Climate Change and Nuclear Power | Aidan Morrison

[@PaulAustralianborn]

Enjoyed watching I was anti nuclear but after listening to Aidan a few times I realised I have been lied to by our government Definitely voting for nuclear power

[@PeakPBD]

Great choice. Aidan is a smart dude!

[@shaneullman4577]

Was wondering where Aidan got to after his amazing videos looking into CSIRO and the other Energy Transition studies. Certainly the right expert to help steer us in the right direction, I hope Labor starts to consider more perspectives and we reach a good bi-partisan agreement on the energy plan going forward.

[@geoffreyrobertson6041]

Well, yes but, anyone that accepts the AGW hypothesis has not studied and done the “deep dive” to any merit.

[@tonybooth4]

@@geoffreyrobertson6041 garbage

[@shaneullman4577]

@@geoffreyrobertson6041 You're right, but unfortunately we have to pretend we accept it to then move forward with logical solutions to solving it (even though it is not really that bad).

[@craigwhite3724]

I have watched Aidan on his channel, decouple and here and am impressed by his knowledge and the delivery of said knowledge. I pray the Australian government enlist his services to mitigate the impending disaster the Labour loonies have planned for the(once) lucky country

[@lynndonharnell422]

The science is settled on the mental capacity of Flannery, Gore and Mann.

[@evil17]

Good to hear some sensible discussion on these subjects & Aidan was a great guest. With the 1.5 trillion dollars Labor wants to spend on renewables (10-20yr replaceables)in the next five years (& 9 trillion by 2060) we could have 175 nuclear reactors, except we only need 10-20 for now that will last 100 years. Im not a climate denier, but the scaremongering & climate agenda is clearly not right or we should all be dead by now according to Greta Thumberg. It’s hard to believe the climate issue debate in Australia seriously, when we are fazing out or banning use of coal, gas, oil & nuclear, yet we are increasing production for all our fossil fuel & energy resources for global exploitation, exportation & usage (billions of tonnes) to be blown into the atmosphere somewhere else is apparently okay it would seem & also helps to make us the second greenest country in the world while actually being a major contributor to the global carbon emissions at the same time. Hypocracy? I think solar may have a place on house roofs to some degree, but wind & solar farms, dams and HV grid infrastructure & ongoing expenses for renewables make them a no go for both economic and reliability reasons. Snowy 2 needs to be abandoned before its costs anymore & taken as a lesson, because it wont provide enough power to make the ongoing expenses worth the cost and effort even if it succeeds without more issues. HV grid power lines have caused huge destruction by starting bushfires, so you may want to consider this (as another potential cost & danger to life) also with another 28,000 kms of HV power lines throughout Australia necessary for the renewable push that Labor doesn’t count into its costings. Nuclear Energy has brought down power costs in all countries it is placed. Nuclear waste is not the big issue people think it is and can be easily managed & reprocessed as well. Politicians, bureaucrats & protestors are supposedly some of the greater costs incurred when building reactors due to holding up projects and making costs blow out with time constraints & interest on borrowings. Australia needs more honest and educational discussions like this to make people aware of the pro’s & cons of nuclear energy vs renewables, go nuclear.

[@TimMountjoy-zy2fd]

By the time I read this " With the 1.5 trillion dollars Labor wants to spend on renewables (10-20yr replaceables)in the next five years (& 9 trillion by 2060) we could have 175 nuclear reactors, except we only need 10-20 for now that will last 100 years. ' then I know you don't have a clue and that economics is beyond you. What you have just written is total rubbish and if you understood even basic economics then you would be able to see why its rubbish. I wont bother with the rest but go back and work on the costings between Nuclear and Renewables. PS We shouldn't all be dead according to Greta and she has never even suggested that ??????? Duh - lot of work needed on accuracy.

[@evil17]

@@TimMountjoy-zy2fd maybe you should do some more research, Greta has recently taken down a post she made in 2018 that did in fact state, if we did not stop using fossil fuels we would all be dead in 5 years, copies of that post are still getting around. Is there some accounting errors you would like to point out with the rest of that statement?

[@davefoord1259]

The earth has a co2 water oxygen cycle. All the co2 in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere. Converted to hydrocarbons by photoshnthesis combining water and co2 to make hydrocarbons and oxygen. All thst carbon being taken out of the cycle is not a good thing

[@detectiveofmoneypolitics]

Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this very compelling and inspiring and important milestone of energy efficiency and transformation of our energy generation great content and history changing world event to come cheers Frank ❤

[@johnnywarbo]

I think Aidan should investigate it at some time just like his CSIRO, AEMO study because there is a lot of climate scientists that tend to follow blindly on the science because the majority says it is so and I don't think the science is settled. Natural climate variability has anyone ever studied that or does anyone truly and completely understand it, maybe that is a good one for Aidan. Thanks

[@JaseboMonkeyRex]

Well, there is real progress that we have moved beyond denial, into the complexity of the action required... I completely agree on the nuanced view and fundamentally truth that we have to be careful and extremely sceptical of simple reductionist views to complex problems. But something he said early in this interview about emissions not being the only metric is really key, and I'm referring to the planetary boundary science out of the Stockholm Reslience Centre. Emissions is just one of nine planetary boundaries that humanity needs to understand and manage and if we do, we should be able to strive for many generations to come.... science gives us the ability to challenge our own sacred cows and it is incumbent on all of us to recognise that any set of solutions beyond fossil fuels is essentially going to require us to change in ways many of us aren't anticipating or at the moment would think to be desirable... The planetary boundary science of which emissions is just one part gives a much more holistic view of the challenges we face to design new systems. It requires us to ask not just technical questions, but philosophical ones about the purpose of the economy and its role in human flourishing and the flourishing of non human life in this planet. Because we are going to have to accept some forms of limits to human endeavors if we want a healthy ecology which is the very basis of healthy and prosperous human communities. I respect how this gentleman speaks, he cares about nuance and getting it right... so he's cautious and i wish more people in authority had the same wisdom....

[@PhilosophiesofTravel]

I will just go ahead and leave this here... TLDR the mining companies think tank... cool. The CIS was Australia's first 'neo-liberal' think tank. It was founded in 1976 by a Sydney maths teacher, Greg Lindsay. After struggling for financial support, Lindsay began meeting with Australian businessmen who wanted to establish an Australian version of the UK think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA). These businessmen included Hugh Morgan, then an executive director of Western Mining Corporation (WMC), John Bonython, Chairman of the Adelaide Advertiser Group, John Macleod, chief economist at mining company CRA, Douglas Hocking, Chief economist at Shell Australia, and John Brunner, an economist at mining company BHP. - Wikipedia

[@bradleyfenech8607]

where can i download aidans report?

[@OolTube02]

Of course the question of whether intermittent renewables are cheapest is missing the point. They are the cheapest and most modular to build in the short run and in the long run you may not have a need to be stingy and to pinch every penny. What renewable energy is is the source with the most potential for overabundance. It's the greatest market disruptor. It gives people the ability to cut their power bill in half just with photovoltaics and slash it even further with PV and batteries. And because that avenue is open to people they will take it. Thus the grid will be ever more faced with a duck curve and with the need to have load-following sources of energy and to build out massive storage capacity. Cheapest from a top down planning level doesn't even come into it. People will make individual choices and those choices will present the public grid planners with a completely different set of problems than they used to have in the fossil fuel days. Any baseload plant won't be able to sell its power for half the time or more, unless demand patterns change. The only way they would change is if suddenly massive new energy hungry industries cropped up to eat up all the power, intermittent or baseload. Under those conditions building a whole lot of nuclear would make sense. Otherwise, no. Otherwise the only thing you should plan for is load-following and peaker solutions -- filling the dark lull gaps of the new intermittent grid. Because that grid will happen no matter what you do. Rooftop solar alone will see to that. Cheapest on a centrally planned national scale doesn't even come into it. People individually will go for what is cheapest for them. Every last rooftop solar owner privatizes their profits and makes the duck curve expenses the problem of the government and the utility owners. And all the government and investors can do is adapt to that situation. Unless they decide to outlaw people collecting and storing their own electricity.

[@OolTube02]

A better question in the form of the whole wildlife-eating analogy would be: "How do you change the meat industry if suddenly a lot of people who used to go to the grocery store for their meat started eating wild kangaroo for half the time, and even more in the summer? And if even grocery stores started selling a lot of self-hunted venison seasonally, making the demand for beef and poultry plummet to below zero periodically?"

[@davidwilkie9551]

"You have to be there", and simplest reaction to Aidan is, yep, near enough, compared to the alternatives. TINA to Nuclear Power, never was.

[@pommiedownunder1]

New closed loop Geothermal designs could fit into existing coal power stations. Saves infrastructure and local jobs.

[@marknicholson1003]

Its always important to listen to opposing views. The indipendant studies sure sounds like a current Liberal party commentary.

[@daniellebcooper7160]

Iz Lam is the biggest problem facing Australia, followed by the See See Pee. Im yet to hear anything credible about just how much influence mankind has had on the climate. Theres no doubt that the climate is changing, but it always has, and always will.

[@ribbyramone]

Try IPCC report

[@daniellebcooper7160]

@@ribbyramone Id trust the IPCC on climate, as i would the WHO on 'pandemic alarmism'.

[@nicholasbyrne3007]

Certainties. 1 We live in a global economic system that is dependant upon growth (expanding money supply to pay interest on credit) 2 All economic activity requires energy (money's value being a claim on energy) 3 If an economy grows at say 2.33 percent every year for 100 years the economy will have grown by a multiple of 10. So will our demand for energy. Conclusion. This is all pissing in the wind. The very idea of perpetual economic growth is absurd. No ammount or combination of fossil fuels, nuclear or rebuildables will ever solve this predicament. If you are worried about your childrens future then don't have any. My two cents anyhow. Good luck 👍

[@factnotfiction5915]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_intensity - energy is decoupling from economic growth (although there is a minimum level needed)

[@CharlesBrown-xq5ug]

《 Arrays of nanodiodes promise full conservation of energy》 A simple rectifier crystal can, iust short of a replicatable long term demonstration of a powerful prototype, almost certainly filter the random thermal motion of electrons or discrete positiive charged voids called holes so the electric current flowing in one direction predominates. At low system voltage a filtrate of one polarity predominates only a little but there is always usable electrical power derived from the source Johnson Nyquest thermal electrical noise. This net electrical filtrate can be aggregated in a group of separate diodes in consistent alignment parallel creating widely scalable electrical power. As the polarity filtered electrical energy is exported, the amount of thermal energy in the group of diodes decreases. This group cooling will draw heat in from the surrounding ambient heat at a rate depending on the filtering rate and thermal resistance between the group and ambient gas, liquid, or solid warmer than absolute zero. There is a lot of ambient heat on our planet, more in equatorial dry desert summer days and less in polar desert winter nights. Refrigeration by the principle that energy is conserved should produce electricity instead of consuming it. Focusing on explaining the electronic behavior of one composition of simple diode, a near flawless crystal of silicon is modified by implanting a small amount of phosphorus on one side from a ohmic contact end to a junction where the additive is suddenly and completely changed to boron with minimal disturbance of the crystal pattern. The crystal then continues to another ohmic contact. A region of high electrical resistance forms at the junction in this type of diode when the phosphorous near the ĵunction donates electrons that are free to move elsewhere while leaving phosphorus ions held in the crystal while the boron donates a hole which is similalarly free to move. The two types of mobile charges mutually clear each other away near the junction leaving little electrical conductivity. An equlibrium width of this region is settled between the phosphorus, boron, electrons, and holes. Thermal noise is beyond steady state equlibrium. Thermal transients where mobile electrons move from the phosphorus added side to the boron added side ride transient extra conductivity so they are filtered into the external circuit. Electrons are units of electric current. They lose their thermal energy of motion and gain electromotive force, another name for voltage, as they transition between the junction and the array electrical tap. Aloha

[@gregorysavage7527]

Within 2 minutes these blokes were explaining that they were speaking beyond their level of expertise. Opinion only, may as well be talking to an old man at a bus stop.

[@geoffreyrobertson6041]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to add some Geology to your eclectic portfolio. History alone shows CO2 to be benign as a causal factor. CO2 Levels are the result of other factors. Historically CO2 levels have been well over 1000ppm and life thrived, there was no runaway global Boiling. Man's contribution is only 3% of the rise. So, the rise in CO2 levels is currently 97% natural. There is a very strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. CO2 levels follow Temperature rises. Rising temperatures are a good thing. We are still in an ice age. There is no cause for alarm. The AGW hypothesis is absurd, complete and utter pseudo-science. It ignores the sun!! As if a few trace gases are going to back radiate enough energy to measurably increase temperature. It's like saying the steam from a boiling pot of water is going to heat the element under the pot. ABSURD.

[@BloodskullMannoroth]

You're parroting debunked talking points invented by fossil fuel lobbyists.

[@fundidoarrojo269]

Here it comes, Dunning Kruger effect in action.

[@geoffreyrobertson6041]

@@fundidoarrojo269yes.. thanks! I see your problem..

[@geoffreyrobertson6041]

I suppose you’re a humble physicist that actually rivals Einstein ? You got the real dirt straight from the ABC. His “exponential increase in CO2” is actually piss all.

[@BloodskullMannoroth]

​@@geoffreyrobertson6041 You can't write a simple sentence without fucking up the punctuation. I'm pretty sure he's right about you.

[@kkcw6668]

Hello, I have no ambition to belittle what you do, its all part of knowledge expansion. However, I am able to sus things out a bit myself and Ive dumbed it down to the following (i am confident youve considered this anyway): Here's the REAL Net ZERO: Australia and the rest of the Sthn Hemisphere (man, machine & beast) goes into suspended animation for the rest of the 3rd Millennium, thats 976 years and the difference it makes is ZERO. Do Your Own (modelling) Research or ask NASA & JPL for theirs, both raw & filtered. AIRS +OCO2+OCO3

[@TimMountjoy-zy2fd]

Probably true cos nearly all CO2 is produced in the Northern Hemisphere. As an observation its useless and not worth even noting

[@BrettBurnardStokes]

Nuclear is not low carbon, and is not safe. And the "waste problem" is not solved. And there are a lot more reasons why nuclear is a waste of money and time. Nuclear pollution is a major cause of the cancer epidemic, and other public health problems.

[@brookeandheather1023]

Congrats - everything you’ve written is wrong, quite an achievable.

[@BrettBurnardStokes]

@@brookeandheather1023 Thanks and same to you !! So we disagree! Everything I wrote is true. What is your refutation of my waste issue claim?

[@chrisst1953]

My refutation is that there is no waste problem. The management of nuclear power plant waste is well understood and has been in practice for over 50 years with zero deaths from said waste.

[@BrettBurnardStokes]

@@chrisst1953 Thanks for the suggestion - maybe the person that I asked can do better than that. Why are TEPCO dumping into the Pacific? TEPCO seem to have a waste problem. Why are so many "spent fuel rods" stored on site, at great expense to mitigate risks, even in sites where the electricity is not made any more? Why are Sellafield and Hanford such money pits? So many other questions LOL

[@factnotfiction5915]

> Nuclear is not low carbon, and is not safe. ourworldindata.org/images/published/safest-form-energy_1350.png