Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 10:37am:



For a start, there are 7 proposed Nuclear plants, not 7 reactors. There is speculation that there may be 3 or more reactors on the one plant site.

The figure 0f 3.7 % of the grid is plucked out of the air.

No-one knows the percentage yet, it has not been calculated.

I suspect that there will be between 10-15% of the grid having to be "firmed" to support renewables ongoing. The choice will be to have Gas firming (adding to atmospheric CO₂ levels) or Nuclear (not adding to atmospheric CO₂ levels) or a combination of both Gas and Nuclear firming to support renewables.

Belgarion wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 9:47am:


Financing issues are THE problem.

Nuclear is the most expensive form of new energy, which is why Dutton wants taxpayers to own nuclear plants - the private sector won't invest in them without a guaranteed return on equity, resulting in an electricity  price which consumers can't afford.  Which leads us to:

https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/is-rooftop-solar-a-fatal-flaw-in-the-coa...

Is rooftop solar a fatal flaw in the Coalition's grand nuclear plans?


Right now, he said renewable energy was benefiting from taxpayer-funded subsidies that allowed wind and solar projects to make money even when the price of power (from the sun)  was below zero dollars.

These subsidies applied to both utility-scale projects and rooftop solar panels, through the large- and small-scale green energy targets introduced by the Rudd Labor government.

They effectively allow such projects to sell their electricity for less than zero – up to a point – and still be in the money.

In the future, Dr Barr said, those subsidies would no longer exist and renewable energy projects would start to be penalised each time the price of electricity went negative.

"I think what will happen is that nuclear will just tend to push out solar," he said.

"There'll be an incentive for customers to back off.

"And I think it wouldn't be that difficult to build control systems to stop export of power at the domestic level.

"It'd be difficult for all the existing ones but for new ones, it just might require a little bit of smarts in them to achieve that particular end — it can be managed."

Much like the Coalition's grand policy pitch, those comments might be considered bold given the political heft wielded by millions of solar households.

Last decade, politicians of all stripes got into all manner of trouble when they tried to wind back subsidies known as feed-in-tariffs, which paid customers for their surplus solar power generation.

Solar households, egged on by the industry, mobilised, went on the attack and in many cases forced governments to bend to their will.

And that was at a time when the number of households with solar was a fraction of what it is now.

It's a constituency that politicians would tackle at their peril.

....

Subsidies, tariffs......the governent should pay for the entire system with free Treasury-issued Oz dollars, and confine nuclear to powering heavy industry 24/7,  while  letting  rooftop solar and domestic batteries  supply most household electricty powered by the sun for free.    

Belgarion wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 11:23am:


It's interesting you bring up water.

Only one of those sites has access to seawater, the rest require dams to provide water to the existing power stations.

We've seen in France the issues with water temperature from inland sources, rivers and dams, that require reduced generation or total shutdown.

Once the water exceeds 25 degrees they have to reduce output, and once they exceed 28 degrees they have to shutdown.

In terms of water levels, there are documented instances where the coal plants that currently exist on these sites have had to shut down because supply was too low, let alone because of temperature concerns.

Like I said, the more you start looking at the details, the more you realise that other than consulting lawyers, they've had very little expert consultation that went into their mining policy.

They appear to have started with the goal of, "how can we keep the Nats happy by continuing to deny climate change behind closed door, whil attacking renewables, while keeping the Teal voters open to coming back into the fold by pretending we care about climate change, all while pushing more Gas powered generation to keep our mining benefactors happy" and worked backwards from there.

They didn't start out with, "what will our energy needs be in 30 years.  How do we meet those needs while being able to supply reliable baseload power while keeping to our emissions targets".

We already know they want to abandon those targets and push more Gas generation and are using nuclear to legitimise it.

It's going to be a massive payday for the current owners of those coal power plants.

I'd be getting ready to gouge the taxpayer, get the sale, then right against Nuclear and pivot to investing that windfall into renewables.

Those big batteries will not do the job.

Barriers, hurdles and roadblocks litter the long road to the Coalition's nuclear future

The Coalition's first hurdle will be securing enough seats to win the next federal election and have the numbers in the House of Representatives and the Senate to overturn the nuclear ban, Professor Lowe said.

"Even if, hypothetically, Mr Dutton was swept into office for the landslide majority, the half-Senate election would not give him a majority in the upper house.

"So the ban could not be removed unless the greens and independent senators like David Pocock were in favour of it, and I can't see that happening."

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 10:29am:


I linked it in post 178

It's from ANSTO do you know who they are?