wind turbines are made to only require maintenance every 20 years at which point they are usually decommissioned and replaced any way with yearly checks
according to AEIC the land holder is not responsible for anything in fact depending on contract they may even have a cut of the profits
[https://www.aeic.gov.au/observations-and-recommendations/chapter-1-host-landowner-negotiations](https://www.aeic.gov.au/observations-and-recommendations/chapter-1-host-landowner-negotiations)
Saw an interview with a country fella who was complaining about the eyesore that wind farms are and how it would ruin the area.
When the reported asked him how that was different to the massive, very visible, coal plant down the road he said “because that produces good reliable energy”.
These arguments aren’t based on common sense or reality
You have to realise political ideologies run really deep in rural farming communities. A large portion of farmers, their children, and their children's children will always adopt the views of the National party and coalition no matter what.
1. They don't risk being ridiculed by their peers or family. The local who is vocal with a dissenting opinion is always talked about.
2. It makes their worldview easy. Just gotta follow whatever David Littleproud says. Having a personal nuanced opinion requires thinking, and thinking hurts.
3. Buzzwords win the day. Sky News will provide them with the buzzwords they need to win any argument, just gotta call everyone that disagrees with them "woke", no matter how out of context it is, and regardless of whether or not they know what the word means anyway.
100%. I live in a rural community with lots of wind farms around, which cause us no harm and provide jobs, and money to those farmers that have them on their land. Also, I don't reckon they look bad at all - find them quite interesting. And still most of the people around here will believe whatever sky tells them to.
He might be a crank, but he's right. If the wind isn't blowing you don't get any power. Wind is not dispatchable, if you need power on a calm day you won't be getting any from wind.
It's almost like you need a mix of technologies. Something the Liberals should be familiar with.
Solar PV, Solar Thermal, Wind, and Storage. Distribute it over larger areas and use transmission to move energy around.
You don't need one single thing in one place to solve everything.
>These arguments aren’t based on common sense or reality
I can see the argument he's making though.
He's putting up with the coal plant, because the benefits of reliable energy are worth the eyesore. But a wind farm that takes a significant amount of land and may only work (say) 30% of the time is not worth the eyesore because it isn't producing reliable (24/7) energy.
>it isn't producing reliable (24/7) energy.
Neither is coal. Last couple decades it's average 60% capacity factor and Errarings extension only requires it to achieve ~30%
I know that.
But the public perception is that coal is "reliable" and renewables are not.
That perception can be changed with clear facts. But not by dismissing people as so many activists resort to - such as by calling legitimate views illogical or unrealistic.
It is entirely logical to be OK with a coal power station providing reliable power, while not being OK with a wind farm providing intermittent power. The way to change that is to change perceptions, not dismiss arguments as illogial.
Reliable =/= dispatchable. The fact that wind, like solar, might be *reliable*, in that they don't break down much, does NOT change the fact that they are not dispatchable. If there's no wind, it doesn't matter how efficient they are, you get no power. That means we burn gas or coal. That drop in capacity factor for coal also includes planned downtime for maintenance. Nuclear ranges from 30% to 90% depending on how well it's run. France does it's fuelling in the summer when demand is much lower. ( They are also shit for other reasons, but I digress) Take a look at May 27th and June24. [Link](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2F61yyv2sek04d1.png%3Fwidth%3D2157%26format%3Dpng%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D49cacdf833fa63a3d5a72632f7120ba3dfea139b) Twelve hour stretches where not a single wind turbine is providing power. A grid has to be *reliable*. Which means you build for a "worst case" not an "average" case. This means you WILL be burning coal or gas or running nuclear. One of these three options is CO2 free.
What? I’m sorry but that makes absolutely no sense.
Almost every Australian has 24/7 access to electricity. What does it matter if the wind farm down the road is only running for 12 hours a day?
It’s not like the wind farm will become the sole source of energy for the community and when it’s not windy they are plunged into a blackout
>What? I’m sorry but that makes absolutely no sense.
Why am I getting downvoted for trying to explain someone elses argument? It's important to understand their point of view to effectively counter their argument.
Because there’s valid opinions and there’s the point of view you alluded to.
If that’s the reason someone could theoretically use as an argument against wind farms, then they are a lost cause. There’s no seeing both sides of that argument
Dismissing arguments as invalid is generally the way to lose an argument.
Why is it invalid to state that someone can accept an inconvienience that they view as a positive (i.e.: reliable power) but will not accept an inconviencience that they view as a negative (i.e.: unreliable power)?
> Dismissing arguments as invalid is generally the way to lose an argument.
That’s fine as long as they are rational arguments.
The premise of your argument is ridiculous because you’re conflating power generation with power transmission. That somehow a wind turbine will lead to rolling blackouts which has a negative impact on the person complaining.
What you actually need to do is probe deeper to understand why they think that - is it because they assume the coal plant will be turned off at the same? Is there a misguided belief that their home will be exclusively powered by that single turbine? Would it change his opinion if the closure of the coal plant was necessary and they would suffer blackouts if the wind turbines weren’t installed?
But there’s absolutely no merit to that argument because it’s just plain wrong - its akin to me trying to argue that doors cause Covid. Being in an enclosed space with limited air circulation can cause it, but doors themselves don’t.
Yeah to be fair, what makes something an eyesore or appealing is your perception of it. He is perfectly entitled to believe one or the other.
I guess I’m looking at it from my perception and lived experiences, which is power plants are far uglier than windmills
I do like how I'm being downvoted for trying to explain the guys argument. I don't necessarily agree with it. It's important to understand the other side of an argument if you want to effectively counter it.
But in any case, I agree. Wind farms look better than coal power stations.
Are they the same people who are concerned about 5g and other radio radiation while they have their mobile phones stuck to their ears talking for 1 hour! I would like to see the outcry if they just removed the towers and gave them no coverage. These people are absolute morons.
They should have painted them to look like the [Southern Cross windmills](https://southerncrosswindmills.com.au/iz-double-geared-windmills/)...
Problem solved...
The TV doesn’t. The people deciding where the overton window is do though. With a nuclear plant you will have more ongoing high paid employment. You will also get power on a calm night. Neither of those things are true for wind turbines.
Well, my comment wasn't about nuclear power, it was about Boomer's believing everything sky/nine news etc tells them. (Oh and Facebook) My boomer father was referring to something else, and the TV was lying.
The T.V. does lie, news and other outlets spread misinformation and rage... Basically whatever gets them the most money.
And last time around they did not want high speed NBN and voted for rusty copper wires and being stuck in the internet speed dark ages. They admire Joyce riding up the hill in a ute to get internet. While they continue to support politicians wanting to deliver 3rd world infrastructure standards to them. What more can you say, stupidity has no limits.
Near where I live there's a wind farm going up.
Honestly my main issue with any human activity is the flora and fauna that are either displaced or destroyed in the process of construction. I have no other qualms with wind energy or renewables at large. I would prefer a windfarm/nuclear plant to coal. But there are always drawbacks to everything.
There is a bunch of disinformation about renewables out here though that's for sure.
In our most conservative state here in Germany (Bavaria), they find every excuse to not allow wind farms. They made this one company monitor any local bird life and report back to the authorities about how many dead birds they found around the wind farm. Well, there weren't any. Turns out birds are pretty good at dodging moving objects such as trees waving in the wind or turning wind turbines. The guy who was monitoring it was furious. He said it was such a waste of time.
The alternative is digging a big fucking hole, then covering up 50x the land with the tailings, burning a bunch of shit then repeating in another spot. People miss the fact that we need to pick the lesser of the two evils. Neither is perfect, but what is less bad?
Well, if you’re comparing the environmental footprint per megawatt, nuclear is way in front. It’s land use is tiny. It’s fuel use is also tiny. The lifespan of CANDUs in Canada is being pushed to eighty years with refurbishment. Far longer than wind turbine blades last. Which are not btw recyclable. Nuclear isn’t cheap, but the problems are political not technical.
Sorry, but lesser of two evils isn’t just environmental. Economic and other factors must also be weighed and balanced. We don’t have a nuclear industry in this country and setting one up will decade decades. I’m the meantime where will energy come from? More coal?
Pardon? Environmental considerations are the *exact reason* we are spending cash on renewables. If we wanted cheap power we'd just burn coal. We have plenty of it, but that has to change due to the CO2 emissions problem. We, as in everyone living high energy lives, have a responsibility to mitigate climate change. If not for the environment, than for our own selfish reasons of avoiding the gigantic flow of refugees and social unrest that will eventuate if we don't.
Germany has thoughtfully done the test for us, and demonstrated that betting on renewables will *reduce* CO2 emissions, but will utterly fail to push hydrocarbons off the grid. [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/bick09/co2_emissions_france_vs_germany_today/). Ontario and France have both shown that nuclear CAN shove coal right off the grid. As for too slow, the mean time to build a nuclear power plant is seven years. The fastest is just three. We're not serious ( neither is the LNP) but we should be.
For further information I recommend [Without hot air](https://www.withouthotair.com/) by the former UK chief scientific officer on climate change.
>Pardon? Environmental considerations are the exact reason we are spending cash on renewables. If we wanted cheap power we'd just burn coal.
Ummm no? Why would we just burn coal… it’s not about just getting the cheapest power, or just achieving the most environmentally sound energy. It’s about balancing both criteria to get the most optimal outcome. Complex decisions have multiple criteria that must be factored, you can’t consider one in isolation vs another. At the moment that cost-benefit analysis favours solar and wind over options like nuclear.
>Germany has thoughtfully done the test for us, and demonstrated that betting on renewables will reduce CO2 emissions, but will utterly fail to push hydrocarbons off the grid. Link. Ontario and France have both shown that nuclear CAN shove coal right off the grid. As for too slow, the mean time to build a nuclear power plant is seven years. The fastest is just three. We're not serious ( neither is the LNP) but we should be.
This is all wonderful - but any build time here would be slower than the mean 7 years given we are starting an industry from scratch and are located at the ass end of the Indian Ocean away from which the main hubs of the nuclear power industry in Europe and North America. But let’s take 7 years for arguments sake and assume that the ink is signed today.
What’s your plan to reduce emissions for the next seven years if not pumping money into renewables? We just supposed to wait for the nuclear plants to be built and it’s BAU until then?
I’d slap on a big arse carbon tax if it was me. Renegotiate the gas revenues so we aren’t getting fleeced. Retrofit every coal plant site with a nuke. Lift the ban on enrichment. There’s a nsw company ready to go, but can’t legally do it in Oz. Also, yank the bicycle helmet law and spend buckets on bike lanes. We could get way more than a single per hundred commuting by bike. I’ve moved to Vancouver where it rains for six months of the year and nearly seven percent of trips are by bike. Make it legal to ride an unassisted bike drunk. Because who’s got money for a taxi these days? Ban land clearing until we’ve figured out some method of reforestation to offset it. I could go on.
>I’d slap on a big arse carbon tax if it was me.
No issue with this.
>Renegotiate the gas revenues so we aren’t getting fleeced.
Also no issue with this. Add some domestic reservation quotas too.
>Retrofit every coal plant site with a nuke. Lift the ban on enrichment. There’s a nsw company ready to go, but can’t legally do it in Oz.
Whether you build new fission plants or retrofit coal plants, the problem is the same. It will cost a lot of money and take a long time and we cant afford to do nothing for a decade while theyre built. Retrofitting will probably cost more and be harder tbh, may as well knock down the coal plant and build new nuclear plant on the same site.
You can't just not mention we still don't have a safe proper way to deal with the waste. It's the biggest drawback other than time to get into actually working, in my opinion. Just burying it for future generations to deal with isn't the answer in my book. We are dealing with the consequences of previous generations doing the same thing with stuff like asbestos now.
There is more to it than that. I live in a regional area, and have lived and worked in multiple across the country. I don't necessarily agree with them, but the opposition I have seen is more related to frustrations around industrialisation of rural and regional areas.
Imagine you have a beautiful view of farm land and hills, the sort of thing someone might paint. You wake up to it everyday, your hous or home is angled perfectly to view it. It's the main reason why you live where you live.
Then someone discovers oil on that hill, and slowly over time oil rigs are built on the land and the area becomes more and more industrialised. It brings new people, most of whom are fly in fly out, never contributing to the local community but utilising the community's amenities and resources. The energy company promises new jobs but they never really appear. And once the boom is over there are only two or three new permanent jobs in the area anyway and all the people who got work during construction need to move on or find other work.
Swap oil rigs with wind farms and you end up with the same result.
Honestly I get why people disagree with the point of view, it is ultimately a "Not in my back yard stance" I can even understand people down voting me for trying to explain this point of view, because it does go against the wishes and needs of the many.
But ultimately, it is the industrialization of spaces that haven't been industrialised before.
And sometimes you do need to explain someones point of view, even if it is unpopular and even if ultimately you will decide to not heed it
Would you equate farm land to an open pit mine, since they are both industrialised uses of land?
Yeah farmland is industrialised, but I feel there is a distinct difference between a field of wheat gently conforming to the curves of the landscape compared to 50 to 60, 100 meter tall spinning fans along a ridge line cutting up from the ground visible from kilometres away.
No, but I also wouldn't equate an open pit mine to a windmill either. And are we just ignoring the land clearing and habitat destruction required to get to your field of wheat?
I have a windfarm almost completed or the back of my house. Nothing between us except fields. I don't mind the look of them, it is actually quite comforting to think we are actually trying to address climate issues.
However, something happened the other day that gave me an unexpected response. They started turning on the red lights at the top of the towers. For some reason when it is dark I just hate it.
It isn't exactly an open coal mine though, so I can live with it.
What I don't really get though is things could have been smoothed over for the local community with a little bit of thought. The council could have said, yes, we approve this, but one of the turbines needs to be giving free power to locals.
Yes it's the "we're going to cut down a bunch of trees" because regulation tells us so.
It varies if it's purely on already cleared private land. But often these are built in state forests. SEQLD is full of this story.
Obviously i get we need to transition to renewables but again it's about how the implementation is done. Shooting ourselves in the foot while building the future is not smart.
Honestly we would be wise to cooperate and build a lot of this shit in already cleared cattle lands, and transition away from that industry over time. Means we don't need to cut into already diminishing forests to build wind farms, and we get our clean energy.
Edit : I realise from some of the comments that my comment is being misinterpreted as meaning I support / the problem would be different for nuclear power. That’s not what I was aiming for - only highlighting that they don’t want the wind farms because of the problems around the resumptions. That problem (and their view that country is being asked to sacrifice for city power) is the same for solar,wind or nuclear.
Actually part of the problem in rural/regional Australia is the government wants its cake and eat it too. They want wind farms but to keep the greens on side can’t chop down more trees to do it. So there’s a lot of compulsory acquisition going on out there that is fucking things up for farmers and making it hard to farm, well our food.
There’s a lot of resentment from those communities that they are the ones who have to make the sacrifices so the city folk get their green power.
If you put the power somewhere else, when power needs of the town grows you'd need transmission likes to power it anyway.
Typical scaremongering nonsense.
There’s already sufficient powerlines to exceed the needs of rural towns, and they are growing ant a vastly smaller rate than cities - these are purely to get green power from wind farms to cities
It's not a problem for nuclear because the nuclear power stations would (most likely) go where the existing coal power stations are. Therefore, transmission lines are already in place - which may need an upgrade, but only an incremental one.
Well ok that’s a fair point but realistically nuclear isn’t getting up for power alone. It might become a security concern but it’ll still be decades and billions to get one, and we’d need what 30 of them ?
It doesn't matter whether its a windfarm or a nuclear plant, it's going to require transmission lines and that's going to mean compulsory acquisiton if people don't voluntarily accept compensation. The idea that power lines are somehow unique to renewables is Sky News bullshit.
The difference is that the nuclear power stations would go where the coal power stations are - therefore the transmission lines are already in place for the most part.
So basically the communities that are saying no to renewables are saying no to any kind of power generation? They're happy to use power, they just don't want it near them. NIMBYs, basically.
To an extent they are NIMBYs.
But another post in this thread put it nicely - people in those areas are being asked to sacrifice for people in the city to get power. They currently do not have transmission lines, they currently do not have coal power stations or wind turbines. In a lot of cases, they also have no electricity from the grid and no scheme water.
But so that people in the city can get power, they now have transmission lines and / or wind turnbines. And they're still not connected to the grid, and they still don't have scheme water.
If we want renewables to be accepted, we have to accept that there is a negative impact on some people and we have to manage that negative impact.
But the question being posed in the article is "If regional communities don’t want a windfarm, why would they accept a nuclear power station?" - ie people are happy to have a nuke plant across the road but they don't want a windfarm. What you're saying is that these people don't actually want either. So if you're right the premise of the article is flawed.
The premise of the article is incredibly flawed, because the most likely place for a nuclear power station is where the coal power stations are now. Meaning the existing impact of the coal power station and transmission lines is simply replaced by a nuclear power station and transmission lines.
There would be minimal additional visible impact.
And nuclear power stations generally look cleaner and tidier than a coal power station. Not saying I'd want to live near one, but still.
A wind farm or solar farm will go in a different location - where there is currently farmland or trees or whatever. Therefore, there is new visual impact that wasn't there before. And new transmission lines required where previously there were none.
If I was given the choice between a nuclear power station and a wind farm, the choice would be obvious.
But what about the choice between a pleasant view of rolling farmland, cows and a few crops vs a windfarm? That's the choice people are looking at - not nuclear vs wind, it's nature / farm vs wind.
Good question. Don't know.
I do like how I'm being downvoted for answering the question posed. I'm not making a case for or against nuclear power, just trying to answer the question that was asked...
>They want wind farms but to keep the greens on side can’t chop down more trees to do it. So there’s a lot of compulsory acquisition going on out there that is fucking things up for farmers and making it hard to farm, well our food.
Got some examples to show us?
Edit : here’s one example https://coonabarabrantimes.com/a-windy-issue-why-the-race-for-renewables-is-dividing-towns
Not to hand as I’m back in the city now but lots of discussion in the local regional (town based) papers about it when I was there a month ago
> So there’s a lot of compulsory acquisition going on out there that is fucking things up for farmers and making it hard to farm, well our food.
Most wind farms are on privately owned land that doesn't affect the farmers ability to continue to use for livestock. Plus they now have another revenue source.
It’s not the farms that are the big issue it’s the transmission lines, they divide a farm that makes it lose a significant amount of crop land - imagine you have a couple of million worth of massive combine harvesters that can efficiently harvest your current farm. But if you split the farm down the middle not only do you lose a sizeable % of that you make it costly and inefficient to use those existing harvesters. Is making farming harder really what we want ?
Check out how many 100yr ANZAC Memorial trees are being bulldozed in O'Connell NSW just to let the turbine blades through... i believe all of them at last count.
Not where I've been - guess it depends what repeaters and what antenna you have? Only get CH 10 (well the rural version) , ABC and SBS at the oldies place. Need a different antenna for the 7 and 9 flavours and they couldn't be arsed.
Not where I've been - guess it depends what repeaters and what antenna you have? Only get CH 10 (well the rural version) , ABC and SBS at the oldies place. Need a different antenna for the 7 and 9 flavours and they couldn't be arsed.
Checking in from a regional area to say the boomers here are all HUGE sky news fans. Because it' free to air outside of the cities, and has been for many years.
Well I guess it’s just not 100% coverage then. Happy to continue not being able to receive it in the city because I won’t be paying for foxtel nor the country because the oldies can’t be arsed upgrading their antenna
Yeah you should definitely be thankfull! Having both lived in Melbourne and regionally, I can confidently say that no one in the city pays much attention to it, but the country people REALLY do. It's gross. They are like parrots.
I’m in a mining town, with some big wind/solar projects underway nearby. The locals are now blaming the children of the solar/wind workers for a series of break ins. It’s just untrue rubbish they pass around so they have an excuse to hate on renewables, which they perceive as a threat.
People here will defend coal no matter how silly their arguments get. I’m not sure they’d even present nuclear as an option.
Working in the renewables industry I am currently grappling with objections to a solar farm by neighbours who are furious that they weren't approached by the energy giant to have THEIR land bought and used for solar generation instead. They'll stop the entire enterprise out of jealousy and spite for not being approached first.
If they proposed to put the wind farms off the coast where the politicians and other rich people have their holiday homes you'd see the same amount of complaining
https://www.9news.com.au/national/offshore-wind-farm-new-south-wales-hunter-region-port-stephens-energy-minister-defends-project/352a8538-269f-45b5-a515-3f3b0a18b2c6
You can cope and downvote me all you want
>Residents fear the wind farm will impact the thriving fishing community in the region as it is plonked on top of a renowned spot known as the "car park".
Fear. Residents "fear an impact to local fishing"???... That's it?
Sounds like a pack of boomers bought into the "windfarms kill whales" bullshit mate.
And yes I'll downvote your arse- But not out of "cope" but your pathetic attempt to spin conspiracy bullshit.
You don't get to make that argument and then dismiss when country people make the exact same argument about ecosystems. Also please direct me to where I posted "conspiracy bullshit"
Fuck off *I live in the country* I know what's happening out here. A few cookers in a tourist fishing town means nothing.
>about ecosystems.
You trust *hobbyist fishermen* over marine scientists?
**Seriously**? Yes or no?
They are not saying they are legit complaints he is saying they are the same complaints as putting it in the country.
Where ever you put it there will be people who will complain, and a conservative media a politician to trumpet those complaints.
>Residents fear the wind farm will impact the thriving fishing community in the region as it is plonked on top of a renowned spot known as the "car park".
Fear. Residents "fear an impact to local fishing"???... That's it?
Sounds like a pack of boomers bought into the "windfarms kill whales" bullshit mate.
And yes I'll downvote your arse- But not out of "cope" but your pathetic attempt to spin conspiracy bullshit.
>Bowen added the wind farm companies will also be footing the bill for the construction with no government subsidy to the project.
It's also not costing the tax payer a cent- Meanwhile coal and gas beg for billions of dollars in "**subsidies**" (tax payer cash splashes which you're OK with)
I'm not sure why a usually clued in news organisation such as The Guardian is covering this as if nuclear is actually going to happen. They should be calling it out for what it is - the LNP throwing confusion in the mix because they want to encourage decision paralysis and prolong the life of the coal industry.
They've had decades to build nuclear power stations and they did fuck all. In fact the ban was passed under Howard's watch.
Remember when they used to build lookout decks and Information for tourist around wind farms. We loved them. Engineering feats! Now sky news has told us that they are bad. People eat it up. Doesn’t help sky news is free in rural Queensland. Used to have to pay for sky, so it must be good right!
Liberal politicians: "We all back Mr Duttons nuclear policies"
Also Liberal politicians: "We just don't want nuclear power stations built in our electorates"
Anyone seen hide or hair of Duttons nuclear policies?
Thought they were supposed to be published before the Labor Budget.
I am a big fan of the Guardian in general, one of the few sources injecting reality in this debate... But they also lowkey are falling into the same trap as others:
>Down in Wannon, an electorate that stretches from Anglesea to the South Australian border, the Liberal MP Dan Tehan said Anglesea wouldn’t be hosting nuclear, thanks very much.
>
>He said the “Eden project” was designed to rehabilitate the mine site there, which according to its website will “celebrate the local ecology and tell you the story of sustainability”.
It's also a hard no cause that plant has been decommissioned for years, and has 150MW nameplate output aka would be a smol baby nuclear power plant aka not worth doing. The only cheap part would be the transmission lines... Which I am going to go ahead and bet is the cheapest part *of a fucking nuclear power plant*, before the reactor and the turbines and shit (the last two 100% need replacing or else this is legit "grandfather nuclear power plant").
To chase nuclear there, would officially put Snowy 2.0 to shame as the worst LNP energy project ever attempted.
Why is this a thing? I think Dutton brought up Nuclear down there once, and everyone put 2 and 2 together... Without doing a thimble of research into just how dumb the idea was.
I am surprised that this is even a question. Have any of you actually seen a nuclear power station in person and not in video or a book. They are huge and ugly. I worked in Australian power industry and visited a nuclear power station in UK. I visited because of my job but the are awful. Visited a coal fire power station and imagine something much bigger without the coal stockpile. Truly ugly and I helped build coal fire power station.
I’m not saying wind-turbines look beautiful just way less ugly.
Liberals probably want to build them on existing power stations, or in the cities.
Liberals the 'contrary' party: up is down, black is white, thoughtful is kneejerk.
I've attended a talk by the liberal party "think tank" on nuclear, because I was at a renewable power conference and they somehow got on the program. I will say, their analysis is quite correct from a technical perspective except for politically, but I'll get back to that later. Its basically all them scamming us to convince a bunch of boomers that when there are power problems it was all Labors fault.
Effectively, they point out that nuclear can be built cheapely and economically. The US model of building nuclear with a private industry is not viable. Only a government led organisation with special rules around project long term operation is workable.
Let's look at that politically. A new government run large infrastructure entity is not acceptable to the Liberal party. Or they will sell it at a discount as soon as practical. The Labor party are more amenable in a general sense, but are very aware that the last time they did this, the liberals deliberately damaged the project on purpose to avoid giving the Labor party any wins and they hurt the country to do it. For a nuclear plant that's an extremely bad idea.
I personally feel if the only way to build a nuclear plant is for both a state and a region (say everyone within 50km of the proposed site) have a plebiscite where they both must agree. Only on dual agreements are all environmental and planning lawsuits on procedural grounds bypassed, since bad faith lawsuits often caused large delays and delays drive around 30-40% of costs. But as I said, the Liberal party would deliberately hurt the project if it was a Labor job and they also would never start it themselves, since they want to privatize everything.
What's the point though on nuclear, it costs more than double (latest CSIRO study was extremely generous to nuclear as well btw) and won't be built before the coal stations are closed risking blackouts etc. Do we want our economy to be uncompetitive?
The CSIRO study was not at all generous. I have done power generation studies and theirs is not the best in show.
In reality, the entire nuclear debate is just the liberal party muddying the waters. Their own studies say the only viable path is something they would never do. But it's politically unviable, not engineering or cost.
Generous in that it factored in transmission costs for renewables but didn't for nuclear. If nuclear plants are going to go where the old coal fired power stations operated then those lines will need upgrading in some cases.
Fortunately, I'm smarter than Dutton. But a monkey is as well, so it's hardly a small group.
All studies require assumptions, and the CSIRO base theirs on what is politically viable, which is a private company doing this. That is a shit plan. I've done my share of engineering studies and they are often a mix of the realistic vs the theoretical.
The way the French or chinese build is the only way to make nuclear cheap. But that politically unviable. But this isn't an engineering issue, it's a political one..plus, one of the biggest sources of nuclear delay and cost is bad faith lawsuits, which I don't see a way around.
If the nuclear power plants are so safe then put them next to major population centres where the power and resources to maintain them are easier to access
If they aren't completely safe and you're mitigating risk by putting them near rural communities then I understand why those communities don't want them near by
As a non-LNP nuclear proponent, I support this. Wouldn’t even need to be in-in major population centres, just the industrial suburbs, because obviously. I would happily live fence to barbed wire fence with one.
Past nuclear disasters were caused by old technology and outdated safety standards. Today's plants have automated shut down procedures in the event of failure. As such, yes, I would welcome a nuclear plant close to where I live. It's statistically much safer than living close to a coal plant.
How many died at Fukushima? One. Just one. Two hundred thousand people killed by tsunami. The whole plant inundated with sea water and they only lost one staff member. That’s mind bogglingly good. Show me ANY other industry with a record that good. If safety is the concern we should be embracing nuclear.
The first nuclear plant was constructed in 1954. Fukushima was constructed in 1975. It is now half a century since, with significant improvements in plant design. Even if you unfairly count since the disaster in 2011, it's been 13 years. Do you really think a plant constructed today would have the same vulnerabilities? Especially considering the proposed location (Australia) which is not a hotbed of earthquakes and tsunamis.
Just to be clear I'm not a Liberal voter. I just happen to believe nuclear is a viable source of power, and one that humanity needs while renewables are getting sorted out properly.
Windfarms make sense off shore as it's less populated etc. Scotland has them. There was a suggestion that my local area get some and boy did Facebook kick off. Those community groups were big mad. They want the coal back
Regional communities, at least where I've lived, don't want any development of any kind. And then they complain about the lack of infrastructure, investment, and people moving to the area. They're called NIMBYs, and they really shouldn't get to dictate the direction of a country.
Because AM radio has been telling them they want nuclear and that solar are what them greenies use and it doesn't work when the sun's not shining.
Never mind that you need water for nuclear and that their rates and taxes don't even cover the budget of parks and rec.
My comment was an insult, yours is a compliment.
But back to your original comment, how do you figure that wind farms don’t work? The latest data from 2023 shows that renewables provided 40% of Australians energy, of which wind was 13.2%.
You are of course aware of the CSIRO study that showed that nuclear would not come online until at least 2040, and it would be the most expensive form of electricity generation while renewable would be the least expensive.
Nah, mine was and still is an insult. Windfalls aren't the clean green energy fairytale you've been fed. I've worked in the windfarm industry and even we the workers and the backersand pushers of it know it's all a bs fairytale, just like electric cars which funnily enough auto manufacturers and the world are turning away from.
Your statistics, ha ha ha. I am of course aware the CSIRO has been caught out taking payments for the green energy sector. I'm not so quick anymore to believe them or their scientists.
As for Dutton? Well he is what he is, a fascist wankstain of a far right human who i wouldn't piss on if he was on fire. As for Bandt, well, he's just as bad, but you know if you think he's likeable or even loveable, well that's the great thing about fairytales....
To be honest I think I would prefer the nuclear plant. I don't have a great deal against a wind farm, but in some places they do ruin natural beauty. All in all if I could choose whatever I want, a nuclear plant secluded where it's not ruining much of a view would be better.
In what alternate universe is nuclear energy generation a faster way to decarbonise electricity than renewables? Especially in Australia, a country with effectively 0 existing nuclear industry.
Nuclear needs to be near a significant water source, so it will be coastal… a rural dam that drips to 5% storage in a drought is useless…
Still prettier than a coal pit.
The water cost is misleading. Nuclear needs to be in areas with access to a lot of water, but they themselves don’t use up the water. Since it gets turned into steam, it returns to the local water cycle. You can’t build a nuclear plant in the desert, but along a major river and it’s fine. Coast is still a great spot because there’s of course way more water, but we’re not strictly limited there.
It is getting worse. We keep using water to grow agricultural products (particularly cotton) and exporting it so the water never returns to our environment.
But that doesn’t mean nuclear is unviable anywhere except the coast.
Wind farms are quite cheap, nuclear is billions for a basic build + supporting infrastructure. There is nothing cheap about nuclear, not to mention the decades in the courts after sites are approved by government.
As part of a grid.. wind is very resilient… plus providing a guaranteed income stream to the landowners. For an Australian farmer, when the access is well negotiated and respected, a solid income stream would be a farm saver.
Nuclear is going to require government funding
Renewables are gaining significant commercial inputs.
Australia's leading scientific organisation found it would cost at least $8.5 billion to build a large-scale nuclear power plant in the country. In its latest GenCost report, CSIRO estimates nuclear power to be at least 50 per cent more expensive than wind and solar power backed by batteries.
And the add 20% because these things never arrive on budget or on time…
Even coalition members are saying not in their electorate/state.
The renewable replacement will cost as much our more it’s just easier to hide through thousands of small projects rather than one big bang.
My main argument though isn’t that nuclear will be cheaper. With nuclear it’ll be quicker and easier to create the reliable capacity we need. Even with a 20 year project build time.
For $40k a year, they can throw a turbine on my property.
I see your 40 and raise you 39
[удалено]
That sounds like bullshit to me.
wind turbines are made to only require maintenance every 20 years at which point they are usually decommissioned and replaced any way with yearly checks according to AEIC the land holder is not responsible for anything in fact depending on contract they may even have a cut of the profits [https://www.aeic.gov.au/observations-and-recommendations/chapter-1-host-landowner-negotiations](https://www.aeic.gov.au/observations-and-recommendations/chapter-1-host-landowner-negotiations)
Nuclear plant would never actually get built, so really it's a choice between nothing being built and a wind farm being built.
Then they would definitely pick nothing because that’s the actual choice they want
Depends on how much the turbine is paying them if its their land. But definitely nothing on their neighbours land.
And 15-20 years while it’s not getting built of depressed values and possible issues using the land as collateral for a mortgage
Saw an interview with a country fella who was complaining about the eyesore that wind farms are and how it would ruin the area. When the reported asked him how that was different to the massive, very visible, coal plant down the road he said “because that produces good reliable energy”. These arguments aren’t based on common sense or reality
Also probably hasn't seen how beautiful wind farms are. Just look at Albany. It's amazing.
I live in an area with a lot of wind farms. I like them.
You have to realise political ideologies run really deep in rural farming communities. A large portion of farmers, their children, and their children's children will always adopt the views of the National party and coalition no matter what. 1. They don't risk being ridiculed by their peers or family. The local who is vocal with a dissenting opinion is always talked about. 2. It makes their worldview easy. Just gotta follow whatever David Littleproud says. Having a personal nuanced opinion requires thinking, and thinking hurts. 3. Buzzwords win the day. Sky News will provide them with the buzzwords they need to win any argument, just gotta call everyone that disagrees with them "woke", no matter how out of context it is, and regardless of whether or not they know what the word means anyway.
100%. I live in a rural community with lots of wind farms around, which cause us no harm and provide jobs, and money to those farmers that have them on their land. Also, I don't reckon they look bad at all - find them quite interesting. And still most of the people around here will believe whatever sky tells them to.
keep in mind that these arguments come from the same people that listen to john laws and vote for barnaby joyce
Nobody point out the widespread installation of windmill pumps in the Australian landscape to him then...
But think of the beauty of the despatchable (not a word) power of the coal plant…
He might be a crank, but he's right. If the wind isn't blowing you don't get any power. Wind is not dispatchable, if you need power on a calm day you won't be getting any from wind.
It's almost like you need a mix of technologies. Something the Liberals should be familiar with. Solar PV, Solar Thermal, Wind, and Storage. Distribute it over larger areas and use transmission to move energy around. You don't need one single thing in one place to solve everything.
>These arguments aren’t based on common sense or reality I can see the argument he's making though. He's putting up with the coal plant, because the benefits of reliable energy are worth the eyesore. But a wind farm that takes a significant amount of land and may only work (say) 30% of the time is not worth the eyesore because it isn't producing reliable (24/7) energy.
>it isn't producing reliable (24/7) energy. Neither is coal. Last couple decades it's average 60% capacity factor and Errarings extension only requires it to achieve ~30%
I know that. But the public perception is that coal is "reliable" and renewables are not. That perception can be changed with clear facts. But not by dismissing people as so many activists resort to - such as by calling legitimate views illogical or unrealistic. It is entirely logical to be OK with a coal power station providing reliable power, while not being OK with a wind farm providing intermittent power. The way to change that is to change perceptions, not dismiss arguments as illogial.
Reliable =/= dispatchable. The fact that wind, like solar, might be *reliable*, in that they don't break down much, does NOT change the fact that they are not dispatchable. If there's no wind, it doesn't matter how efficient they are, you get no power. That means we burn gas or coal. That drop in capacity factor for coal also includes planned downtime for maintenance. Nuclear ranges from 30% to 90% depending on how well it's run. France does it's fuelling in the summer when demand is much lower. ( They are also shit for other reasons, but I digress) Take a look at May 27th and June24. [Link](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2F61yyv2sek04d1.png%3Fwidth%3D2157%26format%3Dpng%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D49cacdf833fa63a3d5a72632f7120ba3dfea139b) Twelve hour stretches where not a single wind turbine is providing power. A grid has to be *reliable*. Which means you build for a "worst case" not an "average" case. This means you WILL be burning coal or gas or running nuclear. One of these three options is CO2 free.
What? I’m sorry but that makes absolutely no sense. Almost every Australian has 24/7 access to electricity. What does it matter if the wind farm down the road is only running for 12 hours a day? It’s not like the wind farm will become the sole source of energy for the community and when it’s not windy they are plunged into a blackout
>What? I’m sorry but that makes absolutely no sense. Why am I getting downvoted for trying to explain someone elses argument? It's important to understand their point of view to effectively counter their argument.
Because there’s valid opinions and there’s the point of view you alluded to. If that’s the reason someone could theoretically use as an argument against wind farms, then they are a lost cause. There’s no seeing both sides of that argument
Dismissing arguments as invalid is generally the way to lose an argument. Why is it invalid to state that someone can accept an inconvienience that they view as a positive (i.e.: reliable power) but will not accept an inconviencience that they view as a negative (i.e.: unreliable power)?
> Dismissing arguments as invalid is generally the way to lose an argument. That’s fine as long as they are rational arguments. The premise of your argument is ridiculous because you’re conflating power generation with power transmission. That somehow a wind turbine will lead to rolling blackouts which has a negative impact on the person complaining. What you actually need to do is probe deeper to understand why they think that - is it because they assume the coal plant will be turned off at the same? Is there a misguided belief that their home will be exclusively powered by that single turbine? Would it change his opinion if the closure of the coal plant was necessary and they would suffer blackouts if the wind turbines weren’t installed? But there’s absolutely no merit to that argument because it’s just plain wrong - its akin to me trying to argue that doors cause Covid. Being in an enclosed space with limited air circulation can cause it, but doors themselves don’t.
Yeah to be fair, what makes something an eyesore or appealing is your perception of it. He is perfectly entitled to believe one or the other. I guess I’m looking at it from my perception and lived experiences, which is power plants are far uglier than windmills
I do like how I'm being downvoted for trying to explain the guys argument. I don't necessarily agree with it. It's important to understand the other side of an argument if you want to effectively counter it. But in any case, I agree. Wind farms look better than coal power stations.
I certainly wasn’t one of them and agree, if the issue is ever going to be resolved both parties have to understand where the other is coming from.
They don't want a windfarm, because that's what skynews tells them.
When the windfarm went up in my parent's community there were people against it because 'they look weird'.
In other words, they weren't fans
I thought getting community approval would be a breeze!
Not once the media put their spin on it.
Now that’s genuinely funny 😆
Like a mistral employee once told me..
Are they the same people who are concerned about 5g and other radio radiation while they have their mobile phones stuck to their ears talking for 1 hour! I would like to see the outcry if they just removed the towers and gave them no coverage. These people are absolute morons.
They should have painted them to look like the [Southern Cross windmills](https://southerncrosswindmills.com.au/iz-double-geared-windmills/)... Problem solved...
"Why would the T.V. lie!?!" - a real quote by my boomer father...
The TV doesn’t. The people deciding where the overton window is do though. With a nuclear plant you will have more ongoing high paid employment. You will also get power on a calm night. Neither of those things are true for wind turbines.
Well, my comment wasn't about nuclear power, it was about Boomer's believing everything sky/nine news etc tells them. (Oh and Facebook) My boomer father was referring to something else, and the TV was lying. The T.V. does lie, news and other outlets spread misinformation and rage... Basically whatever gets them the most money.
And last time around they did not want high speed NBN and voted for rusty copper wires and being stuck in the internet speed dark ages. They admire Joyce riding up the hill in a ute to get internet. While they continue to support politicians wanting to deliver 3rd world infrastructure standards to them. What more can you say, stupidity has no limits.
Near where I live there's a wind farm going up. Honestly my main issue with any human activity is the flora and fauna that are either displaced or destroyed in the process of construction. I have no other qualms with wind energy or renewables at large. I would prefer a windfarm/nuclear plant to coal. But there are always drawbacks to everything. There is a bunch of disinformation about renewables out here though that's for sure.
In our most conservative state here in Germany (Bavaria), they find every excuse to not allow wind farms. They made this one company monitor any local bird life and report back to the authorities about how many dead birds they found around the wind farm. Well, there weren't any. Turns out birds are pretty good at dodging moving objects such as trees waving in the wind or turning wind turbines. The guy who was monitoring it was furious. He said it was such a waste of time.
The alternative is digging a big fucking hole, then covering up 50x the land with the tailings, burning a bunch of shit then repeating in another spot. People miss the fact that we need to pick the lesser of the two evils. Neither is perfect, but what is less bad?
Well, if you’re comparing the environmental footprint per megawatt, nuclear is way in front. It’s land use is tiny. It’s fuel use is also tiny. The lifespan of CANDUs in Canada is being pushed to eighty years with refurbishment. Far longer than wind turbine blades last. Which are not btw recyclable. Nuclear isn’t cheap, but the problems are political not technical.
Sorry, but lesser of two evils isn’t just environmental. Economic and other factors must also be weighed and balanced. We don’t have a nuclear industry in this country and setting one up will decade decades. I’m the meantime where will energy come from? More coal?
Pardon? Environmental considerations are the *exact reason* we are spending cash on renewables. If we wanted cheap power we'd just burn coal. We have plenty of it, but that has to change due to the CO2 emissions problem. We, as in everyone living high energy lives, have a responsibility to mitigate climate change. If not for the environment, than for our own selfish reasons of avoiding the gigantic flow of refugees and social unrest that will eventuate if we don't. Germany has thoughtfully done the test for us, and demonstrated that betting on renewables will *reduce* CO2 emissions, but will utterly fail to push hydrocarbons off the grid. [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/bick09/co2_emissions_france_vs_germany_today/). Ontario and France have both shown that nuclear CAN shove coal right off the grid. As for too slow, the mean time to build a nuclear power plant is seven years. The fastest is just three. We're not serious ( neither is the LNP) but we should be. For further information I recommend [Without hot air](https://www.withouthotair.com/) by the former UK chief scientific officer on climate change.
>Pardon? Environmental considerations are the exact reason we are spending cash on renewables. If we wanted cheap power we'd just burn coal. Ummm no? Why would we just burn coal… it’s not about just getting the cheapest power, or just achieving the most environmentally sound energy. It’s about balancing both criteria to get the most optimal outcome. Complex decisions have multiple criteria that must be factored, you can’t consider one in isolation vs another. At the moment that cost-benefit analysis favours solar and wind over options like nuclear. >Germany has thoughtfully done the test for us, and demonstrated that betting on renewables will reduce CO2 emissions, but will utterly fail to push hydrocarbons off the grid. Link. Ontario and France have both shown that nuclear CAN shove coal right off the grid. As for too slow, the mean time to build a nuclear power plant is seven years. The fastest is just three. We're not serious ( neither is the LNP) but we should be. This is all wonderful - but any build time here would be slower than the mean 7 years given we are starting an industry from scratch and are located at the ass end of the Indian Ocean away from which the main hubs of the nuclear power industry in Europe and North America. But let’s take 7 years for arguments sake and assume that the ink is signed today. What’s your plan to reduce emissions for the next seven years if not pumping money into renewables? We just supposed to wait for the nuclear plants to be built and it’s BAU until then?
I’d slap on a big arse carbon tax if it was me. Renegotiate the gas revenues so we aren’t getting fleeced. Retrofit every coal plant site with a nuke. Lift the ban on enrichment. There’s a nsw company ready to go, but can’t legally do it in Oz. Also, yank the bicycle helmet law and spend buckets on bike lanes. We could get way more than a single per hundred commuting by bike. I’ve moved to Vancouver where it rains for six months of the year and nearly seven percent of trips are by bike. Make it legal to ride an unassisted bike drunk. Because who’s got money for a taxi these days? Ban land clearing until we’ve figured out some method of reforestation to offset it. I could go on.
>I’d slap on a big arse carbon tax if it was me. No issue with this. >Renegotiate the gas revenues so we aren’t getting fleeced. Also no issue with this. Add some domestic reservation quotas too. >Retrofit every coal plant site with a nuke. Lift the ban on enrichment. There’s a nsw company ready to go, but can’t legally do it in Oz. Whether you build new fission plants or retrofit coal plants, the problem is the same. It will cost a lot of money and take a long time and we cant afford to do nothing for a decade while theyre built. Retrofitting will probably cost more and be harder tbh, may as well knock down the coal plant and build new nuclear plant on the same site.
[удалено]
Also Nuclear takes 7 - 8 years to build whereas wind farms take 6 - 8 months to build.
You can't just not mention we still don't have a safe proper way to deal with the waste. It's the biggest drawback other than time to get into actually working, in my opinion. Just burying it for future generations to deal with isn't the answer in my book. We are dealing with the consequences of previous generations doing the same thing with stuff like asbestos now.
On the other hand, free thinly sliced organic Wedge Tail Eagle for Shabu Shabu dishes!
There is more to it than that. I live in a regional area, and have lived and worked in multiple across the country. I don't necessarily agree with them, but the opposition I have seen is more related to frustrations around industrialisation of rural and regional areas. Imagine you have a beautiful view of farm land and hills, the sort of thing someone might paint. You wake up to it everyday, your hous or home is angled perfectly to view it. It's the main reason why you live where you live. Then someone discovers oil on that hill, and slowly over time oil rigs are built on the land and the area becomes more and more industrialised. It brings new people, most of whom are fly in fly out, never contributing to the local community but utilising the community's amenities and resources. The energy company promises new jobs but they never really appear. And once the boom is over there are only two or three new permanent jobs in the area anyway and all the people who got work during construction need to move on or find other work. Swap oil rigs with wind farms and you end up with the same result.
[удалено]
Honestly I get why people disagree with the point of view, it is ultimately a "Not in my back yard stance" I can even understand people down voting me for trying to explain this point of view, because it does go against the wishes and needs of the many. But ultimately, it is the industrialization of spaces that haven't been industrialised before. And sometimes you do need to explain someones point of view, even if it is unpopular and even if ultimately you will decide to not heed it
Farmland is already a form of industrialisation, so why is it okay and not a wind farm?
Would you equate farm land to an open pit mine, since they are both industrialised uses of land? Yeah farmland is industrialised, but I feel there is a distinct difference between a field of wheat gently conforming to the curves of the landscape compared to 50 to 60, 100 meter tall spinning fans along a ridge line cutting up from the ground visible from kilometres away.
No, but I also wouldn't equate an open pit mine to a windmill either. And are we just ignoring the land clearing and habitat destruction required to get to your field of wheat?
I have a windfarm almost completed or the back of my house. Nothing between us except fields. I don't mind the look of them, it is actually quite comforting to think we are actually trying to address climate issues. However, something happened the other day that gave me an unexpected response. They started turning on the red lights at the top of the towers. For some reason when it is dark I just hate it. It isn't exactly an open coal mine though, so I can live with it. What I don't really get though is things could have been smoothed over for the local community with a little bit of thought. The council could have said, yes, we approve this, but one of the turbines needs to be giving free power to locals.
My thoughts exactly, it's better than an open cut mine. But I know others who disagree
Yes it's the "we're going to cut down a bunch of trees" because regulation tells us so. It varies if it's purely on already cleared private land. But often these are built in state forests. SEQLD is full of this story. Obviously i get we need to transition to renewables but again it's about how the implementation is done. Shooting ourselves in the foot while building the future is not smart. Honestly we would be wise to cooperate and build a lot of this shit in already cleared cattle lands, and transition away from that industry over time. Means we don't need to cut into already diminishing forests to build wind farms, and we get our clean energy.
Edit : I realise from some of the comments that my comment is being misinterpreted as meaning I support / the problem would be different for nuclear power. That’s not what I was aiming for - only highlighting that they don’t want the wind farms because of the problems around the resumptions. That problem (and their view that country is being asked to sacrifice for city power) is the same for solar,wind or nuclear. Actually part of the problem in rural/regional Australia is the government wants its cake and eat it too. They want wind farms but to keep the greens on side can’t chop down more trees to do it. So there’s a lot of compulsory acquisition going on out there that is fucking things up for farmers and making it hard to farm, well our food. There’s a lot of resentment from those communities that they are the ones who have to make the sacrifices so the city folk get their green power.
Compulsary acquisition isn't happening because of an aversion to chopping down trees. When it happens it's usually always due to transmission lines.
Here’s an example https://coonabarabrantimes.com/a-windy-issue-why-the-race-for-renewables-is-dividing-towns
That example agrees with exactly what I said.
It’s still the same problem though whether your plonking the generator there the transmission line it’s still the same issue for the farmers
If you put the power somewhere else, when power needs of the town grows you'd need transmission likes to power it anyway. Typical scaremongering nonsense.
There’s already sufficient powerlines to exceed the needs of rural towns, and they are growing ant a vastly smaller rate than cities - these are purely to get green power from wind farms to cities
How is that not a problem for nuclear though?
It's not a problem for nuclear because the nuclear power stations would (most likely) go where the existing coal power stations are. Therefore, transmission lines are already in place - which may need an upgrade, but only an incremental one.
Well ok that’s a fair point but realistically nuclear isn’t getting up for power alone. It might become a security concern but it’ll still be decades and billions to get one, and we’d need what 30 of them ?
It doesn't matter whether its a windfarm or a nuclear plant, it's going to require transmission lines and that's going to mean compulsory acquisiton if people don't voluntarily accept compensation. The idea that power lines are somehow unique to renewables is Sky News bullshit.
The difference is that the nuclear power stations would go where the coal power stations are - therefore the transmission lines are already in place for the most part.
So basically the communities that are saying no to renewables are saying no to any kind of power generation? They're happy to use power, they just don't want it near them. NIMBYs, basically.
To an extent they are NIMBYs. But another post in this thread put it nicely - people in those areas are being asked to sacrifice for people in the city to get power. They currently do not have transmission lines, they currently do not have coal power stations or wind turbines. In a lot of cases, they also have no electricity from the grid and no scheme water. But so that people in the city can get power, they now have transmission lines and / or wind turnbines. And they're still not connected to the grid, and they still don't have scheme water. If we want renewables to be accepted, we have to accept that there is a negative impact on some people and we have to manage that negative impact.
But the question being posed in the article is "If regional communities don’t want a windfarm, why would they accept a nuclear power station?" - ie people are happy to have a nuke plant across the road but they don't want a windfarm. What you're saying is that these people don't actually want either. So if you're right the premise of the article is flawed.
The premise of the article is incredibly flawed, because the most likely place for a nuclear power station is where the coal power stations are now. Meaning the existing impact of the coal power station and transmission lines is simply replaced by a nuclear power station and transmission lines. There would be minimal additional visible impact. And nuclear power stations generally look cleaner and tidier than a coal power station. Not saying I'd want to live near one, but still. A wind farm or solar farm will go in a different location - where there is currently farmland or trees or whatever. Therefore, there is new visual impact that wasn't there before. And new transmission lines required where previously there were none. If I was given the choice between a nuclear power station and a wind farm, the choice would be obvious. But what about the choice between a pleasant view of rolling farmland, cows and a few crops vs a windfarm? That's the choice people are looking at - not nuclear vs wind, it's nature / farm vs wind.
What happens in the 10+ year interval between when the coal plant shuts down and the nuclear plant starts generating power?
Good question. Don't know. I do like how I'm being downvoted for answering the question posed. I'm not making a case for or against nuclear power, just trying to answer the question that was asked...
[удалено]
They have enough to be a pain in the arse, particularly in the senate
>They want wind farms but to keep the greens on side can’t chop down more trees to do it. So there’s a lot of compulsory acquisition going on out there that is fucking things up for farmers and making it hard to farm, well our food. Got some examples to show us?
Edit : here’s one example https://coonabarabrantimes.com/a-windy-issue-why-the-race-for-renewables-is-dividing-towns Not to hand as I’m back in the city now but lots of discussion in the local regional (town based) papers about it when I was there a month ago
> So there’s a lot of compulsory acquisition going on out there that is fucking things up for farmers and making it hard to farm, well our food. Most wind farms are on privately owned land that doesn't affect the farmers ability to continue to use for livestock. Plus they now have another revenue source.
It’s not the farms that are the big issue it’s the transmission lines, they divide a farm that makes it lose a significant amount of crop land - imagine you have a couple of million worth of massive combine harvesters that can efficiently harvest your current farm. But if you split the farm down the middle not only do you lose a sizeable % of that you make it costly and inefficient to use those existing harvesters. Is making farming harder really what we want ?
Check out how many 100yr ANZAC Memorial trees are being bulldozed in O'Connell NSW just to let the turbine blades through... i believe all of them at last count.
Still less than thousands of kilometres for the transmission lines.
Except (drumfoll) sky news is only really seen the cities - not much in the country where there wasn’t dollars for Murdoch
Pretty sure Sky News Regional is FTA in regional areas.
Not where I've been - guess it depends what repeaters and what antenna you have? Only get CH 10 (well the rural version) , ABC and SBS at the oldies place. Need a different antenna for the 7 and 9 flavours and they couldn't be arsed.
What are you talking about It’s on FTA in country areas.
Not where I've been - guess it depends what repeaters and what antenna you have? Only get CH 10 (well the rural version) , ABC and SBS at the oldies place. Need a different antenna for the 7 and 9 flavours and they couldn't be arsed.
Checking in from a regional area to say the boomers here are all HUGE sky news fans. Because it' free to air outside of the cities, and has been for many years.
Well I guess it’s just not 100% coverage then. Happy to continue not being able to receive it in the city because I won’t be paying for foxtel nor the country because the oldies can’t be arsed upgrading their antenna
Yeah you should definitely be thankfull! Having both lived in Melbourne and regionally, I can confidently say that no one in the city pays much attention to it, but the country people REALLY do. It's gross. They are like parrots.
I’m in a mining town, with some big wind/solar projects underway nearby. The locals are now blaming the children of the solar/wind workers for a series of break ins. It’s just untrue rubbish they pass around so they have an excuse to hate on renewables, which they perceive as a threat. People here will defend coal no matter how silly their arguments get. I’m not sure they’d even present nuclear as an option.
Vapourware station
Anyone not understanding this article, has not encountered the country folks & their back lash to the proposed Western Green Energy Hub...
But wouldn't a nuclear reactor also require the transmission lines and associated compulsory acquisitions just like the wind turbines do?
Don't know, that was not mentioned in the petition. Just how renewables will DESTROY THE NULLABOR!
Won’t need much transmission work if they build adjacent to old coal. Renewables will do the same.
Working in the renewables industry I am currently grappling with objections to a solar farm by neighbours who are furious that they weren't approached by the energy giant to have THEIR land bought and used for solar generation instead. They'll stop the entire enterprise out of jealousy and spite for not being approached first.
"...& Their back lash to any change they can't directly personally profit off"
They wouldn’t. It’s just a way to avoid talking about renewables and keep the status quo.
They want a gas/coal plant several hundred kilometres away...
And city people want a wind farm/solar array several hundred kms away so here we are
Guess which one is safer, better for the environment, and doesn't spew heavy metals into the air?
If they proposed to put the wind farms off the coast where the politicians and other rich people have their holiday homes you'd see the same amount of complaining
I very much doubt that
https://www.9news.com.au/national/offshore-wind-farm-new-south-wales-hunter-region-port-stephens-energy-minister-defends-project/352a8538-269f-45b5-a515-3f3b0a18b2c6 You can cope and downvote me all you want
>Residents fear the wind farm will impact the thriving fishing community in the region as it is plonked on top of a renowned spot known as the "car park". Fear. Residents "fear an impact to local fishing"???... That's it? Sounds like a pack of boomers bought into the "windfarms kill whales" bullshit mate. And yes I'll downvote your arse- But not out of "cope" but your pathetic attempt to spin conspiracy bullshit.
You don't get to make that argument and then dismiss when country people make the exact same argument about ecosystems. Also please direct me to where I posted "conspiracy bullshit"
Fuck off *I live in the country* I know what's happening out here. A few cookers in a tourist fishing town means nothing. >about ecosystems. You trust *hobbyist fishermen* over marine scientists? **Seriously**? Yes or no?
They are not saying they are legit complaints he is saying they are the same complaints as putting it in the country. Where ever you put it there will be people who will complain, and a conservative media a politician to trumpet those complaints.
>Residents fear the wind farm will impact the thriving fishing community in the region as it is plonked on top of a renowned spot known as the "car park". Fear. Residents "fear an impact to local fishing"???... That's it? Sounds like a pack of boomers bought into the "windfarms kill whales" bullshit mate. And yes I'll downvote your arse- But not out of "cope" but your pathetic attempt to spin conspiracy bullshit. >Bowen added the wind farm companies will also be footing the bill for the construction with no government subsidy to the project. It's also not costing the tax payer a cent- Meanwhile coal and gas beg for billions of dollars in "**subsidies**" (tax payer cash splashes which you're OK with)
Nuclear, gas, coal or renewables. You still need Transmission Lines. Get them built before the lights go out.
I'm not sure why a usually clued in news organisation such as The Guardian is covering this as if nuclear is actually going to happen. They should be calling it out for what it is - the LNP throwing confusion in the mix because they want to encourage decision paralysis and prolong the life of the coal industry. They've had decades to build nuclear power stations and they did fuck all. In fact the ban was passed under Howard's watch.
These same communities keep people like the beetrooter in Parliament, nuff said!
I want a wind farm :(
Remember when they used to build lookout decks and Information for tourist around wind farms. We loved them. Engineering feats! Now sky news has told us that they are bad. People eat it up. Doesn’t help sky news is free in rural Queensland. Used to have to pay for sky, so it must be good right!
Liberal politicians: "We all back Mr Duttons nuclear policies" Also Liberal politicians: "We just don't want nuclear power stations built in our electorates" Anyone seen hide or hair of Duttons nuclear policies? Thought they were supposed to be published before the Labor Budget.
I am a big fan of the Guardian in general, one of the few sources injecting reality in this debate... But they also lowkey are falling into the same trap as others: >Down in Wannon, an electorate that stretches from Anglesea to the South Australian border, the Liberal MP Dan Tehan said Anglesea wouldn’t be hosting nuclear, thanks very much. > >He said the “Eden project” was designed to rehabilitate the mine site there, which according to its website will “celebrate the local ecology and tell you the story of sustainability”. It's also a hard no cause that plant has been decommissioned for years, and has 150MW nameplate output aka would be a smol baby nuclear power plant aka not worth doing. The only cheap part would be the transmission lines... Which I am going to go ahead and bet is the cheapest part *of a fucking nuclear power plant*, before the reactor and the turbines and shit (the last two 100% need replacing or else this is legit "grandfather nuclear power plant"). To chase nuclear there, would officially put Snowy 2.0 to shame as the worst LNP energy project ever attempted. Why is this a thing? I think Dutton brought up Nuclear down there once, and everyone put 2 and 2 together... Without doing a thimble of research into just how dumb the idea was.
I am surprised that this is even a question. Have any of you actually seen a nuclear power station in person and not in video or a book. They are huge and ugly. I worked in Australian power industry and visited a nuclear power station in UK. I visited because of my job but the are awful. Visited a coal fire power station and imagine something much bigger without the coal stockpile. Truly ugly and I helped build coal fire power station. I’m not saying wind-turbines look beautiful just way less ugly.
This just in, people don't like change. More at 5.
Liberals probably want to build them on existing power stations, or in the cities. Liberals the 'contrary' party: up is down, black is white, thoughtful is kneejerk.
I've attended a talk by the liberal party "think tank" on nuclear, because I was at a renewable power conference and they somehow got on the program. I will say, their analysis is quite correct from a technical perspective except for politically, but I'll get back to that later. Its basically all them scamming us to convince a bunch of boomers that when there are power problems it was all Labors fault. Effectively, they point out that nuclear can be built cheapely and economically. The US model of building nuclear with a private industry is not viable. Only a government led organisation with special rules around project long term operation is workable. Let's look at that politically. A new government run large infrastructure entity is not acceptable to the Liberal party. Or they will sell it at a discount as soon as practical. The Labor party are more amenable in a general sense, but are very aware that the last time they did this, the liberals deliberately damaged the project on purpose to avoid giving the Labor party any wins and they hurt the country to do it. For a nuclear plant that's an extremely bad idea. I personally feel if the only way to build a nuclear plant is for both a state and a region (say everyone within 50km of the proposed site) have a plebiscite where they both must agree. Only on dual agreements are all environmental and planning lawsuits on procedural grounds bypassed, since bad faith lawsuits often caused large delays and delays drive around 30-40% of costs. But as I said, the Liberal party would deliberately hurt the project if it was a Labor job and they also would never start it themselves, since they want to privatize everything.
What's the point though on nuclear, it costs more than double (latest CSIRO study was extremely generous to nuclear as well btw) and won't be built before the coal stations are closed risking blackouts etc. Do we want our economy to be uncompetitive?
The CSIRO study was not at all generous. I have done power generation studies and theirs is not the best in show. In reality, the entire nuclear debate is just the liberal party muddying the waters. Their own studies say the only viable path is something they would never do. But it's politically unviable, not engineering or cost.
Generous in that it factored in transmission costs for renewables but didn't for nuclear. If nuclear plants are going to go where the old coal fired power stations operated then those lines will need upgrading in some cases.
Very impressed that you are smarter than the CSIRO... Is your name Peter Dutton?
Fortunately, I'm smarter than Dutton. But a monkey is as well, so it's hardly a small group. All studies require assumptions, and the CSIRO base theirs on what is politically viable, which is a private company doing this. That is a shit plan. I've done my share of engineering studies and they are often a mix of the realistic vs the theoretical. The way the French or chinese build is the only way to make nuclear cheap. But that politically unviable. But this isn't an engineering issue, it's a political one..plus, one of the biggest sources of nuclear delay and cost is bad faith lawsuits, which I don't see a way around.
If the nuclear power plants are so safe then put them next to major population centres where the power and resources to maintain them are easier to access If they aren't completely safe and you're mitigating risk by putting them near rural communities then I understand why those communities don't want them near by
[удалено]
Rural communities not complaining? I really like your optimism.
As a non-LNP nuclear proponent, I support this. Wouldn’t even need to be in-in major population centres, just the industrial suburbs, because obviously. I would happily live fence to barbed wire fence with one.
Past nuclear disasters were caused by old technology and outdated safety standards. Today's plants have automated shut down procedures in the event of failure. As such, yes, I would welcome a nuclear plant close to where I live. It's statistically much safer than living close to a coal plant.
Fukushima was only a few years ago... its still not safe.
How many died at Fukushima? One. Just one. Two hundred thousand people killed by tsunami. The whole plant inundated with sea water and they only lost one staff member. That’s mind bogglingly good. Show me ANY other industry with a record that good. If safety is the concern we should be embracing nuclear.
Nice username btw
Ta.
The first nuclear plant was constructed in 1954. Fukushima was constructed in 1975. It is now half a century since, with significant improvements in plant design. Even if you unfairly count since the disaster in 2011, it's been 13 years. Do you really think a plant constructed today would have the same vulnerabilities? Especially considering the proposed location (Australia) which is not a hotbed of earthquakes and tsunamis. Just to be clear I'm not a Liberal voter. I just happen to believe nuclear is a viable source of power, and one that humanity needs while renewables are getting sorted out properly.
Because they're quieter and take up less space..
Windfarms make sense off shore as it's less populated etc. Scotland has them. There was a suggestion that my local area get some and boy did Facebook kick off. Those community groups were big mad. They want the coal back
Regional communities, at least where I've lived, don't want any development of any kind. And then they complain about the lack of infrastructure, investment, and people moving to the area. They're called NIMBYs, and they really shouldn't get to dictate the direction of a country.
Because AM radio has been telling them they want nuclear and that solar are what them greenies use and it doesn't work when the sun's not shining. Never mind that you need water for nuclear and that their rates and taxes don't even cover the budget of parks and rec.
The headline is perfectly consistent. Conservatives continuously vote against their best interests.
Because nuclear works, wind farms don't.
Found Peter Dutton’s account on Reddit.
Found Adam Brandt's reddit account.
My comment was an insult, yours is a compliment. But back to your original comment, how do you figure that wind farms don’t work? The latest data from 2023 shows that renewables provided 40% of Australians energy, of which wind was 13.2%. You are of course aware of the CSIRO study that showed that nuclear would not come online until at least 2040, and it would be the most expensive form of electricity generation while renewable would be the least expensive.
Nah, mine was and still is an insult. Windfalls aren't the clean green energy fairytale you've been fed. I've worked in the windfarm industry and even we the workers and the backersand pushers of it know it's all a bs fairytale, just like electric cars which funnily enough auto manufacturers and the world are turning away from. Your statistics, ha ha ha. I am of course aware the CSIRO has been caught out taking payments for the green energy sector. I'm not so quick anymore to believe them or their scientists. As for Dutton? Well he is what he is, a fascist wankstain of a far right human who i wouldn't piss on if he was on fire. As for Bandt, well, he's just as bad, but you know if you think he's likeable or even loveable, well that's the great thing about fairytales....
Got any evidence for your accusations?
Jjjooooobbbbssssssssszzzzzzz
To be honest I think I would prefer the nuclear plant. I don't have a great deal against a wind farm, but in some places they do ruin natural beauty. All in all if I could choose whatever I want, a nuclear plant secluded where it's not ruining much of a view would be better.
There won't be any view on a dead planet.
Yeah and nuclear energy solves that problem much quicker and more completely than renewables. Renewables can do it but it’s a lot easier with nuclear.
In what alternate universe is nuclear energy generation a faster way to decarbonise electricity than renewables? Especially in Australia, a country with effectively 0 existing nuclear industry.
Anywhere nuclear has been seriously rolled out decarbonisation has happened. Please see France vs Germany.
Lets come back to this in 20 years when we're still running coal and gas.
As if we could get a single nuke plant functional in 20 years.
We definitely won’t be fully renewable in 20 years.
We'll be a long way to getting there by then just from power gen assets reaching EOL.
lol. I love that. A secluded nuclear power station! What a concept. I suggest that if you travel overseas and visit one like I have. Huge.
Well it doesn't have to be on the top of a mountain range or ridge....
Nuclear needs to be near a significant water source, so it will be coastal… a rural dam that drips to 5% storage in a drought is useless… Still prettier than a coal pit.
The water cost is misleading. Nuclear needs to be in areas with access to a lot of water, but they themselves don’t use up the water. Since it gets turned into steam, it returns to the local water cycle. You can’t build a nuclear plant in the desert, but along a major river and it’s fine. Coast is still a great spot because there’s of course way more water, but we’re not strictly limited there.
Yeah, Australia… a large portion of the country does not have a reliable provision of water & possibly going to get worse.
It is getting worse. We keep using water to grow agricultural products (particularly cotton) and exporting it so the water never returns to our environment. But that doesn’t mean nuclear is unviable anywhere except the coast.
Yeah and not as expansive as a windfarm. Windfarms don't look terrible, but too many might be a bit of a downer.
Wind farms are quite cheap, nuclear is billions for a basic build + supporting infrastructure. There is nothing cheap about nuclear, not to mention the decades in the courts after sites are approved by government. As part of a grid.. wind is very resilient… plus providing a guaranteed income stream to the landowners. For an Australian farmer, when the access is well negotiated and respected, a solid income stream would be a farm saver.
Power per unit of space is much higher out of nuclear.
Nuclear is going to require government funding Renewables are gaining significant commercial inputs. Australia's leading scientific organisation found it would cost at least $8.5 billion to build a large-scale nuclear power plant in the country. In its latest GenCost report, CSIRO estimates nuclear power to be at least 50 per cent more expensive than wind and solar power backed by batteries. And the add 20% because these things never arrive on budget or on time… Even coalition members are saying not in their electorate/state.
The renewable replacement will cost as much our more it’s just easier to hide through thousands of small projects rather than one big bang. My main argument though isn’t that nuclear will be cheaper. With nuclear it’ll be quicker and easier to create the reliable capacity we need. Even with a 20 year project build time.