17 January 2025

Did Peter Dutton just call an election?

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
157
Peter Dutton

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has ‘unofficially’ launched his election campaign. Photo: Peter Dutton Facebook.

Peter Dutton has returned from his summer break to reinforce what Australians are all too aware of – they’re headed for an election soon.

With a date yet to be set and the campaign not even properly begun, the Opposition Leader has matched the Prime Minister’s new-year electioneering with a major speech that has all the characteristics of a campaign launch.

To Coalition party faithful gathered in Melbourne on Sunday (12 January), Mr Dutton unveiled a campaign slogan and pitched his case to be elected PM.

“This year, Australians will have an opportunity to elect a new and strong Coalition government to get our country back on track,” he said.

“There’s a saying, ‘oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them’. Yes, governments lose elections, but oppositions can – and do – win elections. Provided people know what they stand for. Provided people understand their plan and vision to better the country.

“And provided people recognise the values, experience and character of the alternative Prime Minister.

“I want no Australian to be left wondering what the Coalition stands for.”

But while the Opposition Leader’s address was full of criticism for the current Labor government and in particular Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, it offered no new policy positions.

Mr Dutton merely repeated his aim to “get Australia back on track”.

In fact, he launched a campaign slogan that says exactly that, along with an election booklet with the same name: Let’s Get Australia Back On Track: The priorities of a Dutton Coalition Government.

He delivered a publicised 38-minute speech to an audience of MPs and Liberal/National party faithful, which aimed to remind Australians of his background and achievements during the numerous portfolios he held when the Coalition was in office.

In what he coined a “sliding doors moment” for Australia, Mr Dutton presented his case for making Labor a one-term government.

And there was no shortage of political rhetoric.

“I admire Australians. We’re a remarkable people – compassionate, stoic, fair and quietly patriotic,” he said. “But under this Albanese Labor government, I’ve seen the mood of Australians change.

“Australians have endured one of the most incompetent governments in our nation’s history.

“They’ve suffered under one of our country’s weakest ever prime ministers.

“The last three years have been a litany of bad decisions and broken promises. As a result, Australians are worse off. Our country is less safe. Our society is less cohesive.

“For so many Australians, aspiration has been replaced by anxiety, optimism has turned to pessimism, and national confidence changed to dispiritedness.

“Mr Albanese says this election is about the future versus the past. I think the past three years are a good indication of what the future will look like under a returned Labor government.

“That’s a future Australians can’t afford.

“Especially if the green-Teals or extreme-Greens hold the balance of power.

“During my time in Parliament, here’s a key thing I’ve observed: When a government gets its priorities wrong, things go wrong for the Australian people. The Albanese government has had the wrong priorities.

“It’s prioritised the agendas of inner-city Greens voters, activists, and union bosses.

“It’s disregarded everyday Australian workers, families and small businesses – from city suburbs to regional towns to coastal communities.”

READ ALSO Election hint that tells us nothing we didn’t already know

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is gathering his senior ministers together today (13 January) for the cabinet meeting of his government for 2025.

Hot off his weeklong blitz of three states last week announcing big-ticket infrastructure commitments, it is expected that cost-of-living relief will be the focus of today’s meeting.

The PM, who is keeping his preferred election date a secret, said his government was united and ready for the campaign, despite polling showing Labor to be in trouble.

“We’ll be seeking a majority government at the next election and Australians will have a choice between a government that has provided cost-of-living relief, that has built the foundations of future growth for a future made in Australia, and an Opposition that hasn’t put forward an alternative plan, that’s just said ‘no’ to all of our cost-of-living measures and that doesn’t have a plan for Australia’s future, that will take Australia backwards,” Mr Albanese said last week.

“So, I’ll be putting forward my optimistic vision for this nation. I think if we get this decade right, we can set Australia up for the many decades ahead …

“I’ve been in the parliament for a while now. I have never seen a political party as united, as cohesive and as determined as the Australian Labor Party is going into 2025.”

Join the conversation

157
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Gee, the Labor luvvies are out in droves. They’re triggered something fierce

John Pedestrian9:44 pm 14 Jan 25

The LNP proposal is probably in reality about $400 billion in extra spend the ALPs is probably in reality about $550 billion in extra spend.
Current total fed budget is about $720 billion.
Presumably the money for either plan will be borrowed on the market and interest rates are no longer close to zero. Repayments are going to be significant. Productivity growth is very poor so there is less to redistribute and less per person to play with.
Taxes can go up but there are pragmatic limits. Revenues from exports to China have probably peaked.
Looks like interesting times ahead for ” treasure island”

What a fine insight, to compare one year of today’s budget with 25+ years of investment. /sarcasm.
I hope you never tried to buy a house, John Pedestian, because I doubt one year of your salary would have afforded it.

The LNP proposal is for less energy, a smaller economy, a poorer country. If you buy less you pay less, and you get less. Nuclear is still uneconomic on a unit basis. Surely you have come across unit pricing in a supermarket, John Pedestrian?

Your arguments about limits basically scream avoid the financial folly of nuclear power, but no, you want to pay for the white elephant and keep paying through the nose afterwards for the expensive power (though insufficient) it might generate.

John Pedestrian2:49 pm 14 Jan 25

Worth remembering that the primary reason nuclear has not previously even been considered is , there is a law against it (and getting a change of that law through the senate would be hard work.)
As for estimates of the costs of all big builds , they all need a lot of salt.

One thing that is undeniable fact is the cost of electricity has gone up quite a lot . And with out the federal government subsidies to households it would have risen even more .

As undeniable as the fact renewables are cheaper and have actually suppressed price increases. Have you any idea that you are prepared to show about what has actually gone into price increases?

Maybe a primary reason for no nuclear is that no-one in the industry is lobbying for it. On the contrary, they reject its financial viability. You cannot escape that. You want to pay through the nose instead for no more than ideological reasons.

They can change the law this instant and nuclear will still remain the most expensive and slowest form of power in Australia.

Which is why it won’t happen and I suspect Dutton knows that.

John Pedestrian9:16 pm 14 Jan 25

Please all biz spends money time lobbying government for , special treatments subsidies and best of all bans on their competitors
None of them is going to lobby for anything that isn’t what they have already invested deeply info , especially something that might outcompete them.

It’s all ‘who is in or out of the chairman’s lounge ‘ merde.

It’s probably too late and culturally too hard ,but the best most efficient way is put a price on carbon ( or a tax don’t care ) lift all bans and subsidies and let us as a group work out what’s the cheapest best options.

Did you argue in favour of a price on carbon at the time it was introduced, John Pedestrian, and vote against the Liberal government which later removed it?

If you claim to be rational about carbon pricing, then you might understand the accuracy of Gencost from AEMO and the CSIRO. You do not show it.

What are you talking about John? Seems like more nonsense.

The point is the current laws aren’t why nuclear would be the most expensive and slowest form of energy to build in Australia.

The energy retailers & generators have rejected nuclear on the sole basis of costs so it’s not going to happen even if Dutton is elected.

At this point, all nuclear is a culture wars distraction for dummies.

HiddenDragon9:30 pm 13 Jan 25

“…..it offered no new policy positions.”

Yes, that is Labor’s talking point du jour (and probably semaine) but, if anything, it says more about Labor and the cluelessness which has them staring down the barrel of being the first oncers in nearly a century than it does about the Coalition.

With many Australians making ends meet – or trying to – by taking a seriously no frills approach to their own spending, the level of support for a similar approach to government spending might turn out to be a surprise for those who think that the natural state of affairs is ever expanding government and public reliance on it.

If Labor had any real respect for the people whose votes they are trying to buy with their big ticket promises they would explain how they are going to pay for those promises by means other than personal income tax bracket creep – which is all they have at present.

That is not a sustainable option and without the guts to pursue new sources of revenue there will be a painful day of reckoning – particularly for those who have little or no choice but to rely on government.

Good comment. The worst part is Albanese’s denial of the obvious . As the RBA Governor keeps trying to tell him, higher government spending means higher interest rates. Yet the PM refuses to acknowledge the bleeding obvious.

GrumpyGrandpa9:06 pm 13 Jan 25

Did Peter Dutton just call an election? Well of course not, however, Albo however has been sowing seeds for months with funding promises, in the next term. He’s recently upped it significantly with his $6-7 billion rail track in Qld and a commitment to complete the NBN.

Dutton made some general statements criticising Albo’s leadership over the past year and how he’d be a stronger leader. Criticism of Dutton not offering anything new, is meaningless. In my opinion, it’d be pretty unwise to announce policies early. It’d just enable Albo to match or better them. Albo, being an incumbent can take that approach, because it’s akin to a continuation of business. There is still that risk that some of Albo’s powder is already wet. Those announcements are now old news, when an election is called and in the meantime, it gives Dutton the opportunity to match, better or time to find deficiencies.

There’s one thing I’m certain of, and that’s I’m going to be sick to death of all of the tax payer funded promises, the political spin and partisan arguments from rusted-on believers from all sides of politics. Hear we go again….

Dutton, Littleproud, Taylor….. What a pityful line-up! The heavens help us if that lot wins the election.

Trudi, Not one politician in parliament is worth my vote. That includes Labor, Liberal, Green, independents or Teal. What a sad reflection on politics in Australia.

Soooo…should I start making GABOT hats, and should I make them red or would that be too bleedin obvious?

John Pedestrian2:08 pm 13 Jan 25

Suggest that it’s clear that Labor is going for an early election. And Dutton is simply responding to that.
John Black ex Labor senator and numbers guy is predicting that the LNP plus a few conservative independents are most likely to be the next government – the senate will continue to be the usual chaos.

Why does no-one ever call Dutton on his claims Albanese leads “one of the most incompetent governments in our nation’s history”? His selective memory seems to forget the mess Albanese inherited from a government that Dutton was a senior minister in.

I’m not claim Albanese is perfect (there are a lot of things I am disappointed with) but the nation’s financial state is actually better than what it was when he took over.

Albo’s biggest stuff up was getting his son Chairman’s lounge access. That showed he isn’t one of the people.

He is though? The definitive Howard Aspirational: from humble beginnings, he now lives in a $4M coastal mansion – thus demonstrating that with enough grit and having a go, you can win.

Labor’s priorities seem to have been the voice, Palestine, high immigration and expensive and unreliable renewables. Australia needs to change direction and it’s not going to happen under the current government. Good on Dutton for outlining a vision for Australia.

And no, oppositions don’t call elections.

Hi Penfold, you may have forgotten a few priorities so here a memory-jogger for you:
$3bn in student debt relief; Help-to-Buy shared equity Scheme; Build-to-rent for 80,000 homes; Pay rise for childcare workers; aged care reforms; Future Made in Australia reforms; Social media laws to protect our children. As to your claim about expensive renewables, they’re a lot cheaper than any nuclear option.
As to Dutton, who a previous Liberal PM described as a “thug”, we don’t need that style of far right-wing politics in Australia, thx.

Capital Retro12:25 pm 13 Jan 25

You forgot to mention the resounding success the NDIS has been.

Astro2, the Coalition’s “renewables plus nuclear” plan is 44% cheaper than Labor’s “renewables only” plan.
https://www.australianeedsnuclear.org.au

LOL,
Surely no one is actually taking the Liberal costings for nuclear seriously?

There’s so many holes in the “analysis”, you could drive a truck through them.

It’s not, completely garbage figures dependent on massive and unlikely assumptions…such as Australia…with no nuclear industry will build nuclear power plants faster than any country in history and the assumption that SMRs are a thing….but they’re not there are only two SMRs in commercial operation and both are massively subsidised by totalitarian governments (China & Russia). SMRs don’t generate enough power to cover the massive costs.

Dutton’s figures are garbage, his nuclear plan is aimed at the uniformed and culture warriors, even if he does get elected it won’t happen because the energy retailers and generators have already said no (because it’s too expensive and too slow).

Renewables are the cheapest form of power refer to the Gencost report. Dutton’s “vision” amounts to little more than culture wars based on telling massive porkies.

astro2 – Future made in Australia – ha! You have to have (cheap) power for manufacturing

Seano, CIS scrutiny of the 2024-25 GenCost report shows the CSIRO have massively underestimated the cost of battery storage for a renewables only plan, greatly underestimated the capacity factor of nuclear power generators, significantly underestimated the cost of transmission lines, underestimated the cost of energy wastage with renewables only, and overestimated the capacity factor for wind and solar. Plus, CSIRO will not show their math.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsJXtVdY7Cc

John Pedestrian3:03 pm 13 Jan 25

Chewy
The LNP proposal is on a close look probably a bit less expensive than the ALPs. But both plans are very expensive. And will have to be paid for one way or another.

Warming is real and the transition is not really avoidable – the two sides are only arguing about ‘how to do it’.
However
Either way power bills will continue to rise.

John Pedestrian, cheaper to build by building less, generating less power, a poorer country?
With the immediate consequence of higher electricity prices after you have funded the extravagance directly through your taxes?
Considered the increased emissions in the meantime, when you already say you recognise the warming problem?

Commercial entities are not interested for a good reason. Return on capital is not there without subsidy from you and I, and it seems you are more keen to waste money than I am.

The Gencost report was not the CSIROs finest moment. Besides the odd decision to release it twice, its assumptions were highly flawed. A nuclear plant has a 80+ year lifecycle. Gencost factored that in at 30 years. The uptime of nuclear was estimated at 50%, the lived reality is well over 90%. And of course under more renewables, energy prices are skyrocketing. 30 developed countries can’t be too wrong.

Sounds great, but all i’m hearing there is more spending, more debt, higher interest rates and higher cost of living. Under Labor, it’s deficits for the next four years and structural deficits for much longer.

John Pedestrian,
No on close look the LNP proposal isn’t going to be cheaper because they have deliberately made unrealistic assumptions to attempt to skew the analysis in their favour.

Anyone that thinks Australia with no nuclear industry will be able to build a plant cheaper and faster than any other country has previously is deluded.

Funny that Nobody talks about the CSIRO overestimating the capacity factor for renewables when the Liberals analysis ridiculously does that for nuclear whilst leaving out any number of additional costs that will need to be borne.

Apparently the nuclear waste will just look after itself. LOL.

Renewables will provide over 50% of our electricity in the next couple of years, Nuclear is a pipedream that will never be delivered and Dutton knows it.

I couldn’t agree more!

John Pedestrian8:09 pm 13 Jan 25

Don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
I’m not government have never been government , nobody listens to me 😊
For what it’s worth I’d simply put a price on carbon , no other government interventions, no legal bans in nukes or subsidies etc
And leave it to us as a group to work out what’s the best options

Penfold, if that farrago of fictions were sound then why are energy investors in Australia pursuing renewables and not lobbying for nuclear? Why do you want the expense to be by government, taxpayer subsidised? Why do you want a smaller, more vulnerable energy grid? Why do you want to pay more for power?

Renewable energy has put downward pressure on prices over the last seven years and its effect will increase, where any report on nuclear will tell you it is expensive. Did you notice that even the Liberals do not claim that nuclear will reduce energy bills, and that Liberal Senator Canavan has admitted it is more expensive?

You probably did not. Looks from your other post like you will swallow anything from the Libs, no thought applied.

Franz – the only way renewables compete in the energy market is by the tens of billions they receive in subsidies. If they are cheaper, why do they need subsidies and why do power prices continue to rise under Labor ?

Maybe open your eyes and ask yourself why Three Mile Island is reopening, why there are dozens of new nuclear power plants being built around the globe. If you can, you’ll be one step ahead of Albanese and Bowen. And also ask yourself why Labor are going to lose majority (if not all) power after just one term.

Capital Retro10:38 am 14 Jan 25

Labor are not good at defending the indefensible so standby for more scaremongering.
Nuclear for Australian submarines = good
Nuclear for Australian homes = bad

@Penfold,I see you are a devotee of the CIS which extrapolates (and distorts) costs over ten years. You doubtless have equal belief that fossil fuels are subsidised by over fourteen billion dollars every single year, not stretched over ten years, as published by the Australia Institute. Are you a bit credulous?

Your remaining sentences betray inability to understand price drivers or investment. Still, you will be pleased to know that China is by far the leading country for development of new nuclear plants. In fact they installed a “massive” 10 GW in the last five years giving them a “huge” 70 GW current capacity with plans to double it, while renewables in China account for a mere 1200 GW of current capacity, growing by over 200 GW annually. Oops, that is about twenty times more for renewables. What are your dear leader’s coherent plans?

I could ask myself your last question if I were interested but my answers would not be as simplistic as yours. You can follow your leader if it helps you feel safe.

Capital Retro,
Oranges = good
Apples = Bad.

Surely no one is silly enough to think that comparison is a good one?

If you wanted to make the cheapest operational submarine, nuclear is the last thing you would consider.

Capital Retro – does not even understand the question.

Stop watching cooked YouTube videos from right-wing “think” tanks would be my advice. The CSIRO are the experts, not partisans with agendas.

Protip: The Energy Generators and retailers have rejected Dutton’s Nuclear nonsense…these are for profit companies with shareholders. They’re not doing that because it’s “woke” they doing it because nuclear is too expensive and too slow and the fastest cheapest way to build new energy is renewables with firming technology.

Time to grow up and deal with the real world.

How many homes are you powering with a nuclear sub? Even for you this is a dim analogy.

Wouldn’t it be nice if they explained that bizarre conundrum.

John Pedestrian11:41 am 14 Jan 25

Renewables will probably provide about 70 percent of all power. However it’s the other 30 percent plus the considerable costs of effectively rebuilding the grid ,that will one way or the other cost.

The two main options for providing the long-term stability the system needs at the scale needed are :
Big pumped hydro.
And
or nuclear power.
Both of them are very expensive and slow to build.

Pragmatically reversing the lae banning nuclear power would have to get through the senate

Capital Retro12:30 pm 14 Jan 25

What question was that, Franz?

Capital Retro12:35 pm 14 Jan 25

Actually Seano, the CSIRO know little about nuclear. It is not one of their core areas of expertise.
They are merely the mouth-peace for the anti-nuclear lobby and have passed on studies that fit the narrative from other sources.

Another ridiculous smear from Capital Retro. The reference list for the annual Gencost report, produced by AEMO (Aus Energy Market Operator) and CSIRO includes the International Atomic Energy Agency and relies for data on Korean nuclear manufacturers and operators, considered currently the best in the business. What narrative?

The most efficient and effective low-emission energy market, Capital Retro, probably not to be powered by moored submarines. You have been satirised adequately by others on that already.

Absurdly wrong again, John Pedestrian. Try 98% renewable. Ask AEMO, or do you imagine you can instruct them?

Grid costs are already accounted in Gencost, and you lack both of imagination and research in relation to firming technologies. There is only one Snowy 2. You do not understand pumped hydro.

More likely you do not want to.

Franz – quoting the laughably named “Australia Institute” doesn’t help your argument, they’re the Greens …. ahem …. think tank. But i love your repeated comments in this thread suggesting that anyone with an alternate opinion is clearly of lower intellect. That’s a classic case of not having a credible point !

Whoosh!
Read it again, Penfold, you may creep toward understanding the point.

You might also notice that I have not said anyone was wrong because they were a bit thick but that not everyone understands evidence, argument and influences, or as likely they are too politically embalmed and buried to notice. That’s life, or do you think otherwise?

Anyone can see that you have now abandoned argument, evidence being against you.

Capital Retro,
There’s clearly someone here that’s well out of their “core areas of expertise” and it’s you.

You clearly haven’t even read the CSIRO and industry reports into nuclear, so ridiculous is your comment.

They’ve literally benchmarked costs and impacts from overseas nuclear plants that have/are being built and in operation.

Do you realise how silly you look?

Capital, making things up again.

Read the Gencost report and show us where it’s wrong. We both know you won’t because you can’t.

Lol Franz. It’s noted you don’t address the issue of why, if they’re so cheap, renewables receive such huge subsidies. But here’s one that will do your head in – fossil fuels receive no subsidies whatsoever from the federal government. Feel free to prove otherwise. Btw the diesel fuel rebate is not a subsidy. Getting your “facts” from the Australia Institute and the equally fact free Guardian is no substitute for credible information.

None of the partisans can get past the fact that the Energy Generators and Retailers have rejected Dutton’s nuclear plan.

The people who actually make the decisions, along with the states who will be responsible to their electorates aren’t about interested in your culture wars talking points.

It all comes down to the economics. Nuclear is the most expensive and slowest form of power that’s just the reality.

Seano – Microsoft and 30 developed make decisions too, and they’re backing nuclear. As is Albanese too on submarines. Confusing isn’t it.

Not really Penfold.

Nuclear subs and nuclear power are two different things. The analogy is dumb.

Microsoft has nothing to do with Australia’s energy decisions.

But the Energy producers and retailers do and they’ve rejected Dutton’s nuclear plan on the basis of cost (not to mention the impossibly fantastical assumptions Dutton’s made to make his nonsense plan appear to “work”).

You can keep talking pushing dumb analogies and culture wars talking points all you like but companies like AGL aren’t interested in Dutton’s culture wars nonsense, they’re interested in bottom lines, and nuclear is prohibitively expensive and too slow.

Penfold, given you still do not get it, I will spell out the obvious. I contrasted sources one could reasonably estimate to be biassed in the first instance (also like using the Guardian, not my paper, or the Australian, also not). You cling devotedly to one source, denying the other. That is the epitome of political bias without argument. Embalmed and buried.

“no subsidies whatsoever” fatuously denies reality. Do you even know what a subsidy is, what forms they take? The Federal government subsidises use of fossil fuels. It is predominantly State governments which subsidise their development or operation. Federal and State governments also subsidise or incentivise renewable energy and products. Not for a moment would or have I denied that.

Have you even wondered why they do, or are you denying various other realities too?

BTW another reason Dutton’s nuclear fantasy won’t happen in Australia even if he is elected… besides the fact that it’s too slow and expensive, reliant on ridiculous assumptions that can’t possibly happen and the people who make the actual decisions have rejected it for those reasons….where’s all the water coming from?

Not just the water in which is a huge problem in itself but the superheated water out which you can’t just dump into the environment without causing major harm?

The whole nuclear thing in Australia is a fantasy.

“Confusing isn’t it.” Apparently for you. Not speaking for Seano but for my part I favour use of coal in current blast furnaces and uranium in medical isotopes. What the whatever has that to do with an electricity grid? Arsenic is used in semiconductors and I am happy for it to stay there. Would you drink it? Seriously, do you know anything at all about energy other than CIS/Liberal talking points?

Thanks for the insight Franz. All i’m asking for is the item in the federal budget where coal or gas are subsidised by the government. Shouldn’t be too hard for a youngster of your intellect should it ?

Seano – so now water is the problem hey. Perhaps take a look at the proposed sites which all feature cooling water capacity. Maybe also look over at Europe where the renewable dream is well and truly over due to price and reliability problems. If coal is on the way out, and renewables don’t stack up we’re not left with much are we. Nuclear. 65 plants under construction around the world, 90 being planned. That’s no fantasy, it’s reality.

Penfold,
So you want to focus on the Nuclear plants under construction or being planned as some evidence of nuclear’s viability or global expansion?

At the same time ignoring that many of those projects have been delayed numerous times (some decades) and almost all under construction suffering from consistent cost blow-outs along with delays.

What then do you make of the amount of renewable energy generation capacity being constructed globally that is orders of magnitude higher?

If that’s evidence that renewables don’t stack up, it doesn’t say much for nuclear.

“Seano – so now water is the problem hey. “

Water was always a problem. You can’t just dump superheated water back into rivers in the Hunter, you’d know that if you knew what you were talking about but partisans rarely do.

“Maybe also look over at Europe where the renewable dream is well and truly over due to price and reliability problems”

Besides the fact that this comment is drivel, Australia is…*checks notes*….not Europe.

It doesn’t matter how many nuclear plants are under construction around the world, here there’s none and to start from scratch it would be massively more expensive to build nuclear….do keep up champion.

“Seriously, do you know anything at all about energy other than CIS/Liberal talking points?”

None of the partisans ever do Franz.

It’s why they don’t understand that nuclear won’t happen even if Dutton is elected (although I’m sure he’ll waste a ton of money and time mucking around…but that’s kinda the point for some).

Seano – yes indeed, Australia isn’t Europe. We’re far better placed than Europe to develop a nuclear industry. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but nuclear is a world wide proven technology, the opposition to it is really quite bewildering. Even the French do it successfully, exporting power to Germany and other neighbours. As for the price, well wind and solar will cost us trillions, far more than nuclear.

And the good news is it’s coming to an Australian submarine near you ! It’s hilarious watching Labor talk about three-eyed fish at the same time as they support nuclear subs. That really is a conundrum isn’t it. There’s no doubt nuclear will come to Australia, the only question is how long it takes. As you demonstrate, the arguments against it are getting weaker and sillier.

Penfold,
Are you still honestly trying to compare nuclear subs to nuclear energy?

The reason nuclear fails isn’t because of a nuclear bogeyman, it’s because the economics don’t stack up. It’s the most expensive option available.

As Seano mentions, other issues like the requirement for a large scale, guaranteed water supply (well above the requirements for coal) also significantly limits the amount of locations we could theoretically put plants. There’s plenty of similar nuclear specific constraints like waste products that further reduce viability.

You claim to be against subsidies but then support the option that would require the biggest subsidies to make it viable in Australia.

It’s absolutely nonsensical.

Capital Retro9:36 am 15 Jan 25

Seano, and your mate chewy, from this link some science and a quote within the article is:
“Water use in a coal-fired power plant is very similar to a nuclear facility so it is almost certain that the seven locations identified as future nuclear power plant sites could supply a reactor, according to Professor Obbard.”

Capital Retro,
Thanks for providing a link agreeing with my statements:

“like the requirement for a large scale, guaranteed water supply (well above the requirements for coal) also significantly limits the amount of locations we could theoretically put plants”.

You do realise that the coalition’s plan at present is limited to a few locations that would only provide a fraction of our power needs?

The major difference between nuclear and coal is that the cooling requirements for nuclear exist for a much longer time when the plant is switched off and that water supply needs to be guaranteed to prevent potential risks like meltdown.

You only need to look at Fukushima to see what happens when the water supply fails.

Thanks for agreeing on this point and you’ve even provided further evidence of some of the potential environmental issues as well. Well done.

Penfold makes no response to my accurate statement, also described by chewy14, that renewables are being installed at about 20 times the rate of intended nuclear, even in China which accounts for about half of proposed systems.
Penfold alone tries to relate opposition to radioactive mutation rather than to the obvious economic silliness everyone else discusses.
Penfold avoids any mention of climate impacts of persistent use of dying coal stations, probably the fundamental aim of the Liberal’s nuclear fantasy.
Penfold wants to fund uneconomic white elephants from the taxpayer.
Penfold wants to pay more for energy.

Penfold now wishes to add this to his record — incompetence at understanding budgets and delineation between governments.

Do you tuck up in bed to warm your cockles of your heart with the CIS/Liberal talking points, Penfold? After all, you contribute nothing else.

“Seano – yes indeed, Australia isn’t Europe. We’re far better placed than Europe to develop a nuclear industry”

No we’re not. That’s one of the reasons it’s so expensive.

Thanks for playing.

Thanks for the link Retro proving that there are massive environmental concerns with dumping superheated water back into river systems.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.