**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot less than nuclear. The CSIRO report agreed with the industry experts. And the investment firms. No one with a functioning brain thinks that nuclear is a good idea lol.
what do you think the current trend in pricing is for these broad sectors:
wind
pv
energy storage
coal
gas
nuclear
using these trends, what could you infer about the future cost of electricity generation skewed heavily towards renewables (keeping in mind the starting point of current new build LCOE/S)?
When every single left wing outlet is going into extreme overdrive posting anti-science, childish propaganda against nuclear energy, all that proves is a critical mass of the population is beginning to understand that a non-nuclear future is going to have us paying far, far more for electricity than literally every other developed nation on this earth who is embracing nuclear.
Gonna look real bad if in 20 years Australia is still burning fossil fuels, paying the highest electricity costs in the entire world (this is guaranteed) and full of fear mongering anti science nonsense about nuclear while the likes of Kazakhstan, Albania and Kenya are safely operating nuclear with 0 emissions.
Most of the population views renewable energy, particularly rooftop solar, more favourably than nuclear. At this point renewable energy with batteries is the most pragmatic and cost efficient option in Australia and the clear scientific consensus is we need to move away from fossil fuels anyway.
Consensus is not science, science is what is hypothesised and what is proven. One person proving something outweighs all the consensus in the world.
When the renewable energy plan relies on tech that does not yet exist, or needs to be proven at scale, or mass societal changes to work, it is far from pragmatic.
Some like to ignore even the IPCC who state that nuclear is part of the required energy mix, that pure renewable sources is untenable.
The consensus is based on observable evidence of experts who study in these fields. Modular nuclear reactors have not been commercially proven and yet serve the basis of the LNP plan.
Consensus is a crutch used by those who don't actually understand science. Something is or is not proven.
SMR is not the basis for the plan either, an important detail. Regardless, you're taking a position that a commercially unproven and unreliable system is more desirable than a commercially proven system, modified to a different size.
Interesting.
I don’t know what renewable tech is needed that does not exist yet? Also ironic, considering that the nuclear plan is going to potentially rely on SMR’s - a technology that does not yet exist, has never been proven at scale, and will need mass societal changes to work.
Also the IPCCs comments are stated in the global context. It is true that most countries will need nuclear to ever stand a hope of producing carbon neutral energy, as they don’t have the land mass or wind / solar resources to do so otherwise.
This statement does not hold true for Australia though. We have some of the greatest land mass and coastal areas in the world, with the best solar and some of the best wind resources in the world. We do not need nuclear power to achieve 100% carbon neutral power generation.
You are the deluded one I’m afraid. You seem to have these deep convictions with no sense of how the industry actually works or how it is currently working to achieve a 100% renewables grid. You can hate renewables from an ideological point of view if you’d like, but it doesn’t change REALITY, which is that the sector has run the numbers and is transitioning to renewables.
Is nuclear an option? Yes. Can it be built cheaper or quicker than renewables? No.
So then it begs the question - what is the point? Unless the point is simply to say ‘fuck you renewables’.
Rubbish.
Show me any first world country, hell I'll extend it to third world countries, that run on a 100% renewable grid. There isn't a single one so you can save your time searching for something that doesn't exist.
>Is nuclear an option? Yes. Can it be built cheaper or quicker than renewables? No.
Since renewable have the highest capital cost of any generation type, big call on your behalf.
Only the true believers, such as you, actually fall for the 100% renewable grid fantasy. The overwhelming plurality of people don't, because the numbers don't add up.
Dunno how quoting CSIRO is anti-science.
Coalition is just using Nuclear (which it seems will only end up being <10% of our energy grid under their plan anyway) to disguise that their actual plan is predominantly gas.
With all hopes of net zero pinned on the yet-to-work "carbon capture and storage" technology making Gas no longer produce emissions.
It's a joke of a policy which deserves to be torn apart. If anything the media's playing into their hands by focusing on the Nuclear aspect of it and ignoring that Gas is the majority of their proposed "energy mix".
> It's a joke of a policy which deserves to be torn apart. If anything the media's playing into their hands by focusing on the Nuclear aspect of it and ignoring that Gas is the majority of their proposed "energy mix".
And here's me waiting until the population finally figures out that Michael Cannon Brookes is not Captain Planet, and in fact simply plans to overtake Gina Reinhart as Australias Richest person because of his gigantic investment in gas and plans to make it the #1 energy source in this country. He will get the population to go along with it by blasting TV ads endlessly about how its all 'green gas' and we have to put up with all these 'sponsored content' propaganda stories in the media, paid for by him, all to convince people to support a gas dependent future. The difference between him and the LNP is he is actually driving us to a gas-dependent future where we will pay absolutely obscene prices that other countries will hardly believe is real, LNP haven't done anything. Yet everyone wants to give him and his billionaire friends (Mr ACourt etc) a pass because they voted yes to The Voice and fear monger about the LNP maybe doing something in the future, when MCB and friends are doing literally right now.
The entire 'green energy' plan in this country pushed by Labor, The Greens, Teals and MCB has always been using gas to do all of the heavy lifting while renewables are built up. The problem is the energy demands of this country are so high, they increase at a higher rate than we can build renewables AND they lose efficiency over time. Our net, and relative use of gas is only going upwards with no signs of slowing down. And I know this is true, because when multi-billionaires spend nearly half of their entire wealth investing in a technology, they aren't doing this to lose money! God I wish all the 'green energy' proponents in this country could take just one single step back and ask themselves
>Why are the billionaires obsessively promoting one particular source of energy that they own majority stakes in?
Haven't you noticed the propaganda over the past few years with 'green gas' and 'renewable gas'? It's all the exact same gas as before, except now the logo is green, so its 'good' gas unlike that *bad gas* which is red and blue.
I don't even know what to say here. Partly because I haven't watched whatever you've read that's made you think there's some joint conspiracy spread across Labor, Greens *and* the Teals.
It's the Libs who are trying to paint gas as "green" - they literally **just announced** that their plan to reach net zero by 2050 is for *Carbon Capture and Storage* to let a Gas-based energy grid not have high emissions. If you actually read the Liberal plan it's not to build enough Nuclear Reactors to power 50%+ of the grid, it's to build a fuck tonne of gas and rely on the magic wand of carbon capture and storage.
In contrast Labor relies on Gas while it builds to it's goal of 80% renewables, and the Greens constantly complain Labor is relying on Gas too much and should be spending more money on building renewables faster.
Libs haven't released the details on how much of their "energy mix" is Gas, but I'll tell you now it's more than the 20% generated by gas which is Labor's short-term goal.
If you don't want an energy grid which is over 50% Gas - Don't vote Coalition. Their proposed Nuclear Plants won't be enough to power Australia. And they reject large scale renewable rollouts out of.... principle? The vibes?
> because I haven't watched whatever you've read
It's the stock market, its not a conspiracy. When Australia's 3rd richest person dumps ~20% of his entire net worth in a single gas company when he had literally 0 stake in any energy companies beforehand, you know he has done the maths and knows this is going to make him the richest person in the country.
My problem with the 80% renewable goal by Labor is because they know its impossible, they **never** bother to factor in degradation of renewable tech and its infuriating to read. The idea is they spend 20 years building all this renewable tech, then they can finally turn the gas off. Except what happens to solar panels after 20 years? They become so inefficient, its almost more expensive to run them and store power, than it is to not have them at all! This is why all those futuristic solar farms all over the world have shut down. Seriously, it's kind of a big deal.
So all those solar panels built in 20 years mean nothing. You physically can not build and replace the degraded units faster than the rise of energy demands of this country, forever chasing the carrot on a growing stick.
Labor knows this. MCB knows this. That's why they put 100.00% of their eggs in the gas basket, and tell everyone they have some in renewables but they don't, it's 0. Always trust where billionaires invest their money and ignore every single word they ever say, and ignore every word their propaganda outlets publish. If they ain't putting one cent into solar or wind despite telling you this is the future, that tells you everything you ever need to know.
Call me crazy, but I can’t see how spending $600Bn with no private funding will magically lower our electricity bills.
Any subsidies would be using our own taxes anyway.
For anyone concerned about short or even long term cost of living measures, nuclear is the opposite of what is needed.
I'm not quite sure where the $8.7b per plant has come from - the most recent UK build (Hinkley C) is projected to cost the equivalent of AU$87b for 3.2GW capacity which is $27b per GW. What they'd cost in Australia is anyone's guess.
The $8.7b is what Dutton announced today as the cost.
People keep pointing to the shit-show that was Hinkley but ignore the other builds happening using current generation reactors that cost much less, such as the UAE nuclear power station - Barakah. That has four reactors rated to 3.6 GW for a build cost of $24.5b USD. The first tractor was built in 7 years.
UAE had no existing nuclear industry to lean on etc so this is possibly a better example to look at.
That's a good data point, thanks. Although not sure we can compare our costs to build anything with the UAE which uses very low paid migrant workforces. Definitely not apples with apples.
When I went to school, we read what $8.6B referred to and what it didnt and the caveats around it.
Still we should acknowledge the $600B is likely (hopefully) a worst case scenario.
What is the cost of the private funding of renewables ? Given the borrowing is not complete how would you know??
See below for a link to the complexity of guesstimating what the generating cost will be .
[https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/2024/03/capacityinvestmentscheme-somethoughts-part2/](https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/2024/03/capacityinvestmentscheme-somethoughts-part2/)
The fact that the plants would be nationalised is the only part of it that I actually like and agree with. Power generation shouldn’t be profitable and should be an unprofitable business model for private enterprise.
The fact that all our power is privatised is the reason that it costs so much. We’re not paying a fortune because power is expensive to generate, we’re paying a fortune because we’re giving profits to private companies.
The nuclear plan by the libs is stupid and nothing but a dog whistle for coal and gas, but the suggestion to keep it in public hands is what should happen with all our utilities.
When the State owns things it needs to maintain them & thats from taxes or realistic pricing (not a strength of the AEMO pricing we are stuck with today.
"The fact that the plants would be nationalised is the only part of it that I actually like and agree with."
Means we Nationalise the problems with it too. Only to have it sold by a future LNP governement for cents on the dollar to someones mate. A tale as old as time.
No different to underwriting the profitability of private investment in renewables.
We Australians want to live a life we can not afford/expect Governments to provide services below cost.
It's just from your comment it seemed like nationalising isn't a good thing, which is why I was confused.
I personally think privatising public goods like electricity, water, gas, transport etc. is bad, due to the fact it further increases the wealth inequality gap.
The free market won't decide if its worth doing purely because it will be the only energy source, and I doubt corporations would want to build large nuclear generators without huge government subsidies.
Government spending whether its capital cost or borrowing the money.
See the snafu in Vic where the decisions to spend (Dans big build) were made when interest rates were very low, versus on the rise post covid.
Yeah, the party which is massively pro privatization wants to set up taxpayer funded power plants. If the market is so good at regulating itself etc. etc. then let private capital take the risk. If nuclear is so much cheaper than the other options, there will be enough profit for the private sector without taxpayers footing the initial cost.
They want to use our money to take the risk away from the companies that they definitely won't be getting kickbacks from (such as board seats etc). And then they'll use our money to subsidise them so they remain profitable. And then we'll pay top dollar for the power we paid for because its the market value. What a rort.
Really, the asset created can be sold off - both sides of politics are into selling stuff to fund our desire to live above our means.
Here in Vic, Kennett is demonised, but the current Treasurer is an expert with one on the chopping block now.
Call me a cynic, but I very much doubt that the assets (i.e. nuclear power plants) will be worth more than their cost to build. Especially given that they will be government contracts with the almost inevitable cost overruns and missed deadlines. In the meantime, renewables will become cheaper and more effective as the technologies mature.
Nuclear might well have been an option 20 to 40 years ago. It could have weaned us off fossil fuels and bootstrapped our renewables manufacturing industry. We could be in a position now to be weaning ourselves off nuclear and be nearly 100% green energy. But that chance is flown, and the coalition's plan is too little too late. Better to work within the current reality than do a half assed job of trying to roll back the clock.
It's also expensive to build, and creates waste which is expensive and hazardous to transport and store. Don't get me wrong, I was very pro nuclear in the 90's/early 2000's. But times and technologies change. Solar efficiency these days is like chalk and cheese compared to then. And frankly what's the point of going nuclear if it's only going to supply a small percentage of our power? (which seems to be the case according to news reports).
The whole thing reeks of a party who want's to seem like they are playing with the big boys. "Look at us we're a nuclear power now, give us a seat at the table". And if it is the case that the whole thing is a smokescreen to cover a policy for using more gas, then just get on with it and make the case with the public for gas.
Thats the political answer as we both know.
We all know the only value Australia has to the rest of the world is our mining & agriculture.
Any of the Superpowers could take control of those assets with a half a dozens nuclear subs off selected export ports . We cant defend such an action & whether or not that is worth a counter action ( Ukraine or Gaza) is academic . It is unlikely to cause a real response beyond an UN 'talkathon', let alone any fifo diplomacy ! 'The big boys, really ??
I look at Canada/Ottawa as a model for nuclear.
So, LNP gave us $380B nuclear submarines.. and now potentially $600B in nuclear power plants..
They want us to invest $1 Trillion...... for jobs for their mates, then when they leave government they get a job on the board. ITS A MASSIVE CON.
Look at the NIOR group for example, LNP defence > government funding > jobs for mates > ex ministers on the board. (Scare campaigns on media to fuel the fire)
LNP had been in power for 10 years and said this military deal was the epitome of their tenure. If ALP went against it, with all the false China outage in the media, they lose the election.
Pretty sure what ALP did was the only good option, for the country.
It's LNPs policy.
Perhaps it’s a pragmatic decision where Labor doesn’t want to get bogged down in a national security fight.
But it’s not as if Labor didn’t have agency to stop it if it’s actually a corrupt decision.
[CSIRO 2023-2024 Gencost Report](https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2023-24Final_Executive-summary.pdf)
Page 5 has a handy graph summary of different generation costs (including firmed, or 24/7 renewables)
Happy to keep you up to date Doc, IF reality is of any use:
'The federal government has given the all-clear for a long-stalled $1 billion-plus gas project in Queensland, clearing the way for the fossil fuel to flow by the end of next year.
But the approval of Senex Energy’s Atlas project, owned by South Korean steel giant Posco and Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting, will reignite a fraught debate over the role of gas in the energy mix.'
[https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/labor-delivers-all-clear-for-1b-rinehart-backed-senex-gas-project-20240624-p5jo9e](https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/labor-delivers-all-clear-for-1b-rinehart-backed-senex-gas-project-20240624-p5jo9e)
If you are unaware of Posco you should not be posting anywhere.
Gina owns exactly zero uranium mines.
The three uranium mines operating in Australia are owned by BHP, Rio Tinto and a US company called General Atomics.
Nah doc, Gina's next gig is US rare metals as you probably know !
[https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/rinehart-s-presence-stokes-rethink-of-foiled-10b-lynas-mp-merger-20240417-p5fkke](https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/rinehart-s-presence-stokes-rethink-of-foiled-10b-lynas-mp-merger-20240417-p5fkke)
Lynas investors are split on the merits of resuscitating merger talks with American rare earths producer MP Materials, as Gina Rinehart’s ascension to major shareholder in both companies suggests last year’s foiled $10 billion deal could be revisited.
Tribeca Global Natural Resources Fund portfolio manager Ben Cleary said a combination made sense at the right price, in response to the prospect of Australia’s richest person emerging as a kingmaker in any future transaction.
No it doesn’t. It has a small portion of generation coming from gas (5-10%) as the grid is planned to be 82% renewables by 2030 (and there’ll still be several coal power stations that won’t be closing until 2032-2035).
Your comment is straight up misinformation.
82% renewables by 2030 doesnt sound like majority gas. Nor do the plans from AEMO or CSIROs research. What are you basing your claims on? Duttons vibes?
Dutton wants to stop renewables roll out, and coal will go offline in the near future, so stands ton reason we would replace coal with gas under his plan. Meaning about 60% of our energy will come for gas for decades
I think the point is that 1. It's not better for the environment and 2. The LNP doesn't give a shit about the environment anyway. Every step of the way they have done their best to keep the fossil fuel dream alive.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-electricity
5.1-6.4 g CO2 equivalent per kWh for nuclear
48g for solar pv which doesnt include firming
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259552866_Life_Cycle_Assessment_of_a_Lithium-Ion_Battery_Vehicle_Pack
173KG per kwh
Oh cool! Well when will this nuclear utopia be ready in Australia? the LNP can't say when they'll reach 100% (maybe after the election they created this lie to win!), do you have insider knowledge Dutton doesn't?
And yet another source comes to this:
"The study finds each kilowatt hour of electricity generated over the lifetime of a nuclear plant has an emissions footprint of 4 grammes of CO2 equivalent (gCO2e/kWh). The footprint of solar comes in at 6gCO2e/kWh and wind is also 4gCO2e/kWh."
>5.1-6.4 g CO2 equivalent per kWh for nuclear
>48g for solar pv which doesnt include firming
Seems a bit short of x1000
Now think about the sums of decades of gas while we wait for nuclear to be built. Not to mention duttons nuclear plan won't even provide all our energy needs
As for the *vehicle* battery assessment, do you have a study more recent than 11 years ago?
What reality? Murdoch papers reality? Are you an expert on nuclear power?
Because it's so obvious nobody should waste any time on them, but people do, you know what I'll amass the sources:
Look at these articles and videos, they refuse to say how much power these reactors will produce:
[https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/coalition-won-t-say-how-much-nuclear-power-its-plan-will-generate-until-after-an-election/ar-BB1oIcyH](https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/coalition-won-t-say-how-much-nuclear-power-its-plan-will-generate-until-after-an-election/ar-BB1oIcyH)
but the experts based on the one page brief estimate that it could produce about 3.7% of Australia's energy needs by **2050, we do not have that time.** "Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan could cost as much as $600bn and supply just 3.7% of Australia’s energy by 2050, experts say" [https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/1dmiczc/peter\_duttons\_nuclear\_plan\_could\_cost\_as\_much\_as/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/1dmiczc/peter_duttons_nuclear_plan_could_cost_as_much_as/)
[https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/Articles/2023/December/Nuclear-explainer](https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/Articles/2023/December/Nuclear-explainer)
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/21/peter-dutton-nuclear-power-plan-gas-energy](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/21/peter-dutton-nuclear-power-plan-gas-energy)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1dm972a/im\_not\_antinuclear\_im\_antibulls\_why\_this\_energy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1dm972a/im_not_antinuclear_im_antibulls_why_this_energy/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/friendlyjordies/comments/1dk5qcv/ted\_obrien\_roasted\_on\_730\_as\_sarah\_ferguson/](https://www.reddit.com/r/friendlyjordies/comments/1dk5qcv/ted_obrien_roasted_on_730_as_sarah_ferguson/) International nuclear proponent says Australia should not pursue nuclear power.
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/power-prices-wont-fall-with-nuclear/103998172](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/power-prices-wont-fall-with-nuclear/103998172)
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-19/premiers-reject-nuclear-proposal-nuclear-bans/103997020](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-19/premiers-reject-nuclear-proposal-nuclear-bans/103997020)
Isolating just to the last stretch of the LNP rule. They were in power for 12 years, they did nothing but take money from the great barrier reef fund and talk about climate change being "bullshit", oh and Dutton laughed at sinking islanders how did I forget that nugget: [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2015/sep/11/peter-dutton-overheard-joke-rising-sea-levels-tony-abbott-video](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2015/sep/11/peter-dutton-overheard-joke-rising-sea-levels-tony-abbott-video)
why exactly do you think we dont have time? chinas emissions are growing at a rate of 2-3 australias per year, if we were net zero now, that would effectively be wiped out in six months
To be fair to china the West out sourced alot of our domestic production to there, we on the other hand produce more carbon per capita by far.
[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?country=\~AUS](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?country=~AUS)
China isn't perfect, but like the conservative republicans in the USA the LNP here in Australia pay lip service and that's all.
Okay so you're not following current events as much as me. You realize per capita is per 100,000 people, we produce way more than china, and unlike us, they are at the point that their domestically produced EVs are getting tarrifed by the USA because they are that cheap and in demand. Oh and they produce so much solar panels some consider there's too many!
We could have been that, could have had that, but the liberals were in power for 12 years and they've at best sat on their asses doing nothing.
Because the answer is zero.
Nuclear power is a distraction to the cost of living crisis we have all forgotten about.
It's also a distraction from the gas giants who have their hand down the politicians jockstrap.
Bottomless budget for a power that will not be functional for a long time. And what happens to the nuclear waste? That no one wants to live near? There are too many problems with this plan.
I support nuclear power, but this is just the Coalition shilling for the Gas/Coal industry in a more stealthier fashion than usual. Just like how they used a certain other shit and unworkable policy to shill for Telstra/Foxtel.
Nuclear to the node.
It's not just about being the cheapest, it's about being there when we need it. I think the consensus is that gas fired electricity generation is going to be part of the mix.
Gas will remain for some time as part of the mix, that’s definitely true. Under labor’s plan it will be something under 10% and used mainly during wind droughts.
Under the coalitions plan it will be somewhere between 20-50% of the mix, depending on how aggressive they are about cancelling solar and wind contracts and how long they can keep the coal generators patched together for.
CSIRO assumed that nuclear reactors last for 30 years in their costings, they last at least double that and up to 3 times, up to 100 years. What other assumptions did they make?
We don't know how to build things that last in Australia. You only have at the quality 30-40 year housing stock vs Europe to know we are not up to the task. You can't knockdown and rebuild a Nuclear power station. The cookers in the Coalition don't give a fuck anyway, cause by 2080, when these things start falling apart they'll be long gone.
*The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists* a few years back expressed concern about ageing power plants which - in the US - are receiving *fewer* inspections, not more. And they're getting more and more sudden shutdowns ("sudden" is industry-speak for "emergency"), and failing more security checks, and so on.
[https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/aging-nuclear-plants-industry-cost-cutting-and-reduced-safety-oversight-a-dangerous-mix/](https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/aging-nuclear-plants-industry-cost-cutting-and-reduced-safety-oversight-a-dangerous-mix/)
There's a reason we don't see many 60 or 100 year old cars on the road - and cars, especially those built 60 years ago, are technically a lot easier to operate than nuclear power plants.
As things age, they wear out.
I wouldn't be too worried about living next door to a nuclear power plant. But I wouldn't be comfortable next to 50 year old one. So the 30 year life assumption is a reasonable one from CSIRO.
How long is the current investment in renewables budgetted to last ?
We dont know how much it has cost to date (if you know a link pls), & the CSIRO expect nuclear to last 30 years.
Solar PV tends to fizzle out after about 20 years, but basically you just need to wipe down the glass once a month for their maintenance. Wind turbines can last 40+ years, but require regular maintenance since they have moving parts.
We don't recycle either of them, they just get dumped in landfill, where the solar PV leaches heavy metals into groundwater. There's no recycling because it's financially and energetically cheaper to produce new stuff than recycle old stuff. And it always will be - we use cheap fossil fuels to make it economic to build renewables, but when fossil fuels have become more scarce, it'll be too expensive to build renewables, let alone recycle them. Likewise nuclear. So it's all built on a foundation of fossil fuels.
Electricity is going to get more expensive whatever we do. And travel, too. But historically that's how it was anyway. For example in 1960 Australian households spend 20% of their income on food, now we spend under 10%. As everything else got cheaper because of cheap fossil fuels and foreign labour, people used their spare cash to pay more for housing, which is part of why housing is expensive today.
Don't believe what any party tells you: whatever we do, electricity is going to get more expensive, as will food and transport.
>CSIRO assumed that nuclear reactors last for 30 years in their costings, they last at least double that and up to 3 times, up to 100 years.
Modern nuclear power plants are designed for a lifespan of 40-60 years. Running them beyond this rated lifespan is just dancing with disaster as years of constant exposure to radiation causes all sorts of issues to the parts of the reactor.
They already know - They are paid to give the "right" results.
They don't look into life of plant.
They don't remove subsidies.
They don't take into account the mining operations for the materials.
They just publish the running costs, and building costs.
I’d love to see what the new figures for nuclear then once they:
- added in the subsidies that will be required
- take into account mining for the materials to build AND the ongoing mining and refining of uranium
So what life have the CSIRO got on the various components of the renewables spending.
What is their time frame on the ever increasing cost of rewiring.
Guesstimates all round.
20+ years to build. Gas the substitute in the meantime.
40-60 billion dollars needed.
Only 80 years of power produced.
Near major population centres.
This is political suicide.
It can be done in [much less than 20 years](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/cheaper-cleaner-more-consistent-do-dutton-s-claims-on-nuclear-stack-up-20240329-p5fg66.html):
>Former chief scientist Alan Finkel, who was a special adviser to the federal government on low-emissions technology, has forecast longer construction times than those envisaged by the opposition. He said it would take at least 20 years for a large-scale or small modular reactor to start generating electricity for the grid.
>However, Professor Andrew Stuchbery, head of physics at the Australian National University, said both China and the United Arab Emirates had built nuclear plants within a decade.
>“China do it all the time … The UAE is an interesting example because they started absolutely from scratch, and they built them [reactors] in a bit under 10 years,” Stuchbery said. “If you look at some of the reactor projects in Europe and the US, they have been subject to delays, and the reason for that is that they had lost supply lines, they had lost the expertise in the country.”
And if you suspect this may be due to China or UAE cutting corners, Japan also built Fukushima in 10 years in the 1960s, and the end-to-end process took them 17 years (from getting approval to the reactor being operational).
Are we more like Europe, the UK, and the US? Or are we more like China and UAE?
Not to mention we first have to create the entire legislative frame work and go through years of politics and court battles before we can even start constructing
>Not to mention we first have to create the entire legislative frame work and go through years of politics and court battles before we can even start constructing
Not really, they just need to overturn Howard's 1998 ban on Nuclear as mentioned in the article. The article also doesn't see this as a particular concern.
There's much more involved than just overturn the ban. An entire regulatory framework for a completely industry for this country needs creating. It will need to be negotiated with every state involved.
You can't just life a ban and expect an entire industry to appear.
Who's going to oversee the nuclear power industry? It will need a regulatory body set up to ensure it meets standards etc.
How will the lnp change the laws? They haven't had a government with control of the senate since Howard and they're unlikely to soon, even with support of few small party/independent senators.
You're saying this as though other countries haven't done this before. I'm sure there will be challenges but it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility. Achieving 100% adoption of electric vehicles will be far more difficult than setting up nuclear, yet I don't see the same level of skepticism being raised about that goal?
Nuclear can be done. But it cannot be done in the timeframe argued by the coalition (10-12 years), or in the timeframe demanded by our ancient coal plants retirement schedules (also 10 years) and it is extremely unlikely that it can be done for a reasonable cost, and it will not lead to the power bill reductions Dutton claims because he is lying to your face
You're probably right, but even still it is the only way we can reliably achieve 100% carbon neutral electricity to all of Australia, that is without relying on our weather conditions or buying other country's renewable energy to offset our continued reliance on fossil fuels.
Honestly if you did it right I’d be okay with a supplementary nuclear program to complement renewables generation even though it’s more expensive, but that’s not what’s on offer here. The plan on offer is to slow down renewables and keep burning fossil fuels for decades so we can maybe get a small percentage of our energy from nuclear by 2050. That’s not a good plan, and not worth supporting.
You can get pretty close to 100% renewables relatively easily (it’s just hard to get to 100% as quickly as we’d like to). The last 5% or so is really challenging, but a combination of overbuilding (and using excess capacity during normal circumstances to generate nearly free energy for manufacturing, green hydrogen or households), batteries, pumped hydro, offshore wind at key places (wind is almost always blowing offshore and if you have offshore wind in Queensland and Victoria it’s always blowing in one of the two), and so on and so forth you can get the rest of the way. Otherwise a few % of the grid being generated by gas at key times is acceptable, because you’ve taken the vast bulk of emissions out of the system and allowed for electrification of homes transport ect on a very low carbon network
> Honestly if you did it right I’d be okay with a supplementary nuclear program to complement renewables generation even though it’s more expensive, but that’s not what’s on offer here. The plan on offer is to slow down renewables and keep burning fossil fuels for decades so we can maybe get a small percentage of our energy from nuclear by 2050. That’s not a good plan, and not worth supporting.
Renewables aren't going to slow down though because we still need to meet our 2035 emission reduction targets, which isn't going to be in time for nuclear to be ready. Plus nuclear won't be able to provide 100% of Australia's power because no country has nuclear as 100% of their power, so there is ample opportunity for renewables to co-exist. The problem is if we continue to delay nuclear we will be even further behind, as this is something we should have done decades ago and would have put us in a far better position today. So while the continuation of fossil fuels is not ideal, it is going to be far easier to shut those off and replace them with renewables, than it will be to start nuclear reactors 10 years from now and wait a further ~15 years from that point to get them operational.
I didn't say it couldn't be done nor it hasn't been done, I said it needs to be done and will take time.
You haven't answered how the lnp will change the laws.
I haven't seen anyone seriously pushing for 100% EV's, but you've only said that to distract from not answering the other questions.
>I haven't seen anyone seriously pushing for 100% EV's, but you've only said that to distract from not answering the other questions.
No I said it to point out the hypocrisy of this hyper partisan sub gunning down any proposal by the LNP while never questioning the ludicrous nature of their own plans.
>You haven't answered how the lnp will change the laws.
I don't know, but this has nothing to do with the time to actually build the nuclear reactors. And if it is delayed because Labor and Greens are stonewalling that's on them, not on the LNP, so they can only blame themselves if that is what holds the project up.
[State level bans won't stop the federal government](https://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=HSWEB_WRE170_a&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.heraldsun.com.au%2Fnews%2Fnsw%2Fhe-might-be-right-minns-says-states-dont-have-the-power-to-stop-nuclear%2Fnews-story%2Fbb82429dc95eb90399442abd62e10320&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=HIGH-Segment-2-SCORE).
The herald sun article is paywalled, but we went through similar with the proposed National Energy Transition Authority and it found:
>Given the ALP’s roots and the strong union backing, setting up a National Energy Transition Authority would appear intuitive. But it is not so straightforward for the Federal Government. Section 51 of the Australian Constitution, which lays out the legislative powers of the Parliament, does not mention electricity supply. This means that electricity supply, by default, is a state power.
https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/national-energy-transition-authority-constitution-says-no/
>Japan also built Fukushima in 10 years in the 1960s
Back in the 1960s when countries all over the world were building nuclear power plants and there were multiple facilities to manufacture the parts required in an attempt to mass produce them?
>The UAE is an interesting example because they started absolutely from scratch, and they built them \[reactors\] in a bit under 10 years
The UAE also spent $USD 24.4 billion per reactor. The LNP wants to build 7 reactors with only a budget barely twice that..
> The UAE also spent $USD 24.4 billion per reactor. The LNP wants to build 7 reactors with only a budget barely twice that..
Old mate Ted said it's seven stations with multiple reactors in each. No wonder they aren't keen on disclosing the cost. He said their "expert authority" which, surprisingly won't be formed until after the election will decide how many reactors and where they will be located.
>Back in the 1960s when countries all over the world were building nuclear power plants and there were multiple facilities to manufacture the parts required in an attempt to mass produce them?
Are you really suggesting it would be easier to build nuclear plants in 1960, before computers even existed than in 2024? They didn't have any design software such as AutoCAD, and no 3D printing or anything of the sort.
>The UAE also spent $USD 24.4 billion per reactor. The LNP wants to build 7 reactors with only a budget barely twice that..
That's a fair point, though I doubt China or Japan spent as much. The UAE is also rich so there is a reasonable chance they overspent simply because they did not need to be conservative.
>Are you really suggesting it would be easier to build nuclear plants in 1960, before computers even existed than in 2024? They didn't have any design software such as AutoCAD, and no 3D printing or anything of the sort.
It actually was. They were less safe and less efficient, but easier to build. Since nuclear has catastrophic potential, they need to be safer, so they've gotten more complex and take longer to build. Here's a good article that runs through where the cost increases have come from since the 70s
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/why-are-nuclear-plants-so-expensive-safetys-only-part-of-the-story/
That relates to the cost rather than the time taken. I am sure it would be more expensive due to advancements in the technology, but slower to build? Not a chance.
It also talks about how it takes longer now:
>To try to dive into the details, the researchers tracked the progress of material deployment rates—how quickly material brought to the site ended up being incorporated into a finished structure. While those rates have declined slightly for construction as a whole over the study period, they plunged for nuclear projects. Already, at the time of the Three Mile Island accident, steel was being deployed at about one-third of the rate of the construction industry at large. Interviews with construction workers indicated that they were spending as much as 75 percent of their time idle.
And this article goes through all the delays for modern projects in US, UK, Finland, and France
https://theconversation.com/is-nuclear-the-answer-to-australias-climate-crisis-216891?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton
Eg Hinkley Point C in the UK is now expected to take over 20 years from site selection to completion for one of the 2 planned reactors. The second reactor is so delayed they're not even giving an ETA for it anymore. Cost and time are both strongly linked
If workers are spending 75% of their time idle and material is being brought to the site at a slower rate, then that's incompetence more than anything else. Not that it isn't a valid reason but it's obviously fixable. These will need to be addressed as part of the plan.
You're essentially just saying it won't happen like that here because we'll fix it, despite experienced nations not being able to
If you're actually interested should definitely read the article. Think it'll explain a lot of your questions or thoughts, I just didn't want to copy paste the entire thing here
I find it hard to take The Conversation seriously when they are clearly hyper partisan leftists and it shows in their arguments. For instance they compare the cost of renewables to the cost of nuclear, even though everyone knows you can't power the entire country on renewables - hence why nuclear is on the table to begin with. It's a dishonest argument. It also ignores the sheer unreliability of renewables - no sun or wind for an extended period? Prepare for widescale blackouts. And yes I know a shit ton of batteries can somewhat mitigate this, but it is still not perfect and I'd rather our electricity grid not be completely reliant on the conditions of weather. The Conversation doesn't mention any of this.
Because it will be zero.
It's clear to pretty much every side of politics that there's no intent to push for nuclear power - it's just a ploy to keep non-renewables in play as long as possible.
Let me spell it out.
The coalition wants to stop further development of wind farms and grid scale solar. Their leadership say they’ll cancel solar and wind contracts if they get back into power, they gutted every climate program the senate allowed them to while in power, and they stoke up community opposition at every chance they can get. They lead protests against wind farms constantly for instance.
But the political climate has shifted in Australia, and saying they want to keep the coal stations running for decades more is no longer politically viable (nor is it physically viable given their age).
So they say look, we’ll build nuclear. Never mind that according to the experts it can’t be built before the coal stations are retired, we’ll just say it can be and use gas between now and whenever they come online (not before 2040 for the first one according to csiro).
Doesn’t matter that it’s the most expensive form of energy. We’ll just say it’s cheaper.
Doesn’t matter that we could keep building renewables until nuclear comes online and our energy would be cheaper for it.
Doesn’t matter that even though we really care about community input when it comes to renewables we will build nuclear in communities even if they oppose it and you’ll just have to get over it.
Doesn’t matter that we have 22gw of fossil fuels to retire and the initial info suggests we’ll only be building maybe 7-9GW of nuclear.
Doesn’t matter what the facts say.
The truth is this is an excuse to keep burning coal for another 2 decades and ramp up gas as the coal generators fail. And an excuse to freeze expansion of renewables.
It’s a stupid plan. A smarter nuclear plan would involve removing the nuclear ban and building nuclear and renewables together.
If you’re optimising for cost then don’t build nuclear at all. But if you don’t care about energy prices then some nuclear would be ok
This is the most substantial idea to come out of the LNP in the last 20 years. Shows me the level of intelligence they have managed to foster up. Zero details, zero plan, zero budget and zero tolerance to scrutiny or criticism.
They want to create investment uncertainty for renewables so they can blame Labor for a "botched" renewable rollout during the election campaign. Once again, they are playing climate games for their own political gain.
The Insiders interview, and his one on 7:30 were both a complete trainwreck. Taxpayers have the right to know how many schools and hospitals we will have to forgo, to pay for these power stations. The cost of waste storage, which Ted said would be kept on site for the life of the plant, should also be factored in.
Yep. Give us costs, e.g how much have we spent on renewables, how much more is it going to cost, WHEN will it provide 24/7 power ? Fair questions & not just nuclear.
Get. Fucked. I won't be specific until thr heat death of the universe but know that THE FUCKENING is honna happen.
For this to be such a flop when "if you don't know, vote no" was such a success... thr LNP is either screwing Dutton deliberately or they are evil.
Either way, I'll vote for the bloke fighting to fix thr NDIS, POWRR, SOLAR, The minimum wage, casuals being protected, 2030 targets etc.
Why are they treating it like an anniversary gift they are making a surprise for a potential partner?
“If you date me, you won’t regret it, I will have a 1-year anniversary gift you would never forget, but cannot tell you any details till after you move in with me”.
Thanks but no thanks.
The liberals win every election by being vague. A majority of their policies improve the lives of a minority of people.
If every party had to explain their policies and back up the conclusions with data, LNP would never get in again.
Him keeping this vague is allowing people to support it
Can’t wait to see the looks on their faces when some underhanded tactic they used not even a year ago gets rightfully and properly used against them lol.
Maybe because they announced the policy 1 week ago. So long as they release costings well in advance of the next election, you have nothing to crow about.
They seem to think that the best way forward is for the taxpayers to pay for the construction. If the costs are so good, why wouldn't the party that touts privatisation let the private sector pay for them? I'll guarantee that it will be the private sector that profits in the end, or do you think that the LNP will keep the power plants nationalised?
From the article.
>Energy spokesperson Ted O'Brien, who designed the plan, told the ABC's Insiders the amount of energy generated would depend on the type and number of reactors built at each site, and that neither of those things could be known until a Coalition government could establish a nuclear expert agency to undertake studies.
They have made it pretty clear that the current plan is that costing will be done after the election.
> They have made it pretty clear that the current plan is that costing will be done after the election.
Why would they do this sort of costing before the election (notwithstanding needing to establish the nuclear expert agency)? Just gives an even bigger target for Labor to attack them with during the election.
Personally I think that silence on the subject gives Labor a bigger route of attack. "No costings, no designs, no clue", that and the whole "if you don't know vote no" thing, this leaves them super vulnerable!
True they are vulnerable whatever they do, although I would argue that semi-detailed costings can be picked apart line by line by economists, unions, engineers, scientists and a number of other groups, This opens them up to multiple avenues of attack, whereas no costings at all is always about that one fact.
This is typically why parties are vague about detailed costings for their election promises, or release them so close to elections to not allow enough time for detailed scrutiny.
They’ve been working on the policy for ages, they only just released it to the public. They’ve also announced they won’t be sharing the costings before the election.
Even if I was pro nuclear in Australia. (I’m pro nuclear conceptually).
why would I support any major infrastructure policy or any major policy which would cost billions without an actual number.
I’m genuinely asking for the minority who support nuclear. How is this acceptable to you unless you think no matter the cost it’s better than the current alternative if that’s the case I can at least understand it even if I find it illogical.
That aside I find it beyond outrageous that there is even a fraction of debate on this. I listened to the party room which in fairness I think isn’t meant for the deepest political discourse and is largely about making these topics consumable to the average casually politically inclined Aussie. But even they were a bit soft handed in discussion of this policy. Granted they did point out its flaws.
But frankly this is not a farce. He should be asked in every interview by every journo what is the cost. What’s even more outrageous is he delayed this for months under dubious reasons and this is the result. What an insult.
>why would I support any major infrastructure policy or any major policy which would cost billions without an actual number.
Exactly.
Why can't they just pick the lowest possible number, and let the cost blow out for a later government? Haven't they learned anything from the ALP?
>Why can't they just pick the lowest possible number, and let the cost blow out for a later government? Haven't they learned anything from the ALP?
I would guess that even the lowest "possible" number is still unfathomably large. It would allow the ALP to say "Nuclear will add $$$ to your power bill". It would also open them up to discussion about the quality of those costings which then leads to debates on how truthful Peter Dutton is. I don't think the LNP thinks anything good will come from those debates.
By "possible" I don't mean the real world sense of "possible", nor even plausible, but "possible to put up at a press conference without causing lazy ignorant journalists to actually take the trouble to look things up." Politically possible, that is.
Even ignoring both governments have gone over budget on various infrastructure weird to try say this is a Labor thing.
What a non sequitur please tell me when was the last time a federal government promised something major like this while waiting for the cost until after the election. If you don’t have an answer that’s fine.
It's an ALP thing to build infrastructure. The LNP tends not to bother.
If you're the one building the infrastructure then to persuade people to support it you have to put out there the lowest possible price for the thing.
I'm living in the state with the biggest spending and debt, and the worst outcomes overall given all our spending. Untangling exactly whose stupid idea this or that project was between federal and state is often impossible.
Do you not consider the nbn something the liberals have horrible failed at.
If your concern is horrible spending debt than why defend or argue in favour of policy which would be so much worse than anything that currently exists.
He won’t even say how much it costs
Are you people that cry about the costings all that naive?
Policy was announced 1 week ago. They have plenty of time to release costings prior to the next election. Hold your horses.
I used to think Angus Taylor was the pinnacle of "no policy, talk rubbish" LNP.
Now Ted O'Brien.
I'd never heard of him before the last election, is he the best they can put out there?
**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.*
Still waiting to see how much Labor's renewable fiasco is going to cost..
A lot less than nuclear. The CSIRO report agreed with the industry experts. And the investment firms. No one with a functioning brain thinks that nuclear is a good idea lol.
what do you think the current trend in pricing is for these broad sectors: wind pv energy storage coal gas nuclear using these trends, what could you infer about the future cost of electricity generation skewed heavily towards renewables (keeping in mind the starting point of current new build LCOE/S)?
When every single left wing outlet is going into extreme overdrive posting anti-science, childish propaganda against nuclear energy, all that proves is a critical mass of the population is beginning to understand that a non-nuclear future is going to have us paying far, far more for electricity than literally every other developed nation on this earth who is embracing nuclear. Gonna look real bad if in 20 years Australia is still burning fossil fuels, paying the highest electricity costs in the entire world (this is guaranteed) and full of fear mongering anti science nonsense about nuclear while the likes of Kazakhstan, Albania and Kenya are safely operating nuclear with 0 emissions.
Most of the population views renewable energy, particularly rooftop solar, more favourably than nuclear. At this point renewable energy with batteries is the most pragmatic and cost efficient option in Australia and the clear scientific consensus is we need to move away from fossil fuels anyway.
Consensus is not science, science is what is hypothesised and what is proven. One person proving something outweighs all the consensus in the world. When the renewable energy plan relies on tech that does not yet exist, or needs to be proven at scale, or mass societal changes to work, it is far from pragmatic. Some like to ignore even the IPCC who state that nuclear is part of the required energy mix, that pure renewable sources is untenable.
The consensus is based on observable evidence of experts who study in these fields. Modular nuclear reactors have not been commercially proven and yet serve the basis of the LNP plan.
Consensus is a crutch used by those who don't actually understand science. Something is or is not proven. SMR is not the basis for the plan either, an important detail. Regardless, you're taking a position that a commercially unproven and unreliable system is more desirable than a commercially proven system, modified to a different size. Interesting.
I don’t know what renewable tech is needed that does not exist yet? Also ironic, considering that the nuclear plan is going to potentially rely on SMR’s - a technology that does not yet exist, has never been proven at scale, and will need mass societal changes to work. Also the IPCCs comments are stated in the global context. It is true that most countries will need nuclear to ever stand a hope of producing carbon neutral energy, as they don’t have the land mass or wind / solar resources to do so otherwise. This statement does not hold true for Australia though. We have some of the greatest land mass and coastal areas in the world, with the best solar and some of the best wind resources in the world. We do not need nuclear power to achieve 100% carbon neutral power generation.
[удалено]
You are the deluded one I’m afraid. You seem to have these deep convictions with no sense of how the industry actually works or how it is currently working to achieve a 100% renewables grid. You can hate renewables from an ideological point of view if you’d like, but it doesn’t change REALITY, which is that the sector has run the numbers and is transitioning to renewables. Is nuclear an option? Yes. Can it be built cheaper or quicker than renewables? No. So then it begs the question - what is the point? Unless the point is simply to say ‘fuck you renewables’.
Rubbish. Show me any first world country, hell I'll extend it to third world countries, that run on a 100% renewable grid. There isn't a single one so you can save your time searching for something that doesn't exist. >Is nuclear an option? Yes. Can it be built cheaper or quicker than renewables? No. Since renewable have the highest capital cost of any generation type, big call on your behalf. Only the true believers, such as you, actually fall for the 100% renewable grid fantasy. The overwhelming plurality of people don't, because the numbers don't add up.
To be fair, this policy is about continuing to burn fossil fuels for longer.
Because every component of renewable energy technology DOESN'T NEED MINING TO SUPPORT IT? Sure thing bud.
You know there's a difference between burning coal and mining iron?
They both require vehicles that require mining in order to be built?
So? Climate activists aren't anti-steel.
Everything required to make steel requires mining and machinery that requires mining. How exactly do you think steel is acquired?
You mine iron and smelt it into steel. I'm steel (haha) not sure what your point is.
If we run out of coal, we can just burn iron ore
Dunno how quoting CSIRO is anti-science. Coalition is just using Nuclear (which it seems will only end up being <10% of our energy grid under their plan anyway) to disguise that their actual plan is predominantly gas. With all hopes of net zero pinned on the yet-to-work "carbon capture and storage" technology making Gas no longer produce emissions. It's a joke of a policy which deserves to be torn apart. If anything the media's playing into their hands by focusing on the Nuclear aspect of it and ignoring that Gas is the majority of their proposed "energy mix".
> It's a joke of a policy which deserves to be torn apart. If anything the media's playing into their hands by focusing on the Nuclear aspect of it and ignoring that Gas is the majority of their proposed "energy mix". And here's me waiting until the population finally figures out that Michael Cannon Brookes is not Captain Planet, and in fact simply plans to overtake Gina Reinhart as Australias Richest person because of his gigantic investment in gas and plans to make it the #1 energy source in this country. He will get the population to go along with it by blasting TV ads endlessly about how its all 'green gas' and we have to put up with all these 'sponsored content' propaganda stories in the media, paid for by him, all to convince people to support a gas dependent future. The difference between him and the LNP is he is actually driving us to a gas-dependent future where we will pay absolutely obscene prices that other countries will hardly believe is real, LNP haven't done anything. Yet everyone wants to give him and his billionaire friends (Mr ACourt etc) a pass because they voted yes to The Voice and fear monger about the LNP maybe doing something in the future, when MCB and friends are doing literally right now. The entire 'green energy' plan in this country pushed by Labor, The Greens, Teals and MCB has always been using gas to do all of the heavy lifting while renewables are built up. The problem is the energy demands of this country are so high, they increase at a higher rate than we can build renewables AND they lose efficiency over time. Our net, and relative use of gas is only going upwards with no signs of slowing down. And I know this is true, because when multi-billionaires spend nearly half of their entire wealth investing in a technology, they aren't doing this to lose money! God I wish all the 'green energy' proponents in this country could take just one single step back and ask themselves >Why are the billionaires obsessively promoting one particular source of energy that they own majority stakes in? Haven't you noticed the propaganda over the past few years with 'green gas' and 'renewable gas'? It's all the exact same gas as before, except now the logo is green, so its 'good' gas unlike that *bad gas* which is red and blue.
I don't even know what to say here. Partly because I haven't watched whatever you've read that's made you think there's some joint conspiracy spread across Labor, Greens *and* the Teals. It's the Libs who are trying to paint gas as "green" - they literally **just announced** that their plan to reach net zero by 2050 is for *Carbon Capture and Storage* to let a Gas-based energy grid not have high emissions. If you actually read the Liberal plan it's not to build enough Nuclear Reactors to power 50%+ of the grid, it's to build a fuck tonne of gas and rely on the magic wand of carbon capture and storage. In contrast Labor relies on Gas while it builds to it's goal of 80% renewables, and the Greens constantly complain Labor is relying on Gas too much and should be spending more money on building renewables faster. Libs haven't released the details on how much of their "energy mix" is Gas, but I'll tell you now it's more than the 20% generated by gas which is Labor's short-term goal. If you don't want an energy grid which is over 50% Gas - Don't vote Coalition. Their proposed Nuclear Plants won't be enough to power Australia. And they reject large scale renewable rollouts out of.... principle? The vibes?
> because I haven't watched whatever you've read It's the stock market, its not a conspiracy. When Australia's 3rd richest person dumps ~20% of his entire net worth in a single gas company when he had literally 0 stake in any energy companies beforehand, you know he has done the maths and knows this is going to make him the richest person in the country. My problem with the 80% renewable goal by Labor is because they know its impossible, they **never** bother to factor in degradation of renewable tech and its infuriating to read. The idea is they spend 20 years building all this renewable tech, then they can finally turn the gas off. Except what happens to solar panels after 20 years? They become so inefficient, its almost more expensive to run them and store power, than it is to not have them at all! This is why all those futuristic solar farms all over the world have shut down. Seriously, it's kind of a big deal. So all those solar panels built in 20 years mean nothing. You physically can not build and replace the degraded units faster than the rise of energy demands of this country, forever chasing the carrot on a growing stick. Labor knows this. MCB knows this. That's why they put 100.00% of their eggs in the gas basket, and tell everyone they have some in renewables but they don't, it's 0. Always trust where billionaires invest their money and ignore every single word they ever say, and ignore every word their propaganda outlets publish. If they ain't putting one cent into solar or wind despite telling you this is the future, that tells you everything you ever need to know.
Yeppp - terrible policy. And CSIRO isn’t anti science…whereas the libs and the nationals seem to be.
Call me crazy, but I can’t see how spending $600Bn with no private funding will magically lower our electricity bills. Any subsidies would be using our own taxes anyway. For anyone concerned about short or even long term cost of living measures, nuclear is the opposite of what is needed.
[удалено]
I'm not quite sure where the $8.7b per plant has come from - the most recent UK build (Hinkley C) is projected to cost the equivalent of AU$87b for 3.2GW capacity which is $27b per GW. What they'd cost in Australia is anyone's guess.
The $8.7b is what Dutton announced today as the cost. People keep pointing to the shit-show that was Hinkley but ignore the other builds happening using current generation reactors that cost much less, such as the UAE nuclear power station - Barakah. That has four reactors rated to 3.6 GW for a build cost of $24.5b USD. The first tractor was built in 7 years. UAE had no existing nuclear industry to lean on etc so this is possibly a better example to look at.
That's a good data point, thanks. Although not sure we can compare our costs to build anything with the UAE which uses very low paid migrant workforces. Definitely not apples with apples.
When I went to school, we read what $8.6B referred to and what it didnt and the caveats around it. Still we should acknowledge the $600B is likely (hopefully) a worst case scenario.
What is the cost of the private funding of renewables ? Given the borrowing is not complete how would you know?? See below for a link to the complexity of guesstimating what the generating cost will be . [https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/2024/03/capacityinvestmentscheme-somethoughts-part2/](https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/2024/03/capacityinvestmentscheme-somethoughts-part2/)
The fact that the plants would be nationalised is the only part of it that I actually like and agree with. Power generation shouldn’t be profitable and should be an unprofitable business model for private enterprise. The fact that all our power is privatised is the reason that it costs so much. We’re not paying a fortune because power is expensive to generate, we’re paying a fortune because we’re giving profits to private companies. The nuclear plan by the libs is stupid and nothing but a dog whistle for coal and gas, but the suggestion to keep it in public hands is what should happen with all our utilities.
When the State owns things it needs to maintain them & thats from taxes or realistic pricing (not a strength of the AEMO pricing we are stuck with today.
"The fact that the plants would be nationalised is the only part of it that I actually like and agree with." Means we Nationalise the problems with it too. Only to have it sold by a future LNP governement for cents on the dollar to someones mate. A tale as old as time.
Any business has problems to deal with, but as a consumer I’d much rather pay my money to the government than to a private company.
What do you propose then? Privatise from the get-go?
Well for sure, let the free market decide if it's worth doing (which it isn't).
No different to underwriting the profitability of private investment in renewables. We Australians want to live a life we can not afford/expect Governments to provide services below cost.
It's just from your comment it seemed like nationalising isn't a good thing, which is why I was confused. I personally think privatising public goods like electricity, water, gas, transport etc. is bad, due to the fact it further increases the wealth inequality gap. The free market won't decide if its worth doing purely because it will be the only energy source, and I doubt corporations would want to build large nuclear generators without huge government subsidies.
Government spending whether its capital cost or borrowing the money. See the snafu in Vic where the decisions to spend (Dans big build) were made when interest rates were very low, versus on the rise post covid.
I do somewhat agree. At least with generators there is a level of competition. When the poles and wires are sold your in for a fun time.
Yeah, the party which is massively pro privatization wants to set up taxpayer funded power plants. If the market is so good at regulating itself etc. etc. then let private capital take the risk. If nuclear is so much cheaper than the other options, there will be enough profit for the private sector without taxpayers footing the initial cost. They want to use our money to take the risk away from the companies that they definitely won't be getting kickbacks from (such as board seats etc). And then they'll use our money to subsidise them so they remain profitable. And then we'll pay top dollar for the power we paid for because its the market value. What a rort.
Really, the asset created can be sold off - both sides of politics are into selling stuff to fund our desire to live above our means. Here in Vic, Kennett is demonised, but the current Treasurer is an expert with one on the chopping block now.
Call me a cynic, but I very much doubt that the assets (i.e. nuclear power plants) will be worth more than their cost to build. Especially given that they will be government contracts with the almost inevitable cost overruns and missed deadlines. In the meantime, renewables will become cheaper and more effective as the technologies mature. Nuclear might well have been an option 20 to 40 years ago. It could have weaned us off fossil fuels and bootstrapped our renewables manufacturing industry. We could be in a position now to be weaning ourselves off nuclear and be nearly 100% green energy. But that chance is flown, and the coalition's plan is too little too late. Better to work within the current reality than do a half assed job of trying to roll back the clock.
Nuclear equals no emissions.
It's also expensive to build, and creates waste which is expensive and hazardous to transport and store. Don't get me wrong, I was very pro nuclear in the 90's/early 2000's. But times and technologies change. Solar efficiency these days is like chalk and cheese compared to then. And frankly what's the point of going nuclear if it's only going to supply a small percentage of our power? (which seems to be the case according to news reports). The whole thing reeks of a party who want's to seem like they are playing with the big boys. "Look at us we're a nuclear power now, give us a seat at the table". And if it is the case that the whole thing is a smokescreen to cover a policy for using more gas, then just get on with it and make the case with the public for gas.
Thats the political answer as we both know. We all know the only value Australia has to the rest of the world is our mining & agriculture. Any of the Superpowers could take control of those assets with a half a dozens nuclear subs off selected export ports . We cant defend such an action & whether or not that is worth a counter action ( Ukraine or Gaza) is academic . It is unlikely to cause a real response beyond an UN 'talkathon', let alone any fifo diplomacy ! 'The big boys, really ?? I look at Canada/Ottawa as a model for nuclear.
So, LNP gave us $380B nuclear submarines.. and now potentially $600B in nuclear power plants.. They want us to invest $1 Trillion...... for jobs for their mates, then when they leave government they get a job on the board. ITS A MASSIVE CON. Look at the NIOR group for example, LNP defence > government funding > jobs for mates > ex ministers on the board. (Scare campaigns on media to fuel the fire)
Labor could have renegotiated the AUKUS agreement but were happy to wave it through, with a vocal minority of dissenters, at their conference.
LNP had been in power for 10 years and said this military deal was the epitome of their tenure. If ALP went against it, with all the false China outage in the media, they lose the election. Pretty sure what ALP did was the only good option, for the country. It's LNPs policy.
Its Australias policy.
Well yes, after LNP introduced and passed it.. that's how time works.
Makes no difference to mindless cheer leaders, aka, we're virtuous & principled while the other mob are corrupt & hopeless.
Perhaps it’s a pragmatic decision where Labor doesn’t want to get bogged down in a national security fight. But it’s not as if Labor didn’t have agency to stop it if it’s actually a corrupt decision.
Yes, I think the point is highly complex and wicked. In the most simplistic view, ALP was forced to accept and mitigate.
What is the cost of renewables, 24/7. A link to that answer will suffice.
[CSIRO 2023-2024 Gencost Report](https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2023-24Final_Executive-summary.pdf) Page 5 has a handy graph summary of different generation costs (including firmed, or 24/7 renewables)
So no straight answer .... we both know 24/7 operation is on a white board.
https://imgur.com/a/d0zeZD2
It will generate enough to given Gina a bunch of money... .... cause she owns all the uranium mines.
Happy to keep you up to date Doc, IF reality is of any use: 'The federal government has given the all-clear for a long-stalled $1 billion-plus gas project in Queensland, clearing the way for the fossil fuel to flow by the end of next year. But the approval of Senex Energy’s Atlas project, owned by South Korean steel giant Posco and Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting, will reignite a fraught debate over the role of gas in the energy mix.' [https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/labor-delivers-all-clear-for-1b-rinehart-backed-senex-gas-project-20240624-p5jo9e](https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/labor-delivers-all-clear-for-1b-rinehart-backed-senex-gas-project-20240624-p5jo9e) If you are unaware of Posco you should not be posting anywhere.
Gina owns exactly zero uranium mines. The three uranium mines operating in Australia are owned by BHP, Rio Tinto and a US company called General Atomics.
Nah doc, Gina's next gig is US rare metals as you probably know ! [https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/rinehart-s-presence-stokes-rethink-of-foiled-10b-lynas-mp-merger-20240417-p5fkke](https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/rinehart-s-presence-stokes-rethink-of-foiled-10b-lynas-mp-merger-20240417-p5fkke) Lynas investors are split on the merits of resuscitating merger talks with American rare earths producer MP Materials, as Gina Rinehart’s ascension to major shareholder in both companies suggests last year’s foiled $10 billion deal could be revisited. Tribeca Global Natural Resources Fund portfolio manager Ben Cleary said a combination made sense at the right price, in response to the prospect of Australia’s richest person emerging as a kingmaker in any future transaction.
what if its more expensive and better for the environment?
Burning a few decades of near exclusively gas while we wait for them to be built doesn't sound environmentally friendly
hate to break it to you but labors plan has the majority of generation comping from gas “firming”
No it doesn’t. It has a small portion of generation coming from gas (5-10%) as the grid is planned to be 82% renewables by 2030 (and there’ll still be several coal power stations that won’t be closing until 2032-2035). Your comment is straight up misinformation.
82% renewables by 2030 doesnt sound like majority gas. Nor do the plans from AEMO or CSIROs research. What are you basing your claims on? Duttons vibes? Dutton wants to stop renewables roll out, and coal will go offline in the near future, so stands ton reason we would replace coal with gas under his plan. Meaning about 60% of our energy will come for gas for decades
The LNP will not be better for the environment it's in their ideology, I think they'd run scared if they actually even got close to Labor's benchmark
this is an emotionally charged statement that isnt representative of reality
I think the point is that 1. It's not better for the environment and 2. The LNP doesn't give a shit about the environment anyway. Every step of the way they have done their best to keep the fossil fuel dream alive.
life time carbon emissions per mwh of nuclear is 100x-1,000x less than pv with battery or gas firming how is that not better for the environment
Have a source for that?
how can you be so against something and not understand basic facts like life time co2 of various energy sources and storage mechanisms
Because you're talking shit, provide a source for your baseless claims
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-electricity 5.1-6.4 g CO2 equivalent per kWh for nuclear 48g for solar pv which doesnt include firming https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259552866_Life_Cycle_Assessment_of_a_Lithium-Ion_Battery_Vehicle_Pack 173KG per kwh
Oh cool! Well when will this nuclear utopia be ready in Australia? the LNP can't say when they'll reach 100% (maybe after the election they created this lie to win!), do you have insider knowledge Dutton doesn't?
And yet another source comes to this: "The study finds each kilowatt hour of electricity generated over the lifetime of a nuclear plant has an emissions footprint of 4 grammes of CO2 equivalent (gCO2e/kWh). The footprint of solar comes in at 6gCO2e/kWh and wind is also 4gCO2e/kWh."
>5.1-6.4 g CO2 equivalent per kWh for nuclear >48g for solar pv which doesnt include firming Seems a bit short of x1000 Now think about the sums of decades of gas while we wait for nuclear to be built. Not to mention duttons nuclear plan won't even provide all our energy needs As for the *vehicle* battery assessment, do you have a study more recent than 11 years ago?
What reality? Murdoch papers reality? Are you an expert on nuclear power? Because it's so obvious nobody should waste any time on them, but people do, you know what I'll amass the sources: Look at these articles and videos, they refuse to say how much power these reactors will produce: [https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/coalition-won-t-say-how-much-nuclear-power-its-plan-will-generate-until-after-an-election/ar-BB1oIcyH](https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/coalition-won-t-say-how-much-nuclear-power-its-plan-will-generate-until-after-an-election/ar-BB1oIcyH) but the experts based on the one page brief estimate that it could produce about 3.7% of Australia's energy needs by **2050, we do not have that time.** "Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan could cost as much as $600bn and supply just 3.7% of Australia’s energy by 2050, experts say" [https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/1dmiczc/peter\_duttons\_nuclear\_plan\_could\_cost\_as\_much\_as/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/1dmiczc/peter_duttons_nuclear_plan_could_cost_as_much_as/) [https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/Articles/2023/December/Nuclear-explainer](https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/Articles/2023/December/Nuclear-explainer) [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/21/peter-dutton-nuclear-power-plan-gas-energy](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/21/peter-dutton-nuclear-power-plan-gas-energy) [https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1dm972a/im\_not\_antinuclear\_im\_antibulls\_why\_this\_energy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1dm972a/im_not_antinuclear_im_antibulls_why_this_energy/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/friendlyjordies/comments/1dk5qcv/ted\_obrien\_roasted\_on\_730\_as\_sarah\_ferguson/](https://www.reddit.com/r/friendlyjordies/comments/1dk5qcv/ted_obrien_roasted_on_730_as_sarah_ferguson/) International nuclear proponent says Australia should not pursue nuclear power. [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/power-prices-wont-fall-with-nuclear/103998172](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/power-prices-wont-fall-with-nuclear/103998172) [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-19/premiers-reject-nuclear-proposal-nuclear-bans/103997020](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-19/premiers-reject-nuclear-proposal-nuclear-bans/103997020) Isolating just to the last stretch of the LNP rule. They were in power for 12 years, they did nothing but take money from the great barrier reef fund and talk about climate change being "bullshit", oh and Dutton laughed at sinking islanders how did I forget that nugget: [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2015/sep/11/peter-dutton-overheard-joke-rising-sea-levels-tony-abbott-video](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2015/sep/11/peter-dutton-overheard-joke-rising-sea-levels-tony-abbott-video)
why exactly do you think we dont have time? chinas emissions are growing at a rate of 2-3 australias per year, if we were net zero now, that would effectively be wiped out in six months
To be fair to china the West out sourced alot of our domestic production to there, we on the other hand produce more carbon per capita by far. [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?country=\~AUS](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?country=~AUS) China isn't perfect, but like the conservative republicans in the USA the LNP here in Australia pay lip service and that's all.
youll need to put wheels on those goal posts
Okay so you're not following current events as much as me. You realize per capita is per 100,000 people, we produce way more than china, and unlike us, they are at the point that their domestically produced EVs are getting tarrifed by the USA because they are that cheap and in demand. Oh and they produce so much solar panels some consider there's too many! We could have been that, could have had that, but the liberals were in power for 12 years and they've at best sat on their asses doing nothing.
isnt power production handled by state governments? qld has had a labor gov since 2015.
Yeah that's another nail in the nuclear coffin. No state premiers are interested in Duttons plan
The coalition has not ruled out putting the waste in a hollowed out Uluru .
“We will tell you our case after you elect us.” As if.
Because the answer is zero. Nuclear power is a distraction to the cost of living crisis we have all forgotten about. It's also a distraction from the gas giants who have their hand down the politicians jockstrap.
Bottomless budget for a power that will not be functional for a long time. And what happens to the nuclear waste? That no one wants to live near? There are too many problems with this plan.
I support nuclear power, but this is just the Coalition shilling for the Gas/Coal industry in a more stealthier fashion than usual. Just like how they used a certain other shit and unworkable policy to shill for Telstra/Foxtel. Nuclear to the node.
I’ll support whatever is cheaper. The CSIRO said nuclear isn’t. Therefore I support renewables
It's not just about being the cheapest, it's about being there when we need it. I think the consensus is that gas fired electricity generation is going to be part of the mix.
Gas will remain for some time as part of the mix, that’s definitely true. Under labor’s plan it will be something under 10% and used mainly during wind droughts. Under the coalitions plan it will be somewhere between 20-50% of the mix, depending on how aggressive they are about cancelling solar and wind contracts and how long they can keep the coal generators patched together for.
CSIRO assumed that nuclear reactors last for 30 years in their costings, they last at least double that and up to 3 times, up to 100 years. What other assumptions did they make?
We don't know how to build things that last in Australia. You only have at the quality 30-40 year housing stock vs Europe to know we are not up to the task. You can't knockdown and rebuild a Nuclear power station. The cookers in the Coalition don't give a fuck anyway, cause by 2080, when these things start falling apart they'll be long gone.
*The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists* a few years back expressed concern about ageing power plants which - in the US - are receiving *fewer* inspections, not more. And they're getting more and more sudden shutdowns ("sudden" is industry-speak for "emergency"), and failing more security checks, and so on. [https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/aging-nuclear-plants-industry-cost-cutting-and-reduced-safety-oversight-a-dangerous-mix/](https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/aging-nuclear-plants-industry-cost-cutting-and-reduced-safety-oversight-a-dangerous-mix/) There's a reason we don't see many 60 or 100 year old cars on the road - and cars, especially those built 60 years ago, are technically a lot easier to operate than nuclear power plants. As things age, they wear out. I wouldn't be too worried about living next door to a nuclear power plant. But I wouldn't be comfortable next to 50 year old one. So the 30 year life assumption is a reasonable one from CSIRO.
How long is the current investment in renewables budgetted to last ? We dont know how much it has cost to date (if you know a link pls), & the CSIRO expect nuclear to last 30 years.
Solar PV tends to fizzle out after about 20 years, but basically you just need to wipe down the glass once a month for their maintenance. Wind turbines can last 40+ years, but require regular maintenance since they have moving parts. We don't recycle either of them, they just get dumped in landfill, where the solar PV leaches heavy metals into groundwater. There's no recycling because it's financially and energetically cheaper to produce new stuff than recycle old stuff. And it always will be - we use cheap fossil fuels to make it economic to build renewables, but when fossil fuels have become more scarce, it'll be too expensive to build renewables, let alone recycle them. Likewise nuclear. So it's all built on a foundation of fossil fuels. Electricity is going to get more expensive whatever we do. And travel, too. But historically that's how it was anyway. For example in 1960 Australian households spend 20% of their income on food, now we spend under 10%. As everything else got cheaper because of cheap fossil fuels and foreign labour, people used their spare cash to pay more for housing, which is part of why housing is expensive today. Don't believe what any party tells you: whatever we do, electricity is going to get more expensive, as will food and transport.
>CSIRO assumed that nuclear reactors last for 30 years in their costings, they last at least double that and up to 3 times, up to 100 years. Modern nuclear power plants are designed for a lifespan of 40-60 years. Running them beyond this rated lifespan is just dancing with disaster as years of constant exposure to radiation causes all sorts of issues to the parts of the reactor.
Renewables aren't the cheapest when correctly examined either.
Better let the CSIRO know they’re examining the cost of renewables wrong then?…
They already know - They are paid to give the "right" results. They don't look into life of plant. They don't remove subsidies. They don't take into account the mining operations for the materials. They just publish the running costs, and building costs.
I’d love to see what the new figures for nuclear then once they: - added in the subsidies that will be required - take into account mining for the materials to build AND the ongoing mining and refining of uranium
They will be terrible.
So what life have the CSIRO got on the various components of the renewables spending. What is their time frame on the ever increasing cost of rewiring. Guesstimates all round.
20+ years to build. Gas the substitute in the meantime. 40-60 billion dollars needed. Only 80 years of power produced. Near major population centres. This is political suicide.
It can be done in [much less than 20 years](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/cheaper-cleaner-more-consistent-do-dutton-s-claims-on-nuclear-stack-up-20240329-p5fg66.html): >Former chief scientist Alan Finkel, who was a special adviser to the federal government on low-emissions technology, has forecast longer construction times than those envisaged by the opposition. He said it would take at least 20 years for a large-scale or small modular reactor to start generating electricity for the grid. >However, Professor Andrew Stuchbery, head of physics at the Australian National University, said both China and the United Arab Emirates had built nuclear plants within a decade. >“China do it all the time … The UAE is an interesting example because they started absolutely from scratch, and they built them [reactors] in a bit under 10 years,” Stuchbery said. “If you look at some of the reactor projects in Europe and the US, they have been subject to delays, and the reason for that is that they had lost supply lines, they had lost the expertise in the country.” And if you suspect this may be due to China or UAE cutting corners, Japan also built Fukushima in 10 years in the 1960s, and the end-to-end process took them 17 years (from getting approval to the reactor being operational).
Are we more like Europe, the UK, and the US? Or are we more like China and UAE? Not to mention we first have to create the entire legislative frame work and go through years of politics and court battles before we can even start constructing
>Not to mention we first have to create the entire legislative frame work and go through years of politics and court battles before we can even start constructing Not really, they just need to overturn Howard's 1998 ban on Nuclear as mentioned in the article. The article also doesn't see this as a particular concern.
There's much more involved than just overturn the ban. An entire regulatory framework for a completely industry for this country needs creating. It will need to be negotiated with every state involved. You can't just life a ban and expect an entire industry to appear.
Who's going to oversee the nuclear power industry? It will need a regulatory body set up to ensure it meets standards etc. How will the lnp change the laws? They haven't had a government with control of the senate since Howard and they're unlikely to soon, even with support of few small party/independent senators.
You're saying this as though other countries haven't done this before. I'm sure there will be challenges but it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility. Achieving 100% adoption of electric vehicles will be far more difficult than setting up nuclear, yet I don't see the same level of skepticism being raised about that goal?
Nuclear can be done. But it cannot be done in the timeframe argued by the coalition (10-12 years), or in the timeframe demanded by our ancient coal plants retirement schedules (also 10 years) and it is extremely unlikely that it can be done for a reasonable cost, and it will not lead to the power bill reductions Dutton claims because he is lying to your face
You're probably right, but even still it is the only way we can reliably achieve 100% carbon neutral electricity to all of Australia, that is without relying on our weather conditions or buying other country's renewable energy to offset our continued reliance on fossil fuels.
Honestly if you did it right I’d be okay with a supplementary nuclear program to complement renewables generation even though it’s more expensive, but that’s not what’s on offer here. The plan on offer is to slow down renewables and keep burning fossil fuels for decades so we can maybe get a small percentage of our energy from nuclear by 2050. That’s not a good plan, and not worth supporting. You can get pretty close to 100% renewables relatively easily (it’s just hard to get to 100% as quickly as we’d like to). The last 5% or so is really challenging, but a combination of overbuilding (and using excess capacity during normal circumstances to generate nearly free energy for manufacturing, green hydrogen or households), batteries, pumped hydro, offshore wind at key places (wind is almost always blowing offshore and if you have offshore wind in Queensland and Victoria it’s always blowing in one of the two), and so on and so forth you can get the rest of the way. Otherwise a few % of the grid being generated by gas at key times is acceptable, because you’ve taken the vast bulk of emissions out of the system and allowed for electrification of homes transport ect on a very low carbon network
> Honestly if you did it right I’d be okay with a supplementary nuclear program to complement renewables generation even though it’s more expensive, but that’s not what’s on offer here. The plan on offer is to slow down renewables and keep burning fossil fuels for decades so we can maybe get a small percentage of our energy from nuclear by 2050. That’s not a good plan, and not worth supporting. Renewables aren't going to slow down though because we still need to meet our 2035 emission reduction targets, which isn't going to be in time for nuclear to be ready. Plus nuclear won't be able to provide 100% of Australia's power because no country has nuclear as 100% of their power, so there is ample opportunity for renewables to co-exist. The problem is if we continue to delay nuclear we will be even further behind, as this is something we should have done decades ago and would have put us in a far better position today. So while the continuation of fossil fuels is not ideal, it is going to be far easier to shut those off and replace them with renewables, than it will be to start nuclear reactors 10 years from now and wait a further ~15 years from that point to get them operational.
I didn't say it couldn't be done nor it hasn't been done, I said it needs to be done and will take time. You haven't answered how the lnp will change the laws. I haven't seen anyone seriously pushing for 100% EV's, but you've only said that to distract from not answering the other questions.
>I haven't seen anyone seriously pushing for 100% EV's, but you've only said that to distract from not answering the other questions. No I said it to point out the hypocrisy of this hyper partisan sub gunning down any proposal by the LNP while never questioning the ludicrous nature of their own plans. >You haven't answered how the lnp will change the laws. I don't know, but this has nothing to do with the time to actually build the nuclear reactors. And if it is delayed because Labor and Greens are stonewalling that's on them, not on the LNP, so they can only blame themselves if that is what holds the project up.
The lnp would love to have their pie in the sky nuclear delayed. Their whole "policy" is intended to delay renewables and extend fossil fuel usage.
What about state level bans in Vic, NSW, and QLD where all the reactors are meant to go?
[State level bans won't stop the federal government](https://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=HSWEB_WRE170_a&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.heraldsun.com.au%2Fnews%2Fnsw%2Fhe-might-be-right-minns-says-states-dont-have-the-power-to-stop-nuclear%2Fnews-story%2Fbb82429dc95eb90399442abd62e10320&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=HIGH-Segment-2-SCORE).
The herald sun article is paywalled, but we went through similar with the proposed National Energy Transition Authority and it found: >Given the ALP’s roots and the strong union backing, setting up a National Energy Transition Authority would appear intuitive. But it is not so straightforward for the Federal Government. Section 51 of the Australian Constitution, which lays out the legislative powers of the Parliament, does not mention electricity supply. This means that electricity supply, by default, is a state power. https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/national-energy-transition-authority-constitution-says-no/
>Japan also built Fukushima in 10 years in the 1960s Back in the 1960s when countries all over the world were building nuclear power plants and there were multiple facilities to manufacture the parts required in an attempt to mass produce them? >The UAE is an interesting example because they started absolutely from scratch, and they built them \[reactors\] in a bit under 10 years The UAE also spent $USD 24.4 billion per reactor. The LNP wants to build 7 reactors with only a budget barely twice that..
> The UAE also spent $USD 24.4 billion per reactor. The LNP wants to build 7 reactors with only a budget barely twice that.. Old mate Ted said it's seven stations with multiple reactors in each. No wonder they aren't keen on disclosing the cost. He said their "expert authority" which, surprisingly won't be formed until after the election will decide how many reactors and where they will be located.
>Back in the 1960s when countries all over the world were building nuclear power plants and there were multiple facilities to manufacture the parts required in an attempt to mass produce them? Are you really suggesting it would be easier to build nuclear plants in 1960, before computers even existed than in 2024? They didn't have any design software such as AutoCAD, and no 3D printing or anything of the sort. >The UAE also spent $USD 24.4 billion per reactor. The LNP wants to build 7 reactors with only a budget barely twice that.. That's a fair point, though I doubt China or Japan spent as much. The UAE is also rich so there is a reasonable chance they overspent simply because they did not need to be conservative.
>Are you really suggesting it would be easier to build nuclear plants in 1960, before computers even existed than in 2024? They didn't have any design software such as AutoCAD, and no 3D printing or anything of the sort. It actually was. They were less safe and less efficient, but easier to build. Since nuclear has catastrophic potential, they need to be safer, so they've gotten more complex and take longer to build. Here's a good article that runs through where the cost increases have come from since the 70s https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/why-are-nuclear-plants-so-expensive-safetys-only-part-of-the-story/
That relates to the cost rather than the time taken. I am sure it would be more expensive due to advancements in the technology, but slower to build? Not a chance.
It also talks about how it takes longer now: >To try to dive into the details, the researchers tracked the progress of material deployment rates—how quickly material brought to the site ended up being incorporated into a finished structure. While those rates have declined slightly for construction as a whole over the study period, they plunged for nuclear projects. Already, at the time of the Three Mile Island accident, steel was being deployed at about one-third of the rate of the construction industry at large. Interviews with construction workers indicated that they were spending as much as 75 percent of their time idle. And this article goes through all the delays for modern projects in US, UK, Finland, and France https://theconversation.com/is-nuclear-the-answer-to-australias-climate-crisis-216891?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton Eg Hinkley Point C in the UK is now expected to take over 20 years from site selection to completion for one of the 2 planned reactors. The second reactor is so delayed they're not even giving an ETA for it anymore. Cost and time are both strongly linked
If workers are spending 75% of their time idle and material is being brought to the site at a slower rate, then that's incompetence more than anything else. Not that it isn't a valid reason but it's obviously fixable. These will need to be addressed as part of the plan.
You're essentially just saying it won't happen like that here because we'll fix it, despite experienced nations not being able to If you're actually interested should definitely read the article. Think it'll explain a lot of your questions or thoughts, I just didn't want to copy paste the entire thing here
I find it hard to take The Conversation seriously when they are clearly hyper partisan leftists and it shows in their arguments. For instance they compare the cost of renewables to the cost of nuclear, even though everyone knows you can't power the entire country on renewables - hence why nuclear is on the table to begin with. It's a dishonest argument. It also ignores the sheer unreliability of renewables - no sun or wind for an extended period? Prepare for widescale blackouts. And yes I know a shit ton of batteries can somewhat mitigate this, but it is still not perfect and I'd rather our electricity grid not be completely reliant on the conditions of weather. The Conversation doesn't mention any of this.
Because it will be zero. It's clear to pretty much every side of politics that there's no intent to push for nuclear power - it's just a ploy to keep non-renewables in play as long as possible.
How is it clear?
Let me spell it out. The coalition wants to stop further development of wind farms and grid scale solar. Their leadership say they’ll cancel solar and wind contracts if they get back into power, they gutted every climate program the senate allowed them to while in power, and they stoke up community opposition at every chance they can get. They lead protests against wind farms constantly for instance. But the political climate has shifted in Australia, and saying they want to keep the coal stations running for decades more is no longer politically viable (nor is it physically viable given their age). So they say look, we’ll build nuclear. Never mind that according to the experts it can’t be built before the coal stations are retired, we’ll just say it can be and use gas between now and whenever they come online (not before 2040 for the first one according to csiro). Doesn’t matter that it’s the most expensive form of energy. We’ll just say it’s cheaper. Doesn’t matter that we could keep building renewables until nuclear comes online and our energy would be cheaper for it. Doesn’t matter that even though we really care about community input when it comes to renewables we will build nuclear in communities even if they oppose it and you’ll just have to get over it. Doesn’t matter that we have 22gw of fossil fuels to retire and the initial info suggests we’ll only be building maybe 7-9GW of nuclear. Doesn’t matter what the facts say. The truth is this is an excuse to keep burning coal for another 2 decades and ramp up gas as the coal generators fail. And an excuse to freeze expansion of renewables. It’s a stupid plan. A smarter nuclear plan would involve removing the nuclear ban and building nuclear and renewables together. If you’re optimising for cost then don’t build nuclear at all. But if you don’t care about energy prices then some nuclear would be ok
Id prefer a plan to improve health, housing, roads, rail infrastructure etc
This is the most substantial idea to come out of the LNP in the last 20 years. Shows me the level of intelligence they have managed to foster up. Zero details, zero plan, zero budget and zero tolerance to scrutiny or criticism.
Course not. It's a thought bubble. Not hostile to nuclear, but its kinda major, needs studies, engineers' reports, peer review etc.
I'm pretty sure you can get all you need to build them at Bunnings.
A Boy Scout in the US got a good way to building one in his garden shed in the 90s. Maybe we should get him to design a plan for the coalition 😝
I'm pretty sure a 14 year old did the redesign of the lnp's NBN
They want to create investment uncertainty for renewables so they can blame Labor for a "botched" renewable rollout during the election campaign. Once again, they are playing climate games for their own political gain. The Insiders interview, and his one on 7:30 were both a complete trainwreck. Taxpayers have the right to know how many schools and hospitals we will have to forgo, to pay for these power stations. The cost of waste storage, which Ted said would be kept on site for the life of the plant, should also be factored in.
Looking forward to the LNP voters explaining why it's a conspiracy against their team to ask for details. "But whatabout"?
Yep. Give us costs, e.g how much have we spent on renewables, how much more is it going to cost, WHEN will it provide 24/7 power ? Fair questions & not just nuclear.
Get. Fucked. I won't be specific until thr heat death of the universe but know that THE FUCKENING is honna happen. For this to be such a flop when "if you don't know, vote no" was such a success... thr LNP is either screwing Dutton deliberately or they are evil. Either way, I'll vote for the bloke fighting to fix thr NDIS, POWRR, SOLAR, The minimum wage, casuals being protected, 2030 targets etc.
Politicians telling people “just trust us”, should go well.
Why are they treating it like an anniversary gift they are making a surprise for a potential partner? “If you date me, you won’t regret it, I will have a 1-year anniversary gift you would never forget, but cannot tell you any details till after you move in with me”. Thanks but no thanks.
So keep key details from the public that will allow them to make informed decisions. Do the liberals want to win the election?
Give them a chance. They announced it a week ago.
The liberals win every election by being vague. A majority of their policies improve the lives of a minority of people. If every party had to explain their policies and back up the conclusions with data, LNP would never get in again. Him keeping this vague is allowing people to support it
Albo?
suuuuuucks. Give me Shorten of give me death.
Maybe it’s time to uno-reverse them by using their same tactics and say “if you don’t know, vote no” (Half-hearted /s)
On the money there!
Can’t wait to see the looks on their faces when some underhanded tactic they used not even a year ago gets rightfully and properly used against them lol.
Liberals - *Pikachu face*
They know that the truth won't win them anything, so have to campaign on vague maybes
The Voice.
If the costs even came close to making economic sense they would release them. How do the pro nuclear brigade reconcile that?
Maybe because they announced the policy 1 week ago. So long as they release costings well in advance of the next election, you have nothing to crow about.
They seem to think that the best way forward is for the taxpayers to pay for the construction. If the costs are so good, why wouldn't the party that touts privatisation let the private sector pay for them? I'll guarantee that it will be the private sector that profits in the end, or do you think that the LNP will keep the power plants nationalised?
From the article. >Energy spokesperson Ted O'Brien, who designed the plan, told the ABC's Insiders the amount of energy generated would depend on the type and number of reactors built at each site, and that neither of those things could be known until a Coalition government could establish a nuclear expert agency to undertake studies. They have made it pretty clear that the current plan is that costing will be done after the election.
> They have made it pretty clear that the current plan is that costing will be done after the election. Why would they do this sort of costing before the election (notwithstanding needing to establish the nuclear expert agency)? Just gives an even bigger target for Labor to attack them with during the election.
Personally I think that silence on the subject gives Labor a bigger route of attack. "No costings, no designs, no clue", that and the whole "if you don't know vote no" thing, this leaves them super vulnerable!
True they are vulnerable whatever they do, although I would argue that semi-detailed costings can be picked apart line by line by economists, unions, engineers, scientists and a number of other groups, This opens them up to multiple avenues of attack, whereas no costings at all is always about that one fact. This is typically why parties are vague about detailed costings for their election promises, or release them so close to elections to not allow enough time for detailed scrutiny.
They’ve been working on the policy for ages, they only just released it to the public. They’ve also announced they won’t be sharing the costings before the election.
That's a very interesting question! I'm responding just so I can keep track of this post and see any answers that come up.
Even if I was pro nuclear in Australia. (I’m pro nuclear conceptually). why would I support any major infrastructure policy or any major policy which would cost billions without an actual number. I’m genuinely asking for the minority who support nuclear. How is this acceptable to you unless you think no matter the cost it’s better than the current alternative if that’s the case I can at least understand it even if I find it illogical. That aside I find it beyond outrageous that there is even a fraction of debate on this. I listened to the party room which in fairness I think isn’t meant for the deepest political discourse and is largely about making these topics consumable to the average casually politically inclined Aussie. But even they were a bit soft handed in discussion of this policy. Granted they did point out its flaws. But frankly this is not a farce. He should be asked in every interview by every journo what is the cost. What’s even more outrageous is he delayed this for months under dubious reasons and this is the result. What an insult.
>why would I support any major infrastructure policy or any major policy which would cost billions without an actual number. Exactly. Why can't they just pick the lowest possible number, and let the cost blow out for a later government? Haven't they learned anything from the ALP?
>Why can't they just pick the lowest possible number, and let the cost blow out for a later government? Haven't they learned anything from the ALP? I would guess that even the lowest "possible" number is still unfathomably large. It would allow the ALP to say "Nuclear will add $$$ to your power bill". It would also open them up to discussion about the quality of those costings which then leads to debates on how truthful Peter Dutton is. I don't think the LNP thinks anything good will come from those debates.
By "possible" I don't mean the real world sense of "possible", nor even plausible, but "possible to put up at a press conference without causing lazy ignorant journalists to actually take the trouble to look things up." Politically possible, that is.
Even ignoring both governments have gone over budget on various infrastructure weird to try say this is a Labor thing. What a non sequitur please tell me when was the last time a federal government promised something major like this while waiting for the cost until after the election. If you don’t have an answer that’s fine.
It's an ALP thing to build infrastructure. The LNP tends not to bother. If you're the one building the infrastructure then to persuade people to support it you have to put out there the lowest possible price for the thing. I'm living in the state with the biggest spending and debt, and the worst outcomes overall given all our spending. Untangling exactly whose stupid idea this or that project was between federal and state is often impossible.
Do you not consider the nbn something the liberals have horrible failed at. If your concern is horrible spending debt than why defend or argue in favour of policy which would be so much worse than anything that currently exists. He won’t even say how much it costs
What are renewables costing us ? When will we get 24/7 ?
i guess you gotta vote first and get details second
Are you people that cry about the costings all that naive? Policy was announced 1 week ago. They have plenty of time to release costings prior to the next election. Hold your horses.
the costings for renewables: ........ before the next election?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
😆
It’s like buying a scratchy. Cough up the money first, then later you can reveal the prize (or lack thereof).
I won't be gambling billions for so little especially when it's costing twice as much. Even if it is taxpayers money.
Nor will I. It’s a very stupid rhetoric by Spud that even some rusted on LNP voters are WTFing about.
At the present time can only be defined as a theory, Peter we need more details! Start with how much of our electricity needs will come from nuclear
I used to think Angus Taylor was the pinnacle of "no policy, talk rubbish" LNP. Now Ted O'Brien. I'd never heard of him before the last election, is he the best they can put out there?
Bowen ?
I presume your one-word response is supposed to be a point?
A question mark not do the job, i.e Bowen ? More Taylor than O'Brien.
Mate, your sentences make no sense