We only have two because one of our previous governments decommissioned 4 out of the 6 we previously operated.
Maybe now would be an excellent time for a mass cut-over to EVs **where possible**.
208
Luckydog123 days ago
+106
I hear yall got lots of that sunshine over there. Just saying.
106
New-Persimmon89753 days ago
-44
We also have a lot of gas, but we give it to Japan for free.
-44
campelm3 days ago
+50
You fart in their general direction?
50
Lexinoz3 days ago
+12
If you're tooting out liquid natural gas, you might have bigger problems.
12
Maro19473 days ago
+5
r/unexpectedmontypython
5
Cyraga3 days ago
+9
And then when we have local supply issues we buy it back
9
DiaryofTwain3 days ago
-31
Need batteries to have green energy be practical as a man energy supply. Need hard minerals that come from running petrol machines. Turning off oil isn’t going to speed up the green energy switch
-31
DyingGasp3 days ago
+13
Switching oil production to source materials for green energy is far better than not using green energy.
Imagine how much oil/coal/gas could be saved if taken away from manufacturing, vehicles, and general electricity. Imagine the climate implications.
But we can’t, world wide, because oil money is old money that controls everything.
13
Luckydog123 days ago
+19
A hell of a lot of energy is used during the day.
19
Effectuality3 days ago
+6
Hydro is a form of battery. As are gravity potential energy banks. You don't necessarily have to go down the cobalt and lithium route.
6
DiaryofTwain2 days ago
-2
Australia isn't know for their inland water. Hydro you also have to have it relatively in the same area of where you powering. Also electric still does not match oil and gas for the range needed for remote labor.
-2
Effectuality2 days ago
+3
Researchers have identified literally thousands of potential sites for hydro dams along the east coast. The capacity is 100% there.
Distances aren't even that big of a deal - NZ has hydro power stations in the South Island that supply power to the North Island, over 500km away. Sydney and Canberra both benefit from the Snowy Mountains hydro project, and Melbourne gets a chunk of power from a hydro dam over 350km away.
Oil and gas will still have their use cases - I'm not advocating for 100% electrification. But the more you can decrease demand in places and cases that make sense, the less we need to be concerned or affected when global supply is disrupted.
3
0xsergy13 hr ago
+1
But batteries last for 10-15 years now. What you put in your fuel tank lasts exactly for one use. Which one makes more sense?
1
Feroking3 days ago
+45
They were decommissioned due to local production costs and increase in costs due to aging.
What the Australian government failed to do was diversify our energy infrastructure and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, which should have been done as a national security measure due to lack of local refining capacity.
Now there will be a huge influx of EV/battery/non scheduled generation which will cause a multitude of issues on both the localised distribution electrical network, transmission network and generation. Properly managed the general population shouldn’t notice these issues and in some circumstances can actually help the electrical network. If they are poorly managed and underfunded then it could cause localised outages, frequency (FCAS) issues and LOR events.
45
ArchibaldMcAcherson3 days ago
+1
It's funny that you present two options regarding the switch to non-fossil fuel energy when we all know how its gonna go...
1
Harlequin803 days ago
+11
We don't produce the oil in Australia that can be refined into fuel.
So all that happens at these refineries is that imported oil is refined. As such there really is no difference between a tanker of petrol not being able to get here and a tanker of oil not being able to get here. The fundamental underlying choke point remains the same.
11
Alternative-Fold24263 days ago
+7
Ah yes, why invest in a stable backup for a critical system even though it's expensive when we can ignore the historical instability of international politics and just operate at the cheaper level now and be fucked later because of not being willing to plan long term?
7
arcwh1sper3 days ago
+4
EVs, sure, but you can’t just conjure them and the charging network overnight. Short term, governments should probably be pushing harder on fuel efficiency and public transport so people aren’t totally screwed.
4
Delamoor3 days ago
+27
Eh, I'm from Tasmania (one of the more rural Aus states) and I was surprised to learn that we have a pretty comprehensive charging network around the entire state. There's a charging station roughly 30 minutes away from anywhere in the state even in the middle of nowhere.
More charging stations than petrol stations, easier to reach. Not to mention the obvious that you also charge at home.
Turns out they're easier to install and operate than petrol stations. Don't have to have staff or fuel deliveries and pumping equipment full of moving parts and shit.
27
alexkey3 days ago
+19
People just not paying attention. Even outback has enough charging points for people to do trips all across the country in EVs. There was a recent top gear (their YouTube channel) video doing a trip in Kia EV3 from Melbourne to Darwin. It by no means is perfect, but it is enough to be able to fully switch from ice to ev.
19
DiaryofTwain3 days ago
+2
Cars r one thing. Industry is another.
2
creswitch3 days ago
+2
We export more biodiesel than we use
2
guaranteednotabot3 days ago
+1
It’s easier to install charging stations than petrol stations, but there are way less charging stations in most places so it takes time
1
jlharper3 days ago
+8
Only "charging network" 90% of aussies need is a power point. Yea yea apartments etc. Not everyone has the luxury of a garage or carport.
But heaps of people do and most of them will never need to charge their car during their commute cause they're only driving 40km or less a day.
8
Uzorglemon3 days ago
+2
Yep, I charge my Seal at home off a regular powerpoint. I could drive around 110km per day before overnight charging won't completely top the car up.
2
TrickyChildhood29173 days ago
+7
You guys really need to read more newspapers or watch more news.
The Toyota Prius has been on sale since 1997 in Japan, and 2000 in the US — so about 26 years in the US market and nearly 29 years globally.
7
Uzorglemon3 days ago
+6
>EVs, sure, but you can’t just conjure them and the charging network overnight.
Meh, it's easier than you might think. My EV draws \~1.6kw of power when charging off a regular 10amp power socket. Two of my three computers draw more power than that when they're running at full capacity.
We'll be fine.
6
Sieve-Boy3 days ago
+3
You do know you can charge an EV off a home power point don't you?
3
KGB_cutony3 days ago
+1
BYD Sealion 7 is booked out till July. The cut over is happening
1
Maxfunky3 days ago
+44
> "It's not a positive development. It will have an impact," he said.
Thank you Captain Understatement! You saved the day again!
It's massively bad for people who live in Australia and drive an ICE-based vehicle. Now is a spectacularly bad time to be reliant on imported already refined fuels. It's a bad enough time to be reliant on oil in general but it's extra bad if you need it to be refined by another country first. So good luck cutting your driving in half guys.
44
Seagoon_Memoirs3 days ago
+9
Australia is very much a society that talks in understatement.
9
UBC1453 days ago
+3
Consequence of Australian English being a derivative of British English I suppose
3
Seagoon_Memoirs3 days ago
just as American is also a dialect of English
0
UBC1453 days ago
+3
Still, Britain had and still has a lot more influence on Australian society than American society. That’s the point I’m trying to make.
3
Seagoon_Memoirs3 days ago
+1
Yes. America even went so far as to rewrite the dictionary. 👍New beginnings and a new identity. 😊
1
ArchibaldMcAcherson3 days ago
And still got the language wrong...
0
Im_better_than__u3 days ago
+37
Seems to be a war on oil.
37
No_Tone17043 days ago
+13
Did Israel or US hit it?
13
androshalforc13 days ago
+3
Nah it was destroyed by Australia so that the us doesn’t come.
3
TrickyChildhood29173 days ago
+4
Damn it! You weren’t supposed to notice. We hoped our crooked banks and hedge funds could come over there and scoop up all your real estate on the c**** . It’s all the rage here in America.
4
Seagoon_Memoirs3 days ago
+5
Thank the previous right wing conservative government for not investing in infrastructure
we get the same political cycles here, democrat type governments promotes human rights and invests in the people, the republican types spend their time taking rights and reaping the economic growth the dems nurtured
5
N3M3S1S753 days ago
+1
Gunna wish the fuel was $3 next week
1
PigFarmer13 days ago
+1
When do prices in the US go up because of this???
1
penisgirlmarkedsafe3 days ago
+1
There’s no f****** way this is an accident. 1 of 2 refineries burns down during a global fuel shortage?
1
BDAramseyj873 days ago
-9
Y’all need nuke power.
-9
Mad-myall3 days ago
+7
We already calculated the costs.
Solar, and a peppering of other renewables plus grid upgrades plus energy storage still winds up like 1/3rd the price of nuclear power assuming we adopt one of the cheapest first world nuclear programs in the world.
Nuclear is far away from being a universal solution for everything.
7
EpitomeAria3 days ago
+32
no, we really don't solar would be plenty, and be able to be operational far faster. Pro nuclear parties in aus are the same parties that don't want net zero targets because they are funded by fossil fuel lobbyists.
32
HelpMeOverHere3 days ago
+19
It’s a little disingenuous to say the LNP support nuclear. They don’t. They just know that it takes decades to get going and *that* would continue to prop up fossil fuels.
19
BlueShrub3 days ago
+5
Ding ding ding!
5
EpitomeAria3 days ago
+5
well yes, that's what i meant about "pro nuclear" messaging, i should have said ostensibly pro nuclear parties, that are bought and paid for by fossil fuel lobbyists and mineral lobbyists
5
magnumopus443 days ago
-8
Thats a load of bullshit and we are in this mess party because of the greenie crowd saying no to nuclear. Yeah the lnp plan was disingenuous but so is bullshit like solar and renewables are enough.
-8
EpitomeAria3 days ago
+7
China adds several hundred GW of solar capacity a year, you cant match that with nuclear. They add 100GW of wind capacity as well. Solar is the fastest growing energy source and it isn't close, and with the climate crisis we need to act now, nuclear takes years to build, costs far more to build, and gives you much less energy / dollar. The CSIRO agrees that we can get to 100% renewables and that it is the cheapest option accounting for battery storage and other costs
7
magnumopus443 days ago
-1
And how many nuclear reactors are they constructing?
-1
EpitomeAria3 days ago
+5
39 are currently under construction so in the several years until they finish that is a about 44 GW of capacity. which is about equivalent to 120GW of solar capacity if we are being generous in your favour. in 2025 they added over 300GW of solar capacity, so even with just solar, in 1 year they added 3x as much energy through it, than you would get through nuclear over several years. China takes about 5-10 years per reactor.
edit: slight correction, because solar and nuclear capacity is hard to compare. the solar capacity would depend on what region its built in, so northern parts of china with less sun would have a lower capacity, that being said even if you go with a conservative amount, solar is still outpacing nuclear construction over several years in less than 1 year. you can also add on 100GW of wind
5
Fateor423 days ago
-6
Actually it's not.
You need a non-intermittent source for baseload stabilization.
-6
Secure_Ant10853 days ago
+10
Australia can meet its energy demands with renewables and batteries.
10
issm3 days ago
+8
I guess you hadn't heard the news now that batteries also got super c****.
It turns out when you aren't trying to maximize power density so you can stick the battery in a phone or car, you can actually get a ton of storage for not a lot of money - the cells just get a lot heavier and bulkier, which, if you're just going to slap it on a concrete pad in the middle of a desert, doesn't really matter.
8
Fateor423 days ago
-6
Actually nuclear is still cheaper in lifetime by about 30% once you include battery prices.
-6
Mad-myall3 days ago
+3
Studies have shown the opposite
3
Fateor422 days ago
If they do, they've also run face first into the actual numbers that have been recorded when people actually build the systems.
0
Mad-myall2 days ago
+2
Yep they based their cost estimates for nuclear after one of the cheapest first world programs in Korea. Nuclear still lost to renewables+energy storage quite easily.
Australia just has loads of essentially free energy from the sun.
2
Fateor422 days ago
+1
Not when you consider lifecycle cost.
1
Mad-myall2 days ago
+2
Life cycle cost was indeed factored in. In addition nuclear was given the chance for a much longer Return on investment period then renewables.
Like maybe for smaller denser nations nuclear wins out, but Australia has ooodles of empty sunny space.
2
issm3 days ago
+2
That's not what the LCOE says.
2
stainless53 days ago
+5
Lucky for you there already isn't base load power on the grids, in the middle of the day when the energy prices go negative there's actually too much generation and since the old base load plants can't shut down they have to pay the renewable energy to shut down. the only way to fix this is to add batteries but at that point you don't need the base load power anymore anyway as the peeking gas plants and the batteries take over from the base load plants anyway.
5
EpitomeAria3 days ago
+4
Nuclear is inflexible, making it not great for that, what the CSIRO actually talks about in gencost is a grid dominated by renewables making about 95% or so of energy, with natural gas or hydrogen for the remaining bit, that 5% can be offset through measure like land use change so it would still be net zero.
Also, baseload is sort of an outdated thing, and isn't really that important anymore. Renewables are killing the idea of baseload as a concept, especially with storage
4
BlueShrub3 days ago
+5
BESS, renewables and load shedding can do it all and much cheaper and better dispersed than any other alternative. Can also be built quickly.
People acting like theyre expert grid operators are just running interference to keep the fossil fuel party going. Should know better by now.
5
EpitomeAria3 days ago
+6
Also, the originally well meaning pro nuclear argument has 100% been co-opted by fossil fuel lobbies.
71 Comments