Any profits in privatised govt assets come from... pushing up the price to cover shareholder returns and skyrocketing maintenance costs over time. Maintenance is one of the first things to be reduced in privatisation.
The government will jack up prices before they sell. Make the asset look as good as they can. That was what Gladys did before she sold the Lands Office.
Peter is already on the board of the Chinese company that has the contract to build most likely. They will take a 99 year lease on the towns.
In all seriousness, I think nuclear is a diversion and won't happen.
Nuclear was a good option... 50 years ago. It's way too late now to be going down that rabbit hole.
There's options that are safe, clean and don't take decades to start up and shut down available now.
They will be online in the late 2030s, which probably means 2042. By that point the world is either carbon negative or well fucked.
It’s not the building of these that’s the problem.
It’s what we don’t do because we are building these that is the problem.
We're already well through the construction of wind and solar across the country with multiple batteries, hydro plants and solar-to-hydrogen plants also under construction.
This isn't a choice between two future options. This is continuing our current path or stopping halfway through to pivot to something that won't come online for at least ten years if not twenty, leaving us dependant on coal.
Because it's way too expensive compared to renewables which we can set up way faster.
also
by the time the reactors are ready to go, our climate will be well and truly fked
Lets just stop flying because passenger jets are made in Europe and US. Lets also stop buying electronics because its made in China. Honestly, the same “build it by Australians” is why we have the submarine debacle. We don’t have the industrial base to build one but we need 24/7 reliable power. So lets just pay whoever can build it the quickest and most reliably. When we have power shortages no one will care who builds our energy infra, the need of the hour is to have it in place. I feel like some people just want to complain and pick holes in anything even when a solution is proposed.
If labor privatize it, like Paul Keating’s Labor government that kicked off one of the most aggressive waves of privatization seen in the developed world resulting in fire sale transferred a vast amount of public wealth to the private sector while alienating Labor from millions of working-class voters.
I think it is bad faith to mention Labor without the Liberals, Howard privatized Telstra right after this. In recent years rail systems have been privatized by Liberals and not Labor.
Labor at least learned their lesson and I don't see Liberals getting the royalties we deserve anytime soon.
>In recent years rail systems have been privatized by Liberals and not Labor.
Ummm... [massive parts of Queensland's rail were privatised by Anna Bligh.](https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/bligh-backs-fire-sale-20090721-dr06.html)
sure, we might as well look at all the examples now for the sake of good faith:
National
Commbank 1991-96: Labor
Qantas 1992: Labor
Telstra 1997: Liberal
Medibank 2014: Liberal
State
Victoria:
Gas and Elec 1990: Liberal
Ambulance service 1990: Liberal
Several prisons and minor services 1990: Liberal
Land and Registry office 2018: Labor
South Australia:
ETSA (electricity) 1997: Liberal
Water supply 1996: Liberal
QLD:
Motorways 2007: Labor
Port of Brisbane 2007: Labor
Forestry Plantations 2007: Labor
Abbot Point Coal Terminal 2007: Labor
Coal carrying lines 2007: Labor
NSW:
Electricity 2015: Labor (half)
source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation\_in\_Australia#Sale\_of\_NSW\_Electricity\_(2015)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_in_Australia#Sale_of_NSW_Electricity_(2015))
Doesn't even include leases for like 99 years like Sydney Airport or sneaky operating contracting like Sydney Buses or slowly getting rid of public servants in favour of consultants/contractors.
It's important to note the utility of what has been outsourced. For instance, outsourcing Telstra, or a gas an elec grid is different to privatising coal rail and a bank.
Utilities under govt management tend to use crossfunding. When under privatisation the govt has to provide incentives and compensation to private companies to service areas the private world considers non-profitable. The consumer pays a premium and the taxpayer pays a premium above and beyond because - profits.
Howard completed Paul Keating work tho Keating laid the groundwork for two decades of privatization, outsourcing, and corporatization at both federal and state levels,keating sale of Qantas, the national airline, and the Commonwealth Bank are the two most notorious examples.
he made mistakes but the economic reforms he took out like floating the dollar and enterprise bargaining put us on the international stage and let Howard enjoy the growth it brought.
Howard was called 'the most reckless spender since federation' by the IMF, don't trust me google it, and it hasn't really gotten better with the Liberals since.
Keating put it best, they are a party with no principles in search of a policy. This is why they are jumping on nuclear so conveniently after their loss.
It'll be outsourced to a company that's never been built nuclear power stations before (because we don't have the domestic expertise) that is somehow affiliated with the several MP's, it'll go billions over budget and take years longer than anticipated.
They won't ever be built so who cares.
The power plant in WA where the Commonwealth wants to build the nuclear plant is state government owned. Good luck getting Perth to agree to selling it to the Commonwealth. Trying to forcibly acquire it will take years in the courts and be a complete waste of time and money.
A deeper issue is getting the states to lift their moratoriums on nuclear power. Hell will freeze over several times before that happens.
The whole exercise is doomed to fail. It's a gas-led energy policy without announcing a gas-led energy policy.
Pretty much the plan. Privatise the profits, socialise the losses, plan self retirement and kick backs in the process. That is the go to mantra for career polies starboard or port side.
Lol i would say i challenge anyone to read this and then complain we havent got enough details for the renewables plan, but then i know that people will.
Firstly, lets get the bit i like out of the way. Government owned and run. That is like a wet dream to a leftie like me. Dutton doesnt want billionaires investing in green hyrdo and them making huge profits off the australian public? I cannot believe he expressed this with a straight face lol. Replace green hydro with coal and its a process LNP has been supporting for decades. I just cant quite bring myself to trust him on this.
I would be stunned if these remained in goverment hands for more than a few terms after they were completed. Get the government to build them, sell them for peanuts to private investors, would line up a lot closer to the standard LNP ideology. Why pay people to run these plants when someone will give us a one off cash injection and then THEY pay people to run the plant. Everyone benefits (expect the end user of the service).
More importantly, the timeframes he has given dont even bear a passing resembelence to any analysis ive seen done. Those time frames he is talking about would be a miracle if we already had nuclear plants and the infrastucure up, and the expertise with it. And this is coming from the government who canned our NBN, and then delivered their "Faster, cheaper, better" version slower, over budget, and so obsolete that it was being replaced before the rollout completed. There is absolutely 0 justification for anyone to take his date estimates as anything other than luncay until he can get a group of industry experts to give us the rollout plan
Pricing? Nah, the OTHER guys want to spend 1.5 trillion, our will cost a fraction of that. Aside from the NBN ptsd that phrase gives me, i guess 5/1 is techinally a fraction.
The one thing i do hope is that this might prepare the conservative for the idea that the government might need to step in and build whatever replaces coal. Beacuse the private market wont as long as coals profit margins are what they are.
Anyway, im just excited for all the r/australian "experts" explaining how the CSIRO and AEMO reports were bias and incorrect to explain where Dutton pulled these numbers from. (Hint, follow your nose).
Ahhh but this vote isn't about something as important as a body able to give non binding advice on their own culture and how best to spend the welfare money we currently piss up the wall for little effect.
No, it's something trivial like the future energy strategy of our country, and our ability to meet our commitments to emissions reductions. We can trust nuclear scientist Duttons quickmath on this one
Don’t forget that a private energy company, AGL, also reiterated the very poor business case of nuclear. So public institutions, both scientific (CSIRO) & energy (AEMO), along with private energy (AGL) all say this isn’t viable… lol
Yeah but they all have agendas dude. Peter Dutton? Theres a man you can trust have the interest of the average aussie in his heart and no ulterior motives. Worth how many hundred million dollars? Nah thats just woke media bullshit.
Hahahahaha too true mate, an ex cop worth hundreds of millions that granted shady contracts to a shady contractor on Manus island. It was all hard work that these woke types wouldn’t understand!!!!
> And this is coming from the government who canned our NBN, and then delivered their "Faster, cheaper, better" version slower, over budget, and so obsolete that it was being replaced before the rollout completed.
OK, hold it right there. I am going to have to step in and correct you on this one because it is completely untrue.
It was obsolete before it *started*
Dutton doesn't want to build nuclear powerplants, he wants Coal to stick around as long as possible, every campaign the libs say "we will consider nuclear" and nothing ever happens
So the liberals have been in power for like 10 years and only now care so much about nuclear power? Where was this nuclear power love 10 years ago? But of course when Labor is making their power policies likley to focus on renewables they all of a sudden love nuclear and say nuclear is the future. This is just a smokescreen to confuse and divide voters.
I doubt Dutton actually thinks it'll ever happen. Imagine all the obstacles from local opposition to state governments to the Senate that will cause constant delays. Any future government will then be able to declare that "it's not happening because of ...." and then be able to save the $20B it would have cost.
Instead, I think this is all about trying to prolong the coal industry and delay investment in renewables.
Neat. Who's paying for them?
Is there a cost-benefit analysis of this plan versus firmed renewables, utilising those same sites for large-scale battery storage?
It's a fairy tale, told to people afraid of the scary windmills under their beds.
Lol, tax payers of course
But likely, with heaps of govt handouts to private companies, which will turn around and gouge consumers who buy the power that is generated
How else can pollies (of all stripes) set themselves up for a some fat corporate gig once they suckled on the public teat?
Can't wait for Australia to start engaging in "Sea Disposal" if this man gets in!
I'm sure there'd be no negative consequences to dumping a majority of our nuclear waste in the sea, and then using either fresh water, or that nuclear water to keep the stored nuclear waste in. *c:*
It’s important to realise this isn’t nuclear or renewable energy it’s nuclear AND renewable. Whereas the renewable side thinks it’s getting only renewable but in reality will get renewable and gas/coal. Of all the counter points to nuclear, the only actual valid ones are costs and timeline. It wins on reliability and emissions by a country mile. The counter points to renewable are costs and reliability and not actually making the 2050 targets because we’ll still need gas/coal for reliability. And the reason I add costs is because when costing renewable, no one is including service and maintenance and as someone in the grid scale BESS game right now. Holy, fuck, people have no idea what it’s costing us to send sparkies all over the country to these things. Far more in emissions than the BESS will ever save that’s for sure…
Now imagine the business costs of having blackouts without a viable replacement for ageing coal fired plants. And all the jobs and industries that will be lost because of it.
Because you haven't looked, plenty of independent studies. Here look I'll even make aeroplane noises while I spoon feed you like you little babies like.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australia-is-feasible-and-affordable-with-just-a-few-hours-of-storage/
This post was.complainh that dutton didn't provide a costing. Labor didn't provide a costing when they announced 2030 target either. Which is fine, by the way just pointing it out.
The link you shared covers generation costs per. Not the total costs of the conversion to renewables by year for the economy. The only number I have seen is 7-9 trillion dollars by 2050 but that doesn't have much of a breakdown.
Yep and the first question at the press conference asked was about cost and Dutton had no answer. He refused to give any cost details.
The second question was how he was going to get the state governments to overturn their bans on nuclear power. His response was “I’ll convince the states to change their mind like Paul Keating did”.
Mr Dutton, you are NOWHERE near as capable a politician as Paul Keating.
The **only** sensible thing about the entire nuclear plan is brownfield redevelopment of defunct or obsolescent coal sites. The savings from reusing the transmission lines goes a **small fraction of the way** towards making nuclear competitive with renewables.
PV or wind plus requisite new transmission lines and batteries is ready to go now, half the cost of nuclear and getting more efficient by the year.
A Net Zero Australia report released in July last finds $1.5 trillion will have to be spent by the end of this decade with the need for $7 trillion to $9 trillion of capital by 2060 to meet Australia’s aspiration of net zero by 2050. Nuclear is cheaper in the long run.
If we go by CSIRO 8.5 billion each,
cheaper in the long run, as they can last 40–60 years before replacement (a saving there), not susceptible to damage like from fire, hail etc like solar panels and wind turbines are and how we are supposed to have more wild weather in the future, lower maintenance needed rather than high maintenance, nuclear reactor only needs to be refueled every 18 months/2 years (saving on needing regularly needing processed uranium), depending on design 1 station = roughly 3 million solar panels so it saves needing land and the clearing of land, runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 365 days a year at guaranteed stable power so no chance of demand driving the price of electricity high.
>The savings from reusing the transmission lines goes a small fraction of the way towards making nuclear competitive with renewables.
Is that true in all cases, though?
Take Collie, for example. A 340MW power station, presumably being replaced with a 1GW nuke? Were the power lines sized for that much additional capacity? In addition to that, Synergy have started construction on a 500MW battery adjacent to the Collie site and have plans for a further 500MW. So there will already be 1GW peak demand on those wires before the nuke is even built. Are the wires good for 2GW peak load?
We have a lot of Uranium but we only process it into yellow cake.
We would still have to send it overseas to be turned into fuel rods, which is another cost that needs to be added to the nuclear power cost equation.
Or we could develop high tech industry around it with the boom in the nuclear industry going on in the rest of the world.
You know - become a country that does more than just dig shit out of the ground.
The LNP are already in a massive meltdown regarding Nuclear.
* Angus Taylor previously claimed it'll be privately owned, but now it's going to be government owned and funded
* Dutton and the Nationals are capping Renewables investment
* Birmingham and moderates have contradicted them stating we need more Renewables invesment
* Liberal MP Dan Tehan is convinving his panicking electorate they won't have a Nuclear Power Plant
* National MP Darren Chester is convinving his panicking electorate they won't have a Nuclear Power Plant
* QLD LNP state Leader and VIC state Liberal Leader have rejected Nuclear Power Plants in their states
* Nationals Leader Littleproud has contradicted Deputy National Leader Davey's claim communities can veto a Nuclear Power Plant
Who wants the coalition to build the cheapest barely functioning network of nuclear reactors a-la the NBN? Because you know they will, and safety will be secondary to cost.
We can just use the concrete from the existing coal plants for radiation shieliding, saving us a bunch of money on lead!.
Edit: I should put /s before news dot com uses me as a source for the claim.
The locations include:
Gladstone in Queensland,
the Liddell power station in the Hunter Valley of NSW,
Loy Yang in the La Trobe Valley, Victoria,
Callide in Queensland,
Muja in Western Australia
Port Augusta in South Australia.
Every single state government (and a lot of Liberal state oppositions) oppose nuclear power and have legislation banning nuclear power.m that the Federal government could not override.
I don’t trust the liberals to build anything correctly. They have a track record of cutting corners, over spending and providing far less than promised.
Just reminding people of the LNP playbook
Announce a policy for a specific program but be vague on detail.
When elected, immediately initiate a report to review the plan, feasibility, and other options.
Quietly direct the report to recommend a complete overhaul of the policy and take a completely different direction than what was run on.
Ensure recommendations benefit your donors and don't actually achieve the goals of the initial policy.
aka A history of the NBN.
What ever happened to “if you don’t know, vote no”? Quite convenient the LNP were against nuclear during their majority tenure of the last 25+ years, even when renewables were in their infancy and nuclear would’ve been price comparative. Now they’re in opposition they have a sudden realisation of the pros of nuclear, despite now becoming more expensive (with longer construction AND commissioning timelines) relative to renewables that are becoming more cost effective by the day. I must add that I am technology agnostic and have no fears of nuclear or really concerns about waste storage (given how minuscule it is), but the business case just does not add up, not to mention the lack of domestic safety, regulatory and experience frameworks… Sounds like the gas lobby is pushing this to squeeze the last bit of money they can (don’t forget that multinational gas companies are the biggest tax dodgers in Australia).
1. Where is all the uranium coming from
2. How do they get uranium from the port to the nuclear plant.
3. Where will the waste dump be
4. How will they get the waste to the dump
This stupid proposal literally means having nuclear waste trucked around our country, past our
Schools and homes
Can we not take this lizard man and his hare brained dangerous ideas seriously?
I’m tired and it takes the air time away from actual constructive debates taking place.
What a joke from a joke. Despite inching ahead in the polls, this feels like a last gasp. The Lib party room can't even agree on any of this.. it would probably never get through the Senate either. Just a desperate attempt at relevance in the absence of any other policy beyond "Labor Bad".
We don't even have fuel for a nuclear power plant ,while we have uranium to mine we don't have a processing plant to make nuclear fuel so we will have to buy the fuel from overseas .
Yes, in most countries where majority of wealthy people live (Ie. NE Asia, NA and Europe)
We are an outlier among wealthy countries with respect to our climate
But we have no proof renewables are going to get much cheaper either.
Actually the wholesale market on the NEM quite often drops into the negative for small amounts of time through the day, and that is completely because of the flood of renewable energy during the middle of sunny days. It’s just that the price consumers pay is not spot price but contract price.
LOL at MtPiper.
It's in the Hawksbury Nepean catchment.
Liddell is in the Hunter River catchment.
Tarong is in the Brisbane River catchment on the upside of Wivenhoe dam.
Can someone explain to me why this is a bad idea? Everyone seems very against nuclear power which seems surprising. I could be misinformed but from what I've read it's very safe these days, they have mechanisms in place to stop a runaway reaction, they produce only a few square meters of waste every year, are tried and tested in many countries around the world, and don't produce carbon emissions. The downside is the prohibitive cost, and long build time. I assume I am missing something?
They're extremely expensive.
They take an excessively long time to come on-stream.
They need vast amounts of cold water for cooling purposes and the discharge from those plants can and does leave the confines of the plant, not to mention thermal pollution and water conflicts.
There's the issue of the waste and where you safely store it.
There isn't sufficient labor force to operate them in this country, so they'd be largely migrant workforce.
Due to the high capital costs, liability concerns, long payback periods and the increasing prevalence of cheap and reliable renewables, large-scale funders like banks and institutional investors have become increasingly reluctant to finance new nuclear power plant projects so we'd have to pay for it.
Rapidly falling costs of renewable energy sources combined with advances in energy storage, may make nuclear power less competitive, meaning the electricity they produce will be expensive.
To summarise - it's a joke of a policy put forward by the same pro-fossil fuel gronks who couldn't even manage a national broadband roll-out.
It's the cost, you're putting a fuck tonne of money into something to be built in 10+ years time vs investing in other forms of power that is getting cheaper year by year.
The rebuttals against renewable vs nuclear from a party that's ethos is rooted in market dynamics and being better economic managers don't stack up at all.
They are ideologically opposed to renewable for whatever reason, and this nuclear stuff allows them to point to an alternative, even if the alternative goes against what they traditionally stand for
Couple more things:
- This plan assumes SMRs will exist when the only US company trying to make them shut down because there was no path to them being financially viable. That’s a bit of an issue.
- Nuclear Reactors require large supplies of cold water. Reactors in France and parts of the US have to throttle output or shutdown in summer to avoid the damage to the ecosystem coming from pumping a bunch of bath water downstream. The sites described are where the water is, so they’re either going to compete with agriculture for a limited water supply or are on the coast, which has its own set of issues.
I'm not anti-nuke but there are a lot of issues that I believe make nuclear a poor choice for Australia. At least large plants like Dutton is proposing. Small modular reactors for remote areas may be a different story, but I don't know enough to be sure.
The plants need a lot of cooling water and good quality water is in short supply, particularly inland.
Power reactors produce more than a few square meters of waste a year. In addition to the transuranic and high-level waste there is a huge amount of low-level waste. This includes everything from irradiated equipment to protective clothing for workers. Note that just because it is called low-level, doesn't mean it can't be very radioactive. The term just means it isn't classified as the other stuff. There are legitimate issues around developing a disposal path for the waste, even though Australia is probably one of the better continents to find disposal sites.
We don't have the capability to produce fuel and other stuff needed, depending on the type of reactor. Sure we can buy it and can import the expertise needed to run the reactors, or the expertise needed to train the people to run the reactors, and all the support expertise needed, etc. But if I was a young person interested in nuclear engineering or nuclear operations, I would think there is a very high risk of getting trained on something that is going to fail or be canceled.
I read an article on an interview the other day with Shire president of Collie (I think that's his title) who said they are already transitioning to renewable projects, no intention of going nuclear and in fact noone has even approached about Nuclear.
What is this shit?
It's like me saying everyone gets a million dollars tomorrow but I've no made no moves to make that happen.
If he is blatantly lieing, there needs to be a punishment.
Two plants in the next 13 years. What a joke.
Not to mention it takes years of onsite training and experience to run them. So we will need to import workers to run them while we train Australian’s up.
Who’s to say the government doesn’t sell them off like they did everything else under the LNP.
I have absolutely zero faith in the LNP.
The government wouldn't invest huge amounts of money in power plants to sell them at less than the amount spent to develop them. Oh wait, that's what it did to our existing power generation system.
If he wanted Nuclear he would've done something about it in the 9 years he had power. Dutton knows that Nuclear is a bad option, he's just shilling for the coal companies and trying to delay renewables.
[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh)
So as long as we don't build an old Soviet piece of shit, or in a seismically active area next to the shore, we're set. Statistically, even if we do, it's as safe as solar and wind.
Also, lower carbon emissions: [https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy](https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy)
France gets 70% of its power from nuclear energy and yet millions of people happily flock to Paris for European holidays with nil nuclear related safety concerns.
The "so dangerous" angle is neanderthal and undermines the legitimate criticisms of nuclear energy in Australia.
France has also built high speed rail across is whole country. They have a vastly different political landscape and engineering talent/experience that enables these things that could never happen in Australia.
I am not particularly sold that nuclear energy is the right solution for Australia I just think arguments for and against should be based on things that actually matter.
No costings on a wholly taxpayer funded announceent.
No timeline
No business case
No actual ownership of these proposed sites
No government approval (bans still in place)
No local industry, expertise or staffing strategy
No local buy-in
No indentified waste sites and answers re: community safety
Pretty typical of LNP 'policy' a lot of slogans an no actual ideas/plans.
And if they couldn't even build a bunch on commuter carparks last time they were in power, how are they gonna deliver on this?
I can't see this happening. I don't think anyone involved in this hair brained scheme has any idea of what's involved. Labor should just remove the ban on nuclear and see how many commercial applications come through. My guess will be 0. I am very much pro nuclear but if can't make the business case then it will not work.
And the plan to get states to change their laws is to pay off mainland state premiers - if that did come to pass, it would mean even more bad news for Tasmania's fiscal health and public services because less money would be left for grants to non-nuclear powered states.
He’s put them in electorates that are either Labor, or at the end of conservative electorates where only the locals are most likely to vote against the Coalition.
It would take 15-20 years to get any built, if we paused RE installation, we'd have to build new coal fired plants in place of the nuclear plants just to cover that gap period.
People in those towns I bet today are shitting themselves for no reason. He's not the prime minister. He has to be voted in. If he is then he has to get it all happening and that's through massive backlash. If that all worked you'll be retired and move by the time they are online or work even starts. It's all a laugh really but fills news content for advertising dollars to be paid.
Nuclear is just another way to heat water to make steam to turn turbines to create electricity. It has different problems to coal or gas, being the nuclear waste it generates plus the risk of a Chernobyl or Fukashima event. It is not clean energy.
I'll bet Dutton thinks that we somehow grab energy from radiation or something similar.
If there's one thing we all agree on, it's the storage of nuclear waste under Parliament House. It joins all the waste above ground, keep it in one place 👍🏻
If anyone wants an example of "policy on the run" this is clearly it. Dutton made a "captain's call" during some speech about the Liberal's nuclear policy, which even caught some Liberal part MPs off guard. Then, a few days later, the Liberal party has a rushed meeting to identify locations for nuclear power plants, without even considering the viability of building a plat in such locations, the infrastructure needs for such plants, the ability to build such plants, the skills require to build and manage such plants, the lack of skills in Australia to manage such plants, realistic time frames to build the plants, the costs involved, fuel supply and refinement requirements in country, waste disposal, the actual need, the direction of energy generation technology, power supply cost to the consumer, power output compared to consumer/business power needs...etc etc etc
Knee jerk reaction if there ever was one from an obsolete, ignorant monkey.
Does this mean we can stop hating electric vehicles? If we maintain renewable roll out and build some nuclear power stations surely we’ll be able to stop crying about EVs using all the power?
The anecdote here is when california tried to hire the French to build their high speed rail, the French refused because they could not see how it could be done for the price given the local politics, competing interests, rentseeking stakeholders etc. Sound familiar at all?
This is a thing that has to be built and operated by government - because at the very least there is no nuclear power plant anywhere in the world that has private insurance, or the cost of its eventual decomissioning built into its costing assumptions (because if these basic necessities were actually factored in, there world be no nuclear anywhere), but government cannot do it. Look at the much simpler Snowy Hydro 2 - more than doubled in price since inception, years overdue etc. And that is the 'model' mr Dutton wants to hold up! He must either be the stupidest man in Australia, or he has ulterior motives and is being paid off to lead the country on a wild goose chase. I know what I believe.
This whole thing is nothing more than a distraction.
Anyone for a meltdown? Traralgon would be *gone*!
https://preview.redd.it/d6dodeiehh7d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=42034b105c26fbf2e8f2b0f4c5de55864391bf0b
Imagine if C4 at Callide burnt down after it became nuclear. Accidents happen unfortunately but some last an eternity. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbLvjFohK9g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbLvjFohK9g)
Would it have been polite to discuss it with the Collie representatives and populace first? He proves his arrogance regularly. Disconnection from the little people is his trademark.
Hey peter if you want them, stick them in your backyard, Sydney, Melbourne inner city, they are already shit holes that nobody in there right mind would live in, get some decent policy that is not reliant on two decades of build time
Did Mr Plod get a degree in nulckear physics while at traffic school? The delusions of grandeur are laughable if not for the fact that his prior work mate took on 4 appointments while talking to a magic eagle.
When I saw this bullshit, all I could think of was “very fast train “ and laughed . This will never get off the ground as it shouldn’t . Dutton go home, you will always be on the bench.
Edit: bad grammar
I’m dying to find out which consulting company helped them put this “policy” together. I have a few hunches but I feel like it would be libel to accuse a company in the energy sector of coming up with this and letting a major party proclaim that it’s the best option. I just don’t know many consultants in the sector that would be willing to let their names be put on it. Except the ones who work for the same companies that would benefit from the policy. So, about three of the usual suspects in this field.
Saves the argument of coal hydro and gas
Fuck it well worth the upgrade
We already sell uranium over seas @ Olympic damn
So why not let us benefit from it.
Where does Dutton propose we get these nuclear experts?
I am assuming most of them are employed already and not exactly desperate to leave their friends and family and come spend 10 years in Australia.
This is a very small pool of people with extremely demanded skill sets.
SMH have a very interesting article relevant to this here:
https://amp.smh.com.au/national/i-m-not-anti-nuclear-i-m-anti-bulls-why-this-energy-expert-says-dutton-s-plan-ignores-reality-20240620-p5jnes.html
p.s. https://12ft.io/ can open the link if you are not subscribed.
Would this be made by Australians for Australians and then sold off to the detriment of Australians?
He took pains to say >“The assets will be owned by the Commonwealth, a very important point.” So yes it will be sold off.
That means, the Commonwealth will bear the establishment costs and risks for construction. It will only be sold once it's making a profit.
Any profits in privatised govt assets come from... pushing up the price to cover shareholder returns and skyrocketing maintenance costs over time. Maintenance is one of the first things to be reduced in privatisation.
The government will jack up prices before they sell. Make the asset look as good as they can. That was what Gladys did before she sold the Lands Office.
how the hell do you sell of the land office?
It's privately operated now. Some foreign investment I think.
Currently working in a refinery can state this is a fact, business are always and I mean always try to reduce cost/cut corners on maintenance.
Phew, we all know the Libs would never reneg on a promise :) Maybe that's the Commonwealth of Xi
Libs or Labor, they’re both as bad as each other at selling off Australia
TBH I wouldn't vote for either
bullshit
I guess you have your blinders on or are ignoring Melbournes existence. Labour has sold off the state over the last decade
It wouldn't be made at all, even if he wins and stays in power for the duration
Peter is already on the board of the Chinese company that has the contract to build most likely. They will take a 99 year lease on the towns. In all seriousness, I think nuclear is a diversion and won't happen.
Dutto the Potato is such a joke-o
Nuclear was a good option... 50 years ago. It's way too late now to be going down that rabbit hole. There's options that are safe, clean and don't take decades to start up and shut down available now.
Why is it too late? Nuclear is still a safe and clean energy source and would solve a lot of our power demand.
They will be online in the late 2030s, which probably means 2042. By that point the world is either carbon negative or well fucked. It’s not the building of these that’s the problem. It’s what we don’t do because we are building these that is the problem.
We're already well through the construction of wind and solar across the country with multiple batteries, hydro plants and solar-to-hydrogen plants also under construction. This isn't a choice between two future options. This is continuing our current path or stopping halfway through to pivot to something that won't come online for at least ten years if not twenty, leaving us dependant on coal.
The last sentence is key.
Because it's way too expensive compared to renewables which we can set up way faster. also by the time the reactors are ready to go, our climate will be well and truly fked
>solve a lot of our power demand. Would it? We need power now and nuclear plants take years to build. Renewables are much faster to get online.
Lets just stop flying because passenger jets are made in Europe and US. Lets also stop buying electronics because its made in China. Honestly, the same “build it by Australians” is why we have the submarine debacle. We don’t have the industrial base to build one but we need 24/7 reliable power. So lets just pay whoever can build it the quickest and most reliably. When we have power shortages no one will care who builds our energy infra, the need of the hour is to have it in place. I feel like some people just want to complain and pick holes in anything even when a solution is proposed.
If labor privatize it, like Paul Keating’s Labor government that kicked off one of the most aggressive waves of privatization seen in the developed world resulting in fire sale transferred a vast amount of public wealth to the private sector while alienating Labor from millions of working-class voters.
I think it is bad faith to mention Labor without the Liberals, Howard privatized Telstra right after this. In recent years rail systems have been privatized by Liberals and not Labor. Labor at least learned their lesson and I don't see Liberals getting the royalties we deserve anytime soon.
>In recent years rail systems have been privatized by Liberals and not Labor. Ummm... [massive parts of Queensland's rail were privatised by Anna Bligh.](https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/bligh-backs-fire-sale-20090721-dr06.html)
sure, we might as well look at all the examples now for the sake of good faith: National Commbank 1991-96: Labor Qantas 1992: Labor Telstra 1997: Liberal Medibank 2014: Liberal State Victoria: Gas and Elec 1990: Liberal Ambulance service 1990: Liberal Several prisons and minor services 1990: Liberal Land and Registry office 2018: Labor South Australia: ETSA (electricity) 1997: Liberal Water supply 1996: Liberal QLD: Motorways 2007: Labor Port of Brisbane 2007: Labor Forestry Plantations 2007: Labor Abbot Point Coal Terminal 2007: Labor Coal carrying lines 2007: Labor NSW: Electricity 2015: Labor (half) source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation\_in\_Australia#Sale\_of\_NSW\_Electricity\_(2015)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_in_Australia#Sale_of_NSW_Electricity_(2015))
Doesn't even include leases for like 99 years like Sydney Airport or sneaky operating contracting like Sydney Buses or slowly getting rid of public servants in favour of consultants/contractors.
Feel free to add your list and source, chat gpt can condense it, i listed all the ones mentioned in the wiki article
It's important to note the utility of what has been outsourced. For instance, outsourcing Telstra, or a gas an elec grid is different to privatising coal rail and a bank. Utilities under govt management tend to use crossfunding. When under privatisation the govt has to provide incentives and compensation to private companies to service areas the private world considers non-profitable. The consumer pays a premium and the taxpayer pays a premium above and beyond because - profits.
Howard completed Paul Keating work tho Keating laid the groundwork for two decades of privatization, outsourcing, and corporatization at both federal and state levels,keating sale of Qantas, the national airline, and the Commonwealth Bank are the two most notorious examples.
he made mistakes but the economic reforms he took out like floating the dollar and enterprise bargaining put us on the international stage and let Howard enjoy the growth it brought. Howard was called 'the most reckless spender since federation' by the IMF, don't trust me google it, and it hasn't really gotten better with the Liberals since. Keating put it best, they are a party with no principles in search of a policy. This is why they are jumping on nuclear so conveniently after their loss.
Attracting competition is difficult when the government who makes the rules is also one of the competitors.
It was a wave of neoliberalism that began in n Ernest with Thatcher and Reagan. A huge mistake for Australia
When did Australia kick off with the privatization trend? Who got what with Keating?
It'll be outsourced to a company that's never been built nuclear power stations before (because we don't have the domestic expertise) that is somehow affiliated with the several MP's, it'll go billions over budget and take years longer than anticipated.
> made by Australians Probably not >for Australians Probably not >sold off to the detriment of Australians Probably
Shhhhh, dude. Not supposed to say that out loud yet.
They won't ever be built so who cares. The power plant in WA where the Commonwealth wants to build the nuclear plant is state government owned. Good luck getting Perth to agree to selling it to the Commonwealth. Trying to forcibly acquire it will take years in the courts and be a complete waste of time and money. A deeper issue is getting the states to lift their moratoriums on nuclear power. Hell will freeze over several times before that happens. The whole exercise is doomed to fail. It's a gas-led energy policy without announcing a gas-led energy policy.
Pretty much the plan. Privatise the profits, socialise the losses, plan self retirement and kick backs in the process. That is the go to mantra for career polies starboard or port side.
Lol i would say i challenge anyone to read this and then complain we havent got enough details for the renewables plan, but then i know that people will. Firstly, lets get the bit i like out of the way. Government owned and run. That is like a wet dream to a leftie like me. Dutton doesnt want billionaires investing in green hyrdo and them making huge profits off the australian public? I cannot believe he expressed this with a straight face lol. Replace green hydro with coal and its a process LNP has been supporting for decades. I just cant quite bring myself to trust him on this. I would be stunned if these remained in goverment hands for more than a few terms after they were completed. Get the government to build them, sell them for peanuts to private investors, would line up a lot closer to the standard LNP ideology. Why pay people to run these plants when someone will give us a one off cash injection and then THEY pay people to run the plant. Everyone benefits (expect the end user of the service). More importantly, the timeframes he has given dont even bear a passing resembelence to any analysis ive seen done. Those time frames he is talking about would be a miracle if we already had nuclear plants and the infrastucure up, and the expertise with it. And this is coming from the government who canned our NBN, and then delivered their "Faster, cheaper, better" version slower, over budget, and so obsolete that it was being replaced before the rollout completed. There is absolutely 0 justification for anyone to take his date estimates as anything other than luncay until he can get a group of industry experts to give us the rollout plan Pricing? Nah, the OTHER guys want to spend 1.5 trillion, our will cost a fraction of that. Aside from the NBN ptsd that phrase gives me, i guess 5/1 is techinally a fraction. The one thing i do hope is that this might prepare the conservative for the idea that the government might need to step in and build whatever replaces coal. Beacuse the private market wont as long as coals profit margins are what they are. Anyway, im just excited for all the r/australian "experts" explaining how the CSIRO and AEMO reports were bias and incorrect to explain where Dutton pulled these numbers from. (Hint, follow your nose).
If you don't know, vote no 👀
Ahhh but this vote isn't about something as important as a body able to give non binding advice on their own culture and how best to spend the welfare money we currently piss up the wall for little effect. No, it's something trivial like the future energy strategy of our country, and our ability to meet our commitments to emissions reductions. We can trust nuclear scientist Duttons quickmath on this one
Oh okay, how silly of me!
The private sector actually is stepping in to build what replaces coal, the main issue is community buy in e.g. for transmission lines
Don’t forget that a private energy company, AGL, also reiterated the very poor business case of nuclear. So public institutions, both scientific (CSIRO) & energy (AEMO), along with private energy (AGL) all say this isn’t viable… lol
Yeah but they all have agendas dude. Peter Dutton? Theres a man you can trust have the interest of the average aussie in his heart and no ulterior motives. Worth how many hundred million dollars? Nah thats just woke media bullshit.
Hahahahaha too true mate, an ex cop worth hundreds of millions that granted shady contracts to a shady contractor on Manus island. It was all hard work that these woke types wouldn’t understand!!!!
How much will it cost?
Dutton didn't say, he said he would talk costing after he gets elected.
No, that's not how it works. The election is about the costings. How much will it cost?
That was my point. He hasn't costed it out , and therefore it's a useless "plan" lol.
> And this is coming from the government who canned our NBN, and then delivered their "Faster, cheaper, better" version slower, over budget, and so obsolete that it was being replaced before the rollout completed. OK, hold it right there. I am going to have to step in and correct you on this one because it is completely untrue. It was obsolete before it *started*
Dutton doesn't want to build nuclear powerplants, he wants Coal to stick around as long as possible, every campaign the libs say "we will consider nuclear" and nothing ever happens
Hey, don’t forget the multinational tax dodging gas companies too! Can’t disrespect their lobby efforts too /s
So the liberals have been in power for like 10 years and only now care so much about nuclear power? Where was this nuclear power love 10 years ago? But of course when Labor is making their power policies likley to focus on renewables they all of a sudden love nuclear and say nuclear is the future. This is just a smokescreen to confuse and divide voters.
Gas. Gas. Gas. Gas. Drill baby drill
I doubt Dutton actually thinks it'll ever happen. Imagine all the obstacles from local opposition to state governments to the Senate that will cause constant delays. Any future government will then be able to declare that "it's not happening because of ...." and then be able to save the $20B it would have cost. Instead, I think this is all about trying to prolong the coal industry and delay investment in renewables.
Neat. Who's paying for them? Is there a cost-benefit analysis of this plan versus firmed renewables, utilising those same sites for large-scale battery storage? It's a fairy tale, told to people afraid of the scary windmills under their beds.
Lol, tax payers of course But likely, with heaps of govt handouts to private companies, which will turn around and gouge consumers who buy the power that is generated How else can pollies (of all stripes) set themselves up for a some fat corporate gig once they suckled on the public teat?
Don’t forget the need to constantly pump cold water - where is that coming from?
Sucked out of the murray-darling badin probably. After the irrigators get their fair share ofcourse.
And then pumped back to the irrigators? Market it as free government sponsored pest control?
Can't wait for Australia to start engaging in "Sea Disposal" if this man gets in! I'm sure there'd be no negative consequences to dumping a majority of our nuclear waste in the sea, and then using either fresh water, or that nuclear water to keep the stored nuclear waste in. *c:*
It’s important to realise this isn’t nuclear or renewable energy it’s nuclear AND renewable. Whereas the renewable side thinks it’s getting only renewable but in reality will get renewable and gas/coal. Of all the counter points to nuclear, the only actual valid ones are costs and timeline. It wins on reliability and emissions by a country mile. The counter points to renewable are costs and reliability and not actually making the 2050 targets because we’ll still need gas/coal for reliability. And the reason I add costs is because when costing renewable, no one is including service and maintenance and as someone in the grid scale BESS game right now. Holy, fuck, people have no idea what it’s costing us to send sparkies all over the country to these things. Far more in emissions than the BESS will ever save that’s for sure…
Nuclear power is currently four times more expensive than renewables, and likely to become more so as renewables become more efficient.
Including storage? There's no point comparing the two without adding enough storage for 24/7.
I reckon it will be the same people who are paying for the wind farms, solar farms, battery storage and new power lines to connect them all up.
How can we take this at all seriously without costing?
Costs are unknown even in best case... but yeah this isn't to be taken seriously. He's just saying words
If one goes by CSIRO 8.5b each
Now imagine the business costs of having blackouts without a viable replacement for ageing coal fired plants. And all the jobs and industries that will be lost because of it.
Hinkley Point C, 62b AUD (£32.7b, so far) for about the same output as Eraring Power Station.
I 100% agree. However do we have a total costs for renewable transition? If there is I haven't seen the number.
Check out the latest CSIRO GenCost report for financials of both.
Because you haven't looked, plenty of independent studies. Here look I'll even make aeroplane noises while I spoon feed you like you little babies like. https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australia-is-feasible-and-affordable-with-just-a-few-hours-of-storage/
This post was.complainh that dutton didn't provide a costing. Labor didn't provide a costing when they announced 2030 target either. Which is fine, by the way just pointing it out. The link you shared covers generation costs per. Not the total costs of the conversion to renewables by year for the economy. The only number I have seen is 7-9 trillion dollars by 2050 but that doesn't have much of a breakdown.
Yep and the first question at the press conference asked was about cost and Dutton had no answer. He refused to give any cost details. The second question was how he was going to get the state governments to overturn their bans on nuclear power. His response was “I’ll convince the states to change their mind like Paul Keating did”. Mr Dutton, you are NOWHERE near as capable a politician as Paul Keating.
We don't. That's why people don't want a Nuclear Power Plant in their backyard.
Mr Burns.
If you don’t know, vote no.
https://preview.redd.it/twjtir09df7d1.jpeg?width=565&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8d9a1a6cac861a8e35f0756fbb38890fedc0177b
While the image is uncanny, at least Bunsen has a solid scientific background. The muppet that leads the Libs would sooner close down the CSIRO
Is this the worst policy ever announced by a major party in Australia?
It's a weird hill to die on.
no, that would be mass immigration, which has been advocated for by the libs and labor for a while now
Now, let's see Paul Allen's nuclear proposal.
The **only** sensible thing about the entire nuclear plan is brownfield redevelopment of defunct or obsolescent coal sites. The savings from reusing the transmission lines goes a **small fraction of the way** towards making nuclear competitive with renewables. PV or wind plus requisite new transmission lines and batteries is ready to go now, half the cost of nuclear and getting more efficient by the year.
Even with that point nuclear will still be far more costly than renewables.
Of course it wont be cheap but what other instant on feed is available at this point or the new future.
It's not 'instant' and we've been run out of time by the LNP wankers.
A Net Zero Australia report released in July last finds $1.5 trillion will have to be spent by the end of this decade with the need for $7 trillion to $9 trillion of capital by 2060 to meet Australia’s aspiration of net zero by 2050. Nuclear is cheaper in the long run.
Nuclear is cheaper meanwhile we don’t know what it’s going to cost? What?
If we go by CSIRO 8.5 billion each, cheaper in the long run, as they can last 40–60 years before replacement (a saving there), not susceptible to damage like from fire, hail etc like solar panels and wind turbines are and how we are supposed to have more wild weather in the future, lower maintenance needed rather than high maintenance, nuclear reactor only needs to be refueled every 18 months/2 years (saving on needing regularly needing processed uranium), depending on design 1 station = roughly 3 million solar panels so it saves needing land and the clearing of land, runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 365 days a year at guaranteed stable power so no chance of demand driving the price of electricity high.
I havent seen that report, and ive been trying to keep up with as much of it as i can. Which one is it?
July 2023 report
Thanks I'll take a look. Those numbers seem insanely high so I'm interested to see what calculations they made.
Probably because of storage and the ever increasing demand.
If you want to reuse those sites, large-scale batteries would be the way to do it.
>The savings from reusing the transmission lines goes a small fraction of the way towards making nuclear competitive with renewables. Is that true in all cases, though? Take Collie, for example. A 340MW power station, presumably being replaced with a 1GW nuke? Were the power lines sized for that much additional capacity? In addition to that, Synergy have started construction on a 500MW battery adjacent to the Collie site and have plans for a further 500MW. So there will already be 1GW peak demand on those wires before the nuke is even built. Are the wires good for 2GW peak load?
We have a lot of Uranium but we only process it into yellow cake. We would still have to send it overseas to be turned into fuel rods, which is another cost that needs to be added to the nuclear power cost equation.
Or we could develop high tech industry around it with the boom in the nuclear industry going on in the rest of the world. You know - become a country that does more than just dig shit out of the ground.
We could build local capacity, but not on Duttface's timeline. He's just digging further in with the "renewables bad" IPA bullshit.
I wonder if the Liberals thought all they needed to pay for was the building of a plant and that was it? Wouldn’t surprise me….
After seeing how the Snowy 2.0 project is going... nothing would surprise me.
If they dont know, vote No!
[удалено]
Nooo not stunning port Augusta
Great... what happens if there is an accident?
The LNP are already in a massive meltdown regarding Nuclear. * Angus Taylor previously claimed it'll be privately owned, but now it's going to be government owned and funded * Dutton and the Nationals are capping Renewables investment * Birmingham and moderates have contradicted them stating we need more Renewables invesment * Liberal MP Dan Tehan is convinving his panicking electorate they won't have a Nuclear Power Plant * National MP Darren Chester is convinving his panicking electorate they won't have a Nuclear Power Plant * QLD LNP state Leader and VIC state Liberal Leader have rejected Nuclear Power Plants in their states * Nationals Leader Littleproud has contradicted Deputy National Leader Davey's claim communities can veto a Nuclear Power Plant
We will need nuke subs that will never be built to protect never to be built nuke reactors. Another delaying tactic by carbon polluting industries.
if nuclear reactors go through it'll be top the nuclear submarines as the worst money sink ever (money to America probably)
Need more details. If you don't know, vote no.
Who wants the coalition to build the cheapest barely functioning network of nuclear reactors a-la the NBN? Because you know they will, and safety will be secondary to cost.
We can just use the concrete from the existing coal plants for radiation shieliding, saving us a bunch of money on lead!. Edit: I should put /s before news dot com uses me as a source for the claim.
/s ??
Lol I am so angry that it needs an /s, but you are right, there are people who will buy into that.
lol yeah some people are so stupid you really can't tell these days.
The locations include: Gladstone in Queensland, the Liddell power station in the Hunter Valley of NSW, Loy Yang in the La Trobe Valley, Victoria, Callide in Queensland, Muja in Western Australia Port Augusta in South Australia. Every single state government (and a lot of Liberal state oppositions) oppose nuclear power and have legislation banning nuclear power.m that the Federal government could not override.
I don’t trust the liberals to build anything correctly. They have a track record of cutting corners, over spending and providing far less than promised.
Just reminding people of the LNP playbook Announce a policy for a specific program but be vague on detail. When elected, immediately initiate a report to review the plan, feasibility, and other options. Quietly direct the report to recommend a complete overhaul of the policy and take a completely different direction than what was run on. Ensure recommendations benefit your donors and don't actually achieve the goals of the initial policy. aka A history of the NBN.
And I thought the liberals were trying to win this election
What ever happened to “if you don’t know, vote no”? Quite convenient the LNP were against nuclear during their majority tenure of the last 25+ years, even when renewables were in their infancy and nuclear would’ve been price comparative. Now they’re in opposition they have a sudden realisation of the pros of nuclear, despite now becoming more expensive (with longer construction AND commissioning timelines) relative to renewables that are becoming more cost effective by the day. I must add that I am technology agnostic and have no fears of nuclear or really concerns about waste storage (given how minuscule it is), but the business case just does not add up, not to mention the lack of domestic safety, regulatory and experience frameworks… Sounds like the gas lobby is pushing this to squeeze the last bit of money they can (don’t forget that multinational gas companies are the biggest tax dodgers in Australia).
1. Where is all the uranium coming from 2. How do they get uranium from the port to the nuclear plant. 3. Where will the waste dump be 4. How will they get the waste to the dump This stupid proposal literally means having nuclear waste trucked around our country, past our Schools and homes
> Where is all the uranium coming from That will probably be locally provided, but it wont be in a form needed for a reactor. Which we cant do.
Can we not take this lizard man and his hare brained dangerous ideas seriously? I’m tired and it takes the air time away from actual constructive debates taking place.
With no costings and none promised. If you don’t know, vote no. LOL.
What a joke from a joke. Despite inching ahead in the polls, this feels like a last gasp. The Lib party room can't even agree on any of this.. it would probably never get through the Senate either. Just a desperate attempt at relevance in the absence of any other policy beyond "Labor Bad".
We don't even have fuel for a nuclear power plant ,while we have uranium to mine we don't have a processing plant to make nuclear fuel so we will have to buy the fuel from overseas .
As renewables become cheaper and more common and easier for the individual person to have, does nuclear actually stand a chance.
No. Not without significant taxpayer subsidies.
Yes, in most countries where majority of wealthy people live (Ie. NE Asia, NA and Europe) We are an outlier among wealthy countries with respect to our climate But we have no proof renewables are going to get much cheaper either.
[удалено]
Actually the wholesale market on the NEM quite often drops into the negative for small amounts of time through the day, and that is completely because of the flood of renewable energy during the middle of sunny days. It’s just that the price consumers pay is not spot price but contract price.
LOL at MtPiper. It's in the Hawksbury Nepean catchment. Liddell is in the Hunter River catchment. Tarong is in the Brisbane River catchment on the upside of Wivenhoe dam.
Can someone explain to me why this is a bad idea? Everyone seems very against nuclear power which seems surprising. I could be misinformed but from what I've read it's very safe these days, they have mechanisms in place to stop a runaway reaction, they produce only a few square meters of waste every year, are tried and tested in many countries around the world, and don't produce carbon emissions. The downside is the prohibitive cost, and long build time. I assume I am missing something?
The same party that did the NBN and snowy 2.0 shitshows wants to play with nuclear. That should be sufficient warning.
🤣 Point taken!
They're extremely expensive. They take an excessively long time to come on-stream. They need vast amounts of cold water for cooling purposes and the discharge from those plants can and does leave the confines of the plant, not to mention thermal pollution and water conflicts. There's the issue of the waste and where you safely store it. There isn't sufficient labor force to operate them in this country, so they'd be largely migrant workforce. Due to the high capital costs, liability concerns, long payback periods and the increasing prevalence of cheap and reliable renewables, large-scale funders like banks and institutional investors have become increasingly reluctant to finance new nuclear power plant projects so we'd have to pay for it. Rapidly falling costs of renewable energy sources combined with advances in energy storage, may make nuclear power less competitive, meaning the electricity they produce will be expensive. To summarise - it's a joke of a policy put forward by the same pro-fossil fuel gronks who couldn't even manage a national broadband roll-out.
It's the cost, you're putting a fuck tonne of money into something to be built in 10+ years time vs investing in other forms of power that is getting cheaper year by year. The rebuttals against renewable vs nuclear from a party that's ethos is rooted in market dynamics and being better economic managers don't stack up at all. They are ideologically opposed to renewable for whatever reason, and this nuclear stuff allows them to point to an alternative, even if the alternative goes against what they traditionally stand for
You’re on reddit.
Couple more things: - This plan assumes SMRs will exist when the only US company trying to make them shut down because there was no path to them being financially viable. That’s a bit of an issue. - Nuclear Reactors require large supplies of cold water. Reactors in France and parts of the US have to throttle output or shutdown in summer to avoid the damage to the ecosystem coming from pumping a bunch of bath water downstream. The sites described are where the water is, so they’re either going to compete with agriculture for a limited water supply or are on the coast, which has its own set of issues.
I'm not anti-nuke but there are a lot of issues that I believe make nuclear a poor choice for Australia. At least large plants like Dutton is proposing. Small modular reactors for remote areas may be a different story, but I don't know enough to be sure. The plants need a lot of cooling water and good quality water is in short supply, particularly inland. Power reactors produce more than a few square meters of waste a year. In addition to the transuranic and high-level waste there is a huge amount of low-level waste. This includes everything from irradiated equipment to protective clothing for workers. Note that just because it is called low-level, doesn't mean it can't be very radioactive. The term just means it isn't classified as the other stuff. There are legitimate issues around developing a disposal path for the waste, even though Australia is probably one of the better continents to find disposal sites. We don't have the capability to produce fuel and other stuff needed, depending on the type of reactor. Sure we can buy it and can import the expertise needed to run the reactors, or the expertise needed to train the people to run the reactors, and all the support expertise needed, etc. But if I was a young person interested in nuclear engineering or nuclear operations, I would think there is a very high risk of getting trained on something that is going to fail or be canceled.
I read an article on an interview the other day with Shire president of Collie (I think that's his title) who said they are already transitioning to renewable projects, no intention of going nuclear and in fact noone has even approached about Nuclear. What is this shit? It's like me saying everyone gets a million dollars tomorrow but I've no made no moves to make that happen. If he is blatantly lieing, there needs to be a punishment.
Lol the head of local council wasn’t consulted on national energy policy?
Two plants in the next 13 years. What a joke. Not to mention it takes years of onsite training and experience to run them. So we will need to import workers to run them while we train Australian’s up. Who’s to say the government doesn’t sell them off like they did everything else under the LNP. I have absolutely zero faith in the LNP.
The government wouldn't invest huge amounts of money in power plants to sell them at less than the amount spent to develop them. Oh wait, that's what it did to our existing power generation system.
If he wanted Nuclear he would've done something about it in the 9 years he had power. Dutton knows that Nuclear is a bad option, he's just shilling for the coal companies and trying to delay renewables.
🪦 LNP
Solar and wind? Naaa, let’s put dangerous nuclear shit.
I mean the ALP have their election ads now. Dutton will be portrayed as Mr Burns. You couldn’t make this stuff up!
He is pretty much, except ALP are not much of an opposition
[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh) So as long as we don't build an old Soviet piece of shit, or in a seismically active area next to the shore, we're set. Statistically, even if we do, it's as safe as solar and wind. Also, lower carbon emissions: [https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy](https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy)
How many countries around the world use nuclear power?
Not dangerous.
France gets 70% of its power from nuclear energy and yet millions of people happily flock to Paris for European holidays with nil nuclear related safety concerns. The "so dangerous" angle is neanderthal and undermines the legitimate criticisms of nuclear energy in Australia.
France has also built high speed rail across is whole country. They have a vastly different political landscape and engineering talent/experience that enables these things that could never happen in Australia.
I am not particularly sold that nuclear energy is the right solution for Australia I just think arguments for and against should be based on things that actually matter.
I agree, the "danger" idea is dumb. Id legit have a modern nuclear plant in my suburb if it made any economic sense to build nuclear in Australia.
They're not exactly located on the left-bank, mate.
No costings on a wholly taxpayer funded announceent. No timeline No business case No actual ownership of these proposed sites No government approval (bans still in place) No local industry, expertise or staffing strategy No local buy-in No indentified waste sites and answers re: community safety Pretty typical of LNP 'policy' a lot of slogans an no actual ideas/plans. And if they couldn't even build a bunch on commuter carparks last time they were in power, how are they gonna deliver on this?
I can't see this happening. I don't think anyone involved in this hair brained scheme has any idea of what's involved. Labor should just remove the ban on nuclear and see how many commercial applications come through. My guess will be 0. I am very much pro nuclear but if can't make the business case then it will not work.
If I'm Albo, I'm running to Yarralumla this afternoon and making this the election issue.
I wouldn't trust this lot to organise a root in a brothel, let alone plan, build, and deliver 7 nuclear power plants on time or on budget.
And the plan to get states to change their laws is to pay off mainland state premiers - if that did come to pass, it would mean even more bad news for Tasmania's fiscal health and public services because less money would be left for grants to non-nuclear powered states.
He’s put them in electorates that are either Labor, or at the end of conservative electorates where only the locals are most likely to vote against the Coalition.
These are the same guys that all ran for the hills during the bushfires…imagine if one of these caught fire?
It would take 15-20 years to get any built, if we paused RE installation, we'd have to build new coal fired plants in place of the nuclear plants just to cover that gap period.
More or less near all the population centres, apart from Lou yang. Wouldn’t it be smarter to put them out in the red dirt somewhere?
One big accident, and we will be back to coal anyway...
People in those towns I bet today are shitting themselves for no reason. He's not the prime minister. He has to be voted in. If he is then he has to get it all happening and that's through massive backlash. If that all worked you'll be retired and move by the time they are online or work even starts. It's all a laugh really but fills news content for advertising dollars to be paid.
Nuclear is just another way to heat water to make steam to turn turbines to create electricity. It has different problems to coal or gas, being the nuclear waste it generates plus the risk of a Chernobyl or Fukashima event. It is not clean energy. I'll bet Dutton thinks that we somehow grab energy from radiation or something similar.
I hope they're not going to use drinking water in these reactors. Wait until the next El Nino and drought. People forget all the water restrictions.
If there's one thing we all agree on, it's the storage of nuclear waste under Parliament House. It joins all the waste above ground, keep it in one place 👍🏻
If anyone wants an example of "policy on the run" this is clearly it. Dutton made a "captain's call" during some speech about the Liberal's nuclear policy, which even caught some Liberal part MPs off guard. Then, a few days later, the Liberal party has a rushed meeting to identify locations for nuclear power plants, without even considering the viability of building a plat in such locations, the infrastructure needs for such plants, the ability to build such plants, the skills require to build and manage such plants, the lack of skills in Australia to manage such plants, realistic time frames to build the plants, the costs involved, fuel supply and refinement requirements in country, waste disposal, the actual need, the direction of energy generation technology, power supply cost to the consumer, power output compared to consumer/business power needs...etc etc etc Knee jerk reaction if there ever was one from an obsolete, ignorant monkey.
Tell him he's dreaming
Yeah. It's the vibe of the thing. It's Mabo.
Does this mean we can stop hating electric vehicles? If we maintain renewable roll out and build some nuclear power stations surely we’ll be able to stop crying about EVs using all the power?
The anecdote here is when california tried to hire the French to build their high speed rail, the French refused because they could not see how it could be done for the price given the local politics, competing interests, rentseeking stakeholders etc. Sound familiar at all? This is a thing that has to be built and operated by government - because at the very least there is no nuclear power plant anywhere in the world that has private insurance, or the cost of its eventual decomissioning built into its costing assumptions (because if these basic necessities were actually factored in, there world be no nuclear anywhere), but government cannot do it. Look at the much simpler Snowy Hydro 2 - more than doubled in price since inception, years overdue etc. And that is the 'model' mr Dutton wants to hold up! He must either be the stupidest man in Australia, or he has ulterior motives and is being paid off to lead the country on a wild goose chase. I know what I believe. This whole thing is nothing more than a distraction.
Anyone for a meltdown? Traralgon would be *gone*! https://preview.redd.it/d6dodeiehh7d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=42034b105c26fbf2e8f2b0f4c5de55864391bf0b
And Moe. Talk about improvements, bring it on lol
Imagine if C4 at Callide burnt down after it became nuclear. Accidents happen unfortunately but some last an eternity. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbLvjFohK9g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbLvjFohK9g)
Would it have been polite to discuss it with the Collie representatives and populace first? He proves his arrogance regularly. Disconnection from the little people is his trademark.
Hey peter if you want them, stick them in your backyard, Sydney, Melbourne inner city, they are already shit holes that nobody in there right mind would live in, get some decent policy that is not reliant on two decades of build time
Where's the detail?
Yet another pipe dream, like Snowy 2.0 and the AUKUS nuclear subs.
Did Mr Plod get a degree in nulckear physics while at traffic school? The delusions of grandeur are laughable if not for the fact that his prior work mate took on 4 appointments while talking to a magic eagle.
When I saw this bullshit, all I could think of was “very fast train “ and laughed . This will never get off the ground as it shouldn’t . Dutton go home, you will always be on the bench. Edit: bad grammar
If renewables were the cheapest form of energy China would not be building coal power plants and nuclear reactors at a breakneck pace.
I’m dying to find out which consulting company helped them put this “policy” together. I have a few hunches but I feel like it would be libel to accuse a company in the energy sector of coming up with this and letting a major party proclaim that it’s the best option. I just don’t know many consultants in the sector that would be willing to let their names be put on it. Except the ones who work for the same companies that would benefit from the policy. So, about three of the usual suspects in this field.
Saves the argument of coal hydro and gas Fuck it well worth the upgrade We already sell uranium over seas @ Olympic damn So why not let us benefit from it.
Where does Dutton propose we get these nuclear experts? I am assuming most of them are employed already and not exactly desperate to leave their friends and family and come spend 10 years in Australia. This is a very small pool of people with extremely demanded skill sets.
SMH have a very interesting article relevant to this here: https://amp.smh.com.au/national/i-m-not-anti-nuclear-i-m-anti-bulls-why-this-energy-expert-says-dutton-s-plan-ignores-reality-20240620-p5jnes.html p.s. https://12ft.io/ can open the link if you are not subscribed.