Coalition won't be cutting its nuclear energy policy loose

What a load of nonsense.

From the fantasies about the election, oh you just need to more palatable leader…that’s all it was, lmao ok.. to fusion which has been has just been just around the corner for decades thanks for the laugh.

“focus on fusion” ….lol …yes let’s ignore the cheap, fast technology we have now that actually works and focus on a technology that not only isn’t commercialised but hasn’t even been proven to work in a sustainable fashion bit might be available in the mid 30s….maybe. Genuis logic…lol

By the way you give away that you’re clueless on energy when you use “baseload power” which is a term related to the inflexibility of coal fired power stations that doesn’t apply to modern grids.

https://atse.org.au/news/six-facts-myths-about-energy-decarbonisation

PS. Enjoy losing with Hastie, the more the Australian public get to know that bloke the more they’re not going to like him.

The same poll found that more than double that amount (75%) think that renewables should play a major role in our energy mix, with a further 20% thinking they should play a minor role.

Populism isn’t going to change the economics on nuclear.

Without the Energy Generators and Retailers it’s not happening and they’re for profit companies….the nuclear debate is dead.

Gee, two to one see a major role for renewables compared with nuclear, and they are not even the ones making the investment decisions.

@nobody, how or why do you read that data then try to mislead by omission? Is it satisfying? A contribution?

This seems quite timely in that just today I read a post elsewhere with some current information and a question that may interest you Penfold.

Your blather about AEMO/CSIRO’s GenCost 2024-25 can be set aside as the usual Sky/Advance talking point having no foundation (just read the report).

As for “the rest of the world embracing nuclear” I found this at the top of your linked page:
“New plants coming online in recent years have largely been balanced by old plants being retired. Over the past 20 years, 106 reactors were retired as 102 started operation.”
A negative. A bit of a disappointing embrace.

Still, nuclear accounts for 9% of the world’s electricity generation (as your link says) and the entire world nuclear fleet currently operational has a capacity of 400GWe (ibid). That is just a little more than China alone installed as renewables in 2024 only. Their plan, including nuclear, shows over 90% of planned growth is renewables, 10% nuclear capacity by 2035. Mind you, China has cancelled more nuclear projects than any other country so there are no guarantees of the 10%.

I read also that an assessment of the famous “baseload” demand in South Australia showed it to be less than 5% so the demand swing is about 20x. How does that go for nuclear with 5%/min ramping and the undesirability of repeatedly dropping below 50% output? I do not mention cost impacts (yet).

So to a question: what proportion of Australia’s power do you think could or should be nuclear, and on what economic, technical and operational basis?

Well good on you for reading the link Axon, you’re well ahead of some of your contemporaries. But sadly you’re looking backwards in regard to the retired nuclear plants, the good news is there’s 70 new ones being built and 110 planned. So despite the GenCost report and its wild assumptions trying to tell us they’re uneconomic, clearly the numbers do stack up around the world. And yes I’ve read the report – the incorrect assumptions around capacity and operating life meant their LCOE numbers were very dodgy.

And who could forget that Microsoft are reopening Three Mile Island to power their AI servers despite 45 years of scaremongering from opponents.

There’s some interesting numbers you quote about China’s energy sources. But did you know that China has the world’s largest and most active coal power fleet, responsible for over half the global coal power generation, with a 10-year high in new construction approvals occurring in 2024 and 2025.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-construction-of-new-coal-power-plants-reached-10-year-high-in-2024/#:~:text=Construction%20started%20on%2094.5GW,potential%20cooling%20in%20project%20initiation%E2%80%9D

“There’s some interesting numbers you quote about China’s energy sources. But did you know that China has the world’s largest and most active coal power fleet, responsible for over half the global coal power generation, with a 10-year high in new construction approvals occurring in 2024 and 2025.”

And yet despite the increases in coal capacity in China, the proportion of total electricity supplied by coal in China is consistently dropping as investment in cheaper renewables massively outpaces coal growth.

And as Pengold repeatedly ignores, the total proportion of global energy provided by nuclear is predicted by the nuclear industry themselves to barely change in coming decades. Once again, the growth in cheaper renewables being orders of magnitude higher than nuclear.

Just like Pengold and the LNP, its a shame when ideology gets in the way of understanding the facts and economics.

After their energy policies being well and truly rejected at the election, its seems the LNP would rather become a minor party than learn the lesson.

Reading your links, Penfold, provides such a rich source of your own errors.

Yes, Microsoft is reopening an existing plant. The capital cost having been sunk, this is relatively low cost, unlike new builds. There are also strategic and climate/geography reasons why a country may desire a small nuclear component. I observe you have not attempted to answer my final question. I am not at all surprised.

You read the AEMO/CSIRO report and did not understand it and you like to invent your own data. We already knew that.
Meanwhile, no commercial energy company in Australia wants to build any nuclear plants because their own analysis shows renewables to be cheaper. Do they have it all wrong too? Write to them with the Penfoldian gospel.

Yes, I am fully aware that China has a large coal power fleet. It has over a billion people. It contributes a similar or smaller proportion of total power as our own existing coal-powered stations and we know down which plughole they are heading in the next decade. In fact, China’s installed coal power is 43% of their total capacity, 45% if you chuck in nuclear. Renewables are 55%.

Did you know China has the world’s largest and most active renewables “fleet”, and its growth share is 86% and climbing compared with coal and nuclear for the remnant? Renewables construction is at an all-time high, just like it is in Australia, and growing, as it is here. I guess the Chinese can calculate economically efficient action just like we can.

Labor didn’t have to run a good scare campaign but you keep believing this nonsense.

Facts:
– The Energy Generators & Retailers (for profit companies) said NO to nuclear, too expensive, too slow, too risky….they won’t be investing.

– The QLD LNP have said no to reactors in QLD…hardly a group of woke lefties.

– Dutton’s nuclear plan relied on Australia from scratch with no nuclear industry building nuclear reactors faster than any western country in history…just absurd policy on the run.

– Dutton’s nuclear plan relied on Australia building Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)….the problem with that, there only two commercialised SMRs in the world, both in totalitarian states (Russia & China) both massively government funded. The other problem with SMRs is they don’t generate enough electricity but they still cost about as much as full scale reactor to build.

– Dutton and the nuclear boosters have never explained where the water was coming from for these reactors.

– Virtually every electorate that Dutton had planned to force one of his reactors into had revolted…you think people don’t like windfarms…wait until they try to build a nuclear reactor somewhere in Australia.

– Dutton never explained how he would get the consensus he needed to change federal and state laws….yes there are state laws that also need to be changed as well.

The nuclear lobby will never get the consensus they need to change the laws nationwide, but they’re not trying to because the whole thing is a distraction.

A place holder for doing nothing on climate and energy pushed by the fossil fuel lobby that wants to delay clean energy as long as possible and who don’t care what it costs Australia supported by the dopey culture warriors who will push any BS as long it’s “for” the team.

Axon – you think that a reactor opened in 1974 will be restarted, “the capital cost having been sunk”. Well my friend, sorry to bring some reality to the table but you can’t just reopen something like that, a substantial capital injection is required.

The GenCost howlers were well documented. It assumed a 30 year life for nuclear when the reality is around 80. Some US plants are now planning 100+ year lifecycles. So GenCost got that wrong by a factor of around 3. It also assumed an operating capacity of 50%, when the reality is 90%+. So the LCOE numbers are into the realm of 500% inflated. That’s what happens when Chris “renewables are cheaper” Bowen gets involved. Takes the $600 billion number closer to $120 billion. Compare that to $1,300 billion.

Now your Chinese energy share numbers look fanciful at best. The International Energy Agency reports that their Total Energy Supply is around 5% renewable. Tough one there, believe Axon or the IEA ?

https://www.iea.org/countries/china

As for your question – well asking what share of Australia’s TES should be nuclear is off with the fairies. Nobody is suggesting that the transportation sector should be nuclear powered. Well except Albo’s submarines of course. But for the electricity sector then the answer should be close to 100%, if the goal is reliable, affordable and emissions-free power. But throw in some solar as well. Wind power is pretty much comatosed as an industry, nobody is seeing it as a viable long-term energy source. Best we get cracking on nuclear soon, we’ll just need this current government out of the way. Clock’s ticking !

Ah, the same discredited talking points over and over again.

Theres definitely a well documented list of howlers in Penzero’s comments, particularly when he doesn’t even know what a capacity factor is.

Too funny.

There’s 4 paragraphs there and aside from the fact that he won’t (because he can’t) address any of the points I raised there’s not a single cogent argument in any of it.

It’s all fantasy stuff like….”So the LCOE numbers are into the realm of 500% inflated. “…just completely made up and then “Takes the $600 billion number closer to $120 billion. Compare that to $1,300 billion” pull straight of…the air.

There’s no point arguing with a fool who just makes up numbers like this…in the real world in the UK, a country with an established nuclear industry. Hinkley C was projected to cost £18 billion and finish in 2025 it’s not looks to be up to £46 billion and won’t finish until 2029-2031.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68073279

The facts are that nuclear hard, expensive and risky even for countries that know what they’re doing… imagine the clown show if people who think they can just make up numbers tried to build a nuclear power plants from scratch here.

Thanks for your 2023 figures on consumption, Penfold. I provided 2024 figures on their capacity. Remember that 86% growth share and climbing in renewables in 2024?

Who to believe, Penfold or facts?

Brownfields vs greenfields developments are very different investment cases. Three Mile Island was classed as in “excellent condition” so it is able to be brought on line in at far less time and cost than it would take to design, approve, prepare, build and test a plant on a greenfields site, especially in Australia. That Penfold fantasises otherwise in forlorn hope of making a point shows he knows nothing about the major investment landscape.

In any event, I allowed that there will be some nuclear builds from scratch in some places, for different reasons, amounting to a minority of generation. What Penfold cannot grasp is that it is an absurd proposition here. He goes on to prove that with his quite ludicrous “100% nuclear”. I gave you some clues in my first post Penfold, quite apart from the cost and water resource issues. “Baseload” is not what you probably think it is. Economics is not in your thinking at all.

I did ask you not to blather your usual Sky/Advance talking points but you did it anyway. They are rejected within the report, and your problem is exacerbated by your aforementioned unfamiliarity with major investment decisions.

Best you have a good lie down until the fever passes. Australian people and companies which know what they are doing are busy building our future energy.

“The facts are that nuclear hard, expensive and risky even for countries that know what they’re doing… (sic)”

Yes, the 180 nuclear power plants under construction and on the planning table around the globe are testament to the veracity of this commentary. Reality, meet seano’s fantasy.

I see Penfold still living in his fantasy world… how many of those are under construction in Australia Penfold? lmao.

It doesn’t matter how many fantasy numbers you refer to, I refer you to my earlier post where I break down why nuclear is not going to happen in Australia despite your tantrums, most notably the Australian Energy Generators & Retailers (for profit companies) rejected Dutton’s nuclear plan, too slow, too expensive, too risky. They’re not investing, check mate.

If can’t even get the QLD LNP government on board IDK why you think posting nonsense here will change anyone’s mind on nuclear.

lol…Penfold you don’t have to beclown yourself, it’s not a requirement.

Well of course seano you forget that nuclear does exist in Australia and has done for decades. And it’s coming to a submarine near you too, so you might want to upgrade that narrow list of repetitive talking points.

Nuclear energy will definitely happen in Australia – it’s a question of when, not if. Right now the head-in-sand naysayers are getting their way but as we’re watching Turnbull’s disastrous Snowy 2.0 and the crumbling wind industry and realising that relying on China for solar products is strategically and industrially a bad idea. Sorry, there’s a few moving parts there for you to consume. Perhaps start plugging tidal power, all that coastline 🙂

“nuclear does exist in Australia and has done for decades”…comparing nuclear medicine to nuclear power is merely another demonstration of your ignorance on energy…like claiming a calculator and a computer are the same thing. Embarrassing.

“And it’s coming to a submarine near you too”…is it? With Trump in the Whitehouse are you sure of that camp? And considering you’re making these fallacious comparisons I’ll play…how many cities are being powered with these subs Penfold?

Genius stuff as always Penfold. lol

“Nuclear energy will definitely happen in Australia”….nuclear power won’t happen in Australia, the Energy Generator & Retailers (not “nay sayers” actual for profit energy companies) have rejected it as too slow, too expensive and too risky…they’re not investing. Check mate.

Thank you for your reflex Henry. So that I may understand it better, kindly explain the verifiable economic and technical basis of your view.

If you are unable to do so, may I take you as completely clueless?

For what purpose? So you can strawman an argument that Australia is somehow different to the rest of the world?

Try again

Um… when it comes to nuclear power Australia is different to the rest of the world Henry.

We don’t have an existing nuclear industry, infrastructure or expertise, we’re about as far you can practically get away from the nearest countries that have these things.

We don’t have the water, we don’t have the political will to change the laws and even if most Australians would accept that there could be a place for nuclear in our energy mix they’re certainly not going to pay extra for the privilege. Besides no one here actually wants to live near a reactor.

It’s amazing that the right wing seem to believe that “nuclear” is magic instead of expensive, difficult and risky which is the reality of the situation.

Henry – on this rare occasion seano has a point. We are different to the rest of the world. Not only do we have vast uranium reserves, a developed regulatory framework, people skills, an existing energy infrastructure that could support nuclear power, we’re even geologically stable from a long-term storage perspective.

But i did love his comment “We don’t have the water”. With the 6th longest coastline in the world – 66,000 kms – that’s just an odd statement. Perhaps he needs to investigate the relationship between coastline and water. And the desalination process if he can get that far.

“But i did love his comment “We don’t have the water”. With the 6th longest coastline in the world – 66,000 kms – that’s just an odd statement. Perhaps he needs to investigate the relationship between coastline and water. And the desalination process if he can get that far.”

I did enjoy this part of Pengold’s comment where he promotes an extremely energy hungry option to supply water to Nuclear reactors that would make the most expensive electricity option significantly more so.

But of course we’ve already confirmed that the ideologically driven Penzero has no interest or understanding of the economics of electricity supply.

And once again Penfold trips on his clown shoes….apparently when the Energy Generators & Retailers did the sums on nuclear and said “no” we’re not investing because nuclear is too expensive, too slow and too risky, they didn’t know we Uranium in the country.

LMAO …genius stuff Penfold. Next you’ll be claiming we can magic a workforce skilled in nuclear energy out of the air….oh I see you did that too. lol

“But i did love his comment “We don’t have the water”. With the 6th longest coastline in the world – 66,000 kms”

Please point to the exact locations on the coastline where these reactors will go then Penfold? Be specific.

Of course you won’t because even Dutton couldn’t say exactly were…this was one the may policy on the run problems that went into “we’ll work it out later” basket of problems.

Perhaps you need to stop posting disingenuous nonsense, you’re embarrassing yourself again.

“I did enjoy this part of Pengold’s comment where he promotes an extremely energy hungry option to supply water to Nuclear reactors that would make the most expensive electricity option significantly more so.”

OH wow I missed the bit about desalinisation, lmao.

I guess if he’s going embrace magical thinking on nuclear power then why not throw in desalination plants…it fits with his other nonsensical pulled from the air claims of $1.3 trillions etc.

At this point he’s literally stopped trying to win arguments with rational debate and real facts and figures but I can’t decide if it’s because he’s a plant to make the left look good or his brain broke.

Love it seano, more than happy to be specific. Just as Peter Dutton was, though clearly you missed it – “even Dutton couldn’t say exactly were (sic)”

Tarong, Callide, Liddell, Mount Piper, Port Augusta, Loy Yang and Muja were all nominated as possible sites, though obviously this was subject to further planning and analysis. Perhaps you should scrub up on the announced policy details before further humiliating commentary.

There’s even a nice map here to help you. Some are coastal, some not. Though i’d also point out for your benefit – it’s not just coastline where water is available, there’s geological features called rivers too.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/federal-election-2025-peter-dutton-coalition-nuclear-power-plans-explained/2aa01872-3156-4a5e-86fa-662bc90b0bf0

So, Henry, to my request that you explain the verifiable economic and technical basis of your view, you whack up a straw man for yourself. Why wouldn’t you be able to make a case for this country, if you are advocating something for this country?

I’ll take it that you are unable to do so, etc.

” though obviously this was subject to further planning and analysis”… lmao…I don’t even have to shootdown Penfold’s nonsense it’s now self owning….lmao

And of course most of those sites either don’t have the access to water required and/or anywhere to dump superheated water when necessary….completely clueless. lol.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/cooling-power-plants

Its not my job to explain things to you axon. Try chatgpt

Actually it is your job Henry. You made an extraordinary claim so back it up with your extraordinary evidence.

Your sullen denial exposes that you commented without thought or knowledge.