Australian Political & Infrastructure Discussion Thread

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

I don't like the idea of 100+ new Chernobyls in Australia - there's not a lot of evidence to suggest it's cleaner and it uses a pretty unstable process to generate energy.

There is plenty of evidence regarding how newer technologies and safety measures after Chernoybl with Generation III reactors. Although Gen II reactors such as CANDU are pretty damn well built. Waste isn't really an issue nowadays due to recycling

[Aressna]

I don't like the idea of 100+ new Chernobyls in Australia - there's not a lot of evidence to suggest it's cleaner and it uses a pretty unstable process to generate energy.

There is plenty of evidence regarding how newer technologies and safety measures after Chernoybl with Generation III reactors. Although Gen II reactors such as CANDU are pretty damn well built. Waste isn't really an issue nowadays due to recycling

Mind you Amorosa has a good point - a lot of people associate nuclear energy with disaster, as is expected. It will be hard to assure the population of SA they aren't gonna end up like Chernobyl - and if anything goes wrong the whole plan goes out the window.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I don't like the idea of 100+ new Chernobyls in Australia - there's not a lot of evidence to suggest it's cleaner and it uses a pretty unstable process to generate energy.

The RBMK reactor (Chernobyl type) is still in use, but considered much safer with some design modifications that didn't seem necessary until some clown pushed the Big Red Button at the wrong time. Such a combination of human error and bad design is entirely impossible with modern designs.

Of course Fukushima must be accounted for too. That was a fairly well-trusted design, which had nonetheless been phased out in most of the world: the Boiling Water Reactor. Water turning to steam, at some point up the fuel rods, changed the neutron management there, and this required more careful monitoring and shuffling-around of the fuel elements. BWR's also have higher pressure inside them than later Pressurized Water Reactors, but both of these are only risky in that there is more scope for human error. And the gas explosions and meltdowns at Fukushima were not caused by the reactor design (a PWR would eventually have fucked up just the same). The cause was a protracted power failure:
• self-powering from one of the other plants: in retrospect, leaving reactor 4 running to power coolant to the others would have been smart, but I can't blame the operators for not taking that risk.
• ordinary power lines to the grid: these were badly planned, but also vegetation was badly maintained, so design and human error there
• worst of all, backup generators in a basement (instead of up the hill or even on top of the pretty buildings), which were known from test runs to overheat unless the waterproof door was held open. The plant got no use out of them at all, because nobody thought to close that door before the tsunami arrived.
• maybe a US failure as much as Japanese: a US destroyer was not far away, pulling bodies from the sea or something, and could plausibly have sailed to Fukushima Daichi Plant and provided power.

1. There's no way in hell that Australia, or anyone, will build another water-cooled graphite reactor with no serious containment. Even when the Soviets built those, it was known to be a dangerously unstable design, and their presumed motive was to use the cheapest possible fuel.

2. We also would not build any Boiling Water Reactors. I shouldn't exaggerate how much safer Pressurized Water Reactors are: the water in the core can instantly boil if they lose pressure, both rely on the timely use of control rods to stop the reaction getting too fast, and somewhat like the RBMK at Chernobyl, human error can kick the reaction out of bounds of what control rods or more coolant can bring back under control.

3. We'd build better reactors even that the PWR with all safety features. Essential imo, is the option to shut down the reaction completely by dumping the fuel in small batches into separate pits (using only gravity which is 100% reliable) and with an option to do that by hand. I imagine a sturdy pin on the outside of the primary containment, with "Unauthorized use prohibited. Fine $30 million" next to it. Apparently Pebble Bed reactors have such a capacity, though I can't remember seeing a diagram about how.

4. Well I'd like to sell fast reactors to you as well, but they're not that good for power and excel at creating new fuel out of conventional nuclear waste. Combined with a large reprocessing industry, fast reactors could reduce the bulk of intractable nuclear waste enormously. The reason they're a hard sell though, is that among the fuels they produce is Plutonium.

Australia must deploy some modern fission plants, if only to get a foot in the door for fusion when that's a thing. We have to break the unreasonable demands of anti-nuclear people that plants must be absolutely safe. Pointing to the actually higher danger of every other source of power besides picking up driftwood from the beach is absolutely not getting through to them. No source of power not-yet-implemented will ever meet the impossible standard of perfect safety, so nuclear plants should be built regardless of public opposition (I suggest a public list of the 10 best locations, and the first to proceed be decided by lottery) so that over a decade or so "nuclear fission is too unsafe" can be dis-proven to the idiots who won't take expert advice on anything.

'Cos, fusion is not totally safe either. It would be an absolute tragedy to have the best source of non-emitting, barely-polluting electricity, blocked by anti-nuclear people who are so blinded by their distrust of technology that they would prefer to keep burning fossil fuels because it's the devil they know. "It's still nuclear, why should we trust you after all the lies you told about fission? Again, this is bomb technology, in fact it's probably worse because fusion is hydrogen bombs" We will break them if we have to, when other countries are prospering from that clean, safe, cheap power. But why wait? Let's break them now, with new fission plants, so we can stand first in line for the high-tech parts to build fusion plants of our own.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I don't like the idea of 100+ new Chernobyls in Australia - there's not a lot of evidence to suggest it's cleaner and it uses a pretty unstable process to generate energy.

There is plenty of evidence regarding how newer technologies and safety measures after Chernoybl with Generation III reactors. Although Gen II reactors such as CANDU are pretty damn well built. Waste isn't really an issue nowadays due to recycling

I like CANDU too. It is however a fast reaction design, which invokes immediate public opposition because there's no way I know of to stop it producing some plutonium. That would be lessened somewhat I think, if people find out that the reactor providing them power is actually burning plutonium as fuel. The invention of MOX fuel was driven mostly by oversupply of plutonium from the bombs the US and Soviet Union de-commissioned, which might help with rebranding it as the Element of Peace rather than the Element of War. I know, it sounds like meme engineering, but it's necessary when the myth of reactors being a kind of bomb has such deep roots. Plutonium is a synthetic element, its natural occurrence is essentially nil, but it was brought into existence purely to make bombs: that's a heavy historical tide for fast reactors to swim against.

We say "reprocessing" where nuclear waste is concerned. I think the distinction is important, because in recycling anything that's not economical to repulp, melt down etc is thrown away (landfill I guess). Whereas reprocessing (without a transmutation stage, ie a reactor) retrieves a bit of nuclear fuel but never enough to pay for the whole process. Without transmutation it's also impossible to reduce the negative-value waste to nothing. I find it it hard to imagine reprocessing ever being a profitable stage of the nuclear cycle, though it could be low in ecological impact.

Excuse me now while I find a way to make a reactor turn Gold into Rhodium or Palladium.

[Dazchan]

I don't like the idea of 100+ new Chernobyls in Australia

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we use poorly maintained soviet era technology.

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

I don't like the idea of 100+ new Chernobyls in Australia

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we use poorly maintained soviet era technology.

I'm just frightened by the prospects of nuclear power.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we use poorly maintained soviet era technology.

I'm just frightened by the prospects of nuclear power.

Learn my friend, learn. Education is key

[Kenobot]

My god the latest rape allegation against a government cabinet minister is so so horrifying and tragic. Justice must be done

[Australian rePublic]

viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=20&t=499265&p=38390719#p38390719

What do you guys make of this? I thought it warranted it's own thread

[Australian rePublic]

My god the latest rape allegation against a government cabinet minister is so so horrifying and tragic. Justice must be done

Isn't anyone gonna mention how these are all just allegations at this stage, and there's no proff that anyone actually did what they're accused of doing?

[Kenobot]

My god the latest rape allegation against a government cabinet minister is so so horrifying and tragic. Justice must be done

Isn't anyone gonna mention how these are all just allegations at this stage, and there's no proff that anyone actually did what they're accused of doing?

The woman was so messed up by it she took her own life. It can never be tested in court now. I think that should be enough, particularly after the last 2 weeks, for the minister in question to resign from parliament

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

My god the latest rape allegation against a government cabinet minister is so so horrifying and tragic. Justice must be done

Isn't this the second time the Liberal Party had allegations? Or is my memory just shit

[Kenobot]

My god the latest rape allegation against a government cabinet minister is so so horrifying and tragic. Justice must be done

Isn't this the second time the Liberal Party had allegations? Or is my memory just shit

Not that I'm aware of. I know Bill Shorten had allegations against him some years ago, but it wasn't nearly as public in detail

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

My god the latest rape allegation against a government cabinet minister is so so horrifying and tragic. Justice must be done

Isn't this the second time the Liberal Party had allegations? Or is my memory just shit

Not the first time

[Australian rePublic]

Isn't anyone gonna mention how these are all just allegations at this stage, and there's no proff that anyone actually did what they're accused of doing?

The woman was so messed up by it she took her own life. It can never be tested in court now. I think that should be enough, particularly after the last 2 weeks, for the minister in question to resign from parliament

Disagree. You shouldn't ruin a person's carrer over something that have no proof they've done. What if he's found innocent later? Who would employ him in the meantime? You can't just ruin people's carrers over allegations. I mean, I could randomly acuse you of holding a gun to my head and trying to rob me. This incident. Should you be forced to resign from your job because of my allegations? What if I decided to acuse you of raping me? Should you lose of your career because of that? And who would reemploy you? This is why innocent till proven guilty exists. If he's found guilty, throw the book at him, but until we know for sure, you shouldn't ruin his career. Rape is a horrific crime, and he's found guilty, throw the boom at him, but he has every right to a fair trial.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

My god the latest rape allegation against a government cabinet minister is so so horrifying and tragic. Justice must be done

Isn't anyone gonna mention how these are all just allegations at this stage, and there's no proff that anyone actually did what they're accused of doing?

Even if the accusations are lies (as you're implying) they don't seems to have been investigated properly at the time. If Morrison wasn't even aware, then somebody fucked up.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

The woman was so messed up by it she took her own life. It can never be tested in court now. I think that should be enough, particularly after the last 2 weeks, for the minister in question to resign from parliament

Disagree. You shouldn't ruin a person's carrer over something that have no proof they've done. What if he's found innocent later? Who would employ him in the meantime? You can't just ruin people's carrers over allegations.

Funny how you think the presumption of innocence works in politics. If someone resigns in disgrace, that means ONLY that they fear losing their seat (or their boss losing their seat) ... so it's The People who are "ruining careers".

Tubes' First Rule of Politics: "It is never the People's fault"

[Australian rePublic]

Isn't anyone gonna mention how these are all just allegations at this stage, and there's no proff that anyone actually did what they're accused of doing?

Even if the accusations are lies (as you're implying) they don't seems to have been investigated properly at the time. If Morrison wasn't even aware, then somebody fucked up.

I'm not saying that she's lying either. I am not going to accuse her of lying. At this stage, I'm not accusing either of them of malice. Even if he is found innocent, I am still going to assume that she wasn't lying, unless we have proof that she was lying. And we have proof that she's lying, throw the book at her. False accusations of rape should be a criminal offence, and I am, by no means, accusing her of comitting something I believe should be a criminal offence. She's also innocent till proven guilty- in this case of malice. If we have proof of neither of them acting with malice, throw the book at neither of them. It may seem contradictory to believe that she's telling the truth whilst at the same time aasuming that he's innocent, and yes it is contradictory, but I would rather have contradictory beliefs than to assume that innocent people are guilty of malice. At this stage, the most just thing to do is to simultaneously assume that she's telling the truth whilst assuming that he's innocent. Those assumptions are contradictory, but sometimes justice is contradictory. Innocent till proven guilty. Where this causes problems is if the two ever have to work together again. For her safety, it's best to assume she was raped, and, therefore, in order to keep her safe, she should be seperated from him, so I legitimately don't know what to do about that without forcing either of them to resign (both of which would be unjust), but beyond that, as far as I'm concerned, they're both innocent of malice

[Australian rePublic]

Disagree. You shouldn't ruin a person's carrer over something that have no proof they've done. What if he's found innocent later? Who would employ him in the meantime? You can't just ruin people's carrers over allegations.

Funny how you think the presumption of innocence works in politics. If someone resigns in disgrace, that means ONLY that they fear losing their seat (or their boss losing their seat) ... so it's The People who are "ruining careers".

Tubes' First Rule of Politics: "It is never the People's fault"

Just because it's the way that a system works, doesn't mean that it's the way that it should work

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Funny how you think the presumption of innocence works in politics. If someone resigns in disgrace, that means ONLY that they fear losing their seat (or their boss losing their seat) ... so it's The People who are "ruining careers".

Tubes' First Rule of Politics: "It is never the People's fault"

Just because it's the way that a system works, doesn't mean that it's the way that it should work

You're disputing that the first rule of politics is "it is never the People's fault"

It's "everyone should apply the highest standards of justice and just be nice to each other" I suppose

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Even if the accusations are lies (as you're implying) they don't seems to have been investigated properly at the time. If Morrison wasn't even aware, then somebody fucked up.

I'm not saying that she's lying either. I am not going to accuse her of lying. At this stage, I'm not accusing either of them of malice. Even if he is found innocent, I am still going to assume that she wasn't lying, unless we have proof that she was lying. And we have proof that she's lying, throw the book at her. False accusations of rape should be a criminal offence, and I am, by no means, accusing her of comitting something I believe should be a criminal offence. She's also innocent till proven guilty- in this case of malice. If we have proof of neither of them acting with malice, throw the book at neither of them. It may seem contradictory to believe that she's telling the truth whilst at the same time aasuming that he's innocent, and yes it is contradictory, but I would rather have contradictory beliefs than to assume that innocent people are guilty of malice. At this stage, the most just thing to do is to simultaneously assume that she's telling the truth whilst assuming that he's innocent. Those assumptions are contradictory, but sometimes justice is contradictory. Innocent till proven guilty. Where this causes problems is if the two ever have to work together again. For her safety, it's best to assume she was raped, and, therefore, in order to keep her safe, she should be seperated from him, so I legitimately don't know what to do about that without forcing either of them to resign (both of which would be unjust), but beyond that, as far as I'm concerned, they're both innocent of malice

Making a false accusation can be done without malice. But raping someone cannot be done without malice. So good luck being 'even handed' there.

[Kenobot]

The woman was so messed up by it she took her own life. It can never be tested in court now. I think that should be enough, particularly after the last 2 weeks, for the minister in question to resign from parliament

Disagree. You shouldn't ruin a person's carrer over something that have no proof they've done. What if he's found innocent later? Who would employ him in the meantime? You can't just ruin people's carrers over allegations. I mean, I could randomly acuse you of holding a gun to my head and trying to rob me. This incident. Should you be forced to resign from your job because of my allegations? What if I decided to acuse you of raping me? Should you lose of your career because of that? And who would reemploy you? This is why innocent till proven guilty exists. If he's found guilty, throw the book at him, but until we know for sure, you shouldn't ruin his career. Rape is a horrific crime, and he's found guilty, throw the boom at him, but he has every right to a fair trial.

You're missing the point. There literally can't be a trial to begin with because she died. If someone was accused of rape and the accuser, after spending years telling her friends about it and documenting her experience, contacts police about it and then after waiting almost 6 months for police to take her statement takes her own life after struggling with her mental health since the incident, wouldn't you at least say that a public figure should resign?

Isn't anyone gonna mention how these are all just allegations at this stage, and there's no proff that anyone actually did what they're accused of doing?

Even if the accusations are lies (as you're implying) they don't seems to have been investigated properly at the time. If Morrison wasn't even aware, then somebody fucked up.

What? They weren't reported until February last year. Police were delayed from travelling to speak to her by COVID. You could argue they should have made an effort to come sooner, but they couldn't have known her mental health.
What is reprehensible is that the government seems to be closing ranks and protecting an accused rapist instead of clearing the air for all the other male cabinet ministers and kicking out the accused.

[Australian rePublic]

I'm not saying that she's lying either. I am not going to accuse her of lying. At this stage, I'm not accusing either of them of malice. Even if he is found innocent, I am still going to assume that she wasn't lying, unless we have proof that she was lying. And we have proof that she's lying, throw the book at her. False accusations of rape should be a criminal offence, and I am, by no means, accusing her of comitting something I believe should be a criminal offence. She's also innocent till proven guilty- in this case of malice. If we have proof of neither of them acting with malice, throw the book at neither of them. It may seem contradictory to believe that she's telling the truth whilst at the same time aasuming that he's innocent, and yes it is contradictory, but I would rather have contradictory beliefs than to assume that innocent people are guilty of malice. At this stage, the most just thing to do is to simultaneously assume that she's telling the truth whilst assuming that he's innocent. Those assumptions are contradictory, but sometimes justice is contradictory. Innocent till proven guilty. Where this causes problems is if the two ever have to work together again. For her safety, it's best to assume she was raped, and, therefore, in order to keep her safe, she should be seperated from him, so I legitimately don't know what to do about that without forcing either of them to resign (both of which would be unjust), but beyond that, as far as I'm concerned, they're both innocent of malice

Making a false accusation can be done without malice. But raping someone cannot be done without malice. So good luck being 'even handed' there.

My point still stands, innocent till proven guilty. You can't ruin a person's carrer on allegations. Also, how do you accidnetly accuse a person of rape?

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

Labor and Liberal were 50-50 in the polls recently.

With the recent scndal going on, I wouldn't put it
past this being possible for a slight decrease in favour,
but gee, this really struck a nerve, didn't it?

Sleeping Giants Oz, @MFWitches and everybody's going crazy about it, from FJ, Crikey, The Conversation, NewDaily, Saturday Paper, IA and even the Betoota Advocate, those legends, imo Betoota's pretty cool; everyone.

Many are speculating this should be reason enough for Scott-or at least Michaelia, to resign over it.

I'd pretty much choose Michaelia if there was a referendum on it -
to me at least, she reminds me of a megaphone dressed up in a wig,
given that photo in parliament of her screaming.

Also, Johnny (Howard) boy isn't talked about much on here,
so what's everyones thoughts on him?

[New Jacobland]

New topic:

Looks like Labor has the WA state election absolutely in the bag. I'm highly skeptical of the Newspoll (12.5% swing is a bit extreme) but I think Labor is going to have a big victory.

Liberal has taken its political advertising off its policies and onto 'Don't give Labor too much power' plus Kirkup has publicly said he's given up on winning.