Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

The possibility of nuclear cropped up about 6 months ago on this thread.

Where is an electorally and environmentally feasible place to build a nuclear power plant in Australia?

Easy. If you win on a platform of nuclear power you build it in the safest seat of the opposition :P

I take your point that even if you can get many people to agree nuclear is the way to go, very few would agree to live near a plant ;) If I was going to take a stab at an area that *might* put up with it in Victoria it would be the Latrobe valley. It may be better on average for their health than the current arrangement, though I suspect nuclear is not very labour intensive so not sure how you would sell the jobs benefit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having wind turbines or a nuclear power plant within 100km are two very different things to convince the voting public. And it's certainly a policy you would have to carry into an election.

So where would you suggest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dazaau said:

Easy. If you win on a platform of nuclear power you build it in the safest seat of the opposition :P

Warringah? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the time frame for these big infrastructre items and the relatively short electoral cycles its like this stuff needs to be taken out of the hands of politicians. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dazaau said:

Easy. If you win on a platform of nuclear power you build it in the safest seat of the opposition :P

I take your point that even if you can get many people to agree nuclear is the way to go, very few would agree to live near a plant ;) If I was going to take a stab at an area that *might* put up with it in Victoria it would be the Latrobe valley. It may be better on average for their health than the current arrangement, though I suspect nuclear is not very labour intensive so not sure how you would sell the jobs benefit. 

About 100 km from Australia's soon-to-be largest city? Where the natives get stirred up about Adani nearly 3000km away? Not sure that's politically feasible.

From an engineering perspective, is La Trobe too far from the coast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody hell, I ran out of "likes"on the last page!  I need the daily limit increased by about 20 ATM.  Great discussion the last hour or so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of coastline between Perth and Geraldton would be well suited over here as would the south coast between Albany and Esperance.  Lots of coastline in the west of SA that would be prime land so would near Mt Gambier.  In Victoria you could go around Warnambool or Bega as examples.  Port Kembla or just north of Newcastle would be okay for NSW and Queensland would be fine anywhere north of Noosa.

Getting local acceptance shouldn't even be considered politically.  The locals that don't like it have ten years to move out if you can't convince them in the meantime with real, actual facts.  The reality is that the alternative is to keep relying on coal and gas for baseload in the foreseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

About 100 km from Australia's soon-to-be largest city? Where the natives get stirred up about Adani nearly 3000km away? Not sure that's politically feasible.

From an engineering perspective, is La Trobe too far from the coast?

100km is a long way away for safety purposes (keep Melbourne safeish)  but close enough to transmit power efficiently (given they generate the power now). It is a nationals seat (now independent, but ex national), and they like coal, so not sure what you mean about Adani? Unless you mean Melbourne, in which case, yes, I don't think we are likely to be the first city in aus with nuclear power :P

They do need lots of water don't they, so that could be a problem. And I still agree that I don't fancy living near one. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, roxii said:

Given the time frame for these big infrastructre items and the relatively short electoral cycles its like this stuff needs to be taken out of the hands of politicians. 

Pretty much all infrastructure, and fares/access fees. But then that's not democracy! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dazaau said:

Pretty much all infrastructure, and fares/access fees. But then that's not democracy! 

Well, we all stand back and let the reserve bank do their thing, and if we let an "independent" determine the worth of our money, then surely we can trust a few scientists and economists with infrastructure. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

The possibility of nuclear cropped up about 6 months ago on this thread.

Where is an electorally and environmentally feasible place to build a nuclear power plant in Australia?

Hunter Valley.

They already have the power transmission infrastructure to get the power out to the grid, and the water that is currently used for the coal fired stations. Like has been said before, they are already putting up with some of the dirtiest industry around, so the residents are used to being shite on from above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just the one electorate that would go all NIMBY about a nuclear powerplant. It would those within 100 or 200km that don't want it "in their backyard".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's 60 Nuclear power plants in the USA yet you never hear a complaint about them. Maybe we should talk to them about where to put them and how to win over the residents.

I'm sure if a government walked in and said "We're going to put a nuclear power plant 100km away and as a gesture of good faith you'll pay no power bills for 10 years" you'd get a fairly decent change of attitude.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, trinube said:

I'm sure if a government walked in and said "We're going to put a nuclear power plant 100km away and as a gesture of good faith you'll pay no power bills for 10 years" you'd get a fairly decent change of attitude.

And that little gift would probably be less than 1% of the cost of the build, so could be factored in so easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Stikman said:

Lots of coastline between Perth and Geraldton would be well suited over here as would the south coast between Albany and Esperance.  Lots of coastline in the west of SA that would be prime land so would near Mt Gambier.  In Victoria you could go around Warnambool or Bega as examples.  Port Kembla or just north of Newcastle would be okay for NSW and Queensland would be fine anywhere north of Noosa.

Getting local acceptance shouldn't even be considered politically.  The locals that don't like it have ten years to move out if you can't convince them in the meantime with real, actual facts.  The reality is that the alternative is to keep relying on coal and gas for baseload in the foreseeable future.

I suspect Albany/Esperance may be too far from Perth.

Anywhere near the Great Barrier Reef is doubtful for environmental reasons.

It's easy to say "local acceptance shouldn't even be considered politically", but it's a reality that it has to. Anywhere within 100km of a major city wouldn't be acceptable/possible. Count out Port Kembla or Newcastle for that.

Telling people they have to move cities/towns, leave jobs/careers, families, etc is a fantasy proposition.

Ultimately, we're looking for:

  • somewhere coastal.
  • greater than 200km from a major population (fatal political fallout)
  • less than 450km from capital city (transmission efficiency)
  • away from environmentally and culturally sensitive areas

That rules out a lot of options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, trinube said:

There's 60 Nuclear power plants in the USA yet you never hear a complaint about them. Maybe we should talk to them about where to put them and how to win over the residents.

I'm sure if a government walked in and said "We're going to put a nuclear power plant 100km away and as a gesture of good faith you'll pay no power bills for 10 years" you'd get a fairly decent change of attitude.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/usa-nuclear-power.aspx

98 apparently and many not near water.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, trinube said:

There's 60 Nuclear power plants in the USA yet you never hear a complaint about them. Maybe we should talk to them about where to put them and how to win over the residents.

Pretty simple answer really. Start construction before 1974.

We may have missed the boat on that one.

Very few have been constructed since then in the US. Recent construction has all been on existing sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, trinube said:

I'm sure if a government walked in and said "We're going to put a nuclear power plant 100km away and as a gesture of good faith you'll pay no power bills for 10 years" you'd get a fairly decent change of attitude.

Smart suggestion.

You may be on the wrong thread. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Katz said:

I think it's 98 reactors but only 60 for power. Australia still has its reactor at Lucas heights which has been chugging away since 1958 (but obviously not for power). Doesn't seem to bother all those people in the Shire who are only a few km away.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

Ultimately, we're looking for:

  • somewhere coastal.
  • greater than 200km from a major population (fatal political fallout)
  • less than 450km from capital city (transmission efficiency)
  • away from environmentally and culturally sensitive areas

That rules out a lot of options.

The UK has 15 operational nuclear plants and you wouldn't find a single spot on the map that meets more than one of those.  France is the home of NIMBYism and they have the second greatest number of any country (58) with three times our population in one twelfth the area.

Not a dig at you Paul but it always seems that the ones who keep coming up with excuses why we shouldn't go nuclear are the same ones saying the reason we aren't majority renewable is because we just aren't trying hard enough or don't have the political will.  The difference is that one is a technology refined over more than seventy years and the other is a moving feast with continual obsolescence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, trinube said:

I think it's 98 reactors but only 60 for power. Australia still has its reactor at Lucas heights which has been chugging away since 1958 (but obviously not for power). Doesn't seem to bother all those people in the Shire who are only a few km away.

I reckon it would bother them if a second, much larger one was constructed for power generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

I reckon it would bother them if a second, much larger one was constructed for power generation.

It's the Shire, everyone else in the country would be pissing themselves about it :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Stikman said:

The UK has 15 operational nuclear plants and you wouldn't find a single spot on the map that meets more than one of those.  France is the home of NIMBYism and they have the second greatest number of any country (58) with three times our population in one twelfth the area.

Not a dig at you Paul but it always seems that the ones who keep coming up with excuses why we shouldn't go nuclear are the same ones saying the reason we aren't majority renewable is because we just aren't trying hard enough or don't have the political will.  The difference is that one is a technology refined over more than seventy years and the other is a moving feast with continual obsolescence.

It was a way easier political proposition to commence converting a country to nuclear in the 1950s (UK) or 1970s (France) than it would be today. Especially in Australia.

Australia can't even achieve a sensible public discourse about renewables without becoming politically divisive, tribal and feral.

I haven't expressed an opinion on whether it should or shouldn't be a consideration for Australia, only on some of the difficulties, limitations and realities of making it possible.

Personally, I think it's an interesting topic for discussion.......providing it's an informed discussion and not of the "build-one-in-the-middle-of-the-desert" crap that has arisen previously.

Edited by Paul Every
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uranium fueled power stations are basically a dumb idea, that grew out the US-Navy's need for nuclear powered ships and a need for the USA Atomic Energy Commission needing to find a way to justify the staggering cost of ongoing investment in that and in weapons-grade plutonium production. You can throw as much new tech and new design as you like at it, but it remains inherently high-risk and with waste storage requirements that make no sense.

However, an alternative that was championed by Edward Teller, and researched at Oak Ridge to prove the concept, was the Liquid-Fluoride-Thorium-Reactor that was a spin-off from the nuclear-powered bomber program (seriously) and that would actually make sense. Basically, fail-safe in concept, abundant fuel source, minimal waste that has a short half-life, and capable of 'burning' existing uranium waste.

The main hurdle at the moment is material science needing to come up with something that can deal with liquid salts on a 100yr life-cycle rather than the 10-20yrs that current materials provide, as it's not going to be economical until that level of longevity can be met.

The USA is current investing in this research again, after letting is sit idle for decades, and there are now a number of competing groups pushing this along. China is also investing heavily in developing LFTR tech, and so it may be feasible sooner rather than later.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, XCOM.! said:

Uranium fueled power stations are basically a dumb idea, that grew out the US-Navy's need for nuclear powered ships and a need for the USA Atomic Energy Commission needing to find a way to justify the staggering cost of ongoing investment in that and in weapons-grade plutonium production. You can throw as much new tech and new design as you like at it, but it remains inherently high-risk and with waste storage requirements that make no sense.

However, an alternative that was championed by Edward Teller, and researched at Oak Ridge to prove the concept, was the Liquid-Fluoride-Thorium-Reactor that was a spin-off from the nuclear-powered bomber program (seriously) and that would actually make sense. Basically, fail-safe in concept, abundant fuel source, minimal waste that has a short half-life, and capable of 'burning' existing uranium waste.

The main hurdle at the moment is material science needing to come up with something that can deal with liquid salts on a 100yr life-cycle rather than the 10-20yrs that current materials provide, as it's not going to be economical until that level of longevity can be met.

The USA is current investing in this research again, after letting is sit idle for decades, and there are now a number of competing groups pushing this along. China is also investing heavily in developing LFTR tech, and so it may be feasible sooner rather than later.

I've been advocating for thorium research for years now, with fission in the meantime 

Surely those issues would have been sorted by now with a proper research program.  But instead we've wasted hundreds of billions of dollars over the last few decades trying to blame bad weather on plant food

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, XCOM.! said:

Uranium fueled power stations are basically a dumb idea, that grew out the US-Navy's need for nuclear powered ships and a need for the USA Atomic Energy Commission needing to find a way to justify the staggering cost of ongoing investment in that and in weapons-grade plutonium production. You can throw as much new tech and new design as you like at it, but it remains inherently high-risk and with waste storage requirements that make no sense.

However, an alternative that was championed by Edward Teller, and researched at Oak Ridge to prove the concept, was the Liquid-Fluoride-Thorium-Reactor that was a spin-off from the nuclear-powered bomber program (seriously) and that would actually make sense. Basically, fail-safe in concept, abundant fuel source, minimal waste that has a short half-life, and capable of 'burning' existing uranium waste.

The main hurdle at the moment is material science needing to come up with something that can deal with liquid salts on a 100yr life-cycle rather than the 10-20yrs that current materials provide, as it's not going to be economical until that level of longevity can be met.

The USA is current investing in this research again, after letting is sit idle for decades, and there are now a number of competing groups pushing this along. China is also investing heavily in developing LFTR tech, and so it may be feasible sooner rather than later.

Interesting post. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

I've been advocating for thorium research for years now, with fission in the meantime 

Surely those issues would have been sorted by now with a proper research program.  But instead we've wasted hundreds of billions of dollars over the last few decades trying to blame bad weather on plant food

'Thorium' IS fission, it's just using a safer fuel source, and LFTR is removing the opportunity for any type of melt-down.

The problem with lack of research onto LFTR has absolutely nothing to do with Climate-Science or any of those other things you don't like. It has everything to do with the USA's vested military-commercial interests in a Uranium-Plutonium industry that grew out of the Manhattan project and Rickover's nuclear-power program for the US Navy. They shut down the Oak-Ridge project once it proved it was able to work, because they didn't want the competition, and it's stayed like that until China started showing an interest in using the tech and everyone started to realise they were sitting on a gold-mine of tech potential.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe how well the last few hours have been going on this thread.  RS should be proud!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Aus Government can't even get a broadband network in properly, when every real expert in Australia, and every other country, is saying fibre is the way to go.

How are we ever going to get a decent energy policy into place.

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

The Aus Government can't even get a broadband network in properly, when every real expert in Australia, and every other country, is saying fibre is the way to go.

How are we ever going to get a decent energy policy into place.

its strange it hasn't been mentioned by either party in the campaign. I would have thought its an essential service. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Prince said:

its strange it hasn't been mentioned by either party in the campaign. I would have thought its an essential service. 

The LNP just CANNOT bring this up, as it will kill them in too many areas that are receiving the arse end of a dog from the NBN, and Labor is hiding from it, because they know it is too expensive to fix properly now, and will just spend the next few years fixing up well populated and politically sensitive areas until they (or the next government) can sell it off like the last Telecommunications Network they ruined by ****ing around with it.

 

Gees, I said that in one sentence. I must be passionate about something. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

The LNP just CANNOT bring this up, as it will kill them in too many areas that are receiving the arse end of a dog from the NBN, and Labor is hiding from it, because they know it is too expensive to fix properly now, and will just spend the next few years fixing up well populated and politically sensitive areas until they (or the next government) can sell it off like the last Telecommunications Network they ruined by ****ing around with it.

 

Gees, I said that in one sentence. I must be passionate about something. :)

labor should own it as they started it but didn't deliver. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

The Aus Government can't even get a broadband network in properly, when every real expert in Australia, and every other country, is saying fibre is the way to go.

How are we ever going to get a decent energy policy into place.

Um...because climate change is the biggest threat to mankind in forever and we're all going to die in a few decades if we don't.  LOL.  You think compared to that the statistically insignificant risk of nuclear would be attractive wouldn't you and yet the biggest climate zealots are also the biggest anti-nuclear folk.

19 minutes ago, Prince said:

its strange it hasn't been mentioned by either party in the campaign. I would have thought its an essential service. 

Well the Libs would get slammed on ballsing it up and the ALP might just have it pointed out that 5G will likely make FTP all but obsolete shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stikman said:

5G will likely make FTP all but obsolete shortly.

Yeah - Dream on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Prince said:

labor should own it as they started it but didn't deliver. 

They started it (though not very well), but only had a year and a half before the "inventor of the Internet" came in with Abbott & tore it down, saying that their new model would be completed by 2016, and cost under $30B.

I think we've just passed $50B now & we are still at least a year (probably 3) away from completion.

1 minute ago, Stikman said:

Well the Libs would get slammed on ballsing it up and the ALP might just have it pointed out that 5G will likely make FTP all but obsolete shortly.

Only by people that don't know the technology (such as Peter D at the "meet the candidates night I went to). 5G relies on small cells, and at least for the next 5 to 10 years won't go out past high density housing & commercial areas. The major Telcos are estimating it will only cover about 5% of the population

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

They started it (though not very well), but only had a year and a half before the "inventor of the Internet" came in with Abbott & tore it down, saying that their new model would be completed by 2016, and cost under $30B.

I think we've just passed $50B now & we are still at least a year (probably 3) away from completion.

Only by people that don't know the technology (such as Peter D at the "meet the candidates night I went to). 5G relies on small cells, and at least for the next 5 to 10 years won't go out past high density housing & commercial areas. The major Telcos are estimating it will only cover about 5% of the population

shh can't be messing with the transitions experts on everything, telco, nuclear power, climate science, national security, information security, intelligence, coal, power. 

The list is endless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, goughy said:

I can't believe how well the last few hours have been going on this thread.  RS should be proud!

It’s like we are one big nuclear family :lol: 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may come as a surprise to some that I don't like shortpantz, however I thought it was pretty disrespectful of those two workers not to shake hands with him today at a Qld worksite. I noticed Penny Wong also refused to shake Birminghams hand the other day at the end of a debate. No excuse for poor manners no matter what side you are on. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was assuming something happened during the Wong debate; it sounded like it got a bit personal or dirty.  The pm was egged (nearly), a no hand shake is nothing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, goughy said:

I was assuming something happened during the Wong debate; it sounded like it got a bit personal or dirty. 

Even if the debate was a total sledgefest, you shake hands and move on.

Don’t give anyone the opportunity to run a 5 second clip of you snubbing a man offering a handshake on repeat for the next 10 days or whatever it was at the time. 

Just a dumb political move, never mind the manners of it. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I totally agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birmingham suggesting that Keating's comments indicated a pro-china bias by Labor - for which Wong is the likely foreign affairs candidate  - was no doubt taken by her as in insult and questioning of her integrity... I wonder why she would be pissed off?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting to see people who have “done all right” in certain occupations mainly due to their strong union presence in that sector becoming born again liberals now that they have moved on from their previous occupation.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 9:27 PM, Oompa Loompa said:

With the election over and Shorten home, and stable Government returning to Australia with the turnstile economy destroying Liberals punted from office by the Australian people next Saturday, should we close the thread and come back in three years? 

 

Nah, to many laughs to be had I reckon...lol

 

 

Definitely not...... this thread will soon be filled with heaps of 'I told you so'...starting in about 12 months!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will we see a "Transitions" party at the next election. It's clear we have all the answers. We will no doubt handle all of Australia's problems first and then if we get time we will make any "Active Fee" for triathlon races illegal.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

Will we see a "Transitions" party at the next election. It's clear we have all the answers. We will no doubt handle all of Australia's problems first and then if we get time we will make any "Active Fee" for triathlon races illegal.

Or, we could introduce an Active Fee for voting, and go partway to solving the deficit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...