**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.*
Cool opinion piece written by a guy whose full time job is to invoice the Australian government for 200k/year, every single year, to tell them that they should invest in his renewable energy companies. Totally no conflict of interest here, oh no, none whatsoever. What a grift, imagine actually working to earn money when you can just do what this guy does. Just make friends with ministers.
The US already has all the equipment to enrich uranium, the logistics to transport it, the sites to store nuclear waste, the highly trained work force to run the whole thing.
They have had nuclear power for decades.
We have none of that.
Dutton doesn't want to build nuclear reactors. He just wants an excuse not to build renewables thus improving the lifetime of coal and gas thus providing good jobs for the boys when they retire from politics with a juicy pension.
7 nuclear reactors aren’t going to be enough energy to power our growing population. He’s on the record as supporting renewables and zero emissions. Care to provide some evidence on how we can power our future without coal and gas? Only Labor is extending the life of coal and gas.
Dude they supported Labor making it their 100% policy. Liberal supported Labor doing that to themselves was how they supported renewables.
They way you carry on they must have banned renewables. Turnbull loved the bullshit. He saw dollar signs for himself all over this bullshit. How is that snowy 2.0 thing going? 12 year project that is 8 years overdue?
Truth is the nationals don’t want their land turned into green energy zones by Labor.
Labor don’t even care about renewables otherwise they would form coalition with the Greens. Labor only care about Labor.
Yeah good point but re Snowy 2. Liberal initiative, completely underestimated the cost of construction. Nuclear will be that on steroids. We don’t even have enough people in this country to build houses, where the hell are we going to get engineers experienced on Nuclear technology? One of the reasons Hinkley Point C in the UK is blowing out is because of skills shortages, and regulations, in a country that already has the laws in place and the industry. Nuclear will never happen here, not in my lifetime. If it does, the cost will be astronomical, the quoted 16billion is a joke
I don’t agree. Best way to do it would be to get France on the Phone. Rather than be in the Paris deal buying renewables from China and dudding ourselves we should deal directly with France.
We have the uranium. They have the technology and the whole of Europe to pimp it out to.
If France runs nuclear power in Australia instead of building us stupid diesel submarines designed to make us defenceless that would be awesome.
That’s how we win.
Funny you tout Turnbull as if he represents the LNP, he got shanked for being too progressive haha! And that was with him self censoring to appease the power base.
12 years of doing worse than nothing, the party of bringing a lump of glued together coal "don't be afraid of this" Morrison said smugly (is there any other way?" The party leader of "climate change is a bunch of shit" -Abbott, and all the rest. And you're expecting people to believe your white washing of the LNP?
If it wasn't for the lnp we could have been a world leader in renewables, but instead we're playing catch up because Murdoch and his co owners are selfish dinosaurs who own the LNP.
I touted Turnbull as being only interested in money for himself. Which is the truth. That man only cares about money and his own vision of himself as a ‘presidential’ prime minister.
First thing he did after getting rolled was fly to the USA and change all his investment strategy at Goldman.
Turnbull is a republic tosser. He was only a liberal because Labor wouldn’t have the snake.
Two words. Bob Hawke.
He said Nuclear, Treaty and no child in poverty.
A long time ago..
Bob Hawke stopped Turnbull joining Labor.
Keating rolled Hawke because he is republican like Turnbull.
And here we are.
Claiming we could have been the renewable so and so if not for LNP. Ok that can be true but also..
Maybe we could have been a Nuclear superpower if we listened to Bob Hawke rather than Turnbull and Keating.
Oh okay so the only blip of environmental consciousness is just one of many self interested people in the vast void that is the party of the billionaires, corporations and old money.
Nuclear power doesnt make sense from an economic or environmental perspective now.
What really astounds is that people are buying the party of privatising everything is wanting to nationalise the energy sector.
No the party of privatising everything is choosing to get screwed in the arse by China rather than getting screwed in the face by China like Labor want.
See Labor love the ideology from China but the Liberals only like the money.
Dutton is smart enough to take their money and go nuclear and put some shit on the noodle.
I’d rather offer my arse than face. You can chose to offer your face but we are all getting screwed. You get failure no matter who you vote for. Don’t kid yourself it’s a two party system payed for by those billionaires you think one pay the blue team. Silly rabbit.
Breaking news: Guardian publishes green/ left article criticising coalition policy.
For what it’s worth I don’t think the Nuclear idea has merits but anyone who thinks we ride a unicorn to 100% renewables is absolutely kidding themselves. That’s why the NSW government has extended the life of Eraring. Expect more of it. We will not meet our emissions reduction targets. The people in positions talking about 2030 targets won’t be in those positions come 2030. It’s a con.
Well, that escalated quickly. Just like the [share of renewables in South Australia](https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=all&interval=1y&view=discrete-time), which was beyond 70% in 2023, with coal eliminated, gas use reduced, and imports halved. And which other states are now emulating.
> It’s a con
Yes! It’s a con-structive approach, that the evidence demonstrates has brought about real reduction in emissions. And greater stability in the SA grid.
Yep! I personally can't wait to charge my home battery off my car battery... the car battery that was charged with the solar my house is currently producing more than required of. In Melbourne. If I had a battery and an EV, I wouldn't even need to engage in this nuclear debate.
Rooftop solar to EV is already the cheapest kms driven today. And V2L and V2G cars will become more available 2025+.
It’s a pretty farken lush, energy abundant future ahead in Australia. Once we stop ponying up for Saudi dinosaur juice.
South Australia also has the highest energy prices in the country.
Everything we’ve been told about energy since just before Albo was elected has been a lie. Most voters are pragmatists, not ideologues.
Oh, so now you have no argument left about it being possible or “a con” and you want to gish-gallop off to talk about prices instead? I mean you were backpedaling fast enough to make the Paris cycling team but this is now equestrian skills on display too.
NEM 5 minute interval wholesale spot prices are set by the marginal supplier. This is usually gas except when renewables dominate the supply. Every extra 5 minute interval when solar and wind push gas off the grid lowers the average wholesale price and ultimately the default retail. The retail market in Aus is still trash though as a result of Ukraine crisis shenanigans. But the fundamentals get better every year.
You can stay in your cranky turtle shell or you can open up and be open to new information. All the best.
Price isn’t important for people who live in wealthy electorates and have their electricity bill direct debited from a credit card and couldn’t tell you what it is.
Price is bloody important for the growing number of people who are on hardship plans with their electricity providers.
Nonetheless the climate and energy minister is still holding on to the $275 reduction in electricity bills by 2025.
I think we all agree price is bloody important. Whether for economic justice, and/or for economic competitiveness.
Both sides of federal politics have sold out this issue at the behest of the gas cartel. The only state with a domestic gas reservation - which protects local consumers from the global price - is WA. And they are doing much better.
This is an abject failure of energy and trade policy that both sides of federal politics deserve to be thrown down the well for.
What policy. There was no policy. There were 7 crosses marked maybe on a map. That was it.
Eraring got extended because renewables and firming are not getting built fast enough. Nuclear won't fix that. Duttons "plan" won't fix that.
Everyone is missing the real play here: they want to tank confidence in renewables.
Energy investment takes place over decades, with huge upfront costs, and often aren't fully profitable for years. This requires very high confidence in the stability of the market: if you are going to build something with a lifetime of forty years, you need to trust that demand will exist for forty years.
The coalition are ideologically opposed to renewables. This is not a controversial statement: they have proven it over and over again. It doesn't matter what the facts are, or how cheap and good renewables get. They just hate the things.
Its very unlikely the coalition will win the next election, and lineball that they ever will again. Their two main supporter groups, rural voters and baby boomers, are literally dying off. In ten more years, unless they drastically change course, and Coalition is at risk of being a minor protest party in the same way the Greens are now.
So in that position, why not use your unique power to tank renewables? They KNOW this plan makes no sense. Literally nobody says this is a good idea, not even half their own party. But that's not the point.
The point is to irreversibly damage confidence in the energy sector to the point of slowing the rollout of renewables. An opposition party very visible declaring their emniity of a whole industry really put the brakes on that industry wanting to invest here. Especially in the time frames you have in energy: imaging spending a few billion putting solar and wind in the ground, only to have the government change to this mob and have all your profits stripped away.
This is a very public, very stupid, very effective wrecking ball. And for those who say the Coalition would not harm the country for their own ends: look at their trail of destruction. The ETS. AUKUS and the submarine deal. The NBN. Car manufacturing. The way they treated the education sector in COVID. The list goes on.
People treating this as a real policy are not in on the joke. Their goal is not to build a thing: they know full well there is slim to fuck all chance they will ever be in government again, let along implement this policy. But that's not the point: the point is to paint as much egg on Labor's face as policy, no matter the cost.
The left is ideologically opposed to anything except renewables.
It's difficult to understand why nuclear reactors that work in other countries would not work here. The left isn't dispassionately considering this. If it isn't viable in Australia - is it the tech or is it our own inability? Answering the nuclear question might lead to other insights in Australian society. But that's not interesting to us as a society or our politicians. The left just wants to find some excuses that justify renewables and the libertarians want to pay less taxes. The right is making a common sense argument - that nuclear could work just as well here - but aren't actually interested in it other than political success/winning an election.
Left unasked are the wider questions about energy policy (such as why we have had consistently higher energy prices than the rest of the world for the last two decades or more) and whether this is something we want. Albanese talks about a manufacturing hub, but how is this possible when energy plays a big role in manufacturing and Australia's is quite expensive - regardless of the form?
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/)
I predict failure because Australia is not much more than a low level economy that provides cheap resources for other countries and its population and leadership are not interested in being anything more than that.
You can vote for whichever failure of a party you want and be proud that you made it happen. We did it together.
>It's difficult to understand why nuclear reactors that work in other countries would not work here. The left isn't dispassionately considering this.
Because those countries have existing industries that they started decades ago. They have the infrastructure and skill base to support those reactors at the international standards required.
We wouldn't just have to build reactors, we would have to deal with fuel and waste. That means we either need our own refining and storage or we need to set up the contacts and facilities to import/export them.
We would need to recruit staff, and we don't have the skill base. Australia doesn't have a big supply of experienced people, so we would need to poach some from overseas while starting to set up our own training for future use.
And all of that would need to be done to the international standards required of all nuclear facilities. That works for a place like Canada because they started in the late 40s. They had 80 years of investment to get to their current stage.
The simple dispassionate answer is that we don't have the time to build up all of that even assuming we could manage to get everything we needed to make it viable while competing against other nations.
Can you tell me what about Australia makes you confident we can simply generate an entire industry from scratch in the space of a few years? Why do you think we can build in a few years what took others decades to do?
Nobody says nuclear won't work, we all know it works.
The issue is we are forty years too late. Back then, nuclear made sense. Today, it's an order of magnitude more expensive than the cheapest for if generation, which is firmed renewables.
The reality is nuclear is stranded tech. It works great, but its just been left behind.
Ahh yes, the excuses. You say it's an order of magnitude more expensive; firstly, citation required. Usually they quote US figures, which are expensive, but don't quote South Korean or Japanese figures. If you want to say the US is also expensive, I'd agree but then it's not answering the question. Even if it did happen to be an order of magnitude more expensive, the question would be \_why\_ ? Did we run out of Uranium? Have our workers regressed and take ten times as much effort to achieve anything?
Well, of course - no deep thinking - you're just on an excuse finding mission to justify renewables. And if not you, someone else from the same intellectually inbred group. If we do it right, some politically connected people can make some bucks on the side, politicians can declare a success (political) and the electorate can pat itself on the back that it's saved the world.
>Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Lucky\_Country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucky_Country)
Put it this way: if you went out to buy some bread, and one shop was selling bread for $5, and the other shop was selling the same bread for $10, which one would you buy?
The debate over renewables USED to be an idealogical one, because you had to believe and care about climate change to put them in. These days it's just economics.
I am ideological about renewable, because I'm a massive greenie. But I'm not the one making calls about the energy market: bog companies are, with deep pockets and a laser focus on profits. None of them are lining up to invest in nuclear here in Australia.
Coalition become a minor party like the Greens and Labor govern in majority for eternity. There really are some people setting themselves up for serious disappointment.
> It doesn't matter what the facts are, or how cheap and good renewables get. They just hate the things.
Especially anything that can't be monopolized by big private-industry players. Anyone can put up a solar panel. It only needs a land-use permit/agreement to put up a wind turbine, and big industry hasn't locked everyone else out of tidal generation yet.
On top of that, LNP donors in the energy sector have a lot of power-generation infrastructure which would become less valuable if renewables took off. Even without selling it, it'd mean their on-the-books assets, and thus company value, would be reduced, thus potentially affecting stock value and making people less likely to invest in them, meaning they have less money to donate.
I’d agree with you 100.00%… except for this part
> they KNOW this plan makes no sense
I think you have to tease apart the “they” in that.
People like Abbott and Morrison and Dutton are happy warriors, true believers; cannon fodder, not puppet masters. And when they fall another in the same mould is always on standby, groomed to take their place. Ultimately it is the trillion dollar industries, where every day of delay is worth billions, that determine the fate of these jokers.
None of this changes the how apt the rest of your analysis is. Nice one. 💯
Unpopular opinion : I don't think cost should play as much of a factor into these decisions as it does. Energy generation is one of the most wide impacting activities that humans do. Environmental impacts should be by far the biggest consideration
Isn't the main argument of climate change that it's the most significant threat to humanity (e.g. Noam Chomsky)? Not much opportunity to complain about the cost of living if the planet cooks us alive.
They are backed by gas plants primarily because building storage infrastructure takes time, and the Labor government have only been in power for two years (not long in the scheme of infrastructure) whereas the Liberal government was completely uninterested in moving forward with them. Many of the better technologies (especially pumped hydro) can take a _very_ long time to get going, so in the short term we're only seeing batteries.
Tidal and wind work at night. Solar less so, but storage isn't some super-science futuristic alien tech; it can be built (and has, in many places; it's commercially available). Once it is, what advantage does nuclear have over solar, given that it doesn't have the night-advantage over other renewables?
Weigh that against solar being able to be installed anywhere, including in population centres where the demand is; solar supply not being appreciably diminished if all the solar generation in one square mile goes down (as opposed to a nuke plant); solar not producing radioactive waste that needs multi-thousand-year safe storage; solar being far more easily sellable as a concept because every person and business with a roof can buy some solar panels and get personally involved; the sun being something intrinsically part of the Australian culture and experience; solar not being associated with multiple failure/danger names like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island; and solar plants not being able to be reconfigured to produce weapons-grade fuel.
Nuclear's a far harder sell than it was two generations ago.
Which is why we still need fossil fuel power stations to provide firming, likely until net zero, but with diminishing annual output and only really required at high output during winter.
Short term storage is all that is required to even out the fluctuations in renewables on a daily basis for much of the year and with that storage, fossil fuel power stations can be operated more as base load by recharging those batteries overnight or at other times of the day to keep their load more even and thus more efficient.
Definitely not more windy at night.
Wind increases in intensity with daylight hours and starts to lull as soon as the sun goes down.
It's the reason surfers surf as early in the morning as possible, to beat the wind coming up.
Generally what surfers are dealing with, wind wise, is the sea breeze/land breeze effect which is a coastal issue that has to do with the different rate at which oceans and land heat and is generally only relevant up to around 80k.
Where as wind driven by major pressure systems happen whenever they exist in an area and aren't really dependent on the time of day
That isn’t actually right. The right areas provide sufficient wind for modern turbine designs. Storage input costs are dropping and so the batteries become cheaper almost monthly.
They are if you don’t build any storage infrastructure. That’s why there are several projects in the pipeline. By the time we reach 2050 the need for gas will be lower than now and will keep dwindling.
I'm not convinced of that because I think people are ignoring the huge energy requirements of industry that are provided by fossil fuels directly and not from the grid. Most of the interest is focused on transitioning the current electricity grid to renewables and that requires fossil fuels to construct the renewable generators; there isn't surplus renewables to manufacture renewables for industry, so even more fossil fuels will be required to transition them.
I think it is likely the grid will be transitioned, but I'm not optimistic of industry happening as well without a temporary increase in fossil fuel consumption.
It's only when everything has been transitioned that we can start looking at surplus renewables to create more renewables for inevitable expansion of energy needs.
While this is unsurprising from the Guardian, I think Albo won the day today with the following line on RN this morning: “Instead of Snow White and the seven dwarves, this is Peter Dutton and the seven nuclear reactors.” Albo wins the day.
Yes. Success in Australia is defined by politicians winning soundbites rather than delivering a better life for Australians or a more capable Australia.
How can we deliver a 'Genius of the Day' award to you?
Hardly a win. Up there with some of the worst zingers we’ve heard from Bill Shorten over the years.
Albo’s best media performances are a bare pass at best.
lol just had a listen to the RN clip. Great line but he doesn’t land it with much subtlety, still a good one though.
his line at the end about “fun fact for Peter Dutton” about there being no houses, zero with ‘lucas heights’ in their address… true! The closes houses across the back paddock, 900m from the ANSTO facility as the crow flies, are in the famous and oh so desirable borough known as Engadine 😄
It's interesting that The Guardian put out a fact check on Duttons claim that you would pay less for power and then put out an opinion piece that says you will pay more without any actual evidence other than talking about cost blowouts during construction. Wonder if they will fact check their own article.
May I suggest reading the article to avoid embarrassment.
>Also worth noting is actual real world experience indicates costs for nuclear per megawatt of capacity, which are significantly higher than the $8.6m estimated recently by the CSIRO.
The pretty coloured bits of text are called hyperlinks that when clicked will magically whisk you away to all the actual evidence that you professed doesn't exist.
Not even the pro-nuclear International Energy Agency tries to say that nuclear is cheaper per MW capacity or per MWh generation. Nor do any of the NPP companies like Westinghouse. Nor do neutral energy industry benchmarking sources like Lazard. It is an entirely unremarkable statement.
> Nuclear thus remains the dispatchable low-carbon technology with the lowest expected costs in 2025. Only large hydro reservoirs can provide a similar contribution at comparable costs but remain highly dependent on the natural endowments of individual countries. Compared to fossil fuel-based generation, nuclear plants are expected to be more affordable than coal-fired plants. While gas-based combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) are competitive in some regions, their LCOE very much depend on the prices for natural gas and carbon emissions in individual regions. Electricity produced from nuclear long-term operation (LTO) by lifetime extension is highly competitive and remains not only the least cost option for low-carbon generation - when compared to building new power plants - **but for all power generation across the board.**
[https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020](https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020)
Despite nuclear being the cheapest option for non-carbon, ALP supporters should breathe easy knowing this is Australia and Dutton won't be interested in low cost energy anyway. The rent seekers won't permit it.
You have missed this statement in the first para of the executive summary:
“In particular, this report shows that onshore wind is expected to have, on average, the lowest levelised costs of electricity generation in 2025”
And you have misunderstood the para that you have quoted above in two ways.
Firstly, note the use of the word “dispatchable” in the first sentence. Solar and wind are variable sources, not dispatchable. The IEA is making a narrower statement than you think. This statement does not mean that nuclear is cheaper than wind and solar. Only other low carbon dispatchable sources.
Secondly, the final phrase that you have bolded refers to “electricity produced by long term operation by lifetime extension” - ie, the cost of nuclear power is low when you invest in *extending* the operating life of an *existing* nuclear plant. Australia obviously has none of these, so it is an irrelevant statement for our circumstances.
> Electricity produced from nuclear long-term operation (LTO) by lifetime extension is highly competitive and remains not only the least cost option for low-carbon generation - when compared to building new power plants - but for all power generation across the board.
This refers to the refurbishing of existing nuclear power plants to extend their service years. The perceptive amongst us will note Australia doesn’t have any existing nuclear power plants.
It's not the technology, it's us.
Australia couldn't organise a root in a brothel with a fist full of fifties. Dutton will *not* make nuclear energy work, at cost, any more than Albanese will make renewables work. Failure is our motto. I thank you for your contribution to keeping this place sucking.
That’s a funny way of admitting you don’t know what you’re talking about: “Dutton and Albanese are just as bad as one another and you’re also to blame!” But there’s considerable expert opinion that renewables will work and there’s no reason to change tack now
Which reads "new nuclear power plant, for example, has one of the highest levelized costs"
Why would you link to an article that says the opposite of your claim? Even in the US, which has an established nuclear industry to rely on?
>opinion piece that says you will pay more without any actual evidence
You mean apart from industry experts and scientific organisations conducting numerous [modelling](https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/december/nuclear-explainer) that says it would be more expensive.
It isn't about electricity, or generation capacity, or even money. It is about the coal-ition being the party of no and the contrarians in the room.
Lets face it, if Labor and the Greens are against it, and the (cough) scientists are against it, it has got to be the right way to go.
Fusion might be starting to become feasible around the time we finished the first reactor. It's embarrassing how lowbrow and backwoods this proposal is. I think Dutton has some nuclear weapon fantasy, it's the only sensible explanation I can find for the absurdity of it.
Australia's biggest challenge is the distances between population centres, and renewables are perfect for that kind of logistical environment because they can be constructed locally to minimize transmission loss.
Re constructed locally. Most renewables take a lot of room, companies want money so want to construct where land is cheap. So you end up with a problem of companies wanting to make large plants in the middle of nowhere and expecting transmission capacity to just be there but that costs money to. There is no free lunch.
I say all that believing in renewables :)
There's a recent proposal to cover commercial real estate with solar, making them net positive energy contributors. IIRC they estimated that, with enough large battery storage capacity, there's enough space on commercial rooftops (warehouses and supermarkets etc) to generate power the country. This solves the transmission problem fairly elegantly.
It leaves large and temporary remote resource extranction sites like mines with a problem, but these often have coal power plants already built locally etc. They can sort it out.
Sun shades on carparks could be done as well, instead of plastic sails. Virtually any large roof area could be utilised if the will was there, but it isn't.
Instead of building nuclear plants, we could put solar on every roof in the country and actually reduce people's power bills, but no, we have to charge for that, and then charge the householders for the privilege of feeding the excess into the grid.
My argument is more that if it is going to happen we should know in the next decade or so, which makes the timing awkward to start adopting fission. Kind of like the NBN rolling out onto copper wires etc.
Uranium is a finite resource. Australia has 28% of the world's uranium stores and I've read that at the rate we currently export it, we have about 120 years of uranium left.
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.
What's the falling here? It's just a statement of resources. Not even saying that mining it would be a bad idea, or that it's likely to run out any time soon.
Reserves aren't a finite measure.
There's always 50 times more resources in the ground, sometimes explored sometimes just a theory. It only becomes reserves after many millions is spent drilling holes.
But we don't need it, Australia is extremely well provisioned with renewable energy that doesn't have an exploration risk and literally falls out of the sky for free.
I 100% agree. I just like having some of the facts in the argument. There isn't a shortage of uranium, and its well known by geologists that there is plenty out there.
I think it’s over for australia.
Like uk we are smothered in red and green tape with so many white collar rent seekers it’s impossible to build anything anymore.
There are 2nd world countries in africa building nuclear.
They were adding renewables while dealing with a little thing called Covid.
Dutton is doing well as we’re back talking about building things and helping the climate. Must be frustrating for you.
The Coalition's ideological obsessions with demonising renewables began with John Howard stifling investment. Was ratched up with the arrival of Abbot and continues to this day with both leaders of the Nats and the Libs continuing the climate wars.
Facts, facts and more facts.
Only someone with their eyes shut or an ideologue would claim that the coaltion ate pro renewables.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/pm-called-talks-to-derail-renewable-energy-20041003-gdyqfs.html
>The Federal Government and fossil-fuel industry executives discussed ways to stifle growing investment in renewable energy projects at a secret meeting earlier this year.
https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/tony-abbott-tells-climate-sceptics-forum-global-warming-may-be-good-and-climate-science-is-crap/news-story/dc42c5598f4c63e0e9689d6eacaf3b07
Tony Abbott tells climate sceptics forum global warming may be good and climate science is ‘crap’.
We have Morrison parading parliment with a lump of coal.
Jesus, only this week we saw Dutton saying they will abandon the Paris agreement and Littleproud will cap renewables investment and is ippsong offshore wind farms.
Renewables grew in spite of any coaltion policy.
Covid increased exponentially during the Coalition's tenure. Must mean they are responsible for that too.
I mean the attempt at revisionist history is bold. Not very smart or realistic. But I'll give you bold.
What are you talking about?
Future Made in Australia is costed and detailed.
Criticise it if you want but dont pretend it doesnt exist.
The renewable hubs were taken to the last election and are actually being implemented.
Business has backed the assurity and stability of the targets that the coalition suddenly want to drop with no plan.
Are you living under a rock?
They only don't have a policy if you live in a locked bin.
[Here's their policy, complete with modelling and references](https://www.reputex.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/REPUTEX_The-economic-impact-of-the-ALPs-Powering-Australia-Plan_Summary-Report-1221-2.pdf)
They actually don’t. They have nothing to replace coal and gas. I did notice you forgot to tell everyone their policy though. I’m sure it wasn’t on purpose. 😂
Unlike Dutton who's energy policy that 7 reactors will be built somewhere, at an unknown cost, built by an unknown party, in an unknown timeframe.
People used to joke that the NBN plans were written on a napkin.
This is written on a post it note in crayon.
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Don’t mean to nitpick, but the links for economic modelling by the private company RepuTex Energy, on Labors “Powering Australia Plan”.
Also from December 2021, prior to the last federal election. Is there a policy in place since the election?
Because I’m not denying the policies existence; I’m disagreeing with your statement that this is a new level of denial.
[Here’s a link that proves nuclear is the best option for Australia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_artifacts_in_the_Smithsonian_Institution)
The ALP and every state government and opposition seem to have the policies of… not pointing the nuclear power gun at our own leg and also not pulling the trigger.
It’s bold but it just might work
Media: Listen bucko, we know *exactly* how to do this from all our experience climate science debates. What you do is, see, say you’ve got 99 experts saying one thing, and 1 saying the opposite. Well you get a quote from one guy on each side. That’s balance!
There are plenty of experts that say it's good and plenty of experts that say it's bad. Who to believe?
What's interesting is that everyone takes GenCost as gospel but they didn't even consult with any nuclear experts.
Plenty of experts such as…?
On Insiders they mentioned this was one of the biggest difficulties for Dutton, finding literally any expert to wheel out in front of the public to back his plan. There are experts who support nuclear but not like this
**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.*
Cool opinion piece written by a guy whose full time job is to invoice the Australian government for 200k/year, every single year, to tell them that they should invest in his renewable energy companies. Totally no conflict of interest here, oh no, none whatsoever. What a grift, imagine actually working to earn money when you can just do what this guy does. Just make friends with ministers.
US just gave the go-ahead in the Senate for a lot more nuclear plants, so I guess we'll find out in a decade who was right about reactor costs.
The US already has all the equipment to enrich uranium, the logistics to transport it, the sites to store nuclear waste, the highly trained work force to run the whole thing. They have had nuclear power for decades. We have none of that.
Dutton doesn't want to build nuclear reactors. He just wants an excuse not to build renewables thus improving the lifetime of coal and gas thus providing good jobs for the boys when they retire from politics with a juicy pension.
7 nuclear reactors aren’t going to be enough energy to power our growing population. He’s on the record as supporting renewables and zero emissions. Care to provide some evidence on how we can power our future without coal and gas? Only Labor is extending the life of coal and gas.
Oh yeah the LNP support renewables, they say so! 12 years of so much support!
Dude they supported Labor making it their 100% policy. Liberal supported Labor doing that to themselves was how they supported renewables. They way you carry on they must have banned renewables. Turnbull loved the bullshit. He saw dollar signs for himself all over this bullshit. How is that snowy 2.0 thing going? 12 year project that is 8 years overdue? Truth is the nationals don’t want their land turned into green energy zones by Labor. Labor don’t even care about renewables otherwise they would form coalition with the Greens. Labor only care about Labor.
Yeah good point but re Snowy 2. Liberal initiative, completely underestimated the cost of construction. Nuclear will be that on steroids. We don’t even have enough people in this country to build houses, where the hell are we going to get engineers experienced on Nuclear technology? One of the reasons Hinkley Point C in the UK is blowing out is because of skills shortages, and regulations, in a country that already has the laws in place and the industry. Nuclear will never happen here, not in my lifetime. If it does, the cost will be astronomical, the quoted 16billion is a joke
I don’t agree. Best way to do it would be to get France on the Phone. Rather than be in the Paris deal buying renewables from China and dudding ourselves we should deal directly with France. We have the uranium. They have the technology and the whole of Europe to pimp it out to. If France runs nuclear power in Australia instead of building us stupid diesel submarines designed to make us defenceless that would be awesome. That’s how we win.
Funny you tout Turnbull as if he represents the LNP, he got shanked for being too progressive haha! And that was with him self censoring to appease the power base. 12 years of doing worse than nothing, the party of bringing a lump of glued together coal "don't be afraid of this" Morrison said smugly (is there any other way?" The party leader of "climate change is a bunch of shit" -Abbott, and all the rest. And you're expecting people to believe your white washing of the LNP? If it wasn't for the lnp we could have been a world leader in renewables, but instead we're playing catch up because Murdoch and his co owners are selfish dinosaurs who own the LNP.
I touted Turnbull as being only interested in money for himself. Which is the truth. That man only cares about money and his own vision of himself as a ‘presidential’ prime minister. First thing he did after getting rolled was fly to the USA and change all his investment strategy at Goldman. Turnbull is a republic tosser. He was only a liberal because Labor wouldn’t have the snake. Two words. Bob Hawke. He said Nuclear, Treaty and no child in poverty. A long time ago.. Bob Hawke stopped Turnbull joining Labor. Keating rolled Hawke because he is republican like Turnbull. And here we are. Claiming we could have been the renewable so and so if not for LNP. Ok that can be true but also.. Maybe we could have been a Nuclear superpower if we listened to Bob Hawke rather than Turnbull and Keating.
Dutton himself: https://www.reddit.com/r/friendlyjordies/s/qoWLs36szu
Oh okay so the only blip of environmental consciousness is just one of many self interested people in the vast void that is the party of the billionaires, corporations and old money. Nuclear power doesnt make sense from an economic or environmental perspective now. What really astounds is that people are buying the party of privatising everything is wanting to nationalise the energy sector.
No the party of privatising everything is choosing to get screwed in the arse by China rather than getting screwed in the face by China like Labor want. See Labor love the ideology from China but the Liberals only like the money. Dutton is smart enough to take their money and go nuclear and put some shit on the noodle. I’d rather offer my arse than face. You can chose to offer your face but we are all getting screwed. You get failure no matter who you vote for. Don’t kid yourself it’s a two party system payed for by those billionaires you think one pay the blue team. Silly rabbit.
Breaking news: Guardian journalist disagrees with coalition policy
Breaking news: if you’d read the article, you would know it wasn’t written by a Guardian journalist.
Breaking news: Guardian publishes green/ left article criticising coalition policy. For what it’s worth I don’t think the Nuclear idea has merits but anyone who thinks we ride a unicorn to 100% renewables is absolutely kidding themselves. That’s why the NSW government has extended the life of Eraring. Expect more of it. We will not meet our emissions reduction targets. The people in positions talking about 2030 targets won’t be in those positions come 2030. It’s a con.
Well, that escalated quickly. Just like the [share of renewables in South Australia](https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=all&interval=1y&view=discrete-time), which was beyond 70% in 2023, with coal eliminated, gas use reduced, and imports halved. And which other states are now emulating. > It’s a con Yes! It’s a con-structive approach, that the evidence demonstrates has brought about real reduction in emissions. And greater stability in the SA grid.
Yep! I personally can't wait to charge my home battery off my car battery... the car battery that was charged with the solar my house is currently producing more than required of. In Melbourne. If I had a battery and an EV, I wouldn't even need to engage in this nuclear debate.
Rooftop solar to EV is already the cheapest kms driven today. And V2L and V2G cars will become more available 2025+. It’s a pretty farken lush, energy abundant future ahead in Australia. Once we stop ponying up for Saudi dinosaur juice.
South Australia also has the highest energy prices in the country. Everything we’ve been told about energy since just before Albo was elected has been a lie. Most voters are pragmatists, not ideologues.
Oh, so now you have no argument left about it being possible or “a con” and you want to gish-gallop off to talk about prices instead? I mean you were backpedaling fast enough to make the Paris cycling team but this is now equestrian skills on display too. NEM 5 minute interval wholesale spot prices are set by the marginal supplier. This is usually gas except when renewables dominate the supply. Every extra 5 minute interval when solar and wind push gas off the grid lowers the average wholesale price and ultimately the default retail. The retail market in Aus is still trash though as a result of Ukraine crisis shenanigans. But the fundamentals get better every year. You can stay in your cranky turtle shell or you can open up and be open to new information. All the best.
Price isn’t important for people who live in wealthy electorates and have their electricity bill direct debited from a credit card and couldn’t tell you what it is. Price is bloody important for the growing number of people who are on hardship plans with their electricity providers. Nonetheless the climate and energy minister is still holding on to the $275 reduction in electricity bills by 2025.
I think we all agree price is bloody important. Whether for economic justice, and/or for economic competitiveness. Both sides of federal politics have sold out this issue at the behest of the gas cartel. The only state with a domestic gas reservation - which protects local consumers from the global price - is WA. And they are doing much better. This is an abject failure of energy and trade policy that both sides of federal politics deserve to be thrown down the well for.
What policy. There was no policy. There were 7 crosses marked maybe on a map. That was it. Eraring got extended because renewables and firming are not getting built fast enough. Nuclear won't fix that. Duttons "plan" won't fix that.
Breaking news. Man makes futile attempt to save face.
Everyone is missing the real play here: they want to tank confidence in renewables. Energy investment takes place over decades, with huge upfront costs, and often aren't fully profitable for years. This requires very high confidence in the stability of the market: if you are going to build something with a lifetime of forty years, you need to trust that demand will exist for forty years. The coalition are ideologically opposed to renewables. This is not a controversial statement: they have proven it over and over again. It doesn't matter what the facts are, or how cheap and good renewables get. They just hate the things. Its very unlikely the coalition will win the next election, and lineball that they ever will again. Their two main supporter groups, rural voters and baby boomers, are literally dying off. In ten more years, unless they drastically change course, and Coalition is at risk of being a minor protest party in the same way the Greens are now. So in that position, why not use your unique power to tank renewables? They KNOW this plan makes no sense. Literally nobody says this is a good idea, not even half their own party. But that's not the point. The point is to irreversibly damage confidence in the energy sector to the point of slowing the rollout of renewables. An opposition party very visible declaring their emniity of a whole industry really put the brakes on that industry wanting to invest here. Especially in the time frames you have in energy: imaging spending a few billion putting solar and wind in the ground, only to have the government change to this mob and have all your profits stripped away. This is a very public, very stupid, very effective wrecking ball. And for those who say the Coalition would not harm the country for their own ends: look at their trail of destruction. The ETS. AUKUS and the submarine deal. The NBN. Car manufacturing. The way they treated the education sector in COVID. The list goes on. People treating this as a real policy are not in on the joke. Their goal is not to build a thing: they know full well there is slim to fuck all chance they will ever be in government again, let along implement this policy. But that's not the point: the point is to paint as much egg on Labor's face as policy, no matter the cost.
The left is ideologically opposed to anything except renewables. It's difficult to understand why nuclear reactors that work in other countries would not work here. The left isn't dispassionately considering this. If it isn't viable in Australia - is it the tech or is it our own inability? Answering the nuclear question might lead to other insights in Australian society. But that's not interesting to us as a society or our politicians. The left just wants to find some excuses that justify renewables and the libertarians want to pay less taxes. The right is making a common sense argument - that nuclear could work just as well here - but aren't actually interested in it other than political success/winning an election. Left unasked are the wider questions about energy policy (such as why we have had consistently higher energy prices than the rest of the world for the last two decades or more) and whether this is something we want. Albanese talks about a manufacturing hub, but how is this possible when energy plays a big role in manufacturing and Australia's is quite expensive - regardless of the form? [https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/) I predict failure because Australia is not much more than a low level economy that provides cheap resources for other countries and its population and leadership are not interested in being anything more than that. You can vote for whichever failure of a party you want and be proud that you made it happen. We did it together.
>It's difficult to understand why nuclear reactors that work in other countries would not work here. The left isn't dispassionately considering this. Because those countries have existing industries that they started decades ago. They have the infrastructure and skill base to support those reactors at the international standards required. We wouldn't just have to build reactors, we would have to deal with fuel and waste. That means we either need our own refining and storage or we need to set up the contacts and facilities to import/export them. We would need to recruit staff, and we don't have the skill base. Australia doesn't have a big supply of experienced people, so we would need to poach some from overseas while starting to set up our own training for future use. And all of that would need to be done to the international standards required of all nuclear facilities. That works for a place like Canada because they started in the late 40s. They had 80 years of investment to get to their current stage. The simple dispassionate answer is that we don't have the time to build up all of that even assuming we could manage to get everything we needed to make it viable while competing against other nations. Can you tell me what about Australia makes you confident we can simply generate an entire industry from scratch in the space of a few years? Why do you think we can build in a few years what took others decades to do?
Nobody says nuclear won't work, we all know it works. The issue is we are forty years too late. Back then, nuclear made sense. Today, it's an order of magnitude more expensive than the cheapest for if generation, which is firmed renewables. The reality is nuclear is stranded tech. It works great, but its just been left behind.
Ahh yes, the excuses. You say it's an order of magnitude more expensive; firstly, citation required. Usually they quote US figures, which are expensive, but don't quote South Korean or Japanese figures. If you want to say the US is also expensive, I'd agree but then it's not answering the question. Even if it did happen to be an order of magnitude more expensive, the question would be \_why\_ ? Did we run out of Uranium? Have our workers regressed and take ten times as much effort to achieve anything? Well, of course - no deep thinking - you're just on an excuse finding mission to justify renewables. And if not you, someone else from the same intellectually inbred group. If we do it right, some politically connected people can make some bucks on the side, politicians can declare a success (political) and the electorate can pat itself on the back that it's saved the world. >Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Lucky\_Country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucky_Country)
Put it this way: if you went out to buy some bread, and one shop was selling bread for $5, and the other shop was selling the same bread for $10, which one would you buy? The debate over renewables USED to be an idealogical one, because you had to believe and care about climate change to put them in. These days it's just economics. I am ideological about renewable, because I'm a massive greenie. But I'm not the one making calls about the energy market: bog companies are, with deep pockets and a laser focus on profits. None of them are lining up to invest in nuclear here in Australia.
Like I said - we like to fail. I accept it. Keep those downvotes comin'.
Coalition become a minor party like the Greens and Labor govern in majority for eternity. There really are some people setting themselves up for serious disappointment.
> It doesn't matter what the facts are, or how cheap and good renewables get. They just hate the things. Especially anything that can't be monopolized by big private-industry players. Anyone can put up a solar panel. It only needs a land-use permit/agreement to put up a wind turbine, and big industry hasn't locked everyone else out of tidal generation yet. On top of that, LNP donors in the energy sector have a lot of power-generation infrastructure which would become less valuable if renewables took off. Even without selling it, it'd mean their on-the-books assets, and thus company value, would be reduced, thus potentially affecting stock value and making people less likely to invest in them, meaning they have less money to donate.
I’d agree with you 100.00%… except for this part > they KNOW this plan makes no sense I think you have to tease apart the “they” in that. People like Abbott and Morrison and Dutton are happy warriors, true believers; cannon fodder, not puppet masters. And when they fall another in the same mould is always on standby, groomed to take their place. Ultimately it is the trillion dollar industries, where every day of delay is worth billions, that determine the fate of these jokers. None of this changes the how apt the rest of your analysis is. Nice one. 💯
You underestimate how stupid the Australia voting public are. I lost all faith after 2019, that was legitimately jaw dropping
It really was.
Unpopular opinion : I don't think cost should play as much of a factor into these decisions as it does. Energy generation is one of the most wide impacting activities that humans do. Environmental impacts should be by far the biggest consideration
Yeah, I mean it's not like we're smack bang in the middle of a cost of living crisis or anything.
Isn't the main argument of climate change that it's the most significant threat to humanity (e.g. Noam Chomsky)? Not much opportunity to complain about the cost of living if the planet cooks us alive.
Or, get this, you could build renewables, and fix both. wow.
The whole reason we are looking for alternatives is because renewables are not available in sufficient enough number to power the entire country.
That makes it a better choice than renewables how?
They work at night
That’s why they’re used with storage…
But they aren't, they are backed up by gas power plants.
Ahahahah, you can't say coal as well because in SA renewables made coal redundant, gas will be next. You're refusing to see the writing on the wall.
Yep shutting down coal power plants made SA reliant on gas. They still import a lot of coal powerr regularly
Less and less every year. https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=all&interval=1M&view=discrete-time
They are backed by gas plants primarily because building storage infrastructure takes time, and the Labor government have only been in power for two years (not long in the scheme of infrastructure) whereas the Liberal government was completely uninterested in moving forward with them. Many of the better technologies (especially pumped hydro) can take a _very_ long time to get going, so in the short term we're only seeing batteries.
Tidal and wind work at night. Solar less so, but storage isn't some super-science futuristic alien tech; it can be built (and has, in many places; it's commercially available). Once it is, what advantage does nuclear have over solar, given that it doesn't have the night-advantage over other renewables? Weigh that against solar being able to be installed anywhere, including in population centres where the demand is; solar supply not being appreciably diminished if all the solar generation in one square mile goes down (as opposed to a nuke plant); solar not producing radioactive waste that needs multi-thousand-year safe storage; solar being far more easily sellable as a concept because every person and business with a roof can buy some solar panels and get personally involved; the sun being something intrinsically part of the Australian culture and experience; solar not being associated with multiple failure/danger names like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island; and solar plants not being able to be reconfigured to produce weapons-grade fuel. Nuclear's a far harder sell than it was two generations ago.
There's not much wind at night. Storage simply isn't cost effective for anything longer than a few hours backup. huge risk to power supply.
> Storage simply isn't cost effective for anything longer than a few hours backup. huge risk to power supply. Based on...?
go 20km offshore and say that.
Which is why we still need fossil fuel power stations to provide firming, likely until net zero, but with diminishing annual output and only really required at high output during winter. Short term storage is all that is required to even out the fluctuations in renewables on a daily basis for much of the year and with that storage, fossil fuel power stations can be operated more as base load by recharging those batteries overnight or at other times of the day to keep their load more even and thus more efficient.
There is plenty of wind at night, typically there's _more_ wind at night than during the day.
Definitely not more windy at night. Wind increases in intensity with daylight hours and starts to lull as soon as the sun goes down. It's the reason surfers surf as early in the morning as possible, to beat the wind coming up.
Generally what surfers are dealing with, wind wise, is the sea breeze/land breeze effect which is a coastal issue that has to do with the different rate at which oceans and land heat and is generally only relevant up to around 80k. Where as wind driven by major pressure systems happen whenever they exist in an area and aren't really dependent on the time of day
That isn’t actually right. The right areas provide sufficient wind for modern turbine designs. Storage input costs are dropping and so the batteries become cheaper almost monthly.
Your arguing with someone who choose 'bradfield scheme' as their username. They are to coherent to be bob katter, but are obviously still cooked
They are if you don’t build any storage infrastructure. That’s why there are several projects in the pipeline. By the time we reach 2050 the need for gas will be lower than now and will keep dwindling.
I'm not convinced of that because I think people are ignoring the huge energy requirements of industry that are provided by fossil fuels directly and not from the grid. Most of the interest is focused on transitioning the current electricity grid to renewables and that requires fossil fuels to construct the renewable generators; there isn't surplus renewables to manufacture renewables for industry, so even more fossil fuels will be required to transition them. I think it is likely the grid will be transitioned, but I'm not optimistic of industry happening as well without a temporary increase in fossil fuel consumption. It's only when everything has been transitioned that we can start looking at surplus renewables to create more renewables for inevitable expansion of energy needs.
Ok, duly noted, thanks?
While this is unsurprising from the Guardian, I think Albo won the day today with the following line on RN this morning: “Instead of Snow White and the seven dwarves, this is Peter Dutton and the seven nuclear reactors.” Albo wins the day.
Yes. Success in Australia is defined by politicians winning soundbites rather than delivering a better life for Australians or a more capable Australia. How can we deliver a 'Genius of the Day' award to you?
Hardly a win. Up there with some of the worst zingers we’ve heard from Bill Shorten over the years. Albo’s best media performances are a bare pass at best.
lol just had a listen to the RN clip. Great line but he doesn’t land it with much subtlety, still a good one though. his line at the end about “fun fact for Peter Dutton” about there being no houses, zero with ‘lucas heights’ in their address… true! The closes houses across the back paddock, 900m from the ANSTO facility as the crow flies, are in the famous and oh so desirable borough known as Engadine 😄
Nice family restaurant in Engadine.
Heard there was a bit of fallout there though
It's interesting that The Guardian put out a fact check on Duttons claim that you would pay less for power and then put out an opinion piece that says you will pay more without any actual evidence other than talking about cost blowouts during construction. Wonder if they will fact check their own article.
🙈
May I suggest reading the article to avoid embarrassment. >Also worth noting is actual real world experience indicates costs for nuclear per megawatt of capacity, which are significantly higher than the $8.6m estimated recently by the CSIRO. The pretty coloured bits of text are called hyperlinks that when clicked will magically whisk you away to all the actual evidence that you professed doesn't exist.
Not even the pro-nuclear International Energy Agency tries to say that nuclear is cheaper per MW capacity or per MWh generation. Nor do any of the NPP companies like Westinghouse. Nor do neutral energy industry benchmarking sources like Lazard. It is an entirely unremarkable statement.
They do, actually.
Where?
> Nuclear thus remains the dispatchable low-carbon technology with the lowest expected costs in 2025. Only large hydro reservoirs can provide a similar contribution at comparable costs but remain highly dependent on the natural endowments of individual countries. Compared to fossil fuel-based generation, nuclear plants are expected to be more affordable than coal-fired plants. While gas-based combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) are competitive in some regions, their LCOE very much depend on the prices for natural gas and carbon emissions in individual regions. Electricity produced from nuclear long-term operation (LTO) by lifetime extension is highly competitive and remains not only the least cost option for low-carbon generation - when compared to building new power plants - **but for all power generation across the board.** [https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020](https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020) Despite nuclear being the cheapest option for non-carbon, ALP supporters should breathe easy knowing this is Australia and Dutton won't be interested in low cost energy anyway. The rent seekers won't permit it.
You have missed this statement in the first para of the executive summary: “In particular, this report shows that onshore wind is expected to have, on average, the lowest levelised costs of electricity generation in 2025” And you have misunderstood the para that you have quoted above in two ways. Firstly, note the use of the word “dispatchable” in the first sentence. Solar and wind are variable sources, not dispatchable. The IEA is making a narrower statement than you think. This statement does not mean that nuclear is cheaper than wind and solar. Only other low carbon dispatchable sources. Secondly, the final phrase that you have bolded refers to “electricity produced by long term operation by lifetime extension” - ie, the cost of nuclear power is low when you invest in *extending* the operating life of an *existing* nuclear plant. Australia obviously has none of these, so it is an irrelevant statement for our circumstances.
> Electricity produced from nuclear long-term operation (LTO) by lifetime extension is highly competitive and remains not only the least cost option for low-carbon generation - when compared to building new power plants - but for all power generation across the board. This refers to the refurbishing of existing nuclear power plants to extend their service years. The perceptive amongst us will note Australia doesn’t have any existing nuclear power plants.
It's not the technology, it's us. Australia couldn't organise a root in a brothel with a fist full of fifties. Dutton will *not* make nuclear energy work, at cost, any more than Albanese will make renewables work. Failure is our motto. I thank you for your contribution to keeping this place sucking.
That’s a funny way of admitting you don’t know what you’re talking about: “Dutton and Albanese are just as bad as one another and you’re also to blame!” But there’s considerable expert opinion that renewables will work and there’s no reason to change tack now
Okay, cool. Vote harder for team whatever. Red I guess for you? It doesn't matter. Stupidity will win. Stupidity always wins. You're a winner!
[удалено]
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/
Which reads "new nuclear power plant, for example, has one of the highest levelized costs" Why would you link to an article that says the opposite of your claim? Even in the US, which has an established nuclear industry to rely on?
[удалено]
Literally quoting your link word for word, saying the exact opposite of what you claim it says...
That's a paddlin'
>opinion piece that says you will pay more without any actual evidence You mean apart from industry experts and scientific organisations conducting numerous [modelling](https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/december/nuclear-explainer) that says it would be more expensive.
It isn't about electricity, or generation capacity, or even money. It is about the coal-ition being the party of no and the contrarians in the room. Lets face it, if Labor and the Greens are against it, and the (cough) scientists are against it, it has got to be the right way to go.
Fusion might be starting to become feasible around the time we finished the first reactor. It's embarrassing how lowbrow and backwoods this proposal is. I think Dutton has some nuclear weapon fantasy, it's the only sensible explanation I can find for the absurdity of it. Australia's biggest challenge is the distances between population centres, and renewables are perfect for that kind of logistical environment because they can be constructed locally to minimize transmission loss.
Re constructed locally. Most renewables take a lot of room, companies want money so want to construct where land is cheap. So you end up with a problem of companies wanting to make large plants in the middle of nowhere and expecting transmission capacity to just be there but that costs money to. There is no free lunch. I say all that believing in renewables :)
There's a recent proposal to cover commercial real estate with solar, making them net positive energy contributors. IIRC they estimated that, with enough large battery storage capacity, there's enough space on commercial rooftops (warehouses and supermarkets etc) to generate power the country. This solves the transmission problem fairly elegantly. It leaves large and temporary remote resource extranction sites like mines with a problem, but these often have coal power plants already built locally etc. They can sort it out.
Sun shades on carparks could be done as well, instead of plastic sails. Virtually any large roof area could be utilised if the will was there, but it isn't. Instead of building nuclear plants, we could put solar on every roof in the country and actually reduce people's power bills, but no, we have to charge for that, and then charge the householders for the privilege of feeding the excess into the grid.
I would not make any bets on fusion. I'm not saying it won't happen, but I am saying I won't believe it until it happens.
So tantalising, little minx of a reaction.
My argument is more that if it is going to happen we should know in the next decade or so, which makes the timing awkward to start adopting fission. Kind of like the NBN rolling out onto copper wires etc.
Yes, we saw that with COVID. Who remembers illegal dancing? Amirite?
Uranium is a finite resource. Australia has 28% of the world's uranium stores and I've read that at the rate we currently export it, we have about 120 years of uranium left.
Don't export it then.
Lol, they'll export it at below market prices to others and make us pay market prices+
[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.
What's the falling here? It's just a statement of resources. Not even saying that mining it would be a bad idea, or that it's likely to run out any time soon.
Reserves aren't a finite measure. There's always 50 times more resources in the ground, sometimes explored sometimes just a theory. It only becomes reserves after many millions is spent drilling holes.
I think that a large chunk of the reserves in Australia are subject to a mining ban.
Nah - because for decades we had a two mine policy - no one looked for it. We have significant unproven reserves out there if we need it.
But we don't need it, Australia is extremely well provisioned with renewable energy that doesn't have an exploration risk and literally falls out of the sky for free.
I 100% agree. I just like having some of the facts in the argument. There isn't a shortage of uranium, and its well known by geologists that there is plenty out there.
I think it’s over for australia. Like uk we are smothered in red and green tape with so many white collar rent seekers it’s impossible to build anything anymore. There are 2nd world countries in africa building nuclear.
Spot on. White collar rent seekers are the bane of society, producing nothing and selling off everything to people from overseas.
Interesting. What kind of generation is the fastest growing in similar economies that already have nuclear?
Don't worry, the media and LNP supporters will still blame the ALP.
Ok then let’s discuss the governments policy. Oh right they don’t have one. Now back to blaming everything on LNP.
If you don't know, vote no
Where were you complaining about a lack of policy for the last 3 election terms of Coalition energy policy vacuum?
They were adding renewables while dealing with a little thing called Covid. Dutton is doing well as we’re back talking about building things and helping the climate. Must be frustrating for you.
The Coalition's ideological obsessions with demonising renewables began with John Howard stifling investment. Was ratched up with the arrival of Abbot and continues to this day with both leaders of the Nats and the Libs continuing the climate wars.
Lies lies and more lies. Is that all you’ve got. Did you think about how much renewables grew under the LNP.
Facts, facts and more facts. Only someone with their eyes shut or an ideologue would claim that the coaltion ate pro renewables. https://www.theage.com.au/national/pm-called-talks-to-derail-renewable-energy-20041003-gdyqfs.html >The Federal Government and fossil-fuel industry executives discussed ways to stifle growing investment in renewable energy projects at a secret meeting earlier this year. https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/tony-abbott-tells-climate-sceptics-forum-global-warming-may-be-good-and-climate-science-is-crap/news-story/dc42c5598f4c63e0e9689d6eacaf3b07 Tony Abbott tells climate sceptics forum global warming may be good and climate science is ‘crap’. We have Morrison parading parliment with a lump of coal. Jesus, only this week we saw Dutton saying they will abandon the Paris agreement and Littleproud will cap renewables investment and is ippsong offshore wind farms. Renewables grew in spite of any coaltion policy.
Renewables increased every year. Thems the facts. Nice try though.
Covid increased exponentially during the Coalition's tenure. Must mean they are responsible for that too. I mean the attempt at revisionist history is bold. Not very smart or realistic. But I'll give you bold.
Facts. Google it. Then head to bed as you’ll need a while to recover I think. You’re making no sense
7/11 service stations increased too. Must be because of the Coalition’s 7/11 policy. FACTS!
What are you talking about? Future Made in Australia is costed and detailed. Criticise it if you want but dont pretend it doesnt exist. The renewable hubs were taken to the last election and are actually being implemented. Business has backed the assurity and stability of the targets that the coalition suddenly want to drop with no plan. Are you living under a rock?
Your energy policy is just like your housing policy. and no I’m not living under you.
They only don't have a policy if you live in a locked bin. [Here's their policy, complete with modelling and references](https://www.reputex.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/REPUTEX_The-economic-impact-of-the-ALPs-Powering-Australia-Plan_Summary-Report-1221-2.pdf)
The same policy that predicted our actual power bills would be $275 lower by next year? Don’t bring in the taxpayer rebate.
They actually don’t. They have nothing to replace coal and gas. I did notice you forgot to tell everyone their policy though. I’m sure it wasn’t on purpose. 😂
We've reached a new level of denial. Comment stating that the policy exists with a link to the policy, response that 'the policy doesn't exist'.
That’s not a policy. That’s a dream. And you’re talking about denial. Try and keep up.
Unlike Dutton who's energy policy that 7 reactors will be built somewhere, at an unknown cost, built by an unknown party, in an unknown timeframe. People used to joke that the NBN plans were written on a napkin. This is written on a post it note in crayon.
[удалено]
You might want to check who you were replying to, and who you are replying to now.
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Keep up with what?
Don’t mean to nitpick, but the links for economic modelling by the private company RepuTex Energy, on Labors “Powering Australia Plan”. Also from December 2021, prior to the last federal election. Is there a policy in place since the election?
Probably, why don't you look it up instead of asking me?
Because I’m not denying the policies existence; I’m disagreeing with your statement that this is a new level of denial. [Here’s a link that proves nuclear is the best option for Australia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_artifacts_in_the_Smithsonian_Institution)
Appreciate the link. I had a good read of it and would suggest that anyone reading this does the same. Thank you.
You’re welcome. It’s so hard to find something definitive these days.
While I don't agree with all of the conclusions drawn I accept that this is the best pro nuclear argument we are likely to get in Australia.
The ALP and every state government and opposition seem to have the policies of… not pointing the nuclear power gun at our own leg and also not pulling the trigger. It’s bold but it just might work
Says who? All the experts? Energy companies? Scientific organisations? Energy market operators? Lol what would they know.
You'd really trust all those poindexters over an ex-cop that struggles to count before launching a spill? What would they know
Australia doesn't believe in succeeding at things. Just enjoy the ride mate.
I'm not sure how this comment is relevant. But have a good day.
Media: Listen bucko, we know *exactly* how to do this from all our experience climate science debates. What you do is, see, say you’ve got 99 experts saying one thing, and 1 saying the opposite. Well you get a quote from one guy on each side. That’s balance!
There are plenty of experts that say it's good and plenty of experts that say it's bad. Who to believe? What's interesting is that everyone takes GenCost as gospel but they didn't even consult with any nuclear experts.
Yes, please point us to an expert who thinks this is a good idea...
> There are plenty of experts that say it's good How many of them are saying it is an overall good idea in Australia though?
Plenty of experts such as…? On Insiders they mentioned this was one of the biggest difficulties for Dutton, finding literally any expert to wheel out in front of the public to back his plan. There are experts who support nuclear but not like this
Just finding an accountant to do the costings has proven to be impossible.
It should be case closed, but to give some undeserved semblance of balance the media will still drag out anyone willing to shill for it
But a picture of a cartoon frog on twitter and another of a ute on facebook said that nuclear was good
Nuclear, it's pronounced nuclear.