The Liberal Party - How long? - Part 2

[Pie eyed]

Will the market decide where the nuclear waste will go? Allowing them to be built by private industry if enough $$$ are invested assumes that we must have agreed that we want to put the waste somewhere, it can't just be an afterthought.

After seeing the lack of detail about nuclear waste in the last election cycle, I have zero confidence that any member of the coalition has any better idea where the waste will go now than they didn't know previously.

There won't be any nuclear waste if there are no nuclear plants.

I can't see any business model for Nuclear in Australia which would see a private company build a plant
solely to generate electricity for local consumption.
Not without substantial subsidisation from the taxpayer and legislation to protect them from renewables for many decades.

If that's the case then hard no to any repeal of the non nuclear legislation.
If it is not economically viable it never gets built

 

[Bont2Bruce]

You set strong regulatory requirements (not bans) on the waste and let the market operate under those requirements.

That avoided my question as to where the waste would go. You answered how would the risks be managed, not where would it go.

Private industry would make this a government problem, and it would be political poison for any government to nominate a location to bury nuclear waste.

This issue is a lot more thorny than any of the capitalists have bothered to think yet.

 

[Pie eyed]

I think it politicians are talking about "energy prices are more important net zero" then they're pulling the curtain up. See Canavan, M. The energy market, traditional and renewable alike, is full of companies and investors making profits from government decisions and support. As I said, the landscape will probably look different in 24 months. I'm not keen on re-nationalisation of the industry. But there are weaknesses and improvements than can and need to be made.

Energy prices are not more important than net zero.
The election results made that totally clear.

 

[The Punter]

That avoided my question as to where the waste would go. You answered how would the risks be managed, not where would it go.

Private industry would make this a government problem, and it would be political poison for any government to nominate a location to bury nuclear waste.

This issue is a lot more thorny than any of the capitalists have bothered to think yet.

A strong government would deal with it. Everything can be assessed for risk. Private energy providers don't need to worry about brand the way McDonald does. The only thing missing for my scenario is political will.

I mean, it's part of the problem with our policy at the last election - we named the sites. Letting the market decide within regulatory parameters means the government isn't the one deciding where plants are.

And the waste issue is getting dealt with better all the time. You know, like progress in just about every other area except political discourse.

 

[The Punter]

Energy prices are not more important than net zero.
The election results made that totally clear.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I was just bringing attention to MPs like Canavan who say the contrary. I think he's obviously advocating for a position that benefits coal power plants.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

A strong government would deal with it. Everything can be assessed for risk. Private energy providers don't need to worry about brand the way McDonald does. The only thing missing for my scenario is political will.

I contend that the thing that is missing is a decision on where the waste would go. Any policy on nuclear without addressing the issue of nuclear waste is simply not a policy. It's just a thought bubble and no more.

I mean, it's part of the problem with our policy at the last election - we named the sites. Letting the market decide within regulatory parameters means the government isn't the one deciding where plants are.

And who gives the planning approvals to wherever the private sector nominates the waste will go? The government, aka the government is in fact the one deciding on the where.

And the waste issue is getting dealt with better all the time. You know, like progress in just about every other area except political discourse.

Considering the last election cycle included a nuclear policy which had zero consideration of the waste issue, I strongly disagree that "the waste issue is getting dealt with better all the time". How can it be better than zero, but still zero?

 

[The Punter]

How can it be better than zero, but still zero?

C'mon, this is pretty disingenuous. We'd also be able to hit net zero really quickly if we generated no electricity. Every form of electricity has some form of waste caused by it, because that's how humans work.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

C'mon, this is pretty disingenuous. We'd also be able to hit net zero really quickly if we generated no electricity. Every form of electricity has some form of waste caused by it, because that's how humans work.

I'm not talking about net zero.

Zero consideration of nuclear waste.

 

[The Punter]

I'm not talking about net zero.

Zero consideration of nuclear waste.

Our policy had many issues, and that was one of them. But in places where nuclear power is generated, they are making improvements in how they deal with the waste so there is less of it and it is safer. I don't know why that wasn't part of our policy, but it wasn't the only area where we failed on lack of sufficient detail.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Our policy had many issues, and that was one of them. But in places where nuclear power is generated, they are making improvements in how they deal with the waste so there is less of it and it is safer. I don't know why that wasn't part of our policy, but it wasn't the only area where we failed on lack of sufficient detail.

Nuclear waste is very different to fossil fuel waste. It is forever and cannot be reversed by planting millions of trees (even if that were to ever happen). Containment is the only viable engineering solution to the risks. It should not be entered into lightly on a political whim.

The Mt Lyell copper mine in Tasmania is a good analogy. The output from the mine was all that mattered to those who made decisions about it's operation, with zero thought to the acidic wastes that were generated and will continue to be generated forever from the mine tailings. We should learn from past mistakes and choose not to repeat them.

 

[The Punter]

Nuclear waste is very different to fossil fuel waste. It is forever and containment is the only engineering solution to the risks. It should not be entered into lightly on a political whim.

The Mt Lyell copper mine in Tasmania is a good analogy. The output from the mine was all that mattered to those who made decisions about it's operation, with zero thought to the acidic wastes that were generated and will continue to be generated forever from the mine tailings.

Sounds like a regulatory failure. The realities of nuclear waste are not contested, but improvements are taking place. The solution you have said is the only solution is indeed a solution.

It's pretty academic anyway. I'm not expecting an Australian nuclear power plant in operation any time soon.

 

[Pie eyed]

I don't necessarily disagree, but I was just bringing attention to MPs like Canavan who say the contrary. I think he's obviously advocating for a position that benefits coal power plants.

True.
I have no objection to Nuclear if it is in fact contributing positively toward net zero.
Safety and waste concerns not withstanding. Those issue come into consideration after you make a finacial viability case.
That would entail the reactors being a long term financially viable investment for a private developer with no, or very little. cost to the taxpayer, no extension of the use of coal, no redevelopment of coal fired electric and a net reduction in the cost of electricity.

It is obvious that nuclear being a viable option under those conditions is extremely unlikely.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Safety and waste concerns not withstanding. Those issue come into consideration after you make a finacial viability case.

Why the hell shouldn't they be PART of the viability assessment?

If you build a house, do you only care if you can afford the materials and labour, but don't give a damn if the whole thing is a fire trap and prone to collapse in the first strong gust of wind?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Not enough of them marching on parliaments for your liking, huh?

No, I'd like to see more protests, rebellion, revolution with a splash of anarchy.

 

[nut]

Sweden spending 30 billion aud to control their nuclear waste.

Nuclear is just dumb.

 

[The Punter]

Sweden spending 30 billion aud to control their nuclear waste.

Nuclear is just dumb.

Seems like a chink in the "Scandinavia is totally awesome" case you've been cultivating there for a while.

 

[nut]

Seems like a chink in the "Scandinavia is totally awesome" case you've been cultivating there for a while.

You can’t trust the Swedes

 

[Saint]

Sounds like a regulatory failure. The realities of nuclear waste are not contested, but improvements are taking place. The solution you have said is the only solution is indeed a solution.

It's pretty academic anyway. I'm not expecting an Australian nuclear power plant in operation any time soon.

I think this was always kind of the point. Anyone following the nuclear waste site fiasco over the last 20 years knows it's always going to be tossed into the too hard basket. And that's really the point of the nuclear policy. It's to prolong fossil fuels under the guise of an imaginary nuclear ecosystem which will never eventuate.

So the status quo of fossil fuels continues.

It was too transparent and the plan wasn't credible enough. Until more firm plans are proposed, everyone will (rightfully) assume it's just cover for more fossil fuel extensions.

 

[Pie eyed]

Why the hell shouldn't they be PART of the viability assessment?

If you build a house, do you only care if you can afford the materials and labour, but don't give a damn if the whole thing is a fire trap and prone to collapse in the first strong gust of wind?

I think you miss the point I am making.

If Nuclear is not viable at the first hurdle then there is no need for wasting time even discussing safety and waste management.

No nuclear power stations, no waste, no safety issues....

capice?

 

[nut]

Seems like a chink in the "Scandinavia is totally awesome" case you've been cultivating there for a while.

They’ve had nuclear for over 50 years… before renewables were a thing.

 

[peetoo]

So the libs and nats can merge agin, so long as coles and Woolies both split up

Delulo with nf solulo

GWS giants have more members, how they can keep a straight face is commendable

 

[Gavin Excell]

I don't necessarily disagree, but I was just bringing attention to MPs like Canavan who say the contrary. I think he's obviously advocating for a position that benefits coal power plants.

Correct

Nuclear is a front

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Seems like a chink in the "Scandinavia is totally awesome" case you've been cultivating there for a while.

A bit juvenile mate.

Scandinavia IS totally awesome.
Does that mean it is perfect? No. Does that mean it is beyond criticism? No.

 

[Gough]

A bit juvenile mate.

Scandinavia IS totally awesome.
Does that mean it is perfect? No. Does that mean it is beyond criticism? No.

A region that produced ABBA and Akvavit can be excused some imperfections.

 

[geoffjennings79]

I think you miss the point I am making.

If Nuclear is not viable at the first hurdle then there is no need for wasting time even discussing safety and waste management.

No nuclear power stations, no waste, no safety issues....

capice?

Surely nuclear cab only be judged on its viability of you consider the entire solution, including safety and waste? Otherwise you're not assessing the feasibility of all components.