Post by Brian Ross on Dec 9th, 2024 at 2:51pm
| Australian Politics Forum | |
|
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1733700053 Message started by whiteknight on Dec 9th, 2024 at 9:20am |
|
|
Title: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by whiteknight on Dec 9th, 2024 at 9:20am
CSIRO reaffirms nuclear power likely to cost twice as much as renewables :(
Dec 9 2024 ABC News The CSIRO has doubled down on its previous findings on cost and lead times of nuclear power for Australia. In short: :( The CSIRO's new GenCost report again says a nuclear power plant for Australia would likely cost twice as much as renewable energy. Australia's leading science agency also said nuclear power plants enjoyed relatively little financial advantage from their long lives and would run at a capacity similar to coal. What's next? The Coalition has put forward a nuclear power plan for Australia but is yet to release how much they expect it to cost. Building a nuclear power plant in Australia would likely cost twice as much as renewable energy even accounting for the much longer life-span of reactors, according to a new report from Australia's leading science agency. In its latest economic analysis of the cost of building various energy projects, the CSIRO found nuclear plants enjoyed relatively little financial advantage from their long lives, which could be double a solar or wind farm. The CSIRO regularly releases the GenCost report, which looks at the cost of Australia's energy sources. It has consistently found renewable to be the cheapest option, despite a run of inclusions at the request of critics to make changes to the modelling — the latest being the life span of a nuclear plant. And the agency said there was little evidence to suggest nuclear reactors in Australia would be able to benefit from running flat-out around the clock, noting they would face the same forces that are hollowing out the business case for coal. The conclusions come after the CSIRO copped heavy criticism over a report in May that found Australia's first nuclear power plant would cost up to $17 billion in today's dollars and not be operational until 2040. At the time, critics including opposition energy spokesman Ted O'Brien, who is spearheading the Coalition's case for nuclear power, said the CSIRO analysis was flawed. Ted O'Brien has criticised CSIRO's previous analysis on nuclear. Central to the criticism were suggestions the report failed to properly account for a nuclear reactor's long life, which could be anywhere up to 60 or even 80 years. Similarly, there were complaints the CSIRO wrongly discounted how much power a reactor would produce, with backers arguing nuclear plants could run at or near their capacity for long periods of time. They also attacked findings that it would take "at least" 15 years to build a nuclear power plant in Australia, saying this was overly pessimistic. But in an update of its GenCost report — which it carries out annually alongside the Australian Energy Market Operator — the CSIRO has largely stood by its earlier findings. Nuclear's long life 'no advantage' According to the agency, energy generation projects were typically funded using loans that lasted 30 years, which was about the life span of a solar or wind project. CSIRO chief economist Paul Graham said even if a nuclear project could get a loan with a 60-year term, higher interest payments would wipe out many of the supposed gains. In the more likely event a nuclear project would get a loan with a typical life span, Mr Graham said it was true the operating costs of the reactor would be relatively low once the debt had been repaid. The report found nuclear's long life span would have no significant cost benefit over renewables. However, he said these low costs would be short-lived because nuclear reactors faced substantial refurbishment costs running into billions of dollars after about 40 years of operation. For these reasons, Mr Graham said there was no "unique" cost advantage offered by nuclear compared with renewable energy projects backed by transmission lines and so-called firming technologies such as batteries and gas plants. "If we had a 60-year nuclear project and a 60-year solar project where you rebuild the solar halfway through, both require re-investments," Mr Graham said. "Overall we didn't find any additional unique benefit from nuclear generation and its long life, and so the relativity between nuclear and renewables hasn't changed." Mr Graham said there was also scant evidence to suggest a nuclear reactor in Australia would be able to repay its debt quickly and lower its costs by running at close to full capacity much of time. Nuclear's capacity analog to coal's He said one of the criticisms faced by the CSIRO following its May report was that it had been too miserly in its calculation of a nuclear plant's "capacity factor". The term refers to the share of a plant's nameplate capacity that is actually used. It is almost invariably higher in base-load generators such as nuclear and coal plants, which can run around the clock, compared with wind turbines and solar panels, which are dependent on the weather. Mr Graham said supporters of nuclear had argued the technology should be given a capacity factor of 93 per cent, in line with reactors in the United States. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by whiteknight on Dec 9th, 2024 at 9:24am
But Mr Graham said the US was an "outlier" on this score and the average for reactors globally was more like 80 per cent.
One in 10 reactors around the world, he said, was operating at a capacity below 60 per cent. What's more, Mr Graham said that while Australia didn't have any nuclear plants, it had plenty of black coal generators, which were analogous in many ways because they were designed to run full throttle most of the time. And Australia's black coal generators, he said, were operating at ever lower capacity factors as cheap renewable energy — particularly solar power — flooded into the market and squeezed out conventional sources. "We're certainly happy to recognise the potential for high generation (from nuclear) during the year," Mr Graham said. "But we continue to also use a range which recognises that some base-load generation can operate down closer to 50-53 per cent." No plant likely until 2040 On the subject of lead times to build nuclear, Mr Graham was steadfast. He said suggestions Australia would be able to build its first nuclear reactor in sooner than 15 years seemed to stretch plausibility. Nuclear proponents have pointed as an example to the United Arab Emirates, which went from having no reactors to commissioning its first project in 12 years. Mr Graham said the UAE was, in many ways, a best-case scenario for the nuclear industry but the country was hardly comparable to Australia. Barakah nuclear power plant in the United Arab Emirates The Barakah nuclear power plant in the United Arab Emirates took 12 years from being commissioned. (Supplied: IAEA) The UAE was an absolute monarchy with an autocratic style of government but Mr Graham said Australia was a democracy where policies were subject to many checks and balances. Accordingly, he said overturning Australia's ban on nuclear power, "planning, permitting and financing" a reactor would be a daunting task that took a lot of time. "As such, at least 15 years remains the most plausible lead time," the GenCost report noted. Under plans that have been foreshadowed by their private owners, most of Australia's coal-fired power stations are due to retire by the middle of next decade. "After we evaluated these three topics, potential for longer life, how often nuclear generates throughout the year, when we applied those numbers, we are still finding that large-scale nuclear would be 1.5 to 2.5 times the cost of generating from firmed solar and wind," Mr Graham said. In line with its earlier findings, the CSIRO concluded renewable energy and the technologies required to back it up would be the cheapest way of meeting Australia's future energy needs. Energy Minister Chris Bowen said the CSIRO had accommodated the Coalition's concerns and still found that Labor's renewables-led approach was the cheapest way of overhauling the electricity grid. He described the nuclear policy as "wildly optimistic", in light of the report's findings. "[It] thought about those criticisms, analysed those criticisms and found that those criticisms don't stack up," Mr Bowen said. Mr Dutton responded, suggesting Mr Bowen had interfered in the CSIRO's report. "[Labor] hasn't seen our plan yet and they're out bagging it," Mr Dutton said. "It just looks to me like there's a heavy hand of Chris Bowen in all of this and I don't think people want to see that." In what Mr Graham described as an "amazing achievement" in an inflationary environment, the CSIRO found battery costs had tumbled 20 per cent in the 12 months to June 30, while there had been back-to-back decreases of 8 per cent for large-scale solar. Would a nuclear power plant fit Australia's needs? Photo shows A graphic of a nuclear power plant with a nuclear symbol and the numbers 2040 and 2045 in the foregroundA graphic of a nuclear power plant with a nuclear symbol and the numbers 2040 and 2045 in the foreground As the shift away from fossil fuels gathers pace, the Coalition has turned to an emissions-free technology with a long and contentious history — nuclear fission. These are the numbers you should keep in mind when thinking about its place in Australia's energy transition. Wind projects, by contrast, increased by 2 per cent last year following a whopping jump of 35 per cent in 2022-23 and an 8 per cent hike in 2023-24. The CSIRO found gas project costs were continuing to rise, although this partly reflected the shift towards technology that could also run on hydrogen. Cost estimates for miniature nuclear plants called small modular reactors (SMRs), meanwhile, were still by far and away considered the most expensive type of new energy project. However, the CSIRO said it expected costs for SMRs to roughly halve — albeit to a level that was still the most expensive — by 2030 as the technology was commercialised overseas. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Captain Nemo on Dec 9th, 2024 at 10:09am
I don't care if Nuclear power costs twice as much as renewables.
I want 24/7 electricity and you either go with gas or coal to firm the supply or you go nuclear. Which one out of nuclear; gas; coal has zero CO2 emissions? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 9th, 2024 at 10:46am Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 9th, 2024 at 10:09am:
Hydro and batteries can be used for firming....Coal is unreliable as the infrastructure ages and no new coal fired power plants will be built....Gas is the most expensive fossil fuel and Nuclear is twice the cost of Renewable energy....If the Coalition builds Nuclear power plants investment in renewable energy will dry up due to the uncertainty of the investment when Nuclear comes online....The remaining Coal fired plants that currently provide 50% of Australia's power needs will need to be retired before the first Nuclear power plant is built....Australia cannot afford Peter Dutton or Nuclear power!!! ::) ::) ::) https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/nuclear-power-stations-are-not-appropriate-for-australia-and-probably-never-will-be/ |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Captain Nemo on Dec 9th, 2024 at 10:57am
Looming gas shortages and power brown-outs will probably change minds over the next few years.
We need to get going with nuclear generation and start soon. Europe discovered that closing nuclear power plants was a mistake. The Middle East is increasing its interest in nuclear too. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by John Smith on Dec 9th, 2024 at 11:11am Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 9th, 2024 at 10:57am:
No we don't. What we need is the anti renewables lobby to get out of the way and to stop making up crap. That includes all the politicians working for the mining groups. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Daves2017 on Dec 9th, 2024 at 12:04pm
Electricity costs
The levelised cost of different technologies producing a megawatt hour of electricity, in 2024 dollars. $500 Solar $43 $73 Wind onshore $70 $116 Black coal $102 $164 90% Renewable energy (wind and solar) $106 $150 Gas $128 $192 Wind offshore (fixed) $135 $175 Nuclear (large-scale reactor) $155 $252 Nuclear (small modular reactor) $400 $663 Source: CSIRO, GenCost report December 2024 What ever happened to hydro? Have they canceled the snowy mountains 2 project? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Captain Nemo on Dec 9th, 2024 at 12:16pm
Renewables alone will never be able to supply 24/7 electricity.
Nuclear generation in Australia would not be a replacement for renewables however, but it would be a CO2 friendly way of providing that missing base load capability. The longer we wait to get started, the worse things will become. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Dec 9th, 2024 at 2:05pm Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 9th, 2024 at 12:16pm:
Indeed. And hydro. We should make much better use of the rivers. The waste products and energy requirements of solar, wind and battery should be taken into account, too. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 9th, 2024 at 2:51pm |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 9th, 2024 at 2:51pm Frank wrote on Dec 9th, 2024 at 2:05pm:
The waste products from Nuclear should be taken into account too....How long to store Nuclear waste and at what cost??? :-? :-? :-? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Daves2017 on Dec 9th, 2024 at 2:57pm
Reading the figures I quoted below my main issue with nuclear is that while I accept we need the smaller reactors due to the speed in which they can be built larger scale reactors need to be put on the agenda straight away.
My thoughts are we can and should use both nuclear and renewables and definitely more hydro. The biggest issue is the current pricing systems. That only favours the privatisation companies not the community. No matter what we do if we continue to use the business model of the failed privatised labor government model energy will become a luxury to most Australians. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-08/power-failure/8497716 |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 9th, 2024 at 3:34pm
"Battery durations of 24 hours and 48 hours have been added for the
first time. None of these capital costs provide enough information to be able to say one technology is more competitive than the other. Capital costs are only one factor. Additional cost factors include energy input costs (where not already included), round trip efficiency, operating costs and design life." And "Note that these $/kWh costs are not for energy delivered but rather a capacity of storage." And "Storage capital costs in $/kW increase as storage duration increases because additional storage duration adds costs without adding any additional power capacity to the project (Figure 3-4). Additional storage duration is most costly for batteries. These trends are one of the reasons why batteries tend to be deployed in low storage duration applications, while PHES is deployed in high duration applications." https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost Go to 2024-25. If you copy the link it takes you to 2023-24 as below. https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost/2023-24-GenCost-report Of course people will tell us that Batteries can be long storage solutions. But all this uncertainty and they still manage to fine renewables and storage cheaper. ;) Offshore wind is assumed to increase in capacity factor. ;) No mention of wind or solar drought. A lot of averages. Each person has on average about 1 testicle and 1 fully formed breast. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 9th, 2024 at 3:54pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 9th, 2024 at 10:46am:
The CSIRO says the batteries are only good for short term. There is limited availability for pumped hydro, once the drowning of land gets noticed. philperth2010 wrote on Dec 9th, 2024 at 10:46am:
As compared to wind and Solar at around 30% efficiency? philperth2010 wrote on Dec 9th, 2024 at 10:46am:
You say that like it is a bad thing. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Baronvonrort on Dec 9th, 2024 at 4:14pm whiteknight wrote on Dec 9th, 2024 at 9:20am:
This is what they released Quote:
Sounds like they have put it up for peer review which it hasn't passed at this stage. Anything they have posted can be contested |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 9th, 2024 at 4:44pm |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 9th, 2024 at 4:54pm lee wrote on Dec 9th, 2024 at 3:54pm:
Nuclear will provide 4% of Australia's energy needs....Were will the other 96% come from??? :-? :-? :-? https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/26/coalition-nuclear-power-policy-peter-dutton-expert-analysis#:~:text=The%20energy%20minister%2C%20Chris%20Bowen,Australia's%20energy%20needs%20by%202050. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Belgarion on Dec 9th, 2024 at 6:40pm
I see the anti nuclear Luddites are still in denial over the advantages of nuclear energy. Leaving aside the criminally false claims in this latest CSIRO report, yet more evidence that a once great scientific organisation has become a rubber stamp for vested political interests, these fools claims about nuclear power are disproved entirely by the evidence from overseas, yet they still persist.
Once AnAl and his cohorts are removed we can begin to bring this country into the 21st century. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Baronvonrort on Dec 9th, 2024 at 6:58pm
Asking chatGPT the simple unbiased question of how much it will cost to power Australia via renewables or nuclear using real world projects costs gives a revealing answer!
https://chatgpt.com/share/66f25d49-6ee0-8012-bb1b-ce934fec0070 Solar and wind will cost Trillions Nuclear will cost $220 billion  chat_gp_electricity.jpg (200 KB | 1
) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Baronvonrort on Dec 9th, 2024 at 6:59pm
Trillions eh?
;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D trillions_004.jpg (48 KB | 1
) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 9th, 2024 at 7:55pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 9th, 2024 at 4:54pm:
From your reference - So it was Bowen's claim. Not from any engineer or anything. Talk about grasping at straws. From AEMO - "Over the 20-year forecast horizon, annual operational electricity consumption in the NEM is forecast to remain relatively flat, growing less than 6% over the forecast period (180,750 gigawatt hours (GWh) in 2016–17 to 191,049 GWh in 2036–37 in the Neutral scenario). " https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-planning-data/nem-electricity-demand-forecasts/2017-electricity-forecasting-insights/summary-forecasts/annual-consumption-overview SO 191049/8760 =21.8GW. To 2036-37 Back to the Guardian -"Solar and wind farms will need to rise six-fold by 2050 to reach 58GW and 69GW, respectively. Rooftop solar should roughly quadruple to 72GW by then, the report said." So 200GW or 9 times overbuild to get us there. ;) Meanwhile AEMO expects usage to climb only 6% in 24 years. But we are all suoosed to be driving EV's by then. So a massive increase in EV's and only a piddling rise in consumption. Something does not add up. "The 25-year plan did not model nuclear energy because the technology isn’t policy for any federal or state government and is banned. Aemo said nuclear was “one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity”, citing a CSIRO report." Well there goes any cost estimate. ;) "“[The] time it would take to design and build nuclear generation would be too slow to replace retiring coal-fired generation,” Aemo noted in an accompanying factsheet." That is ONLY IF the coal plant are retired. They are running no need to stop them. "Bowen claimed the Coalition policy would “see Australians pay hundreds of billions for the reactors alone”, which he said could provide “at best” 4% of Australia’s energy needs by 2050. It might add $1,000 a year to people’s energy bills, he said." Meanwhile the ABC estimate is 8.5Billion each and apparently we require seven. Of course he didn't say what the cost of the subsidies for renewables would cost in that time frame. "Renewable energy supplied almost 40% of electricity across the national electricity market (Nem) in 2023, and briefly topped 72% last October. The government is aiming for 82% of the Nem to be supplied by clean energy by 2030." Spot the difference? In one they use a year's supply, in the other they use the best month for wind and solar. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/maps/averages/wind-velocity/?period=oct&maptype=10m https://pv-map.apvi.org.au/analyses Chart 5 More - "The market will also need 15GW of gas-fired generation by 2050, up from 11.5GW now, even if rarely used." So on top of the necessary 200GW renewables we will still need another 3.5GW of gas. Dreams writ large. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 9th, 2024 at 8:43pm |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Dec 9th, 2024 at 8:44pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 9th, 2024 at 8:43pm: Oh, moron has spent all his words... |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 9th, 2024 at 8:45pm |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Dec 10th, 2024 at 8:31am philperth2010 wrote on Dec 9th, 2024 at 10:46am:
Much of QLD was plunged into blackout a few years ago because a coal fired power station threw a turbine. When was the last time we had a blackout because of renewables? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 10th, 2024 at 10:42am freediver wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 8:31am:
Exactly....Almost every blackout has been caused by failing Coal plants or severe weather conditions...Apparently (according to Lee) we need more coal and less renewables....Do you support Lee's bullshit FD??? :-? :-? :-? https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/nuclear-power-stations-are-not-appropriate-for-australia-and-probably-never-will-be/ |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Dec 10th, 2024 at 11:49am philperth2010 wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 10:42am:
Stopped clocks are right more often than Lee. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 10th, 2024 at 11:59am freediver wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 8:31am:
Probably not many because coal the most reliable back up is used to prevent this from happening. Coal fired power station can ramp up immediately to cover any shortfall from renewables. The reserve pressure in the coal fired boiler is fast to react. If a coal fired plant fails renewables are not as quick to respond if they have any reserve but generally they are putting out maximum anyway. Coal fired units are able to respond @10-15 mw/min depending on size. When a cloud passes over panels or wind suddenly drops the shortfall is usually covered by coal plants, when a coal plant fails renewables generally cannot make up the shortfall. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 10th, 2024 at 12:21pm freediver wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 8:31am:
So it wasn't a lack of coal. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 10th, 2024 at 12:29pm Leroy wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 11:59am:
Our aging coal power plants are unreliable and prone to shutting down in hot weather....They are also scheduled to be shut down by 2035 before any Nuclear Power plants can be built....Keeping coal fired power plants open for longer and relying on gas to make up the shortfall will only add more to power bills whilst doing little to address climate change!!! Quote:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/ageing-coal-and-gas-generators-getting-less-reliable-says-aemo/ Quote:
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/hot-mess-summer-blackouts-unreliable-coal-power-explained/ Quote:
https://theconversation.com/duttons-nuclear-plan-would-mean-propping-up-coal-for-at-least-12-more-years-and-we-dont-know-what-it-would-cost-239720 Quote:
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/model-flexible-coal-plant-set-for-early-closure-by-2032-20220110-p59n6f ::) ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 10th, 2024 at 12:36pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 10:42am:
And not a lack of coal. You know like a lack of sunshine or a lack of wind. ;) philperth2010 wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 10:42am:
So where exactly did I support more coal? ::) You are getting more like tgd in reading between the lines. philperth2010 wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 10:42am:
Wow. The Climate Council, those bureaucrats who know nothing of nuclear, apart from what they were told on mummy's knee. ;D ;D ;D ;D David Karoly - Climate alarmist John Stone - Transport Grant Blakshi - General practitioner and public health communicator George Carter - Climate Diplomacy expert Nicki Hutley - Economist - "She has extensive experience modelling the impacts of the CPRS, RET and Feed-in Tariff Schemes, undertaken over several years on behalf of Government, private sector, industry and peak body clients." so knowledge of how to access grants. ::) Dinah Arndt - Climate Communications Kirsten Tidswell - Media and Communications https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/about/team/ |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 10th, 2024 at 12:39pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 12:29pm:
We also don't know what it will cost to build all the necessary, according to you, renewables. Or for how long. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 10th, 2024 at 12:50pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 12:29pm:
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/hot-mess-summer-blackouts-unreliable-coal-power-explained/ Quote:
https://theconversation.com/duttons-nuclear-plan-would-mean-propping-up-coal-for-at-least-12-more-years-and-we-dont-know-what-it-would-cost-239720 Quote:
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/model-flexible-coal-plant-set-for-early-closure-by-2032-20220110-p59n6f ::) ::) ::)[/quote] I'll just give you just what I know. AEMO have cut their maintenance on coal plants not wanting to overspend on coal plants due to decommissioning plans. This has lead to a less reliable system and in my mind sabotage. Batteries are not the answer, even if you had 500mw/hr of battery power that gets you one hour, what happens then. Thats assuming you have the ability to keep the batteries at full storage capacity. At the moment the reliance on coal and gas when there is no wind or cloudy skies. The only reason coal becomes a problem in hot weather is when you run them too hard but generally that has never been a problem. Wind turbines need to shut down in strong winds more often than coal plants due to hot weather. Coal has proven beyond doubt it is the most consistent and reliable energy provider we have. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 10th, 2024 at 2:08pm |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Daves2017 on Dec 10th, 2024 at 2:14pm
The last black out due “ in part” to renewables-
“ On the afternoon of 28 September 2016, South Australia (SA) experienced a state-wide blackout. It was triggered by severe weather that damaged transmission and distribution assets, which was followed by reduced wind farm output and a loss of synchronism that caused the loss of the Heywood Interconnector.” “ goggle |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 10th, 2024 at 2:16pm Daves2017 wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 2:14pm:
Wing turbines are locked down in sever weather for protection and obviously solar panels have very limited output. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 10th, 2024 at 2:23pm Daves2017 wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 2:14pm:
It was not due to renewables. It was due to poor maintenance of the power transmission line towers. They had been basically left to rot and not had any maintenance done on them. They would have failed if renewables or non-renewables had supplied the power that they carried. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by aquascoot on Dec 10th, 2024 at 2:25pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 2:23pm:
::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Gnads on Dec 10th, 2024 at 2:51pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 9th, 2024 at 10:46am:
BS ::) It's never been unreliable the infrastructure has been allowed to age with a lack of maintenance. Why is "gas" the most expensive fossil fuel? The export prices should have nothing to do with it's ready availability here. Coal, Gas or nuclear infrastructure will last 3 times as long as renewables like solar & wind that have an average of 10 years before replacement is required. So saying nuclear is twice the cost is a fallacy. The CSIRO is a govt funded institution ... it's halcyon days are long gone ... and it affirms what the Govt want it to affirm. Wouldn't be bought science? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Gnads on Dec 10th, 2024 at 2:54pm Leroy wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 12:50pm:
https://theconversation.com/duttons-nuclear-plan-would-mean-propping-up-coal-for-at-least-12-more-years-and-we-dont-know-what-it-would-cost-239720 Quote:
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/model-flexible-coal-plant-set-for-early-closure-by-2032-20220110-p59n6f ::) ::) ::)[/quote] I'll just give you just what I know. AEMO have cut their maintenance on coal plants not wanting to overspend on coal plants due to decommissioning plans. This has lead to a less reliable system and in my mind sabotage. Batteries are not the answer, even if you had 500mw/hr of battery power that gets you one hour, what happens then. Thats assuming you have the ability to keep the batteries at full storage capacity. At the moment the reliance on coal and gas when there is no wind or cloudy skies. The only reason coal becomes a problem in hot weather is when you run them too hard but generally that has never been a problem. Wind turbines need to shut down in strong winds more often than coal plants due to hot weather. Coal has proven beyond doubt it is the most consistent and reliable energy provider we have. [/quote] 100% correct All these renewable numpties can thank coal for the lifestyles & amenities they enjoy. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 10th, 2024 at 3:02pm Gnads wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 2:51pm:
Gas is the most expensive but that is due to administrative burdens. WA synergy providers have a gas contract which commits them to purchasing a set amount of gas regardless of them using it, even if they don't use it they still have to pay for it. Each year synergy scramble to use reserve gas they have paid for but have not used. It is kept in reserve for emergencies but they lose what they don't use. Coal plants are run inefficiently to cater for the flucuations of renewables, most coal plants run the most efficient at more than 80% capacity but because they need to have spinning reserve coal plants are turned down to 30-50% which makes them less efficient. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 10th, 2024 at 3:04pm
Just to clarify, I'm all for renewables but lying about coal does not make renewables any more reliable.
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 10th, 2024 at 3:16pm aquascoot wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 2:25pm:
What's wrong, Aqua, don't you like the truth? Do you prefer Dave's lies? Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by buzzanddidj on Dec 10th, 2024 at 3:26pm Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 9th, 2024 at 10:09am:
A "little man" once said "the jury is still out on climate change and global warming" and on getting our energy mix right we should "let the market decide" Well, the market HAS decided - and given the the whole "nuclear thing" the big THUMBS DOWN. The set-up and construction costs begin at a "humble" ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS $120,000,000,000.00 With "the market" refusing to get involved, Dutton has already indicated "my government" will be taking the socialist route - with his dream plants owned and paid for by "we, the people" Not all at once, of course, but built in as a levy on the cost over the life of each plant - estimated to average around 30 years. Not forgetting the 30-year-long levy on every watt of electricity created and supplied - to fund the disposal of nucleas waste. If you add on the usual cost blowouts on any government project. the probable cost on completion would be closer to ... $240,000,000,000.00 ... and if we all live long enough, we may see the first light bulb fired - sometime after 2040 . |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 10th, 2024 at 3:33pm Gnads wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 2:51pm:
So we cannot rely on the scientists from the Government bodies that provide the information Politicians rely upon to make informed decisions....Instead you rely upon bullshit to push a false narative....The fact Coal power infrastructure has aged and is no longer reliable seams to escape you and instead you claim it is still reliable despite most being past their retirement age and being closed down by 2035....The Coalition used a Partisan report into renewables that was bought science whilst refusing to release any details of their own policy Quote:
I note you have not provided any report that supports your bullshit....Provide evidence of your claims instead of claiming the experts are corrupt and wrong....Over too you dickhead to back up your bullshit!!! ::) ::) ::) https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/dec/09/csiro-refutes-coalition-case-nuclear-is-cheaper-than-renewable-energy-due-to-operating-life |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 10th, 2024 at 3:37pm buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 3:26pm:
I'm not going to dispute your figures but I do dispute what has happened. The market has spoken but only after it was given false and misleading information to get the result required. If the public were given the honest and real truth they may still reject nuclear power but at least the decision was made knowing the real state of electrical supply. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 10th, 2024 at 3:42pm |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 10th, 2024 at 4:10pm
Has the cost of storing Nuclear waste for centuries been taken into account....Australia cannot even dispose of it's current Nuclear waste....Labor have sold out Australia by agreeing to take US and UK n=Nuclear waste...The Coalition supports Australia becoming the World's Nuclear waste dump!!!
Quote:
::) ::) ::) https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/radioactive-waste-storage-licence-granted-despite-opposition/ |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 10th, 2024 at 4:29pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 4:10pm:
Could store it with the waste from the nuclear subs. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 10th, 2024 at 4:50pm Leroy wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 4:29pm:
So you have no problem with Australia becoming a Nuclear Waste dump for foreign waste....Australia cannot even find a storage solution for it's current low and medium level Nuclear Waste....How much will it cost and were will the dumps be located....What Ports, rail and road infrastructure will be affected....Local, Community support and engagement has been ruled out as not required....I can see a lot of community opposition once the locations are revealed....Not in my back yard??? ::) ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 10th, 2024 at 4:58pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 4:50pm:
I think eventually Musk will make a few more billions loading rockets with nuclear waste and sending them off into space. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 10th, 2024 at 5:05pm Leroy wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 4:58pm:
What could go wrong??? ::) ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 10th, 2024 at 5:07pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 5:05pm:
Its going to happen, just a kilo or two here and there. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 10th, 2024 at 5:13pm Leroy wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 5:07pm:
A rocket ship bound for nowhere with a couple of kilos of nuclear waste does not sound like a cost effective or safe option!!! :-? :-? :-? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Captain Nemo on Dec 10th, 2024 at 5:15pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 4:50pm:
We have to come up with sites for the AUKUS sub nuclear waste and that will most likely be on Commonwealth military land sites. Not a big deal. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 10th, 2024 at 5:16pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 5:13pm:
There is no safe option. Airplanes crash all the time but people still line up to get on them. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 10th, 2024 at 5:29pm Leroy wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 5:16pm:
How much would it cost to send a couple of kilos of nuclear waste into space using a rocket ship....Not to mention the risk if something goes wrong....The proposal is ridiculous and I doubt anyone accept you has suggested it....Can you support your claim Musk is considering this stupidity??? :-? :-? :-? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 10th, 2024 at 5:29pm |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 10th, 2024 at 5:48pm |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 10th, 2024 at 5:57pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 5:48pm:
Joe Biden had the idea - Just teach them to code. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by buzzanddidj on Dec 10th, 2024 at 6:04pm Daves2017 wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 2:14pm:
It was NEVER "about renewables" It WAS about an unprecedented climate event of THREE very powerful cyclones hitting the regions, all back-to-back (climate change event, anyone ?) There was the theory, by Abbott's Energy Minister, Turnbull, that wind and solar energy weighed more than fossill-fuelled electricity - crumbling supply towers - but I'M not buying it . |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 10th, 2024 at 6:13pm buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 6:04pm:
3 distinct weather events. Or don't you believe the WMO about climate - 30 years. ::) But for the sake of argument which 3 are a sign of climate change? ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 10th, 2024 at 6:19pm Quote:
::) ::) ::) https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/hot-mess-summer-blackouts-unreliable-coal-power-explained/#:~:text=The%20Bureau%20of%20Meteorology%20is,overheating%20and%20shutting%20down%20too. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 10th, 2024 at 6:52pm
From your reference -
"warmer than average days are likely across large parts of the country warmer than average nights are very likely across almost all of Australia with an increased chance of unusually high overnight temperatures nationwide." http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/outlooks/#/overview/summary Unusually high overnight temperatures nationwide - but not from unusually high daytime temperatures nationwide? ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 10th, 2024 at 7:15pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 5:29pm:
50 years ago when you were a teenager what were the chances of seeing an electric car or even a driverless car. What about a phone you could put in your pocket and make video calls to someone in another country. Never going to happen was it. You have been around a while and should know that never going to happen will always bite you. It will be in 30+ years which gives plenty of time to condition the public. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 10th, 2024 at 7:26pm
Hot weather is not a problem for coal plants, coal fired power station can handle the hot weather quite well. The problem is people handling the hot weather. On hot days there is usually very little wind but solar panels are at full capacity until the evening when everyone turns on their air conditioners. Thats when things get tough, peak load and no wind and sun going down. Extra load is placed on coal with units pushed beyond their rated loads and this is where it gets critical, if one unit were to fall off and load is not shed fast enough ( I'm talking minute ) it could start a domino effect.
The coal plant would merrily run if its not pushed beyond capacity and too much load on the grid on the hottest of days. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 10th, 2024 at 7:44pm lee wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 6:52pm:
Okay??? :-/ :-/ :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by buzzanddidj on Dec 10th, 2024 at 8:13pm Leroy wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 3:37pm:
I'd think 'big energy' is MORE than capable of conducting its own research on the pros and cons of fossil fuels vs nuclear vs clean energy. Particularly when there are hundreds of billions in investment dollars on the table I doubt they're holding their breath awaiting the release of any government 'white paper' " There have been just TWO new nuclear plants gone into construction in the US in almost a decade. Over the same period in the US, THIRTY-SEVEN plants have been shut down - PERMANTLY It is only in third world (developing) countries that you will find any growth in any nuclear power sector. It is the energy of a yesteryear. . |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Dec 10th, 2024 at 8:19pm
Well, the French, the Russians, Chinese, Swedes, Belgians, Koreans, indians etc must be total eejits - they have nuclear power plants.
In Asia there are about 145 operable nuclear power reactors, about 45 under construction and firm plans to build an additional 50-60. Many more are proposed |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 10th, 2024 at 8:23pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 7:44pm:
So not - philperth2010 wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 6:19pm:
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 10th, 2024 at 8:31pm Frank wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 8:19pm:
China commissions a new coal fired power station every two weeks. At the moment they have 1161 coal fired power stations. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 10th, 2024 at 8:34pm |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 11th, 2024 at 3:17pm lee wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 8:23pm:
The BOM have declared Australia facing one of the hottest summers on record....If you have any evidence the BOM is incorrect then post your evidence and prove the BOM wrong....Your pathetic opinion is worthless??? Quote:
::) ::) ::) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-12/australia-facing-one-of-hottest-summers-on-record-bom/104464014 https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/daunting-map-reveals-australia-is-in-for-unusually-hot-summer/news-story/cd28348a5ce8b11c6f326087e3ecdbf2 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/australia-facing-one-of-the-hottest-summers-on-record-according-to-bom-prediction/ar-AA1s7ebx https://media.bom.gov.au/releases/1205/the-bureau-forecasts-an-unusually-warm-summer/ |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 11th, 2024 at 3:32pm Leroy wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 7:15pm:
I am still waiting for you to provide proof Elon Musk proposed sending Nuclear Waste into space a couple of kilos per rocket ship....Provide the evidence you relied upon to make this claim....All we have is your claim with nothing to support it....The idea is ridiculous??? :-? :-? :-? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 11th, 2024 at 4:24pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 3:17pm:
No that was the Climate Council, allegedly quoting BOM. The Climate Council are NOT BOM ::) philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 3:17pm:
BOM itself said the summer days would be warmer than average lee wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 6:52pm:
Warmer than average is no claim to be the hottest evah. Averages are made up of warmer and cooler temperatures. Nightime temperatures may be higher than average, but that also does not make it the hottest on record. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 11th, 2024 at 4:42pm lee wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 4:24pm:
So you cannot provide any evidence to refute the prediction from the BOM....Instead you play on words to support your stupidity....You claim that it was the Climate Council and not the BOM making the claim is ignorant bullshit....So warmer than average does not equate to higher temperatures according to you....If you have any evidence the BOM is incorrect then post your evidence and prove the BOM wrong....You opinion is not evidence dickhead!!! ::) ::) ::) https://theconversation.com/40-c-in-august-a-climate-expert-explains-why-australia-is-ridiculously-hot-right-now-237398 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-08/hot-spring-weather-bom-predicts-summer-scorcher/104574440 ::) ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 11th, 2024 at 5:07pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 4:42pm:
You poor dumb Schmuck. You can't tell the difference between BOM and the Climate Council. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 4:42pm:
Wow and NOTHING to do with the El Nino and Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai (HT) eruption that is still having an impact. ;D ;D ;D ;D https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-08/hot-spring-weather-bom-predicts-summer-scorcher/104574440 But what you should really do is look at when BOM made their summary. Hint: 5 December. The Conversation? 26 August. The ABC? 8 November. Both well before BOM's prognostications. You really are deficient. ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 11th, 2024 at 5:18pm
More on August temperatures - from NASA -
"In 2024, global temperatures for June through August were the hottest on record, narrowly topping the same period in 2023. The exceptional heat extended throughout other seasons, too, with global temperatures breaking records for 15 straight months from June 2023 until August 2024, according to scientists from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Although this spell of record heat fits within a long-term warming trend driven by human activity—primarily greenhouse gas emissions—the intensity of the heat, which reached a crescendo in the last half of 2023, surprised leading climate scientists. In a commentary in Nature, Gavin Schmidt, the director of GISS, used words like “humbling” and “confounding” to explain just how far temperatures overshot expectations during that period. " https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/153588/charting-the-exceptional-unexpected-heat-of-2023-and-2024 So even NASA doesn't know what caused it. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 11th, 2024 at 5:38pm lee wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 5:18pm:
The cause is Global Warming as stated in the article you posted....Look at the rising trend in temperatures accross the world....Do you claim the world is not warming Lee??? Thank you for confirming the BOM are correct!!! ::) ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 11th, 2024 at 5:58pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 3:32pm:
Leroy wrote on Dec 10th, 2024 at 4:58pm:
You want me to provide evidence of what I think, how does that work?. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:03pm Leroy wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 5:58pm:
It won't because you obviously do not think....Your proposal (Nobody elses) is to send of Nuclear Waste a couple of kilos at a time into space....The idea is idiodic and nobody would support such an idiodic proposal!!! ::) ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:03pm
Want weather forecasts more than 15 days away? Not possible, say researchers
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-19/weather-forecasts-and-why-long-range-ones-dont-work/11023750 |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:04pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:03pm:
And you speak for everybody?. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:15pm
Several universities and world nuclear association are or have considered sending waste into space. I do understand information takes a long time to reach Perth so its all good.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:27pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 5:38pm:
According to NASA. Who believe CO2 is the control knob. But H2O is the dominant GHG and has a much greater control than any minor gas. CO2 is 420ppm is 0.042% of the atmosphere. Human emissions are about 4% of that 0.04%. ::) philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 5:38pm:
And? Please provide the link that PROVES CO2 is the cause. In fact it was after some delegates had left an IPCC meeting that the wording was changed to say there was a proven link, but never shown. ::) philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 5:38pm:
Well there is that possibility. However UK alone has a number of phantom sites. "Science Shock: U.K. Met Office is “Inventing” Temperature Data from 100 Non-Existent Stations" https://dailysceptic.org/2024/11/05/science-shock-u-k-met-office-is-inventing-temperature-data-from-100-non-existent-stations/ And of course the uk met office can show annual temperatures back to 1850 with an accuracy of 7 decimal places. Of course back then they were using liquid-in-glass thermometers. Good luck getting 7 decimal places on those. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/data/HadCRUT.5.0.2.0/analysis/diagnostics/HadCRUT.5.0.2.0.analysis.summary_series.global.annual.csv And these days most of the temperatures are taken at airports, which are designed for aircraft and not climate, as they have inherent problems. And then there is homogenisation. Homogenistaion can't tell you what the temperature was yesterday, never mind a day 100 odd years ago. philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 5:38pm:
Where did I do that? It was the Climate Council that you quoted, NOT BOM. You are such a dick. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:38pm lee wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:27pm:
Okay Lee....So according to you....Global Warming is crap and the world is not warming....There is no evidence CO2 is causing temperatures to rise....The Climate Council, CSIRO and ABC are corrupt by publishing bogus reports from the BOM....World Governments are in a conspiracy to eliminate fossil fuels....The Climate Council lied about the BOM report which showed no warming or concern....Keep up the good work!!! ;) ;) ;) Excellent source by the way....Why would you accept anything else??? Quote:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-sceptic-bias/ |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:44pm Leroy wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:15pm:
Quote:
So nobody is stupid enough to send Nuclear Waste into Space for the reasons I quoted accept for you....You are such a dickhead!!! ::) ::) ::) By the way....Your links go nowhere??? https://space.nss.org/wp-content/uploads/Space-Manufacturing-conference-12-111-D%20isposal-Of-High-Level-Nuclear-Waste-In-Space.pdf https://opinion.sites.northeastern.edu/2020/12/29/why-dont-we-send-nuclear-waste%20-into-space/ |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:52pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:44pm:
So nobody is stupid enough to send Nuclear Waste into Space for the reasons I quoted accept for you....You are such a dickhead!!! ::) ::) ::) By the way....Your links go nowhere??? https://space.nss.org/wp-content/uploads/Space-Manufacturing-conference-12-111-D%20isposal-Of-High-Level-Nuclear-Waste-In-Space.pdf https://opinion.sites.northeastern.edu/2020/12/29/why-dont-we-send-nuclear-waste%20-into-space/[/quote] I don't know why you are getting so irate Phil, I'm just predicting that in 30+ years they will be sending nuclear waste into space, why does that offend you so much. There have been many discussions and investigations into it and safety and cost have been too risky to attempt it. It was not long ago they sent tourists into space when years before they said it was to unsafe and to costly but now its not. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:59pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:38pm:
Nope, AGW "climate porn", "existential threat" is crap. The world may be warming. The question is, if it is how much is mankind's contribution? The instruments are not ideally sited and distort things, so one cannot actually conclude anything. philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:38pm:
You haven't shown any report from BOM. I haven't seen you post one on the ABC that was published after BOM released its projections. Timing is everything. philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:38pm:
Well it is not individuals trying to eleminate fossil fuels, by edict. Then there are the billionaires who see great gain in touting renewables. Those billionaires like to fly private jets, and have an increased carbon footprint. But is only for elites, they want the rest to holiday at home or not at all. ::) philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:38pm:
And yet you haven't shown that is not what they did. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D BTW - here is the story of Ben Santer and what was agreed and what was subsequently published by the IPCC. "Agreed comments 1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.” 2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.” 3. “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.” 4. “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.” Santer’s replacements 1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.” 2. “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.” The second assessment report. 1995. Santer and others published a paper in 1996 that said the models were accurate. And we know now that they ain't. But publishing a paper after the event? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 11th, 2024 at 7:09pm lee wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 6:59pm:
Can you provide the links to the articles you posted Lee....The report is almost 30 years old??? :-? :-? :-? https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Belgarion on Dec 11th, 2024 at 9:00pm
None of the Luddites can explain why AnAl and co. are right and the 32 nations using or developing nuclear power are wrong. ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 11th, 2024 at 9:37pm
Oh, dearie, dearie, me, Belgarion, you really want the near impossible from everybody don't you. Tell us what, how about you explain why these developing countries are willing to invest billions of dollars (which they really don't have) in nuclear energy when more developed countries aren't? I look forward to your response. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Dec 11th, 2024 at 9:47pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 9:37pm:
In Asia there are about 145 operable nuclear power reactors, about 45 under construction and firm plans to build an additional 50-60. Many more are proposed. There are seven nuclear power reactors in operation in Latin America: three in Argentina, two in Brazil and two in Mexico |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Labor majority government on Dec 11th, 2024 at 10:20pm
Doesn't spud want to build one on s faultline that's had four earthquakes over 4 on Richter scale ? He also wants SMRs and currently only China who can't stand liberals and Russia have operational examples ... so we're told ... :o
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 11th, 2024 at 11:05pm Labor majority government wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 10:20pm:
They can be built to withstand earthquakes. The technology is decades old. "Diablo Canyon (Nuclear) Power Plant, located in San Luis Obispo County California, was originally designed to withstand a 6.75 magnitude earthquake from four faults, including the nearby San Andreas Fault and Hosgri Fault,[1] but was later upgraded to withstand a 7.5 magnitude quake.[2] It has redundant seismic monitoring and a safety system designed to shut it down promptly in the event of significant ground motion. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_earthquake_vulnerability |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 11th, 2024 at 11:40pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 7:09pm:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/24/a-history-of-dr-ben-santer-and-his-ipcc-trick/ [url=https://iowaclimate.org/2022/03/25/can-we-trust-the-science/]https://iowaclimate.org/2022/03/25/can-we-trust-the-science/ https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Seitz-A_Major_Deception_on_Global_Warming.pdf https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/bams/78/1/1520-0477-78_1_81.pdf It also appeared in the Wall Street Journal. And hasn't been updated. Climate Attribution Studies excepted, aka computer modelling. ::) https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ Wow. Summary for Policymakers. The bureaucrats who don't have any special attributes except be policy wonks. The 1.5C and the 2C before it were from economists or bureaucrats. "William Nordhaus, an economist at Yale was the first corporate shrill to suggest that 2C was both achievable and safe." https://kevinhester.live/2016/06/05/the-myth-of-2c-being-safe-and-achievable/ The Paris Agreement parties set 2C but agreed to try for 1.5C. So the 1.5C is not written in stone. In fact nothing about Paris Agreement is written in stone. "However, the understanding has led to prominent experts to argue the Paris accord is not a legally binding document after all. The power of the Paris Agreement in fact relies on a fluid agreement about the consequences for violating an international agreement, one not precisely defined." "Yet the treaty itself has few legal teeth. It does not impose penalties, such as fees or embargos, for parties that violate its terms, and there is no international court or governing body ready to enforce compliance. That has prompted some prominent experts to argue the Paris accord is not a legally binding document after all." https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/11/paris-climate-agreement-legally-binding/ So a so-called legally binding document has no teeth. It is feel good bs. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 12th, 2024 at 7:42am lee wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 11:40pm:
Half the links you posted do not work and the others are either 30 years old or worthless like you....So global warming is crap and the world is not warming according to Lee!!! Why do we need to worry about heat waves shutting down Nuclear Reactors when the world is not warming and the heat is being exagerated by Governmnets and scientific institutions to make money....We cannot trust science that claims the world is warming....There is no evidence according to Lee so why bother....The whole thing is bullshit according to Lee so keep the light on and run that AC full tilt....She will be right mate??? Debate over....Lee wins!!! ::) ::) ::) Quote:
https://davidsuzuki.org/story/climate-science-deniers-credibility-tested/ |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:07am
If climate change is bullshit as Lee claims....Why do we need to build expensive radioactive Nuclear reactors at all....We can keep using coal and gas which is safer and cheaper....Dutton is selling us a lie that we do not need because global warming is a load of crap hey Lee....No to Nuclear and more gas and coal will do the job....Why waste money on Nuclear when it is not needed and we have so much gas and coal???
[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] https://theconversation.com/the-thinking-error-that-makes-people-susceptible-to-climate-change-denial-204607 |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:23am philperth2010 wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:07am:
By the time Australia phases out its remaining 24 coal power stations China will have built another 200 coal fired power stations. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:37am Leroy wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:23am:
Exactly....So why are we going with the expensive Nuclear option when we can just build more coal and gas generation....Dutton is selling Australia out by opting for the most expensive power supply based on a Global Warming lie....We should be following the Chinese example and stick with coal and gas....Australia is so small we add very little to the hoax of Global Warming so why does Dutton want to build Nuclear....What a waste of time and money....Fossil fuel is safe and reliable??? ;) ;) ;) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Carl D on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:43am
Indeed.
Australia is so small that we make very little difference to global warming by continuing to use gas and coal instead of going nuclear. Especially compared to China. media_GdxsgzhbAAAqV9f.jpg (55 KB | 0
) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:48am philperth2010 wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:37am:
Nuclear is cheaper Nuclear reactors can be up to 10,000mw, but 1,000 units would be more sensible for Australia. Perth for instance has a peak load of around 3000mw so three reactors would be sufficient for Western Australia. The largest coal plant in WA is 330mw. Wind turbines are less than 10 mw. When it comes to stability and reliability you get what you pay for. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by John Smith on Dec 12th, 2024 at 10:28am lee wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 11:05pm:
Didn't help Fukishima ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Dec 12th, 2024 at 10:30am philperth2010 wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:37am:
You'd have a coronary - along with the Greens, Teals and Gretas - if anyone said so. Nuclear was introduced decades before the AGW political scare took hold. It is not polluting the air, unlike brown coal, and the world has uranium reserves that would supply clean reliable energy much longer than coal and oil. That is why nuclear was introduced and that is why it remains a viable option. But it is not as easily and flexibly portable as fossil fuels. You can't have it in your car or truck or rooftop but can have it in an aircraft carrier or submarine. It is a good option to have in the energy mix, together with hydro. AUSTRALIA should have a lot more hydro power, alas the blue banded bee dreaming won't allow it. Or is it the fat arsed wombat dreaming - I forget. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by John Smith on Dec 12th, 2024 at 10:33am Leroy wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:48am:
only in your own mind. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Dec 12th, 2024 at 10:36am John Smith wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 10:28am:
Deaths from that earthquake and tsunami: 20,000 From the damage to the nuclear reactor: 1 (suspected, 4 years later) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by John Smith on Dec 12th, 2024 at 10:48am Frank wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 10:36am:
I'm betting that you think you have a point :D :D :D |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 12th, 2024 at 10:54am John Smith wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 10:33am:
Its expensive for our government. Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Captain Nemo on Dec 12th, 2024 at 11:03am
You get what you pay for:
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 12th, 2024 at 11:54am
How does Dutton know Nuclear will be cheaper when he has not released the report on Nuclear energy....So either Dutton is making it up or he has the report and is refusing to release it....Dutton cannot hide the report forever and Australians deserve answers!!!
:-? :-? :-? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 12th, 2024 at 12:04pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 11:54am:
The rest of the world knows that nuclear power is cheaper, other questions remain, is it safe and, what do we do with the waste. These costs proven to be accurate from real power stations. Australia is different, government bureaucracy costs far exceed that of making the actual power. When they compare costs in Australia they include levies on nuclear and coal power and subsidized costs on renewables. I'm all for renewables but how do you maintain reliability with renewables, at the moment we have to have enough capacity from coal and gas to fulfill the entire grid capacity. No one can explain how it will be done with renewables. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by John Smith on Dec 12th, 2024 at 12:15pm Leroy wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 10:54am:
not gullible much are you? I'm going to bet that you believe that woolworths really are the fresh food people too :D :D |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 12th, 2024 at 12:27pm John Smith wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 12:15pm:
I willing to look at any thing you have to show what the actual costs of producing power are. I'm not stuck in my ways, if you provide something I promise I will read it and if you are correct I will acknowledge that. It makes no difference to me which energy source is cheapest because the thing that kills up on our electrical bills in Australia is the cost of bureaucracy not the actual cost of power. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by John Smith on Dec 12th, 2024 at 1:19pm Leroy wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 12:27pm:
I'm happy to stick to the CSIRO's finding, it's in the opening post of this thread. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Belgarion on Dec 12th, 2024 at 1:50pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 11th, 2024 at 9:37pm:
Look at the map. Most of the developed world and several less developed counties are investing in nuclear power. Why? Because it works, unlike the renewables fantasy. There are up front costs, often exacerbated by anti nuclear activists and bureaucrats putting any obstacle they can in the way, but nuclear provides. Those nations who are not investing in nuclear, mainly in Europe, are buying energy from those nations who do have it. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nuclear-power-by-country |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 12th, 2024 at 1:55pm John Smith wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 10:28am:
No but a tsunami is not an earthquake. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 12th, 2024 at 2:12pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:07am:
Exactly. Thanks for that. But it is only the alarmist view that is bullshit. ;) philperth2010 wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 7:42am:
That ls because the deed was done over 30 years ago. Which links didn't work. they all worked for me, I did a live dive, Clive. ;) philperth2010 wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 7:42am:
You do know how to lie don't you, but not well. ;D ;D ;D ;D philperth2010 wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 7:42am:
Where have reactors shut down due to AGW? I am assuming that's what you are bleating about? ;) philperth2010 wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 7:42am:
No the climate wins, the environment wins, less mining. ;) philperth2010 wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 7:42am:
OOH David Suzuki another failed environmentalist. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D But interesting - "Beyond containing logical fallacies and personal attacks, the arguments aren’t credible. That’s clear from a legal case against Tim Ball, a retired University of Winnipeg geography professor with connections to anti-climate-science organizations like the misnamed, industry-funded Friends of Science and the defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project." Now that has a link to DeSmogblog which doesn't work. Howewver the case is likely Mike Mann V Tim Ball. and Tim Ball won because mike Mann failed to pusue his case. But that's only probably becxause he didn't have a case in the first place. ;) And then - "As for Tom Harris and Patrick Moore, you don’t need a judge to see how unscientific and inaccurate their arguments are. In a 2007 speech in Regina, Moore — who once worked for Greenpeace but then started shilling for industries ranging from fossil fuels to nuclear power — dismissed concerns about melting glaciers. “Why are glaciers perceived as something important? They are just big globs of frozen water. Nothing grows on them, they are basically dead zones,” he said." Of course recent studies have concluded that the glaciers aren't in as bad a health as claimed. ;) "David Suzuki apologizes for saying pipelines could be 'blown up' Words were 'poorly chosen and I should not have said them,' says environmentalist" Oooh an environmentalist talks up blowing up pipelines? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Dec 12th, 2024 at 2:17pm whiteknight wrote on Dec 9th, 2024 at 9:20am:
One of the most common objections to Australia pursuing nuclear power is that it is allegedly too expensive. This claim originates from the CSIRO’s GenCost report, which asserts that nuclear is around double the cost of wind and solar. However, Centre for Independent Studies analysis has shown that correcting some of the GenCost model’s unrealistic assumptions would negate this objection. In fact, nuclear is easily cost-competitive with renewables – and is likely cheaper when compared with the actual costs Australians will face to firm renewables. .... Tallying up the costs of the currently planned pumped hydro projects in the National Electricity Market – Snowy 2.0, Pioneer-Burdekin and Borumba – gives a total of $38.2 billion. Doing the same for the many transmission projects currently being approved – VNI West, HumeLink, Central-West Orana REZ, New England REZ, Sydney Ring, Gladstone Grid Reinforcement, Queensland SuperGrid South, CopperString and Project Marinus – comes to a total of $34.6 billion. This means Australians are set to pay $72.8 billion for pumped hydro and transmission that don’t produce any electricity and are simply there to firm intermittent wind and solar energy. Taking at face value GenCost’s capital cost estimate of $8.7 billion to build a 1GW reactor, $72.8 billion is enough to buy eight large-scale nuclear reactors. A recent Centre for Independent Studies paper, The six fundamental flaws underpinning the energy transition, calculated the cost at today’s prices of all the consumer batteries we’d need to support the grid by 2050 according to AEMO’s Integrated System Plan, using GenCost’s capital cost estimates. The total comes to $229 billion. Adding the cost of these consumer batteries to the transmission and pumped hydro costs gives you an eye-watering $301.8 billion. That means the amount Australians are set to spend on firming infrastructure in the next few decades is enough to buy 35 1GW reactors. To put this in perspective, the peak demand for the entire National Electricity Market in 2024 was 38 GW. So for the price we’re paying just to support intermittent wind and solar, we could afford to build even a 90% nuclear grid that is cheap, clean and reliable. It is now abundantly clear, despite anti-nuclear advocates’ claims to the contrary, that nuclear power is not exorbitantly expensive, especially when we consider how much Australian consumers are paying — and will continue to pay — to support intermittent renewables. https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/opinion/nuclear-vs-renewables-which-is-cheaper/ And nobody is advocating a 90% nuclear grid. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 12th, 2024 at 3:19pm Belgarion wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 1:50pm:
An interesting point but it still fails to answer the question. How are developing nations which are supposedly investing in nuclear power going to handle ongoing costs such as that of waste storage? How are they going to handle the costs required for the investment in the nuclear fuel? Renewables are not a fantasy, renewables work and work well, Belgarion. Indeed your charactising them as a fantasy shows how disconnected from reality you are. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) ps. Your map is wildly inaccurate. According to it we have 10 reactors in operation in Australia. We have two. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Dec 12th, 2024 at 3:59pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 3:19pm:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nuclear-power-by-country The map doesn't show Australia with 10 reactors. Or 2. Quote:
They have agreements with larger, richer countries to handle all that. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 12th, 2024 at 4:25pm John Smith wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 1:19pm:
Lets just say for arguments sake Nuclear is twice as costly as renewables. You still need nuclear or coal/gas to be available when renewables cannot supply. Renewables can only be used when they are available. Supply has to be available 24/7. Just say your peak load is 5,000m/w To cover peak times you nee at least 5,000m/w of solar to cover when the wind isn't blowing and you need 5,000m/w of wind power for days when there is no sun and you need 5,000 of coal/gas for when there is no wind or sun. You now have 15,000m/w of infrastructure, triple the cost of just having one power source. If you have nuclear then you only need one source of power 5,000m/w for 24/7 supply. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by philperth2010 on Dec 12th, 2024 at 4:58pm Leroy wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 4:25pm:
Who will invest in renewables when Nuclear will force renewables to shut down when they are most effective....Nuclear will only account for 4% of our energy needs with only gas and coal to fill the gap until the infrastructure can be built....To be fair nobody can really determine the real cost and time frame until Dutton releases his report into Nuclear Energy in Australia....Why is Dutton refusing to release the report and if it is not done yet how does Dutton know how much it will cost??? :-? :-? :-? Quote:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/19/climate-needs-come-a-distant-second-to-politics-in-duttons-nuclear-plans https://mckellinstitute.org.au/research/articles/explainer-heres-why-the-evidence-suggest-nuclear-doesnt-make-sense-for-australia/ https://cleanenergycouncil.org.au/news-resources/new-independent-research-nuclear-six-times-the-cost-of-renewables |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 12th, 2024 at 5:00pm
I've never known a day with out sun. You seem to be under the impression that solar cells don't work during daylight if there is cloud. I think you'd need a dense fog to stop them working. Even in a dense fog, Solar panels typically operate at about 50% efficiency in a dense fog. This is better than in dense cloud cover or overcast conditions when it falls to about 25% efficiency. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Jasin on Dec 12th, 2024 at 5:09pm
You mean without sun, you idiot.
You've obviously never experienced a solar eclipse either |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 12th, 2024 at 5:18pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 5:00pm:
Below is the load profile for western Australia with live updates. You can see that 4am this morning there was 0.04mw of solar power and virtually no wind, coal and gas were supplying 99.9% of supply. At 2:20pm solar and wind were supplying over 50% of supply. If you take away the coal and gas you will see how unreliable the supply will be. https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/wholesale-electricity-market-wem/data-wem/data-dashboard You may need to scroll down and click on fuel mix. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Dec 12th, 2024 at 5:26pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 4:58pm:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/19/climate-needs-come-a-distant-second-to-politics-in-duttons-nuclear-plans https://mckellinstitute.org.au/research/articles/explainer-heres-why-the-evidence-suggest-nuclear-doesnt-make-sense-for-australia/ https://cleanenergycouncil.org.au/news-resources/new-independent-research-nuclear-six-times-the-cost-of-renewables[/quote] Any non-tendetious sources for this drivel? Other countries are building coal AND nuclear power plants as well as solar and wind. Are they following Dutton? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 12th, 2024 at 5:39pm philperth2010 wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 4:58pm:
That is not mentioned in your two references. You must be referring to Bowen Blowin' in the Wind. It seem Bowen may have got his figures from the Smart Energy Council. A renewable energy concern. "The bulk of the $121 billion would be invested by the private sector between now and 2050 to deliver about 300 gigawatts of capacity by 2050. These figures compare to just 11 gigawatts of nuclear capacity funded by the taxpayer in the opposition’s proposal, the council said." If you do those maths 11GW/300GW it is indeed 3.7%. However we know that even with 9 times overbuild renewables can't hack it, requiring a further 3.5GW of gas on top of the current 11.4GW, courtesy AEMO. https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/major-publications/isp/2024/2024-integrated-system-plan-overview.pdf?la=en And 15GW of gas makes it 26 with nuclear. So 26GW is close to 33GW intermittent power. ;) And AEMO specifically exclude NT and WA. Why is Labor lying about the cost and only 4%? ;) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 12th, 2024 at 5:47pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 5:00pm:
Who said anything about them STOP working? Clouds, even light clouds, reduce the sunlight intensity, it therefore reduces solar panel output. Heavy clouds, thunderstorms, cyclonic clouds will have a significant effect. ;) " Solar panels may generate between 10% and 25% of their normal output on cloudy days." https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/what-happens-to-solar-power-when-its-cloudy-or-raining/ So 30% average capacity goes down markedly. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 12th, 2024 at 7:36pm
Oh, dearie, dearie, me, Lee you really are a wally, you know? The point is that there is always sun, somewhere. Even with the sun obscured by cloud, the coud cover is not so complete that a solar panel does not produce some power. It might be less than optimum but it is still producing power. Leroy or rather Soren and you maintain that it doesn't produce any power. It might not here but over there where the sun is shining, it's at full power. Same for wind. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Belgarion on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:06pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 3:19pm:
How do you see 10 reactors in Australia on that map? As for renewables being a fantasy, how is your power bill lately? Have you noticed the increasing blackouts and the warnings from government about power usage, or the decision to allow the energy regulator to turn off your solar if deemed necessary? All the above are a result of the ideological fantasy that so called 'renewables' can provide the power a modern nation needs, encouraged by the grifters who are making billions out of it. But wait! There's more!: https://www.thecivilengineer.org/news/solar-farms-and-wind-turbines-tested-and-failed-by-storm-darragh |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:11pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 7:36pm:
Over there... Backdoor Deidre.... where the sun dont shine... Hear you Sigmund, loud and clear. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:22pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 5:00pm:
Power supply has to be 24 hours a day, electricity is required even when the sun goes down. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:42pm Frank wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:11pm:
Oh, dearie, dearie, me, you're such a Troll, Soren. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:43pm Leroy wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:22pm:
Guess what blows 24 hours a day, Soren? The wind. Funny that, it nicely complements the sun as a power source. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:45pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:43pm:
Just like it did in Western Australia today, no wind and no solar. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:52pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:43pm:
3:55 am this morning Western Australian power demand was 2355Mw Solar output 0% Wind output 4.07% not even enough to keep the street lights on or supply hospitals. They have 638Mw of wind turbines but could only get 58Mw They have 1,362Mw of solar and could get nothing from them combined total of 2,000Mw of renewables and all they could produce was 58Mw. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:52pm Belgarion wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:06pm:
The map you originally put up showed 10 reactors in Australia (and most of the world). It is incorrect because we only have two. Renewables are quite capable of supplying a nation like Australia's energy needs. Solar, Wind, Tidal (still to be explored), ocean currents, hydro-electric are a few of the ways we can exploit nature for energy, Belgarion. Your attempt to paint them as useless is well, useless, capeche? The energy exists, it just needs to be exploited. If you don't agree with it, you can always move somewhere else. Nuclear is expensive and dangerous. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:54pm Leroy wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:45pm:
So, the entire state was becalmed was it? It was covered with dense cloud was it? It was night time there was it, Soren for the entire 24 hours was it? Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 12th, 2024 at 9:00pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:54pm:
Yes it was, the fleet of wind turbines stretch all the way across the state. There are times also when they have to lock the turbines down because the wind is to strong and they cant risk running them. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 12th, 2024 at 9:06pm Leroy wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 9:00pm:
So, what was stopping the Solar Cells from working, Soren? Cloud cover? Night time? What? Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 12th, 2024 at 9:17pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 9:06pm:
I'll let you figure that one out Karnal, it was 3:55am. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 12th, 2024 at 9:18pm
3:55 am this morning Western Australian power demand was 2355Mw
Solar output 0% Wind output 4.07% not even enough to keep the street lights on or supply hospitals. They have 638Mw of wind turbines but could only get 58Mw They have 1,362Mw of solar and could get nothing from them combined total of 2,000Mw of renewables and all they could produce was 58Mw. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 12th, 2024 at 9:42pm
Luckily, no one of consequence was awake at 3.55am. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 12th, 2024 at 10:57pm |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Armchair_Politician on Dec 13th, 2024 at 6:13am
Nothing more than a predictable Labor scare campaign devoid of facts…
https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1734030151 |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Belgarion on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:03am Brian Ross wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 9:42pm:
I'm sure the emergency services, people on life support, heavy industry etc. will be glad to know they are of no consequence. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Belgarion on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:07am Brian Ross wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:52pm:
None of the methods you mention can supply smoothly regulated 24/7 power. As for going somewhere else, I trust that you and the other anti nuclear people will never travel overseas? Because if you did you will almost certainly be using electricity generated by nuclear power and that would be terribly hypocritical of you. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by John Smith on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:27am Leroy wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 9:18pm:
your source? or are you going to run away again? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 13th, 2024 at 10:42am |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Dec 13th, 2024 at 10:55am
The Opposition Leader said the Prime Minister had not refuted modelling showing that Labor’s energy plan to rewire the grid for a renewable transition would cost five times more than the government had estimated.
Mr Dutton said the outfit commissioned to model the two proposals, Frontier Economics, was the “best in the business” and well placed to examine the costs. “They’ve done millions of dollars of work in the Labor government,” he said. “The Prime Minister never made a criticism about the assumptions in relation to the first report where it projected that Labor’s plan was going to cost about five times more than what they were telling you, “And we got a well thought out plan here, and this has been a long time in the making. “We have independent costings which provide that validation and the contrast between the two is significant.” Mr Dutton said countries around the world had concluded that there was no hope of achieving zero emissions without nuclear power in the system. “Australians are smarter than what the Prime Minister credits and Australians are well read,” he said. “They understand what is happening internationally and that the latest technology nuclear is zero emissions, 24/7 baseload power so we don’t get the Labor blackouts and it’s going to bring prices down by 44 per cent compared to Labor’s cost, which will be the difference between families being able to pay their bills and not.” |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Dec 13th, 2024 at 10:56am
Peter Dutton is pitching his $331bn nuclear power policy to Australians, declaring the Coalition has a plan that is “going to keep the lights on”.
Speaking after the Coalition released the costs on its nuclear policy, the Opposition Leader said the approach would be more affordable, lower emissions and “deliver a plan today which will get the energy mix right”. Mr Dutton attacked Labor’s criticism that the policy is dangerous, arguing that Anthony Albanese had signed off on nuclear submarines being allowed into the country under the AUKUS agreement. “This will make electricity reliable, it will make it more consistent, cheaper, for Australians and it will help us decarbonise as a trading economy as we must,” Mr Dutton said. “The fact is we can deliver a plan which is going to keep the lights on and we have a plan and a vision for our country which will help grow businesses not close them down. “As is currently happening under this government, I know there are many Australians at the moment, 560 a week, families going onto payment plans or experiencing hardship. “When it comes to paying electricity bills under the Albanese government. “The most tragic part is it is going to get much worse if Mr Albanese is elected, particularly in a minority government situation and what we’ve looked at is the experience of every developed country around the world.” |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 13th, 2024 at 11:02am John Smith wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:27am:
Well if you bothered to read my posts you would see that I included a link to the information. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 13th, 2024 at 11:28am
Well John have you read the information of have you run away?.
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 13th, 2024 at 2:06pm |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Captain Nemo on Dec 13th, 2024 at 2:10pm
Australia’s federal opposition has announced that, if elected, it would look to introduce nuclear power generation into Australia’s energy mix, alongside renewables and other sources of energy, as part of its plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. This would involve first overturning a moratorium on nuclear energy generation in Australia.
Public opinion towards nuclear power in Australia has shifted over time. This year, in response to a new question, six in ten Australians (61%) say they ‘somewhat’ or ‘strongly’ support Australia using nuclear power to generate electricity, while a significant minority (37%) ‘somewhat’ or ‘strongly’ oppose it. Those who ‘strongly support’ nuclear power generation (27%) outnumber those who ‘strongly oppose’ it (17%). https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/charts/australia-using-nuclear-power-to-generate-energy/ |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Captain Nemo on Dec 13th, 2024 at 2:28pm
Poll added.
"Do you support or oppose Australia using nuclear power to generate electricity, alongside other sources of energy?" |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 13th, 2024 at 3:59pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 8:43pm:
So where exactly does it blow 24 hours a day? Windy Harbour? It only complements solar if it is generating electricity. Not when there is not enough wind, not under high winds when they have to feather them. ;D ;D ;D ;D Brian Ross wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 7:36pm:
That only means you need PV's everywhere. You are a first class wally. ;D ;D ;D ;D Brian Ross wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 7:36pm:
So is some power enough power? ::) Brian Ross wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 7:36pm:
Oh dear just can't stop himself lying. ;D ;D ;D ;D lee wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 5:47pm:
May but then again maybe not. ;) Just a lying troll. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:26pm |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Jasin on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:29pm
Brian is a Troll
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:30pm
oh, An economist? He must be a whiz at nuclear. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:51pm
Oh, dearie, dearie, me, you just give up when the news is bad, Lee. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:57pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:51pm:
Oh dearie dearie me. You haven't heard William Nordhaus, the father of the 2C, now the bureaucrats 1.5C. He was an economist. So tell us what he knows about climate change? The same applies to economists on nuclear. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 13th, 2024 at 9:32pm lee wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:57pm:
No, no, Lee, it is your story, why don't you tell us? Afterall, I am not an economist but you seem to understand the dark art better than anything I could posit. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:38am |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:44am
The Coalition is playing voters for mugs once again with its nuclear costings - poor, poor, Lee. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Belgarion on Dec 14th, 2024 at 12:11pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:44am:
The ABC and the rest of the usual suspects are panicking. All they have to counter this report is baseless fear mongering and uninformed opinion. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 14th, 2024 at 1:04pm Belgarion wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 12:11pm:
All you have to counter the truth telling of the ABC is insults, Belgarion. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by thegreatdivide on Dec 14th, 2024 at 1:23pm Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 9th, 2024 at 12:16pm:
We should be rolling out renewables with storage as fast as possible, considering that is the cheapest form of new energy, with a view to setting all the regulations in place for nuclear to be turned on in Oz, when we approach a 90% renewables plus storage economy. At that point, we will see if it's cheaper to firm up the last 10% of energy with 24/7 nuclear, than trying to achieve 24/7 with 100% renewables plus storage; ie a 1 GW nuclear plant might be cheaper than the extra storage required to guarantee firm 100% renewables. But coal should be closed ASAP, which means an equivalent amount of renewables should be turned on ASAP, if we want to transition to the cheapest emissions-free electricity in a timely fashion. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Dec 14th, 2024 at 1:27pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 1:04pm:
This is the second independent report in this series on modelling the economics of including nuclear in Australia’s National Electricity Market (NEM). The objective of the first report, Report 1 – Developing the base case to assess the relative costs of nuclear power in the NEM, was to establish a proper basis for comparing the cost impacts of nuclear power – based on AEMO’s Integrated Systems Plan (ISP) results. Once again, we expect and welcome robust debate on the work we present. Our report has been funded and directed solely by Frontier Economics, and consultation with various government and private sector parties has been sought to ensure we modelled the inclusion of nuclear power in the NEM most accurately. Report 2: Economic analysis of including nuclear power in the NEM In this second report, we again using AEMO modelling as our basis for comparison, using their ‘Step Change’ and ‘Progressive’ scenarios to compare the costs of nuclear power in our energy ecosystem. You can’t compare renewable energy and nuclear power generation and costs like apples to apples. We’ve done the modelling in these AEMO scenarios with a wider, and more detailed, lens on how the two options compare in real life, and the data speaks for itself. In both scenarios, including nuclear power in our energy mix is cheaper – by up to 44% - for Australians in the medium-term future. - Danny Price, Managing Director, Frontier Economics Key considerations from the report: - Many commentators simply and erroneously compare the cost of a renewable generator (wind or solar) plus the costs of back-up generation to the capacity and operating costs of a nuclear power station. - Such crude assessments do not account for the fact that much more renewable capacity is required to produce the same amount of electricity compared to a nuclear power station. - Nor does it account for the requirement to store surplus electricity from renewable sources as well as the back-up generation. An enormous amount of investment required to connect renewable generators located in areas where there is presently no or inadequate transmission network capacity. - Many other calculations are ignoring transmission costs entirely, which we have considered in this modelling. Our modelling in this report has concluded: The AEMO’s Progressive scenario including nuclear power is 44% cheaper than the Step Change model without nuclear. Using a Step Change model with nuclear will garner a 25% cheaper solution than using renewable and storage alone. Highlighting that nuclear power in Australia’s energy system is cheaper in both scenarios. DOWNLOAD REPORT 2 |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by thegreatdivide on Dec 14th, 2024 at 1:40pm Frank wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 1:27pm:
How can we replace the 50% of energy currently supplied by coal, with nuclear by c. 2040., if a single 1GW nuclear plant - a fraction of current output from coal - alone costs c.$10 billion? We can't build multiple nuclear plants simultaneously before 2040.... In any case, Danny Price is a free-market dummy; there no place for the free market in a global climate change emergency. eg: "including nuclear power in our energy mix is cheaper – by up to 44% - for Australians in the medium-term future". What does he mean by "the medium term future"? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by John Smith on Dec 14th, 2024 at 2:15pm
Did the conaltion use the same mob who originally costed their dud mixed technology NBN which ended up costing more than the original fibre to the home? :D
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Dec 14th, 2024 at 2:43pm John Smith wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 2:15pm:
Malcolm Turnbull, has no one to blame but himself for the cost blowout of the national broadband network (NBN), Labor’s communications spokesman, Jason Clare, has said.]Malcolm Turnbull has no one to blame but himself for the cost blowout of the national broadband network (NBN), Labor’s communications spokesman, Jason Clare, has said. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 14th, 2024 at 8:06pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:44am:
From you ref - "The government has "sort of" answered these questions. Most analysts will tell you that it is almost impossible to answer them precisely because the wheel is still in spin. Prices and technologies are changing." So just how much are Labor's "sort of" figures been fudged? How many Billion are they out? ::) "While the modelling doesn't seem to allow for much potential cost blowout in the construction costs, it does talk about potentially big blowouts in the cost of transmission infrastructure. This is at the same time it claims that being able to plug nuclear reactors into existing sites of old coal-fired power stations will reduce the demand for new transmission. This overlooks the fact that much of that transmission capacity will be accounted for by projects already in place, or underway, meaning that, at the very least, transmission will have to be duplicated." Another one who only reads the headlines. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 14th, 2024 at 8:09pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:38am:
From your ref- "Under the government's plan, which relies more heavily on renewables, however, "households that switch to electricity [from gas and other fossil fuels] can be expected to reduce overall energy costs by 70 per cent," he said, citing data from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)." And yet nowhere in the world has that been met. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 14th, 2024 at 8:24pm
Just as if the figures don't work for the Government, they won't work for the Opposition. The Opposition that you are upholding as being more virtuous than the Government purely because they are telling a story that you agree with. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 14th, 2024 at 8:25pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 8:24pm:
So neither side is telling the truth? Oh dear. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Dec 14th, 2024 at 8:34pm
Nuclear has been used across the world for 70 years.
Solar and wind for 10. Baseload. Intermittent. Transmission. Batteries. Cost of. Cost of disposal of. And I dont even accept the AGW hooey. But lets accommodate the Gretas. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 14th, 2024 at 8:57pm |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:11pm
But it is all about the emissions.
"And in the past few weeks the federal government has released four reports on Australia's greenhouse gas pollution that highlight just how far away we are from meeting those targets. Also pouring cold water on Mr Bowen's parade was Matt Kean, chair of the government's independent Climate Change Authority, who said: "Emissions need to fall faster to reach Australia's 2030 target." Even greater ambition will be required to reach the 2050 net zero target, he added. So now we've got all the data, what does it actually show? How fast is Australia's progress and what's actually driving that change — or holding it back?" "The only really big cuts so far have happened in the land sector — by felling fewer trees, and planting more. (In the jargon of carbon reporting, that’s called Land Use, or more formally Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF))." "As you saw above, the land use sector — or "LULUCF" — does the heavy lifting when it comes to cutting Australia's emissions. Those numbers are actually unreliable. So much so that the government changes its mind about those emissions every single year." "But in a separate document released by the government, which details the methodology for its projections, there is one important footnote. It says: "The projections assume the Australian Government's 82 per cent renewable electricity generation target for on-grid electricity is met by 2030." So, far from being a meaningful projection about how the electricity system will lower its emissions, the cut is simply assumed — and so are state-based renewable targets." "The current projections only take us to 2040 but by then, the trajectory is nowhere near as fast as it needs to be to reach net zero by 2050. Earlier this year, the Climate Change Authority released a report on this, and it didn't mince its words. It said, "Across all sectors, a significant and urgent ramp up in effort, investment and coordination is required and there are barriers that will need to be overcome if Australia is to achieve its target." In other words, we need to urgently do much more to reach the 2050 target. It looks like policies to build renewables peter out about 2030. And as we've seen, the land sector emissions have stopped helping already." Source? Your ABC. ;) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-09/australias-climate-change-policy-problem-in-charts/104689682 And putting up wind turbines means cutting down more trees. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:37pm
Oh, dearie, dearie me, Lee, what should we do about Climate Change? Nothing? Anything at all? Build super-expensive nuclear generators and hang the costs 'cause they fit into your pro-mining rationale? Or should we shut everything down? All these questions and no answers it seems except for pro-nuclear power generation. What a shame that people who take a longer view than you can see the dangers in that. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 14th, 2024 at 10:01pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:37pm:
It hasn't shown itself to be harmful, and even beneficial. ;) Brian Ross wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:37pm:
The source of materials for the renewables is mining, and more will be needed. Does that make me PRO-mining? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Brian Ross wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:37pm:
That's where it is headed with renewables. They don't have enough energy density. Unlike your general density. ;) Brian Ross wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:37pm:
So where will this electrical energy come from to back up renewables? According to the AEMO it will be gas, a fossil fuel. ;) tsk tsk. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Belgarion on Dec 14th, 2024 at 10:39pm
Hands up anyone who has been anywhere near a nuclear reactor, or has any idea how one works...I'll wait.
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Dec 14th, 2024 at 10:54pm Belgarion wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 10:39pm:
I haven't been near one but in the early years of my career I took part in training for nuclear power stations as it was in preparation for Australia developing Nuclear power in 82-83. 6 of us did the training but nothing ever came from it. It tied in with our work so it was a good experience. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by UnSubRocky on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:28pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:37pm:
Brian, there is nothing we can do about climate change. It is an inevitable change in human history that no amount of environmentalism can prevent. Nor should we. What we can do is minimise the amount of pollution that gets released into the atmosphere. Nuclear energy is one such source of reducing pollutants into the atmosphere. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Dec 15th, 2024 at 5:34am Belgarion wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 10:39pm:
I've been to Lucas Heights and I know how they work. Can't say I'm up on every technical detail of modern ones ... |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 15th, 2024 at 12:19pm lee wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 10:01pm:
Oh, dearie, dearie, me, where do you live, Lee? Antarctica? We have witnessed the climate changing markedly in the last 10 years, a change you refuse to admit to. The rest of us has noticed it, even if you refuse to admit to it. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Daves2017 on Dec 15th, 2024 at 1:53pm
Why can’t we simply agree on a renewable path and begin building nuclear back up?
Why must it be either one or the other? As we move forward too a big Australia we cannot ever have enough power for electricity. I live here too, I experience flooding and fires and cyclone. All these natural events always have a significant impact on essential services. I believe we should be building both renewable energy and nuclear energy. I don’t understand the argument it must be only one??? We should hedge our bet! |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Brian Ross on Dec 15th, 2024 at 2:30pm Daves2017 wrote on Dec 15th, 2024 at 1:53pm:
Our bet would cost billions of dollars more if we built nuclear power stations. A renewable bet would cost billions of dollars less. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Dec 15th, 2024 at 6:23pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 15th, 2024 at 12:19pm:
According to the WMO climate is an average of 30 years weather. What you are talking about is just that. Weather. ::) Brian Ross wrote on Dec 15th, 2024 at 12:19pm:
But the rest of you are denser than lead. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Dec 15th, 2024 at 9:19pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 15th, 2024 at 2:30pm:
Our bet is you don't know if your nappy is full or empty. Tsk, tsk, ::) ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Armchair_Politician on Dec 15th, 2024 at 9:21pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 15th, 2024 at 2:30pm:
This is the problem with the anti-nuclear argument. I heard Bowen saying the other day that Dutton's nuclear plan would cause grid overload during peak solar generation times and force home owners to have their solar panels turned off to stop the grid overloading with nuclear power also providing power. He was shown by an expert just how stupid he really is when the expert point blank shot Bowen down by saying that nuclear power generation can be reduced at such times in order to ensure there is no grid overload. The same cannot be said for solar, as panels need to be turned off to avoid grid overload. Nuclear provides the grid with great flexibility, whereas solar does not as the sun does not always shine! In short, Bowen is a moron who I wouldn't trust to run a piss up in a bar. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by UnSubRocky on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:44am
The nuclear power stations won't overload the power grid. This is not a matter of Command and Conquer where they build nuclear power plants and the power output shoots through the roof.
If you are not entitled to power, you won't get the power supplied to you. Nearly 10 years ago, we were without power for 2 weeks. It is not like the electricity companies would allow fallen power lines to keep providing power, just because some people's homes were not badly damaged. The issue here is to have power supplied that is less likely to be polluting than coal fired power plants. Nuclear energy does just that. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Jan 13th, 2025 at 7:48am
“No coal. No Gas. No Nuclear and No economy”
Greens election pitch. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by John Smith on Jan 13th, 2025 at 7:58am Belgarion wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 10:39pm:
I have .. and the security alone is ridiculous. Multiple armed guards, 24hrs a day, 7 days a week. Now multiply that by the number of reactors and waste storage sites, and the 1000yrs needed to store the waste :D :D |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Gnads on Jan 13th, 2025 at 12:03pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:37pm:
The climate of the earth has been changing ever since it existed. Man has never been able to control the climate/weather or natural events caused by the natural cyclic operations (winds, rain, tides, currents, volcanic activity etc) of the earth. The people you speak of aren't taking the longer view ... they are just anti everything except what drives their stupid AGW/Climate alarmist agenda. Net Zero emissions is an unattainable pipe dream & thinking that renewables will supply all ours & industries power needs is another farcical pipe dream. And the real costs of the renewables have not honestly been put forward. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Gnads on Jan 13th, 2025 at 12:10pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 15th, 2024 at 12:19pm:
You haven't witnessed the sky falling Chicken Little/Henny Penny ;D Though I'd say you'd more likely be the Goosey Loosey type or a Turkey Lurkey. And you don't talk for the rest of us or anybody. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Gnads on Jan 13th, 2025 at 12:13pm Brian Ross wrote on Dec 15th, 2024 at 2:30pm:
Bullshyte you have exactly no proof that that is anywhere near truthful. They way they're spending money on more & more solar & wind projects it will soon make 6 or 7 nuclear power stations look cheap. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Jan 13th, 2025 at 12:30pm
The new transmission network necessary for renewables is expensive.
Nuclear being built on existing coal sites have the transmission net w or already in p place. Big saving. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 13th, 2025 at 12:44pm Quote:
You don't know how much it will cost, do you? We need a new transmission system because the uncertainty created by the coalition over the last few decades has lead to underinvestment in our electricity industry. Whatever option we choose is going to be expensive. A decentralised system based on renewables, including a lot of solar and battery storage in and around major cities, may well end up being the cheapest option. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Frank on Jan 13th, 2025 at 12:50pm freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 12:44pm:
How much energy do batteries supply? For how long? Please explain. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 13th, 2025 at 1:04pm Quote:
Depends on the size of the battery. Quote:
Until it is used. Your turn: How long is a piece of string? I think I know what it feels like to be in the LNP's electricity strategy committee. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Jan 13th, 2025 at 2:28pm freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 12:44pm:
False. Renewables need new transmission lines because they are not where the electricity is needed. Wind Turbines are spread about 750m apart. A bank of 24 needs a lot of new transmission line. Expansion of Warradarge in WA is to be a new 30 turbines. Vestas make a 15MW turbine, but in Australia 6.2Mw is more usual. A nameplate capacity divided by the turbine specs will tell you how many wind turbines are needed and then work out your 750m separation. freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 12:44pm:
Or NOT. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Jan 13th, 2025 at 2:45pm Frank wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 12:50pm:
Batteries are a short gap solution, WA has spent 2.8Bil on a battery storage of 2000mw/h. This can give you 2000Mw's of power for 1 hour. On the WA grid that would last about 1.5 hours and then the batteries are flat and will need recharging. They will be used to try and even out the load on the grid. For example on hot days when the load is very high they can discharge 20% of the batteries to decrease the load on other assets. Batteries do not produce electricity they only store it. You have to have the capacity to charge the batteries and there are losses of efficiency when you transfer the energy to the batteries and when you discharge the batteries. Battery life is very short and will need replacement within 10 years. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 13th, 2025 at 3:03pm Quote:
Where do you think most of our solar panels are? Antarctica? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Jan 13th, 2025 at 3:38pm freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 3:03pm:
Where do you think they are? Ringwood? Canterbury? Out in the desert so they are out of sight out of mind? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:17pm freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 12:44pm:
That maybe correct for the very short term (5-8 years) but over 40-50 years it will be much cheaper to have nuclear. It doesn't matter how you twist and mutilate the figures nuclear power is by far the cheapest option. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by John Smith on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:23pm Leroy wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:17pm:
Only if you don't include costs of storing waste for the next 500yrs or build costs :D :Dcrap |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:38pm lee wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 3:38pm:
I think they are right where they are needed. You can even put them in the CBD if you want. Quote:
What about the next 100000 years that you need to safely store the radioactive waste for? Renewables are cheaper, even if you ignore the waste storage dilemma. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:40pm John Smith wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:23pm:
If you want to be sensible we can have a discussion but if you are just going to be obstinate on a topic you are not familiar with then its pointless. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:42pm freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:38pm:
If you put the solar panels in the CBD what will you use for power at night?. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:42pm Leroy wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:40pm:
Are you saying that the costs are irrelevant to a discussion of the costs? Do you work for the LNP by any chance? Leroy wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:42pm:
You mean when everyone goes home? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:47pm freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:38pm:
They have safe and cost effective means of storage. Short term (50 years) before final disposal. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:49pm freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:38pm:
Yeah 180MW on 1070 acres. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D https://edifyenergy.com/project/daydream/. freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:38pm:
Not my quote. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:38pm:
New reactors new technology uses "radioactive waste". ;) Besides ever heard of Synroc? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:49pm freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:42pm:
No I mean all the restaurants, hospitals, police, cleaners and millions of others that work after the sun goes down. Where is the power going to come from when the sun goes down? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:50pm Leroy wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:47pm:
No they don't. All the waste is currently in some kind of temporary storage facility. Neither safe nor cheap. Occasionally it gets stolen by terrorists. Or leaks into the groundwater. No-one actually knows what it will cost to store it for the full life of the waste. You certainly don't. And nuclear is already the most expensive option before you factor that into the price. Quote:
Is that a rhetorical question, or do you really not know? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:55pm freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:42pm:
It has been proven beyond doubt that Nuclear energy is the cheapest form of energy available today, thats not from me but from every single energy expert in the field. If you don't want nuclear power then I respect that, everyone has the right to express what they want and we should all respect each persons stance. But don't lie to me and say renewables are cheaper than Nuclear. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:57pm freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:50pm:
No its not a rhetorical question, if you don't have gas coal or nuclear power where are you going to get power at night? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 13th, 2025 at 9:14pm Quote:
No it hasn't. That's why wikipedia still lists it as the most expensive. Just how delusional is the LNP on this? And that is excluding the cost of storing radioactive waste for 100000 years. Quote:
You can get it from any source you want. Even gas, coal or nuclear. Even if you have a solar panel on your roof. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Jan 13th, 2025 at 9:24pm freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 9:14pm:
How much are the required backup batteries for more than 10 hours? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 13th, 2025 at 9:31pm lee wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 9:24pm:
How long is a piece of string? Do you need me to tell you how to ask the right question? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Jan 13th, 2025 at 10:03pm freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 9:31pm:
No I need you to tell me the cost of a 10hr battery. Make it 1Mw for ease of use. I'll give you a hint. lee wrote on Jan 10th, 2025 at 10:43pm:
So for 10 hours somewhere north 10x $500,000 and out to $150,000,000. And that's just the capital cost. Maintenance etc has to be added. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Jan 13th, 2025 at 10:18pm freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 9:14pm:
You can get it from any source you want. Even gas, coal or nuclear. Even if you have a solar panel on your roof.[/quote] My car uses no petrol going down hills, very cheap to run, cheaper than having a motor. Its easy all you do is have a car with no engine and always go downhill. I can see no reason to buy an engine. Its far cheaper not having an engine. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 14th, 2025 at 9:27am Quote:
What maintenance do you do on a battery? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Jan 14th, 2025 at 9:51am freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 9:27am:
They have to be monitored 24hrs a day, Voltages have to be monitored and and dead cells identified and replaced. Fire systems need to be checked, temperature control is maintained, system checks to ensure readiness. You dont just hook up some batteries and forget it. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 14th, 2025 at 10:01am Quote:
;D So what, you pay someone to stand there watching the battery? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Jan 14th, 2025 at 10:02am freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 10:01am:
No normally it would be two, worksafe practices with high voltage is a minimum of two. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 14th, 2025 at 10:24am Leroy wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 10:02am:
Just to stand there watching it? Do you think this is what the LNP is assuming with their costs, while assuming it costs nothing to store radioactive nuclear waste for a few hundred thousand years? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Jan 14th, 2025 at 11:00am freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 10:24am:
Its called firewatch, you can't just install batteries and leave them. Security is also another issue, they will need 24hr security services. You know if they did need to use the batteries which are limited to about an hours use a day it would be a disaster if they were not charged or the cabling connections were corroded. You have to have someone on site in case there is a problem, you can't wait until someone might be available later. Electricity supply is continuous, imagine telling your customers you will get power back after Jim comes back from fishing and he will go and see what the problem is. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 14th, 2025 at 12:03pm Quote:
Unlike radioactive waste with nuclear weapons potential being stored for 100000 years? Quote:
;D No wonder the LNP went down this garden path. Some people actually believe it. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by John Smith on Jan 14th, 2025 at 12:06pm Leroy wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:40pm:
Whats sensible about ignoring a large portion of the costs? :D :D :D You don't want a discussion, you just want to read from the liberal party song sheet ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 14th, 2025 at 12:18pm John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 12:06pm:
I don't think the LNP would be silly enough to actually put this nonsense in writing. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Jan 14th, 2025 at 12:40pm freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 9:27am:
You have never heard of a battery failing? That comes down to maintenance. You have to keep an eye on them. Or maybe you have just never learned of a battery load test as opposed to just sticking a voltmeter across the terminals. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 14th, 2025 at 12:46pm Quote:
Sure. I throw it out and replace it. I wouldn't call it maintenance though. You have no clue at all what this "battery maintenance" actually costs, do you? Batteries would be the lowest maintenance item in the whole system. It would not take much to incorporate everyone's wall mounted battery and car battery into the system, with little or no extra capital expenditure and no maintenance cost. Plus all of our hydro systems are better than batteries. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Jan 14th, 2025 at 1:02pm freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 12:46pm:
More from that posted link. "2. Operating and Maintenance Costs The operating and maintenance costs of a 1 MWh BESS include the cost of electricity for charging the batteries, the cost of cooling and other ancillary systems, and the cost of maintenance and repair services. These costs can vary depending on the usage patterns of the system and the local electricity rates. Generally, the operating and maintenance costs of a 1 MWh BESS are relatively low compared to the capital cost. However, they can still add up over time and should be considered when evaluating the overall cost-effectiveness of the system. 3. Lifetime Costs The lifetime cost of a 1 MWh BESS includes the capital cost, operating and maintenance costs, and the cost of replacing the batteries over the lifetime of the system. The lifetime of a BESS can vary depending on several factors, including the type of batteries used, the usage patterns, and the maintenance practices. Generally, lithium-ion batteries have a lifespan of about 10-15 years, while lead-acid batteries have a shorter lifespan of about 5-10 years. When evaluating the lifetime cost of a 1 MWh BESS, it is important to consider the cost of battery replacement and the potential for technology advancements that could reduce the cost of the system over time." " relatively low compared to the capital cost" does not mean zero. Now as to pumped hydro. How long does it take to get environmental approval. Seeing as you have to have an upper dam and a lower dam. Both involve the drowning of land. That destroys the environment. So ruining the environment to save the planet is okay? Shouldn't the Greens be about saving the environment? ;) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 14th, 2025 at 1:35pm Quote:
That's what it costs eh? I'm glad you know so much. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Jan 14th, 2025 at 2:20pm freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 12:46pm:
Batteries cannot make power. the cost of batteries is not the cost of making the power, its only the cost of storing the power. Coal, gas and nuclear make the actual power, without them the batteries are useless. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 14th, 2025 at 2:35pm Quote:
Thanks for the update Leroy. It's good to have such knowledgeable LNP supporters around. You don't know what they cost by any chance? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Leroy on Jan 14th, 2025 at 2:46pm freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 2:35pm:
2.8 bil will get you 2000mwh. Thats just construction. thats 640 container size batteries 40,000sqm of space required. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Jan 14th, 2025 at 3:26pm freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 1:35pm:
So you can give a more accurate figure? Go for it. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 14th, 2025 at 3:46pm lee wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 3:26pm:
I agree with your figures. It is relatively low. Compared to the capital expenditure. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Jan 14th, 2025 at 4:08pm freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 3:46pm:
I didn't provide figures. You asked for costs. I have admitted I don't have any. I guess you don't either. That makes you merely making more deflection by question. So sad for you. :'( |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 14th, 2025 at 4:34pm Quote:
Still. It is relatively low. Compared to the capital expenditure. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Gnads on Jan 14th, 2025 at 6:48pm freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 1:04pm:
Until it is used. Your turn: How long is a piece of string? I think I know what it feels like to be in the LNP's electricity strategy committee.[/quote] ;D You couldn't even answer a straight question. The 1st battery that Sth Australia had courtesy of the Elon Musk propaganda .... lasted about 10 or 15 mins when it was called on. They are not much better now. And these giant battery banks that would be required to make any significant input for any decent registerable input time wise are super expensive. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Gnads on Jan 14th, 2025 at 6:50pm Leroy wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 2:45pm:
That just proves it's a waste of taxpayers money. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Gnads on Jan 14th, 2025 at 6:52pm freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 3:03pm:
What a flippant halfarsed, smartarsed remark. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Gnads on Jan 14th, 2025 at 6:53pm John Smith wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:23pm:
The amount of waste is minimal. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Gnads on Jan 14th, 2025 at 6:57pm freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:38pm:
Do the clapped out wind turbines, their blades & the shagged solar panels take up less space in storing them by burying them in huge landfills compare to holes deep in the earth o bury a few canisters? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Gnads on Jan 14th, 2025 at 7:01pm freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2025 at 4:42pm:
What a wanker you are FD ;D Most big cities run 24/7 they never shut down & not everyone goes home. You might spend every night snuggled up under your bunny rug sucking your dummy ... but other people are out there working shift work .... just so you can live ... you prig. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Jan 14th, 2025 at 7:02pm freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 4:34pm:
So 50 million? Out of 500 million? That's only 10% "relatively low". ;) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Gnads on Jan 14th, 2025 at 7:07pm freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 9:27am:
You're a moron pretending to have some sort of intelligence. Everything including batteries require maintenance. Makes me embarrassed to say I've given several donations to help keep this site afloat. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Gnads on Jan 14th, 2025 at 7:09pm freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 10:24am:
See how little you actually know yet you go on making an imbecile of yourself. Have another cup of Green kool aid. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Gnads on Jan 14th, 2025 at 7:12pm freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 12:03pm:
;D No wonder the LNP went down this garden path. Some people actually believe it.[/quote] Hey dickhead - he's talking about your babies ... batteries ... not nuclear. You making suck an obvious cockhead of yourself has made me feel so much better. Seen any Walruses climbing vertical cliffs lately? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Gnads on Jan 14th, 2025 at 7:14pm freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 12:46pm:
What are "all our hydro systems"? You're not half as smart as you think you are.... & it shows. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Bobby. on Jan 14th, 2025 at 7:23pm
Meanwhile Albo plays the fiddle while Australia risks blackouts:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/01/13/aussie-government-abc-struggles-to-explain-high-energy-prices/ Aussie Government ABC Struggles to Explain High Energy Prices 7 hours ago Eric Worrall 47 Comments Essay by Eric Worrall “… Australia has a wealth of coal and gas resources as well as renewable energy, so why are energy costs so high …” Rich in resources, but Australia’s energy costs have tripled and manufacturers are hurting … “[The US is] pro-manufacturing, they’ve got cheap energy, they’ve got good gas supply and reserves. It’s one of the most attractive markets to invest today,” he said. Mr Gandhi said one solution to the problem in Australia is to increase the supply of gas. But it is already too late for many Australian manufacturers. “If you start investing today it takes three to 10 years to bring on new gas resources … [and] manufacturers won’t survive [that long],” he said. … Plastics manufacturer Qenos went into administration last year blaming the lack of a reliable supply of gas and rising costs. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by lee on Jan 14th, 2025 at 7:30pm Gnads wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 7:14pm:
More to the point how many are pumped? Hydro generally - "While there are more than 120 power stations currently operating in Australia, most have a relatively modest output. We’ve listed all of the operational hydropower plants in the country with a capacity of over 50MW in alphabetical order:" https://www.canstarblue.com.au/electricity/hydro-power-australia/#plants "However, according to a case study by the Melbourne Energy Institute, the Pumped-storage generating capacity in Australia is around 1.5 GW even though no new large-scale PSH plant has been installed over the past 30 years." https://pumpedhydro.com.au/education/pumped-storage-hydropower-in-australia/ I guess that limits completed pumped storage somewhat. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Bobby. on Jan 14th, 2025 at 9:37pm lee wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 7:30pm:
Snowy Hydro 2 started by Turnbull: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/12/snowy-20-malcolm-turnbulls-pet-project-given-go-ahead-by-board But it has come to a halt. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/12/snowy-hydro-drilling-confirmed-halted-on-part-of-multibillion-dollar-project-after-tunnel-collapse |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Bobby. on Jan 14th, 2025 at 9:38pm
Meanwhile Albo plays the fiddle while Australia risks blackouts:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/01/13/aussie-government-abc-struggles-to-explain-high-energy-prices/ Aussie Government ABC Struggles to Explain High Energy Prices 7 hours ago Eric Worrall 47 Comments Essay by Eric Worrall “… Australia has a wealth of coal and gas resources as well as renewable energy, so why are energy costs so high …” Rich in resources, but Australia’s energy costs have tripled and manufacturers are hurting … “[The US is] pro-manufacturing, they’ve got cheap energy, they’ve got good gas supply and reserves. It’s one of the most attractive markets to invest today,” he said. Mr Gandhi said one solution to the problem in Australia is to increase the supply of gas. But it is already too late for many Australian manufacturers. “If you start investing today it takes three to 10 years to bring on new gas resources … [and] manufacturers won’t survive [that long],” he said. … Plastics manufacturer Qenos went into administration last year blaming the lack of a reliable supply of gas and rising costs. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Jan 15th, 2025 at 5:37am Bobby. wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 9:37pm:
So the 'Snowy Superpump' is .... you know .... designed to combat the flow problems of the Snowy and fix the downstream problems with the Murray Darling Basin? Is that how it works? And let's not forget that here in The Fabled Land of Oz we have a 'water pricing' system in place that not only gives the biggest bidders and any parasite 'agricultural industry' the green light but happens to throw a few lazy bill to a lazy government... kinda like California - where the same thing is the end result - a couple of super fat, cashed up (on paper anyway) groups end up 'owning' all the water - the (gasps) 'traditional owners' - the farmers and such who used to just suck some up for free as it passed by on its natural course - dry up and blow away in the economic winds of conquest by (gasps) cashed-up foreigners - and we buy our fruit etc from..... (gasps) .... California The Desiccated Dead Zone of SuperFires Unchallenged By Water Stocks In The Hands of One Parasite Capitalist Family Who Bought The State Government .... while the Murray-Darling Salinity Problems remain and expand. Yeah - that sounds like a plan... ::) |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by John Smith on Jan 15th, 2025 at 6:39am Gnads wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 6:53pm:
it still has to be stored and safeguarded against for the next 500 yrs. Or do you think they can just dump it down an unused mine shaft and forget about it? :D |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Bobby. on Jan 15th, 2025 at 6:43am John Smith wrote on Jan 15th, 2025 at 6:39am:
500 years? Nuclear waste takes forever to decay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Some common nuclear waste half lives: Plutonium 239 half life 24,110 years. Americium 241 half life 432 years Radium 226 Half life 1,600 years Uranium 236 Half life 15 million years. Plutonium 244 Half life 80 million years Uranium 235 Half life 704 million years Uranium 238 half life 4.5 billion years |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by John Smith on Jan 15th, 2025 at 6:47am Bobby. wrote on Jan 15th, 2025 at 6:43am:
I was being generous to the idiots claiming waste isn't an issue |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Bobby. on Jan 15th, 2025 at 6:51am John Smith wrote on Jan 15th, 2025 at 6:47am:
Well yes - there is no way we can safely store nuclear waste for 10s of millions of years. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by John Smith on Jan 15th, 2025 at 6:52am Bobby. wrote on Jan 15th, 2025 at 6:51am:
and yet you're pro nuclear like I always say, you are an idiot :D |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Bobby. on Jan 15th, 2025 at 7:08am John Smith wrote on Jan 15th, 2025 at 6:52am:
You drongo - I have supported Thorium reactors - totally different and they eat nuclear waste for breakfast. here: https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0 |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Jan 15th, 2025 at 7:17am
Ah - Grasshoppers... radioactive deposits exist now...... that's where the stuff is stored for millions of years already......... so if it is dropped down deep mine shafts it is being relocated to a safer place, no? The overall amount of radiation does not grow - its concentration in specified points does, and if those specified points are deep below ground the radiation does not escape short of a massive upheaval.
So - what created deposits in the first place? Upheavals.. aha, you say - proof of ancient civilisations beyond the Pillars of Rockhampton/Hercules etc (hear me O Critias), which civilisations once held the keys to nuclear power..... all vanished and gone in a single day and night of fire and flood... |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Bobby. on Jan 15th, 2025 at 7:22am Inside the $1.6B Plan to Restart Three Mile Island Jan 15, 2025 The lights are turning back on at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, the site of America's worst nuclear meltdown, after it has lain dormant for 5 years. The clean energy will be used to power AI servers and the electricity it generates will be sold to one company: Microsoft. Reviving nuclear power plants has drawn support from Silicon Valley executives like Elon Musk, but what does it take to actually restart one of these plants? WSJ went inside the nuclear plant to learn the steps it takes to restart the clean energy source and examined the regulations in place in order to restart these reactors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub78DA8wyf8 |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Bobby. on Jan 15th, 2025 at 7:25am Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jan 15th, 2025 at 7:17am:
There are certain rock formations that are very geologically stable for the storage of nuclear waste and we have some in Australia. It's expensive though - it needs to be stored about 1km deep in solid rock that is NOT connected to any water table. |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Jovial Monk on Jan 15th, 2025 at 7:34am
Broken Hill.
|
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by freediver on Jan 15th, 2025 at 7:45am Gnads wrote on Jan 14th, 2025 at 7:12pm:
Hey dickhead - he's talking about your babies ... batteries ... not nuclear. You making suck an obvious cockhead of yourself has made me feel so much better. Seen any Walruses climbing vertical cliffs lately?[/quote] Do you actually believe that you can only use a battery for one hour a day? |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Jan 15th, 2025 at 7:45am Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 15th, 2025 at 7:34am:
Sounds like a mighty rum jungle to me... |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by John Smith on Jan 15th, 2025 at 7:46am Bobby. wrote on Jan 15th, 2025 at 7:08am:
a reactor that has never been commercially proven :D :D :D like i said, you're an idiot |
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Power To Cost Twice As Much As Renewables Post by Jovial Monk on Jan 15th, 2025 at 8:19am
Thorium isn’t much different to other fission reactors but apparently plutonium is not one of the byproducts.
|
|
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved. |
