Ought be no surprise that people who have never, ever shown any enthusiasm or commitment to zero emissions, who appear to want to save fossil fuels from 'green foolishness' (aka climate policy) much more than they want to reduce emissions 'like' nuclear so much; they have very high confidence it can never be cheaper than fossil fuels. Even if somehow they find themselves obliged to go through with nuclear presents no short term threat to Australian fossil fuels. Nor a medium term nor a long term threat.
But I don't think it matters to them either way whether any get built or not - the advantage they seek from having this 'policy' is entirely short term and political and that requires no actual nuclear power plants. It is political theatre, more akin to Big Wiz flammery than to serious political leadership on an issue of profound importance. Even being seen through is turned to advantage - making clear to their science denier base that they mean no harm to fossil fuels.
It throws any sustained clean energy policy planning into disarray and as a bonus any delays (oh, too bad we have to keep using fossil fuels) - or not doing it at all, leaving them with no emissions policy (because Senate and States block) - can be blamed on climate activism aka 'green foolishness'. Alternately endless delays can also be blamed on 'green foolishness', rather than their own sustained failures to face up to the climate problem head on - a win-win for fossil fuels.
They aren't even bothering to promote nuclear as some kind of superior emissions reductions, just for 'saving' the economy (aka fossil fuel revenues) from Renewable Energy and zero emissions commitments, in an alternate reality bubble where the top level science based advice itself (if mentioned at all) is deemed 'green foolishness'.
Greetings from Spain, a European country with roughly similar climate to Australia, and comparable nominal GDP (Australia US$1.8 trn, Spain US$1.6.trn). In January Spain’s electricity supply was 80.1% zero-emission, made up of 47.6% renewables and 22.6% nuclear. CO2 emissions from gas generation fell by 4.5% against January 2024, in spite of quite rapid annual GDP growth of 3.2%. The transition forges ahead, too slowly for my taste, but still. The nuclear policy is to run the legacy fleet until each reactor reaches the end of its planned life and is decommissioned. No new reactors are planned, the shuttered ones will be replaced by cheap WWS and storage.
The weird thing is that the nuclear phaseout is completely uncontroversial. I have never seen it mentioned on TV news. Neither right-wing populist politicians, Basque and Catalan secessionists, nor the well-connected construction industry have seen fit to revive nuclear dreams. Common sense is not part of the Spanish stereotype, but there you are. ¡Únete a nosotros!
Oops, it was 57.6% renewables not 47.6%. Sorry, but don't complain. Headline today: "Citi accidentally credits client account with $81 trn instead of $ 280".
Nope, this just goes to show just how deep the conspiracy against nuclear runs, according to conservative partisans. It's the same logic by which Trump's cratering of the US economy will be the fault of some scapegoat or other, but definitely not the Trump administration.
But low emissions energy and achieving zero is not what this nuclear "policy" is for - no actual nuclear plants or firm plans for them are required for derailing or diminishing the transition to renewables (and saving Australia's fossil fuels from global warming).
I think journalists and analysts taking it all on face value, seriously, and arguing about the expert advice and technicalities (that most people won't follow) plays into the LNP's hands; the focus should be on their deep and persistent insincerity and the enduring climate science denial that underpins it.
I agree, but you'd think that having everyone who understands energy production telling them it's stupid and expensive would have been enough to make them stfu by now.
Should, yes. A duty of care of those holding or aspiring to the highest Offices is how I (naively?) see the "should" part. But perhaps having set aside the advice on climate change the setting aside of the advice on our energy options for addressing it gets easier. From a starting point of "climate change is greatly exaggerated and emissions don't really matter" - perhaps even seeing it innately false, a fad, and driven by fringe politics (rather than them handing it off to green politics in hot potato style - "see?") - means they feel no obligation to honesty.
It all sounds irresponsible as well as contemptuous of some of the basic tenets of democracy, the rule of law and ideas of duties of care and leadership. That most mainstream media see no problem with the politics of climate and energy being played that way - and often play it that way themselves - is also deeply dismaying. Frankly I'm not convinced any advertising/sponsorship based media should be allowed to report on - let alone actively participate - in politics, for the intrinsic conflict of interest when reporting on matters that concern their primary customers - corporate advertisers.
I really wish nuclear power plants were an economic proposition and if they ever become one, I would support Australia having them. It is blatantly obvious, at this point in time, that nuclear is far too costly and that firmed renewables are a better option.
You mention the Lucas Heights reactor. To my everlasting shame, I was once an active member of the Australian Greens. I joined because I care deeply about protecting Australian flora and fauna. The discovery that it was Greens policy to shut down Lucas Heights was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I immediately quit the party.
Ought be no surprise that people who have never, ever shown any enthusiasm or commitment to zero emissions, who appear to want to save fossil fuels from 'green foolishness' (aka climate policy) much more than they want to reduce emissions 'like' nuclear so much; they have very high confidence it can never be cheaper than fossil fuels. Even if somehow they find themselves obliged to go through with nuclear presents no short term threat to Australian fossil fuels. Nor a medium term nor a long term threat.
But I don't think it matters to them either way whether any get built or not - the advantage they seek from having this 'policy' is entirely short term and political and that requires no actual nuclear power plants. It is political theatre, more akin to Big Wiz flammery than to serious political leadership on an issue of profound importance. Even being seen through is turned to advantage - making clear to their science denier base that they mean no harm to fossil fuels.
It throws any sustained clean energy policy planning into disarray and as a bonus any delays (oh, too bad we have to keep using fossil fuels) - or not doing it at all, leaving them with no emissions policy (because Senate and States block) - can be blamed on climate activism aka 'green foolishness'. Alternately endless delays can also be blamed on 'green foolishness', rather than their own sustained failures to face up to the climate problem head on - a win-win for fossil fuels.
They aren't even bothering to promote nuclear as some kind of superior emissions reductions, just for 'saving' the economy (aka fossil fuel revenues) from Renewable Energy and zero emissions commitments, in an alternate reality bubble where the top level science based advice itself (if mentioned at all) is deemed 'green foolishness'.
Apparently global nuclear electricity generation is now about 9% of the total.
Tripling nuclear capacity by 2050, given total demand will rise substantially, will result in maybe 20% nuclear.
In Australia, this will be less (most likely 0%!)
The balance, the great majority, must be renewable or fossil based.
Dutton says his “coal to nuclear transition” will replace the current ~21 GW coal capacity with 14 GW of nuclear (!).
It’s pathetic but no journos can manage the arithmetic.
Greetings from Spain, a European country with roughly similar climate to Australia, and comparable nominal GDP (Australia US$1.8 trn, Spain US$1.6.trn). In January Spain’s electricity supply was 80.1% zero-emission, made up of 47.6% renewables and 22.6% nuclear. CO2 emissions from gas generation fell by 4.5% against January 2024, in spite of quite rapid annual GDP growth of 3.2%. The transition forges ahead, too slowly for my taste, but still. The nuclear policy is to run the legacy fleet until each reactor reaches the end of its planned life and is decommissioned. No new reactors are planned, the shuttered ones will be replaced by cheap WWS and storage.
The weird thing is that the nuclear phaseout is completely uncontroversial. I have never seen it mentioned on TV news. Neither right-wing populist politicians, Basque and Catalan secessionists, nor the well-connected construction industry have seen fit to revive nuclear dreams. Common sense is not part of the Spanish stereotype, but there you are. ¡Únete a nosotros!
Oops, it was 57.6% renewables not 47.6%. Sorry, but don't complain. Headline today: "Citi accidentally credits client account with $81 trn instead of $ 280".
https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/citi-accidentally-credits-client-account-with-81-trn-instead-of-280-125022800383_1.html
This was, what? about the 50th government report to come to the same conclusion.
You'd think the LNP would give up on the idea.
Nope, this just goes to show just how deep the conspiracy against nuclear runs, according to conservative partisans. It's the same logic by which Trump's cratering of the US economy will be the fault of some scapegoat or other, but definitely not the Trump administration.
But low emissions energy and achieving zero is not what this nuclear "policy" is for - no actual nuclear plants or firm plans for them are required for derailing or diminishing the transition to renewables (and saving Australia's fossil fuels from global warming).
I think journalists and analysts taking it all on face value, seriously, and arguing about the expert advice and technicalities (that most people won't follow) plays into the LNP's hands; the focus should be on their deep and persistent insincerity and the enduring climate science denial that underpins it.
I agree, but you'd think that having everyone who understands energy production telling them it's stupid and expensive would have been enough to make them stfu by now.
Should, yes. A duty of care of those holding or aspiring to the highest Offices is how I (naively?) see the "should" part. But perhaps having set aside the advice on climate change the setting aside of the advice on our energy options for addressing it gets easier. From a starting point of "climate change is greatly exaggerated and emissions don't really matter" - perhaps even seeing it innately false, a fad, and driven by fringe politics (rather than them handing it off to green politics in hot potato style - "see?") - means they feel no obligation to honesty.
It all sounds irresponsible as well as contemptuous of some of the basic tenets of democracy, the rule of law and ideas of duties of care and leadership. That most mainstream media see no problem with the politics of climate and energy being played that way - and often play it that way themselves - is also deeply dismaying. Frankly I'm not convinced any advertising/sponsorship based media should be allowed to report on - let alone actively participate - in politics, for the intrinsic conflict of interest when reporting on matters that concern their primary customers - corporate advertisers.
I really wish nuclear power plants were an economic proposition and if they ever become one, I would support Australia having them. It is blatantly obvious, at this point in time, that nuclear is far too costly and that firmed renewables are a better option.
You mention the Lucas Heights reactor. To my everlasting shame, I was once an active member of the Australian Greens. I joined because I care deeply about protecting Australian flora and fauna. The discovery that it was Greens policy to shut down Lucas Heights was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I immediately quit the party.
How ridiculous that an energy rich country has such costly electricity while exporting its coal and uranium elsewhere. Australia must be brain dead.