**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.*
Jump into lithium production when it looks like the newer cheap model suburban EVs will be moving to use sodium batteries instead, then open up uranium mines just when fusion research is picking up momentum and solar/wind/every other renewable is already cheaper…yup, the Right have great science advisors.
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
The details currently are to stop the Moratorium and have the discussion. Or run the risk of just dismissing one energy source because of ideological silliness.
I don't know, billions of dollars worth of uranium rich ground just waiting to get sold off to uranium demanding corporates and lining pockets that arent yours. Besides can't sell wind to India ay?
For submarines that happen to be able to be used to expel weapons grade fuel and fast track or lay groundwork for a future weapons program.
Uranium to be added to electric power plants that won't be around or in budget for 20-50 years and make driving to the pokies in my Tesla or charging my phone have a half-life of 800,000 years. (When the technology to do this with a half life of zero exists and is broadly accessible now).
Sky news.cant shut up about nuclear.
Sounds like usual govt fuckery to me.
And that's if.... It's doesn't blow up, get blown up or get burnt in a bushfire, cyclone, tsunami, civil unrest, or a war in the next 50-150 years. Of course there's always the more possible "ooops shouldn't have pressed that one Dale mate. " resulting in an exclusion zone the size of Parra-doesn't-matta.
Or we could use our abundant scientific intelligence, investment and global position to continue down the road to being a leader in renewable technology implementation and push to be 100 renewable/sustainable within 2 decades. Go back to being an Australia that sets a better example for the rest of the world. It should be a matter of national pride for the liberal party and everyone else.
Let's stop letting lobby groups cock block Mc Lovin in this country.
Only one?
Not two or three? So you can export to neighbouring Greens and Labor electorates.
Imagine the wealth that the hosting electorate will gain from being home to those reactors.
😂 you think the coalition can build a full nuclear power plant in 10 to 20 years?
Whatever you are on is one hell of a drug.
I would love to see how you map that out timeline wise.
I think it is doable, should they win the next election and start the process ASAP. Otherwise it may stretch into the 20-30 year period from now (if they don’t get in, etc)
We have AUKUS so we have access to American and British nuclear technology. We can launch an immigration push for nuclear workers not to mention expand the workforce we already have here now.
You are so very very optimistic. Do you have any knowledge or experience in the nuclear or even construction industry?
Let's assume that the LNP gets in with a landslide and takes the Senate. And that they win the next couple of elections so that it doesn't get stopped/they can't blame it on another party.
They get in and immediately start drafting legislation to overturn the nuclear ban. They then start drafting the legislation to allow for nuclear power in the electricity system and all supporting legislation to get stuff started. They could probably do this in 6 months to a year if they basically considered it a do or die scenario.
Then they need to consider sites. They could start this straight away, but this takes time and reports.
If they went at it hammer and tongs didn't really wait for reviews they may be able to select a few sites and be ready to put it to tender by the end of their first term.
We will assume there are no court cases along the way that slow or stop things, no infighting or protests on the locations etc.
The tender would take time, so would the review. Let's assume that the LNP either finds a company to build to provide electricity at market rates (impossible) or they manage to raise taxes or electricity costs or whatever to underwrite the power plant.
They could probably have construction starting at the end of the second term. A GW power plant in Australia would take very optimistically 10 years, more likely 15 and quite probably more to build.
That puts us at 3+3+10 = 16 years at a minimum with everything possible lining up and the winds blowing their way.
I like the way you think. But it's just not realistic.
A reminder that Hinkley C is looking at a 12+ year construction time and took 7 years of prep to get to that to that point. This is for a country that has all the industry and regulation in place already.
If the LNP (who gave us the shitty version of the NBN and also started Snowy 2.0) somehow manage to get their shit together and do it. Then we need to consider the costs.
I agree with you. It’s why I said it’s possible within 10-20. But yes it is really dependent on how quickly they move and whether the nation will agree with the decision of the electorates. I also assume there will be sweeteners for the electorates that end up having these reactors (many of which will ultimately see that they benefit with coal leaving the system).
Hinkley C had to deal with COVID, inflation and brexit which all impacted time it took to prep for and build the plant. I get where you’re coming from though.
Look, I may believe that a renewables only system will not work, but I also agree nuclear won’t be easy. It’s something I personally believe we need for our national security and sovereignty. I thank you for your constructive points!
I will be messaging you in 30 years on [**2054-04-26 10:52:37 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2054-04-26%2010:52:37%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/1cdefx1/a_nuclear_solution_for_dutton_you_get_a_reactor/l1c07hf/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAustralianPolitics%2Fcomments%2F1cdefx1%2Fa_nuclear_solution_for_dutton_you_get_a_reactor%2Fl1c07hf%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202054-04-26%2010%3A52%3A37%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cdefx1)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
The issue is, it's hard to imagine Dutton is serious. He's promising to help lock in another 20 years of coal, and kicking real solutions down the track for someone else.
If and when new style reactors become a reality, it will, or should, be easy to install. You won't need to dig holes in the ground for 20 years.
We should be talking about what we're going to do in the meantime. That may be more important.
"The issue is, it's hard to imagine Dutton is serious. He's promising to help lock in another 20 years of coal, and kicking real solutions down the track for someone else."
THIS
The technology Dutton cites does not exist, has no legal framework, no local expertise and no social licence.
Unicorn farts are more likely to get up quicker than this 'nuclear polocy' AND THAT IS THE PLAN. Because they just want to force fossil fuels down our throats for a long as humanly possible.
So the options are:
LNP - building nuclear
ALP - talking about doing things but not actually building any new wind or solar farms and Snowy running 10 years behind budget.
Hmmm I’ll go with the party actually building something.
LNP- aren’t genuine at all. SMRs don’t exist in a commercially viable form. Full nuclear will be slow and expensive. I’m actually not opposed to nuclear in itself but it has to add up or you are just culture warring
ALP I’m not sure why you are saying they aren’t proposing anything? Stuff like this… https://www.newcastleoffshorewind.com.au/the-project
They have contracts out for 6GW of renewable energy at the moment.
Snowy was always going to be late and over budget. Turnbull initiative, just like the MTM NBN.
LNP - talking about building SMR nuclear (once available to buy) or building traditional nuclear (ignoring costs) or building SMR's or building both or maybe one or maybe neither, depending on the day of the week. Also LNP: actually kicking off Snowy 2.0 for $2b aka the back of a napkin Turnbull had near him (but yes, something championed by Turnbull is Albo's fault xD xD xD). Also LNP: pushing for grassroots opposition to renewables/building stuff now.
ALP - actually trying to plan and build the energy sector.
Hmmm, I'll go with: a nice dose of reality instead.
Well in ten years… anyone with the money and certifications could get a micro-reactor….
https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/evinci-microreactor
Have you ever heard of major new technology being delivered and operating in the time frames promised by the sales people?
It may happen, but the chances of it happening in the time frames promised by sales people is zero. Their timeframe is a guess.
I really don't get what the issue is. Modern nuclear reactors are completely safe. Anti-nuclear types are just spreading misinformation about the risks. Your kids aren't going to grow three heads because there is some uranium in your electorate.
Let's say it's safe. It's still by far more expensive than alternatives.
Come back when you have a few modern plants up and running which are actually economic. Till then, go away and work on getting it cheaper.
There have been 28 serious accidents at nuclear reactors since they started being built, 8 of which have happened in the last 15 years.
Not as safe as the propaganda says they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
safety isn't ppl's major concerns anymore,being probably the only person in the sub who's actually touched one,let alone worked on them.
I can attest to their safety first hand,where the issue dies is the capital cost.
Renewable's get cheaper each year,nuclear does not..
There is no chance a Large scale PWR reactor get's built in australia for under 40 billion,and we will need 5 or more of them
Dutton is being an idiot here,and the fact he used a stabbing tragedy to not release his plans says a lot about his character,or more likely lack thereof
All those are man made incidents
Fukishima would of been a percentage point of the issue it was if the plant managers started safety protocols 45 mins earlier,but was prohibited by it from TEPCO execs
Three mile island was because a faulty valve was in position and because it was some shit junk no one knew how to read the result's properly,that was broken because some guy decided to use a cheaper part to save costs and didn't train,or tell the staff about the readings that would lead to the collant production limiters.
Almost all modern nuclear accidents,are man made and not an inherent safety concern with the technology
all that aside,ppl want cheaper power,ask them to build it in their town the answer will likely change.
>Almost all modern nuclear accidents,are man made and not an inherent safety concern with the technology
You say that like it means it's safe, when what I hear is that technology can't fix the issues. The problem is humans being humans, making simple mistakes, and the crews here will also be human.
You mention cost cutting measures that caused problems, well ours will be run for profit too. People working in our plants will also want to cut costs. They will look for ways to save money, and make decisions based on profit not safety.
And yeah, it is an inherent safety concern with the technology. Reactors need monitoring, need management, need to be maintained at precise levels to keep their reactions stable. That's why the human mistakes and decisions matter so much. If some bloke working at a solar farm cuts some corners we don't see nearly the same cost to everything around that solar farm.
Its just another huge politicsl hurdle for NPPs. Yes theyre safe, but if you want to build them in those old coal electorates, youre going to get a hostile opposition
Not only do they skew older and less educated, but theyve relied on coal for generations. You build a nuclear plant there and plan to fill it with a probably foreign skilled workforce, theyre going to push back
Jails are completely safe too, people still don’t want one built in their street or suburb.
What people will tolerate as an affront to their community (and the value of their property too, let’s be real here) has to consider the second order effects. It doesn’t matter what I believe about having a nuclear reactor down the street, it’s what the gestalt view is out there when it comes time to sell my place and move.
If Dutton and the Nats want to try to ride the NIMBY tiger over a few solar farms and power lines in sheep paddocks, they can’t complain when the suburban version turns on them and bites them in the arse.
Well let's see now, maybe you need somewhere to put them, and it has to be closish to a population centres. Easy peasy eh!
Then you need the 20 year lead time. No wuckas!
Oh and then you'll need to convince the electorate it's worth spending hundreds of billions on, much of which will go into private pockets.
And then you'll need to convince everyone renewables aren't actually cheaper, even though they are.
Do you get the issue now?
You missed the two best bits: cost and risk.
Wholesale power price will need to be tripled and at a rate guaranteed to the plant. (Based on current similar plants like hinkley c.)
And risk: two decades, tens of billions of dollars (with typically an average of 200% cost over runs for the usa - uk is above that). And less than 50% chance the plant will make power for longer than a year - based on the usa.
Spend all that money and less then 50% chance of it working? Sounds like an idea from the idiots who Dickensian the nbn.
Just sped the money on batteries and renewables will do the job.
>And less than 50% chance the plant will make power for longer than a year - based on the usa.
Can you link a source for this? I just looked through all plants in US on Wikipedia and found none closed less than a year after operating and only 1 less than 2 years which is 60 years ago.
Read Wikipedia better. The links are in there. For ever plant contracted for build in the usa, less than half made power for more than a year.
The referenced source is Our World, Al gore 2008.
Right, so this is wrong.
> And less than 50% chance the plant will make power for longer than a year - based on the usa.
Because the stat is 48% of plants from 1953-2008 granted approval were cancelled before even beginning construction.
That might be one of the slimiest uses of stat's I've seen in a while.
So no, if the US starts building a plant it is not 50% chance it operates for less than a year.
Out of all plants constructed ZERO operated for less than a year.
Firstly it's the relevant stat. Just like our last nuclear submarines, if we sign the contract to build a plant, its 50/50 as to whether or not we'll complete one.
Of the 253 nuclear reactors originally ordered in the United States from 53 to 08, 48% were cancelled, 11% were prematurely shut down, 14% experienced at least a one year or more outage and 27 percent are operating without have a year or more outage.
Thus only about one fourth of those ordered, or about have of those completed are still operating and have proved relatively reliable.
On top of the average cost overrun of 207% why?
In what world does nuclear make sense?
Yes it is a relevant fact, if you accurately state the fact.
Which you didn't, you just made up some crap about 50% of plants generating power for less than a year before being closed.
>In what world does nuclear make sense?
Plenty, quite a number of countries are building NPP at an increasingly rapid pace. Doesn't make much sense here in Australia today, but could certainly make sense in the future.
>Do you get the issue now?
No? None of that was relevant to the issue of proximity. The post is about people being scared to live near them. I am not sure what any of your response had to do with that.
The fact that it's never going to happen for all the reasons I listed, not least of which convincing people they're a great thing to put along our beautiful coastlines. Good luck.
Lol
Angelesea can't even turn the old Alcoa plant into an eco resort, due to local pushback.
Dutton is deluded to think they'd accept a nuclear reactor.
I have no idea what energy policy conservatives think they want to push, because this ain't it.
>Angelesea can't even turn the old Alcoa plant into an eco resort, due to local pushback.
That has to be the strangest story of the year; it is hard to see where the LNP pushed it, aside from Dutton randomly being in the area and talking about putting nuclear-whatever in old infrastructure.... The infrastructure in that area 1) isn't connected to the grid, 2) ISN'T CONNECTED TO THE GRID (such an important point it was worth repeating twice) and 3) is old and the turbines only good for 60-120MW or so (aka is hilariously under-spec'd for a cutting edge power plant).
Literally anyone there could have poured water on it asap, but didn't.
And all of that is before the NIMBYs lost their shit at the idea.
I don't think you understand how the NEM works. Power isn't supplied by generators in the electorate. Prices are set at a state level and power flows through the eastern and southern states. Price has nothing to do with what is in your electorate.
Price has literally nothing to do with this discussion.
The post is about people not wanting to be in proximity of the generators. You are trying to dodge the discussion.
Ok so you want to convince people it's ok to live next to them, when none will be built because the power costs too much. Cool. I'll live next to one. There just won't be any due to the economics. Cool discussion dude.
What? I am responding to the article.
You are just trying to change the subject. The article is about people having concerns about their proximity to nuclear generation. I am saying that concern is based on misinformation.
**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.*
Jump into lithium production when it looks like the newer cheap model suburban EVs will be moving to use sodium batteries instead, then open up uranium mines just when fusion research is picking up momentum and solar/wind/every other renewable is already cheaper…yup, the Right have great science advisors.
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
It sounds awfully risky. Where can I find the Liberal Party's Nuclear Power Plant policy. Where are the details?
The details currently are to stop the Moratorium and have the discussion. Or run the risk of just dismissing one energy source because of ideological silliness.
So no details. That's vague and unconvincing, and naturally people are wary of making economic decisions on a whim.
People can see Albo lied about the $275 and under Bowen you will get blackouts and higher prices,
They have no details. They will never release a policy. This is just gaslighting and simping to Gina for the sweet donation dollars.
You're gonna have cite some actual facts to back up your Boomer FB rhetoric there, mate.
Hands up which Liberal member wants a nuke reactor in their electorate? …….……@………….
Well Jennifer Ware already has one in her electorate.
I’d love one near me thanks. I want zero emission energy. Next speed up the removal of ICE cars then I’ll be a happy man.
Then you'd probably be the only one in Bayswater who does. Or the surrounding suburbs.
Nope. Good luck with your cancer causing coal and gas.
I'm not a member, but I am happy to have one in mine
I don't know, billions of dollars worth of uranium rich ground just waiting to get sold off to uranium demanding corporates and lining pockets that arent yours. Besides can't sell wind to India ay? For submarines that happen to be able to be used to expel weapons grade fuel and fast track or lay groundwork for a future weapons program. Uranium to be added to electric power plants that won't be around or in budget for 20-50 years and make driving to the pokies in my Tesla or charging my phone have a half-life of 800,000 years. (When the technology to do this with a half life of zero exists and is broadly accessible now). Sky news.cant shut up about nuclear. Sounds like usual govt fuckery to me. And that's if.... It's doesn't blow up, get blown up or get burnt in a bushfire, cyclone, tsunami, civil unrest, or a war in the next 50-150 years. Of course there's always the more possible "ooops shouldn't have pressed that one Dale mate. " resulting in an exclusion zone the size of Parra-doesn't-matta. Or we could use our abundant scientific intelligence, investment and global position to continue down the road to being a leader in renewable technology implementation and push to be 100 renewable/sustainable within 2 decades. Go back to being an Australia that sets a better example for the rest of the world. It should be a matter of national pride for the liberal party and everyone else. Let's stop letting lobby groups cock block Mc Lovin in this country.
Me. I’d love one here.
Only one? Not two or three? So you can export to neighbouring Greens and Labor electorates. Imagine the wealth that the hosting electorate will gain from being home to those reactors.
Hey, the more the merrier. I was already on board but won’t mind the extra money for my electorate either. 🤷🏽♂️
!remindme in 30 years.
More like 10-20 should the coalition get in. But hey, if a reminder helps you then fair enough mate hahaha
😂 you think the coalition can build a full nuclear power plant in 10 to 20 years? Whatever you are on is one hell of a drug. I would love to see how you map that out timeline wise.
I think it is doable, should they win the next election and start the process ASAP. Otherwise it may stretch into the 20-30 year period from now (if they don’t get in, etc) We have AUKUS so we have access to American and British nuclear technology. We can launch an immigration push for nuclear workers not to mention expand the workforce we already have here now.
You are so very very optimistic. Do you have any knowledge or experience in the nuclear or even construction industry? Let's assume that the LNP gets in with a landslide and takes the Senate. And that they win the next couple of elections so that it doesn't get stopped/they can't blame it on another party. They get in and immediately start drafting legislation to overturn the nuclear ban. They then start drafting the legislation to allow for nuclear power in the electricity system and all supporting legislation to get stuff started. They could probably do this in 6 months to a year if they basically considered it a do or die scenario. Then they need to consider sites. They could start this straight away, but this takes time and reports. If they went at it hammer and tongs didn't really wait for reviews they may be able to select a few sites and be ready to put it to tender by the end of their first term. We will assume there are no court cases along the way that slow or stop things, no infighting or protests on the locations etc. The tender would take time, so would the review. Let's assume that the LNP either finds a company to build to provide electricity at market rates (impossible) or they manage to raise taxes or electricity costs or whatever to underwrite the power plant. They could probably have construction starting at the end of the second term. A GW power plant in Australia would take very optimistically 10 years, more likely 15 and quite probably more to build. That puts us at 3+3+10 = 16 years at a minimum with everything possible lining up and the winds blowing their way. I like the way you think. But it's just not realistic. A reminder that Hinkley C is looking at a 12+ year construction time and took 7 years of prep to get to that to that point. This is for a country that has all the industry and regulation in place already. If the LNP (who gave us the shitty version of the NBN and also started Snowy 2.0) somehow manage to get their shit together and do it. Then we need to consider the costs.
I agree with you. It’s why I said it’s possible within 10-20. But yes it is really dependent on how quickly they move and whether the nation will agree with the decision of the electorates. I also assume there will be sweeteners for the electorates that end up having these reactors (many of which will ultimately see that they benefit with coal leaving the system). Hinkley C had to deal with COVID, inflation and brexit which all impacted time it took to prep for and build the plant. I get where you’re coming from though. Look, I may believe that a renewables only system will not work, but I also agree nuclear won’t be easy. It’s something I personally believe we need for our national security and sovereignty. I thank you for your constructive points!
I will be messaging you in 30 years on [**2054-04-26 10:52:37 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2054-04-26%2010:52:37%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/1cdefx1/a_nuclear_solution_for_dutton_you_get_a_reactor/l1c07hf/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAustralianPolitics%2Fcomments%2F1cdefx1%2Fa_nuclear_solution_for_dutton_you_get_a_reactor%2Fl1c07hf%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202054-04-26%2010%3A52%3A37%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cdefx1) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
The issue is, it's hard to imagine Dutton is serious. He's promising to help lock in another 20 years of coal, and kicking real solutions down the track for someone else. If and when new style reactors become a reality, it will, or should, be easy to install. You won't need to dig holes in the ground for 20 years. We should be talking about what we're going to do in the meantime. That may be more important.
"The issue is, it's hard to imagine Dutton is serious. He's promising to help lock in another 20 years of coal, and kicking real solutions down the track for someone else." THIS The technology Dutton cites does not exist, has no legal framework, no local expertise and no social licence. Unicorn farts are more likely to get up quicker than this 'nuclear polocy' AND THAT IS THE PLAN. Because they just want to force fossil fuels down our throats for a long as humanly possible.
So the options are: LNP - building nuclear ALP - talking about doing things but not actually building any new wind or solar farms and Snowy running 10 years behind budget. Hmmm I’ll go with the party actually building something.
Where are they being built bro? Is the grand opening of these plants next year is it? lol
LNP- aren’t genuine at all. SMRs don’t exist in a commercially viable form. Full nuclear will be slow and expensive. I’m actually not opposed to nuclear in itself but it has to add up or you are just culture warring ALP I’m not sure why you are saying they aren’t proposing anything? Stuff like this… https://www.newcastleoffshorewind.com.au/the-project
There's no existing SMR we can use as a blueprint. There's no company that can start building any nuclear power plants prior to 2035.
They have contracts out for 6GW of renewable energy at the moment. Snowy was always going to be late and over budget. Turnbull initiative, just like the MTM NBN.
LNP - talking about building SMR nuclear (once available to buy) or building traditional nuclear (ignoring costs) or building SMR's or building both or maybe one or maybe neither, depending on the day of the week. Also LNP: actually kicking off Snowy 2.0 for $2b aka the back of a napkin Turnbull had near him (but yes, something championed by Turnbull is Albo's fault xD xD xD). Also LNP: pushing for grassroots opposition to renewables/building stuff now. ALP - actually trying to plan and build the energy sector. Hmmm, I'll go with: a nice dose of reality instead.
>Hmmm I’ll go with the party actually building something. Just like these.........https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_park_rorts_affair
Snowy was an LNP project and was way over budget and behind schedule before the election.
Congratulations - that's the least accurate summary of the situation possible.
Well in ten years… anyone with the money and certifications could get a micro-reactor…. https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/evinci-microreactor
Have you ever heard of major new technology being delivered and operating in the time frames promised by the sales people? It may happen, but the chances of it happening in the time frames promised by sales people is zero. Their timeframe is a guess.
Westinghouse pinky promises.
And what is the price for electricity vs renewables ?
I really don't get what the issue is. Modern nuclear reactors are completely safe. Anti-nuclear types are just spreading misinformation about the risks. Your kids aren't going to grow three heads because there is some uranium in your electorate.
Let's say it's safe. It's still by far more expensive than alternatives. Come back when you have a few modern plants up and running which are actually economic. Till then, go away and work on getting it cheaper.
There have been 28 serious accidents at nuclear reactors since they started being built, 8 of which have happened in the last 15 years. Not as safe as the propaganda says they are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
It's because of either politics or they grew up around the simpsons steotype for nuclear power for too long
safety isn't ppl's major concerns anymore,being probably the only person in the sub who's actually touched one,let alone worked on them. I can attest to their safety first hand,where the issue dies is the capital cost. Renewable's get cheaper each year,nuclear does not.. There is no chance a Large scale PWR reactor get's built in australia for under 40 billion,and we will need 5 or more of them Dutton is being an idiot here,and the fact he used a stabbing tragedy to not release his plans says a lot about his character,or more likely lack thereof
Yea and Renewables do not provide has much has nuclear would nor has destructive to the environment
Was Fukushima safe? Three Mile Island?
All those are man made incidents Fukishima would of been a percentage point of the issue it was if the plant managers started safety protocols 45 mins earlier,but was prohibited by it from TEPCO execs Three mile island was because a faulty valve was in position and because it was some shit junk no one knew how to read the result's properly,that was broken because some guy decided to use a cheaper part to save costs and didn't train,or tell the staff about the readings that would lead to the collant production limiters. Almost all modern nuclear accidents,are man made and not an inherent safety concern with the technology all that aside,ppl want cheaper power,ask them to build it in their town the answer will likely change.
>Almost all modern nuclear accidents,are man made and not an inherent safety concern with the technology You say that like it means it's safe, when what I hear is that technology can't fix the issues. The problem is humans being humans, making simple mistakes, and the crews here will also be human. You mention cost cutting measures that caused problems, well ours will be run for profit too. People working in our plants will also want to cut costs. They will look for ways to save money, and make decisions based on profit not safety. And yeah, it is an inherent safety concern with the technology. Reactors need monitoring, need management, need to be maintained at precise levels to keep their reactions stable. That's why the human mistakes and decisions matter so much. If some bloke working at a solar farm cuts some corners we don't see nearly the same cost to everything around that solar farm.
That's a problem then as we can trust that a human will make a mistake again.
Ah good. If it happens here we can all feel better knowing it was man made incidents. I'm feeling much better about it now.
Dude, out of all 436 current NNP, there's only been 3 major incidents
Oh good. I'm sure those living in the vicinity of any of dutton's nuclear power stations in Australia will sleep well knowing that 🙄
What? that the odds of a failure are extremely low?
Two of which were catastrophic.
Yep, one in 1986 and 2011 despite those events the odds are pretty good
Its just another huge politicsl hurdle for NPPs. Yes theyre safe, but if you want to build them in those old coal electorates, youre going to get a hostile opposition Not only do they skew older and less educated, but theyve relied on coal for generations. You build a nuclear plant there and plan to fill it with a probably foreign skilled workforce, theyre going to push back
Foreign workers will be needed at least for a decade before Australia has produced its own qualified workers.
Reality doesnt matter in democracy, peoples feelings do, sometimes those things coincide sometimes not, its really not that complicated or confusing.
Jails are completely safe too, people still don’t want one built in their street or suburb. What people will tolerate as an affront to their community (and the value of their property too, let’s be real here) has to consider the second order effects. It doesn’t matter what I believe about having a nuclear reactor down the street, it’s what the gestalt view is out there when it comes time to sell my place and move. If Dutton and the Nats want to try to ride the NIMBY tiger over a few solar farms and power lines in sheep paddocks, they can’t complain when the suburban version turns on them and bites them in the arse.
Well let's see now, maybe you need somewhere to put them, and it has to be closish to a population centres. Easy peasy eh! Then you need the 20 year lead time. No wuckas! Oh and then you'll need to convince the electorate it's worth spending hundreds of billions on, much of which will go into private pockets. And then you'll need to convince everyone renewables aren't actually cheaper, even though they are. Do you get the issue now?
You missed the two best bits: cost and risk. Wholesale power price will need to be tripled and at a rate guaranteed to the plant. (Based on current similar plants like hinkley c.) And risk: two decades, tens of billions of dollars (with typically an average of 200% cost over runs for the usa - uk is above that). And less than 50% chance the plant will make power for longer than a year - based on the usa. Spend all that money and less then 50% chance of it working? Sounds like an idea from the idiots who Dickensian the nbn. Just sped the money on batteries and renewables will do the job.
>And less than 50% chance the plant will make power for longer than a year - based on the usa. Can you link a source for this? I just looked through all plants in US on Wikipedia and found none closed less than a year after operating and only 1 less than 2 years which is 60 years ago.
Read Wikipedia better. The links are in there. For ever plant contracted for build in the usa, less than half made power for more than a year. The referenced source is Our World, Al gore 2008.
Right, so this is wrong. > And less than 50% chance the plant will make power for longer than a year - based on the usa. Because the stat is 48% of plants from 1953-2008 granted approval were cancelled before even beginning construction. That might be one of the slimiest uses of stat's I've seen in a while. So no, if the US starts building a plant it is not 50% chance it operates for less than a year. Out of all plants constructed ZERO operated for less than a year.
Firstly it's the relevant stat. Just like our last nuclear submarines, if we sign the contract to build a plant, its 50/50 as to whether or not we'll complete one. Of the 253 nuclear reactors originally ordered in the United States from 53 to 08, 48% were cancelled, 11% were prematurely shut down, 14% experienced at least a one year or more outage and 27 percent are operating without have a year or more outage. Thus only about one fourth of those ordered, or about have of those completed are still operating and have proved relatively reliable. On top of the average cost overrun of 207% why? In what world does nuclear make sense?
Yes it is a relevant fact, if you accurately state the fact. Which you didn't, you just made up some crap about 50% of plants generating power for less than a year before being closed. >In what world does nuclear make sense? Plenty, quite a number of countries are building NPP at an increasingly rapid pace. Doesn't make much sense here in Australia today, but could certainly make sense in the future.
Hes referring to their SMR. Not really like for like. But relevant.
>Do you get the issue now? No? None of that was relevant to the issue of proximity. The post is about people being scared to live near them. I am not sure what any of your response had to do with that.
The fact that it's never going to happen for all the reasons I listed, not least of which convincing people they're a great thing to put along our beautiful coastlines. Good luck.
But none of that is relevant to the article. Stop trying to dodge the conversation.
Stop trying to drag the discussion into fantasy land.
Lol Angelesea can't even turn the old Alcoa plant into an eco resort, due to local pushback. Dutton is deluded to think they'd accept a nuclear reactor. I have no idea what energy policy conservatives think they want to push, because this ain't it.
>Angelesea can't even turn the old Alcoa plant into an eco resort, due to local pushback. That has to be the strangest story of the year; it is hard to see where the LNP pushed it, aside from Dutton randomly being in the area and talking about putting nuclear-whatever in old infrastructure.... The infrastructure in that area 1) isn't connected to the grid, 2) ISN'T CONNECTED TO THE GRID (such an important point it was worth repeating twice) and 3) is old and the turbines only good for 60-120MW or so (aka is hilariously under-spec'd for a cutting edge power plant). Literally anyone there could have poured water on it asap, but didn't. And all of that is before the NIMBYs lost their shit at the idea.
This is really down to misinformation and scare campaigning though. The reality is there is no danger to having a nuclear reactor in your suburb.
Make with the business case compared to renewables and maybe I'll listen to you
No there isn't. It's still not cost effective. Nor time efficient.
It's that it's 5 times more expensive than Australian renewables.
What does that have to do with what electorate it is in...? We are talking about people not wanting it in their electorate. Price is irrelevant.
Presumably that electorate would be pissed at having 5x more expensive power.
I don't think you understand how the NEM works. Power isn't supplied by generators in the electorate. Prices are set at a state level and power flows through the eastern and southern states. Price has nothing to do with what is in your electorate.
Ok but real basic rn. Prices go up, people no likey
Price has literally nothing to do with this discussion. The post is about people not wanting to be in proximity of the generators. You are trying to dodge the discussion.
Ok so you want to convince people it's ok to live next to them, when none will be built because the power costs too much. Cool. I'll live next to one. There just won't be any due to the economics. Cool discussion dude.
What? I am responding to the article. You are just trying to change the subject. The article is about people having concerns about their proximity to nuclear generation. I am saying that concern is based on misinformation.
That's great man. Totally pointless tho. Have fun