Marty_d Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 Voldemort has pegged his chances of electoral success firmly to replacing ageing coal fired stations with nuclear powerplants, and having no emissions targets at all. Now to my mind, this policy is driven by: ideology - "anything but wind, solar and storage" keeping the fossil fuel companies / Nationals happy - "don't worry about it mate. These things will take decades to build. Buying you some time to make more profits" politics - "we CAN'T agree with Labor, no matter what. We need a point of difference" What it's not driven by is: economics. CSIRO estimate each power station will cost $16b, and they want 7 of them. That's $112b (before blowouts), of which private enterprise won't touch with a bargepole, so they'll be government owned. (Aren't the libs meant to be the free market party? What is this, Stalinist Russia??) polling. They haven't done any. They can't even get the States to agree to have power plants on their land, much less the residents. climate action. It'll take 15 - 20 years to get these going. We know that solar and wind can be running much sooner and we all remember the SA battery... "100 days or it's free". In the meantime, no targets. As someone described it on the radio this morning, it's an exercise in economic and ideological stupidity. I agree with that sentiment. Interested in what others think too though. Do you like the idea? Would you vote for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 I will absolutely vote for it and I believe a majority of Australians will support it. The economics is in favour, just depends which analysis you choose to believe and what you think the author's motivation is. And it is the most dependable way to decarbonise for those who have been persuaded that is important. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 I don't know where this idea that it will take 15 - 20 years to get nuclear power generation on line. I heard that South Korea completed the building of a nuclear power station in 48 months, and China can do the same in about the same time. Obviously Australia doesn't have the knowledge or experience, but we have the money to buy it. Also, doesn't China own great swaths of our energy sources already? What about our politically aligned friend, Japan? In my opinion, nuclear generation has an equal right to be in the power generation mix as hydro, solar and wind. We just need to use nuclear to maintain the base load, since it's apparently hard to switch on and off like coal-powered generators are. It is an unfortunate cross the Libs must bear that Howard preferred the expediency of trading aspirations for political gains with the Greens back in the 90s. OH! the 90s. That's 30 years ago. We could have been turning off those nasty, belching coal fires five to ten years ago. Despite that Voldemort and his mob are still dickheads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted June 18 Author Share Posted June 18 So... the fact that in order for these things to be financially viable they'll have to set electricity charges at roughly $200 per megawatt hour, plus inflation, for the NEXT 30 YEARS - while renewables are currently half that and falling, don't factor into your decision? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 I wonder how CSIRO determined the $16B price tag. Why not ask the Koreans? how much theirs cost? I never said that ALL generation should be nuclear. I said it should be an ingredient in the mix of generating types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted June 19 Author Share Posted June 19 My question is based on cost. Let's agree that we should be agnostic on what the power source is. (Hey, even throw coal and gas in there if you want to). If you were presented with the following megawatt/hour cost chart, which one would you choose? And which would you NOT choose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 26 minutes ago, Marty_d said: megawatt/hour cost chart, Dunno. It's not labelled 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted June 19 Author Share Posted June 19 22 minutes ago, old man emu said: Dunno. It's not labelled You're being agnostic, remember. To put it in a shopping metaphor (electricity being your product). You're at Coles, looking at the Electricity shelf. You know the product is exactly the same regardless of the brand. But different brands are different prices. Which one do you buy? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Those wind farms and solar panel farms are a bloody eyesore, a blight on the landscape. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgmwa Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 29 minutes ago, Marty_d said: You're being agnostic, remember. To put it in a shopping metaphor (electricity being your product). You're at Coles, looking at the Electricity shelf. You know the product is exactly the same regardless of the brand. But different brands are different prices. Which one do you buy? Depends on which items are in stock on the shelf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Marty that capital cost chart has been discredited. See Nuclear energy: The flaws in CSIRO’s anti-nuclear, pro-renewables GenCost report (afr.com) https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/energy-ministers-arguments-against-nuclear-riddled-with-errors/news-story/503618ba029e3dea3cc764deda6c2fbb Of course, if you don't trust the AFR or the Australian then these will mean nothing to you. We just have different political views. The science stays the same. Besides the life of the generator, the big cost difference is centralised generation using the existing grid versus wind/solar all over the place with a new spiderweb of transmission to ensure somewhere has wind or solar. Even then, half the time there is no solar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 It's a dumb stunt by a mental runt. Not meeting the Paris terms and pulling out of the agreement will be likely to bring reprisals by those who TRY to do the right thing.. LIB/Nats has NEVER been fair dinkum about climate change. We need rapid response electricity. Hydro gas and Battery do that. With Nuclear you need a lot of cooling water. The steam part of it is low efficiency adding heat energy that would otherwise stay locked up in the ore.. What about the risks and radioactivity. disposal Who wants one of these things near where they live?. One microgramme of plutonium is lethal.. Why NOT listen to the CSIRO.? Bagging them is a warning sign. What experts do we have in the LNP ranks and who are they getting their advice from.? It also needs an expensive GRID and NOW we hear it will be gov't funded. THAT should also ring alarm bells. Nev 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted June 19 Author Share Posted June 19 14 minutes ago, pmccarthy said: Marty that capital cost chart has been discredited. See Nuclear energy: The flaws in CSIRO’s anti-nuclear, pro-renewables GenCost report (afr.com) https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/energy-ministers-arguments-against-nuclear-riddled-with-errors/news-story/503618ba029e3dea3cc764deda6c2fbb Of course, if you don't trust the AFR or the Australian then these will mean nothing to you. We just have different political views. The science stays the same. Besides the life of the generator, the big cost difference is centralised generation using the existing grid versus wind/solar all over the place with a new spiderweb of transmission to ensure somewhere has wind or solar. Even then, half the time there is no solar. If it makes financial sense, why won't private industry do it? There are heaps of wind and solar companies out there. Wind farm applications in many places around Australia. Yet the LNP, cheerleaders for free enterprise and unrestricted capitalism, are against that and only for expensive long term solutions which the government itself will fund? Why?? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-17/nuclear-investment-case-coalition-reactors-viable/103978266 I can't read your AFR post because it's behind a firewall. Could you tell me who the scientists are that the reporter used, and why they're more qualified than the CSIRO? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 TRUST the AFR and the AUSTRALIAN. You have got to be joking.. nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 One does not have to be a zealot to find out the benefits of electricity OME. Don't "LABEL" people. It deters sensible discussion. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 2 hours ago, facthunter said: What about the risks and radioactivity. disposal And there is the scare that is mongered. Are still just dumping used rods in landfill as we may have in the 1950s, or have techniques been developed to sequester the rods? What happened to the method of putting them in concrete blocks. It seem nowadays whenever someone comes up with an idea, there are crowds of naysayers publishing all sort of claims in social media to be consumed by the non-thinking. Thankfully cavemen only had Rockface when they learned to make and sustain fire. I bet there were NIMBYs bitching about the damage the wheel was doing to tracks through the bush, and the noise using them made. Here's the latest in Sydney. A meat rendering plant has existed on a site for nearly 70 years. Now surrounding land is being developed for residential use, and the newcomers are complaining about the smell. What ever happened to caveat emptor? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-11/odour-complaints,-urban-encroachment-push-out/103962656 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Just like people who buy near airports then complain about the noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 3 hours ago, facthunter said: TRUST the AFR and the AUSTRALIAN. You have got to be joking.. nev Funny, I have no trust in the ABC or the Age! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Your choice. The abc is not as good as it once was but you trust Murdoch. do you? Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 A wise person would take what the ABC publishes and what Murdoch publishes, average them and then would come out with fairly even-handed information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 I couldn't disagree MORE.. That proposition has no logic. One lot are fallacious and deceptive and the other could stand improvement. Run a truth test on all of them and be fair dinkum about it. The Wise person seeking truth would have to find it elsewhere and put in a lot of effort and end up pretty lonely. You used the critical word Information. Propaganda is NOT information.. It's quite the opposite. Nev 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Litespeed Posted June 19 Popular Post Share Posted June 19 Building a nuclear plant in 48 months? Absolute bullshit. Never happened and not possible. Even the Chinese admit they are far over budget and behind schedule. 10-15 years is the absolute minimum and that assumes you know how to build one. If the Chinese fail to meet targets and they can steamroller any opposition or environment issues, what hope do we have? The CSIRO estimates are extremely generous and are likely to be 200-300% higher when completed. Have a look at Sellarfield in the UK, will end up the world's slowest build and most expensive power in history. Let's not forget the cost to decomission is close to the cost of building one. 1 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 19 minutes ago, Litespeed said: 10-15 years is the absolute minimum Oh dear! Modern construction is soooooo slow. Not like in the late 1950s. Bradwell nuclear power station is located on the Dengie peninsula at the mouth of the River Blackwater, Essex. It is a Magnox-design nuclear power station that is undergoing decommissioning. Construction of the power station began in December 1957, and electricity generation started in 1962. My father-in-law worked on the construction, probably fitting out the steam part of it as he was employed as one of the supervisors of the steam and power plant of the ICI complex at Botany when the family migrated to Australia in 1964. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 I am agnostic on the subject however I am interested in the predicted cost. South Korea is a country that has built many reactors at home and overseas. At the moment I believe they are building a reactor for the United Arab Emirates South Korea is among the world's most prominent nuclear energy countries, and exports its technology widely. It is currently involved in the building of the UAE's first nuclear power plant, under a $20 billion contract. My question would be can we build one cheaper than this? I haven't followed today's news but I would be interested in the costings For more information about costs and build times https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/south-korea 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 It's not 1950 anymore and those plants were built by barging through legislation and in days of little regulation and massive amounts of cheap labour, materials and been subsidised and force-fed for speed by the military nuclear industry. We don't have any of those conditions anymore and have zero knowledge on doing it. Everything including most staff and all engineering, machinery, management and building services will be privatised and foreign made and owned. They only thing Australian, will be our unique ability to throw 100's billions at bad ideas and cause our economy to become burdened by insane power costs baked in for 50 years. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now