Courtesy of the Australian ABC They Again Missed the story Wheres the whole story. ABC should fact Check itself.
Courtesy of the Australian ABC
With some corrections.
Liberals Ready to go nuclear (Fission}? So why do they only talk about fission when there is a better and safer option that will be available at the same time in the future?
It's not the only risky or costly measure on Dutton's policy to-do list. To offer a dream as far away as the Nuclear (Fission) Submarines that the liberals started and labor has taken on.
The Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese has already pledged to reverse Labor's tax hike for big superannuation accounts, the series 3 tax cuts from mid-next year, earnings on super balances of more than $3 million will be taxed at 30 per cent rather than 15 per cent. Reinstating the more generous tax rate will cost the Coalition around $2 billion a year
That's a lot of money to find to benefit relatively few voters.
ABC Politics in your inbox
Sign up to the ABC Politics newsletter with Annabel Crabb and Brett Worthington
Read more
Then there's nuclear (Fission) power, something no Liberal leader has ever dared to take to an election. On this, Peter Dutton is certainly proving more courageous than his predecessors.
He made nuclear (Fission) energy a focus of his budget reply speech last year, arguing small modular (Fission) reactors are "safe and reliable".
"The new nuclear (Fission) train is pulling out of the station," he says. "It's a train Australia needs to jump aboard."
There's strong support in the opposition to lifting the ban on nuclear (Fission) power in Australia. Still, given the costs involved, it may take more than that for nuclear (Fission) to become a viable alternative to renewables.
The details of the Coalition's policy are yet to come, but Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy (Fission Nutter) Ted O'Brien has raised the prospect of taxpayer-subsidised nuclear (Fission) reactors. "There's no doubt that you need government involved," he says. (Compared to overseas where they have private and private government involvement,)
The Nationals, who have been pushing for a blanket suspension of wind and solar projects in regional areas, are most gung-ho about the nuclear (Fission) alternative (They are not including Fusion in their views). Liberals (who need to hold and win back urban seats) aren't exactly rushing to back the idea of a renewables ban, suggesting the old Coalition wars over climate and energy policy, on show in the second episode of the?ABC docuseries Nemesis, aren't entirely resolved.
Then they should be considering, that in reality and as stated by the UN Fission is aiming to treble fission, it is also becoming fast, out of step, interim and out of time, and soon will need to be decommissioned as the fissile fuel will be in short supply or used up by 250 years by current consumption or by 80 yrs if they do treble consumption.
As it can be seen to satisfy the want-it-now, people of the world. Governments are refurbishing old and shut down fission plants, not yet building en mass, so why?
It will be interesting to find out why, I suspect the fission fuel shortage is becoming real as they try to treble the industry and compete against the advances in the renewables, hydrogen grid variable generation and batteries and fusion as a system solution of energy generation for the whole of the world and not just 39 countries out of 189 that make up the world, not for just the rich 39 but for all without weaponisation, without pollution of our waterways and without the need to bury waste that is dangerous for 1000 of years, what a waste of time fission is here.
Fission is an interim energy source, unlike fusion, renewables, grid-attached variable hydrogen generators and batteries all of which are deploying faster in 189 countries, creating new jobs, new income to countries as well as new industries and technologies as opposed to the rich 39 that have fission can.
Fission's fuel. It is going to get tight in 100 or 80 years.
So which Nuclear fission or fusion?
It seems the Australian Government also cannot understand this with the purchase of nuclear fission submarines which will not be built by Australia for Australia for some 40 years hence and this fissile fuel shortage will only leave them with no replacement fuel hence these submarines will only last 30 yrs. then scrap. that does not seem well-spent taxpayer funds on defence or is not willing to understand that Fusion and Fission are two differing industries and require the Australian laws on nuclear to change so Australia can take advantage of the international fusion industry early and its future development to many areas such as land energy generation in with renewables hydrogen and batteries, Maritime propulsion, and energy systems and space.
One point that has to be addressed and as early as possible is with Nuclear law and fusion installations is that we should be concerned that the Australian nuclear Law framework will fail to cover fusion and does need discussion in the lawmakers' environment before it is being taken to court without this discussion and by one of the following such as the Fusion industry, nuclear (Fission Industry), environmental and anti-nuclear (Fission Industry) as a test case outside the lawmakers and it is developed without the proper controls to safeguard the public.
As well Australia miss out on the windfall, this fusion industry will provide in the SE Asia, Indo-Pacific, and Oceania region economically, environmentally, internationally and to our sovereignty
领英推荐
It has been noted by the IAEA that the laws need review in many areas.
Ref:-
IAEAINTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, IAEA World Fusion Outlook 2023, Outlooks , IAEA, Vienna (2023), https://doi.org/10.61092/iaea.ehyw-jq1g
?
There is no specific international legal framework for fusion technology.
?
The broad principles, obligations, requirements and related mechanisms of the existing international legal instruments for nuclear safety might apply to fusion energy systems.
?
The existing key international legal instruments for nuclear security appear not
to be applicable to fusion facilities and associated activities, albeit that the Nuclear Terrorism Convention appears applicable.
?
While potential questions of civil liability for nuclear damage in the context of
fusion energy systems are currently not covered by the existing international
legal instruments, they would most likely be addressed under general tort law.
?
Fusion energy systems designed not to use or have nuclear material, fall outside the scope of the IAEA safeguards framework and the NPT-based non- proliferation regime.
?
Fusion technology appears to present an opportunity to integrate relevant principles and lessons of the existing fission-based legal frameworks, as appropriate, while tailoring them to the specific characteristics and risks associated with fusion. Ultimately, it will be for the Parties to the relevant international legal instruments to interpret their applicability to fusion related facilities and activities and decide what changes, if any, are needed to address fusion technology.
?
The applicable legal frameworks should serve to maintain safety, security and environmental protection in a way that is proportionate to the magnitude of the intrinsic hazard and risk of the fusion process.
?
These frameworks should ensure public trust and confidence, while also paving
the way for investment and development, thereby enabling a smooth transition
from fusion research to commercialization.
So why is the government not talking about future nuclear fusion development?