Let's chat about these SEVEN nuclear power plants the LNP want to build ...
Let's chat about these SEVEN nuclear power plants the LNP want to build ...
The press conference is currently still live so this was the best short video I could find on the topic.
To begin, I'm absolutely against this proposal, but I want to see a discussion - hopefully a constructive one - between Aussies (comments are always turned off for Australian news on YT) to gauge some idea of how people generally feel about the idea.
Fire off.
The worst thing about this ‘plan’ is the media treating it like it’s an actual real thing that will actually happen if the LNP get in power.
Yes. I was saying to my daughter this morning that they platform these crazy people and enable them. But then it is also true that they are in our govt so it moreover says a lot about a public that voted them into those positions and elevated their voice.
It’s a chicken and egg situation. However if the media were more concerned with journalism than audience metrics. I think the bullshit might have less standing in the eyes of the public.
You always know when the coalition is in opposition- that’s when you hear about their nuclear plans. In power, it’s crickets.
It’s all noise, distracting us from other more important things which need our attention now
I'm not fundamentally opposed to nuclear. The country's power needs are only going to keep growing, and I could see an argument for having multiple options for sourcing that power. It's a very expensive argument though, and one that's hard to swallow when all the experts are saying renewable is the way to go, and I haven't seen any projections that show that we'd necessarily need anything other than renewables in the foreseeable future.
The thing I'm strongly opposed to with regards to nuclear is rerouting funding away from renewables to pay for it. It's an expensive technology that won't be ready for decades, so I just don't see the need to pivot to it. If we'd started the transition to nuclear three decades ago things would be different, but the LNP was strongly opposed to the technology back then, funnily enough.
And it's absolutely absurd to then announce a cap on renewables spending as part of their plan to get to net zero by 2050.
The whole thing is a farce, and the LNP hasn't given any good reasons why nuclear is the way forward over renewables. They haven't said much of anything other than shout about it being the better option, but then that's been the LNP's go-to political strategy for as long as I've been old enough to vote so no surprise there.
Indeed. To me there is no debate: renewables are the only immediate way to bring us to net zero by 2050. The LNP are presenting this alternative as though we have time ahead of us - as if the planet is not already retaliating against our existence.
As an aside, the only somewhat valid argument I've heard is that nuclear would make future Australia an energy powerhouse for the region and allow for exponential growth, which is not something to dismiss flippantly. But in that I would think we would only need one, not seven! However, trying to put my paranoia aside about nuclear power plant meltdowns, that tech would need to be absolutely foolproof - and from my understanding, that is apparently true of modern nuclear generation tech available today. Yet, a solution for long-term storage of waste is still another huge and costly hurdle, let alone how you communicate the toxic danger of the area thousands of years into the future.
The problem of nuclear waste isn't actually a problem, and the 1000 year thing is a bit of an outdated myth. I wrote more about it here: https://aussie.zone/post/10867702/9731416
Energy storage is actually the biggest problem in energy right now (save for a crazy discovery like perpetual energy, or cheap mass produced super conductors that could optimize the absolute shit out of our energy transmission infrastructure and reduce the amount of energy that we need to produce in the first place).
The energy storage problem is actually the biggest reason why we need nuclear with our renewables.
Nuclear can run our baseloads, renewables plus storage can run our peakloads.
It's renewables AND nuclear, not renewables vs nuclear.
The Tories’ anti-renewable culture-war is based on the premise that fossil and nuclear electrons have bigger balls than wimpy renewable-generated ones. It’s a transparently absurd idea, but Adolf Kipfler is hoping to ride it into the Lodge nonetheless.
The thing is, if Labor had announced such a completely undercooked policy - no timelines, no validation, lots of contradictions, and most importantly, no costings whatsoever - the media would be collectively crucifying them. And I'm not talking about the polite way The Guardian or The Conversation are dissecting the policy and bringing counterpoints. No, it would be open season in the most derogatory and aggressive language possible.
The fact that Dutton can bring this to a press conference and not get laughed out of the room is just utterly sad.
Permanently Deleted
There is nothing to discuss, its not a real plan, its a fever dream. It wont happen.
Worse than that, it's an intentional miss direction so that their billionaire benefactors can continue to squeeze the fossil fuel sponge well into the future. They want to get every last almost free drop out of our resources.
That is my hope but I hear people say things ... stupid things. Things like, "I like Peter Dutton, actually." 🤮 Which makes me lament the thought that the public can be easily persuaded to vote for these shysters at the next election and we will be stuck with their corrupt scams and BS for yet another decade!
Too slow to build, too expensive, and entirely unsuited for a renewable heavy grid because the economics require it is left on at all times. And that renewable heavy grid will happen even if they ban all further renewable rollouts, simply from individuals and businesses adding more panels and batteries. Is the grid going to curtail all of that solar energy just so nuclear can be left on?
The whole thing is a transparent attempt by the fossil fuel industry to delay the renewable rollout for as long as possible, just so they can make a few more dollars. And the Coalition are ready and willing to do their bidding.
If nuclear was so brilliant the private sector would have done it already. They haven't because the cost far outweighs the benefit.
And as far taxpayer intervention goes to prop it up I just don't see any compelling evidence to suggest investment in nuclear will give you better bang for your buck than renewables.
In some countries without much wind, sun and waves nuclear might make sense provided they could cheaply get uranium and dispose waste cheaply. That's not Australia and we have options.
Not taking sides here, but the private sector couldn't have done it because laws specifically prevent them.
Permanently Deleted
Lol ba boom! ching!
The LNP could not build car parks.
There is zero chance of this happening even if they got into power, controlled the Senate and had the individual States green light it.
I think (or hope) most of us know that nuclear is no longer an option for us in Australia and that there are many more sustainable ways to generate energy here.
The only reason why Dutto is pushing Nuclear as an option is because he is a crony.
Wind power generation has a barrier to entry, but it is much lower than Coal or Fracking, which is why there is so much corporate-sponsored astroturfing against it. Coal and Fracking also has a lower barrier to entry, but is cheap compared to Nuclear.
Solar is the great equaliser. Anyone can throw a handful of solar panels on their roof, connect them to an array of old car batteries and add an inverter and voila! Instant home power generation. Get out from under of the boot of Power Companies and be self-sufficient (as long as you don’t want to use a hair-dryer).
If the proles can get of free energy and no longer need to rely on The Grid, all of the Corporations that own Dutto will no longer have any political power.
Dutto is not offering Nuclear as an alternative to Coal and LNG to the electorate, he is offering it as an alternative to his lords and masters.
Energy generation is not an issue at all. It's a completely solved problem.
It's energy storage that is the problem, and that's why we need nuclear.
But Dutton isn't pushing nuclear because he's being responsible. He's not actually pushing nuclear, he's just pushing a pipedream doomed project designed to take time/money/effort away from renewables, storage, and actual nuclear, all to keep money flowing to the coal industry shareholders.
Nuclear is a terrible fit for that though, it can't scale up and down generation quickly, which is what would be useful with renewable. Honestly we're better off for now trying to get to 95% renewables as quickly as possible for cheap, and filling the 5% with quickly scaling gas, and solve the last few percent a little more slowly but in a way that's economic (and therefore will realistically happen). Nuclear is just way too slow, and if you sunk the cost that it'd take to build out the nuclear we could easily have a 100% renewable grid a lot sooner than the 20+ years it'll take with nuclear
I think Australia should be investing heavily in nuclear. The cost doesn't make sense for the private sector to bear, but the govt can afford it as long as it doesn't take away from renewable investment like the libs are proposing here. Future debt is easier to solve than carbon emissions.
We need large scale base load power generation to fill in the gap that electrification of everything will bring. Electrical demand will increase as we replace fossil fuel for heating, cars and transport, etc...
Link the east and west coast grids to let afternoon solar on the west coast flatten the evening east coast peaks, pick a big old chunk of desert in South Australia for wind and solar, throw in a few gigabatteries and tart up some hydro systems, done.
Probably only be $10-15 billion or so.
Thing is, Renewables are already cheap. By the time Nuclear is built, batteries and solar will be hugely cheaper than the price they are now (and in 10 years, its reasonable to expect more than half the price again).
The same thing that happened to NBN will happen to nuclear (basic Game theory). With NBN, competitors undercut the NBN with 5G, because FTTC and FTTN was so bad, and it wasted everyone's money.
In this case, if they start building, everyone knows that power costs will be expensive, so renewable energy companies will target the prices, and encourage people to install solar and batteries anyway.. If batteries are 1/5 of the price they are now, everyone will simply install 5x more batteries, more panels (because they'll also be more efficient and cheaper than they are now, and work during worse conditions) and remove themselves from the grid. From a game theory point of view, Solar/batteries have a 10-15 year head start and are already cheaper. At the moment 12kwh seems to be the common capacity for batteries.. However, if batteries drop a lot, 30-40kwh might be the normal. And it's likely by the time Nuclear can be built that Lithium will no longer even be the norm for batteries (or if it is, they'll probably be solid state and low risk). Sodium batteries were already introduced last year and are 25% cheaper instantly. Battery density doesn't matter for houses (only cars), which really opens up options (all that matters is upfront cost and $ per kwh)
I bought my 6.6kw panels maybe 3 years ago, and 10kw is apparently already cheaper. If I wait 5 years, 15-20kw will probably be cheap (and I have more than enough roof space, so the only thing limiting me would be weather the power company allows it)
I have no idea why anyone would want a centralised grid. Last major power outage here in Victoria during storms was triggered because Loy Yang coal fell offline, and non-solid state power generation takes ages to come back online (it needs to sync up to the grid). Solar and batteries sync up immediately, so if its available, they will always beat Nuclear, and nuclear will simply be sitting there burning rods increasing our taxes and power prices (because nobody wants to use it, and its ultimately taxpayer money).. Similar to what happened with NBN (they ended up having to replace a lot of the copper anyway, and now yet again, they've had to upgrade to fibre)
If nuclear could come online tomorrow, it would make sense simply to get rid of coal. However Nuclear is basically playing a game where the competition has a 10 lead, and any innovation can be introduced to the market instantly. With Nuclear, whatever we start building now, we're stuck with. You can't simply just start incrementally updating parts
Even when in power and offering cash incentives, the LNP couldn't convince the power industry to extend coal power plant lifetimes or build new generators. Renewables have already won the free market, they will likely never be beaten in our lifetime. Good fucking luck getting any company that wants to actually make money to invest in nuclear.
The only reasonable argument left for nuclear is the baseline and storage argument, but again the writing is on the wall, industry can see the trajectory that batteries and storage tech is on and know that by the time they spend 2 decades investing in current gen nuclear, it will probably be beaten by storage in the free market anyway.
By the time these are built, you'll have hugely cheap and efficient batteries and solar panels.. Even solar windows and roof tiles
Furthermore, nuclear is expensive anyway, so everyone will still get solar and undercut it. Day #1 of Game theory. In fact, similar to NBN, there is a very real chance solar companies will spring up and undercut it, so we have another lib NBN.
Finally, why would anyone want a centralised power grid which is operated and run by a single company.
It's a stupid idea.
Permanently Deleted
This policy is not genuine. The intention is to delay or destroy fossil fuel alternatives to protect fossil fuel investments. If it creates political division and an impression of leadership then it is icing on the cake. I would expect the coalition to become increasingly divided if this was ever realistically pursued. Coalition voters do not want to foot the bill for this idiocy. The market has already voted. Renewables won on time to market and ROI.
For context I am not opposed to nuclear power generation at all. There has been a lot of misinformation about safety and waste for generations that has poisoned debate and I would like to see a more rational debate. I think it irresponsible for countries like Germany to turn away from nuclear and create huge energy security issues as well as increased emissions.
Carbon emissions are a global problem and each country has a responsibility to address it as effectively as they can. We can support nuclear power by supplying uranium and it doesn't matter for carbon reduction if the reactors are in Australia or overseas.
Our construction costs are very high and we don't have local expertise. Our research reactor was designed by Argentina. As much as some of us would like to see nuclear power come to Australia it is fantasy economics.
I don't know how much you know about Germany, but energy security is not a huge problem over there. Over 60% of generated electricity is now coming from renewables. Nuclear peaked as early as 1995 (30%) and has been declining ever since. At the same time, Germany is steadily reducing its dependency on Russian fossil fuels.
It makes no economic sense. Fucking idiot.
Should be nuclear + renewables, not nuclear vs renewables.
Unfortunately it doesn’t work like that. Energy is bid into the market at the spot price. Because the marginal cost of producing energy from renewables is so cheap, this will displace energy from all other sources when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. This is what’s already happening with the coal generators today.
By the time any nuclear gets built, there will be so much solar in the system that nuclear will have to be forcibly shut off at least 40% of the time or operate at a loss. This capacity factor is then on par with wind, so you may as well just build more of that - it’s way cheaper.
The concept of baseload power is dead and has been dead for a while. What we need is more dispatch-able generation and storage.
Permanently Deleted
It’s ridiculous. We are absolutely in the drivers seat to be a world leader in renewable energy and out of touch politicians want us to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in nuclear power stations like it’s the 1950s and we don’t have any other alternative.
Like every other government project there will a cost blowout, and it will overrun so by 2040 we’ll have a handful of half built nuclear reactors and the budget will be a couple hundred billion in the red.
We don’t have the expertise to build or run nuclear power stations, so we would have to import all of that knowledge and expertise until we can skill up. More money.
We have the landmass and the coastline to support solar, wind and wave generation. It will be far less complex, cheaper to build/maintain, we’ll be able to diversify energy sources and there is no toxic byproduct.
The Liberals fucked the NBN, fingers crossed they don’t fuck our energy future as well.
I think we should have done this 20 years ago. Not kicked the can down the road.
Sure, but if we'd started 20 years ago it would have taken 20 years to build!
I mean, it’s one way to solve the Gippsland problem: abandoned town tours after the private sector RBMK’s the fuck outta Traralgon. Because let’s be super clear here: private industry has a dog shit safety record, and IF the thing gets build (it won’t) they’ll build the cheapest fucking reactor they can. If the government try to regulate (they won’t) it’ll be too cost inefficient to work (it already is) so we’d gonna end up with an industry that’d make a Soviet engineer worried!
It's really just kicking the can down the street. My expectation is if they got into power, they would say the figures are more than they realised, say they have to fix Labor's economic mess and they'll come back to it when the economy is in the black. Like others, I would have seen it as viable 20 years ago, but it is just so expensive, they've cancelled builds overseas because of cost blowouts and Europe is turning off reactors because of all the renewable energy in their grid. The claim it would be cheaper annoys me the most, as it is an outright lie. All the liberals do is shovel shit and coal
Existing nuclear tech is dramatically more expensive than every competing low carbon power generation alternative and will never have any place in Australia.
Future nuclear tech (be it fission or fusion) may be a different story, but our power plants are at end of life so we need new power gen now, the world is dying so we need carbon neutral now.
We can't sideline this for 20 years to wait and see what happens, the strategy should be the roll out renewables to the point where the grid doesn't need any major changes. When we hit the point where the grid does need big investment, reassess available alternatives. If nothing has changed, roll out the grid changes and more renewables or if fusion drilling geotehermal or nuclear or whatever has come viable work it out then.
Have they released who is going to pay for these power plants? Because if they put it on my monthly bill, I’m going off grid and I bet half the rest of the country will too.
fwiw Sabine has a history of commenting outside of her area of expertise and having some very bad takes.
She's an astrophysicist. Listen to her closely when she's talking about what's going on in space. But her comments on other subjects such as climate, trans rights, and, yes, nuclear energy, should be taken as those of a random interested layperson. Maybe they're right from time to time, but they don't deserve any special consideration.
In that video, for example, she herself admits to ignoring the planning stage, and she's only talking about countries that already have large nuclear industries. Australia has no nuclear expertise to begin with, so it's guaranteed to take a lot longer for us than it does in places like Germany and America. And even then she ends up admitting it's at least twice as expensive as alternative options. She tries to downplay this by making a joke about astrophysics and orders of magnitude, but here on Earth that's a big difference, and that's in the best case.
I think it's a well balanced and well researched video. I don't think she concludes that nuclear is a clear winner. And in our case it may not make sense. But both sides are guilty of cherry picking facts to fit their narrative.
The only reason I can think of to go nuclear is if renewables can't meet our power needs. I think it's a hard problem for the grid to manage distributed power generation in such varying amounts. Sometimes the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow enough. Can batteries fill the gaps? I hope so. But I wouldn't be opposed to a small bet on nuclear at the same time.
Whats the link?
Nuclear is fucking awsome and had the ability to fix our energy issues. There is strong evidance that the oil corporations are actually responsible for manufacturing nuclear fear narrative because it poses an actually economically viable alternative.
Thats not to mention the CSIRO who access tally forgot to include the most economically viable nuclear energy method of there analysis of "all" energy production methods. So much for independence.
Nuclear is literally the most expensive way to generate energy and no amount of liquid salt or SMR hallucinations can come even close to fixing that problem.
You don't need to create fear of nuclear, it's a bad choice all by itself.
I might be reading to much in to the previous commenters use of the word had. But you're at arguments make a lot more sense today than 30 years ago.
It certainly was fear that stopped Australia from building a nuclear industry in the 90s. It made a lot of sense then. Today, it's hard to see it anything more as a diversionary tactic.
Liquid salt is good for small heigh density systems mainly submarines. SMR is bullshit and far more expensive that other reactors (mainly due to the lack of expertise or good designs available). SMR is the silicon valley tech bro bs reactor. We gotta stop fuckin around and go to Japan or France and be like hey here's a couple billion we like that one put it here.
In 3 years, solar panel cost has mostly dropped in half (you can buy a 10kw system for the same as 6.6 a few years ago). Battery cost dropped 25% over the past year.
Nuclear can't dispatch any power (incrementally or otherwise), until its fully built. Nuclear is also expensive power, and it can't be dispatched as quickly or cheaply as solar/batteries (so the nuclear power station will remain offline). Don't forget that generators need to sync to the grid fully, and can even lose sync and take hours to come back online (which happened to Loy Yang recently, and there were huge blackouts in victoria). When more despatchable power is needed, batteries will win EVERY time (because its cheap and instant).
Its reasonable to think that even 40kwh batteries will be cheaper and safer than even 10kwh batteries too and much higher efficiency solar panels (and possibly solar windows), so people will get off the grid and can have days of solar eclipse too.
Battery capacity is limited by cost still.. It won't be in the future (don't forget, residential is about $ per kwh, NOT density)
One thing that is also misunderstood, is that panels still also produce power when its cloudy too.. Solar panel efficiency in 10 years will increase rapidly, and this will only improve..
Nuclear is like an average olympic athlete who isn't allowed to start a race for 10 years. Sure it looks competitive now, but there are so many other athletes around, that by the time Nuclear gets to the starting line, the other athletes will be finishing.
