Is nuclear dead? Signs Coalition's policy isn't buried despite election loss
The Liberals and Nationals will review their policy platforms as they assess their sweeping election defeat, which resulted in Labor claiming a majority government.
May 25 2025
SBS News
Some Coalition politicians have signalled their continued support for nuclear energy despite it being what an expert described as "electoral suicide".

Liberal MP Tim Wilson said Australia will have to "de-industrialise" without nuclear power as he backed the energy source during his victory speech this week.

The Liberals and Nationals will be conducting reviews of their policy platform as they take stock of a sweeping election defeat, which resulted in Labor claiming majority government.   :)



The Coalition has lost a number of its moderate MPs as metropolitan areas turned away from the Liberals. 

Wilson has bucked that trend, re-claiming the seat of Goldstein in Melbourne from independent MP Zoe Daniel, and throwing his support behind a future in which nuclear energy plays a role.

"I, in my core sense of belief, believe in the role of nuclear power," he said.
'Many' in the Coalition are pro-nuclear
Nationals MP Michael McCormack said many members of the Nationals and Liberals remain "very pro-nuclear".   :(

When asked if nuclear power could cause a split between the Liberals and Nationals, he told Radio National on Thursday morning: "We'll have to wait and see."

Asked to clarify his response, McCormack said: "There are many people within the Liberal Party who are very pro-nuclear, just like the National Party, and obviously there will be people who will now want to review all the policies."

"Everything will be on the table, there will be reviews by both parties," he said.
READ MORE

'Battle for the soul of the party': How the Liberals will pick a new leader after Dutton's exit

McCormack said it's a "matter for the parties" whether a nuclear energy policy will be taken to the next election in three years' time.

"People do believe that if we're going to get to net zero, that it [nuclear] has to be part of the energy mix, there are a lot of Liberals on board with that too," he said.

However, Liberal senator Maria Kovacic said she wanted the policy to be dumped.

"The Liberal Party must immediately scrap the nuclear energy plan and back the private market's investment in renewable energy," she said on Tuesday.

How feasible is nuclear power in Australia and what would it cost? CSIRO and experts take a look



What was the Coalition's nuclear policy?
In mid-2024, then-Opposition leader Peter Dutton announced that if elected, he would create seven nuclear power plants across NSW, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia, pledging it would lead to cheaper energy.   :(

The Coalition estimated the project would cost $331 billion and had planned to build the plants in the following electorates:
Liddell in NSW, electorate of Hunter
Mount Piper in NSW, electorate of Calare
Tarong in Queensland, electorate of Maranoa
Callide in Queensland, electorate of Flynn
Port Augusta in SA, electorate of Grey
Loy Yang in Victoria, electorate of Gippsland
Muja in WA, electorate of O'Connor
The party's plan to build the reactors faced opposition from members of the public as well as state premiers who were against nuclear facilities in their home states.

Dutton didn't visit any of the proposed sites during the five-week election campaign.


Blocked by the law and the states, how can Peter Dutton's nuclear proposal go ahead?

'Electoral suicide'
There were swings against the Coalition in nearly every seat where it proposed a nuclear plant, except for Flynn in Queensland, according to Australian Electoral Commission data.

Meanwhile, Labor recorded positive swings in every seat where offshore wind projects have been announced.

Adam Simpson, a senior lecturer in international studies at the University of South Australia, described pro-nuclear policies as unpopular "electoral suicide".


The many ways Australia will change under Anthony Albanese's second term

But the Coalition didn't have much of a choice when it came to election promises around energy, Simpson told SBS News.

"The Coalition had to come to the election saying something about energy policy if they were going to oppose Labor's policy, and there's not really that many options," he said.

"They could have come out and said, 'We're going to use gas and or coal for eternity', but then they would have to abandon their commitment to net zero."
Fewer moderates in the party
Simpson said there are a couple of reasons the Coalition could come back with a version of the policy for the next election.

"In 2022, they lost all those teal seats. They lost a lot of moderate voices from the Liberal Party. And then that's just been exacerbated in this recent election," Simpson said.   :)

"There are very few voices going to be coming from metropolitan urban areas in the Coalition party room. So that's why I wouldn't be surprised if, after they do the post-election wash-up and assessment of what went wrong, they come out again with another pro-nuclear policy."

Nuclear should be part of the mix of low carbon energy. Making sure it is economical is the big problem.

When brown-outs start happening on a regular basis as Coal powered plants die off and renewables fail to provide 24/7 electricity, then people will come around to the idea of SMRs.

Just wait.

https://i.imgur.com/DZHP0pw.gif

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 1^st, 2025 at 11:37am:

When brown-outs start happening on a regular basis as Coal powered plants die off and renewables fail to provide 24/7 electricity,

Brown and black outs have been occurring for decades. Long before renewables was ever a thing. People still didn't want nuclear then and the switch to renewables isn't going to change that.

Even China is going nuclear.

"China has expanded its nuclear power capacity at the fastest rate of any country in the 21st century, according to new data from Global Energy Monitor. Despite a moratorium on inland nuclear plants imposed after the Fukushima disaster, China is building enough capacity to overtake France within the next few years and hold the world’s second-largest nuclear fleet. Nearly half of the world’s nuclear power under construction is located in China. Its government has promoted nuclear power to shore up baseload capacity in the electricity sector and to help achieve its targets for carbon peaking before 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060. But not all of the proposed buildout may come to fruition. Less than one-third of China’s planned nuclear capacity has begun construction, and China already has more cancelled nuclear capacity than any other country as a result of its pivot away from inland nuclear plants. By contrast, China has about two-thirds of the world’s utility-scale solar and wind power under construction, which, along with promising advancements in utility-scale battery technology, may reduce the need for continued additions of nuclear power."

https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/china-is-building-half-of-the-worlds-new-nuclear-power-despite-inland-plants-pause/

Is building as opposed to proposed buildout later in the story.

Nuclear is the future. As the power bills soar and supply becomes increasingly unreliable even the ignorant and deluded will see the truth.

Spuds plan made up less than 4% of the grid load , we were talking about smrs on the west coast as we dont have the water to actual cool it ... then their was dry cooling which was a massive outlay ... anyway the companies well and truly have embraced renewable energy and liberals have chosen their hill to die on when we all know they couldnt deliver a watt of energy in 9 years and presided over 4gwh leaving the grid , we had Angus gas led recovery back in 2020 and prices were 4.20gj day of election may 22 34gj , now around 13 ( on east coast) in WA we enjoy a domestic gas supply agreement .. thanks WA Labor whilst the rest of the country getting absolutely gouged by the gas giants after Howard sold us out with contracts that dont expire until 2031 , the only country on face of planet without a domestic gas supply agreement... never ever ever ever vote lnp on energy policy... ever

Apart from Russia and China , who actually has an up and running SMR ???

Quote:

Is Coalition Nuclear Power Idea Electoral Suicide

It should be but the Americans elected Trump so who knows.

Solar and wind will never be sufficient to power a modern country.

The only renewable with enough  heft is hydro. But the Greens are against damming rivers to save the yellow-bellied newt.

Frank wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2025 at 12:25am:

Solar and wind will never be sufficient to power a modern country. The only renewable with enough  heft is hydro. But the Greens are against damming rivers to save the yellow-bellied newt.

You are forgetting about batteries. Plenty of people already live off solar alone with battery storage.

The price of all renewables is trending down, and is already cheaper than coal and nuclear.

Tasmania already has plenty of hydro power and could be connected to the eastern seaboard grid.

Frank wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2025 at 12:25am:

Solar and wind will never be sufficient to power a modern country. The only renewable with enough  heft is hydro. But the Greens are against damming rivers to save the yellow-bellied newt.

Quite true Frank. My mate at seq water says it is now policy that no new dams will be built.
I suppose the green solution is desal plants.
Freaking morons

freediver wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2025 at 9:21am:

Frank wrote on Oct 2nd, 2025 at 12:25am: Solar and wind will never be sufficient to power a modern country. The only renewable with enough  heft is hydro. But the Greens are against damming rivers to save the yellow-bellied newt. You are forgetting about batteries. Plenty of people already live off solar alone with battery storage. The price of all renewables is trending down, and is already cheaper than coal and nuclear. Tasmania already has plenty of hydro power and could be connected to the eastern seaboard grid.

Ah, the south Australian solution.

You are aware that on a weekly basis they need to obtain power from the Victorian grid to prevent blackouts.
Power from coal fired plants.

You are also aware they have the dearest power in Australia.

Belgarion wrote on Oct 1^st, 2025 at 8:50pm:

Nuclear is the future. As the power bills soar and supply becomes increasingly unreliable even the ignorant and deluded will see the truth.

I agree .
But let's not forget the central qld basin has enough coal to power Australia for 800 years.
Currently we dig it up and burn it in China so there is no global impact in burning a bit here.
And when inner city elites have to go a few summers without air con and Netflix. They will be demanding a more stable grid.

Personally I have 3 generators and a 5000 litre fuel tank so no skin off my nose

aquascoot wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2025 at 10:12am:

Belgarion wrote on Oct 1st, 2025 at 8:50pm: Nuclear is the future. As the power bills soar and supply becomes increasingly unreliable even the ignorant and deluded will see the truth. I agree . But let's not forget the central qld basin has enough coal to power Australia for 800 years. Currently we dig it up and burn it in China so there is no global impact in burning a bit here. And when inner city elites have to go a few summers without air con and Netflix. They will be demanding a more stable grid. Personally I have 3 generators and a 5000 litre fuel tank so no skin off my nose

Indeed. The biggest hurdle is the overcoming the ignorance and fear created by decades of misinformation.

Quote:

Is Coalition Nuclear Power Idea Electoral Suicide

The problem is only partially that nuclear is still technically not really a good option as much as that the Liberals plan really sux.

You can make a solid argument for a small Nuclear implementation but you cannot make any argument supporting the Liberals actual plan.

Belgarion wrote on Oct 1^st, 2025 at 8:50pm:

Nuclear is the future. As the power bills soar and supply becomes increasingly unreliable even the ignorant and deluded will see the truth.

Quote:

As the power bills soar and supply becomes increasingly unreliable

The problem with this argument is that nuclear is still by far the most expensive option so implementing it is causal to power bills soaring and that there is still a lot of leeway both technically and factually before reliability becomes an issue. It is very likely that before we are forced to take action in this direction we may see a successful nuclear option developed or some other technology.

There is no need to rush into an expensive unsafe option prematurely.

Belgarion wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2025 at 11:46am:

aquascoot wrote on Oct 2nd, 2025 at 10:12am: Belgarion wrote on Oct 1st, 2025 at 8:50pm: Nuclear is the future. As the power bills soar and supply becomes increasingly unreliable even the ignorant and deluded will see the truth. I agree . But let's not forget the central qld basin has enough coal to power Australia for 800 years. Currently we dig it up and burn it in China so there is no global impact in burning a bit here. And when inner city elites have to go a few summers without air con and Netflix. They will be demanding a more stable grid. Personally I have 3 generators and a 5000 litre fuel tank so no skin off my nose Indeed. The biggest hurdle is the overcoming the ignorance and fear created by decades of misinformation.

The biggest hurdle is cost. Nuclear is already the most expensive option by a huge margin, and the gap is widening. It is obsolete technology.

freediver wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2025 at 9:21am:

You are forgetting about batteries. Plenty of people already live off solar alone with battery storage.

Of course, it doesn't actually work driving an energy intensive business from home. ::)

##

freediver wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2025 at 12:44pm:

Belgarion wrote on Oct 2nd, 2025 at 11:46am: aquascoot wrote on Oct 2nd, 2025 at 10:12am: Belgarion wrote on Oct 1st, 2025 at 8:50pm: Nuclear is the future. As the power bills soar and supply becomes increasingly unreliable even the ignorant and deluded will see the truth. I agree . But let's not forget the central qld basin has enough coal to power Australia for 800 years. Currently we dig it up and burn it in China so there is no global impact in burning a bit here. And when inner city elites have to go a few summers without air con and Netflix. They will be demanding a more stable grid. Personally I have 3 generators and a 5000 litre fuel tank so no skin off my nose Indeed. The biggest hurdle is the overcoming the ignorance and fear created by decades of misinformation. The biggest hurdle is cost. Nuclear is already the most expensive option by a huge margin, and the gap is widening. It is obsolete technology.

;D ;D & windmills, solar & batteries aren't?

That can't build an industrial sized battery big enough to last more than a couple of hours.  ::)

Gnads wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2025 at 1:55pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 2nd, 2025 at 12:44pm: Belgarion wrote on Oct 2nd, 2025 at 11:46am: aquascoot wrote on Oct 2nd, 2025 at 10:12am: Belgarion wrote on Oct 1st, 2025 at 8:50pm: Nuclear is the future. As the power bills soar and supply becomes increasingly unreliable even the ignorant and deluded will see the truth. I agree . But let's not forget the central qld basin has enough coal to power Australia for 800 years. Currently we dig it up and burn it in China so there is no global impact in burning a bit here. And when inner city elites have to go a few summers without air con and Netflix. They will be demanding a more stable grid. Personally I have 3 generators and a 5000 litre fuel tank so no skin off my nose Indeed. The biggest hurdle is the overcoming the ignorance and fear created by decades of misinformation. The biggest hurdle is cost. Nuclear is already the most expensive option by a huge margin, and the gap is widening. It is obsolete technology. ;D ;D & windmills, solar & batteries aren't? That can't build an industrial sized battery big enough to last more than a couple of hours.  ::)

Wind and solar are the cheapest energy source by a wide margin. You can build a battery to any size you want. They are easily scalable. Just build another one next door. It really is that simple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Electricity_costs_in_dollars_according_to_data_from_Lazard.png/500px-Electricity_costs_in_dollars_according_to_data_from_Lazard.png

And never mind the gaps in Lazard's methodology on what they don't include. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

in other news-

"   Soaring energy prices leading concern for Australian businesses, report finds as major companies lament power costs

    Soaring energy prices under the Albanese government has hit the top of the list of concerns for Australia’s business leaders.

    October 3, 2025 – 3:35PM

    Business leaders say energy is now their leading concern as soaring electricity prices have taken their toll on many of Australia’s major sectors.

    This is a revelation from a fresh report by software accounting firm MYOB which surveyed 526 companies.

    More of those questioned in the survey said energy prices were concerning compared to any other singular category.

    When asked what the biggest challenges facing the business owners were, 30 per cent listed energy while inflation came in second with 29 per cent mentioning the price rises were a challenge.

    At least 26 per cent of respondents said interest rates and high competition were challenges while 25 per cent said employment costs were a problem for their business.

    …
    Read more: https://www.skynews.com.au/business/energy/soaring-energy-prices-australian-businesses-leading-concern-myob-report-finds-as-major-companies-lament-power-costs/news-story/a38737ec989a2ee8865609cb12967484


The MYOB survey quoted shows 30% of mid-sizes businesses cited increasing energy costs.

https://23558368.fs1.hubspotusercontent-ap1.net/hubfs/23558368/September%202025%20Mid-Market%20Insights/Mid-sized%20Business%20Insights%20-%20AU%20one-pager.pdf

The cause of the soaring costs is lack of investment in energy infrastructure. The cause of that lack of investment is the coalition's policy of undermining the transition to a low emission economy. Over ten years ago Labor introduced the cheapest and most economically efficient means to transition the economy - a carbon tax. The coalition abolished it and replaced it with a decade of uncertainty. They are still doing it. Will we go nuclear? Even if the coalition gets elected there is a good chance it will still never happen. And even if it does, all it will mean is that we adopted the most expensive energy technology, and the one with the longest lead time to develop, after it had already become the most expensive option available.

Everyone with money to invest in energy infrastructure has seen the change coming for several decades. But they don't want to be the one who invests a decade too early. And they certainly don't want to invest in nuclear - that will have to come out of taxpayers' pockets. We could have used the transition as a means of raising revenue, thereby reducing other taxes. The coalition has forced us in the opposite, far more costly direction. The Liberal party has mismanaged the economy on an unprecedented scale, in a many that any first year economics student could point out.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 2:04pm:

The cause of the soaring costs is lack of investment in energy infrastructure.

So what you seem to be saying is that private profit making companies should suck on the government tit for subsidies, because Government did that infrastructure when they owned the generation, transmission lines etc. ::)


freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 2:04pm:

And even if it does, all it will mean is that we adopted the most expensive energy technology, and the one with the longest lead time to develop, after it had already become the most expensive option available.

Hmm. Let's see Snowy 2.0 a part-time solution now costing, currently over $12 billion, and climbing. And that isn't producing.

The Centre for Independent Studies says $29 billion, currently.

"Indeed, the current federal government has further increased subsidies in an effort to achieve its ambitious goal of having renewables supply 82% of national electricity by 2030. The 2024-25 budget allocates more than $22 billion to boost renewables in Australia. This includes $13.7 billion in production tax incentives for green hydrogen and processed critical minerals as well as the $1.7 billion Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund aimed at developing new industries like green metals and low carbon fuels. Additionally, the Capacity Investment Scheme has been expanded to a target of 32 GW of new capacity nationally.[2]"

https://www.cis.org.au/publication/counting-the-cost-subsidies-for-renewable-energy/


Curiously The Australia Institute doesn't seem to do renewables subsidies, but concentrates on fossil fuels, with flawed methodology.

https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/P1543-Fossil-fuel-subsidies-2024-FINAL-WEB.pdf

"The increase to $14.5 billion in 2023-24 from $11.1 billion in 2022-23 was driven largely by the Federal Government’s Fuel Tax Credits Scheme (FTCS). "

Fossil fuel subsidies that don't benefit the fossil fuel companies. ;D ;D ;D ;D

...

"Concessions on aviation fuel grew by $430 million, or 36% to a total of $1.6
billion. Concessions on the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT), which benefits major oil and gas producers, cost the Commonwealth an estimated $165 million. In the NT, the Commonwealth Government is spending $1.9 billion to assist the Middle Arm petrochemical hub in Darwin, and $100 million to build roads explicitly for the onshore gas industry. In NSW, the Commonwealth-owned Australian Rail Track Corporation spent $113 million on upgrading Hunter Valley coal railways to help “coal producers to…capitalise on global demand and high prices for thermal coal”."

Ibid

Aviation fuel is a benefit to Aviation companies.



PRRT is taxed on profits, when made, Drilling wells etc is very cost intensive.

Middle Arm? What are they spending the money on, they coyly don't say.

Building roads explicitly for onshore gas should not be done.

The Commonwealth OWNED Rail Track Authority is also not a subsidy to fossil fuel companies.

"The International Monetary Fund (IMF), which put the figure USD $44 billion in 2020,
including unpaid costs of air pollution and climate change.6
• The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which put the figure at $12.4 billion in 2021.7
• The Productivity Commission, which estimated that $1 billion was given to sectors that include fossil fuel activities in 2018–19."

"This range estimates demonstrates a key issue in any discussion about subsidies: different definitions of “subsidy” make a large difference to the final estimate. The largest estimates, such as those from the IMF, incorporate the uncompensated costs of climate, health and other environmental damage into the definition of fossil fuel subsidies. The lower estimates, like those from the Productivity Commission, take into account a much narrower range of
assistance measures to fossil fuel producers, typically direct payments and the estimated value of trade barriers."

Quote:

So what you seem to be saying is that private profit making companies should suck on the government tit for subsidies, because Government did that infrastructure when they owned the generation, transmission lines etc.

No. I am blaming the coalition for our current reliance on subsidies. They Liberal party got rid of the cheapest and most efficient way to reduce GHG emissions (the carbon tax), and left us only with the most expensive ways - subsidies, and if they actually get elected and actually keep their promise, nuclear.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 3:06pm:

I am blaming the coalition for our current reliance on subsidies.

So Albo has nothing to do with it? ;D ;D ;D ;D

And of course nothing to do with Renewable Energy Targets 2020, which offered rebates, also known as subsidies.

https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/federal-labors-20-by-2020-renewable-energy-target

"Cash-for-carbon a clunky addition to a mess of subsidies"

https://www.crikey.com.au/2010/07/26/cash-for-carbon-a-clunky-addition-to-a-mess-of-subsidies/

lee wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 4:25pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 5th, 2025 at 3:06pm: I am blaming the coalition for our current reliance on subsidies. So Albo has nothing to do with it? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Albo has accepted the public don't want a carbon tax.

But he also believes the private sector will willingly roll out renewables... 

The cost fantasy debunked....again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKe51IkwKew

Quote:

So Albo has nothing to do with it?

The Liberal party removed the carbon tax, committed our economy to the most expensive options for reducing GHG emissions (such as subsidies and nuclear), and initiated decades of uncertainty for investors in the power sector, before Albo became PM. Albo is of course part of the problem, to the extent that he is not part of the solution, but it is a stretch to blame him for the problems that the Liberal party are directly responsible for.


Quote:

The cost fantasy debunked....again.

Wind and solar are the cheapest energy source by a wide margin. You can build a battery to any size you want. They are easily scalable. Just build another one next door. It really is that simple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Electricity_costs_in_dollars_according_to_data_from_Lazard.png/500px-Electricity_costs_in_dollars_according_to_data_from_Lazard.png

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 5:02pm:

The Liberal party removed the carbon tax, committed our economy to the most expensive options for reducing GHG emissions (such as subsidies and nuclear), and initiated decades of uncertainty for investors in the power sector, before Albo became PM.

You didn't look at the link did you? It was dated 2007. ;)

The link from Crikey 2010. All before the carbon tax.


freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 5:02pm:

Wind and solar are the cheapest energy source by a wide margin. You can build a battery to any size you want. They are easily scalable. Just build another one next door. It really is that

For how many hours at what cost?

You don't cover what is not included in Lazard. Why is that? ;)

"Other factors would also have a potentially significant effect on the results contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this
current analysis. These additional factors, among others, could include: implementation and interpretation of the full scope of the IRA;
development costs of the electrolyzer and associated renewable energy generation facility; conversion, storage and transportation costs of
the hydrogen once produced; additional costs to produce alternate products (e.g., ammonia); costs to upgrade existing infrastructure to
facilitate the transportation of hydrogen (e.g., natural gas pipelines); electrical grid upgrades; costs associated with modifying end-use
infrastructure/equipment to use hydrogen as a fuel source; potential value associated with carbon-free fuel production (e.g., carbon credits,
incentives, etc.). This analysis also does not address potential environmental and social externalities, including, for example, water
consumption and the societal consequences of displacing the various conventional fuels with hydrogen that are difficult to measure
As a result of the developing nature of hydrogen production and its applications, it is important to have in mind the somewhat limited nature
of the LCOH (and related limited historical market experience and current market depth). In that regard, we are aware that, as a result of our
data collection methodology, some will have a view that electrolyzer cost and efficiency, plus electricity costs, suggest a different LCOH than
what is presented herein. The sensitivities presented in our study are intended to address, in part, such views"

Also -

"espite convergence in the LCOE of certain renewable energy and conventional generation technologies, direct comparisons must take into
account issues such as location (e.g., centralized vs. distributed) and dispatch characteristics (e.g., baseload and/or dispatchable
intermediate capacity vs. peaking or intermittent technologies"


https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf

Quote:

You didn't look at the link did you? It was dated 2007.

A lot has happened since then. Labor and the Greens introduced the carbon tax. The Liberal party removed it, committing our economy to the most expensive options for reducing GHG emissions (such as subsidies and nuclear), and continuing decades of uncertainty for investors in the power sector.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 5:45pm:

A lot has happened since then. Labor and the Greens introduced the carbon tax.

So the renewables subsidies started with Labor. Thank you.


freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 5:45pm:

he Liberal party removed it, committing our economy to the most expensive options for reducing GHG emissions (such as subsidies and nuclear), and continuing decades of uncertainty for investors in the power sector.

So Lazard means nothing to you despite their provisos in the report. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

So the renewables subsidies started with Labor.

Pretty much every option for reducing GHG emissions started with Labor and the Greens. Nuclear is the only exception I can think of. I am not blaming the Liberals for starting anything, so try reading it again. I am blaming them for delaying everything and giving us decades of uncertainty, causing underinvestment in the power sector, causing the high prices we see today. I am also blaming them removing the cheapest and most economically efficient way of reducing GHG emissions and leaving us only with the most expensive options, then trying to force the most expensive one of all upon us (assuming they would actually keep their promise and not design it to fail so we waste another decade or too). I am blaming them for a colossal mismanagement of the economy in what should have been a simple, steady, seamless transition over several decades.

In the absence of a carbon tax, subsidies may well be the next best option. It is a bit hypocritical to blame Labor for giving us expensive subsidies when the Liberals got rid of the cheaper option. Who knows if we would still even have subsidies if we had stuck with the carbon tax.

From Lazard -

"Lazard’s Long Duration Energy Storage Analysis—Executive Summary"

...

"At increasingly high wind and solar penetrations, there will be a need for resources that can provide capacity over longer durations in order to
meet overall capacity and reliability requirements
• LDES technologies could potentially serve this function and enable higher levels of decarbonized power generation as a substitute for traditional "peaking" resources
• Market structures and pricing signals may be established/adopted to reflect identified value of longer duration storage resources
• LDES technologies will compete with, among other things, green hydrogen (generation and storage), natural gas generators with carbon capture systems and advanced nuclear reactors to provide capacity to a decarbonized power grid (assuming viability/acceptability of the relevant LDES technologies)
Overview of Analysis
• The illustrative analysis presented herein includes non-lithium technologies and compares the levelized costs of several flow battery cases along with a compressed air energy system (“CAES”) case
• All systems are 100 MW, 8 hour systems with one cycle per day at maximum charge and depth of discharge (maximum stored energy output given round trip efficiency)
• Subsidized costs include the impact of the IRA. The IRA is comprehensive legislation that is still being implemented and remains subject to interpretation—important elements of the IRA are not included in our analysis and could impact outcome

ibid

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 6:31pm:

Pretty much every option for reducing GHG emissions started with Labor and the Greens.

And yet there is no case for reducing GHG emissions.

But perhaps you can cite some? ;)

Quote:

And yet there is no case for reducing GHG emissions.

And this is what the Liberal rusted-ons fall back on. The Liberals say they are committed to reducing GHG emissions. Every serious party does. But they mismanage the transition, mismanage the economy, and are now trying to make it even worse. And what do their followers say? That's OK because the Liberal party has been lying to us about the need to reduce GHG emissions in the first place. The liberal party is one huge mirror house of lies and incompetence, but that's OK because the lies cancel out the incompetence.

Have you considered applying for a job in their media room?


Quote:

with one cycle per day at maximum charge and depth of discharge

Why would you have anything else with a solar powered system?

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 6:36pm:

And this is what the Liberal rusted-ons fall back on.

And so you have no science on your side. Thanks for that. ;)


freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 6:36pm:

Why would you have anything else with a solar powered system?

Because there are cloudy days or more, when it won't even reach 30% capacity factor. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Good to know you don't understand solar energy and intermittency.  ::)

Quote:

And so you have no science on your side. Thanks for that.

That is what you took from every serious party agreeing we need to reduce GHG emissions? Have you completely given up arguing that the Liberals are god economic managers because you think it makes them look better to say they are lying to us about the science?


Quote:

Because there are cloudy days or more, when it won't even reach 30% capacity factor.

Even then it will still be cheaper than nuclear. In addition to actually existing.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 7:04pm:

That is what you took from every serious party agreeing we need to reduce GHG emissions?

Yes. And consensus is politics not science. ;)


freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 7:04pm:

Have you completely given up arguing that the Liberals are god economic managers because you think it makes them look better to say they are lying to us about the science?

Talk about taking a long bow to something. They are politicians. Most don't have any science.

But perhaps you can tell us the truth about "the science"? ;)


freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 7:04pm:

Even then it will still be cheaper than nuclear.

If it is not generating enough is it still cheap? :o

Quote:

Yes. And consensus is politics not science.

Consensus is integral to science. That's the only way we know what the current scientific paradigm says.

Politics on the other hand is not consensus. Name one issue, other than the need to reduce GHG emissions, that the serious parties all agree on?


Quote:

They are politicians.

So you are claiming that the coalition is lying to us about the need to reduce GHG emission? Why even bother arguing the details of how to do it then?


Quote:

If it is not generating enough is it still cheap?

If it is not generating enough, you need more of them. And yes, if it is still cheaper than nuclear at 30% capacity, it is still cheaper than nuclear.

If nuclear energy doesn't stack up economically, why is it a risk to remove the ban?

This is what I have never understood when Bowen & Co. say they aren't opposed to nuclear power (e.g. submarines, other G20 nations using it), but say it " doesn't stack up economically".

How do they know unless they remove the ban and then remove all the renewable subsidies and "picking winners" government investments.

Labor is more pro-coal than the coalition.

The coalition at least had a policy of replacing coal-fired power stations with nuclear power stations at the same sites. An actual policy of shutting down coal.

Labor? Every time we get close to a date of shutting down a major coal-fired power station, for example, Eraring in New South Wales, the State governments step in, strike a deal with the operator to keep it running.

Because unlike Bowen, the State governments will be the ones held responsible for blackouts, not him. They will be the ones responsible for passengers being trapped in railway tunnels when the blackout happens, not Bowen. They will be the ones held responsible when the backup diesel generators in hospitals run out, not Bowen.

Quote:

If nuclear energy doesn't stack up economically, why is it a risk to remove the ban?

Because, as the Liberal party keeps demonstrating to us, we cannot trust politicians to act in an economically rational manner. The Liberal party removed the cheapest and most economically efficient mechanism to reduce GHG emissions, and is now telling us we should go with the most expensive option available.

In any case, why does it matter? It's one and the same question. If we build nuclear power plants, we need to remove the ban first. If we are not going to build them, it's a purely academic question.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 8:39pm:

Quote: If nuclear energy doesn't stack up economically, why is it a risk to remove the ban? Because, as the Liberal party keeps demonstrating to us, we cannot trust politicians to act in an economically rational manner. The Liberal party removed the cheapest and most economically efficient mechanism to reduce GHG emissions, and is now telling us we should go with the most expensive option available. In any case, why does it matter? It's one and the same question. If we build nuclear power plants, we need to remove the ban first. If we are not going to build them, it's a purely academic question.

Sounds like you're ideologically opposed to nuclear, not economically. But like Bowen & Co. use an economic argument to maintain the ban.

It makes no sense.

Remove the ban and remove all subsidies for energy generation and storage. Then let the market decide.

Quote:

Sounds like you're ideologically opposed to nuclear, not economically.

Where do you get that from? Wishful thinking? I have heavily promoted nuclear in the past, when it was cheaper and renewables were very expensive.


Quote:

Remove the ban and remove all subsidies for energy generation and storage. Then let the market decide.

That is what I have been saying all along. Except with a carbon tax. But you can't let the market decide to build a nuclear power plant in Penrith. And you can't let the market decide to ignore the cost of storing nuclear waste.

"With a carbon tax".

That isn't allowing the market to decide.

Australia has 15 coal-fired power stations, yet China opens two brand new ones every single week.

Literally in 8 weeks, China opens more coal-fired power stations than Australia will close over the coming two decades.

Why are we punishing ourselves economically? For what exactly?

Quote:

That isn't allowing the market to decide.

It allows the market to decide how to reduce GHG emissions, not whether. Some things the market will inevitably fail at, such as taking into account the impact of emissions on the global climate, the cost of long term storage of nuclear waste, or the risk associated with a nuclear reactor in a densely populated area.


Quote:

Why are we punishing ourselves economically? For what exactly?

We are not. On a per capita basis, we have benefitted from coal fired power stations more than Chinese citizens ever will, and are still emitting far more CO2. If you compare yourself to a group of 100 people, you are likely to find you do about 1% of the bad things that they do, but complaining about it just makes it look like you cannot do the maths.

Not that it has any relevance to whether we build nuclear power stations. Chinese building coal fired power stations is not a rational argument for us to build nuclear.

Quote:

That isn't allowing the market to decide.

It is a bit like the exorbitant tax on cigarettes. It produces an incentive to work towards fixing the problem at the same time as providing compensation for the damage being done.

The market does in fact react to cost. Here the market is incentivised to find and implement solutions.

The current nuclear options do not look like a good fit. expensive produces untreatable waste safety issues.

It is possible that a safe reliable nuclear solution may be developed and become the best option but that isn't the current position.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 7:38pm:

Consensus is integral to science. That's the only way we know what the current scientific paradigm says.

The only advances in science have come from those who disagreed with the consensus. ::)


freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 7:38pm:

Politics on the other hand is not consensus. Name one issue, other than the need to reduce GHG emissions, that the serious parties all agree on?

To keep themselves in jobs. They may differ on means to arrive at a conclusion, it doesn't mean they want a different conclusion. ::)


freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 7:38pm:

So you are claiming that the coalition is lying to us about the need to reduce GHG emission? Why even bother arguing the details of how to do it then?

Not at all. As I said No scientists.  ::)


freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 7:38pm:

If it is not generating enough, you need more of them.

And how much overbuild will that take? Cover Australia in  them?


freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 7:38pm:

And yes, if it is still cheaper than nuclear at 30% capacity, it is still cheaper than nuclear.

Then you have to have the figures to back them up.

According to Lazard LCOE of components High End -

Wind - onshore $75
Wind - offshore $140
Solar -  Utility scale $96

Nuclear - $221

And that doesn't account for intermittency as Lazard notes.

Quote:

The only advances in science have come from those who disagreed with the consensus.

Incorrect. The only paradigm shifts come from those who disagree with the consensus, but those who extend the current consensus are also advancing science. It is only by expanding on the current consensus that you push it to wherever it ends up breaking.


Quote:

And how much overbuild will that take? Cover Australia in  them?

No.

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2025 at 3:21pm:

The only paradigm shifts come from those who disagree with the consensus, but those who extend the current consensus are also advancing science. It is only by expanding on the current consensus that you push it to wherever it ends up breaking.

Nope. The earth as the centre of the earth, overturned, you can't extend something that is wrong. ::)


freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2025 at 3:21pm:

No.

Very good. Then how much overbuild is necessary? Put a figure on it. It is your claim. ::)

Quote:

Nope. The earth as the centre of the earth, overturned, you can't extend something that is wrong.

Yes you can. That's exactly how you figure out that it is wrong. Scientists did not spend centuries standing in circle and agreeing with each other that the earth was the centre of the universe, waiting for someone to prove them wrong. They built all sorts of elaborate models of the universe with the earth at it's centre, extending the field until the flaws started to challenge the basis of the model.


Quote:

Very good. Then how much overbuild is necessary? Put a figure on it. It is your claim.

I cannot tell you how many solar panels will be necessary any more than I can tell you how many cars will be necessary. That's not how the world works. We don't buy the cars that we "need". We buy the ones that we want enough to pay for them.

Here is the best explanation of the real cost of 'renewables' I have seen. A 24 minute presentation but well worth looking at:

https://youtu.be/Oit8pzyqL3U?t=2 

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2025 at 3:29pm:

Scientists did not spend centuries standing in circle and agreeing with each other that the earth was the centre of the universe, waiting for someone to prove them wrong.

Let's see It was assumed by Babylonians (4000,BC), which was generally accepted until the 16th century (encyclopedia.com), but others asserted heliocentrism earlier but did not gain traction (Samos 3BC).


freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2025 at 3:29pm:

We buy the ones that we want enough to pay for them.

So how much do we want to spend on solar panels? ;)

Quote:

So how much do we want to spend on solar panels?

You are getting closer to a sensible question Lee.

How much do we want to spend on cars?

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2025 at 4:33pm:

How much do we want to spend on cars?

Now you are getting closer to the root question.

For me a car is a necessity, I will buy what I want at a price I like.

Solar panels, wind turbines and their associated batteries? Not so much. ;D ;D ;D ;D

"According to a July 2023 report from Net Zero Australia (a consortium from the University of Melbourne, University of Queensland, Princeton University, and management consultancies Nous and Evolved Energy), the cost of meeting the 82% RET would be $1.2 to $1.5 trillion by the end of this decade, with $7 trillion to $9 trillion in capital required by 2060 to meet Australia’s goal of net zero by 2050.

https://api.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Cost-of-renewables.png
Source: Net Zero Australia

Much of this predicted cost is attributed to the huge amounts of storage required to offset the inherent intermittancy of wind and solar:

https://api.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Renewables-storage-required.png

The intermittency of renewable energy is especially noticeable in the winter, when solar generation is low and there are typically long periods of low wind.

The Snowy Hydro 2.0 pumped hydro project is a microcosm of the cost and difficulty of achieving the ‘net zero’ fantasy.

Snow Hydro 2.0 aims to use surplus renewable energy generated during the day (mostly solar) to pump water up to an elevated reservoir, which is then released at night or during wind droughts to provide hydroelectricity when renewable generation is unavailable.

The cost of Snowy Hydro 2.0 has skyrocketed to unimaginable levels.

The former Turnbull Coalition government initially announced that the project would cost $2 billion and be finished by 2021. The government increased the cost to $6 billion, then $12 billion by 2023.

Problems persist, however, with Snowy Hydro 2.0 still under construction and years behind schedule. As a result, taxpayers are facing further cost blowouts and delays.

Snowy Hydro chief executive Dennis Barnes last week indicated that the cost blowout is so great that it will take 9 months to fully quantify.

“We have gradually come to the realisation, and then quickly come to the realisation that we’re not going to achieve the schedule at target cost of $12bn”, Barnes said.

“We need some time to do a proper analysis of what the final cost will be, but it was clear as we were finalising our annual report that we weren’t going to be able to achieve the $12 billion”.

Snowy Hydro admitted productivity improvements have not been delivered as expected, and the project can no longer absorb the costs associated with the “geological challenges”, which have ranged from rock too hard to penetrate to land too soft to drill.

To add salt to wounds, Snowy Hydro 2.0 will be linked via the 365-kilometer HumeLink in southwest New South Wales. This ‘green’ project is also behind schedule, and the estimated cost has risen to about $5 billion.

HumeLink was originally pitched at $1.3 billion by Transgrid before official estimates put it at $3.27 billion in 2021 and then $4.88 billion in 2024, when its carrying capacity was also reduced from 2.6 gigawatts to 2.2 gigawatts.

While construction on HumeLink has finally commenced, it has not yet secured all its landowner agreements."

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/10/snowy-hydro-2-0-and-the-soaring-cost-of-renewables/