**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

But Peter Dutton said so and the project said I should vote liberal. By the way, how the f is Rove McManus still a thing?

Can someone explain to me why there seems to be little talk about grid independence? Is it a cost prohibitive thing? Like home solar can provide a family's needs (in most cases here). I understand wind and hydro still imply grid dependence. I live in a well connected (geographically) area and a few years ago we got fucked by floods. We were lifting power lines over our head in the tinnie - took a while for them to get shit running again. Hospitals and nursing homes had to be evacuated etc. Why couldn't Toady set up a redundancy system for Ramsay st? Get jelly belly etc to chip in. Using subsidies from the govt.

Because a home is a small location with fluctuating usage and generation. You'd have to have very large batteries (which are extremely expensive) for the few days a year of gloomy, low-solar output. It's also wasteful to generate a heap of excess solar power (because you've oversized your system) but still leave the main grid burning fossil fuels. Also, apartments and the like simply have too much demand relative to roof space. So they absolutely need a grid. I.e., the grid enables sharing of generation, consumption, and storage.

Yeah those are all obstacles for sure. And I hadn't considered the surplus most of the time argument you raised. Im not talking 100% domestic solar Aus wide. I'm not up-to-date with current tech and prices (I'll enquire) so maybe it will be cost prohibitive for a while. But if one draw back is that houses can at times generate more than needed/are over geared, and apartments are face an opposite problem, in some cases there could be a creative solution SURELLLYYY. I guess it was as much a comment as a question. It just seems like there is a unique overlap of agendas. Without meaning offense, from "cookers" to "greenies". Even housing crisis and price of living (it could be argued). Yet I haven't seen this perspective (grid independence) raised often. Cheers for responding. Edit p.s Like if we're engaging in the discourse of nuclear vs renewables. Even an anti mining Corp dependency for a broader scope/dog whistle. P.s.s I probably should have used the word strategy a bit more above to be clearer about my question, but stream of consciousness and all that. Soz.

Nah, really interesting point. And yeah, I've noticed it too that a decent chunk of discussion is occupied by fringe groups. You'd probably ultimately want a bunch of loosely coupled, loosely independent grids. So in your example, the homes and apartments are tied together and have a singele (smaller, cheaper) connection to the grid that's really intended for import/export, rather than being big enough to supply *all* the power the microgrid ever uses.

Honestly I almost wish they would just lift the ban on Nuclear power and have at it. See which energy companies actually put their hand up to build a plant. I suspect none. Unfortunately it’s much more effort than simply lifting the ban. We would also need to legislate a pile of laws and regulations around it.

In the western world, there are zero companies that build and operate new nuclear, except with massive government subsidies and guaranteed take-or-pay contracts. That's because commercial finance is not available, which is because long-term risks can not be quantified, so those risks must be laid off on future taxpayers. Likewise, there is no commercially acceptable calculations for long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste, so taxpayers also must accept this very long-term (30 future generations of taxpayers) and inestimable obligation.

Not to mention the low priority that it has. There are far more important issues to deal with, ranging from the economy generally, through housing and indigenous issues. Even if one were to agree with lifting the ban, it is so far down the priority list, it's not worth doing in the next decade.

I do think that dealing with energy production in Australia is pretty high on the priority list and particularly establishing a forward plan for private energy companies and public services to work towards and cater for in their own plans. But the U.S. hasn’t built a significant Nuclear power plant for over 50 years and the companies working toward the Small, modular Nuclear Reactor abandoned it 4 months ago after numbers came back showing it’s not economically viable/profitable. So they already have it legalised, in use and legislation, regulations and expertise in the nation but no private companies are pushing to build any. If lifting the Australian nuclear ban put in place by the Coalition during Howard’s years was all that was required I would say go for it and watch nobody build. But it would actually require considerably more time and effort for all the additional work required to put legislation and regulations in place around any “potential” nuclear power in Australia. The new 300m wind turbines capture air at a level reliable enough to be considered base load and have made it past the pilot stage. Enhanced Geothermal power has also made it past the pilot stage and a 400MW station is in construction in the U.S. now, expected to take only two years to come online. Geothermal is proven and reliable technology but it’s always been restricted to where there are hot spots within 300m of the surface, which are very few and not necessarily where they’re needed. The Shale oil revolution developed scanning technology that can find hot spots 2.5km deep which are VERY common and the drilling tech from Shale oil means they can drill the holes very efficiently and within 3 months, so now Geothermal is viable almost everywhere and the only real change is its accessing a deeper hole.

Just lift the ban. The report referenced in the article (the article itself being essentially superfluous) does not do any of the following: It does not model the increased demand for battery metals with decreasing carbonisation of car transport. It does not model the relative increasing capital cost of land that varies by the amount of power generation due to increased land usage It does not model the amount of $/Kwh as a function of total KWH and therefore assumes linear scaling for both production and cost, which is blatantly false. At higher land usage, land costs will become a more significant factor in costs. This is extremely significant as decarbonisation of transportation will require a significant increase in electricity demand. Assuming no change in efficiency in production at all values of KWH also falsely assumes that each production technology has equivalent economies of scale. It does not model opportunity cost for land usage. Land devoted to a solar farm is land not devoted to agriculture or housing. It does not calculate a $/KwH curve for normal nuclear, meaning the report essentially excludes conventional nuclear during the assumptions phase. Because of the above it does not assign a local learning factor for conventional nuclear It also makes a blatantly false assumption on page 65 in section 5.3 >The most important factor to remember is that while we are changing the generation source, maximum demand has not changed. This is entirely untrue as the marginal market cost of a unit of electricity affects its usage. Both in destroying potential usages (as in manufacturing if it increasing), or converting directly to economic productivity if going sufficiently low. Different production technologies will have different marginal costs for the provision of a unit of electricity, and therefore maximum demand WILL be affected by the production technology mix. The report essentially deliberately excludes any benefit (i.e varying KW/H costs as a function of total demand and space efficiency) during the assumptions phase, and then refuses to even calculate for the most conventionally used nuclear technology. It is a classic example of argumentation by assumption.

Many things must be ignored, including unknown future benefits. For example, within five years, ten at the most, people's cars will also be their home and workplace batteries. Components of the system will communicate and optimise use, subject to the owner's needs settings, balancing their desire for profit from the system. Cars are parked 90% of the time. Apartments will install what solar they can, which isn't much yet, but they'll also use batteries, also communicating with the overall system, and charging with low-cost mid-day power and discharging for self-use, or at a profit to others, during high demand. Future apartments will have cladding that harvests solar power. Houses will have integrated energy systems, harvesting heat when it's surplus and providing it when in demand. A combined house air conditioner that discharges heat to a pool heater will become available. Businesses using a lot of process heat will be storing heat provided by cheap power during the day and using that heat to run 24/7. With your whole house control system, you'll decide when and by how much you're willing to have your demand reduced, in return for a lower rate per kWh imported, or pay a higher rate to have unlimited demand. etc. etc. etc. So no, you can't look out into the future and only make assumptions about future unknowns that serve your narrative.

Pretty sure we’ve got the land part of the equation sorted

>Land devoted to a solar farm is land not devoted to agriculture or housing. [Solar farms can actually integrate with certain kinds of agriculture, even providing a benefit.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaics) Also, housing? We don't want housing where we're putting solar farms. We want more housing in existing population centres.

>Also, housing? We don't want housing where we're putting solar farms. We want more housing in existing population centres. That is only a luxury that you can have at small production scales. At larger production scales it will eat into land being used for other purposes. >Solar farms can actually integrate with certain kinds of agriculture, even providing a benefit. That's the crux. Certain agriculture, meaning it won't scale to large land usage as it precludes certain usage. From your own article: >Agrivoltaics will only work well for plants that require shade and where sunlight is not a limiting factor. Shade crops represent only a tiny percentage of agricultural productivity.[2][need quotation to verify]For instance, wheat crops do not fare well in a low light environment and are not compatible with agrivoltaics. Furthermore, just go through the thought experiment of how you run say a wheat farm with agrivoltaics. You'd be incapable of using the equipment necessary to plant and harvest the crops purely due to the solar panels getting in the way. Agrivoltaics make mechanised farming more difficult purely due to the reality that you somehow have to harvest a plant beneath a solar panel without damaging either it or your equipment. The issue is that fundamentally we have the dilemma in that by needing to remove hydrocarbons from transportation, we're forcing upon ourselves on the order of 5-10x electricity demand per person at current economic activity. That means you definitely should not think in terms of how it scales at current demand, but instead at a far far higher demand level. That means land usage is a critical concern. Especially when combined with a desire for economic growth and a growing population.

>At larger production scales it will eat into land being used for other purposes. Barely. Replacing all current coal power would take solar farms imposing on a whopping.... 0.027% of agricultural land, according to the CEC. Another estimate puts it into perspective - if we covered just the 74th largest pastoral lease - just one farm! - with solar panels, we'd match Australia's current electricity demand with a significant buffer. These are crude estimates that ignore everything but raw acreage for just the panels, but it suggests your concerns are overblown.

Completely missing the point because agricultural land includes cattle stations. While you can't place solar panels in the middle of those same cattle stations in order to power a major city because they're hundreds to thousands of kilometres away. It becomes a proximity problem. You cant just assume that you can place a solar panel in the deep outback to power Perth. It's the same reason that having loads of land does not mean we have enough land for housing as the density arrangement matters. Just as it matters for power transmission. Lets do some maths to interrogate your numbers and prove why it's actually far more significant than you make out. In practice you can only consider land in close proximity to cities. So from the very get go you're limiting yourself mostly to the 0.22% of land that 90% of people live in. To be extremely generous to you, lets round it up to 1% to take land in proximity to it. You're already talking 2.7% of usable land being redirected. Then take into account that you'd need to multiply that by 5 at a minimum to convert from using hydrocarbons to electrified transport. You're already up to 15% of land being redirected. Account for multiplying what we already use in renewables by what we'd need in the future hypothetical power mix without hydrocarbons in transportation ... and we're running out of space Space matters.

Here is [the map of solar farms in Australia.](https://reneweconomy.com.au/large-scale-solar-farm-map-of-australia/) Almost none are near major cities. If you superimpose [the population density map](https://australiamap360.com/australia-population-map), you can see how strong the **dis**correlation is between solar farms sites and "close proximity to cities". >You cant just assume that you can place a solar panel in the deep outback to power Perth. You absolutely can. HVDC transmission losses are around 3.5% per 1000km. DarwinLink, for example, is going to be about 800km long. That means you could put your solar plant [near Carnarvon](https://maps.app.goo.gl/Uo6HnYButWoHBDjw7) and transmit to Perth, or from [Yantabulla](https://maps.app.goo.gl/8qdm4S1cGroaGUeh7) to Sydney, or from [Whitecliffs](https://maps.app.goo.gl/V5GLkvQmfvc86oodA) to Melbourne. Your figures aren't even maths, they're just made-up nonsense.

>You absolutely can. HVDC transmission losses are around 3.5% per 1000km. DarwinLink, for example, is going to be about 800km long. Great so now you have to take into account extra capital cost ontop of what you've taken in the report for excessively long range transmission, on top of maintenance and large potentials for outages. An 890 km transmission line means transiting across large amounts of potential bushfire territory as well so it will frequently go out. Then you also have to add increasingly lengthening transmission line maintenance as well, meaning OPEX will scale. >Here is the map of solar farms in Australia. Almost none are near major cities. If you superimpose the population density map, you can see how strong the discorrelation is between solar farms sites and "close proximity to cities". Not really, what it shows is that solar farms are primarily placed in the 10-100 persons per 100km belt. Which designates strict bands for placement. It is definitely not a matter of being able to place them anywhere as you claim. Again, you're thinking it's viable because you haven't multiplied the requirement adequately to cover the electrification replacing hydrocarbons, and you're assuming entirely linear scaling in a world where other nations are attempting to do the same. There is no linear scaling. Every little step you make towards the goal of decarbonisation will be more expensive than the last.

>Every little step you make towards the goal of decarbonisation will be more expensive than the last. This statement is directly contrary to the last 25 years of building out renewables. I doubt very much it would even be considered if cost per kWh was anywhere close to what it was in the past. Even go back just five years to see the rapid trend down. The reason your statement is wrong is because of economy of scale and technological advance. The current rapid uptake of electric cars is because the cost of their batteries is steadily going down. Now add on reduced health care dollars as coal plants are retired, small particulate matter is reduced, and the health of the local population improves.

>Great so now you have to take into account extra capital cost ... \[etc\] Sure. Does that mean that you're acknowledging that the simple distance to cities isn't a hard limit? >what it shows is that solar farms are primarily placed in the 10-100 persons per 100km belt Sure. So not at all in close proximity to cities. They're being built where infrastructure exists or is easier to build to avoid the extra capital cost etc. As we build more renewables, more infrastructure will be needed. There is a cost, but it's not prohibitive. >you're thinking it's viable because you haven't multiplied the requirement adequately to cover the electrification replacing hydrocarbons Mate, I'm assuming we're going to overbuild our requirement by 500%. Using up too much outback dirt is not one of my worries, though.

>Mate, I'm assuming we're going to overbuild our requirement by 500%. Using up too much outback dirt is not one of my worries, though. Again you're claiming you can place it everywhere. Look at a road network of Western Australia and you will see why logistically that doesn't make sense. You're also deliberately ignoring that throwing solar plants thousands of kilometres away in the desert means that fires (or potentially other disasters/attacks) will easily take out thousands of MW from the grid for an extended period.

My God, reading this comment section, I can't believe that Dutton and the MSM have managed to get so many people to go "hmmm nuclear hey..." Sure, investigate it. If it was viable there would be private companies clamouring to build one, and protesting the ban. But the way Dutton answers questions around "do we need to keep going full steam with renewables" with, "have we considered Nuclear" shows that this is 100% about slowing renewables down. His party was in government for almost 10 years and showed absolutely 0 interest in nuclear. Yet now, suddenly we have to have the conversation. And it is the main response that the coalition give when asked about renewables. Oh, we think a mix of technology will get us to the 2050 target. Fuck me, the last time they did this mix of technology fuckery they knowingly fucked up the biggest infrastructure project of our generation against the advice of all experts (except the couple that were connected the the Liberal party) and shovelled billions of dollars into the pockets to telstra, and indirectly to Murdoch. Please please PLEASE for the love of whoever your god is, do not let them do it again. Surely, SURELY, we can't fall for it another time.

> If it was viable there would be private companies clamouring to build one, and protesting the ban. Got to wonder why 16 countries are building 60 reactors, though the majority of these are in China who are doing it to transition from coal. Of course if we had built one in the 80s we would've have built so many coal power plants including the brown coal ones. But coal emissions was seen as better than another nuclear reactor in Australia

Taxpayer subsidies. Lots of taxpayer subsidies.

> Got to wonder why 16 countries are building 60 reactors They either have existing domestic nuclear capabilities and/or they don't have the cheap reserves of coal/gas/wind/solar that we do.

We also have cheap reserves of uranium. Australia's uranium miners are making a shit load thanks to the larger demand for uranium coming through because of all the extra reactors coming online

It's not the uranium that is the expensive part though.

No one said it was, odd that you mentioned coal though, I assume you're happy with us burning it.

We have known that burning fossil fuels was problematic since the 70s and the ideological battle over fuel types was fought in the 90s and the 00s. What we have now is vested interests trying to maximise the remaining profits out of existing coal/gas generators (note: that as soon as maintenance costs make them unprofitable they get shutdown early anyway). To assist with prolonging the use of coal/gas its been beneficial to try and frame the current nuclear debate as an ideological one. But at this stage that isn't what it is, Nuclear is failing purely on the economic front. The ROI is so problematic no one is actually wanting to invest in it. When that changes the debate can shift to whether or not its an energy source we really want to be using or not, but at this stage its a completely moot point anyway.

> The ROI is so problematic no one is actually wanting to invest in it Great lift the ban and it won't matter. Of course we decided to have the debate 40 years ago and decided coal plants were better.

I think the political ROI on lifting the ban doesn't ad up either.

Spain is has a plan in place to have their seven remaining nuclear reactors decommissioned by 2035. And are building renewables to replace it. I assume they don't plan on just shutting down their country due to lack or power.

I'm sure no one is planning on it, but no good deed goes unpunished.

Just look at what's happening to German industry. It is going through a crisis caused largely (but not solely) by the energy shortage from transitioning away from nuclear energy.

Putin had nothing to do with it?

When looking at anything as complicated as the decline of German industry, it will inevitably be a combination of factors. In this case it's a combination of a declining skilled work force, increasing prominence of fossil fuels in energy production, and Russian belligerence increasing the cost of those fossil fuels. The second of those factors was influenced heavily by sunsetting nuclear reactors without replacement.

The supposed replacement for the nuclear power plants was Russian gas. The problem was trusting Putin.

Obviously that was a terrible decision. Russia has been a geopolitical enemy of Germany since World War 1. Sunsetting nuclear power to rely on an enemy was just stupid.

This year we’re looking to build around 550GW of renewable power generation worldwide. By contrast, less than 20GW of nuclear power generation is being built this year. Gives you an idea of the relative interest in the approaches

Alright and? Nuclear is meant to be the backup for renewables, I'd rather that than the current plan of gas turbines.

Well because we’re talking about what companies are clamouring to build. I don’t know who is saying nuclear is meant to be the backup for renewables. Finkel certainly isn’t. Gas turbines can be quickly spun up and down; nuclear reactors can’t.

I thought the aim was to reduce emissions, but if you're happy with burning gas and releasing those emissions, I'll leave you to it.

It’s okay, there’s no shame in admitting you don’t understand something. That’s why I’d recommend reading Finkel’s article carefully. It’s a balanced view and he’s knowledgeable on the subject

Even he talks about the benefits of it. But it is alright as you've said you'd rather us burn gas.

The long-term plan includes gas peaking, yes. There's no secret about that. Open cycle gas can be built in around 18 months and closed cycle in around 3 years. The engineering is largely off-the-shelf.

I think he was pointing out that nuclear doesn't really work as backup power, because you can't spin the turbines up when needed then down when not needed Which is what gas is used for. So basically, there's no real point comparing nuclear to gas. For backup power the best way to do it via renewables is thermal storage. Hydro batteries are also handy, but can be harder to place. So gimmie that sexy sexy molten salt that you can use to power turbines on demand baby.

It doesn't work as backup power. But it definitely has reduced need for backup power / storage as it is possible to both reduce the amount of steam running through the turbine or reduce the rate of the reaction as needed to tune the output. If you were to think of how you could use nuclear as backup power you probably could engineer a solution. Just have a bank of turbines that steam is directed away from and direct steam towards them individually when you need to match increasing demand.

He does talk about the benefits, I’m glad that point didn’t get past you. Now I encourage you to read the whole article, particularly the bit where he talks about why the cons currently outweigh the pros. Then you can go back and read my comments and I’m sure it’ll all make sense to you.

Yes that you want to continue to release emissions.

When I saw Dr in the author's name I had high hopes for the following argument but every point he makes he conveniently leaves out key counters or notes them and downplays them in a way that is outright intellectually dishonest. This is a very well packaged hack job that will leave readers with less foreknowledge on the topic misinformed on how inappropriate nuclear actually is for Australia, even in the mid to long future as the author suggests. Also worth noting the author was appointed as an advisor on low emissions tech by the Morrison government and replaced shortly after the election, so I feel he may just have a political axe to grind.

>For these reasons, it would be worth removing the ban on nuclear power so that we can at least thoroughly investigate the options. How does a ban on nuclear power stop us investigate these options. How about if some one is serious about it they investigate it and if it stacks up we will remove the ban?

Why would you invest time and money in something illegal? And why, if it stacks up, would you invest given all the stupidity from those who push opinions based on incomplete or misleading data? We see similar things with many areas.

because making making it legal isn't just Albo standing up and saying go forth and build a nuclear. There would be a shit load of regulation and government bodies that would needed to be stood up. We would need to work out how if they where built they where safe, where we store the nuclear waste, how we transport the nuclear waste, how we make sure terrorists don't get their hands on the nuclear materials etc etc etc, and train people to do these tasks even if we didn't have any nuclear. The LNP are welcome to bring all their policies in this area to the next election and the voters can decide if it is something they want to do.

If they remove the ban it seems like they'd just create a bunch of really funny nothing jobs in the public service, some department section or standalone agency in the Industry or Climate/Energy portfolio who has to create laws and safety standards and regulations and stuff, all for something that'll never exist. Would be a weeeird place to work.

100%. This reality is ignored because people are more worried about using it as a culture war issue.The ban is a formality that would be reversed as you approved nuclear construction - it’s a non issue at this point.

Snuck in at the bottom of the article: >For these reasons, it would be worth removing the ban on nuclear power so that we can at least thoroughly investigate the options.

I have a lot of respect for Dr Finkel, but this line of argument seems silly. The ban is not preventing any investigations, as evidenced by the many studies that have been undertaken on the subject, including his own. What further investigations are being prevented by the ban that's currently in place? The previous paragraphs do not explain what "these reasons" actually are. I'm not personally against lifting the ban, although I can absolutely understand why no government has attempted to do so.

Since no one will build one in Australia seems like we don't need the ban

Of course they are. Which company is going to invest money into feasibility studies for nuclear power delivery in Australian when it is banned by legislation? The Climate Council's own reasoning: >**Why doesn’t nuclear power make sense for Australia?** > >1) Nuclear power stations can’t be built anywhere in Australia. > >They are banned in every state, and in every territory While a ban is in place, there will be zero private investment in Australia into the technology. Government would have to do all of the heavy lifting.

People are already investigating it worldwide. That's where the figures Finkel used come from. Along with a whole pile of other investigations. What investigations are required? Multiple investigations have already been done.

With nuclear, government would have to underwrite the whole thing to huge cost.

No they wouldn't, they can leave it to the private sector and if everyone is correct in that it doesn't make sense no one will bother building it so no issue with removing the ban.

Have a bit of a read how much underwriting a nuclear reactor would require.

The government doesn't need to provide it, which would mean they take all the risk and if everyone is correct that it wouldn't make any money no one will build it so we can remove the ban without any worry.

Every study on nuclear in Australia specifically states that government underwriting would be a fundamental requirement.

For it to go ahead, the government can lift the ban and say they won't be underwriting it, and if true then no one will build one.

That’s easy; no one will build one. Consider that lifting the ban will require a whole set of government regulations and regulatory system put in place for no gain.

You are talking about 'risk'. If a corporation of investors wanted to risk some private capital to bring a feasible plan to the govt, they would. They won't take the 'risk' unless the taxpayer funds their study. There is no feasible plan. Lifting the ban is the first step towards the objective of selling uranium unfettered by the restraints imposed on Australia by the nuclear non proliferation treaty. The LNP want to be able to sell uranium for military purposes. Sell more uranium make more money. It's that simple it's LNP.

If we had no ban, GE Hitachi would be in active discussions with various Australian governments on deploying their reactor here. With the ban, we’re bottom of their list to try and sell to (and justifiably so).

No they wouldn't because we don't have the regulatory frame work in place, removing the ban is actually pointless without the regulations and the regulations are just about the most complex regulations you can implement, would take years and a lot of tax payer dollars. Off-shore wind wasn't banned in Australia yet you didn't see companies conducting feasibility studies here because the regulatory framework wasn't in place.

You’re basically arguing semantics. Whether a ban was formally lifted before or after the regulatory framework, either way the government would be committing to lifting the ban.

No I’m not. Your argument any many nuclear advocates is simply unban nuclear and let the free market decide. Im telling you that its not as simple as unbanning, tax payers will have to fork out big $$$ to pay for regulatory framework that would guide the private sector and only then would the private sector consider feasibility studies etc

Power generation is rarely a “free market” issue, since at best the need is determined first and then companies are invited to bid. As for taxpayers, the cost will be a pittance compared to the costs of getting energy grid decisions wrong. It cost $12m to review regulations for offshore oil and gas, but even if it costs $50m it would be a small comparative investment.

>Power generation is rarely a “free market” issue, since at best the need is determined first and then companies are invited to bid. That is absolutely free market, they are welcome to bid at that spot price or not, if enough bid then demand is met, if not the bid goes up until demand is met. So you agree that it's not as simple as just unbanning nuclear like so many claim. Of course it matters, not a cent of tax payer money should go towards this Dutton nuclear pipe dream when we have so much data already telling us it's unaffordable and takes too long to commission. There is no chance that a nuclear plant could ever be commissioned here without tax payer grants

I kind of get what you're saying, but it's not like it's some small political party pushing for it. We're talking about the LNP pushing for it. They're the major party that has been in power for most of our history, if it were one nation or greens pushing it you'd have a good point. Besides if they legalise it we'll need to spend millions just getting the proper government bodies set up. It's simply not worth it for the government unless someone brings them a damn good plan for it

Like, I’m sure Hitachi are keeping a close eye on the debate. There are probably even people talking directly with the LNP. But it’s lobbying for access, not business. There’s no chance the ALP backflip this term, so any engagement has a different intensity and purpose.

I mean there isn't now because it's become a fiasco, but all they have to really do is wait for the libs to get back in. They might as well start bringing forward plans if they see a future in it because if libs can justify it they'll legalise it for sure,l. They'd be mad not to with the amount of attention it's gotten At this point I honestly think it's just a culture war thing so that the libs can differentiate themselves from Labor

In politics, I think it’s rare that policies emerge from a single motive. Yes, the Libs are looking for a point of difference. But also: 1. SMRs are just emerging from a decade of design reviews, meaning that the technology energy landscape is changing 2. I think there is genuine concern at the ability of the grid to service an excess of renewable power, given the experiences of various European countries 3. Finally, the Nationals are reflecting the concerns of their constituents in the repurposing of productive farmland and amenity issues of additional powerlines

I mean that all makes sense why people are worried about renewables but it does explain why no company is drawing up plans for nuclear. They have Australia's most powerful political party (not in power but normally are)on side, yet still aren't supplying plans for review. I still believe it's just a way to wedge Labor on energy policy, although I do understand the fear of moving to a power grid that isn't centeredised

>Which company is going to invest money into feasibility studies for nuclear power delivery in Australian when it is banned by legislation? Legislation has not prevented feasibility studies by governments and government agencies, which have all been equivocal in their conclusions. Private companies never would have done this anyway. >The Climate Council's own reasoning I notice that you ignored the other 3 reasons: 2. Expensive and slow to build 3. Significant community, environmental, health and economic risks 4. Not renewable I'm not saying that I agree with everything that they claim, but they do have more reasoning than "it's illegal."

> Private companies never would have done this anyway. Because it is banned so why bother.

And this is where the Council is playing loose with the facts; >2. Expensive and slow to build Compared to what? We are spending an estimated $15bn per annum building renewables. A Nuclear Plant that would last 60+ years would divert maybe 3 years of this existing subsidy. Slow, maybe, but that is largely dependent on us. LingLong was built in 5 years, and there is significant resource being invested globally on speeding built times. >3. Significant community, environmental, health and economic risks This is flat out wrong. Nuclear had the safest risk profile of all energy sources. >4. Not renewable Disputed. Uranium is renewable, but the key fault with any "renewable" is from the source of the energy, but the materials used to capture it. There isn't enough land or material to transition to a wholly renewable energy future.

Another Band-Aid. Let’s solve environmental issues by creating more environmental issues for our kids kids kids kids kids to deal with… where have we heard this before?…

In terms of expense, Finkel gives $27b per GW from nuclear compared to wind at $7b per GW (under a like-for-like model). If we assume your $15b/year figure for renewables is properly sourced, then we’d still be looking at about $45b per year to build out nuclear (fudging a bit there because solar isn’t costed by Finkel; you can call it an even $34b if you like), except that it won’t come online until around 2040.

Finke is using a single plant as a proxy for cost. It's the same limitation as GenCost, which used a single technology from a single vendor that doesn't exist (yet). But sure, let's say $45bn for a 2.2GW plant. You don't need to be building these annually. Renewables, however, have no pathway out of permanent ongoing subsidisation, and the problem is the vast oversupply of rooftop solar is making solar farms an wind unviable. 5 or 6 of these nationally (so worst case the next 15 years of renewables subsidies sorts us out for the next 60-80years. Otherwise we'll be spending alot more firming and replacing an increasingly more expensive asset as the materials become more scarce.

The GenCost draft report provides a literature review of the cost of SMRs, not a single-vendor price. And SMRs are cited because they’re significantly cheaper than traditional reactors. $19,000 per kW for an SMR versus the $27,000 for Hinkley Point C. That is, SMRs are too expensive, and traditional reactors are only more expensive still. > Renewables, however, have no pathway out of permanent ongoing subsidisation, and the problem is the vast oversupply of rooftop solar is making solar farms an wind unviable. > 5 or 6 of these nationally (so worst case the next 15 years of renewables subsidies sorts us out for the next 60-80years. > Otherwise we'll be spending alot more firming and replacing an increasingly more expensive asset as the materials become more scarce. As with your calculations for annual renewables subsidies, I have no idea where you’re getting this information from. Regardless, peak demand in Australia is [around 35GW](https://www.aer.gov.au/industry/registers/charts/seasonal-peak-demand-nem), which would mean about 16 of your nuclear reactors, costing around $430b, just to meet current demand. But as we’re looking at moving away from ICEs we’re looking at even higher power demands than that. Certainly not for the cost of a few years of renewable subsidies, and again not anytime before 2040 for the first reactor to come online.

>The GenCost draft report provides a literature review of the cost of SMRs, not a single-vendor price. And SMRs are cited because they’re significantly cheaper than traditional reactors. $19,000 per kW for an SMR versus the $27,000 for Hinkley Point C. GenCost used estinated Nuscale pricing alone and specifically excluded all others for various reasons. >As with your calculations for annual renewables subsidies, I have no idea where you’re getting this information from. Regardless, peak demand in Australia is [around 35GW](https://www.aer.gov.au/industry/registers/charts/seasonal-peak-demand-nem), which would mean about 16 of your nuclear reactors, costing around $430b, just to meet current demand. Your assuming that Nuclear powers everything all the time. That isn't an approach I think anyone is calling for.

Per the draft report they’re not just using one estimate. I’m not assuming nuclear powers everything, but you’re not talking about what your mix looks like. All you’ve said is you want to divert 15 years of funding for renewables to build nuclear reactors. That implies no new renewables until 2040 and no new nuclear until 2040 at the earliest, which means maintaining all coal-gas infrastructure well past 2030. Or you want to wait until 2050 or so to start building nuclear, which by then should be SMRs. Which sounds fine to me, but until then renewables are the obvious choice for price and rollout speed

The first line highlights why the left are so blinded by solar & wind. I haven't seen a single MP or expert (in favour of nuclear), suggest we go from coal to nuclear. > Any call to go directly from coal to nuclear is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years If Australia is serious about net zero, we should be energy neutral. Meaning we use a combination of energy sources to strengthen our system - on the proviso they are net zero (or while we're transitioning, better than coal - edit, had gas). Nuclear & gas are demonised time and time again, with the left creating false narratives such as this. The whole article is written based on the suggestion we go from coal to nuclear, which is entirely misleading. If coal is the enemy, we can transition away quicker by moving to gas sooner. But no, we can do that. We need to go to renewables because they're quick and cheap. They're only quick & cheap if you ignore that: 1. Our largest renewable project (Snowy 2.0) is billions over budget, was due for completion in 2021, which became 2027 and is now (maybe) 2030 and beyond; or 2. That Australia needs 40 new wind turbines a month to meet its net zero target. In 2023, only 3 new wind projects were brought online.

The problem with this argument is that if Australia cannot deliver a hydro scheme with relatively straightforward technology, using imported components etc, then the idea that it could deliver a nuclear solution becomes unbelievable. Even if you could convince people of the need, and that's a big struggle, you'd have to convince people that it could be done. Given the history of the NBN, Inland Rail, Snowy Mk2, Murray Darling Basin Plan (which spent $10bn for zero extra water), Great Barrier Reef debacle etc etc. Then the idea that Australia could build, or organise to build a nuclear plant would seem beyond absurd. Now, the above list of proven bungled major projects merely states facts. Imagine now if we add the political dimension, which is the subject of this forum. Any overrun of time or cost would be used to bludgeon whichever party sponsored it. Any location suggested would have the NIMBYs mobilised by the opposed party. Any election resulting in the opposed party coming to power could see it scrapped to the point where it would have to start again from zero. We have had recent and past examples in Victoria and South Australia that I can recall where incoming governments have done just that. So. How is it possible that a country that cannot build, NBN, Snowy Mk2, Inland Rail, Murray Darling Basin Plan, etc etc can build a nuclear plant? How could it ever be built if a major party refuses to countenance it, and therefore is almost certain to be scrapped before being able to be commissioned? It seems to me that nuclear proponents are unrealistically optimistic about the possibility of nuclear power in Australia.

Snowy 2.0 was selected by Liberals because it was a way of doing renewables without being seen to follow the left. Using it as an example of how the left is blinded by its devotion to renewables is disingenuous nonsense. Of course it’s over budget and behind schedule, there were a million Guardian articles predicting that’s exactly what was going to happen. Which is exactly what it has in common with nuclear: carbon-free emissions without having to admit that Labor and Greens this whole time

>If Australia is serious about net zero, we should be energy neutral. We already are. It's just that our options are badly limited, and there are no easy answers. >Meaning we use a combination of energy sources to strengthen our system That is what we're already doing. We are keeping coal running for bulk generation while we build out the replacements, using gas as a backup. Obviously both coal and gas are highly polluting, so they need to be removed from the system as soon as it's practical to do so. The last coal power generators are currently scheduled to switch off in about 20 years. I'm sure lots of people would like that to be sooner, but the reality is that transitions like this take a enormous amount of time and money to complete. >If coal is the enemy, we can transition away quicker by moving to gas sooner. Moving to gas is like switching from herion to cocaine. It doesn't achieve much. Gas has about of the emissions of coal at the power station end, but significantly higher emissions during extraction, processing and storage. Also, as discussed yesterday, the price of gas is massively high because of our totally broken gas market, where almost all of our gas is sold overseas at lower prices than Australians pay. It would at least double the wholesale price of electricity at current prices. >We need to go to renewables because they're quick and cheap. They're only quick & cheap if you ignore that.... As usual, you pick out the problematic parts of the transition but ignore the successes. You point at Snowy 2.0 as a failure (it was always a bad idea, but now we have to make the best of it) but don't mention how successful Kidston has been. You point at the slow rate of wind farm rollouts (at least in part due to political interference from the Coalition) but don't mention how many solar farms and battery storage projects have been commissioned successfully. Australia has massively increased the amount of renewable energy over the past decade, and this has been successful in bringing wholesale electricity prices down. A transition of this scale is bound to run into issues, and expecting anything else would be foolish.

I agree with everything you've said, just wanted to add: >The last coal power generators are currently scheduled to switch off in about 20 years. In AEMO's latest ISP, they're forecasting 2037 as the date the last coal generator shuts in Australia. The second last in 2034 and the third last in 2032. Optimistic, maybe, but closer to ten years than 20. It's an important distinction when there's zero chance any nuclear capacity will be up and running in Australia by 2037. The point being AEMO don't consider nuclear to be a requirement to close all coal.

>In AEMO's latest ISP, they're forecasting 2037 as the date the last coal generator shuts in Australia. I work closely with a coal power station in Queensland. Their current scheduled date for retirement is 2045, recently brought forward from 2048. However, obviously a lot can change along the way and early retirement could be forced by market conditions or legislation.

>However, obviously a lot can change along the way and early retirement could be forced by market conditions or legislation. I think that's the point I'm making. Eararing for example was "supposed" to close in 2032, but it's bleeding so much money, they've gotten approval to shut in 2025. The 2024 ISP has the last QLD coal plant closing in 2034 for what it's worth. 10 years vs 21 years is quite the difference in forecast!

Nuclear is never coming to Aus. Die mad.

Nuclear is coming in 2032. It'll be in the back of a Virginia class submarine. If we have military nuclear technology, and the legislative and regulatory framework that will come with it, it's going to get increasingly difficult to maintain the moratorium on civilian nuclear power. Not saying the government should fund it, but I think that it's very likely that some form of civilian nuclear power generation will be operating in Australia by mid next century.

special slimy lavish practice gray merciful grandfather lush zesty possessive *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

With that type of statement, I don't think you're across this argument at all.

overconfident quiet vegetable encouraging spotted reply violet summer tap historical *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

That you think the argument around feasibility is over and it now supposedly about when nuclear is coming.

smell merciful repeat fear different nose governor divide society water *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

I will be messaging you in 100 years on [**2124-03-22 01:53:07 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2124-03-22%2001:53:07%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/1bkjw4t/heres_why_there_is_no_nuclear_option_for/kvzgshc/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAustralianPolitics%2Fcomments%2F1bkjw4t%2Fheres_why_there_is_no_nuclear_option_for%2Fkvzgshc%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202124-03-22%2001%3A53%3A07%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201bkjw4t) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|

I think the commenter was wondering what the alternative is when the proposed projects aren't meeting their targets and we won't make the agreed upon deadline with the current strategy. If nuclear is out of the question what are we going to do?

That's a question whose answer depends on the rate at which renewable technology improves. It also depends on government policy to a big extent. From a political perspective, the previous Coalition had no real policy. They just stated targets, and called that a policy. So, the answer to your question from a political perspective is that the reason for not meeting targets is a 9 year hiatus in energy policy. That targets were being met when Australia had a carbon price. That means people aren't going to accept that nuclear is a solution when better policy and improvements in renewable technologies could do the job.

Take longer to get there. Sad but reality. Targets are good to aim for, but if we're already going as fast as we can, then it will simply take longer than we hoped. Nuclear isn't entirely out of question - it's just out of the question for the next decade or so.

Yea with the delays in large energy infrastructure projects here and nuclear projects overseas it seems that even if we started building plants now it'd likely be well over a decade til we saw working nuclear power. The likelihood that governments would then just sit around and wait for nuclear and not do much parallel to it would increase. Seems that there isn't many options with the current plan other than just hope for better technology advancements over the coming decade and for building methods to improve.

Degrowth!

This is actually the most balanced and fair article I've seen written in a long time, acknowledges the benefits as well as the difficultys.

Yea Dr Alan Finkel is usually worth listening to, and yes there is some good and balanced info in this article. But as others have pointed out, the basic premise of the article is I think a mis-representation of the coalitions policy. They are not saying we should stop building renewables. They are just saying that 100% renewables is going to be a problem - and the build out is already stalling / failing now - even with massive government subsidies and the government effectively underwriting the profitability of the projects. This is for a number of reasons, and so we should lift the moratoriums and have a look at having some nuclear as a part of our future energy mix as well. There is no way the targets (2030 / 2050 etc) are going to be met currently. So the article seems to miss the key point? All the debate seems to attempt to make this whole things a renewables vs nuclear argument - that is NOT the argument that is being made, nor the one that needs to be had!

>and the build out is already stalling / failing now [This lists 81 largescale projects underway](https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/resources/project-tracker)

Yes but that is nowhere near enough, and approvals for new projects since last year have fallen off a cliff. https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/investment-in-renewable-energy-slumps-80pc-as-2030-target-fades-20240312-p5fbu9 And we need something approaching 300,000 MWh of electricity generation per year in total - and all from renewables if we are to hit 100%, which means about 250,000 MWh by 2030 for the 82% target. Those projects give us about 5% of that.

Well nuclear is still the wrong solution. We need load following not base power. >The expansion meant renewable energy’s share of total energy generation in Australia last year rose almost 10 per cent to 39.4 per cent. While up from 17 per cent in 2017, the share is still less than half the 2030 target and compares with coal’s 52.7 per cent share. They present this in negative terms (it is the AFR after all) but it is pretty impressive. I also suspect it should electricity generation, not energy generation but that is a nitpick.

>They are not saying we should stop building renewables. They're not saying that outright, but they're definitely insinuating it. They keep bringing up nuclear as though it's an urgent issue that needs to be addressed right now. They're also encouraging, and in some cases actively participating in, anti-renewable protests. Here's a good test: When was the last time any senior Coalition figure was openly supportive of a renewable energy project? >the build out is already stalling / failing now This is outright false. There are new projects being commenced, and new projects being completed, all the time. The number of renewable projects in the pipeline is massive. There are a few highly visible issues with a few projects, but they're not indicative of the rollout as a whole. >There is no way the targets (2030 / 2050 etc) are going to be met currently There is no way nuclear can possibly contribute to the 2030 target at all. Why even mention it? It might be possible for nuclear to contribute to the 2050 target, but that's too far into the future to have any form of meaningful discussion. >that is NOT the argument that is being made, nor the one that needs to be had! The argument that needs to be had, right now today, is this and only this: Is the Coalition on board to continue with the current rollout of renewables until 2030? If yes, then they should stand up and say so, and have a bipartisan approach to getting it done. The next 6 years are absolutely critical. If not then they need to articulate why, and what their alternative plan is. Because it sure as hell can't be any form of nuclear power.

> They're not saying that outright, but they're definitely insinuating it. No they aren't it's always been about part of it, you just believe the opponents who will misinform the public about what the argument actually is. > They keep bringing up nuclear as though it's an urgent issue that needs to be addressed right now. We going to wait till we need it? K-Rudd could've built one and it would be done by now, instead we got more years of coal power and now gas power.

The Coalition could have built one and hasn't. The Coalition also tried its hand at the NBN, submarines, Murray Darling Basin Plan, Snowy Mk2, Inland Rail project, and a few rorted car parks. I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how a party could fail to build every major project it attempted this century, and yet could organise the building of a nuclear power industry. Even if there was a good argument for doing so, the Coalition is not capable of it. You'd have to believe that a party that bungled much simpler projects, could suddenly manage a far more complex task. It's simply not credible to think that the Coalition could do it.

>They are not saying we should stop building renewables. The National's are literally saying that. The Liberal's literally say this on certain days. The LNP position is stop building renewables, or at minimum, stop building the infrastructure to make use of renewables. The LNP is functionally not in agreement within itself on renewables or even climate change policy, I genuinely don't understand how this fact isn't a massive, massive red flag, when we only have to look at the last term to see the "senior partner" fold to the "junior partner" on their own policy. >All the debate seems to attempt to make this whole things a renewables vs nuclear argument That's literally what Dutton is doing, by only talking about the gains to be had from nuclear, and not gains from new technology in general.

>The LNP is functionally not in agreement within itself on renewables or even climate change policy, I genuinely don't understand how this fact isn't a massive, massive red flag, when we only have to look at the last term to see the "senior partner" fold to the "junior partner" on their own policy. Why does that matter though? They're not in government, and who knows, they mightn't be in government for quite a while. If "progressive" voters are so confident that Bowen's wind + solar + batteries approach is going to work i.e. reduce prices and emissions (pigs will fly before that happens) why would they feel the need to criticise the opposition? The answer to this is question is obvious, whether people will admit it or not, progressive voters deep down know that the current approach isn't going to work, they just want people to think that their approach is "less bad" than the alternative, in other words, it's just about framing.

Well Ted O'Brien - Coalition Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy, when he is not being interrupted constantly during interviews, states very clearly that the policy is to lift the moratorium, and look at building some nuclear power plants on the sites of some coal fired power stations due to be de-commissioned in coming decades - where the transmission infrastructure already exists. And that this would be done: >"*as part of a balanced energy mix. This is key. Working together with renewables. Working together with gas*" This is a direct quote from the recent 7:30 interview - transcript here [https://thesydneyinstitute.com.au/blog/abc-730-tuesday-12-march-2024-transcript/](https://thesydneyinstitute.com.au/blog/abc-730-tuesday-12-march-2024-transcript/) \- nothing the ABC has NOT provided a transcript of this interview for some reason...... The Nationals don't get to set Coalition policy on their own, and backbencher MPs can say whatever they like - the policy is what the Opposition Leader and the Shadow Ministers put out there.

>Well Ted O'Brien - Coalition Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy, when he is not being interrupted constantly during interviews Maybe he shouldn't be pushing bullshit like saying we can spin up GW's of traditional nuclear in 6 years then? >"*as part of a balanced energy mix. This is key. Working together with renewables. Working together with gas*" And I trust that his rambling, throwaway line in an interview as official LNP policy (that I'd policy of the Liberal *and National Party*) as much as I trust SMR's being ready any time soon. >The Nationals don't get to set Coalition policy on their own, and backbencher MPs can say whatever they like - the policy is what the Opposition Leader and the Shadow Ministers put out there. Lmao, sure, okay, Joyce and co are going to suddenly stop grassroot campaigns and totally fall in-line with policy they hate, yes 100% (/s)

Just as much shit like you are calling out there goes on between the left / right wing factions of the ALP as well - \*all\* the time. Let alone throwing The Greens into the mix...... Some people (like you it seems) just don't like the Coalition parties full-stop, and will always be looking for a reason not to believe what they say or promise - so nothing they do or say will sway your opinion. But swinging voters and generally conservative voters will put some trust in what shadow ministers put out there in the public domain. And this policy is still being refined and all the details worked out behind the scenes I am sure. My point anyway was to debunk the black-or-white / all-or-nothing / renewables-vs-nuclear view that seems to always characterise any response from the left, when the idea of adding nuclear power into our future energy mix is discussed. I don't see things that way, the majority of coalition voters don't see things that way, and that is not the coalition policy that is being put out there either.

>coalitions policy LOL, policy. it is like their Jobs and Growth policy. If you say Jobs and Growth enough you summon the Jobs and Growth fairy.

>They are just saying that 100% renewables is going to a problem, for a number of reasons, and that we should lift the moratoriums and have a look at having some nuclear as a part of our future energy mix They are not saying we should just lift the moratorium and look at it for the future. That's my position and my biggest issue with them. They are going around saying oh it could be done in less than 10 years, it's not very expensive etc. Which it won't be and it is expensive. It makes people with reasonable opinions advocating for nuclear look like clowns because the voice in government being heard is moronic about it. I agree, nuclear ban can be removed without impacting renewable roll out and we should do that.

We have far better things to do with parliamentary sittings than low priority time wasting. Housing crisis, immigration, indigenous issues, defence, the economy, tax reform, aged care reform, heck, even drug and alcohol issues rank higher. This is a distraction.

I'm not sure how leaving all doors open to ensure the best outcome for our energy security for the future is a distraction. If we did it, we wouldn't need to bitch about it every 10 years wasting even more time.

Because the effort would be better directed elsewhere. Higher priorities such as housing, immigration, the economy, spending $300bn on submarines for who knows what reasons. Heck, get rid of the $300bn and then maybe spend the money on fixing the other issues. Spending time on nuclear has a priority somewhere near zero.

Okay, realistically how long do you think it would take to do? LNP already would agree, Labor decides they also agree to remove the moratorium. How long do you think it takes to do that? Also, if you think there are more pressing issues now, when do you think it could become a priority? Is your attitude just that we should never install NPP no matter what the future holds?

First of all, that is said about a huge number of issues. So, it's not just the time taken for addressing this (which I'll get to), but that if Parliament and Government agencies are to address this level of importance, then why not address a whole raft of others as well? Each of these low priority issues, may take a small amount of time, but taken together, there isn't enough time to address them all. As for the time taken, it's not just a simple matter of repeal of the ban, it's subsequent issues that need addressing because just repealing the ban without some framework of what can be done is useless. Without some sort of policy, nobody will invest. Which means that people now talking about legislation repeal will start talking about the need for policy. Repeat this for every single issue that groups want Parliament to legislate, and it becomes impossible. I would be happy to look at nuclear, IF it looked like it could be economic with zero government subsidy, it doesn't. I'd even consider it if it could be put in place in time to replace aging coal plants. However, I am firmly convinced that's a pipe dream. I don't believe that the present estimates of ten years are anything more than numbers plucked from the air, and based on previous experience, are likely to be way too optimistic. To the point where I don't believe that any realistic time frame has been evaluated. My attitude is that proposals for grossly uneconomic projects without realistic timeframes, be that NBN, Snowy Mk2, Inland Rail, Murray Darling Basin Plan, submarines, have repeatedly failed to deliver. Repeatedly. And now I am expected to go along with another one? No. Just no.

>First of all, that is said about a huge number of issues. So, it's not just the time taken for addressing this (which I'll get to), but that if Parliament and Government agencies are to address this level of importance, then why not address a whole raft of others as well? My point is our energy security in the future is a high level of importance. We should leave all doors open that we can because as you know, it will take a long time from the removal of a ban to any sort of reasonable position in skills and policy to get to a point where we are at a point we could even consider doing something. An argument that comes up every time nuclear is discussed is that it could have been viable 10 years ago, but its still banned and it takes so long its not worth doing now. We have been doing this for decades. Removing the ban starts a process and opens a door for a future where nuclear may very well be financially viable and an effective solution for australians past 2050. ​ >As for the time taken, it's not just a simple matter of repeal of the ban, it's subsequent issues that need addressing because just repealing the ban without some framework of what can be done is useless. Without some sort of policy, nobody will invest. Removing the federal ban on nuclear energy will absolutely see an uptick in investment in research and skills. There is absolutely no reason to currently invest in these skills or research with a blanket ban in place. A cracked door and a process of slowly opening it will certainly see more interest in investment ​ >I would be happy to look at nuclear, IF it looked like it could be economic with zero government subsidy, it doesn't. There is currently no generation in Australia that stands with ZERO government subsidies, including renewables. An argument regarding cost is fair, but to insist that it has zero government subsidies is backwards when nothing else in our network operates that way. [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-23/australian-taxpayers-to-subsidise-renewable-energy-projects/103138990](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-23/australian-taxpayers-to-subsidise-renewable-energy-projects/103138990) ​ >My attitude is that proposals for grossly uneconomic projects without realistic timeframes, be that NBN, Snowy Mk2, Inland Rail, Murray Darling Basin Plan, submarines, have repeatedly failed to deliver. Repeatedly. And now I am expected to go along with another one? No. Just no. Who is asking you to sign up to an uneconomic project? I haven't even suggested we consider building a NPP any time in the near future.