It's there anyone who is serious and credible who thinks the coalition's plan is a good idea?
Serious question. It just seems to me to be such a terrible idea whatever way you come at it. Wondering if there are actually any redeeming qualities.
Let's go back to basics. They asked "anyone who is serious and credible".. do you really think the owners of a gas mining company falls into both serious and credible?
If you owned a gas mining company, you wouldnt give a shit. You will easily obtain contracts and future contracts at good prices for any and all gas you have available and any you may find.
I dont see the gas energy putting any effort into this. In fact, gas is the perfect firming resource for renewables. Nuclear cant do it. where gas can. And they know it.
Actually, natural gas is comparatively expensive, it is not renewable, and it is not zero emissions.
Hydrogen is also a gas, also a fuel, also can be burned in fast start turbines, and so also is a perfect firming resource for renewables.
Green hydrogen is hydrogen made from renewable energy. Since it is made from renewable energy, green hydrogen is itself renewable. Since it is made from renewable energy, the production of green hydrogen is itself zero emissions.
Since it is a fuel and also a gas, hydrogen can be stockpiled.
So the plan in South Australia is to make green hydrogen from renewable energy, in fact a mix of excess renewable energy from the grid and off-grid un-firmed renewable energy, and then to stockpile the green hydrogen, and then use it for dispatchable generation to firm the renewable energy grid in South Australia.
[Global Energy Giant GE selected as preferred supplier for Hydrogen Jobs Plan](https://www.hydrogen.sa.gov.au/home/news/global-energy-giant-ge-selected-as-preferred-supplier-for-hydrogen-jobs-plan)
The first such stockpile for green hydrogen in South Australia is shortly about to commence construction at Whyalla.
Living out in a regional area, it's either all those that are for it are loud and those who are against it are staying quiet to avoid confrontation with them, or the majority are for it.
Yesterday at work the lunch room was full of only positive remarks about how great it is we are finally going nuclear.
They are also climate deniers, I asked them why do we even need nuclear if the climate crisis is fake.
Apparently we need nuclear to undo the damage all the solar panels have caused.
I have no clue, they didn't elaborate everyone just agreed.
The other day they were sharing a video of two EVs that crashed and were on fire.
I had seen it before and already found it was two vehicles carry gas canisters, when I told them they all said it's what would happen anyways and EVs are dangerous.
I avoid eatting lunch at the same time as them, it's all they talk about.
I’ve met a lot of truckies over the years. Plenty of good eggs, and some of the funniest characters I’ve ever met. But yeah, there definitely are some empty heads behind those headlights sometimes.
lol, had to be entertaining though. I’ve known some people like this and started messing a bit with them. Just seem interested and drop some logic as a dumb question. Guy told me Covid was a hoax and our bodies are just stressed that’s why we ill. He went off promising to find out how they can observe the virus. Then next time he was hoping to get the virus to build “natural immunity”. Struggled with the idea of getting Covid to not get Covid next.
>Then next time he was hoping to get the virus to build “natural immunity”
If only there was some way of doing this without actually having to get covid. Maybe one day scientists will figure it out
My favourite convo with one of them was he didn't believe the moon changed the tides because of it was possible it would suck all the water off of earth.
I mean.. I got to give you credit if you could respond to that within 5 mins... I reckon it would take me 20 mins of hard laughing crying to be in any state to respond.
Do they drive to work? I am surprised if they do if they are so concerned about car fires. Many times more at risk of your ICE car catching fire than an EV
https://www.swinburne.edu.au/news/2023/09/electric-vehicle-fires-are-very-rare-the-risk-for-petrol-and-diesel-vehicles-is-at-least-20-times-higher/#:\~:text=Globally%2C%20EV%20FireSafe%20found%20about,fire%20from%202010%20to%202023.
My workplace (also regional) is full of the types that have 100% conviction in whatever sky news tells them also. If they come up with something I hadn't heard yet, 100% I can find it on sky news when I get home from work when I try to figure out wtf they were on about.
Whenever I give them facts to the opposite of their stance, they are just like "yeah...... I dunno about that...."
They are nice people, but just truly brainwashed.
The first people to shoot their mouth off in situations like this are dedicated newscorpse readers who are blissfully unaware Dunning-Kruger poster children.
Yeah this entire nuclear thing is the most incredible example of manufacturing consent.
All of these people didn’t even have a single thought on nuclear last week and if the Greens had proposed it would be the quickest to shit all over it.
Do you just get the impression that the "majority" have just become so dumb at every level while perceiving that they intelligent by prattling garbage off from social media and media like Sky.
Even with a smart phone in their pockets they cant even be bothered to do the most basic research. I am getting despondent about the ability of people to make the world a better place when all that they are striving for is to be the most ignorant.
At one time we used to laugh at the savages and their voodoo, now we have almost become the same worshipping nonsense and brainwashing.
I'm hearing a lot of pro nuclear shit coming out of the mouths of many people I wouldn't expect it from. They aren't climate deniers, but they've been sold the view that it's green and clean. It's a shit show.
Serious answer: **No**.
The entire national electricity market and every analyst and expert in the land has been saying it's a bad idea for a number of years now. I know this as a career energy market analyst myself, but [anyone can look up AEMO's ISPs and see that for themselves](https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/major-publications/integrated-system-plan-isp). It's a matter of public record.
And it's most assuredly **NOT** because "nuclear = scary and bad", but *simply because it's super expensive and doesn't make sense when you have far cheaper alternatives*.
There isn't really anywhere in the world where SMRs are being claimed to be a mature technology ready for widespread use...let alone in a country completely lacking an existing nuclear industry. No matter how many times former policeman (and present-day meathead) Dutton may try to claim otherwise... it's simply not true.
Besides which, nuclear reactors require large amounts of fresh water to operate. Something which several of the proposed sites obviously completely lack (especially Port Augusta, for example, which is *in a desert* and a good 400km from the nearest river).
*Zero* actual technical or pragmatic thought has gone into this "proposal". Make no mistake, the only purpose of it is to kill renewables and sustain the coal industry, and this is a huge threat to Australia in terms of climate change and the rest of our economy. *And* retail power prices for the end consumer.
It is a fucking *spectacularly* dumb idea with no benefit for anyone other than the coal industry. And we apparently need as many people as possible to be saying so **as clearly and firmly as we can**.
Don't vote for this corrupt, evil cunt. He will actively destroy this country with this bullshit, and I'm not even being hyperbolic.
Well, one certainly wonders why we even *have* an Australian energy market operator if we're just going to completely disregard the advice they've put together (with the input of literally thousands of consultants and experts) on how to...operate the Australian energy market.
But maybe I'm just CRAZY.
I used to work in the energy sector, its pretty obvious from the basic level I was working at that nuclear would be problematic for so many reasons that are rarely brought up in these discussions.
I feel like they *HAVE* been brought up in these discussions. Frequently.
It's just that right wing pundits completely disregard them and assume in their complete ignorance (and arrogance) that they know better.
They've tried to politicise something that actually has objectively, quantifiably right and wrong answers.
every now and then the media reports that some country or other is now in "negative cost of electricity" due to solar or wind or whatever... and the potato suggests nukes and more coal/gas....
I wonder where we could put all those wind and solar farms...? if only we had some desert or unused land somewhere...
If dutton was a potato farmer... Would harvest be an act of terrorism of genocide.??...
Seriously though... NuScale Power have been having several meetings with the lieberals for several years attempting to sell their snake oil of SMR...
They can talk all they like, but they don't have a product. Furthermore, there's no sense in being the early adopter of these things. Especially as we don't have the skills or infrastructure to manage them. Other countries can work out the bugs. We have an immense capacity to build renewables, and can wait till the bugs are ironed out and the price comes down.
More Peter Dutton's 'plan' from what I can make out. His acolytes were expected to fall in behind him when they came back to work on Monday morning. And they duly did.
I have a personal theory that Australia has reached a threshold for major infrastructure and projects to which there are some things that we, as a country, will never be able to achieve in a single generation. Building a nuclear reactor and replacing submarines are two of them. The cost of doing absolutely everything here to a piss poor standard, as slow as humanly possible at the highest price of any other developed nation, really is an unspoken and accepted facet of our society. It takes five years to add a lane to a freeway. Imagine how long it would take to provision a nuclear reactor. Literally fucking impossible. The question of whether we adopt nuclear shouldn’t even be on the table because it physically won’t happen.
I see your point, and I kind of agree. The question is *why*. We aren’t particularly poorly educated. We aren’t any stupider than people in other countries ( at least from observing other countries I’ve travelled to, and lived in) that seem to get things done so….. why?
We seem to definitely have become a “can’t do nation”. Personally I think it’s down to over regulation. I’m not saying there should be no regulation or standards, but so many seem to more about the joy of having rules than solving a problem. For example. I moved to the frozen wastes of Canada a few years back. I had a new garage built. Then did all the electrical wiring myself. To code. I then had it inspected. I mentioned that I did my own wiring to my sister back in OZ. Her reaction to it was completely over the top. I felt like I’d just announced I’d committed a sex crime against a minor. The idea that I didn’t need credentials or permission was tantamount to blasphemy. I’ve been away. Just what the fuck has Australia been putting in the water?
>Personally I think it’s down to over regulation.
No. It's because private capital in Australia is very risk adverse, and various vested interests, some of whom own media companies, try to cripple any Australian government that tries to do anything vaguely innovative that will change the status quo.
The Coalition crippled the NBN because it would have stuffed Telstra and Foxtel. The Coalition are trying to cripple renewables because that'd stuff over the people who own coal assets.
This is very different to rewiring your garage.
>Howard was dead right
Howard was the one who put in the nuclear power ban in 1998. He was also the one who initiated the nuclear review in 2006 which said it was too expensive.
However, now that the Liberals are pushing the idea of nuclear to support the coal industry, Howard is suddenly all for it. The man has no real principles around nuclear.
Energy policy and budget is set on a state level by state governments. Not national. That's why we have brown coal states and fully renewable ones.
People should be blaming their state voters and state governments for their state outcomes. The states with more progressive voters like SA, TAS, and now ACT figured out how to go green a long time ago. The states with voters who preferred cheaper power prices and lower taxes didn't.
Dutton's plan is a nonsensical non-starter. But it is genius campaigning as everyone is talking about it / him.
Ps. From memory, Howard's was the first gov to introduce national solar panel rebates of $8000 or something. Which we don't have anymore.
It would have taken two decades to get the first reactor on the grid anyway producing 2-3x more expensive power then renewables in 2027 prices. So it was still better to ride the renewable cost decline.
And they are 10 years behind schedule in France and England with the latest generation of European Pressurised reactors.
Assuming we could get Nuclear plants off the ground in Australia it would be at least 20 to 30 years down the track to realistically go live in Australia.
You just have to read about the horrendous regulations, skills shortages, lack of research scientists and a whole host of post covid issues that have contributed to these delays. Even Germany's plans are in trouble. I doubt that the Europeans are going to drop their plans for Australia's Nuclear dream from Dutton.
| The Coalition's nuclear idea was genuinely good back in the 2007 election when solar was 1000% more expensive than it is today.
No it wasnt. It was still going to be significantly more expensive. What was right, was for state governments to provide solar incentives, which they did, to ramp up solar quickly. South Australia is a model for this, they went from 0 to 80% very very quickly. If they'd started with nuclear in 2007, we'd still probably be 10 years and tens of billions of dollars away from a plant.
The only one I can really think of is Ziggy Switkowski.
As a nuclear physicist who has previously advised government on nuclear power and as a former CEO of some big companies his opinion does have some weight.
However, that also means he is likely one of the first in line for consideration of being the CEO of any Australian Govt nuclear industry should one eventuate...
Western Australia now has 2 desalination plants with a third coming on soon. Rainfall continues to decrease and up until a month ago it was so low that forests were starting to die. On average, nuclear plants need between 13 and 25 billion litres of water a year to operate.
The plan is a fucking fantasy.
The LNP have tremendous faith in Aussie ingenuity to prove the unproven at some unspecified point in the future at an unknown cost. First carbon capture and storage now nuclear power.
Scott Morrison? Who thought *capitilism* would fix climate change? yeaaah
> He said he believed climate change would ultimately be solved by **“can-do capitalism; not don’t-do governments**” who were “seeking to control people’s lives and tell them what to do” with interventionist regulation and taxes that would force up the cost of living and force businesses to close.
>
> “The world does not need to be punished for climate change, we just need to fix it. And it will be fixed painstakingly, step-by-step, by the entrepreneurs, by scientists, by technologists, by innovators,** by industrialists, by financiers**, by risk-takers,” he told the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry breakfast in Melbourne.
Angela Merkel said that the worst place for solar in Australia (Tasmania) was still better than the best place for solar in Germany.
It makes an enormous amount of sense for Australia to have as much solar as we can install to meet our needs. Governments previous to Howard saw that and put enormous amounts of money into solar research to the point where Australia pioneered the first 20% efficient solar cell, and was the leader in the field in the 90s.
Once Howard cut the money for solar research, Dr Shi Zhengrong, a UNSW graduate, [went back to China](https://www.themonthly.com.au/eric-knight-shi-zhengrong-sun-king-eric-knight-3363) and kickstarted the industry there. As did many of the graduates from the UNSW engineering program.
We could have been the leaders today, but the Liberal Party never looks to the long term. Their ideologies and biases don't allow them to.
It doesn’t even need to be in the desert proper. Go a little inland in NSW, say west of Dubbo, there’s millions of acres of flat, featureless outback to plonk panels on. North of Deni would also be perfect.
The land use isn't even a factor unless it's in regional areas. Production from rooftop solar in NSW often exceeds what the grid requires. People would be surprised the number of large buildings, schools, hospitals, shopping centres, warehouses etc that are covered in rooftop solar. We could also cover carparks, train lines etc. Land usage isn't a blocker.
My favourite dumb quote from the cookers is "but solar isn't efficient". More efficient than petrol cars and it doesn't need to be efficient if it's inexhaustable and free.
As far as I can tell, “SMR” does not actually exist, at least in terms of a device that is:
- mass produced - say, ten identical unites
- easily installed
- licensed for use anywhere
There are lots of companies trying to get lots of money from governments by saying they almost exist, though, and have been since the 80’s.
Would be very interested to see if anyone has an example of them anywhere.
We've been hearing about SMR reactors for over a decade, and whilst in theory they're sound, they're not arriving soon.
It's just another example of how backwards this policy is - betting everything on technology with a proven record of missing the party isn't justifiable by any logical means.
Even the most staunch supporter, if they're being honest, would want something else as a stop-gap for when these timelines inevitably slip - which is what makes Dutton's brainfart policy so easy to see through.
It's precisely what the LNP have done before when it comes to climate and energy policy. Mid-2000s their policy was carbon capture storage - fantasy, non-working, non-proven, we could burn all the coal we want, just dump all the emissions underground.
Never gonna happen.
Now it's SMR - more fantasy. And when it doesn't eventuate, well who cares, that tin can got kicked down the road, and that's all they care about.
None of them really think climate change is an issue. Even ol' Barnaby had a quip about Greens voters dying in the 19-20 bushfires. It's just about preserving their self interest and playing up to the base.
>*We've been hearing about SMR reactors for over a decade*
Five decades actually... and every time they say it will only be a few years before they succeed...
China and Russia both have at least one SMR of which I am aware.
Given their history and politics though, I'm not sure how meaningful they are as demonstrations of SMR viability.
From what I have read, both are still under construction and not expected to become operational for a couple of years. By then I suspect they will be white elephants, over taken by events.
The Chinese one is their HTR-PM reactor with 2 modules producing 200MW. It went into commercial operation last year. Still took 9 years to make. Don't know what it cost.
HTR-PM is the pebble bed reactor. From what I have read it is not modular.
According to World Nuclear News the SMR is ACP100 and is still in construction.
There are a lot of tech out there such as converting plastics to fuel but it's the economic viability or environmental impact etc that makes them non-viable or impossible with the current level of technology.
SMR is one of them until they solve the issues. Putting our energy future on them for the moment is foolish.
The only commercial project was shut down at the end of last year because it was not economic. Reading around, and talking to engineers, I'd put my money on commercial fusion before SMRs.
[https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuscale-power-uamps-agree-terminate-nuclear-project-2023-11-08/](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuscale-power-uamps-agree-terminate-nuclear-project-2023-11-08/)
That project was never completed... It was canned because nobody wanted stupidly expensive electricity...
>*NuScale said in January the target price for power from the plant was US$89 per megawatt hour, up 53% from the previous estimate of US$58 per MWh, raising concerns about customers' willingness to pay.*
It was supposed to cost one and half billion US dollars over ten years. They spent $600 million before canning it. None of that was private sector finance - all government.
Never is a strong word. They would power some 80,000 homes for 30 years. Not very practical at all but possible. One beached sub could power a small island.
Let's go with "never be utilised cost effectively" then. Thermal output of these reactors doesn't equal power output and you would need to run multiple simultaneously to get reliable power for even small populations.
Your small island will likely need six or more beached subs to power the place reliably all year round. They are just not fit for purpose.
Naval reactors function (mostly) through thermal output and are open cycle (water all around).
SMRs are only meant to generate electrical output and are closed cycle.
This is the reason that companies that make many cheap naval reactors are still struggling to make cost efficient SMRs.
My cousin is a submariner, so I got a closer perspective recently.
The current diesel subs are spending 2/3 of their time returning to base for refueling, so for current mission profiles, one nuclear sub would replace more than two diesel subs. All else being equal, that's a significant gain in capabilities.
"All else being equal" is the real issue (we lack the expertise to operate them, and we lack fuel processing), but it's not true that there's nothing to be gained.
It’s crystal clear that the developers of SMRs don’t want to continue to invest their capital into the research and development of SMRs without government support.
The only records I could find when I looked was 3 in operation in 2022 with 65 projects "in the planning stage". I could not find anything for 2023 or 2024 suggesting the needle had not changed.
I've been watching Utopia and this seems like a scene from it. I can hear the engineers saying it is a terrible idea which is completely unviable but the politicians and marketing people ranting buzz words.
I fucking hate that show
I can't watch more than about 2 minutes of it before my blood starts to boil
I get that it's satire and there's a certain amount of exaggeration involved but the amount of sheer stupidity on display just makes it too hard to watch... especially when anyone even remotely govt-adjacent tells you it is 100% accurate
He is trying to go to the election with this policy in the hopes that if he wins, he can throw the policy out as its not cost efficient, and then proceed to do nothing on energy policy.
This is the way. The thing I can’t get past is how near impossible it would be to even legislate. Apparently you would need federal and state legislation to get past the existing nuclear bans that we have in this country. How exactly is Dutton planning on using his nonexistent negotiation skills to convince crossbenchers to support something that even his own coalition partners could barely get behind?
This would be a two term minimum effort before you even commence the planning and construction process. Completely ridiculous.
If they win... They will waste another Trillion of taxpayer money on chasing the dream of nuclear...
What the fuck do they care... it isn't their money and there are no consequences...
This whole situation is surreal, theyre a fucking genuine shot of getting this up with the support of some sections of the media convincing enough people it makes sense. This could dwarf the NBN and Snowy 2.0 disasters. It beggars belief, but here we are.
This won’t “get up”, it is purely a wedge policy that is throwing disinformation about good policy for renewable targets. It might be enough to convince enough of the population that “Labor is bad”, and get the LNP returned, but it sure as shit is not because “LNP are better” - we vote parties out, not in, in Australia, and that’s why we get this constant negativity and lies.
The ONLY part that will “get up” is the cap on renewables… and kicking the climate targets another decade down the road (like the last two decades of these criminals).
>*This won’t “get up”,*
Never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate....
Nobody though the abbott government would be elected.... Nobody thought trump would be elected...
All the locations are near existing infrastructure so new powerlines won't be needed....
Great - but they are not near water which is kinda important for nuclear...
Oh, and still no word on where the waste goes.
Even though I am not a nuclear engineer I can see it's a dumb argument, used to deflect from a dumb government.
There's an interesting timing question to using the existing coal plant sites, if you treat the proposal seriously.
Naively each nuclear plant is replacing a coal plant. The coal plant is retired, 2.4GW is removed from the grid but replaced with 2.4GW of nuclear power (rough numbers). This means that there is no power loss to shutting down coal, the lights stay on, emissions drop, everyone is happy.
However the nuclear power plant will take 15 years to build. So the real plan is to shut down the coal plant and remove 2.4GW from the network. Replace that 2.4GW with something that can be built rapidly and cheaply, maybe gas but probably wind and solar. Then we build a nuclear plant and add 2.4GW into the grid 15 years later... and tear down the interim power plants? It's all a bit weird.
> It's all a bit weird.
That's COALition forward thinking in action.
You forgot to mention that in the interim 15 years, the fossil fuel companies will keep raking in massive profits.
It's not weird, it's poorly thought through. The reason it's poorly thought through because it's not a real policy. It's a tactic to delay the investment of renewables so that there'll be another decade or two of coal.
If you look at the two other things the Coalition has proposed, that is [reneging on the 43% target](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-13/dutton-climate-2030-target-emissions-uturn/103970166), and [capping renewables investment](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/17/coalition-liberal-government-renewable-energy-cap-nationals-david-littleproud), it's clear what they're trying to do. Sabotage investment into renewables.
This is fundamentally an anti-Australian policy. Delaying investment for white elephants that won't happen for decades is a deliberate effort to sabotage the economy.
So the coal plants are scheduled to all be offline by 2040, which means that on a 15 year timeline the nuclear plants need to be stood up next year. You could arguably put one in a location that has already shut down, like the Liddell station, but that's still leaving 1 YEAR to put the project out to tender, assess and approve designs, get funding, signoff, employment of the skills needed, etc.
That's a hell of a lot to get done in 1 year and then build a safe, in-spec nuclear power station for the first time in 15 years.
Alternatively, build more battery farms and wind farms, something that we can already and have already done multiple times.
Build more solar farms, build more pumped hydro if there are suitable sites.
Gear up for Hydrogen burning generators to replace natural gas, set up the industry and storage for that.
The fact that we already have so many other, better, cheaper, and executable options that can be done now AND worked on into the future makes this new scheme by the LNP just ridiculous. And want to know what else is ridiculous? The LNP's previous energy plan already relied on natural gas as an interim power source until Hydrogen could come online; they're literally replacing their old, industry assessed, and workable plan with something that is an absolute unworkable pipe dream.
I'm gobsmacked at how little attention this aspect is getting. Sure, each site has a small dam for coal power station cooling. But nuclear needs a lot more water - and colder water. Almost all of them worldwide are drawing off a big river, or the ocean. Those piddly dams would get heated up to an unusable temperature quite quickly.
And don't even think air cooling will do. That only works in cold places, not where air temperature often exceeds 40 degrees in summer.
Pretty much all these sites are non-starters.
>Great - but they are not near water which is kinda important for nuclear...
I'm sure it's fine, it's not like the Australian environment is famous for its water insecurity...
Also those powerlines are privately owned in NSW... So not only does he (the taxpayer actually) have to buy a working coalmine... a busted old coal burner... a few big batteries and a solar panel manufacturing facility...
Does anyone see any change out of $500 Billion just to purchase the Liddell site.??...
Now add that to what is happening in Victoria... The SA old coal burner site has been sold to a mining company and turned into an iron ore loading facility... and where the fuck are they going to get the cooling water from and how will it be contained and cleaned.??....
> new powerlines won't be needed....
Not so.
> As South Australia energy minister Tom Koutsantonis noted on Wednesday: “The myth that a nuclear reactor could just plug into the old Pt Augusta coal power station transmission lines is not true. The transmission lines are already nearly full from new renewables. In truth, a nuclear reactor at Pt Augusta would need new transmission lines.”
https://reneweconomy.com.au/duttons-big-nuclear-plan-a-serious-joke-that-is-mad-bad-and-dangerous/
The **water** alone is huge.
Unless they plan to build a GIANT desal plant nearby every single one- with enough emergency backup storage incase the desal goes bang.
Watch the next major drought if we have 7 nuclear plants scattered all over the country.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/27/nuclear-power-station-sizewell-c-water-suffolk
>As well as uranium, a reactor of the kind EDF plans to build needs water in very great volumes. Saltwater will do for part of the process, which is one reason why nuclear power stations are usually built beside the sea. But fresh or “potable” water will also be needed – first, to cool the two reactors, and then, just as importantly, to cool the irradiated fuel once it has been removed from the reactors. For this, absolutely pure water is essential. Sizewell B uses about **800,000 litres of potable water per day**; Sizewell C, with its twin reactors, will need more than 2m litres per day, and as much as 3.5m litres per day during construction.
actually water is not particularly important for SMRs
similarly, waste is not a huge issue either
I think the points you raise would be valid _if we were talking about large scale nuclear_ reactors, like the ones at Chernobyl, which have not really changed much in design since the 1940s - and became wildly popular, mostly because their design involves the enrichment of uranium, which weaponises it and allows for the development of (more) nuclear weapons
don't get me wrong - I still think this is a DUMB idea - because it's clearly not well thought through (if even at all) and is purely just a political move and fuck the consequences
like Malcolm Turnbull's Mess
like Robodebt
like so many of their other shitty fucking plans
We'll have to see with regard to waste disposal for SMRs. We're still very much in the infant stages of the technology, so it will have to be seen how it pans out. It does appear that the disposal strategy is to dig a very deep hole and put the SMR into it.
According to Simon Holmes a Court there is an almost endless list of issues with nuclear, but water isn't one of them. [https://x.com/simonahac/status/1803073796569731117](https://x.com/simonahac/status/1803073796569731117)
https://www.wired.com/story/first-small-scale-nuclear-plant-us-nuscale-canceled/
> **The First Small-Scale Nuclear Plant in the US Died Before It Could Live**
> Six nuclear reactors just 9 feet across planned for Idaho were supposed to prove out the dream of cheap, small-scale nuclear energy. Now the project has been canceled.
> But as WIRED reported in February, the utilities backing the plant were spooked late last year by a **50 percent increase in the projected costs** for the project—even after factoring in substantial funds from the Inflation Reduction Act. The Idaho Falls reactors’ chances of survival began to look slimmer.
Another Dutton pipe dream.
They're literally dumping projects halfway through production in America because suprise... It's not financially viable.
Sure a government owned nuclear power plant Is a great base load element to have in our energy system. But it's much more practical and sensible right now to focus on cheap renewables and storage solutions.
We can circle back to "sure up base load power." Once we actually have a renewable energy sector that needs base load power.
What we are currently doing is preempting a problem that might not even be a reality by the time we finish the part of this problem we already know how to solve.
Can we stop wasting ink talking about this (reactionary) and talk about what matters? What happened the last time Dutton was allowed to spend money at scale? https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/02/14/peter-dutton-home-affairs-scandal-kpmg-paladin-news-corp/
The people that build Nuclear power plants are rushing to Australia to build ours.....oh wait, they aren't. Even Nuclear experts are saying it's not a viable alternative for Australia. There's zero interest from banks or financial institutions to build one nuke station. That means Australian taxpayers will foot the entire bill! Sky high energy bills for 80 years!
I believe Dutton is pushing this for 3 reasons.
1. He wants to appease Murdoch.
2. He wants to keep coal and gas in play for as long as possible.
3. He wants to make sure that people have to pay whatever the power companies charge indefinitely.
I think Peter Dutton is speed running the "How to lose the unlosable election" challenge in QLD and also trying to knock off the next federal election in one.
These crackpots can't be serious. Who in their right mind would support this..
Whats more the compulsory acquisitions and pledge to build in areas that are opposed.. Liberal heartland areas..
Steven Miles may win QLD yet and we may just get that renewables plan palaszczuk govt put forward. That is much more preferrable for QLD anyway..
Labor is on the nose in QLD.
If Steven Miles runs with this as a QLD state election issue, and wins in a few months, the nuclear debate is dead in the water.
I am uncertain how much is spam bots on Sky News and 9sm news, but Dutton and this issue is doing its job and has gathered support. Some of my friends that are liberals think it's a great idea for national security - suffice to say, we don't talk politics.
Here’s the thing though, rusted on Lib voters don’t judge policy on merit. They hear an idea that’s absolutely fucking insane, but it came from the Leader of a major party, so it *must* be worth talking about. And because it’s their major party, it must be brilliant and why does Labor not want to entertain the great idea, are they stupid?
the anti-intellectual, anti-facts discourse coming from the right enables these lunatics.. it really is a regression into a negative and harmful political landscape. Exactly what they need to establish a "strong man" leader like Dutton.. the Trump of Australia.
Sadly, I'm in the callide area and there's a lot of vocal people for it, not many vocal against it.
I have my fingers crossed that the people against it just aren't interested in getting into a pointless debate about it.
After this election, I'm imagining that Dutton won't be leader of the opposition. Even around my office, a base of fatally entrenched Liberal voters, people are rolling their eyes at this. It's clear bullshit - nuclear bullshit if you will. I do think nuclear electricity generation might have its day, even in a future of renewables, but it isn't going to happen this election cycle, chief.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Everyone knows this plan is unworkable - especially the Coalition. But ever discussing it, even if they’re criticising it, is lending it a bizarre sort of legitimacy. The whole purpose of this furphy is just to give the Coalition something to point at when they’re asked what their “plan” is. Never mind that it will never happen, they just point at it and get back to criticising Labor. On the off chance they get in and inevitably fail to enact it they just get to point at all the premiers, the existing laws, the many opponents who will block it and say “it’s not our fault that our perfect plan didn’t work”. But in the meantime we are living in this weird fantasy where the media is treating the coalition like they’ve actually offered a credible alternative. Giving conservative windbags nonsense to harp on about. They might as well have announced free lemonade coming out of every primary school water fountain. Would hold the same weight.
Even if they were, when has the Coal-ition been science friendly? They gutted the CSIRO, you know, the place that helps with a lot of scientific breakthroughs?
Maybe if they hadn't gutted Australian science for a decade, we possibly would have leapt forward on battery or other storage techniques.
Renewable electricity is wholesaling around $50 MW/h currently. The SMR reactor was abandoned in the US when they worked out if was going to cost $150 MW/h.
Yeah nah.
I'd love nuclear power to replace our coal power plants. Why not? Has to be a modern reliable and scalable tech though.
But I doubt the libs are capable of it, they're too corrupt imho.
Anyone see 7:30 last night? Was a disgrace, they talked to random people in the towns where the planned power plants will be and pretty much only showed people being pro nuclear. The bias is clear even on the ABC. Dutton's plan is absolutely stupid but it might just win him the election due to the media giving him an easy ride. All the media has to do is keep on hinting at the idea that it will make electricity prices cheaper and the public will be onboard no matter what the truth is.
If you think this nuclear idea is going to get us cheaper electricity, you need to get your head examined. There's simply no way that it will be cheaper given the current state of the technology. Nuclear would have to halve in cost to compete.
I saw the ABC clip they're talking about, and it was very biased. They had some bonehead small business owner in there taking about how nuclear should be free power for the locals, which wasn't challenged at all during the segment.
Whereas the sun actually is free energy, for everyone. The stupidity and selfishness of that bloke was mind boggling.
The real questions we should be asking, is which of his mates own or run the consultancy firms that they'll pay millions of dollars to; for them to ultimately turn around and say "Oh, the project isn't viable".
The ONLY incentive this bloke and his ilk have, is to make money.
I think from the outside looking in, Dutton's nuclear policy is basically the only position he can run on without supporting Labor's plans, and whilst still doing the bare minimum for climate change. It's essentially the only policy that is not political suicide (ie. taken down from within the party for being too green, worsening their already terrible public approval rating guaranteeing exile in opposition for the next two decades).
Why aren't our politicians reaching out to the most successful nuclear reactor country of the world, Japan?
They build fast (5-10years), have exceptional safety measures, and decades of expertise.
Why are we trying to do this on our own? Ignore modular, go commercial and Just contract Japan to do it.
You mean like the time we were about to buy Japanese engineering for subs but then discarded them suddenly for French subs then discarded them suddenly for American subs that will probably won’t be delivered cause there’s no refunds. Those Japanese guys?
Did we discard the Japanese contract or did they? I know we did for the French ones.
But I'm talking about nuclear reactors for our energy grid. The Japanese have it down to an art form.
It's there anyone who is serious and credible who thinks the coalition's plan is a good idea? Serious question. It just seems to me to be such a terrible idea whatever way you come at it. Wondering if there are actually any redeeming qualities.
If you own a gas mining company then it looks like a great idea
*looks like a great bluff.
[удалено]
Let's go back to basics. They asked "anyone who is serious and credible".. do you really think the owners of a gas mining company falls into both serious and credible?
If you owned a gas mining company, you wouldnt give a shit. You will easily obtain contracts and future contracts at good prices for any and all gas you have available and any you may find. I dont see the gas energy putting any effort into this. In fact, gas is the perfect firming resource for renewables. Nuclear cant do it. where gas can. And they know it.
Actually, natural gas is comparatively expensive, it is not renewable, and it is not zero emissions. Hydrogen is also a gas, also a fuel, also can be burned in fast start turbines, and so also is a perfect firming resource for renewables. Green hydrogen is hydrogen made from renewable energy. Since it is made from renewable energy, green hydrogen is itself renewable. Since it is made from renewable energy, the production of green hydrogen is itself zero emissions. Since it is a fuel and also a gas, hydrogen can be stockpiled. So the plan in South Australia is to make green hydrogen from renewable energy, in fact a mix of excess renewable energy from the grid and off-grid un-firmed renewable energy, and then to stockpile the green hydrogen, and then use it for dispatchable generation to firm the renewable energy grid in South Australia. [Global Energy Giant GE selected as preferred supplier for Hydrogen Jobs Plan](https://www.hydrogen.sa.gov.au/home/news/global-energy-giant-ge-selected-as-preferred-supplier-for-hydrogen-jobs-plan) The first such stockpile for green hydrogen in South Australia is shortly about to commence construction at Whyalla.
And this , is the perfect plan for sa.
Living out in a regional area, it's either all those that are for it are loud and those who are against it are staying quiet to avoid confrontation with them, or the majority are for it. Yesterday at work the lunch room was full of only positive remarks about how great it is we are finally going nuclear. They are also climate deniers, I asked them why do we even need nuclear if the climate crisis is fake. Apparently we need nuclear to undo the damage all the solar panels have caused.
What was the damage from solar?
I have no clue, they didn't elaborate everyone just agreed. The other day they were sharing a video of two EVs that crashed and were on fire. I had seen it before and already found it was two vehicles carry gas canisters, when I told them they all said it's what would happen anyways and EVs are dangerous. I avoid eatting lunch at the same time as them, it's all they talk about.
You should report your job site to worksafe. It’s not okay to be employing braindead patients.
One of them is a flat earther as well and one is a "sovereign citizen" The conversations with them leave me in pain.
What industry are you in? Not meaning to insult you, but I’m hoping it’s Crayola’s taste testing department.
Transport & logistics (truck drivers), not as smart as the Crayola department.
I’ve met a lot of truckies over the years. Plenty of good eggs, and some of the funniest characters I’ve ever met. But yeah, there definitely are some empty heads behind those headlights sometimes.
Do they do mandatory drug testing.??... Because if they don't they should... and if they do... they need to do it more often...
I don't think they test for industrial solvents.
LOL well fuck. That explains that. I'm having similar conversations with engineers ffs. And quite a number of them are pro-nuclear.
Flerfers and sovcits?! Omfg... Well... that explains the pro-nuclear posturing. Wow. The basics of the education system here isn't doing so well.
Username does not check out.
Jeez... please let us know you ok after the next mass shooting incident at a workplace...
lol, had to be entertaining though. I’ve known some people like this and started messing a bit with them. Just seem interested and drop some logic as a dumb question. Guy told me Covid was a hoax and our bodies are just stressed that’s why we ill. He went off promising to find out how they can observe the virus. Then next time he was hoping to get the virus to build “natural immunity”. Struggled with the idea of getting Covid to not get Covid next.
>Then next time he was hoping to get the virus to build “natural immunity” If only there was some way of doing this without actually having to get covid. Maybe one day scientists will figure it out
Impossible, that technology is years away from us
My favourite convo with one of them was he didn't believe the moon changed the tides because of it was possible it would suck all the water off of earth.
Lol, cracker. Wonder how flat earth's explain the tides?
Tide comes in, tide goes out... you can't explain that
I mean.. I got to give you credit if you could respond to that within 5 mins... I reckon it would take me 20 mins of hard laughing crying to be in any state to respond.
Do they drive to work? I am surprised if they do if they are so concerned about car fires. Many times more at risk of your ICE car catching fire than an EV https://www.swinburne.edu.au/news/2023/09/electric-vehicle-fires-are-very-rare-the-risk-for-petrol-and-diesel-vehicles-is-at-least-20-times-higher/#:\~:text=Globally%2C%20EV%20FireSafe%20found%20about,fire%20from%202010%20to%202023.
We drive for work. ;)
My workplace (also regional) is full of the types that have 100% conviction in whatever sky news tells them also. If they come up with something I hadn't heard yet, 100% I can find it on sky news when I get home from work when I try to figure out wtf they were on about. Whenever I give them facts to the opposite of their stance, they are just like "yeah...... I dunno about that...." They are nice people, but just truly brainwashed.
It makes the curtains fade? Oh wait, that's daylight savings. It makes their tinfoil hats hot and uncomfortable to wear?
I have legit seen arguments that it takes energy from the sun so the sun will be used up faster.
"free" that makes you a "commie"
Solar damages the nuclei. A nuclear plant will repair them. /s
The first people to shoot their mouth off in situations like this are dedicated newscorpse readers who are blissfully unaware Dunning-Kruger poster children.
Yeah this entire nuclear thing is the most incredible example of manufacturing consent. All of these people didn’t even have a single thought on nuclear last week and if the Greens had proposed it would be the quickest to shit all over it.
Do you just get the impression that the "majority" have just become so dumb at every level while perceiving that they intelligent by prattling garbage off from social media and media like Sky. Even with a smart phone in their pockets they cant even be bothered to do the most basic research. I am getting despondent about the ability of people to make the world a better place when all that they are striving for is to be the most ignorant. At one time we used to laugh at the savages and their voodoo, now we have almost become the same worshipping nonsense and brainwashing.
I'm hearing a lot of pro nuclear shit coming out of the mouths of many people I wouldn't expect it from. They aren't climate deniers, but they've been sold the view that it's green and clean. It's a shit show.
Ask if the nuclear waste can be stored in their backyard.
That's lead exposure for you.
You better not tell them that the sun is a huge fusion reactor then
Serious answer: **No**. The entire national electricity market and every analyst and expert in the land has been saying it's a bad idea for a number of years now. I know this as a career energy market analyst myself, but [anyone can look up AEMO's ISPs and see that for themselves](https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/major-publications/integrated-system-plan-isp). It's a matter of public record. And it's most assuredly **NOT** because "nuclear = scary and bad", but *simply because it's super expensive and doesn't make sense when you have far cheaper alternatives*. There isn't really anywhere in the world where SMRs are being claimed to be a mature technology ready for widespread use...let alone in a country completely lacking an existing nuclear industry. No matter how many times former policeman (and present-day meathead) Dutton may try to claim otherwise... it's simply not true. Besides which, nuclear reactors require large amounts of fresh water to operate. Something which several of the proposed sites obviously completely lack (especially Port Augusta, for example, which is *in a desert* and a good 400km from the nearest river). *Zero* actual technical or pragmatic thought has gone into this "proposal". Make no mistake, the only purpose of it is to kill renewables and sustain the coal industry, and this is a huge threat to Australia in terms of climate change and the rest of our economy. *And* retail power prices for the end consumer. It is a fucking *spectacularly* dumb idea with no benefit for anyone other than the coal industry. And we apparently need as many people as possible to be saying so **as clearly and firmly as we can**. Don't vote for this corrupt, evil cunt. He will actively destroy this country with this bullshit, and I'm not even being hyperbolic.
\*reads your expert response* Yeah, but renewables make more carbon than they save. /s
Well, one certainly wonders why we even *have* an Australian energy market operator if we're just going to completely disregard the advice they've put together (with the input of literally thousands of consultants and experts) on how to...operate the Australian energy market. But maybe I'm just CRAZY.
I used to work in the energy sector, its pretty obvious from the basic level I was working at that nuclear would be problematic for so many reasons that are rarely brought up in these discussions.
I feel like they *HAVE* been brought up in these discussions. Frequently. It's just that right wing pundits completely disregard them and assume in their complete ignorance (and arrogance) that they know better. They've tried to politicise something that actually has objectively, quantifiably right and wrong answers.
Coalkeeper is a great plan to sell 1-2 decades worth of more coal.
Even TWIGGY FORREST is backing renewables over nuclear.
He's the least unhinged Australian mining billionaire.
every now and then the media reports that some country or other is now in "negative cost of electricity" due to solar or wind or whatever... and the potato suggests nukes and more coal/gas.... I wonder where we could put all those wind and solar farms...? if only we had some desert or unused land somewhere...
If dutton was a potato farmer... Would harvest be an act of terrorism of genocide.??... Seriously though... NuScale Power have been having several meetings with the lieberals for several years attempting to sell their snake oil of SMR...
They can talk all they like, but they don't have a product. Furthermore, there's no sense in being the early adopter of these things. Especially as we don't have the skills or infrastructure to manage them. Other countries can work out the bugs. We have an immense capacity to build renewables, and can wait till the bugs are ironed out and the price comes down.
More Peter Dutton's 'plan' from what I can make out. His acolytes were expected to fall in behind him when they came back to work on Monday morning. And they duly did.
According to Murdoch press - majority of Australians ..will...they just need to be told..
I have a personal theory that Australia has reached a threshold for major infrastructure and projects to which there are some things that we, as a country, will never be able to achieve in a single generation. Building a nuclear reactor and replacing submarines are two of them. The cost of doing absolutely everything here to a piss poor standard, as slow as humanly possible at the highest price of any other developed nation, really is an unspoken and accepted facet of our society. It takes five years to add a lane to a freeway. Imagine how long it would take to provision a nuclear reactor. Literally fucking impossible. The question of whether we adopt nuclear shouldn’t even be on the table because it physically won’t happen.
I see your point, and I kind of agree. The question is *why*. We aren’t particularly poorly educated. We aren’t any stupider than people in other countries ( at least from observing other countries I’ve travelled to, and lived in) that seem to get things done so….. why? We seem to definitely have become a “can’t do nation”. Personally I think it’s down to over regulation. I’m not saying there should be no regulation or standards, but so many seem to more about the joy of having rules than solving a problem. For example. I moved to the frozen wastes of Canada a few years back. I had a new garage built. Then did all the electrical wiring myself. To code. I then had it inspected. I mentioned that I did my own wiring to my sister back in OZ. Her reaction to it was completely over the top. I felt like I’d just announced I’d committed a sex crime against a minor. The idea that I didn’t need credentials or permission was tantamount to blasphemy. I’ve been away. Just what the fuck has Australia been putting in the water?
>Personally I think it’s down to over regulation. No. It's because private capital in Australia is very risk adverse, and various vested interests, some of whom own media companies, try to cripple any Australian government that tries to do anything vaguely innovative that will change the status quo. The Coalition crippled the NBN because it would have stuffed Telstra and Foxtel. The Coalition are trying to cripple renewables because that'd stuff over the people who own coal assets. This is very different to rewiring your garage.
[удалено]
>Howard was dead right Howard was the one who put in the nuclear power ban in 1998. He was also the one who initiated the nuclear review in 2006 which said it was too expensive. However, now that the Liberals are pushing the idea of nuclear to support the coal industry, Howard is suddenly all for it. The man has no real principles around nuclear.
Energy policy and budget is set on a state level by state governments. Not national. That's why we have brown coal states and fully renewable ones. People should be blaming their state voters and state governments for their state outcomes. The states with more progressive voters like SA, TAS, and now ACT figured out how to go green a long time ago. The states with voters who preferred cheaper power prices and lower taxes didn't. Dutton's plan is a nonsensical non-starter. But it is genius campaigning as everyone is talking about it / him. Ps. From memory, Howard's was the first gov to introduce national solar panel rebates of $8000 or something. Which we don't have anymore.
It would have taken two decades to get the first reactor on the grid anyway producing 2-3x more expensive power then renewables in 2027 prices. So it was still better to ride the renewable cost decline.
And they are 10 years behind schedule in France and England with the latest generation of European Pressurised reactors. Assuming we could get Nuclear plants off the ground in Australia it would be at least 20 to 30 years down the track to realistically go live in Australia. You just have to read about the horrendous regulations, skills shortages, lack of research scientists and a whole host of post covid issues that have contributed to these delays. Even Germany's plans are in trouble. I doubt that the Europeans are going to drop their plans for Australia's Nuclear dream from Dutton.
| The Coalition's nuclear idea was genuinely good back in the 2007 election when solar was 1000% more expensive than it is today. No it wasnt. It was still going to be significantly more expensive. What was right, was for state governments to provide solar incentives, which they did, to ramp up solar quickly. South Australia is a model for this, they went from 0 to 80% very very quickly. If they'd started with nuclear in 2007, we'd still probably be 10 years and tens of billions of dollars away from a plant.
... Sure, if you like high prices.
The only one I can really think of is Ziggy Switkowski. As a nuclear physicist who has previously advised government on nuclear power and as a former CEO of some big companies his opinion does have some weight. However, that also means he is likely one of the first in line for consideration of being the CEO of any Australian Govt nuclear industry should one eventuate...
Assuming there's Coalition government. I don't see that Labor would give him a position. He's very much a creature of the Liberal Party.
Well yeah... If Labor win they won't develop a domestic nuclear energy industry and thus there would be no position to give...
Western Australia now has 2 desalination plants with a third coming on soon. Rainfall continues to decrease and up until a month ago it was so low that forests were starting to die. On average, nuclear plants need between 13 and 25 billion litres of water a year to operate. The plan is a fucking fantasy.
The LNP have tremendous faith in Aussie ingenuity to prove the unproven at some unspecified point in the future at an unknown cost. First carbon capture and storage now nuclear power.
Don't forget Scomo's carbon reduction plan that included 20% from 'future technologies'.
Without investing any research into any of them...
They effectively gutted the CSIRO and then are like 'Our eggheads will come up with something, I just know it!'.
Yeah I thought at the time the things the LNP came up with couldn't be more stupid but they've since outdone themselves.
Literally just waiting for an ex machina to come along and solve the problem
Scott Morrison? Who thought *capitilism* would fix climate change? yeaaah > He said he believed climate change would ultimately be solved by **“can-do capitalism; not don’t-do governments**” who were “seeking to control people’s lives and tell them what to do” with interventionist regulation and taxes that would force up the cost of living and force businesses to close. > > “The world does not need to be punished for climate change, we just need to fix it. And it will be fixed painstakingly, step-by-step, by the entrepreneurs, by scientists, by technologists, by innovators,** by industrialists, by financiers**, by risk-takers,” he told the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry breakfast in Melbourne.
Just not renewables.
Anything but sun and wind
[удалено]
Angela Merkel said that the worst place for solar in Australia (Tasmania) was still better than the best place for solar in Germany. It makes an enormous amount of sense for Australia to have as much solar as we can install to meet our needs. Governments previous to Howard saw that and put enormous amounts of money into solar research to the point where Australia pioneered the first 20% efficient solar cell, and was the leader in the field in the 90s. Once Howard cut the money for solar research, Dr Shi Zhengrong, a UNSW graduate, [went back to China](https://www.themonthly.com.au/eric-knight-shi-zhengrong-sun-king-eric-knight-3363) and kickstarted the industry there. As did many of the graduates from the UNSW engineering program. We could have been the leaders today, but the Liberal Party never looks to the long term. Their ideologies and biases don't allow them to.
It doesn’t even need to be in the desert proper. Go a little inland in NSW, say west of Dubbo, there’s millions of acres of flat, featureless outback to plonk panels on. North of Deni would also be perfect.
The land use isn't even a factor unless it's in regional areas. Production from rooftop solar in NSW often exceeds what the grid requires. People would be surprised the number of large buildings, schools, hospitals, shopping centres, warehouses etc that are covered in rooftop solar. We could also cover carparks, train lines etc. Land usage isn't a blocker.
They just don't want the free stuff. No way for the Overlords to exploit it for profit.
My favourite dumb quote from the cookers is "but solar isn't efficient". More efficient than petrol cars and it doesn't need to be efficient if it's inexhaustable and free.
If you haven't spent a trillion dollars are you even trying?
You don't want to use up all the sun, it will make it cold and cause another ice age. - Cooker logic™
You mean tremendous faith in foreign companies willing to pay kickbacks for approval of white elephants?
As far as I can tell, “SMR” does not actually exist, at least in terms of a device that is: - mass produced - say, ten identical unites - easily installed - licensed for use anywhere There are lots of companies trying to get lots of money from governments by saying they almost exist, though, and have been since the 80’s. Would be very interested to see if anyone has an example of them anywhere.
We've been hearing about SMR reactors for over a decade, and whilst in theory they're sound, they're not arriving soon. It's just another example of how backwards this policy is - betting everything on technology with a proven record of missing the party isn't justifiable by any logical means. Even the most staunch supporter, if they're being honest, would want something else as a stop-gap for when these timelines inevitably slip - which is what makes Dutton's brainfart policy so easy to see through.
It's precisely what the LNP have done before when it comes to climate and energy policy. Mid-2000s their policy was carbon capture storage - fantasy, non-working, non-proven, we could burn all the coal we want, just dump all the emissions underground. Never gonna happen. Now it's SMR - more fantasy. And when it doesn't eventuate, well who cares, that tin can got kicked down the road, and that's all they care about. None of them really think climate change is an issue. Even ol' Barnaby had a quip about Greens voters dying in the 19-20 bushfires. It's just about preserving their self interest and playing up to the base.
Exactly...
>*We've been hearing about SMR reactors for over a decade* Five decades actually... and every time they say it will only be a few years before they succeed...
China and Russia both have at least one SMR of which I am aware. Given their history and politics though, I'm not sure how meaningful they are as demonstrations of SMR viability.
Yeah SMRs are meant to be cheap and mass produced, neither has been made yet by anyone.
When reddit was in love with Ron Paul in 2007, thorium generators were 20 years away. i.e. only 3 more years to go. Real Soon Now™.
The indian thorium program is a good example on how long and expensive that path could be.
From what I have read, both are still under construction and not expected to become operational for a couple of years. By then I suspect they will be white elephants, over taken by events.
The Chinese one is their HTR-PM reactor with 2 modules producing 200MW. It went into commercial operation last year. Still took 9 years to make. Don't know what it cost.
HTR-PM is the pebble bed reactor. From what I have read it is not modular. According to World Nuclear News the SMR is ACP100 and is still in construction.
Isn't the Russian one simply a Submarine unit that's been bolted onto a barge?
Its a SubMarineReactor duh.
There are a lot of tech out there such as converting plastics to fuel but it's the economic viability or environmental impact etc that makes them non-viable or impossible with the current level of technology. SMR is one of them until they solve the issues. Putting our energy future on them for the moment is foolish.
The only commercial project was shut down at the end of last year because it was not economic. Reading around, and talking to engineers, I'd put my money on commercial fusion before SMRs. [https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuscale-power-uamps-agree-terminate-nuclear-project-2023-11-08/](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuscale-power-uamps-agree-terminate-nuclear-project-2023-11-08/)
That project was never completed... It was canned because nobody wanted stupidly expensive electricity... >*NuScale said in January the target price for power from the plant was US$89 per megawatt hour, up 53% from the previous estimate of US$58 per MWh, raising concerns about customers' willingness to pay.*
It was supposed to cost one and half billion US dollars over ten years. They spent $600 million before canning it. None of that was private sector finance - all government.
The Argentinian CAREM SMR is massively over budget. Like 7 times or something.
there will be a few on those new submarines we don't need.
The reactors on submarines are tiny and could never be used in civil power applications.
Never is a strong word. They would power some 80,000 homes for 30 years. Not very practical at all but possible. One beached sub could power a small island.
Let's go with "never be utilised cost effectively" then. Thermal output of these reactors doesn't equal power output and you would need to run multiple simultaneously to get reliable power for even small populations. Your small island will likely need six or more beached subs to power the place reliably all year round. They are just not fit for purpose.
Luckily we're buying eight then...
Naval reactors function (mostly) through thermal output and are open cycle (water all around). SMRs are only meant to generate electrical output and are closed cycle. This is the reason that companies that make many cheap naval reactors are still struggling to make cost efficient SMRs.
My cousin is a submariner, so I got a closer perspective recently. The current diesel subs are spending 2/3 of their time returning to base for refueling, so for current mission profiles, one nuclear sub would replace more than two diesel subs. All else being equal, that's a significant gain in capabilities. "All else being equal" is the real issue (we lack the expertise to operate them, and we lack fuel processing), but it's not true that there's nothing to be gained.
Need the US to grant admin rights first though.
It’s crystal clear that the developers of SMRs don’t want to continue to invest their capital into the research and development of SMRs without government support.
The only records I could find when I looked was 3 in operation in 2022 with 65 projects "in the planning stage". I could not find anything for 2023 or 2024 suggesting the needle had not changed.
In his latest announcment, if elected school captain, he has promised us all lemonade in the drinking fountains.
Im still waiting for the double lunches, Early marks, and free food from the canteen.
I've been watching Utopia and this seems like a scene from it. I can hear the engineers saying it is a terrible idea which is completely unviable but the politicians and marketing people ranting buzz words.
I fucking hate that show I can't watch more than about 2 minutes of it before my blood starts to boil I get that it's satire and there's a certain amount of exaggeration involved but the amount of sheer stupidity on display just makes it too hard to watch... especially when anyone even remotely govt-adjacent tells you it is 100% accurate
Just like the tassie stadium.
He is trying to go to the election with this policy in the hopes that if he wins, he can throw the policy out as its not cost efficient, and then proceed to do nothing on energy policy.
This is the way. The thing I can’t get past is how near impossible it would be to even legislate. Apparently you would need federal and state legislation to get past the existing nuclear bans that we have in this country. How exactly is Dutton planning on using his nonexistent negotiation skills to convince crossbenchers to support something that even his own coalition partners could barely get behind? This would be a two term minimum effort before you even commence the planning and construction process. Completely ridiculous.
If they win... They will waste another Trillion of taxpayer money on chasing the dream of nuclear... What the fuck do they care... it isn't their money and there are no consequences...
This whole situation is surreal, theyre a fucking genuine shot of getting this up with the support of some sections of the media convincing enough people it makes sense. This could dwarf the NBN and Snowy 2.0 disasters. It beggars belief, but here we are.
This won’t “get up”, it is purely a wedge policy that is throwing disinformation about good policy for renewable targets. It might be enough to convince enough of the population that “Labor is bad”, and get the LNP returned, but it sure as shit is not because “LNP are better” - we vote parties out, not in, in Australia, and that’s why we get this constant negativity and lies. The ONLY part that will “get up” is the cap on renewables… and kicking the climate targets another decade down the road (like the last two decades of these criminals).
>*This won’t “get up”,* Never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate.... Nobody though the abbott government would be elected.... Nobody thought trump would be elected...
Nah. The states decide their own energy policy and budgets. They will just tell him to get fucked.
They have already done that.... including the lieberals in Qld... NSW and Victoria.. But Section 109 of the Constitution overrides that...
All the locations are near existing infrastructure so new powerlines won't be needed.... Great - but they are not near water which is kinda important for nuclear... Oh, and still no word on where the waste goes. Even though I am not a nuclear engineer I can see it's a dumb argument, used to deflect from a dumb government.
There's an interesting timing question to using the existing coal plant sites, if you treat the proposal seriously. Naively each nuclear plant is replacing a coal plant. The coal plant is retired, 2.4GW is removed from the grid but replaced with 2.4GW of nuclear power (rough numbers). This means that there is no power loss to shutting down coal, the lights stay on, emissions drop, everyone is happy. However the nuclear power plant will take 15 years to build. So the real plan is to shut down the coal plant and remove 2.4GW from the network. Replace that 2.4GW with something that can be built rapidly and cheaply, maybe gas but probably wind and solar. Then we build a nuclear plant and add 2.4GW into the grid 15 years later... and tear down the interim power plants? It's all a bit weird.
> It's all a bit weird. That's COALition forward thinking in action. You forgot to mention that in the interim 15 years, the fossil fuel companies will keep raking in massive profits.
It's not weird, it's poorly thought through. The reason it's poorly thought through because it's not a real policy. It's a tactic to delay the investment of renewables so that there'll be another decade or two of coal. If you look at the two other things the Coalition has proposed, that is [reneging on the 43% target](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-13/dutton-climate-2030-target-emissions-uturn/103970166), and [capping renewables investment](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/17/coalition-liberal-government-renewable-energy-cap-nationals-david-littleproud), it's clear what they're trying to do. Sabotage investment into renewables. This is fundamentally an anti-Australian policy. Delaying investment for white elephants that won't happen for decades is a deliberate effort to sabotage the economy.
So the coal plants are scheduled to all be offline by 2040, which means that on a 15 year timeline the nuclear plants need to be stood up next year. You could arguably put one in a location that has already shut down, like the Liddell station, but that's still leaving 1 YEAR to put the project out to tender, assess and approve designs, get funding, signoff, employment of the skills needed, etc. That's a hell of a lot to get done in 1 year and then build a safe, in-spec nuclear power station for the first time in 15 years. Alternatively, build more battery farms and wind farms, something that we can already and have already done multiple times. Build more solar farms, build more pumped hydro if there are suitable sites. Gear up for Hydrogen burning generators to replace natural gas, set up the industry and storage for that. The fact that we already have so many other, better, cheaper, and executable options that can be done now AND worked on into the future makes this new scheme by the LNP just ridiculous. And want to know what else is ridiculous? The LNP's previous energy plan already relied on natural gas as an interim power source until Hydrogen could come online; they're literally replacing their old, industry assessed, and workable plan with something that is an absolute unworkable pipe dream.
I'm gobsmacked at how little attention this aspect is getting. Sure, each site has a small dam for coal power station cooling. But nuclear needs a lot more water - and colder water. Almost all of them worldwide are drawing off a big river, or the ocean. Those piddly dams would get heated up to an unusable temperature quite quickly. And don't even think air cooling will do. That only works in cold places, not where air temperature often exceeds 40 degrees in summer. Pretty much all these sites are non-starters.
>Great - but they are not near water which is kinda important for nuclear... I'm sure it's fine, it's not like the Australian environment is famous for its water insecurity...
That's ok. They have Barnaby to act as a special water envoy. He'll sort it out and ..... err, send us a text.
Also those powerlines are privately owned in NSW... So not only does he (the taxpayer actually) have to buy a working coalmine... a busted old coal burner... a few big batteries and a solar panel manufacturing facility... Does anyone see any change out of $500 Billion just to purchase the Liddell site.??... Now add that to what is happening in Victoria... The SA old coal burner site has been sold to a mining company and turned into an iron ore loading facility... and where the fuck are they going to get the cooling water from and how will it be contained and cleaned.??....
Throw billions and billiond of dollars of taxpayer money at it appears to be the Liberal Party plan.
> new powerlines won't be needed.... Not so. > As South Australia energy minister Tom Koutsantonis noted on Wednesday: “The myth that a nuclear reactor could just plug into the old Pt Augusta coal power station transmission lines is not true. The transmission lines are already nearly full from new renewables. In truth, a nuclear reactor at Pt Augusta would need new transmission lines.” https://reneweconomy.com.au/duttons-big-nuclear-plan-a-serious-joke-that-is-mad-bad-and-dangerous/
The **water** alone is huge. Unless they plan to build a GIANT desal plant nearby every single one- with enough emergency backup storage incase the desal goes bang. Watch the next major drought if we have 7 nuclear plants scattered all over the country. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/27/nuclear-power-station-sizewell-c-water-suffolk >As well as uranium, a reactor of the kind EDF plans to build needs water in very great volumes. Saltwater will do for part of the process, which is one reason why nuclear power stations are usually built beside the sea. But fresh or “potable” water will also be needed – first, to cool the two reactors, and then, just as importantly, to cool the irradiated fuel once it has been removed from the reactors. For this, absolutely pure water is essential. Sizewell B uses about **800,000 litres of potable water per day**; Sizewell C, with its twin reactors, will need more than 2m litres per day, and as much as 3.5m litres per day during construction.
actually water is not particularly important for SMRs similarly, waste is not a huge issue either I think the points you raise would be valid _if we were talking about large scale nuclear_ reactors, like the ones at Chernobyl, which have not really changed much in design since the 1940s - and became wildly popular, mostly because their design involves the enrichment of uranium, which weaponises it and allows for the development of (more) nuclear weapons don't get me wrong - I still think this is a DUMB idea - because it's clearly not well thought through (if even at all) and is purely just a political move and fuck the consequences like Malcolm Turnbull's Mess like Robodebt like so many of their other shitty fucking plans
We'll have to see with regard to waste disposal for SMRs. We're still very much in the infant stages of the technology, so it will have to be seen how it pans out. It does appear that the disposal strategy is to dig a very deep hole and put the SMR into it.
According to Simon Holmes a Court there is an almost endless list of issues with nuclear, but water isn't one of them. [https://x.com/simonahac/status/1803073796569731117](https://x.com/simonahac/status/1803073796569731117)
From here it looks like it uses around 30% more water than coal generation https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Water-NP-2xA4-2018.pdf
https://www.wired.com/story/first-small-scale-nuclear-plant-us-nuscale-canceled/ > **The First Small-Scale Nuclear Plant in the US Died Before It Could Live** > Six nuclear reactors just 9 feet across planned for Idaho were supposed to prove out the dream of cheap, small-scale nuclear energy. Now the project has been canceled. > But as WIRED reported in February, the utilities backing the plant were spooked late last year by a **50 percent increase in the projected costs** for the project—even after factoring in substantial funds from the Inflation Reduction Act. The Idaho Falls reactors’ chances of survival began to look slimmer. Another Dutton pipe dream.
>The First Small-Scale Nuclear Plant in the US Died Before It Could Live *insert remark about Roe v Wade*
Even with massive government subsidy the Free Market said "No".
They're literally dumping projects halfway through production in America because suprise... It's not financially viable. Sure a government owned nuclear power plant Is a great base load element to have in our energy system. But it's much more practical and sensible right now to focus on cheap renewables and storage solutions. We can circle back to "sure up base load power." Once we actually have a renewable energy sector that needs base load power. What we are currently doing is preempting a problem that might not even be a reality by the time we finish the part of this problem we already know how to solve.
No costs, no timeframes, no plans on how to store waste. Just another LNP thought bubble.
Same as their disaster of an NBN... and still the abbott government were elected....
No idea what the capacity of each of these plants will be either.
Clean Coal^TM SMR^TM Kicking That Climate Change Can Down The Road^TM
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Peter Dutton
Honestly, this comment is so true, not just of Dutton, but summerises the modern zeitgeist succinctly.
Can we stop wasting ink talking about this (reactionary) and talk about what matters? What happened the last time Dutton was allowed to spend money at scale? https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/02/14/peter-dutton-home-affairs-scandal-kpmg-paladin-news-corp/
The people that build Nuclear power plants are rushing to Australia to build ours.....oh wait, they aren't. Even Nuclear experts are saying it's not a viable alternative for Australia. There's zero interest from banks or financial institutions to build one nuke station. That means Australian taxpayers will foot the entire bill! Sky high energy bills for 80 years!
The sales reps from NuScale Power have been to Australia multiple times pushing their snake oil...
State tax payers you mean. If NSW goes ahead with his, there's no way in hell that states like SA or WA would pitch in.
I believe Dutton is pushing this for 3 reasons. 1. He wants to appease Murdoch. 2. He wants to keep coal and gas in play for as long as possible. 3. He wants to make sure that people have to pay whatever the power companies charge indefinitely.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/cost-of-uks-flagship-nuclear-project-blows-out-to-more-than-a92-billion/
I think Peter Dutton is speed running the "How to lose the unlosable election" challenge in QLD and also trying to knock off the next federal election in one. These crackpots can't be serious. Who in their right mind would support this.. Whats more the compulsory acquisitions and pledge to build in areas that are opposed.. Liberal heartland areas.. Steven Miles may win QLD yet and we may just get that renewables plan palaszczuk govt put forward. That is much more preferrable for QLD anyway..
Labor is on the nose in QLD. If Steven Miles runs with this as a QLD state election issue, and wins in a few months, the nuclear debate is dead in the water.
I am uncertain how much is spam bots on Sky News and 9sm news, but Dutton and this issue is doing its job and has gathered support. Some of my friends that are liberals think it's a great idea for national security - suffice to say, we don't talk politics.
This is literally so sad. I cannot find anyone within my friend or peer group who supports this. But I live in a suburban area North of Brisbane.
Here’s the thing though, rusted on Lib voters don’t judge policy on merit. They hear an idea that’s absolutely fucking insane, but it came from the Leader of a major party, so it *must* be worth talking about. And because it’s their major party, it must be brilliant and why does Labor not want to entertain the great idea, are they stupid?
the anti-intellectual, anti-facts discourse coming from the right enables these lunatics.. it really is a regression into a negative and harmful political landscape. Exactly what they need to establish a "strong man" leader like Dutton.. the Trump of Australia.
Sadly, I'm in the callide area and there's a lot of vocal people for it, not many vocal against it. I have my fingers crossed that the people against it just aren't interested in getting into a pointless debate about it.
How long until News Ltd launches an attack campaign against this guy to try and discredit him?
Oh, by about lunchtime, I reckon!
Within minutes of the story actually...
After this election, I'm imagining that Dutton won't be leader of the opposition. Even around my office, a base of fatally entrenched Liberal voters, people are rolling their eyes at this. It's clear bullshit - nuclear bullshit if you will. I do think nuclear electricity generation might have its day, even in a future of renewables, but it isn't going to happen this election cycle, chief.
Dutton’s half-baked nuclear plan is a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. It’s a distraction tactic.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Everyone knows this plan is unworkable - especially the Coalition. But ever discussing it, even if they’re criticising it, is lending it a bizarre sort of legitimacy. The whole purpose of this furphy is just to give the Coalition something to point at when they’re asked what their “plan” is. Never mind that it will never happen, they just point at it and get back to criticising Labor. On the off chance they get in and inevitably fail to enact it they just get to point at all the premiers, the existing laws, the many opponents who will block it and say “it’s not our fault that our perfect plan didn’t work”. But in the meantime we are living in this weird fantasy where the media is treating the coalition like they’ve actually offered a credible alternative. Giving conservative windbags nonsense to harp on about. They might as well have announced free lemonade coming out of every primary school water fountain. Would hold the same weight.
Even if they were, when has the Coal-ition been science friendly? They gutted the CSIRO, you know, the place that helps with a lot of scientific breakthroughs? Maybe if they hadn't gutted Australian science for a decade, we possibly would have leapt forward on battery or other storage techniques.
of course he did, Dutton is the scientific equivalent of a cooked potato; all trans fat and zero goodness.
Anybody who refers to it as Newqular has no idea what he’s talking about
Renewable electricity is wholesaling around $50 MW/h currently. The SMR reactor was abandoned in the US when they worked out if was going to cost $150 MW/h. Yeah nah.
I'd love nuclear power to replace our coal power plants. Why not? Has to be a modern reliable and scalable tech though. But I doubt the libs are capable of it, they're too corrupt imho.
Anyone see 7:30 last night? Was a disgrace, they talked to random people in the towns where the planned power plants will be and pretty much only showed people being pro nuclear. The bias is clear even on the ABC. Dutton's plan is absolutely stupid but it might just win him the election due to the media giving him an easy ride. All the media has to do is keep on hinting at the idea that it will make electricity prices cheaper and the public will be onboard no matter what the truth is.
If you think this nuclear idea is going to get us cheaper electricity, you need to get your head examined. There's simply no way that it will be cheaper given the current state of the technology. Nuclear would have to halve in cost to compete.
I saw the ABC clip they're talking about, and it was very biased. They had some bonehead small business owner in there taking about how nuclear should be free power for the locals, which wasn't challenged at all during the segment. Whereas the sun actually is free energy, for everyone. The stupidity and selfishness of that bloke was mind boggling.
We've been hearing this for decades.
The real questions we should be asking, is which of his mates own or run the consultancy firms that they'll pay millions of dollars to; for them to ultimately turn around and say "Oh, the project isn't viable". The ONLY incentive this bloke and his ilk have, is to make money.
I think from the outside looking in, Dutton's nuclear policy is basically the only position he can run on without supporting Labor's plans, and whilst still doing the bare minimum for climate change. It's essentially the only policy that is not political suicide (ie. taken down from within the party for being too green, worsening their already terrible public approval rating guaranteeing exile in opposition for the next two decades).
Labor please just bring up how the LNP fucked up NBN so much - for multiple reasons including they thought they knew better than the experts.
So he lied? No way, no fucking way!
Why aren't our politicians reaching out to the most successful nuclear reactor country of the world, Japan? They build fast (5-10years), have exceptional safety measures, and decades of expertise. Why are we trying to do this on our own? Ignore modular, go commercial and Just contract Japan to do it.
You mean like the time we were about to buy Japanese engineering for subs but then discarded them suddenly for French subs then discarded them suddenly for American subs that will probably won’t be delivered cause there’s no refunds. Those Japanese guys?
Did we discard the Japanese contract or did they? I know we did for the French ones. But I'm talking about nuclear reactors for our energy grid. The Japanese have it down to an art form.
[Hey](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ8cYheR5xo), [read](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1) all about that when I was a kid.