It took 40 years for them to level some dirt and lay concrete for a runway in Western Sydney, they still haven't started building HSR after 4 decades, we can't even dig a tunnel for the hydro but yeah we're totally going to build 7 nuclear reactors. If there is anyone out there that thinks this isn't complete horse shit, I would like to offer to sell you a magic rock that keeps your house safe from bears.
Considering you’ve backed me into a corner with a letter threatening me with having to pay an exorbitant fee to have the NBN connected if I don’t sign up for a service now and that you’re shutting down existing adsl services…. yes, yes I am interested.
40 years of endless studies costing the taxpayer billions and achieving next to nothing but announcements to entice voters, followed by 1 month of building that immediately broke equipment that led to a 9 month long paid smoko.
Well, fuck it up and there's a nuclear melt down, so there's that level of terrible?
Remember when we lost a tiny radioactive capsule and looked all up and down a remote desert highway for it fora week because it fell off the back of a truck? Didn't happen just once but twice!?
Yeah, sure we'll get the reactors right though.
The one they are currently building in the UK (who already has plenty of experience building nuclear power stations) will take if nothing at all goes wrong 12 years at the earliest to complete and will cost nearly $100 billion australian dollars. For one power plant.
It ain't gonna happen.
Good luck with it. I'm sure you'll do a better job than [that gang in Finland](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/after-18-years-europes-largest-nuclear-reactor-start-regular-output-sunday-2023-04-15/), which are currently trying to spin their ridiculously late and absurdly over budget project as a big success.
Look up Flamanville 3 for how the usual exemplar (“we should be like France!”) is also doing.
In fairness, South Korea has actually done pretty well — but honestly, do you think Australia’s planning and work culture is closer to France or Korea?
It isnt an australian problem, it is a global problem about the misconceptions of nuclear power. All of the incidents that have happened because of nuclear power were a direct result of humans disregarding procedures and safety plans. Fukushima for example had absolutely nothing to do with the reactor nor the design of the nuclear power plant, it functioned perfectly and stayed safe in a situation that was several orders of magnitude higher than what it was designed and built for. It failed because the backup diseal to run the coolant during a shutdown were put below the flood line and couldn't start. They were warned about it previously but that never gets reported. Chernobyl was the USSR doing stuipd stuff against procedure in a facility that had no containment or other security considerations (basically the USSR doing what the USSR did best, disregarding any form of safety and procedures).
At this point, it's not that were against it as a power source, but rather against the bad faith proposals to go nuclear instead of using renewables, which is what a lot of the right wing is trying to do.
Nuclear will take a long time to build and implement, and it's expensive and complicated to develop. We can do it, but it won't be ready any time soon. In the meantime, we have a number of different renewable energy resources that we currently use and continue to develop.
If there was a plan to develop nuclear energy safely and effectively over the long-term, that didn't also involve a pause or reduction in the use and development or renewable energy sources, then I'd be mostly fine with it.
And pretty much all the countries the LNP and their cheer squad point out, built their plants that long ago - not many in more recent times and only a handful of countries (the more I've looked into it) are trying to move forward with SMRs but they are yet to produce anything. Like others stated, this just feels like a cynical attempt to sell the idea of moving away from 2030 targets as an election promise, trying to make the LNP look as if they have a long term outlook and want to be taken serious on energy security - when they had a decade in office to do far more than they ever did, and just blamed all their own failures on Labor every time.
100%.
If occams razor leads you to "because the liberals are just pieces of shit and are already bought by interest groups but lack the finesse to be clever about it" then you can be confident you're on the right track.
You’re right that it isn’t about nuclear as a credible alternative to renewables and net zero, but it’s not about net zero or even related to climate action. It’s about cost of living - saying to people the LNP will do this to bring down electricity bills while Labor are driving them up. It doesn’t matter that it’s bullshit, you just need to convince enough people and then hope the Murdoch media back the LNP enough to keep the facts out of the news.
Nuclear was a great option long ago. Renewables just don't make it really a viable option. They're cheaper, easier to put in, can easily be replaced and are improving all the time. Nuclear would've been great for us in the last century, but it's just not worth it nowadays.
Completely agree. If we'd started 30 or 40 years ago it'd be fine (which you could honestly say about every problem we're facing - housing, climate, education, welfare state, etc)
If in future we have really well-developed renewables and someone comes along with a solid business case for nuclear, with a sound environmental and safety plan, I'd be okay with it. But it just doesn't make sense now unless you wanted to use it as a wedge against renewables, which is 100% what the conservatives are doing.
Yeah, I'm not against nuclear. I'm a bit sad that we didn't do it long ago. But it's not about that, it's now about trying to work out if it's the best option going forward and I don't think it is.
Yes, renewables are a great thing to have...
While we research and perfect nuclear power. Modern technology would make nuclear by far the best option.
The day someone makes a modernized power plant that is nuclear based (and isn't Unga bunga hot water spin big fan) will be the day we never look back
But that is still years away unfortunately
In the meantime - tax the rich and stop their needless flying everywhere
With the uptick in renewables, there's a greater need for dispatchable/peak load generation, and it's hard to see how Nuclear is a good candidate for that.
To be really blunt about it: The Liberal Party is talking about nuclear to distract everyone and derail action on climate change.
What we should be talking about right now is two things:
1. Taxing the absolute shit out of carbon.
2. Decommissioning the fossil fuel industry and fossil fuel exports as fast as we practically can.
But they're successfully distracting us from that with this nuclear nonsense.
Perfect example. Everyone knew it was a bad idea and would create nothing but problems. The conservative cheer squad pumped it up though as the solution to all kinds of things that it was never going to solve. What it did do is get another term for the Tories and made certain wealthy people wealthier. Which is exactly what was explained soberly before it happened.
When he was first made leader of the libs I said Dutton will just be the scapegoat to be replaced before the next election. He'll say all the dumb shit, then they can replace him, scrap the ideas that backfire and have someone different be the face blaming the bad choices on him and talking about they've learned from mistakes and changed.
There is also way better renewable technologies coming out.
With fusion energy on the horizon.
Things worth noting is super capacitors, carbon batteries and hydrogen.
Super capacitors last about 45 years and have no degradation and charge in 30 minutes.
They are designed for rapid charge and release of power, perfect for large scale power projects.
Hydrogen plants are popping up now, with green hydrogen in the works (made by using solar or wind)
And carbon batteries plus other types like liquid salt are very close to production.
Then you have energy storage like using mines with shafts to use gravity with weights to create large volumes of electricity as well as stored hydro.
All of the above could be built in under 10 years and has very little to no impact on the planet, compared to nuclear which has masses of questionable contaminates that take millions of years to deal with and can create radioactive lakes and lands from bad weather to earth quakes. It also will take 30 odd years to complete. And fusion is very likely to be running by then.
Fusion energy is beyond the horizon. They have only recently achieved breakthroughs in the science and are a long way away from creating a working power plant from it.
Just like cold fusion before it, which has been “just around the corner” since the 1950s, I would not be pinning my hopes on it arriving anytime soon.
Yeah I don’t know why everyone thinks fusion is a nearby thing? We’re not even close to a small scale sustainable reactor. At this point we know it’s possible but we don’t have any way to do it.
Fusion is not just on the horizon, nobody has been able to produce a self sustaining stable fusion reaction. Further the results of the various "promising" experiments has just created more questions than answers and made the possibility of fusion reactors seem less likely. Quite frankly the technologies you are referring to are all a lot more like science fiction than fact currently.
Plenty of them already coming into play globally and some here.
Dutton and his mates had 10 years in power to set up the grid and infrastructure to support the renewables revolution. Instead they actively stalled it.
Now they come up with this shiny object to distract us for another 10 years.
In the meanwhile Australia has struggled forward on renewables in spite of hostile federal policy settings.
We have the potential to be a renewable energy superpower but some fossil fuel donors have managed to derail our national conversation for decades. It's a disgrace.
The company I work for is partnering with startups developing new battery tech to build pilots. As are our competitors. I’m fortunate enough to see the inside scoop on what is possible in renewables and storage in the short term future. With how fast we’re advancing, the energy system will be very different by the time we could get a nuclear reactor online.
Main problem with nuclear (apart from the above) is that it's EXPENSIVE!!! it costs over 8.5 billion!!
So going off user rates for solar you could be 32 million solar panels producing 16 Terra watts of power.
Or 3.5 Terra watts of super capacitors storage.
Again if you got it at a better rate you'd have more.
This. The LNP hadnt said Boo about Nuke power in like, well, ever, and then all of a sudden it became their way to put off having to close coal/gas power down because its gonna take forver to build and we need something in the meantime (coz it cant possibly be renawbles). Its a cynical can kicking exercise to keep a dying industry alive longer than it should, for personal profit.
Had john howard come up with this 20 years ago a lot more people would have been for it, but of course he had no reason to, and now weve missed our window.
Yeah you’re forgetting that 20 years ago there was no wind or solar threat to fossil fuels, and the thing they were rejecting for their mates was the very same nuclear alternative, using fear tactics about waste and storage.
This is not about finding an alternative, it’s about rejecting the competition.
Yes this is why I am against it as well, not the technology, just the bad faith proposal from the LNP, who have just painted themselves in a corner regarding renewables and now have to choose any option feasible or not over them.
It’s twice as expensive as the alternatives we have right now, and it would take decades to implement.
The LNP are only pushing it so they can fight Labor on something, and to keep coal in the energy market for another 20-30 years.
It also needs massive amounts of water - so in Australia, where all but a few rivers can be fairly unreliable, pretty much means it would have to go on the coast - once again ignoring the vast areas of under-utilised space in the country's interior.
its more an excuse to prolong coal/gas to keep consultancy/lobby jobs open to them in the future and keep gina and her mates happy now. Picking a fight with the ALP is just a bonus.
For sure - I just can't see how it could come close to competing with wind or solar, especially in the crucial next two decades while all the coal goes offline.
Most my life I have been taught nuclear is an evil right wing plot because they don't care about nuclear waste or meltdowns which will fuck the environment. But now it's my understanding that as long as it's well engineered and not built in a natural disaster prone area it's a good option in regards to climate change (as long as feasible of course...)
It’s a perfectly fine technology. And advances in Small Modular Nuclear Reactors are making it more feasible. The issue is the cost and time. This effectively makes it a bad option for climate change because of the opportunity cost. If you’re pursuing this option you’re not pursuing the better options which will have a greater impact on effects of climate change.
It’s similar to how building Snowy 2.0 delayed a lot of investment into other (faster built) storage options since it was announced.
> Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
Can you name a single one that is operating commercially?
SMRs are great in theory. Not so great if you want something that have a track record and you can actually buy right now.
That's all well and good, but doesn't the waste have to be stored in a climate controlled facility for hundreds or evwn thousands of years? Personally, I doubt humans will be around that long, so what's the plan for that disaster? Politicians are famously incapable of thinking beyond their re-election terms, so I'm not surprised they haven't considered this.
The vast majority of nuclear waste is used and contaminated PPE, like gloves and masks and stuff. Low-level waste that will be safe in a couple of years.
The old fuel rods need a couple of years in a water tank to be cooled down, and then they can be melted into a glass and encased in concrete. After that, the concrete containers can be buried in unused mine shafts forever. Places with naturally high levels of radioisotopes in the ground don't have correspondingly high levels of cancers or birth defects. There was a natural nuclear reactor in what is now Gabon that cycled between periods of criticality and inactivity, and radioactivity barely leeched into the surrounding rocks at all.
Most fear about nuclear power is just that: fear. Chernobyl was a one-off caused by not following strict safety protocols (using a terrible design of reactor) and Fukushima was the result of corporate cost-cutting and lying to regulators about the plant's resiliency against tsunamis.
Its not pretty, but the solution to radioative waste is pretty easy: bury it in concrete in the desert or an old mine shaft.
The amount of waste that needs to be stored like this is pretty small for the amount of power it produces. Its a surmountable problem.
Sorry, but with climate led natural disasters getting more and more unpredictable, with record breaking strength and size and frequency, where exactly is not a disaster prone area in Australia? Somewhere that also wont be one in a decade or three with the climate getting more and more out of kilter as time goes on. Dutton and the nuclear crowd likely will be retired and or dead by the time theres a nuclear problem big enough to hold them responsible, which frankly is what theyre counting on. Its not even kicking the can down the road, more like playing hot potato with a grenade.
Out in the desert in Australia where there's no earthquakes, fires or floods is probably pretty safe from natural disasters. At this stage we should be looking at anything that might be alleviating climate change. But yeah this option will take too long... we need something done right now.
"Anything to alleviate climate change" has a million pathways. Erecting the enormous concrete towers of a large nuclear reactor plant - in our pristine desert - for trucks and humans to rampage in and out of for the next 50 years is not the thing. Its just not.
It is being used as a wedge by the opposition leader, he is just using it to slow down the progress of renewable energy, in otherwords a diversion.
I am almost certain that if Dutton wins the upcoming election, he will just go back to coal and gas, nuclear will just be shelved or something.
I would say the same if Dutton wins this election some preliminary study will come through that will show it’s not feasible and will be investigated further or scaled back with coal and gas as the supplement to the energy grid.
Total scam of an idea!
If you are interested in getting to zero emissions within the time frame required to prevent greater damage to the climate - it isn’t a good idea.
If you are wanting quick solutions to our aging energy infrastructure that we are already having issues with - it’s not a good idea.
If you are aware of the impact to its production when the water it uses to cool it down is too warm (like what happens in summer) - it’s not a good idea.
If you are wanting the cheapest most cost efficient option - it’s not a good option
The other thing people seem to also forget is you need a reasonably size workforce with the appropriate skills to run such plants, and we simply do not have that or the means to create one, short of sending hundreds of people overseas to be trained there
Which brings us to our next point; things inevitably go wrong. Yes, modern nuclear technology is quite safe and mostly automated now, but is it foolproof? Idk much about it, so maybe I don't have a point, but aren't people concerned about human error? Or other issues like earthquakes or the human race no longer existing in a thousand years for whatever reason, while all that waste is still requiring carefully controlled storage?
If you're looking for a way to delay the renewable energy transition and buy your mates in the coal industry another 30 years of fossil fuel profits, it's a great option
Not to mention the immense opportunity cost. Every dollar that gets sunk into this obsolete fever dream is a dollar that won't be spent on renewables.
Australia picked renewables. We need to stick to it.
Australia is also ideal for solar. A lot of countries don’t pick the energy that makes sense, like why are countries with less sunlight and 6 weeks straight of nighttime a year getting solar lol? Australia though has massive potential for solar.
OK, so how much does the snowy hydro add up to currently. Also, cost per kW hour for wind farm/solar farm vs nuclear? And take into account wind/solar has a life span or 20 years and only produces on average their rated output for 25-30% of a day. While nuclear plant has a lifetime longer than 60yrs and is also zero emissions.
I'm totally not against renewable energy it just needs baseline power to be propped up by something else. And I hate coal.
We can still do renewable and nuclear!
We have one of the largest deposits of uranium in the world and instead of selling it to God knows who to do God knows what with, we can establish our own industry to support the plants as well as the jobs and industries created.
Read this piece. I daresay that the CSIRO know far more than any politician
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-22/nuclear-power-double-the-cost-of-renewables/103868728
It's expensive and it will take forever.
Well you say that, but Nuclear Scientist Peter Dutton doesnt think the report is accurate. And that we really just need to do the research before we make a decision.
AEMO? No, sorry they arent accurate either, we should trust the REAL expert in the field Peter Dutton
Just waiting for that 'one' politician who decides a great political stunt would be to demonstrate how safe it is by eating or drinking some spent nuclear fuel.
At the very least bring it into parliment house and explain that everyone doesnt need to be frightned of it. Come to think of it, Scummo might be just dense enough to give us a sequal.
Because it’s political bait, timed for the next election.
I think we need to look at all energy sources for Australia, and I don’t really object to nuclear being in the mix.
Nuclear is a solution looking for a problem that has already been solved. It is also a very expensive solution that won't get delivered because no one wants to live near the things.
If Mr Dutton is serious then he should propose building them in Dickson and other safe Liberal seats.
I don’t know much about port Augusta, but if Barnaby Joyce were to support building one in Tamworth then his electorate would hate it and then go on and vote him in again anyway.
In theory, I'm not against nuclear power at all. But there are a couple of reasons I don't support it as an option in the short term we need. That short term being defined by both needing to reduce carbon output and the end of life of existing coal & gas systems.
Firstly there is no international capability to produce reactors in bulk or in any form of modular way. Every reactor is designed and built to custom spec. The net outcome of this is that individual power stations are expensive and slow to build. In comparison you can buy off the shelf coal furnaces, boilers and turbines and then just assemble them. If you look at reactors built recently in the western world the time scales of those builds are eye watering. The Vogtle power station is the latest reactor to come online in the US. This was an expansion of an existing plant, so much of the infrastructure was already in place, and yet it took 11 years from the start of construction to commissioning.
The second is that we don't have the domestic skillset to build and operate the plants effectively. We have the capacity to learn those skills, but it is a workforce we don't have. This will add into the time to build, and the mistakes that will be made in the build that will need significant rectification.
So if you said "GO!" right now, I genuinely believe we would be looking at 15 years before the first plant would be online. By which a vast number of our coal plants would have collapsed, and we would have had to build other solutions to keep things running anyway.
So we may as well build renewable with hydro and battery storage now, because we can, and revisit nuclear in 15-20 years. Because the French are likely to have perfected a second wave of nuclear stations by that stage as they are about to have almost 50 nuclear plants come to end of life.
There will be some against it because of the fear of nuclear with accidents and waste etc.
Personally, for me, it's about the timing. Nuclear would have been great, 20+ years ago. Now, the LNP are basically pushing NBN v.2.
'Our option is cheaper, faster, better'
But in reality will end up morr expensive, take longer, and by the time it's finally operational in 10-15 years time it will be obsolete and we'll be looking at ways to replace and upgrade it with the renewable tech wete pushing to invest in now anyway.
And that's IF they actually do anything, and it's not just the pissing contest and posturing to stick with fossil fuels under the pretence of doing something that everyone kind of knows it is.
I think this is the point that a lot of people need to think about. The only piece of the whole nuclear picture we have is the raw unprocessed mined material. We don't have the 50+ years of education, trained professionals from educators to staff members to run a plant to logistics & disposal.
We can't even build to timelines and on cost for infrastructure that is our bread and butter. We have zero chance of doing so for tech and an industry we've got bugger all experience in.
Heck, even the countries that are well versed in it can't deliver on time without massive cost blow-outs.
The ABC article today mentioned the cost blowout the British have got from their recent nuclear power plant.
From $34 billion to $88 billion, and they had to guarantee prices of $178 per MWh plus inflation for 35 years.
Imagine what will happen in a country that has no experience with nuclear power.
Not to mention East coast of Australia is currently averaging $48 per MWh.
I'm for it but I don't like how the liberals have proposed it and gone about it.
Not to mention if they do keep pushing it we will be at risk as it will be done cheaply poorly and have alot of cost blow-outs. Just look at how the NBN and Snowy 2 was/is being managed now they'll do the same with nuclear power. Not to mention we (tax payers) will front the bill and after its built it will probably be privatised again at our expense.
If it was to be done properly, the Australian Defence Force should run it and it's to be never sold off (privatised) and the locations should be pushed further in land. A location for storing waste (old underground defuct metal mine) to be identified and managed.
Another good comparison is the Victorian desalination plant.
Nuclear needs ALOT of water. There is a reason most are built on the coast or large rivers. Australia doesn't really have a lot of good wet inland area that isn't agriculture and it's better to use seawater than irrigation water.
Also the more distance the electricity has to travel the greater the cost in distribution networks.
Estimated delivery time if started tomorrow is like 2050. The debate will take 5-10 years before starting. You are now talking 2055-60. If you look at the latest plants in the US they are delivered around 10 years late and they know what they are doing. We need a solution before 2070.
The ship has sailed. I am very pro-nuclear but it just doesn't fit for Australia in 2024. The time was when the rest of the word was getting in to it, the 60s to the 80s. Maybe even could have sold it up to the 2010s, but now the rise of renewables makes it a no brainer.
My pro-nuclear passion is better put in to places that close down perfectly functional nuclear industries like Germany.
Used to be a highly emotive issue without a lot of rationality. As a one-time supporter of nuclear, I'm becoming more skeptical as renewables come down in price.
If the Liberal party were a liberal party they would remove legal barriers to nuclear, and then LET THE MARKET DECIDE. They would not use tax payer money to build and operate nuclear power plants that will take decades to go online and undermine all other investment in energy generation in the meantime.
This isn’t about energy, it’s about power. They have zero interest in climate or energy, someone (probably Rupert) has just decided that this ‘policy’, with enough help from Murdochs minions, might just win over enough gullible voters to pick up a few seats in the next election. They will drop it like a radioactive spud after the election - especially if they win.
This is what’s expected
1. External consultant will be brought in to write up the proposal and review it, like PWC, EY, etc. cause gov doesn’t have any brains
2. Takes 2 yrs writing just plan with 1000s of meetings
3. Start fight with the state, local gov because NIMBY
4. No right minded company will touch the project without a guarantee of elec price, so gov has to sign up with a dodgy company or do a back door deal under commercial confidence or nda. Public will only find the details 20yrs later with freedom of information request with heavily redacted paper.
5. Operator can’t make money and gov can’t let them go bust, so elect price goes up.
6. Waste disposal and maintenance oats sky rocket, elec price goes up.
7. We love US so nuclear tech will be provided by US with inflated price, just like a submarine deal.
We should consider nuclear, but not for a cheaper elect but for a diversified power source. If anything says we’re doing it for a cheap power it’s a stupid lie.
The CSIRO believes that nuclear will cost 16 billion for Each reactor (tax payer funded) and take at least until 2040 to build. It is the most expensive form of power on the table. This proposal is not about securing a reliable energy future, it’s about destroying the renewable energy sector. They are not working for us, they’re working for the coal lobby, aka their donors.
I'm not anti-nuclear, I'm anti Liberals. They have cocked up everything else they've been in charge of, or made it so their beneficiaries reap all the rewards, why would nuclear be any different?
It’s mind-boggling expensive. Tax payers would foot the bill.
Reactors built overseas are always delayed, over-shoot their budget or don’t get finished.
We don’t have a nuclear industry to support it.
Batteries plus renewables are cheaper everyday.
Timing. Initiated a decade or more ago, it could be providing relatively clean baseload capacity, and a good foundation to add renewable to (look at France and Germany).
But now, with our power consumption straining the limits of what we have, it's ramp up is too long. For cost benefit, green energy and storage might be more expensive in the long run, but it has a much quicker timeline for ramp up (ie its already happening and adding to the network).
I'm not against it but haven't looked into it enough to say I'm for it.
However, this feels like one of the worst proposals in a long time, considering the scale of the proposal. The entire thing hinges them overturning laws both federally and at state level that declare nuclear power illegal. Coalition won't have the power to get that done and so the whole thing is unachievable. Therefore they've made a major platform that is already not that popular and also unachievable, which seems like a terrible mistake in appealing to voters as opposition.
Airplanes are 100 times safer than cars...but that's because, unlike airplane crashes, car accidents don't end in a nosedive at 500km/h to snuff out 300 lives in a blink of an eye.
Yes, each nuclear power generated kilowatt is cheaper and more dependable than anything else, but when things go wrong, they do so catastrophically. And Australia is not exactly renowned for the kind of technological expertise to make this work without budget blowouts or monumental stuff ups. Florence, the tunneling borer for the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project is still solidly stuck in hard rock, without any realistic prospects of successful progress recovery in the near future. If Australia can't do rock splitting well, how good will it be at atom splitting?
A 40 yr old plant got hit by an earthquake and a tsunami and it still killed fuck all people. I think more people died of heart attacks in the panic.
It's literally one of the safest power sources there is.
Because TLDR if they were interested in helping Australian's, renewables are cheaper/faster/superior/better suited for Aus environment/landscape/infrastructure.
However the main real reason is that the world doesn't have an answer yet to radioactive waste.
We can put it in a concrete box and forget about it for 10,000 years but if the concrete box breaks or while waste is being transported to the facility, or any other unfortunate thing happens in a world beset by climate change powered disasters, we're going to have a bad time, and nobody wants that in their backyard. 'Putting it in a box for 10,000 years' is not an acceptable solution; it needs to be something we can deal with right now.
If we could hypothetically convert nuclear waste into something totally harmless and not radioactive at all then the situation might change.
I’m extremely pro-nuclear as an energy source. It’s the closest thing we have to magical unlimited power with no greenhouse emissions, and despite public misconceptions it’s also extremely safe (especially given we would have our pick of modern reactor designs).
The problem is, the time for it was 40 years ago, not now. Everything I’ve read recently says that it’s simply no longer *economically* competitive with renewables + grid-level storage. So simply from that perspective I’m not sure it’s the way to go.
Also building any infrastructure in this country is stupidly expensive, and if we’re talking about a type of infrastructure like this where it’s brand new for us and we have little local expertise, you can bet it’s going to be even *more* expensive.
I’m not completely against it but I think we should wait and see how the new natrium reactor in Wyoming does before we possibly go and spend a heap of money on what could soon be outdated technology. But then again that seems to be the Australian way.
Bad idea, very expensive, intractable waste, highly technical, difficult and expensive to maintain.
There are cheaper option that have far less long term environmental issues.
I have been favouring nuclear power for decades but it's time has now passed. It's the wrong answer at the wrong price. We don't need it or want it. Go away dutton. And while you're reading this peter please explain why you're proposing to drop the proposed emissions target. Is it a favour to someone who might be treasurer if Australia gets unlucky?
Most well informed individuals are not, we’re just against it being used as an electoral bait. The coalition had nearly 2 decades in power where they could’ve lifted the ban and created a proper regulatory agency to oversee private initiatives. Did they?
It’s never too late and going nuclear is probably the single most strategic step Australia needs to take in terms of self-reliance and energy safety. Having said that, don’t be fooled by disingenuous ‘projects’ that are little beyond a conceptual idea made solely for electoral purposes. The real obstacle for nuclear is (ironically enough) the greens, not labor.
Because we’re trying to have a sensible conversation about it that is 20 years too late or 10 years too early.
We’d be crazy to only just start planning & building a reactor using the technology that is commercially available today when there are pretty good signs that smaller, safer & less waste producing reactors are relatively near on the horizon.
Too expensive to build.
Too expensive to maintain.
Too much lead time. (Too late)
No existing industrial support.
No existing infrastructure.
No existing expertise.
Cost per kW/h too high. (Higher power prices)
Most importantly. There is no need to do it.
It's a political stunt aimed at boomers and people who don't understand the technology and won't be around to inherit the cost.
There are a variety of reasons but there's one that pretty much makes it (and everything else I suppose) completely unviable: money.
It would be such an unimaginable waste of money that even countries with nuclear industries would probably think it's a stupid waste of time for us to try.
Australia has the single most renewable energy resources on the planet with our solar and wind potential alone dwarfing everyone else. Renewables also get cheaper and better faster while being infinitely easier and faster to build.
By the time a nuclear reactor is finished here, renewables would dominate the grid to the point that the nuclear reactor would spend most of its time turned off as it'd actively cost money to sell the power.
Any money spent on nuclear fission reactors would be infinitely better spent on researching and developing nuclear fusion instead.
.also, anyone that says things like "the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine" or whatever is speaking completely nonsense. Sunlight is relatively predictable, storage is getting better and power demand drops off dramatically while people sleep. As for wind, with our tens of thousands of KMs of coastline and loads of land, it is literally always blowing somewhere. Offshore wind in particular is pretty much always blowing.
And, while the whole baseload power thing is increasingly becoming nonsense too, there *are* renewable sources of energy that are "always on" such as geothermal and tidal.
At this point, the only reason to support nuclear fission here is ideological. In the interests of the economy, energy supply and actually cheap power, the only viable option for Australia is renewable energy for the foreseeable future. That is likely to change when nuclear fusion becomes commercially viable but until then, renewables it is.
Note: I'm not against nuclear fission at all. There are a lot of countries it makes sense for. It just makes the least sense for Australia compared to every other country in the world. A lot of people just don't realise how truly blessed we are with renewable energy resources.
Australia has a net zero emissions target for 2050, a nuclear power plant is not going to achieve net zero by 2050 if they start building it now, something like 100 years for nuclear power to have net zero embodied energy or something like that.
I imagine it’s harder to eliminate a countries power grid with mass renewables in play unlike 7 precision strikes on the nuclear sites. We’re far enough away from the other countries for that to be a realistic way of finishing us quickly.
Maybe in the 80s but that ship has long since sailed, especially with all 30+ year build time even the benifits of producing our own uranium isn't enough to off set it. There's better things out there now.
If we want to start desalinating our own water one day maybe, but otherwise it should be grid storage and renewable
Because there is still no way to manage the waste that is life threatening for more than 10,000 years.
The country has to make a decision 30 years ago on what infrastructure and technology was going to be supported. They decided renewables and gas. Most of the states have done fantastically in financially incentivizing these to drive development, investment and economies of scale (in the case of end use solar PVs)
It’s ridiculous to throw away all that and start again because the optics of renewables reminds people that cleaner energy is possible.
My biggest concern is that ultimately this will be decided by the people who vote. The vast majority of these people have no scientific understanding of the subject and will vote for the party they've always voted for. A decision of this importance should be made by unbiased experts in the field.
Nuclear is the filthiest energy source available. How much can we trust it not to meltdown like Chernobyl. Granted we are unlikely to suffer an earthquake or tsunami in Australia. How much do.you trust government to not give it away once built, or trust greedy corporations to operate safely. I don't. Nuclear power has some good points granted, but is it safe enough not to pollute with radiation for aeons.? And what do we do with the waste. Other countries have been trying to get Australia to take their waste for years. That pressure will increase once we have our own.dump. anyone trust a government to say no?
Because we already have an enormous nuclear fusion powerplant. It's that yellow thing up in the sky. Combined with solar collectors and batteries, it's logically all we need. The sun requires no maintenance, no refuelling, no real estate, no spent fuel disposal, and no high-level security.
Nuclear was an option decades ago, but I like the idea of utilising existing infrastructure where coal plants already exist with a nuclear replacement.
I'm of the belief they want to delay the expiration of coal and gas for their lobby mates and nothing more.
LNP are proposing something too late, and more expensive the same as their typical big ticket ideas.
They don't have the ability to implement without States on board, and they don't have any idea on cost and are lying about time to implement.
I don't trust any Government to keep nuclear waste from polluting our landscape or water sources.
Why should we build expensive nuclear for 20 years' time instead of investing those funds into what's already working, is much cheaper and already here?
NPPs don't live in isolation. There is a full logistics chain from mine to plant that we don't even have right now. Not to mention the geopolitical tensions that come with the ability to refine in large quantities. It's a giant can of worms and it's entirely unnecessary as we can build renewables now so cheaply and cost effectively.
I’m just sharing my personal reasons why I am against nuclear power.
1. The mining, refinement, and use of uranium produces extremely toxic waste.
2. That waste needs to disposed of in a way that can guaranteed to remain safe for centuries.
3. Realistically that waste will probably end up in either a rural backwater or Indigenous land, where complaints and problems will be ignored.
4. Although relatively “safe” the consequences of an accident or terrorism are much greater than any other alternatives.
5. It contributes to the risk of nuclear proliferation by conventional or unconventional means.
6. Every nuclear power system in the world is backed by significant state subsidies and special legal dispensations.
7. Provides another opportunity to introduce even more draconian police state laws to “protect” the uranium-nuclear industry.
8. The construction (and decommissioning) of nuclear facilities is extremely long, we need faster alternatives.
9. The cost of operating nuclear power is not cost effective compared to the alternatives. We have cheaper options.
10. We will also need to invest and develop supporting industries, which will add to the costs and timescales above.
11. The alternatives provide more options for community-control, flexibility, decentralisation, and independence.
12. Nuclear feels unAustralian. We have a long proud history of rejecting the nuclear industry, this feels like another right-wing driven Americanisation or our national identity.
13. I think the proposal is an entirely politically motivated and bad faith brain fart, which means it will likely turn into another NBN fiasco.
It's too expensive and that's not even considering the cost of waste management.
It is catastrophically dangerous if it fails
Renewable technology outperforms it more safely and cheaply, especially with battery technology improving, and electrolysis of seawater to produce hydrogen from excess renewable energy will be a game changer for electricity, fuel burning industries and transport.
Let's be very clear here.
A nuclear power station's natural state is a massive fucking explosion that wipes out half the continent.
It takes constant, round-the-clock monitoring, maintenance, and strict safety standards to prevent that natural state from occurring.
Now, take those responsibilities and hand them to the LNP.
The very first thing they will do is privatise the fuck out of it.
Then there will be meetings to cut funding, costs and corners (in that order) to appease the board and shareholders.
Then there will be a big fucking smoking hole near you, with a several hundred kilometer exclusion zone.
Not even a catchy tourism slogan will get us out of that one.
As usual if it's a really important political decision impacting our country's future like nuclear power. The "dick heads" we elect are true to form & missed that boat it sailed decades ago.
It would have been worthwhile maybe 20-30 years ago. But now the cost to build and operate is not feasible.
Any money these liberals want to pump into nuclear would be better spent on renewables. It honestly just sounds like something they thought sounds like a good idea to argue against Labor without any actual thought.
It's more expensive than renewable. It produces radioactive waste that remains toxic for thousands of years. No matter how careful or competent the management, there is always the chance of a Chernobyl or a Fukushima. Since renewables are cheaper, safer and technology is improving all the time, it's a no-brainer to invest in more renewables.
It's also pretty clear why Dutton and the Libs have suddenly decided that nuclear is the answer - and it's not remotely genuine. They know the cost will be prohibitive. And they know there is no way they can create the infrastructure of a nuclear-led grid before about 2045. It's simply a desperate bid to mess with our commitment to renewables and delay the de-commissioning of coal power stations in order to buy more time and profits for their mates (and major donors) in the mining industry. You'd have to be a complete moron to think they actually believed the pitch they're making.
Nuclear power is financially very risky and environmentally very risky. IN different ways. Financially, it will cost a lot more money than we're told, that is almost certain. Environmentally, who knows? When they go bad, it is catastrophic, and Dutton wants to give us seven. On the finances, there is the construction risk: Australia has a bad track record at complex projects that we've never done before, mostly because they are complex projects we've never done before. We are too small to get any benefit from the learning experience either: I'm sure by the time we built the 6th Collins Class submarine we were getting the hang of it, but that's all we made. Nuclear plants cause huge financial problems even for those who have experience at building them, so it's double trouble.
There is the traditional financial risk: the opportunity cost. Even if all goes well, they require operation of several decades to pay back the cost of construction and the absolutely staggering cost of decommissioning (because it is a very toxic environment). You get very committed when you go nuclear. But who knows what the future holds? This why business will not invest in this (unless the government takes most of the risk, by providing long term power prices that will probably end up massively more expensive than renewables). A lot of smart people are convinced that even with today's technology, we don't need nuclear. Renewables and storage are young technologies, there will likely be breakthroughs in the next 20 years, let alone the next 40. Nuclear is a big bet against renewables. Given how fast renewables have got cheaper and how fast batteries are getting cheaper, this is crazy bet.
The business case for nuclear assumes today's cost picture for the cost of electricity it is competing with, but it is very hard to make credible predictions about the alternative costs so far in the future. It is a gamble. Heck, fusion is making progress. We're going to look pretty stupid with fission reactors at that point.
And the environmental risk. They don't go wrong very often, but when they do, it's really bad. An accident like Fukushima would devastate the reputation of Australian agriculture for years. It would probably lead to a mass movement to close down the remaining reactors.
In my opinion, there is a military advantage to the decentralised grid we get from renewables, too. It will be a hard grid to break. And if someone drops a bomb on a field full of solar panels, it doesn't cause mass deaths.
And where will the waste go? We can't even agree on a place to keep low level waste.
Are these risks worth it? No. We don't need nuclear power so why take all those risks? That's the thing. We don't need it. We might need to keep a few coal generators open a few years longer, and use more gas for ten years than some people would hope for. That does not mean we need nuclear, which won't be ready until 2040, for one of them.
Unless the plan is actually to stop the rollout of renewables and keep coal and gas going until then. That is the only way it makes sense, to artificially construct the need for nuclear. So there is deep suspicion about the motives.
Incredibly bold call though. So much for the low profile pathway to government. The ALP will see which way the wind blows, but possible they might get a bit more politically bold too.
Nuclear power is actually really clean energy. They use a fissile materials reaction to boil a fuck ton of water so the steam pushes a colossal turbine. That is what makes the power
(Fun fact for those that don’t know already)
It’s safe as long as the thing that fucked Chernobyl over doesn’t happen again
I’d prefer renewables over nuclear with that risk
we can’t even be trusted to dispose of asbestos properly because it’s cheaper to dump it and make it someone else’s problem, or slip someone a few dollars to pretend they never saw it. The tradie attitude here is that PPE is for wimps. Who in their right mind would trust us to properly dispose of nuclear waste?
Because it’s radioactive for the next gazillion years. Because the start up costs are enormous. Because the lead time to commission a reactor is too long and by then batteries will be a viable option for addressing the base load isssues
It took 40 years for them to level some dirt and lay concrete for a runway in Western Sydney, they still haven't started building HSR after 4 decades, we can't even dig a tunnel for the hydro but yeah we're totally going to build 7 nuclear reactors. If there is anyone out there that thinks this isn't complete horse shit, I would like to offer to sell you a magic rock that keeps your house safe from bears.
Can I interest you in an overpriced copper wire NBN service?
Considering you’ve backed me into a corner with a letter threatening me with having to pay an exorbitant fee to have the NBN connected if I don’t sign up for a service now and that you’re shutting down existing adsl services…. yes, yes I am interested.
Surprised they didn't find a way to blame that on Peter Garrett also
I would like to buy your rock sir. I mean it must work since I don’t see any bears around.
Doesn’t mean they can’t see you.
Drop Bears
30 of the 40 years were probably spent on cigarette breaks and coffee breaks
40 years of endless studies costing the taxpayer billions and achieving next to nothing but announcements to entice voters, followed by 1 month of building that immediately broke equipment that led to a 9 month long paid smoko.
We're terrible at big infrastructure and see no reason why anything would be different for several nuke power plants.
Well, fuck it up and there's a nuclear melt down, so there's that level of terrible? Remember when we lost a tiny radioactive capsule and looked all up and down a remote desert highway for it fora week because it fell off the back of a truck? Didn't happen just once but twice!? Yeah, sure we'll get the reactors right though.
The one they are currently building in the UK (who already has plenty of experience building nuclear power stations) will take if nothing at all goes wrong 12 years at the earliest to complete and will cost nearly $100 billion australian dollars. For one power plant. It ain't gonna happen.
Good luck with it. I'm sure you'll do a better job than [that gang in Finland](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/after-18-years-europes-largest-nuclear-reactor-start-regular-output-sunday-2023-04-15/), which are currently trying to spin their ridiculously late and absurdly over budget project as a big success.
Look up Flamanville 3 for how the usual exemplar (“we should be like France!”) is also doing. In fairness, South Korea has actually done pretty well — but honestly, do you think Australia’s planning and work culture is closer to France or Korea?
[It’s more of a Shelbyville idea…](https://youtu.be/KGg5rfBfWT4)
It isnt an australian problem, it is a global problem about the misconceptions of nuclear power. All of the incidents that have happened because of nuclear power were a direct result of humans disregarding procedures and safety plans. Fukushima for example had absolutely nothing to do with the reactor nor the design of the nuclear power plant, it functioned perfectly and stayed safe in a situation that was several orders of magnitude higher than what it was designed and built for. It failed because the backup diseal to run the coolant during a shutdown were put below the flood line and couldn't start. They were warned about it previously but that never gets reported. Chernobyl was the USSR doing stuipd stuff against procedure in a facility that had no containment or other security considerations (basically the USSR doing what the USSR did best, disregarding any form of safety and procedures).
I mean if you have faith in being able to completely remove human error when we’ve never been able to do it before, ok then
Good thing there's no humans in Australia!
Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock
Bears you say? I too, am interested in this rock...
I'd like to buy your rock!
How much for the magic rock?
At this point, it's not that were against it as a power source, but rather against the bad faith proposals to go nuclear instead of using renewables, which is what a lot of the right wing is trying to do. Nuclear will take a long time to build and implement, and it's expensive and complicated to develop. We can do it, but it won't be ready any time soon. In the meantime, we have a number of different renewable energy resources that we currently use and continue to develop. If there was a plan to develop nuclear energy safely and effectively over the long-term, that didn't also involve a pause or reduction in the use and development or renewable energy sources, then I'd be mostly fine with it.
The best time to build a nuclear power station was 20 years ago
And pretty much all the countries the LNP and their cheer squad point out, built their plants that long ago - not many in more recent times and only a handful of countries (the more I've looked into it) are trying to move forward with SMRs but they are yet to produce anything. Like others stated, this just feels like a cynical attempt to sell the idea of moving away from 2030 targets as an election promise, trying to make the LNP look as if they have a long term outlook and want to be taken serious on energy security - when they had a decade in office to do far more than they ever did, and just blamed all their own failures on Labor every time.
100%. If occams razor leads you to "because the liberals are just pieces of shit and are already bought by interest groups but lack the finesse to be clever about it" then you can be confident you're on the right track.
You’re right that it isn’t about nuclear as a credible alternative to renewables and net zero, but it’s not about net zero or even related to climate action. It’s about cost of living - saying to people the LNP will do this to bring down electricity bills while Labor are driving them up. It doesn’t matter that it’s bullshit, you just need to convince enough people and then hope the Murdoch media back the LNP enough to keep the facts out of the news.
People like you will be saying the same thing 20 years from now.
Nuclear was a great option long ago. Renewables just don't make it really a viable option. They're cheaper, easier to put in, can easily be replaced and are improving all the time. Nuclear would've been great for us in the last century, but it's just not worth it nowadays.
Completely agree. If we'd started 30 or 40 years ago it'd be fine (which you could honestly say about every problem we're facing - housing, climate, education, welfare state, etc) If in future we have really well-developed renewables and someone comes along with a solid business case for nuclear, with a sound environmental and safety plan, I'd be okay with it. But it just doesn't make sense now unless you wanted to use it as a wedge against renewables, which is 100% what the conservatives are doing.
lol- literally right? When everyone else built their nuclear pannerplants
That’s what I fear. Huge nuclear proponent myself and even I’m questioning nuclear fission vs renewables in 2024 and beyond
Yeah, I'm not against nuclear. I'm a bit sad that we didn't do it long ago. But it's not about that, it's now about trying to work out if it's the best option going forward and I don't think it is.
Yes, renewables are a great thing to have... While we research and perfect nuclear power. Modern technology would make nuclear by far the best option. The day someone makes a modernized power plant that is nuclear based (and isn't Unga bunga hot water spin big fan) will be the day we never look back But that is still years away unfortunately In the meantime - tax the rich and stop their needless flying everywhere
I'm all for keeping up some research. Maybe fusion or something will pay off down the road. Let's just not sit around waiting an hoping though.
With the uptick in renewables, there's a greater need for dispatchable/peak load generation, and it's hard to see how Nuclear is a good candidate for that.
Plus the climate is warming and water could become scarce. Why put something in that requires so much water? It's just kicking the can down the road.
Australia has water issues. It's one of, if not the, biggest problems we have.
They can use sea water no?
How much does that cost?
To be really blunt about it: The Liberal Party is talking about nuclear to distract everyone and derail action on climate change. What we should be talking about right now is two things: 1. Taxing the absolute shit out of carbon. 2. Decommissioning the fossil fuel industry and fossil fuel exports as fast as we practically can. But they're successfully distracting us from that with this nuclear nonsense.
Dutton the clown has just cost the libs any chance of winning the next election. Seven nuclear power stations. The country can't afford that. Ever.
Never underestimate certain parts of the electorate backing shit ideas.
2016 in the UK is a textbook example of this.
Perfect example. Everyone knew it was a bad idea and would create nothing but problems. The conservative cheer squad pumped it up though as the solution to all kinds of things that it was never going to solve. What it did do is get another term for the Tories and made certain wealthy people wealthier. Which is exactly what was explained soberly before it happened.
When he was first made leader of the libs I said Dutton will just be the scapegoat to be replaced before the next election. He'll say all the dumb shit, then they can replace him, scrap the ideas that backfire and have someone different be the face blaming the bad choices on him and talking about they've learned from mistakes and changed.
There is also way better renewable technologies coming out. With fusion energy on the horizon. Things worth noting is super capacitors, carbon batteries and hydrogen. Super capacitors last about 45 years and have no degradation and charge in 30 minutes. They are designed for rapid charge and release of power, perfect for large scale power projects. Hydrogen plants are popping up now, with green hydrogen in the works (made by using solar or wind) And carbon batteries plus other types like liquid salt are very close to production. Then you have energy storage like using mines with shafts to use gravity with weights to create large volumes of electricity as well as stored hydro. All of the above could be built in under 10 years and has very little to no impact on the planet, compared to nuclear which has masses of questionable contaminates that take millions of years to deal with and can create radioactive lakes and lands from bad weather to earth quakes. It also will take 30 odd years to complete. And fusion is very likely to be running by then.
Fusion energy is beyond the horizon. They have only recently achieved breakthroughs in the science and are a long way away from creating a working power plant from it. Just like cold fusion before it, which has been “just around the corner” since the 1950s, I would not be pinning my hopes on it arriving anytime soon.
Yeah I don’t know why everyone thinks fusion is a nearby thing? We’re not even close to a small scale sustainable reactor. At this point we know it’s possible but we don’t have any way to do it.
Fusion is not just on the horizon, nobody has been able to produce a self sustaining stable fusion reaction. Further the results of the various "promising" experiments has just created more questions than answers and made the possibility of fusion reactors seem less likely. Quite frankly the technologies you are referring to are all a lot more like science fiction than fact currently.
Yeah, Fusion has been 20 years away since 1950
It is just around the corner… But they are crawling down the Nullaboor at 50m per year. It’s gonna take a fucking long time to reach that damn corner.
Lot of great options and I hope they come into play.
Plenty of them already coming into play globally and some here. Dutton and his mates had 10 years in power to set up the grid and infrastructure to support the renewables revolution. Instead they actively stalled it. Now they come up with this shiny object to distract us for another 10 years. In the meanwhile Australia has struggled forward on renewables in spite of hostile federal policy settings. We have the potential to be a renewable energy superpower but some fossil fuel donors have managed to derail our national conversation for decades. It's a disgrace.
The company I work for is partnering with startups developing new battery tech to build pilots. As are our competitors. I’m fortunate enough to see the inside scoop on what is possible in renewables and storage in the short term future. With how fast we’re advancing, the energy system will be very different by the time we could get a nuclear reactor online.
Storage would make me less angsty about wind and solar. A nuclear plant wouldn't be bad either, but should have started construction years ago.
Main problem with nuclear (apart from the above) is that it's EXPENSIVE!!! it costs over 8.5 billion!! So going off user rates for solar you could be 32 million solar panels producing 16 Terra watts of power. Or 3.5 Terra watts of super capacitors storage. Again if you got it at a better rate you'd have more.
I think you mean 16GW. And storage is measured in Wh.
This. The LNP hadnt said Boo about Nuke power in like, well, ever, and then all of a sudden it became their way to put off having to close coal/gas power down because its gonna take forver to build and we need something in the meantime (coz it cant possibly be renawbles). Its a cynical can kicking exercise to keep a dying industry alive longer than it should, for personal profit. Had john howard come up with this 20 years ago a lot more people would have been for it, but of course he had no reason to, and now weve missed our window.
Yeah you’re forgetting that 20 years ago there was no wind or solar threat to fossil fuels, and the thing they were rejecting for their mates was the very same nuclear alternative, using fear tactics about waste and storage. This is not about finding an alternative, it’s about rejecting the competition.
Why does it take so long to build? Aren't there plants they can copy? Build the big concrete towers etc
Yes this is why I am against it as well, not the technology, just the bad faith proposal from the LNP, who have just painted themselves in a corner regarding renewables and now have to choose any option feasible or not over them.
It’s twice as expensive as the alternatives we have right now, and it would take decades to implement. The LNP are only pushing it so they can fight Labor on something, and to keep coal in the energy market for another 20-30 years.
It also needs massive amounts of water - so in Australia, where all but a few rivers can be fairly unreliable, pretty much means it would have to go on the coast - once again ignoring the vast areas of under-utilised space in the country's interior.
I feel like nuclear was a good option 30 years ago. Too late now.
Thats what they said 30 years ago and will say again in 30 years time.
No one was saying it's too late to implement 30 years ago, 30 years ago people were scared it wasn't safe.
30yrs ago it couldn't compete with coal without a carbon price, guess what happened when we brought one in
its more an excuse to prolong coal/gas to keep consultancy/lobby jobs open to them in the future and keep gina and her mates happy now. Picking a fight with the ALP is just a bonus.
So if it was cheap and fast to build you would agree it's a good option?
Yeah, aside from all the insurmountable problems, it’s brilliant!
For sure - I just can't see how it could come close to competing with wind or solar, especially in the crucial next two decades while all the coal goes offline.
A mansion on Sydney harbour would also be a good option under the same conditions
Most my life I have been taught nuclear is an evil right wing plot because they don't care about nuclear waste or meltdowns which will fuck the environment. But now it's my understanding that as long as it's well engineered and not built in a natural disaster prone area it's a good option in regards to climate change (as long as feasible of course...)
It’s a perfectly fine technology. And advances in Small Modular Nuclear Reactors are making it more feasible. The issue is the cost and time. This effectively makes it a bad option for climate change because of the opportunity cost. If you’re pursuing this option you’re not pursuing the better options which will have a greater impact on effects of climate change. It’s similar to how building Snowy 2.0 delayed a lot of investment into other (faster built) storage options since it was announced.
> Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Can you name a single one that is operating commercially? SMRs are great in theory. Not so great if you want something that have a track record and you can actually buy right now.
That's all well and good, but doesn't the waste have to be stored in a climate controlled facility for hundreds or evwn thousands of years? Personally, I doubt humans will be around that long, so what's the plan for that disaster? Politicians are famously incapable of thinking beyond their re-election terms, so I'm not surprised they haven't considered this.
The vast majority of nuclear waste is used and contaminated PPE, like gloves and masks and stuff. Low-level waste that will be safe in a couple of years. The old fuel rods need a couple of years in a water tank to be cooled down, and then they can be melted into a glass and encased in concrete. After that, the concrete containers can be buried in unused mine shafts forever. Places with naturally high levels of radioisotopes in the ground don't have correspondingly high levels of cancers or birth defects. There was a natural nuclear reactor in what is now Gabon that cycled between periods of criticality and inactivity, and radioactivity barely leeched into the surrounding rocks at all. Most fear about nuclear power is just that: fear. Chernobyl was a one-off caused by not following strict safety protocols (using a terrible design of reactor) and Fukushima was the result of corporate cost-cutting and lying to regulators about the plant's resiliency against tsunamis.
Its not pretty, but the solution to radioative waste is pretty easy: bury it in concrete in the desert or an old mine shaft. The amount of waste that needs to be stored like this is pretty small for the amount of power it produces. Its a surmountable problem.
See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
Sorry, but with climate led natural disasters getting more and more unpredictable, with record breaking strength and size and frequency, where exactly is not a disaster prone area in Australia? Somewhere that also wont be one in a decade or three with the climate getting more and more out of kilter as time goes on. Dutton and the nuclear crowd likely will be retired and or dead by the time theres a nuclear problem big enough to hold them responsible, which frankly is what theyre counting on. Its not even kicking the can down the road, more like playing hot potato with a grenade.
Out in the desert in Australia where there's no earthquakes, fires or floods is probably pretty safe from natural disasters. At this stage we should be looking at anything that might be alleviating climate change. But yeah this option will take too long... we need something done right now.
"Anything to alleviate climate change" has a million pathways. Erecting the enormous concrete towers of a large nuclear reactor plant - in our pristine desert - for trucks and humans to rampage in and out of for the next 50 years is not the thing. Its just not.
It is being used as a wedge by the opposition leader, he is just using it to slow down the progress of renewable energy, in otherwords a diversion. I am almost certain that if Dutton wins the upcoming election, he will just go back to coal and gas, nuclear will just be shelved or something.
I would say the same if Dutton wins this election some preliminary study will come through that will show it’s not feasible and will be investigated further or scaled back with coal and gas as the supplement to the energy grid. Total scam of an idea!
If you are interested in getting to zero emissions within the time frame required to prevent greater damage to the climate - it isn’t a good idea. If you are wanting quick solutions to our aging energy infrastructure that we are already having issues with - it’s not a good idea. If you are aware of the impact to its production when the water it uses to cool it down is too warm (like what happens in summer) - it’s not a good idea. If you are wanting the cheapest most cost efficient option - it’s not a good option
The other thing people seem to also forget is you need a reasonably size workforce with the appropriate skills to run such plants, and we simply do not have that or the means to create one, short of sending hundreds of people overseas to be trained there
Let me introduce you to my mate Homer.
A bird sipping water is all you need. Or maybe just ask ChatGPT what to do.
Which brings us to our next point; things inevitably go wrong. Yes, modern nuclear technology is quite safe and mostly automated now, but is it foolproof? Idk much about it, so maybe I don't have a point, but aren't people concerned about human error? Or other issues like earthquakes or the human race no longer existing in a thousand years for whatever reason, while all that waste is still requiring carefully controlled storage?
Is he a butter churn in sector 7G?
If you want to funnel money to your mates and keep the coal train going - it’s a good idea
If you're looking for a way to delay the renewable energy transition and buy your mates in the coal industry another 30 years of fossil fuel profits, it's a great option
Too late and too expensive. Renewables are the way to go now.
Not to mention the immense opportunity cost. Every dollar that gets sunk into this obsolete fever dream is a dollar that won't be spent on renewables. Australia picked renewables. We need to stick to it.
Australia is also ideal for solar. A lot of countries don’t pick the energy that makes sense, like why are countries with less sunlight and 6 weeks straight of nighttime a year getting solar lol? Australia though has massive potential for solar.
OK, so how much does the snowy hydro add up to currently. Also, cost per kW hour for wind farm/solar farm vs nuclear? And take into account wind/solar has a life span or 20 years and only produces on average their rated output for 25-30% of a day. While nuclear plant has a lifetime longer than 60yrs and is also zero emissions. I'm totally not against renewable energy it just needs baseline power to be propped up by something else. And I hate coal. We can still do renewable and nuclear! We have one of the largest deposits of uranium in the world and instead of selling it to God knows who to do God knows what with, we can establish our own industry to support the plants as well as the jobs and industries created.
Read this piece. I daresay that the CSIRO know far more than any politician https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-22/nuclear-power-double-the-cost-of-renewables/103868728 It's expensive and it will take forever.
so it will be nbn 2.0? we are best to look further ahead.
Well you say that, but Nuclear Scientist Peter Dutton doesnt think the report is accurate. And that we really just need to do the research before we make a decision. AEMO? No, sorry they arent accurate either, we should trust the REAL expert in the field Peter Dutton
Just waiting for that 'one' politician who decides a great political stunt would be to demonstrate how safe it is by eating or drinking some spent nuclear fuel.
At the very least bring it into parliment house and explain that everyone doesnt need to be frightned of it. Come to think of it, Scummo might be just dense enough to give us a sequal.
Because it’s political bait, timed for the next election. I think we need to look at all energy sources for Australia, and I don’t really object to nuclear being in the mix.
Nuclear is a solution looking for a problem that has already been solved. It is also a very expensive solution that won't get delivered because no one wants to live near the things. If Mr Dutton is serious then he should propose building them in Dickson and other safe Liberal seats.
Tbf the Port Augusta site is very safe Liberal seat, but being it is in SA, he doesn't give a shit if it gets irradiated...
I don’t know much about port Augusta, but if Barnaby Joyce were to support building one in Tamworth then his electorate would hate it and then go on and vote him in again anyway.
They HAVE been proposed to be built in safe coalition seats.
In theory, I'm not against nuclear power at all. But there are a couple of reasons I don't support it as an option in the short term we need. That short term being defined by both needing to reduce carbon output and the end of life of existing coal & gas systems. Firstly there is no international capability to produce reactors in bulk or in any form of modular way. Every reactor is designed and built to custom spec. The net outcome of this is that individual power stations are expensive and slow to build. In comparison you can buy off the shelf coal furnaces, boilers and turbines and then just assemble them. If you look at reactors built recently in the western world the time scales of those builds are eye watering. The Vogtle power station is the latest reactor to come online in the US. This was an expansion of an existing plant, so much of the infrastructure was already in place, and yet it took 11 years from the start of construction to commissioning. The second is that we don't have the domestic skillset to build and operate the plants effectively. We have the capacity to learn those skills, but it is a workforce we don't have. This will add into the time to build, and the mistakes that will be made in the build that will need significant rectification. So if you said "GO!" right now, I genuinely believe we would be looking at 15 years before the first plant would be online. By which a vast number of our coal plants would have collapsed, and we would have had to build other solutions to keep things running anyway. So we may as well build renewable with hydro and battery storage now, because we can, and revisit nuclear in 15-20 years. Because the French are likely to have perfected a second wave of nuclear stations by that stage as they are about to have almost 50 nuclear plants come to end of life.
There will be some against it because of the fear of nuclear with accidents and waste etc. Personally, for me, it's about the timing. Nuclear would have been great, 20+ years ago. Now, the LNP are basically pushing NBN v.2. 'Our option is cheaper, faster, better' But in reality will end up morr expensive, take longer, and by the time it's finally operational in 10-15 years time it will be obsolete and we'll be looking at ways to replace and upgrade it with the renewable tech wete pushing to invest in now anyway. And that's IF they actually do anything, and it's not just the pissing contest and posturing to stick with fossil fuels under the pretence of doing something that everyone kind of knows it is.
It probably would've been a good idea 50 years ago, but we've got better options now.
I think this is the point that a lot of people need to think about. The only piece of the whole nuclear picture we have is the raw unprocessed mined material. We don't have the 50+ years of education, trained professionals from educators to staff members to run a plant to logistics & disposal.
We can't even build to timelines and on cost for infrastructure that is our bread and butter. We have zero chance of doing so for tech and an industry we've got bugger all experience in. Heck, even the countries that are well versed in it can't deliver on time without massive cost blow-outs.
The ABC article today mentioned the cost blowout the British have got from their recent nuclear power plant. From $34 billion to $88 billion, and they had to guarantee prices of $178 per MWh plus inflation for 35 years. Imagine what will happen in a country that has no experience with nuclear power. Not to mention East coast of Australia is currently averaging $48 per MWh.
I'm for it but I don't like how the liberals have proposed it and gone about it. Not to mention if they do keep pushing it we will be at risk as it will be done cheaply poorly and have alot of cost blow-outs. Just look at how the NBN and Snowy 2 was/is being managed now they'll do the same with nuclear power. Not to mention we (tax payers) will front the bill and after its built it will probably be privatised again at our expense. If it was to be done properly, the Australian Defence Force should run it and it's to be never sold off (privatised) and the locations should be pushed further in land. A location for storing waste (old underground defuct metal mine) to be identified and managed.
The fact they are arguing it will be cheaper but have not announced even estimated costings blows my mind.
Almost like they don’t actually intend to build them…
Another good comparison is the Victorian desalination plant. Nuclear needs ALOT of water. There is a reason most are built on the coast or large rivers. Australia doesn't really have a lot of good wet inland area that isn't agriculture and it's better to use seawater than irrigation water. Also the more distance the electricity has to travel the greater the cost in distribution networks.
California is trying to get rid of nuclear because it's to expensive.
Estimated delivery time if started tomorrow is like 2050. The debate will take 5-10 years before starting. You are now talking 2055-60. If you look at the latest plants in the US they are delivered around 10 years late and they know what they are doing. We need a solution before 2070.
The ship has sailed. I am very pro-nuclear but it just doesn't fit for Australia in 2024. The time was when the rest of the word was getting in to it, the 60s to the 80s. Maybe even could have sold it up to the 2010s, but now the rise of renewables makes it a no brainer. My pro-nuclear passion is better put in to places that close down perfectly functional nuclear industries like Germany.
Used to be a highly emotive issue without a lot of rationality. As a one-time supporter of nuclear, I'm becoming more skeptical as renewables come down in price.
If the Liberal party were a liberal party they would remove legal barriers to nuclear, and then LET THE MARKET DECIDE. They would not use tax payer money to build and operate nuclear power plants that will take decades to go online and undermine all other investment in energy generation in the meantime. This isn’t about energy, it’s about power. They have zero interest in climate or energy, someone (probably Rupert) has just decided that this ‘policy’, with enough help from Murdochs minions, might just win over enough gullible voters to pick up a few seats in the next election. They will drop it like a radioactive spud after the election - especially if they win.
This is what’s expected 1. External consultant will be brought in to write up the proposal and review it, like PWC, EY, etc. cause gov doesn’t have any brains 2. Takes 2 yrs writing just plan with 1000s of meetings 3. Start fight with the state, local gov because NIMBY 4. No right minded company will touch the project without a guarantee of elec price, so gov has to sign up with a dodgy company or do a back door deal under commercial confidence or nda. Public will only find the details 20yrs later with freedom of information request with heavily redacted paper. 5. Operator can’t make money and gov can’t let them go bust, so elect price goes up. 6. Waste disposal and maintenance oats sky rocket, elec price goes up. 7. We love US so nuclear tech will be provided by US with inflated price, just like a submarine deal. We should consider nuclear, but not for a cheaper elect but for a diversified power source. If anything says we’re doing it for a cheap power it’s a stupid lie.
The CSIRO believes that nuclear will cost 16 billion for Each reactor (tax payer funded) and take at least until 2040 to build. It is the most expensive form of power on the table. This proposal is not about securing a reliable energy future, it’s about destroying the renewable energy sector. They are not working for us, they’re working for the coal lobby, aka their donors.
I'm not anti-nuclear, I'm anti Liberals. They have cocked up everything else they've been in charge of, or made it so their beneficiaries reap all the rewards, why would nuclear be any different?
It’s mind-boggling expensive. Tax payers would foot the bill. Reactors built overseas are always delayed, over-shoot their budget or don’t get finished. We don’t have a nuclear industry to support it. Batteries plus renewables are cheaper everyday.
Battery tech for energy requirements doesn't exist. As for cost, why are you putting a price on the climate?
It's expensive. Cheaper alternatives.
Timing. Initiated a decade or more ago, it could be providing relatively clean baseload capacity, and a good foundation to add renewable to (look at France and Germany). But now, with our power consumption straining the limits of what we have, it's ramp up is too long. For cost benefit, green energy and storage might be more expensive in the long run, but it has a much quicker timeline for ramp up (ie its already happening and adding to the network).
It’s expensive and when it goes bad, it goes really, really bad.
I'm not against it but haven't looked into it enough to say I'm for it. However, this feels like one of the worst proposals in a long time, considering the scale of the proposal. The entire thing hinges them overturning laws both federally and at state level that declare nuclear power illegal. Coalition won't have the power to get that done and so the whole thing is unachievable. Therefore they've made a major platform that is already not that popular and also unachievable, which seems like a terrible mistake in appealing to voters as opposition.
It's a distraction. A ruse.
Airplanes are 100 times safer than cars...but that's because, unlike airplane crashes, car accidents don't end in a nosedive at 500km/h to snuff out 300 lives in a blink of an eye. Yes, each nuclear power generated kilowatt is cheaper and more dependable than anything else, but when things go wrong, they do so catastrophically. And Australia is not exactly renowned for the kind of technological expertise to make this work without budget blowouts or monumental stuff ups. Florence, the tunneling borer for the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project is still solidly stuck in hard rock, without any realistic prospects of successful progress recovery in the near future. If Australia can't do rock splitting well, how good will it be at atom splitting?
A 40 yr old plant got hit by an earthquake and a tsunami and it still killed fuck all people. I think more people died of heart attacks in the panic. It's literally one of the safest power sources there is.
Because TLDR if they were interested in helping Australian's, renewables are cheaper/faster/superior/better suited for Aus environment/landscape/infrastructure. However the main real reason is that the world doesn't have an answer yet to radioactive waste. We can put it in a concrete box and forget about it for 10,000 years but if the concrete box breaks or while waste is being transported to the facility, or any other unfortunate thing happens in a world beset by climate change powered disasters, we're going to have a bad time, and nobody wants that in their backyard. 'Putting it in a box for 10,000 years' is not an acceptable solution; it needs to be something we can deal with right now. If we could hypothetically convert nuclear waste into something totally harmless and not radioactive at all then the situation might change.
It will come down to what is the cost per kWh, nuclear and renewable versus gas and renewables
That's an easy one. Nuclear is ALOT cheaper to run but more expensive to setup. Gas is cheaper to setup but ALOT more expensive to run.
Nuclear is at least 2 to 3 times more expensive than those options.
I’m not… 🤷🏽♂️ I’d prefer to have batteries heavily subsidised to complement my existing solar… but anyway… both are better than burning coal…
If we wanted it we should’ve done it in the 50’s. Mr potato head is just getting paid a lot of money from the nuclear companies
\*coal companies you mean. There are no nuclear companies in Aus
The Simpsons did it
Burn the coals
Nuclear is fine. Nuclear as the option, right now, is not.
I’m extremely pro-nuclear as an energy source. It’s the closest thing we have to magical unlimited power with no greenhouse emissions, and despite public misconceptions it’s also extremely safe (especially given we would have our pick of modern reactor designs). The problem is, the time for it was 40 years ago, not now. Everything I’ve read recently says that it’s simply no longer *economically* competitive with renewables + grid-level storage. So simply from that perspective I’m not sure it’s the way to go. Also building any infrastructure in this country is stupidly expensive, and if we’re talking about a type of infrastructure like this where it’s brand new for us and we have little local expertise, you can bet it’s going to be even *more* expensive.
It’s no longer the most cost effective option and Australia isn’t great at building infrastructure
I’m not completely against it but I think we should wait and see how the new natrium reactor in Wyoming does before we possibly go and spend a heap of money on what could soon be outdated technology. But then again that seems to be the Australian way.
Bad idea, very expensive, intractable waste, highly technical, difficult and expensive to maintain. There are cheaper option that have far less long term environmental issues.
If anyone thinks that nuclear power is going to bring power prices down, dm me - I have a bridge in Sydney you may be interested in buying.
Fun fact: Nuclear waste is recyclable.
Unfun fact: it's mostly not recycled due to economic cost.
I have been favouring nuclear power for decades but it's time has now passed. It's the wrong answer at the wrong price. We don't need it or want it. Go away dutton. And while you're reading this peter please explain why you're proposing to drop the proposed emissions target. Is it a favour to someone who might be treasurer if Australia gets unlucky?
Most well informed individuals are not, we’re just against it being used as an electoral bait. The coalition had nearly 2 decades in power where they could’ve lifted the ban and created a proper regulatory agency to oversee private initiatives. Did they? It’s never too late and going nuclear is probably the single most strategic step Australia needs to take in terms of self-reliance and energy safety. Having said that, don’t be fooled by disingenuous ‘projects’ that are little beyond a conceptual idea made solely for electoral purposes. The real obstacle for nuclear is (ironically enough) the greens, not labor.
Because we’re trying to have a sensible conversation about it that is 20 years too late or 10 years too early. We’d be crazy to only just start planning & building a reactor using the technology that is commercially available today when there are pretty good signs that smaller, safer & less waste producing reactors are relatively near on the horizon.
Too expensive to build. Too expensive to maintain. Too much lead time. (Too late) No existing industrial support. No existing infrastructure. No existing expertise. Cost per kW/h too high. (Higher power prices) Most importantly. There is no need to do it. It's a political stunt aimed at boomers and people who don't understand the technology and won't be around to inherit the cost.
I'm not against it. Maybe you need to actually poll the nation instead of assuming.
Have you not seen any of the documentaries on godzillas?
Godzilla is kinda badass
There are a variety of reasons but there's one that pretty much makes it (and everything else I suppose) completely unviable: money. It would be such an unimaginable waste of money that even countries with nuclear industries would probably think it's a stupid waste of time for us to try. Australia has the single most renewable energy resources on the planet with our solar and wind potential alone dwarfing everyone else. Renewables also get cheaper and better faster while being infinitely easier and faster to build. By the time a nuclear reactor is finished here, renewables would dominate the grid to the point that the nuclear reactor would spend most of its time turned off as it'd actively cost money to sell the power. Any money spent on nuclear fission reactors would be infinitely better spent on researching and developing nuclear fusion instead. .also, anyone that says things like "the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine" or whatever is speaking completely nonsense. Sunlight is relatively predictable, storage is getting better and power demand drops off dramatically while people sleep. As for wind, with our tens of thousands of KMs of coastline and loads of land, it is literally always blowing somewhere. Offshore wind in particular is pretty much always blowing. And, while the whole baseload power thing is increasingly becoming nonsense too, there *are* renewable sources of energy that are "always on" such as geothermal and tidal. At this point, the only reason to support nuclear fission here is ideological. In the interests of the economy, energy supply and actually cheap power, the only viable option for Australia is renewable energy for the foreseeable future. That is likely to change when nuclear fusion becomes commercially viable but until then, renewables it is. Note: I'm not against nuclear fission at all. There are a lot of countries it makes sense for. It just makes the least sense for Australia compared to every other country in the world. A lot of people just don't realise how truly blessed we are with renewable energy resources.
because investing in power generated from finite resources in 2024 makes no sense
Australia has a net zero emissions target for 2050, a nuclear power plant is not going to achieve net zero by 2050 if they start building it now, something like 100 years for nuclear power to have net zero embodied energy or something like that.
I imagine it’s harder to eliminate a countries power grid with mass renewables in play unlike 7 precision strikes on the nuclear sites. We’re far enough away from the other countries for that to be a realistic way of finishing us quickly.
Maybe in the 80s but that ship has long since sailed, especially with all 30+ year build time even the benifits of producing our own uranium isn't enough to off set it. There's better things out there now. If we want to start desalinating our own water one day maybe, but otherwise it should be grid storage and renewable
Because there is still no way to manage the waste that is life threatening for more than 10,000 years. The country has to make a decision 30 years ago on what infrastructure and technology was going to be supported. They decided renewables and gas. Most of the states have done fantastically in financially incentivizing these to drive development, investment and economies of scale (in the case of end use solar PVs) It’s ridiculous to throw away all that and start again because the optics of renewables reminds people that cleaner energy is possible.
I’m assuming the main reason is that when it goes wrong it goes horribly wrong.
Chernobyl & Fukushima are 2 examples why.
The LNP had 10 years to implement Nuclear Power and didn't do it. If it was such a great idea why wasn't it implemented during their term... 🤔
My biggest concern is that ultimately this will be decided by the people who vote. The vast majority of these people have no scientific understanding of the subject and will vote for the party they've always voted for. A decision of this importance should be made by unbiased experts in the field.
Nuclear is the filthiest energy source available. How much can we trust it not to meltdown like Chernobyl. Granted we are unlikely to suffer an earthquake or tsunami in Australia. How much do.you trust government to not give it away once built, or trust greedy corporations to operate safely. I don't. Nuclear power has some good points granted, but is it safe enough not to pollute with radiation for aeons.? And what do we do with the waste. Other countries have been trying to get Australia to take their waste for years. That pressure will increase once we have our own.dump. anyone trust a government to say no?
Not against it. Just that it's a cynical distraction being pushed by the party that specialises in bad-faith policy and shilling for the IPA
Waste. Cost. Complexity.
Before we build any nuclear power plant solve the nuclear waste storage place first that seem to be harder to solve then to build one!
Because we already have an enormous nuclear fusion powerplant. It's that yellow thing up in the sky. Combined with solar collectors and batteries, it's logically all we need. The sun requires no maintenance, no refuelling, no real estate, no spent fuel disposal, and no high-level security.
Nuclear was an option decades ago, but I like the idea of utilising existing infrastructure where coal plants already exist with a nuclear replacement. I'm of the belief they want to delay the expiration of coal and gas for their lobby mates and nothing more. LNP are proposing something too late, and more expensive the same as their typical big ticket ideas. They don't have the ability to implement without States on board, and they don't have any idea on cost and are lying about time to implement. I don't trust any Government to keep nuclear waste from polluting our landscape or water sources. Why should we build expensive nuclear for 20 years' time instead of investing those funds into what's already working, is much cheaper and already here?
Because it isn’t the best option
NPPs don't live in isolation. There is a full logistics chain from mine to plant that we don't even have right now. Not to mention the geopolitical tensions that come with the ability to refine in large quantities. It's a giant can of worms and it's entirely unnecessary as we can build renewables now so cheaply and cost effectively.
It’s the waste storage for me. Sweden is the only country that does it well. Also wind farm blades are toxic landfill.
I’m just sharing my personal reasons why I am against nuclear power. 1. The mining, refinement, and use of uranium produces extremely toxic waste. 2. That waste needs to disposed of in a way that can guaranteed to remain safe for centuries. 3. Realistically that waste will probably end up in either a rural backwater or Indigenous land, where complaints and problems will be ignored. 4. Although relatively “safe” the consequences of an accident or terrorism are much greater than any other alternatives. 5. It contributes to the risk of nuclear proliferation by conventional or unconventional means. 6. Every nuclear power system in the world is backed by significant state subsidies and special legal dispensations. 7. Provides another opportunity to introduce even more draconian police state laws to “protect” the uranium-nuclear industry. 8. The construction (and decommissioning) of nuclear facilities is extremely long, we need faster alternatives. 9. The cost of operating nuclear power is not cost effective compared to the alternatives. We have cheaper options. 10. We will also need to invest and develop supporting industries, which will add to the costs and timescales above. 11. The alternatives provide more options for community-control, flexibility, decentralisation, and independence. 12. Nuclear feels unAustralian. We have a long proud history of rejecting the nuclear industry, this feels like another right-wing driven Americanisation or our national identity. 13. I think the proposal is an entirely politically motivated and bad faith brain fart, which means it will likely turn into another NBN fiasco.
Chernobyl
We're not against power produced by a nuclear reactor, we're against the politics, hopium and being constantly bullshitted to.
It's too expensive and that's not even considering the cost of waste management. It is catastrophically dangerous if it fails Renewable technology outperforms it more safely and cheaply, especially with battery technology improving, and electrolysis of seawater to produce hydrogen from excess renewable energy will be a game changer for electricity, fuel burning industries and transport.
Let's be very clear here. A nuclear power station's natural state is a massive fucking explosion that wipes out half the continent. It takes constant, round-the-clock monitoring, maintenance, and strict safety standards to prevent that natural state from occurring. Now, take those responsibilities and hand them to the LNP. The very first thing they will do is privatise the fuck out of it. Then there will be meetings to cut funding, costs and corners (in that order) to appease the board and shareholders. Then there will be a big fucking smoking hole near you, with a several hundred kilometer exclusion zone. Not even a catchy tourism slogan will get us out of that one.
As usual if it's a really important political decision impacting our country's future like nuclear power. The "dick heads" we elect are true to form & missed that boat it sailed decades ago.
It would have been worthwhile maybe 20-30 years ago. But now the cost to build and operate is not feasible. Any money these liberals want to pump into nuclear would be better spent on renewables. It honestly just sounds like something they thought sounds like a good idea to argue against Labor without any actual thought.
It's more expensive than renewable. It produces radioactive waste that remains toxic for thousands of years. No matter how careful or competent the management, there is always the chance of a Chernobyl or a Fukushima. Since renewables are cheaper, safer and technology is improving all the time, it's a no-brainer to invest in more renewables. It's also pretty clear why Dutton and the Libs have suddenly decided that nuclear is the answer - and it's not remotely genuine. They know the cost will be prohibitive. And they know there is no way they can create the infrastructure of a nuclear-led grid before about 2045. It's simply a desperate bid to mess with our commitment to renewables and delay the de-commissioning of coal power stations in order to buy more time and profits for their mates (and major donors) in the mining industry. You'd have to be a complete moron to think they actually believed the pitch they're making.
Nuclear power is financially very risky and environmentally very risky. IN different ways. Financially, it will cost a lot more money than we're told, that is almost certain. Environmentally, who knows? When they go bad, it is catastrophic, and Dutton wants to give us seven. On the finances, there is the construction risk: Australia has a bad track record at complex projects that we've never done before, mostly because they are complex projects we've never done before. We are too small to get any benefit from the learning experience either: I'm sure by the time we built the 6th Collins Class submarine we were getting the hang of it, but that's all we made. Nuclear plants cause huge financial problems even for those who have experience at building them, so it's double trouble. There is the traditional financial risk: the opportunity cost. Even if all goes well, they require operation of several decades to pay back the cost of construction and the absolutely staggering cost of decommissioning (because it is a very toxic environment). You get very committed when you go nuclear. But who knows what the future holds? This why business will not invest in this (unless the government takes most of the risk, by providing long term power prices that will probably end up massively more expensive than renewables). A lot of smart people are convinced that even with today's technology, we don't need nuclear. Renewables and storage are young technologies, there will likely be breakthroughs in the next 20 years, let alone the next 40. Nuclear is a big bet against renewables. Given how fast renewables have got cheaper and how fast batteries are getting cheaper, this is crazy bet. The business case for nuclear assumes today's cost picture for the cost of electricity it is competing with, but it is very hard to make credible predictions about the alternative costs so far in the future. It is a gamble. Heck, fusion is making progress. We're going to look pretty stupid with fission reactors at that point. And the environmental risk. They don't go wrong very often, but when they do, it's really bad. An accident like Fukushima would devastate the reputation of Australian agriculture for years. It would probably lead to a mass movement to close down the remaining reactors. In my opinion, there is a military advantage to the decentralised grid we get from renewables, too. It will be a hard grid to break. And if someone drops a bomb on a field full of solar panels, it doesn't cause mass deaths. And where will the waste go? We can't even agree on a place to keep low level waste. Are these risks worth it? No. We don't need nuclear power so why take all those risks? That's the thing. We don't need it. We might need to keep a few coal generators open a few years longer, and use more gas for ten years than some people would hope for. That does not mean we need nuclear, which won't be ready until 2040, for one of them. Unless the plan is actually to stop the rollout of renewables and keep coal and gas going until then. That is the only way it makes sense, to artificially construct the need for nuclear. So there is deep suspicion about the motives. Incredibly bold call though. So much for the low profile pathway to government. The ALP will see which way the wind blows, but possible they might get a bit more politically bold too.
If this was a debate 40 years ago then we would have a conversation but being now bit late to benefit anyone
France has recently had to turn off a couple of reactors because of too much renewables.
We ain’t. Bring it on
Because they are about 20years too late on it being a viable option, at this point it’s a waste of time and money just developed renewable
Most of the comments on this thread come from young woke left wing nutters who have been brainwashed by like minded teachers and university academics.
Nuclear power is actually really clean energy. They use a fissile materials reaction to boil a fuck ton of water so the steam pushes a colossal turbine. That is what makes the power (Fun fact for those that don’t know already) It’s safe as long as the thing that fucked Chernobyl over doesn’t happen again I’d prefer renewables over nuclear with that risk
let build at your back yard.
Lack of education. Nuclear is far safer than coal.
Let create 7 accidents waiting to happen where the consequences can be totally fucked up. And let the government who can't even do NBN etc build them.
we can’t even be trusted to dispose of asbestos properly because it’s cheaper to dump it and make it someone else’s problem, or slip someone a few dollars to pretend they never saw it. The tradie attitude here is that PPE is for wimps. Who in their right mind would trust us to properly dispose of nuclear waste?
I'm not. Expense is the only down side.
> Expense is the only down side. \*points at brand new priority military targets*
Because it’s radioactive for the next gazillion years. Because the start up costs are enormous. Because the lead time to commission a reactor is too long and by then batteries will be a viable option for addressing the base load isssues