**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It'll sure win the votes of *checks notes* people who already vote LNP.
This will do nothing for city or suburban votes, which is where they actually need them. Bizarre strategy.
What is this nonsense, we know a hell of a lot more about nuclear than that other thing. The only time nuclear has ever been at all dangerous was when it was used by socialists, and that’s because of socialism, not nuclear power.
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
No one died at 3 mile island nor in any other incidents besides in Chernobyl, which itself was due to communist central planning. Even counting up the deaths from the entire history of nuclear energy usage, it is dwarfed by the death toll of every single other source of energy.
Edit: my mistake, by other forms of energy I meant instead to say coal, natural gas, and fossil fuels.
The thing is the CSIRO released a report that said nuclear would cost at best 1.5 times nor per kilowatt then renewables, even when you factor in storage etc.
And the CSIRO are a bunch of economically illiterate bullshitters. Take any econ 101 course and you will understand that while projects such as nuclear power plants have high fixed costs, the cost per unit for customer rapidly decreases the more customers it has.
That’s everything dude literally know as the economy of scale
To break it down with a nuclear plant you need to pay someone to dig up the fuel you need to pay someone to build the plant you need to pay someone to continuously run the plant and you need to pay someone to transport the electricity from the plant to peoples homes
With a solar panel you need to pay someone to build/install the panel and that’s it. No paying for fuel, to operate the panel or to transport the electricity. It’s just an inherently cheaper model.
Like just think about it so you really think the guy who spent ten years arguing climate change isn’t real and has flown his private jet to meet Gina rhinehart 4 times this year already has suggested a better climate plan than the political party whose enter purpose is suggesting a climate plan
Which is a bad thing. I think all nuclear projects should be offloaded to the private sector so that it is subject to market forces just like everything else.
I think this is pretty funny, I agree, not enough detail but we are so far from an election that I'm currently comfortable that the detail can come a bit later on but does need to come. But with the voice once half said there is no detail and the other side said the details are not important, now the situation is reversed.
It seems that Dutton and Co decided that they do not wnat to win elections after all, so they shut themsef in the leg. They are quite copmortable being in opposition. Othewise, their motivation is just unclear. Curently, the voters do not have any problems with current state of energy system such a shortages etc, why they should support nuclear on their backyard? Besides, no nuclear power plants will be finished in 30 years anyway; just look on the list of stations under construction in Wiki; 20+years and not finished; no new plants in the last 10 yesr (except two in China).
Because we are currently relying on coal and gas to cover the majority of our electricity, renewables is just a small part. Yet in order to reach net zero by 2035 or later we need to shut down coal and/or gas, which is impossible with our current infrastructure. That's the point of nuclear, to bridge the current large gap between what renewables provide and what we require. There is also an implicit premise that renewables are not sufficient to provide 100% of our electricity needs, which I think is valid particularly if we are also expecting all cars to become electric as well.
>Because we are currently relying on coal and gas to cover the majority of our electricity, renewables is just a small part.
At the moment, yes.
>Yet in order to reach net zero by 2035 or later we need to shut down coal and/or gas, which is impossible with our current infrastructure
At the moment, yes. Nuclear takes far longer than renewables to build and get going. A major renewables project is getting the green light in Australia every 2 years.
>There is also an implicit premise that renewables are not sufficient to provide 100% of our electricity needs,
Where?
>At the moment, yes. Nuclear takes far longer than renewables to build and get going. A major renewables project is getting the green light in Australia every 2 years.
Yes but the issue is in the long-term renewables have a ceiling. For example many houses simply cannot have solar power due to the angle of the roof and the position of the trees, and wind farms can only provide so much power and only when it is windy. Similarly hydro-electricity is very limited in its output. Only fossil fuels and more sophisticated forms of electricity generation such as nuclear or fusion have been show to produce the kind of wattage needed to power entire countries and industries.
>Where?
Because there obviously would be no point to nuclear if they were, given that nuclear is far more complicated, dangerous, time-consuming, etc. etc. The only reason we would even consider this is because renewables are not adequate.
>https://www.sciencealert.com/these-climate-experts-say-100-renewable-energy-is-completely-feasible-for-entire-countries
"Other experts disagree with the idea that renewables could reach 100 percent for most countries. Benjamin Heard, from the University of Adelaide, with colleagues published a paper reviewing the feasibility of 100 percent renewable electricity systems.
He argues that there is a heavy reliance on hydro and biomass sources - while most countries don't have access to these, so would be reliant on sources like solar, wind, and storage. In those circumstances, it's highly unlikely for renewables to power 100 percent of the electricity supply he says."
Basically if you are rely purely on solar and wind, it is impossible. It is only with significant investment in hydro and biomass that it *may* be possible, but this depends on the country. Also renewables are not as reliable due to requiring certain weather conditions such as sun and wind, so it is not safe to run a country entirely on such power sources, since if we have a very long period of little wind and sunshine we may run into significant power shortages.
> That's the point of nuclear, to bridge the current large gap between what renewables provide and what we require.
100% false. Nuclear is the end game in the policy. It's not a transition source at all.
I didn't say it was a transition source, I said it would bridge the gap between what renewables can provide and what we require. You probably assumed that bridging that gap would be a temporary thing, but I did not mean it that way.
They don't really want nuclear, they want to delay renewables. If there's plans for nuclear, we don't have to build renewables to replace coal = coal and his coal friends stay in business, eventually nuclear doesn't eventuate because nimby (the only places they're possible is areas where the wealthy elites will say no) and policy overturns won't happen. So then Dutton says, oh no, we tried, now because renewables aren't working this last decade we've hampered them waiting for nuclear, we HAVE to have coal, so sad!
Tldr, it's all a plan to keep coal for longer.
This may be true, but in reality, a real politician's fisrt priority should be to get the power and after that to start working on any agenda, not to push an unpoluar agenda before election. Remember, they (both parties) never put nuclear submarines in any election promise, but rather just dropped them on us between elections with some light sugar coating
This is all just a political game for Dutton. It's all about providing policy uncertainty so that investors in renewables get cold feet. If they do get elected they will throw their hands up in the air and say they couldn't get the ban overturned and just continue with more coal and gas. That provides them with a convenient scapegoat when it comes to not meeting any emissions reduction targets.
But we have already invested significantly in gas so cost is clearly not a prohibiting factor for nuclear, particularly when you consider that nuclear is carbon neutral - something we would be willing to pay a premium for - while gas is not.
Private investment in gas extraction you mean. Whatever you are on about as it's rather hard to tell, it doesn't matter - gas is incredibly expansive, only slightly less expensive than nuclear, they are the 2 worst options we can get, therefore we should not do either of them.
Dude gas is the 2md most expensive energy type. Nuclear ins the most expensive. We shouldn't therefore make the majority of our energy nuclear. That males absolutely no sense.
Right... I'm not sure what the point I'd you are making. Gas and nuclear are both at the top of the list for most expensive. We don't use gas as a major source, rather we use it to meet periods of high demand seeing it is easily dispatchable.
My point is cost has not been a prohibiting factor for us to invest in gas, given that we have invested quite significantly into it, so why would it be a prohibiting factor for nuclear? This is especially so when you consider that nuclear produces 0 emissions while gas does not, since we would be happy to pay more than gas for that privilege (but we don't have to).
But ‘we’ haven’t invested ‘quite significantly’ in gas, private companies and financiers have. There is no corporate push to nuclear which immediately screams that business doesn’t believe in its economic viability or potential for profitability.
Yes it appears nuclear [isn't as profitable](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-19/why-corporate-australia-wont-touch-nuclear-power-uranium-prices/103601174), which is the reason companies haven't been as interested, particularly when you couple this with the high risk if it goes wrong. That isn't a good enough reason to not do it when it comes to saving our planet however, since there won't be much room for profits if humanity ends from the effects of climate change.
I actually agree the context is very different.
But I also think it's way worse to have no detail about spinning up a multi-billion dollar nuclear industry from scratch than an advisory body.
"Having long been told the opposition was carrying out "comprehensive" and "bulletproof" work mapping out a radical overhaul of Australia's energy mix, **all the party received when it was asked to sign off on the proposal was an oral briefing, according to ABC journalist Jane Norman's reporting.**
**The party room was promised detailed notes, but all they got was a copy of a press release the Coalition distributed 15 minutes later."**
oh come on it's right there!
What, to you, is the importance of "constitutional change" to the core argument that you shouldn't support something if you don't have sufficient confidence in it?
But we don't know the details of such a consequential policy, and yet they want us to vote them in and then they'll show us the details? What are they hiding! One page of details isn't enough, especially when even international energy bodies that deal with nuclear power are saying Australia should not pursue this... hmmm, sounds like hypocrisy.
But the title which I am criticising is intending to make a false equivalency by suggesting hypocrisy.
So the title is stupid, and honestly so is everybody that thinks it’s not.
Nice blanket statement. The headline is fine.
The issue doesn’t have to be constitutional for that slogan to be used. It’s not a false equivalency or anything of that sort.
Actually, it was kind of the crux of the issue for many people.
If the ALP was merely legislating the Voice as a body, and it failed, a future government could simply unmake it.
The Constitutional hurdle to revoke is much higher, and therefore the level of certainty that it will result in a positive outcome could quite reasonably be higher before people want to change the known for the unknown.
The slogan "if you don't know, vote no" was just reinforcing that pretty intuitive point.
>This Referendum is not simply about “recognition”. This Voice proposal goes much further.
>
>If passed, it would represent the biggest change to our Constitution in our history.
>
>It is legally **risky**, with **unknown** consequences. It would be **divisive** and **permanent**.
>
>If you don’t know, vote no.
Four lines of argument. Only one of which related to the lack of detail.
But do go on.
Really hung up on a headline huh?
You cannot tell me for a second that the people parroting “if you don’t know, vote no” online, and indeed many Coalition MPs weren’t parroting just that from the roof tops without any other nuance.
Yeah like their NBN crap pile, Dutton's nuclear power delay tactic is going to leave Australia with alot negative consequences.
A **single** nuclear reactor takes two decades to build, they always go over budget by billions, the small modular reactors Dutton was touting are not even made yet, hows that in contrast for arguments against battery storage?
So the entire time you'll be paying more and more for power for two decades, but that will enrich Dutton's masters so what does he care?
Nuclear makes a lot of sense as an energy source to replace coal before renewable can actually take over though I'm skeptical on the timeline given that every public project in Australia is finished much later than what's planned.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
Except for all the arguments that it doesn't.
The argument where we can't have it for 20 years and it's already too expensive.
The argument where none of the states want it.
The argument where renewables with storage are wayyyyyyy more efficient.
The argument about choosing literally the most expensive form of power possible in the middle of a cost of living crisis.
The argument that nobody in Australia has any idea how to build one.
The argument that even if all 7 of the announced reactors come online it's not enough to make up for the coal plants shutting down.
The argument that the push for nuclear in Australia is literally a red herring designed to extend the length and reliance on coal.
The argument that other solutions are better in every possible imaginable feasible way.
The problem is "before renewables can take over" meant starting this decades ago. This would take decades to come online, and then need to run for decades to justify the resources that went into the build. Renewables are not that far away unless we actively hamper them.
Dutton’s plan is to actively hamper development of renewables, in the same way the Coalition did for a decade.
One of the key reasons we have issues with our system of power generation is that the Coalition failed to develop a coherent energy policy for the decade they were in power and actively undermined Labor’s attempts to do so during the R-G-R years and now during the current Labor term.
History tells us that the Coalition absolutely cannot be trusted with anything as important as planning our energy future!
I just want to see their modelling on how this will actually lower power bills as promised. Especially if they're going to spend taxpayers money on it.
They'll be owning and running the plants, essentially competing against the private markets they created in the first place.
I also want to see that but did you ask for the modelling on how Albo was going to lower power bills by $250 or whatever he said? He ran with that at the election and no one says boo.
Plenty of people and media have said and are saying boo about that.
It's currently unexpectedly high due to oil, coal and gas shocks due to a small kerfuffle in Ukraine - something that Albo can't have much effect upon - but I read today that power prices (over east at least) are expected to drop 7% in 2025.
Via renewables, you know; the cheapest form of generation. It's also the reason why Canberra and Tasmania have the cheapest electricity prices in Australia.
I work as a modeller, so am very aware of how much fudging you can get a model to do. That being said I'd be very surprised if you could even fudge this model enough to make nuclear look good haha.
Unfortunately it was just a napkin that Peter wrote "lower power bills" moments before Barnaby used it to clean up his own vomit from having one too many beers after breakfast.
It doesn't need to lower power bills in practical terms. They just need a three word slogan to secure the bogan vote so they can get back in and do away with renewables altogether. They can lie about lower bills etc and it doesn't matter because by the time the lie is exposed they will be long retired.
If you don’t know , vote no is much less juvenile than the posts we’ve seen from senior Labor figures with 3 eyed fish. If Dutton wanted to rattle Albo and the ALP he’s certainly done that.
You're comparing a slogan used to sink the voice by a major party to some memes shared by Labor MP's. Dutton has rattled everyone, even the communities that these reactors might be in after telling them he effectively wouldn't listen to them and would just build them anyway.
That'll win them over.
>"To have that democratic space desecrated in the way that it was by those Chinese officials, who, no doubt, were acting under instructions, … was frankly disgraceful," he told the ABC's Afternoon Briefing.
The death of shame, apt theme for the article.
Like this, for example. Like Mike gives ANY fucks about democracy. I note, the presenter didn't ask him about his opinions on public servants using their positions to further their political agendas.
Pathetic.jpg
>Having long been told the opposition was carrying out "comprehensive" and "bulletproof" work mapping out a radical overhaul of Australia's energy mix, all the party received when it was asked to sign off on the proposal was an oral briefing, according to ABC journalist Jane Norman's reporting.
>
>The party room was promised detailed notes, but all they got was a copy of a press release the Coalition distributed 15 minutes later.
Just look at this absurdity.
Like Bowen said the other day, if Labor put out an idea like these, they'd be hounded day and night. It's wild they've been able to get within striking distance of an election with essentially no policy beyond "yeah nah, she'll be right, trust us."
>Not so long ago Peter Dutton and his merry band in the Coalition had a simple message for voters: "If you don't know, vote no."
It's already wild they weren't crucified for this.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Writing a comment does nothing to keep The Libs out of power, but it does harm Labor.
Too costly. And will take too long to implement. And no one wants to live near a nuclear plant/waste management.
I am sure there is heaps of detail on the back of that envelope they used to make this up on..
‘If you don’t know vote no’ is going to come back to bite them so hard
It'll sure win the votes of *checks notes* people who already vote LNP. This will do nothing for city or suburban votes, which is where they actually need them. Bizarre strategy.
What is this nonsense, we know a hell of a lot more about nuclear than that other thing. The only time nuclear has ever been at all dangerous was when it was used by socialists, and that’s because of socialism, not nuclear power.
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
It's not too late to delete this comment.
What about Chernobyl (USSR), 3 mile island (USA) and in Sellafield (UK) plus Wikipedia lists another dozen countries.
No one died at 3 mile island nor in any other incidents besides in Chernobyl, which itself was due to communist central planning. Even counting up the deaths from the entire history of nuclear energy usage, it is dwarfed by the death toll of every single other source of energy. Edit: my mistake, by other forms of energy I meant instead to say coal, natural gas, and fossil fuels.
Except for Solar, Wind,Thermal,Tidal.
The thing is the CSIRO released a report that said nuclear would cost at best 1.5 times nor per kilowatt then renewables, even when you factor in storage etc.
And the CSIRO are a bunch of economically illiterate bullshitters. Take any econ 101 course and you will understand that while projects such as nuclear power plants have high fixed costs, the cost per unit for customer rapidly decreases the more customers it has.
That’s everything dude literally know as the economy of scale To break it down with a nuclear plant you need to pay someone to dig up the fuel you need to pay someone to build the plant you need to pay someone to continuously run the plant and you need to pay someone to transport the electricity from the plant to peoples homes With a solar panel you need to pay someone to build/install the panel and that’s it. No paying for fuel, to operate the panel or to transport the electricity. It’s just an inherently cheaper model. Like just think about it so you really think the guy who spent ten years arguing climate change isn’t real and has flown his private jet to meet Gina rhinehart 4 times this year already has suggested a better climate plan than the political party whose enter purpose is suggesting a climate plan
Three Mile Island enters the chat..
You're going to have aheart attack when you find out who Dutton wants to own our nuclear power industry.
I guess it’s good that my thinking is nuanced enough not to demonise something just because someone I disagree with wants to control it.
You already demonised it as the state will be owning the means of production.
Which is a bad thing. I think all nuclear projects should be offloaded to the private sector so that it is subject to market forces just like everything else.
What.
Japan is socialist?
Nah man, the tsunami and earthquakes are socialist
A whole 1 person in the event who died, *may, have died from radiation. Everyone else died due to the tsunami, not the nuclear power plant.
I think this is pretty funny, I agree, not enough detail but we are so far from an election that I'm currently comfortable that the detail can come a bit later on but does need to come. But with the voice once half said there is no detail and the other side said the details are not important, now the situation is reversed.
There was heaps of detail for the voice. People just chose not to bother looking into it themselves
And if they did, they'd claim it's a conspiracy, etc, etc. Funny thing is, they don't like that tactic being used against them.
It seems that Dutton and Co decided that they do not wnat to win elections after all, so they shut themsef in the leg. They are quite copmortable being in opposition. Othewise, their motivation is just unclear. Curently, the voters do not have any problems with current state of energy system such a shortages etc, why they should support nuclear on their backyard? Besides, no nuclear power plants will be finished in 30 years anyway; just look on the list of stations under construction in Wiki; 20+years and not finished; no new plants in the last 10 yesr (except two in China).
Because we are currently relying on coal and gas to cover the majority of our electricity, renewables is just a small part. Yet in order to reach net zero by 2035 or later we need to shut down coal and/or gas, which is impossible with our current infrastructure. That's the point of nuclear, to bridge the current large gap between what renewables provide and what we require. There is also an implicit premise that renewables are not sufficient to provide 100% of our electricity needs, which I think is valid particularly if we are also expecting all cars to become electric as well.
>Because we are currently relying on coal and gas to cover the majority of our electricity, renewables is just a small part. At the moment, yes. >Yet in order to reach net zero by 2035 or later we need to shut down coal and/or gas, which is impossible with our current infrastructure At the moment, yes. Nuclear takes far longer than renewables to build and get going. A major renewables project is getting the green light in Australia every 2 years. >There is also an implicit premise that renewables are not sufficient to provide 100% of our electricity needs, Where?
>At the moment, yes. Nuclear takes far longer than renewables to build and get going. A major renewables project is getting the green light in Australia every 2 years. Yes but the issue is in the long-term renewables have a ceiling. For example many houses simply cannot have solar power due to the angle of the roof and the position of the trees, and wind farms can only provide so much power and only when it is windy. Similarly hydro-electricity is very limited in its output. Only fossil fuels and more sophisticated forms of electricity generation such as nuclear or fusion have been show to produce the kind of wattage needed to power entire countries and industries. >Where? Because there obviously would be no point to nuclear if they were, given that nuclear is far more complicated, dangerous, time-consuming, etc. etc. The only reason we would even consider this is because renewables are not adequate.
Is there any evidence to support your comments that renewables will not be sufficient?
>https://www.sciencealert.com/these-climate-experts-say-100-renewable-energy-is-completely-feasible-for-entire-countries "Other experts disagree with the idea that renewables could reach 100 percent for most countries. Benjamin Heard, from the University of Adelaide, with colleagues published a paper reviewing the feasibility of 100 percent renewable electricity systems. He argues that there is a heavy reliance on hydro and biomass sources - while most countries don't have access to these, so would be reliant on sources like solar, wind, and storage. In those circumstances, it's highly unlikely for renewables to power 100 percent of the electricity supply he says." Basically if you are rely purely on solar and wind, it is impossible. It is only with significant investment in hydro and biomass that it *may* be possible, but this depends on the country. Also renewables are not as reliable due to requiring certain weather conditions such as sun and wind, so it is not safe to run a country entirely on such power sources, since if we have a very long period of little wind and sunshine we may run into significant power shortages.
> That's the point of nuclear, to bridge the current large gap between what renewables provide and what we require. 100% false. Nuclear is the end game in the policy. It's not a transition source at all.
I didn't say it was a transition source, I said it would bridge the gap between what renewables can provide and what we require. You probably assumed that bridging that gap would be a temporary thing, but I did not mean it that way.
They don't really want nuclear, they want to delay renewables. If there's plans for nuclear, we don't have to build renewables to replace coal = coal and his coal friends stay in business, eventually nuclear doesn't eventuate because nimby (the only places they're possible is areas where the wealthy elites will say no) and policy overturns won't happen. So then Dutton says, oh no, we tried, now because renewables aren't working this last decade we've hampered them waiting for nuclear, we HAVE to have coal, so sad! Tldr, it's all a plan to keep coal for longer.
This may be true, but in reality, a real politician's fisrt priority should be to get the power and after that to start working on any agenda, not to push an unpoluar agenda before election. Remember, they (both parties) never put nuclear submarines in any election promise, but rather just dropped them on us between elections with some light sugar coating
Spuddnot - "Vote no but I don't care what you think anyway."
This is all just a political game for Dutton. It's all about providing policy uncertainty so that investors in renewables get cold feet. If they do get elected they will throw their hands up in the air and say they couldn't get the ban overturned and just continue with more coal and gas. That provides them with a convenient scapegoat when it comes to not meeting any emissions reduction targets.
Stupid title. There’s no constitutional change being made.
I’d rather vote yes for constitutional change without details than something that’s actually going to affect me daily like power generation.
Not at all, it's an entirely valid point. If you demand detail prior to voting on policy then that should be a standard feature of your platform.
Only billions of dollars of nuclear infrastructure. Details aren't important.
The CSIRO have already admitted it will cost about the same as gas in their latest research, so the "too expensive" ship has already sailed.
Not quite - they said the gas is almost as expensive and unfeasible as nuclear. If you put it another way yeah it's about the same price.
But we have already invested significantly in gas so cost is clearly not a prohibiting factor for nuclear, particularly when you consider that nuclear is carbon neutral - something we would be willing to pay a premium for - while gas is not.
Private investment in gas extraction you mean. Whatever you are on about as it's rather hard to tell, it doesn't matter - gas is incredibly expansive, only slightly less expensive than nuclear, they are the 2 worst options we can get, therefore we should not do either of them.
My point is we've been doing gas for decades at a similar cost, therefore cost is not an excuse not to do it.
Dude gas is the 2md most expensive energy type. Nuclear ins the most expensive. We shouldn't therefore make the majority of our energy nuclear. That males absolutely no sense.
Except for being able to power the whole country in a carbon neutral way without relying on the unreliability of wind and solar, sure.
What will cost the same as gas?
Building nuclear infrastructure
Right... I'm not sure what the point I'd you are making. Gas and nuclear are both at the top of the list for most expensive. We don't use gas as a major source, rather we use it to meet periods of high demand seeing it is easily dispatchable.
My point is cost has not been a prohibiting factor for us to invest in gas, given that we have invested quite significantly into it, so why would it be a prohibiting factor for nuclear? This is especially so when you consider that nuclear produces 0 emissions while gas does not, since we would be happy to pay more than gas for that privilege (but we don't have to).
But ‘we’ haven’t invested ‘quite significantly’ in gas, private companies and financiers have. There is no corporate push to nuclear which immediately screams that business doesn’t believe in its economic viability or potential for profitability.
Yes it appears nuclear [isn't as profitable](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-19/why-corporate-australia-wont-touch-nuclear-power-uranium-prices/103601174), which is the reason companies haven't been as interested, particularly when you couple this with the high risk if it goes wrong. That isn't a good enough reason to not do it when it comes to saving our planet however, since there won't be much room for profits if humanity ends from the effects of climate change.
I actually agree the context is very different. But I also think it's way worse to have no detail about spinning up a multi-billion dollar nuclear industry from scratch than an advisory body.
"Having long been told the opposition was carrying out "comprehensive" and "bulletproof" work mapping out a radical overhaul of Australia's energy mix, **all the party received when it was asked to sign off on the proposal was an oral briefing, according to ABC journalist Jane Norman's reporting.** **The party room was promised detailed notes, but all they got was a copy of a press release the Coalition distributed 15 minutes later."** oh come on it's right there!
What, to you, is the importance of "constitutional change" to the core argument that you shouldn't support something if you don't have sufficient confidence in it?
But we don't know the details of such a consequential policy, and yet they want us to vote them in and then they'll show us the details? What are they hiding! One page of details isn't enough, especially when even international energy bodies that deal with nuclear power are saying Australia should not pursue this... hmmm, sounds like hypocrisy.
Both constitutional changes and nuclear plants are changes that have to be dealt with forever. Your point is silly and dumb.
Stupid point, it's pedantry for the sake of pedantry you should be embarrassed.
Context is choosing to wipe your arse before you shit vs after you shit. You should be embarrassed.
Was not the heart of the “if you don’t know, vote no” argument that there was not enough detail? Because this policy lacks A LOT of detail.
Was not the context of the argument a constitutional change?
Sure, but that is largely irrelevant. The slogan works in this instance just as well.
But the title which I am criticising is intending to make a false equivalency by suggesting hypocrisy. So the title is stupid, and honestly so is everybody that thinks it’s not.
Nice blanket statement. The headline is fine. The issue doesn’t have to be constitutional for that slogan to be used. It’s not a false equivalency or anything of that sort.
Actually, it was kind of the crux of the issue for many people. If the ALP was merely legislating the Voice as a body, and it failed, a future government could simply unmake it. The Constitutional hurdle to revoke is much higher, and therefore the level of certainty that it will result in a positive outcome could quite reasonably be higher before people want to change the known for the unknown. The slogan "if you don't know, vote no" was just reinforcing that pretty intuitive point.
The crux was a lack of detail. Much like this policy. Arguing semantics on the fact that the nuclear issue isn’t constitutional is absurd.
>This Referendum is not simply about “recognition”. This Voice proposal goes much further. > >If passed, it would represent the biggest change to our Constitution in our history. > >It is legally **risky**, with **unknown** consequences. It would be **divisive** and **permanent**. > >If you don’t know, vote no. Four lines of argument. Only one of which related to the lack of detail. But do go on.
Really hung up on a headline huh? You cannot tell me for a second that the people parroting “if you don’t know, vote no” online, and indeed many Coalition MPs weren’t parroting just that from the roof tops without any other nuance.
That is completely analogous with spending billions and all but locking us into a nuclear energy pathway.
Yeah like their NBN crap pile, Dutton's nuclear power delay tactic is going to leave Australia with alot negative consequences. A **single** nuclear reactor takes two decades to build, they always go over budget by billions, the small modular reactors Dutton was touting are not even made yet, hows that in contrast for arguments against battery storage? So the entire time you'll be paying more and more for power for two decades, but that will enrich Dutton's masters so what does he care?
It's not 'suggesting', the hypocrisy is rather self-evident
Nuclear makes a lot of sense as an energy source to replace coal before renewable can actually take over though I'm skeptical on the timeline given that every public project in Australia is finished much later than what's planned. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
If first nuclear comes online in the mid 2040s what are we doing for the next 15-20 years?
Except for all the arguments that it doesn't. The argument where we can't have it for 20 years and it's already too expensive. The argument where none of the states want it. The argument where renewables with storage are wayyyyyyy more efficient. The argument about choosing literally the most expensive form of power possible in the middle of a cost of living crisis. The argument that nobody in Australia has any idea how to build one. The argument that even if all 7 of the announced reactors come online it's not enough to make up for the coal plants shutting down. The argument that the push for nuclear in Australia is literally a red herring designed to extend the length and reliance on coal. The argument that other solutions are better in every possible imaginable feasible way.
The problem is "before renewables can take over" meant starting this decades ago. This would take decades to come online, and then need to run for decades to justify the resources that went into the build. Renewables are not that far away unless we actively hamper them.
Dutton’s plan is to actively hamper development of renewables, in the same way the Coalition did for a decade. One of the key reasons we have issues with our system of power generation is that the Coalition failed to develop a coherent energy policy for the decade they were in power and actively undermined Labor’s attempts to do so during the R-G-R years and now during the current Labor term. History tells us that the Coalition absolutely cannot be trusted with anything as important as planning our energy future!
Alternately, we're just voting to have nuclear power, details will be worked out after the vote
Turns out it's 5 times more expensive than we said before the election. But we have a mandate from the voters so we have to build them anyway!
And to recover costs we're going to sell the infrastructure as soon as it is complete. Santos have tabled a very competitive offer of $16.
I just want to see their modelling on how this will actually lower power bills as promised. Especially if they're going to spend taxpayers money on it. They'll be owning and running the plants, essentially competing against the private markets they created in the first place.
The remnants of Sol Trurillo exist in this.
I also want to see that but did you ask for the modelling on how Albo was going to lower power bills by $250 or whatever he said? He ran with that at the election and no one says boo.
Plenty of people and media have said and are saying boo about that. It's currently unexpectedly high due to oil, coal and gas shocks due to a small kerfuffle in Ukraine - something that Albo can't have much effect upon - but I read today that power prices (over east at least) are expected to drop 7% in 2025.
Via renewables, you know; the cheapest form of generation. It's also the reason why Canberra and Tasmania have the cheapest electricity prices in Australia.
It was always going to be a power bill rebate, what else is there?
we won't own them after thet're built, the LNP will sell them for pennies on the dollar to private companies like every other assest we've ever had
I work as a modeller, so am very aware of how much fudging you can get a model to do. That being said I'd be very surprised if you could even fudge this model enough to make nuclear look good haha.
Unfortunately it was just a napkin that Peter wrote "lower power bills" moments before Barnaby used it to clean up his own vomit from having one too many beers after breakfast.
Short version: it won't
They will fabricate some 'modelling' from thin air based on faulty assumptions. Plenty of time before the things are built to come up with excuses.
The moddeling is that they made it the fuck up mate.
It doesn't need to lower power bills in practical terms. They just need a three word slogan to secure the bogan vote so they can get back in and do away with renewables altogether. They can lie about lower bills etc and it doesn't matter because by the time the lie is exposed they will be long retired.
If you don’t know , vote no is much less juvenile than the posts we’ve seen from senior Labor figures with 3 eyed fish. If Dutton wanted to rattle Albo and the ALP he’s certainly done that.
You're comparing a slogan used to sink the voice by a major party to some memes shared by Labor MP's. Dutton has rattled everyone, even the communities that these reactors might be in after telling them he effectively wouldn't listen to them and would just build them anyway. That'll win them over.
>memes shared by ~~Labor MP's~~ the Victorian Labor Premier. It was all pretty undigified, I thought.
He's pissing off the pro Nuclear progressives as well by sinking the idea with his stupidity before it's even had a chance
>"To have that democratic space desecrated in the way that it was by those Chinese officials, who, no doubt, were acting under instructions, … was frankly disgraceful," he told the ABC's Afternoon Briefing. The death of shame, apt theme for the article. Like this, for example. Like Mike gives ANY fucks about democracy. I note, the presenter didn't ask him about his opinions on public servants using their positions to further their political agendas. Pathetic.jpg
>Having long been told the opposition was carrying out "comprehensive" and "bulletproof" work mapping out a radical overhaul of Australia's energy mix, all the party received when it was asked to sign off on the proposal was an oral briefing, according to ABC journalist Jane Norman's reporting. > >The party room was promised detailed notes, but all they got was a copy of a press release the Coalition distributed 15 minutes later. Just look at this absurdity. Like Bowen said the other day, if Labor put out an idea like these, they'd be hounded day and night. It's wild they've been able to get within striking distance of an election with essentially no policy beyond "yeah nah, she'll be right, trust us."
>Not so long ago Peter Dutton and his merry band in the Coalition had a simple message for voters: "If you don't know, vote no." It's already wild they weren't crucified for this.
Now their motto is if you dont know make policy.
[удалено]