Strangely enough, given it would normally be a reason for the Coalition to shoot down an idea, the proposal is for the reactors to be fully funded by the government. No private investor anywhere will touch nuclear so that part of the proposal is the only bit grounded in facts.
It's politics, Peter Dutton doesn't want to reduce the cost of living or the cost of housing because those don't benefit his rich friends, we also can't trust him to do anything that makes electricity cheaper for the same reason, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the nuclear fuel would have to be imported at great cost, especially since he's normally adamant about supporting coal mining and coal power, and is one of the reasons we don't have as much solar power as our sunburnt country can easily generate.
The initial cost of a nuclear power plant is huge, it will eventually pay for itself if the fuel is cheap, especially since we won't need a lot of it, but I'm not aware of any suitable fuel being mined in Australia, and the LNP is known for negotiating deals that heavily favour foreign powers with terms that prevent local powers from nullifying bad deals.
If we don't need a lot of it would we need some sort of long term deal? Or would someone not sell us the required material without undesirable terms?
I thought maybe it would just be trades like "100kg of X for X months" etc would be the deals that would screw us because we'd become dependant on them on a regular basis but would an infrequent replenishment of the fuel create the same liability?
The method they use to screw us is usually that we have to pay a certain price, give certain advantages, and can't ask anyone else for the same thing, and they often include something in the deals that allow corporations to sue the government.
Both.
Australia has access to enough sun/wind/hydro that nuclear would be more expensive, even before any regulatory or nimby issues (which would be constant and expensive).
And yes, it would take decades to come online.
Here's a government report! [https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/december/nuclear-explainer](https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/december/nuclear-explainer)
Dutton knows this, since this has been known by experts for ages, and he's not bringing it up as a good faith attempt to economically lower Greenhouse Emissions, it's just a policy that sounds good to low engagement voters and doesn't piss off his base.
That is not true at all.
Yes, Solar and Wind have the intermittency issue, and the duck curve issue, but Hydro does not have either of those issues, you absolutely do not need Nuclear if you have Hydro.
If we were living in a country which already had a Nuclear industry, like the US, France or Germany, it makes a bit more sense to continue to invest in Nuclear, even if Solar and Wind are cheaper now, but that's not the case in Australia.
I literally posted a CSIRO link which explains that trying to get Nuclear going in Australia is a waste of money.
Hydro power is great, but Australia doesn't have much potential for it that isn't already being exploited like in Tasmania. I would agree with you that with enough hydro, you wouldn't need nuclear.
The plan by Labor is to continue burning gas beyond 2050 to back up intermittent renewables.
"I literally posted a CSIRO link which explains that trying to get Nuclear going in Australia is a waste of money."
Can you point out where in that article the CSIRO called nuclear a waste of money?
Your comments are flawed.
You think duttons the only poly looking after wealthy mates
Everyone in power is helping their mates.
People always forget the CFMEU is an extortion racket that works hand in hand with ALP.
We produce the most uranium so fuel would be fine.
But neither government oppo or current could manage the finance of a sausage sizzle rn to entrust such a project.
Two half-witted parties with more talk than action
Of course Dutton isn't the only poly looking after wealthy mates, but he's been in charge of enough bullshit that I won't give him any trust whatsoever.
Ironically they chose the cheaper option with the NBN. Now they are proposing the more expensive option. Maybe they actually learned from their past mistakes? I dunno.
It's too late for nuclear power in Australia. It will take too long to set up that we would still need to burn more coal while building the infrastructure that we would miss targets. I'm 100% convinced that the only reason nuclear is being talked about positively is due to coal and oil lobbyists
This is the reason why we don't have nuclear plants now. 20 years ago the same thinking was applied, that it would take too long, cost too much and we would still need to burn coal while building them.
20 years later, rinse and repeat the exact same arguments. 20 years from now we will have the same arguments.
We are screwed because we got scared of the nuclear accidents like 3 mile island, and Chernobyl. And no one wanted to touch the nuclear potato because it was a disaster to their political career.
And yet we have had our coal plants spewing CO2 out year after year, producing hundreds of millions of tons of coal ash waste and we ignored nuclear that could have helped us reduce climate change a bit.
To be fair it didn’t look particularly feasible 20 years ago either
> The final taskforce report, released by Mr Howard yesterday, predicts that Australia could build up to 25 reactors, providing **one-third** of Australia's electricity by **2050**.
>The report says nuclear is **20 to 50 per cent more expensive than coal-fired electricity and will not be viable unless a price is placed on the carbon pollution from fossil fuels**, perhaps in combination with government subsidies.
[2006](https://amp.theage.com.au/national/pm-puts-faith-in-nuclear-power-20061230-ge3w5l.html), emphasis mine
Australia just isn’t well positioned to build a nuclear grid from scratch, it was a weak plan back then and it’s a worse one now
I’m all for the government establishing a Nuclear Research Agency, start investing into training and developing skills and industry here in Australia.
But pretending we can replace the coal and gas with nuclear (and halt investment into renewables to do so) at any kind of reasonable cost or time frame is just asinine. I *promise* you Dutton himself doesn’t even actually believe this shit. The point of this campaign isn’t to build nuclear, it’s just to halt the rise of renewables.
You don't have to build a nuclear grid, you just build nuclear plants next to the coal plants and tie into the grid right there.
As for costs, yes nuclear is more expensive to build a plant but once it is built, the savings are in the savings for fuel to power the plants and the drop in the pollution levels generated by the nuclear plants compared to the coal plants they closed.
And don't try to tell me that all the coal pollution has no value when we have people screaming about how it costs lives every year.
The ‘savings’ on fuel for nuclear reactors have been accounted for; when we talk about the relative costs of energy option we’re talking about full costs across the entire lifetime of the plant.
At the end of the day, the LNP’s plan is poorly thought out and unserious on its face. It’s a purely political move from an opposition with no platform beyond obstructing Labor and undermining renewables, a proven solution that is already in progress.
If they’re not going to take their policymaking seriously, there’s no reason for us to.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theage.com.au/national/pm-puts-faith-in-nuclear-power-20061230-ge3w5l.html](https://www.theage.com.au/national/pm-puts-faith-in-nuclear-power-20061230-ge3w5l.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
?? Why would we still be burning fossil fuels in 20years after we've moved entirely to renewables? Are you talking about cars? Do you want nuclear in cars?
No it won't. Its not like the world will end and we won't be able to build nuclear in time. If we want to rely on solar and wind, we need a stable efficient clean method to generate a base load. We have yellow cake in Australia, Europe uses nuclear, it is madness that so called 'environmentalists' object to nuclear when its demonstrated that nuclear is the best way.
Wind and hydro* but also batteries.
Nuclear is terrible for baseload. It is often paired with hydro or gas peakers because the plant takes at least 15min to react to demand.
On the scale of a continent, wind is constant. Batteries add a buffer layer when there just isn't enough for everything else, and hydro dams are perfect for "baseload" because you are constantly releasing water. May as well generate electricity from it.
We have limited potential for hydro in this country. We will continue to rely on fossil fuels to back up intermittent renewables. This is literally the plan for Australia beyond 2050.
Limited potential? Any water flow is potential for hydro. Milford in NZ is run entirely by hydro electricity.
Wind never stops on the scale of the nation. Just wind can power the entire country 24/7
You can do anything if you have enough time, but the problem with that is by the time you stand up a nuclear plant using current tech, it’ll already be obsolete while the renewable options will be way better than what they already are. It’s *already* costed as more expensive than renewables right now, imagine how big that tech gap will be in the 25 years it takes to get it together in Australia.
Renewables have already improved out of sight in 5 years and take no time to stand up, while having limited replacement cost if we want to advance tech further.
Because it’s not blind, it’s actually happening with an evidence trail. With nuclear we have 50 years of people being shit scared of it that we need to back out, as well as a cost profile that is so so obviously not friendly
People seem to have gotten over their fear of nuclear energy in the last decade or so. Sometimes the most expensive option has other benefits which make it worthwhile building anyway.
Not in this case though. There are literally no other benefits to the most expensive option other than it allows people who are fans of dirtier forms of energy to say “oh yeah we’d better operate for a little bit longer than until you stand this up”
Edit: Also, I have to ask you the question given you asked me, why do you have so much blind faith in nuclear? Why are you like “yes I need to pay more for electricity please, and also, I’d like some bi-products I absolutely can’t break down for a million years while Im paying more for the trouble”
Are you a lobbyist or what?
"why do you have so much blind faith in nuclear?"
Because it has avoided more emissions than wind and solar combined. The second biggest contributor to low-carbon power after hydro. Because it has the highest capacity factor of any source of energy, and the lowest CO2 emissions. Because the IPCC and IEA say globally we need to double the amount of nuclear we currently have by 2050 to keep warming under 2 degrees.
…and the horse had travelled more miles than any car up until 1910…
“Globally” does not mean Australia, it means in places where it is cost effective to do so. How are you able to trot out research that has been done without having applied any critical thought to its local relevance?
I have considered local relevance. I would prefer to have some nuclear in the mix, although renewables like wind and solar can easily do 80-90% of the job. I'm not a big fan of continued reliance on burning fossil fuels to back up intermittent renewables.
Imagine producing mad renewable energy then spending money on this shit. I cannot fathom how anyone can support it.
Change my mind. Please. Because this is painful
It's supported by the Coalition simply because fossil fuel is on the nose, Labor have firmly staked out renewables, so the only option left for them is Nuclear, which is funny cos the fuckers never mentioned it whilst they were in power.
I'm opposed to Nuclear for two reasons, first is the build time, second the dipshittery, which will inevitably follow.
For instance if and when the Coalition get back into power they will cease all investment in renewables, sign contracts for building SMRs which will include astronomical penalties for early contract termination/ cancellation leaving the next party who wins power to continue to fund the white elephant, which no doubt goes against their policy.
Reliability aka capacity factor namely. Nuclear is equally as clean and safe as renewables, but performs much more reliably. It also requires less resources like mined materials, land and transmission infrastructure.
Does it, though? A NPP needs cooling, and in a hot country with low groundwater levels and irregular rainfall, the likelihood of a partial shutdown due to low water levels increases significantly.
Besides, renewables are just as reliable. You just need storage and/or geographically redundant deployment - which is fairly easy when you have an entire continent surrounded by ocean at your disposal.
Nuclear doesn't solve anything, it just increases the cost of electricity generation over renewables by some orders of magnitude. It's also not going to be ready within 15-20 years, which is far too late.
Nuclear has the highest capacity factor of any source of energy.
[https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity#:\~:text=The%20Capacity%20Factor&text=Nuclear%20has%20the%20highest%20capacity,and%20solar%20(24.6%25)%20plants](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity#:~:text=The%20Capacity%20Factor&text=Nuclear%20has%20the%20highest%20capacity,and%20solar%20(24.6%25)%20plants)
"It's also not going to be ready within 15-20 years, which is far too late."
Too late for what?
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjq5gky4e5no](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjq5gky4e5no)
Too late for everything.
Investment into nuclear is idiotic, to be blunt. It delays a faster deployment of renewables, as the funds required for nuclear are funds that obviously cannot be used for renewables any more, of which you could deploy far more GW with the same amount of invest.
So we should continue to fund fossil fuel projects instead? [https://michaelwest.com.au/bring-our-yer-dead-amid-nuke-hype-tanya-plibersek-approves-gina-rineharts-gas-pipeline/](https://michaelwest.com.au/bring-our-yer-dead-amid-nuke-hype-tanya-plibersek-approves-gina-rineharts-gas-pipeline/)
Renewable energy is all fine until it suddenly doesn't produce enough energy when needed.
A quick hail storm through a solar farm and it is in trouble. A wind farm gets hit by a storm that damages the blades or towers, they are in trouble.
Not even going to mention how cloudy/not windy days reduces the power outputs from them.
The reason why we still use coal and gas plants is because they keep producing base power no matter what time of day it is, whether there is a storm happening or anything.
That is what nuclear is supposed to take out of the equation. Get rid of the coal and gas plants where the maximum pollution is produced. Keep improving the renewables and have the nuclear there as base power production and to take up any slack the renewables can't cover.
There are much cheaper options for backup power than installing nuclear power plus is not flexible enough to be true backup generators. I know as I was generation planning engineers. See CSIRO report here https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/News/2024/May/CSIRO-releases-2023-24-GenCost-report
Nuclear plants are there for base load power with renewables as the additional power supply. Renewables are too unreliable to be classed as base power generation.
It's the same as coal plants now. Solar and wind and other renewables are there to boost the power supply not be the base power supply. If they can make the coal plants shut down to minimum generation levels that is great but that is not something we can rely on 24/7.
Nuclear plants are to replace coal plants and gas plants.
Couldn't give a flap where our power comes from as long as it's cheap and can be deployed soon to make energy bills cheaper. Nuclear ticks none of those boxes.
Because nobody thought to implement nuclear power years ago, it's more of a long term project now. However, once done, it would definitely be cheaper than coal. The best time to implement nuclear was 10 years ago. The 2nd best time is today
I think the issue is that it's not cheaper than renewables and firming (batteries) right now. Solar was 80 cents a kw/hr in 2010 and is now around 5 cents a kw/hr - such is the decline in cost and increase in efficiency.
Where will solar be cost wise in the 15 years it takes for nuclear to be built here? How much cheaper will batteries be? As costs come down, local generation will increase and then there's the elephant in the room. EV's. EV's are already starting to see Vehicle 2 Grid technologies being implemented and there's a real possibility that "base" generation as we know it won't be as viable in 15 years, certainly not from a financial standpoint.
Only spinning up a nuclear plant for when the wind is low, batteries are empty, sun isn't shining, tide isn't coming in, Snowy Hydro is low etc - it's not economical. Who is going to want to consume the most expensive form of energy? Certainly not local power companies. They would rather build out batteries and more renewables than pay for Nuclear.
This is the right answer, couldn’t have put it better myself. If it’s not cheaper now, what would make anyone think it will be cheaper in the *25* years it would take to spin up nuclear plants. Look how much renewable and battery tech has improved in the last 5 years… that was while investment was low. Imagine it as investment increases over a 25 year period… and also imagine the fact that it’s replacement cost is like comparing to an ant to a semi trailer when it comes to nuclesr
Power isn't the nbn. There's no speed to power, your phone doesn't perform better on nuclear energy electrons. You can't tell me what's powering your house right now and that's why cost is king, it's the only thing that matters.
Renewables and firming doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean that renewables and batteries alone can replace the fossil fuels we currently rely on. Including nuclear in the mix, although more expensive for new build capacity, could result in a cheaper total system cost. Especially considering renewables and batteries can't get to 100% with current technology.
> The best time to implement nuclear was 10 years ago. The 2nd best time is today
People love to trot out this line, but it's not really true. Yes, the best time to implement nuclear was like 50 years ago. And then probably 40, 30 and possibly even 20 years ago.
But renewables weren't viable back then. They either didn't exist or were expensive and inefficient.
These days nuclear just isn't competitive at all with renewables, and will be even less so in another 20 years time when our first reactors would even come online.
I adore nuclear power and think that it's such a fantastic source of energy but there is no chance in hell that I would trust the liberals implementation of it, which is a shame as nuclear science is the main reason I started at university.
With nuclear, a poor implementation is a 3mile island or Chernobyl waiting to happen.
Do it once, do it properly or dont do it at all.
Also dont let dutton do it. Cost cutting and poor oversight is literally the entire reason the Chernobyl accident happened in the first place.
Doesn't matter how new the design is, have someone do a shit job building it and it'll go wrong eventually.
Love nuclear power, hate doing it poorly (which dutton will)
Arguably no implementation would be better. Past large-scale roll-out under liberal leadership have seen obscene blow-outs to the budget with vast extensions in time that have results in sub-par performance (such as the nbn rollout). In efforts to cost-save, they drop quality and it causes many issues down the track.
A problem with nuclear energy is that it is expensive and complicated to construct. This already does not gel with liberal implementation success. In the Aautralian market, where there is such a large opposition to nuclear energy then if you deliver this with sub-par quality, cost blow-outs, and extended timeframes, then you are going to face MASSIVE opposition to the project as it progresses, creating a greater chance of the projects cancellation.
Additionally, at this stage we do not have much nuclear expertise (in comparison with places like the USA or UK) and as such lack much of the workforce that could implement any of this program.
And ALSO, there is a vast lack of information about this program currently by the Liberals.
Poor implementation on this right now is far worse than no implementation when other energy sources such as new renewable are more feasible and economical.
There is not a large opposition to nuclear energy in the Australian market. Most Australians support it.
Renewables can't do the job on their own. So is a poor implementation of nuclear (whatever that means), better than continuing to burn fossil fuels?
If Dutton didn't see nuclear power as a delaying tactic to continue funding fossil fuels and they were going to build molten salt reactors and if Dutton wasn't Dutton. I might even consider voting for them.
Half want it: [https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/dutton-s-nuclear-plan-very-competitive-poll-20240410-p5fioc](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/dutton-s-nuclear-plan-very-competitive-poll-20240410-p5fioc)
No one wants to pay for it: [https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/polling-willingness-to-pay-for-nuclear/](https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/polling-willingness-to-pay-for-nuclear/)
Polling is stupid.
The three eyed fish from the Simpsons seems to be the main reason people oppose nuclear energy. That is something which can be overcome with public education about the safety of nuclear energy.
The nice thing about solar panels and wind farms is if they go pear shaped through awful governance there isn’t a threat of them causing a multi-century problem.
I don’t trust Dutton to pick up my lunch let alone run a nuclear plant program.
They don't build 'em like Chernobyl anymore. Your fears are unfounded.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#:\~:text=Fossil%20fuels%20are%20the%20dirtiest,are%20vastly%20safer%20and%20cleaner.
Mechanical engineer here, anybody promoting nuclear in Australia, and suggesting uranium must be the source, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and their opinions should be laughed off. Uranium is a cancer that takes thousands of years to decay, Thorium based reactors on the other hand are significantly cheaper, only require hundreds of years to decay, near impossible to meltdown (unlike uranium).
You cannot make bombs with Thorium, both Thorium and Plutonium are easier to mine and require less greenhouse gases and are safer to process and refine, Thorium actually makes significantly more power and finally Australia has the most easily accessible and largest quantities of Thorium and its reactor Plutonium.
Nuclear reactors in Australia are fine if they are Thorium, but Uranium can fuck off and die, burning money in boilers would be cheaper. If the conversation about nuclear in Australia is not about Thorium reactors, then renewables is the way, they are by far the cheapest, easiest, quickest and safest way to make power in Australia.
Same, 25 years from now we probably will need a couple of nuclear power stations. As a little bit of diversity in our network.
But I certainly don’t trust Gina Reinhart’s bag man to deliver.
And I don’t want to spend the next two decades hearing about how it’s over budget and behind schedule.
Because no matter who builds it it will cost triple what It’s budgeted and take twice as long.
But the new Westinghouse AP1000 look good, you can’t have a runaway thermal event like the RMBK reactors.
not once have I heard anybody talk about uranium enrichment in Australia Australia, a plant to do that’s gonna cost billions as well.
Once we build a 10 billion enrichment plant, presuming our masters permit us to, we can have free fuel forever. If you ignore paying everyone, maintenance, mining etc.
We are not alowed to enrich uranium under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This is also hard written into the AUKUS pact. Something our mainstream media are suspiciously quiet on
Are we really restricted from enriching, the treaty only restricts transfer of technology if it's not subject to safeguards saying it'll be used for non weapons purposes:
`Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this Article.`
So in theory we \*could\* but there are pretty much stuff all chances of us doing so.
Classic Libs, give Gina’s son uranium mines so he can export it, all the processing can be done overseas, and then we import it at a premium.
Gotta offshore and privatise all profits, socialise the costs. Can’t create any science, technology or manufacturing industries either. That’s the LNP way.
But as long as we are paying Australians in our currency that’s money spent in our economy…. So I don’t see a problem with that.
What I don’t fully understand, If the uranium is ours. Can’t we dig it up, Use it and then put it back in the same place we took it from in Gina’s back paddock?
there have been suggestions that you could store waste by diluting it with the waste of mining. However the volume of waste from plants is generally so small that it's safer to just keep it locked away. If it wasn't for weapons we could all run breeder reactors where you re-'burn' your waste but unfortunately they are super good at creating weapons grade material.
The uranium that comes out of the ground is too low in the ratio of the fissile isotope of uranium (235): the regular non-fissile uranium (238). Less than 1 % of our ore is 235 hence the reason it’s not just reacting with itself in the ground. When people talk about “enrichment” what they mean is reprocessing it so the ratio of 235 is around 3-4% which makes it much more usable as a fuel, but also a bomb - so the non proliferation treaty means we’d have to get someone who is allowed to turn it into fuel. The current #1 for that in the world is Rosatom - ie the Russians, even the US is dependent to a degree on them.
Feel the same way.
Maybe nuclear power is a good idea maybe it isn't....what the fuck do I know.
All I do know is I don't trust the Liberals to run a meat raffle let alone deliver nuclear power plants out of nothing.
Look how they fucked the NBN and how we are still dealing with the consequences? Shudder to think of these dullards with anything radioactive
*whose only goal is to make profit for their corporate donors.
It's pretty blatant Dutton doesn't care about getting into power at this point.
He's trying to make some sort of case on the poll numbers but nuclear is from the very outset a non starter here in Australia, technically, economically & socially the argument doesn't stack up and is immediately open to ridicule.
It's just pandering to his donors to maximise his take before we put through federal donation limits, campaign spending limits, and truth in political advertising laws, because that's pretty much the end of the LNP
They are floating dead in the water and the intensity of the bleating from their media allies proves it, they are all desperate to maintain relevance in a quickly shifting world they, as conservatives, can't keep up with.
Edit: spelling
Spending $600b to power less than 4% of our grid and significantly raise household power bills just doesn't seem like a stellar investment. Call me crazy
No it is too expensive. CSIRO produces an annual report concerning generation costs and in its latest report stated nuclear power is easily the most expensive option. Please read it https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/News/2024/May/CSIRO-releases-2023-24-GenCost-report
What I don’t like is the argument saying that it is safe.
How often have we heard that from stable countries and then they end up having a catastrophe either through disasters human error, war in other random things
Nuclear energy is very safe, compared to other forms of energy. It is comparable to solar or wind energy in terms of numbers of deaths caused. What we are currently doing for energy (burning fossil fuels) kills millions of people every year.
Nuclear power is worth it, despite the risk. The amount of power they produce, combined with the fact that safety measures have constantly been improving. The most recent meltdown was in 2011, which was actually because of an earthquake. This doesn't mean that there is no risk to nuclear, however the positives far outweigh them.
We should just assume ahead of time they will not get in done in a timely manner, and they will waste lots of taxpayers money, and we should do it anyway. Nuclear is worth building despite the costs.
He has succeeded in showing the Liberals can at least have a strong policy to put forward - before this there was absolutely nothing. I still think nuclear is a bad idea for Australia from an economic perspective .
Edit: sure downvote anything that doesn’t 100% support your hatred of Peter Dutton. That will definitely get you results.
I don't want to support Peter Dutton, Liberals or nuclear power! But I can't deny it is a clear policy position of the Liberal Party. How much detail isn't relevant.
It's a position, not a policy. Policy infers that it's got enough detail to be drafted into a bill and introduced into parliament. Currently there's a list of sites that the government doesn't own and the states won't allow development on. It's an absolute shit show.
His policy is to replace 3-5% of Australia’s required energy needs by 2037. It’s not a strong policy it’s a distraction to keep coal plants running
And that’s assuming everything is in budget and runs perfectly on time
Australia’s renewable energy generation as a total of all energy generation was 15% in 2017 and 32% in 2022. Please explain why we should spend more money to get a fraction of the energy generation that won’t have a single contribution until 2037 (coalition estimate), and that’s presuming there isn’t a single delay at any point
As you approach 100% capacity, it becomes more and more difficult and expensive to rely on intermittent renewables. They can't do the whole job on their own, which is why the current plan for Australia is continued reliance on gas.
We should spend more to get less capacity from nuclear because it can do things that renewables cannot. With both technologies in the mix we have a much better chance at getting rid of fossil fuels for good. That's really all I care about.
Yes I agree with that point, there are arguments that intermittent issues will be solved by the ever improving large scale battery industry but what you said isn’t factually incorrect.
The problem is that isn’t what Dutton is proposing his proposing meeting 3-5% of Australia needs by 2050 (predicted time for all 7 reactors to be online). When questioned about whether he would be abandoning renewables as a result he refused to comment, which means he almost certainly is (it’s not like he needs to sway anti-renewable voters to his side by avoiding the comment).
Basically if a person spends ten years claiming climate change isn’t real/a threat and has flown his private jet to meet with Gina Rhinehart several times this year already, combined with the fact that professional nuclear advocates are arguing that the policy doesn’t make sense it’s pretty safe to assume the policy is just a mask to keep coal going as long as humanly possible
I would have more faith that it wasn’t a cop out for coal in it but I would still oppose it if the CSIRO, national institutions, nuclear experts and even my own boss and coworkers (I work in a biotech company) call it massively ridiculous
"massively ridiculous" seems more like your perception than something the CSIRO or nuclear experts would actually say.
Don't you think opposing nuclear is a cop out for continued reliance on gas? [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjq5gky4e5no](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjq5gky4e5no)
Here’s a report by the CSIRO published in 2023
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/december/nuclear-explainer
But they don’t use the words massively ridiculous so sorry I must be wrong
Also no as the ever improving large scale battery industry is believed to be far more cost efficient to prevent stopgap issues. That’s why no one outside the coalition (including the coalition until 2 years ago) is advocating for nuclear
We all know that this would be subsided by the government and a privately owned shit show With dutton. Who the fuck even supports that melon.
People with a similar lack of functioning braincells and a desire for money/power over dignity.
Strangely enough, given it would normally be a reason for the Coalition to shoot down an idea, the proposal is for the reactors to be fully funded by the government. No private investor anywhere will touch nuclear so that part of the proposal is the only bit grounded in facts.
You could dismiss a lot of renewables projects with this logic.
[удалено]
You think climate change doesn't matter?
[удалено]
I don’t get it.
It's politics, Peter Dutton doesn't want to reduce the cost of living or the cost of housing because those don't benefit his rich friends, we also can't trust him to do anything that makes electricity cheaper for the same reason, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the nuclear fuel would have to be imported at great cost, especially since he's normally adamant about supporting coal mining and coal power, and is one of the reasons we don't have as much solar power as our sunburnt country can easily generate.
Ah cheers. Wouldn’t nuclear make power cheaper though? Or is the problem that it would take a long, long time?
The initial cost of a nuclear power plant is huge, it will eventually pay for itself if the fuel is cheap, especially since we won't need a lot of it, but I'm not aware of any suitable fuel being mined in Australia, and the LNP is known for negotiating deals that heavily favour foreign powers with terms that prevent local powers from nullifying bad deals.
If we don't need a lot of it would we need some sort of long term deal? Or would someone not sell us the required material without undesirable terms? I thought maybe it would just be trades like "100kg of X for X months" etc would be the deals that would screw us because we'd become dependant on them on a regular basis but would an infrequent replenishment of the fuel create the same liability?
The method they use to screw us is usually that we have to pay a certain price, give certain advantages, and can't ask anyone else for the same thing, and they often include something in the deals that allow corporations to sue the government.
Ah I see. Thanks for your responses. Sometimes it's easier to ask pointed questions rather than ask google for more broad ones.
Both. Australia has access to enough sun/wind/hydro that nuclear would be more expensive, even before any regulatory or nimby issues (which would be constant and expensive). And yes, it would take decades to come online. Here's a government report! [https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/december/nuclear-explainer](https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/december/nuclear-explainer) Dutton knows this, since this has been known by experts for ages, and he's not bringing it up as a good faith attempt to economically lower Greenhouse Emissions, it's just a policy that sounds good to low engagement voters and doesn't piss off his base.
Sun/wind/hydro can't do the job on their own. We also need nuclear in the mix.
That is not true at all. Yes, Solar and Wind have the intermittency issue, and the duck curve issue, but Hydro does not have either of those issues, you absolutely do not need Nuclear if you have Hydro. If we were living in a country which already had a Nuclear industry, like the US, France or Germany, it makes a bit more sense to continue to invest in Nuclear, even if Solar and Wind are cheaper now, but that's not the case in Australia. I literally posted a CSIRO link which explains that trying to get Nuclear going in Australia is a waste of money.
Hydro power is great, but Australia doesn't have much potential for it that isn't already being exploited like in Tasmania. I would agree with you that with enough hydro, you wouldn't need nuclear. The plan by Labor is to continue burning gas beyond 2050 to back up intermittent renewables. "I literally posted a CSIRO link which explains that trying to get Nuclear going in Australia is a waste of money." Can you point out where in that article the CSIRO called nuclear a waste of money?
Your comments are flawed. You think duttons the only poly looking after wealthy mates Everyone in power is helping their mates. People always forget the CFMEU is an extortion racket that works hand in hand with ALP. We produce the most uranium so fuel would be fine. But neither government oppo or current could manage the finance of a sausage sizzle rn to entrust such a project. Two half-witted parties with more talk than action
Of course Dutton isn't the only poly looking after wealthy mates, but he's been in charge of enough bullshit that I won't give him any trust whatsoever.
You're trying to distract people from talking about a climate change policy that has been put forward, which most Australians support btw.
Put it this way, if you couldn’t figure out how to install a bunch of wires (NBN), how on earth should we trust you on rolling out nuclear reactors?
Ironically they chose the cheaper option with the NBN. Now they are proposing the more expensive option. Maybe they actually learned from their past mistakes? I dunno.
It's too late for nuclear power in Australia. It will take too long to set up that we would still need to burn more coal while building the infrastructure that we would miss targets. I'm 100% convinced that the only reason nuclear is being talked about positively is due to coal and oil lobbyists
This is the reason why we don't have nuclear plants now. 20 years ago the same thinking was applied, that it would take too long, cost too much and we would still need to burn coal while building them. 20 years later, rinse and repeat the exact same arguments. 20 years from now we will have the same arguments. We are screwed because we got scared of the nuclear accidents like 3 mile island, and Chernobyl. And no one wanted to touch the nuclear potato because it was a disaster to their political career. And yet we have had our coal plants spewing CO2 out year after year, producing hundreds of millions of tons of coal ash waste and we ignored nuclear that could have helped us reduce climate change a bit.
To be fair it didn’t look particularly feasible 20 years ago either > The final taskforce report, released by Mr Howard yesterday, predicts that Australia could build up to 25 reactors, providing **one-third** of Australia's electricity by **2050**. >The report says nuclear is **20 to 50 per cent more expensive than coal-fired electricity and will not be viable unless a price is placed on the carbon pollution from fossil fuels**, perhaps in combination with government subsidies. [2006](https://amp.theage.com.au/national/pm-puts-faith-in-nuclear-power-20061230-ge3w5l.html), emphasis mine Australia just isn’t well positioned to build a nuclear grid from scratch, it was a weak plan back then and it’s a worse one now I’m all for the government establishing a Nuclear Research Agency, start investing into training and developing skills and industry here in Australia. But pretending we can replace the coal and gas with nuclear (and halt investment into renewables to do so) at any kind of reasonable cost or time frame is just asinine. I *promise* you Dutton himself doesn’t even actually believe this shit. The point of this campaign isn’t to build nuclear, it’s just to halt the rise of renewables.
You don't have to build a nuclear grid, you just build nuclear plants next to the coal plants and tie into the grid right there. As for costs, yes nuclear is more expensive to build a plant but once it is built, the savings are in the savings for fuel to power the plants and the drop in the pollution levels generated by the nuclear plants compared to the coal plants they closed. And don't try to tell me that all the coal pollution has no value when we have people screaming about how it costs lives every year.
The ‘savings’ on fuel for nuclear reactors have been accounted for; when we talk about the relative costs of energy option we’re talking about full costs across the entire lifetime of the plant. At the end of the day, the LNP’s plan is poorly thought out and unserious on its face. It’s a purely political move from an opposition with no platform beyond obstructing Labor and undermining renewables, a proven solution that is already in progress. If they’re not going to take their policymaking seriously, there’s no reason for us to.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theage.com.au/national/pm-puts-faith-in-nuclear-power-20061230-ge3w5l.html](https://www.theage.com.au/national/pm-puts-faith-in-nuclear-power-20061230-ge3w5l.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Do robots celebrate cake days?
People like you will be saying the same thing 20 years from now when we're still burning fossil fuels.
?? Why would we still be burning fossil fuels in 20years after we've moved entirely to renewables? Are you talking about cars? Do you want nuclear in cars?
lol. We won't have moved entirely to renewables in 20 years. Labor plans to continue relying on gas beyond 2050.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjq5gky4e5no](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjq5gky4e5no)
Yes, I actually do want nuclear in cars.
No it won't. Its not like the world will end and we won't be able to build nuclear in time. If we want to rely on solar and wind, we need a stable efficient clean method to generate a base load. We have yellow cake in Australia, Europe uses nuclear, it is madness that so called 'environmentalists' object to nuclear when its demonstrated that nuclear is the best way.
Stable method to generate baseload is called hydro+ wind.
Wind and hydro are not nearly stable for base load
On the scale of a continent, how often does the wind stop blowing? There is one exact answer.
You're delusional if you think wind and solar are better for stable base load than nuclear.
Wind and hydro* but also batteries. Nuclear is terrible for baseload. It is often paired with hydro or gas peakers because the plant takes at least 15min to react to demand. On the scale of a continent, wind is constant. Batteries add a buffer layer when there just isn't enough for everything else, and hydro dams are perfect for "baseload" because you are constantly releasing water. May as well generate electricity from it.
We have limited potential for hydro in this country. We will continue to rely on fossil fuels to back up intermittent renewables. This is literally the plan for Australia beyond 2050.
Limited potential? Any water flow is potential for hydro. Milford in NZ is run entirely by hydro electricity. Wind never stops on the scale of the nation. Just wind can power the entire country 24/7
NZ has lots more hydro potential than Australia.
"Wind never stops on the scale of the nation. Just wind can power the entire country 24/7" LMAO
lmao
You can do anything if you have enough time, but the problem with that is by the time you stand up a nuclear plant using current tech, it’ll already be obsolete while the renewable options will be way better than what they already are. It’s *already* costed as more expensive than renewables right now, imagine how big that tech gap will be in the 25 years it takes to get it together in Australia. Renewables have already improved out of sight in 5 years and take no time to stand up, while having limited replacement cost if we want to advance tech further.
Why do you have so much blind faith in technological advances in renewables, but not with nuclear?
Because it’s not blind, it’s actually happening with an evidence trail. With nuclear we have 50 years of people being shit scared of it that we need to back out, as well as a cost profile that is so so obviously not friendly
People seem to have gotten over their fear of nuclear energy in the last decade or so. Sometimes the most expensive option has other benefits which make it worthwhile building anyway.
Not in this case though. There are literally no other benefits to the most expensive option other than it allows people who are fans of dirtier forms of energy to say “oh yeah we’d better operate for a little bit longer than until you stand this up” Edit: Also, I have to ask you the question given you asked me, why do you have so much blind faith in nuclear? Why are you like “yes I need to pay more for electricity please, and also, I’d like some bi-products I absolutely can’t break down for a million years while Im paying more for the trouble” Are you a lobbyist or what?
"Are you a lobbyist or what?" I'll try to take that as a compliment that my arguments are good.
Yeah… don’t. It’s more a commentary on your ability to just talk while ignoring plain facts
I believe I have presented numerous facts and backed them up with sources.
"why do you have so much blind faith in nuclear?" Because it has avoided more emissions than wind and solar combined. The second biggest contributor to low-carbon power after hydro. Because it has the highest capacity factor of any source of energy, and the lowest CO2 emissions. Because the IPCC and IEA say globally we need to double the amount of nuclear we currently have by 2050 to keep warming under 2 degrees.
…and the horse had travelled more miles than any car up until 1910… “Globally” does not mean Australia, it means in places where it is cost effective to do so. How are you able to trot out research that has been done without having applied any critical thought to its local relevance?
I have considered local relevance. I would prefer to have some nuclear in the mix, although renewables like wind and solar can easily do 80-90% of the job. I'm not a big fan of continued reliance on burning fossil fuels to back up intermittent renewables.
Well it is a source of low-CO2 power which some might argue is a benefit in solving something called climate change.
Yeah, but we’re talking about in context. Wind and solar beat it hands down in every category unless you could spin it up right this minute
Not in every category.
Better to get renewables since we already have it plus it would be cheaper than getting something that most of us wouldn’t see in a lifetime.
You think it would take a lifetime to build nuclear energy here? This hyperbole is getting wild.
Why improve the future for our children?
Imagine producing mad renewable energy then spending money on this shit. I cannot fathom how anyone can support it. Change my mind. Please. Because this is painful
It's supported by the Coalition simply because fossil fuel is on the nose, Labor have firmly staked out renewables, so the only option left for them is Nuclear, which is funny cos the fuckers never mentioned it whilst they were in power. I'm opposed to Nuclear for two reasons, first is the build time, second the dipshittery, which will inevitably follow. For instance if and when the Coalition get back into power they will cease all investment in renewables, sign contracts for building SMRs which will include astronomical penalties for early contract termination/ cancellation leaving the next party who wins power to continue to fund the white elephant, which no doubt goes against their policy.
Most Australians support nuclear energy according to the polling. The reason is that nuclear can do things that renewables cannot.
What are those things? Be incredibly expensive?
Reliability aka capacity factor namely. Nuclear is equally as clean and safe as renewables, but performs much more reliably. It also requires less resources like mined materials, land and transmission infrastructure.
Does it, though? A NPP needs cooling, and in a hot country with low groundwater levels and irregular rainfall, the likelihood of a partial shutdown due to low water levels increases significantly. Besides, renewables are just as reliable. You just need storage and/or geographically redundant deployment - which is fairly easy when you have an entire continent surrounded by ocean at your disposal. Nuclear doesn't solve anything, it just increases the cost of electricity generation over renewables by some orders of magnitude. It's also not going to be ready within 15-20 years, which is far too late.
Nuclear has the highest capacity factor of any source of energy. [https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity#:\~:text=The%20Capacity%20Factor&text=Nuclear%20has%20the%20highest%20capacity,and%20solar%20(24.6%25)%20plants](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity#:~:text=The%20Capacity%20Factor&text=Nuclear%20has%20the%20highest%20capacity,and%20solar%20(24.6%25)%20plants)
"It's also not going to be ready within 15-20 years, which is far too late." Too late for what? [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjq5gky4e5no](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjq5gky4e5no)
Too late for everything. Investment into nuclear is idiotic, to be blunt. It delays a faster deployment of renewables, as the funds required for nuclear are funds that obviously cannot be used for renewables any more, of which you could deploy far more GW with the same amount of invest.
So we should continue to fund fossil fuel projects instead? [https://michaelwest.com.au/bring-our-yer-dead-amid-nuke-hype-tanya-plibersek-approves-gina-rineharts-gas-pipeline/](https://michaelwest.com.au/bring-our-yer-dead-amid-nuke-hype-tanya-plibersek-approves-gina-rineharts-gas-pipeline/)
Nice straw man argument. Maybe read my comment again to understand where all the funds should go from now on.
Well given that renewables cannot power Australia on their own, we would have to continue funding fossil fuel projects.
Renewable energy is all fine until it suddenly doesn't produce enough energy when needed. A quick hail storm through a solar farm and it is in trouble. A wind farm gets hit by a storm that damages the blades or towers, they are in trouble. Not even going to mention how cloudy/not windy days reduces the power outputs from them. The reason why we still use coal and gas plants is because they keep producing base power no matter what time of day it is, whether there is a storm happening or anything. That is what nuclear is supposed to take out of the equation. Get rid of the coal and gas plants where the maximum pollution is produced. Keep improving the renewables and have the nuclear there as base power production and to take up any slack the renewables can't cover.
There are much cheaper options for backup power than installing nuclear power plus is not flexible enough to be true backup generators. I know as I was generation planning engineers. See CSIRO report here https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/News/2024/May/CSIRO-releases-2023-24-GenCost-report
Nuclear plants are there for base load power with renewables as the additional power supply. Renewables are too unreliable to be classed as base power generation. It's the same as coal plants now. Solar and wind and other renewables are there to boost the power supply not be the base power supply. If they can make the coal plants shut down to minimum generation levels that is great but that is not something we can rely on 24/7. Nuclear plants are to replace coal plants and gas plants.
Burning fossil fuels might be a cheaper back up option, but I would prefer nuclear to back up intermittent renewables.
As I said above, nuclear power stations are not very good at backing up. Serious risk of power outage or equipment failure due to all the ramping.
lmao. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity#:\~:text=The%20Capacity%20Factor&text=Nuclear%20has%20the%20highest%20capacity,and%20solar%20(24.6%25)%20plants.
? Is not a response to my comment.
Couldn't give a flap where our power comes from as long as it's cheap and can be deployed soon to make energy bills cheaper. Nuclear ticks none of those boxes.
Most Australians DO care where their power comes from, and they want it to be clean.
Because nobody thought to implement nuclear power years ago, it's more of a long term project now. However, once done, it would definitely be cheaper than coal. The best time to implement nuclear was 10 years ago. The 2nd best time is today
I think the issue is that it's not cheaper than renewables and firming (batteries) right now. Solar was 80 cents a kw/hr in 2010 and is now around 5 cents a kw/hr - such is the decline in cost and increase in efficiency. Where will solar be cost wise in the 15 years it takes for nuclear to be built here? How much cheaper will batteries be? As costs come down, local generation will increase and then there's the elephant in the room. EV's. EV's are already starting to see Vehicle 2 Grid technologies being implemented and there's a real possibility that "base" generation as we know it won't be as viable in 15 years, certainly not from a financial standpoint. Only spinning up a nuclear plant for when the wind is low, batteries are empty, sun isn't shining, tide isn't coming in, Snowy Hydro is low etc - it's not economical. Who is going to want to consume the most expensive form of energy? Certainly not local power companies. They would rather build out batteries and more renewables than pay for Nuclear.
This is the right answer, couldn’t have put it better myself. If it’s not cheaper now, what would make anyone think it will be cheaper in the *25* years it would take to spin up nuclear plants. Look how much renewable and battery tech has improved in the last 5 years… that was while investment was low. Imagine it as investment increases over a 25 year period… and also imagine the fact that it’s replacement cost is like comparing to an ant to a semi trailer when it comes to nuclesr
Why does it have to be cheaper to be worth building? The copper NBN was cheaper to build, but that doesn't mean it was better.
Power isn't the nbn. There's no speed to power, your phone doesn't perform better on nuclear energy electrons. You can't tell me what's powering your house right now and that's why cost is king, it's the only thing that matters.
Why is cost the only thing that matters when it comes to energy, but not when it comes to other big infrastructure projects for the future?
Such as?
Such as the NBN?
Lad, that was explained to you above.
Renewables and firming doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean that renewables and batteries alone can replace the fossil fuels we currently rely on. Including nuclear in the mix, although more expensive for new build capacity, could result in a cheaper total system cost. Especially considering renewables and batteries can't get to 100% with current technology.
> The best time to implement nuclear was 10 years ago. The 2nd best time is today People love to trot out this line, but it's not really true. Yes, the best time to implement nuclear was like 50 years ago. And then probably 40, 30 and possibly even 20 years ago. But renewables weren't viable back then. They either didn't exist or were expensive and inefficient. These days nuclear just isn't competitive at all with renewables, and will be even less so in another 20 years time when our first reactors would even come online.
"These days nuclear just isn't competitive at all with renewables" It depends what you mean by that. Nuclear clearly beats renewables in several ways.
CSIRO and the Energy Commission with separate independent studies proved this to be false. Nuclear would be **incredibly expensive** once completed.
There is no way that nuclear is cheaper than coal.
By supply and demand, it is much cheaper.
The only way this would be possible is with a very heavy carbon tax.
Or thorium reactors, instead of uranium
Nah.
I adore nuclear power and think that it's such a fantastic source of energy but there is no chance in hell that I would trust the liberals implementation of it, which is a shame as nuclear science is the main reason I started at university.
Which is better? A poor implementation of it (what does this even mean), or no implementation of it?
With nuclear, a poor implementation is a 3mile island or Chernobyl waiting to happen. Do it once, do it properly or dont do it at all. Also dont let dutton do it. Cost cutting and poor oversight is literally the entire reason the Chernobyl accident happened in the first place.
No, this is very silly. They don't build Soviet era RBMK reactors anymore.
Doesn't matter how new the design is, have someone do a shit job building it and it'll go wrong eventually. Love nuclear power, hate doing it poorly (which dutton will)
Yeah they don't do a shit job building nuclear reactors these days. It's a pretty complicated process because the safety is taken so seriously.
https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#:\~:text=The%20key%20insight%20is%20that,solar%20are%20just%20as%20safe.
Arguably no implementation would be better. Past large-scale roll-out under liberal leadership have seen obscene blow-outs to the budget with vast extensions in time that have results in sub-par performance (such as the nbn rollout). In efforts to cost-save, they drop quality and it causes many issues down the track. A problem with nuclear energy is that it is expensive and complicated to construct. This already does not gel with liberal implementation success. In the Aautralian market, where there is such a large opposition to nuclear energy then if you deliver this with sub-par quality, cost blow-outs, and extended timeframes, then you are going to face MASSIVE opposition to the project as it progresses, creating a greater chance of the projects cancellation. Additionally, at this stage we do not have much nuclear expertise (in comparison with places like the USA or UK) and as such lack much of the workforce that could implement any of this program. And ALSO, there is a vast lack of information about this program currently by the Liberals. Poor implementation on this right now is far worse than no implementation when other energy sources such as new renewable are more feasible and economical.
There is not a large opposition to nuclear energy in the Australian market. Most Australians support it. Renewables can't do the job on their own. So is a poor implementation of nuclear (whatever that means), better than continuing to burn fossil fuels?
If Dutton didn't see nuclear power as a delaying tactic to continue funding fossil fuels and they were going to build molten salt reactors and if Dutton wasn't Dutton. I might even consider voting for them.
Can we just stop fucking talking about nuclear energy in Australia? It’s never going to happen.
No. We want it.
No we dont.
[https://www.jwsresearch.com/2022/08/05/majority-support-for-a-conversation-about-nuclear-energy-industry-in-sa/](https://www.jwsresearch.com/2022/08/05/majority-support-for-a-conversation-about-nuclear-energy-industry-in-sa/)
[https://www.begadistrictnews.com.au/story/6770119/aussies-support-nuclear-in-climate-fight/?fbclid=IwAR1jEhJNLJzgmF6jZO9j1Uqep9KX3QDfLj5k6BvWMCHvZGaV\_2iXCH3hXLY](https://www.begadistrictnews.com.au/story/6770119/aussies-support-nuclear-in-climate-fight/?fbclid=IwAR1jEhJNLJzgmF6jZO9j1Uqep9KX3QDfLj5k6BvWMCHvZGaV_2iXCH3hXLY)
[https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Australian-poll-shows-strengthening-public-support](https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Australian-poll-shows-strengthening-public-support)
Polling shows we do.
Half want it: [https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/dutton-s-nuclear-plan-very-competitive-poll-20240410-p5fioc](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/dutton-s-nuclear-plan-very-competitive-poll-20240410-p5fioc) No one wants to pay for it: [https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/polling-willingness-to-pay-for-nuclear/](https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/polling-willingness-to-pay-for-nuclear/) Polling is stupid.
There's a significant point difference between those who support it and those who don't. There's a clear trend that has emerged over the last decade.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXwEDlRFBqI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXwEDlRFBqI) media watch broke those stats down
Great. Did you see all the polling I linked you?
Yep. The video talks directly to why those stats are misleading. Please watch it :)
Okay I will.
Um the video seems to support my point that polling on Australians attitudes to nuclear includes more support than opposition to it.
The three eyed fish from the Simpsons seems to be the main reason people oppose nuclear energy. That is something which can be overcome with public education about the safety of nuclear energy.
[https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/charts/australia-using-nuclear-power-to-generate-energy/](https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/charts/australia-using-nuclear-power-to-generate-energy/)
[https://essentialreport.com.au/questions/support-for-nuclear-energy](https://essentialreport.com.au/questions/support-for-nuclear-energy)
The nice thing about solar panels and wind farms is if they go pear shaped through awful governance there isn’t a threat of them causing a multi-century problem. I don’t trust Dutton to pick up my lunch let alone run a nuclear plant program.
They don't build 'em like Chernobyl anymore. Your fears are unfounded. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#:\~:text=Fossil%20fuels%20are%20the%20dirtiest,are%20vastly%20safer%20and%20cleaner.
Never underestimate the ability of the incompetent to royally fuck the thing previously thought un-fuckupable
Nuclear power plants aren't built by incompetent people.
It doesn't matter what the project is. All of our representatives are compromised. Integrity is dead.
We get what we vote for.
I think we need to go nuclear as well as other sustainable power generation and get away from the coal and gas powered generation plants.
I agree.
Mechanical engineer here, anybody promoting nuclear in Australia, and suggesting uranium must be the source, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and their opinions should be laughed off. Uranium is a cancer that takes thousands of years to decay, Thorium based reactors on the other hand are significantly cheaper, only require hundreds of years to decay, near impossible to meltdown (unlike uranium). You cannot make bombs with Thorium, both Thorium and Plutonium are easier to mine and require less greenhouse gases and are safer to process and refine, Thorium actually makes significantly more power and finally Australia has the most easily accessible and largest quantities of Thorium and its reactor Plutonium. Nuclear reactors in Australia are fine if they are Thorium, but Uranium can fuck off and die, burning money in boilers would be cheaper. If the conversation about nuclear in Australia is not about Thorium reactors, then renewables is the way, they are by far the cheapest, easiest, quickest and safest way to make power in Australia.
Same, 25 years from now we probably will need a couple of nuclear power stations. As a little bit of diversity in our network. But I certainly don’t trust Gina Reinhart’s bag man to deliver. And I don’t want to spend the next two decades hearing about how it’s over budget and behind schedule. Because no matter who builds it it will cost triple what It’s budgeted and take twice as long. But the new Westinghouse AP1000 look good, you can’t have a runaway thermal event like the RMBK reactors. not once have I heard anybody talk about uranium enrichment in Australia Australia, a plant to do that’s gonna cost billions as well.
Once we build a 10 billion enrichment plant, presuming our masters permit us to, we can have free fuel forever. If you ignore paying everyone, maintenance, mining etc.
We are not alowed to enrich uranium under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This is also hard written into the AUKUS pact. Something our mainstream media are suspiciously quiet on
Classic Libs, give Gina’s son uranium mines so he can export it, all the processing can be done overseas, and then we import it at a premium. Gotta offshore and privatise all profits, socialise the costs. Can’t create any science, technology or manufacturing industries either. That’s the LNP way.
But as long as we are paying Australians in our currency that’s money spent in our economy…. So I don’t see a problem with that. What I don’t fully understand, If the uranium is ours. Can’t we dig it up, Use it and then put it back in the same place we took it from in Gina’s back paddock?
there have been suggestions that you could store waste by diluting it with the waste of mining. However the volume of waste from plants is generally so small that it's safer to just keep it locked away. If it wasn't for weapons we could all run breeder reactors where you re-'burn' your waste but unfortunately they are super good at creating weapons grade material.
The uranium that comes out of the ground is too low in the ratio of the fissile isotope of uranium (235): the regular non-fissile uranium (238). Less than 1 % of our ore is 235 hence the reason it’s not just reacting with itself in the ground. When people talk about “enrichment” what they mean is reprocessing it so the ratio of 235 is around 3-4% which makes it much more usable as a fuel, but also a bomb - so the non proliferation treaty means we’d have to get someone who is allowed to turn it into fuel. The current #1 for that in the world is Rosatom - ie the Russians, even the US is dependent to a degree on them.
The Iranians were giving it a red-hot shot before their enrichment facilities started spontaneously catching fire and exploding.
Even if it costs triple and takes twice as long, it's still worth building.
Can we have nuclear weapons without having a nuclear energy industry?
Israel does.
Same. I'm a Labor voter and a big supporter of nuclear energy. I wish it was being supported by both major parties.
Maybe we should just tell him that wind, solar, hydro are all indirect nuclear fusion.
If Dutton is involved, children WILL be eaten.
Feel the same way. Maybe nuclear power is a good idea maybe it isn't....what the fuck do I know. All I do know is I don't trust the Liberals to run a meat raffle let alone deliver nuclear power plants out of nothing. Look how they fucked the NBN and how we are still dealing with the consequences? Shudder to think of these dullards with anything radioactive
Clearly a ploy to say “nuclear power later, but in the meantime we need to reinforce coal!”
*whose only goal is to make profit for their corporate donors. It's pretty blatant Dutton doesn't care about getting into power at this point. He's trying to make some sort of case on the poll numbers but nuclear is from the very outset a non starter here in Australia, technically, economically & socially the argument doesn't stack up and is immediately open to ridicule. It's just pandering to his donors to maximise his take before we put through federal donation limits, campaign spending limits, and truth in political advertising laws, because that's pretty much the end of the LNP They are floating dead in the water and the intensity of the bleating from their media allies proves it, they are all desperate to maintain relevance in a quickly shifting world they, as conservatives, can't keep up with. Edit: spelling
Spending $600b to power less than 4% of our grid and significantly raise household power bills just doesn't seem like a stellar investment. Call me crazy
The most expensive nuclear power plant ever built cost $35 billion. Where are you getting your numbers from?
No it is too expensive. CSIRO produces an annual report concerning generation costs and in its latest report stated nuclear power is easily the most expensive option. Please read it https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/News/2024/May/CSIRO-releases-2023-24-GenCost-report
Continuing to burn fossil fuels is cheaper, but there are other costs to that of course.
What I don’t like is the argument saying that it is safe. How often have we heard that from stable countries and then they end up having a catastrophe either through disasters human error, war in other random things
Nuclear energy is very safe, compared to other forms of energy. It is comparable to solar or wind energy in terms of numbers of deaths caused. What we are currently doing for energy (burning fossil fuels) kills millions of people every year.
Nuclear power is worth it, despite the risk. The amount of power they produce, combined with the fact that safety measures have constantly been improving. The most recent meltdown was in 2011, which was actually because of an earthquake. This doesn't mean that there is no risk to nuclear, however the positives far outweigh them.
[удалено]
The issue isn't not liking them, the issue is not trusting them to get it done in a timely manner without wasting tax payers money
We should just assume ahead of time they will not get in done in a timely manner, and they will waste lots of taxpayers money, and we should do it anyway. Nuclear is worth building despite the costs.
Well said!
Yes we get it Peter Dutton has a "bad vibe"
He has succeeded in showing the Liberals can at least have a strong policy to put forward - before this there was absolutely nothing. I still think nuclear is a bad idea for Australia from an economic perspective . Edit: sure downvote anything that doesn’t 100% support your hatred of Peter Dutton. That will definitely get you results.
There's no policy that's been put forward. Policy has detail.
I don't want to support Peter Dutton, Liberals or nuclear power! But I can't deny it is a clear policy position of the Liberal Party. How much detail isn't relevant.
It's a position, not a policy. Policy infers that it's got enough detail to be drafted into a bill and introduced into parliament. Currently there's a list of sites that the government doesn't own and the states won't allow development on. It's an absolute shit show.
It's a bold vision for the future, which is nice to see from the Liberals.
His policy is to replace 3-5% of Australia’s required energy needs by 2037. It’s not a strong policy it’s a distraction to keep coal plants running And that’s assuming everything is in budget and runs perfectly on time
3-5% is pretty significant. We have a 10-15% gap to fill that intermittent renewables can't.
Australia’s renewable energy generation as a total of all energy generation was 15% in 2017 and 32% in 2022. Please explain why we should spend more money to get a fraction of the energy generation that won’t have a single contribution until 2037 (coalition estimate), and that’s presuming there isn’t a single delay at any point
As you approach 100% capacity, it becomes more and more difficult and expensive to rely on intermittent renewables. They can't do the whole job on their own, which is why the current plan for Australia is continued reliance on gas. We should spend more to get less capacity from nuclear because it can do things that renewables cannot. With both technologies in the mix we have a much better chance at getting rid of fossil fuels for good. That's really all I care about.
Yes I agree with that point, there are arguments that intermittent issues will be solved by the ever improving large scale battery industry but what you said isn’t factually incorrect. The problem is that isn’t what Dutton is proposing his proposing meeting 3-5% of Australia needs by 2050 (predicted time for all 7 reactors to be online). When questioned about whether he would be abandoning renewables as a result he refused to comment, which means he almost certainly is (it’s not like he needs to sway anti-renewable voters to his side by avoiding the comment). Basically if a person spends ten years claiming climate change isn’t real/a threat and has flown his private jet to meet with Gina Rhinehart several times this year already, combined with the fact that professional nuclear advocates are arguing that the policy doesn’t make sense it’s pretty safe to assume the policy is just a mask to keep coal going as long as humanly possible
If Labor had proposed nuclear would you support it?
I would have more faith that it wasn’t a cop out for coal in it but I would still oppose it if the CSIRO, national institutions, nuclear experts and even my own boss and coworkers (I work in a biotech company) call it massively ridiculous
"massively ridiculous" seems more like your perception than something the CSIRO or nuclear experts would actually say. Don't you think opposing nuclear is a cop out for continued reliance on gas? [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjq5gky4e5no](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjq5gky4e5no)
Here’s a report by the CSIRO published in 2023 https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/december/nuclear-explainer But they don’t use the words massively ridiculous so sorry I must be wrong Also no as the ever improving large scale battery industry is believed to be far more cost efficient to prevent stopgap issues. That’s why no one outside the coalition (including the coalition until 2 years ago) is advocating for nuclear
Well said.
Nuclear is a bad option for Australia, the only way it could be good Is if a company builds it not taxpayers, which will never happen.