this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024
43 points (93.9% liked)

Australia

3649 readers
55 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Ths best time to plant a tree is 50 years ago. The second best time is now. Same logic applies. Also ukraine has proven Americas nuclear umbrella isnt particularly reliable so oyr own nuclear technology might be nessasary in future.

[–] Tricky 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You realise that nuclear power and nuclear enrichment for weaponry are two very different things, right?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 week ago

Yeah but the former makes the latter easyer. Nuclear power also provides justification for enrichment especially considering we sit on one of the worlds largest uranium deposits

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's not a solution for addressing the climate crisis, any attempt to market it as such is disingenuous. It could have been but it's 20 years too late.

It certainly can be a part of a long term energy plan and even a long term military plan, but it's not going to be providing energy in 10 years. The only things that are going to achieve that are wind and solar with energy storage.

Also Ukraine has had nuclear plants since the Soviet era. Do you mean under under America's nuclear weapon umbrella? Nuclear weapons development is significantly different from power generation.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's not a solution for addressing the climate crisis, any attempt to market it as such is disingenuous. It could have been but it's 20 years too late.

Why cant it help address the issue now? Solar and wind are great but they eaither require large expensive batteris to handle the inconsistent nature or other on demand power geberation methods to fill the gaps (hydroelectric, gas, etc). Most energy on the grid comes from coal which has large lead times with very efficient reliable generation providing a good base power generation. We can replace a vast majority of the non renewable energy with wind + solar + batteries + hydroelectric but this cannot provide the nonfluctuating base generation thats filled by coal atm. Nuclear is a drop in replacment for coal in its generation charecteristics. Nuclear is ideal for long nonfluctuating loads which are increasing a lot with the likes of ai, datacentres, crypto etc, these use cases are increasing and will continue to do so thus increasing the base power load (the ideal for nuclear).

It certainly can be a part of a long term energy plan and even a long term military plan, but it's not going to be providing energy in 10 years. The only things that are going to achieve that are wind and solar with energy storage.

Exactly and my logic based on past experience is that the government isnt going to make that change they are just gonna keep using coal. If the nuclear gets off the ground then we can replace old coal with new nuclear thus giving ample capacity for the big businesses to adapt without the same level of backlash. Its about alligning profit incentives.

Also Ukraine has had nuclear plants since the Soviet era. Do you mean under under America's nuclear weapon umbrella? Nuclear weapons development is significantly different from power generation.

I mean america Britain and russia convinced ukraine to give up their nukes in exchange for security guarantees (weve seen how thats going) this significantly undermines the global trust is americas nuclear umbrella agreements theyve made hence rhe global rush by many nations to buold nukes.

Going from nuclear power to nuclear bombs is a lot easyer than anyone is comfortable to admit. If we can get on the nuclear power path then that makes a potential transition to nuclear bombs easyer. Not that we will do that but the capacity for us to do so changes the military calculus for our enemies and more importantly for our allies.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

It can't help to fix the issue now because it takes 20 years to build a functional plant IF you have the local skill and regulatory framework to design, build and operate them. It would take us 30 years because we have none of that. We can roll out gigawatts of solar, wind, batteries and hydro energy storage in significantly less time. These technologies require no new framework and the engineering is well understood.

Nuclear bombs are a significant step from nuclear power. The engineering of the equipment to refine the fuel alone is difficult and requires huge amounts of capital and manpower to develop, let alone that required for the bombs or the delivery systems. Australia doesn't have the budget or the capability to build nuclear plants let alone nuclear weapons.