2 ms·

So with this the main reasoning behind having some nuclear power generation would be to have a capable nuclear industry with a trained nuclear workforce to supp

by daemin 2y ago

So with this the main reasoning behind having some nuclear power generation would be to have a capable nuclear industry with a trained nuclear workforce to support the new batch of nuclear submarines that both major parties want to get. I kind of support nuclear energy generation as an alternative to coal and gas. Also as Uranium is another thing we dig out of the ground so we don't need to buy the fuel from elsewhere. Though I'm not at all enthusiastic about the politics behind it actually having my/our best interests in mind. I suspect that this will just be all talk, delays, and then be cancelled.

defrost 2y ago
> So with this the main reasoning behind having some nuclear power generation would be to have a capable nuclear industry with a trained nuclear workforce to support the new batch of nuclear submarines that both major parties want to get. I have no idea where you'd get that notion from, did Dutton hand wave that in during a press conference? It's an unrealistic option to imagine a crossover between military small onboard proven reactors and civilian power stations for many reasons, in terms of Australia's immediate energy policy less so .. any actual AUKUS subs are as far in the future as hypothetical nuclear power stations and, as stated, the political angle here is to avoid doing anything other than fire up more coal power now and forget about any commitments made wrt emmissions. In pragmatic terms, being neutral about nuclear "as a bogeyman" and focusing on the engineering, it's an aspirational dream to float in front of voters not an actual plan with costings, preliminary agreement from land holders, and a time line for construction (let alone lifting the existing nuclear ban in Federal law). The immediate need for an energy plan as old coal power stations are being retired is already being met to a degree by sloar, wind, large battery parks, pilot thermal storage plants, etc and the costings on expanding these existing and proven (within Australia) technologies to the scale required come in far cheaper than "vague nuclear" (which as outlined by Dutton is still lessthan the energy supply required). > Also as Uranium is another thing we dig out of the ground so we don't need to buy the fuel from elsewhere. The "digging out" part isn't a great expense or challenge, maybe you might want to read up on processing requirements to isolate isotopes of uranium - raw yellowcake isn't a ready to rock and roll fuel. And then there's the matter of building a GW scale reactor - checkout the timeline, delays, and cost blowouts on the UK's latest (still unfinished) reactor.
- daemin 2y ago
  > I have no idea where you'd get that notion from, did Dutton hand wave that in during a press conference? No this is just my mind connecting vaguely related things together in an attempt to have some logical rationalisation behind the idea of civillian nuclear power plants. We are going to need trained operators for the subs, so having a comparable civillian industry might also have some synergies. > The "digging out" part isn't a great expense or challenge, maybe you might want to read up on processing requirements to isolate isotopes of uranium - raw yellowcake isn't a ready to rock and roll fuel. I know, just as with other things like rare earth minerals it's the processing that is toxic, expensive, and difficult. I guess I'm longing for Australia to do more than just (stereotypically) digging things out of the ground. If given the right incentives there could be an entire nuclear supply chain with good jobs and good safety providing relatively clean fuel to power the country and as export to select partners. The current plan does not do this to my knowledge so I don't really treat it seriously.

by daemin 2y ago

defrost 2y ago

> So with this the main reasoning behind having some nuclear power generation would be to have a capable nuclear industry with a trained nuclear workforce to support the new batch of nuclear submarines that both major parties want to get. I have no idea where you'd get that notion from, did Dutton hand wave that in during a press conference? It's an unrealistic option to imagine a crossover between military small onboard proven reactors and civilian power stations for many reasons, in terms of Australia's immediate energy policy less so .. any actual AUKUS subs are as far in the future as hypothetical nuclear power stations and, as stated, the political angle here is to avoid doing anything other than fire up more coal power now and forget about any commitments made wrt emmissions. In pragmatic terms, being neutral about nuclear "as a bogeyman" and focusing on the engineering, it's an aspirational dream to float in front of voters not an actual plan with costings, preliminary agreement from land holders, and a time line for construction (let alone lifting the existing nuclear ban in Federal law). The immediate need for an energy plan as old coal power stations are being retired is already being met to a degree by sloar, wind, large battery parks, pilot thermal storage plants, etc and the costings on expanding these existing and proven (within Australia) technologies to the scale required come in far cheaper than "vague nuclear" (which as outlined by Dutton is still lessthan the energy supply required). > Also as Uranium is another thing we dig out of the ground so we don't need to buy the fuel from elsewhere. The "digging out" part isn't a great expense or challenge, maybe you might want to read up on processing requirements to isolate isotopes of uranium - raw yellowcake isn't a ready to rock and roll fuel. And then there's the matter of building a GW scale reactor - checkout the timeline, delays, and cost blowouts on the UK's latest (still unfinished) reactor.

daemin 2y ago
> I have no idea where you'd get that notion from, did Dutton hand wave that in during a press conference? No this is just my mind connecting vaguely related things together in an attempt to have some logical rationalisation behind the idea of civillian nuclear power plants. We are going to need trained operators for the subs, so having a comparable civillian industry might also have some synergies. > The "digging out" part isn't a great expense or challenge, maybe you might want to read up on processing requirements to isolate isotopes of uranium - raw yellowcake isn't a ready to rock and roll fuel. I know, just as with other things like rare earth minerals it's the processing that is toxic, expensive, and difficult. I guess I'm longing for Australia to do more than just (stereotypically) digging things out of the ground. If given the right incentives there could be an entire nuclear supply chain with good jobs and good safety providing relatively clean fuel to power the country and as export to select partners. The current plan does not do this to my knowledge so I don't really treat it seriously.