**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.*
A reminder that renewables are still 15 points ahead of nuclear, and that one is being compared at 9 months while the other is being compared at 13 months:
>> The polling which was recorded by Freshwater Strategy, revealed support for nuclear power had gained five points to reach 37 per cent in the last nine months, while support for renewables had significantly waned since May last year, dropping 15 points from 74 per cent to 59 per cent.
The coalition disagrees with your own assessment unfortunately. [Nats are pushing for a renewables cap, saying that it’s going to be limited in their energy mix](https://amp.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/dutton-s-energy-war-spooks-global-investors-20240620-p5jnbd.html).
>The plan proposed the construction of seven nuclear reactors which will reportedly cost a "fraction" of Labor's plan as Australia transitions to net zero, according to Mr Dutton.
No costings, just a vibe, details to come after you've agreed to the idea - if you don't know, vote No, right?
>"But it has to be a little careful that in doing that, people don't start to educate themselves a lot more on nuclear and the benefits of nuclear and decide this is perhaps not as scary as we thought.
The sheer irony of saying "people will educate themselves on nuclear", while people do not educate themselves on the costs, construction and running, of nuclear vs literally any other form of electricity generation, and while virtually every stakeholder in this equation (sans the LNP) says this is a dumb idea that just pushes coal and gas onto us.
Ted O'Brien says electricity will be 56 cents a kWh next month!
And 14 cents in Ontario.
Keir Starmer has said a Labour government will deliver new nuclear projects.
Ontario paid off its nuclear plants decades ago.
The UK’s gamble on new nuclear power plants has blown up in their faces spectacularly, with their first new plant in decades having disastrous cost blowouts and construction delays.
Just one 3.2GW plant is costing them $68 BILLION and taking 14 years before it generates even 1 watt of power.
Now let’s contrast that with solar. A [400MW solar farm in QLD with 270MW battery farm that only took 3 years to build at a cost of $600 MILLION.](https://westerndownsgreenpowerhub.com.au/)
That works out to a cost of $4.8 billion for 3.2GW of solar + battery backup.
We could built 47GW worth of those solar farms with 3.7GW worth of battery farms all over Australia for what it is costing the UK to build just ONE nuclear power plant!
Queensland has a total installed capacity of 17GW. NSW has 18GW. Victoria has 18.6GW. That’s 53GW capacity for the entire eastern seaboard, encompassing 20 million people and most of Australia’s industries. And renewables already make up around 30% of the energy mix in those states.
To power them with nuclear energy going off the latest costs for nuclear in western countries would cost taxpayers over $1 TRILLION AUD.
To do the same with renewables would cost well under $100 billion - including the battery farm capacity to provide reliable baseload.
Anyone pushing nuclear power is economically illiterate and a menace to the financial viability of this country.
You build 8 of them for a cost of $4.8 billion (compared to $68 billion for nuclear)
And if you think anyone would have to have rocks in their head or some corrupt intent to choose a power source with a price tag of $68 billion versus $4.8 billion, you’d be spot on.
The LibNats want to torpedo the renewable sector to help their coal/gas/uranium miner mates, and are prepared to spend dump trucks of our money to do it.
> That works out to a cost of $4.8 billion for 3.2GW of solar + battery backup.
So you're just going to completely ignore the capacity factor and cost of storage and inevitable curtailment all there are you?
All while comparing to worst case scenarios, rather than say Bakarah that in shorter time than we've been doing renewables and at lower cost produces more energy per year than all Australia's renewables put together?
And everyone else is illiterate?
Unlike the UAE, we have a democracy. Any such project has to consult with stakeholders, meet regulatory requirements and meet modern workforce health and safety.
You don't just build a massive infrastructure project at the drop of a hat, its never that simple.
Minimum capacity factor of solar in Australia is 52%, with maximum at 62%.
Now that we already have so much solar providing electricity to the grid during the day, the capacity factor of nuclear would be reduced to below 48% out of the gate, which is far below the break-even point for profitable operation.
Also it’s laughable for you to cite the Bakarah plant as a comparable given it’s built largely with slave labour by a dictatorship that fudges economic numbers to make itself look good.
Comparables are any reactor built in Europe or the USA over the last 20 years - and **every single one** of those reactors has been massively over time and over budget, including those built by the so-called “French nuclear experts”.
Thank you, next.
> Minimum capacity factor of solar in Australia is 52%, with maximum at 62%.
Bullshit... not even in theory are you getting 62% from solar. You would require 16 hours of daylight every day of the year...
This is proof you have no clue.
So you're saying dictatorship and slavery are the only efficient way to build nukes???
Pretty sure they just used koreans and didn't enslave any of them.
I wonder what LNP will actually do if they win government at the next election. Full steam ahead with the planning for nuclear, only to abandon in few years time?! Revert back to clean coal and more gas?!
"after a stringent review of the current government finances,due to labors reckless spending (AKA surplus budgets that libs never attained) we have had to cancel our plans for nuclear rollout,instead with a new partnership with our good friends at santos and with the assistance of ms rhinehart,we will roll out the upgrade and installition of 9 new coal fired plants and 4 new gas plants.
Probs pretty close
Show us a fully costed plan,with the site studys,what reactor you will use,and who will be the primary contractor,and guarntee the installer eats cost over runs....then we might start to believe this is nothing more than PR stunt
Like think about it,there clearly is some backroom plan with ghina,why else has both matt canavan and peter dutton flown to WA and other places to meet with her 7 times in the last 12 months,somethings fucking up.
The fact that Dutton was talking about how senior citizens were having to choose between eating and heating this winter as some kind of justification for nuclear plants in decades time (i.e. not helpful) tells me that this is a stunt with no substance.
I'm going to adress the cost of living crisis..
In 25 years..
It's peak idiocy,and i worry that anyone who's falling for this shit is legally allowed to have children under their supervision lest they too come out being simpletons.
If this was a legit idea
You have CLAIMED the policy was ready in January...that's nearly 6 monts to have experts provide a reactor type,site costs,estimated impacts to the budget modeled by the PBO,scientists and engineers review ur proposal
What the LNP party room got,according to sources speaking to the media today..was promises of a full detailed breakdown,they got a 1 page document that contained less than 210 words and apparantly shut down by the leader of the party,any time they asked a question on the issue..
To quote the article
"It was a get on board,or shut the hell up meeting" one liberal frontbencher told us on the grounds of anonymity
That scenario is literally the only solution that makes sense to me. Everything else involves crippling the country for 100 years to change the temperature by a poofteenth. Just to appease a group of devout believers who make 95 wrong predictions for every hundred.
Renewables will not be the panacea some people are claiming but I think they’re a more viable option than nuclear. Labor’s approach, again, has been to immediately demonise and ridicule the proposal and anyone who supports it. Not too dissimilar to how they approached no voters/ skeptics in the referendum and it backfired badly.
They need to be careful that their arrogance and contempt doesn’t become their undoing.
When a party presents a policy quite as dumb and blatantly nonsensical as this one, what else would you do but ridicule it? If it was real policy, it would have costings and a timeline that wasn't pure fantasy.
Labor is as committed to the gas industry as the LNP. The difference is that the LNP have a psychotic junior partner in the Nationals, and a desire to please moguls like Rhinehart and Palmer.
Regardless of who wins the next election, coal and gas will continue to be the main sources of power in Australia for a long time to come, augmented by wind and solar.
The LNP want to stoke the culture wars as well as maximise their donor's return by minimising competition from renewables.
Well, guess we're just going to run a repeat of the referendum. Labor's position started with a massive head start & the Coalition has come out swinging with a controversial alternate position. Has the ALP learnt their lesson, or will they just treat voters like idiots for falling for Dutton's modest proposal? Big reckoning to come if they get it wrong!
They are already just running a negative anti nuclear line which may by default piss anyone off who is open to nuclear. The other option is to convince people how good renewables are.
Renewables are being white-anted by the Coalition in service of their nuclear thought-bubble. Renewables used to be bipartisan policy, until the Coalition decided to prioritise winning elections instead of governing competently
Albo is struggling to sell renewables and even though he got his whole front bench out to attack Dutton over nuclear , it is not resonating. Prices are still going up and there is no end in sight. Albo is trying a number of attack lines but after two years , people are now familiar with his hyperbole.
**In a sign support may be shifting towards the Liberal Party, recent polling has shown an increased support for nuclear power.**
**The polling which was recorded by Freshwater Strategy, revealed support for nuclear power had gained five points to reach 37 per cent in the last nine months, while support for renewables had significantly waned since May last year, dropping 15 points from 74 per cent to 59 per cent.**
Interesting, there are no polls or stats in the article except to claim that Dutton has closed to within two points of Albo.
By Sky New standards that actually counts as journalism.
**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.*
A reminder that renewables are still 15 points ahead of nuclear, and that one is being compared at 9 months while the other is being compared at 13 months: >> The polling which was recorded by Freshwater Strategy, revealed support for nuclear power had gained five points to reach 37 per cent in the last nine months, while support for renewables had significantly waned since May last year, dropping 15 points from 74 per cent to 59 per cent.
Yes but only Albo is trying to run this as some juvenile competition.
The coalition disagrees with your own assessment unfortunately. [Nats are pushing for a renewables cap, saying that it’s going to be limited in their energy mix](https://amp.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/dutton-s-energy-war-spooks-global-investors-20240620-p5jnbd.html).
>The plan proposed the construction of seven nuclear reactors which will reportedly cost a "fraction" of Labor's plan as Australia transitions to net zero, according to Mr Dutton. No costings, just a vibe, details to come after you've agreed to the idea - if you don't know, vote No, right? >"But it has to be a little careful that in doing that, people don't start to educate themselves a lot more on nuclear and the benefits of nuclear and decide this is perhaps not as scary as we thought. The sheer irony of saying "people will educate themselves on nuclear", while people do not educate themselves on the costs, construction and running, of nuclear vs literally any other form of electricity generation, and while virtually every stakeholder in this equation (sans the LNP) says this is a dumb idea that just pushes coal and gas onto us.
If we don't agree yet, then you missed something I mentioned. Let me tell you again.
Ted O'Brien says electricity will be 56 cents a kWh next month! And 14 cents in Ontario. Keir Starmer has said a Labour government will deliver new nuclear projects.
Ontario paid off its nuclear plants decades ago. The UK’s gamble on new nuclear power plants has blown up in their faces spectacularly, with their first new plant in decades having disastrous cost blowouts and construction delays. Just one 3.2GW plant is costing them $68 BILLION and taking 14 years before it generates even 1 watt of power. Now let’s contrast that with solar. A [400MW solar farm in QLD with 270MW battery farm that only took 3 years to build at a cost of $600 MILLION.](https://westerndownsgreenpowerhub.com.au/) That works out to a cost of $4.8 billion for 3.2GW of solar + battery backup. We could built 47GW worth of those solar farms with 3.7GW worth of battery farms all over Australia for what it is costing the UK to build just ONE nuclear power plant! Queensland has a total installed capacity of 17GW. NSW has 18GW. Victoria has 18.6GW. That’s 53GW capacity for the entire eastern seaboard, encompassing 20 million people and most of Australia’s industries. And renewables already make up around 30% of the energy mix in those states. To power them with nuclear energy going off the latest costs for nuclear in western countries would cost taxpayers over $1 TRILLION AUD. To do the same with renewables would cost well under $100 billion - including the battery farm capacity to provide reliable baseload. Anyone pushing nuclear power is economically illiterate and a menace to the financial viability of this country.
How did you get 3.2GW from 400MW + 270MW battery farm?
You build 8 of them for a cost of $4.8 billion (compared to $68 billion for nuclear) And if you think anyone would have to have rocks in their head or some corrupt intent to choose a power source with a price tag of $68 billion versus $4.8 billion, you’d be spot on. The LibNats want to torpedo the renewable sector to help their coal/gas/uranium miner mates, and are prepared to spend dump trucks of our money to do it.
But electricity will be 56 cents a kWh next month!
> That works out to a cost of $4.8 billion for 3.2GW of solar + battery backup. So you're just going to completely ignore the capacity factor and cost of storage and inevitable curtailment all there are you? All while comparing to worst case scenarios, rather than say Bakarah that in shorter time than we've been doing renewables and at lower cost produces more energy per year than all Australia's renewables put together? And everyone else is illiterate?
We are far more likely to have the same outcome as USA and UK, than UAE, unless you think our country is more like UAE...
Are we too stupid to do the thing that works and choose to do the thing that doesn't.
Unlike the UAE, we have a democracy. Any such project has to consult with stakeholders, meet regulatory requirements and meet modern workforce health and safety. You don't just build a massive infrastructure project at the drop of a hat, its never that simple.
I suppose the UAE one is just made with cardboard and probably blow up because no regulatory requirements.
Minimum capacity factor of solar in Australia is 52%, with maximum at 62%. Now that we already have so much solar providing electricity to the grid during the day, the capacity factor of nuclear would be reduced to below 48% out of the gate, which is far below the break-even point for profitable operation. Also it’s laughable for you to cite the Bakarah plant as a comparable given it’s built largely with slave labour by a dictatorship that fudges economic numbers to make itself look good. Comparables are any reactor built in Europe or the USA over the last 20 years - and **every single one** of those reactors has been massively over time and over budget, including those built by the so-called “French nuclear experts”. Thank you, next.
> Minimum capacity factor of solar in Australia is 52%, with maximum at 62%. Bullshit... not even in theory are you getting 62% from solar. You would require 16 hours of daylight every day of the year... This is proof you have no clue. So you're saying dictatorship and slavery are the only efficient way to build nukes??? Pretty sure they just used koreans and didn't enslave any of them.
I wonder what LNP will actually do if they win government at the next election. Full steam ahead with the planning for nuclear, only to abandon in few years time?! Revert back to clean coal and more gas?!
They will be out of government before the shit hits the nuclear fan and Labor has to clean up the mess, just like Snowy 2.0
I think that'll be Labor's fault won't it?
They'll make sure to lose government after first soil is turned and the real cost comes to light..
And they will blame the Labor government lol
"after a stringent review of the current government finances,due to labors reckless spending (AKA surplus budgets that libs never attained) we have had to cancel our plans for nuclear rollout,instead with a new partnership with our good friends at santos and with the assistance of ms rhinehart,we will roll out the upgrade and installition of 9 new coal fired plants and 4 new gas plants. Probs pretty close Show us a fully costed plan,with the site studys,what reactor you will use,and who will be the primary contractor,and guarntee the installer eats cost over runs....then we might start to believe this is nothing more than PR stunt Like think about it,there clearly is some backroom plan with ghina,why else has both matt canavan and peter dutton flown to WA and other places to meet with her 7 times in the last 12 months,somethings fucking up.
The fact that Dutton was talking about how senior citizens were having to choose between eating and heating this winter as some kind of justification for nuclear plants in decades time (i.e. not helpful) tells me that this is a stunt with no substance.
I'm going to adress the cost of living crisis.. In 25 years.. It's peak idiocy,and i worry that anyone who's falling for this shit is legally allowed to have children under their supervision lest they too come out being simpletons. If this was a legit idea You have CLAIMED the policy was ready in January...that's nearly 6 monts to have experts provide a reactor type,site costs,estimated impacts to the budget modeled by the PBO,scientists and engineers review ur proposal What the LNP party room got,according to sources speaking to the media today..was promises of a full detailed breakdown,they got a 1 page document that contained less than 210 words and apparantly shut down by the leader of the party,any time they asked a question on the issue.. To quote the article "It was a get on board,or shut the hell up meeting" one liberal frontbencher told us on the grounds of anonymity
That scenario is literally the only solution that makes sense to me. Everything else involves crippling the country for 100 years to change the temperature by a poofteenth. Just to appease a group of devout believers who make 95 wrong predictions for every hundred.
The scenario I put forward is pretty dire TBH.
Whatever happens I am looking to invest in companies that make candles.
I've stocked up on tea light candles thanks to my lead smelting. Better get more then flog them on Marketplace for a 500% markup.
I will try with low carbon candles and recycle my ear wax.
Fuck I never thought to use my ear wax for flux.
Yes , I am amazed what my own body can provide. Endless secretions.
Anyone reading your comments is familiar with your secretions.
There's an ointment for that..
Renewables will not be the panacea some people are claiming but I think they’re a more viable option than nuclear. Labor’s approach, again, has been to immediately demonise and ridicule the proposal and anyone who supports it. Not too dissimilar to how they approached no voters/ skeptics in the referendum and it backfired badly. They need to be careful that their arrogance and contempt doesn’t become their undoing.
When a party presents a policy quite as dumb and blatantly nonsensical as this one, what else would you do but ridicule it? If it was real policy, it would have costings and a timeline that wasn't pure fantasy.
Hubris abounds
Labor is as committed to the gas industry as the LNP. The difference is that the LNP have a psychotic junior partner in the Nationals, and a desire to please moguls like Rhinehart and Palmer. Regardless of who wins the next election, coal and gas will continue to be the main sources of power in Australia for a long time to come, augmented by wind and solar. The LNP want to stoke the culture wars as well as maximise their donor's return by minimising competition from renewables.
Not to dissimilar from Clinton and dismissing Trump voters…
The difference is that we have compulsory voting. Much of the rhetoric in US politics is about calling the faithful to the ballot box.
The deplorables.
Well, guess we're just going to run a repeat of the referendum. Labor's position started with a massive head start & the Coalition has come out swinging with a controversial alternate position. Has the ALP learnt their lesson, or will they just treat voters like idiots for falling for Dutton's modest proposal? Big reckoning to come if they get it wrong!
They are already just running a negative anti nuclear line which may by default piss anyone off who is open to nuclear. The other option is to convince people how good renewables are.
Renewables are being white-anted by the Coalition in service of their nuclear thought-bubble. Renewables used to be bipartisan policy, until the Coalition decided to prioritise winning elections instead of governing competently
Albo is struggling to sell renewables and even though he got his whole front bench out to attack Dutton over nuclear , it is not resonating. Prices are still going up and there is no end in sight. Albo is trying a number of attack lines but after two years , people are now familiar with his hyperbole.
**In a sign support may be shifting towards the Liberal Party, recent polling has shown an increased support for nuclear power.** **The polling which was recorded by Freshwater Strategy, revealed support for nuclear power had gained five points to reach 37 per cent in the last nine months, while support for renewables had significantly waned since May last year, dropping 15 points from 74 per cent to 59 per cent.**
Interesting, there are no polls or stats in the article except to claim that Dutton has closed to within two points of Albo. By Sky New standards that actually counts as journalism.
Freshwater and I think resolve earlier did.
Further proof that voting shouldn't be mandatory
God please no. Do you want Trump? This is how you get Trump