3 ms·

Any political cause larger than a certain size will have someone stinky in the big tent. There are stinkers in the renewables tent too, does that mean we should

Any political cause larger than a certain size will have someone stinky in the big tent. There are stinkers in the renewables tent too, does that mean we should boycott solar panels? Of course not. Same here. See also: think of the children.

ggm 3y ago
This is not "some" -the majority of Australian nuclear backers are the mining sector, the established mining lobby, and the right wing. The socialist case for nuclear exists ("electricity plus soviet power == communism"), but is not being made. Here's a leading hint: the main campaign page in Australia for the pro nuclear push is the Murdoch press. The political party leading the push is the conservative party, and it is being led by the right wing conservative leadership against the wishes of the middle ground and soft-left side of the party. You aren't wrong that any movement has some stink: this movement is lead by the nose.
- defrost 3y ago
  It's a completely fair assessment of the current political embrace of nuclear power in Australia - it's being pushed more and more by Murdoch, his papers and Sky arms, and the most Vogon of the Australian political landscape, and they very much have a blind to climate realities "this is the fix" agenda. The great problem with that is it drowns out any chance for any considered debate on the future of Australia's energy mix - there is an engineering case for a small percentage ( <10% ) of nuclear generation in parts of the Australian grid.
  - ggm 3y ago
    Whilst I personally would have no problem with lifting the bans, state and federal, I would personally have a problem with the subsidies required to make commercial builds come out of the woodwork. Nuclear in OZ is estimated at ~$300+ compared to $150+ for firmed renewables as a "unit cost" and we can be confident of the renewables cost because it's been experienced while the Nuclear one is speculative and as has been pointed out in this HN thread, highly subject to cost overruns in legal and construction delays (the size of the unit isn't the point, the difference in the outcome in terms of charges to be recovered from the system is) If in the future SMR prove economically viable and we can save on transmission line builds to have some serving major cities, I'd be fine. I would have no problem living near one, or near ANSTO's lucas heights facility. The current "go nuke" campaign in the Oz has nothing to do with energy, and a lot to do with increasing shareholder value and in objectifying the labor/green parties as "anti technology" and even "anti working class" if you define the working class as engineers and miners, not hairdressers and farmers
    - defrost 3y ago
      I'm in furious agreement ;-) > The current "go nuke" campaign in the Oz has nothing to do with energy, Yep - purely political, in many ways Australia simply doesn't have the breadth or depth of skills here to efficiently carry this off; I'd be happy to see "drop in" pre built "Westinghouse" reactors ( insert appropriate company ). There's much in parallel here with Australia's other current nuclear debacle: https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/03/25/aukus-nuclear-submarine-deal-protectionism/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/03/25/aukus-nuclear-submarine... https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.crikey.com.au%2F2024%2F03%2F25%2Faukus-nuclear-submarine-deal-protectionism%2F https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%...
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    > there is an engineering case for a small percentage ( <10% ) of nuclear generation in parts of the Australian grid. Is there though? The global percentage required is about that, and is mostly existing nuclear plants. And every year the projections for renewables tick upwards, leaving less room for anything else. So by the time any new nuclear actually arrives it'll be even less needed. And that's global, where industries already exist, working plants already exist, and where some small percentage of people live in near polar regions. Australia has none of that.
pydry 3y ago
His point was that the advocates churning out propaganda about nuclear power likely have zero interest in global warming. I think this is probably true. Their reasons for promoting nuclear power have nothing to do with that.

ggm 3y ago

This is not "some" -the majority of Australian nuclear backers are the mining sector, the established mining lobby, and the right wing. The socialist case for nuclear exists ("electricity plus soviet power == communism"), but is not being made. Here's a leading hint: the main campaign page in Australia for the pro nuclear push is the Murdoch press. The political party leading the push is the conservative party, and it is being led by the right wing conservative leadership against the wishes of the middle ground and soft-left side of the party. You aren't wrong that any movement has some stink: this movement is lead by the nose.

defrost 3y ago
It's a completely fair assessment of the current political embrace of nuclear power in Australia - it's being pushed more and more by Murdoch, his papers and Sky arms, and the most Vogon of the Australian political landscape, and they very much have a blind to climate realities "this is the fix" agenda. The great problem with that is it drowns out any chance for any considered debate on the future of Australia's energy mix - there is an engineering case for a small percentage ( <10% ) of nuclear generation in parts of the Australian grid.
- ggm 3y ago
  Whilst I personally would have no problem with lifting the bans, state and federal, I would personally have a problem with the subsidies required to make commercial builds come out of the woodwork. Nuclear in OZ is estimated at ~$300+ compared to $150+ for firmed renewables as a "unit cost" and we can be confident of the renewables cost because it's been experienced while the Nuclear one is speculative and as has been pointed out in this HN thread, highly subject to cost overruns in legal and construction delays (the size of the unit isn't the point, the difference in the outcome in terms of charges to be recovered from the system is) If in the future SMR prove economically viable and we can save on transmission line builds to have some serving major cities, I'd be fine. I would have no problem living near one, or near ANSTO's lucas heights facility. The current "go nuke" campaign in the Oz has nothing to do with energy, and a lot to do with increasing shareholder value and in objectifying the labor/green parties as "anti technology" and even "anti working class" if you define the working class as engineers and miners, not hairdressers and farmers
  - defrost 3y ago
    I'm in furious agreement ;-) > The current "go nuke" campaign in the Oz has nothing to do with energy, Yep - purely political, in many ways Australia simply doesn't have the breadth or depth of skills here to efficiently carry this off; I'd be happy to see "drop in" pre built "Westinghouse" reactors ( insert appropriate company ). There's much in parallel here with Australia's other current nuclear debacle: https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/03/25/aukus-nuclear-submarine-deal-protectionism/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/03/25/aukus-nuclear-submarine... https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.crikey.com.au%2F2024%2F03%2F25%2Faukus-nuclear-submarine-deal-protectionism%2F https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%...
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  > there is an engineering case for a small percentage ( <10% ) of nuclear generation in parts of the Australian grid. Is there though? The global percentage required is about that, and is mostly existing nuclear plants. And every year the projections for renewables tick upwards, leaving less room for anything else. So by the time any new nuclear actually arrives it'll be even less needed. And that's global, where industries already exist, working plants already exist, and where some small percentage of people live in near polar regions. Australia has none of that.

pydry 3y ago

His point was that the advocates churning out propaganda about nuclear power likely have zero interest in global warming. I think this is probably true. Their reasons for promoting nuclear power have nothing to do with that.