Select to expand quoteObelix said..
Having said that, a Fusion based nuclear would be great. It's a shame it does no work, except on the Millenium Falcon
and a Delorean
Select to expand quoteDavMen said..Obelix said..
Having said that, a Fusion based nuclear would be great. It's a shame it does no work, except on the Millenium Falcon
and a Delorean
You simply bolt on an intergalactic space modulator.
We'll probably need that intergalactic space modulator so once humans screwed up this planet they can move on to another one.
All i know is that i was told in the 70s that we'd all be underwater from the polar icecaps melting by now, and yet my house thats 10 miles from the coast is still not a waterfront property, so i feel like I've been lied to. When am i getting my waterfront property you lieing bastards!! 
Select to expand quotesegler said..
Sure, there are risks with nuclear, but they are miniscule compared to risks in other energy industries.
I don't think the 350,000 people that used to live in Chernobyl would agree with the statement "miniscule risk". I lived in Germany when the reactor blew up. About 2,000 km away. The radiation levels found in wild mushroom and sand in playground was well above what is considered safe.
Now imagine even a minor accident near a city like Sydney or Melbourne. I am surprised any politician would signoff on that risk.
Select to expand quotestehsegler said..segler said..
Sure, there are risks with nuclear, but they are miniscule compared to risks in other energy industries.
I don't think the 350,000 people that used to live in Chernobyl would agree with the statement "miniscule risk". I lived in Germany when the reactor blew up. About 2,000 km away. The radiation levels found in wild mushroom and sand in playground was well above what is considered safe.
Now imagine even a minor accident near a city like Sydney or Melbourne. I am surprised any politician would signoff on that risk.
you are referring to old tech tho.
The tech has moved on. Fast nuclear reactors, micro reactors and small modular reactors are designed to mitigate risk. Fast nuclear reactors use existing stock piles of waste.
If we banned nuclear technology no one would be able to design improved systems.
Select to expand quoteRango said..Obelix said..
Chernobil, ****ushima, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Zaporozie next...Then the South Australia's test site and the ones they've hidden from us.
Australia does not seem capable of storing medical nuclear waste. Let alone the nuclear submarine waste. So where to store the nuclear power plant waste?
Maybe adopt the European model where they pay mafia to take it over, and sink it "accidentally" in the Mediteranean Sea?
Would you like a nuclear powerplant near your house?
Or will that be another "Wind Farm" issue - "great , but build it somewhere else".
Having said that, a Fusion based nuclear would be great. It's a shame it does no work, except on the Millenium Falcon
..and Interesting autocorrect doesn't like "****ushima" and repalces it with stars 
No one cares on holiday in France.
Since when was a nuclear bomb the same tech as a power station its just heating water to make steam.
I lived in Europe when the Chernobil melted 2000 kms away.
My kid was 1 year old. And milk was contaminated...Wheat from Pannonia too.
No thanks.
Please propose your place if you are so happy with it
For me, happy to see wind turbines on my horizon.
It would be a good Slalom course.
Select to expand quoteRango said..Obelix said..
Chernobil, ****ushima, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Zaporozie next...Then the South Australia's test site and the ones they've hidden from us.
Australia does not seem capable of storing medical nuclear waste. Let alone the nuclear submarine waste. So where to store the nuclear power plant waste?
Maybe adopt the European model where they pay mafia to take it over, and sink it "accidentally" in the Mediteranean Sea?
Would you like a nuclear powerplant near your house?
Or will that be another "Wind Farm" issue - "great , but build it somewhere else".
Having said that, a Fusion based nuclear would be great. It's a shame it does no work, except on the Millenium Falcon
..and Interesting autocorrect doesn't like "****ushima" and repalces it with stars
No one cares on holiday in France.
Since when was a nuclear bomb the same tech as a power station its just heating water to make steam.
100% correct Rango
Select to expand quotestehsegler said..
I don't think the 350,000 people that used to live in Chernobyl would agree with the statement "miniscule risk". I lived in Germany when the reactor blew up. About 2,000 km away. The radiation levels found in wild mushroom and sand in playground was well above what is considered safe
And how many birds did that kill
Select to expand quoteelmo said..
Wollongong would be the perfect place as they don't like wind farms
That's why Aunty Jack called it Wollongong the Brave. Or was that Norman?
Yes, Chernobyl caused a huge health damage in radiation all around Europe. I have relatives in Austria who were affected.
Count them. Sure, thousands, hundreds of thousands.
Now count the health effects from chemical plants (Bhopal is just one example), and refinery emissions and explosions. Now we're talking millions.
A 90 year uranium supply should be plenty to tide us over until fusion gets perfected. Fusion is almost here now already.
If you want to stop burning fossil and warming the earth, you gotta do something. Sequestration is a pipe dream. Nuclear is here and now.
At the rate we are breeding , even if we get free healthy power , we're still stuffed. We've gone from 2 billion people to 8 billion in just 100 years . In another 50 years , our population will double. In another 50 years our population will be 32 billion . That's 2 billion to 32 billion in just 200 years . That's not a lot of time. To add to this dilemma, we are breeding healthier and living longer. Earth is getting smaller very quickly. This is where our problem lies. Earth can't handle 32 billion people . The sad fact is , our great grand children won't be around , unless war , disease or we cull ourselves to reduce these numbers . So instead of worrying if birds get chopped up , we absolutely must control our breeding.
Im happy to trade in my kids for new windsurf gear.
Great men signing off on the latest climate change agreement, saving the planet one EV fire at a time.
Thermal runaway is a real bitch.
Select to expand quotesegler said..
Yes, Chernobyl caused a huge health damage in radiation all around Europe. I have relatives in Austria who were affected.
Count them. Sure, thousands, hundreds of thousands.
Now count the health effects from chemical plants (Bhopal is just one example), and refinery emissions and explosions. Now we're talking millions.
A 90 year uranium supply should be plenty to tide us over until fusion gets perfected. Fusion is almost here now already.
If you want to stop burning fossil and warming the earth, you gotta do something. Sequestration is a pipe dream. Nuclear is here and now.
Think it will be alot longer than that no one is talking about 100% nuclear.Thats only proven reserves anyway and the tech will get alot more efficient.
The developing world will and should be able to make use of their fossil fuels instead of cutting down trees for fuel .At the moment energy poverty is the biggest environmental impact issue .
Select to expand quotesegler said..
Yes, Chernobyl caused a huge health damage in radiation all around Europe. I have relatives in Austria who were affected.
Count them. Sure, thousands, hundreds of thousands.
Please remember that 'Chernobyl' was after they controlled it. Lots of people gave up their lives to try and stop this thing from pumping a lot more radioactive material into the air. It wasn't an easy containment and even now has a cap over it that needs to be replaced regularly. It wasn't just a matter of switching something off and forgetting about it.
At the time people thought the reator was fail-safe, but then human nature proved otherwise. What makes you think that this is not going to happen again?
Sure, if someone proves a technology that is fail-safe and can run without cooling, maybe it can work. I understand that this is where development is meant to be. But who would voluntarily want one near them? No one I think.
If there really is only 90 years of cost effective uranium around, then it's not the solution anyway. I don't think we need to argue about it anyway. Politically it is a loser. When there is a cheap supply of coal and gas around, people are not going to vote for nuclear regardless of the CO2 emissions.
Select to expand quoteImax1 said..
At the rate we are breeding , even if we get free healthy power , we're still stuffed. We've gone from 2 billion people to 8 billion in just 100 years . In another 50 years , our population will double. In another 50 years our population will be 32 billion . That's 2 billion to 32 billion in just 200 years . That's not a lot of time. To add to this dilemma, we are breeding healthier and living longer. Earth is getting smaller very quickly. This is where our problem lies. Earth can't handle 32 billion people . The sad fact is , our great grand children won't be around , unless war , disease or we cull ourselves to reduce these numbers . So instead of worrying if birds get chopped up , we absolutely must control our breeding.
Im happy to trade in my kids for new windsurf gear.
Population growth appears to be in decline, with a prediction of a max of almost 11 billion by 2100.
www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/
www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-population-growth-is-slowing-down-heres-one-reason-why/
It sort of makes sense when you look at the drivers for population growth. Even in Aus you can see the effect of different attitudes on population replacement within local residents.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Imax1 said..
At the rate we are breeding , even if we get free healthy power , we're still stuffed. We've gone from 2 billion people to 8 billion in just 100 years . In another 50 years , our population will double. In another 50 years our population will be 32 billion . That's 2 billion to 32 billion in just 200 years . That's not a lot of time. To add to this dilemma, we are breeding healthier and living longer. Earth is getting smaller very quickly. This is where our problem lies. Earth can't handle 32 billion people . The sad fact is , our great grand children won't be around , unless war , disease or we cull ourselves to reduce these numbers . So instead of worrying if birds get chopped up , we absolutely must control our breeding.
Im happy to trade in my kids for new windsurf gear.
Population growth appears to be in decline, with a prediction of a max of almost 11 billion by 2100.
www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/
www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-population-growth-is-slowing-down-heres-one-reason-why/
It sort of makes sense when you look at the drivers for population growth. Even in Aus you can see the effect of different attitudes on population replacement within local residents.
I hope your right. It needs to happen.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..segler said..
Yes, Chernobyl caused a huge health damage in radiation all around Europe. I have relatives in Austria who were affected.
Count them. Sure, thousands, hundreds of thousands.
Please remember that 'Chernobyl' was after they controlled it. Lots of people gave up their lives to try and stop this thing from pumping a lot more radioactive material into the air. It wasn't an easy containment and even now has a cap over it that needs to be replaced regularly. It wasn't just a matter of switching something off and forgetting about it.
At the time people thought the reator was fail-safe, but then human nature proved otherwise. What makes you think that this is not going to happen again?
Sure, if someone proves a technology that is fail-safe and can run without cooling, maybe it can work. I understand that this is where development is meant to be. But who would voluntarily want one near them? No one I think.
If there really is only 90 years of cost effective uranium around, then it's not the solution anyway. I don't think we need to argue about it anyway. Politically it is a loser. When there is a cheap supply of coal and gas around, people are not going to vote for nuclear regardless of the CO2 emissions.
Why do Russians wear lead lined underpants........
Because cha knob will full out.........
Turn off all the unnecessary lights at night and we would not need them .most houses are nearing fully self sufficient these days with roof top solar.
The EV industry has some challenges ahead of it,
3 car carrier ships have been destroyed transporting them, fires in parking stations and dealerships where there parked next to each other, and a huge amount of them spontaneously combusting world wide, and not just the cheap garbage coming out of China but also the high end EVs coming out of Europe and America.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Never mind the obvious dangers to birds.
The pylons are difficult to dispose due to their size.
We do not need these things blighting the landscape for a problem that does not exist.
It is the sun that is the source of heat not carbon dioxide.
Did you become an expert on the issue through google....
Select to expand quoteGestalt said..stehsegler said..segler said..
Sure, there are risks with nuclear, but they are miniscule compared to risks in other energy industries.
I don't think the 350,000 people that used to live in Chernobyl would agree with the statement "miniscule risk". I lived in Germany when the reactor blew up. About 2,000 km away. The radiation levels found in wild mushroom and sand in playground was well above what is considered safe.
Now imagine even a minor accident near a city like Sydney or Melbourne. I am surprised any politician would signoff on that risk.
you are referring to old tech tho.
The tech has moved on. Fast nuclear reactors, micro reactors and small modular reactors are designed to mitigate risk. Fast nuclear reactors use existing stock piles of waste.
If we banned nuclear technology no one would be able to design improved systems.
Growing up in Dublin sailing swiming and windsurfing in the Irish Sea just across from what was first called Windscale and then Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Wales, we were very aware of radiation. The levels of contaminated sediment airborne, the dwindling stocks of fish, the malformed fish, spike in cancers and the massive spike in woman miscarrying ware just some of the quantifiable and documented evidence of its toxicity. All of which were denied flatly by the UK government. Its a dirty unsafe industry with a massive history of hiding its sins there is no safe way to deal with spent fuel rods.
I for one would much rather not see that can of worms opened here, FFs we spent billions on a tunnel boring machine for Snowy mk2 that was to bore 14km , and it made it 150M. Let's not put the loonies in charge of the asylum.
Wind TURBINES (not windmills!) are relatively common, small by comparison projects that are mostly being built by private enterprise helping reduce our use of non renewals, so a win win in my opinion.
One of many wind farms in WA
Lots around the country
reneweconomy.com.au/large-scale-wind-farm-map-of-australia/
Select to expand quotepaulyNOR said..
Please don't be offended by this image
Albany, WA
The ground is bare, they must collect the pile of dead birds every day.
Select to expand quoteremery said..paulyNOR said..
Please don't be offended by this image
Albany, WA
The ground is bare, they must collect the pile of dead birds every day.
Ha!
They grow the shrubs to cover up the unfortunate evidence.
Select to expand quotepaulyNOR said..
Please don't be offended by this image
Albany, WA
No wind and cloudy .no offence taken.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..remery said..paulyNOR said..
Please don't be offended by this image
Albany, WA
The ground is bare, they must collect the pile of dead birds every day.
Ha!
They grow the shrubs to cover up the unfortunate evidence.
The reason those shrubs grow so good is because of the nicely chopped fertiliser. Three months ago , it was desert. It would now be perfect for growing mung beans or other hippy sh.t.
