I think any time nuclear in Australia is mentioned, it's important to state why the Coalition is pushing this policy. Peter Dutton is not pro-nuclear, he's pro-fossil fuels, and pretending nuclear is feasible is the best way of delaying the action needed to transition away from fossil fuels. If nuclear became cost effective, timely and viable, the Coalition would suddenly develop deep misgivings about the safety of nuclear plants and the problem of what to do with nuclear waste. Then they'd argue nuclear fusion is the only responsible option, with coal and gas as the bridging fuels until that technology is mature.
I can see why it's important to keep shooting down the nuclear idea, but I think we have to keep reminding people of the underlying political economic motivations.
I’m wondering if the members of AUKUS would be better off collaborating on a new “Antiques Roadshow”. China is really powering ahead with renewables (pun intended) while so called developed countries are fiddling around with new ways to boil a kettle.
Regardless of any stated goal by various countries to triple global nuclear generation, Duttons’s nuclear claims for Australia should be seen as ridiculous.
He talks about a “coal to nuclear transition”. But Australia currently has over 20 GW of coal generation capacity. Dutton has suggested 5 Westinghouse AP 1000 generators + 2 SMRs, beginning more the a decade from now.
This totals less than 6 GW capacity!
Dutton also proposes limiting installation of renewables and transmission lines. Therefore, the “lights would go out”.
A second obvious disqualifying factor is timeline. E.g. Eraring plant in NSW has 3 GW capacity (~25% of NSW capacity) and has been extended to 2027. Dutton would need 3 of his favoured Westinghouse plants to replace this coal plant, and they could only be operational at least a decade too late. By then probably all other coal generation will have been retired.
A third disqualifying factor appears to be cost, but this is redundant given the two above.
John, are the UK and US people who "expected" that Australia might sign on to nuclear power just because we signed up to AUKUS being innocently ignorant about Australian politics and policy, or could they be representing the pro-nuclear side and trying to push nuclear power on us? Or is there a third alternative motive for their position that I'm not aware of?
I would like to have thought that policy-makers for a country would be reasonably well-informed about other countries' positions on a policy.
I still find the whole either/or tone of discussion over nuclear and other forms of energy generation odd. Indeed, why this would be a decision that follows national geographical lines is odd as are declarations pro and con.
I think any time nuclear in Australia is mentioned, it's important to state why the Coalition is pushing this policy. Peter Dutton is not pro-nuclear, he's pro-fossil fuels, and pretending nuclear is feasible is the best way of delaying the action needed to transition away from fossil fuels. If nuclear became cost effective, timely and viable, the Coalition would suddenly develop deep misgivings about the safety of nuclear plants and the problem of what to do with nuclear waste. Then they'd argue nuclear fusion is the only responsible option, with coal and gas as the bridging fuels until that technology is mature.
I can see why it's important to keep shooting down the nuclear idea, but I think we have to keep reminding people of the underlying political economic motivations.
I’m wondering if the members of AUKUS would be better off collaborating on a new “Antiques Roadshow”. China is really powering ahead with renewables (pun intended) while so called developed countries are fiddling around with new ways to boil a kettle.
Regardless of any stated goal by various countries to triple global nuclear generation, Duttons’s nuclear claims for Australia should be seen as ridiculous.
He talks about a “coal to nuclear transition”. But Australia currently has over 20 GW of coal generation capacity. Dutton has suggested 5 Westinghouse AP 1000 generators + 2 SMRs, beginning more the a decade from now.
This totals less than 6 GW capacity!
Dutton also proposes limiting installation of renewables and transmission lines. Therefore, the “lights would go out”.
A second obvious disqualifying factor is timeline. E.g. Eraring plant in NSW has 3 GW capacity (~25% of NSW capacity) and has been extended to 2027. Dutton would need 3 of his favoured Westinghouse plants to replace this coal plant, and they could only be operational at least a decade too late. By then probably all other coal generation will have been retired.
A third disqualifying factor appears to be cost, but this is redundant given the two above.
John, are the UK and US people who "expected" that Australia might sign on to nuclear power just because we signed up to AUKUS being innocently ignorant about Australian politics and policy, or could they be representing the pro-nuclear side and trying to push nuclear power on us? Or is there a third alternative motive for their position that I'm not aware of?
I would like to have thought that policy-makers for a country would be reasonably well-informed about other countries' positions on a policy.
I still find the whole either/or tone of discussion over nuclear and other forms of energy generation odd. Indeed, why this would be a decision that follows national geographical lines is odd as are declarations pro and con.