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

Proposed, thicko.  The operative word is proposed.


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

Sounds like a good idea but wait -

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

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


Where?

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


There will be a nuclear waste facility.

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


Where?

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

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

9 May 2023

In 1951, the Experimental Breeder reactor in Idaho became the first nuclear reactor to generate electricity. Commercial nuclear power plants followed later in the 1950s. 

Nuclear in numbers
1. 437: the number of reactors in the world today. 90% were built in the 1970s & 80s. 60 new reactors are under construction, 100 are planned, and old reactors are being
refurbished for 80 years or more of total lifetime use.1 2

2. >50%: the nuclear share of emissions-free electricity in the US. Nuclear power is
25% of global carbon-free power and 10% of global electricity overall.3 4
3. 60: gigatons of CO2emissions avoided in the past 50 years due to nuclear power.5
      
93%: average “uptime” for nuclear plants. It’s 35% for wind and 25% for solar.7

22¢/kWh: electricity cost in France (>70% nuclear); in Germany, 40¢ (0%).

In the US, it’s 14¢/kWh in South Carolina (56% nuclear)

or 27¢ in California (10%).9


$122/MWh: average cost to build & generate nuclear power on an “all-in” basis; wind plus battery storage costs $291/MWh, solar plus batteries $413 (Exhibit 20).

Where supplies come from
Uranium is an abundant resource with some estimates suggesting that the Earth’s crust contains 35 trillion tons. Two-thirds of uranium production today comes from
Kazakhstan, Canada, and Australia. 35% of US uranium is imported from Kazakhstan with another 14% from Russia. Canada (15%) and Australia (14%) are the other main US
suppliers. Australia has 1.7 million tons of reserves, accounting for almost 30% of known
uranium deposits (Exhibit 8).

2.Cost
Industry research suggests that, after accounting for efficiency, storage needs, the cost of transmission, and other broad system costs, nuclear power plants are one of the least expensive sources of energy.

Longevity: nuclear power plants can last anywhere from 40 to 100 years with proper maintenance while solar panels and wind farms are replaced after 20-30 years. A solar farm may need to be replaced as many as five times during the
operable life of a nuclear plant.

https://advisoranalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/bofa-the-ric-report-the-nu...

In the US both sides of politics proudly support it.

Bill Gates:  "Of all the climate work I'm doing the one that has the most bipartisan energy behind it is actually nuclear".

https://x.com/ShackelWill/status/1802587211248111810

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

the cost

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No consultation withlocals,  no environmental studies.

Mr potato Head thinks he's in north Korea 

Isn't nuclear power prohibited by law in Australia?

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

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


Where?

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

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

the cost

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


Quote:


Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/19/coalition-nuclear-pl...

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


Such as... reducing carbon emissions.

Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants

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

Quote:


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


Not the state legislation.

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

Quote:


How long do you think that will take?

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


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

Note what they're reporting:

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

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

There's a huge difference.

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

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

Peter Dutton reveals seven sites for proposed nuclear power plants

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

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

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

The seven sites are:

Tarong in Queensland, north-west of Brisbane

Callide in Queensland, west of Gladstone

Liddell in NSW, in the Hunter Valley

Mount Piper in NSW, near Lithgow

Port Augusta in SA

Loy Yang in Victoria, in the Latrobe Valley

Muja in WA, near Collie

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

Give us a

fu

cking BREAK

!

Have a look at who held this "poll" ?

.

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

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

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

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

You are lying, despicable shhit.

He is putting nuclear on the discussion table.

Quote:


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

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