Australian Atheists Forum

It seems Dutton has locked nuclear energy in to his platform. He hasn't done this based on facts and science and good economics. It's because nuclear is more manly and judeo-christian and those radical greens hate it. Just pure politics.

I think a few things will prevent it happening. First, he'll lose the election. He's talking about putting the reactors on the sites of existing coal-fired power plants. He can forget winning any of those seats. Second, it's too expensive. It'll be like coal, it just won't be able to compete with solar and wind and all the rest.

I think there's a sort of "transition mode" that fossil fuel advocates go into. They claim their proposal is intended to complement or transition to renewables, but really it's a tactic to prolong the use of oil, coal and gas. By the time nuclear would be ready to roll, (if it isn't abandoned half way through) it would have taken much longer and cost vastly more than it would take to build solar, wind, hydro and storage.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... 4171df5414

stylofone wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:02 am
(SNIPPO)
it's a tactic to prolong the use of oil, coal and gas.

Thanks, that's the nub of it.

I'm commenting here because obviously Dutton's nuclear brain fart has nothing to do with climate change (though everything to do with climate denialism). I fear that this issue will now be locked and loaded as the main division within laboral at the next election. The optimistic view is that not only does the coalition lose in 10 months time, but Dutton loses his seat and the coalition abandon nuclear energy forever. Alternatively, they win and we're fucked even quicker than any of us expected. It's a big gamble by Dutton. In our fact free world it may even work.

pipbarber wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 4:21 pm I'm commenting here because obviously Dutton's nuclear brain fart has nothing to do with climate change (though everything to do with climate denialism). I fear that this issue will now be locked and loaded as the main division within laboral at the next election. The optimistic view is that not only does the coalition lose in 10 months time, but Dutton loses his seat and the coalition abandon nuclear energy forever. Alternatively, they win and we're fucked even quicker than any of us expected. It's a big gamble by Dutton. In our fact free world it may even work.

Interestingly;

The Coalition’s proposal would still require an aggressive rollout of renewables. Indeed, the combined generation of the proposed sites would likely be no greater than 10 gigawatts, a small proportion of total electricity supply needed by 2050.

And yet I still see idiots on TV on Fox calling the rollout of renewables in Australia as a "failure" despite renewables currently supplying 25% of Australia's power in 2020. So essentially, if they replace the coal fired power stations with nuclear and remove them from the mix then the nuclear proposal is a failure unless they invest in renewables also. So in essence it won't be, "nuclear will solve our power problems" unless they continue to develop renewable power, and in fact the way renewables are growing in Australia, from 25% in 2020 we are up to 39% in 2024, by the time the nuclear power stations come on line, they won't actually be needed.

So the Nuclear power stations will supply 10 Gigawatts, the additional power generation by renewables in 2023 alone was 5.9 Gigawatts, so currently per year renewables are adding over half the additional power expected to be supplied by the Nuclear option over 25 years! So after 25 years adding renewables at the current rate will have added 150 Gigawatts, 15 times that expected from the Nuclear option, and that's at current rates. No wonder the coalition don't want to release details!

https://www.news.com.au/technology/envi ... f3059639c5

This:

These nuclear plants will never be built, and everyone knows it. The point of the exercise is for Dutton to present himself as a man with a “strong plan”, a “visionary policy” to talk about so he can avoid the fact that he has no climate policy — and in fact not many policies at all. (The other tragic aspect of this game is that Labor will see a policy platform even worse than its own pro-gas vandalism, and present itself as the responsible option by comparison. Thankfully the public has better climate choices.)

There is no nuclear plan, and journalists reporting the announcement seriously are participants in the charade. They’re misleading the public.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/06/20/jo ... lear-plan/

If they'll never be built, then why do it? A bit of political zoology from the SMH. Yes Crikey, it's the dreaded MSM isn't it?

The key to understanding Dutton’s crusade for nuclear energy is the deep belief, shared widely in the Liberal and National parties at the parliamentary and membership levels, that the theory of anthropogenic climate change and the consequent need to shift to renewables to avoid an existential threat, are bulldust – part of a global left-wing plot. The calculus is simple: it must be wrong and should be thwarted with whatever argument comes to hand.

It’s no accident that Dutton’s first bid to become Liberal leader was prompted by revulsion in the Liberal party room at the prospect of adopting Malcolm Turnbull’s national energy guarantee, which went way too close to embracing the reality of climate change. Turnbull had to go, and Dutton almost got up in the ballot against Scott Morrison.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 5jmyv.html

Oh look, even as he stands there and refuses to give out details of the planned nuclear rollout because Australian's are to stupid to understand them, the plans have suddenly changed, this plan he has all worked out and ready to roll out on, it appears it's not so much a plan as a wish list that could change at any moment, even after the election. I mean that's why he doesn't want to give out details right, because there are none. I mean once it was revealed that the nuclear plants would supply power in the single percentage digits, 4% in fact, it's suddenly revealed that there will be multiple "modular reactors" at each site. A new detail that changes all the costing, in fact blows the costing up to multiples of what it originally was!

Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has flagged an evolution in the Coalition’s nuclear power policy, revealing that each of the seven sites could host multiple reactors.

But in a major concession, Mr O’Brien said on Sunday the Coalition would not go to the election announcing the estimated generation capacity of its nuclear power plan, leaving this decision to an independent body until after the election.

“One of the lessons we learned from overseas, in order to get prices down, you need multi-unit sites,” Mr O’Brien told ABC Insiders.

“Let’s say the small modular reactors … When you talk about a nuclear plant, these are modularised compartments. You can add another 300, add another 300.

They are leaving it to an independent body? An independent body that has not actually been given any details of the plans at all? Has no idea how many of these modular reactors are going to be built, where and when? That's just taking the piss right?

An independent nuclear energy coordinating authority would make recommendations on the number and type of reactors per site, Mr O’Brien said, which would then determine the final generation capacity.

What if this independent body decides, and just throwing this out, that the entire idea is stupid and should be thrown out. I mean just think about it a moment, an independent body must have, by definition various points of view, because if you pick a body structure that's all strongly pro-nuclear that's not really an independent body is it, it's hand picked to support a particular point of view and position! If you say to this independent body you don't want to hear anything negative views on nuclear power or arguments against it than that's not an independent body. But lets go with that shall we?

While hosting more than one reactor at each site would increase the share of generation from nuclear power, it would significantly drive up the cost incurred by taxpayers and place further pressure on the already tight deadline to have the reactors online by mid-century.

So any claimed costing that Dutton has is already out of date, do you wonder why he won't release any details? He has none, nothing at all, I really don't think any of the people working for him have the qualifications to actually work out a costing.

https://www.news.com.au/national/politi ... 5ee81fd126

...
"One of the lessons we learned from overseas, in order to get prices down, you need multi-unit sites,” Mr O’Brien told ABC Insiders.

“Let’s say the small modular reactors … When you talk about a nuclear plant, these are modularised compartments. You can add another 300, add another 300."
...

Did O'Brien mean adding another 300 MW, rather than adding another 300 SMRs?

According to ANSTO "The IAEA defines SMRs as advanced nuclear reactors that have a power capacity of up to 300 MW per unit"

I didn't see the interview on Insiders, so perhaps some context may be missing from the quote?

Disclaimer: I have no objection in principle to nuclear power plants. However, the cost and construction time appear to be problematic, even for SMRs.

two dogs wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 4:17 pm

...
"One of the lessons we learned from overseas, in order to get prices down, you need multi-unit sites,” Mr O’Brien told ABC Insiders.

“Let’s say the small modular reactors … When you talk about a nuclear plant, these are modularised compartments. You can add another 300, add another 300."
...

Did O'Brien mean adding another 300 MW, rather than adding another 300 SMRs?

According to ANSTO "The IAEA defines SMRs as advanced nuclear reactors that have a power capacity of up to 300 MW per unit"

I didn't see the interview on Insiders, so perhaps some context may be missing from the quote?

Disclaimer: I have no objection in principle to nuclear power plants. However, the cost and construction time appear to be problematic, even for SMRs.

I don't think we can take it as given that the shadow energy minister knows what he's talking about. But even if he does, he's tightly bound to a political narrative which will be pushed regardless of any facts or expertise he might be able to harness. His role relating to energy is utterly subservient to the political imperative driven by Dutton. If enough people are swayed by bullshit, then the shadow minister will be required to spout bullshit.

I don't know if I would call my own opposition to nuclear energy "in principle", but the situation we have with the LNP reinforces it. For nuclear energy to be safe it requires a continuity of competent management and governance for the life of any nuclear reactor, and after that for the period in which waste is stored. The latter period is thousands or even tens of thousands of years. The experience we have with governments (e.g. the Soviet Union) and companies (e.g. TEPCO in Fukushima), shows that we are at constant risk of both public and private sector failures. There is some sort of nuclear crisis every few decades. Given the very long time frames of nuclear operations, it seems that in practice, disaster is highly likely. With clowns like Dutton in charge, the probability goes up a lot. It's not worth the risk.

It doesn't matter too much. As things stand Dutton's nuclear fantasy will never become reality, even if (shudder) he defies the odds and becomes Prime Minister. It's a crock of shit and entirely driven by fact-free Fox news style post-truth climate denialism. Wind/solar/hydro is a clear winner.

I haven't been paying attention to this, has anyone mentioned where they were planning on getting the water for this?

Or are these reactors going to cool themselves?

Loki wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 7:40 pm I haven't been paying attention to this, has anyone mentioned where they were planning on getting the water for this?

Or are these reactors going to cool themselves?

Collie Coal fired power plant is essentially in the middle of nowhere, 56km from the ocean, it has a couple of streams nearby, and I do say streams, they are in no way large enough to cool a nuclear reactor, it was built there because, surprise, that's where the coal is. The nearest large water supplies are the Harris Dam and Wellington Dam, both supply drinking water to the local areas, I am sure the locals would like their drinking water piped through a nuclear reactor.

The site is in fact the entire opposite of what you want for a Nuclear Reactor, but of course ideal for a coal fired power station. Why you would site a Nuclear Reactor in an area ideal for a coal fired power station is a complete mystery, but it does show the complete lack of planning in the proposal. I would suggest any analysis of the proposed site would come up very negative simply due to the lack of nearby water supply! Bunbury of course would be an ideal location, I can't imagine that being widely applauded, by, well, anyone from residents to WA politicians.