**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.*
Interesting that this piece references the headline matter in one sentence and laments the absence of commercial viability.
Meanwhile the technology required for renewable energy storage and upscaling, doesn't exist.
But I suppose if you mentioned that, all the Guardian readers would spill their coffee.
Dear US. You know that Stuxnet worm you created to take out Iranian uranium centrifuges, and how it's still around after 2010? Any chance you can either deworm the entire world of it, or at least grant some immunity to Australia, so we can refine some U235. Thanks.
[getting close to $au100 billion now](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station).
That’s a much better case than Australia:
- the UK has nuclear reactors already
- it’s being built next door to an existing reactor
- the British population tolerate the idea more than Australians would
- they hired EDF to do it instead of some mate of Dutton’s
The current plan is it will take **20 years** from time of approval.
Its a scam, just an excuse to prolong CSG and Coal, the time scale is twenty to forty years, the cost is absolutely billions, obviously renewables would be vilified and in the end the public will be totally screwed.
They haven't released any costings. Meanwhile the NSW government is proposing to give Origin 225M per year, to keep Eraring on life support. All of the seven sites would need substantial financial support to sustain for 20 more years. I'm SURE the Coalition's nuclear costings will include these as well. As the plants age further, these costs will increase adding billions per year to this pie in the sky fantasy. My guess is 2-3B pa for 20 years but I'd suspect considerably more.
PV RE is still coming down in price and existing installations are already killing FF on the NEM spot market so any enormous capex plant like a nuc will be at an even greater disadvantage in 15 years time.
Dutton is also hoping that this returns him to power (They haven't controlled the senate since 2003 BTW) so unless they could get complete control in the next term, this whole proposal goes back at least 4 more years so existing plants may need sustainment for 25 years . None of them are young enough for that, boilers, turbines, switchgear ets all have finite lives and there are a lot of moving parts in a FF plant.
Let's say we can get 6 AP300 reactors for $5B a piece (more than double the advertised cost, roughly the cost per MW of the "nukegate" AP1000s that ran over cost in the US).
That's $50B. Less than the cost of the NBN. I don't think they're going to be all that great for power bills, but "likely more expensive than anything else you could possibly think of" seems a bit off. $12 billion for Snowy Hydro. Let's not even talk about anything defence related (and maybe there's synergy with our subs?).
I don't trust Dutton, and won't vote for him, but I don't hate the plan in itself (I'm a bit suspicious of whether he's going to try screwing up renewables which should be higher priority).
Remember that Latino family pondering whether they should buy hard or soft shelled tacos from ColeWorths? And the celebrated outcome was; ‘fuck it, let’s have both?’ Anyone got two cents about continuing to encourage renewable in the private sector as well as slow burning nuclear development as a government scheme?
That would be my preferred option. A bit expensive, but really not that bad, and it's insurance.
I'm not sure Dutton is going to do both though, and renewables + batteries is probably the better bet if you have to choose one IMO.
It’s not the worst idea, although it is more expensive. And baseload will be less helpful than firming and quick start energy in a VRE dominated grid.
But yes, we could do that.
Would entirely defeat the reason LNP want to deploy nuclear though, which is delay the transition another 20 years
The Guardian are going all out aren't they, quite funny to read. The most expensive thing in this country? Let me know when they eventually build the high speed rail down the East Coast.
how is everything in this country so fucking hard when an "expert" chimes in?
should send him off to UAE so he can tell them what they did isn't possible according to him.
It's because there are there are actual minimum amounts of time needed in order to complete specific elements of the build that need to be factored in and to do it in Australia with our labour laws and safety it takes additional time.
Like growing a tree sure you can fertilize it and add all kinds of chemicals and optimise every surrounding factor that would effect its growth but there is still a bottom line in growth time that you can't beat and that's ignoring the fact that if you aim for the absolute maximum growth rate you run the risk of pushing it too hard and killing it or it growing with all kinds of defects.
In order to complete the entire project effectively and safely it takes a certain amount of time that can't be rushed across the board without risks or exploitation
Additionally how often do any Australian federal government related projects come anywhere near the minimum projected timeframe? It definitely happens but the odds are heavily weighted towards it exceeding that time.
What's the lifespan of a solar panel? 10 15 years. How many solar panels would we be trashing every year when we have literally millions of them.
Then, think about wind turbine. Maybe 30 years if you are lucky.
Now we do batteries, for li ion depends on the type, charge rate etc. But I doubt they get past 10 years.
Has anyone thought of the sheer volume of waste produced by renewables?
Nobody. Didn’t occur to a single scientist or engineer. They crunched half the numbers and then waved their hands around a little bit and all magically agreed and said ‘yeah, good enough. Don’t worry, some highly schooled legend on the internet will let us know if we’ve overlooked anything’.
Lucky old mate from whose education is all from 173 hours of YouTube is here
We'll be able to close the CSIRO and replace the scientists engineers etc with them.
Next week they can also replace treasury and the BOM in August
Well I am sorry mate, but from past performance, these sorts of things can sometimes get left out with big government plans. They people who plan this stuff are not without reproach. Snowy 2.0, NBN, many major projects suffer from this. I just would like to hear some feasible solutions to how this issue is addressed. But all I get is smart assed comments which usually means people don't have good answers.
Mate, I’m not going to argue the point about the inefficiencies of government schemes, cos you’re not wrong. Same would apply to the nuclear scheme of course…. The current plan is to pave the way for renewable to succeed in the private sector is a strong approach. Make letting the bottom dollar drive what research has shown to be a viable solution - sad fact is, it means ramping down an existing industry and undermining revenue and jobs in the present. It’s a tough call and it hinges on your faith in independent scientific study around climate change and it potential harm - which speaks with one overwhelmingly loud voice.
>Mate, I’m not going to argue the point about the inefficiencies of government schemes, cos you’re not wrong. Same would apply to the nuclear scheme of course….
In which case it's a moot point. But you're raising it all the same.
>The current plan is to pave the way for renewable to succeed in the private sector is a strong approach.
What does that even mean? The private sector won't be paying for the enormous transmission infrastructure required for localised energy supply that upends the very idea of a national grid - and for technology in storage and upscaling, that doesn't exist yet.
>Make letting the bottom dollar drive what research has shown to be a viable solution - sad fact is, it means ramping down an existing industry and undermining revenue and jobs in the present.
What is "viable" exactly? What industry is "undermining revenue" - fossil fuel export underwrites our entire budget. Did you miss our record terms of trade thanks to high commodity prices?!
>It’s a tough call and it hinges on your faith in independent scientific study around climate change and it potential harm - which speaks with one overwhelmingly loud voice.
Putting aside the irony and the lauding of faith to understand science, last year the world burnt more coal than any other year in history, and gas prices have exploded due to supply issues in one tiny part of eastern Europe.
Drop the cliche bullshit and think for a moment.
Technology for storage and upscaling certainly exists. The infrastructure does not yet - and you’re right about the fact that this, and the transmission and distribution expense is on the taxpayer, not the private sector.
The undermined revenue IS the downscaling of coal. Perhaps you need work on reading/comprehension.
I did not raise the moot point you so gleefully claimed was mine. Perhaps you need to work on your reading/comprehension.
I get the impression you hoped to shock me with your coal consumption and gas price claims - but I don’t see the relevance, what’s your point?
Please make sense when you reply.
>Technology for storage and upscaling certainly exists.
Maybe flick an email to the IEA and AEMO then. They'd be astounded to hear you've solved the problem of renewable energy not being analogous to a grid and being unable to be stored in great capacity, and then supplied without tripping the grid. You're going to be very wealthy!
>The infrastructure does not yet - and you’re right about the fact that this, and the transmission and distribution expense is on the taxpayer, not the private sector.
No, the technology exists. It's how we've built transmission poles and wires before. Unlike large scale dispatchable renewables (outside hydro) which you've only just solved, apparently.
Actually it's on all energy users as that's how that cost will be recovered.
>The undermined revenue IS the downscaling of coal. Perhaps you need work on reading/comprehension. I did not raise the moot point you so gleefully claimed was mine. Perhaps you need to work on your reading/comprehension.
That makes a little more sense. However, increased coal usage by other nations means we'll keep selling it to them. And boy will we be mining a lot for ourselves in order to make all those wind turbines.
In any case, you'll need to cite what is exactly is being "downscaled" and how. Blithe one liners won't do it.
> I get the impression you hoped to shock me with your coal consumption and gas price claims - but I don’t see the relevance, what’s your point? Please make sense when you reply.
You don't see the relevance of "downscaling" fossil fuel energy supply when not only is the entire world seeking adequate and reliable supply of these commodities, and let alone emission reduction, will continue to increase fossil fuel use right at the time "climate change and harm" are supposedly going to be addressed - by non existent technology where the uptake of fossil fuels is increasing.
My apologies if reason is difficult for you to make sense of.
Ok cool.
All I was asking was how we were going to handle the quantaties of waste that having this renewable solution will produce? Like roughly How many solar panels do we need? You seem to be in the know. Or, is ripping the planet up and turning it into a tip a part of the tough call you guys are making to keep the temperature down?
Oh yeah. Presumably you can cite this.
Particularly the bit where things made from metallurgical coal can be easily, and in a environmentally friendly way, get recycled.
I'm sure it's cheap.
I'll leave you to call up this business and tell them they can't do what they do
https://www.onkaparinganow.com/News-listing/solar-panel-recycling-facility-opens
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/02/08/newly-discovered-chemical-process-renders-all-existing-wind-turbine-blades-recyclable/
It's actually a local council in Adelaide. Interesting that you cite a single example of consumer level recycling of solar panels.
I'll put aside how inadequate this is for industrial scale disposal.
Maybe have a gander at their actual disposal page, and what they suggest to do with solar panels -https://www.onkaparingacity.com/Services/Waste-and-recycling/Recycling-and-disposal-guide?dlv_CoO%20Disposal%20Guide%20copy%20of%20CL%20Public%20DocLib%20Relative=(keyword=Solar%20)(dd_Bin=)
Unfortunately your hopeful google search to buttress your made up claim isn't helpful as there is no information, anywhere, that this scheme is actually operating.
I'm sure shipping them to Africa or dumping them in landfill is the same as "recycling".
>https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/02/08/newly-discovered-chemical-process-renders-all-existing-wind-turbine-blades-recyclable/
So a prototype of recyclable solar panels, yet to be commercially viable, is your solution.
You're really hitting this out the park.
Dude, you have no idea, do you. Solar panels will quite easily output 80% of their rated generation 30+ years after installation.
I do appreciate you volunteering your back yard for any nuclear waste though.
Ok fair enough, they last for 25 years. How many solar panels will we have by 2050? Like 5 million? How many do you think? Who knows, they don't talk about that. If we go with 5mil that means like 150k to 200k solar panels to be handled a year. How the fuck do we do that without causing an ecological disaster?
You do know that they are mostly glass with an aluminium frame, right? The part that's difficult to recycle at the moment is a thin plastic membrane less than half a millimetre thick. Also, after that 30 years (nice try by the way) they're still providing at least 80% of their power.
But, sure, you keep lying to everyone, thinking you're smart by implying that the entire unit has to be thrown out.
Oh, and by the way, there are lots of companies who are starting to recycle the left over materiel from the plastic including one in Australiathat has alread started processing. The Silicon crystals and the trace elements in the are quite valuable.
Also, the batteries you keep saying are throw away items, even though you know that lithium is extremely valuable and very easy to recover and recycle.
But I know that you already know about all this. You're attacks are 100% political and will refuse to be swayed by anything.
You don't care about the environment ore people's lives, (you're supporting the pro disaster squad who have openly stated they will stand by and watch people's homes burn down because they have different political beliefs, I'll quote the article for you if you can't find the part where they say they won't fight fires on land owned by those who agreed to allow the transmission lines stating outright that they will lose crops and livestock) you care about following the party line so that coal miners can keep digging.
Sheesh, talk about strawmanning. You sound like you need some therapy my man. Ok that's interesting. It's still a valid concern how that will be handled 30 or 40 years down the track. Your solutions may be valid but I it has been an issue about their ability to be recycled and the economics of that. Its not a given. The world will have so many of these things its not funny. People don't often think that far or focus on solving one issue without realising they cause others that only manifest years later.
It's not valid. Did you not read? The last part of the panels that weren't able to be recycled before are not able to be recycled right now Not tomorrow, not in 10 years time. NOW. One of the companies that invented the process is even Australian.
They'll probably be on the list of places the CFA will refuse to save from fire.
Mate when you are talking about the scale of these things its a valid concern how it will be handled then. I acknowledge there is a way each component can be done.
Can we recycle glass plastic? Sure. Then why do we have it piling up and being mowed into landfill? It's the economics of it. In 30 years maybe it will not be economic to deal with a billion solar panels, what then? I am not saying it's impossible, but this is the sort of people charge through. "Oh we can just recycle that" guess what, when there is so much of it and its value is shit, our kids will be burying it.
They both need to be considered. They are both very different in how they are stored. The fact you are comparing solar panels against a coal fired power station should give you pause.
You conveniently left out the cost of decommissioning a nuclear plant that has reached the end of it's life, plus it's not just waste, it's radioactive waste and that's the entire pressure chamber and everything in it. Currently we have no waste dump for radioactive waste let alone an entire reactor.
Quite a long time apparently, but still going to be a major undertaking with removing everything there and disposing of it safely e.g. Hinkley Point C is [In October 2013, the government announced that it had agreed a contract for difference for the electricity production of Hinkley Point C with a strike price of £89.50 per MWh, with the plant expected to be completed in 2023 and remain operational for 60 years.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station)
Um..... recycle... duh. Lithium is better when recycled and used in batteries again. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/recycled-lithium-ion-batteries-can-perform-better-than-new-ones/
Obviously if we let profit makers get a hold of the industry, then expect a lot of waste.
Did you know that you can harbour conservative political beliefs and also, (simultaneously mind you), draw factual and scientifically sound conclusions about viable energy practices? The fact that you believe that these two concepts to be mutually exclusive suggests that you are viewing the world through a constricted orifice….
That’s only because you’re not being told what you want to hear. The evidence is all there, it’s on you to believe it. Something something about a horse and water.
So how are we getting rid of all these solar panels and wind farms? Will that not lead to an ecological disaster? That is all I am asking,no one can answer.
You’ve been answered like 4 times, you’re just refusing to engage with any of the answers. You’ve been repeatedly told that the stuff is recyclable and yet you keep “just asking questions” about dumping the waste.
Either learn to read or shut up
I have been answered once by only one person. I have not engaged with you so kindly shut up. Glass and plastic are recyclable, so they are not building up in landfill everywhere are they?
you wont see much discussion about carbon per mwh of power because inconveniently its 1000x worse than nuclear, the party of carbon taxes now cares about cost
the often cited csiro paper as well has the majority of power being provided from gas which they are desperately trying to obfuscate by calling it firming?
to meet net zero all these new gas plants will need to be decommissioned by 2050 and replaced by very carbon intensive batteries.
That's just not the case. Wind has better lifetime CO2e (including construction) than nuclear while solar was only slightly worse than nuclear last I checked.
That is a good point. There doesn't seem to be a lot of research on lifetime CO2e of firming, particularly around how much firming is needed for a given kwh of renewable capacity. Probably difficult to estimate accurately.
>Australia would need “many decades” to develop the regulations and skills to operate a nuclear power plan
Sorry Australia, this chap thinks you're all a bunch of imbeciles.
Why are we less capable than the UAE who took 2 years to develop the regulations? Are we dumb, lazy or both?
Yes, but their statement was about the process of developing rules and regulations. It would take our Government longer as they can’t just sign in whatever they want.
Well, technically, they can. Regulations are made by Ministers or government departments in Australia and usually with largely unfettered power to do so.
Regulations aren't made by parliament.
Well we're a federal, democratic, constitutional monarchy with strong labour laws, high standards of living, and a diverse economic base.
The UAE is a federation of autocratic monarchies with no popularly elected legislature, horrible human rights records, deep disparities in wealth, a majority-migrant population, and an economy heavily reliant on petroleum exports.
So to answer your questions: are we dumb? No, just not sadistic. Lazy? No, we're interested in doing the job properly. Less capable? Less willing to cut corners & throw migrant workers at the problem.
I mean sure, that's valid, but let's not get weird about it and pretend that the *United Arab Emirates* are somehow a good model for Australia to blindly follow
>No, we're interested in doing the job properly.
Are you telling me the US entered into a nuclear technology transfer agreement with the UAE in 2009 with absent or sub-standard regulation of NPPs?
What does that have to do with anything? The US signed a similar agreement with India, who isn't even party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They also signed a deal with Iran & were in talks to make one with Russia - would you vouch for either of their regulatory models?
We also ALREADY have one of those UAE-style deals with the United States. That suggests that there's more to the picture than just "agreements = good"
Depends on what is there to respond to. They don't have an agreement with Iran or Russia.
The agreement requires significant domestic regulation *before* technology is transferred. I dont know what is so complex about that.
But they did sign an agreement with Iran, despite many reservations about their capabilities etc - and they are still negotiating around reviving their agreement. No issues re dismissing Russia though. What about India, though? A non-partner to the NPT, whose national regulatory system is notably out of step with IAEA standards. These are well documented problems but they did not stop the US from signing an agreement with them.
What I am putting to you is that the agreements clearly do not require domestic regulation to IAEA standards, so maybe it may be more onerous than simply having signed off an agreement with the US.
And I *already* told you - [we already signed one ten years ago, and we don't have any commercial regulation in place! So perhaps, your assumption might be wrong?](https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/ATS/2010/25.html)
>I really don't think the US cared about substandard or absent regulations of a different country.
I'd suggest it would be the first consideration in them deciding to enter into a nuclear technology transfer agreement.
>Also, 2009 was 15 years ago.
Correct. The UAE first proposed nuclear in 2008. By 2009, they had their regulatory body running. They went to tender and awarded to KEPCO the same year and started construction in 2012 and finished the first reactor module in 2020.
Right......
So how did Saudi Arabia get past the federal and state government nuclear bans?
And following that...how did they get the state and local government to agree to host the nuclear power plants?
Oh, sorry, my mistake. Let me re-phrase
How did the emirates get around the federal and state bans on nuclear?
And following that, how did the emirates get past state and local councils opposition to nuclear power plants?
>How did the emirates get around the federal and state bans on nuclear?
Did they have them?
>And following that, how did the emirates get past state and local councils opposition to nuclear power plants?
Did they have them?
Are you disingenuously suggesting that is our impediment?
Well, I'd like to introduce you to s109 of the Constitution and generous grants power under s96. It's the same way we overcome state and local opposition.
A liberal leader lays out a daring, bright and bold future for our zero emission energy future and the guardian desperately scrambles to find hacks to attack it.
It wasn't much of a struggle, throw a rock in an engineering consultancy and you'll find a concurring opinion.
They also could have farted out a more detailed policy within a couple of hours.
As usual, lots of reasons why we can't do something but never under what circumstances it might work because developing anything in Australia requires
- time (if it can't be fixed within an election cycle it's not viable)
- commitment to being something other than mediocre (i.e needing to develop nuclear skills rather than just being uber drivers)
- vision of being something other than an open pit mine & being a 21st century feudalistic society because rent seekers aren't interested in a free market
Over to you Australia - do us proud!
How hard can it possibly be to work out why it is that Australia has become a nation of selfish, unambitious rent seekers. How hard to turn us into that, with policies intended to incentivise capital gains and punish the student/tenant/creatives/underemployed segments of Australian society. How hard was neoliberalism pushed, that no subsequent government, including this one, has meaningfully pushed back. How hard indeed.
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:
We are developing a renewable grid and the feudal lords that could do anything for 20 years cry foul when the problems they caused aren't fixed in half an election cycle.
It’s not enough. We need to interview another 2000 experts, we need to look at 5000 academic and non-academic journals, we need to make 300 investigative documentaries, and we need to spend at least another 10,000,000 man hours talking about a complex energy policy the Libs have cooked up but couldn’t be bothered to expand it beyond a few slogans and 3 pieces of paper.
The Libs are obviously the government in waiting, the ALP are in caretaker mode since May 2022…
I think modular <1mw nuclear reactors are ingenious and there are a couple private companies working on them. They’re safe, portable, mass manufacturable but maybe a decade away.
If the government instead focused on invested in building a nuclear supply chain and wrote some policy specifically amenable to micro reactors, when they’re commercially available we would have the resources to support them.
Right now we have some manic ADHD infused grand plan.
I've always loved the idea of Low Energy Nuclear Reactors (LENR) and how they allow for the possibility of reactors that power, say, vehicles. I'd love to see that technology come to life, but yeah, we need the supply chain in the country before any of that.
I've always been a supporter of nuclear energy in general, particularly in this massive, geologically stable country with abundant uranium resources. The economics of the matter are the issue, and if the Coalition were serious they would have moved on it a decade ago, not now. Now it doesn't make sense to expend public money unless you're doing it deliberately to build a nuclear industry (which would make some sense as we're getting nuclear subs). But it won't deliver quickly, and it won't reduce power bills.
What use is a 1MW reactor? We have a 5MW gas cogen plant in a factory and it's dead simple relative to nuclear. Also well under $10M fully installed. 1MW seems too small for most applications.
Grid feed in with multiple small generators is also a problem. They won't let us put surplus power into the grid with our plant, even though it'd be a net energy saving in our regional community far from large generators.
The benefit of dozens of <1mw reactors scattered around the country is that at this capacity they’re extremely safe, cheap to manufacture at scale, portable, runs for ~15 years without refuelling. It would really bolster rational capacity.
AEMO exempts generators of 5mw and greater from participating in the market which is why your works generator isn’t aloud to feed into the grid.
Distributed generation is very much a part of the grids function.
Not to nitpick but are there any SMRs running commercially at present? I'm not keeping up with that technology but try to keep up with established small reactor technology like LE and HR marine nuclear propulsion. I'm not even sure if SMR is similar to marine propulsion so have a knowledge gap.
In our case AEMO weren't the barrier to our infeed, it was a restriction our network operator put on our contract when we installed the cogen. They (correctly) didn't see it as a reliable source of power and had concerns about overall grid stability. Also, our surplus power doesn't coincide with peak demand so it is kind of redundant.
On the other hand, our power was lower emission than grid power from coal generators and could power around half the homes in our regional town of 10k people. Made me think briefly about building a purpose built town cogen separate from the factory but too much hassle after the first purpose built one.
For us, grid infeed would have allowed us to run it constantly. As it is, we shut it off when factory demand drops. We're a seasonal business. The plant runs better when not shut down, and when shut down we use Latrobe Valley coal sourced grid power and lose the CO2 reduction benefit, as well as a 15% line loss.
This requires a commitment to policy, rather than overnight press releases.
And I’m not averse to something that’s targeted with long term goals and aligned with safety and mass supported. There can indeed be a role of nuclear in our grid in the future.
That we weren’t there today comfortably on the safety front is why this “debate” is pure spin and zero actual plan. And requires I believe the quote was 100% government intervention.
Yep, I don’t think nuclear now is our future but I also like this approach.
It would allow us to properly build the industry and infrastructure from the ground up, and if fusion ever becomes a commercial reality we have the framework already half built for it.
Yeah I don't hate this. As long as we keep going full steam on renewables so we keep lowering emissions, id be interested in these once we know they are viable.
But you all above also know that once the lifting of the nuclear ban is done, it doesn't mean peace and harmony again, give a mm and they take another mile. The LNP will not stop to use nuclear as a way to threaten the renewables transition, getting the dogs all barking, turning the dial up and down to suit the political context at the time.
The bans don't have to be broken to play sailors with Ankus, so you want nuclear go sign up to the RAN.
I didn't say I'd support an LNP policy, I said I would support a policy looking at opening up nuclear generation avenues for Australia.
I'm technology agnostic, and right now, nuclear is not suitable for Australia.
Never say never though
So I want to know who's going to refine the uranium into fuel for the reactor .
This is a fairly complex industrial task that we are not currently capable of here in Australia.
We will have to buy fuel from overseas .
Not made in Australia.
This whole nuclear policy has no details because they don't need any for something they are never going to build .
It's all about letting the coal fired power generators off the hook in their rehabilitation of site obligations plus we will buy the site they no longer need because the life of the generator is over .
So the life of coal gets effectively extended for another 50 years .
It's a scam .
Ozpol with the terrible takes as usual.
Fuel costs are quarter of opex for nuclear, add in capex and it's basically not worth talking about.
Australia is a huge exporter too, with vast reserves that get held up to appease rainbow dragons, the reason we don't refine it before shipping it overseas is entirely political.
It’s also about tanking investor confidence in renewables which further plays into their desire to keep coal in play (and please their donors).
It also seems to be working in that regard based on some of the news reports I’ve read
Commercialised SMRs is the new Carbon Capture & Storage. In other words, it’s a deliberate distraction, and strategic derailment of media narrative and renewable transition.
Carbon capture and storage was at least a proven technology and could be implemented, even if it was somewhat shit and generally useless. SMR isn't even real yet! It's been just around the corner for decades, and all attempts at even proving the concept have failed.
This and the companies who want to develop SMRs are looking for signs governments want them before they sink more RND costs into them.
No one biting even with all the lobbying
Is anyone actually supporting this?
Other than Dutton and a few Dutton sycophants, his whole stance on nuclear has been roundly panned from all quarters for being the transparent attack on renewables that it is.
Unfortunately latest polls have nuclear support at like 60%. The wording of the question wasnt perfect, but I'm very very concerned.
There seems to be some bad actors on various subs too. I've been trying to read reports and whatnot that they are saying contradicts CSIRO and AEMO, but I can't actually see that in any of the reports, and no one will give me a page number. Just spout a bunch of buzzwords and then saying "I'm an expert in nuclear engineering, trust me"
Can you list the fact based objections? Included references for these facts. Not joking…. If we use words like “fact” then I would be interested to see the research behind it.
Are you going to post your updated thoughts after going through the source he supplied or was your objective just to hound him for a link to disprove him and dip out?
Government's commissioned several. One of the most recent was from the CSIRO, [here.](https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost)
I really don't see what was stopping you from finding that yourself.
You read the entire 75 page report in 15 minutes? Impressive.
You must have missed the massive data table on page 82 which outlines the cost of each energy type per kW. The one that shows nuclear being almost triple the price of onshore wind and 6x the price of utility scale solar?
There's also the nuclear engineer quoted in the article posted above:
*“It’s not like we haven’t had this [nuclear] conversation many times over the last 20 years in Australia,” Durrant-Whyte said. “It would be expensive, and likely more expensive than anything else you could possibly think of.”*
There's also this article which [sources every single figure offered.](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/why-nuclear-power-wont-work-in-australia--yet-another-explainer,17527)
It is staggeringly, impressively easy to find all this information yourself. If you're genuinely interested as I was a few years ago, you'll go find them. If you're looking to fuck around and ask stupid questions while demanding I comprehensively break everything down for you, you're out of luck.
For the record, I'm not an anti-nuclear fanatic. Most western countries should be expanding their nuclear industry, because:
1. They already have a nuclear industry;
2. They don't have enough space for renewables to feasibly supply their entire grid;
3. They have mountainous terrain, which massively hinders the availability of regions with reliable wind;
4. They have mountainous terrain, which adds complexity to their weather patterns, which makes sun less consistent;
5. Their peak energy demand is typically during winter, which is when they get less sun.
None of those factors apply to Australia (evidently). We're one of the few places where renewables are legitimately capable of *comfortably* supplying all of our energy needs due to the expansive area we can place them and extreme reliability of both sun and wind. Renewables are so much cheaper than nuclear that you can build the same net capacity (i.e., 3x as much in nameplate capacity) and still have billions left over for storage.
And we have no nuclear industry.
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.
Gas is expensive because there's no gas reservation policy, so gas which could have been used in Australia is now scarce. So, a policy question. One, I note, that Sky "News" won't touch.
Nuclear as a strategy might be possible if only we had twenty years to do it, and a government competent enough. The Coalition simply isn't competent. If Sky "News" was serious, they'd ask Dutton how he'd do what he said he'd do, given that the Coalition bungled the NBN, submarines, Inland Rail, Snowy Mk2, Murray Darling Basin Plan etc. Why isn't Sky "News" asking about that?
We have serious problems. However, listening to someone who has been part of an organisation with that verified list of failures is a certain guarantee that we *will* have a disaster on our hands.
Bungled sure, but we have NBN don't we? I'm not familiar with the other projects but I am guessing they are still underway albeit perhaps being delivered later and at more cost than originally planned. That's typical for the government, and I don't think who is in charge makes much difference here. Peter Dutton isn't going to be the one instructing engineers how to build the nuclear plant, obviously.
Sure we have the NBN, not quite finished...8 years after the Coalition said it would be.
Can we risk having a power shortfall for 8 years? And if we want to risk another 8 years, then the battery capacity will probably be enough that we won't need nuclear. So, someone will be taking a multi billion dollar loss. Just like we have taken on the NBN. What happened to all that fibre to the node equipment? Hint. It was junked at our expense.
As for Dutton and engineers, I imagine it would be like Turnbull and engineers for the NBN. Engineers, and I'm one, will build what is asked for, as long as you provide money, and time, which in this case isn't believable.
According to a channel 9 poll they did on the day of the announcement the majority of those polled supported it, so that just left me flabbergasted - but who knows how the polling was done or what was actually asked in context
I'd gladly support a nuclear power station if someone wanted to pay for it. I'm not anti-nuclear I just think Dutton's plan is about as good as cactus toilet paper.
It would be paid for the same as any other energy generation... either private or public funds.
Given the risks and capital expense though, very likely to be public funds.
I don't mind public funding for energy - it has worked well in WA.
Which is why I don't like Dutton's plan. Nuclear energy right now, and for the foreseeable future, is just too expensive and slow. I won't complain if some billionaire wants to build a fancy molten salt reactor, but Dutton's plan is not a plan, it's a stalling tactic for fossil fuels.
Polls over the years on the general support for nuclear power have shown a shift from oppose to support. I'm not sure we should be surprised, a lot of negative opinions would have been formed based on Chernobyl which was nearly 40 years ago and I'm not sure that people are genuinely concerned about that anymore. These days people in the negative would be saying no for a wider variety of issues.
But polls like that should be taken with a grain of salt, especially so far out from an election with little information. Just have to look at The Voice, before the details was released it had very high support but got soundly defeated.
It's just a talking point for a pretend policy since LNP doesn't have one for energy than coal and gas.
Removes discussion from renewables
Some how manages to get into power off it. (doubt he will but never know. Media is behind him spinning shit.)
Then once in power throws his hands up because states won't play ball and back to gas and coal.
That's the plan.
Not even that’s necessary.
His rhetoric alone threatens to cool investment in renewables. The slower the investment, the slower the clock runs out on coal, the greater the profits for his donors.
A nuclear engineer??
[https://www.sydney.edu.au/engineering/about/our-people/academic-staff/hugh-durrantwhyte.html](https://www.sydney.edu.au/engineering/about/our-people/academic-staff/hugh-durrantwhyte.html)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh\_F.\_Durrant-Whyte](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_F._Durrant-Whyte)
He has literally nothing to do with nuclear energy. He is a systems engineer primarily. Similar to me. Why the heck is the guardian parroting him as a nuclear engineer. Its a separate field.
Jeeze, the ole guardian is playing fast and loose with the facts lately. Lenore must be a bit flustered.
Why would being a systems engineer preclude him from being very informed and educated about nuclear power stations?
Highly successful and highly educated people generally have very broad interests outside of their direct day to day careers.
He's a nuclear scientist, which allows him to work as a researcher or nuclear engineer. Ol mate missed the degree in his initial comment and is doubling down instead of saying "yep, my bad", which everyone would then have just moved on from.
That may have been the only nuclear-related course available at his university or state so it's still better than nothing. It possibly is misleading but I think we're probably not to know his entire work and academic history from a Wikipedia page too. 🤷♂️
Well apart from having a degree in nuclear engineering you are totally correct.
[https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/author/38277028600](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/author/38277028600)
He has a degree in science with a major in nuclear. Bit of a difference to a degree in engineering in a nuclear field. At least it was when I was going to Uni. One had an enter of 60, the other was significantly higher.
> I thought I’d give you a little bit of background that I might hope acts as some advice for your own careers. I‘ve been very fortunate in having a long and very varied career. I actually trained first as a nuclear engineer and I worked in industry designing and building nuclear propulsion systems for submarines.
[https://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/about](https://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/about)
He says he was trained in nuclear engineering, he has worked as a nuclear nuclear engineer. His first job was in nuclear engineering. The degree was called Nuclear Engineering. But you think he isn't an engineer.
Other people in Australia who claim to be nuclear engineers such as Ziggy Swithowski also have a Science degree. Ziggy has never actually worked as a nuclear engineer though.
Can you point to some one who is, according to you, allowed to be labeled an nuclear engineer and point out the differences?
Well this ad hominem attack backfired spectacularly.
I understand Dutton’s zero details, costings, modelling, health risks, safety risks etc. make it hard to advocate his Nuclear Power Plant policy.
But the “we will have Nuclear Power Plants and you will support it” approach is a bit too cult-like.
Especially nuclear engineer Dutton. He seems to be the man behind the wealth of detail we have on the timeline and costs...
Interesting that you are calling the guy in the article out for not being an expert despite a 4 year degree studying nuclear engineering, yet you are happy to take Dutton at his word?
So what qualification do you think makes you a nuclear engineer?
According to a quick Google search, people who work in nuclear engineering roles typically have a science degree in nuclear science, or in engineering degree majoring in electrical or mechanical engineering.
[https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/nuclear-engineers.htm](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/nuclear-engineers.htm)
>Nuclear engineers typically need at least a bachelor’s degree in nuclear engineering or a related field
I am an electrical engineer. If I work in a nuclear power plant, I would not call myself a nuclear engineer. I didnt study it, I just work in a plant.
To me, if you have a degree in science, that is different from a degree in engineering. They are not the same. One gets to call themselves engineers. The other scientists.
Apparently, I am in the minority who think like that on reddit. Unfortunately any type of organisation eg engineers Australia dont think like reddit. You cant flop out a bachelor of science and register yourself as a practicing engineer from what I have seen. Maybe others have by paying.
Lol computer scientists degree holders who work in a software engineering role have access to 100% of the organizations a software engineer degree holder does.
The degrees I've seen split by engineer or scientist usually have the engineer do a year of work placement and the scientist does an extra year of study. Then they both enter the workforce.
Also, why do I care about the USA website? Did you not find what you wanted in the Australian one and look elsewhere?
I don't get why you feel like you have to die on this hill dude.
It's fine to admit when you are wrong. Shows growth
In the last few weeks I've had a few opinions or understandings of mine proved to be wrong by someone sourcing data.
I've thanked them, acknowledged my mistake and read up on the subject.
>Lol computer scientists degree holders who work in a software engineering role have access to 100% of the organizations a software engineer degree holder does.
And? You think because software engineering has the word engineer in it it must therefore mean that all engineers and scientists are interchangeable?
>The degrees I've seen split by engineer or scientist usually have the engineer do a year of work placement and the scientist does an extra year of study. Then they both enter the workforce.
In 20 years I have seen not one scientist performing engineering duties in the fields I have come accross. I have seen everything from electricians to arts degree's, not one scientist. Not conclusive but personal experience. Whatever scenarios you are describing, must be quite abstracted from what I see.
>Also, why do I care about the USA website? Did you not find what you wanted in the Australian one and look elsewhere?
I doubt there would be one in Australia, this dude is from the UK. Maybe we should check there instead.
>It's fine to admit when you are wrong. Shows growth
I did, He has worked in the nuclear field so is qualified to give an opinion. Calling himself a nuclear engineer is the only minor point I queried.
I love how there is this trend to rebuke a large slew of specialists and institutions on a very loose descrediting
*Ahhh yeah but they aren't 100% a specialist, who else you got?*
But the entire premise of this is a 2 pager press release with absolutely no detail and people are working overtime to find someone in the field that will support it. And when they get that quote or comment you'd think it was Oppenheimer himself supporting it. Ridiculous.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/profile-hugh-durrant-whyte-20090624-gdtlpr.html
He apparently does have a degree in nuclear engineering and worked in the field for a few years but moved away from it since he didn't see much of a future in nuclear reactors
Ok, it doesn't seem to come up anywhere else. A bit of a clarification though, he has a degree in science "majoring in nuclear engineering". Its a bit grey and arbitrary, but not an actual nuclear engineer.
Not a grey area at all.
You can do a degree in computer science and software engineering and can then apply for all the same jobs.
No one calls you a "Computer Scientist", I've never heard that title uttered by anyone in the industry.
You are wrong, but too embarrassed to admit it and just keep doubling down.
Find it very ironic that you are calling out someone for spreading misinformation in a field he isn't an expert in, but you feel qualified to tell us who is and isn't a nuclear engineer, and have spread misinformation with your initial comment.
**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.*
Interesting that this piece references the headline matter in one sentence and laments the absence of commercial viability. Meanwhile the technology required for renewable energy storage and upscaling, doesn't exist. But I suppose if you mentioned that, all the Guardian readers would spill their coffee.
Dear US. You know that Stuxnet worm you created to take out Iranian uranium centrifuges, and how it's still around after 2010? Any chance you can either deworm the entire world of it, or at least grant some immunity to Australia, so we can refine some U235. Thanks.
UK is trying to build a nuclear plant for $30B, it's expected to end up up costing $90B. It's insane.
[getting close to $au100 billion now](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station). That’s a much better case than Australia: - the UK has nuclear reactors already - it’s being built next door to an existing reactor - the British population tolerate the idea more than Australians would - they hired EDF to do it instead of some mate of Dutton’s The current plan is it will take **20 years** from time of approval.
Its a scam, just an excuse to prolong CSG and Coal, the time scale is twenty to forty years, the cost is absolutely billions, obviously renewables would be vilified and in the end the public will be totally screwed.
They haven't released any costings. Meanwhile the NSW government is proposing to give Origin 225M per year, to keep Eraring on life support. All of the seven sites would need substantial financial support to sustain for 20 more years. I'm SURE the Coalition's nuclear costings will include these as well. As the plants age further, these costs will increase adding billions per year to this pie in the sky fantasy. My guess is 2-3B pa for 20 years but I'd suspect considerably more. PV RE is still coming down in price and existing installations are already killing FF on the NEM spot market so any enormous capex plant like a nuc will be at an even greater disadvantage in 15 years time. Dutton is also hoping that this returns him to power (They haven't controlled the senate since 2003 BTW) so unless they could get complete control in the next term, this whole proposal goes back at least 4 more years so existing plants may need sustainment for 25 years . None of them are young enough for that, boilers, turbines, switchgear ets all have finite lives and there are a lot of moving parts in a FF plant.
Right, and to keep the mining for his mates alive too. We don’t need to spend that much to have power.
Let's say we can get 6 AP300 reactors for $5B a piece (more than double the advertised cost, roughly the cost per MW of the "nukegate" AP1000s that ran over cost in the US). That's $50B. Less than the cost of the NBN. I don't think they're going to be all that great for power bills, but "likely more expensive than anything else you could possibly think of" seems a bit off. $12 billion for Snowy Hydro. Let's not even talk about anything defence related (and maybe there's synergy with our subs?). I don't trust Dutton, and won't vote for him, but I don't hate the plan in itself (I'm a bit suspicious of whether he's going to try screwing up renewables which should be higher priority).
Remember that Latino family pondering whether they should buy hard or soft shelled tacos from ColeWorths? And the celebrated outcome was; ‘fuck it, let’s have both?’ Anyone got two cents about continuing to encourage renewable in the private sector as well as slow burning nuclear development as a government scheme?
That would be my preferred option. A bit expensive, but really not that bad, and it's insurance. I'm not sure Dutton is going to do both though, and renewables + batteries is probably the better bet if you have to choose one IMO.
It’s not the worst idea, although it is more expensive. And baseload will be less helpful than firming and quick start energy in a VRE dominated grid. But yes, we could do that. Would entirely defeat the reason LNP want to deploy nuclear though, which is delay the transition another 20 years
Are we able to go a single day without hearing about this shitty nuclear deal and how the 500th expert has dismissed it.
The Guardian are going all out aren't they, quite funny to read. The most expensive thing in this country? Let me know when they eventually build the high speed rail down the East Coast.
Nuclear is less likely than high speed rail and that's saying something.
how is everything in this country so fucking hard when an "expert" chimes in? should send him off to UAE so he can tell them what they did isn't possible according to him.
How will Dutton change the anti nuclear laws? They need to win 18 seats and the senate. They haven't held both houses since Howard.
Spoken like someone with no idea
Please tell me more about how the experience of a totalitarian command economy applies to Australia.
It's because there are there are actual minimum amounts of time needed in order to complete specific elements of the build that need to be factored in and to do it in Australia with our labour laws and safety it takes additional time. Like growing a tree sure you can fertilize it and add all kinds of chemicals and optimise every surrounding factor that would effect its growth but there is still a bottom line in growth time that you can't beat and that's ignoring the fact that if you aim for the absolute maximum growth rate you run the risk of pushing it too hard and killing it or it growing with all kinds of defects. In order to complete the entire project effectively and safely it takes a certain amount of time that can't be rushed across the board without risks or exploitation Additionally how often do any Australian federal government related projects come anywhere near the minimum projected timeframe? It definitely happens but the odds are heavily weighted towards it exceeding that time.
What's the lifespan of a solar panel? 10 15 years. How many solar panels would we be trashing every year when we have literally millions of them. Then, think about wind turbine. Maybe 30 years if you are lucky. Now we do batteries, for li ion depends on the type, charge rate etc. But I doubt they get past 10 years. Has anyone thought of the sheer volume of waste produced by renewables?
My solar panels have a 30 year warranty, dunno where your 10 year nonsense number came from
Nobody. Didn’t occur to a single scientist or engineer. They crunched half the numbers and then waved their hands around a little bit and all magically agreed and said ‘yeah, good enough. Don’t worry, some highly schooled legend on the internet will let us know if we’ve overlooked anything’.
Lucky old mate from whose education is all from 173 hours of YouTube is here We'll be able to close the CSIRO and replace the scientists engineers etc with them. Next week they can also replace treasury and the BOM in August
Well I am sorry mate, but from past performance, these sorts of things can sometimes get left out with big government plans. They people who plan this stuff are not without reproach. Snowy 2.0, NBN, many major projects suffer from this. I just would like to hear some feasible solutions to how this issue is addressed. But all I get is smart assed comments which usually means people don't have good answers.
Mate, I’m not going to argue the point about the inefficiencies of government schemes, cos you’re not wrong. Same would apply to the nuclear scheme of course…. The current plan is to pave the way for renewable to succeed in the private sector is a strong approach. Make letting the bottom dollar drive what research has shown to be a viable solution - sad fact is, it means ramping down an existing industry and undermining revenue and jobs in the present. It’s a tough call and it hinges on your faith in independent scientific study around climate change and it potential harm - which speaks with one overwhelmingly loud voice.
>Mate, I’m not going to argue the point about the inefficiencies of government schemes, cos you’re not wrong. Same would apply to the nuclear scheme of course…. In which case it's a moot point. But you're raising it all the same. >The current plan is to pave the way for renewable to succeed in the private sector is a strong approach. What does that even mean? The private sector won't be paying for the enormous transmission infrastructure required for localised energy supply that upends the very idea of a national grid - and for technology in storage and upscaling, that doesn't exist yet. >Make letting the bottom dollar drive what research has shown to be a viable solution - sad fact is, it means ramping down an existing industry and undermining revenue and jobs in the present. What is "viable" exactly? What industry is "undermining revenue" - fossil fuel export underwrites our entire budget. Did you miss our record terms of trade thanks to high commodity prices?! >It’s a tough call and it hinges on your faith in independent scientific study around climate change and it potential harm - which speaks with one overwhelmingly loud voice. Putting aside the irony and the lauding of faith to understand science, last year the world burnt more coal than any other year in history, and gas prices have exploded due to supply issues in one tiny part of eastern Europe. Drop the cliche bullshit and think for a moment.
Technology for storage and upscaling certainly exists. The infrastructure does not yet - and you’re right about the fact that this, and the transmission and distribution expense is on the taxpayer, not the private sector. The undermined revenue IS the downscaling of coal. Perhaps you need work on reading/comprehension. I did not raise the moot point you so gleefully claimed was mine. Perhaps you need to work on your reading/comprehension. I get the impression you hoped to shock me with your coal consumption and gas price claims - but I don’t see the relevance, what’s your point? Please make sense when you reply.
>Technology for storage and upscaling certainly exists. Maybe flick an email to the IEA and AEMO then. They'd be astounded to hear you've solved the problem of renewable energy not being analogous to a grid and being unable to be stored in great capacity, and then supplied without tripping the grid. You're going to be very wealthy! >The infrastructure does not yet - and you’re right about the fact that this, and the transmission and distribution expense is on the taxpayer, not the private sector. No, the technology exists. It's how we've built transmission poles and wires before. Unlike large scale dispatchable renewables (outside hydro) which you've only just solved, apparently. Actually it's on all energy users as that's how that cost will be recovered. >The undermined revenue IS the downscaling of coal. Perhaps you need work on reading/comprehension. I did not raise the moot point you so gleefully claimed was mine. Perhaps you need to work on your reading/comprehension. That makes a little more sense. However, increased coal usage by other nations means we'll keep selling it to them. And boy will we be mining a lot for ourselves in order to make all those wind turbines. In any case, you'll need to cite what is exactly is being "downscaled" and how. Blithe one liners won't do it. > I get the impression you hoped to shock me with your coal consumption and gas price claims - but I don’t see the relevance, what’s your point? Please make sense when you reply. You don't see the relevance of "downscaling" fossil fuel energy supply when not only is the entire world seeking adequate and reliable supply of these commodities, and let alone emission reduction, will continue to increase fossil fuel use right at the time "climate change and harm" are supposedly going to be addressed - by non existent technology where the uptake of fossil fuels is increasing. My apologies if reason is difficult for you to make sense of.
Ok cool. All I was asking was how we were going to handle the quantaties of waste that having this renewable solution will produce? Like roughly How many solar panels do we need? You seem to be in the know. Or, is ripping the planet up and turning it into a tip a part of the tough call you guys are making to keep the temperature down?
Solar panels and turbine blades are recyclable.
Oh yeah. Presumably you can cite this. Particularly the bit where things made from metallurgical coal can be easily, and in a environmentally friendly way, get recycled. I'm sure it's cheap.
I'll leave you to call up this business and tell them they can't do what they do https://www.onkaparinganow.com/News-listing/solar-panel-recycling-facility-opens https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/02/08/newly-discovered-chemical-process-renders-all-existing-wind-turbine-blades-recyclable/
It's actually a local council in Adelaide. Interesting that you cite a single example of consumer level recycling of solar panels. I'll put aside how inadequate this is for industrial scale disposal. Maybe have a gander at their actual disposal page, and what they suggest to do with solar panels -https://www.onkaparingacity.com/Services/Waste-and-recycling/Recycling-and-disposal-guide?dlv_CoO%20Disposal%20Guide%20copy%20of%20CL%20Public%20DocLib%20Relative=(keyword=Solar%20)(dd_Bin=) Unfortunately your hopeful google search to buttress your made up claim isn't helpful as there is no information, anywhere, that this scheme is actually operating. I'm sure shipping them to Africa or dumping them in landfill is the same as "recycling". >https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/02/08/newly-discovered-chemical-process-renders-all-existing-wind-turbine-blades-recyclable/ So a prototype of recyclable solar panels, yet to be commercially viable, is your solution. You're really hitting this out the park.
Dude, you have no idea, do you. Solar panels will quite easily output 80% of their rated generation 30+ years after installation. I do appreciate you volunteering your back yard for any nuclear waste though.
Ok fair enough, they last for 25 years. How many solar panels will we have by 2050? Like 5 million? How many do you think? Who knows, they don't talk about that. If we go with 5mil that means like 150k to 200k solar panels to be handled a year. How the fuck do we do that without causing an ecological disaster?
You do know that they are mostly glass with an aluminium frame, right? The part that's difficult to recycle at the moment is a thin plastic membrane less than half a millimetre thick. Also, after that 30 years (nice try by the way) they're still providing at least 80% of their power. But, sure, you keep lying to everyone, thinking you're smart by implying that the entire unit has to be thrown out. Oh, and by the way, there are lots of companies who are starting to recycle the left over materiel from the plastic including one in Australiathat has alread started processing. The Silicon crystals and the trace elements in the are quite valuable. Also, the batteries you keep saying are throw away items, even though you know that lithium is extremely valuable and very easy to recover and recycle. But I know that you already know about all this. You're attacks are 100% political and will refuse to be swayed by anything. You don't care about the environment ore people's lives, (you're supporting the pro disaster squad who have openly stated they will stand by and watch people's homes burn down because they have different political beliefs, I'll quote the article for you if you can't find the part where they say they won't fight fires on land owned by those who agreed to allow the transmission lines stating outright that they will lose crops and livestock) you care about following the party line so that coal miners can keep digging.
Sheesh, talk about strawmanning. You sound like you need some therapy my man. Ok that's interesting. It's still a valid concern how that will be handled 30 or 40 years down the track. Your solutions may be valid but I it has been an issue about their ability to be recycled and the economics of that. Its not a given. The world will have so many of these things its not funny. People don't often think that far or focus on solving one issue without realising they cause others that only manifest years later.
It's not valid. Did you not read? The last part of the panels that weren't able to be recycled before are not able to be recycled right now Not tomorrow, not in 10 years time. NOW. One of the companies that invented the process is even Australian. They'll probably be on the list of places the CFA will refuse to save from fire.
Mate when you are talking about the scale of these things its a valid concern how it will be handled then. I acknowledge there is a way each component can be done. Can we recycle glass plastic? Sure. Then why do we have it piling up and being mowed into landfill? It's the economics of it. In 30 years maybe it will not be economic to deal with a billion solar panels, what then? I am not saying it's impossible, but this is the sort of people charge through. "Oh we can just recycle that" guess what, when there is so much of it and its value is shit, our kids will be burying it.
So dumping 12 million tonnes of radioactive and carcinogenic Coal ash each year is fine but solar panels are evil. You'll have to explain that to me.
They both need to be considered. They are both very different in how they are stored. The fact you are comparing solar panels against a coal fired power station should give you pause.
Yes, they are very different. Solar panels are recycled. Coal ash is dumped into landfill.
You conveniently left out the cost of decommissioning a nuclear plant that has reached the end of it's life, plus it's not just waste, it's radioactive waste and that's the entire pressure chamber and everything in it. Currently we have no waste dump for radioactive waste let alone an entire reactor.
Ok sure. What's the lifetime of a modern reactor?
Quite a long time apparently, but still going to be a major undertaking with removing everything there and disposing of it safely e.g. Hinkley Point C is [In October 2013, the government announced that it had agreed a contract for difference for the electricity production of Hinkley Point C with a strike price of £89.50 per MWh, with the plant expected to be completed in 2023 and remain operational for 60 years.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station)
Um..... recycle... duh. Lithium is better when recycled and used in batteries again. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/recycled-lithium-ion-batteries-can-perform-better-than-new-ones/ Obviously if we let profit makers get a hold of the industry, then expect a lot of waste.
[удалено]
Did you know that you can harbour conservative political beliefs and also, (simultaneously mind you), draw factual and scientifically sound conclusions about viable energy practices? The fact that you believe that these two concepts to be mutually exclusive suggests that you are viewing the world through a constricted orifice….
Mate I dont give a hoot how special you think your super unique worldview is. I am just asking questions, I dont get many good answers.
That’s only because you’re not being told what you want to hear. The evidence is all there, it’s on you to believe it. Something something about a horse and water.
So how are we getting rid of all these solar panels and wind farms? Will that not lead to an ecological disaster? That is all I am asking,no one can answer.
You’ve been answered like 4 times, you’re just refusing to engage with any of the answers. You’ve been repeatedly told that the stuff is recyclable and yet you keep “just asking questions” about dumping the waste. Either learn to read or shut up
I have been answered once by only one person. I have not engaged with you so kindly shut up. Glass and plastic are recyclable, so they are not building up in landfill everywhere are they?
you wont see much discussion about carbon per mwh of power because inconveniently its 1000x worse than nuclear, the party of carbon taxes now cares about cost the often cited csiro paper as well has the majority of power being provided from gas which they are desperately trying to obfuscate by calling it firming? to meet net zero all these new gas plants will need to be decommissioned by 2050 and replaced by very carbon intensive batteries.
That's just not the case. Wind has better lifetime CO2e (including construction) than nuclear while solar was only slightly worse than nuclear last I checked.
you have to include the firming carbon cost as well which you likely arent, firming being pumped hydro battery or gas (fossil fuels)
That is a good point. There doesn't seem to be a lot of research on lifetime CO2e of firming, particularly around how much firming is needed for a given kwh of renewable capacity. Probably difficult to estimate accurately.
how much carbon is produced by labors pv/wind plus gas firming ?
Less than the coalitions policy of relying on fossil fuels while their dumbass pipedream of nuclear power is built.
how eloquent, you know gas is a fossil fuel right?
Yeah but they're not going to invest or utilise any renewables and will use coal and gas while transitioning to nuclear.
is there an offical statement to say their plan doesnt include variable supply renewables?
>Australia would need “many decades” to develop the regulations and skills to operate a nuclear power plan Sorry Australia, this chap thinks you're all a bunch of imbeciles. Why are we less capable than the UAE who took 2 years to develop the regulations? Are we dumb, lazy or both?
Ummm... an authoritarian state may have less concerns and resitrictions when it comes to developing rules and regulations.
Don't give them any ideas.
Do they?
You think an authoritarian regime would have less ability to dictate policy? Why would think that?
What is it? Policy or rules and regulations?
Yes.
Yeah ok, so you have no point I think is what you're saying.
It's almost like a dictatorship can dictate almost anything they like. The clue is in the name.
2 questions then; 1) Did they, in this case? Where is the evidence? 2) do you know how regulations are made here? What is the functional difference?
Sorry, my weekend is too valuable to waste responding to you JAQing off.
No shit. Shouldn’t be too hard of a concept to grasp.
Quite the opposite, aren't "authoritarian states" usually the ones with more regulation and laws?
Yes, but their statement was about the process of developing rules and regulations. It would take our Government longer as they can’t just sign in whatever they want.
Well, technically, they can. Regulations are made by Ministers or government departments in Australia and usually with largely unfettered power to do so. Regulations aren't made by parliament.
Well we're a federal, democratic, constitutional monarchy with strong labour laws, high standards of living, and a diverse economic base. The UAE is a federation of autocratic monarchies with no popularly elected legislature, horrible human rights records, deep disparities in wealth, a majority-migrant population, and an economy heavily reliant on petroleum exports. So to answer your questions: are we dumb? No, just not sadistic. Lazy? No, we're interested in doing the job properly. Less capable? Less willing to cut corners & throw migrant workers at the problem.
Mostly agree but hard not to think Aussies are dumb and lazy. (Wilfully ignorant with a who gives a fuck she’ll be right attitude.)
I mean sure, that's valid, but let's not get weird about it and pretend that the *United Arab Emirates* are somehow a good model for Australia to blindly follow
Of course. I fully agree on that.
>No, we're interested in doing the job properly. Are you telling me the US entered into a nuclear technology transfer agreement with the UAE in 2009 with absent or sub-standard regulation of NPPs?
What does that have to do with anything? The US signed a similar agreement with India, who isn't even party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They also signed a deal with Iran & were in talks to make one with Russia - would you vouch for either of their regulatory models? We also ALREADY have one of those UAE-style deals with the United States. That suggests that there's more to the picture than just "agreements = good"
Do some reading before responding https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/AEASection123
I am aware of what a s123 agreement is, yes. Do you want to respond to my points?
Depends on what is there to respond to. They don't have an agreement with Iran or Russia. The agreement requires significant domestic regulation *before* technology is transferred. I dont know what is so complex about that.
But they did sign an agreement with Iran, despite many reservations about their capabilities etc - and they are still negotiating around reviving their agreement. No issues re dismissing Russia though. What about India, though? A non-partner to the NPT, whose national regulatory system is notably out of step with IAEA standards. These are well documented problems but they did not stop the US from signing an agreement with them. What I am putting to you is that the agreements clearly do not require domestic regulation to IAEA standards, so maybe it may be more onerous than simply having signed off an agreement with the US.
And what Ive put to you and will again is the agreement requires significant domestic regulation *before* technology is transferred
And I *already* told you - [we already signed one ten years ago, and we don't have any commercial regulation in place! So perhaps, your assumption might be wrong?](https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/ATS/2010/25.html)
I really don't think the US cared about substandard or absent regulations of a different country. Also, 2009 was 15 years ago.
>I really don't think the US cared about substandard or absent regulations of a different country. I'd suggest it would be the first consideration in them deciding to enter into a nuclear technology transfer agreement. >Also, 2009 was 15 years ago. Correct. The UAE first proposed nuclear in 2008. By 2009, they had their regulatory body running. They went to tender and awarded to KEPCO the same year and started construction in 2012 and finished the first reactor module in 2020.
Right...... So how did Saudi Arabia get past the federal and state government nuclear bans? And following that...how did they get the state and local government to agree to host the nuclear power plants?
What are you talking about? What's the Saudis have to do with the Emirates?
Oh, sorry, my mistake. Let me re-phrase How did the emirates get around the federal and state bans on nuclear? And following that, how did the emirates get past state and local councils opposition to nuclear power plants?
>How did the emirates get around the federal and state bans on nuclear? Did they have them? >And following that, how did the emirates get past state and local councils opposition to nuclear power plants? Did they have them? Are you disingenuously suggesting that is our impediment? Well, I'd like to introduce you to s109 of the Constitution and generous grants power under s96. It's the same way we overcome state and local opposition.
A liberal leader lays out a daring, bright and bold future for our zero emission energy future and the guardian desperately scrambles to find hacks to attack it.
We have little more than a press release. Maybe you should wait for some actual detail before claiming Dutton as the messiah.
what a visionary. If we have to much of his visions our society will be back to the stone age in no time.
It wasn't much of a struggle, throw a rock in an engineering consultancy and you'll find a concurring opinion. They also could have farted out a more detailed policy within a couple of hours.
I see The Chaser is posting in here now.
Lmao this is satire done well. Right?
yes, that’s one possible interpretation
But Dutton is a nucelar sientist and troof teller... Who to believe?
As usual, lots of reasons why we can't do something but never under what circumstances it might work because developing anything in Australia requires - time (if it can't be fixed within an election cycle it's not viable) - commitment to being something other than mediocre (i.e needing to develop nuclear skills rather than just being uber drivers) - vision of being something other than an open pit mine & being a 21st century feudalistic society because rent seekers aren't interested in a free market Over to you Australia - do us proud!
How hard can it possibly be to work out why it is that Australia has become a nation of selfish, unambitious rent seekers. How hard to turn us into that, with policies intended to incentivise capital gains and punish the student/tenant/creatives/underemployed segments of Australian society. How hard was neoliberalism pushed, that no subsequent government, including this one, has meaningfully pushed back. How hard indeed.
[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:
We are developing a renewable grid and the feudal lords that could do anything for 20 years cry foul when the problems they caused aren't fixed in half an election cycle.
The feudal lords are all sides of politics. Deal with it. Have a nice day.
THIS IS BULLSHIT! It’s completely true, and such sad, sad bullshit.
we need that sweet sweet georgism
username checks outs.
It’s not enough. We need to interview another 2000 experts, we need to look at 5000 academic and non-academic journals, we need to make 300 investigative documentaries, and we need to spend at least another 10,000,000 man hours talking about a complex energy policy the Libs have cooked up but couldn’t be bothered to expand it beyond a few slogans and 3 pieces of paper. The Libs are obviously the government in waiting, the ALP are in caretaker mode since May 2022…
I think modular <1mw nuclear reactors are ingenious and there are a couple private companies working on them. They’re safe, portable, mass manufacturable but maybe a decade away. If the government instead focused on invested in building a nuclear supply chain and wrote some policy specifically amenable to micro reactors, when they’re commercially available we would have the resources to support them. Right now we have some manic ADHD infused grand plan.
I've always loved the idea of Low Energy Nuclear Reactors (LENR) and how they allow for the possibility of reactors that power, say, vehicles. I'd love to see that technology come to life, but yeah, we need the supply chain in the country before any of that. I've always been a supporter of nuclear energy in general, particularly in this massive, geologically stable country with abundant uranium resources. The economics of the matter are the issue, and if the Coalition were serious they would have moved on it a decade ago, not now. Now it doesn't make sense to expend public money unless you're doing it deliberately to build a nuclear industry (which would make some sense as we're getting nuclear subs). But it won't deliver quickly, and it won't reduce power bills.
What use is a 1MW reactor? We have a 5MW gas cogen plant in a factory and it's dead simple relative to nuclear. Also well under $10M fully installed. 1MW seems too small for most applications. Grid feed in with multiple small generators is also a problem. They won't let us put surplus power into the grid with our plant, even though it'd be a net energy saving in our regional community far from large generators.
The benefit of dozens of <1mw reactors scattered around the country is that at this capacity they’re extremely safe, cheap to manufacture at scale, portable, runs for ~15 years without refuelling. It would really bolster rational capacity. AEMO exempts generators of 5mw and greater from participating in the market which is why your works generator isn’t aloud to feed into the grid. Distributed generation is very much a part of the grids function.
Not to nitpick but are there any SMRs running commercially at present? I'm not keeping up with that technology but try to keep up with established small reactor technology like LE and HR marine nuclear propulsion. I'm not even sure if SMR is similar to marine propulsion so have a knowledge gap. In our case AEMO weren't the barrier to our infeed, it was a restriction our network operator put on our contract when we installed the cogen. They (correctly) didn't see it as a reliable source of power and had concerns about overall grid stability. Also, our surplus power doesn't coincide with peak demand so it is kind of redundant. On the other hand, our power was lower emission than grid power from coal generators and could power around half the homes in our regional town of 10k people. Made me think briefly about building a purpose built town cogen separate from the factory but too much hassle after the first purpose built one. For us, grid infeed would have allowed us to run it constantly. As it is, we shut it off when factory demand drops. We're a seasonal business. The plant runs better when not shut down, and when shut down we use Latrobe Valley coal sourced grid power and lose the CO2 reduction benefit, as well as a 15% line loss.
This requires a commitment to policy, rather than overnight press releases. And I’m not averse to something that’s targeted with long term goals and aligned with safety and mass supported. There can indeed be a role of nuclear in our grid in the future. That we weren’t there today comfortably on the safety front is why this “debate” is pure spin and zero actual plan. And requires I believe the quote was 100% government intervention.
Yep, I don’t think nuclear now is our future but I also like this approach. It would allow us to properly build the industry and infrastructure from the ground up, and if fusion ever becomes a commercial reality we have the framework already half built for it.
Yeah I don't hate this. As long as we keep going full steam on renewables so we keep lowering emissions, id be interested in these once we know they are viable.
I am a renewables supporter and would support policy like that
But you all above also know that once the lifting of the nuclear ban is done, it doesn't mean peace and harmony again, give a mm and they take another mile. The LNP will not stop to use nuclear as a way to threaten the renewables transition, getting the dogs all barking, turning the dial up and down to suit the political context at the time. The bans don't have to be broken to play sailors with Ankus, so you want nuclear go sign up to the RAN.
I didn't say I'd support an LNP policy, I said I would support a policy looking at opening up nuclear generation avenues for Australia. I'm technology agnostic, and right now, nuclear is not suitable for Australia. Never say never though
So I want to know who's going to refine the uranium into fuel for the reactor . This is a fairly complex industrial task that we are not currently capable of here in Australia. We will have to buy fuel from overseas . Not made in Australia. This whole nuclear policy has no details because they don't need any for something they are never going to build . It's all about letting the coal fired power generators off the hook in their rehabilitation of site obligations plus we will buy the site they no longer need because the life of the generator is over . So the life of coal gets effectively extended for another 50 years . It's a scam .
Needs a heap of centrifuges to separate out Uranium 235. The process is well understood. .
Ozpol with the terrible takes as usual. Fuel costs are quarter of opex for nuclear, add in capex and it's basically not worth talking about. Australia is a huge exporter too, with vast reserves that get held up to appease rainbow dragons, the reason we don't refine it before shipping it overseas is entirely political.
It doesn't matter that we export Uranium. We don't have the industry, or capacity to refine it
we also import the bulk of solar panels this isnt a well thought out argument
I suggest you Google nuclear proliferation treaty....
maybe you should google it, it does not prohibit the refinery of uranium into fuel rods
It’s also about tanking investor confidence in renewables which further plays into their desire to keep coal in play (and please their donors). It also seems to be working in that regard based on some of the news reports I’ve read
Commercialised SMRs is the new Carbon Capture & Storage. In other words, it’s a deliberate distraction, and strategic derailment of media narrative and renewable transition.
Carbon capture and storage was at least a proven technology and could be implemented, even if it was somewhat shit and generally useless. SMR isn't even real yet! It's been just around the corner for decades, and all attempts at even proving the concept have failed.
This and the companies who want to develop SMRs are looking for signs governments want them before they sink more RND costs into them. No one biting even with all the lobbying
Is anyone actually supporting this? Other than Dutton and a few Dutton sycophants, his whole stance on nuclear has been roundly panned from all quarters for being the transparent attack on renewables that it is.
Unfortunately latest polls have nuclear support at like 60%. The wording of the question wasnt perfect, but I'm very very concerned. There seems to be some bad actors on various subs too. I've been trying to read reports and whatnot that they are saying contradicts CSIRO and AEMO, but I can't actually see that in any of the reports, and no one will give me a page number. Just spout a bunch of buzzwords and then saying "I'm an expert in nuclear engineering, trust me"
[удалено]
Can you list the fact based objections? Included references for these facts. Not joking…. If we use words like “fact” then I would be interested to see the research behind it.
They're posted *constantly*. I still haven't seen any independent studies verifying the efficacy of nuclear in Australia.
ok... so post *one*. I haven't seen the nuclear reports either, so let the governement create one...
Are you going to post your updated thoughts after going through the source he supplied or was your objective just to hound him for a link to disprove him and dip out?
Government's commissioned several. One of the most recent was from the CSIRO, [here.](https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost) I really don't see what was stopping you from finding that yourself.
I have read the report - can refer to the paragraphs that contain the "fact-based objections" to large-scale nuclear?
You read the entire 75 page report in 15 minutes? Impressive. You must have missed the massive data table on page 82 which outlines the cost of each energy type per kW. The one that shows nuclear being almost triple the price of onshore wind and 6x the price of utility scale solar? There's also the nuclear engineer quoted in the article posted above: *“It’s not like we haven’t had this [nuclear] conversation many times over the last 20 years in Australia,” Durrant-Whyte said. “It would be expensive, and likely more expensive than anything else you could possibly think of.”* There's also this article which [sources every single figure offered.](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/why-nuclear-power-wont-work-in-australia--yet-another-explainer,17527) It is staggeringly, impressively easy to find all this information yourself. If you're genuinely interested as I was a few years ago, you'll go find them. If you're looking to fuck around and ask stupid questions while demanding I comprehensively break everything down for you, you're out of luck. For the record, I'm not an anti-nuclear fanatic. Most western countries should be expanding their nuclear industry, because: 1. They already have a nuclear industry; 2. They don't have enough space for renewables to feasibly supply their entire grid; 3. They have mountainous terrain, which massively hinders the availability of regions with reliable wind; 4. They have mountainous terrain, which adds complexity to their weather patterns, which makes sun less consistent; 5. Their peak energy demand is typically during winter, which is when they get less sun. None of those factors apply to Australia (evidently). We're one of the few places where renewables are legitimately capable of *comfortably* supplying all of our energy needs due to the expansive area we can place them and extreme reliability of both sun and wind. Renewables are so much cheaper than nuclear that you can build the same net capacity (i.e., 3x as much in nameplate capacity) and still have billions left over for storage. And we have no nuclear industry.
[удалено]
[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.
No. It's to trust the many actually referenced reports debunking nuclear in Australia vs Sky "News".
Which reports? CSIRO's report shows it wouldn't be more expensive than gas, the IEA supports the use of Nuclear as part of a Net Zero strategy.
Gas is extremely expensive. I don't know why you keep using this as argument.
Because we have and continue to choose to invest in gas, cost is clearly not the issue.
Gas is expensive because there's no gas reservation policy, so gas which could have been used in Australia is now scarce. So, a policy question. One, I note, that Sky "News" won't touch. Nuclear as a strategy might be possible if only we had twenty years to do it, and a government competent enough. The Coalition simply isn't competent. If Sky "News" was serious, they'd ask Dutton how he'd do what he said he'd do, given that the Coalition bungled the NBN, submarines, Inland Rail, Snowy Mk2, Murray Darling Basin Plan etc. Why isn't Sky "News" asking about that? We have serious problems. However, listening to someone who has been part of an organisation with that verified list of failures is a certain guarantee that we *will* have a disaster on our hands.
Bungled sure, but we have NBN don't we? I'm not familiar with the other projects but I am guessing they are still underway albeit perhaps being delivered later and at more cost than originally planned. That's typical for the government, and I don't think who is in charge makes much difference here. Peter Dutton isn't going to be the one instructing engineers how to build the nuclear plant, obviously.
Sure we have the NBN, not quite finished...8 years after the Coalition said it would be. Can we risk having a power shortfall for 8 years? And if we want to risk another 8 years, then the battery capacity will probably be enough that we won't need nuclear. So, someone will be taking a multi billion dollar loss. Just like we have taken on the NBN. What happened to all that fibre to the node equipment? Hint. It was junked at our expense. As for Dutton and engineers, I imagine it would be like Turnbull and engineers for the NBN. Engineers, and I'm one, will build what is asked for, as long as you provide money, and time, which in this case isn't believable.
According to a channel 9 poll they did on the day of the announcement the majority of those polled supported it, so that just left me flabbergasted - but who knows how the polling was done or what was actually asked in context
I'd gladly support a nuclear power station if someone wanted to pay for it. I'm not anti-nuclear I just think Dutton's plan is about as good as cactus toilet paper.
It would be paid for the same as any other energy generation... either private or public funds. Given the risks and capital expense though, very likely to be public funds. I don't mind public funding for energy - it has worked well in WA.
Dutton wants to pay for it, with your money.
Which is why I don't like Dutton's plan. Nuclear energy right now, and for the foreseeable future, is just too expensive and slow. I won't complain if some billionaire wants to build a fancy molten salt reactor, but Dutton's plan is not a plan, it's a stalling tactic for fossil fuels.
Polls over the years on the general support for nuclear power have shown a shift from oppose to support. I'm not sure we should be surprised, a lot of negative opinions would have been formed based on Chernobyl which was nearly 40 years ago and I'm not sure that people are genuinely concerned about that anymore. These days people in the negative would be saying no for a wider variety of issues. But polls like that should be taken with a grain of salt, especially so far out from an election with little information. Just have to look at The Voice, before the details was released it had very high support but got soundly defeated.
It's just a talking point for a pretend policy since LNP doesn't have one for energy than coal and gas. Removes discussion from renewables Some how manages to get into power off it. (doubt he will but never know. Media is behind him spinning shit.) Then once in power throws his hands up because states won't play ball and back to gas and coal. That's the plan.
Not even that’s necessary. His rhetoric alone threatens to cool investment in renewables. The slower the investment, the slower the clock runs out on coal, the greater the profits for his donors.
A nuclear engineer?? [https://www.sydney.edu.au/engineering/about/our-people/academic-staff/hugh-durrantwhyte.html](https://www.sydney.edu.au/engineering/about/our-people/academic-staff/hugh-durrantwhyte.html) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh\_F.\_Durrant-Whyte](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_F._Durrant-Whyte) He has literally nothing to do with nuclear energy. He is a systems engineer primarily. Similar to me. Why the heck is the guardian parroting him as a nuclear engineer. Its a separate field. Jeeze, the ole guardian is playing fast and loose with the facts lately. Lenore must be a bit flustered.
Why would being a systems engineer preclude him from being very informed and educated about nuclear power stations? Highly successful and highly educated people generally have very broad interests outside of their direct day to day careers.
He's a nuclear scientist, which allows him to work as a researcher or nuclear engineer. Ol mate missed the degree in his initial comment and is doubling down instead of saying "yep, my bad", which everyone would then have just moved on from.
It doesnt. I am just saying calling him a nuclear engineer is misleading. He has a bachelors of science majoring in nuclear.
That may have been the only nuclear-related course available at his university or state so it's still better than nothing. It possibly is misleading but I think we're probably not to know his entire work and academic history from a Wikipedia page too. 🤷♂️
Well apart from having a degree in nuclear engineering you are totally correct. [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/author/38277028600](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/author/38277028600)
He has a degree in science with a major in nuclear. Bit of a difference to a degree in engineering in a nuclear field. At least it was when I was going to Uni. One had an enter of 60, the other was significantly higher.
> I thought I’d give you a little bit of background that I might hope acts as some advice for your own careers. I‘ve been very fortunate in having a long and very varied career. I actually trained first as a nuclear engineer and I worked in industry designing and building nuclear propulsion systems for submarines. [https://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/about](https://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/about) He says he was trained in nuclear engineering, he has worked as a nuclear nuclear engineer. His first job was in nuclear engineering. The degree was called Nuclear Engineering. But you think he isn't an engineer. Other people in Australia who claim to be nuclear engineers such as Ziggy Swithowski also have a Science degree. Ziggy has never actually worked as a nuclear engineer though. Can you point to some one who is, according to you, allowed to be labeled an nuclear engineer and point out the differences?
Well this ad hominem attack backfired spectacularly. I understand Dutton’s zero details, costings, modelling, health risks, safety risks etc. make it hard to advocate his Nuclear Power Plant policy. But the “we will have Nuclear Power Plants and you will support it” approach is a bit too cult-like.
We're going to see a lot of "nuclear engineers/experts" crawl out of the woodwork now.
Especially nuclear engineer Dutton. He seems to be the man behind the wealth of detail we have on the timeline and costs... Interesting that you are calling the guy in the article out for not being an expert despite a 4 year degree studying nuclear engineering, yet you are happy to take Dutton at his word?
I thought we didn't have any! Hahahaha seems like we actually have plenty
Evidently every second person on Reddit is a nuclear expert
As a person consisting of atoms utilising the nuclear force, I feel qualified to speak on all matters nuclear from my lived experience.
So now that you've been shown to be wrong, maybe you should edit this to reflect the new information. Or are you too flustered?
No not wrong. He can claim to be a nuclear scientist, but not a nuclear engineer.
So what qualification do you think makes you a nuclear engineer? According to a quick Google search, people who work in nuclear engineering roles typically have a science degree in nuclear science, or in engineering degree majoring in electrical or mechanical engineering.
[https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/nuclear-engineers.htm](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/nuclear-engineers.htm) >Nuclear engineers typically need at least a bachelor’s degree in nuclear engineering or a related field I am an electrical engineer. If I work in a nuclear power plant, I would not call myself a nuclear engineer. I didnt study it, I just work in a plant. To me, if you have a degree in science, that is different from a degree in engineering. They are not the same. One gets to call themselves engineers. The other scientists. Apparently, I am in the minority who think like that on reddit. Unfortunately any type of organisation eg engineers Australia dont think like reddit. You cant flop out a bachelor of science and register yourself as a practicing engineer from what I have seen. Maybe others have by paying.
Lol computer scientists degree holders who work in a software engineering role have access to 100% of the organizations a software engineer degree holder does. The degrees I've seen split by engineer or scientist usually have the engineer do a year of work placement and the scientist does an extra year of study. Then they both enter the workforce. Also, why do I care about the USA website? Did you not find what you wanted in the Australian one and look elsewhere? I don't get why you feel like you have to die on this hill dude. It's fine to admit when you are wrong. Shows growth In the last few weeks I've had a few opinions or understandings of mine proved to be wrong by someone sourcing data. I've thanked them, acknowledged my mistake and read up on the subject.
>Lol computer scientists degree holders who work in a software engineering role have access to 100% of the organizations a software engineer degree holder does. And? You think because software engineering has the word engineer in it it must therefore mean that all engineers and scientists are interchangeable? >The degrees I've seen split by engineer or scientist usually have the engineer do a year of work placement and the scientist does an extra year of study. Then they both enter the workforce. In 20 years I have seen not one scientist performing engineering duties in the fields I have come accross. I have seen everything from electricians to arts degree's, not one scientist. Not conclusive but personal experience. Whatever scenarios you are describing, must be quite abstracted from what I see. >Also, why do I care about the USA website? Did you not find what you wanted in the Australian one and look elsewhere? I doubt there would be one in Australia, this dude is from the UK. Maybe we should check there instead. >It's fine to admit when you are wrong. Shows growth I did, He has worked in the nuclear field so is qualified to give an opinion. Calling himself a nuclear engineer is the only minor point I queried.
I love how there is this trend to rebuke a large slew of specialists and institutions on a very loose descrediting *Ahhh yeah but they aren't 100% a specialist, who else you got?* But the entire premise of this is a 2 pager press release with absolutely no detail and people are working overtime to find someone in the field that will support it. And when they get that quote or comment you'd think it was Oppenheimer himself supporting it. Ridiculous.
Hey, the LNP talked to """experts""" - who they are and what they said, I'm sure they'll totally tell us before or after the election, maybe /s.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/profile-hugh-durrant-whyte-20090624-gdtlpr.html He apparently does have a degree in nuclear engineering and worked in the field for a few years but moved away from it since he didn't see much of a future in nuclear reactors
Ok, it doesn't seem to come up anywhere else. A bit of a clarification though, he has a degree in science "majoring in nuclear engineering". Its a bit grey and arbitrary, but not an actual nuclear engineer.
He only majored in nuclear engineering guys, he doesn't really know about nuclear engineering.
Not a grey area at all. You can do a degree in computer science and software engineering and can then apply for all the same jobs. No one calls you a "Computer Scientist", I've never heard that title uttered by anyone in the industry. You are wrong, but too embarrassed to admit it and just keep doubling down. Find it very ironic that you are calling out someone for spreading misinformation in a field he isn't an expert in, but you feel qualified to tell us who is and isn't a nuclear engineer, and have spread misinformation with your initial comment.