4 ms·

Here in Australia, it can be argued that The Green Party's blanket ban and refusal to even consider let alone use nuclear has contributed significantly to more

Here in Australia, it can be argued that The Green Party's blanket ban and refusal to even consider let alone use nuclear has contributed significantly to more carbon in the air as we have instead relied on coal for the last 50 years.

rgmerk 5y ago
This is just plain wrong. Absent environmentalism or non-economic considerations (hello Jervis Bay) no nuclear power would ever be built in Australia. We have way too much cheap, conveniently located coal.
- adventured 5y ago
  Both of those things can be correct. Without environmentalist pressure, coal would be used indefinitely. And nuclear isn't being built or considered because the environmentalists won't support it. Accordingly they can get positive credit for the first and negative for the second.
  - XorNot 5y ago
    Don't kid yourself though - no major party in Australia supports nuclear. The Liberals will say they'll think about it, knowing there's a couple hundred idiots who'll actually believe them and give them a vote while they greenlight Indian-owned coal-miners finishing the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. Both major parties (Labor and Liberal) have huge donors from coal-mining concerns, as well as union support from coal-miners who - in a startling display of unification with the capital class - also oppose it because it's not coal-mining. The world will be building fusion reactors in 2050, or spacebeamed solar power or opening a portal to the Warp or something for limitless free energy, and Australian politicians will still be talking about how "we can't just give up on coal". Progress in this field is going to come from the private sector in-spite of the government who are already trying to kill solar power projects.
    - rgmerk 5y ago
      Two further points: NIMBYism would kill nuclear power in Australia stone dead, including NIMBYism in conservative-held rural seats. New-build coal, nuclear, and gas, is simply economically competitive with new-build renewables in Australia right now absent direct government subsidies - and if anyone is tempted to rabbit on about sun not shining and wind not blowing please go read AEMO's draft 2022 Integrated System Plan before replying.
- coenhyde 5y ago
  Maybe so. But imo we should have built a strong nuclear industry including refining, power generation and waste disposal. Instead of digging rocks out of the ground and selling them abroad. We should refine them in Australia, lease the uranium to consumer nations, then charge them to store the waste in Australia. We are the safest nation on Earth for nuclear waste disposal. By storing the waste we would help foster adoption in places where waste disposal isn't appropriate. Not to mention the waste is still valuable, it can be refined again. Think SaaS reoccurring revenue for waste disposal but we can take that waste, refine it and lease it again. Then earn more reoccurring revenue for its storage. Rinse and repeat. We could corner the market for Uranium.
Jedd 5y ago
Is this the Green party that does not, and never has, held power here in AU? It feels like a bit of a stretch, given the major sources of funds to the two largest political parties, and the various leaders of same who are consistently on record espousing the joy of coal and other fossil fuels while (weirdly) claiming wind turbines are ugly and (disingenuously) blaming grid outages on renewables.
steve_taylor 5y ago
They also blocked an emissions trading scheme in the senate because it wasn’t perfect. They have almost no credibility anymore.

rgmerk 5y ago

This is just plain wrong. Absent environmentalism or non-economic considerations (hello Jervis Bay) no nuclear power would ever be built in Australia. We have way too much cheap, conveniently located coal.

adventured 5y ago
Both of those things can be correct. Without environmentalist pressure, coal would be used indefinitely. And nuclear isn't being built or considered because the environmentalists won't support it. Accordingly they can get positive credit for the first and negative for the second.
- XorNot 5y ago
  Don't kid yourself though - no major party in Australia supports nuclear. The Liberals will say they'll think about it, knowing there's a couple hundred idiots who'll actually believe them and give them a vote while they greenlight Indian-owned coal-miners finishing the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. Both major parties (Labor and Liberal) have huge donors from coal-mining concerns, as well as union support from coal-miners who - in a startling display of unification with the capital class - also oppose it because it's not coal-mining. The world will be building fusion reactors in 2050, or spacebeamed solar power or opening a portal to the Warp or something for limitless free energy, and Australian politicians will still be talking about how "we can't just give up on coal". Progress in this field is going to come from the private sector in-spite of the government who are already trying to kill solar power projects.
  - rgmerk 5y ago
    Two further points: NIMBYism would kill nuclear power in Australia stone dead, including NIMBYism in conservative-held rural seats. New-build coal, nuclear, and gas, is simply economically competitive with new-build renewables in Australia right now absent direct government subsidies - and if anyone is tempted to rabbit on about sun not shining and wind not blowing please go read AEMO's draft 2022 Integrated System Plan before replying.
coenhyde 5y ago
Maybe so. But imo we should have built a strong nuclear industry including refining, power generation and waste disposal. Instead of digging rocks out of the ground and selling them abroad. We should refine them in Australia, lease the uranium to consumer nations, then charge them to store the waste in Australia. We are the safest nation on Earth for nuclear waste disposal. By storing the waste we would help foster adoption in places where waste disposal isn't appropriate. Not to mention the waste is still valuable, it can be refined again. Think SaaS reoccurring revenue for waste disposal but we can take that waste, refine it and lease it again. Then earn more reoccurring revenue for its storage. Rinse and repeat. We could corner the market for Uranium.

Jedd 5y ago

Is this the Green party that does not, and never has, held power here in AU? It feels like a bit of a stretch, given the major sources of funds to the two largest political parties, and the various leaders of same who are consistently on record espousing the joy of coal and other fossil fuels while (weirdly) claiming wind turbines are ugly and (disingenuously) blaming grid outages on renewables.

steve_taylor 5y ago

They also blocked an emissions trading scheme in the senate because it wasn’t perfect. They have almost no credibility anymore.