Dutton's nuclear power station idea?

[Bobby]

Well the Cold (Default) War of USSR & USA would have been absolutely catastrophic due to the amount of Nukes they had and the less stable reactors they had spotted around the world.
Sure, now - more nations have nukes, but there isn't as many as the Cold War.
So I guess we know the dark side of 'nuclear power', but there could also be a 'positive' side to it as well. For general 'power' use overall.
Well, let's hope anyway.

Asimov wrote that we would be using 'atomic' power from wristwatches, vehicles and nearly everything.
Of course, there is the 'waste' side-effect.
Reckon we put it on the moon and heat the bloody thing up for some nice tropical weather.

During the cold war the Soviets and the Yanks had over 60,000 nukes between them -
now it's 6,000 but it's still far too many.
China got through the whole Cold war with only 12 ICBMs that were nuclear tipped.
The Soviets and the Yanks went completely insane and they still are.

[mellie]

But what has old wars nuclear missiles got to do with our harnessing our natural resources and building ethical and sustainable nuclear power facilities?

I call it turning a negative into a positive, and keeping a card or two tucked away to detere China.

China wants us NOT to go nuclear, as this will dampen their cashing in on solar power technologies which they conveniently manufacture the majority of, that only stand to go to landfill eventually anyway. ...and development
of nuclear technologies stand strengthen our defence. China wants us to remain defenceless and dependent, like needy children incapable of thinking for themselves.

Nuclear is the future, time to embrace it, Northern European countries have been utilising nuclear power for decades, it's time we caught on, and freed our citizens of the lucrative energy industries soaring prices.

Another duopoly....

Gas/Coal

Bit like Colesworths

We need to free-up our market with other energy products, this is why we are paying high costs. They can name their price!

Australia is in a perfect position geographically and resource wise to make use of nuclear energy.

What's ridiculous is that we've not done so already and keep reflecting on old wars and Japan's nuclear facilities meltdowns.

We have enough land to ensure these facilities are operating far enough away from where civilians live, and seismologically speaking, the earthquakes we do get aren't large enough to cause a catastrophic nuclear power station meltdown.

I do believe we need to invest in nuclear technologies for self defence purposes also, we'd have to be pretty ignorant to deny this is a necessity in our current and future global economic climate.

The UN is not going to stop China !!!

It loves China.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Re: Dutton's nuclear power station idea?

I'll try to cover all angles here.

First you need to realise nuke power is the most expensive method of boiling water ever devised. Really nuke power is a subsidy scam, nuke stations don't run without operating subsidies, period. The nuke industry won't put its own money into it because it's an economic dud and, nobody will insure it, so govts have to underwrite it.

Realistically we don't need nukes for electricity (alt though we may need it for military security - more on that later) because we have lots of coal and gas. Climate Canutes want to phase out fossil fuels in Westernised civilisation because they think to kill capitalism requires the destruction of Westernised civilisation. The cretins don't realise you can't kill capitalism. If it becomes a pariah in one place, it just packs up and moves to where its welcome. Marxists used to support USSR, now they support China. They'll pretend not to, but actions speak louder than words.

Blaming CO2 for global warming is like blaming a runny nose for a flu virus. Every 13,000 years our solar systems elyptic orbit around the Milky Way exposes us the increased levels of cosmic radiation, which charges up our sun and, which in turn bombards Earth with increased levels of sub-atomic particles - mostly electrons and protons, but no greater volume of neutrinos - the electrons pressurise the magma in the Earth, acting as a magneto.
Underwater volcanos are heating the oceans, creating more favourable conditions for plankton and zoo plankton. The zoo plankton now have more to eat and can breed faster. They're oxygen breathers like us, and exhale CO2 like us. There is more zoo plankton in the seas than all other life on this planet combined. The oceans now contain more CO2 and warming water expels CO2 into the atmosphere.

If we're going to get nuke power, we need to know if we want heavy water reactors (coolant is H3O) so we can make nuke weapons from plutonium, or whether we want light water reactors (coolant ordinary H2O) so we can make depleted uranium bullets - NB light water reactors need enriched uranium to function.

Personally I think if we're going to get nukes, we do it for military reasons and, acquire both heavy and light water reactors.
As Ukraine (Vs Russia) has demonstrated, nuke reactors without nuke weapons to protect them are a security liability.
So the reactors need to be built in bunker busting proof bunkers and be defended with nuke missiles.

As for nuke subs? ... Yeah OK great, heaps of advantages, but they're really only good for sitting in deep water off the coast of China so we can hit them ASAP when they provoke it. If we're going to have they, they've got to built from titanium (can dive deeper) and last longer.
In the meantime we'll have to do what should have been done in the first place and, buy Soyus diesel subs off the Japs, cos all the US gear bolts straight in and, can sneak into shallow water (big nuke subs cannot). NB: nuke subs need to constantly run electric motors to cool the reactor. Sensors are becoming more sensitive and sooner or later the cooling motor sound will be detectible.

So if you want nukes, you have to be willing to pay for it (big time) and recognise the security it affords comes with responsibilty and its dangers are a liabilities.

[Jasin]

Good post Outlaw Yogi