19 June 2024

Dutton unveils his vision for seven nuclear power plants

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
134
Peter Dutton

Peter Dutton says nuclear energy is the way to go and a Coalition will build seven plants around the country. Photo: Facebook.

Peter Dutton has revealed the intended locations of seven nuclear power stations he will build across Australia if the Coalition wins the next federal election.

But beyond providing dots on the map, the Opposition Leader has given scant information about his plan.

There are no costings and only a rough timeline committing to having the first plants in operation between 2035 (if using smaller module reactors) and 2037 (if larger reactors are chosen).

The Federal Government would own the assets but form partnerships with experienced nuclear companies to build and operate them.

A community partnership would also be formed in each host community, consisting of experienced local representatives, to help with local engagement and play a role in planning the future of their regions.

Mr Dutton said the community engagement process would occur alongside a comprehensive site study that would include detailed technical and economic assessments.

Each site will be located at a power station that has closed or is scheduled to close.

The locations are Liddell Power Station in NSW; Mount Piper Power Station, NSW; Loy Yang Power Stations in Victoria; Tarong Power Station in Queensland; Callide Power Station, Queensland; Northern Power Station in South Australia; and Muja Power Station in Western Australia.

READ ALSO Dutton says he’s focussed on Australian economy, not international carbon targets

“Each of these locations offers important technical attributes needed for a zero-emissions nuclear plant, including cooling water capacity and transmission infrastructure,” Mr Dutton said.

“That is, we can use the existing poles and wires, along with a local community that has a skilled workforce.

“A key advantage of modern zero-emissions nuclear plants is they can be plugged into existing grids.

“This means they can effectively replace retired or retiring coal plants and avoid much of the new spending needed for Labor’s renewables-only system, including new transmission poles and wires – all of which will be passed on in the form of higher bills.”

Declaring nuclear energy for Australia as an idea whose time has come, the Opposition Leader said the Coalition believes the nation must have a balanced energy mix to deliver cheaper, cleaner and consistent 24/7 electricity.

He said the option was viable because 90 per cent of baseload electricity, predominantly coal-fired power stations, is coming to the end of life over the next decade, and the current government was relying too heavily on a renewable energy future.

“No country in the world relies solely on solar and wind as Labor is proposing,” the Opposition leader said.

“By contrast, there are 32 countries operating zero-emissions nuclear plants. Another 50 countries are looking to do so.

“Of the world’s 20 largest economies, Australia is the only one not using nuclear energy, or moving towards using it.”

He said every Australian deserves and should expect access to cheaper, cleaner and consistent electricity, but it wasn’t happening because the government’s “renewables-only” solution was failing.

“The government is now talking about a 65 to 75 per cent emissions reduction target by 2035, but won’t release modelling and won’t tell us how much higher power prices will go up,” Mr Dutton said.

“Power bills have already increased by up to $1000 for many Australians, when they were promised a $275 cut, and Labor’s climate target of 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 has become unachievable.”

READ ALSO Not all Liberal MPs are happy campers about Dutton’s climate comments

Five of the named sites fall in Coalition electorates, with one in a Labor seat and the other in independent MP Andrew Gee’s seat of Calare, which he won as a Nationals MP but he quit the party over its opposition to the Voice referendum.

Addressing an energy conference in Sydney, Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan was “the dumbest policy ever put forward by a major party”.

Clean Energy Council chief executive Kane Thornton described Mr Dutton’s nuclear policy as a recipe for delay and skyrocketing energy bills.

“Australia has no nuclear power industry, so building new reactors would take at least 20 years and cost six times more,” Mr Thornton said.

“This is a policy that would deliver nothing for at least 20 years, result in much higher power prices and risk the lights going out as coal power stations continue to close.

“No Australian community wants a nuclear reactor on its doorstep and no Australian family wants to share communities and roads with truckloads of nuclear waste.

“As ageing and increasingly costly coal-fired power stations exit our energy system, only renewables firmed by storage is capable of preventing blackouts and power price spikes no family or business can afford.”

Join the conversation

134
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Smart idea to use the old coal fired power station sites with all their existing infrastructure! The ANU professor on ABC radio made some excellent points on nuclear energy benefits yesterday.

Australia urgently needs to use this reliable clean energy source. I look forward to seeing a secure reliable energy future for Australia.

Bloody disappointed with ALP for their short sightedness. Think Dutton has exposed a significant lack of knowledge in government here. Hurry up and get properly briefed Albo. Labor showing zero interest is a big problem, they already are not acknowledging or tackling the current catastrophic housing and cost of living crisis. But their retaliatory misinformation is mortifying to see in media – really exposes a gross lack of understanding.

Anyone elected to government I expect them to be able to properly consider ideas and initiatives like this on their merits on behalf of the people.

@Kb
“Anyone elected to government I expect them to be able to properly consider ideas and initiatives like this on their merits on behalf of the people”
Totally agree … so how does cost/timeframes featuure into the propoer consideration of this idea? Perhaps you can expand on the lack of knowledge Dutton has exposed by enlightening us – because he certainly hasn’t.

Kb, do you mean sites like those which are already being, or planned to be, shifted to storage of or research on renewables? Compensation will require not only land value purchase but also for installed working assets, not just power plant scrap metal. Get your cheque book ready for that as well as the excessive plant cost.

I notice that you included several comments about people being short sighted or lacking knowledge while yourself advancing no knowledge whatsoever.

privatepublic11:13 am 21 Jun 24

In reply to JS9

Rubbish to “Irrelevant to the conversation” I very much doubt many would know in the first place. Fact is a number of the non-military vessels do not use enriched uranium; thus, the design could be used. The conversation is currently underway worldwide, afraid you cannot stop it.

Why is France one of the only countries meeting it’s “Paris Agreements” target without pulling its teeth out with some rusty plier’s gangster style – Nuke power. The automotive standards being proposed in Australia are not achievable from 2027 onwards for many vehicles, such as pickups, vans/mini and everyday passenger vehicles. This is just one of the ways the feds are going to meet their so-called targets, by screwing the populace.

As for the fully or partly foreign owned power generating “big companies” they want the best bang for their buck, Nuke will not provide a decent enough return on investment. Evo energy is 50% foreign owned and NSW similar as sold under Labor around 2012. Dutton’s proposal for Fed Gov ownership makes sense.

What will it cost? Who knows. The currently proposed 500 wind turbines 20 km out to sea also needs costing. Give them some time on both sides of the fence.

I was in SE Asia and China a few weeks back and the one thing I noticed (been over there many times throughout the past 20 years not as a tourist) is Australian infrastructure wise feels second nation every time I get back.

Two blackouts in my part of Gungahlin as I got back, advised it was power shedding, we are so backwards. Over the last few years there have been power shedding blackouts in Canberra. Within SE Asia power shedding blackouts occurred from time to time 20 years ago, now unless a storm hits, do not have blackouts from power shedding.

Parts of SE Asia are investigating Nuke power as coal/oil/biomass plants need to be replaced. Not enough room for large scale solar as rainforest would have to be removed (some of the rainforest I have been in is very dark as the sun does not get through the canopies). Wind at a decent proportion is only apparent during winter, around December for three weeks at a maximum. Hydro is causing enormous environmental issues downstream – think Mekong/Yangtze and other rivers.

Been viewing https://www.ventusky.com/ for three years now and have noticed fairly stable temperatures worldwide, for the exception of parts of Antartica and Europe which appear to be cooler. The site is usually within +- 1-2 degrees C of the local weather service.

“Two blackouts in my part of Gungahlin as I got back, advised it was power shedding, we are so backwards. Over the last few years there have been power shedding blackouts in Canberra. Within SE Asia power shedding blackouts occurred from time to time 20 years ago, now unless a storm hits, do not have blackouts from power shedding.”

Privatepublic,
have you got any evidence for this claim? There have been no power shedding events in Canberra at any time in recent years.

These would be directed and announced as lack of reserve (LOR) events in the national grid. Nothing like this has occurred, you may be mistaking normal planned maintenance or unplanned local failures.

So your original comment referred specifically to enriched uranium vessels, then complain when that is called out, and change your mind to that wasn’t what you were really referring to.

Make your mind up.

And yep – I’m sure 3 years of climate data is comprehensive proof of every assertion you wish to make.

privatepublic, thank you for diligently viewing a web site for three years now. I look forward to reading of your submission to a reputable journal, BoM, AEMO, CSIRO or anywhere useful, of your keen observations.

privatepublic4:15 pm 22 Jun 24

Not complaining, I should have stated in the first instance.

privatepublic4:16 pm 22 Jun 24

Just a hobby and observation, nothing more.

privatepublic5:16 pm 22 Jun 24

My apologies for the long delay Chewy14. I do not usually reply to many threads here, but generally agree with you on most issues via the Riotact. As a interesting point way off, when I search the RA when in certain countries via Google/other I always put in Riot Act newspaper as one wonders if the local authorities see this user looking up Riots:)

You may be correct on power shedding, do not read to much into whys as it could be a political foot ball.

There was an unplanned outage on 20 June for Parts of MONCRIEFF, NGUNNAWAL, TAYLOR.

Our outage was for Casey and not sure where else, no warning (email/mail) on 12 June on two occasions just before 11PM for roughly 15 mins and again on 13 June around 00:30 for a rough 30 minutes. My kid took a walk around and down the suburb to Casey Market Town and adjoining flats, no power including streetlights. Evo Energy has not displayed any outages for this timeframe, it was definitely a blackout.

https://www.evoenergy.com.au/Outages

I know you like website confirmation – below is human confirmation.

During the summer of 2019 there was clearly power shedding across the whole of the ACT/NSW. My friends/businesses were talking power outages everywhere.

Friends/businesses in NSW Cabramatta (shopfronts – GPs), Campbelltown (local shops, minimall and MacArthur Square/backup diesel kicked in – GPs) , Cronulla, Goulburn, Hornsby, Mittagong, Mosman (surprise, so close to Kirribilli)) and Waterfall endured either suburb or part suburb wide blackouts. Obviously differing locations, most not affected by fire directly. I believe transmission lines to Sydney in general were not affected. Politely correct me if I am wrong.

The ACT (parts of or full) Ngunnawal, Amaroo (part of), Kambah, Condor, Calwell, Isabella Plains and Gordon. I gather most had their air-conditioning on, we did for three weeks straight as the nights never got below 32C from memory.

“Just a hobby and observation, nothing more.”

So why mention this “just” an observation, not worth the gum leaf on which it wasn’t written? Tendentiousness?

privatepublic2:35 pm 23 Jun 24

Definitely not Tendentiousness in any way. As for the worth or should I state my right to make a statement should be impeded. As for any readers of my comment on “just a hobby and observation” take it or leave it, makes no difference to this being . Not sure why you are firing back as I have made myself clear “observation”, which does not mean I do not agree with some climate reports, if that’s what your getting at.

In essence all I made was a short statement on my observations. No harm, my apologies for using some innocent sprites, if that offended you.

You appear to want a debate where there is nothing to debate. Such a harmless small detail, where I have been clear cut on my response. I will not be entertaining or reading any further comment by you on this particular thread.

That your comment was either tendentious or merely irrelevant is my observation, which should not be impeded.
I agree there is nothing to debate there, so in the vein of your present comment I might wonder why you troubled yourself to defend making it.

But I don’t.

The Labor party objection to nuclear is misinformation regards three eyed koalas ad nauseum. Australia, maybe one day, will have nuclear submarines. Any three eyed children of existing nuclear submarines sailors? Lucas Heights – suburbia has encroached on this facility – any three eyed dogs, koalas or children? No. Nuclear medicine, for which Lucas heights is renowned for is not a diaster

That is wonderful news, Futureproof. Meanwhile, what is the point of too expensive, too late, too small, nuclear power plants? If Dutton’s entire pie successfully floated into the sky, it would still represent a minority of our energy generation, less than renewables are today, but you would pay for the indulgence anyway.

How is it too late? We will need electricity in the future too!

Elf, are you of the serious belief that sufficient nuclear capacity will be available to replace the entire coal-fired capacity by 2035 when the latter close down? Or fall apart prior to that given their average capacity factor is already falling?

Nuclear will also be too late in the sense that the capacity will already be there from renewables, at the current accelerating rate. After allowing for different capacity factors the just-approved wind farm off the Illawarra will have the capacity of a large scale nuclear plant. Wind at sea is more reliable than on land, hence its higher capacity rating.

Needing electricity in the future is precisely why we need to keep working on building it right now, not maybe by the 2040s for one plant if we are lucky. If we build all seven plants before 2050 they would probably still account for only about 15% of then demand, a firming role only, not a miraculous cure.

This is shaping up to be the Voice 2.0 for sure. But no doubt progressives have learned their lesson and wouldn’t fall for it going to a referendum like the Voice did, because they know they’ll lose 2:1 again. No matter how much the corporates, Albo, the Greens, the universities, the MSM and every other captured organ of progressive ideology try to manipulate the public, like they did with the Voice, somehow they just can’t suck people in.

And then how about all the scare campaigning coming out! 3-eyed Blinkey Bill and so on. You know, in all seriousness, what the actual big health scare is? Microplastics from plastics recycling. Of course it won’t be reported by the ABC or the Guardian or the Greens, but you watch: the story will slowly come out, and it’s a truly scary one. Endocrine interruption of just about every creature on the planet. They ought to talk about that, instead of flogging boring and empty anti-nuclear memes dredged up from the 1980s.

I really don’t know how you think this is anything like the Voice.

It is about science, engineering and economics. All of which show that nuclear is a poor option for Australia now. The ideological standpoint is mostly coming from those with an inherent dislike of change and inability to understand the technical components of the issue.

As for “microplastics” (strange topic change) it has little to do with recycling of plastics, it’s a problem simply because of the level and type of plastics products we use.

And not sure why you think they won’t be reported on, a google search shows numerous articles on the issue from all the sources you mention. The Greens themselves have been massive proponents of banning plastic products that cause them (Greens love the banhammer), so I don’t know why you would think they are silent on the issue.

@Rustygear
It’s truly sad to see that the Voice referendum left you so scarred that you are unable to move on.

Your ‘smoke and mirror’ attempt to turn Dutton’s nuclear energy policy into an issue created by others is the ultimate delusion. But, then you up the ante by introducing a totally unrelated issue with plastic recycling. All you have done is promote the cause to cease the use of plastics – how commendably Green of you.

As for “empty anti-nuclear memes dredged up from the 1980s”? Try 2024 nuclear energy realities – exhorbitant cost and blowout in delivery timeframes.

On nuclear energy:
Science = Settled
Engineering = Done
Economics = Costed as well as unreliables are.

Pretending otherwise is a lie.

Ken M,
what is you point?

I can’t see anywhere that I’ve suggested Nuclear is not a relatively safe and mature electricity generation technology.

So yes, it works perfectly well, the only problem being it is vastly more expensive than the alternatives, so the economics by itself makes it uneconomic and unecessary.

I also don’t ignore that there are other major hurdles around nuclear, that whilst not logical, exist. We have Nimby’s whinging about any form of small developments, the pushback against the location of nuclear plants would be huge. Not to mention the changes in legislation required that would take years to negotiate and enact.

All of which means the ability to deliver a nuclear plant would take decades. All whilst renewable projects are being funded and constructed by private industry making the need for nuclear non-existent.

So you are promoting a vastly more expensive option that would take decades to build if it could even get off the ground. Subsidised by massive amounts of taxpayer funds.

And you think it’s a good idea?

You can give your evidence, properly analysed and reviewed, for your economic claims, Ken M? You purported to be been on evidence a little earlier.

Science and engineering are also settled and done for battleships. That does not make them an optimal solution for our navy, or our energy needs.

Why would it go to a referendum? You obviously have very little understanding of the issue if you think it needs a referendum for any purpose.

JS, you’re projecting. You’re the scarred one, along with the rest of the wealthy elites — you lost, and were all literally, actually, crying the day after! Then decided “never again”. You’ve turned vicious. You know that it was basically only the same people who own most property in Australia, who voted Voice? That’s right. Progressives are fake lefties. Basically they (you) are the greedy class, but left-wash their greed by loudly shouting progressive nostrums. We got to see that in the referendum, which laid bare what the Guardian-reading class prefer remain cryptic: they’re the ones who drive inequality. They’re the fake Phillip Adams-style “leftists” who own second, third, fourth, properties and prevent young people from home ownership — vote “progressive” while snouts are firmly in the trough. Everything they (you) say, about any issue, is always linked to the ways in which you stockpile capital: economic, social, cultural — you name it. Why do bougie “progressive” elites come out against nuclear? The best heuristic is, the answer lies in some way they enhance their capital: mainly they’ve invested all their “we know best” eggs in the renewables basket. So it’s become another contest of bourgeois ideological supremacy against proletariat racist bigot deplorables and their “misinformation”. That’s how today’s class politics roll. In answer to Mr Chewy, the technical issues are just the figleaf rationalisation to hide the ideological agenda in aid of elitist capital accumulation. It’s so obvious, but of course not something you, JS, want people to know. The mask must never be allowed to slip in case the scam shows out too much.

Rustygear,
There may well be people who want to use the issue to promote some sort of ideological agenda but it doesn’t change the technology or economic assessments that stand on their own.

I find it truly strange that people who would normally be so strident in support for the most commercially sound options, go troppo on this issue, seemingly because their ideological opponents support one side.

It’s almost like they have to be contrarian to keep up the charade.

“If they’re for it, I’m against it.”.

@Rustygear
Wow – you really do have a lot of emotional baggage over the referendum, don’t you? Do you feel better having had that rant to get it off your chest?

Despite your nonsensical blithering, like you, I had a single vote in the referendum and I cast it – job done. Contrary to your frothing at the mouth over my position, Irrespective of the outcome, I neither gained nor lost anything.

As for the rest of your maniacal diatribe? Thank you for the entertaining comedy of cliches.

With respect to nuclear energy? I repeat. The realities => exhorbitant cost and blowout in delivery timeframes. Perhaps you could actually address those?

???
The plot went thataway … or maybe over there … it’s hard to tell through the dust, from the bull.

These Liberals are full of stunts when the going gets tough! I have read many articles on Dutton’s plan for nuclear power. One of the best is the dead cat strategy. A political move deployed by leaders at times of great desperation and a ploy used when a party leader is engaged in a policy argument he cannot win. The more people scrutinise the strategy the more problems they encounter. There is restlessness in the party room.
Enter the dead cat!
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8647015/jennifer-rayner-dead-cat-strategy-duttons-nuclear-distraction/

Is that any worse than your ALP employers doing SFA their entire terms, then attempting to buy votes when the election is looming?

Queenie-Lou Hilario4:50 pm 20 Jun 24

yep … big problem is, there’s a segment of Australia that couldn’t give a flying fart about evidence, facts, or truth, and who believe that anyone with an education or expertise in any area is a communist.

Ian Lowes blog post is worth exactly what you paid for it.

@Ken M
LMAO – you dismiss a cogent and well written critique of Dutton’s nuclear plan, but have no facts or reasoned argument to counter the critique. What a joke.

Imagine classing that drivel as either cogent or well written.

@Ken M and your usual trolling. Ian Lowes is an Emeritus Professor at the Griffith University. You should read the articles there written by academia, and not social media crackpots – you may actually learn something.

@Ken M
And immediately you come back with your standard baseless denigrations, absolutely proving your inability to counter an argument with anything but perjoratives and cliches. As previously stated what a joke.

LOL
If it wasn’t for double standards JS, you wouldn’t have any standards at all.

If I started presenting blog posts as “evidence”, you’d be whining about the lack of peer review.

@Ken M
‘If I started presenting blog posts as “evidence” …’
Let’s get past square one first.

When you actually start producing any kind of ‘evidence’ whatsoever, then you’ll have made a start towards something approaching a sensible post. Until then, still a joke.

A blog post is still not “evidence” though, JS.

Dishonest, bad faith argument seems to be all you have.

@Ken M
I see we can add illiteracy to your demonstrable skill set.

I didn’t say the article was “evidence”, I said it was cogent and well written – which you even quoted. So, I guess your incapacity for evidence-based commentary is regrettably understandable.

Plenty of outright falsehoods are very well written, JS. Your dishonesty and bad faith argument continues.

Your nonsense is also constantly protected by comments moderation.

@Ken M
LMAO – wow, you must have really frothed at the mouth to get the attention of the moderator.

Speaking of which, this off topic nonsense has gone on long enough – I’m desisting from further engagement before the moderator puts a stop to it.

Nope. Clean and clear bias. Nothing even mildly insulting in several responses that simply vanished. Simply evidence to counter your tantrums. It makes debating anything in here almost pointless.

“Simply evidence…”

Oh c’mon Ken M. When have you ever done that?

Look at every one of the seven posts you have made in this thread here.

The annual 2024 Lowy Poll found some interesting results to the question “Do you support or oppose Australia using nuclear power to generate electricity, alongside other sources of energy?”

All respondents – 61% support (27% strongly, 34% somewhat)
Aged 18-29 – 66% support (28% strongly, 38% somewhat)
ACT respondents – 73% support (24% strongly, 49% somewhat)

Greens voters – 48% support (15% strongly, 33% somewhat)
Labor voters – 52% support (18% strongly, 34% somewhat)
Coalition voters – 82% support (49% strongly, 33% somewhat)

Capital Retro4:07 pm 20 Jun 24

That would make Dutton’s plan a lay down misère.

You mean, like the majority who favoured The Voice in polls until there was political dissension over it?

@Capital Retro
Yep, I agree, CR, it’s absolutely a misere for Dutton – he will lose every trick with that plan.

Capital Retro10:59 am 22 Jun 24

Not only do you know anything about nuclear power but you fail on card games too.

@Capital Retro
Why do you consistently leave yourself open to embarrassment, CR?
“An open or lay down misère, or misère ouvert is a 500 bid where the player is so sure of losing every trick that they undertake to do so with their cards placed face-up on the table.”
And Dutton hasn’t even laid all his cards on the table.
Anything else you’d like to add?

CR,
The same poll quoted above found that 87% of people supported subsidies for renewable energy technologies.

What was that about card games again?

Well I’d be thinkin that all this chatter about nuclear power will not effect us one little bit here in the ACT

‘Since 2020, 100% of electricity in the ACT has come from renewable sources. The ACT will maintain this from now on. We aim to complete a transition away from the other major source of energy in the ACT – gas, by 2045’

After all how many times have we read where our Assembly leaders have said we are now 100% users of sustainable leccy

Unless of course that is incorrect

So what?

Asking for the people whose thought is capable of extending beyond their suburb.

The ACT is using 100% renewable electricity in the same way I’m carbon neutral if I buy carbon offsets. It’s BS.

Ken M, 40% of power in Australia is from renewable sources, 60% non. Electrons are indiscriminate so that represents what comes through our wires, in a general sense. Provision of actual power is not an “offset”. Your claim fails.

The government’s claim arises from its contractual arrangements which prices our power against renewable provision, changing the way our prices vary compared with other states and territories, now and in the future.

Feel free to argue the meaning of their claim; it is not my. interest. Undeniably, Australia’s supply is 40% renewable and climbing fast.

If you pay somebody generating power from solar, but some of your power still physically comes from coal and gas, then yes, that is exactly like buying carbon credits.

Unless the ACT starts its own isolated energy grid, the “Canberra is powered by 100% renewables!” claim is a lie. By your own analogy about electrons being indiscriminate.

Ken M, congratulations on successfully reading what I wrote. Now perhaps, since Merc600 does not, you might wish to answer my “So what?”

So what?
We could say that about all your complaints about nuclear energy too.

Ken M is unable to find sense in Merc600’s comment.
Ken M is unable to find an argument on the topic.

And byline has been caught telling lies right here.
That makes bylines arguments invalid.

Ken M, kindly point out the lie, explicitly. I refer you again to my post of 7.38 PM on 20 June. I don’t think you understood it at all.
Near as I can tell you seem to be banging on about a politician referring to “100% renewables”, not a claim I ever made.

Meanwhile, what have you to argue on the topic, which is nuclear power? Nothing to date is the short answer.

I trust proponents are happy to subsidise by taxation the most expensive form of power per GW rather than the cheapest, not to mention the potential blackouts when there is insufficient nuclear power to compensate for coal plant closures by 2035.

Dutton is proposing via a never-built-in-the-west SMR plus a large scale plant to have less than 2GW on stream by 2037 (typical plant values of 0.6 and 1.1 GW respectively). Given about 22GW will be taken off line by then, the gap will be filled by renewables, regardless. Renewables are cheaper, and currently being installed at a rate of about 3GW per year, accelerating. Allowing a capacity factor for renewables one third that of nuclear, there will still be far more renewable capacity effectively available years earlier than the optimistic, uncosted, politically fraught nuclear proposal.

I have previously stated no objection in principle to nuclear power as an option for firming. I am simply analysing cost and effectiveness, and on that basis the nuclear proposals are in today’s context quite daft.

Are you analysing the projected trillion dollar upgrade to the power grid required to facilitate wind and solar power?

Yes, I am including power grid upgrade costs. I am not including numbers not available from reliable sources..

Ken M,
as has been repeatedly explained to you, the transmission requirements are already included into the assessments of the costs of renewables integrating into the grid which show they are cheaper.

So the answer is yes, those costs are analysed and already included.

LOL
No, chewy, the upgrades to the enture national power grid are not included in any assessment.

LOL Ken,
You clearly don’t read the actual reports and research that include upgraded transmission costs in the assessment for renewables.

Of course they don’t include “upgrades to the entire national power grid” because that’s a completely different claim that has nothing to do with this

So, the assessments for renewables don’t include total cost? Thanks for confirming. 🙂

Ken M, I included upgrade costs associated with renewables. Why would you include costs not associated with renewables? Are you having trouble distinguishing necessary from optional or other reasons?

All you have confirmed is your unwillingness to view anything dispassionately.

Ken M,
“So, the assessments for renewables don’t include total cost?”

I know comprehension is not your strong point Ken but maybe you can get there.

The costs for renewables includes all of the directly related transmission costs required to integrate them into the national grid.

They of course don’t include unrelated network upgrade and renewal costs because these would be required no matter what generation mix is used, including nuclear.

So by your own logic, nuclear just became even more unfeasible than it was previously because apparently you need to include “total costs”.

Thanks for trying though.

Incorrect.
These trillion dollars worth of national grid upgrades are required only for renewables.

Thanks for trying though. 🙂

Ken M,
From the evidence you’ve already been provided:

“However, we know variable renewable energy (VRE), like wind and solar photovoltaic (PV), generates electricity intermittently. It requires significant extra costs to firm and integrate their supply into our electricity system.

So, to make a fair comparison of the competitiveness of VRE with other technologies that do not need firming or integration, we include these extra VRE costs in our analysis.”

https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/october/gencost-explainer

The additional costs are included and renewables are still cheaper.

Now instead of your continual fact free screeching, how about you put up some evidence about your claims.

I’ll wait.

LOL
The cost of the “net zero” dream and renewables is far worse than I thought.

Per https://www.energynetworks.com.au/news/energy-insider/2023-energy-insider/net-zero-australia-mobilisation-and-grid-firming/#_ftnref2

“The Net Zero Australia report finds that between $7 to $9 trillion dollars of investment will be required by 2060, depending on the scenario. A lot of this investment will be needed to build new generation capacity and interconnectedness and to ensure reliability of energy as we move away from dispatchable coal generation to higher levels of renewable generation”

The “Net Zero Australia” report is a collaborative research partnership between the University of Melbourne, the University of Queensland, Princeton University and international management consultancy Nous Group. You can go read it right there.

So a cost of about 350k per head of the entire Australian population. So much better value for money than nuclear!

This is getting even funnier now, when Ken doesn’t even read his own links.

Firstly, noting that your source is not linked directly to government policy as a separate organisation but let’s take their research as if it is.

The vast majority of the assessed cost in the report is for the new generation capacity that will be required to supply us electricity over the next ~40 years.

So if we went down your nuclear route, those costs would be even higher based on all the previous research I’ve already provided around relative costs between generation sources.

It also shows the increased costs for transmission and integration that have already been included in the same assessments showing that renewables are still cheaper. Well done on proving yourself wrong, you’ve set a new standard.

Ken also seemingly thinks that the Australian population won’t grow at all in the next 35 years but that’s a side issue for how wrong an individual can be.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

LOL
350,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in the country.

1.4 milliin dollars for an average family of 4.

Nobody cares how dishonestlu you try to frame it. The reality is that renewables are so unreliable that additional trillions of dollars need to be spent to maybe make it work.

Yay renewables!
🤣

Next level delusion on display. Maybe you can tell us again how the Finnish nuclear sector is brand new when they commission a power plant literally called number 3? Bahaha.

I’ve provided you with the evidence showing that even with the inclusion of transmission costs renewables are still cheaper. Something you’ve been unable to even attempt to refute. Truly embarrassing for you now.

Ken’s own report doesn’t even think Nuclear is worth including because it would be more expensive. Too funny.

“Australia has a large renewable energy base and general public acceptance of
renewables. If nuclear is factored into the future energy mix, resulting in slower
renewable deployment, the modelling suggests that would be a costly error, because it
likely to be more expensive than renewables with firming.1

It is also likely to take much longer. Nuclear power stations take an average of 9.4 years
to build, compared to 1-3 years for a major solar or wind project.2 Australia’s lack of
expertise and experience would likely make the lead time much longer.
Nuclear should not be regarded as an alternative to renewables, but the option”

Thanks for sharing the evidence Ken. 😂, trillions more for Nuclear.

You clearly haven’t read the actual “Net Zero Australia” report at all, chewy. I can understand that you were probably intimidated by the over 90 page preamble before even getting to the actual study. It makes no actual claims about the cost of nuclear power. You’re making up lies. Par for the course, really.

The Libs plan to build nuclear power plants at existing coal and gas sites requirss no massive overhaul of the national grid. No matter where you place renewables, there needs to be 7 to 9 trillion dollars of additional investment.

$350,000 for every man, woman and child in the country to fund your little virtue signal.

Then we have OECDs studies that say “Nuclear power, at a 3% discount compared with any other form of power generation, is THE CHEAPEST long term power generation source for EVERY COUNTRY IN THE OECD. Guess who is an OECD member…

You can cite all the biased sources you like, and lie about what reports say all you like, but the fact is your objection is entirely ideological, and we would have to build several hundred nuclear plants to match the expense of renewables. An average family could purchase 2 decent houses for what renewables will cost them, to be paid off with interest over generations.

Ken M,
Your most recent post shows me you didn’t read the report and the supporting linked information and references that guided the modelling results presented. From which I have quoted.

I know actually reading those references and supporting research might be intimidating Ken, but based on your record with providing backing for your comments, it’s understandable.

Too funny, when your own evidence defeats your argument.

“Net Zero” do include scenarios and research around the use of nuclear power as a potential route to net zero but find that nuclear could only provide a minor advantage under assumptions that nuclear costs were significantly lower than they are now and the rollout of renewables was more difficult/costly than it is now.

Even then under the most beneficial assumptions for nuclear, they find that it would only play a small supporting role.

For most of the scenarios they’ve developed, you don’t see a nuclear component literally because it’s been assessed as inefficient, being more expensive than renewables and because it couldn’t be developed for well over a decade at a minimum.

I don’t even think you’re smart enough to be lying about it, you simply weren’t capable of reading the research.

And even then, as I said at the start, this research is from an organisation investigating potential routes to net zero, they aren’t the government, the scenarios are theoretical and don’t reflect current government policy. The cost of each scenario varies significantly depending on assumptions and choices yet to be made.

I don’t need to quote “biased sources”, I’m happy to use yours. Part of the supporting references in your own link are the CSIRO Gencost research that I’ve linked previously.

So you’re even linking back to my evidence as well, claiming it to be definitive. Absolutely hilarious.

Speaking of ideology though, I’m still waiting for you to tell me what ideology you think I’m following. You went missing on that when challenged. Seems to be a regular occurrence.

It is amusing to watch the “The government should own the power companies and infrastructure!” and “Who cares about the cost? We have to reduce our emissions!” crowd, completely backflip on those positions when the LNP suggest spending a lot and owning the infrastructure. 🤣

You mean it’s amusing to see the gross hypocrisy of the “free market, small government” party suggesting massive expenditure and subsidies to have government own a more expensive electricity generation option right?

Particularly when they were mostly the party in charge when all of the government owned infrastructure was privatised in the first place.

Isn’t government ownership of critical infrastructure what you want?

Isn’t clean energy what you want?

You people are absurd. If Labor had announced it you’d be falling all over yourself to spruik the benefits and attack anybody who questioned the cost.

Ken M – You know the actual plan that they aren’t stating publicly is to get the facilities in there to provide the baseload and then sell them off to private enterprise to run as soon as possible. This IS the Liberal party after all.

“Isn’t government ownership of critical infrastructure what you want?”

No, can’t see where I’ve said anything of the sort, not sure why you need to make stuff up.

“Isn’t clean energy what you want?”

Yes, in the cheapest and most efficient manner possible. So why would we invest in Nuclear which is far more expensive, the wrong type of generation capability needed for the future grid and can’t be delivered for 20 years.

If the government “was” to invest in government owned generation capability, surely you’d want it to be for the cheapest and most efficient option? Why do you want to pay higher to subsidise non-economic solutions?

“You people are absurd”

Well yes, I’m sure the strawman picture in your head of a made up group of people arguing something different may well be absurd.

The fact that it has almost no relation to the reality of what I or others have argued though, just makes your comment look very strange indeed.

Governments worldwide have spent over $5 trillion in the past two decades to subsidize wind, solar, and other so-called renewables. However, even with that astronomical financial support, the world still depends on hydrocarbons for 84% of its energy needs—down only 2% since governments started binge spending on renewables 20 years ago. So-called renewables—more accurately, unreliables—have been a giant flop. They are not viable for baseload power—even with $5 trillion in subsidies and two decades of trying. Today, using wind and solar for mass power generation is an artificial political solution that would not have been chosen on a genuinely free market for energy. Wind and solar power might be useful in specific situations. Still, it’s ridiculous to think they can provide reliable baseload power for an advanced industrial economy. It’s like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Unreliables will not replace hydrocarbons anytime soon and will certainly not bring about energy security… despite what many “serious” people believe. When it comes to reliable baseload power, most of humanity has only three choices: 1) hydrocarbons—coal, oil, and gas 2) nuclear power 3) abandon modern civilization for a pre-industrial standard of living.

How many times does your incorrect cut and paste statement need to be corrected before you stop posting it?
The share of primary global energy from renewable sources has increased 8% in the last 20 years, not your 2%. And the rate of increase is getting larger each year.

The rest of your comment is similarly full of discredited and incorrect information, so you have 3 choices.
1)stop cut and pasting the same incorrect information
2)read more widely and learn some actual factual information on the issue
3)continue blindly in your ideological bubble.

Want to provide the comparable figure for just how much fossil fuels are being subsidised? Go for it.

Imagine chewy saying somebody else lived in an ideological bubble. Pot, kettle.

Ken M,
What ideological bubble would that be?

I’d love to hear about it, considering your woeful attempts to pigeon-hole me so far.

Particularly when you have blatantly repeated factually incorrect information on this topic over a number of threads, even when presented with direct evidence showing you were wrong.

I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today! – Wimpy Dutton.

Wait until the Nationals learn how much water is needed for nuclear! Already we’re a dry continent, as farmers and producers know, which will only worsen as we feel the effects of climate change.

You mean like the water currently required for coal fired power stations where the nuclear power stations are also proposed to be built?

“No Australian community wants a nuclear reactor on its doorstep and no Australian family wants to share communities and roads with truckloads of nuclear waste.”

Yeah, with ridiculous misinformation like that, are you surprised? It’s not the 1950’s anymore, technology has massively improved and if anyone actually believes they drive down streets with trucks full of nuclear waste in any kind of modern nuclear facility, they are woefully uninformed on the subject.

The bit they always gloss over when talking about the risk is that in the two main incidents they always refer to, both reactors were designed in the 1960’s… people look at the iPhone 1 from 2007 and think the tech is “ancient”. Think of the difference in tech from facilities that predate the iPhone’s release by nearly half a century. Weirdly enough, technology has advanced just a tad in the last 60 years.

70% of the energy in France is generated from nuclear and you never hear of any incidents do you? While we don’t have an established nuclear industry, there are dozens of other major countries that do, with hundreds of companies that would be happy to assist us in establishing our industry. Look at all our shiny new military hardware coming, we don’t have the expertise to design and build all that either… so we go talk to the countries that do, it’s hardly rocket science here.

While there is hyperbole in the comment made around communities, the general sentiment is not that far from the truth. You only look at the difficulties the Commonwealth Government has had in trying to find a site for low level nuclear to know, rightly or wrongly, that community sentiment has a long way to go before any resemblance of ‘social licence’ is achieved for nuclear in Australia.

The bull at the gate approach of Dutton won’t help either – just picking sites pretty much at random and saying ‘you are getting a nuclear power plant’ isn’t going to go down well.

And that’s all before the real key point that really should be the focus – the fact that Nuclear is highly likely to never be even close to a cheap source of energy in the Australian context.

“Look at all our shiny new military hardware coming”

You mean the stuff with the massive cost overruns? So, no problem building a nuclear power plant from a standing start on time and on budget then? Hope you are looking forward to the otherwise unnecessary taxation.

byline – as opposed to the currently, completely uncosted price of all the power storage solutions and new infrastructure required to link them, plus all the new renewables to the grid? How’s that pumped hydro budget and timeline looking for Snowy 2.0?

Neither side of politics has released any figures for their proposals …hasn’t stopped Labor from just proceeding while using copious public funds anyway though.

I think Snowy 2.0 looks terrible, Bob, and typical of major infrastructure projects like dams and nuclear energy. Why abandon realism?

The difference is renewables are being installed by the private sector, not the government, with negligible cost overruns on projects, whereas private money has no interest in nuclear in Australia, hence Dutton inviting you to pay for it yourself, at greater expense to you.

Surely Snowy 2.0 is the biggest warning against Dutton’s uncosted plan however, given it was his bunch of donkeys that run ahead for it, without any idea of its cost, and clearly vastly underestimating the cost of it. Hard to pin that one on Labour, given the mess was already well in train before they took government.

Triple the best guess estimates of what it might cost for nuclear and you’ll get somewhere in the ball park. Its uncompetitive from a price perspective at the current levels (even taking into account the significant transmission/distribution network upgrades needed for renewables). The fact major power companies, despite the huge opportunity of a massive free kick from government won’t touch it with a barge pole, and have been lining up to say ‘no thanks’ should be ringing massive alarm bells.

If you think things are expensive now on a power basis, you’ve got a whole world of pain to come if we go down this folly.

byline – OK, renewables, great, that covers power generation… during the non cloudy daylight hours and when the wind is blowing. Where are the massive, grid scale energy storage that is required to use this renewable energy on cloudy days and at night being built?

We’re talking about baseload power generation for when we can’t use these sources. You have two choices here: A) massively over generate energy during the day and store it for use through the night/cloudy/wind free days or B) find another source of energy generation which is what is being proposed here.

Buying solar and batteries has really brought this into focus for me. During summer, I can generate over 110kwh per day in solar which is great but then even with a comparatively large battery 13.5kwh, this only lasts through the night if I don’t use aircon which will drain the whole thing in a couple of hours. Even those massive banks of Tesla batteries acting as peaker plant replacements, store next to nothing when compared to the energy use of even a small city. This doesn’t even mention the solar generation drops in half at this time of year and can drop to nearly zero on cloudy days.

I just don’t see any way to generate sufficient power, in addition to renewables without retaining coal, creating large gas plants or going nuclear. I still haven’t seen any solution to this and certainly haven’t seen any of the required storage infrastructure being built.

Dispatchable power is a critical question, Bob. I will question some of your assumptions though.

As Chewy14 commented somewhere below, dispatchable power, or firming, is not related solely to storage but also to demand during supply troughs. How real are these troughs though? When the wind “doesn’t blow”, over what area? Seven million square kilometres across Australia?

Bob, I was barely into my post when careless mouse-movement posted it, so, continuing…

Wind is also pretty reliable around coastlines. That is, dropping to zero energy is a furphy, though we still need more when it reduces.

Secondly, “massively over generate energy during the day and store it for use through the night/cloudy/wind free days” seems a pretty good use of solar generation, don’t you think? Most power is used in business hours, less overnight after the evening domestic peak even allowing for 24 hour furnaces. We have more sunshine than almost anyone else. It seems a bit like shooting yourself in the foot not to exploit the advantage.

The world’s 5th largest economy has now reached the stage where it dispatches more power from battery storage than from any other single source, be it wind, hydro, nuclear or whatever. They have 10 GW of storage today, a fifth of what is planned but already half of what Australia now requires daily. Perhaps batteries are not so feeble.

There are also hydro storage on a more reasonable local scale than Snowy 2.0, run-of-river power as used quite a bit in Canada for example, potential thermal storage and, importantly, gas, as I mentioned to GrumpyGrandpa below.

Creating sufficient power with renewables is certainly the easy part. Work is needed on the several forms of storage and on load-smoothing dispatch from rapid-on like gas. Coal is a hopeless case. The equipment is falling apart, it is not highly load-adaptable and no-one wants to invest in it. Nor, apparently, do they want to invest in nuclear based on cost-benefit analysis.

byline – “When the wind “doesn’t blow”, over what area? Seven million square kilometres across Australia?”

Are there wind farms covering seven million KM’s of Australia? Of course not, so that comment was ridiculous. The only relevant point is when the wind is blowing in the small areas that has energy generating equipment installed and running on it.

So the obvious answer is no, the wind does not blow all the time, just as solar does not generate power all the time, which is where we come back to the requirement to cover these times.

byline – OK, I can only respond to what you post.

“Secondly, “massively over generate energy during the day and store it for use through the night/cloudy/wind free days” seems a pretty good use of solar generation, don’t you think?”

As you know if you read my post, generation is not the biggest problem, although I am curious what we would do if we ran into an actual La Nina weather pattern and have fairly constant rain and cloud cover for months at a time. The biggest issue is and has always been storage and baseload power for when the renewable power isn’t available.

“The world’s 5th largest economy has now reached the stage where it dispatches more power from battery storage than from any other single source”

India? That would be surprising, can you provide a link to back that up?

“There are also hydro storage on a more reasonable local scale than Snowy 2.0, run-of-river power as used quite a bit in Canada for example, potential thermal storage and, importantly, gas, as I mentioned to GrumpyGrandpa below.”

OK great… where in Australia is this being planned and built at the scale required for our current power usage, much less what is going to be required into the future? Pumped Hydro needs specific geographical characteristics and can’t just be deployed anywhere.

…and the last part, gas. OK, so you’re just proposing to replace one form of non-renewable energy generation with another. So you believe that burning CO2 producing natural gas is better for the environment than zero emission nuclear power?

“Creating sufficient power with renewables is certainly the easy part. Work is needed on the several forms of storage and on load-smoothing dispatch from rapid-on like gas.”

And here’s the problem, we just don’t have the massive scale storage to be able to store enough power to operate while renewables aren’t available so it will always come back to swapping coal with gas… or nuclear.

“Nor, apparently, do they want to invest in nuclear based on cost-benefit analysis.”

Of course there’s no companies lining up to invest in a technology that is literally illegal in this country. Would you expect any different?

Regarding the first of your two comments Bob, get a grip. No-one proposed carpeting the entire continent. “A small area” is one of many “small areas” in many places. This is exceptionally obvious.

Regarding the second long post, I am not going to fisk the lot, so here are brief comments which you can relate as best you can.

Yes. California. I did not say it was a country. You then rush to avoid the import.

Odd how you now wish to claim that you do not think generation is a problem while averring weeks or months of clouded, windless days as your basis for presumed storage requirements, thus underplaying generation.
40% of power is generated from these sources in Australia right now. If the problems were as you wish them to be, then the gird already would not function. Stop being so scared by your own fantasies.

Gas is lower emission than coal, far cheaper than nuclear, can be built quickly, and switched on and off with demand. Are you that blinkered? I’m not.
I have already said more than once that my objections to nuclear are sufficiently covered by cost, slowness, inadequacy of provision, and strategic vulnerability.

Try not to be too obvious about your wish to believe nothing happens to claim support for the idea something else should.

There are currently considered to be only a couple of companies which could or would build large nuclear plants here, one French, one American. That may change in a tender process (e.g. South Korea). Why do you imagine manufacturers and financial markets would not lobby to build them/their profits? Why is the proposal entirely for government funding?? Your final claim is the culmination of ridiculous.

byline – “Odd how you now wish to claim that you do not think generation is a problem while averring weeks or months of clouded, windless days as your basis for presumed storage requirements, thus underplaying generation”

Do you read my comments at all or is comprehension the issue you are having here I said, and I quote: “generation is not the biggest problem” I didn’t say it’s not a problem, as I have stated multiple times previously, the biggest issue is storage and power availability at times when renewable power isn’t available; You would know this if you weren’t just trying to misrepresent what I said.

California? When people discuss the largest economies, they are typically talking about nation states not areas within a certain country without specifying. Also, you are going to use the state that is so badly managed that it has required multiple federal bailouts as they were running a deficit of 30 billion dollars? Not exactly selling your point there.

“40% of power is generated from these sources in Australia right now. If the problems were as you wish them to be, then the gird already would not function. Stop being so scared by your own fantasies.”

OK, now you are just being ridiculous “If the problems were as you wish them to be” What? I live in reality and the reality is that the baseload is currently being taken care of by COAL. If you remove coal fire power stations from the equation, what do you replace them with? You can’t just take the overall proportion of renewable energy and assume it’s going to be available in the right places and at the right times which is the entire point that I have been making.

“Gas is lower emission than coal, far cheaper than nuclear, can be built quickly, and switched on and off with demand.”

OK great, you’re advocating swapping one fossil fuel source with another rather than implementing a zero emission solution, with the justification being money. Worse for the environment but faster and cheaper. I guess that’s an arguable point but still doesn’t get us away from burning copious amounts of fossil fuels for our energy needs long term does it? I’m curious about the “strategic vulnerability” comment. Can you elaborate on that?

“Try not to be too obvious about your wish to believe nothing happens to claim support for the idea something else should.”

…I have literally no idea what you are attempting to say here.

“There are currently considered to be only a couple of companies which could or would build large nuclear plants here, one French, one American. “

Currently considered by who? Given the dozens of countries currently running nuclear reactors, I think you’ll find there’s a whole lot more than that lining up to tender.

“Why do you imagine manufacturers and financial markets would not lobby to build them/their profits?”

Because there is no point burning time and money on building a business case for something that is currently illegal in the target market? Have you ever run a business or been part of running one?

“Your final claim is the culmination of ridiculous.”

You want to elaborate on that?

Yes. Your economic argument that no-one is promoting nuclear on the basis it is currently illegal is ridiculous. What is being discussed here in this thread? Why is no-one rushing to finance the “potential”? Why should we be on the hook either through taxation or electricity bills for an inferior solution off in the never-never? Would you like more elaboration?

Yes, I did read your points. You attempt to build a case around viability of storage on a presumption that there will be extended periods without renewable generation, while also claiming generation is not a problem. Which is it? You seem a bit mixed up. Do you realise why capacity factors are assessed?

Yes, I never mentioned a country but an economy. You constantly cause yourself problems by leaping to conclusions, much like the rest of your incomprehension around gas, coal, nuclear and renewables. They are not worth my time to fisk in detail again. I have previously answered each point for rational people to read.

I mean, despite the fact that Dutton knows he will never have to deliver on any of this, the plan is pretty much the opposite of what the Liberals claim to stand for.

He’s talking about spending tens of billions of dollars to create a subsidised government owned electricity generation capacity directly competing with the private market.

The idea that we could have one of these nuclear plants built from scratch and operating in ten years when we currently have pretty much zero nuclear expertise or industry is beyond laughable.

Even worse that he would first need states approval as well as the immense community engagement that would be required from all of these areas.

HiddenDragon8:10 pm 19 Jun 24

“As ageing and increasingly costly coal-fired power stations exit our energy system, only renewables firmed by storage is capable of preventing blackouts and power price spikes no family or business can afford.”

The “firmed by storage” bit, which the renewables spruikers and crusaders always gloss over (along with the financial and environmental costs of massively upgraded transmission lines), is crucial here.

There are at least as many uncertainties about the costs and availability of the large scale storage technology which Australia would need to shift to 100% renewables as there are about what Dutton announced today – but the media obsession with the cost of nukular (to give it the proper Homer Simpson/Chris Bowen spelling) is matched with a complete lack of curiosity about the costs and availability of large scale, long duration storage technology.

“Storage” isn’t actually even wholly correct, we need various forms of dispatchable power to firm renewables, storage just being one component of that

And they all already exist without the major challenges or uncertainties you mention. Its simply a case of providing the policy and market framework set to get them built. You might say the general public lack a sense of curiosity as to the technical solutions that exist that go far beyond the typical belief that storage is the only problem or that storage only equals batteries.

Stephen Saunders7:36 pm 19 Jun 24

Nuclear is a distraction. Why isn’t Dutton pushing Albanese to bring on gas reservation? We are the “Saudi Arabia” of gas yet manufacturers and consumers are paying absurd prices for energy. Only in Australia, eh.

Why would Dutton push for that? It would admit the greatest failure in energy policy was actually an LNP failure – it was wee liddle Johnny after all that sold all our gas off for jack all.

GrumpyGrandpa6:17 pm 19 Jun 24

I think this argument is an interesting one. We need something to cover that base load; the troughs when solar, wind & hydro generation don’t meet the peak demand.
If we are going to rid ourselves of coal and gas, we need a substitute.

If the ALP reject nuclear, they’ll need to explain what is going to replace coal and gas?

I must admit I’m not a pro-nuclear guy, and would prefer to retain gas, but them are the choices that the ALP will need to think carefully about, because its fanciful to think that the answer is lots of really big lithium batteries spread across the nation.

Gas is specifically one component of the firming strategy for renewables, GrumpyGrandpa.

privatepublic6:08 pm 19 Jun 24

Probably a good idea. Modular nuclear reactors are already used on a number of ships including Ice Breakers. About 160 ships are powered by small nuclear reactors.

In the case of the newest US aircraft carrier the Gerald Ford, the power estimation (USN will not provide – fair enough) is about 4 times that of the last class the US Nimitz. The US Nimitz could provide about 64 MW. Accordingly, the Gerald Ford can maybe produce in the vicinity of 160 MW. That is a lot for a very small footprint. Bearing in mind the Gerald Ford uses enriched uranium which provides a more powerful punch. Therefore, modular reactors will not use any form of enrichment (weapons grade), thus not be as powerful, yet very useful.

Australia is in a geographically safe region. Small reactors (the reactor part – not ancillaries) can be placed underground (need a very powerful/accurate missile to disrupt) according to research with ground buffers, quick manual/automated shutdown and minimal staff. A large meteor/comet such as the one that did the dinosaurs in would probably cause a glitch or two. Having made that statement the dinosaur comet equaled approximately 10,000 times of all the world’s nuclear weapons combined, I think that problem could be dwelled on if it occurs again – if time permits, which it most probably will.

Solar (in good areas without too much dust) and wind will obviously play a part in Australia’s energy mix. In the case of large scale solar in the desert, the panels will require frequent cleaning (https://www.ventusky.com/?p=-18.9;138.8;3&l=dust). A friend who cleans panels in the us said there are issues, such as dust which sits on the panel and thus must be removed. There are ways like static electricity to remove the dust, which costs as much electricity as the panel produces and requires batteries. However, in the Australian desert the panels gather dust and due to the extremes of temperature gather moisture in the morning, turns soggy, hard to clean. The other issue with large scale solar is the long transmission lines needing more energy via transmission (dc to ac as well). The Singaporeans have already resoundly said no, too expensive in costs and greenhouse cost of installation of the panels and undersea trunk. Already Ziggy and co have dropped the idea and far as I know no buyers are in the market. The Singaporeans would be better as they already do consume power from Gas generators within Malaysia a few km’s away.

A desert with solar panels will cost huge amounts to install, maintain and most importantly, who will move out there on a permanent basis in the middle of nowhere. At a most probably low wage. Subsidies for towns/schools/medical/restaurants etc etc and all the associated infrastructure will be mind bogglingly expensive.

The production of hydrogen, the Australian superpower I cannot see how. Happy to be proved wrong. Already there are countries either already built or are building nuke power stations for this purpose. I do not feel Australia is in the game without using nuclear.

Battery Storage: Large battery storage is woefully inadequate, unreliable, does not last as long as two hours (as stated otherwise) and dam expensive financially, resource wise and reconditioning/recycling. I do understand that solar/wind may require a battery as a balancing act, but there must be another way to balance.

Battery Recycling: It is straight forward to stamp the battery in production, pop it in a container/floorpan (think AA sized cells in their thousands). Removing, unwinding and other issues is still very manual, unless the original floorpan/other presses are reversed engineered for each application, thus the only batteries that are genuinely a recyclable success story now is the ole lead acid/gel battery.

Li Ion etc etc technology is great with some cars (maybe buses smaller than 16t Gross), phones, laptops and other devices. Should for the time being left at that and not used for mains power.

Back to nuke power: comments from people who have no idea “we do not have the skills to build a reactor”. Be pragmatic: Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, Finland, France, India, Mexico, Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Sweeden, Turkey, UAE, UK, US and a lot more obviously imported/trained the skill necessary to undertake this task. How did Lucas Heights in Sydney Greater (one of the world suppliers of nuclear medicine) get off the ground? Legislative changes are easy if the majority are onboard.

Nuclear power will cost a lot, yes it obviously will, we need to invest in the future, without nuke power we will not be able to compete with other countries who are currently or will be using nuke power.

Nuclear future: Some countries within the G7-G20 are already researching graphite reactors that to put it in laymen’s terms “shoot a photon beam into spent graphite rod generating power (heat) while fully eliminating the radioactivity.” The technology may be a way off in years, it’s worth a try as we will be killing two birds with one stone. The UK has so to speak crushed its graphite into dust (cannot be used in dust form), otherwise if it didn’t there would be three hundred estimated years of power at the current power consumption. Other countries will be in luck when the technology is proven. If this technology is indeed workable/proven it means we will not have to dig up uranium for quite a while, while slowly rendering spent fuel into non-radioactive graphite. Australia needs to get onboard, or at the very least start researching.

Capital Retro8:13 am 20 Jun 24

Great comment.

Yep cause a small nuclear reactor on a ship is exactly the same as a significant number of major power stations…. the fact they use enriched nuclear material makes them effectively irrelevant to the conversation.

If it is all about ‘competing’ with other countries that use nuclear power as their main fuel source, then why would we choose an option that is highly likely to be vastly more expensive than other options, let alone be guaranteed to need substantial, ongoing direct government subsidisation or ownership? When the big power companies are saying ‘we wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole’, then surely that already is ringing all the alarm bells one would need. And that’s before the fact that the economics is not going to improve for nuclear in comparison to other power sources.

And that’s before the fact that Australia has vastly larger comparative/competitive advantages on other power sources, compared to nuclear.

If people are whining that power is expensive now – wait until we have 7 or 8 nuclear dinosaurs that have to be subsidised and maintained forever in the day, despite being vastly more expensive sources of energy compared to alternatives. One thing is for sure – we all know the Government of the day would ensure that energy consumers pay for that directly.

The fact Dutton hasn’t even attempted to cost his plan says it all really.

Nuclear, a proven technology providing reliable emissions free power since 1954.

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.