Peter Dutton reveals seven sites for proposed nuclear power plants

Peter Dutton has announced he will go to the next election promising to build seven nuclear power stations.

Mr Dutton has promised the first sites can be operational between 2035 and 2037, several years earlier than the timeframe the CSIRO and other experts believe is feasible.

As had been previously flagged, the stations are all on retiring or retired coal sites.

The seven sites are:

Tarong in Queensland, north-west of Brisbane

Callide in Queensland, west of Gladstone

Liddell in NSW, in the Hunter Valley

Mount Piper in NSW, near Lithgow

Port Augusta in SA

Loy Yang in Victoria, in the Latrobe Valley

Muja in WA, near Collie

No consultation withlocals,  no environmental studies.

Mr potato Head thinks he's in north Korea  :D

people have a right to decide what is built in their neighbourhoods if the locals dont want it spuddo has to go back to the drawing board

Isn't nuclear power prohibited by law in Australia?

John Smith wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 3:45pm:

No consultation withlocals,  no environmental studies. Mr potato Head thinks he's in north Korea  :D

Proposed, thicko.  The operative word is proposed.


Propose, verb
1.
put forward (a plan or suggestion) for consideration by others.

Frank wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 3:51pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 3:45pm: No consultation withlocals,  no environmental studies. Mr potato Head thinks he's in north Korea  :D Proposed, thicko.  The operative word is proposed. Propose, verb 1. put forward (a plan or suggestion) for consideration by others.

So you don't think he's going to stick to his plans either? :D

Doesn't really seem like a vote winner.

Certainly not in the seven areas mentioned.

Not sure too many electorates will be lining up to accept the nuclear waste either.

And then there's the legislation which, as far as I'm aware, prohibits nuclear power.

Sounds like a good idea but wait -

What if we would have kept our enormous gas reserves for ourselves
instead of giving it away for rock bottom prices to countries overseas?
Would it have been enough to tide us over until
renewables could take their place?

1. The nuclear power prohibition is legislated. Just like all legislation, it can be repealed. If Dutton were to win the election, he would have a mandate to remove the prohibition.

2. The sites are proposed. Some of you talk about opposition to nuclear. A lot of people are in favour of it these days.

3. Australia will already have a site for nuclear waste. We will have it due to our nuclear submarines.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:20pm:

Sounds like a good idea but wait - What if we would have kept our enormous gas reserves for ourselves instead of giving it away for rock bottom prices to countries overseas? Would it have been enough to tide us over until renewables could take their place?

Bowen the zealot doesn't want gas either.

MattE wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:22pm:

3. Australia will already have a site for nuclear waste. We will have it due to our nuclear submarines.

Where?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:23pm:

MattE wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:22pm: 3. Australia will already have a site for nuclear waste. We will have it due to our nuclear submarines. Where?

We will have 9 nuclear reactors by then... 8 nuclear submarines and Lucas Heights. There will be a nuclear waste facility.

MattE wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:22pm:

1. The nuclear power prohibition is legislated. Just like all legislation, it can be repealed. If Dutton were to win the election, he would have a mandate to remove the prohibition.

Not the state legislation.

MattE wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:23pm: MattE wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:22pm: 3. Australia will already have a site for nuclear waste. We will have it due to our nuclear submarines. Where? There will be a nuclear waste facility.

Where?

MattE wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:22pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:20pm: Sounds like a good idea but wait - What if we would have kept our enormous gas reserves for ourselves instead of giving it away for rock bottom prices to countries overseas? Would it have been enough to tide us over until renewables could take their place? Bowen the zealot doesn't want gas either.

But it's much cleaner than coal and then why is it OK
for other countries to burn our gas?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:26pm:

MattE wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:23pm: MattE wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:22pm: 3. Australia will already have a site for nuclear waste. We will have it due to our nuclear submarines. Where? There will be a nuclear waste facility. Where?

Victoria, Bobby's backyard, actually.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:26pm:

MattE wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:22pm: 1. The nuclear power prohibition is legislated. Just like all legislation, it can be repealed. If Dutton were to win the election, he would have a mandate to remove the prohibition. Not the state legislation.

New laws would be needed to remove the current ban on nuclear energy, enact safety regulations and waste disposal arrangements, and establish the financial arrangements for government ownership.

Those would be complicated pieces of legislation likely requiring years of consultation. But they also may struggle to get through the parliament. Even if the Coalition were to win a majority in the House of Representatives, it would need to defy two decades of history to win control of the Senate.

With the current Senate make-up, it is four shy of a majority even if it could count on right-wing crossbenchers, with Labor and the Greens implacably opposed.

Then there is the question of state laws — Queensland, NSW and Victoria all have state bans on nuclear power which would also need to be overturned, and so far no major party leader in any state has given Mr Dutton's plan public support.

Nuclear proposal rejected by premiers, who say Dutton has no power to lift state nuclear bans :o

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:36pm:

Nuclear proposal rejected by premiers, who say Dutton has no power to lift state nuclear bans :o

State's Rights Forever!!   A state may make treaties with its own people, make its own laws to imprison the majority under threat of dire punishment to enforce land enclosures, may divide its citizens into classes of citizens, exclude some from professions and such at whim.... etc .... sounds like Nazi Germany.... now you see the very real danger of any State unchallenged by the will of the people in xa proper democratic process .... true government comes from an informed mandate of the people, not from the barrel of some politician's gut ....

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

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:36pm:

Nuclear proposal rejected by premiers, who say Dutton has no power to lift state nuclear bans :o

We need a constitutional lawyer.

Can the Federal Govt confiscate land to make it Commonwealth land?

...

Chris Kenny put together a brilliant documentary a little while back on Sky News called "Going Nuclear". He unpacked it in detail.

Worth watching:

https://youtu.be/NN77CqRfABg?si=lo-XkEtp7azYcufp

.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 3:42pm:

Peter Dutton reveals seven sites for proposed nuclear power plants Peter Dutton has announced he will go to the next election promising to build seven nuclear power stations. Mr Dutton has promised the first sites can be operational between 2035 and 2037, several years earlier than the timeframe the CSIRO and other experts believe is feasible. As had been previously flagged, the stations are all on retiring or retired coal sites. The seven sites are: Tarong in Queensland, north-west of Brisbane Callide in Queensland, west of Gladstone Liddell in NSW, in the Hunter Valley Mount Piper in NSW, near Lithgow Port Augusta in SA Loy Yang in Victoria, in the Latrobe Valley Muja in WA, near Collie

;D

What happened to the 5 year plan that Lee and the other cheerleaders were insisting was easy to achieve?

The coalition is making it up as they go along.

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:36pm:

Nuclear proposal rejected by premiers, who say Dutton has no power to lift state nuclear bans :o

Well - he is in the Opposition...... wait until he's let loose.....

Pt Augusta is not a bad site. Make it big enough it could supply some of the power Vic & NSW need. If it blew up, meh, just a few small towns around, Pt Pirie, Pt Aug, Whyalla.

Need to put it on tectonically stable land—craton which exists around ‘Pordagudda.” Should also be high enough to be out of reach of a tsunami (see how bad a place Japan was for nuclear?

But we should have started on this like 40 years ago—Bob Hawke and Paul Keating squibbed it, Howard had a twitch thinking about it. So no nuclear until like 2064.

Quote:

The RIC Report The nuclear necessity 9 May 2023 In 1951, the Experimental Breeder reactor in Idaho became the first nuclear reactor to generate electricity. Commercial nuclear power plants followed later in the 1950s.  Nuclear in numbers 1. 437: the number of reactors in the world today. 90% were built in the 1970s & 80s. 60 new reactors are under construction, 100 are planned, and old reactors are being refurbished for 80 years or more of total lifetime use.1 2 2. >50%: the nuclear share of emissions-free electricity in the US. Nuclear power is 25% of global carbon-free power and 10% of global electricity overall.3 4 3. 60: gigatons of CO2emissions avoided in the past 50 years due to nuclear power.5        93%: average “uptime” for nuclear plants. It’s 35% for wind and 25% for solar.7 22¢/kWh: electricity cost in France (>70% nuclear); in Germany, 40¢ (0%). In the US, it’s 14¢/kWh in South Carolina (56% nuclear) or 27¢ in California (10%).9 $122/MWh: average cost to build & generate nuclear power on an “all-in” basis; wind plus battery storage costs $291/MWh, solar plus batteries $413 (Exhibit 20). Where supplies come from Uranium is an abundant resource with some estimates suggesting that the Earth’s crust contains 35 trillion tons. Two-thirds of uranium production today comes from Kazakhstan, Canada, and Australia. 35% of US uranium is imported from Kazakhstan with another 14% from Russia. Canada (15%) and Australia (14%) are the other main US suppliers. Australia has 1.7 million tons of reserves, accounting for almost 30% of known uranium deposits (Exhibit 8). 2.Cost Industry research suggests that, after accounting for efficiency, storage needs, the cost of transmission, and other broad system costs, nuclear power plants are one of the least expensive sources of energy. Longevity: nuclear power plants can last anywhere from 40 to 100 years with proper maintenance while solar panels and wind farms are replaced after 20-30 years. A solar farm may need to be replaced as many as five times during the operable life of a nuclear plant. https://advisoranalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/bofa-the-ric-report-the-nuclear-necessity-20230509.pdf

The US data shows 14 cents Kwh for nuclear power which is less than half of what we're paying.

Bill Gates is a big supporter of nuclear power

Quote:

In the US both sides of politics proudly support it. Bill Gates:  "Of all the climate work I'm doing the one that has the most bipartisan energy behind it is actually nuclear". https://x.com/ShackelWill/status/1802587211248111810

Excellent choices! These are the sites of existing power stations so the distribution infrastructure is already in place. No need for kilometers of unnecessary wiring polluting the landscape, and no need for the environmental vandalism of solar and wind factories.  :)

The Coalition's nuclear power plan misses one key component: the cost ::) ::)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 5:42pm:

Pt Augusta is not a bad site. Make it big enough it could supply some of the power Vic & NSW Need to put it on tectonically stable land—craton which exists around ‘Pordagudda.” Should also be high enough to be out of reach of a tsunami (see how bad a place Japan was for nuclear?

Australia is low risk for earthquakes the problem area near us is NZ to PNG up to the Asian ring of fire.

The back up generators in Japan were flooded from Tsunami because they were put in the basement. If you were considering possible Tsunami then putting back up generators in basement was a serious design flaw.

Chernobyl was a safety drill stuff up or human error.

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 5:59pm:

The Coalition's nuclear power plan misses one key component: the cost ::) ::)

The Americans say it's cheaper than coal,gas solar and wind.

Read this and educate yourself
https://advisoranalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/bofa-the-ric-report-the-nuclear-necessity-20230509.pdf

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 5:52pm:

Quote: The RIC Report The nuclear necessity 9 May 2023 In 1951, the Experimental Breeder reactor in Idaho became the first nuclear reactor to generate electricity. Commercial nuclear power plants followed later in the 1950s.  Nuclear in numbers 1. 437: the number of reactors in the world today. 90% were built in the 1970s & 80s. 60 new reactors are under construction, 100 are planned, and old reactors are being refurbished for 80 years or more of total lifetime use.1 2 2. >50%: the nuclear share of emissions-free electricity in the US. Nuclear power is 25% of global carbon-free power and 10% of global electricity overall.3 4 3. 60: gigatons of CO2emissions avoided in the past 50 years due to nuclear power.5        93%: average “uptime” for nuclear plants. It’s 35% for wind and 25% for solar.7 22¢/kWh: electricity cost in France (>70% nuclear); in Germany, 40¢ (0%). In the US, it’s 14¢/kWh in South Carolina (56% nuclear) or 27¢ in California (10%).9 $122/MWh: average cost to build & generate nuclear power on an “all-in” basis; wind plus battery storage costs $291/MWh, solar plus batteries $413 (Exhibit 20). Where supplies come from Uranium is an abundant resource with some estimates suggesting that the Earth’s crust contains 35 trillion tons. Two-thirds of uranium production today comes from Kazakhstan, Canada, and Australia. 35% of US uranium is imported from Kazakhstan with another 14% from Russia. Canada (15%) and Australia (14%) are the other main US suppliers. Australia has 1.7 million tons of reserves, accounting for almost 30% of known uranium deposits (Exhibit 8). 2.Cost Industry research suggests that, after accounting for efficiency, storage needs, the cost of transmission, and other broad system costs, nuclear power plants are one of the least expensive sources of energy. Longevity: nuclear power plants can last anywhere from 40 to 100 years with proper maintenance while solar panels and wind farms are replaced after 20-30 years. A solar farm may need to be replaced as many as five times during the operable life of a nuclear plant. https://advisoranalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/bofa-the-ric-report-the-nuclear-necessity-20230509.pdf The US data shows 14 cents Kwh for nuclear power which is less than half of what we're paying. Bill Gates is a big supporter of nuclear power [quote] In the US both sides of politics proudly support it. Bill Gates:  "Of all the climate work I'm doing the one that has the most bipartisan energy behind it is actually nuclear". https://x.com/ShackelWill/status/1802587211248111810

[/quote]

On the other hand, if you don't cherry pick the numbers, nuclear is one of the most expensive options:

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

About 5c/kWh for wind and solar, vs about 20c/kWh for nuclear. From the same site, the cost in Australia for wind plus storage is under 9c/kWh. No figure given for the cost of nuclear in Australia, but you can bet it would be more expensive than in countries with plenty of experience.

The coalition is going to send us broke and expose us to unnecessary danger.

---

Build more coal fired power stations. Use high quality coal and high efficiency furnaces to minimise air pollution.

Surround them with masses of greenhouses for vegetables and flowers, using the CO2.

If renewables are so cheap, why does South Australia have the highest electricity costs in the country?

Build more coal fired power stations. Use high quality coal and high efficiency furnaces to minimise air pollution.

Surround them with masses of greenhouses for vegetables and flowers, using the CO2.

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:36pm:

Nuclear proposal rejected by premiers, who say Dutton has no power to lift state nuclear bans :o

Indeed, he does not.

It's all talk. Blah, blah, blah.

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 6:04pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 5:52pm: Quote: The RIC Report The nuclear necessity 9 May 2023 In 1951, the Experimental Breeder reactor in Idaho became the first nuclear reactor to generate electricity. Commercial nuclear power plants followed later in the 1950s.  Nuclear in numbers 1. 437: the number of reactors in the world today. 90% were built in the 1970s & 80s. 60 new reactors are under construction, 100 are planned, and old reactors are being refurbished for 80 years or more of total lifetime use.1 2 2. >50%: the nuclear share of emissions-free electricity in the US. Nuclear power is 25% of global carbon-free power and 10% of global electricity overall.3 4 3. 60: gigatons of CO2emissions avoided in the past 50 years due to nuclear power.5        93%: average “uptime” for nuclear plants. It’s 35% for wind and 25% for solar.7 22¢/kWh: electricity cost in France (>70% nuclear); in Germany, 40¢ (0%). In the US, it’s 14¢/kWh in South Carolina (56% nuclear) or 27¢ in California (10%).9 $122/MWh: average cost to build & generate nuclear power on an “all-in” basis; wind plus battery storage costs $291/MWh, solar plus batteries $413 (Exhibit 20). Where supplies come from Uranium is an abundant resource with some estimates suggesting that the Earth’s crust contains 35 trillion tons. Two-thirds of uranium production today comes from Kazakhstan, Canada, and Australia. 35% of US uranium is imported from Kazakhstan with another 14% from Russia. Canada (15%) and Australia (14%) are the other main US suppliers. Australia has 1.7 million tons of reserves, accounting for almost 30% of known uranium deposits (Exhibit 8). 2.Cost Industry research suggests that, after accounting for efficiency, storage needs, the cost of transmission, and other broad system costs, nuclear power plants are one of the least expensive sources of energy. Longevity: nuclear power plants can last anywhere from 40 to 100 years with proper maintenance while solar panels and wind farms are replaced after 20-30 years. A solar farm may need to be replaced as many as five times during the operable life of a nuclear plant. https://advisoranalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/bofa-the-ric-report-the-nuclear-necessity-20230509.pdf The US data shows 14 cents Kwh for nuclear power which is less than half of what we're paying. Bill Gates is a big supporter of nuclear power [quote] In the US both sides of politics proudly support it. Bill Gates:  "Of all the climate work I'm doing the one that has the most bipartisan energy behind it is actually nuclear". https://x.com/ShackelWill/status/1802587211248111810

On the other hand, if you don't cherry pick the numbers, nuclear is one of the most expensive options:

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

About 5c/kWh for wind and solar, vs about 20c/kWh for nuclear. From the same site, the cost in Australia for wind plus storage is under 9c/kWh. No figure given for the cost of nuclear in Australia, but you can bet it would be more expensive than in countries with plenty of experience.

The coalition is going to send us broke and expose us to unnecessary danger.[/quote]

The offshore wind Bowen wants for Illawarra is going to cost 5-10x more than onshore wind. Electrics don't last offshore then you have corrosion issues most yacht owners replace electrics around 5 years the harsh environment stuff them.
Bowen will send up broke with that lunacy.

Hydro is cheapest renewable open taps to turn on close tap when demand is lower unlike wind and solar it works 24/7.

I have used solar and wind on yachts there are days when neither will work we need something that works 24/7.

Ultimately, the goal of all this is to reduce GHG emissions, not to produce electricity. And yes, that is a very important difference that gets completely lost.

10 years ago, Labor and the Greens implemented the cheapest, most economically rationally way to do that. Yes, it would have eventually lead to more renewables, but at a far lower cost. The coalition undid that. Since then, the coalition has delivered crippling uncertainty to our electricity sector that has seen prices sky-rocket because no-one is willing to invest, except where huge subsidies are offered. That uncertainty continues. Barely weeks ago, their grand plan was for nuclear power in a ludicrous 5 years. Today, that changed to 11 to 13 years. What will it be next week? What will it morph into after the next federal election? If you had a spare billion dollars to invest in Australia, would you risk it on the electricity sector?

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 6:51pm:

Ultimately, the goal of all this is to reduce GHG emissions, not to produce electricity. And yes, that is a very important difference that gets completely lost. 10 years ago, Labor and the Greens implemented the cheapest, most economically rationally way to do that. Yes, it would have eventually lead to more renewables, but at a far lower cost. The coalition undid that. Since then, the coalition has delivered crippling uncertainty to our electricity sector that has seen prices sky-rocket because no-one is willing to invest, except where huge subsidies are offered. That uncertainty continues. Barely weeks ago, their grand plan was for nuclear power in a ludicrous 5 years. Today, that changed to 11 to 13 years. What will it be next week? What will it morph into after the next federal election? If you had a spare billion dollars to invest in Australia, would you risk it on the electricity sector?

No -

the Govt will have to finance it all and then sell it later on to their big business mates.

Frank wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 6:27pm:

Build more coal fired power stations. Use high quality coal and high efficiency furnaces to minimise air pollution. Surround them with masses of greenhouses for vegetables and flowers, using the CO2.

Build more coal-fired power plants and surround them with Frank and his ilk.

All Nuclear plants engineered and constructed by Western Countries have been grossly over budget and grossly over schedule.

The West only started building nuclear power plants because the Russians were first. The UK became a world leader and look at the UK now as the sick man of Europe.

... on 27 June 1954, the world's first nuclear power station at Obninsk was connected to the Moscow grid and humanity became aware of the appearance of a new source of energy for electricity production. ...

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 6:51pm:

... Barely weeks ago, their grand plan was for nuclear power in a ludicrous 5 years. ...

It would take them that long, at least, to repeal the federal and state legislation that prohibits nuclear power in this country.

And it's doubtful they'll even be able to do that.

Andrew Forest says Coalition’s nuclear push will decimate Australian economy

https://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Bango-Wind-Farm-280424-38-copy.jpg


Worried about his subsidies.

Peter Dutton is a worthless POS; that much we can all agree on.

You wouldn't piss down his throat if he had heartburn - that's how unlikable he is.

However, I don't think he's a complete moron.

So, I can't figure out what he's up to here.

He says he's happy for the next election to be a referendum on nuclear power.

Does he really think he'll be able to convince at least half of the voting public that nuclear is the way to go?

There's something fishy about this.

He is trying to derail renewable energy investment which is absolutely going gangbusters , the nationals fossil brown baggers are pulling out all the rabbits in the hat hoping gravy train isnt derailed, spuds gone soon enough
greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 8:46pm:

Peter Dutton is a worthless POS; that much we can all agree on. You wouldn't piss down his throat if he had heartburn - that's how unlikable he is. However, I don't think he's a complete moron. So, I can't figure out what he's up to here. He says he's happy for the next election to be a referendum on nuclear power. Does he really think he'll be able to convince at least half of the voting public that nuclear is the way to go? There's something fishy about this.

The simple fact is that commercial SMRs don't exist. There are zero in operation or even contracted for construction outside Russia and China. Spuds plan for Collie WA 🤭

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 6:31pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:36pm: Nuclear proposal rejected by premiers, who say Dutton has no power to lift state nuclear bans :o Indeed, he does not. It's all talk. Blah, blah, blah.

The state Premiers have no say. S 109 of the Constitution.  In any case the majority of the people support nuclear power.  https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/australian-support-for-considering-nuclear-energy-reaches-70/

John Smith wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 3:45pm:

No consultation withlocals,  no environmental studies. Mr potato Head thinks he's in north Korea  :D

Read the article. They are replacing coal-fired power stations. I would suggest that zero emissions from the nuclear power stations would be more ideal than coal power stations spewing pollution.

JC Denton wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 3:48pm:

people have a right to decide what is built in their neighbourhoods if the locals dont want it spuddo has to go back to the drawing board

Quote:

On average, Americans receive a radiation dose of about 0.62 rem (620 millirem) each year. Half of this dose comes from natural background radiation. Most of this background exposure comes from radon in the air, with smaller amounts from cosmic rays and the Earth itself. (The chart to the right shows these radiation doses in perspective.) The other half (0.31 rem or 310 mrem) comes from man-made sources of radiation, including medical, commercial, and industrial sources. In general, a yearly dose of 620 millirem from all radiation sources has not been shown to cause humans any harm.

Source: https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/around-us/doses-daily-lives.html


Quote:

An operating nuclear power plant produces very small amounts of radioactive gases and liquids, as well as small amounts of direct radiation. If you lived within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant, you would receive an average radiation dose of about 0.01 millirem per year.

Source: https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/related-info/faq.html

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 3:51pm:

Isn't nuclear power prohibited by law in Australia?

Quote:

Nuclear power is banned in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, which prompted questions in the party room on Wednesday. The Coalition would also require the Senate to overturn the federal ban.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/19/coalition-nuclear-plan-peter-dutton-power-station-sites-australia#:~:text=Nuclear%20power%20is%20banned%20in,to%20overturn%20the%20federal%20ban.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:20pm:

Sounds like a good idea but wait - What if we would have kept our enormous gas reserves for ourselves instead of giving it away for rock bottom prices to countries overseas? Would it have been enough to tide us over until renewables could take their place?

Let us think about this realistically. I recall hearing about how the Australian government sells China our gas at rock bottom prices. It is for the purpose of paying off the Chinese with a concession, so that the Chinese can buy other Australian exports at better prices for Australian interests.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:23pm:

MattE wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:22pm: 3. Australia will already have a site for nuclear waste. We will have it due to our nuclear submarines. Where?

Quote:

The Sandy Ridge facility is located about 240 km northwest of Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, and has been licensed since January 2023. The repository uses kaolin clay on a bed of impermeable granite to isolate LLW and other hazardous wastes.

Source: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/appendices/radioactive-waste-repository-store-for-australia#:~:text=The%20Sandy%20Ridge%20facility%20is,LLW%20and%20other%20hazardous%20wastes.

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:26pm: MattE wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:23pm: MattE wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:22pm: 3. Australia will already have a site for nuclear waste. We will have it due to our nuclear submarines. Where? There will be a nuclear waste facility. Where? Victoria, Bobby's backyard, actually.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

You're funny. Bobby has already got two heads.

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 5:59pm:

The Coalition's nuclear power plan misses one key component: the cost ::) ::)

Such as... reducing carbon emissions.

10 years and 23 abject fails on energy , they can't even build a commuter carpark  ;D

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 9:21pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 3:51pm: Isn't nuclear power prohibited by law in Australia? Quote: Nuclear power is banned in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, which prompted questions in the party room on Wednesday. The Coalition would also require the Senate to overturn the federal ban. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/19/coalition-nuclear-plan-peter-dutton-power-station-sites-australia#:~:text=Nuclear%20power%20is%20banned%20in,to%20overturn%20the%20federal%20ban.

Tell Dutton to get back to me once he repeals all that legislation.

And ask him how he's going to do it in the states.

;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 9:54pm:

Tell Dutton to get back to me once he repeals all that legislation. And ask him how he's going to do it in the states. ;D

Dutton is going to cite all the times you climate alarmists ("Chicken Littles") whinged about climate change. Then Dutton will reiterate how his nuclear energy plan would help undo the amount of carbon emissions such power generators like coal-fired power stations have made.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 9:36pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 5:59pm: The Coalition's nuclear power plan misses one key component: the cost ::) ::) Such as... reducing carbon emissions.

No, of building and operating a nuclear reactor. Unsub.  Are you really that stupid? I forget, you're from Queensland, aren't you?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 9:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:20pm: Sounds like a good idea but wait - What if we would have kept our enormous gas reserves for ourselves instead of giving it away for rock bottom prices to countries overseas? Would it have been enough to tide us over until renewables could take their place? Let us think about this realistically. I recall hearing about how the Australian government sells China our gas at rock bottom prices. It is for the purpose of paying off the Chinese with a concession, so that the Chinese can buy other Australian exports at better prices for Australian interests.

But we're being ripped off:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1718052441/0#0

Quote:

Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants

Yes but he has 50 sites for potato farms.

Quote:

Liddell in NSW, in the Hunter Valley

Brilliant the Hunter area have earthquakes - just what nuclear plants need most. This is the Dutton level of competence on view.

Who could trust anything he he has to say on nuclear?

Why would you want the least clever potential leader we have seen in decades talking about topics like this?

Dnarever wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 10:24pm:

Brilliant the Hunter area have earthquakes - just what nuclear plants need most. This is the Dutton level of competence on view.

Australia is one of the safest places for earthquakes the closest major fault line runs from NZ to PNG up to Asian ring of fire.

We get a few 2.5-3 quakes which aren't felt but can be recorded.

It's not that often we get quakes that cause damage
https://www.mtu.edu/geo/community/seismology/learn/earthquake-measure/magnitude/

Bob Hawke wasn't a bedwetter when it came to nuclear power we can't say the same about Labor today.

---

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 10:06pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 9:36pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 5:59pm: The Coalition's nuclear power plan misses one key component: the cost ::) ::) Such as... reducing carbon emissions. No, of building and operating a nuclear reactor. Unsub.  Are you really that stupid? I forget, you're from Queensland, aren't you?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Queenslanders have greater reputations for intelligence than that of some woke Westralian who virtue signals any left-wing agenda.

It will be quite an expense in building and operating a nuclear reactor. But the benefits of no longer having large quantities of carbon emissions from coal-fired power stations would far outweigh the initial costs.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 10:24pm:

Quote: Liddell in NSW, in the Hunter Valley Brilliant the Hunter area have earthquakes - just what nuclear plants need most. This is the Dutton level of competence on view.

If my rickety house ready to fall over can survive a 4.9 magnitude earthquake, I would be sure that a modern nuclear power plant would be able to handle a 7.0 (or greater).

theres even a nuclear reactor in california im sure california has fewer problems with earthquakes than the hunter valley though

Just build new, efficient coal/gas power stations.

Just like in grand daddy’s time, eh Franko? None of this NEW stuff {horror} and too bad that the planet will fry.

Tallawarra B gas generator finally ready for the grid, just in time for cold snap

EnergyAustralia’s new gas-fired power station, Tallawarra B, in Wollongong is finally operational after a long commissioning period that started in February.

The $300 million, 320 megawatt (MW) facility – the first gas fired generator to enter the NSW grid in a decade – first joined the grid last last year and was formally opened in early February, and was expected to be fully commissioned within weeks.


“On the coldest of winter days, New South Wales typically requires all generating assets running to ensure system reliability,” said EnergyAustralia managing director Mark Collette.

With coal assets retiring, we know Tallawarra B’s role will be an important one in keeping the lights on for homes and businesses in the state over the coming years.

Frank wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 10:44am:

Just build new, efficient coal/gas power stations.

yes - we have plenty of gas that we give away to other countries and
we have top quality anthracite coal in the Bowen basin in QLD.
Both have low emissions and we're happy to sell them to other countries
to burn as much as they want - go figure?

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 1:21am:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 10:24pm: Quote: Liddell in NSW, in the Hunter Valley Brilliant the Hunter area have earthquakes - just what nuclear plants need most. This is the Dutton level of competence on view. If my rickety house ready to fall over can survive a 4.9 magnitude earthquake, I would be sure that a modern nuclear power plant would be able to handle a 7.0 (or greater).

Fukushima didn't ?

Peter Dutton's nuclear energy plan breaks all the rules of policy making. Is it genius or career self-destruction? ::) ::)

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 1:16am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 10:06pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 9:36pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 5:59pm: The Coalition's nuclear power plan misses one key component: the cost ::) ::) Such as... reducing carbon emissions. No, of building and operating a nuclear reactor. Unsub.  Are you really that stupid? I forget, you're from Queensland, aren't you?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Queenslanders have greater reputations for intelligence than that of some woke Westralian who virtue signals any left-wing agenda. It will be quite an expense in building and operating a nuclear reactor. But the benefits of no longer having large quantities of carbon emissions from coal-fired power stations would far outweigh the initial costs.

Renewables achieve that without the cost or the need for long-lasting waste.  Queenslanders seem fixated on the high-tech answer to the problem. Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 1:13pm:

Peter Dutton's nuclear energy plan breaks all the rules of policy making. Is it genius or career self-destruction? ::) ::)

Certainly looks like the latter.

lol ,

we are going to be burning fossil fuels for a long time

every new suburb on brisbane urban fringe has zero public transport

my son the sparkie tells me plugging in your car at night to recharge draws TWICE the amps of the rest of your house combined.

now what if you have a wife and 2 kids at home with cars ?

8 x the power needed

at NIGHT

when the sun dont shine  ;D ;D ;D ;D

when the people in the burbs cant get mobile, the economy will DEMAND a return to reliable fossil fuels

GOVERNMENT KNOW THIS

DONT BE A SUCKER AND BELIEVE THEIR LIES

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 1:13pm:

Peter Dutton's nuclear energy plan breaks all the rules of policy making. Is it genius or career self-destruction? ::) ::)

By Q+A and RN Breakfast host Patricia Karvelas   :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

The Labor Party misjudged the public mood on The Voice. Could Labor get it wrong about nuclear energy too?

🎵Betting Coalition Fission ... It's BCF'n fun!🎵
(With apologies to BCF stores) 😀

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:26pm:

MattE wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:22pm: 1. The nuclear power prohibition is legislated. Just like all legislation, it can be repealed. If Dutton were to win the election, he would have a mandate to remove the prohibition. Not the state legislation.

He can over-ride State Legislation, if he gets his prized Seat of Power in Potato Head Land.

Aussie wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 2:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:26pm: MattE wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:22pm: 1. The nuclear power prohibition is legislated. Just like all legislation, it can be repealed. If Dutton were to win the election, he would have a mandate to remove the prohibition. Not the state legislation. He can over-ride State Legislation, if he gets his prized Seat of Power in Potato Head Land.

No, he can't.

He can only try to pay them off.

When asked how he'd overcome this hurdle (state legislation), Dutton was rather blunt, referencing a famous Paul Keating quote.

"Somebody famously said 'I would not stand between a premier and a bucket of money', and we've seen the premiers in different debates before where they've been able to negotiate with the Commonwealth, and we'll be able to address those issues," he told reporters.

Aussie wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 2:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:26pm: MattE wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:22pm: 1. The nuclear power prohibition is legislated. Just like all legislation, it can be repealed. If Dutton were to win the election, he would have a mandate to remove the prohibition. Not the state legislation. He can over-ride State Legislation, if he gets his prized Seat of Power in Potato Head Land.

Nuclear proposal rejected by premiers, who say Dutton has no power to lift state nuclear bans

NSW Premier Chris Minns and Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan said even if Liberal leader Peter Dutton managed to lift the federal nuclear ban, he would also have to overcome bans at a state level.

"We've got our ban in place … if there’s a constitutional way for a hypothetical Dutton government to move through the state planning powers, I'm not aware of it, but that's probably a question for him to answer," Mr Minns said.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 3:19pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 2:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:26pm: MattE wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:22pm: 1. The nuclear power prohibition is legislated. Just like all legislation, it can be repealed. If Dutton were to win the election, he would have a mandate to remove the prohibition. Not the state legislation. He can over-ride State Legislation, if he gets his prized Seat of Power in Potato Head Land. Nuclear proposal rejected by premiers, who say Dutton has no power to lift state nuclear bans NSW Premier Chris Minns and Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan said even if Liberal leader Peter Dutton managed to lift the federal nuclear ban, he would also have to overcome bans at a state level. "We've got our ban in place … if there’s a constitutional way for a hypothetical Dutton government to move through the state planning powers, I'm not aware of it, but that's probably a question for him to answer," Mr Minns said.

While that's true, the Feds can't lift the ban via the state laws, they can use Federal law to overrule them entirely, but it would set a dangerous precedent that the usual libertarian Coalition supporters would be outraged over, traditionally anyway.

Will of the people and all.

But somehow, I suspect those who now are painting anything that benefits Indigenous Australians as "Lawfare" to implement the voice by stealth and find that the height of outrage, you'd think they'd also object to this.

But somehow I feel like they'd be perfectly find with this "lawfare".

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 3:40pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 3:19pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 2:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:26pm: MattE wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:22pm: 1. The nuclear power prohibition is legislated. Just like all legislation, it can be repealed. If Dutton were to win the election, he would have a mandate to remove the prohibition. Not the state legislation. He can over-ride State Legislation, if he gets his prized Seat of Power in Potato Head Land. Nuclear proposal rejected by premiers, who say Dutton has no power to lift state nuclear bans NSW Premier Chris Minns and Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan said even if Liberal leader Peter Dutton managed to lift the federal nuclear ban, he would also have to overcome bans at a state level. "We've got our ban in place … if there’s a constitutional way for a hypothetical Dutton government to move through the state planning powers, I'm not aware of it, but that's probably a question for him to answer," Mr Minns said. While that's true, the Feds can't lift the ban via the state laws, they can use Federal law to overrule them entirely, but it would set a dangerous precedent that the usual libertarian Coalition supporters would be outraged over, traditionally anyway.

Dutton's solution is to pay off the Premiers.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 3:44pm:

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 3:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 3:19pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 2:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:26pm: MattE wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:22pm: 1. The nuclear power prohibition is legislated. Just like all legislation, it can be repealed. If Dutton were to win the election, he would have a mandate to remove the prohibition. Not the state legislation. He can over-ride State Legislation, if he gets his prized Seat of Power in Potato Head Land. Nuclear proposal rejected by premiers, who say Dutton has no power to lift state nuclear bans NSW Premier Chris Minns and Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan said even if Liberal leader Peter Dutton managed to lift the federal nuclear ban, he would also have to overcome bans at a state level. "We've got our ban in place … if there’s a constitutional way for a hypothetical Dutton government to move through the state planning powers, I'm not aware of it, but that's probably a question for him to answer," Mr Minns said. While that's true, the Feds can't lift the ban via the state laws, they can use Federal law to overrule them entirely, but it would set a dangerous precedent that the usual libertarian Coalition supporters would be outraged over, traditionally anyway. Dutton's solution is to pay off the Premiers.

It's getting more expensive by the minute.

Interesting

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSYPkbyUR/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43EZHrjjBmk

Bobby. wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 11:10am:

Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 10:44am: Just build new, efficient coal/gas power stations. yes - we have plenty of gas that we give away to other countries and we have top quality anthracite coal in the Bowen basin in QLD. Both have low emissions and we're happy to sell them to other countries to burn as much as they want - go figure?

Also - Dutton's nuclear ideas may end after WW3 starting in Europe via Ukraine.
Nuclear power stations become targets and can melt down in any war.
The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station has already been hit.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 4:08pm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43EZHrjjBmk

This is simply legalese waffle. These regulations she refers to can be undone by the government of the day, they are not constitutional changes. Of course the Luddites will need convincing and this video is a sample of the bullshit they will peddle.  But as the majority of Australians are in favour of nuclear power they will find themselves on the wrong side of history.

Quote:

These regulations she refers to can be undone by the government of the day

How long do you think that will take?

we have 800 years of coal in qld

not a chance renewables are going to replace that

just a few blackouts and a few election losses due to blackouts and it will be dust off the coal plants and fire them up  :)

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 4:36pm:

Quote: These regulations she refers to can be undone by the government of the day How long do you think that will take?

There will be resistance by those who put their ideology above the national interest, so it will take longer than it needs to. However once the public becomes better educated the support base these idealouges rely upon will all but vanish. It is happening now, as noted above the majority of Australians favour nuclear power.
https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/australian-support-for-considering-nuclear-energy-reaches-70/

Belgarion wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 4:52pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:36pm: Quote: These regulations she refers to can be undone by the government of the day How long do you think that will take? There will be resistance by those who put their ideology above the national interest, so it will take longer than it needs to. However once the public becomes better educated the support base these idealouges rely upon will all but vanish. It is happening now, as noted above the majority of Australians favour nuclear power. https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/australian-support-for-considering-nuclear-energy-reaches-70/

Progress.

How long will "educating the public" take?

Australia’s Energy Production, Consumption and Exports

Australia has an estimated 46 per cent of uranium resources, 6 per cent of coal resources, and 2 per cent of natural gas resources in the world. In contrast, Australia has only about 0.3 per cent of world oil reserves.
Australia produces about 2.4 per cent of total world energy and is a major supplier of energy to world markets, exporting more than three-quarters of its energy output, worth nearly A$80 billion.
Australia is the world’s largest exporter of coal. Coal accounts for more than half of Australia’s energy exports. Australia is one of the world’s largest exporters of uranium, and is ranked sixth in terms of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. In contrast, more than half of Australia’s liquid fuel needs are imported.
Australia is the world’s twentieth largest consumer of energy, and fifteenth in terms of per capita energy use.
Australia’s primary energy consumption is dominated by coal (around 40 per cent), oil (34 per cent) and gas (22 per cent). Coal accounts for about 75 per cent of Australia’s electricity generation, followed by gas (16 per cent), hydro (5 per cent) and wind around (2 per cent).

https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/overview

Belgarion wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 4:52pm:

... as noted above the majority of Australians favour nuclear power. https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/australian-support-for-considering-nuclear-energy-reaches-70/

Do you have a link to that actual poll from three years ago - the questions and results?

Note what they're reporting:

"The Australian Nuclear Association Inc (ANA) is encouraged by the latest polling out on Friday that shows a growing number of Australians support the consideration of a civilian nuclear power industry in Australia."

Support for the "consideration", not support for the construction and implementation of.

There's a huge difference.

It's just saying that - three years ago - there was strong support for thinking about the matter; and why wouldn't there be?

However, consideration is a long way from acceptance and then ultimately construction.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 6:30pm:

Belgarion wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:52pm: ... as noted above the majority of Australians favour nuclear power. https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/australian-support-for-considering-nuclear-energy-reaches-70/ Do you have a link to that actual poll from three years ago - the questions and results? Note what they're reporting: "The Australian Nuclear Association Inc (ANA) is encouraged by the latest polling out on Friday that shows a growing number of Australians support the consideration of a civilian nuclear power industry in Australia." Support for the "consideration", not support for the construction and implementation of. There's a huge difference. It's just saying that - three years ago - there was strong support for thinking about the matter; and why wouldn't there be? However, consideration is a long way from acceptance and then ultimately construction.

And that is what Dutton is putting on the table: let's think about nuclear - as distinct from the current position of let us never think about nuclear.

But the bozo element (teals, gweens, Bowens) gets really discombobulated if they are invited to think about things beyond their comfort blankets.

Frank wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 7:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 6:30pm: Belgarion wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:52pm: ... as noted above the majority of Australians favour nuclear power. https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/australian-support-for-considering-nuclear-energy-reaches-70/ Do you have a link to that actual poll from three years ago - the questions and results? Note what they're reporting: "The Australian Nuclear Association Inc (ANA) is encouraged by the latest polling out on Friday that shows a growing number of Australians support the consideration of a civilian nuclear power industry in Australia." Support for the "consideration", not support for the construction and implementation of. There's a huge difference. It's just saying that - three years ago - there was strong support for thinking about the matter; and why wouldn't there be? However, consideration is a long way from acceptance and then ultimately construction. And that is what Dutton is putting on the table: let's think about nuclear -

No.

He's saying he's going to do it, if elected.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 3:42pm:

Peter Dutton reveals seven sites for proposed nuclear power plants Peter Dutton has announced he will go to the next election promising to build seven nuclear power stations. Mr Dutton has promised the first sites can be operational between 2035 and 2037, several years earlier than the timeframe the CSIRO and other experts believe is feasible. As had been previously flagged, the stations are all on retiring or retired coal sites. The seven sites are: Tarong in Queensland, north-west of Brisbane Callide in Queensland, west of Gladstone Liddell in NSW, in the Hunter Valley Mount Piper in NSW, near Lithgow Port Augusta in SA Loy Yang in Victoria, in the Latrobe Valley Muja in WA, near Collie

If you just don't know -



https://independentaustralia.net/_lib/slir/w800/i/article/img/article-18701-hero.jpg



give Dutton the NO

Belgarion wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 4:52pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:36pm: Quote: These regulations she refers to can be undone by the government of the day How long do you think that will take? There will be resistance by those who put their ideology above the national interest, so it will take longer than it needs to. However once the public becomes better educated the support base these idealouges (sic) rely upon will all but vanish. It is happening now, as noted above the majority of Australians favour nuclear power. https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/australian-support-for-considering-nuclear-energy-reaches-70/

Give us a fucking BREAK !

Have a look at who held this "poll" ?




.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 7:43pm:

Belgarion wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:52pm: freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:36pm: Quote: These regulations she refers to can be undone by the government of the day How long do you think that will take? There will be resistance by those who put their ideology above the national interest, so it will take longer than it needs to. However once the public becomes better educated the support base these idealouges (sic) rely upon will all but vanish. It is happening now, as noted above the majority of Australians favour nuclear power. https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/australian-support-for-considering-nuclear-energy-reaches-70/ Give us a fucking BREAK ! Have a look at who held this "poll" ? .

Not only that, it doesn't say what he claims it says.

He says it reveals: "the majority of Australians favour nuclear power."

It says absolutely nothing like that.

Here is what it actually says:

"The Australian Nuclear Association Inc (ANA) is encouraged by the latest polling out on Friday that shows a growing number of Australians support the consideration of a civilian nuclear power industry in Australia."

Tsk tsk   ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 7:18pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 7:13pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 6:30pm: Belgarion wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:52pm: ... as noted above the majority of Australians favour nuclear power. https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/australian-support-for-considering-nuclear-energy-reaches-70/ Do you have a link to that actual poll from three years ago - the questions and results? Note what they're reporting: "The Australian Nuclear Association Inc (ANA) is encouraged by the latest polling out on Friday that shows a growing number of Australians support the consideration of a civilian nuclear power industry in Australia." Support for the "consideration", not support for the construction and implementation of. There's a huge difference. It's just saying that - three years ago - there was strong support for thinking about the matter; and why wouldn't there be? However, consideration is a long way from acceptance and then ultimately construction. And that is what Dutton is putting on the table: let's think about nuclear - No. He's saying he's going to do it, if elected.

You are lying, despicable shhit.

Frank wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 7:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 6:30pm: Belgarion wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:52pm: ... as noted above the majority of Australians favour nuclear power. https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/australian-support-for-considering-nuclear-energy-reaches-70/ Do you have a link to that actual poll from three years ago - the questions and results? Note what they're reporting: "The Australian Nuclear Association Inc (ANA) is encouraged by the latest polling out on Friday that shows a growing number of Australians support the consideration of a civilian nuclear power industry in Australia." Support for the "consideration", not support for the construction and implementation of. There's a huge difference. It's just saying that - three years ago - there was strong support for thinking about the matter; and why wouldn't there be? However, consideration is a long way from acceptance and then ultimately construction. And that is what Dutton is putting on the table: let's think about nuclear - as distinct from the current position of let us never think about nuclear. But the bozo element (teals, gweens, Bowens) gets really discombobulated if they are invited to think about things beyond their comfort blankets.

;D

If Dutton was into thinking about things he would not have announced that he could give us nuclear power plants in 5 years.

He is putting nuclear on the discussion table. In a federation it is not just a matter of doing a Putin or a Macron. So the states and the electorate generally will have a say.

Will have a say - as distinct from the current dispensation of being ruled out of having a say.

It may not be a winner. But not ruling it out of hand, without any discussion, as is the case now, is a distinctly rational improvement.

Discussing it is an infinitely more rational approach than not talking about it.

Frank wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 8:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 7:18pm: Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 7:13pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 6:30pm: Belgarion wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:52pm: ... as noted above the majority of Australians favour nuclear power. https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/australian-support-for-considering-nuclear-energy-reaches-70/ Do you have a link to that actual poll from three years ago - the questions and results? Note what they're reporting: "The Australian Nuclear Association Inc (ANA) is encouraged by the latest polling out on Friday that shows a growing number of Australians support the consideration of a civilian nuclear power industry in Australia." Support for the "consideration", not support for the construction and implementation of. There's a huge difference. It's just saying that - three years ago - there was strong support for thinking about the matter; and why wouldn't there be? However, consideration is a long way from acceptance and then ultimately construction. And that is what Dutton is putting on the table: let's think about nuclear - No. He's saying he's going to do it, if elected. You are lying, despicable shhit.

You have an incredible capacity for simply tuning out anything you don;t want to accept. It's really quite phenomenal.

From the OP:

"Peter Dutton has announced he will go to the next election promising to build seven nuclear power stations."

Coalition's nuclear power plant proposal draws mixed opinions from Port Augusta community ::)

Quote:

He is putting nuclear on the discussion table.

He is announcing policy, and waiting until after the election to think about whether he can deliver on his promises.

The only thing the coalition can promise you is another decade or two of crippling uncertainty and skyrocketing prices in the electricity industry.

mothra wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 8:54pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 8:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 7:18pm: Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 7:13pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 6:30pm: Belgarion wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:52pm: ... as noted above the majority of Australians favour nuclear power. https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/australian-support-for-considering-nuclear-energy-reaches-70/ Do you have a link to that actual poll from three years ago - the questions and results? Note what they're reporting: "The Australian Nuclear Association Inc (ANA) is encouraged by the latest polling out on Friday that shows a growing number of Australians support the consideration of a civilian nuclear power industry in Australia." Support for the "consideration", not support for the construction and implementation of. There's a huge difference. It's just saying that - three years ago - there was strong support for thinking about the matter; and why wouldn't there be? However, consideration is a long way from acceptance and then ultimately construction. And that is what Dutton is putting on the table: let's think about nuclear - No. He's saying he's going to do it, if elected. You are lying, despicable shhit. You have an incredible capacity for simply tuning out anything you don;t want to accept. It's really quite phenomenal. From the OP: "Peter Dutton has announced he will go to the next election promising to build seven nuclear power stations."

You are a stupid, semi literate blowhard with minimal intelligence and maximum agitation.


OP headline, from the abc:

Peter Dutton reveals seven sites for proposed nuclear power plants


propose
verb
past tense: proposed; past participle: proposed
1.
put forward (a plan or suggestion) for consideration by others.

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 8:54pm:

Quote: He is putting nuclear on the discussion table. He is announcing policy, and waiting until after the election to think about whether he can deliver on his promises. The only thing the coalition can promise you is another decade or two of crippling uncertainty and skyrocketing prices in the electricity industry.

Remove the moronic, ideological block to nuclear first.

A great step. Much better than ruling it out of hand.

Frank wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 9:02pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 8:54pm: Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 8:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 7:18pm: Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 7:13pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 6:30pm: Belgarion wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:52pm: ... as noted above the majority of Australians favour nuclear power. https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/australian-support-for-considering-nuclear-energy-reaches-70/ Do you have a link to that actual poll from three years ago - the questions and results? Note what they're reporting: "The Australian Nuclear Association Inc (ANA) is encouraged by the latest polling out on Friday that shows a growing number of Australians support the consideration of a civilian nuclear power industry in Australia." Support for the "consideration", not support for the construction and implementation of. There's a huge difference. It's just saying that - three years ago - there was strong support for thinking about the matter; and why wouldn't there be? However, consideration is a long way from acceptance and then ultimately construction. And that is what Dutton is putting on the table: let's think about nuclear - No. He's saying he's going to do it, if elected. You are lying, despicable shhit. You have an incredible capacity for simply tuning out anything you don;t want to accept. It's really quite phenomenal. From the OP: "Peter Dutton has announced he will go to the next election promising to build seven nuclear power stations." You are a stupid, semi literate blowhard with minimal intelligence and maximum agitation. OP headline, from the abc: Peter Dutton reveals seven sites for proposed nuclear power plants propose verb past tense: proposed; past participle: proposed 1. put forward (a plan or suggestion) for consideration by others.

If i were you, i would implement a tendency to think things all the way through before committing yourself to an openly stated opinion. You'd spare yourself such humiliation. Maybe you'd be in a better temper then?

The sites are proposed, fruitbat. The proposed sites.

He's promising to go nuclear. This is simply an announcement of the proposed sites.

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 8:54pm:

Coalition's nuclear power plant proposal draws mixed opinions from Port Augusta community ::)

For the ABC to admit there was 'mixed support' means there is strong support indeed.  ;)

mothra wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 9:06pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 9:02pm: mothra wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 8:54pm: Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 8:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 7:18pm: Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 7:13pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 6:30pm: Belgarion wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:52pm: ... as noted above the majority of Australians favour nuclear power. https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/australian-support-for-considering-nuclear-energy-reaches-70/ Do you have a link to that actual poll from three years ago - the questions and results? Note what they're reporting: "The Australian Nuclear Association Inc (ANA) is encouraged by the latest polling out on Friday that shows a growing number of Australians support the consideration of a civilian nuclear power industry in Australia." Support for the "consideration", not support for the construction and implementation of. There's a huge difference. It's just saying that - three years ago - there was strong support for thinking about the matter; and why wouldn't there be? However, consideration is a long way from acceptance and then ultimately construction. And that is what Dutton is putting on the table: let's think about nuclear - No. He's saying he's going to do it, if elected. You are lying, despicable shhit. You have an incredible capacity for simply tuning out anything you don;t want to accept. It's really quite phenomenal. From the OP: "Peter Dutton has announced he will go to the next election promising to build seven nuclear power stations." You are a stupid, semi literate blowhard with minimal intelligence and maximum agitation. OP headline, from the abc: Peter Dutton reveals seven sites for proposed nuclear power plants propose verb past tense: proposed; past participle: proposed 1. put forward (a plan or suggestion) for consideration by others. If i were you, i would implement a tendency to think things all the way through before committing yourself to an openly stated opinion. You'd spare yourself such humiliation. Maybe you'd be in a better temper then? The sites are proposed, fruitbat. The proposed sites. He's promising to go nuclear. This is simply an announcement of the proposed sites.

I propose that you are a laughable, semi literate ^&%$wit of a frightbat.

Peter Dutton has announced he will go to the next election promising to build seven nuclear power stations.

mothra wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 9:11pm:

Peter Dutton has announced he will go to the next election promising to build seven nuclear power stations.

I'm starting to think that English isn't Frank's first language.

mothra wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 9:11pm:

Peter Dutton has announced he will go to the next election promising to build seven nuclear power stations.

Is it a core promise or a non core promise?

Frank wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 8:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 7:18pm: Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 7:13pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 6:30pm: Belgarion wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 4:52pm: ... as noted above the majority of Australians favour nuclear power. https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/australian-support-for-considering-nuclear-energy-reaches-70/ Do you have a link to that actual poll from three years ago - the questions and results? Note what they're reporting: "The Australian Nuclear Association Inc (ANA) is encouraged by the latest polling out on Friday that shows a growing number of Australians support the consideration of a civilian nuclear power industry in Australia." Support for the "consideration", not support for the construction and implementation of. There's a huge difference. It's just saying that - three years ago - there was strong support for thinking about the matter; and why wouldn't there be? However, consideration is a long way from acceptance and then ultimately construction. And that is what Dutton is putting on the table: let's think about nuclear - No. He's saying he's going to do it, if elected. You are lying, despicable shhit.

"Peter Dutton has announced he will go to the next election promising to build seven nuclear power stations."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0x6vIAtFcI

Does Frank trust The conversation?:

"Peter Dutton has announced he will go to the next election promising to build seven nuclear power stations."


https://theconversation.com/peter-dutton-has-promised-to-solve-our-energy-problems-but-his-nuclear-policy-still-leaves-australians-in-the-dark-232816

Every Australian deserves and should expect access to cheaper, cleaner and consistent electricity. But under Labor, this isn’t happening.



Right now, in households and businesses around the country, Labor’s expensive renewables-only approach is failing.



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



Power bills have already increased by up to $1,000 for many Australians, when they were promised a $275 cut. And Labor’s climate target of 43% emissions reduction by 2030 has become unachievable.



The Coalition believes Australia must have a balanced energy mix to deliver cheaper, cleaner and consistent 24/7 electricity. 90 per cent of baseload electricity, predominantly coal fired power stations, is coming to the end of life over the next decade.



Nuclear energy for Australia is an idea whose time has come.



Today, we are announcing that a future Federal Coalition Government will introduce zero-emissions nuclear energy in Australia, which has proven to get electricity prices and emissions down all over the world, to work in partnership with renewable energy and gas as part of a balanced energy mix.



And today, we announce seven locations, located at a power station that has closed or is scheduled to close, where we propose to build zero-emissions nuclear power plants:



Liddell Power Station, New South Wales
Mount Piper Power Station, New South Wales
Loy Yang Power Stations, Victoria
Tarong Power Station, Queensland
Callide Power Station, Queensland
Northern Power Station, South Australia (SMR only)
Muja Power Station, Western Australia (SMR only)


Each of these locations offer important technical attributes needed for a zero-emissions nuclear plant, including cooling water capacity and transmission infrastructure, that is, we can use the existing poles and wires, along with a local community which has a skilled workforce.



A key advantage of modern zero-emissions nuclear plants is they can be plugged into existing grids. This means they can effectively replace retired or retiring coal plants and avoid much of the new spending needed for Labor’s ‘renewables-only’ system, including new transmission poles and wires. All of which will be passed on in the form of higher bills.



Labor’s approach requires imposing 58 million solar panels, 3,500 new industrial wind turbines, and up to 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines across the country. Energy experts have warned the cost of Labor’s rollout will be between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion.



No country in the world relies solely on solar and wind as Labor is proposing. By contrast, there are 32 countries operating zero-emissions nuclear plants. Another 50 countries are looking to do so.



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



Our plan will deliver a net-zero electricity grid by 2050 and a strong and resilient economy. It will set our country up for decades to come.



At the front of this next wave of growth will be those communities which host zero-emissions nuclear plants. Not only will local communities benefit from high paying, multi-generational jobs but communities will be empowered to maximise the benefits from hosting an asset of national importance by way of:



A multi-billion dollar facility guaranteeing high-paying jobs for generations to come;
An integrated economic development zone to attract manufacturing, value-add and high-tech industry; and
A regional deal unlocking investment in modern infrastructure, services and community priorities.


A Community Partnership will be formed in each host community, consisting of experienced local representatives, as the focal point for community engagement and to play an important role in planning the future of the region.



This community engagement process will occur alongside a comprehensive site study including detailed technical and economic assessments.



A Federal Coalition Government will initially develop two establishment projects using either small modular reactors or modern larger plants such as the AP1000 or APR1400. They will start producing electricity by 2035 (with small modular reactors) or 2037 (if modern larger plants are found to be the best option).



The Australian Government will own these assets, but form partnerships with experienced nuclear companies to build and operate them.



Australia is fast running out of energy. The way of life for everyday Australians and the cost of doing business in Australia is already in jeopardy and it is only going to get worse under Labor’s expensive all-eggs-in-one-basket ‘renewables-only’ policy.



We know the Prime Minister and his Government will mount the mother-of-all scare campaigns on zero-emissions nuclear energy.



But we believe Australians are up for this discussion and are open-minded about including zero-emissions nuclear technology as part of a balanced energy mix.



If you are serious about meeting our net zero by 2050 emissions commitments, then you must include zero-emission nuclear as part of your energy mix. Zero-emission nuclear power plants produce no air pollution or carbon emissions. For example, a 1.1 GW AP-1000 reactor cuts approximately seven million metric tonnes of CO2 emissions, equivalent to removing 1.5 million cars from the road.

A zero-emissions nuclear power plant will be a national asset delivering cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy for 80 years. Getting started now on establishing a civil nuclear programme is the right decision for you, your children and your grandchildren.



From today, we will be speaking right across the country on the merits of our plan.



Our plan is bold, visionary and what Australians need to secure our energy and economic future.



19 June 2024

https://www.peterdutton.com.au/dutton-littleproud-obrien-media-release-australias-energy-future/

Frank's gone into rage plagiarising now.

What fun!

Frank wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 9:25pm:

A zero-emissions nuclear power plant will be a national asset delivering cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy for 80 years. Getting started now on establishing a civil nuclear programme is the right decision for you, your children and your grandchildren. From today, we will be speaking right across the country on the merits of our plan. Our plan is bold, visionary and what Australians need to secure our energy and economic future. 19 June 2024 https://www.peterdutton.com.au/dutton-littleproud-obrien-media-release-australias-energy-future/

What do you think this proves, fruitbat?

I'm fascinated.

mothra wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 9:26pm:

Frank's gone into rage plagiarising now. What fun!

Plagiarizing what?

mothra wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 9:27pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 9:25pm: A zero-emissions nuclear power plant will be a national asset delivering cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy for 80 years. Getting started now on establishing a civil nuclear programme is the right decision for you, your children and your grandchildren. From today, we will be speaking right across the country on the merits of our plan. Our plan is bold, visionary and what Australians need to secure our energy and economic future. 19 June 2024 https://www.peterdutton.com.au/dutton-littleproud-obrien-media-release-australias-energy-future/ What do you think this proves, fruitbat? I'm fascinated.

It proves what Dutton and Littleproud actually said.

They don't know how much it will cost.
They don't own the sites.
The site owners don't want it.
The time frame 2036 is not achievable. Csiro say the earliest could be 2040.
The reactors they want to use don't work anywhere in the world.
They are planning to build 7 reactors at these 7 sites.
They are not legal in half the sites.


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

Dnarever wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 9:45pm:

They don't know how much it will cost. They don't own the sites. The site owners don't want it. The time frame 2036 is not achievable. Csiro say the earliest could be 2040. The reactors they want to use don't work anywhere in the world. They are planning to build 7 reactors at these 7 sites. They are not legal in half the sites. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN_lzPahTaU

So let's look into it.

Frank wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 10:18pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 9:45pm: They don't know how much it will cost. They don't own the sites. The site owners don't want it. The time frame 2036 is not achievable. Csiro say the earliest could be 2040. The reactors they want to use don't work anywhere in the world. They are planning to build 7 reactors at these 7 sites. They are not legal in half the sites. There is no plan for nuclear waste disposal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN_lzPahTaU So let's look into it.

Na Still too dangerous. One day it will be the best option but until then it isn't in our best interests.

Also - There is no plan for nuclear waste disposal.

The super careful Japanese failed the she'll be ok Aussies are not suitable for this by nature /personality. We are what Homer simpson is based on. We are by nature a 200% greater risk than the Japanese. For us it isn't if we will have an accident but when will we have a nuclear accident.

With this proposal here we are at the pointy end of testing untried technology. More of these new untested systems fail than succeed.

As far as plans for nuclear waste disposal  ...  the AUKUS agreement that Albo agreed to sign involves Australia to dispose of the nuclear waste from the subs. Albo Labor was supposed to announce the site for that by now but hasn't done so. Rumour has it that it will be on ADF land.

Dutton proposes to use the same site to dispose of the nuclear waste from the nuclear power plants.

What say you? In support of Nuclear power in Australia or not?

Captain Nemo wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 10:45pm:

What say you? In support of Nuclear power in Australia or not?

Undecided.

Certainly in favour of the conversation though.

Captain Nemo wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 10:45pm:

What say you? In support of Nuclear power in Australia or not?

Future supporter - when it is safe and not stupid like this half arsed political move.

We should not jump into unproven technology for the purpose of votes.

Why would we go for 7 systems when there is not one single example of a working version of this technology ?

Why would we jump into nuclear power without a plan of any type to manage the nuclear waste ?

It's just Mr Potato head doing an impersonation of Mr Magoo.

This is not a serious idea.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 12:21pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 1:21am: Dnarever wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 10:24pm: Quote: Liddell in NSW, in the Hunter Valley Brilliant the Hunter area have earthquakes - just what nuclear plants need most. This is the Dutton level of competence on view. If my rickety house ready to fall over can survive a 4.9 magnitude earthquake, I would be sure that a modern nuclear power plant would be able to handle a 7.0 (or greater). Fukushima didn't ?

The point being that you won't be seeing any 7.0 magnitude earthquake in Australia anytime soon. The Australia Plate is quite stable. By the way, the 2011 earthquake near Japan recorded 7.9 initially before it was upgraded to a maximum of 9.0.

I would say that if there was a 7.0 earthquake near my town, my residence might feature in the news as having fallen over. But, an earthquake near a nuclear reactor should be able to handle a 7.0 magnitude.

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 1:16pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 1:16am: Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 10:06pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 9:36pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 5:59pm: The Coalition's nuclear power plan misses one key component: the cost ::) ::) Such as... reducing carbon emissions. No, of building and operating a nuclear reactor. Unsub.  Are you really that stupid? I forget, you're from Queensland, aren't you?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Queenslanders have greater reputations for intelligence than that of some woke Westralian who virtue signals any left-wing agenda. It will be quite an expense in building and operating a nuclear reactor. But the benefits of no longer having large quantities of carbon emissions from coal-fired power stations would far outweigh the initial costs. Renewables achieve that without the cost or the need for long-lasting waste.  Queenslanders seem fixated on the high-tech answer to the problem. Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

I have nothing against using renewable energy such as solar and wind power. Perhaps there should be more focus on having wave energy from around our vast shoreline produce some energy.

There is no issue with having nuclear power plants built, no matter the initial price tag in constructing them. Carbon free electricity. High electricity output. What is your solution? Put thousands of square kilometres of solar panels out in the desert?

aquascoot wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 1:42pm:

my son the sparkie tells me plugging in your car at night to recharge draws TWICE the amps of the rest of your house combined.

Depending on the quality of the electric car, the cost of regular usage of an electric car would be anywhere between $100 and $200 a month. If you can afford $50/wk to charge your car, you should do okay for the next 15 years with your car until the battery needs replacing. By then, you would be getting a different electric car. Hopefully, by then, electricity prices would fall relative to what they are today.

Captain Nemo wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 1:50pm:

The Labor Party misjudged the public mood on The Voice. Could Labor get it wrong about nuclear energy too?

Albo is so desperate for woke approval that he would probably chain himself to a tree to prevent it from being cut down.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 1:50am:

aquascoot wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 1:42pm: my son the sparkie tells me plugging in your car at night to recharge draws TWICE the amps of the rest of your house combined. Depending on the quality of the electric car, the cost of regular usage of an electric car would be anywhere between $100 and $200 a month. If you can afford $50/wk to charge your car, you should do okay for the next 15 years with your car until the battery needs replacing. By then, you would be getting a different electric car. Hopefully, by then, electricity prices would fall relative to what they are today.

but rocky , most people will need to charge at night

when renewables dont work  :'( :'( :'( :'(

aquascoot wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 4:59am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:50am: aquascoot wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 1:42pm: my son the sparkie tells me plugging in your car at night to recharge draws TWICE the amps of the rest of your house combined. Depending on the quality of the electric car, the cost of regular usage of an electric car would be anywhere between $100 and $200 a month. If you can afford $50/wk to charge your car, you should do okay for the next 15 years with your car until the battery needs replacing. By then, you would be getting a different electric car. Hopefully, by then, electricity prices would fall relative to what they are today. but rocky , most people will need to charge at night when renewables dont work  :'( :'( :'( :'(

Who still believes this? Seriously?

Horse Boy. That's one.

The Poll question isn't great.

You can support Nuclear energy but not the current Coalition policy.

It has a place in any carbon focused energy policy in general.  Is it suitable for Australia?

Costs and the abundance of alternatives would say no, especially given the big lead time for their plant construction.

But it is a gamble.  We're betting that in the time it would take to bring these plants online, we've have viable mass energy storage for renewables.

But back to Dutton's plan, it was designed first with the goal of using more Coal and Gas as demanded by their mining industry benefactors and worked backwards from there.

It's not an energy policy, it's a mining policy.

And you know they'll propose "cutting red tape" for the mining industry once we get close to the election.

More Coal means fewer renewables, but they have to pretend to care about climate change otherwise they'll never win back the teal votes.

So how can they attack renewables, champion coal and gas and pretend to care about emissions?

Nuclear.

They are not serious about actually delivering Nuclear energy.  They've done no projections for future energy demand or generation as part of this plan, or at least they're hiding that detail.

This is just a stalling tactic to hurt renewable energy growth in order to keep the like of Gina happy.

We all keep glossing right over this and pretending this is a genuine policy and debate the finer details of the implementation.

We know the Coalition don't take climate change seriously.  All we have to do is look at the line pushed by SkyNews and what their supporters say.

It's not a secret.

All the notions of meeting targets and reducing emissions, they don't care, it's all bullshit.

All they want is to lie to us to get back into power, then they'll ditch the plan or change their mind.

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 7:04am:

The Poll question isn't great. You can support Nuclear energy but not the current Coalition policy. It has a place in any carbon focused energy policy in general.  Is it suitable for Australia? Costs and the abundance of alternatives would say no, especially given the big lead time for their plant construction. But it is a gamble.  We're betting that in the time it would take to bring these plants online, we've have viable mass energy storage for renewables. But back to Dutton's plan, it was designed first with the goal of using more Coal and Gas as demanded by their mining industry benefactors and worked backwards from there. It's not an energy policy, it's a mining policy. And you know they'll propose "cutting red tape" for the mining industry once we get close to the election. More Coal means fewer renewables, but they have to pretend to care about climate change otherwise they'll never win back the teal votes. So how can they attack renewables, champion coal and gas and pretend to care about emissions? Nuclear. They are not serious about actually delivering Nuclear energy.  They've done no projections for future energy demand or generation as part of this plan, or at least they're hiding that detail. This is just a stalling tactic to hurt renewable energy growth in order to keep the like of Gina happy. We all keep glossing right over this and pretending this is a genuine policy and debate the finer details of the implementation. We know the Coalition don't take climate change seriously.  All we have to do is look at the line pushed by SkyNews and what their supporters say. It's not a secret. All the notions of meeting targets and reducing emissions, they don't care, it's all bullshit. All they want is to lie to us to get back into power, then they'll ditch the plan or change their mind.

100%.

With the added benefit of feeding into Trump era "culture wars".

Expect much more of this from Dutton.

SK,

Quote:

All they want is to lie to us to get back into power, then they'll ditch the plan or change their mind.

You are a very cynical person.

With the huge amount of coal and gas in Australia we should have cheap and plentiful energy.
In Victoria they are talking about the possibility of running out of gas this winter.
I have gas hot water heating and gas heating and gas for cooking.
I'm worried - this has happened under the incompetent Labor Govt.
- another result of the legacy of Dirty Dan.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/aemo-warns-of-immediate-gas-shortage-risks-in-se-australia/104003166

Frank wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 9:03pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 8:54pm: Quote: He is putting nuclear on the discussion table. He is announcing policy, and waiting until after the election to think about whether he can deliver on his promises. The only thing the coalition can promise you is another decade or two of crippling uncertainty and skyrocketing prices in the electricity industry. Remove the moronic, ideological block to nuclear first. A great step. Much better than ruling it out of hand.

There is no block. 20 years ago I was promoting nuclear as a good option for reducing our GHG emissions. But since then the price of renewables has crashed and the price of nuclear has gone up. You do not respond to the reasons I actually give. I have no idea why you think I am "ruling it out of hand" as I have explained my reasons dozens of times since Dutton announced his 5 year fantasy:

1) Renewables are cheaper, even when you factor in storage.

2) We still do not know how to safely store nuclear waste, or how much that will cost. It is just sitting round in huge 'temporary' stockpiles.

3) Nuclear takes too long to set up. By the time we actually get power out of our first plant, nuclear will be obsolete.

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 7:04am:

The Poll question isn't great. You can support Nuclear energy but not the current Coalition policy. It has a place in any carbon focused energy policy in general.  Is it suitable for Australia? Costs and the abundance of alternatives would say no, especially given the big lead time for their plant construction. But it is a gamble.  We're betting that in the time it would take to bring these plants online, we've have viable mass energy storage for renewables. But back to Dutton's plan, it was designed first with the goal of using more Coal and Gas as demanded by their mining industry benefactors and worked backwards from there. It's not an energy policy, it's a mining policy. And you know they'll propose "cutting red tape" for the mining industry once we get close to the election. More Coal means fewer renewables, but they have to pretend to care about climate change otherwise they'll never win back the teal votes. So how can they attack renewables, champion coal and gas and pretend to care about emissions? Nuclear. They are not serious about actually delivering Nuclear energy.  They've done no projections for future energy demand or generation as part of this plan, or at least they're hiding that detail. This is just a stalling tactic to hurt renewable energy growth in order to keep the like of Gina happy. We all keep glossing right over this and pretending this is a genuine policy and debate the finer details of the implementation. We know the Coalition don't take climate change seriously.  All we have to do is look at the line pushed by SkyNews and what their supporters say. It's not a secret. All the notions of meeting targets and reducing emissions, they don't care, it's all bullshit. All they want is to lie to us to get back into power, then they'll ditch the plan or change their mind.

Yes, you've nailed it.

And we thought Abbott was the worst they could offer.

How wrong we were.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 7:21am:

SK, Quote: All they want is to lie to us to get back into power, then they'll ditch the plan or change their mind. You are a very cynical person. With the huge amount of coal and gas in Australia we should have cheap and plentiful energy. In Victoria they are talking about the possibility of running out of gas this winter. I have gas hot water heating and gas heating and gas for cooking. I'm worried - this has happened under the incompetent Labor Govt. - another result of the legacy of Dirty Dan. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/aemo-warns-of-immediate-gas-shortage-risks-in-se-australia/104003166

Further to that -

I think we do need some nuclear power stations and
we need to learn how to make our own fuel rods.
We could then sell spare fuel rods on the world market.
At the moment we only sell Yellowcake.

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

Frank wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 6:03pm:

Australia’s Energy Production, Consumption and Exports Australia has an estimated 46 per cent of uranium resources, 6 per cent of coal resources, and 2 per cent of natural gas resources in the world. In contrast, Australia has only about 0.3 per cent of world oil reserves. Australia produces about 2.4 per cent of total world energy and is a major supplier of energy to world markets, exporting more than three-quarters of its energy output, worth nearly A$80 billion. Australia is the world’s largest exporter of coal. Coal accounts for more than half of Australia’s energy exports. Australia is one of the world’s largest exporters of uranium, and is ranked sixth in terms of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. In contrast, more than half of Australia’s liquid fuel needs are imported. Australia is the world’s twentieth largest consumer of energy, and fifteenth in terms of per capita energy use. Australia’s primary energy consumption is dominated by coal (around 40 per cent), oil (34 per cent) and gas (22 per cent). Coal accounts for about 75 per cent of Australia’s electricity generation, followed by gas (16 per cent), hydro (5 per cent) and wind around (2 per cent). https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/overview

Australia has been plunged into a fresh energy crisis amid warnings of gas shortages along the eastern seaboard after supply disruptions and a winter cold snap triggered a run on reserves, raising fears of manufacturing shutdowns if ­supplies are curtailed.

As revealed by The Australian, an emergency phone hook-up was convened on Thursday, with the national energy market operator telling gas companies the southern states were now dependent on supplies being sent from Queensland for the rest of winter.

The meeting was held after a “threat notice” was sent to the gas industry, warning that the market had tightened substantially amid supply disruptions from a major source in Victoria that had caused a depletion of ­reserves.


Australian Pipelines and Gas Association chief executive Steve Davies said: “For half a decade, ­industry has been warning about looming gas supply shortfalls. ­Little has been done to remedy it. The opposite has occurred, and businesses are being asked to pay the price.”

Mr Davies said poor generation from large-scale renewables had also exacerbated the supply crisis.

“The extreme lows in renewable generation, particularly wind yields, have meant gas-powered generation has picked up a significantly larger load to keep the lights on and ensure electric homes can remain heated,” he said.



The market operator warned in March that gas generators might be forced to burn diesel to keep the power grid running after authorities revealed states faced a ­catastrophic ­supply shortfall from next year unless new sources of supply were developed.

Frank wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 9:58am:

Frank wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 6:03pm: Australia’s Energy Production, Consumption and Exports Australia has an estimated 46 per cent of uranium resources, 6 per cent of coal resources, and 2 per cent of natural gas resources in the world. In contrast, Australia has only about 0.3 per cent of world oil reserves. Australia produces about 2.4 per cent of total world energy and is a major supplier of energy to world markets, exporting more than three-quarters of its energy output, worth nearly A$80 billion. Australia is the world’s largest exporter of coal. Coal accounts for more than half of Australia’s energy exports. Australia is one of the world’s largest exporters of uranium, and is ranked sixth in terms of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. In contrast, more than half of Australia’s liquid fuel needs are imported. Australia is the world’s twentieth largest consumer of energy, and fifteenth in terms of per capita energy use. Australia’s primary energy consumption is dominated by coal (around 40 per cent), oil (34 per cent) and gas (22 per cent). Coal accounts for about 75 per cent of Australia’s electricity generation, followed by gas (16 per cent), hydro (5 per cent) and wind around (2 per cent). https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/overview Australia has been plunged into a fresh energy crisis amid warnings of gas shortages along the eastern seaboard after supply disruptions and a winter cold snap triggered a run on reserves, raising fears of manufacturing shutdowns if ­supplies are curtailed. As revealed by The Australian, an emergency phone hook-up was convened on Thursday, with the national energy market operator telling gas companies the southern states were now dependent on supplies being sent from Queensland for the rest of winter. The meeting was held after a “threat notice” was sent to the gas industry, warning that the market had tightened substantially amid supply disruptions from a major source in Victoria that had caused a depletion of ­reserves. Australian Pipelines and Gas Association chief executive Steve Davies said: “For half a decade, ­industry has been warning about looming gas supply shortfalls. ­Little has been done to remedy it. The opposite has occurred, and businesses are being asked to pay the price.” Mr Davies said poor generation from large-scale renewables had also exacerbated the supply crisis. “The extreme lows in renewable generation, particularly wind yields, have meant gas-powered generation has picked up a significantly larger load to keep the lights on and ensure electric homes can remain heated,” he said. The market operator warned in March that gas generators might be forced to burn diesel to keep the power grid running after authorities revealed states faced a ­catastrophic ­supply shortfall from next year unless new sources of supply were developed.

So a shortage of gas and a major gas plant undergoing maintenance is being blamed on renewables by the Gas companies who sell the bulk of our Eastern States gas for huge profits overseas....Burning diesel is only required because of a gas shortage....Whilst renewables are partly to blame a lack of gas supply is the main problem which the Australian ignored in it's bullshit rant by gas company executives who ignored the gas shortfall for profit!!!


Quote:

AEMO warns of immediate gas shortfall threat as cold snap, renewable lulls and outages bite The warning was sparked by a spike in gas demand following a cold spell, a lack of renewable power in recent weeks and an outage at the Longford gas plant in Victoria – the biggest source of gas in southern Australia. Combined, the shocks to the system have led to a run on Victoria's most biggest and most important gas storage facility at Iona, about 230km south-west of Melbourne. They have also sent the gas market skywards, with prices trading at almost $30 a gigajoule today – levels last seen during the energy crisis two years ago. AEMO said the disruptions were of a "nature and magnitude" significant enough to threaten gas shortfalls on days of peak demand for the next three months or more.

::) ::) ::)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/aemo-warns-of-immediate-gas-shortage-risks-in-se-australia/104003166

Quote:

June 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Tuesday passed a bill to 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. A version of the bill had already passed in the House of Representatives and it will now go to President Joe Biden for a signature to become law. It passed the Senate 88-2 votes, opens new tab. “In a major victory for our climate and American energy security, the U.S. Senate has passed the ADVANCE Act with overwhelming, bipartisan support,” said Senator Tom Carper, a Democrat, who is Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-senate-passes-bill-support-advanced-nuclear-energy-deployment-2024-06-19/

aquascoot wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 4:59am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:50am: aquascoot wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 1:42pm: my son the sparkie tells me plugging in your car at night to recharge draws TWICE the amps of the rest of your house combined. Depending on the quality of the electric car, the cost of regular usage of an electric car would be anywhere between $100 and $200 a month. If you can afford $50/wk to charge your car, you should do okay for the next 15 years with your car until the battery needs replacing. By then, you would be getting a different electric car. Hopefully, by then, electricity prices would fall relative to what they are today. but rocky , most people will need to charge at night when renewables dont work  :'( :'( :'( :'(

That is why I am saying that it would cost money to run the electric car through recharging. People with solar panels on their roofs would only get some benefit of power saving if they are charging their cars during the day. For me, I usually drive my car in the afternoon and night. If I had solar panels on my roof, I would probably do okay with saving on electricity.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 7:21am:

SK, Quote: All they want is to lie to us to get back into power, then they'll ditch the plan or change their mind. You are a very cynical person.

I'm a realist.


Quote:

With the huge amount of coal and gas in Australia we should have cheap and plentiful energy. In Victoria they are talking about the possibility of running out of gas this winter. I have gas hot water heating and gas heating and gas for cooking. I'm worried - this has happened under the incompetent Labor Govt. - another result of the legacy of Dirty Dan. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/aemo-warns-of-immediate-gas-shortage-risks-in-se-australia/104003166

Firstly, Howard and Abbott sold us out with their LNG export agreements, not Andrews.

Yes, Andrews and other state bans on fracking and onshore gas exploration didn't help, but the federal export agreements that are locked in are the things most impacting supply AND the low prices they get which is forcing higher domestic costs.

And you want to hand our energy security back to the people who did this to us, when they've made it abundantly clear they don't believe or care about climate change, much to the applause of their supporters, and you want to believe that is their motivation behind Nuclear?

Please.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 11:33am:

aquascoot wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 4:59am: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:50am: aquascoot wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 1:42pm: my son the sparkie tells me plugging in your car at night to recharge draws TWICE the amps of the rest of your house combined. Depending on the quality of the electric car, the cost of regular usage of an electric car would be anywhere between $100 and $200 a month. If you can afford $50/wk to charge your car, you should do okay for the next 15 years with your car until the battery needs replacing. By then, you would be getting a different electric car. Hopefully, by then, electricity prices would fall relative to what they are today. but rocky , most people will need to charge at night when renewables dont work  :'( :'( :'( :'( That is why I am saying that it would cost money to run the electric car through recharging. People with solar panels on their roofs would only get some benefit of power saving if they are charging their cars during the day. For me, I usually drive my car in the afternoon and night. If I had solar panels on my roof, I would probably do okay with saving on electricity.

I've been told it costs about $2 worth of electricity to get the equivalent of a full tank of fuel.

Setanta wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 11:24am:

Quote: June 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Tuesday passed a bill to 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. A version of the bill had already passed in the House of Representatives and it will now go to President Joe Biden for a signature to become law. It passed the Senate 88-2 votes, opens new tab. “In a major victory for our climate and American energy security, the U.S. Senate has passed the ADVANCE Act with overwhelming, bipartisan support,” said Senator Tom Carper, a Democrat, who is Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-senate-passes-bill-support-advanced-nuclear-energy-deployment-2024-06-19/

Yes, a good move - as part of exiting fossils ASAP,  and rolling out renewables as fast as possible.

Meanwhile in China:

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Control-room-commissioned-at-Chinese-SMR

First concrete for the ACP100 was poured on 13 July 2021, with a planned total construction period of 58 months. Equipment installation work commenced in December 2022 and the main internal structure of the reactor building was completed in March 2023.

Under development since 2010, the 125 MWe ACP100 integrated PWR's preliminary design was completed in 2014. In 2016, the design became the first SMR to pass a safety review by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 1:44am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 1:16pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 1:16am: Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 10:06pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 9:36pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 5:59pm: The Coalition's nuclear power plan misses one key component: the cost ::) ::) Such as... reducing carbon emissions. No, of building and operating a nuclear reactor. Unsub.  Are you really that stupid? I forget, you're from Queensland, aren't you?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Queenslanders have greater reputations for intelligence than that of some woke Westralian who virtue signals any left-wing agenda. It will be quite an expense in building and operating a nuclear reactor. But the benefits of no longer having large quantities of carbon emissions from coal-fired power stations would far outweigh the initial costs. Renewables achieve that without the cost or the need for long-lasting waste.  Queenslanders seem fixated on the high-tech answer to the problem. Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) I have nothing against using renewable energy such as solar and wind power. Perhaps there should be more focus on having wave energy from around our vast shoreline produce some energy. There is no issue with having nuclear power plants built, no matter the initial price tag in constructing them. Carbon free electricity. High electricity output. What is your solution? Put thousands of square kilometres of solar panels out in the desert?

And why not, Unsub?  It would be a useful job for empty land...  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Wave and tidal and geothermal sources of energy have hardly been touched.

Graziers would get another source of income and improved productivity by having solar panels installed on their paddocks.

But nuclear, a non–carbon source of energy can underpin the renewables.

Dutton isn’t being honest, of course, I doubt 1 small reactor could be built before 2050 at the best.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 3:42pm:

But nuclear, a non–carbon source of energy can underpin the renewables. Dutton isn’t being honest, of course, I doubt 1 small reactor could be built before 2050 at the best.

Quote:

can underpin the renewables.

And you save a lot in lighting as soon as you start glowing in the dark.

Quote:

And you save a lot in lighting as soon as you start glowing in the dark.

that doesn't happen stop posting this b.s

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 3:42pm:

But nuclear, a non–carbon source of energy can underpin the renewables. Dutton isn’t being honest, of course, I doubt 1 small reactor could be built before 2050 at the best.

Plus he's pushing Nuclear to hurt renewables push more coal and gas.

That's the point remember.

I doubt when they ever win office again they will push ahead with the plan to build nuclear, they'll focus on "the now" given the lead time from decision to go Nuclear to the first plan coming online and push gas or coal instead.

They'll do whatever they can to hurt funding, investment and innovation in renewables so their cost don't keep reducing and their local implementation of energy storage doesn't improve so eventually the cost claims of Nuclear against a then artificially inflated cost of renewables will justify their push to Nuclear, while again continuing to push coal and gas for the then, "today's needs".

There is no other explanation that fits their mining lobby-dictated stance against climate change, carbon targets and energy policy.

They haven't even compared the generation capacity for their 7 plants to the needs in 30-35 years when the first plan would realistically come online.

In terms of the Coalition, Nuclear = Coal & Gas.

It's that simple.

itll take 20+ yrs to finish these they wont even be in office that long

Victoria will soon suffer a gas shortfall that forces authorities to choose between an economic ­catastrophe or cutting heating to homes, risking the welfare of elderly Australians, one of the country’s largest gas users has warned.

Brickworks chief executive Lindsay Partridge said the gas crisis had become dire and could have been averted.

“It is not if but when. This situation could have been avoided but we are in a position where Victoria will have to choose between keeping businesses going or providing heat to homes. If they cut us off, it would take us two weeks to restart operations, but if they cut heating off – old people will die,” Mr Partridge said.

The warning from the nation’s largest brickmaker came as one of the main suppliers of gas to the east coast prioritised supplies to Victoria to help the state avoid a supply crunch.

The Australian Energy Market Operator and the country’s gas industry is scrambling to relieve pressure on the east coast market, and sources say energy giant ­ExxonMobil is now front-loading gas supplies to Victoria.

The process, known as sculpting, involves the Longford facility prioritising gas flows into Melbourne during the morning before catching up with higher flows to Sydney overnight.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 1:16pm:

I've been told it costs about $2 worth of electricity to get the equivalent of a full tank of fuel.

I doubt that.
Do the maths.

Let's say electricity costs 30 cents per kilowatt hour.
$2.00/ 0.30 = 6.7 KW for one hour.

6.7 KW would drive a car for about one hour if it was just cruising.
A tank of fuel would go for 6 hours or more.

A car that accelerates hard would use 100KW  or more.

Neither is it necessary to replace all existing coal generation with nuclear to get a result.

“You don’t need to be 50 or 60 per cent nuclear,” Shirvan says. “Even 15 per cent nuclear for reli­able baseload does reduce the amount of renewable generation and storage, so in aggregate it is a good (financial) deal for the taxpayers.”

Dutton has taken a brave political gamble that voters will absorb the energy policy details. One point that favours him is that support for nuclear in the US is highest in places near existing nuclear facilities. “These are people who have been living near nuclear plants and they feel comfortable and either their family or neighbours are working at the sites and they see the economic benefit and well-paid jobs,” Shirvan says.

Politically, support for nuclear is one of the few areas that crosses the US political divide.

“In the US we have got two parties, the Democrats and Republicans, and they tend to disagree on every possible issue under the sun with few exceptions you can count on the fingers of one hand, and one of them is nuclear and they passed legislation together to support the existing fleet, development of new systems and export of technology,” Shirvan says.

Australia is coming late to the nuclear party but the view from abroad is a lot of the political outrage is confected. It’s just that both sides are coming at it from a different angle. The Liberals are saying nuclear energy is the future but Labor is sending out memes of three-headed fish while being 100 per cent behind AUKUS. Practically, it means the same thing. We are developing a skilled workforce and developing Australian expertise in nuclear technology.

As for nuclear power, there is a long way still to run but the options for stable, reliable power into the future are closing fast.

GRAHAM LLOYD  ENVIRONMENT EDITOR

JC Denton wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 10:51am:

itll take 20+ yrs to finish these they wont even be in office that long

It'll take 20+ years to start.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 12:03pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:16pm: I've been told it costs about $2 worth of electricity to get the equivalent of a full tank of fuel. I doubt that. Do the maths. Let's say electricity costs 30 cents per kilowatt hour. $2.00/ 0.30 = 6.7 KW for one hour. 6.7 KW would drive a car for about one hour if it was just cruising. A tank of fuel would go for 6 hours or more. A car that accelerates hard would use 100KW  or more.

The average EV battery is about 40 kWh. At 30c/kWh, that is still only $12 to fully charge it. If you plug it in overnight to get the off peak power, you will get it for a lot less than 30c/kWh.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:29pm:

MattE wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:22pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:20pm: Sounds like a good idea but wait - What if we would have kept our enormous gas reserves for ourselves instead of giving it away for rock bottom prices to countries overseas? Would it have been enough to tide us over until renewables could take their place? Bowen the zealot doesn't want gas either. But it's much cleaner than coal and then why is it OK for other countries to burn our gas?

Because the international price gouging fossil companies (Chevron, Shell et al) who were allowed to develop our gas are seeking maximum profits from overeseas markets.

freediver wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 1:45pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 12:03pm: freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:16pm: I've been told it costs about $2 worth of electricity to get the equivalent of a full tank of fuel. I doubt that. Do the maths. Let's say electricity costs 30 cents per kilowatt hour. $2.00/ 0.30 = 6.7 KW for one hour. 6.7 KW would drive a car for about one hour if it was just cruising. A tank of fuel would go for 6 hours or more. A car that accelerates hard would use 100KW  or more. The average EV battery is about 40 kWh. At 30c/kWh, that is still only $12 to fully charge it. If you plug it in overnight to get the off peak power, you will get it for a lot less than 30c/kWh.

So you agree - it's nowhere near $2 to charge up an EV battery?

Bobby. wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:08pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 1:45pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 12:03pm: freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:16pm: I've been told it costs about $2 worth of electricity to get the equivalent of a full tank of fuel. I doubt that. Do the maths. Let's say electricity costs 30 cents per kilowatt hour. $2.00/ 0.30 = 6.7 KW for one hour. 6.7 KW would drive a car for about one hour if it was just cruising. A tank of fuel would go for 6 hours or more. A car that accelerates hard would use 100KW  or more. The average EV battery is about 40 kWh. At 30c/kWh, that is still only $12 to fully charge it. If you plug it in overnight to get the off peak power, you will get it for a lot less than 30c/kWh. So you agree - it's nowhere near $2 to charge up an EV battery?

That's not what I said Bobby. Do you know what off peak electricity costs?

Quote:

Japanese eye investment in Australian nuclear rollout Jun 21, 2024 Tokyo | Japan’s giant energy trading houses would consider helping to pay for a nuclear rollout in Australia in return for decades-long investment returns, industry insiders say. The Coalition’s announcement that it would build seven nuclear power plants sparked a flurry of conversations in Tokyo this week around how Japan’s largest power players could become involved. Investment bankers, trade liaisons and energy company representatives are understood to be quietly costing out how development of a nuclear supply chain in Australia might work, should Peter Dutton’s plan eventuate. Japan’s own nuclear industry is re-emerging as a core tenet of the island-nation’s energy security strategy alongside renewable energy. These sources are replacing the country’s LNG demand, which has fallen substantially over the last several years. Energia Group and J-Power are constructing new nuclear reactor plants in north-west and central Japan, while Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kansai Electric Power have recently reopened plants that were shuttered following the Fukushima disaster in 2011. Mike Newman, former trade commissioner for the NSW government, said Japanese investment houses like Mitsubishi Heavy Industries have investment strategies like Canada’s Brookfield. “The Japanese have been thinking about [Australian nuclear] for several years,” Mr Newman said “It’s the kind of investment that aligns with their big picture strategy, and they have plenty of experience building and operating these kinds of assets.” Mr Newman said Japanese companies would also accept losses in the early part of any deal as well as provide low-cost financing over long time frames, such as 50 years. South Korea could also be a possible investment partner for any nuclear program in Australia. In March, Korea Electric Power Corporation, better known as KEPCO, finished building four nuclear energy plants in Barakah in the United Arab Emirates. The $US20 billion project began in 2009, and marked South Korea’s first export of a homegrown atomic power plant. “Developing nuclear in Australia would certainly pique their interest,” Ross Gregory, partner at New Electric Partners and chairman of AustCham Korea, said. “They’ve got the know-how and the track record.” China has also developed a profound nuclear development capability. Nuclear accounts for nearly 5 per cent of the total national electricity output, according to the China Atomic Energy Authority. One dealmaker based in Beijing said it was unlikely the Chinese would bid for this kind of work, given the sensitives around Chinese investment in Australian resource projects. In the last 10 years, more than 34 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity have been brought online in China, bringing the country’s number of operating nuclear reactors to 55. Another 23 reactors are under construction. https://www.afr.com/world/asia/japanese-eye-investment-in-australian-nuclear-rollout-20240620-p5jnb7?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1718954938

South Korea can get them running in 5-6 years

freediver wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:57pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:08pm: freediver wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 1:45pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 12:03pm: freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:16pm: I've been told it costs about $2 worth of electricity to get the equivalent of a full tank of fuel. I doubt that. Do the maths. Let's say electricity costs 30 cents per kilowatt hour. $2.00/ 0.30 = 6.7 KW for one hour. 6.7 KW would drive a car for about one hour if it was just cruising. A tank of fuel would go for 6 hours or more. A car that accelerates hard would use 100KW  or more. The average EV battery is about 40 kWh. At 30c/kWh, that is still only $12 to fully charge it. If you plug it in overnight to get the off peak power, you will get it for a lot less than 30c/kWh. So you agree - it's nowhere near $2 to charge up an EV battery? That's not what I said Bobby. Do you know what off peak electricity costs?

12.47 cents per kWhr

https://www.agl.com.au/content/dam/digital/agl/documents/terms-and-conditions/energy/rates-and-contracts/standard-retail-contracts/nsw/agl-nsw-elec-my-pcp-website-pricing-20210701.pdf

Bobby. wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 5:05pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:57pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:08pm: freediver wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 1:45pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 12:03pm: freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:16pm: I've been told it costs about $2 worth of electricity to get the equivalent of a full tank of fuel. I doubt that. Do the maths. Let's say electricity costs 30 cents per kilowatt hour. $2.00/ 0.30 = 6.7 KW for one hour. 6.7 KW would drive a car for about one hour if it was just cruising. A tank of fuel would go for 6 hours or more. A car that accelerates hard would use 100KW  or more. The average EV battery is about 40 kWh. At 30c/kWh, that is still only $12 to fully charge it. If you plug it in overnight to get the off peak power, you will get it for a lot less than 30c/kWh. So you agree - it's nowhere near $2 to charge up an EV battery? That's not what I said Bobby. Do you know what off peak electricity costs? 12.47 cents per kWhr https://www.agl.com.au/content/dam/digital/agl/documents/terms-and-conditions/energy/rates-and-contracts/standard-retail-contracts/nsw/agl-nsw-elec-my-pcp-website-pricing-20210701.pdf

That is if you have off peak meter. Many places have only 1 meter.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 5:07pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 5:05pm: freediver wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:57pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:08pm: freediver wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 1:45pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 12:03pm: freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:16pm: I've been told it costs about $2 worth of electricity to get the equivalent of a full tank of fuel. I doubt that. Do the maths. Let's say electricity costs 30 cents per kilowatt hour. $2.00/ 0.30 = 6.7 KW for one hour. 6.7 KW would drive a car for about one hour if it was just cruising. A tank of fuel would go for 6 hours or more. A car that accelerates hard would use 100KW  or more. The average EV battery is about 40 kWh. At 30c/kWh, that is still only $12 to fully charge it. If you plug it in overnight to get the off peak power, you will get it for a lot less than 30c/kWh. So you agree - it's nowhere near $2 to charge up an EV battery? That's not what I said Bobby. Do you know what off peak electricity costs? 12.47 cents per kWhr https://www.agl.com.au/content/dam/digital/agl/documents/terms-and-conditions/energy/rates-and-contracts/standard-retail-contracts/nsw/agl-nsw-elec-my-pcp-website-pricing-20210701.pdf That is if you have off peak meter. Many places have only 1 meter.

At that price it would be less than $5 for a full charge.

freediver wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 5:10pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 5:07pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 5:05pm: freediver wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:57pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 4:08pm: freediver wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 1:45pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 12:03pm: freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 1:16pm: I've been told it costs about $2 worth of electricity to get the equivalent of a full tank of fuel. I doubt that. Do the maths. Let's say electricity costs 30 cents per kilowatt hour. $2.00/ 0.30 = 6.7 KW for one hour. 6.7 KW would drive a car for about one hour if it was just cruising. A tank of fuel would go for 6 hours or more. A car that accelerates hard would use 100KW  or more. The average EV battery is about 40 kWh. At 30c/kWh, that is still only $12 to fully charge it. If you plug it in overnight to get the off peak power, you will get it for a lot less than 30c/kWh. So you agree - it's nowhere near $2 to charge up an EV battery? That's not what I said Bobby. Do you know what off peak electricity costs? 12.47 cents per kWhr https://www.agl.com.au/content/dam/digital/agl/documents/terms-and-conditions/energy/rates-and-contracts/standard-retail-contracts/nsw/agl-nsw-elec-my-pcp-website-pricing-20210701.pdf That is if you have off peak meter. Many places have only 1 meter. At that price it would be less than $5 for a full charge.

Smallest battery in Tesla is 57.5 KwH goes up to 75KwH

AnAl says solar panels on your roof can charge your vehicle overnight for free.  ;D
Does AnAl realise solar doesn't work at night?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyS9uqRLbB8

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 1:16pm:

I've been told it costs about $2 worth of electricity to get the equivalent of a full tank of fuel.

I suppose if you are charging using your home solar, it might be that much. It comes down to how much you would be using an electric vehicle. I did a calculation on this the other week based on online estimates. The answer is $50 a week, if you use the car and recharge regularly. But, given that I don't know anyone that uses an electric vehicle, I have no experience on how much it costs.

Quote:

I suppose if you are charging using your home solar, it might be that much.

Yeah, it's free if you do that. But you have to be home, or have a(nother) battery.

freediver wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 5:10pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 5:07pm: 12.47 cents per kWhr https://www.agl.com.au/content/dam/digital/agl/documents/terms-and-conditions/energy/rates-and-contracts/standard-retail-contracts/nsw/agl-nsw-elec-my-pcp-website-pricing-20210701.pdf That is if you have off peak meter. Many places have only 1 meter.

At that price it would be less than $5 for a full charge.[/quote]


Whatever -
if you have roof solar and you charge the EV car on the weekend during the day
and you travel less than say 250 km for the following week -
then it will cost $zero to charge the batteries.

Did Chris Bowen lie when he said the reason why Canadian nuclear power is cheaper is due to $6 billion in state subsidies?

That $6 billion goes to a research facility, much like Lucas Heights in Australia. It doesn't produce electricity.

The power generators are required to operate profitably.

Why is Chris Bowen deliberately dishonest?

Quote:

That $6 billion goes to a research facility

No all of it. Also, the "research facility" in question produces electricity.

freediver wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 6:45pm:

Quote: That $6 billion goes to a research facility No all of it. Also, the "research facility" in question produces electricity.

Would it be a good or bad thing if Lucas Heights produced electricity as part of it's radiological work?

Setanta wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 7:10pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 6:45pm: Quote: That $6 billion goes to a research facility No all of it. Also, the "research facility" in question produces electricity. Would it be a good or bad thing if Lucas Heights produced electricity as part of it's radiological work?

Yes.

Coalition won't say how much nuclear power its plan will generate until after an election ::)

Biloela, Nanango residents react to Peter Dutton's nuclear power announcement ::)

In attacking the call to go nuclear, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen referenced China, saying its carbon emissions would peak in 2025 and noting it was installing more renewable energy than any other nation.

It is true, China has a massive amount of wind and solar. By the end of last year its national installed capacity reached 52.4 per cent of total generation.

The only problem is, it so rarely generates. Look at the energy China consumes and the renewable numbers collapse. Wind covered 9 per cent and solar a miserly 3 per cent of China’s electricity consumption last year. By comparison, coal and gas have an installed capacity of 47 per cent of generation and delivered on 70 per cent of demand.

China has 1142 coal-fired power plants. Last year it was permitting new ones at a rate of two a week. There are 306 plants under construction or permitted for construction. This makes it highly unlikely its emissions are about to peak, no matter who claims it. Saying it does not make it so.

And what is China doing on nuclear? It has 55 nuclear power plants and 23 reactors are being built. It plans to build at least 150 more in the next 15 years. It had some costly early experiences but can now build a 1000-megawatt reactor in four years for $4.5bn.

China says it is building its grid around renewable energy. It isn’t. Maybe it is time to consider doing what China does.


Cris Uhlmann

It's going to be difficult and expensive to find good staff for these reactors.

My bet is that they will have to hire people from overseas to
get the nuclear knowledge required.
They will have to live in the middle of nowhere -
far from good schools for their children and many other amenities such as:
hospitals, doctors, dentists, supermarkets, shopping centers and entertainment.
They will want megabucks to do that and drag their families along too.

Frank wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 3:05pm:

In attacking the call to go nuclear, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen referenced China, saying its carbon emissions would peak in 2025 and noting it was installing more renewable energy than any other nation. It is true, China has a massive amount of wind and solar. By the end of last year its national installed capacity reached 52.4 per cent of total generation. The only problem is, it so rarely generates. Look at the energy China consumes and the renewable numbers collapse. Wind covered 9 per cent and solar a miserly 3 per cent of China’s electricity consumption last year. By comparison, coal and gas have an installed capacity of 47 per cent of generation and delivered on 70 per cent of demand. China has 1142 coal-fired power plants. Last year it was permitting new ones at a rate of two a week. There are 306 plants under construction or permitted for construction. This makes it highly unlikely its emissions are about to peak, no matter who claims it. Saying it does not make it so. And what is China doing on nuclear? It has 55 nuclear power plants and 23 reactors are being built. It plans to build at least 150 more in the next 15 years. It had some costly early experiences but can now build a 1000-megawatt reactor in four years for $4.5bn. China says it is building its grid around renewable energy. It isn’t. Maybe it is time to consider doing what China does. Cris Uhlmann

link?

this is close:

https://insights.taylorenglish.com/post/102iw50/china-is-building-coal-fired-power-plants-at-an-alarming-rate

With 1,142 coal-fired power plants in operation as of July 2023, mainland China currently has a far greater number of coal-fired plants than any other country. India comes in a distant second with 282 coal-fired plants, and the U.S.is third with 210 plants

Bobby. wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 3:07pm:

It's going to be difficult and expensive to find good staff for these reactors. My bet is that they will have to hire people from overseas to get the nuclear knowledge required. They will have to live in the middle of nowhere - far from good schools for their children and many other amenities such as: hospitals, doctors, dentists, supermarkets, shopping centers and entertainment. They will want megabucks to do that and drag their families along too.

  While they are being built the future operators will be training overseas. In the US it is a 4 year course to become a reactor plant operator.  We will need some overseas supervisors and operators initially however training our own will not be a problem.  The plants will be built on the sites of old coal/gas plants, not in the middle of nowhere.  Plenty of infrastructure already there. 

Meanwhile, a reality check:

---

Belgarion wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 3:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 3:07pm: It's going to be difficult and expensive to find good staff for these reactors. My bet is that they will have to hire people from overseas to get the nuclear knowledge required. They will have to live in the middle of nowhere - far from good schools for their children and many other amenities such as: hospitals, doctors, dentists, supermarkets, shopping centers and entertainment. They will want megabucks to do that and drag their families along too.   While they are being built the future operators will be training overseas. In the US it is a 4 year course to become a reactor plant operator.  We will need some overseas supervisors and operators initially however training our own will not be a problem.  The plants will be built on the sites of old coal/gas plants, not in the middle of nowhere.  Plenty of infrastructure already there.  Meanwhile, a reality check:

No - you should see the closed Hazelwood power station in Victoria -
the middle of nowhere.

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

Engineers factor in Consequences of Failure with solar you're one big hailstorm away from the lights going out.


Quote:

The 'next big hailstorm' will destroy solar panels and the 'lights will go out' Former ANSTO Chief Executive Dr Adi Paterson says the next “big hailstorm” will result in Australia losing “500 megawatts” of power. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton announced the Coalition’s nuclear policy last week, including the seven proposed sites for the nuclear reactors. “My fear for the Sydney basin is what I call the big hailstorm,” Dr Paterson said. “When the big hailstorm comes, and a big hailstorm will come in the next 20 years, we will lose 500 megawatts of power in the Sydney Basin which is keeping the lights on. “That is AEMO’s plan. “This hail will smash the panels on our roofs, and the lights will go out.” https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/the-next-big-hailstorm-will-destroy-solar-panels-and-the-lights-will-go-out/ar-BB1oIw1S

8 minute interview with Dr Adi Paterson is worth watching he debunks AnAls bullshit while giving his thoughts on our nuclear direction

If you don't know what ANSTO is you could check his credibility on nuclear science- https://www.ansto.gov.au/

Big hailstorms will also damage turbine blades.

Hailstorms have already damaged numerous solar farms