RAIL - Back On Track Forum

ABC News --> Why has the Coalition gone nuclear? The facts you need to navigate the energy debate

QuoteTeased and speculated for more than two years, Peter Dutton has finally revealed his nuclear power policy.

There is still a lot we don't know — the Coalition still hasn't said how much it will cost, how much of the bill taxpayers will foot, or when all the nuclear plants would be built.

But we do now have seven sites scattered across five states, all of them home to former or soon-to-be-former coal plants. ...

ABC News --> Nuclear proposal rejected by premiers, who say Dutton has no power to lift state nuclear bans

QuoteIn short: State premiers have unanimously rejected the federal Coalition's nuclear proposal, which would require lifting several state bans

Some state Liberal and National members have also distanced themselves from nuclear, though the NSW opposition is open to the idea

What's next? The Coalition has been pushed to detail costings of its proposal for seven nuclear sites, and to provide more detail ...

Nuclear probably is more expensive, but that's not the main point. The main point is about *reliability*.

With energy, a portfolio approach is required to spread risk similar to investments.

It's a point about reliability, which isn't rebutted by making or repeating points about cost. Even the ABC article makes this error by omitting any comparison about the reliability of different energy modes.

Nuclear is expensive but reliable, whereas renewables are cheap but unreliable.

In principle, you can achieve both a cheap and a reliable energy stream by combining both in a portfolio approach.

Currently, the space occupied by coal needs to be replaced by something similarly reliable. This doesn't have to be nuclear, it could be natural gas for example. But even gas releases emissions still.

And as we have seen with Borumba Dam pumped hydro in QLD, that too is expensive.

This is not going to be an easy discussion to have, and is further complicated about what to do and where to put the waste which is long lived and requires special handling and containment, assuming that path was chosen.

Australia already has a nuclear reactor, but it's not used to generate power, located in Sydney. See https://www.ansto.gov.au/education/nuclear-facts

Reliability is a moot point. Renewables are reliable but require grid infrastructure that is different to what we currently use. The reason why cost is brought up as a rebuttal to reliability is that the cost to build a reliable, firmed grid with enough redundancy is still far cheaper than the equivalent nuclear option.

If you've heard Albanese talking about the "rewiring the nation" plan, this is what he's talking about. Building additional high voltage transmission lines and the associated control systems to move power between cities so that it doesn't matter where the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.

The network is only as unreliable as you design it. It also doesn't help when you have private operators gaming the system for bigger profits which we have seen here previously.

Quote from: NothingToSayThe reason why cost is brought up as a rebuttal to reliability is that the cost to build a reliable, firmed grid with enough redundancy is still far cheaper than the equivalent nuclear option.

Please provide the source for this analysis. Was this CSIRO or Grattan Institute?

Quote from: HTGThe network is only as unreliable as you design it.

See below. And we're talking generation not distribution (poles/wires).

This video mentions Australia around the 3 min mark.

I dont mind nuclear but there's a few factors working against it.

-We talk about cost blow outs on infrastructure projects, but nuclear is next level.
Olkiluoto unit 3 in Finland . Started construction in 2005, due for 2010. Eventually opened in 2021, 9b euros over budget.
Similar issues Flamanville 3. Supposed to open in 2012. Its 2024 and they have only just started loading fuel. 5x over budget. Who knows when Hinkley point C will open!

These were all countries that at least had existing plants and expertise. We are starting from scratch.

Basically, there was a long period where few plants were being built. The expertise dried up, and it just got too expensive.

-Long term storage costs.
This is one area I feel is drastically under accounted for.
The waste has to be stored for thousands of years. Even if its deep underground, you still would have to pay at least a handful of people to run a monitoring agency just to keep an eye on things to make sure. Whats the cost of hundreds or thousands of years of wages and who pays for that.

And what about the broader issue of long term storage. Everyone keeps mentioning how easy it is to store it underground. OK then, of all the countries that have nuclear, why is it only Finland that has actually built a repository?
Eg why havent major nuclear countries like France, the US ever built one. France wont open theirs until 2035.

Personally, I would say the answer would be more renewables, get better storage (pumped storage, hydrogen, batteries, including more homeowners having a battery)  a small amount of gas for peaking for the reliability.

And yeah if that whole "small modular" nuclear tech becomes a thing, we can do it, but wait for other countries to wear the development costs.

-Difficulty in getting one on order. Its the same reason infrastructure projects on the east coast of Australia are blowing out. a lot of projects, not enough qualified people to do them.

Who builds reactors? Rosatom is out, nobody is buying anything from Russia for a couple of decades if ever.
Kepco, GE, Westinghouse etc all have full order books as I understand it.

Quote from: #Metro on June 20, 2024, 07:32:32 AMNuclear probably is more expensive, but that's not the main point. The main point is about *reliability*.

With energy, a portfolio approach is required to spread risk similar to investments.

That's why the energy plan has a portfolio approach of different types of generation (solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, hydro) spread geographically over different weather regions.

QuoteNuclear is expensive but reliable, whereas renewables are cheap but unreliable.

This is simply untrue. Renewables are very reliable and have very few moving parts. A nuclear plant, on the other hand, is a complex system that, if it trips, will take a gigawatt of power or so offline instantaneously.

Renewables are intermittent, which is a totally different thing.

QuoteCurrently, the space occupied by coal needs to be replaced by something similarly reliable.

Please source this statement. This is directly at odds with every energy economist I've ever read or heard, who make it very clear that a renewables + storage + transmission grid will work very well.

QuoteAnd as we have seen with Borumba Dam pumped hydro in QLD, that too is expensive.

Again, how is it too expensive? Compare to the 46 billion pounds or so that the Hinkley Point C plant in the UK is costing? https://www.ft.com/content/1157591c-d514-4520-aa17-158349203abd

Pumped hydro is likely to be beaten on cost by batteries soon, anyway.

QuoteThis is not going to be an easy discussion to have, and is further complicated about what to do and where to put the waste which is long lived and requires special handling and containment, assuming that path was chosen.

A problem this "policy" has not addressed at all.

QuoteAustralia already has a nuclear reactor, but it's not used to generate power, located in Sydney. See https://www.ansto.gov.au/education/nuclear-facts

This is a tiny reactor that is in an entirely different category to large power plants.

Please educate yourself and stop just regurgitating LNP/Murdoch misinformation.

QuoteThe reason why cost is brought up as a rebuttal to reliability is that the cost to build a reliable, firmed grid with enough redundancy is still far cheaper than the equivalent nuclear option.

So where is the source for this analysis? Which grid, the Australian one or another country (UK/USA).

It's a bit like the 50c bus fare but there's no bus in your area to catch anyway. Cheap but unavailable when you need it.

I've already posted a video that establishes no sun/no wind days are a problem.

QuoteRenewables are intermittent, which is a totally different thing.

Intermittent = No power generation at certain times ( e.g. when you might need it)

Quote from: #Metro on June 20, 2024, 09:39:26 AM

QuoteThe reason why cost is brought up as a rebuttal to reliability is that the cost to build a reliable, firmed grid with enough redundancy is still far cheaper than the equivalent nuclear option.

So where is the source for this analysis? Which grid, the Australian one or another country (UK/USA).

It's a bit like the 50c bus fare but there's no bus in your area to catch anyway. Cheap but unavailable when you need it.

I've already posted a video that establishes no sun/no wind days are a problem.

QuoteRenewables are intermittent, which is a totally different thing.

Intermittent = No power generation at certain times ( e.g. when you might need it)

Plenty of options available to manage storage and they get cheaper each and every day.  I don't understand the human nature that says we need to do the hardest, most dangerous/polluting, most expensive Option. It can only be vested interest.  There is no other sound reasoning.  We see it with the Gympie Tunnel project. The better alternatives are ignored like they don't exist.

The Conversation --> Peter Dutton has promised to solve our energy problems – but his nuclear policy still leaves Australians in the dark

Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power worldwide

Dan Tong, David J. Farnham, Lei Duan, Qiang Zhang, Nathan S. Lewis, Ken Caldeira & Steven J. Davis

Published October 2021.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z

QuoteAssuming perfect transmission and annual generation equal to annual demand, but no energy storage, we find the most reliable renewable electricity systems are wind-heavy and satisfy countries' electricity demand in 72–91% of hours (83–94% by adding 12 h of storage). Yet even in systems which meet >90% of demand, hundreds of hours of unmet demand may occur annually.

Above analysis referenced in the video. Overall the above analysis is very favourable to a combination of solar/wind/storage showing majority of demand could be served by renewables.

However, Figure 3 and the explanation that follows it points out that there would still be events/days in the year of at least 24 hours where demand would be unmet in many countries.

This is only what I got from an initial read, but it does point to 'gap events' being an actual issue.

In Queensland --> Constituency says no: Dutton's nuclear power plans sputter on the launch pad

QuotePeter Dutton's federal coalition is facing a battle to win over country Australians – and leaders from its own side – for its plan to build nuclear power plants in the regions, as many say they won't accept the risk or wait a decade for change. ...

Quote from: #Metro on June 20, 2024, 10:05:09 AMGeophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power worldwide

Dan Tong, David J. Farnham, Lei Duan, Qiang Zhang, Nathan S. Lewis, Ken Caldeira & Steven J. Davis

Published October 2021.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z

QuoteAssuming perfect transmission and annual generation equal to annual demand, but no energy storage, we find the most reliable renewable electricity systems are wind-heavy and satisfy countries' electricity demand in 72–91% of hours (83–94% by adding 12 h of storage). Yet even in systems which meet >90% of demand, hundreds of hours of unmet demand may occur annually.

Above analysis referenced in the video. Overall the above analysis is very favourable to a combination of solar/wind/storage showing majority of demand could be served by renewables.

However, Figure 3 and the explanation that follows it points out that there would still be events/days in the year of at least 24 hours where demand would be unmet in many countries.

This is only what I got from an initial read, but it does point to 'gap events' being an actual issue.

So therefore automatically the best option is the most expensive, longest timeframes, greatest long-term waste risk, least provider of jobs, shall I go on.    There is so many other options to fill this gap before you would choose this option.

https://x.com/StevenJMiles/status/1803368464947548413

Quote from: JonnoSo therefore automatically the best option is the most expensive, longest timeframes, greatest long-term waste risk, least provider of jobs, shall I go on.    There is so many other options to fill this gap before you would choose this option.

Agree Jonno that this is defining the problem - gaps - and leaves open a choice of potential solutions (gas/new coal/nuclear etc).

But the first thing to establish is that gaps are an issue, and from what the paper is suggesting, won't be solved by just installing more solar/wind capacity because it's a timing mismatch.

Quote from: #Metro on June 20, 2024, 10:44:13 AM

Quote from: JonnoSo therefore automatically the best option is the most expensive, longest timeframes, greatest long-term waste risk, least provider of jobs, shall I go on.    There is so many other options to fill this gap before you would choose this option.

Agree Jonno that this is defining the problem - gaps - and leaves open a choice of potential solutions (gas/new coal/nuclear etc).

But the first thing to establish is that gaps are an issue, and from what the paper is suggesting, won't be solved by just installing more solar/wind capacity because it's a timing mismatch.

Nuclear is not an effective gap filler or peaker plant though. The economics of nuclear become even worse when it has to perform in that role. Nuclear works in opposition to a renewable grid. If you need peaker plants you need pumped hydro, batteries or gas (until the other 2 are ready).

Nuclear also has these issues. You can't power a grid solely on nuclear (unless you just like burning money). It requires gas or batteries as peaker plants unless you invest in the transmission infrastructure to allow renewables to act as peaker plants. Which, if you did want to go that route, there's no point having nuclear to begin with as your reliability problem with renewables would already be fixed

Quote from: #Metro on June 20, 2024, 09:39:26 AMIntermittent = No power generation at certain times ( e.g. when you might need it)

It's off sometime but in a predictable and manageable way. Unreliable means turns off when you don't expect it, like coal and nuclear plants do when they trip in high heat.

I think members will appreciate the following link:

International Energy Agency (IEA)

It has a list of countries and regions where energy mix or electricity generation sources can be displayed simply.

http://www.iea.org/countries

Quote from: #Metro on June 20, 2024, 10:44:13 AMAgree Jonno that this is defining the problem - gaps - and leaves open a choice of potential solutions (gas/new coal/nuclear etc).

But the first thing to establish is that gaps are an issue, and from what the paper is suggesting, won't be solved by just installing more solar/wind capacity because it's a timing mismatch.

We also have hydro and long term storage. Australia already has Tas Hydro and Snowy Hydro as well as some smaller ones around the country.

Any remaining gap can be filled by storage if we build enough. Just need to work out if that's cheaper than the hundreds of billions we are likely to spend on a nuclear fleet. Would you bet against batteries given their improvements over the last thirty years?

Do you really think this is anything other than an attempt by vested interests to stop the renewable transition to protect fossil fuel profits?

If rail enthusiasts want HSR it's best to have a reliable 24/7 electricity source which is nuclear. Most countries that have HSR power it with nuclear energy. Some countries in Europe without nuclear power assets draw from neighbouring countries that have nuclear power.

In Australia we will need nuclear power in the long run due to increasing electrical demand.

Quote from: OzGamer on June 20, 2024, 11:40:16 AM

Quote from: #Metro on June 20, 2024, 10:44:13 AMAgree Jonno that this is defining the problem - gaps - and leaves open a choice of potential solutions (gas/new coal/nuclear etc).

But the first thing to establish is that gaps are an issue, and from what the paper is suggesting, won't be solved by just installing more solar/wind capacity because it's a timing mismatch.

We also have hydro and long term storage. Australia already has Tas Hydro and Snowy Hydro as well as some smaller ones around the country.

Any remaining gap can be filled by storage if we build enough. Just need to work out if that's cheaper than the hundreds of billions we are likely to spend on a nuclear fleet. Would you bet against batteries given their improvements over the last thirty years?

Do you really think this is anything other than an attempt by vested interests to stop the renewable transition to protect fossil fuel profits?

The pump hydro that they have planned for Qld would be the biggest and most expensive in the world. There is no guarantee of its reliability due to decreasing rainfall, as well as periods of dry weather.

Apparently this pump hydro plant that Labor is proposing will cost the same as 3 nuclear reactors.

People also need to see the flow on effect as well, such as nuclear medicine and research in next generation nuclear technologies such as batteries, fusion and medicine.

Nuclear power can also help power desalination projects as well that we desperately need to top up our water supplies.

What's the generating capacity for one station?

Quote from: verbatim9 on June 20, 2024, 12:37:27 PMThe pump hydro that they have planned for Qld would be the biggest and most expensive in the world. There is no guarantee of its reliability due to decreasing rainfall, as well as periods of dry weather.

Pumped hydro requires very little rainfall as it doesn't consume water. It only needs to replace evaporation.

QuoteApparently this pump hydro plant that Labor is proposing will cost the same as 3 nuclear reactors.

First of all, it has the capacity of about three nuclear reactors, and secondly the costs of nuclear reactors are wildly underestimated based on real-world experience.

QuotePeople also need to see the flow on effect as well, such as nuclear medicine and research in next generation nuclear technologies such as batteries, fusion and medicine.

Nobody's arguing against nuclear science - we have a research reactor for that.

QuoteNuclear power can also help power desalination projects as well that we desperately need to top up our water supplies.

I promise you that a desalination plant does not care in the slightest where the electricity comes from. Solar/wind/hydro/storage will work just as well.

In fact, desalination is an excellent candidate for using renewable power when it's plentiful and cheap, such as during a sunny day.

Quote from: GonzoFonzie on June 20, 2024, 13:38:06 PMWhat's the generating capacity for one station?

Like everything else in the "policy" they haven't said. It could be anywhere from 500MW to 2GW I think, but there is no detail because of course nobody knows. As soon as you get into detail it becomes plainly obvious how astonishingly bad this policy is in both economic and environmental terms.

Quote from: verbatim9 on June 20, 2024, 12:31:04 PMIf rail enthusiasts want HSR it's best to have a reliable 24/7 electricity source which is nuclear. Most countries that have HSR power it with nuclear energy. Some countries in Europe without nuclear power assets draw from neighbouring countries that have nuclear power.

In Australia we will need nuclear power in the long run due to increasing electrical demand.

Please stop embarassing yourself by saying such arrant nonsense. HSR needs electricity there when it needs it - it does not care in the slightest where the power comes from.

Quote from: verbatim9 on June 20, 2024, 12:31:04 PMIf rail enthusiasts want HSR it's best to have a reliable 24/7 electricity source which is nuclear. Most countries that have HSR power it with nuclear energy. Some countries in Europe without nuclear power assets draw from neighbouring countries that have nuclear power.

In Australia we will need nuclear power in the long run due to increasing electrical demand.

How did the electric trains run when the Tennyson power station was shut down??? How did the network cope???

Admin: Edit

Quote from: OzGamer on June 20, 2024, 13:53:44 PM

Quote from: verbatim9 on June 20, 2024, 12:31:04 PMIf rail enthusiasts want HSR it's best to have a reliable 24/7 electricity source which is nuclear. Most countries that have HSR power it with nuclear energy. Some countries in Europe without nuclear power assets draw from neighbouring countries that have nuclear power.

In Australia we will need nuclear power in the long run due to increasing electrical demand.

Please stop embarassing yourself by saying such arrant nonsense. HSR needs electricity there when it needs it - it does not care in the slightest where the power comes from.

There are scientific papers on electricity demand and the need for nuclear to fulfil that demand. (focusing on HSR).

Quote from: verbatim9 on June 20, 2024, 16:50:32 PMThere are scientific papers on electricity demand and the need for nuclear to fulfil that demand.

Name one.

They are readily available online no need for me research further. Thus, I am sure you are quite capable to do a search yourself to satisfy your curiosity.

Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on June 20, 2024, 15:39:02 PM

Quote from: verbatim9 on June 20, 2024, 12:31:04 PMIf rail enthusiasts want HSR it's best to have a reliable 24/7 electricity source which is nuclear. Most countries that have HSR power it with nuclear energy. Some countries in Europe without nuclear power assets draw from neighbouring countries that have nuclear power.

In Australia we will need nuclear power in the long run due to increasing electrical demand.

Maybe they can build some electricity in Korea and ship it here? That's how nonsense that comment you posted was.
How did the electric trains run when the Tennyson power station was shut down??? How did the network cope???

We are talking about power hungry HSR here not the stop start trains that we have here in Qld.

Quote from: #Metro on June 20, 2024, 08:07:26 AM

Quote from: NothingToSayThe reason why cost is brought up as a rebuttal to reliability is that the cost to build a reliable, firmed grid with enough redundancy is still far cheaper than the equivalent nuclear option.

Please provide the source for this analysis. Was this CSIRO or Grattan Institute?

Quote from: HTGThe network is only as unreliable as you design it.

See below. And we're talking generation not distribution (poles/wires).

This video mentions Australia around the 3 min mark.

CSIRO, Grattan Institute, Australia Institute, UNSW, Stanford, even the IEA; A body with close ties to the IAEA and whose stated goals are to expand the use of nuclear where appropriate have said that they do not recommend nuclear energy for Australia.

Quote from: verbatim9 on June 20, 2024, 18:24:14 PM

Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on June 20, 2024, 15:39:02 PM

Quote from: verbatim9 on June 20, 2024, 12:31:04 PMIf rail enthusiasts want HSR it's best to have a reliable 24/7 electricity source which is nuclear. Most countries that have HSR power it with nuclear energy. Some countries in Europe without nuclear power assets draw from neighbouring countries that have nuclear power.

In Australia we will need nuclear power in the long run due to increasing electrical demand.

Maybe they can build some electricity in Korea and ship it here? That's how nonsense that comment you posted was.
How did the electric trains run when the Tennyson power station was shut down??? How did the network cope???

We are talking about power hungry HSR here not the stop start trains that we have here in Qld.

You are talking bullsh%t quite frankly. I don't mean to be mean but that's what your comments are. HSR isn't power hungry. This isn't too many trains drawing that much power that they trip the overheads as what happens in Melbourne (express trains was fine. Introduce all stoppers and the ohle trips stopping all trains). All the power draw is getting rollingstock up to speed. Maintaining speed is easy. Take the coal trains. They draw a tremendous amount of power on acceleration but once they are moving they don't require much. Its the distance that's the problem. That requires more substations along the corridor along with more infrastructure in areas that currently doesn't have it. Or they then have to share the same said power with other regions. Even the most basic of HSR lines in Australia can be the equivalent of many hsr overseas rail networks.

If you want to dive into specifics there are other problems that contribute to power/energy consumption with HSR. That being the rollingstock used eg traction motors/aerodynamics/train length and weight/regenerative attributes eg braking feeding energy back into the system/battery power reducing the initial acceleration power draw, the terrain eg curves, the crew eg accelerating and breaking vs reducing speed, coasting and accelerating along with the obvious track section that particular substations will feed (do you want one sub station Brisbane to Gympie or multiple sub stations for greater reliability and operational use? Countries with HSR that is running at tight intervals also have the problem of increased energy consumption due to breaking and accelerating as they maintain their signalling block. Combined with the terrain passengers won't notice but it has a network power draw effect.

Quote from: verbatim9 on June 20, 2024, 18:07:13 PMThey are readily available online no need for me research further. Thus, I am sure you are quite capable to do a search yourself to satisfy your curiosity.

I'm sure there aren't any. I'm not going to waste my time. You made the claim - back it up or acknowledge that it's just not true.

You have read too many Murdoch papers.

The keyboard worriers as well as renewable energy lobbyists are really hitting hard on this announcement yesterday. Probably scared of funds and further investment being diverted. Unfortunately they can't see the logic nor the positives. Living in the 70s I guess, such is life..

I will not and can not take the Nuclear fantasy seriously until there are genuine financial and Mega Wattage figures.

The announcement is a nothing burger and to try and defend it is ludicrous. I am not against Nuclear as an idea, but the current understanding by experts much smarter than your or I is that it doesn't stack up in Australia. It may when the mass produced 'small nuclear reactors' are tested and operational, but as it stands it's quite clearly a tactic to divert funds and attention from renewables to prolongue the life of fossil fuels.

Also to pitch in on reliability, while an individual wind or solar farm may be intermittent, with the increased connections between regions under Labours policy, electricity will be able to come from where the wind still blows and the sun still shines. On average across Australia the energy production will likely be fairly consistent, and of course any dips or highs are handled by battery storage (including overnight). There are plenty of smart people pouring lots of time, money, and resources into the future energy grid. Leave it up to the experts, not the politicians in suits.

Quote from: verbatim9 on June 20, 2024, 20:37:26 PMThe keyboard worriers as well renewable energy lobbyist are really hitting hard on this announcement yesterday. Probably scared of funds and investment diversion. Unfortunately they can't see the logic nor the positives. Living in the 70s I guess, such is life..

"renewable energy lobbyists". Nuclear has huge amounts of dark money from the Koch brothers, minerals council, IPA etc. Its only backers are inside the fossil fuel bubble. Meanwhile the renewable energy lobby is a bunch of climate scientists. Bit of a difference there. Some of the richest, most evil people on Earth versus some eggheads who have dedicated their lives to preventing and responding to climate change and energy needs. But the renewable energy lobby is just too powerful apparently, better trust the oil and gas industry. I'm sure they have all our best interests at heart.

Nuclear in Australia is a dead cat to draw investment away from renewable energy and keep the fossil fuel party going for a few more decades. It's just so odd that public sentiment about nuclear has shifted over the past 2 decades even though other sources have far lower costs and are easier to deploy. Could it be that this coincides neatly with the campaign from the fossil fuel industry pushing nuclear as the new energy solution in an effort to slow the transition? No, perish the though. Everyone just decided that nuclear was the solution to climate change at the exact moment that fossil fuel talking points were plastered over every paper in the country courtesy of daddy Murdoch.

It's so difficult to address such an appallingly disingenuous and ill conceived policy as this nuclear policy.

To discuss it at all is give it oxygen so I'm conflicted.

This policy doesn't stand up to any genuine interrogation. No costing and most nuclear projects in western nations have cost a fortune. All projects in comparable nations have taken longer than planned. All reliable sources say it will increase the cost of electricity.

Nuclear doesn't stack up, that's why the liberals are committing to fully publicly funding it, a path they don't follow for any other policy.

So why do it? Why follow a policy plan that is so terrible, that will lead to a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to private companies, one which will increase the cost of electricity, and one that may totally fail.

I think there are 2 reasons:
1) The nuclear lobby - Companies not strictly nuclear but which can benefit from huge overinflated construction and operations contracts on projects that can keep them profitable for many years.

2) The coal lobby - Companies profiting from coal mines or coal power and who know that these industries will not continue to provide them with the same revenue indefinitely. They see nuclear and its inevitable delays as a definite chance to extend their revenue by another 20 years.

I hope it never happens for the immense damage it will do to our nation and to ordinary Australians.

Relax guys Metro already decided he supports nuclear, so expect to see only scholarly articles precisely aligning with the stated position.

- renewables are cheap and unreliable
- nuclear is expensive and reliable

Oh man Verbatim9 also trotted out "You need nuclear for HSR" too 🤩🤩🤩

(Morocco, Germany, Indonesia says hi!)

Certainly an interesting spectrum of opinions tonight!