This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Electric cars?

Would you buy an electric car?

  • Already own one

    Votes: 10 5.1%

  • Yes - would definitely buy

    Votes: 43 21.7%

  • Yes - preferred over petrol car if price/power/convenience similar

    Votes: 78 39.4%

  • Maybe - preference for neither, only concerned with costs etc

    Votes: 38 19.2%

  • No - prefer petrol car even if electric car has same price, power and convenience

    Votes: 25 12.6%

  • No - would never buy one

    Votes: 14 7.1%
  • Total voters
    198
Jump to new
Interesting Belgium are talking about replacing them with gas, sounds to me that a decision made in 2003, is coming home to haunt them.
 
Not sure about Germany & Belguim, I do know that Japan is increasing nuclear energy

Nuclear Power in Japan​

(Updated December 2021)

  • Japan needs to import about 90% of its energy requirements.
  • Its first commercial nuclear power reactor began operating in mid-1966, and nuclear energy has been a national strategic priority since 1973. This came under review following the 2011 Fukushima accident but has been confirmed.
  • Up until 2011, Japan was generating some 30% of electricity from its reactors and this was expected to increase to at least 40% by 2017. The plan is now for at least 20% by 2030, from a depleted fleet.
  • The first two reactors restarted in August and October 2015, with a further eight having restarted since. 16 reactors are currently in the process of restart approval.

Nuclear Power in Japan | Japanese Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association

Nuclear energy has been a national strategic priority for Japan since 1973. Japan's reactors provide some 30% of the country's electricity and this is expected to increase to at least 40% by 2017. Japan has a full fuel cycle set up, including enrichment and reprocessing used fuel for recycle.
world-nuclear.org
 
so away from the I boost my uranium shares:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...first-nuclear-reactor-since-2018-amid-hurdles
so 10 out of 33 which were operating pre fukushima
these restarts started in 2015 took 7y for 10; now another 16 supposedly started process at best, they will have 26 out of 33 a decade ago..not exactly a booming trades..and shutting down in germany and Belgium
looking at france:
"PARIS, Jan 21 (Reuters) - France plans to shut down 14 nuclear reactors by 2035, starting with two at Fessenheim this year, according to French government's public consultation document on energy "
in the US:
Following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, it is expected that two more new units will come online soon after 2020, these resulting from 16 licence applications made since mid-2007 to build 24 new nuclear reactors.
well these 2 started construction in 2013..yeap 7y+ ago
All that to say I genuinely doubt we will see new reactors in australia anytime soon..and few overall addition in the west ..
So Uranium rise is more related to china park expansion and the fact most of the old nuke heads have now been recycled into hot water in kettles..my choice indeed
Even imagining Australia building a nuclear reactor wo any IP, brain and the usual BS red green tape which makes road construction taking in years here what it takes in month in china.......
Really a stretch of imagination IMHO.
So we need to look elsewhere for charging these EV:
option 1: everyone on bike and leaving by the factory in a tiny home(The Reset)
option 2: storage of ample PV: hydro, h2 cells, hooked EV
option 3, do nothing and let Australia collapse during heat heatwave or cold front in the south while blaming the Russians(can not blame China, too powerful), or blaming LNP/ALP based on who is talking
 
My guess is the only way nuclear generation will flourish, is if they perfect SMR's, that are built at the factory then shipped to site and re assembled.
The main issue is the amount of generation required to supply a true clean future, it isnt rocket science, to replace all fossil fueled generation, all fossil fueled industry, all fossil fueled transportation, all fossil fueled heating in the World, is a lot of energy.
If people think that can be done, with solar panels and wind farms, well I think they have little understanding of the scale of the issue.
 
sptrawler said:
If people think that can be done, with solar panels and wind farms, well I think they have little understanding of the scale of the issue.
Click to expand...
Actually that scale was worked out long ago, and is a very small fraction of the the global footprint.
In simple maths terms one tenth of Australia's land and sea area is enough to presently meet global energy needs.
That's why if we invest heavily now in a hydrogen economy we can capture international markets ahead of potential competitors - principally the Middle East - and become greener and wealthier than Norway is today.
 
Last edited:
Well that is good to know, so by 2050 we should nail it, maxed out population and fully clean energy, I cant see what everyones worried about.

How to Sustainably Feed 10 Billion People by 2050, in 21 Charts

Can we feed the world without destroying it? New research reveals 22 steps to a sustainable food future.
www.wri.org
 
qldfrog said:
Nuclear in our new grenwash world is touted by some as the answer here.
Click to expand...
The big problem with nuclear is the financial one.

Technically it works, in theory it can be done safely, but on the financial side investing in nuclear power is the closest thing you can do to buying shares in socialism. It's as tied to government as the military or welfare are.

That said, well pragmatically it's going to play a role going forward for the foreseeable future so no point pretending otherwise. Invest accordingly.
 
I think the last couple of years has shown how little money has to do with anything, if it is decided nuclear is the clean energy answer, money will be the least of the problems, just add zero's to the central bank spread sheet. Lol
If h2 is the answer, IMO nuclear is the go eventually, as with everything the technology will improve as the demand calls for it.
 

Has anyone done an analysis on why it's so expensive? Hundreds of these things have now been built and you'd think the more that were produced the costs would come down.

Is it just the regulatory hurdles and safety requirements?

Surely not just labour costs to operate. I mean, Homer wasn't the sharpest tool.
 

That is the most depressing thing I think you have ever said Smurf and I respect everything you say. I have no problem with socialism I grew up with it as in the State and Commonwealth owned the banks, the infrastructure, public transport, roads on and on. It worked pretty well. Then came MacBank and it all seemed to fall apart. Anyhoo...I hate the thought of bloody nuclear power. An explosion at a gas/coal plant won't cause an area to be evacuated for the next X thousands (?) of years.
 
Ann said:
I hate the thought of bloody nuclear power. An explosion at a gas/coal plant won't cause an area to be evacuated for the next X thousands (?) of years.
Click to expand...

I'm really interested in this perspective. There have been some nuclear accidents that have killed a few people and large areas of land have been destroyed and uninhabitable. But, has coal, gas, dung, biofuels, wind, solar, and future hydrogen been any better or worse off?

I think Michael Shellenberger did a bit on this a few years ago and nuclear proved to be much safer and destroy far less of the environment on a power to weight ratio than any other fuel source.

I think I remember that from a TED Talk he did about a decade ago. Maybe it was crap.
 

....or an attempt at propaganda. The nuclear power cabal (for want of a better description) has been trying desperately to get Nuclear power back onto the agenda. I have often thought they were the original funders of the GW promoters before they managed to get some of the eco-warriors like the Sierra Club onboard. Although in the early piece the Sierra club said they supported Nuclear power but now they have backed away from that, clearly realizing they need to keep that under wraps for the moment.

I have no doubt that Nuclear Power are the players and funders behind this Global Warming garbage. When it all started years ago I thought....hello, hello, this must be the bloody Nuclear bastards trying to get a foot-hold. Now guess what!
 
Sean K said:
Has anyone done an analysis on why it's so expensive?
Click to expand...
The precise details are outside my area of knowledge but what I do know is that the issues are on the construction side not once it's built, and they relate directly to nuclear reactors as the heat source.

I say that since nuclear plants already built are economic to operate. Once it's built and the cost of construction isn't a factor in decision making since it can't be recovered then, from a purely economic perspective, it's fairly cheap to operate hence most facilities once build do end up being run for their useful lifespan unless there's either some major unforeseen problem or a political decision to close it. It's just that the $ billions spent during the construction phase will never be recovered from the sale of electricity on a commercial basis.

Apart from the heat source, a nuclear plant is technically much the same as a coal-fired plant. Steam turbine, condenser, alternator etc plus all the associated bits and pieces - control room, cooling tower to recycle the water if required, electrical switchyard, incidental things like workshop and stores, etc.

The key difference is in the means of producing the steam. A coal fired boiler with associated fuel handling, stack (chimney) etc versus a nuclear reactor. That's the key difference between the two.

As for the environment, it really depends on what you're measuring. Eg a wind farm or hydro undeniably do have an impact but it's a very different sort of impact compared to fossil fuels or nuclear. So it depends on the detail of what's considered to be most important - land use, CO2, toxic waste etc. What's best for one tends to be less than ideal for another.
 
SirRumpole said:
But you can't buy shares in Snowy Hydro either ?
Click to expand...
What I mean is that if you invest in nuclear then your profits are ultimately coming from taxpayers or the printing press, that is government, and the key decisions about what happens are also being made by government not the company.

It's not literally owning shares in government but it's about as close as you can get.
 
Elon Musk was stating that a solar farm the size of a power plant + its exclusion zone produce more or as much than a nuclear power..And guess what, might not be wrong;
Add construction cost/energy, ongoing treatment of waste etc
A bit far from EV but we all agree that EV and grid are not split table.
Let me check that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...