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 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
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.
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”…
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.
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
There’s an important bit of context for this that you probably aren’t aware of, being from America, and that is that Australia doesn’t currently have any nuclear power capabilities whatsoever. We have zero reactors currently, and zero expertise.
While I can’t be sure because I’m not from the CSIRO, I imagine their projections take the significant cost of introducing brand new technology into account.
Another bit of context, our conservative party is currently pushing for nuclear as the only option, claiming that it’ll be the cheapest. They want to gut spending on renewables because a lot of their funding comes from the mining sector. That’s why the CSIRO has done a report on the projected costs on the various options, because that’s how the conservative party is framing things. Is nuclear better than gas from an environmental perspective? Yes. But that’s irrelevant to the conversation that is happening over here.
The Australian Royal Navy to my understanding maintains roughly somewhere between 7 and 14 nuclear-powered submarines. Your country has the technology, and the expertise to run nuclear programs but you would need to e to develope implement and import more workers in field .
I am 100% for renewables.
I am 100% against greenwashing gas powered stations with solar panels.
If I was omnipowerful and could dictate what humanity does as a whole for the next few decades to fix our current power problems. I would convert at least 1/3 of the current coal and gas-fired turbines into nuclear-powered turbines. I would continuously and ruthlessly continue to develop solar wind and hydrogen based tech.
Ideally I’d want to cover the base load with nuclear and then use renewables to desalinate and split water into hydrogen during the day and then to burn that hydrogen during the peak load at night.
I do not follow Australian politics closely but I was under the impression you guys were in the middle of an arms build up because of China doing China things in the South China Sea. From what I can see on a cursory Google, you guys definitely do have strong plans to acquire nuclear-powered subs.
For some reason I thought you guys had just purchased a bunch from France, but I’m guessing that must be someone else in the region.
Look at my post history. I’m definitely an autistic as fuck human avoiding his desk job, alternating between typing on my phone and using googles shitty auto dictation.
We ordered a bunch of subs from France, using a nuclear design as the base, but our government had them rip out the nuclear reactors from the design and stuff diesel engines in their place instead.
Then they walked away from that agreement entirely and joined up with the US and UK instead.
Edit: Oh, and the subs we’re now buying from the US, we’re getting the US to maintain them because we’ve got no capability to do so here.
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
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/dec/12/building-nuclear-power-plants-australia-cost-csiro-predictions
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.
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
Ah, thank you
Correct. ;)
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
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
There’s an important bit of context for this that you probably aren’t aware of, being from America, and that is that Australia doesn’t currently have any nuclear power capabilities whatsoever. We have zero reactors currently, and zero expertise.
While I can’t be sure because I’m not from the CSIRO, I imagine their projections take the significant cost of introducing brand new technology into account.
Another bit of context, our conservative party is currently pushing for nuclear as the only option, claiming that it’ll be the cheapest. They want to gut spending on renewables because a lot of their funding comes from the mining sector. That’s why the CSIRO has done a report on the projected costs on the various options, because that’s how the conservative party is framing things. Is nuclear better than gas from an environmental perspective? Yes. But that’s irrelevant to the conversation that is happening over here.
Just my two American cents.
The Australian Royal Navy to my understanding maintains roughly somewhere between 7 and 14 nuclear-powered submarines. Your country has the technology, and the expertise to run nuclear programs but you would need to e to develope implement and import more workers in field .
I am 100% for renewables.
I am 100% against greenwashing gas powered stations with solar panels.
If I was omnipowerful and could dictate what humanity does as a whole for the next few decades to fix our current power problems. I would convert at least 1/3 of the current coal and gas-fired turbines into nuclear-powered turbines. I would continuously and ruthlessly continue to develop solar wind and hydrogen based tech.
Ideally I’d want to cover the base load with nuclear and then use renewables to desalinate and split water into hydrogen during the day and then to burn that hydrogen during the peak load at night.
Say what now? Are you human or a LLM?
I do not follow Australian politics closely but I was under the impression you guys were in the middle of an arms build up because of China doing China things in the South China Sea. From what I can see on a cursory Google, you guys definitely do have strong plans to acquire nuclear-powered subs.
For some reason I thought you guys had just purchased a bunch from France, but I’m guessing that must be someone else in the region.
https://www.navy.gov.au/capabilities/ships-boats-and-submarines/nuclear-powered-submarines#:~:text=Australia’s future conventionally-armed%2C nuclear,that operate nuclear-powered submarines.
Look at my post history. I’m definitely an autistic as fuck human avoiding his desk job, alternating between typing on my phone and using googles shitty auto dictation.
We ordered a bunch of subs from France, using a nuclear design as the base, but our government had them rip out the nuclear reactors from the design and stuff diesel engines in their place instead.
Then they walked away from that agreement entirely and joined up with the US and UK instead.
Edit: Oh, and the subs we’re now buying from the US, we’re getting the US to maintain them because we’ve got no capability to do so here.
Thank you for the details Glad to know that my info wasent flawed, just outdated
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.