This bloke impressed me, and it looks like JB was right all along.
Wind Turbines and Solar Panels are damaging the environment that they are intended to save.
I havenât actually bothered looking, Foxy, but I bet if I did look, I could easily find videos that say sustainable power is working. Thatâs the beauty of Youtube, whatever you believe, thereâs almost bound to be a video on Youtube that supports that belief.
3 Likes
I think I posted it to promote discussion Harbal, and if you want to discuss it wouldnât it be better to watch the link? I do agree with you about the plethora of conflicting info available, but somebody has got to be right and I think this bloke puts up a very good argument for nuclear power generation.
I always thought that instead of having a âNational Gridâ and having to provide expensive and ugly power transmission lines we could have smaller nuclear units providing local power. Nuclear subs have nuclear power units that could be adapted to power small towns. It doesnât have to be an all singing and dancing massive power station. The technology for building small nuclear submarine power units is quite well known and tested, perhaps we could even build our own instead of involving other countries who will hold us to ransom with the cost of electricity.
Once a nuclear power station is operational, nothing goes in, and nothing comes out, except power. Unlike coal power stations where coal or bio fuel has to be supplied and stored, and the burnt remains have then have to be disposed of.
2 Likes
I know you did, and I shouldnât have interfered, because Iâm not really interested enough to discus it. Itâs just that some people donât think enough is being done about climate change, and otherâs think the wrong things are being done, and yet others think nothing should be done. I donât know what should be done, so I think it best to leave it to those qualified and fully informed to sort out.
What actually frightens you about âsustainable powerâ?
2 Likes
What this guy is saying is the same as what many have been thinking, for quite a long time.
Itâs sad, in my opinion, that our leaders donât seem to have cottoned on to Nuclear, in their thinking, and have spent lots of time putting the wrong âfixâ out there.
Recent events have shown us, at last, the dangers of the old way of thinking about âGlobal Warmingâ .
Now weâve had the wake up Call (Woke up call?) and the politicians are starting to make the big promises - but they know theyâve blown it because of the time itâll all take to get the power stations.
(And the fact that weâll have to buy in foreign built Nuclear Kit)
Luckily they wonât lose an election, because of this, as the other Parties have not gone the right way either.
Last thought - Wish this guy had more charisma!
At least the Global warmer shouters had âWhatâs her nameâ to sell the concept!
1 Like
Could you send them an email, telling them about it, Ted? 
This is down my way, but we donât get it cheaper, its sold to the grid.
1 Like
24% of Australiaâs power is now from renewable sources, in SA over 50% of its power is renewable. Seems to work OKâŠ
It is not without difficulties it has turned the electricity industry on its head with too much power during the day instead of at night and the network was not designed for dispersed power sources but they are all problems that can be overcome.
No one here wants nuclear power (unless it is in a submarine) but you are welcome to buy our yummy uranium (as well as coal, iron and lithium)
1 Like
Think you need something to stop the rain. Why is Aus anti nuke power ?
my son who is a car fanatic - made a valid point the other day - creating electricity to run electric cars uses up fossil fuels? does it?
If the elecy is generated that way , yes would be the answer.
We definitely need something to stop the rain, it will stop eventually.
As for nuclear power, we have a bazzilion tonnes of coal and lots of sunshine, what did we ever need a nuclear power station for? One was planned in the 1950s to be built on Commonwealth Territory adjacent to Jervis Bay, the site is now a car park for the naval base HMAS Creswell
@OldGreyFox , l agree OGF, I have posted several times in the past on the
BREXIT thread saying the same things, particularly about the modular
nuclear concept, it all makes sense !!
The only downside l can see is that we still have to get our nuclear fuel
from elsewhere ? And that the stations will have to be sited on the coast in
order to obtain the cooling water, unless we accept using lakes or rivers
for this?
Another plus for modular is that RR think they can put a working model
into service within a decade !!
I am glad to see that RR and the nuclear industry were being interviewed
in parliament this week !!
Donkeyman! 
2 Likes
@Bruce , You should be praying for the rain to continue Brucy,
You need a big lake in the middle of OZZ to cover up all that desert??
Donkeyman! 
2 Likes
I agree Harbal, there are so many alternative theories on what future power requirements will be and how best to supply it with minimum impact on the planet. It is a subject that I am very interested in, and welcome other peoples thoughts and opinions. Iâm sure that nobody important will take any notice of anything I have to say, and I wouldnât want them to, because Iâm not qualified. But one of the reasons I love coming on the forum, is because it provides a platform to get stuff off my chest to like minded members, and occasionally someone posts a better explanation.
Iâm not frightened of âsustainable powerâ Harbal, and for quite some time I believed it was the way to go, but the more I delve into it, the more I am beginning to question the ethics, and am constantly finding it is not as sustainable or as good for the environment than we are led to believe.
Most people on the forum are well aware of my feelings of man made climate change, Iâve never denied that the climate is changing. The climate is not, and never been static, but the problems the human race are causing are mostly local and can be reversed. I believe that problems of over population are being addressed, but that is for another day and thread. In just seventy yearsâish we have filled our roads with vehicles and find ourselves with pollution and grid locked roads, and this clearly can not carry on for the next seventy years. Again, this is being addressed.
The methods of producing electricity however have not been addressed, we are placing too much emphasis on the wind, sun, and lithium storage. The problems with wind and sun production are that electricity can not be stored for very long and in any great quantity, and especially in the northern hemisphere, when you need electricity the most, it will not be available. âSustainableâ does not apply to wind turbines and solar panels, on the face of it, it seems like you are getting it for free, but as we are all becoming painfully aware from rising bills, it is far from free. The infrastructure is very expensive, and the unreliable supply does not offset the initial cost of building wind turbines, solar panels, and paying land owners for the use of valuable food producing land. Building wind farms offshore is ten times more expensive to create.
Solar panels last an estimated 20 to 25 years and are full of toxic materials that are difficult to dispose of, as are the blades of wind turbines that donât last as long as solar panels, and are causing major problems with disposal. The materials used are virtually indestructible, but once their aerodynamic shape has been lost due to salt, birdstrike, and weather, they are useless. There are many more reasons why I donât think so called âsustainableâ power generation will solve any of our future problems, but thatâs for another day.
2 Likes
âWind energy generation accounted for 24% of total electricity generation (including renewables and non-renewables) in 2020; with offshore wind accounting for 13% and onshore wind accounting for 11%.â
Thatâs just where youâre wrong, Foxy, youâve got my full attention. 
I donât know how valid that argument is, but it is an argument, which is more than Iâve got. I donât know enough to be able to agree or disagree with it, but I respect it as your opinion. 
2 Likes
Foxy the guy is very very positive about nuclear are. But there is a but. Nuclear power, while being a positive attribute, it has the limitation of flexibility. It doesnât change capacity very quickly. Dinorwig Power Station gets from 12 seconds to spinning load.
You make a valid point. Nuclear is merely steam generated power with a different fuel.
Steam power can cope with an instant rise in load for a very short period (by allowing steam pressure to drop) but it gives sufficient time for more mechanical processes to increase their load for example for the gates to open wider in a dam for hydro to increase generation this gives the steam powered generators time to recover and increase output by grinding more coal (or whatever nuclear power stations do).
âSpinning reserveâ is a very important component of power generation as this reserve should be able to cope with the largest individual generator failing instantly. Some of this reserve in NSW was the aluminium smelters who used a massive amount of power but who received it at a special price on the understanding that it could be disconnected instantly. I presume that these days batteries form part of this spinning reserve.
Having said all that centralised power generation makes no sense any more as can be witnessed by the fact that nobody will build a new power station unless the government subsidises it.
But doesnât Nuclear Power produce âwasteâ that is difficult to dispose of safely?
1 Like