Nuclear is far from a reality in Australia. In the interim, Dutton’s plan would prop up coal and gas

As in every election over the last 20 years, at stake will be the question of whether Australia chooses a clean energy future, or prolongs the life of coal and gas – an outcome the nuclear plan relies on.

In that sense, nuclear energy is shaping up as an election fig leaf like no other.

John is on Mastodon @[email protected]. I’m not sure if me tagging him here on Lemny federates to Mastodon ?

  • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
    2·
    5 days ago

    The other major advantage Nuclear has for coal and gas companies is that once funding is locked in and construction started, it is very easy for them to sue, delay, and give millions to any resident who wants more nuclear, but just not this specific plant, and to ultimately turn a ten year construction timeline into a thirty year one.

    See this is one I don’t get, why should an extended nuclear construction time be displaced by building more coal and gas plants instead of renewables, other than the fact that the only party who says they want to build a nuclear plant is using it to justify continuing to build more coal and gas?

    • Sonori@beehaw.org
      2·
      5 days ago

      Because fossil fuel plants are a lot cheaper to build than renewables, though far more expensive to run, so if a plant is temporary and only expected to be needed for a few years than you have found the one place where financially fossil fuel power production is cheaper.

      Moreover, in this scenario the government is already spending basically all of its infrastructure money on the nuclear plants, while our friendly oil companies will give you the fossil pants for free.

      That being said, I would expect it to be less building new fossil fuel plants, though given the aging coal plant problem it might be some, and more keeping existing fossil fuel plants running because after all, ‘we just need it for a few more years’ and ‘natural gas is a great brige fuel to net zero’.