A "bold but unpopular vision" for nuclear or was it just bullshit?
I'd go for the latter, so Australia wasn't getting nuclear either way.
What they had a chance for, and may now get, is vaguely sensible policy to continue their renewable rollout which is, in some aspects, world leading.
anenefan · 3h ago
Going by the results around my locale and a comment from one of the party's faithful handing out how to vote material yesterday, many likewise saw it as just BS. Since the percentage of the count was little changed I could assume most voters in my parts just ignored it all as a stunt - I'm actually surprised - I'm in a voting area that's long held by conservative parties but expected a large swing given the serious amount of money that would surely have been ultimately wasted investigating further where the power plants would go despite being fairly sure they'd never get off the ground.
Given the level of sunshine or heat inland areas typically get in Australia, solar power or advanced thermocouple panels makes perfect sense. Solar power doesn't necessarily have to be distributed though a major grid - there's plenty of inland small gas fields that would serve as a good source to make ammonia. That at the moment that might not seem greatly useful for energy requirements, but as fuel cells become more popular and available, it'll help stabilise any shortfalls.
croes · 15h ago
So no Hinkley Point C for Australia.
anenefan · 4h ago
Thankfully not. The question or agenda of nuclear power for the energy grid has cropped up many times in the past here. Each time after eventually reading the room, it's decided it's not a good fit for the country. Late 90s the idea of this old school nuclear power plant BS was finally put out to pasture and dashed any hopes of internationally qualified companies that made their fortunes designing old style nuclear plants.
Had the opposition won on other issues, nuclear would have been touted as a mandate for them regardless and I fear the people who had the most to gain are those in the industries which would have cashed in around a plethora of studies, committees paid to sit and consider locations and other factors, proposed design ... etc which would run into the billions. Not one study but dozens upon dozens (prob in the hundreds) of them as each case is considered. Studies here are not cheap by any means [1]
The debate moved from safety to economics. The economics only worked if you wanted to continue gas and coal for two more decades.
7 nuclear sites in an economy with only a swimming pool reactor for research and nuclear medicine, projecting the most favourable cost of construction worldwide.
Most people saw this as cynical, a move by coal and gas mining interests.
Is nuclear energy safe and useful? Probably. It was a terrible fit for this economy. It should have started 40 years ago.
Possibly, arguably this is why the LNP lost but mostly I think, Trump cost them the election. This nuclear thing was a classic city country divide: a lot of mining, fly in fly out heavy engineering workers liked it. City dwellers Not.
anenefan · 2h ago
Given the party most of the time has knives out for the renewable energy industry you're right IMO to say many were just cynical of this latest nuclear power agenda - simply a means to prolong fossil carbon usage within the power grid.
As for the role Trumpism played - long before the election was called there was an uneasiness in regard to the LNP when trying to channel Trump and similar apparently popular policies. Despite being hugely popular with a certain smaller crowd here, ultimately it didn't work out quite like they expected. None had anything near the artful dodger ability to back peddle or redirect attention when it started to come apart.
As for nuclear being a city country divide, most fly in fly out mine workers my parts are city / town based. I think if such a divide exists, it might be more that town and city folk have a better understanding / familiarity of how much any proposed projected costings for a project differs considerably with the final cost, annually there's more often a multitude of notable projects around towns and cities, where as in the country areas, notable projects are generally singular events and more likely local population would attribute budget blow outs on particular companies that tendered for the project and BSed. The country folk are also probably too trusting believing the particular candidate will go against their party and won't support nuclear.
skissane · 4h ago
> Possibly, arguably this is why the LNP lost but mostly I think, Trump cost them the election.
While I agree that Trump and nuclear were factors, I think a bigger factor was charisma - Albanese doesn’t have a lot of it, but at least he’s still above zero, Dutton is a fair way below zero.
Another factor was the anti-work-from-home policy for public servants: not just the policy itself, but abandoning it half way through the campaign was rather damaging to Dutton’s credibility.
I'd go for the latter, so Australia wasn't getting nuclear either way.
What they had a chance for, and may now get, is vaguely sensible policy to continue their renewable rollout which is, in some aspects, world leading.
Given the level of sunshine or heat inland areas typically get in Australia, solar power or advanced thermocouple panels makes perfect sense. Solar power doesn't necessarily have to be distributed though a major grid - there's plenty of inland small gas fields that would serve as a good source to make ammonia. That at the moment that might not seem greatly useful for energy requirements, but as fuel cells become more popular and available, it'll help stabilise any shortfalls.
Had the opposition won on other issues, nuclear would have been touted as a mandate for them regardless and I fear the people who had the most to gain are those in the industries which would have cashed in around a plethora of studies, committees paid to sit and consider locations and other factors, proposed design ... etc which would run into the billions. Not one study but dozens upon dozens (prob in the hundreds) of them as each case is considered. Studies here are not cheap by any means [1]
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-11/commonwealth-kimba-na...
7 nuclear sites in an economy with only a swimming pool reactor for research and nuclear medicine, projecting the most favourable cost of construction worldwide.
Most people saw this as cynical, a move by coal and gas mining interests.
Is nuclear energy safe and useful? Probably. It was a terrible fit for this economy. It should have started 40 years ago.
Possibly, arguably this is why the LNP lost but mostly I think, Trump cost them the election. This nuclear thing was a classic city country divide: a lot of mining, fly in fly out heavy engineering workers liked it. City dwellers Not.
As for the role Trumpism played - long before the election was called there was an uneasiness in regard to the LNP when trying to channel Trump and similar apparently popular policies. Despite being hugely popular with a certain smaller crowd here, ultimately it didn't work out quite like they expected. None had anything near the artful dodger ability to back peddle or redirect attention when it started to come apart.
As for nuclear being a city country divide, most fly in fly out mine workers my parts are city / town based. I think if such a divide exists, it might be more that town and city folk have a better understanding / familiarity of how much any proposed projected costings for a project differs considerably with the final cost, annually there's more often a multitude of notable projects around towns and cities, where as in the country areas, notable projects are generally singular events and more likely local population would attribute budget blow outs on particular companies that tendered for the project and BSed. The country folk are also probably too trusting believing the particular candidate will go against their party and won't support nuclear.
While I agree that Trump and nuclear were factors, I think a bigger factor was charisma - Albanese doesn’t have a lot of it, but at least he’s still above zero, Dutton is a fair way below zero.
Another factor was the anti-work-from-home policy for public servants: not just the policy itself, but abandoning it half way through the campaign was rather damaging to Dutton’s credibility.