The Nuclear debate

[QuietB]

They already have nailed the solution. Renewables with batteries is now a cheaper option then fossil files. The technology is already commercial.

It just takes time to turn over the existing capital stock because sunk capital is free.

And that begs the question why are we talking about nuclear?

 

[Seeds]

And that begs the question why are we talking about nuclear?

We shouldnt be talking about it. At all. It costs more and has the most destructive tail risks that everyone continues to ignore.

 

[Seeds]

They already have nailed the solution. Renewables with batteries is now a cheaper option then fossil files. The technology is already commercial.

It just takes time to turn over the existing capital stock because sunk capital is free.

I should add that at the rate solar and battery prices continue to fall even the sunk cost argument isnt going to hold water much more.

I.e within the next 5 years it may be cheaper to bulldoze existing fossil fuel plants and replace them with new renewable set ups because the levelised cost of electricity from renewables will soon be cheaper than just the short run operating costs of fossil fuel plants alone.

 

[peetoo]

Saw underwater tidal generators on TV which look like compact wind generators.

Very predictable generation based on tides.

Congo river would be awesome 4 knots that beast


Got me thinking, tides in part based on rotation of earth, as is wind.

Imagine if we could tap the rotation of the earth directly? Wouldn’t have the first idea myself

 

[QuietB]

I should add that at the rate solar and battery prices continue to fall even the sunk cost argument isnt going to hold water much more.

I.e within the next 5 years it may be cheaper to bulldoze existing fossil fuel plants and replace them with new renewable set ups because the levelised cost of electricity from renewables will soon be cheaper than just the short run operating costs of fossil fuel plants alone.

And the old fossil fuel plants are becoming increasingly expensive to keep running as they are on their last legs.

 

[QuietB]

Saw underwater tidal generators on TV which look like compact wind generators.

Very predictable generation based on tides.

Congo river would be awesome 4 knots that beast


Got me thinking, tides in part based on rotation of earth, as is wind.

Imagine if we could tap the rotation of the earth directly? Wouldn’t have the first idea myself

Put a big (huge) cog around the earth, another meeting it around the moon, voila

 

[Seeds]

Saw underwater tidal generators on TV which look like compact wind generators.

Very predictable generation based on tides.

Congo river would be awesome 4 knots that beast


Got me thinking, tides in part based on rotation of earth, as is wind.

Imagine if we could tap the rotation of the earth directly? Wouldn’t have the first idea myself

Was very optimisitc about tidal power 15 years ago. As you say it seems quite logical. But for whatever reason solar and wind have beaten it in the technology race.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

And that begs the question why are we talking about nuclear?

It's just Dutton scratching the backs of the fossil fuel barons. If we have to wait 20 years for a transition, that's plenty of time where we'll have to keep burning coal and gas.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

2 - They are already investing heavily in building a sovereign nuclear industry and they need to do it quickly. It's required for the Nuclear Subs, so would make sense in terms of cross investment.

So are these workers going to be performing double duty? Maintaining the submarines while also working on a nuclear reactor here? Don't you think spending $70 billion on submarines is enough without spending a further $30 billion on electricity that we cna get cheaper and quicker by other means?

3 - Well we've never had to deal with Nuclear waste, so it's jumping at shadows.

You can't just hand wave that away. It's a massive problem with nuclear energy. Because we haven't grappled with it yet, there's no guarantee that we will be able to delay with it safely and at low cost.

5 - Of course it's going to be public debt, like any other major infrastructure project of this scale in this country.

Not necessarily, the transition to renewables is largely being funded by the private sector. Yet all proposals for nuclear have the taxpayer taking all of the risk because the private sector don't want a bar of it. If the private sector don't think this a good idea to take on the massive cost, the massive time scale, the possibility of blowouts to either cost or time, and the liability risk, why is it a good idea for the taxpayer to do so?

6 - The same issue applies to every other scenario, including renewables. A major failure of the sitting state governments, particularly the ALP in Victoria that have been out of government for what 9 years of the last 40 in Victoria?

No, the time issue does not apply to renewables because the technology exists and it can be deployed quickly. It's just a matter of whether the government wants to enable this process to proceed quicker, or act as a roadblock by pushing a worse alternative.

Now tell me how renewables is going to service industry and manufacturing, currently at an all time low in this country, but an industry the government wants to supercharge investment in, in the near future? Without completely cooking these facilities?

By producing lots of electricity and having the means to store it.

Secondly, how are you currently servicing industrial renewable projects? There's no infrastructure for it, the relatively small industrial scale renewable projects are piggy backed off exisiting infrastructure, which has ****ed it.

What infrastructure specifically are you referring to?

A lot of the same environmental and local government issues are interchangeable between renewables and Nuclear.

Wrong, they have completely different levels of impact. A wind farm does not carry the risk of irradiating everything within a 15km radius.

You know what local communities don't want? Wind Farms.

You know what they don't want even more? Nuclear reactors.

If regional communities don’t want a windfarm, why would they accept a nuclear power station? | Gabrielle Chan

The Coalition’s energy policy is leveraged on regional discontent about renewables. But many farmers don’t want nuclear in their back yard either

www.theguardian.com

You know what local environmental groups also don't want? Thousands of kilometers of new high voltage power lines everywhere (which will be required for to meet demand if moving fully renewable).

This is where compromises and negotiations happen to protect as much of the environment as possible. The opposition isn't some unsolvable problem. Plus not all generation will be done in remote areas, there will be plenty from urban solar too.

Not everywhere is a 3 bedroom house, like everyone just assumes is the problem and is solved with some solar panels plonked on a roof.

Nobody assumed that, you made it up.

There are some facilities that require high demand constant power supply, alternatives are not an option as it completely destroys the facilities and manufacturing lines if power even stops for a few hours.

Let me introduce you to this wonderful concept called energy storage.

 

[nut]

1- You act as if a federal project of that scale is unachievable or unprecedented. It's not. Victoria was about to embark on the most expensive health infrastructure project (state project....) on the planet that would have rivaled a small nuclear power station (if it wasn't canned a few weeks ago because Andrews bankrupted the state).

2 - They are already investing heavily in building a sovereign nuclear industry and they need to do it quickly. It's required for the Nuclear Subs, so would make sense in terms of cross investment.

3 - Well we've never had to deal with Nuclear waste, so it's jumping at shadows.

5 - Of course it's going to be public debt, like any other major infrastructure project of this scale in this country.

6 - The same issue applies to every other scenario, including renewables. A major failure of the sitting state governments, particularly the ALP in Victoria that have been out of government for what 9 years of the last 40 in Victoria?

Is this cut and paste from an LNP emailed newsletter?

 

[Sphynx]

So are these workers going to be performing double duty? Maintaining the submarines while also working on a nuclear reactor here? Don't you think spending $70 billion on submarines is enough without spending a further $30 billion on electricity that we cna get cheaper and quicker by other means?

We already have a nuclear reactor in Australia.

But the sovereign nuclear industry is pretty much non-existent at the moment, as most of the tertiary qualified students in Nuclear sciences and engineering leave Australia for opportunity at the moment.

There's going to be a hell of a lot of civil involvement required from this industry for both the Subs and any potential Nuclear Power schemes.

It's not just going to be down to the Navy.

You can't just hand wave that away. It's a massive problem with nuclear energy. Because we haven't grappled with it yet, there's no guarantee that we will be able to delay with it safely and at low cost.

Multiple countries are able to handle and deal with it safely at the moment and they don't have 1/10th of the land mass. But there's clearly other cultural issues at play there.

Not necessarily, the transition to renewables is largely being funded by the private sector. Yet all proposals for nuclear have the taxpayer taking all of the risk because the private sector don't want a bar of it. If the private sector don't think this a good idea to take on the massive cost, the massive time scale, the possibility of blowouts to either cost or time, and the liability risk, why is it a good idea for the taxpayer to do so?

Well it is and it isn't. It's massively subsidized by government spending and debt and doesn't provide anywhere near the capacity to move to it permanently at the moment.

Is the time frame going to be any different trying to roll it out semi-privately to the scale required?

You are talking decades also.

No, the time issue does not apply to renewables because the technology exists and it can be deployed quickly. It's just a matter of whether the government wants to enable this process to proceed quicker, or act as a roadblock by pushing a worse alternative.

Of course it applies.

Whilst the technology exists, it's also technology in it's relative infancy, has an extremely short lifecycle and will likely be supceded in the near future.

Describing it as a panacea for energy is so far off the mark.

By producing lots of electricity and having the means to store it.


What infrastructure specifically are you referring to?

High voltage power lines.

We don't have the infrastructure to support industrial levels of solar or renewable energy, the existing grid is already struggling with it and will require massive investment in expanded power lines. It's not the same supply arrangement as a coal fire or nuclear power station.

Wrong, they have completely different levels of impact. A wind farm does not carry the risk of irradiating everything within a 15km radius.


You know what they don't want even more? Nuclear reactors.

If regional communities don’t want a windfarm, why would they accept a nuclear power station? | Gabrielle Chan

The Coalition’s energy policy is leveraged on regional discontent about renewables. But many farmers don’t want nuclear in their back yard either

www.theguardian.com

This is where compromises and negotiations happen to protect as much of the environment as possible. The opposition isn't some unsolvable problem. Plus not all generation will be done in remote areas, there will be plenty from urban solar too.

Of course they don't have the potential impact of a nuclear meltdown, but in history these are minimal to date.

There's more than a few risks with industrial scale battery storage also.

Let me introduce you to this wonderful concept called energy storage.

Ahh yes.

Highly expensive, currently not fit for purpose, a horrifically short life cycle and technology that is superseded every few years.

Where do we sign up?

I have two mates that own two of the largest solar companies in Victoria. Neither of them have batteries in their house and advise most of their clients not to install them if asked.

How's the EV car market going for those that bought 5-10 years ago?

Multiply that advice x 1000 when it comes to industrial capacity.




Im actually not pro nor con nuclear. It needs further discussion and pretty much everyone that jumps in on this discussion are so pro renewables because of preconceived political alignments they rarely are able to get past nuclear/bad - renewables/environment/great, without looking at other social impacts.

They are then in the next thread having a complete sook about housing affordability, public debt, employment levels and interest rates and inflation.

There's other social benefits around research/funding/education - jobs (especially regional), construction, supply chain to a sovereign nuclear industry.

Benefits to more solar? I guess the Chinese manufacturers of all the componentry and panels will absolutely love it with the continued orders for installs and replacement every 10 years.

I am absolutely pro solar, but in it's current format, as a support network to an industrial power supply.


Unfortunately trying to reduce power demand, increase net zero targets for new homes etc is only going to supercharge housing un-affordability issues and inflation. Robbing Peter to pay Paul at the moment.

At what price to the population and local community do we try and implement these environmental targets? How many homeless, how many dead through suicide etc?

I see it first hand daily.

 

[QuietB]

Another great point was raised on Insiders on Sunday, if you think there is some resistance to nuclear in the community now, wait until they start discussing where to hand out the free iodine tablets.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

And that begs the question why are we talking about nuclear?

Delaying tactic. It’s controversial so even with the LNP in power, it’s probably 5-10 years of talking shit about it. Commit to going nuclear, before you even start building one there’s probably five years of scoping, planning, setting up bodies etc.

There’s 15 more years to burn fossil fuels.

Renewables are here and affordable now, so the only tactic left is to kick the can down the road and make money while the joint burns. Gina, Dutton and their advisors have clearly got together and cooked up this new “nuclear” tactic.

 

[blueboy25]

Are there any Labor supporters who believe we should consider nuclear power to supplement other power sources? Or is this just a politically / ideologically driven debate, i.e., if you vote Labor you are against nuclear power?

From my reading Nuclear power is expensive, but it is clean, lasts longer and leaves a much smaller footprint than solar and wind turbines. According to information from the World Nuclear Association, Australia is one of five G20 nations with no operating nuclear power plants, alongside Indonesia, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Germany and Turkey. But when you look closely on the 4 other countries there is a different story.

Italy banned nuclear power after Chernobyl, but in 2023 Italy's parliament reversed a decades-long nuclear ban, allowing the government to include nuclear power in the national energy mix to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels.
Germany shut down its last nuclear reactor in 2023 but could only do so because it buys so much power from France. France is the biggest exporter of power in Europe and 67% of its power is nuclear.

Turkey also banned nuclear power following Chernobyl, but plans to restart the nuclear power industry are a key aspect of the country's aim for economic growth, and it aims to cut back its vulnerable reliance on Russian gas for electricity.

Indonesia has committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2060 and this includes nuclear power.

In March 2024 Saudi Arabia announced plans to establish a civil nuclear power industry.

So that just leaves Australia...

If it's viable lets just see the following:

• costings
• where they are going to be placed
• how long they are going to take to build and be operational
• who is going to run them
• who is going to own them
• where are they getting the water from

Dutton and Ted O'Brien can keep going on about it but until they can start to show this information its just a time wasting exercise to keep coal mines running.

 

[CD Xbow]

If it's viable lets just see the following:

• costings
• where they are going to be placed
• how long they are going to take to build and be operational
• who is going to run them
• who is going to own them
• where are they getting the water from

Dutton and Ted O'Brien can keep going on about it but until they can start to show this information its just a time wasting exercise to keep coal mines running.

You forgot disposal of waste. No one ever figures the true cost of disposal of radioactive waste and decommissioning old reactors. The reasons they don't are because no one has ever done it in significant quantities, it's technically tricky for a number of reasons and it is so costly no one is willing to pay for it. In the US 85,000 tones of wastes sits in 'intermediate storage', usually in the facility it's generated in. Fission power is not clean, it provides an enormous amount of dangerous radioactive waste that can remain dangerous for millenia. Nuclear proponents ignore waste completely, both the costs and technical challenges involved. We really don't need nuclear power in Oz.

This article from the ACE discusses the scope of the problem and the technical difficulties.

As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions

cen.acs.org

 

[CD Xbow]

ASPI has an article pointing out how dangerous nuclear power plants are during war. We have had fears in Ukraine, but fortunately so far not a major attack with release of radiation. Also they make a splendid targets for terrorists.

The article points out the radiation contained within a nuclear plant is a thousand times more than released with a nuclear weapon. As for the dildos who equate dangers of solar and wind with nuclear it's just complete and utter rubbish. Same for the disposal issue. There is no waste that is so dangerous as nuclear waste that has to be stored safely for thousands of years at enormous cost. Nuclear proponents never, ever, figure that cost in.

Opposition's nuclear-energy policy would increase defence risk | The Strategist

The Australian Liberal-National opposition’s proposal to build nuclear power stations on the sites of old coal-fired plants is misguided. The policy would perpetuate Australia’s concentration of electricity generation and worsen our vulnerability to air and ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

 

[QuietB]

ASPI has an article pointing out how dangerous nuclear power plants are during war. We have had fears in Ukraine, but fortunately so far not a major attack with release of radiation. Also they make a splendid targets for terrorists.

The article points out the radiation contained within a nuclear plant is a thousand times more than released with a nuclear weapon. As for the dildos who equate dangers of solar and wind with nuclear it's just complete and utter rubbish. Same for the disposal issue. There is no waste that is so dangerous as nuclear waste that has to be stored safely for thousands of years at enormous cost. Nuclear proponents never, ever, figure that cost in.

Opposition's nuclear-energy policy would increase defence risk | The Strategist

The Australian Liberal-National opposition’s proposal to build nuclear power stations on the sites of old coal-fired plants is misguided. The policy would perpetuate Australia’s concentration of electricity generation and worsen our vulnerability to air and ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Kos Samaras was talking about nuclear on ABC radio this morning - essentially arguing Dutton is screwed and nothing has even started yet.

There will be people following him around in hazmat suits, people will be handing out (fake) iodine tablets, there will be three eyed fish, there will be green slime everywhere, it will make Mediscare look like Childs play.

This is what happens when you are a yes man to the minerals lobby - and they will be nowhere to be seen when Dutton gets destroyed.

 

[Sttew]

ASPI has an article pointing out how dangerous nuclear power plants are during war. We have had fears in Ukraine, but fortunately so far not a major attack with release of radiation. Also they make a splendid targets for terrorists.

So are schools, multi-storey offices like the World Trade Centre in NYC, power substations, train stations, bridges, railway lines, housing estates, factories, shops etc, etc.

Why such fear mongering?

By about 2030 Australia will be the only G20 country that doesn't have nuclear power capability. Can it be Australia is the only country that knows best?

 

[peetoo]

So are schools, multi-storey offices like the World Trade Centre in NYC, power substations, train stations, bridges, railway lines, housing estates, factories, shops etc, etc.

Why such fear mongering?

By about 2030 Australia will be the only G20 country that doesn't have nuclear power capability. Can it be Australia is the only country that knows best?

Cant think of a worse reason tbh

 

[CD Xbow]

So are schools, multi-storey offices like the World Trade Centre in NYC, power substations, train stations, bridges, railway lines, housing estates, factories, shops etc, etc.

Why such fear mongering?

By about 2030 Australia will be the only G20 country that doesn't have nuclear power capability. Can it be Australia is the only country that knows best?

Are you really so stupid? Did you not read the article? Are you unaware of Chernobyl and the increase in cancers caused in the surrounding regions?

Breaching a nuclear reactor with a large explosion could send an enormous amount of radiation into the surrounds and the atmosphere. The effects of this could be catastrophic, spread for thousands of miles. and kill hundreds of thousands of people. It could be worse than Chernobyl. Blowing up any of the things in your post simply don't have the same effects, please try to use your brain.

It's not fear mongering, it's assessing risk, clearly something you and Mr Dutton have no knowledge of.

What other G20 countries do is irrelevant, most are cold northern hemisphere countries, high populations without the space and sun we have here. We simply don't need nuclear. End of story.

 

[Sttew]

Are you really so stupid? Did you not read the article? Are you unaware of Chernobyl and the increase in cancers caused in the surrounding regions?

Breaching a nuclear reactor with a large explosion could send an enormous amount of radiation into the surrounds and the atmosphere. The effects of this could be catastrophic, spread for thousands of miles. and kill hundreds of thousands of people. It could be worse than Chernobyl. Blowing up any of the things in your post simply don't have the same effects, please try to use your brain.

It's not fear mongering, it's assessing risk, clearly something you and Mr Dutton have no knowledge of.

What other G20 countries do is irrelevant, most are cold northern hemisphere countries, high populations without the space and sun we have here. We simply don't need nuclear. End of story.

Who do you think you are? Einstein?

You made the obvious statement that nuclear reactors are good targets during war and by terrorists. I pointed out that virtually nothing is off limits during war. Nuclear reactors have been targeted during war but to date none of the attacks have resulted in radioactive fallout or environmental contamination.

And to quote a catastrophe that happened in the Soviet Union 37 years ago involving a nuclear reactor that was old, poorly designed and maintained and a catastrophe that was covered up at all levels by an inept government, as being representative of what all nuclear reactors are like is just plain disingenuous. Lessons have been learnt from Chernobyl, and that's why countries like Italy and Turkey who initially banned nuclear power post Chernobyl are re-establishing nuclear power capability.

 

[barreness]

Who do you think you are? Einstein?

You made the obvious statement that nuclear reactors are good targets during war and by terrorists. I pointed out that virtually nothing is off limits during war. Nuclear reactors have been targeted during war but to date none of the attacks have resulted in radioactive fallout or environmental contamination.

Well only once thankfully and everyone cooled their jets after a shell hit a training building, not a reactor. I can't think of another one that's been on an invasion front line since humanity started building them

And to quote a catastrophe that happened in the Soviet Union 37 years ago involving a nuclear reactor that was old, poorly designed and maintained and a catastrophe that was covered up at all levels by an inept government, as being representative of what all nuclear reactors are like is just plain disingenuous. Lessons have been learnt from Chernobyl, and that's why countries like Italy and Turkey who initially banned nuclear power post Chernobyl are re-establishing nuclear power capability.

And that's what makes them so damn expensive, multiple levels of safety procedures and a shit tonne of concrete.

Italy has voted them down twice in referenda and so far have a 'fact finding mission' approved. Turkey has been trying to build one since 2010 and it's still not operational, they've been talking about it since the 60's, not really plug in and play are they

 

[CD Xbow]

Who do you think you are? Einstein?

You made the obvious statement that nuclear reactors are good targets during war and by terrorists. I pointed out that virtually nothing is off limits during war. Nuclear reactors have been targeted during war but to date none of the attacks have resulted in radioactive fallout or environmental contamination.

And to quote a catastrophe that happened in the Soviet Union 37 years ago involving a nuclear reactor that was old, poorly designed and maintained and a catastrophe that was covered up at all levels by an inept government, as being representative of what all nuclear reactors are like is just plain disingenuous. Lessons have been learnt from Chernobyl, and that's why countries like Italy and Turkey who initially banned nuclear power post Chernobyl are re-establishing nuclear power capability.

No, not Einstein but clearly a lot smarter than you. There are 3 questions I would ask you to consider:
1. Why use something, like nuclear power, which is very expensive and complex when it is completely unnecessary and there are cheaper and safer alternatives?

2. Why expose yourself to terrible risk of a nuclear disaster when you don't need to? The first thing with risk management is avoiding them in the first place.

3. Why pick the dirtiest technology for producing energy, the one that produces the most dangerous and insidious waste that has to be stored safely for thousands of years? I'm going to repeat my earlier point about the failure of the industry to dispose of it's waste safely after 70 years and that they never, ever put this cost into their projections.

There is no logical, economical argument for nuclear power. Only a brain dead unpopular ex-Queensland copper could think it was good policy. And the mining lobby, of course. Dutton's recent announcements show he's utterly in their thrall. Not even pretending to care about global warming and destruction of the biosphere, now just maximising the profits for his mining mates.

 

[peetoo]

There’s lots of things australia doesn’t do and there’s other things australia does do, compared to g20 or whatever?

 

[nut]

Nuclear in a country with massive amounts of land and sun it just stupidity ..
Surely a multitude of sources of power is better than relying on a few power stations.. just on security alone.