Quatity_Control

Yep. We do need more though.

I’d agree with you if we were already producing enough renewables. Since we need to triple the current renewable market just to hit 1.5, I don’t agree with resources going elsewhere until we are on track there.

To prevent exceeding the 1.5 celsius increase, we need to triple the current uptake of renewables. I can extinguish a candle and say its carbon negative, however it’s not really going to help. We can look at other carbon reducing technology after the immediate requirement for renewable installations. I’m all for that, but right now, it’s just taking money time and resources away from renewables when we can’t afford any delay.

Carbon capture has had trillions and decades and still can’t reach reasonable efficiency rates. Certainly real world performance is nowhere near what it would need to be to make a contribution to the environment.

The companies investing in CCS are the companies mining fossil fuels and natural gas. They are using CCS to divert funding away from renewables and to greenwash their current mining operations. In most cases the material captured is used in further mining operations. Like a 2xdmg to the environment bonus.

Yep, arresting a 47yo for smoking will be very on point for a broken clock.

Keep in mind, this will be policed only on poor ethnic minorities. Rich white guys in their private club s will still smoke with impunity.

That’s an opinion. You haven’t supplied any supporting data. And retiring reactors from age is not a qualification for “works well enough”. And renewables work well enough better.

What fact do you disagree with?

I prefer data based fact, but you can call it hootenanny for all I care. It doesn’t change the facts.

Lol, nuclear has had plenty of time and money. It doesn’t work. Renewables don’t have similar barriers and are the clear path forward.

… No, please read up on the topic. It wasn’t possible to make profit. The cost of supporting and maintaining the reactors was too much. Without exorbitant electricity prices, there’s no profits. So the govt is taking on the debt and will tax to service the debt. Nuclear doesn’t add up financially. You need a entire mature industry to service the reactors. Without that, the operating costs get excessive. Nuclear isn’t cheap. It only works when the govt subsidises. That equals higher taxes.

Nah boy, you claimed nuclear is the answer, yet no one runs 100% nuclear. You have several examples of renewables already delivering 100%. And none of them are 100% hydro. RENEWABLES, not just hydro, are the clear and unmistakeable winner for energy provision. Fucking around with nuclear has been proven to be too expensive and not maintainable by the best example you have, France.

And no one has resolved the nuclear waste issue which makes nuclear the worst possible environmental choice for energy. I’m not gong to bother to cite anything so self evident. You want to claim otherwise, you shown us your citations.

Unfortunate that they don’t have the workers to maintain them, the failure to maintain existing reactors has resulted in blackouts as urgent repairs occur, and the only way to make nuclear seem to work is to nationalise the debt and make everyone pay heavy taxes to cover up the losses. But hey, eight new reactors planned, that’s not a goldilocks!

Albania, Iceland, and Paraguay all hit 100% renewable also.

Appreciate you did research, however Tasmania isn’t SA. And Bass link runs both ways. It’s a grid link, not a power generator.

But if you th8nknthats goldilocks, let’s look at France. It’s the most successful and pervasive nuclear power. And they are currently moving away from nuclear. Ouch.

While here in Australia we already have a state running on 100% renewables, any plan for nuclear takes too long and costs too much. Read up. The barriers for compact reactors are large and expensive before nuclear is feasible and they still haven’t worked out that pesky waste issue. Investing in nuclear once renewables are established is fine. Expecting nuclear to bear the load while they are yet to be built is just fantasy. Renewables are here and are cheaper. They are literally the answer already here.

That’s a convenient sound bite that really ignores actual data on renewables.

Removed by mod

How many adolescents die from bike accidents?

But teens are not primary school and are far more than 13 and 14. Why would you ignore 15-19? It seems like your point only covers a minority of cases in which case any recommendation will have a minimal impact. Why are you so concerned about a minority of cases?

#1 killer of teens is dangerous driving most often influenced by peer pressure. Removing the peers by putting them ona bike would reduce the teen mortality rate by far more than the mortality rate of teens on bikes going over 30mph. See, stats can be used in many ways. Not always supportive of your opinion. Which is why it is important to choose a source that specifically relates to the topic. If you don’t want it pointed out that your source is irrelevant to the discussion.

Your welcome to your opinions. I’m just pointing out a study of primary school children is irrelevant to this particular thread. If you have studies on teens, I’d love to read them.