Photo by Spiritrespect.
By Jo Nova
Everything just changed. For the first time in Climate Bureaucracy, Nuclear power can save the world too.
Until today, only renewables had the Holy Sacred Power against Climate Change. But last night the UK and US signed a new agreement at COP29 to share “billions of pounds worth of nuclear research” in order to “decarbonize” the world.
They did this backflip in such a tearing rush, they didn’t even have time to phone the Prime Ministers they were offering this bonanza to. They accidentally listed all the countries they expected to sign up, only to find the Australian government is going to an election waving the anti-nuclear flag, while the opposition demons carry the pro-nuclear pennant. Oopsie indeed. The press release was reissued, but the Labor government in Australia are now trying to explain why nuclear power is great in submarines, but too expensive and slow for sites that don’t move and aren’t underwater. It’s entertaining.
Apparently, Australia has too much sunshine, and thus we’re stuck with solar power. We also have the largest uranium reserves in the world, but shh. This is like energy lessons on Sesame Street.
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said:
Nuclear will play a vital role in our clean energy future
That is why we are working closely with our allies to unleash the potential of cutting-edge nuclear technology. Advanced nuclear technology will help decarbonise industry by providing low-carbon heat and power, supporting new jobs and investment here in the UK.
Nuclear power is Kryptonite to Renewables
Don’t miss how big this is. Only a year ago France scandalized the world when they dropped their renewables target and fought the EU to get nuclear power accepted as a “low emissions” generator. They had to threaten to scupper the EU’s new Renewable Energy Directive unless the EU included a role for nuclear power.
Renewables groupies hate nuclear power, because it’s everything they want to be but aren’t. Nukes are low emissions, reliable, proven, easy to add to a grid, and they don’t need a caravan of batteries, flywheels, hydro-dams or a 1,000 miles of high voltage lines. Obviously, if nuclear power can save the world from the Carbon Yeti, no one needs to build floating bird killers.
The implication is that renewables are being quietly thrown under a bus. The Blob is backing away slowly from 30 years of “free energy” propaganda. They have blinked, and switched to nuclear, the same obvious solution they could have picked from the start in Rio in 1992. Be prepared as they gaslight the world, hoping they will forget the trillions of dollars poured into the renewable energy port-a-loo.
The Trump factor is already killing sacred cows
The Blob is clearly tripping at full speed here — reacting to the shift in power with Trump’s win.
Ed Miliband may be trying to try to save COP29 from terminal irrelevancy. But the Blob surely knows that the grifter game is up for renewables — now that investors are abandoning them, industries are headed to China, and electricity prices have taken off like one of Elon’s rockets. That and Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Oracle ignored their wind and solar pony showcases and rushed to get nuclear power to feed their pet AIs.
For all we know, the new nuclear plan might have been written the day they released it. How much effort would it have taken for Ed Miliband to mention it to Australia’s Energy Minister (Chris-“Blackout”-Bowen). He didn’t even need to phone him. They’re both at Baku.
Giving away Nuclear technology
The UK Government and the US will be giving away nuclear technology, to speed up deployment of civil nuclear power to “decarbonize industry”. The new agreement would start on March 1 2025, and is (was) expected to be signed by Canada, France, Japan, Republic of Korea, Republic of South Africa, China, Euratom [Europe], Switzerland and Australia. Thus it perfectly wedged the Australian government — which agreed to AUKUS, a nuclear sub sharing program, but is also 100% committed to a Glorious Renewable Future. The US and UK obviously assumed their AUKUS partner would leap at the chance. Instead the updated press release dropped the list of nations.
The UK press release:
The UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and US Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk have today (Monday 18 November) signed a new agreement while in Baku for climate talks that will help pool together billions of pounds worth of nuclear research and development – including the world’s leading academic institutions and nuclear innovators.
New technologies such as advanced modular reactors can help decarbonise heavy industry such as aviation fuel, hydrogen or advanced steel production, by providing low-carbon heat and power. They are also smaller and can be made in factories, making them quicker and cheaper to build.
This will support the commitment made last year at COP28 to triple nuclear energy capacity globally by 2050, with 31 countries signed up including the US and UK.
The UK is reversing a legacy of no nuclear being delivered and moving forward with its advanced nuclear reactor programme and Great British Nuclear’s small modular reactor competition, as well as continuing development of the Sizewell C project. New nuclear will help to secure thousands of good, skilled jobs and support energy independence beyond 2030.
The Australian Energy Minister, clearly caught unprepared, said “No”
Albanese government gives firm ‘no’ to joining UK-US agreement to advance nuclear technology
A spokesperson for Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who is at the COP meeting, said: “Australia is not signing this agreement as we do not have a nuclear energy industry.
“We recognise that some countries may choose to use nuclear energy, depending on national circumstances.
“Our international partners understand that Australia’s abundance of renewable energy resources makes nuclear power, including nuclear power through small modular reactors, an unviable option for inclusion in our energy mix for decarbonisation efforts.”
…and, we have too much sun.
Chris Bowen’s UK-US nuclear energy pact COP out leaves AUKUS partners surprised
By Dennis Shanahan, The Australian
When Mr Dutton asked Mr Marles in parliament whether Australia would sign up to the nuclear agreement with Australia’s allies, the Acting Prime Minister said: “I can confirm that the Australian government will not be signing that agreement. For Australia, pursuing a path of nuclear energy would represent pursuing the single most expensive electricity option on the planet.”
Mr Bowen also argued that Australia’s longer hours of sunshine compared with the UK meant that Australia had solar-power advantages and nuclear energy was not viable for Australia.
“Put simply, London has only 1633 hours of sunshine in an average year. By comparison, Australia’s least sunny capital city is Melbourne with 2362, while our sunniest capital city is Perth has 3229,” Mr Bowen’s statement said.
For baffled foreigners, the next election in Australia has to be held by May 2025, and looks like it will hinge on nuclear power, which is currently banned in Australia, (largely by accident — because of an incidental Green ten-minute amendment in 1998). Our slow moving Labor diehards were already glued to the renewables-train but the opposition is making nuclear energy a key part of their platform. Polling suggests Australians are not anti-nuclear, but they are anti-electricity-bill-bonfires. So voters seem to find the idea of change appealing.
Ed Miliband, of course, is still raving in a hollow rehearsed way about the unreliable transition, but it is a simple fact that the more nuclear power a grid has, the less wind and solar it wants. In the new world order of Trump — The Australian Labor Party may be the last man standing on unreliable renewables.
I don’t pretend to understand why OZ is so anti nuclear bearing in mind the authorities don’t want to use coal. I don’t know your situation with gas supplies, but no matter how sunny you might be you still need base power.
690
Oz is not anti-nuclear, except by accident. When everyone else was getting excited about nuclear power in the 1960s we had too much coal, so we didn’t bother. It wasn’t economic, because coal was ridiculously cheap and we have ridiculous amounts of it.
We never had a debate or protests much. The Greens scored a minor PR win in order to agree to build a new research reactor plant at Lucas Heights, and nobody cared.
— APH
620
Jo that was the new Opal reactor, but the original Nuclear reactor was built at Lucas heights NSW in the 1950s.
The new Opal reactor is now saving thousands of lives through the use of nuclear medicine etc.
In time about 50% of Aussies will benefit from the new Opal reactor.
420
It’s not for power generation but nuclear medicine. Only 20Mw. Four wind towers actually working. Australian’s electrical energy needs alone are 1000x that. Our total energy needs much higher.
180
“OPAL generates around 20 megawatts of thermal power, which is much less than a typical large nuclear power reactor.
The heat is only enough to warm the water in the reactor pool to about 40 degrees Celsius”
It is a neutron generator for irradiation. As opposed to cyclotrons for accelerating charged particles, typically protons.
170
Recently Albanese Labor Government approved upgrading of the Opal reactor.
They also signed an agreement with 14 Indo Pacific Region countries in Singapore approving future nuclear power for those signatory nations, including Indonesia and Fiji.
And last February Albanese Labor signed a contract with Rolls-Royce UK and placed orders for SMRs to be supplied for the new generation AUKUS nuclear submarines scheduled to be built in SA.
190
“When everyone else was getting excited about nuclear power in the 1960s” we already had enough communists in our academies to maintain a viable opposition to our way of life. Many of them sourced from The Old Dart.
These people toiled away in our education system until they succeeded in getting nuclear energy prohibited.
Their purpose was to hinder western nations in the Cold War nuclear arms race.
240
There was one nuclear power station plan and the foundations were built on Commonwealth land in Jervis Bay NSW near Nowra, around the same time the first radio isotope production nuclear reactor was built at Lucas Heights Sydney.
190
“On The Beach” – 1959 movie:
Gregory Peck
Ava Gardner
Fred Astaire
Anthony Perkins
The book by Nevil Chute written in 1957 was read all over the world. I remember people discussing it back then in New York City and being freaked out. As a school child back then, we had nuke war drills in Manhattan where we hid under our desks. That will sure work. We thought it was pretty funny.
The movie is about nuclear war annihilation and the last scene is shot in Australia where the last humans are about to die from radiation.
Always, wonder if that had anything to do with Australia saying no to peaceful nuclear power.
61
A fascinating book. Shute’s scenario was that nuclear war between unnamed countries had destroyed life in the entire Northern Hemisphere. With the radiation slowly drifting south, human life in the Southern Hemisphere would be extinguished last.
Shute set the book in Melbourne because then, coal was regarded as an asset. The war had stopped oil supplies from the Northern Hemisphere, but Victoria’s vast brown coal reserves kept Melbourne’s electric trains and trams, and therefore the city, functioning to the last. It seems Neville Shute appreciated the value of our natural resources unlike enviro-loons today.
For trivia’s sake, some of the movie scenes were shot at Frankston station, others at Phillip Island. The carrier HMAS Melbourne stood in for the book’s Sydney. I recall old ‘line book’ photos from the Melbourne with pictures of Peck and Gardner walking through the hangar deck with assorted brass. The quote ‘Melbourne being an appropriate place to make a film about the end of the world’ is often attributed to Gardner but was actually by one of the producers I think.
90
Australia has had various (small) nuclear reactors since 1959.
Only the Greens and parts of the Labor Party are against it, with various lies about safety and cost. Both could be rebutted by The Liberal Party if they pointed out that France (70% nuclear) has electricity about half the rate that Germany and the UK get charged by their desperate efforts to be Green. And French nuclear waste is stored in the middle of France.
370
France (70% nuclear) has electricity about half the rate that Germany and the UK get charged.
I hope Peter Dutton has noticed, for the upcoming election campaign. Not that logic ever plays any part.
201
It’s really about forcing the conversation back to base load. Once you force an acknowledgement base load is needed.
The conversation defaults to why we don’t already have nuclear.
It’s taking the voters by the hand an showing them 5 white cubes are the same lenght as one yellow rod, and 2 yellow rods are the same lenght as 1 0range rod.
200
we live in magical-fairy-dust-land where base-load power is no longer required.
140
Australia needs BASE-LOAD power now not toxic, unreliable W & S and why waste trillions of $ and destroy land and sea environments for a guaranteed ZERO return?
And the entire rotten mess and the very low CFs of W & S should rule them out today.
Why is Australia so stupid and why do Labor and the Greens, Teals etc care so little about destroying thousands of kilometres of our precious wilderness areas?
We must vote them last in 2025.
480
Yes, baseload power and that is why Eraring must be kept open and functioning. All of our energy needs are accounted for by the use of Coal,Gas and Oil – there is really no need for nuclear given the lead times are way out there. Politics will dictate otherwise, but Labor is in line for a hiding for its petty intransigence on energy matters.
210
The Daily Chart: De-Industrializing Europe
While the U.S. economy continues to chug along, and will perhaps gain considerable speed once Trump II takes the visible foot of government off the invisible hand of the market, Europe’s economy continues to decline in relative and absolute terms.
One reason for this is the EU’s “Net-Zero” monomania. How bad is it? This bad:
180
No politician has used their public microphones to explain to the voting public that nuclear id so much cheaper than renewables. Recent research determined that Bowens plan would cost more than $600 billion. The New nuke in Saudi Arabia pumps out 4 GW and cost less than $40 billion. Also overlooked is the durability of the two systems, nuclear 60 to 80 years and maybe longer whereas renewables have a 20 year life span and need replacement costing billions again. There really is no argument but we need a political leader with the confidence and knowledge to put this information before voters.
160
Bowen and Kean, in particular, and the various governments, LNP and Labor/Greens that support renewables insanity should be accountable for the untold damage they are causing to our country. There should be no free pass for them – they must be charged for economic and security negligence.
Stupidity cannot be a defence, no matter how obvious it is. And the industry and media fellow travellers who have cheered them on must also be held accountable.
500
It should be noted that the leftie Aus MSM (eg. the AFR, Silly Morning Herald, ABC etc) have refused to run this story. Their loyal audiences will now deny the truth of it.
The obvious reason for this refusal ? To avoid both looking stupid worldwide and the pain of having a basic notion criticised. In short, no cognoscenti …
500
Expect a Four Corners show outlining the desecration of our countryside. For most city dwellers – who remain ignorant or bury their heads in the sand, the problem of accepting that Solar and Wind poses a bigger environmental issue. Meanwhile the sheep remain inside their pen.
250
I wish I could say that I have confidence in the Coalition when it comes to adopting nuclear. It takes determination and a can-do attitude and a will to see that things happen, but we are infested with non productive and subversive bureaucrats. WE need strong leaders but the few that we have will face obstruction from negative elements.
200
Dutton is using nuclear energy as a political wedge, splitting Labor voters and Greens. He runs the risk of alienating some Coalition voters who don’t fancy living up the road from a nuclear power plant.
Clearly there are votes up for grabs.
https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/charts/australia-using-nuclear-power-to-generate-energy/
19
The Coalition have been following and researching nuclear reactors for electricity generation since the Howard Government terms 1996-2007.
During their last nine years in government they arranged a Senate Inquiry into nuclear options, defeated by superior numbers opposite side.
Research SMR Australia website where there are many submission to Senate and other nuclear information, not limited to SMR.
50
The effort has been worthwhile.
‘In contrast, more than a decade ago in 2011, in response to a related question in this Poll, more than six in ten Australians (62%) said they were either ‘strongly against’ (46%) or ‘somewhat against’ (16%) ‘Australia building nuclear power plants as part of its plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions’.
13
Labor is sticking with renewables because they have to. This problem is a consequence of their association with unions because what has happened is that the union dominated industry superannuation funds have decided they want a piece of the rent-seeking subsidies (large and small scale renewable energy certificates particularly) associated with renewables and have invested big time in them hoping for an extravaganza of (undeserved) riches from long-suffering electricity consumers. Nuclear threatens that investment and will leave them with stranded assets if it succeeds, so they are holding Labor’s feet to the fire on this one.
It’s not even ideology, it’s just an example of crony capitalism.
660
Bingo!
210
And what leans on the Super Funds — the Super Massive Black Holes of the world of finance, the BlackRocks, the Vanguards, State Street, Goldman Sachs etc. Thus multinational globalist entities that own significant shareholdings can influence priorities for what are essentially national pension funds.
If you think our politicians seem to care more about foreign issues than their own voters, there is a reason.
120
I have been saying this for years, money and mates.
90
Well said Charles I have been on this since Dutton announced the nuclear option.Industry super is deeply invested in renewables and we just imagine the assurances from The ALP.The industry super is a money sink for the unions and as such Labor.
100
I’m wondering if in the not that distant future that I will not see, that the historical story of the CAGW/PanPublicHealthDemic era … will be the tale of WEALTH TRANSFER.
The WEF, supposedly organized to reduce poverty (ask Bono), in fact produced a new billionaire (soon to be trillionaire) aristocracy.
Just another bunch of Robber Barons stealing money in activist world saver disguise.
30
‘The Real Cost of Net Zero’: Inside the Albanese government’s renewable energy push and what it means for struggling Australians –
Australia is in the middle of an energy revolution.
The Albanese Government wants over 80 per cent of electricity to be generated by wind, solar and hydro power in the next six years.
That’s over double what it is now.
And both major parties have committed to cutting carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.
It all comes wrapped in a guarantee of a greener – and cheaper – future.
But will it be?
If the cost blows out, who pays?
If the lights go out, who will be responsible?
And the rush to net zero goes well beyond reengineering the electricity grid to reach into every aspect of our lives.
So a team from Sky News Australia set out to look at the task ahead and to ask, what is the real cost of net zero?
https://www.skynews.com.au/business/energy/the-real-cost-of-net-zero-inside-the-albanese-governments-renewable-energy-push-and-what-it-means-for-struggling-australians/news-story/109d8f491328db7ca8248aff8845c64e
300
It was a welcome change to the pro renewables propaganda. Chris did a fine job but I thought he could have compared total costs of the various systems.
60
Why has it taken so long to get the net zero rort so clearly explained. Chris showed how the energy providers game the payment system to make money and shaft the consumer. – the graphic that shows how a solar install providing power at $30 gets paid at $300! No wonder the unions and overseas investors are involved. No wonder they attack gas – they have a vested interest in making gas as expensive as possible! The system they operate is designed to increase the cost of power so all the net zero power companies make mega bucks – except for roof top!
90
The new Opal reactor at Lucas Heights is already saving lives and helping with new research and development of Nuclear medicine etc for Australia.
Soon this will improve the health of 50% of our population.
This video only takes 4 minutes and is very interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiAkelzSIGg
90
Is it just me or does the Government persistently back losing projects (mRNA, Ruinables) 2-3 years past where it is obvious to blind Freddy? How I wish we had a strong leadership of this country that passed reality testing.
390
Strong leadership? What about any leadership? Politicians are only trying to please swinging voters. Greens, Doctor’s wives, single cat ladies and our new arab muslim community and aboriginal activists. The people who actually built the country and do almost all the work are irrelevant.
470
And I am very tired of thanking aboriginal activists for all they have done to build the country. How can you colonize a country which doesn’t have a single building or any infrastructure of any type?
250
TdeF I’d like a time machine and take the lefty extremists back to 1770s Australia.
Then come back and see how they got on after a few years.
No houses, no cars, no phones, in fact no food unless you could hunt and kill a roo or find scarce berries etc.
It would sure be a lot of fun. SARC.
200
The other aspect of colonization was to enslave the native people as a labor force. That didn’t happen. First there were very few people, in any places, just small scattered families over a vast area. Secondly, unskilled with minimal language, no numeracy, no clothes or shoes and no history of labor for 50,000 years, there was no workforce. Hunter gatherers only. And permanent warfare.
Plus the British made all slavery illegal and policed it on the world’s oceans, which cost the lives of 3,000 British sailors. And buying back the slaves cost more money than the British made out of slavery. Now the descendants of freed slaves want reparations from the British? Why not ask the slavers in Africa? And how free were the Irish, Scots, British and skilled young ‘convicts’ who really built the place in the 19th century?
But what Australia did have was gold and silver and iron and a lot of coal. Now we are told they are not wanted, to protect the blue banded bee or mythical sea creatures. As for nuclear, as a new Nation we are heading back to no jobs, no food, no clothes, no shoes and no hope. Emulating the aborigines we rescued.
[Interesting but off topic. Please can people take this to unthreaded threads? – Jo]
170
There should be consequences for those who stop projects like the gold mine and gas drilling. Take it out of their welfare cheques. Names. We want names so those who lose jobs as a result can let the protesters know they are not welcome in town.
60
My relevant point is that our politicians care far more about these issues than nuclear . Everything we do is being stopped. Nuclear technology is being offered on a platter, we have the cheek, the idiocy to say no. And our senate is talking about colonization, not the opportunity of a lifetime for Australia. And our PM is investing our $1Bn of our money in a purely speculative US venture for non working quantum computing. Our priorities are insane.
50
I have downloaded from gutenberg.org (free) a book “The Native Tribes of Central Australia”, by two scientists who went up to the Alice Springs area in 1899 to study and record what could be learned while there were still aborigines living in the desert.
I have only glanced at it as yet, but I did see that the natives were in good health and well fed.
It appeared that their staple foods were onion weed and nut grass. I must take and read it through.
50
That $43Billion a year would go a long way to building power stations, even nuclear power stations. And aborigines would be better off. For all this cash they appear worse off every year.
60
We should be making computer chips and not solar panels (the World is awash with solar panel makers). We have all of the materials here to make those computer chips and then export them and make value added money with high paying jobs. Get Taiwan to move here.
We do however have fish and chips and rubbish Newspapers (apart from the Australian, AFR, etc.) to wrap them in .
Vale Australia.
270
Don’t worry we are about to become a world superpower in renewable energy. All will be well as we export our Solar and Wind overseas (presumably stored in cans with the green kangaroo logo)
150
GlennM mentions this: (my bolding here)
I wonder how many of you have noticed the green kangaroo logo, I mean looked closely at it, on any visit to your local Woolies or Coles etc. (or even perhaps in your own pantry at home)
Here’s an image, and note the bar chart under it, and the text.
Umm, ever wondered why prices go up. Have to pay for the (bureaucrat inspired) labelling you know.
The text has to be minute, otherwise there would be an encyclopeadia britannica with every item you buy, and hey don’t get me started on the contents labelling, and these days I only look at the Carbohydrates.
Vegemite 95% Australian.
Umm, damn, I had to throw out some Natural Pink Himalayan Rock Salt the other day, the Saxa refill pack. It had reached its Use By date??? (What – a use by date for salt)(and no logo on that one. Packed in Australia from imported ingredients)
Oh nyuk nyuk nyuk, I can see you all now, heading off to look in your pantries.
Tony.
60
What are the impurities that make it pink?
I hope it is not mercury.
20
Iron Oxide!
And naah! I didn’t throw it out at all. Use by date on Salt? What have we come to when they put a use by date on salt? Next they’ll have use by dates on bottled water!
Tony.
60
We cannot make a transistor in Australia and to my knowledge, never have. We have no electronics industry at all.
140
Company Overview
For over 60 years, GME has been an industry leader in the RF communication technology space.
GME remains a family-owned private company, and is proudly 100% Australian.
We are the only Australian manufacturer of UHF CB Radios and Emergency Beacon products, holding significant market share in these segments through an ongoing focus on innovation and technology leadership.
We pride ourselves on engineering and manufacturing high quality, market-leading products to suit the specific requirements of our customers.
140
https://www.minelab.com/
An Australian company that manufactures metal detectors.
From mostly imported components I assume.
50
Mine was a sweeping comment with a few exceptions. Like Varian Techtron. But using electronics is different to making any. I also export complex technology and develop robotic applications, but it is really repackaging with software.
30
Fairchild Semiconductor once made transistors in Australia. Trouble was that the manufacturing process was in the early stages, so each batch was different from the last. No problem, they just generated new data sheets for each batch and numbered them differently. They were great transistors though.
And a company I worked for made a very complicated LSI chip that was a revelation in high-speed data switching.
30
We have made both transistors and ICs in Australia, back in the day.
30
We have locked up so much of our fishing grounds that we now import 80% of the fish consumed here. Australia has probably the biggest exclusive economic zone in the world. It is bigger than Australia itself and it is all ours but we can’t find enough fish to feed ourselves.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.agriculture.gov.au%2Fagriculture-land%2Ffisheries%2Fdomestic%2Fzone&psig=AOvVaw2SfkH0jZvUBNNeLFwoNtxm&ust=1732160042027000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBEQjRxqFwoTCOCKhZX96YkDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE
50
National / Local Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) would be a nice, cheap start…
10
In case anyone has missed the chart showing nuclear in Washington State, have a look
{BPA calls the color “cobalt}:
https://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx
40
I still prefer coal … I would rather deal with CO2, which is mostly beneficial, rather than nuclear waste.
I know we have the technology to run nuclear power safely, but this also requires a sense of responsibility on the part of the operator. Quite frankly I would not trust the Australian government … their track record on honestly and integrity is not exactly enviable.
330
A bit late on the nuclear waste side when you consider Pakistan, Iran, North Korea and Russia are refining. Chernobyl for example. Atom bomb testing.
We are better able to store nuclear waste than most other countries. And it is a position we could exploit to our benefit and that of the world, but not when everything nuclear is illegal in Australia.
I thought only the Ostrich put its head in the sand. But we Australians have perfected it.
100
“Our international partners understand that Australia’s abundance of renewable energy …”
It’s good to know about this abundance.
I guess that’s why your electricity costs are so affordable.
And when I read about that system you have for pricing and selling solar back to the grid … or not … it’s so easy to understand.
170
Labor will, eventually, be compelled to join the transition to Nuclear and jump off the Xi Jing Ping band wagon. It’s only the fear of losing Teal/Green votes that is sustaining. Both Albo and Bowen are hanging by very slim threads. Trumps inauguration in January will act like Madame Guillotine and sever the remains
150
Here Mark Mills easily proves that W & S are a super expensive toxic joke and it only takes 5 minutes to understand.
The idea that we can quickly increase mining by 1000% is just unbelievable and we’ll waste trillions of $ to make us poor and guarantee we can’t defend ourselves against our future enemies. Will we ever wake up?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDOI-uLvTnY
170
This is all fine, but I can’t get over the fact that this debate is unnecessary. One can go on and on about this topic till the cows come home but can anyone show me the evidence that man made CO2 causes significant global warming?
Then we can have the energy mix debate.
370
Exactly, at the moment there is no hard evidence to link CO2 with global warming. All we need now is for Donald to tell the world CC is a scam.
171
Again, Nuclear energy is by far the safest base-load energy in the world and is safer than toxic W & S.
It also produces the lowest co2 emissions over its life cycle. And by a long way. If that’s really important to anyone?
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
120
Energy Minister Bowen wields his portfolio like energy’s evolutionary dead-end. In stark contrast, in the enlightened world, most countries are red-hot keen to embrace highly evolved nuclear energy as 24/7/365 backbone to their energy economy. Meanwhile Australia, under Albanese’s Socialist, deliberate wrong turn governance, looks like becoming The Land That Time Forgot.
80
British Bonkers Calamitists (BBC) go nukular over the climate that ran away with the spoon:
“Much of southern England and the Midlands is covered by a yellow warning with icy patches.” Ouch, sounds painful, hopefully it’s not contagious.
97% of BBC script-writers believe this dis-ease is caused by men burning the sky – even though the article clearly states it’s due to “bitterly cold Arctic air”. But! Isn’t the Arctic cooking 4x faster than all other places? Expertese©️ is such a hard language to comprehend (unlike Latin).
NB. The cartoon image they use resembles a 14-yr-old schoolboy’s rude doodles in his Maths book: Science or Biology?
110
Just a personal hobby horse about language.
I am always pleased when I see the more accurate term “intermittent” in use in place of the propagandistic term “renewable”.
150
Funny isnt it how climate loons will happily play the “we are falling behind the rest of the world” card when it suits them, but will shuffle around looking at their shoes when the rest of the world goes off their narrative.
160
That squealing you can hear is the ALP bunker hard-heads performing a u-turn and trying to find a way to sell it to the electorate. First step will be to jettison Bowen.
90
Jettison both Bowen and Alboneasy. The next election, within 6 months, will be on the cost of electricity and Labor cannot win without nuclear
70
Jettison all of Labor … that’s obviously what the voters want.
30
Please Jo ( and everyone else ) , PLEASE stop using the term ” Renewable ” to describe wind and solar . It is a term designed to deceive , to trick and to gaslight people .
While the sun comes up every day ( except when it is cloudy ) and the wind blows every day ( except when it doesn’t ) , the infrastructure required to collect these ephemeral energy sources have a short life and have to be replaced ( often ) requiring very heavy use of minerals that are not abundant and definitely not renewable and in fact will be depleted BEFORE the crazy W & S plan can be completed .
Furthermore , even if completed their crazy plan will fail to provide reliable power . This was demonstrated in Broken Hill recently . They tried ( I imagine desperately ) for 10 days to get their wind , solar & battery mini-grid to stand up on it’s own . They failed . Even though the nameplate rating of the system was 10 times the load . They didn’t have the 300 ton spinning mas of base-load generation to stabilize the grid .
If you don’t have the heavy spinning mas of base-load generation you DON’T HAVE A GRID . Period !
Call it ” Unreliables ” or ” Ruinables ” or ” replaceables ” or ” TOXIC wind & Solar ” or just ” Wind & Solar ” ( W & S for short ). But we should never use the tern ” Renewable ” to describe something that isn’t renewable or environmentally friendly .
190
They won right at the start when they began using that term ….. renewable.
In much the same manner as they used the term wind ….. farm, and how I just detest even seeing that term now.
It’s subliminal in nature, both terms, reassuring in your own mind, without your even realising it at all.
That’s why I use the term ….. Industrial Wind Plant, which is actually what they are.
Tony.
130
Tony, ‘plant’ sounds natural, like food ~
how about Industrial Wind Factory (IWF),
complete with the image of toxic fumes
pouring off every single carbon-heavy tower,
with a pile of dead birds at their base…
Free Energy Requires Sacrifices ©️©️©️
60
What’s wrong with the new wind turbine tower forests and solar panel paddocks?
sarc.
60
Can’t do energy 24/7 or even 12/7. Intermittency’s the problem
with these on -x again -x off -x again flighty renewable technologies.
30
As usual, the debate has descended into dishonest distortions dominated by personal beliefs rather than data and including politics seemingly diverting money to grubbers.
Contrary to Bowen, Australia is already in the nuclear fuel cycle. In 1969 colleagues of mine discovered the globally important Ranger Uranium deposits. I foined them soon after and assisted with bringing Ranger into production, this being the first big step of the several that make up the international nuclear fuel cycle.
I have helped make corporate and industry submissions on the next part of the fuel cycle, enrichment. And more, so perhaps I know more about the topic than most. I have actually used the MOATA reactor at Lucas Heights, when many wise people have not even seen a reactor.
The future inexorably comes down to the claims of high cost of nuclear electricity mixed with scare tactics about radiation. The short circuit tactic that all in favour can use is “Learn from France.” They get 70% or so of their grid electricity from nuclear, providing day to day evidence that it is not expensive, that it is safe, that it presented no significant problems. End of argument.
I hesitate to make comments because I left the industry some years ago, but I will add that many commenters on blogs like Jo’s have less to no direct experience. Their comments do not help, often they add needless confusion. There are enough current experts.
In Australia, we need a Referendum for people to be heard and to break current barriers. Write in favour of such a course or vote for pro-nuclear parties. Geoff S
170
Geoff,
Agree wholeheartedly.
As to Australia’s involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle, it can be argued that we in Australia were/are actually a lot further along that path than what you describe.
SYNROC was fully developed at Lucas Heights. That’s the waste management end of the nuclear fuel cycle.
As I understand it, SYNROC is to be used in the immobilisation of UK nuclear wastes from the Sellafield reprocessing site, as one example.
It is not generally known that we developed, at Lucas Heights, from the ground up, a uranium enrichment centrifuge pilot plant at Lucas Heights. It is no secret: there is a picture of it on the front cover of the AAEC 1986 Annual Report. It operated for a few years, subject to full IAEA Safeguards, until the Hawke government closed it down. This was arguably one of Australia’s greatest engineering achievements, yet hardly anyone knows about it.
What might have been … .
Meanwhile, Silex Systems, again no secret, operating out of Lucas Heights, have developed a laser enrichment process. Further development has had to be continued with overseas partners as a result of the ban on nuclear in Australia.
90
Paul I linked to Zoe Hilton from the CIS using costings data comparing toxic W & S to Nuclear at comment 25 below.
Any comments and CIS use Nuclear Physicists to actually double check the BS from the CSIRO.
Their calculations are also available at the bottom of the link.
50
Paul,
another thing we have commonality with ….. SYNROC.
I was still in the RAAF when I first heard about it in the late 1970s, and when it first appeared, it was huge news everywhere, Huge, well, because it was developed right here in Australia by the CSIRO.
When I looked into it, I was certain that this was the long awaited end result of what could be done with nuclear power plant waste. Being an electrical tradesman in the RAAF, I was interested in power plants even back then, and I thought that this perhaps might start the much needed conversation that was needed if Nuclear power was to be somewhere in Australia’s future.
And here we at last had SYNROC, and then it just died a death, completely disappeared, as if nuclear power generation was somehow anathema, even back then.
A truly wonderful Australian ‘invention’ that somehow just ….. faded away to nothing.
Tony.
80
Hi Tony,
SYNROC was NOT developed by CSIRO.
The original R&D was done by the AAEC, completed in the 1980s.
The continued development through pilot plant to full commercial realisation has been carried through by ANSTO.
Neither the AAEC nor ANSTO were/are a part of CSIRO.
These organisations report to the Commonwealth via a completely separate pathway than does CSIRO.
It’s a common confusion, but the fact that the two science organisations are entirely separate has important consequences. For example, the recently-produced and highly-contentious CSIRO GenCost report would have had no contribution from ANSTO. If it had then some of the glaring mistakes therein re such as the expected operational lifetime of nuclear power reactors would never have been allowed to happen.
Cheers,
Paul Miskelly
80
Yes, Paul M,
Well aware of activities that you add. After Ranger 1969, corporately we had to see a lot of the then Australian Atomic Energy Commission. I was often the link person.
It is a shame that we have lost, by now, the heritage of the many rather bright AAEC staff. It will take years to rebuild. We need strong people like the nuclear Knights were. Where do we find them now? Russia, Korea? Wherever, it is past time to start building. Geoff S
70
They are certainly NOT a renewable energy source.At best they are a process of energy transformation.
70
Marles insists nuclear industry, AUKUS subs pact ‘completely separate’. The cognitive dissonance is “asstounding” but par for the Labor course
130
Also, even more asstounding Australia’s Decision to Opt Out of Nuclear Pact with USA and UK.
100
They had better switch on that night sun soon!!
80
Forget about the liars and con artists like clueless Albo and B O Bowen, Greens, Teals etc.
Check out the accurate data from the CIS and Zoe Hilton about toxic W & S compared to safe Nuclear energy that is available 24/7/ 365 days and for up to 90 or more years.
Toxic W & S Ruinables that have the lowest CFs of 30% and 15% and replaced every 15 to 20 years and then BURIED in LANDFILL FOREVER.
Start at 3 minutes to watch Zoe list the full costs of these fra-dlent, toxic W & S disasters.
https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/video/nuclear-vs-renewables-what-will-it-cost/
70
I am at a loss to understand why any educated person could be opposed to nuclear power, not that there’s anything wrong with coal, natural gas or hydro power either.
Nuclear power is also, by far, the safest means of generating power.
There is also no problem with nuclear waste disposal, despite what you may have been told. This has been solved for decades. Including with the Australian innovation Synroc which never seens to have been commercialised.
In fact, the tragedy of the civilian nuclear power cycle is that the “waste” contains about 98% of the fuel’s original energy. This could be recovered with fast breeder reactors. If the “waste” was run through a breeder reactor and the energy recovered the resultant waste would be greatly less radioactive (as most of its energy would have been extracted).
(Posted from Net Zero Nepal where my room was 3.8C this morning because they don’t have heating in this Net Zero paradise and dried yak dung just isn’t going to do the job. Also it was so cold my phone warned me it would only charge slowly. And the internet is incredibly slow. And no hot water, unless the sun shines and they have a solar water heater and others don’t use it before you. Etc..)
80
I think in the future, when Federal Elections come around, the only two words the LibNats (assuming they are still that) will need in their campaign, is “Chris Bowen.”
I larf when I think about it…
ABC, “So, Mr LibNat, what differs you from our team, Labor?”
Mr Lib Nat, “Chris Bowen.”
ABC, “Thank you. We have nothing further.”
60
Andrew Bolt and Matt Canavan comment on the Albo loony govt refusing to sign the Nuclear energy pact with the UK and the US.
They’re barking mad would be a good description and I hope the Coalition will continue to put in the boot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv6kzkLM0Lg
70
Ignoring AUKUS Agreement and the operational Virginia nuclear submarines now confirmed for delivery from the USN to the RAN as an interim measure until the next generation SSN AUKUS nuclear submarines are built here and in the UK and delivery commences to RN and RAN.
40
Three words missing from The Blob, in this and every other statement they have ever made: “We were wrong”. As their position becomes untenable, they simply shift seamlessly to a new one. They have one and only one objective: to stay in control.
60
Whatever it takes!!!
50
Nuclear is not super important for Australia’s energy future. We’ve got hundreds of years of coal and gas supplies, nuclear can wait. All Peter Dutton needs to do is get his act together and proclaim that when in government the LNP will overturn the nuclear ban. Baby steps. Doesn’t need to find possible sites for nuclear reactors or talk about SMR’s versus big plants. That’s just smoke. But after their support of the MAD legislation and U16’s social media ban I’m not expecting big things from the right branch of the Uniparty. For those from overseas , Peter Dutton is leader of the Liberal National Party, presently in opposition but previously in power for 9 years. During which time they did stuff all to fix any of the present day problems.
50
Can I just add- if you’re going to build a nuclear plant it would be like any other thermal electricity plant. You need fuel (eg. coal, gas, uranium) and boatloads of fresh water. So, wouldn’t the ideal location be somewhere in remote NT, close to uranium source and vast amounts of fresh water during the Northern Australia wet season. So build a dam. Then instead of wasting money connecting all the low CF’s generation like solar and wind with powerlines, use that money to run a line from that NT plant to Qld. Once it’s hooked up to Qld ( Mt Isa??) it would supply the East Coast of Australia. But, what would I know, I’m just a lowly ag scientist.
40
Off the shelf modular nuclear reactors (the sort that don’t need to move around underwater) will be available in very few years time. Peter Dutton could start by inviting communities to bid for hosting them. I think they should be able to choose between nuclear and coal, though.
30
This is no surprise. Both Chris Bowen and Anthony (Sleazy) Albanese are both weapon-grade idiots.
70
Bowen stupidly claimed that Australia could obtain more energy from solar as we have more sunlight. But the actual percentage difference between solar panel CF in UK and Europe compared to Australia is only 6%. Bowen is clearly out of his depth and just continues to spout more rubbish.
40
As our electricity by Australian law becomes scarce and unaffordable and the US offers us a lifeline, we care more about things which don’t matter than things which do.
Incidentally, I find it incredible that nuclear is promoted as having ‘zero emissions’, when nuclear energy is based entirely on very dangerous emissions?
But it seems Carbon Dioxide is still more dangerous than nuclear energy and some Greens are starting to consider nuclear. Because it has zero emissions.
Calling our leaders idiots is almost a compliment. They are not that smart. It shows what happens when all the politicians are just opportunists who could not get a job. Their knowledge of science is zero. Like Homer Simpson who wanted the number for 911.
How else can they be so blind?
It’s a bit like a Medical degree these days. At least Melbourne University has decided you have to do a science degree first, so you don’t become a doctor only to find you hate the job. Or drop out and find yourself nothing at all. Politicians need to be someone first. Like Ben Chifley, a railway engine driver, a very responsible job. Or a lawyer who makes a go of it, not like Albanese or Gillard. Otherwise it is just conveyor belt of fools who have no idea why people want cheap energy. And they will go into retirement on the board of a super fund without even having done any job properly.
60
But I cannot understand how Sir Keir Starmer can be such an incompetent in his new job. And Milliband gives our Bowen a run for his money in the energy stakes.
Meanwhile our PM is holding hands with both President Xi who punished us for questioning his virus and Starmer who thinks China is a bonza place and Xi is a good bloke. Can they remember the world just 4 years ago?
We must seize the US offer with both hands.
60
Yes, calling our leaders in Australia idiots is too kind. If we don’t overwhelmingly reject this appalling government at the next election it won’t be just our leaders who are the idiots. Wake up kids. Wake up Australia!
60
Another ‘Imagine’ moment: Imagine everyone in the Socialist Albanese government confined to an island in the Pacific. All power comes from wind and solar. No fossil fuels allowed for transport, heating, air conditioning, battery charging or lubrication. No fires allowed for cooking. All potable water has to be distilled from salt water by the renewable power available. . Transport to and from the mainland is only by EV outboard powered boats or light aircraft. And now for the big question: How long will that Socialist government last? Which minister will call for help first?
50
Mr Bowen also argued that Australia’s longer hours of sunshine compared with the UK meant that Australia had solar-power advantages and nuclear energy was not viable for Australia.
“Put simply, London has only 1633 hours of sunshine in an average year. By comparison, Australia’s least sunny capital city is Melbourne with 2362, while our sunniest capital city is Perth has 3229,” Mr Bowen’s statement said.
This really needs to be re-phrased to convey the proper conclusion…
Mr Bowen also argued that Australia’s longer hours of sunshine compared with the UK meant that Australia had solar-power advantages and nuclear energy was not viable for Australia.
“Put simply, London has only 1633 hours of sunshine in an average year, which means London has 7,127 hours each year wherein solar power may not be feasible. By comparison, Australia’s least sunny capital city is Melbourne with 2362 hours of sunshine each year, which means that Melbourne only has 6,398 hours each year wherein solar power may not be feasible, while our sunniest capital city is Perth has 3229 hours of sunshine each year, which means that Perth only has 5,531 hours each year wherein solar power may not be feasible,” Mr Bowen’s statement said. So…it should be obvious that neither London, nor Melbourne, nor Perth, should consider the lunacy of solar powered electricity.
30
We have over 30%of the worlds uranium and thats without any more exploration. Our nuclear advantage is way more significant than any rays of sunshine or wind. Furthermore the whole renewables grid will need replacement in 20 years a quarter of the life of nuclear.renewables need baseload such as nuclear to survive. Nuclear needs nothing.So A (renewables+ Baseload can never be cheaper than a grid powered by B (baseload). I dont know if Bowen is delusional, dumb, decieptful or devious but the one d i know he’s helping is Dutton and unless things change dramatically the Libs will win.
30
People seem not to understand that the primary objective of the ALP is to abolish private management of industry, no matter the cost.
Bowen and Chalmers will spend their waking hours fpr the next six months calculating ways to maximise our debt. They would be very much aware that this may be their last chance.
20
The biggest enemy of Nut Zero, is the reality of Nut Zero
00