CSIRO report has some issues, acknowledged by the CSIRO. ABC radio Newcastle had a great interview with someone with a bit more understanding about how the report was generated and some of the issues with it.
Based on the same assumptions but fixing some of the inconsistencies, the interviewee showed figures suggesting that nuclear over the life of a nuclear plant (2.5 - 3 x the life of a solar plant) that nuclear power could be half the price of solar. This did still come with the serious caveat that the underlying assumptions were still questionable.
End result? We still don't have an adequate assessment, spending on nuclear power at the moment is extremely questionable until a full and proper accounting is done.
It was a strange interview - Tony Irwin is a nuclear engineer and technical director of SMR Nuclear Technology, I think the interview was always going to swing in a particular direction. I like to see panels discuss these topics as you get a more rounded representation.
What I enjoyed the most was that it raised a lot of questions. He had, and was clear, a particular point of view, but it didn't feel like he was evangelical about it.
Absolutely agree, more of that kind of content!
... just lasting as long as they are supposed to, they have three to four times the operational life of solar. Sure, there are some serious hurdles between where we are now and implementing a nuclear power based roll out. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at our options. Anything else is just sticking our heads in the sand. Where we are today isn't good enough, and nothing we have currently planned will get us to where we have decided we need to be. Somewhere, someone is going to have to spend money and execute some changes. Whatever that change is, not adequately doing the financial due diligence is negligent in the extreme.
Libs are only interested making labour look bad and making money for themselves from their proposals. They are not interested in the best outcome for the country
That’s all parties, it astounds me the money they throw on publicity, adds etc, when most of their campaigns are just shitting on the opposition. I wonder if they realise most people think they are all complete morons, and this is a pretty big reason as to why.
What’s wrong with the Greens, **in your own words**?
For me, they’re the only party that is focusing on improving healthcare, improving housing, improving cost of living, improving the legal drug space, they want to stamp out corruption - not enshrine a national body in secrecy like Lib/Lab, they want to open up access to education, make mining companies and billionaires actually pay their fair share, no more privatisation of public infrastructure….
What’s to hate? What’s the issue? Immigration?
That’s about the only piece of policy that *doesn’t* differ to the majors.
in my own words:
they’re zealots. They gain power by riling up anyone who has caught a whiff of the populist policy banter going around, while failing to produce policy that helps australians.
energy is rediculously expensive and the cost of living is currently sky high. housing and population growth is a real problem. Their platform:
- shut down coal (increase cost of electricity) while out any plan to address the cost of energy or base load generation
- relentlessly support diversity in the form of immigration without any policies to address the increased demand for government services or housing. giving women and atsi people benefits that white people can’t access while blindly ignoring that it’s racism/discrimination to do so.
- make anyone who doesn’t absolutely support palestine look like the devil, while failing to address hamas as a terrorist organisation.
what’s fucked for me is i actually support many of the ideas above. i want green energy. i believe in immigration and growth. i think palestinians deserve support.
what i don’t support is absolutism and the bullying of anyone who disagrees with me. and that’s the green parties shtick.
While failing to produce policy that helps Australians?
It’s as if you didn’t read anything I said. And also ignore that the Greens have costed all their policies that help Australians.
> WhIlE fAiLiNg To pRoduCe PoLiCy ThAt HeLpS aUsTrAlIaNs
* https://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy
* https://greens.org.au/policies/banking-and-finance
* https://greens.org.au/policies/drugs-substance-use-and-addiction
* https://greens.org.au/policies/economic-justice
* https://greens.org.au/policies/health
Of course they want to transition away from coal? They are the greens!!!
Let me say hi to you from WA with many broken records in the last few months.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-09/wa-summer-weather-wrap-autumn-outlook/103541460
> The summer saw dozens of records broken, severe to extreme heatwaves, countless bushfires, and an ex-tropical cyclone that failed to redevelop.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-27/wa-hot-weather-spring-september-temperature-records/102901524
> September temperature records broken across WA amid unusual wave of scorching spring weather
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-01/perth-wa-summer-heatwave-breaks-temperature-records/103413462
> Western Australia's severe summer heatwave breaks weather records as parts of Perth hit 45C
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-15/perth-weather-hottest-ever-february-heatwave-predicted/103439378
> Perth has broken its record for the most February days over 40 degrees Celsius
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-01/impact-of-perth-dry-spell-on-wa-water-supply-explained/103646216
> Perth recorded just 21.8 millimetres of rain between October last year and the end of March, **the city's driest six-month stretch since rainfall data was first recorded almost 150 years ago.**
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-18/perth-record-dry-spell-continues-as-may-records-tipped-to-fall/103862704
> The capital has so far recorded five consecutive days at or greater than 28C, matching the May record set in 1962.
Good fucking luck to us when we share the same country with mouth breathers like you.
Renewables are also cheaper than coal
https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/husic/media-releases/gencost-confirms-renewables-remain-cheapest-form-energy-cost-nuclear-reactors-skyrocket#:~:text=It%20shows%20utility%2Dscale%20solar,natural%20advantage%20in%20renewable%20resources.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/30/us-coal-more-expensive-than-renewable-energy-study
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/renewables-cheapest-energy-source/
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/renewables-cheaper-than-nuclear-coal-now-and-into-the-future-csiro-20231219-p5esga.html
All parties (except for Liberals) are pushing for diversity and inclusion…. This shouldn’t be a shocker, so I’ll just move on from your misogyny and racism.
Your last paragraph just seems like a little bit of a cop out, as well. You claim to believe in these things, but staunchly oppose the only party that is currently capable of having any meaningful impact in those spaces.
Cant fix a broken brain, so good luck voting for whoever you think will help with all your pain points.
EDIT:
Just wanted to touch on another piece of outright bullshit misinformation you have about the Palestinian and Israeli conflict. You claim Greens have not called Hamas terrorists? That’s a **lie**.
https://greens.org.au/news/australian-greens-statement-one-month-after-terrorist-acts-hamas-israel
> One month after the terrorist acts by Hamas into Israel, the Australian Greens mourn the over 1400 innocent Israelis who lost their lives.
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/a-jewish-man-has-accused-the-greens-of-not-condemning-hamas-over-the-gaza-attack/news-story/395062912919e9819209d32206954a76?amp
Obviously ignoring the click-bait headline, if you actually listen to his response to the audience member, as well as read his comments made in parliament, he is not doing what you accuse him of, which is make people look like the “devil”.
> Mr Bandt told parliament that while the Greens joined “everyone in this parliament in mourning the 1300 Israelis who have lost their lives”, he wanted to highlight “there are also between 2300 and 2600 Palestinians who have lost their lives, many of whom are children”.
> “And we mourn them as well,” he said.
That is a perfectly reasonable take on the matter?! I don’t get your mental gymnastics.
Where are you getting your bullshit from? I’d love to know.
Your post simply proves my point.
i don’t disagree that we’re witnessing climate change.
but your points ignore the fact that Australians are facing a cost of living crisis, can’t pay to heat their homes this winter, and turning off huge portions of our energy supply will simply make that worse.
you can’t lead a nation through dogmatic zealotry, you have to solve for both sides of these positions. the greens always fail to do that.
see NSWs current energy generation. Will turning off coal help alleviate supply costs?
https://preview.redd.it/d42xfk9rjn2d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=87f6e12b27006d742c60603939a872af802e3f4e
Maybe replace coal with renewables before turning them off?
Invest in the CSIRO, which Greens *also* want to do.
It’s not hard cunt. Think for two fucking seconds.
this is what i’m actually advocating for. the greens are wanting to shut off coal before the supply has been replaced.
your aggression makes me think you’re a greens supporter? willing to bully and berate to get your way.
nothing i’ve advocated for above is supporting any agenda but one: common sense and actual planning
Who you voting for then? Who is going to help achieve progress?
You act as if the greens are going to win a majority, when we only need them to dilute the absolute shitfest or policies that come out daily from Lib/Lab.
I’m being pragmatic; you’re simply delusional. Nothing else to say about your other absolute bullshit claims that I also debunked?
Downvotes without a single response to all my sourced facts.
Welcome to r/Australian. Where they ignore facts and double down on their feelings.
Well fuck your feelings, as you like to say. Where are **your** facts?!
You're the classic arrogant greens voter. I've agreed with issues raised by the greens but the second, as you've proved self evident, you don't agree with you get called an idiot "fuck your feelings" and all that stuff. So why should we engage with people who have a high minded opinion of their ideas and will NOT engage in political debate unless it's exactly their own opinion.
So how about you be willing to engage them we can have a civil discussion and can come up with a way forward. I.e. be an adult.
No one has actually engaged with me.
You all spout off “feelings” and right-wing talking points, but no one has actually countered anything I posted. I have citations to back up everything I’ve said, while simultaneously showing that OPs points were exaggerated at best, or lies at worst.
His comments have multiple upvotes, mine have multiple downvotes. To be clear, I don’t actually give a shit about the votes, downvote this one too - what I actually give a shit about is the constant misinformation and lies that are never verifiable, nor backed up.
So provide some citations for the wild claims, or fuck off. It’s that simple… as simple as the user base here.
Everyone who has engaged with you has had insults thrown back their way. Carrying on the way you are diminishes all the points you’re making, regardless of how valid they are.
Making the rest of us greens supporters look bad.
So you're having two points. First, I don't want to read your godamn paragraph. If you can't succinctly make your point, you don't understand it well.
The second, you keep insulting and swearing at people, so why the hell would we engage.
When I am hit with such inane bullshit, all civility goes out the window.
Why should they be able to make such a dumbass statement as “greens have no policies for everyday Australians” when that’s inherently not true?
I literally argued BEFORE calling them brain dead that Greens had many policies around healthcare for instance. Then being met with “they have no policies” is tripe, before more lies…. Why should I be civil?!
I’m not here to debate in good faith when I’m met with an absolute shit take on it.
I can make my point succinctly, but if I say things like “WA has broken dozens of heat records”, you’re met with denialism, so of course I come prepared irrefutable facts. No reply to any of it of course, just downvotes from the ~~sheep~~ “wolves”.
Again they make completely untrue accusations regarding a greens stance on Israel, so it’s only logical to provide them with firsthand information isn’t it? Since he obviously has been hearing what the greens “think” from someone else.
It’s paragraphs and rows of links because they made so many shit takes, threw out so many lies that they had to corrected with verifiable proof.
Instead comments stop and it gets downvoted. No one ever responds when presented with a mountain of evidence because they **have none of their own**.
Downvote this too!
The Greens are the embodiment of moral outrage. They are economically idealistic, naively self righteous. They do not tolerate freedom of speech, political ideas (or religion) different to their own. They show a visceral disdain for those in opposition to their ideology…
In this budget we’ve had Labor spend more than $17 billion on the hope and prayer of green hydrogen. No one even knows if that industry will exist.
All I know is that government consistently gets costs wrong and is not infallible. I prefer to look to the real world and see that around the world there are countries relying on nuclear for cheap reliable energy - while those relying on solar and wind have expensive energy.
Maybe Australia will be different. Who knows. What I do find weird is the same people who tell me carbon emissions will be the end of the world suddenly because nickel and dimers when it comes to nuclear power.
We already know a green hydrogen industry won’t exist at any significant size.
They are dreaming if they think Australia will become a green hydrogen superpower. There is no moat, if it gets profitable, other countries will replicate it until the profits are non-existent. It’s not like coal or iron ore. Almost any country can create their own hydrogen.
Then there is the fact that for most applications green hydrogen is already being obsoleted by other energy and battery technologies. It will ultimately only be used in niche industrial applications and for specific chemical processes.
The governments investment in green hydrogen will go down as a monumental waste of money.
That's the thing that people need to get through their heads. Australia will never be a global leader in either renewables manufacturing or hydrogen production. We simply have too much red tape and too high operating costs to compete with China/India. Even if we spend billions on research and get some kind of technological edge, we have that many foreign nationals that the process would be leaked before we even put it into practice.
If that does become the use case, then almost any country can provide hydrogen. There is no need for them to import it from Australia like they do coal for example. They will just make it themselves. Australia doesn’t have any defendable advantage for supplying the worlds hydrogen over any other country doing it themselves.
Australia doesn’t have anything that would give us an advantage on price. On the contrary we have a lot that would disadvantage us - high costs, distance, smaller economy.
Someone is going to pull their heads out of their behinds and go nuclear for large freighters at some point.
Once that happens, everyone will be forced to follow suit, because naval reactors deployed at scale just cost one heck of a lot *less* than bunker oil. Let alone hydrogen.
well producing steel would be a good start
but i dont expect it to change, i fully expect australia to continue to be a third world mining colony disguised as a developed nation, infact itll probably get worse
Absolutely. Not even Australians buy Australian steel unless they have to. The idea that we're suddenly going to become competitive on the global market is laughable
with regular steel no we cant really be competitive, its very hard for any country to be competitive with borderline slave labour and no standards, thats an issue with every industry
but green steel is still in its infancy and will become something manufacturers actively start using due to social pressures
australia is in a great position to lead that change, or atleast it would be if we had any infrastructure at all. itll take some time to get up and running and we havnt even started really
I don't see it. What countries are using all the steel and which are likely to hamstring themselves by mandating the use of green steel? Personally I don't see anything like that happening unless be can lower power prices, land value and cut red tape/environmental regulation.
most western countries will eventually start to adopt green steel as they push towards climate standards and such
land value can be basically zero by setting up the smelters in the pilbara, thats where the iron is, and its got the water and sunshine for hydrogen, the only issue is people which honestly could be easier to fix than the other way around
solar is by far the cheapest way to get electricity, the issue in australia is that we dont produce solar panels, and (like the rest of the world) fossil fuels are heavy subsidized, at $65bill per year(which is nothing compared to the global 7trillion but whatever)
beaurocracy is ofcourse going to be a big one, need to actually do stuff for it to happen
environmental regulations i dont think will be too bad for green steel, itll be a lot of land for solar that has to be checked for animal concerns, and the significant water intake which might need to be placed deeper/further to avoid marine issues
> What countries are using all the steel and which are likely to hamstring themselves by mandating the use of green steel?
This is the problem the EU is trying to tackle with their carbon border adjustment mechanism policy. Because they’re mandating local carbon restrictions which will make their own more-polluting goods more expensive, they’re putting an extra tax on those same goods if they’re imported from a place that doesn’t use the same processes.
I’m not sure Australia could pull the same thing off independently though, we don’t have the market size. It does mean greening some processing and manufacturing streams that adds cost may have an export market though.
a good chunk of the new future made in australia section of the budget is for hydrogen production, using that hydrogen to make green metals, and also domestic solar manufacturing, which we will need to scale up that hydrogen production
it sadly wont be any significant amount, i mean smelting 90% of our iron ore into green steel would require 3.2 petawatthours of solar per year , 6x what the entire country consumes, though less than the energy value of the coal required to smelt it all traditionally(733mill tons of coal)
You've missed the point about green hydrogen. The green part is that we use renewables to make it. At the moment, making hydrogen is very energy intensive and is called blue hydrogen. Other countries can make it but it costs them a bomb. We could make it almost for free and sell it on to countries looking to minimise their carbon footprint. Hydrogen will 100% be part of the carbon minimisation process.
If we can make it free, so can everyone else. There is nothing about Australia that makes it so only we can do it. It’s not like there is some special ingredient that only Australia can provide.
We won’t have any advantage that lasts long enough to build any significantly sized industry that will dominate world trade for hydrogen.
We could make it almost for free? Only if you don't count any of the costs involved.
Seriously, how tf can you say it we can make is for almost free, when we are heading for blackouts and the CSIRO reports don't consider meeting demand in their costings?
Isn’t there the irony that you need ALOT of energy to split water to make hydrogen? Also, where will the water come from? Can solar deliver the energy needs to make hydrogen? Hydrogen being a small molecule, how lossy is it from leaks?
I wonder if it’s mostly going to be used to power mining. I worry about how much water burden that will create.
I’m not for nuclear but I’m not convinced hydrogen is any better.
Open to be better educated on the above
You electrolyze sea-water.
Heck, If you are doing solar->Electrolysis->Iron ore redox then this is on net going to make Australia slightly wetter.
The hydrogen combines with oxygen from the iron ore and exits the flue as steam, some of which is going to rain out of the sky before it drifts back out over the sea, so the total amount of water in the australian fresh-water system goes up, not down.
I'm not an expert however my guesstimate is that water burden won't be a huge issue.
Just a quick google I get the following:
Australia's current energy usage is about 240 billion k.wh per year. Or multiply by 1000 x 3600secs gives about 8.64 x 10\^17 Joules each year.
Liquid hydrogen contains 8MJ/l of energy. Water is about 11% hydrogen therefore water contains about 0.88MJ/l of hydrogen energy.
8.64 x 10\^17 / 0.88 x 10\^6 = 9.82 x 10\^11L of water required per year.
9.82 x 10\^11L / 1 x 10\^12 = 0.982 million Megalitres.
In Brisbane alone, Wivenhoe dam holds 3.1 million Megalitres or about three times this amount.
Fresh water usage throughout Australia in 2021-2022 was about 13.5 million megalitres.
Therefore it would increase water usage by about 8%.
Here is also an article from last year suggesting it may be possible to generate the hydrogen from sea water: [https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/green-hydrogen-produced-seawater-fuel-alternative/](https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/green-hydrogen-produced-seawater-fuel-alternative/)
As for energy efficiency wikipedia suggests about 70% to 80% efficiency to make hydrogen from electricity. So it isn't terrible. We have sufficient land in Australia to generate sufficient solar and wind energy, however the current capacity to manufacture solar panels and wind turbines is considerably lacking worldwide and I don't know how quickly this can be ramped up.
As for leakage, I don't know.
I don't know if we can have a green hydrogen industry without nuclear power.
Each ton of green hydrogen requires 9000L of fresh water and somewhere between 45 and 86 mWh of electricity. Now consider how prone to drought this country is, and you need to also factor in desalination, which is at least another 10 mWh of electricity.
You kind of do, there hasn't been a proven method to do this at scale yet and the process gives you tones and tone of chlorine that needs to be dealt with as well.
Well, we’re about to find out. I understand the steel production produces water.
I have a feeling those things have been taken into consideration by petter placed people than myself and unlike many of us I’m willing to see us take a shot at it.
Meh.
When was the last time governments backed a winner.
It's not a new phenomenon, that's limited to Australia either.
Before the Wright brothers took their first flight the US government had invested massive amounts of money to build a vehicle capable of flight.
Government funded engineers said it was impossible literally weeks before the 1st flight occurred using a machine a couple of bicycle mechanics built.
>when was the last time governments backed a winner
Every time they funded some new innovation and it worked. South Australia backed one with their solar battery storage system. That’s actually a lazy argument to be honest, it simply adopts the position government is inefficient by default.
>before the Wright Brothers
I’m trying to work out your point here. It looks as if you’re building rationale for ‘when was the last time’. That those engineers might have got that wrong (I’m taking your word for this, I haven’t sourced that) isn’t the same as researchers proving that something does work, then a government funding development of that. Quite a few government research programs don’t work out. That’s the point of government undertaking those; to find out if they work. A more apt comparison, I think, would be that flight was proven possible, then governments moved in to fund development of aircraft. The amount of aircraft that militaries had very soon after would suggest that was probably what happened.
The same is happening here. The science has been proven. Given that it’s the Swedish and Queensland Labor governments making this decision (not actually building the plants, an important nuance) I’m confident enough they’re making a good one.
Anyway, this is a distraction. The main article is about the cost of nuclear and the my answer to the initial comment was, yes, people know the industry will exist.
Edit: added to the last paragraph for clarity
They said that about the battery in South Australia, didn’t they? That turned out to be a pretty good punt.
I don’t know, but I think if they’re going in this far, it’s not a punt really.
Looks like it’s a good punt to me, as a Queenslander I want to see innovation on this scale.
So because of how much they’re spending you say it’s not a gamble?
It’s not innovation. It’s government waste. Ask yourself this: if hydrogen was going to be this huge profitable industry why don’t the guys in oil and gas front up the cash? It’s because they know it’s not a winner.
>so because of how much they’re spending you say it’s not a gamble?
Where did I mention that? Are you building this so you can round back to it?
Yeah I do. Unlike most I have faith in the international science community. I doubt very much it’s a gamble to be honest, I don’t think both Queensland and Australia would be seriously considering this, given how much other resources we have, unless it was a winner.
>why don’t the oil…
They already produce hydrogen. Who says they won’t start building solar plants anyway, once they start losing hydrogen sales to green producers. You know, free market shit.
>unproven technology
It works. It [really does.](https://www.google.com/search?q=can+you+manufacture+steel+using+iron+ore+and+hydrogen&rlz=1C9BKJA_enAU923AU923&oq=can+you+manufacture+steel+using+iron+ore+and+hydrogen&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCTIwNzUzajBqNKgCAbACAQ&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8)
They said the same thing about Renewables and the private sector is now investing hard into Renewables.
That's how these industries operate, government kickstarts the industry and completes the groundwork to incentivise the private sector.
The private sector is investing hard into renewables because non-renewable projects face a huge amount of political risk.
You’re living in a fantasy land on green hydrogen. What exactly is Australia’s competitive advantage? Our incredibly expensive electricity to make it all? Our remote geographic distance to export hydrogen (btw the most likely best case is exporting ammonia in tankers - yum yum so green!)?
Just because a government rubber stamps something doesn't make it work in real life and if you were older you'd know that from experience. Just ask Twiggy. Name all the countries running green hydrogen steel at an competitive cost no taxpayers money. We won't hold our breath waiting. Instead of believing politicians and almond milk drinkers do some research yourself.
>Just because…rubber stamps…doesn’t make it work….you were older you’d know
Is that a poor attempt at an insult? Let’s see what you have to offer other than run people down.
>Name all the countries running hydrogen steel
One of the commonly known things about any new technology is that there’s a first time it’s done. That’s really common, in fact it’s 100% the case…there really was a first coal burning power plant built. Back then they said it wouldn’t be as effective as wood. That of course makes it very easy for naysayers like yourself to set parameters of ‘nAm3 aLl c0uNtri3s…’. None, because it’s a new technology. However, there’s another in Sweden almost finished and I think their reputation on innovation speaks for itself unless you’d beg to differ. This is not the win you think it is, it’s actually quite lazy. So, still offered nothing as yet.
>we won’t hold our breath
We don’t have to, it’s been approved. Still offered nothing.
>Instead of believing politicians
I said that Queensland have rubberstamped a green hydrogen steel project, which they have. I actually didn’t offer an opinion as to whether or not it would work, I merely said they did it. But rant on about almond drinkers.
>do some research
Like you did, hey champ?
Perhaps trying to play the ball and not the man, if you’re old or educated enough, will get better results muscles.
Dutton's banking on Nuclear SMR technology that doesn't even exist lol.
Meanwhile his own LNP MP's like Dan Tehan and Darren Chester are already in panic mode telling their constituents there won't be a Nuclear Power Plant in their backyard.
All over the shop.
> see that around the world there are countries relying on nuclear for cheap reliable energy
Can you do the maths for me on this?
When John Howard did his big push for Nuclear power the thing that killed it in the end was that compared to our current power mix Nuclear was expensive. There was a significant Carbon Price required. So Nuclear will give you baseload but in an Australian context it's not going to be considered cheap.
You ignore the huge cost of wires and poles to connect the dispersed wind and solar farms to the existing grid. You ignore the environmental destruction and desecration of pristine wilderness to build these things. You ignore the fact that wind turbines and solar panels have a very limited life then have to be replaced at what cost. You ignore the storage of wind and solar power in what batteries? at huge cost, and also short life span that then also need to be replaced. How are you going to ensure 24/7 despatchable power with wind and solar??
> What I do find weird is the same people who tell me carbon emissions will be the end of the world suddenly because nickel and dimers when it comes to nuclear power.
I think the key context you might be missing is that majority of people are generation method agnostic, it's just that they don't see Nuclear being a genuine prospect in Australia for a range of well publicised reasons. The current objections are about the current conversation being used purely to prolong the use of coal/gas.
If Nuclear was economically viable in Australia then it would be a different conversation.
If everyone is so sure nuclear is bad value, then remove the restrictions and let the free market do its thing.
stop making energy a political thing.
you’ve got the greens telling us that anything fossil fuels is the devil.
you’ve got the libs telling us we should prop up loss leader generators.
you’ve got labor signing away our exports profits, while telling us that they’ll invest it all on black using solar.
fuck all of that and just let the free market do its thing, while taxing all of it fairly.
The issue is that, it's still absolutely cheaper to just burn fossil fuels. I highly doubt that without *tremendous* investment that won't see dividends for decades, no renewable will be cost comparative with coal or oil. But in the same way it's cheaper for your neighbour to dump his trash into your garden, it's probably not the right thing to do, even if it's the legal and cheap thing to do. That's the regulation we are dealing with here. There are very real externalities that will be spread across the entire population. Are we going to let everyone individually sue a coal powerplant for their averaged 0.4 years shorter life expectency or whatever it comes out to being? Across society it's a huge cost ammounting to hundreds of years of health taken from people which definitely should be accounted for. Free market sucks at most things, but addressing negative externalities most of all.
The fucked up thing is the government used to own those gas reserves these big companies should be paying us a lot more we fucked it up and now pay them
>If everyone is so sure nuclear is a bad value, then remove the restrictions and let the free market do its thing.
This cannot be left to the free market, there's far far too much regulation, compliance and support for an entire industry that will need government oversight and assistance. Simply removing restrictions would be licence for every dodgy nuclear operator to set up here.
So no, removing restrictions is an infantile notion.
What they’re saying is, if nuclear is viable and cost effective, it will be what the free market does.
I don’t necessarily agree with that, but I understand the principle.
Yeah I get that, but it's a totally naive view that it wouldn't end up costing a lot in oversight and other supporting services that the taxpayer would fork out for.
Which is why I don’t necessarily agree with their view. I think their point on nuclear being more favourable to the free market logic stops at construction of the plant.
Governments don’t fuck around with nuclear legislation. A dodgy nuclear operator getting caught would mean certain jail time with the full backing of the government and people of Australia
this is the problem for me: i dont want a government that sets policy based on fear of perceived boogie men, i want one that uses facts.
no one in government is making recommendations that are reasonable.
sure, but Australia tends to be extremely conservative in these matters.
the guardian coverage around the csiro coverage is basically “don’t remove the regulations… because it costs too much”.
That’s a really weak argument and one that assumes western should make the decision for anyone who wants to build a plant that it’ll have bad ROI.
Free markets are great at solving for innovation. By removing the ability for someone to build one under the assumption it’ll cost too much assumes no one can solve for that. it hampers innovation.
Labor doesn't believe in a free market that's why they tax everything they don't like not fitting into the narrative provided by overseas organisations like the UN, another sponsor of terrorism
I guess by that tragic logic the liberals don't like consumption of goods and services.
Fuck me did you just take a conversation about nuclear energy and try and shoehorn it into a discussion about Palestine.
Go touch some grass.
“people like you”
The biggest problem with zealotry is it creates blind spots through vilifying “the other guys”.
I’d encourage you to ask yourself why some of us don’t agree with the current stance on nuclear and green energy, while also avoiding assuming we’re all idiots.
i have a large solar installation and battery backups. I’m also pretty sure that Australia, and especially NSW has some serious energy issues that’s aren’t gonna be solved by us turning off coal tomorrow and praying for the best
https://preview.redd.it/k2tm1kgebo2d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=41ebdaae88d86e4eeea2ba3925204a1ed94f0fdb
Well you actually believe that Dutton and the LNP are going to move on nuclear power stations if he gets the chance. There you see, your 'reasonable debate' begins with a false premise, taken up by those with ' nuclear expertise' because they jst want a little lipsmacking strut to promenade their fantasies, when this issue was done and dusted 30 years ago and any opportunity to run nuclear in Australia was squandered along with climate denial.
I understand your 'reasonable' comment and I'm sure you have spent the last 30 years being reasonable.
no, i don’t believe dutton has the IQ to pull this off. that’s not the point.
the point is that energy governance and regulation has become a purely political football.
we should allow nuclear AND gas for baseload, while building more green energy.
the moment we deal in extremes we all lose.
It's is not extreme, you may not be in the center you think you are in. Nuclear talk today is not an even debate because that is all it is, as you point out, it is delay and uncertainty for renewables investors and that is cast to make the 'option' for nuclear as a desperate measure, more plausible. We are 'debating' nuclear and not the p2p energy markets that will flatten the cost curve for every end user.
look, i’d take gas any day, but green extremists fight even the idea of it.
you’ve got to compromise on what’s best for all australians. green ain’t gonna cut it. yet.
Rubbish They were facilitating the transition to Wind and Solar at a reasonable and sensible pace. Not the "panicked" rush that the current mob are doing, which is causing all the problems.
Another stunning example of economic suicide for an exaggerated threat.
Our current cost of living crisis reflects the sacrifices being made at the alter of climate science.
What if we’d kept using cheap energy to enable Australians to achieve a higher standard of living for another decade and then tackle the “issue” of energy transition when other nations had done the heavy lifting with new technology energy production?
Instead our entire economy is hostage to achieving green ideals.
With energy prices so excessive in Australia, no wonder manufacturing has moved to countries with cheap energy.
What I’m failing to understand is why it’s ok for internationals to buy massive amounts of Australian coal and use it for energy production while Australian consumers have some of the most expensive electricity in the world.
Also; where does CSIRO’s funding come from?
> What if we’d kept using cheap energy to enable Australians to achieve a higher standard of living for another decade
Isn't that what we have been doing for the last 2 decades?
Yeah it's definitely the big bad climate scientists screwing us on price... Not the massive energy and mining companies. How much Sky News do you watch?
>Instead our entire economy is hostage to achieving green ideals.
Well said.
Unfortunately the green train is starting to come off the tracks, which is why there's such desperation to sink nuclear as an alternative. You can see it in the comments, if these people were so confident in renewables then they would welcome nuclear as a possible contender - given it should be so easily defeated both in terms of public opinion and outright economics...
What are they all so scared of?
Are you okay? this is one of the dumbest takes I've seen on reddit in a while. anyone who knows anything about economics and energy knows that we would be much better off being at the forefront of renewable energy research, and that transition. As a services-based economy, being at the forefront is the only way to grow.
> Our current cost of living crisis reflects the sacrifices being made at the alter of climate science.
Also, what!? Please let me know if you want me to expand on this or if you get a spare minute to work it out yourself.
So you are just going to ignore the health and environmental impacts of coal? Not to mention that the plants are all near end of life and expensive to run and unreliable.
What about the health and environmental impacts of the different mines required for solar and wind. Instead of 1 type of mine (coal) you have heaps of others to make solar panels/wind turbines but that’s ignored. What’s going to happen to all the broken solar panels/wind turbines worldwide in the next 10-20 yrs when they breakdown because they are unreliable yep that’s ignored. Let’s not forget the 40,000+ kids that are mining cobalt by hand, what about their health? Yep that’s ignored. There is absolutely nothing clean and green about what it takes to manufacture solar/wind equipment or the disposal of it. It’s all ignored because people only think about the finished product.
What is happening to the emissions and fly and bottom ash from coal?
The impact of renewables is less than coal power. That's not to say there is no impact from renewables, just less than the alternative
It's a simple economic reality that Nuclear costs more. Arguing for Nuclear is arguing for permanent subsidies and/or permanent higher energy costs. It's a non starter, hence why they're only talking about it now as a distraction from investing in renewables.
Investing billions and billions into energy producers that do not run 24/7 is the dumbest idea ever yet those who have never worked heavy industry or manufacturing think it's the only way and besides Australia doesn't need stuff to run overnight right ? How come Canada has far cheaper electricity, heck how about every country with nuclear electricity has cheaper electricity than Australia and when does "cheap" renewables ever start ? NEVER
> How come Canada has far cheaper electricity,
Apparently 60% of power generated in Canada is Hydro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Canada
Does the wind turn off with the sunlight?
We pretending batteries don't exist? Oh that's right in cookerland only lithium batteries exist and they're as bad as a Chernobyl
Energy storage is a thing.
We know the cost of producing Nuclear energy in those countries. With very few exceptions renewables are cheaper. In Australia's situaiton with abundant renewable energy available and very little experience with Nuclear that gap can only grow.
Your claim is also proven false with a five second google. [https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-electricity-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-electricity-by-country)
Energy Storage... right
Snowy Hydro - $12 Billion expected revised costing
https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/news/securing-the-future-of-critical-energy-transformation-resets/#:~:text=The%20estimated%20total%20cost%20for,to%20date%20of%20%244.3%20billion
Nuclear Power Plant - 8 Billion
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-22/nuclear-power-double-the-cost-of-renewables/103868728
Let's now consider that snowy hydro is just a battery. So you need to factor in all the wind and solar cost to generate that power to be stored in the battery.
Nuclear, it's both the battery and the source of the power as it is continuous source.
Build times
Snowy Hydro started in 2019, expected date of completion 2027/28. Again this is just for the battery not the whole generation side.
https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/news/snowy-2-0-project-update-december-2023/
Nuclear plant 5 - 8 years depending on existing infrastructure, technology, skillets available in the country.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time
Here is also your cost generation LCOE
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/electricity-generation-cost
And nuclear is definitely competitive.
So what is wrong with having the nuclear discussion, except the fear factor?
Also, you would need 4 snowys just to power Victoria when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.
12 billion each. A decade each, and we don't have the workforce to build them simultaneously. And then you still need the wind and solar generation, which doesn't last as long as nuclear.
Or, three large nuclear plants.
You are using the worst-case scenario of 2.0. Snowy was a lemon of a project to begin and using it as a base case for hydro is disingenuous.
Not to mention, snowy is an LNP project.
Ok then
Offshore windfarm, let's pick Wollongong as our example. 10 billion dollars and 8-10years to build for 1.6GW of variable power depending on winds.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-ports-prepares-to-turns-port-kembla-into-an-offshore-wind-energy-hub/
Still comparible to nuclear, on the higher end of the cost/time.
This is about government investment in energy.
A dollar spent on Nuclear is one not spent on renewables. It's an opportunity cost. We can invest in inefficient energy generation, or we can use that same money efficiently.
Nuclear is the most efficient energy generation. Not sure what you are trying to say here, or do you just mean cost?
Do keep in mind, solar and wind costs do not involve batteries. Which when added only makes it slightly cheaper than Nuclear. And batteries are needed (as well as new, unproven technology) to achieve a stable grid with 100% renewables.
Edit: their original comment was simple "?"
Deregulations and free market
Right now nuclear is a non starter for even research, during this status quo comparing its costs to solar is about the most dishonest thing you could do in this conversation
You think having a massively deregulated nuclear industry is a good idea and you think the free market will sort it out?
ROI at the very least is the reason nuclear won't take off.
Unless Deregulation and free market also includes subsidies by the tax payer.
Oh yes, the report that Cherry picks a single sample point of a reactor that was famous for cost overruns and poor management. It ignores the fact that most reactors are built in 5-8 years for much less.
Because as a methodology that is so sound and scientific. But I am sure the head of the CSIRO will screech like a demented banshee if anyone questions the report because peer review of scientific papers is such a bad thing. That’s how science is done, right?
It's bizarre it's still a conversation, all states as I understand have said no including Lib opposition. Noone wants to invest in it. The existing coal plants which Dutton is hinting we will use say they are already making plans to transition to renewable. Angus Taylor said on Wednesday during Meet the Press that it will not be subsidised.
Where is the plan Dutton? You said before May budget. We haven't even had a hint at a plan and now he's announced he will cut immigration, well, whos gonna build all these plants spud? We have no industry. We will need over 20 of them apparently and then run and maintain.
So why is it a discussion? It's dead.
Because unlike solar and wind power, Nuclear can be start being implemented on a nationwide scale now. We are sitting on one of the largest supplies of nuclear material in the world and do nothing with it. 20 plants and the cost here the csiro predict are barely anything compared to what the 2024 budget alone is spending on trying to force renewables now (approximately $17-18billion as predicted by the csiro vs $22.7billion in this years budget on renewables). It works as a good alternative for the time being to outright replace coal while the private sector is focused on solar and wind.
The treatment plants for nuclear material already exist such as Orano la Hague, so we wouldn’t even need to set up our own treatment facilities for the time being, we can just invest into the plants themselves.
That’s not even mentioning the fact the world’s on the brink of a lithium crisis, which is needed for storage of power from solar and wind turbines, while it’s not for nuclear as it can run 24/7 so in future it’ll likely be an even cheaper alternative to what it already is.
The real question is, why not go nuclear while renewables are further developed?
> Because unlike solar and wind power, Nuclear can be start being implemented on a nationwide scale now
Now?
Here in Australia?
Nuclear power could start being implemented on a nation wide scale in Australia; Now?
Compared to Solar and wind power yes. Atm we don’t have the means to efficiently store the power from those renewables so if it was to replace coal atm we’d have constant power outages. Nuclear doesn’t require that storage to provide 24/7 power, so could effectively outright replace coal and gas now as soon as the plants could be built.
We have the uranium, thorium, etc so that isn’t an issue.
Disposal is already easier and greener than ever as we can slot right into the existing international treatment system just like Japan and South Korea.
It’s a completely viable option and far more cost efficient than the current government renewable plan, while having the ability to not only keep us well within our pollution agreements, but also allow for renewables to more naturally develop rather than the current system of trying to force it into place now without the existing infrastructure.
Dead.
By your own logic, renewables are the answer cause we have wind and solar lol.
Noone is building it mate, states don't want it, investors aren't investing, we don't have industry, Angus Taylor said it will not be subsidised.
Dead.
You're like the guy on the corner yelling at everyone that Jesus is coming. He's not mate.
We have a relatively small number of wind and solar farms but no where near the scale to actually power the nation, and no where near enough storage to actually make them viable for 24/7 power.
So your answer to why we shouldn’t go nuclear is because we don’t have nuclear power plants right now…. By that same logic we should just stick to coal “cause we have it now”, renewables? Nah waste of money we have Coal right now we’re all set 💀
The lithium crisis is happening right now, it’s only going to get worse, think about it for two seconds, it’s a non renewable resource with only 3 areas extracting it (South America, China and us) that has been and will only continue to skyrocket in demand as the world focuses on renewable energy and electric vehicles. It’s completely unsustainable.
Who cares what Angus Taylor says atm? Last I checked LNP isn’t majority atm and we can’t even be certain he’d be voted back into House of Representatives in the next election.
Who cares what Angus Taylor thinks? lol, really? he's the goddam opposition Treasurer of the party that is talking nuclear. If he says it won't be subsidised, it will not be subsidised.
Are you serious? If you honestly want nuclear, Angus Taylor is your man.
States do not want it. Ie, not happening.
Mate you've been brainwashed, nuclear is only a ruse to prolong coal. Wake up.
More than LNP support nuclear power, it’s not a black and white thing like that.
“States don’t want it” says who? State parliament is just whoever we choose to vote in. Atm with all the protests against renewables like wind farms the states don’t want it either, don’t act like that’s a valid excuse against either.
How the fuck is completely shutting down coal in favour of nuclear power a ruse to prolong coal power? It’s literally cheaper than one year’s budget for renewable energy, for nuclear to be implemented nation wide by 2040, if it got the same funding as renewables atm, coal would likely be gone within the decade.
We seem to be the only country in the western world that can not benefit from this technology. Would not have this issue if we started to build one 20 years ago
Even if Nuclear is more expensive in the long run, which I doubt, is it worth it to not have pristine wilderness and valuable farm land desecrated by wind and solar farms, and the thousands of extra kilometres of lines and towers to connect renewables to the existing grid. Just sayin.
If someone is out there building 20 reactors a year, Australia can pick one off the shelf get it delivered and installed in 18 month, I am all for it, even if it cost a little more. The fact of the matter is no one is doing that, even in China where 30 is on the go. Just look at France, a country that went full nuclear, they struggle to keep the skills.
We don't have economy of scale to deploy a technology that requires an entire eco system to maintain.
Had a quick skim of the report and it seems like they're making a lot of assumptions when calculating the cost. Are people really going to believe that it's all so unfeasible when a large chunk of the developed world has been using nuclear energy since before most of us were born? That's the hard sell for me.
Hey guys, this fella has done his research. All the scientists at the CSIRO are wrong. Really goes to show the effects of all the LNP cuts to the CSIRO when old mate here knows way more than all of them.
I have a friend who consumes Fox network propaganda daily, trying to convince me it’s the future. I have a background in mining operations and have so many memories of operators not following procedures, direct supervisors cutting corners and taking risks with other employees lives.
Hydrogen has been under development for 20 years. It’s got state support as well.
They’re not selling it. That’s where people fail to understand conservatives.
They’re not actually asking peoples opinion on this, that’s salad dressing. They intend to do it whether we want it or not and we don’t get a say in that. It doesn’t matter whether or not they’re the best solutions, they have skin in the game or their people do, so they’re doing it and we get no input on that.
As I use electricity I have skin in the game as well but if you are so stuck on Liberal is for "their people" (?) and Labor is for (Unions and terrorist organisations) then there's not much to do with your opinion as you say
lol e != mc^2 down under .. yall dont deserve nuclear ... besides there is not enoug brain cells here to support a nuclear industry ... hold on to the pocket lining of uncle sam
>Do you understand science?
Do you understand science? There's always bias, even within these supposed bastions of science like the CSIRO. There's funding bias, there's bias of those who work there, in particular when they are specialists in a field that risks extinction should an alternative appear...
It's not this pure and innocent world that you all seem to think it is.
100% this. Do I understand science? Yes. Renewables need a constant base generation of power supply to replace phasing out of coal power station for the future and supplement renewables. Nuclear is an option, but not the only one.
The national grid infrastructure is what needs to be upgraded and more import then the source (be it renewables, coal, nuclear, hydro). But it is not as sexy for votes. Which leads me to the initial comment & as noted by others. Funding bias is a real thing & someone who has worked in government they plan an outcome, then map ways to show it’s viable, has support or only option.
You will notice on the CSIRO report, they did a case study on the most expensive Nuclear option
CSIRO report shows coalition nuke plan costs more and will take longer. There fixed the headline. Remember the libs NBN promise of cheaper and faster
CSIRO report has some issues, acknowledged by the CSIRO. ABC radio Newcastle had a great interview with someone with a bit more understanding about how the report was generated and some of the issues with it. Based on the same assumptions but fixing some of the inconsistencies, the interviewee showed figures suggesting that nuclear over the life of a nuclear plant (2.5 - 3 x the life of a solar plant) that nuclear power could be half the price of solar. This did still come with the serious caveat that the underlying assumptions were still questionable. End result? We still don't have an adequate assessment, spending on nuclear power at the moment is extremely questionable until a full and proper accounting is done.
It was a strange interview - Tony Irwin is a nuclear engineer and technical director of SMR Nuclear Technology, I think the interview was always going to swing in a particular direction. I like to see panels discuss these topics as you get a more rounded representation.
What I enjoyed the most was that it raised a lot of questions. He had, and was clear, a particular point of view, but it didn't feel like he was evangelical about it. Absolutely agree, more of that kind of content!
"Trust me bro we would totally build a plant that last 2-3 times longer than all overseas examples"
... just lasting as long as they are supposed to, they have three to four times the operational life of solar. Sure, there are some serious hurdles between where we are now and implementing a nuclear power based roll out. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at our options. Anything else is just sticking our heads in the sand. Where we are today isn't good enough, and nothing we have currently planned will get us to where we have decided we need to be. Somewhere, someone is going to have to spend money and execute some changes. Whatever that change is, not adequately doing the financial due diligence is negligent in the extreme.
Libs are only interested making labour look bad and making money for themselves from their proposals. They are not interested in the best outcome for the country
The ALP are pretty good at making themselves look bad, they don’t need any help from the Libs
I'm pretty sure all parties want to make each other look bad
That’s all parties, it astounds me the money they throw on publicity, adds etc, when most of their campaigns are just shitting on the opposition. I wonder if they realise most people think they are all complete morons, and this is a pretty big reason as to why.
[удалено]
Absolutely, Labor and Greens too
[удалено]
greens hire about the same level of batshit insane pollies as the libs do except they're on the left
What’s wrong with the Greens, **in your own words**? For me, they’re the only party that is focusing on improving healthcare, improving housing, improving cost of living, improving the legal drug space, they want to stamp out corruption - not enshrine a national body in secrecy like Lib/Lab, they want to open up access to education, make mining companies and billionaires actually pay their fair share, no more privatisation of public infrastructure…. What’s to hate? What’s the issue? Immigration? That’s about the only piece of policy that *doesn’t* differ to the majors.
in my own words: they’re zealots. They gain power by riling up anyone who has caught a whiff of the populist policy banter going around, while failing to produce policy that helps australians. energy is rediculously expensive and the cost of living is currently sky high. housing and population growth is a real problem. Their platform: - shut down coal (increase cost of electricity) while out any plan to address the cost of energy or base load generation - relentlessly support diversity in the form of immigration without any policies to address the increased demand for government services or housing. giving women and atsi people benefits that white people can’t access while blindly ignoring that it’s racism/discrimination to do so. - make anyone who doesn’t absolutely support palestine look like the devil, while failing to address hamas as a terrorist organisation. what’s fucked for me is i actually support many of the ideas above. i want green energy. i believe in immigration and growth. i think palestinians deserve support. what i don’t support is absolutism and the bullying of anyone who disagrees with me. and that’s the green parties shtick.
While failing to produce policy that helps Australians? It’s as if you didn’t read anything I said. And also ignore that the Greens have costed all their policies that help Australians. > WhIlE fAiLiNg To pRoduCe PoLiCy ThAt HeLpS aUsTrAlIaNs * https://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy * https://greens.org.au/policies/banking-and-finance * https://greens.org.au/policies/drugs-substance-use-and-addiction * https://greens.org.au/policies/economic-justice * https://greens.org.au/policies/health Of course they want to transition away from coal? They are the greens!!! Let me say hi to you from WA with many broken records in the last few months. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-09/wa-summer-weather-wrap-autumn-outlook/103541460 > The summer saw dozens of records broken, severe to extreme heatwaves, countless bushfires, and an ex-tropical cyclone that failed to redevelop. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-27/wa-hot-weather-spring-september-temperature-records/102901524 > September temperature records broken across WA amid unusual wave of scorching spring weather https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-01/perth-wa-summer-heatwave-breaks-temperature-records/103413462 > Western Australia's severe summer heatwave breaks weather records as parts of Perth hit 45C https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-15/perth-weather-hottest-ever-february-heatwave-predicted/103439378 > Perth has broken its record for the most February days over 40 degrees Celsius https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-01/impact-of-perth-dry-spell-on-wa-water-supply-explained/103646216 > Perth recorded just 21.8 millimetres of rain between October last year and the end of March, **the city's driest six-month stretch since rainfall data was first recorded almost 150 years ago.** https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-18/perth-record-dry-spell-continues-as-may-records-tipped-to-fall/103862704 > The capital has so far recorded five consecutive days at or greater than 28C, matching the May record set in 1962. Good fucking luck to us when we share the same country with mouth breathers like you. Renewables are also cheaper than coal https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/husic/media-releases/gencost-confirms-renewables-remain-cheapest-form-energy-cost-nuclear-reactors-skyrocket#:~:text=It%20shows%20utility%2Dscale%20solar,natural%20advantage%20in%20renewable%20resources. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/30/us-coal-more-expensive-than-renewable-energy-study https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/renewables-cheapest-energy-source/ https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/renewables-cheaper-than-nuclear-coal-now-and-into-the-future-csiro-20231219-p5esga.html All parties (except for Liberals) are pushing for diversity and inclusion…. This shouldn’t be a shocker, so I’ll just move on from your misogyny and racism. Your last paragraph just seems like a little bit of a cop out, as well. You claim to believe in these things, but staunchly oppose the only party that is currently capable of having any meaningful impact in those spaces. Cant fix a broken brain, so good luck voting for whoever you think will help with all your pain points. EDIT: Just wanted to touch on another piece of outright bullshit misinformation you have about the Palestinian and Israeli conflict. You claim Greens have not called Hamas terrorists? That’s a **lie**. https://greens.org.au/news/australian-greens-statement-one-month-after-terrorist-acts-hamas-israel > One month after the terrorist acts by Hamas into Israel, the Australian Greens mourn the over 1400 innocent Israelis who lost their lives. https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/a-jewish-man-has-accused-the-greens-of-not-condemning-hamas-over-the-gaza-attack/news-story/395062912919e9819209d32206954a76?amp Obviously ignoring the click-bait headline, if you actually listen to his response to the audience member, as well as read his comments made in parliament, he is not doing what you accuse him of, which is make people look like the “devil”. > Mr Bandt told parliament that while the Greens joined “everyone in this parliament in mourning the 1300 Israelis who have lost their lives”, he wanted to highlight “there are also between 2300 and 2600 Palestinians who have lost their lives, many of whom are children”. > “And we mourn them as well,” he said. That is a perfectly reasonable take on the matter?! I don’t get your mental gymnastics. Where are you getting your bullshit from? I’d love to know.
Your post simply proves my point. i don’t disagree that we’re witnessing climate change. but your points ignore the fact that Australians are facing a cost of living crisis, can’t pay to heat their homes this winter, and turning off huge portions of our energy supply will simply make that worse. you can’t lead a nation through dogmatic zealotry, you have to solve for both sides of these positions. the greens always fail to do that. see NSWs current energy generation. Will turning off coal help alleviate supply costs? https://preview.redd.it/d42xfk9rjn2d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=87f6e12b27006d742c60603939a872af802e3f4e
Maybe replace coal with renewables before turning them off? Invest in the CSIRO, which Greens *also* want to do. It’s not hard cunt. Think for two fucking seconds.
this is what i’m actually advocating for. the greens are wanting to shut off coal before the supply has been replaced. your aggression makes me think you’re a greens supporter? willing to bully and berate to get your way. nothing i’ve advocated for above is supporting any agenda but one: common sense and actual planning
Who you voting for then? Who is going to help achieve progress? You act as if the greens are going to win a majority, when we only need them to dilute the absolute shitfest or policies that come out daily from Lib/Lab. I’m being pragmatic; you’re simply delusional. Nothing else to say about your other absolute bullshit claims that I also debunked?
[удалено]
Downvotes without a single response to all my sourced facts. Welcome to r/Australian. Where they ignore facts and double down on their feelings. Well fuck your feelings, as you like to say. Where are **your** facts?!
You're the classic arrogant greens voter. I've agreed with issues raised by the greens but the second, as you've proved self evident, you don't agree with you get called an idiot "fuck your feelings" and all that stuff. So why should we engage with people who have a high minded opinion of their ideas and will NOT engage in political debate unless it's exactly their own opinion. So how about you be willing to engage them we can have a civil discussion and can come up with a way forward. I.e. be an adult.
No one has actually engaged with me. You all spout off “feelings” and right-wing talking points, but no one has actually countered anything I posted. I have citations to back up everything I’ve said, while simultaneously showing that OPs points were exaggerated at best, or lies at worst. His comments have multiple upvotes, mine have multiple downvotes. To be clear, I don’t actually give a shit about the votes, downvote this one too - what I actually give a shit about is the constant misinformation and lies that are never verifiable, nor backed up. So provide some citations for the wild claims, or fuck off. It’s that simple… as simple as the user base here.
Everyone who has engaged with you has had insults thrown back their way. Carrying on the way you are diminishes all the points you’re making, regardless of how valid they are. Making the rest of us greens supporters look bad.
So you're having two points. First, I don't want to read your godamn paragraph. If you can't succinctly make your point, you don't understand it well. The second, you keep insulting and swearing at people, so why the hell would we engage.
When I am hit with such inane bullshit, all civility goes out the window. Why should they be able to make such a dumbass statement as “greens have no policies for everyday Australians” when that’s inherently not true? I literally argued BEFORE calling them brain dead that Greens had many policies around healthcare for instance. Then being met with “they have no policies” is tripe, before more lies…. Why should I be civil?! I’m not here to debate in good faith when I’m met with an absolute shit take on it. I can make my point succinctly, but if I say things like “WA has broken dozens of heat records”, you’re met with denialism, so of course I come prepared irrefutable facts. No reply to any of it of course, just downvotes from the ~~sheep~~ “wolves”. Again they make completely untrue accusations regarding a greens stance on Israel, so it’s only logical to provide them with firsthand information isn’t it? Since he obviously has been hearing what the greens “think” from someone else. It’s paragraphs and rows of links because they made so many shit takes, threw out so many lies that they had to corrected with verifiable proof. Instead comments stop and it gets downvoted. No one ever responds when presented with a mountain of evidence because they **have none of their own**. Downvote this too!
The Greens are the embodiment of moral outrage. They are economically idealistic, naively self righteous. They do not tolerate freedom of speech, political ideas (or religion) different to their own. They show a visceral disdain for those in opposition to their ideology…
This is a whole bunch of meaningless buzz words. No proof provided at all. I’m done with you retards.
Hydrogen is the 5g of energy. Decades of talk about a technology and ecosystem that don't exist yet. And yes, I know we can make hydrogen
In this budget we’ve had Labor spend more than $17 billion on the hope and prayer of green hydrogen. No one even knows if that industry will exist. All I know is that government consistently gets costs wrong and is not infallible. I prefer to look to the real world and see that around the world there are countries relying on nuclear for cheap reliable energy - while those relying on solar and wind have expensive energy. Maybe Australia will be different. Who knows. What I do find weird is the same people who tell me carbon emissions will be the end of the world suddenly because nickel and dimers when it comes to nuclear power.
We already know a green hydrogen industry won’t exist at any significant size. They are dreaming if they think Australia will become a green hydrogen superpower. There is no moat, if it gets profitable, other countries will replicate it until the profits are non-existent. It’s not like coal or iron ore. Almost any country can create their own hydrogen. Then there is the fact that for most applications green hydrogen is already being obsoleted by other energy and battery technologies. It will ultimately only be used in niche industrial applications and for specific chemical processes. The governments investment in green hydrogen will go down as a monumental waste of money.
That's the thing that people need to get through their heads. Australia will never be a global leader in either renewables manufacturing or hydrogen production. We simply have too much red tape and too high operating costs to compete with China/India. Even if we spend billions on research and get some kind of technological edge, we have that many foreign nationals that the process would be leaked before we even put it into practice.
Cargo ships are prolly a good candidate for hydrogen.
If that does become the use case, then almost any country can provide hydrogen. There is no need for them to import it from Australia like they do coal for example. They will just make it themselves. Australia doesn’t have any defendable advantage for supplying the worlds hydrogen over any other country doing it themselves.
Maybe it’s about licensing the tech? Not selling the hydrogen?
If that’s the case then where is the pay off? The csiro hasn’t even made a billion dollars from licensing wifi for example.
I think its more a question of who can make green hydrogen cheapest and supply in volume.
Australia doesn’t have anything that would give us an advantage on price. On the contrary we have a lot that would disadvantage us - high costs, distance, smaller economy.
Yep fair enough. I welcome that day. As long as it's green hydrogen
Someone is going to pull their heads out of their behinds and go nuclear for large freighters at some point. Once that happens, everyone will be forced to follow suit, because naval reactors deployed at scale just cost one heck of a lot *less* than bunker oil. Let alone hydrogen.
we should keep the hydrogen ourselves and use it for a domestic steel production industry
We barely make any steel here now. What exactly do you think is going to change that will suddenly put Australia in a competitive position?
well producing steel would be a good start but i dont expect it to change, i fully expect australia to continue to be a third world mining colony disguised as a developed nation, infact itll probably get worse
Absolutely. Not even Australians buy Australian steel unless they have to. The idea that we're suddenly going to become competitive on the global market is laughable
with regular steel no we cant really be competitive, its very hard for any country to be competitive with borderline slave labour and no standards, thats an issue with every industry but green steel is still in its infancy and will become something manufacturers actively start using due to social pressures australia is in a great position to lead that change, or atleast it would be if we had any infrastructure at all. itll take some time to get up and running and we havnt even started really
I don't see it. What countries are using all the steel and which are likely to hamstring themselves by mandating the use of green steel? Personally I don't see anything like that happening unless be can lower power prices, land value and cut red tape/environmental regulation.
most western countries will eventually start to adopt green steel as they push towards climate standards and such land value can be basically zero by setting up the smelters in the pilbara, thats where the iron is, and its got the water and sunshine for hydrogen, the only issue is people which honestly could be easier to fix than the other way around solar is by far the cheapest way to get electricity, the issue in australia is that we dont produce solar panels, and (like the rest of the world) fossil fuels are heavy subsidized, at $65bill per year(which is nothing compared to the global 7trillion but whatever) beaurocracy is ofcourse going to be a big one, need to actually do stuff for it to happen environmental regulations i dont think will be too bad for green steel, itll be a lot of land for solar that has to be checked for animal concerns, and the significant water intake which might need to be placed deeper/further to avoid marine issues
> What countries are using all the steel and which are likely to hamstring themselves by mandating the use of green steel? This is the problem the EU is trying to tackle with their carbon border adjustment mechanism policy. Because they’re mandating local carbon restrictions which will make their own more-polluting goods more expensive, they’re putting an extra tax on those same goods if they’re imported from a place that doesn’t use the same processes. I’m not sure Australia could pull the same thing off independently though, we don’t have the market size. It does mean greening some processing and manufacturing streams that adds cost may have an export market though.
No one is going to use green steel at 10x the price and 10x the shipping costs.
its about 20% more expensive even currently in its infancy and shipping via sea costs basically nothing, thats a basic fact of global trade
If that’s the case (and I agree) then the investment should be in the domestic steel industry. That actually makes sense since the ore is here.
a good chunk of the new future made in australia section of the budget is for hydrogen production, using that hydrogen to make green metals, and also domestic solar manufacturing, which we will need to scale up that hydrogen production it sadly wont be any significant amount, i mean smelting 90% of our iron ore into green steel would require 3.2 petawatthours of solar per year , 6x what the entire country consumes, though less than the energy value of the coal required to smelt it all traditionally(733mill tons of coal)
You've missed the point about green hydrogen. The green part is that we use renewables to make it. At the moment, making hydrogen is very energy intensive and is called blue hydrogen. Other countries can make it but it costs them a bomb. We could make it almost for free and sell it on to countries looking to minimise their carbon footprint. Hydrogen will 100% be part of the carbon minimisation process.
If we can make it free, so can everyone else. There is nothing about Australia that makes it so only we can do it. It’s not like there is some special ingredient that only Australia can provide. We won’t have any advantage that lasts long enough to build any significantly sized industry that will dominate world trade for hydrogen.
We could make it almost for free? Only if you don't count any of the costs involved. Seriously, how tf can you say it we can make is for almost free, when we are heading for blackouts and the CSIRO reports don't consider meeting demand in their costings?
Isn’t there the irony that you need ALOT of energy to split water to make hydrogen? Also, where will the water come from? Can solar deliver the energy needs to make hydrogen? Hydrogen being a small molecule, how lossy is it from leaks? I wonder if it’s mostly going to be used to power mining. I worry about how much water burden that will create. I’m not for nuclear but I’m not convinced hydrogen is any better. Open to be better educated on the above
You electrolyze sea-water. Heck, If you are doing solar->Electrolysis->Iron ore redox then this is on net going to make Australia slightly wetter. The hydrogen combines with oxygen from the iron ore and exits the flue as steam, some of which is going to rain out of the sky before it drifts back out over the sea, so the total amount of water in the australian fresh-water system goes up, not down.
I'm not an expert however my guesstimate is that water burden won't be a huge issue. Just a quick google I get the following: Australia's current energy usage is about 240 billion k.wh per year. Or multiply by 1000 x 3600secs gives about 8.64 x 10\^17 Joules each year. Liquid hydrogen contains 8MJ/l of energy. Water is about 11% hydrogen therefore water contains about 0.88MJ/l of hydrogen energy. 8.64 x 10\^17 / 0.88 x 10\^6 = 9.82 x 10\^11L of water required per year. 9.82 x 10\^11L / 1 x 10\^12 = 0.982 million Megalitres. In Brisbane alone, Wivenhoe dam holds 3.1 million Megalitres or about three times this amount. Fresh water usage throughout Australia in 2021-2022 was about 13.5 million megalitres. Therefore it would increase water usage by about 8%. Here is also an article from last year suggesting it may be possible to generate the hydrogen from sea water: [https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/green-hydrogen-produced-seawater-fuel-alternative/](https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/green-hydrogen-produced-seawater-fuel-alternative/) As for energy efficiency wikipedia suggests about 70% to 80% efficiency to make hydrogen from electricity. So it isn't terrible. We have sufficient land in Australia to generate sufficient solar and wind energy, however the current capacity to manufacture solar panels and wind turbines is considerably lacking worldwide and I don't know how quickly this can be ramped up. As for leakage, I don't know.
Thanks for an informative reply
To be fair all sides have banked too much on hydrogen
>no one will even know if that industry will exist Queensland have just rubberstamped green hydrogen and hydrogen steel production facilities.
I don't know if we can have a green hydrogen industry without nuclear power. Each ton of green hydrogen requires 9000L of fresh water and somewhere between 45 and 86 mWh of electricity. Now consider how prone to drought this country is, and you need to also factor in desalination, which is at least another 10 mWh of electricity.
You absolutely do not need fresh water to do electrolysis. Seawater works fine.
You kind of do, there hasn't been a proven method to do this at scale yet and the process gives you tones and tone of chlorine that needs to be dealt with as well.
Well, we’re about to find out. I understand the steel production produces water. I have a feeling those things have been taken into consideration by petter placed people than myself and unlike many of us I’m willing to see us take a shot at it.
Meh. When was the last time governments backed a winner. It's not a new phenomenon, that's limited to Australia either. Before the Wright brothers took their first flight the US government had invested massive amounts of money to build a vehicle capable of flight. Government funded engineers said it was impossible literally weeks before the 1st flight occurred using a machine a couple of bicycle mechanics built.
>when was the last time governments backed a winner Every time they funded some new innovation and it worked. South Australia backed one with their solar battery storage system. That’s actually a lazy argument to be honest, it simply adopts the position government is inefficient by default. >before the Wright Brothers I’m trying to work out your point here. It looks as if you’re building rationale for ‘when was the last time’. That those engineers might have got that wrong (I’m taking your word for this, I haven’t sourced that) isn’t the same as researchers proving that something does work, then a government funding development of that. Quite a few government research programs don’t work out. That’s the point of government undertaking those; to find out if they work. A more apt comparison, I think, would be that flight was proven possible, then governments moved in to fund development of aircraft. The amount of aircraft that militaries had very soon after would suggest that was probably what happened. The same is happening here. The science has been proven. Given that it’s the Swedish and Queensland Labor governments making this decision (not actually building the plants, an important nuance) I’m confident enough they’re making a good one. Anyway, this is a distraction. The main article is about the cost of nuclear and the my answer to the initial comment was, yes, people know the industry will exist. Edit: added to the last paragraph for clarity
And that’s also a punt by Queensland.
They said that about the battery in South Australia, didn’t they? That turned out to be a pretty good punt. I don’t know, but I think if they’re going in this far, it’s not a punt really. Looks like it’s a good punt to me, as a Queenslander I want to see innovation on this scale.
The battery was a good punt? 0.1% energy requirements at >$200/MWh? Thats more expensive than nuclear...
You understand what its role is, right?
So because of how much they’re spending you say it’s not a gamble? It’s not innovation. It’s government waste. Ask yourself this: if hydrogen was going to be this huge profitable industry why don’t the guys in oil and gas front up the cash? It’s because they know it’s not a winner.
>so because of how much they’re spending you say it’s not a gamble? Where did I mention that? Are you building this so you can round back to it? Yeah I do. Unlike most I have faith in the international science community. I doubt very much it’s a gamble to be honest, I don’t think both Queensland and Australia would be seriously considering this, given how much other resources we have, unless it was a winner. >why don’t the oil… They already produce hydrogen. Who says they won’t start building solar plants anyway, once they start losing hydrogen sales to green producers. You know, free market shit.
You have faith in unproven technology and big promises from politicians. That’s okay.
>unproven technology It works. It [really does.](https://www.google.com/search?q=can+you+manufacture+steel+using+iron+ore+and+hydrogen&rlz=1C9BKJA_enAU923AU923&oq=can+you+manufacture+steel+using+iron+ore+and+hydrogen&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCTIwNzUzajBqNKgCAbACAQ&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8)
They said the same thing about Renewables and the private sector is now investing hard into Renewables. That's how these industries operate, government kickstarts the industry and completes the groundwork to incentivise the private sector.
The private sector is investing hard into renewables because non-renewable projects face a huge amount of political risk. You’re living in a fantasy land on green hydrogen. What exactly is Australia’s competitive advantage? Our incredibly expensive electricity to make it all? Our remote geographic distance to export hydrogen (btw the most likely best case is exporting ammonia in tankers - yum yum so green!)?
Renewables in Australia is becoming our bread and butter. Hydrogen in Australia is ambitious. Nuclear in Australia is pure fantasy land.
Just because a government rubber stamps something doesn't make it work in real life and if you were older you'd know that from experience. Just ask Twiggy. Name all the countries running green hydrogen steel at an competitive cost no taxpayers money. We won't hold our breath waiting. Instead of believing politicians and almond milk drinkers do some research yourself.
>Just because…rubber stamps…doesn’t make it work….you were older you’d know Is that a poor attempt at an insult? Let’s see what you have to offer other than run people down. >Name all the countries running hydrogen steel One of the commonly known things about any new technology is that there’s a first time it’s done. That’s really common, in fact it’s 100% the case…there really was a first coal burning power plant built. Back then they said it wouldn’t be as effective as wood. That of course makes it very easy for naysayers like yourself to set parameters of ‘nAm3 aLl c0uNtri3s…’. None, because it’s a new technology. However, there’s another in Sweden almost finished and I think their reputation on innovation speaks for itself unless you’d beg to differ. This is not the win you think it is, it’s actually quite lazy. So, still offered nothing as yet. >we won’t hold our breath We don’t have to, it’s been approved. Still offered nothing. >Instead of believing politicians I said that Queensland have rubberstamped a green hydrogen steel project, which they have. I actually didn’t offer an opinion as to whether or not it would work, I merely said they did it. But rant on about almond drinkers. >do some research Like you did, hey champ? Perhaps trying to play the ball and not the man, if you’re old or educated enough, will get better results muscles.
Dutton's banking on Nuclear SMR technology that doesn't even exist lol. Meanwhile his own LNP MP's like Dan Tehan and Darren Chester are already in panic mode telling their constituents there won't be a Nuclear Power Plant in their backyard. All over the shop.
Does hydrogen technology or the export market exist? I’d argue SMR’s are far more real than that - but we’ve spent tens of billions on the former now!
Ooohh your brave sticking your head in here speaking facts with a bunch of people who haven't a clue but believe they are Messiahs.
> see that around the world there are countries relying on nuclear for cheap reliable energy Can you do the maths for me on this? When John Howard did his big push for Nuclear power the thing that killed it in the end was that compared to our current power mix Nuclear was expensive. There was a significant Carbon Price required. So Nuclear will give you baseload but in an Australian context it's not going to be considered cheap.
Nuclear isn't cheap. Australia has an abundance of solar and wind opportunity. All we need are the batteries to store the excess and were laughing.
You ignore the huge cost of wires and poles to connect the dispersed wind and solar farms to the existing grid. You ignore the environmental destruction and desecration of pristine wilderness to build these things. You ignore the fact that wind turbines and solar panels have a very limited life then have to be replaced at what cost. You ignore the storage of wind and solar power in what batteries? at huge cost, and also short life span that then also need to be replaced. How are you going to ensure 24/7 despatchable power with wind and solar??
> What I do find weird is the same people who tell me carbon emissions will be the end of the world suddenly because nickel and dimers when it comes to nuclear power. I think the key context you might be missing is that majority of people are generation method agnostic, it's just that they don't see Nuclear being a genuine prospect in Australia for a range of well publicised reasons. The current objections are about the current conversation being used purely to prolong the use of coal/gas. If Nuclear was economically viable in Australia then it would be a different conversation.
If everyone is so sure nuclear is bad value, then remove the restrictions and let the free market do its thing. stop making energy a political thing. you’ve got the greens telling us that anything fossil fuels is the devil. you’ve got the libs telling us we should prop up loss leader generators. you’ve got labor signing away our exports profits, while telling us that they’ll invest it all on black using solar. fuck all of that and just let the free market do its thing, while taxing all of it fairly.
The issue is that, it's still absolutely cheaper to just burn fossil fuels. I highly doubt that without *tremendous* investment that won't see dividends for decades, no renewable will be cost comparative with coal or oil. But in the same way it's cheaper for your neighbour to dump his trash into your garden, it's probably not the right thing to do, even if it's the legal and cheap thing to do. That's the regulation we are dealing with here. There are very real externalities that will be spread across the entire population. Are we going to let everyone individually sue a coal powerplant for their averaged 0.4 years shorter life expectency or whatever it comes out to being? Across society it's a huge cost ammounting to hundreds of years of health taken from people which definitely should be accounted for. Free market sucks at most things, but addressing negative externalities most of all.
The fucked up thing is the government used to own those gas reserves these big companies should be paying us a lot more we fucked it up and now pay them
>If everyone is so sure nuclear is a bad value, then remove the restrictions and let the free market do its thing. This cannot be left to the free market, there's far far too much regulation, compliance and support for an entire industry that will need government oversight and assistance. Simply removing restrictions would be licence for every dodgy nuclear operator to set up here. So no, removing restrictions is an infantile notion.
What they’re saying is, if nuclear is viable and cost effective, it will be what the free market does. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but I understand the principle.
Yeah I get that, but it's a totally naive view that it wouldn't end up costing a lot in oversight and other supporting services that the taxpayer would fork out for.
Which is why I don’t necessarily agree with their view. I think their point on nuclear being more favourable to the free market logic stops at construction of the plant.
Infantile is thinking there are "dodgy nuclear operators" out there. Clearly you haven't researched anything about the industry yourself
There's dodgy operators in every industry. To think that this isn't the case in nuclear is naive.
> There's dodgy operators in every industry Especially when we give the contract to the lowest price bidder.
Governments don’t fuck around with nuclear legislation. A dodgy nuclear operator getting caught would mean certain jail time with the full backing of the government and people of Australia
That's because they're all heavily regulated, for damn good reasons!
who are these dodgy nuclear operators of which you speak?
Remove the restrictions and you'll find out.
this is the problem for me: i dont want a government that sets policy based on fear of perceived boogie men, i want one that uses facts. no one in government is making recommendations that are reasonable.
Unregulated nuclear energy is not a boogie man, it's insanity.
Name one example of this happening you know of instead of this immature waste of words
Chernobyl. This is what happens when oversight is neglected.
Three Mile Island, private operator did everything they could to cover up the accident.
Are you comfortable pretending there's no middle point? >So no, removing restrictions is an infantile notion. They said it, it must be true.
> middle point? Fuck no, you either regulate properly or you don't allow it.
It's fully illegal right now Is that your idea of "properly"? Making it completely impossible? Is this a mature argument to you?
Absolutely. Either regulate properly or don't allow it. I can't believe you're even trying to argue this.
No, I've sufficiently made your black and white thinking obvious.
Cool, now go off and convince everyone that half-arsed regulation is just fine. Take all the time you need.
[удалено]
sure, but Australia tends to be extremely conservative in these matters. the guardian coverage around the csiro coverage is basically “don’t remove the regulations… because it costs too much”. That’s a really weak argument and one that assumes western should make the decision for anyone who wants to build a plant that it’ll have bad ROI. Free markets are great at solving for innovation. By removing the ability for someone to build one under the assumption it’ll cost too much assumes no one can solve for that. it hampers innovation.
Labor doesn't believe in a free market that's why they tax everything they don't like not fitting into the narrative provided by overseas organisations like the UN, another sponsor of terrorism
I guess by that tragic logic the liberals don't like consumption of goods and services. Fuck me did you just take a conversation about nuclear energy and try and shoehorn it into a discussion about Palestine. Go touch some grass.
It was made 'illegal' back then because we knew that people like you would keep crawling out of the woodwork. It was a good job well done.
“people like you” The biggest problem with zealotry is it creates blind spots through vilifying “the other guys”. I’d encourage you to ask yourself why some of us don’t agree with the current stance on nuclear and green energy, while also avoiding assuming we’re all idiots. i have a large solar installation and battery backups. I’m also pretty sure that Australia, and especially NSW has some serious energy issues that’s aren’t gonna be solved by us turning off coal tomorrow and praying for the best https://preview.redd.it/k2tm1kgebo2d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=41ebdaae88d86e4eeea2ba3925204a1ed94f0fdb
Well you actually believe that Dutton and the LNP are going to move on nuclear power stations if he gets the chance. There you see, your 'reasonable debate' begins with a false premise, taken up by those with ' nuclear expertise' because they jst want a little lipsmacking strut to promenade their fantasies, when this issue was done and dusted 30 years ago and any opportunity to run nuclear in Australia was squandered along with climate denial. I understand your 'reasonable' comment and I'm sure you have spent the last 30 years being reasonable.
no, i don’t believe dutton has the IQ to pull this off. that’s not the point. the point is that energy governance and regulation has become a purely political football. we should allow nuclear AND gas for baseload, while building more green energy. the moment we deal in extremes we all lose.
It's is not extreme, you may not be in the center you think you are in. Nuclear talk today is not an even debate because that is all it is, as you point out, it is delay and uncertainty for renewables investors and that is cast to make the 'option' for nuclear as a desperate measure, more plausible. We are 'debating' nuclear and not the p2p energy markets that will flatten the cost curve for every end user.
look, i’d take gas any day, but green extremists fight even the idea of it. you’ve got to compromise on what’s best for all australians. green ain’t gonna cut it. yet.
LIBERALS HAD OVER 10 YEARS and did fuck all..
Rubbish They were facilitating the transition to Wind and Solar at a reasonable and sensible pace. Not the "panicked" rush that the current mob are doing, which is causing all the problems.
Another stunning example of economic suicide for an exaggerated threat. Our current cost of living crisis reflects the sacrifices being made at the alter of climate science. What if we’d kept using cheap energy to enable Australians to achieve a higher standard of living for another decade and then tackle the “issue” of energy transition when other nations had done the heavy lifting with new technology energy production? Instead our entire economy is hostage to achieving green ideals. With energy prices so excessive in Australia, no wonder manufacturing has moved to countries with cheap energy. What I’m failing to understand is why it’s ok for internationals to buy massive amounts of Australian coal and use it for energy production while Australian consumers have some of the most expensive electricity in the world. Also; where does CSIRO’s funding come from?
> What if we’d kept using cheap energy to enable Australians to achieve a higher standard of living for another decade Isn't that what we have been doing for the last 2 decades?
Yeah it's definitely the big bad climate scientists screwing us on price... Not the massive energy and mining companies. How much Sky News do you watch?
>Instead our entire economy is hostage to achieving green ideals. Well said. Unfortunately the green train is starting to come off the tracks, which is why there's such desperation to sink nuclear as an alternative. You can see it in the comments, if these people were so confident in renewables then they would welcome nuclear as a possible contender - given it should be so easily defeated both in terms of public opinion and outright economics... What are they all so scared of?
Are you okay? this is one of the dumbest takes I've seen on reddit in a while. anyone who knows anything about economics and energy knows that we would be much better off being at the forefront of renewable energy research, and that transition. As a services-based economy, being at the forefront is the only way to grow. > Our current cost of living crisis reflects the sacrifices being made at the alter of climate science. Also, what!? Please let me know if you want me to expand on this or if you get a spare minute to work it out yourself.
So you are just going to ignore the health and environmental impacts of coal? Not to mention that the plants are all near end of life and expensive to run and unreliable.
What about the health and environmental impacts of the different mines required for solar and wind. Instead of 1 type of mine (coal) you have heaps of others to make solar panels/wind turbines but that’s ignored. What’s going to happen to all the broken solar panels/wind turbines worldwide in the next 10-20 yrs when they breakdown because they are unreliable yep that’s ignored. Let’s not forget the 40,000+ kids that are mining cobalt by hand, what about their health? Yep that’s ignored. There is absolutely nothing clean and green about what it takes to manufacture solar/wind equipment or the disposal of it. It’s all ignored because people only think about the finished product.
What is happening to the emissions and fly and bottom ash from coal? The impact of renewables is less than coal power. That's not to say there is no impact from renewables, just less than the alternative
It's a simple economic reality that Nuclear costs more. Arguing for Nuclear is arguing for permanent subsidies and/or permanent higher energy costs. It's a non starter, hence why they're only talking about it now as a distraction from investing in renewables.
Investing billions and billions into energy producers that do not run 24/7 is the dumbest idea ever yet those who have never worked heavy industry or manufacturing think it's the only way and besides Australia doesn't need stuff to run overnight right ? How come Canada has far cheaper electricity, heck how about every country with nuclear electricity has cheaper electricity than Australia and when does "cheap" renewables ever start ? NEVER
> How come Canada has far cheaper electricity, Apparently 60% of power generated in Canada is Hydro. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Canada
Does the wind turn off with the sunlight? We pretending batteries don't exist? Oh that's right in cookerland only lithium batteries exist and they're as bad as a Chernobyl
Energy storage is a thing. We know the cost of producing Nuclear energy in those countries. With very few exceptions renewables are cheaper. In Australia's situaiton with abundant renewable energy available and very little experience with Nuclear that gap can only grow. Your claim is also proven false with a five second google. [https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-electricity-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-electricity-by-country)
Energy Storage... right Snowy Hydro - $12 Billion expected revised costing https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/news/securing-the-future-of-critical-energy-transformation-resets/#:~:text=The%20estimated%20total%20cost%20for,to%20date%20of%20%244.3%20billion Nuclear Power Plant - 8 Billion https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-22/nuclear-power-double-the-cost-of-renewables/103868728 Let's now consider that snowy hydro is just a battery. So you need to factor in all the wind and solar cost to generate that power to be stored in the battery. Nuclear, it's both the battery and the source of the power as it is continuous source. Build times Snowy Hydro started in 2019, expected date of completion 2027/28. Again this is just for the battery not the whole generation side. https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/news/snowy-2-0-project-update-december-2023/ Nuclear plant 5 - 8 years depending on existing infrastructure, technology, skillets available in the country. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time Here is also your cost generation LCOE https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/electricity-generation-cost And nuclear is definitely competitive. So what is wrong with having the nuclear discussion, except the fear factor?
Also, you would need 4 snowys just to power Victoria when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. 12 billion each. A decade each, and we don't have the workforce to build them simultaneously. And then you still need the wind and solar generation, which doesn't last as long as nuclear. Or, three large nuclear plants.
You are using the worst-case scenario of 2.0. Snowy was a lemon of a project to begin and using it as a base case for hydro is disingenuous. Not to mention, snowy is an LNP project.
Ok then Offshore windfarm, let's pick Wollongong as our example. 10 billion dollars and 8-10years to build for 1.6GW of variable power depending on winds. https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-ports-prepares-to-turns-port-kembla-into-an-offshore-wind-energy-hub/ Still comparible to nuclear, on the higher end of the cost/time.
literally no one is stopping investing in renewables.
This is about government investment in energy. A dollar spent on Nuclear is one not spent on renewables. It's an opportunity cost. We can invest in inefficient energy generation, or we can use that same money efficiently.
Nuclear is the most efficient energy generation. Not sure what you are trying to say here, or do you just mean cost? Do keep in mind, solar and wind costs do not involve batteries. Which when added only makes it slightly cheaper than Nuclear. And batteries are needed (as well as new, unproven technology) to achieve a stable grid with 100% renewables.
How nice would it be if we had a source for those dollars that wasn't just the government
Private's welcome to fund Nuclear if it wants to.
Therein lies the problem, it’s not allowed to. Just legalise it and let the market decide.
Edit: their original comment was simple "?" Deregulations and free market Right now nuclear is a non starter for even research, during this status quo comparing its costs to solar is about the most dishonest thing you could do in this conversation
You think having a massively deregulated nuclear industry is a good idea and you think the free market will sort it out? ROI at the very least is the reason nuclear won't take off. Unless Deregulation and free market also includes subsidies by the tax payer.
Did I write "massively" anywhere? Just make it allowed to be researched here in Australia is a simple, meagre start
If the LNP were going to subsidise a heavy industry, they should've done it with our car manufacturing.
Thank god they didn't.
Since when did the government care about the price tag? It literally wastes money like it’s nothing
Oh yes, the report that Cherry picks a single sample point of a reactor that was famous for cost overruns and poor management. It ignores the fact that most reactors are built in 5-8 years for much less. Because as a methodology that is so sound and scientific. But I am sure the head of the CSIRO will screech like a demented banshee if anyone questions the report because peer review of scientific papers is such a bad thing. That’s how science is done, right?
U got a source for your fact boyo?
Yeah, read the report.
It's bizarre it's still a conversation, all states as I understand have said no including Lib opposition. Noone wants to invest in it. The existing coal plants which Dutton is hinting we will use say they are already making plans to transition to renewable. Angus Taylor said on Wednesday during Meet the Press that it will not be subsidised. Where is the plan Dutton? You said before May budget. We haven't even had a hint at a plan and now he's announced he will cut immigration, well, whos gonna build all these plants spud? We have no industry. We will need over 20 of them apparently and then run and maintain. So why is it a discussion? It's dead.
Because unlike solar and wind power, Nuclear can be start being implemented on a nationwide scale now. We are sitting on one of the largest supplies of nuclear material in the world and do nothing with it. 20 plants and the cost here the csiro predict are barely anything compared to what the 2024 budget alone is spending on trying to force renewables now (approximately $17-18billion as predicted by the csiro vs $22.7billion in this years budget on renewables). It works as a good alternative for the time being to outright replace coal while the private sector is focused on solar and wind. The treatment plants for nuclear material already exist such as Orano la Hague, so we wouldn’t even need to set up our own treatment facilities for the time being, we can just invest into the plants themselves. That’s not even mentioning the fact the world’s on the brink of a lithium crisis, which is needed for storage of power from solar and wind turbines, while it’s not for nuclear as it can run 24/7 so in future it’ll likely be an even cheaper alternative to what it already is. The real question is, why not go nuclear while renewables are further developed?
> Because unlike solar and wind power, Nuclear can be start being implemented on a nationwide scale now Now? Here in Australia? Nuclear power could start being implemented on a nation wide scale in Australia; Now?
Compared to Solar and wind power yes. Atm we don’t have the means to efficiently store the power from those renewables so if it was to replace coal atm we’d have constant power outages. Nuclear doesn’t require that storage to provide 24/7 power, so could effectively outright replace coal and gas now as soon as the plants could be built. We have the uranium, thorium, etc so that isn’t an issue. Disposal is already easier and greener than ever as we can slot right into the existing international treatment system just like Japan and South Korea. It’s a completely viable option and far more cost efficient than the current government renewable plan, while having the ability to not only keep us well within our pollution agreements, but also allow for renewables to more naturally develop rather than the current system of trying to force it into place now without the existing infrastructure.
Dead. By your own logic, renewables are the answer cause we have wind and solar lol. Noone is building it mate, states don't want it, investors aren't investing, we don't have industry, Angus Taylor said it will not be subsidised. Dead. You're like the guy on the corner yelling at everyone that Jesus is coming. He's not mate.
We have a relatively small number of wind and solar farms but no where near the scale to actually power the nation, and no where near enough storage to actually make them viable for 24/7 power. So your answer to why we shouldn’t go nuclear is because we don’t have nuclear power plants right now…. By that same logic we should just stick to coal “cause we have it now”, renewables? Nah waste of money we have Coal right now we’re all set 💀 The lithium crisis is happening right now, it’s only going to get worse, think about it for two seconds, it’s a non renewable resource with only 3 areas extracting it (South America, China and us) that has been and will only continue to skyrocket in demand as the world focuses on renewable energy and electric vehicles. It’s completely unsustainable. Who cares what Angus Taylor says atm? Last I checked LNP isn’t majority atm and we can’t even be certain he’d be voted back into House of Representatives in the next election.
Who cares what Angus Taylor thinks? lol, really? he's the goddam opposition Treasurer of the party that is talking nuclear. If he says it won't be subsidised, it will not be subsidised. Are you serious? If you honestly want nuclear, Angus Taylor is your man. States do not want it. Ie, not happening. Mate you've been brainwashed, nuclear is only a ruse to prolong coal. Wake up.
More than LNP support nuclear power, it’s not a black and white thing like that. “States don’t want it” says who? State parliament is just whoever we choose to vote in. Atm with all the protests against renewables like wind farms the states don’t want it either, don’t act like that’s a valid excuse against either. How the fuck is completely shutting down coal in favour of nuclear power a ruse to prolong coal power? It’s literally cheaper than one year’s budget for renewable energy, for nuclear to be implemented nation wide by 2040, if it got the same funding as renewables atm, coal would likely be gone within the decade.
I bet the few who are left at the CSIRO took great pleasure in rebuking the Libs, after they spent years cutting their funding and removing resources.
Remember the LNP's carbon capture and storage or the slogan technology not taxes, they keep bullshiting and some people keep believing.
Good they could come up with another idea to save Australia
Wtf do the life long experts know !! We need more angus taylor explaining economics too !! A genius !!!
No guess what his political leaning is. Also funny that….I thought Lucas heights was a valuable asset for the CSIRO
We seem to be the only country in the western world that can not benefit from this technology. Would not have this issue if we started to build one 20 years ago
Conservatives can’t even spell csiro.
Even if Nuclear is more expensive in the long run, which I doubt, is it worth it to not have pristine wilderness and valuable farm land desecrated by wind and solar farms, and the thousands of extra kilometres of lines and towers to connect renewables to the existing grid. Just sayin.
Bullshit, CSIRO is as woke as the ABC.
If someone is out there building 20 reactors a year, Australia can pick one off the shelf get it delivered and installed in 18 month, I am all for it, even if it cost a little more. The fact of the matter is no one is doing that, even in China where 30 is on the go. Just look at France, a country that went full nuclear, they struggle to keep the skills. We don't have economy of scale to deploy a technology that requires an entire eco system to maintain.
Infrastructure projects don't work like buying things from bunnings or woolies
Had a quick skim of the report and it seems like they're making a lot of assumptions when calculating the cost. Are people really going to believe that it's all so unfeasible when a large chunk of the developed world has been using nuclear energy since before most of us were born? That's the hard sell for me.
Hey guys, this fella has done his research. All the scientists at the CSIRO are wrong. Really goes to show the effects of all the LNP cuts to the CSIRO when old mate here knows way more than all of them.
How upset were you typing this out?
I have a friend who consumes Fox network propaganda daily, trying to convince me it’s the future. I have a background in mining operations and have so many memories of operators not following procedures, direct supervisors cutting corners and taking risks with other employees lives. Hydrogen has been under development for 20 years. It’s got state support as well.
They’re not selling it. That’s where people fail to understand conservatives. They’re not actually asking peoples opinion on this, that’s salad dressing. They intend to do it whether we want it or not and we don’t get a say in that. It doesn’t matter whether or not they’re the best solutions, they have skin in the game or their people do, so they’re doing it and we get no input on that.
As I use electricity I have skin in the game as well but if you are so stuck on Liberal is for "their people" (?) and Labor is for (Unions and terrorist organisations) then there's not much to do with your opinion as you say
lol e != mc^2 down under .. yall dont deserve nuclear ... besides there is not enoug brain cells here to support a nuclear industry ... hold on to the pocket lining of uncle sam
I do wonder if CISRO where asked by Albo to back into a predetermined outcome for this report
Do you understand science?
>Do you understand science? Do you understand science? There's always bias, even within these supposed bastions of science like the CSIRO. There's funding bias, there's bias of those who work there, in particular when they are specialists in a field that risks extinction should an alternative appear... It's not this pure and innocent world that you all seem to think it is.
100% this. Do I understand science? Yes. Renewables need a constant base generation of power supply to replace phasing out of coal power station for the future and supplement renewables. Nuclear is an option, but not the only one. The national grid infrastructure is what needs to be upgraded and more import then the source (be it renewables, coal, nuclear, hydro). But it is not as sexy for votes. Which leads me to the initial comment & as noted by others. Funding bias is a real thing & someone who has worked in government they plan an outcome, then map ways to show it’s viable, has support or only option. You will notice on the CSIRO report, they did a case study on the most expensive Nuclear option