The TLDR is the fission nuclear path in Australia is BS - it is only furthered by those who stand to make directly or indirectly a lot of money from getting the idea to the build stage - before the public get sick of the mounting costs and a realisation of security implications ... if Australia needs nuclear submarines ... single points of failure ... would a distributed power generation system and power generation closer to consumer not be better?
Where to start ... interesting thoughts but there are larger elements which will play a more important role in the energy market outcome in the next 2 or more decades. Solar panels are not the only option for making use of solar power - there's already power plants overseas using the raw power to heat up salt or metal for power production around the clock, assuming not too many wet and cloudy days, Australia's inland areas can provide many suitable sites that are not yet utilised. I also expect a significant fraction of energy storage will be ammonia based ... ammonia fuel cells already exist and as every year goes by, so do better and more efficient methods discovered to produce ammonia -- so it's just a matter of time before a workable method of implementing it for regular household users is found. I expect once there's widespread adoption, storage won't be anhydrous ammonia but aqua ammonia for safety reasons.
Getting to the bottom of the nuclear energy noise -- the first thing to embrace is; that much of the pro nuclear noise has stirred up a rushed this is what works on paper costings, the second is; much of the pro nuclear noise is promoted by those in or around the Australian Liberal Party and large business orientated entities likely to make ludicrous (read insane) amounts of money directly and indirectly from the road of nuclear implementation - and for those outside of Australia or unfamiliar or just plain forgot, the political party referenced here is the same bunch of people that a few years ago primarily blamed wind farms (for a while at least, and remember their expert help didn't do much to correct them) in one of its southern states for a weather event where the wind blew down a number transmission towers cutting power to a great proportion of the population down that way - I shit you not. Yes of course not enough money had been spent on the transmission infrastructure -- and it may be time for the Australian govt. to start thinking about implementing a few underground DC-DC very high voltage links to ensure a more robust electricity network.
The nuclear noise presently in the average news feed shares a lot of similarity to the biofuel saga. Firstly the anti ethanol BS of the late 70s here in Australia around the cane industry, where every "study" or on paper costings declared it was too expensive and cost more than fossil fuel being retailed at the bowser for regular fuel. Later this millennium there's been a push for biodiesel or simply biofuel which understandably satisfies the desire for individuals to use non fossil fuels or waste vegatable oil which is a very good idea if the feed stock is cheap enough. There's been lots of development over the last 20 years as well and there's a great number of things that are deep rabbit holes, - some is just hype, but some is very interesting too. More recently there's been PR stunts like getting jet planes to run on biofuel - still a worthwhile effort on its own - however along with the rest of the media attention biofuels get, it has proved to be a great distraction from a reality that is not greatly mentioned and still isn't being discussed -- it gets all rather moot when one discovers the present liquid fossil fuel cracking plants can use vegetable oil as a feed stock and from what I read, said to produce near identical fuel ... it's a wtf, ok I understand backyard biofuel setups or small business setups that re-purpose waste oil ... but obviously on a grand scale it makes more sense use already existing assets to process 100,000 ton or more of vegetable oil into fuels we can use without any change whatsoever to the current vehicle market - except maybe the feed stock was a bit greener - sure there are likely to be more extra costs and perhaps a shorter working life of a cracking plant and a different waste product that needs to be addressed, but ...
On solar panels - what sort of panels makes a difference. With the version where the silicon cell is compounded (for about the quickest way I can think to describe it) as a South Australian company did a few years ago, a little bit of shading doesn't mean a disproportionate drop off in energy production. Regular silicon cells the power output is not a straight line as per amount of sunlight received. But in a decade or more I expect a greater variety of panels to be in use, for instance including those that can make power at night. [1]
Summing up, long before a nuclear power plant gets up and running, the public will finally realise any nuclear power here is a liability, any such plant is an attack target - I doubt it'd happen but for those who need to waste 25 billion plus on nuclear submarines it just might ... the waste storage area will be another big headache and it isn't like how it might have been with little or no security - both the plants and storage dumps will have a high cost of security attached to them on a yearly basis ... and finally realise Australia typically gets a truck load more sunshine than those places that opt and use nuclear power.
I've posted about this study with original source link along with a pdf link a day ago - but the other new story yesterday where a study found AI could be / being deceptive was probably more interesting to members here.
I can only speak of Australian / Queensland trends and moves to include biological control have less to do with direct official policy (AFAIK) and more to natural innovation and R&D by various universities and other agricultural based entities to further Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices. No doubt there would be some indirect policy that would prompting better or safer methods of weed control.
As for sustainable, well it is going to depend if there any more instances where unintended biological consequences despite well meaning aims.
The main problem in the Australian market I see is that once an already existing biological product competes well, it may lead to forcing out the old competition such it's not worthwhile for a chemical company to have a particular herbicide product tested once more and registered for use within Australia, the price of the new biological product will become prohibitive for less well off farmers.
As per the public areas of the web, it is important to bear in mind that not everyone will appreciate the topic at hand the same way you do, nor have any expectations those interested enough to read the topic / subject at hand and your comments in the first place, are capable to truly grasp (with some depth) all the talking points you had hoped to make. It seems these days it's too easy for comments to be misread, and often people who might voice concerns will miss what was implied - any back and forth might be put down to poor communication but there are those who do the things they do [1] for their own reasons being more inclined to be contrary.
In more social media type areas, read places that use a reward or other points system, negative noise might be more along the lines of attempting to be entertaining, recognition or stroking their own narcissism ... but some I'm sure is just people who've had a really bad day and taking it out on the net. Sometimes it helps to imagine what sort of bad day they've had, like apart from awful day at work where they have to BJ the bosses metaphorically, they got home to find their dog or cat has strategically laid too many to count turd mines or a shredded bed or if they are particularly foul, maybe it was a well knackered water bed or if worse maybe they arrived home to find a bunch of sex toys have chew marks in the front yard, with hubby in tears trying to cope with the neighbours laughing about it - she or he weren't aware of the collection of large dildos - they're just doing the net while they're thinking about what to do about it ... again ...
But I contend it doesn't specificity imply that one agrees, just to tick that box if one wants to progress ... besides I do agree some people find pineapple on pizza is delicious, lots of others would find it nice or just ok or interesting or ...
I'll echo it's worthwhile to include those who don't run javascript.
While I don't block JS, I do have a few dodgy script areas listed in my deny list, so I do run into sites that either don't load or whinge JS isn't enabled - the worst offending addition to my deny list, was a site which was supposedly just a new AI based tracking research area being way too intrusive that cropped up last year and nothing at all to do with scripts - I banned its arse and suddenly I found a bunch of sites would not display properly or were not as functional as they were, pretty stark for a no nothing area and perhaps one would think that's was the site's bread and butter was hosting scripts - but no doubt they were set up as a prerequisite. Since then I've noted a few sites that stopped functioning properly have moved to be be a bit more robust -- loss of exposure, maybe even potential customers isn't generally a smart move.
Firstly there's the issue of good and bad science and the amount of taking it on trust those in government are willing to extend to such advisers and the second direct problem is the almost inevitable situation of ending up with a complete moron or woo-woo somewhere in that mix.
The only real way to ensure government be more receptive, inclusive or appreciative of scientific explanations or hypothesis, is to educate all of the population during their younger years so they are well grounded in science and principals of it, such that they'd be less likely to promote or vote into power, morons, woo-woos and those with serious personality disorders.
OK I'd gather you're dealing with someone I'd probably consider a woo-woo or zombie sheep depending on their affliction. (Woo-woo think the likes of flat earthers where if any two of them a couple hundred miles apart, had mobile phones, a spirit level and a tape measure would surely discover for themselves the concept to be in error, vs a zombie sheep more often simply followed a rabbit hole past any point provable fact and simply believes, trusting the people responsible (content creators) are experts / totally credible and would not lie to them.)
Sadly in recent years the number of people who've lost critical thinking and constructive communication skills has been growing and zombie grooming news and social media areas certainly hasn't helped the situation. Too many people can sit in a social media area safe from legitimate discussions that might challenge any poor or poorly informed ideas they have, and instead they can hog down on a content feed that more than likely allows them to reaffirm some beliefs they already have come to see as fact.
People with very warped views are usually hard to reason with, typically it's not a case of just summing up the facts or making a very good argument to reason with them, typically the problem is dealing with their denial[1]. Pretty much even in real life is the same as dealing with someone online who is also Stone Deaf [2] For instance presently I have a brother who has followed a youtube rabbit hole and has wholeheartedly bought into the idea that Limosilactobacillus reuteri [3] has become somewhat near extinct since 1950 so much so he invested in a kit to grow them to help supplement his diet ... even before he handed over any money, he carried on like a pork chop ranting / screeching when I've informed him that it's not that extinct - insisting instead the areas of the internet I'm read where it's reported / suggests not that extinct ... those areas are not very factual ...
The Dead Internet Theory. Not heard it put quite that way, though I know in the 00's to have noted those convinced []The Matrix[] was their reality, and from late 00s I'd noted many netizens complain the web was dying but were often dismissed as many were simply moving to social media and the person complaining just needed to get with the times. But as a theory - well yes and no and the idea the net was dying has long been asserted by numerous people including myself but for entirely different and more levelled reasons - I find it quite amusing that this present concept includes AI fears and world wide effort to conspire some large scale smoke and mirrors for nefarious reasons.
On my time off, not at work after 2002 to about 2015, I typically found myself online most nights conducting a great number of searches on behalf of various people online at forums who wanted certain and accurate information or driver files for obscure equipment from the 90s. By 2012 I was certainly trumpeting the issues to be had with any success on my part, might be not much better than their own efforts as various companies and entities were actively fighting against any sharing of technical information which would be very useful to the DIY or fix it yourself market, more popularly by obfuscating the information though various methods like []Flooding[] -- something which I had observed for quite some time. I don't know how many time I looked for engine settings and got thousands of BS sites advertising manuals (most with all the same template) and for a time easily beaten as there were working search tools to filter out 99.9% of the BS from the results required. Albeit the truth of endless low quality sites and information of the net and inability for search engines to just ignore it is somewhat more benign than a world wide conspiracy to befuddle the population -- but of course what better way to dispel, disprove and discredit that any company or other entity are seeing off useful information, by whatever means such as filling up much of the searchable net with scam / spam rubbish results and sites, than to promote a conspiracy that's an over-the-top, mutated and extrapolated version of reality and dangle it for the unsuspecting ever vigilant zombie sheep whom are near always 100% sure they'd know BS if they ever saw it.
As an example of where information is simply seemingly removed from the web, try finding the always present component in extra virgin olive oil that some people react very badly to. I was surprised recently to find that tracking down that information was not possible via various search engines, and yet in the 00s when I first found out I was n fact not alone and searched online, I'm sure even wikipedia had information in regard to that troublesome component which is removed with lots of refining and somewhat safer for those like myself, who react not so well to extra virgin olive oil (EVOO). Instead present day results at best, suggest it might cause some people discomfort due to contamination or various processing procedures eg [4]. From what I first ran across back in 00s via multiple sound sites, it was present in all EVOO and refining the EVOO to death allowed people like myself and those who react much more violently, to tolerate the resulting olive oil better - of course I just avoid it and anything made on the oil just to be on the safe side.
Not what I was expecting ... people do misremember stuff - something most of us do just for the most part never ever realise as such, and when we do, we generally admit to ourselves we're not totally infallible.
Well if it were me, I'd avoid the internet altogether and I'd be hunting for old vhs tapes of the show [1] or find an old book from the series - if you're fortunate, your local public library doesn't renew all its books every 10 or 20 years.
Where to start ... interesting thoughts but there are larger elements which will play a more important role in the energy market outcome in the next 2 or more decades. Solar panels are not the only option for making use of solar power - there's already power plants overseas using the raw power to heat up salt or metal for power production around the clock, assuming not too many wet and cloudy days, Australia's inland areas can provide many suitable sites that are not yet utilised. I also expect a significant fraction of energy storage will be ammonia based ... ammonia fuel cells already exist and as every year goes by, so do better and more efficient methods discovered to produce ammonia -- so it's just a matter of time before a workable method of implementing it for regular household users is found. I expect once there's widespread adoption, storage won't be anhydrous ammonia but aqua ammonia for safety reasons.
Getting to the bottom of the nuclear energy noise -- the first thing to embrace is; that much of the pro nuclear noise has stirred up a rushed this is what works on paper costings, the second is; much of the pro nuclear noise is promoted by those in or around the Australian Liberal Party and large business orientated entities likely to make ludicrous (read insane) amounts of money directly and indirectly from the road of nuclear implementation - and for those outside of Australia or unfamiliar or just plain forgot, the political party referenced here is the same bunch of people that a few years ago primarily blamed wind farms (for a while at least, and remember their expert help didn't do much to correct them) in one of its southern states for a weather event where the wind blew down a number transmission towers cutting power to a great proportion of the population down that way - I shit you not. Yes of course not enough money had been spent on the transmission infrastructure -- and it may be time for the Australian govt. to start thinking about implementing a few underground DC-DC very high voltage links to ensure a more robust electricity network.
The nuclear noise presently in the average news feed shares a lot of similarity to the biofuel saga. Firstly the anti ethanol BS of the late 70s here in Australia around the cane industry, where every "study" or on paper costings declared it was too expensive and cost more than fossil fuel being retailed at the bowser for regular fuel. Later this millennium there's been a push for biodiesel or simply biofuel which understandably satisfies the desire for individuals to use non fossil fuels or waste vegatable oil which is a very good idea if the feed stock is cheap enough. There's been lots of development over the last 20 years as well and there's a great number of things that are deep rabbit holes, - some is just hype, but some is very interesting too. More recently there's been PR stunts like getting jet planes to run on biofuel - still a worthwhile effort on its own - however along with the rest of the media attention biofuels get, it has proved to be a great distraction from a reality that is not greatly mentioned and still isn't being discussed -- it gets all rather moot when one discovers the present liquid fossil fuel cracking plants can use vegetable oil as a feed stock and from what I read, said to produce near identical fuel ... it's a wtf, ok I understand backyard biofuel setups or small business setups that re-purpose waste oil ... but obviously on a grand scale it makes more sense use already existing assets to process 100,000 ton or more of vegetable oil into fuels we can use without any change whatsoever to the current vehicle market - except maybe the feed stock was a bit greener - sure there are likely to be more extra costs and perhaps a shorter working life of a cracking plant and a different waste product that needs to be addressed, but ...
On solar panels - what sort of panels makes a difference. With the version where the silicon cell is compounded (for about the quickest way I can think to describe it) as a South Australian company did a few years ago, a little bit of shading doesn't mean a disproportionate drop off in energy production. Regular silicon cells the power output is not a straight line as per amount of sunlight received. But in a decade or more I expect a greater variety of panels to be in use, for instance including those that can make power at night. [1]
Summing up, long before a nuclear power plant gets up and running, the public will finally realise any nuclear power here is a liability, any such plant is an attack target - I doubt it'd happen but for those who need to waste 25 billion plus on nuclear submarines it just might ... the waste storage area will be another big headache and it isn't like how it might have been with little or no security - both the plants and storage dumps will have a high cost of security attached to them on a yearly basis ... and finally realise Australia typically gets a truck load more sunshine than those places that opt and use nuclear power.
[1] https://www.ucdavis.edu/curiosity/news/anti-solar-cells-phot... (2020)
reply