News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[SBD]

Given that private industry isn't even remotely interested unless there's heavy taxpayer subsidy, and that the history of major projects over the past 15 years is deplorable, you'd think it would be political suicide. That's not even considering the NIMBY vote.

The best option would be to quietly drop it. However, it's so easy to get a rise out of the usual suspects, that Labor strategists only need to bring it up when they need to, and those usual suspects will rise to the bait.

That then only leaves the obvious factual pitfalls of such a policy to make a clean sweep.

But don’t wind & solar get subsidies as well? Suddenly subsidies are ok when it’s the right type of generation? Also, I don’t get why so many people here are against literally just legalising nuclear power? Yeah, it might not get built but I personally don’t believe the government should be dictating what can and can’t not be used to generate electricity, especially considering it’s literally the only form of generation to be outlawed.

I thought the questions were too skewed to consider answering whatever short survey I saw.

• I have no problem with nuclear power being legalised/decriminalised/allowed.
• If a nuclear power station were to be built, I have no problem with it being in an appropriate industrial zone near me, but the question was do I support one near me, which is different since I don't have any noisy industry nearby now.
• I don't think it should be heavily subsidised by the government, as I think it is 30-50 years too late. I'd have potentially supported Northern or TIPS-B being nuclear at the time they were built, but don't think a nuclear power station hits the mark for SA any more.

Wind, solar, batteries etc are getting small construction/connection subsidies from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA). They're not getting significant state subsidies nor ongoing subsidies as far as I know.

[Nort]

The subsidies around wind and solar are more around helping the industries get setup and building the economies around them so they can reach a point where subsidies aren't required. The home solar subsidy for example has been decreasing every year and will be entirely gone by 2030.

The larger industrial scale subsidies can also expect to be wound down over time as renewables become the norm.

I'm unaware of any model for nuclear power in Australia that would be commercially feasible without large subsidies indefinitely applying as long as the plants operate, for many decades into the future.

That's the difference.

Edit: beaten a bit by SBD, I should learn to refresh.

[abc]

The subsidies around wind and solar are more around helping the industries get setup and building the economies around them so they can reach a point where subsidies aren't required. The home solar subsidy for example has been decreasing every year and will be entirely gone by 2030.

The larger industrial scale subsidies can also expect to be wound down over time as renewables become the norm.

I'm unaware of any model for nuclear power in Australia that would be commercially feasible without large subsidies indefinitely applying as long as the plants operate, for many decades into the future.

That's the difference.

Edit: beaten a bit by SBD, I should learn to refresh.

I love the double standards here.

Removal of the home solar subsidy is just putting further cost onto the consumer...which increases prices of energy further.

[rubberman]

Given that private industry isn't even remotely interested unless there's heavy taxpayer subsidy, and that the history of major projects over the past 15 years is deplorable, you'd think it would be political suicide. That's not even considering the NIMBY vote.

The best option would be to quietly drop it. However, it's so easy to get a rise out of the usual suspects, that Labor strategists only need to bring it up when they need to, and those usual suspects will rise to the bait.

That then only leaves the obvious factual pitfalls of such a policy to make a clean sweep.

But don’t wind & solar get subsidies as well? Suddenly subsidies are ok when it’s the right type of generation? Also, I don’t get why so many people here are against literally just legalising nuclear power? Yeah, it might not get built but I personally don’t believe the government should be dictating what can and can’t not be used to generate electricity, especially considering it’s literally the only form of generation to be outlawed.

I thought the questions were too skewed to consider answering whatever short survey I saw.

• I have no problem with nuclear power being legalised/decriminalised/allowed.
• If a nuclear power station were to be built, I have no problem with it being in an appropriate industrial zone near me, but the question was do I support one near me, which is different since I don't have any noisy industry nearby now.
• I don't think it should be heavily subsidised by the government, as I think it is 30-50 years too late. I'd have potentially supported Northern or TIPS-B being nuclear at the time they were built, but don't think a nuclear power station hits the mark for SA any more.

Wind, solar, batteries etc are getting small construction/connection subsidies from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA). They're not getting significant state subsidies nor ongoing subsidies as far as I know.

Nuclear power plants also have the problem that they are cash flow negative for twenty years during the planning and construction phases, and then might take another twenty years to break even, only making a profit after that. That assumes that the cost of energy from the nuclear plant is competitive at that point. If it isn't competitive, then nobody will buy it, and it's going to go broke. And it's already cheaper to install rooftop solar and batteries.

I can imagine the shareholders of AGL and Origin etc, being asked to do without dividends for 40 years during the construction of a nuclear plant, so maybe, possibly the prices of renewables don't go down in the next 40 years. Even a pro-nuclear shareholder is going to have a "hang on!" moment if told to forego 40 years worth of dividends - especially boomers who won't even live that long for the most part.

Nuclear is only going to happen if subsidised by government. Some countries have to do that, thanks to Herr Putin, or ideological governments that like using taxpayer funds for their pet projects. However, if we don't have to do it, we certainly shouldn't subsidise it.

Having a law against it provides a little more defence against our taxes being siphoned away, since it is harder to slip it by the community.

[abc]

But don’t wind & solar get subsidies as well? Suddenly subsidies are ok when it’s the right type of generation? Also, I don’t get why so many people here are against literally just legalising nuclear power? Yeah, it might not get built but I personally don’t believe the government should be dictating what can and can’t not be used to generate electricity, especially considering it’s literally the only form of generation to be outlawed.

I thought the questions were too skewed to consider answering whatever short survey I saw.

• I have no problem with nuclear power being legalised/decriminalised/allowed.
• If a nuclear power station were to be built, I have no problem with it being in an appropriate industrial zone near me, but the question was do I support one near me, which is different since I don't have any noisy industry nearby now.
• I don't think it should be heavily subsidised by the government, as I think it is 30-50 years too late. I'd have potentially supported Northern or TIPS-B being nuclear at the time they were built, but don't think a nuclear power station hits the mark for SA any more.

Wind, solar, batteries etc are getting small construction/connection subsidies from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA). They're not getting significant state subsidies nor ongoing subsidies as far as I know.

Nuclear power plants also have the problem that they are cash flow negative for twenty years during the planning and construction phases, and then might take another twenty years to break even, only making a profit after that. That assumes that the cost of energy from the nuclear plant is competitive at that point. If it isn't competitive, then nobody will buy it, and it's going to go broke. And it's already cheaper to install rooftop solar and batteries.

I can imagine the shareholders of AGL and Origin etc, being asked to do without dividends for 40 years during the construction of a nuclear plant, so maybe, possibly the prices of renewables don't go down in the next 40 years. Even a pro-nuclear shareholder is going to have a "hang on!" moment if told to forego 40 years worth of dividends - especially boomers who won't even live that long for the most part.

Nuclear is only going to happen if subsidised by government. Some countries have to do that, thanks to Herr Putin, or ideological governments that like using taxpayer funds for their pet projects. However, if we don't have to do it, we certainly shouldn't subsidise it.

Having a law against it provides a little more defence against our taxes being siphoned away, since it is harder to slip it by the community.

Can you provide evidence for these claims?

Aren't all you zoomers going to die from climate change in 5 years anyway?

[rev]

Given that private industry isn't even remotely interested unless there's heavy taxpayer subsidy, and that the history of major projects over the past 15 years is deplorable, you'd think it would be political suicide. That's not even considering the NIMBY vote.

The best option would be to quietly drop it. However, it's so easy to get a rise out of the usual suspects, that Labor strategists only need to bring it up when they need to, and those usual suspects will rise to the bait.

That then only leaves the obvious factual pitfalls of such a policy to make a clean sweep.

But don’t wind & solar get subsidies as well? Suddenly subsidies are ok when it’s the right type of generation? Also, I don’t get why so many people here are against literally just legalising nuclear power? Yeah, it might not get built but I personally don’t believe the government should be dictating what can and can’t not be used to generate electricity, especially considering it’s literally the only form of generation to be outlawed.

You're wasting your time trying to engage in a discussion with either those guys or abc. Both are just the extreme of either end of the debate.
Neither can bring them selves to actually be reasonable, and they'll never admit anything that goes against their extreme beliefs.

They're all nut jobs in other words.

Fools who think they know everything and are unwilling to (honestly) consider anything other then their own ideologies.
Sickening really that people like this exist in 2024, but it's good for a chuckle I suppose.

And I write this as someone who was at one stage dead against things like EV's.

[rubberman]

https://reneweconomy.com.au/rooftop-sol ... -store-it/

[Spurdo]

If we’re going to take the stance of banning things solely because they cost too much, then maybe we should outlaw pumped hydro as well? Maybe expand the scope a little further and ban rail transport as well because the Inland Rail project went way over budget?

[abc]

Given that private industry isn't even remotely interested unless there's heavy taxpayer subsidy, and that the history of major projects over the past 15 years is deplorable, you'd think it would be political suicide. That's not even considering the NIMBY vote.

The best option would be to quietly drop it. However, it's so easy to get a rise out of the usual suspects, that Labor strategists only need to bring it up when they need to, and those usual suspects will rise to the bait.

That then only leaves the obvious factual pitfalls of such a policy to make a clean sweep.

But don’t wind & solar get subsidies as well? Suddenly subsidies are ok when it’s the right type of generation? Also, I don’t get why so many people here are against literally just legalising nuclear power? Yeah, it might not get built but I personally don’t believe the government should be dictating what can and can’t not be used to generate electricity, especially considering it’s literally the only form of generation to be outlawed.

You're wasting your time trying to engage in a discussion with either those guys or abc. Both are just the extreme of either end of the debate.
Neither can bring them selves to actually be reasonable, and they'll never admit anything that goes against their extreme beliefs.

They're all nut jobs in other words.

Fools who think they know everything and are unwilling to (honestly) consider anything other then their own ideologies.
Sickening really that people like this exist in 2024, but it's good for a chuckle I suppose.

And I write this as someone who was at one stage dead against things like EV's.

Such a lack of self awareness on your part.

I'm guessing the cult of Elon, the government funding grift merchant changed your mind on EVs.

[mattblack]

I knew your curiosity would get the better of you

You obviously can't do without the attention can you Boomer. Don't you have a wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend that you can have the last word with. Get a life.

Why do you continue to insult me with this slur?

Well if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck .......

Really sorry you you feel it's a slur. I thought u just found it embarrassing. Please except my apologies

[abc]

You obviously can't do without the attention can you Boomer. Don't you have a wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend that you can have the last word with. Get a life.

Why do you continue to insult me with this slur?

Well if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck .......

Really sorry you you feel it's a slur. I thought u just found it embarrassing. Please except my apologies

FYI I'm not a boomer, nor do I think it strengthens any of your arguments to insult an entire generation. Have some respect.

[rubberman]

If we’re going to take the stance of banning things solely because they cost too much, then maybe we should outlaw pumped hydro as well? Maybe expand the scope a little further and ban rail transport as well because the Inland Rail project went way over budget?

Well, both of those projects were the sole responsibility of a particular political party. What does that say about the likelihood of them being able to deliver on a nuclear plant? I mean, if they can't deliver a rail line or a pumped hydro scheme, nobody can seriously suggest that they could deliver a far more complex scheme, surely? The mental gymnastics required for that would be a great feature act for next year's Fringe.

As for banning government subsidies? You'll find many people happy to go along with that.

[Algernon]

I thought the questions were too skewed to consider answering whatever short survey I saw.

• I have no problem with nuclear power being legalised/decriminalised/allowed.
• If a nuclear power station were to be built, I have no problem with it being in an appropriate industrial zone near me, but the question was do I support one near me, which is different since I don't have any noisy industry nearby now.
• I don't think it should be heavily subsidised by the government, as I think it is 30-50 years too late. I'd have potentially supported Northern or TIPS-B being nuclear at the time they were built, but don't think a nuclear power station hits the mark for SA any more.

Wind, solar, batteries etc are getting small construction/connection subsidies from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA). They're not getting significant state subsidies nor ongoing subsidies as far as I know.

Nuclear power plants also have the problem that they are cash flow negative for twenty years during the planning and construction phases, and then might take another twenty years to break even, only making a profit after that. That assumes that the cost of energy from the nuclear plant is competitive at that point. If it isn't competitive, then nobody will buy it, and it's going to go broke. And it's already cheaper to install rooftop solar and batteries.

I can imagine the shareholders of AGL and Origin etc, being asked to do without dividends for 40 years during the construction of a nuclear plant, so maybe, possibly the prices of renewables don't go down in the next 40 years. Even a pro-nuclear shareholder is going to have a "hang on!" moment if told to forego 40 years worth of dividends - especially boomers who won't even live that long for the most part.

Nuclear is only going to happen if subsidised by government. Some countries have to do that, thanks to Herr Putin, or ideological governments that like using taxpayer funds for their pet projects. However, if we don't have to do it, we certainly shouldn't subsidise it.

Having a law against it provides a little more defence against our taxes being siphoned away, since it is harder to slip it by the community.

Can you provide evidence for these claims?

Aren't all you zoomers going to die from climate change in 5 years anyway?

There's no need to win an argument with you. SA will be 100% net renewables in 3 years.

You're about 20 years late to your own argument.

You like to bang on about SA being the only place in the world going all in on renewables. It's a great argument to make when preaching to folks like yourself who'd never in their lives go out and experience any part of the world. You're probably one of those bogans that thinks AFL is played in Denmark.

[mattblack]

Thanks Algernon, couldn't put it any better however AFL is played in Denmark

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_ ... all_League

[abc]

Nuclear power plants also have the problem that they are cash flow negative for twenty years during the planning and construction phases, and then might take another twenty years to break even, only making a profit after that. That assumes that the cost of energy from the nuclear plant is competitive at that point. If it isn't competitive, then nobody will buy it, and it's going to go broke. And it's already cheaper to install rooftop solar and batteries.

I can imagine the shareholders of AGL and Origin etc, being asked to do without dividends for 40 years during the construction of a nuclear plant, so maybe, possibly the prices of renewables don't go down in the next 40 years. Even a pro-nuclear shareholder is going to have a "hang on!" moment if told to forego 40 years worth of dividends - especially boomers who won't even live that long for the most part.

Nuclear is only going to happen if subsidised by government. Some countries have to do that, thanks to Herr Putin, or ideological governments that like using taxpayer funds for their pet projects. However, if we don't have to do it, we certainly shouldn't subsidise it.

Having a law against it provides a little more defence against our taxes being siphoned away, since it is harder to slip it by the community.

Can you provide evidence for these claims?

Aren't all you zoomers going to die from climate change in 5 years anyway?

There's no need to win an argument with you. SA will be 100% net renewables in 3 years.

You're about 20 years late to your own argument.

You like to bang on about SA being the only place in the world going all in on renewables. It's a great argument to make when preaching to folks like yourself who'd never in their lives go out and experience any part of the world. You're probably one of those bogans that thinks AFL is played in Denmark.

You've only provided insults. No evidence to your baseless claims.