Government is ‘handpicking’ nuclear programs to paint story of it being too costly

[@douglaswasley1461]

too expensive and slow!!!! sounds like wind and solar energy projects

[@Peter-p5u8t]

Noook-leear cost would not be as expensive as Tanya Plibersecks ' brightly coloured jacket 🧥😂😂😂😂

[@briananderson7285]

The CSIRO is nolonger trustworthy.

[@GeoffMiell]

US investment bank Lazard earlier this month published their latest edition (version 17) of their highly regarded Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE+) Analysis. The Lazard findings are broadly similar to those of the GenCost 2023-24 report prepared by the CSIRO/AEMO. While Lazard looks at the global average, the CSIRO/AEMO are focused on Australia, which has some of the best wind and solar resources in the world. To suggest that the CSIRO/AEMO and their research are "unreliable" and "discredited" is disparaging the overwhelming evidence/data. It's denial of reality.

[@addLADN]

I read some big article about the progress of this farce of a renewables rollout. On the nights with no wind our batteries can keep Australia’s lights on for under 4 hours. Then I suppose if there is an overcast, still day the next day we are stuffed. The place I work runs 24/5 and recently have been getting power outs at night. The explanation from the power network ‘power regulation’. They can just turn your electricity off whenever they want if they think you are using too much.

[@johnflynn923]

Because the costs will affect the elites end profits 😥

[@User9681e]

Yeah there isn't that much possiblity to take high margins so them democrats pick the ones that help them the most

[@S.Carrick]

Please Ms Plibersek, tell Australians what the forever costs of non renewable wind turbines and solar panel replacements is predicted to be, forever, every other decade, ongoing.

[@BarbaraHambleton]

We’re making decisions on politics

[@weldfreak420]

Love sky news!!

[@lornatodd4750]

We know its too expensive 😅🤮. By saying that she tries to deflect from Labor/Bowen's stupidly. We have the answer unicorn 🦄 renewable which we refuse to cost.

[@spikegumby7186]

More muppets that havent done their homework on gencost, it did look at the UAE plant and shows it on their undepinning spreadsheets, heres a surprise, it came in at about the same cost per kwh as what they costed it would be here, if they were cherrypicking they would have used vogtle or hinkley c or flamanville.

[@BarbaraHambleton]

We need the grown -ups in the house

[@BarbaraHambleton]

They have nothing

[@alanramsey2761]

The Barakah nuclear power plant in the UAE was contracted for US $20.0 bn in 2009 with a grid date of 2017. Final price seems to have been around US$25.0 bn and first power was delivered in 2021. So US$5.0 bn or 25% over budget and 4 years late. And that is in the UAE. If that is the poster child for 'on-time and on-budget' God help us building one in Oz.

[@GeoffMiell]

@alanramsey2761 - "So US$5.0 bn or 25% over budget and 4 years late." The UAE's Barakah four reactor (4x 1,337 MWₑ net capacity) project has demonstrated it took more than 15-years to get their first reactor up-and-running from scratch and more than 18-years for their fourth (yet to be fully operational) reactor. Per energy analyst Ian Nichols, the all-up cost with finance was $US34 billion, or more than $AU51 billion. The UAE conducted an Energy Planning Study in 2006, part of their due diligence, which led to the announcement of their Nuclear Policy in 2008. Per the IAEA’s Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) data (accessed today): Reactor Unit _ Construct Start Date _ Commence Full Ops _ Construct to Operate BARAKAH-1: _ _ 19 Jul 2012 _ _ _ _ _ 01 Apr 2021 _ _ _ _8 y, 08 months, 14 days BARAKAH-2: _ _ 15 Apr 2013 _ _ _ _ _24 Mar 2022 _ _ _ _8 y, 11 months, 10 days BARAKAH-3: _ _ 24 Sep 2014 _ _ _ _ _24 Feb 2023 _ _ _ _8 y, 05 months, 01 day BARAKAH-4: _ _ 30 Jul 2015 _ _ _ _ _ _ Pending _ _ _ _ _ _8 y, 10 months, 30 days+ BARAKAH-2 took around 6¼ months from first grid connection to full commercial operations. BARAKAH-3 took around 4½ months. I'd suggest BARAKAH-4, with its first grid connection on 23 Mar 2024, should therefore be commencing full operations around late Jul to early Aug 2024. @alanramsey2761 - "And that is in the UAE. If that is the poster child for 'on-time and on-budget' God help us building one in Oz." Except the Barakah project construction time was expected to be only 5 years - it took more than 8 years - see above. See the 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵-2023, Figure 14 · Delays for Units Started Up 2020-2022. Initial costs blew-out 70%. Suggesting the Barakah project was 'on-time and on-budget' is not supported by the compelling evidence/data. Recent examples for Finland, USA, China, Russia, France, Canada and the UK are significantly worse re timeframe and cost blowouts. See my earlier comments (9 hours ago). For inexperienced Australia: 𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲: 20+ years for the first prospective operational nuclear generator unit; 𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀: In the hundreds of billions to perhaps over a trillion dollars. Is it any wonder why the Coalition won't reveal the costs for their nuclear fantasy? Meanwhile, more than a few coal-fired power stations will close over the next few decades in Australia. The AEMO’s draft 2024 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯, the latest version of its 30-year planning blueprint, suggests coal fired generation will be gone from Queensland and Victoria within a decade - by 2033/34 - and that the last coal unit will close in NSW by 2038. I'd suggest if most Australians knew the true cost, timeline and consequences of proceeding with the Coalition's nuclear fantasy they would say no.

[@rogermckinnon5738]

And how much is snowy 2.0 over budget and how much has it delivered in power mmmm

[@alanramsey2761]

@@rogermckinnon5738 Exactly!! Now apply this level of Australian project planning and delivery to a new nuclear plant in Australia and what do you get? The point is that Mr Kenny was claiming Barakah was 'on-time and on-budget'. It wasn't - but it was miles closer than anything else in the nuclear space that has been delivered in the last decade. Most of then have made Snowy2 look good!

[@philipwilkie3239]

Again selective misinformation. There are in fact four reactors at Barakah - the first one took longer than planned getting online in 2021, but the next three are 100% complete and online by March 2024. The APR1400 type requires a supply chain of modules in order for the project to stay on timeline . The first one encountered some problems in that respect as the design was subject to some refinement and revision. This is very normal for any first of a kind project. Once the supply chain was brought up to speed the next three reactors were completed on time and budget.

[@GeoffMiell]

@@philipwilkie3239 - "There are in fact four reactors at Barakah - the first one took longer than planned getting online in 2021, but the next three are 100% complete and online by March 2024." Each of the four reactors were supposed to take 5 years to construct, but the reactors actually took more than 8 years each - see the IAEA’s Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) data. See my earlier reply comment to @alanramsey2761 above (1 day ago). @philipwilkie3239 - "...but the next three are 100% complete and online by March 2024." BARAKAH-4 was grid connected on 23 Mar 2024. Commissioning is still ongoing, and this reactor is still not fully operational, per the IAEA’s Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) data.

[@FranksHairSalon]

So they aren't too costly? They must be cheap then?

[@Glenrok]

Does anyone remember Labor insisting “stopping the boats couldn’t be done”?? Why would ANYONE listen to these naysayers?? All it needs is commitment and resolve- attributed Labor have repeatedly demonstrated they lack…….

[@jonh9561]

Considering 'cost' only is an amateurish way to evaluate the cost benefit of anything ...........decisions should be based on 'best value' over the lifespan of each power generating asset and the associated infrastructure.

[@onlymelbourne2842]

as makeusick tells us how nuclear is too expensive you can see her nose get longer and almost pleading that the opposition believes her tripe

[@terrybell8805]

Does this government make decisions on fact or emotion ?

[@Ernst12]

The LNP should reply to her, "Nuclear is too expensive compared to what?" and one would expect Labor to say that "too expensive compared with renewables". The LNP might suggest how can nuclear be compared with the Labor renewable fantasy when the renewables have not been costed either even though Labor has been in power for two years? Labor needs to get its act together by firstly properly defining the complete scope of the renewable system costs, then provide the total costs (which it hasn't done) and by the LNP, I am sure, will provide the nuclear costs and investment value over time embracing future generations and the fact that nuclear has a duty-cycle close to 100% which means that there is no need for an overbuild of 6-8 as will be required by the renewables once all the electricity demand sectors are factored in. I think that this will be not only a painful exercise for Labor but also an embarrassing one.

[@GeoffMiell]

@Ernst12 - "The LNP might suggest how can nuclear be compared with the Labor renewable fantasy when the renewables have not been costed either even though Labor has been in power for two years?" Climate Change & Energy Minister Chris Bowen was asked a question re renewable costs by Sarah Ferguson on ABC TV's 7.30 program on Monday, 24 Jun 2024. The transcript included: 𝘚𝘈𝘙𝘈𝘏 𝘍𝘌𝘙𝘎𝘜𝘚𝘖𝘕: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘋𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘘𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘛𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵'𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯? 𝘐𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯? 𝘊𝘏𝘙𝘐𝘚 𝘉𝘖𝘞𝘌𝘕: $121 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦, 𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘶𝘱𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦. 𝘚𝘈𝘙𝘈𝘏 𝘍𝘌𝘙𝘎𝘜𝘚𝘖𝘕: 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺? 𝘊𝘏𝘙𝘐𝘚 𝘉𝘖𝘞𝘌𝘕: 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘔𝘳 𝘋𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘩𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘧𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢'𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘮𝘪𝘹 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴, 𝘯𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘴. 𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘨𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘴 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦. 𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 $600 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 3 𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘪𝘹. $600 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 3 𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵? 𝘐 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘧 𝘔𝘳 𝘋𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴, 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺. How does the Coalition’s nuclear policy solve Australia’s energy security needs if it’s highly unlikely for any nuclear generator units to become operational in Australia before the mid-2040s at the earliest? How does the Coalition’s nuclear policy keep Australia’s ‘lights on’ and ease the current cost-of-living crisis in the interim? How does it help Australians on fixed incomes NOW? Answer: It doesn’t, irrespective of how much it would cost!