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
Backed by evidence? It’d certainly be a first for a Coalition policy.
deleted by creator
Spoiler alert: no they do not stack up
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!
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.
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.
the cheapest and most widespread nuclear reactor design
Can you share this knowledge, please?
Basically anythibg that isnt SMR like what the French and Japanese have been doing for years.
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…
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?
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
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.
Any chance of some facts or references in that word spaghetti?
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.
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.
