|
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:The long wind up time for nuclear is mostly a result of regulatory issues and waste isnt an issue with breeder reactors. I dont think renewables are ever going to be able to meet the worlds power demands, at least not in the next few decades. Of the feasible options nuclear looks the least horrible imo. More people died as a result of the evacuation of fukushima than would have had they stayed. Considering LNP are the most likely party to go for a nuclear power option, it's very worrisome that their ministers can't even get a train line signal system contract right and went straight to the lowest cost option. That worked out well, Emerson. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-06/qr-says-signal-system-delayed-moreton-rail-link-cheapest-option/7481412?section=qld
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:While you morons are arguing about nuclear power for the millionth time, north sydney beach front property is falling into the ocean for the second night in a row. after a long lovely day, this is the sort of news that makes everything better
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Birdstrike posted:Enough about the grid m8 Noice
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:Here's the problem though, if solar power isn't ethical enough for you (i.e from pollution caused during manufacturing process) then what is? The way you present the fact that there's pollution, you make it seem like why bother with solar if there's some pollution from it? What's ethical enough for me is if there was some kind of regulatory body, or perhaps some kind of certification that could be met, after inspection, to ensure harm is minimised? That's not unreasonable. Maybe it exists already! Maybe the Greens could have said "We will endeavor to ensure that the manufacture of these panels meets some kind of environmental standard" - just in some fineprint somewhere, to show they've actually thought about it. Some manufacturers probably do a great job of containing their wastes. There are definitely some who do not. Anyway that's not even my main concern but it's a factor I had hoped the Greens would mention somewhere considering an initiative of this size. My other concern with solar panels on every roof is the huge amount of e-waste they will become once they've all broken/worn out, and it seems like a fairly obvious thing to have covered considering the e-waste issues we've already seen with phones, computers, tvs, CF globes, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:Ok, so you reuse clothing and don't buy new phones unnecessarily. Cool, you're doing that because, while those items aren't completely ethical in how they're produced, for you it's the most ethical option. That's cool. He's not saying "the production of solar panels has an environmental impact therefore it's unethical", he's asking whether the Greens have addressed any of the questions or concerns surrounding the production of solar panels and if so, how they propose to manage or regulate the production of these panels in order to ensure minimum environmental production standards, which doesn't seem like an unreasonable question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
The only sane way to judge a power source is on a per Joule produced metric. Deaths per Joule? Nuclear is safest by far. Land area required per Joule, even including the exclusion zones from nuclear disasters? Nuclear wins. Price per Joule? Nuclear wins. To be fair Solar Panels don't exactly wear out in a hurry. I'd worry more about the waste made during construction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:and waste isnt an issue with breeder reactors. How about someone / anyone builds a breeder reactor outside of testing conditions before we say how great they're going be. SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:I dont think renewables are ever going to be able to meet the worlds power demands, at least not in the next few decades. Is this your expert opinion? How about the countries in the last couple of months that have had several days with 100% of their power coming from renewables? Not perfect yet obviously but you don't think can get there in decades?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:
nuclear does have the sickest k/d
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
PaletteSwappedNinja posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
RIP all those people burnt to a crisp by solar panels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Dude McAwesome posted:nuclear does have the sickest k/d  sweet ay
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
You've never come across predatory behavior by installers trying to cash in on a rebate? Also pretty sure you could start an electrical fire with something that's whole purpose is to make electricity, if you installed it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
yeah the manufacturing by-products question is legit, I'll ask around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:RIP all those people burnt to a crisp by solar panels. People fall off roofs. Big deal you say? You have to put up a staggeringly large number of rooftop panels to rival a nuclear plant. The statistics have been done, solar kills more people than nuclear per unit of energy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Gorfob posted:The only ethical solution is to use humans as fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
The only sensible energy solution is a giant orbital magnifying glass we use to heat a big lake in order to power a colossal steam engine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:The only sensible energy solution is a giant orbital magnifying glass we use to heat a big lake in order to power a colossal
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:apparently the lnp has reached an agreement with pathology groups over the medicare rebate? This is exactly what I predicted would happen in the May thread after Gannon sold out all the children being tortured in detention. Normally I enjoy being right, this time is just makes me sick 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:This is exactly what I predicted would happen in the May thread after Gannon sold out all the children being tortured in detention. Yep - they struck two deals. With the pathologists, they are going to mandate how much rent a practice can charge a pathology collection centre for colocating. I don't know how they are going to determine market rates etc - but its more money coming from GPs. With the imaging lobby, they are going to delay the removal of the bulk billing incentive item until after the election and they may get an increase to their rebates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
So what happens if doctors don't follow this deal and instead keep children from being returned to detention? Surely the association can't override a doctor's ruling of the need to provide duty of care? The libs could hardly go back on the deal, that would be an image nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Mr Chips posted:that, or compost shitposts into biomass for energy generation Using shitposts for power generation runs the risk of meltdown due to Negligent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:Using shitposts for power generation runs the risk of meltdown due to Negligent. Leading to the poo poo-Post Apocalypse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
PaletteSwappedNinja posted:He's not saying "the production of solar panels has an environmental impact therefore it's unethical", he's asking whether the Greens have addressed any of the questions or concerns surrounding the production of solar panels and if so, how they propose to manage or regulate the production of these panels in order to ensure minimum environmental production standards, which doesn't seem like an unreasonable question. "A panel on every building" is a little glib - it's marketing patter, not "we literally want every square foot of roof covered on solar. The thing is, the announcement ties into the overall RenewAustralia plan, where a huge part of that is funding and maintaining renewable energy manufacturing in Australia, where it's a lot easier to guarantee environmental standards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 15:26
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:The long wind up time for nuclear is mostly a result of regulatory issues and waste isnt an issue with breeder reactors. I dont think renewables are ever going to be able to meet the worlds power demands, at least not in the next few decades. Of the feasible options nuclear looks the least horrible imo. More people died as a result of the evacuation of fukushima than would have had they stayed. shut the gently caress up
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:"A panel on every building" is a little glib - it's marketing patter, not "we literally want every square foot of roof covered on solar. The email literally says: This morning we announced our plan to put solar panels on the rooftops of every household and every business. The repowering our homes and businesses pdf literally says: the Greens plan will enable every home and every business that wants to create its own clean power to do so. Okay so maybe I took it a bit too literally, it might not be every single surface covered but I think my questions are still valid. The goal is still an increase in installation and use of solar panels. Even panels manufactured in Australia (Tindo Solar in this example) are doing so with imported parts; they don't actually list where their photovoltaic cells come from on their website (so I have sent them a message asking them). It's easy to cleanly and safely manufacture something here out of imported parts, check out Tindo's factory tour, it's pretty cool. But those parts still came from somewhere that we can't necessarily guarantee environmental standards for. Once we have all the extra solar panels installed we will still need to get rid of them at the end of their lifespan. It still doesn't sit right with me to push rooftop panel ownership out to the general public since maintenance and repair and associated costs are then the responsibility of the panel owner to organise. It's just not the same as having a centralised service with built in maintenance and repairs that no one person is stuck paying for. It's a bit FYGM when my solar panel isn't broken but my neighbours is and maybe they can't afford to get it fixed so its not making money so it's not paying for itself ie the way the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is supposed to work. Maybe the Greens' scheme covers this stuff? Maintenance is paid for by CEFC until the owner completely owns the panel? I'm hoping for more information, that's the only reason I posted about it here. On the surface it looks like "lets just get lots of panels out there and the free market will sort out issues of repair and maintenance and disposal" and I don't like that at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Yeah but I heard that thorium would make an entirely safe and cheap power supply with absolutely no weapons produceable waster and it's the Greens fault that we're still using co- Nuclear reactors in the USA generate so much power that on occasion the electricity supply is free. Using thorium breeders (assuming a breeder reactor could produce as much energy as a standard light water reactor) would be the closest thing to free energy, with no waste and very little land occupancy. It's possible to get very cheap energy from renewables, but the sheer bulk of equipment required is where you get the problem of trying to put solar panels on every roof. Gorfob posted:The only ethical solution is to use humans as fuel. It's kind of a silly idea, but I've always wondered if you couldn't just fill up a building with pedal dynamos and hire people to operate them. Literal human power. How's that for job creation? DancingShade posted:The only sensible energy solution is a giant orbital magnifying glass we use to heat a big lake in order to power a colossal steam engine. Microwave energy? I'd go for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
ScreamingLlama posted:It's kind of a silly idea, but I've always wondered if you couldn't just fill up a building with pedal dynamos and hire people to operate them. Literal human power. How's that for job creation? I'm sure Centrelink has considered it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
wombat74 posted:Here's another view of the house with the collapsed swimming pool... Really explanatory picture here. I had a passionate geography teacher in my late-70's high-school, so we learnt a lot about the geomorphology of beaches, took trips to Surfers and the northern beaches to learn precisely these issues. Saw the useless rock walls, etc, learnt about the prevailing wind/currents, the use of the sandbar, and the ecology of the beach from the waters edge back into the hinterland. What hasn't been pointed out by learned wombat74, is look where the buildings are. Right on the first dune. Guess what keeps the beach from collapsing? Yup. Guess what mistake has been made right the way up to Surfers? Yup. The first dune is part of the beach's integrity, it's not just the sand it's the vegetation that holds it together and protects it against being disrupted. If it's compromised and you get king/storm tides like this, you get that, every time. You've essentially made a line between the dune and the beach and the beach goes with the wind/waves and takes a swipe out of the dune as it goes. Notice to the north of the picture where the dune is more intact, and there's still beach? Never build on the first dune. On some beaches north of Brisbane and even down here in Victoria, they fence off the first dune to stop people destroying it with random paths. You can't plan for king/storm tides. They'll happen randomly every 30-40 years, maybe sooner. You can only avoid loving up the beach in the first place, or learn this expensive lesson.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:The long wind up time for nuclear is mostly a result of regulatory issues and waste isnt an issue with breeder reactors. I dont think renewables are ever going to be able to meet the worlds power demands, at least not in the next few decades. Of the feasible options nuclear looks the least horrible imo. More people died as a result of the evacuation of fukushima than would have had they stayed. The trouble is a nuclear power plant will take at least a decade to build and as others have said, regulations when it comes to radioactive material are not a bad thing. What does nuclear power cost per MW once you take into account the construction costs and costs of storing waste? Renewable energy already makes up a large part of some countries energy. There isn't some technological hurdle everyone needs to overcome. The technology exists, we just need to invest in it. The more people take it up, the cheaper it gets for everyone. Not only that, but more investment will lead to an increase in R&D which should lead to further reductions in price and increases in efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Really explanatory picture here. I had a passionate geography teacher in my late-70's high-school, so we learnt a lot about the geomorphology of beaches, took trips to Surfers and the northern beaches to learn precisely these issues. Saw the useless rock walls, etc, learnt about the prevailing wind/currents, the use of the sandbar, and the ecology of the beach from the waters edge back into the hinterland. Mate I don't think you understand how much the first dune real estate it worth. Besides, what if it blocks the ocean views if we just build apartments behind it? You gotta think about the bigger picture here. gay picnic defence fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jun 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:The trouble is a nuclear power plant will take at least a decade to build and as others have said. I had a look last time this was mentioned and couldn't find anything to support it and have yet to hear it outside this thread. Was there some report done into nuclear viability in Australia or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:I had a look last time this was mentioned and couldn't find anything to support it and have yet to hear it outside this thread. Was there some report done into nuclear viability in Australia or something? Do you think infrastructure for refining uranium and a nuclear plant just happens to spring up overnight? That poo poo literally does take over a decade to build to a satisfactory standard. There's academics I know at Griffith Uni who are pro-nuclear but concede that it's not viable for Australia and if we were going to do it, it should have been done 40 years ago. Now it's just too much time and too much cost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:Mate I don't think you understand how much the first dune real estate it worth. Besides, what if it blocks the ocean views if we just build apartments behind it? You gotta think about the bigger picture here. That was precisely the Gold Coast developers argument before they did a quick getaway with the cash. See also every coastal developer ever. This led to the godawful canals once the beachfront had been hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:I had a look last time this was mentioned and couldn't find anything to support it and have yet to hear it outside this thread. Was there some report done into nuclear viability in Australia or something? It stems from an article posted ages ago about the logistics of building a nuclear reactor. Apparently there is only a couple of factories on earth that are big enough to build the containment vessel for a reactor and there is a 10 year waiting list there. I had a quick look and could only find references to a 3 year waiting list for the reactor vessels, but I guess if you add the search for a suitable location, the politicking and construction you'd be looking at around 10 years. https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/press-kits/economics-FAQ.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:That was precisely the Gold Coast developers argument before they did a quick getaway with the cash. See also every coastal developer ever. This led to the godawful canals once the beachfront had been hosed up. Aren't those canals a prime habitat for bull sharks now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Yeah because they're muddy and stagnant hahaha. Also, I'm imagining the insurers argument about the damage and trying not to choke on my coffee for laughing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Stoca Zola posted:Maybe the Greens' scheme covers this stuff? Maintenance is paid for by CEFC until the owner completely owns the panel? I'm hoping for more information, that's the only reason I posted about it here. On the surface it looks like "lets just get lots of panels out there and the free market will sort out issues of repair and maintenance and disposal" and I don't like that at all. At first I thought you were being a contrary jerk, but your persistence has made me actually think critically about this. Thanks for your persistence  gay picnic defence posted:Aren't those canals a prime habitat for bull sharks now? I know the GC has canals. But why the gently caress does it have canals? Is it literally "Ran out of beachfront and people want waterfront homes so we dug some ditches"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Dude McAwesome posted:I know the GC has canals. But why the gently caress does it have canals? Is it literally "Ran out of beachfront and people want waterfront homes so we dug some ditches"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Dude McAwesome posted:But why the gently caress does it have canals? Is it literally "Ran out of beachfront and people want waterfront homes so we dug some ditches"? Yes. See also, corruption and greed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
Google maps'd it. Laffo. Looks like every property in the gold coast is a river front property. Sunshine Coast has a bit of that going on too. Delfin was a let down when I got to that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 00:36
|
|
