerror on 19/06/2024 - 19:42

          The cry to go nuclear without consulting anyone who can count up to 6 is irrational too.

          6 times more expensive irrational.

          • 1st-Amendment on 20/06/2024 - 09:03

            @illogicalerror:

            6 times more expensive irrational.

            It's only irrational if you can demonstrate it, which you haven't. Username checks out.

            6x more than what? You forgot to actually present a case…

            • illogicalerror on 24/06/2024 - 12:31

              @1st-Amendment: 6x more expensive than capturing the hot air coming out of people who can't figure out the cost analysis between the most expensive and cheapest power sources.
              https://www.google.com/search?q=nuclear+cost+more&oq=nuclear…

              There's no 1st Amendment in Australia, flawed perspective. Username checks out.

              • 1st-Amendment on 24/06/2024 - 14:44

                @illogicalerror:

                6x more expensive than capturing the hot air coming out of people who can't figure out

                How can you figure something out until it's been presented? Logic error…

                Now that you presented let's start with the very first line:
                "Electricity from nuclear power would cost Australia significantly more than generating it from solar and wind"

                How much does solar power cost at winter evening peaks when it is needed the most?
                What about when the wind capacity drops to zero which it does regularly? How much does one kwh of electricity cost then?

                Guardian readers never seem to be able to answer that most obvious question…it's almost like they can't figure out how supply and demand works…

                here's no 1st Amendment in Australia,

                Ideas are not bound by political borders… logic error…

                flawed perspective.

                Yes, you you made some false assumptions and proceeded on those. Very illogical indeed…

                What were you saying, 'hot air coming out of people who can't figure out the cost analysis…' Let me know when you provide the cost analysis of 1kwh of solar at night.

                • illogicalerror on 24/06/2024 - 15:31

                  @1st-Amendment: "Now that you presented let's start with the very first line:
                  "Electricity from nuclear power would cost Australia significantly more than generating it from solar and wind"
                  "
                  I never said that, you leap from being dumb deliberately to pretending to be smart, but lets analyse anyway…

                  Off river pumped hydro is way cheaper and quicker to install. Just a fraction of the time and cost to install with well established technologies. There are also compressed air and flywheel techs that are well established and significantly cheaper and quicker to build. There are other technologies coming to fruition as well. Grid linked sodium ion batteries are already being installed in other countries. This will become the norm worldwide.

                  Or you're betting the bank on technology that doesn't even exist (mini reactors), with specialist skills we don't have, with guaranteed costs that are going to be far more than all other options, that won't be ready for at least 15 years… so we should keep burning fossil fuels with abandon in the meanwhile and then trash all our renewable sources when it's finally complete? Then promise it will save us money or somehow be better? Government funded projects can't even build a reliable optic fibre network to spec without blowing out in every imaginable way, and that's with all the professionals we need already living here. I think you are identifying with my username on a scale that I haven't seen before.

                  There are solid reasons that only tiny overpopulated or sh*tty countries are building nuclear now and the rest are closing it all down progressively.
                  https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu…

                  • 1st-Amendment on 24/06/2024 - 16:27

                    @illogicalerror:

                    I never said that

                    This was the link YOU sent…

                    you leap from being dumb deliberately to

                    And there we have it.. straight to the Ad hominem logical fallacy… username is perfect.

                    Off river pumped hydro is way cheaper and quicker to install. Just a fraction of the time and cost to install

                    So your magic bullet is Snowy 2.0, the $20B white elephant? Please show the maths on how many of those we would need to cover the national demand. Do you actually know that number?

                    There are other technologies coming to fruition as well

                    And there we have it. The wishful thinking approach.
                    APR1400 actually exists in real life in South Korea, one of the most technologically advance nations on earth. But you keep telling yourself what you need to deny reality.

                    • SBOB on 24/06/2024 - 16:42

                      @1st-Amendment:

                      The wishful thinking approach.

                      as opposed to Nuclear SMR's, which is one of the technologies being put forward by the LNP?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join