Dr Dave Collins’ Post

This is one of the more succinct critiques of Peter Dutton’s nuclear ambitions. Australia’s Opposition leader claims he will make power cheaper by using the most expensive source of power. Bill Barnes of Crikey says that Dutton and his strategists have appeared to borrow straight from the Steve Bannon playbook to “flood the zone with sh*t”. Announce something highly controversial, with little detail, and sit back and watch the media and other commentators fall over themselves in reporting on nothing. This is a dangerous distraction after decades of climate wars that saw Australia without any reasonable climate policy (or action). The Australia Institute says “that’s Australian politics in a nutshell. The Coalition is talking about nuclear to avoid an internal fight about coal. And Labor loves to fight about nuclear with the Liberals so they can avoid a fight with the Greens and teals about coal and gas.” Nuclear is: - More expensive than renewables, according to CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator's cost study ('GenCost'); - Time consuming. Plants would not be operational for more than a decade. - Ignoring current bans on nuclear energy. New laws would be needed to remove the current ban on nuclear energy, enact safety regulations and waste disposal arrangements, and establish the financial arrangements for government ownership. Queensland, NSW and Victoria all have state bans on nuclear power which would also need to be overturned. Australia is the windiest and sunniest inhabited continent on the planet, better placed than almost any other country to prosper from a renewables economy.

Natalie Kyriacou OAM good on you for this insightful perspective and thorough analysis of the nuclear energy debate. Your critique of Peter Dutton’s nuclear ambitions is exceptionally clear and on point. Australia's Opposition leader claims that nuclear energy will reduce power costs, despite it being the most expensive option. Bill Barnes of Crikey notes that Dutton's approach seems to follow a strategy of creating controversy with vague announcements, causing a media frenzy over unsubstantiated claims. Let's take a moment, this diversion is particularly harmful after years of climate policy stagnation in Australia. The Australia Institute aptly describes the situation: the Coalition uses the nuclear debate to avoid internal conflicts about coal, while Labor engages in this debate to avoid clashes with the Greens and teals over coal and gas. Nuclear energy is more costly than renewables, as shown by CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator's 'GenCost' study. Additionally, nuclear plants would take more than a decade to become operational and would require new legislation and the removal of existing bans in several states. Australia, with its abundant wind and solar resources, is uniquely positioned to lead a renewable energy economy, a no-brainer. Thank you, Natalie, for your compelling and well-articulated analysis. Your insights are crucial as we navigate these important energy discussions.

Best invest in Building Fusion power, space, and maritime propulsion systems and industry, You talk about Nuclear (meaning Fission) and fail to discuss fusion. https://lnkd.in/ge_aeX7M The nuclear fission industry is, ignorant of what's happening around you. Pull your uranium heads out, start adjusting your industry to fusion energy and start preparing to enter the commercially growing fusion energy industry. As it dawns on Earth like the sun. Great Headline Guardian on Nuclear fission. https://lnkd.in/g8sMZtpR Fission is moving towards obsolescence at an accelerated pace, as it is "out of step, out of time, out of place," and merely a temporary industry globally. https://lnkd.in/gbd_mZqk Commercial fusion electrical generation is a promising innovative sustainable and clean energy method. By 2028, Helion is expected to start producing electricity from its first fusion commercial power plant, which will provide electricity to Microsoft. The plant will produce at least 50 MWe after an initial ramp-up period. https://lnkd.in/gY9J3MQY Now see what is happening in the Fusion industry in the world. https://lnkd.in/g9hMBD7a As fission trebles, fuel shortage is increasingly real, read below. https://lnkd.in/gze5rwpr

Thank-you Jennie George for a sensible and well articulated opinion piece on Australia's energy transition. It is refreshing to see a former ALP politician take the politics out of this debate and focus instead on what is best for Australia's national interest. Jennie makes two important points that I completely agree with: 1. Gas has a huge role to play as a transition fuel. On a global scale, the single biggest reduction in CO2 emissions has come from the US switching from coal fired electricity to gas fired. If Australia is serious about reducing emissions we should do the same. Gas is also important for firming capacity. When Victoria recently lost generation from the Loy Yang A coal power station, it was gas that picked up the slack - not renewables or batteries. 2. The only technology currently capable of providing base load power generation in absence of coal is nuclear. We need to lift the ban on nuclear in Australia and let the market invest in nuclear if it makes sense. Energy security in Victoria is becoming increasingly fragile. Bass Strait is now in terminal decline, the gas pipelines from Qld are at full capacity during high demand winter, and we're planning on importing LNG to try to make up the shortfalls. Bizarre really when you think about it - gas from WA and Qld being liquefied, shipped to Singapore, shipped back to Melbourne and regasified. Unfortunately, the debate in Australia continues to be bogged down by politics and ideology. It was embarrassing watching the recent interview by ABC's Sarah Fergusson with Coalition shadow energy minister Ted O'Brien and watching the RMIT ABC 'fact check' unit back down from its attempt to discredit Dick Smith's support for nuclear. Less activism and more journalism please ABC! https://lnkd.in/ghAYQYkd

“The only technology currently capable of providing base load power generation in absence of coal is nuclear. We need to lift the ban on nuclear in Australia and let the market invest in nuclear if it makes sense.” We need to look at the big picture. The world is using Australia’s uranium to value add and do what is illegal here! 8 million people are dying every year from air pollution from burning fossil fuels about the same from lack of water or polluted water. The next generation of reactors can solve both problems and it should be a matter of national pride for Australia to be helping to leadthe way! Lift the bans Albanese.

Big Policy Power questions involve profitable China: What Ifs? Major policy questions are heightening the tumultuous road to affordable energy; as China is our friend and foe. Loy Yang in Victoria, Callide and Tarong in Queensland, Port Augusta in South Australia and Muja in West Australia have to remain in Coalition hands under major political party counting. China vehemently believes in funding the military and law and order, so ex-policeman Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has a friend there. The Coalition would be impressed by what would be China's profitable investment in nuclear energy as it buys 11 more reactors for $30 billion. Converting old coal-fired power stations to nuclear reactor stations has Australians thinking of China: as nuclear energy will also be issued in reports of nuclear reactor financial damage in Australia. Generally, to the Chinese, it's a 'common [situation] with no need for concern.' Opinions on whether nuclear energy remains a fascinating vision or real is setting alight the thinking of voters. These constituents should know that China has 56 operating nuclear reactors and is our friend/foe on electricity generation depending on which side of the political spectrum you're on. China claims it isn't the biggest con on climate change policy. But, spewing radiation from a cooling system nuclear reactor meltdown is a tenable policy accusation against the Coalition; as it is a big cost to the environment. Resulting jobs and the lure of a steady pay packet is where voters have to think is it worth having a nuclear reactor in their neighbourhood. Radioactive waste is formed no matter whether it is a small or large nuclear reactor. Australia is therefore not allowed to be rash about cheap power, because this month the talk on Coalition versus Labor battle on renewable energy shows, there's still a lengthy political campaigning road ahead. But the big questions about Coalition funding of the nation-wide implementation of nuclear energy remain. Mr Dutton would need to be confident that existing transmission line infrastructure, as found in Coalition seats, remains cost-friendly and workable. Unemployment in Australia under the Labor federal government is at 4.2 per cent in July but involves 'record participation in the workforce' state Australian Bureau of Statistics. The rise in jobless rate has extra numbers of Aussies looking for work. Labor's costings would include job seeking and the passing of legislation, money, and effort that's been poured into renewable energy. Incredibly slow and difficult is rewinding this stance and those Bills if Mr Dutton becomes Prime Minister. Luckily for both major parties, neither want a supply crisis from stalling the vote on money bills if a hostile Senate happens. The political expense of then Prime Minister Gough Whitlam's dismissal still scares off most pollies and voters from having that scene relived again. The Australian: Picture

LABOR NUKES CHANCE FOR CHEAP & RELIABLE ENERGY The Albanese Government does nothing to help the cost-of-living crisis afflicting families. Yesterday it rebuffed an opportunity to join the UK and US in developing a civil nuclear power industry. The Australian reports: “Overnight in Baku at the COP29 summit the British government announced that the Australian government was ‘expected’ to join its UK and US ‘allies’ in signing an agreement to speed up the development of civilian nuclear energy and decarbonise industry from March next year.” For anyone concerned about emissions and national security, this should have been a no brainer. Albanese and his hapless “energy” minister Chris Bowen would rather keep rolling out useless windmills and solar panels. Bowen’s office scrambled to nuke the idea of Australia joining its allies, putting this out: “Australia is not signing this agreement as we do not have a nuclear energy industry. Nuclear power is outlawed in Australia.” Seriously? Your electricity bill rises with the rollout of every blade and panel. A new report has found that Labor’s renewables-only grid will cost at least $642 billion, not $122bn as claimed. The Page Research Centre’s CEO, Gerard Holland, has calculated that the cost of the “energy transition” will be $95,000 per Australian. Sadly, the Coalition is not much better. They kept the taxpayer subsidised windmill and solar roll-out going in nine years of government. Last week they confirmed they would stay in the cost-of-living-hiking Paris climate agreement. While Trump gets out of Paris so he can bring down the cost of everything through his policy to “drill baby drill”, Coalition Environment Spokesman Jonathon Duniam committed to staying with the globalist cool kids. The only difference between Labor and Liberal is the pace of our economic decline.

🌍 Is the UK Falling Behind on Nuclear Energy? ⚛️ With energy costs soaring and climate targets looming, nuclear power is back in the spotlight as a potential hero in the UK's clean energy future. Yet, there's a major obstacle: environmental red tape. Rick Springman of Holtec International recently raised concerns, stating that the layers of regulations and planning hurdles are making it nearly "impossible to build stuff" in Britain. 🚧 France, with over 70% of its power sourced from nuclear, has one of the world's lowest carbon footprints. Meanwhile, the UK is inching toward nuclear goals, but could heavy regulations be holding us back from reaching our full potential? At a recent International Investment Summit, leaders like Sir Keir Starmer emphasized the urgent need to streamline bureaucracy for projects that drive growth and reduce emissions. Holtec's proposed SMR-300 modular reactors could be game-changers, reducing build times and workforce demands. With over £325 million committed to a South Yorkshire factory, Holtec aims to create 3,000 skilled jobs—if the UK can streamline its regulatory process to compete globally. 🌐 But the competition is fierce, with Rolls-Royce, GE-Hitachi, and Westinghouse also eyeing the UK market. If Britain doesn't act decisively, are we at risk of falling behind countries like Canada, which is already moving forward with modular reactors? 💬 What do you think? Is nuclear power worth the investment and reform needed to streamline construction, or is the regulatory caution justified? Read the full article for a deeper dive here. Let's get the debate going below! 👇 https://lnkd.in/eUugeMCY

🌍 Is the UK Falling Behind on Nuclear Energy? ⚛️ With energy costs soaring and climate targets looming, nuclear power is back in the spotlight as a potential hero in the UK's clean energy future. Yet, there's a major obstacle: environmental red tape. Rick Springman of Holtec International recently raised concerns, stating that the layers of regulations and planning hurdles are making it nearly "impossible to build stuff" in Britain. 🚧 France, with over 70% of its power sourced from nuclear, has one of the world's lowest carbon footprints. Meanwhile, the UK is inching toward nuclear goals, but could heavy regulations be holding us back from reaching our full potential? At a recent International Investment Summit, leaders like Sir Keir Starmer emphasized the urgent need to streamline bureaucracy for projects that drive growth and reduce emissions. Holtec's proposed SMR-300 modular reactors could be game-changers, reducing build times and workforce demands. With over £325 million committed to a South Yorkshire factory, Holtec aims to create 3,000 skilled jobs—if the UK can streamline its regulatory process to compete globally. 🌐 But the competition is fierce, with Rolls-Royce, GE-Hitachi, and Westinghouse also eyeing the UK market. If Britain doesn't act decisively, are we at risk of falling behind countries like Canada, which is already moving forward with modular reactors? 💬 What do you think? Is nuclear power worth the investment and reform needed to streamline construction, or is the regulatory caution justified? Read the full article for a deeper dive here. Let's get the debate going below! 👇 https://lnkd.in/eUugeMCY

🌍 Is the UK Falling Behind on Nuclear Energy? ⚛️ With energy costs soaring and climate targets looming, nuclear power is back in the spotlight as a potential hero in the UK's clean energy future. Yet, there's a major obstacle: environmental red tape. Rick Springman of Holtec International recently raised concerns, stating that the layers of regulations and planning hurdles are making it nearly "impossible to build stuff" in Britain. 🚧 France, with over 70% of its power sourced from nuclear, has one of the world's lowest carbon footprints. Meanwhile, the UK is inching toward nuclear goals, but could heavy regulations be holding us back from reaching our full potential? At a recent International Investment Summit, leaders like Sir Keir Starmer emphasized the urgent need to streamline bureaucracy for projects that drive growth and reduce emissions. Holtec's proposed SMR-300 modular reactors could be game-changers, reducing build times and workforce demands. With over £325 million committed to a South Yorkshire factory, Holtec aims to create 3,000 skilled jobs—if the UK can streamline its regulatory process to compete globally. 🌐 But the competition is fierce, with Rolls-Royce, GE-Hitachi, and Westinghouse also eyeing the UK market. If Britain doesn't act decisively, are we at risk of falling behind countries like Canada, which is already moving forward with modular reactors? 💬 What do you think? Is nuclear power worth the investment and reform needed to streamline construction, or is the regulatory caution justified? Read the full article for a deeper dive here. Let's get the debate going below! 👇 https://lnkd.in/eFhaH496