•

The Guardian Australia: Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan could cost as much as $600bn and supply just 3.7% of Australia’s energy by 2050, experts say

Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan could cost as much as $600bn and supply just 3.7% of Australia’s energy by 2050, experts say

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/23/peter-duttons-nuclear-plan-could-cost-as-much-as-600bn-and-supply-just-37-of-australias-energy-by-2050-experts-say

Coalition proposal would cost a minimum of $116bn – the same as Labor’s plan for almost 100% renewables by 2050, the Smart Energy Council says

Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan could cost as much as $600bn and supply just 3.7% of Australia’s energy by 2050, experts say

7 comments

Aurenkin

•

Sounds about right for his party. They love dumping insane amounts of taxpayer money on obsolete technology. They literally stopped the rollout of a fibre network nationally part way through to switch it with a bullshit "multi technology" solution which turned out to be a dogs breakfast.

EDIT: for comparison, the cost to build a 100% solar wind and battery system that would supply all the power needs for Germany, a nation with more than double Australia's electricity demand, was estimated to be $367 billion (source)

CTDummy

•

Excuse me, don’t you mean they bitched about cost before the roll out, stopped the rollout, then promised a cheaper solution (MTM as you mention) that retained old shitty infrastructure and then it still cost $11 billion more than the initial FTTP proposal due to cost blowouts. All in the name of partisan politics.

I agree, I trust LNP and by extension Dutton as much as that party deserves with proposals like this, fuck all. They didn’t even have any figures for the project cost when he proposed it.

As someone who grew up in the bush with shit internet until their late teens I’ll probably never get over the nbn fuckup.

WhatAmLemmy

•

Conservatives around the world are waging a last ditch effort (as always) on behalf of the fossil fuel oligarchs — against cleaner, cheaper, democratized, renewable energy generation.

They don't want you to be able to power your home and car with the solar panels on your roofs. They want you to pay their cronies; a centralized generator, dependent on finite resources where all mining operations are also under their control, who can dictate the supply and demand of energy... meaning they can dictate the price of everything in society from the top down; the way they do with oil and all other fossils.

Tar_alcaran

•

Especially in Australia, where there's an insane amount of empty nothing to place wind turbines. Northern Australia gets twice as much solar irradiation as western Europe, it's absolutely ideal for (rooftop) solar.

Economies of scale and "high density" power generation make sense for some places, but even a place with the population density of the Netherlands can cram in enough wind turbines to get a significant fraction of renewable energy. It should be a total no-brainer for Australia.

librejoe

•

Are you actually calling nuclear energy a fossil fuel? I'm confused. Nuclear is the best thing we have green wise that can output sustained power 24/7. This project is a joke, but I am very pro nuclear and can't wait for more to roll out here in Canada. The nuclear renaissance is here.

doodledup

•

Who is they? All I hear is someone.

palordrolap

•

Of all the comments to argue against the use of a mysterious "they", I think you've picked the wrong one.

It's pretty clear who the "they" is here: Conservative politicians in the pocket of corporations who would stand to lose from cheaper, cleaner energy sources.

I'd go one step further and erase "Conservative", because it doesn't matter your other politics if you're receiving ~~bribes~~ lobbying money from big business. It does at least seem to be skewed more towards politicians in Conservative parties though.