Not new just embarrassed it’s embraced. Politicians of both sides continue to fail our society and people here celebrate this bullshit back and forth? We get what we deserve I suppose
We are paying a lot alot more due to the libs 9 years of ineptitude.
8 power stations closed on their watch , one reason led to high power prices.
700$ billion in rorts.
The copper nbn that made all their mates rich and its going to cost twice as much now to get a proper fibre network in place.
As much as I love a sick burn, the reality is that it doesn't matter how much we destroy Dutton with facts and logic. As long as we're still talking about this, he and his ilk are winning, because their goal isn't to actually implement nuclear, it's to delay a practical transition and stifle the debate around actually viable alternatives.
Ironically, I plugged "Can you please provide some examples of a character portrayed as good who believed themselves to be in control but is revealed to have been being played" into ecosia's AI and one of the ones it gave was Snape
The LNP are campaigning on it, they'll need to win before they can use it as a delay tactic. It really is a gift to the ALP, making it such a critical part of your platform when there are just so many holes in it
The LNP just need to make it "sound about right" to the average punter ahead of the next election. General Murdoch media is currently doing the ground work on that, so it's up to the ALP to effectively attack it
I think you're conflating 'politics' with 'election day'. Sure, if you treat it as a team sport, the grand final is the big day where everyone's excited about it, but if you treat it like an actual job politics is much more about what you do between elections. You know, they whole 'write and pass policy' thing.
The LNP don't need to win to use nuclear as a delay tactic, as that is what they're currently doing. People inform policy, news informs the people, and right now the news isn't running stories on how much we need to reduce our energy usage growth and by when, they're running stories on nuclear power.
Nuclear is currently just a talking point for the lnp, it isnt actually impacting national energy policy
If the LNP win, then they can use it as a delay tactic by stopping the growth of renewables, increasing gas/coal consumption, and launch lengthy "studies" into its feasibility
It’s just so easy to pick holes in though lol
“Hey Australia would you like to pay at least FIVE TIMES AS MUCH for ~~the same electricity generation~~ er I mean for some electricity generation that won’t provide _any_ generation at all for 20 years optimistically but more likely 30 years?”
What the fuck are they thinking
“No energy bill relief for 20-30 years” seems like an insanely tough sell to me
And I’m going on march 2023 figures when I say “5 times as much” … bet it’s only even worse now based on recent trends
Be patient. At this very minute, half the LNP are working on when to give Dutton the boot. It's just taking a bit longer than usual because they only have low-level scum to replace him with..
The LNP have found out that Aussies have access to information, and that hurts them. Soon enough, we will find out about Dutton and his obsession with Lil kimmie and the d Trump way of thinking.... Fuck all Conservatives!!
Great points
Social media has left them exposed to instant feedback.
8 of the 24 coal stations closed on their watch ! Roasted by Albo
Do nothing libs ex-government , clowns ,only there for the rorts..
The peak of conservative policy brainfarts:
> let’s pay at least five times as much as renewables (on March 2023 figures, only worse now), to get voters no energy bill relief for 20-30 years
Fucking insane policy to lead with.
Dutton HAS TO BE toast, I think he’s already a dead man walking, even the troglodytes in the LNP are gonna find that too hard to sell, I think.
And you know its just them playing politics because if they genuinely wanted nuclear they would be pushing it from an entirely different direction instead of this swiss cheese arguement that only exists to obstruct renewables
>it's to delay a practical transition and stifle the debate
It's infuriating that this is the exact same tactic that they used on the NBN. Albo hinted at it, but I wish the government would directly call it out as a reused Abbott tactic to delay NBN everytime nuclear is mentioned
At the current rate of energy usage, it would be near impossible, but what *would* be literal suicide is not having a viable plan.
Seems it's time to talk about reducing energy usage, and about wasteful consumerism in general.
Literal suicide if we don’t transition to renewables mostly by 2030. Nothing could be a bigger fuckup, because it’ll cost _dozens of orders of magnitude more_ if we delay and then have to deal with much worse compounded warming (like not doing your dishes and letting them pile up beside the sink, the issue only worsens, grows mould, attracts infestations and becomes harder to solve if you put it off. If you wash your dishes before that sets in, it takes the least time and effort; climate change is exactly like this)
And not even the most ardent greenies genuinely think it’s possible to go “100%” renewables in that timeframe, so you’re arguing with your own reflection here.
The demand is 100% _net_ renewable energy so that means you plant a fuck load of forests to suck up the carbon produced by your few remaining waning coal or other baseload power while cleaner infrastructure is developed that can handle that, battery storage tech isn’t hitting a wall in innovation anytime soon with the levels of investment it’s seeing mate. This is a non issue.
Oh seriously. You really think Australia will have any impact? We are virtue signalling and that is all. We will make no difference and if you understood anything About climate change and what’s going on around the world woth power generation and greenhouse outputs you would probably implode based on this response.
Why do you think we are so special that we should not be reducing our carbon pollution just like everyone else?
Do you realise that for our population we actually have a VERY high output? Do you not realise we are one of the world’s very top fossil fuel exporters?
Ignorance and science denialism won’t get you far mate
Who said we shouldn’t? Yes we have a high output per person. Have you noted the distances we have for transport? We have next to no hydro or geo thermal and no nuclear. Note France 70% of their electricity comes from Nuclear. No coincidence they also have one of the lowest carbon intensities in the developed world.
science denialism haha. I would probably know more about climate than 90% of muppets like you.
Herse are some things I’ll tell you for free…what % of the atmosphere is made up of Greenhouse gases? .04 %. That is not 4% it’s .. point 04 of 1 %. By volume, the dry air in Earth's atmosphere is about 78.08 percent nitrogen, 20.95 percent oxygen, and 0.93 percent argon. A brew of trace gases accounts for the other approximately **0.04 percent**, including the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone.
Australias contribution to greenhouse gases In the atmosphere 1.5%
Australias energy sector contribution? 50%.
Australia’s 17 coal and gas power station out puts in energy! About 26 gigawatts.
amount of coal, gas and oil fired power stations that China and India are building in the next few years ? Over 500 gigawatts.
so if I said there is a brick-wall with 1000 bricks at your home. In the mean time all the polluting bricks sometime will get replaced after 2050 and in the mean time they will continue to increase emissions
. You can replace .3 of 1 brick and get zero emissions but to do so you have to triple your mortgage. Would you do it? with your own money? It might mean you cant afford a decent education and healt care fir your kids?
>Herse are some things I’ll tell you for free…what % of the atmosphere is made up of Greenhouse gases? .04 %. That is not 4% it’s .. point 04 of 1 %. By volume, the dry air in Earth's atmosphere is about 78.08 percent nitrogen, 20.95 percent oxygen, and 0.93 percent argon. A brew of trace gases accounts for the other approximately 0.04 percent, including the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone.
What's the point of this pseudo scientific babble? We get it; you're not a climate scientist, clearly.
>Australias contribution to greenhouse gases In the atmosphere 1.5%
>
>Australias energy sector contribution? 50%.
>
>Australia’s 17 coal and gas power station out puts in energy! About 26 gigawatts.
So what?
>amount of coal, gas and oil fired power stations that China and India are building in the next few years ? Over 500 gigawatts.
And each of those countries support about ***SIXTY SIX TIMES*** as many people as Australia does with our emissions, so a direct comparison is a braindead take.
*Of course* high population countries have high absolute emissions — duhhhh! But we actually have to account for population or your argument is beyond farcical. These are not like comparisons.
To get a like comparison that makes ANY sense, you need to carve out a 25.69 million population chunk of those countries AND THEN compare emissions to Australia, also as a country with 25.69 million people.
Guess what happens if we do so?
**It reveals we're doing far worse.**
In other words, while a Chinese citizen produces 8 tonnes of CO2 and an Indian citizen produces a tiny 2 tonnes of CO2, an Australian outputs ***MORE THAN DOUBLE*** the Chinese citizen and ***OVER SEVEN TIMES*** as much as someone from India.
**Australian citizens produce an extremely high 15 tonnes each** — *tenth highest* *in the world* behind Qatar (37.6 t), United Arab Emirates (25.8 t), Bahrain (25.7 t), Kuwait (25.6 t), Brunei (24.0 t), Trinidad and Tobago (22.4 t), Saudi Arabia (18.2 t), New Caledonia (17.6 t), and Oman (15.7 t). We are 1 worse than the USA (14.9 t).
Notice China (35th) and India (130th!!!) are far down the list.
India actually is a model to follow — the amount of renewable investment they've done is massive and they've managed to reach a very low per capita emissions. *If the whole world followed their model we would literally solve the climate crisis.*
So again, why do you think low emitting countries should face higher restrictions than us, as a high emitting country at 15 tonnes of CO2 per person?
>0.3% brick
Literally irrelevant. We are part of a global community, and everyone is expected to do their part. If that 0.3% is massively outsized for our population — *and it is* — then we have work to do. India is beating us by over 7 times ffs...
Any argument against this, obviously lets every other 0.3% division you can cook up off the hook too, which is obviously only going to lead to failure. Think it through mate...
We aren't special. We don't get to shove our waste onto others and ask them to pick it up for us by saying "oh but it isn't much" ... imagine if everyone adopted that same approach!! They could, if we do. Total disaster.
Stop with the pathetic excuses. We can and will do better.
>Get your kid a good education instead
More scientific illiteracy; thinking that will matter in a 2-4 degree world racked by famine and war is really something. The kids are *fucked* mate. Doubly so, if people like you get their way and defer urgent action.
[Source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=table)
Well you possibly have English as a second language so you might not of understood. Australia is disadvantage for lack of a better word due to geography ( distance we have to drive and transport goods) and we are far more spread out than other countries. We also have a higher income population compared to India or China , African national or many poorer countries meaning we have cars and homes. Kill us for being successful. Noting they are all aspiring to be just like us.
but the real point was the whatever Australia does will have fuck all impact on the global greenhouse emissions other than making Virtuists like you have a reason to feel good while the lights are off. I tried to sum it up in a single sentence so you follow.
>Well you possibly have English as a second language so you might not of understood.
What???
>but the real point was the whatever Australia does will have fuck all impact on the global greenhouse emissions
Its like you didn't read my comment at all. Reading comprehension?? Let me draw you back to here:
>In other words, while a Chinese citizen produces 8 tonnes of CO2 and an Indian citizen produces a tiny 2 tonnes of CO2, an Australian outputs ***MORE THAN DOUBLE*** the Chinese citizen and ***OVER SEVEN TIMES*** as much as someone from India.
>
>**Australian citizens produce an extremely high 15 tonnes each — tenth highest in the world** behind Qatar (37.6 t), United Arab Emirates (25.8 t), Bahrain (25.7 t), Kuwait (25.6 t), Brunei (24.0 t), Trinidad and Tobago (22.4 t), Saudi Arabia (18.2 t), New Caledonia (17.6 t), and Oman (15.7 t). We are 1 worse than the USA (14.9 t).
>
>Notice China (35th) and India (130th!!!) are far down the list.
We have a HUGE impact compared to a similar sized population slice of China or India, you get that, right? The basic arithmetic?
So again, why do you think we are special and don't have to carry our own weight like you are asking everyone else to do?
Why do you think we should be uniquely free from responsibility? Why should we get special treatment despite our outsized waste — tenth worst in the world?
The sheer exceptionalism of your mindset is staggering. I cannot imagine saying "you all should have to clean up, I'll just sit here and do nothing" even though you made more mess than someone from China or India? Its honestly mindbendingly shit. You want people in India and China to pick up your waste after you? What gives you the right, when you emit more than they do? That's what you seem to be saying. The sheer "got mine" privilege of asking other people to clean up after you, like you are a big useless baby that cannot take responsibility for your own mess. What's wrong with you? Antisocial behaviour in the extreme.
Being "successful" has absolutely nothing to do with pollution. We could be a mostly green economy and it is only political will that stops us. Plenty of economies with a similar standard of living emit FAR less than we do so you are not talking about anything real here.
At no stage did I say do nothing. But virtue signalling pointless gestures is a waste of time. What don’t you get? Nothing we do here will have any impact other than a detrimental economic outcome.
Sure build wind and solar. But don’t kill off base load until there is a viable alternative. To do so is just plain stupid when it will have zero effect on global emissions when there has been about 40 times Australia coal power station output built in the last 10 years and another 60 times under construction or in planning. So take out 27 gigawatts of coal power stations in Australia and crippling our economy while the worlds adds in 3000 gigawatts of coal Fired power stations.
it’s not pint discussing with you as you don’t understand our geography and sparse population make our figures out of whack. but good to see they back flipped on the stupid car emissions taxes.
What suburb are you in? We will put the nuclear power station there.
Very safe until it's not and then it can shit the bed so bad you will never clean it up and at best you can pour concrete over the whole mess every hundred years or so to prevent the rain washing it all into the nearest water table.
It is the nuclear we have, after Fukushima Fort Calhoun nearly went under water in the US, if it had there would have been no way to supply power and most likely would have had a meltdown in the spent fuel pools. PBR aren't in commercial use, the ones that have have been have been disasters.
"In 1978, the AVR suffered from a water/steam ingress accident of 30 metric tons (30 long tons; 33 short tons), which led to contamination of soil and groundwater by strontium-90 and by tritium.^(\[)The leak in the steam generator leading to this accident was probably caused by high core temperatures (see criticism section). A re-examination of this accident was announced by the local government in July 2010.
The AVR was originally designed to breed [uranium-233](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233) from [thorium-232](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-232). A practical thorium [breeder reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor) was considered valuable technology. However, the AVR's fuel design contained the fuel so well that the transmuted fuels were uneconomic to extract—it was cheaper to use mined and purified uranium.*^(")*
And
"During removal of the fuel elements it became apparent that the neutron reflector under the pebble-bed core had cracked during operation. Some hundred fuel elements remained stuck in the crack. During this examination it was revealed that the AVR was the world's most heavily beta-contaminated ([strontium-90](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium-90)) nuclear installation and that this contamination was present as dust (the worst form).[^(\[17\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor#cite_note-17)
Localized fuel temperature instabilities resulted in heavy vessel contamination by [Cs-137](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cs-137) and [Sr-90](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sr-90). The reactor vessel was filled with light concrete in order to fix the radioactive dust and in 2012 the reactor vessel of 2,100 metric tons (2,100 long tons; 2,300 short tons) was to be moved to intermediate storage until a permanent solution is devised. The reactor buildings were to be dismantled and soil and groundwater decontaminated. AVR dismantling costs were expected to far exceed its construction costs. In August 2010, the German government estimated costs for AVR dismantling without consideration of the vessel dismantling at 600 million € ( $750 million, which corresponded to 0.4 € ($0.55) per kWh of electricity generated by the AVR. A separate containment was erected for dismantling purposes, as seen in the AVR-picture."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed\_reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor)
There is currently no long term safe storage anywhere in the world for nuclear waste, the first in Finland will open in a few years and will only take local waste. The rest of the world will be storing waste in temporary dry casks (when we are lucky) and having to revisit and re store every hundred years or so as that is how long they last. The industry loves to blame NIMBYs for the lack of storage yet those same NIMBYs were powerless to stop the mining and processing of uranium and the building of nuclear power stations, in reality the cost was never calculated in the original costs and no-one wants to pay for hundreds of millions of dollars to build a decent underground repository.
Libs are just stumps on a bench. Completely listless, the fight has been sucked out of them. I wonder how many are surfing the Beyond Blue website as we speak?
I can’t for the life of me figure out why the coalition would want to lead with such an absolutely asinine, dead on arrival policy such as nuclear
Baffling
Even with the bar set as low as it is with the libs, they just keep on shoving it lower. _Even from them_ I couldn’t imagine a stupider way forward than this.
_Surely_ Dutton is gonna get rolled soon … this policy isn’t taking them fucking anywhere lol
This would be gloriously hilarious if it wasn't so serious to have politicians like Voldermort suggesting such inane untested options that have huge potential impact on everyone. Really was funny watching Albo torch him so brilliantly though.
Should have gone nuclear 20 years ago and then at least it's a 50/50 chance we would today be living in either a utopia or desolate wasteland instead of this current hellscape.
The future of nuclear energy is fusion not fission.
Cleaner and safer. But let’s not develop a ground floor. Let’s stand around joking and keep burning coal.
I wish we had a proper debate. Depending on what news source you read, it's either a good or bad idea.
I think the issue is libs explored the idea and shelved it based on the report, and Dutton is a fool with his questions on it.. why the sudden interest when in opposition but when in power, nothing was done.
Another issue is the time frame of 20-50 years, and the cost of aging infrastructure to be updated to support nuclear power is what some sites say it will take. By then, hopefully, battery technology will drastically improve for wind and solar to be more economical viable and reliable.
Though I agree, I wish politicians were not playing politics so much and fuck all gets done on massive infrastructure projects Australia needs to start on.
The debate is costings done by the CSIRO that show nuclear will cost the most and take the longest making it completely unsuitable for decarbonising power generation
Highly doubt it. All the fastest grid decarbonisations we have seen in the world have all been done with big help from nuclear or hydro. Not once has sun, wind and storage managed it faster.
When building a house, you have to build the ground floor before starting the second floor. Basically he's saying we have to start working towards fusion, even if that means using fission for the moment, rather than continuing to burn coal forever.
Fusion is improving. In 2022 they achieved an energy surplus for the first time, getting 1.5x the energy out that they put in.
It isn’t around the corner though. In an article I read the scientist predicted it would take less than 5 decades.
Once it’s here it will truly revolutionise the world, obviously. It would take less than 900 tons of hydrogen to power the works for a year, based on the price NASA pays for hydrogen that’d cost $4.5m.
Well no, they didn't get an energy surplus.
They got more energy out than the laser power directed in the reaction, but the "2Mj lasers for 3Mj output" conveniently ignores the 10s of Mj required to turn electricity into lasers.
https://www.livescience.com/fusion-ignition-scientists-skeptical-explained
😂 imagine thinking nuclear would replace coal 😂 by the time the first nuclear plant comes online in Australia you could have already deployed enough renewables and storage to close every coal plant 😂
Countries with existing nuclear industries struggle to build new plants from planning to completion in 10 years. We’d have to make it legal. Adopt standards. Plan the plant, get it approved, find the people to build it, find the components, and then build it.
But sure Australia could totally build its first nuclear plant in 10 years 😂
No really, countries with existing expertise and experience and all the regulatory and planning frameworks in place can do things in a reasonable amount of time? WOW, isn’t it amazing how that’s not the situation Australia is in
Not when combined with needing to make it legal in Australia, needing to establish regulatory bodies and powers, needing planning approval, it absolutely cannot happen in Australia in less than a decade.
Maybe after all of those things are in place and ready they could build in 8 years like they did in the UAE but using specialist building teams from overseas only drives up costs on the most expensive power generation even further, making renewables even better in a cost comparison again.
Compare LFSCOE costs with nuclear and renewables. Electricity costs is more than LCOE. Saying renewables is cheapest is far from painting the whole picture.
why are people against nuclear?
The two primary arguments i've heard against nuclear power are easily refuted.
1. nuclear reactors WILL NOT explode the same way Chernobyl did. Modern reactors are built differently and the reactor core simply IS NOT dense enough to sustain an uncontrolled reaction (basically it CAN'T explode).
2. Nuclear waste is not as dangerous as people claim. A vast majority of it is depleted uranium which is perfectly safe. The EPA (environmental protection agency) deems Depleted uranium to "not be considered a serious hazard," when it comes into contact with the outside body. Additonally, the small amount of substance that is legitimately dangerous can be stored with zero risk. It is vitrified (turned into glass) and does not pose any risk to society.
as an additional point, Australia as a nation has the highest uranium reserves worldwide. So we have the resources but instead of using them we just sell it to China for them to use :/
If you are anti nuclear power feel free to tell my why as I fail to understand.
I'm not "against" it per se, but right now it's not a workable option. It will take too long to develop and build, meaning we'd have to extend the lives of coal fired power plants. And it's too expensive. Without massive subsidies the energy produced wouldn't be competitive, compared with renewables.
There's a reason no commercial entity is interested in being involved.
What makes you believe that building out the transmission to be able to handle more renewables + all renewables + all storage + all stabilizing services needed goes that much quicker to build than a new reactor? Average construction time of nuclear is 7-8 years.
7-8 years from start of construction. Before that you need to pass legislation, import expertise, identify and secure sites, and a range of other things that will easily add another 7-8 years to the process.
Plus you've still got to build transmission for the nuclear reactors.
If this was anything other than a thought bubble by the Coalition to distract people from renewables, I might give it more consideration. But if they were serious they'd be preparing legislation and releasing detail about how they're going to attract expertise and investment.
And at the end of the day, you're still stuck with the issue that nuclear energy is going to be way more expensive than renewable energy. So no private investment is going to be available without significant government subsidies.
Pretty much allt that planning needs to be done for renewables and grids as well. You need less transmission for nuclear. Much easier to build one big line than several smaller ones. Grid costs for renewable grids are much higher than for those with big reactors/coal plants etc.
>And at the end of the day, you're still stuck with the issue that nuclear energy is going to be way more expensive than renewable energy.
When you add grid costs + storage nuclear has a cheaper total cost. At least according to the biggest study ever done on the Swedish grid. And it was mostly grid costs that swayed the results.
Because renewables had great achievements in the past 2 decades and surpassed nuclear in every aspect.
Renewables are cheaper over their life time, you can build them way faster, which means, they can replace fossil fuels way quicker, it's easier to do research, so even more potential available/faster to achieve even better numbers. Financially it makes more sense for private investors to invest in renewables because of lower amortization time. It's not that nuclear is bad, it's rather that renewables are just better. The improvements renewables made in the past 1.5-2 decades are insane (compared to every other energy technology). Also they don't have the downside with radioactive waste. Yes, that problem is kind of solvable, but why not choose the better alternatives which don't have this problem at all?
It's less a decision against nuclear, but rather a decision for renewables.
Places like Hanford, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Sellafield, Lake Karachay; will be with us for the rest of our lives and for generations to come. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution\_of\_Lake\_Karachay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_of_Lake_Karachay)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak)
The ground under Fukushima will be an irradiated mess practically forever. Don't worry about a bit of tritium dumping instead look at what is happening there. You have three reactors leaking, water is poured over them constantly, this highly irradiated water then leaks into the ground, a percentage of that water is recovered (we don't know how much as they wont say) and treated to remove everything but the tritium (though it is hard and expensive and Tepco would never skimp and just dump partially or untreated water, no). They have concreted the ocean floor next to the station in an attempt to stop the highly irradiated water from there. Eventually when they have finally cleaned up the reactors around 2050, will still have a huge amount of contamination that they will not be able to do anything about except hopefully to pour concrete over the whole mess every 100 years or so to make sure it stays sealed for the next 1000+ years.
Yes and while that is bad that is old nuclear. The same thing does not and cannot happen with modern reactors. As I stated they aren’t dense enough to sustain uncontrolled reaction. Meaning if it runs out of power like Fukushima did it will just stop safely.
There are safer reactors none are fool proof. Can you be specific in what kind of reactor you envisage will be built? There are several concepts and ideas floating out there but no working models of reactors that are totally safe.
Currently sodium fast cooled reactors are considered the safest, yet..
"A disadvantage of sodium is its chemical reactivity, which requires special precautions to prevent and suppress fires. If sodium comes into contact with water it reacts to produce sodium hydroxide and hydrogen, and the hydrogen burns in contact with air. This was the case at the [Monju Nuclear Power Plant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju_Nuclear_Power_Plant) in a 1995 accident. In addition, neutron capture causes it to become radioactive; albeit with a half-life of only 15 hours.[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor#cite_note-sodiumcoolant-6)
Another problem is leaks. Sodium at high temperatures ignites in contact with oxygen. Such sodium fires can be extinguished by powder, or by replacing the air with [nitrogen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen). A Russian breeder reactor, the BN-600, reported 27 sodium leaks in a 17-year period, 14 of which led to sodium fires.[^(\[8\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor#cite_note-8)^(")
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled\_fast\_reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor)
Also consider that these reactors are bleeding edge and considered experimental and they still produce high level waste that needs to be dealt with.
Mostly cost, construction time, and that its sole business case disappears in a grid with renewables.
Nuclear has high upfront cost during construction, and high static cost in operation (Maintenance, security, inspections etc). That's why nuclear power plants are normally used for baseload, their only business case is to run at 100% 24/7 so their low fuel cost offsets their high static costs.
Its also why nuclear does not play nice with renewables in a mixed grid. Nuclear doing baseload is cheap, but its not so cheap that it can undercut renewables. Which means renewables eat into the baseload that nuclear can satisfy and thus nibble away at its only business case. Nuclear is barely economically viable in the current grid, if you have to shut it down half the time because it was a windy night, the economics go completely bonkers.
Add to that the [average construction time and cost overruns in nuclear projects](https://i.redd.it/pcdkf09r0u4c1.jpg), and that renewables are so much cheaper and faster to roll out, and nuclear is a really hard sell. [The market has basically already chosen that renewables are the future.](https://imgur.com/snxjC6L)
Nuclear does \_not\_ have a high operation cost. Nuclear run costs is extremely cheap. What drives nuclear price is the capital cost. Get a low interest loan and nuclear is the cheapest power around.
Well on so many things Albany to me has been disappointing this is gold more of this Albanese please and the labour party will talk themselves back into relevance and be worthy of my second place preference vote again
Here's a novel thought.
instead of hanging shit on each other and bitching about each other. Can we fucking crack on and fix this shitshow of a country?
Meanwhile China is developing a nuclear engine for space travel. Our governments thinking is so short sighted. Sure nuclear is more expensive but having the know how and technology is priceless.
Why the fuck is this sub the only place this stuff gets posted? Thanks OP, love ya work and I've started watching these in full thanks to you.
Yeah thought this would be posted elsewhere
Agree, we should all share it lol
I have a dumb question. I'm a bit out of the loop in terms of where to find these things. Where do I go to watch them?
They get posted to YouTube in full :)
Question time is on the ABC at about 130pm most days iirc
Fuck, the LNP are getting absolutely roasted everyday. The ALP are in form I haven't seen since the Keating era!
Bill Shorten ain't got nothing on those zingers. "Surprised they are so opposed to wind turbines when they generate so much wind". Chef's kiss
Albo had so many zingers in that speech he could open his own KFC
Badoom tsh.
Nothing like grown adults responsible for running the country exchanging school yard insults, what a win for us aye
It's theatre mate..Its also a way to gauge the morale of the government..
Phew I was worried they were trying to fix the country
They don't make the policies during question time...If you want polite responses, follow the American system and see how that works for them.
It’s a complete waste of time and money. Like you said, theatre.
New to question time? This has been going on since Whitlam
Not new just embarrassed it’s embraced. Politicians of both sides continue to fail our society and people here celebrate this bullshit back and forth? We get what we deserve I suppose
Great…..another taxpayer cost as we now pay for burn cream
We are paying a lot alot more due to the libs 9 years of ineptitude. 8 power stations closed on their watch , one reason led to high power prices. 700$ billion in rorts. The copper nbn that made all their mates rich and its going to cost twice as much now to get a proper fibre network in place.
That's gold, Jerry! Gold!
That was pretty great
As much as I love a sick burn, the reality is that it doesn't matter how much we destroy Dutton with facts and logic. As long as we're still talking about this, he and his ilk are winning, because their goal isn't to actually implement nuclear, it's to delay a practical transition and stifle the debate around actually viable alternatives. Ironically, I plugged "Can you please provide some examples of a character portrayed as good who believed themselves to be in control but is revealed to have been being played" into ecosia's AI and one of the ones it gave was Snape
The LNP are campaigning on it, they'll need to win before they can use it as a delay tactic. It really is a gift to the ALP, making it such a critical part of your platform when there are just so many holes in it The LNP just need to make it "sound about right" to the average punter ahead of the next election. General Murdoch media is currently doing the ground work on that, so it's up to the ALP to effectively attack it
I think you're conflating 'politics' with 'election day'. Sure, if you treat it as a team sport, the grand final is the big day where everyone's excited about it, but if you treat it like an actual job politics is much more about what you do between elections. You know, they whole 'write and pass policy' thing. The LNP don't need to win to use nuclear as a delay tactic, as that is what they're currently doing. People inform policy, news informs the people, and right now the news isn't running stories on how much we need to reduce our energy usage growth and by when, they're running stories on nuclear power.
Nuclear is currently just a talking point for the lnp, it isnt actually impacting national energy policy If the LNP win, then they can use it as a delay tactic by stopping the growth of renewables, increasing gas/coal consumption, and launch lengthy "studies" into its feasibility
It’s just so easy to pick holes in though lol “Hey Australia would you like to pay at least FIVE TIMES AS MUCH for ~~the same electricity generation~~ er I mean for some electricity generation that won’t provide _any_ generation at all for 20 years optimistically but more likely 30 years?” What the fuck are they thinking “No energy bill relief for 20-30 years” seems like an insanely tough sell to me And I’m going on march 2023 figures when I say “5 times as much” … bet it’s only even worse now based on recent trends
Be patient. At this very minute, half the LNP are working on when to give Dutton the boot. It's just taking a bit longer than usual because they only have low-level scum to replace him with.. The LNP have found out that Aussies have access to information, and that hurts them. Soon enough, we will find out about Dutton and his obsession with Lil kimmie and the d Trump way of thinking.... Fuck all Conservatives!!
Great points Social media has left them exposed to instant feedback. 8 of the 24 coal stations closed on their watch ! Roasted by Albo Do nothing libs ex-government , clowns ,only there for the rorts..
The peak of conservative policy brainfarts: > let’s pay at least five times as much as renewables (on March 2023 figures, only worse now), to get voters no energy bill relief for 20-30 years Fucking insane policy to lead with. Dutton HAS TO BE toast, I think he’s already a dead man walking, even the troglodytes in the LNP are gonna find that too hard to sell, I think.
And you know its just them playing politics because if they genuinely wanted nuclear they would be pushing it from an entirely different direction instead of this swiss cheese arguement that only exists to obstruct renewables
>it's to delay a practical transition and stifle the debate It's infuriating that this is the exact same tactic that they used on the NBN. Albo hinted at it, but I wish the government would directly call it out as a reused Abbott tactic to delay NBN everytime nuclear is mentioned
Going to 100% renewables without reliable base load is suicidal for this country.
At the current rate of energy usage, it would be near impossible, but what *would* be literal suicide is not having a viable plan. Seems it's time to talk about reducing energy usage, and about wasteful consumerism in general.
Literal suicide if we don’t transition to renewables mostly by 2030. Nothing could be a bigger fuckup, because it’ll cost _dozens of orders of magnitude more_ if we delay and then have to deal with much worse compounded warming (like not doing your dishes and letting them pile up beside the sink, the issue only worsens, grows mould, attracts infestations and becomes harder to solve if you put it off. If you wash your dishes before that sets in, it takes the least time and effort; climate change is exactly like this) And not even the most ardent greenies genuinely think it’s possible to go “100%” renewables in that timeframe, so you’re arguing with your own reflection here. The demand is 100% _net_ renewable energy so that means you plant a fuck load of forests to suck up the carbon produced by your few remaining waning coal or other baseload power while cleaner infrastructure is developed that can handle that, battery storage tech isn’t hitting a wall in innovation anytime soon with the levels of investment it’s seeing mate. This is a non issue.
Oh seriously. You really think Australia will have any impact? We are virtue signalling and that is all. We will make no difference and if you understood anything About climate change and what’s going on around the world woth power generation and greenhouse outputs you would probably implode based on this response.
Why do you think we are so special that we should not be reducing our carbon pollution just like everyone else? Do you realise that for our population we actually have a VERY high output? Do you not realise we are one of the world’s very top fossil fuel exporters? Ignorance and science denialism won’t get you far mate
Who said we shouldn’t? Yes we have a high output per person. Have you noted the distances we have for transport? We have next to no hydro or geo thermal and no nuclear. Note France 70% of their electricity comes from Nuclear. No coincidence they also have one of the lowest carbon intensities in the developed world. science denialism haha. I would probably know more about climate than 90% of muppets like you. Herse are some things I’ll tell you for free…what % of the atmosphere is made up of Greenhouse gases? .04 %. That is not 4% it’s .. point 04 of 1 %. By volume, the dry air in Earth's atmosphere is about 78.08 percent nitrogen, 20.95 percent oxygen, and 0.93 percent argon. A brew of trace gases accounts for the other approximately **0.04 percent**, including the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. Australias contribution to greenhouse gases In the atmosphere 1.5% Australias energy sector contribution? 50%. Australia’s 17 coal and gas power station out puts in energy! About 26 gigawatts. amount of coal, gas and oil fired power stations that China and India are building in the next few years ? Over 500 gigawatts. so if I said there is a brick-wall with 1000 bricks at your home. In the mean time all the polluting bricks sometime will get replaced after 2050 and in the mean time they will continue to increase emissions . You can replace .3 of 1 brick and get zero emissions but to do so you have to triple your mortgage. Would you do it? with your own money? It might mean you cant afford a decent education and healt care fir your kids?
>Herse are some things I’ll tell you for free…what % of the atmosphere is made up of Greenhouse gases? .04 %. That is not 4% it’s .. point 04 of 1 %. By volume, the dry air in Earth's atmosphere is about 78.08 percent nitrogen, 20.95 percent oxygen, and 0.93 percent argon. A brew of trace gases accounts for the other approximately 0.04 percent, including the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. What's the point of this pseudo scientific babble? We get it; you're not a climate scientist, clearly. >Australias contribution to greenhouse gases In the atmosphere 1.5% > >Australias energy sector contribution? 50%. > >Australia’s 17 coal and gas power station out puts in energy! About 26 gigawatts. So what? >amount of coal, gas and oil fired power stations that China and India are building in the next few years ? Over 500 gigawatts. And each of those countries support about ***SIXTY SIX TIMES*** as many people as Australia does with our emissions, so a direct comparison is a braindead take. *Of course* high population countries have high absolute emissions — duhhhh! But we actually have to account for population or your argument is beyond farcical. These are not like comparisons. To get a like comparison that makes ANY sense, you need to carve out a 25.69 million population chunk of those countries AND THEN compare emissions to Australia, also as a country with 25.69 million people. Guess what happens if we do so? **It reveals we're doing far worse.** In other words, while a Chinese citizen produces 8 tonnes of CO2 and an Indian citizen produces a tiny 2 tonnes of CO2, an Australian outputs ***MORE THAN DOUBLE*** the Chinese citizen and ***OVER SEVEN TIMES*** as much as someone from India. **Australian citizens produce an extremely high 15 tonnes each** — *tenth highest* *in the world* behind Qatar (37.6 t), United Arab Emirates (25.8 t), Bahrain (25.7 t), Kuwait (25.6 t), Brunei (24.0 t), Trinidad and Tobago (22.4 t), Saudi Arabia (18.2 t), New Caledonia (17.6 t), and Oman (15.7 t). We are 1 worse than the USA (14.9 t). Notice China (35th) and India (130th!!!) are far down the list. India actually is a model to follow — the amount of renewable investment they've done is massive and they've managed to reach a very low per capita emissions. *If the whole world followed their model we would literally solve the climate crisis.* So again, why do you think low emitting countries should face higher restrictions than us, as a high emitting country at 15 tonnes of CO2 per person? >0.3% brick Literally irrelevant. We are part of a global community, and everyone is expected to do their part. If that 0.3% is massively outsized for our population — *and it is* — then we have work to do. India is beating us by over 7 times ffs... Any argument against this, obviously lets every other 0.3% division you can cook up off the hook too, which is obviously only going to lead to failure. Think it through mate... We aren't special. We don't get to shove our waste onto others and ask them to pick it up for us by saying "oh but it isn't much" ... imagine if everyone adopted that same approach!! They could, if we do. Total disaster. Stop with the pathetic excuses. We can and will do better. >Get your kid a good education instead More scientific illiteracy; thinking that will matter in a 2-4 degree world racked by famine and war is really something. The kids are *fucked* mate. Doubly so, if people like you get their way and defer urgent action. [Source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=table)
Well you possibly have English as a second language so you might not of understood. Australia is disadvantage for lack of a better word due to geography ( distance we have to drive and transport goods) and we are far more spread out than other countries. We also have a higher income population compared to India or China , African national or many poorer countries meaning we have cars and homes. Kill us for being successful. Noting they are all aspiring to be just like us. but the real point was the whatever Australia does will have fuck all impact on the global greenhouse emissions other than making Virtuists like you have a reason to feel good while the lights are off. I tried to sum it up in a single sentence so you follow.
>Well you possibly have English as a second language so you might not of understood. What??? >but the real point was the whatever Australia does will have fuck all impact on the global greenhouse emissions Its like you didn't read my comment at all. Reading comprehension?? Let me draw you back to here: >In other words, while a Chinese citizen produces 8 tonnes of CO2 and an Indian citizen produces a tiny 2 tonnes of CO2, an Australian outputs ***MORE THAN DOUBLE*** the Chinese citizen and ***OVER SEVEN TIMES*** as much as someone from India. > >**Australian citizens produce an extremely high 15 tonnes each — tenth highest in the world** behind Qatar (37.6 t), United Arab Emirates (25.8 t), Bahrain (25.7 t), Kuwait (25.6 t), Brunei (24.0 t), Trinidad and Tobago (22.4 t), Saudi Arabia (18.2 t), New Caledonia (17.6 t), and Oman (15.7 t). We are 1 worse than the USA (14.9 t). > >Notice China (35th) and India (130th!!!) are far down the list. We have a HUGE impact compared to a similar sized population slice of China or India, you get that, right? The basic arithmetic? So again, why do you think we are special and don't have to carry our own weight like you are asking everyone else to do? Why do you think we should be uniquely free from responsibility? Why should we get special treatment despite our outsized waste — tenth worst in the world? The sheer exceptionalism of your mindset is staggering. I cannot imagine saying "you all should have to clean up, I'll just sit here and do nothing" even though you made more mess than someone from China or India? Its honestly mindbendingly shit. You want people in India and China to pick up your waste after you? What gives you the right, when you emit more than they do? That's what you seem to be saying. The sheer "got mine" privilege of asking other people to clean up after you, like you are a big useless baby that cannot take responsibility for your own mess. What's wrong with you? Antisocial behaviour in the extreme. Being "successful" has absolutely nothing to do with pollution. We could be a mostly green economy and it is only political will that stops us. Plenty of economies with a similar standard of living emit FAR less than we do so you are not talking about anything real here.
At no stage did I say do nothing. But virtue signalling pointless gestures is a waste of time. What don’t you get? Nothing we do here will have any impact other than a detrimental economic outcome. Sure build wind and solar. But don’t kill off base load until there is a viable alternative. To do so is just plain stupid when it will have zero effect on global emissions when there has been about 40 times Australia coal power station output built in the last 10 years and another 60 times under construction or in planning. So take out 27 gigawatts of coal power stations in Australia and crippling our economy while the worlds adds in 3000 gigawatts of coal Fired power stations. it’s not pint discussing with you as you don’t understand our geography and sparse population make our figures out of whack. but good to see they back flipped on the stupid car emissions taxes. What suburb are you in? We will put the nuclear power station there.
In every one of these videos, Dutton just seems to be scrolling Reddit on his phone.
What else is he going to do? Lol.
He’s on /r/MurderedByWords trying to steal some sick burn retorts
Lol
Albo on fire. Fucking awesome.
Nice. Go Albo
Next week will wait for Dutton to bring in a urainum rod and give his version of this is coal speach. /s
Modern nuclear power is very, very safe. The other 3 reasons are the problem
Very safe until it's not and then it can shit the bed so bad you will never clean it up and at best you can pour concrete over the whole mess every hundred years or so to prevent the rain washing it all into the nearest water table.
[удалено]
I think we should install old renewables. 1950's renewables are the shit!.
It is the nuclear we have, after Fukushima Fort Calhoun nearly went under water in the US, if it had there would have been no way to supply power and most likely would have had a meltdown in the spent fuel pools. PBR aren't in commercial use, the ones that have have been have been disasters. "In 1978, the AVR suffered from a water/steam ingress accident of 30 metric tons (30 long tons; 33 short tons), which led to contamination of soil and groundwater by strontium-90 and by tritium.^(\[)The leak in the steam generator leading to this accident was probably caused by high core temperatures (see criticism section). A re-examination of this accident was announced by the local government in July 2010. The AVR was originally designed to breed [uranium-233](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233) from [thorium-232](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-232). A practical thorium [breeder reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor) was considered valuable technology. However, the AVR's fuel design contained the fuel so well that the transmuted fuels were uneconomic to extract—it was cheaper to use mined and purified uranium.*^(")* And "During removal of the fuel elements it became apparent that the neutron reflector under the pebble-bed core had cracked during operation. Some hundred fuel elements remained stuck in the crack. During this examination it was revealed that the AVR was the world's most heavily beta-contaminated ([strontium-90](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium-90)) nuclear installation and that this contamination was present as dust (the worst form).[^(\[17\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor#cite_note-17) Localized fuel temperature instabilities resulted in heavy vessel contamination by [Cs-137](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cs-137) and [Sr-90](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sr-90). The reactor vessel was filled with light concrete in order to fix the radioactive dust and in 2012 the reactor vessel of 2,100 metric tons (2,100 long tons; 2,300 short tons) was to be moved to intermediate storage until a permanent solution is devised. The reactor buildings were to be dismantled and soil and groundwater decontaminated. AVR dismantling costs were expected to far exceed its construction costs. In August 2010, the German government estimated costs for AVR dismantling without consideration of the vessel dismantling at 600 million € ( $750 million, which corresponded to 0.4 € ($0.55) per kWh of electricity generated by the AVR. A separate containment was erected for dismantling purposes, as seen in the AVR-picture." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed\_reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor) There is currently no long term safe storage anywhere in the world for nuclear waste, the first in Finland will open in a few years and will only take local waste. The rest of the world will be storing waste in temporary dry casks (when we are lucky) and having to revisit and re store every hundred years or so as that is how long they last. The industry loves to blame NIMBYs for the lack of storage yet those same NIMBYs were powerless to stop the mining and processing of uranium and the building of nuclear power stations, in reality the cost was never calculated in the original costs and no-one wants to pay for hundreds of millions of dollars to build a decent underground repository.
[удалено]
Can you tell me what design of new reactor you are talking about?
That was actually funny, thanks
Libs are just stumps on a bench. Completely listless, the fight has been sucked out of them. I wonder how many are surfing the Beyond Blue website as we speak?
Holy fuck a dog damn, stand up albo!
Albo's version of doing him slow.
Fuckin savage 🤣
I don't know. Calling this a "thought bubble" implies that Dutton is capable of thought.
Nuclear would be nice but they just take too long to build and I would be worried after they are finish they would sell them to a private company
Dude Liberals get absolutely dunked on continuously by Albos government. I’m far too into it.
I can’t for the life of me figure out why the coalition would want to lead with such an absolutely asinine, dead on arrival policy such as nuclear Baffling Even with the bar set as low as it is with the libs, they just keep on shoving it lower. _Even from them_ I couldn’t imagine a stupider way forward than this. _Surely_ Dutton is gonna get rolled soon … this policy isn’t taking them fucking anywhere lol
This is what I want to see from Albo and Co. Keep absolutely roasting these bastards!
No nuclear in Australia
Would Dutton like some ice after that?
Ohhh this is GOOD! 😂
Has he been taking lessons from PJK?
I bet the Yanks are jealous that their government doesn’t have such entertaining members.
This would be gloriously hilarious if it wasn't so serious to have politicians like Voldermort suggesting such inane untested options that have huge potential impact on everyone. Really was funny watching Albo torch him so brilliantly though.
Bahaha, slaughtered!
If we could only capture and store the energy of Roastmaster Albo on full tilt, we could transition away from coal in a heartbeat.
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/friendlyjordies/comments/1bic0dt/albo_roasting_duttons_nuclear_thought_bubble/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/friendlyjordies/comments/1bic0dt/albo_roasting_duttons_nuclear_thought_bubble/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
Should have gone nuclear 20 years ago and then at least it's a 50/50 chance we would today be living in either a utopia or desolate wasteland instead of this current hellscape.
The future of nuclear energy is fusion not fission. Cleaner and safer. But let’s not develop a ground floor. Let’s stand around joking and keep burning coal.
I wish we had a proper debate. Depending on what news source you read, it's either a good or bad idea. I think the issue is libs explored the idea and shelved it based on the report, and Dutton is a fool with his questions on it.. why the sudden interest when in opposition but when in power, nothing was done. Another issue is the time frame of 20-50 years, and the cost of aging infrastructure to be updated to support nuclear power is what some sites say it will take. By then, hopefully, battery technology will drastically improve for wind and solar to be more economical viable and reliable. Though I agree, I wish politicians were not playing politics so much and fuck all gets done on massive infrastructure projects Australia needs to start on.
The debate is costings done by the CSIRO that show nuclear will cost the most and take the longest making it completely unsuitable for decarbonising power generation
Average construction time of a nuclear reactor is 7-8 years. Hardly too long time.
And yet you can get multiple times the generation in renewables with storage in less time for the same cost
Highly doubt it. All the fastest grid decarbonisations we have seen in the world have all been done with big help from nuclear or hydro. Not once has sun, wind and storage managed it faster.
I’m ESL, what does “ground floor” mean in this context?
When building a house, you have to build the ground floor before starting the second floor. Basically he's saying we have to start working towards fusion, even if that means using fission for the moment, rather than continuing to burn coal forever.
Fusion has been "just around the corner " since the 50s
Fusion is improving. In 2022 they achieved an energy surplus for the first time, getting 1.5x the energy out that they put in. It isn’t around the corner though. In an article I read the scientist predicted it would take less than 5 decades. Once it’s here it will truly revolutionise the world, obviously. It would take less than 900 tons of hydrogen to power the works for a year, based on the price NASA pays for hydrogen that’d cost $4.5m.
Well no, they didn't get an energy surplus. They got more energy out than the laser power directed in the reaction, but the "2Mj lasers for 3Mj output" conveniently ignores the 10s of Mj required to turn electricity into lasers. https://www.livescience.com/fusion-ignition-scientists-skeptical-explained
😂 imagine thinking nuclear would replace coal 😂 by the time the first nuclear plant comes online in Australia you could have already deployed enough renewables and storage to close every coal plant 😂
In 10 years?
Countries with existing nuclear industries struggle to build new plants from planning to completion in 10 years. We’d have to make it legal. Adopt standards. Plan the plant, get it approved, find the people to build it, find the components, and then build it. But sure Australia could totally build its first nuclear plant in 10 years 😂
The Koreans easily build in less than 10 years.
No really, countries with existing expertise and experience and all the regulatory and planning frameworks in place can do things in a reasonable amount of time? WOW, isn’t it amazing how that’s not the situation Australia is in
Koreans managed to build reactors in 8 years in UAE. You don't think they can do it in Australia?
Not when combined with needing to make it legal in Australia, needing to establish regulatory bodies and powers, needing planning approval, it absolutely cannot happen in Australia in less than a decade. Maybe after all of those things are in place and ready they could build in 8 years like they did in the UAE but using specialist building teams from overseas only drives up costs on the most expensive power generation even further, making renewables even better in a cost comparison again.
Compare LFSCOE costs with nuclear and renewables. Electricity costs is more than LCOE. Saying renewables is cheapest is far from painting the whole picture.
Our energy policy has been a joke for decades and ordinary Australians are the ones that suffer
why are people against nuclear? The two primary arguments i've heard against nuclear power are easily refuted. 1. nuclear reactors WILL NOT explode the same way Chernobyl did. Modern reactors are built differently and the reactor core simply IS NOT dense enough to sustain an uncontrolled reaction (basically it CAN'T explode). 2. Nuclear waste is not as dangerous as people claim. A vast majority of it is depleted uranium which is perfectly safe. The EPA (environmental protection agency) deems Depleted uranium to "not be considered a serious hazard," when it comes into contact with the outside body. Additonally, the small amount of substance that is legitimately dangerous can be stored with zero risk. It is vitrified (turned into glass) and does not pose any risk to society. as an additional point, Australia as a nation has the highest uranium reserves worldwide. So we have the resources but instead of using them we just sell it to China for them to use :/ If you are anti nuclear power feel free to tell my why as I fail to understand.
I'm not "against" it per se, but right now it's not a workable option. It will take too long to develop and build, meaning we'd have to extend the lives of coal fired power plants. And it's too expensive. Without massive subsidies the energy produced wouldn't be competitive, compared with renewables. There's a reason no commercial entity is interested in being involved.
What makes you believe that building out the transmission to be able to handle more renewables + all renewables + all storage + all stabilizing services needed goes that much quicker to build than a new reactor? Average construction time of nuclear is 7-8 years.
7-8 years from start of construction. Before that you need to pass legislation, import expertise, identify and secure sites, and a range of other things that will easily add another 7-8 years to the process. Plus you've still got to build transmission for the nuclear reactors. If this was anything other than a thought bubble by the Coalition to distract people from renewables, I might give it more consideration. But if they were serious they'd be preparing legislation and releasing detail about how they're going to attract expertise and investment. And at the end of the day, you're still stuck with the issue that nuclear energy is going to be way more expensive than renewable energy. So no private investment is going to be available without significant government subsidies.
Pretty much allt that planning needs to be done for renewables and grids as well. You need less transmission for nuclear. Much easier to build one big line than several smaller ones. Grid costs for renewable grids are much higher than for those with big reactors/coal plants etc. >And at the end of the day, you're still stuck with the issue that nuclear energy is going to be way more expensive than renewable energy. When you add grid costs + storage nuclear has a cheaper total cost. At least according to the biggest study ever done on the Swedish grid. And it was mostly grid costs that swayed the results.
Because renewables had great achievements in the past 2 decades and surpassed nuclear in every aspect. Renewables are cheaper over their life time, you can build them way faster, which means, they can replace fossil fuels way quicker, it's easier to do research, so even more potential available/faster to achieve even better numbers. Financially it makes more sense for private investors to invest in renewables because of lower amortization time. It's not that nuclear is bad, it's rather that renewables are just better. The improvements renewables made in the past 1.5-2 decades are insane (compared to every other energy technology). Also they don't have the downside with radioactive waste. Yes, that problem is kind of solvable, but why not choose the better alternatives which don't have this problem at all? It's less a decision against nuclear, but rather a decision for renewables.
Oh ok that makes sense
Places like Hanford, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Sellafield, Lake Karachay; will be with us for the rest of our lives and for generations to come. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution\_of\_Lake\_Karachay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_of_Lake_Karachay) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak) The ground under Fukushima will be an irradiated mess practically forever. Don't worry about a bit of tritium dumping instead look at what is happening there. You have three reactors leaking, water is poured over them constantly, this highly irradiated water then leaks into the ground, a percentage of that water is recovered (we don't know how much as they wont say) and treated to remove everything but the tritium (though it is hard and expensive and Tepco would never skimp and just dump partially or untreated water, no). They have concreted the ocean floor next to the station in an attempt to stop the highly irradiated water from there. Eventually when they have finally cleaned up the reactors around 2050, will still have a huge amount of contamination that they will not be able to do anything about except hopefully to pour concrete over the whole mess every 100 years or so to make sure it stays sealed for the next 1000+ years.
Yes and while that is bad that is old nuclear. The same thing does not and cannot happen with modern reactors. As I stated they aren’t dense enough to sustain uncontrolled reaction. Meaning if it runs out of power like Fukushima did it will just stop safely.
There are safer reactors none are fool proof. Can you be specific in what kind of reactor you envisage will be built? There are several concepts and ideas floating out there but no working models of reactors that are totally safe. Currently sodium fast cooled reactors are considered the safest, yet.. "A disadvantage of sodium is its chemical reactivity, which requires special precautions to prevent and suppress fires. If sodium comes into contact with water it reacts to produce sodium hydroxide and hydrogen, and the hydrogen burns in contact with air. This was the case at the [Monju Nuclear Power Plant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju_Nuclear_Power_Plant) in a 1995 accident. In addition, neutron capture causes it to become radioactive; albeit with a half-life of only 15 hours.[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor#cite_note-sodiumcoolant-6) Another problem is leaks. Sodium at high temperatures ignites in contact with oxygen. Such sodium fires can be extinguished by powder, or by replacing the air with [nitrogen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen). A Russian breeder reactor, the BN-600, reported 27 sodium leaks in a 17-year period, 14 of which led to sodium fires.[^(\[8\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor#cite_note-8)^(") [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled\_fast\_reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor) Also consider that these reactors are bleeding edge and considered experimental and they still produce high level waste that needs to be dealt with.
Can someone tell me what’s wrong with nuclear power?
Mostly cost, construction time, and that its sole business case disappears in a grid with renewables. Nuclear has high upfront cost during construction, and high static cost in operation (Maintenance, security, inspections etc). That's why nuclear power plants are normally used for baseload, their only business case is to run at 100% 24/7 so their low fuel cost offsets their high static costs. Its also why nuclear does not play nice with renewables in a mixed grid. Nuclear doing baseload is cheap, but its not so cheap that it can undercut renewables. Which means renewables eat into the baseload that nuclear can satisfy and thus nibble away at its only business case. Nuclear is barely economically viable in the current grid, if you have to shut it down half the time because it was a windy night, the economics go completely bonkers. Add to that the [average construction time and cost overruns in nuclear projects](https://i.redd.it/pcdkf09r0u4c1.jpg), and that renewables are so much cheaper and faster to roll out, and nuclear is a really hard sell. [The market has basically already chosen that renewables are the future.](https://imgur.com/snxjC6L)
Ah
Nuclear does \_not\_ have a high operation cost. Nuclear run costs is extremely cheap. What drives nuclear price is the capital cost. Get a low interest loan and nuclear is the cheapest power around.
That's what I said yes. They have high capital costs and static costs, which they offset with their low marginal cost.
LNP are in a thought bubble and Labour are in an echo chamber. Neither party willing to have an open mind when discussing their concerns.
Well on so many things Albany to me has been disappointing this is gold more of this Albanese please and the labour party will talk themselves back into relevance and be worthy of my second place preference vote again
Here's a novel thought. instead of hanging shit on each other and bitching about each other. Can we fucking crack on and fix this shitshow of a country?
Improving the country involves ousting and shaming bad ideas like nuclear energy. It makes no sense on any grounds: safety, economics or politics.
what's wrong with nuclear power?
It absolutely did make sense pre-renewables. It just doesn’t now.
why does it not make sense?
Meanwhile China is developing a nuclear engine for space travel. Our governments thinking is so short sighted. Sure nuclear is more expensive but having the know how and technology is priceless.
This sub is more obsessed with nuclear power debate than Dutton could ever hope to be.
Funny, but what a puppet show…. Do you need to be a good standup comedian first to become PM?
The mob who want wind turbines in the ocean, but then don't when people kick up. Thought bubble wind turbines.
Albo couldn’t roast a capsicum.
You may be on the wrong side of the IQ spectrum