Labor’s nuclear modelling claims $387 billion price-tag



The fight over nuclear energy is heating up with the government claiming the switch away from renewables to nuclear would cost almost $400 billion.

Labor has released government costings aimed at undermining the Opposition’s push to add nuclear to Australia’s energy mix.

Modelling by the Energy and Climate Change Department shows converting ageing coal-fired power sites to nuclear would cost $387 billion – or up to $25,000 per taxpayer.

The modelling also suggested Australia would need at least 71 300MW small modular reactors to offset coal generation coming out of the system.

The Coalition is yet to finalise its energy policies, but leader Peter Dutton has called for greater investment in nuclear to help meet emissions targets.

source

22 thoughts on “Labor’s nuclear modelling claims $387 billion price-tag”

  1. How… fucking how? Listen I can learn the fundamentals of near century old technologies by watching HBOs Chernobyl. You know who probably has a treasure trove of nuclear reactor designs, failure and safety analysis, as well as extensive practical experience in literally every facet of navigating the nuclear world… Ukraine. Honestly, just offer the Ukrainians some weapons in exchange for some copies from archives. Stunning deal, incredible deal for everyone involved, my point really being that this price tag is probably 50% economic stimulus or some shit… because if they admitted they fucked power and wasted enough money on non-existent subs to eliminate all of our electricity bills. People would go ballistic.

    Reply
  2. Labor don't have a clue or a plan either for green energy. Other then – just build it. Labor is not considering – the capacity you need in green energy machines like solar panels – solar batteries – wind turbines – and they are intermittent sources of energy.

    Labor is over playing the technology – and ignoring the operating shortfalls.

    The CSIRO wrote the report – it seems. So all in house guesstimate. Saying costs around nuclear are unsure.

    It depends how you frame the scale of what you want to achieve.

    So do you buy one Small Modular Reactor from Rolls Royce. And run it. To get base line output – per costs to run the new Small Modular Reactors.

    Without first hand experience – of a running nuclear reactor – measuring – output – per cost of maintenance. You don't know.

    Because you can make all sorts of claims and counter claims.

    And buy one – run it – see what it costs to build – and what are it's ongoing costs. CSIRO does not have anything by which to measure it claims.

    Labor wont mention the money it has thrown at hydrogen. And there is absolute silence – on those projects. Clearly means there is engineering challenges- no-one saw coming. AS no-one has done large scale hydrogen production.

    CSIRO writing a report – on something that no-one has done in Australia then – a nuclear reactor in NSW for making medical nuclear medicine.

    What are they basing their claims on. Which type of reactor. How old is the reactor they are looking at. Are they quoting off 1960's design nuclear reactors.

    Or have they looked at modern – current design types.

    Labor – again use emotional language. And no doubt – asked a government department – they fund and run – for a report. No doubt the report is written to keep the bosses happy. No-one in the CSIRO – wants to upset the hand that feeds them funding.

    Labor wont reveal the full or final cost of their green energy plans either.

    As labor only consults itself.

    Labor did not appoint a panel of engineers.

    1. To design their green energy system.

    2. To look at the alternatives – and then tell labor – what the costs would be – and any shortfalls in the technology.

    The small modular reactors – are not the ones shown in this article of a 1960's nuclear reactor.

    Large nuclear reactors take 10 years to build. Just ask the British Government – that one – they are in the middle of that problem right now.

    Rolls Royce – has a small modular reactor. That is smaller produces 470 megawatt. It is the latest design. It has a more streamlined operating system – then the older 1960's nuclear reactors.

    The SMR can be built more quickly.

    You can use the SMR reactor to make hydrogen.

    So – labor is playing the game splitting hairs – or lie every day – in every way.

    Reply
  3. Remember though, these are the IDIOTS that used MODELS to get us thru Covid..
    Remember that these IDIOTS rely on MODELS..
    If you believe 1 fkn word from Govt, i dont need you on this Earth…go away.

    Reply
  4. Hang on , but Labor just gave our money away to Ukraine and the Voice campaign, they just spend our money just like little kids in a lolly shop, we need Nuclear clean cheaper and reliable, solar , wind farms is heaps more expensive , they just want there deal with rich Chinese Fooks to go through and launder money. VOTE NO.

    Reply
  5. This bloke (Bowen) is completely and utterly full of S$%&, is he living in a fantasy world!
    Germany wants green power from solar, wind, biomass and hydroelectric generation to account for 80% of its energy mix by 2030, as it abandons nuclear power and aims to cut most of its coal generation, using gas plants mostly for grid back-up.
    Australia with Labor government policy is going down the same path as Germany, with the same projected targets…Yet Germany has the second highest power cost of any EU country at 49.5 c€/kWh, thats $AUD 0.81c/kWh – https://www.reuters.com/…/renewable-energys-share…/
    France in comparison which use Nuclear energy for power in Europe sits at 26.7 c€/kWh per kWh, you do the math.
    Albanese said no less than 92 times during his election campaign that his government would save Australian households AUD $275…
    Wake up Australia, renewable energy is not the answer, under this government you will never get your $275, in fact your bill will probably quadruple….
    Another Woke joke!

    Reply

Leave a Comment