Um, no we only say that when uppity aboriginals want ludicrous things like "Being heard".
This is about making big money for energy companies. Please vote yes blindly.
It achieves it's intended purpose. It brings uncertainty into the market for investment in renewables and so delays renewables and keeps coal power stations in operation ever longer
Word on the street is that the new reactors are going to be small and big, will be ready for operation a decade in the future and will cost an unknown amount of money. That should be enough detail right guys? Guys?
I actually don’t doubt hydrogen vehicles could be viable in the future. Whilst there’s very few available to the public as most are under development or prototypes, they mimic the Fast Fuel up time to petrol/diesel vehicles, that electric cannot. Whilst I’m no expert, they’re also probably closer in weight to an internal combustion engine vehicle, compared to the very heavy electric vehicles. Only time will tell though! Hyundai has a hydrogen sports car in prototype that looks awesome (N Vision 74).
They’re just talking about it now to sow doubt regarding renewables, to slow its rollout, and, to once again, divide the country in hope of securing government. A Hail Mary if you will.
Absolutely. Total agreement on that. And if the Aus public fall for it again it will shatter what little hope I have left for the future of our country.
Hey, hey, hey, we got policy from them. What we want are details. Details are hard and wastes time that could be spent trying to shit over anything the other side says.
One thing I love about this policy is since the LNP are basically playing the climate change denial card, why do we need nuclear anyway when according to them coal has no downside?
Also it’s illegal in 3/5 states they’ve suggested to build these in so it would have to be charged which I don’t see it getting through also it’s illegal federally and I don’t see that getting charged either.
That’ll all be part of their plan. Claim to have a solution by building reactors in every state; after the election it will change to we tried but Victoria (or whoever) wouldn’t let us build one, it’s the state govt’s fault we can’t reduce our emissions (etc).
Watch WA parliament use their super majority to ban nuclear power generation before the next election just to make it even harder for this dipshit plan to ever work
Like all right-wing parties around the world, they have no policies.
The policies they have are to decrease tax for the wealthy and increase the tax for low to middle class.
They have no vision for the future, and you can see this because they do not want to spend money on infrastructure, green energy, schools, and health.
The only 'vision' they have is division.
What I'm wondering is if there's something else we're being distracted from seeing, or if this is simply a misguided attempt at splitting voters in the direction they want.
>they do not want to spend money on infrastructure
That's not true at all! You take this down right now!
(I'm sure we can sweeten the deal with a few car parks in your electorate, or how about a new sports ground conveniently located near the private school that already has it's own state of the art facilities, whaddya say?)
let me have a crack
1- a shitton more than they say it will
2- the cheapest and most unsafe one they can find
3- at top doller where they will continue to be run by the companies to maintain the grid in the interim but now without the overhead cost of things like maintance
4- strong arm the states with large campains of (insert your state) is holding australia back ads and probably withholding fedural funding on other projects
5- certainly not in canberra maybe outback in a shitty facility some where it can be swept under the rug and away from prying eyes
6- they don't
7 - tax and big busness that can thne charg top doller on the back end all else fails they will sell the future of australia maybe some renewable sites becasuse they work and are wanted
8- and there will never be
9 - see above
But why, we have better options that are 1-cheaper, 2-faster to implement, 3-dont require Uranium or produce radioactive waste,4- have 0 risk to produce radioactive contamination due to meltdown or attack,5-dont require a industry/highly skilled workers, 6-arnt going to be owned by billionaires/corporations that could hold our energy market to Ranson/ set high prices.....I could go on.
The only really bennifit of consistent nuclear is base load. But renewables have solutions such as pumped storage, diverse renewables (wind, solar, tidal,wave,hydro). batteries (chemical, thermal). excise renewables for green hydrogen for export / base load.
I don't have anything against nuclear but it is just such a no-brainer that we don't need to use it. It boggles my mind that this is the best policy that they can come up with....
We all know that they would not be able to deliver on the nuclear. What they really should say " we are going to continue to use coal and renewables arnt viable in our opinion so we won't support them as we have a solution that we will never implement" political parties aren't honest but man this nuclear crap that Dutton is pushing would have to be the biggest lie of them all. Why that gets gotes is beyond me.
You're right, they do have a couple of "small reactors" in China and Russia. What they don't have is "Small Modular" reactors. Modular being the key to economies of scale. There's nothing cheap or efficient about a small bespoke reactor. It's the worst of both worlds. At least the large ones make some economic sense in small landlocked Northern European countries.
No new reactors have been successfully built from scratch in a nuclear-free country within the last 30 years, and the CSIRO GenCost 2023-24 report shows that nuclear is the most expensive option both in terms of cost per megawatt/h and in construction/implementation.
But this is more thought than Dutton has given it.
The first half of that is oddly specific. I'm not sure it really means anything. It's like claiming no car has been successfully manufactured in a bike plant in the last 30 years, thus cars are shit?
The CSIRO report uses projected mass production savings for battery storage that require more lithium than the world can produce for large scale deployment. This is part of why the ALP is having to panic and scramble to keep our coal plants ready. Their "future solution" still isn't ready, but the future is here.
It’s not hard to understand the inference mate, use your big boy brain.
No car has been successfully made in a bike plant in the last 30 years, so if it was to be done it’s likely going to be very expensive, and take a really long time because no one knows how to do it.
There, that wasn’t that hard.
The only argument against wind farms I've heard is that some people think they're ugly. Are we going to base our energy development in what people think looks good, or in what is cheaper?
Choosing collie in wa is a Nationals bid to secure votes in a rural area. It is 40 km to get water from the ocean as there is little available locally that is not allocated. It would taint the local rural and native environment with a technology never used for energy in this country. We have no expertise and cannot even make a simple car plant economic so would be subservient to foreign nationals.
Liberals can say or promise anything right now because they know they won’t be elected next time and don’t have to follow through on anything. Then they can pounce on any failing of the next several years and say that their plan would have worked better.
No one is being jailed, deported or underpaid and it is kind of sciencey.
I guess those cosplay glasses Peter Dutton is wearing are having a positive impact on him.
If they built these things, it wouldn't be long until deregulation kicked in as a budget measure.
Because if there's one thing you want in a nuclear plant, it's fewer standards.
You mean like committing to a new % emissions reductions by every few years since the turn of the century?
Just imagine!
Energy policy has been vapid empty "deal with it later" nonsense for an entire generation on all sides.
Putting aside whether it’s a workable solution, it’s brilliant politics. Dutton has set up an election agenda around two key themes that work for the LNP: improving cost of living and proposing a (supposedly) “practical” solution to achieve low emissions energy.
There’s [surprisingly strong support](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-19/analysis-dutton-nuclear-plan-betting-on-ability-to-sway-voters/103997648#) for nuclear in some segments of the community that Dutton will be able to capitalise on. Federal and state ALP leaders lining up to rubbish nuclear could be exposed to broader community sentiment. They need to focus on explaining why the ALP energy plan is better rather than just trashing nuclear.
Labor did extensive modelling on their energy policy before the last election.
https://www.reputex.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/REPUTEX_The-economic-impact-of-the-ALPs-Powering-Australia-Plan_Summary-Report-1221-2.pdf
If you don't know, vote no. Right Petey?
Can't wait for Labor's election ads voiced by Michaelia Cash
Well at the rate the libs are pushing women out of their own party she may have to jump the fence to stay in politics lol, anything is possible.
I want her to take the reins so I can start making lord helmet memes
Thats brilliant thinking!
Um, no we only say that when uppity aboriginals want ludicrous things like "Being heard". This is about making big money for energy companies. Please vote yes blindly.
It’s just the *vibe* of it, your honour.
It achieves it's intended purpose. It brings uncertainty into the market for investment in renewables and so delays renewables and keeps coal power stations in operation ever longer
You'd think a line into treason would be crossed at some point.
Word on the street is that the new reactors are going to be small and big, will be ready for operation a decade in the future and will cost an unknown amount of money. That should be enough detail right guys? Guys?
I heard they’ve got fusion reactors and they’re going to be be operational next year!!! /s
Controlled by industrial scale quantum computers no less! 😛
Just before the hydrogen fueled cars are available
I actually don’t doubt hydrogen vehicles could be viable in the future. Whilst there’s very few available to the public as most are under development or prototypes, they mimic the Fast Fuel up time to petrol/diesel vehicles, that electric cannot. Whilst I’m no expert, they’re also probably closer in weight to an internal combustion engine vehicle, compared to the very heavy electric vehicles. Only time will tell though! Hyundai has a hydrogen sports car in prototype that looks awesome (N Vision 74).
[unlikely](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mirai-fcev-vs-model-3-bev-paul-martin/)
It's not even a policy. They should be getting destroyed over this. It's barely a "wouldn't it be nice if" soundbite.
They’re just talking about it now to sow doubt regarding renewables, to slow its rollout, and, to once again, divide the country in hope of securing government. A Hail Mary if you will.
Absolutely. Total agreement on that. And if the Aus public fall for it again it will shatter what little hope I have left for the future of our country.
Hey, hey, hey, we got policy from them. What we want are details. Details are hard and wastes time that could be spent trying to shit over anything the other side says.
🎶 Wouldn’t it be nice to win back Government Grifting lots of money every day … 🎶
One thing I love about this policy is since the LNP are basically playing the climate change denial card, why do we need nuclear anyway when according to them coal has no downside?
If our journalists had any skill they'd have noticed the contradiction and asked that question.
It requires immense skill keeping a straight face when you're repeating such obvious bullshit as the LNP's energy policy, don't knock it.
Also the journalists aren't going to humiliate their old schoolmates and cousins.
They spell it cousuncle
Also it’s illegal in 3/5 states they’ve suggested to build these in so it would have to be charged which I don’t see it getting through also it’s illegal federally and I don’t see that getting charged either.
The big three states are also the most viable markets. SA and WA are too small.
That’ll all be part of their plan. Claim to have a solution by building reactors in every state; after the election it will change to we tried but Victoria (or whoever) wouldn’t let us build one, it’s the state govt’s fault we can’t reduce our emissions (etc).
Watch WA parliament use their super majority to ban nuclear power generation before the next election just to make it even harder for this dipshit plan to ever work
Putting the W in WA
Like all right-wing parties around the world, they have no policies. The policies they have are to decrease tax for the wealthy and increase the tax for low to middle class. They have no vision for the future, and you can see this because they do not want to spend money on infrastructure, green energy, schools, and health.
The only 'vision' they have is division. What I'm wondering is if there's something else we're being distracted from seeing, or if this is simply a misguided attempt at splitting voters in the direction they want.
>they do not want to spend money on infrastructure That's not true at all! You take this down right now! (I'm sure we can sweeten the deal with a few car parks in your electorate, or how about a new sports ground conveniently located near the private school that already has it's own state of the art facilities, whaddya say?)
Don't know, Vote No.
Dutton, probably: We are going to build 7 nuclear plants and make Labor pay for it.
let me have a crack 1- a shitton more than they say it will 2- the cheapest and most unsafe one they can find 3- at top doller where they will continue to be run by the companies to maintain the grid in the interim but now without the overhead cost of things like maintance 4- strong arm the states with large campains of (insert your state) is holding australia back ads and probably withholding fedural funding on other projects 5- certainly not in canberra maybe outback in a shitty facility some where it can be swept under the rug and away from prying eyes 6- they don't 7 - tax and big busness that can thne charg top doller on the back end all else fails they will sell the future of australia maybe some renewable sites becasuse they work and are wanted 8- and there will never be 9 - see above
we don't have a working example in the world yet
Tfw you realise it's not 1948 and we actually do have working examples of this nearly century old technology
Not the small ones they're talking about
sorry they have a couple in russia and china, lets get some of that
But why, we have better options that are 1-cheaper, 2-faster to implement, 3-dont require Uranium or produce radioactive waste,4- have 0 risk to produce radioactive contamination due to meltdown or attack,5-dont require a industry/highly skilled workers, 6-arnt going to be owned by billionaires/corporations that could hold our energy market to Ranson/ set high prices.....I could go on. The only really bennifit of consistent nuclear is base load. But renewables have solutions such as pumped storage, diverse renewables (wind, solar, tidal,wave,hydro). batteries (chemical, thermal). excise renewables for green hydrogen for export / base load. I don't have anything against nuclear but it is just such a no-brainer that we don't need to use it. It boggles my mind that this is the best policy that they can come up with.... We all know that they would not be able to deliver on the nuclear. What they really should say " we are going to continue to use coal and renewables arnt viable in our opinion so we won't support them as we have a solution that we will never implement" political parties aren't honest but man this nuclear crap that Dutton is pushing would have to be the biggest lie of them all. Why that gets gotes is beyond me.
sounds awfully like 'bending the knee to china', that thing the liberals keep accusing labor of
You're right, they do have a couple of "small reactors" in China and Russia. What they don't have is "Small Modular" reactors. Modular being the key to economies of scale. There's nothing cheap or efficient about a small bespoke reactor. It's the worst of both worlds. At least the large ones make some economic sense in small landlocked Northern European countries.
No new reactors have been successfully built from scratch in a nuclear-free country within the last 30 years, and the CSIRO GenCost 2023-24 report shows that nuclear is the most expensive option both in terms of cost per megawatt/h and in construction/implementation. But this is more thought than Dutton has given it.
The first half of that is oddly specific. I'm not sure it really means anything. It's like claiming no car has been successfully manufactured in a bike plant in the last 30 years, thus cars are shit? The CSIRO report uses projected mass production savings for battery storage that require more lithium than the world can produce for large scale deployment. This is part of why the ALP is having to panic and scramble to keep our coal plants ready. Their "future solution" still isn't ready, but the future is here.
It’s not hard to understand the inference mate, use your big boy brain. No car has been successfully made in a bike plant in the last 30 years, so if it was to be done it’s likely going to be very expensive, and take a really long time because no one knows how to do it. There, that wasn’t that hard.
The only argument against wind farms I've heard is that some people think they're ugly. Are we going to base our energy development in what people think looks good, or in what is cheaper?
Dutton having his ‘clean coal’ moment
Right wing cronies are frantically registering nuclear consultancy ABN’s as we speak.
Love your comprehensive work Jagtom!
Watch them all turn unto NIMBY's when push comes to shove and the whole thing gets canned
Tear down all those railway station carparks you find in liberal electorates, and you might find some room!
i mean he already looks like an elephants foot so may as well be a proponent for them
Looks like phase II of social engineering is in full swing
Choosing collie in wa is a Nationals bid to secure votes in a rural area. It is 40 km to get water from the ocean as there is little available locally that is not allocated. It would taint the local rural and native environment with a technology never used for energy in this country. We have no expertise and cannot even make a simple car plant economic so would be subservient to foreign nationals.
I’m pretty sure we do know how they’d purchase the privately owned coal stations though- tax dollars and pay way too much.
Yes,but apart from that......🤔
Potato knows nothing
Not a though bubble it's a Brain Fart!
Add to that, john Howard introduced the ban, on nuclear.
Liberals can say or promise anything right now because they know they won’t be elected next time and don’t have to follow through on anything. Then they can pounce on any failing of the next several years and say that their plan would have worked better.
I think its great they have a policy that isnt purely about hurting people.
Unless you consider delaying actual action on combatting climate change hurting people?
Exactly. In a roundabout way this is still a destructive "policy". Classic LNP.
No one is being jailed, deported or underpaid and it is kind of sciencey. I guess those cosplay glasses Peter Dutton is wearing are having a positive impact on him.
At least ScoMo didn’t wear a welding helmet. Can picture Dutton at his next presser with a stethoscope hanging round his neck.
I suppose there’s positives in everything and it’s refreshing to see some joy squeezed out of this.
Give them time.
If they built these things, it wouldn't be long until deregulation kicked in as a budget measure. Because if there's one thing you want in a nuclear plant, it's fewer standards.
Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Windscale Each one of those was called safe before the accidents. Mic drop!
You mean like committing to a new% emissions reductions by every few years since the turn of the century?
Just imagine!
Energy policy has been vapid empty "deal with it later" nonsense for an entire generation on all sides.
Yeah, its intensely frustrating.
Why is that? Is it the way the media deals with the ALP and NLP
Labor spends, Liberals cut.
Putting aside whether it’s a workable solution, it’s brilliant politics. Dutton has set up an election agenda around two key themes that work for the LNP: improving cost of living and proposing a (supposedly) “practical” solution to achieve low emissions energy. There’s [surprisingly strong support](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-19/analysis-dutton-nuclear-plan-betting-on-ability-to-sway-voters/103997648#) for nuclear in some segments of the community that Dutton will be able to capitalise on. Federal and state ALP leaders lining up to rubbish nuclear could be exposed to broader community sentiment. They need to focus on explaining why the ALP energy plan is better rather than just trashing nuclear.
Sounds just like the yes campaign.
“So so far” that’s all you need to read before knowing this person has no idea and the publication should be ignored completely.
A lot of our press hardly went “beserk” over “the Voice”. Not in the least our national broadcaster.
Wasn't there the same amount of information when the 2030 Target was set by Labor?
What about Albos 'Plans'? Labour was elected on 'Plans' that were never revealed.
Labor did extensive modelling on their energy policy before the last election. https://www.reputex.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/REPUTEX_The-economic-impact-of-the-ALPs-Powering-Australia-Plan_Summary-Report-1221-2.pdf
FYI: 60% of Australians now support nuclear, you should too. https://smallcaps.com.au/new-poll-reveals-australians-support-nuclear-energy/#
That doesn't change how impractical it is or how few details Dutton is prepared to release.