2 ms·

G'day fellow Aussie. Whilst I'd like to see us get nuclear power up and running, I also do not want to see it happen under Voldemort. I'm in his electorate, an

G'day fellow Aussie. Whilst I'd like to see us get nuclear power up and running, I also do not want to see it happen under Voldemort. I'm in his electorate, and the only reason he's in is because we have a number of conservative hicks and nut jobs.

roenxi 2y ago
While the Coalition's policy is likely to be a disaster and they've had too many energy failures to be respectable, as far as nuclear goes the major problem is that the Labor party has been explicitly, 100%, against nuclear power for the last ... 30, 50 years? I dunno, it was policy for a long time. The issue Australia has is it was illegal to build a nuclear plant for far too long, and even now I would be suspicious of what the balance of opinion is for the topic on the left flank of politics. It doesn't matter what the coalition thinks when there is that level of political risk, nuclear may well be uninvestible in Australia until Labor (and the Greens) commit to it with some level of enthusiasm. I have a vague memory of Labor removing the "No Nuclear" line from their policy documents a few years ago, but that is hardly the endorsement we need for people to start risking capital. Things like that is why I would term our energy policy an international embarrassment. Our high-tech play is "no". Our solar tech play is "people got so sick of the grid they bought panels from China and installed them themselves". Which is better than it could be, but crikey it is not good policy on the energy regulation front. I'm still horrified that this seems to be doing well compared to the Europeans.
- anakaine 2y ago
  All fair points. I find myself wondering something along the lines of: if it's 10-15 years to build a nuclear power plant, that's potentially 3, possibly 4 governments. How will a single power plant project make it through, let alone e 2, 3, 4. Additionally, at that time will we see breakthroughs in fusion technology that means we are building into old tech? Not that this point can be helped without a crystal ball, bit it certainly wouldn't surprise me. Penance for 60 years of inaction and lack of commitment to nuclear technology?
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > How will a single power plant project make it through, let alone e 2, 3, 4 I really don't see it myself. Particularly when we look at the Gillard government which had to rely on the Greens to get legislation through and that ended up with them negotiating a carbon tax. That sort of action against the nuclear industry can completely scupper a plant. There is huge sovereign risk in these things that we've seen materialise in Ukraine/the USSR, Germany and Japan. Even to a lesser extent in the UK and US with their approval processes. With a global record like that, I really don't see how the coalition's opinion matters in Australia; they've always been lightly pro-nuclear. Labor's opinions matters, and the Greens to an uncomfortable extent for an investor.

roenxi 2y ago

While the Coalition's policy is likely to be a disaster and they've had too many energy failures to be respectable, as far as nuclear goes the major problem is that the Labor party has been explicitly, 100%, against nuclear power for the last ... 30, 50 years? I dunno, it was policy for a long time. The issue Australia has is it was illegal to build a nuclear plant for far too long, and even now I would be suspicious of what the balance of opinion is for the topic on the left flank of politics. It doesn't matter what the coalition thinks when there is that level of political risk, nuclear may well be uninvestible in Australia until Labor (and the Greens) commit to it with some level of enthusiasm. I have a vague memory of Labor removing the "No Nuclear" line from their policy documents a few years ago, but that is hardly the endorsement we need for people to start risking capital. Things like that is why I would term our energy policy an international embarrassment. Our high-tech play is "no". Our solar tech play is "people got so sick of the grid they bought panels from China and installed them themselves". Which is better than it could be, but crikey it is not good policy on the energy regulation front. I'm still horrified that this seems to be doing well compared to the Europeans.

anakaine 2y ago
All fair points. I find myself wondering something along the lines of: if it's 10-15 years to build a nuclear power plant, that's potentially 3, possibly 4 governments. How will a single power plant project make it through, let alone e 2, 3, 4. Additionally, at that time will we see breakthroughs in fusion technology that means we are building into old tech? Not that this point can be helped without a crystal ball, bit it certainly wouldn't surprise me. Penance for 60 years of inaction and lack of commitment to nuclear technology?
- roenxi 2y ago
  > How will a single power plant project make it through, let alone e 2, 3, 4 I really don't see it myself. Particularly when we look at the Gillard government which had to rely on the Greens to get legislation through and that ended up with them negotiating a carbon tax. That sort of action against the nuclear industry can completely scupper a plant. There is huge sovereign risk in these things that we've seen materialise in Ukraine/the USSR, Germany and Japan. Even to a lesser extent in the UK and US with their approval processes. With a global record like that, I really don't see how the coalition's opinion matters in Australia; they've always been lightly pro-nuclear. Labor's opinions matters, and the Greens to an uncomfortable extent for an investor.