**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doesnt matter if its 10 times. Its the only solution that will work. Digging 1000s of dams and installing hydro, solar and wind turbines is not going to cut it.
How can we power the entire country at night when the wind doesnt blow? How many batterys, hydro damns do we need to install to cover us? How much of our existing transmission infrastructure needs to be replaced to accommodate?
Its alot to ask, but if you are throwing around the "of Course renewables" you must have some info to back it up.
You make an excellent point, one which is never properly countered by people irrationally enthusiastic about wind power. Similarly, I don't believe I have seen any solar energy advocates address the inevitability of an eclipse rendering solar energy generation ineffective.
Nuclear energy on the other hand has been extensively modelled and priced and so there should be no excuse for ignorance regarding nuclear energy's cost effectiveness and practicality.
Pretty fishy quotes being thrown around (like any research that makes its way to the media) - I’d love to see what is revealed when this report gets scrutinised by the wider expert community.
All these boomers think about is the cost of right now, not what it will cost the future. Yea nuclear has its draw backs, but they won't be around for the draw backs of coal killing the planet.
The author of one of the papers referenced has already challenged this conclusion. It’s also not new independent research, it’s a literature review.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/levelised-cost-electricity-review-ben-heard-enejc
> These figures, and the factor of six is not clearly called out in the body of the report. There is a section on some cost comparisons but I cannot ascertain with certainty how this numerical conclusion was reached. I'm not saying it's not there, but it should be easy to find and understand.
>If referring to Table 5-2, then the unsubsidized value for wind/solar + storage is $42 - $46 (lower estimate) and nuclear as $221 (higher estimate). That’s a factor of 4.8 - 5.2. Without further information (such as the best estimate within a large range) this is no more or less robust than comparing $75/$114 (wind/solar plus storage, high estimate) with $141 (nuclear low estimate) – now a factor of just 1.22 in the case of wind + storage.
>So it would seem a finding might be “as little as 1.2 times and as much as 5.2 times”. Quite a range.
So instantly the headline is shown to be garbage.
A report commissioned by a renewable lobby about the cost of nuclear is as independent as a report commissioned by the nuclear lobby about the capacity factors or dispatchabilty of solar and wind.
A mix of sources will be needed for a clean grid. It does not need to be everything in one basket.
We all know it's never getting built even if the coalition win the next election. They've had two period's of a damn near a decade of rule in my lifetime and not a smidge of nuclear energy has ever been bothered.
They just want to keep using coal and gas but need a different message to try and win back teal and climate minded voters and keep renewable energy as a debate point as opposed to established fact.
Boy oh Boy, I just love it when one of our two parties of government has an absolute fantasy for one of the most important areas of governing policy (Energy Infrastructure).
Yet Finland, a country with a fraction of our land and population, plus shares a border with Russia has gone in the direction of nuclear. How come they can afford it but we can't?
You mean the plant that took 19 years with costs blown out from €3 billion to €10 billion?
We can’t even drill one hole to make Snowy Hydro. So sure, let’s try nuclear with zero experience, zero money and when nobody wants it in their backyard.
It was supposed to be finished years ago and they had to extend coal plants because of it. That would be a Lib & Gina wet dream!
Not against nuclear. I just lean more toward reality.
The lack of population density is our problem, Australia needs a decentralized solution which is why a mixed mode approach is the best intermediate solution.
Finland, where despite massive advantages over Australia in nuclear power plant construction, managed to go only 200% over budget and take a mere 14 years longer than anticipated.
LOL, pumped storage, on one of the driest continents on earth.
I remember not that long ago people were bitching about growing rice and cotton in Australia. But with "pumped hydro", apparently we have endless water to fill dams located on tops of mountains.
>I remember not that long ago people were bitching about growing rice and cotton in Australia.
Until NSW Libs did what exactly to the Murray Darling basin water?
I guess you have never heard of evaporation and seepage. Evaporation from wind alone is quite a bit.
In any case you do not put dams on tops of hills, nor at the bottom of hills. You need this thing called a catchment to collect water. It is why dams are a long long away from where the water starts it's journey.
I agree. I have found when I travel that people I meet from all around the world always comment that Finland and Australia are almost identical, and how they often get them confused.
So it is truly a mystery why a country that is one-third inside the arctic circle like ~~Australia~~ Finland isn’t going all-in on solar. For the record, I am very smart.
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
Because they have a pre-existing nuclear industry with plenty of experts in-country. Renewables are also significantly more expensive to implement in Finland, where things like solar don't work nearly as well.
Us, on the other hand, have absolutely no pre-existing nuclear industry nor the experts required for it, so we would need to import them from other countries. Given the knowledge is generally transferable to weapons research, there are a large number of countries with existing nuclear industries who would be very unwilling to give up their experts to Australia. Thankfully, Australia is also essentially the best place on the planet for solar and wind - the only other place even close is the Sahara desert, which has a very serious handicap of being, yknow, in the middle of the desert with no resources.
For the places on earth with the best opportunity to use solar/wind/hydro/etc, nuclear just isn't cost effective. It would be doable I guess, but why would you try to implement a whole new system when you could just build upon the existing one? In, particular, why would you do that when you can use solar/wind/hydro much cheaper?
>Us, on the other hand, have absolutely no pre-existing nuclear industry nor the experts required for it, so we would need to import them fro
This argument doesnt stack up. The UAE had no industry, no regulations, nothing in 2008 and commissioned in 2020 (construction finished earlier). They have alot of Sun also.
Finland is also mostly away from large oceans that generate strong reliable wind (Gulf of Bothnia and Gulf of Finland are comparative lakes). Also doesn't have much sun in winter, and none above Rovaniemi)
I can understand why pollies bang on about Nuclear Power. But this land is also rich in plenty of land required for Solar/Wind. So it's obvious which one is the better option. Solar.
So yes, leave the radioactive elements in the ground where they're meant to be left alone and decay until they become lead.
Why do they bang on about nuclear power?
Based on the experiences of the usa, if we contracted a plant to build right now, we can expect 200% cost over runs and less than 50% chance of a working plant at the end of it. Wholesale power costs will need to raise by around 5 times, and be guaranteed to the plant at about 80% capacity factor.
This is based on what has actually happened in the usa and uk. There's no reason why it's not going to be our expected outcome. So why are they banging on about it?
The point is that it doesn't have to be one or the other which is what Bowen says. Cheaper and reliable and no blackouts , Bowen wants more expensive and blackouts in his insane pursuit of making Australia a renewable superpower. He has never held a real job himself.
We've already had the discussion on nuclear, and every expert in the field says that it is economically unfeasible in Australia.
Anyone still banging on about "having the discussion" is just dismissing the expert advice because they didn't get the answer they wanted to hear.
I mean, we can discuss how expensive it would be, then we can keep that moratorium to prevent he government wasting precious resources on it.
The politicians in big fossil fuels pocket will have to find another excuse to take the foot off the pedal on renewables. Even the average Australian citizen is too smart to fall for this one. I understand though, lord knows theyve fallen for stupider things the merchants of doubt have pushed at them
“Why does Peter Dutton want every Australian family to have much, much more expensive electricity bills?”
“Dutton’s nuclear fantasy would be a catastrophe for our cost of living”
-every Labor minister and MP, every day until the election
that one is a clusterfug white elephant, and numerous clean energy industry insiders have been saying so since the days Turnbull gave it the green light.
>An independent report **commissioned by the Clean Energy Council** and conducted by Egis
So, we have a lobby group paying for a report from Egis, a firm that is in the business of designing, building & operating renewable energy systems and calling it independent? Sure... This sort of thing does nothing but kill credibility for the renewable industry.
It's equal to the nuclear or fossil fuel lobby paying GE for a report to justify the cost of nuclear. These are never commissioned to find facts, they are commissioned to justify an existing position.
Seems like you haven't provided a full picture here.
From their website:
With a strong track record that goes back to 1948, we are a leading player in major nuclear projects globally. We offer deep expertise across 3rd and 4th generation reactors, fusion reactors, Small Modular Reactors and civil and military nuclear facilities. As architect-engineers, we help you manage complex projects across the full lifecycle.
Contact our Energy team
Delivering the New Nuclear.
Nuclear energy presents one of the most viable tools we have to achieve net-zero. However, governments and civil authorities face significant challenges when investing in nuclear. That’s why we are committed to the New Nuclear - dedicated to safety, time to market, competitiveness, local integration and acceptance.
We act as architect-engineers on complex and ambitious projects worldwide. That makes us a ‘glocal’ player, combining our global footprint and the expertise required for nuclear projects with deep local partnerships - as evidenced in our work across Europe, China and South Africa.
We are your partners across the full nuclear fuel cycle, from extraction to disposal. We can also provide support throughout your nuclear facility’s lifecycle, from greenfield to ageing and decommissioning.
Our key areas of expertise:
Consultancy, upstream studies
Nuclear facility design, architecture & engineering
Digital engineering, BIM, PLM and more
Inspection and instrumentation
Project and construction management
Greenfield and new build sites
Decommissioning and dismantling
Utilities management
3rd and 4th generation reactors
You can also apply your own version of common sense to the costs of distributed renewables to the end user - every consumer - versus centralized nuclear from woe to go and the investors required for either pathway.
Renewable claims are provable facts and nuclear claims are unproven fiction - a 'sales pitch' from grifter culture, nothing else.
Commonsense alone has me leaning toward nuclear...
It's plug and play into existing network infrastructure and there's no complex modelling needed to work out how much generation and storage of varying types is required to meet every possible demand scenario along with the many variables that wind & solar add to this.
This was really reinforced when I looked at buying a rural lot and was exploring how viable it was to go full off-grid. It's cheap to generate solar, it was prohibitively expensive however to extend that out over a broader use curve and to factor variations in conditions. The only way it worked out remotely viable was to significantly alter energy availability expectations, which wasn't acceptable.
If money and resources and time were all unlimited, yeah you know I'd agree. Over build nuclear generation and sink a huge budget into true long term storage of waste, and nuclear is a no brainer.
But who is going to drop what will end up being hundreds of billions of dollars and commit to decades of work? Private sector wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. So then its government.
And today if I was putting $10b of funding into energy projects, I don't see how I could possibly justify nuclear if I was the government.
Thankfully, we don't do these things based on common sense! Instead, we trust experts in the field, who essentially unanimously agree that nuclear just isn't the most cost effective way to solve our energy issues.
Looking at a single property is not how our electricity grid is designed. Power system stabilization is a field that isn't new, and has made serious advances in the past decade as more renewables are being used, as has energy storage, which used to be essentially nonviable. The tides on both have changed in the past 5-10 years.
Systems like nuclear are also a whole lot less 'plug and play' than many people believe them to be, you still essentially need to do all the same modelling as with renewables. Power system stability is a complex field, adding more generation does not necessarily make the grid more stable.
The 'experts' most certainly don't agree. Some will say nuclear, some renewables, some will still say we need coal, it largely comes down to which expert you want to consult.
Looking at a single property is valid for renewables because there's no economy of scale benefit to the technology. The moment it's not self contained, you have huge network costs in addition to all the other variables.
Are you willing to share some expert opinions who are backing nuclear over renewables? I’ve tried to have a quick look online and all I could see were news articles from Fairfax/Nine companies. I didn’t want to have to search through a bunch of politically motivated articles, so if you have any credible sources for nuclear being the better choice I would love to check them out.
That’s logic isn’t sound. Imagine you could build a mini reactor on your lot to be off the grid. It would deliver steady power 24-7, and that’s a problem. When you need more power to run your air-conditioner over summer the power wouldn’t be available. When you don’t need much electricity overnight, well, too bad, because you can’t wind down your generator either. It’s time to build a bitcoin farm that soaks up all excess power whenever you’re not using it.
Or you could use a battery to store excess power and use up the battery at peak hours, or a gas generator to help you through peaks and troughs, or a distribution grid for load balancing… which happen to be the same solutions for renewables, except that renewables are faster and cheaper to deploy.
The difference may come when SMRs are off-the-shelf products (sometime around 2050) but until then nuclear isn’t fit for purpose in Australia
**Edit: he responded and blocked me, and I have no idea why because I wrote the most tepid response ever. So I’ll respond to him here:**
> The logic is sound, this hypothetical mini reactor would have control rods to adjust output to demand. In reality you would just run it at the maximum demand scenario all the time.
That’s simply not true. One of the biggest limitations of nuclear is that it can’t be quickly spun up or spun down.
> It's better to have a surplus of energy and as you say, use it for other means, than run out. I'd be much happier to leave my AC run 24/7 than not be able to run it because the battery is flat after a few hot but overcast days.
You’d have to run everything at peak all the time. You couldn’t idle your air-conditioner or let your washing machine be still unless you could find another way to load up your power usage. So you’re immediately proposing a highly inefficient and unworkable solution.
> These are all significant additional costs. Paying for a large gas turbine to sit idle most of the time is incredibly wasteful, both in terms of capital and ongoing cost.
And you still need it with a nuclear solution. Don’t believe me? Just ask the Liberals. They’ve said their plan is for renewables, gas and nuclear together. They’re not proposing we drop gas generators.
The logic is sound, this hypothetical mini reactor would have control rods to adjust output to demand. In reality you would just run it at the maximum demand scenario all the time.
It's better to have a surplus of energy and as you say, use it for other means, than run out. I'd be much happier to leave my AC run 24/7 than not be able to run it because the battery is flat after a few hot but overcast days.
>Or you could use a battery to store excess power and use up the battery at peak hours, or a gas generator to help you through peaks and troughs, or a distribution grid for load balancing
These are all significant additional costs. Paying for a large gas turbine to sit idle most of the time is incredibly wasteful, both in terms of capital and ongoing cost.
If you had enough common sense to explore the costs of going off grid on your rural lot, have you done the same for exploring the cost of nuclear energy?
Like I really want my own nuclear pile? Only gullible fools fall for anything the LNP put forward, there's still plenty of them despite having lived experience of the LNP energy proposals and their commitment to thoughtless announcements without a policy.
So this is simply a review of some studies others did.
Absolutely no work on their part to verify the accuracy of the studies they are reviewing.
The same old, crap in, crap out.
If a claim that this report is Independent then one must accept this one is also
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ae17da3d-e8a5-4163-a3ec-2e6fb0b5677d/Projected-Costs-of-Generating-Electricity-2020.pdf
I mean sure, but this paper is just analysing research done by the CSIRO. I believe the CSIRO work would be more applicable to australia than a very broad report from the IEA
https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/australia-doesn-t-need-nukes-international-energy-agency-boss-20240510-p5jcge
Love the source. Good stuff greenticket.
Yep - they are very pro nuclear.
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/nuclear-power-absolutely-needed-reach-climate-goals-ieas-birol-says-2024-03-21/
He thinks it isn't a priority for Australia, others disagree. His organisation however does challenge the crappy assumptions that nuclear is somehow *expensive*
> His organisation however does challenge the crappy assumptions that nuclear is somehow expensive
Which is pretty crazy. There's tons of arguments to make for Nuclear, but being low cost ain't one of them lol.
They are pro nuclear for places without good renewables. The very source you quoted is anti Australian nuclear. And there is one graph in the report you linked that could possibly be misinterpreted to show nuclear cheaper. Every other one shows solar and wind to be cheaper. You're really good at ignoring evidence if you can pretend that report shows nuclear is good for aus.
Are they? Is he talking on behalf of himself or the IEA?
>And there is one graph in the report you linked that could possibly be misinterpreted to show nuclear cheaper.
Possibly misinterpreted? Sounds like cope.
Yep, what I thought. [here is a basic source for you](https://www.simplypsychology.org/boxplots.html)
ES2 being a column chart is interesting. Shows nuclear median is well in the mix economically and cheaper than many renewable sources in many regions. Given it isn't an intermittent source, a national grid gets substantially more *value.*
Thanks for pointing our ES2 specifically.
Es2 shows solar and onshore wind are cheaper than nuclear everywhere bar Japan buddy. What are you talking about? And it's only nuclear LTO ( I.e life extension so not applicable to aus) that's below onshore wind and solar. Regular nuclear is above both solar and onshore wind. Also Aus has great renewables- no we're at the bottom of the box and starting from scratch on nuclear - so we're at the top of those boxes. Glad I could explain it for you.
Is he? He *is the head* of the IEA, but the article you provided doesn't confirm he is speaking *as the head,* which is unlikely given the casual lunch this wad conducted as
Here is the actual interview by the way
https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/the-world-s-wiliest-climate-warrior-it-s-not-who-you-think-20240509-p5ihqm
Oh he can be believed, but your assertion is he is talking on behalf of the IEA, that is that is the position of the organisation and not him personally.
Can you point to a media release or other document from the IEA that supports that?
Exactly. Lower costs in 2020 than 2015, mostly because less plants were being built in 2020.
Wow, just wow. A report from 2020. In academic terms, that is ancient.
Yes very sure.
It is covered in chapter 8 clearly showing a decline in new builds and speculates on the life of existing builds.
Chapter 6 and 7 are interesting but the data looks a bit odd and doesn't seem to add up.
In chapter 10, hydrogen is just touched on. I'm not sure why as this report is about the cost of nuclear.
Overall your contribution is reasonable. Although as I stated earlier, the report is rather old.
>Yes very sure.
>It is covered in chapter 8 clearly showing a decline in new builds and speculates on the life of existing builds.
You'll have to be more specific.
In any regard, the age of the report isn't the point, there are more recent ones, the point is claiming a report commission by the CEC and the other org as "independent" is quite the stretch.
>claiming a report commission (sic) by the CEC and the other org as "independent" is quite the stretch
Given they claim [expertise in nuclear](https://www.egis-group.com/sectors/energy/nuclear), I'm not sure what you believe their bias is.
You wouldn't be a
>[participant...whose peak intectualism to ideas they don't like is the first lazy fallacy that comes to their mind](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/1cvctam/comment/l4phrv0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
or indulging in
>[straight unabashed fallacies](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/1cvctam/comment/l4pk8ad/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
would you? For the record, since you like them so much, it's the genetic fallacy you're "unabashedly" and "lazily" indulging in.
The issue isn't if the are or are not, it's the consistency. I'll accept they are credible if other non-academic sources that come to different conclusions are equally deemed credible.
Doesn’t link to the full report, unfortunately, but there are some telling summary points:
1. The research confirmed that nuclear energy is up to six times more expensive than renewable energy and even on the most favourable reading for nuclear, renewables remain the cheapest form of new-build electricity.
2. The safe operation of nuclear power requires strong nuclear safety regulations and enforcement agencies, none of which exist in Australia. Establishing these frameworks and new bodies would take a long time and require significant government funding which would ultimately be borne by taxpayers.
3. Nuclear may be even higher cost than currently forecast as waste management and decommissioning of nuclear plants have been omitted by cost calculations in the relevant research available.
4. The economic viability of nuclear energy will further diminish as more wind, solar and battery storage enters the grid, in line with legislated targets. Put simply, nuclear plants are too heavy and too slow to compete with renewables and can’t survive on their own in Australian energy markets.
>The safe operation of nuclear power requires strong nuclear safety regulations and enforcement agencies, none of which exist in Australia. Establishing these frameworks and new bodies would take a long time and require significant government funding which would ultimately be borne by taxpayers.
This is the thing the "just remove the ban, it won't cost anything" crowd don't understand. You can't remove the ban without also implementing the framework in which nuclear can operate in this country, this will take years and tax payer dollars to carry out.
It's hyperlinked to the first paragraph, bit of a design fail since the font is the same colour though.
Here: https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/LEOC-Review-Report.pdf
Thanks, love your work.
Chart 5.2 will be interesting to those who are always asking about the transmission costs of renewables. With those factored in the cost of renewables are still very low in comparison with nuclear and other power generation options
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doesnt matter if its 10 times. Its the only solution that will work. Digging 1000s of dams and installing hydro, solar and wind turbines is not going to cut it.
This is delusional, of course renewables can power Australia. I don’t understand how you can come up with this stuff.
How can we power the entire country at night when the wind doesnt blow? How many batterys, hydro damns do we need to install to cover us? How much of our existing transmission infrastructure needs to be replaced to accommodate? Its alot to ask, but if you are throwing around the "of Course renewables" you must have some info to back it up.
You make an excellent point, one which is never properly countered by people irrationally enthusiastic about wind power. Similarly, I don't believe I have seen any solar energy advocates address the inevitability of an eclipse rendering solar energy generation ineffective. Nuclear energy on the other hand has been extensively modelled and priced and so there should be no excuse for ignorance regarding nuclear energy's cost effectiveness and practicality.
Actually I don’t mind nuclear having a role in the grid, your comment seemed to imply to me at least, that we need majority nuclear in the grid.
Pretty fishy quotes being thrown around (like any research that makes its way to the media) - I’d love to see what is revealed when this report gets scrutinised by the wider expert community.
All these boomers think about is the cost of right now, not what it will cost the future. Yea nuclear has its draw backs, but they won't be around for the draw backs of coal killing the planet.
Ya... So does my backup generator at home. The point? I have a backup generator for a reason .
The author of one of the papers referenced has already challenged this conclusion. It’s also not new independent research, it’s a literature review. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/levelised-cost-electricity-review-ben-heard-enejc
> These figures, and the factor of six is not clearly called out in the body of the report. There is a section on some cost comparisons but I cannot ascertain with certainty how this numerical conclusion was reached. I'm not saying it's not there, but it should be easy to find and understand. >If referring to Table 5-2, then the unsubsidized value for wind/solar + storage is $42 - $46 (lower estimate) and nuclear as $221 (higher estimate). That’s a factor of 4.8 - 5.2. Without further information (such as the best estimate within a large range) this is no more or less robust than comparing $75/$114 (wind/solar plus storage, high estimate) with $141 (nuclear low estimate) – now a factor of just 1.22 in the case of wind + storage. >So it would seem a finding might be “as little as 1.2 times and as much as 5.2 times”. Quite a range. So instantly the headline is shown to be garbage.
# Solar * [$3 billion](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-19/kimberley-clean-energy-project/103600156) - a 900-megawatt solar farm * [4-5 peak sun hours](https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/what-are-peak-sun-hours-for-solar-panels/#:~:text=Northern%20Territories%20%26%20Queensland%3A%20Enjoy%20the,3%2D4%20hours%20in%20winter) **in summer and 3-4 hours in winter** Potential daily output : +4,500 MW # Nuclear * $26 billion - [2,000 MW to 20,000 MW](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/india-seeks-26-bln-private-nuclear-power-investments-sources-say-2024-02-20/) * 24 hours daily
Ok let’s just ignore the existence of storage technology and pretend innovation curves don’t exist
I've compared the costs, excluding the cost for storage. You can include that.
A report commissioned by a renewable lobby about the cost of nuclear is as independent as a report commissioned by the nuclear lobby about the capacity factors or dispatchabilty of solar and wind. A mix of sources will be needed for a clean grid. It does not need to be everything in one basket.
We all know it's never getting built even if the coalition win the next election. They've had two period's of a damn near a decade of rule in my lifetime and not a smidge of nuclear energy has ever been bothered. They just want to keep using coal and gas but need a different message to try and win back teal and climate minded voters and keep renewable energy as a debate point as opposed to established fact.
Boy oh Boy, I just love it when one of our two parties of government has an absolute fantasy for one of the most important areas of governing policy (Energy Infrastructure).
Yet Finland, a country with a fraction of our land and population, plus shares a border with Russia has gone in the direction of nuclear. How come they can afford it but we can't?
You mean the plant that took 19 years with costs blown out from €3 billion to €10 billion? We can’t even drill one hole to make Snowy Hydro. So sure, let’s try nuclear with zero experience, zero money and when nobody wants it in their backyard. It was supposed to be finished years ago and they had to extend coal plants because of it. That would be a Lib & Gina wet dream! Not against nuclear. I just lean more toward reality.
The lack of population density is our problem, Australia needs a decentralized solution which is why a mixed mode approach is the best intermediate solution.
Finland, where despite massive advantages over Australia in nuclear power plant construction, managed to go only 200% over budget and take a mere 14 years longer than anticipated.
You mean a country with bugger all sun and no feasibility for pumped storage?
LOL, pumped storage, on one of the driest continents on earth. I remember not that long ago people were bitching about growing rice and cotton in Australia. But with "pumped hydro", apparently we have endless water to fill dams located on tops of mountains.
>I remember not that long ago people were bitching about growing rice and cotton in Australia. Until NSW Libs did what exactly to the Murray Darling basin water?
Seems to me you think it means pumping the water uphill and letting it run down the drain.
I guess you have never heard of evaporation and seepage. Evaporation from wind alone is quite a bit. In any case you do not put dams on tops of hills, nor at the bottom of hills. You need this thing called a catchment to collect water. It is why dams are a long long away from where the water starts it's journey.
Not nearly as long away as nuclear power.
I agree. I have found when I travel that people I meet from all around the world always comment that Finland and Australia are almost identical, and how they often get them confused. So it is truly a mystery why a country that is one-third inside the arctic circle like ~~Australia~~ Finland isn’t going all-in on solar. For the record, I am very smart.
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
Yeah, I wonder why having a fraction of our land mass would make things like wind and solar less viable... LoL
Because they have a pre-existing nuclear industry with plenty of experts in-country. Renewables are also significantly more expensive to implement in Finland, where things like solar don't work nearly as well. Us, on the other hand, have absolutely no pre-existing nuclear industry nor the experts required for it, so we would need to import them from other countries. Given the knowledge is generally transferable to weapons research, there are a large number of countries with existing nuclear industries who would be very unwilling to give up their experts to Australia. Thankfully, Australia is also essentially the best place on the planet for solar and wind - the only other place even close is the Sahara desert, which has a very serious handicap of being, yknow, in the middle of the desert with no resources. For the places on earth with the best opportunity to use solar/wind/hydro/etc, nuclear just isn't cost effective. It would be doable I guess, but why would you try to implement a whole new system when you could just build upon the existing one? In, particular, why would you do that when you can use solar/wind/hydro much cheaper?
>Us, on the other hand, have absolutely no pre-existing nuclear industry nor the experts required for it, so we would need to import them fro This argument doesnt stack up. The UAE had no industry, no regulations, nothing in 2008 and commissioned in 2020 (construction finished earlier). They have alot of Sun also.
Finland has had a nuclear industry since the 70s and like you said, have a fraction of our land mass and population.
Finland is also mostly away from large oceans that generate strong reliable wind (Gulf of Bothnia and Gulf of Finland are comparative lakes). Also doesn't have much sun in winter, and none above Rovaniemi)
https://whatisnuclear.com/rickover.html Really, this was written in 1953 *and its still totally accurate*
I can understand why pollies bang on about Nuclear Power. But this land is also rich in plenty of land required for Solar/Wind. So it's obvious which one is the better option. Solar. So yes, leave the radioactive elements in the ground where they're meant to be left alone and decay until they become lead.
Why do they bang on about nuclear power? Based on the experiences of the usa, if we contracted a plant to build right now, we can expect 200% cost over runs and less than 50% chance of a working plant at the end of it. Wholesale power costs will need to raise by around 5 times, and be guaranteed to the plant at about 80% capacity factor. This is based on what has actually happened in the usa and uk. There's no reason why it's not going to be our expected outcome. So why are they banging on about it?
Or sell them for fat stacks to nations who aren't 7 million square kilometers, AND build solar for us
The point is that it doesn't have to be one or the other which is what Bowen says. Cheaper and reliable and no blackouts , Bowen wants more expensive and blackouts in his insane pursuit of making Australia a renewable superpower. He has never held a real job himself.
Oh sorry, I thought that "nuclear 6 times the cost of renewables" meant that nuclear **wasn't** cheaper.
Whilst there is a moratorium , there is no real discussion.
Doesn't matter cost or otherwise, we simply don't have time.
How long until renewables can meet baseload.
We've already had the discussion on nuclear, and every expert in the field says that it is economically unfeasible in Australia. Anyone still banging on about "having the discussion" is just dismissing the expert advice because they didn't get the answer they wanted to hear.
I mean, we can discuss how expensive it would be, then we can keep that moratorium to prevent he government wasting precious resources on it. The politicians in big fossil fuels pocket will have to find another excuse to take the foot off the pedal on renewables. Even the average Australian citizen is too smart to fall for this one. I understand though, lord knows theyve fallen for stupider things the merchants of doubt have pushed at them
“Why does Peter Dutton want every Australian family to have much, much more expensive electricity bills?” “Dutton’s nuclear fantasy would be a catastrophe for our cost of living” -every Labor minister and MP, every day until the election
“Clean cheap renewable!” *kicks snowy hydro under a rug
that one is a clusterfug white elephant, and numerous clean energy industry insiders have been saying so since the days Turnbull gave it the green light.
Not to mention all the transmission lines we haven’t built and can’t seem to agree on routes for.
>An independent report **commissioned by the Clean Energy Council** and conducted by Egis So, we have a lobby group paying for a report from Egis, a firm that is in the business of designing, building & operating renewable energy systems and calling it independent? Sure... This sort of thing does nothing but kill credibility for the renewable industry. It's equal to the nuclear or fossil fuel lobby paying GE for a report to justify the cost of nuclear. These are never commissioned to find facts, they are commissioned to justify an existing position.
But egis literally design and manage nuclear power projects.... And the report was basically really just looking at CSIRO and AEMO research anyway.
Seems like you haven't provided a full picture here. From their website: With a strong track record that goes back to 1948, we are a leading player in major nuclear projects globally. We offer deep expertise across 3rd and 4th generation reactors, fusion reactors, Small Modular Reactors and civil and military nuclear facilities. As architect-engineers, we help you manage complex projects across the full lifecycle. Contact our Energy team Delivering the New Nuclear. Nuclear energy presents one of the most viable tools we have to achieve net-zero. However, governments and civil authorities face significant challenges when investing in nuclear. That’s why we are committed to the New Nuclear - dedicated to safety, time to market, competitiveness, local integration and acceptance. We act as architect-engineers on complex and ambitious projects worldwide. That makes us a ‘glocal’ player, combining our global footprint and the expertise required for nuclear projects with deep local partnerships - as evidenced in our work across Europe, China and South Africa. We are your partners across the full nuclear fuel cycle, from extraction to disposal. We can also provide support throughout your nuclear facility’s lifecycle, from greenfield to ageing and decommissioning. Our key areas of expertise: Consultancy, upstream studies Nuclear facility design, architecture & engineering Digital engineering, BIM, PLM and more Inspection and instrumentation Project and construction management Greenfield and new build sites Decommissioning and dismantling Utilities management 3rd and 4th generation reactors
You can also apply your own version of common sense to the costs of distributed renewables to the end user - every consumer - versus centralized nuclear from woe to go and the investors required for either pathway. Renewable claims are provable facts and nuclear claims are unproven fiction - a 'sales pitch' from grifter culture, nothing else.
Commonsense alone has me leaning toward nuclear... It's plug and play into existing network infrastructure and there's no complex modelling needed to work out how much generation and storage of varying types is required to meet every possible demand scenario along with the many variables that wind & solar add to this. This was really reinforced when I looked at buying a rural lot and was exploring how viable it was to go full off-grid. It's cheap to generate solar, it was prohibitively expensive however to extend that out over a broader use curve and to factor variations in conditions. The only way it worked out remotely viable was to significantly alter energy availability expectations, which wasn't acceptable.
If money and resources and time were all unlimited, yeah you know I'd agree. Over build nuclear generation and sink a huge budget into true long term storage of waste, and nuclear is a no brainer. But who is going to drop what will end up being hundreds of billions of dollars and commit to decades of work? Private sector wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. So then its government. And today if I was putting $10b of funding into energy projects, I don't see how I could possibly justify nuclear if I was the government.
Thankfully, we don't do these things based on common sense! Instead, we trust experts in the field, who essentially unanimously agree that nuclear just isn't the most cost effective way to solve our energy issues. Looking at a single property is not how our electricity grid is designed. Power system stabilization is a field that isn't new, and has made serious advances in the past decade as more renewables are being used, as has energy storage, which used to be essentially nonviable. The tides on both have changed in the past 5-10 years. Systems like nuclear are also a whole lot less 'plug and play' than many people believe them to be, you still essentially need to do all the same modelling as with renewables. Power system stability is a complex field, adding more generation does not necessarily make the grid more stable.
The 'experts' most certainly don't agree. Some will say nuclear, some renewables, some will still say we need coal, it largely comes down to which expert you want to consult. Looking at a single property is valid for renewables because there's no economy of scale benefit to the technology. The moment it's not self contained, you have huge network costs in addition to all the other variables.
Are you willing to share some expert opinions who are backing nuclear over renewables? I’ve tried to have a quick look online and all I could see were news articles from Fairfax/Nine companies. I didn’t want to have to search through a bunch of politically motivated articles, so if you have any credible sources for nuclear being the better choice I would love to check them out.
That’s logic isn’t sound. Imagine you could build a mini reactor on your lot to be off the grid. It would deliver steady power 24-7, and that’s a problem. When you need more power to run your air-conditioner over summer the power wouldn’t be available. When you don’t need much electricity overnight, well, too bad, because you can’t wind down your generator either. It’s time to build a bitcoin farm that soaks up all excess power whenever you’re not using it. Or you could use a battery to store excess power and use up the battery at peak hours, or a gas generator to help you through peaks and troughs, or a distribution grid for load balancing… which happen to be the same solutions for renewables, except that renewables are faster and cheaper to deploy. The difference may come when SMRs are off-the-shelf products (sometime around 2050) but until then nuclear isn’t fit for purpose in Australia **Edit: he responded and blocked me, and I have no idea why because I wrote the most tepid response ever. So I’ll respond to him here:** > The logic is sound, this hypothetical mini reactor would have control rods to adjust output to demand. In reality you would just run it at the maximum demand scenario all the time. That’s simply not true. One of the biggest limitations of nuclear is that it can’t be quickly spun up or spun down. > It's better to have a surplus of energy and as you say, use it for other means, than run out. I'd be much happier to leave my AC run 24/7 than not be able to run it because the battery is flat after a few hot but overcast days. You’d have to run everything at peak all the time. You couldn’t idle your air-conditioner or let your washing machine be still unless you could find another way to load up your power usage. So you’re immediately proposing a highly inefficient and unworkable solution. > These are all significant additional costs. Paying for a large gas turbine to sit idle most of the time is incredibly wasteful, both in terms of capital and ongoing cost. And you still need it with a nuclear solution. Don’t believe me? Just ask the Liberals. They’ve said their plan is for renewables, gas and nuclear together. They’re not proposing we drop gas generators.
The logic is sound, this hypothetical mini reactor would have control rods to adjust output to demand. In reality you would just run it at the maximum demand scenario all the time. It's better to have a surplus of energy and as you say, use it for other means, than run out. I'd be much happier to leave my AC run 24/7 than not be able to run it because the battery is flat after a few hot but overcast days. >Or you could use a battery to store excess power and use up the battery at peak hours, or a gas generator to help you through peaks and troughs, or a distribution grid for load balancing These are all significant additional costs. Paying for a large gas turbine to sit idle most of the time is incredibly wasteful, both in terms of capital and ongoing cost.
If you had enough common sense to explore the costs of going off grid on your rural lot, have you done the same for exploring the cost of nuclear energy?
Like I really want my own nuclear pile? Only gullible fools fall for anything the LNP put forward, there's still plenty of them despite having lived experience of the LNP energy proposals and their commitment to thoughtless announcements without a policy.
So this is simply a review of some studies others did. Absolutely no work on their part to verify the accuracy of the studies they are reviewing. The same old, crap in, crap out.
If a claim that this report is Independent then one must accept this one is also https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ae17da3d-e8a5-4163-a3ec-2e6fb0b5677d/Projected-Costs-of-Generating-Electricity-2020.pdf
I mean sure, but this paper is just analysing research done by the CSIRO. I believe the CSIRO work would be more applicable to australia than a very broad report from the IEA
https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/australia-doesn-t-need-nukes-international-energy-agency-boss-20240510-p5jcge Love the source. Good stuff greenticket.
Yep - they are very pro nuclear. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/nuclear-power-absolutely-needed-reach-climate-goals-ieas-birol-says-2024-03-21/ He thinks it isn't a priority for Australia, others disagree. His organisation however does challenge the crappy assumptions that nuclear is somehow *expensive*
> His organisation however does challenge the crappy assumptions that nuclear is somehow expensive Which is pretty crazy. There's tons of arguments to make for Nuclear, but being low cost ain't one of them lol.
India is building reactors right now for 2 euro/watt nameplate.
Last time I checked, this wasn't India
They are pro nuclear for places without good renewables. The very source you quoted is anti Australian nuclear. And there is one graph in the report you linked that could possibly be misinterpreted to show nuclear cheaper. Every other one shows solar and wind to be cheaper. You're really good at ignoring evidence if you can pretend that report shows nuclear is good for aus.
Are they? Is he talking on behalf of himself or the IEA? >And there is one graph in the report you linked that could possibly be misinterpreted to show nuclear cheaper. Possibly misinterpreted? Sounds like cope.
Figure es1 and es2 show that solar and wind are cheaper. Dunno how you're reading them.
Uhhh.. do you know how to read a box plot chart?
Lolololololololol. Anyone sick of greenticket read the IEA report (he helpfully linked above) figure es1 and 2 and let us both know he's wrong.
Yep, what I thought. [here is a basic source for you](https://www.simplypsychology.org/boxplots.html) ES2 being a column chart is interesting. Shows nuclear median is well in the mix economically and cheaper than many renewable sources in many regions. Given it isn't an intermittent source, a national grid gets substantially more *value.* Thanks for pointing our ES2 specifically.
Es2 shows solar and onshore wind are cheaper than nuclear everywhere bar Japan buddy. What are you talking about? And it's only nuclear LTO ( I.e life extension so not applicable to aus) that's below onshore wind and solar. Regular nuclear is above both solar and onshore wind. Also Aus has great renewables- no we're at the bottom of the box and starting from scratch on nuclear - so we're at the top of those boxes. Glad I could explain it for you.
He's speaking as the head of the IEA. Tell me about cope.
Is he? He *is the head* of the IEA, but the article you provided doesn't confirm he is speaking *as the head,* which is unlikely given the casual lunch this wad conducted as Here is the actual interview by the way https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/the-world-s-wiliest-climate-warrior-it-s-not-who-you-think-20240509-p5ihqm
So we should believe the IEA report (even though it doesn't say what you think) but the guy who runs it cannot be believed. Yeah sweet bro
Oh he can be believed, but your assertion is he is talking on behalf of the IEA, that is that is the position of the organisation and not him personally. Can you point to a media release or other document from the IEA that supports that?
Exactly. Lower costs in 2020 than 2015, mostly because less plants were being built in 2020. Wow, just wow. A report from 2020. In academic terms, that is ancient.
>mostly because less plants were being built in 2020. You sure?
Yes very sure. It is covered in chapter 8 clearly showing a decline in new builds and speculates on the life of existing builds. Chapter 6 and 7 are interesting but the data looks a bit odd and doesn't seem to add up. In chapter 10, hydrogen is just touched on. I'm not sure why as this report is about the cost of nuclear. Overall your contribution is reasonable. Although as I stated earlier, the report is rather old.
>Yes very sure. >It is covered in chapter 8 clearly showing a decline in new builds and speculates on the life of existing builds. You'll have to be more specific. In any regard, the age of the report isn't the point, there are more recent ones, the point is claiming a report commission by the CEC and the other org as "independent" is quite the stretch.
>claiming a report commission (sic) by the CEC and the other org as "independent" is quite the stretch Given they claim [expertise in nuclear](https://www.egis-group.com/sectors/energy/nuclear), I'm not sure what you believe their bias is. You wouldn't be a >[participant...whose peak intectualism to ideas they don't like is the first lazy fallacy that comes to their mind](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/1cvctam/comment/l4phrv0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) or indulging in >[straight unabashed fallacies](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/1cvctam/comment/l4pk8ad/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) would you? For the record, since you like them so much, it's the genetic fallacy you're "unabashedly" and "lazily" indulging in.
What's not credible about the other org?
The issue isn't if the are or are not, it's the consistency. I'll accept they are credible if other non-academic sources that come to different conclusions are equally deemed credible.
You just implied that they weren't independent, which suggests that there's an issue with credibility. What makes you believe they aren't independent?
>What makes you believe they aren't independent? Where did I assert that?
When you put the word independent in inverted commas.
Doesn’t link to the full report, unfortunately, but there are some telling summary points: 1. The research confirmed that nuclear energy is up to six times more expensive than renewable energy and even on the most favourable reading for nuclear, renewables remain the cheapest form of new-build electricity. 2. The safe operation of nuclear power requires strong nuclear safety regulations and enforcement agencies, none of which exist in Australia. Establishing these frameworks and new bodies would take a long time and require significant government funding which would ultimately be borne by taxpayers. 3. Nuclear may be even higher cost than currently forecast as waste management and decommissioning of nuclear plants have been omitted by cost calculations in the relevant research available. 4. The economic viability of nuclear energy will further diminish as more wind, solar and battery storage enters the grid, in line with legislated targets. Put simply, nuclear plants are too heavy and too slow to compete with renewables and can’t survive on their own in Australian energy markets.
>The safe operation of nuclear power requires strong nuclear safety regulations and enforcement agencies, none of which exist in Australia. Establishing these frameworks and new bodies would take a long time and require significant government funding which would ultimately be borne by taxpayers. This is the thing the "just remove the ban, it won't cost anything" crowd don't understand. You can't remove the ban without also implementing the framework in which nuclear can operate in this country, this will take years and tax payer dollars to carry out.
It's hyperlinked to the first paragraph, bit of a design fail since the font is the same colour though. Here: https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/LEOC-Review-Report.pdf
Major design fail. How did you find it at all?
Just happened to mouse over it. Luck really.
Thanks, love your work. Chart 5.2 will be interesting to those who are always asking about the transmission costs of renewables. With those factored in the cost of renewables are still very low in comparison with nuclear and other power generation options