Youtube comments of Bob thebomb (@bobthebomb1596).

  1. Respect to every one of them.
    993
  2. Never interrupt the enemy when he is doing something stupid.
    227
  3. Yup, first comment by moscow bots just five minutes after posting. You have them worried.
    121
  4. Barracks, airfields, all the same. "We are not using them, so let's close them." All very well until circumstances change.
    84
  5. "Tempest: What Will A Sixth-Generation Fighter Jet Look Like? " ---- CANCELLED ----
    57
  6. I think you triggered a Russian troll 🙃
    56
  7. The lasses did us proud and how women's football has come on. The first two goals were quality by anyone's standard.
    47
  8. Damn those guys think of everything. They are even flying with fish-eyes on military exercises!
    34
  9. When he says "'mobile crematorium machines" he is referring to their tanks.
    29
  10. Taken them long enough. Russia has ignored treaties and is developing new weapon types. China is growing its nuclear arsenal. All the while the US is barely maintaining its capabilities.
    26
  11. FFS leave the poor woman alone!
    25
  12. ​ @albertdula9799  Won? No member of the armed forces is certain to fight, that's the nature of the job. When they are called to fight though, they do it rather well.
    22
  13.  @clydewillis  Who follow a site they disagree with and respond so quickly? No.
    22
  14. Respect and thanks for helping keep us safe.
    21
  15. Good to see a journalist who asks relevant questions then listens to the responses without interrupting the guest.
    20
  16. Now we need a mobile, land based version of the ASTER/Samson system from the Type 45.
    20
  17. Such a shock seeing this today, the man was a joy to watch (even when we were on the receiving end). Condolences to his family and countrymen from a Pom.
    19
  18. You prefer the Labour party to be associated with anti-sematism?
    18
  19. This is so true. Don't make the mistake the UK made, we have only avoided blackouts because we have interlinks with Europe. 10:30AM and the UK is importing 13% of its electricity, it's been as high as 17%. Keep your fossil plant on standby just in case. Edit: UK power peaked at over £1000/MWh this morning!
    18
  20. Not just the West.
    17
  21.  @soulscanner66  When you start a war with a surprise attack, treat prisoners of war as vermin, use civilians as "targets" in explosives trials and indoctrinate your own population to believe that death is preferable to surrender, you are to blame for what happens next. More civilians died in two days of conventional bombing of Tokyo than died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Many more would have died in a conventional invasion of Japan. A great many more would have died in Europe were it not for the fear of a nuclear conflict between East and West.
    16
  22. One is in international waters and requires only a few kilo's of specialised explosives, the other requires tons of explosives and only one country has access.
    15
  23. Guess what, winter can be cold.
    15
  24. You do know that comments like that just make you sound stupid right?
    14
  25. For the life of me I cannot understand how Biden has not been forced to take a Cognitive Impairment test, as his predecessor was.
    14
  26. Because the European helicopter really is junk, just ask the Aussies about NH90.
    13
  27. Actually with the events in Ukraine most of the western world are crying out for additional nuclear fuel manufacturing capacity independent of Russia. Where better to establish it than at the site of the worlds largest uranium reserves?
    13
  28. It's sad to see someone that old struggling the way he does.
    13
  29.  @thegreatid3595  To help throw them out of Ukrainian territory. There was never any possibility of Ukraine having the forces or equipment to attack Russia itself.
    13
  30. What matters is, will it provide reliable, clean energy at affordable prices? Experience from the rest of the world suggests, yes.
    12
  31.  @stephenwilliams6103  Hydrogen is far harder to contain than petrol.
    12
  32. What utter drivel. Turn off its radar and the F35 has electro-optical sensors and data coms that make it an excellent recce aircraft. Whoever said the F35 was an air superiority fighter? That was never its role.The yanks have the F22 for that (though not enough) and we have Typhoon.
    11
  33. Pretty poor effort and unworthy of Forces News.
    11
  34. But China is still a "developing nation" and does not have to comply. Just what are they planning on developing into?
    11
  35.  @jblue88hoodgamer54  He may be back, but that won't improve things. US politics is too polarised and politicians too corrupt.
    11
  36. I have read reports that the UK is supplying "Extreme weather gear" to Ukraine.
    11
  37. The media have a lot to answer for.
    11
  38. Save it for your mosques.
    10
  39.  @t0xiicliberator696  Well only the crew if Santa's bringing them.
    10
  40. What makes you believe that you are important enough to be tracked?
    10
  41. Well done ladies. 👍
    10
  42. She's the queen, she doesn't make a fuss. She just get's on with things as best she can.
    10
  43. Those figures are for the construction of the solar and wind farms but remember, there is very little installed storage at present. Renewables only work if they are used in conjunction with either storage or an alternative energy source for base load. Remember also that going down the storage route requires the installation and operation of excess capacity.
    10
  44.  @davidb9976  Then why zero carbon overnight?
    10
  45. @@PaulSweezy-eb8if You are betting your future on 70 year old economics?
    10
  46.  @soulscanner66  In WW2 civilians were considered as collateral damage. Guernica, London, Coventry, Valletta, Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo. Cities on all sides suffered horrible bombing and loss of life. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible events, but they demonstrated what would happen if the war continued. They demonstrated what would happen to us all if the major powers fought another world war.
    9
  47.  @daviddoran3673  They said that about Germany in the 30's
    9
  48. Problem I fear is that Sunak will want a treasury "Yes man" rather than the best person for the job. The country need someone who will fight their corner.
    9
  49. Pity we get so little for what we spend.
    9
  50. I doubt it will be air launched, it will not have been certified for their aircraft.
    9
  51. Good point, well explained. I maybe wouldn't have said ANY long-term waste, as clearly there is some, but far less and far shorter lived than the luddites would have people think. This is of course dependant upon the development of liquid fuel cycles and fast-neutron or thorium based technology, but the world could have these now if it had not turned away from nuclear and thus nuclear research.
    9
  52. Finally, someone speaking the truth wrt renewables. So I must be against them? No. I am against miss-selling them. Only by being honest about the costs, benefits and drawbacks of energy generation methods can we ever hope to find the right balance between them.
    9
  53.  @jimhofoss9982  Somewhat harder if you live in a flat on a council estate.
    9
  54. Obstruction of a public highway - arrest and max £50 fine. Where are the police?
    9
  55. Can't blame them. I would feel the same way if I lived on the border of Mordor.
    8
  56. ​ @bobsemple9341  Who are you to decide who can and cannot speak?
    8
  57.  @xyves8488  Remind me? I am English. The Aussies are our cousins; we may fight like hell, but you couldn't ask for more than an Aussie to stand next to you when the chips are down.
    8
  58. Acres of new PV panels, turbines and pylons vs a replacement power station at a site will existing amenities.
    8
  59. The whole anti-nuclear movement is going into hysterical mode at the moment. Something has them rattled.
    8
  60. You have your own stocks of uranium, go nuclear for your base load.
    8
  61.  @WokeDEMOCRATShaveASPD  Really, arming them to attack a nuclear power?
    8
  62.  @NK-ne9uf  Wrong on both counts.
    8
  63. We should have dealt with it in the 90's like the French did. We could have had 20 Sizewell B's for £72bn (at todays prices - they were £2bn a pop at the time). That's 24GW of power, almost our entire baseload requirement.
    8
  64. If the UK had ignored the green movement (like France) and continued to modernise its nuclear capacity we would be in a far better position to meet the challenges we face today. We used to run eleven Magnox reactors, just replacing these on a one for one basis with Sizewell B equivalent stations would provide over 40% of our electrical power requirements.
    8
  65.  @JosephGibson  So what exactly are they waiting for?
    7
  66. Very worrying actions by the Chinese. It's one thing to send out the odd recon bird or fighter, but that many aircraft can easily lead to a misunderstanding.
    7
  67. If only they had given the UK people a vote on the formation of the EU?
    7
  68.  @salliemedia  Trouble was, they yomped from San Carlos to the battlefield and fought to an extent with what they could carry. Most of the helo's that would have brought more ammo forward were lost with the sinking of the Atlantic conveyor.
    7
  69. Why? If they were going with a naval version of a land missile they would have chosen Brimstone.
    7
  70. Not necessary. US Marines/RM would be more than capable of undertaking the task.
    7
  71. That's what I was thinking, what a stupid statement.
    7
  72. Why? The F35 as a far more capable aeroplane.
    7
  73.  @N75911_  It was a joke mate :)
    7
  74.  @wrightypegz8997  :)
    7
  75. I just hope that the cost of all this help is coming from the treasury and not the defence budget.
    7
  76.  @Cynthia_Blackraven_666  Which their pilots are not trained to fly, let alone fight with.
    7
  77. FFS, can we have journalists that actually listen to the answers to the questions they put without interruption?
    7
  78.  @carolinemcnulty6169  Were lepers suffering because of their own stupidity though?
    7
  79. Makes total sense to go with nuke boats given Australia's geographical position.
    7
  80. Macron is grandstanding for the upcoming elections.
    7
  81. As I write this on a Friday afternoon, the UK is producing just 0.5GW of electricity from wind, the same as from coal! For comparison, the average figure is 6.5GW and last years peak was 12.38GW. That is the type of swing that has to be met from fossil fuel or storage when relying on wind power.
    7
  82.  @stormsurge6765  Nope. They were both well taken goals, by anyone's standards.
    7
  83. I don't get it. He invites a guest on, asks him questions then listens to his replies. That's not journalism! Should be asking loaded questions looking for answers that support your position and talking over him if he fails to follow the line. Oh wait, this isn't the BBC.
    7
  84. I would like to see a land based version of Samson/Aster 30 to defend against possible cruise missiles, air or sea launched.
    6
  85. F35s are arriving as fast as they can be built.
    6
  86. Is that why they are still advancing?
    6
  87. Of course, why would a wild weasel pilot understand about surface to air capability 🙄
    6
  88. People are so naïve over EMP. A lot of military equipment has been hardened against it, dating back to the cold war days.
    6
  89.  @jackcloud4728  Nothing to do with political correctness. If an individual soldier meets the standard they should be allowed to join. If they don't then they are out, male or female.
    6
  90.  @sammiemakki9339  It is not prohibited to use against entrenched positions, even if those positions are in a forest or treeline.
    6
  91.  Michael Pezzullo  Child
    6
  92. But you do need to help your service personnel by giving them decent kit.
    6
  93.  @xyves8488  Grow up
    6
  94. ​ @xyves8488  If speculation of "permanent" deployment of boats to Australian ports is more then just that, then maintenance in Australian yards would be desirable. There are loads of systems on board a submarine that require regular maintenance other than the reactor. One possible route for Australia could involve overseas deployment of US/UK submarines with co-opted Australian crewmembers. Assembly of "modules" built in Australia and either the UK or US followed eventually by full construction in Australian yards.
    6
  95.  @tassied12  Care to hazard a guess how much actual "waste" is produced?
    6
  96. You could do a lot worse than to look at the CANDU design in Australia.
    6
  97.  @rattusfinkus  No they don't. Cost while they are producing might be cheap, but they conveniently ignore costs associated with backup, increased distribution infrastructure and grid intermittency issues.
    6
  98.  @Memememe-is1yn  Neither side can stop an all out exchange, so all those hypersonics are good for is starting a war by accident.
    6
  99.  @majorchungus  That is true. I have no real issue with hydrogen power to be honest, though I think it is better suited to public service vehicles making lots of short journeys.
    6
  100.  @tivmego  Oh there are plenty of news sources online, which comes with the added benefits of having news from multiple countries and sources other than msm.
    6
  101. "Nuclear explosion", "10 MILLION tons of nuclear fuel" This guy is a joke.
    6
  102. Maybe because you don't look in the right places?
    6
  103. Does Ukraine have stocks of it though? Does the UK or US even?
    6
  104. On its own you are right, it will not make a big difference. It will however allow Ukraine to attack command bunkers, ammunition/fuel stores, staging areas, airfields, naval bases etc deeper into occupied territory, which will help relieve pressure on the guys in the front line.
    5
  105.  @JakutzaLP  Meanwhile, biomass is still promoted as "green energy"
    5
  106.  @flyboyben8384  The British did not engage in "Terror bombing" from day one. We responded to attacks on London in a similar manner. Easy for the US to stay out of it when they had not been on the receiving end.
    5
  107.  @dallesamllhals9161  Yawn, keep reading the troll sites and posters.
    5
  108. Of course we do, everyone spies on everyone else.
    5
  109. It depends which Sea Kings are being supplied; HC, HAR or HAS variant. The HC are troop and utility transport helicopters. HAR are the Search and Rescue variant. They have search radar but no acoustic search equipment. HAS are the anti-submarine variant. They have both search radar and acoustic sensors (dipping sonar and buoys) plus the ability to carry torpedoes and depth charges. News items would suggest that it is the HAR variant that is being supplied.
    5
  110. Flat earther alert!
    5
  111. I can't help feeling that is a mistake, the A400 seems a bit big for some roles. I would love to know what the pilots think, especially those involved in covert insertion etc.
    5
  112. Until the Russians show debris from Storm Shadow/ATACMs strikes. Now, supplying Western components is less of a problem, given that Russia uses similar components in its weaponry.
    5
  113.  @dubiumguy  If that price is true then that is indeed a good price when compared to S300 etc.
    5
  114. What is the cost of MALD compared with say a Banshee target drone?
    5
  115. By "Handle" do you mean walk into a school and start firing?
    5
  116. We don't really need nuke carriers. I would take more T45's but even the US are now building frigates. Two or three more Astute's would be nice though.
    5
  117. How do you know, or do you think those images were actually the real thing?
    5
  118. Well that will p-off the trolls 😂
    5
  119. As long as the Treasury provides the money to replace the kit we are sending.
    5
  120.  @johnstevens213  You are wrong. For the record the USS Virginia was laid down in September 1999 and commissioned in October 2004. HMS Astute was laid down in January 2001 but not commissioned until August 2010. They are therefore contemporaneous in design.
    5
  121. ​ @JackRichardsonM8 That's is what the lifting of the ban will allow Australia to decide.
    5
  122. That's not entirely true as it depends on operational circumstances. For operations in shallow coastal waters diesel-electric boats are superior owing to their generally smaller size and lower noise signature. However, in Australia's case the switch to nuclear propulsion makes perfect sense given the area of ocean they need to cover to protect their trade lanes.
    5
  123. I would say one thing (as a Pom). Go with the Astute or go with the Virginia, but for God's sake don't go with an Astute with US tech while trying to build an indigenous manufacturing capability. Your learning curve will be high enough without trying to integrate mismatched tech.
    5
  124.  @xyves8488  You are right, some people grow old but remain immature. Throwing insults when they have no argument is a sure sign of this.
    5
  125.  @xyves8488  No, you missed my point entirely (and I am a Pom not an American) You are going from zero to full capability and that is not going to happen overnight. The first step is to build up experience in the RAN, so if the deployment thing happens, working mixed crews would be a good thing (like the RAF crews working on the Aussie Wedgetails prior to acquisition) Your sub yards could build up experience on nuke boats by first maintaining stationed USN/RN subs then begin assembling the first (however many) RAN boats using modules made in the US/UK (maybe certain critical sections such as the reactor for example). Then as the yard gains experience it moves onto full construction. Seems like a logical way for Australia to both gain access to nuclear subs asap and develop a reliable, indigenous manufacturing capability?
    5
  126. Complete no brainer given Australia's natural resources.
    5
  127. Submarines by their nature are higher risk than surface ship, regardless of their propulsion mechanism.
    5
  128. It is not the president who is at fault (current or previous), it is the system. An electoral system that requires a potential candidate to raise billions of dollars in order to run for office is wide open to corruption.
    5
  129. I guess that depends what you are up to. I would rather my own side had access to the data terrorists are using to plot attacks on my country personally.
    5
  130.  @arturoeugster7228  Glass fibre which is manufactured by heating sand to high temperature, usually in a gas operated furnace.
    5
  131.  @philmurdoch1203  Listen to the video again, he addresses that very point. The latest US/UK reactors are built such that they do not require refueling during their operational lives, current French reactors do require refueling. That would leave Australia with two options: Send the subs back to France for a mid-life refuel, or invest in their own refueling facilities. Both options are expensive and result in the boats being unavailable for longer during refit.
    5
  132.  @Poorlineforeva  I have no need to shout. The world is slowly accepting the fact that we should have been building nuclear for the last thirty years.
    5
  133.  @polarbear7255  CANDU are not fast breeder reactors, they can "burn" non enriched fuel because they use heavy water (deuterium oxide) rather than standard water as the moderator. Deuterium oxide absorbs fewer neutrons, leaving more to find the fissile U235. They are a good design though.
    5
  134.  @rattusfinkus  Reality. Renewables without hydro or geothermal rely on either fossil or nuclear backup. Gas and/or coal plant must be maintained even if not running (thus generating no financial return) RE advocates always call for grid improvements, though they never include the cost in their own figures. A nuclear reactor has high up front costs, but has a far higher operational capacity and can be sited to take advantage of existing grid infrastructure.
    5
  135.  @JamesGP89  Here you go, have a cookie.
    5
  136.  @williamsmith1741  I was not intending to criticise, I agree with your OP. The "anti's" however will jump on any minor point as an excuse to discredit your information.
    5
  137.  @colinsmith2005  Nothing would happen, the plane would disintegrate.
    5
  138. Same issue in the UK. The greens love to say how cheap wind power is, but they never install the storage necessary to make it reliable.
    5
  139.  @UkTruckerStu  I take it you only ever watch the EPL
    5
  140.  @mweskamppp  Sorry I'm not sure I understand your point here. My line of argument is that the West were not building up Ukraine's armed forces to "attack Russia" since Russia had massively superior manpower, weaponry, land area and nuclear backup. Such an attack would be doomed to failure. The west is arming Ukraine to allow them to defend themselves and (hopefully) throw the Russians out of occupied Ukrainian territory, which is a possibility. Apologies if my comment was confusing.
    5
  141. What's to say? A tank was hit, the crew probably survived. That's what happens in war (unless you are in a Russian tank, where the crew usually dies).
    5
  142. I trust we will never see you in a doctors surgery then?
    5
  143.  @richardgallagher4880  What's to debate? One of us will be proved right and the other wrong.
    4
  144.  @Lemingtona-x5g  In your head
    4
  145. To be honest. Some of the blokes act like such tarts on the field they don't deserve to be called Lions. Bloody good performance by the Lionesses, proud of you.
    4
  146.  @andreassumerauer5028  The UK did not join the "Union", they joined the European Economic Community (EEC). The EU was not formed until 1993 and UK citizens were not allowed a vote; unlike those of most other countries. Do some research..
    4
  147.  @Angry.General1461  We have armed police when we need them. Military stocks do appear to have been allowed to drop too low though if rumours are correct.
    4
  148.  @Will-Alee  Many of the ferry pilots that took aircraft from the factories to the RAF airfields were women.
    4
  149.  @PinkPoo  Respect because they have a history of outstanding bravery and service to our country.
    4
  150.  @asmaar566  I was assuming that he was talking about UK troops. One of their primary roles (Marines at least) in NATO is support to Norway.
    4
  151. Not until the world moves on from religious bigotry unfortunately.
    4
  152. Create a logistical nightmare, sensible.
    4
  153. Don't be so lazy and go look for it, it's out there.
    4
  154.  @johnallen7807  Wallace is ex Scots Guards and Mordant is/was a navy reservist.
    4
  155. Lol. It is an attack sub not a boomer. Muppet.
    4
  156. Yes
    4
  157. I wouldn't say it was a lie as that would require foreknowledge. I think, as the video suggests, something has happened or at least worsened more quickly than expected.
    4
  158. It is cheap if you just look at cost per KWh generated. It is not cheap if you include the necessary storage and over capacity needed to ensure reliability.
    4
  159.  @rattusfinkus  The market is skewed by arcane planning regulations, subsidies and irrational public perception. Which is why nuclear generation should be run by governments, not private industry.
    4
  160.  @rattusfinkus  lol
    4
  161.  @JackRichardsonM8  Which utility would go to the trouble of producing such plans while there is no possibility of them being accepted?
    4
  162. Digging out copper, cobalt, rare-earth metals are emissions free? Digging out coal to produce resin for turbine blades is emissions fee? Converting silicon dioxide to silicon is emissions free? No form of energy production is emissions free or without environmental impact.
    4
  163. Thorium power is nuclear.
    4
  164. Move from polluting energy sources to green ones over time, ensuring energy demand is met at affordable prices. It's not exactly rocket engineering!
    4
  165. In the short term yes. Look at the US, shale gas has lowered their CO2 emissions by replacing coal. If Aus is building wind and solar anyway then switch baseload from coal to gas, followed by nuclear once regulation and manufacturing infrastructure is in place.
    4
  166. As long as they don't enter US airspace there is nothing the US can do about it. Mexico might be a little peeved however.
    4
  167. At least set up the regulatory infrastructure necessary to evaluate and license new reactor designs if nuclear does prove to have a part to play.
    4
  168. That might be because he does not run the UK?
    4
  169.  @rattusfinkus  Batteries 🤣🤣
    4
  170.  @rattusfinkus  It is not so much the cost reduction, it is the reduced manufacturing time that is the real bonus. If you can churn out reactor vessels every few days, instead of every year, then you are truly looking at production line economics.
    4
  171.  @tassied12  No it's not Australia. Solar is reliable in that you can guarantee to lose it entirely for ten hours a day. Solar is poor over here but we have some of the best conditions anywhere for wind power and wind does not stop at night. When renewables are working they are good, when they are not working its time to light the fossil fuel stations.
    4
  172. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
    4
  173. Just don't dismantle them, you may need them when the wind isn't blowing.
    4
  174.  @Poorlineforeva In your head, yes.
    4
  175. Why don't you look at science instead of propaganda sites?
    4
  176.  @rattusfinkus  Except those studies do not look at whole life costs, where nuclear proves to be cheaper. 100% RE only works well if you have access to plentiful hydro or geo.
    4
  177. UK could in theory help take up some of the slack by opening a second build hall but there are still great opportunities for SA. Best wishes from a pom.
    4
  178. The whole world is quaking at the thought of a second Trump administration!
    4
  179. News flash. The world is not flat.
    4
  180. When did Australia have a civil war?
    4
  181. He has been in power for three years and a back bencher for eleven. He is not responsible for the failure to build a single nuclear reactor in the last twenty seven years. The only UK prime minister to authorise construction of a reactor since Thatcher was Cameron, in 2012.
    4
  182. The important take from this is that nuclear should be PART of the solution. It's time to end the "Us and them" attitude to future power generation and choose the best tool for the job on a case by case basis.
    4
  183. Happy Australia Day from the land of the Poms.
    4
  184. Please don't exaggerate, it does the case for nuclear no good. There will always be a requirement to mine uranium (or thorium) as there is a finite quantity of high level nuclear waste (HLW) in existence. Those "burner" reactors are an excellent technology and will reduce both the quantity of waste produced and the time over which it poses a significant radiological hazard, but they do not produce "practically inert" waste. What they produce are fission products and they are highly radioactive. The good news is that many of those fission products are so highly radioactive that they decay to inert material in a relatively short timescale. Thus a relatively short period of managed storage (tens of years) will see a significant drop in activity and associated decay heat generation. Indeed it is quite possible to imagine a system in which that decay heat might itself be used to generate additional power. Eventually activity will decrease to the point where it is safe to consign the remaining waste to deep burial. That final waste will be shorter lived than that arising from traditional reactors, due to the lack of actinides, but it will remain hazardous for hundreds of years.
    4
  185. When governments prevent examination of the figures, ask why.
    4
  186.  @jblue88hoodgamer54  Lol
    4
  187.  @colonelangus8247  It was a USAF drone, not a private operator.
    4
  188. Given that he gets the ones who don't go to heaven it stands to reason that he knows the number who do.
    4
  189. The opposition in those wars were very poorly equipped for cold weather fighting.
    4
  190.  @jayfrosti9422  Of course not. 30 years in the defence world, why would I?
    4
  191.  @theo3030  Simp on.
    4
  192.  @ZOV_VLAD_Combat.footage  Odd how you "non-bots" all use the same language.
    4
  193.  @thecursed01  True, but YT has become a lot worse the last couple of years.
    4
  194.  @thecursed01  Because it's only a matter of time before people stop using the platform if it continues down its current path?
    4
  195. Nice one Jerry
    3
  196.  @FrancisHegarty  Right. 🙄
    3
  197.  @TehNemezis  Rather think the Russians would have been shouting about it if they had detected a cruise missile strike.
    3
  198. Spot on.
    3
  199. 🤣🤣
    3
  200. That one made me chuckle.
    3
  201. Linked channel is no more.
    3
  202. Accidents happen to all countries, military flying (especially fast jet) is not as safe as its commercial counterpart.
    3
  203.  @dallesamllhals9161  Care to rephrase that in English?
    3
  204.  @dallesamllhals9161  Not American.
    3
  205. The UK is not replacing Trident, it is replacing the submarines that carry it.
    3
  206. Defence: £56bn Universal Credit: £59.8bn Pensions: £134.8bn Health: £245bn
    3
  207. Probably because AI is insufficiently developed to do the job?
    3
  208. Stingray torpedoes.
    3
  209. Not wise if they are likely to fall into Russian hands.
    3
  210.  @Lewisloui  Agreed.
    3
  211.  @stevenmorris3181  I rest my case
    3
  212. Still don't understand why they are fitting a 5" gun to a dedicated ASW platform. A smaller calibre multi-purpose gun would have been better and maybe allowed for an increase in VLS cells. No way will they risk one of those for gunfire support.
    3
  213. They are not 😟 I just hope we do the decent thing by those who helped us while we were there.
    3
  214.  Brett Mitchell  Only four of those ships are actually RN vessels. Let's say they were; three T45s and three T23s. A T45 has 48 VLS tubes and CAN carry 8 obsolete Harpoons (neither of the ships in the current deployment has them, though one has provision to). A T23 has one 32 cell VLS for self defence Sea Ceptor only. A US CSG has between three and five support ships comprising 1-2 Cruisers and 2-3 destroyers. The Ticonderoga cruiser carries 2 61-cell VLS launchers plus eight Harpoon. An Arleigh-Burke destroyer has either a 90 or 96 cell VLS system and may carry two Harpoon. Fully kitted a UK CSG would field 48 Harpoon (doubtful we still have that many launchers), 144 full VLS tubes and 96 self-defence VLS tubes. The smallest US CSG could field 12 Harpoon and 300 full VLS tubes. That's without factoring in the carriers, where a US CSG has E2-C Hawkeye AEW aircraft and does not rely on helicopter to spot incoming threats!
    3
  215.  @johnallen7807  Just a nickname people gave me. I am sick of deniers like you who constantly undermine efforts to control Covid. There is ample evidence from around the world of the effectiveness of facemasks, but you continue to put lives at risk with your drivel.
    3
  216.  @crystalawen  Yes I can think for myself, it's why I don't roll over to every crackpot conspiracy theory.
    3
  217.  @EthanThomson  That is what I thought. It might still be worth supplying Banshee (with the supersonic Rattler sub-drone) to Ukraine though. If nothing else it would draw fire from S300/400 systems and could be "enhanced" to simulate an SU-24 on radar.
    3
  218. Brilliant. I will have to look out for this. Love the Hurricane but I had no idea there was an airworthy two-seater.
    3
  219. How about giving people time to read the captions?
    3
  220. They are not flown by the air force.
    3
  221. Soldiers often wear ballistic specs anyway and have prescription versions if needed.
    3
  222. Have to ask why? I love the KC135 but many are older than I am!
    3
  223. Man's best friend for sure.
    3
  224.  @asmaar566  It does, I suspect there might have been a motive behind the OP though.
    3
  225. Vastly overrated EMP
    3
  226.  @gregoryhouse5240  Yawn
    3
  227. @SplurbBat I have no problem with us paying to help the Ukrainians, I just want to be sure that the money is not coming from the defence budget.
    3
  228.  CHRISTIAN KNIGHT  Trouble is Ukraine does not operate Typhoon or Western helicopters.
    3
  229. I wonder if these would fit areas allocated for 30mm guns on warships? Would be a nice upgrade for the carriers.
    3
  230.  @Bite_Me_MF  Rot. Tradition and progress are not mutually exclusive.
    3
  231.  @johnallen7807  The defence secretary and previous defence secretary were both military.
    3
  232.  @linnetcooke5967  Yes they do. What I meant was twofold. First, that the funding comes from the Treasury's contingency fund and not the defence budget. Second, that they do actually replace the kit we have donated and don't just leave our armed forces short.
    3
  233. You are thinking of the Sukhoi.
    3
  234.  @Then.72  Any ship can be sunk by one torpedo, nuclear powered or not. The after effects may be disastrous, but they are perfectly capable war fighting machines.
    3
  235. There are more important things for the RN to spend its defence budget on than nuclear powered carriers, like a few more attack submarines.
    3
  236. Name one.
    3
  237. Macron is behaving like a petulant schoolboy.
    3
  238.  @JackRichardsonM8  In a country where they are banned?
    3
  239. Stevenson's Rocket.
    3
  240.  @polarbear7255  That's true, I was talking about full sized plants. SMR's can have the advantage in areas without complex grid systems, remote locations, for industrial support etc
    3
  241.  @rattusfinkus  Aus, yes. That's not unreasonable. You have wasted even more years than the UK.
    3
  242.  @rattusfinkus  No, it really is not. Average build time for a nuclear reactor is about seven years.
    3
  243.  @rattusfinkus  France has been running on mostly nuclear for decades without issue and has some of the cleanest and cheapest electricity in Europe.
    3
  244. Yes you should. If it turns out that renewables can meet Australia's energy demand then fine, but with the uranium resources that it has it would be foolish not to at least consider it.
    3
  245. Absolute cobblers. Every time we have had a lockdown in the UK the figures for hospitalisations and deaths drop. As soon as lockdowns were lifted, they rose again.
    3
  246.  @robbo6689  You can, but then your car will not work until you charge it again.
    3
  247. Debateable, there are no licensed SMR's at the moment and Australia does not even have the infrastructure in place to license one.
    3
  248. Sounds like the Spitting Image storyline about Reagan back in the 80s.
    3
  249. Yes.
    3
  250.  @elainereaper259  Airbus have had similar problems with their aircraft.
    3
  251. To the rabid left, any one to the right of their position is a fascist.
    3
  252. Almost 40 years ago and the result of a poor reactor design and even worse operating procedures.
    3
  253.  @rattusfinkus  Costs do not have to match renewables, they have to match renewables plus storage (and all it's associated infrastructure)
    3
  254.  @rattusfinkus  Just in time to replace all the worn out wind and solar then.
    3
  255. Sort of. Sr90 RTG's require too much shielding and will only really become viable for space applications.
    3
  256. ​ @rattusfinkus  Wrong. They underestimate the cost of the backup needed to support renewables.
    3
  257.  @rattusfinkus  You are out of date wrt LCOE's, they have always underestimated the cost of renewables
    3
  258.  @rattusfinkus  So you accept that they can be produced in time then? Renewables sound cheap, but their capacity factors are low and they require either backup or storage - which is rarely included in cost. Then they have to be replaced regularly. They are not as "cheap" as people make out.
    3
  259.  @tassied12  67% when? Always? Hydro?
    3
  260.  @tassied12  We have just done the same, 196MWh of storage. To meet three and a half days of UK power would require over 12,500 of them. All of this is at a time when most cars, buses, lorries and some trains run on fossil fuel. When the majority of houses are heated by gas. People just done realise the scale of nett zero.
    3
  261.  @tassied12  I have seen similar figures in the UK;14GW generated by wind and 7GW by solar and 62% of demand. The trouble is that for three and a half days last week total wind and solar was under 5GW, at their worst under 1GW. Average generation over the past year was 10.5GW (34.3% of average demand) The simple fact is, renewables only work if you have both excess generating capacity and copious storage. For the UK that would be 2,500 GWh to cover 3.5 days.
    3
  262. Spot on. This approach does not require the huge investment in manpower that tanks and AFV's demand. Fight them in the air and on water, before they land.
    3
  263. He's not a liar, he's just a very confused old man 🙃 Edit: THIS POST WAS A JOKE based on a line from a Monty Python movie, not a good joke admittedly.
    3
  264.  @YA-qj8fx  You have an extremely low chance of suffering any of those conditions by receiving a vaccination, however you will significantly reduce both the effects of Covid infection if you do catch it and your chance of passing it on to someone else.
    3
  265. I just wish the greens would be as honest as they claim other groups are dishonest.
    3
  266. Or look back to the solutions developed decades ago.
    3
  267.  @anotherperspective8555  It IS safe once it has been sealed and buried. It is converted to a glass or ceramic and buried. It is going nowhere.
    3
  268. NATO is a mutual defence pact where all members agree to act in support of any member subject to a physical attack. In it's history this has only ever occurred twice- The Berlin airlift following a Soviet blockade and when NATO mobilised in support of the USA following the 911 attack.
    3
  269. Why should he? France did not expel any UK people.
    3
  270.  @tassied12  I did not suggest it was, I was responding to the 4 hour storage claim that referred to both solar and wind. However sunny Australia is it only generates power during the day and requires storage to cover the dark hours.
    3
  271. During last winter the UK had two and a half days with less than two Giga Watts of wind power generation. At least 420GWh of missing power.
    3
  272.  @isa_L  And I am going to waste no more time on an infant.
    3
  273.  @isa_L  Believe what you will.
    3
  274.  @kissifferbritannica5357  🙄🙄
    3
  275. @Democratic Socialists of Australia It's currently 18:30 here in the UK and still light. Solar, wind and Hydro are currently generating 2.52GW of electricity, or 8.5%5 of demand. Tell me again how cheap they are when we are currently relying on fossil fuel for 57% of our needs?
    3
  276. @Democratic Socialists of Australia Yes, which it can achieve for only twelve of the twenty four hours each day. Last year solar averaged 1.3GW. Combined solar and wind can theoretically produce at least 18GW but last year averaged only 8GW. Research: Reality.
    3
  277. The Paparazzi.
    3
  278. Not at the moment, no.
    3
  279.  @ryanmarshall3640  Get a sense of humor.
    3
  280.  @mycamguy  Neither would nuclear. Whatever "event" hit the earth now we would have ample warning to shut down vulnerable equipment.
    3
  281. Same thing as will happen if the grid is powered by renewables.
    3
  282. Not for many thousands of years.
    3
  283.  @peacepoet1947  And your point is?
    3
  284. We wouldn't have human induced climate change is what she meant, as you probably know. For the record King Cnut was actually trying to prove that even as a king he was not omnipotent and could not turn back the tide.
    3
  285.  @NoRegertsHere  I would be happy with either or both technologies to be honest. I have always found the proliferation argument a bit of a strawman. SMR reactors can be supplied as sealed units and removed for decommissioning after use. Alternatively operation can be monitored via the IAEA. The only country going the weapons route by limiting IAEA access is Iran and everyone knows what they are doing hence the international sanctions. Any country with the budget and the will can make nuclear weapons, but they can not hide it under the cover of a commercial power program.
    3
  286. I like that particular technology too as it offers the potential to use U238 as a fuel and has less reliance on speciality salts. I suspect thermal spectrum designs might prove a little easier to license in the short term, though that is more gut feeling than evidence based.
    3
  287. Has an energy capacity factor of only 25%. Which means additional generation capacity and storage, all of which require resources to produce.
    3
  288. He has passed it off as a joke (as Brand did with her comment on throwing acid at Farage). The BBC have said nothing.
    3
  289. Best way forward is to just ignore them.
    3
  290. Fusion will replace nothing in the near term. No one is close to running a research reactor with positive energy output, let alone designing, building and licensing a commercial example.
    3
  291. There is a reason that the makers of SMR's are targeting coal and not renewables. They know that if they can produce reliable electricity cheaper than coal then the developing nations will buy into their technology.
    3
  292.  @sparkie996  My lack of TV is a choice not a necessity.
    3
  293.  @tivmego  It's not my media. I have never bought a newspapers unless I am travelling and my TV has not worked since 2011.
    3
  294.  @Derty_the_grower  Who is recommending building reactors based on fifty year old technology?
    3
  295.  @donnairn3419  That is the Germans
    3
  296.  @Drakesy  It is impossible for a civil reactor to produce a nuclear explosion.
    3
  297. Wrong. Most nuclear uses lots of water because it is cheap and available but there are nuclear power plants in desert locations. Australia's large urban/industrial centres are close to the coast anyway.
    3
  298.  Alphadrummer  🙄
    3
  299. Given your vast reserves of uranium I am amazed Australia doesn't have a thriving nuclear industry.
    3
  300. @Freiherr Dinkelacker No deflection whatsoever. Ukraine was an independent sovereign state that Russia chose to invade. The west chose to aid them.
    3
  301. There are manned NATO aircraft flying over the Black Sea on a regular basis.
    3
  302. So does solar and wind
    3
  303. So you're to blame 🙃
    3
  304. The West is being slowly dismantled from within.
    3
  305. It's not that simple to switch to LNG. Countries have to have LNG terminals with sufficient capacity to land it.
    3
  306. Possibly. It could also be workers cutting corners. Both occur, neither are acceptable, especially on a submarine!
    3
  307.  @matze3207  Damn, you have ruined my illusions. I thought they had auto-flushing loos :D
    3
  308. McGuinness and Paisley spring to mind. (Spelling)
    3
  309.  @karlmunford7000  It is an interesting discussion point "What would have happened if Britain had made peace with Germany after the fall of France?"
    3
  310.  @PREDATOR07  As they laughed at the powerful Russians who lost before them.
    2
  311. I think he meant Russian cruise missiles.
    2
  312. So, you didn't click on it by accident?
    2
  313. Tempest is years away, if it happens at all.
    2
  314. The RN is not going to be fielding two fully equipped QE carriers for a long time (if ever). They don't have the crews for two carriers, let alone the surface fleet to protect them. Why would we require new tankers? Just fit the probe from the C variant to the A.
    2
  315. That land will be unpassable for a while yet, it will be mud.
    2
  316.  @richardgallagher4880  That why your troops have lost ground?
    2
  317. He's not a journalist, he is an SME.
    2
  318. Which was the reason NATO was established in the first place.
    2
  319.  @A_Pt_9298  He also has the right to claim British citizenship for that reason.
    2
  320. The usual tripe from the eco warrior. "Cheap" energy is no use if you only have intermittent access to it. Solutions to the waste problem have been available for decades.
    2
  321.  @stephenwilcockson3498  I watch various news outlets on the internet, I don't have a working TV.
    2
  322.  @slipknottin  Absolutely spot on. Literally every reviewer out there uses the same "popular" games to review GPU/RAM/CPU performance. Then they cover subjects like extreme overclocking, LN2 cooling etc. These are niche areas in the extreme compared with the number of gamers playing titles like Skylines.
    2
  323. " “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. "
    2
  324. The enemy of my enemy.....
    2
  325. I just want to be able to buy a T-shirt with the Hippy Hitler image 😂
    2
  326. Your argument supports what I was thinking. Even if it was known that oil supplies would become a problem by the time the Panther and Tiger became operational, the fact remains that the Mark IV was inferior to the Russian tanks they were facing. So what options did the Germans have? 1) Continue to fight with an increasingly vulnerable tank; necessitating an increase in tank numbers at a time when diesel/petrol supplies were dwindling. 2) Move to a fighting doctrine that relied more heavily on infantry and artillery and less on armour; restricting tactical options. 3) Produce fewer, but more capable tanks that would outclass the T34 and JS1. Without the benefit of hindsight it is not difficult to see the attraction of the third option. The fact that both tanks suffered technical issues is not really relevant; UK and US leaders must have been absolute barmpots based on some of the tank designs we produced!
    2
  327.  @billycaspersghost7528  You really do live in the past. The UK wouldn't give two hoots if ROI decided to purchase the F35, let alone a few F16s to defend its airspace. You are an independent country, you have every right to defend yourselves. We have moved on, you should too.
    2
  328.  @patrickbyrne5070  What has money to do with anything?
    2
  329. According to Kwasi Kwateng, the lack of a losers speech is normal practice for that particular constituency.
    2
  330.  @goattm2  So one Welsh vote should be worth more than one English vote?
    2
  331.  @vereferreus5262  And your contribution?
    2
  332. I don't think he has a clue what he is talking about tbh.
    2
  333.  @benachiesween  You have a short memory of Labour under Corbyn.
    2
  334.  @Element905  You clearly know nothing about British soldiers. If a piece of kit is crap they will soon let you know in no uncertain terms, whatever it's origin.
    2
  335. ​ @jordansmith4040  The use of injection moulding assumes that they are using a thermoplastic polymer. My first instinct would be that a thermoplastic would be a bad choice to contain hot, pressurised gasses.
    2
  336.  @GracesGarden80  You make valid points. The radar is good and it might be possible to match the ships system with the SM-6? missile for ABM use. I have often mused on the possibility of a UK "Aegis ashore" capability using the T45's radar system; there is one land based radar for trials purposes, so it should be possible. We have virtually no long range air defence missile capability to counter submarine launched cruise missiles as it stands.
    2
  337. Give the man a break, he's retreating as fast as he can.
    2
  338. No, reaffirming that the troops are there to defend Poland not attack Russia.
    2
  339.  Thebossman  No worries mate.
    2
  340.  Thebossman  I only said that it is not that simple to defeat Stinger with a flare.
    2
  341.  @ScienceChap  Then you know that it is the man and not the missile that you try to "counter" with a system like Starstreak. As for Stinger. Yes it is simple to use, but its seeker has come a long way since the "home onto the hottest spot" seekers of early days.
    2
  342.  @Retrosicotte  Not that simple, Stinger is multi-spectral.
    2
  343.  @davidhouseman4328  You can, if you have AWACS up 24/7. What worries me is the surprise cruise missile strike on our radar sites from an SSGN. Even if they are detected there is no way that a QRA could be on station in time to intercept. Then we are blind and reliant upon NATO AWACS cover.
    2
  344.  @GGG19872  A modified Type 26 is certainly one of the hulls under consideration. Reducing the size of the flight deck and hanger is another option to create more space. A new, slightly larger hull design would be my preferred option, but I just want a ship that works and provides the best possible protection to our sailors.
    2
  345. Fingers crossed the improvement package will fix the problems with the T45s engines.
    2
  346.  @romeisfallingagain  Almost 5'9" so hardly short.
    2
  347. Heightist
    2
  348. Well that is true. If a manned alien vessel did make it to earth their technology would be so far advanced we would be slaughtered in any conflict.
    2
  349. Download an ad blocker.
    2
  350.  @solariss452  Alas, probably true, but it should happen.
    2
  351.  @VanderlyndenJengold  You were still wrong. As for the AEW Nimrod the problem was not the airframe but integration of the radar. BAe were attempting to produce a new type of platform utilising two radars mounted in the nose and tail of the aircraft. Had it worked, the design would have eliminated one of the drawbacks of the E-3 type; namely a radar blind spot beneath the aircraft. The AEW Nimrod failed because they aimed too high.
    2
  352.  @VanderlyndenJengold  No, that was MR4, the AEW Nimrod was 30 years ago.
    2
  353.  @Unknown_Ooh  Manufactured in 1989 and been in RAF service since 1991.
    2
  354. NATO
    2
  355.  @samuel10125  Corruption bolstered by religion, a deadly partnership.
    2
  356. Biden is lucky if he can remember where Afghanistan is today.
    2
  357.  @tams805  That's why I would like to hear opinions from the pilots who fly the missions where the C130 might offer an advantage over larger aircraft.
    2
  358.  @bthestigman9667  I am only responding to suggestions that the UK is about to take the C130 out of service and rely on a mix of C17 and A400 aircraft.
    2
  359. Yes, you are.
    2
  360.  @mostevil1082  25mm gun pods.
    2
  361. Yes Ivan
    2
  362.  @crystalawen  Bit hard. I haven't had a working tv since 2011.
    2
  363.  @crystalawen  Well your ideas make about as much sense as belief in a flat earth.
    2
  364.  @crystalawen  I suppose you think the earth is flat too?
    2
  365.  @crystalawen  Just grow up.
    2
  366. Did you not notice the gaps between each person, or hear the explanation?
    2
  367. I think that attitude is a more recent thing; from people with no close relatives who lived through the war. That said, fighter jocks have always stolen the limelight (no disrespect intended).
    2
  368. At least that particular politician is a reservist.
    2
  369. They cannot take cameras (or any electrical equipment) into explosives areas unless they have been modified and approved for use in explosive environments.
    2
  370. Yes Boris
    2
  371. Produced from coal.
    2
  372.  @johnlee3899  Return of the press gang ;)
    2
  373.    It is true I have never served, but I was MoD civvie and have worked with many who have. Why would encouraging someone not to give up on an ambition after a setback be deemed as negative?
    2
  374.  @moritamikamikara3879  It's a US weapon, so yes.
    2
  375. That's why it actually works and doesn't end up as a heap of smoking wreckage like S400.
    2
  376.  @GracesGarden80  Maybe if the European members of NATO had met their obligations Trump (and previous US administrations) would have less to complain about.
    2
  377. The phosphors in early night vision systems produced green light.
    2
  378. Do you require any more to bash a keyboard Mr Warrior?
    2
  379.  @Randomstuffs261  Good luck. Are they throwing in any free Harpoons? ;)
    2
  380. If you are right then women should make up the special forces units. You think 1/1000 males are good enough?
    2
  381. Have you heard of Reaper and Hellfire? Just a tad more capable than an ISIS VBIED.
    2
  382. Support to Norway.
    2
  383. I hope not, I'm happy for my tax money to be used to help Ukraine.
    2
  384. That's never going to happen for many reasons, not just cost. Another batch of Astutes would be welcome though.
    2
  385.  @abrahamdozer6273  They were defeated by their lack of access to oil reserves.
    2
  386.  @goranmarkovic6002  We are talking about the Mig 25 back in the 1980's. The only means of delivering a wide area EMP pulse was a high altitude nuclear explosion. Even now, start knocking out long range radar systems with EMP and the only conclusion is that you are about to launch an ICBM strike.
    2
  387.  @MrBlaxjax  I know we will pay either way, that's not my concern. My concern is that money is not taken from the defence budget.
    2
  388. @SplurbBat Yawn.
    2
  389.  @davefarmery8180  Nothing involving weaponry is a case of "Just" I'm afraid, especially when it involves modifications to explosive trains.
    2
  390.  @davefarmery8180  "Just" sigh.
    2
  391. I would assume that IFF software etc would be removed at least.
    2
  392.  @trs4u  I was thinking the same thing. Some vehicles are fitted with hostile fire indicators that use sound detection. Whether they would be capable of detecting drones though is beyond my knowledge.
    2
  393.  @jb894  Repeat, in what way?
    2
  394.  @Then.72  Again, powering a vessel with a nuclear reactor has pros and cons. Nothing about them prevents the vessel engaging successfully in combat. Whatever the type of vessel, the aim is not to get hit.
    2
  395.  @Then.72  In what way? They are perfectly "war capable"; they are just too damn expensive to build and operate and offer too few advantages over cheaper, conventionally powered ships.
    2
  396.  Michael Pezzullo  You do have it on copy and paste.
    2
  397.  Michael Pezzullo  Do you have that comment on copy and paste?
    2
  398. There are no Astute's for them to buy, so you are talking nonsense
    2
  399.  @saltymonke3682  Practical reason that the UK does not have the capacity to build more boats for Australia and they will have to wait a long time before the infrastructure and expertise is in place to build nukes themselves.
    2
  400. To be honest I think the Aussies will go with a US boat for practical reasons.
    2
  401.  Michael Pezzullo  Flying a few old Harriers they bought from us (as your Marine Corp did btw)? Your own navy admit that they like having a Type 45 with them for air cover as it has superior radar to the Burke.
    2
  402.  @haruchai  Waste: Reprocess to only fission products, then deep burial in mines or preferably boreholes. Accidents: Fukushima might have had some local environmental impact but no one died as a result (one worker may have died from secondary cancer, though this is not proven). A modern design would not have suffered the same failure under those conditions. Nuclear remains one of the safest forms of energy production.
    2
  403. That would be seen as use of WMD and likely to draw an appropriate response.
    2
  404. Molten salt reactors are nowhere near developed enough for use on submarines.
    2
  405.  @KIM-JONG-UN-84  Hardly, the Astute is still on its initial production run.
    2
  406. Scale.
    2
  407.  @leiaorgana5098  Potentially safer, yes.
    2
  408. Hydrogen is not a power source, unless you mean fusion?
    2
  409.  @rattusfinkus  Or you could just build a nuclear power plant and have 24/7 power available for 40+ years.
    2
  410.  @rattusfinkus  So in the morning after a wind-less night, everyone finds their car battery is flat as the grid has used the power stored in them.
    2
  411.  @rattusfinkus  Where will all the minerals come from for those millions of EV batteries, PV cells and RE magnets? You cannot drive your EV and power the grid at the same time. Countries require TWh of storage, not MWh. By the time you have started to put that in place nuclear will be available.
    2
  412.  @rattusfinkus  Ah, it will be there soon. Isn't that your argument against nuclear?
    2
  413.  @rattusfinkus  Which is why they are perfect for combined power and process heat applications. It also makes far more sense to produce hydrogen from spare nuclear capacity than it does to install excess renewable capacity to produce hydrogen to then burn it to make electricity when the RE is offline.
    2
  414.  @rattusfinkus  But there is sod all storage, no where near what would be required for grid scale operation.
    2
  415.  @rattusfinkus  It's better than no electricity, or electricity from coal and gas when the renewables are offline. Also SMR's such as the XE100 will be able to give process heat direct for certain industrial applications, which is more efficient that converting electrical energy back into heat.
    2
  416.  @margaretarmstrong2445  They do yes. At one point last week the UK was receiving 3GW from France as it was night and wind was not performing.
    2
  417.  @rattusfinkus  Puts you in the SMR market, especially if you are an industry with high power/heat demand.
    2
  418. ​ @rattusfinkus  We are generating nuclear power, so we sort of do have the infrastructure to look after it. Most delays are indeed due to planning approvals etc, which is why other countries manage to build quickly while the West does not.
    2
  419.  @tassied12  Cost is always a factor, even for the military. Cost isn't the only factor however. For example: For every 24GWh of solar electricity generated you need 2GW of installed capacity and 12GWh of storage. Obviously based on an average 12 hours of daylight and 100% efficiency. Then land area and resource cost/availability also need to be factored in. It's not as straightforward as simply looking at the cost per MWh to generate. Every country and/or region requires their own solution based upon local conditions.
    2
  420.  @buildmotosykletist1987  Not so. The Rolls Royce SMR is not in production, though it could be with funding (The PWR3 is military only). You may be correct on US reactors, there are so many project ongoing in the US. The Chinese SMR is at Hainan and began construction in 2021. They also refer to their high temperature gas reactor as an SMR, but I am not sure at this point if it counts as a production or research reactor.
    2
  421. Just one thing, not all SMRs are the same. The ones planned for near term use are mainly based on conventional PWR technology (e.g. the Rolls Royce reactors).The ones offering advantages such as enhanced safety, waste burning etc are based on alternative technologies and will not be available for a few years yet.
    2
  422.  @Poorlineforeva  They have existed for decades, but only for military use.
    2
  423.  @rickbart1  Which is why I said that moving to clean energy must be done at a pace which ensures that energy availability and price are not adversely affected.
    2
  424.  @patmooney9024  Keep taking the meds
    2
  425.  @patmooney9024  Not missing the point at all. The whole world, outside of national airspace is free for all users.
    2
  426. We British used to be renowned for our ability to laugh at ourselves, but we are falling victim to the same rubbish.
    2
  427. It's not either/or, go for a mix. There is huge potential for solar generation in Aus, either PV or collection based. Combine that with molten salt storage and you have a mostly reliable power system. Back that up with molten salt based nuclear and you are 100% clean energy capable.
    2
  428.  @oldtimers6460  Currently generating almost 4GW of electricity from nuclear, 12.5% of demand. UK is also exporting 3GW to Europe.
    2
  429. Get them from where exactly and where would you find the crews to operate them?
    2
  430.  @biggie9935  Actually you did say that "We got things flying around in our air space that cant be explained."
    2
  431. If that were the case then I am all for it. If they start picking quarrels with races capable of making it to earth, it is only going to end one way.
    2
  432.  @rameshpudhucode6862  We have just built two rather nice fishing boats thanks, 65,000t each.
    2
  433.  @slobodanpaunovic3834  Four Astute and two T-boats in service, one Astute working up to replace one of the T's. Two more Astute's under construction.
    2
  434. Young woman videoed dancing - shock, horror!
    2
  435. Mining coal generates radioactive waste. Mining rare earth metals for wind turbines generates radioactive waste. Unlike nuclear industry however, the waste from these operations is largely uncontrolled.
    2
  436. Well that is where it came from.
    2
  437.  @dragonslayer7587  I thought you were implying that it was another 737-MAX. My bad.
    2
  438. Phase out coal, bring in uranium, keep your grid stable.
    2
  439. If Trump was holding documents pertaining to human intelligence sources, not only could he go down, he should go down.
    2
  440. Still under development
    2
  441.  @rattusfinkus  Word salad.
    2
  442.  @rattusfinkus  The storage is too expensive (if you are talking batteries) and untested for other options. Then huge overcapacity. Now a "smarter grid", who pays for all this? Renewables are suddenly not looking so cheap.
    2
  443.  @rattusfinkus  People claim that, yet the storage is not there to back it up. Lots of ideas for the future, just like arguments against nuclear.
    2
  444.  @tassied12  No, it has not. They tried back in the 1960's, but the project was abandoned. Interest only really revived about a decade ago.
    2
  445.  @tassied12  How much installed capacity?
    2
  446.  @thegeneralist7527  If you wish to be a pedant then so be it.
    2
  447.  @thegeneralist7527  I believe in science. The same science that eradicated smallpox by vaccination.
    2
  448.  @YA-qj8fx  Case in point - Flat Earth Focker Flat earther and "Convid" denier. He refused the vaccine and eventually fell ill with symptoms compatible with Covid. He posts a video online from his vehicle while sick, complaining about some guy telling him he should seek treatment. Beginning of November he post another video from his vehicle talking about his upcoming road trip across Canada to meet fellow flat earthers and covid deniers and asking for help with accommodation. He is still self medicating in the belief that he has "a bug". Within 36 hours this man, planning a trip to meet as many people as he could, was dead.
    2
  449.  @YA-qj8fx  No, I am saying you are stupid because you fell for a conspiracy theory.
    2
  450. Nothing is "compromised" by a recce asset if you know when it will be arriving. It may be inconvenient but it can be managed.
    2
  451. Go green, go blue?
    2
  452. NZ has declared itself nuclear-free, they are not likely to be operating nuclear powered subs any time soon. Pity the Canucks haven't joined though.
    2
  453. You saying that installation and maintenance of a power distribution costs nothing?
    2
  454. ​ @darylephillips6778 If you choose a totally new design it can take a while for sure. So go with something like an AP1000.
    2
  455.  @froggy0162  Do try thinking, or better yet try reading. The vast majority of the water in turbine system is recycled, only a small proportion escapes. You may also have noticed that coal fired power stations (so common in Australia) also emit steam from their cooling towers? Traditional nuclear plants do require a lot of water to keep the reactors cool, but they are not the only design available or under development. Gas, molten salt and liquid metal cooled designs can vastly reduce the quantity of water required or even eliminate it altogether. As for turbines there are options such as supercritical CO2 that both do away with water and are more efficient than traditional designs
    2
  456.  @froggy0162  Again there are alternative designs that do not use water. With respect to steam turbines however, loss of water would mean loss of power, not loss of the reactor.
    2
  457. ​ @froggy0162  There are alternative reactor designs available that are not water cooled.
    2
  458. Why?
    2
  459.  @kennethgoldston4643  Not so. There were zero direct deaths attributable to the Fukushima accident. Around fifty workers received radiation doses above the prescribed limits of which one has since died from cancer. Around 2000 people are believed to have died from complications associated with the evacuation of the surrounding areas, though the vast majority of evacuations were completely unnecessary.
    2
  460.  @pwillis1589  Because I am not agreeing with you. There is a huge difference between what can be done "in theory" and what can be done in practice. Countries lacking an established nuclear infrastructure are going to select the simplest, most cost effective systems to operate. These will be the highly modular systems with replaceable, sealed cores. The operators of such systems will have no requirement to access the fuel, and thus no infrastructure in place to do so. Zero proliferation risk and low regulatory costs. Countries with an established nuclear infrastructure, the ones who will be producing and reprocessing fuel and waste, already have the necessary regulatory systems in place. Is that more expensive? Yes, which is why most countries will choose the first option. So who is going to make the weapons you are so concerned about? By orders of magnitude the most likely candidate is a nation state, though you dismissed that option. An unscrupulous commercial operator? Don't you think the National and IAEA inspectors are going to notice the additional facility necessary to remove and handle material from a reactor core? If it is pretty much impossible for a nation state to hide a weapons program under the guise of a civil power program, how is a private company going to pull it off?
    2
  461.  @pwillis1589  No, they could not. An operator could not remove material from a breeder blanket without anyone knowing. For one thing the specialist equipment required to do it would have to be present . Not all thorium reactors have to breed their own fuel, they could be pre-loaded with the right fuel prior to delivery. Those that are designed as breeders and do have the capability to produce U233, will be highly regulated by the IAEA; just as re-processing and enrichment facilities are today.
    2
  462.  @diceman199  The iron ore has still to be reduced and a plentiful supply of green hydrogen is required if not using coke.
    2
  463. It can be done (at great expense) but will always require a source of carbon.
    2
  464. Oh dear, another chemtrail Muppet.
    2
  465. No they don't.
    2
  466.  @philmurdoch1203  At the time they went for a non nuclear boat, so the point is moot.
    2
  467. In theory, but that depends on capacity at Barrow. The yard was building three vessels consecutively and there are only two under construction at the moment. However, the yard has begun construction of the first two Dreadnought class missile boats. Although construction is at an early stage these boats will be much larger than the Astutes.
    2
  468.  @rattusfinkus  Try looking for sources offering balance, not those who are pro one side or the other.
    2
  469.  @rattusfinkus  You think I only obtain information from the likes of Bolt?
    2
  470. Why do so many in the UK rely on gas for heating their homes? Oh yes, it's a lot cheaper than electricity. But hey, let's go "Green" and burn the gas in a power station then use the generated electricity to heat our homes. You couldn't make it up.
    2
  471. @Democratic Socialists of Australia No amount of increase will alter the fact that to make intermittent renewables work the UK must install both generation over capacity and a lot of storage. This, along with increased power transfer installation/maintenance, eats into the claims of low cost.
    2
  472. Mad Vlad is becoming more like Hitler every day.
    2
  473. He is responding to the report released by an enquiry set up to examine the BBCs conduct in this matter.
    2
  474.  @anderander5662  Same here. I draw no comfort from attacking the BBC, I would happily pay my licence fee if they returned to their roots.
    2
  475. It pains me to attack the BBC as I have always supported them and still support the idea. Unfortunately they have succumbed to the disease that plagues journalism in general; the journalist is more important than the story. You cannot hold the moral high ground when you engage in illegal acts to further your personal career or political ideology.
    2
  476. Yes, the coal and gas used when renewables are offline.
    2
  477. I think you may have underestimated the GWh figure, did you mean terawatt's?
    2
  478.  @mycamguy  No, I was responding to your point about Carrington events. Once a reactor has been shut down it only requires power for cooling and that can be provided by diesel generators.
    2
  479.  @buildmotosykletist1987  No. I have not followed the thorium developments as, like you, I feel uranium is the more likely fuel for use in the short term.
    2
  480.  @tezzo55  My choice of ozone depletion was a real world example of how humans can affect climate change. In this case both negatively and positively. Australians could have had "actual heat right now" if a nuclear/renewables strategy had been followed decades ago; just look at France and Sweden for examples. Australia does not have to turn off its coal stations overnight, but it should move to a more environmentally sustainable model and nuclear is one of the options available to achieve that goal.
    2
  481.  @savagegfry  Specialist reactor. Early reactors were in the 30MW range, but they were not SMR's. What needs to be built now are reactors in the 1-1.5GW range. That technology is mature and more easily licensed. Licenses are key.
    2
  482. You have huge uranium deposits.
    2
  483.  @tassied12  Plenty of new build nuclear in the offing. France has finally ended its flirtation with the greens and is serious about nuclear again.
    2
  484. Absolutely appalling. We are seeing the same support for barbarism here in the UK.
    2
  485. Listen to the people.
    2
  486. Almost as naïve as expecting to replace fossil fuel use with renewables overnight.
    2
  487.  @darrylrowe8193  Sorry my reply was supposed to be aimed at Mark, I must have miss-clicked.
    2
  488. How did you arrive at the conclusion that "Conservatives" are supposed to be hard right? They are not and never have been.
    2
  489.  @NoRegertsHere  Having worked in the public sector, I do not.
    2
  490. Renewables are the best way we have to make rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (or airborne pollution if you prefer a deniers option). Nuclear is the way to go (if a country has no access to easy hydro or geothermal) to back up that RE when it is offline.
    2
  491. Given that Australia has uranium resources it is madness not to use them. Go with current tech for now but keep the waste. Once liquid fuelled SMRs come onstream switch over to them. By building a few fast neutron reactors you can even burn up most of your "waste" from the earlier reactors.
    2
  492.  Vince James  He was being sarcastic.
    2
  493. It's discouraging that people are willing to vote for either candidate. America deserves better than a senile old man or a convicted criminal.
    2
  494. Not a lot, they are sited in huge concrete boxes.
    2
  495.  @MolecularArts  I wouldn't know I'm afraid, it's not my field. The records show it as a death, so it will always be quoted as such regardless. Your argument is solid though, there have been very few attributable deaths to nuclear power when compared to other energy sources.
    2
  496. Yes, a technology that was abandoned years ago.
    2
  497.  @DanielSMatthews  Blowing stuff up is fun, but alas mostly rare.
    2
  498.  @DanielSMatthews  I don't have your experience, but have an interest in military and naval matters (former defence scientist).
    2
  499. There are a number of reactor options available. As an example: Korean APR1400 built for the UAE Barakah-1 2012 - 2020 (first criticality) 2021 (operational) Barakah-2 2013 - 2021 (first criticality) 2022 (operational) Barakah-3 2014 - 2022 (first criticality) 2023 (operational) Barakah-4 2015 - 2024 (first criticality) Cost IRO $25bn for ~ 5.6 GW of power (likely 5.2 GW in practice) Other options include the AP1000, EPR2, CANDU and smaller units such as the BWRX300.....
    2
  500. Australia does have its own subs, they merely wish to upgrade to nuclear power. f
    2
  501. Looked more like the laugh of someone thinking "Oh God, another conspiracy theorist" to me.
    2
  502.  @tivmego  I don't lose a second over it thanks.
    2
  503. If she visits I will scweem and scweem...! Talk about acting like petulant children.
    2
  504. @Dick Dastardly By limiting supply the US will force world prices up as Europeans fight for fuel on the open market. Great for US oil producers, not so much for US consumers.
    2
  505. Given Australia's reserves of uranium a mix of solar, wind and nuclear must be the way to go. The country could meet its targets and be self sufficient in clean energy.
    2
  506.  @JR-km4gt  I would have no issue living near to a nuclear reactor.
    2
  507. Except there is, deep storage. Although in this case surface storage pending re-use in future Gen IV reactors is more applicable.
    2
  508. If you believe in climate change - CO2 and pollution If you don't - pollution Either way, phasing out coal usage for energy production makes sense. Coal extraction is not going to end any time soon, there are just too many other uses for it.
    2
  509.  @MrVaticanRag  Yes it does move on, but are you really saying that you would be happy for Indonesia, a country with practically no experience of running nuclear reactors, to license a completely new design? MSR's are fundamentally safer than PWR designs, but they still have to be designed and built correctly.
    2
  510. The difference is the length of time it will take to gain an operating license. The RR system is based on proven technology for which there is a wealth of knowledge and experience (though you might want to look up the differences between Gen II and Gen III technology). As such, it should be relatively straightforward to demonstrate compliance with current licensing legislation. Molten salt reactors, for all their advantages going forward, will require new licensing procedures and new test regimes to prove compliance.
    2
  511.  @davegoldspink5354  Correct. Coastal nuclear stations often have their own desalination plant onsite for this reason.
    2
  512.  @GirtByIdiots  Easier to move electricity than water.
    2
  513. @joe krupa Nuclear waste has never killed anyone, I would happily live next to a waste cask. However, modern fast spectrum designs are capable of burning the waste from early generation reactors and removing the more hazardous, long lived elements.
    2
  514.  @ralphmogridge8364  Not so, the US is looking to reopen closed reactors.
    2
  515.  @ralphmogridge8364  Countries such as?
    2
  516. It's video footage, not comment.
    2
  517.  @limedickandrew6016  Russia had zero right to invade Ukraine.
    2
  518. The US has been by far the largest donor of weaponry and other supplies to Ukraine.
    2
  519. Don't take everything the MSM and mainstream political parties say as gospel, they are running scared of Farage and the Reform party. His actual point was that Putin was able to use the EU/NATO expansion eastwards to justify his invasion of Ukraine to his own people. That is not the same as saying it was all the West's fault.
    2
  520. Looks like they hit an S400 as well.
    2
  521. Afraid to bring Putin bad news? Another similarity with a certain Austrian corporal then.
    2
  522.  @rorychivers8769  Mostly in either non-combat roles or in areas where there was little fighting.
    2
  523.  @sethanix3969  Let me know when you have the raw materials to build al that renewable generation and storage.
    2
  524. In a word, corruption.
    2
  525. No, they are not breeder reactors.
    2
  526.  @budgeman218  Maybe I was a little harsh on Boris to be fair. Cameron and Clegg (as usual) were most to blame as plans were already available to them and they did sod all. We (The UK) must stop the never ending court battles over planning permission and start building, Sizewell C is still not 100% free from objections. Not only does it delay construction but it wastes billions of pounds and puts off investors.
    2
  527.  @Jon-es-i6o  Unfortunately they did not give us a referendum when they decided to make it the European Union. All countries had to agree and most put the question to their people. Major decided he knew best (or thought he would lose the vote) and refused to hold one.
    2
  528. Hyperbole, much.
    2
  529.  @cashkitty3472  I also have no working TV and rely on YT for most of my viewing. However, I still watch the odd breaking news story live, an occasional England match etc. I take it none of the "non payers" ever watch GB News live?
    2
  530. We operated the first commercial power reactor in the world.
    2
  531.  @SpareSomeChange8080  But it makes for good hysteria, who needs facts?
    2
  532. Wanting to move to cleaner energy sources is common sense, it's destroying the world economy to do it that is the problem. He spoke a lot of sense on that issue.
    2
  533.  @8xRedMonkeyx8  I wouldn't test that in the courts if I were you.
    2
  534.  @icarusfalls9315  Nope. Vaccines pre-empt your immune system so that it reacts more quickly when infected. You still catch it but your body destroys it before it has time to build up to dangerous levels. While it is in your system it still replicates, therefore you can still spread it. However, since your body is fighting it from day one, the number of replicated strands produced is very much lower and the likelihood of you infecting someone else is also much lower.
    2
  535. Sod them you pass it on too though eh?
    2
  536. That will be the cluster and incendiary weapons Russia used on civilian areas in Syria I suppose?
    1
  537.  StopFollowingTheClowns-sx5zn  We will see.
    1
  538.  @mrg4847  Different type of warfare, that's what you face after winning on the battlefield.
    1
  539.  @a3103-j7g  That your best?
    1
  540.  @brostenen  I wouldn't want to disagree with an expert
    1
  541. It's not as simple as you suggest. Wiping memory is one thing, having a system in place to ensure data cannot be recovered is a whole lot more complicated.
    1
  542. Goodbye Iran
    1
  543.  @timbosboudreaus7996  Evidence?
    1
  544. Russia/USSR has a good record of self terminating submarines.
    1
  545. I don't think he actually owns them, they go with the post.
    1
  546. Let's be clear. Russia has more nuclear weapons because they are allowed to have more under the START agreement. Why? Because more of their weapons are land based and therefore more vulnerable to a first strike. Both Russia and NATO have more than enough nuclear weapons to wipe each other out.
    1
  547.  @fjellyo3261  In this case yes, as the reactors are of Russian design. Future reactors will not have that limitation.
    1
  548.  @mandarinandthetenrings2201  They may not be as advanced technologically, but they can produce the numbers and have the will to allocate resources the west do not appear willing to match.
    1
  549.  @mandarinandthetenrings2201  He knows exactly what he is talking about and is correct. Shortages may indeed be common and not just in Germany, but for the government/military leadership to run down ammunition stocks to the point where ships have to sail into a conflict zone with insufficient ammunition is as unprofessional as it gets. There might be some excuse if this were weeks into a conflict, but this is the navy's first deployment.
    1
  550. Of course he does, he knows he cannot win a conventional war against NATO.
    1
  551. Because they are held independently and not committed to NATO.
    1
  552. Because it is aimed at a foreign market not an internal German one.
    1
  553. How many of the "dead" who signed up for him were formerly soldiers?
    1
  554. Stop with the "hypersonic" hype ffs. All ballistic missile that have flight profiles close to orbital are hypersonic in their terminal phase. The space shuttle was hypersonic during re-entry.
    1
  555.  @fafski1199  People who heavily mod games are no more "stupid" than people who fill their cases with RGB. They are looking for a specific gaming experience. All they are asking is for reviewers to consider them rather than covering half a dozen more popular games producing near identical test results.
    1
  556. Of course the moon is made of cheese, Wallace & Gromit proved it.
    1
  557. I am definitely in the "All content, but I have little interest in Stalingrad" faction I'm afraid. I feel bad that this is the case as it is obvious how much work goes into the Battlestorm videos, but I have never had much interest in the Eastern campaign. That said, do whatever you feel is necessary to achieve a good work/health balance. Best wishes going forward.
    1
  558. Cannot agree, especially with respect to defence. What makes you think a "private army" would act in the best interests of the public and not the company/cooperative/whatever who raised them? How would a system of small competing private armies, even assuming that they were acting in support of the population, fare against a state with a single army using common methods and equipment? Their logistics would be crap and they would be slaughtered is how.
    1
  559. Hitler's saviour could have been the British suing for peace; assuming that he was prepared to purchase oil/petrol from Venezuela and Iran.
    1
  560. You should stop drinking the mass produced rubbish and investigate your many excellent independent breweries :)
    1
  561. I would buy that as a T-shirt
    1
  562.  Monster Hunter  What? My comment was 11 months ago.
    1
  563. "The atomic bombings of Japan are considered by many to have ended WW2, this is partially correct" No, it is correct. Whatever else occurred in the run up to the final surrender, it was the two A-bombs and the prospect of more to follow, that convinced the Emperor and cabinet to surrender.
    1
  564. I had no difficulty whatsoever.
    1
  565.  @billycaspersghost7528  Age 😂
    1
  566.  @billycaspersghost7528  😂😂 Oops!
    1
  567.  @philiploveswatcheswhiskies9832  Ask the French to provide air cover.
    1
  568. Not a problem with modern engine reliability.
    1
  569.  @johanberglund6240  That ability is an expediency for wartime operations, not something you want to undertake routinely.
    1
  570. The trouble with F18s is that they will likely have to be new. There are few examples available on the second hand market and they are mostly old and have low residual airframe life. Old USN examples exist, but carrier life takes a massive toll on airframes.
    1
  571.  @Brian-om2hh  Speak for yourself, mine sit under it! 😂😂
    1
  572. I doubt it would have mattered what aircraft undertook the spotting role, the Germans had greater numbers of fighters and more experienced pilots at the start of the war.
    1
  573. Bloody RAF should never be entrusted with old aircraft, why did this not end its life in a museum? Reminds me of the AEW Shackleton that ended its life on the Valley fire training grounds 🥵
    1
  574.  @richardvernon317  It was designed for the over water mission, in which it excelled.
    1
  575.  CH0L3R1C  Most likely will be the Su-24 as that is a strike aircraft.
    1
  576.  @stevemc6010  Looks like an etch primer
    1
  577. Downvote for irritating AI voice
    1
  578. Disgraceful act. I fear for the US the way its politics are becoming so polarised. The UK is going the same way.
    1
  579. Sad but true, politicians are not held to the same standards as public servants (Civil servants to me as I am British).
    1
  580.  @fredschnerbert1238  More likely Taiwan reacts to some flight anomaly by firing on the aircraft and sparking a conflict. Each time the fighters approach the Taiwanese do not know if this is just another incursion, or if the planes are armed and about to attack. Nerves strain!
    1
  581.  @icu17siberia  The UK is building quite a bit at this point, just too slowly. Two Astute SSNs nearing completion, Work beginning on four Dreadnought SSBNs, Two Type 26 frigates at an advanced stage, two Type 31 frigates underway.
    1
  582. Launch sites are all very well and good luck to them, but the future is in manufacturing. The guy was correct when he said that a new industrial revolution is around the corner and the UK should concentrate on being a major player in that revolution. Leave the bulk of the launch capability to those best placed to do it.
    1
  583. Lao Tzu forgot about politicians.
    1
  584. Putin doesn't care. Russian leaders have never given a toss how many ordinary soldiers die.
    1
  585. They issue them to stop the sort of press hounding Diana was subjected to.
    1
  586.  @jonathanmarshall9992  Unlikely, I am British.
    1
  587. He might, but he will still be a bad president.
    1
  588. No.
    1
  589. We have seen a new leader, an unelected one.
    1
  590.  @someguy-k2h  As I said before, go and do some research. You are making yourself look foolish.
    1
  591.  @mpwaterhouse  Is that unexpected when the organisation was know as the European Economic Community? It did not become the European Union until 1993, an act which required the unanimous approval of all member states. John Major, fearing the public would not back such a union, refused to hold a public referendum in the UK.
    1
  592.  @andreassumerauer5028  No worries, apologies if I came across as similarly harsh. I was too young to vote in the 1975 referendum (to remain in the EEC) but a 14 year old me would have voted to remain. I do not however support the EU because I do not like the way it has evolved from a trading block into a supra-state. I much prefer smaller communities working towards common goals in their own way. I do regret that the split became so acrimonious; we share many similar goals, if not the path to achieve them.
    1
  593.  @saltmerchant749  Wrong again. The EU was not formed until 1993
    1
  594. ​ @someguy-k2h  Wrong. Formation of the EU relied on the unanimous agreement of all member states.
    1
  595.  @saltmerchant749  Again, do some research. The EU was not formed until 1993.
    1
  596.  @ScottishRoss27  Good luck persuading Spain to allow you in.
    1
  597.  @ScottishRoss27  How are you going to protect that zone?
    1
  598.  St Stephen  Agreed. Leopard 2 is a better choice as it is more widely used and thus more easily supported.
    1
  599.  @DerDop  I believe that its twelve.
    1
  600.  @ricky1231  617sqn is Scotch mist is it? 208 NAS should be standing up soon too.
    1
  601. We do, but in very limited numbers (one unit on the Falklands and one in Poland atm). We have nothing to take out long range ballistic missiles.
    1
  602.  @kirishima638  Yawn. Our borders were open before Brexit and produce was "checked" by the manufacturer not the EU.
    1
  603. Not sure what you mean? It's true that there is very little in the way of ground based air defence for the UK. There are a few Sky Sabre units (One in the Falklands, one currently deployed to Poland), which are good but of limited range and capability. Then we are down to short range, man portable weapons. There is limited capability if a Type 45 destroyer happens to be in port and crewed, but even that is currently only able to intercept short range ballistic missiles. The UK possesses nothing with the capability of the Israeli Arrow 2/3, SM3, Patriot PAC3 or THAAD.
    1
  604.  @ehpa9047  The HAR is probably the least "Offensive" version so they might be suggesting that to diffuse possible tensions with Russia. P3 armed with excoct or Harpoon would be a step up, though I'm not sure how long they would last over the Black Sea.
    1
  605. 90% sounds bloody marvellous if you are talking about nukes.
    1
  606.  @GeneralMilosivic-db9io  Israel will NOT use nuclear weapons.
    1
  607. Your reason for dismissing the MP5 (poor performance vs body armour) completely misses the point. In a hostage situation you don't want a round that can defeat body armour unless you know that the bad guys are wearing it. Even then it may not be the best option. A full up 5.56 at close range will penetrate (some) body armour, but it can also pass through an unarmoured body. While a 9mm will just about penetrate a breeze block wall a 5.56 will do so with ease. TLDR in close quarters within a building, you have more chance of accidentally killing hostages with a 5.56mm round than you do with a 9mm low velocity round.
    1
  608.  @dsd333d  All supressed weapons work more effectively with sub sonic ammo; with the possible exception of the Welrod and it's mate, who were only ever intended to be used for a few rounds.
    1
  609. MP5SD, my weapon of choice for the zombie apocalypse 😉
    1
  610. In the Zombie apocalypse I would go for an MP5SD; if you have to shoot, do it as quietly as possible.
    1
  611. We currently have zero ABM capability. The T45 can track a ballistic missile, but carries no weapons to intercept it. We would be lucky if we had one T45 available even if we had a missile to fire :(
    1
  612. You decoy torpedoes, for which it carries the Surface Ship Torpedo Defence (SSTD)
    1
  613. Yeah, they chose a US designed intercooler which was not up to the job.
    1
  614.  @davidrobertsemail  Although the primary weapon, the SM2 missile, does not have active terminal guidance and is launched in pairs.
    1
  615. All depends on the drone; how large, what is it carrying?
    1
  616.  @ariaspes3842  Flying to and bombing a predetermined point is neither difficult nor new, the Germans were doing it in1944.
    1
  617.  @philmann3476  At present AI is not developed sufficiently for full autonomous deployment. That's without the ethical considerations of allowing AI independent authority to kill.
    1
  618.  @1chish  It's not a bad helo, but not suited to the RAF; who might be called upon to support ops in any location. Fine for the navy.
    1
  619.  @1chish  Only that it was given as the reason the Merlin was withdrawn from Afghanistan.
    1
  620.  @1chish  RAF lost their Merlins due to their poor performance under hot and high conditions.
    1
  621. Keep safe lads and lasses.
    1
  622. Spot on. If the UK does nothing else it should increase our ammunition and supply stocks. A few more fighter pilots wouldn't go amiss either.
    1
  623.  SPECIAL MILITARY OPERATION  Based on Putin's own line of argument, any invasion of the UK could result in the loss of Moscow and possibly one or two other major cities.
    1
  624.  @RAIDER-xq4pt  They may fall somewhere, not necessarily on target.
    1
  625.  @deusvult6920  I think you will find it was a very real war. Limited in it's scope maybe, but very real.
    1
  626.  @bogeyonanostrilhair9568  Unfortunately I can no longer see your original comment for context, though I fear that we may be arguing through a misinterpretation of each others points. I am British and fully understand how the British economy was transformed during the war - my parents lived through it. Perhaps the most impressive statistic of all is the quantity of goods the country was able to supply to Russia, whilst at the same time fighting for its own survival. Interesting fact, rationing was actually more severe in the years immediately following the war than during it for some goods. My response you your original post was aimed more at the Britain of today. I doubt very much that 2022 Britain has the capacity to transform itself into a war economy in the way that it did in the 1930/40's.
    1
  627.  @bogeyonanostrilhair9568  Not sure I understand your comment. I meant that we no longer possess the means of production we once had.
    1
  628.  @bogeyonanostrilhair9568  Britain had a large industrial sector back then.
    1
  629.  @Scaleyback317  Didn't Belgium refuse to supply shells to the UK?
    1
  630.  @coldpllay  Not yet, it was a tongue in cheek comment.
    1
  631.  @jjthomas2297  I am fully aware of the money and effort that goes into weapons development. I am also fully aware of the amount wasted on programs that either never see the light of day or come in late and/or over budget.
    1
  632. If you are going to make a comparison with weapons programs, then it would be the medical equipment used by the NHS, not the organisation itself. There is no shortage of long term R&D for medical equipment. Your NHS analogy would be with the Armed Forces themselves and no, neither are blessed with reliable long term planning.
    1
  633.  @robertthomas1590  While amassing offensive armaments.
    1
  634.  @davidhouseman4328  For the one scenario maybe not. However the additional range, performance and reach of the Sampson/Aster combination, along with its ballistic missile tracking capabilities, make it a serious upgrade over Sky Sabre alone.
    1
  635.  @davidhouseman4328  Let's be honest, even with NATO support and when we had our own E3s we never had 24/7 AWACs cover. A SAMSON co-located with our long range radar assets, linked to ASTER 30 and CAAM cells would give some hope of retaining radar coverage. Invulnerable? No, but one SSGN in the N Sea could hit all of our main search radars and airfield radars in one strike as it stands.
    1
  636.  @alexanderfoster3628  What happens when the GPS signal is jammed or the satellite nocked out?
    1
  637. Because our defence is run by the bean counters in the treasury rather than the military.
    1
  638.  @GGG19872  Not until the mid 2030's at the earliest. I am hoping for a larger hull than the T26 given the prevalence of air and surface launched anti-ship threats. Especially if it is also going to carry an ABM capability.
    1
  639.  @cardiffflyer  I would rather have a ship with a smaller, more versatile weapon and additional space for something more useful to be honest.
    1
  640.  @cardiffflyer  When are the navy going to provide gunfire support that could not be handled by a 56mm or 75mm these days? We have two carriers for CAS duties and any ship close enough to be hit by medium artillery will likely be facing anti-ship missiles. If we absolutely must have NGS capability then buy a few GP versions or fit it to the Type 32 and don't risk what few ASW and air defence assets we have.
    1
  641.  @romeisfallingagain  Yeah. That I couldn't tell you I'm afraid.
    1
  642.  @abrahamdozer6273  There's something to be said for learning on both types as they require slightly different skill sets. The RAF replaced them with Bulldogs in the 70's; though many were retained for cadet use and for experience flights.
    1
  643. You sound rather bitter..... and not a little pathetic.
    1
  644. ​ @Cheese_Boi1986  It would only take a minor adjustment to the flight profile of a rocket to change its target destination by hundreds of miles. Considering its payload, would you wait to be sure? Also, would the US hit only China in a first strike? China has ICBMs of its own, which would be targeted at US cities. The US would have to take all of those launchers out in that first strike, which would require a large launch. Such an event would likely be seen as a direct threat by the Russians. If they did not take out all of China's launchers then the effects of the counterstrike on US cities would be devastating and destroy the US economy. The US would lose its superpower status to Russia in the process.
    1
  645.  @Cheese_Boi1986  They might if they are not certain that the weapons are heading towards China. A missiles flightpath can not be confirmed until it is past its boost phase. Given the short flight times involved and the time it takes to launch their own response, they might not be able to wait for that confirmation.
    1
  646.  @markvick6138  Sorry, I don't understand your point.
    1
  647.  @markvick6138  Once the nukes start to fly all sides will fire, simply because they will not know who the intended target is until it is too late. A missile flying towards China could equally be targeting a Russian ICBM complex or city.
    1
  648.  @Cheese_Boi1986  You seriously believe that any ICBM strike by either Russia or the US will not trigger an attack by both sides? Regardless of the intended target.
    1
  649.  @markvick6138  They are going to die anyway.
    1
  650. First strike leads to mutual destruction.
    1
  651. Come back when you have been educated.
    1
  652.  Michael Doolan  As with anyone else.
    1
  653. The point is not "Equality" but "Equality opportunity"
    1
  654.  @matt7775  Add blocker for android.
    1
  655.  @EvidensInsania  I have neither loved nor hated drug companies like Pfizer. Neither do I sheepishly follow conspiracy sites.
    1
  656.  @EvidensInsania  You guessed wrong then.
    1
  657.  @orango6113  Dogs are pretty good at picking up the mood of their pack leader.
    1
  658.  @yettispaghetti6784  No, the dog was given the guard command.
    1
  659. Ouch!
    1
  660. The UK and France said the same in the twenties/early thirties, look what happened in 1940.
    1
  661. About time.
    1
  662. Will the QE fit through the Panama canal?
    1
  663. And there I thought you had all been wiped out by a meteorite.
    1
  664. Why? Our pilots will gain from the opportunity to engage in BFM with F-18s.
    1
  665.  @johnallen7807  Or you could just look at those Asiatic countries that implemented strong lockdown and mask wearing policies. The ones where for some reason Covid has had much less impact.
    1
  666.  @stevenhull5025  Yawn
    1
  667. Tell your man Vlad to withdraw his forces, then no one would have to.
    1
  668.  @drob437  There are two white diagonals, one thin, one fat. "Look up the pole and she has a cute little bottom" ;)
    1
  669. @sprmdnr-t9m ?
    1
  670.  @eternaloptimist2840  They were given authority, but then the US pulled the ITAR card. Storm Shadow contains some US proprietary tech 😡
    1
  671.  @franzmenzies5268  It does yes, but with so few T45's available and with two carriers to protect it is more likely a T23 would be dispatched if needed.
    1
  672.  @MoltenGriefing  I have argued something similar, especially when fitted to specialist vessels like the T45 and T26 frigate. It's hard to imagine either being risked in a naval gunfire support role. That said, I am certainly no expert and I have heard arguments in their favour.
    1
  673. Roughly equivalent to a 105mm artillery piece but with a higher rate of fire.
    1
  674. The real aircraft when they are flying them in simulated air combat.
    1
  675. Nope, it's primary role remains an armour killer.
    1
  676. I wonder how many years it will be before that new analysis centre is working properly?
    1
  677. Tied down an awful lot of enemy soldiers searching empty bushes.
    1
  678.  @jutsu1  God help Russia.
    1
  679.  @babajikaghanta8842  I do. It was a stupid reply to a stupid comment.
    1
  680.  @babajikaghanta8842  What has this to do with river crossing?
    1
  681. Slight problem there, she will not fit.
    1
  682. @Blob BYes, on recce missions
    1
  683. I take it you don't understand English, they said it has not dropped any weapons. Recce only so far.
    1
  684. Yes Ivan
    1
  685.  @hellishcyberdemon7112  Most, yes. All, no. Our police have access to guns when they need them, they mostly don't because gun crime in the UK is low. How free do you feel when every copper you meet carries a gun?
    1
  686.  @hellishcyberdemon7112  Our police do.
    1
  687.  @dogsnads5634  Officious b'tds at Kineton 🙃
    1
  688. More than one line?
    1
  689. There's always one numpty 🙄
    1
  690. The problem is cost, synthetic fuel is way more expensive than fossil fuel.
    1
  691. Tell that to the sun
    1
  692. When they know why?
    1
  693.  @davidkersey2414  Probably the specific catalyst used is commercial in confidence .
    1
  694. The process was invented over a hundred years ago.
    1
  695.  @Blake-Urizen  Us owd un's eh? 😂😂
    1
  696. ​ @Blake-Urizen  Not on a phone, I just tend to read fairly slowly. I never used to find it a problem with older tv and films (and still don't), but I do with a lot of more modern material.
    1
  697.  @Blake-Urizen  I know, but why would the producers not make the video suitable for all viewers?
    1
  698. No, it really could not.
    1
  699. The only conceivable use for a dirty bomb by regular forces would be to deny access to an area, for example to a choke point such as a river crossing. Since Ukraine is the one attacking, why would they deploy one?
    1
  700.  @normanboyes4983  And you are overplaying it. One of us will be proved right, no point arguing further.
    1
  701.  @normanboyes4983  The fuel price rises in the 70's affected the whole world economy, especially the US. That is what drove the recession. The US has some degree of insulation from the current fuel crisis due to it's ability to produce oil and gas. Europe will suffer (including us) but there are already signs that fuel prices are falling again. If Russia redirects its sales then supplies from other countries will become available - Germany for example is already building floating LNG terminals to ease importation. The UK is to reopen the Rough storage facility. Only a worldwide recession would bring about the sort of GDP falls needed to offset such a huge increase in spending.
    1
  702.  @normanboyes4983  Yes, but nothing fundamental to our economy has changed; unless the whole Ukraine thing kicks off completely. If that happens we either have a huge increase in defence spending or we all turn to ash.
    1
  703.  @normanboyes4983  History
    1
  704.  @normanboyes4983  Only if GDP fell by more than the percentage increase, which is unlikely. Spending is to rise from 2% to 3%, that's a 50% increase. GDP would have to fall a long way to offset that.
    1
  705.  @normanboyes4983  GDP does not matter, it's a percentage increase.
    1
  706.  @normanboyes4983  We have just had a promised increase in the defence budget and the armed forces are set to grow again.
    1
  707.  @normanboyes4983  The armed forces are not so flush with recruits that they can afford to dismiss someone out of hand for a past mistake. It not like they have a poor track record of turning peoples lives around. The fact that he owned up to it would suggest that he has something for them to work with.
    1
  708. As others have said don't give up yet. You could always appeal the decision or maybe try a different service? Best of luck.
    1
  709.  @KausnHavok  Agreed (though it could use meteor). In an ideal world you would be correct regarding the likelihood of close in dog-fighting occurring. Unfortunately we live in a world run by politicians with elections to win.
    1
  710.  @glennridsdale577  The Hornet has always been a very manoeuvrable aircraft. It was the first jet fighter I ever saw square the corners of a loop (and I have never seen a viper do it). I have seen a Typhoon "display" many times.
    1
  711.  @glennridsdale577 An F22 will turn a typhoon inside out with its thrust vectoring engine. Also we are looking at going forward. Every man and is mutt will look at that F18 footage an say "I want my aircraft to be able to turn like that" I have seen nothing in the Typhoon's manoeuvrability that sets it that apart from a Rafale, Gripen or Su27.
    1
  712.  @glennridsdale577  Carefree handling is no good if the other guy turns inside you.
    1
  713. Yes, next step should be to play with the software aka F18 removal of AoA limits.
    1
  714.  @johnmcclainejriii5829  Oh agreed, I don't want to see any type of device used in Westminster, or any other city.
    1
  715.  @johnmcclainejriii5829  That incident involved a source which was passed around that no one knew was present. We are talking here about a bomb and radioactive traces would be detected pretty quickly. Fortunately the people who would be involved in any cleanup are some of the best in the world.
    1
  716.  @johnmcclainejriii5829  There is a lot of internet hype around them. Sure it would spread a little radioactive material around, but it's not exactly hard to find and clean up.
    1
  717. Not that much of an issue as they are fairly easy to deal with.
    1
  718.  @heybabycometobutthead  ?
    1
  719.  @heybabycometobutthead  TOW is a US missile system, therefore it's specs will have been issued in imperial measurements.
    1
  720.  @heybabycometobutthead  They are used in the US though.
    1
  721. They should have been able to achieve it two years ago, but failed.
    1
  722. If Russia had achieved air superiority they would have won by now.
    1
  723. It was launched properly, it failed after launch.
    1
  724. All completely pointless and likely to produce a new nuclear arms race. There are already sufficient nuclear armed missiles to overwhelm any ABM system and annihilate us all.
    1
  725.  @davidhouseman4328  NATO has had a 2% defence "target" for most of its existence. Few countries met it, even during the cold war.
    1
  726. My bad.
    1
  727.  @snowtfl5617  Neither, but NVG technology and performance has always been restricted access for obvious reasons.
    1
  728.  @johnallen7807  The last two are already under construction.
    1
  729.  @veryrevrufus  We have a lot of sea area to cover. Conventional subs are great for shorter ranged tasks and especially in shallow waters. Nuclear powered vessels have longer range, are faster and can cover large areas while remaining deep (where they are harder to detect).
    1
  730. ​ @tamefroggy  It was only speculation, I don't know if there is anything particularly sensitive or different about UK birds.
    1
  731. Maybe the angle let you see inside the unit?
    1
  732.  @M3PH11  Yes, but it isn't all that reliable atm.
    1
  733.  @Ps5GamerUk  Long in the tooth? The KC135's are 30 years older.
    1
  734.  @questioneverythingalways820  You mean like the biometric scanners at airports; where those flagged are often missed because there are too few staff to respond to the flags?
    1
  735.  @lazeppelini123  Hope you enjoy the view, I would advise having a sick bag to hand though.
    1
  736.  @LustyDwarf95  I am well aware of that. Most people have far more to fear from corporations when it comes to being tracked.
    1
  737. The fact that we are not planning to send them to sea with anything like a full compliment of aircraft does not mean that the carriers are useless (though there are certain limitations to them) but that the bean counters are.
    1
  738. Trust in him to do what?
    1
  739. Manufacturing EFPs takes a lot more knowledge and effort than filling a YPOC with HME though.
    1
  740.  @chad6080  No, you don't. This is the Navy not a dodgy care dealer.
    1
  741.  @Dischingo  They are still in service with both NATO and the US.
    1
  742. Done (and you will have been, there was no frigate)
    1
  743.  @Randomstuffs261  They didn't say that T23 was up for sale
    1
  744.  @Randomstuffs261  There was no frigate listed
    1
  745. What frigate?
    1
  746.  @henryfchapman3544  You mean the guys who trashed our economy in 2008?
    1
  747.  Hagen van Tronje  Ultimately yes, if we had the right drones. What we have are slow moving and easy targets for SAMs. The recce aircraft you can see coming is the one you can most easily hide from.
    1
  748.  Hagen van Tronje  It depends on the type of recce required. It is not a strategic asset (eg U2) to be sure, but it makes an excellent tactical asset.
    1
  749.  @johnstark4723  Indeed it can and in the naval context will have to, but air superiority fighter is not its strongest suit. Can it hold its own in air to air combat, yes, but a mixed F22/F35 force would be preferred.
    1
  750. What Brexit? Will not be allowed to happen.
    1
  751. Have you seen the latest UK Forces recruitment figures?
    1
  752.  @RicArmstrong  Allies don't normally use nerve agents on each other.
    1
  753. It's what happens to it when it reaches the border and beyond.
    1
  754. @Drew Peacock "That's the theory, an attack on one NATO member is supposed to be treated as attack on all NATO members. But will Article 5 actually be triggered?" That is the fact. NATO will go out of its way to avoid starting a war, but it will fight if attacked. There is a good argument that NATO should not have expanded, but that is now history. As for the British and French nukes, they are independent nuclear deterrents and not committed to NATO. They are the last ditch defence/reprisal for a nuclear attack upon their respective countries. They would be used if an all out exchange occurred (because in such a situation the UK and France would be targeted), but they would not be used independently unless a specific attack upon that nations homeland occurred.
    1
  755. @Drew Peacock Yes, there is a guarantee. If Russia attacks a NATO member then it is war, end of. The potential outcome of such a war is terrifying, which is why NATO will not be the one to start it. British and French nukes are irrelevant; they would only ever be used independently if the home nations themselves were attacked independently.
    1
  756. @Drew Peacock The difference is that if he attacks a NATO country then we have no alternative but to fight. He would have made the initial move and would face the judgement of whatever history the human race may have. It IS the concept of MAD (or rather the knowledge of what a nuclear war means) that prevents us from initiating that conflict.
    1
  757. @Drew Peacock And when he does attack NATO airfields? War between two nuclear powers, good idea!
    1
  758.  @dannychen1281  Any resolution authorising the use of force would have to go through the full council procedures, where Russia would veto it.
    1
  759.  @CHINZIG_UK  And we would nuke Moscow before their planes could get near us. Your point is?
    1
  760.  @rockinwackyidk  If it free's up crew for larger ships that will be no bad thing.
    1
  761. Not necessarily a bad thing.
    1
  762.  @brunol-p_g8800  Every single navy uses NH90 - ok.
    1
  763. Yes it does.
    1
  764.  @Mishn0  Mainly oil though, they were already losing mechanised units by the time they invaded the Soviet Union. They might (and I stress that) have had some hope if they had managed to secure peace with the UK after the fall of France.
    1
  765. Go Ratty.
    1
  766. It wasn't really the nuclear bomber that caused chaos. Both America and Russia worked on a nuclear powered bomber. The US produced two engine designs; one was underpowered the other too dangerous to use. The Russians actually flew a modified bomber with a nuclear engine (of the type the US considered unsafe), but it was not a viable system. Both countries eventually came to their senses. The bomber that caused chaos in the US was the original Bison A, a four jet strategic bomber. At the time the US was shocked by it's (supposed) performance, which lead to the apocryphal "bomber gap" As it turned out both the performance figures and production numbers were wildly exaggerated
    1
  767.  @Nownowthen  The only use of an EMP pulse that would affect fighter aircraft is as a prelude to a nuclear strike, by that stage we were all doomed.
    1
  768. They are refuelling probes. Russia uses the "Probe and drogue" system, like the US Navy. The US air force uses a "Boom and receiver" system, where the "pole" is fitted to the tanker aircraft.
    1
  769. You would be surprised.
    1
  770.  @petedraper5185  Why I would have switched to Labour if they had not elected a commi as leader.
    1
  771.  @sj8099  Why wouldn't they? The losses in men and equipment sustained so far should tell you the answer.
    1
  772.  @teatanks6481  They have not done a very good job then.
    1
  773. I would have used them on day (night) one to take out the Ukrainian air defence systems and establish air superiority, in the same way that the US did in Iraq. It was Russia's inability to control the skies that gave the Ukrainians the chance to hold them off.
    1
  774.  Just Myself  Wrong country mate, Biden is President of the US not PM of the UK.
    1
  775.  @ashleygoggs5679  Once Germany failed to capture the Caucasus oil fields there was never much doubt about the outcome on the Eastern Front. The problem with having more units is persuading people to fill the posts. That said, we could use a temporary increase of the defence budget to 3% GDP to bridge all the black holes.
    1
  776.  @ashleygoggs5679  The UK has never fielded a large standing army outside of actual combat.
    1
  777.  @michaelfraser5723  Evidence?
    1
  778.  @iracingrookie3301  Agreed, although I doubt the kit installed on Anson is exactly the same as that originally fitted to Astute. Ships (and boats) do undergo periodic upgrades during maintenance and I expect (though I cannot say for sure obviously) that upgrades will have been fitted as standard to later boats. Take the US Virginia class for example. The boats began production two years before the Astute's, but the latest block V boats are a whole different beast to the original.
    1
  779.  @iracingrookie3301  They are funded for an eleven year build, they could have been built faster.
    1
  780.  @thewishmastur  Actually, you cannot. Your yards are full.
    1
  781.  @awolf391  What bomber is that?
    1
  782.  @bremnersghost948  Exactly. This is a strategic signal. If they wanted to look at Anson they would have just sent a sub.
    1
  783. No.
    1
  784.  @saltymonke3682  Agreed, but it takes time and personnel to train them. With a much smaller trained workforce ourselves, that is not going to be easy. I wish we could. I wish we could build another three of four for ourselves too.
    1
  785.  @saltymonke3682  They have zero experience constructing SSN's
    1
  786.  @saltymonke3682  The UK yard does not have the trained staff to increase construction numbers.
    1
  787.  @Highendaudio1  Isn't that what I said? There is more chance (though still low) that US yards could construct a few extra boats than the UK.
    1
  788. This is not part of the nuclear deterrent
    1
  789. Fixed one, HMS Dauntless with another in the yard.
    1
  790.  @fastfreddy19641  Not always, I bet you don't measure temperature in Kelvin?
    1
  791.  @gherieg.1091  I don't claim to know everything, just that everyone accuses those they disagree with of being the "deep state." Just like everyone right of centre is "Far right" and everyone left of centre is "Far left." It's all BS.
    1
  792.  @gherieg.1091  You tell ME to think when you have convinced yourself that the same people who supported the KKK are now "Lefties"? How do you think your "Deep state" influences Presidents, could it be money? Perhaps you think the "Deep state" give out of a sense of philanthropy towards their fellow citizens?
    1
  793.  @MrThorfan64  US politics (on both sides) will not improve as long as presidential candidates need to raise vast sums of money to run for office.
    1
  794.  @filmserve  You haven't seen all the movies in my collection 🤣 True we don't have the best crop of politicians at present, but I don't believe any are so bad that they would not try to do all in their power to nuclear conflict. Maybe I am just too trusting?
    1
  795.  @filmserve  I own the DVD of Dr Strangelove 😉 There is always a risk of a miscalculation (Though not the way shown in the movie) but Putin is the first leader of a major nuclear power who gives me real concerns. Even Khrushchev and Kennedy were sufficiently responsible to back away from the potential nightmare of nuclear war. What really worries me is a combination of nuclear weapons and religious zealots, that would truly be a frightening prospect.
    1
  796.  @filmserve  As do Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and N Korea (and likely soon Iran). At no point since WWW2 have Western leaders shown any desire or intent to use them other than as a response to a nuclear attack. It's not nukes in the hands of the West that we have to fear.
    1
  797.  @JetS_Gamer  I totally agree. It's not helpful however if presenters make incorrect statements. Hopefully he will choose his words with more care next time.
    1
  798.  @AximandTheCursed  As I say, I support lifting the ban. I merely pointed out that the presenter's remark was factually incorrect.
    1
  799. While I am a supporter of nuclear energy and agree with lifting the ban, it is wrong to claim that use of nuclear energy is the only way to achieve net zero "anywhere in the world." Countries with access to plentiful hydro and/or geothermal do not "need" nuclear in the mix. Look at Iceland, Norway and parts of Sweden for example.
    1
  800. Watch it again.
    1
  801. I have no issue with the fact that he stumbled. That we see an older person stumbling as a sign of weakness says more about society than the President. What I do have an issue with is the fact that he has also shown clear signs of mental impairment, yet he has not been forced to take a cognitive impairment test. Trump on the other hand showed no similar signs yet he was forced to take a test. This is a clear case of systemic political bias. (For the record, I don't particularly wish to see either Biden or Trump contest the next presidential election)
    1
  802. ​ @thehon.antiexperimentaldru3475  Then one law for all, same outcome.
    1
  803. Good for you Aussies, same rules for all.
    1
  804. Cost IS a major drawback of nuclear, there is no point denying it. It's expensive to build and takes a long time to make a profit; though it is very profitable in the long term. That's not what most investors want to sink their capital into unfortunately. Governments are probably in the best position to finance nuclear, either directly or via loan guarantees.
    1
  805. Pushing "smart meters" in the UK so they can pay people to turn off when demand is high. That's where renewables have landed us - unreliable power provision.
    1
  806. VRE vs reliable nuclear. You even have your own fuel supply!
    1
  807. 4:49 Hate week 🤣
    1
  808.  @TheRealBobSmith. The cost per KWh while generating is cheap, relative to most other methods. The issue (usually ignored) is that when they are not generating some other means of providing power has to be found, which leads to the cost increase. You cannot simply replace 10GW of coal with 10GW of renewables (Wind / Solar) because they are intermittent providers. It requires 20GW solar and 120GWh of storage for example (based on an over simplified average 12hr light/dark period, ignoring energy losses) Alternately, you have to keep the 10GW of reserve coal capacity and run it for 50% of the time. The more intermittent renewables installed, the greater the need for excess capacity and storage in the system.
    1
  809. They wanted a conventional submarine.
    1
  810.  @ap5672  Maintenance of supply routes, corporate greed and benevolence have always played a part in foreign policy decisions. It is true for any nation that attains a degree of power or influence.
    1
  811. The West has been backing Taiwan against China ever since it was formed, long before it had a semiconductor industry.
    1
  812.  @KindergentlerMr.Softbelly  Molten salt was researched for use in aircraft not surface/subsurface vessels. Even the developers thought that a stupid concept.
    1
  813. Large country, small population.
    1
  814.  @rattusfinkus  Lol. In South Australia maybe.
    1
  815.  @rattusfinkus  That's what happens when you listen to "Greens" instead of nuclear engineers.
    1
  816.  @rattusfinkus  No answer without grid level storage.
    1
  817.  @rattusfinkus  Btw, France installed 50GW of nuclear in ten years.
    1
  818.  @rattusfinkus  Well we are buggered then, because we won't have grid level storage available either.
    1
  819.  @leiaorgana5098  SMR's, whether thorium based or not, should work out cheaper. Conventional reactors have large reactor vessels that are almost one-offs and only available from a few manufacturers worldwide. The aim of SMRs is to introduce production line efficiencies. I doubt that will ever be achieved, but they should yield significant reductions.
    1
  820.  @bloodyhotspur2915  Or an aversion to jail. Conversation concluded.
    1
  821.  @bloodyhotspur2915  Well I cannot say any more, so we had best leave it be.
    1
  822.  @bloodyhotspur2915  The fact remains that at the time of the invasion both the US and UK government believed that the WMD existed. They may have believed it because they wanted it to be true, who knows, but they did believe it.
    1
  823.  @bloodyhotspur2915  You are wrong. They were receiving (false) information which led them to the conclusion that Saddam had hidden WMD.
    1
  824.  @bloodyhotspur2915  They didn't lie about Iraq having them, they genuinely thought that they did.
    1
  825. ​ @buildmotosykletist1987  As far as I am aware the only SMR in current production uses PWR technology (Chinese ACP100), though it is still a demonstration reactor.
    1
  826.  @Poorlineforeva  To be fair, ship classes have become rather confusing of late. USS Bainbridge (DLGN-25/CGN-25) was originally classed as a nuclear powered destroyer but later re-classified as a cruiser, it displaced 9,100 tons. (USS Truxton CGN-35 displaced only 8659t despite being a cruiser. The US built a further six CGN's at ~11,000t and one at 15,500t. By comparison the Arleigh Burk destroyer displacements grew from 8,200 tons for the flight I to 9,700 ton for the flight IV. The latest Zumwaalt destroyer on the other hand displaces just short of 16,000 t!
    1
  827.  @rickbart1  Finally? That's what I said in my OP. We should move to greener (call it cleaner if you prefer) energy generation and use, but we should not destroy the world economy to get there. The argument is that millions will die if we do nothing, but millions will also die if we break the system. Steady progress over "Religious doctrine"
    1
  828.  @rickbart1  Why would energy companies not make a profit from green energy sources? They are still selling the energy they produce.
    1
  829.  @Leo555ZZZ  How much do you spend a year on tinfoil?
    1
  830.  @miroslawsita7062  Nothing like hyperbole eh?
    1
  831. Most probably Romania
    1
  832.  @patmooney9024  When has it ever said so? Russia, like NATO , regularly flies in international airspace of US and NATO borders.
    1
  833.  @miroslawsita7062  Stop living in the past.
    1
  834. Rather sad to see. It reminds me of the old days in the Soviet Union.
    1
  835.  @Joe-jd4pn  Which is the point of my original comment. Until someone installs both renewables and storage and proves that they both work and are affordable, Australia should at least consider nuclear.
    1
  836.  @Joe-jd4pn  Until someone actually installs both renewables AND the storage to back them up, no one knows for sure.
    1
  837.  @dertythegrower  What is untrue? I said they should consider it, not install it.
    1
  838.  @sdmain  Bridgewires yes, at one time anyway.
    1
  839.  @Diponty  Pst... I have a book for sale that proves the flat earth. Only $A99.99 while stocks last.
    1
  840.  @Poorlineforeva  There are plenty of countries around the world who would disagree with that.
    1
  841. For the same reason that I know lots of Christians that have no interest in recreating the crusades. I judge and respond to people based on their actions, not their beliefs.
    1
  842. I'm sorry, I was a Brexit supporter and still am, but Nigel is talking Bollox (pardon my language) The UK has minimal reliance on Russian gas, is about to reopen the Rough storage facility and has the main LNG terminal in Europe. Yes we should have invested in nuclear back in the 90's/2000's, but our current problems are more to do with prices than lack of fuel. We need Truss (or Rishi if he pulls off a surprise) to cap the price of energy and cover any excess charges. If that means stocking up more national debt, so be it. And before you call me a rabid leftie, I have only ever voted left of Tory once and that was a protest vote for the Monster Raving Loonies.
    1
  843. No, he helped cause the Iraq war.
    1
  844. They run on highly enriched uranium, too highly enriched to be available for the civil market.
    1
  845. Then you are an idiot.
    1
  846.  @anthonycanalese2142  Yawn
    1
  847.  @anthonycanalese2142  I cannot help if you do not understand the folly of what you originally stated.
    1
  848.  @anthonycanalese2142  That's like saying The Flying Scotsman was no different to Stevenson's Rocket. The F16 has always been highly manoeuvrable, but In the end air combat comes down to situational awareness. In this, the F16V is light years ahead of the original F16A.
    1
  849. It is an F16V; the latest version with advanced systems such as an AESA radar and improved, integrated communications.
    1
  850.  @robbo6689  You think you can power your house and run your car on the same stored energy?
    1
  851. Care to explain how? He was in power for three years during which his government granted development consent for Sizewell C. Only the Cameron/Clegg government have initiated construction of a UK reactor since the 90's.
    1
  852. To quote Angela Rayner - "They are scum".
    1
  853. I take it then that you believe that Biden would pass the CI test they made Trump undergo?
    1
  854. ​ @biggie9935  If you make comments under such circumstances, don't be surprised if they are misinterpreted. Your initial statement (can't be explained) implied an extra-terrestrial origin, to which I responded. If you say that you believe them to be from earth, then there are a number of explanations available ranging from misidentification of common objects through to clandestine experimental vehicles. Historically, many classified US vehicles have been observed and labelled as "UFO's" Unidentified does not automatically equate to unexplainable.
    1
  855.  @Y_hass  Brave statement.
    1
  856.  @biggie9935  Then they can be explained by someone.
    1
  857. Only dangerous when you are a dictatorial government that cannot accept that people might have a different opinion.
    1
  858. ​ @tadeuszmichaelwlodarczyk3120  China is one of the leading developers of Gen IV nuclear reactors. Their new coal stations are designed so that they can swap out the coal furnaces for SMRs when they come online.
    1
  859.  @tadeuszmichaelwlodarczyk3120  No I am telling you that you cannot expect China, or any other country, to take on the cost of reducing fossil fuel dependence if we are not prepared to do the same.
    1
  860.  @tadeuszmichaelwlodarczyk3120  Yawn, never heard that before. You expect them to change their system while we continue as usual?
    1
  861. ​ @tadeuszmichaelwlodarczyk3120  Whether climate change is false, overblown or the predictions are true is irrelevant. Pollution alone is a good enough reason to switch from fossil fuel use at the earliest opportunity.
    1
  862.  @tadeuszmichaelwlodarczyk3120  The ongoing issue with storage is precisely why I say that solar and wind cannot meet electricity demand on their own. To suggest that neither is able to provide large quantities of clean energy to a grid however is nonsense. Wind (primarily offshore) produces an average 18% of UK demand and is growing. Solar; both PV and collection, could supply a good chunk of Australia's demand - it's not like land availability is in short supply! Use the tools available to you.
    1
  863. Not so. Both solar and wind offer huge potential, just not on their own.
    1
  864. Please, you do the argument for nuclear power no favours by making false claims.
    1
  865. That's not QAnon, that's the Daily Mail 🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  866.  @dragonslayer7587  Too early to speculate really. I don't think it was a bomb (at least not the usual luggage/cargo type) as the bulk of the fuselage looked intact. I fear that we may never know the truth, depends if the black boxes survived the impact.
    1
  867. 737-800 not a 737-MAX
    1
  868.  @Averageperson0007  Talking of trolls.
    1
  869. If those craft really have the performance figures claimed then just ignore them.
    1
  870. Saya all I need to know about you.
    1
  871.  @lapun47  That's why I used the word.
    1
  872.  @starwindamada5313  Then he is safe.
    1
  873. To be fair, I see nothing in what is reported from that document that I would not expect to see in any document discussing biological warfare. Whether the authors are planning to use such weapons, or defend against them, it is only common sense to first outline the nature of the threat.
    1
  874.  @thefleecer3673  That's not entirely true. They can use the uranium, plutonium, actinides etc as fuel, but the fission products remain waste for the most part.
    1
  875.  @DgurlSunshine  Neither does lying.
    1
  876. Shouting gets you nowhere.
    1
  877. You should leave a link to the report above, that would be good science practice..
    1
  878.  @tassied12  Nuclear by itself would indeed require some form of alternate backup or outlet. It is most efficient when run at maximum capacity, which is why France still requires some fossil fuel. The answer is a blend of reactor types and uses. Large GW reactors to cover baseload and smaller reactors that can be switched between power generation and industrial use as required. For example a reactor might produce electricity when demand is high or hydrogen when it is low. The hydrogen being used for steel, ammonia, fertiliser production. Or it might run a desalination plant off-peak. Or it could simply form part of a mixed source generation system. To simply dismiss it, or close existing nuclear while burning fossil fuels is folly.
    1
  879.  @pwillis1589  Well you require something for when your renewables are offline.
    1
  880.  @pwillis1589  What don't?
    1
  881.  @rattusfinkus  And there are examples of RE which are already over ten years old.
    1
  882. RoSK OPR1000: HANBIT-3 6yr HANBIT-4 <6yr HANBIT-5 5yr HANBIT-6 5Yr SHIN-KORI-1 5yr SHIN-KORI-2 5yr SHIN-WOLSONG-1 5yr SHIN-WOLSONG-2 7yr APR1400: SAEUL-1 8yr SAEUL-2 10yr SHIN-HANUL-1 10yr (3 more under construction).
    1
  883. India is running nuclear that is cheaper than solar.
    1
  884. Under current conditions the best bet might be a high temperature gas reactor co-sited with hydrogen/ammonia production. Run it at high capacity all the time and either supply electricity or manufacture hydrogen or ammonia feedstock as demand dictates?
    1
  885.  @tassied12  Britain is not "returning to coal." The UK only has three coal fired plants left and there are no plans to build more. The old ones are in various states of demolition. As I type (15:42) our power grid is in a shocking state. The 25GW+ of installed renewables are generating just 1.4GW and we are having to import almost five times that power from Europe to meet demand. In contrast Gas is delivering 22.6GW, Coal 1.3GW, Nuclear 5.7GW and Biomass 1.4GW; all must be running at full capacity.
    1
  886. If they announced positive energy balance tomorrow it would be ten years just to design and license the first commercial reactor, let alone construct one.
    1
  887. Just go away Meghan, the more you speak the more self obsessed you appear.
    1
  888.  @Kathleenskinner-n6u  As I said in my previous reply, my post was a joke.
    1
  889.  @keithsexton1263  It was a play on a Monty Python line "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy"
    1
  890.  @tassied12  So add additional cooling towers or choose a different reactor design for that site.
    1
  891.  @tassied12  Non of which prevent nuclear being sited at existing coal plants. There are reactors running in deserts using wastewater flow as coolant. All but two existing coal plants have water cooling in place, that can be made more efficient by increasing cooling tower numbers. Current coal plant in Australia ranges from 340MW to 2.2GW, already in the nuclear reactor range. If you are saying that current transmission capacity is insufficient to cope with an outage then you designed a poor grid. It is still nothing like what is required for a wholly new, distributed, intermittent supply. Don't get me started on duplication of supply and backup provision. VRE has availability factors in the 20-50% range and requires huge over capacity to meet demand and charge storage for use when it is unavailable.
    1
  892.  @tassied12  That is wrong. It has not been done before because there has been no need. Nuclear reactors have been designed as stand alone units; reactor and turbine generators. A reactor is however a heat source, just like a coal, oil or gas fired furnace, whose product is steam to run a turbine.
    1
  893. AGM84 Harpoon begs to differ.
    1
  894.  @tomlee3412  Tom, I suggest you re-read the context of my post. As for the Chinese ship being where they were, well they have every right to be there. Just as US/UK ships had every right to be in the S China seas last year.
    1
  895.  @duyataksis5210  Difficult to cite "International law" when your actions just broke it.
    1
  896.  @voiceofreason7856  That is true, you refuse to see what you don't want to see.
    1
  897.  @thegeneralist7527  Grey actually
    1
  898.  @thegeneralist7527  I rest my case
    1
  899.  @voiceofreason7856  You can't educate pork.
    1
  900.  @thegeneralist7527  "Minor details?" I do apologise for having "academic training", so much worse than spewing "internet theories"
    1
  901. ​ @henryottis295  Educate me then over the "Many" with lasting problems over the five million "lucky ones"
    1
  902.  @alantollemache8627  Yawn
    1
  903.  @YA-qj8fx  I never said that vaccination prevents transmission, it does not. It reduces the likelihood though and that is a fact, not an opinion. There are specific medical conditions that can result in an adverse reaction to the vaccines. They are known and you will be asked about them prior to being vaccinated. If you have one of them, then fair enough. For the population as a whole however the risks associated with the vaccine are far lower than the risks associated with catching the disease.
    1
  904.  @SWags-ly7dp  Flat Earth Focker was the name he went by, that is fact not emotion. I cannot link his videos directly as they have been taken down, but you can hear and see him in this reaction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRXwKdbDFmo Your follow up remarks are so ironic. Why? because you sound just like FEF in the days before he died.
    1
  905.  @murraymclean5177  Possibly, but that is no reason to refuse to take advice from professionals.
    1
  906. The real issue is that the choice was between him and Trump.
    1
  907.  @wontonmin6481  ?
    1
  908.  @voodoo6705  Winscale was not an enrichment facility, it was a reactor operated primarily for the production of plutonium.
    1
  909. No one is safe if they start doing that.
    1
  910. There is and most of it is burning coal.
    1
  911. Would be nice, but there are other designs of molten salt reactor using uranium which might be more useful in the short/mid term.
    1
  912. Where are you going to find crews for forty conventional boats? There is certainly an argument for a mix of nuclear and conventional boats, just as there is in the UK, but the role of a nuclear vessel is to prevent opposition vessels reaching your coastal waters.
    1
  913. When you jump on a bandwagon phrase but can't even spell it 😂
    1
  914. Great shame. All that's left now is a narcissist and a hold over from the Soviet era of doddery old men.
    1
  915. Why? He is a military man, leave the rest to the politicians.
    1
  916.  @truthreignseternal9136  Even if you believe that tale, it only applies if you are Jewish.
    1
  917. Why would anyone rely on God to defend them in a war?
    1
  918. That the same fighters sporting NAZI tattoos?
    1
  919. It will take years to establish an Australian nuclear submarine build capability, just look at the issues the UK have had building the Astute. If you want boats quickly they will be US built.
    1
  920. Most likely at his monitor
    1
  921.  @RowdyTrain4472  Why would Australia have and use Nukes? I fear you may be correct regarding war but if it becomes necessary to use nukes then the US has more than enough to do the job. It makes no difference who uses them, we will all die anyway.
    1
  922. Only if Aus decided to buy the nuclear version of the TLAM cruise missile (and if the US would sell them). Neither is very likely. These boats will be attack boats; primarily designed to hunt other subs, ships and gather intelligence.
    1
  923. @Billy 2020 The UK has no spare anything :( We are sending a couple of Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) to the region, but I believe they are to be based in Singapore. There might be more options available once we get the T31/32s. I know the current plans for the Marines is for more forward basing, so I guess Aus may be an option there. It's not inconceivable that one of our boats is deployed to the Pacific area on rotation, we really need to buy a couple more though as we only have seven in total. I can see a lot more service exchanges in the future though.
    1
  924. @Billy 2020 That makes sense.
    1
  925. @Billy 2020 That was what I was thinking. The UK only has four A-Boats available at the moment and little yard capacity to build additional boats. I'm not sure that we could base one over in Aus, though one of the T-boats might be a possibility. That's why I feel the US offers more possibilities than the UK in the short term (sadly). Only my thoughts though, based on what I can glean from open sources.
    1
  926. @Billy 2020 Don't get me wrong, I'm a Pom and more than happy to see you getting nuclear boats. I would simply like to see you get them earlier by buying a few while you establish a manufacturing base. I would obviously prefer you to go with the Astute, but in fairness the US would be able to deliver earlier and probably more cheaply. It might be worth buying say two Virginia class then joining the Astute replacement program. Astute is due to leave service in 2035 so the timelines should match. The replacement will be based on the upcoming Dreadnought class of SSBN (minus the tubes). The dreadnought (and its successor) will have a lot in common with the new US boats, which will give you more options for technical support.
    1
  927. @Billy 2020 The Astute's are averaging about 8 years per boat from laying down to launch. So far it has taken twenty years to build five boats. The US are building one Virginia every eighteen months. The UK allowed it's yard to shed experienced workers and this is the result. Australia will be new to nuclear boats, so don't expect things to run smoothly.
    1
  928.  @simonbird1973  The yard does not have the workers to construct three more boats. There are two under construction and the new Dreadnought's are next up.
    1
  929. @Billy 2020 Not going to happen that quickly. The UK has been building nuclear boats since the 50's yet we struggled to build the Astutes as we failed to maintain our capability. Aus will be starting from scratch, so it is far more likely that the first boats will be made abroad, which means the US.
    1
  930. If Aus wants boats built abroad to start with then they will be US built. There is no capacity in the UK.
    1
  931. Except they are not bringing nuclear weapons to Australia, they are talking about nuclear propulsion.
    1
  932.  @carmelcream7662  You are gong crazy.
    1
  933. Well the Covid virus is totally democratic, it will infect everyone if you give it the chance.
    1
  934.  @DgurlSunshine  If you know them, you tell them. I am discussing nuclear power not weapons programs.
    1
  935.  @anotherperspective8555  I wouldn't be. My knowledge only scratches the surface compared with those who designed these disposal systems, years ago.
    1
  936.  @anotherperspective8555  Tectonic plate movement? Wow you are really clutching at straws now. Why would anyone bury their waste in a volcanically active area? Having said that, a subduction zone would be an option. The simplest method of deep burial is in boreholes, which can be drilled at the reactor site as necessary. It is a myth that waste has to be stored for thousands of years to become safe. The vast majority of the highly radioactive waste is gone within a few decades and the longest lasting of the fission products within two to three hundred years. With suitable technology (Fast neutron reactors, which we should be moving to anyway) trans-uranics can be removed and burnt as additional fuel. Radioactive waste does actually become safe over time if we bury it.
    1
  937.  @anotherperspective8555  Try learning something. Any toxin, whether radiological, chemical or biological is only hazardous if someone comes into contact with it. How is anyone going to come into contact with a solid glass/ceramic, in a concrete container, a thousand foot underground? There are fission products from a naturally occurring reactor that have only moved a few meters in millions of years, and they were sitting in ground water with no containment whatsoever.
    1
  938. Australia needs to look at licensing the upcoming modular reactors rather than the larger, current tech ones. Get ahead of the game.
    1
  939. How many industries would suddenly become fans of "Storing nuclear waste in their back yards" if dry casks came with heat exchangers allowing them to be hooked up to process vats or greenhouses? 24/7 heating for the cost of the electricity to run a circulation pump.
    1
  940. You couldn't make it up.
    1
  941. To be fair that sounded more like banter between people who know each other.
    1
  942. Damn US politics in in a bad space. Successful candidates are far too reliant on their ability to raise funding.
    1
  943.  @justthetip--o  Not reliably, no.
    1
  944.  @zoolander1721  Lol. Want to buy a unicorn, I have one going cheap.
    1
  945.  @DuckSith  Not what?
    1
  946. Odd, I have heard nothing about such a "demand." If there were such a referendum on the "net-zero roadmap" it would almost certainly lead to a call for it to be accelerated.
    1
  947.  @stephenbrickwood1602  Pardon? I said supply the fuel rather than the ore to countries with dictatorships. That way they have no fuel enrichment/reprocessing capabilities.
    1
  948.  @stephenbrickwood1602  So build a fuel manufacturing plant and export fuel pellets instead. Value added export.
    1
  949. @Big Ern McCracken I made no such claim.
    1
  950. @Big Ern McCracken About the most dumb idea imaginable.
    1
  951.  @pekkajantti7489  Thanks.
    1
  952. Maybe show the context of that clip? As it stands he did not say "Since I became president in January 20" just "Since January 20"
    1
  953. Non so blind.
    1
  954.  @larrymckay5219  Assuming Mad Vlad doesn't blow up the world first he will (Charles is 73 after all). Agree re QE, RIP.
    1
  955.  @larrymckay5219  Royal protocol, he was not allowed to. He has been a tree hugger all his life, Spitting image used to take the P out of him for talking to his plants.
    1
  956. ​ @larrymckay5219  The woman he would have married prior to meeting Diana if he had been able.
    1
  957.  @davidpointon8383  And?
    1
  958.  @larrymckay5219  More comment without evidence.
    1
  959.  @billywelch5071  Are you confusing Charles and Andrew?
    1
  960.  @larrymckay5219  Again, an opinion without evidence.
    1
  961.  @ThePtoleme  Unlikely. They could probably build one to that timescale, but getting it licensed is another matter.
    1
  962.  @cadaeishere8242  That depends on the type of reactor you intend to deploy.
    1
  963.  @brianterence3211  700m years, your point?
    1
  964.  @ianhomerpura8937  I have seen reports of 10-15% of world reserves of thorium (No idea how reliable that figure is or what other reserves worldwide remain unidentified).
    1
  965.  @pwillis1589  U233 (or more correctly its precursor Protactinium 233) can be removed from the outer breeding blanket around certain Thorium SMR designs (with the intention of increasing U233 yield). Salt can also be removed from the inner reactor core (with the intention of removing fission products), but neither are trivial acts. Both require the means to handle and process extremely radioactive material and any such capabilities will indeed be highly regulated. There are also designs for reactors that are delivered as sealed modules. They come pre-loaded with fuel, are run for a set period of operation, stored, then returned to the supplier for disposal. The fuel in such designs would not be accessible by the operator, who would lack the specialist equipment to handle such materials anyway. In this situation regulation would be lighter, though still present for safety reasons. Less confused now?
    1
  966.  @pwillis1589  I understand it very well. However, no country requires a civil reactor program to produce nuclear weapons if that's what they wish to do. Similarly, no country can hide a nuclear weapons program under the cover of a civil program. Any country can acquire nuclear weapons if they are willing to pay the political and financial cost.
    1
  967.  @pwillis1589  You were doing so well until the last statement.
    1
  968. Greens don't hate Australians, they hate humans.
    1
  969. Oops! 🤣
    1
  970.  @andrewgraham7659  What on earth are you talking about? The UK has not suffered any blackouts.
    1
  971.  @diceman199  So your comment was not based on evidence then? I thought not.
    1
  972.  @diceman199  Name the third that are using hydrogen not coke.
    1
  973.  @diceman199  Who is "They?"
    1
  974.  @OneofInfinity.  Sigh.
    1
  975. Or uranium for Australian use it seems.
    1
  976. It can, only now the industry has even better options available.
    1
  977.  @joso5554  Not in the UK, where is is also "acting tough". Or rather he was, he has since backed down on threats to cut power to the channel islands.
    1
  978. I'm not sure where those figures came from but they look dodgy to me, at least when compared with current nuclear technology. The situation may change when liquid fuelled, modular reactors become available.
    1
  979.  @nigelliam153  Oh and I don't agree with your 7hr assertion (unless you are talking specifically Australia, in which case I do not have the data to make a valid argument). I am UK based and here solar averages 12 hrs and wind appears to average around 30-40% of theoretical capacity over 12 months.
    1
  980.  @nigelliam153  I agree that renewables would, in practice, be far more expensive than is currently claimed. But the OP said that the laws of physics meant that 100% renewables could not be done, which is wrong.
    1
  981. You still end up with waste. A permanent solution has to be found, be it a shallow underground repository or deep borehole storage.
    1
  982. That would be in Putin's Russia, the arsehole of the world.
    1
  983.  @carbonite1999  Hint CANDU - CANada Duterium Uranium
    1
  984.  @Diponty  Could go CANDU. You could also look at breeder reactors that will burn fertile fuels like U238 and Thorium. In the interim, Australia could also look at having enrichment performed by a third party, such as the USA, UK, France, Japan etc.
    1
  985. If leasing is explored then the choice would almost certainly be for US boats. The UK is still operating two of the older Trafalgar class boats while construction of the final Astute's is completed. There is certainly no option to lease A-boats as the UK is woefully short of numbers itself. A couple of T-boats might be an option, but they are old and may well have little hull life remaining.
    1
  986.  @delawarecop  Are you paying anything if you are completely off grid? Or maybe you benefit from the power used to clean and pump your water? To make the car you drive? Or any other service you use that needs electricity. Why would you want to place any industrial facility next to a beauty spot or heritage site? As for the waste, reprocess it until it is all fission products/stable elements and drop it into a borehole. Job done.
    1
  987.  @delawarecop  Why do you assume people would be unwilling to live near a nuclear reactor or to have waste in (or under) their land?
    1
  988.  @MiyamotoMusashi9  What we can do and what we choose to do are entirely different.
    1
  989.  @MiyamotoMusashi9  No amount of evolution will overcome starvation.
    1
  990.  @MiyamotoMusashi9  Prior to the industrial revolution most children did not live long enough to develop diabetes.
    1
  991. They will find illness and starvation, that's for sure.
    1
  992. The US has more nuclear power plants than any country in the world.
    1
  993. I'm a far right English thug (according to Comrade Starmer) and I pity America whichever candidate wins. The leader of the free world should exude strength, dignity and statecraft, not spite, waffle and personal ambition.
    1
  994. I'm sorry, but no journalist is "ignorant". They have agendas, but they are not ignorant.
    1
  995. CANDU is a good design; no enrichment required, on-load refuelling...
    1
  996. Which is why you should enrich it and process it into fuel. Sell ore, enriched hex and fuel depending on the needs of the customer.
    1
  997. The western world wants to ween itself off Russian supplies, for obvious reasons.
    1
  998. Just image if the UK had taken his approach in 1935.
    1
  999. Good man.
    1
  1000. BS
    1
  1001. Coal emits more radioactive waste to the atmosphere than nuclear.
    1
  1002.  @positivepawpaw7564  Lol. Case proven.
    1
  1003.  @giuseppecappelluti3626  The Taliban government were hosting OBL therefore were de-facto complicit in the 911 attack. The Libyan actions were undertaken according to UNSC mandate 1973. The UN gave authority to their local commander to request NATO airstrikes in response to Serbian attacks at the London conference of 1995.
    1
  1004. Both Serbia and Libya were UN mandated actions, NATO provided the forces. Afghanistan was a response to an attack on the USA, that's why NATO exists.
    1
  1005. I wish Elon would forget about Twitter (which is largely just a talking shop) and buy into fast neutron nuclear; which is where nuclear energy needs to go if it is to deal with its waste issue.
    1
  1006. He's a Democrat, they always assume they know better.
    1
  1007. Nothing about that operation on the BBC.
    1
  1008.  @johngeier8692  Both can and do make a decent contribution. If we had had just maintained out nuclear capacity we could be close to fossil-free at current electrical demand. I just wish the renewables lobby would be honest when they talk about costs. They always quote "cost per KWh" but never include the costs associated with the need to install over capacity and storage.
    1
  1009. You CAN build an energy system running on only "renewables" anywhere, but the cost and scale is enormous without easy access to hydro and geothermal.
    1
  1010.  @andyb7963  Did he know something was wrong at the time, or with hindsight? Even if he did know at the time he is still not as guilty. The boss is in a position of power and therefore carries greater responsibility to ensure that any actions comply with the law.
    1
  1011.  @seanpushor909  You clearly don't understand how systems work. There are many legitimate reasons for journalists to hold fake documents; to allow them to penetrate an organisation or give additional credence to someone who has penetrated an organisation for example. The craftsmen (and women) who produce such items will not necessarily know what the particular document is for at the time it is manufactured. They take it as read that there is a legitimate AND LEGAL case to make it. If they later learn that an item they produced was used for a potentially illegal purpose, what else are they supposed to do?
    1
  1012. Pawn in a larger game.
    1
  1013.  @stephenbrickwood1602  Good luck running heavy industry from a few rooftop PV panels.
    1
  1014.  @nattanapathongkam1172  Bury it. There isn't that much compared with other options.
    1
  1015. Why are you surprised by her views? "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC."
    1
  1016.  @Interglacial_optimist  There is plenty of diesel around. If you are talking about a post zero world then yes, an alternative off grid power source would be required. Something new and radical, like a battery pack?
    1
  1017.  @Interglacial_optimist  Why would they have no diesel?
    1
  1018.  @mycamguy  Sorry, confused you with the OP. It was 3:00AM when I was posing.
    1
  1019.  @bk-yg9yw  Probably for a reason.
    1
  1020.  @mycamguy  You think a CME is going to flood a reactor?
    1
  1021.  @buildmotosykletist1987  China is about to test one, but I agree, it will be a while before they are likely to become commercially available. That does not mean that they will never become viable though and Australia's reserves of thorium are not going anywhere.
    1
  1022.  @buildmotosykletist1987  I never said there were.
    1
  1023. Uranium and thorium too. Since Australia would be starting from scratch and have to install legislation prior to any decisions being taken you could afford to wait and watch how the industry develops. SMRs, molten salt, thermal/fast neutron, liquid metal, there are a lot of alternative designs under development.
    1
  1024.  @alancotterell9207  Doesn't need to be, there is sufficient uranium and thorium to last for thousands of years. I'm assuming btw that you mean fission products are not renewable?
    1
  1025.  @DJ70404  you have to be careful when talking about recycling nuclear fuel. Most fuel is around 97% U238 and 3% U235. Only the U235 is fissioned in conventional reactors and not all of that fissions in practice. A small proportion of the U238 is converted into trans uranics (such as plutonium) which may then fission or remain in the waste. Current "waste" therefore contains mainly U238, with some U235, trans uranics and fission products (the latter comprising less than 3% of the waste) The remaining U235 and plutonium may be recovered and added to new fuel for re-use. This is current recycling. Now certain reactor designs (such as CANDU and breeder reactors) can utilise U238 and trans uranics as fuel. Thus they offer the opportunity to recycle those components of nuclear waste. This can lead to a huge increase in fuel efficiency, with potentially 100% of the U238/235 in the fuel undergoing fission. This is a future goal of the industry, however we are not there yet and the reprocessing required to utilise current waste may not be economically viable under current conditions. It is important to understand however that by using 100% of the fuel in this way you still generate waste in the form of fission products. Now the quantity of waste generated is far lower than current waste, but this waste is not fissionable and can not be further recycled as reactor fuel. In theory some, possibly even all, of the fission products could be recycled as useful materials, but the economic viability of doing so is moot at present.
    1
  1026.  @thinkabit7264  A fairly large bird too (or multiple birds) I would imagine, to cause that much damage.
    1
  1027. Dick, it's a bird strike.
    1
  1028. Of which over 95% remains fuel.
    1
  1029.  @jaymiewilliamson2521  Can't argue with flat earthers. Goodbye.
    1
  1030.  @tezzo55  Hardly a "Young fella" The point is that humans have the means to affect the climate to a greater extent now than they have ever had - just look at ozone depletion. Like it (or believe in it) or not, the world IS going to switch away from fossil fuels for heating and power generation. Australia can either go with it, or be left behind.
    1
  1031. Ageist.
    1
  1032. Yes, we (British) did so back in the 50's and early 60's
    1
  1033. Reduce it to the minimum quantity possible and bury it.
    1
  1034. You have already dismissed the answer. However, if you really want a full explanation see the comment by William Smith (above)
    1
  1035.  @MolecularArts  I know that weapons grade material is usually produced via a different route, but it still requires a reactor in order to breed the Pu.
    1
  1036.  @thegreyghost5846  I don't view it as the main problem either, but it was the only point raised in your original post. That is what I reacted to.
    1
  1037.  @thegreyghost5846  And STILL you miss the point. It is not those who understand the processes involved that you have to convince, it is the majority of the general public who's views on nuclear power are founded on historic events and media headlines. How much time do you think they will afford your arguments if you begin by telling them there are no links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons? Can those links be broken? Are they overstated? Yes, but you will never have the opportunity to prove so because they will have stopped listening to you.
    1
  1038.  @desertrat7634  You are missing the point here. For nuclear power to be accepted in a country like Australia it is the general public that have to be convinced. The top four arguments used against nuclear power are cost, safety, waste disposal and nuclear weapons proliferation. All four of which have some level of validity. You cannot dismiss proliferation by claiming that power and weapons are entirely separate, when the public can see how they have gone hand in hand in the past. If you want to win over an opponent, start by acknowledging the truth. That way they are more likely to listen to your follow up arguments.
    1
  1039.  @desertrat7634 You cannot exclude history or the fact that pretty much any fission process can be used to produce weapons grade material. Certainly the reactor designs that are likely to be constructed in the next 10-15 years can.
    1
  1040. You cannot get away from the fact that the nuclear power and nuclear weapon industries have historical links, to try and do so only feeds the impression of a cover up. However, the two do not always go together. Any country wishing to develop a nuclear weapon can do so; it just requires the will to spend the money and withstand the wrath of other nations. No country can hide a weapons program behind a nuclear energy industry. To produce weapons a country has to enrich uranium or reprocess fuel/spent fuel. The IAEA will demand access to any facility with the capacity to produce weapons grade material and failure to allow such access will automatically raise suspicion (looking at you Iran)
    1
  1041. @Abu Mohandes Not reprocessing as practiced for decades. Traditional reprocessing is the extraction of U235 and plutonium from waste fuel to produce new mixed oxide fuel. Only around 2% of spent fuel is recoverable for use in conventional reactors. Fast spectrum reactors are able to consume the U238 and actinide component , thus consuming around 96% of the waste. You read too much into what was undoubtedly a quick comment on a Youtube video.
    1
  1042. @Abu Mohandes No. After a suitable period the fission products can be removed from the waste for safe disposal. The remainder (mostly U238) but also 235 and transuranic's can then be converted to the chloride salt and used as fuel in a fast spectrum reactor. There are a number of companies working on those reactors as we speak.
    1
  1043. @Abu Mohandes Try the subject in question.
    1
  1044. @Abu Mohandes Do some research
    1
  1045. Care to explain that gem of knowledge?
    1
  1046. Inflexible? Aside from routine maintenance and refuelling it runs 24/7.
    1
  1047. Of course not, but I would have no problem if it were buried hundreds of feet underground.
    1
  1048. Wearing out and/or breaking down does not mean a catastrophe, all depends on design.
    1
  1049.  @theseustoo  Did the Tsunami destroy Fukushima? No. It took out the mains power supply and back up generators required to sustain coolant flow to the reactor.
    1
  1050.  @theseustoo  Yes it would. The only reason Fukushima developed the way it did was because they lost the back up generators. A modern design would allow more time to bring them back online (if they were taken out at all). A molten salt design would be unaffected as it requires no active cooling.
    1
  1051. It's certainly taught us the dangers of locating diesel generators at ground level. Fukushima however was an old reactor design.
    1
  1052. ​ @williamsmith1741  The trouble is, there are a lot of uninformed people who will see their arguments and dismiss your comments, because they know no better. Which would be a shame. It's not worth arguing over tbh, I was only trying to offer a suggestion, knowing that I have fallen into the same trap.
    1
  1053.  @jsmith9705  No one is "refusing to accept" anything. There simply is not the data to say how many people who have recovered from covid now have natural protection and how long that protection lasts.
    1
  1054.  @jsmith9705  The implication that immunity is sufficient; which may not have been your original intent, but is often claimed.
    1
  1055.  @jsmith9705  Yes, for some. Even then it's not usually immunity. More an ability to defeat an infection before it can kill you.
    1
  1056. Not for everyone
    1
  1057.  @tassied12  But you don't have RE/storage. You have a few MWh but you need giga or tera watt hours. If you figure 20 years for nuclear (your figures) your early RE will be ready for the scrap heap anyway.
    1
  1058.  @rattusfinkus  Given that you should have started years ago, the plan must be to start nuclear as soon as possible. At the same time, invest in renewables to reduce fossil fuel use in the short term, especially coal. The more nuclear you have, the more viable RE/Storage becomes.
    1
  1059.  @anneloving8405  https://www.ipswichfirst.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Solar-damage.jpg
    1
  1060. We have men's sport, women's sport, disabled sport.. why not just create a transgender class stop demonising people?
    1
  1061. IMHO Republicans should go Haley if they want to be taken seriously.
    1
  1062. He should have taken the test at the first sign of possible mental deterioration. POTUS is just too important to be left in the hands of someone who people perceive as unfit to undertake the role. I cannot believe that the US is considering another Biden/Trump showdown, have they no one better to put forward?
    1
  1063.  @random2829  That's religion for you, Live and let die.
    1
  1064. Coal has killed more people per watt generated than any other energy source.
    1
  1065. Trump then Biden, bit late to worry now America.
    1
  1066. Probably a security stipulation in case they needed to get him out of there quickly in the event of an attack. PR gaff all the same though.
    1
  1067. Greens really do hate humanity.
    1
  1068. Technology that is no longer built.
    1
  1069.  @brianterence3211  Material with a 730m year half life is no more hazardous than naturally occurring U235.
    1
  1070. If you are talking about Australia then they are NOT putting nuclear energy into missiles (only the Russians are currently doing that). They are planning a series of nuclear powered attack submarines NOT ballistic missile submarines. Further those submarines will NOT be armed with nuclear weapons.
    1
  1071. The Gen III power stations currently under construction have features inbuilt that would negate a Fukushima-style accident. You might lose the reactor but there would be no external leak of radiation. These features have been included in reactors built since the 1990s. Upcoming gen IV reactors have even grater safety features that would in most cases result in only a temporary reactor shutdown.
    1
  1072. Germany's decision to close its nuclear reactors early and the resultant requirement to burn coal are predicted to result in 70,000 additional deaths from air pollution.
    1
  1073.  @marcusmaddenov2451  It certainly does have issues, not the least of which is proving its safety to national regulators. The uranium route (either thermal of fast spectrum) is well understood and the way to go in the short term.
    1
  1074.  Frank Smith  In what way funny? No exposure, no risk. Do you believe they store nuclear waste as a liquid in buckets?
    1
  1075.  Frank Smith  Which is safer, sodium cyanide in a sealed container or sodium chloride on your chips?
    1
  1076. Religion! Multiple factions willing to kill and enslave to prove that their "peaceful" cult is the true one. Depressing.
    1
  1077. If the UK had renewed its nuclear plants this situation would not have arisen, the shortfall was less than the lost nuclear capacity.
    1
  1078. What was it ABBA sang about - Money, money money.
    1
  1079.  @thomasreilly6362  Agreed. Takes far too long to gain approval.
    1
  1080.  @thomasreilly6362  China recently built one in three years! Sizewell B took seven (and people complained it was too long), so it's not unreasonable to think that we could have been knocking them out in five if we had continued building them. We could have been fossil fuel free (for electricity generation) by now :(
    1
  1081.  @thomasreilly6362  Sizewell C is not under construction, it has only just been approved. As for the rest, the main issue is funding, which is why nuclear should be nationalised and built by the government. Failing that, large capital intensive projects like nuclear, tidal, hydro etc should be given access to government backed, long-term, low interest rate loans.
    1
  1082.  @thomasreilly6362  No, sorry. You said "new nuclear power station opens" the two I mentioned are not yet open. They will, in themselves, account for around 14% of current UK demand. There are no planned SMRs at present, but it is highly unlikely that it would take 20 years or more to bring the first into service.
    1
  1083. Absolute rubbish. Hinkley Point C will be operational by the end of the decade (3.2GW). Sizewell C is set for 2034 (using the higher twelve year build estimate).
    1
  1084.  @richardlafleur8389  Can't help you I am afraid, you will just have to learn the hard way.
    1
  1085.  @richardlafleur8389  I beg to differ.
    1
  1086.  @bdawg3942  What part of my comment suggested a liking for either president? US politics is broken, too much money involved.
    1
  1087. ​ @paulfaigl8329  Is it so hard to work out?
    1
  1088. One is senile the other a horrible example of humanity.
    1
  1089. You are confusing SMRs with the Rolls-Royce design. Both conventional solid fuel (RR) and liquid fuel reactor designs are available as SMRs. The big advantage of the RR design in the short term is that it relies on mostly proven technology and thus should be relatively straightforward to license. There are a lot of questions to be answered wrt molten salt technology before a regulator will approve a design for commercial application.
    1
  1090.  @buildmotosykletist1987  Nothing will happen overnight, whatever people think. A first step has to be taken, which is to produce research reactors to gather the necessary data on which to base licensing regulations. A reactor could probably be built within a year.
    1
  1091.  @NoRegertsHere  Hopefully that will only be a problem for export customers and I don't see Australia falling victim to that; she is a rather trusted friend.
    1
  1092.  @tassied12  Yes, France was having to use fossil fuels or import power, just as the rest of Europe is doing. Maybe other nations should be building nuclear reactors too?
    1
  1093.  @amitsaurabh9948  I would rather slap in a reactor and get 90%
    1
  1094. Are we talking about the Scottish Nationalist Party here?
    1
  1095.  @grannyannie2948  Carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, sulphur oxides, aerosol particulates...
    1
  1096.  @Wide_Awake708  I've had them thanks.
    1
  1097. @@laborshill8503 There is more to fossil fuel pollution than CO2
    1
  1098.  @Wide_Awake708  In your head maybe.
    1
  1099.  @grannyannie2948  Better than poisoning the world with air pollution.
    1
  1100.  @mickoz9389  That's why I gave you an alternative option of cutting pollution
    1
  1101.  @pietjebel3119  Yes they are, they have been seen on satellite photos in the last few days.
    1
  1102.  @surindernagi1406  The submarines are currently in dry dock 🤣
    1
  1103.  @bobhawke7373  Happy (belated) Australia day then 👍 Only just made my YT feed.
    1
  1104.  @selwyn500  Current waste: Keep it until breeder technology is becomes commercially available then convert it to fuel. Breeder waste: Keep it for a few decades until the worst of the radioactivity has subsided then bury it deep underground.
    1
  1105. I would like to have seen more on the repository, given the title.
    1
  1106. 🙄
    1
  1107.  @SlowhandGreg  A 2GWh storage facility, sufficient to power our grid for around 5 minutes. Or we could have replaced our nuclear reactors with new ones, which would have covered 45% of demand. Add in Hydro, biomass etc and we would have around 54% of demand covered, leaving just 46% for storage backed solar/wind. The latter already average 28% without storage, so the UK would already be just 18% or around 5GW short of fossil free. As it is, fossils comprise 43% of our power generation (12.8GW) despite us having over 30GW of installed wind/solar.
    1
  1108.  @SlowhandGreg  That might be the case in Australia, but here in the UK we have those offshore wind farms. When operating fully the UK has sufficient wind capacity to meet 70-80% of average demand, yet there is no storage in place nor any plans to build any. Wind thus supplies around 20% of our grid power on average. If storage is as cheap and reliable as proponents claim, why no investment? The simple fact is that without base-load, the capital investment required is huge.
    1
  1109.  @SlowhandGreg  There are plenty of theoretical solutions and a few practical ones. So why, when renewables are so "cheap", has no one invested in them? Don't forget also that storage is useless until generation capacity exceeds demand. And I mean physically exceeds, not theoretical capacity. If generation is 31GW and demand is 30GW, that's 30 hours to store one hours worth of demand. That's why cost per GWh is not the only relevant factor.
    1
  1110. If only life was that simple.
    1
  1111. Did you really believe that there would be no hitches in something this complex?
    1
  1112.  @thomasreed49  There will always be waste, whatever technology is employed. The trick is to reduce it to as little as possible through design improvements and recycling.
    1
  1113.  @johnwatts8346  It is, but we are on the verge of moving on from fossil. The next revolution will occur once we are able to manufacture in space. Unlimited energy, unlimited resources and access to materials not possible to manufacture in Earth's gravity.
    1
  1114. Common sense at last.
    1
  1115.  @SubLittoralFilms  The weather is often the same though. The UK averages just 6.5GW from wind and 12GW peak, despite having double that in installed capacity.
    1
  1116.  @charliepearce8767  Try that with a fertiliser plant, steel mill or cement factory.
    1
  1117. Pay renewables providers to turn them off? Why? Fossil fuel accounts for 45% of UK power generation yet we are told that wind and solar are the cheapest sources. Why pay a cheap source not to produce, then sell a product which is more expensive to produce, if the sale price is fixed and harmonised over all sources?
    1
  1118.  @rattusfinkus  Copy/paste....copy/paste.... no brain required.
    1
  1119. Australia doesn't use oil to produce electricity.
    1
  1120.  @Liberal_From_Prairies689  Less emissions per flight maybe, but more emissions per passenger.
    1
  1121. Possibly because so many people have their fingers in their ears?
    1
  1122. Hopefully she will stand against him for President.
    1
  1123. The Democrats should get together and insist he stands down on medical grounds. The republicans should do the same with Trump on the grounds that he is not a fit person to hold office. The world needs a competent statesman (or woman) heading the USA.
    1
  1124. MTFU it's only a little prick
    1
  1125.  @TJ-TJ  Truth is truth, whether you like the source or not.
    1
  1126. Luddite
    1
  1127. The world will only run out of uranium if it sticks with conventional nuclear technology. It is perfectly possible to breed fissile fuel from U238 rather than rely on natural U235; which constitutes less than 1% of natural uranium. That's leaving aside thorium, which is even more abundant than uranium.
    1
  1128. No, they are not. They are one possible way to go.
    1
  1129. All the high level waste produced by the UK since the 1950s would fit into a volume the size of a single Olympic sized swimming pool.
    1
  1130.  @MolecularArts  One person from the clean-up team has since died of lung cancer that is believed to be related to the incident. A few more are likely to die over the years and around 2,000 deaths occurred due to overreaction to the event. In contrast, many times that number are projected to die from air pollution as a result of Germany's decision to close its nuclear reactors when the alternative was burning brown coal.
    1
  1131. That is the sensible option. Fund a selection of service personnel and engineers working in key areas to second to the USN/RN and (for example) Electric boat or Barrow to learn the fundamentals of building and operating nuclear powered boats. Another interim possibility might be to offer to base a USN attack submarine (or RN, IF they have a boat available) in Australia with the proviso that it is joint crewed with RAN sailors.
    1
  1132.  @lesblack413  In a word, pollution.
    1
  1133.  @ThatGuy-ze5kk  Coal produces many more issues than just carbon,
    1
  1134. This is why free speech is so important. Allow people to speak freely and they will eventually hang themselves.
    1
  1135. The largest know uranium ore reserves, yes.
    1
  1136.  Brett Mitchell  I wasn't sure about that. I knew they could build three and only currently have two under construction. They also have two Dreadnoughts under construction, but I am guessing the space commitment at Barrow is tiny at the moment, if any at all? I guess it depends on how soon they need the space for the first Dreadnought wrt the time to build additional Astute's. So far an Astute is averaging about eight years from lay down to launch. If they can expand the site and build extra Astute boats for Aus, brilliant.
    1
  1137.  Brett Mitchell  I guess if the intention was to station an Astute in the Asia Pacific region permanently then having the Aussies man it might be acceptable. Not entirely sure that was the intention though. One for the Navy Lookout regulars to comment on the viability of extending the Barrow yard to accommodate additional production.
    1
  1138. Well said. Loads of rivalry between us poms and you, but when the chips are down we stand together.
    1
  1139.  @BatteryCommander  Whether you believe in global warming or not, coal is a shitty, polluting, inefficient energy source. Even the most inefficient nuclear plant is cleaner, safer and more efficient than coal.
    1
  1140. So Trump is heavily criticised for saying that NATO members are not meeting their defence spending commitments but Biden is ok claiming that US allies must do more in their own defence. Talk about double standards.
    1
  1141.  @spundam  Agreed. I believe it was intended for motorists who parked inappropriately etc.
    1
  1142.  @mrdanforth3744  No, I think he was referring to fast neutron fission.
    1
  1143.  @dvtofk9908  The scientists, you know, the experts?
    1
  1144.  @DrewPwiener110  Nah mate, what's left of it is grey.
    1
  1145. Recruit the best candidate for the job, irrespective of colour or gender.
    1
  1146.  @tivmego  I include the BBC of course (since I watch some live TV on line and thus have to contribute to them) but only as background and never "opinion" pieces. There are independent sources to fact check claims made during the war.
    1
  1147.  @tivmego  Who is stopping you speaking?
    1
  1148. Killed for Putin's ego you mean?
    1
  1149.  @buildmotosykletist1987  I have heard differently. They are building them so that they can close down the coal furnace and hook a reactor up to the same set of steam turbines. The "end product" as you call it is the steam to drive the turbine not the electricity.
    1
  1150.  @buildmotosykletist1987  The Chinese are building their new coal plants with a view to replacing the furnace with a modular reactor when they become available. Makes sense as they only have to replace the heat source and not build a complete power plant.
    1
  1151.  @buildmotosykletist1987  It will take ten years to license and build any nuclear reactor. Start with a modern PWR by all means, but molten salt is the way to go. There are just so many advantages. I have no issue with coal as long as it is fitted with carbon capture technology.
    1
  1152.  @buildmotosykletist1987  Then it is time to spend the big buck on developing it. There are several potential options.
    1
  1153.  @richardfeynman7491  Not really, you have to find some way to even out power generation. Battery technology is expensive. Molten salt storage would be a good option and would tie into upcoming modular reactors based on that technology. Most of the expense of current nuclear infrastructure originates from fuel production, waste processing, decommissioning and capital outlay. Fuel production and waste processing are much simpler with these types of reactor. Decommissioning and initial outlay are far cheaper with small modular systems due to the much smaller reactor vessels, production line manufacturing techniques and elimination of large, high spec containment buildings.
    1
  1154. Fast spectrum breeder reactors can utilise U238, thus extending the availability of uranium as a fuel.
    1
  1155.  @namename9998  My initial comment was a generalised one, all forms of radioactive waste can be disposed of by deep burial. Once I moved on to provide more detail I specifically referred to "High level waste" and "spent fuel" rather than "waste" I am not saying you are wrong, I understood what you meant, I am merely saying be careful with the language you use.
    1
  1156.  @namename9998  What I was saying is that your claim "Nuclear creates the least waste. 90% can be reused as fuel" is misleading. It implies that 90% of all waste can be reused when in reality we are talking about 90% of the spent fuel. Of course I agree that this is by far the most hazardous class of waste. However it allows the anti-nuclear lobby to claim that you are being dishonest. To the layman radioactive waste is radioactive waste. They may not make, or understand, the distinction between high, intermediate and low-level waste and the hazards presented by each. The lobbyist can present your comment as "lying" or promoting "fake news" and therefore that you must be....(insert conspiracy theory). I am not saying similar misleading claims are not made for wind and solar. Both are portrayed as "green" while ignoring the environmental impact of manufacture and disposal of equipment. Or claim that they are "cheap" while ignoring the cost of the storage required to make them reliable. Essentially I am saying be mindful of how you phrase a comment so that it cannot be taken out of context.
    1
  1157.  @namename9998  That's not true. 90% of the spent fuel has the potential to be re-used, but there is still a lot of low and intermediate waste produced. It is no use pointing out the errors in wind and solar claims, then making the same type of claims for nuclear. All processes generate waste which must be dealt with. The only way to persuade the public is to be honest with them.
    1
  1158.  @JaskoonerSingh  It is not going to be a problem though. Its not like anyone needs to access the chosen sites for any reason, other than to store waste. All of the high level waste produced in sixty years of operation in the UK would fit into a single Olympic sized swimming pool. The vast majority of spent fuel is uranium (over 95%), plutonium (~1%) and stable fission products (~3%). Once Gen IV reactors come online the uranium and plutonium will be reusable in a far more efficient process. Trans-uranic actinides (eg. Americium,) can also be destroyed in some Gen IV reactors (producing more energy) or eliminated altogether if the thorium cycle is followed.
    1
  1159.  @jonathansimmons5353  Good band
    1
  1160.  @serviusm9523  No, they would be a civilian development by RR. I am not belittling RR (I am British) but there is no need to belittle France either. They have the technical ability to adapt their military reactors for civilian use if required.
    1
  1161. Such ignorance. The original technology for submarine reactors came from the US whereas France developed them independently.
    1
  1162. I guess it never occurred to you that it is possible to construct more factories to build them?
    1
  1163.  @MrVaticanRag  I know that, but the regulatory systems still have to be put in place and the safety case for the reactor made and agreed. Where is Indonesia going to look for the experience necessary to grant such a license? How many countries worldwide have operating molten salt reactors to draw experience from? Answer - none. I totally support the development of such reactors, but there is no getting away from the fact that much work remains to be done before they can be rolled out safely.
    1
  1164. If so, then they had better start looking at molten salt reactors. These SMRs are a temporary solution to a current need, but the future is molten salt and liquid fuel. They are safer, more efficient and more applicable to load following.
    1
  1165. Still fixated on waste 🙄
    1
  1166. More people will die if the worlds economies are wrecked than from sea level rise.
    1
  1167. Hint, next time you see one open Flightradar24 or ADSB Exchange.
    1
  1168. How many nuclear reactors did you authorise when in power Tony?
    1
  1169.  @johngeier8692  In part yes, also by friction.
    1
  1170. Hmmmm. Nuclear is not "The only answer," it depends on individual circumstances. Nuclear would be a really stupid idea in Iceland for example, which is geologically unstable and has access to copious and reliable geothermal power.
    1
  1171. Cost: India is running nuclear for the price of solar, Proliferation: Strawman. Waste: Not an issue. The technology to deal with it has been available for years. Improved methods on the drawing board.
    1
  1172.  @After_Pasta  It isn't anywhere at the moment, it has only just been launched.
    1
  1173.  @After_Pasta  Westinghouse AP300 is a scaled down AP1000.
    1
  1174.  @After_Pasta  Depends on the tech involved. Some are scaled up submarine reactors, some are scaled down large reactors and some are completely new designs.
    1
  1175. Rather stupid if you are still using fossil fuel.
    1
  1176. Two options for waste. Worst option. Store it in ponds until it cools then vitrify it and bury it. Best option: Store it in ponds temporarily then reprocess it to remove the uranium and actinides for fuel use. Vitrify and bury and unwanted fission products. Is that elaborate enough?
    1
  1177. This idea that any voter who does not share your political views is “evil” or “dumb” and must be denegrated at any opportunity is straight out of 1984.
    1
  1178. 🤣🤣 The sad thing isn't the state of President Biden, it's that the US has nothing better to offer its people than a choice between Biden and Trump.
    1
  1179. Chas is a tree hugger, always has been. He has never denied it and I respect honest opinion even when I don't always agree with it.
    1
  1180.  @eadams1357  Village idiots do not become pilots.
    1
  1181. Doddery old geezer vs petulant man child. What a state US politics is in.
    1
  1182.  @havanasyndrome3024  Yawn.
    1
  1183.  @havanasyndrome3024  Yawn
    1
  1184. @Freiherr Dinkelacker Irrelevant. Ukraine was a sovereign state recognised by the UN. Russia chose to invade it, twice.
    1
  1185. @Freiherr Dinkelacker I thought it was a special operation, not a war?
    1
  1186.  @colonelangus8247  Whatever, must be time for your vodka break.
    1
  1187.  @colonelangus8247  Evidence or just mouthing off?
    1
  1188.  @colonelangus8247  It would have been flying a predictable circuit pattern and there are no commercial aircraft flying in the area. If the Orcs chose to inspect it at close range then that is their decision.
    1
  1189.  @colonelangus8247  The culprit is the pilot of the Russian fighter who was flying irresponsibly. The drone was no threat to other aircraft.
    1
  1190. Insane that a country with Australia's uranium resources bans nuclear power. With power comes fuel manufacture and export potential. Its like selling iron ore instead of steel.
    1
  1191.  @FranksHairSalon  Well you have clearly missed a few during your search.
    1
  1192.  @FranksHairSalon  Ah, a troll.
    1
  1193.  @FranksHairSalon  Why don't you look up nuclear waste management in technical manuals rather than cartoons?
    1
  1194.  @ronnie5329  Most NATO members are not even meeting their spending targets, or are fiddling the figures to do so. Many have never met their targets throughout the history of NATO.
    1
  1195.  @ronnie5329  Europe has done the same with respect to old equipment and Ukraine is on their doorstep.
    1
  1196.  @faketheo3432  Spread over how many members then, if you couldn't work out what I meant.
    1
  1197.  @faketheo3432  From how many countries?
    1
  1198. Too much infighting and self interest from EU members.
    1
  1199.  @r.ladaria135  Had they waited a few seconds no, that tank would be a couple of million to replace at least.
    1
  1200.  @vacgyverfin5170  Which is what I said. I was responding to the OP's claim that "The attack most likely resulted in ammo detonation."
    1
  1201. If the ammo had detonated there would be no tank left.
    1
  1202.  @tomk3732  That's fine in open ground, not so much in an urban environment.
    1
  1203. Hopefully the EU can organise something where Ukrainian grain can pass through the EU to a port for onward shipment to their old markets.
    1
  1204.  @tedwarden1608  Sorry, do you mean that we did not, should not...?
    1
  1205.  @cristiangaban960  No worries, I thought you might have.
    1
  1206.  @cristiangaban960  Sorry I'm confused, that is literally what I was implying in my response.
    1
  1207.  @Vladimirthetiny  What makes you think I believe in heaven?
    1
  1208. Yes, magnesium is used in flares to increase brilliance, either for illumination or to increase observable range.
    1
  1209. UK should have bought the CV90 system to replace its warriors etc and ditched Ajax.
    1
  1210. So, people are finally beginning to wake up. Too late this time though, the West no longer has the industrial capacity to win.
    1
  1211.  @guyspearing4608  Better late than never I suppose. Now they just need to reverse their decision on nuclear.
    1
  1212.  @guyspearing4608  Not enough, Germany has none.
    1
  1213.  @aaronbaker2186  All helps
    1
  1214. Putin had already breached the INF treaty by the time Trump formally withdrew from it.
    1
  1215.  @limedickandrew6016  Then the West is entitled to invade Russia after it broke the IRMB treaty?
    1
  1216.  @jeremyj5932  Including Russia.
    1
  1217. There is no way France will send troops to Ukraine, it would only happen if Russia attacked a NATO member. Macron is trying to boost his ratings, pity he did not do more in the run up to the war.
    1
  1218.  @robertsmith4681  Wouldn't happen. The reactors would shut down and only require a fraction of the cooling that working reactors require.
    1
  1219.  @aSSGoblin1488  Good luck to the poor bastards handling that device.
    1
  1220. It's a new report, there has been no independent verification. Does that mean that it is untrue? No. Does that mean that it is true? No. It means that it is an unverified news story. The public might be less likely to believe it however, if Russia did not have recent history of using chemical weapons.
    1
  1221.  @crowe6961 👍
    1
  1222. It's not fake, it was a conventionally armed IRBM. What's fake is the hype around it, which is aimed at western civilian populations.. Russia, like the West, is fully aware of the dire consequences of an accidental escalation to a nuclear exchange.
    1
  1223. Depending on the supplied launch/radar vehicles, the NASAMS might be a better option than Patriot to support the offensive.
    1
  1224. Honest assessment, nice one.
    1
  1225. Victim of woke 🙁
    1
  1226. Seems to me that the west should be ramping up production of Giant Viper type munitions and/or laser-guided BLU95/96 bombs for Ukraine.
    1
  1227. ​ @thecursed01  Trouble is, what are the alternatives? Twitch is more for livestream as is X.
    1
  1228.  @kethughes8266  Never watched Fox. I have watched and listened to the BBC a lot though.
    1
  1229. In Armageddon, wouldn't the bomb's effect depend upon the structure of the asteroid? Everyone assumes asteroids are solid chunks of rock, but they can be anything from a solid mass to an agglomeration of pebbles. Since that one was outgassing, some of its structure must have been ice.
    1
  1230. 729 Flat Earthers disliked this video.
    1
  1231. The UK is not in trouble because they decided to go green, they are in trouble because they decided not to back up renewables with a clean, reliable base load. There is nothing wrong with renewable energy generation; What is wrong is the dishonesty of many of its proponents who refuse to admit the true costs involved.
    1
  1232.  @nilsfrederking62  You mean the vast majority living in abject poverty, working every minute they are awake and dying before they are 40?
    1
  1233. Actually, if the worries are to be believed, we are making Earth more like Venus.
    1
  1234. Pedant
    1
  1235. They seem to be managing ok so far
    1
  1236.  @simonm1447  Swings and roundabouts. Drag is lower for wing mounted engines and the Nimrod (a variant of the Comet airliner) used RR Spey engines (a low bypass turbofan). Successful airliners such as the 727, DC9, BAC111, Trident and VC10 all used podded engines located at the rear of the aircraft, rather than under the wings. It was the high bypass turbofan which ultimately killed off both design variants (at least for larger, long range aircraft) due to their increased weight and physical dimensions.
    1
  1237.  @RCN2820  That is largely a result of the development of the high-bypass turbofan.
    1
  1238. NATO has zero desire to get involved directly, it would lead to a Europe-wide conflict, possibly even world wide.
    1
  1239.  @dreamserengchongbong4176  If you returned home and found me in one of your bedrooms, would you offer the room to me, or call the police? Especially on learning that I was already the owner of the largest mansion in the country.
    1
  1240.  @dreamserengchongbong4176  Then Russia just has to withdraw.
    1
  1241. There was peace, until Russia invaded
    1
  1242.  @andrewr.5909  No, you are anthropomorphising an inanimate object.
    1
  1243.  @andrewr.5909  The planet is a non sentient body and has no concept of humans.
    1
  1244. It is a product of this planet
    1
  1245. Have to confess, I am at a loss to explain how Gollum survived his fall into Mount Doom.
    1
  1246.  @budgeman218  Can't argue with that.
    1
  1247. Boris moved too slowly, hopefully Labour will speed things up a little. They don't seem to be anti-nuclear at least.
    1
  1248. Wouldn't expect anything less from Dawn Butler, one of the grossest racists in Britain.
    1
  1249.  @Jon-es-i6o  There WAS a referendum on joining the common market, in 1974.
    1
  1250. Anything "traditional" has to go, our country is doomed.
    1
  1251. Muppet.
    1
  1252. Nothing, neither should be on the pavement.
    1
  1253. If that's what is required then he will either lock down or be locked up. His choice.
    1
  1254.  @seneby1  Not for quite a few years, they will have to build up infrastructure and operational experience first. Expect to see Aussie submariners on exchange postings to US or UK facilities and boats first.
    1
  1255.  @alvanrigby6361  I'm no expert on these matters by any means, but I would doubt that the Trafalgar's have much hull life left.
    1
  1256. Sod all those too vulnerable to cope with covid, as long as we free to go into a nightclub without a piece of paper to prove we are not carrying a disease eh!
    1
  1257.  @barbaraneville5036  How many people never watch a live broadcast though?
    1
  1258.  @wallybingbang9892  I believe they found that they got on quite well professionally, which is why I used them as an example.
    1
  1259. ​ @wallybingbang9892  In what sense, paired with whom?
    1
  1260. We used to run eleven Magnox nuclear reactors. Had we maintained that number and upgraded them to Sizewell B PWRs (or equivalent) we would have the capacity to generate around 13.1GWe. That equates to 45% of the UKs average demand in 2020. Renewables provided another 27% with imports and other non-fossil sources at a little under 5%. I would much rather we were looking at reducing our fossil fuel dependence from 25% than the current 39%.
    1
  1261.  @Robert_DeVille  Did you pull your last comment? I received a notification but it has vanished?
    1
  1262.  @Robert_DeVille  Enlighten me with your superior knowledge then.
    1
  1263.  @Robert_DeVille  That's not an easy question to answer. There is much that could be done to improve the performance of renewables (molten salt storage capacity for one) to even out their supply. Traditional nuclear has relied on a small number of large reactors running at full capacity to provide even base load. This is not necessarily going to be the case going forward and newer technologies allow for smaller reactors with the capacity to "load follow" What this means is that it will become much easier to run nuclear and renewable energy in a more synergistic fashion. Another important feature of the newer Gen IV reactors is their ability to run at higher operating temperatures. This gives them the ability to both generate electricity and to provide direct heat for industrial production and space heating. As a direct answer to your question though, the peak (electrical) energy demand for the UK (~38GWe) could be met by 32 reactors of the size of Sizewell B.
    1
  1264.  @luisbustamante9869  or Canadian
    1
  1265.  @bemusedkidney8619  So we base our energy future on your opinions?
    1
  1266. Possibly, but it will be years before thorium reactors make any meaningful contribution. Too much political and safety baggage to overcome.
    1
  1267.  @edbaker515  Grow up.
    1
  1268.  @edbaker515  Develop some common sense dude. Setting aside the whole "global warming" issue, there are many reasons to transition away from fossil fuel use where practicable. We saw in the early years of the industrial revolution what effect the widespread burning of coal had on pollution levels and general health. Fossil fuels are a finite commodity and have a wide range of uses, why waste them by burning them to generate energy when other alternatives exist? There are places in the world where renewables alone can provide energy self-sufficiency; wind & solar backed by hydro or geothermal. Why would a country not use them and continue to burn fossil fuels? Nuclear offers access to clean, abundant energy, even when using current inefficient reactor designs. The case for an eventual move away from fossil use is a strong one. The question is, "Is global warming real and do we have to break our economies to counter it?" I happen to believe that it is real but I do not believe that we (and the UK in particular) have to approach it like headless chickens. We do need to act though.
    1
  1269.  @JamesThompson-p4r  Because it could be brought about without destroying the world economy if control were removed from the hands of fanatics.
    1
  1270.  @richardgallagher4880  How dumb are you?
    1
  1271.  @karlmunford7000  Why bring religion and Islam into this? Christianity hardly has an unblemished record in this area.
    1
  1272.  @8xRedMonkeyx8  Just trying to keep you out of jail mate.
    1
  1273. Why wouldn't they, when our legal system does nothing to stop them?
    1
  1274. Did they have a license?
    1
  1275. What a pratt.
    1
  1276.  @utube271258  Rubbish, go learn some science.
    1
  1277.  @genetranscends1662  I know, it's incredible that someone living in the 21st century could fail to understand how a vaccine works and prefer instead to believe some conspiracy theorist on the web. But don't despair, there is still hope for you.
    1
  1278.  @icarusfalls9315  Where did I say that a vaccine can stop you catching or transmitting a virus? It speeds up your body's response to an infection; thereby reducing the severity of the illness and the level of subsequent transmission. What happens if the virus mutates? Well the vaccines could well stop working and they will have to develop new ones. That is what happens with the flu and common cold. The same also applies to any natural or herd immunity gained from contracting and surviving a virus.
    1
  1279. ​ @genetranscends1662  Keep digging. It's a sad reflection on today's world when people like you refuse to understand the workings of a vaccine; something understood by the scientific community over two hundred years ago. We really are living in a modern age of Nero.
    1
  1280.  @genetranscends1662  The word you were searching for is drivel not dribble. It's not my fault if you choose to take a tinfoil hat approach to anything you do not understand.
    1
  1281.  @icarusfalls9315  Where did you read that? The vaccine trains the body's immune system to recognise certain proteins associated with the virus and develop antibodies to counter it. That is why you often feel ill when vaccinated, it is your body reacting to a perceived infection. When/if you become infected with the actual virus, your immune system detects those proteins and reproduces the same antibodies. The difference is that your body recognises it is under attack and begins to fight back more quickly, therefore the number of cells infected and consequently the number of replicated viruses is reduced. Less new virus equates to less chance of transmission. Not zero, but far less.
    1
  1282.  @williammiller567  No, but I studied Biology to A-level and Chemistry to degree level and viruses and vaccines were included in the course material.
    1
  1283.  @Darryl_Francis  Aw, ickle flower is butt hurt.
    1
  1284.  @nikolaucznaum4312  I never said that they did.
    1
  1285. Assuming the persons in question watch no live TV.
    1