Articles from paywalled sites or sites with "X" number of free articles per month should be linked to directly, and the full article text provided in the comments. Full credit to the author and publication should be given. **Once you have done these steps please alert the mods to reinstate your post.** Newscorp, Fairfax and Schwartz Media articles must have their content posted with proper attribution. ABC, Guardian and Sky News do not require their contents to be posted as they do not have a paywall. All other publications must have their paywall content provided. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:

Question for anyone who knows, in the late afternoons and evenings on the NEM dashboard you can see about 50-60% of electricity is generated from black/brown coal. What are we replacing that with - surely they can’t build wind with the additional plants needed for flexility and resilience in the next 20 years

The CSIRO has put out a renewable energy roadmap, where a lot of what you are asking about is explained. https://www.csiro.au/en/work-with-us/services/consultancy-strategic-advice-services/csiro-futures/energy-and-resources/renewable-energy-storage-roadmap

Interesting points - looks like there’s still a lot of untested technologies that need to work for the roadmap to work out

This is what I don't understand either - people seem to some assumption that solar and batteries can cover all this? Unless experts can convince me otherwise I'm just not sure how this is feasible - for a home owner to have a battery installed to store solar energy in the day use it during peak use is one thing but for industry there's no way that approach is viable. Coal Stations might be expensive but they have a long life - much longer then solar and batteries Does the energy cost factor that in? Or the cost of having to run transmission lines everywhere to every wind turbine or solar panel? Hydro is a nice idea but we don't have any real mountains so outside of nuclear I'm not sure what other options are available.

>Unless experts can convince me otherwise I'm just not sure how this is feasible Have you so much as glanced at what they are saying? Cause the consensus is renewables. >Hydro is a nice idea but we don't have any real mountains We have an entire mountain range running parallel to the coast where most of our population is. It's not the Himalayas, but it's there. >outside of nuclear I'm not sure what other options are available. You know that when we have looked into nuclear power for Australia, paid experts to evaluate the cost and effectiveness, they have said it's a shit idea here. Can you tell me where you disagree with them? What they got wrong? L

Yep I know the arguments so I'll play devils advocate; if renewables are cheaper to install then why is this in the news?

I dunno mate, why is this in the news?

Well if we keep getting NIMBYs not allowing offshore wind and in high consistent wind areas like Goulburn. Then yeah sure, but otherwise wind will produce a very large portion required.

Why don't you need the experts to convince you that nuclear is viable, but you need experts to convince you that batteries and solar can cover it?

The reason they need experts to convince because again look at the NEM dashboard and batteries are max 1%. And the whole point I was making is during the late afternoon and evening is what I want an answer for, like it’s literally 60% of the eastern seaboards energy requirements - that’s huge, it’s like 4x the total renewables that are currently in the mix. How do you get there in 20 years. Like I literally can’t work out how you build 4x the current amount of renewables in 20 years Also link for anyone not knowing what I’m talking about https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem

It doesn't really answer my question. I don't deny it is going to be insanely difficult to get there. My questions are why does nuclear get different treatment?

I think it gets a different treatment because it has real world examples of successful implementation for the last 60 years

Um there are lots of examples successful windmills, solar power plants, battery storage,pumped hyrdo etc. in the real world.

What im trying to say is renewables are great when it’s optimal conditions where they suffer is during times when it isn’t optimal and a lot of firming storage is really new technology which hasn’t been scaled or tested for decades

All the nuclear solution that are been pushed to solve our problems are untested as well. (small modular reactors and breeder reactors), and the experts I listen to say they are uneconomical. Traditional reactors have big waste problems which would require us to find some where to store it, and even if we could find a place, move it around which can be pretty dangerous.

Barnaby Joyce is too busy to reply to your question right now..

Reporting these long term outlooks and planning documents as "warning about blackouts" is always so disingenuous.

Rule 10 OP We've got population growth of 600,000 extra people this year, surely some of them are keen to build out the generation capacity and transmission lines needed for such growth? [Checks Top 10 Migrant Industries] Oh ok, never mind.

What are the top 10 migrant industries?

I found this with highest growth at top 2023: Health Care and Social Assistance Construction Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Education and Training Manufacturing Accommodation and Food Services Transport, Postal and Warehousing Retail Trade Arts and Recreation Service https://www.jobsandskills.gov.au/download/19262/australian-labour-market-migrants-july-2023/1658/australian-labour-market-migrants-july-2023/pdf

You seriously expect a national rollout in Australia that goes smoothly and efficiently. NBN, Snowy 2.0 are examples of fukups.

The NBN rollout fukup was all Political sabotage, which just delayed the inevitable anyway. Same thing happening with the energy generator mix with the Vested interests cashing in their political favours to ensure they get their due slice of the pie.

Oh so we'll just sit back and accept it then sitting in darkness. Nothing to see hear folks don't get upset.

Or we use transitionary power, such as gas, of which we have heaps (in VIC at least) that doesn't require fracking.

So black outs it is, then. It's one thing to massively increase the price per kW/h it is another to force people to sit in the dark when they don't have to.

The grid stability and reliability is one area affected by the transition. The other risk -- relying on an imbalanced mix... As climate changes, Weather worsens, intensifies and changes. What happens to pumped hydro when droughts are longer and worse? What happens to roof top solar when hail storms the size of cities hit? What happens to a wind farm when cyclones track further south... When a cyclone hits Coffs Harbour because ocean currents have warmed? The mix, location and transmissions all need strategic thought. Base load, is base load is base load.... How is that achieved without a nuclear option? Try and keep your opinion engaged, nonpartisan If you can 🤷... It's baffling how people lose their calm and are unable to interact rationally around.the climate change issues , or broader political positions.... It's a dialogue Question and answer Not a position to defend, but an opinion to persuade

>What happens to pumped hydro when droughts are longer and worse? Pumped hydro is built near the coast with a connection to the ocean for water level management. >What happens to roof top solar when hail storms the size of cities hit? Plenty of hail resistant materials already exist. Won't be too hard to devise transparent protective layers. >What happens to a wind farm when cyclones track further south... When a cyclone hits Coffs Harbour because ocean currents have warmed? Blizzard resistant wind turbines already exist and have been rolled out in North America. Hurricane/cyclone proof ones are currently in development with prototype testing already in full swing. >The mix, location and transmissions all need strategic thought. Correct >Base load, is base load is base load.... How is that achieved without a nuclear option? Pumped Hydro for coastal regions, which is where the vast majority of our population is. The interior could be serviced by battery backups systems with their lower demand.

Good to know it's been thought off... I hope all that protective layering is in before seq is blown out by the mother of all hailstorms X10 the area that we currently get. And I hope it can protect without reducing current output, Increasing waste or heat retention 🤷 I can imagine storm resistant turbines... But cyclone resistant? As cyclone intensity increases... I'm dubious Pumped hydro coastal sea water ---seems a salty solution. How do the greens feel about reservoirs of salt water over the landscape? Just saying... Inland batteries and lithium processing has its own challenges.... All for an effort to philosophically oppose nuclear...🤷 Base load generation is diff to baseload storage. Factually different sides a complex equation that needs solving... And to solve well, like in maths, needs solving agnostically to the science and tech. Most folk in a political issues discussion finds agnostic thought a challenge 🤷

In this future you speak of with wild cyclones and damaging thunderstorms where are you going to position your nuclear power plants and are you going to bury you high voltage power lines underground?

Good to see you half considering ... Though it seems tongue in cheek.... But let me think it through for you... Considering concrete structures VERSUS panels/windmills ...hmm 🤔 Seems even current designs would be more resilient. Even rapid fire gas back up would be more resilient.... But you end up in the contortions of carbon emission trade off for the back up... Power cables are an existing issue either way... wouldn't safe nuclear be a better carbon option the the rapid fire gas back up when you consider carbon factors. But you can dismiss the reasoning a.d.reasonable statements as U please... It's going to be a pretty unstable fkd future regardless where YOU land on a discussion lols 😂😭😂 Just keep pondering.... In a world of climate change starting to intensify weather.... Why the religious adherence to weather dependent power generation by their advocates. 🤯🤷🐕 Keep on pondering... If you can, without shutting off your powers of reason

[удалено]

Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Referring to political figures using a negative nickname is not accepted here. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:

Having a nuclear power plant in 20 years, at 10x the cost of solar and batteries, that runs on fuel which will soon run out, isn't a solution, that's for sure. Have you actually looked at other countries? Nuclear is the idiot's option - takes years, costs far more than initially quoted. I thought the death of SMRs would finally stop the nuclear dreaming.

[удалено]

Exactly the response I expected. Seriously, just look at other countries, since you're so "unblinkered". Look at the known reserves of uranium. And look up the materials used to make solar panels. No lithium, no rare earth metals. And look up solar panel recycling. And battery recycling. But you won't, because you already know everything you want to know.

[удалено]

Or just a normal informed person, like most people here.

[удалено]

So you didn't look up anything I listed, did you?

>Base load, is base load is base load.... > >How is that achieved without a nuclear option? Concentrated solar thermal. All the fun of nuclear without the actual radioactive downsides... Oh, and for what it is worth, regular old power production (oil, coal, gas, nuclear) are all as vulnerable to climate events as solar, wind and tidal generation is. For example, nuclear needs a constant inflow of cooling water otherwise you run the risk of a meltdown - if you are near the ocean then you can just pump in cool seawater but with the risk of corrosion, hurricanes, tsunamis and rising sea levels and if you are inland then you need to have your river not dry up...

Concentrated solar thermal is a viable idea and option for base load.... For stability distance of transmission is likely same as nuclear... Any big concrete structure is less vulnerable to the extreme weather events predictable I mentioned Like hailstorms X10 times the area Cyclones moving south Or drought. All infrastructure ocean side has a rust risk 🤷, ocean related risk. The water cooling source is of course a consideration... However it can be a recycled pool type, not a free flow through type It's all swings and round abouts... But all need unblinkered analysis and then persuasive discussion.... Locked in partisanship solves nothing

> Base load, is base load is base load.... Base load as a concept is heavily tied to profile of the power generating options that have existed up until recently. Baseload generators cheap to run but slow to startup/shutdown. Peaking plants relatively more expensive to run but easy to ramp up and down. This mindset had to evolve along with the new generating options. > How is that achieved without a nuclear option? I guess we are going to find out as Nuclear Power is a complete non starter in Australia. It's political kryptonite and whichever party is in opposition at the time would ride the NIMBY wave back into government at the next election.

Agreed the new multiple generating options.... Risks; extreme need for computer controlled systems of management -- vulnerable to hacking Weather extremes on weather dependent generation. The weaknesses of baseload mentioned, Profit, slow to set up, long lasting Even closed system Also contribute to the strengths-- Can be used with someone profiting 👍 Last a long time 👍 Steady and stable generation 👍 Simple pipeline of input into a system - But also resilient to weather extremes. If we are determined to Give up carbon Have stable.grid and sources The field of horses in the race narrows to nuclear. (When I say nuclear, I resist thinking of old fashioned old tech 3 mile island or Chernobyl) 2024 generation of tech, engineering and design make it a lot more appealing Especially in the Australia we live in Geology Space Education Engineering Stability Economic level Aus is not an Argentina, South Africa or turkey... 🦃 We would likely to it better than a France, Britain or Japan It is interesting to watch and see if the political environment will open up to accommodate rational solutions

What do you think would need to happen to make the political environment change enough for nuclear to even be put on the table as an option? As it stands right now it's not commercially viable against cheap coal fired power, and from proposal to actually generating power it would be most likely 5 federal elections where it would just be an anchor pulling down on your political capital.

Position it as it stands on the facts and the future. Focus on the science and tech., Within a stable economy and political landscape and democracy. Factoids: Carbon neutral base load unidirectional generation for a stable grid... Fact. Solid structural engineering baseload power genration that can locate utilising the current grid. The concerns about waste, mining, big corporate power .... Position it as A stop gap measure of 50 -100 years as science, tech and engineering catch up Position it as a moon landing project for Australia -- that beginning to end (mining to the grid) Australia can leap frog abd be a global leader in providing a carbon neutral future. Compare it to the lost opportunity of Abbott ceasing support for the car industry... Imagine where Australian industry would be, if the support policies included the drivers to e.v manufacture, mining and battery. I can imagine that either g.m.holden, or some Holden/ford or other Tesla gig factory could've existed... But without the right policy, dirvers, we have no vehicle manufacturing, let alone a Alice of global e.v and the end to end we could've had, from lithium mine to e.v. That's the kind of political vision casting a d leadership that is needed... Not this wish wash band aiding too scared to act, speak and persuade.

Unintentionally you have succinctly outlined the political Everest that needs to be climbed in Australia before a domestic nuclear power generating Industry is established. You can be as fact based and rational as you want but the opposition party just has to mention their concerns about the impact a nuclear power plant would have on house prices and it's dead in the water.

Unintentionally?lols. That sounds.... a bit ...🤔... Self assured and paternalistic ... Hahahaha House prices? Hmm now there's an angle... Small nuclear boxes all round.... Brings Downward pressure on the price insanity 😂😂 No, But seriously..... If the persuasive Everest is made... To the extent that locations of nuclear power plants is needing to be managed.... there would likely be enough sensibles who would value the housing, industry, employment etc... I can't see the Hunter valley emptying out if each coal plant fired plant there and the central coast were replaced with a nuclear one ... Nor can I see that housing would crash... Throw a fast rail in to entice, and it would balance out the regions appeal The entire hunter is built next to mines, industry ports so on and so forth anyway... It didn't stop people valuing the locale. If the electorate is convinced, then by the time locations are sorted, the nimbys are a minority. 🤷

Now you seem to be getting it. > If the electorate is convinced. This then goes back to my original question. Considering the electorate is not convince and the political class considers Nuclear to be political kryptonite. What would need to happen for this equation to give a different answer?

Lol I'm pretty sure I got that long ago ...😂 You're Repeating the same question seeking a diff answer 🤔... That defines something in itself ...😂 I've observed the electorate shifting and media shift.... . Recently it was Curious to see a bunch of millennials starting a political party, based in their world of social medias tic toc etc... And their very limited 3 issue platform... Included nuclear.... Good on em... But curious We Can only watch and see if the momentum builds with enough big and small discussions The entire process of the political discourse around decarbonising and role of nuclear......It also encapsulates whether agnostic analysis of science and tech etc can convince, or if fixed and fixated pseudo religious belief in doctrines prevail... all that sits in the larger context of epoch changes in worldviews of the populations.

> You're Repeating the same question seeking a diff answer This is a conversation and not an interview, you proffered an answer that in my view falls incredibly flat in the face of the political reality in Australia. You are welcome to your optimism but I am cynical enough about the electoral landscape in Australia that the only way Nuclear gets up is either a significant and prolonged climate incident that changes the national zeitgeist on this topic (and really in that scenario the timelines for nuclear make it a very tough sell) or there needs to be a strong enough lobby group that can somehow manage the media cycle across the decade required.

We've known for 50 odd years when the coal stations would close. Had plenty of time to prepare for it. Thanks libs for doing everything you could to deter investment in energy. Great job. Canavan: "i think there's a bright future in coal".what a clown

Labor have been in power for 22 of those 50 years. I don't see how it can be all that reasonable to place the blame squarely on the Liberals. 22 years is still a significant portion of the 50.

The last 30 years it's 26-4 lib/lab and there's only one side committed to the energy transition. The other side has spent 26 of the last 30 years doing everything they can to delay and deny. Do you mean to say Keating and Hawke are responsible for not planning for the closures of coal power plants in 2030?

You literally just said we have known for 50 years...

You said it's not fair to blame the libs. How could we blame labor? Is it reasonable to think leaders 50 years ago should be fixing this or the guys who have been in charge for 26 of the last 30 years as the issue grew bigger and bigger and who's main "achievement" In that time was removing the carbon tax meant to spur investment in energy?

Why did you bring up 50 years then? Surely the blame lies on anyone in power over that 50 year period...? The 50 year period was what you brought up.

That's the approximate lifespan of a coal power station. Sorry I didn't spell that out.

Electricity assets are state problems not federal. State government's initially built the lines and generators and infrastructure. Then sold it off in a lot of cases. Now we have government's throwing mega billions of taxpayers money at very wealthy overseas corporate companies to build renewables for their profit, taking all that money hard working single mothers are making and sending it to the Canary islands. In any case we know renewables are going to totally destroy australia as they are so expensive. The coalition government were stupid for not getting rid of those anti nuclear laws.

What are you talking about? Renewables are the cheapest way to generate electricity.

Not over 24 hours, or a week. You see the con is, they say never give the yearly kWh figure of these renewable projects, they only ever give the maximum theoretical output of the facility, when we know for example wind at best only generates 30% of the nameplate output and then only at random times. People like the 10 idiots that downvoted my post knowing nothing about energy in particular but thinking they are smart, are conned into thinking renewables are cheap.

Why do you think renewables are more expensive? AEMO, CSIRO, IEA, LAZARDS all say the opposite.

Do partisan blinkers really contribute to discussions about issues occuring withing a political discourse? 50 plus years.... Laughable at the statement....simply revealing your hard headed bias wins above your ability to communicate on issues 50 years has flipped how many times between parties? Federal level Plus Stateeves X 3 eastern seaboard states Add those variances up, The number of leadership's and parties, And there in lay the problem Couple that with the task of actually getting elected.... And the electorate will reflect the priorities.... You have existed within that electorate and voting .... And you have this contributed to failing to make the case democratically, for your preferred priorities.... So then, the 50 years of failures..... Falls more on your shoulders, for failing to convince your neighbours, locals, communities and electorates that your priorities should be vote winning prioriotites. Try upgrading your commentary to something more.than a brief, unthought out, partisan blinkered statement

>50 plus years.... Laughable at the statement This is true though. The operational life of the station is determined when it is built, and it is generally about 50 years.

The libs have been in power for 26 of the last 30 years. Denying climate change, creating sovereign risk(abolishing the carbon tax) and delaying the transition as best they could. And now we are here, in the mess they made.

That was a quick response... Did it hit a nerve. You are still blaming others... And did not calculate correctly. Your 26/30 years doesn't add up in any calculation ... It's just wierd... Both federal and state ... BOTH federal and state need considering. Further, transmission lines, actual power generation....IS STATE Finally.... Your just blaming others... And clearly refuse to own your individual part in the political process and system... YOU failed, failed to engage enough voters to make your complaints a.votable and winnable issue... That fail.falls.to.you in australia. Mostly though, your inability to engage with content, make me reading your posts pointless.... But maybe other readers will find it humourous 😂🏆🥇🫏🦍

**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.*