Divide and fool: The Coalition’s misinformation campaign

“1n a recent Q and A, the opposition’s shadow minister for Climate Change and Energy Ted O’Brien’s improbable aim was to convince Australia that small nuclear reactors (SMRs) could replace our coal fired power plants and lead us to carbon neutrality. If you examine the economics of SMRs the proposition has to be classified as an absurdity with no chance of becoming a reality in the foreseeable future – if ever. ------”
https://johnmenadue.com/divide-and-fool-the-coalitions-misinformation-campaign/

Planetcare does it matter? The government does what it likes, regardless of who's in power. No governing official is innocent of misappropriation of tax payer funds. Their motto is "All for one & none for all". "Promise them (the public) everything & give them nothing"
If they don't work on division how then can their authority stand. The old adage of "Keep them divided, keep them in the dark & feed them bull*hit" has always been & will continue to be as long as people remain divided, each over self interest.
This is how all governments around the world reign supreme. For not one is ever held accountable for their misappropriations of tax payer funds, all at the cost to the tax payer.

Kon

This is interesting:

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

This is fascinating:

Primitive reactors

The world's oldest known nuclear reactors operated at what is now Oklo in Gabon, West Africa. About 2 billion years ago, at least 16 natural nuclear reactors achieved criticality in a high-grade deposit of uranium ore (a 17th was in the Bangombe deposit 30 km away). Each operated intermittently at about 20 kW thermal, the reaction ceasing whenever the water turned to steam so that it ceased to function as moderator. At that time the concentration of U-235 in all natural uranium was about 3.6% instead of 0.7% as at present. (U-235 decays much faster than U-238, whose half-life is about the same as the age of the Earth. When the Earth was formed U-235 was about 30% of uranium.) These natural chain reactions started spontaneously and continued overall for one or two million years before finally dying away. It appears that each reactor operated in pulses of about 30 minutes. It is estimated that about 130 TWh of heat was produced. (The reactors were discovered when assays of mined uranium showed only 0.717% U-235 instead of 0.720% as everywhere else on the planet. Further investigation identified particular reactor zones with U-235 levels down to 0.44%. There were also significant concentrations of decay nuclides from fission products of both uranium and plutonium.)

During this long reaction period about 5.4 tonnes of fission products as well as up to two tonnes of plutonium together with other transuranic elements were generated in the orebody. The initial radioactive products have long since decayed into stable elements but close study of the amount and location of these has shown that there was little movement of radioactive wastes during and after the nuclear reactions. Plutonium and the other transuranics remained immobile.

It matters not what we think about nuclear, it is coming. We will have SMRs and even larger nuclear reactors. Nothing you or I have to say will matter nuclear will be in the energy mix in Australia. There is no point in arguing about it.

One expert on fashion once said that bikini's will never be allowed on Bondi Beach.

One expert on communications once said that television will never affect they way the public think.

granite2 wrote:It matters not what we think about nuclear, it is coming. We will have SMRs and even larger nuclear reactors. Nothing you or I have to say will matter nuclear will be in the energy mix in Australia.

How many SMR are in commercial operation globally? In Australia we do not need nuclear power when we have the worlds best resources for cheap renewable energy from solar , wind hydro and maybe tidal .The oppositions nuclear policy will grantee that they will be in opposition for the foreseeable future!

PC, as I said it doesn't matter what you or I think nuclear is on its way.

granite2 wrote:PC, as I said it doesn't matter what you or I think nuclear is on its way.

“The debate will rage on, but one thing is certain: SMRs won’t be markedly contributing to global grids any time soon. “  
I will say the same thing for Australia, nuclear power will not be contributing to  Australia's energy grid any time soon!
https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/power/small-modular-reactors-smrs-what-is-taking-so-long/?cf-view
A second new nuclear reactor is completed in Georgia. The carbon-free power comes at a high price
“ATLANTA (AP) — The second of two new nuclear reactors in Georgia has entered commercial operation, capping a project that cost billions more and took years longer than originally projected.
The new Vogtle reactors are currently projected to cost Georgia Power and three other owners $31 billion, according to calculations by The Associated Press. Add in $3.7 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid Vogtle owners to walk away from construction, and the total nears $35 billion.
Electric customers in Georgia already have paid billions for what may be the most expensive power plant ever. The reactors were originally projected to cost $14 billion and be completed by 2017.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/a-second-new-nuclear-reactor-is-completed-in-georgia-the-carbon-free-power-comes-at-a-high-price/ar-AA1nS55t

“Even operating costs for nuclear power plants are high and many reactors have been shut down for being unprofitable. In 2018, NextEra, a large electric utility in the US, decided to shut down the Duane Arnold nuclear reactor because it estimated that replacing nuclear with wind power would “save customers nearly $300 million in energy costs, on a net present value basis”.
https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/power/small-modular-reactors-smrs-what-is-taking-so-long/?cf-view