Okay “Yawn” and “Concerned” – if not nuclear, then what? …

Comment on Miners claim change of heart about nuclear power by PoliticoNT.

Okay “Yawn” and “Concerned” – if not nuclear, then what?
The energy input / pollutant output for wind / solar (which cannot provide baseload, and which must be linked to at a minimum a gas-powered grid to work) is significant.
As in the environmental cost vastly outweighs the costs of a low-emission coal plants, and that’s without including disposal. (And the battery technology needed for renewables to work is nowhere in sight.)
Modern nuclear is safe and efficient.
Chernobyl was largely caused by an incompetent engineer who owed his position to political connections, if you think modern reactors are similar you are incorrect.
I wouldn’t, for example fly long haul or at altitude in a de Havilland Comet – for obvious reasons.
As for Japan, the problem was the location of the plant next to the sea for easier access to water for cooling.
The protective walls were 13m high. The tsunami waves hit at 14m. Yet no-one has died of nuclear contamination.
Our aversion to nuclear is a 70s/80s era cult.
A mix of nutbaggery on the left, and collusion on the right. The sooner we grow up about using nuclear, the better.

Recent Comments by PoliticoNT

Gas and solar: Still uneasy bedfellows
Interested Darwin Observer – I acknowledge what you’ve written. I could have been clearer.
I’m not opposed to energy being generated by wind or solar but the energy, (or my opposites might say) “environmental” cost of building sufficient renewable generating capacity is so great as to negate any positive impact of reducing pollutant emissions. (Pollutants being the problem, not carbon, which is a building block of life.)
Nor can wind and solar provide the baseload supply our modern, industrialised society requires. It doesn’t matter where renewable generation is located, it still can’t guarantee baseload. Potentially – in 40 to 50 years going on current technological advances we may have the battery infrastructure that may be able to support renewables deliver baseload – but again – the energy / pollutant cost of manufacturing the batteries will cancel out any pollution reduction that might be assumed.
New generation low-emission coal fired power stations are efficient at producing energy. Gas is similar. Nuclear is the best.
Renewables are not efficient and within a comparative framework represent a greater impact on the environment.
They’re also hideously expensive.
So maths, science and chemistry still stands. As for economics – correct – but it’s government regulation that has been buggering the economics of power supply behind a shroud of enviro-blabber and subsidies.

Gas and solar: Still uneasy bedfellows
The technology is not currently available.
Renewables cannot provide baseload.
The necessary battery technology is not in sight. Advances have been made but nowhere near what an industrialised economy requires.
And all serious “renewable” operations need to be paired to an existing gas / coal / hydro powered system / grid to work (when sun / wind falls off).
In terms of energy and pollutant emissions input (for build) and pollutant emissions output (for operations) / efficiency and level of power produced, there is nothing comparable to nuclear.
And nuclear – like gas and coal – can do baseload.
Maths / science / atmospheric chemistry beats hopey-change every day.

Braedon Earley to stand for Parliament
Kev – have BFFCPWP+ entered into a preference deal with Labor?
Apparently Hamish MacFarlane hived off around 1500 votes from Jacinta Price in the Katherine region back in May – did they go to Labor?
On a less serious note would you vote for a party named, ‘BFFCPWP+’? “Probably not” would be the reasonable answer.

Braedon Earley to stand for Parliament
Does this mean we’ll get to see BFFCPWP+’s (previously OneTerritory’s) much and long vaunted fiscal policy?
I’d say I’m on the edge of my seat only we’ve been teased with its impending release for so long it’s hard to know if the policy is real or a mirage.
Meanwhile has Mr Earley signed his own “no hubris idiot” clause as championed back in mid-2015?

Be Sociable, Share!

A new way to support our journalism

We do not have a paywall. If you support our independent journalism you can make a financial contribution by clicking the red button below. This will help us cover expenses and sustain the news service we’ve been providing since 1994, in a locally owned and operated medium.

Erwin Chlanda, Editor