title
Please don’t just say “title” when the post title explains absolutely nothing.
It has nothing to do with electricity. It actually has everything to do with the unites states, the CIA, and a country it is now illegal for me to criticise.
Essentially Ukraine surrendered their nuclear weapons and received a treaty from Russia, UK, and USA all promising to Ukraine it would be protected by their nuclear umbrella.
Well Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine called the Wests bluff and thus got military backing under the gambit that if the treaty is broken by someone other than themselves they are all well good and free to go make nukes and not be in violation of said treaty thus forcing the west to give them military backing else risk a nuclear rearmed Ukraine (if Kyiv falls to Russia they are gonna take Moscow with them)
Then Donald Trump cut em off and now they are being slowly crushed by the Russia meatgrinder.
Australia has “assurances” that we will be backed by the united states up to and including US solders and deployment of US nuclear weapons. Ukraine his proven that these “assurances” are a load of shit. Also we are essentially a vassal state of the US. The CIA couped us cos our prime minister threatened to not renew the lease for pine gap (a US military base on Australian soil). He wanted to impose a clause where the Australia government could inspect said base to ensure no war crime where happening (we have since learned that war crimes where almost certainly happening). The unites states military base which proxed every single drone used by the unites states in every war in the middle east. And the rely station used by redacted nation as part of their intelligence sharing agreement used for guiding missiles.
The assurances we where given are very similar to those that where given to Ukraine and thus the Australian defence force has realised we need nukes to ensure our sovereignty is maintained if the unites states stops backing us or becomes actively hostile to us.
Technologically the tech and expertise for nuclear reactors are highly applicable for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Defence has advised the government that we need nuclear reactors so we can make nuclear weapons and remove the blanket nuclear ban (the ban that doesn’t apply to the unites states base on ur soil that they couped our government to keep, commit war crimes at, and most likely hold some of the units states nuclear arsenal itself thus making Australia a target if anyone wants to nuke the unites states).
Ohh and also the politicians got given a shitonne of money from the fossil fuel mogals who want to delay renewables. The fossil fuel mogals that wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t been couped while in the process of nationalising all of Australia’s resources thus robbing every single Australian citizen of $130,000 USD
tldr it’s the unites states fault.
Peter Dutton was advocating nuclear about a year ago but I haven’t heard much since then.
Why we haven’t pivoted more towards solar, I don’t know.
I guess because it threatens the profits of coal, oil and gas?
Solar is highly unreliable, requires endless mining of non renewable materials, takes up insane amounts of space to make the same power as any other method, requires endless manufacturing (and disposal) of batteries that are also made with mined non renewable, toxic materials that end up in landfill, and the cost of transmission infrastructure needed are in the trillions.
Nuclear as the backbone, topped up with solar, is the only realistic way to the fabled “net zero”.
Sorry mate, your Astroturf is not going to grow, no matter how much bullshit spread.
I’m not letting this misinformation without any citations go uncontested. I’ll try to cite my claims but really the burden of proof lies with you, so I shouldn’t have needed to do this in the first place.
Solar is highly unreliable,
Sure, weather conditions can vary the power output of PV cells (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X23006734). This is why batteries are typically built with them, which usually completely solves this problem.
requires endless mining of non renewable materials,
One of many double standards here. This is correct, metals like silver and copper are needed to make cells (https://blog.ucs.org/charlie-hoffs/mining-raw-materials-for-solar-panels-problems-and-solutions/), but they are minor components and are one-time costs. The same goes for batteries, although they need quite a bit of lithium. But are we going to ignore the fact that uranium is also a non-renewable material? And since it’s a fuel, this is the material that is truly endlessly mined. One-time uses of mined materials is far better than continuously mining (and refining) uranium to power these reactors.
takes up insane amounts of space to make the same power as any other method,
Couldn’t find a source quickly, but you can put panels above parking lots or grazing areas to provide shade, so it’s not wasted space. Also, nuclear waste needs to be put somewhere…
requires endless manufacturing (and disposal) of batteries that are also made with mined, toxic materials that end up in landfill,
Already addressed the materials issue above, but would like to note that batteries can be recycled. Also, would you rather literal nuclear waste in your backyard?
and the cost of transmission infrastructure needed are in the trillions.
I don’t understand what this means. Are you implying that adding solar as a power source requires infrastructure that nuclear doesn’t? Other than the batteries that they would presumably be built with.
Nuclear as the backbone, topped up with solar, is the only realistic way to the fabled “net zero”.
Ah, here it is: the “nuclear as a backbone” argument. This is an absurd argument to be making considering the energy grid composition in Australia right now. Firstly, there is no legislation or expertise here to even start construction of such a plant. This is already ridiculously expensive compared to solar + batteries (https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Electricity-transition/GenCost), but building even a SMR would take decades, at a minimum. This would mean extending the lifetime of existing coal- or gas- fired power plants to cover needs during that time, costing millions more. Secondly, we don’t need a “nuclear backbone”, renewables already make up 36% of energy generation (https://www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-energy-statistics/renewables), and continues to get more affordable as time goes on. We’d be spending way more and burning more fossil fuels for a “realistic way to net zero”?
Face it, renewables already have this handled here. There is no reason to continue down the nuclear rabbit hole, unless you happen to have coal and gas industry interests in mind. Do you?
Pretty sure space is something we have in abundance.
So much space it’s even mentioned in the second verse of the national anthem.
Who knows the second verse of the national anthem?
(I do) “with boundless plains to share”.
