CSIRO reaffirms nuclear power likely to cost twice as much as renewables
CSIRO reaffirms nuclear power likely to cost twice as much as renewables
After heavy criticism, Australia's leading science agency doubles down its findings that the cost of nuclear power for Australia would likely be double that of renewable energy, and it would take at least 15 years for a plant to be built.
If we went nuclear a couple of decades ago, maybe it would make sense to continue.
But we're at the point where renewables are cheaper anyway.
Why does the nuclear conversation keep happening? There's no new information being brought to the table, except every fresh costing just shows that renewables have gotten even cheaper since last time.
Nuclear is just steam with radioactivity, why not push for steam with molten salt? That way we can combine our renewables and the same generating principles and everyone is happy.
It is a political strategy. It isn't intended to solve our problems or the worlds problems. It solves problems for the coalition (getting the teal vote) and the fossil fuel industry (increases life of their assets by diverting investment and attention from more competitive alternatives). People will vote for it based on the feels and their echo chamber. It isn't supposed to make hard headed intellectual sense. It is supposed to win votes and it probably will.
Only way it works is if they use it to counter the "turning off solar at peak times" threat.
Why does the nuclear conversation keep happening? T
Appeal to stupidity.
This was they can continue with fossil fuels (gas) while they "plan" for nuclear and the current government is well gone by the time the entire charade comes crashing down and everything is worse.
Because batteries aren't getting good enough fast enough to handle base load. Molten salt works.... The same way all solar power works. By day, and even then only on ridiculously sunny days.
Without dedicating the majority of all batteries that have ever been or will ever be made out of accessible materials on earth to renewable energy storage, you will not have enough reserve power to ever move to renewable-only energy.
Base load power is a myth. It's a dinosaur that does not apply to today's energy market (and never applied in the way people try to use the term anyway). This is a fact that people who study energy have known for over a decade. The only people repeating the idea that renewables can't work because "base load power" are climate denialists hoping to stall a transition away from fossil fuels, and useful idiots who believe the former group's propaganda.
With diverse renewable types spread out over diverse geographic regions, combined with diverse energy storage solutions, you can absolutely run our entire energy grid using 2024 technology, and it can be cheaper by far than nuclear. This is what every expert in the field has been telling us for a long time.
The full report (and an executive summary) can be found here: https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost
It won't make a difference. All the experts said Malcolm Turnbull's NBN MTM bullshit didn't make sense either and journos were suppressed for factual reporting. Over a decade later I still am stuck on decaying copper with no upgrade in sight. Takes hours to upload any content and everything dies with a Steam update. Safe Liberal seat, never any consequences. Its all about tribalism, identity politics, and biased media influence. Nobody gives a rats about facts.
Current nuclear policy is a calculated dual pronged attack sourced from the fossil fuel lobby. It isn't genius but then neither are voters.
It is supposed to wedge the climate change vote. Many environmentalists have historically been anti-nuclear technology and that stance makes no sense given the scale of the climate change threat. This presents a responsible adult alternative to the impractical tree huggers. You can save the environment and vote for a party owned by fossil fuel interests. Heaps will fall for it. It is solid emotionally. Unfortunately the economics are complete bullshit because it would be fantastic if nuclear was a real option here.
It also serves to delay alternatives. It directs investment and government support away from renewables which are increasingly just a bit too competitive with stranded fossil fuel assets. You can say you are combating climate change by referring nuclear to committee and planning that takes decades by which time you have retired to your advisory position with a fossil fuel company.
Very transparent, manipulative politics playing the electorate for fools but it will probably work.
yeah but thats like a good quality american or french style reactor. But I hear the soviet designs are ALMOST as good, for a 1/4 of the price. And second hand we can have them for a steal, just gotta ago pick them up ourselves.
A user called "VZPrez_putinsucks" listed a couple on Gumtree just gotta go grab 'em from somewhere near pripyat. Apparently one of 'em is already disassembled!
Pfff, but who are you gonna trust? The CSIRO, or Peter Dutton?
Let's just try doing nothing for another 15 years, see if that works.
More coal please! Make the tax payers pay foe the consequences, and the increased radiation and emissions.
Actually, no. Screw the fossil fuel billionaires that can't innovate.
If you read your own article, this is a plug for continued development of gas-fired power plants which are better than coal but still are burning fossil fuels and are heavy polluters.
And if you do the math at worst, you'd be paying a few extra cents for nuclear power than for renewables supplemented by gas fired peaker plants. And those are not carbon capture gas fire beaker plants. Those are just straight up gas plants belching sulfur dioxide directly into the atmosphere...
Large-Scale nuclear would be $0.16 per hour versus gas with CCS at $0.19 per hour. But they're claiming that they can do solar for $0.10 per hour and that if they combine solar and gas it'll be $0.13 per hour
The issue is you can't just have gas without having CCS. If you're planning on fixing the environment so the cost for solar plus gas and CCS comes up to roughly $0.18 per hour per kilowatt
This is all based off of the numbers provided in the article
It's not a plug. It's reporting on a costing study. It's true gas is cheap, because the costs are externalised.
The interesting finding is that wind and solar, with solar thermal, are almost as cheap and much less bad.
Do the math with what? Where are the numbers? Last week the libs were calling out renewables costings being x3 what we are being told. When asked if nuclear would be on par or cheaper, crickets. "Costings will come soon"...
From The Article
Exactly this, I don't see many sources in the article. Which plants were studied? What fuel is being sourced?
Heavy water and fresh uranium? Yeah gonna cost you.
Thorium salt reactor using Heavy Water spent fuel? It's on par with Wind without the need for battery storage.
We can use spent fuel we're burying to generate power for centuries with the right tech. Low pressure, no steam vents, no complicated cooling. I could go on and on.
Assuming this is what they based this off of they're talking about heavy water with mined uranium. https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost24-25-Executive.pdf
You can find the report here: https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost
Correct. ;)
How much renewable capacity and storage can we build in 15 years for the price of one nuclear plant? And mind you, after fifteen years you have only one. Building enough of them to reality make a difference is going to take decades longer. You nuke fanboys are simply delusional.
It is not. Don't be disingenuous.
To convert the cost per megawatt hour (MWh) to cost per kilowatt hour (kWh), you can divide the cost per MWh by 1,000. I'm an American. Don't let me out metric you. And don't forget to add the extra $0.05 onto the renewable with peakers number because their calculation excludes the carbon capture. It's almost as if this infographic was made to be purposefully misleading. Pikachu.jpg
Corrected typo from $0.50 to $0.05
Large-Scale nuclear would be $0.16 per hour versus gas with CCS at $0.19 per hour. But they're claiming that they can do solar for $0.10 per hour and that if they combine solar and gas it'll be $0.13 per hour
The issue is you can't just have gas without having CCS. If you're planning on fixing the environment so the cost for solar plus gas and CCS comes up to roughly $0.18 per hour per kilowatt
This is all based off of the numbers provided in the article
Fancy that you did the math and downvoted me but you didn't reply. I'm an asshole but I'm correct and you're killing the planet.