Dutton’s ‘brave’ nuclear bet relies on coal plants. Their owners are concerned

Dec 27 2024
The Sydney Morning Herald



Owners of Australia’s coal power plants say they cannot keep their ageing fossil-fuel electricity generators running long enough for Opposition Leader Peter Dutton to build his planned fleet of nuclear reactors.

The Coalition’s energy policy hinges on the construction of seven nuclear plants on the sites of coal plants located across the country. The first expected would be expected to be switched on by 2037 and the whole fleet completed before 2050.

Mount Piper Power Station near Lithgow would host one of Peter Dutton’s nuclear reactors.


Long-awaited costings of the policy, released this month, showed that to complete the nuclear plan, the opposition would rely on the nation’s 15 coal-fired power plants staying in operation until nuclear could replace them.

The Australian Energy Council, which represents the nation’s biggest energy companies and coal owners, including AGL, Origin and EnergyAustralia, said the fossil fuel plants were too costly to run and maintain for the decades required by the opposition.   :(

“To assume that a nuclear plant can replace whatever plans members have in place now is a brave [assumption],” said the council’s chief executive Louisa Kinnear.   :(


Coalition’s ‘coal-to-nuclear’ plan puts fossil fuel in use for decades
“There would be some coal plants that could run longer than others into the future, but there is a large proportion that really are going to struggle to get beyond that 2035 date.”

The opposition has declared that baseload power from either a coal or nuclear plant is a crucial part of a “balanced energy mix”, that would also include renewables, batteries and gas.

“You need to maintain a form of always-on, 24/7 baseload power. If it’s not coal, it’s got to be nuclear,” opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said alongside Dutton on December 13 while revealing the policy costings.



The Australian Energy Market Operator, an independent statutory authority, expects 90 per cent of coal plants to be shut down by their owners by 2035.

That is because cheaper electricity from wind and solar farms is undercutting the business model of coal plants, whose owners are responding by bringing forward closure dates to halt their losses.

Coal plant owners – many of them among the nation’s biggest investors in renewables – say “they are certainly not opposed” to nuclear energy in Australia. However, they are worried that the opposition has not announced any measures to ensure coal plants remain economically viable between now and 2035, when Dutton’s first nuclear plant is scheduled to start.

“The assumption that investment can wait until nuclear can enter is quite concerning,” said the Australian Energy Council’s Louisa Kinnear.

“Those coal-fired power stations are likely to come out of the system some time in the mid-2030s, so you really want to ensure that you’ve got capacity in the next five to 10 years … And you can’t wait for a decision on nuclear to do that.”

The opposition’s stance is a contrast to the Albanese government’s plan, which follows the modelling of AEMO and assumes the grid will be 94 per cent renewables by 2050, and includes tens of billions of dollars in public underwriting for clean energy, which it argues is the cheapest form of new electricity supply.

O’Brien emphasises the role of government policy in driving coal plants out of business, arguing that under this scenario “the lights go out and the prices go up”.

While it has committed to keep either coal or nuclear power plants in operation to supply baseload power, the opposition has not detailed how it would prevent their owners from shutting them down.

When asked repeatedly at the costings launch about the AEMO forecast that 90 per cent of coal plants would shut by 2035, O’Brien emphasised his claim that coal or nuclear is needed to lower power bills.

“We are putting the people at the centre and the priority is to get prices down, and that means you cannot close coal plants prematurely,” O’Brien said on October 13.

Clare Savage, chairwoman of the Australian Energy Regulator, another statutory authority, told federal parliament’s nuclear energy inquiry in October that coal plants would not remain viable long enough to build nuclear plants as a replacement.


Savage pointed out that as she spoke, on October 24, 26 per cent of the coal plant was down for maintenance, with more than 10 per cent of the entire fleet shut down due to mechanical failures.

Coal fired power stations LOVE shutting down in the middle of summer when a/c use is high, results in lovely high power prices for them.

Nuclear will take 20-40 years to build and start producing power, making nuke power very expensive initially.

There is no real argument against nuke power stations, a useful part of the mix.

Nuclear and renewables will complement each other.

Build new coal/gas power stations on existing sites.

Start now.

Forget net zero, it's a slogan without meaning.

Oh the coal plant owners want more money to keep open longer? That's what happens when maintenance slides because they have been told there will be forced closures. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 8:17am:

Coal fired power stations LOVE shutting down in the middle of summer when a/c use is high, results in lovely high power prices for them. Nuclear will take 20-40 years to build and start producing power, making nuke power very expensive initially. There is no real argument against nuke power stations, a useful part of the mix.

Coal stations don't get to pick when they produce, they are the most reliable and consistent so they just fill the needs of the system.

Coal stations often crash off line and they do their maintenance when the owners say so.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 12:08pm:

Coal stations often crash off line and they do their maintenance when the owners say so.

Nowhere as often as solar panels stop producing due to poor light or wind turbines stop because of no wind or too much wind.

Even then coal plants trip due to cooling water issues or turbine issues that have nothing to do with coal.

Transformers issues probably take down coal plants more often that the coal plants itself but they are lumped in as coal plant issues.

Renewables don’t crash out. Coal does.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 1:03pm:

Renewables don’t crash out. Coal does.

you were saying

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECqpbqbT3UA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNDU0y38Sok

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fdjrgcp_7JQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVaq3a-z9iU&t=35s

The big concern with the solar panels destroyed by hail was the toxic chemicals that were leaking into the environment which cause cancer.

Leroy wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 1:16pm:

The big concern with the solar panels destroyed by hail was the toxic chemicals that were leaking into the environment which cause cancer.

cries about chemicals that might leak from solar panels but thinks that nuclear is safe

:D :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 1:33pm:

cries about chemicals that might leak from solar panels but thinks that nuclear is safe

You mean chemicals that WILL leach out of broken solar panels vs  something nuclear, but not specific? How very scientific of you Guido. ;D ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 1:33pm:

Leroy wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:16pm: The big concern with the solar panels destroyed by hail was the toxic chemicals that were leaking into the environment which cause cancer. cries about chemicals that might leak from solar panels but thinks that nuclear is safe :D :D :D :D

I don't know for sure if the people that claim toxic chemicals from solar panels are leaking think nuclear is safe. I didn't see where they claimed that.

Leroy wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 1:16pm:

The big concern with the solar panels destroyed by hail was the toxic chemicals that were leaking into the environment which cause cancer.

Cite the report you relied upon to make your claim that damaged solar panels are leaking toxic chemicals into the environment that cause cancer....I call your claim bullshit you cannot back up with any evidence....Dickhead???

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 10:19am:

Leroy wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:16pm: The big concern with the solar panels destroyed by hail was the toxic chemicals that were leaking into the environment which cause cancer. Cite the report you relied upon to make your claim that damaged solar panels are leaking toxic chemicals into the environment that cause cancer....I call your claim bullshit you cannot back up with any evidence....Dickhead??? ::) ::) ::)

You like to abuse me, what is your problem?.

Leroy wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 10:25am:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31st, 2024 at 10:19am: Leroy wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:16pm: The big concern with the solar panels destroyed by hail was the toxic chemicals that were leaking into the environment which cause cancer. Cite the report you relied upon to make your claim that damaged solar panels are leaking toxic chemicals into the environment that cause cancer....I call your claim bullshit you cannot back up with any evidence....Dickhead??? ::) ::) ::) You like to abuse me, what is your problem?.

I don't like liars or dickheads....You are both....Just post the evidence you relied upon to make your bullshit claims and I will admit I am wrong....You won't because you are full of crap as usual!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 10:19am:

Leroy wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:16pm: The big concern with the solar panels destroyed by hail was the toxic chemicals that were leaking into the environment which cause cancer. Cite the report you relied upon to make your claim that damaged solar panels are leaking toxic chemicals into the environment that cause cancer....I call your claim bullshit you cannot back up with any evidence....Dickhead??? ::) ::) ::)

The dickhead still calling people dickhead? ;D

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/hail-storm-cripples-solar-panel-facility-in-texas/

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 10:27am:

Leroy wrote on Dec 31st, 2024 at 10:25am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31st, 2024 at 10:19am: Leroy wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:16pm: The big concern with the solar panels destroyed by hail was the toxic chemicals that were leaking into the environment which cause cancer. Cite the report you relied upon to make your claim that damaged solar panels are leaking toxic chemicals into the environment that cause cancer....I call your claim bullshit you cannot back up with any evidence....Dickhead??? ::) ::) ::) You like to abuse me, what is your problem?. I don't like liars or dickheads....You are both....Just post the evidence you relied upon to make your bullshit claims and I will admit I am wrong....You won't because you are full of crap as usual!!! ::) ::) ::)

Settle down, its at the 1:18 min mark in the video I posted.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 1:03pm:

Renewables don’t crash out. Coal does.

;D What a load of horse pucky.

Gnads wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 10:30am:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31st, 2024 at 10:19am: Leroy wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:16pm: The big concern with the solar panels destroyed by hail was the toxic chemicals that were leaking into the environment which cause cancer. Cite the report you relied upon to make your claim that damaged solar panels are leaking toxic chemicals into the environment that cause cancer....I call your claim bullshit you cannot back up with any evidence....Dickhead??? ::) ::) ::) The dickhead still calling people dickhead? ;D https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/hail-storm-cripples-solar-panel-facility-in-texas/

Solar panels get damaged and you somehow equate that to solar panels causing cancer with no evidence....Where is the evidence solar panels cause cancer you smacking dickhead....You really are a stupid wanker....You made the bullshit claim you cannt back up looser....I knew you were full of crap as usual???

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 10:37am:

Gnads wrote on Dec 31st, 2024 at 10:30am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31st, 2024 at 10:19am: Leroy wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:16pm: The big concern with the solar panels destroyed by hail was the toxic chemicals that were leaking into the environment which cause cancer. Cite the report you relied upon to make your claim that damaged solar panels are leaking toxic chemicals into the environment that cause cancer....I call your claim bullshit you cannot back up with any evidence....Dickhead??? ::) ::) ::) The dickhead still calling people dickhead? ;D https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/hail-storm-cripples-solar-panel-facility-in-texas/ Solar panels get damaged and you somehow equate that to solar panels causing cancer with no evidence....Where is the evidence solar panels cause cancer you smacking dickhead....You really are a stupid wanker....You made the bullshit claim you cannt back up looser....I knew you were full of crap as usual??? ::) ::) ::)

Someone give this guy a snickers.

Gnads wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 10:30am:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31st, 2024 at 10:19am: Leroy wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:16pm: The big concern with the solar panels destroyed by hail was the toxic chemicals that were leaking into the environment which cause cancer. Cite the report you relied upon to make your claim that damaged solar panels are leaking toxic chemicals into the environment that cause cancer....I call your claim bullshit you cannot back up with any evidence....Dickhead??? ::) ::) ::) The dickhead still calling people dickhead? ;D https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/hail-storm-cripples-solar-panel-facility-in-texas/

Who is the dickhead...Citing a fossil fuel site as evidence....The Institute for Energy Research is often described as a front group for the fossil fuel industry. It was initially formed by Charles Koch, receives donations from many large companies like Exxon, and publishes a stream of reports and position papers opposing any efforts to control greenhouse gasses!!!

Dickhead!!!

::) ::) ::)

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

Leroy wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 10:43am:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31st, 2024 at 10:37am: Gnads wrote on Dec 31st, 2024 at 10:30am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31st, 2024 at 10:19am: Leroy wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:16pm: The big concern with the solar panels destroyed by hail was the toxic chemicals that were leaking into the environment which cause cancer. Cite the report you relied upon to make your claim that damaged solar panels are leaking toxic chemicals into the environment that cause cancer....I call your claim bullshit you cannot back up with any evidence....Dickhead??? ::) ::) ::) The dickhead still calling people dickhead? ;D https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/hail-storm-cripples-solar-panel-facility-in-texas/ Solar panels get damaged and you somehow equate that to solar panels causing cancer with no evidence....Where is the evidence solar panels cause cancer you smacking dickhead....You really are a stupid wanker....You made the bullshit claim you cannt back up looser....I knew you were full of crap as usual??? ::) ::) ::) Someone give this guy a snickers.

Still cannot support your lies hey dickhead....Why am I not suprised you deflect when you are called out for your bullshit....Just post the evidence you relied upon to make your bullshit claim....Surely you have some evidence and did not just make this crap up???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 10:45am:

Still cannot support your lies hey dickhead....Why am I not suprised you deflect when you are called out for your bullshit....Just post the evidence you relied upon to make your bullshit claim....Surely you have some evidence and did not just make this crap up??? :-? :-? :-?

This is the post, go to the 1:18 min mark in the video.

I posted this 4 days ago.


Leroy wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 1:12pm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVaq3a-z9iU&t=35s

Leroy wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 10:50am:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31st, 2024 at 10:45am: Still cannot support your lies hey dickhead....Why am I not suprised you deflect when you are called out for your bullshit....Just post the evidence you relied upon to make your bullshit claim....Surely you have some evidence and did not just make this crap up??? :-? :-? :-? This is the post, go to the 1:18 min mark in the video. I posted this 4 days ago. Leroy wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:12pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVaq3a-z9iU&t=35s

All opinions from farmers and locals....Experts dispute these scare campaigns which are pushed by the fossil fuel industry....Whilst chemicals from some solar panels are a concern it is lees than burning fossil fuels....Do you have any scientific research to support your claim solar panels are dangerous for the enviroment compared to fossil fuel???

:-? :-? :-?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-01-17/are-some-solar-panels-toxic-/100757108

Quote:

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, solar panels contain metals such as lead and cadmium, which are harmful to human health and the environment at high levels. However, in solar cells these metals are found in solid form in a thin film that usually becomes an environmental concern when disposing of them.

Source

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 10:57am:

All opinions from farmers and locals....Experts dispute these scare campaigns which are pushed by the fossil fuel industry....Whilst chemicals from some solar panels are a concern it is lees than burning fossil fuels....Do you have any scientific research to support your claim solar panels are dangerous for the enviroment compared to fossil fuel??? :-? :-? :-? https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-01-17/are-some-solar-panels-toxic-/100757108

What post are you referring to, i don't remember making those claims.

Leroy wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 11:23am:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31st, 2024 at 10:57am: All opinions from farmers and locals....Experts dispute these scare campaigns which are pushed by the fossil fuel industry....Whilst chemicals from some solar panels are a concern it is lees than burning fossil fuels....Do you have any scientific research to support your claim solar panels are dangerous for the enviroment compared to fossil fuel??? :-? :-? :-? https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-01-17/are-some-solar-panels-toxic-/100757108 What post are you referring to, i don't remember making those claims.

You claimed solar panels are bad for the environment....So tell us how safe and cheap nuclear waste is dickhead???

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 1:30pm:

Leroy wrote on Dec 31st, 2024 at 11:23am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31st, 2024 at 10:57am: All opinions from farmers and locals....Experts dispute these scare campaigns which are pushed by the fossil fuel industry....Whilst chemicals from some solar panels are a concern it is lees than burning fossil fuels....Do you have any scientific research to support your claim solar panels are dangerous for the enviroment compared to fossil fuel??? :-? :-? :-? https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-01-17/are-some-solar-panels-toxic-/100757108 What post are you referring to, i don't remember making those claims. You claimed solar panels are bad for the environment....So tell us how safe and cheap nuclear waste is dickhead??? ::) ::) ::)

Just post the claim I made, in full.

Other than that its pointless.

Leroy wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 1:16pm:

The big concern with the solar panels destroyed by hail was the toxic chemicals that were leaking into the environment which cause cancer.

Here you go....Claiming toxic chemicals from solar panels are causing cancer....Were is the evidence and how does it stack up against Nuclear waste???

:-? :-? :-?

lee wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 1:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:33pm: cries about chemicals that might leak from solar panels but thinks that nuclear is safe You mean chemicals that WILL leach out of broken solar panels vs  something nuclear, but not specific? How very scientific of you Guido. ;D ;D ;D ;D

I would say he was talking about Nuclear Waste....So how does Nuclear waste compare to toxic chemicals from solar panels in cost, disposal and causing cancer???

::) ::) ::)


Quote:

Most of the materials in a solar panel can be recycled. Taking a panel apart for recycling should only be attempted by a professional and takes time. You may have to pay a recycling fee. Some states and territories have banned solar panels and other e-waste from landfill.

https://www.energy.gov.au/solar/use-your-solar-system/replace-and-recycle-your-solar-system

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 1:44pm:

Leroy wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:16pm: The big concern with the solar panels destroyed by hail was the toxic chemicals that were leaking into the environment which cause cancer. Here you go....Claiming toxic chemicals from solar panels are causing cancer....Were is the evidence and how does it stack up against Nuclear waste??? :-? :-? :-?

Maybe you should watch the video, if you did you would see the reporter reporting on the damage and people saying that they are concerned about chemicals that cause cancer leaking into the environment.

I can't spell it out any simpler. I was not the person being interviewed or making the claims.

lee wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 1:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:33pm: cries about chemicals that might leak from solar panels but thinks that nuclear is safe You mean chemicals that WILL leach out of broken solar panels vs  something nuclear, but not specific? How very scientific of you Guido. ;D ;D ;D ;D

don't need to be specific. Nuclear is dangerous. From it's creation, to it's use, to it's waste storage. Thats why idiots like you aren't allowed to touch it and why they go to so much effort to contain it.

On the other hand, no one has ever stopped me from handling or going near my solar panels :D

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 1:58pm:

lee wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:36pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:33pm: cries about chemicals that might leak from solar panels but thinks that nuclear is safe You mean chemicals that WILL leach out of broken solar panels vs  something nuclear, but not specific? How very scientific of you Guido. ;D ;D ;D ;D don't need to be specific. Nuclear is dangerous. From it's creation, to it's use, to it's waste storage. Thats why idiots like you aren't allowed to touch it and why they go to so much effort to contain it. On the other hand, no one has ever stopped me from handling or going near my solar panels :D

Be careful, your shadow could reduce the output of your panels. Stay down low and approach from the non sunny side.

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 1:58pm:

On the other hand, no one has ever stopped me from handling or going near my solar panels

Oh, Are your solar panels broken then? Never mind. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Leroy wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 2:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 31st, 2024 at 1:58pm: lee wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:36pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:33pm: cries about chemicals that might leak from solar panels but thinks that nuclear is safe You mean chemicals that WILL leach out of broken solar panels vs  something nuclear, but not specific? How very scientific of you Guido. ;D ;D ;D ;D don't need to be specific. Nuclear is dangerous. From it's creation, to it's use, to it's waste storage. Thats why idiots like you aren't allowed to touch it and why they go to so much effort to contain it. On the other hand, no one has ever stopped me from handling or going near my solar panels :D Be careful, your shadow could reduce the output of your panels. Stay down low and approach from the non sunny side.

it's nowhere near as dangerous as it would be if they ever let idiots like you or Lee near a nuclear power plant

lee wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 2:44pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 31st, 2024 at 1:58pm: On the other hand, no one has ever stopped me from handling or going near my solar panels Oh, Are your solar panels broken then? Never mind. ;D ;D ;D ;D

how do come up with that conclusion?

Go on, show everyone what an utter moron you are. ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 3:30pm:

Go on, show everyone what an utter moron you are.

lee wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 1:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:33pm: cries about chemicals that might leak from solar panels but thinks that nuclear is safe You mean chemicals that WILL leach out of broken solar panels vs  something nuclear, but not specific? How very scientific of you Guido. ;D ;D ;D ;D

So tell us what you didn't understand about broken solar panels leaching, ::)

Quote:

Dutton's Nuclear Bet Relies On Coal Plants

Problem here is that Coal Plants rely on Coal Mines. Both tunnel mazes and or open cut mines.

Both types of mine result in less stable geology in the region.  The last place you should be putting nuclear plants.

The attraction of these locations is that its cheaper because the previous infrastructure is in place, that is the additional risk is overshadowed by the cost advantage.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 8:52pm:

Both types of mine result in less stable geology in the region.

How do open cut mines lead to less stable geology?


Dnarever wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 8:52pm:

The last place you should be putting nuclear plants.

So what haven't you learned about shock mounts for unstable ground? It is a tried ans successful method of stopping the potential of landslides to do damage.? ::)


Dnarever wrote on Dec 31^st, 2024 at 8:52pm:

The attraction of these locations is that its cheaper because the previous infrastructure is in place, that is the additional risk is overshadowed by the cost advantage.

You haven't shown any additional risk. But perhaps you can point to a peer-reviewed publication?

Quote:

What are mine subsidence districts? Mine Subsidence Districts are areas that can potentially be affected by ground movement as a result of underground mining, particularly coal mining. Structures within these districts must adhere to building guidelines so they can withstand ground movement. These controls are overseen and implemented by the Mine Subsidence Board (MSB). When buying a property, the purchaser is notified that they are buying in a Mine Subsidence District at the time of purchase.

Quote:

Guidelines for the assessment of geotechnical risks in open pit mines Executive summary This guidance material is concerned with the assessment of geotechnical risks associated with the development, operation and rehabilitation of an open pit mine within Victoria. Large mines which are considered to have significant ground stability risks to public safety, the environment, land, property or surrounding infrastructure may be declared by the Minister under the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (MRSDA). Declared mines are required to regularly submit reviews of stability assessments to the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions (the department) Earth Resources Regulation unit. The ongoing review of the Ground Control Management Plan (GCMP) is critical to the management of geotechnical risks on these large and complex sites. Declared mine stability requirements and processes are provided in Part 2 of Schedule 15 in the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) (Mineral Industries) Regulations 2019. https://resources.vic.gov.au/legislation-and-regulations/guidelines-and-codes-of-practice/guidelines-assessment-of-geotechnical-risks-in-open-pit-mines

Oh "potentials", "can"etc. No actual evidence. Consider this - The facilities are likely built on the same site as the coal plant. The coal plants should not have been built on top mine adits or drives, without a large engineered buffer. And adits and drives are engineered to withstand collapse. ::)

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2025 at 4:21pm:

Oh "potentials", "can"etc. No actual evidence. Consider this - The facilities are likely built on the same site as the coal plant. The coal plants should not have been built on top mine adits or drives, without a large engineered buffer. And adits and drives are engineered to withstand collapse. ::)

Quote:

"potentials", "can"etc.

So its ok to build a nuclear plant on ground that as the potential to collapse or can subside ?

Yeah makes sense. The sell the land with warnings and the area is monitored. 

Just keep diggin that open cut hole you are working on.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 1^st, 2025 at 4:52pm:

So its ok to build a nuclear plant on ground that as the potential to collapse or can subside ?

Sorry. I must be clearer. There is no danger from a mine collapsing or subsiding if the plant is away from the open pit. Capiche?


Dnarever wrote on Jan 1^st, 2025 at 4:52pm:

Yeah makes sense. The sell the land with warnings and the area is monitored.

So what area around the open pit is monitored? 200 metres? one kilometre?

I went back to your reference. It is all in there,

https://resources.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0005/465017/GRZ-2.jpg

So three times the depth of the pit from the "toe" to the "crest" and then one more depth width to the offset. So if the pit were one kilometre deep, the exclusion zone offset from the "Crest" would be 1 kilometre. ;)

It seems that 500m is the current batter depth.

Queensland Premier David Crisafulli banking on state's younger coal-fired power stations :o