Thoughts on Australia as a nuclear power?

Remove this Banner Ad

Festerz

Club Legend
May 20, 2019
1,668
6,119
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
PAFC Maggies SANFL
Was he challenging the regulars on the show, not wanting it to go the way of Q & A & groupthink ?
How was it received?
True story pls.
Why not go on to iview and watch the program and discussion within context and make up your own mind instead of relying on others to give you the headline you want.

It really isn't that hard if you want to be properly informed. Unless of course, you don't.
 

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
35,298
13,200
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Yeah it was already running 40 billion dollars over budget...
So Defence doesn't need to give us accurate estimates because the builders won't tell us, but we're meant to give a precise costing of all climate change policies, many of which rely on technologies which are rapidly becoming cheaper (e.g. solar)?
Power needs are not a good example of whatever it is you are trying to make. See the UK firing up closed coal fired generators.

Just as defence procurement is difficult to cost (see Collins class subs, the F35 fighter, the frigate builds - happy to provode links if you want), there is a $number put on it.
The cost to jobs can be readily identified - if we dont build the subs in Australia, if we close down coal mining.

Anything can be costed, its the assumptions that distinguish an honest attempt from a self serving guesstimate.

Note solar: the claim that it is cheaper in Australia is regarded as FACT by most people.
What puzzles me is why China, Vietnam, India cant see that. Why they build coal powered generation when renewables are cheaper, a decision that has a
30-50 timespan.
They will use coal that is dirtier than Australias thermal coal.
 
Last edited:

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
35,298
13,200
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Sure he did. Unless of course you understand something about context.

This was a WA MP hell bent on getting submarine (and other defence work such as the AWD) construction and maintenance work shifted to his home state of WA. And head of a portfolio which was responsible for designing the submarine tender, awarding the contract to the French and overseeing the subsequent titanic blow out in costs.

This is also the same former Defence Minister who went on to become Australia's 'Defence Export Advocate' promoting Australia's defence design and construction capabilities to the rest of the world and had a key role in the early stages of the French submarine contract.

Cutting and pasting a headline from 7 years ago without doing something about what happened since will nearly always lead to simplistic conclusions.
You are spot on, I was pointing out that the subs decision/ASC has been 'a bit of a circus' since replacement of the Collins class was addressed in the 2000s:

The politicking around jobs/votes is always problematic & I'd say Pyne MHR won that day. Johnston was the responsible Minister from September 2013 to December 2014 during which time a Japanese sourced boat was the popular choice of the Feds. It was in 2015 under Defence Minister Andrews a 'competive evaluation process' got underway.

I am sorry you read into my post something I was not trying to do.
Senator Rex Patrick is doing more than any other single politician to keep the light on the project & away from the politics. Unrelated, but SA should vote this fellow back, he is a Senator doing what SA wants/needs, unlike other Senators who are simply votes for parties, not people.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
35,298
13,200
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Why not go on to iview and watch the program and discussion within context and make up your own mind instead of relying on others to give you the headline you want.

It really isn't that hard if you want to be properly informed. Unless of course, you don't.
Indeed. Nonetheless, it is Jack & his conclusion that I was challenging.
 

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
35,298
13,200
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Maybe you should tell Barnacle Joyce that. He keeps pushing the negative argument & never seems interested in any other aspect of the issue. Certainly any of the positive the aspects of new industries, jobs creation/replacement.
Is Joyce standing up for those who voted him in?
 

Festerz

Club Legend
May 20, 2019
1,668
6,119
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
PAFC Maggies SANFL
Indeed. Nonetheless, it is Jack & his conclusion that I was challenging.
Fair enough. And it is a view that (I think) is worthy of challenging.

Because it was a throwaway line from Speers at the very end of Insiders were he was merely reflecting on an interview he conducted earlier in the show with Labor Industry Shadow Minister Ed Husic where, despite some pressuring, Husic refused to demand or even specify strong local industry content in the nuclear sub deal that Labor has given bi-partisan support to.

I think it was a good point made by Speers and highlights the future political issues on jobs that will be faced by BOTH Labor and the Coalition in scrapping the French deal and going nuclear.


Edit: Here is the segment of Insiders where Speers made his comment, in response to observations from Andrew Probyn on the future subs arrangements:


 
Last edited:

Mateyman

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 16, 2012
11,563
8,441
AFL Club
Collingwood
Power needs are not a good example of whatever it is you are trying to make. See the UK firing up closed coal fired generators.

Just as defence procurement is difficult to cost (see Collins class subs, the F35 fighter, the frigate builds - happy to provode links if you want), there is a $number put on it.
The cost to jobs can be readily identified - if we dont build the subs in Australia, if we close down coal mining.

Anything can be costed, its the assumptions that distinguish an honest attempt from a self serving guesstimate.
What the hell are you talking about? You asked for climate change commitments to be costed. I pointed out the difficulties with this are likely to be similar to difficulties with costing defence contracts - i.e. we don't know how much it will cost. Why are you happy for an announcement about possible nuclear subs (which we have literally no idea on the cost of) to avoid the same scrutiny you apply to climate change policies? The government have committed us to buying subs for which we have no designs, and no idea of the cost and probably won't for years. And this is fine, but climate change policies need to be exactly costed before any commitments are undertaken...

You're also cherry picking the UK getting a tiny proportion of their power from coal - have a look at the emissions from their energy grid in total each year and get back to me.

Note solar: the claim that it is cheaper in Australia is regarded as FACT by most people.
What puzzles me is why China, Vietnam, India cant see that. Why they build coal powered generation when renewables are cheaper, a decision that has a
30-50 timespan.
They will use coal that is dirtier than Australias thermal coal.
Note: Tangential response. I didn't say solar was cheaper than coal. I said solar was becoming cheaper than it previously used to be.
 
Last edited:

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
35,298
13,200
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Why are you happy for an announcement about possible nuclear subs (which we have literally no idea on the cost of) to avoid the same scrutiny you apply to climate change policies? The government have committed us to buying subs for which we have no designs, and no idea of the cost and probably won't for years. And this is fine, but climate change policies need to be exactly costed before any commitments are undertaken...
Sad that you seem to want a yes/no answer when its a discussion thats happening here. Again, the subs were costed, inaccurate as it is. The new deal whatever it will be, will be costed & in Budget papers. Are you following ...:huh: .. & some time subs turn up.

I want all policies costed & that includes aspirational policies that are going to require generational change for my grandkids. Exactly NO, best available with assumptions is what I'm after so people (including me) are able to understand what is required.
 

Mateyman

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 16, 2012
11,563
8,441
AFL Club
Collingwood
Sad that you seem to want a yes/no answer when its a discussion thats happening here. Again, the subs were costed, inaccurate as it is. The new deal whatever it will be will be costed & in Budget papers. Are you following ...:huh:

I want all policies costed & that includes aspirational policies that are going to require generational change for my grandkids. Exactly NO, best available with assumptions is what I'm after so people (including me) are able to understand what is required.
Yes I agree there should be some kind of costing of policies. These costings should take into account the relevant counterfactuals - i.e. things like the CBAM countries are likely to introduce on Australian imports if we do not lower emissions. This will give an accurate assessment of the costs and benefits - perhaps multiple scenarios should be modelled.

I would expect most short term (i.e. 5 years) measures would be costed in budget papers when specific measures are proposed. At the moment we are still in the 'planning' step for how we are going to meet many long term targets - analogous to where we are with the (uncosted) submarine deal. In many ways the 2030 goals are actually much more relevant at the moment and are where we can have a more accurate costing - as there is less inherent uncertainty.

As we move forward I would expect costs for short term projects (next 5-10 years) to come into focus when specific policies are announced to meet the larger aspirational targets.
 

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
35,298
13,200
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Yes I agree there should be some kind of costing of policies. These costings should take into account the relevant counterfactuals - i.e. things like the CBAM countries are likely to introduce on Australian imports if we do not lower emissions. This will give an accurate assessment of the costs and benefits - perhaps multiple scenarios should be modelled.

I would expect most short term (i.e. 5 years) measures would be costed in budget papers when specific measures are proposed. At the moment we are still in the 'planning' step for how we are going to meet many long term targets - analogous to where we are with the (uncosted) submarine deal. In many ways the 2030 goals are actually much more relevant at the moment and are where we can have a more accurate costing - as there is less inherent uncertainty.

As we move forward I would expect costs for short term projects (next 5-10 years) to come into focus when specific policies are announced to meet the larger aspirational targets.
All good & its going to test both sides of politics to explain how they are going to deal with proposed way forward. Those already committed arent the problem.

I agree 5-10 should be have the detail.
 
Last edited:

QuietB

Brownlow Medallist
May 13, 2008
29,750
42,481
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
These subs will never happen.

US politics will become divided over releasing the technology, nuclear non-proliferation and US security is the angle of attack in the below article, partisan politics will kick in and the US House and Senate will not approve the deal.

Australia will be left with its dick in its hand. I guess on a positive note we get to keep the money and only have to pay what the French can fleece out of the morons currently in Canberra by way of compensation.

 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
18,715
13,141
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
These subs will never happen.

US politics will become divided over releasing the technology, nuclear non-proliferation and US security is the angle of attack in the below article, partisan politics will kick in and the US House and Senate will not approve the deal.

Australia will be left with its dick in its hand. I guess on a positive note we get to keep the money and only have to pay what the French can fleece out of the morons currently in Canberra by way of compensation.

As we learn more about the mess Scomo has created, we're left with more doubts & questions than any answers.

I've always been in favour of OZ having nucsubs. IMO, it makes sense for a country with huge waters surrounding us & limited surface ship capabilities.

However, Scumo once again seems to love the big announcement, & leave us with nothing.

Scumo is quickly proving himself to be the most dangerously incompetent PM in out history.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Baltimore Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 12, 2011
23,345
31,250
AFL Club
Collingwood
These subs will never happen.

US politics will become divided over releasing the technology, nuclear non-proliferation and US security is the angle of attack in the below article, partisan politics will kick in and the US House and Senate will not approve the deal.

Australia will be left with its dick in its hand. I guess on a positive note we get to keep the money and only have to pay what the French can fleece out of the morons currently in Canberra by way of compensation.

Think you might be correct
 

Festerz

Club Legend
May 20, 2019
1,668
6,119
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
PAFC Maggies SANFL
I've always been in favour of OZ having nucsubs. IMO, it makes sense for a country with huge waters surrounding us & limited surface ship capabilities.
Of the 42 countries that currently operate a submarine fleet, how many of them that operate nuclear powered subs do not also have nuclear weapons capability?

Answer: Zero.

And our submarine fleet, however they are powered, will be primarily located in WA for access to the north/north east of our country for obvious strategic reasons (as opposed to protecting our coastline). Transversing the territorial waters of Indonesia is a key part of this shift in strategy involving boats with substantial distance and stealth capabilities obviously focussed on China.

The 'rising tensions in our region' our PM stated as the rationale for his announcement is immediate - not something that can wait 20-30 years until these nuclear powered boats, if they ever get built, will hit the water. In the meantime allowing US nuclear powered (and armed) submarines to be based in Australia in the immediate future is the only option available that aligns with our PMs goal.

Which helps explain why this deal, it if ever gets finalised, is a lot more complex and troublesome than our 'whatshisname' election focussed PM with his PR focussed announcement has made out. It is not just about UK/US/Australia but a matter of much broader foreign affairs implications, especially for our immediate region.


Scumo is quickly proving himself to be the most dangerously incompetent PM in out history.
In a nutshell.
 

QuietB

Brownlow Medallist
May 13, 2008
29,750
42,481
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
As we learn more about the mess Scomo has created, we're left with more doubts & questions than any answers.

I've always been in favour of OZ having nucsubs. IMO, it makes sense for a country with huge waters surrounding us & limited surface ship capabilities.

However, Scumo once again seems to love the big announcement, & leave us with nothing.

Scumo is quickly proving himself to be the most dangerously incompetent PM in out history.
Morrison is an idiot.

The huge irony will be after Australia dumped France cause "sovereign interests" the USA will dump Australia cause "sovereign interests".

There is nothing agreed and Executive orders are not going to get this done.
 

Nickoo

Norm Smith Medallist
May 13, 2015
6,335
5,779
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory

Our consumption based emissions are at a similar level to the production based figures. Miles higher than almost every other country in the world...
So we are 1.2% of global emissions. If all human activity was eradicated, stopped that number would drop to .69% because we have such a large continent that naturally produces CO2. Last year china switched on for the next 30 years the equivalent of our entire 2012 fleet of coal fired power stations. That’s .35% of global emissions for the next 30 years and not to mention what they switched on in the previous 5 years. Germany just turned its back on hydro power from Norway and signed onto Nordstream2 for gas and oil from Russia for decades to come and because of that and more they have to pressure little emitter Australia. Whatever we do is simply getting with and in support of global efforts but one thing it’s not is cutting global emissions in any meaningful way as really we don’t emit that much when you look at china who have full dispensation to emit over 30% of world emissions til 2065, 2065, 2065 while we will try and cut 45% by 2030.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

Festerz

Club Legend
May 20, 2019
1,668
6,119
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
PAFC Maggies SANFL
For those claiming our growing capability gap in maritime defence could be filled with leasing nuclear subs from our AUKUS partners, this well written article will be of some relevance:

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/c... second-hand nuclear submarines The UK option

The deeper you look the more it seems obvious that Morrison's press release announcement lacked the due diligence that you would think $100B+ of Aussie taxpayers' money deserves.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
18,715
13,141
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
For those claiming our growing capability gap in maritime defence could be filled with leasing nuclear subs from our AUKUS partners, this well written article will be of some relevance:

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/can-australia-get-second-hand-nuclear-submarines-the-uk-option/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Weekly The Strategist&utm_content=Weekly The Strategist+CID_d949b8e5ad1973920a452459409ea551&utm_source=CampaignMonitor&utm_term=Can Australia get second-hand nuclear submarines The UK option

The deeper you look the more it seems obvious that Morrison's press release announcement lacked the due diligence that you would think $100B+ of Aussie taxpayers' money deserves.
Scumo is an announcement man. That & 3 word slogans is his bag.

Strategic thinking, not so much.

He'll be working on his short term tactics to get to the next election. Thats about all he can process.
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
57,900
103,688
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I doubt it.

They rely on the libs for power, for political relevance.
They get half the vote of the Greens hold ten times the power and have attempted to convince us that their the victims in all of this. As it stands cardio vascular disease in their leader is their best hope for the future.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
18,715
13,141
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
They get half the vote of the Greens hold ten times the power and have attempted to convince us that their the victims in all of this. As it stands cardio vascular disease in their leader is their best hope for the future.
He doesn't look well at all.
 

QuietB

Brownlow Medallist
May 13, 2008
29,750
42,481
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I doubt it.

They rely on the libs for power, for political relevance.
They do. But they are owned by the mining lobby for one and two they will pay the price electorally for net zero. They might get wiped out in Qld -especially when Bolt and Co refuse to toe the new greenwashing line.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad