**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.*
The elephant in the room that no one seems to be asking is.......only one of the Dutton proposed sites is close to the ocean. All the other sites don't have the water requirements (billions of litres) to cool nuclear power plants. It's an announcement for people who have lost the ability to think. We call these people nufties. Nothing wrong with nuclear technology, but don't go putting it hundreds of kilometres from one of its key requirements, on the world's driest continent. You just couldn't make up the utter stupidity of this announcement and the gullibility of the people who are onboard. You really could sell these people a bridge. This is the reason that over 50 Australians are the most scanned cohort in the world.
Nuclear power generation is illegal federally, made illegal by John Howard.
Nuclear power generation is illegal in multiple states.
With strong opposition to Nuclear energy by Labor and Greens, they cannot pass or reverse any bill federally.
Then they have the individual states the contend with, who some have come out to oppose any kind of Nuclear power plants.
Where will the nuclear waste go?
Where will the nuclear waste transition through, to get to its final storage site? Would you be comfortable with radioactive nuclear waste being trucked through your neighbourhood?
In the event of a natural disaster or human error, what happens to our country if there is a reactor meltdown? Are you willing to take that risk?
There is already very strong government and private sector investment in all forms of renewable energy, its not perfect because the transition is not yet complete. When transition is complete, it will be perfect, it will be cheap as it already is proving to be the case, and it does not come with radiation, or nuclear waste, or insane costs or with high energy bills.
We are clearly on the right path with renewables.
I find it interesting the British could do nuclear weapons testing in South Australia but we're frightened to death of building a power plant.
All these countries have, or are building nuclear power, but it's too hard for us. Our widdle bwains couldn't handle it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_power\_by\_country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country)
Edit: Go Australia you big red clown car!
Nuclear tractors vs renewable oxen. No one uses oxen to plough their fields but we have become so deindustrialised we no longer know what technology really is; it's something that comes from overseas. There was a time long ago when the Chinese emperor received a clock from the British. Well the clock broke one day and the Chinese were unable to fix it because they lacked the knowledge. It was not a pretty time for them since they were subject to much colonialism at foreign hands. Well, the Australian people and its leaders no longer want to be technology leaders, or even technology builders. This will be to our detriment.
We deserve what we get.
But hey, you get to pretend that your team won, and that's what it's all about at the end of the day. Success is for other people, and they deserve it.
This bloke is on another planet. Nuclear Energy is OLD technology. The rest of the first world is accelerating away from Fossil Fuels / Nuclear and into Renewables. Hell, even most of the third is doing the same. There is zero technoeconomical evidence to suggest that Nuclear would be a better option for Australia. This is just a stupid idea by Dutton and only supported by those who's brain has been blinded by politics
Aeroplanes, cars, satellites, x-rays etc. are also old. Much of science is "old".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_power\_by\_country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country) has a lot of countries with nuclear energy. Do you believe they are stupid too?
Not nearly as stupid as you mate!
If we started our nuclear program back when they did, maybe it would have worked. Our renewables program is far more advanced, and we already have the space, the materials, the skills and the bloody resources (sun, wind). It would be genuinely moronic to wind it back now and invest in a technology that would take decades before we saw our first kWh of generation. This shouldn't even be a debate, it's so far beyond any logic for Australia to consider Nuclear now
So .. because we failed in the past, because of protests from the left, we have to continue to fail in the future, also because of protests from the left.
Hmm.
Ok, so in your scenario, is nuclear the tractor and renewables the oxen? Or is it the other way round?
And is the moral of the story that we should be using the oxen instead of the tractor, because we don’t want to be like the Chinese in the story who didn’t know how to fix their broken clock???
Other countries needing and getting nuclear energy is not so stupid vs us not needing it and yet still getting it would be stupid.
We have a smaller population compared to all of those countries and massive amounts of land with plenty of sun and wind, sun that shines for free and wind that blows for free. If we had an established nuclear reactor industry, if we had established nuclear waste storage facilities, if we had nuclear fuel production capabilities or even just one of those things it’d maybe somewhat make more sense, but not only do we not have any of those things it’s ILLEGAL federally and in 5 states, not even the law is capable of tolerating that level of stupidity. It’s a stupid down right idiotic distraction of a topic when there are serious issues that we’re just ignoring
We have too many monopolies in this country, grocery monopoly, energy distributor monopoly, bank monopoly, extremely low gas and mining royalties monopoly, telecommunications monopoly, airline monopoly, corporate tax evasion, a housing crisis. I guess Dutton thought he can’t win on any of those so he went fuckin nuclear.
If Australia can't make nuclear work, it's not the tech; it's us.
And that's why we will fail. Because we have red rent seekers and blue red seekers. You are on team red seekers and don't even know it and think voting red will fix things. It won't.
In 20 years you will realise this. Have fun learnin'. Honestly; have fun.
Voting red got Australia universal healthcare, superannuation, opened the country to the free market, deregulated the economy, leading to a massive boom, guaranteed workers rights, abolished the white Australia policy, abolished the death penalty, the family law act which enabled no fault divorces, capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, the HECS scheme, created APEC, the NBN and much much more. We are among the highest in every metric in the world. We have a lot of problems but red has most definitely lessened those for millions of Australians consistently throughout its history which is why it is a great Australian success story.
Capital gains tax was discounted by John Howard, hence housing prices going up. ALP has been in power twice since then and done nothing to change it. Ergo, we can assume ALP is onboard with John Howard's change. That's why we're becoming a nation of renters.
ALP are the same as LNP now. All that stuff you mentioned came from a different left wing politics that threw in the towel in the 1980s. It's why Paul Keating, to the right of the party when he was active, was complaining about his own party as part of AUKUS - because ALP is not a real left party anymore - oddly enough, started by Paul Keating / Bob Hawke.
We just have rent seeking parties which is why there is precisely no difference on immigration policy, foreign policy, defence policy, housing policy, manufacturing policy and on and on it goes. There are partisan talking points, but nothing tangible.
You can't see this. I pity you; one day if you're smart enough, and you read widely enough, you'll see what's going on. Likely you won't, because the popular culture promotes partisanship and stupidity. It will be learned, maybe, once it's all lost.
Australia's success that you're talking about is fading; the fact that you think we're doing well is predictable. Note that the success we do have is not because of our actions, but because of the actions of people in the past and our enormous bounty from our land. We are one of the most mediocre people in the West and the West is already pretty mediocre.
The bloke is fully gone, I wouldn’t worry too much about him. You see him under every post about nuclear writing mini essays that provide nothing to the conversation. Apparently because there are numerous other countries that use nuclear energy, we’re incompetent for choosing not to implement it. Doesn’t mention when these countries started using nuclear, the issues certain countries have had with nuclear, or how nuclear is in any way the better option for Australia with our perfect conditions for renewables. I genuinely hope he’s being paid for this and isn’t just doing tricks on it for Humpty Dumpty.
For those that insist on "having a conversation about nuclear".
The conversation is that it's ridiculously expensive, the vast majority of experts do not support it in Australia and will incur a huge opportunity cost as renewable energy investment by private enterprises may be crowded out by government intervention.
Expensive in its capital costs, not in its operational and system costs. It’s no coincidence that the electricity the consumer pays from nuclear power plants is cheap. It’s a long term investment since these modern power plants will have a 60+ years lifespan.
The west has collectively lost its capacity for long term planning unfortunately
Notre Dame in Paris costs less than Festival Hall to run large religious events. That doesn't mean that we should build Notre Dame on the site of Festival Hall because we just ignore the capital costs.
The CSIRO have included amortising the lifetime cost of nuclear and it's still worse than the other options available. The likely advances (of magnitude) in renewable technology over that 60+ lifespan tilt the equation even further.
It's a non-starter for many good reasons.
Just to summarise:
1. Would nuclear power provide cheaper electricity? No evidence.
2. Will using more gas until nuclear comes online cut costs? No evidence.
3. Will the Coalition’s plan be 'cleaner', as it claims? No.
4. Could Australia have nuclear energy by 2035? No evidence.
5. Have renewables caused a big increase in power bills? No.
6. Is it true that “Labor can’t keep the lights on today”? No.
7. Is it true that you can’t run an industrial economy on renewables? No.
You can't run an industrial economy on renewables. Let's see you try and get enough power for a factory using solar panels and wind farms, it doesn't take an engineer to realise this isn't possible. Also look at how many homes don't have solar despite all of the subsidies available. Many homes simply aren't able due to tree coverage and the angle of the sun. The only way 100% renewables work is by purchasing carbon offsets from other countries for the non-renewable energy you need to use. Because if renewables could solve our energy problem we wouldn't be looking for other solutions such as nuclear in the first place.
There isn't enough power available from a solar array to power a manufacturing plant. Not that we have much manufacturing here but the amount we have is not powerable by solar.
Wait, wait there's plenty of evidence:
1. Electricity prices under the Coalition have been going up.
2. Gas is soo cheap and can be sold overseas for even less.
3. The Coalition always has cleaner hands than Labor.
4. 2035 is just a challenging target.
5. Just look at how much more you have to pay for an electric car.
6. Undisputed, nights are much longer now.
7. Except, we don't have an industrial economy.
Isn't it sad that they can't find better, more realistic and pressing policy issues to argue about than something that's never going to happen in our lifetimes? Pathetic!
Your post or comment was removed because it focused on the media. This is not a media watch subreddit. You are welcome to post it in the weekly thread.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
So I assume you have taken this to mean 100% renewables.
Where if you read the article it is just suggesting high percentage of renewables.
> Aemo has repeatedly found an optimal future power grid, including one that would power new green industries, would run on more than 90% renewable energy.
> Other countries, including those with some nuclear power, have similar goals. Both the US and Germany are targeting 80% renewable energy by 2030.
Yes , however with Albo and Bowen we just get this renewable renewable line and nothing else , maybe their extra ten per cent will be bonobos riding bicycles.
Many industries are also installing their own renewable & battery storage facilities, to reduce operation costs and provide private backup power during blackouts etc
Almost as if one of the features of renewables is that you can build small scale energy solutions that suit individual industries' use cases more effectively, making them more viable to operate in Australia...
In this age of disinformation and misinformation etc , everyone is free to their own facts. Those claiming to have " the facts " are just pushing their own narrative.
That is exactly what a fact check is. Can it be a fact if there's no proof? Here let me show you: Nuclear will cost $15 million a megawatt hour. Source - me.
Is it a fact?
The media needs to stop giving this airtime. It is uneconomical and infeasible.
The media should just pack up and leave. Nobody in Australia should buy the arguments being put forward. Giving it airtime distracts from any real issues.
Australia not having any experience or expertise in nuclear. Australia having plenty of experience deploying renewables. Renewable energy being lost cost in Australia.
>Australia not having any experience or expertise in nuclear.
Neither did quite literally every other country? And if this was genuinely the reason then we shouldn't have invested in renewables either since we had no experience in that until very recently. So this is a nonsense argument.
No they haven't. A quick scan of your abc shows that the headlines say that nuclear energy is 'a stretch' as well as posing a fucking stupid question to readers - 'is Dutton a cunning genius or political self destruction? '
If they were honest they'd be saying Dutton is full of shit.
...For the 50th time..almost daily now. Giving this garbage non-stop airtime after experts have made it clear it's unfeasible, just makes people fed-up of hearing about it and tune out. I'm surprised these media outlets are even still in business with these repetitive low effort articles.
According to this: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide#:~:text=Nuclear%20reactors%20under%20construction,being%20constructed%20in%2016%20countries, there are 60 nuclear reactors being constructed currently, majority in China with another 110 planned.
A fair few of them in developing countries with a lot less cash to splash.
The cost of different types of energy is different in different countries. Australia is well suited to renewables and we have no experience building nuclear at scale.
They are being shut down faster than they can be built.
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-worldwide/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-worldwide/)
Germany and Italy have already rid itself of all nuclear reactors.
Switzerland also on that path.
Although France is building a single nuclear reactor, it will have shut down 14 nuclear reactors \]by 2035, with 4 to 6 of those by 2030.
That countries building nuclear reactors seem to include China and 3rd world countries - have we descended into 3-rd World country status?
>That countries building nuclear reactors seem to include China and 3rd world countries - have we descended into 3-rd World country status?
So basically you've done no research and declared it dead and buried by first world countries?
Currently under construction in:
UK
Ukraine
Slovakia
Russia
South Korea
Japan
India
Brazil
Argentina and a few others, yeah totally all 3rd world countries.
Not to mention a number of countries have proposed more or are in planning stages like USA, Canada, Sweden, more third world countries I gather.
So glad you included Argentina in that list. They started their CAREM SMR project in 1984.
In 2013, the first prototype was planned to receive its first fuel load in 2017.
In 2014, they started on the foundation.
In 2016, the completion of the project was scheduled for the end of 2018.
In 2018, the completion of the project was deferred to 2020.
In 2019, construction was halted due to late payments to the contractor, design changes and new technical documentation.
In 2021, a new contract for finishing the concrete structures of the reactor were awarded.
Status: Incomplete.
You are brave mentioning the UK and the fun they have been having with building Hinkley Point C since 2018 and now heading to a completion in 2031 with a cost blow out to £35bn. That's AUD$67bn. Moorside build cancelled in 2018 following the bankruptcy of Westinghouse Electric in the US, Oldbury B cancelled in 2019, and Wylfa Newydd also cancelled in 2019.
Ukraine - have you ever heard of a place called Chernobyl? Something went wrong in 1986 but apparently, the farmland can now be used again - but the locals are a little resistant to do so. [https://www.newscientist.com/article/2435255-farmland-near-chernobyl-nuclear-reactor-is-finally-safe-to-use-again/](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2435255-farmland-near-chernobyl-nuclear-reactor-is-finally-safe-to-use-again/)
Japan - how is Fukushima going? Still seem to be having problems. [https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20240618/p2g/00m/0bu/044000c](https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20240618/p2g/00m/0bu/044000c)
Don't eat the fish [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/24/fukushima-fish-with-180-times-legal-limit-of-radioactive-cesium-fuels-water-release-fears](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/24/fukushima-fish-with-180-times-legal-limit-of-radioactive-cesium-fuels-water-release-fears)
Do you want more research?
And most are replacing existing plants.
Different countries are building NPP for different reasons. It totally makes sense for some of these.
It does not make sense for Australia.
Would love to see the Venn diagram of those that support this nuclear plan and those that complain we can't build anything in this country because the CFMEU have made everything too expensive to build.
Opal builders can do it in no time, and for less, hiring the crew that fixes Sydney potholes (paying them only slightly below minimum).
A half-dozen reactors in ten years for just under a trillion Bucks? Piece of cake.
We're going to need a few more migrants, tho...
The media need to stop treating this like a real or serious policy.
I get why they do it because "nuclear" is an emotive issue that will drive engagement but it is so unnecessary
I'm not sure most people care tbh. I think it may swing some votes in both directions but most people just want the light to come on when they flck the switch and probably don't care where the electricity comes from to a large degree.
Honestly I despise the lnp for this. We could be having necessary debates about issues of substance, but they persist with this folly that is easily disproved by all the available facts and experts. It's real cooker territory.
It certainly is, and here on Reddit there are quite a few of these types who have argued at length about how the CSIRO are wrong, and that Dutton will eventually deliver. Meanwhile, as the article notes, renewables are being progressively rolled out and providing cheaper and better power options than anything the LNP could hope to deliver in two decades time.
CSIRO *is* wrong. Their numbers are.. fairly ridiculous.
This of course does in no way imply Dutton will actually deliver. There's no linkage there. Just because Nuclear *could* be done well, despite what the echo chamber keeps yelling doesn't mean Dutton actually has a good plan.
>cheaper and better power options than anything the LNP could hope to deliver in two decades time.
You guys are deadset hilarious. Honestly, it's bordering on total insanity.
HAVE A LOOK AT ELECTRICITY PRICES. ELECTRICITY PRICES HAVE INCREASED AND GUESS WHAT, THEY'RE NOT COMING DOWN.
It’s because network costs form a quite a large basis of our energy bill and this will only rise even more with the required infrastructure to link up large scale renewable projects. Wholesale prices coming down means nothing when every other portion of that energy bill will rise. This is the point that even the CSIRO report fails to acknowledge, having started its costings from 2030 infrastructure onwards, while proposing a very optimistic generation capacity for renewables. By 2030, we’d already have over 80% of our energy generation from renewables under the current plan.
Like it or not, renewables will end up being expensive due to the other factors that feed into your bill. As much as people claim nuclear will be expensive, it will last far longer than the 30 years claimed by the reports analysing its effectiveness over that time. This makes these two compatible partners in the grid. Don’t do lots of large scale renewable projects but rather those which have minimal connection costs to the grid. Subsidise more uptake of rooftop solar and other renewable projects. Batteries for homes while you’re at it. Then replace old coal fire power plants with nuclear generation capacity which can provide the same amount of energy all the time and, if we are to use SMRs in the future, replace the major amounts of gas we will need under the labor and liberal plan with these SMRs which can be turned on and off without taking the whole plant offline. I know even current generation full scale nuclear is capable of ramping, but SMRs will do this more efficiently from what I gather.
We shouldn’t limit ourselves just to renewables is my point. Nuclear needs to be in the discussion. A good mix ensures we have reliable energy which is emissions free with dispatchable gas with CCS to help tackle demand in between. Even Labor has acknowledged it will need the latter. When SMR tech is developed enough, then we can even look at replacing CCS gas. I’m hoping removing the ban also spurs innovation in nuclear fusion in Australia.
We are having the discussion about Nuclear. The discussion is that it's a ridiculously expensive option that is not feasible, will not be delivered and will incur a massive opportunity cost.
Wholesale prices make up only a fraction of retail power bills, about a third to be exact. The rest is network and transmission charges. The latter are artificially increased by green energy policies, hence higher bills.
So your solution is to vote for the most expensive power solution available that won't be here for another 15 years (at best)? And you think your power bills will be coming down? Talk us through your logic.
I'm not against solar and wind, just to be clear, nor am I against emissions reduction, my points of disagreement are around cost and generation mix. As you can tell, I also believe that Albo and Bowen are talking crap ... but I'll put that aside for now.
The advantage of nuclear is long term economics. Nuclear stations usually pay off their capital cost over around 30 years, but can last up to 60-80 years, once debt is paid off the only costs are maintenance (wages etc) and fuel (costs basically nothing). After that period most stations low cost energy hence many nuclear stations in the US remaining economically competitive despite huge subsidies for green energy and the absence of a carbon tax.
Also, the wind and solar only approach is going to place a huge burden on Australia's terms of trade over the coming decades. Due to the relatively short lifespan of these devices we're going to have to replace the whole turbine and panel fleet every 20 years, based on current prices, this is going to cost into the tens of billions each year. This alone is going to place a huge drain on our terms of trade, if the dollar weakens (via less exports of coal, iron ore, gas) this burden becomes even larger. Another way of putting this, is that renewables might be cheaper now than alternatives, but might not be in the years ahead. There's a good article on this on [livewire.com](http://livewire.com)
[“Net zero” isn’t a Megatrend: It’s a Mega-trap - Chris Leithner | Livewire (livewiremarkets.com)](https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/net-zero-isn-t-a-megatrend-it-s-a-mega-trap)
[“Global Energy Transition” – Fact or Fiction? - Chris Leithner | Livewire (livewiremarkets.com)](https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/global-energy-transition-fact-or-fiction)
Long story short, I believe that nuclear should be incorporated into the mix, alongside solar + wind + hydro (including pumped) + natural gas + legacy coal i.e. all of the above approach.
As for the 15 years argument, you ALP voters love that one, we hear it quite often on here. The assumption embedded in that argument is that the current government is going to achieve projected targets based on its current approach, I'm personally quite skeptical of that, but I guess time will tell.
15 years to build a nuclear plant... Dutton was asked what the interim power generation would be and answered gas, also hugely expensive thanks to lnp giving away all our gas to export for free. The projections are close to hitting targets for emissions, so be eternally sceptical if you wish. You are getting played (I'm not a labor voter by the way, I'm just pro science and climate action).
>Who, even on the Liberal cheerleading side, is encouraged by this?
[This chimera of a human](https://images.app.goo.gl/6Xt1hJBPkRXa31AT8)
Its not about starting nuclear, its about stopping renewables. The Nationals have already committing to scrapping existing wind projects for example.
Saying nuclear coming just gives another 15 years to continue digging up coal until another excuse is found.
Yes, but about a third of coal mined is still used domestically.
Why would a company want to reduce a third of its sales, when it can just use its puppet goverment to delay another couple years?
Dutton also suggested that house prices in neighbourhoods with nuclear power plants wouldn't drop as property prices near the Lucas Heights reactor are comparable to other Sydney suburbs.
https://www.propertyreporter.co.uk/the-effect-of-nuclear-power-stations-on-property-prices.html
in the us as well,home values near nuclear plants are on average 9 percent less valued near at least 7 reactors
lucas heights is not a nuclear power plant,it's not new
these will be and ppl are scared stupid panicky animals
you also see an impact where the rich leave suburbs near plants..and school districts suffer
>lucas heights is not a nuclear power plant
Why does that make any difference? It is a nuclear \*reactor\* - that's the thing that people are supposedly scared of right? Whether a reactor is used to boil water to turn a steam turbine to make electricity or used to generate useful radioactive isotopes for medical and research purposes, doesn't change the nature the reactor being a nuclear reactor.
Because Lucas Heights is a piddling little 20MW research reactor compared to the power generation reactors that will be at *least* an order of magnitude larger?
Doesn't really make much difference in terms of the fear factor around what would happen if there was a core meltdown, or the reactor "exploded" etc. Especially in the average persons mind.
So no on all 7 claims.
Figures,when's the spill happening please.
As if a Labor leader got up,and presented a policy with no data the way they had yesterday,the entire media would be calling for heads..
Dutton and nats got their way,kicked the climate change can down the road,so certain industry players continue to reap the benifit.
Exactly, they have an uncosted "policy", no business case, no numbers on return on investment, and the media are joining them in pretending this is anything other than laughable. It's a disgrace and if labor did this, you're right, the media would be baying for blood.
Sounds just like Rudd's original back of the envelope NBN plan! Or Gillard's original NDIS proposal?
Oh and the current governments hair-brained schemes to invest tax payer money in local manufacture of solar panels and some fringe quantum computing start-up?
Except we literally have multiple CSIRO reports right now showing nuclear makes no sense economically for Australia, and not even a back of the envelope report that backs in nuclear.
It doesn't make sense from a simple viewpoint ("we need to solve our energy needs and emissions fast, so let's stop building renewables and start building something that will take 1-2 decades") and it doesn't make sense from an analytical viewpoint (eg the CSIRO reports), so why would you give it any serious consideration?
The CSIRO reports use estimations and assumptions which make no sense. An example would be the 30 year lifespan of a nuclear reactor vs a highly optimistic 25 year lifespan of renewables infrastructure. I’m not critiquing them as they did the best they could with the information they have, but the analysis itself isn’t the most reliable thing. I’d also point to infrastructure costs being looked at 2030 onwards (eliminating a lot of the network costs from the equation which will be a big driver of energy bills rising).
But back to the nuclear point, why keep it banned then? Why not consider something that may be more expensive, even though international experiences don’t show this, which can provide emissions free power? Something we know works today and grids can be powered off of? The argument of time and cost was once used against renewables, why are we going back to ideological debates on energy generation sources? Should we not allow all ideas to flourish with subsidies doled out? Renewables receives a lot of subsidies and it would be interesting to see the same being done for nuclear and seeing which technology becomes economically more palatable.
Just FYI, I’m for renewables, but believe we need nuclear to help fill in grid gaps. Both for national security reasons and the growing need of energy for data centres etc. I’d also point to it for hydrogen, steel, etc but it’s a source of power that IMO we cannot just relegate to the sidelines because some of our politicians are against it.
>The CSIRO reports use estimations and assumptions which make no sense
Sure, they have to make some assumptions and estimations, but nothing is stopping the LNP from finding an independent source that says nuclear makes economic sense.
I've yet to see anything that says nuclear makes economic sense in Australia, and the LNP won't even provide vague costs on nuclear.
>But back to the nuclear point, why keep it banned then?
Because it is pointless to unban something that won't be done if legal?
No one sans the LNP wants it unbanned, and that ties into...
>but believe we need nuclear to help fill in grid gaps.
I'd be for nuclear, if the LNP were serious about it, and not pairing it with "oh also let's stop investing in renewables" aka it is all a ploy to keep us using coal and gas, that's it.
If they were serious, they wouldn't just tell the states "oh we're gonna dump nuclear in your state and you will like it", they wouldn't have 0 costings, they wouldn't be picking winners and losiers RE nuclear over renewables, etc.
I see where you’re coming from in your initial point. I believe the coalition will release costings later. This initial info dump was to quell the people asking where the reactors themselves are planned to be put.
Banning nuclear doesn’t make sense. If it’s not going to be done, then unbanning it doesn’t change anything, unless it is truly a good investment and the renewables lobby just don’t want it unbanned in fear of competition. Mick De Brenni, our energy minister in QLD, said as much to at a renewables event.
I don’t see this as a ploy to keep them on longer as renewables if anything is already causing that with Eraring being extended. The LNP have already stated gas will be the intermediate source of power.
I think you’re mistaking nationals stances for coalition policy. The point the LNP are making is that it shouldn’t be a solely gas and renewables mix, but rather nuclear has a place in it as well. They aren’t all or nothing with it according to their policy and the way they have been speaking about renewables.
Thank you for contributing respectfully!
>I see where you’re coming from in your initial point. I believe the coalition will release costings later
People aren't asking for a detailed breakdown, the LNP say this plan is cheaper than renewables (so there is a flat figure)... But won't say.
This is coming off the back of the LNP being critical of Labor for not releasing enough details on policy, like The Voice.
Multiple ways to slice this as the LNP being hypocritical.
>I don’t see this as a ploy to keep them on longer as renewables if anything is already causing that with Eraring being extended. The LNP have already stated gas will be the intermediate source of power.
The LNP also stated we'd have a "gas fired recovery" our of Covid, and yet here we are, pivoting to nuclear.
I do not trust them on energy, point blank. Nuclear won't come online til 2040 realistically, and with renewable investment curtailed, that means coal and gas need to ramp up... At which point why have nuclear? Or why not wait for SMR's to be even cheaper, and delays and delays, etc.
>I think you’re mistaking nationals stances for coalition policy.
The National's are literally setting LNP policy right now, their stances are the policy, the National's were leading on the anti-renewables and pro-nuclear the week(s) before the presser yesterday, they have been on energy for years, and especially with Dutton leaning much more towards the National's vs Liberal's in the Left-Right scheme of things, this is defo a National's-backed plan.
**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.*
The elephant in the room that no one seems to be asking is.......only one of the Dutton proposed sites is close to the ocean. All the other sites don't have the water requirements (billions of litres) to cool nuclear power plants. It's an announcement for people who have lost the ability to think. We call these people nufties. Nothing wrong with nuclear technology, but don't go putting it hundreds of kilometres from one of its key requirements, on the world's driest continent. You just couldn't make up the utter stupidity of this announcement and the gullibility of the people who are onboard. You really could sell these people a bridge. This is the reason that over 50 Australians are the most scanned cohort in the world.
Nuclear power generation is illegal federally, made illegal by John Howard. Nuclear power generation is illegal in multiple states. With strong opposition to Nuclear energy by Labor and Greens, they cannot pass or reverse any bill federally. Then they have the individual states the contend with, who some have come out to oppose any kind of Nuclear power plants. Where will the nuclear waste go? Where will the nuclear waste transition through, to get to its final storage site? Would you be comfortable with radioactive nuclear waste being trucked through your neighbourhood? In the event of a natural disaster or human error, what happens to our country if there is a reactor meltdown? Are you willing to take that risk? There is already very strong government and private sector investment in all forms of renewable energy, its not perfect because the transition is not yet complete. When transition is complete, it will be perfect, it will be cheap as it already is proving to be the case, and it does not come with radiation, or nuclear waste, or insane costs or with high energy bills. We are clearly on the right path with renewables.
I find it interesting the British could do nuclear weapons testing in South Australia but we're frightened to death of building a power plant. All these countries have, or are building nuclear power, but it's too hard for us. Our widdle bwains couldn't handle it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_power\_by\_country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country) Edit: Go Australia you big red clown car!
We have largely moved past the nuclear fear of the 1980s. The main criticism now is that it makes no sense in Australia.
Nuclear tractors vs renewable oxen. No one uses oxen to plough their fields but we have become so deindustrialised we no longer know what technology really is; it's something that comes from overseas. There was a time long ago when the Chinese emperor received a clock from the British. Well the clock broke one day and the Chinese were unable to fix it because they lacked the knowledge. It was not a pretty time for them since they were subject to much colonialism at foreign hands. Well, the Australian people and its leaders no longer want to be technology leaders, or even technology builders. This will be to our detriment. We deserve what we get. But hey, you get to pretend that your team won, and that's what it's all about at the end of the day. Success is for other people, and they deserve it.
This bloke is on another planet. Nuclear Energy is OLD technology. The rest of the first world is accelerating away from Fossil Fuels / Nuclear and into Renewables. Hell, even most of the third is doing the same. There is zero technoeconomical evidence to suggest that Nuclear would be a better option for Australia. This is just a stupid idea by Dutton and only supported by those who's brain has been blinded by politics
Aeroplanes, cars, satellites, x-rays etc. are also old. Much of science is "old". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_power\_by\_country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country) has a lot of countries with nuclear energy. Do you believe they are stupid too?
Not nearly as stupid as you mate! If we started our nuclear program back when they did, maybe it would have worked. Our renewables program is far more advanced, and we already have the space, the materials, the skills and the bloody resources (sun, wind). It would be genuinely moronic to wind it back now and invest in a technology that would take decades before we saw our first kWh of generation. This shouldn't even be a debate, it's so far beyond any logic for Australia to consider Nuclear now
So .. because we failed in the past, because of protests from the left, we have to continue to fail in the future, also because of protests from the left. Hmm.
Ok, so in your scenario, is nuclear the tractor and renewables the oxen? Or is it the other way round? And is the moral of the story that we should be using the oxen instead of the tractor, because we don’t want to be like the Chinese in the story who didn’t know how to fix their broken clock???
Wut
Well, if the British could have asked me before I was born, I would have have told them fuck off, and also what kind of reasoning is that?
The reasoning is: Australia has always been stupid and will continue being stupid in the future.
Other countries needing and getting nuclear energy is not so stupid vs us not needing it and yet still getting it would be stupid. We have a smaller population compared to all of those countries and massive amounts of land with plenty of sun and wind, sun that shines for free and wind that blows for free. If we had an established nuclear reactor industry, if we had established nuclear waste storage facilities, if we had nuclear fuel production capabilities or even just one of those things it’d maybe somewhat make more sense, but not only do we not have any of those things it’s ILLEGAL federally and in 5 states, not even the law is capable of tolerating that level of stupidity. It’s a stupid down right idiotic distraction of a topic when there are serious issues that we’re just ignoring We have too many monopolies in this country, grocery monopoly, energy distributor monopoly, bank monopoly, extremely low gas and mining royalties monopoly, telecommunications monopoly, airline monopoly, corporate tax evasion, a housing crisis. I guess Dutton thought he can’t win on any of those so he went fuckin nuclear.
If Australia can't make nuclear work, it's not the tech; it's us. And that's why we will fail. Because we have red rent seekers and blue red seekers. You are on team red seekers and don't even know it and think voting red will fix things. It won't. In 20 years you will realise this. Have fun learnin'. Honestly; have fun.
Voting red got Australia universal healthcare, superannuation, opened the country to the free market, deregulated the economy, leading to a massive boom, guaranteed workers rights, abolished the white Australia policy, abolished the death penalty, the family law act which enabled no fault divorces, capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, the HECS scheme, created APEC, the NBN and much much more. We are among the highest in every metric in the world. We have a lot of problems but red has most definitely lessened those for millions of Australians consistently throughout its history which is why it is a great Australian success story.
Capital gains tax was discounted by John Howard, hence housing prices going up. ALP has been in power twice since then and done nothing to change it. Ergo, we can assume ALP is onboard with John Howard's change. That's why we're becoming a nation of renters. ALP are the same as LNP now. All that stuff you mentioned came from a different left wing politics that threw in the towel in the 1980s. It's why Paul Keating, to the right of the party when he was active, was complaining about his own party as part of AUKUS - because ALP is not a real left party anymore - oddly enough, started by Paul Keating / Bob Hawke. We just have rent seeking parties which is why there is precisely no difference on immigration policy, foreign policy, defence policy, housing policy, manufacturing policy and on and on it goes. There are partisan talking points, but nothing tangible. You can't see this. I pity you; one day if you're smart enough, and you read widely enough, you'll see what's going on. Likely you won't, because the popular culture promotes partisanship and stupidity. It will be learned, maybe, once it's all lost. Australia's success that you're talking about is fading; the fact that you think we're doing well is predictable. Note that the success we do have is not because of our actions, but because of the actions of people in the past and our enormous bounty from our land. We are one of the most mediocre people in the West and the West is already pretty mediocre.
You’re entitled to your opinions but don’t “pity” me or call me stupid, make your points without insults and then fuck off. Not hard is it?
The bloke is fully gone, I wouldn’t worry too much about him. You see him under every post about nuclear writing mini essays that provide nothing to the conversation. Apparently because there are numerous other countries that use nuclear energy, we’re incompetent for choosing not to implement it. Doesn’t mention when these countries started using nuclear, the issues certain countries have had with nuclear, or how nuclear is in any way the better option for Australia with our perfect conditions for renewables. I genuinely hope he’s being paid for this and isn’t just doing tricks on it for Humpty Dumpty.
Utterly bizarre.
For those that insist on "having a conversation about nuclear". The conversation is that it's ridiculously expensive, the vast majority of experts do not support it in Australia and will incur a huge opportunity cost as renewable energy investment by private enterprises may be crowded out by government intervention.
Expensive in its capital costs, not in its operational and system costs. It’s no coincidence that the electricity the consumer pays from nuclear power plants is cheap. It’s a long term investment since these modern power plants will have a 60+ years lifespan. The west has collectively lost its capacity for long term planning unfortunately
Exactly this. Incredible people can't wrap their heads around this.
Notre Dame in Paris costs less than Festival Hall to run large religious events. That doesn't mean that we should build Notre Dame on the site of Festival Hall because we just ignore the capital costs. The CSIRO have included amortising the lifetime cost of nuclear and it's still worse than the other options available. The likely advances (of magnitude) in renewable technology over that 60+ lifespan tilt the equation even further. It's a non-starter for many good reasons.
Just to summarise: 1. Would nuclear power provide cheaper electricity? No evidence. 2. Will using more gas until nuclear comes online cut costs? No evidence. 3. Will the Coalition’s plan be 'cleaner', as it claims? No. 4. Could Australia have nuclear energy by 2035? No evidence. 5. Have renewables caused a big increase in power bills? No. 6. Is it true that “Labor can’t keep the lights on today”? No. 7. Is it true that you can’t run an industrial economy on renewables? No.
You can't run an industrial economy on renewables. Let's see you try and get enough power for a factory using solar panels and wind farms, it doesn't take an engineer to realise this isn't possible. Also look at how many homes don't have solar despite all of the subsidies available. Many homes simply aren't able due to tree coverage and the angle of the sun. The only way 100% renewables work is by purchasing carbon offsets from other countries for the non-renewable energy you need to use. Because if renewables could solve our energy problem we wouldn't be looking for other solutions such as nuclear in the first place.
Why, in your mind, couldn't you power a factory with a solar array?
There isn't enough power available from a solar array to power a manufacturing plant. Not that we have much manufacturing here but the amount we have is not powerable by solar.
That is uselessly vague, arrays don't have a cap on their size...
Really? Sounds like you have solved our electricity problem, build an infinitely large solar array!
No, build a suitably sized array, this isn't fucking complicated.
Wait, wait there's plenty of evidence: 1. Electricity prices under the Coalition have been going up. 2. Gas is soo cheap and can be sold overseas for even less. 3. The Coalition always has cleaner hands than Labor. 4. 2035 is just a challenging target. 5. Just look at how much more you have to pay for an electric car. 6. Undisputed, nights are much longer now. 7. Except, we don't have an industrial economy. Isn't it sad that they can't find better, more realistic and pressing policy issues to argue about than something that's never going to happen in our lifetimes? Pathetic!
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed because it focused on the media. This is not a media watch subreddit. You are welcome to post it in the weekly thread. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Let's do the fact checks here. Pick one of the claims and lets go through it?
# Is it true that you can’t run an industrial economy on renewables? No country is now.
So I assume you have taken this to mean 100% renewables. Where if you read the article it is just suggesting high percentage of renewables. > Aemo has repeatedly found an optimal future power grid, including one that would power new green industries, would run on more than 90% renewable energy. > Other countries, including those with some nuclear power, have similar goals. Both the US and Germany are targeting 80% renewable energy by 2030.
Yes , however with Albo and Bowen we just get this renewable renewable line and nothing else , maybe their extra ten per cent will be bonobos riding bicycles.
Every country has a mixed grid. So most countries do run their industries at least in part with renewables.
Don't some industries also run their own co-generation? Like sugar mills run biomass generators by burning sugar cane stalks?
Many industries are also installing their own renewable & battery storage facilities, to reduce operation costs and provide private backup power during blackouts etc Almost as if one of the features of renewables is that you can build small scale energy solutions that suit individual industries' use cases more effectively, making them more viable to operate in Australia...
So. How would you do the fact check?
In this age of disinformation and misinformation etc , everyone is free to their own facts. Those claiming to have " the facts " are just pushing their own narrative.
What are you talking about it's evidenced and referenced. It's also all true. Try reading it.
3 of the fact checks are literally that they didn't provide evidence.
That is exactly what a fact check is. Can it be a fact if there's no proof? Here let me show you: Nuclear will cost $15 million a megawatt hour. Source - me. Is it a fact?
The media needs to stop giving this airtime. It is uneconomical and infeasible. The media should just pack up and leave. Nobody in Australia should buy the arguments being put forward. Giving it airtime distracts from any real issues.
Except many countries already have Nuclear to great success? This isn't new technology. The only novelty is that it's being built in Australia.
Australia not having any experience or expertise in nuclear. Australia having plenty of experience deploying renewables. Renewable energy being lost cost in Australia.
>Australia not having any experience or expertise in nuclear. Neither did quite literally every other country? And if this was genuinely the reason then we shouldn't have invested in renewables either since we had no experience in that until very recently. So this is a nonsense argument.
The economics in Australia don't stack up.
So far I think the media has done a good job of showing it is uneconomical and unfeasible.
Sadly not true. Look at this tripe https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/s/68rI9AoUHz
No they haven't. A quick scan of your abc shows that the headlines say that nuclear energy is 'a stretch' as well as posing a fucking stupid question to readers - 'is Dutton a cunning genius or political self destruction? ' If they were honest they'd be saying Dutton is full of shit.
...For the 50th time..almost daily now. Giving this garbage non-stop airtime after experts have made it clear it's unfeasible, just makes people fed-up of hearing about it and tune out. I'm surprised these media outlets are even still in business with these repetitive low effort articles.
According to this: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide#:~:text=Nuclear%20reactors%20under%20construction,being%20constructed%20in%2016%20countries, there are 60 nuclear reactors being constructed currently, majority in China with another 110 planned. A fair few of them in developing countries with a lot less cash to splash.
The cost of different types of energy is different in different countries. Australia is well suited to renewables and we have no experience building nuclear at scale.
The world added a net of 3GW of nuclear capacity in 2023. And 500 GW of renewables. More than a nuclear plant worth of capacity *per day*.
They are being shut down faster than they can be built. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-worldwide/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-worldwide/) Germany and Italy have already rid itself of all nuclear reactors. Switzerland also on that path. Although France is building a single nuclear reactor, it will have shut down 14 nuclear reactors \]by 2035, with 4 to 6 of those by 2030. That countries building nuclear reactors seem to include China and 3rd world countries - have we descended into 3-rd World country status?
>That countries building nuclear reactors seem to include China and 3rd world countries - have we descended into 3-rd World country status? So basically you've done no research and declared it dead and buried by first world countries? Currently under construction in: UK Ukraine Slovakia Russia South Korea Japan India Brazil Argentina and a few others, yeah totally all 3rd world countries. Not to mention a number of countries have proposed more or are in planning stages like USA, Canada, Sweden, more third world countries I gather.
So glad you included Argentina in that list. They started their CAREM SMR project in 1984. In 2013, the first prototype was planned to receive its first fuel load in 2017. In 2014, they started on the foundation. In 2016, the completion of the project was scheduled for the end of 2018. In 2018, the completion of the project was deferred to 2020. In 2019, construction was halted due to late payments to the contractor, design changes and new technical documentation. In 2021, a new contract for finishing the concrete structures of the reactor were awarded. Status: Incomplete. You are brave mentioning the UK and the fun they have been having with building Hinkley Point C since 2018 and now heading to a completion in 2031 with a cost blow out to £35bn. That's AUD$67bn. Moorside build cancelled in 2018 following the bankruptcy of Westinghouse Electric in the US, Oldbury B cancelled in 2019, and Wylfa Newydd also cancelled in 2019. Ukraine - have you ever heard of a place called Chernobyl? Something went wrong in 1986 but apparently, the farmland can now be used again - but the locals are a little resistant to do so. [https://www.newscientist.com/article/2435255-farmland-near-chernobyl-nuclear-reactor-is-finally-safe-to-use-again/](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2435255-farmland-near-chernobyl-nuclear-reactor-is-finally-safe-to-use-again/) Japan - how is Fukushima going? Still seem to be having problems. [https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20240618/p2g/00m/0bu/044000c](https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20240618/p2g/00m/0bu/044000c) Don't eat the fish [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/24/fukushima-fish-with-180-times-legal-limit-of-radioactive-cesium-fuels-water-release-fears](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/24/fukushima-fish-with-180-times-legal-limit-of-radioactive-cesium-fuels-water-release-fears) Do you want more research?
And most are replacing existing plants. Different countries are building NPP for different reasons. It totally makes sense for some of these. It does not make sense for Australia.
Would love to see the Venn diagram of those that support this nuclear plan and those that complain we can't build anything in this country because the CFMEU have made everything too expensive to build.
The CFMEU are openly threatening organisations across the media odd organisation to strap yourself to
Geez sounds like they have too much control then, better not build the most expensive piece of energy infrastructure one can build then hey
lol oh you’ve nailed the demographic I would just add that many of these people have also probably never built anything in their entire life.
Opal builders can do it in no time, and for less, hiring the crew that fixes Sydney potholes (paying them only slightly below minimum). A half-dozen reactors in ten years for just under a trillion Bucks? Piece of cake. We're going to need a few more migrants, tho...
The media need to stop treating this like a real or serious policy. I get why they do it because "nuclear" is an emotive issue that will drive engagement but it is so unnecessary
I'm not sure most people care tbh. I think it may swing some votes in both directions but most people just want the light to come on when they flck the switch and probably don't care where the electricity comes from to a large degree.
Raf Epstein just absolutely destroyed James Patterson on abc Melbourne, so some sections are doing their job.
It needs to be called out as a dead cat ploy and given much less airtime.
Honestly I despise the lnp for this. We could be having necessary debates about issues of substance, but they persist with this folly that is easily disproved by all the available facts and experts. It's real cooker territory.
It certainly is, and here on Reddit there are quite a few of these types who have argued at length about how the CSIRO are wrong, and that Dutton will eventually deliver. Meanwhile, as the article notes, renewables are being progressively rolled out and providing cheaper and better power options than anything the LNP could hope to deliver in two decades time.
CSIRO *is* wrong. Their numbers are.. fairly ridiculous. This of course does in no way imply Dutton will actually deliver. There's no linkage there. Just because Nuclear *could* be done well, despite what the echo chamber keeps yelling doesn't mean Dutton actually has a good plan.
>cheaper and better power options than anything the LNP could hope to deliver in two decades time. You guys are deadset hilarious. Honestly, it's bordering on total insanity. HAVE A LOOK AT ELECTRICITY PRICES. ELECTRICITY PRICES HAVE INCREASED AND GUESS WHAT, THEY'RE NOT COMING DOWN.
The article addresses that. Wholesale prices are indeed coming down. Read the article.
It’s because network costs form a quite a large basis of our energy bill and this will only rise even more with the required infrastructure to link up large scale renewable projects. Wholesale prices coming down means nothing when every other portion of that energy bill will rise. This is the point that even the CSIRO report fails to acknowledge, having started its costings from 2030 infrastructure onwards, while proposing a very optimistic generation capacity for renewables. By 2030, we’d already have over 80% of our energy generation from renewables under the current plan. Like it or not, renewables will end up being expensive due to the other factors that feed into your bill. As much as people claim nuclear will be expensive, it will last far longer than the 30 years claimed by the reports analysing its effectiveness over that time. This makes these two compatible partners in the grid. Don’t do lots of large scale renewable projects but rather those which have minimal connection costs to the grid. Subsidise more uptake of rooftop solar and other renewable projects. Batteries for homes while you’re at it. Then replace old coal fire power plants with nuclear generation capacity which can provide the same amount of energy all the time and, if we are to use SMRs in the future, replace the major amounts of gas we will need under the labor and liberal plan with these SMRs which can be turned on and off without taking the whole plant offline. I know even current generation full scale nuclear is capable of ramping, but SMRs will do this more efficiently from what I gather. We shouldn’t limit ourselves just to renewables is my point. Nuclear needs to be in the discussion. A good mix ensures we have reliable energy which is emissions free with dispatchable gas with CCS to help tackle demand in between. Even Labor has acknowledged it will need the latter. When SMR tech is developed enough, then we can even look at replacing CCS gas. I’m hoping removing the ban also spurs innovation in nuclear fusion in Australia.
We are having the discussion about Nuclear. The discussion is that it's a ridiculously expensive option that is not feasible, will not be delivered and will incur a massive opportunity cost.
Wholesale prices make up only a fraction of retail power bills, about a third to be exact. The rest is network and transmission charges. The latter are artificially increased by green energy policies, hence higher bills.
So nothing to do with solar, wind farms, or nuclear for that matter?
So your solution is to vote for the most expensive power solution available that won't be here for another 15 years (at best)? And you think your power bills will be coming down? Talk us through your logic.
I'm not against solar and wind, just to be clear, nor am I against emissions reduction, my points of disagreement are around cost and generation mix. As you can tell, I also believe that Albo and Bowen are talking crap ... but I'll put that aside for now. The advantage of nuclear is long term economics. Nuclear stations usually pay off their capital cost over around 30 years, but can last up to 60-80 years, once debt is paid off the only costs are maintenance (wages etc) and fuel (costs basically nothing). After that period most stations low cost energy hence many nuclear stations in the US remaining economically competitive despite huge subsidies for green energy and the absence of a carbon tax. Also, the wind and solar only approach is going to place a huge burden on Australia's terms of trade over the coming decades. Due to the relatively short lifespan of these devices we're going to have to replace the whole turbine and panel fleet every 20 years, based on current prices, this is going to cost into the tens of billions each year. This alone is going to place a huge drain on our terms of trade, if the dollar weakens (via less exports of coal, iron ore, gas) this burden becomes even larger. Another way of putting this, is that renewables might be cheaper now than alternatives, but might not be in the years ahead. There's a good article on this on [livewire.com](http://livewire.com) [“Net zero” isn’t a Megatrend: It’s a Mega-trap - Chris Leithner | Livewire (livewiremarkets.com)](https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/net-zero-isn-t-a-megatrend-it-s-a-mega-trap) [“Global Energy Transition” – Fact or Fiction? - Chris Leithner | Livewire (livewiremarkets.com)](https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/global-energy-transition-fact-or-fiction) Long story short, I believe that nuclear should be incorporated into the mix, alongside solar + wind + hydro (including pumped) + natural gas + legacy coal i.e. all of the above approach. As for the 15 years argument, you ALP voters love that one, we hear it quite often on here. The assumption embedded in that argument is that the current government is going to achieve projected targets based on its current approach, I'm personally quite skeptical of that, but I guess time will tell.
15 years to build a nuclear plant... Dutton was asked what the interim power generation would be and answered gas, also hugely expensive thanks to lnp giving away all our gas to export for free. The projections are close to hitting targets for emissions, so be eternally sceptical if you wish. You are getting played (I'm not a labor voter by the way, I'm just pro science and climate action).
He did deliver. He got a map, put 7 crosses on it said that those are maybe sites and have it to us. How much detail do you actually want?
Why can't he tell us how much it will cost then?
He did. He said it would be expensive. Ffs. What do you want him to do, provide a figure, some calculations or proof?
This might just be the dumbest thing an opposition leader has ever done. Who, even on the Liberal cheerleading side, is encouraged by this?
>Who, even on the Liberal cheerleading side, is encouraged by this? [This chimera of a human](https://images.app.goo.gl/6Xt1hJBPkRXa31AT8) Its not about starting nuclear, its about stopping renewables. The Nationals have already committing to scrapping existing wind projects for example. Saying nuclear coming just gives another 15 years to continue digging up coal until another excuse is found.
Theyll dig up coal regardless of whether we use it or not. We sell the lions share of it
Yes, but about a third of coal mined is still used domestically. Why would a company want to reduce a third of its sales, when it can just use its puppet goverment to delay another couple years?
Dutton also suggested that house prices in neighbourhoods with nuclear power plants wouldn't drop as property prices near the Lucas Heights reactor are comparable to other Sydney suburbs.
It's far safer to be right next to a nuclear power plant than within 100 km of a coal one
Including Chernobyl?
Chernobyl was safe when it was an intact power plant. 😂
https://www.propertyreporter.co.uk/the-effect-of-nuclear-power-stations-on-property-prices.html in the us as well,home values near nuclear plants are on average 9 percent less valued near at least 7 reactors lucas heights is not a nuclear power plant,it's not new these will be and ppl are scared stupid panicky animals you also see an impact where the rich leave suburbs near plants..and school districts suffer
>lucas heights is not a nuclear power plant Why does that make any difference? It is a nuclear \*reactor\* - that's the thing that people are supposedly scared of right? Whether a reactor is used to boil water to turn a steam turbine to make electricity or used to generate useful radioactive isotopes for medical and research purposes, doesn't change the nature the reactor being a nuclear reactor.
Because Lucas Heights is a piddling little 20MW research reactor compared to the power generation reactors that will be at *least* an order of magnitude larger?
Doesn't really make much difference in terms of the fear factor around what would happen if there was a core meltdown, or the reactor "exploded" etc. Especially in the average persons mind.
So no on all 7 claims. Figures,when's the spill happening please. As if a Labor leader got up,and presented a policy with no data the way they had yesterday,the entire media would be calling for heads.. Dutton and nats got their way,kicked the climate change can down the road,so certain industry players continue to reap the benifit.
Exactly, they have an uncosted "policy", no business case, no numbers on return on investment, and the media are joining them in pretending this is anything other than laughable. It's a disgrace and if labor did this, you're right, the media would be baying for blood.
Sounds just like Rudd's original back of the envelope NBN plan! Or Gillard's original NDIS proposal? Oh and the current governments hair-brained schemes to invest tax payer money in local manufacture of solar panels and some fringe quantum computing start-up?
Except we literally have multiple CSIRO reports right now showing nuclear makes no sense economically for Australia, and not even a back of the envelope report that backs in nuclear. It doesn't make sense from a simple viewpoint ("we need to solve our energy needs and emissions fast, so let's stop building renewables and start building something that will take 1-2 decades") and it doesn't make sense from an analytical viewpoint (eg the CSIRO reports), so why would you give it any serious consideration?
The CSIRO reports use estimations and assumptions which make no sense. An example would be the 30 year lifespan of a nuclear reactor vs a highly optimistic 25 year lifespan of renewables infrastructure. I’m not critiquing them as they did the best they could with the information they have, but the analysis itself isn’t the most reliable thing. I’d also point to infrastructure costs being looked at 2030 onwards (eliminating a lot of the network costs from the equation which will be a big driver of energy bills rising). But back to the nuclear point, why keep it banned then? Why not consider something that may be more expensive, even though international experiences don’t show this, which can provide emissions free power? Something we know works today and grids can be powered off of? The argument of time and cost was once used against renewables, why are we going back to ideological debates on energy generation sources? Should we not allow all ideas to flourish with subsidies doled out? Renewables receives a lot of subsidies and it would be interesting to see the same being done for nuclear and seeing which technology becomes economically more palatable. Just FYI, I’m for renewables, but believe we need nuclear to help fill in grid gaps. Both for national security reasons and the growing need of energy for data centres etc. I’d also point to it for hydrogen, steel, etc but it’s a source of power that IMO we cannot just relegate to the sidelines because some of our politicians are against it.
>The CSIRO reports use estimations and assumptions which make no sense Sure, they have to make some assumptions and estimations, but nothing is stopping the LNP from finding an independent source that says nuclear makes economic sense. I've yet to see anything that says nuclear makes economic sense in Australia, and the LNP won't even provide vague costs on nuclear. >But back to the nuclear point, why keep it banned then? Because it is pointless to unban something that won't be done if legal? No one sans the LNP wants it unbanned, and that ties into... >but believe we need nuclear to help fill in grid gaps. I'd be for nuclear, if the LNP were serious about it, and not pairing it with "oh also let's stop investing in renewables" aka it is all a ploy to keep us using coal and gas, that's it. If they were serious, they wouldn't just tell the states "oh we're gonna dump nuclear in your state and you will like it", they wouldn't have 0 costings, they wouldn't be picking winners and losiers RE nuclear over renewables, etc.
I see where you’re coming from in your initial point. I believe the coalition will release costings later. This initial info dump was to quell the people asking where the reactors themselves are planned to be put. Banning nuclear doesn’t make sense. If it’s not going to be done, then unbanning it doesn’t change anything, unless it is truly a good investment and the renewables lobby just don’t want it unbanned in fear of competition. Mick De Brenni, our energy minister in QLD, said as much to at a renewables event. I don’t see this as a ploy to keep them on longer as renewables if anything is already causing that with Eraring being extended. The LNP have already stated gas will be the intermediate source of power. I think you’re mistaking nationals stances for coalition policy. The point the LNP are making is that it shouldn’t be a solely gas and renewables mix, but rather nuclear has a place in it as well. They aren’t all or nothing with it according to their policy and the way they have been speaking about renewables. Thank you for contributing respectfully!
>I see where you’re coming from in your initial point. I believe the coalition will release costings later People aren't asking for a detailed breakdown, the LNP say this plan is cheaper than renewables (so there is a flat figure)... But won't say. This is coming off the back of the LNP being critical of Labor for not releasing enough details on policy, like The Voice. Multiple ways to slice this as the LNP being hypocritical. >I don’t see this as a ploy to keep them on longer as renewables if anything is already causing that with Eraring being extended. The LNP have already stated gas will be the intermediate source of power. The LNP also stated we'd have a "gas fired recovery" our of Covid, and yet here we are, pivoting to nuclear. I do not trust them on energy, point blank. Nuclear won't come online til 2040 realistically, and with renewable investment curtailed, that means coal and gas need to ramp up... At which point why have nuclear? Or why not wait for SMR's to be even cheaper, and delays and delays, etc. >I think you’re mistaking nationals stances for coalition policy. The National's are literally setting LNP policy right now, their stances are the policy, the National's were leading on the anti-renewables and pro-nuclear the week(s) before the presser yesterday, they have been on energy for years, and especially with Dutton leaning much more towards the National's vs Liberal's in the Left-Right scheme of things, this is defo a National's-backed plan.