Does Apathy Rule The Climate Debate - OZ reality

Select to expand quote

Paddles B'mere said..
@cammd, everything is about politics for a politician. Whilst some people may consider nuclear energy to be a potential solution to climate change; if a political party was to implement a "let's build a nuclear power station" policy next week they would lose the next election.

Spot on, which is why it's important for those that are truly worried about climate change to also support nuclear as an integral part of any power grid. If they don't support it they are either ignorant and therefore their views hold no weight, or they have a different agenda than just climate change.

@Paradox, unfortunately nuclear isn't without it's issues which is efficiency (waste vs output) and then storage of the waste. It's part of a very big gamble, it will be quite expensive to build a plant and there will be a long lead time on approval/construction before it could be brought on line. If a better/cleaner technology (that's not yet available) gets developed before the nuclear plant gets paid off then it could turn into a financial nightmare. But you're right, if society was really serious about getting away from fossil fueled generation then nuclear should at least be on the table and being discussed.

Nothing peer reviewed mate, only what I've picked up from a bit of reading and watching some docos. I formed the opinion that the fuel had to be "turned over" quite regularly and therefore a lot of waste was generated (as a percentage of fuel actually used) but I've now read this article which gives a pretty good description of the fuel "life cycle" www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/introduction/nuclear-fuel-cycle-overview.aspx

Again, not peer reviewed but hopefully it's a good source

There are so many alt right wing keyboard warriors these days who put forward their opinions based on a their own isolated privileged viewpoint.
Time to look at the future from a wider perspective.

The current infrastructure in place for distribution and production of power will remain and maybe reduced say 20%, for sake of argument. There will still be coal, gas, diesel etc for production of power. Moving to the future hopefully there is clean renewable power for the expansion of the power production.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

why do people do this......if you're a climate "alarmist" then you have to believe in Nuclear or you and what you believe in is all fake. It's the dumbest of dumb political wedges disguised as truth.

look at the costs of nuclear as opposed to the costs of other forms of generation....look at the speed of development of renewables.
We can do better.

I think you are putting words in my mouth there. I haven't called anyone's beliefs fake, nor is there a political wedge to anything I have said. Only facts and questions.

I am not sure what you are referring to regarding the speed of development of renewable energy sources, but the reality is that we cannot put more than about 40% renewable sources into the current supply networks before you get problems. We can get to that 40% as fast as you like, but the reality is once you hit it the rest needs to come from Coal, Gas or Nuclear (or if you are lucky, hydro). The science on that is a hell a lot more "in" than any consensus on climate change.

So, my assertion is that anyone who thinks we need to eliminate CO2 production as an urgent necessity and doesn't want to consider Nuclear is unfortunately not abreast of reality. It can't be reasonably done. Considering this, I reassert my view that anyone who has been made aware of this AND also believes in a looming catastrophic climate emergency (as opposed to things need to change) but still will not consider Nuclear, is either ignorant of the reality or has a less than committed focus on climate change then they make out.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

This is what you said. "or they have a different agenda than just Climate Change". That means protesters aren't really committed to Climate Change but another agenda. Therefore they are fakes, frauds, whatever you want to call them. The subtext is if you don't support Nuclear , you're a fraud. Of course this is a false dilemma. You either have one or the other.......there is no other way.......Bollocks.

I think you are reading a bit much into my comments, but irrespective.....i'd like to hear your thoughts on why its "bollocks"

Specifically, in Australia, if the decision is made that we will shut down coal and gas power as soon as they can be replaced what your realistic plan to achieve this?

Select to expand quote

Paddles B'mere said..
You've raised a good point Paradox, but the reality is that replacing coal fired energy TODAY with an alternative will come at an extreme economic cost that the community will not bear (ie it will become a political issue). So the long term economic gamble remains, will a cleaner alternative be found before the last loan repayment can be made on the initial capital outlay for a nuclear power station? And a more important, shorter term political view is - at what point will the community accept the cost of the transition?

Oh i'm with with you, although if done correctly Nuclear does not have to be the expensive option the US and UK have made it. It's the acceptance and regulatory environment that are the big hurdles. My points were about people who want change now at any cost. There is only one viable route.

What i'm getting at is that if someone is genuinely wanting to reduce CO2 emissions then they need to seriously consider Nuclear as there really is no reasonable near term alternative to fossil fuels for grid stability, and typically the same people (not all) that are screaming about a climate emergency are the same ones who refuse to consider the one option that could actually give them what they want.