Belgarion wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 12:11pm:


All you have to counter the truth telling of the ABC is insults, Belgarion.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... 

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 14^th, 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

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?

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 14^th, 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.

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... 

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.

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-...

And putting up wind turbines means cutting down more trees.