Ask Austrailyah Clarifies How They're Too Cucked and Stupid To Survive

It took 40 years for them to level some dirt and lay concrete for a runway in Western Sydney, they still haven't started building HSR after 4 decades, we can't even dig a tunnel for the hydro but yeah we're totally going to build 7 nuclear reactors. If there is anyone out there that thinks this isn't complete horse shit, I would like to offer to sell you a magic rock that keeps your house safe from bears.

Because we suck!

It isnt an australian problem, it is a global problem about the misconceptions of nuclear power. All of the incidents that have happened because of nuclear power were a direct result of humans disregarding procedures and safety plans. Fukushima for example had absolutely nothing to do with the reactor nor the design of the nuclear power plant, it functioned perfectly and stayed safe in a situation that was several orders of magnitude higher than what it was designed and built for. It failed because the backup diseal to run the coolant during a shutdown were put below the flood line and couldn't start. They were warned about it previously but that never gets reported. Chernobyl was the USSR doing stuipd stuff against procedure in a facility that had no containment or other security considerations (basically the USSR doing what the USSR did best, disregarding any form of safety and procedures).

I mean if you have faith in being able to completely remove human error when we've never been able to do it before, ok then

At this point, it's not that were against it as a power source, but rather against the bad faith proposals to go nuclear instead of using renewables, which is what a lot of the right wing is trying to do.

Nuclear will take a long time to build and implement, and it's expensive and complicated to develop. We can do it, but it won't be ready any time soon. In the meantime, we have a number of different renewable energy resources that we currently use and continue to develop.

If there was a plan to develop nuclear energy safely and effectively over the long-term, that didn't also involve a pause or reduction in the use and development or renewable energy sources, then I'd be mostly fine with it.

>it's because it's heckin bad faith by chuds

Nuclear was a great option long ago. Renewables just don't make it really a viable option. They're cheaper, easier to put in, can easily be replaced and are improving all the time. Nuclear would've been great for us in the last century, but it's just not worth it nowadays.

Renewables are not and have never been a replacement for the base load generation of Nuclear. If a nuclear reactor produces 1 gigawatt (GW) of electricity. That doesn't mean you can simply replace it with a 1 gigawatt coal or renewable plant, based on the capacity factors, you would need almost two coal or three to four renewable plants (each of 1 GW size) to generate the same amount of electricity onto the grid.

Yes, renewables are a great thing to have...

While we research and perfect nuclear power. Modern technology would make nuclear by far the best option.

The day someone makes a modernized power plant that is nuclear based (and isn't Unga bunga hot water spin big fan) will be the day we never look back

But that is still years away unfortunately

In the meantime - tax the rich and stop their needless flying everywhere

Nuclear power is the safest method of generation through the whole supply chain, how much fricking safer do you want it to be?

There is no current or foreseeable way of directly converting fission to electricity jfc, you need to use a generator. There's radiothermal using thermocouples but it's extremely inefficent and only used for shit like Voyager since it lasts forever. The most modern RTG puts out 125W electrical, 2KW thermal, and costs $109 million.

Taxing the rich for the sake of taxing them doesn't do shit, and the sneeding about flying will never not be funny to me.

Plus the climate is warming and water could become scarce. Why put something in that requires so much water? It's just kicking the can down the road.

Australians are literally children. You can use nuclear plants to desalinate water.

There is also way better renewable technologies coming out.

With fusion energy on the horizon.

Things worth noting is super capacitors, carbon batteries and hydrogen.

Super capacitors last about 45 years and have no degradation and charge in 30 minutes.

They are designed for rapid charge and release of power, perfect for large scale power projects.

Hydrogen plants are popping up now, with green hydrogen in the works (made by using solar or wind)

And carbon batteries plus other types like liquid salt are very close to production.

Then you have energy storage like using mines with shafts to use gravity with weights to create large volumes of electricity as well as stored hydro.

All of the above could be built in under 10 years and has very little to no impact on the planet, compared to nuclear which has masses of questionable contaminates that take millions of years to deal with and can create radioactive lakes and lands from bad weather to earth quakes. It also will take 30 odd years to complete. And fusion is very likely to be running by then.

lol at these Rube Goldberg energy storage solutions. Fusion is not around the corner

With the nuclear restrictions on Australia currently in place. Private enterprise has no real incentive to assess the viability, as it is outlawed anyway so no point.

That means any viability efforts have been done by government and/or their (paid) auditors.

That means the assessments are manipulated to align with party policy.

Public perception is usually aligned with the party whos support base has the loudest voice.

You also have a few outdated opinions concerned about where the waste will be stored.

Given most online presence is dominated by left/labor people. The hate for nuclear is pushed by the people who see it as liberal party policy and a roadblock to the hardline renewables people getting their way.

It's a shame we can't just lift the restrictions and allow a suitable private enterprise to put a legitimate business case together so we can make an informed decision.

Uh-oh.

Also the "you have to store the waste safely for a million years so when all records are lost nobody wanders in there" b-word if shit goes that far downhill then idgaf what happens.

(-2) Yep, the ban on nuclear technology in Australia cannot be rationally defended. The only argument against nuclear power is that it is too expensive. So why is the entire nuclear industry, except uranium mining, banned? If nuclear power is not economical then there is no need for a ban because no one will build it, but there may be other parts of the supply chain we could create an industry around. Especially as the Russian are under sanction (they produce fuel rods).

But no, we're not a country that does any value adding to the stuff we mine, we just ship it to China and buy back the processed product... Oh, and leverage more residential real estate of course!

Because it is a truly cucked country.

(-1) Have you ever known greens supporters to be rational people?

They can do the business case right now. They won't because everything you just said is bullshit.

Yeah, let's leave it to private enterprise to solve our nuclear management problems.

That's fricking hilarious.

HAVENT YOU SEEN FERN GULLY or CAPTAIN PLANET?!?

The first thing private enterprise will do is minimise costs to maximise profit. That is their legal obligation to their shareholders.

Let's be very clear here. A nuclear power station's natural state is a massive fricking explosion that wipes out half the continent.

It takes constant, round-the-clock monitoring, maintenance, and strict safety standards to prevent that natural state from occurring.

That effort requires constant funding. There is no room for cutting corners, nor costs.

I don't even trust our Government to handle this. Not a chance I'd trust a private company whose only responsiblity is to shareholders in another country.

Your private school education should have taught you that.

Yeah a corporation's interest is in seeing their CAPeX turn into radioactive ruins.

>A nuclear power station's natural state is a massive fricking explosion

They're just as dumb as the chuds they hate. You have to work to make a fission chain reaction, that was the whole fricking challenge of the Manhattan project.

Kill all redditors.

Because it's too dangerous and the waste is a gigantic, unsolvable problem.

Nuclear waste is just as dangerous as any other part of the nuclear fission process. However:

• it cannot be destroyed

• it cannot be used for anything

• it cannot be safely stored

All previous storage methods like dumping it in the ocean or in abandoned mines are having to be revised, and in some situations, like this documentary I saw, which was about an abandoned salt mine in Germany, I believe, they're having to spend time, money and resources pulling up the "stored" nuclear waste cause it's leaking into the ground. And trying to find some new way of dealing with it.

Nuclear isn't worth the downsides. One Chernobyl should have been enough to tell us that.

Anyone who says nuclear is safe and problem free is a frickwit or a liar deliberately trying to mislead you with false information.

More people die in a year from mining the rare earths for your precious shitlib utopia than ever died in Chernobyl under incompetent slavs.

This is nuts, there downvoting. CSIRO report itself (anti nuclear report) says large scale nuclear would cost 14-23 cents per kWh. That's pretty cheap if I look at my energy bill (even when you add gst)

I can't wait until China finally buckbreaks those budget Angloids