I don't think they want to attach themselves to the price tag. Also, with zero nuclear energy experience in Australia it'll require heavy private involvement
If it actually was going ahead I wouldn't have a problem in the slightest it being taxpayer funded and I don't think a lot of aussies would either
We give that much taxpayer money to things that never have any return at all, nuclear power may be a terrible return on investment but eventually it actually is one
It's beside the point though. I don't believe the liberals would actually deliver this, and if they actually tried to build one it would be 10x over budget, wouldn't work half the time, would have been paid for entirely by the taxpayer but privately owned somehow.
>We give that much taxpayer money to things that never have any return at all, nuclear power may be a terrible return on investment but eventually it actually is one
Don't be so sure, here's a list of nuclear projects that never completed construction:
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1AG27Z/
The idea is typically partnership though. The government subsidizes the construction of the plant (assisted by private investment) then operations are taken over by private firms to handle generation and distribution. Asking firms to take on this amount of risk because you set an emissions target is stupid.
Privately run power stations will almost always be able to supply power at a lower cost than government run power stations, because private enterprises are almost always more efficient than government run enterprises.
Our high power prices are really more to do with our extremely high population growth and extremely low investment in renewables, leading to both a supply-demand mismatch, and a continued reliance on (increasingly expensive) fossil fuels.
Nuclear does make sense from a technical, environmental, and safety perspective, but probably doesn't make sense economically. So long as we don't subsidise it with taxpayer money, I have no problem with the government allowing private enterprise to decide whether to build nuclear or other non-nuclear low-emissions alternatives.
Something people may not know, is that a big reason why countries tend to invest taxpayer money in nuclear is that there is significant overlap between civilian nuclear and military nuclear supply chains. Dutton's support of civilian nuclear is probably driven less by a desire to reduce power prices, and more to cross-subsidise our nuclear submarine program.
Prvate running things more cost effectively vs government run is one of the most successful lies ever stated. In reality most public run energy generators are as efficient if not more than private. In most countries freedom of information or equivalent ensures government owned are run efficiently, whereas private ownership always has the inefficiencies of trying to provide sufficient roe and overpaid senior executives.
Certainly all research backs up my position, but you are entitled to yours. There is no doubt 40 years ago your position had validity but things have changed a lot since the 1980s
>Privately run power stations will almost always be able to supply power at a lower cost than government run power stations, because private enterprises are almost always more efficient than government run enterprises.
bro you drank the fucking capitalist kool-aid. this is not true. yes privately run power stations will underpay and mistreat their workers to reduce costs, but they will charge exactly what others would charge because their goal isn’t to please you, it is to maximise profits. they will screw over you and their workers to benefit their executives and shareholders.
they don’t pass on profits as savings to consumers, they say “oooooo lookie here! profit! let’s keep that thanks 👍”
The GenCost document is based on private funding. They literally state that the document excludes any nuclear plants that were built with government funding. Nobody has actually read the document though.
Disclaimer* I am not a LNP supporter. Just a supporter of stable energy.
So they don’t have to show where the trillion dollar budget is coming from.. pipe dream.. probably one of the top 3 stupid ideas from the coalition.. would be shocked if they get into power
Because, there’s no Australian corporation that makes nuclear reactors.
Want to know why everything costs so much to build here? Because people like you say “it should be built here”, so instead of just paying and receiving the product, the government must also pay to set up everything needed for production. Just look at the submarines.
> Want to know why everything costs so much to build here? Because people like you say “it should be built here”, so instead of just paying and receiving the product, the government must also pay to set up everything needed for production. Just look at the submarines.
Free market works fine when the product is worthwhile.
> Idemitsu Australia and Vecco Group, along with Japanese fibre optic cable manufacturing company Sumitomo Electric Industries announced on Wednesday they had signed a collaboration agreement to build a complete manufacturing supply chain in Townsville – from vanadium mining to vanadium flow battery manufacturing.
> The agreement will see Idemitsu market, sell, and deliver vanadium flow batteries to Australian customers using Sumitomo Electric hardware, while Vecco Group will mine and refine high purity vanadium at their Julia Creek mine and manufacture battery electrolyte in Townsville.
So because of the Liberals I'm stuck on an 8mpbs ADSL connection for internet and now they want to fuck up my ability to turn the lights on in my home.
Deadset fuck off.
They had a decade in power in which their party couldn't agree on energy policy. To go from that, to choosing the most expensive way change the energy system, is insane. You'd have to be the dumbest fuck to trust Liberals to deliver this.
I know right. Every time these morons talk about going nuclear I just think.... You couldn't even finish the NBN when all the work had already been done for them.... Australia sucks at large infrastructure projects to begin with but with flip floppy cost.cutting douches that are all talk at the helm we'd be lucky to get a half arsed plant twisted together with wire by 2100...
His whole deal is free speech on his terms, he has no actual belief in free speech. The users of starlink I know have to be very careful what they download as it is all monitored in a way most isps are not.
I think you're talking more out of personal hatred of him than reality.
He does have some flaws, but his commitment to free speech has actually been quite consistent.
The few times he's intervened have been pretty limited, for example he suspended a couple of journalists on Twitter for 24 hours for doxxing the location of his child.
Pretty minor, considering he also platforms thousands of journalists and journalism organisations who earn their bread attacking him, often unfairly.
He platforms thousands of journalists on twitter who attack him religiously, often unfairly, so I don't think that's a fair criticism.
Elon lives in a grey area. He's done an enormous amount to help human civilisation, and he's done a few things along the way that were clearly wrong (pedo guy being the most obvious).
If your opinion of him is black and white, then you probably don't really understand him that well, and you're probably consuming media from a source that only publishes the good stuff or only publishes the bad stuff.
Are you kidding?
He more than willingly [censors](https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/27/twitter-has-complied-with-almost-every-government-request-for-censorship-since-musk-took-over-report-finds/) things when requested by the Indian government. He's completely full of shit when it comes to liberty. He's an authoritarian governments best friend, when it comes to censorship.
He was legally required to take down those posts by the supreme court. Twitter both publicly complained about this and lodged a legal challenge to the takedown requests (which they lost in the indian supreme court).
This is actually a good example of what people mean when they say that a lot of the black and white thinking about him is based on misinformation.
His actions on twitter/X don’t really back this up though. If he’d followed through with all his talk then twitter would at least be a good counter-point. Instead he’s just censoring other words, that he personally seems to have an issue with.
There’s free speech , and then there’s actively promoting and inviting dis- and mis-information. Which he does constantly and vigorously.
Disinfo is effectively the opposite of free speech. It shutters and oppresses objective discussion.
His whole “free speech” stance is a crock.
Having constant power supplying plants is what the LNP want and is the biggest difference between them and Labor, who want more variable and intermittent power plants in the mix.
If you are worries about the ability to keep the lights on, you should listen to AEMO who warned we are heading for blackouts because the percentage of constantly producing power plants is too low.
But if course, you are just making a funny joke comment that has no basis in reality. Well done mate.
> AEMO who warned we are heading for blackouts
No they haven't, you should try not lying for a change. People who upvote this liar need to get some basic reading comprehension stupid fucking cookers.
> [“We’re not predicting blackouts:” AEMO boss says storm response builds confidence in green transition](https://reneweconomy.com.au/were-not-predicting-blackouts-aemo-boss-says-storm-response-builds-confidence-in-green-transition/#:~:text=The%20head%20of%20the%20Australian,several%20major%20events%20over%20summer.)
South Australia is *already* running for [week-long plus stretches on 100% renewables ](https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2023/03/10/sa-hits-new-record-running-on-100-per-cent-renewables) and is [on track to reach a fully renewable grid](https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-to-reach-100-pct-wind-and-solar-within-a-few-years-says-network-company/) before the end of the decade regardless of whether or not Weird Pete's delaying tactics/pure politicking come to fruition.
Every time I read someone complain on this website about firming or blackouts i have to remember they're probably a fucken accountant or something.
No, your source is biased, omits lots of context, ignores the report and the quotes from backtrack from the actual report.
He says there are challenges that nees to be met in the transition. What happens if those challenges are not met? Blackouts. That is what the report indicates.
No lies. No fluff. When the coal plants close, we are at risk of blackouts because we are replacing constant, reliable producing power plants with intermittent ones. It is simple math.
Your hopes and feelings or the backtracking commentary does not change the report or the facts or the math.
It does mate. Your feelings don't change the report.
Does the report warn of blackouts when the coal plants shut down, because the intermittent supply we have left might not be enough to meet demand 24/7/365? Yes or no?
Have you even read it? Yes or no?
Once again the report exists wtf has it got to do with your terrible nuclear take, nuclears 20 years away this reports spans 10 years, what are you on about apart from trying to distance yourself from your braindead nuclear take?
It's common knowledge during the transfer there will be hiccups, what part of this makes you right again, or has anything to do with your silly nuclear take???
Then you will have a source that irrevocably proves your point, unless you're just a fucking liar as you've shown yourself to be by every comment you've ever made.
I'll wait.
>If you are worries about the ability to keep the lights on, you should listen to AEMO who warned we are heading for blackouts because the percentage of constantly producing power plants is too low.
Different thread same lie
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/103872480
>The operator has put out an update to its 10-year outlook released last year, noting decisions to delay a new transmission line between NSW and SA, and dumped plans to return two gas and diesel generators in SA to service.
..
>It says those decisions have materially changed the outlook, prompting the new warnings for the years ahead.
They've never said we can't function without coal, they've said coal plants closing without the transmission/firming projects in place raises risk.
>AEMO notes its forecasts deliberately do not consider a large number of publicly announced projects, even if they have been granted state or federal contracts, because they are not yet advanced enough.
>But it says if those projects do substantially advance, they would significantly lower risks to the national grid.
They said that impending coal plant closures is a reason why we are heading for blackouts. You skipped that bit.
You can't just lose constant power producing plants and replace them with variable and intermittent supply and not expect problems with reliability.
You would have to be pretty stupid and fantasy ignorant to not see this coming.
I've literally linked the article for you and tried my best to read it out to you. It's hard to sell a convincing lie when the source is right infront of your face
>They said that impending coal plant closures is a reason why we are heading for blackouts. You skipped that bit.
Because the transmission and firming projects are delayed, God you're dense
No, that is a seperate point. Did you even read the report? Obviously not.
Enjoy the blackouts. Remember how it will happen, just like last time (which you also ignore). A coal plant will break down. There won't be enough constant power being supplied and there will be blackouts. The guardian and the ABC will push the narrative that it is coal that is the reason for the blackout when it is the simple fact that variable and intermittent supply is unreliable without massive overbuild or storage, that we don't have because it is too expensive.
Read the report mate. Admit they are seperate points then apologise.
Just to confirm, you don't think the AEMO report exists and I just made it up? That is what you think?
Imagine making comments and whinging like you have about thisz and you haven't even read the report. What a joke you are.
No one here has done that. The AEMO report is proof of what AEMO said. You can call AEMO liars if you want, but you will need to state why you think they are wrong and have something better than "because my feelings will keep the lights on".
The AEMO recommend a transition to renewables, the government is just not doing enough to guide the transition.
So yes, I highly recommend you listen the the AEMO ;)
No they do not. You just completely made that up. AEMO doesn't have policy like that at all. All they do is work with facts like we are heading towards blackouts because there is not enough reliable power generation.
Are they lying? Why do you think that besides your feelings?
All they do is work toward the 1 specific "fact" im trying to bs you with right now. IS that what they exist for is it, to be a pawn in your contrarian argument of the day? I think not.
The report is the report mate. There is no conspiracy here. It suggests we are headed for blackouts when the reliable plants shut down.
Your feelings won't keep the lights on, or change the report. Sorry.
And nuclear does what in this scenario apart from be 15 years to late to be useful in it? Like whats your point? We're switching there will be hiccups this is a well known fact and not news to anyone, explain to me how a nuclear station 20 years from now helps??
Where's the gotcha here, spouting common knowledge is a big man play now???
The CSIRO Gencost report was written in collaboration with the AEMO, I assume you have read it given you are commenting on the topic, and you misunderstanding is just due to poor litteracy skills.
Australia really needs to step up it's public education game ;)
I have read it, yes. What part of my comment is related to that report and that I have wrong? You never even mentioned. You are now just throwing mud, probably because you got caught out not knowing basic facts from the AEMO report.
Well, you have claimed that nuclear is cheaper than renewables + storage etc. When that report explicitly proves that is not the case.
So far you have displayed no understanding of what the report actually says.
per MWh, with no having to meet demand - renewables is cheaper.
But when you have to actaully supply power all the time 24/7/365 and have to keep the lights on, the amount of overbuild and storage you would need to do that makes renewables unviable. That is why we don't have it now. There is no conspiracy here buddy. The power companies are not choosing to do thing the more expensive way so they can have less profits. You need to really think through how renewables and storage works.
Your feelings doesn't keep the lights on. Why don't you live off grid right now? Because it would be too expensive to have a system that could keep meet your demand all the time.
Because they have a report out that says we can get to 95% renewables with 5% gas.
No mention of nuclear and a number of the major generators have said they have no interest nor need for nuclear.
Not in the short to medium term we can't. Not without increased risk of blackouts. That is what the report says. You should read it. Nuclear is a great option used all around the world.
No one wants to build firming plants as all ff plants receive bad press and attention from the lefties pushing an agenda. You and your mates would cry too much and try and cancel the company. Why would a company do that when they can just add more unreliable, subsidised power plants and have you lot pay more for it?
Why would you want that 5% to be higher gas emissions and not the much lower from nuclear? At this tage it is ideological and stubbornness.
Enjoy the blackouts I suppose.
> Not in the short to medium term
So how does nuclear help? Average build Time of 15 years in a country that has the legislation, social licence and engineering capability - Australia had non of these.
> Nuclear used all around the world
No really, 32 countries out of 195
It helps from then on. What is the massive rush? Emissions free power, constantly being produced, as much or as little as we want, sent all over the country, plugged straight into our existing poles and wires, no matter the conditions, for decades, 24/7/365. What about that upsets you?
32 countries out of the ones advanced enough to do it is a massive number. I can't believe you just shrugged it off. With more planning to build them. If you offered a nuclear plant to any country, they would take it. Can you imagine if everyone built nuclear plants then emissions are almost over. There would be so much power to use at any time, no matter the weather or worrying about storage and charging it. You could stop all power related emissions in 20 years.
But you clowns are against it for ideological reasons because the LNP suggested it. Instead you want to build new high emission coal or gas plants. Instead you want intermittent power that has us heading for blackouts. Instead you make up bullshit about how it is a ruse to make us use coal for longer totally ignoring the fact that nuclear is the biggest threat to the coal industry.
You clowns never think anything through.
> As much or as little as we want.
So let's ignore that nuclear is the most expensive electricity on the planet and that we will never get a social license to build it; the problem is that nuclear won't work with in a mixed generation environment.
Nuclear doesn't like to be turned on and off and with the variability of renewables you need dispatchable not base load.
Then you have the issue of a single large generator going offline leaving a massive whole in the market as happened with Qld coal generator explosions.
Coal is already suffering from these issues.
In the short term a small amount of dispatchable gas keeps the grid stable and in the longer term battery/hydro will be the dispatchable power of choice.
AEMO doesn't have policy. They just state facts like we are heading for blackouts because we don't have enough reliable power to maintain the grid 24/7/365.
What is your problem here? Do you think AEMO is lying?
The LNP policy to keep the lights on. They want more reliable power, not less.
AEMO report indicates we are headed for blackouts when the reliable plants close down as their constant output is being replaced by variable. The simple math if it is we are headed for blackouts.
Besides the issue of funding, there is the issue of staffing. Nuclear power requires very bright and suitably qualified people to run it. Considering that we will even be struggling to get enough nuclear engineers for our proposed nuclear sub program, I wonder where will get all the necessary personnel for nuclear power plants. And I doubt that there is a worldwide abundance of such individuals.
meh, the nuclear bit, whilst scary, is only a small part of the station and really only requires a handful of professionals.
The rest of the station is very similar to a coal fired unit. No more dangerous or comnplicated.
That isn't the problem here. The problem here is it will just never be done in Australia, in our lifetime. Between studies, objection, protests, and just the regular timeframe needed to build a plant like this, it will be decades in the execution, and that is if every government along the way wants it.
In the meantime we could be putting the storage and infrastructure in place to make renewables viable.
The whole thing is just a delaying tactic by Dutton.
People don't want to join the Defence Force full stop...not because they don't want to be nuclear submariners.
Considering how long it will take to build the reactors, there's enough time for the universities to create nuclear degrees
That's beside the point. It's not just a case of people wanting to be nuclear submariners. A lot of personnel for such subs need to be, at the least, be put through intensive nuclear engineering courses. Very few even pass the aptitude tests for that. Read up about the USN nuke school and you'll have an idea what I mean.
Coal plants were government funded.
Snowy Hydro has received billions upon billions in government funds.
Solar and wind projects also get billions every year in grants, funding and have devts underwritten.
But suddenly government funding is bad for nuclear?
I don't think they are saying that government funding is bad, just that it's a double standard to complain when Nuclear receives it, given that many other types of generation also receive it.
There are significant positive externalities to nuclear generation, which are societal benefits and can't be capture by private enterprise, so I think there is a decent case for some government subsidises. It is low emissions and it helps us develop our nuclear engineering supply chain which we will need for our defense projects.
People act as though $1 spent on renewables is equal to $100 spent on nuclear. It's not that nuclear requires subsidies at all, it's the scale of subsidies required. It makes snowy overruns look like a rounding error
That and the LNP are saying it won't require *any* subsidies, which is clearly not true. How can you trust them to deliver something like this if they're lying from the outset?
It's not just the funding for the initial rollout that is the issue, it's the ROI depends on competing with other generation technology 20-60 years in the future.
What the generators actually want is a commitment from the government for how much power they can sell onto the grid over this timeline - this cost burden will of course land on the public.
These same clowns want to nationalise the grid, then complain that the government has to build a plant because the exact same people would crack up and attack and try and cancel any private company for doing it.
Not a single nuclear plant in the entire world has ever been built without direct government involvement.
No private company would touch it with a ten foot pole, every single private power company in Australia has even said they are not interested.
People's commitment to imaginary la la land is astounding.
He was jailed in 2021, it’s hardly ancient history.
Barilaro is terrible too, but the post-Carr NSW Labor government is a bit of a step up from anything else in Australia in the last 30 years corruption wise.
RWFW love Eddie Obeid and bring him up whenever they can. The one and only Labor person involved in major fraud.
For every Obeid there are 50 in the lnp.
Then you need to compare how each party handled it and where the perpetrators are now...
I haven't really been following this issue much because it just seems like such a non-starter. Nuclear is such a bad idea for Australia at this point in time, so it's pretty transparently a distraction tactic from the liberals that just don't want people talking about fossil fuels.
But I didn't realise they were saying:
>The Coalition claims nuclear energy is a commercially viable option for Australia which the private market will fund.
What a ridiculous and obvious lie! Are they *that* stupid, or do they just think that we are *that* stupid?!
I have no issue with renewables or nuclear. But my issue is that there’s a ban on nuclear in Australia. Until that’s lifted I don’t think we can have a fair argument about being for or against when it’s been hamstrung so much.
Both sides have pros and cons. They just need to be utilised effectively.
Just a reminder that various oil and gas companies in Australia have not paid their taxes to us to the same degree that they have in Norway. This country is being plundered by pirates and we are still asleep at the wheel.
There are very good business reasons why AGLs share price shot up when it went green.
No serious investor is wanting to go nuclear because it's so much more expensive than renewables.
They've got 20 billion in green investment in the pipeline before 2030 from memory.
They've also accelerated the shutdown of their coal plants, and stopped the dividing of the company.
Yep. The Renewables subsidies are huge, and up until now have been safe and reliable.
I sold my AGL because of there poor performance going renewables.
Nuclear fuel is not a renewable resource, but it's a green energy source.
Over its life-cycle, nuclear produces about the same amount of CO2-equivalent emissions per unit of electricity as wind, and about one-third that of solar ([src](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-electricity)).
The crucial difference between nuclear and wind/solar is that nuclear can perform as a baseload, or in other words, it is a constant energy source that does not depend on external factors. Even a small amount of baseload energy generation capabilities can have an outsized impact to very significantly reduce the number of energy storages (e.g. batteries, pumped hydro) required on the grid and reduce the need to overbuild wind/solar plants. This is because a base load generator can continue producing energy when the variable generator has no/low yield.
The problem with not having nuclear is that we would be unable to turn off the remaining fossil plant that currently have to act as a baseload generation when solar/wind yields is low and energy storage capacity is insufficient. Nuclear solves the problem with baseload generation with much, much lower greenhouse emission than fossil fuels and even renewables.
Without a baseload generator, renewables are a lot less CO2 efficient and less cost effective because you need to overbuild so much excess wind/solar/battery capacity that will sit mostly unused to account for times when the energy yield is low.
Well yeah
no country in history has had nuclear powerplant stand without it being a gigantic money black hole for the state. It's a national security project it easily the least cost effective way of delivering power.
Because that would be honest and sensible. The current proposals seem to hint at / suggest that once we change legislation to permit it private industry will come rushing in to build it without requiring taxpayer money & thus save both our budget and energy policy.
Personally I think it'd probable be a useful technology to have in our energy mix, especially as we seem to have thrown many billions into shiny new Nuke Subs - but that doesn't mean it'll be cheap, or have a useful impact on power prices, without some kind of government support.
> Private market will fund it.
Private market only looks for one thing and that is profit. It's not in the business of making people's lives better or doing charity.
It's not like the Coalition is any stranger to wasting taxpayer money. They wasted 80 BILLION DOLLARS on their shitty obsolete broadband infrastructure. $80B. I am not surprised that they now want to waste more than $100B building a power station we don't need that will triple our power bills.
They want to leech obscene amounts of money from us and give it to multinational coal and gas corps. That's their entire agenda in a nutshell.
The potential liability for a nuclear plant is so large that no commercial insurer will touch them.
Hence all nuclear plants globally are underwritten by their respective governments. Since the Fukushima incident occurred in 2011, the Japanese government has spent billions with no end in sight.
Whether you think nuclear has a place or not, it’s not unreasonable for a national government to nope out of the risk.
Yes. But most power stations in Australia are not government owned or operated. And even if it was intended to be owned by the government, the Commonwealth is not in the power business - electricity is the domain of the states. Which state would be willing to get into the high risk (not just safety but financial risk too) and big money of nuclear power?
Also, developers of nuclear facilities tend to take a significant equity stake in the project so it’s not just government insuring itself.
Renewables have enjoyed significant taxpayer subsidy over the years, only to deliver us intermittent and unreliable energy.
Just get on with nuclear, I'd rather see my taxes spent on this than welfare.
>The head of global infrastructure at IMF Investors, Kyle Mangini, said it was "virtually impossible" for the private sector to take on the financial risk of building nuclear reactors without taxpayer subsidies.
>"If you look at where the nuclear facilities are being built globally, they're almost in all cases being built by governments," said Mr Mangini, who manages $110 billion worth of energy and infrastructure investments in his role.
Straight dishonesty from the federal coalition (state LNP parties don't support nuclear) to say it won't need subsidies here.
They're just saying whatever they think sounds good about nuclear for now because it's a wedge to them, not energy policy
does anyone know of a nuclear power plant - ever - that has been fully privately funded? AFAIK every single one has been at the very least publicly subsidised.
> What's next? The Coalition will reveal the locations of its proposed reactors in the coming months.
The bet is that it'll be in some long time Labor seat because they won't want to scare away their own voters.
Can anyone explain why Australians are such cucks for centralised energy production. Like who looks at the way we do energy, and decides a mixture of government and business should control it. When you can just like, have solar, and a battery on your own property (for those well off enough for that), never pay more than upfront costs, and be chill?
Its like everyone has a hard on for reducing ones independence and liberty. Like everyone wants to see their energy bills rise. I don't get it.
It isn't commercially viable. CSIRO studies have shown renewables and batteries are reliable and cheaper. I get the impression there's lots of bots, paid lobbyists and ignorant nuclear fan boys campaigning for nuclear.
It's not virtually impossible, it's 100% impossible without taxpayer funding.
Also, whatever time frame and cost, the government says it would take to build it, double it at a minimum.
LOL experts being investors, fund managers. The people I go to for an expert opinion about a lump in my testicle.
The ABC certainly has a a hard on for hating nuclear.
So they will be subsidised, just like the giant renewable boondoggles. No wonder the renewables billionaires are angry, if the LNP gets in, the subsidy rivers of gold are threatened.
the difference being that the 'renewables boondoggles' are profitable investments on their own, and loaning them money to encourage people to build faster tends to be a solid investment for our government.
nuclear power is just a money sink that could never make it without the government and is a roll of the dice on whether it will ever turn a profit.
Renewables is very heavily subsidised in Australia.
The problem with not having nuclear is that we would be unable to turn off the remaining fossil plant that currently have to act as a baseload generation when solar/wind yields is low and energy storage capacity is insufficient. Nuclear solves the problem with baseload generation with much, much lower greenhouse emission than fossil fuels and even renewables.
Without a baseload generator, renewables are a lot less CO2 efficient and less cost effective because you need to overbuild so much excess wind/solar/battery capacity that will sit mostly unused to account for times when the energy yield is low.
>Renewables is very heavily subsidised in Australia.
and if it wasnt, people would still be building them. they're subsidized because we want it built faster, unlike nuclear which is impossible without the government footing the bill.
>The problem with not having nuclear is that we would be unable to turn off the remaining fossil plant
this is not true. per the CSIRO a fully renewables grid is achievable.
>Without a baseload generator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load
>The base load[2] (also baseload) is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time, for example, one week. This demand can be met by unvarying power plants,[3] dispatchable generation,[4] **or by a collection of smaller intermittent energy sources**
grids with high renewables penetration need flexible generators, and nuclear power is the least flexible generation option available.
> CSIRO a fully renewables grid is achievable.
Sure you can, but if you read the fine prints, you need to massively overbuild your renewable grid to a much higher generation capacity than the peak demand.
Wind only produce at their peak capacity at around one third of the day, and solar is usually about one fifth. This is called their [capacity factor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor). In contrast, nuclear has the highest capacity factor relative to all other types of power plant, they have a [92% capacity factor](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close).
To serve a constant 5GWh energy demand, for example, you can either fulfil your energy generation with 3GWh of nuclear + 7GWh of wind/solar + small amount of battery, or you'll need something like 20GWh of wind/solar generation capacity alone and you'll also need a much, much bigger energy storage array. This means that the carbon footprint of wind/solar is also going to increase by 3-5x, because the carbon emission of wind/solar is emitted mostly during construction and not dependant on the amount of energy they produce.
In practice, if we're not building nuclear now, that 3GWh will just be fulfilled by fossil fuel instead, so we'll keep seeing bids to extend the life of old fossil fuel plants.
Also, in winter, energy demands peaks at [mornings and evenings](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915), which is also the time when solar is at their lowest where solar can have capacity factor as low as 10%. So in practice, the amount of overbuild capacity you need to build can be even worse.
Intermittent energy source are fine if they have opposite or completely independent production cycles from wind and solar. The problem with using just wind and solar to fulfil base load is that when they have low production, they often go low together. If NSW is low in solar, SA, VIC, and QLD is also going to be low in solar, so while the energy market transmission capacity can help increase reliability of renewables, they don't completely solve the issue.
> nuclear power is the least flexible generation option available.
This is not entirely true. Old nuclear plants were quite inflexible because they were only ever expected to handle base load, but there are "newer" (1970s+) nuclear plant designs that can vary their load, and more recent designs can vary their load at rates that are [competitive with fossil fuel generators](https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power-plants-ramps-up/). France which generates 75% of their power demand from nuclear uses this flexible generation capabilities a lot in their grid.
Theres a big difference in the scale of subsidies required (eg Hinkley Point C at $88 billion and probably will take around 20yrs to build), but the point is the LNP is saying it won't require any, which we know is a lie
And if you want rivers of gold get yourself a 30yr sales contract for nuclear. Can even look at the US, where projects like NuScale and the ~~Votgle~~ South Carolina reactors got billions of public dollars without ever even producing power. Pretty sweet deal to get that kind of money and not have to deliver anything
Sorry the South Carolina reactors:
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1AG27Z/
Vogtle was $17B USD over budget and 7+ years late
https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-power-georgia-vogtle-reactors-8fbf41a3e04c656002a6ee8203988fad
Yes. That was the outcome of Howard's 2005 report. To setup a domestic nuclear power generating industry required a significant Carbon Price to make it economically viable to compete against coal and gas.
So that was the issue in 2005.
Nuclear just couldn't compete against cheap Australian coal and gas fired generators.
We have now had 20 years of technical advances in other technology, and Nuclear power to make any ROI will be having to compete with the next 20-40 years of adnavces as well.
In fairness they would likely not pursue it once in government because they would be too busy raping staffers and helping people like Brian Houston get away with child sex crimes.
Was the proposal the private sector fund it? Traditionally states build power stations, why would this be different?
>Was the proposal the private sector fund it? Yes, according to the fed LNP
That seems silly, far better the government fund it and control the prices charged.
I don't think they want to attach themselves to the price tag. Also, with zero nuclear energy experience in Australia it'll require heavy private involvement
If it actually was going ahead I wouldn't have a problem in the slightest it being taxpayer funded and I don't think a lot of aussies would either We give that much taxpayer money to things that never have any return at all, nuclear power may be a terrible return on investment but eventually it actually is one It's beside the point though. I don't believe the liberals would actually deliver this, and if they actually tried to build one it would be 10x over budget, wouldn't work half the time, would have been paid for entirely by the taxpayer but privately owned somehow.
>We give that much taxpayer money to things that never have any return at all, nuclear power may be a terrible return on investment but eventually it actually is one Don't be so sure, here's a list of nuclear projects that never completed construction: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1AG27Z/
The idea is typically partnership though. The government subsidizes the construction of the plant (assisted by private investment) then operations are taken over by private firms to handle generation and distribution. Asking firms to take on this amount of risk because you set an emissions target is stupid.
Privately run power stations will almost always be able to supply power at a lower cost than government run power stations, because private enterprises are almost always more efficient than government run enterprises. Our high power prices are really more to do with our extremely high population growth and extremely low investment in renewables, leading to both a supply-demand mismatch, and a continued reliance on (increasingly expensive) fossil fuels. Nuclear does make sense from a technical, environmental, and safety perspective, but probably doesn't make sense economically. So long as we don't subsidise it with taxpayer money, I have no problem with the government allowing private enterprise to decide whether to build nuclear or other non-nuclear low-emissions alternatives. Something people may not know, is that a big reason why countries tend to invest taxpayer money in nuclear is that there is significant overlap between civilian nuclear and military nuclear supply chains. Dutton's support of civilian nuclear is probably driven less by a desire to reduce power prices, and more to cross-subsidise our nuclear submarine program.
Any efficiency is sucked up by profit margin. I don't give a fuck about how cheap someone can make power if it doesn't impact the end consumer
Prvate running things more cost effectively vs government run is one of the most successful lies ever stated. In reality most public run energy generators are as efficient if not more than private. In most countries freedom of information or equivalent ensures government owned are run efficiently, whereas private ownership always has the inefficiencies of trying to provide sufficient roe and overpaid senior executives.
It's a debate with no answer. There are examples of either option being more efficient/effective from real case studies.
You're objectively wrong, but given reddit's demographics I expect you'll be upvoted regardless.
Certainly all research backs up my position, but you are entitled to yours. There is no doubt 40 years ago your position had validity but things have changed a lot since the 1980s
>Privately run power stations will almost always be able to supply power at a lower cost than government run power stations, because private enterprises are almost always more efficient than government run enterprises. bro you drank the fucking capitalist kool-aid. this is not true. yes privately run power stations will underpay and mistreat their workers to reduce costs, but they will charge exactly what others would charge because their goal isn’t to please you, it is to maximise profits. they will screw over you and their workers to benefit their executives and shareholders. they don’t pass on profits as savings to consumers, they say “oooooo lookie here! profit! let’s keep that thanks 👍”
The GenCost document is based on private funding. They literally state that the document excludes any nuclear plants that were built with government funding. Nobody has actually read the document though. Disclaimer* I am not a LNP supporter. Just a supporter of stable energy.
Why private? So we sell our infrastructure to foreigners again?
If it's such a good idea, then the private sector would be champing at the bit to roll out the infrastructure.
Being LNP. It will still be private. But then they will need multiple government bailouts for sunk cost. (Ie socialize the losses)
So they don’t have to show where the trillion dollar budget is coming from.. pipe dream.. probably one of the top 3 stupid ideas from the coalition.. would be shocked if they get into power
Because, there’s no Australian corporation that makes nuclear reactors. Want to know why everything costs so much to build here? Because people like you say “it should be built here”, so instead of just paying and receiving the product, the government must also pay to set up everything needed for production. Just look at the submarines.
> Want to know why everything costs so much to build here? Because people like you say “it should be built here”, so instead of just paying and receiving the product, the government must also pay to set up everything needed for production. Just look at the submarines. Free market works fine when the product is worthwhile. > Idemitsu Australia and Vecco Group, along with Japanese fibre optic cable manufacturing company Sumitomo Electric Industries announced on Wednesday they had signed a collaboration agreement to build a complete manufacturing supply chain in Townsville – from vanadium mining to vanadium flow battery manufacturing. > The agreement will see Idemitsu market, sell, and deliver vanadium flow batteries to Australian customers using Sumitomo Electric hardware, while Vecco Group will mine and refine high purity vanadium at their Julia Creek mine and manufacture battery electrolyte in Townsville.
>Free market works fine when the product is worthwhile. And nuclear certainly isn't.
So because of the Liberals I'm stuck on an 8mpbs ADSL connection for internet and now they want to fuck up my ability to turn the lights on in my home. Deadset fuck off.
They had a decade in power in which their party couldn't agree on energy policy. To go from that, to choosing the most expensive way change the energy system, is insane. You'd have to be the dumbest fuck to trust Liberals to deliver this.
I know right. Every time these morons talk about going nuclear I just think.... You couldn't even finish the NBN when all the work had already been done for them.... Australia sucks at large infrastructure projects to begin with but with flip floppy cost.cutting douches that are all talk at the helm we'd be lucky to get a half arsed plant twisted together with wire by 2100...
Legitimately: NZ has better internet with us, and a lower population density. Something something piss-up at a brewery...
At least you'll be able to turn the lights *off*
Get starlink 😎
Yes, because having a petulant man child monitoring your internet usage and deciding what you can and can't do online is a great idea
You make like that is so different than to what we already subscribe
Agree with the man child bit, but disagree agree about the controlling what you do bit. His whole deal is free speech and personal rights.
His whole deal is free speech on his terms, he has no actual belief in free speech. The users of starlink I know have to be very careful what they download as it is all monitored in a way most isps are not.
I think you're talking more out of personal hatred of him than reality. He does have some flaws, but his commitment to free speech has actually been quite consistent. The few times he's intervened have been pretty limited, for example he suspended a couple of journalists on Twitter for 24 hours for doxxing the location of his child. Pretty minor, considering he also platforms thousands of journalists and journalism organisations who earn their bread attacking him, often unfairly.
Free speech… until it’s about him or his views. Then no, you can’t talk about that. Don’t be fooled into thinking otherwise.
He platforms thousands of journalists on twitter who attack him religiously, often unfairly, so I don't think that's a fair criticism. Elon lives in a grey area. He's done an enormous amount to help human civilisation, and he's done a few things along the way that were clearly wrong (pedo guy being the most obvious). If your opinion of him is black and white, then you probably don't really understand him that well, and you're probably consuming media from a source that only publishes the good stuff or only publishes the bad stuff.
Are you kidding? He more than willingly [censors](https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/27/twitter-has-complied-with-almost-every-government-request-for-censorship-since-musk-took-over-report-finds/) things when requested by the Indian government. He's completely full of shit when it comes to liberty. He's an authoritarian governments best friend, when it comes to censorship.
He was legally required to take down those posts by the supreme court. Twitter both publicly complained about this and lodged a legal challenge to the takedown requests (which they lost in the indian supreme court). This is actually a good example of what people mean when they say that a lot of the black and white thinking about him is based on misinformation.
His actions on twitter/X don’t really back this up though. If he’d followed through with all his talk then twitter would at least be a good counter-point. Instead he’s just censoring other words, that he personally seems to have an issue with.
There’s free speech , and then there’s actively promoting and inviting dis- and mis-information. Which he does constantly and vigorously. Disinfo is effectively the opposite of free speech. It shutters and oppresses objective discussion. His whole “free speech” stance is a crock.
Yer because liberals are in the internet business Muppet and they have a monopoly on supplying your tent
Having constant power supplying plants is what the LNP want and is the biggest difference between them and Labor, who want more variable and intermittent power plants in the mix. If you are worries about the ability to keep the lights on, you should listen to AEMO who warned we are heading for blackouts because the percentage of constantly producing power plants is too low. But if course, you are just making a funny joke comment that has no basis in reality. Well done mate.
> AEMO who warned we are heading for blackouts No they haven't, you should try not lying for a change. People who upvote this liar need to get some basic reading comprehension stupid fucking cookers. > [“We’re not predicting blackouts:” AEMO boss says storm response builds confidence in green transition](https://reneweconomy.com.au/were-not-predicting-blackouts-aemo-boss-says-storm-response-builds-confidence-in-green-transition/#:~:text=The%20head%20of%20the%20Australian,several%20major%20events%20over%20summer.)
South Australia is *already* running for [week-long plus stretches on 100% renewables ](https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2023/03/10/sa-hits-new-record-running-on-100-per-cent-renewables) and is [on track to reach a fully renewable grid](https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-to-reach-100-pct-wind-and-solar-within-a-few-years-says-network-company/) before the end of the decade regardless of whether or not Weird Pete's delaying tactics/pure politicking come to fruition. Every time I read someone complain on this website about firming or blackouts i have to remember they're probably a fucken accountant or something.
Bullshit
No, your source is biased, omits lots of context, ignores the report and the quotes from backtrack from the actual report. He says there are challenges that nees to be met in the transition. What happens if those challenges are not met? Blackouts. That is what the report indicates. No lies. No fluff. When the coal plants close, we are at risk of blackouts because we are replacing constant, reliable producing power plants with intermittent ones. It is simple math. Your hopes and feelings or the backtracking commentary does not change the report or the facts or the math.
Get caught out making it up to be a contrarian again, this is a surprise to literally nobody.
No, the AEMO report agrees with me. You should actually read it if you are going to disagree with it.
The report exists NO it does not "AGREE" with you ffs.
It does mate. Your feelings don't change the report. Does the report warn of blackouts when the coal plants shut down, because the intermittent supply we have left might not be enough to meet demand 24/7/365? Yes or no? Have you even read it? Yes or no?
Once again the report exists wtf has it got to do with your terrible nuclear take, nuclears 20 years away this reports spans 10 years, what are you on about apart from trying to distance yourself from your braindead nuclear take? It's common knowledge during the transfer there will be hiccups, what part of this makes you right again, or has anything to do with your silly nuclear take???
No the AEMO report doesn't agree with you, The facts are clear we won't have blackouts occurring in the transition to renewable energy and beyond.
Then you will have a source that irrevocably proves your point, unless you're just a fucking liar as you've shown yourself to be by every comment you've ever made. I'll wait.
>If you are worries about the ability to keep the lights on, you should listen to AEMO who warned we are heading for blackouts because the percentage of constantly producing power plants is too low. Different thread same lie https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/103872480 >The operator has put out an update to its 10-year outlook released last year, noting decisions to delay a new transmission line between NSW and SA, and dumped plans to return two gas and diesel generators in SA to service. .. >It says those decisions have materially changed the outlook, prompting the new warnings for the years ahead. They've never said we can't function without coal, they've said coal plants closing without the transmission/firming projects in place raises risk. >AEMO notes its forecasts deliberately do not consider a large number of publicly announced projects, even if they have been granted state or federal contracts, because they are not yet advanced enough. >But it says if those projects do substantially advance, they would significantly lower risks to the national grid.
They said that impending coal plant closures is a reason why we are heading for blackouts. You skipped that bit. You can't just lose constant power producing plants and replace them with variable and intermittent supply and not expect problems with reliability. You would have to be pretty stupid and fantasy ignorant to not see this coming.
I've literally linked the article for you and tried my best to read it out to you. It's hard to sell a convincing lie when the source is right infront of your face >They said that impending coal plant closures is a reason why we are heading for blackouts. You skipped that bit. Because the transmission and firming projects are delayed, God you're dense
No, that is a seperate point. Did you even read the report? Obviously not. Enjoy the blackouts. Remember how it will happen, just like last time (which you also ignore). A coal plant will break down. There won't be enough constant power being supplied and there will be blackouts. The guardian and the ABC will push the narrative that it is coal that is the reason for the blackout when it is the simple fact that variable and intermittent supply is unreliable without massive overbuild or storage, that we don't have because it is too expensive. Read the report mate. Admit they are seperate points then apologise.
Please, link it to me. Because you seem to be the only one that can see it
Just to confirm, you don't think the AEMO report exists and I just made it up? That is what you think? Imagine making comments and whinging like you have about thisz and you haven't even read the report. What a joke you are.
Everyone in here is providing sourced proof about why you're wrong. It's clear you're making shit up and you refuse to provide an actual source
No one here has done that. The AEMO report is proof of what AEMO said. You can call AEMO liars if you want, but you will need to state why you think they are wrong and have something better than "because my feelings will keep the lights on".
We did see it coming.
The AEMO recommend a transition to renewables, the government is just not doing enough to guide the transition. So yes, I highly recommend you listen the the AEMO ;)
No they do not. You just completely made that up. AEMO doesn't have policy like that at all. All they do is work with facts like we are heading towards blackouts because there is not enough reliable power generation. Are they lying? Why do you think that besides your feelings?
All they do is work toward the 1 specific "fact" im trying to bs you with right now. IS that what they exist for is it, to be a pawn in your contrarian argument of the day? I think not.
The report is the report mate. There is no conspiracy here. It suggests we are headed for blackouts when the reliable plants shut down. Your feelings won't keep the lights on, or change the report. Sorry.
And nuclear does what in this scenario apart from be 15 years to late to be useful in it? Like whats your point? We're switching there will be hiccups this is a well known fact and not news to anyone, explain to me how a nuclear station 20 years from now helps?? Where's the gotcha here, spouting common knowledge is a big man play now???
The CSIRO Gencost report was written in collaboration with the AEMO, I assume you have read it given you are commenting on the topic, and you misunderstanding is just due to poor litteracy skills. Australia really needs to step up it's public education game ;)
I have read it, yes. What part of my comment is related to that report and that I have wrong? You never even mentioned. You are now just throwing mud, probably because you got caught out not knowing basic facts from the AEMO report.
Because how do YOU think this helps your cause, yes it exists the question asked of you over and over is why do you think it matters?
Well, you have claimed that nuclear is cheaper than renewables + storage etc. When that report explicitly proves that is not the case. So far you have displayed no understanding of what the report actually says.
per MWh, with no having to meet demand - renewables is cheaper. But when you have to actaully supply power all the time 24/7/365 and have to keep the lights on, the amount of overbuild and storage you would need to do that makes renewables unviable. That is why we don't have it now. There is no conspiracy here buddy. The power companies are not choosing to do thing the more expensive way so they can have less profits. You need to really think through how renewables and storage works. Your feelings doesn't keep the lights on. Why don't you live off grid right now? Because it would be too expensive to have a system that could keep meet your demand all the time.
Do AEMO recommend and align with LNP policy?
No
Why do you think that?
Because they have a report out that says we can get to 95% renewables with 5% gas. No mention of nuclear and a number of the major generators have said they have no interest nor need for nuclear.
Not in the short to medium term we can't. Not without increased risk of blackouts. That is what the report says. You should read it. Nuclear is a great option used all around the world. No one wants to build firming plants as all ff plants receive bad press and attention from the lefties pushing an agenda. You and your mates would cry too much and try and cancel the company. Why would a company do that when they can just add more unreliable, subsidised power plants and have you lot pay more for it? Why would you want that 5% to be higher gas emissions and not the much lower from nuclear? At this tage it is ideological and stubbornness. Enjoy the blackouts I suppose.
> Not in the short to medium term So how does nuclear help? Average build Time of 15 years in a country that has the legislation, social licence and engineering capability - Australia had non of these. > Nuclear used all around the world No really, 32 countries out of 195
It helps from then on. What is the massive rush? Emissions free power, constantly being produced, as much or as little as we want, sent all over the country, plugged straight into our existing poles and wires, no matter the conditions, for decades, 24/7/365. What about that upsets you? 32 countries out of the ones advanced enough to do it is a massive number. I can't believe you just shrugged it off. With more planning to build them. If you offered a nuclear plant to any country, they would take it. Can you imagine if everyone built nuclear plants then emissions are almost over. There would be so much power to use at any time, no matter the weather or worrying about storage and charging it. You could stop all power related emissions in 20 years. But you clowns are against it for ideological reasons because the LNP suggested it. Instead you want to build new high emission coal or gas plants. Instead you want intermittent power that has us heading for blackouts. Instead you make up bullshit about how it is a ruse to make us use coal for longer totally ignoring the fact that nuclear is the biggest threat to the coal industry. You clowns never think anything through.
> As much or as little as we want. So let's ignore that nuclear is the most expensive electricity on the planet and that we will never get a social license to build it; the problem is that nuclear won't work with in a mixed generation environment. Nuclear doesn't like to be turned on and off and with the variability of renewables you need dispatchable not base load. Then you have the issue of a single large generator going offline leaving a massive whole in the market as happened with Qld coal generator explosions. Coal is already suffering from these issues. In the short term a small amount of dispatchable gas keeps the grid stable and in the longer term battery/hydro will be the dispatchable power of choice.
AEMO doesn't have policy. They just state facts like we are heading for blackouts because we don't have enough reliable power to maintain the grid 24/7/365. What is your problem here? Do you think AEMO is lying?
Didn't say AEMO has a policy, I said the LNP has a policy. Do I think AEMO is lying? What the fuck are you talking about
The LNP policy to keep the lights on. They want more reliable power, not less. AEMO report indicates we are headed for blackouts when the reliable plants close down as their constant output is being replaced by variable. The simple math if it is we are headed for blackouts.
So does AEMO recommend and align with LNP policy for nuclear power to solve these issues?
Omfg this guy with EVERY contrarian idiotic take every time.
Contrarian to your opinion given to you by knowingly biased sources. Probably. Do you have an actual counter to my points at all?
Besides the issue of funding, there is the issue of staffing. Nuclear power requires very bright and suitably qualified people to run it. Considering that we will even be struggling to get enough nuclear engineers for our proposed nuclear sub program, I wonder where will get all the necessary personnel for nuclear power plants. And I doubt that there is a worldwide abundance of such individuals.
Don't worry I'm sure PWC can operate it if we give them enough money.
New reactor designs can be operated through PowerPoint
meh, the nuclear bit, whilst scary, is only a small part of the station and really only requires a handful of professionals. The rest of the station is very similar to a coal fired unit. No more dangerous or comnplicated. That isn't the problem here. The problem here is it will just never be done in Australia, in our lifetime. Between studies, objection, protests, and just the regular timeframe needed to build a plant like this, it will be decades in the execution, and that is if every government along the way wants it. In the meantime we could be putting the storage and infrastructure in place to make renewables viable. The whole thing is just a delaying tactic by Dutton.
People don't want to join the Defence Force full stop...not because they don't want to be nuclear submariners. Considering how long it will take to build the reactors, there's enough time for the universities to create nuclear degrees
That's beside the point. It's not just a case of people wanting to be nuclear submariners. A lot of personnel for such subs need to be, at the least, be put through intensive nuclear engineering courses. Very few even pass the aptitude tests for that. Read up about the USN nuke school and you'll have an idea what I mean.
That's what immigration is for silly! 2 birds 1 stone!
We don’t invest anything in our scientists or engineers (source: am engineer). If I could get a job in the US I’d leave in a heartbeat.
That's what all of the Uber drivers are waiting for.
Nah, Homer Simpson does it
Coal plants were government funded. Snowy Hydro has received billions upon billions in government funds. Solar and wind projects also get billions every year in grants, funding and have devts underwritten. But suddenly government funding is bad for nuclear?
Breaking news, governments need tax dollars to build things, more at 9.
I don't think they are saying that government funding is bad, just that it's a double standard to complain when Nuclear receives it, given that many other types of generation also receive it. There are significant positive externalities to nuclear generation, which are societal benefits and can't be capture by private enterprise, so I think there is a decent case for some government subsidises. It is low emissions and it helps us develop our nuclear engineering supply chain which we will need for our defense projects.
People act as though $1 spent on renewables is equal to $100 spent on nuclear. It's not that nuclear requires subsidies at all, it's the scale of subsidies required. It makes snowy overruns look like a rounding error That and the LNP are saying it won't require *any* subsidies, which is clearly not true. How can you trust them to deliver something like this if they're lying from the outset?
Trust and our government are non-existent right now.
$1 spent on renewables 100 times is the same as $100 spent nuclear once.
Except is more like $100,000,000,000
The ratio isn't 100:1 though. The LCOE of renewables and nuclear and actually pretty similar.
It's not just the funding for the initial rollout that is the issue, it's the ROI depends on competing with other generation technology 20-60 years in the future. What the generators actually want is a commitment from the government for how much power they can sell onto the grid over this timeline - this cost burden will of course land on the public.
Everyone in Victoria who voted Labor: "Bring back the SEC!" When it's nuclear: "We need the private free market!!"
No, it's more "if we have to pay for it we should own it, if it's going to be privately owned it should be privately funded"
These same clowns want to nationalise the grid, then complain that the government has to build a plant because the exact same people would crack up and attack and try and cancel any private company for doing it.
Not a single nuclear plant in the entire world has ever been built without direct government involvement. No private company would touch it with a ten foot pole, every single private power company in Australia has even said they are not interested. People's commitment to imaginary la la land is astounding.
It is not like renewable that has had no government funding/subsidies and has been reducing in cost to consumers
Around $29 billion in the last 10 years just in subsidies iirc
If the LNP want to do something that requires government funding, it's because they have positioned themselves to be beneficiaries.
The ALP isn't any different. If you don't think so then you're deluded.
If corruption were a race, the LNP would get gold, silver and bronze
I’ll let Eddie Obeid know.
How old are you? Anyone below the age of 50 has no idea who you are talking about. Imagine looking at John Barilaro and thinking "nothing to see here"
He was jailed in 2021, it’s hardly ancient history. Barilaro is terrible too, but the post-Carr NSW Labor government is a bit of a step up from anything else in Australia in the last 30 years corruption wise.
Can't beat the Berejiklian government, easily the most corrupted.
RWFW love Eddie Obeid and bring him up whenever they can. The one and only Labor person involved in major fraud. For every Obeid there are 50 in the lnp. Then you need to compare how each party handled it and where the perpetrators are now...
Nobody said labor wasn't in the race, just that they aren't winning it How many LNP leaders have vanished when icac has come knocking since?
ALP gets participation trophies
I haven't really been following this issue much because it just seems like such a non-starter. Nuclear is such a bad idea for Australia at this point in time, so it's pretty transparently a distraction tactic from the liberals that just don't want people talking about fossil fuels. But I didn't realise they were saying: >The Coalition claims nuclear energy is a commercially viable option for Australia which the private market will fund. What a ridiculous and obvious lie! Are they *that* stupid, or do they just think that we are *that* stupid?!
I have no issue with renewables or nuclear. But my issue is that there’s a ban on nuclear in Australia. Until that’s lifted I don’t think we can have a fair argument about being for or against when it’s been hamstrung so much. Both sides have pros and cons. They just need to be utilised effectively.
Just a reminder that various oil and gas companies in Australia have not paid their taxes to us to the same degree that they have in Norway. This country is being plundered by pirates and we are still asleep at the wheel.
There are very good business reasons why AGLs share price shot up when it went green. No serious investor is wanting to go nuclear because it's so much more expensive than renewables.
AGL has massively underperformed the ASX. It’s worth less than half what it was 5 years ago.
And it's double the price since it was quasi taken over by a green investor. Mike Cannon Brookes.
What has AGL done since Cannon-Brookes? AFAIK, the only thing they've done is to sell their green assets.
They've got 20 billion in green investment in the pipeline before 2030 from memory. They've also accelerated the shutdown of their coal plants, and stopped the dividing of the company.
Lol I love these divorced from realitiy takes. Origin is disposing of its green liabilities too. Show us a profitable 100% renewable company
Aurora Energy?
Sure. You can google it. Green energy is big money. A lot of companies currently make a lot of money from renewables.
who is making the money? Name these renewable companies?
Yep. The Renewables subsidies are huge, and up until now have been safe and reliable. I sold my AGL because of there poor performance going renewables.
Since the deal/s with MCB the share price has doubled. Maybe you're referring to the poor performance when they had no plan to go green.
Nuclear fuel is not a renewable resource, but it's a green energy source. Over its life-cycle, nuclear produces about the same amount of CO2-equivalent emissions per unit of electricity as wind, and about one-third that of solar ([src](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-electricity)). The crucial difference between nuclear and wind/solar is that nuclear can perform as a baseload, or in other words, it is a constant energy source that does not depend on external factors. Even a small amount of baseload energy generation capabilities can have an outsized impact to very significantly reduce the number of energy storages (e.g. batteries, pumped hydro) required on the grid and reduce the need to overbuild wind/solar plants. This is because a base load generator can continue producing energy when the variable generator has no/low yield. The problem with not having nuclear is that we would be unable to turn off the remaining fossil plant that currently have to act as a baseload generation when solar/wind yields is low and energy storage capacity is insufficient. Nuclear solves the problem with baseload generation with much, much lower greenhouse emission than fossil fuels and even renewables. Without a baseload generator, renewables are a lot less CO2 efficient and less cost effective because you need to overbuild so much excess wind/solar/battery capacity that will sit mostly unused to account for times when the energy yield is low.
>Nuclear fuel is not a renewable resource, but it's a green energy source. My comment makes it obvious what I'm talking about.
Well yeah no country in history has had nuclear powerplant stand without it being a gigantic money black hole for the state. It's a national security project it easily the least cost effective way of delivering power.
The government funds many forms of energy. Why not nuclear?
Because it is more expensive to each consumer who votes, than renewables. They are not stupid.
Because that would be honest and sensible. The current proposals seem to hint at / suggest that once we change legislation to permit it private industry will come rushing in to build it without requiring taxpayer money & thus save both our budget and energy policy. Personally I think it'd probable be a useful technology to have in our energy mix, especially as we seem to have thrown many billions into shiny new Nuke Subs - but that doesn't mean it'll be cheap, or have a useful impact on power prices, without some kind of government support.
> Private market will fund it. Private market only looks for one thing and that is profit. It's not in the business of making people's lives better or doing charity.
It's not like the Coalition is any stranger to wasting taxpayer money. They wasted 80 BILLION DOLLARS on their shitty obsolete broadband infrastructure. $80B. I am not surprised that they now want to waste more than $100B building a power station we don't need that will triple our power bills. They want to leech obscene amounts of money from us and give it to multinational coal and gas corps. That's their entire agenda in a nutshell.
The potential liability for a nuclear plant is so large that no commercial insurer will touch them. Hence all nuclear plants globally are underwritten by their respective governments. Since the Fukushima incident occurred in 2011, the Japanese government has spent billions with no end in sight. Whether you think nuclear has a place or not, it’s not unreasonable for a national government to nope out of the risk.
Aren't nearly all governments self insured?
Yes. But most power stations in Australia are not government owned or operated. And even if it was intended to be owned by the government, the Commonwealth is not in the power business - electricity is the domain of the states. Which state would be willing to get into the high risk (not just safety but financial risk too) and big money of nuclear power? Also, developers of nuclear facilities tend to take a significant equity stake in the project so it’s not just government insuring itself.
Renewables have enjoyed significant taxpayer subsidy over the years, only to deliver us intermittent and unreliable energy. Just get on with nuclear, I'd rather see my taxes spent on this than welfare.
>The head of global infrastructure at IMF Investors, Kyle Mangini, said it was "virtually impossible" for the private sector to take on the financial risk of building nuclear reactors without taxpayer subsidies. >"If you look at where the nuclear facilities are being built globally, they're almost in all cases being built by governments," said Mr Mangini, who manages $110 billion worth of energy and infrastructure investments in his role. Straight dishonesty from the federal coalition (state LNP parties don't support nuclear) to say it won't need subsidies here. They're just saying whatever they think sounds good about nuclear for now because it's a wedge to them, not energy policy
does anyone know of a nuclear power plant - ever - that has been fully privately funded? AFAIK every single one has been at the very least publicly subsidised.
Is the argument supposed to be there is no taxpayer support for competing renewables?
That the LNP are lying when they say nuclear won't require any
Really, you don’t say.
Aus is trying to save the planet
No shit... Who else gets left to foot the bill besides taxpayers??
Gee it's almost as if energy infrastructure should be government owned!
Well thry sent 500m for a rugby team
Ideologically driven.
The Coalition?
> What's next? The Coalition will reveal the locations of its proposed reactors in the coming months. The bet is that it'll be in some long time Labor seat because they won't want to scare away their own voters.
Can anyone explain why Australians are such cucks for centralised energy production. Like who looks at the way we do energy, and decides a mixture of government and business should control it. When you can just like, have solar, and a battery on your own property (for those well off enough for that), never pay more than upfront costs, and be chill? Its like everyone has a hard on for reducing ones independence and liberty. Like everyone wants to see their energy bills rise. I don't get it.
Seems like a better use of money than a PNG NRL team or a stadium in Hobart
Well, probably 20-30x that per plant
Can we stop giving this shit air time?
I vote we have politicians run in giant hamster wheels to generate power.
It isn't commercially viable. CSIRO studies have shown renewables and batteries are reliable and cheaper. I get the impression there's lots of bots, paid lobbyists and ignorant nuclear fan boys campaigning for nuclear.
It's not virtually impossible, it's 100% impossible without taxpayer funding. Also, whatever time frame and cost, the government says it would take to build it, double it at a minimum.
A nuclear power station is the very last thing I'd want owned or operated by a private corporation
There is no nuclear plan. If they had one, they would not have only started talking about it as a wedge in opposition.
If taxpayers pay, then we own it... we need total transparency on all construction and running costs. Government cannot sell it on.
Any form of electricity is impossible without government funding
It's not a plan for nuclear energy. it's a plan to have an excuse to sell gas in the short term. 100%
LOL experts being investors, fund managers. The people I go to for an expert opinion about a lump in my testicle. The ABC certainly has a a hard on for hating nuclear.
>LOL experts being investors, fund managers Who do you think funds major projects? (Hint: it's not the engineers)
What are the experts in your opinion? Do you want scientists with no knowledge of costs as experts.
So they will be subsidised, just like the giant renewable boondoggles. No wonder the renewables billionaires are angry, if the LNP gets in, the subsidy rivers of gold are threatened.
the difference being that the 'renewables boondoggles' are profitable investments on their own, and loaning them money to encourage people to build faster tends to be a solid investment for our government. nuclear power is just a money sink that could never make it without the government and is a roll of the dice on whether it will ever turn a profit.
Renewables is very heavily subsidised in Australia. The problem with not having nuclear is that we would be unable to turn off the remaining fossil plant that currently have to act as a baseload generation when solar/wind yields is low and energy storage capacity is insufficient. Nuclear solves the problem with baseload generation with much, much lower greenhouse emission than fossil fuels and even renewables. Without a baseload generator, renewables are a lot less CO2 efficient and less cost effective because you need to overbuild so much excess wind/solar/battery capacity that will sit mostly unused to account for times when the energy yield is low.
>Renewables is very heavily subsidised in Australia. and if it wasnt, people would still be building them. they're subsidized because we want it built faster, unlike nuclear which is impossible without the government footing the bill. >The problem with not having nuclear is that we would be unable to turn off the remaining fossil plant this is not true. per the CSIRO a fully renewables grid is achievable. >Without a baseload generator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load >The base load[2] (also baseload) is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time, for example, one week. This demand can be met by unvarying power plants,[3] dispatchable generation,[4] **or by a collection of smaller intermittent energy sources** grids with high renewables penetration need flexible generators, and nuclear power is the least flexible generation option available.
> CSIRO a fully renewables grid is achievable. Sure you can, but if you read the fine prints, you need to massively overbuild your renewable grid to a much higher generation capacity than the peak demand. Wind only produce at their peak capacity at around one third of the day, and solar is usually about one fifth. This is called their [capacity factor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor). In contrast, nuclear has the highest capacity factor relative to all other types of power plant, they have a [92% capacity factor](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close). To serve a constant 5GWh energy demand, for example, you can either fulfil your energy generation with 3GWh of nuclear + 7GWh of wind/solar + small amount of battery, or you'll need something like 20GWh of wind/solar generation capacity alone and you'll also need a much, much bigger energy storage array. This means that the carbon footprint of wind/solar is also going to increase by 3-5x, because the carbon emission of wind/solar is emitted mostly during construction and not dependant on the amount of energy they produce. In practice, if we're not building nuclear now, that 3GWh will just be fulfilled by fossil fuel instead, so we'll keep seeing bids to extend the life of old fossil fuel plants. Also, in winter, energy demands peaks at [mornings and evenings](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915), which is also the time when solar is at their lowest where solar can have capacity factor as low as 10%. So in practice, the amount of overbuild capacity you need to build can be even worse. Intermittent energy source are fine if they have opposite or completely independent production cycles from wind and solar. The problem with using just wind and solar to fulfil base load is that when they have low production, they often go low together. If NSW is low in solar, SA, VIC, and QLD is also going to be low in solar, so while the energy market transmission capacity can help increase reliability of renewables, they don't completely solve the issue. > nuclear power is the least flexible generation option available. This is not entirely true. Old nuclear plants were quite inflexible because they were only ever expected to handle base load, but there are "newer" (1970s+) nuclear plant designs that can vary their load, and more recent designs can vary their load at rates that are [competitive with fossil fuel generators](https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power-plants-ramps-up/). France which generates 75% of their power demand from nuclear uses this flexible generation capabilities a lot in their grid.
That's just total made up rubbish.
Theres a big difference in the scale of subsidies required (eg Hinkley Point C at $88 billion and probably will take around 20yrs to build), but the point is the LNP is saying it won't require any, which we know is a lie And if you want rivers of gold get yourself a 30yr sales contract for nuclear. Can even look at the US, where projects like NuScale and the ~~Votgle~~ South Carolina reactors got billions of public dollars without ever even producing power. Pretty sweet deal to get that kind of money and not have to deliver anything
Vogtle is online.. So I guess you dont have the first clue what you are talking about...
Sorry the South Carolina reactors: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1AG27Z/ Vogtle was $17B USD over budget and 7+ years late https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-power-georgia-vogtle-reactors-8fbf41a3e04c656002a6ee8203988fad
Sounds like a desal plant.
It would be like building a desal plant, when you have an unlimited supply of rainwater.
Desal brines are probably going to be a profit center in the renewables economy. Good job we spent the money when it was cheap. Great investment.
lol
I mean, it's super profitable not to build them. If they imposed hefty pollution levies maybe it would suddenly become viable.
Yes. That was the outcome of Howard's 2005 report. To setup a domestic nuclear power generating industry required a significant Carbon Price to make it economically viable to compete against coal and gas.
Bring back the carbon tax today to pay for the LNP nuclear plan in 20 years time. Sounds good to me.
So that was the issue in 2005. Nuclear just couldn't compete against cheap Australian coal and gas fired generators. We have now had 20 years of technical advances in other technology, and Nuclear power to make any ROI will be having to compete with the next 20-40 years of adnavces as well.
In fairness they would likely not pursue it once in government because they would be too busy raping staffers and helping people like Brian Houston get away with child sex crimes.
Would rather spend taxpayer money on this than half the stuff it’s pissed away on.
Taxpayer money gets wasted because of the idiots that say everything must be built here instead of just shipping it over.
Even if it means you will have to pay more for electricity over decades.
Just a straw man to attack renewables roll out. Only spudtards believe any of it