OR, is it simply political "pie in the sky" being peddled by Peter Dutton and a Coalition which has no creditable energy policy. Given the lack of policy information from Pete and the gang, and the general ridicule from all quarters for nuclear power in Australia it would seem the latter is the case.

Paul,

The other side of the question is "Can Australia power the grid with wind and solar and how much would it cost?". Going by some of the estimates I've seen, the cost of nuclear is cheaper than the cost of storage for wind and solar, and that is using CSIRO cost estimates for nuclear power.

Good on you for raising a subject that is critical for Australia's future.

Hi Paul,

You want to know - is there a role for nuclear in
Australia's energy?

According to CSIRO Gencost Project that reports annually
on best Australian and global data applied to Australian
conditions shows that nuclear is the most expensive option.

We're told that:

"The key determinant of any future role for nuclear in
Australia is time-scales."

"Even given the social licence to build a regulatory
framework which might take 5 years, it might take another
ten years to construct a nuclear power station."

" Large-scale nuclear power has no realistic prospect of
playing any role in Australia either for coal replacement
by 2040 or as a back stop for renewables beyond. This
raises one final prospect - building nuclear reactors at
smaller scale - so called small modular reactors - (SMRs)."

Public opinion on nuclear power has fluctuated with a
recent 2022 poll being in favour of removing the ban on
nuclear power.

The Federal Opposition has now put nuclear power back on
the political agenda.

Here's a link from - the Reporter - at ANU:

http://reporter.anu.edu.au/all-stories/is-there-a-role-for-nuclear-in-australias-energy-transition

We're told that in 2024 - the Australian public opinion
is firmly set for combating climate change by replacing
fossil fuels with clean energy.

This is a debate certainly worth having.

There's a few problems that have been noted with
nuclear power:

1) It poses significant community, environment, and
health risks.

2) It's about 5-10 times more expensive than solar and
wind.

3) Managing long-lived radioactive waste.

4) Mining uranium (the fuel for nuclear power) damages
the environment and leaves a toxic legacy of radio active
waste that disproportionately impacts traditional owners
and remote communities.

5) Nuclear requires a lot of water and on such a dry continent
as ours this really isn't an option.

6) All nuclear reactors create waste- we have no proven options
for managing long-lived radioactive waste which is a massive
inter-generational burden.

Personally I would prefer Australia's energy future to be
renewable not radioactive.

If that is all true Foxy, then why is France producing power at lower cost than Germany? France was able to supply 150% of its power demand in fifteen years with nuclear from the mid 1970s. After fifteen years of pursuing renewables, Germany is barely over 25% intermittent and variable wind and solar. There are very good reasons why nuclear power is attracting more interest.

A bit late in the day to be bringing this up.

We've been confronted with public squabbling among the political class in the press and on air for quite some time.

The last comment I heard was ‘Most people want to get back to coal, but they are too frightened to say it’.

So, a handful of anonymous non-entities won't have much to add. Though it's always fun to watch the naive sign up to a good lambasting from the Green/Left who put these posts up - just so they CAN lambast you for being ‘wrong’.

Paul Green makes his feelings clear in the first line. It's not an attack on nuclear energy; it is an attack on Dutton and the Coalition.

Speaking of Dutton: remember that he is a politician, not to be trusted. Also remember, the Coalition is responsible for Net Zero, and that Dutton thinks the Chief Censor, Julie Inman Green is our “finest” public servant. Dutton is just feeling out ways of getting elected. He would be better off saying that he will stop immigration; stop digital ID and sacking Julie Inman Grant.

I don't give a toss about nuclear. If it were not for our kindergarten politicians falling for the carbon dioxide climate change fairy tale, we would still be getting cheap, reliable electricity from our abundant coal. Just like that great mate to some of you - Communist China is doing - with our cheap coal. So to with most of the Third World, interest in boosting their economies while we trash ours.

There's a good chance that we will be suffering blackouts and more industry exits or closure before the yapping is finished.

Fester,

Good one! As I said elsewhere, industry dropped by the same amount as emissions dropped in Germany, since they closed down nuclear.

They also punished the Greens for it, almost halving their seats in the EU parliament.

Germany is now described as the 'sick man of Europe'.

Will Canberra learn anything from the European renewable experiment? No, of course not. The idiot Bowen is telling us most nights that they are too stupid to learn.

Hi Fester,

France has few fossil fuel resources - coal, oil,
or natural gas of its own.

To increase domestic energy supply and reduce reliance on
imports, which could result in price shocks like during
the oil crisis, France turned to nuclear power.

Nuclear power was used in Germany from the 1960s until
it was phased out in April 2023.

Nuclear waste disposal was widely recognized as a major
problem with concerns being publicly expressed quite early in
the piece.

http://theconversation.com/why-germany-ditched-nuclear-before-coal-and-why-it-wont-go-back-208212#:

France's electricity costs are 40% lower than Germany's but
France also produces twice as much of its electricity from
clean energy sources as Germany.

The ensuing trade conflict between Russia and other European
nations led to a shortage of fossil fuels in the EU causing
prices for electricity to shoot up - especially in Germany
where gas plants still account for a substantial part of
electricity generation.

The following link explains the costs of energy. Political
leanings are key:

http://theconversation.com/in-france-and-germany-politics-not-nationalitydictate-energy-preference-230164#:

Hi Fester,

Please accept my apologies.

I put in the wrong numbers for my first link.

Here it is again:

http://theconversation.com/why-germany-ditched-nuclear-before-coal-and-why-it-wont-go-back-228212#:

"but France also produces twice as much of its electricity from
clean energy sources as Germany."

Rubbish. I'll leave you to do the research you should have done before writing that to find out why its rubbish. Hint: Germany gets over 50% of its electricity from renewables, France less than 15%.

____________________________________________________________________

Its a simple formula that is repeated in country after country, time after time - the more renewables you have the higher the retail cost of power. Still there's myriad ways to hide the facts and the pro-renewable lobby uses all of them.

One example - a nuclear plant lasts about 60 years with little maintenance. A solar or wind plant lasts at the very best 20 years with significant maintenance. So a true comparison is between the costs of a nuclear plant and 3 renewable plants ie build the solar farm, pull it down after 20 years, build it again, pull it down after 40 years, build it again. Do those calculations and you end up finding out why nuclear is so much cheaper.

Its true that we end up with nuclear waste at the end of the process. On the other hand, with solar we end up with unusable solar panels full of toxic chemicals and rare earths. Just as no one has a firm solution for nuclear waste, no one has a clear solution for solar or windmill waste. But, shush! Don't mention that

If you forgive the pun, Dutton is tilting at windmills. Nuclear scare campaigns are way too easy to launch and as we saw with the great WuFlu scare, Australians are easily scared into submission.

We will have nuclear, but its too early for that to be pushed just yet. But as we get more and more reliant of renewables, and prices continue to pressure households and encourage manufacturing to off-shore, it'll become increasingly obvious that radical measures are required.

A winter of rolling blackouts would probably push us over the line. But that's not going to happen this side of this or the next election. Still, its probably not a bad idea to stake out a position for what the people will be clamouring for by 2035.

We should also note how the whole net zero rubbish is becoming increasingly unpopular overseas. Already the second most popular party in Britain are promising to drop net zero and, following the last EU elections, the Euro-Greens are on the nose and the political establishment are looking for ways to back-track on the CO2 jihad.

As with most things, Australian will eventually catch-up - kicking and screaming the whole way.

Foxy,

I'd draw to your attention John Kehoe's (the guy that Simon Holmes a Court wants to keep silent) opinion piece criticising the CSIRO's latest gencost report:

https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/the-flaws-in-csiro-s-anti-nuclear-pro-renewables-report-20240611-p5jktp

In response, Peter Mayfield, executive director, Energy, Environment and Resources CSIRO, stated:

"The article advocates for a total systems analysis. This analysis is important but is a significantly more expensive, extensive and detailed study, which is beyond the intent and scope of the GenCost Report."

This is in effect an admission that a total system analysis might have shown nuclear power to be cheaper than renewables, which is not surprising as it is a real world observation, such as in Ontario.

I'd also draw to your attention a brief talk by Stephen Wilson about why achieving net zero with wind and solar is probably impossible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZT5WjnT4fE

You are correct in stating that nuclear is five to ten times the cost of solar per unit of generation, but when you look at the cost of making solar dispatchable the cost becomes far greater than nuclear.

ttbn,

Yes, coal is the cheapest power source, but for low carbon dispatchable power nuclear is a proven low cost option.

Some see the debate over renewables a political one. I see it as an attempt by some Aussie billionaires and Chinese wind and solar manufacturers to con Australians out of many hundreds of billions, leaving a dysfunctional electricity grid and a damaged environment in its wake.

Fester,

John Kehoe raises several valid points about potential biases in the CSIRO's GenCost report, but his framing suggests a stronger accusation of bias than the evidence might support.

Firstly, Kehoe highlights that comparing costs over a 30-year period can undervalue long-lived nuclear plants, implying an intentional bias against nuclear power. However, the CSIRO's use of a 30-year period aligns with the typical timeframe for commercial financing, which is a practical and common approach. He also argues that modern nuclear plants can have higher capacity factors than the CSIRO assumes, suggesting the organisation is downplaying nuclear efficiency. While the capacity factor can indeed be higher, the CSIRO might use conservative estimates based on historical performance and regulatory requirements to reflect cautious planning.

Kehoe criticises the use of temporarily high coal prices, which can distort comparisons. The CSIRO likely used recent data, which is a standard practice, even if it captures a temporary spike. Additionally, Kehoe points out that the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) metric has limitations in accounting for intermittency and integration costs of renewables. While LCOE is a standard and widely accepted metric, it does have its limitations, which the CSIRO acknowledges by stating that it is a "simple screening tool" and not a substitute for detailed system modeling.

Another critique is the exclusion of residual economic value for nuclear plants after 30 years, which can undervalue their economic potential. Estimating residual value involves uncertainties and complexities, which might have led the CSIRO to exclude it to avoid speculative calculations.

Kehoe’s use of strong language, such as “policy-based evidence,” suggests a deliberate agenda, making his critique seem more like an accusation of dishonesty than a call for nuanced analysis. By not presenting potential justifications for the CSIRO’s choices or acknowledging the inherent uncertainties in such analyses, Kehoe's argument appears one-sided. He suggests that the CSIRO’s methodological choices are aimed at supporting a specific policy stance rather than reflecting cautious planning or practical constraints.

Kehoe's observations stem from more benign methodological choices or practical constraints than he implies by failing to mention them.

There is no longer any valid argument that nuclear is too expensive.
The CSIRO's Gencost was completely debunked.
I would point out that the new large nuclear station in Finland cost
wait for it; $9 billion dollars. Not sure if that is US or Aus.
Either way it is a bargain compared to W&S.
The cost argument is easily solved, just call for tenders for a 2GW station.
I am sure Westinghouse will jump at it.
Foxy, they do not just make refrigerators, hi !
Our problem is we are too late starting after next election.
We will be in deep dodo before we can fix our power system.
The quickest way to keep our industry going buy a few off the shelf gas plants.
An unnecessary expense but inevitable as the timescale for nuclear
is too long. The gas plants will just be a makeshift fill in.

There is a way that might be possible that was suggested.
Each coal fired plant usually has four units, each comprising it own
coal handling gear, its own boiler and its own turbine.
In a 2 Gw plant each unit is 500 Megawatts.
Just co-incidently, or was it by design, the larger Small Nuclear
plants are 500 Megawatts.
Replace the coal gear, and the boiler with a small modular reactor
and the heat exchanger will produce steam or the turbine.
My friend Keith Alder suggested this to our government back in the 70s.
He was an experienced nuclear power station designer and builder.

The politicians should all just SHUT UP and listen to someone who
is a suitable engineer. Politicians are ignorant nobodies that have
never done a days real work and are unqualified.

Hmmm. I think my last remark might have been bit hard on Dutton as
anyone who has been a street cop has certainly done a days work !

The Coalitions proposal, I wont call it policy as it lacks substance, the how's where's and what's have not been answered. It appears to be based on political considerations rather than any practical requirements. Already the Victorian Liberal Party has stated its opposition to any suggestion of nuclear power plants being located in the Latrobe Valley, an obvious site in Victoria, and the Queensland Liberal leader David Crisafulli declared; "nuclear is not on the agenda" NSW former Liberal treasurer Matt Kean, dismissed the whole nuclear idea as "hugely expensive" State Labor governments will do the same.

The energy industry has stated its unwillingness to be a party to nuclear, AGL boss Damien Nicks voiced his companies opposition, and other energy executives, fund managers and investors do not think nuclear energy is financially viable in Australia, and are not willing to invest.

For Peter Dutton and his gang its time to put up or shut up.

Bazz,

Looking at South Australia, with wind and solar you have to have backup gas anyway, so building gas plants and not all the other stuff would save much expenditure.

https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem

To-date, the cleanest most effective provision of energy would have to hydro electric with nuclear second. So-called Green energy is far too polluting & far too much funding is syphoned off by people who would not get a foot in the door in nuclear energy as is the case with Green Energy. Hydro electric has reached the limit in Australia so, nuclear is the way to cope with the demand.
The funds saved from syphoning off would probably pay for a couple of small, manageable nuclear power plants to start with.

Individual,

Are you aware of the argument that nuclear is faster to build than wind or solar when you consider the power produced?

https://medium.com/generation-atomic/is-nuclear-too-slow-to-deploy-compared-to-wind-and-solar-443d0c326184

Australia has 33% of the world's uranium deposits and
we're the world's largest producer of it.

So of course we're going to periodically have people
singing its praises in the media - claiming it's the
only option for clean and reliable electricity in
Australia.

The fact is - according to the Climate Council, one
third of Australia's electricity is already powered
by renewables and new initiatives like the
Capacity Investment Scheme are set to push Australia
towards 82% renewables by the end of this decade.

We're told that while the move to clean energy is
not happening fast enough it is underway and
starting to speed up.

We don't need distractions like nuclear to derail
the progress now.

Fester,

While nuclear power plants do produce significant amounts of consistent power once operational, the claim that they are faster to build than wind or solar, considering the power produced, does not hold up against recent evidence.

The article suggests that nuclear reactors can be built in 5 to 10 years, but recent projects tell a different story. For example, the Olkiluoto 3 reactor in Finland, initially projected to be completed in 4 years, took over 15. Similarly, the Vogtle reactors in the U.S. have faced significant delays and cost overruns, now exceeding 15 years.

On the other hand, wind and solar projects have much shorter construction times. Wind farms typically take 1 to 2 years to build. For instance, the Hornsea One offshore wind farm in the UK, with a capacity of 1.2 GW, took around 3 years to complete. Solar farms usually take less than a year to a few years to construct. The Topaz Solar Farm in California, with a capacity of 550 MW, was constructed in about 3 years.

The article points to the Gansu Wind Farm taking over a decade to reach its full capacity, but it’s important to note that this is not typical for most wind projects. Most wind farms reach operational status much faster. In contrast, the Barakah nuclear power plant in the UAE took around 9 years to complete its first reactor. Although it produces substantial power, similar or greater total capacity can be achieved more quickly through multiple smaller renewable projects.

It's also important to consider capacity factors when comparing these energy sources. While nuclear has a high capacity factor, the integration of energy storage solutions, such as batteries, and the advancements in grid technology I so often mention, can mitigate the intermittency of renewables.

Renewables can be deployed incrementally. Multiple smaller projects can be built in parallel, providing immediate benefits and flexibility. This modularity allows for quicker responses to changing energy demands and technological advancements, unlike the large, centralised nuclear plants.

Anyway, even when accounting for their lower capacity, renewables can still be deployed much more rapidly (and flexibly.)

Safety concerns following previous high profile disasters
have made nuclear a controversial topic.

Nuclear power stations take too long to build. This
comes from the industry's own analysis.. We're told that
nuclear stations take an average of 9-4 years to build
and probably much longer with no domestic experience in
Australia.

In contrast, major wind and solar projects take between
1-3 years.

Nuclear power stations we're told are - extremely
expensive and -that nuclear
is not renewable and it is not safe.

When we consider the facts presented - that nuclear is -
expensive, dangerous, and decades away from powering our
homes and businesses - it surely makes no sense to pursue
nuclear.

On the other hand energy from the sun and wind is cheap,
abundant, safe, and available now. To pursue renewables
makes sense.

Let's get on with building more renewable energy.

It would be bad policy not to

The argument that nuclear takes too long to build as compared to the various renewables strikes me a counter-intuitive. If it were true, and I'm not conceding it is, then the argument seems to merely indicate that we need to get started yesterday.
The question is should our future power be generated by nukes? If the answer is yes or partially yes, then the claim that it'll take a long time to build vis avis alternatives simply means that we need to accelerate the start of the process and removal all obstacles (eg lawfare) to that start.

But so far here, we only seem to be talking about big 1600MW units. But that isn't the only game in town. The process and progress of Small-Modular Reactors (SMR) technology is accelerating and, by the time we get around to making a call, will be very much available. These things can be installed in very short time frames if that is your concern. Whatismore, given their relatively small footprint, they can situated in far less problematic locales than a big reactor, or a big solar farm for that matter.

Additionally, given the extraordinary sums expended to link solar-wind farms to the grid, SMR's can be placed close by those farms and utilised the already installed connection lines.

We are in this pickle because the idiots allowed the green driven to
blow up the power stations.
They even put out videos of the explosions with the greenies cheering !
They thought s&w could be installed by next Tuesday and take up the
load in very quick time.
Well life is not like that.
It will under Bowen's guidance take 25 years to get it all up and
running and then start "renewing" it all.

Now we seem to be in an inescapable situation where we may face a
decade of daily blackouts as we have to abandon the half built s&w
and order nuclear generators.
Not answered by the Liberals is where are we in the queue ?
That information will not be known till tenders are called after they
are elected perhaps in 2028.

FYI, the Germans are planning on restarting their nuclear power stations.
The German greens are not opposed.

In Britain Net Zero looks likely to be abandoned as the government
recently called for tenders from the owners of their off shore wind
farms to give quotes on what price they would sell electricity with
the present subsidy. No tenders were received so when the contracts
run out the offshore wind farms will close.
The owners claim the high cost of maintenance is the problem.
Surprise surprise, anybody in the marine area could have told them that !
The Britsh public has gun at their head, pay up !

All in all, it is a bloody mess, we have spent billions on a system
that cannot work unless $Tillions are spent on batteries plus more
w&s to recharge them on first sunny day.

Aaaarrrggghhh !

I suppose the real question is "Does Electricity have a future in Australia ?

Each member state of the EU makes its own choice as
to whether to include nuclear in its energy mix.

This puts many governments in a position where they need
to decide on the future of nuclear in their country.

Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Finland, France,
Hungary, Sweden, were amongst the signatories for the
potential of nuclear.

Germany joined Italy and Lithuania as one of 3 countries to
have completely phased out nuclear power for electricity
after having operational reactors.

Bezza,

You ask does electricity have a future in Australia?

Yes it does. But most of us would prefer it to be
renewable rather than radioactive.

Let's get on with building more renewable energy.
Foxy,
We can't afford the excessive pollution from Green Energy plus, there's no such thing as renewable presently !
If you can provide evidence of batteries being produced without severe pollution worse than nuclear waste please inform us !

The radio spectrum is polluted with idiots expecting Gutton to give
costs for the nuclear power stations.
Anyone who ever bought a car or house or indeed anything knows you do
not tell the seller what price you are expecting !
You keep them guessing on how much is in your wallet.

Just for your information that is why you call for tenders, oh GUH !

John,

If your view that wind and solar are quicker and cheaper, then how is it that France built 150% of its power supply in fifteen years from the mid 1970s whereas Germany has built about 25% non-dispatchable wind and solar in the past fifteen years? Further, France exports 3 billion euros of power a year whereas Germany pays hundreds on millions a year in fines for its carbon emissions. Also, French nuclear power costs about a third of German renewable power.

The link I provided gives a good explanation of why nuclear is a faster and less costly option than wind and solar using real examples.

https://medium.com/generation-atomic/is-nuclear-too-slow-to-deploy-compared-to-wind-and-solar-443d0c326184

"We don't need distractions like nuclear to derail
the progress now."

Maybe the distraction is the fantasy that you can power a national grid with wind and solar?

Fester,

France's impressive achievement, in building 150% of its power supply through nuclear energy in 15 years, was made possible by specific conditions, such as strong political support, substantial state investment, and a centralised energy strategy. These conditions are less common today, making such rapid nuclear expansion more challenging. Additionally, France's initial success occurred decades ago when the regulatory environment was different, and the economic and technological landscapes were less complex.

In contrast, Germany's Energiewende aims to phase out nuclear power and increase reliance on renewables like wind and solar. While Germany has faced higher costs and emissions during the transition, it has made significant progress. The deployment of renewables in Germany has led to substantial growth in wind and solar capacity, even if the overall percentage is lower than France’s nuclear capacity. The renewable energy sector's decentralised and modular nature allows for rapid, smaller-scale deployments that can be scaled up incrementally.

Cost-wise, French nuclear power has been cheaper. However, this comparison often omits the full lifecycle costs, including decommissioning and long-term waste management, which are substantial for nuclear power. In contrast, the costs of wind and solar have dramatically decreased due to technological advancements and economies of scale, making them increasingly competitive.

As for deployment speed, recent evidence suggests that modern nuclear projects often face significant delays and cost overruns, such as the Olkiluoto 3 reactor in Finland and the Vogtle reactors in the U.S. In comparison, wind and solar projects typically have much shorter and more predictable construction timelines. The modular and scalable nature of renewable energy projects allows for phased deployments and faster integration into the grid.

Regarding the economic aspects, France’s ability to export electricity and generate revenue contrasts with Germany's current reliance on coal, leading to higher emissions and fines. However, as Germany continues to expand its renewable capacity and enhance grid integration and storage solutions, it aims to significantly reduce these emissions.

I hope this clarifies things.

I think were past the point of having the luxury of good ideals.
Australia will not be saved by loading it to the hilt with newcomers.
We need cheap energy, even if we have to start burning tyres and garbage.
We don't make anything much of our own anymore, most of the things in everyones homes are items manufactured and purchased from foreign shores.

Rosatom built a 2.5 Gw nuclear reactor in Bangladesh for US$12.65 bln
We'd have been better off buying nuclear power plants from Russia than stupid nuclear submarines from the US. They won't save us, let the US buy it's own subs to fight it's own wars.

Goodness me, some read their old newspapers for info.
Germany is getting ready to restart their nuclear power stations.
The wind drought two years back brought them all down to earth.
No battery could keep a country going for a year or more.

The key argument is cost. That could be decided very quickly by
calling for tenders for either four 500 megawatt SMRs or a 2Gw large
scale station on the Liddel site.

That would stop the argument in its tracks.

Unlike Europe we do not have a neighbour like France so we either
make it work or die gathering firewood.

Anyway as soon as the blackouts start the only question will be
where are Albo and Bowen when we need them !

Bezza,

While there may be discussions about nuclear in Germany, it is an exaggeration to say that Germany's getting ready to restart its nuclear power stations. Germany's primary focus remains on transitioning to renewable energy and improving grid integration and storage solutions to address any energy shortages or reliability issues.

Regarding costs, calling for tenders for either small modular reactors or a large-scale station on the Liddell site could indeed provide valuable data. It's important to remember, though, that nuclear energy projects often face significant delays and cost overruns, as seen with recent projects in Finland and the U.S.

You're correct in saying that our energy strategy needs to be self-sufficient, given our geographical location. Investing in a diverse energy mix, including renewables, storage solutions, and possibly nuclear, could provide a balanced approach to ensuring energy security.

Yes, you read that right. For what it's worth, I'm not anti-nuclear and have not staked out a position in the anti-nuclear camp. For all it's potential issues, nuclear power remains a superior option to coal. But that doesn't mean I won't add nuance to discussions on the topic when I see it missing.

John,

Delays and cost overruns in Finland and the US related to the impact of Fukushima and them being first of a kind constructions. Reactors were built in around five years prior to 1990. In terms of power output, the construction time for nuclear is still faster than nondispatchable wind and solar, and remember that to make wind and solar dispatchable entails a lot more time and cost.

Countries pursuing wind and solar have higher power prices and are at economic disadvantage to countries pursuing nuclear. Italy looks like in will embrace nuclear again after abandoning it in 1990, and in Finland, despite its expensive reactor, nuclear power has 94% support.

Thanks John Daysh, your position is much the same as mine, nuclear only if it ticks all the appropriate boxes. The federal Opposition seem to be digging themselves into a hole on this nuclear proposal. Its more of a thought bubble on their part, rather than solid policy, with so many, and so much against it, I don't think it will ever fly.

Overnight the US Senate passed by a margin of 88-2 a bill already passed by the House of Representatives called the ADVANCE Act. Its expect Biden will sign it into law.

The Act will "accelerate the deployment of nuclear energy capacity, including by speeding permitting and creating new incentives for advanced nuclear reactor technologies."

"Expanding nuclear power has broad bipartisan support, with Democrats seeing it as critical to decarbonizing the power sector to fight climate change and Republicans viewing it as a way to ensure reliable electricity supply and create jobs." (Reuters)

Decarbonise + Jobs....what's not to like.

There are currently 51 nuclear plants under construction world-wide which of course follows the COP28 declaration to triple nuclear capacity by 2050.

Australia will eventually catch on and catch up....but only we've made all available mistakes.

Fester,

Yes, the delays and cost overruns of the nuclear projects in Finland and the U.S. can be attributed in part to the Fukushima disaster and the complexities of first-of-a-kind constructions. And yes, nuclear reactors built before 1990 were often completed in around five years due to a more favourable regulatory environment and different technological standards.

However, the energy landscape has significantly changed since then. Today, nuclear projects face stricter safety regulations, more complex technology requirements, and higher public scrutiny, all contributing to longer construction times and higher costs. These factors are important to consider when evaluating the feasibility of rapidly expanding nuclear power today.

Regarding power output, while nuclear plants can provide substantial and consistent power, making wind and solar dispatchable involves additional costs and infrastructure for energy storage and grid integration. Yet, the costs of these technologies are decreasing rapidly. Advances in battery technology, smart grids, and other storage solutions are making it increasingly feasible to integrate large amounts of renewable energy into the grid.

Countries pursuing wind and solar have faced challenges with higher power prices during the transition phase. However, the long-term trend shows a decrease in costs due to economies of scale and technological advancements. For instance, the cost of solar power has dropped by more than 80% over the past decade, and wind power costs have also seen significant reductions.

Italy and Finland's renewed interest in nuclear power reflects the complexity of energy choices each country must make based on its unique circumstances. In Finland, despite the high costs of recent projects, nuclear power enjoys strong public support due to its role in providing reliable and low-carbon energy.

So, while nuclear power can provide significant and consistent energy, the claim that it is faster to build than wind or solar, considering all factors, remains debatable and unlikely. The rapid advancements and decreasing costs in renewable technologies, coupled with their modular and scalable nature, offer a viable path for many countries. For others, a balanced energy strategy comprising both nuclear and renewables, tailored to the specific conditions and goals of each country, is likely necessary.

Paul1405,

Yes, the federal Opposition's nuclear proposal does seem a bit underdeveloped at this stage. Given the strong opposition and the numerous challenges, I would agree that it's unlikely to gain the traction it needs to become a viable policy.

Whether or not nuclear has a "future" in Australia is not the question to be asked. The really important question is, does Australia itself have any reasonable future with wind an solar, without the backup of nuclear, gas or coal?

The current cost of renewable energy not just to domestic users, but to industry - some of which has already gone - suggests that the answer is NO - Australia does not have a future as good as the past that our political class is determined to overturn.

John, in your comparison you have omitted the cost of replacing from
the start all the wind and solar when it is finished.
It will be then time to go back to the first installations and start
replacing them.
The $9Billion Finland paid multiplied by seven = $63 Billion looks
like a bargain to me compared to the $Trillions needed for W/S battery backup.
Just been called for morning tea, will be back.

Bezza,

You make a valid point there about the costs of replacing wind and solar installations. As I've said before, though, the costs of renewable technologies, including disposal and recycling, have been dropping significantly and are expected to continue doing so.

Renewable energy also has the advantage of being modular, allowing for gradual upgrades and replacements rather than the huge upfront costs and long construction times associated with nuclear power.

Advancements in energy storage, which are making systems like grid-scale batteries more efficient and affordable, should also be considered. These technologies help address the intermittency of renewables and reduce the need for extensive backup systems.

Finally, don't forget the environmental and safety costs of managing nuclear waste and decommissioning old plants, which add to the overall expense of nuclear energy.

I think the whole argument, while disregarding cost, comes down to
can we afford the backup batteries needed for W/S ?
The first question that has to be answered is are there records of
a wind drought in Australia's history.
In the case of Europe a couple of years back it lasted all of the
winter from memory.
Germany relied on France & Norway or Sweden for power.
Until we know the facts about the wind then we cannot make a
commitment to wind.
There is no way we can afford enough battery storage for a season like that.
I have never heard the matter of wind drought brought up in Australia.
It would be an absolute disaster if it occurred after all w/s were completed.
If the risk is also present in Australia then it totally rules out w/s.

Yes John, there are systems that can scan all the cells in a solar
system and pinpoint the failing cells. Not cheap but wiring needs to
be done at installation time. Very costly afterwards.
Considering the millions of panels could any team keep up with the
failing rate from about the 15th year ?
These are the questions muggins like me are aware of but politicians
just say err what ?
If we get this wrong there will be room for firewood collectors in the job queues.
There was an article on here by Geoff Carmody on battery costs.
https://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23000

It has to be accepted that the whole solar and wind project falls
over if the wind fails. We cannot afford the $Trillions for batteries.

Bezza,

Solar panels degrade over time, yes, but technological advancements are making them increasingly durable and efficient. Modern panels often come with 25-year warranties, and regular maintenance can be scheduled rather than just reacting to failures. The maintenance costs are generally offset by the savings from lower energy costs.

On wind reliability, Australia has more consistent wind patterns than Europe, where long wind droughts can happen. Still, it’s important to manage the risk of intermittent wind. This doesn't mean we should abandon wind and solar; instead, it highlights the importance of having a diverse energy mix. Combining solar, wind, hydro, and other renewable sources can provide a balanced and reliable energy supply. Australia, with its abundant sunshine, stands to gain a lot from using a combination of solar and wind.

Battery technology is improving rapidly, and costs are dropping every year. While current battery solutions might not yet be ideal for storing energy for months, they are increasingly viable for daily and weekly storage. Additionally, other storage solutions like pumped hydro, which has been successfully used in Australia, can complement battery storage.

Relying solely on one type of energy - whether it’s wind, solar, or nuclear - is not practical. A diverse mix is crucial for stability and reliability. For Australia, this means integrating solar, wind, hydro, and potentially even hydrogen or other emerging technologies.

Investing in renewable energy and storage technologies is an investment in the future. It creates jobs, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and can lead to energy independence. While the upfront costs may be high, the long-term benefits in terms of environmental impact, energy security, and economic savings are substantial.

Renewable energy does present challenges, but dismissing it entirely in favour of other sources overlooks the benefits and rapid advancements in this field. A balanced, well-thought-out energy policy that includes multiple sources and technologies is important for securing sustainable and reliable energy into the future.

I read Geoff Carmody's article, but thanks for the link anyway. I also responded to it with some additional points that appeared to have been overlooked by him.

I think the whole argument, while disregarding cost, comes down to
can we afford the backup batteries needed for W/S ?
The first question that has to be answered is are there records of
a wind drought in Australia's history.
In the case of Europe a couple of years back it lasted all of the
winter from memory.
Germany relied on France & Norway or Sweden for power.
Until we know the facts about the wind then we cannot make a
commitment to wind.
There is no way we can afford enough battery storage for a season like that.
I have never heard the matter of wind drought brought up in Australia.
It would be an absolute disaster if it occurred after all w/s were completed.
If the risk is also present in Australia then it totally rules out w/s.
I looked at the BOM and they have a page of Australia average wind
speed by the month.
The winter months are worse with June being very low wind speeds
over almost all of Australia including Queensland.
The East coast shows virtually zero wind speed.
The areas west of the divide showed about 2 knots and all of southern Australia about 2 knots average.
As turbines do not produce any output till about 5 to 10 knots I just
do not see how we could get a big enough battery to cover several months. A completely separate set of solar cells to charge the
batteries would be needed for the short days and cold weather.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/maps/averages/wind-velocity/?period=jun&maptype=10m

https://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23000

The 2nd link is Carmodie's article on batteries.

On the face of it there seems to be no possibility of wind and solar
being sucessful over the winter months.
Zilch, nothing to argue about, it is all over, no wind no electricity.

OK John, I wonder what the cell guarantees cover, 66% output ?
I find at this time of year my cells produce almost nothing till
about 10am and then 50% o/p till 2pm when they start dropping off.
So any solar farm dedicated to charging the batteries has a very small
window to charge the batteries to cover 4pm till 9am of a still cold night.
Sun trackers would help but cost more and the day is short at this time of year.
I have not seen anyone discuss this particular problem of low wind
speed short days and long cold still nights. Brrr

I just heard Albo say on the TV Ch2, that nuclear power plants
cannot be turned up or down. ie they are fixed output !
Presumably this is part of their argument against them.
Just points up what I said days ago, don't let politicians make
decisions on things like this.

So whats the story?
Small modular reactors built adjacent to existing power stations and jacking into the existing transmission lines?
Is that right?

Not full proper reactors, so baby steps?
Yeah I'm ok with it, but whats the price tag and timeline?
Dutton's finally found himself a hot political issue, good for him.

Perhaps Australia should use those Subs as portable power stations until a couple of land based plants can be commissioned ?

John,

You have conceded many technical challenges that wind and solar need to overcome to power the grid. As optimistic as you are about solutions being developed, it is an admission by you that wind and solar are not yet capable of doing this. As I have frequently pointed out, the French powered their grid with nuclear one and a half times over in fifteen years starting nearly fifty years ago. Why should such a feat not be possible today, especially as I am always reading of the catastrophe that awaits the world if carbon emissions aren't reduced?

My interest in wind and solar subsided greatly when I learned that long lived nuclear produced dispatchable power at a cost similar to the intermittent output of the former.

Have you given much thought about what it would take to make wind and solar dispatchable, aside from the six to eight times overbuild? An electrical grid capable of carrying over 300 gigawatts and generators or batteries capable of handling well over 200 gigawatts would be on your shopping list. Think 100 Snowy hydros of generating capacity.

I think I'd sooner believe in perpetual motion, or at least drought-proofing the nation with a network of pipes, than I would believe it possible to power Australia with wind and solar alone. Believing it possible to do so at a fraction the cost of nuclear would make the Easter Bunny a credible entity.

Hi AC'

"Yeah I'm ok with it, but whats the price tag and timeline?"

Adi Paterson gives a good take on nuclear and suggests it would take 12 years to get a reactor up and running. Also said that the last reactor in the UAE took 5 1/2 years to build (1400mw).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J50hWO2DKHc

Small Modular Reactors are a lot quicker to set up, maybe 2 years, but yes larger reactors generally take around 6 - 8 years.

The large 2.4 Gw plant in Bangladesh looks like it took 8.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Rosatom has 3 units in Russia and 33 abroad at various implementation stages.

Check out NuScale SMR
http://interactive.nuscalepower.com/ai/p/1
I showed you all this company some time back.
The government could've saved 5 times the cost if they had've just bought up stock in January.
Up from $2 to $10 in 5 months.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=NYSE+SMR+chart

Fester,

I'm happy to acknowledge valid points made by others, and do what I can to explain what they mean for what I have previously said or explain why they don't change anything. I find it to be far more productive and intellectually honest than pretending nothing was said and then repeating the same claims later.

To answer your question, yes, I have given considerable thought to what it would take to make wind and solar power dispatchable beyond simply overbuilding capacity. I have even discussed most of them with you a couple of times now. For the sake of brevity, I will therefore list them in point form this time:

1. Advanced energy storage technologies like grid-scale batteries, pumped hydro storage, and the emerging thermal storage.

2. A diversified energy mix beyond wind and solar; each of which have different peak production times.

3. Smart grid technology to enhance the efficiency and reliability of the power supply.

4. Demand response programs to adjust the demand for power instead of the supply.

5. Strategic geographical distribution to mitigate the risk of local weather conditions affecting energy production.

6. Enhanced interconnection and regional cooperation between regional grids to allow for the sharing of surplus energy.

7. Hybrid systems combining renewable energy systems with traditional power plants (like natural gas) or newer technologies (like hydrogen fuel cells) can provide a backup during periods of low renewable generation. This approach ensures a continuous power supply while gradually reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

I've got no problems with the wind and solar, though wind it can be pretty ugly and I hear the fireys are going on strike and not prepared to risk their lives for fires caused by stupid turbines that cause fires.

I want the cheapest and most efficient power we can get.
I want massive oversupply, run bitcoin miners when demand is low.
Stop making us have our hot water systems turned off 18 hours a day.
It's not smart, it sucks.
I'd be happy to burn tyres used sanitary napkins and disposable nappies if that's what it takes for this country to become competitive again, but I'd prefer we not to have to go to such putrid extremes.

We need to power out of the problem if that means rethinking the whole energy thing.
Not dig the hole we've already dug for ourselves with looming blackouts any deeper.

We need to light this country up with so much cheap power it's like Christmas every day of the year.
Maybe then someone might manufacture something in this country again.
The greenies need be be smacked down, they've done enough damage.
Burn garbage out the front of their houses, and tell them this is all their fault.

We need to fix the problem.
Everyones being screwed.
Figure it out, make it happen,
These incompetant imbeciles who lead us really need to start earning their money.
I want to see electricity bills under $100.
And foreign companies beating on our door to build factories.

And someone should put all the second hand solar panels in this country somewhere out woop woop connected to some power lines somewhere.
85% - 90% effieciency solar panels should not be going into landfill.
Put them out to retirement, let them keep powering this country until they are at 20%
They're no good in landfill, they don't get any sun down there!
Put them on the dams and pump the water back in from a lower holding pond or something.
It's like recharging your battery!

I must apologise I said the winter windspeeds average is around 2 Knots.
I went back to the BOM and found the situation is different to what i indicated.
The scale on the BOM maps is Km/hr.
So the average wind speed over most of Australia is 2 km/hr.
However at greater heights the wind speed is greater.
This explains their excessive heights.
It would be interesting to know at what speed do the turbines start
producing usable output. Something more to research.

Whatever happened to that wind tunnel/tower of which there was a lot of hype some years ago ?
It seemed like a plausible concept. It only needed to have the experts kept away !

Labor’s ideological anti-nuclear ratbaggery is slowly but surely being smothered by a growing nuclear support from Australians, whose main interests are in methods of electricity generation COSTS.

All Labor has managed to do is ruin the Australian economy (and the environment) with windmills and solar panels; and people are sick of it.

Nuclear has been working safely and efficiently for decades in other countries.

Dutton, however, needs to reveal the costs of nuclear power. Unlike ideologues and activists, normal Australians want to know how much it's going to cost. Bugger Net Zero and myths about carbon dioxide, they want to know how much they are up for. They have had cheap, reliable power ripped off them by both Labor and Liberals. They don't give a sh.t about politics. Cost of living is their interest.

Indyvidual,

It sounds like you're referring to the "solar updraft tower." The idea garnered significant attention and seemed promising, but faced several challenges that have so far prevented it from becoming a mainstream solution.

The biggest challenges include the high initial costs and the large physical space required for construction. Additionally, the efficiency of these systems has not yet reached the levels of more mature renewable technologies like wind and solar photovoltaics. The concept also struggled with funding and attracting sustained interest from both the private and public sectors.

But that's not to say the towers will never become a reality. The renewable energy sector is dynamic, with continuous research and development, so technologies that may not be as viable now could become more practical with advancements in materials science, engineering, and cost reductions.

There must be very many teal MPs smiling at the moment.
As well as would-be teals, and Labor and Green MPs.
Peter Dutton's commitment in favour of a nuclear
powered net zero option will have them all thinking
about what Liberal seats might now be in play.

NDIS genius and expert on how to chuck public money around, Bill Shorten, snarled that, “The economics of Peter Dutton’s proposal just don’t stack up at all” - even though he then admits that Dutton “hasn't revealed his costs”.

That's real genius. Costs that have’t are not known to Shorten are not stacking up!

No wonder he has done such a brilliant job with the NDIS.

Dutton needs to combat this sort of buffoonery by revealing the costs, which he says will be a ‘pleasant surprise. Pleasant or not, he needs to put up before he says another word on the matter, even if just to protect his reputation as a realistic contender for PM.

John Daysh,
I seem to recall talk about the tower being a Km tall. That'd be quite some construction. I'd think using mountains with a vertical shaft would be more effective re costs. Particularly along the Great Dividing Range in the prevailing South-Easterlies !
I don't think there'd be an energy greener than that & no manufacturing pollution.

Poor Peter Dutton. He's out of his depth with his
nuclear power plans. The plans have been hit with major
criticisms, plenty of questions, and being
uncosted doesn't help.

According to news sources "it's hard to take Peter
Dutton's nuclear proposal seriously. No costing, no clear
timeline, no easy legal path."

We're told that "deep scepticism over Dutton's nuclear plan
is warranted."

Dutton proposes that he will make nuclear power a reality
within a little over 10 years. Experts tell us that given
the enormous obstacles this seems like a pipe dream.

There's more at the following:

http://theconversation.com/no-costing-no-clear-timelines-no-easy-legal-path-deep-scepticism-over-duttons-nuclear-plan-is-warranted-232822

Yes Foxy of course Dutton is out of of his depth.
He is only a poliician after all.
The CSIRO are now quoting $8 Billion for a large scale station.
The Finish one cost $9Billion somethings.
So lets call it $10Billion. So 10 X 7 = $70Billion seems like a
bargain to me. What we have already spent W/S is way above that.
A price to the grid will have to be set to repay it over 80 years.
I should be able to work that out assuming they are 1 Gwatt stations.
Hmm, came up with $2.85 Kwhr, Hmm easy to slip a zero here and there.
It might turn out to be 28.5 cents a kwhr to repay over its lifetime.
Will do it back the other way.
A figure for maintenance has to be worked out also but there should be
plenty of advise available on that.
I wonder what coal stations cost ?
When they talk about installing on existing sites there are enormous saving to be made.
The first saving should be the turbines themselves, millions saved there;
The adjacent switch yard containing the grid controls and transformers.
Again millions and millions saved there on each station.
Best Foxy we learn to understand all this as we will hear plenty more !

A real Labor leader, Bob Hawke, was talking about nuclear power back in the 1980s. He believed that nuclear power was the way to the future for Australia.

A little before his death, he was still talking about nuclear power as a “win for the global environment and a win for Australia”.

Newspoll has 55% of all Australians supporting nuclear, with 18-34 year olds being the keenest at 65%.

John

Don't forget that renewables need a larger grid. The current grid accounts for 40% of power costs, and it is commonly contended that a grid to handle wind and solar would double the cost. The implication of this is that in using wind and solar alone, the cost of your generation, storage and associated infrastructure would need to deliver power at a third the cost of nuclear to be on a par with it.

Then there is the environmental impact. Nuclear power has a small footprint and would use existing generation sites, whereas renewables have a comparatively huge footprint and will impact significantly.

It is no wonder that the real world evidence is one of nuclear being cheaper than wind and solar. Nor is it strange that nations like France have long since dropped plans to phase out nuclear for renewables, instead choosing to build more reactors.

https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/05/16/economics-of-nuclear-power-the-france-germany-divide-explained

Finally, the carbon emissions from nuclear are up to a quarter that of solar and similar to wind turbines. Until storage is built (if ever), wind and solar are reliant on gas generation, which emits over 40 times as much carbon as nuclear, but even with storage the carbon emissions from wind and solar will be up to tenfold that of nuclear.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-electricity

Countries as different as Turkey, Japan, Egypt and Bangladesh are currently building nuclear reactors. China has 2 more on the way to add to its 55 already in use.

In the past two years the U.S, UAE, India, Pakistan, Slovakia, Belarus, Finland and South Korea have brought reactors onstream.

China has had reactors up and running in less than 6 years.

France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear power.

Overall, there are 440 reactors running safely, efficiently and cheaply globally.

Australia? Bloody idiots!

Hi Bezza,

I read an article in The Sydney Morning Herald that
claimed :

"Experts have cast doubt on the central pillar of Peter
Dutton's nuclear pitch to voters saying it would take
decades to fill in coal mine voids and make contaminated
power station sites safe, during which time fragile
valuable transmission lines would be left to deteriorate."

"Also - operators at several of the seven sites identified
by the Coalition for nuclear already have well advanced plans
to transform their sites into renewable energy hubs with
grid-scale batteries, hydrogen and solar once the coal runs
out."

Surely we can't ignore expert opinion?

In the meantime, Chris Bowen is still jumping in at the last minute, achieving victories - for the other side - and reminding all and sundry of his advice before Morrison had a surprise win: “If you don’t like Labor’s policies, don’t vote for us”. And we didn't. And we shouldn't next year either.

The latest move by this boofhead is to threaten the horizons of Labor electorates with hideous offshore windmills, creating huge no-go areas where these people take their ordinary, normal pleasures on the water.

Commentators are already starting to equate the Voice drubbing Labor received with the possible outcome of the next election, now that Dutton has started his pitch - not quite directly opposing the climate/renewables nonsense, but intending to do it better for the sake of the economy, the environment and, wonder of wonders, the Australian people. None of which Labor has any interest in.

ttbn,

Agree. Nuclear power is the Voice 2.0. I'm waiting for an announcement on long term supply contracts which will allow financing of some gas generators to give some stability over the next decade or two.

Cult leader Albo can add presiding over the destruction of cheap and reliable power in an energy rich nation to his pie of failures. The rush to using Simpsons memes in an evidence free scare campaign shows how far Labor has fallen since the days of Hawke and Keating.

The Coalition's energy scheme leaves many questions
unanswered:

1) They haven't provided any details about how much it
will cost.

Some energy market analysts have predicted the cost to
taxpayers could be as high as $100 billion.

2) How will the safety of communities living and working
near the facilities be protected?

3) Where and how will nuclear waste be stored?

4) How will the Federal Government over turn State
Government bans on nuclear activity?

5) Experts say that this energy scheme would lead to a lot
more climate pollution.

None of this makes an sense.

Foxy, I have done a little spreadsheet and came up with $14.27 per
KW/Hr. Seems too high to me considering I presumed 100% load 100% of
the day. The French must do a lot better than that.
The secret must be in financing methods.
What did you mean about filling in mine voids ?
I presume you mean the open space from where the coal was extracted.
That is going to be a cost anyway, no matter what it is replaced with.
Perhaps past experience has the answer, just let it cave in ?
You comment on the Transmission line deteriorating.
I do not understand, they are in use not matter what happens.
Generators are just connected to the lines that pass by the site.
That is why S/W transmission is so expensive lines have to be run to
wherever the w/s farms happen to be. Hence the farmer revolt.

The ash heaps from the coal station is a problem as they are
radio active and will confuse readings taken when a nuclear station
is later built on the site.
I can imagine Bowen saying "see it is radiating !"
Is that what you meant on decontaminating the site ?

Forget wind Foxy, we will never be able to afford the batteries needed
which it now turns out is very great because of the low winds during
winter just when the load is greatest.
Note we would also have to duplicate all the solar & wind generation
many time over dedicated to recharge those batteries over night.
I cannot find on the BOM anything about an Australian wind drought.

You ask can we ignore expert opinion, well lets ask the opinion of
those who have done it !

The whole problem can be solved just by calling for tenders for one station.

Foxy,

All of your points also apply to wind and solar. The only difference is that the wind and solar miracle is being implemented currently. So how is it that you are concerned by the lack of costings of last week's press release by the opposition, yet you seem to have no concern with the lack of costings for the wind and solar rollout that has been underway for many years?

Fester,

CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)
alongside stakeholders are consulted on revising
electricity generation and storage as well as hydrogen
production costs.

In a new report they highlight that:

"Renewables, led by wind and solar have retained their
position as Australia's cheapest new build electricity
generation. This result comes despite a 20% rise in
technology costs."

I accept the information that is provided by the specialists
and experts on important issues.

Foxy,

"1) They haven't provided any details about how much it
will cost."

Exactly. But my guess is that there will be costings for the nuclear reactors whereas we will be kept in the dark about the cost of running the grid on wind and solar. No problem for you though as you are being given the mushroom treatment by experts.

Fester,

CSIRO is our country's pre-eminent public research
organisation. Australia is one fo the standout
countries in terms of human development status. It is
not corrupt. Its science is world class.

New ideas, instead of being welcome for the opportunities
they open up for the improvement of the human lot are seen
as threats to those who have become comfortable in their
ideologies and prefer the same old, same old ways of doing
things.

If we dismiss intervention in science a thing of the past
we need to be aware that on issues which require radical
solutions that are likely to harm vested economic and political
interests censorship exists today.

Look at the Coalition's stance on climate change and many other
important issues.

Don't talk to me about mushrooms.

In contrast to Albanese Labor, the UK Labour Party, looking like being the next government, has stated that:

“Small modular reactors will play an important role in helping the UK achieve energy security and clean power while securing thousands of good, skilled jobs”.

UK Labour actually chides the Conservatives for going slow on nuclear power.

The Albanese reaction to Dutton’s plan, complete with 3 eyed fish and koalas, is petty, immature and embarrassing.

In Canada, Lefty PM, Justin Trudeau, has taken a stance against the Greens inside and outside of his party, supporting nuclear power and SMRs.

In Finland, all parties, including the Greens, are in favour of nuclear power.

Germany has shifted in favour of nuclear power, after closing down plants, and enduring the crisis in Russian gas.

Ireland, with the most expensive electricity in the world, is now considering whether it will build its own reactors, or import nuclear power from Britain and France. Whatever, they will be using nuclear power.

The EU voters moved away from anti-nuclear parties in the elections a couple of weeks ago.

The dumbarse Albanese government remains outside the ring, ignoring countries that have been-there-done-that and now clearly demonstrate the stupidity of Australia's behind the times, ignorant wackjobs, who refuse to take heed.

Govt stuff-ups cost everyone dearly yet there's no compensation on the horizon ! Plibersek the other day waffled on about low paid workers will get a pay rise in two weeks. What she didn't say was by how much the prices & other costs will go up 2 minutes later !

Well said ttbn.

Foxy,

I like the view of Bjorn Lomborg, who argues that the best means of solving a problem is a prosperous economy. Despite the optimism of some experts, the first of a kind (i.e. unproven) wind and solar powered grid is looking to be costly as well as harmful to farmers and the environment. In contrast, nuclear is a proven, cost effective and environmentally safe option, with many working examples around the world. Italy and Lithuania look like building new reactors, and Germany's attempt to go carbon free without nuclear has been slow and economically harmful.

France's construction of nuclear was regarded as a failure at the time and there was much lauding of the idea of replacing it with wind and solar as this piece from 2015 shows:

https://energytransition.org/2015/03/french-nuclear-power-history/

But nearly ten years on and the French see great value in their long lived reactors and want to build a new generation. To borrow from the military, longevity has a quality all its own.

We'll enjoy the reliability of nuclear power (if run by imported qualified people) long before the indoctrinated can realise the folly of renewables !

Indyvidual,

I'd imagine that the indoctrinated are following their cult leader and learning about the evil nuclear power from the history of the Simpsons. The Heinrich Böll Foundation would give them some tips as well:

https://www.ege.fr/sites/ege.fr/files/media_files/German_Interference_Political_Foundations.pdf

I wonder if the Chinese are giving things a nudge.

Foxy, I asked a couple of questions and was hoping for a response.
Your comment is correct that solar panels provide the cheapest electricity.
That is true at the terminals of the panels but the
further you get from the panels the higher the costs go.
I am not sure that wind turbines produce the cheapest electricity.

I do not think you understand what is required to get wind farms and
solar farms and batteries and transmission lines all connected
together in areas remote from each other, then talking to a central
marketing computer, all at the same time adjusting for changing
outputs because of clouds or windspeed changes while trying to shuffle
around different states requests for different amounts of power.

All that was possible for coal & gas stations and could be scheduled.
It is almost impossible for W/S/Bat.
There is feature of all this sort of stuff, that the more complex it
becomes the cost rises exponentially.
I suspect that is what has happened to the governments scheme.
Please I would like to hear your comments.

What the Dutton mob need to do is present a detailed energy plan to the Australian people, with real cost estimates etc included. With a majority of opinion from research and stake holders opposed to an Australian nuclear power industry, the Noalition need to present something more substantive for debate than the "thought bubble" they are peddling at the moment.

What the Dutton mob need to do is present a detailed energy plan to the Australian people,
Paul1405,
Detailed you say ? There's more than ample detail & evidence in just the mentioning of nuclear power.
It's your lot who don't have an iota of evidence as to how renewables will work. Nuclear is working now, renewables aren't !

.

Dear Paul1405,

.

Nature supplies us, free of charge, with an excellent source of light and heat, no strings attached, as much as we like, unlimited supply. What more could we ask ? It meets our essential needs. It not only allows us to survive, but to thrive and prosper Same goes for all the animals of this world, and plants as well.

We, 8 billion human beings, complete that source of heat and light by artificially producing about 13 terawatts (1 terawatt = one trillion watts) of energy which is only 0.01% of the 120,000 terawatts of energy delivered by the sun to the surface of the earth.

If we manage to harness a fraction of that solar energy we’ll solve the problem.

It might take another thousand years or so, but if we succeed, it will see us through for the next 500 million years when it is estimated extreme climatic conditions will render the Earth uninhabitable.

The sooner we learn to harness solar energy the better. In the meantime, we have to make do with various expedients : wind, water, nuclear, and whatever else we can come up with that does not degrade the ecosystem beyond repair.

.

Experts? I'm sure that the beneficiaries of hundreds of billions in sales and subsidies are employing a heap of experts to tell us how wonderful wind and solar are and what a disaster nuclear would be. The fate of koalas, environment, farmers and the economic welfare of Australians means naught when there's a buck to be made.

And cheaper wind energy? Yes apparently, but the cost cutting is reducing the service life according to this article:

https://stopthesethings.com/2024/06/14/propaganda-overload-offshore-wind-industrys-costs-claims-hit-peak-delusion/comment-page-1/

Stop the con!

While the Albanese ALP is determined to hold out against common sense, the Canadian Leftist government generates 60% of its electricity with nuclear power, and is willing to sell its technology to a pro-nuclear Australian government.

When asked, Canadians denied Bowen's lie that their cheap power was subsidised. The generators operate within market forces.

For those people concerned about waste, Finland has shown that this is not an issue.

Albanese Labor is making Australia a global laughing stock: a pimple on the bum of the West.

Dutton’s description of Albanese as “a child in a man's body” is appropriate.

While this threat to our electricity goes on, there is a shortage of gas, even though Australia is in the top 3 exporters of the stuff. WA is the only state with retention for domestic use is law.

Hi Bezza,

I don't want to argue with you or anyone else about
nuclear power in Australia.

I support the broad nature of the conservation work
of the World Wildlife Fund which includes not only species
but also habitats and the reversal of environmental
degradation.

In a recently released survey on their behalf more than
50 leading experts from investment and insurance
companies, think tanks, academia and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) were asked to share thoughts on
Australia's potential for a renewable energy future.

96% of them believe Australia has all the resources to become
a world leading renewable and clean manufacturing exporter.

As Banjo also pointed out - we have endless sunshine, powerful
winds, abundant space, strong-trade relationships and world
class expertise and training institutions.

I'm sure that if we take all these things into account -
and keep politics out of the equation - we shall come up with
the best energy solutions for our country.

Cheers.

Dutton has warned anti- nuclear state Premiers that he will override them if they object to his plan to build nuclear reactors in the places he has indicated.

Sec. 109 Australian Constitution”

“When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid”.

He is finally looking like a leader, unfazed by the “child” PM and his juvenile three eyed fish and animals.

The reactors will be Commonwealth-owned.

If the Coalition wins the election next year,

. SMRs will be built on the current or previous coal generator land
. The first one will be built by 2035
. First large scale plant by 2037, the rest in the 2040s. A bit AUKUSish
but at least comparable with, and a surer bet than, wind and solar

While a Coalition government should admit its mistake in signing up to to Net Zero, and it should drop the climate hysteria and the unproven nonsense about carbon dioxide, and reinvigorate coal power, it looks like at least making things easier and cheaper, and more secure for Australians after the horrors of the Albanese Labor government.

Too expensive.
Too slow.
Too dangerous.
Nobody wants it.
What's wrong with what we are doing now?
The experts think it's a terrible idea.

They were all criticisms when the French built their nuclear, and fifteen years ago they were still set on shutting them down and replacing them with wind and solar. Things are different in France today.

In Australia, many endangered species, like koalas in north Queensland, risk extermination from the reckless rollout of useless wind turbines. It would be the shame of a nation to sacrifice them for such folly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ3Y-JoyyTI

I guess Foxy will pipe up again when team Albo thinks up another anti-nuclear meme or three.

Fester,

Don't lower the bar with personal attacks.

"the horrors of the Australian Labor Government?"

Political Editor for The Australian Financial Review
Phillip Coorey writes that things are difficult for
the government at the moment. That the wheels haven't
fallen off for Labor yet, but things are sticky.

However we're told that Labor can console itself with
the observation that no one is going to vote for
Dutton. He's unelectable.

He's the Voldemort, and Australian voters are above
all that.

Interesting times ahead.

Talking of Albanese's animals and other school aged things, economist and political commentator, Judith Sloan, has said that Peter Dutton deserves an elephant stamp.

“The Coalition has now effectively disowned the (2030) target”.

And the Paris agreement is not legally binding (see China), so what used to be the Morrison Coalition's, and still is the goal of the child, Albanese, was and still is, empty virtue signalling in case (sob) someone put a trade embargo on us.

Most countries never legalised the nonsense, and some of them have actually increased their emissions of life giving carbon dioxide, thankfully for crops and forests all over the globe.

The UK is one exception, thanks to the weird Theresa May, but her party is about to be tossed out by a Labour Party that believes in nuclear power to ease the burden of the population.

The MSM - none of what is done is any of its business - has jumped in to say that's the end of the Liberal's chances of regaining Teal seats.

Maybe. But it's not the Teal seats that a successful Coalition will be interested if they concentrate on outer suburbs, rural and the Labor seats now being threatened by Mad Man Bowen's massive, ugly and unreliable windmills,

The “rent-seeking” business community doesn't like Dutton’s announcement; but they are chock-block-up Labor anyway. So, who cares!

Renewables have now clearly demonstrated that they can't fulfil the wild claims of their highly imaginative champions. Nuclear has, and continues to, prove itself all over the world.

“The bottom line is that Australia’s current emissions target already looks like a bust and most people who follow these things know this”.

Correct Foxy, and you are undeniably a role model for treating others with respect on this forum.

Voldemort. That must have been quite a brainstorming session. At least Albo has stopped watching cartoons. Back in the world of grown ups Adi Paterson has pointed out that a hail storm in the Sydney Basin could wipe out half a gigawatt of solar panels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ9EqO_XGVs

Maybe Albo could consult with the Russians and design some cope cages for them?

Fester,

The difference is I don't attack them personally. Only
the BS they spout. Which is part and parcel of a
discussion forum.

But I know, I know.
I stand up for myself.
I'm such a bad person.

Wind & Solar are more polluting than coal. Anyone not seeing that needs their head read !

.

DearIndyvidual,

.

You wrote :

« Wind & Solar are more polluting than coal. Anyone not seeing that needs their head read ! »
.
Sounds more like a case of myopia, Indyvidual, where the cornea curves too steeply or the eyeball is too long so that light entering the eye does not focus on the retina but just in front of it so the image appears blurry.

It remains to be seen exactly who is short-sighted and who isn’t. As you say, it could be “anyone not seeing that” or, on the contrary, “anyone seeing that”.

I did some fact-checking and found this :

« Renewables generate more energy than is used in their production and produce fewer emissions than other power sources over their lifetime.

While all sources of electricity result in some GHG emissions over their lifetime, renewable energy sources have substantially fewer emissions than fossil fuel-fired power plants. One study estimates that renewable energy sources typically emit about 50g or less of CO2 emissions per kWh over their lifetime, compared to about 1000 g CO2/kWh for coal and 475 g CO2/kWh for natural gas. Most of the lifecycle emissions from fossil generators occur from fuel combustion but also come from raw materials extraction, construction, fuel processing, plant operation and decommissioning of facilities.

While the manufacture of solar panels requires substantial amounts of energy, studies have found that they offset the energy consumed in production within about two years of operation, depending on the module type. Both crystalline silicon and thin-film solar panels contain toxic materials such as lead, silver and cadmium; therefore, efforts need to be accelerated to address proper disposal practices and module recycling, such as is done in Europe and by First Solar in the U.S., to appropriately capture and reuse these materials. »

Here is the source :

http://www.wri.org/insights/setting-record-straight-about-renewable-energy

Perhaps you could let me have yours.

.

I read an interesting letter from a bloke in Sydney
who wrote that he didn't believe that there is a
Coalition nuclear plan - except to get re-elected.

He suggests that no nuclear plants will be built
here - thus avoiding questions about costs and
technology, and radio-active waste.

He tells us that Dutton is exploiting those worried
about climate change and energy costs who don't have
the time and ability to question his remedy.

We're told that Dutton's plan will unfortunately be
followed by endless committees to implement such a
"grand and important policy" which will go on for
another election or two until finally some
election strategist decides that changes in policy
may be needed.

Ten years later - Australia will be left penniless
without enough energy and polluting the world with
scraps of fossil fuels in its desperate burning to
keep the lights on.

A glum picture indeed.

Any food for thought?

I see today's briefing is finished. Snowy 2.0 is a great argument against the push for renewables.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcJAyMCx_lc

How would Australia's flora and fauna vote? Subjecting Australians to an experiment in an unproven energy grid is totally reckless. Why did UAE go nuclear when they have all that sunshine?

Hi Banjo,

It's an issue of energy security (both from the vulnerability of solar panels to things like storm damage and from being beholden to China for our generating infrastructure), cost (Robert Idel gives a truer comparison of the total system cost), and preserving the environment.

Nuclear power has ever been described as a bad decision in every nation that has built reactors, but the long term view is that nuclear delivers cheap and reliable electricity. In contrast, the wind and solar mob destroy sensitive ecosystems and wildlife, deliver way below their lofty claims, then do a buck when the handouts stop, leaving the public a massive bill for the cleanup.

The Albanese Government has announced that former
Liberal NSW Treasurer Matt Kean has been named
the new Chair of the Climate Change Authority in
a surprise cross-party appointment that followed
Kean's resignation from state politics.

Kean's from the opposite side of politics however as
the Federal Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said:

"Carbon dioxide doesn't recognize political parties."

Yay!

Any energy system that is to be installed is a long time plan.
Completion will probably be around 2070 +- 20 years.
With solar & wind three complete installations and removables will
be experienced by 2100.
With nuclear rebuilds will probably be scheduled for about 2130.
Perhaps they will all be replaced by Fusion.

Our problem at the moment is that the powers that be are working on
a three year time base, when what is needed is an argument on a 50 year cycle.

Some years ago Bill Gates suggested to Ziggy Switkowski that mobile telecommunication should be Telstra's main focus. Ziggy instead decided to invest Telstra's money OS. Some while later Kevin Rudd decided that his legacy to Australians would be a world class wired network, and so began the NBN rollout. How people today must reflect on his wisdom and foresight as they use their smart phones.

So what is Bill up to these days? Heavily investing in wind and solar? No, he's using 10 billion of his money building a first of a kind SMR in Wyoming. Delayed a couple of years because of the Ukraine war, but it should be up and running before Snowy 2.0. His Terrapower project is one of many SMR projects around the world and he estimates that one hundred would need to be built before turning a profit, so it's more an act of philanthropy.

The Green-Left Academy of Science supports nuclear power. It submitted a call to Parliament to drop the prohibition on nuclear power in 2023. Mainly because of the rising emissions - silly to be worried about that nonsense, but wanting nuclear to counter it.

They did a study 6 years ago that found that nuclear power was cheaper than fossil fuels; comparable with renewables, but unlike the latter, reliable. Nuclear was also found to have lower mortality and accident rates than equivalent power sources.

The opposition to nuclear power is irrational if you take into account the success of the 440 nuclear plants existing in the world.

Most of the anti-nonsense is generated by investors in renewables. If nuclear power was no threat to them, they would be making such a fuss.

If renewable energy was the cheapest electricity source and nuclear the most expensive, they would have nothing to fear. But, fear they do!

Lying about nuclear power, and people accepting these lies, is Albanese's panicked attempt to get another term to enable him to continue his swindling, and bribing the incoming Governor General with a 43% pay increase before she even starts work.

The obscenely rich Gannon-Brooke's and Turnbull, both big wind and solar investors, are in cahoots with him: as are all those foreigners ripping off Australian taxpayers, with the assistance of Albanese.

Something BOM doesn't like to talk about is wind droughts. It might upset the champions of windmills-for-electricity. You might have read about sailing ships being ‘in the doldrums’, unable to move, sometimes for long periods.

Rafe Champion writes that meteorologists should be asked to explain their silence on wind droughts, and authorities should be brought to book for “their failure to check the wind supply before connecting intermittent energy to the grid.”

Wind droughts can occur anywhere across Australia. And there is no evidence that battery storage will be much use for anything but short periods. And solar panels don't work at night.

It's not just mass immigration from the Third World that will relegate Australia to Third World status; lack of electricity for industry will help us go down to that level.

Gas is too expensive; we sell it cheap overseas, which makes it so. And nobody wants to explore and produce more. It's so cheap to Japan, for instance, that they can make a profit by selling it on to other countries.

And, the people who are doing this to Australia, don't want nuclear power either.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2024/06/things-that-go-slump-in-the-night/

Good comments ttbn, but Albo will first need to do more opinion polling and brainstorming before progressing the debate. The argument in favour of nuclear is helped by real world examples of it providing cheaper and more reliable energy than renewables. I think that the environmental harm from wind and solar will not help the renewables push either. And energy security should be significant as well.

It would be interesting were it not for the rolling blackouts ahead.

Fester

At least the nuclear question will be debated, and it certainly provides an important difference between Labor and Liberal that can be pondered by the electorate: provided that both sides act in a mature manner, and Labor, in particular, uses facts and not ideology to determine Australia's future which, in my opinion, is looking pretty grim, and getting grimmer, by the day. All these nonsensical accusations of 'negativity' against people who criticise the Albanese government and its incompetence are a sure sign of argument-free denial of the parlous situation we are now in.

I despair of the entire political class's ability to do the right thing for us and our country on just about any matter at all, these days.

ttbn, the doldrums is not a good example. They are restricted to a particular region defined by their latitude.
They are almost permanent.
Cheers

"It's so cheap to Japan, for instance, that they can make a profit by selling it on to other countries." A shonky deal put together by that dope of dopes, one of our worst PM's ever, Little Johnny Howard.

The Albanese government has approved 9 more fossil fuel projects as the wind and solar circus is looking sillier than ever. 152 coal seam projects in Queensland.

Who knows what they will do next. Back to good old reliable, cheap coal, perhaps!

When can we expect any kind of detail for this Noalition thought bubble? When Plan A falls on its arse, then its plan B from the Noalition, a mission to the Sun, with Captain Dud in command, to mine "Sun Stuff" bring a sh!t load back to give us unlimited energy for ever and ever, or 40 billion years what ever comes first. Don't tell the Noalition as they'll think its a fantastic unbelievable good idea! Yep, a sh!t load of 'Sun Stuff" problem solved, back to sleep for Dozy Dud and his motley crew!

Could the World catch up with 1965 Russia ?

In 1965, Soviet scientists released a Volga Atom car with an atomic engine with a capacity of 320 horsepower (a lot for that time) for testing. The motor weighed 500 kilograms, so there were not 2 wheels in front, but 4. Such a car could not be refueled for a very long time. Tests have shown that Volga Atom drives 60,000 kilometers without refueling. It turned out that after that the motor needs to be changed to a new one. But Soviet scientists corrected this problem, they created an engine with gaseous fuel in the form of uranium hexafluoride instead of solid uranium, and the new version of the car drove 40,000 kilometers without refueling. For refueling, it was now enough to pump a new supply of uranium hexafluoride into the cylinders and the car drove on.
When Khrushchev retired, the machines were dismantled, and research in this area stopped.

Talking about the government?

The BBC confirms that "Australia has announced it will
ramp up its extraction and use of gas until "2050 and
beyond," despite global calls to phase out fossil
fuels."

"Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government says the
move is needed to shore up domestic energy supply while
supporting a transition to net zero."

We're told that - "Australia is one of the world's largest
exporters of liquified natural gas and has also said the
policy is based on "its commitment to being a reliable
trading partner."

The government argues these moves are needed for Australia's
domestic energy supply as it tracks towards its
targets of delivering 82% renewable energy to the grid by
2030 and achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

Currently gas accounts for 27% of the country's existing
needs. The bulk is exported to China, Japan, and South Korea.

shore up domestic energy supply while
supporting a transition to net zero."
Foxy,
That sounds pretty basic until one considers the very real possibility that net Zero is not achievable !
Anyone who says it is achievable is talking nonsense because if it was it'd be done now !
I just wish people would stop rambling on about massively unrealistic goals which cost us socially as a community more than we can ever heal !
Let people who know deal with reality !

Indyvidual,

The government is listening to advisers who actually
have the expertise.

You can stop worrying.

Hi Foxy,

"The government is listening to advisers who actually have the expertise." What would be frightening is if the government is listening to Indyvidual who doesn't have a clue. Now that would be a horror.

The pro nuk crowd can't put together a creditable case supporting nuclear power generation in Australia. All they have is an irrelevant argument based on far off countries like Finland, France etc. The truth is, like the Noalition which in almost a decade in power failed to deliver any sort of creditable energy policy. Now the Dutton mob have invented an un-costed, unsubstantiated, unattainable, pie in the sky thought bubble and claiming its energy policy. WOW! In government the Dutton mob would be a total disaster!

Hi Paul,

Frankly, so far this government's policies have made
a lot of sense to me. Nuclear I simply don't trust.
Especially seeing the disasters that have happened.
Australia is being sensible. Lets hope that this
continues. At least our current government is prepared
to listen.

Oh dear, the last thing Paul & Foxy will hear is "Where did I put the matches ?"

The government is listening to advisers who actually
have the expertise.
Foxy,
This is too serious an issue for Latte crowd jokes !