Do you actually think nuclear is cheaper than renewables, or were you just bloviating for no point?

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2026 at 12:58pm:


Google AI:

bloviate


To bloviate means to talk or write at a long, tedious length in a pompous,
boastful, or self-important way, usually without saying anything of real substance.

Australia is already committed to “Nuclear Power’’ with our proposed steam submarines; what is the difference between a steam submarine producing its steam power with heat from a nuclear reactor and a steam powered electric generator using heat from a nuclear reactor a few kilometres from the sub base but on dry land?

freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2026 at 8:31am:

No, they are USA built, but that’s irrelevant because they along with their reactors will be in Australian ports.

Grappler,
Quote:



Yes clean for decades -  Chernobyl and Fukushima are great examples. Its nice and quiet too with all those pesky people gone. They are projecting 20,000 years before people can live at Chernobyl. Thats a bit optimistic too. 

OH and re processed fuel is more radioactive - its worse ?

Inside the Chernobyl 0 - 30 klm exclusion zone.

150 people, including returnees and administrative staff, live inside the semi-abandoned town of Chernobyl.

Around 100 to 200 elderly residents—mostly older women—returned to their homes illegally inside the 30-kilometer exclusion zone and live in small, abandoned villages.

Roughly 4,000 to 6,000 personnel (including plant technicians, engineers maintaining the sarcophagus, police, firefighters, and foresters) work on rotating shifts inside the zone.

Fukushima -

People live as close as a few hundred meters to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

About 2.2% of Fukushima Prefecture's land remains under active evacuation orders, down from 12% immediately after the 2011 disaster.

In nearby towns like Futaba (where evacuation orders were lifted in 2022), only about 180 out of 5,300 registered residents actually live and sleep there.

• Okuma, the town closest to the power plant, the population dropped from over 10,000 to roughly 500–600 residents, with large portions of the area still designated as uninhabitable "difficult-to-return zones".

• Namie and Tomioka: Towns on the edge of the former exclusion zone have seen partial recovery, active rest stops, and returning populations (such as Namie's population recovering to around 1,900), though many former residents have permanently settled elsewhere.

•  Measured radiation levels in many lifted zones are now quite low—often lower than the exposure experienced during a transatlantic flight—and local atmospheric radiation matches major world cities.

• The Plant Itself: The Fukushima Daiichi plant site remains an active decommissioning and cleanup zone where workers operate daily, though permanent residential living is restricted strictly outside designated safe perimeters.

Wildlife thrives in the 1,000-square-mile Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ) because the absence of human activity outweighs the impact of chronic low-dose radiation.

Mammals:

• Large Predators: Gray wolves are roughly seven times more abundant inside the zone than in surrounding uncontaminated areas, alongside brown bears, Eurasian lynx, and American mink.

• Herbivores: Populations of elk, red deer, roe deer, wild boar, and European bison match or exceed those in nearby protected nature reserves.

• Rare & Introduced Species: Free-ranging Przewalski’s horses—introduced to the area in 1998—and Eurasian beavers (which reshape local waterways with dams) maintain stable populations.

• Feral Dogs: Descendants of pets left behind during the 1986 evacuation live in packs, showing genetic divergence driven by isolation and inbreeding rather than radiation-induced mutations.

Birds:

• Species Diversity: Over 200 bird species inhabit the zone, including white-tailed eagles, storks, and songbirds that have returned to the regenerating forests.

• Adaptations & Health: Some species exhibit lower lifespans, higher rates of cataracts, or altered gut microbiomes and diets (such as chicks consuming more moths and butterflies in high-radiation zones).

However, many local bird populations continue to nest and reproduce successfully.

How much does it cost to safely store nuclear waste until it is no longer dangerous?

Quote:


I don't need to do my own workings. It only takes half a brain and 5 seconds on google. Have you already forgotten the last time we had the same discussion?

Renewables have cost less than one third the price of nuclear for a decade now. And the gap will only get wider. They are still far cheaper when you throw in the cost of grid storage. And they actually reduce the cost of energy transmission infrastructure. Only a moron (or One Nation and the LNP) would choose now to take the leap into nuclear.