Dutton's Folly (nuclear power)

[Marty_d]

The LNP have released their latest work of fiction, the "costings" for their plans to kill renewables and prop up their mates in the fossil fuel industry for as long as possible... oops, I mean for nuclear power.

 

I'm not quite sure why the party who believe so strongly in the free market and that private enterprise can do everything better, suddenly ignore the market completely and want to sink taxpayer money, IE yours and mine, into an project that private enterprise wouldn't touch with a bargepole.

 

Private companies are investing in wind farms, solar farms, batteries etc.  What they're not investing in is nuclear power. So if the vaunted private sector can't see a reasonable return from an investment in nuclear, why the hell would we sink public money into it?

 

Dutton says it'll be 260 billion cheaper than renewables, and power prices would be lower. Every expert in the economics of power generation says that's impossible. CSIRO says it'll cost double. Experts say CSIRO is being conservative in their assessment.

 

Then there's the time issue. Dutton says 2035. Quite apart from the cost, and the fact that nuclear power plants typically go 120% over budget, they never get completed on time.  Even if they did, that's 10 years away and more coal plants are reaching end of life in that time. So we'd have to maintain those - with more public money - while we build these hugely expensive and complicated plants that we have no experience or skillsets to do so.

 

Does anyone SERIOUSLY think that Labor is so bad that this is a better option?

 

If Dutton gets in, he will have more of a chilling effect on renewable investment than Tony Abbott did.

 

If you care about your children and grandchildren, PLEASE don't vote for the LNP.

[nomadpete]

16 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

Does anyone SERIOUSLY think

No, everybody  doesn't think. They go with the loudest media sound bites.

 

Albaneesy is just keeping the seat warm for Duttin.

Edited December 14 by nomadpete
spel

[old man emu]

I wonder how much it would cost to refurbish the coal-fired power stations long enough for them to maintain supply until nuclear generation plants could be built. If Howard hadn't put the kibosh on nuclear in the Nineties, we'd have nuclear generation plants by now. Or if he hadn't sold our natural gas for a pittance we could afford gas=powered generation.

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, Marty_d said:

oes anyone SERIOUSLY think that Labor is so bad that this is a better option?

You only have to look at the US election to look at the mindset of people who vote. On of the problems is that many people are for the here and now.. They say Gen Z is the generation that need instant gratification, but it has been like that for time immemorial.  And, as @nomadpete says, a lot of people go with the loudest sound bytes (or bildest headlines, often which are inconsistent with the actual article).

 

This may also go some way to explaining the current  state of the world. I am not sure how accurate or qualified the viseo is, but at least intuitively, it makes sense?

 

 

 

[onetrack]

The bloke who did the Nuclear costings for the LNP is Danny Price, a former economist with the NSW Electricity Commission. That's not much of a recommendation - and one even wonders why the NSWEC even had an economist on the payroll?

 

But the bottom line is Danny Price is now a self-professed Energy Guru/Consultant, and makes millions sprouting his ideas to any Govt willing to pay for his opinion - which is exactly what the LNP got - biased opinion.

 

But his LNP Nuclear energy report is so full of holes, it's laughable. He leaves the NT and W.A. right out of any Nuclear policies or plans - knowing full well both States are so isolated, they need to have fully independent energy generation.

And of course, anyone with half a brain will quickly understand the economics of stand-alone Nuclear power plants for W.A. and the N.T., simply don't stack up. Both States have a small population and a huge land area to service. So that cans the LNP idea of a Nuclear power plant in every State.

 

Then his report says nothing about large battery developments, and installations. Both W.A. and S.A. have already invested multiple tens of millions in battery storage - and battery development is going ahead in leaps and bounds, and battery costs are steadily decreasing, and will continue to decrease - simply because China is intent on dominating the world battery market, and will make sure battery costs keep coming down.

 

The chances are much higher (than any nuclear option) that most Australian households will end up with home or community batteries in the next decade - because they will be cheap and affordable - and coupled with constantly-increasing rooftop solar, both will greatly reduce the electricity demand from the States grids. 

 

This will really kick the arse out of the LNP projections and nuclear dreams - and nothing beats generating power at the spot where it is required. The need for more or upgraded major transmission lines is removed in this future scenario, and the combination of rooftop solar and cheap and affordable home/community batteries, means that energy costs for homeowners will continue to come down. That doesn't even take into account the amount of future State investment in large amounts of battery storage for their grids.

 

There's a great refutation of the LNP "pie-in-the-sky-bye-and-bye" nuclear dreams, in the Renew Economy article below. Every point they make is telling - especially the ones centred around Nuclear power plant costs, construction time frames, and construction problems.

 

https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-sneak-preview-of-peter-duttons-nuclear-costings/

 

Here is Danny Prices LNP Nuclear economics article, if you like reading a pile of factually-deficient BS.

 

https://www.frontier-economics.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Report-2-Nuclear-power-analysis-Final-STC.pdf

 

One of the important things I've learnt in the 75 years I've been on this planet, is that economists don't live in the real world, and their future projections are invariably so wrong, it's laughable.

 

I'm always reminded of a quote from a book I read many years ago, about economists and their future forecasts for gold. It went, "300 of the worlds leading economists keep telling us that gold is a barbarous relic, and has no part to play in any future world economic system. The problem is, they still have yet to convince 3 billion of the worlds population, that they're right!" 😄

 

Edited December 14 by onetrack

[nomadpete]

There is one major thing missing from our energy network.

 

So far, our government has made nil progress on pumped storage. (Except for Snowy MK2).

 

We should not be waiting for mega batteries to be invented. That is as silly as expecting a new cheap nuclear power station to be invented.

[old man emu]

I think that the best answer is to take advantage of solar generation by installing community batteries. However, they are not without their environmental dangers as well. I guess an energy Utopia is simply an unattainable goal. The bullseye can't be hit, so I suppose we need to accept landing in the outer rings.

[pmccarthy]

Nuclear has always been the way to go. The opposition has always been of a "religious" nature, based on belief rather than science and engineering. The rest of the world is less stupid.

[old man emu]

8 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

The opposition has always been of a "religious" nature, based on belief rather than science and engineering.

I think that their belief is based on the paranoia of the USA during the Cold War. The USA was the only country which went overboard with practising responses to nuclear attack. It drilled the paranoia into Baby Boomers and now it is cultural. I didn't help that Hollywood promoted the paranoia through Sci-Fi and End Of World movies.

[nomadpete]

My opinion is that although nuclear poer is great, there are three reasons for not going down that path.

 

1.  There doesn't appear to be a proper long term plan to store/recycle/neutralise the long term waste.

 

2. The costs are prohibitive, and blowouts are highly likely.

 

3.  The lead time is so long that we will have to spend a lot on refurbishing existing coal fired generators to keep them running whilst the first nuclear plant gets built on the site of an old coal fired plant - causing a shortfall of generation for the 15 years build time. Turning one coal fired plant into a construction zone immediately takes a lot of power out of the grid. Where does that extra energy come from - whilst all that time our demand is also growing? Solar perhaps?

[rgmwa]

I’m waiting for a good, cheap, small, cold nuclear fusion reactor. 

[old man emu]

I'm wondering where this 15 year build time figure comes from.

 

My father-in-law worked on the construction of Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex. Construction began in 1957 and and electricity generation started in 1962, ceasing operation in 2002. So why are we saying ours will take three times as long to build?

[spacesailor]

" Bradwell "

40 years of getting a profit for their investors.   Makes for higher retail prices .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Nuclear power is in decline Everywhere Even France and there have been LARGE cost Over runs everywhere. It's ALL documented. Dutton's figures are based on using LESS electricity, Keeping ICE cars on the Road and other UNLIKELY scenarios. The Coal fired Power stations advised the LNP Gov't of the Need to Shut down their aging Plants Because they are NOT reliable and cannot be made reliable as there's no parts made for Out of date plants.  This IS the supreme con act that should sink Spud and his Dopey Co-conspirators. IF IT WAS  ANY GOOD. private Enterprise would be in on it, but NO It has to be Taxpayer Funded. Can't you smell a RAT?  Where's the reliable COOLING water and LL that heat is added to the environment. WE don't have a Nuclear Fuel Industry either. We just have the basic ORE  .Nev

[onetrack]

The dangers of nuclear power generation are multiplied to the nth degree over and above the dangers associated with any other current form of power generation. In a steam turbine power plant, the worst that can happen is a steam explosion or a turbine rotational failure, resulting in components being thrown about. In solar power generation, the worst that could happen is a major electrical short circuit. In a wind turbine, it's fire or mechanical failure, resulting in components flying around.

In a storage battery, it's internal component shorts that result in a fire. All these things happen on an occasional but steady basis. Mankinds history is littered with errors that turned into disasters.

 

All these above-listed potential accidents could be life threatening to those unfortunate enough to be in the near vicinity of one of these events - but a nuclear accident (and they happen just as easily as other accidents) results in a disaster with massive, long-lasting damage, and danger over a wide area that can't be seen (radioactivity on the loose).

 

No nuclear facility can be made earthquake-proof, totally idiot proof, nor even be protected against enemy attack. We've never had a dedicated enemy attack on a nuclear power station, but a bad actor such as Putin or Kim Jong-il would have no hesitation in mounting an attack on a nuclear energy plant belonging to a nation that they were at war with. Kim especially, is crazy enough to do this. 

 

The fact that we even have an organisation calling themselves the Union of Concerned Scientists - who are scientific professionals intent on rigorous scrutiny of proposed major scientific projects around the world - which organisation is seriously against continuing to build nuclear reactors for energy production - should be enough warning to people that nuclear reactors for energy generation carry far more long-lasting safety and health concerns, than any other form of power generation.

 

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/brief-history-nuclear-accidents-worldwide#:~:text=Back to top-,Three Mile Island,How did it happen?

[pmccarthy]

[facthunter]

Does that show what happens when Many places become un liveable? because of the rising temperatures and changing climate Or is that just a figment of the Imagination of lefty loopers? If so there's a lot of them in the Armed Forces files, Insurance Companies Scientists Books,Farmers records and Fossil Fuel Producers Memo's  Nev

[onetrack]

I'd like to know how the death calculations were arrived at, as the death toll from Chernobyl was kept secret by the Russians,and the total death toll is still unknown. Deaths from Chernobyl would have still been occurring many years after the reactor explosion. And to say an event such as Chernobyl could never happen again is pure folly.

 

On another forum I frequent, there are U.S. nuclear plant workers and the stories they tell of accidents that were never reported, and deaths that were marked down as being from other causes, besides being work-related - even when it was obvious to all the employees, that the deaths were work-related - numbered in the dozens.

 

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll

[nomadpete]

6 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

I am not surprised to see that see that the most hazardous power generation is coal.

 

And the least hazardous to humans is solar.

 

The sooner we stop using coal in the vast quantities that we presently do, the better it is for everyone.

 

Thanks for the graph.

Edited December 15 by nomadpete

[spacesailor]

The " newest "  is least. 

And the .

Oldest the most .

Give it time, to see how many ' fall off their roofs ' cleaning those panels. 

I witnessed one rooftop fire , three houses away .so they can start fires , that could kill people . 

spacesailor 

 

[nomadpete]

1 minute ago, spacesailor said:

so they can start fires , that could kill people .

Lots of things can do that.

 

I have attended two rooftop fires where solar panels were involved. One was caused by a faulty isolator switch - which has been recalled but the owner didn't  bother to get it replaced. The other was caused by rodents eating through insulation where the cable entered the roof. Could have happened even if they didn't have solar.

 

Neither houses were noticably damaged and nobody was harmed.

 

I suspect the hazard of solar panels is rather minor.

 

[old man emu]

11 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Could have happened even if they didn't have solar.

An example of Murphy's Law.

[spacesailor]

But! 

Are they being reported .

Three now . The firies , seemed ' nonchalant ' about the one I watched.  As if they were used to them , & knew just what to do l .

Short burst  of water to cool & extinguish. 

No problems there .

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

I have worked on nuclear facilities in the Czech Republic, Romania, France, UK, Canada, and the US, including Thre Mile Island.  I didn't persdonally witness any accidents or close calls, but used to flip through the incident and accident reports,m and there were some humdingers. 

 

There was one client in the US who had a reputation for covering up, and the Nuclear Rgualtory Commission (NRC) would pay unannounced site visits regularly. Whistleblower prtections were strong even 25 years ago and combined with the penalties for covering up meant there was a strong disincentive to try and sweep something under the carpet. But, I don't douibt, as OT says, there are cover ups.. Th thing is, are there enough to suggest it is less safe than, say coal,. 

 

I asm sure this graph has been presented before and I noted that the average of wind and solar death rate is the same as nuclear. Given they are a lot cheaper to produc energy and have far less risk, the choiced *shouild* be obvious.

 

@Marty_d - shoiuld I get back to Aus in time for the next general election, I can assure you, despite my criticism of Albo, I would not be voiting for the LNP..their policies are scary.. I probably may not vote Labor, either, unless I happen to live in Julian Hill's electorate.. 

 

And about now, I can feel a post coming into the Albo thread..

Edited Sunday at 06:44 PM by Jerry_Atrick

[pmccarthy]

The difference between solar, wind and nuclear is that the first two cannot provide base load capacity, which is fundamental to any transition from coal.