Nuclear power’s capital cost ‘only known’ once ban is lifted

Former ANSTO chief executive Dr Adi Paterson says the capital cost of nuclear energy is “only known” once the ban is lifted.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton announced the Coalition’s nuclear policy last week, including the seven proposed sites for the nuclear reactors.
“We know everywhere in the world that the real cost is how long the grid is and how quality grid it is that you connect the generator to,” Mr Paterson told Sky News host Chris Kenny.

[@BigFerg-hf6uv]

Labor back nuclear on subs but not land? Get your hand off it guys !! What a croc its stuff like this that makes Albo one of the most disliked PM's !! 😅

[@Aaronwhatnow]

Apples oranges

[@peterolsen9131]

@@Aaronwhatnow both fruit , whats your point, if any...

[@peterolsen9131]

@@Aaronwhatnow more like apples and apples , delicious and granny smiths, ones big and one is small , schooled yet?

[@pwillis1589]

The power plants for the submarines will be built in either the UK by Rolls Royce or by GE in the US. They will then be fitted to the hulls during the construction. Absolutely and totally different to the construction of a large scale PWR from scratch here in Australia.

[@BigFerg-hf6uv]

@@pwillis1589 if it's unsafe technology as Albo and co keep sprouting then regardless if on land or on sea it's still unsafe. Bottom line is their full of it.

[@ekka6560]

Albo and Bowen are toast, among other things!

[@user-se2rz5cf3z]

We need to lift the ban on nuclear power so we can build nuclear power plants.

[@GeoffMiell]

@user-se2rz5cf3z - Hypothetically, who would you choose to build the large-scale units? The likely choices with international certification are very small: * 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗩𝗩𝗘𝗥 𝗩-𝟰𝟵𝟭 with 3,200 MWₜₕ / 1,110 MWₑ net capacity, examples include: LENINGRAD 2-2: construction began 15 Apr 2010, full ops began 18 Mar 2021; BELARUSIAN-1: construction began 08 Nov 2013, full ops began 10 Jun 2021; BELARUSIAN-2: construction began 27 Apr 2014, full ops began 01 Nov 2022. Do you think it would be prudent to be dependent on Russian tech? IMO, yeah-nah! 👎 * 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗛𝗣𝗥-𝟭𝟬𝟬𝟬 (aka Hualong One, ACP-1000) with 3,060 MWₜₕ / 1,017 MWₑ net capacity, examples include: FUQING-5: construction began 07 May 2015, full ops began 30 Jan 2021; FUQING-6: construction began 22 Dec 2015, full ops began 25 Mar 2022; FANGCHENGGANG-3: construction began 24 Dec 2015, full ops began 25 Mar 2023; FANGCHENGGANG-4: construction began 23 Dec 2016, full ops began 25 May 2024; KANUPP-2 (K-2): construction began 20 Aug 2015, full ops began 21 May 2021; KANUPP-3 (K-3): construction began 31 May 2016, full ops began 18 Apr 2022. Do you think it would be prudent to be dependent on Chinese tech? IMO, yeah-nah! 👎 * 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗔𝗣-𝟭𝟬𝟬𝟬 with 3,400 MWₜₕ / 1,117 MWₑ net capacity, examples include: VC SUMMER-2: construction began 09 Mar 2013, abandoned Jul 2017; VC SUMMER-3: construction began 02 Nov 2013, abandoned Jul 2017; VOGTLE-3: construction began 02 Mar 2013, full ops began 31 Jul 2023; VOGTLE-4: construction began 19 Nov 2013, grid connect 06 Mar 2024, full ops pending. Westinghouse filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy because of $9 billion of losses from its two US nuclear construction projects. Unlikely to build more due to cost and timeline blowouts. IMO, Very risky! 👎 * 𝗦𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗞𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗣𝗥-𝟭𝟰𝟬𝟬 with 3,983 MWₜₕ / 1,337 MWₑ net capacity, examples include: BARAKAH-1: construction began 19 Jul 2012, full ops began 01 Apr 2021; BARAKAH-2: construction began 15 Apr 2013, full ops began 24 Mar 2022; BARAKAH-3: construction began 24 Sep 2014, full ops began 24 Feb 2023; BARAKAH-4: construction began 30 Jul 2015, grid connect 23 Mar 2024, full ops pending. Builder carrying huge debt load. * 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗘𝗣𝗥 with 4,300 MWₜₕ / 1,600 MWₑ net capacity, examples include: OLKILUOTO-3: construction began 12 Aug 2005, full ops began 01 May 2023; FLAMANVILLE-3: construction began 03 Dec 2007, first criticality pending. * 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗘𝗣𝗥-𝟭𝟳𝟱𝟬 with 4,524 MWₜₕ / 1,630 MWₑ net capacity, examples include: HINKLEY POINT C-1: construction began 11 Dec 2018, completion expected 2029-31; HINKLEY POINT C-2: construction began 12 Dec 2019, completion date not declared. Huge cost and timeline blowouts. The IAEA produced a document as part of their Nuclear Energy Series, Technical Report No. NP-T-2.7, titled 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘗𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯: 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, published Feb 2012. It includes FIG 8, which highlights 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝟱 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻, 𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻. The construction times for reactors are usually quoted-they’re easy enough to find; just look at the IAEA’s Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) data-but it seems to me the prerequisite pre-project implementation time is conveniently ignored by the Coalition, nuclear boosters, and the incurious media/commentators. Per the 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘕𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵-2023, ten countries completed 66 reactors over the decade 2013-2022-of which 39 in China alone-with an average construction time of 9.4 years, slightly higher than the 9.2 years of mean construction time in the decade 2012-2021. Add 5 years of pre-project implementation time to the 9.4 years global average construction time, and on average, experienced civil nuclear power countries are demonstrating they are requiring much more than a decade to deploy new civilian nuclear-powered electricity generator units. Australia, as an inexperienced civil nuclear energy country, would very likely take much longer to have any operational generator units - I’d suggest no earlier than the mid-2040s.

[@Rob-el8ti]

it will also get cheaper as the workers get experience in building and it gets faster per built station, australia it will save you money in the long run wish the uk would build another 6 or 9

[@ralphmogridge8364]

$1.2 trillion+!! Dutton's already said it!!!

[@gibbonsdp]

This is Net Zero Australia's estimated cost of greening the entire energy system, including our energy exports. AEMO's estimate for transitioning the electricity grid to renewables is $115bn through 2050.

[@lesleyweber4585]

It won’t cost anywhere near renewables plus we need base power for the lights to stay on.

[@zympf]

yes, the quintessential no-brainer

[@keepitreal2902]

So an unknown cost will be much less than another unknown cost? Well that's a convincing argument.

[@ianbuttery8693]

With regard to domestic supply, 90% is to meet industry and business needs. 10% is required for home users.

[@Super_Mario128]

Dutton is onto the win!

[@rosscoe3005]

How do they get the money to build it? They don't have any money to fix housing and they keep high immigration. They have no money for average Australians but have piles of it for things like submarines, immigration, nuclear power, MP pay rises, 20% superannuation for MP's, private jets and a fully tax payer funded life on top of large salaries. Seems they have a lot of spare money for their own needs.

[@milosradovanovic5280]

Sorry, the ban has to be lifted emedietly, definitely 👍🇺🇸❤️🤗🌎🐖💯🇦🇺 6:28

[@user-wq8vo1ll5x]

Wonderful to hear from a learned leader in an industry

[@chrisgriffiths2533]

Is Professor Adi Paterson saying We Should Not Connect the WA Grid to the East Coast Grid.

[@Super_Mario128]

Cost of renewables :$1000000000 dollars Cost of Nuclear: $9.95

[@Aaronwhatnow]

Source?

[@edwindavis1818]

@@Aaronwhatnow Crap

[@smcyfs9477]

​@@AaronwhatnowAEMO...Blackout Bowen's ruinables will cost $ 1 500 000 000 000, but if know ALP UNIONS times that by 10 😂

[@smcyfs9477]

​@Aaronwhatnow I was wrong..Australia needs to accelerate low-carbon investments Investment in Australia’s energy sector and low-carbon technologies will need to scale up rapidly, for the country to reach its net-zero ambitions. Between 2022 and 2050, over $1.9 trillion will need to be invested, with 95% flowing into low-carbon technologies or supportive infrastructure... $1 900 000 000 000 × by ALP CFMEU................tomato sauce May 23, 2023 BloombergNEF report: Australia Needs 800 Gigawatts of Solar and Wind to Meet its 2050 Net-Zero and Hydrogen Export Ambitions

[@smcyfs9477]

​@@Aaronwhatnow Way to go Arrowblunt, bankrupt the country and leave it covered in rotting ruinables. You can't make this crap up.

[@GeoffMiell]

There are plenty of examples around the world to understand how much the capital costs of nuclear power generator units are and how long it takes to deploy them. Why would it be significantly different in Australia? Peter Dutton cited favourably the large-scale Westinghouse AP-1000 reactor design with 1,117 MWₑ net capacity each, used for the recently operational VOGTLE-3 unit and not yet fully operational VOGTLE-4 unit in Georgia, USA, where a recent cost estimate is AU$23.6 billion/GW. USA has demonstrated it took almost 17-years to get its VOGTLE-3 unit operational, from Southern Nuclear’s formal application for an Early Site Permit in Aug 2006, to construction commencing on 2 Mar 2013 to full operations on 31 Jul 2023, and 18-years for VOGTLE-4. For the HINKLEY POINT C-1 & -2 project in the UK, for the Framatome/EDF EPR-1750 design with 1,630 MWₑ net capacity, the estimate is AU$27.2 billion/GW. UK looks like it will take at least 19-years to get the first of its twin reactors designated HINKLEY POINT C-1 &-2, from when the site was one of eight announced by the British government in 2010, to construction commencing of HINKLEY POINT C-1 on 11 Dec 2018 to the latest expected start date at least by 2029. The UAE has demonstrated it took more than 15-years to get its first nuclear reactor unit operational from scratch, from an Energy Planning Study in 2006 through to announcement of their Nuclear Policy in 2008, to construction commencing for BARAKAH-1 on 19 Jul 2012 to full operations on 1 Apr 2021, and more than 18-years for its BARAKAH-4 (yet to be fully operational) unit. According to some estimates, the all up cost for the four units (4x 1,337 MWₑ net capacity) with finance was $US34 billion, or more than $AU50 billion. Former Australian Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel suggests any call to go directly from coal to nuclear is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years. Unlike the US and the UK, Australia has no regulatory, construction, and/or operational nuclear power experience, so I'd suggest that Australia might see the first prospective operational unit in 20 years at the earliest. On Sunday (Jun 23), on the ABC TV 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 program Ted O'Brien MP indicated there likely would be multiple reactors at each of the nominated sites: Tarong & Callide in Queensland; Liddell & Mt Piper in NSW; Loy Yang in Victoria; Port Augusta in SA; and Muja in WA. So the total implementation costs are certainly looking in the hundreds of billions of dollars to perhaps over a trillion dollars. But the Coalition won't tell us how much it could cost. Meanwhile, all coal-fired power stations in Australia are approaching their respective end-of-operational-life. 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. 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! I'd suggest this issue is as serious as it can get. Scarce/unaffordable energy is an existential threat to Australia's national security. No energy, no economy. I'd suggest the Coalition are relying on having enough ill-informed/ignorant voters help them get back into political power, at the expense of Australia's energy security, and to stop the further expansion of renewables while keeping coal/gas going for as long as possible. 𝘙𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘌𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 published on 21 Jun 2024 an op-ed by Giles Parkinson headlined 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗻’𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗻𝘂𝗸𝗲 𝗔𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗮’𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘄𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹. It included: """𝙎𝙤 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙮 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚? 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘧𝘶𝘦𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺, 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦."""

[@chrisgriffiths2533]

Leader Littleproud Must be Upfront with Regional Australians and Give the TOTAL COSTS OF COAL. INCLUDING COST OF SUBSIDIES TO THE COAL INDUSTRY. Give the Cost for Last Year, The Last Ten Years, The Last Fifty Years in Today Dollars.

[@alancotterell9207]

Nuclear power's capital cost will only be known long after the money has been spent, and the reactors have been sold.

[@jennymills3147]

Lift the moratorium and the market will decide.

[@darrylhalden1948]

It will cost more much much more and will be decades delayed from whatever spin the coalition comes out with, you can put your house on that....and it wont lead to cheaper electricity that's a furphy

[@Philip-hv2kc]

Thank god the LNP has bitten the bullet . Hydro 2 from the figures I've seen will be a waste of 12 billion, i think maybe ywo billion has already been sunk into 150 metres of tunnel work , i very vaguely recall some complications due to encountering granite rock but very vague on it .

[@Philip-hv2kc]

He says people will be able to come to Australia and populate the place . It's already populated but current state of affairs still doesn't prevent labour inviting ½ million immigrants per year ; but they do bring money to purchase real estate and pay top dollar for everything else and prop up the Australian economy.

[@rosscoe3005]

How will this help average Australians? What we will have a new way to increase cost to consumer. Tax payers will pay billions just to have the pleasure of paying for corporate profits.

[@brianlitson]

This is a goldmine for terrace 😂😂😂

[@desking8065]

1 A SMR costing This bloke just double crossed himself. What has wiring to the house got to do with solar. There is nothing to base any costings on as the US has abandoned work on an SMR because the buyers have pulled out after rising costs. [ Westinghouse] Canada will not start on a SMR until 2030 The Callide power station has run a muck for lack of maintenance and costing. 10 Years of no power additions. This plant should have shut down years ago. The operators should be castrated for letting this disaster go on for so long. @awc900 5 minutes ago Let's just remove the moratorium and get some real costings on nuclear instead of the biased guesswork from the likes of AEMO and CSIRO. There is no costings because work on the first 300 MwH reactor has been abandoned as buyers have pulled out because of rising costs. Who would buy an untested machine any way. I mean for years. @stewartbrooker 5 minutes ago $100 billion for around 11GW of Nuclear, you can get 110GW of Solar for the same cost No such thing as that 1.4 GwH is the largest reactor ever built [England]

[@ianbuttery8693]

Imagine if someone invents a fusion reactor in the near future. We'll still be stuck in the past!

[@stoptheworldIwanttogetoff]

Fusion power has always been 10 years away for the last 50+ yesrs.

[@evil17]

A nuclear expert recently said fusion will be no good even if we can get it to work. We have a good grasp of nuclear & suitable metallurgy for fission reactors, it should dominate according to his logic, it sounded reasonable.

[@ianbuttery8693]

@@stoptheworldIwanttogetoff It doesn't matter how far off it is, the current law will prevent us even talking about it. Which is so illogical.

[@Philip-hv2kc]

Or fusion may never come except for the sun .

[@chrisgriffiths2533]

Sky is a Bunch of Shockers. Still No Hard Questions about Nuclear.

[@User4667ggf]

If Jonnnny gets to ‘Build em’, it’ll cost three times what a similar reactor cost has been from recent installations. Plenty of Compelling Evidence available, if anyone dare look. Allo, allo, wha5 hav3 we got here, 4 reactors, 9yrs to build each, 5600MW total output, how much, you dont say, bloody Nora not bad, 26 billion USA dollars, sounds alright.

[@Philip-hv2kc]

They can be built in four years but nine years is good , gotta dot and cross the Is and Ts but for some reason the government isn't doing so for the renewable projects by planning to eradicate pristine forests for windfarms .

[@milosradovanovic5280]

Great, the ban on nuclear has to be done emedietly, definitely 🇺🇸❤️🤗🌎🐖🐖💯🇦🇺 6:25

[@bushmagpie3312]

Safety should priority and reliability Labor is worried about nuclear I would be more worried about battery fires as over last few months with vehicle fires while charging, large power system catching fire in US and now 20 killed in South Korea. Isn’t this great for planet with toxic chemicals in atmosphere? Ask labour how many people and animals have been killed by renewable, 20 this week, 12 last year by wind turbines and tally grows. Nuclear power is way down scale, how many people died in Japan as a direct result of nuclear power station? The tsunami killed a lot of people didn’t hear any of the nuclear power station. It was controlled. Ask were are the facts nuclear power is unsafe when renewables has killed a lot more people than nuclear. Batteries have killed more now than any nuclear power plant.

[@milosradovanovic5280]

I do believe in science, costing has to be done properly , indepentdently done, because we have seen in climate chang debate , the highest institutions play politics not science,definitely 🇺🇸❤️🤗🌎🐖💯🇦🇺👍 5:26

[@mr.j1381]

IF climate change is such a word changing threat to the world why tha price at all, if had to do with saving all the raptors in birds landing for machines with no moving parts at that one machine could replaced endless engineering problem forever, Nuclear Power would have solved theses problems but its overlooked and mocked so abundantly teenage mutant ninjas turtles, the Simpson's misinformation from HBO's mouths for others that will never going to work in the red since created always will be, one earthquake away from total rebuilds and retro fits endless problems, do you hear that bullet train heading to pick up passengers.

[@Poorlineforeva]

Rubbish

[@imeagleeye1]

Its a Con Job Spent nuclear fuel stays a radiation hazard for extended periods of time with half-lifes as high as 24,000 years. For example 10 years after removal from a reactor, the surface dose rate for a typical spent fuel assembly still exceeds 10,000 rem/hour-far greater than the fatal whole-body dose for humans of about 500 rem received all at once.

[@polarbear7255]

Cool story bro. You didn’t reply to my last remarks. You are missing key information here. CS137 and SR90. These are what constitutes the highly radioactive isotopes in spent fuel. What are their half lives? About 30 years… not 24,000. That number applies to a few of the LLFP, that are not highly active. What is the half life of natural uranium? 4.5 billion years… that doesn’t change. What about LLFP? No mention? What do they emit and how long do they last? When would you ever be exposed to unshielded spent fuel as joe average? Mr fencepost man as it were? You’re scaremongering.. We know exactly how to deal with spent fuel. It is a solved engineering problem. The truth of the matter is that after 3-4 hundred years you could hold it in your hand. You wouldn’t eat uranium… so don’t eat spent fuel.

[@imeagleeye1]

@@polarbear7255 unqualified remarks ta

[@polarbear7255]

@@imeagleeye1 Yep you’re unqualified. I got that. Carry on.

[@imeagleeye1]

@@polarbear7255 I find it quite amusing people like your self cannot provide documented proof of what you claim when the Science already shows my statement is true. Please provide the proof and once verified I shall gladly stand corrected until then It has been a handballs issue since its inception. Good Bye.

[@polarbear7255]

@@imeagleeye1😂 Trouble is bro that you can’t cherry pick the science like you did, and then claim that the extra science provided to you was unreferenced, when you provided no references for your statement’s in the first place. So you are scare mongering. Don’t eat uranium. Don’t stand next to a spent fuel assembly if it is unshielded. Got it. Don’t walk into spinning propellers either right. So yeah, you’re unqualified. And scare mongering. And lack knowledge on radiation whilst demanding i provide a reference? 😂 Really? You anti nuclear types are all the same. Can’t talk details. Bye

[@graemeschubert6162]

Bullshit 😅

[@MrWhitmen1981]

These stooges are betting against Elon musk and his battery packs. 🤣

[@serepax3282]

Something has to supply the energy to charge the batteries as well as reliably supply the baseline load...

[@ChickityChicken]

If the ALP/ABC were in favour of nuclear would you still be against it? Be honest.

[@christurner68]

you need to do your homework before making judgement

[@noelrossbridge2514]

No, just the raw materials to build them. Then they'll catch fire.... You're a fu*kwit.

[@pasqualeperri5661]

Like his EVs piling up because no one wants them

[@tonymarsh8436]

Rubbish. You don't have to unban something to do a cost assessment.

[@450tank]

Well, the comment about lifting the ban has been mentioned dozens of times, not only by Adi Paterson. And why doesn't Albo lift the ban?

[@tonymarsh8436]

@@450tank and many people have called the claim rubbish as well as me. In Duttons plan the Government will fund contractors to build the power plants. Does anyone believe that the Australian Government cannot authorize funding for a feasibility study? Including costs? Without actually lifting the ban on nuclear energy? Because a feasibility study is done on paper. On computers. You do not need anything at all to run a hypothetical. Except money and resources. Duttons claim that we cannot know the costs without removing existing legislation is bulldust. Dutton is lying because it suits his own agenda. And Government does not run to suit the political agenda of the Opposition Leader. The function of Government is to serve the people. And the interests of the people are not served following the dishonest self serving agenda of the Opposition Leader. And that's why Albo should not revoke the legislation. One reason at least. There are others, but let's start with that one.

[@mjohnstone2399]

So whose backyard are they doing to put these nuclear plants and waste? By what year aiming to build these plants? 2050? Guess by that time they will actually have a costing.

[@evil17]

I will have one. By 2035-2040 depending on political, bureaucratic & protestor interference. Unlike Labor they will have costings. Labor can’t give costs because they are infinity with Labor’s plan. Labor’s Renewables cost; another 1.5 trillion dollars by 2030 & 7-9 trillion dollars by 2060 if they dont have any large hail, storms, cyclones, fires, lightning strikes, meteorites, dust, ash or salt air to interfere with this outlook.

[@mjohnstone2399]

​@@evil17 You're dreaming if thinking any progress will be made before 2050. The Liberals promised a nuclear plant over 50 years ago when man first landed on the moon in 1969. The compromise by the Howard Government to build the research reactor at Lucas Heights was the National Radiation and Nuclear Safety Act (1998), which prohibits development of other nuclear facilities. Then you've got various state prohibitions and opposition. It's definately not happening under Labor while Anthony Albanese is around as opposed Howard's nuclear policy. "Lord Voldemort" is going to need a backup plan or two to have any chance of power.

[@bretloyd8097]

Bullllllllllshiiiiiiiiiiiiit.