As the shift away from fossil fuels gathers pace, the Coalition has turned to an emissions-free technology with a long and contentious history — nuclear fission. These are the numbers you should keep in mind when thinking about its place in Australia’s energy transition.

As the shift away from fossil fuels gathers pace, the Coalition has turned to an emissions-free technology with a long and contentious history — nuclear fission. These are the numbers you should keep in mind when thinking about its place in Australia’s energy transition.

I encourage you to at least glance through the article before you leave a comment that other commenters will dunk on you for.

  • BadlyDrawnRhino
    12·
    6 months ago

    I think those quotes at the bottom are a really great summary of the problem with the Coalition’s nuclear plan:

    “As I said, from an engineering point of view nuclear power is an excellent form of energy,” Dr Finkel said.

    “What we can’t do is say, ‘Oh, nuclear is easy, therefore let’s stop all the wind and jump on to nuclear.’

    “It just can’t possibly happen in the time-frame that we need. But that doesn’t mean we should rule it out because there’s that long term benefit.”

    I could see the merits of beginning to invest in nuclear now, given the time required to get it up and running, but only so long as the shift to renewables isn’t interrupted. Unfortunately, I think the LNP see this as a way to seem like they give a shit about climate change, but really it’s just a way to buy them another decade or two to line their pockets with coal.

    • zik
      7·
      5 months ago

      Nuclear power’s already much more expensive than every other mainstream option, and the gap is widening every year. In twenty years time it’s going to be so much more expensive it’ll be ridiculous. No one’s going to want to buy power for several times the cost of all the other options.

      The idea’s not only dumb - it’s completely commercially unviable.

      • psud
        5·
        5 months ago

        Remember it’s not really about building nuclear, it’s about promising nuclear in a short enough timeframe to prevent investment in renewables, and then keeping the date moving steadily into the future until maybe 20 years later a reactor is built. It’s about giving 20 more years to coal (and coal has the most radioactive exhaust of any power generation technology)

    • zurohkiEnglish
      6·
      5 months ago

      Are there merits to investing in nuclear now?

      A nuclear plant would take the best part of 20 years to build and has at least a 40 year lifespan. It’d be competing not against today’s solar and batteries but against 2040’s solar and batteries on day one. And it’d need to be profitable until 2070.

      It would have been great to have invested in nuclear in the 80s, but we didn’t. Like hydrogen cars, it could have been great but we’ve moved past it already.

      • psud
        1·
        5 months ago

        Nuclear is difficult in Australia because of our low population. I agree it would have been nice to have some 40 year old reactors now (Lucas Heights doesn’t count as it isn’t a power reactor) but we don’t because we don’t and didn’t have the population to support enough reactors for maintenance of one to not cripple the grid until small reactors were invented recently

    • Weirdmusic@lemmy.world
      4·
      6 months ago

      The time to invest in nuclear was ten years ago which (checks diary) was right about the time the last coalition government was in power and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Now they’re attempting to upend the inevitable transition to renewables by sprouting bullshit about nuclear.

      Let me be clear: there are compelling reasons to go nuclear but the time and cost mean that this option is largely moot.