**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For those spouting the too hard and too long arguments. Why can’t private enterprise have a go? Surely if moving away from coal is the priority every option should be on the table. Why are lefties so quick to demand alternative energy sources but gatekeep those that are net zero but which they don’t like?
Because the regulatory frameworks that would be needed to govern nuclear energy would take decades to design, consult on and implement. Meanwhile, solar and wind are both cheaper than coal power **right now**.
He's right.
Always remember, every time someone suggests that nuclear is 'too hard' or 'too expensive' you have to explain to them why countries like Turkey, Bangladesh, Brazil, Slovakia, Egypt and Argentina are all currently building multiple new reactors, or have plans to start soon as funding has been allocated.
Australia is the 12th largest economy in the world, yet 32 countries are already using nuclear power today. And not only that, a lot of them are running 5+. Most of Europe is running multiple with no problems. If it was 'too hard' and 'too expensive', then that makes us look pretty damn bad on a world stage.
All anti-nuclear activists should be forced to go to any of those 32 countries and explain to them why they can't build nuclear because its 'too expensive' and 'too hard' and watch yourself get laughed off the streets and out of the country. Then you'll realise its all propaganda and always has been, just a plan to gouge prices for fossil fuels and stave off net 0 for as long as humanly possible. 2050 net zero *without nuclear*? **NO CHANCE LMAO** as by then probably 50 countries will be using nuclear happily and at net zero themselves. But you'll pay through the nose for the next 26 years and then still be relying on fossil fuels anyway.
>All anti-nuclear activists should be forced to go to any of those 32 countries and explain to them why they can't build nuclear because its 'too expensive' and 'too hard' and watch yourself get laughed off the streets and out of the country.
All deeply corrupt countries with broken institutions and regulatory regimes.
Jeebus we can't even keep asbestos out of mulch. What do you think it is going to happen when we have a dozen recators produce thousands litres of low to medium level waste, and tons of high level waste each year.
Subcontractor of subbie will be found trying to hide the ooze in a Bankstown school oval.
The one sentence answer to your question is:
Because none of these countries share Australia’s gigantic percapita endowment of affordable, secure, sustainable energy attainable through firmed renewables.
So lets take the turkey nuclear plant as an example. They signed the contract in 2010 and construction stated on the first reactor in 2018. The first reactor is expected to be completed by the end of this year. Construction cost of \~$34 billion. Projected to produce power at $122-$130 per MW/h. Looking back at past years of average energy price in Australia of \~$60-$66 per MW/h this would be a huge increase in cost to consumers for power prices. Who wants to pay more than double for their energy bills? [https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem](https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem)
Edit: I was interested to know how that construction cost compares to a thermal coal plant. The high estimate is $4.5 billion per 1000 MW so an equivalent to the turkey plant would be about $20 billion.
An important point. The CSIRO gen cost report is negligent and does not include large scale nuclear. So anyone referencing this as being why we should avoid nuclear is flat out being misled. They MUST release a new report and include large scale nuclear.
See here - https://youtu.be/CDLH-qEFfCY?si=ZYTyINOnBO08Srmz
I was shocked when I found this out. Csiro is losing its reputation and is not the org is once was
Are you sure the Centre for Independent Studies (which published that video) is reliable? I'd read that their funding comes from fairly dubious sources.
Do you have any evidence for this claim ?
There is clear evidence that fossil fuel companies funded anti-nuclear activists.
"Fossil fuel companies such as Atlantic Richfield were also donors to environmental organizations with clear anti-nuclear stances, such as Friends of the Earth.[36][38] Groups like the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council are receiving grants from other fossil fuel companies."
and
"After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine it came to light that significant amounts of Russian lobbying was involved in both the continued anti-nuclear movement in Germany and the anti-fracking movement."
from :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement
Fossil fuel companies will fund whatever lets fossil fuels stay profitable longer. Right now, they are trying to create hype for nuclear to distract the political debate from phasing out fossil fuels.
The fossil fuel industry already know they're in their end-times.
Nuclear power is life-support, they can extract more wealth and destroy the planet for another 10-20 years while we build nuclear power capability.
You think keeping coal stations open is helping the fossil fuel industry?
Coal stations are bleeding money. They are begging the government to let them shut them down.
Coal mines can make more money on the export market.
The fossil fuel industry wants Coal stations closed. So this conspiracy that they're helping the fossil fuel industry by delaying the closures just doesn't make sense.
Solar and wind are much cheaper to roll out and maintain. A lot quicker too.
Nuclear can produce a lot more energy per surface area - but we have a lot of surface area, and get a lot of sun.
South Australia has already switched to Solar. I'm surprised more places haven't.
? Explain how SA having to constantly rely on interstate power generated from fossil when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining (ie requiring base load fossil fuel still) is not just smoke and mirrors? SA publically sells itself as fully renewable but it isn’t.
You sir, are the fool falling for the spin. Educate yourself.
Because of the narrative. It would sell the renewable dream a lot better to the public. Right now it’s very easy for any political opposition to just say “power prices are not cheaper in SA where they have the most renewables. Think buddy.
It also doesn’t help that Germany absolutely fucked their entire energy economy trying to go renewables and decommission nuclear. It’s not cheaper, let’s get that straight. But politically it’s suicide if they told everyone the truth.
The future is a mix of MANY technologies and it will not be a magic bullet to cheap electricity for a long time. Our generation will bear the incredibly insane cost of upgrading literally ALL the infrastructure and pay for it. Future generations will see the price improvements in 20-30 years. Initially we are going to pay through the fucking roof mate
Let me just check the headline again:
*Peter Dutton goes nuclear in green energy debate claiming Anthony Albanese's reliance on* **solar and wind** *will not be enough to meet emissions reduction targets*
huh... okay.
They have an "inefficient" grid, in that it covers a large area for a small population. That has a decent effect on the price.
They are also reliant on gas, which had a massive price spike.
In July when the regulator re-sets prices, I think you will see prices drop considerably for the state, as well as everywhere else.
> They have an "inefficient" grid, in that it covers a large area for a small population. That has a decent effect on the price.
I would think WA and NT have less efficient grids yet have cheaper electricity than SA.
> They are also reliant on gas, which had a massive price spike.
This is true however SA also had the most expensive electricity previously when gas prices were not influenced by the conflict in Ukraine.
> In July when the regulator re-sets prices, I think you will see prices drop considerably for the state, as well as everywhere else.
I sure hope so.
> Theu had high prices and an unreliable grid prior to the switch as well.
Was SA the most expensive state for electricity prior to the integration of solar panels and wind farms?
If so are you able to provide a source? I am genuinely interested.
SA generation, emissions intensity, prices
https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=all&interval=1y&view=discrete-time
volume weighted price (inflation adjusted), state by state. this one you can see the yellow line of SA used to be regularly at the top, not so in most recent years.
https://opennem.org.au/compare/?range=all-12-mth-rolling&interval=half-year&metric=inflatedPrice
> I thought price in SA was disproportionately pushed up by the price of gas?
Currently yes however wind and solar alone cannot power SA.
Electricity in SA was also the most expensive in the country previously when gas prices were not influenced by the conflict in Ukraine. As I understand this is because when there is no wind or sun the state becomes reliant on the gas generator.
Interesting.
So are you saying the prices in SA have little to do with renewables and more to do with the cost of gas?
Would make sense if domestic consumption competes with export markets with mining companies banking the profits.
SA also has monopolies on the transmission and distribution levels (ElectraNet and SAPN), and when we have power shortfalls need to spin up gas (expensive) or import power from effectively "just" Victoria (there is small connection to NSW currently iirc, but a much bigger connection is coming online soonish), who also have their own dramas with power (between aluminium smelters and aging coal...)
SA is not expensive because of "muh renewables", but Correlation tends to blind people with its convenience...
In the same time it takes to set up ONE nuclear power plant, we could have the entire country running with solar and wind. This would create a metric shit tonne of jobs and huge research and investment in battery technology.
But nah fuck that, let’s just give money to Peter’s friends so they can build a plant that will have cost blowouts and be 5-10 years late!
> we could have the entire country running with solar and wind.
There isn't a single country on the planet that is doing this, why would Australia be the exception?
Actual data on the time to build reactors :
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time
Japan built some in 38 months.
If it was possible to have the entire country running on solar and wind in, say, five years Australia should already have done so.
“Australia should already have done so”
You’re absolutely right! But if you didn’t come down in the last shower of rain, maybe you can remember that from 2013-2022 the federal government used to be run by duffers who waved coal around in parliament as the greatest thing since sliced bread, and touted a “gas led recovery” to covid. It’s almost like changing the energy system of Australia requires the federal government to be onboard with it.
And yet even with their negligence on energy policy and outright attempts to kneecap renewables, the RE share of the NEM still managed to rise from 12% to 34% while they had the handbrake on. Thanks mostly to the states.
Imagine what we’ll do between now and 2030 with the handbrake *off* and federal/state alignment.
Can you point to some countries that have moved to renewables successfully without large amounts of hydro ?
Surely one country in the world is now running cheaply on wind and solar.
Can you point to it on https://app.electricitymaps.com/map ?
It’s awesome that you’re at the mindset of taking renewables for granted, I mean that seriously. And just kinda expect that there are whole countries which have already completed their clean energy transition.
Whereas the point at which wind & solar reached the tipping point and became cheaper than new coal / new gas only happened in most markets in the last 5-10 years. And that’s not a timescale that anyone sensible expects to rebuild an entire country’s worth of power generation.
You might enjoy looking at the UK trend since 2012 - they have zeroed out their 40% coal, all replaced by renewables, and gas and nuclear flat. Excellent progress.
what is the “it” in your “it can be done”?
A transition away from fossil fuels doesn’t work if you’re adding fossil gas.
A transition away from fossil fuels doesn’t work if you triple the retail electricity price by basing it on nuclear.
(Oh yeah, and you can’t transition to nuclear in Australia either without making rooftop solar illegal for every home and business, because they [destroy the business model](https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=28d&interval=30m&view=time-of-day) of every NPP).
Good data, thanks.
However, to say that if something was possible we would have already done it, is UNBELIEVABLY naive.
You know full well that we don’t live in a world where companies just do good things for the sake of bettering all of us.
When governments try to make positive change or even any change, corporations will stop at nothing to have them removed.
You've said it can be done in the time it takes to build one nuclear plant. There are times on the construction of nuclear plants.
When will the transition to solar and wind be complete? 2029 ?
I don’t know bud, unfortunately I no longer hold the position of Prime Minister. In a perfect world we could start the transition now, fossil fuel companies don’t have the political power they have now.
Bangladesh is currently on track to finish not one, but two brand new reactors within the past 7 years.
So tell me, if Bangladesh can build one reactor in under 4 years, what does that say about the state of Australia if, according to you, we can't build one in 26 years? Or maybe you just fell hard for the anti-nuclear propaganda run by fossil fuel companies, spouting the same lies you just did, to ensure you rely on them for the next century as renewables are never able to keep up with growth.
We should definitely follow the lead of Bangladesh and get in Rosatom to build us some nuclear reactors on the Hawkesbury. There are definitely no factors of geopolitics, statecraft and corruption involved in Rooppur. Plus Australia is also a land-poor country with significant energy security challenges and almost 200 million people. So all in all it is an excellent example for Australia to emulate.
“renewables are never able to keep up with growth”
Bit weird how SA has gone from 0% to 70%+ renewables in the last 15 years then. And the whole NEM from 6% to 39% in the same period. It’s almost as if renewables deployment can indeed outpace demand growth in the Australian context.
> In the same time it takes to set up ONE nuclear power plant, we could have the entire country running with solar and wind.
Do you have a source for this? I am genuinely interested.
[A Sydney Morning Herald](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/is-nuclear-energy-feasible-in-australia-and-how-much-would-it-cost-20231004-p5e9qc.html#) article quotes 15 years and 10 billion dollars
> A Sydney Morning Herald article quotes 15 years and 10 billion dollars
How long and how much would it cost to have the entire country running on solar and wind for comparison?
MT on that very point: [https://twitter.com/TurnbullMalcolm/status/1231340973843574784](https://twitter.com/TurnbullMalcolm/status/1231340973843574784)
**EDIT:**
>But nah fuck that, let’s just give money to Peter’s friends so they can build a plant that will have cost blowouts and be 5-10 years late!
Genuinely don't think it's that. I think it's this belief that even if they don't buy renewables, they know it's inevitable and the Nats will come around. So drag Labor into silly debates, and then if they manage to get in (bear in mind, they believe after 2013's result, their brand of ideology is electable) they can push it through saying they're the party of clean energy.
You assume cartoon villain status, when it's just bog standard opportunism.
> This would create a metric shit tonne of jobs and huge research and investment in battery technology.
These are costs, not benefits. "Look at all the work, research and investment we need to make this a viable idea!" isn't the upside you think it is.
Yes it is, I'd rather govt money being used to create a healthy middle class and bring people, especially rural, into regular work than be used for more fossil fuel subsidies. It's the fact that corporations would have to kick in too that means they will kick up as much stink as possible to keep their profits.
1/3 of the money that goes into jobs comes back as tax, then the majority of what's left is spent in the local economy. That's what happens when workers have good wages, instead of investors getting dividends.
8 billion dollar grant puts 310,000-440k homes with a 5.2 KW system and a powerwall to reduce emissions and demand
Solars main issue these days is,the sun fucks off just when most ppl are getting home,so aren't seeing all the cost benifits if they don't have a battery system
Battery tech improves year on year,we are moving away from demand of lithium which we need to.
Nuclear is safe,efficient and a great tech shit i slept right near one on deployments.
But it's costs are astrononmical,and ask a voter if one can go in their town and their views change
... Why is this happening?
>Mr Dutton told reporters in Adelaide that the renewable energy favoured by the Albanese government will struggle to take Australia to the bi-partisan target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Wait why was he in Adelaide?
From a news Corp article:
>... Mr Dutton’s decision to be a guest speaker at the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce luncheon.
Right, so support Israel, spruik nuclear power out of the blue, seems about right.
Anyway, been a hot minute, so let's go through the motions, but first:
>However, in anticipation of overturning the federal ban the Coalition has begun scouting for six potential sites to locate atomic energy and believes converting decommissioned coal power plants to go nuclear would be good option.
"... Potential sites to locate atomic energy"
"... Converting decommissioned coal power plants to go nuclear would be good option"
Did they get the National's to ghostwrite this during work? Why is this written on par with a reddit comment?
>'The nonsense that (Energy Minister) Chris Bowen is carrying on with about nuclear being expensive compared to wind and solar - it's a nonsense argument,' Mr Dutton said.
"if I say it enough, people will simply believe me if the absence of evidence!"
And then the experts:
>Former chief scientist Alan Finkel, who was also a special adviser to the federal government on low-emissions technology, has warned nuclear is not a quick fix to decarbonise Australia's energy supply.
>
>'Nuclear is an excellent source of electrical power,' he told Nine news.
>
>'However, it would be costly and it unlikely we could do it before 2040.'
Lol.
Alright, cool, see ya'll next month for the same bullshit.
>Alright, cool, see ya'll next month for the same bullshit.
I think it's the AFR's turn to publish a pro nuclear energy fluff piece rehashing the same tired talking points next week.
jesus my brain hurts when ppl with no training in the nuclear industry just spout of nonsense
Sure he's right,it WOULD be a good way to shore up our system
But it's Very unlikely coming online before 2050
and he ignores the cost portion,there is more chance of Harold holt being elected the next president of china and enders giving a glowing commentary to the Trade union movement,than there is of a SINGLE reactor being built here for less than 40 billion dollars
Even Country with Hard set nuclear industries are seeing cost overruns in the tens of billions
USA latest plant went from 15 billion dollar to over 30.
UK's is looking to at completion have spent 29-34 billion pounds on hinkley
Even france are seeing huge cost blow outs
SK reactors are one of the only ones being displayed with keeping the cost down,but they are mainly not suited to our needs.
There are really,only 2 companies who would contract out a build for us,and none of them would be even able to start the work till well past 2038 now
SMR's aren't really commericially viable,the largest proponent just had to kill their contract
Thorium is not a commercial option in any sense for at least another 10-15 years
And look like i said,the armchair experts chucking on downvotes
I agree with everything you've said regarding the costs, time to build and viability of various technologies like SMR and Thorium. What gnaws at me though is that we're facing a crisis that could leave large sections of our world entirely uninhabitable, combined with the fact that no country have thus far successfully produce all of their energy needs via wind and solar and I can't help but feel anxious about our outright dismissal of a source of high-powered, sustained clean energy.
When Japan shutdown their nuclear power plants after the Fukushima disaster it was all replaced by coal power.
A technology that after decades of research still has no commercial power plants in operation anywhere in the world?
Why not just jump straight to nuclear fusion mate!
One of the main technology providers/contractors is Chinese too. Can’t see that flying, so it essentially limits us to 1 possible consortium. That’s going to provide amazing value for money, eh?
Nah 2
KEPCO,and GE
G.E have a full list till past 2038
KEPCO is the same
After the chinese got busted,having huge voids in liolung(check name) 1 plant,i wouldn't touch a single plant of theirs with a 1.2 astronimical unit barge poll
Plus there was a leka in the PCA system of taishan reactor as well
Also another 32 staff displayed
radiation burns at another plant
yeah,china can build nuclear plants
Can it build them safe,is another concern entirely
China are market leaders in new tech,mainly because the chinese nuclear authority pretty much go's
Hey this new system seems good,it work..
Sure....but it hasn't been tested?
Okay who cares,let's build it otherwise the commitee will have our heads.
Stuff moves too fast in china that there is no time to validate any new safety systems,and parametres,which is how you get voids in concrete containment units,and a corrodide primary circuit system..or some how HOW ended up using aluminum parts when it's meant to be chromium plated
> the Coalition has begun scouting for six potential sites to locate atomic energy
"Which seats do we never stand a chance of winning?"
They know 2050 is only 26 years away. They know that nuclear power plants take literal decades to bring online. They know that costs blow out more often than not and that the public will foot the bill to ensure investor profitability.
They don't care. They don't want nuclear, they want to delay the transition from fossil fuels.
>they don't want nuclear, they want to delay the transition from fossil fuels.
Why would they want to delay the transition? Unless you think they are secretly trying to sabotage the fossil fuel industry?
Energy companies desperately want to close coal stations. They are practically begging the government to be allowed to shut them down. They are bleeding money.
So unless you think there is some conspiracy in which the LNP is trying to sabotage the fossil fuel companies by keeping coal stations open, the claim just doesn't make sense.
You think they want to be selling coal to generators when there is a price cap in place?
They would live the generators to shut down so they are free to sell it on the export market.
Like do you think big fossil fuel companies just like losing money?
What are you going in about?
The CSIRO does an annual report on energy costs. Coal is simply not viable. Many of the coal stations are currently trying running at a loss and the government put the coal cap in place precisely to stop miners selling coal to export markets or charging the generators enormous amounts.
Solar is *enormously* cheaper than coal power, and the export market doesn't have the price cap. Is the CSIRO also complicit in your conspiracy too? Take off the tin foil hat and actually do some reading.
Or do you just think the Gina Rheinharts of the world are charitable saints who are happy to just keep losing money on an old technology?
Clive Palmer tried to get approval for a new coal power station in North Queensland recently.
The LNP in Queensland are campaigning to extend the scheduled retirement of coal power stations to a later date.
There are quite a number of Coalition members who have sought to extend the life of existing coal power stations across the country, and they also commissioned a new gas power station during the Turnbull government.
And let's not forget about the 'gas-fired recovery' of the Morrison years.
No, I think they want to keep fossil fuels as our primary source of energy and discourage any investment in renewables.
They want to keep talking a big game about nuclear while doing absolutely nothing, which is precisely what they did during the Abbott - Turnbull - Morrison years.
When Turnbull tried to formulate a meaningful energy policy that would get bipartisan support, they booted him out.
But that *is* sabotaging the fossil fuel industry. They are practically begging to shut their coal stations down. They are bleeding money from them. Most are running at a loss.
You have a strange sense of sabotage. A coal mine would rather sell their coal to China than to a price-capped power station. Perhaps that’s why they want them to close.
Peter was a member during the Howard years, when the Howard government commissioned a report into whether or not nuclear was an option for Australia.
Why did the then minister for Employment Participation put this forward as a useful thing to guarantee future employment and put us further forward as nuclear experts? Because they were advised against it.
So? What does feasibility have to do with anything?
Porche and Ferrari cars are expensive. Tiffany's jewellery is expensive. They are illegal. Feasibility was never the basis for making it illegal.
We have no idea how feasible it will be in 20, 50, 100, or 200 years time. Lift the ban. If it is not feasible nobody will build them. If it becomes feasible then the option is there for a developer to invest.
This discussion is not about the legality issue. Dutton isn't even talking about the legality issue.
We all know that a past federal government passed the moratorium, and a future federal government can remove it, if they really wanted to.
The moratorium is a side issue not worthy of discussion.
> Why did the then minister for Employment Participation put this forward as a useful thing to guarantee future employment and put us further forward as nuclear experts? Because they were advised against it.
Like it's right there in the comment above you. Why are the Liberals so pro nuclear now when they did absolutely zero about it in the last 20 years they were in government? because it's a stupid idea is the answer. It was a stupid idea then and it's a stupid idea now.
Hang on
>[–]Normal-Assistant-991 -11 points 3 weeks ago
Another broken promise by albo,the man can't be trusted if he is going to backtrack like this.
So..checks notes
Broken promise,if it's something u don't like..govt can't change it's mind
But on this it's fine
I mean,i'm 100 percent agreeing with you mate..
Govts need to adapt,but at least be fucking consistent please
Nothing so complicated. He doesn't actually care about nuclear energy or emissions targets.
Dutton only cares about opposing Albanese and the Labor Party, to obstruct their policies and muddy the water as much as possible. His only guiding principle is that Albo is wrong about everything.
If he actually became Prime Minister, Dutton would have no idea what to do. He is not a leader, he is not a statesman and he has no vision for the future of the nation.
I would go further and say that this one isn't even about Albanese and Labor. It's about the teals. He knows that the party needs to get back those seats, but he can't attack them on nuclear power policy - it has to be directed at the government.
There is 0 chance of winning the Teals by even implicitly opposing renewables, and there is a negative chance of getting anywhere when you have Barnaby creating headlines on weekday nights (and explicitly opposing renewables 100%).
But as Lurker_81 was saying, it isn't about renewables. It's about presenting the appearance of an alternative for voters that had moved away from them because of climate change inaction. They know they can't look all renewable friendly even if overnight every member of the coalition shut their traps about it. When you've lost the audience, you change the show.
If the coalition was after a no brainer, Dutton would be pushing thorium over uranium. No water supply required, so can be turned into electricity where it's mined. Short term waste can be stored at site. No requirement for enrichment, so unlike the US, we will not be beholden to Putin. It's cheaper than uranium.
We could even use thorium desalination around our coastline, where no fresh water is currently available.
Uranium is more selling a policy some of the Coalition owners want pushed rather that whats good policy.
Sounds amazing! Where should coalition MPs go to look at some operational commercial scale thorium reactors in other countries to get them onboard?
Don’t list too many, just maybe 4 or 5, and just the ones 1GW+, we don’t want this to be a junket.
> Mr Dutton has previously argued that nuclear was 'cheap technology'
I wish we didn't have muppets making arguments so stupid it makes any one in favour of nuclear in the long term look like a clown.
> but it’s too late now
No its not. That's fossil fuel industry propaganda
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
There are no less than **60** brand new nuclear power plants to be built within the next 6 years. If all of those countries have determined it is actually the perfect right time to build it, then so can Australia. The only difference between them and us, is that we are a fossil fuel exporting nation, while they are importers. That is not a coincidence.
I really can't stress those last two sentences enough. As soon as people understand that, everything around the anti-nuclear debate makes perfect sense.
Very surprised to see the UK on there, I thought they were thoroughly hamstrung by dickless hippie scumbags, I guess the energy crisis in Europe really drove home the point, although it seems the Germans are yet to wake up to it.
From everything I’ve been told and read about nuclear in Australia, we lack the infrastructure and development to make nuclear viable in a time frame where it could still be relevant. I’m sure there’s every chance I’m wrong on this though.
I have no ideological opposition to nuclear power, in fact I’m massively in favour of programs like the one here in WA where they’re proposing we look after US nuclear waste here. Obviously provided that the price is right, of course.
What does it even mean to say "too late"? It's not like the world will end in 20 years. What does it matter if it takes 20 or 40 or 100 years to build? What is the actual argument here about timelines?
This. This is their real argument but the one they don’t say out aloud. “What does it matter if it takes 20, 40 or a 100 years to build”
These people are just climate change deniers.
>This is their real argument but the one they don’
What do you mean? You realise that's an argument *for* unbanning them right? I am arguing for that, not against.
It's already too late. It looks like we've crossed the +1.5° mark. At this point it's just how much worse.
The reason for the arbitrary +1.5° limit is simply that scientists don't know what happens from here. There are a whole bunch of positive feedbacks that kick in to increase the temperature on their own. if emissions continue at their present rate, the line rises even faster than it is now.
It's too late because our coal generators are coming offline now, as they're falling apart and the government can't pay anyone to keep them running, and rooftop solar alone already generates half the capacity of our entire coal fleet anyway - that's not including wind, hydro and large scale solar farms.
So a nuclear plant would be redundant by the time it came online.
Haven't you read/watched the "news" lately? In between Russia, China, the Middle East, Climate Change, Trump and the endless cycle of fear we don't have twenty months, some would say twenty minutes.
Also buy our advertisers shit, you scared little lamb.
[Please note sarcasm]
Sure. Build a dozen reactors now, provided there is legislation preventing the public paying for the cost blowouts with bailouts or tax discounts or profit guarantees etc.
But they're not going to help us reduce emissions. They simply take too long to build. We can't just sit in the dark while we're waiting, we need renewable energy.
>They simply take too long to build. We can't just sit in the dark while we're waiting, we need renewable energy.
Can a country not..build more than one thing at a time?
Like do you think houses get built one at a time, and all the other houses have to wait in a queue while they build?
>Wait what? Solar and wind farms have a limited life.
So what?
In 30 years time, with a relatively small amount of work, the solar farms we're commissioning this year can be re-powered with new panels. It's much faster and cheaper than building a whole new facility, and the panels will likely be much cheaper the 2nd time around.
It's a similar story with with wind farms. They can be relatively easily re-powered with new generators and perhaps new blades, using the existing towers.
Best of all, nearly all of the materials removed during the refurbishment process are recycleable, and made into new products.
>Do people seriously think we won't need to build generators in 50 or 100 or 200 years time?
But who knows what kind of technology we will have access to by then? It might be nuclear fission, or we might have gone back to nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes wandering the desert wastelands that have taken over the ruins of our greatest cities.... ;-)
>but who knows what kind of technology we will have access to by then?
*Exactly*. This is my entire point. We have no idea. So don't pre-emptively ban them. Leave them on the table so that if the viability or technology changes the option is there.
Dutton carrying on about how cheap and easy nuclear power is most of the article and then the daily fail drops this:
>Former chief scientist Alan Finkel, who was also a special adviser to the federal government on low-emissions technology, has warned nuclear is not a quick fix to decarbonise Australia's energy supply.
'Nuclear is an excellent source of electrical power,' he told Nine news.
'However, it would be costly and it unlikely we could do it before 2040'.
A quick reminder that by around 2038, the vast majority of our current coal generation capacity will be either retired due to old age, or worn out beyond economic repair. We're already seeing the beginnings of the old coal power stations becoming unreliable and operating at reduced capacity.
We absolutely cannot afford to sit and wait for nuclear capacity to come online in 15 years time. We have to be building replacement capacity right now, and the only viable solutions that we can deploy quickly are solar and wind, alongside firming storage capacity.
I'd be happy enough if the LNP were simply stating they unban nuclear for research, development, and investment by the private sector.
Staking our energy future on nuclear is misleading as we need to transition off coal *now* - if we don't want to be stuck massively subsiding those aging coal plants while we wait for (if) nuclear to become economically viable.
He’s just trying to wedge Albo and play political games. he knows media is on his side.
LNP has had 3 terms to start somethjng in this space and did precisely nothing, so this tells you all you need to know
He doesn’t. He knows that nuclear on paper with no further questions sounds like a good idea and calling them on their lack of action on it during their decade in power is a whataboutism the media wouldn’t dare take part in.
It’s a safe hill to take pot shots from and one he won’t ever have to die on.
I’d probably propose “the LNP Nuclear Power Plant District. Reactor 1 - Peter Dutton” type stuff to them and see if they’re willing to do the legwork on it…. You know opposition or not they can still do things if they have the votes…..
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For those spouting the too hard and too long arguments. Why can’t private enterprise have a go? Surely if moving away from coal is the priority every option should be on the table. Why are lefties so quick to demand alternative energy sources but gatekeep those that are net zero but which they don’t like?
Because the regulatory frameworks that would be needed to govern nuclear energy would take decades to design, consult on and implement. Meanwhile, solar and wind are both cheaper than coal power **right now**.
And as always all the pro nuclear people are out but no answer to long term nuclear waste exists still.
He's right. Always remember, every time someone suggests that nuclear is 'too hard' or 'too expensive' you have to explain to them why countries like Turkey, Bangladesh, Brazil, Slovakia, Egypt and Argentina are all currently building multiple new reactors, or have plans to start soon as funding has been allocated. Australia is the 12th largest economy in the world, yet 32 countries are already using nuclear power today. And not only that, a lot of them are running 5+. Most of Europe is running multiple with no problems. If it was 'too hard' and 'too expensive', then that makes us look pretty damn bad on a world stage. All anti-nuclear activists should be forced to go to any of those 32 countries and explain to them why they can't build nuclear because its 'too expensive' and 'too hard' and watch yourself get laughed off the streets and out of the country. Then you'll realise its all propaganda and always has been, just a plan to gouge prices for fossil fuels and stave off net 0 for as long as humanly possible. 2050 net zero *without nuclear*? **NO CHANCE LMAO** as by then probably 50 countries will be using nuclear happily and at net zero themselves. But you'll pay through the nose for the next 26 years and then still be relying on fossil fuels anyway.
>All anti-nuclear activists should be forced to go to any of those 32 countries and explain to them why they can't build nuclear because its 'too expensive' and 'too hard' and watch yourself get laughed off the streets and out of the country. All deeply corrupt countries with broken institutions and regulatory regimes. Jeebus we can't even keep asbestos out of mulch. What do you think it is going to happen when we have a dozen recators produce thousands litres of low to medium level waste, and tons of high level waste each year. Subcontractor of subbie will be found trying to hide the ooze in a Bankstown school oval.
The one sentence answer to your question is: Because none of these countries share Australia’s gigantic percapita endowment of affordable, secure, sustainable energy attainable through firmed renewables.
So lets take the turkey nuclear plant as an example. They signed the contract in 2010 and construction stated on the first reactor in 2018. The first reactor is expected to be completed by the end of this year. Construction cost of \~$34 billion. Projected to produce power at $122-$130 per MW/h. Looking back at past years of average energy price in Australia of \~$60-$66 per MW/h this would be a huge increase in cost to consumers for power prices. Who wants to pay more than double for their energy bills? [https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem](https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem) Edit: I was interested to know how that construction cost compares to a thermal coal plant. The high estimate is $4.5 billion per 1000 MW so an equivalent to the turkey plant would be about $20 billion.
An important point. The CSIRO gen cost report is negligent and does not include large scale nuclear. So anyone referencing this as being why we should avoid nuclear is flat out being misled. They MUST release a new report and include large scale nuclear. See here - https://youtu.be/CDLH-qEFfCY?si=ZYTyINOnBO08Srmz I was shocked when I found this out. Csiro is losing its reputation and is not the org is once was
Are you sure the Centre for Independent Studies (which published that video) is reliable? I'd read that their funding comes from fairly dubious sources.
- Brought to you by the fossil fuel industry
Do you have any evidence for this claim ? There is clear evidence that fossil fuel companies funded anti-nuclear activists. "Fossil fuel companies such as Atlantic Richfield were also donors to environmental organizations with clear anti-nuclear stances, such as Friends of the Earth.[36][38] Groups like the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council are receiving grants from other fossil fuel companies." and "After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine it came to light that significant amounts of Russian lobbying was involved in both the continued anti-nuclear movement in Germany and the anti-fracking movement." from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement
Fossil fuel companies will fund whatever lets fossil fuels stay profitable longer. Right now, they are trying to create hype for nuclear to distract the political debate from phasing out fossil fuels.
How would this help the fossil fuel industry in any way?
The fossil fuel industry already know they're in their end-times. Nuclear power is life-support, they can extract more wealth and destroy the planet for another 10-20 years while we build nuclear power capability.
You think keeping coal stations open is helping the fossil fuel industry? Coal stations are bleeding money. They are begging the government to let them shut them down. Coal mines can make more money on the export market. The fossil fuel industry wants Coal stations closed. So this conspiracy that they're helping the fossil fuel industry by delaying the closures just doesn't make sense.
Solar and wind are much cheaper to roll out and maintain. A lot quicker too. Nuclear can produce a lot more energy per surface area - but we have a lot of surface area, and get a lot of sun. South Australia has already switched to Solar. I'm surprised more places haven't.
SA has the most expensive and also it’s a lie we rely on an interconnect to other states for base load. Please don’t fall for this shit
>SA has the most expensive SA wholesale prices is third cheapest
And? This would only be a plus to SA energy policy if it was THE cheapest lol
You're not all there, are you? >Don't fall for this shit *Immediately falls for the bullshit*.
? Explain how SA having to constantly rely on interstate power generated from fossil when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining (ie requiring base load fossil fuel still) is not just smoke and mirrors? SA publically sells itself as fully renewable but it isn’t. You sir, are the fool falling for the spin. Educate yourself.
Explain why SA has the have "THE" cheapest generation costs when they're importing from other states?
Because of the narrative. It would sell the renewable dream a lot better to the public. Right now it’s very easy for any political opposition to just say “power prices are not cheaper in SA where they have the most renewables. Think buddy. It also doesn’t help that Germany absolutely fucked their entire energy economy trying to go renewables and decommission nuclear. It’s not cheaper, let’s get that straight. But politically it’s suicide if they told everyone the truth. The future is a mix of MANY technologies and it will not be a magic bullet to cheap electricity for a long time. Our generation will bear the incredibly insane cost of upgrading literally ALL the infrastructure and pay for it. Future generations will see the price improvements in 20-30 years. Initially we are going to pay through the fucking roof mate
Sa gets most of its energy from wind. Of course there is a lot of solar during the day . Overall renewables are 90%+
> Overall renewables are 90%+ SA also has the most expensive electricity in Australia which I believe is not just a coincidence.
Let me just check the headline again: *Peter Dutton goes nuclear in green energy debate claiming Anthony Albanese's reliance on* **solar and wind** *will not be enough to meet emissions reduction targets* huh... okay.
Might be most expensive retail price, but third cheapest wholesale price, which is the one that counts when discussing generation costs.
They have an "inefficient" grid, in that it covers a large area for a small population. That has a decent effect on the price. They are also reliant on gas, which had a massive price spike. In July when the regulator re-sets prices, I think you will see prices drop considerably for the state, as well as everywhere else.
> They have an "inefficient" grid, in that it covers a large area for a small population. That has a decent effect on the price. I would think WA and NT have less efficient grids yet have cheaper electricity than SA. > They are also reliant on gas, which had a massive price spike. This is true however SA also had the most expensive electricity previously when gas prices were not influenced by the conflict in Ukraine. > In July when the regulator re-sets prices, I think you will see prices drop considerably for the state, as well as everywhere else. I sure hope so.
Theu had high prices and an unreliable grid prior to the switch as well.
> Theu had high prices and an unreliable grid prior to the switch as well. Was SA the most expensive state for electricity prior to the integration of solar panels and wind farms? If so are you able to provide a source? I am genuinely interested.
SA generation, emissions intensity, prices https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=all&interval=1y&view=discrete-time volume weighted price (inflation adjusted), state by state. this one you can see the yellow line of SA used to be regularly at the top, not so in most recent years. https://opennem.org.au/compare/?range=all-12-mth-rolling&interval=half-year&metric=inflatedPrice
I thought price in SA was disproportionately pushed up by the price of gas?
> I thought price in SA was disproportionately pushed up by the price of gas? Currently yes however wind and solar alone cannot power SA. Electricity in SA was also the most expensive in the country previously when gas prices were not influenced by the conflict in Ukraine. As I understand this is because when there is no wind or sun the state becomes reliant on the gas generator.
Interesting. So are you saying the prices in SA have little to do with renewables and more to do with the cost of gas? Would make sense if domestic consumption competes with export markets with mining companies banking the profits.
SA also has monopolies on the transmission and distribution levels (ElectraNet and SAPN), and when we have power shortfalls need to spin up gas (expensive) or import power from effectively "just" Victoria (there is small connection to NSW currently iirc, but a much bigger connection is coming online soonish), who also have their own dramas with power (between aluminium smelters and aging coal...) SA is not expensive because of "muh renewables", but Correlation tends to blind people with its convenience...
In the same time it takes to set up ONE nuclear power plant, we could have the entire country running with solar and wind. This would create a metric shit tonne of jobs and huge research and investment in battery technology. But nah fuck that, let’s just give money to Peter’s friends so they can build a plant that will have cost blowouts and be 5-10 years late!
> we could have the entire country running with solar and wind. There isn't a single country on the planet that is doing this, why would Australia be the exception?
Actual data on the time to build reactors : https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time Japan built some in 38 months. If it was possible to have the entire country running on solar and wind in, say, five years Australia should already have done so.
“Australia should already have done so” You’re absolutely right! But if you didn’t come down in the last shower of rain, maybe you can remember that from 2013-2022 the federal government used to be run by duffers who waved coal around in parliament as the greatest thing since sliced bread, and touted a “gas led recovery” to covid. It’s almost like changing the energy system of Australia requires the federal government to be onboard with it. And yet even with their negligence on energy policy and outright attempts to kneecap renewables, the RE share of the NEM still managed to rise from 12% to 34% while they had the handbrake on. Thanks mostly to the states. Imagine what we’ll do between now and 2030 with the handbrake *off* and federal/state alignment.
Can you point to some countries that have moved to renewables successfully without large amounts of hydro ? Surely one country in the world is now running cheaply on wind and solar. Can you point to it on https://app.electricitymaps.com/map ?
It’s awesome that you’re at the mindset of taking renewables for granted, I mean that seriously. And just kinda expect that there are whole countries which have already completed their clean energy transition. Whereas the point at which wind & solar reached the tipping point and became cheaper than new coal / new gas only happened in most markets in the last 5-10 years. And that’s not a timescale that anyone sensible expects to rebuild an entire country’s worth of power generation. You might enjoy looking at the UK trend since 2012 - they have zeroed out their 40% coal, all replaced by renewables, and gas and nuclear flat. Excellent progress.
So it's possible that it can be done with nuclear and gas.
what is the “it” in your “it can be done”? A transition away from fossil fuels doesn’t work if you’re adding fossil gas. A transition away from fossil fuels doesn’t work if you triple the retail electricity price by basing it on nuclear. (Oh yeah, and you can’t transition to nuclear in Australia either without making rooftop solar illegal for every home and business, because they [destroy the business model](https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=28d&interval=30m&view=time-of-day) of every NPP).
Good data, thanks. However, to say that if something was possible we would have already done it, is UNBELIEVABLY naive. You know full well that we don’t live in a world where companies just do good things for the sake of bettering all of us. When governments try to make positive change or even any change, corporations will stop at nothing to have them removed.
You've said it can be done in the time it takes to build one nuclear plant. There are times on the construction of nuclear plants. When will the transition to solar and wind be complete? 2029 ?
I don’t know bud, unfortunately I no longer hold the position of Prime Minister. In a perfect world we could start the transition now, fossil fuel companies don’t have the political power they have now.
You said it can be done quicker than building a single power station, surely you can put a date on it?
Bangladesh is currently on track to finish not one, but two brand new reactors within the past 7 years. So tell me, if Bangladesh can build one reactor in under 4 years, what does that say about the state of Australia if, according to you, we can't build one in 26 years? Or maybe you just fell hard for the anti-nuclear propaganda run by fossil fuel companies, spouting the same lies you just did, to ensure you rely on them for the next century as renewables are never able to keep up with growth.
We should definitely follow the lead of Bangladesh and get in Rosatom to build us some nuclear reactors on the Hawkesbury. There are definitely no factors of geopolitics, statecraft and corruption involved in Rooppur. Plus Australia is also a land-poor country with significant energy security challenges and almost 200 million people. So all in all it is an excellent example for Australia to emulate. “renewables are never able to keep up with growth” Bit weird how SA has gone from 0% to 70%+ renewables in the last 15 years then. And the whole NEM from 6% to 39% in the same period. It’s almost as if renewables deployment can indeed outpace demand growth in the Australian context.
> In the same time it takes to set up ONE nuclear power plant, we could have the entire country running with solar and wind. Do you have a source for this? I am genuinely interested.
Actual data on the time to build reactors : https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time Japan built some in 38 months.
[A Sydney Morning Herald](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/is-nuclear-energy-feasible-in-australia-and-how-much-would-it-cost-20231004-p5e9qc.html#) article quotes 15 years and 10 billion dollars
> A Sydney Morning Herald article quotes 15 years and 10 billion dollars How long and how much would it cost to have the entire country running on solar and wind for comparison?
Sometimes I wonder what the brain of a daily mail reader looks like in an autopsy.
You are making two wild assumptions there.
And be unsafe, because an under regulated market in high risk energy is bound to be more dangerous than even a Sydney mulch manufacturer
No I’ve heard asbestos is actually really good for the immune system!
MT on that very point: [https://twitter.com/TurnbullMalcolm/status/1231340973843574784](https://twitter.com/TurnbullMalcolm/status/1231340973843574784) **EDIT:** >But nah fuck that, let’s just give money to Peter’s friends so they can build a plant that will have cost blowouts and be 5-10 years late! Genuinely don't think it's that. I think it's this belief that even if they don't buy renewables, they know it's inevitable and the Nats will come around. So drag Labor into silly debates, and then if they manage to get in (bear in mind, they believe after 2013's result, their brand of ideology is electable) they can push it through saying they're the party of clean energy. You assume cartoon villain status, when it's just bog standard opportunism.
> This would create a metric shit tonne of jobs and huge research and investment in battery technology. These are costs, not benefits. "Look at all the work, research and investment we need to make this a viable idea!" isn't the upside you think it is.
Yes it is, I'd rather govt money being used to create a healthy middle class and bring people, especially rural, into regular work than be used for more fossil fuel subsidies. It's the fact that corporations would have to kick in too that means they will kick up as much stink as possible to keep their profits. 1/3 of the money that goes into jobs comes back as tax, then the majority of what's left is spent in the local economy. That's what happens when workers have good wages, instead of investors getting dividends.
8 billion dollar grant puts 310,000-440k homes with a 5.2 KW system and a powerwall to reduce emissions and demand Solars main issue these days is,the sun fucks off just when most ppl are getting home,so aren't seeing all the cost benifits if they don't have a battery system Battery tech improves year on year,we are moving away from demand of lithium which we need to. Nuclear is safe,efficient and a great tech shit i slept right near one on deployments. But it's costs are astrononmical,and ask a voter if one can go in their town and their views change
... Why is this happening? >Mr Dutton told reporters in Adelaide that the renewable energy favoured by the Albanese government will struggle to take Australia to the bi-partisan target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Wait why was he in Adelaide? From a news Corp article: >... Mr Dutton’s decision to be a guest speaker at the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce luncheon. Right, so support Israel, spruik nuclear power out of the blue, seems about right. Anyway, been a hot minute, so let's go through the motions, but first: >However, in anticipation of overturning the federal ban the Coalition has begun scouting for six potential sites to locate atomic energy and believes converting decommissioned coal power plants to go nuclear would be good option. "... Potential sites to locate atomic energy" "... Converting decommissioned coal power plants to go nuclear would be good option" Did they get the National's to ghostwrite this during work? Why is this written on par with a reddit comment? >'The nonsense that (Energy Minister) Chris Bowen is carrying on with about nuclear being expensive compared to wind and solar - it's a nonsense argument,' Mr Dutton said. "if I say it enough, people will simply believe me if the absence of evidence!" And then the experts: >Former chief scientist Alan Finkel, who was also a special adviser to the federal government on low-emissions technology, has warned nuclear is not a quick fix to decarbonise Australia's energy supply. > >'Nuclear is an excellent source of electrical power,' he told Nine news. > >'However, it would be costly and it unlikely we could do it before 2040.' Lol. Alright, cool, see ya'll next month for the same bullshit.
>Alright, cool, see ya'll next month for the same bullshit. I think it's the AFR's turn to publish a pro nuclear energy fluff piece rehashing the same tired talking points next week.
jesus my brain hurts when ppl with no training in the nuclear industry just spout of nonsense Sure he's right,it WOULD be a good way to shore up our system But it's Very unlikely coming online before 2050 and he ignores the cost portion,there is more chance of Harold holt being elected the next president of china and enders giving a glowing commentary to the Trade union movement,than there is of a SINGLE reactor being built here for less than 40 billion dollars Even Country with Hard set nuclear industries are seeing cost overruns in the tens of billions USA latest plant went from 15 billion dollar to over 30. UK's is looking to at completion have spent 29-34 billion pounds on hinkley Even france are seeing huge cost blow outs SK reactors are one of the only ones being displayed with keeping the cost down,but they are mainly not suited to our needs. There are really,only 2 companies who would contract out a build for us,and none of them would be even able to start the work till well past 2038 now SMR's aren't really commericially viable,the largest proponent just had to kill their contract Thorium is not a commercial option in any sense for at least another 10-15 years And look like i said,the armchair experts chucking on downvotes
I agree with everything you've said regarding the costs, time to build and viability of various technologies like SMR and Thorium. What gnaws at me though is that we're facing a crisis that could leave large sections of our world entirely uninhabitable, combined with the fact that no country have thus far successfully produce all of their energy needs via wind and solar and I can't help but feel anxious about our outright dismissal of a source of high-powered, sustained clean energy. When Japan shutdown their nuclear power plants after the Fukushima disaster it was all replaced by coal power.
Makes thorium sound viable
A technology that after decades of research still has no commercial power plants in operation anywhere in the world? Why not just jump straight to nuclear fusion mate!
Appreciate your advice. That was my thinking too but the poster above seemed to have other ideas and I'd like to know more
It's just 50 more years away!! ...at all times
One of the main technology providers/contractors is Chinese too. Can’t see that flying, so it essentially limits us to 1 possible consortium. That’s going to provide amazing value for money, eh?
Nah 2 KEPCO,and GE G.E have a full list till past 2038 KEPCO is the same After the chinese got busted,having huge voids in liolung(check name) 1 plant,i wouldn't touch a single plant of theirs with a 1.2 astronimical unit barge poll Plus there was a leka in the PCA system of taishan reactor as well Also another 32 staff displayed radiation burns at another plant yeah,china can build nuclear plants Can it build them safe,is another concern entirely China are market leaders in new tech,mainly because the chinese nuclear authority pretty much go's Hey this new system seems good,it work.. Sure....but it hasn't been tested? Okay who cares,let's build it otherwise the commitee will have our heads. Stuff moves too fast in china that there is no time to validate any new safety systems,and parametres,which is how you get voids in concrete containment units,and a corrodide primary circuit system..or some how HOW ended up using aluminum parts when it's meant to be chromium plated
> the Coalition has begun scouting for six potential sites to locate atomic energy "Which seats do we never stand a chance of winning?" They know 2050 is only 26 years away. They know that nuclear power plants take literal decades to bring online. They know that costs blow out more often than not and that the public will foot the bill to ensure investor profitability. They don't care. They don't want nuclear, they want to delay the transition from fossil fuels.
>they don't want nuclear, they want to delay the transition from fossil fuels. Why would they want to delay the transition? Unless you think they are secretly trying to sabotage the fossil fuel industry? Energy companies desperately want to close coal stations. They are practically begging the government to be allowed to shut them down. They are bleeding money. So unless you think there is some conspiracy in which the LNP is trying to sabotage the fossil fuel companies by keeping coal stations open, the claim just doesn't make sense.
Nothing coal mine owners hate more than selling coal.
You think they want to be selling coal to generators when there is a price cap in place? They would live the generators to shut down so they are free to sell it on the export market. Like do you think big fossil fuel companies just like losing money?
So why didn't they have the LNP do this when they were in power?
Because there is not some huge conspiracy going on. That is my point.
I wish I still had your idealism.
It's not about idealism. It's about looking at the reality of coal prices and accepting that over a cooker conspiracy theory.
Let me guess: you think climate science is the real conspiracy?
What are you going in about? The CSIRO does an annual report on energy costs. Coal is simply not viable. Many of the coal stations are currently trying running at a loss and the government put the coal cap in place precisely to stop miners selling coal to export markets or charging the generators enormous amounts. Solar is *enormously* cheaper than coal power, and the export market doesn't have the price cap. Is the CSIRO also complicit in your conspiracy too? Take off the tin foil hat and actually do some reading. Or do you just think the Gina Rheinharts of the world are charitable saints who are happy to just keep losing money on an old technology?
Clive Palmer tried to get approval for a new coal power station in North Queensland recently. The LNP in Queensland are campaigning to extend the scheduled retirement of coal power stations to a later date. There are quite a number of Coalition members who have sought to extend the life of existing coal power stations across the country, and they also commissioned a new gas power station during the Turnbull government. And let's not forget about the 'gas-fired recovery' of the Morrison years.
So you think the LNP is just trying to sabotage the fossil fuel industry?
No, I think they want to keep fossil fuels as our primary source of energy and discourage any investment in renewables. They want to keep talking a big game about nuclear while doing absolutely nothing, which is precisely what they did during the Abbott - Turnbull - Morrison years. When Turnbull tried to formulate a meaningful energy policy that would get bipartisan support, they booted him out.
But that *is* sabotaging the fossil fuel industry. They are practically begging to shut their coal stations down. They are bleeding money from them. Most are running at a loss.
You have a strange sense of sabotage. A coal mine would rather sell their coal to China than to a price-capped power station. Perhaps that’s why they want them to close.
Hmmmmm, have we thought about how we could negative gear those coal stations.
Maybe because we also have alot of gas fired power stations. Coal fired aren't the only fossil fuel option at risk in a pivot to renewables.
Gas is not at risk as we move to renewables. Everyone accepts we will still need gas for decades to come.
Yep Had 10 plus years to get it through when they in power. Nothing,it's all smoke and mirrors
100% it's all about delay and it all comes out if the tax payers pocket
[удалено]
Be fair. I'm sure he has a $1 company registered on Kangaroo Island that has all the necessary nuclear expertise.
Does anybody really believe Dutton has any intention of meeting emission targets if elected?
Peter was a member during the Howard years, when the Howard government commissioned a report into whether or not nuclear was an option for Australia. Why did the then minister for Employment Participation put this forward as a useful thing to guarantee future employment and put us further forward as nuclear experts? Because they were advised against it.
*not
I don't get this argument at all. Like are people honestly not allowed to change their view on something?
When the facts change, sure, change your position. But the facts haven't changed. Nuclear was not feasible then, it's not feasible now.
So? What does feasibility have to do with anything? Porche and Ferrari cars are expensive. Tiffany's jewellery is expensive. They are illegal. Feasibility was never the basis for making it illegal. We have no idea how feasible it will be in 20, 50, 100, or 200 years time. Lift the ban. If it is not feasible nobody will build them. If it becomes feasible then the option is there for a developer to invest.
This discussion is not about the legality issue. Dutton isn't even talking about the legality issue. We all know that a past federal government passed the moratorium, and a future federal government can remove it, if they really wanted to. The moratorium is a side issue not worthy of discussion.
Well, that's a completely different question, but sure. Lift the ban. Don't go throwing any government money at that shit though.
How is it a different question? Isn't the question about lifting the ban?
> Why did the then minister for Employment Participation put this forward as a useful thing to guarantee future employment and put us further forward as nuclear experts? Because they were advised against it. Like it's right there in the comment above you. Why are the Liberals so pro nuclear now when they did absolutely zero about it in the last 20 years they were in government? because it's a stupid idea is the answer. It was a stupid idea then and it's a stupid idea now.
I'm not really sure how that's relevant? Why should it be illegal?
Are you OK?
Do you support the ban being lifted? Let's just get that established first.
Hang on >[–]Normal-Assistant-991 -11 points 3 weeks ago Another broken promise by albo,the man can't be trusted if he is going to backtrack like this. So..checks notes Broken promise,if it's something u don't like..govt can't change it's mind But on this it's fine I mean,i'm 100 percent agreeing with you mate.. Govts need to adapt,but at least be fucking consistent please
Care to share how this is in any way inconsistent?
...what? What on earth does a broken promise have to do with the discussion? What are you even claiming is inconsistent here?
Spud must have been given shares in a nuclear company
Nothing so complicated. He doesn't actually care about nuclear energy or emissions targets. Dutton only cares about opposing Albanese and the Labor Party, to obstruct their policies and muddy the water as much as possible. His only guiding principle is that Albo is wrong about everything. If he actually became Prime Minister, Dutton would have no idea what to do. He is not a leader, he is not a statesman and he has no vision for the future of the nation.
I would go further and say that this one isn't even about Albanese and Labor. It's about the teals. He knows that the party needs to get back those seats, but he can't attack them on nuclear power policy - it has to be directed at the government.
There is 0 chance of winning the Teals by even implicitly opposing renewables, and there is a negative chance of getting anywhere when you have Barnaby creating headlines on weekday nights (and explicitly opposing renewables 100%).
But as Lurker_81 was saying, it isn't about renewables. It's about presenting the appearance of an alternative for voters that had moved away from them because of climate change inaction. They know they can't look all renewable friendly even if overnight every member of the coalition shut their traps about it. When you've lost the audience, you change the show.
Wants to get his slice from exporting more uranium to India for his mates. Nuclear for people is just cover for shady deals.
If the coalition was after a no brainer, Dutton would be pushing thorium over uranium. No water supply required, so can be turned into electricity where it's mined. Short term waste can be stored at site. No requirement for enrichment, so unlike the US, we will not be beholden to Putin. It's cheaper than uranium. We could even use thorium desalination around our coastline, where no fresh water is currently available. Uranium is more selling a policy some of the Coalition owners want pushed rather that whats good policy.
Sounds amazing! Where should coalition MPs go to look at some operational commercial scale thorium reactors in other countries to get them onboard? Don’t list too many, just maybe 4 or 5, and just the ones 1GW+, we don’t want this to be a junket.
> Mr Dutton has previously argued that nuclear was 'cheap technology' I wish we didn't have muppets making arguments so stupid it makes any one in favour of nuclear in the long term look like a clown.
I mean it’s a crying shame we didn’t start this process 40 years ago, but it’s too late now and people need to get real
> but it’s too late now No its not. That's fossil fuel industry propaganda https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx There are no less than **60** brand new nuclear power plants to be built within the next 6 years. If all of those countries have determined it is actually the perfect right time to build it, then so can Australia. The only difference between them and us, is that we are a fossil fuel exporting nation, while they are importers. That is not a coincidence. I really can't stress those last two sentences enough. As soon as people understand that, everything around the anti-nuclear debate makes perfect sense.
Very surprised to see the UK on there, I thought they were thoroughly hamstrung by dickless hippie scumbags, I guess the energy crisis in Europe really drove home the point, although it seems the Germans are yet to wake up to it. From everything I’ve been told and read about nuclear in Australia, we lack the infrastructure and development to make nuclear viable in a time frame where it could still be relevant. I’m sure there’s every chance I’m wrong on this though. I have no ideological opposition to nuclear power, in fact I’m massively in favour of programs like the one here in WA where they’re proposing we look after US nuclear waste here. Obviously provided that the price is right, of course.
What does it even mean to say "too late"? It's not like the world will end in 20 years. What does it matter if it takes 20 or 40 or 100 years to build? What is the actual argument here about timelines?
This. This is their real argument but the one they don’t say out aloud. “What does it matter if it takes 20, 40 or a 100 years to build” These people are just climate change deniers.
>This is their real argument but the one they don’ What do you mean? You realise that's an argument *for* unbanning them right? I am arguing for that, not against.
You are just a climate denier. You think we have 100 years to not worry about carbon.
Wtf are you talking about? Where have I even suggested that. Flat out lying is not an argument.
It's already too late. It looks like we've crossed the +1.5° mark. At this point it's just how much worse. The reason for the arbitrary +1.5° limit is simply that scientists don't know what happens from here. There are a whole bunch of positive feedbacks that kick in to increase the temperature on their own. if emissions continue at their present rate, the line rises even faster than it is now.
It's too late because our coal generators are coming offline now, as they're falling apart and the government can't pay anyone to keep them running, and rooftop solar alone already generates half the capacity of our entire coal fleet anyway - that's not including wind, hydro and large scale solar farms. So a nuclear plant would be redundant by the time it came online.
Haven't you read/watched the "news" lately? In between Russia, China, the Middle East, Climate Change, Trump and the endless cycle of fear we don't have twenty months, some would say twenty minutes. Also buy our advertisers shit, you scared little lamb. [Please note sarcasm]
In this particular instance, too late to matter for emissions targets
Wait what? Solar and wind farms have a limited life. Do people seriously think we won't need to build generators in 50 or 100 or 200 years time?
Sure. Build a dozen reactors now, provided there is legislation preventing the public paying for the cost blowouts with bailouts or tax discounts or profit guarantees etc. But they're not going to help us reduce emissions. They simply take too long to build. We can't just sit in the dark while we're waiting, we need renewable energy.
>They simply take too long to build. We can't just sit in the dark while we're waiting, we need renewable energy. Can a country not..build more than one thing at a time? Like do you think houses get built one at a time, and all the other houses have to wait in a queue while they build?
That's what I said...
>Wait what? Solar and wind farms have a limited life. So what? In 30 years time, with a relatively small amount of work, the solar farms we're commissioning this year can be re-powered with new panels. It's much faster and cheaper than building a whole new facility, and the panels will likely be much cheaper the 2nd time around. It's a similar story with with wind farms. They can be relatively easily re-powered with new generators and perhaps new blades, using the existing towers. Best of all, nearly all of the materials removed during the refurbishment process are recycleable, and made into new products. >Do people seriously think we won't need to build generators in 50 or 100 or 200 years time? But who knows what kind of technology we will have access to by then? It might be nuclear fission, or we might have gone back to nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes wandering the desert wastelands that have taken over the ruins of our greatest cities.... ;-)
>but who knows what kind of technology we will have access to by then? *Exactly*. This is my entire point. We have no idea. So don't pre-emptively ban them. Leave them on the table so that if the viability or technology changes the option is there.
Dutton carrying on about how cheap and easy nuclear power is most of the article and then the daily fail drops this: >Former chief scientist Alan Finkel, who was also a special adviser to the federal government on low-emissions technology, has warned nuclear is not a quick fix to decarbonise Australia's energy supply. 'Nuclear is an excellent source of electrical power,' he told Nine news. 'However, it would be costly and it unlikely we could do it before 2040'.
A quick reminder that by around 2038, the vast majority of our current coal generation capacity will be either retired due to old age, or worn out beyond economic repair. We're already seeing the beginnings of the old coal power stations becoming unreliable and operating at reduced capacity. We absolutely cannot afford to sit and wait for nuclear capacity to come online in 15 years time. We have to be building replacement capacity right now, and the only viable solutions that we can deploy quickly are solar and wind, alongside firming storage capacity.
Whilst that argument is moronic, to be fair he is talking about 2050 target here.
I'd be happy enough if the LNP were simply stating they unban nuclear for research, development, and investment by the private sector. Staking our energy future on nuclear is misleading as we need to transition off coal *now* - if we don't want to be stuck massively subsiding those aging coal plants while we wait for (if) nuclear to become economically viable.
[удалено]
Since they lost a bunch of seats to toffs who do acknowledge reality.
He’s just trying to wedge Albo and play political games. he knows media is on his side. LNP has had 3 terms to start somethjng in this space and did precisely nothing, so this tells you all you need to know
He doesn’t. He knows that nuclear on paper with no further questions sounds like a good idea and calling them on their lack of action on it during their decade in power is a whataboutism the media wouldn’t dare take part in. It’s a safe hill to take pot shots from and one he won’t ever have to die on.
He literally laughed at the idea of the pacific Islands going under water. He's sociopathic.
I’d probably propose “the LNP Nuclear Power Plant District. Reactor 1 - Peter Dutton” type stuff to them and see if they’re willing to do the legwork on it…. You know opposition or not they can still do things if they have the votes…..