Trigger Warning: Community contains mostly bad environmental news (not by choice!). Community may also feature stories about animal agriculture and/or meat. Until tagging is available, please be aware and click accordingly.

🪲

Aussie Zone Rules.

Golden rule - be nice. If you wouldn’t say it in front of your ~~grandmother~~ favourite tree, don’t post it.
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. You are allowed to denigrate invasive plants or animals.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here. Except invasive plants or animals.
No porn. Except photos of plants. Definitely not animals.
No Ads / Spamming. Except for photos or stories about plants and animals.
Nothing illegal in Australia. Like invasive plants or animals. Exotic microbes and invasive fungi also not welcome.
Make post titles descriptive with no swear words. Comments are a free for all using the above rules as a guide. Fuck invasive plants and animals.

🐝

/c/Aussie Environment acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land, sea and waters, of the area that we live and work on across Australia. We acknowledge their continuing connection to their culture and pay our respects to their Elders past and present.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone

More coal and gas, less renewables: what a nuclear power plan for Australia would really mean (theconversation.com)

submitted 6 months ago by hanrahan@slrpnk.net to c/environment@aussie.zone

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As in every election over the last 20 years, at stake will be the question of whether Australia chooses a clean energy future, or prolongs the life of coal and gas – an outcome the nuclear plan relies on.

In that sense, nuclear energy is shaping up as an election fig leaf like no other.

John is on Mastodon @johnquiggin@aus.social. I'm not sure if me tagging him here on Lemny federates to Mastodon ?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (9 children)

If the plant isn't going to start construction until 2030, that's still plenty of time to build renewables, nuclear isn't supposed to be your only source of power.

[–] Mountaineer@aussie.zone 12 points 6 months ago (7 children)

A key part of the coalition nuclear plan is to block the further construction of solar and wind.
There is currently twice as much approved (but yet to be constructed) capacity as the coalition intends to allow in the next 15 years.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

Why is it that only the fossil fuel-backed coalition support constructing the nuclear plant?

Shouldn't the other guys want the cheap, clean energy?

[–] Mountaineer@aussie.zone 8 points 6 months ago

The coalition has multiple aims here.

This is a political differentiator - they become the "Nuclear" party.
Nuclear technologies create a wonderful wedge to split any green support along the "reduce carbon" and "anti radioactive" line.
In a best case, if they started tomorrow, there would be AT LEAST a decade (more like 15 years) before the first Nuclear electricity got onto the grid, and in the meantime their fossil fuel backers get to BURN-BABY-BURN.

And that's before we get into all the other little thing, that are really just colouring around the edges, ie spending taxpayer money to build a new monopoly which the government can later privatise to their sponsors.

One of the things that I haven't seen any of the recent articles highlighting is how no investment body is willing to back the construction of nuclear power in Australia, so the government will have to 100% bankroll it with our taxes.
Meanwhile, private equity are lining up to invest in wind, solar, batteries etc - just angling for subsidies because "why not?".
This ALONE should be indicative of most likely outcomes.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)