Self-described grassroots movement Nuclear for Australia is calling for policy makers to kick off a science-driven conversation about including nuclear power in Australia’s future energy mix.
The group announced yesterday that more than 100,000 Australians (101,334 at the time of writing) have signed their petition calling for removing a ban on nuclear power here.
Nuclear for Australia was founded in December 2022 and is chaired by the former CEO of Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) Dr Adi Paterson. Also involved with the organisation is founder of Dick Smith Electronics, Dick Smith, who is a patron.
“Australians are tired of distractions and misinformation,”1 said Will Shackel, Founder of the group. “Over 100,000 signatures show that people want nuclear power on the table as a practical solution for Australia’s energy needs.”
As for the call for a science-based conversation on nuclear power, if only there was a suitable organisation policy makers could turn to for pretty reliable information.
How about the CSIRO? It’s in their name: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Science *and* Industrial research – it seems like a suitable candidate to lead this. Now, if only CSIRO would weigh in on the thorny topic.
What’s that you say? They have?
Nuclear Not A Timely, Cost-Competitive Or Efficient Solution
The answer to the question of nuclear in Australia’s electricity sector is answered on this CSIRO page. The CSIRO is pretty clear in its view, last updated in early December 2024.
- Currently, nuclear power doesn’t offer the most cost-competitive solution for low emission electricity in Australia.
- Long development lead times mean nuclear can’t make a significant contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.
- While nuclear power plants have a long operational life, this offers no unique cost advantage over shorter-lived technologies.
CSIRO’s draft2 GenCost 2024-25 Report found renewables continue to have the lowest cost range of any new build electricity generation technologies (for the seventh year in a row). That’s including the cost of firming – taking into consideration storage, transmission, system security and “spilled” energy.
Reversing The Ban A Pointless Distraction
As for other countries pursuing nuclear power; some are setting a good example of what *not* to do in Australia – and that is pursue nuclear energy.
A recent example is the latest reported cost blow-out for the UK’s proposed Sizewell C nuclear plant3; which has doubled since 2020 to around $80 billion Australian dollars. Along with large-scale firmed renewables, that could buy a lot of rooftop solar power systems and home batteries.
According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), Sizewell C’s current estimated costs are about 2.5 times the capital cost used in the Coalition’s modelling for its nuclear dreams in Australia.
“For an Australian nuclear plant with similar costs to those reported for Sizewell C to be commercially viable, average household power bills would need to increase by between $561 and $961 per year,” states IEEFA.
It makes the electricity price rises on the cards for many Australians in 2025/26 seem like chump change.
As for mature and scientific conversation, we can do that until the cows come home and we have been; along with plenty of other types of conversations (including some here on SQ). But it’s not really a complicated thing to grasp – reversing a ban wouldn’t change the fact that:
Nuclear power is too expensive for Australia.
But cost alone isn’t a good reason for maintaining a ban. So what harm is there in removing it?
Given all the other issues associated with nuclear energy when there are more appropriate solutions already good to go and being implemented (renewables), just going through the motions and its impacts would turn into a huge time-sucking exercise and dangerous distraction. Time is a luxury we don’t have given all the faffing about with fossil fuels over the years – and that would be extended too.
To have nuclear power on the table as an energy solution in Australia, you’d first need to scrape it off the floor. Maintaining the ban helps save us from ourselves.
Footnotes
- No arguments there. ↩
- The draft GenCost 2024-25 report was open for consultation until last month. The final report will be released in the second quarter of 2025. ↩
- Pictured above – source: UK Government ↩
About Michael Bloch
RSS - Posts
Large plants with long operational time frames are a significant disadvantage in the world of power generation at this time.
Technology is forging ahead in leaps and bounds in the energy sector due to the world wide push for decarbonisation. Tying us to a 50 year powerplant built on 1960’s technology, that will take 20 years to deliver, will significantly inhibit our ability to uptake future as yet not discovered incremental technology advances.
Would the conversation included deep discussion about the thorium reactor technology developed in China. It is in the process of widespread commercial development and is very different to the technology being pushed by those behind Potato Head Potato Brain Dutton.
Will Dutton be prepared to walk back on his current Nuclear policy and really explore the Chinese thorium technology?
Dutton might get more support if he would show himself capable of opening himself up to THORIUM – of which Australia has ample deposits.
Hi Howard,
We’re still talking about an incredibly expensive, complex and toxic way to fire a steam engine.
Thorium is claimed as safer but still needs fissile material to initiate & sustain it, plus the fuel is harder to make & produces gamma radiation that is also harder to contain.
Nuclear (or Nukular, as many who should know better say) is just a very expensive and complicated method of boiling water to spin turbines, I prefer to collect the free energy from the Sun, a nuclear reactor maintaining itself at a safe distance.
It is interesting that some in the Liberal Party have formed a group to campaign against Dutton’s crazy nuclear fantasy… hopefully ‘Disunity is death’ will come to fruition!
They’re just expensive steam engines… in the digital age.
Obviously, the accurate and science/industry based argument against nuclear power for Australia. And it isn’t just the CSIRO that has researched and published this well documented and widely supported assessment. From the ANU to various power industry players, generation companies to investment banks and insurance companies, to environmental management and climate science (there’s that word again!), they have said the nuclear power does not make sense in the Australian context. Too expensive, too late to replace our aging coal fleet, a killer for our electricity and tax bills as it would have to be funded in many billions by the government and the list goes on.
But the key point is that anyone who approaches the science and the financial, let alone the social and environmental issues and is not a mouthpiece for the fossil fuel or nuclear industries, but exercises a clear and open mind, would conclude the same. That is, the large proportion of people who read this site.
Sadly, too many in our community get their news and assessments from Facebook, Tik Tok, Sky News and various other non-credible sources including the LNP. Some of those people even discredit arguments which come from reputable science and research based organisations simply because they are exactly that. Credible. And Reputable. And often, Government. Or existing power generation companies who acknowledge that coal fired power stations are dying.
So we can argue the cased based on facts and research but the people who need to listen have stuck their fingers in their ears and are simply not interested. And some actually harden their erroneous opinions more when confronted with countervailing facts. So how do we solve that very thorny problem if credible arguments based on facts simply don’t work?
Don’t look at me. I am completely lost for ideas, yet I spent my career in Change Managment!
I’ll be brutally honest about the CSIRO’s report. It is a deeply flawed document which uses unnamed and inaccessible references and “models”.
I think it’s clear that I’m very much a renewables supporter given I’m subscribed to this blog, and am a solar enthusiast, however I am yet to see a genuinely independent study which compares apples with apples. And yes, that especially includes counting the baked in costs of subsidies et al.
I am also deeply concerned about the level of foreign ownership of so many of the renewable projects, although this point drifts from the key topic.
I don’t see a future for nuclear in Australia either honestly, however removing the ban would have some very positive effects, namely remove a key argument for the pro lobby; and perhaps lost importantly, it would allow for much quicker implementation in the (distant) future should something drastically change.
The nuclear ban was a largely emotional one. The only way to sway minds and actually come together to some sort of a consensus is to actually weigh each option on level footing. We have nothing to fear by ditching the ban, even with tweaked numbers it’s expensive with significant problems. Solar/renewables have the lead in spades, may as well win the match and shut the case for good.
Why are we even talking about this. Nuclear is the dumbest, dirtiest and dangerous concept ever, with wind blown up its backside by the fossil industry.
Add to that list of Why Bothers:
Nuclear doesn’t give Australia’s grid what it needs *now*, let alone in 10+ years once it’s running when even more renewables and storage will have been added to the grid. Our ‘duck curve’ is completely antithetical to nuclear’s inflexibilty with following daily demand curves; they can’t scale up and down in output more than at best 20-30%, and as the French understand all too well, even that level of daily ramping comes at a cost of shorter lifespan than ‘as designed’.
If nuclear power were to happen, you can bet your top dollar that Australia’s renewables would be drastically curtailed every day, and then we’d be paying nuclear’s far more expensive c/kW.h.
This nuclear debate is so dumb, and yet it persists. These basic ‘Why Not’ facts need to be spread far and wide and loudly, and nuclear’s purveyors ridiculed at every step.
You do realise that GenCost has been thoughly debunked. It is a political report, created for political purposes.
Hi Derek,
Feel free to come up with a better qualified source.
From what I understand the free analysis done for the LNP by Danny Price assumes $600billion public dollars to provide 3.7% of total electricity in a market that’s 40% smaller than it is today.
That means they plan to further abandon manufacturing to reduce demand plus make absolutely heroic assumptions about the timeline on a technology that we have zero expertise in.
Do you realise Finland just got Okoluto 3 running and it’s already old enough to drink.
Flamanville, Vogtle, Hinckley Point C… all utter failures in timely delivery.
And so far there’s no nuclear steam engine that’s over 54 years old.
I don’t believe the LNP report either.
The best report is the real world.
Countries that have coal or nuclear as their primary source of power have the lowest power prices. (eg France)
Countries that have wind and solar as a significant input into their electricity grid have the highest prices.(eg California)
The only real exceptions to this are countries like Norway and Iceland with their hydro and geothermal.
Regarding the cost of nuclear, it is the bureaucrats that hate nuclear that make silly rules that push up the prices. Countries with sensible bureaucrats can build cheap safe reactors.
Hi Derek,
If you’re keen on real world costs you’ll need to look up the fact EDF went broke & France then fully nationalised it.
The French government heavily subsidise nuclear.
In Canada, the government in Ontario subsidises it’s nuclear industry, which provides 50% of it’s power.
So a partial reduction in electricity rates costs 6 billiion dollars every year.
Having worked at the CSIRO I am used to having world quality science, which is acknowledged as such around the world and supported by many other world class institutions’ work both public and private, “debunked” by those less qualified and respected.
Of course, anything in the future assessed using modelling can never be guaranteed to be accurate for many reasons. It is always open to challenge – that is what the scientific method is about. But it doesn’t also mean that those challenges are correct, or more accurate or less so. That is for those qualified to assess and accept or reject.
Michael Bloch, you certainly have opened a can of worms here If clickbait was your intent, you score bigtime! And I and my fellow Solar Quaoters seem very happy to oblige.
Congratulations! :))
I’m yet to see a credible reports that GenCost has been debunked. It’s all newspaper articles and whitepapers. No proper analysis. I view these articles and whitepapers as political reports, created for polical purposes.
Please post a credible reports with calculations, par with GenCost 2024 calculations.
Why on earth would you want to pay hundreds of billions of dollars and wait 20 years to get it like the snowy nothing’s ever on time when you’ve got some of the best wind and sun in the world. No one wants the waste in their backyard or the threat of danger either!! V2G AND BATTERY’S with backup the way to go !! Everyone to their own that’s my 2 bobs worth !!
I’m struggled to understand why there are experts disregarding the report in CSIRO GenCost 2024. CISRO even release their raw dataset for people to make their own analysis, but I haven’t seen any credible analysis yet.
Just google CSIRO Genset 2024 data
Check their work, run your own analysis and convince us why CSIRO is wrong.
Might as just leave Michael Leibreichs article here. It will be relevant for history when our own nuclear build has burned all our money
https://mliebreich.substack.com/p/hinkley-c-dont-say-i-didnt-warn-you
Isn’t it interesting that in most fields of science and engineering, people are generally in awe what has been achieved. When it comes to climate science, every man and his (unqualified) dog has an opinion and thinks they know better. I am too old now to witness the full effects if the scientists are right, but I despair at the political influence that stymies solutions.
One point to consider, it will cost a lot of money to fix if it is indeed still fixable, but, if the science is wrong, that’s it, it cost a lot but we will end up with a cleaner planet. If the science is right and nothing is done, god knows, but the guys calling climate science a “cult” will suffer too.
Precisely Horst.
Thankyou for making the point.
You seem to think there is no cost to wasting money.
Hospitals not built. Roads in poor repair. Education continuing to be woeful. Businesses unable to thrive because of high taxes.
Exporting all manufacturing to China with it’s woeful environmental standards….. If we are wrong, there are huge costs.
Hi Derek,
I’d rather waste money than the tangible resources we’re burning through, at ever increasing rates, as sacrifices to our god the almighty economy.
Whenever the Nuclear solution comes up I ask. Where is all the water coming from to run the systems? If salt water is used are our coast dwellers going to be happy with the location of the plant? If we use fresh water, who is going to give up the water? The farmers, the suburbs or the environment? We live on one of the driest continents on earth. Sometimes I think living near the coast makes people forget this. Perhaps once we get rid of our oil refineries we could use their water.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I wasn’t aware there was such a movement.
As regards CSIRO being “a suitable organisation policy makers could turn to for pretty reliable information” yes it should be, but is it? CSIRO has unquestionably been captured by the climate change crowd and green dollars and if it’s not anti-nuclear, then they certainly seem to be using custom figures and assumptions in their modelling e.g. https://www.skynews.con.au/business/energy/ted-obrien-requests-csiro-rerun-nuclear-costs-modelling-after-damning-report-forecast-energy-prices/032752eb68e735f8ce9535
Since nuclear energy is a direct competitor to those who profit from wind and solar those behind such interests, SQ included, are naturally not in favour of a threat to their profit margin. Yes there’s also true believers involved too.
Australia becoming a nuclear power state is a multi-step process. Ending the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 ban on nuclear power for instance is but one of the first step. Depending on the legislative changes, an enrichment plant would allow Australia to monetise its vast uranium reserves and not only develop its own fuel rods, but export them to foreign nations e.g. India. Those who don’t like coal mining should celebrate a swap, but they don’t. Mining and even exploration are generally banned by states so state or Commonwealth changes might be required. Actually developing the infrastructure would be another conversation however.
Hi George,
A word of advice… if Murdoch, via FauxNews, WSJ, SkyViews or The Australian was a reliable news source they wouldn’t be running so much science denial… from an environment editor who uses an alias to get away from his own hypocrisy.
The Oz doesn’t just give prominence to debunked misinformation… it gets things plain wrong.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/australian-climate-change-sceptics-mislead-the-public-about-bushfires/
https://www.crikey.com.au/2015/06/25/the-secret-life-of-graham-efrem-lloyd-oz-environment-editors-greenie-double-life/
https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/a-real-scoop-or-just-hot-air/9980694
Excellent summary. I find it extraordinary that anyone really thinks nuclear stations are a solution to the climate emergency. As you point out it makes no sense scientifically or economically to argue for nuclear energy for Australia. It would be a huge waste of public money that is better spent on providing true pollution free energy from the sun , the wind , etc. Future rapid developments in technology and innovation is the clear path to choose for Australia’s energy solution. Not dirty nuclear or fossil fuel industries. I mean there is no safe way to store waste from nuclear stations. No safe way ! The life cycle of this poison is a future death trap.
Given the mad money to be spent on nuclear subs (which probably won’t arrive, so we’ll only have Aussie sailors on US subs), half a trillion debt for never-never nuclear power plants seems to only deepen our ongoing tragic living standards decline.
With other nations taking around 23 years to build a nuclear power plant, it’s *after* 2048 we’d see the *first* one, not even making up all of consumption increase in that time – certainly not putting us in front. (Admittedly, that’s in the real world, so doesn’t impact fantasies.)
With 2024 at +1.6°C, Jan 2025 at +1.75°C, it’s the time squandered and damage done, more than the money, which are irrecoverable losses. In the US there are projections of a second, bigger, GFC, as coastal properties, not just in Florida, lose *all* value, and millions become uninsurable, abandoned.
If there really are 6 million 2nd cars in Australia, let’s fund a rapid BEV replacement, giving immediate fuel cost savings in hard times, and install bidirectional chargers everywhere remotely possible, for grid firming.
Now, not in 23 years. Add thousands of gridscale batteries simultaneously – for *immediate* payback, not dead sunk cost for 23 years – that’s dead nuts.
We have cheap safe remote nuclear fusion power now – with wireless transmission to homes and regions, so why go backwards to obsolete fission reactors?
And with 21st century aquifer-free fracking-free geothermal coming on stream in Geretsried in a couple of months, the fat pipeline of projects will fire up, and there won’t *be* any gap to fill in global electricity networks by the time a fission folly can be built. Geothermal timeline? 2 years, go to whoa!
Pollies can be trusted to do what is right – after all alternatives have been exhausted. Off-grid, with zero power bill, zero BEV fuel bill, & zero aircon throttling risk, I’m just disappointed to observe how easy it is to fool so many, with such appalling avoidable costs, financial and material.
https://www.nuclearforaustralia.com/environment_climate
Reading through the “facts” sheet.
“Nuclear is emissions free”
First Law of Thermodynamics: energy can be neither created nor destroyed, merely changed. Renewable energy is already present, whilst ANY non-renewable generation system will eventually release ALL of the energy generated into the environment, whether it’s via the “cooling” towers (see “water” below), losses in transmission, from step up/ step down transformers (lots of those – suburban streets), transmission lines themselves, or at the end of the line, an aluminium smelter or a domestic oven. This results in “heat islanding”, whereby discrete areas of land have higher temperatures than their surrounds. In suburbs this means that houses will turn on the air conditioners to remove heat, dumping it outside, which raises the temperature which means more energy consumed etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
“Nuclear provides more clean energy than solar or wind”
See the above point.
“Nuclear needs less land than other energy sources”
It’s been shown over and over that solar panel (and wind turbine) farms can quite happily co-exist with agriculture, sheep and cattle graze around the panels/ towers, rain water falling on them can be harvested and re-used.
“What about the water?”
Countries in Europe which use Nuclear power have legislation requiring generation be reduced if water temperature goes above a certain level, indicating that those governments realise the danger to the environment of waste heat. Climate change is predicted to give more heatwaves, further reducing nuclear generation.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Heatwave-forces-temporary-change-to-water-discharg
“Nuclear needs less finite resources”
There’s a lot of concrete used in building nuclear power plants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete
Thanks, Michael, for your:
– sensible,
– rational,
– expert, and
– Australian based comment.
I think you say it all.
Thanks
Michael I do have solar and a battery and support renewable. That said there are many wrll intended articles like this one from you above decrying the Nuclear option.
Ok so be it but please go a step further and explain how you propose to provide all the storage capacity that will be required to support a solely renewable based grid?
Batteries, pumped hydro, compressed air, green hydrogen etc.
The number of these systems that will be required to reliably support a carbon free grid in all seasons is simply huge.
Right now the NIMBY outfit are campaigning against wind in many places and getting approvals for half a dozen Snowy 2 projects would be to put it mildly a challenge.
If you want to stop nuclear ok but please explain (apologies to Pauline) just how many storage systems will be required and their likely cost to provide a grid that is secure and has significant redundancy.
House by house panels and batteries will certainly address the residential power with some encouragement from government but the total grid power requirement is far greater than just houses.
Industry and transport street lights hospitals operating 24/7.
If you then get rid if gas and liquid transport fuels as promoted on this site the power requirements increase dramatically.
I look forward to hearing back in relation to these points.
Hi Ian,
I don’t have the article to hand on my mobile device but analysis goes something like this…
Once we electrify all the transport, you’ll have 90% more storage tha you need to run the whole NEM.
So given bi-directional charging or even better, battery swaps for prime movers like Janus have in the field already, we’ll need 20% of vehicle owners willing to offer 50% of their battery capacity for potential economic reward.
90% of Australia’s transport fuel is imported. Whereas using electricity you’ll be able to generate your fuel from your own rooftop; instead of paying through the nose to truck it in from an extremist theocracy in the middle east, via Singaporean refinery, foeign flagged ship & tax dodging multi national fuel distributor.
And lets not forget that we only have two refineries left and about 14 days fuel onshore. A naval blockade would see us run dry at week six under the best scenario.
People would line up around the block if you had a petrol station selling half price petrol wouldn’t they..?
Electricity to fuel your car is ⅓ the price of petrol, even less if you have your own solar.
We already have surplus clean energy that need storing…
https://m.facebook.com/groups/NEMWatch/permalink/1405330229865617/?_rdr
I hope you are correct. Have you ever looked at the NEM Live Supply & Demand Widget? During the middle of the day things look good but ha e a look at night to see the magnitude of the increase in renewable energy production.
A second site Open Electricity provides great power production and d usage graphs for selectable periods.
I see a massive challenge to provide the renewable generating capacity even if the storage as you suggest works well.
SA is interesting as it is the state with most renewable penetratation with over 100% on regular occasions but it is also per head of population one of the largest importers of fossil fuel generated power averaging 20% imports in summer and under 20% in winter.
On the other side NSW has massive investments in renewable energy as well but in total it represents 34% annually while black coal is about 58%.
Replacing that 58% with despatchable power from renewable sources will be challenging let alone accommodating a week of cloudy weather.
The situation in winter is quite challenging with reduced solar and increased demand. Maybe huge PV installations west of the dividing range and in the centre of the country or indeed WA will be a solution with an interconnecting power system.
Nuclear may be distasteful and expensive but at least it is an option that can keep the lights on with little carbon output so surely it should remain on the table pending further development.
Hi Ian,
I’m sure you’d appreciate the discussions here.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/536404290091553/search/?q=david%20osmond
100,000 heh, that’s 0.4% of the population. Probably about on par with the proportion that think the earth is flat. Come to think of it there’s probably a fair cross-over between these two groups.
One often overlooked factor is that global energy production using a thermal intermediary; coal, oil (inc ICE), gas, nuclear, all dump 2/3 of the generated energy to waste. There are quite detailed national energy flow diagrams out there, showing that only 1/3 of the total input energy is required when we go non-fossil, non-nuke. It’s not as hard as it first seems.
Old notions of transporting liquid fuels, and using them for transport are ephemeral, ending in a couple of decades. The last ICE users might be compensated for their vehicles becoming fossils. Maybe.
Even Texas is installing gridscale batteries at an astronomical rate. It pays well, so the climate benefits can be tolerated. In a few years, we too can fully fill the duck curve with them. And NEM-wide lack of wind and solar has to be unusual. Overcapacity is eminently viable commercially, and fills a lot of holes.
But it looks like regionally distributed modest sized 21st century geothermal power stations will supplant (vapourware) SMRs in reality. The 8.2 MW electrical, 64 MW thermal plant nearing completion at Geretsried in Bavaria is dispatchable, so compatible with wind/solar variability, while nuke isn’t.
And at 2yrs build time, hundreds can dot each continent, with up to 2 decades of output, before an unviable fission folly completes.
The discussion is amusing, but nuclear is a chimera, trotted out only to bedazzle the gullible public long enough to milk fossils to the end, reducing the economic hit of dying assets. (Get Dutton drunk, and ask him yourself.)
It is narrow energy economics alone, which will decide, not the 40 million climate refugees Indonesia alone projects. And the new geothermal kills nuclear, though not as superbly as wind/solar. The die is cast, the cost relativities unavoidable, the future determined. It will run its course. (The growing climate amelioration burden alone will demand economic energy supply.) You too will go off-grid, if nuclear is foisted on the hindmost.
The geothermal plant in Austria is completely unproven at scale and there are formidable problems based on the sat exchanger efficiency and long term performance.
There have been many attempts to design and build geothermal plants in non volcanic locations and no large attempts have succeeded to date.
It is because the physics and thermodynamics behind d the designs does not stack up.
I have been involved in several ultra deep hardrock geothermal projects as well as volcanic based geothermal projects so I have at least a little real experience other than what Google might provide.
If you want a detailed explanation of the challenges let me know and if the people behind this blog will allow it I will be happy to reply.
I would like to be wrong and to be able to poke holes down wherever power is needed and to be able to build a clean plant producing dispatchable power
However I think that deep hard rock geothermal remains at this time about as elusive as a SMR based on thorium technology.
Hi Ian,
That sounds a bit sad to be honest but we’d be more than happy to learn about it if you’ve got some experience.
Cheers
Hi Ian,
How about the “Eavor targets geothermal power production at Gerestried site by 1H 2025”. This plant looks like it is feasible. Not sure about if it can be scaled up to say 20 or 50 MWh but we will hopefully soon see if it is producing power and heat for their community as per the desigh data. It has been build in about two years and is either in production now or very soon.
Indeed, we should be talking right NOW about fixing the problems with the gas market and what I believe is a broken and misconceived marginal pricing market that eliminates the benefits of cheaper renewables while magnifying the dysfunction of the gas situation.
If the Liberals next election are going to change their mind on Nuclear power, how about putting solar and batteries on every home in Australia, for the price of one Nuclear plant this would be very viable cost exercise. While moving and after retirement, being on the pension it’s not in my budget to afford to get one solar panel on the roof, so it would be very welcomed if the Government could spend the Billions of $$$ to put solar and batteries on every home in our fine county.
Heck, those who think that fossil fuels are still not harming our air and weather join the State you are in and see how the fires are impacting the part of Australia you live in, and cyclones are impacting places that they haven’t before, stop and think, why is this happening and stop the thinking “it will be OK” as there won’t be an Earth my granddaughter can live in if something isn’t done very soon to help the earth heal.
Having 33% at least of our electricity come from nuclear reactors is the most sane approach no matter how long it takes.
Windmills and EV panels and the associated disruption to the community and environment has never been properly costed and should be cut back to 33% of our electricity supplied 24 hours a day every day of the year.
Hi Robert,
Electricity demand is not constant & never has been.
The idea you can dictate a third of energy comes from one particular source is disconnected from both physics and economic reality.
“Baseload” is electricity jargon which used to mean the minimum load you could justify running a steam engine.
Now it’s been hijacked by the coal industry, it roughly translates to “please remember when we were kings”
Things like off peak water heaters were introduced so that large thermal plants could be kept ticking along. Stoking them up and down every day shortens boiler life, so artificially cheap tariffs -create- demand where it would otherwise never be.
Instead of shaping demand with limited availability tariffs designed to suit lumbering inefficient thermal generators, we now have real time pricing to incentivise use when energy is cheap. SAPN has for years offered a “solar sponge” tariff at 25% normal rates compared to 125% for peak.
With genuine surplus the cheapest ever rates are around midday now.
People have incentive to change behaviour, use their own energy, be more efficient. It’s actually well suited to large thermal batteries like hot water and ceramic heat banks.
Combined with demand response, where you’re effectively paid to curtail your use, and dynamic tariffs to incentivise batteries, “baseload” just disappears in a puff of smoke called negawatts.
Remember coal and nuclear are both just steam engines. Both need scale to be efficient. Both have complex systems requiring large amounts of cooling water. Both are inflexible & play badly with cheaper renewables.
Steam engines are going the same way as horses did 100 years ago.
https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/the-real-lesson-about-the-end-of?fbclid=IwAR2SLUYvlNVRNPeXlpHQuMv8hxrioJHXjuJAiljidvCr9218axMyESh0xd8
Excellent scientific logic. People suggesting dirty nuclear or continuing with outdated and old fossil fuel to mitigate the climate emergency make no sense. They also overlook commonwealth historic investments to transition from horse power to coal and oil. Our society invested heavily, often to subsidise private oil barons to build roads, refineries, petrol stations, massive oil tankers, road tankers, asphalt , rubber, dirty power stations, and the list goes on. Not even accounting for the massive pollution costs that the fossil fuel companies refuse to acknowledge must less fix. We have this one opportunity to transition to new locally produced low carbon energy. Do not let fossil fuel interests continue their plunder of our resources .
As usual there is always an alternative that is over looked.
There is currently near completion modular Thorium reactors being designed, produced, owned and operated by Copenhagen Atomics.
These are the size of a 40 foot container, readily located where you need the source of power, and you only pay for the power you use. Minimal capital cost, no long term radioactive waste issues, and available quicker than you can build the quickest conventional nuclear plant.
If we had people who stopped playing the radiation card and listened to informed debate perhaps this would forward get resolved.
Bob Aitken
Hi Bob,
SMRs are vapourware.
They don’t yet exist & seeing as they don’t have the economies of scale, even those pushing them admit they’re more expensive than what’s already the most expensive new build energy bar none.
The nuclear (bomb) industry abandoned thorium, but correct me if I’m wrong you still need plutonium to make them work, so how is that going to be cheaper?
What we know is that the nuclear industry has been soaking up massive public subsidy with the promise “cheap energy is just 10 years away”
For 70 years… it’s always been just around the corner.
It’s time we stopped believing the lies.
“Electricity so cheap you won’t have to meter it” is the reality of solar on every rooftop because it’s behind the meter.
Solar is here, now, and it’s actually delivering on the promise nuclear never never could.
Hear hear Michael,
After scraping it off the floor I’d put it in the bin.
Matt
When I listen to all the different arguments for nuclear power compared to wind in solar I cannot help but to think it is an argument between free power and obviously horrific cost and extremely long timelines solutions. Ultimately it comes down to the source of the energy, the sun on the one hand and then mined drilled and manufactured energy sources such as gas (drilled), coal (mined) nuclear (mined and manufactured in rods). Solar and wind comes free, the source, and there is also no cleanup cost, CO2 pollution or mine sites etc. If we are so entrenched in the steam turbines or gas turbines why don’t we look into Geothermal power stations. See the links below. Unfortunately the energy source is also free so we cannot line the pockets of the people that stoke these arguments but at least you would still use your turbines. Australia had a geothermal power station for a long time in Birdsville but the people that had to decide on its future had common sense and ultimately they use logic and replaced the ageing power plant with Solar, wind and batteries as this was the cheapest option. My view is this will eventually be the road that will prevail as it is free and we do not have to use taxpayers money without proper accountability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_geothermal_power_stations
There is another argument against nuclear power plants that I find bizarre the LNP has (apparently) not considered or acknowledged.
All of Europe is in fear of a nuclear reactor being targeted in Ukraine. They are a perfect target for terrorists or rogue states.
Given the way the world is headed it would take a small army, and anti-drone technology, to protect nuclear power stations and nearby infrastructure from attacks that would devastate an entire region. SMPs, if they are ever commercially viable, would amplify the problem.
Oh yeah let’s give our government that can’t even control child crime in Australia the responsibility of a nuclear power plant, you have to be kidding their stupidity will kill us all. When will Australians learn that our government regardless of who is in power at that particular time is absolutely useless, the best we can hope for with government is a lazy one that does nothing cause the less they do, the less damage they cause. Nuclear power plants with our government is worse than to child with a loaded gun. I can’t believe people don’t see this problem, if you don’t maybe you have a future in our fine government.
Hi Atom,
While there’s certainly room for improvement we should note that things like the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme are well, pretty beneficial.
Lazy governments like the last 9 years of conservative malfeasance we had actually did incalculable damage to the energy transition and the economy moving forward because of the uncertainty of the climate wars driving off investment.
Whereas the the very energetic actions of those fascists currently wrecking the US Federal Government are positively terrifying in their speed and scope.
We should demand more from our elected officials but equally be careful of what we wish for.
Well said Anthony Bennett.
The high cost of building (and decommissioning) nuclear power stations is no longer a problem. Obviously the 100, 000 people who signed in favour of nuclear would chip in to cover the costs.
Hi George,
Half a million people think you’re wrong.
The petition calling for a Royal Commission into Rupert Murdoch’s media dominance, initiated by former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, gathered 501,766 signatures before it closed on November 4, 2020. This made it the largest electronic petition ever submitted to the Australian Parliament.
For an independent analysis of The Australian newspaper, here are some key sources:
Media Bias/Fact Check: The Australian is rated as “Right-Center biased” due to story selection and editorial positions favoring conservative causes. It is also rated “Mixed” for factual reporting, with criticism for questionable climate change reporting and two failed fact checks.
Wikipedia: The paper is described as “generally conservative in tone,” supporting economic libertarianism and often aligning with the Liberal Party. It has historically been critical of the Labor Party and skeptical of climate action.
The Conversation: Highlights The Australian’s shift toward conservatism under Rupert Murdoch’s ownership, noting its role in promoting a right-wing agenda and polarizing political discourse in Australia.
These sources provide diverse perspectives on The Australian’s editorial stance and credibility.
However they all explain the Oz is a partisan right wing organisation.
Fun fact, the invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law and even though it signalled the US & it’s acolytes willingness to bin the post war order… every single one of Murdoch’s 175 odd mastheads across the world all came out with front pages in support of the war.
One of the things I struggle with is the amount of costings figures based on every reactor being FOAK (first-of-a-kind). The first one off the production line is always going to be extradorinarily expensive. This applies to cars, aeroplanes, ships and even TV technology.
France reduced the capital cost of its reactors by dictating a similar design, rather than reinventing the wheel each time.
The first solar panels were out of the reach of most Australians. Batteries are still at the high end. Both will continue to fall, like the price of EVs.
Why would we not think reactors will come down in price if we build more based on the same design – ohh and make the red tape more efficient. There is a mistaken belief that thousands of people have died from nuclear accidents. that is just not true.
Hi Steve,
The French built 54(?) nuclear plants in quick succession as far as I know. They worked out how at that rate.
Their last plant at Flamanville has shown they forgot how to weld them together. It’s been the subject of massive delays, cost over runs & the French equivalent of a Royal Commission to find out why.
Despite massive experience & local expertise it’s still horrendously expensive
If you want to deliver low emissions at lowest cost then it’s obvious Nuclear is just a diversion. Perhaps as Chris Pyne said, everyone knows that it won’t be built but at least it’s moved the LNP to a policy of acknowledging that a low emissions future is the goal, so nuclear is just being set up as a straw man so that lower cost alternatives can actually be built. Maybe.
Anyway…the question no one seems to really be tackling is how to make the low generation cost actually be reflected in lower prices to the end user, and not just superprofits to the generation owners. If the coal and particularly gas producers are manipulating prices now, how much more can that happen with a lot of batteries in the market. The transition will be a disaster if the winners are the generators and homeowners with the means and ability to load up their homes with PV and batteries and everyone else, including industry, gets lumped with increased prices
Hi Andrew,
I think it would help if there was some market reform of the NEM. Possibly without the incumbent industry in the room “helping” to shape the outcome.
Last significant reform I recall was moving to align the 30 minute payment reconciliation with the 5 minute bidding intervals on the spot market.
The bastards used to drive the price up with some artificial scarcity at 10:55pm, knowing the demand of “off peak” would hit at 11pm. It was cartel behavior that meant once the sky high price was set at the start of the hour, all the generators came out of the woodwork to “earn” that rate for the next 25 minutes as the price fell away.
They acknowledged it needed changing to 5min bids and 5 minute payments… but took TWO YEARS to actually enact the rule because you wouldn’t want to scare the horses.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-is-already-bringing-australias-gas-cartel-to-heel-39541/
https://reneweconomy.wpengine.com/when-generators-jack-up-prices-100-fold-and-regulators-do-nothing-61231/
The national electrical grid is too expensive to expand and too valuable to waste. National Grid is $TRILLION to build and 10 decades to construct.
Fossil fuels are 10x grid electricity.
No fossil fueled CO2 emissions then 10x clean electricity. And $10 TRILLION and 100 decades of grid capacity construction. WTF are people thinking.
And then the nuclear generation plant. construction costs and decades construction time frame. And 10 decades to clear the financing and construction debt.
Rooftop PV and v2g EV big battery is dirt cheap electricity at the consumer and no f……ing expensive grid costs. Yes frighteningly expensive grid costs.
Much more to be said but it is late here.
Stephen, grid construction and fossil power stations CivEng UNSW.
It makes me sick to see the nuclear chemists and all the other know nothings mislead the many hopefuls.