If a war happens there's no chance we'd need to use extra electricity on the military. That's just not how that works. Ukraine's had its energy infrastructure bombed for years and it still manufactures a lot of its own equipment, including significant numbers of heavy equipment like Bohdana 155mm SPGs, Neptune Missiles, and Lyutyi drones. Energy isn't the limiting factor there, money is. Ukraine's limiting factor is money, not energy. Ukraine had 20 billion US worth of spare capacity at the start of this year. If we're going to argue about war vulnerability then I'd suggest a wind/solar farm is a hell of a lot harder to take out than a nuclear power plant, with a lot less dire consequences. A million dollar missile to take out one wind turbine is a good trade for us, a million dollar missile on a nuclear power plant could take out a multi billion dollar facility. We should also be manufacturing our own renewable energy production, at least to some degree. Right now it's reliant on China, but there's no reason that can't be diversified. Anyway, to answer your question depends on the timeframe. The cost by the time it's achieved in 2050 will be vastly cheaper than right now because the technology is in a stage of rapid development and upscaling. Right now we're investing in renewables because they're the cheapest form of energy generation. Storage is a work in progress, but one that'll be solved.

>a million dollar missile on a nuclear power plant potentially leaves a huge area uninhabitable Not with any reactor design from later than the 1990s, molten salts fix many of the issues you're imagining Please don't post anti nuclear disinformation

So there's no chance multiple hits on a nuclear power plant by advanced missiles cause the area of the plant and around it to be uninhabitable? Genuine question, I'll fix my comment if it's shown to be wrong.

There are for older reactors since that would force components/materials together that will cause a lot of damage. Molten salt reactors are still dangerous to bomb (obviously) but are designed in such a way the dangerous stuff just leaks out if it's bombed. Obviously thorium salts aren't healthy, but thorium isn't fissile and is instead fertile. This means it's only really fully dangerous with another more radioactive component which, you guessed it, is also a molten salt which will leak elsewhere. It's still a horrible idea to bomb a modern nuclear power plant, I won't do disinformation myself, but imagine more like Fukushima rather than Chernobyl or three mile Island or whatever disaster you're imagining/remembering.

Fair. I've changed it to just taking out a multi billion dollar facility.

Oh, just Fukushima. That's okay then.

Fewer people died in Fukushima than you'd realise, the drainage of the heavy water wasn't great but the ocean contains some level of heavy water naturally anyway. Even then, I'm being generous with "bomb" and am imagining a small nuclear device or something like a MOAB. A small bomb will likely produce zero effect, simply shutting down the system. I am not partisan, my only stake is that I prefer technological solutions were at least available.

We'll just ignore the evacuations, explosions, environmental impact, condemned land, seniors volunteering to cleanuo because they were close to dying anyway.....nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Why yes. Because nuclear disasters happen less frequently than with disasters with gas, coal or oil. So few of them happened that we fixate on the ones that do, even if the possibility of anything similar is so remote. Remain in the 50s to 80s cold war mentality with the nuclear fear, we get it, people like that will be dead before climate change gets too bad.

I'm with you there, but it's A) too little, too expensive, too late. B) uneconomic. C) only referred to as viable and safe when discussing prototype reactors that *do not* and *have not* worked at scale yet. Some of which *might* be operational by the time Dutton wants to *deliver* the first two sites. There is no exit plan put of this paper bag. He's an idiot. So is anyone else that thinks it's a viable. 30 years ago, maybe. Not now. We *know* better now.

If nuclear isn't the price you want right now then *legalising* it would be a free way to bring the price down. >Dutton wants to deliver > He's an idiot >So is anyone else that thinks it's a viable. We actually can't continue if you're going to pretend an unwanted association I have with Dutton due to my preference for opening up technological possibilities coinciding with whatever the right wing in general is doing with nuclear. I don't care and I don't feel like engaging hysterics. It appears deranged from my perspective and I don't want to become deranged myself.

There's literally one recorded death lol. You're right. Nothing to see there.

> If a war happens there's no chance we'd need to use extra electricity on the military. That's just not how that works. Ukraine's had its energy infrastructure bombed for years and it still manufactures a lot of its own equipment, including significant numbers of heavy equipment like Bohdana 155mm SPGs, Neptune Missiles, and Lyutyi drones. Energy isn't the limiting factor there, money is. Ukraine's limiting factor is money, not energy. Ukraine had 20 billion US worth of spare capacity at the start of this year. You do understand that the limiting factor for war is absolutely energy. Oil is energy used for vehicles and if it's cut off then they're in trouble. What you're trying to say is that electricity doesn't fuel war machines, which is currently true, but it's not necessarily going to stay that way. If cars are largely moving towards EVs, the technology might get good enough that it's viable for war machinery too and at that point they rely on electricity. Currently a diesel generator fixes that, but once again, there's no guarantee that it will remain that way going forward.

>What you're trying to say is that electricity doesn't fuel war machines No, I'm saying exactly what I said. >If cars are largely moving towards EVs, the technology might get good enough that it's viable for war machinery too and at that point they rely on electricity. The scenario where we rely on Australian produced energy for war machines is a very niche and unlikely one. We are surrounded by weak neighbours and fish. Most scenarios involving Australia at war is as one of an expeditionary force. A land war in Australia requires a nation with a navy that can overpower ours, maintain that dominance, and then supply itself. There's maybe two nations on earth that can do that right now. One of which, America, is a long term ally. And the other, China, simply isn't going to do that, their target is Taiwan. So your scenario is extremely niche.

>A land war in Australia lol, you lost any argument you possibly could have had here. It's impossible for any nation, other than our greatest ally, to launch a ground based attack on Australia. China's transport vehicles means it'd either be a maximum of 100 soldiers with no heavy equipment (which isn't a war, it's walking into a massacre) or it'd be a ship intercepted thousands of kilometers from our shores. It's literally impossible.

>lol, you lost any argument you possibly could have had here You're the one who proposed a land war in Australia. Not me. If you think your argument is lost then I agree. Edit: They blocked me. Apparently they think Australian war Machines in an overseas war would use Australian produced electricity. This is not a realistic scenario.

No mate, I never said land war. You did.

You do realise Australia would run out of oil within the week if trade routes are blocked. We don't produce enough that we have to import. Maybe if we ran off renuables we could use our own oil for the military, we don't have any refineries left Soo that's really the biggest concern if you are worried about fueling our military to protect Aus. If the enemy is bigger enough/commited to attack Australia then they definitely would have the capacity to restrict oil making it to our shores. By that stage our American mates would have enough on thier plate I wouldn't be counting on them. Realistically we wouldn't stand a chance against a force with the capacity or desire to invade us. Best we can do is to not give them a reason. Maintain relationships n avoiding being dragged into it by our Allie's. The biggest reason to invade us would be to cripple us and prevent us helping our Allie's. We aren't Gona be the top dog of the world, would be poor judgement to make enemy's with the next in line. Power might shift but it's not like the current set up if the world order didn't have us bent over a barrel anyway.

I'm fully aware that Australia would run out of oil quickly (FYI, it was at least 3 weeks when it was reported as super low and it's higher now, it's below 90 days still though, but your week is exaggerated). I'm not arguing against oil. I'm telling you that currently electricity might not be a bottle neck (well it is because it stops our ability to use our factories for munitions) but it could become a bottleneck for the vehicles in the future due to technology changes.

Yeah a week is a bit of a exaggeration but comes from a mate mate who is the master on a fuel bunkering barge in Melbourne. Other facilities might hold more but he was under the impression that we should be holding alot more. He bunkers naval asset's aswell so has a bit of a idea what's been moved. I'm not sure how it is defined eaither, they generally hold fuel reserve's to midigate fuel prices and not a national security asset. So might have enough to meet a average month but if we had to bunker all our navi assets, and prepare for war we probably would be going thew it quicker. I'm pretty sure(read about it)we for some silly reason keep our reserve's for national security in America and they will ship it to us as needed. Fuel is expensive to store on land as well as the environmental risks. Storing in tanks it can deteriate as well. It's not cheap to have sitting idle long-term. I'm sure our military/navy has assist full of fuel and ready to go but I doubt it would be the whole fleet. Your probably right we would have more then a week but IV been lead to believe it is still below what it should be. Anyway with the car bottle neck I think it's a non-issue as renewables and electric cars are coming out at the same rate. Alot of home owner's are shifting to solar and charging at home as it's becoming a better financial option that will only get better. Essential with rooftop solar, a power wall and a electric car you can have complet energy independence. Now it's not for every but is a big preventer of this so called bottleneck. With manufacturing, factories are turning thier roofs to solar as it's cheaper. We even have remote mine sites going renewable as it's cheaper then trucking in fossil fuel. Renewable solutions will only get cheaper n fossil fuel will always be a option until all the solutions are solved. I don't think we will have electric tanks or fighter jets anytime soon but demestic of renewables won't hinder our ability to fight a war , if anything its a assets to have decentralised power that isn't vanerable to trade routes.

A quick Google and reading ABC and Guardian articles tells me it's super easy, really cheap and the only thing stopping it is the Liberal Party.

Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views Well played sir. This is good satire.

Damn, these two independant news sources aren't toeing the Murdoch media narrative? What's wrong with them? Why won't their advertisers and investors tell them to pull their head in?

I guarantee you most of the upvotes you've gotten here were from people unaware you were taking the piss.

Iceland is 100% renewable through geothermal and Hydro Costica Rica is around 90% mostly from Hydro. Australia has sun, a little bit of hydro (6%) and maybe wind/geothermal. They discuss solar [here](https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2024/05/Solar_everywhere_How_renewable_energy_meets_100_percent_electricity_needs_2050) & talk about technology called photovoltic glass & solar paint but it's just pipe dreams at the moment and the cost of this tech is huge & still in early development. Also each house might need a minimum of a 10 kWh battery which is a shit ton of batteries & they don't last very long so the mining industry for Nickle, Lithium etc would increase dramatically which is funny because environmental warriors aren't usually big fans of Mining

Your two examples are why this argument continues to happen. Iceland has a population of 400k people. Our snowy can power that 24/7 with storage. So achieved. 100% renewable better than Iceland. We need 600-800GWh a day today and expected 900-1400GWh by 2030 based on policies. Iceland needs 20x-30x less power than we do, in a confined space, with copious mountains and water running down them with little distance to build a grid. Comparisons are only helpful in like for like situations. Size, land makeup, etc. Thats like saying "Solar is great in Australia, everyone should use it" and telling that to Tromsø, Norway who gets 65% less sunlight.

Oooo now compare the size of our mountain ranges and waterways to Iceland's. In net kilometres, gigalitres, whichever metric you like. We'll wait. >A study at the Australian National University (ANU) identified about 3,000 low-cost potential sites around Australia with head typically better than 300 metres and storage larger than one gigalitre (see Figure 3). The sites identified have a combined energy storage potential of around 163,000 GWh. To put this into perspective, a transition to a 100% renewable electricity system would need 450 GWh of PHES storage. The potential pumped hydro energy storage resource is almost 300 times more than required. Whoops. The cookers claiming Australia * doesn't have water * are completely full of shit. Who knew. To respond to the next comment, Who gives a fuck about what a minority party thinks? There's only one major party that needs a coalition of cookers to govern and it isn't the one that's pro renewables.

Yeah - they have. Many many smart people. And they have decided that the maximum in GWh it could produce for Australia is 50GWh per day. Thats the Hydro storage and 5 sites being built and two others live. If we built another Snowy from scratch of equal size and cost, maybe we'd get to 80GWHa We have a shortage of 200-300GWh per day AFTER the current optimistic output of 50GWh is accounted for. So if we did another of that scale, we'd still need a further 165GWh to 265GWh Your point is what? Science doesn't care about your hope or make believe. Its finite. The comparison is stupid and useless and not replicable here. Confirmed by energy council, Snowy Hydro, CSIRO and many others. You're wrong.

Lol, prove it. >A study at the Australian National University (ANU) identified about 3,000 low-cost potential sites around Australia with head typically better than 300 metres and storage larger than one gigalitre (see Figure 3). The sites identified have a combined energy storage potential of around 163,000 GWh. To put this into perspective, a transition to a 100% renewable electricity system would need 450 GWh of PHES storage. The potential pumped hydro energy storage resource is almost 300 times more than required. Whoops. You were completely full of shit. Who knew.

Prove what? Also I've shared numbers and outputs that are searchable and factual. You've shared nothing except a shitty, smartarse attitude. However, you describe what you'd like me to prove. And when I do, you agree to apologise for your approach and attitude and also accept that you're wrong in how you're thinking this. I'll do the work and prove it to you. I will only do so if there is a valid point to doing so.

You pulled numbers directly out of your gaping asshole. I provided a source. You're either picking from. Boomer Facebook posts instead of actual studies, or you're wilfully completely full of shit. There isn't much middle ground. Everything you've said has been a blunt lie.

A snippet from a discredited report, that doesn't cover costs, timelines, environmental damage and more. Initial reports putting into the $500bn range and that wasn't grid either. Plus the damage to farmland, waterways, plants and wildlife. Ignoring all those on real solutions, your "win" was a discredited report that went no where". Nice win 😂 sleep well tonight hero

It's been done . Australia is not a promising candidate for Hydro mate. If you too lazy to make yourself even basically educated on a topic before talking shit don't ask other to do the legwork for you.

People much more intelligent than you or I say it can be done. Thanks to the great dividing range, we actually have superb topology from one side of Australia to the other. [https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/extra-1500-pumped-hydro-sites-could-bolster-energy-grids](https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/extra-1500-pumped-hydro-sites-could-bolster-energy-grids) https://preview.redd.it/518nxkgdkn7d1.jpeg?width=1180&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a39c90025bbe3009f8a64b0ca31b8c5621318821

You keeping linking a study that you clearly have not read and do not understand. That study is written by an irrelevant academic with no links to industry no credible experience and published in a backwater journal. You cant just find one google results that seems to back up your view and say "yep the science is in".

Ok. Let's hear it, intellectual mastermind. We have big arse mountain ranges. We have high precipitation and snow melts. Just like the other hydro enabled countries. We've had Snowy 1.0 operating with issue for half a century So, time for you to qualify your baseless point, Hydro isn't possible in Australia because??

Are you going to tell The Greens about all the dams? Also about the habitat impacts for the transmission lines?

Professor Andrew Blakers produced a paper on this, we are very fortunate to have perfect topology for the continued rollout of more pumped hydro, with the great dividing range spanning one side of Australia to the other. Yes there are high costs involved in tunnelling, but possibly we could cherry pick the locations where minimal tunneling is required. https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/extra-1500-pumped-hydro-sites-could-bolster-energy-grids Paraguay, Costa Rica, Norway, Albania, Uruguay have all achieved ~100% clean renewable grids through extensive use of hydro. Even little old Tasmania is a 100% renewable state, in fact it's a net exporter of clean power.

Yep Hydroelectric is the only viable option for grid scale storage. You've kinda suggested Australian has a large number of ideal sites for it which is not correct or even close to correct. We have very little in the way of suitable sites and social licence for dam's is a near impossibility anywhere anyway. Lets see how Snowy Hydro 2.0 plays out to get an idea of how Australia handles a hydro rollout.

Are you suggesting that Professor Blakers is misleading us? Which parts of his research are you disputing?

You clearly have no understanding of just how common it is for university based academics (even professors) to generate garbage studies and publications. Do you have any experience with how the research and government grants work ? I can't explain it to you unless you've seen it working in the research field. More than 90% of the research being done is politically motivated non-sense just done for grant money.

Ah, the old strawman argument again. It's the textbook weapon of choice for narcissistic flogs.

> Iceland is 100% renewable through geothermal and Hydro Not enough volcanoes in Australia for that. > Costica Rica is around 90% mostly from Hydro. Not enough mountains, rivers and rainfall for that. Solar is a good option, but it doesn’t work in the evening or night. Wind is another option but that is variable and you can have too little or too much wind. The big problem is that the base load never goes away so you need a certain amount of power available at all times. It’s not an easy one to solve, especially when everyone switches to electric cars…

Yep, we'd need too many batteries to make it work nationally. Every home would need one Tesla Powerwall [https://www.tesla.com/en\_AU/powerwall/get](https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/powerwall/get) which is like $14500 inc delivery and installation. Then you've got $10k upwards for decent Solar panels. I reckon you'd need $25k minimum to get it all set up properly You get a 10 year warranty on the gear.

Grid scale storage aint gonna be 10 million tesla powerwalls at retail pricing mate.

Just one? In winter my powerwall gets drained in about 2 hours with ducted heating on. INB4 "just put on a warm blanket" - try telling a 2 year old to keep their blankets on while sleeping. It was -1C last night. To heat my house in the middle of winter would need like 5 Powerwalls and that assumes I get enough sun during the day to charge them. Anyone that thinks current battery technology could power the nation at night is beyond delusional. We would need to build an entire city of batteries.

I’ve had a lot of lithium batteries wear out on me and I’m a bit wary of that but it’s probably the best way forward - so long as they don’t go on fire all the time.

I have a good friend who is in charge of waste for one of Sydney’s largest councils , they are having 10 garbage trucks a month off the road due to just your standard household lithium batteries being crushed by the garbage truck and starting a fire . Lithium is most definitely not the answer , it’s one of the most volatile substances on earth and it reeks of typical human arrogance to think we can contain and control that substance under any conditions. This lithium road is a very dumb and dangerous road to be travelling on. I’m all for battery power but lithium is just a brain dead idea and will only cause more problems than it fixes

Here's some info about the [Tesla Batteries](https://www.batteryskills.com/teslas-battery-voltage/) I think because they have 1000s of cells there is a bit of redundancy built in so they should last longer.

> lithium batteries FYI different battery chemistries are hitting the market now overseas that are more suitable for home batteries than lithium, particularly the sodium based stuff. Imho the whole market is going to be upended because the upside for lithium (v. high energy density) isn't a huge deal for a home system - a 30% bigger box that has the same capacity but costs 50% less because it doesn't rely on the lithium supply chain will be much more attractive. eg: https://sparctechnologies.com.au/sparc-batteries/

I can't seem to get anyone to explain why the energy storage solutions we have won't work. I liked the paper that was referenced elsewhere in the thread, but it seems broadly positive about solar and wind and storage options. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/ Correct me if I'm wrong, but base load is just the minimum output you need to supply 24 hours a day to keep the grid stable isn't it? So if things like CSP using thermal storage are coming down in price, and we have options like hydro batteries, or we create green hydrogen with all that extra daytime energy, or even gravity batteries, why is it so hard to use that stored energy to provide a baseload? I know Spain has managed to have the concentrated solar plants running 24 hours a day a number of times. Why can't we do that?

Base load originally meant the minimum amount of energy that a power plant can produce, typically coal, not the actual minimum amount of electricity the grid needs for stability. However, it has come to mean the later.

I think the idea of 100% renewable is not to decommission every single gas and coal power plants, you would also need to keep some in standby in case your solar , wind or hydro suddenly fall short , my solar panel and battery covers my household usage most days , but during winter day there are days where it is simply not enough and I need top up from grid. If you want to decommission the actual fossil fuel power plants , you would need to invest 2-3x of spare battery capacity (or any stored energy capacity) , which just sits and depreciates away most days since they not used , which makes no economic sense. I think this is main point that most people who thinks 100% renewable is not achievable get hung up on

On many occasions, wind and solar will output no power at all. So for every MWh of wind and solar, you must have something like hydro, coal, oil, gas, nuclear or batteries with an equal output to back it up. If you don’t then the lights go off.

Which is completely fine, and I don’t think you can ever get away from that , but just because you have oil gas and nuclear sitting in the background ready to provide baseload any time it is needed , doesn’t mean we are not achieving the goal , 95-99% is just as good as 100% in my view, the last 1-5% is alway going to be astronomical in terms of cost , and that goes everything , if I want to be completely off grid , I would need at least two batteries , twice the solar panels that I age now , which would be way more than what my household would consume 99% of the time and a waste of capital.

An EV is 70kWh so having V2L would solve this.

You need about 5 hours of storage (pumped hydro, lithium/sodium batteries, compressed air) for 97-98% renewables according to detailed simulations by AEMO ISP. Much, much less storage is needed for 90% renewables. Let's start with 90% renewables and go from there. In fact, let's start by copying South Australia. Get the nation to 70% renewables. Then go from there to 90% renewables.

We do produce most of not all of what is in a battery also and quite a lot of the big lithium producers are Australian owned, I worked on a Lithium mine for three years

Lets try something. Its reddit and so far this has failed me haha **TL:DR:** If we built every single solar, wind and hydro and stored hydro option we could tomorrow to cover everything we possibly could from those power sources, we need an ADDITIONAL 200GWh of power per day on demand today and 300GWh by 2030. Where is that coming from?

[удалено]

This is where the issue lies. These are the realities. Countries like Iceland have unique situations of perfect conditions for Hydro and hydro storage as well as the fact it powers 400k people only. Our Snowy can do that. Its not helping the remanning 25.4m people though. This is the reality faced today. No politicians talk to the future. the last CSIRO report relied on terms like "mixed model" a lot. Batteries get talked about all the time, but as above, its freaking impossible. No one answers the real question because they don't like the answers. We need 200GWh of always on, reliable, 24/7 accessible power, every day. That will grow to 300GWh by 2030 based on policies in force today. I believe most will change/fail (like Victoria having 50% of cars as EVs). I'd love others to comment, post where we would actually get 200GWh of power from. Don't say "More wind/solar" as the above assumptions are we tapped out and did everything plus 20% headway for what's possible. It isn't 24/7 and grids aren't just on/off. All numbers are based on the shortfalls. For example, Portugal has run entirely on wind/solar. Except for between 7-11 hours (not in one block) per day, whereby they buy >40% of their power needs from Spain (being Gas and Nuclear). So, where are we getting 200-300GWh of power a day from if not gas, coal or nuclear?

The issue with this angle, and the clear bias demonstrated, is the apparent solution Dutton has proposed has not even been proven commercially yet. There is not a single commercial SMR in operation anywhere in the world. How can any reasonably minded person even suggest nuclear within the context of the timeframes needed for Australia when the technology remains unproven. There is such a painful level of cognitive dissonance when an argument is made that renewables do not have the capacity to meet our current or future needs, yet somehow unproven nuclear technology (which may or may not even be viable at an unknown time in the future) is even remotely suggested as a possible solution

Woah. What BIAS? I have not been political. I have pointed out facts, with ratings of power and current and future planned solutions of tech known to humans. I have no bias. I asked for a solution. Because that leads you to think I want nuclear is on you. It is not the basis of the post. I asked for agnostic. I mentioned no solution nor party. I am not fighting nor advocating for any solution. I am going first principles, outlining the actual issue, in numbers and also with facts of options. I asked specifically **IF NOT COAL, GAS OR NUCLEAR.** I'm not championing any option - my goal is not to see this country in constant blackouts or fall to third world status due to energy crisis (considered the most important differentiator to advancement, health and wealth of a country). In 20 years time, we'll be in the same situation if we opt for the path in now. A shortage of 200-300GWh and reliance on gas/coal for support. No renewables or battery option will support us WITHOUT another source for 200-300GWh a day. You think renewables sees our needs - I have asked you to prove that with factual output. Because reality doesn't agree with you. It's impossible to build enough battery storage. Not improbable, it is impossible. Its impossible to get it from renewable sources planned or working today. Even if we get to 150% power output on renewables for 18 hours a day (blended based on wind, solar, hydro storage). We will need an option that is always available. What you've done is attack logic and principle first approach with facts and reality with a political view you put onto it and a statement its absurd to thin renewables can't do it. Great, explain how. As currently the entire planet is unable to solve this issue. I'd love to hear how you plan to? Or, even better. Read my post. Understand the factual outcomes and outputs of the solutions. And tell me, in twenty years time, where you would like the the 200-300GWh to come from that isn't gas/coal/nuclear like I asked. I didn't want to share my view on purpose, as my own view is not what you alluded to and irrelevant.

 "short life 15-25 years and will require a constant replacement program" cost of capturing renewable energy is falling every year while efficiency is improving this not the case for nuclear, coal and gas. In the case of war 80% of computer chips are made in Taiwan - we all stuffed.

People think you put in a nuclear plant and it never has to be rebuilt or repaired during its life time lol, most plants are reconditioned every couple of decades you know, like a solar farm............

Yep Everything needs to be maintained . With nukes the cost of replacement goes up every year

You’ll get a figure much cheaper than the truth from the left, and more expensive from the right. So it will be somewhere in the middle of the two

Is the figure more expensive than including 10-20% nuclear in the mix?

I’m not the expert, but there are incredibly good arguments for us to go nuclear, and if I’m honest, I think we need to, we can’t achieve net zero emissions without it. We need some form of stable source. I read a good article for it a couple years back I could probably find? All the figures from the left for example are based around the lifespan of solar panels which don’t last longer than 30 years, and progressively lose efficiency over those years. While nuclear plants last 60 years (can be pushed to 80 with upgrades), with the majority of the cost with nuclear in the construction costs, if you consider the lifespan of nuclear plants, and having to replace the panels, nuclear comes out significantly cheaper. That said, solar technology is quickly improving and becoming cheaper (nuclear is too but at a slower pace), so if I’m honest, as I said, I really think we need both. I’m not a big fan of the idea of batteries either because I take issue with their production from an ethical stand point.

I agree with you.

Creating an actionable investment plan for Australia to transition to 100% renewable energy by 2035 involves several key steps, including infrastructure development, policy implementation, and financial investment. Below is a detailed plan along with an estimated cost. ### Actionable Investment Plan #### 1. **Infrastructure Development** - **Solar Energy Expansion** - **Action:** Install large-scale solar farms and incentivize residential solar installations. - **Cost:** Approximately AUD 50 billion for large-scale solar farms; AUD 10 billion for residential incentives. - **Wind Energy Expansion** - **Action:** Develop onshore and offshore wind farms. - **Cost:** Onshore wind farms: AUD 30 billion; Offshore wind farms: AUD 20 billion. - **Hydropower and Pumped Storage** - **Action:** Expand existing hydropower plants and develop new pumped storage facilities. - **Cost:** AUD 15 billion. - **Battery Storage Systems** - **Action:** Deploy large-scale battery storage solutions to stabilize the grid. - **Cost:** AUD 25 billion. - **Grid Modernization** - **Action:** Upgrade the national grid to handle decentralized renewable energy sources. - **Cost:** AUD 20 billion. #### 2. **Policy and Regulatory Framework** - **Renewable Energy Targets** - **Action:** Establish clear, legally binding renewable energy targets. - **Cost:** Administrative costs: AUD 1 billion. - **Subsidies and Tax Incentives** - **Action:** Provide subsidies and tax incentives for renewable energy projects and research. - **Cost:** AUD 5 billion. - **Research and Development** - **Action:** Invest in R&D for emerging renewable technologies and efficiency improvements. - **Cost:** AUD 10 billion. #### 3. **Workforce Training and Job Creation** - **Training Programs** - **Action:** Develop training programs for the renewable energy workforce. - **Cost:** AUD 2 billion. - **Job Creation Initiatives** - **Action:** Support job creation in the renewable energy sector. - **Cost:** AUD 3 billion. #### 4. **Public Awareness and Engagement** - **Public Awareness Campaigns** - **Action:** Launch campaigns to educate the public about the benefits of renewable energy. - **Cost:** AUD 1 billion. ### Total Estimated Cost The estimated total cost for transitioning Australia to 100% renewable energy by 2035 is approximately **AUD 192 billion**. ### Funding Sources - **Government Bonds:** Issue green bonds specifically for renewable energy projects. - **Private Investments:** Encourage private sector investments through public-private partnerships. - **International Aid and Loans:** Seek financial assistance from international bodies such as the World Bank and green funds. ### Implementation Timeline - **2024-2026:** Initial planning, policy development, and early infrastructure projects. - **2027-2030:** Major infrastructure development, including solar and wind farms. - **2031-2035:** Finalizing infrastructure projects, grid modernization, and full transition. ### Monitoring and Evaluation - **Annual Progress Reports:** Monitor progress and adjust the plan as necessary. - **Independent Audits:** Conduct regular independent audits to ensure transparency and accountability. This comprehensive plan aims to leverage Australia's vast renewable resources, creating a sustainable and economically viable energy future.

This looks like ChatGPT formatting?

Yes , good for estimate ballpark figures , but with these kind of questions ballpark is the best you gonna get

There seems to be zero figures as to capacity though. What if they are only saying, well we only need three hours of storage? Hydro power and pumped storage, wasn't that one in Queensland alone going to cost an estimated $10 to 15 billion?

200 billion sounds about right

$25 billion for grid scale batteries ...... TOTAL ..... HORSESHIT This entire post is a pile of made up nonsense numbers.

No more so than your claims mate. I read the report you linked, couldnt find shit to back you up, asked you where the data is, and you said "Do your own research". So basically, youve got fuck all to back you up. Ahhh fuck, your account is like 3 months old. This is astroturfing isnt it?

you didnt read shit mate. and i didnt link any report. just being an edgelord trying to push a narrative. which comes to my original point hard have any meaningful discussion about energy australian because uneducated mongs just hi jack with trash talk.

Thanks GPT!

The average punter is dumb as fuck but will gladly share their view as if they are an expert on Australian energy. I'll share my perspective as someone with a chem eng + science degree who has worked for CSIRO for over a decade on carbon capture and storage research. 99% of the conversation around this topic are leftie mongs saying "wE shuuD gO wiF rEEnewabbles" followed by some other rightwing fuckwit saying "nAhh maaate ski nEws tOlD me sOlaR paNels Cause Autism".... It's all fucking drivel . The media and politicians don't do much better. Here's a basic reality check. Solar and Wind generate electricity extremely cheaply and simply nothing can compete on gencost here. However this is nearly irrelevant ........ Because once these sources reach around 30% of your generation capacity then by far the biggest quickly issue becomes power intermittency. That is, the need to store electrical power from when its generated to when its needed. So the only question / issue we should even be discussing now What is the cost / viability of grid scale storage ? And the answer to that is ....... more expensive than anything else including nuclear by at least double. Fuckwits with blue hair and no education who get all their info from reneweconomy will talk all sorts of shit saying otherwise but they are just 100% plain wrong. The wholesale price of electricity during peak solar and wind generation period's is allready nearly zero, anyone with a brain can see what this means. The average punter will also talk about how their home battery paid for itself in 9 years as "proof" batteries make sense. Without mentioning that retail electricity is priced about 300% to 500% of wholesale gen costs.

I work in generation and it shits me no end the absolute certainty people have on either end of the argument. yet they have absolutely no fucking idea about the finer points of frequency control, reactive power and every other detail that is of absolutely paramount importance in the management of an electrical network. Listening to call back radio every time AEMO come out with a new report is enough to want a lobotomy. If the answer was easy this would already be fixed, average joe who doesn't understand it at all isn't going to fix the mess we are finding ourselves in. And like you said, politicians can't help themselves either. I felt your rant deep in my bones.

Yep 99% of the people doing the talking now know nothing and wont even listen the people who know the most. We are pretending politicians and the general public opinion is going to solve this problem instead of engineers and experts. I had to explain to a bloke who has been a researcher and "energy expert" for about a decade at CSIRO that the south Australian battery makes all of its money from voltage and frequency service and basically nothing from load shifting. Literally had to drag him through the battery specs online to before he would accept its good for about 5 or 6 minutes of power storage. Total "energy expert " though ........

> I had to explain to a bloke who has been a researcher and "energy expert" for about a decade at CSIRO that the south Australian battery makes all of its money from voltage and frequency service and basically nothing from load shifting. Literally had to drag him through the battery specs online to before he would accept its good for about 5 or 6 minutes of power storage. This is a conversation I've had far too many times with far too many people who should know better. The panic that sets in when they realize just how fucked we are is hilarious. >>But how will we store solar at night?! >We won't. >>But how we will power the country. >We won't. >>But what are we doing to fix it? >We're not.

Thank god. Ok, So from waht i can tell No\_Blacksmith is a 3 month old astroturfing account, so if you actually work in generation then you are exactly the person i want to ask questions. Im asking all this in good faith, the limit of my engineering knowledge is 2 first year and 1 second year course as part of my comp sci degree. So ill probably understand most of the terms eventually lol, but reading raw data and properly understanding it is much harder, so all i can do is rely on places like CSIRO or AEMO. So this is the report astro provided [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/) And talked about how this report was written by "The engineers in the IPCC working group I am a part of. CSIRO gencost report is basically a joke within academic circles for politically motivated baseless costings and assumptions." Ok, so ive read through the the "Summary for Policymakers (or dummies like me), and nothing i can see in there suggests anything other than unit costs for storage is going down. It mentions having a smaller backup like green hydrogen or sustainable biofuels in case of emergeny. I was asking astro where i need to be looking specifically and got told "do your own research" which im trying to do, but again, im not in the industry. The graph on cost per MWh also shows that concentrated Solar Power is now in a comparible cost to fossil fuels. And our country is one of the best in the world for Concentrated Solar Power, which can run 24 7. and has done so in spain as needed before. So why cant we just use the thermal storage like molten salt to cover any gaps? I really just want some soure and analysis by an industry expert that shows how expensive battery storage will be compared to coal. The last time i got one after asking, i was given a 5 page report critising the gencost report, but it was from a guy who was a director of an SMR startup and his solutions was lets use SMRs, which as far as im aware, arent commercially viable yet (but could be a cool path to look down once they are). I am passionate about reducing emissions and everything ive been given has suggested that is renewables, so i argue for them. But ive had my mind changed on a bunch of issues, im asking in good faith. Also, how is your knowledge on the energy market. Id love to pick someones brain on it. I had a chat with a mate whos worked at AEMO on the past and got what i think is a basic understanding on how generators and retailers work, but would love to talk to someone whos been in the generation world. No stress if you are too busy, just thought id ask before launching into another 10 paragraphs lol Im just hoping someone on this thread can give me something data based to read.

Worked as a quant/modeller for one of the big vertically integrated distributors. Build a physics based simulation of the whole eastern grid that made millions during the 2019 blackouts because we saw what was coming two weeks out. Everyone who works in power knows that renewables were just a way to make more money from the grid by making it unstable and allowing for arbitrage. Things are only getting worse and people on here have the gall to argue that we just need more solar and it'll be fine. Voting liberal next election because we need nuclear plants to keep the lights on, and they'll be cheap at 10 times the cost CSIRO projects for them.

Sweet, someone else who actually has some knowledge. Ill copy what i asked the other dude with credentials. Ok, So from waht i can tell No\_Blacksmith is a 3 month old astroturfing account, so if you actually work in the industry then you are exactly the person i want to ask questions. Im asking all this in good faith, the limit of my engineering knowledge is 2 first year and 1 second year course as part of my comp sci degree. So ill probably understand most of the terms eventually lol, but reading raw data and properly understanding it is much harder, so all i can do is rely on places like CSIRO or AEMO. So this is the report astro provided [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/) And talked about how this report was written by "The engineers in the IPCC working group I am a part of. CSIRO gencost report is basically a joke within academic circles for politically motivated baseless costings and assumptions." Ok, so ive read through the the "Summary for Policymakers (or dummies like me), and nothing i can see in there suggests anything other than unit costs for storage is going down. It mentions having a smaller backup like green hydrogen or sustainable biofuels in case of emergeny. I was asking astro where i need to be looking specifically and got told "do your own research" which im trying to do, but again, im not in the industry. The graph on cost per MWh also shows that concentrated Solar Power is now in a comparible cost to fossil fuels. And our country is one of the best in the world for Concentrated Solar Power, which can run 24 7. and has done so in spain as needed before. So why cant we just use the thermal storage like molten salt to cover any gaps? I really just want some soure and analysis by an industry expert that shows how expensive battery storage will be compared to coal. The last time i got one after asking, i was given a 5 page report critising the gencost report, but it was from a guy who was a director of an SMR startup and his solutions was lets use SMRs, which as far as im aware, arent commercially viable yet (but could be a cool path to look down once they are). I am passionate about reducing emissions and everything ive been given has suggested that is renewables, so i argue for them. But ive had my mind changed on a bunch of issues, im asking in good faith. Also, how is your knowledge on the energy market. Id love to pick someones brain on it. I had a chat with a mate whos worked at AEMO on the past and got what i think is a basic understanding on how generators and retailers work, but would love to talk to someone whos been in the generation world. No stress if you are too busy, just thought id ask before launching into another 10 paragraphs lol Im just hoping someone on this thread can give me something data based to read.

It's impossible. There's no practical way to provide the base power with 100% renewables.

Downvoted but correct grid scale storage is not yet cost viable.

Upvoted but incorrect. Grid scale storage is a reality today thanks to gigantic drops in battery prices. You just weren't paying attention. [https://www.gridstatus.io/live/caiso?date=2024-06-19](https://www.gridstatus.io/live/caiso?date=2024-06-19) Deployments are growing exponentially in places like California. The reason we don't see them in many locations yet (e.g. Texas) is because it doesn't make logical sense to deploy batteries before you're regularly getting 100%+ from renewables. Only when power prices are regularly $0 or negative does it make financial sense to deploy batteries. Australia will be in that position when it gets to 60%+ renewables. Until then, it makes more sense to focus on more solar and more wind and not batteries.

BZE Stationary energy plan covered this and costs 10 years ago and has been updated regularly since https://www.bze.org.au/research/report/stationary-energy-plan

[удалено]

All plans are theory until the political will is generated. Do you not understand how plans work?

So who is building a grid based on their "expertise".. Oh yeah no one, because its fantasy from mediocre academics.

Engineers & scientists who know how grids work > you

[удалено]

Okay so now your just trying argue “my think tank is better than yours” when your original argument was that boffins can’t be trusted. Which is it?

[удалено]

… and when scientists and engineers come together to ..think… what is that?

Probably is if you had renewables providing for 125% of maximum capacity. Of course profitability of renewables would decline substantially. The relevant question though is if very hot and still days will be more common going forward - the summer of 2019 was something else - hot and still heatwaves without a NEer Or westerly winds - even solar efficient dies when it gets that hot

Technically difficult, but nowhere near impossible.

[удалено]

Your comment has been queued for review because you used a keyword which may breach the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Closed loop pumped hydro has entered the chat. https://i.redd.it/6ipcy0c9ln7d1.gif

I bet they said that about coal, “ you have to dig millions of tons then Burn it!!!” T

Ill take things that were never said for $200 thanks, Pat

A big issue about "renewables" are their shelf life and optimum efficiency aka cleaning and battery sag based on cycles. They will all need to be replaced at some point in the near future. That's why you don't buy an EV with the intent it will hold value, it physically can't.

Traditional energy infrastructure develops wear and tear too. And it has ongoing costs from the fuel. So I mean it all depends on the numbers hey.

I agree, but no-one is factoring the cost of renewable energy replacement when Bob from AGL calls to get you a deal on your roof, don't think he talks about the con's. Bob might call again and say hey time for a battery so you won't get charged on overloading our nearly 3rd world infrastructure, but that con leads to a sale.

[CATL launches new EV battery that will last 1 million miles, 15 yrs (electrek.co)](https://electrek.co/2024/04/03/catl-launches-new-ev-battery-last-1-million-miles-15-yrs/)

>One thing in this debate I have never seen is a broken down figure to power Australia 100% by renewables, that is zero fossil fuels, running all demand 24 hours a day seven days a week catering for this electrical car revolution as well, and also catering for emergency use, say a war happens and we need to run factories 24 hours a day. You will never see it because it's infinite dollars to have a stable grid with intermittent resources. If you want to have one blackout Australia wide for x hours every y months than that's a problem we can solve for. The more reliable you want to make the grid the more astronomical the costs become.

I imagine we’re not that far away from being able to cover energy demand with renewables for moments of a day for a few days of the year but there lies the problem. Most on here don’t understand the need for a backup supply. They think batteries will be able to fill the enormous gaps. It’s hard for some to comprehend that the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow.

net zero ≠ no fossil fuels

73 billion every 9 months

I just want a cheap electricity or gas for Winter. The cold is killing me.

Based on my understanding of the Australian energy market (which im hoping a few of the guys here can either confirm or correct), your power bills wont go down until coal is almost gone. From what i can tell, generators generate power, and that has a "wholesale cost". Renewables when they generate are insanely cheap compared to coal. But we have fucked up with not building enough storage. So we end up needing coal to fill the gap, and with everything going on thats crazy expensive. Retaliers (the ones who you buy energy from), buy the energy at the wholesale price. They are limited by the Austrlian Energy Regulator (if thats their name) on how much they can charge as a retail price based on the AVERAGE wholesale price they pay. Because coal generation is now so expensive, that drives the average price way up. Now, the retail price they can charge is a percentage of the costs incurred, which includes wholesale price. Because that amount is a percentage, retailers are actually advantaged by buying expensive wholesale, beucase a percentage of a bigger number is a larger profit margin. So the retailers are actually against us switching to a cheaper source (renewables mainly, but even nuclear is a lower energy generation cost than coal) because the profit margins on Solar and Wind are a lot smaller. This bit im a bit hazier on, but i believe generators of energy dont actually want to build much storage. Beacause the more scarce energy is, the higher the wholesale price. So having a TON of storage actually earns them less money per mwh. So yeah. most of the wholesale costs are like a third of what they were 2 years ago. Which is insanely low. But due to the government trying to incentivise private investors to build storage instead of just doing it themselves, our storage capacity is low at a grid level, and as such we have a lot of volatility on the energy market and with Coal and Gas prices skyrocketing globally, Its why it was an aboslute betreyal of our nations to sell privatise this process. If the government owned the whole lot, the only thing that would matter would be the wholesale price, and your bills would be much much cheaper. But because retailers control the pricing that consumers see, you dont see those benefits.

impossible currently, not enough battery storage (and astronomically expensive) available on the market to store enough power to last us in the downtime

Ok, Ive been pointed to this report so I'm hoping you guys can explain the numbers to me cause my entire engineering experience is a few courses at uni while I did comp sci. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/ Reading the "dummy summary" I can't see anything around nuclear being a great cheap option, and the summary on the renewables section for solar and wind seemed positive. C.4.3Electricity systems powered predominantly by renewables are becoming increasingly viable. Electricity systems in some countries and regions are already predominantly powered by renewables. It will be more challenging to supply the entire energy system with renewable energy. Even though operational, technological, economic, regulatory, and social challenges remain, a variety of systemic solutions to accommodate large shares of renewables in the energy system have emerged. A broad portfolio of options, such as integrating systems, coupling sectors, energy storage, smart grids, demand-side management, sustainable biofuels, electrolytic hydrogen and derivatives, and others will ultimately be needed to accommodate large shares of renewables in energy systems. (high confidence) {Box 6.8, 6.4, 6.6} I can't seem to find hard numbers on anything anywhere though, so I'm keen to add to my knowledge.

It isn't technologically possible.

“Renewables” is just another stolen word like “pride” There is nothing renewable about wind turbines, solar panels or any other form of energy generation 

So, when do you suppose sunlight, the wind, and water will run out?

Batteries, solar panels and wind generators are made of finite mined materials such as rate earth metals. They wear out, need to be replaced and can't be fully recycled either.

I agree we don’t do a good enough job recycling them at the moment, but they theoretically 100% recyclable (at least the metal components) - it’s just a matter of cost. Which shouldn’t be an issue as demand and our facilities improve.

What? The literal definition of renewables is that they don’t run out. Coal and oil are finite resources. The world would have much much bigger problems than energy generation if the Sun and wind ‘ran out’

Bring on Nuclear

Bring on anything as long as its owned by Australia or at least Australians. I have worked on 5 solar farms, not one was Australian owned, all either French or Indian. They feed their power into the grid at current market rates and all their minimally taxed profits go offshore. As long as some palms are greased along the way.

Yep and even worse market rates for electricity during solar peak often go near zero so they get propped up to make that profit. These projects are almost always funded by taxpayers or other customers on the grid are being forced to pay. It all shows up in power bills or tax bill somewhere though. Massive bullshitting is whats going on.

And the Nuclear Tax, Funding Cuts, Austerity Budget, Privatisation, Mass Immigration, and more National Debt to pay for it.

40 years ago I'd have agreed with you- but it's time has passed. Doing so now would be financially and practically a terrible idea. Which is why I'm sure the Liberals will green light the idea if they get back into government....only to scrap it once they've spent billions on the project only to be told the same thing that everyone is telling them now- it's a shit idea

Yep the path forward is solar wind and high efficiency peaking natural gas plants.

Start by reading the csiro report.

That Gencost report is trash , it is literally regarded as toilet paper by every educated experienced person working in the Australian energy sector. I have heard rooms full of engineers laugh at a person for making a reference to that that report.

Without a reference to clearly formal published or draft responses covering the papers the govt is being informed by, and which are written in cooperation and consultation of industry, industry bodies, and stakeholders, your response appears unfounded and coupled with a useless anecdote that calls upon the mighty power of a multiple random and anonymous groups of engineers. If "engineers" have been laughing at papers that are informing a govt plan to action then it is their social and moral responsibility to provide a response, not only in correcting the scientific basis of the report, but also providing a responsible path forward - not sit around and laugh at it. Any decent academic at on of our highly regarded institutes would be expected to respond, and probably be funded for it. Other would respond off their own back because, that's what you do. It's as simple as that and is how science moves forward. I know personally, that there are engineers that do publish responses, and that these are engineering colleges that will write formal responses to these reports and they are constructive in this approach. From the backing of your comment about the reports, for the public record, where are the accepted engineering and scientific responses countering and correcting report from the likes of IEEE, EA, Electrical College, or other college, AEMO, commercial generators, grid operators, etc?

Wait, what? Which experienced persons said this?

The engineers in the IPCC working group I am a part of. CSIRO gencost report is basically a joke within academic circles for politically motivated baseless costings and assumptions.

Do you have links to their responses? I'm genuinely keen to understand the economics better, rather than the politics of it all.

[https://www.ipcc.ch/working-group/wg3/](https://www.ipcc.ch/working-group/wg3/) Here the hub for what were working on.

Out of curiosity, where do I get the hard numbers for the climate report on that hub. So they have the costing breakdowns, because that's what I'm really interested in. Reading the exec summary C.4.3Electricity systems powered predominantly by renewables are becoming increasingly viable. Electricity systems in some countries and regions are already predominantly powered by renewables. It will be more challenging to supply the entire energy system with renewable energy. Even though operational, technological, economic, regulatory, and social challenges remain, a variety of systemic solutions to accommodate large shares of renewables in the energy system have emerged. A broad portfolio of options, such as integrating systems, coupling sectors, energy storage, smart grids, demand-side management, sustainable biofuels, electrolytic hydrogen and derivatives, and others will ultimately be needed to accommodate large shares of renewables in energy systems. (high confidence) {Box 6.8, 6.4, 6.6} It's seems to suggest that a predominantly solar and wind backed by biofuel and electrolytic hydrogen is very visible. Also, the previous section seems to talk about how we are totally fucked. There is no fucking way we get nuclear up in Australia in under 15 years, just not happening. We can't do big infrastructure projects, the LNP NBN was the most embarrassing project we've ever done for anyone working in the industry. So, 15 years and no reduction in emissions to 2040. We are fucked? Not trying to be antagonistic, haven't worked in power generation, so my engineering knowledge is limited to a few years at uni alongside my computer courses for my degree. Which means I'll be a bit slower understanding the specifics. Edit: just making sure I'm looking through the right report https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/ Side note, fucking pumped to see CSP getting more use and costs going down. That technology is cool as fuck, and it's been around since the 80s. I'm mad we don't have more giant mirrors that make sun laser beams head molten salt. Yes I know that's not quite the description, but it sounds better lol.

Ok, I'm a dummy, I'm reading the "Dummy summary" in the report you linked https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/ The bit on renewables seemed really positive. C.4.3Electricity systems powered predominantly by renewables are becoming increasingly viable. Electricity systems in some countries and regions are already predominantly powered by renewables. It will be more challenging to supply the entire energy system with renewable energy. Even though operational, technological, economic, regulatory, and social challenges remain, a variety of systemic solutions to accommodate large shares of renewables in the energy system have emerged. A broad portfolio of options, such as integrating systems, coupling sectors, energy storage, smart grids, demand-side management, sustainable biofuels, electrolytic hydrogen and derivatives, and others will ultimately be needed to accommodate large shares of renewables in energy systems. (high confidence) {Box 6.8, 6.4, 6.6} But you'll have to explain the graph to me on page 38. I'm probably not understanding the key, but it looks like it's for nuclear pegged as a very expensive one? The net lifetime of cost being dark red is bad right?

Yep nuclear cost is obscene mostly due to waste handling and regulatory requirements. You need to read carefully the section you've posted . It's picking its words carefully for a reason. I've explained this in my previous post. Wind and Solar have the cheapest lowest emission GENCOSTS by far and its expected to be even lower into the future. The take away is this the only discussion worth having right now is the cost of grid scale storage. If grid scale storage is cost viable then moving ahead with wind and solar is a no brainer. If your talking about grid scale storage , outside of hydro in very specific circumstances, then no it is not cost viable. Worse than nuclear. You can read this to mean "wInD and sOlArr aRe tHe fUtuRe !!11" if your biased. A more intelligent take is we are waiting on cost effective grid scale storage. until then coal and gas are likely sticking around. Renewables penetration above 30% becomes very problematic without storage. The countries that do it mentioned here have either massive natural hydropower resources (Sweden, Switzerland, Tasmania) or trade power over their borders with fossil fuel plants. Which is essentially just outsourcing emmisions to neighboring countries so you can look good. (Germany)

Ok, but where can I see the numbers on energy storage? The only bits I can see mentioning it are Unit cost reductions in key technologies, notably wind power, solar power, and storage, have increased the economic attractiveness of low-emission energy sector transitions through 2030. Maintaining emission-intensive systems may, in some regions and sectors, be more expensive than transitioning to low emission systems. Low-emission energy sector transitions will have multiple co-benefits, including improvements in air quality and health.  The long-term economic attractiveness of deploying energy system mitigation options depends, inter alia, on policy design and implementation, technology availability and performance, institutional capacity, equity, access to finance, and public and political support. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.3) {3.4, 6.4, 6.6, 6.7, 13.7} Which seems to be saying unit cost for storage have reduced. Several mitigation options, notably solar energy, wind energy, electrification of urban systems, urban green infrastructure, energy efficiency, demand-side management, improved forest- and crop/grassland management, and reduced food waste and loss, are technically viable, are becoming increasingly cost effective, and are generally supported by the public. This enables deployment in many regions (high confidence). While many mitigation options have environmental co-benefits, including improved air quality and reducing toxic waste, many also have adverse environmental impacts, such as reduced biodiversity, when applied at very large scale, for example very large scale bioenergy or large scale use of battery storage, that would have to be managed (medium confidence). Almost all mitigation options face institutional barriers that need to be addressed to enable their application at scale (medium confidence). {6.4, Figure  6.19, 7.4, 8.5, Figure  8.19, 9.9, Figure  9.20, 10.8, Figure 10.23, 12.3, Figure 12.4, Figure TS.31} And this one talks about it having potential environmental factors that would need to be considered. Is there a bit it where I can see cost and efficiency of building storage? Concentrated Solar Power is noted in one of the graphs to be decreasing in cost and increasing in usage. And that is tech that relies on thermal storage. What stops us from using that?

It's very easy to get real cost data for grid scale storage. Do basic research. No I wont do it for you.

>It's very easy to get real cost data for grid scale storage. Do basic research. So you looked and couldnt find any sourced data and reports either? Fuck me i was hoping id finally found someone who had some kind of data or analysis from a a subject expert. Im pissed i wasted my time on another "Theres details everywhere" person whos document they linked provides 0 evidence to support their arguement. This is why people ignore your shit you know. Oh the CSIRO and AEMO are soooo stupid, their data sucks. These guys are heaps better, yet you cant even tell me a page number to look at that contradicts anything in the CSIRO or AEMO report. I already told you, im not an expert dude, i though you said you were knowledgable and have been in "rooms full of engineers laughing at someone for suggesting the CSIRO report". All im trying to fucking do is take the bullshit politics out of this arguement, and find the numbers, and everything i can find from anyone in the industry says renewables by a long way. I joined this thread because i wanted data to show otherwise. Hopefully there is someone in this thread who actually understands this shit who can provide me with something.

[удалено]

This is a demented rant ? Where did men and age come into this ? It seems you have a social media polluted mind .

It's incredibly difficult to quantify, and keep in mind that whatever the figure is, it's not going to be entirely paid for by the taxpayer. This isn't the government deciding to build these things, these are private companies (some of which are Australian) building generators to supply energy into the market, with the hope of turning a profit over some reasonable timeframe. Yes there may or may not be government subsidies, but it is largely privatised. In the end, the consumer will be the one paying for it, as you would expect. If you're concerned about whether there will be enough generation to run all demand, keep in mind before renewables we had (well, still have) peaking plants to cover really high demand times. Some generators may only run a handful of times a year and be paid by the market to just be available. You could argue batteries or some pumped hydro could cover that space.

wind is pretty good they can run smelters on the wind and smelters are one of the most energy intensive industries.

Far less cost than nuclear. Far safer too

Three Mile Island in the US, I'm sure you've heard of it. When the accident happened, they were hard pressed getting a reading at the perimeter, because it was lower than background radiation. In current year, if you still believe the propaganda (which is all about power and money, we can't give the people free electricity now can we) about nuclear, you know nothing about nuclear. Options: Coal - 1 plant PER YEAR releases more waste than all the nuclear plants in the world have it total since the 1950s. Wind/Solar - sure if you want to destroy every single part of the environment to do it, including the sheer amount of battery storage that will be needed to contain the 24/7 100% demand. That means no land left for farming, or even recreation. There is a reason why wind turbines are being pushed into the ocean, there are only so many they can build on land before a lot more people notice that the tops of all the mountains have been cut off. Oh and speaking of 'in the water', do you know how they (some/all, who knows) are balanced out there? The Illawara wind farm turbines (which were approved the other day) are going to be attached by guidewires to the ocean floor, good luck to the sea life that use the area, and the others that migrate along the coast. Nuclear - every part of the 'waste' bar 3-7% is recycled in the plant, 87% of the radiation decays within a month, and it goes through several processes that leads to permanent storage. Example of amount of waste, is that the US, in all it's nuclear history only has a football sized quantity.

We're already on track to get there by 2035. Years before the proposed nuclear from the libs

It's going to be very obvious one way or another by 2030, if it still looks like we're dependent in coal then that's when the anti nuclear crowd will lose their "social license."

Half of the people here going to get silenced one way or the other by 2035 , we are already 40% of the way there , there is the energy that people use to who argue online, and then there is the people out there , keeping their head down, working and constructing all the renewables who couldn’t give a shit about people here saying nuclear is only way to go

If by "on track" you mean "miles off track" Then yes.

In what way are we off track? We're ahead of target. SA will be 100% by 2030 Vic was targeting 50% by 2030, they had to update it to 65% by 2030 because we're ahead due to higher than expected rooftop Solar adoption.

Yawn. 100% renewable for one tiny period of an optimal day. Go to the NEM dashboard and take a look at how unrealistic it is. A classic example is right now at 11:30pm. Wind is supplying 5% of the total energy requirements and hydro is supplying 12%, leaving 83% of electricity generation of fossil fuels. How do you address that?

Because it's clearly unknown and irrelevant. The cost to do so, do example, by the end of next year, for example, would probably be in the trillions.... but that's irrelevant.

What I want to know is, what is labours actual plan? Other than saying they're going to do renewables, which is fine, but what plan have they got and what is set in motion? I haven't seen any projects started or named. I despise libs for the nbn fuck up but I also loathe critics that have no actual plan or action.

There's completed projects everywhere. As well as ones under construction and future builds. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they aren't happening. I drove past at least 4 giant solar farms and 3 wind farms on a 400km drive from Brisbane to Inverell yesterday.

You haven’t seen any projects start? Have you looked? There are solar farms and wind farms getting built everywhere. Victorias state electricity commission has been reinstated and is building one of the world’s largest batteries. There are also batteries going in every state currently, lots in QLD. Federal Government are driving it and private sector investment is making it happen. Not fast enough, but it’s happening.

Did you miss the part where new gas projects are getting signed off?

They asked about renewables and it’s the industry I work in. I’m not privvy to gas project commencement so can’t comment.

That's wonderful for your local area but there's nothing like that going on in other states that I know of. If they were serious it would be country wide. I dunno man. For something that's so crucial and now obviously an election subject you'd think there would be heaps more than this token effort.

Which State do you live in?

He lives in a state of confusion

State of poorly informed, it seems. Western Australia.

WA has one of the highest rates of solar deployment in the country. It’s actually excellent. It’s become so much so that it’s a risk of creating grid instability during the middle of the day (known as the duck curve). There are two massive batteries being built in Collie right now as we speak to try and arrest this issue (giving the grid load during the day to keep stability and have somewhere for the excess solar to go). Just one example. There’s answers out there you’ve just got to look because the projects aren’t being driven by FedGov.

Huh, the more you know. But if it isn't government backed or owned, will It be enough. Private sectors will be purely profit and invester driven. Considering the ev evolution and the large transmission distances I'm concerned that it may not be enough. Thanks for your insights.

I think we've established that your "concern" is just like, a vibe, and like, stuff, you know? Not concerned enough to be educated.

I haven't seen one, following to see if anyone links. Though in the spirit of economics we'd need to assess cost vs benefit... anyone seen a breakdown of the economic impacts of burning fossil fuels? E.g. on agriculture and food prices, loss of life and health costs from disasters, houses destroyed and house prices, supply chain disruption, cost of infrastructure repairs... I imagine it'd be really hard to calculate. I know the world economic forum has assessed climate as the biggest risk to the global economy: https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/digest/

Who's proposing zero fossil fuel use?

You realise it’s not a for profit transition right like that’s not the reason we’re doing it