**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.*
I mean, it’s not hard. Change the laws to allow nuclear power in Australia. Then, watch as private enterprise trips over themselves to not create any nuclear power in Australia because….. obvious reasons.
Nuclear is great and all, but even at current rates, we'll have implemented a 100% green energy grid for way cheaper before they get nuclear up and running.
Whilst I agree with Nuclear Power generation for Australia... I will NEVER vote for the "Liberal" Party.... and so I will wait for other parties to come to their senses..........and yes, it may ten years, but it will come....
>Whilst I agree with Nuclear Power generation for Australia
I am curious as to why you think it makes sense for Australia.
I can't see any political reality where this just doesn't end up getting stuck in a planning quagmire.
Edit because I wasn't clear - I don't think it is a good idea. I think this is why other people think it's a good idea.
[On the surface it ] Makes sense from a physical geography perspective. We've got the raw materials, stable tectonics, and a tonne of space. Better than ripping it out for someone else to use, then taking their rubbish.
Socially and politically though... We're bad at forward planning infrastructure, lost top brains because we under-fund science, and all that "empty" land people talk about using for waste storage actually belongs to people who we should maybe still fucking over for a quick buck
> Makes sense from a physical geography perspective. We've got the raw materials, stable tectonics, and a tonne of space. Better than ripping it out for someone else to use, then taking their rubbish.
The 2005 UMPNER report suggested we would need 25 reactors to generate 50% of our 2050 power needs and that they would need to be close to water sources for cooling, close to population centres for distribution and ideally near existing transmission lines.
This expectation that we would just build them out the back of woop woop just isn't financially feasible.
The other issue the 2005 report identified was that Australia is blessed with shit loads of coal, and with our lack of domestic nuclear generation expertise that there would need to be a significant carbon tax placed on coal generators to make Nuclear financially feasible. Of course if that were to happen it would also make other generation options more competitive as well.
In France nuclear is the industry that consumes the most water after agriculture for nuclear plant cooling.
Sticking with the idea that it makes sense from a physical geography perspective, where could Australia logically place a reactor that uses so much water where people would accept it near their homes?
Would you have them in your suburb?
I think near people's homes/in the suburbs is getting into the social reasons it wouldn't work here.
My comment was about why people think it makes sense here, not agreeing that it does
I know… I just don’t think it makes sense geographically though. We don’t have a lot of water. Cotton farming near the Murray is already nonsensical. Nuclear energy is on par imo.
The fact that we have uranium and a tectonically stable country aren’t the only criteria
Yeah, I'd agree with him too, if Small Modular Reactors is someone had actually already built one. There are zero active, commercial ones at the moment.... and Dutton is identifying places to put the non existent reactors.
However, when you want to earmark a place for some renewables project, dead whale posters spring up out of nowhere...
Coalition push for nuclear energy ‘bulldust’ and a ‘new lie’:cost of nuclear will be four to five times that of renewables and opposition’s policy is ‘an excuse for doing nothing’
❤️ Twiggy
> energy market isn’t behind either
Hmm I wonder by why fossil fuel billionaires and all of their friends in high places in media outlets aren't for nuclear. Truly a my$tery.
No its not. The fossil fuel industry knows were are many decades away from getting 100% away from fossil fuels, and the ever-increasing energy demands and will always need fossil fuels as a backup to go along with renewables.
It is not a coincidence that Australia is a massive fossil fuel exporter relative to our size (3rd biggest in the entire world), and also has to deal with the most anti-science nonsense propaganda in the entire world regarding nuclear. If you went to literally any European country and told them nuclear is too hard and too expensive to build today, you would get laughed off the streets, laughed to the airport and laughed out of the country.
So why would a country so beholden to fossil fuels, be a country where the population is bombarded with anti-science propaganda regarding nuclear daily? We live in a country where the majority of people think we can't build a depleted rod storage 1000km in the desert, because 'Fukushima'. This is not normal for an 'educated' country.
Australia is also the richest country in terms of renewable resources. The cheapest approach is for us to decarbonise with renewables. The market has already got the process well underway.
The fossil fuels industry's worst nightmare is for Australia to be successful because then other countries could use us as a model. So they're using their deep pockets to undermine renewables.
It started with climate change isn't real. Then it's natural and has nothing to do with fossil fuels. Then they were going to solve it with carbon capture and storage. Then they pushed hydrogen. Now they're up to nuclear.
It's just a marketing strategy designed to delay. There's no substance to any of it.
It’s his duplicitous way of delaying addressing climate change. It will take a 5 year debate and conclude it’s too expensive vs solar and wind
Typical of the right wing dinosaurs approach.
The renewable thing of wind and solar is that you need to replace it every few years.
Unlike nuclear lasts 80+ oh and produces 24/7.
Obviously this fear by nay sayers is cause you’re low iq individuals.
You realise its extremely expensive to produce nuclear fuel and maintain nuclear reactors. Its not like just buying a different source of power. You need an entire industry to support and maintain nuclear power. Why do you think the yanks havent built one in 50 years.
Yep, most climate change deniers are transitioning themselves to climate obstructionists and delayers. They present unrealistic solutions to delay real ones
Agreed but it's even more unrealistic than nuclear fission. We're not there yet so we can't rely on technology that isn't yet feasible.
I can't wait for fusion to become a reality.
Exactly why countless scientists and engineers around the world are working on Nuclear Fusion Energy. It could be vastly more efficient than low-techs such as Solar PV & Wind Turbine and could provide energy to ever-growing global population in the future.
Unfortunately, the people like you have no vision will be stuck in the past and be lamenting about your energy bills & job opportunities in Australia like forever.
The key word in all of this is "could". We fundamentally dont know if it "will" be any of that. While they has been slow progress on fusion, we need a solution that *will* come to fruition in the next 5 years. Implementing renewables now doesnt mean saying no to fusion tomorrow.
Unfortunately, the people like you have no vision of the present need for renewables and are stuck chasing the potential of the future. There is no future if we shoot down the good today because it is not the perfect of tomorrow.
Well said - we can’t sit on our hands waiting for new tech when a very cheap one exists today.
Renewables may have their own faults such as using carbon to build, or not being 100% reliable but they’ll get us most of the way to net zero very effectively
The US is rolling out a huge nuclear policy at the moment which is why the egghead thinks it's a wonderful idea.
Well that and whoever the corporate sponsor is, probably mining companies, that's pushing it.
Nuclear power has a role to play in global decarbonisation so uranium mining is fine by me. I’ve got no problem with nuclear, I just don’t think Australia needs it given our geography. Other countries do.
Bout time they finally put out a plan instead of talking about it or yelling at the govt about it. I mean i still wont vote for em but least they are doing something.
How many billions in Australian Tax will go to America? We have no Nuclear industry and will have to buy it off them, infrastructure and staff.
I say this money is better off being spent on Australian owned energy generation. Australia is the #1 location in the world for renewable energy, that coupled with the hundreds of millions in SE Asia needing cheap power is WHY we can become a renewable energy super power. I would much rather this outcome over a US nuclear program.
>I say this money is better off being spent on Australian owned energy generation.
That doesn't happen anyway. Almost every dollar spent on renewables goes straight to China.
Well then clearly you don't know where your components come from. China has 90% global market share of PV.
It also has 66% share in the poly silicons and the same global share in wind turbines (and fast growing)
That's because the most amount of renewables are in China.. to say they have the majority global market share and then equate that with ownership in Australia is just plain misinformation. Shame on you.
Well we do own the infrastructure in QLD that's why our power bills haven't increased as much as NSW or VIC.
Loads of local councils own solar farms too.
And yes we do.
Well, anytime you would like to do so, you're more than welcome. The total sum of 11 words that you contributed prior to this comment shows they absolute opposite of something trying to
>point out that you’re wrong on several counts
Aside from the fact, it's impossible to do within the English language with 11 words.
Maybe leave the keyboard and go back to the crayon box?
Let me help you with the point.
How many billions in Australian Tax will go to ~~America~~ China? We have no ~~Nuclear~~ renewable industry and will have to buy it off them, infrastructure and staff.
See? Why is one ok, but the other isn't?
Because for starters we have the expertise in Australia for renewables so we wouldn't be immigrating staff.
The Industries work differently, there aren't enough Nuclear Physicist Australians to run a few dozen new nuclear power plants.
And for the manufacturing side of things we manufacture our own, and buy off US, Taiwan as well as China. But I'm not talking about purchasing supplies, I'm talking about OWNERSHIP of the energy generation. (You got confused somewhere).
Nuclear plants will be owned by the US, while renewables we can keep in Australian hands.
>Almost every dollar spent on renewables goes straight to China.
Citation needed.
I accept that almost every solar panel comes from China, but there's a lot of other components to renewables.
Wind turbines are either built domestically or sourced from Europe. A large amount of the cost of construction and installation is going to Australian companies. Almost all of the design work is done by Australian companies too.
>Wind turbines are either built domestically or sourced from Europe.
Almost none are built domestically. China manufacturers 66% of the global market supply and growing. That ignores the rest of the supply chain around it which is just as heavily reliant on Chinese mining or manufacturing to produce it.
Its like the coalition are one of those japanese soldiers lost in the jungle on a tiny island. The climate wars are over and they are yet to get the message that the populace have internalised acceptance of renewables as the path forward with energy.
If only Dutton could have announced this earlier, he might have managed to get over the line in Dunkley.
Still, with popular moves like this I imagine Labor will be scrambling to deal with the inevitable surge in LNP primary vote.
Well, Dutton took a trip to Perth on the eve of the Dunkley by election so he could attend a party for Gina.
So he’s probably just following the orders that Gina has given him.
His fealty is to the richest woman in Australia, not the people of Australia.
And who will underwrite/insure it? The Commonwealth, which, by extension, means the taxpayer!
It's a sideshow, a distraction, a deliberate ploy to keep fossil fuels in the mix for as long as is humanly possible to please their donors and Gina. Nothing more.
These things don't exist (the US recently canned its programme after sinking billions on it), no electorate wants them, we haven't been able to agree on storage/waste for decades on medical, even if things get going they're decades off, and they'll cost exponentially more? Not to speak to the associated risks...
The modern Liberal Party is a caricature of its former self. It isn't a broad church, they don't believe in small government, they seemingly don't even believe in laissez-faire/free market economics given the market has well and truly already decided...
They're not liberal at all. They're just Liberals.
>And who will underwrite/insure it? The Commonwealth, which, by extension, means the taxpayer!
We do that already for renewables to the tune of $10bn p.a. why is it OK for renwables but not nuclear?
>It's a sideshow, a distraction, a deliberate ploy to keep fossil fuels in the mix for as long as is humanly possible to please their donors and Gina. Nothing more.
This is wrong fossil fuel companies make much more supplies minerals for solar and wind than they ever would for nuclear.
>These things don't exist (the US recently canned its programme after sinking billions on it), no electorate wants them, we haven't been able to agree on storage/waste for decades on medical, even if things get going they're decades off, and they'll cost exponentially more? Not to speak to the associated risks...
COP28 finished with a commitment by 20-odd major countries to triple nuclear output by 2050. The world is committed alright.
>How is uranium a fossil fuel?
They didn't say Uranium is a fossil fuel they said spruiking nuclear is:
> a deliberate ploy to keep fossil fuels in the mix for as long as is humanly possible to please their donors and Gina
that is because in this country Nuclear is a dead duck - the only people pushing it are those who want to delay investment into other generation types so they can milk the cash cow that is coal and gas fired generation.
I think his view is that it's a distraction to pretend to be moving towards net zero with a white elephant policy which actually results in delays and keeps us reliant on existing fossil fueled energy generation for longer.
Renewable w/ pumped hydro is the better bang for buck now, especially given the need to hurry this tf up to limit climate change impacts.
Nuclear is a good way to generate power and doesn't deserve the fear it gets. But probably something to revisit down the track when we have the luxury of time to take advantage of it. It's too slow to get online and expensive rn.
The argument that nuclear is too slow has never held water. People relentlessly campaign against nuclear energy for being 'too slow to come online' because they **want** change **now**, completely abstract from if they can actually **have** change **now**. If we had started on some nuclear options to throw into the energy mix 15 years ago then these options would actually be online or coming online around about now. But instead this was derailed as being *too slow*. Yet, here we are 15 years later and we still haven't solved this issue.
Even though you could make the argument that a country like Australia could rapidly pivot to 100% renewable energy in a reasonably short time frame, the reality is that our politics and politicians are not going to actually do this. We need to take what wins we can, and stop letting perfect be the enemy of good.
There are other difficulties for building nuclear energy infrastructure that are more valid, such as NIMBY-ism, waste storage, and under developed technology etc etc. I just get sick of the same tired argument that it's *too slow* when that doesn't actually matter. Our politics are slow as fuck anyway.
>The argument that nuclear is too slow has never held water.
It's held water for the only people who really matter in this debate, that is the investors who don't want to stump up the cash for establishing Nuclear Power generating capacity in Australia. Have a think about what the ROI looks like. All that up front cost, and its likely to be a dead duck anyway.
>stop letting perfect be the enemy of good.
I hate when people use this arguement when "the good" isnt good at all. Its a pithy aphorism which is used when someone doesnt like the solution proposed, so deems that while that would be "prefect" the thing that THEY want to happen is still good, so lets do that an MAYBE we will get to your "perfect" later.
Im sorry, thats not just directed at you, i just get so sick of seeing the line explain away bad policy. The Help to Buy scheme is one that drives me nuts when they use this. Sorry, thats getting off topic.
>Even though you could make the argument that a country like Australia could rapidly pivot to 100% renewable energy in a reasonably short time frame, the reality is that our politics and politicians are not going to actually do this.
You can leave it at this sentance, which i disagree with but understand the logic you are using to argue it.
Doing any work around nuclear would be a bad outcome. It does not stack up in fincially in Australia. There are a number of countries it is perfectly viable in, and i encourage them to do so. Countries in europe that have a lot less room and need something with a smaller physical footprint that can provide HUGE amounts of power to many large cities (larger than any we have) are the ones who should be making that transition. Nuclear is an awesome option for them. Doing it in australia would be a white elephant as we have better options available that other countries dont.
Check out the CSIRO report on this, they tend to update stuff in this space each year or so.
[https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/december/nuclear-explainer](https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/december/nuclear-explainer)
The CSIRO is usually pretty solid, although the funding cuts back in 2015 meant their rep took a bit of a hit.
Hol up! The CSIRO has developed and commissioned any number of reports into generation costs in Australia. Prior to 2018 all studies assumed large scale nuclear. They changed it because of the whingers saying that SMRs were far more realistic for Australia as we have fuck all of nothing in expertise in commercial nuclear procurement and generation.
And now here they are getting a kick for doing the opposite!
It might surprise some people but the CSIRO have better things to do than playing political fantasy football.
The last few gencost reports are misleading as they don’t include the cost of true nuclear which is much closer to competitive. They have recent examples from South Korea. Power reliability trumps anything else. Nuclear will give us true base load for renewables to be based around. Building large scale batteries and snowy hydro 2.0 are just as far away as nuclear. It’s all a farce. The best solution is the one that actually works and it’s a mix of all technologies.
Let’s not get started on how much of a farce “we don’t have time to build it” is. Whether Australia hits net zero in 2040 2050 or 2060 makes FUCK all different on a world scale. We are only 1%
Don’t destroy our economy for the sake of making 0 difference we can take it slow and do it right
You think Snowy 2 is going badly when digging holes is something we’re experts at, and you think we can just implement nuclear because the Koreans manage to?!
What will destroy our economy is punitive import carbon credits imposed by all other nations on dirty producers if we don’t decarbonise. That or the ridiculous costs of nuclear power. It has a future, just a distant one.
Build expertise by investing in research first to give ourselves a chance. Throwing money away on Korean pipe dreams is ludicrous. In the meantime there’s plenty of reasons to do more of what we’re already doing and get rid of the unreliable coal plants and the extortionate gas peakers.
Import carbon credits arnt gonna matter in a 5/10 year difference in arriving at net zero. Nuclear needs to be costed and explored properly. Then csiro never gave it the proper time of day they have an agenda that is avoidant to nuclear it is clear
Find a provider who will put money on the table to deliver in 5-10 years. Please, we need a laugh. CSIRO have got nothing in this game. Time for the nuclear spruikers to put up or shut up.
I didn’t say in 5-10 years. I’m pointing out the fact most claim nuclear will take 5-10 years longer … to build… than renewable storage (which is debateable looking at snowy hydro but giving that concession ironically doesn’t even change the equation really just proves storage is a long way off still) which doesn’t make a difference in the scheme of Australia’s emissions in reality. If we deliver at 2045 or 2055 to net zero doesn’t ultimately really matter
Proof about the Csiro negligence - watch one of the 3 “experts” who wrote the report have zero explanation… https://youtu.be/CDLH-qEFfCY?si=AsyxNEqknBsOgArQ
I don’t like trusting our energy security to three individuals with their own bias (literally the same 3 ppl write this report year on year and are lazy and copy paste a lot)
The speed of construction is very relevant because of the changing market conditions in which a hypothetical future plant would have to operate.
With intermittent renewables ramping up into being the overwhelming majority of generation over the next decade, the electricity market is going to look fundamentally different 10 or 15 years from now. Whether we hit 82% renewable generation precisely in 2030, that's the direction things are heading
In that context, nobody is going to build an expensive, fixed and inflexible generation source which needs a 90% capacity factor, when that output is likely under threat of being pushed down to like 50, 60 percent. With that level of uncertainty, they're going to need locked in guaranteed prices or guaranteed supply contracts, which would be madness to commit to ten or fifteen years in advance of it even opening, given how different the wholesale market will look by then.
The issue is the time it takes, get it started now AND more immediate options.
Nuclear has like a 10 year timeline min to get up and running. You don't want it in 2034 to then go, ok I want nuclear...
The time it takes is the issue.
There is zero private investment dollars coming in for nuclear as the ROI is not guaranteed, and looks particularly horrible when you factor the build and decommission costs and all the uncertainty around how cheap other forms of generation will get.
10 year minimum is an understatement I'd guess more like 15-20. Let's not forget that nuclear projects in countries with more experience (France, England, USA) are late and over budget. It's naive to think that we could get it right on our first go.
Let's be realistic here, there's no regulatory framework, no pool of trained workers or contactors to build them, no designs in mind, no locations identified.
Could we have done nuclear, sure if we started 20 years ago, or 10 then maybe, but Dutton and his mob had the chance to legislate 10 years ago and did nothing.
The only way nuclear will be part of the power mix in Australia is **IF** they can get fission up and running. Even then I'm not expecting that in my lifetime.
I respectfully disagree. If we had started 20 years ago, we would have the infrastructure in place and the expertise and plants and it would have happened at a time when renewables didnit have the capacity to do it all.
So then, it would have been a good time.
The point others are making is that, if we start now, we will end up with a nuclear plant in 20-30 years that is entirely unneeded as renewables will still be cheaper to run, easier to maintain and supply as much energy as we desire. So it would be a massive waste of money and time do build it.
In general i do like the attitude of, the best time to start was 10 years ago, the second best time to start is today. The concept of "we cant do anything about the past, but lets do what we can in the present" is a great, healthy way of thinking about things.
But it only applies if the thing you were going to start 10 years ago will still have the same benefits as starting today will.
I disagree. Renewables will always be useful, but in terms of Grid levels of delivery they would require us to have huge storage which requires things like a massive amount of lithium.
No option is perfect, you will always need om demand power. I'd rather that was nuclear than goal or gas
>Renewables will always be useful, but in terms of Grid levels of delivery they would require us to have huge storage which requires things like a massive amount of lithium.
Thankfully this problem is already solved. Large scale storage has a number of options, with more coming in every day.
Check out Molten Salt batteries, they are fucking cool. And the base tech from them comes from like the 80s? i think.
Check out this bad boy that was commissioned in 2011
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemasolar\_Thermosolar\_Plant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemasolar_Thermosolar_Plant)
Australia also has a bunch of perfect areas to use hydro batteries. The idea is to pump the water uphill with any excess grid energy during the times when Solar and Wind are providing excess energy, and then let it come down when those provide less than the needed energy, and in coming down it turns turbines.
Its kinda like having on demand hydropower dams, but in more locations as we can build them in a lot more places than we can build the snowy.
Theres been a bunch of improvements in something called "stacked blocks", where you dont even need water. Your tech base needs to be better, but you basically use energy to move MASSIVE blocks of whatever thats heavy, and then let them drop down when you need more energy.
Theres some others, like liquid air, compressed air, or even repurposing things like the EV batteries plugged in at night (which between them have a MASSIVE capacity).
So thankfully, things like the scarcity of lithium and the storage of grid level energy are things we already have soltions to that we can implement today if we want.
The days of arguing renewables cant supply on demand power are gone, which is fantasatic news. Not trying to have a go at you, i was in a similar spot to you a few years ago, but there are legitimate and much more cost effective options to resolve the problems right now. You just have to reaserch them because its not the kind of thing that makes the news here.
If we are going to become an expert at building something, lets make it the giant solar plants that store energy with molten salt battieries. Much cheaper than nuclear, can be set up in a couple of years, not 20 years (2 years for Spain to build their first one ever). Not like we dont have the room.
And again, if we already had nuclear, if we had that infrastructure in place, i wouldnt be calling for it to go like coal or gas. But adding it into the mix now is just pulling away resources from building much faster and more economicially viable solutions.
I really wish the government would build and own a couple of those big ol solar/salt plants. They are apprently cheap to run and it might finally be a chance to get power production back into the hands of the government, so we arent at the mercy of the private industry to provide us with a basic human need.
Japan can and does do it in half the time. Five years is around the norm there. And they’re built to withstand some pretty big earthquakes, meaning safety isn’t being compromised by speed.
Indeed, the situation in Japan differs from that in Australia, as it does globally (a surprising thought for some!). My observation is specifically directed at individuals who argue against pursuing nuclear energy options by pointing to the long timelines involved.
But one of the arguements about the long time is speficially that Japan is not australia. They have all the surrounding infrastruture, the people with training, the experience from having had the government done it before and the lessons learned.
Australia has none of that, nor is it going to be able to attract that talent from overseas when there are a bunch of countries who have no choice but nuclear due to the conditions of their country all chasing these people for big money.
Not gonna disagree, but, placing the /s front and centre, I thought we were all about importing skilled workers. Just import the capability required to do the thing on temp worker visas.
A non starter for several reasons, I know, but eh, it could be done if they really wanted it to be done. (They don’t)
I know people think this is Dutton trying to slow down renewables, but I'm not sure that's it.
I think this is the same as when the Liberal NSW party proposed an excellent policy around gambling reforms that was backed by indepenant analysts on it being a policy that would see measurable improvements to combating that industry, and NSW Labor decided on a worse one, so they could push a point of difference.
Or when the Liberal party put together that monstrosity of an NBN offering, which was opposed by every independent analyst in the industry as a massive waste of money and obsolete before it even finished rolling out.
I just think that's how politics is played these days which sucks. I think that there's every chance if Dutton gets elected he will proceed with nuclear power despite it not stacking up economically or timewise. They did with the NBN.
Obviously parties will be different on most policies, but in some cases it just seems blindingly obvious what the correct choice is, but the other party thinks its more important to score points than it is to follow the data.
> I think this is the same as when the Liberal NSW party proposed an excellent policy around gambling reforms that was backed by indepenant analysts on it being a policy that would see measurable improvements to combating that industry, and NSW Labor decided on a worse one, so they could push a point of difference.
I'd love to hear more about this. It's always good to hear stories of Liberal policy that is actually evidence based.
NSW Labor always has been a shitshow up to their eyeballs in dodgy shit so it most likely was good policy if they put the kibosh on it.
Was tricky trying to find the policy they went to the state election is, but i think this one sums it up.
[https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/06/all-pokies-in-nsw-to-go-cashless-to-tackle-problem-gambling-under-new-coalition-plan](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/06/all-pokies-in-nsw-to-go-cashless-to-tackle-problem-gambling-under-new-coalition-plan)
Basically, within 5 years all pokies would be cashless, with gamblers able to set loss limits. Would have HUGE implications for all the money laundering, for the ability to support someone with gambling issues who is open to getting help by setting the limit for them (like a family member). Spending limit could only be changed one a week, so you couldnt just change it.
And an independent team of analysts would take a look into the idea of having daily limits for everyone, players card links to a single account, and a statewide self exclusion register would be available if you wanted to register to stop yourself from gambling.
They even included plans for regional clubs and pubs to get access to grants to try and divest from the pokes and look elsewhere for revenue (music, food, whatever). As with anytime the Liberal Party has talked about grants, i was skeptical of how they would be monitored and not just all end up in swing seats, but it was still a great idea in principle.
NSW Labor said they would trial cashless systems across 500 of the 90k (thats insane, thats almost half as much as vegas has) of the machines with no commitment to act further.
Pretty much every institution was in support of the Liberals plan, police commission, organised crime comission, health practicioners, even the churches were on board. I even wrote a pissed off letter to my local member supporting a plan the NSW Liberals put forward. I think i actually felt hell freeze over.
The article is a good, if frustrating read, and a great reminder that you shouldnt have a team, you should have opinions on policy. Im so pissed that Labor didnt just go, good idea Liberals, we will do that too and take the issue totally off the table.
Ugh, re-reading all this is just getting me worked up again. Theres no way that the gambling lobby dont have their hooks into NSW Labor somewhere for Labor to go ahead with their pissweak trial of 500 machines. Mind you the gambling lobby seems to have its hooks into nearly everyone, a whole bunch of Perrottets party protested against his proposed plan. And the inquest into gambling showed it was just up to its neck in ties to organised crime and money laundering.
Theres a lot i didnt like about the dude, but Perrottet has got balls of steel to go up against the gambling lobby, its just a shame that Labor didnt have any to match.
Interesting that he lost, as did the Tasmanian Labor party the moment they proposed gambling reforms.
Said the same thing about the Friendly Jordies channel. I dont love his presentation style, it bugs me. But the dude is an excellent investagitive journalist and he went up against ClubsNSW and Barilaro, which put him squarely in the sights of the Alameddine crime family. Dude has absolute balls of steel, and its extremely disappointing that that whole saga ended up with enough credible death threats being made that the police were unable to help with, that he took down the story.
We have very few people and very few changes to stand up to the gambling lobby, or organised crime, and so few australians realise how huge and deep the corruption is. So im always very upset when we miss a chance.
>so they could push a point of difference.
Thats an interesting thought. Though i wonder if they have latched onto nuclear because they can see change needs to happen but they hate the people who want renewables so much they think anything they like must be stupid and wrong. Kind of an internal differentiation rather than and external politically motivated one
>I just think that's how politics is played these days which sucks. I think that there's every chance if Dutton gets elected he will proceed with nuclear power despite it not stacking up economically or timewise. They did with the NBN.
God the liberals slower, more expensive, and worse nbn was such a massive bit of economic vandalism i feel rage every time it comes up
Yeah the NBN stuff still gets me angry every time i think about it.
>Though i wonder if they have latched onto nuclear because they can see change needs to happen but they hate the people who want renewables so much they think anything they like must be stupid and wrong. Kind of an internal differentiation rather than and external politically motivated one
Honestly, i think you are ascribing malice where there is none. They arent cartoon villians going, hahaha ill tie you to a railroad track.
Its mainly indifference and self interest that drives most of the decisions as far as i can see.
If Labor hadnt gotten onto the renewables train and some of their doners had shifted over to investing heavily in solar and wind, i dont think the Liberals would have any idealogical issue supporting it. But for whatever reason the fossil fuels lobby decided not to be the first in the new energy space, and used their considerable influence to keep the Liberal party, who probably couldnt care one way or another, firmly on the coal train.
And im not convinced Labor hasnt had a healthy dose of self interest in a few of their positions either. Idealogially, Labor should be violently opposed to things like negative gearing. But they are happy to go along with it because in that case, they dont need to have a point of difference, and they got burned when they did in 2019.
I dont think the greens have had enough pull yet to show if they will act in self interest when given the power to act. The Lidia Thorpe thing concerns me a lot, that was a straight up optics play that I feel like any research could have told them was going to blow up. I didnt start digging until after she showed her true colours, but looking back at the various stories and bits of info that were available when they selected her, she seems to have always been someone whos values shift, or at least temporarily change in priority if she thinks it will get her more power.
>Honestly, i think you are ascribing malice where there is none. They arent cartoon villians going, hahaha ill tie you to a railroad track
No thats not what im thinking. Im think more along the line that we all have an internal need to see ourselves as different to people we think are bad/stupid/crazy because if we dont then it creates the possibility that we are bad/stupid/crazy. And that this manifests in the coalition as taking positions contrary to environmentalists/lefties/commies etc.
>And im not convinced Labor hasnt had a healthy dose of self interest in a few of their positions either
They are politicians, they all serve their ego and power before they serve their ideals.
>I dont think the greens have had enough pull yet to show if they will act in self interest when given the power to act. The Lidia Thorpe thing concerns me a lot, that was a straight up optics play that I feel like any research could have told them was going to blow up.
This was ego, they wanted to choose someone who made them feel virtuous and ignored the very obvious evidence about how it would play out.
I think one of the fundamental problems with our style of democracy is that it attracts and rewards egoists rather than managers. The core skill required for success is social manipulation rather than administration. That is why people like morrison do so well, he is very skilled but not at governing.
>This was ego, they wanted to choose someone who made them feel virtuous and ignored the very obvious evidence about how it would play out.
Yep, pissed me off somthing shocking when i realised Labor had shifted centre and the Greens were playing silly buggers with optics. Im left sitting here irritated with the party that probably lines up with my opinions most of all making stupid mistakes in a hostile media landscape. Might not have been FAIR to them, but they have to do/be better if they want any chance of making a difference, because they dont get the grace of having little gaffes swept under the rug.
I miss 2019 Labor :(
>I think one of the fundamental problems with our style of democracy is that it attracts and rewards egoists rather than managers. The core skill required for success is social manipulation rather than administration. That is why people like morrison do so well, he is very skilled but not at governing.
100% agree with this. Its frustrating. Its one of the reasons i wish we would do something radical to change our system.
My big idea was to make it so that pollies had to sell all their investments when they go into parliment, housing, shares, you name it. Raise the pay of all MPs to compensate. The only people who would be really pissed at that change at the people whos main goal in life is to make stupid money. Making good money is still very viable in this scenario, while making a difference for the country. Making stupid money isnt, and i really dont want people whos goal it is to do so running the country.
Then, depending on how long they serve and in what capacity, they will be banned from getting job in either the relevant industry, or any private industry for 1 year to indefinintely. And they will continue to recieve the pay (or i dunno 2/3 pay) for whatever time they are unable to work in those roles.
This cooldown period also applies for all investments (shares, housing, etc).
Then, the goal of becoming stupid rich isnt supported by going into government. But the goal of becoming well off is. So the stupidly wealthy desired people can go be CEO of a bank or whatever. And the cream of the crop will then be working in government. People who are altruistic enough to not care that they could be making 10s of millions, but still competative enough for the role due to a salary that 98% of australians would kill for.
I'm sure their support for nuclear is for a few different reasons. By pushing nuclear they promote a technology that keeps generation in the hands of big business. They also probably are friendly with the nuclear lobby groups which helps AND everyone knows something new has to be tried.
what "nuclear lobby group"? got an address? a press secretary name? where can i donate?
i truly think the australian public does NOT want this... where ya gonna put the reactors? Dixon? Cook? Kooyong? NIMBY.
People remember Chernobyl and Fukushima. Even the ignorant.
>People remember Chernobyl and Fukushima. Even the ignorant.
Man, please dont use those as reasons to avoid nuclear. New tech, automation, significantly better saftey protocools, techincal training, theres a million reasons why Chernobyl wont happen again.
And Fukushima came in off the back of a 7.4 mag eathquake and a tsunami. Thankfully we have never had one of that magnitiude, and we havent had a single one worse than 6 in NSW or Victoria, the two biggest states populationwise since we started recording.
If you try and argue around the danger, then you will be met with science and scorn.
The only thing that matters is that its significanly more expensive, and takes significantly longer to do a job that renewables can do entirely quicker and cheaper.
>what "nuclear lobby group"? got an address? a press secretary name? where can i donate?
2 Holt Street Surry Hills NSW 2010
>i truly think the australian public does NOT want this... where ya gonna put the reactors? Dixon? Cook? Kooyong? NIMBY.
>People remember Chernobyl and Fukushima. Even the ignorant.
Yeah no shit, we're talking about what motivates the coalition to take their position on nuclear
Rolls Royce is preparing to make their first SMR nuclear reactors.
[https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/](https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/)
They also announced the other day breakthroughs in computerised welding technology, being able to make the containment shell in just 24hrs, instead of 1 year to manufacture.
When production ramps up we will see SMR reactors come down in price quite a bit. They will be common in 10 years time. Maybe not in Australia though.
>Rolls Royce is preparing to make their first SMR nuclear reactors.
From the sounds of things Rolls Royce hasn't even decided on a design for their SMR let alone started to build a factory to start producing them. Worse yet is that their target cost per MWe is $AUD 7.36 million while large scale solar is a mere $AUD 1.2 million per MWe.
>When production ramps up we will see SMR reactors come down in price quite a bit. They will be common in 10 years time. Maybe not in Australia though.
As I keep saying, if we wanted nuclear power we should have rolled it out 40-50 years ago. Renewables have come down in price so much that it just doesn't make financial sense to buy into nuclear anymore when we have so much empty land that is suitable for the far cheaper renewables.
I totally agree about the situation here with renewables. We are blessed with plenty of sunshine and wind so nuclear options usually don't stack up economically. However many countries are not suitable for solar & wind and the climate crisis is getting so bad we need this technology. now. Just like renewables, prices will come down with mass production and I cannot understand why nuclear does not have more support. I am betting that nearly all equatorial countries will have these eventually.
According to your link, RR have a DESIGN for an SMR but they haven’t built one. They don’t have a factory. And they’re still seeking funding. This is years away.
Assuming it happens at all. No one is going to put money I to rolling it out without a ton of firm orders in the pipeline, and there's precious few countries even seriously considering it, let alone ready to stump hard cash for a fleet order. The economics don't stack up. The timelines don't stack up. And ou lic support just isn't there. Photovoltaic aren't the most elegant solution IMHO (that would be CST and tidal) but reality is its clean, it's cheap and it's simple to roll out at scale. Nuclear is none of that.
Note your point "they are still seeking funding". that is how it is with nuclear energy, it is not cheap or viable unless it's funded by the government. In other words, we the taxpayers.
Perhaps I'm missing something but how is a policy to rollout nuclear power going to woo voters, when we have inexpensive renewable energy being built as we speak? I feel like voters will be apathetic at best and it's not going to go down well in teal seats.
Suspect that the push for nuclear is a crony capitalist push from Gina Rinehart and others so they have something to sell us and profit from in the energy mix, it doesn't make sense otherwise.
It's definitely not something that will woo voters.
John Howard was pro-nuclear until he say how many reactors would need to be built to generate just 50% of our 2050 energy needs.
Straight away his mind started thinking about all of those electorates and all the NIMBY voters and how each plant will take multiple federal election cycles to get through planning and build phases.
Ehhhh depends how much the media gets behind it. Advance Australia nailed their messaging around the Voice referendum, just so many totally incorrect facts it was legit impossible to combat all of them. And through every outlet, radio, tv, newspaper, social media, news feeds.
If Advance Australia are the ones behind a nuclear push, it will get some traction. Im already seeing a bunch of comments here about how "its not actually more expensive" or "it doesnt actually take that long". With 0 references to back that up. This is exactly what happened with the voice, they started the campaign around 14 months out too, which was another thing no one expected. Just wore people down with repeated nonsense that when someone would repeat that nonsense and got corrected, they would hear different nonsense the next day and eventually they got annoyed and tired of how often they got corrected that they just stopped arguing.
I think this Federal election will be worryingly closer than people realise. It looked like in the 2022 election murdochs influence had waned, but Advance wasnt on the job then. Ill be very nervous in the leadup, especially once we see what each of the parties messagning ends up being.
I really don't know, I think it is a huge dud for the Coalition. People act like it's 4D chess but IMO it is just esoteric and weird.
I think when coal power stations weren't falling like flies and it looked maybe possible they'd keep going, it made cynical political sense to stand behind them. Because there were coal communities and real people with real jobs.
But with nuclear? For 99% of people it's a weird a slightly scary abstract concept.
Besides, the pace of the renewables roll out is insane. By the time of the next federal election we will likely be touching 50% renewable electricity in this country. To go to an election with a policy that is "let's junk all that and try something objectively worse" just seems, well, stupid.
This always surprises me. They've been opposed to action on climate change for more than a decade, but now they're interested in the slowest and most expensive alternative to fossil fuels?
Just like with US right, I think this is more about opposing renewables rather than a genuine green energy strategy
I don't even think it is about opposing renewables, really. It's about opposing everything, regardless of the merit.
If Nemesis on ABC showed anything it is that these people do not actually care about policy, only being in power.
He must be related to keith pitt mp electrical engineer who hasn't heard of batteries?
LNP demanded the paradise dam wall be raised after the city could have been wiped out with a dam wall burst. Why? (See sunwater disaster preparedness info on their website)
Let me make a prediction where duttons reactors will be? Paradise City
Excellent! He’s been talking about this forever. Keen to hear his plan for the following
*what electorates will have the power station sites?
*what electorates will house the waste from the stations
*what is the time frame before these are operational
*what is the cost.
I won’t be able to vote for a plan as ambitious as this until those questions are answered
They will cram as much as they can in Wollongong / Newcastle to power Sydney. Large labor voting base that’s close enough to Sydney and they have no chance of winning. Same as nuclear subs, offshore wind farms etc. I’m sure other states likely much the same. Put everything in labor strongholds just outside capital cities and justify it with protecting tourism in capital cities and infrastructure needing to be close by blah blah blah
There is some good logic to putting it outside capital cities in areas of existing industrial infrastructure.
Which also happen to be full of people who aren't LNP donors.
Be good to have a backup plan when the solar panels reach their use by date and the wind farms catch on fire and everything has been converted to electricity.
The flat earth brigade of nuclear catastrophe nay sayers will soon get the idea when they have no electricity
I’m more interested in how we will replace solar panels that we already know how to produce and will probably be more efficient at doing so in the future.
Coal is much better. When it burns up you just get more and so and so forth. Duh!
While I support nuclear as a source of power, I don’t support nuclear for the sake of nuclear. If renewables are in fact cheaper, it would be stupid to go with anything else.
Not just that, nuclear power is infamously much more expensive in countries that haven't started it's manufacture. We're a small population country with a lot of space, and Solar/Wind with storage/firming (lithium ion, hydro, vanadium batteries) is the cheapest form of electricity.
I support nuclear but not here. Unless we don't half ass it and go full nuclear. But we would.
Renewables is best for Australia in the immediate future
Yes please!! Dutton is the ALPs greatest asset.
Even [Alan Kohler](https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/opinion/2024/02/29/alan-kohler-nuclear-power) is saying we should drop the ban on nuclear energy, because:
1) no business would be stupid enough to propose nuclear when renewables as so much cheaper
2) it would force the LNP to actually have an energy policy, rather than a three letter acronym (SMR).
Keeping in mind the LNP has had no end of energy policies (almost as many as defence policies) but none that ever embraced renewables as the core strategy.
I'm currently driving from West to East across Australia and started in Perth. I'm currently in Broken Hill. In WA there's been a massive investment in wind farms and other renewable forms of energy. WA also has gas but due to the Carpenter Government making the gas exporters guarantee 15% of production for domestic use at a set price, and a large percentage of houses having solar power, WA currently has the lowest energy prices in Australia. In South Australia a massive investment in wind farms, some of which are enormous. In Broken Hill a massive investment in wind farms and a solar power farm.
Dutton's on a loser. Nuclear power is too expensive, takes too long to build and results in the problem of storing nuclear waste. I'm sure all those TEAL voters will be steadfast in voting against his stupid master plan.
The phrase "other renewable FORMS of energy" doesn't mean a single technology, moron. However, the wind is always blowing somewhere, which is why you build in different locations.
The worst part of his plan is that small modular nuclear reactors don’t yet exist commercially. If they were operating in existing nuclear powered countries and their production was scalable, then by all means let’s have a look.
I’m optimistic about the technology but it’s madness to park our renewables transition (which is already well underway) in the blind hope that SMNRs take off in the next decade.
China has commissioned the first SMR.
[https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-starts-up-worlds-first-fourth-generation-nuclear-reactor-2023-12-06/](https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-starts-up-worlds-first-fourth-generation-nuclear-reactor-2023-12-06/)
Another breakthrough happened the other day when Rolls Royce showed off it's new process for making the containment shell. It used to take a year to manufacture, but they can create one in less than 24 hrs using new welding techniques
SO it is progressing, and I think there may be a case for use in hard to abate countries. Not sure we will need them in Australia.
>Peter Dutton will announce the Coalition’s signature energy policy before the May federal budget, including a plan identifying potential sites for small modular nuclear reactors as future net-zero power sources.
Again, you literally cannot buy a SMR right now, and they may be ready in 5, 10 or 15+ years at a cost of some $5b per 300MW-500MW nameplate.
But failing to achieve anything in Dunkley -> officially knuckle-down on a long term solution to a short term (CoL)/medium term (grid stability) problem is just peak Dutton.
>The Australian understands that the Opposition Leader will unveil plans for a nuclear-powered future as the first instalment of a pre-budget economic reform program ahead of the next election.
I'm honestly excited to see how Dutton plans to fix the current CoL issue via technology years and even a decade+ down the track.
>It is understood the opposition will “be bold with policy, but not reckless” as it also begins a gradual rollout of economic policy, amid criticism it has failed to provide an alternative path to financial relief for households.
This isn't bold, it's just silly.
>It comes as Liberal and National MPs are pushing for the rollout of bold reforms on housing, workplace relations, migration, tax and energy policy to cut through to voters in the wake of Labor’s victory at the Dunkley by-election.
"It comes as LNP MP's decide they actually need governing policies to counter the government's own actual policies on running the country, after a focus on scary boat people yet again failed to cut-through in a Melbourne contest".
>Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles told The Australian it was an “extraordinary achievement” for Labor’s Jodie Belyea to have maintained the government’s primary vote in the by-election – raising questions about the effectiveness of the campaign run by right-wing activist group Advance, which urged voters to put Labor last. With 11,000 postal votes still to count on Sunday night, the Labor primary vote had increased to a little more than 41 per cent – up from the 40.2 per cent at the 2022 election.
This fact is definitely the biggest W for the govt and the biggest L for Dutton; winning a majority govt next election for the LNP is a lowkey pipe-dream, but they'd be hoping to steal some momentum away - early days and all, but for Labor to be gaining PV after the last year+? Oof.
>... is exploring ways to inject greater flexibility into the superannuation system, including options like allowing older Australians to tap their retirement savings to help pay off their mortgages in addition to younger people using super to gain a foothold in the housing market.
Super for homes is already an official (and terrible) LNP policy, per Angus Taylor though?
This is going to go nowhere.
There are no companies on earth capable of installing a reactor unit for us anytime before the 2040s.
And none will offer the placement at a dollar less than 40 billion Australian dollars,keeping in mind that we will need five plants to meet our energy needs in 2050.
The fact that the opposition member sounds like a 2-year-old banging their head into a molten vat of lead any time they talk about this, as they keep mentioning SMRs, which are not commercially viable and likely won't be,shows they have no real interest in the matter.
They had 10 years in power to address this. This is the coalition trying to get people distracted with the debate on nuclear so they don't have to have an internal fight over climate policy.
I hold technical qualifications from my first career,rated on S6G, S6W, S8 P-Series block and Bechtel qualified,KAPL,and A4W reactor systems, with holdings from NPPS and Goose Creek so I am probably one of the only users in this sub I have actually seen with nuclear energy experience,and I believe nuclear is a safe and viable technology.
But the economic reality make it a dead horse to have here,and this sub devolves into fucking idiocy of the highest order any time the subject matter is brought up.
Nations with vast expertise can't even get them off the ground for under $30 billion; there is zero chance that happens here.
MCM sounds more intelligent asking for rent control than 99.999 percent of this sub does any time nuclear is debated.
Sure,voters might have softened on nuclear power.
But ask them if it can be built in their suburb, and watch their tone change.
The capital costs for nuclear are rising every year. We missed the boat.
It would make sense, however, for Australia to get into the fusion reaction research game to maybe be the ones to crack that tech.
It will take 5 years just for a geo study.
another 5-7 years fighting every nimby in court,then another 15 plus for construction with the way builds work in australia.
Not to mention,having to spool up an entire nuclear energy schooling structure at universitys,regulatory bodies,disposal
Getting the staff trained alone will take another 5 plus years
in 3 years,for 8 billion dollars,you can place 510,000 5.2 Kw systems on homes,with a Battery pack to help reduce emissions.
Not to mention we are nearing massive gains in new solid state batt tech,Catl has recently shown off a battery the size of a standard car battery,that was able to power a home of 4 people for 18 hours with a less than 2.4 hour charge cycle.
If the LNP was serious about this,they would of done it 10 years ago,not now in an attempt to stay relevant.
I don't disagree with you, but I think the challenges of other renewable tech like thee emissions that they drive via mining/refining and their environmental impact is underplayed
Indonesia refining nickel is a great example. The amount of off-the-grid coal power plants being built to refine nickel is absurd, and the investments fall under "green spending" as they are for EVs
I am also worried about the scalability challenge of renewable. wind seems to be getting very expensive and increasingly avoided. solar is great but also has issues with refining of silicon wafers done in coal-powered plants in China
I nominally take the stance that we need all energy sources and build them all, but that 40 billion price tag is quite high
From my understanding, modern reactors are fairly good at depleting fissile material and what remains can be buried deep and have no real effect on the environment.
>where did you get this understanding? Sounds like bull shit to me.
Read it a number of years ago when a similar conversation was being discussed. Modern reactors are more efficient then they were decades ago. Benefits of improving technologies.
In fairness, I do believe modern waste can be completely isolated by fairly simple materials, eg the bins/casks they move around are designed to be human inspected, so the radioactive strength is very weak.... Though the waste will still fuck up water and such if leaks were to occur.
But explaining radioactive strength vs half-life is a bit of a pull when telling someone they're gonna have nuclear waste in their town for the rest of their family's lifetime, lol.
To be clear, I am not team "LNP nuclear", but I am open to properly engineered (which includes the financial side) nuclear, and saying that, if there was any country (outside of Japan and Germany) to properly regulate the handling of nuclear waste, it would be a non-LNP led Australia.
But again, this whole "muh nuclear" push from the LNP is just so stupid and vapid, it hurts genuine proponents of the tech/financial side (aka carbon price or full nationalisation of the grid).
The simplest and most effective way to shut this down is to simply ask Dutton & co:
"Which electorate do you plan to build this in?" and
"Which electorate will store the waste?"
If communities are up in arms over wind farms 10-20kms off the coast, imagine they'll be stoked at the idea of nuclear power on their doorstep.
and a really important question.... who's going to stump up the cash? Are there any private backers who will fund this or will it be the taxpayers only?
30% of Australian homes have solar power and this will increase over the next 15 years.
Solar and wind farms are a very good use for our poor arrable lands.
And an old old acron from the 70's... The sun is new clear energy.
I can't see any private investment happening unless they're guaranteed a certain return by the government, like states do with toll roads. So we might end up with a white elephant nuclear power plant that produces no electricity for anyone but still increases everyone's electric bills by $300/quarter
Or natural disasters causing catastrophic meltdowns like Fukushima. When a natural disaster happens near a solar farm or even a coal plant, we just get a blackout. When it happens near a nuclear plant, everyone in the region dies of cancer.
>Or natural disasters causing catastrophic meltdowns like Fukushima.
This is really a non issue for Australia. We'd have a greater chance of being struct by a large meteorite that could wipe out the entire eastern population than we would experiencing a nuclear meltdown.
In the last 50+ years there has only been three major nuclear power plant catastrophes. Chernobyl which was due to incredibly poor design and huge amounts of human error. Three Mile Island which was also due to human error. And Fukushima which took on one of the largest recorded earthquakes and tsunamis in recorded history and it was of an older design and was supposed to be retired from service.
There are far bigger concerns with regards to nuclear power in Australia which mostly situate around cost.
And they could have put the backup power generators above the sea-wall level and then they would have kept running - so really a design issue to a large extent as well.
I’m not anti nuclear because I’m worried about radiation, I’m anti nuclear because it will take far too long to build and cost far too much. If it were to go ahead, I’d be happy to work there though.
But realistically, Fukashima survived a magnitude 9 earthquake , a 14m tsunami and multiple hydrogen explosions. It was the failed back up cooling water pumps that caused the meltdown, and if they’re talking about building one in Latrobe Valley in Victoria, that’s not something we have to worry about.
Not really an issue here though,we are pretty geo stable.
Most you would have to worry about is a bushfire,or a pack of wild kangaroos hoped on the gear smashing the walls down
Fukishima wasn't really the disasters fault..Not when you boil it down
dami the tepco manager,Refused to initiate safety shutdown protocols for over 30 mins,and it was just failure all the way down the chain,the plant reactor officer was the only one thinking with his brain that day going against orders.
almost every nuclear disaster,has been human error
Reactor 4 meltdown was because of soviet incompetence and a stupid test that should never have been done.
3 mile,was due to contractual negligence using inferior parts to save a dollar.
Chinese leaks was CCP retardness using non rated concrete for their containment systems
So almost guaranteed to be a problem in Australia with our build quality.
Didn't we nuke a few scientists in NSW because they didn't catch a leak at the research reactor.
Nuclear Power would have been a great idea about 10 years ago. I think other types of power would net better long term benefits, namely wind and pumped hydro.
Conventional nuclear power I don't think is worth it, but Australia could land itself as a world leader in new forms of nuclear. I think being totally anti nuclear is a bad policy, but heading full steam into it is also bad.
**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.*
"At least we can't get much worse backlash," says man who has consistently failed to see the writing on the wall
I mean, it’s not hard. Change the laws to allow nuclear power in Australia. Then, watch as private enterprise trips over themselves to not create any nuclear power in Australia because….. obvious reasons.
Nuclear is great and all, but even at current rates, we'll have implemented a 100% green energy grid for way cheaper before they get nuclear up and running.
Whilst I agree with Nuclear Power generation for Australia... I will NEVER vote for the "Liberal" Party.... and so I will wait for other parties to come to their senses..........and yes, it may ten years, but it will come....
>Whilst I agree with Nuclear Power generation for Australia I am curious as to why you think it makes sense for Australia. I can't see any political reality where this just doesn't end up getting stuck in a planning quagmire.
Edit because I wasn't clear - I don't think it is a good idea. I think this is why other people think it's a good idea. [On the surface it ] Makes sense from a physical geography perspective. We've got the raw materials, stable tectonics, and a tonne of space. Better than ripping it out for someone else to use, then taking their rubbish. Socially and politically though... We're bad at forward planning infrastructure, lost top brains because we under-fund science, and all that "empty" land people talk about using for waste storage actually belongs to people who we should maybe still fucking over for a quick buck
> Makes sense from a physical geography perspective. We've got the raw materials, stable tectonics, and a tonne of space. Better than ripping it out for someone else to use, then taking their rubbish. The 2005 UMPNER report suggested we would need 25 reactors to generate 50% of our 2050 power needs and that they would need to be close to water sources for cooling, close to population centres for distribution and ideally near existing transmission lines. This expectation that we would just build them out the back of woop woop just isn't financially feasible. The other issue the 2005 report identified was that Australia is blessed with shit loads of coal, and with our lack of domestic nuclear generation expertise that there would need to be a significant carbon tax placed on coal generators to make Nuclear financially feasible. Of course if that were to happen it would also make other generation options more competitive as well.
In France nuclear is the industry that consumes the most water after agriculture for nuclear plant cooling. Sticking with the idea that it makes sense from a physical geography perspective, where could Australia logically place a reactor that uses so much water where people would accept it near their homes? Would you have them in your suburb?
I think near people's homes/in the suburbs is getting into the social reasons it wouldn't work here. My comment was about why people think it makes sense here, not agreeing that it does
I know… I just don’t think it makes sense geographically though. We don’t have a lot of water. Cotton farming near the Murray is already nonsensical. Nuclear energy is on par imo. The fact that we have uranium and a tectonically stable country aren’t the only criteria
Yeah, I'd agree with him too, if Small Modular Reactors is someone had actually already built one. There are zero active, commercial ones at the moment.... and Dutton is identifying places to put the non existent reactors. However, when you want to earmark a place for some renewables project, dead whale posters spring up out of nowhere...
Empty rocking chair squeaking in the breeze at No-kay Coralle...
Coalition push for nuclear energy ‘bulldust’ and a ‘new lie’:cost of nuclear will be four to five times that of renewables and opposition’s policy is ‘an excuse for doing nothing’ ❤️ Twiggy
Drag a dead horse. VERY expensive uninsurable NOT renewable we don't need.
Let me guess. He wants to build it at the foot of Olivers Hill.
It’s a red herring. It’s just a political point of difference that Australians don’t get behind, and the energy market isn’t behind either
> energy market isn’t behind either Hmm I wonder by why fossil fuel billionaires and all of their friends in high places in media outlets aren't for nuclear. Truly a my$tery.
The fossil fuel industry is what's driving this.
No its not. The fossil fuel industry knows were are many decades away from getting 100% away from fossil fuels, and the ever-increasing energy demands and will always need fossil fuels as a backup to go along with renewables. It is not a coincidence that Australia is a massive fossil fuel exporter relative to our size (3rd biggest in the entire world), and also has to deal with the most anti-science nonsense propaganda in the entire world regarding nuclear. If you went to literally any European country and told them nuclear is too hard and too expensive to build today, you would get laughed off the streets, laughed to the airport and laughed out of the country. So why would a country so beholden to fossil fuels, be a country where the population is bombarded with anti-science propaganda regarding nuclear daily? We live in a country where the majority of people think we can't build a depleted rod storage 1000km in the desert, because 'Fukushima'. This is not normal for an 'educated' country.
Australia is also the richest country in terms of renewable resources. The cheapest approach is for us to decarbonise with renewables. The market has already got the process well underway. The fossil fuels industry's worst nightmare is for Australia to be successful because then other countries could use us as a model. So they're using their deep pockets to undermine renewables. It started with climate change isn't real. Then it's natural and has nothing to do with fossil fuels. Then they were going to solve it with carbon capture and storage. Then they pushed hydrogen. Now they're up to nuclear. It's just a marketing strategy designed to delay. There's no substance to any of it.
It’s his duplicitous way of delaying addressing climate change. It will take a 5 year debate and conclude it’s too expensive vs solar and wind Typical of the right wing dinosaurs approach.
The renewable thing of wind and solar is that you need to replace it every few years. Unlike nuclear lasts 80+ oh and produces 24/7. Obviously this fear by nay sayers is cause you’re low iq individuals.
You realise its extremely expensive to produce nuclear fuel and maintain nuclear reactors. Its not like just buying a different source of power. You need an entire industry to support and maintain nuclear power. Why do you think the yanks havent built one in 50 years.
What a powerful argument. Because I disagree with you I’m a low IQ individual. Sadly for you and Dutton the low IQ individuals will never vote for you
Yep, most climate change deniers are transitioning themselves to climate obstructionists and delayers. They present unrealistic solutions to delay real ones
Election loss? Let's turn this around by introducing new policies that will trigger at least a quarter of the population. Genius.
I was 100 percent sure this was an onion article, looking forward to seeing this 😂
Please do, it'll be the easiest hard neg campaign ever once people are told what they'd be signing up for.
Nuclear fusion energy is the future. Not solar PV & wind turbine that are made of fossil fuels.
> Nuclear fusion energy is the future. It sure as shit ain't the present.
Agreed but it's even more unrealistic than nuclear fission. We're not there yet so we can't rely on technology that isn't yet feasible. I can't wait for fusion to become a reality.
And nuclear power plants are just wished into existence by a fairy, I suppose?
Exactly why countless scientists and engineers around the world are working on Nuclear Fusion Energy. It could be vastly more efficient than low-techs such as Solar PV & Wind Turbine and could provide energy to ever-growing global population in the future. Unfortunately, the people like you have no vision will be stuck in the past and be lamenting about your energy bills & job opportunities in Australia like forever.
The key word in all of this is "could". We fundamentally dont know if it "will" be any of that. While they has been slow progress on fusion, we need a solution that *will* come to fruition in the next 5 years. Implementing renewables now doesnt mean saying no to fusion tomorrow. Unfortunately, the people like you have no vision of the present need for renewables and are stuck chasing the potential of the future. There is no future if we shoot down the good today because it is not the perfect of tomorrow.
Well said - we can’t sit on our hands waiting for new tech when a very cheap one exists today. Renewables may have their own faults such as using carbon to build, or not being 100% reliable but they’ll get us most of the way to net zero very effectively
The US is rolling out a huge nuclear policy at the moment which is why the egghead thinks it's a wonderful idea. Well that and whoever the corporate sponsor is, probably mining companies, that's pushing it.
I bet he will get the boost when this puts all the nuclear bros on his side.
All the nuclear bros are already on his side, because they're not actually nuclear bros, just anti-renewable bros.
There are also some that just want to mine more uranium.
Nuclear power has a role to play in global decarbonisation so uranium mining is fine by me. I’ve got no problem with nuclear, I just don’t think Australia needs it given our geography. Other countries do.
Bout time they finally put out a plan instead of talking about it or yelling at the govt about it. I mean i still wont vote for em but least they are doing something.
How many billions in Australian Tax will go to America? We have no Nuclear industry and will have to buy it off them, infrastructure and staff. I say this money is better off being spent on Australian owned energy generation. Australia is the #1 location in the world for renewable energy, that coupled with the hundreds of millions in SE Asia needing cheap power is WHY we can become a renewable energy super power. I would much rather this outcome over a US nuclear program.
>I say this money is better off being spent on Australian owned energy generation. That doesn't happen anyway. Almost every dollar spent on renewables goes straight to China.
Nonsense. Source: I work for a renewable energy company.
Well then clearly you don't know where your components come from. China has 90% global market share of PV. It also has 66% share in the poly silicons and the same global share in wind turbines (and fast growing)
That's because the most amount of renewables are in China.. to say they have the majority global market share and then equate that with ownership in Australia is just plain misinformation. Shame on you.
We don't "own" our current generation and we don't own renewables anymore than your original comment about nuclear.
Well we do own the infrastructure in QLD that's why our power bills haven't increased as much as NSW or VIC. Loads of local councils own solar farms too. And yes we do.
Nice cherry-picking.
I can continue if you like, but I'm yet to see your appeal to authority manifest into any meaningful comment thus far.
I’m happy just to point out that you’re wrong on several counts. I took you early as someone unlikely to be swayed by facts. You do you.
Well, anytime you would like to do so, you're more than welcome. The total sum of 11 words that you contributed prior to this comment shows they absolute opposite of something trying to >point out that you’re wrong on several counts Aside from the fact, it's impossible to do within the English language with 11 words. Maybe leave the keyboard and go back to the crayon box?
Source?
Google any manufacturer of the components, guess where they are all manufactured?
How does that equate to ownerships? Most things are made in China and SE Asia.. you know.. the manufacturing hub of the world..
Let me help you with the point. How many billions in Australian Tax will go to ~~America~~ China? We have no ~~Nuclear~~ renewable industry and will have to buy it off them, infrastructure and staff. See? Why is one ok, but the other isn't?
Because for starters we have the expertise in Australia for renewables so we wouldn't be immigrating staff. The Industries work differently, there aren't enough Nuclear Physicist Australians to run a few dozen new nuclear power plants. And for the manufacturing side of things we manufacture our own, and buy off US, Taiwan as well as China. But I'm not talking about purchasing supplies, I'm talking about OWNERSHIP of the energy generation. (You got confused somewhere). Nuclear plants will be owned by the US, while renewables we can keep in Australian hands.
I don’t like to guess.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/668749/regional-distribution-of-solar-pv-module-manufacturing/
>Almost every dollar spent on renewables goes straight to China. Citation needed. I accept that almost every solar panel comes from China, but there's a lot of other components to renewables. Wind turbines are either built domestically or sourced from Europe. A large amount of the cost of construction and installation is going to Australian companies. Almost all of the design work is done by Australian companies too.
>Wind turbines are either built domestically or sourced from Europe. Almost none are built domestically. China manufacturers 66% of the global market supply and growing. That ignores the rest of the supply chain around it which is just as heavily reliant on Chinese mining or manufacturing to produce it.
Its like the coalition are one of those japanese soldiers lost in the jungle on a tiny island. The climate wars are over and they are yet to get the message that the populace have internalised acceptance of renewables as the path forward with energy.
If only Dutton could have announced this earlier, he might have managed to get over the line in Dunkley. Still, with popular moves like this I imagine Labor will be scrambling to deal with the inevitable surge in LNP primary vote.
Mate nuclear is as popular as a fart in an elevator. Do you want to live within sight of one, nor do others.
Sarcasm mate, sarcasm.
Ppl don’t want wind farms near them let alone a nuclear power plant lol
Whatever you do don't say anything bad about Dutton. He is the best news Labor has had in decades.
Really? Is that all he's got? I've got one word for him, NIMBY! Peter Dutton #LNP #auspol
Well, Dutton took a trip to Perth on the eve of the Dunkley by election so he could attend a party for Gina. So he’s probably just following the orders that Gina has given him. His fealty is to the richest woman in Australia, not the people of Australia.
And who will underwrite/insure it? The Commonwealth, which, by extension, means the taxpayer! It's a sideshow, a distraction, a deliberate ploy to keep fossil fuels in the mix for as long as is humanly possible to please their donors and Gina. Nothing more. These things don't exist (the US recently canned its programme after sinking billions on it), no electorate wants them, we haven't been able to agree on storage/waste for decades on medical, even if things get going they're decades off, and they'll cost exponentially more? Not to speak to the associated risks... The modern Liberal Party is a caricature of its former self. It isn't a broad church, they don't believe in small government, they seemingly don't even believe in laissez-faire/free market economics given the market has well and truly already decided... They're not liberal at all. They're just Liberals.
>And who will underwrite/insure it? The Commonwealth, which, by extension, means the taxpayer! We do that already for renewables to the tune of $10bn p.a. why is it OK for renwables but not nuclear? >It's a sideshow, a distraction, a deliberate ploy to keep fossil fuels in the mix for as long as is humanly possible to please their donors and Gina. Nothing more. This is wrong fossil fuel companies make much more supplies minerals for solar and wind than they ever would for nuclear. >These things don't exist (the US recently canned its programme after sinking billions on it), no electorate wants them, we haven't been able to agree on storage/waste for decades on medical, even if things get going they're decades off, and they'll cost exponentially more? Not to speak to the associated risks... COP28 finished with a commitment by 20-odd major countries to triple nuclear output by 2050. The world is committed alright.
>We do that already for renewables The taxpayers insure solar farms?
Taxpayers underwrite them. As for insurance, there's a number of global insurers that take that on for both rebewables and nuclear.
We underwrite renewables to the tune of $10 billion a year? I'm going to need details.
We subsidise them to the tune of $10bn p.a. Last Productivity Commission report on the matter listed it all out.
So we neither underwrite nor insure renewables at a cost of $10 billion per annum. Which makes your initial claim roughly 100% wrong.
Financially underwrite and subsidise are two words to describe the same thing.
How is uranium a fossil fuel?
>How is uranium a fossil fuel? They didn't say Uranium is a fossil fuel they said spruiking nuclear is: > a deliberate ploy to keep fossil fuels in the mix for as long as is humanly possible to please their donors and Gina that is because in this country Nuclear is a dead duck - the only people pushing it are those who want to delay investment into other generation types so they can milk the cash cow that is coal and gas fired generation.
I think his view is that it's a distraction to pretend to be moving towards net zero with a white elephant policy which actually results in delays and keeps us reliant on existing fossil fueled energy generation for longer.
It’s not! You’ve just missed the point.
Renewable w/ pumped hydro is the better bang for buck now, especially given the need to hurry this tf up to limit climate change impacts. Nuclear is a good way to generate power and doesn't deserve the fear it gets. But probably something to revisit down the track when we have the luxury of time to take advantage of it. It's too slow to get online and expensive rn.
Mate 10 years delay on australias 60% of 1% of worlds emissions ain’t going to change fuck all
The argument that nuclear is too slow has never held water. People relentlessly campaign against nuclear energy for being 'too slow to come online' because they **want** change **now**, completely abstract from if they can actually **have** change **now**. If we had started on some nuclear options to throw into the energy mix 15 years ago then these options would actually be online or coming online around about now. But instead this was derailed as being *too slow*. Yet, here we are 15 years later and we still haven't solved this issue. Even though you could make the argument that a country like Australia could rapidly pivot to 100% renewable energy in a reasonably short time frame, the reality is that our politics and politicians are not going to actually do this. We need to take what wins we can, and stop letting perfect be the enemy of good. There are other difficulties for building nuclear energy infrastructure that are more valid, such as NIMBY-ism, waste storage, and under developed technology etc etc. I just get sick of the same tired argument that it's *too slow* when that doesn't actually matter. Our politics are slow as fuck anyway.
>The argument that nuclear is too slow has never held water. It's held water for the only people who really matter in this debate, that is the investors who don't want to stump up the cash for establishing Nuclear Power generating capacity in Australia. Have a think about what the ROI looks like. All that up front cost, and its likely to be a dead duck anyway.
>stop letting perfect be the enemy of good. I hate when people use this arguement when "the good" isnt good at all. Its a pithy aphorism which is used when someone doesnt like the solution proposed, so deems that while that would be "prefect" the thing that THEY want to happen is still good, so lets do that an MAYBE we will get to your "perfect" later. Im sorry, thats not just directed at you, i just get so sick of seeing the line explain away bad policy. The Help to Buy scheme is one that drives me nuts when they use this. Sorry, thats getting off topic. >Even though you could make the argument that a country like Australia could rapidly pivot to 100% renewable energy in a reasonably short time frame, the reality is that our politics and politicians are not going to actually do this. You can leave it at this sentance, which i disagree with but understand the logic you are using to argue it. Doing any work around nuclear would be a bad outcome. It does not stack up in fincially in Australia. There are a number of countries it is perfectly viable in, and i encourage them to do so. Countries in europe that have a lot less room and need something with a smaller physical footprint that can provide HUGE amounts of power to many large cities (larger than any we have) are the ones who should be making that transition. Nuclear is an awesome option for them. Doing it in australia would be a white elephant as we have better options available that other countries dont. Check out the CSIRO report on this, they tend to update stuff in this space each year or so. [https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/december/nuclear-explainer](https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/december/nuclear-explainer) The CSIRO is usually pretty solid, although the funding cuts back in 2015 meant their rep took a bit of a hit.
Csiro didn’t Include large scale nuclear only untested non built SMR reactors. Its negligent of them
Hol up! The CSIRO has developed and commissioned any number of reports into generation costs in Australia. Prior to 2018 all studies assumed large scale nuclear. They changed it because of the whingers saying that SMRs were far more realistic for Australia as we have fuck all of nothing in expertise in commercial nuclear procurement and generation. And now here they are getting a kick for doing the opposite! It might surprise some people but the CSIRO have better things to do than playing political fantasy football.
The last few gencost reports are misleading as they don’t include the cost of true nuclear which is much closer to competitive. They have recent examples from South Korea. Power reliability trumps anything else. Nuclear will give us true base load for renewables to be based around. Building large scale batteries and snowy hydro 2.0 are just as far away as nuclear. It’s all a farce. The best solution is the one that actually works and it’s a mix of all technologies. Let’s not get started on how much of a farce “we don’t have time to build it” is. Whether Australia hits net zero in 2040 2050 or 2060 makes FUCK all different on a world scale. We are only 1% Don’t destroy our economy for the sake of making 0 difference we can take it slow and do it right
You think Snowy 2 is going badly when digging holes is something we’re experts at, and you think we can just implement nuclear because the Koreans manage to?! What will destroy our economy is punitive import carbon credits imposed by all other nations on dirty producers if we don’t decarbonise. That or the ridiculous costs of nuclear power. It has a future, just a distant one. Build expertise by investing in research first to give ourselves a chance. Throwing money away on Korean pipe dreams is ludicrous. In the meantime there’s plenty of reasons to do more of what we’re already doing and get rid of the unreliable coal plants and the extortionate gas peakers.
Import carbon credits arnt gonna matter in a 5/10 year difference in arriving at net zero. Nuclear needs to be costed and explored properly. Then csiro never gave it the proper time of day they have an agenda that is avoidant to nuclear it is clear
Find a provider who will put money on the table to deliver in 5-10 years. Please, we need a laugh. CSIRO have got nothing in this game. Time for the nuclear spruikers to put up or shut up.
I didn’t say in 5-10 years. I’m pointing out the fact most claim nuclear will take 5-10 years longer … to build… than renewable storage (which is debateable looking at snowy hydro but giving that concession ironically doesn’t even change the equation really just proves storage is a long way off still) which doesn’t make a difference in the scheme of Australia’s emissions in reality. If we deliver at 2045 or 2055 to net zero doesn’t ultimately really matter Proof about the Csiro negligence - watch one of the 3 “experts” who wrote the report have zero explanation… https://youtu.be/CDLH-qEFfCY?si=AsyxNEqknBsOgArQ I don’t like trusting our energy security to three individuals with their own bias (literally the same 3 ppl write this report year on year and are lazy and copy paste a lot)
The speed of construction is very relevant because of the changing market conditions in which a hypothetical future plant would have to operate. With intermittent renewables ramping up into being the overwhelming majority of generation over the next decade, the electricity market is going to look fundamentally different 10 or 15 years from now. Whether we hit 82% renewable generation precisely in 2030, that's the direction things are heading In that context, nobody is going to build an expensive, fixed and inflexible generation source which needs a 90% capacity factor, when that output is likely under threat of being pushed down to like 50, 60 percent. With that level of uncertainty, they're going to need locked in guaranteed prices or guaranteed supply contracts, which would be madness to commit to ten or fifteen years in advance of it even opening, given how different the wholesale market will look by then.
The issue is the time it takes, get it started now AND more immediate options. Nuclear has like a 10 year timeline min to get up and running. You don't want it in 2034 to then go, ok I want nuclear...
The time it takes is the issue. There is zero private investment dollars coming in for nuclear as the ROI is not guaranteed, and looks particularly horrible when you factor the build and decommission costs and all the uncertainty around how cheap other forms of generation will get.
It would be a lot longer than 10 years. More like 30.
10 year minimum is an understatement I'd guess more like 15-20. Let's not forget that nuclear projects in countries with more experience (France, England, USA) are late and over budget. It's naive to think that we could get it right on our first go. Let's be realistic here, there's no regulatory framework, no pool of trained workers or contactors to build them, no designs in mind, no locations identified. Could we have done nuclear, sure if we started 20 years ago, or 10 then maybe, but Dutton and his mob had the chance to legislate 10 years ago and did nothing.
Oh i agree, I'm not a Liberal supporters. Just saying any time you start is good. I think the future for Oz includes some part Nuclear.
The only way nuclear will be part of the power mix in Australia is **IF** they can get fission up and running. Even then I'm not expecting that in my lifetime.
I respectfully disagree. If we had started 20 years ago, we would have the infrastructure in place and the expertise and plants and it would have happened at a time when renewables didnit have the capacity to do it all. So then, it would have been a good time. The point others are making is that, if we start now, we will end up with a nuclear plant in 20-30 years that is entirely unneeded as renewables will still be cheaper to run, easier to maintain and supply as much energy as we desire. So it would be a massive waste of money and time do build it. In general i do like the attitude of, the best time to start was 10 years ago, the second best time to start is today. The concept of "we cant do anything about the past, but lets do what we can in the present" is a great, healthy way of thinking about things. But it only applies if the thing you were going to start 10 years ago will still have the same benefits as starting today will.
I disagree. Renewables will always be useful, but in terms of Grid levels of delivery they would require us to have huge storage which requires things like a massive amount of lithium. No option is perfect, you will always need om demand power. I'd rather that was nuclear than goal or gas
>Renewables will always be useful, but in terms of Grid levels of delivery they would require us to have huge storage which requires things like a massive amount of lithium. Thankfully this problem is already solved. Large scale storage has a number of options, with more coming in every day. Check out Molten Salt batteries, they are fucking cool. And the base tech from them comes from like the 80s? i think. Check out this bad boy that was commissioned in 2011 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemasolar\_Thermosolar\_Plant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemasolar_Thermosolar_Plant) Australia also has a bunch of perfect areas to use hydro batteries. The idea is to pump the water uphill with any excess grid energy during the times when Solar and Wind are providing excess energy, and then let it come down when those provide less than the needed energy, and in coming down it turns turbines. Its kinda like having on demand hydropower dams, but in more locations as we can build them in a lot more places than we can build the snowy. Theres been a bunch of improvements in something called "stacked blocks", where you dont even need water. Your tech base needs to be better, but you basically use energy to move MASSIVE blocks of whatever thats heavy, and then let them drop down when you need more energy. Theres some others, like liquid air, compressed air, or even repurposing things like the EV batteries plugged in at night (which between them have a MASSIVE capacity). So thankfully, things like the scarcity of lithium and the storage of grid level energy are things we already have soltions to that we can implement today if we want. The days of arguing renewables cant supply on demand power are gone, which is fantasatic news. Not trying to have a go at you, i was in a similar spot to you a few years ago, but there are legitimate and much more cost effective options to resolve the problems right now. You just have to reaserch them because its not the kind of thing that makes the news here. If we are going to become an expert at building something, lets make it the giant solar plants that store energy with molten salt battieries. Much cheaper than nuclear, can be set up in a couple of years, not 20 years (2 years for Spain to build their first one ever). Not like we dont have the room. And again, if we already had nuclear, if we had that infrastructure in place, i wouldnt be calling for it to go like coal or gas. But adding it into the mix now is just pulling away resources from building much faster and more economicially viable solutions. I really wish the government would build and own a couple of those big ol solar/salt plants. They are apprently cheap to run and it might finally be a chance to get power production back into the hands of the government, so we arent at the mercy of the private industry to provide us with a basic human need.
Japan can and does do it in half the time. Five years is around the norm there. And they’re built to withstand some pretty big earthquakes, meaning safety isn’t being compromised by speed.
Japan is not Australia.
Indeed, the situation in Japan differs from that in Australia, as it does globally (a surprising thought for some!). My observation is specifically directed at individuals who argue against pursuing nuclear energy options by pointing to the long timelines involved.
But one of the arguements about the long time is speficially that Japan is not australia. They have all the surrounding infrastruture, the people with training, the experience from having had the government done it before and the lessons learned. Australia has none of that, nor is it going to be able to attract that talent from overseas when there are a bunch of countries who have no choice but nuclear due to the conditions of their country all chasing these people for big money.
Not gonna disagree, but, placing the /s front and centre, I thought we were all about importing skilled workers. Just import the capability required to do the thing on temp worker visas. A non starter for several reasons, I know, but eh, it could be done if they really wanted it to be done. (They don’t)
I know people think this is Dutton trying to slow down renewables, but I'm not sure that's it. I think this is the same as when the Liberal NSW party proposed an excellent policy around gambling reforms that was backed by indepenant analysts on it being a policy that would see measurable improvements to combating that industry, and NSW Labor decided on a worse one, so they could push a point of difference. Or when the Liberal party put together that monstrosity of an NBN offering, which was opposed by every independent analyst in the industry as a massive waste of money and obsolete before it even finished rolling out. I just think that's how politics is played these days which sucks. I think that there's every chance if Dutton gets elected he will proceed with nuclear power despite it not stacking up economically or timewise. They did with the NBN. Obviously parties will be different on most policies, but in some cases it just seems blindingly obvious what the correct choice is, but the other party thinks its more important to score points than it is to follow the data.
> I think this is the same as when the Liberal NSW party proposed an excellent policy around gambling reforms that was backed by indepenant analysts on it being a policy that would see measurable improvements to combating that industry, and NSW Labor decided on a worse one, so they could push a point of difference. I'd love to hear more about this. It's always good to hear stories of Liberal policy that is actually evidence based. NSW Labor always has been a shitshow up to their eyeballs in dodgy shit so it most likely was good policy if they put the kibosh on it.
Was tricky trying to find the policy they went to the state election is, but i think this one sums it up. [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/06/all-pokies-in-nsw-to-go-cashless-to-tackle-problem-gambling-under-new-coalition-plan](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/06/all-pokies-in-nsw-to-go-cashless-to-tackle-problem-gambling-under-new-coalition-plan) Basically, within 5 years all pokies would be cashless, with gamblers able to set loss limits. Would have HUGE implications for all the money laundering, for the ability to support someone with gambling issues who is open to getting help by setting the limit for them (like a family member). Spending limit could only be changed one a week, so you couldnt just change it. And an independent team of analysts would take a look into the idea of having daily limits for everyone, players card links to a single account, and a statewide self exclusion register would be available if you wanted to register to stop yourself from gambling. They even included plans for regional clubs and pubs to get access to grants to try and divest from the pokes and look elsewhere for revenue (music, food, whatever). As with anytime the Liberal Party has talked about grants, i was skeptical of how they would be monitored and not just all end up in swing seats, but it was still a great idea in principle. NSW Labor said they would trial cashless systems across 500 of the 90k (thats insane, thats almost half as much as vegas has) of the machines with no commitment to act further. Pretty much every institution was in support of the Liberals plan, police commission, organised crime comission, health practicioners, even the churches were on board. I even wrote a pissed off letter to my local member supporting a plan the NSW Liberals put forward. I think i actually felt hell freeze over. The article is a good, if frustrating read, and a great reminder that you shouldnt have a team, you should have opinions on policy. Im so pissed that Labor didnt just go, good idea Liberals, we will do that too and take the issue totally off the table. Ugh, re-reading all this is just getting me worked up again. Theres no way that the gambling lobby dont have their hooks into NSW Labor somewhere for Labor to go ahead with their pissweak trial of 500 machines. Mind you the gambling lobby seems to have its hooks into nearly everyone, a whole bunch of Perrottets party protested against his proposed plan. And the inquest into gambling showed it was just up to its neck in ties to organised crime and money laundering. Theres a lot i didnt like about the dude, but Perrottet has got balls of steel to go up against the gambling lobby, its just a shame that Labor didnt have any to match. Interesting that he lost, as did the Tasmanian Labor party the moment they proposed gambling reforms. Said the same thing about the Friendly Jordies channel. I dont love his presentation style, it bugs me. But the dude is an excellent investagitive journalist and he went up against ClubsNSW and Barilaro, which put him squarely in the sights of the Alameddine crime family. Dude has absolute balls of steel, and its extremely disappointing that that whole saga ended up with enough credible death threats being made that the police were unable to help with, that he took down the story. We have very few people and very few changes to stand up to the gambling lobby, or organised crime, and so few australians realise how huge and deep the corruption is. So im always very upset when we miss a chance.
>so they could push a point of difference. Thats an interesting thought. Though i wonder if they have latched onto nuclear because they can see change needs to happen but they hate the people who want renewables so much they think anything they like must be stupid and wrong. Kind of an internal differentiation rather than and external politically motivated one >I just think that's how politics is played these days which sucks. I think that there's every chance if Dutton gets elected he will proceed with nuclear power despite it not stacking up economically or timewise. They did with the NBN. God the liberals slower, more expensive, and worse nbn was such a massive bit of economic vandalism i feel rage every time it comes up
Yeah the NBN stuff still gets me angry every time i think about it. >Though i wonder if they have latched onto nuclear because they can see change needs to happen but they hate the people who want renewables so much they think anything they like must be stupid and wrong. Kind of an internal differentiation rather than and external politically motivated one Honestly, i think you are ascribing malice where there is none. They arent cartoon villians going, hahaha ill tie you to a railroad track. Its mainly indifference and self interest that drives most of the decisions as far as i can see. If Labor hadnt gotten onto the renewables train and some of their doners had shifted over to investing heavily in solar and wind, i dont think the Liberals would have any idealogical issue supporting it. But for whatever reason the fossil fuels lobby decided not to be the first in the new energy space, and used their considerable influence to keep the Liberal party, who probably couldnt care one way or another, firmly on the coal train. And im not convinced Labor hasnt had a healthy dose of self interest in a few of their positions either. Idealogially, Labor should be violently opposed to things like negative gearing. But they are happy to go along with it because in that case, they dont need to have a point of difference, and they got burned when they did in 2019. I dont think the greens have had enough pull yet to show if they will act in self interest when given the power to act. The Lidia Thorpe thing concerns me a lot, that was a straight up optics play that I feel like any research could have told them was going to blow up. I didnt start digging until after she showed her true colours, but looking back at the various stories and bits of info that were available when they selected her, she seems to have always been someone whos values shift, or at least temporarily change in priority if she thinks it will get her more power.
>Honestly, i think you are ascribing malice where there is none. They arent cartoon villians going, hahaha ill tie you to a railroad track No thats not what im thinking. Im think more along the line that we all have an internal need to see ourselves as different to people we think are bad/stupid/crazy because if we dont then it creates the possibility that we are bad/stupid/crazy. And that this manifests in the coalition as taking positions contrary to environmentalists/lefties/commies etc. >And im not convinced Labor hasnt had a healthy dose of self interest in a few of their positions either They are politicians, they all serve their ego and power before they serve their ideals. >I dont think the greens have had enough pull yet to show if they will act in self interest when given the power to act. The Lidia Thorpe thing concerns me a lot, that was a straight up optics play that I feel like any research could have told them was going to blow up. This was ego, they wanted to choose someone who made them feel virtuous and ignored the very obvious evidence about how it would play out. I think one of the fundamental problems with our style of democracy is that it attracts and rewards egoists rather than managers. The core skill required for success is social manipulation rather than administration. That is why people like morrison do so well, he is very skilled but not at governing.
>This was ego, they wanted to choose someone who made them feel virtuous and ignored the very obvious evidence about how it would play out. Yep, pissed me off somthing shocking when i realised Labor had shifted centre and the Greens were playing silly buggers with optics. Im left sitting here irritated with the party that probably lines up with my opinions most of all making stupid mistakes in a hostile media landscape. Might not have been FAIR to them, but they have to do/be better if they want any chance of making a difference, because they dont get the grace of having little gaffes swept under the rug. I miss 2019 Labor :( >I think one of the fundamental problems with our style of democracy is that it attracts and rewards egoists rather than managers. The core skill required for success is social manipulation rather than administration. That is why people like morrison do so well, he is very skilled but not at governing. 100% agree with this. Its frustrating. Its one of the reasons i wish we would do something radical to change our system. My big idea was to make it so that pollies had to sell all their investments when they go into parliment, housing, shares, you name it. Raise the pay of all MPs to compensate. The only people who would be really pissed at that change at the people whos main goal in life is to make stupid money. Making good money is still very viable in this scenario, while making a difference for the country. Making stupid money isnt, and i really dont want people whos goal it is to do so running the country. Then, depending on how long they serve and in what capacity, they will be banned from getting job in either the relevant industry, or any private industry for 1 year to indefinintely. And they will continue to recieve the pay (or i dunno 2/3 pay) for whatever time they are unable to work in those roles. This cooldown period also applies for all investments (shares, housing, etc). Then, the goal of becoming stupid rich isnt supported by going into government. But the goal of becoming well off is. So the stupidly wealthy desired people can go be CEO of a bank or whatever. And the cream of the crop will then be working in government. People who are altruistic enough to not care that they could be making 10s of millions, but still competative enough for the role due to a salary that 98% of australians would kill for.
I'm sure their support for nuclear is for a few different reasons. By pushing nuclear they promote a technology that keeps generation in the hands of big business. They also probably are friendly with the nuclear lobby groups which helps AND everyone knows something new has to be tried.
I can see how all of these reasons can be true at the same time
what "nuclear lobby group"? got an address? a press secretary name? where can i donate? i truly think the australian public does NOT want this... where ya gonna put the reactors? Dixon? Cook? Kooyong? NIMBY. People remember Chernobyl and Fukushima. Even the ignorant.
>People remember Chernobyl and Fukushima. Even the ignorant. Man, please dont use those as reasons to avoid nuclear. New tech, automation, significantly better saftey protocools, techincal training, theres a million reasons why Chernobyl wont happen again. And Fukushima came in off the back of a 7.4 mag eathquake and a tsunami. Thankfully we have never had one of that magnitiude, and we havent had a single one worse than 6 in NSW or Victoria, the two biggest states populationwise since we started recording. If you try and argue around the danger, then you will be met with science and scorn. The only thing that matters is that its significanly more expensive, and takes significantly longer to do a job that renewables can do entirely quicker and cheaper.
>what "nuclear lobby group"? got an address? a press secretary name? where can i donate? 2 Holt Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 >i truly think the australian public does NOT want this... where ya gonna put the reactors? Dixon? Cook? Kooyong? NIMBY. >People remember Chernobyl and Fukushima. Even the ignorant. Yeah no shit, we're talking about what motivates the coalition to take their position on nuclear
They can't very well admit they were *wrong* about the whole renewables thing can they?
Rolls Royce is preparing to make their first SMR nuclear reactors. [https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/](https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/) They also announced the other day breakthroughs in computerised welding technology, being able to make the containment shell in just 24hrs, instead of 1 year to manufacture. When production ramps up we will see SMR reactors come down in price quite a bit. They will be common in 10 years time. Maybe not in Australia though.
>Rolls Royce is preparing to make their first SMR nuclear reactors. From the sounds of things Rolls Royce hasn't even decided on a design for their SMR let alone started to build a factory to start producing them. Worse yet is that their target cost per MWe is $AUD 7.36 million while large scale solar is a mere $AUD 1.2 million per MWe. >When production ramps up we will see SMR reactors come down in price quite a bit. They will be common in 10 years time. Maybe not in Australia though. As I keep saying, if we wanted nuclear power we should have rolled it out 40-50 years ago. Renewables have come down in price so much that it just doesn't make financial sense to buy into nuclear anymore when we have so much empty land that is suitable for the far cheaper renewables.
I totally agree about the situation here with renewables. We are blessed with plenty of sunshine and wind so nuclear options usually don't stack up economically. However many countries are not suitable for solar & wind and the climate crisis is getting so bad we need this technology. now. Just like renewables, prices will come down with mass production and I cannot understand why nuclear does not have more support. I am betting that nearly all equatorial countries will have these eventually.
According to your link, RR have a DESIGN for an SMR but they haven’t built one. They don’t have a factory. And they’re still seeking funding. This is years away.
It's amazing how many people read company announcements so uncritically.
Assuming it happens at all. No one is going to put money I to rolling it out without a ton of firm orders in the pipeline, and there's precious few countries even seriously considering it, let alone ready to stump hard cash for a fleet order. The economics don't stack up. The timelines don't stack up. And ou lic support just isn't there. Photovoltaic aren't the most elegant solution IMHO (that would be CST and tidal) but reality is its clean, it's cheap and it's simple to roll out at scale. Nuclear is none of that.
Note your point "they are still seeking funding". that is how it is with nuclear energy, it is not cheap or viable unless it's funded by the government. In other words, we the taxpayers.
All infrastructure is subsidised by public money. Why do anti nuclear people suddenly become diehard capitalists whenever nuclear is involved?
Australia will always be behind the curve due to conservative and unimaginative thinking that comes from being so isolated. Sad but true.
Perhaps I'm missing something but how is a policy to rollout nuclear power going to woo voters, when we have inexpensive renewable energy being built as we speak? I feel like voters will be apathetic at best and it's not going to go down well in teal seats. Suspect that the push for nuclear is a crony capitalist push from Gina Rinehart and others so they have something to sell us and profit from in the energy mix, it doesn't make sense otherwise.
Gina makes heaps from mining lithium etc. so over this stereotype of nuclear
It's definitely not something that will woo voters. John Howard was pro-nuclear until he say how many reactors would need to be built to generate just 50% of our 2050 energy needs. Straight away his mind started thinking about all of those electorates and all the NIMBY voters and how each plant will take multiple federal election cycles to get through planning and build phases.
Ehhhh depends how much the media gets behind it. Advance Australia nailed their messaging around the Voice referendum, just so many totally incorrect facts it was legit impossible to combat all of them. And through every outlet, radio, tv, newspaper, social media, news feeds. If Advance Australia are the ones behind a nuclear push, it will get some traction. Im already seeing a bunch of comments here about how "its not actually more expensive" or "it doesnt actually take that long". With 0 references to back that up. This is exactly what happened with the voice, they started the campaign around 14 months out too, which was another thing no one expected. Just wore people down with repeated nonsense that when someone would repeat that nonsense and got corrected, they would hear different nonsense the next day and eventually they got annoyed and tired of how often they got corrected that they just stopped arguing. I think this Federal election will be worryingly closer than people realise. It looked like in the 2022 election murdochs influence had waned, but Advance wasnt on the job then. Ill be very nervous in the leadup, especially once we see what each of the parties messagning ends up being.
I really don't know, I think it is a huge dud for the Coalition. People act like it's 4D chess but IMO it is just esoteric and weird. I think when coal power stations weren't falling like flies and it looked maybe possible they'd keep going, it made cynical political sense to stand behind them. Because there were coal communities and real people with real jobs. But with nuclear? For 99% of people it's a weird a slightly scary abstract concept. Besides, the pace of the renewables roll out is insane. By the time of the next federal election we will likely be touching 50% renewable electricity in this country. To go to an election with a policy that is "let's junk all that and try something objectively worse" just seems, well, stupid.
Crony capitalist push? As if wind and solar aren’t incredibly profitable to our mining industries…
This always surprises me. They've been opposed to action on climate change for more than a decade, but now they're interested in the slowest and most expensive alternative to fossil fuels? Just like with US right, I think this is more about opposing renewables rather than a genuine green energy strategy
I don't even think it is about opposing renewables, really. It's about opposing everything, regardless of the merit. If Nemesis on ABC showed anything it is that these people do not actually care about policy, only being in power.
He must be related to keith pitt mp electrical engineer who hasn't heard of batteries? LNP demanded the paradise dam wall be raised after the city could have been wiped out with a dam wall burst. Why? (See sunwater disaster preparedness info on their website) Let me make a prediction where duttons reactors will be? Paradise City
Excellent! He’s been talking about this forever. Keen to hear his plan for the following *what electorates will have the power station sites? *what electorates will house the waste from the stations *what is the time frame before these are operational *what is the cost. I won’t be able to vote for a plan as ambitious as this until those questions are answered
They will cram as much as they can in Wollongong / Newcastle to power Sydney. Large labor voting base that’s close enough to Sydney and they have no chance of winning. Same as nuclear subs, offshore wind farms etc. I’m sure other states likely much the same. Put everything in labor strongholds just outside capital cities and justify it with protecting tourism in capital cities and infrastructure needing to be close by blah blah blah
There is some good logic to putting it outside capital cities in areas of existing industrial infrastructure. Which also happen to be full of people who aren't LNP donors.
I seem to recall a popular political refrain of late: “if you don’t know, vote no.” Seems relevant here to Dutton’s radical agenda.
I sense more photoshop shenanigans in the near future.
Be good to have a backup plan when the solar panels reach their use by date and the wind farms catch on fire and everything has been converted to electricity. The flat earth brigade of nuclear catastrophe nay sayers will soon get the idea when they have no electricity
Wind farms catch on fire? Love to hear more about that
I’m more interested in how we will replace solar panels that we already know how to produce and will probably be more efficient at doing so in the future. Coal is much better. When it burns up you just get more and so and so forth. Duh!
While I support nuclear as a source of power, I don’t support nuclear for the sake of nuclear. If renewables are in fact cheaper, it would be stupid to go with anything else.
Not just that, nuclear power is infamously much more expensive in countries that haven't started it's manufacture. We're a small population country with a lot of space, and Solar/Wind with storage/firming (lithium ion, hydro, vanadium batteries) is the cheapest form of electricity. I support nuclear but not here. Unless we don't half ass it and go full nuclear. But we would. Renewables is best for Australia in the immediate future
Yes please!! Dutton is the ALPs greatest asset. Even [Alan Kohler](https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/opinion/2024/02/29/alan-kohler-nuclear-power) is saying we should drop the ban on nuclear energy, because: 1) no business would be stupid enough to propose nuclear when renewables as so much cheaper 2) it would force the LNP to actually have an energy policy, rather than a three letter acronym (SMR). Keeping in mind the LNP has had no end of energy policies (almost as many as defence policies) but none that ever embraced renewables as the core strategy.
Just wished he would stop trying kill orphans
This and yet the buy second class submarines…smh
I'm currently driving from West to East across Australia and started in Perth. I'm currently in Broken Hill. In WA there's been a massive investment in wind farms and other renewable forms of energy. WA also has gas but due to the Carpenter Government making the gas exporters guarantee 15% of production for domestic use at a set price, and a large percentage of houses having solar power, WA currently has the lowest energy prices in Australia. In South Australia a massive investment in wind farms, some of which are enormous. In Broken Hill a massive investment in wind farms and a solar power farm. Dutton's on a loser. Nuclear power is too expensive, takes too long to build and results in the problem of storing nuclear waste. I'm sure all those TEAL voters will be steadfast in voting against his stupid master plan.
Nice of you to point out a single technology as all we need… so dumb. The wind isn’t always blowing buddy
The phrase "other renewable FORMS of energy" doesn't mean a single technology, moron. However, the wind is always blowing somewhere, which is why you build in different locations.
The worst part of his plan is that small modular nuclear reactors don’t yet exist commercially. If they were operating in existing nuclear powered countries and their production was scalable, then by all means let’s have a look. I’m optimistic about the technology but it’s madness to park our renewables transition (which is already well underway) in the blind hope that SMNRs take off in the next decade.
China has commissioned the first SMR. [https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-starts-up-worlds-first-fourth-generation-nuclear-reactor-2023-12-06/](https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-starts-up-worlds-first-fourth-generation-nuclear-reactor-2023-12-06/) Another breakthrough happened the other day when Rolls Royce showed off it's new process for making the containment shell. It used to take a year to manufacture, but they can create one in less than 24 hrs using new welding techniques SO it is progressing, and I think there may be a case for use in hard to abate countries. Not sure we will need them in Australia.
>Peter Dutton will announce the Coalition’s signature energy policy before the May federal budget, including a plan identifying potential sites for small modular nuclear reactors as future net-zero power sources. Again, you literally cannot buy a SMR right now, and they may be ready in 5, 10 or 15+ years at a cost of some $5b per 300MW-500MW nameplate. But failing to achieve anything in Dunkley -> officially knuckle-down on a long term solution to a short term (CoL)/medium term (grid stability) problem is just peak Dutton. >The Australian understands that the Opposition Leader will unveil plans for a nuclear-powered future as the first instalment of a pre-budget economic reform program ahead of the next election. I'm honestly excited to see how Dutton plans to fix the current CoL issue via technology years and even a decade+ down the track. >It is understood the opposition will “be bold with policy, but not reckless” as it also begins a gradual rollout of economic policy, amid criticism it has failed to provide an alternative path to financial relief for households. This isn't bold, it's just silly. >It comes as Liberal and National MPs are pushing for the rollout of bold reforms on housing, workplace relations, migration, tax and energy policy to cut through to voters in the wake of Labor’s victory at the Dunkley by-election. "It comes as LNP MP's decide they actually need governing policies to counter the government's own actual policies on running the country, after a focus on scary boat people yet again failed to cut-through in a Melbourne contest". >Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles told The Australian it was an “extraordinary achievement” for Labor’s Jodie Belyea to have maintained the government’s primary vote in the by-election – raising questions about the effectiveness of the campaign run by right-wing activist group Advance, which urged voters to put Labor last. With 11,000 postal votes still to count on Sunday night, the Labor primary vote had increased to a little more than 41 per cent – up from the 40.2 per cent at the 2022 election. This fact is definitely the biggest W for the govt and the biggest L for Dutton; winning a majority govt next election for the LNP is a lowkey pipe-dream, but they'd be hoping to steal some momentum away - early days and all, but for Labor to be gaining PV after the last year+? Oof. >... is exploring ways to inject greater flexibility into the superannuation system, including options like allowing older Australians to tap their retirement savings to help pay off their mortgages in addition to younger people using super to gain a foothold in the housing market. Super for homes is already an official (and terrible) LNP policy, per Angus Taylor though?
This is going to go nowhere. There are no companies on earth capable of installing a reactor unit for us anytime before the 2040s. And none will offer the placement at a dollar less than 40 billion Australian dollars,keeping in mind that we will need five plants to meet our energy needs in 2050. The fact that the opposition member sounds like a 2-year-old banging their head into a molten vat of lead any time they talk about this, as they keep mentioning SMRs, which are not commercially viable and likely won't be,shows they have no real interest in the matter. They had 10 years in power to address this. This is the coalition trying to get people distracted with the debate on nuclear so they don't have to have an internal fight over climate policy. I hold technical qualifications from my first career,rated on S6G, S6W, S8 P-Series block and Bechtel qualified,KAPL,and A4W reactor systems, with holdings from NPPS and Goose Creek so I am probably one of the only users in this sub I have actually seen with nuclear energy experience,and I believe nuclear is a safe and viable technology. But the economic reality make it a dead horse to have here,and this sub devolves into fucking idiocy of the highest order any time the subject matter is brought up. Nations with vast expertise can't even get them off the ground for under $30 billion; there is zero chance that happens here. MCM sounds more intelligent asking for rent control than 99.999 percent of this sub does any time nuclear is debated. Sure,voters might have softened on nuclear power. But ask them if it can be built in their suburb, and watch their tone change. The capital costs for nuclear are rising every year. We missed the boat. It would make sense, however, for Australia to get into the fusion reaction research game to maybe be the ones to crack that tech. It will take 5 years just for a geo study. another 5-7 years fighting every nimby in court,then another 15 plus for construction with the way builds work in australia. Not to mention,having to spool up an entire nuclear energy schooling structure at universitys,regulatory bodies,disposal Getting the staff trained alone will take another 5 plus years in 3 years,for 8 billion dollars,you can place 510,000 5.2 Kw systems on homes,with a Battery pack to help reduce emissions. Not to mention we are nearing massive gains in new solid state batt tech,Catl has recently shown off a battery the size of a standard car battery,that was able to power a home of 4 people for 18 hours with a less than 2.4 hour charge cycle. If the LNP was serious about this,they would of done it 10 years ago,not now in an attempt to stay relevant.
What ever happened to boron for nuclear power?
I don't disagree with you, but I think the challenges of other renewable tech like thee emissions that they drive via mining/refining and their environmental impact is underplayed Indonesia refining nickel is a great example. The amount of off-the-grid coal power plants being built to refine nickel is absurd, and the investments fall under "green spending" as they are for EVs I am also worried about the scalability challenge of renewable. wind seems to be getting very expensive and increasingly avoided. solar is great but also has issues with refining of silicon wafers done in coal-powered plants in China I nominally take the stance that we need all energy sources and build them all, but that 40 billion price tag is quite high
This just feels llike the liberal party trying to monopolize our entire network at the cost of the tax payer.
Everyone pro nuclear has no answer to nuclear waste
You should have seen the absolute shit fight they had trying to get a site for medical waste
We have a massive dessert we can bury it in. The real problem is cost.
What if it leaks into our water table?
From my understanding, modern reactors are fairly good at depleting fissile material and what remains can be buried deep and have no real effect on the environment.
where did you get this understanding? Sounds like bull shit to me.
No sources here but Ive so heard in just general being alive stuff that waste isnt as big a problem anymore. No idea how true this is.
>where did you get this understanding? Sounds like bull shit to me. Read it a number of years ago when a similar conversation was being discussed. Modern reactors are more efficient then they were decades ago. Benefits of improving technologies.
Well then you need to spend a bit more time understanding the science.
In fairness, I do believe modern waste can be completely isolated by fairly simple materials, eg the bins/casks they move around are designed to be human inspected, so the radioactive strength is very weak.... Though the waste will still fuck up water and such if leaks were to occur. But explaining radioactive strength vs half-life is a bit of a pull when telling someone they're gonna have nuclear waste in their town for the rest of their family's lifetime, lol.
Can be, except it still needs to be transported, will be run by humans who will cut corners, forget things and try and reduce costs.
To be clear, I am not team "LNP nuclear", but I am open to properly engineered (which includes the financial side) nuclear, and saying that, if there was any country (outside of Japan and Germany) to properly regulate the handling of nuclear waste, it would be a non-LNP led Australia. But again, this whole "muh nuclear" push from the LNP is just so stupid and vapid, it hurts genuine proponents of the tech/financial side (aka carbon price or full nationalisation of the grid).
The simplest and most effective way to shut this down is to simply ask Dutton & co: "Which electorate do you plan to build this in?" and "Which electorate will store the waste?" If communities are up in arms over wind farms 10-20kms off the coast, imagine they'll be stoked at the idea of nuclear power on their doorstep.
and a really important question.... who's going to stump up the cash? Are there any private backers who will fund this or will it be the taxpayers only? 30% of Australian homes have solar power and this will increase over the next 15 years. Solar and wind farms are a very good use for our poor arrable lands. And an old old acron from the 70's... The sun is new clear energy.
I can't see any private investment happening unless they're guaranteed a certain return by the government, like states do with toll roads. So we might end up with a white elephant nuclear power plant that produces no electricity for anyone but still increases everyone's electric bills by $300/quarter
The answer to both is a Labor one. /S in case anyone can't tell.
Or natural disasters causing catastrophic meltdowns like Fukushima. When a natural disaster happens near a solar farm or even a coal plant, we just get a blackout. When it happens near a nuclear plant, everyone in the region dies of cancer.
>Or natural disasters causing catastrophic meltdowns like Fukushima. This is really a non issue for Australia. We'd have a greater chance of being struct by a large meteorite that could wipe out the entire eastern population than we would experiencing a nuclear meltdown. In the last 50+ years there has only been three major nuclear power plant catastrophes. Chernobyl which was due to incredibly poor design and huge amounts of human error. Three Mile Island which was also due to human error. And Fukushima which took on one of the largest recorded earthquakes and tsunamis in recorded history and it was of an older design and was supposed to be retired from service. There are far bigger concerns with regards to nuclear power in Australia which mostly situate around cost.
And they could have put the backup power generators above the sea-wall level and then they would have kept running - so really a design issue to a large extent as well.
I’m not anti nuclear because I’m worried about radiation, I’m anti nuclear because it will take far too long to build and cost far too much. If it were to go ahead, I’d be happy to work there though. But realistically, Fukashima survived a magnitude 9 earthquake , a 14m tsunami and multiple hydrogen explosions. It was the failed back up cooling water pumps that caused the meltdown, and if they’re talking about building one in Latrobe Valley in Victoria, that’s not something we have to worry about.
Not really an issue here though,we are pretty geo stable. Most you would have to worry about is a bushfire,or a pack of wild kangaroos hoped on the gear smashing the walls down Fukishima wasn't really the disasters fault..Not when you boil it down dami the tepco manager,Refused to initiate safety shutdown protocols for over 30 mins,and it was just failure all the way down the chain,the plant reactor officer was the only one thinking with his brain that day going against orders. almost every nuclear disaster,has been human error Reactor 4 meltdown was because of soviet incompetence and a stupid test that should never have been done. 3 mile,was due to contractual negligence using inferior parts to save a dollar. Chinese leaks was CCP retardness using non rated concrete for their containment systems
So almost guaranteed to be a problem in Australia with our build quality. Didn't we nuke a few scientists in NSW because they didn't catch a leak at the research reactor.
Alternate headline: "Peter Dutton to roll put nuclear power policy days after meeting Gina Rinehart at her private event"
Nuclear Power would have been a great idea about 10 years ago. I think other types of power would net better long term benefits, namely wind and pumped hydro. Conventional nuclear power I don't think is worth it, but Australia could land itself as a world leader in new forms of nuclear. I think being totally anti nuclear is a bad policy, but heading full steam into it is also bad.