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:

The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
Politics, post it to Australian Politics
World News/Events, post it to World News
A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian

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:

When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment

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

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

all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 months ago

Backed by evidence? It'd certainly be a first for a Coalition policy.

[–] Weirdmusic@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Spoiler alert: no they do not stack up

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The Coalition has made a range of claims about what nuclear energy could do for Australia, and why it is better than building solar and wind.

What is the reality?

We factcheck the key claims.

The original article contains 35 words, the summary contains 35 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Instigate@aussie.zone 5 points 4 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The Coalition has made a range of claims about what nuclear energy could do for Australia, and why it is better than building solar and wind.

What is the reality?

They lied.

I’m a human and fuck the LNP.

[+] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee -13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

This is complete shit. The quote the csiro analysis that neglected the cheapest and most widespread nuclear reactor design because it doesnt fit the narrative. The rest of the article is spent bashing the rest of their energy policy which seems pretry fair to me. This headline is completely inaccurate. Just because they rest of the coilititions policy is shit why bash the one good thing about it in ur headline like its the be all and end all. If i though the guardian had brains then i might say they are doing this maliciously but they aren't bright enough for that.

[–] Mountaineer@aussie.zone 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

the cheapest and most widespread nuclear reactor design

Can you share this knowledge, please?

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee -5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Basically anythibg that isnt SMR like what the French and Japanese have been doing for years.

[–] 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.

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

Any chance of some facts or references in that word spaghetti?

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

Facts all of it. References go look at said csiro report then go look at the style of the majority of nuclear reactors ever build in human history and explain to me why csiro neglected to include the most popular most built most experienced design style in human history. The rest of what I said is simply pointing out that the guardian is using a completely fair and justified lib bashing campaign to bash the single good thing the libs included.

Its just me bing pissed at the current media and most peoples inability to recognise that some of the ideas by people u disagree with are good ideas. And some of the ideas of people u agree with are bad. Why are we picking teams then blindly supporting out team while blindly bashing the other team. Take the good ideas from both ridicule the bad from both and we will be in a far better place.

[–] trk@aussie.zone 9 points 4 months ago

It seems like if what you're saying is true, you could easily just reference something that explains it.

I still have no idea what this design is you're talking about.