- Nov 10, 2022
- 13,228
- 10,675
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
The Nuclear debate
- Thread starter nut
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The fundamental problem with nuclear is this;
- It is NOT cheaper
- It is NOT safer
- It is NOT cleaner
- It is NOT easier
Australia has the smallest population of all G20 countries and the lowest population density, which changes the economics of nuclear quite substantially. We also have large swathes of land that are suitable for wind and solar.
It's not about 'knowing best', it's about infrastructure that suits the profile of our country.
We also have militant unions which make most other developed western nations trade unions look like a primary school lollipop ladies.
We have the highest construction labour costs in the world.
It changes the economies of most propositions substantially. Even renewables and the required infrastructure.
It is not a free market economy in terms of major projects spending.
It's a bit of a catch-22, to make some of these landmark projects come to reality.
We need a Liberal Government to try and limit the corruption of the ALP/CFMEU involvement with taxpayers money at this scale.
But with a sitting LPA government, it's unlikely this is going to be policy.
The public suffer in bother scenario's unfortunately.
Aren't the workers on these sites - tradies - Peter Dutton's target voters
Part of the problem is that the companies dont' include the unions in the process. So the Unions demand $$ as compensation. We might have the highest pay, but we don't have anywhere near the best conditions. Countries like Germany have far better working conditions and trade that off for less pay. This is because the Unions are treated as part of the company, not as a labour-hire workforce.
- Nov 10, 2022
- 13,228
- 10,675
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
It’s like we need high wages to pay some of the worlds highest housing costs. If only….
We've also had historically low interest rates for almost 20 years, easy access to credit, periods with consistently positive residential capital growth numbers and wage growth far out stripping inflation.
If you can't afford housing on current commercial construction EBA's, you are doing something wrong.
I feel sorry for the 18-24 year olds in the current economic climate, but not much sympathy for anyone older.
It's illegal to work more than 48 hours in Germany. Work week in France is 35 weeks (with overtime you can do 44 maximum).
I don't know many construction workers in Oz who do 44 hours a week or less. Most construction workers on big construction jobs do 6 day weeks.
I think you are slightly confused, the French Construction EBA have a 35 hour standard work week (7 x 5), and 25 days AL per year. They have a 48hr max work week. They get 2-5 days bonus AL for 20, 30 year service etc.
They don't get overtime on weekends if within their 35 hours week either.
They don't automatically get paid for public holidays either.
You have capped overtime of 220 hours per year also.
Their overtime is 25%/50% at thresholds.
Your average CFMEU award level with even standard overtime is probably on double the pay of a French construction worker.
This is consistent with even large city US union workers on major projects in NYC.
Remembering the CFMEU work calendar is 43 weeks in a traditional sense, with what equates to 9 weeks annual leave.
In regards to here:
Not all of construction workers work 6 days on major projects, it depends on programme.
If they do they are handsomely rewarded with probably double the pay rates of the people in France and Germany.
You can't work more than a 56 hours work week under the CFMEU EBA and if you do for a special exemption or your company miscalculates, you get a paid day off the very next day. Basically 12 standard days pay for your 6 days of work when factoring the overtime awards.
Mindless political ideolegy is generally why it's not considered.
Tradie wages is an entirely broken market.
To get people to work on major projects you need to either prize them away from mining where they get paid a shit ton or prize them away from their sole- trader businesses where they make a shit ton. The only way volume builders survive is immigration labour.
There are not enough tradies and everyone is competing for them. Sure the unions play a role and Setka's stuff today with the AFL is disgraceful.
But the market for tradies in this country is broken. This is probably inevitable in a country with such a small population and concentrated economy (mining + projects).
To get people to work on major projects you need to either prize them away from mining where they get paid a shit ton or prize them away from their sole- trader businesses where they make a shit ton. The only way volume builders survive is immigration labour.
There are not enough tradies and everyone is competing for them. Sure the unions play a role and Setka's stuff today with the AFL is disgraceful.
But the market for tradies in this country is broken. This is probably inevitable in a country with such a small population and concentrated economy (mining + projects).
MrsBlueSky
Cancelled
- Apr 5, 2024
- 521
- 525
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Does anyone want to admit they would live next to a nuclear reactor just in the off chance they will be provided with free power?
MrsBlueSky
Cancelled
- Apr 5, 2024
- 521
- 525
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Yep, free power for all those as well.
In fact, because he won't even be around in 15 years (nor likely to ever be a PM of this country) Dutton could say free power for everyone..
The worrying thing is that some Liberal voters would believe his promises, which is probably more of a worry than the nuclear reactors.
But I can't see any of them taking his free power gamble themselves.
- Oct 1, 2014
- 5,510
- 11,630
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
The Libs have released the broad outline of there nuclear power plans, sans costings and details. I guess those pesky details will come after the election.
www.abc.net.au
They are talking of 2 SMR's and 5 traditional nuclear power stations with the first by a very, very optimistic 2035. Remember SMR's currently are pixie dust.
What is really weird, is it's proposed to produce only a third of the 22GW that coal plants currently produce. So we are going to all the fuss, expenses and risk of nuclear to cover only a third of the deficient from closing coal plants. Dumb plan by dumb people.
Dutton reveals seven sites for proposed nuclear power plants
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has told his Coalition colleagues he will go to the next election promising to build seven nuclear power stations.
www.abc.net.au
They are talking of 2 SMR's and 5 traditional nuclear power stations with the first by a very, very optimistic 2035. Remember SMR's currently are pixie dust.
What is really weird, is it's proposed to produce only a third of the 22GW that coal plants currently produce. So we are going to all the fuss, expenses and risk of nuclear to cover only a third of the deficient from closing coal plants. Dumb plan by dumb people.
They couldn’t even build car parks. Nothing any government builds is ever on schedule and under budget, especially from the Libs who have built nothing significant in this country.
This will realistically be done by 2050 and rely on the cooperation of all future governments. Such a waste of time debating this crap.
Only in politics can it be legal to give your toddler the keys to your car.
This will realistically be done by 2050 and rely on the cooperation of all future governments. Such a waste of time debating this crap.
Only in politics can it be legal to give your toddler the keys to your car.
- Sep 19, 2007
- 19,310
- 17,890
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Anaheim Ducks, PSV Eindhoven
To be honest I really didn't think Dutton's plan would be this stupid. They've really outdone themselves. It makes Snowy 2.0 and their Fraudband policies look like the works of genius.
Already opening touting bribes.
Already opening touting bribes.
Rustin Cohle
Flat Circle
Doesn't matter how stupid the plan is when 60% of the electorate is stupid/apathetic enough to go along with it. Australians are so dull and will accept any stupid idea if they think it'll save them a dollar.
These are the same people who'll drive 5km out of their way to save 1c per litre off the price of petrol at a servo.
These are the same people who'll drive 5km out of their way to save 1c per litre off the price of petrol at a servo.
The debate is only gotten political now because Labor has gone all in on renewables and it's coincided with our economy going down the toilet in real time. If the answer is that nuclear isn't for us after all then so be it. But it's an absolute traversty that the debate hasn't been had before we landed ourselves with among the highest energy costs on earth.
Last edited:
- Oct 1, 2014
- 5,510
- 11,630
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Are you Peter Dutton?
What a load of fact free rubbish.
We will get very high energy prices if we go nuclear, they are well documented to be at least twice as expensive as renewables and that doesn't include the cost of disposal of the dangerous waste, which has to be maintained for hundreds of years.
Taylor suggested there would be little expense to the taxpayer (ha ha) now Dutton says they are going to be state funded and run. These guys couldn't run a school tuck shop, or a fair debt collection scheme, either.
Germany has reached 50% renewables, and what has it done to their power prices?
Have a look at this chart and tell me it's renewables moving prices.......
Once storage projects are completed, the influence of gas on electricity prices will be separated making prices cheaper.
Have a look at this chart and tell me it's renewables moving prices.......
Once storage projects are completed, the influence of gas on electricity prices will be separated making prices cheaper.
- Banned
- #200
You have no ideaThe fundamental problem with nuclear is this;
Other than that - have at it
- It is NOT cheaper
- It is NOT safer
- It is NOT cleaner
- It is NOT easier
