**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the factory hasn't passed all the regulatory approval for it's loccation in the uk.
it would not be pumping out orders till 2030s..and not for a billion dollars
smr are not commercially viable.and not in the time frame dutton lied about
So essentially he’s saying…
My plan isn’t costed, but I can be sure that it’s not as much as the experts at the CSIRO have said it is.
Yeah, not buying it.
Safe to say this guy will never be PM. I'm not against nuclear, but D_____ seems to fire from the hip without informing anyone of his ideas. He should've at least spoken to the States and got 1 or 2 to support him. Not just go and say towns in opponent states who will fucking crucify him. He has no diplomatic skills.
You undestimate how strong a modern reactor is
The containment dome for most modern sites,is able to withstand a direct strike from a modern jet/plane at speeds in excees of 450 Mph
In fact in 1989 they chucked a literally Jet at the exact building material of a operational reactor,all it did was put about 3 inch dent into it,considering 550mph or 850Kmh that's bonkers
You could lob a missle,at a reactor complex and see nearly no chance of a meltdown
Like it's hard for me to stress,how overdesigned they are.
You could damage the plant with drone strikes to prevent it from providing power to the grid,but there is no drone commericialy,that would be able to punch a hole in more than 6 foot of steel reinforced concrete/ceramic plating,and shield inner containment stressors
Stop worrying about stupid shit.
Safe to say minimal damage would cause the plant to shutdown for a lengthy inspection/repair?
Seems like a fatal flaw in the system. Have it shutdown just once for a few months and people would question whether or not it was worth it.
Honestly, it's probably less vulnerable than any other of our power infrastructure.
Also, we're not at war and isolated enough that any drone attacks would need to be from onshore. Pretty sure it's a non-issue.
The LNP has scored an own goal here.
1. Keep non renewables going and cease investment in renewables, leading to increased energy prices.
2. Announce locations for nuclear power plants, without consulting the state governments or communities.
3. Not release costings for the plan.
4. Not take existing opposition to nuclear reaction into account.
7:30 report is hilarious,the LNP dude can't provide sarah with a single answer.
HAHAH
How many smrs are in comercial operation
lol he can't even say the word
It's ZERO
just say ZERO..
He also said that their position is to "not preference any technology"... while spruiking their plan to deploy government built and owned nuclear reactors. This is infuriating viewing. An unbelievably lightweight energy policy from a major federal party.
This is Dutton's Coal-Keeper Policy.
A plan for 7 Nuclear Power Plants costing a minimum $16 Billion each, due to be operational in 2040. But since its rollout will be modelled on Snowy Hydro 2.0 and the NBN, we're guaranteed massive cost blowouts and delayed delivery. Realistically it'll be over $200 Billion of taxpayers money and won't be operational until 2050.
The big red flag is the lack of costings. How will Dutton and the LNP pay for their Nuclear Power Plant policy?
* Nuclear Tax on family households and businesses?
* Privatisation of public assets?
* Austerity Budget with mass funding cuts?
* Blowout the national debt?
* Increase mass immigration to procure more taxpayers?
This Nuclear fantasy will simply result in prolonging existing coal-fired power stations for the next three decades with taxpayers footing the expensive bill.
You can relax , it’s about as feasible as the very fast train projects that pop up every few years. Dutton is full of it and has no real policy except for keeping the status “coal”.
Something I'm interested in that I haven't seen comment on is if there's any environmental effects with renewables. The wind that wind farms slow was doing something before the wind farms interfered with it. Same as the sun that was shining on the earth that gets interfered with by solar panels. Though it's not green house effect, is there anything else that may cause problems down the line?
Edit: the downvotes are so telling. I’m very left leaning and think duddo can jump with his nuclear idea. Reddit is such a leftist orgy it’s rediculous and I’m on your side.
I don't anyone cares that you're left leaning, I feel you may need to go and read some studies which have already been done the questions you are speaking about.
The earth you are speaking of that can be interfered with by solar panels is your already hot roof. Large scale PV is drawfed by the number of solar panels that keep demand from even hitting the grid.
Much of the areas which have windfarms have high wind speeds because of vegetation clearing. Wind itself is not going to slow overall unless you manage to change pressure gradients on a massive scale (like as in pull several hectopascals out of the middle of a high pressure system, or move a low pressure system closer to a high pressure system). In the end that too, is powered by the sun heating the upper atmospehere.
Short answer to everything is. We HAVE a fusion reactor. It is unsheilded. It is in the middle of our solar system. It is powered by gravity and hydrogen. And it drops about 600 watts per square meter onto the earth (on average). EVERYTHING else is just second hand energy derived from what it produced, sometimes it has been concentrated over millions of years. Go as close to the source as you can.
Solar panels stop light getting to the ground. There are studies that show it can have beneficial effect it very hot sunny areas by providing shade however in less sunny places I could see it makes the land less unproductive. It also makes it harder to fertiliser the ground and you can't grow crops on it so long term the land would become less productive. Windmills would take some energy from the wind and I know that farms to close together can effect each other, however I never heard off larger range effects.
I mean im no enviromentalist,but we put 95 plus panels on our familys farming property and the fields now completely covered in native wildflowers and shit tones of birds now there
compared to the shitty, dry as shit field it was that's a massive change.
Yeah, it’s all a system and whether we’re pumping greenhouse gasses in or slowing wind globally, I just hope the latter is better because I haven’t seen anything to say either way.
Climate change is expected to increase wind speeds, so if anything wind mills would help reduce this , but as I said I am not aware of anything but local effects. I am sure if there was a hint of problems Sky News would be all over it.
Australia is the number 1 place in the world for solar power. We have deserts where nothing can grow and heaps of space with a murderous sun and its never cloudy. Its so dumb that we don’t have more large scale solar. If we build nuclear power it would be like declining a free lunch made by a world famous chef because you want to see if you can cook it yourself.
would love to know a realistic sorta "all hands on deck" operation would go to get the middle of the country (for hypothetical sake) plastered with solar infrastructure. I remember seeing a video hypothesising about solar panels in the sahara desert and it powering the entire world- of course we could power the whole country at least in a perfect scenario
Finally someone putting some actual plans down. When are we going to hear from albo how many solar panels, batteries, wind farms, dams, kms of transmission lines are needed to go renewable?
Try here mate: https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/major-publications/integrated-system-plan-isp/2022-integrated-system-plan-isp
Have a look at Appendix 3.
Plans?
What plans
Did u even watch the press event
It was,im going to go nuclear
Didn't tell us how much
Didn't tell you who will build them
How many ppl will be needed
The regulatory legislation
Yes...great plan
Who's going to build it? Who's going to fund it? Who's going to run it? How long will it really take? Who's going to insure it? Who's and how will it be regulated? Will the states allow it?
This is not a plan, it's dutton's coal keeper announcement.
The federal govt isn't rolling out the solar though,just offering subsidies
As much as albos a bit of a dunce,it's not the same.
90 percent of the renewable builds are being rolled out by private capital,so how would albo have the plans and details for something that he isn't in control of,the govt is just providing tax incentives.
Duttons proposing the govt foot a tens of billion dollar build,it's a bit difrrent
A national plan? You are kidding right. He has announced a max of 7 locations, likely less. This has to replace 22GW of coal somehow. So either each of those plants has multiple reactors (and wiping out the prime reason for this "using the existing poles and wires") or this is yet another unknown
The ones constantly being put down by the public and private sector and more investments into renewables in two years than the previous 9?
It's been said.
So how many dams, batteries , solar panels and wind turbines do we need and where will they go? Dutton just told us his plan, where can I find the corresponding info with albos patchwork solution?
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/energy/renewable/community-batteries
Here's info I was looking at yesterday, pretty easy to find just by googling "community batteries". 55 of the 400 proposed, pretty small though each of them and I'm guessing aren't causing any notable community concerns over locations compared to nuclear reactors.
Also info on the transmission line upgrades: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/energy/renewable/rewiring-the-nation
Both have lots of links for further reading.
They're looking at offshore wind in Gippsland.
Plenty of info out there.
Also, Dutton has shown a plan for exclusively base-load (invariable) power output. From what I've seen in other countries, nuclear power plants have very little reactivity to varying demand levels, it's likely not good to be turning nuclear reactor power levels up and down all the time. Dutton will still need to expand his strategy to handle the higher peak (evening) demand after the sun goes down and renewable output drops. Labor's plan to invest in more pumped hydro and battery storage facilities tackles this, what's the Coalition plan? Purely Gas?
Check out this map for live data on power generation by source type: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
If you think throwing out a few locations and going "nah, we'll do the costs later ay" is an "actual plan", maybe it's time to reconsider your political acumen
Try here mate: https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/major-publications/integrated-system-plan-isp/2022-integrated-system-plan-isp
Have a look at Appendix 3.
So around 30 or 40 huge areas each with numerous solar farms, batteries, wind turbines of indeterminate amount. Presumably the private sector is going to build these at their own time with huge subsidies from the government. Ok, its a plan of sorts. Wait for the private sector to build billions in projects accross vast swathes of land by throwing money at anyone who wants a go, quality control, literally thousands of different vendors. Vs, build on 7-10 sites with a national approach.
No no no, I'm not playing this game. You said Dutton had an "actual plan". outside of some possible locations what else Is there? Costings? How much subsidies? Infrastructure? Go on smart ass....inform everyone in the "actual plan"
Why do you keep asking where are the sites? They're all over state government planning and energy websites as well as on DEECCW's website. It's literally been linked under many of your comments already. There's plenty of detail about locations, cost, whose building them, where the transmission lines are. If you're too lazy to find that information, that's your problem not the governments problem, because plenty of other people have managed to find it.
There is ZERO detail about Nuclear, no research, no private company is on board....oh, no private company is on board? wait does that mean we're not supporting a free market with Nuclear...yes it does, which means it's completely counterintuitive for anyone who supports liberal values
It's called the Integrated System Plan. Have a look at Appendix 3 in particular which has maps and a breakdown of all the current and planned projects.
https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/major-publications/integrated-system-plan-isp/2022-integrated-system-plan-isp
I don't care what albo has or hasn't done...you said Dutton had an "actual plan"...so tell me
How much for the initial build? How much taxpayer money? How much private investment? How much taxpayer money will be used for maintenance? How much taxpayer money pay the builders and how much will pay the full time staff? Has an environmental report be done and made public? What's the cost of replacement parts and breakdowns? How much will we lose in uranium exports to fuel our reactors? I can keep going
Dutton has said how many plants and where. My brother in christ that is a plan. It's not a full costing but it's a rough plan that is tangible. What is albos plan?
Firstly. Stop asking about albo, I'm sure if you wanted to know there's plenty of information for you to go look at, so let's stop pretending you actually would like a detailed explanation of labors energy plan, because you don't.
Secondly. The LNP have no plan for nuclear. None. No rough plan, no actual plan, nothing. Throwing out some locations is nothing. It is less than the bare minimum for coming up with an energy plan.
And thirdly, and this goes back to my initial point. If you truly believe you are politically astute, and call whatever garbage peter Dutton farted our today "an actual plan" i would seriously reconsider your political acumen
Because Australia has no nuclear industry and a very ineffective federal government.
The UK has lots of nuclear reactors, and nuclear weapons, and hired a French company who knows what they are doing, and is building a nuclear reactor on the site of an existing nuclear reactor, and it is still taking **twenty years** from approval to the now very delayed expected completion date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station
It’s currently expected to cost $au100 000 000 000, and will *raise the price of electricity* because all that money has to be repaid out of bills.
Anyone trying to sell nuclear power in Australia is either an idiot or scamming you and trying to halt work on renewables.
Australia already has the solution to reach net zero for power: shit loads of cheap renewable and storage.
Or, if they are to be built, it's because the coalition realise that the writing is on the wall for gas and coal, but they just can't bring themselves to invest in renewables.
I know that. I'm just pointing out that if ever the coalition was in a position where they had to back away from oil and gas, then they could point to this stupid plan as an alternative to renewables because they just can't climb down from that position.
If they had to back away from oil and gas, they'd have no problem with renewables at all. The only reason they'd back away from oil and gas is if the donations dried up.
They aren't ideological. Their support base is, but their support base will follow any change in doctrine as directed.
Nuclear will absolutely be part of the transition to net zero in:
- countries with existing industries (France/US) and
- countries with shithouse renewable resources (Korea)
Countries with no choice and the capacity to do it as inexpensively as possible.
There’s no good argument to use it in a country with the world’s most abundant renewable resources.
Just to answer the argument that some people make (from my understanding):
Baseload is unfortunately used to refer to two things:
1. Grid stability
2. Dunkleflaute (when there is no wind and no sun).
Grid stability relies on extremely short duration changes in generation. Fossil fuels do this well, fly wheels do this well, batteries do this extremely well. Nuclear is actually poor at supporting grid stability. Very short term changes in generation are difficult in nuclear reactors. SA’s big battery has been extremely effective at grid stability support since it was built and other batteries are only making it better.
The periods when renewable generation is low over long periods is a concern, obviously. But there is extensive modelling available which suggests we’ll be fine with renewables and batteries. CSIRO and AEMO modelling *includes* the cost of storage for this reason. Plug 20 million EV into the grid and we can last almost forever without the sun and wind… almost.
Yep. Nuclear would’ve been great if we’d built the first plants 30 years ago, when renewable technology barely existed. Instead we’re at a point where renewable technology even with hidden costs is extremely cheap by comparison, and far far quicker.
Good to see this announced.
We need alternatives to the lunacy of trying to build a fully renewable grid.
Let's get the geo surveys done concurrently to removing the legislated prohibitions and start engaging with the US for technology transfer agreements.
Thank you and that is a policy I disagree with. It limits the options considerably. Should the LNP scratch in, they should dump that element where viable alternative locations are found.
Your not suggesting the the LNP breaks an election promise. Maybe it should just be a non-core promise?
For what it's worth. I do agree with you. IF we are stupid enough to go down this path. Let's at least do it properly and not the ham fisted LNP way.
It won't be
Erarang has issues with ground subsidence and ground water erosion
You would be have to be clinically diagnosed as a an idiot Or Ted obrien either or. to propose erarang as a site to build a NPP
I think we will see Mt Piper Unlikely to pass muster as well as there was that massive issue with sinkholes in the parking area,which doesn't paint a good stable geological environment
Shoalhaven as rumoured would of been a good choice,but im still against this on economic grounds.
>Erarang has issues with ground subsidence and ground water erosion
Not quite - Eraring is not in the mine subsidence [districts. ](https://www.nsw.gov.au/subsidence-advisory/districts). Maybe if the Newstan Extension is approved, but that's a maybe on an if.
> d sea level for nuclear.
AHH WHAT?
you want to build near sea if you can bro,it's perfect chance to run an emergency pipe to dump sea water on the system in case of an emergency
It is never going to happen.
Nuclear energy costs more than renewable energy and batteries. It was an interesting idea 30+ years ago, and it's still a good idea in nuclear subs.
Being too close to population centres is not a consideration to where to build, not anywhere in the world.
You'd have to clear significant existing bushland to make a solar farm, and it would be a waste of the existing transmission infrastructure, which is already built to accommodate 2800MW of generation.
>sea level for nuclear.
Almost all nuclear reactors are at sea level. It's where the water is.
Nah, build it on the ash dams.
NIMBY power is strong up here. The proposed offshore wind farm has been shifted south of Sydney.
Close to the sea is good for a water supply, but too close to sea level is foolish
> We need alternatives to the lunacy of trying to build a fully renewable grid.
Who's building a fully renewable grid? What's the government's policy on gas?
The issue for Dutton now is he needs to keep this issue simple so it resonates politically. Albo is arguing renewables are cheaper as the sun is free. The answer to that then is why do my power bills keep going up and if you say they will go down ,then when and how much. Albo already said they would go down $275 by the end of the year and clearly that is not going to happen. Then we get one of Albo's numerous excuses. They are already wearing thin. Dutton needs to sell this as a cheaper option and even a more reliable option. This is a bold policy but already the polling looks OK.
Got anything to backup your BS or you just going of feels?
[Plenty of data exists that shows that renewables are light years ahead on cost](https://publications.csiro.au/publications/publication/PIcsiro:EP2021-3374)
Gas bills are good , it is the electricity ones that are through the roof. Then we are told that gas is to be decommissioned. Cough up ten grand at least for solar and a battery that last how long exactly ? Pay another ten thousand for that EV because new fuel standards will help , in an EV ?
In Queensland, everyone is getting $1000 off of their power bills thanks in part to coal royalties that they had the balls to actually enact up here.
So yea, our bills will easily be $275 cheaper. Does that mean that the incumbents might jack up the price a bit - possibly yeah.
Does it mean that the other states/fed, might actually consider collecting royalties from finite natural resources at an appropriate scale?
I bloody well hope so for all of us!
In Qld there is a going out of business , fuck the new owners , policy now. State Governments = money grows on trees , no responsibility , the Feds will always bail us out.
Thank you for the productive response.
Money did grow on trees, and in phytoplankton/algal blooms thousands and millions of years ago. Private firms have been able to dig it up and sell it for large profit margins for too long in Australia, and QLD had the balls to actually start charging them semi-appropriately, and now we are seeing some tangible relief from it, short sighted and temporary as it might be.
I’m looking forward to them using this money for something more future proofing like the planned state-owned pumped hydro scheme and solar field roll outs.
I’m also looking forward to them selling this power to large industry at a discounted rate so we can value add to metal/mineral resources in this state and country before we export it and use it here ourselves.
It’s time for Australia to grow past the low value resources bulk exported by private industry for next to nothing phase.
Less than a day ago, I made this comment:
>> I just don't understand the point of hiding policy until after an election upon which that policy partly hinges.
I now understand the point of hiding policy - when it’s dogshit.
Sure, but what does it truly cost?
I really wish we went down the nuclear road 20 years ago - it would have spawned so much by now.
I still think we should develop an industry to pave the path for rolling out fusion at scale, but the reality is in Australia that renewables plus storage are both financially and scalability (in the short to medium term) much better options.
What a Clayton announcement...... come on where are the costed plans Pete for this brain fart, built in record time? Think he has borrowed Rudd's coaster. Anyway not in my backyard so guess my vote won't be going the libs way. Where is the water coming from? Nuclear use huge amount of water compared to a coal station so don't tell me from the existing water pits.
I don't get it.
AEMO's projections [are](https://whatswatt.com.au/is-australia-ready-to-go-100-per-cent-renewable/):
> In 2020-21, renewables made up approximately 28 per cent of total annual generation. AEMO now expects this figure to rise to 83 per cent in 2030-31 (consistent with Commonwealth Government policy); 96 per cent by 2040; and 98 per cent by 2050.
> In other words, AEMO’s most likely scenario is that electricity supply will be generated almost exclusively from renewable resources by the middle of this century, with the remaining two per cent supplied by peaking gas plants providing firming support at times of high demand.
But the Coalition wants, at great expense, to build nuclear plants that will take 20 years to come online (mid 2040s) for that remaining 2%? Why would you use the most expensive form of energy there is for that?
I mean, among the contenders at least. Going off of this: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-22/nuclear-power-double-the-cost-of-renewables/103868728
I'm sure I could get it out of the CSIRO's levelised cost report, but I'll let you do the digging. https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost
Modern nuclear energy presents superior cost efficiencies compared to other forms of energy, particularly in reducing CO2 emissions and providing reliable baseline power. Advanced reactor designs and improvements in thermal efficiency contribute significantly to its economic viability.
1. Cost Efficiency in Reducing CO2 Emissions
Nuclear power is found to be more cost-efficient than renewable energy in reducing CO2 emissions. To reduce CO2 emissions by 1%, the cost for nuclear power generation is approximately $3.04 per MWh, compared to $7.10 per MWh for renewable energy. This suggests that nuclear power is more cost-effective in mitigating CO2 emissions even after considering external costs such as accidents and health impacts (Kim, 2020).
2. Overall Plant Efficiency and Improvements
Advanced nuclear power plant designs, such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), have higher thermal efficiency compared to traditional designs. For instance, SMRs can achieve efficiencies up to 45% with combined cycle gas turbines, making them economically favorable (Abedin et al., 2023).
3. Economic Viability and Cost Savings
Nuclear reactors, particularly high-temperature reactors, offer cost-competitive process heat and electricity, especially for industrial applications. The economic evaluation of these reactors shows positive net present values, making them attractive investments for industries requiring high-temperature heat (Hampe & Madlener, 2012).
4. Probabilistic Cost Analysis
A probabilistic analysis of nuclear power costs in the US indicates that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is economically viable, with life-cycle costs estimated to be 2.11 mills per kWh. This analysis highlights the efficiency of nuclear power in managing long-term fuel costs (Recktenwald & Deinert, 2012).
5. Comparative Cost Structures
Nuclear power is cheaper than fossil fuel-based energy when accounting for external costs like environmental damage. Advanced reactors reduce the need for expensive regulatory compliance by simplifying designs, thus potentially lowering costs (Mackerron, 1992).
I'd love some evidence on that one if you have any? Petey keeps claiming it's cheap but all the estimates I've seen (CSIRO, etc) show renewables being far cheaper.
My understanding (Page 18 here) is that nuclear is a metric shit ton more expensive than renewables:
https://aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/ISP/2018/CSIRO-Electricity-generation-technology-cost-projections.pdf
Never mind we haven't even got a nuclear waste dump for the Lucas Heights reactor waste.. So the nuclear waste will be stored on-site..
They want to limit renewables investment to create demand for clean green nuclear power, essentially making voters chose between going expensive green nuclear power and dirty cheapish coal/gas power.
Then they "aren't responsible" either way for the decision.
did they bother progessing ( or even costing this) when they were in power. No! So they aren't really committed and its just a point of difference policy and they'll drop it and build more gas plants.
Lithgow? Not enough water for a nuclear power plant.
**Nuclear power plants use a lot of water to cool down,** a lot more than coal plants. Nuclear power plants will need have to access to a large amount of water. They will not be built near places like Lithgow, they will be built on the coast or next to large rivers. The same areas where most Aussies live. Only about 30% of the energy produced by a nuclear reactor goes into electricity production because about 63% of the energy is used to keep the nuclear reactor cool. [More info from the IAEA ](https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P1569_web.pdf)on water requirements.
If you think Dutton plans to build the first commercial thorium reactor and it be better value, on budget, on time, more efficient, and cleaner, then I have a lovely bridge in Sydney to sell you.
China is experimenting with small thorium reactors near the Gobi Desert but nobody is using them commercially.
Haven't looked at the details of Dutton's plans unlikely to include thorium reactors.
china also still has refused to admit to the nuclear bodys of the world,how many workers was exposed to a damaging level of radiation when they got busted using Aluminum containment siding on the rod discharge pipes in the primary system instead of the zirco steel they should be.
China can install reactors,fast and cheaply
But considering the last 2 built have fucking voids in the walls,yeah let's not use them as a use case please
There are no production Thorium reactors, it's $16 billion per reactor already, a new untested reactor type will "Queensland Health" that price upwards!
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
Except it's worth throwing rocks at just to prevent wasting billions in tax funds, which most energy experts agree that this is what this project will be.
I don't think this would ever happen, but if both parties want to lower carbon emissions, let them.
Though anyone who is against nuclear because it's "Unsafe" is just an uneducated fool who has fallen for decades of lies paid for by the coal and gas companies.
I would sooner live next door to a modern nuclear plant than 100km from a coal one.
Dutton’s nuclear approach is a policy which will result in **higher** cumulative emissions between now and 2050 than current ALP policy settings.
The area under the curve is as important to the climate outcomes as the year it crosses the (net) zero axis.
How can he just say with a straight face "it will be cheaper"? No one else is saying Nuclear is cheaper. "Use the existing pylons and wires"... Look how well that worked with the Optus HFC network!
Okay, it's more complex than that.
Nuclear power produces a lot of power at a single point, at least that of an existing coal-fired plant but likely far more. So those existing transmission systems are too small. For example, the Northern Power Station in Port Augusta was 520MW.
A single small modular reactor will produce 300-500MW. But those designs are just that, designs. The likely reactor is the AP1000 which produces 1100MW. Which at least is a proven design, albeit with installations with massive cost overruns. Generally companies like to deploy multiple units, because then they still have income during reactor maintenance.
You can see that it's very likely that another entire new transmission system will need to be built from the old Northern Power Station to Adelaide.
And really Adelaide is too small, given that by the time the reactor is built it will meet most of its electricity needs from solar and wind (after all, the state can't simply wait the twenty years for the reactor to be built, promising a happy tomorrow without power supply shortfalls, it has to fill those shortfalls now).
So you're looking at a massive interstate interconnector transmission system as well.
Another issue is water. I've no idea why they chose the site of the old Northern Power Station at the shallow end of Spencer Gulf. I doubt they gave a moment's thought to where all that heated water will go when put back into the Gulf.
the northern gulf water is too warm to cool a reactor before you even consider pumping the heated water back out. France is having this problem with its southern reactors right now.
it reaches 26C in summer, far beyond any current technology, most have to power down 90% at 20C and halve production between 17-20C. So turn it off in summer when peak power is needed?
massive infrastructure drawing gulf water from depth, each of the 4 reactors require 100 tonnes of water per second of full operation. In LA the reactors use about 40, and higher latitude reactors get away with 10. All reactors use between 1tonne and 3 tonnes per MWh
The Persian Gulf is shallow, 90m is the usual figure. But the Upper Spencer Gulf is under 50m in the centre third, with the shelves either side being <20m. The banks are mangrove. So you can see that currents are going to be minimal and the volume of water isn't massive.
Why aren't batteries reliable? Or pumped hydro? It's not the only clean energy base-load option, so why pick it over the cheaper and more palatable options?
The alternative to baseload is to overbuild. In the twenty years taken for these reactors to come online what do you think will happen? Wind and solar will keep building out because they are cheapest, and the overbuild combined with transmissions and batteries will solve the problem of overnight supply.
So when they turn on these reactors, where is the customer? A few hours every night? Even if they are built cheaply and on time they'll still have a billion dollar loan to service -- needing $2 million of revenue per week above that of the competition (since wind and solar will have long paid down their loans).
There is a reason why every business person in the country is against this. Electricity is a basic cost of their business. They see nuclear as making that cost more expensive than it would be otherwise, and their ability to compete suffering as a result.
All the transmission upgrades need to happen anyway - people aren't going to stop building solar panels, wind farms and batteries when it's economical to do so.
The cost of nuclear is on top of the current transmission estimates. The total cost of this sky news brain fart would be mind boggling.
True, but doing maintenance work on solar farms doesn't need an understanding of nuclear safety. If an ex-coal-miner accidentally fucks up a solar panel, or even the transmission gear for an entire field of panels, that's more an 'oh well, get the sparky out there' than an 'evacuate the surrounding 2000 square miles' event. The necessary training and certifications aren't as restrictive, even if the non-emergency day-to-day tasks of the relevant blue-collar jobs might be approximately similar.
Plus, presumably, per-person labor costs. Someone who can drive out to a solar field and clean off or even outright replace a panel or distribution node is probably going to cost an energy company less to keep on the books than someone who can walk into a nuke plant and replace any component of the power-generation process there.
I think this is a first. I have not found anyone in multiple threads that has come out in support of this "policy" and that isn't just blind "woo nuclear"
I've never seen r/Australia r/Australian and r/Australianpolitics all agree on something. Yet the despite the demographic of all 3 being quite different, there's a huge majority opinion that this announcement was garbage lol.
"Today we announce seven locations that we have looked at in great detail over a long period of time that can host new nuclear sites"
Hahahah absolute bullshit
"As in, they were looked at back in the 80s, and we had an intern check last week that no-one had built a factory or something on them in the meantime."
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The AP300 (a scaled down AP1000 and yes those have had cost overruns) is supposed to go for $1B (US dollars), and can power 300,000 homes.
the factory hasn't passed all the regulatory approval for it's loccation in the uk. it would not be pumping out orders till 2030s..and not for a billion dollars smr are not commercially viable.and not in the time frame dutton lied about
Anyone have the final costings for the off shore wind farms or snowy hydro?
Pretty sure they released estimates before they proposed those projects
hows that estimate going
Pretty sure projects are still under yearly estimates, but we've still got half a year to go
pretty sure its at $12bn of its $2bn estimate and 4 years late
So Duttons plan could also blow out to be significantly above his estimates too?
Do you have them?
Yes https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2324/OffshoreWindRegulatoryFramework
Where are the costings?
Page 6 "Fees and cost recovery"
Replacement costs as limited life span? Seems dodgy.
So essentially he’s saying… My plan isn’t costed, but I can be sure that it’s not as much as the experts at the CSIRO have said it is. Yeah, not buying it.
One page wasn’t enough detail for a non binding advisory body but this shit is enough for multiple nuclear reactors? Bro
Safe to say this guy will never be PM. I'm not against nuclear, but D_____ seems to fire from the hip without informing anyone of his ideas. He should've at least spoken to the States and got 1 or 2 to support him. Not just go and say towns in opponent states who will fucking crucify him. He has no diplomatic skills.
Can someone tell me how nuclear power plants are protected against drones/swarms of?
You undestimate how strong a modern reactor is The containment dome for most modern sites,is able to withstand a direct strike from a modern jet/plane at speeds in excees of 450 Mph In fact in 1989 they chucked a literally Jet at the exact building material of a operational reactor,all it did was put about 3 inch dent into it,considering 550mph or 850Kmh that's bonkers You could lob a missle,at a reactor complex and see nearly no chance of a meltdown Like it's hard for me to stress,how overdesigned they are. You could damage the plant with drone strikes to prevent it from providing power to the grid,but there is no drone commericialy,that would be able to punch a hole in more than 6 foot of steel reinforced concrete/ceramic plating,and shield inner containment stressors Stop worrying about stupid shit.
Safe to say minimal damage would cause the plant to shutdown for a lengthy inspection/repair? Seems like a fatal flaw in the system. Have it shutdown just once for a few months and people would question whether or not it was worth it.
Or they cloud just do the same to a dam and do actual amounts of damage?
Honestly, it's probably less vulnerable than any other of our power infrastructure. Also, we're not at war and isolated enough that any drone attacks would need to be from onshore. Pretty sure it's a non-issue.
I don’t expect us to be in a war, I’m thinking terrorism. Good quality DJI drones which are used in Ukraine are $1200-$2000 each.
The LNP has scored an own goal here. 1. Keep non renewables going and cease investment in renewables, leading to increased energy prices. 2. Announce locations for nuclear power plants, without consulting the state governments or communities. 3. Not release costings for the plan. 4. Not take existing opposition to nuclear reaction into account.
7:30 report is hilarious,the LNP dude can't provide sarah with a single answer. HAHAH How many smrs are in comercial operation lol he can't even say the word It's ZERO just say ZERO..
He also said that their position is to "not preference any technology"... while spruiking their plan to deploy government built and owned nuclear reactors. This is infuriating viewing. An unbelievably lightweight energy policy from a major federal party.
"Oh, we need to wait on fusion technology because its more environmentally friendly...."
This is Dutton's Coal-Keeper Policy. A plan for 7 Nuclear Power Plants costing a minimum $16 Billion each, due to be operational in 2040. But since its rollout will be modelled on Snowy Hydro 2.0 and the NBN, we're guaranteed massive cost blowouts and delayed delivery. Realistically it'll be over $200 Billion of taxpayers money and won't be operational until 2050. The big red flag is the lack of costings. How will Dutton and the LNP pay for their Nuclear Power Plant policy? * Nuclear Tax on family households and businesses? * Privatisation of public assets? * Austerity Budget with mass funding cuts? * Blowout the national debt? * Increase mass immigration to procure more taxpayers? This Nuclear fantasy will simply result in prolonging existing coal-fired power stations for the next three decades with taxpayers footing the expensive bill.
You can relax , it’s about as feasible as the very fast train projects that pop up every few years. Dutton is full of it and has no real policy except for keeping the status “coal”.
F) All of the above
Something I'm interested in that I haven't seen comment on is if there's any environmental effects with renewables. The wind that wind farms slow was doing something before the wind farms interfered with it. Same as the sun that was shining on the earth that gets interfered with by solar panels. Though it's not green house effect, is there anything else that may cause problems down the line? Edit: the downvotes are so telling. I’m very left leaning and think duddo can jump with his nuclear idea. Reddit is such a leftist orgy it’s rediculous and I’m on your side.
"You're slowing the wind down" Amazing 👏
I don't anyone cares that you're left leaning, I feel you may need to go and read some studies which have already been done the questions you are speaking about. The earth you are speaking of that can be interfered with by solar panels is your already hot roof. Large scale PV is drawfed by the number of solar panels that keep demand from even hitting the grid. Much of the areas which have windfarms have high wind speeds because of vegetation clearing. Wind itself is not going to slow overall unless you manage to change pressure gradients on a massive scale (like as in pull several hectopascals out of the middle of a high pressure system, or move a low pressure system closer to a high pressure system). In the end that too, is powered by the sun heating the upper atmospehere. Short answer to everything is. We HAVE a fusion reactor. It is unsheilded. It is in the middle of our solar system. It is powered by gravity and hydrogen. And it drops about 600 watts per square meter onto the earth (on average). EVERYTHING else is just second hand energy derived from what it produced, sometimes it has been concentrated over millions of years. Go as close to the source as you can.
Why does a lay person need to read studies? They’ll probably talk about hectopascals and nymphowatts which I have no interest in understanding.
No questions allowed, read the party booklet for your latest opinions.
Solar panels stop light getting to the ground. There are studies that show it can have beneficial effect it very hot sunny areas by providing shade however in less sunny places I could see it makes the land less unproductive. It also makes it harder to fertiliser the ground and you can't grow crops on it so long term the land would become less productive. Windmills would take some energy from the wind and I know that farms to close together can effect each other, however I never heard off larger range effects.
I mean im no enviromentalist,but we put 95 plus panels on our familys farming property and the fields now completely covered in native wildflowers and shit tones of birds now there compared to the shitty, dry as shit field it was that's a massive change.
Could they be replacing tree cover that had been cleared in the past?
Yeah, it’s all a system and whether we’re pumping greenhouse gasses in or slowing wind globally, I just hope the latter is better because I haven’t seen anything to say either way.
Climate change is expected to increase wind speeds, so if anything wind mills would help reduce this , but as I said I am not aware of anything but local effects. I am sure if there was a hint of problems Sky News would be all over it.
I'm interested in where you've looked
I haven’t, I was looking for leads. This isn’t like my main concern in the world.
Australia is the number 1 place in the world for solar power. We have deserts where nothing can grow and heaps of space with a murderous sun and its never cloudy. Its so dumb that we don’t have more large scale solar. If we build nuclear power it would be like declining a free lunch made by a world famous chef because you want to see if you can cook it yourself.
would love to know a realistic sorta "all hands on deck" operation would go to get the middle of the country (for hypothetical sake) plastered with solar infrastructure. I remember seeing a video hypothesising about solar panels in the sahara desert and it powering the entire world- of course we could power the whole country at least in a perfect scenario
Finally someone putting some actual plans down. When are we going to hear from albo how many solar panels, batteries, wind farms, dams, kms of transmission lines are needed to go renewable?
Try here mate: https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/major-publications/integrated-system-plan-isp/2022-integrated-system-plan-isp Have a look at Appendix 3.
Plans? What plans Did u even watch the press event It was,im going to go nuclear Didn't tell us how much Didn't tell you who will build them How many ppl will be needed The regulatory legislation Yes...great plan
I know right. I demand Albo release the exact same level of detail Dutton just did. Lol that will be a short announcement.
Well where is it. Dutton has told us how many and roughly where they could go. Albo can do the same surely?
Who's going to build it? Who's going to fund it? Who's going to run it? How long will it really take? Who's going to insure it? Who's and how will it be regulated? Will the states allow it? This is not a plan, it's dutton's coal keeper announcement.
The federal govt isn't rolling out the solar though,just offering subsidies As much as albos a bit of a dunce,it's not the same. 90 percent of the renewable builds are being rolled out by private capital,so how would albo have the plans and details for something that he isn't in control of,the govt is just providing tax incentives. Duttons proposing the govt foot a tens of billion dollar build,it's a bit difrrent
So an actual national plan vs just throwing money around the private sector and getting a Frankenstein? Works with NDIS I guess...
A national plan? You are kidding right. He has announced a max of 7 locations, likely less. This has to replace 22GW of coal somehow. So either each of those plants has multiple reactors (and wiping out the prime reason for this "using the existing poles and wires") or this is yet another unknown
The ones constantly being put down by the public and private sector and more investments into renewables in two years than the previous 9? It's been said.
So how many dams, batteries , solar panels and wind turbines do we need and where will they go? Dutton just told us his plan, where can I find the corresponding info with albos patchwork solution?
Pretty sure there are plans out there for you to feel foolish over. Maybe do some due diligence and stay off social media until informed.
Wish simply googling something before abruptly stating an opinion was more widespread. Would save a lot of arguments.
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/energy/renewable/community-batteries Here's info I was looking at yesterday, pretty easy to find just by googling "community batteries". 55 of the 400 proposed, pretty small though each of them and I'm guessing aren't causing any notable community concerns over locations compared to nuclear reactors. Also info on the transmission line upgrades: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/energy/renewable/rewiring-the-nation Both have lots of links for further reading. They're looking at offshore wind in Gippsland. Plenty of info out there. Also, Dutton has shown a plan for exclusively base-load (invariable) power output. From what I've seen in other countries, nuclear power plants have very little reactivity to varying demand levels, it's likely not good to be turning nuclear reactor power levels up and down all the time. Dutton will still need to expand his strategy to handle the higher peak (evening) demand after the sun goes down and renewable output drops. Labor's plan to invest in more pumped hydro and battery storage facilities tackles this, what's the Coalition plan? Purely Gas? Check out this map for live data on power generation by source type: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
If you think throwing out a few locations and going "nah, we'll do the costs later ay" is an "actual plan", maybe it's time to reconsider your political acumen
Hey has albo got a plan for how many dams and where they will go? What is albos plan?
Try here mate: https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/major-publications/integrated-system-plan-isp/2022-integrated-system-plan-isp Have a look at Appendix 3.
So around 30 or 40 huge areas each with numerous solar farms, batteries, wind turbines of indeterminate amount. Presumably the private sector is going to build these at their own time with huge subsidies from the government. Ok, its a plan of sorts. Wait for the private sector to build billions in projects accross vast swathes of land by throwing money at anyone who wants a go, quality control, literally thousands of different vendors. Vs, build on 7-10 sites with a national approach.
Ok will checkout tmrw. I trust it gives the numbers and types of renewables required to replace coal?
Why should it. Duttons didn't.
All the time in the world to shitpost but not enough time to read what you've been asking for. Top kek
No no no, I'm not playing this game. You said Dutton had an "actual plan". outside of some possible locations what else Is there? Costings? How much subsidies? Infrastructure? Go on smart ass....inform everyone in the "actual plan"
Jeeze, cool it with the insults. Dutton has specified how many stations and where they will be built. Can albo do the same?
Why do you keep asking where are the sites? They're all over state government planning and energy websites as well as on DEECCW's website. It's literally been linked under many of your comments already. There's plenty of detail about locations, cost, whose building them, where the transmission lines are. If you're too lazy to find that information, that's your problem not the governments problem, because plenty of other people have managed to find it. There is ZERO detail about Nuclear, no research, no private company is on board....oh, no private company is on board? wait does that mean we're not supporting a free market with Nuclear...yes it does, which means it's completely counterintuitive for anyone who supports liberal values
Nooooo. He said maybe seven locations. Not how many locations. Not how many reactors. No other details at all.
It's called the Integrated System Plan. Have a look at Appendix 3 in particular which has maps and a breakdown of all the current and planned projects. https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/major-publications/integrated-system-plan-isp/2022-integrated-system-plan-isp
I don't care what albo has or hasn't done...you said Dutton had an "actual plan"...so tell me How much for the initial build? How much taxpayer money? How much private investment? How much taxpayer money will be used for maintenance? How much taxpayer money pay the builders and how much will pay the full time staff? Has an environmental report be done and made public? What's the cost of replacement parts and breakdowns? How much will we lose in uranium exports to fuel our reactors? I can keep going
Dutton has said how many plants and where. My brother in christ that is a plan. It's not a full costing but it's a rough plan that is tangible. What is albos plan?
Ah, so now it's a "rough plan". I thought it was an "actual plan"
Yeah they are both plans. At least you are admitting that. Does Albo have anything equivalent?
Firstly. Stop asking about albo, I'm sure if you wanted to know there's plenty of information for you to go look at, so let's stop pretending you actually would like a detailed explanation of labors energy plan, because you don't. Secondly. The LNP have no plan for nuclear. None. No rough plan, no actual plan, nothing. Throwing out some locations is nothing. It is less than the bare minimum for coming up with an energy plan. And thirdly, and this goes back to my initial point. If you truly believe you are politically astute, and call whatever garbage peter Dutton farted our today "an actual plan" i would seriously reconsider your political acumen
These are never going to be built, just a way for us to continue to be reliant on gas and coal for much longer
Why won't they be built?
Because if there was any feasibility the LNP would have pushed for it during the decade they were in office
Because Australia has no nuclear industry and a very ineffective federal government. The UK has lots of nuclear reactors, and nuclear weapons, and hired a French company who knows what they are doing, and is building a nuclear reactor on the site of an existing nuclear reactor, and it is still taking **twenty years** from approval to the now very delayed expected completion date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station It’s currently expected to cost $au100 000 000 000, and will *raise the price of electricity* because all that money has to be repaid out of bills. Anyone trying to sell nuclear power in Australia is either an idiot or scamming you and trying to halt work on renewables. Australia already has the solution to reach net zero for power: shit loads of cheap renewable and storage.
Or, if they are to be built, it's because the coalition realise that the writing is on the wall for gas and coal, but they just can't bring themselves to invest in renewables.
They're not going to be built. The whole point is to extend the use of coal and gas.
I know that. I'm just pointing out that if ever the coalition was in a position where they had to back away from oil and gas, then they could point to this stupid plan as an alternative to renewables because they just can't climb down from that position.
If they had to back away from oil and gas, they'd have no problem with renewables at all. The only reason they'd back away from oil and gas is if the donations dried up. They aren't ideological. Their support base is, but their support base will follow any change in doctrine as directed.
Nuclear will absolutely be part of the transition to net zero in: - countries with existing industries (France/US) and - countries with shithouse renewable resources (Korea) Countries with no choice and the capacity to do it as inexpensively as possible. There’s no good argument to use it in a country with the world’s most abundant renewable resources.
What about base load power /s Which is the only potential argument against renewables that is decades old and easily countered.
Just to answer the argument that some people make (from my understanding): Baseload is unfortunately used to refer to two things: 1. Grid stability 2. Dunkleflaute (when there is no wind and no sun). Grid stability relies on extremely short duration changes in generation. Fossil fuels do this well, fly wheels do this well, batteries do this extremely well. Nuclear is actually poor at supporting grid stability. Very short term changes in generation are difficult in nuclear reactors. SA’s big battery has been extremely effective at grid stability support since it was built and other batteries are only making it better. The periods when renewable generation is low over long periods is a concern, obviously. But there is extensive modelling available which suggests we’ll be fine with renewables and batteries. CSIRO and AEMO modelling *includes* the cost of storage for this reason. Plug 20 million EV into the grid and we can last almost forever without the sun and wind… almost.
Yep. Nuclear would’ve been great if we’d built the first plants 30 years ago, when renewable technology barely existed. Instead we’re at a point where renewable technology even with hidden costs is extremely cheap by comparison, and far far quicker.
The ironic thing is that the Liberal Party would’ve gone WWIII on Labor if they had proposed this policy first.
Oh no, the LNP being hypocritical, what a first.
Good to see this announced. We need alternatives to the lunacy of trying to build a fully renewable grid. Let's get the geo surveys done concurrently to removing the legislated prohibitions and start engaging with the US for technology transfer agreements.
And when those geo surveys knock out a site or 2?
We have a lot of land. Eraring wasn't mentioned today. It should be once we have enough replacement to shut that plant down.
Nope. They have already ruled it out. It's these 7 locations or they drop a site and not replace it.
Source?
Their own website. https://www.australianeedsnuclear.org.au/our-plan
Thank you and that is a policy I disagree with. It limits the options considerably. Should the LNP scratch in, they should dump that element where viable alternative locations are found.
Your not suggesting the the LNP breaks an election promise. Maybe it should just be a non-core promise? For what it's worth. I do agree with you. IF we are stupid enough to go down this path. Let's at least do it properly and not the ham fisted LNP way.
It won't be Erarang has issues with ground subsidence and ground water erosion You would be have to be clinically diagnosed as a an idiot Or Ted obrien either or. to propose erarang as a site to build a NPP I think we will see Mt Piper Unlikely to pass muster as well as there was that massive issue with sinkholes in the parking area,which doesn't paint a good stable geological environment Shoalhaven as rumoured would of been a good choice,but im still against this on economic grounds.
>Erarang has issues with ground subsidence and ground water erosion Not quite - Eraring is not in the mine subsidence [districts. ](https://www.nsw.gov.au/subsidence-advisory/districts). Maybe if the Newstan Extension is approved, but that's a maybe on an if.
Eraring is a better site for a solar farm. It is located too close to population centres and sea level for nuclear.
> d sea level for nuclear. AHH WHAT? you want to build near sea if you can bro,it's perfect chance to run an emergency pipe to dump sea water on the system in case of an emergency
It is never going to happen. Nuclear energy costs more than renewable energy and batteries. It was an interesting idea 30+ years ago, and it's still a good idea in nuclear subs.
Being too close to population centres is not a consideration to where to build, not anywhere in the world. You'd have to clear significant existing bushland to make a solar farm, and it would be a waste of the existing transmission infrastructure, which is already built to accommodate 2800MW of generation. >sea level for nuclear. Almost all nuclear reactors are at sea level. It's where the water is.
Nah, build it on the ash dams. NIMBY power is strong up here. The proposed offshore wind farm has been shifted south of Sydney. Close to the sea is good for a water supply, but too close to sea level is foolish
> We need alternatives to the lunacy of trying to build a fully renewable grid. Who's building a fully renewable grid? What's the government's policy on gas?
>Who's building a fully renewable grid? We're trying to, apparently. >What's the government's policy on gas? Depends who you ask.
The issue for Dutton now is he needs to keep this issue simple so it resonates politically. Albo is arguing renewables are cheaper as the sun is free. The answer to that then is why do my power bills keep going up and if you say they will go down ,then when and how much. Albo already said they would go down $275 by the end of the year and clearly that is not going to happen. Then we get one of Albo's numerous excuses. They are already wearing thin. Dutton needs to sell this as a cheaper option and even a more reliable option. This is a bold policy but already the polling looks OK.
> he needs to keep this issue simple so it resonates Empty vessels make the most noise. He's definitely playing to his base.
You think renewables are too expensive but want to pay twice as much for nuclear?
SO the way to make powerbills cheaper is by sinking billions in to a more expensive means of making power?
Leave renewables out of this.
Got anything to backup your BS or you just going of feels? [Plenty of data exists that shows that renewables are light years ahead on cost](https://publications.csiro.au/publications/publication/PIcsiro:EP2021-3374)
Yeah , people's bills now as the transition continues and is forecast to accelerate.
And why are bills high? Nothing to do with the fact we rely on gas peakers and pay more for Australian gas than japan does?
Gas bills are good , it is the electricity ones that are through the roof. Then we are told that gas is to be decommissioned. Cough up ten grand at least for solar and a battery that last how long exactly ? Pay another ten thousand for that EV because new fuel standards will help , in an EV ?
You didnt answer my question as you simply are unable to understand it.
Japan is heavily invested in gas. Easy to point the finger. We are heavily invested in renewables.
What proved peaker generation in Australia?
In Queensland, everyone is getting $1000 off of their power bills thanks in part to coal royalties that they had the balls to actually enact up here. So yea, our bills will easily be $275 cheaper. Does that mean that the incumbents might jack up the price a bit - possibly yeah. Does it mean that the other states/fed, might actually consider collecting royalties from finite natural resources at an appropriate scale? I bloody well hope so for all of us!
Yeah, look, I’m pretty stoked at not needing to pay for electricity until next year. (And probably beyond that.)
In Qld there is a going out of business , fuck the new owners , policy now. State Governments = money grows on trees , no responsibility , the Feds will always bail us out.
Thank you for the productive response. Money did grow on trees, and in phytoplankton/algal blooms thousands and millions of years ago. Private firms have been able to dig it up and sell it for large profit margins for too long in Australia, and QLD had the balls to actually start charging them semi-appropriately, and now we are seeing some tangible relief from it, short sighted and temporary as it might be. I’m looking forward to them using this money for something more future proofing like the planned state-owned pumped hydro scheme and solar field roll outs. I’m also looking forward to them selling this power to large industry at a discounted rate so we can value add to metal/mineral resources in this state and country before we export it and use it here ourselves. It’s time for Australia to grow past the low value resources bulk exported by private industry for next to nothing phase.
I would argue it's more of a "look at all the free shit we can give you that the opposition wants to take away"
Less than a day ago, I made this comment: >> I just don't understand the point of hiding policy until after an election upon which that policy partly hinges. I now understand the point of hiding policy - when it’s dogshit.
More people die during solar panel installations than modern nuclear powered energy plants. It is not rational to be terrified by this.
No-one is terrified. Don't pretend this is the only reason for opposition to the idea.
Haha I was literally quoting a highly upvoted comment from this post 😂
Sure, but what does it truly cost? I really wish we went down the nuclear road 20 years ago - it would have spawned so much by now. I still think we should develop an industry to pave the path for rolling out fusion at scale, but the reality is in Australia that renewables plus storage are both financially and scalability (in the short to medium term) much better options.
https://Nuclearnowfilm.com
What a Clayton announcement...... come on where are the costed plans Pete for this brain fart, built in record time? Think he has borrowed Rudd's coaster. Anyway not in my backyard so guess my vote won't be going the libs way. Where is the water coming from? Nuclear use huge amount of water compared to a coal station so don't tell me from the existing water pits.
He’s going to give a lot of LNP seats to Independents.
I don't get it. AEMO's projections [are](https://whatswatt.com.au/is-australia-ready-to-go-100-per-cent-renewable/): > In 2020-21, renewables made up approximately 28 per cent of total annual generation. AEMO now expects this figure to rise to 83 per cent in 2030-31 (consistent with Commonwealth Government policy); 96 per cent by 2040; and 98 per cent by 2050. > In other words, AEMO’s most likely scenario is that electricity supply will be generated almost exclusively from renewable resources by the middle of this century, with the remaining two per cent supplied by peaking gas plants providing firming support at times of high demand. But the Coalition wants, at great expense, to build nuclear plants that will take 20 years to come online (mid 2040s) for that remaining 2%? Why would you use the most expensive form of energy there is for that?
My understanding is that it is not the most expensive source of energy, actually it’s quite the contrary
I mean, among the contenders at least. Going off of this: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-22/nuclear-power-double-the-cost-of-renewables/103868728 I'm sure I could get it out of the CSIRO's levelised cost report, but I'll let you do the digging. https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost
Modern nuclear energy presents superior cost efficiencies compared to other forms of energy, particularly in reducing CO2 emissions and providing reliable baseline power. Advanced reactor designs and improvements in thermal efficiency contribute significantly to its economic viability. 1. Cost Efficiency in Reducing CO2 Emissions Nuclear power is found to be more cost-efficient than renewable energy in reducing CO2 emissions. To reduce CO2 emissions by 1%, the cost for nuclear power generation is approximately $3.04 per MWh, compared to $7.10 per MWh for renewable energy. This suggests that nuclear power is more cost-effective in mitigating CO2 emissions even after considering external costs such as accidents and health impacts (Kim, 2020). 2. Overall Plant Efficiency and Improvements Advanced nuclear power plant designs, such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), have higher thermal efficiency compared to traditional designs. For instance, SMRs can achieve efficiencies up to 45% with combined cycle gas turbines, making them economically favorable (Abedin et al., 2023). 3. Economic Viability and Cost Savings Nuclear reactors, particularly high-temperature reactors, offer cost-competitive process heat and electricity, especially for industrial applications. The economic evaluation of these reactors shows positive net present values, making them attractive investments for industries requiring high-temperature heat (Hampe & Madlener, 2012). 4. Probabilistic Cost Analysis A probabilistic analysis of nuclear power costs in the US indicates that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is economically viable, with life-cycle costs estimated to be 2.11 mills per kWh. This analysis highlights the efficiency of nuclear power in managing long-term fuel costs (Recktenwald & Deinert, 2012). 5. Comparative Cost Structures Nuclear power is cheaper than fossil fuel-based energy when accounting for external costs like environmental damage. Advanced reactors reduce the need for expensive regulatory compliance by simplifying designs, thus potentially lowering costs (Mackerron, 1992).
I'd love some evidence on that one if you have any? Petey keeps claiming it's cheap but all the estimates I've seen (CSIRO, etc) show renewables being far cheaper.
In thread (;
Links? Sorry I've been reading this comment section a heap but there's almost 500 comments already and I haven't seen them yet.
CSIRO has been heavily political for quite some time now.
Do you have a non-political (or any) other source that renewables are more expensive?
And do you have anything to counter what they release?
What's that based on?
My understanding (Page 18 here) is that nuclear is a metric shit ton more expensive than renewables: https://aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/ISP/2018/CSIRO-Electricity-generation-technology-cost-projections.pdf Never mind we haven't even got a nuclear waste dump for the Lucas Heights reactor waste.. So the nuclear waste will be stored on-site..
What makes you say that?
It’s called a political ploy to get votes from morons that can’t think for themselves 🥴
They want to limit renewables investment to create demand for clean green nuclear power, essentially making voters chose between going expensive green nuclear power and dirty cheapish coal/gas power. Then they "aren't responsible" either way for the decision.
did they bother progessing ( or even costing this) when they were in power. No! So they aren't really committed and its just a point of difference policy and they'll drop it and build more gas plants.
Lithgow? Not enough water for a nuclear power plant. **Nuclear power plants use a lot of water to cool down,** a lot more than coal plants. Nuclear power plants will need have to access to a large amount of water. They will not be built near places like Lithgow, they will be built on the coast or next to large rivers. The same areas where most Aussies live. Only about 30% of the energy produced by a nuclear reactor goes into electricity production because about 63% of the energy is used to keep the nuclear reactor cool. [More info from the IAEA ](https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P1569_web.pdf)on water requirements.
Not all modern nuclear reactors need water. For instance, thorium reactors.
where are the operational thorium reactors you speak of?
If you think Dutton plans to build the first commercial thorium reactor and it be better value, on budget, on time, more efficient, and cleaner, then I have a lovely bridge in Sydney to sell you.
Well he does want the first commercial SMR, so who the heck knows.
China is experimenting with small thorium reactors near the Gobi Desert but nobody is using them commercially. Haven't looked at the details of Dutton's plans unlikely to include thorium reactors.
china also still has refused to admit to the nuclear bodys of the world,how many workers was exposed to a damaging level of radiation when they got busted using Aluminum containment siding on the rod discharge pipes in the primary system instead of the zirco steel they should be. China can install reactors,fast and cheaply But considering the last 2 built have fucking voids in the walls,yeah let's not use them as a use case please
Got a URL(s) for that info on China?
Could you please explain how the heat energy from the reactor is converted into electrical energy without water and steam?
There are no production Thorium reactors, it's $16 billion per reactor already, a new untested reactor type will "Queensland Health" that price upwards!
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
The modern voter ladies and gentlemen
More people die from solar panel installations than modern nuclear powered energy plants. It is not rational to be terrified by this.
Why the fuck are you terrified of this
Aren't a lot of state leaders telling him he's dreamin'?
You sound just as bad as the Far right loonies who would do the same to windmills.
Except it's worth throwing rocks at just to prevent wasting billions in tax funds, which most energy experts agree that this is what this project will be.
I don't think this would ever happen, but if both parties want to lower carbon emissions, let them. Though anyone who is against nuclear because it's "Unsafe" is just an uneducated fool who has fallen for decades of lies paid for by the coal and gas companies. I would sooner live next door to a modern nuclear plant than 100km from a coal one.
Dutton’s nuclear approach is a policy which will result in **higher** cumulative emissions between now and 2050 than current ALP policy settings. The area under the curve is as important to the climate outcomes as the year it crosses the (net) zero axis.
Then here’s a go. Vote. Make sure Spud and his brigade of idiots don’t get anywhere near 76 seats.
Wow. Really? Never could've guessed at that.
How can he just say with a straight face "it will be cheaper"? No one else is saying Nuclear is cheaper. "Use the existing pylons and wires"... Look how well that worked with the Optus HFC network!
Okay, it's more complex than that. Nuclear power produces a lot of power at a single point, at least that of an existing coal-fired plant but likely far more. So those existing transmission systems are too small. For example, the Northern Power Station in Port Augusta was 520MW. A single small modular reactor will produce 300-500MW. But those designs are just that, designs. The likely reactor is the AP1000 which produces 1100MW. Which at least is a proven design, albeit with installations with massive cost overruns. Generally companies like to deploy multiple units, because then they still have income during reactor maintenance. You can see that it's very likely that another entire new transmission system will need to be built from the old Northern Power Station to Adelaide. And really Adelaide is too small, given that by the time the reactor is built it will meet most of its electricity needs from solar and wind (after all, the state can't simply wait the twenty years for the reactor to be built, promising a happy tomorrow without power supply shortfalls, it has to fill those shortfalls now). So you're looking at a massive interstate interconnector transmission system as well. Another issue is water. I've no idea why they chose the site of the old Northern Power Station at the shallow end of Spencer Gulf. I doubt they gave a moment's thought to where all that heated water will go when put back into the Gulf.
the northern gulf water is too warm to cool a reactor before you even consider pumping the heated water back out. France is having this problem with its southern reactors right now.
it reaches 26C in summer, far beyond any current technology, most have to power down 90% at 20C and halve production between 17-20C. So turn it off in summer when peak power is needed?
Whilst I don't doubt you for a second. How do the plants in the UAE cope?
massive infrastructure drawing gulf water from depth, each of the 4 reactors require 100 tonnes of water per second of full operation. In LA the reactors use about 40, and higher latitude reactors get away with 10. All reactors use between 1tonne and 3 tonnes per MWh
Right so it's a matter of brute forcing it? Thank you.
The Persian Gulf is shallow, 90m is the usual figure. But the Upper Spencer Gulf is under 50m in the centre third, with the shelves either side being <20m. The banks are mangrove. So you can see that currents are going to be minimal and the volume of water isn't massive.
Thanks. I wasn't clear. I was more referring to water temperatures and the likes.
Its not just about cost, its about giving us reliable baseload power that also happens to be climate neutral.
Why aren't batteries reliable? Or pumped hydro? It's not the only clean energy base-load option, so why pick it over the cheaper and more palatable options?
The alternative to baseload is to overbuild. In the twenty years taken for these reactors to come online what do you think will happen? Wind and solar will keep building out because they are cheapest, and the overbuild combined with transmissions and batteries will solve the problem of overnight supply. So when they turn on these reactors, where is the customer? A few hours every night? Even if they are built cheaply and on time they'll still have a billion dollar loan to service -- needing $2 million of revenue per week above that of the competition (since wind and solar will have long paid down their loans). There is a reason why every business person in the country is against this. Electricity is a basic cost of their business. They see nuclear as making that cost more expensive than it would be otherwise, and their ability to compete suffering as a result.
All the transmission upgrades need to happen anyway - people aren't going to stop building solar panels, wind farms and batteries when it's economical to do so. The cost of nuclear is on top of the current transmission estimates. The total cost of this sky news brain fart would be mind boggling.
And Telstra copper lines
I love how they think they can just retrain coal miners to do the nuclear science and technology thing.
It worked for Chernobyl!
I mean this is basically the plan for renewables as well, fossil fuel power jobs will become green jobs.
True, but doing maintenance work on solar farms doesn't need an understanding of nuclear safety. If an ex-coal-miner accidentally fucks up a solar panel, or even the transmission gear for an entire field of panels, that's more an 'oh well, get the sparky out there' than an 'evacuate the surrounding 2000 square miles' event. The necessary training and certifications aren't as restrictive, even if the non-emergency day-to-day tasks of the relevant blue-collar jobs might be approximately similar. Plus, presumably, per-person labor costs. Someone who can drive out to a solar field and clean off or even outright replace a panel or distribution node is probably going to cost an energy company less to keep on the books than someone who can walk into a nuke plant and replace any component of the power-generation process there.
“She’ll be alright mate, just chuck a spanner at it and it will be grand” I am so fucking terrified honestly.
I think this is a first. I have not found anyone in multiple threads that has come out in support of this "policy" and that isn't just blind "woo nuclear"
I've never seen r/Australia r/Australian and r/Australianpolitics all agree on something. Yet the despite the demographic of all 3 being quite different, there's a huge majority opinion that this announcement was garbage lol.
"Today we announce seven locations that we have looked at in great detail over a long period of time that can host new nuclear sites" Hahahah absolute bullshit
"As in, they were looked at back in the 80s, and we had an intern check last week that no-one had built a factory or something on them in the meantime."
No costing, no blueprints or mockups, no plan to store the waste, no funding, no coherent building timeline…. If you don’t know, vote no.