this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
21 points (92.0% liked)

Australia

3511 readers
84 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The press conference is currently still live so this was the best short video I could find on the topic.

To begin, I'm absolutely against this proposal, but I want to see a discussion - hopefully a constructive one - between Aussies (comments are always turned off for Australian news on YT) to gauge some idea of how people generally feel about the idea.

Fire off.

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nickiam2@aussie.zone 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think Australia should be investing heavily in nuclear. The cost doesn't make sense for the private sector to bear, but the govt can afford it as long as it doesn't take away from renewable investment like the libs are proposing here. Future debt is easier to solve than carbon emissions.

We need large scale base load power generation to fill in the gap that electrification of everything will bring. Electrical demand will increase as we replace fossil fuel for heating, cars and transport, etc...

[–] dgriffith@aussie.zone 3 points 2 months ago

Link the east and west coast grids to let afternoon solar on the west coast flatten the evening east coast peaks, pick a big old chunk of desert in South Australia for wind and solar, throw in a few gigabatteries and tart up some hydro systems, done.

Probably only be $10-15 billion or so.

[–] galoisghost@aussie.zone 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The worst thing about this ‘plan’ is the media treating it like it’s an actual real thing that will actually happen if the LNP get in power.

[–] Sarsaparilla@aussie.zone 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes. I was saying to my daughter this morning that they platform these crazy people and enable them. But then it is also true that they are in our govt so it moreover says a lot about a public that voted them into those positions and elevated their voice.

[–] galoisghost@aussie.zone 1 points 2 months ago

It’s a chicken and egg situation. However if the media were more concerned with journalism than audience metrics. I think the bullshit might have less standing in the eyes of the public.

[–] Gbagginsthe3rd@aussie.zone 1 points 2 months ago

You always know when the coalition is in opposition- that’s when you hear about their nuclear plans. In power, it’s crickets.

It’s all noise, distracting us from other more important things which need our attention now

[–] shirro@aussie.zone 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

This policy is not genuine. The intention is to delay or destroy fossil fuel alternatives to protect fossil fuel investments. If it creates political division and an impression of leadership then it is icing on the cake. I would expect the coalition to become increasingly divided if this was ever realistically pursued. Coalition voters do not want to foot the bill for this idiocy. The market has already voted. Renewables won on time to market and ROI.

For context I am not opposed to nuclear power generation at all. There has been a lot of misinformation about safety and waste for generations that has poisoned debate and I would like to see a more rational debate. I think it irresponsible for countries like Germany to turn away from nuclear and create huge energy security issues as well as increased emissions.

Carbon emissions are a global problem and each country has a responsibility to address it as effectively as they can. We can support nuclear power by supplying uranium and it doesn't matter for carbon reduction if the reactors are in Australia or overseas.

Our construction costs are very high and we don't have local expertise. Our research reactor was designed by Argentina. As much as some of us would like to see nuclear power come to Australia it is fantasy economics.

[–] rainynight65@feddit.de 0 points 2 months ago

I don't know how much you know about Germany, but energy security is not a huge problem over there. Over 60% of generated electricity is now coming from renewables. Nuclear peaked as early as 1995 (30%) and has been declining ever since. At the same time, Germany is steadily reducing its dependency on Russian fossil fuels.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

There is nothing to discuss, its not a real plan, its a fever dream. It wont happen.

[–] Sarsaparilla@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago

That is my hope but I hear people say things ... stupid things. Things like, "I like Peter Dutton, actually." 🤮 Which makes me lament the thought that the public can be easily persuaded to vote for these shysters at the next election and we will be stuck with their corrupt scams and BS for yet another decade!

[–] Thecornershop@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Worse than that, it's an intentional miss direction so that their billionaire benefactors can continue to squeeze the fossil fuel sponge well into the future. They want to get every last almost free drop out of our resources.

[–] rainynight65@feddit.de 4 points 2 months ago

The thing is, if Labor had announced such a completely undercooked policy - no timelines, no validation, lots of contradictions, and most importantly, no costings whatsoever - the media would be collectively crucifying them. And I'm not talking about the polite way The Guardian or The Conversation are dissecting the policy and bringing counterpoints. No, it would be open season in the most derogatory and aggressive language possible.

The fact that Dutton can bring this to a press conference and not get laughed out of the room is just utterly sad.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Should be nuclear + renewables, not nuclear vs renewables.

[–] gumnut@aussie.zone -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Unfortunately it doesn’t work like that. Energy is bid into the market at the spot price. Because the marginal cost of producing energy from renewables is so cheap, this will displace energy from all other sources when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. This is what’s already happening with the coal generators today.

By the time any nuclear gets built, there will be so much solar in the system that nuclear will have to be forcibly shut off at least 40% of the time or operate at a loss. This capacity factor is then on par with wind, so you may as well just build more of that - it’s way cheaper.

The concept of baseload power is dead and has been dead for a while. What we need is more dispatch-able generation and storage.

[–] BadlyDrawnRhino@aussie.zone 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'm not fundamentally opposed to nuclear. The country's power needs are only going to keep growing, and I could see an argument for having multiple options for sourcing that power. It's a very expensive argument though, and one that's hard to swallow when all the experts are saying renewable is the way to go, and I haven't seen any projections that show that we'd necessarily need anything other than renewables in the foreseeable future.

The thing I'm strongly opposed to with regards to nuclear is rerouting funding away from renewables to pay for it. It's an expensive technology that won't be ready for decades, so I just don't see the need to pivot to it. If we'd started the transition to nuclear three decades ago things would be different, but the LNP was strongly opposed to the technology back then, funnily enough.

And it's absolutely absurd to then announce a cap on renewables spending as part of their plan to get to net zero by 2050.

The whole thing is a farce, and the LNP hasn't given any good reasons why nuclear is the way forward over renewables. They haven't said much of anything other than shout about it being the better option, but then that's been the LNP's go-to political strategy for as long as I've been old enough to vote so no surprise there.

[–] Sarsaparilla@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Indeed. To me there is no debate: renewables are the only immediate way to bring us to net zero by 2050. The LNP are presenting this alternative as though we have time ahead of us - as if the planet is not already retaliating against our existence.

As an aside, the only somewhat valid argument I've heard is that nuclear would make future Australia an energy powerhouse for the region and allow for exponential growth, which is not something to dismiss flippantly. But in that I would think we would only need one, not seven! However, trying to put my paranoia aside about nuclear power plant meltdowns, that tech would need to be absolutely foolproof - and from my understanding, that is apparently true of modern nuclear generation tech available today. Yet, a solution for long-term storage of waste is still another huge and costly hurdle, let alone how you communicate the toxic danger of the area thousands of years into the future.

[–] spartanatreyu@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The problem of nuclear waste isn't actually a problem, and the 1000 year thing is a bit of an outdated myth. I wrote more about it here: https://aussie.zone/post/10867702/9731416

Energy storage is actually the biggest problem in energy right now (save for a crazy discovery like perpetual energy, or cheap mass produced super conductors that could optimize the absolute shit out of our energy transmission infrastructure and reduce the amount of energy that we need to produce in the first place).

The energy storage problem is actually the biggest reason why we need nuclear with our renewables.

Nuclear can run our baseloads, renewables plus storage can run our peakloads.

It's renewables AND nuclear, not renewables vs nuclear.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago

Happy cake day!

The thing about nuclear is that it just is too expensive, and it's never going to be ready in time. We need to be getting off of greenhouse emitting energy sources a decade ago. Renewables can get us there so much faster than nuclear can, because it'll be over a decade before we get a single plant operating even if we ignore all the political difficulties in getting started. With the political issues, it'll easily be 2040 before anything is online. That's just not soon enough.

As for cost, nuclear doesn't compare. It's much more expensive upfront than renewables, and it's still multiple times more expensive over its lifetime. There's no way of looking at it that sees nuclear as a more affordable option than renewables.

Also, baseload power is a myth.

[–] Sarsaparilla@aussie.zone 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The overall expense of this endevour seems to be the biggest factor against nuclear, especially for a relatively small population separated across a vast landmass.

Recycling is incredibly expensive as well, and still requires extensive storage pools for the waste to cool for several years before it can be recycled - granted not for thousands of years, but a lot of short-term storage space would still be required.

Not all the used fuel is suitable for recycling either. And I'm of the understanding that thus far, only about 30% of spent nuclear fuel has been recycled in countries that do it (though I believe this is a capacity issue, not a suitability of waste fuel issue).

I'm not yet convinced on the safety of modern nuclear plants in natural disaster/apocalyptic scenarios, but I agree that an Australia of the future could benefit from being OP.

[–] spartanatreyu@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

The cost of nuclear is only at the commissioning and decommissioning of the plant. But during the runtime of the plant is remarkably cheap. People just balk at the initial price because so much of the cost is up front.

Another thing to remember about recycling is that we as a species were producing nuclear waste before we had reactors that could use recycled waste so globally speaking we currently have a surplus of waste. Recently the US had to restart a reactor because they didn't have enough materials to use for powering deep space probes. It's not implausible that we could run out of waste to use and have to produce more fresh fuel.

On the topic of safety though, modern reactor designs require power coming in to keep the fissile material frozen to continue the reaction.

As soon as the power is cut, the coolant is cut, part of the plant is destroyed, or something else goes wrong, the plant stops working. If the plant stops working, there's nothing to cool down the fissile material.

The fissile material's own radioactivity heats it up to the point that it melts and pours away over what's essentially a pyramid plinko drain splitting up the liquid into many separate pools. (If it helps, think of your bath's drain if the pipe splits into two, which split into four, which split into eight, and on and on until a bath tub's water has been separated into an ice cube tray the size of a tennis court.)

Fissile material only reacts when it's next to enough fissile material.

And since it's separated and spread out, there's more reaction.

If you cut the power for the coolant pumps, the fuel melts, separates (by the power of gravity) and the reaction stops.

If the coolant leaks, the fuel melts, separates and stops reacting.

If you crash a plane into the reactor itself, the cooling mechanisms don't exist anymore and the fuel melts and pours out the nearest holes (either the drain or spilling outside the reactor into the containment structure, or even outside if need be), spreading out, separating, and reacting no more.

Modern reactors have more in common with an ice-cube hoisted above the great pyramid of giza than they do the fukushima or chernobyl plants. Both of those were designed to require power to prevent a dangerous meltdown which turn into a runaway reactions, whereas modern reactors make it so a meltdown prevents reactions.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 2 points 2 months ago

The Tories’ anti-renewable culture-war is based on the premise that fossil and nuclear electrons have bigger balls than wimpy renewable-generated ones. It’s a transparently absurd idea, but Adolf Kipfler is hoping to ride it into the Lodge nonetheless.

[–] Pappabosley@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

It's really just kicking the can down the street. My expectation is if they got into power, they would say the figures are more than they realised, say they have to fix Labor's economic mess and they'll come back to it when the economy is in the black. Like others, I would have seen it as viable 20 years ago, but it is just so expensive, they've cancelled builds overseas because of cost blowouts and Europe is turning off reactors because of all the renewable energy in their grid. The claim it would be cheaper annoys me the most, as it is an outright lie. All the liberals do is shovel shit and coal

[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Have they released who is going to pay for these power plants? Because if they put it on my monthly bill, I’m going off grid and I bet half the rest of the country will too.

[–] Peddlephile@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I think (or hope) most of us know that nuclear is no longer an option for us in Australia and that there are many more sustainable ways to generate energy here.

[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 1 points 2 months ago

The only reason why Dutto is pushing Nuclear as an option is because he is a crony.

Wind power generation has a barrier to entry, but it is much lower than Coal or Fracking, which is why there is so much corporate-sponsored astroturfing against it. Coal and Fracking also has a lower barrier to entry, but is cheap compared to Nuclear.

Solar is the great equaliser. Anyone can throw a handful of solar panels on their roof, connect them to an array of old car batteries and add an inverter and voila! Instant home power generation. Get out from under of the boot of Power Companies and be self-sufficient (as long as you don’t want to use a hair-dryer).

If the proles can get of free energy and no longer need to rely on The Grid, all of the Corporations that own Dutto will no longer have any political power.

Dutto is not offering Nuclear as an alternative to Coal and LNG to the electorate, he is offering it as an alternative to his lords and masters.

[–] spartanatreyu@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

Energy generation is not an issue at all. It's a completely solved problem.

It's energy storage that is the problem, and that's why we need nuclear.

But Dutton isn't pushing nuclear because he's being responsible. He's not actually pushing nuclear, he's just pushing a pipedream doomed project designed to take time/money/effort away from renewables, storage, and actual nuclear, all to keep money flowing to the coal industry shareholders.

[–] Minarble@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago

The LNP could not build car parks.

There is zero chance of this happening even if they got into power, controlled the Senate and had the individual States green light it.

[–] bigschnitz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Existing nuclear tech is dramatically more expensive than every competing low carbon power generation alternative and will never have any place in Australia.

Future nuclear tech (be it fission or fusion) may be a different story, but our power plants are at end of life so we need new power gen now, the world is dying so we need carbon neutral now.

We can't sideline this for 20 years to wait and see what happens, the strategy should be the roll out renewables to the point where the grid doesn't need any major changes. When we hit the point where the grid does need big investment, reassess available alternatives. If nothing has changed, roll out the grid changes and more renewables or if fusion drilling geotehermal or nuclear or whatever has come viable work it out then.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nuclear is fucking awsome and had the ability to fix our energy issues. There is strong evidance that the oil corporations are actually responsible for manufacturing nuclear fear narrative because it poses an actually economically viable alternative.

Thats not to mention the CSIRO who access tally forgot to include the most economically viable nuclear energy method of there analysis of "all" energy production methods. So much for independence.

[–] bob_lemon@feddit.de -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nuclear is literally the most expensive way to generate energy and no amount of liquid salt or SMR hallucinations can come even close to fixing that problem.

You don't need to create fear of nuclear, it's a bad choice all by itself.

[–] mranachi@aussie.zone 1 points 2 months ago

I might be reading to much in to the previous commenters use of the word had. But you're at arguments make a lot more sense today than 30 years ago.

It certainly was fear that stopped Australia from building a nuclear industry in the 90s. It made a lot of sense then. Today, it's hard to see it anything more as a diversionary tactic.

[–] Dimand@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago

Even when in power and offering cash incentives, the LNP couldn't convince the power industry to extend coal power plant lifetimes or build new generators. Renewables have already won the free market, they will likely never be beaten in our lifetime. Good fucking luck getting any company that wants to actually make money to invest in nuclear.

The only reasonable argument left for nuclear is the baseline and storage argument, but again the writing is on the wall, industry can see the trajectory that batteries and storage tech is on and know that by the time they spend 2 decades investing in current gen nuclear, it will probably be beaten by storage in the free market anyway.

[–] shirro@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago

It makes no economic sense. Fucking idiot.

[–] wscholermann@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If nuclear was so brilliant the private sector would have done it already. They haven't because the cost far outweighs the benefit.

And as far taxpayer intervention goes to prop it up I just don't see any compelling evidence to suggest investment in nuclear will give you better bang for your buck than renewables.

In some countries without much wind, sun and waves nuclear might make sense provided they could cheaply get uranium and dispose waste cheaply. That's not Australia and we have options.

[–] badcommandorfilename@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Not taking sides here, but the private sector couldn't have done it because laws specifically prevent them.

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think we should have done this 20 years ago. Not kicked the can down the road.

[–] badcommandorfilename@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Sure, but if we'd started 20 years ago it would have taken 20 years to build!

[–] vividspecter@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Too slow to build, too expensive, and entirely unsuited for a renewable heavy grid because the economics require it is left on at all times. And that renewable heavy grid will happen even if they ban all further renewable rollouts, simply from individuals and businesses adding more panels and batteries. Is the grid going to curtail all of that solar energy just so nuclear can be left on?

The whole thing is a transparent attempt by the fossil fuel industry to delay the renewable rollout for as long as possible, just so they can make a few more dollars. And the Coalition are ready and willing to do their bidding.

[–] Psiczar@aussie.zone 1 points 2 months ago

It’s ridiculous. We are absolutely in the drivers seat to be a world leader in renewable energy and out of touch politicians want us to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in nuclear power stations like it’s the 1950s and we don’t have any other alternative.

Like every other government project there will a cost blowout, and it will overrun so by 2040 we’ll have a handful of half built nuclear reactors and the budget will be a couple hundred billion in the red.

We don’t have the expertise to build or run nuclear power stations, so we would have to import all of that knowledge and expertise until we can skill up. More money.

We have the landmass and the coastline to support solar, wind and wave generation. It will be far less complex, cheaper to build/maintain, we’ll be able to diversify energy sources and there is no toxic byproduct.

The Liberals fucked the NBN, fingers crossed they don’t fuck our energy future as well.

[–] badcommandorfilename@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Have a look at this breakdown of the NEM.

The black parts are coal. The blue bars are gas.

[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

fwiw Sabine has a history of commenting outside of her area of expertise and having some very bad takes.

She's an astrophysicist. Listen to her closely when she's talking about what's going on in space. But her comments on other subjects such as climate, trans rights, and, yes, nuclear energy, should be taken as those of a random interested layperson. Maybe they're right from time to time, but they don't deserve any special consideration.

In that video, for example, she herself admits to ignoring the planning stage, and she's only talking about countries that already have large nuclear industries. Australia has no nuclear expertise to begin with, so it's guaranteed to take a lot longer for us than it does in places like Germany and America. And even then she ends up admitting it's at least twice as expensive as alternative options. She tries to downplay this by making a joke about astrophysics and orders of magnitude, but here on Earth that's a big difference, and that's in the best case.

[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think it's a well balanced and well researched video. I don't think she concludes that nuclear is a clear winner. And in our case it may not make sense. But both sides are guilty of cherry picking facts to fit their narrative.

The only reason I can think of to go nuclear is if renewables can't meet our power needs. I think it's a hard problem for the grid to manage distributed power generation in such varying amounts. Sometimes the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow enough. Can batteries fill the gaps? I hope so. But I wouldn't be opposed to a small bet on nuclear at the same time.

[–] ckent@urbanists.social 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

@DavidDoesLemmy @Zagorath This type of “small bet” would cost 10x more than the same bet on batteries and grid upgrades. The nuclear option is nothing more than a massive carbon tax, except this time it’s a nuclear tax, and it’s funding the nuclear instead of reducing it.

Every time someone proposes to spend NBN levels of money, or multiples of NBNs, ask yourself what the coalition would say if they were against it.

[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think you misunderstood me. The small bet I was referring to is not the coalition's plan. It would be more money to research next generation reactors.

[–] ckent@urbanists.social 2 points 2 months ago

@DavidDoesLemmy oh just research? I can't see any harm in running experiments if they're for thorium or fusion. But the real billions need to be spent now, on batteries & factories for batteries. We can be a big player exporting these ... this decade! If we had the courage.