Poll .. Should Aust. build Nuclear power stations?

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
  • We have been getting regular requests for users who have been locked out of their accounts because they have changed email adresses over the lifetime of their accounts. Please make sure the email address under your account is your current and correct email address in order to avoid this in the future. You can set your email address at https://silvertails.net/account/account-details
  • Wwe are currently experience some server issues which I am working through and hoping to resolve soon, Please bare with me whilst I work through making some changes and possible intermittent outages.
  • Apologies all our server was runing rogue. I managed to get us back to a point from 2:45 today though there is an attachment issue i will fix shortly. Things should be smooth now though

Should Aust. build a nuclear power industry?

  • Yes

    Votes: 54 83.1%
  • No

    Votes: 11 16.9%

  • Total voters
    65

Woodsie

Feast yer eyes ..
Tipping Member
4.6% of Aussies voted for the Nats who (MP's) nearly all have large share portfolios in fossil fuel and receive tonnes of money from those companies and they can ignore the 75-85% of the population that want net zero.

Seriously .. FMD .. just a couple of immediate thoughts .. I am reliably informed that nobody in Manly Warringah voted for the Nats .. but .. what was the % of Aussies that voted for them in seats they actually contested?

And as for your ridiculous comment that "nearly all" Nat MP's have large share holdings in fossil fuel companies .. apart from being slanderous, is childish and 6th grade debating ..

And as for your magic numbers of 75-85% of the population wanting net zero emissions .. the past 2 labour Governments were exiled to the bleachers for believing just that nonsense ... my belief is that Aussies want a sensible sustainable as as clean as possible, affordable power supply without bankrupting us, or making us uncompetitive ... and all with a guaranteed base power load capacity ..
 

manlyfan76

There is no A.I. Just better computers
And as for your ridiculous comment that "nearly all" Nat MP's have large share holdings in fossil fuel companies .. apart from being slanderous, is childish and 6th grade debating ..
This is public record as they have to declare it mate to Parliament.
Littleprouds dependent kids "own" shares in mining.
So suck eggs.
 

manlyfan76

There is no A.I. Just better computers
Transition is the key , but most Greenies want it all closed NOW!’
Agree about transition, I would say that the fringe of the Greenies want it yesterday but most of the smart ones acknowledge transition.
I do think the economy will push it forward fast though.
States all all going net zero quicker than the feds who are hamstrung by the Nats.
 

Mark from Brisbane

“ Boomer still Booming”
Premium Member
Tipping Member
This is public record as they have to declare it mate to Parliament.
Littleprouds dependent kids "own" shares in mining.
So suck eggs.
Also be aware that almost every single superannuation scheme will have massive amounts of mining shares.

Their return on investment ( the shares ) dictate that.

I’m aware that some funds promote themselves as “ green “ but the majority are dependant on the top 200 on the ASX for their generous returns and if you check out the top 200 it’s full of miners.

So in essence , “ everyone” contributing to super owns mining shares .
 

Woodsie

Feast yer eyes ..
Tipping Member
This is public record as they have to declare it mate to Parliament.
Littleprouds dependent kids "own" shares in mining.
So suck eggs.

Yes .. can you obtain a list of these investments to prove your point.. that "nearly all Nat MP's have .. how did you put it .. large share portfolios in fossil fuel companies ... hmmm .. and receive according to you .. tonnes of money .. so, again according to you .. they can ignore 85% of the population ...

Quick question .. are you suggesting that Eddie Obeid or any of the many labour MP's don't have share portfolios .. and that possibly some of those shares are in fossil fuel companies ..

Did you manage to find out how many Aussies voted for the Nat's in seats they contested ?
 

Mark from Brisbane

“ Boomer still Booming”
Premium Member
Tipping Member
I think also that thinking that every politician not having investments in mining is a narrow one.

All , or at the very least most , will have self managed super funds.

Quite simply , once you have a reasonable super balance it’s cheaper to do it this way.

And , they’d then have an investment advisor who would run the account for them, some might go it alone but very few.

And every single investment advisor UNLESS specifically advised otherwise would recommend a range of investments including , banks , medical , some overseas shares , some infrastructure shares , maybe some supermarkets , and absolutely most definitely, mining shares.

So regardless of their party they’d all be up to their ears in it.

Maybe , only maybe the Greens leader and deputy might be squeaky clean.

Otherwise , they’d all be like pigs in the trough and like we as everyone day Australians are too through our super accounts.
 
Last edited:

manly al

First Grader
Agree about transition, I would say that the fringe of the Greenies want it yesterday but most of the smart ones acknowledge transition.
I do think the economy will push it forward fast though.
States all all going net zero quicker than the feds who are hamstrung by the Nats.
Right about the states setting the trend for net zero and in many ways forcing the Fed 's hand or one side of the feds . Shame that a form of a super profits tax was sabotaged by mining interests 11 or so years ago , already existed in the oil and gas industry or a form of it for decades in Australia . Norway had a similar scheme on North Sea gas and oil for decades and has a national sovereign fund now worth many tens of billions of dollars . Think that the mining companies outlayed something like 20 mil in advertising and propaganda to kill it and then have literally saved billions to the detriment of Australia , most of the profits [ and probably still do ] were going overseas , and would have only applied to the super profit category in certain years , not a permanent arrangement , . Anyway what is sometimes or often in the national good often does not occur if the politics of the day is not acting that way either .
 

manlyfan76

There is no A.I. Just better computers
Yes .. can you obtain a list of these investments to prove your point.. that "nearly all Nat MP's have .. how did you put it .. large share portfolios in fossil fuel companies ... hmmm .. and receive according to you .. tonnes of money .. so, again according to you .. they can ignore 85% of the population ...

Quick question .. are you suggesting that Eddie Obeid or any of the many labour MP's don't have share portfolios .. and that possibly some of those shares are in fossil fuel companies ..

Did you manage to find out how many Aussies voted for the Nat's in seats they contested ?
So did I slander or were you just grandstanding?
 

manlyfan76

There is no A.I. Just better computers
I think also that thinking that every politician not having investments in mining is a narrow one.

All , or at the very least most , will have self managed super funds.

Quite simply , once you have a reasonable super balance it’s cheaper to do it this way.

And , they’d then have an investment advisor who would run the account for them, some might go it alone but very few.

And every single investment advisor UNLESS specifically advised otherwise would recommend a range of investments including , banks , medical , some overseas shares , some infrastructure shares , maybe some supermarkets , and absolutely most definitely, mining shares.

So regardless of their party they’d all be up to their ears in it.

Maybe , only maybe the Greens leader and deputy might be squeaky clean.

Otherwise , they’d all be like pigs in the trough and like we as everyone day Australians are too through our super accounts.
Don't slander the pollies Mark :)
 

Woodsie

Feast yer eyes ..
Tipping Member
So did I slander or were you just grandstanding?

You must be used to debating with children .. you made the assertions of corruption .. onus of proof lies with you ... I have not yet seen you produce the list of investments of Nat MP's you say is available .. or evidence of the large sums of money you say is given to them ... if and when you do, I will answer your question more fully .. however, I contend that your accusations without supporting evidence, smells like slander, looks like slander, and is odds on that it will end up unsupported, leftie attack the man rather than the facts slander ... surely you could go all out leftie and accuse the Nat's of also being some type of ISM .. maybe racism, or sexism, or homophopism .. really channel your talents ..
 

manlyfan76

There is no A.I. Just better computers
Screenshot_2021-10-30-19-01-55-01_0b2fce7a16bf2b728d6ffa28c8d60efb.jpg
 

SeaEagleRock8

Sea Eagle Lach
Premium Member
Tipping Member
Just watched Meltdown on Netflix, a doco about the accident at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant.
Sobering, to say the least.
 

Woodsie

Feast yer eyes ..
Tipping Member
Reuters
Reuters

Follow

Westinghouse unveils small modular nuclear reactor​

Story by By Timothy Gardner • Yesterday 11:16 pm

Artist rendering shows Westinghouse’s AP300 small modular nuclear power reactor
Artist rendering shows Westinghouse’s AP300 small modular nuclear power reactor© Thomson Reuters
By Timothy Gardner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. company Westinghouse unveiled plans on Thursday for a small modular reactor to generate virtually emissions-free electricity that could replace coal plants or power water desalinization and other industries.

Rita Baranwal, the Westinghouse Electricity Co's top technology officer, said the reactor, dubbed AP300 for its planned 300 Megawatt capacity, will not use special fuels or liquid metal coolants unlike some other next-generation reactors.


It will be a smaller version of its AP1000 reactor, several of which are operating in China, and which are ramping up in Georgia at the Vogtle plant, after years of delay and billions of dollars over budget.

Despite hurdles for new nuclear, Baranwal was confident. "We've kept it simple, designed it on demonstrated and licensed technology, and I think that's one of the advantages that we have with this concept," she told Reuters in an interview. Westinghouse, owned by Brookfield Business Partners, plans to start constructing the reactor by 2030 and have it running by 2033.

Small modular reactors (SMR) are meant to fit new applications such as replacing shut coal plants and being located in more remote communities. President Joe Biden's administration believes that maintaining existing nuclear plants and developing next-generation reactors is crucial for its goal of decarbonizing the economy by 2050.



Related video: Nuclear Fusion Reactor For Cleaner Energy (Live Science)

So far the design for only one SMR, planned by NuScale Power Corp, has been approved by U.S. regulators and it still needs permits.

Westinghouse did not reveal how much the first reactor would cost, but said later units would cost about $1 billion. The company, based in western Pennsylvania, has had informal talks with parties in neighboring states Ohio and West Virginia about the potential building of AP300s at former coal plants.

Westinghouse also hopes to sell reactors to countries in eastern Europe, even though nuclear power critics have expressed concerns that developers and governments should think carefully before building new nuclear plants anywhere near the region. They noted that Russia took the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine, the site of repeated shelling.

Baranwal said Russia's actions have made countries motivated to become more energy independent and the AP300 will be passively safe because it does not need power supply or human intervention for 72 hours in the event of an incident.

Westinghouse also sees potential customers in sub-Saharan Africa, which could bring electricity for the first time to some areas.

The company is not sure yet whether the technology can be exported to China, where the first AP1000s began operations in 2018. That year, former President Donald Trump's administration issued restrictions on exports of nuclear technology newer than the AP1000 due to nuclear proliferation concerns.

Baranwal said if the U.S. government deems AP300 to be a subset of the earlier reactor technology "then we can start entertaining the possibilities" of exporting it to China.

(Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by David Gregorio)
 

SeaEagleRock8

Sea Eagle Lach
Premium Member
Tipping Member
Sure, humanity is screwed anyway by the world's politicians allowing the destruction of the atmosphere for the benefit of billionaire owners of petro chemical companies (with absolutely no personal advantage to said politicians, lol lol) so ... who cares if there's nowhere to store nuclear waste safely for a few million years? Humanity is doomed anyway so let someone make a quick buck at least.

(Actually, this sounds like the kind of thing V'Landys woud say)
 

Brookie Bob

"I come back to you now at the turn of the tide"
Westinghouse also sees potential customers in sub-Saharan Africa, which could bring electricity for the first time to some areas.
You beauty - more princes, kings, mysterious foreign governments telling me that I have won a government lottery or similar prize, and need to send money to 'unlock it', or for 'processing costs'.......I'm looking at you, Nigeria...........

:fubar:
 
Team P W L PD Pts
12 9 3 83 22
14 10 4 78 22
13 9 4 110 20
13 8 5 66 20
13 7 6 81 18
13 7 6 -55 18
13 7 6 133 16
14 7 7 37 16
15 8 7 -8 16
13 7 6 -34 16
13 6 6 27 15
13 6 6 26 15
13 6 7 -47 14
13 4 9 -126 12
13 4 9 -111 10
12 3 9 -123 10
12 2 10 -137 8
Back
Top Bottom