The Renewable Crash Test Dummy hits a fork in the road
Finally the Australian opposition is bravely popping the sacred cow of the Energy Wars. The Dummy nation was aiming for the holy grail “low emission” grid that no other nation had tried. The driest continent on Earth, with small hydro, and no extension cords to any nuclear power, were going to build the perfect grid based on the wind and sun alone. It was always doomed to fail, it was just a question of how much money would be burned at the pyre before the Crash Test Dummy crashed.
Because they didn’t do their homework, and the fan-media didn’t ask them to, the Labor Party set themselves up to fail. They left their left flank wide open, and the Opposition is finally launching the missiles that have been there all along in the mist. The ultimate low-emissions generator was always and obviously the unspeakable nuclear power. It’s a fifty year old technology. If anyone actually cared about carbon dioxide, they would have done this instead of the Kyoto scheme in 1997. But it was all a theater of grift and graft for unreliable, fairy energy, or for self-serving players who like trips to ski clubs in Davos, or jobs after politics with the UN or “energy companies”. (Not mentioning any names, Matt Kean).
Australia doesn’t need more “large-scale renewables” says the Opposition party, offering nuclear power instead of renewables technohell
Finally the dirty laundry of renewable power might be hung out to dry in an election. After ten years of rampant renewables growth in Australia, a dawning realization is sweeping the nation that wind and solar are not cheap, and will never be cheap. It’s hard to believe only two years ago Labor won on promises to bring electricity costs down by $275 dollars a household, only for prices to rise by $750 instead. At the same time, the awful reality of collecting low density energy is all too apparent in regional areas where developers are swarming to cover the land in renewables infrastructure. No one wants industrial plants in their backyard, but when we have to build 10,000 kilometers of high voltage towers, 40 million solar panels, and 2,500 bird killing turbines — its in everyone’s backyard.
Suddenly the real environmentalists are the ones who just want to build seven small nuclear plants on old industrial sites. Save the eagles, spare the whales, and don’t club the koalas, OK? The opposition are promising to build nuclear plants on the old coal sites, give cheap electricity to locals and to block major offshore wind projects and oppose large solar plants too. As they so aptly say, the low hanging fruit on this tree are already done.
This is the Deputy Opposition leader saying what was unthinkable only a year ago:
Nationals leader David Littleproud says Coalition* will find energy alternatives ‘so we don’t have to pursue large-scale renewables’
By Rosie Lewis, The Australian
Nationals leader David Littleproud has said a Coalition government will look at alternative energy sources so it doesn’t have to pursue large-scale renewables such as wind and solar, after suggesting he would axe an offshore wind industry if elected.
Amid a pre-election brawl over climate and energy policy, Mr Littleproud said the Coalition would send “strong investment signals” that Australia didn’t need large-scale industrial wind farms onshore or offshore or other big renewable projects.
Mr Littleproud also indicated to The Australian that he was opposed to large-scale solar farms, saying: “We’d like to look for whatever option we can so we don’t have to pursue large-scale renewables full stop.
“All the low-hanging fruit for large-scale renewables has been done, we’ve now got to go out beyond that.
He had to clarify that one big wind farm offshore would go ahead, but one that was just approved this week in the Illawarra, would not. The Coalition says the Commonwealth will own the nuclear plants. They’ll build them in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, the Hunter Valley in NSW, Collie in WA, Port Augusta in South Australia, and the southwest Queensland electorate of Maranoa.
According to The Australian Peter Dutton said in April that the “first small modular reactors could be operational by the mid-2030s, following a meeting with British manufacturer Rolls-Royce, which told the Coalition it could deliver them at an estimated $3.5bn to $5bn each. Rolls-Royce is contracted by the Australian government to supply the nuclear reactors for the AUKUS submarines.”
Nuclear power is the sleeper policy — even half the Greens agree the government should be talking about it
Last year political number crunchers suddenly realized there is no mass anti nuclear protest movement here, just the ghost of one from forty years ago. Polls came out in May 2023 showing that with virtually no national discussion about it, right out of the starting blocks, fully 56% of Australian voters thought the government should seriously consider small modular reactors (SMRs), and only 12% disagreed. Which is all the more astonishing given that only 24% of Australians even knew about SMRs at the time.
Wait until Australians find out there are 440 nuclear power plants in the world, and that even Armenia has one. And Belarus.
The Australian: commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia | Insightfully polled 2,400 people, May 2023.
When will we get over the adulation of roof top solar?
Not everything about the Coalition plan is smart, Australia already has a glut of solar power at lunchtime, so promising to put more on roofs in capital cities isn’t going to help. It’s just more electricity we can’t store at a time of day when we don’t need it which non-solar households have to subsidize. The duck curve at noon vandalizes the market for reliable generators, which have to recover costs at breakfast and dinner time anyway. And one cloud can cover a million suburban houses simultaneously. There goes another gigawatt.
If a large solar plant doesn’t make sense in Alice Springs where there is no cheap coal fired power, it certainly doesn’t make sense in Sydney where there is. Most new solar panels in capital cities are a waste of glass, metal and labor that someone has to pay for. They are a pagan shield against the storms, supposedly protecting coral reefs from somewhere in Parramatta.
But we all had cheaper electricity when no one had solar panels.
Thou still shall not question the science
The bottom line, which neither party is saying, is that we need to get the science right before we start pretending to change the weather — not after we blow a trillion dollars making high voltage temples to fend off the evil spirits. Nuclear plants are good, but coal plants are cheaper, and CO2 is a gift from God. The world should pay Australia to burn more of our coal and feed the forests and fields.
Who audits the foreign committee in Geneva? Which scientists are paid to find holes in the IPCC religious sermons about boiling oceans? We’re betting the nation on sacred-cow science.
Once we win the energy war we need to win the science war. Your donations keep me going. Thanks to the readers who help make this work possible.
—————-
*The conservative Coalition is the pairing of the Liberal Party and the Nationals.
Right now as the East of Australia shivers, the electrickery grid is powered by 82% dependable (fuels); 13% hydro and 4% wind (no solar). A perfect setting to launch the plan for “New-Clear” power.
610
The answer seems easy – no wind or solar development til all the nukes are gone: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23593348/build-nuclear-energy-from-nuclear-bombs-ukraine-war
20
As I understand it and as I discussed a few days ago, I think the coalition only wants to use nuclear for “firming” the unreliables. In other words it just replaces the existing role of gas and coal power stations which I assume they will continue to shut down.
The existing wind and solar subsidy farms will still be able to sell their defective and expensive product into the grid in preference to reliable and inexpensive coal, gas or (gasp!) nuclear power.
How will it possibly affect prices without the wholesale dismantlement of wind and solar and paying out any contracts or compensation?
This policy is not good enough and it really does nothing at all except replace gas and coal with nuclear.
And the coalition as a whole are still true believers in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. They will still pursue other polices to that end.
It’s not good enough.
They have to abandon the whole anthropogenic global warming fraud altogether, and all associated policies.
And this is not about not accepting a partial solution because I want a 100% solution. It’s not all or nothing. It’s nothing because it fundamentally doesn’t alter the existing situation. It’s just providing nuclear backup for a fundamentally defective grid, the present back up already coming from coal and gas.
And remember, the coalition are fundamentally anti-nuclear. They canceled the Jervis Bay reactor in 1970, already under construction, and Howard outlawed nuclear power reactors in legislation.
Finally, Australia took 50 years just to decide on a second Sydney international Airport. How much longer do you think it will take to decide on a nuclear power reactor after all the inquiries, lawyers, lawfare, political posturing, union bans etc.?
Australia will be in economic ruin before a nuclear reactor gets built and a Second World country like many in South America or present day South Africa.
703
David, I just added this:
According to The Australian Peter Dutton said in April that the “first small modular reactors could be operational by the mid-2030s, following a meeting with British manufacturer Rolls-Royce, which told the Coalition it could deliver them at an estimated $3.5bn to $5bn each.”
Cancelling big offshore wind and all the new plants the Labor party want to build is the first step in winding back the madness. Even today, when the election isn’t called, Big Green investors are losing interest in Australia.
Nuclear is more expensive that a coal plant, but it’s cheaper than a Black Start.
610
Good morning Jo,
I agree with David
So we need to win the science war and then the energy war will solve itself.
570
First you have to catch your rabbit before you can skin it. The energy wars are political and Dutton is competent enough to play in that arena. The AGW ideology is scientism and nature will solve that one in time as climate trends turn out to be blissfully unresponsive to CO2 concentration among greenhouse gases.
390
So we need to win the science war and then the energy war will solve itself.
True, but a far bigger, high risk and more difficult goal. Perfect can be the enemy of good.
Trump called climate change a hoax, and he won, but look at what they threw at him. Dutton is not a billionaire, a real estate magnate, or a TV celebrity like Trump is, and he’s not a scientist either. Tony Abbott was a Rhodes scholar who won 90 seats. He didn’t question the science head on, just the tax, but look how the machine cut down his landslide win so easily.
Dutton has only so much political capital to work in a crooked system. If he aims to overturn three decades of madness and corruption in only a few months from opposition, he will be mocked, labeled a “climate denier”, no one will discuss our collapsing grid, they’ll just wheel out 1,000 labcoats to speak jargon and make him look like an idiot. The Coalition will be split into believer-non-believer and the Labor Greens will probably win and give us 3 more years of grid destruction and science wreckage. Instead, by battling the Energy Wars first, the Greens are split because half of them agree, Labor look like they are pushing a fantasy ideology. Labor will be mocked instead and most Australians will get the joke.
As it is, Dutton has pressed the Kyrptonite button in the Energy Wars. Give him his due. Most conservatives have failed that bar.
Then, prepare for the long battle, as I am. Seed the ground: …”we need to get the science right before we start trying to change the weather”
310
You are quite correct, Jo. Whether Dutton believes in man made climate change or not, his current approach is politically correct. Nuclear can replace “dirty” coal and gas – who will argue against that. In 20 years, or less, all the wind turbines and solar panels currently installed will be defunct. No more will be built then as nuclear will be capable of carrying the load. I think Dutton is playing “softly, softly, catchee monkey”.
150
Agreed Jo, but Dutton will need a lot of positivity from the likes of we here on Jo Novas forum to help educate the those who have only heard the jabber at the green cool aid babble dispenser.
For a start educate them about background radiation, explaining to them about RADIATION that’s been with everyone for ever and never hurt them, possibly even benefited them, and will continue to be there in the future. I was living with my wife and 5 kids in Jabiru when the greenies and midnight oil came up and protested the planned Jabiluka the expansion of ERA Ranger Mine (which started because they would not buy Evon Margarula a fridge!!) The rent-a-crowd mostly flew up form Melbourne, Sydney etc I was quite happy to explain that parts of Melbourne and Sydney had higher radiation than in Jabiru and that they were exposed to more radiation flying up from Melbourne than I would be for a year in Jabiru. A couple of them actually listened, came back the next day and we actually had an intelligent informed discussion.
I see some new posts coming on Jo!? https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/radiation-sources/more-radiation-sources/radon-map
40
“look how the machine cut down his landslide win so easily.”
Who remembers that it was Al Gore who did that? And only I and Jo noticed!
Tony Abbott’s landslide mandate was never delivered. It was blocked by the Palmer United Party in the senate, in cahoots with Al Gore.
So how did Al Gore manage to determine Australian government policy? This was one of the most momentous events in the history of our Federation, and none of our scholars noticed.
10
“He will be mocked, labeled a climate denier”
OK. Now how is the anti-vaxxer labeling going? Anyone getting called a “granny killer”today? What about “selfish big man afraid of a little needle”?
Who is going to do the mocking? The lamescream establishment misledia? Ooh, they’re ever so trusted, just look at how many Australians are “up to date on their boosters”!
Right now the forces of evil have overreached and rushed their plans due to an unplanned lab leak. In blind panic they are vacillating between retuning like dogs to their vomit of pseudo scientific climate catastrophism or an outbreak of Chooky Sniffles.
Never let a good crisis go to waste? How about “Never let a (temporary) awakening go to waste?
If they aren’t up to date on their slab jabs and clot shots, they might just be open to listening while someone explains that “The science TM”, stuffed up elsewhere.
You know, the whole “Adding radiative gases to the radiatively cooled atmosphere will reduce the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability” BS.
“All these moments lost, like tears in the rain”
00
Well, why don’t you run for PM Konrad? If it’s all so easy, and you can get your message out to 20 million Australian voters, and beat the trillion dollar cabal who are working to silence you, buy off your allies, buy out the media, and control the bureaucrats? If you can get around the social media censorship, it’s a snap right?
I’d love an in-your-face Climate-is-a-hoax campaign, but I don’t think Peter Dutton or the current Liberal Party have the cojones, the mojo, the donors, the fame and fanbase to do that. Nor I’m guessing have they done the research to answer questions about climate science when the media wheel out the “certified” professors with their jargon. So they get him hesitating or making one mistake on video and they go viral.
Especially when the ALP could call an election in six weeks time.
30
We can’t expect the media to help in any way. There will be no discussion of worth or debate, so the great unwashed will largely continue to be ignorant. Apathy is a big problem but maybe people may come to undrestand the rationale and advantages of Coal, gas and nuclear over wind and solar.
160
The MSM will report what politicians say, there is an election coming up.
The nuclear option is really a stunt to force the apathetic punters to get involved, good strategy.
They have earmarked Mt Piper for the first mini plant, the local people are not happy. The seat of Calare is getting redistributed, which leaves the gate open for a radical to enter the lower House.
Nuclear power puts the green left in trouble, the climate wars are on again.
56
The Lithgow end of Calare wants a nuke reactor there.
This will be countered with:” Ah, but the Lithgow Seam mines in the area are earmarked for closure, so of course Lithgow locals want a nuke reactor”.
Unreported, but just as razor sharp for that, is that Mt Piper supplies power for about 1/3rd of Western Sydney and it is true that the Lithgow Seam resources in the Lithgow area are now very diminished. As Mt Piper has no rail unloader (true, that) replacement coal fuel will need to be brought in from elsewhere by truck – constant heavy truck traffic both ways on the Mudgee highway ?
Any nudging reply to these facts ?
140
The spare pod at Mt Piper should be a gas fired power station.
The locals for and against the nuclear proposal will argue the toss in the run up to the next election. Don’t know how that will pan out, but here is what the mayor has to say.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13529083/Lithgow-mayor-slams-Peter-Dutton-nuclear-plant.html
A nuclear plant won’t employ coal miners, they should clear out or take up basket weaving.
02
We haven’t heard anything yet from our local member Andrew Gee (Independent) on the nuclear option, but I think he’ll be against it.
This is what he had to say in 2017, keep the coal fires burning.
‘What they want to do is to cut the whole industry loose. That’s what they’re doing. Look at what’s happening over in Lithgow, where you’ve got the Mount Piper Power Station and the Springvale mine. Those two operations together probably have over 600 jobs at stake.
‘Those on that side of the House want to end coal-fired power generation. That’s what they want to do, and it’s scary. Look at a community like Lithgow. Coal was instrumental in building Lithgow. So many people from the Lithgow community and the coalmining community have supported the Labor Party over the years only to be betrayed by it now.
‘It’s unbelievable and breathtaking at the same time. Mount Piper Power Station needs to remain open. It supplies the equivalent of 15 per cent of the electricity supply of New South Wales. There are many people, including me, who would like to see Mount Piper expanded, but not those opposite.’ (Hansard)
33
Convert to gas they are Rankins so will reduce CO2 by 50% if you think this is important. But good enough and as the nuclear steam comes on-stream slide over to nuclear, and no new grid to build.
A seamless solution to an exhausted seam.
20
CoLA, I agree with you up to a point, but Jo is right we have to win the energy policy battle before the science battle due to the nature of the political game involved.
Your heart and mind are in the right place mate, it’s just the reality of the situation the Libs find themselves, that they cannot yet go all out on the climate science scam, until they have won over sufficient voters for change in energy policy to get rid of new useless renewables. We have to stop the senseless bleeding of our weak economy with costly power from any source. We need to keep our old fossil fuel system going as long as necessary until we can replace it with something radically better, if that is a combination of gas and nuclear or even better coal technology, so be it.
At present globally, the realization that Net Zero policies are not the answer to anything of value is starting to take hold, so the world will change it’s tune soon, as New Zealand has already and Europe is ripe for change. The Lib/Nats can show the global trends of increasing fossil fuel and nuclear use along with rising emissions, that are doing no harm but conversely a lot of good for the environment by incresing plant food. There is a good story to tell , when the time is right.
10
“Rolls-Royce is contracted by the Australian government to supply the nuclear reactors for the AUKUS submarines.”
Bingo! You can probably kiss goodbye to any idea of an early election. Albanese is toast.
290
Interesting Article in The Australian that isn’t paywalled
Can nuclear power enjoy its day in the sun?
By DAMON KITNEY COLUMNIST – JUNE 19, 2024
It is known as the jewel in the Booderee National Park.
Murrays Beach, on the southern headland of Jervis Bay on the NSW south coast, features crystal-clear waters, abundant marine life and pristine white sands.
Yet what is now a carpark above the beach was once cleared in the early 1970s for the construction of a nuclear energy plant.
While that Cold War leap into nuclear technology was put on ice because of the nation’s abundant coal and emerging gas supplies, more than 50 years later, Australia is once again mulling over the question of nuclear energy.
Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is backing nuclear energy to provide reliable baseload power to support wind and solar as Australia transitions from coal and gas-fired plants.
Dutton argues global concerns about climate change are supporting the role emissions-free nuclear energy must play in the energy transition. The Liberal Party’s policy includes both smaller modular-type nuclear plants and larger capacity next-generation reactors.
Dutton’s move has prompted Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to declare that the next federal election will be a referendum on nuclear power versus renewable energy, vowing to campaign on the issue every day until polling day.
The Prime Minister continues to hold the position that “nuclear power can work overseas and does work” but “doesn’t stack up for Australia”.
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen has pointed to data in the CSIRO’s 2023-24 GenCost report claiming nuclear power is too costly and takes too long to build.
Australia mines 12 per cent of the world’s uranium supply from mines such as BHP’s Olympic Dam, although uranium is only a by-product of that mine, whose primary commodities are copper, gold and silver.
220
Dutton’s move has prompted Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to declare that the next federal election will be a referendum on nuclear power versus renewable energy, vowing to campaign on the issue every day until polling day.
Dutton and the Liberal Party just need to point to how long & how safely Small Nuclear Reactors have been powering Submarines & Aircraft Carriers
Copilot
Nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers have been powered by onboard nuclear reactors for several decades.
These reactors operate through nuclear fission, where atoms split, releasing energy as heat. This heat is then used to create high-pressure steam, which drives propulsion turbines to turn the propellers and generate electricity for the ship1. The technology was initially adapted from nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers in the 1950s and 1960s2. These reactors have proven effective and reliable in naval applications, providing long-term power for these vessels. Additionally, efforts are underway to deploy small modular reactors (SMRs) inspired by similar technologies for civilian use, with a maximum output of around 300 megawatts compared to larger standard reactors3.
Learn more 1 epa.gov 2 cleantechnica.com 3 euractiv.com
240
You
Safety record of Small Nuclear Reactors on Submaines and Aircraft Carriers
Copilot
U.S. Nuclear Powered Warships (NPWs) have an outstanding safety record.
They’ve operated for over 50 years without experiencing any reactor accidents or harmful radioactivity releases.
These warships use pressurized water reactors (PWRs), which have a well-established safety history.
Unlike commercial reactors, NPWs are designed to survive wartime attacks and continue fighting while protecting their crews.
Their robust barriers keep radioactivity inside the ship, even in unlikely reactor problems.
Currently, the U.S. has 83 nuclear-powered ships: 72 submarines, 10 aircraft carriers, and one research vessel12. These reactors have long core lives, with refueling needed only after 10 or more years, and new cores designed to last 25 years in carriers and 10–33 years in submarines3. While nuclear reactors can be dangerous, modern NPWs prioritize safety and reliability
300
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/dutton-to-announce-opposition-s-nuclear-policy-20240619-p5jmxh
20
Many years ago, back in the days when Darling Harbour was a working Sydney port facility, reports claimed that Au had a moth-balled submarine reactor in a warehouse on the docks. The idea had been to use it as an emergency power source for Sydney. Could be just a whacky story from someone ringing up Radio 2GB. At about the same time another whacky story (from a docker) said Au had rejected docking of a ship loaded with nuclear fuel rod assemblies from/for Japan. This story was doubted on air by myself and a few others until it turned out to be true. The volume was small and safely isolated. I think the old rods were heading for Sellafield, UK for reprocessing.
Yet another story claimed that Pine Gap had a small reactor powering up the facility. Au wouldn’t know as we don’t have right of access for such inspections. They drive American cars, eat American food and in most respects are just another USA territory.
I have safety concerns about nuclear reactors and the associated industry so it would be nice to know if and where we have facilities.
British naval officers are not qualified to know how to deal with nuclear reactor problems. The RN asked my father (at UKAEA) about a potential refuelling idea. It took six months to get him security clearance to attend the meeting with the Navy top-brass in Plymouth but the meeting was over by 10 a.m. He said they were pretty hopelessly educated about reactors and their idea couldn’t possibly work. He got on the next train out of there. A simple telephone call could have sorted it out.
Confident in the RN ?
NOT.
80
Hi John , interesting.
You seem to have made the point that untrained, unqualified people should not be allowed near nuclear power generation.
Bad management practices are all around us but that doesn’t mean nuclear should be put aside.
Personally, I’d like to see a quick build of HELE USC coal plants to give us some time and space to set up the next generation nuclear plants properly and safely.
260
Also many years ago, the ADF had engineering standards which referred to facilities in Sydney for the storage of “Guest Nuclear Weapons”. Quite close to the Mitchell Library.
20
Back in the day an outrageously high water allocation request to Alice Springs by Pine Gap prompted the rumour it was hosting a nuclear facility; my internet searches on this proposition have produced no supporting results but a more skilled operator may succeed in confirming the story.
20
Just use Lucas Heights as an example. Councils and the NSW Guv’ment allowed suburbs to be built next to it. Oh the horror and terror. lol.
90
Why Dick Smith is backing Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plan – as he makes stunning prediction about Anthony Albanese’s anti-nuke stance
Dick Smith said Peter Dutton had shown ‘good leadership’
Entrepreneur Dick Smith is backing Peter Dutton’s plan to build the first of seven nuclear reactors in little more than a decade – describing it as good leadership.
The 80-year-old philanthropist and adventurer has likened the Opposition Leader’s plan to have nuclear power in Australia by 2035 to former Liberal prime minister John Howard’s successful re-election campaign for the GST in 1998.
‘I’ve never used the word risk at all, I think it’s just leadership,’ he told Daily Mail Australia from the remote Birdsville Track in South Australia.
50
The coalition are still aiming for net zero!
Since this is the case it doesn’t make sense to build an SMR when we could go full scale nuclear. We should drop any pretence that renewables can be relied on as our source of power.
His proposal is akin to buying a VW beetle when what you really need is a freight train. Get it right at the start and it will cost us less in the long term.
What Dutton has proposed will not make me return to the Liberal party.
140
Politics is the art of the possible. By opening up the nuclear argument and not opening up the whole global warming / renewables thingy, Peter Dutton will be fighting on just one front. I think he can win on that one front, but not against the cacophony that opening the other fronts would generate. Presumably Peter Dutton thinks so too.
Peter Dutton, to my mind, showed great patience and competence in the Voice referendum. He didn’t go too early, he didn’t overstate the case, he let very qualified and competent people run the campaign instead of making it all about him (ie, the opposite of how some political leaders operate). He seems to be displaying the same sort of skills and patience over the nuclear issue. I want him to win on this issue, not just look magnificent while he goes down in flames. Please, cut him a bit of slack and see how it all turns out. Bear in mind that if he becomes prime minister, he can offer permits for wind and solar, and make every verbal encouragement for companies to take them up, but with reasonable power price guarantees and no subsidies none will actually be taken up. IOW, he doesn’t need to bag Net Zero just yet, so he doesn’t need to do battle on that front.
It’s like Peter Dutton has been reading Sun Tzu.
180
It doesn’t matter what Tennis Elbow says. The next Election will be about the Cost of Living risks and broken promises
100
To be honest about it I have never voted for the Liberal Party although I have mostly supported the Country Party or Nationals. Like a lot of people in the bush we reject politicians largely because they can’t be trusted to deliver on promises. I guess that common sense and an accrued knowledge allows wisdom in most things – so I prefer to use my own judgement not beholden to city-based ignoranuses. Achieving political power in a democracy such as ours means compromises that dilute policy. I think I would vote Jo Nova next time.
180
Correction to my post @ 10:01 am
This is an excerpt from a media release about the Liberals Nuclear Energy Policy.
So Dutton is prepared to build either smaller SMRs or the larger reactors.
Good stuff. Now if he can forget about net zero and the use of unreliables in a power grid he might be worth giving my vote to.
Even though I won’t be voting for him I am pretty confident that the Libs will win the next election. Depending on how he performs in his 1st term in office I may even return to the libs.
40
It will be interesting to watch the gyrations by various State Govts (both ALP and LNP). I expect much flipping and flopping guided by microscopic analyses of various opinion polls. Said polls will remain unreported in any significant details.
50
Nuclear reactors have a minimum load requirement. A 1000 MW reactor requires a 200 MW load to be stable at startup. If that load isn’t present, the reactor must be shut down. It has to do with poisoning the fuel with intermediate reactions that are destructive to the fuel rods/pellets. Point is, Nukes are designed for full output, 24/7/365, not as throttleable sources. Yes they can ramp up and down, but only within the limits of operational design and certainly not below their minimum stable output.
Reliable Generation is a mix of generators. Nuke/coal for baseload, coal/gas/hydro for peaking and surges (OCGT/CCGT). No single technology can address the swings that a grid routinely experiences. The generation and fuel mix that optimizes efficiency and reliability for a given Nation or grid can vary a great deal. Fuel Resources, grid load curves, industrial/manufacturing/residential load profiles matter.
There is not one single answer. Solutions need to be carefully tailored to the actual circumstances. Different sizes of generators may be optimal in order to provide the necessary steps between other generating units (having a 200 MW step is useful if the other generators only have capabilities of 350 to 500 MW steps). There is no “miracle” generator that can match all loads at all times.
Best to keep the politicians away from such decisions and let the Engineers do their jobs. Otherwise, things get stuffed up in a hurry. Grids are more constrained by physics than politics, if not, then you don’t have a functional grid but rather a political dispensation.
But, yes, Nukes are excellent baseload generators on 40 to 80 year life cycles. The issue of fuel reprocessing needs to be addressed up-front, as does the issue of generator capacity block sizing so that the overall mix of generation actually serves the existing and anticipated load. That said, unreliable generators (wind/solar) can only, ever, at best, offset fuel costs of dispatchable generation.Only third world economies operate on intermittent generation.
140
And as people see through the sacred renewables farce, they won’t protest when wind and solar are curtailed in order to fit in with the nuclear plants.
The wind and solar guys will wish they still had coal power. Indeed, they mock coal, but half the guys running the renewables industry are now sounding the alarm that they can’t afford to crash the grid “they will lose their social license”.
110
“Best to keep the politicians away from such decisions and let the Engineers do their jobs. Otherwise, things get stuffed up in a hurry.”
And here is our current situation, the engineers where kicked out of the drivers seat years ago and a bunch of idiot politicians and bureaucrats have been joy riding our electricity grids like drunken teenagers for the last decade or so with the most dangerous current juvenile being Blowhard Bowen.
The other major issue is the grid being turned into some sort of crazy trading scheme resembling the madness of wall street in the 80s or 90s!
I work in the industry and hear comments from colleagues who have to deal with them of the AEMO staff and traders being kids straight out of Uni with zero idea on how each type of generator plant works (coal, gas etc) and only looking at spreadsheets of bids going up and down, asking for a instant 50MW increase from a coal plant for an half n hour interval. It’s insane!
140
Good comment gazzatron
I agree with you 100%
30
In your intro you stated “The driest continent on Earth, with small hydro, and no extension cords to any nuclear power,”
Perhaps you were unaware that nuclear power stations use a lot of water. Is this OK in the driest continent on earth?
09
“Figures from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) show that 45% of nuclear plants use the sea for once-through cooling, — Nuclear power and Water consumption
I don’t think we’ll run out of ocean.
Is that the best you can do? Perhaps you are unaware that wind and solar and interconnectors use thousands of square kilometers of farmland, forest or wilderness. Is that OK on the most infertile continent on Earth?
110
Perhaps you are unaware that cooling water used in existing FF power plants is actually more than that required by nukes
50
And not all nuclear plants require constant water for cooling. One of the new SMRs being built doesn’t use water at all, and some of the new nuclear plants being planned may use closed cycle cooling, similar to fixed gensets.
20
Natrium, or molten salt reactors, which Bill Gates is building and which China has already built 2 use no water for cooling:
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2024/04/02/next_wave_of_nuclear_cant_come_soon_enough_1022502.html
30
Life is much easier when a single company owns and maintains all power generation. Maybe it’s time to nationalize the electric system.
90
Maybe it’s time to nationalize the electric system.
I think the thousands of owners of roof top solar panels might have some concern about that idea.
I do not have a great deal of support for “large solar installations” but the idea and technology for the property owner to install inflation protection against the overly regulated grid supplied power system will not easily “go away”.
And even if the payments for “exported power/energy” were to disappear (or exports even prohibited), the ROI is still in favour of local installations dimply from not paying for grid power most of the time.
10
Yes lets not accept progress in a good direction, lets demand perfection and correct speech. Indeed not good enough. For you maybe, but I will be applauding the change in direction and and announcement now will be enough to stop anything in development until the election , which again is a good thing.
110
How long? They can’t even settle on a waste facility location after 20 years of talking. Sallys Flat in New South Wales, Hale in the Northern Territory, Cortlinye, Pinkawillinie and Barndioota in South Australia and Oman Ama in Queensland are all under consideration but the natives are too s*** scared. Even in his wildest wet dream I just don’t believe Dutton will pull this off even if he really wanted to!
10
Maralinga
Maralinga, located in the remote western areas of South Australia, was the site of British nuclear tests in the mid-1950s. Covering about 3,300 square kilometers (1,300 square miles), it witnessed a series of nuclear detonations. These tests contaminated the area with radioactive waste, impacting both the land and its people1. The name “Maralinga” was borrowed from the Garik language, roughly translating to “field of thunder” 2. It’s a haunting reminder of the destructive legacy of nuclear weapons
10
What “haunting reminder”? They now run tours to Maralinga. The Monte Bello islands, used for nuclear testing, are now regarded as one of the best NW fishing locations, with regular fishing charters going there. And of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki are healthy vibrant cities.
40
Nuclear planks need to run 24/7 at a high capacity factor to maximise their cost efficiency, so they don’t fit into a RE grid, which is why the RE rent seekers see them as a threat. In a nuke + RE grid, the nukes would not be punished like coal for emitting CO2 and would be able to bid continuously in the market, meaning the wind and solar farms would need to compete with them 24/7, even at midday and would be more likely to get priced out.
60
Nuclear in Australia has about as much chance of survival as an icecube in Hades. With the predictable avalanche of opposition and disinformation (already commenced)it will have NO hope of becoming reality unless it is declared an essential service for national, military and industrial purposes,constructed by the military as an essential national security industry allowing ALL state and civil opposition to be bypassed.Unless the gloves come off in this matter there will be so many orchestrated delays it will NEVER come to fruition.
11
Why not import coal from China? It would be nett zero as they would burn it anyway. And we could put HE generators on the old coal sites.
201
It’s 2C in Melbourne. At least we have stopped Global Warming in its tracks. It could have been 4C except for all those good people who blew up our power plants to save China.
310
China produces half the world’s steel. 40% of the world’s CO2. But they have a lot of windmills and hydro too so I guess it doesn’t matter.
140
-2C just outside the UHI
51
I think we could import coal, gas and nuclear electricity from Indonesia with a lot shorter cable than the Sun Cable was going to be.
It would be cheaper than solar and wind.
As a “developing country”, Indonesia has no CO2 emissions limits.
Coal and gas power would be CO2 emission free as overseas emissions don’t count.
260
If I were the Coalition I would continue to pay lip service to renewables such as roof top solar. Once nuclear is up and running we won’t need the rubbish renewables and people will realise that. Gradually the rooftop solar will dissipate as panels age and are not replaced. Subsidies will dry up and slowly we will get back to normal. Should China start beating war drums before that happens then a new coal plant or two would be quicker to build. We will need power and lots of it to survive any major disruption to world trade. The dummies in the ALP/Green machine and the MSM are undermining Australia’s future; they are verging on being traitorous.
460
Gradually the rooftop solar will dissipate as panels age
Yep – Sister-in-law’s 9 year Old Roof Top Solar & Inverter Mackay had to be replaced at cost $10K
220
12 year old panels still at more than 90%. Inverters? Replaced when going out of warranty.
10
Yep, most likely Dutton has a long term plan to abandon net zero, but wants to keep a good proportion of the climate zealots onside for the upcoming elections. If he says they will abandon net zero now, then it is unlikely Libs could gain power – there are too many close-minded illogical voters that never change their allegiances no matter what.
190
yes he has politics to consider. Saying they are firming renewables sounds good to the climate worriers and in reality it means providing secure baseload. This is a first step towards sanity. I hope enough people see it.
140
I agree as so many people are either caught up in the illusion of anthropogenic climate change or are naive enough to believe the fallacies about nuclear emissions, expenses and safety being hand fed to them by MSM. I think many of them will come around once the facts about nuclear are presented to them. A patient facts based approach will likely give the best chance of swaying opinions before an election…and like you say hopefully afterwards there’s a collective realisation that renewables are rubbish
30
Renewables cannot carry caseload power, but nuclear won’t get up because the states are against it. The federal parliament can override the states, but it would be political folly to attempt it.
Dutton PM will acknowledge this stumbling block and resort to new gas fired power plants to bolster renewables. The monies to build them would be much cheaper and they could all be up and running in a few years, they could also use the monies from Snowy 2 which is dead in the water.
05
‘… baseload power …’
01
What if the world suddenly heated by 2C, day and night.
Would it be a problem? Where and when and for how long? And what would the problem be?
And how much would you pay to prevent this catastrophe?
Does anyone know?
261
Are you refering to the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period?.
120
Both incredibly good times for human progress. Freed from the desperate need for ample food, society could develop beyond subsitence agriculture and endless war and misery. Now we are told that warming is a bad thing? By the same utterly indulged artist and political classes who do nothing to grow food or make things. In Australia, academics and politicians.
150
Given that the average temperature is around 14.5C I would say no problem. Unless I lived in Beetoota.
30
With the new you-beaut nuke reactors powering our systems, even Beetoota and surrounds would be flourishingly and cheaply airconned. Cake for everyone!
20
An email from Momentum Energy yesterday. Shoulder rates are going up yet another 23% on 1 July in NSW. Peak rates up 2%. Solar feed in down 2%. Off peak rate will no longer exist, so add another 20% or so to costs. Another massive increase. Massive. This is the cheapest retailer in the state too. Not even newsworthy anymore. Is there any end to it?
310
As I wrote yesterday:
I’m glad we’re getting more windmills because we all know that’s the cheapest form of electricity known to man … and Australia wants to have more windmills than anyone else on the planet.
/sarc
150
We Australians can only hope.
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Electricity-Prices-Plunge-By-75-As-Finland-Opens-New-Nuclear-Power-Plant.html#
150
I assume the Finns have a different subsidy harvesting scheme than Australia. I don’t think that would work here because expensive solar and wind have to be purchased whenever they are available.
For it to work consumers would have to be allowed to buy the cheapest electricity available which would be coal, gas, nuclear or real hydro (not SH2).
If consumers were allowed to do that, solar, wind and Big Batteries would go out of the subsidy harvesting business instantly. That’s why they won’t allow it to happen.
110
But they are..
The 2001 law copied in the UK and which avoids two words, carbon and tax, actually says you have to buy from approved sources.
The non approved sources are all carbon based, with the exception of biofuels. So electricity retailers would be free to buy nuclear electrons without buying fake electronic green certificates from a fake electronic market. Prices would plummet overnight, as in Finland.
But that doesn’t mean the parliament would approve nuclear. Or that the administrators would accept that nuclear was de faco approved if it was not explicitly excluded.
60
This is the Act 2000
You see how they avoid the words tax and carbon. Carbon is not used anywhere. Only ‘fossil’ fuels
And it is notable that nuclear is not included in the list. After all, it is illegal in Australia, the only G20 country in which nuclear power is illegal.
(1) The following energy sources are eligible renewable energy sources:
(a) hydro;
(b) wave;
(c) tide;
(d) ocean;
(e) wind;
(f) solar;
(g) geothermal‑aquifer;
(h) hot dry rock;
(i) energy crops;
(j) wood waste;
(k) agricultural waste;
(l) waste from processing of agricultural products;
(m) food waste;
(n) food processing waste;
(o) bagasse;
(p) black liquor;
(q) biomass‑based components of municipal solid waste;
(r) landfill gas;
(s) sewage gas and biomass‑based components of sewage;
(t) any other energy source prescribed by the regulations.
(2) Despite subsection (1), the following energy sources are not eligible renewable energy sources:
(a) fossil fuels;
(b) materials or waste products derived from fossil fuels.
This must be the most deceitful, nefarious Act passed in Australia’s history. And it was copied in the UK. The enrichment of third parties by order of the King. And in 24 years, the Press has pretented it doesn’t exist.
In fact I suspect most politicians do not know about it. Remember Gillard’s “there will be no carbon tax in a government I lead”. Australia runs on Carbon taxes, gifts of voters money hidden in obligatory commercial transactions with fake green certificates and protected by severe consequences for failure to pay their approved suppliers of green electrons.
190
Off peak rate will no longer exist, so add another 20% or so to costs.
Yep same from Momentum – time to change – email to Bill Hero to go to work
10
Yes, other electricity suppliers are updating their rates, with changes expected to be completed by the first week of July. It is advisable to wait until the end of the first week in July before making a decision to switch, as this allows for all the new rates to be visible and for the pricing landscape to settle.
💡 This answer was composed by Bill Herobot, Bill Hero’s AI Agent using the information below:
Momentum
Your current rates and charges
GST Inclusive
Daily Supply Charge ($ per day) 1.6357
Peak usage ($ per kWh) 0.4367
Shoulder usage ($ per kWh) 0.1958
Off Peak usage ($ per kWh) 0.1782
Tariff timings:
Peak Usage : 2pm-8pm Mon-Fri. Shoulder Usage : 7am-2pm and 8pm-10pm Mon-Fri and 7am-10pm Weekends. Off Peak Usage : all other times.
Your new rates and charges effective 1 July 2024
GST Inclusive
Daily Supply Charge ($ per day) 1.4399
Peak usage ($ per kWh) 0.495
Off Peak usage ($ per kWh).0.2673
Tariff timings:
Peak Usage: 3pm-9pm, Mon-Sun (1 November to 31 March and 1 June to 31 August). Off Peak Usage: all other times.
00
Off Peak usage ($ per kWh) 0.1782 to Off Peak usage ($ per kWh).0.2673 is 50% Increase – How much is Labor Albosleezy Inflation? – Over the twelve months to the March 2024 quarter, the CPI rose 3.6% – California Dreaming
10
And by the way, if anyone buys this political carp then I have a bridge for sale too. And if we were going to go nuclear, the only sensible way to do it would be to build nuke generators in remote areas that are separated from the grid and from coal/gas supplies.
116
To a green, the only sensible option is always the one with the highest chance of failure – greens oppose anything that might work. Put your power source as far away as you can from users? That’s a plan for failure. So it’s a good green plan.
300
As Thomas Sowell says; they replace what works, with what looks good
171
Tell the French that. Lol
20
Nuclear isn’t my first choice either but I hope the Coalition can shift the ground on the toxic, short lived W & S lunacy.
Even some of the CFA volunteer fire fighters are starting to ban the toxic W & S areas and will refuse to fight fires there in the future.
But the Labor and Greens liars and con merchants will lose many voters when they understand the very low period of use ( 15 to 20 years ?) and W CF of just 30% and S CF of 15%.
The Coalition has to quickly step up and tell the truth about these very low CFs and stress Gas, Hele Coal and Nuclear have CFs of at least 80 years.
Then they have to stress these power plants are all reliable 24/7 BASE-LOAD and toxic W & S are unreliable most of the time.
150
If a nuclear power station was ever built (unlikely) I think it would have to be under special legislation to exclude the involvement of communist union thugs like the CFMEU (reincarnation of the BLF, banned even by the Labor Party) of whom the Labor Party is their political arm. They would refuse to work on it or sabotage it. There would have to be severe penalties for any illegal actions they take.
270
Have the Russians build it with their own workers, they have 30GW of nuclear running… or the Chinese, they have 57GW & are building reactors nearly as fast as coal plants. …or the French with their 60GW. There are plenty of countries out there with the expertise, anyone would be better than Aussie unions. T
he sooner the unions are broken and forgotten the faster this country will move ahead. We no longer have large industries and far more smaller companies where individuals can work out their own arrangements.
170
Not the Russians . . . the South Koreans.
80
South Korea is a can do country for sure.
120
Chinese nuclear power plants can be built faster and a lot cheaper than Western countries, but they maybe tofu dregs.
01
“Not mentioning any names, Matt Kean”
I woke to the delightful news that Kean is retiring from state politics for the private sector. This joy is only tempered by the fact that there are hints he will run for a federal seat, challenging a sitting Liberal. While Dutton and Littleproud, and the sensible LNP members are doing the right thing, Kean would be an insidious rat out to cause dissension and unrest in the Federal government.
331
Some really good news!
” “I will be retiring from parliament.”
Mr Kean said he had no intention of running for federal parliament and would instead be pursuing a career in the energy industry. ”
I’d heard a rumour he was moving to federal politics, and that terrified me.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-18/former-nsw-treasurer-matt-kean-quits-politics/103993660
Cheers
Dave B
130
Let me guess. He will be lobbying for the subsidy harvesters. Actually, much as he did when he was in politics.
There should be a law prohibiting politicians working for private companies related to their activities in politics, for five years after leaving politics.
260
Off you go Matt. A useless type by any measure and typical of your urban Liberal. Sane people will be relieved of not seeing his stupid face on the TV.
80
If he goes into Udinese, who would hire him? Gladys went to Optus and was and is a disaster. Lol
20
BTW I’m hoping Sky News will be able to organise a proper debate between the CSIRO and the CIS about Nuclear and toxic low capacity factor + short use W & S.
But I’ll believe it when I see it, because the CSIRO seems to have abandoned the proper scientific data and evidence in relation to toxic W & S.
260
Brilliant post today Jo. This is the truth of it. For too long we have suffered the clever use of language by the renewables fanatics. My husband said this morning – why are we calling it the Climate Debate? It is the Energy Debate & we should constantly correct them.
300
This talk seems pie in the sky. We are a federation and the Feds have no authority to impose a power station of any kind on a state.
In any case, the Federal bureaucracy isn’t competent to run such a thing. Look at NBN. Look at Snowy Hydro 2.
What they can do is lift the nuclear ban.
We can work at convincing them to do that, but we also have to convince the states that it’s in their interests to go nuclear.
130
Chris Minns NSW Premier came out this morning saying he will oppose nuclear in NSW. Too many Labour states in Australia at the moment. Too many illogical voters keep them there.
90
And if Dutton wins, how many state Liberals will copy his policy?
They will turn on a dime…
71
Nuclear replaces coal. Need a throttable power generation such as gas or oil to peak when battery augmentstion isn’t available.
I like nuclear but it is a 24/7 proposition. The base floor power generation will come off the backs of the renewables. Foremost solar and then wind.
110
From ABC
Power price structures have radically changed, but nobody thought to tell consumers about it
This is where the real money wars are taking place. The consumer will get stuck with the cost, not the power companies.
50
How do you think they deal with the nuclear reactors on the subs and ships when they are not driving the propulsion systems ?…….they reduce their output !
Nuclear can operate with peaking supplied by gas or hydro , pumped hydro even better !..or even with a much smaller battery peaker storage facility !
..Wind and solar can NEVER be base generation 24/7 , without massive over capacity and impossible amounts of storage !
180
The ruinous cost of toxic W & S must always include the toxic batteries and every night Solar goes missing and Wind droughts can last for days.
So for more than half the year Solar must be backed up by flat (?) batteries because they only last for a few hours at best.
Wind CF is about 30% and wind droughts can last for days and then Wind must be backed up with the same flat batteries.
Very simple kindy sums but everyone including their CSIRO play dumb and avoid this very simple physical evidence and the horrendous cost plus our much lower standard of living.
130
Yesterday was another example of the folly of Labors “renewables” dreams
On an annual basis wind contributes around 13% of NEM genewration, but yesterday this fell to around 2%.
https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=1y&interval=1w&view=discrete-time
From 22 to 27 May 2024 there were 6 consecutive days of low wind where the average wind contribution fell to 4.3%
Because our dams are currently full the contribution from hydro increased by 0.7% above its annual contribution of 6.8%
Therefore over these 6 days the contribution from wind fell by 280 GWh.
This was made up by increasing the contribution from coal and gas (which are to be eliminated under Labor’s dream).
The cost of providing sufficent battery backup at A$750 per kWh storage would be A$220 Billion (at wind’s current 13% annual contribution rate)
If wind generation is to be increased by 3 times on an annual basis the the cost of battery back-up for 6 days goes up to over half a Trillion dollars!
How can Labor and its corrupt CSIRO claim that “renewables” are cheaper than nuclear energy which provides reliable power 24/7?
110
Whose are “our” dams? They sure aren’t full in 70% of the country, at least.
22
Again Adellad, here’s the BOM rainfall data since 1900 up to 2023.
Come back if you can’t understand the much higher average rainfall since 1970? Or since 1950?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=8&ave_period=6190
10
That is a non-sequitur. I am talking about the 70% of Australia that has had below average rainfall since mid summer. Not since 1970.
10
It’s worthwhile noting that in many places like WA, the runoff has decreased much more than the annual rainfall. This might be because the runoff areas are not being logged and are reverting to heavy undergrowth.
20
There are two ideas underpinning the sky is falling argument, a whole section of the Australian this morning.
Firstly that an 50% increase in carbon dioxide over 250 years is causing sudden global warming.
Second that the increase is man made.
Neither has been proven. In fact the second was categorically disproven in 1958 by radio carbon dating which measures the age of CO2.
But that’s science.
What puzzles me is that as the problem is total CO2, why we are not measuring it as the actual problem?
So with perhaps 500,000 giant Chinese windmills around the world, thousands in Australia alone, how much have we reduced CO2 or even stopped CO2 from climbing?
The answer is not at all. There is no detectable human influence on CO2 in the last 50 years.
So why are we continuing? Why are politiicans debating ways to fail? Ways to not change CO2 at all? Why are we focussing on emissions when they have no detectable effect on CO2?
320
Some battles are easier to win than others. I believe Dutton has realised that it’s a lot easier to promote nuclear over renewables, as it’s an argument that he has a greater chance of winning. And perhaps leave the CO2 for later.
50
And why aren’t the physical chemists standing up and telling the world that CO2 is a 98% dissolved gas in rapid equilibrium with the vast oceans and there is nothing humans can do about it. A slight increase in CO2 is a sign of slight ocean warming.
The most dramatic proof of this is the unfortunate discovery by NASA of rapid greening of the earth, by my calculations 14% of the planet has greened between 1988 and 2014. And CO2 went up 14%. So more CO2 means more greenery. I suspect if it wasn’t a multinational project, the results would have been buried. And the CSIRO knows all about it, but says nothing. And presumably another 7% greening between 2014 and 2014.
But the even more significant conclusion is that sequestering trillions of tons of CO2 has had zero impact on CO2. Which means it was all just replaced from the ocean. Again, nothing is said by NASA or the CSIRO.
And the rapid growth in CO2 output by 3500% in the last century, especially in China which is now 40% has had zero impact on CO2.
Where are the scientists telling the world about world wide equilibrium? CO2 levels are not accidental, random, subject to alteration by humans. And CO2 is a constant from Antarctica to Singapore to the North Pole at 0.042% no matter what we do. Isn’t that a bit puzzling?
The other equal product of combustion is toxic gas emission H2O. I suppose that means we are all going to drown. After all many more humans have died from H2O than ever from CO2.
Crazy Climate science wins. In the hands of the opportunistic failed lawyers who make their living as politicians.
201
I suppose there will be headlines when the CO2 level world wide goes to 0.043%. Shouldn’t it be much higher in China with 40% of CO2 output?
And our 38% of the planet below the Tropic of Capricorn has a tiny 2% of the world’s population, mainly water and ice but we have nearly exactly the same CO2 as China. But the experts at the CSIRO are busy being experts on nuclear power than simple chemistry. Which is odd given that they have no nuclear power expertise.
170
“Commonwealth legislation passed by the Howard government in 1998 prohibits nuclear power.
Australia is the only country in the G20 to have a legislated ban on nuclear power. ”
and it was the Howard government which passed the Renewable Energy(Electricity) Act 2001 which means that we pay for all the windmills and they get to be owned privately, purchased with our money. To me that remains theft at a National level and illegal in principle since Magna Carta, that a government should order the giving of cash to enrich third parties. And for nothing. Only taxation is legal for governments, not legislated theft.
200
That’s a vital point that must be examined to identify the guilty and then Prosecute and punish so as to turn this evil around.
90
As the Covid debacle has clearly shown, government officials and public servants are never going to be prosecuted for lying and/or making wrong decisions. It’s not worthwhile pursuing this.
40
I agree, the CV19 ugliness has not yet been prosecuted: it should be.
To allow crime and human ugliness to go unrewarded means that society is finished.
People who make “wrong decisions” are obviously in the wrong job and should be let go. Those leaders who make wrong decisions are almost certainly on the take and have failed in their duty to seek the best advice and guidance available. Prosecute them.
Of course if “experts” have deliberately mislead things then they should restore the damage they have done out of their own funds an ponder their actions in gaol.
20
People like you, David Maddison and others with the requisite credibility in terms of the physics of our atmosphere, the oceans and so on need to write copiously to The Australian letters page and comparable state publications such as the Herald Sun, Advertiser etc. People like me – stakeholders, observers but not experts – cannot write with the gravitas that you can. It is sorely needed – currently Teal idiots are published routinely with their unscientific drivel presented as fact.
120
Well-credentialed folks ARE commentating in The Australian. I would suggest that their inputs are coming from websites such as this one and WUWT. And it is making a difference. One clear example is that Tony’s CF data is now being accepted by most commentators. At least The Australian allows commentators to refute the BS put out by the alarmists.
70
I read it every day and while there are a few (Douglas McKenzie of the ACT for example from memory) there are more true believers such as Amy Hiller of Kew (where else)? Nobody writes with the precision and mastery of hard facts that one sees here. And worse still, the paper’s young journos seem increasingly beholden to the Green cult.
50
If you are not reading the online version you are missing the many useful comments that promote alternative viewpoints. At least The Australian provides space for a range of different viewpoints and opinions.
00
Safest and “Cleanest”?
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Forbes had nuclear safer than solar but the web site is paywalled.
50
Major insurers, including AAMI, Allianz and NRMA, specifically exclude coverage to homes, cars or possessions from nuclear accidents.
Just build the reactors well clear of populated areas and provide a government guarantee of relocation should any accident occur.
40
I came into the comments to look for anything resembling what I was thinking…. surely it is still far safer and more reliable to go with modernised versions of coal powered generation that do not have a radioactive by-product, or a radioactive accident or incident fallout with a huge radius and term of impact.
51
As far as I can recall, all of the past such “nuclear disasters” were the result of human error, greed and corruption.
If a nuclear power facility is used way past its engineered life span, there is danger. Likewise cost cutting during construction to increase profits for those involved is frequent and has created notable disasters.
Politicians and other manipulators of large expensive government projects should not be able to change engineered parameters for personal gain and public pain.
80
Looking at it globally I really doubt its any safer (from mine to plant) and certainly no more reliable to go with coal. I would be happy with either approach.
40
There are apparently trace amounts of Radon and Radium in most coal deposits, with the result that coal fired power plants emit more radioactivity than well designed nuclear fission power plants.
It’s still 3/5 of 5/8 of sod all, though.
80
I would suggest a re-read of Dr Ridd’s excellent article on nuclear radiation and nuclear waste storage that I believe was posted on this website.
30
Gold, silver, dollars, all transferable, “would be burned at the pyre”.
Hardly.
All of our nations work, taxes and savings have Not been ” burned at the pyre “, because somebody wanted them.
All of that condensed National Effort has been moved to places and pockets where it is deeply valued and appreciated.
We have been mocked by a force with more skill and cunning than our “elected representatives ” and the cleanup, coming to a hill, ocean or paddock near you in about ten years time will be the final “up yaws”.
May Snowy Hydro Two rest in peace.
They have made fools of our nation and all we had to show for it was two infertile Pandas.
100
The Pandas, of course, were the “no emissions” variety.
60
Yes, even the emissionary position failed to work
50
🙂
10
Am flying to NSW this Christmas – I know, the worst time – to catch up with extended family & nieces I’ve never met: hopefully your crooks in suits have sorted their ship out by then (yeah right), the snows of Kosciusko have melted, and Sydney Airport is still above sea level… two out of three ain’t bad?
120
“we all had cheaper electricity when no one had solar panels.”
Lovely line! Should be a bumper sticker on every car and graffiti on every street corner!
190
Good! It’s a good start – movement in the right direction.
80
Future headlines – “Government builds nuclear plants on time, on budget”. LOL. Just like they have the… umm?
60
Here again is the golden rule about toxic, unreliable W & S generation of our electricity.
If solar generates just 15% of the time on average it obviously doesn’t generate for 85% of most days or months.
And if Wind generates just 30% of the time on average it obviously doesn’t generate for 70% of most days or months.
Then can anyone explain how we can ever get our energy most of the time with toxic flat batteries?
Or do we just forget about batteries and also use Coal or Gas or Nuclear as well? And at what horrendous cost?
But couldn’t we just use clean BASE-LOAD Nuclear or clean HELE Coal or clean Gas?
IOW why would any SANE country use toxic, short term W & S and toxic batteries at all?
100
Turkey is commissioning its first nuclear power plant now. It was/is largely a Russian project.
4 x 1200MW units on one site, with another 2 or 3 sites planned for other areas in Turkey.
Construction of the first unit started in 2018, though obviously the project goes back further than that.
https://www.dailysabah.com/business/energy/turkiyes-akkuyu-nuke-plant-gets-green-light-to-operate-1st-power-unit
90
Russia is building a Nuclear Power Plant for Egypt. Even Uganda is getting a Nuclear Power Plant. As for Australia – Nada……..
20
So what’s the view on man made Global Warming in Scotland? Are they going to boil or drown? Are they going to abandon the North Sea oil and go nuclear too? And give up the income which has made frozen Norway one of the richest places on the planet.
I find the whole thing ridiculous. We are talking really small temperature changes of no particular consequences anywhere, even in the hottest places on the hottest days. What is the problem? Where?
In Sweden for that matter, home of Greta Thunberg. Sweden and Scotland are rising faster than the ocean. And at above 56 North are not famous for hot summers. Who is Greta trying to save and from what exactly?
Frankly I would toss nuclear and just burn our own coal. Selfishly. And stop buying Chinese windmills. Like the UAE we should have enough fossil fuel power to aircondition Ayers rock as a ski resort.
‘
160
Gosh TdeF! That was an interesting thought; an undercover ski resort at Ayers Rock. That would make a remarkable tourist attraction and bring in lots of lovely tourist moolah.
Well, it works in Dubai with outside temperatures well into the 40sC; 47C 2 days ago according to son.
130
And from Peter Dutton
Power bills have already increased by up to $1,000 for many Australians, when they were promised a $275 cut. And Labor’s climate target of 43% emissions reduction by 2030 has become unachievable.
The Coalition believes Australia must have a balanced energy mix to deliver cheaper, cleaner and consistent 24/7 electricity.
Ninety per cent of baseload electricity, predominantly coal fired generation, is coming to the end of life over the next decade.
Today, we announced that a future Federal Coalition Government will introduce zero-emissions nuclear energy in Australia, which has proven to get electricity prices and emissions down all over the world, to work in partnership with renewable energy and gas as part of a balanced energy mix.
And today, we announced seven locations, located at a power station that has closed or is scheduled to close, where we propose to build zero-emissions nuclear power plants:
• Liddell Power Station, New South Wales
• Mount Piper Power Station, New South Wales
• Loy Yang Power Stations, Victoria
• Tarong Power Station, Queensland
• Callide Power Station, Queensland
• Northern Power Station, South Australia (SMR only)
• Muja Power Station, Western Australia (SMR only)
Each of these locations offer important technical attributes needed for a zero-emissions nuclear plant, including cooling water capacity and transmission infrastructure. That is, we can use the existing poles and wires. The local community also has a skilled workforce.
A Federal Coalition Government will initially develop two establishment projects using either small modular reactors or modern larger plants such as the AP1000 or APR1400.
No country in the world relies solely on solar and wind as Labor is proposing.
Labor’s 82 percent renewables target by 2030, requires 4.5 gigawatts of additional large scale wind and solar every year. Last year less than one-third of this was delivered.
Labor is leading Australia toward an unnecessary energy crisis.
In contrast, our plan will deliver a net-zero electricity grid by 2050 and a strong and resilient economy.
It will set our country up for decades to come.
Zero-emissions nuclear power plants will be national assets delivering cheaper, clean and consistent energy for 80 years.”
__________________________________
And you have to be amazed at zero emissions nuclear power. It shows how debased the language has become when nuclear has zero emissions!
151
Here’s another quick way to prove that Fossil fuels are very safe.
Global population was just 5.3 billion in 1990 and today 8.1 billion, but global life expectancy in 1990 was 64 years and about 71 years in 2021.
And global co2 emissions have now increased by about 14.3 + billion tonnes per year compered to 1990 co2 emissions.
The only question is how many more people would’ve died over the last 30 + years if we were only using unreliable ,toxic W & S + toxic unreliable, batteries? Think about it?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy
70
BTW here’s Fossil fuels co2 emissions since 1990, for…..
The world
The OECD
The NON OECD, Think about it?
IOW the more we use fossil fuels the longer we live and the wealthier we become. Even our poorest continent follows the same trend. Anybody not understand the data now?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=OWID_WRL~OECD+%28GCP%29~Non-OECD+%28GCP%29
60
Here’s global GDP since 1990. In 1990 global GDP was just 51 Trillion $, yet by 2022 this had increased to 139 Trillion $ or an increase of about 88 Trillion $.
Can anyone see any dangerous problems with the 14.3 Billion tonnes per year increase in co2 since 1990?
And if that isn’t a safer, wealthier world for Humans then what is?
IOW they’ve been lying to us since Dr Hansen’s BS and fraud speech in Washington DC in 1988.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-gdp-over-the-long-run
40
This whole climate debate is just one great big lie started by the globalist to scare the sheep
It had two ambitions
First starve western society and destroy us as a culture
Two inrich the globalists
Now the obvious solution is to
de- demonise the CO2 bad myth
That shouldn’t be to hard just use facts
To achieve this and de-brainwash the kids and young adults strip out the Marxist and communist that have infiltrated our education system that wont be to hard either just look for the pink hair and skinny black jeans
Than mount a national tour of reputable scientist like Prof Plimer and go to the schools and unis and just tell the truth
The globalist loose and we get our country back and the left are banished for generation
All we need is the Conservative opposition to grow some balls
100
So… a lie that requires hundreds of thousands of people to be a part of a secret plot whereby globalists, who must be rich and powerful in order to direct this plot, wish to destroy the basis of how they became rich and destabilise the world thus threatening their own existence?
And your solution? An information campaign (snigger). This information campaign will overcome the rich globlists and the multitudes of people paid to misinform. Why did’t you think of that before?
213
Or you could just dye your hair a different colour.
50
Maybe dig up my granny and put her on trial.
17
At first I thought that this was all conspiracy theory. However, I have come to realise over time that there are far too many rich industrialists who provide money to causes that I certainly believe are not in the best interests of the global community. I also believe two local ones, Twiggy and Simon, are clearly pushing for self-serving interests, using their considerable wealth, that are not in the best interests of Australians in general.
200
But G4 – just promote the facts and they will skulk back to where they cam from.
19
Having worked for far too many autocratic entrepreneur-type CEOs who think they have all the answers, I have noted that they remain unconvinced that they were wrong, even when the company is crumbling around them. They just grab their departure bonus and go and destroy another company…
50
Hardly secret when they openly state that their objective is population reduction.
Ted Turner demanded a 95% decline … and he had three wives and five children himself while insisting on a single child policy for everyone else.
Prince Philip … wanted to come back as a deadly virus, strangely COVID turned up at around about the right time.
Agenda 21 explains how to keep humans bottled up and prevent them using resources.
Margaret Sanger was completely open about her objectives … and her organisation still gets tax money today.
Paul “Tzar” Ehrlich the professional wrongologist has been hand wringing about population for decades and gets invited to all the best parties … they can’t hate his ideas all that much.
Bill Gates is on record in 2018, giving warnings about population growth and also about a pandemic.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/gates-warns-turning-point-africa-population-booms/
Prince Charles was calling for population control before he was king, back in 2010
https://www.eutimes.net/2010/08/prince-of-wales-calls-for-population-control-in-developing-world/
These people could send a brass band and you would pretend the whole thing is some weird secret whisper. Have you ever tried paying attention?!?
60
Just now the Queenslandistan and Victoriastan Premiers reiterated their opposition to nuclear power.
And they quoted some clown at CSIRO who again said the cheapest power is wind and solar backed by Big Batteries.
The whole bunch of them are utterly clueless.
130
Sounds like Miss Information to me. I will now report this to the appropriate Authorities. Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
20
Dutton says the election will be a refendum on nuclear energy.
Even better on an issue which could bankrupt this country, I would love a referendum on whether we should
Stay with coal, oil and gas until they run out in a few hundred years
Go renewable
Go nuclear
It is not up to our science ignorant politicians to tell us about the morality of coal, or make science decisions on our behalf. They are totally unqualified to do so. None are scientists. And many politicians have declared war on coal, for their own reasons. Usually because of inner city left Green voters.
I expect that 60-70% would vote to stay with coal.
Because most people think the whole thing is a hoax. And they are right. Many are far more qualified than polticians to make the decision.
Put it to the people. Otherwise the Chinese get to enjoy our coal and we are left in the dark with LED candles charged with windmills. Useful idiots.
110
Even if there was a viable conservative opposition party capable of taking government, I can’t see a reactor being built in less than ten years from the next election which would be 2035. And that’s only if a National Emergency is declared. Otherwise all the approvals etc. woukd take decades, if ever.
So, SERIOUS QUESTION – what is Australia going to do for the next ten years as electricity, gas and other energy prices continue to skyrocket because of more windmills and panels and continual shut down of power stations and other inept government policies?
And as I said at the top, present Coalition policy is to use nuclear to replace coal and gas as backups when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. They don’t understand the basic problem which is a fanatical belief in the anthropogenic global warming fraud.
Australia is in full self-destruct mode.
You can’t run an industrial civilisation on random and expensive wind and solar, you need coal, gas, nuclear and real hydro (not SH2) power stations.
The next Federal election has to be held on or before 27th September, 2025.
100
I believe that Dutton has chosen a battle that he can win, and that battle is to replace renewables with nuclear. If coal has to give way to nuclear, I don’t see that as a problem, as in the long term, both will have similar costs.
50
Much of that is unarguable, but I think DM’s point remains valid – the next 10 years or so. It’s a long time to wait in the cold/heat/dark while the Koreans or Rolls Royce build our reactors.
20
Except they’ve mismanaged the grid to the point where it will collapse without coal. So despite their hatred of old coal, they will keep it ticking over because they have no other choice…
140
Yes, I believe that this is what will happen. I not that the current WA Labor govt doesn’t talk that much about shutting down its main coal power station, and certainly not while it supplies around 40% of the SWIS grid power.
30
Here’s more solid proof that increasing your use of Fossil fuel BASE-LOAD energy quickly increases a countries’ GDP per capita by record margins.
China has increased their GDP per capita by over 12.7 times from 1990 to 2022. IOW in just 32 years.
BTW India had a GDP per capita higher than China in 1990. About 1800 $ for India to China’s 1424 $ in 1990.
Today China has increased co2 emissions to about the same level as the wealthiest countries combined. That’s the entire OECD.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank?tab=chart&country=USA~DEU~GBR~FRA~KOR~JPN~CHN~IND~OWID_WRL~AUS
50
BTW China and the combined 40 OECD countries co2 emissions were almost the same in 2022 and probably the same today in 2024.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=CHN~OECD+%28GCP%29
30
If wind and solar are so good? Cut out the subsidies, cancel the need to buy certificates off the carpetbaggers and make the operators BID for supply and fine them if they don’t delivery on time and by the offered amount. I just cannot believe any right minded engineer would have allowed one watt/second of this unreliable power near the grid. Go nuclear and then tell the carpetbaggers to sod off when they come around with their “cheap” renewable power and tell you to wind back your output.
Beware! There are still at least nine Liberal members who are LINO wets.
110
How about just stick with coal and gas? We have bucketloads of it and the infrastructure is already in place (other than the coal plants that have been blown up by leftist ideologs).
We already export immense quantitates of both coal and gas for others to burn so why cant we use it ourselves?
130
Totally agree. Australia could then afford to bring energy intensive industrial manufacturing back home. We could then open government owned raw mineral processing facilities and sell the refined metals internationally for huge profits. Pig iron, aluminium, copper, coked coal ect. And build a massive underground nuclear waste storage facility in the middle of the most stable continent on earth AUSTRALIAS Simpson Desert and store the world’s nuclear waste at $1000 dollars an hour for 300 000 years,easy money.
100
After years of hard graft going through all the “environmental” and other lawfare hoops, Kimba in SA did everything necessary to get a waste facility in situ. Then the urban aborigines got it shafted via yet more lawfare. We face a lot of internal enemies.
90
Totally agree. Why should we hang ourselves while China does everything we are not allowed do?
This endless self harm is being dictated by politicians, not the public.
We elect politicians to represent us. Who they are representing with Global Warming can only be China. That’s not some conspiracy theory. It is so obvious.
80
Only to you and Donald Trump.
China didn’t invent global warming hysteria.
01
No, but they’re sure making good use of the concept, and our gullibility.
70
Who invented it is completely irrelevant to my comment. It was 36 years ago.
40
3,2,1..unleash the ALP/GREENS/TEALS “NO TO NUCLEAR” protesters. Their freshly printed “NO TO NUCLEAR” protest signs have already arrived from their backers, the CCP. Australia must not go nuclear because who will buy the millions of sun mirrors and wind mills from us,the CCP. And the CCP EVs that spontaneously combust at a rate of 8 a day in China.
51
Again here’s Nick Cater’s report on Finland’s new Nuclear plant in Springtime May 2024.
Lucky blighters now have very reliable and very cheap energy for the next 80 to 100 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbeKtcTfMbY&t=2s
80
An excellent report, and definitely should have a wider coverage. Surprised that it wasn’t mentioned in today’s online The Australian, which is now so full of energy articles that it’s difficult reading all of them.
60
Especially when just about all of them are an anagram of that nice fish, the carp. And yes, I have read them all and inserted a lot of commentary, including words unsuitable for a venerable gentleman all over the paper.
60
Firefighters strike over ‘reckless renewable expansion’
50
From a comment in your link.
In the land of red dust, under southern skies wide,
Where the sun’s harsh glare and the winds abide,
A cry arises, not of joy but of plight,
From those who battle flames in the dead of night.
Firefighters, the brave, their hearts made of steel,
Now stand in protest, their anger revealed.
Not against nature’s wrath or the inferno’s embrace,
But against man’s decisions, an industrial disgrace.
They strike against fields of solar and wind,
Planted with haste, with foresight thinned.
“Reckless!” they cry, as turbines whir,
And solar panels stretch like an armored spur.
In the name of green, lands are defiled,
Safety forsaken, progress run wild.
The balance is tipped, nature’s ignored,
In pursuit of profit, the warnings deplored.
Once guardians of the land, now they contest,
Policies born of shortsighted zest.
They see the fires that future holds,
In landscapes transformed, the nightmare unfolds.
Renewables, they agree, are not the foe,
But the reckless expansion, a lethal woe.
Safety neglected in the green gold rush,
Leaving forests and fields vulnerable, lush.
Their hoses now hang, their helmets set down,
They march through the cities, through each burning town.
For every turbine erected, a risk unaddressed,
Every solar field sown, another distress.
“Listen!” they plead, to those in their towers,
“Safety must lead, in these critical hours.
Renewables can save, if wisely deployed,
Not as reckless ambitions, or nature destroyed.”
Australia’s heart beats with a fiery refrain,
A warning ignited from the firefighters’ pain.
In the quest for green, do not forsake,
The land and its guardians, for the future’s sake.
OddBall (comment by)
60
Various Australian State premiers are having the vapours about the idea of one or two nuclear power plants in their states. Yet, when I compare the geographic sizes of countries that have embraced, adopted, and are installing nuclear power plants, they cover vastly less real estate than each Australian state in which Peter Dutton proposes to install one or two nuclear plants! Are these foreign adopters of nuclear unconcerned about the risks to their citizens, or are they prepared to consign their populations to nuclear immolation and resultant “green-glowing”?
The premiers’ concerns are unadulterated nonsense! There are numerous countries that are prepared to install nuclear powerplants, having watched their track record of deliverables for many, up to seventy years. That’s why there are over four hundred such plants world-wide, delivering sustainable power 24/7 yer after year, in some cases, like France, exporting that power to their neighbours. Please, Minister Bowen, show me a single example of a nation (not benefiting from hydro), that is able to rely on wind, solar and batteries to supply its own enegy needs 24/7, much less producing enough surplus to export to a neighbour!
By the way, how did you do on delivering your May 2024’s goal of 40 wind turbines, and 682,000 (31 days times 22,000 per day) of solar panels, all subsidised with borrowed funds. Chairman Xi needs the money!
80
The pretend “leader” of the pretend conservative Liberal Party in Vicdanistan does not support nuclear.
What a waste of space he is.
60
The Victorian Liberals have run dead for all the post Napthine elections; something’s seriously awry and given the contumely Moira Deeming survived she would make a fine leader clearly more than the equal of the insipid Jacinta Allan.
30
If they ever build a nuclear power station in Vicdanistan they should do it at the site of Hazelwood which the Government got shut down in a barbaric act of vandalism.
It has the transmission lines already there plus a cooling pond.
The cooling pond was actually 26C (I think) all year round and you could swim and boat in it and it had been stocked with barramundi and tropical fish.
90
And was running at 98% capacity for its last month of operation. So it had to be closed as it was too old? It was 40 years younger than Joe Biden.
50
Yes, I caught one.
20
‘Turned everything on its head’: Andrew Clennell reacts to Dutton’s nuclear announcement (video)
20
These news videos from Australia demonstrate what we also see here in the US. Close attention is being paid to what new-build nuclear actually costs, but next to no one except the renewable energy skeptics pays any real attention to what wind & solar actually costs.
The anti-nuclear activists will be demanding the details of this plan. Which is a good thing, really. Because no one should go into nuclear without a full committment to realism in every facet of the endeavor.
How much nuclear capacity is to be located and where, who will do onsite construction of the plants, where will critical safety systems be manufactured and/or fabricated, the scope and impacts of nuclear regulation, realistic cost & schedule estimates, realistic technology & financial risk evaluations, a hard look at the adequacy of the nuclear industrial base, the proposed mix of 1200 Mw or 1600 Mw large plants versus the smaller capacity SMRs, which SMRs are under consideration and why.
If all these facets of the nuclear proposal aren’t tightly nailed down and aren’t completely transparent to the Australian public, then the proposal is nothing more than political kabuke theater.
20
Has anyone ever done the actual whole of life emissions of nuclear v wind and solar and battery. When VW did an exercise comparing the emissions of their e golf and their deisel and the petrol cars emitted less than the electric. ( although to what extent depends on the grid.
When one looks at the emissions in production of all the turbines with their metal and concrete and battery back up using 200 x the area needed for nuclear and the fact that the nuclear plant will last 3 times as long before replacement I can imagine that the CO2 surplus will be massive for renewables probably not much better than a coal HELE plant.
And that’s before one takes into account the wildlife and farmland and natural habitat destroyed by the requirements of so much additional land
40
I seem to recall that the capital cost of Loy Yang B was $1.2B in 1999. It was built on time and under budget by the SECV. Why can`t this occur today? Even with escalation to 2024 dollars, this was a good deal for 1000MW.
50
[…] Jo Nova […]
00
More and more energy will not save you. Never. that will make you burn instead.
More and more power will not save you neither, that will make your smallest evil side fill the World.
What would save you, perhaps, is to seek the opposite : humble condition and less power, more sharing and less wasting.
But You can’t save someone who wants to die. This “humanity” doesn’t want to be saved by doing the right thing, instead she wants to go on : “more and more.. forever!” “all for me!”
She didn’t understand the exponential law, nor life.
00
[…] From JoNova […]
00