4 ms·

Australia has plentiful uranium reserves, relatively dry climate, a well-educated population, and huge amounts of empty space. Seems tailor made for nuclear po

Australia has plentiful uranium reserves, relatively dry climate, a well-educated population, and huge amounts of empty space. Seems tailor made for nuclear powered desalinization.

timberfields 7y ago
context: I lived in Australia for a few years in South Australia. There was talk of building one, maybe two desalinization plants near Adelaide. I think the consensus across the board is "yup, it does, and it would help massively" though it always came down to money and how it was going to get funded. Side tangent: I cannot for the life of me understand the argument for "well, yeah, climate change is bad, but let's think how much this might cost to fix...". When it comes to existential threats to our mere existence, how is cost a factor? Talk about the definition of short sighted! And more, it's super short sighted on the money aspect too. We make changes to what is acceptable, how we do things, and yeah, it might cost a ton to begin, but we all know from history that amazing amounts of money are to be made in those revolutions too. This is not a zero sum game.
- thehappypm 7y ago
  Being honest, there is a certain amount of privilege baked into this mindset. Not everyone is a software engineer with RSUs and a six-figure income. For many individuals and many communities, every dollar matters and increasing taxes to square off against a massive, but global and impersonal, existential threat is simply not something that everyone can get behind.
  - timberfields 7y ago
    Really? You think this is about individual mindset? It's about governments and governments around the world. And about the future of our race and planet. Money should not stop us from tackling existential threats to everything we know and hold dear.
    - jfim 7y ago
      As much as I agree with your statement, the parent is arguing that climate change is a diffuse threat that's not immediately visible. Just like underfunding pensions will lead to possible issues later but we get money to spend now, or eating the seed corn instead of planting it. It's not sustainable, but our political and economical systems are structured in such a way that we sacrifice long term sustainability for short term gains, such as getting reelected for a four year term or making the quarterly goals.
paranoidrobot 7y ago
> Australia has plentiful solar irradiation, relatively dry climate, a well-educated population, vast coastlines and huge amounts of empty space. Seems tailor made for solar and wind powered desalination. A few words changed/added and we have solutions that have a bunch of advantages: - Lower cost (startup and running) - Faster to deploy (Tapping existing production streams) - Ability to scale more easily based on regional needs (while most of the population live near the coast, there's still a significant population that live inland who are most at risk from water shortages. There's not a national grid that covers everyone) - More acceptable to our regional neighbours (Australia using Nuclear power tech that can be pivoted to produce Nuclear weapons would likely trigger our neighbours to also have this ability) - More acceptable to the locals that have to live near it - Safer (both a direct operational safety aspect, but also less likely to trigger regional conflict) - Can be deployed close to/in existing cities and opportunity for dual-use sites (eg solar ontop of buildings, carparks; wind in existing farm fields) with minimal negative impact, and possibly positive impacts for land-owners. Why pick Nuclear when it'll take decades to deploy, cost far more and piss off our neighbours?
forinti 7y ago
With all the space, heat, and sun they have, I bet passive or solar desalination would be better (and would provoke less resistance).

Australia has plentiful uranium reserves, relatively dry climate, a well-educated population, and huge amounts of empty space. Seems tailor made for nuclear powered desalinization.

timberfields 7y ago

context: I lived in Australia for a few years in South Australia. There was talk of building one, maybe two desalinization plants near Adelaide. I think the consensus across the board is "yup, it does, and it would help massively" though it always came down to money and how it was going to get funded. Side tangent: I cannot for the life of me understand the argument for "well, yeah, climate change is bad, but let's think how much this might cost to fix...". When it comes to existential threats to our mere existence, how is cost a factor? Talk about the definition of short sighted! And more, it's super short sighted on the money aspect too. We make changes to what is acceptable, how we do things, and yeah, it might cost a ton to begin, but we all know from history that amazing amounts of money are to be made in those revolutions too. This is not a zero sum game.

thehappypm 7y ago
Being honest, there is a certain amount of privilege baked into this mindset. Not everyone is a software engineer with RSUs and a six-figure income. For many individuals and many communities, every dollar matters and increasing taxes to square off against a massive, but global and impersonal, existential threat is simply not something that everyone can get behind.
- timberfields 7y ago
  Really? You think this is about individual mindset? It's about governments and governments around the world. And about the future of our race and planet. Money should not stop us from tackling existential threats to everything we know and hold dear.
  - jfim 7y ago
    As much as I agree with your statement, the parent is arguing that climate change is a diffuse threat that's not immediately visible. Just like underfunding pensions will lead to possible issues later but we get money to spend now, or eating the seed corn instead of planting it. It's not sustainable, but our political and economical systems are structured in such a way that we sacrifice long term sustainability for short term gains, such as getting reelected for a four year term or making the quarterly goals.

paranoidrobot 7y ago

> Australia has plentiful solar irradiation, relatively dry climate, a well-educated population, vast coastlines and huge amounts of empty space. Seems tailor made for solar and wind powered desalination. A few words changed/added and we have solutions that have a bunch of advantages: - Lower cost (startup and running) - Faster to deploy (Tapping existing production streams) - Ability to scale more easily based on regional needs (while most of the population live near the coast, there's still a significant population that live inland who are most at risk from water shortages. There's not a national grid that covers everyone) - More acceptable to our regional neighbours (Australia using Nuclear power tech that can be pivoted to produce Nuclear weapons would likely trigger our neighbours to also have this ability) - More acceptable to the locals that have to live near it - Safer (both a direct operational safety aspect, but also less likely to trigger regional conflict) - Can be deployed close to/in existing cities and opportunity for dual-use sites (eg solar ontop of buildings, carparks; wind in existing farm fields) with minimal negative impact, and possibly positive impacts for land-owners. Why pick Nuclear when it'll take decades to deploy, cost far more and piss off our neighbours?

forinti 7y ago

With all the space, heat, and sun they have, I bet passive or solar desalination would be better (and would provoke less resistance).