Sensational-Adelaide.com

abc wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 3:39 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 3:23 pm

The subsidies around wind and solar are more around helping the industries get setup and building the economies around them so they can reach a point where subsidies aren't required. The home solar subsidy for example has been decreasing every year and will be entirely gone by 2030.

The larger industrial scale subsidies can also expect to be wound down over time as renewables become the norm.

I'm unaware of any model for nuclear power in Australia that would be commercially feasible without large subsidies indefinitely applying as long as the plants operate, for many decades into the future.

That's the difference.

Edit: beaten a bit by SBD, I should learn to refresh.

I love the double standards here.

Removal of the home solar subsidy is just putting further cost onto the consumer...which increases prices of energy further.

What double standard?

Also I'm confused, are you in favor of subsiding home solar, or not?

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 5:18 pm

abc wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 3:39 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 3:23 pm

The subsidies around wind and solar are more around helping the industries get setup and building the economies around them so they can reach a point where subsidies aren't required. The home solar subsidy for example has been decreasing every year and will be entirely gone by 2030.

The larger industrial scale subsidies can also expect to be wound down over time as renewables become the norm.

I'm unaware of any model for nuclear power in Australia that would be commercially feasible without large subsidies indefinitely applying as long as the plants operate, for many decades into the future.

That's the difference.

Edit: beaten a bit by SBD, I should learn to refresh.

I love the double standards here.

Removal of the home solar subsidy is just putting further cost onto the consumer...which increases prices of energy further.

What double standard?

Also I'm confused, are you in favor of subsiding home solar, or not?

No, the point is the public were eased into this type of energy and are now stuck holding the baby. Panels lose their efficiency from the moment they're deployed too and by the end of their lifecycle will need to be replaced at the cost of the consumer. If you add it all up its a scam, and I'm sure the price of energy stats don't factor in the cost the public have worn for solar panel installation.

Algernon wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 5:02 pm

abc wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 3:59 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 3:49 pm

Nuclear power plants also have the problem that they are cash flow negative for twenty years during the planning and construction phases, and then might take another twenty years to break even, only making a profit after that. That assumes that the cost of energy from the nuclear plant is competitive at that point. If it isn't competitive, then nobody will buy it, and it's going to go broke. And it's already cheaper to install rooftop solar and batteries.

I can imagine the shareholders of AGL and Origin etc, being asked to do without dividends for 40 years during the construction of a nuclear plant, so maybe, possibly the prices of renewables don't go down in the next 40 years. Even a pro-nuclear shareholder is going to have a "hang on!" moment if told to forego 40 years worth of dividends - especially boomers who won't even live that long for the most part.

Nuclear is only going to happen if subsidised by government. Some countries have to do that, thanks to Herr Putin, or ideological governments that like using taxpayer funds for their pet projects. However, if we don't have to do it, we certainly shouldn't subsidise it.

Having a law against it provides a little more defence against our taxes being siphoned away, since it is harder to slip it by the community.

Can you provide evidence for these claims?

Aren't all you zoomers going to die from climate change in 5 years anyway?

There's no need to win an argument with you. SA will be 100% net renewables in 3 years.

You're about 20 years late to your own argument.

You like to bang on about SA being the only place in the world going all in on renewables. It's a great argument to make when preaching to folks like yourself who'd never in their lives go out and experience any part of the world. You're probably one of those bogans that thinks AFL is played in Denmark.

And no matter how much evidence you advance, it will just be ignored. Then, having ignored the evidence, they'll say there's no evidence.

abc wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 4:17 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 4:01 pm

Spurdo wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 2:44 pm

But don’t wind & solar get subsidies as well? Suddenly subsidies are ok when it’s the right type of generation? Also, I don’t get why so many people here are against literally just legalising nuclear power? Yeah, it might not get built but I personally don’t believe the government should be dictating what can and can’t not be used to generate electricity, especially considering it’s literally the only form of generation to be outlawed.

You're wasting your time trying to engage in a discussion with either those guys or abc. Both are just the extreme of either end of the debate.
Neither can bring them selves to actually be reasonable, and they'll never admit anything that goes against their extreme beliefs.

They're all nut jobs in other words.

Fools who think they know everything and are unwilling to (honestly) consider anything other then their own ideologies.
Sickening really that people like this exist in 2024, but it's good for a chuckle I suppose.

And I write this as someone who was at one stage dead against things like EV's.

Such a lack of self awareness on your part.

I'm guessing the cult of Elon, the government funding grift merchant changed your mind on EVs.

No, i don't give a shit about Elon Musk, I'm just all for technological advancement as a society and species, if it comes from people like Elon Musk great, if it comes from someone else, great.
Instead of always looking at things with a political scope, I chose to look at whether they will advance us as a society or hinder us.
Now maybe you don't care about future generations but I give a shit about what sort of world my kids and grand kids will grow up in and have to live in.
Don't have to be a greeny to understand and accept that we can't keep digging up the earth or chopping down forests for an ever growing population. There's alternatives that exist, there's alternatives that will be developed.

All this negativity you project can't be healthy for you.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 5:38 pm

Algernon wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 5:02 pm

abc wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 3:59 pm

Can you provide evidence for these claims?

Aren't all you zoomers going to die from climate change in 5 years anyway?

There's no need to win an argument with you. SA will be 100% net renewables in 3 years.

You're about 20 years late to your own argument.

You like to bang on about SA being the only place in the world going all in on renewables. It's a great argument to make when preaching to folks like yourself who'd never in their lives go out and experience any part of the world. You're probably one of those bogans that thinks AFL is played in Denmark.

And no matter how much evidence you advance, it will just be ignored. Then, having ignored the evidence, they'll say there's no evidence.

except he hasn't provided ANY evidence...

rev wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 5:44 pm

abc wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 4:17 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 4:01 pm

You're wasting your time trying to engage in a discussion with either those guys or abc. Both are just the extreme of either end of the debate.
Neither can bring them selves to actually be reasonable, and they'll never admit anything that goes against their extreme beliefs.

They're all nut jobs in other words.

Fools who think they know everything and are unwilling to (honestly) consider anything other then their own ideologies.
Sickening really that people like this exist in 2024, but it's good for a chuckle I suppose.

And I write this as someone who was at one stage dead against things like EV's.

Such a lack of self awareness on your part.

I'm guessing the cult of Elon, the government funding grift merchant changed your mind on EVs.

No, i don't give a shit about Elon Musk, I'm just all for technological advancement as a society and species, if it comes from people like Elon Musk great, if it comes from someone else, great.
Instead of always looking at things with a political scope, I chose to look at whether they will advance us as a society or hinder us.
Now maybe you don't care about future generations but I give a shit about what sort of world my kids and grand kids will grow up in and have to live in.
Don't have to be a greeny to understand and accept that we can't keep digging up the earth or chopping down forests for an ever growing population. There's alternatives that exist, there's alternatives that will be developed.

All this negativity you project can't be healthy for you.

I don't see the advantage of EVs in any benefit to the environment. It's smoke and mirrors how they're marketed.
You're attributing views to me that I don't even hold because you've been reading mattblack's and allegy's or algery or whatever he's called's insults and assumed they're based on anything I've actually said.
If you're serious then you'd be advocating push bikes, but you won't because you'd be the type that would try to run them off the road.

Do you think EV batteries fall from the sky? Do you think wind turbines use magnets that fall from the sky and run on olive oil and don't kill millions of birds?

The people who are running the show don't give a fuck about the environment. They all fly on private jets to their piss-ups in Switzerland or wherever. They manipulate the good intentions of mid level idiots to grift money from all of us.

abc wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 6:08 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 5:44 pm

abc wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 4:17 pm

Such a lack of self awareness on your part.

I'm guessing the cult of Elon, the government funding grift merchant changed your mind on EVs.

No, i don't give a shit about Elon Musk, I'm just all for technological advancement as a society and species, if it comes from people like Elon Musk great, if it comes from someone else, great.
Instead of always looking at things with a political scope, I chose to look at whether they will advance us as a society or hinder us.
Now maybe you don't care about future generations but I give a shit about what sort of world my kids and grand kids will grow up in and have to live in.
Don't have to be a greeny to understand and accept that we can't keep digging up the earth or chopping down forests for an ever growing population. There's alternatives that exist, there's alternatives that will be developed.

All this negativity you project can't be healthy for you.

I don't see the advantage of EVs in any benefit to the environment. It's smoke and mirrors how they're marketed.

Im talking about technological advancements and how they might benefit us, not specifically anything to do with the environment.
I chose those words carefully, but it appears you still just want to pick fights.

You're attributing views to me that I don't even hold because you've been reading mattblack's and allegy's or algery or whatever he's called's insults and assumed they're based on anything I've actually said.

I haven't attributed anything to you in my post above.
I dont know if you care about future generations, or if you have kids or grandkids. That's why I said you might not care.
Nothing to do with what anyone else has said.

If you're serious then you'd be advocating push bikes, but you won't because you'd be the type that would try to run them off the road.

Im all for bikes, I even own one and use it at least a few times a week. Personal choice really, rather stay healthy and fit.
But I do think we should have dedicated bike lanes with physical barriers separating them from other road users for safety reasons.

Do you think EV batteries fall from the sky? Do you think wind turbines use magnets that fall from the sky and run on olive oil and don't kill millions of birds?

I thought the renewable fairies delivered them in the middle of the might while you slept.

The people who are running the show don't give a fuck about the environment. They all fly on private jets to their piss-ups in Switzerland or wherever. They manipulate the good intentions of mid level idiots to grift money from all of us.

We know they don't give a shit.
Being in favour of technological advancement, does not mean I agree with those people, or how they're delivering or pushing their climate agendas.

abc wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 5:23 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 5:18 pm

abc wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 3:39 pm

I love the double standards here.

Removal of the home solar subsidy is just putting further cost onto the consumer...which increases prices of energy further.

What double standard?

Also I'm confused, are you in favor of subsiding home solar, or not?

No, the point is the public were eased into this type of energy and are now stuck holding the baby. Panels lose their efficiency from the moment they're deployed too and by the end of their lifecycle will need to be replaced at the cost of the consumer. If you add it all up its a scam, and I'm sure the price of energy stats don't factor in the cost the public have worn for solar panel installation.

As someone who has added it up I disagree, but would love to see your maths.

That also goes for nuclear. I'm not inherently anti-nuclear, I've even stated in this thread there are places right now it makes sense to keep using and even build new nuclear power. None of the numbers I've seen stack up for Australia, but please, prove me wrong.

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 6:44 pm

abc wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 5:23 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 5:18 pm

What double standard?

Also I'm confused, are you in favor of subsiding home solar, or not?

No, the point is the public were eased into this type of energy and are now stuck holding the baby. Panels lose their efficiency from the moment they're deployed too and by the end of their lifecycle will need to be replaced at the cost of the consumer. If you add it all up its a scam, and I'm sure the price of energy stats don't factor in the cost the public have worn for solar panel installation.

As someone who has added it up I disagree, but would love to see your maths.

That also goes for nuclear. I'm not inherently anti-nuclear, I've even stated in this thread there are places right now it makes sense to keep using and even build new nuclear power. None of the numbers I've seen stack up for Australia, but please, prove me wrong.

the elephant in the room here is of course natural gas...but again, politics...

meanwhile the Chinese have 16 nuclear power plants under construction and will have 10% total power to China, nuclear, by 2035. 10% of China population...do the math

now what would they know...

abc wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 6:49 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 6:44 pm

abc wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 5:23 pm

No, the point is the public were eased into this type of energy and are now stuck holding the baby. Panels lose their efficiency from the moment they're deployed too and by the end of their lifecycle will need to be replaced at the cost of the consumer. If you add it all up its a scam, and I'm sure the price of energy stats don't factor in the cost the public have worn for solar panel installation.

As someone who has added it up I disagree, but would love to see your maths.

That also goes for nuclear. I'm not inherently anti-nuclear, I've even stated in this thread there are places right now it makes sense to keep using and even build new nuclear power. None of the numbers I've seen stack up for Australia, but please, prove me wrong.

the elephant in the room here is of course natural gas...but again, politics...

meanwhile the Chinese have 16 nuclear power plants under construction and will have 10% total power to China, nuclear, by 2035. 10% of China population...do the math

now what would they know...

What math are you referring to? The math that China's massive population and power consumption that are both magnitudes larger than ours means they can get economy of scale on nuclear?

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 7:20 pm

abc wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 6:49 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 6:44 pm

As someone who has added it up I disagree, but would love to see your maths.

That also goes for nuclear. I'm not inherently anti-nuclear, I've even stated in this thread there are places right now it makes sense to keep using and even build new nuclear power. None of the numbers I've seen stack up for Australia, but please, prove me wrong.

the elephant in the room here is of course natural gas...but again, politics...

meanwhile the Chinese have 16 nuclear power plants under construction and will have 10% total power to China, nuclear, by 2035. 10% of China population...do the math

now what would they know...

What math are you referring to? The math that China's massive population and power consumption that are both magnitudes larger than ours means they can get economy of scale on nuclear?

You're just making things up now. Economy of scale lol. France has 56 plants and building more.

I'm not anti nuclear. I have a simple question. If the chosen route from here is to go nuclear, what on earth is the policy between now and in an absolute minimum 15 years from now when the first reactor could be commissioned?

The answer is burn more coal and gas.

And when the cost comparison is done between coal and nuclear, what is cheaper? Coal.

How gullible do you need to be to believe the current proponents of nuclear - political or private citizen or industry group or what have you, actually intend to build a nuclear power plant? I have bridges I can sell all of you.

Nuclear is an option for those who already have it. Especially resource poor and/or isolated countries.

It's not a good option for a country which is half way to a fully renewable grid and will be 100% there before it's possible to commission a reactor.

Raise nuclear 20 years ago and it's a different ball game.

abc wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 7:28 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 7:20 pm

abc wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2024 6:49 pm

the elephant in the room here is of course natural gas...but again, politics...

meanwhile the Chinese have 16 nuclear power plants under construction and will have 10% total power to China, nuclear, by 2035. 10% of China population...do the math

now what would they know...

What math are you referring to? The math that China's massive population and power consumption that are both magnitudes larger than ours means they can get economy of scale on nuclear?

You're just making things up now. Economy of scale lol. France has 56 plants and building more.

Yes, France has a well established nuclear industry, so they are one of the the places that the numbers of scaling up the number of plants works a lot better than starting from scratch here would.

Again, show the numbers on why you think nuclear is a good choice for Australia in 2024 please.

Also FMD what a time to be alive when rednecks are bird watchers

The coal lobby doesn't want to lose its income to wind and solar but happy to accommodate a uranium rod.

I've heard some shit in my time but this one