Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Renewable energy proponents seem ‘very scared’ about nuclear push" video.

  1. Yes good question, why in 9 years of government didn’t Matt lift the moratorium? Maybe you should write to Matt and ask him that exact question.
    2
  2. The reason is obvious, delay delay delay. Matt Caravan and his family have known interests in coal. All they are concerned with is prolonging the burning of fossil fuels. That’s it.
    2
  3. No they are not. They are miniature PWR. They are highly secretive and the technology is not available to the commercial world.
    1
  4.  @jmcham1000  Yep no argument there as previously a explained on numerous occasions the technology that allows PWR to be made small enough to fit in a submarine will never be shared with the public or commercial organisations.
    1
  5.  @jmcham1000  On a secondary note just how small in volume do you think current commercial SMR designs are?
    1
  6.  @polarbear7255  The question was rhetorical, and relates to the original comment about the technology of PWRs in nuclear submarines. You have gone off on some ideological strawman rant about issues and points I never claimed or raised. Once again I have no issue with the clean and green qualities of nuclear energy. Nuclear zealots that’s another question.
    1
  7.  @polarbear7255  in relation to your question on wind farm size for 300Mw, approximately 7000 hectares. Of course this land use could be multi-purposed for agriculture.
    1
  8.  @polarbear7255  On a minor note Hinckley point C is a EPR, it is not a SMR. It is third gen PWR and will cover a site of over 170 hectares. There is nothing small or modular about it. It is however definitely a nuclear powered plant. It most definitely can’t fit inside a Virginia class submarine. Not that you said it could.
    1
  9.  @polarbear7255  Yes I just gave an example of a wind farm. The data doesn’t support your opinion on the cost to produce electricity. Yes some metrics designed to make fossil fuels compare favourably to renewables also appear to make nuclear favourably as well. In certain market situations it might. As fast as EDF can make a reactor another one is decommissioned some where in the world. Both the UK and France have considerable experience with nuclear technology. It has been expressed as an opinion that the push to go nuclear in Australia is a deliberate ploy by the fossil fuel industry to delay the transition from fossil fuels. You have fallen for their con job.
    1
  10.  @polarbear7255  For a 300 Mw solar farm somewhere between 300 to 600 hectares, but again it can be dual purposed.
    1
  11. Short of a few RWNJ the entire world understands that burning fossil fuels has dramatically raised the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere which has led to sudden warming of the atmosphere and the oceans. This has almost universal scientific opinion. Yes we can can continue to burn fossil fuels and warm the planet (this effect is observable and measured) however there will be consequences.
    1
  12.  @awc900  Fossil fuel in Australia is subsidised to the tune $10 billion a year. Yep backhanders to oil, gas, and coal companies are plentiful.
    1
  13.  @awc900  The AFR reported that renewable energy projects received $3.8 billion in federal subsidies v $10 billion to fossil fuels. Do the math.
    1
  14.  @awc900  I have no issue with your opinions, you just made an absurdly one sided comment devoid of context and I just fact-checked it. I made no claim of wind and solar being produced without the aid of fossil fuels, so that element of you reply is just a nonsensical strawman. I personally have no issue with nuclear energy, it can be safe and clean. It will never be cheap.
    1
  15.  @awc900  True. However nuclear energy has also shown to be notoriously unreliable both in its construction time and cost.
    1