For those interested there are some great points revealed in this news interview.

Plese Dont Shoot The Messenger.

These are not necessarily my views although I do note some very good points for debate.

Please be kind to each other, remember none of us on this forum will change the world or the decisions of current and future governments..

Have a watch of it and let us know your views.

https://youtu.be/IwJdigo3xQ8

Well, I think if the effort and incentives were put in by government and industry, I know we can do it with renewable energy, but I suspect, some in government and industry to really drag their heels, so they personally don't lose money from burning oil, coal and gas. So if we had to go nuclear, I would prefer, it to be Thorium powered plants, not as "dirty" as uranium powered plants.

 incentives were put in by government and industry,

Are these incentives based on taxpayers money?

 I know we can do it with renewable energy,

How do you know this?

Why one spreads the inputs around. At about 2.5% transmission loss per 1000km we could run a cable to New Zealand, Singapore, Christmas Island, Noumea etc, apart from spreading it around Australia. Problem solved.

Corndoggy wrote:

---

And on a cloudy overcast winters day, or week, those same solar panels can only make 0.5 kw of power.

---

 Very true and to makes thing worse than that one of our biggest solar farms in the NT has been there since 2016 but according to current reports is still not connected to the grid.

I think it was on another topic on here from some time ago that it was claimed by a member that this project could supply power to our northern neighbours but if we cant even connect it to our own grid then what the hell is the point.

Is having these solar panels and other projects of wind farms etc just like a bloke with a shiny belt buckle. It looks impressive, it makes a statement but his trousers could have been still held up with an ordinary belt and buckle.

Another thing to consider is the life of the panels themselves. It appears to me that we could take 6 years off the value of these panels.

Bycycle dude, this fact eats away into your claims of Fred Jones dad and his cost.

It is amazing but not surprising how good these projects look on paper but in practice they appear to be an entire different kettle of fish so to speak.

I wonder could we add to Fred Jones dads profits with the monies that has been paid to him by Australian Governments or in reality, us, the tax payer, to build this project.

If watching the link in the first post it covers a lot of these anomalies and asks the question of whether we will survive as a country while trying to live with a deficit in our ability to provide the power we need to all Australians.

All this and this major upheaval to our power supplies is a fruitless exercise particularly when we had the resources and the infrastructure to keep our country running.

Tony Bev wrote:

---

I am always reluctant to take the results of a Poll, as gospel

Especially a Poll which I, or any of my friends, knew nothing about

---

 I Have to agree with your comment on polls.

I can not remember when I was ever asked a poll question on any subject at all.

However the poll was not the entire subject of the interview.

There were points raised in the content of the broadcast which have merit and are worthy of discussion.
It is a shame that from the entire report you only gained the lack of coverage of a poll.

Think about this, the big push to have net zero comes from urban cities.

Funny its rural Australia that has to bare the ugly wind farms, and prime agriculture land is being over taken by massive solar farms, so isnt it about time the city puts some wind and solar farms in their parklands.

I don't mind the look of wind farms, have been around a few in SA & northern Qld, but then again there are people who fine coal fired power stations & the mountains of coal & infrastructure attractive.

Gundog wrote:

---

Think about this, the big push to have net zero comes from urban cities.

Funny its rural Australia that has to bare the ugly wind farms, and prime agriculture land is being over taken by massive solar farms, so isnt it about time the city puts some wind and solar farms in their parklands.

---

 You might mean like this gundog.

Ivan 01 wrote:

---

Gundog wrote:

---

Think about this, the big push to have net zero comes from urban cities.

Funny its rural Australia that has to bare the ugly wind farms, and prime agriculture land is being over taken by massive solar farms, so isnt it about time the city puts some wind and solar farms in their parklands.

---

 You might mean like this gundog.

---

 Yes 

but you will hear the cries oh you have ruined the ambience of our street, I cannot sleep because of the noise of the thjings.

You would get more wind putting them on North Head, about 90 metres elevation with wind from every direction. Manly Beach is in a wind shadow from a few directions.

Disclaimer: We look at North Head.

Ivan 01 wrote:

---

Tony Bev wrote:

---

I am always reluctant to take the results of a Poll, as gospel

Especially a Poll which I, or any of my friends, knew nothing about

---

 I Have to agree with your comment on polls.

I can not remember when I was ever asked a poll question on any subject at all.

However the poll was not the entire subject of the interview.

There were points raised in the content of the broadcast which have merit and are worthy of discussion.
It is a shame that from the entire report you only gained the lack of coverage of a poll.

-- Edited by Ivan 01 on Wednesday 8th of June 2022 08:20:35 AM

---

 Hi Ivan 01

My opinion, of what I was listening to, (and I could have misinterpreted what was said).

I thought that the gentleman was pushing his own wheelbarrow, and asked a loaded question

He was saying that in a poll of over 1,000 people (1,005), which asked "Australia should build nuclear power plants to supply electricity and reduce carbon emissions"
Agree 53% Disagree 23% Neither 24%

I honestly do not believe that the views of 1,005 Australian people, should warrant a discussion on building a Nuclear Power Station

On the other hand, if someone was to bring up two topics, such as 

1. Should we build Nuclear Power Stations in Australia
   And
2. Should we Reduce Carbon Emissions in Australia

Then I would probably participate in those two topics

Getting back to the  uTube vid
The gentleman also said something about a section of an Act that stops a minister from approving a new Nuclear Power Station, and wanted us to debate it, or words to that effect 

Once again my own opinion is that:-

There is a very simple solution, at the next election, those 53% who wish to have Nuclear Power Stations, could vote in their own candidates

Whenarewethere wrote:

---

You would get more wind putting them on North Head, 

---

Such was proposed by a Northern hemisphere country in the very early 80s.    Two generators were imported.   Politics (NSW) got in the way, and the demonstration site was cancelled.    My understanding is that the generators ended up on one of the Bass Strait islands.

I was very surprised to near the results of the survey because, from memory, the majority of Australians did NOT support nuclear fission power plants. The major concern was the waste problem and the fallout problem from accidents such as Fukushima and Chernobyl. It may be different for fusion.

So I looked up that institute's details on Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Public_Affairs

It certainly seems more political than scientific so, like others have mentioned, I am also suspicious of the poll. Were the people selected to give desired results? How many people were polled? Was it only a thousand? Is a thousand really representative of tens of millions?

Nuclear fission power plants are certainly polarising. Almost as polarising as... wait for it... jam then cream or cream then jam on scones?    (I certainly hope that this discussion doesn't deteriorate like others.)

It is also interesting that nuclear power plants are decreasing world wide. Daniel Wild was quick to point out the increase in nuclear power in some countries, such as, France and USA but didn't mention the decline in other countries such as Germany and Japan.

We certainly have to do something about base load electricity. That's probably why the IPCC and the IEA think that nuclear is needed to meet net zero CO² targets. However, it takes 10 to 21 years to build a nuclear plant and we need to do something within the decade to meet net zero.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25433881-800-do-we-need-nuclear-power-in-the-energy-mix-to-stop-climate-change/?utm_campaign=RSS%7CNSNS&utm_source=NSNS&utm_medium=RSS&utm_content=currents

There are alternatives that could be implemented much faster and potentially less dangerous. (Many new nuclear plants are a decade or so behind on delivery. However, China, and other countries, do regularly deliver on time.)

For instance, community batteries can help balance the local loads.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-05/community-battery-in-melbourne-unveiled/101127080

We've recently seen, I think it was Dorian, mention using windlass like generators in disused mine shafts.

https://thegreynomads.activeboard.com/t68502125/excess-solar-into-grid/?page=1#comment-68502125

There are also thermal blocks developed but the Queensland University that can be used in old coal power stations to store excess energy. Pumped hydro.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-08/thermal-blocks-technology-to-convert-coal-fired-power-station/12638462

Maybe these technologies could be used to supply that base load whilst we wait for the supposedly cleaner nuclear fusion power plants.

Personally I'd prefer not to have nuclear fission power plants considering that there are other safer and cleaner alternatives.

So many of you are fixated on a bloody poll.

Well this topic has been up for a day and we have had very little if any constructive input apart from the poll sample and to be honest that sample is no different to any other.

Might I suggest that we actually wade on in past the political views which are rife until the 3.07 mark and then listen to what is being said.

There is quite a fair question at the 4.0 min mark and from there on is constructive conversation with some interesting facts.

The title is Net Zero, will we survive.

What a different result than I had expected.

I thought the interview provided some great points for sensible debate. I would have least considered that some would have put the point across that we werent going to have a problem with losing base power as renewables will cover it.

Buzz offered a couple of alternatives that he considers we may be able to fall back on until we regain services that we are currently used to, but still no one wanted to comment.

Oh well!

Maybe we should have a poll  

In the interest of good debate I was not going to make a mockery of Nett Zero

We can barely raise a comment so maybe this may provoke some thought.

Clarky wrote;

I thought the interview provided some great points for sensible debate. I would have least considered that some would have put the point across that we werent going to have a problem with losing base power as renewables will cover it.

Clarky, sensible debate would appear to be going the same way as common sense on this forum. Downward spiral. You gave it your best shot mate!!!!

120 trillion dollars watch if you want another view

https://fb.watch/dB78AxY52O/

120 TRILLION DOLLARS.

Can Australia afford that - I dont think so

Another good point Gundog.

Lets hope the next national poll we have will sort this out and let the gullible see how they are being mislead

It looks like it about time that a government should something to ensure energy security rather than business as usual. 

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:

---

It looks like it about time that a government should something to ensure energy security rather than business as usual. 

---

 For sure Buzz.

We could easily opt out of this impossible situation of nett zero for our country and let the big boys ( China Russia India USA ) develop a way that doesnt cripple our very existence and then move toward more renewables when they actually work in providing for our power requirements.

Ivan 01 wrote:

---

120 TRILLION DOLLARS.

Can Australia afford that - I dont think so 

Another good point Gundog.

Lets hope the next national poll we have will sort this out and let the gullible see how they are being mislead

-- Edited by Ivan 01 on Sunday 12th of June 2022 02:13:12 PM

---

 Ivan, the "gullible" you refer to certainly don't have enough intelligence to understand that. Gimme, gimme, gimme. Sheep, with appropriate brainpower. Cheers