Australia

The worst thing about this ‘plan’ is the media treating it like it’s an actual real thing that will actually happen if the LNP get in power.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to nuclear. The country's power needs are only going to keep growing, and I could see an argument for having multiple options for sourcing that power. It's a very expensive argument though, and one that's hard to swallow when all the experts are saying renewable is the way to go, and I haven't seen any projections that show that we'd necessarily need anything other than renewables in the foreseeable future.

The thing I'm strongly opposed to with regards to nuclear is rerouting funding away from renewables to pay for it. It's an expensive technology that won't be ready for decades, so I just don't see the need to pivot to it. If we'd started the transition to nuclear three decades ago things would be different, but the LNP was strongly opposed to the technology back then, funnily enough.

And it's absolutely absurd to then announce a cap on renewables spending as part of their plan to get to net zero by 2050.

The whole thing is a farce, and the LNP hasn't given any good reasons why nuclear is the way forward over renewables. They haven't said much of anything other than shout about it being the better option, but then that's been the LNP's go-to political strategy for as long as I've been old enough to vote so no surprise there.

The thing is, if Labor had announced such a completely undercooked policy - no timelines, no validation, lots of contradictions, and most importantly, no costings whatsoever - the media would be collectively crucifying them. And I'm not talking about the polite way The Guardian or The Conversation are dissecting the policy and bringing counterpoints. No, it would be open season in the most derogatory and aggressive language possible.

The fact that Dutton can bring this to a press conference and not get laughed out of the room is just utterly sad.

Too slow to build, too expensive, and entirely unsuited for a renewable heavy grid because the economics require it is left on at all times. And that renewable heavy grid will happen even if they ban all further renewable rollouts, simply from individuals and businesses adding more panels and batteries. Is the grid going to curtail all of that solar energy just so nuclear can be left on?

The whole thing is a transparent attempt by the fossil fuel industry to delay the renewable rollout for as long as possible, just so they can make a few more dollars. And the Coalition are ready and willing to do their bidding.

There is nothing to discuss, its not a real plan, its a fever dream. It wont happen.

If nuclear was so brilliant the private sector would have done it already. They haven't because the cost far outweighs the benefit.

And as far taxpayer intervention goes to prop it up I just don't see any compelling evidence to suggest investment in nuclear will give you better bang for your buck than renewables.

In some countries without much wind, sun and waves nuclear might make sense provided they could cheaply get uranium and dispose waste cheaply. That's not Australia and we have options.

The LNP could not build car parks.

There is zero chance of this happening even if they got into power, controlled the Senate and had the individual States green light it.

I think (or hope) most of us know that nuclear is no longer an option for us in Australia and that there are many more sustainable ways to generate energy here.

I think Australia should be investing heavily in nuclear. The cost doesn't make sense for the private sector to bear, but the govt can afford it as long as it doesn't take away from renewable investment like the libs are proposing here. Future debt is easier to solve than carbon emissions.

We need large scale base load power generation to fill in the gap that electrification of everything will bring. Electrical demand will increase as we replace fossil fuel for heating, cars and transport, etc...

Even when in power and offering cash incentives, the LNP couldn't convince the power industry to extend coal power plant lifetimes or build new generators. Renewables have already won the free market, they will likely never be beaten in our lifetime. Good fucking luck getting any company that wants to actually make money to invest in nuclear.

The only reasonable argument left for nuclear is the baseline and storage argument, but again the writing is on the wall, industry can see the trajectory that batteries and storage tech is on and know that by the time they spend 2 decades investing in current gen nuclear, it will probably be beaten by storage in the free market anyway.

By the time these are built, you'll have hugely cheap and efficient batteries and solar panels.. Even solar windows and roof tiles

Furthermore, nuclear is expensive anyway, so everyone will still get solar and undercut it. Day #1 of Game theory. In fact, similar to NBN, there is a very real chance solar companies will spring up and undercut it, so we have another lib NBN.

Finally, why would anyone want a centralised power grid which is operated and run by a single company.

It's a stupid idea.

It makes no economic sense. Fucking idiot.

This policy is not genuine. The intention is to delay or destroy fossil fuel alternatives to protect fossil fuel investments. If it creates political division and an impression of leadership then it is icing on the cake. I would expect the coalition to become increasingly divided if this was ever realistically pursued. Coalition voters do not want to foot the bill for this idiocy. The market has already voted. Renewables won on time to market and ROI.

For context I am not opposed to nuclear power generation at all. There has been a lot of misinformation about safety and waste for generations that has poisoned debate and I would like to see a more rational debate. I think it irresponsible for countries like Germany to turn away from nuclear and create huge energy security issues as well as increased emissions.

Carbon emissions are a global problem and each country has a responsibility to address it as effectively as they can. We can support nuclear power by supplying uranium and it doesn't matter for carbon reduction if the reactors are in Australia or overseas.

Our construction costs are very high and we don't have local expertise. Our research reactor was designed by Argentina. As much as some of us would like to see nuclear power come to Australia it is fantasy economics.

Should be nuclear + renewables, not nuclear vs renewables.

It’s ridiculous. We are absolutely in the drivers seat to be a world leader in renewable energy and out of touch politicians want us to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in nuclear power stations like it’s the 1950s and we don’t have any other alternative.

Like every other government project there will a cost blowout, and it will overrun so by 2040 we’ll have a handful of half built nuclear reactors and the budget will be a couple hundred billion in the red.

We don’t have the expertise to build or run nuclear power stations, so we would have to import all of that knowledge and expertise until we can skill up. More money.

We have the landmass and the coastline to support solar, wind and wave generation. It will be far less complex, cheaper to build/maintain, we’ll be able to diversify energy sources and there is no toxic byproduct.

The Liberals fucked the NBN, fingers crossed they don’t fuck our energy future as well.

I think we should have done this 20 years ago. Not kicked the can down the road.

I mean, it’s one way to solve the Gippsland problem: abandoned town tours after the private sector RBMK’s the fuck outta Traralgon. Because let’s be super clear here: private industry has a dog shit safety record, and IF the thing gets build (it won’t) they’ll build the cheapest fucking reactor they can. If the government try to regulate (they won’t) it’ll be too cost inefficient to work (it already is) so we’d gonna end up with an industry that’d make a Soviet engineer worried!

It's really just kicking the can down the street. My expectation is if they got into power, they would say the figures are more than they realised, say they have to fix Labor's economic mess and they'll come back to it when the economy is in the black. Like others, I would have seen it as viable 20 years ago, but it is just so expensive, they've cancelled builds overseas because of cost blowouts and Europe is turning off reactors because of all the renewable energy in their grid. The claim it would be cheaper annoys me the most, as it is an outright lie. All the liberals do is shovel shit and coal

Existing nuclear tech is dramatically more expensive than every competing low carbon power generation alternative and will never have any place in Australia.

Future nuclear tech (be it fission or fusion) may be a different story, but our power plants are at end of life so we need new power gen now, the world is dying so we need carbon neutral now.

We can't sideline this for 20 years to wait and see what happens, the strategy should be the roll out renewables to the point where the grid doesn't need any major changes. When we hit the point where the grid does need big investment, reassess available alternatives. If nothing has changed, roll out the grid changes and more renewables or if fusion drilling geotehermal or nuclear or whatever has come viable work it out then.

Have they released who is going to pay for these power plants? Because if they put it on my monthly bill, I’m going off grid and I bet half the rest of the country will too.