this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
28 points (96.7% liked)

Australia

4429 readers
136 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
28
Nuclear power too expensive and slow to be part of Australia’s plans to reach net zero, study finds (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I'm not against Nuclear, go for it.

It's not cost competitive, so I don't think the government should be subsidizing it, but I say we reduce the laws banning it to merely enforcing strong environmental protections (as we should on all things).

Let's say we did that today.
Let's assume you already have a site picked out and ready to go, and that no protestors are going to stop the build.
It'll still be 10 years before it turns on and produces it's first watt: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/nuclear-power-stations-are-not-appropriate-for-australia-and-probably-never-will-be/
I'd be curious if you can find a source with a shorter build time quote, so link us.

In the meantime under this proposal, the existing coal plants are still going to shut down.
With the nuclear not ready to plug the gap.
So either the government pays for the construction of more coal (because no investment company or bank will touch it), or more renewables + storage is going to go in.
In fact, within a year we'd have some new solar and wind producing power, more in year 2, more in year 3 etc.
By the time the Nuclear plant passes it's shakedown tests, we probably don't need it anymore.

I've got strong opinions about which tech we should be going for based on ecological reasons, but the fact we are going to wind and solar + storage is based on pragmatic economic reasons.

Also, ANU has identified over 3000 promising sites for pumped hydro in Australia.
Some of them could probably be straight hydro I assume.
I'm not against those either, let's go!