Australia's first nuclear power plant has an official start date - so will you give it the green light?

29 January 2025
Daily Mail
The Coalition has vowed to begin building nuclear power plants on 'day one' if they are elected.   

Peter Dutton has long promised to build seven nuclear reactors across Australia at an estimated cost of over $300 billion if he can oust Labor from power.

The Opposition Leader has claimed the power plants will work alongside renewables to stop blackouts and reduce electricity bills.

But critics have warned the cost of converting to nuclear will blow out to more than double at $600 billion, ultimately slugging Aussie households with higher bills.   

But Nationals leader David Littleproud has doubled down on the Coalition's commitment to begin building power plants immediately if elected.

'We'll start building the first nuclear power plant, the very first day after a coalition government's elected,' Mr Littleproud told Sky News.

'We'll get on with the job. The time for talks are over.

'We have to get on with this so that we can have AI, we can have fast rail, we can have smelters in this country, and one where regional Australia has a future, not littered with transmission lines and solar panels and wind turbines.'

Nationals leader David Littleproud (pictured) has doubled down on the Coalition's commitment to begin building power plants immediately if elected





Mr Littleproud, who would be Deputy Prime Minister if the Coalition win this year's federal election, which must be held by May 17, said that their position was that 'we should not put all our energy eggs in one basket'.

'We're all for renewables, but we want to balance and get that balance right,' he said.

'We should transition some of those coal-fired power stations across to nuclear power plants, but we'll need a lot of gas in the short term.'

The Nationals leader said it was 'insanity' to rely solely on renewables because transmission lines, solar panels and wind turbines would impact food security.

'We've got sovereignty of all our resources, we should use all of our resources, not just some,' he added.

Mr Littleproud has previously sought to reassure voters about the safety of the proposed nuclear power plants. 

'This is safe technology ... we're not talking about 1950s technology from Russia nor letting the Russians run it,' he told reporters last year.

'We're not putting them where a tsunami is going to take place.'



Critics have warned the cost of converting to nuclear will blow out to more than double at $600 billion, ultimately slugging Aussie households with higher bills


The latter was a reference to the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan in 2011 where an earthquake and tsunami damaged a nuclear power plant, with the fall out resulting in 51 deaths.   

Mr Littleproud claimed that nuclear energy would provide over 30 per cent of the power to the grid.

However, the Smart Energy Council claims it will only amount to 3.7 per cent of Australia's energy mix by 2050.

Both sides of politics support a goal of net zero by 2050.

However, Labor's plan is for renewable energy to comprise 82 per cent of Australia's energy generation by 2030, rising to 98 per cent by 2040 based on solar and wind.

Whereas, the Coalition sees nuclear making up 38 per cent of Australia's electricity generation by that time, with solar and wind energy making up 49 per cent of the mix and gas, pumped hydro and storage the rest.

The Coalition's plan was modelled by Frontier Economics, which costed Labor's energy transition at $594billion, versus $331billion for the Coalition's nuclear plan - marking a difference of $263billion.

Quote:


Of course. Better start building them before the people find out what it is really going to cost.

ON WHICH SUBJECT (which we weren't):-

When will Australia divest itself of the same stupid Wong implemented 'auctioning off of river water' scheme that left Cliffornia (the remnant once the big quake comes) bereft of water; cut back and finally extinguish its enslavement of its people to the mythical 'global economy' that does not pay its way and rapes economies and nations; take back its own capacity to exploit its own resources for the Common Wealth; and restore its own productive capability of good fruit and such?

When will this nation put its own people first, and stop the flush of 'politicians' dedicated to this insane 'global economy' from which they themselves derive fantastic benefits?  'flush' as in coming down the tubes!

When will this nation become Of The People, BY the People, and FOR the People first and foremost?

Now think on the range of issues involved in this taking back the asylum.

This might help - though I'm wary of deep academics:-

https://www.unisa.edu.au/unisanews/2019/may/story9/

whiteknight wrote on Feb 1^st, 2025 at 6:01am:


Anyone who honestly believes that we can have a stable power grid comprised of 82% renewables needs their head read because even now we have less than that in terms of renewables and still have blackouts and brownouts. Renewables cannot replace coal or nuclear for baseload power generation. It just can't and it's not something that is debatable. Renewables can supplement baseload power generation, but it just can't replace it. End of story.

A step on the road to safe clean and reliable power that we should have taken 60 years ago. But better late than never. 

John Smith wrote on Feb 1^st, 2025 at 1:24pm:


Not to the same extent they are occurring now. This has never been a thing until the obsession with so called renewables.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-31/energex-ergon-peaksmart-air-con-cuts-duri...

Quote:


What a ridiculous thing to say ?

What Potato head is going out into the field with a shovel ? They don't even have a sensible plan. They cannot possibly start building inside 10 years. Their isn't even an existing plant of the type they want available on the market. It doesn't exist.

Besides you wouldn't even trust these clowns make a bacon and egg sandwich.

John Smith wrote on Feb 1^st, 2025 at 1:24pm:


Yes but think of the power savings when people can glow in the dark.

Quote:


Can you explain these "spent fuel management systems"?

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2025 at 9:46am:


So not lack of fuel then. You know like lack of wind, lack of sun to run renewables effectively.

So a solar farm needs to "step up" the voltage to the grid, to 115kv,330kv etc. that first needs an inverter to convert to AC and then a transformer to up the voltage.

So rather like an inverter giving of Blue smells and Brown smoke. (figuratively).

Gnads wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2025 at 1:12pm:


Nuclear is already the most expensive option for electricity generation, and the price is going up. And that does not include the cost of long term storage. No-one really knows what that will cost. It is the elephant in the room that everyone is doing their best to ignore.

Renewables are already the cheapest option, and their price keeps going down. By the time we actually produce electricity from a nuclear power plant, they will be obsolete. They already are.

lee wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2025 at 12:59pm:


No Lee, the LNP is not promising nuclear because we are running out of coal. Nuclear is far more expensive than coal.

And they still have engineering to do with that.

Nuclear power is safe in much the same way air travel is, the result of layer upon layer of stringent safety measures, redundancies, and regulatory oversight. But that safety comes at a cost: time, expertise, and significant financial investment.

That’s why the prospect of Australia’s corporate cowboys, the LNP, who thrive on slashing regulations and prioritising profits over public interest getting involved in nuclear should give anyone pause. You can’t run a nuclear reactor with the same reckless abandon as a mining venture, one serious failure and you’re not just dealing with an environmental fine, you’re rendering land uninhabitable for millennia.

And let’s not kid ourselves about the Coalition’s sudden enthusiasm for nuclear. This isn’t about clean energy, your power bills, or even technological advancement. It’s a stalling tactic, an excuse to delay meaningful investment in renewables while funnelling billions to foreign-owned gas giants that contribute nothing to the public purse. If they actually wanted energy security, they’d be backing the solutions that can be deployed today, not some hypothetical reactor decades down the line.

John Smith wrote on Feb 1^st, 2025 at 1:24pm:


Obviously it's been a long-term problem and not solely related to renewables. The main source of this problem is the reluctance to build any new power stations to replace those shut down due to age. This ridiculous reliance on renewables just exacerbates the problem!

Frank wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2025 at 9:19am:


So you've spent years telling us that Russian and Chinese influence on social media does nothing, and it certainly doesn't benefit Trump.

Now when you're worried about the negative impacts of Nuclear power and selecting a site are shared on social media, it will be because Russian and Chinese influence?



Which is it?

Gnads wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2025 at 10:28am:


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



Note that this cost excludes the long term cost of storing radioactive nuclear waste for a million years.

You cannot post Credlin and think you made a post with any value.

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2025 at 1:10pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2025 at 1:10pm:



The levelised cost of electricity excludes the levelised  cost of storage of renewables.

"Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is a measure of the average net present cost of electricity generation for a generating plant over its lifetime."

Batteries are not generating plant.

*

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2025 at 4:17pm:


That's the one. The price is per MWh, not per MW. Divide by 1000 to get 5 to 8c per kWh, so you can compare with the trend data above:



Quote:


a) That's not what a cost recovery period means. Not sure if your statement means anything at all. Looks like gibberish to me.

b) There is nothing about that in the wikipedia article.

Frank wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2025 at 9:19am:


I would be interested to see evidence for these claims someday.

RussiAnVetEraN wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2025 at 5:47pm:


What makes you think such evidence is available outside The Shadow Governments of this world?

Quote:


OK What date was that again ?

RussiAnVetEraN wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2025 at 11:30pm:


That, grasshopper, is the secret.... everyone talks about it but has no evidence... why are YOU discussing it without evidence?  See?  My point is proven... besides - I was talking around it - not about it.... I didn't say one way or another about the Chinese, Russians and Iranis.... but is seems highly likely given their rampant Westophobia...

My first is a generalised comment of the issue, not on it - the second is a statement of possible affirmation of the scenario...

lee wrote on Feb 4^th, 2025 at 6:21pm:


So why did you highlight your concerns about CO2 emissions from battery storage facilities associated with renewable energy?

Quote:


I said you have no idea what it means. Just going by your feeble explanation.

Belgarion wrote on Feb 5^th, 2025 at 9:56am:


So you have no idea what your links say?

What estimate do they give for the cost of storing the radioactive waste until it is safe, and what method do they propose?

Belgarion wrote on Feb 5^th, 2025 at 12:09pm:


So how much does does it cost, and what method does it recommend?

Or do you still have no idea what your own links say?

They must be pretty special documents if they can have you convince yourself you understand the problem at the same time as rendering you incapable of answering the simplest questions.

freediver wrote on Feb 5^th, 2025 at 12:14pm:


The answers are there for those with the ability to comprehend them. sadly this does not seem to be you.

freediver wrote on Feb 5^th, 2025 at 9:36am:


So now you reckon  CO2 emissions are not a cost.

CO2 doesn't count, especially if we have a carbon tax.

freediver wrote on Feb 5^th, 2025 at 9:36am:


So you still don't understand.


[url]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/20201019_Levelized_Cos
t_of_Energy_%28LCOE%2C_Lazard%29_-_renewable_energy.svg/1920px-20201019_Levelize
d_Cost_of_Energy_%28LCOE%2C_Lazard%29_-_renewable_energy.svg.png
[/url]

So it doesn't matter what are included or excluded in your "levelized" costs. Only those wiki ascribes to count.

I get the feeling nuclear is a foregone conclusion... compared to miles and miles of monstrosities in the form of towers and windmills and such, it is much more scenonautically 'clean' despite the reality that dumping in the old deep mine shafts in  Neunig Territory 'out there' might have to be used instead of as penetrating rods in armour piercing shells - for 'storage' ...

There is already a 'greenie movement' to prevent the scenery abuse in the Nullarbor.... such things breed strange bed-fellows...

It's a funny thing in the polls - some give 30% in support - others 60% odd in support - but of course, all say that not many will want to pay more for nuclear .. but that posed as a stand-alone question does not give the full picture.. they also won't want to pay more for windmills or panels... the Guardian pontificates that 'support for nuclear will vanish' at the next election.... but I'm not so sure.

Got a phone survey t'other day ... last question was about support for nuclear... main thrust was the Nationals  - now let me be fair - I'm happy enough with our local lady National member at State level - not so with the Federeal, who's leaving anyway and is to be replaced by another dark horse while Barnaby remains the darkest horse in the race.... and I vote Indies (use the whip, Indy!) .... and I doubt any major party or Coalition will attract my vote this time around (again) ... but I'm still weighing up the ideas of masses of towers etc v nuclear .......

Convince me................ jeez - someone said they could convert some of the used-up coal stations to nuclear facilities.... I see Liddell and Wallerawang on the maps.... maybe even on Lake Macquarie down south... they're already wrecking the South Western side of The Lake with over-development .... I understand there are glowing reports of the possibilities there - after the stations were 'wound down' and sold off to mates.... (hello again!! - you know where to invest your dollars, right?).. RIGHT???