News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[rubberman]

A lawyer is commenting on something that professional project managers and engineers have expertise in?

Here's the scam. They start off talking about regulations, that's fair. They then jump to saying the whole project, most of which is engineering, and for which they are totally unqualified, is feasible. Yeah, nah.

Just flip that round and imagine an engineer or project manager told us that the High Court didn't know what it was talking about on a legal matter.

Sure, rev. Utterly ridiculous.

[rev]

It's an article about the legal and regulatory framework that would be required, not about how long it's going to take to build 7 nuclear power plants.

Christ almighty

[claybro]

It's an article about the legal and regulatory framework that would be required, not about how long it's going to take to build 7 nuclear power plants.

Christ almighty

Furthermore, the scare campaign about Australia starting from scratch on nuclear, is just that. A political ploy. For those not interested in both sides of the debate, the fact remains that.
1. Australia has been operating a nuclear reactor for decades.
2. The waste from this reactor is already being dealt with under due regulatory requirements, as is radioactive waste from various medical and industrial processes all over Australia.
3. As a result of the nuclear subs deal, that Labor themselves are a party to, there will soon be many more reactors being deployed across Australia, with the waste also being disposed of in Australia.

[rubberman]

It's an article about the legal and regulatory framework that would be required, not about how long it's going to take to build 7 nuclear power plants.

Christ almighty

Furthermore, the scare campaign about Australia starting from scratch on nuclear, is just that. A political ploy. For those not interested in both sides of the debate, the fact remains that.
1. Australia has been operating a nuclear reactor for decades.
2. The waste from this reactor is already being dealt with under due regulatory requirements, as is radioactive waste from various medical and industrial processes all over Australia.
3. As a result of the nuclear subs deal, that Labor themselves are a party to, there will soon be many more reactors being deployed across Australia, with the waste also being disposed of in Australia.

What part of the claim that it's a ten to twelve year path as stated in the article is the domain of lawyers? The regulatory part, is what. Now, what about actually building the thing?

Operating a very small reactor requires very few skilled people. Operating multiple reactors which are far bigger requires a whole generation of people skilled in doing that. Australia isn't going to snap its fingers and get those people. There's a worldwide shortage of them as it is. There's a minimum of ten years to get the numbers and skills. To say that just because we have Lucas Heights, we can build 50 GW of nuclear is about the same as saying that Adelaide has the Tram Museum at St Kilda, so we could use those guys, as dedicated as they are, to run the Melbourne tram network. Absurd.

As for the nuclear subs? We aren't going to see our AUKUS subs in 10-12 years. Those are using proven technology, built by people who know how to do it. So, how, pray tell are we going to better that? With no skills whatsoever in building nuclear plants and very few who can operate them?

This is impractical fantasy. We don't have enough people to build, let alone operate. There's no successful SMRs out there, so they haven't even been proven yet. So, no existing plants of the type proposed, no personnel with experience of building them, very few people capable of operating nuclear plants, and none with SMR experience.

And people want to risk our future on that?

Ummm. Nope. That's a definite Nope.

By all means, advocate for whatever you want. But nuclear isn't it. And guess what? If the Coalition wins the next election, it will drop nuclear, for all the reasons above. It will then say we have to build gas and "new coal". At which point, we won't need nuclear for 40 years.

[Waewick]

It's an article about the legal and regulatory framework that would be required, not about how long it's going to take to build 7 nuclear power plants.

Christ almighty

Furthermore, the scare campaign about Australia starting from scratch on nuclear, is just that. A political ploy. For those not interested in both sides of the debate, the fact remains that.
1. Australia has been operating a nuclear reactor for decades.
2. The waste from this reactor is already being dealt with under due regulatory requirements, as is radioactive waste from various medical and industrial processes all over Australia.
3. As a result of the nuclear subs deal, that Labor themselves are a party to, there will soon be many more reactors being deployed across Australia, with the waste also being disposed of in Australia.

The Lucas Heights reactor is for medical purposes and received a dispensation back in the Howard days.

Generating Nuclear energy in Australia is illegal.

So yes, to would have to go through the process of defining how its legal.(which both sides openly acknowledge)


We haven't been able to get a sole nuclear storage location up for decades. Can't see that changing either.

[Waewick]

It's an article about the legal and regulatory framework that would be required, not about how long it's going to take to build 7 nuclear power plants.

Christ almighty

Furthermore, the scare campaign about Australia starting from scratch on nuclear, is just that. A political ploy. For those not interested in both sides of the debate, the fact remains that.
1. Australia has been operating a nuclear reactor for decades.
2. The waste from this reactor is already being dealt with under due regulatory requirements, as is radioactive waste from various medical and industrial processes all over Australia.
3. As a result of the nuclear subs deal, that Labor themselves are a party to, there will soon be many more reactors being deployed across Australia, with the waste also being disposed of in Australia.

What part of the claim that it's a ten to twelve year path as stated in the article is the domain of lawyers? The regulatory part, is what. Now, what about actually building the thing?

Operating a very small reactor requires very few skilled people. Operating multiple reactors which are far bigger requires a whole generation of people skilled in doing that. Australia isn't going to snap its fingers and get those people. There's a worldwide shortage of them as it is. There's a minimum of ten years to get the numbers and skills. To say that just because we have Lucas Heights, we can build 50 GW of nuclear is about the same as saying that Adelaide has the Tram Museum at St Kilda, so we could use those guys, as dedicated as they are, to run the Melbourne tram network. Absurd.

As for the nuclear subs? We aren't going to see our AUKUS subs in 10-12 years. Those are using proven technology, built by people who know how to do it. So, how, pray tell are we going to better that? With no skills whatsoever in building nuclear plants and very few who can operate them?

This is impractical fantasy. We don't have enough people to build, let alone operate. There's no successful SMRs out there, so they haven't even been proven yet. So, no existing plants of the type proposed, no personnel with experience of building them, very few people capable of operating nuclear plants, and none with SMR experience.

And people want to risk our future on that?

Ummm. Nope. That's a definite Nope.

By all means, advocate for whatever you want. But nuclear isn't it. And guess what? If the Coalition wins the next election, it will drop nuclear, for all the reasons above. It will then say we have to build gas and "new coal". At which point, we won't need nuclear for 40 years.

The submarines are an interesting one.

If the wrong candidate wins in Nov I doubt we get them (and yes, he is the wrong candidate for Australia, and for the US but thats another topic) the agreement will shredded.

But even if we do, wasn't all maintenance being done by the US anyway ?

We just get the waste.

[claybro]

It's an article about the legal and regulatory framework that would be required, not about how long it's going to take to build 7 nuclear power plants.

Christ almighty

Furthermore, the scare campaign about Australia starting from scratch on nuclear, is just that. A political ploy. For those not interested in both sides of the debate, the fact remains that.
1. Australia has been operating a nuclear reactor for decades.
2. The waste from this reactor is already being dealt with under due regulatory requirements, as is radioactive waste from various medical and industrial processes all over Australia.
3. As a result of the nuclear subs deal, that Labor themselves are a party to, there will soon be many more reactors being deployed across Australia, with the waste also being disposed of in Australia.

What part of the claim that it's a ten to twelve year path as stated in the article is the domain of lawyers? The regulatory part, is what. Now, what about actually building the thing?

Operating a very small reactor requires very few skilled people. Operating multiple reactors which are far bigger requires a whole generation of people skilled in doing that. Australia isn't going to snap its fingers and get those people. There's a worldwide shortage of them as it is. There's a minimum of ten years to get the numbers and skills. To say that just because we have Lucas Heights, we can build 50 GW of nuclear is about the same as saying that Adelaide has the Tram Museum at St Kilda, so we could use those guys, as dedicated as they are, to run the Melbourne tram network. Absurd.

As for the nuclear subs? We aren't going to see our AUKUS subs in 10-12 years. Those are using proven technology, built by people who know how to do it. So, how, pray tell are we going to better that? With no skills whatsoever in building nuclear plants and very few who can operate them?

This is impractical fantasy. We don't have enough people to build, let alone operate. There's no successful SMRs out there, so they haven't even been proven yet. So, no existing plants of the type proposed, no personnel with experience of building them, very few people capable of operating nuclear plants, and none with SMR experience.

And people want to risk our future on that?

Ummm. Nope. That's a definite Nope.

By all means, advocate for whatever you want. But nuclear isn't it. And guess what? If the Coalition wins the next election, it will drop nuclear, for all the reasons above. It will then say we have to build gas and "new coal". At which point, we won't need nuclear for 40 years.

Well given that wind power generation is today yet again around 11% of total, pretty much the anverage for the last 2 months and the states banning new gas, looks like it will have to be new coal. Yay.. no nuclear.

[Waewick]

Furthermore, the scare campaign about Australia starting from scratch on nuclear, is just that. A political ploy. For those not interested in both sides of the debate, the fact remains that.
1. Australia has been operating a nuclear reactor for decades.
2. The waste from this reactor is already being dealt with under due regulatory requirements, as is radioactive waste from various medical and industrial processes all over Australia.
3. As a result of the nuclear subs deal, that Labor themselves are a party to, there will soon be many more reactors being deployed across Australia, with the waste also being disposed of in Australia.

What part of the claim that it's a ten to twelve year path as stated in the article is the domain of lawyers? The regulatory part, is what. Now, what about actually building the thing?

Operating a very small reactor requires very few skilled people. Operating multiple reactors which are far bigger requires a whole generation of people skilled in doing that. Australia isn't going to snap its fingers and get those people. There's a worldwide shortage of them as it is. There's a minimum of ten years to get the numbers and skills. To say that just because we have Lucas Heights, we can build 50 GW of nuclear is about the same as saying that Adelaide has the Tram Museum at St Kilda, so we could use those guys, as dedicated as they are, to run the Melbourne tram network. Absurd.

As for the nuclear subs? We aren't going to see our AUKUS subs in 10-12 years. Those are using proven technology, built by people who know how to do it. So, how, pray tell are we going to better that? With no skills whatsoever in building nuclear plants and very few who can operate them?

This is impractical fantasy. We don't have enough people to build, let alone operate. There's no successful SMRs out there, so they haven't even been proven yet. So, no existing plants of the type proposed, no personnel with experience of building them, very few people capable of operating nuclear plants, and none with SMR experience.

And people want to risk our future on that?

Ummm. Nope. That's a definite Nope.

By all means, advocate for whatever you want. But nuclear isn't it. And guess what? If the Coalition wins the next election, it will drop nuclear, for all the reasons above. It will then say we have to build gas and "new coal". At which point, we won't need nuclear for 40 years.

Well given that wind power generation is today yet again around 11% of total, pretty much the anverage for the last 2 months and the states banning new gas, looks like it will have to be new coal. Yay.. no nuclear.

You need to look at it for what it is. The middle of a transition.

Nuclear is going to be 0% for at least 15 years....

[rubberman]

Furthermore, the scare campaign about Australia starting from scratch on nuclear, is just that. A political ploy. For those not interested in both sides of the debate, the fact remains that.
1. Australia has been operating a nuclear reactor for decades.
2. The waste from this reactor is already being dealt with under due regulatory requirements, as is radioactive waste from various medical and industrial processes all over Australia.
3. As a result of the nuclear subs deal, that Labor themselves are a party to, there will soon be many more reactors being deployed across Australia, with the waste also being disposed of in Australia.

What part of the claim that it's a ten to twelve year path as stated in the article is the domain of lawyers? The regulatory part, is what. Now, what about actually building the thing?

Operating a very small reactor requires very few skilled people. Operating multiple reactors which are far bigger requires a whole generation of people skilled in doing that. Australia isn't going to snap its fingers and get those people. There's a worldwide shortage of them as it is. There's a minimum of ten years to get the numbers and skills. To say that just because we have Lucas Heights, we can build 50 GW of nuclear is about the same as saying that Adelaide has the Tram Museum at St Kilda, so we could use those guys, as dedicated as they are, to run the Melbourne tram network. Absurd.

As for the nuclear subs? We aren't going to see our AUKUS subs in 10-12 years. Those are using proven technology, built by people who know how to do it. So, how, pray tell are we going to better that? With no skills whatsoever in building nuclear plants and very few who can operate them?

This is impractical fantasy. We don't have enough people to build, let alone operate. There's no successful SMRs out there, so they haven't even been proven yet. So, no existing plants of the type proposed, no personnel with experience of building them, very few people capable of operating nuclear plants, and none with SMR experience.

And people want to risk our future on that?

Ummm. Nope. That's a definite Nope.

By all means, advocate for whatever you want. But nuclear isn't it. And guess what? If the Coalition wins the next election, it will drop nuclear, for all the reasons above. It will then say we have to build gas and "new coal". At which point, we won't need nuclear for 40 years.

Well given that wind power generation is today yet again around 11% of total, pretty much the anverage for the last 2 months and the states banning new gas, looks like it will have to be new coal. Yay.. no nuclear.

I have zero problems with nuclear, if it could be deployed in time. If we had started in 2004, we'd possibly have something up and running today. Fine. I'd be ok, as long as it came in on budget.

However, the reality is that we didn't start in 2004, so, at the earliest, we are realistically looking at 2044, which is too late.

Since it is too late, if renewables don't work, it's gas or coal.

If it's gas or coal, we won't need nuclear for another 40 years after that. That's 2095.

Of course, if the price reduction and efficiency increases in battery and solar continue, it may be that no new coal plants are required. Or, that they might be a fraction of the existing capacity.

While not ideal, a few small coal plants is far better than what we have. And certainly better than something, like nuclear, that isn't likely to be on stream for 20 years.

[abc]

What part of the claim that it's a ten to twelve year path as stated in the article is the domain of lawyers? The regulatory part, is what. Now, what about actually building the thing?

Operating a very small reactor requires very few skilled people. Operating multiple reactors which are far bigger requires a whole generation of people skilled in doing that. Australia isn't going to snap its fingers and get those people. There's a worldwide shortage of them as it is. There's a minimum of ten years to get the numbers and skills. To say that just because we have Lucas Heights, we can build 50 GW of nuclear is about the same as saying that Adelaide has the Tram Museum at St Kilda, so we could use those guys, as dedicated as they are, to run the Melbourne tram network. Absurd.

As for the nuclear subs? We aren't going to see our AUKUS subs in 10-12 years. Those are using proven technology, built by people who know how to do it. So, how, pray tell are we going to better that? With no skills whatsoever in building nuclear plants and very few who can operate them?

This is impractical fantasy. We don't have enough people to build, let alone operate. There's no successful SMRs out there, so they haven't even been proven yet. So, no existing plants of the type proposed, no personnel with experience of building them, very few people capable of operating nuclear plants, and none with SMR experience.

And people want to risk our future on that?

Ummm. Nope. That's a definite Nope.

By all means, advocate for whatever you want. But nuclear isn't it. And guess what? If the Coalition wins the next election, it will drop nuclear, for all the reasons above. It will then say we have to build gas and "new coal". At which point, we won't need nuclear for 40 years.

Well given that wind power generation is today yet again around 11% of total, pretty much the anverage for the last 2 months and the states banning new gas, looks like it will have to be new coal. Yay.. no nuclear.

I have zero problems with nuclear, if it could be deployed in time. If we had started in 2004, we'd possibly have something up and running today. Fine. I'd be ok, as long as it came in on budget.

However, the reality is that we didn't start in 2004, so, at the earliest, we are realistically looking at 2044, which is too late.

Since it is too late, if renewables don't work, it's gas or coal.

If it's gas or coal, we won't need nuclear for another 40 years after that. That's 2095.

Of course, if the price reduction and efficiency increases in battery and solar continue, it may be that no new coal plants are required. Or, that they might be a fraction of the existing capacity.

While not ideal, a few small coal plants is far better than what we have. And certainly better than something, like nuclear, that isn't likely to be on stream for 20 years.

in time for what?

too late for what?

why does it take 20 years to build a nuclear reactor?

[rubberman]

https://reneweconomy.com.au/no-room-for ... -a-decade/

AGL saying there's no room for nuclear.

[[Shuz]]

A majority of studies find a nuclear energy industry in Australia to be not feasible. That's fine, I can accept that.

However, a gas energy company who comes out and says it isn't feasible, right when they're in the middle of experiencing record profits due to the current gas shortages in (eastern) Australia - not really going to take their word for it, given they stand to benefit the most financially from maintaining the current status quo.

[rubberman]

A majority of studies find a nuclear energy industry in Australia to be not feasible. That's fine, I can accept that.

However, a gas energy company who comes out and says it isn't feasible, right when they're in the middle of experiencing record profits due to the current gas shortages in (eastern) Australia - not really going to take their word for it, given they stand to benefit the most financially from maintaining the current status quo.

AGL owns Torrens Island gas plant...has shut Torrens A already. It has announced it will shut Torrens B in 2026.

https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/how-we ... 43y=jpts1o

I respectfully suggest that AGL is in the process of actively ending its fossil fuel generators. Not just pie in the sky for a few electoral cycles ahead. It's already started shutting down both coal and gas plants.

But it's not just AGL. AEMO has noted that twelve coal plants, including the Playford and Northern plants in SA, have closed since 2012. Snuggery and Pt Lincoln are planned for the chop any moment.

Shuz, there's no status quo that has fossil fuel plants continuing at anything but a fraction of present levels.

So, I'd pose the question as to how anyone thinks nuclear could be developed in time for Torrens Island B in two years. Or the others named by AGL? And that's just AGL. Other major coal generators are saying the same.

Then, of course, there's a question of where the nuclear boosters think they are going to get the engineers and trained staff to do this. There's a world wide shortage of nuclear engineers. So, no, we aren't going to be able to buy in the expertise. There's an even more acute shortage in Australia due to AUKUS. UNSW has a nuclear engineering program, whose output for the next few years has been snapped up for AUKUS. It's a 4 year undergraduate course, so at least four years before there's one raw graduate. And probably ten years from now till that graduate had enough experience to be let loose on plant design.

Honestly, the nuclear boosters haven't thought this through. Twelve fossil plants shut down already, Torrens B shutting down in two years...and in a worldwide shortage of nuclear engineers, we don't even have graduates available to design the plants...let alone build them.

[Waewick]

https://reneweconomy.com.au/no-room-for ... -a-decade/

AGL saying there's no room for nuclear.

Found that interesting as well.

The no meed fot always on base load is a comment I'm suprised hasn't got more noise given the whole 'base load' power myth that is core to the anti Renewables push.

[claybro]

https://reneweconomy.com.au/no-room-for ... -a-decade/

AGL saying there's no room for nuclear.

Found that interesting as well.

The no meed fot always on base load is a comment I'm suprised hasn't got more noise given the whole 'base load' power myth that is core to the anti Renewables push.

“AGL saying” . Would that be AGL that is having its strings pulled by Mike Cannon Brookes, who also has a large interest in renewable projects he is receiving funding from the taxpayer that are yet to see the light of day? He has been using his significant shareholding in AGL to activate for divestment in fossil fuel generation. Not much of a conflict there eh? And as a reminder.. wind is still struggling around 10% again today… so sure.. let’s shut down more gas??