this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
39 points (93.3% liked)

Australia

3611 readers
117 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
39
Does the Coalition’s case for nuclear power stack up? We factcheck seven key claims (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 4 months ago by trk@aussie.zone to c/australia@aussie.zone
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Cheaper electricity, less emissions and ready by 2035 are some of the Coalition’s core promises on nuclear energy, but are they backed by evidence?

tl;dr - no

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ixoid@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Herr Spud has said that SMRs are what the coalition policy is dependent on (despite the fact that there are zero SMRs generating consumer power anywhere in the world today). Maybe that's why The Guardian references this design, not whatever it is you're banging on about...

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well then the coalition are fucking morons then. Have they actually said what they are going to use? Thw guardian references SMRs cos thats the only one that was included in the csiro report despite not a single watt of power being generate by them ask the csiro why they did this?

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I can't remember where but they mention in the report that SMRs were the most suitable form of reactor for Australia according to some industry consultation and it being difficult to realise the full costings of the large scale "traditional" nuclear reactors due to government subsidies, lack of transparency and different labour costs in Australia VS somewhere else 50 years ago.

Do you think the Coalition (or any hypothetical but still possible Australian Government) could actually deliver nuclear by 2040? Given the lack of expertise and experience, as well as pushback from States and lack of private investment I think it's really unlikely

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago

Hell no they got no chance delivering it on time and on budget but thats literally every single government project in the history of government projects.