Aus/pol/

Thanks Raj

The industry is showing signs of decline in non-totalitarian countries.
>“We find that an eroding actor base, shrinking opportunities in liberalized electricity markets, the break-up of existing networks, loss of legitimacy, increasing cost and time overruns, and abandoned projects are clear indications of decline. Also, increasingly fierce competition from natural gas, solar PV, wind, and energy-storage technologies speaks against nuclear in the electricity sector. We conclude that, while there might be a future for nuclear in state-controlled ‘niches’ such as Russia or China, new nuclear power plants do not seem likely to become a core element in the struggle against climate change.”

Renewable energy is growing faster now than nuclear ever has
>“Contrary to a persistent myth based on erroneous methods, global data show that renewable electricity adds output and saves carbon faster than nuclear power does or ever has.”

There is no business case for it.
>“The economic history and financial analyses carried out at DIW Berlin show that nuclear energy has always been unprofitable in the private economy and will remain so in the future. Between 1951 and 2017, none of the 674 nuclear reactors built was done so with private capital under competitive conditions. Large state subsidies were used in the cases where private capital flowed into financing the nuclear industry…. Financial investment calculations confirmed the trend: investing in a new nuclear power plant leads to average losses of around five billion euros.”

Not high enough, leaf.

This is a bot

There is no business case for it.
>“The economic history and financial analyses carried out at DIW Berlin show that nuclear energy has always been unprofitable in the private economy and will remain so in the future. Between 1951 and 2017, none of the 674 nuclear reactors built was done so with private capital under competitive conditions. Large state subsidies were used in the cases where private capital flowed into financing the nuclear industry…. Financial investment calculations confirmed the trend: investing in a new nuclear power plant leads to average losses of around five billion euros.”

Investing in a nuclear plant today is expected to lose 5 to 10 billion dollars

The nuclear industry can’t even exist without legal structures that privatize gains and socialize losses.
>If the owners and operators of nuclear reactors had to face the full liability of a Fukushima-style nuclear accident or go head-to-head with alternatives in a truly competitive marketplace, unfettered by subsidies, no one would have built a nuclear reactor in the past, no one would build one today, and anyone who owns a reactor would exit the nuclear business as quickly as possible.

The CEO of one of the US’s largest nuclear power companies said it best:
>“I’m the nuclear guy,” Rowe said. “And you won’t get better results with nuclear. It just isn’t economic, and it’s not economic within a foreseeable time frame.”

What about the small meme reactors?
Every independent assessment has them more expensive than large scale nuclear

every independent assessment:
The UK government
gov.uk/government/publications/small-modular-reactors-techno-economic-assessment

The Australian government
aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=8297e6ba-e3d4-478e-ac62-a97d75660248&subId=669740

The peer-reviewed literatue
sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030142152030327X

> it actively harms decarbonization given the same investment in wind or solar would offset more CO2
Lol, what morons are saying this shit

Your mom cares, she worships canadian cock

FEDPOL FAGGOTS

>there is no political solution
>race and religion are for low IQ cunts
>United, we must work in a single global coordinated strike against the Khazarian system
>Tools such as, but not limited to: MKUltra - must be reengineered and utilised against the enemy

Attached: 1650261831091.gif (640x360, 2.34M)

0% unless he has comorbidities like being a SOFT CUNT

aus/pol/ tongues my anus

FEDPOL FUCK WITS

>I have militia training videos on REPEAT
>the anthem plays 24/7
>weapons are pulled apart and cleaned daily pointlessly - should I be attacked at this time - I'm unprepared and fucked
>i only hunt for my food - most days go hungry
>I HAVE APPLIED FOR THE ADF AND HAVE RECIEVED AN "URGENT" EMAIL FOR MY APTITUDE TEST
I cant actually pass a drug or psychological test

>I AM ELITE

Attached: should be us.png (785x509, 613.55K)

hebrews tongue my anus

Cope and seethe nuclear shills
>'No higher cost energy': nuclear has drained Germany of more than €1trn to date
rechargenews.com/transition/no-higher-cost-energy-nuclear-has-drained-germany-of-more-than-1trn-to-date/2-1-877313/?tag=25555

> decarbonize
AGW has been debunked stop pushing for this retarded ass idea.

Fuck the CHINESE! Seriously

Were you here the other day?
Did you actually read up on base load requirements of the grid and the difficulties presented by the day/night cycle and switching?

There is no "Sum" of power requirements and anyone framing th issue this way is either stupid or dishonest, power is required by real users, at set times and with variable net demand.
Most power is demanded on an economic basis, you demand power for your fridge because it's cheaper than buying ice for an ice box.
Were the price of power to rise, the fall in demand would not be a net fall- demand would shift to other energy sources.
People would burn wood, buy ice, use petrol powered machines, use gas lights and pretty much go back to early industrial technology.
So again, anyone who frames the environmental impact of power use without factoring in net offset is again stupid or dishonest.

Often I see even discussion papers and white papers claiming offset when it suits them (eg. plant trees to offset cement used in building wind turbines) but then deny the offset which doesn't suit them like a Jew (Eg. power so expensive people are now burning wood)

South Vietnam?
I thought the commies got em in '75. How they come back?

No one likes you

Why do Australia Chan get their news from Sky News Australia? Its corporate proganaa run by American citizen Rupert Murdoch, who is not an Australian and well-known asset for of the (((US State Dept)))

Its sole purpose is to keep Australia cucked to Anglo-American corporations who steal our resources by distracting Aussies with culture wars nonsense.

Rupert Murdoch used his media monopoly to get the neoLiberals related, and lost. He's a loser.

you're a dumb cunt its 2022
>i am shareholder in IP
>plastic bottles can be turned to bio fuel
LOW IQ LOW LEVEL FAGGOT DICK !

Attached: jessee pipe cunt.jpg (500x500, 52.66K)

You know what nuclear actually does?
It actually generates energy on a large scale
You know what your meme energy generation does?
Offsets real energy generation

Nuclear energy is too slow. It takes about 10 years to construct a new nuclear plant plus the time you need to get the permits. These construction times render nuclear energy irrelevant to tackle climate change. Amory B. Lovins, director of the Rocky Mountain Institute, discussed these matters recently at length on Forbes.

Meanwhile the technologies required for renewable scenarios are not just tried- and-tested, but also proven at a large scale. Wind, solar, hydro and biomass all have capacity in the hundreds of GWs worldwide. The necessary expansion of the grid and ancillary services can deploy existing technology (see Sections 3.4 and 3.5). Heat pumps are used widely. Battery storage, contrary to the authors’ paper, is a proven technology already implemented in billions of devices world- wide (including a utility-scale 100 MW plant in South Australia and 700 MW of utility-scale batteries in the United States at the end of 2017). Compressed air energy storage, thermal storage, gas storage, hydrogen electrolysis, methanation and fuel cells are all decades- old technologies that are well understood.

Yikes! Nuclear energy is too expensive. The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) of nuclear power is currently $118–192/MWh, while solar lies at $32–42/MWh and (onshore) wind at $28–54/MWh. Those numbers come from the eminent Lazard and have been cleaned from state subsidies. Other agencies such as Bloomberg New Energy Finance and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab report similar costs. (Note that these numbers are only comparable on the margin, since a larger share of renewable energy requires different grid infrastructure. However, also in terms of total system LCOE, renewable energy easily beats nuclear LCOE with a projected global average of 52 €/MWh It is also worth noting, that renewable energy and nuclear energy do not go well along. Nuclear power plants have high fixed costs, while the marginal costs are very low. That is economically speaking, you really want them to operate them at constant production levels. So higher penetration of variable renewable energy is likely going to render nuclear energy even less economically viable. In other words, as the share of renewables grows, we should expect nuclear power to become even more expensive.

Climate change is bullshit. Humans aren't contributing to the warming of the Earth in any meaningful way. None of your models hold up. This is just a cottage industry for retarded doomsayers to milk the government and gullible retards.

The idiot: