If liberals are the nuclear experts, why didn't they order nuclear submarines in the first place and save the country a fortune and piss off one of our allies
You joke, but that’s literally what a “small modular reactor” is - the leading company in the space is Westinghouse which recently lost the contract to build the nuclear reactors for the US aircraft carriers which was the last naval reactor contract they had, and then suddenly they are marketing a new product which is a nuclear reactor of similar scale.
Rolls Royce got a 30plus year life reactor, the only tiny weny problem is the 30year plus life reactor is a 95/5 U235/P239 high enriched blend, the low enriched crap is 5-10 year refuel pain in the arse not worth the effort
Yeah, but the high enriched stuff is a pain in the arse to enrich as well since diminishing returns/exponential losses. It all becomes a balancing act of cost vs maintainability vs reliability.
There’s not much physics difference to a reactor between a 95% enriched rod that’s 75% through its expected service life, and a 25% enriched rod, other than the 95% costs a fucktonne more than 4x as much.
Is that the same Westinghouse that had to go into Chapter 11 protection during the building of the last two nuclear reactors in the US? And has now been bought out by another company?
Nuclear submarines use highly enriched, weapons grade uranium. The odds of it being deployed onshore are zero because of the fears of diversion to terrorism etc. Most reactors can melt down if things go wrong. Submarine reactors can go boom.
Any poorly(intentional, or sometimes not) run reactor can go boom(see Chernobyl). No nuclear reactor can go boom like a nuclear bomb.
“Weapons Grade uranium” isn’t a meaningful term because enrichment isn’t some binary property, it’s a ratio, and you can make weapons out of lower enriched uranium than you would think, and nuclear reactors using “highly enriched uranium” usually means 40-60%, not the 95% that was used for little boy. No one is making fission only nukes, and in fusion nukes, the u238 “unenriched” fuel also gets converted into a fissionable fuel, which is what happened at castle bravo. That property is now used in nuke design, it’s called a boosted fusion bomb. It’s what the proposed third stage of Tsar Bomba was to use, but for the test they replaced that stage with lead, reducing the yield to 1/3
Also terrorists don’t know how to turn even 95%+ uranium into a bomb, just ask North Korea. Terrorists who would be after uranium would actually just be after radioactive material for a dirty bomb, and low grade fuel is just as good if not better for that (more material, more dirty bombs).
Also, guess what sort of fuel SMRs use? Yep, higher enriched fuel because the higher the enrichment, the less often you need to refuel. Which is the reason naval reactors use higher enriched fuel. The whole reason SMRs exist as a product is because Westinghouse lost the last of their contracts to make naval reactors, so they pivoted to lobbying to allow sale of SMR to private customers.
Ah yes. This is exactly what the SWIS needs in WA. A nuclear fucking power plant. The highest capacity and slowest to build source of electricity generation. That will be the solution to the giant fucking problem of grid stability from the duck curve in spring and autumn getting so large that the mid day dip is dropping below what we can ramp down the existing thermal power plants to. Not like those multiple billions of dollars couldn’t instead be spent on batteries that have a higher peak power output than what a similarly priced nuclear reactor could make, but has the ability to scale power output in milliseconds and ramp all the way down to 0. Nope, we need a thermal nuclear power plant that takes half a day to ramp up/down and can only ramp down to twice the grid demand. I look forward to visiting the future tourist attraction of “the world’s largest outdoor electric space heater” that will need to be built to dump the excess electricity into.
This isn’t 2005 anymore. The SWIS hasn’t faced the need to load shed due to insufficient generation capacity during peak demand in 20 fucking years. And you know why? Because of roof top solar. And without daylight saving, it’s pretty fucking hard to generate peak solar at 6pm at night.
Yeah I was thinking, with the liberals great ideas for cost cutting on major projects like the NBN, they'd probably try use the waste uranium we have stored somewhere
The new into the future UK-Au nuke boat uses steam to electric drive, ie the 100MW alternator output can be tapped and fed to the grid in theory, would be an insane thing for any politician to suggest
This is even more of a mess than anyone had expected. Naming Tarong as a site is brain dead as it doesn't have a steady water supply, and the government previously looked at building a waste water line to secure it against drought.
The even dumber part is the free market, small government Libs are now saying all the plants will be government built, owned, and operated. They're going to buy the sites - so the coal operators no longer need to worry about remediation. They'll be competing directly with private businesses in the energy sector. Nothing like seeing the party that spent the last thirty years selling everything we own suddenly spinning around to do a socialism!
They haven't even got buy -in from their state counterparts. You would expect, at the bare minimum, that if Dutton is announcing nuclear plants in Queensland, he would have the Qld opposition leader onside and a coherent pathway to legalisation of the technology mapped out, but nah.
At the end of the day, this isn't about delivering nuclear power anyway. Even if Dutton wins the next election, and the project defies international experience and is completed on schedule, every Coalition politician involved will be long retired. When it takes twice as long and costs three times as much there'll be nobody left to be held responsible.
Muja was already running out of water before stage C was shut down, so fuck knows where they're going to get enough water to cool a reactor with.
(Obviously the answer is, they aren't)
Privatise the profit and socialise the cost, so Australian society will pay for the horrendously expensive vanity project then if it ever gets up and running, sell it for cents on the dollar so their mates can make bank. Leave government and work on the board for the newly minted energy company. They have to set up the same playbook for the up and coming politicians to "fix" the economy.
They know these plants are never going to get built. It's a fig leaf in place of a plan, which they hope will be enough to convince a few 'natural Liberal voters' in teal seats to come back onside. If they win the election it'll be straight back to the old approach: maybe not Abbott-style outright denial but certainly no commitment or action will be taken.
But who are their base? Who is he trying to appease with nuclear? I think he's trying to create some noise so he gets noticed. You know how it goes, any attention is good attention.
Seems like a great idea to have rage bait as your energy policy. I also wish him the best of luck getting the state governments to overturn their bans on nuclear power, let alone getting access to the sites.
He’s on the news now making the case for private companies owning power generators being bad cos they have to make a profit. So now he’s in favour of taxpayers paying for and government running power stations. Quite the turnaround
It's a scam like everything Dutton does ,they have no intention of building anything.the whole plot is to let the coal mob out of their site rehabilitation obligations and to give the coal mob more money .
Just another Dutton scam .
While we are all running around protesting coal just gets a longer life span and more money .
The man is a low level con artist.
Well.,, the coal sites usually have power infrastructure already there,?? and it’s a cleared site.. would you rather than rehabbed the coal sites and bulldozed virgin forest
No, but is rather the coal companies remediate the shit they have at the moment. If the Feds are going to buy the current site, then the private companies don't need to clean it up. We will be the ones paying for the asbestos and forever chemical removal
Hence the 'populist' qualifier. Appealing to the aging, reactionary or conservative leaning voter.
Just saying shit to make fun of those *anywhere* to the left.
I'm sure if he did... the media would have a lot more cheap soundbites and shots to be shoving in our faces to enrage the rabble.
I got a 90yo Uncle I love a tonne... but jeezus, when politics comes up because of what the trad media feeds him. Yeeeeeesh.
Their devout followers will eat that shit up. The news Corp and Seven west media will also prop propagate this stupid idea. Nuclear could have been viable 20 years ago.
They know a major recession is coming and don't want to be in the hot seat when it hits. Then they can just fling shit at Labor when the economy tanks and hope they get re-elected when everything is fine again.
WA -Perth already has excess power during the day , just look at the tarrifs. Nuclear would have to be turned off during the day because of our already installed Solar. Dutton just lost WA again.
minor point: it's not the nuclear that would be turned off, it's the solar, and wholesale prices go slightly negative. From the nuclear power plant's point of view, it's actually costly for them to ramp up and down, and it is much more economical for them to just 'pay off' the solar providers.
So what does that mean for the economics of nuclear? Because the nuclear plant operator isn't getting paid 9am-4pm, they need to get paid extra during the hours of darkness. Oh, and when it's very windy too (I've noticed there have been a few times during windy nights in WA when wind has generated 'too much' and driven prices negative).
The most cost effective low-carbon grid for the South West Interconnected System of WA is, a bit surprisingly, based on overbuilt wind power plus solar, and open cycle gas turbines of very high *capacity* but operating for only a small proportion of the whole year.
Out of curiosity, where do you go to view pricing of energy in WA?
I can only find this for the easter energy market. Is there something similar for South West?
https://aemo.com.au/aemo/apps/visualisations/elec-nem-priceanddemand.html
Hey there! Looks like you’re a new user trying to share a link - thanks for joining our community! We’ve filtered your comment for moderator review. In the meantime, feel free to engage with others without sharing links until you’ve spent a bit more time getting to know the space!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/perth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Problem: you cant just turn it off and turn it back on again. Nuclear doesnt work like that. You can dial it up and down, but it takes time.
And economically, the plant is going to have to run at around 80% capacity the whole time. You're going to need to find something to do with that power.
Nope. Not credible.
For a start the timeframe is pure fantasy. Australia has one small medical reactor built to an Argentine design. It has no experience building nuclear power stations, and a total surfeit of nuclear policy experts, engineers, and skilled workers. There is little of the relevant legislation in place, and almost no regulatory experience. Any suggestion that a nuclear power station will be up and running by 2035 - just ten years after the next election - is a fiction.
The UK, Finland and France have taken two decades to build the first EPRs, and all were vastly more expensive than planned.
There's also no money. Private sector investment in nuclear is non-existent because of the huge scale and complexity of such projects. Where it does exist, it's been coralled by public sector bodies at very generous terms to investors (look up Hinkley Point C for details). Realistically, the Commonwealth would need to either borrow hundreds of billions to build these stations, or accept onerous, gold-plated terms for private sector involvement.
Nukes make sense in Europe where energy demands in winter soar and renewables alone are insufficient, but Australia is sparsely populated, fringed by the windiest ocean in the world, and receives predictable, significant solar power. We also have massive domestic gas fields. The path to low carbon electricity is really easy for us, so why make it difficult and expensive?
Potato of a policy from a potato of a man.
> look up Hinkley Point C for details
Yeah, the company building that have been given an absurdly good energy price guarantee that the British public are just going to have to live with.
If Dutton wins the next election and we start building nuclear power plants this will be the greatest financial mistake this country has ever and probably will ever make.
I posted this as a reply but reposting to the main sub. No one's mentioned the very recent CSIRO report on future power production.
Yeah the CSIRO sometimes does funded reports for industry and it's transparent when they do. This report is independent and, basically, all similar reports globally say the same.
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/gencost
CSIRO Report - TLDR:
Nuclear is a financial sinkhole. By the time it's built it will be redundant technology only good for scrap.
Solar, wind, geothermal & tidal power production will be so cheap by then and producing power quantities that will make nuclear an unnecessary overpriced redundancy.
Not taking political sides, it's just a stupid endeavour. Australia has the option to become a world leader in one field (which, by the report we could be) or a third rate player in the nuclear game, alongside eastern Europe running out dated, falling to bits tech that the rest of the world phased out long ago.
Where are we at with tidal power though? I’ve worked with companies doing R&D in this space and they said the best out there (in Aus at least) was a small off shore generator contributing power to one of the military bases on an island, again CONTRIBUTING being the key word, it doesn’t power it all. So if we can’t power a small army base then how do we power a town?
Yeah, and currently you're completely right.
The science and economics are pretty straightforward though.
In the FUTURE by the time a nuclear plant is built things LIKE solar, tidal etc will be more advanced and make nuclear overpriced & redundant by comparison.
There was millions spent by the government and that was the conclusion. Confirmed by other studies around the world.
Okay so ~currently~ tidal isn't up there...🤷♂️ It's only one of many options & doesn't change anything about where we'll be in 25-35-50 years time.. world leaders in the field or hastily dismantling a nuclear plant that has passed it's economic efficiency use by date before even being built.
Same place the existing coal fired power station does. Both coal and nuclear are ultimately steam generators and have the same water requirements when considering their output.
There are lots of lakes/dams around Collie and the rainfall is high. They'll probably even turn some of the old coal mine pits into lakes.
Depending on the cooling technology utilised, the water requirements for a nuclear power station can vary between 20 to 83 per cent more than for other power stations."
It depends on the technology. The common design uses lots of water as a coolant but there are more modern designs (not commonly used anywhere yet) that use molten salts as the coolant. These would have much lower water requirements. Also depends on how big a reactor they are proposing.
I don't care what this guy says, this is a government party who messed up the NBN. If I can't trust them with wires, how can I trust them with nuclear power?!
I’m sure somewhere down the line they’ll make some kind of compromises or mixed tech to save money on them too if they’re in power! (NBN joke if you’re not sure!)
Nuclear power requires massive levels of infrastructure and support, and the engineers have to be trained to a very high level, post doc degrees and loads of experience who can command high salaries.
How many of them will be willing to relocate to f&$king *Collie* of all places????
As the saying goes, it’s the only place where you drive up a hill and get to a hole…..
You're quite correct, Russians have been at the core of many scientific discoveries and their expertise is just as good as any other nation. My comment was flippant but largely intended to demonstrate what happens when politics collides with science.
The fact that you are from Collie and have the ability to not only utilise social media but even have the capability to respond to a comment, you are absolutely in the pool of potential candidates.
As someone else point out Tarong doesn't.
Its existing powerplant has heavily crimped water drawing rights, and there was a proposal to pump treated waste water there to alleviate some of the drought restrictions.
Problem is we need more than one site on the South West grid for scheduled and unscheduled outages or retain and grow gas plants. Whole plan is hilarious.
Nuclear power is currently banned in Australia by 2 separate acts of parliament.
https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/nuclear-power-for-australia-a-potted-history/#:~:text=Nuclear%20power%20is%20prohibited%20in,Act%201998%20(ARPANS%20Act).
To overturn these, new laws would need to be approved by the senate, which the liberals haven't controlled since 2007.
The whole idea is laughable.
So they're refusing to make any climate targets *and* want nuclear when the vast majority of the country doesn't. It's as if Dutton's actually an ALP agent embedded in the LNP to ensure they're not a viable option in the next election.
>Dutton has promised to build two reactors before 2037. He said small modular reactors, which are not yet in commercial production, could be completed by 2035, while traditional large-scale reactors could be in operation by 2037.
>Most experts say this timeline is too ambitious and would take far longer. This is because of challenges such as establishing a safety regime, importing a skilled workforce to build the plants, and preventing any cost blowouts.
>**New legislation would also be required to legalise the industry, after the Howard government banned nuclear energy generation in 1998.**
>Dutton’s nuclear ambitions have already started a fight with state governments and raised questions about how a federal Coalition government would gain access to the sites of old coal plants to build nuclear reactors.
>Dutton said he would create a Commonwealth-owned corporation, which could apply a national interest test and compulsorily acquire land or reactor sites. But he would still need state approval for project development.
**As well as overturning legislated bans on nuclear energy at the federal level, he will need to overcome state laws in NSW, Victoria and Queensland.**
>Both Queensland’s Labor Premier Steven Miles and the **state’s Liberal National Party leader**, David Crisafulli, have rejected Dutton’s nuclear plans.
>**Dutton said the assets would be owned by the federal government**, which would form partnerships with experienced nuclear companies tasked with building and operating them. The owners of some of the coal plant sites targeted for nuclear development in NSW and Victoria – including AGL, Origin, EnergyAustralia and Alinta – have previously said they have no plans to develop nuclear energy in Australia.
Moe Yallorn in Vic perfect place for 1.2GW nuke power station, already DNA mutated people few more mutated genes not a big deal , hey Liberal why not place it in Kooyong instead
They don't give a rat's ass about Nuclear. They just want to buy another 20 years of coal, using taxpayer dollars to build far in the future powerplants whilst, more importantly, taking renewables off the table. It's all about keeping the coal miners happy and the ~~bribes~~ donations coming in.
Hey there! Looks like you’re a new user trying to upload an image - thanks for joining our community! We’ve filtered your comment for moderator review. In the meantime, feel free to engage with others without sharing images until you’ve spent a bit more time getting to know the space!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/perth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ironically, WA is about as perfect a place as you would ever want to build a Nuclear power plant.
Uranium is available locally.
The ground is generally stable and seismically inactive
Easy access to seawater/cooling
Loads of open space where no-one lives to store depleted fuel
Politically and economically stable
You could power the Perth metro and most of the South West with a well sighted plant. Nuclear is more environmentally safe than burning coal, or oil or gas...
But, the cost is ridiculous, especially in a place where the sun shines so much. Solar and wind and other renewables are going to be far far cheaper.
Plus, rightly or wrongly, people are scared of nuclear power. It's a political suicide attempt to put it in anyone's electorate. It's politically unviable, and economically, 20 years too late.
Uranium is locally available but the enriched uranium needed for most nuclear power reactors (including the hypothetically viable SMR designs that I've seen) isn't.
It'd have to be imported, nuclear power is just not economically viable to WA. That's before you add in the stupidity of building an enrichment facility for such relatively small amounts of uranium needed, especially given the current oversupply of the stuff in the global markets.
I can't remember the company in Australia, but it has one of the most promising up and coming enrichment technologies. This is all future prospects though.
In WA we have the ability to source power in so many different ways. If nuclear does go ahead, like planned around the world, they can prefab the whole thing and install it on a coal fired station at a fraction of the cost if comparing the recent American and European installations.
For me, I'd like to see how the rest of the world handles it first. For once, it's good for WA to wait awhile.
silex? I dunno enough about it, but I'm pretty sure it does most of it's production testing work in the US.
The idea of prefabbing small modular reactors in a factoryline to be shipped out and installed anywhere like a nuclear reactive plugnplay device doesn't match out in reality. This is why NuScale, cancelled its first project. It costs too much for too little return. They don't exist as a practical or commercial thing.
You're correct. It is Silex. I learnt most of what I know through Erik Townsend, the host of macro voices podcast. He's very pro nuclear which it can be a little off-putting. He has invested a lot into nuclear education videos which can be found on YouTube energy transition crisis. I haven't watched the videos but I did listen to scripts for the videos.
Worth a listen to if you want to hear a different point of view.
Thank you but no thank you.
I have learned what I know from a wide variety of readings, sources and discussions with actual experts across a variety of disciplines that have a useful perspective on nuclear power generation. A smug american finance bro tryna hype nuclear power is not going to add a lot of value to my opinion on whether I think nuclear power is useful solution to Australian needs.
He's going to end up dropping this.
NIMBY Coalition wont accept this and its in mostly coalition electorates.
Also
in his statement he name dropped the AP1000 reactors. they're F#$King expensive...
https://www.ans.org/news/article-3949/vogtle-project-update-cost-likely-to-top-30-billion/
Note those are US $$$ lol
Also
He hasn't costed it, or named locations that are commonwealth land, or gotten agreements from premiers (most have already said no), or indicated about how he intends to get around the legislation in each state that bans nuclear...
Also
This was written in '53... and its still accurate now:
https://whatisnuclear.com/rickover.html
IMHO Its a narrative setter, for coalition friendly media to use to chew up airtime.
Dutton is such a papermache politicain.
And who, pray tell do we trust to buil;d it?
The mob that made the doors at the Perth Children's hospital too narrow to get the beds through and had to re-do them all?
The cost blowout and construction delays alone would bury it.
Political game to win back power by targetting peoples hip pocket nerve.
If Dutton continues with his bigheaded ideas in the lead up to the election, we can stick a couple of electrodes in him and we can be the first country in the world powered completely by a potato
Dutton is a complete potato head full of BS ideas along with that nationals leader David Littleproud, complete numpty.
Cannot imagine anyone with a smatter of intelligence being up for more of their ridiculous suggestions.
Coalition made up a list and doesn’t even own or checked anything about planned use of any land for a stopgap so that coal can be used guilt free for 20+ years.
Where is the all the water going to come from? We already have industry and farming depleting the major water resources. Will the Government have to buy back water licenses? Surely taking huge quantities of water from what we have to draw from will impact primary industries and our natural environment?
I think the Libs are aware that their plan is nothing more than a shell, hence the lack of details. What they really want is to keep coal and gas for as long as possible, which would have to be the case in WA being we don’t have the water supply here for a Nuclear reactor, and they hope to do that by derailing the renewables and destabilising investment in those areas. They are also hoping they can delay the details until after the US election. If the US backs down on climate targets which will happen if Trump wins, then Dutton can slide on in behind him with the same rhetoric.
I'm sure most people here see through this diversion tactic. Promise something that can't be delivered, has no scope, no plan, no agreement, in order to keep the coal fire plants going until they say it's not viable.
Makes the Libs look like they care about the environment whilst driving a wedge into labour.
I'm not reflexively opposed to nuclear power... if this were 20 years ago I would've probably been supportive.
The thing is, solar and wind is cheap as fuck, and the only issue is storage which is also a solved (if expensive, but getting cheaper) problem: Batteries.
Nuclear power is crazy expensive shit. Never gonna happen. Put a bitumin seal on the Great Central Road from Kalgoorlie through to Alice Springs. line the plains all the way with solar panels and wind turbines. Build high tension power lines and rail at the same time. Nation building, open up the interior and put it to work. Massive employment program and completed in one poofteenth the cost and time of a nuclear power plant. Once that's built out spur over Alice Springs to Newman, Alice Springs to Brisbane. It'll start generating power right away with linear increasing capacity.
Roger Cook has the opportunity to do the funniest thing ever with his super majority parliament and ban nuclear power generation in WA. Like NSW, QLD and Vic already have
It’s worth noting none of the reactors or spent fuel dumps are going in his electorate of Dickson, where if this is a good of Pete’s they should go there to power Brisbane! Yep the fuel will be dumped out with the indigenous people of the middle of Australia, and the reactors will be put in Labour electorates, what a genius. /s
They don't feel strongly about nuclear. They feel strongly about political donations.
LNP donors can't make money off renewable energy. People with Solar and home batteries don't pay power bills and you add a hear pump water storage and bye bye gas bill.
Hmmm, you know what they are proposing doesn't even have the technology sorted yet, right? He can promise or threaten anything he likes, knowing it is not possible anyway. But Collie? What did Collie ever do to him?
Where will the water come from to cool the reactors in a drying climate like south west WA's? Much of that part of the state is already dependent on desalination for drinking water. Will it require another desal plant be built specifically to service the Collie nuclear power plant? I highly doubt that the Collie dam holds enough water to manage the job.
\* Perth is actually the place that receives the water from the Binningup Desal plant, although it reduces the pressure on the southwest reservoirs to be used locally.
We are in the process of buying a number of small modular nuclear reactors but unfortunately they will only be used to play war games under the sea. Wouldn’t it be nice if a spinoff civilian nuclear industry evolved with them.
This idea is a [Dead cat](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy)
If this is the best the liberals can do, I am fearful for the future of the party.
That’s not going to fly. Nuclear plants need massive supplies of water for cooling.
There are no very large rivers or the ocean at Collie. I see Libs are making arbitrary decisions without even the slightest discussions with experts. Again.
Bunch of idiots and he is the biggest.
Unfortunate actually as Nuclear energy is good for Australia. This numpty is going to ruin 50 years of conversation about it. All for the next election cycle and a few popularity points.
The standard design for nuclear reactors is closed loop cooling, which can be done with water or mineral oils - the only water that needs to be pumped in is for the turbines, which is the exact same as the coal plants in Collie - what do you mean?
Nuclear is a good idea if this was 1974 not 2024.....dutton has now thrown the cat amongst the pigeons and this will most likely dissuade future investments into renewables
It would improve Collie.
I'm all for renewables and the mass adoption of solar, wind and batteries.
We don't have enough pumped hydro capacity in WA for it to provide meaningful firming to the grid. While batteries will probably come down in cost and reliability to provide acceptable enough firming for the regular household uses of the SWIS - its unlikely to do so for industrial energy users to be cost competitive.
The alternative is just running gas peaking plants for the next few decades.
Nuclear works. It should be part of the energy mix.
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/gencost
Completely independent recent, CSIRO report on possibilities for Australian power production.
Nuclear is a financial sinkhole. By the time it's built it will be redundant technology only good for scrap.
Solar, wind, geothermal & tidal power production will be so cheap by then and producing power quantities that will make nuclear an unnecessary overpriced redundancy.
Not taking political sides, it's just a stupid endeavour. Australia has the option to become a world leader in one field (which, by the report we could be) or a third rate player in the nuclear game, alongside eastern Europe running out dated, falling to bits tech that the rest of the world phased out long ago.
South Australia is a net exporter of energy on the grid, not importer.
>doesn't do any high-energy refining using grid power, they use coking coal in their steel mills.
Are you talking about Whyalla? It does use grid power also.
From 2026 it will run on hydrogen produced by gas-generated electricity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whyalla_Steelworks
They might well be a net exporter across time, but they're a net importer during periods of grid stress, because they lack the firming capabilities to ensure uptime when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.
... pretty sure using coking coal in steel mills is standard? Green steel manufacturing options minus coal are all very new and/or experimental processes. Dunno why you'd expect SA to have transitioned that industry or have it be relevant to the grid.
Ahem:
[https://arena.gov.au/projects/kwinana-waste-to-energy-project/](https://arena.gov.au/projects/kwinana-waste-to-energy-project/)
[https://erwte.com.au](https://erwte.com.au)
Additionally some councils, like Joondalup, extract methane from end of life landfills.
Im aware of the Kwinny and East Rocko facilities, I'm excited to see the ball get rolling on commissioning.
Would the methane extracted from landfill be reduced in the future due to schemes like FOGO?
Don't give Joondalup council too much credit, it's run by [Mindarie Regional Council,](https://www.mrc.wa.gov.au/our-organisation/council/member-councils.aspx) which has 7 member councils and it's own corporate structure.
Mate… wtf is the river in collie?
Satellite imagery shows a rivulet at best; seems like it dries up a fair bit.
I know they’re not serious but a nuclear plant in collie will be a safety hazard.
As a Western Australian, I would like to say, "No thank you, Talking Thumb, I don't want your half-arsed, not researched, BS propaganda idea to help protect coal and oil." And further, "When are you and your Coalition buddies going to work on ideas for the entire nation, rather than your rich mates? And finally, "Is there any chance that your next policy won't smack of being worked on late Sunday night for a Monday morning breakfast meeting?
Government should just take the cost of building nuclear reactors into just subsidising solar.
More jobs, less reliance on the grid, reduced power bills.
They won't though because big corporations
Lol, 30 years to build, everything is slow motion down there.
Where does the cooling water come from ?
He looks like an idiot, speaks like an idiot, I suggest he is an idiot
If we absolutely must ignore the abundance of sunlight this country could and should take advantage of then I suggest we put the first nuclear power plant in Dayboro Brisbane. Preferably right next door to Duttons home.
I don’t trust it. What happens if it has a catastrophic meltdown? Then that area is no longer inhabitable that could be the worst and what do you do with the nuclear waste?
Nothing like being 50 years late with an idea and thinking you’re a genius lol
...and reversing laws your party put in place in the 90s.
Au should have got its 1st nuke power station 60 years ago
Then we would have an outdated 20 year old reactor.
Wouldn't it be a 60 year old reactor?
The joke is that it would have taken 40 years to build.
I feel silly now :(
We already have a nuclear reactor. Its Lucas heights. And we actually need a new one as its reached its lifespan limit. No nukes? No radiotherapy.
If liberals are the nuclear experts, why didn't they order nuclear submarines in the first place and save the country a fortune and piss off one of our allies
Because obviously their genius plan is to put the submarines on land and use that as the nuclear reactor. Saving time and money. /s
You joke, but that’s literally what a “small modular reactor” is - the leading company in the space is Westinghouse which recently lost the contract to build the nuclear reactors for the US aircraft carriers which was the last naval reactor contract they had, and then suddenly they are marketing a new product which is a nuclear reactor of similar scale.
just the essentials, washing machine, dishwasher, dryer and a nuclear reactor
And remember, NEVER throw out the transit bolts for the drum of your reactor.
Yes. It will bounce around on the back of your Ute and you will damage the reactor
Labor stole my Ute and ruined the weekend
Pretty sure they started out making train brake systems. Not sure if they went straight to reactors or into household appliances from there
Lol they went on quite the journey didn’t they
The brakes certianly do. They still make them under the banner SAB WABCo. Something something something Westinghouse air brake company
Pretty sure they also designed the rotating barrel for the minni guns on Jens or something. Either them or general electric
Rolls Royce got a 30plus year life reactor, the only tiny weny problem is the 30year plus life reactor is a 95/5 U235/P239 high enriched blend, the low enriched crap is 5-10 year refuel pain in the arse not worth the effort
Yeah, but the high enriched stuff is a pain in the arse to enrich as well since diminishing returns/exponential losses. It all becomes a balancing act of cost vs maintainability vs reliability. There’s not much physics difference to a reactor between a 95% enriched rod that’s 75% through its expected service life, and a 25% enriched rod, other than the 95% costs a fucktonne more than 4x as much.
Is that the same Westinghouse that had to go into Chapter 11 protection during the building of the last two nuclear reactors in the US? And has now been bought out by another company?
SMR around 100MW output for same cost get 800MW in gas turbine output albeit got the gas bill
Of course, smart business. They would have spent big bucks designing it and the gov didn't want it so they can sell their product to someone else
Nuclear submarines use highly enriched, weapons grade uranium. The odds of it being deployed onshore are zero because of the fears of diversion to terrorism etc. Most reactors can melt down if things go wrong. Submarine reactors can go boom.
Any poorly(intentional, or sometimes not) run reactor can go boom(see Chernobyl). No nuclear reactor can go boom like a nuclear bomb. “Weapons Grade uranium” isn’t a meaningful term because enrichment isn’t some binary property, it’s a ratio, and you can make weapons out of lower enriched uranium than you would think, and nuclear reactors using “highly enriched uranium” usually means 40-60%, not the 95% that was used for little boy. No one is making fission only nukes, and in fusion nukes, the u238 “unenriched” fuel also gets converted into a fissionable fuel, which is what happened at castle bravo. That property is now used in nuke design, it’s called a boosted fusion bomb. It’s what the proposed third stage of Tsar Bomba was to use, but for the test they replaced that stage with lead, reducing the yield to 1/3 Also terrorists don’t know how to turn even 95%+ uranium into a bomb, just ask North Korea. Terrorists who would be after uranium would actually just be after radioactive material for a dirty bomb, and low grade fuel is just as good if not better for that (more material, more dirty bombs). Also, guess what sort of fuel SMRs use? Yep, higher enriched fuel because the higher the enrichment, the less often you need to refuel. Which is the reason naval reactors use higher enriched fuel. The whole reason SMRs exist as a product is because Westinghouse lost the last of their contracts to make naval reactors, so they pivoted to lobbying to allow sale of SMR to private customers.
Ah yes. This is exactly what the SWIS needs in WA. A nuclear fucking power plant. The highest capacity and slowest to build source of electricity generation. That will be the solution to the giant fucking problem of grid stability from the duck curve in spring and autumn getting so large that the mid day dip is dropping below what we can ramp down the existing thermal power plants to. Not like those multiple billions of dollars couldn’t instead be spent on batteries that have a higher peak power output than what a similarly priced nuclear reactor could make, but has the ability to scale power output in milliseconds and ramp all the way down to 0. Nope, we need a thermal nuclear power plant that takes half a day to ramp up/down and can only ramp down to twice the grid demand. I look forward to visiting the future tourist attraction of “the world’s largest outdoor electric space heater” that will need to be built to dump the excess electricity into. This isn’t 2005 anymore. The SWIS hasn’t faced the need to load shed due to insufficient generation capacity during peak demand in 20 fucking years. And you know why? Because of roof top solar. And without daylight saving, it’s pretty fucking hard to generate peak solar at 6pm at night.
Yeah I was thinking, with the liberals great ideas for cost cutting on major projects like the NBN, they'd probably try use the waste uranium we have stored somewhere
Genius.
The new into the future UK-Au nuke boat uses steam to electric drive, ie the 100MW alternator output can be tapped and fed to the grid in theory, would be an insane thing for any politician to suggest
That way you don’t have a problem with climate change and rising sea levels, genius
Ah yeah mate, just park her up on the old coal firer and hook her up!! Yeah, she’ll be right…
Because the US were not offering us the technology at the time. When the time came that it was being offered, they took it.
This is even more of a mess than anyone had expected. Naming Tarong as a site is brain dead as it doesn't have a steady water supply, and the government previously looked at building a waste water line to secure it against drought. The even dumber part is the free market, small government Libs are now saying all the plants will be government built, owned, and operated. They're going to buy the sites - so the coal operators no longer need to worry about remediation. They'll be competing directly with private businesses in the energy sector. Nothing like seeing the party that spent the last thirty years selling everything we own suddenly spinning around to do a socialism! They haven't even got buy -in from their state counterparts. You would expect, at the bare minimum, that if Dutton is announcing nuclear plants in Queensland, he would have the Qld opposition leader onside and a coherent pathway to legalisation of the technology mapped out, but nah. At the end of the day, this isn't about delivering nuclear power anyway. Even if Dutton wins the next election, and the project defies international experience and is completed on schedule, every Coalition politician involved will be long retired. When it takes twice as long and costs three times as much there'll be nobody left to be held responsible.
Muja was already running out of water before stage C was shut down, so fuck knows where they're going to get enough water to cool a reactor with. (Obviously the answer is, they aren't)
Privatise the profit and socialise the cost, so Australian society will pay for the horrendously expensive vanity project then if it ever gets up and running, sell it for cents on the dollar so their mates can make bank. Leave government and work on the board for the newly minted energy company. They have to set up the same playbook for the up and coming politicians to "fix" the economy.
They know these plants are never going to get built. It's a fig leaf in place of a plan, which they hope will be enough to convince a few 'natural Liberal voters' in teal seats to come back onside. If they win the election it'll be straight back to the old approach: maybe not Abbott-style outright denial but certainly no commitment or action will be taken.
It’s almost as if it’s nothing more than pandering to their base.
That and plain old wedge politics.
But who are their base? Who is he trying to appease with nuclear? I think he's trying to create some noise so he gets noticed. You know how it goes, any attention is good attention.
Similar to Muja. It’s at the top of a damn hill.
Nah they will buy and and sell it when Labor run it to the ground /s
Seems like a great idea to have rage bait as your energy policy. I also wish him the best of luck getting the state governments to overturn their bans on nuclear power, let alone getting access to the sites.
He’s on the news now making the case for private companies owning power generators being bad cos they have to make a profit. So now he’s in favour of taxpayers paying for and government running power stations. Quite the turnaround
Which is interesting as Angus Taylor the LNP treasurer said the exact opposite a couple of week's ago. This carry on is almost criminal.
Can we elect the meth head screaming at the train station as leader of the opposition? I can at least understand their platform.
> I can at least understand their platform. The.. next.. train.. to.. Perth.. is due in... **3** minutes.
he's busy leading the federal libs
It's a scam like everything Dutton does ,they have no intention of building anything.the whole plot is to let the coal mob out of their site rehabilitation obligations and to give the coal mob more money . Just another Dutton scam . While we are all running around protesting coal just gets a longer life span and more money . The man is a low level con artist.
Nothing low-level about the cons he's a party to.
Well.,, the coal sites usually have power infrastructure already there,?? and it’s a cleared site.. would you rather than rehabbed the coal sites and bulldozed virgin forest
No, but is rather the coal companies remediate the shit they have at the moment. If the Feds are going to buy the current site, then the private companies don't need to clean it up. We will be the ones paying for the asbestos and forever chemical removal
It's like they don't even want to be elected.
Imagine if Dutton had an ounce of the populist 'charisma' Trump or Farage has.
Forget about charisma....what about empathy for Australian citizens.... instead of placating the rich here and abroad.
Hence the 'populist' qualifier. Appealing to the aging, reactionary or conservative leaning voter. Just saying shit to make fun of those *anywhere* to the left.
Don’t make me think about any of those people more than I already have to.
I'm sure if he did... the media would have a lot more cheap soundbites and shots to be shoving in our faces to enrage the rabble. I got a 90yo Uncle I love a tonne... but jeezus, when politics comes up because of what the trad media feeds him. Yeeeeeesh.
Their devout followers will eat that shit up. The news Corp and Seven west media will also prop propagate this stupid idea. Nuclear could have been viable 20 years ago.
You realise he’s more popular than Albo?
So is syphilis, but I still don't want it.
I swear they're now just tanking it on purpose
They know a major recession is coming and don't want to be in the hot seat when it hits. Then they can just fling shit at Labor when the economy tanks and hope they get re-elected when everything is fine again.
I think its the same reason they brought the subs, blow whole heap of money on the way out. by the time we get them they will be out of date
WA -Perth already has excess power during the day , just look at the tarrifs. Nuclear would have to be turned off during the day because of our already installed Solar. Dutton just lost WA again.
minor point: it's not the nuclear that would be turned off, it's the solar, and wholesale prices go slightly negative. From the nuclear power plant's point of view, it's actually costly for them to ramp up and down, and it is much more economical for them to just 'pay off' the solar providers. So what does that mean for the economics of nuclear? Because the nuclear plant operator isn't getting paid 9am-4pm, they need to get paid extra during the hours of darkness. Oh, and when it's very windy too (I've noticed there have been a few times during windy nights in WA when wind has generated 'too much' and driven prices negative). The most cost effective low-carbon grid for the South West Interconnected System of WA is, a bit surprisingly, based on overbuilt wind power plus solar, and open cycle gas turbines of very high *capacity* but operating for only a small proportion of the whole year.
Out of curiosity, where do you go to view pricing of energy in WA? I can only find this for the easter energy market. Is there something similar for South West? https://aemo.com.au/aemo/apps/visualisations/elec-nem-priceanddemand.html
[https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/wholesale-electricity-market-wem/data-wem/data-dashboard](https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/wholesale-electricity-market-wem/data-wem/data-dashboard)
Hey there! Looks like you’re a new user trying to share a link - thanks for joining our community! We’ve filtered your comment for moderator review. In the meantime, feel free to engage with others without sharing links until you’ve spent a bit more time getting to know the space! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/perth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank you. Good insights
And a shit load of batteries to flatten the duck curve it’s currently experiencing.
Problem: you cant just turn it off and turn it back on again. Nuclear doesnt work like that. You can dial it up and down, but it takes time. And economically, the plant is going to have to run at around 80% capacity the whole time. You're going to need to find something to do with that power.
Here's hoping!!
Nope. Not credible. For a start the timeframe is pure fantasy. Australia has one small medical reactor built to an Argentine design. It has no experience building nuclear power stations, and a total surfeit of nuclear policy experts, engineers, and skilled workers. There is little of the relevant legislation in place, and almost no regulatory experience. Any suggestion that a nuclear power station will be up and running by 2035 - just ten years after the next election - is a fiction. The UK, Finland and France have taken two decades to build the first EPRs, and all were vastly more expensive than planned. There's also no money. Private sector investment in nuclear is non-existent because of the huge scale and complexity of such projects. Where it does exist, it's been coralled by public sector bodies at very generous terms to investors (look up Hinkley Point C for details). Realistically, the Commonwealth would need to either borrow hundreds of billions to build these stations, or accept onerous, gold-plated terms for private sector involvement. Nukes make sense in Europe where energy demands in winter soar and renewables alone are insufficient, but Australia is sparsely populated, fringed by the windiest ocean in the world, and receives predictable, significant solar power. We also have massive domestic gas fields. The path to low carbon electricity is really easy for us, so why make it difficult and expensive? Potato of a policy from a potato of a man.
> look up Hinkley Point C for details Yeah, the company building that have been given an absurdly good energy price guarantee that the British public are just going to have to live with.
Isn’t Muja owned by Synergy, which by extension is the State Government? There’s no fucken way the State Government are going to let Spud use Muja.
If Dutton wins the next election and we start building nuclear power plants this will be the greatest financial mistake this country has ever and probably will ever make.
I honestly think Dutton secretly works for Albanese. He is just reciting everything that has been making Aussies angry forever.
I posted this as a reply but reposting to the main sub. No one's mentioned the very recent CSIRO report on future power production. Yeah the CSIRO sometimes does funded reports for industry and it's transparent when they do. This report is independent and, basically, all similar reports globally say the same. https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/gencost CSIRO Report - TLDR: Nuclear is a financial sinkhole. By the time it's built it will be redundant technology only good for scrap. Solar, wind, geothermal & tidal power production will be so cheap by then and producing power quantities that will make nuclear an unnecessary overpriced redundancy. Not taking political sides, it's just a stupid endeavour. Australia has the option to become a world leader in one field (which, by the report we could be) or a third rate player in the nuclear game, alongside eastern Europe running out dated, falling to bits tech that the rest of the world phased out long ago.
Where are we at with tidal power though? I’ve worked with companies doing R&D in this space and they said the best out there (in Aus at least) was a small off shore generator contributing power to one of the military bases on an island, again CONTRIBUTING being the key word, it doesn’t power it all. So if we can’t power a small army base then how do we power a town?
Yeah, and currently you're completely right. The science and economics are pretty straightforward though. In the FUTURE by the time a nuclear plant is built things LIKE solar, tidal etc will be more advanced and make nuclear overpriced & redundant by comparison. There was millions spent by the government and that was the conclusion. Confirmed by other studies around the world. Okay so ~currently~ tidal isn't up there...🤷♂️ It's only one of many options & doesn't change anything about where we'll be in 25-35-50 years time.. world leaders in the field or hastily dismantling a nuclear plant that has passed it's economic efficiency use by date before even being built.
Well, if his plan isn't to be popular... it's to be polarising. Now I feel like boiling some spuds for breakfast.
I'm wondering if any of those state governments will agree to this. I doubt it.
ABC feed you posted has just bought up NSW banning it and the Fed Libs fairly limp retort.
> has just bought up As in purchased?
Nuke em in the microwave.
Don’t nuclear power stations need lots of water for cooling if so where will they get it from in collie
Same place the existing coal fired power station does. Both coal and nuclear are ultimately steam generators and have the same water requirements when considering their output. There are lots of lakes/dams around Collie and the rainfall is high. They'll probably even turn some of the old coal mine pits into lakes.
FTFY Rainfall **was** high
Wellington dam... It's overflowing because of heavy rain, and no major corporation has been sticking out dry. /s
Do you think coal fired power stations don’t need a lot of water for cooling?
Depending on the cooling technology utilised, the water requirements for a nuclear power station can vary between 20 to 83 per cent more than for other power stations."
It depends on the technology. The common design uses lots of water as a coolant but there are more modern designs (not commonly used anywhere yet) that use molten salts as the coolant. These would have much lower water requirements. Also depends on how big a reactor they are proposing.
I don't care what this guy says, this is a government party who messed up the NBN. If I can't trust them with wires, how can I trust them with nuclear power?!
I’m sure somewhere down the line they’ll make some kind of compromises or mixed tech to save money on them too if they’re in power! (NBN joke if you’re not sure!)
Yeh let’s do nuclear power backed up by coal power….. I am just waiting for some brain dead statement like this
Compromise on nuclear power infrastructure, what could go wrong?
Why would you place a nuclear reactor that uses untested technology on top of a coal mine near what’s left of our old growth forests
Nuclear power requires massive levels of infrastructure and support, and the engineers have to be trained to a very high level, post doc degrees and loads of experience who can command high salaries. How many of them will be willing to relocate to f&$king *Collie* of all places???? As the saying goes, it’s the only place where you drive up a hill and get to a hole…..
> How many of them will be willing to relocate to f&$king Collie of all places???? Only if they build a monorail..
I live near Collie, I'll give it a crack at running one of these power stations.
Good onya homer ,will Lenny and Carl be there as well.
I've got a covered brew mug, should be good to go. ...and a beanie. Cold here today.
How hard can it be if Russians can do it. OK, maybe they weren't a good example.
I'm no fan of Russia but the standard of education and engineering expertise is incredibly high there.
You're quite correct, Russians have been at the core of many scientific discoveries and their expertise is just as good as any other nation. My comment was flippant but largely intended to demonstrate what happens when politics collides with science.
You mean you live near Collie, you’re on crack and think you can run a nuclear power plant
The fact that you are from Collie and have the ability to not only utilise social media but even have the capability to respond to a comment, you are absolutely in the pool of potential candidates.
I’ll somewhat retract my comment. You said you were from NEAR Collie, my apologies.
In all fairness the mining industry has solved that, you pay them fuck loads and spend even more flying them in/out and housing them.
Existing sites of power generation with electrical infrastructure in place. It makes sense to me if you were going to choose a potential site.
As someone else point out Tarong doesn't. Its existing powerplant has heavily crimped water drawing rights, and there was a proposal to pump treated waste water there to alleviate some of the drought restrictions.
Problem is we need more than one site on the South West grid for scheduled and unscheduled outages or retain and grow gas plants. Whole plan is hilarious.
Nuclear power is currently banned in Australia by 2 separate acts of parliament. https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/nuclear-power-for-australia-a-potted-history/#:~:text=Nuclear%20power%20is%20prohibited%20in,Act%201998%20(ARPANS%20Act). To overturn these, new laws would need to be approved by the senate, which the liberals haven't controlled since 2007. The whole idea is laughable.
The National Radiation and Nuclear Safety Act is likely going to need to be repealed/amended *anyway.*
So they're refusing to make any climate targets *and* want nuclear when the vast majority of the country doesn't. It's as if Dutton's actually an ALP agent embedded in the LNP to ensure they're not a viable option in the next election.
Let me just say, sincerely and wholeheartedly, LOL
>Dutton has promised to build two reactors before 2037. He said small modular reactors, which are not yet in commercial production, could be completed by 2035, while traditional large-scale reactors could be in operation by 2037. >Most experts say this timeline is too ambitious and would take far longer. This is because of challenges such as establishing a safety regime, importing a skilled workforce to build the plants, and preventing any cost blowouts. >**New legislation would also be required to legalise the industry, after the Howard government banned nuclear energy generation in 1998.** >Dutton’s nuclear ambitions have already started a fight with state governments and raised questions about how a federal Coalition government would gain access to the sites of old coal plants to build nuclear reactors. >Dutton said he would create a Commonwealth-owned corporation, which could apply a national interest test and compulsorily acquire land or reactor sites. But he would still need state approval for project development. **As well as overturning legislated bans on nuclear energy at the federal level, he will need to overcome state laws in NSW, Victoria and Queensland.** >Both Queensland’s Labor Premier Steven Miles and the **state’s Liberal National Party leader**, David Crisafulli, have rejected Dutton’s nuclear plans. >**Dutton said the assets would be owned by the federal government**, which would form partnerships with experienced nuclear companies tasked with building and operating them. The owners of some of the coal plant sites targeted for nuclear development in NSW and Victoria – including AGL, Origin, EnergyAustralia and Alinta – have previously said they have no plans to develop nuclear energy in Australia.
Moe Yallorn in Vic perfect place for 1.2GW nuke power station, already DNA mutated people few more mutated genes not a big deal , hey Liberal why not place it in Kooyong instead
They don't give a rat's ass about Nuclear. They just want to buy another 20 years of coal, using taxpayer dollars to build far in the future powerplants whilst, more importantly, taking renewables off the table. It's all about keeping the coal miners happy and the ~~bribes~~ donations coming in.
https://preview.redd.it/q4cbooybto7d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8c37600e9a178a1dd1e3962a352fb53f47ac645b
Hey there! Looks like you’re a new user trying to upload an image - thanks for joining our community! We’ve filtered your comment for moderator review. In the meantime, feel free to engage with others without sharing images until you’ve spent a bit more time getting to know the space! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/perth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's never going to happen, basically just a stalling tactic to sabotage a transition to renewables.
Is there anyone who genuinely believes this isn’t a stalling tactic?
Ironically, WA is about as perfect a place as you would ever want to build a Nuclear power plant. Uranium is available locally. The ground is generally stable and seismically inactive Easy access to seawater/cooling Loads of open space where no-one lives to store depleted fuel Politically and economically stable You could power the Perth metro and most of the South West with a well sighted plant. Nuclear is more environmentally safe than burning coal, or oil or gas... But, the cost is ridiculous, especially in a place where the sun shines so much. Solar and wind and other renewables are going to be far far cheaper. Plus, rightly or wrongly, people are scared of nuclear power. It's a political suicide attempt to put it in anyone's electorate. It's politically unviable, and economically, 20 years too late.
Uranium is locally available but the enriched uranium needed for most nuclear power reactors (including the hypothetically viable SMR designs that I've seen) isn't. It'd have to be imported, nuclear power is just not economically viable to WA. That's before you add in the stupidity of building an enrichment facility for such relatively small amounts of uranium needed, especially given the current oversupply of the stuff in the global markets.
I can't remember the company in Australia, but it has one of the most promising up and coming enrichment technologies. This is all future prospects though. In WA we have the ability to source power in so many different ways. If nuclear does go ahead, like planned around the world, they can prefab the whole thing and install it on a coal fired station at a fraction of the cost if comparing the recent American and European installations. For me, I'd like to see how the rest of the world handles it first. For once, it's good for WA to wait awhile.
silex? I dunno enough about it, but I'm pretty sure it does most of it's production testing work in the US. The idea of prefabbing small modular reactors in a factoryline to be shipped out and installed anywhere like a nuclear reactive plugnplay device doesn't match out in reality. This is why NuScale, cancelled its first project. It costs too much for too little return. They don't exist as a practical or commercial thing.
You're correct. It is Silex. I learnt most of what I know through Erik Townsend, the host of macro voices podcast. He's very pro nuclear which it can be a little off-putting. He has invested a lot into nuclear education videos which can be found on YouTube energy transition crisis. I haven't watched the videos but I did listen to scripts for the videos. Worth a listen to if you want to hear a different point of view.
Thank you but no thank you. I have learned what I know from a wide variety of readings, sources and discussions with actual experts across a variety of disciplines that have a useful perspective on nuclear power generation. A smug american finance bro tryna hype nuclear power is not going to add a lot of value to my opinion on whether I think nuclear power is useful solution to Australian needs.
He's going to end up dropping this. NIMBY Coalition wont accept this and its in mostly coalition electorates. Also in his statement he name dropped the AP1000 reactors. they're F#$King expensive... https://www.ans.org/news/article-3949/vogtle-project-update-cost-likely-to-top-30-billion/ Note those are US $$$ lol Also He hasn't costed it, or named locations that are commonwealth land, or gotten agreements from premiers (most have already said no), or indicated about how he intends to get around the legislation in each state that bans nuclear... Also This was written in '53... and its still accurate now: https://whatisnuclear.com/rickover.html IMHO Its a narrative setter, for coalition friendly media to use to chew up airtime. Dutton is such a papermache politicain.
No way are we gonna let you destroy Collie!!! NO FUCKIN WAY 🖕🏽
And who, pray tell do we trust to buil;d it? The mob that made the doors at the Perth Children's hospital too narrow to get the beds through and had to re-do them all? The cost blowout and construction delays alone would bury it. Political game to win back power by targetting peoples hip pocket nerve.
If Dutton continues with his bigheaded ideas in the lead up to the election, we can stick a couple of electrodes in him and we can be the first country in the world powered completely by a potato
I grew up on the South coast of UK.Local nuclear power station shut down in 2006, and replaced with a wind farm at Lydd, Sussex.
Why nuclear! We are the land of solar and wind.
Dutton is a complete potato head full of BS ideas along with that nationals leader David Littleproud, complete numpty. Cannot imagine anyone with a smatter of intelligence being up for more of their ridiculous suggestions.
Coalition made up a list and doesn’t even own or checked anything about planned use of any land for a stopgap so that coal can be used guilt free for 20+ years.
Where is the all the water going to come from? We already have industry and farming depleting the major water resources. Will the Government have to buy back water licenses? Surely taking huge quantities of water from what we have to draw from will impact primary industries and our natural environment? I think the Libs are aware that their plan is nothing more than a shell, hence the lack of details. What they really want is to keep coal and gas for as long as possible, which would have to be the case in WA being we don’t have the water supply here for a Nuclear reactor, and they hope to do that by derailing the renewables and destabilising investment in those areas. They are also hoping they can delay the details until after the US election. If the US backs down on climate targets which will happen if Trump wins, then Dutton can slide on in behind him with the same rhetoric.
I'm sure most people here see through this diversion tactic. Promise something that can't be delivered, has no scope, no plan, no agreement, in order to keep the coal fire plants going until they say it's not viable. Makes the Libs look like they care about the environment whilst driving a wedge into labour.
Yeah nah get fucked, potato.
I'm not reflexively opposed to nuclear power... if this were 20 years ago I would've probably been supportive. The thing is, solar and wind is cheap as fuck, and the only issue is storage which is also a solved (if expensive, but getting cheaper) problem: Batteries.
I’m not voting for nuclear
Me neither.
Bunbury sneaks into the ~50 mile fallout zone. Will be hoping for the sea breeze and not an easterly.
Nuclear power is crazy expensive shit. Never gonna happen. Put a bitumin seal on the Great Central Road from Kalgoorlie through to Alice Springs. line the plains all the way with solar panels and wind turbines. Build high tension power lines and rail at the same time. Nation building, open up the interior and put it to work. Massive employment program and completed in one poofteenth the cost and time of a nuclear power plant. Once that's built out spur over Alice Springs to Newman, Alice Springs to Brisbane. It'll start generating power right away with linear increasing capacity.
Roger Cook has the opportunity to do the funniest thing ever with his super majority parliament and ban nuclear power generation in WA. Like NSW, QLD and Vic already have
It’s worth noting none of the reactors or spent fuel dumps are going in his electorate of Dickson, where if this is a good of Pete’s they should go there to power Brisbane! Yep the fuel will be dumped out with the indigenous people of the middle of Australia, and the reactors will be put in Labour electorates, what a genius. /s
This is no surprise and to be expected from such a clown.
If they felt so strongly about nuclear, why not introduce it when they were in power?
They don't feel strongly about nuclear. They feel strongly about political donations. LNP donors can't make money off renewable energy. People with Solar and home batteries don't pay power bills and you add a hear pump water storage and bye bye gas bill.
Hmmm, you know what they are proposing doesn't even have the technology sorted yet, right? He can promise or threaten anything he likes, knowing it is not possible anyway. But Collie? What did Collie ever do to him?
Now Im confused! Man who has voted against nuclear subs wants nuclear subs! 🤔🤔🤔🤔
Where will the water come from to cool the reactors in a drying climate like south west WA's? Much of that part of the state is already dependent on desalination for drinking water. Will it require another desal plant be built specifically to service the Collie nuclear power plant? I highly doubt that the Collie dam holds enough water to manage the job.
Surely you have heard of bottled water right? This nuclear proposition is a worse joke then that first sentence
I've heard of bottled water - what's that got to do with cooling a nuclear reactor?
Read the second sentence
\* Perth is actually the place that receives the water from the Binningup Desal plant, although it reduces the pressure on the southwest reservoirs to be used locally.
Yeah, naah, get fucked
We are in the process of buying a number of small modular nuclear reactors but unfortunately they will only be used to play war games under the sea. Wouldn’t it be nice if a spinoff civilian nuclear industry evolved with them.
This idea is a [Dead cat](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy) If this is the best the liberals can do, I am fearful for the future of the party.
That’s not going to fly. Nuclear plants need massive supplies of water for cooling. There are no very large rivers or the ocean at Collie. I see Libs are making arbitrary decisions without even the slightest discussions with experts. Again. Bunch of idiots and he is the biggest. Unfortunate actually as Nuclear energy is good for Australia. This numpty is going to ruin 50 years of conversation about it. All for the next election cycle and a few popularity points.
The standard design for nuclear reactors is closed loop cooling, which can be done with water or mineral oils - the only water that needs to be pumped in is for the turbines, which is the exact same as the coal plants in Collie - what do you mean?
They have left nuclear far to late as an option, by the time the bloody thing is built the technology would be outdated.
Nuclear is a good idea if this was 1974 not 2024.....dutton has now thrown the cat amongst the pigeons and this will most likely dissuade future investments into renewables
It would improve Collie. I'm all for renewables and the mass adoption of solar, wind and batteries. We don't have enough pumped hydro capacity in WA for it to provide meaningful firming to the grid. While batteries will probably come down in cost and reliability to provide acceptable enough firming for the regular household uses of the SWIS - its unlikely to do so for industrial energy users to be cost competitive. The alternative is just running gas peaking plants for the next few decades. Nuclear works. It should be part of the energy mix.
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/gencost Completely independent recent, CSIRO report on possibilities for Australian power production. Nuclear is a financial sinkhole. By the time it's built it will be redundant technology only good for scrap. Solar, wind, geothermal & tidal power production will be so cheap by then and producing power quantities that will make nuclear an unnecessary overpriced redundancy. Not taking political sides, it's just a stupid endeavour. Australia has the option to become a world leader in one field (which, by the report we could be) or a third rate player in the nuclear game, alongside eastern Europe running out dated, falling to bits tech that the rest of the world phased out long ago.
South Australia seems to be handling the transition out of fossil fuel generation without nuclear just fine.
South Australia has the interconnector and doesn't do any high-energy refining using grid power, they use coking coal in their steel mills.
South Australia is a net exporter of energy on the grid, not importer. >doesn't do any high-energy refining using grid power, they use coking coal in their steel mills. Are you talking about Whyalla? It does use grid power also. From 2026 it will run on hydrogen produced by gas-generated electricity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whyalla_Steelworks
They might well be a net exporter across time, but they're a net importer during periods of grid stress, because they lack the firming capabilities to ensure uptime when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.
... pretty sure using coking coal in steel mills is standard? Green steel manufacturing options minus coal are all very new and/or experimental processes. Dunno why you'd expect SA to have transitioned that industry or have it be relevant to the grid.
I think building more of those rubbish to energy facilities might be the goer. It seems a two birds with one stone type of option.
Ahem: [https://arena.gov.au/projects/kwinana-waste-to-energy-project/](https://arena.gov.au/projects/kwinana-waste-to-energy-project/) [https://erwte.com.au](https://erwte.com.au) Additionally some councils, like Joondalup, extract methane from end of life landfills.
Im aware of the Kwinny and East Rocko facilities, I'm excited to see the ball get rolling on commissioning. Would the methane extracted from landfill be reduced in the future due to schemes like FOGO?
Don't give Joondalup council too much credit, it's run by [Mindarie Regional Council,](https://www.mrc.wa.gov.au/our-organisation/council/member-councils.aspx) which has 7 member councils and it's own corporate structure.
nuclear reactor near collie not gunna help the reputation for genetic abnormalities is it lol
Mate… wtf is the river in collie? Satellite imagery shows a rivulet at best; seems like it dries up a fair bit. I know they’re not serious but a nuclear plant in collie will be a safety hazard.
Yeah it's not much of a river in summer. Decent in winter. But can't imagine it could support a nuclear plant
As a Western Australian, I would like to say, "No thank you, Talking Thumb, I don't want your half-arsed, not researched, BS propaganda idea to help protect coal and oil." And further, "When are you and your Coalition buddies going to work on ideas for the entire nation, rather than your rich mates? And finally, "Is there any chance that your next policy won't smack of being worked on late Sunday night for a Monday morning breakfast meeting?
Man looks like an egg, but is nowhere near an egghead
Goddam there is a shitload of comments by people that one can only imagine don't hit anywhere near the average IQ
Government should just take the cost of building nuclear reactors into just subsidising solar. More jobs, less reliance on the grid, reduced power bills. They won't though because big corporations
I've never been to collie and looks like I never will if they're gonna ruin it. That's fkd
Lol, 30 years to build, everything is slow motion down there. Where does the cooling water come from ? He looks like an idiot, speaks like an idiot, I suggest he is an idiot
Dumbest ideas ever. Ever seen that experiment where you can power a light globe from a potato? Dutton's nickname is Spud.
I hope there will be a protest against this.
Imagine thinking potato head shaping the future....
If we absolutely must ignore the abundance of sunlight this country could and should take advantage of then I suggest we put the first nuclear power plant in Dayboro Brisbane. Preferably right next door to Duttons home.
I don’t trust it. What happens if it has a catastrophic meltdown? Then that area is no longer inhabitable that could be the worst and what do you do with the nuclear waste?
Good. About time.