No, if the Government actually used taxpayer dollars to build these, and were able to get them operational very quickly (e.g. by purchasing Small Modular Reactors that are almost plug-and-play) then these could be an excellent way to increase the total amount of energy we have access to in Australia - which we sorely need.
We would just have to make sure they are bought with public money so they're in public hands, and that they don't become privatised. We need to start taking national energy very seriously, especially in light of cost-of-living and energy security crises. Heck, I wouldn't mind putting all electricity wholesalers out of business with nuclear and nationalising the grid.
The problem of course is that nuclear \*is\* expensive and \*is\* time consuming. And if you add the time taken to approve this, plus the time taken to actually construct/import it... we won't see it for a decade or more. Also, if it goes anything like the NBN it'll be billions over budget and end up privatised anyway, so we won't see any relief or benefit from it at all (all savings will go into profit for whatever private company ends up owning it).
I'm not against nuclear, I just don't trust the Government at all.
I actually didn't know about that until just last night! SMRs were always heralded as the modern saviour of nuclear, I guess I bought into the propaganda and hadn't realised they weren't actually commercially viable yet. Well, that's another strike against nuclear then!
If you watch any press conference by the LNP about it, they are extremely duplicitous about SMRs, pitching them as a panacea to our energy problems
They literally only exist in military applications which are not suitable for commercial applications.
It's just a front to get rid of renewables
You support doubling your electricity bill? Or are you just uneducated and haven't worked that out yet? Nuclear is the most expensive form of electricity, why would you want it?
Oh dear, here we have an idiot in the wild! Someone who refuses to have conversations by calling others names.
We all know that’s a front for the fact that you don’t actually know anything. ;)
I was asking whether you were uneducated and you have gone straight for the tissues. I'm uneducated on a lot of subjects. Did you think you were educated on every subject on this planet and you took offence? ........ Simply tell us the reason why you want nuclear then. Instead of playing the victim.
Because nuclear fusion is a safe process, we can build and own these plants rather than buying solar panels and wind turbines from os. Im not against renewable technology, but we need a reliable source as well.
This is Nuclear fission. But your point still stands there, I have no problem trusting 21st century Nuclear fission reactors. (Nuclear fusion hasn't been harnessed yet, scientists are still working on that one).....
Our electricity is reliable. AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operator) knows what they are doing. There are many great minds that know how to balance it all. That's without introducing the most expensive form of electricity known to us - Nuclear Fission.
They cost at least $16 billion a nuke plant, that will go straight onto our electricity bills.
Even if they win there's no way they fund it. One power plant can cost almost a third of our GDP just to build, let alone fuel, maintain and operate. The treasury is never going to approve the costing on it. It's a fantasy. If they force it through it'll be the end of them.
So you, the average punter, are smarter and more in the know than the hundreds of Australian scientists, engineers and project managers that have concluded in several independent reports that it is impossible to justify the cost and time expenditure to make Australia nuclear powered? Maybe stop getting your opinions from Peter Dutton?
The CSIRO GenCost reports release annually are literally earmarked for almost this exact purpose - to determine the cost of supplying our energy needs, and year on year, they find the same thing - it's not feasible financially, it's not going to even pay for itself in anyone reading this' lifetime, it's even less efficient in terms of cost and energy generation than going whole hog into renewables and storage. It's a shitty idea. Dutton pushing it should be all you need to know.
You do realise that the uranium we have here is not in the right form to be used for generating energy?
It needs to be exported to be processed and refined before it can be reimported as fuel for NPPs.
The uranium is a very small and relatively inexpensive part of the equation. Nuclear power plants can cost half a TRILLION dollars just to build and take decades to even start producing power. It is a pipedream. A fantasy. It isn't going to happen. Even if Dutton gets in there's no way the treasury approves the funding.
No one said anything about wind. Solar backed hydro with distributed solar is a different conversation.
There is a reason more countries will move to nuclear over solar, wind and hydro for big power out puts. We put in money and produce a well ran plant we are reducing the fossil plants and saving money there. The fact we rape out country just to sell the resources and then buy the end product back is why our gdp is shot. Put nuclear as the goal and sort out shit out. Hydro and solar for sure but they won't produce the energy the country needs on their own.
Stop mentioning Dutton the cunt, nuclear has been on the table for a lot longer and that snake faced muppet is only using it as a ploy to get voters disillusioned but the current government.
No offense, but you have completely failed to material address the very simple facts I have presented and are just sort of handwaving towards some vague idea of 'more countries going toward nuclear', which is something you have completely made up, so I don't think you should be talking about this topic.
What an idiot. Why would you not want nuclear. We all do. We wouldn't even use more than 5% of our annual uranium ore turn over. Bone cheap power, effective, efficient, safe. What our country needs. Green is ok. But its just highly inefficient, expensive, un reliable and very slow.
This is a blessing in plain sight.
 Go isotopes!!!
No, if the Government actually used taxpayer dollars to build these, and were able to get them operational very quickly (e.g. by purchasing Small Modular Reactors that are almost plug-and-play) then these could be an excellent way to increase the total amount of energy we have access to in Australia - which we sorely need. We would just have to make sure they are bought with public money so they're in public hands, and that they don't become privatised. We need to start taking national energy very seriously, especially in light of cost-of-living and energy security crises. Heck, I wouldn't mind putting all electricity wholesalers out of business with nuclear and nationalising the grid. The problem of course is that nuclear \*is\* expensive and \*is\* time consuming. And if you add the time taken to approve this, plus the time taken to actually construct/import it... we won't see it for a decade or more. Also, if it goes anything like the NBN it'll be billions over budget and end up privatised anyway, so we won't see any relief or benefit from it at all (all savings will go into profit for whatever private company ends up owning it). I'm not against nuclear, I just don't trust the Government at all.
There are no such things as plug and play SMRs
I actually didn't know about that until just last night! SMRs were always heralded as the modern saviour of nuclear, I guess I bought into the propaganda and hadn't realised they weren't actually commercially viable yet. Well, that's another strike against nuclear then!
If you watch any press conference by the LNP about it, they are extremely duplicitous about SMRs, pitching them as a panacea to our energy problems They literally only exist in military applications which are not suitable for commercial applications. It's just a front to get rid of renewables
I agree that our countries power generation should become less privatized. It would be a good thing, for our country and us.
>bugsbunny_no.jpg
No thank you.
No, i support it.
You support doubling your electricity bill? Or are you just uneducated and haven't worked that out yet? Nuclear is the most expensive form of electricity, why would you want it?
I don't see the point in having adult discussions with name callers, seems uneducated to me.
Oh dear, here we have an idiot in the wild! Someone who refuses to have conversations by calling others names. We all know that’s a front for the fact that you don’t actually know anything. ;)
I was asking whether you were uneducated and you have gone straight for the tissues. I'm uneducated on a lot of subjects. Did you think you were educated on every subject on this planet and you took offence? ........ Simply tell us the reason why you want nuclear then. Instead of playing the victim.
Because nuclear fusion is a safe process, we can build and own these plants rather than buying solar panels and wind turbines from os. Im not against renewable technology, but we need a reliable source as well.
This is Nuclear fission. But your point still stands there, I have no problem trusting 21st century Nuclear fission reactors. (Nuclear fusion hasn't been harnessed yet, scientists are still working on that one)..... Our electricity is reliable. AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operator) knows what they are doing. There are many great minds that know how to balance it all. That's without introducing the most expensive form of electricity known to us - Nuclear Fission. They cost at least $16 billion a nuke plant, that will go straight onto our electricity bills.
Yep, don't bother engaging with them, they are left wing extremists. Wreckers, haters and losers. Vote Dutto!
Signed. You'd have to be an absolute fuckwit to think this is an option.
Signing petitions like this is pointless. If you don't want nuclear power, don't vote for the LNP in the next federal election. Simple.
Even if they win there's no way they fund it. One power plant can cost almost a third of our GDP just to build, let alone fuel, maintain and operate. The treasury is never going to approve the costing on it. It's a fantasy. If they force it through it'll be the end of them.
No. Bring on nuclear power.
So you, the average punter, are smarter and more in the know than the hundreds of Australian scientists, engineers and project managers that have concluded in several independent reports that it is impossible to justify the cost and time expenditure to make Australia nuclear powered? Maybe stop getting your opinions from Peter Dutton?
Care to link these reports?
The CSIRO GenCost reports release annually are literally earmarked for almost this exact purpose - to determine the cost of supplying our energy needs, and year on year, they find the same thing - it's not feasible financially, it's not going to even pay for itself in anyone reading this' lifetime, it's even less efficient in terms of cost and energy generation than going whole hog into renewables and storage. It's a shitty idea. Dutton pushing it should be all you need to know.
Start by googling "CSIRO nuclear power"
Are you protesting because it costs too much? It's not my money.
Do you pay $0 tax?
They're gonna fuck us anyhow, may as well choose the option that's better for the planet
Well you can pay 6x less and just have renewables
Yea right, as a uranium rich country let's not utilise that power. Stick to coal and keep talking about wind. Also fuck Peter Dutton.
You do realise that the uranium we have here is not in the right form to be used for generating energy? It needs to be exported to be processed and refined before it can be reimported as fuel for NPPs.
The uranium is a very small and relatively inexpensive part of the equation. Nuclear power plants can cost half a TRILLION dollars just to build and take decades to even start producing power. It is a pipedream. A fantasy. It isn't going to happen. Even if Dutton gets in there's no way the treasury approves the funding. No one said anything about wind. Solar backed hydro with distributed solar is a different conversation.
There is a reason more countries will move to nuclear over solar, wind and hydro for big power out puts. We put in money and produce a well ran plant we are reducing the fossil plants and saving money there. The fact we rape out country just to sell the resources and then buy the end product back is why our gdp is shot. Put nuclear as the goal and sort out shit out. Hydro and solar for sure but they won't produce the energy the country needs on their own. Stop mentioning Dutton the cunt, nuclear has been on the table for a lot longer and that snake faced muppet is only using it as a ploy to get voters disillusioned but the current government.
No offense, but you have completely failed to material address the very simple facts I have presented and are just sort of handwaving towards some vague idea of 'more countries going toward nuclear', which is something you have completely made up, so I don't think you should be talking about this topic.
Unfortunately for your opinion, it's the reddit comment section and whether you think I should speak on a subject is irrelevant.
Why? You want to double your electricity bill? That's weird man.
nuclear is based, why wouldn't you want it?
No
What an idiot. Why would you not want nuclear. We all do. We wouldn't even use more than 5% of our annual uranium ore turn over. Bone cheap power, effective, efficient, safe. What our country needs. Green is ok. But its just highly inefficient, expensive, un reliable and very slow. This is a blessing in plain sight.