Australian Politics Forum - Abbott's Path For Human Extinction

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Abbott's Path For Human Extinction
Reply #15 - Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:41am

Rider wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:23am:

____ wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:17am:

Swagman wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 10:19am:

Time to invite some private consortiums to establish a network of nuclear power stations on the Australian mainland.

We could utilise our abundant uranium and thorium reserves to generate an over supply of energy with little or no CO2 emissions thus bringing our arbitrary emission target down. We could then export the over supply of energy to Asia and make cash to cover the cost of the compounding bill for hand outs and get browny points for reducing Asia's CO2 emissions as well.

Wink

A. Is your plan for nuclear to completely replace fossil electricity and if so, by when.

B. Nuclear is not suitable for a hot climate and we are on trajectory for an extreme heat climate. How do you suggest we circumvent this situation or will we be without electricity during heatwaves?

C. Water to run the nukes when water in in shortage during drought.

A. Plenty of coal for decades and decades/who said we should replace all coal and why on earth would we? Its clean, reliable, proven and sustainable.
B. Nonsense. Complete. And. Utter.
C. Dams/sited on coastline.

If coal is clean why are the cons wanting "clean coal"

Quote:

The Coalition will redirect $158.3 million from the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships programme towards clean coal technologies, including carbon geo-sequestration projects associated with coal-fired electricity generation.

http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2010/08/14/real-action-mining-and-resource...

Heat and Drought Pose Risks for Nuclear Power Plants

Like coal-fired power plants, nuclear facilities use large amounts of water for cooling purposes. After water has cycled through the plant, it is discharged back into a nearby waterway, usually a lake or a river, at a higher temperature. State regulations prohibit nuclear plants from operating once water temperatures go above a certain threshold, in part because it could compromise the safe operation of the facility, and also because discharging very warm water can kill fish and other marine life.

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/heat-and-drought-pose-risks-for-nuclear-powe...

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:46am by ____ »

IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Abbott's Path For Human Extinction
Reply #16 - Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:45am

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:34am:

Lol a health academic. So you are trotting out health academics now because the pseudo climate scientists cant believe its a travesty that the warming trend has stopped.
Bwhaha Cheesy

Pseudo science, is that science that proves you wrong and by renaming it shows your only weapon is stupidity?

What science are you in denial over. That co2 is a greenhouse gas?

Back to top

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: Abbott's Path For Human Extinction
Reply #17 - Mar 31^st, 2014 at 12:17pm

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:34am:

Lol a health academic. So you are trotting out health academics now because the pseudo climate scientists cant believe its a travesty that the warming trend has stopped.
Bwhaha Cheesy

A health academic talking about Health issues, seems fair enough to me.

Who would you prefer, Alan "expert on extinctions" Jones ?

Back to top

IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: Abbott's Path For Human Extinction
Reply #18 - Mar 31^st, 2014 at 1:02pm

____ wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:41am:

Rider wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:23am:

____ wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:17am:

Swagman wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 10:19am:

Time to invite some private consortiums to establish a network of nuclear power stations on the Australian mainland.

We could utilise our abundant uranium and thorium reserves to generate an over supply of energy with little or no CO2 emissions thus bringing our arbitrary emission target down. We could then export the over supply of energy to Asia and make cash to cover the cost of the compounding bill for hand outs and get browny points for reducing Asia's CO2 emissions as well.

Wink

A. Is your plan for nuclear to completely replace fossil electricity and if so, by when.

B. Nuclear is not suitable for a hot climate and we are on trajectory for an extreme heat climate. How do you suggest we circumvent this situation or will we be without electricity during heatwaves?

C. Water to run the nukes when water in in shortage during drought.

A. Plenty of coal for decades and decades/who said we should replace all coal and why on earth would we? Its clean, reliable, proven and sustainable.
B. Nonsense. Complete. And. Utter.
C. Dams/sited on coastline.

If coal is clean why are the cons wanting "clean coal"

Quote:

The Coalition will redirect $158.3 million from the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships programme towards clean coal technologies, including carbon geo-sequestration projects associated with coal-fired electricity generation.

http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2010/08/14/real-action-mining-and-resource...

Heat and Drought Pose Risks for Nuclear Power Plants

Like coal-fired power plants, nuclear facilities use large amounts of water for cooling purposes. After water has cycled through the plant, it is discharged back into a nearby waterway, usually a lake or a river, at a higher temperature. State regulations prohibit nuclear plants from operating once water temperatures go above a certain threshold, in part because it could compromise the safe operation of the facility, and also because discharging very warm water can kill fish and other marine life.

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/heat-and-drought-pose-risks-for-nuclear-powe...

1. lib policy from 2010 is so......meh...2010. Guess what, moving on....
2. no risk to life, no risk of meltdown, leak or plant failure, risk of not meeting environmental guidelines and facing a fine....HUGE...sound the alarms the greenies are gonna fine industry again!!!!

Back to top

IP Logged

Swagman

Gold Member

Offline

Beware of cheap imitations......

Posts: 15095
Illawarra NSW
Gender: male

Re: Abbott's Path For Human Extinction
Reply #19 - Mar 31^st, 2014 at 1:08pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 10:55am:

Swagman wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 10:32am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 10:25am:

Swagman wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 10:19am:

Time to invite some private consortiums to establish a network of nuclear power stations on the Australian mainland.

We could utilise our abundant uranium and thorium reserves to generate an over supply of energy with little or no CO2 emissions thus bringing our arbitrary emission target down. We could then export the over supply of energy to Asia and make cash to cover the cost of the compounding bill for hand outs and get browny points for reducing Asia's CO2 emissions as well.

Wink

Same with the GAIA and the endless vista of solar and wind farms of the West - we could export the surplus to the dark countries and ebrig them the light (not that light)...

Yes we could do that AS WELL no argument there.

The Greenies however are ideologically opposed to nuke energy despite its abundant capability to reduce CO2 emissions (if not concentrations?).

Greenies just aren't fair dinkum about AGWT. They just promote their real agenda which is [u]Socialism Hiding In Trees (Ess-H-I-T for short Grin

) Kicking the corporates and anti-capitalism is their go. Sad

Nuclear energy is not economically viable. Its opposed because its environmentally damaging (by greenies) and opposed because its not cost effective (by economists).

So appart from being bad, unwanted, expensive and loss making, its an excellent idea.

The Sun is a nuke reactor Doc..... Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Abbott's Path For Human Extinction
Reply #20 - Mar 31^st, 2014 at 1:12pm

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:34am:

Lol a health academic. So you are trotting out health academics now because the pseudo climate scientists cant believe its a travesty that the warming trend has stopped.
Bwhaha Cheesy

Actually Tony McMichel has been in the climate change thing for years. Not so much on the climatology but on the impacts on health. E.g what happens to mosquitoes as the world warms? What types of diseases will move about? Its interesting stuff and goes far beyong what people usually think of in the climate change debate.

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

Swagman

Gold Member

Offline

Beware of cheap imitations......

Posts: 15095
Illawarra NSW
Gender: male

Re: Abbott's Path For Human Extinction
Reply #21 - Mar 31^st, 2014 at 1:17pm

____ wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:17am:

Swagman wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 10:19am:

Time to invite some private consortiums to establish a network of nuclear power stations on the Australian mainland.

We could utilise our abundant uranium and thorium reserves to generate an over supply of energy with little or no CO2 emissions thus bringing our arbitrary emission target down. We could then export the over supply of energy to Asia and make cash to cover the cost of the compounding bill for hand outs and get browny points for reducing Asia's CO2 emissions as well.

Wink

A. Is your plan for nuclear to completely replace fossil electricity and if so, by when.

B. Nuclear is not suitable for a hot climate and we are on trajectory for an extreme heat climate. How do you suggest we circumvent this situation or will we be without electricity during heatwaves?

C. Water to run the nukes when water in in shortage during drought.

A. - Nuke is just one method of energy generation. Renewables can be developed side by side with low emission nukes taking up the efficiency slack until renewables have the capacity to take the strain.

This is to reduce CO2 concentrations remember. That is the priority according to alarmists...or isn't it?

B. Where did that little gem come from? The Sun is pretty hot. It is one big nuke reactor... Wink

. The nuke power plant can power lots of air conditioners... Cheesy

C. Sea Water Gangrene. We have an abundance of it and with a network of Nuke stations we can desalinate the sea water as well and irrigate the deserts and create a food bowl....Win Win Win.... Smiley

Back to top

IP Logged

aquascoot Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 32848 Gender:	Re: Abbott's Path For Human Extinction Reply #22 - Mar 31^st, 2014 at 1:22pm greenswin, you are prone to just a tad of exagerration
Back to top	IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Abbott's Path For Human Extinction
Reply #23 - Mar 31^st, 2014 at 1:31pm

Rider wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 1:02pm:

____ wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:41am:

Rider wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:23am:

____ wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:17am:

Swagman wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 10:19am:

Time to invite some private consortiums to establish a network of nuclear power stations on the Australian mainland.

We could utilise our abundant uranium and thorium reserves to generate an over supply of energy with little or no CO2 emissions thus bringing our arbitrary emission target down. We could then export the over supply of energy to Asia and make cash to cover the cost of the compounding bill for hand outs and get browny points for reducing Asia's CO2 emissions as well.

Wink

A. Is your plan for nuclear to completely replace fossil electricity and if so, by when.

B. Nuclear is not suitable for a hot climate and we are on trajectory for an extreme heat climate. How do you suggest we circumvent this situation or will we be without electricity during heatwaves?

C. Water to run the nukes when water in in shortage during drought.

A. Plenty of coal for decades and decades/who said we should replace all coal and why on earth would we? Its clean, reliable, proven and sustainable.
B. Nonsense. Complete. And. Utter.
C. Dams/sited on coastline.

If coal is clean why are the cons wanting "clean coal"

Quote:

The Coalition will redirect $158.3 million from the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships programme towards clean coal technologies, including carbon geo-sequestration projects associated with coal-fired electricity generation.

http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2010/08/14/real-action-mining-and-resource...

Heat and Drought Pose Risks for Nuclear Power Plants

Like coal-fired power plants, nuclear facilities use large amounts of water for cooling purposes. After water has cycled through the plant, it is discharged back into a nearby waterway, usually a lake or a river, at a higher temperature. State regulations prohibit nuclear plants from operating once water temperatures go above a certain threshold, in part because it could compromise the safe operation of the facility, and also because discharging very warm water can kill fish and other marine life.

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/heat-and-drought-pose-risks-for-nuclear-powe...

1. lib policy from 2010 is so......meh...2010. Guess what, moving on....
2. no risk to life, no risk of meltdown, leak or plant failure, risk of not meeting environmental guidelines and facing a fine....HUGE...sound the alarms the greenies are gonna fine industry again!!!!

Cons realised coal was dirty in 2010, so what has changed to coal since for you to now claim coal is clean?

No risk to life, then why do insurance companies refuse to insure households to the risk of nuclear accidents. Surely if it is as safe as you say, insurances companies would see insuring homes and lives on parr to taking candy from babies.

Back to top

IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Abbott's Path For Human Extinction
Reply #24 - Mar 31^st, 2014 at 1:43pm

Swagman wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 1:17pm:

____ wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:17am:

Swagman wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 10:19am:

Time to invite some private consortiums to establish a network of nuclear power stations on the Australian mainland.

We could utilise our abundant uranium and thorium reserves to generate an over supply of energy with little or no CO2 emissions thus bringing our arbitrary emission target down. We could then export the over supply of energy to Asia and make cash to cover the cost of the compounding bill for hand outs and get browny points for reducing Asia's CO2 emissions as well.

Wink

A. Is your plan for nuclear to completely replace fossil electricity and if so, by when.

B. Nuclear is not suitable for a hot climate and we are on trajectory for an extreme heat climate. How do you suggest we circumvent this situation or will we be without electricity during heatwaves?

C. Water to run the nukes when water in in shortage during drought.

A. - Nuke is just one method of energy generation. Renewables can be developed side by side with low emission nukes taking up the efficiency slack until renewables have the capacity to take the strain.

This is to reduce CO2 concentrations remember. That is the priority according to alarmists...or isn't it?

B. Where did that little gem come from? The Sun is pretty hot. It is one big nuke reactor... Wink

. The nuke power plant can power lots of air conditioners... Cheesy

C. Sea Water Gangrene. We have an abundance of it and with a network of Nuke stations we can desalinate the sea water as well and irrigate the deserts and create a food bowl....Win Win Win.... Smiley

Renewables are more suitable to take over when you consider solar thermal is already superior to nukes, except to those who are trying to gain financial gain from the nuke industry.

Excessive human caused greenhouse gases are geo engineering the climate and there is no such alarmist claim about that, it's a fact.

As for the sun, try locating yourself nearer and see how you go. From this distance we have excessive people dying from skin cancer.

Using seawater creates excessive salt in local regions killing sea life. Alongside pumping back hot water also kills life. Ocean temperatures are rising so there will be a point where even ocean water will be not a viable option.

Solar thermal is a lot more logical and a lot less trouble since there is no radioactive waste and are not a threat of being attacked during wartime.

Back to top

IP Logged

____ Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 33410 Australia Gender:	Re: Abbott's Path For Human Extinction Reply #25 - Mar 31^st, 2014 at 1:44pm aquascoot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 1:22pm: greenswin, you are prone to just a tad of exagerration Are you saying humans can't die out if the natural world collapses around our current civilization?
Back to top	IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: Abbott's Path For Human Extinction
Reply #26 - Mar 31^st, 2014 at 1:53pm

____ wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 1:31pm: