[Jan Fisher]

The LNP has come out in support of nuclear power to replace coal-fired power stations. Is that even possible?

The party has proposed replacing existing coal-fired stations with nuclear reactors, citing the transmission lines are already there, and several ‘mini’ reactors across the country to boost supply.

There are a few problems with that. According to The Guardian it will take at least 20 years to build, and judging by experience overseas, will cost taxpayers billions.

In the UK, French company EDF’s Hinkley Point C plant began construction in 2017 and, after several revisions, the company says it may not be delivering electricity until 2031. Initial cost estimates of $34bn have been revised to $89bn.

The UAE spent $100bn on their nuclear reactors, which is the financial equivalent of putting a huge, top-of-the-range solar array on every house in the country.

And that’s just building it, supplying electricity through nuclear generation is one of the most expensive options. For small to medium reactors, the CSIRO gives a theoretical range of $382 to $636 per MWh in the year 2030, compared with $91 to $130 for wind and solar.

There’s also the issue of who is going to build all that technology and infrastructure. The expertise required is expensive and rare.

And finally, there is public sentiment. Nuclear energy comes with some strong feelings, and very few people are going to want a nuclear reactor in their suburb, let alone state.

What do you think? Is nuclear the way to go?

[David Ryder]

Nobody I know wants to live anywhere near a nuclear reactor and neither do I.
They are uneconomic and very expensive to construct as this article points out.
There is also the highly toxic waste to dispose of.
I don’t know why the Coalition has taken up this silly, vote losing policy idea.

[Cosmo]

Remember a COALition prime minister introducing us to coal and telling us not to be afraid? Coal went out of fashion about as fast as the prime minister promoting it. I suspect any future leader telling us not to be frightened of uranium and nuclear will befall a similar or fate.
Compact nuclear power plants are simply not available, but of course don’t let honesty get in the way when you’re devoid of any policies.

[Frank]

Definitely not NUCLEAR. Even Japan has had trouble with nuclear problems and they are an up to date technological nation. Plus the problem of damaging the environment even more with waste. Who would believe politicians or the media.

[ronloby]

A couple could be built in the middle of nowhere—that way no one would have to live near a reactor. We have plenty of room in central Australia so why not utilise it?

[John Pengilly]

I presume you live in a city ronloby, I live in the middle of nowhere as do many others.

[Bruce C]

There’s plenty of nuclear reactors operating safely in many countries around the world. They are much safer they you think.
There are more deaths caused by PV solar panel installations than by nuclear power plants..
They take up about 1% of the space compared to solar or wind farms.
They are far more environmentally friendly compared to solar, wind & other power sources.
And much much cheaper..

I would be happy to live in a city that had a reactors in it..
Oh that’s right i already do…
It’s called Sydney and it’s at lucas Heights

[Cosmo]

If the LNP believes that nuclear is the way to go, why didn’t they push for it during the nine years they were in government but only hit on the idea just after they got thrown out? Was it because If it was their policy while in government they would have needed to do something about it and they have no intention to do so. It took them nine years to not even agree an energy policy let alone implement one.
How’s their Snowy Hydro 2 going, still on budget and on time?

[Ken]

Who gets in first – COALition can place the reactors in Labor electorates or ALP can bite the bullet and place in Toorak and Double Bay.

Either way, I can see Swanbank site to punish the Ipswich voters

[Author]

Posts