We still do not know what nuclear power costs. That is because no-one has figured out how to safely store the radioactive waste, short of putting it on a rocket to the sun. It needs to be securely stored for a long time - longer than any structure ever built by humans has survived. In fact, longer than anatomically modern humans have even existed. This is probably why Peter Dutton was lying on television recently about the quantity of radioactive waste produced.

If we limit ourselves to the immediate costs, nuclear is still by far the most expensive option. The attached figure shows the trend in levelised cost of electricity from various sources since 2009, from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Cost_metrics

Wind and solar cost about 5c/kWh, while nuclear costs about 20c/kWh. Wind and solar are rapidly getting cheaper, while the cost of nuclear is going up. Dutton recently promised us he could build nuclear power plants in 5 years. Then he changed it to 11 to 13 years. By the time they were actually built, the cost disparity would be even greater. Furthermore, Australia actually has experience with building wind and solar plants, but Dutton wants us to jump on the nuclear bandwagon after it has already become obsolete.

Further down the page, a cost (in Australia) of 9c/kWh is given for wind power with storage, and 12c/kWh for solar with storage.

I do not believe the coalition has any intention to actually build nuclear power plants in Australia. This is just another delaying tactic for avoiding the climate change issue. All they will deliver is another decade or two of crippling uncertainty and skyrocketing prices in our electricity industry. Labor and the Greens delivered us the cheapest, most economically rational way to reduce GHG emissions a decade ago. The coalition removed it.

---

He probably is meaning to connect the nuke submarines to the grid. When the wind/solar are working OK, the subs will then be available to be a world policeman.

Nuclear waste takes too long to decay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Some common nuclear waste half lives:

Plutonium 239 half life      24,110 years.
Americium 241 half life          432 years
Radium 226     Half life      1,600  years
Uranium 236  Half life   15 million years.
Plutonium 244 Half life   80 million years
Uranium 235  Half life  704 million years
Uranium 238 half life      4.5 billion years

Nuclear power  is so expensive and inefficient that there are 440 nuclear power plants operating in 32 countrys. It is so expensive that even Bangladesh is able to afford them.   ::)

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/23/peter-duttons-nuclear-plan-could-cost-as-much-as-600bn-and-supply-just-37-of-australias-energy-by-2050-experts-say


Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan could cost as much as $600bn and
supply just 3.7% of Australia’s energy by 2050, experts say

Coalition proposal would cost a minimum of $116bn –
the same as Labor’s plan for almost 100% renewables by 2050, the Smart Energy Council says

The Coalition’s pledge to build seven nuclear reactors as part of its controversial energy plan could cost taxpayers as much as $600bn while supplying just 3.7% of Australia’s energy mix by 2050, according to the Smart Energy Council.

The analysis found the plan would cost a minimum of $116bn – the same cost as delivering the Albanese government’s plan for 82% renewables by 2030, and an almost 100% renewable energy mix by 2050.

The Coalition has drawn widespread criticism for not releasing the costings of the nuclear power proposal it unveiled on Wednesday as part of its plan for Australia’s energy future if elected. On Friday, the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, said the costings would come “very soon”, but did not confirm whether it would be days, weeks or months.

The giant Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project in the Kosciuszko national park, first touted by the Turnbull government in 2017 as costing $2bn, was later revised to a cost of $5.9bn. That tally, though, has escalated to $12bn, with that estimate contingent on completion by the end of 2028.

The separate gas-fired Hunter Power Project at Kurri Kurri near Newcastle in New South Wales will be completed by December 2024. Its costs have been revised higher from $600m to $950m.

3.7% of Australia’s energy - that's stuff all - it's almost nothing.   :o

Belgarion wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 9:44am:

Nuclear power  is so expensive and inefficient that there are 440 nuclear power plants operating in 32 countrys. It is so expensive that even Bangladesh is able to afford them.   ::)

If you look at the plots I gave, nuclear was the cheapest option a while ago, especially if you do not consider the cost of managing the waste.

Do you really want a government that wastes trillions of taxpayer dollars without thinking it through?

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 10:09am:

Belgarion wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 9:44am: Nuclear power  is so expensive and inefficient that there are 440 nuclear power plants operating in 32 countrys. It is so expensive that even Bangladesh is able to afford them.   ::)  If you look at the plots I gave, nuclear was the cheapest option a while ago, especially if you do not consider the cost of managing the waste. Do you really want a government that wastes trillions of taxpayer dollars without thinking it through?

The costs of nuclear power are mostly one off up front costs. After this the cost of the power itself is much cheaper, even without factoring in the reliability.
https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020
96% of nuclear 'waste' can be recycled and storage of the reminder is a negligible cost in the overall  scheme. Dealing with the waste of the so called 'renewables' however is an entirely different story.

Belgarion wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 11:36am:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 10:09am: Belgarion wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 9:44am: Nuclear power  is so expensive and inefficient that there are 440 nuclear power plants operating in 32 countrys. It is so expensive that even Bangladesh is able to afford them.   ::)  If you look at the plots I gave, nuclear was the cheapest option a while ago, especially if you do not consider the cost of managing the waste. Do you really want a government that wastes trillions of taxpayer dollars without thinking it through? The costs of nuclear power are mostly one off up front costs. After this the cost of the power itself is much cheaper, even without factoring in the reliability. https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 96% of nuclear 'waste' can be recycled and storage of the reminder is a negligible cost in the overall  scheme. Dealing with the waste of the so called 'renewables' however is an entirely different story.

That is a very important point.


Because solar panels and wind turbine blades can’t be effectively recycled at the moment, they usually go into landfill.

Belgarion wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 11:36am:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 10:09am: Belgarion wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 9:44am: Nuclear power  is so expensive and inefficient that there are 440 nuclear power plants operating in 32 countrys. It is so expensive that even Bangladesh is able to afford them.   ::)  If you look at the plots I gave, nuclear was the cheapest option a while ago, especially if you do not consider the cost of managing the waste. Do you really want a government that wastes trillions of taxpayer dollars without thinking it through? The costs of nuclear power are mostly one off up front costs. After this the cost of the power itself is much cheaper, even without factoring in the reliability. https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 96% of nuclear 'waste' can be recycled and storage of the reminder is a negligible cost in the overall  scheme. Dealing with the waste of the so called 'renewables' however is an entirely different story.

Can it be recycled into something that is not radioactive?

How long does it need to be stored for, and how much much does that cost?

I think Norway has had to make a very costly deposit of their nuclear waste 30km underground (forever!) which still isn't finished.

That's the true cost of everything it seems: The Side-Effect (Waste) of all these Technologies that all seem to accomplish a 'dead end' (cul-de sac) again and again down through the decades.

Remember - if Australia buys into it, then you know its really become redundant everywhere else.
Australia is like the 2nd Hand store of hand-me-downs from other nations.

But saying this. The Environmentalists and Anti-Nuclear whingers (Lefties) cry 'Anti'... but do you hear of them coming up with anything BETTER to take humanity into the future?
No.
They're much like John Smith calling everyone here a Moron though he doesn't really know why himself.  ::)

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 10:09am:

Belgarion wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 9:44am: Nuclear power  is so expensive and inefficient that there are 440 nuclear power plants operating in 32 countrys. It is so expensive that even Bangladesh is able to afford them.   ::)  If you look at the plots I gave, nuclear was the cheapest option a while ago, especially if you do not consider the cost of managing the waste.

Did you mean the dearest option?

You wrote in the OP:

If we limit ourselves to the immediate costs, nuclear is still by far the most expensive option. The attached figure shows the trend in levelised cost of electricity from various sources since 2009, from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Cost_metrics

Wind and solar cost about 5c/kWh, while nuclear costs about 20c/kWh. Wind and solar are rapidly getting cheaper, while the cost of nuclear is going up.


Quote:

Do you really want a government that wastes trillions of taxpayer dollars without thinking it through?

If indeed AGW-CO2 is threatening to destroy us, "taxpayers' $trillions"  will be the last of our problems.

And even if Oz can go 100% renewables backed with pumped-hydro storage (and I think we can, though Lee doesn't), many other countries can't do it without nuclear, which is why the US is deciding to recommence research into nulclear power, after falling behind China  (which is currently operating the world's first SMR).    

Note: the treasuries of currency-issuing governments can create money out of thin air (just like private banks do, when they write loans for credit-worthy customers), so 'taxpayer money' needn't be the concern, when it comes to converting the globe to a zero emissions economy. 

Resource mobilization, not money, is the problem to be solved. 

Frank wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 11:59am:

Belgarion wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 10:09am: Belgarion wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 9:44am: Nuclear power  is so expensive and inefficient that there are 440 nuclear power plants operating in 32 countrys. It is so expensive that even Bangladesh is able to afford them.   ::)  If you look at the plots I gave, nuclear was the cheapest option a while ago, especially if you do not consider the cost of managing the waste. Do you really want a government that wastes trillions of taxpayer dollars without thinking it through? The costs of nuclear power are mostly one off up front costs. After this the cost of the power itself is much cheaper, even without factoring in the reliability. https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 96% of nuclear 'waste' can be recycled and storage of the reminder is a negligible cost in the overall  scheme. Dealing with the waste of the so called 'renewables' however is an entirely different story. That is a very important point. Because solar panels and wind turbine blades can’t be effectively recycled at the moment, they usually go into landfill.

Yes, recycling will be a necessity, with costs borne by the industries creating the waste.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 1:10pm:

Yes, recycling will be a necessity, with costs borne by the industries creating the waste.

Well there goes the cost of cheap renewables again. ::)

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 1:00pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 10:09am: Belgarion wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 9:44am: Nuclear power  is so expensive and inefficient that there are 440 nuclear power plants operating in 32 countrys. It is so expensive that even Bangladesh is able to afford them.   ::)  If you look at the plots I gave, nuclear was the cheapest option a while ago, especially if you do not consider the cost of managing the waste. Did you mean the dearest option?

From the graphs, it looks like it was the cheapest option in 2010, except for gas (not sure if that is only for gas heating - gas is generally to expensive to use for electricity generation in Australia).

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 1:10pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 11:59am: Belgarion wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 10:09am: Belgarion wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 9:44am: Nuclear power  is so expensive and inefficient that there are 440 nuclear power plants operating in 32 countrys. It is so expensive that even Bangladesh is able to afford them.   ::)  If you look at the plots I gave, nuclear was the cheapest option a while ago, especially if you do not consider the cost of managing the waste. Do you really want a government that wastes trillions of taxpayer dollars without thinking it through? The costs of nuclear power are mostly one off up front costs. After this the cost of the power itself is much cheaper, even without factoring in the reliability. https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 96% of nuclear 'waste' can be recycled and storage of the reminder is a negligible cost in the overall  scheme. Dealing with the waste of the so called 'renewables' however is an entirely different story. That is a very important point. Because solar panels and wind turbine blades can’t be effectively recycled at the moment, they usually go into landfill. Yes, recycling will be a necessity, with costs borne by the industries creating the waste.

Solar panels and turbine blades cannot be recycled.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 3:07pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 1:10pm: Frank wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 11:59am: Belgarion wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 10:09am: Belgarion wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 9:44am: Nuclear power  is so expensive and inefficient that there are 440 nuclear power plants operating in 32 countrys. It is so expensive that even Bangladesh is able to afford them.   ::)  If you look at the plots I gave, nuclear was the cheapest option a while ago, especially if you do not consider the cost of managing the waste. Do you really want a government that wastes trillions of taxpayer dollars without thinking it through? The costs of nuclear power are mostly one off up front costs. After this the cost of the power itself is much cheaper, even without factoring in the reliability. https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 96% of nuclear 'waste' can be recycled and storage of the reminder is a negligible cost in the overall  scheme. Dealing with the waste of the so called 'renewables' however is an entirely different story. That is a very important point. Because solar panels and wind turbine blades can’t be effectively recycled at the moment, they usually go into landfill. Yes, recycling will be a necessity, with costs borne by the industries creating the waste. Solar panels and turbine blades cannot be recycled.

Yet. It's just a question of the economics.

It's not like you can grind up depleted uranium and make shopping bags out of it.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 4:59pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 3:07pm: Solar panels and turbine blades cannot be recycled. Yet. It's just a question of the economics. It's not like you can grind up depleted uranium and make shopping bags out of it.

I doubt that anyone will come up with a good way to recycle solar panels and turbine blades.

However - there is a possibility that nuclear waste can be used to power
molten salt Thorium reactors.
Unfortunately there seems to be little or no progress yet on such reactors.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/165#165

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 7:37am:

We still do not know what nuclear power costs.

We don't know how much solar and wind will cost you want to eliminate coal and gas so storage cost has to be factored in.

Link - https://advisoranalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/bofa-the-ric-report-the-nuclear-necessity-20230509.pdf

---

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 5:20pm:

Solar panels and turbine blades cannot be recycled. I doubt that anyone will come up with a good way to recycle solar panels and turbine blades.

You can eat gummy bears and a few insects because cow farts are bad.


Quote:

Wind turbine blades could be recycled into gummy bears, scientists say https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/23/wind-turbine-blades-could-recycled-gummy-bears-scientists

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 12:00pm:

Belgarion wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 10:09am: Belgarion wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 9:44am: Nuclear power  is so expensive and inefficient that there are 440 nuclear power plants operating in 32 countrys. It is so expensive that even Bangladesh is able to afford them.   ::)  If you look at the plots I gave, nuclear was the cheapest option a while ago, especially if you do not consider the cost of managing the waste. Do you really want a government that wastes trillions of taxpayer dollars without thinking it through? The costs of nuclear power are mostly one off up front costs. After this the cost of the power itself is much cheaper, even without factoring in the reliability. https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 96% of nuclear 'waste' can be recycled and storage of the reminder is a negligible cost in the overall  scheme. Dealing with the waste of the so called 'renewables' however is an entirely different story. Can it be recycled into something that is not radioactive? How long does it need to be stored for, and how much much does that cost?

Quote:

Depleted uranium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

Click on fuel mix to see what is giving us electricity

Solar and wind currently 12%

https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 10:09am:

Belgarion wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 9:44am: Nuclear power  is so expensive and inefficient that there are 440 nuclear power plants operating in 32 countrys. It is so expensive that even Bangladesh is able to afford them.   ::)  If you look at the plots I gave, nuclear was the cheapest option a while ago, especially if you do not consider the cost of managing the waste. Do you really want a government that wastes trillions of taxpayer dollars without thinking it through?

Quote:

especially if you do not consider the cost of managing the waste

That's like saying gold is cheap if you get a 95% discount.

Quote:

We don't know how much solar and wind will cost

Yes we do. We have installed plenty of both.

But we are yet to even come up with a good affordable solution for storing nuclear waste until it is safe.


Quote:

I doubt that anyone will come up with a good way to recycle solar panels and turbine blades.

About 85% of a wind turbine is currently recyclable. The rest, at least, is not radioactive for a million years.

Every major venture has high start-up costs - the value return comes over the long period (try telling some of those dopey 'business people' that with their get rich quick mentality - no wonder the cuntreesbuggered) .... how long will a set of nuclear reactors last compared to wind farms?

I feel like a traitorous rat, but those super wind farms and solar farms are soooo UUUUUGLEE! ... so I'm considering nuclears.  I said 'considering'... lemme look at the modern technology...

I ventured the idea elsewhere (maybe here as well) that they should be built near politicians so we can guarantee the highest quality workmanship... or along the Murray so we can cut Victoria loose if needs be... in a ring around Canberra.... The Gaga Strip.

"... and I am become Death - destroyer of worlds...."

---

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 9:58pm:

Every major venture has high start-up costs - the value return comes over the long period (try telling some of those dopey 'business people' that with their get rich quick mentality - no wonder the cuntreesbuggered) .... how long will a set of nuclear reactors last compared to wind farms?

That's exactly what LCOE means. It is the life cycle cost. It takes that into account.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2024 at 4:38pm:

That's exactly what LCOE means. It is the life cycle cost. It takes that into account.

So what did they use for the lifecycle of nuclear? ;)

lee wrote on Jun 30^th, 2024 at 5:25pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 30th, 2024 at 4:38pm: That's exactly what LCOE means. It is the life cycle cost. It takes that into account. So what did they use for the lifecycle of nuclear? ;)

Do you mean life span?

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2024 at 4:38pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 9:58pm: Every major venture has high start-up costs - the value return comes over the long period (try telling some of those dopey 'business people' that with their get rich quick mentality - no wonder the cuntreesbuggered) .... how long will a set of nuclear reactors last compared to wind farms? That's exactly what LCOE means. It is the life cycle cost. It takes that into account.

That's why I panned the 'get rich quick' merchants... their grab for instant riches rather than long term benefits creates instant price rises that then never go down... inflation sets in causing the price hike for the GRQS to become fixed and then 'in need' of enhancement to 'keep up' - and away it all goes again.

GREED is not GOOD!!

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2024 at 5:28pm:

Do you mean life span?

You were the one parroting about "the life cycle cost". ::)

lee wrote on Jun 30^th, 2024 at 6:35pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 30th, 2024 at 5:28pm: Do you mean life span? You were the one parroting about "the life cycle cost". ::)

Yes. That is what is plotted in the graph. It's about 4 times as high for nuclear as it is for renewables. It is going up, while the cost of renewables is going down. If that is what you are asking me for, you should be able to figure out how to read the graph yourself.

Has Peter Dutton given you a price tag?

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2024 at 8:34pm:

It's about 4 times as high for nuclear as it is for renewables.

How many years did they use for the life cycle of nuclear? You are the one saying it is the most expensive, Or are you just wombling again. Not knowing what you are talking about? Strangely enough the CSIRO report doesn't mention how they calculated the life cycle of nuclear. Just said it was too expensive. ::)

And as I said 4 hours of battery storage for renewables is not enough.

Quote:

You are the one saying it is the most expensive, Or are you just wombling again.

It's right there in the graph. Do you not know how to read it?

Lots of very deep mines way out west.... old and vacant now.  The Long Drop.....

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2024 at 9:10pm:

It's right there in the graph. Do you not know how to read it?

So you just accept the "expert opinions" without looking at underlying data. You believer you. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Lazard puts renewables as the cheapest...on 4 hours of storage. ;)

lee wrote on Jul 1^st, 2024 at 4:13pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 30th, 2024 at 9:10pm: It's right there in the graph. Do you not know how to read it? So you just accept the "expert opinions" without looking at underlying data. You believer you. ;D ;D ;D ;D Lazard puts renewables as the cheapest...on 4 hours of storage. ;)

It's not an "opinion". It is what is actually costs - in countries that have actual experience with nuclear power..

freediver wrote on Jul 1^st, 2024 at 4:51pm:

t's not an "opinion". It is what is actually costs - in countries that have actual experience with nuclear power..

Nope. They may be comparing costs to some extent. But a greenfields site means it is opinion that it will cost more. Comparing to USA, for example, gives the Greenies litigation which costs more. You do understand Green Tape? ::)

lee wrote on Jul 1^st, 2024 at 5:02pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 4:51pm: t's not an "opinion". It is what is actually costs - in countries that have actual experience with nuclear power.. Nope. They may be comparing costs to some extent. But a greenfields site means it is opinion that it will cost more. Comparing to USA, for example, gives the Greenies litigation which costs more. You do understand Green Tape? ::)

You're a bit slow on the uptake Lee. It is not an estimate for greenfields sites. It is actual cost trends from 2009 to 2022.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2024 at 9:10pm:

Quote: You are the one saying it is the most expensive, Or are you just wombling again. It's right there in the graph. Do you not know how to read it?

thats hilarious coming from you  ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Jul 1^st, 2024 at 5:05pm:

It is actual cost trends from 2009 to 2022.

"The GenCost report notes that some of the challenges in trying to pin down an estimation for Australian nuclear plant costs based on overseas data includes:"

...

"Whilst there is a risk of a FOAK premium for a nuclear build in Australia, the CSIRO has not included it for large-scale nuclear given it has not included a premium for other technologies that are also not yet deployed locally, such as solar thermal or offshore wind."

"The ratio of Australian to South Korean USC plant costs used is 3.0 when all costs are considered in the same currency.  To arrive at the Australian figure of $9,217/kW, the South Korean costs were multiplied by 3.0, inflated and converted from USD in 2018/kW to AUD in 2023/kW. The report notes that new large-scale nuclear costs are significantly lower than those for an SMR."

"As a result of these factors the CSIRO argues “there may be no meaningful comparison that can be made between overseas nuclear electricity prices and the costs that Australia could be presented with in building new nuclear”."

...

"Construction is considered to take 5.8 years based on an assessment by advisory firm Lazard. The CSIRO contends that with the additional legal and safety and security steps needed locally “the first nuclear plant in Australia will be significantly delayed”.

It points to the 15 years considered to be needed for an SMR as an indicator of the time needed. It notes that even in the US with a more developed legislative framework for nuclear, the now cancelled Carbon Free Power Project (an SMR project) would have taken 15 years from its formal launch to reach full operation."

https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/large-scale-nuclear-costs-has-the-csiro-hit-the-mark/

lee wrote on Jul 1^st, 2024 at 7:29pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 5:05pm: It is actual cost trends from 2009 to 2022. "The GenCost report notes that some of the challenges in trying to pin down an estimation for Australian nuclear plant costs based on overseas data includes:"

Correct. Australian costs are going to be much higher. Not just because the price is rapidly rising and they could be 20 years away. But also because we have no local experience.

freediver wrote on Jul 1^st, 2024 at 9:02pm:

lee wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 7:29pm: freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 5:05pm: It is actual cost trends from 2009 to 2022. "The GenCost report notes that some of the challenges in trying to pin down an estimation for Australian nuclear plant costs based on overseas data includes:" Correct. Australian costs are going to be much higher. Not just because the price is rapidly rising and they could be 20 years away. But also because we have no local experience.

Australia has signed Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty which means we can get help with nuclear power.

UAE took 7 years to build first nuclear reactor for power 5 years for the next. It's quicker when you ask for help.

$8.6 billion is the cost according to CSIRO.

The Snowy Hydro 2 pumped hydro was supposed to cost $2 billion and be finished in 2021. So far it has cost over $12 billion with finish date around 2028-2029.
Pumped hydro consumes more energy than it produces you will lose 20-40% from efficiency losses.

Did they mention snowy hydro 2 in Gen Cost or leave that out?

It's unlikely anyone would be considering investing in nuclear since it's illegal at present. Did Howard sneak in making it illegal with another bill late one night?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 1^st, 2024 at 11:00pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 9:02pm: lee wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 7:29pm: freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 5:05pm: It is actual cost trends from 2009 to 2022. "The GenCost report notes that some of the challenges in trying to pin down an estimation for Australian nuclear plant costs based on overseas data includes:" Correct. Australian costs are going to be much higher. Not just because the price is rapidly rising and they could be 20 years away. But also because we have no local experience. Australia has signed Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty which means we can get help with nuclear power.

That's wonderful. I'm sure there will be plenty of highly paid people offering their assistance.

chimera wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 8:05am:

He probably is meaning to connect the nuke submarines to the grid. When the wind/solar are working OK, the subs will then be available to be a world policeman.

Funny  ;D......but hat actually points out the hypocrisy of this Labor govt.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 10:08am:

3.7% of Australia’s energy - that's stuff all - it's almost nothing.   :o

Add up the costs of all the onshore wind & solar projects, those finished, those in the process of being built

plus the costs of those planned ... like the offshore wind project out from Woolongong and those in Bass.

The maintenance factor for those will be double of that of similar onshore projects.

The real costs of this lunatic "zero emissions" & renewable targets hasn't been truly presented either.

The "high price" tag for nuclear is just a continuation of political & vested interests scaremongering. 

freediver wrote on Jul 1^st, 2024 at 9:02pm:

Not just because the price is rapidly rising and they could be 20 years away. But also because we have no local experience.

I am sure ANSTO would disagree about local experience, or the people at Tellus Holdings. ::)

In fact ANSTO has recently signed an MOU with US National Nuclear Security at the International Atomic Energy Agency's in Vienna, on nuclear technology and capabilities. Sounds like a big deal for a country with "no experience".

Quote:

I am sure ANSTO would disagree about local experience

How many nuclear power stations have they built? What sort of established industry is there? Have they actual disagreed with all our media outlets who are saying the price will be higher in Australia because of lack of experience? Or do you think we can send a dozen laboratory scientists out to build it?

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 11:39am:

How many nuclear power stations have they built?

Your claim was we have NO nuclear experience? "we have no local experience"  ::)

lee wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 3:25pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 11:39am: How many nuclear power stations have they built? Your claim was we have NO nuclear experience? "we have no local experience"  ::)

I'm sure we could get people in to mop the floor.

What did you think I was talking about?

Do you hope the coalition is a few steps ahead of you, or do you think maybe you have put more thought into it?

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 3:30pm:

I'm sure we could get people in to mop the floor.

I am sure that is up your experience street.  ::)


freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 3:30pm:

What did you think I was talking about?

You made a general statement. What should have been made of it, other than as a general observation? ::)


freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 3:30pm:

Do you hope the coalition is a few steps ahead of you, or do you think maybe you have put more thought into it?

Are you really as stupid as you sound? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

You made a general statement.

I agree. If there is any possibility that a person might misunderstand something or fail to see the bleeding obvious, it will be you.

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 3:49pm:

I agree.

Thank you. ;)

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 7:42am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 11:00pm: freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 9:02pm: lee wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 7:29pm: freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 5:05pm: It is actual cost trends from 2009 to 2022. "The GenCost report notes that some of the challenges in trying to pin down an estimation for Australian nuclear plant costs based on overseas data includes:" Correct. Australian costs are going to be much higher. Not just because the price is rapidly rising and they could be 20 years away. But also because we have no local experience. Australia has signed Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty which means we can get help with nuclear power. That's wonderful. I'm sure there will be plenty of highly paid people offering their assistance.

We spent $100 million of taxpayers money on Geological reports for Snowy Hydro 2 how did that work out?

It was supposed to cost $2 billion operational in 2021 it has cost $12 billion with current estimate at 2028-2029 before it works. I wonder how many billions extra it will cost over the next 4-5 years.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 6:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 7:42am: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 11:00pm: freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 9:02pm: lee wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 7:29pm: freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 5:05pm: It is actual cost trends from 2009 to 2022. "The GenCost report notes that some of the challenges in trying to pin down an estimation for Australian nuclear plant costs based on overseas data includes:" Correct. Australian costs are going to be much higher. Not just because the price is rapidly rising and they could be 20 years away. But also because we have no local experience. Australia has signed Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty which means we can get help with nuclear power. That's wonderful. I'm sure there will be plenty of highly paid people offering their assistance. We spent $100 million of taxpayers money on Geological reports for Snowy Hydro 2 how did that work out? It was supposed to cost $2 billion operational in 2021 it has cost $12 billion with current estimate at 2028-2029 before it works. I wonder how many billions extra it will cost over the next 4-5 years.

Is that why you want to waste even more taxpayer money?

The pro-nuclear lobby will never accept any alternative that carries the "sustainable" or "renewable" tag.

They have much in common with the climate change denial lobby, in that they will never admit that they were wrong, even when the cost of ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS - by the way - has been dropped on the table, just as an initial set-up cost, let alone the 15 to 20 years time-frame before the first spark.

We also have a lot of "not in my backyard" determination - from state governments, to shire councils, to homeowners, regarding not just on plant sites, but who has a vacant basement they wouldn't mind letting out in 100,000-year increments. to store nuclear waste ?

You might well say "Dutton's dreaming" ?

I STILL say he's dog-whistlin' the anti-sustainables and climate change denial lobbies, so why bother with, so-called "costings" ?

This 'dodo policy' already dead in the water



https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/altverz/images/4/4d/DodoRiderZombieAlmanac.png





.

Korea can supply Large nuclear reactors for 9.5 billion. 7 makes 70 billion. The amount spent on renewables so far, far exceeds 100 billion dollars.

And of course it hasn't stopped.

"Australia's biggest power grid would need to triple in size within eight years and trillions of dollars would need to be spent, according to a report outlining the colossal task of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-19/australias-energy-transition-needs-gas-safety-net-report-finds/102236352

Trillions not Billions. ::)

Quote:

Korea can supply Large nuclear reactors for 9.5 billion. 7 makes 70 billion.

Do you think they can make them in Australia for that price? Or do you think they just stick them on a ship and send them wherever?

lee wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 7:40pm:

Korea can supply Large nuclear reactors for 9.5 billion.

Not to, or in AUSTRALIA, obviously - or Dutton would release such a quote, if he had one (which he doesn't)

He'd have released costings prior to the election (which he's already said he won't be doing) if there were realistic figures in there.

100% taxpayer funded, is the only figure we'll be given.

I wonder what became of the old Liberal Mantra "Let the Market Decide" ?
The "Market" has left the building.

Of course, the REALLY big question is who will take over from him as Leader of the Liberal Party and Opposition Leader after the Federal Election ?


https://knightcartoons.com.au/cdn/shop/products/JohnHowardinKooyongLowRes_1080x.jpg




.

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 9:09pm:

Quote: Korea can supply Large nuclear reactors for 9.5 billion. 7 makes 70 billion. Do you think they can make them in Australia for that price? Or do you think they just stick them on a ship and send them wherever?

Like a big Meccano set ?

Or maybe a few boat loads of Korean workers could be dropped off in Australia to work for Korean wages - NORTH Korean !

Don't WORRY, it's NOT HAPPENING !

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 7:29pm:

The pro-nuclear lobby will never accept any alternative that carries the "sustainable" or "renewable" tag. They have much in common with the climate change denial lobby, in that they will never admit that they were wrong, even when the cost of ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS - by the way - has been dropped on the table, just as an initial set-up cost, let alone the 15 to 20 years time-frame before the first spark. We also have a lot of "not in my backyard" determination - from state governments, to shire councils, to homeowners, regarding not just on plant sites, but who has a vacant basement they wouldn't mind letting out in 100,000-year increments. to store nuclear waste ? You might well say "Dutton's dreaming" ? I STILL say he's dog-whistlin' the anti-sustainables and climate change denial lobbies, so why bother with, so-called "costings" ? This 'dodo policy' already dead in the water https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/altverz/images/4/4d/DodoRiderZombieAlmanac.png

Why would it take 15 to 20 years to build a nuclear plant?

"Renewables" is a misnomer in regards to power supply.

What it should mean is that the infrastructure has to be "renewed" (replaced) far more regularly.

Clowns like you don't get the irony & hypocrisy of this lefty govt & it's infantile rejection of debating, considering nuclear as a means to reduce &
meet it's pie in the sky emissions targets....

yet have signed on board for the supply of at least 8 nuclear submarines ... that will be docked in locations within Australia and manned by Australian Naval personnel. 

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 9:09pm:

Quote: Korea can supply Large nuclear reactors for 9.5 billion. 7 makes 70 billion. Do you think they can make them in Australia for that price? Or do you think they just stick them on a ship and send them wherever?

They're(Hyundai) bringing in their own workforce to build trains in QLD ....

so why couldn't they ship components to Australia and workers for a Nuclear project?

Even if it were a half a billion more each .... it would be cheaper than the combined renewables projects.

Quote:

Why would it take 15 to 20 years to build a nuclear plant?

Ask the coalition why they announced they could build one in 5 years, then a few weeks later changed it to 11-13 years.

In some cases it has taken multiple decades.

We have no established local industry. We have a small population and a labor shortage in the established power industry and similar industries. Unless they decide to build it on the outskirts of a major city, we will struggle to mobilise the number of people required, and the ones we do get out to site will be highly paid. We have stricter industrial safety standards than most countries, and this will be stepped up for nuclear. We also have a reluctant public, reluctant MPs and a legal system stacked against it.

Also, the coalition is lying to you. They have no intention of going nuclear. This is just another way to pretend they are committed to climate change while doing nothing about it.

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 1:38pm:

Quote: Why would it take 15 to 20 years to build a nuclear plant? Ask the coalition why they announced they could build one in 5 years, then a few weeks later changed it to 11-13 years. In some cases it has taken multiple decades. We have no established local industry. We have a small population and a labor shortage in the established power industry and similar industries. Unless they decide to build it on the outskirts of a major city, we will struggle to mobilise the number of people required, and the ones we do get out to site will be highly paid. We have stricter industrial safety standards than most countries, and this will be stepped up for nuclear. We also have a reluctant public, reluctant MPs and a legal system stacked against it. Also, the coalition is lying to you. They have no intention of going nuclear. This is just another way to pretend they are committed to climate change while doing nothing about it.

So who are all the people building all these solar and wind farms?

Where are they mobilised from? And the sites are all over regional Australia.

You speak through your southern gate.

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 1:38pm:

Quote: Why would it take 15 to 20 years to build a nuclear plant? Ask the coalition why they announced they could build one in 5 years, then a few weeks later changed it to 11-13 years. In some cases it has taken multiple decades. We have no established local industry. We have a small population and a labor shortage in the established power industry and similar industries. Unless they decide to build it on the outskirts of a major city, we will struggle to mobilise the number of people required, and the ones we do get out to site will be highly paid. We have stricter industrial safety standards than most countries, and this will be stepped up for nuclear. We also have a reluctant public, reluctant MPs and a legal system stacked against it. Also, the coalition is lying to you. They have no intention of going nuclear. This is just another way to pretend they are committed to climate change while doing nothing about it.

yes - I feel that nuclear power stations will just be a never ending money pit.
It will be hard to find qualified people to run the reactors safely.
We'll have to import them at high cost -
who would want to live near say the old Hazelwood power station in the Latrobe valley?
Apart from making Yellowcake we have no nuclear industry here.
We don't make fuel rods either.
Do we even have university courses for nuclear power station engineers?
Maybe we'd have to sponsor people to go overseas to learn about it?

Quote:

So who are all the people building all these solar and wind farms?

Are you asking for their names?

You can build a wind farm one turbine at a time. You can build a solar farm one panel at a time. A lot of our solar is going in in the cities, one house at a time. You can get high school students doing it.

Gnads wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 9:03am:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 10:08am: 3.7% of Australia’s energy - that's stuff all - it's almost nothing.   :o Add up the costs of all the onshore wind & solar projects, those finished, those in the process of being built, plus the costs of those planned.

The difference is private enterprise see them as viable investments - offering good returns

Private enterprise (The Market) equates pouring money into nuclear power, in this country, with pouring billions into a bottomless pit.

... and the ONLY party that would go that way are Peter Dutton and a few other Coalition MPs - and all with someone else's (every Australian taxpayer, in this case) money



. https://regenstrategic.com.au/thumbs/870/450/files/images/p1h7optbt01pen4chcuv12ki3hfb.png




.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 1:54pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 1:38pm: Quote: Why would it take 15 to 20 years to build a nuclear plant? Ask the coalition why they announced they could build one in 5 years, then a few weeks later changed it to 11-13 years. In some cases it has taken multiple decades. We have no established local industry. We have a small population and a labor shortage in the established power industry and similar industries. Unless they decide to build it on the outskirts of a major city, we will struggle to mobilise the number of people required, and the ones we do get out to site will be highly paid. We have stricter industrial safety standards than most countries, and this will be stepped up for nuclear. We also have a reluctant public, reluctant MPs and a legal system stacked against it. Also, the coalition is lying to you. They have no intention of going nuclear. This is just another way to pretend they are committed to climate change while doing nothing about it. yes - I feel that nuclear power stations will just be a never ending money pit. It will be hard to find qualified people to run the reactors safely. We'll have to import them at high cost - who would want to live near say the old Hazelwood power station in the Latrobe valley? Apart from making Yellowcake we have no nuclear industry here. ;D ;D We don't make fuel rods either. Do we even have university courses for nuclear power station engineers? Maybe we'd have to sponsor people to go overseas to learn about it?

You are a complete moron.

Renewables are already proving Solar & Wind is a never ending money pit.

Why would it be hard to find qualified people to run it? It's just the energy source difference - nuclear still heats water, that makes steam, that drives turbines. We have shyte loads of qualified people to do that.

Why would it be at high cost to import qualified people in reactor supervision? People all over the world are busting a hump to come here. People are already living near old power stations.

Originally back in the day we had no industry here... how did our car, steel, coal fired power station, train manufacturing, bridge building, agricultural equipment, building industries get started?

We don't need to make fuel rods.

How hard is it to make University courses applicable to any requirement? .... global knowledge.

Maybe you should just go overseas ... idiot.  ::)

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 9:51am:

Not to, or in AUSTRALIA, obviously - or Dutton would release such a quote, if he had one (which he doesn't)

The CSIRO -

"The CSIRO has crunched the numbers and estimates building a large-scale nuclear power plant in Australia would cost at least $8.5 billion and produce electricity at roughly twice the cost of renewable sources."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-19/cost-of-going-nuclear-missing-in-coalitions-nuclear-plan/103997284

And that's after the CSIRO tripled the price. ::)

"GenCost based its large‐scale nuclear cost on South Korean costs as the best representation of a continuous building program consistent with other technologies in the report. GenCost then adjusted for differences in Australian and South Korean deployment costs by studying the ratio of new coal generation costs in each country. That ratio is used to scale the South Korean large‐scale nuclear costs to Australian deployment costs."

Gen-cost final report.

"The ratio of Australian to South Korean USC plant costs used is 3.0 when all costs are considered in the same currency.  To arrive at the Australian figure of $9,217/kW, the South Korean costs were multiplied by 3.0, inflated and converted from USD in 2018/kW to AUD in 2023/kW. The report notes that new large-scale nuclear costs are significantly lower than those for an SMR."

https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/large-scale-nuclear-costs-has-the-csiro-hit-the-mark/

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 1:57pm:

Quote: So who are all the people building all these solar and wind farms? Are you asking for their names? You can build a wind farm one turbine at a time. You can build a solar farm one panel at a time. A lot of our solar is going in in the cities, one house at a time. You can get high school students doing it.

Are you being an asinine Tnuc?

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 1:57pm:

Gnads wrote on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 9:03am: Bobby. wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 10:08am: 3.7% of Australia’s energy - that's stuff all - it's almost nothing.   :o Add up the costs of all the onshore wind & solar projects, those finished, those in the process of being built, plus the costs of those planned. The difference is private enterprise see them as viable investments - offering good returns Private enterprise (The Market) equates pouring money into nuclear power, in this country, with pouring billions into a bottomless pit. ... and the ONLY party that would go that way are Peter Dutton and a few other Coalition MPs - and all with someone else's (every Australian taxpayer, in this case) money . https://regenstrategic.com.au/thumbs/870/450/files/images/p1h7optbt01pen4chcuv12ki3hfb.png .

Bullshyte ... they are the same Private Enterprise companies involved in the fossil fuel/energy industry and what they see are the govt renewables subsidies to milk and make a fortune.

2nd highlight - more bullshyte ... how do you know any private company sees Nuclear as pouring money into bottomless pit?

This country has more pluses for building nuclear than many around the globe.

We have the natural resources, we have the space to place the stations & deal with the waste, we have the stability of a country without tsunamis or earthquakes, we have the ability of smart people technology wise ....

and where have the ALP taken us all with someone else's (every Australian taxpayer, in this case) money?

Clown ::)

Gnads wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 5:59pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 1:57pm: Quote: So who are all the people building all these solar and wind farms? Are you asking for their names? You can build a wind farm one turbine at a time. You can build a solar farm one panel at a time. A lot of our solar is going in in the cities, one house at a time. You can get high school students doing it. Are you being an asinine Tnuc?

You can build anything... One atom at a time. ;D

Setanta wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 6:18pm:

Gnads wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 1:57pm: Quote: So who are all the people building all these solar and wind farms? Are you asking for their names? You can build a wind farm one turbine at a time. You can build a solar farm one panel at a time. A lot of our solar is going in in the cities, one house at a time. You can get high school students doing it. Are you being an asinine Tnuc? You can build anything... One atom at a time. ;D

;D or one neuron at a time ... even a FD.

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 6:34pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 6:01pm: freediver wrote on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 7:42am: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 11:00pm: freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 9:02pm: lee wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 7:29pm: freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 5:05pm: It is actual cost trends from 2009 to 2022. "The GenCost report notes that some of the challenges in trying to pin down an estimation for Australian nuclear plant costs based on overseas data includes:" Correct. Australian costs are going to be much higher. Not just because the price is rapidly rising and they could be 20 years away. But also because we have no local experience. Australia has signed Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty which means we can get help with nuclear power. That's wonderful. I'm sure there will be plenty of highly paid people offering their assistance. We spent $100 million of taxpayers money on Geological reports for Snowy Hydro 2 how did that work out? It was supposed to cost $2 billion operational in 2021 it has cost $12 billion with current estimate at 2028-2029 before it works. I wonder how many billions extra it will cost over the next 4-5 years. Is that why you want to waste even more taxpayer money?

How much taxpayer money have we wasted already with renewables?

My preference would be remove all taxpayer subsidies and let the market work out what is best.

If renewables are cheaper as some claim they don't need subsidies.

Warren didn't get to be worth over $200 billion from wasting money

---

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 8:35pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 6:34pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 6:01pm: freediver wrote on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 7:42am: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 11:00pm: freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 9:02pm: lee wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 7:29pm: freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 5:05pm: It is actual cost trends from 2009 to 2022. "The GenCost report notes that some of the challenges in trying to pin down an estimation for Australian nuclear plant costs based on overseas data includes:" Correct. Australian costs are going to be much higher. Not just because the price is rapidly rising and they could be 20 years away. But also because we have no local experience. Australia has signed Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty which means we can get help with nuclear power. That's wonderful. I'm sure there will be plenty of highly paid people offering their assistance. We spent $100 million of taxpayers money on Geological reports for Snowy Hydro 2 how did that work out? It was supposed to cost $2 billion operational in 2021 it has cost $12 billion with current estimate at 2028-2029 before it works. I wonder how many billions extra it will cost over the next 4-5 years. Is that why you want to waste even more taxpayer money? How much taxpayer money have we wasted already with renewables? My preference would be remove all taxpayer subsidies and let the market work out what is best. If renewables are cheaper as some claim they don't need subsidies. Warren didn't get to be worth over $200 billion from wasting money

I don't support subsidies either. You are right they are a waste of money. You have the coalition to thank for that. They got rid of the cheapest way to reduce GHG emissions and left us with the most expensive options.


Gnads wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 5:59pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 1:57pm: Quote: So who are all the people building all these solar and wind farms? Are you asking for their names? You can build a wind farm one turbine at a time. You can build a solar farm one panel at a time. A lot of our solar is going in in the cities, one house at a time. You can get high school students doing it. Are you being an asinine Tnuc?

I was making a point about the difficulty of mobilising a massive workforce in Australia. It obviously went right over your head, because you thought the same thing applied to wind turbines and solar panels. It doesn't.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2024 at 7:29pm:

[size=12]The pro-nuclear lobby will never accept any alternative that carries the "sustainable" or "renewable" tag. We also have a lot of "not in my backyard" determination - from state governments, to shire councils

We need something for when the sun isn't shining and there is no wind as renewables work for less than 40% of the time.

If you want to eliminate coal and gas that only leaves Hydro or nuclear for clean energy.

The renewable mob are the biggest bunch of NIMBYs

The best spots for wind in Sydney are North South and Middle Head, Belrose Terry hills and Barrenjoey head up near Palm beach. Plenty of vacant land the power source will be close so minimal transmission losses. The get the summer sea breeze which happens on the coast and doesn't go inland. Not as far for workers to travel to maintain them.

What do the TEAL NIMBYs say?

---

Quote:

We need something for when the sun isn't shining

Ever heard of a battery? Both solar with storage and wind with storage are cheaper than nuclear.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 1:57pm:

Private enterprise (The Market) equates pouring money into nuclear power, in this country, with pouring billions into a bottomless pit.

I would say no private investors have looked at nuclear power here for the simple fact it's currently not legal.

Bill Gates and Dick Smith talk highly about nuclear power the countries that have it see the only way for net zero is to increase nuclear capacity.

---

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 8:48pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 1:57pm: Private enterprise (The Market) equates pouring money into nuclear power, in this country, with pouring billions into a bottomless pit. I would say no private investors have looked at nuclear power here for the simple fact it's currently not legal. Bill Gates and Dick Smith talk highly about nuclear power the countries that have it see the only way for net zero is to increase nuclear capacity.

They've looked at it. They see the coalition doing backflips every few weeks, whereas they need several decades of stable government policy to make the risk pay off.

Gnads wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 5:58pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 1:54pm: yes - I feel that nuclear power stations will just be a never ending money pit. It will be hard to find qualified people to run the reactors safely. We'll have to import them at high cost - who would want to live near say the old Hazelwood power station in the Latrobe valley? Apart from making Yellowcake we have no nuclear industry here. We don't make fuel rods either. Do we even have university courses for nuclear power station engineers? Maybe we'd have to sponsor people to go overseas to learn about it? You are a complete moron. Renewables are already proving Solar & Wind is a never ending money pit. Why would it be hard to find qualified people to run it? It's just the energy source difference - nuclear still heats water, that makes steam, that drives turbines. We have shyte loads of qualified people to do that. Why would it be at high cost to import qualified people in reactor supervision? People all over the world are busting a hump to come here. People are already living near old power stations. Originally back in the day we had no industry here... how did our car, steel, coal fired power station, train manufacturing, bridge building, agricultural equipment, building industries get started? We don't need to make fuel rods. How hard is it to make University courses applicable to any requirement? .... global knowledge. Maybe you should just go overseas ... idiot.  ::)

Moderators - Gnads called me a moron and an idiot.

Gnads,

Quote:

Why would it be hard to find qualified people to run it? It's just the energy source difference - nuclear still heats water, that makes steam, that drives turbines. We have shyte loads of qualified people to do that. Why would it be at high cost to import qualified people in reactor supervision? People all over the world are busting a hump to come here. People are already living near old power stations. Originally back in the day we had no industry here... how did our car, steel, coal fired power station, train manufacturing, bridge building, agricultural equipment, building industries get started? We don't need to make fuel rods. How hard is it to make University courses applicable to any requirement? .... global knowledge.

Running a nuclear power station is a hell of a lot different to
running a coal fired power station.

No one is busting to go and live in the horrible Latrobe valley.

It would be a lot better if we had some kind of nuclear industry here.
We export Yellowcake and that's it.
Australia has almost zero experience with nuclear technology.

It could be very difficult to organise nuclear technology engineering degrees here.
We might be good at making bridges and roads but nuclear is a whole new ball game.
We might only get the university lecturers that John West rejected from overseas.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 9:03pm:

Gnads wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 5:58pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 1:54pm: yes - I feel that nuclear power stations will just be a never ending money pit. It will be hard to find qualified people to run the reactors safely. We'll have to import them at high cost - who would want to live near say the old Hazelwood power station in the Latrobe valley? Apart from making Yellowcake we have no nuclear industry here. We don't make fuel rods either. Do we even have university courses for nuclear power station engineers? Maybe we'd have to sponsor people to go overseas to learn about it? You are a complete moron. Renewables are already proving Solar & Wind is a never ending money pit. Why would it be hard to find qualified people to run it? It's just the energy source difference - nuclear still heats water, that makes steam, that drives turbines. We have shyte loads of qualified people to do that. Why would it be at high cost to import qualified people in reactor supervision? People all over the world are busting a hump to come here. People are already living near old power stations. Originally back in the day we had no industry here... how did our car, steel, coal fired power station, train manufacturing, bridge building, agricultural equipment, building industries get started? We don't need to make fuel rods. How hard is it to make University courses applicable to any requirement? .... global knowledge. Maybe you should just go overseas ... idiot.  ::) Moderators - Gnads called me a moron and an idiot.

That isn't very nice is it Bobby?

Bobby. wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 9:17pm:

It could be very difficult to organise nuclear technology engineering degrees here.

https://www.unsw.edu.au/engineering/study-with-us/study-areas/nuclear-engineering

Probably a better career choice compared to gender studies or arts

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 9:44pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 9:17pm: It could be very difficult to organise nuclear technology engineering degrees here. https://www.unsw.edu.au/engineering/study-with-us/study-areas/nuclear-engineering Probably a better career choice compared to gender studies or arts

That's great -  " Full scholarships available "

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 8:39pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 8:35pm: freediver wrote on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 6:34pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 6:01pm: freediver wrote on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 7:42am: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 11:00pm: freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 9:02pm: lee wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 7:29pm: freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2024 at 5:05pm: It is actual cost trends from 2009 to 2022. "The GenCost report notes that some of the challenges in trying to pin down an estimation for Australian nuclear plant costs based on overseas data includes:" Correct. Australian costs are going to be much higher. Not just because the price is rapidly rising and they could be 20 years away. But also because we have no local experience. Australia has signed Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty which means we can get help with nuclear power. That's wonderful. I'm sure there will be plenty of highly paid people offering their assistance. We spent $100 million of taxpayers money on Geological reports for Snowy Hydro 2 how did that work out? It was supposed to cost $2 billion operational in 2021 it has cost $12 billion with current estimate at 2028-2029 before it works. I wonder how many billions extra it will cost over the next 4-5 years. Is that why you want to waste even more taxpayer money? How much taxpayer money have we wasted already with renewables? My preference would be remove all taxpayer subsidies and let the market work out what is best. If renewables are cheaper as some claim they don't need subsidies. Warren didn't get to be worth over $200 billion from wasting money I don't support subsidies either. You are right they are a waste of money. You have the coalition to thank for that. They got rid of the cheapest way to reduce GHG emissions and left us with the most expensive options. Gnads wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 1:57pm: Quote: So who are all the people building all these solar and wind farms? Are you asking for their names? You can build a wind farm one turbine at a time. You can build a solar farm one panel at a time. A lot of our solar is going in in the cities, one house at a time. You can get high school students doing it. Are you being an asinine Tnuc? I was making a point about the difficulty of mobilising a massive workforce in Australia. It obviously went right over your head, because you thought the same thing applied to wind turbines and solar panels. It doesn't.

No you weren't making a point ... you were just being your usual obtuse halfsmart sarcastic self.

Who said anything about a "massive" workforce??

You I believe.

And the work force required to build all the renewable projects on the go at present would be bigger than what's required to build a power station .... nuclear or not.

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 8:45pm:

Quote: We need something for when the sun isn't shining Ever heard of a battery? Both solar with storage and wind with storage are cheaper than nuclear.

The batteries are super expensive .... and at present they store but a few minutes of backup.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 9:17pm:

Gnads, Quote: Why would it be hard to find qualified people to run it? It's just the energy source difference - nuclear still heats water, that makes steam, that drives turbines. We have shyte loads of qualified people to do that. Why would it be at high cost to import qualified people in reactor supervision? People all over the world are busting a hump to come here. People are already living near old power stations. Originally back in the day we had no industry here... how did our car, steel, coal fired power station, train manufacturing, bridge building, agricultural equipment, building industries get started? We don't need to make fuel rods. How hard is it to make University courses applicable to any requirement? .... global knowledge. Running a nuclear power station is a hell of a lot different to running a coal fired power station. No one is busting to go and live in the horrible Latrobe valley. It would be a lot better if we had some kind of nuclear industry here. We export Yellowcake and that's it. Australia has almost zero experience with nuclear technology. It could be very difficult to organise nuclear technology engineering degrees here. We might be good at making bridges and roads but nuclear is a whole new ball game. We might only get the university lecturers that John West rejected from overseas.

A repeat of your rubbish.

Our medical system is full of overseas born & trained doctors and professionals.

Been to the doctor lately ... trust your GP or Specialist??????  ::)

Gnads wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 8:15am:

freediver wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 8:45pm: Quote: We need something for when the sun isn't shining Ever heard of a battery? Both solar with storage and wind with storage are cheaper than nuclear. The batteries are super expensive .... and at present they store but a few minutes of backup.

At present nuclear supplies 0% of our energy. Do you think that is also relevant?

Both solar with storage and wind power with storage are already cheaper than nuclear. Nuclear is getting more expensive, while renewables are getting cheaper.


Gnads wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 8:12am:

No you weren't making a point ... you were just being your usual obtuse halfsmart sarcastic self. Who said anything about a "massive" workforce?? You I believe. And the work force required to build all the renewable projects on the go at present would be bigger than what's required to build a power station .... nuclear or not.

Just because the point went way over your head does not mean it was not there. The renewables workforce does not have to gather at the same location. Like I said, a lot of solar panels are being put in in the cities by high school students. Do you really think that is the same logistical problem as mobilising the workforce required to build a nuclear power station?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 8:35am:

Gnads wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 8:15am: freediver wrote on Jul 3rd, 2024 at 8:45pm: Quote: We need something for when the sun isn't shining Ever heard of a battery? Both solar with storage and wind with storage are cheaper than nuclear. The batteries are super expensive .... and at present they store but a few minutes of backup. At present nuclear supplies 0% of our energy. Do you think that is also relevant? Both solar with storage and wind power with storage are already cheaper than nuclear. Nuclear is getting more expensive, while renewables are getting cheaper. Gnads wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 8:12am: No you weren't making a point ... you were just being your usual obtuse halfsmart sarcastic self. Who said anything about a "massive" workforce?? You I believe. And the work force required to build all the renewable projects on the go at present would be bigger than what's required to build a power station .... nuclear or not. Just because the point went way over your head does not mean it was not there. The renewables workforce does not have to gather at the same location. Like I said, a lot of solar panels are being put in in the cities by high school students. Do you really think that is the same logistical problem as mobilising the workforce required to build a nuclear power station?

There was no point. It didn't go anywhere except around in the space between your ears.

We are not talkng about high school kids doing little solar projects on houses in the city.

We are talking the industrial scale wind & solar projects around the country.

And it would be far easier to mobilise a workforce for 1 power station in a coastal or near coastal location than for all the renewables projects going on regionally throughout the central and west of Vic, NSW & Qld alone without the other states and territories who are building them as well.

You're just deflecting.

Gnads wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 8:19am:

A repeat of your rubbish. Our medical system is full of overseas born & trained doctors and professionals. Been to the doctor lately ... trust your GP or Specialist??????  ::)

Many medical specialists here have to spend 2 or more months overseas per year
just to keep up with changes in technology.
At least we have a base of medical knowledge here.
We have hardly any knowledge on nuclear power stations here.
Our only involvement is a tiny research and medical isotope reactor at Lucas Heights.
Places like the USA and Russia have been doing it for over 70 years.
Have you any idea about the different types of reactors?
You don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:

And it would be far easier to mobilise a workforce for 1 power station

What makes you think that? How many people do you think are needed to build a modern nuclear power station?


Quote:

in a coastal or near coastal location

How many of Dutton's proposed sites are on the coast? Do you think the workers are going to be commuting from a capital city?

Do you have any kind of awareness of the logistical difficulties associated with such large projects?

ALL those workers will need to be trained in aspects of nuclear. Even the humble brickies, concretors etc.

Who is going to train the trainers?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 9:01am:

Quote: And it would be far easier to mobilise a workforce for 1 power station What makes you think that? How many people do you think are needed to build a modern nuclear power station? [quote]in a coastal or near coastal location

How many of Dutton's proposed sites are on the coast? Do you think the workers are going to be commuting from a capital city?

Do you have any kind of awareness of the logistical difficulties associated with such large projects? [/quote]


Ask yourself that about all the regional remote wind & solar farm projects.

All of the LNPs suggested nuclear sites are close to regional cities/towns.


Quote:

The seven sites are: 1.Tarong in Queensland, near Kingaroy, Nanango, Yarraman & Kumbia districts - where most employees lived who work at Tarong Power station. 2.Callide in Queensland. Closest town Biloela 97 klm from Gladstone. Or 82klm from Calliope. Plenty of unused mining camp accommodations. 3.Liddell in NSW, in the Hunter Valley. Close to Muswellbrook, Singleton, Maitland & Cessnock - 90klm from Newcastle. 4.Mount Piper in NSW, 17klm from Lithgow & 40 klm from Bathurst. 5.Port Augusta in SA. On Spencer Gulf. 6.Loy Yang in Victoria, in the Latrobe Valley close to towns of Morwell & Traralgon. 7.Muja in WA, near Collie & 45klm from Bunbury. .

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 9:21am:

ALL those workers will need to be trained in aspects of nuclear. Even the humble brickies, concretors etc. Who is going to train the trainers?

Bullshyte.

Expertise can be drawn from anywhere globally.

We export our expertise overseas on projects.

Gnads wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 11:24am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 9:21am: ALL those workers will need to be trained in aspects of nuclear. Even the humble brickies, concretors etc. Who is going to train the trainers? Bullshyte. Expertise can be drawn from anywhere globally. We export our expertise overseas on projects.

Football, meat pies, kangaroos, and Holden cars?

The aspects Australia has expertise in can't be exported ... easily?


Quote:

What is the speciality of Australia? Australia is globally famous for its natural wonders, wide-open spaces, beaches, deserts, "The Bush", and "The Outback".

... and the stump-jump plow.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 8:53am:

Gnads wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 8:19am: A repeat of your rubbish. Our medical system is full of overseas born & trained doctors and professionals. Been to the doctor lately ... trust your GP or Specialist??????  ::) Many medical specialists here have to spend 2 or more months overseas per year just to keep up with changes in technology. At least we have a base of medical knowledge here. We have hardly any knowledge on nuclear power stations here. Our only involvement is a tiny research and medical isotope reactor at Lucas Heights. Places like the USA and Russia have been doing it for over 70 years. Have you any idea about the different types of reactors? You don't know what you're talking about.

You have a problem with comprehension.

I'd hazard a guess your knowledge of types of reactors is simply Google/Wiki.

Are you saying no professionals in this country are capable of being trained to proficiency in reactor technology and how to build them?

We are buying nuclear subs from the US ... who is going to teach our naval personnel to operate them?

Your logic is the same as the employer saying to a young job applicant they can't have a certain job because they have no experience.
You(no one)get experience when you do the job, every one has to start somewhere to gain experience.

Idiots like you down playing the capabilities of Australians in professional spheres is laughable.

Educate yourself you numpty.

https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2010/06/australian-inventions-that-changed-the-world/

https://www.weekendnotes.com/60-great-australian-inventions/

https://thebrilliant.com/case-studies/34-australian-inventions-changing-your-life-right-now/

---

Dear Mods,

Gnads called me a numpty.

Gnads wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 11:21am:

freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 9:01am: Quote: And it would be far easier to mobilise a workforce for 1 power station What makes you think that? How many people do you think are needed to build a modern nuclear power station? [quote]in a coastal or near coastal location How many of Dutton's proposed sites are on the coast? Do you think the workers are going to be commuting from a capital city? Do you have any kind of awareness of the logistical difficulties associated with such large projects?

Ask yourself that about all the regional remote wind & solar farm projects.
[/quote]

They are all on a much smaller scale. Let me dumb this down as much as possible for you. Do you understand the logistical difficulty in getting a huge number of workers at the same remote site at the same time?

Gnads wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 1:48pm:

You have a problem with comprehension. I'd hazard a guess your knowledge of types of reactors is simply Google/Wiki. Are you saying no professionals in this country are capable of being trained to proficiency in reactor technology and how to build them? We are buying nuclear subs from the US ... who is going to teach our naval personnel to operate them? Your logic is the same as the employer saying to a young job applicant they can't have a certain job because they have no experience. You(no one)get experience when you do the job, every one has to start somewhere to gain experience. Idiots like you down playing the capabilities of Australians in professional spheres is laughable. Educate yourself you numpty. https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2010/06/australian-inventions-that-changed-the-world/ https://www.weekendnotes.com/60-great-australian-inventions/ https://thebrilliant.com/case-studies/34-australian-inventions-changing-your-life-right-now/

Listen you numpty - we have almost zero experience with nuclear power stations.    ::)

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 2:32pm:

Do you understand the logistical difficulty in getting a huge number of workers at the same remote site at the same time?

You mean like FIFO's? DIDO's? ( Drive in, Drive Out). ::)

Gnads wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 8:51am:

We are talking the industrial scale wind & solar projects around the country.

which require electricians and mechanical engineers,  industries we have extensive experience with and of which we have extensive trained personnel to draw from.

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 3:03pm:

You mean like FIFO's? DIDO's? (

we've had a a mining industry to train and draw experience from for centuries. We don't have anyone to draw personnel from  in regards to nuclear

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 3:08pm:

which require electricians and mechanical engineers,  industries we have extensive experience with and of which we have extensive trained personnel to draw from.

"Electrician Shortage in Australia: Why Now is the Perfect Time to Become an Electrical Apprentice"

https://egt.net.au/news-insights/electrician-shortage-in-australia-why-now-is-the-perfect-time-to-become-an-electrical-apprentice

"Engineers Australia released the Statistical Overview of the Engineering Profession report, shedding light on the concerning state of Australia's engineering workforce.  "

https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/news-and-media/2023/12/new-report-reveals-deepening-engineering-skills-crisis

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 3:10pm:

We don't have anyone to draw personnel from  in regards to nuclear

And there are no skilled migrants? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Where do you think those electricians and engineers are going to come from? ::)

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 3:03pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 2:32pm: Do you understand the logistical difficulty in getting a huge number of workers at the same remote site at the same time? You mean like FIFO's? DIDO's? ( Drive in, Drive Out). ::)

Yeah. All those really high paying jobs.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 7:37am:

I do not believe the coalition has any intention to actually build nuclear power plants in Australia.

Who puts up a major, ENORMOUS election policy, with no plans of having it costed till after the Federal Election ?
Once costed, it would be universally blown out of the ballot boxes.

All this 'nuclear dog whistling' is not going to win him as many votes as the anti-sustainable and pro-nuclear climate change deniers seem to think he will.



https://www.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/dutton.jpg






.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 3:28pm:

Yeah. All those really high paying jobs.

So you think nuclear jobs should be low paid? Oh dear. ::)

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 3:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 3:10pm: We don't have anyone to draw personnel from  in regards to nuclear And there are no skilled migrants? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Where do you think those electricians and engineers are going to come from? ::)

Libs want less migrants, not more :D :D

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 3:43pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 7:37am: I do not believe the coalition has any intention to actually build nuclear power plants in Australia. Who puts up a major, ENORMOUS election policy, with no plans of having it costed till after the Federal Election ? Once costed, it would be universally blown out of the ballot boxes. All this 'nuclear dog whistling' is not going to win him as many votes as the anti-sustainable and pro-nuclear climate change deniers seem to think he will. https://www.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/dutton.jpg .

Dutton has Labor in trouble - they don't know what to do.

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 3:55pm:

Libs want less migrants, not more

There doesn't need to be "more", just better targeted. ::)

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 3:53pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 3:28pm: Yeah. All those really high paying jobs. So you think nuclear jobs should be low paid? Oh dear. ::)

Your capacity for misunderstanding never ceases to surprise. I wonder who you vote for?

I think nuclear is the most expensive option we have. Labor and the Greens gave us the cheapest option. The coalition gave us the most expensive option, after decades of crippling uncertainty.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 3:43pm:

All this 'nuclear dog whistling' is not going to win him as many votes as the anti-sustainable and pro-nuclear climate change deniers seem to think he will.

Why do you lump them all together? Can one not be pro-nuclear because of the other 'dog whistling' you lumped in? I'm neither anti-sustainable nor climate change denier.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 6:04pm:

Your capacity for misunderstanding never ceases to surprise.

Perhaps it is your inability to write constructively. ::)


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 6:04pm:

I think nuclear is the most expensive option we have. Labor and the Greens gave us the cheapest option. The coalition gave us the most expensive option, after decades of crippling uncertainty.

That all starts out with what YOU think. Renewables are not the cheapest. According to the experts it will cost trillions, with storage, as opposed to billions for nuclear and no need for weather dependant renewables. Those weather dependant renewables and storage from batteries keep needing replacement, far more often than nuclear. ::)

What you think is really immaterial. ;)

Decades of uncertainty as opposed to decades of intermittent power? ;)

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 5:13pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 3:55pm: Libs want less migrants, not more There doesn't need to be "more", just better targeted. ::)

Cause there are so many nuclear physicists applying for residency  :D

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 7:08pm:

Cause there are so many nuclear physicists applying for residency

Since there is an embargo on nuclear plants at the moment, why would you think there would be "so many nuclear physicists applying for residency "? ::)

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 7:11pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 7:08pm: Cause there are so many nuclear physicists applying for residency Since there is an embargo on nuclear plants at the moment, why would you think there would be "so many nuclear physicists applying for residency "? ::)

I don't.  And I don't think they're going to rush to come to Australia if the embargo is ever lifted.  Certanly not in the numbers we will require.  Not unless we pay them a fortune,  which will blow any claims Mr potato Head makes about it being 'cheaper' obsolete.

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 7:14pm:

I don't.  And I don't think they're going to rush to come to Australia if the embargo is ever lifted.

Yes. We know you don't think. ;)


John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 7:14pm:

Not unless we pay them a fortune,  which will blow any claims Mr potato Head makes about it being 'cheaper' obsolete.

So what is a fortune? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 7:35pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 7:14pm: I don't.  And I don't think they're going to rush to come to Australia if the embargo is ever lifted. Yes. We know you don't think. ;) John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 7:14pm: Not unless we pay them a fortune,  which will blow any claims Mr potato Head makes about it being 'cheaper' obsolete. So what is a fortune? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

A lot more than it costs to pay an electrican to hook up a solar panel

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 7:41pm:

A lot more than it costs to pay an electrican to hook up a solar panel

How about electricians to hook up thousands of solar panels? ::)

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 8:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 7:41pm: A lot more than it costs to pay an electrican to hook up a solar panel How about electricians to hook up thousands of solar panels? ::)

We have thousands,  and once they hook up the panel they move onto their next job.

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 7:14pm:

lee wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 7:11pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 7:08pm: Cause there are so many nuclear physicists applying for residency Since there is an embargo on nuclear plants at the moment, why would you think there would be "so many nuclear physicists applying for residency "? ::) I don't.  And I don't think they're going to rush to come to Australia if the embargo is ever lifted.  Certanly not in the numbers we will require.  Not unless we pay them a fortune,  which will blow any claims Mr potato Head makes about it being 'cheaper' obsolete.

I worked for a company once that had to get specialist project engineers
out from the UK and Europe - for multi $billion projects.

They had to pay for:
their whole family to come here, including transporting some family furniture,
free rent in a good house,
free company car,
free school fees for their kids to go to a private school which was not near where they lived,
free return tickets to Europe once per year for their whole family,
mega buck pay packets.

They wouldn't come here unless they got a package like that.
Even then one of the wives I spoke to complained that
her husband had dragged her to the ends of the earth.  ;D

Bobby. wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 9:06pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 7:14pm: lee wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 7:11pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 7:08pm: Cause there are so many nuclear physicists applying for residency Since there is an embargo on nuclear plants at the moment, why would you think there would be "so many nuclear physicists applying for residency "? ::) I don't.  And I don't think they're going to rush to come to Australia if the embargo is ever lifted.  Certanly not in the numbers we will require.  Not unless we pay them a fortune,  which will blow any claims Mr potato Head makes about it being 'cheaper' obsolete. I worked for a company once that had to get specialist project engineers out from the UK and Europe. They had to pay for: their whole family to come here, including transporting some family furniture, free rent in a good house, free company car, free school fees for their kids to go to a private school which was not near where they lived, free return tickets to Europe once per year for their whole family, mega buck pay packets. They wouldn't come here unless they got a package like that. Even then one of the wives I spoke to complained that her husband had dragged her to the ends of the earth.  ;D

Australia is now one of the most expensive countries to live in. No nuclear engineer is going to come here unless it's worth it for them.  They can pick any country they want. 

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 9:09pm:

Australia is now one of the most expensive countries to live in. No nuclear engineer is going to come here unless it's worth it for them.  They can pick any country they want.

And it will take years of expensive consultants just to decide on what types of reactors to build.
That could cost a few $100 million.

Australia screws up simple projects like the broadband fiasco.

The usual answer to problems in Australia is just to throw more money at them.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 9:28pm:

Australia screws up simple projects like the broadband fiasco. The usual answer to problems in Australia is just to throw more money at them.

Look at Snowy 2.

$2 billion and now $12 billion.   ;D


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-23/snowy-hydro-sinkhole-toxic-gas-tunnelling-four-corners/102995568

The pumped hydro project, trumpeted as a grand "nation-building" scheme, was first estimated to cost just $2 billion.
It's blown out to $12 billion.

It was expected to produce its first power next year — now, it won't be keeping any lights on for at least another four years.

Snowy Hydro has revealed to Four Corners as much as $2 billion of this blowout can be blamed on the stalled tunnel boring machine they call Florence.

Its 15km journey below Kosciuszko National Park should be well underway by now, but it's gone just 150m.

Insiders say warnings were ignored — Florence was doomed from the start.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 9:34pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 9:28pm: Australia screws up simple projects like the broadband fiasco. The usual answer to problems in Australia is just to throw more money at them. Look at Snowy 2. $2 billion and now $12 billion.   ;D https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-23/snowy-hydro-sinkhole-toxic-gas-tunnelling-four-corners/102995568 The pumped hydro project, trumpeted as a grand "nation-building" scheme, was first estimated to cost just $2 billion. It's blown out to $12 billion. It was expected to produce its first power next year — now, it won't be keeping any lights on for at least another four years. Snowy Hydro has revealed to Four Corners as much as $2 billion of this blowout can be blamed on the stalled tunnel boring machine they call Florence. Its 15km journey below Kosciuszko National Park should be well underway by now, but it's gone just 150m. Insiders say warnings were ignored — Florence was doomed from the start.

They should have given the contract to the Chinese.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8BwYTb4ypA

Hi LTYC,
I don't think it was the fault of the boring machine -
the underground terrain is unsuitable for drilling.

Quote:

Look at Snowy 2. $2 billion and now $12 billion.   Grin

Thanks to turdbull and scummo

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 10:21pm:

Quote: Look at Snowy 2. $2 billion and now $12 billion.   Grin Thanks to turdbull and scummo

It sounded like a good idea but they didn't do enough test bores to check the terrain first.   ::)

$4.3 Billion had been spent by August 2023 and the progress is below expectations.

That portends that the project will cost much more than $12 Billion.

Politicians and national project implementation managers have an interest in hiding the true cost of their project overruns.

The original 1960s Snowy project was reputed to be on budget and on schedule, however, it is not possible to verify if that is true.

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 7:03pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 6:04pm: Your capacity for misunderstanding never ceases to surprise. Perhaps it is your inability to write constructively. ::) freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 6:04pm: I think nuclear is the most expensive option we have. Labor and the Greens gave us the cheapest option. The coalition gave us the most expensive option, after decades of crippling uncertainty. That all starts out with what YOU think.

It's not just what I think. See the opening post.


Quote:

According to the experts it will cost trillions, with storage, as opposed to billions for nuclear

Renewables with storage are already cheaper than nuclear, and the price is going down. The price of nuclear is going up.

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2024 at 9:47am:

Renewables with storage are already cheaper than nuclear, and the price is going down.

Nope. Read carefully Renewables trillions. nuclear billions. If you can find something relevant please reveal it. You know the full cost of renewables and storage. ::)

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 9:01pm:

We have thousands,  and once they hook up the panel they move onto their next job.

So these high paying renewables jobs are only temporary, so much for the government spin. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jul 5^th, 2024 at 3:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 9:01pm: We have thousands,  and once they hook up the panel they move onto their next job. So these high paying renewables jobs are only temporary, so much for the government spin. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

yes, cause electricians always work one job then spend the rest of their lives unemployed

christ you're a dumbarse. :D :D

lee wrote on Jul 5^th, 2024 at 3:04pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 5th, 2024 at 9:47am: Renewables with storage are already cheaper than nuclear, and the price is going down. Nope. Read carefully Renewables trillions. nuclear billions. If you can find something relevant please reveal it. You know the full cost of renewables and storage. ::)

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/LCOE_001.png

Oh Now you believe in trends and not published figures.

Do those published figures for wind and solar include storage? It very carefully doesn't say. So perhaps instead of a saved graph, print from whence it came. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

There isn't one single working reactor of the type Mr potato Head proposed anywhere in the world. 

Only a true idiot would believe Mr potato Head can build one in 5 years. Lee is such an idiot.  :D

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2024 at 6:01pm:

yes, cause electricians always work one job then spend the rest of their lives unemployed

But these high paying renewables jobs were supposed to be forever. Now you want them to go back to medium paying jobs. You are such a dumbarse. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jul 5^th, 2024 at 8:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2024 at 6:01pm: yes, cause electricians always work one job then spend the rest of their lives unemployed But these high paying renewables jobs were supposed to be forever. Now you want them to go back to medium paying jobs. You are such a dumbarse. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Can you show where anyone,  other than you, claimed the jobs would last forever dumbarse?


And most contractors make more money than you do anyway. Renewables create more demand for their services,  which means more money for them. 

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2024 at 9:11pm:

Can you show where anyone,  other than you, claimed the jobs would last forever dumbarse?

So you do agree that the green jobs are temporary. Thanks for that. :)


John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2024 at 9:11pm:

And most contractors make more money than you do anyway.

Never said I did. If a contractor makes less than a pensioner, he isn't really trying. Or ripping off the tax system. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2024 at 9:11pm:

Renewables create more demand for their services,  which means more money for them.

How? The services are replacement services, not something new. Even EV's take a charge from whatever electricity is available. Electricity is electricity no matter how it is derived. ::)

Quote:

So you do agree that the green jobs are temporary.

You backpedalling now? Why did you pretend anyone claimed the jobs would last forever? Why did you lie?


Quote:

Never said I did.

You never say anything that actually makes sense.  You prefer making stupid comments  instead.



Quote:

The services are replacement services, not something new

You know many electricians and engineers working in coal mines dumbarse?

lee wrote on Jul 5^th, 2024 at 6:11pm:

Oh Now you believe in trends and not published figures. Do those published figures for wind and solar include storage? It very carefully doesn't say. So perhaps instead of a saved graph, print from whence it came. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The trends are published figures Lee. But it is nice of you, 10 pages in to a thread about the high price tag of nuclear, to finally bring yourself to discuss the high price tag for nuclear. From the OP:


freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 7:37am:

Further down the page, a cost (in Australia) of 9c/kWh is given for wind power with storage, and 12c/kWh for solar with storage.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/LCOE_001.png

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 7:06am:

The trends are published figures Lee. But it is nice of you, 10 pages in to a thread about the high price tag of nuclear, to finally bring yourself to discuss the high price tag for nuclear.

Yet you still haven't addressed Trillions for renewable and billions for nuclear.


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 7:06am:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 5:37am: Further down the page, a cost (in Australia) of 9c/kWh is given for wind power with storage, and 12c/kWh for solar with storage. http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/LCOE_001.png

And nowhere in your graphic does it mention storage, Strange that. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 12:09am:

You backpedalling now? Why did you pretend anyone claimed the jobs would last forever? Why did you lie?

It was first proposed that green jobs would be forever. Why else would Dementia Joe talk about teaching fossil fuel workers to code as part of the green Utopia?

"At a 2019 campaign rally in New Hampshire, then-candidate Joe Biden described the possibility of coal miners transitioning to more environmentally friendly labor. "Anybody who can go down 3,000 feet in a mine can sure as hell learn to program as well," he said. His remarks were reported by The Washington Post's David Weigel and The Hill, the latter making note of the job-retraining aspects of Biden's platform."

https://reason.com/2024/01/25/yes-biden-absolutely-told-coal-miners-to-learn-to-code/

John Smith wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 12:09am:

Quote: Never said I did. You never say anything that actually makes sense.

So you never knew I was on a pension? Even though I have said it many times. It shows how long you retain information. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


John Smith wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 12:09am:

You know many electricians and engineers working in coal mines dumbarse?

Don't you think underground miners need electrical works? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Hint: they don't use petrol jackhammers., air conditioning etc. ;)

Bobby. wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 2:09pm:

Dear Mods, Gnads called me a numpty.

Dear Mods

clearly Booby is a numpty.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 2:32pm:

Gnads wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 11:21am: freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 9:01am: Quote: And it would be far easier to mobilise a workforce for 1 power station What makes you think that? How many people do you think are needed to build a modern nuclear power station? [quote]in a coastal or near coastal location How many of Dutton's proposed sites are on the coast? Do you think the workers are going to be commuting from a capital city? Do you have any kind of awareness of the logistical difficulties associated with such large projects? Ask yourself that about all the regional remote wind & solar farm projects.

They are all on a much smaller scale. Let me dumb this down as much as possible for you. Do you understand the logistical difficulty in getting a huge number of workers at the same remote site at the same time?[/quote]

Smaller scale?  ;D I know who's dumb ... you have it in spades.

The projects are huge .... they have to be or there's no chance in hell the planned emission targets will be reached & "net zero" will remain a fallacy ...... as is all of the fallacious claims from the Church of Climate Change and Renewables.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 2:35pm:

Gnads wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 1:48pm: You have a problem with comprehension. I'd hazard a guess your knowledge of types of reactors is simply Google/Wiki. Are you saying no professionals in this country are capable of being trained to proficiency in reactor technology and how to build them? We are buying nuclear subs from the US ... who is going to teach our naval personnel to operate them? Your logic is the same as the employer saying to a young job applicant they can't have a certain job because they have no experience. You(no one)get experience when you do the job, every one has to start somewhere to gain experience. Idiots like you down playing the capabilities of Australians in professional spheres is laughable. Educate yourself you numpty. https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2010/06/australian-inventions-that-changed-the-world/ https://www.weekendnotes.com/60-great-australian-inventions/ https://thebrilliant.com/case-studies/34-australian-inventions-changing-your-life-right-now/ Listen you numpty - we have almost zero experience with nuclear power stations.    ::)

OMG ... you enormous ignorant numpty...

where did Australian industry ever learn how to build anything?

We will gain the experience as we have done in the past.

You're a clueless latte sipper from Melbourne.

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 3:10pm:

lee wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 3:03pm: You mean like FIFO's? DIDO's? ( we've had a a mining industry to train and draw experience from for centuries. We don't have anyone to draw personnel from  in regards to nuclear

BS ...you're as thick as Booby.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 6:04pm:

lee wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 3:53pm: freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 3:28pm: Yeah. All those really high paying jobs. So you think nuclear jobs should be low paid? Oh dear. ::) Your capacity for misunderstanding never ceases to surprise. I wonder who you vote for? I think nuclear is the most expensive option we have. Labor and the Greens gave us the cheapest option. The coalition gave us the most expensive option, after decades of crippling uncertainty.

What a climate change alarmist like you thinks is irrelevant.

Nuclear is not the most expensive.

Have you based your assumption on the cost of the 8 nuclear submarines that the hypocritical Labor Govt. has committed to?

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 7:08pm:

lee wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 5:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 3:55pm: Libs want less migrants, not more There doesn't need to be "more", just better targeted. ::) Cause there are so many nuclear physicists applying for residency  :D

We don't need nuclear physicists.

The invention and ability to upgrade nuclear technology has already been invented and proven.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 9:06pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 7:14pm: lee wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 7:11pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 7:08pm: Cause there are so many nuclear physicists applying for residency Since there is an embargo on nuclear plants at the moment, why would you think there would be "so many nuclear physicists applying for residency "? ::) I don't.  And I don't think they're going to rush to come to Australia if the embargo is ever lifted.  Certanly not in the numbers we will require.  Not unless we pay them a fortune,  which will blow any claims Mr potato Head makes about it being 'cheaper' obsolete. I worked for a company once that had to get specialist project engineers out from the UK and Europe - for multi $billion projects. They had to pay for: their whole family to come here, including transporting some family furniture, free rent in a good house, free company car, free school fees for their kids to go to a private school which was not near where they lived, free return tickets to Europe once per year for their whole family, mega buck pay packets. They wouldn't come here unless they got a package like that. Even then one of the wives I spoke to complained that her husband had dragged her to the ends of the earth.  ;D

So what?

We pay billions to process and then subsidise illegal migrants.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 9:51pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 9:34pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 9:28pm: Australia screws up simple projects like the broadband fiasco. The usual answer to problems in Australia is just to throw more money at them. Look at Snowy 2. $2 billion and now $12 billion.   ;D https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-23/snowy-hydro-sinkhole-toxic-gas-tunnelling-four-corners/102995568 The pumped hydro project, trumpeted as a grand "nation-building" scheme, was first estimated to cost just $2 billion. It's blown out to $12 billion. It was expected to produce its first power next year — now, it won't be keeping any lights on for at least another four years. Snowy Hydro has revealed to Four Corners as much as $2 billion of this blowout can be blamed on the stalled tunnel boring machine they call Florence. Its 15km journey below Kosciuszko National Park should be well underway by now, but it's gone just 150m. Insiders say warnings were ignored — Florence was doomed from the start. They should have given the contract to the Chinese. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8BwYTb4ypA

NO.

lee wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 3:15pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 6th, 2024 at 7:06am: The trends are published figures Lee. But it is nice of you, 10 pages in to a thread about the high price tag of nuclear, to finally bring yourself to discuss the high price tag for nuclear. Yet you still haven't addressed Trillions for renewable and billions for nuclear.

It is another of your brain farts. Happy?


Quote:

And nowhere in your graphic does it mention storage, Strange that.

Yes Lee. As I pointed out, that information is provided elsewhere in the link. Glad to see you are slowly wrapping your head around the facts. If you keep going, it will start to seem les strange.

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 5:34pm:

As I pointed out, that information is provided elsewhere in the link.

And the link goes to the graphic only. ::)

So the only thing strange is apparent reticence in posting the required link.  ;)

John Smith wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 12:09am:

Why did you pretend anyone claimed the jobs would last forever? Why did you lie?

You mean like Labor promising good secure work, banning gig work and short term contracts?

https://www.alp.org.au/policies/secure-australian-jobs

Or the Greens promising to give more secure work, outlawing insecure work.

https://greens.org.au/platform/jobs

Or do you mean insecure work is not gig work or short term contracts IE Short Term as proposed by Labor. ;)

Gnads wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 5:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 7:08pm: lee wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 5:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 3:55pm: Libs want less migrants, not more There doesn't need to be "more", just better targeted. ::) Cause there are so many nuclear physicists applying for residency  :D We don't need nuclear physicists. The invention and ability to upgrade nuclear technology has already been invented and proven.

You want Homer Simpson perhaps?

lee wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 6:06pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 6th, 2024 at 12:09am: Why did you pretend anyone claimed the jobs would last forever? Why did you lie? You mean like Labor promising good secure work, banning gig work and short term contracts? https://www.alp.org.au/policies/secure-australian-jobs Or the Greens promising to give more secure work, outlawing insecure work. https://greens.org.au/platform/jobs Or do you mean insecure work is not gig work or short term contracts IE Short Term as proposed by Labor. ;)

No where in any of that does it say that the jobs will last forever.  Try again.  :D

lee wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 5:56pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 6th, 2024 at 5:34pm: As I pointed out, that information is provided elsewhere in the link. And the link goes to the graphic only. ::) So the only thing strange is apparent reticence in posting the required link.  ;)

It's all in the OP Lee. It only seems strange because it took you a dozen pages to figure out what the topic is.

Gnads wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 5:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 3:10pm: lee wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 3:03pm: You mean like FIFO's? DIDO's? ( we've had a a mining industry to train and draw experience from for centuries. We don't have anyone to draw personnel from  in regards to nuclear BS ...you're as thick as Booby.

What part is bs exactly? Apart from you pretending to have a clue  that is.

Quote:

The invention and ability to upgrade nuclear technology has already been invented and proven

Not the reactors Duttons talking about.  Not that Australia has any workforce experienced even in the older technology  :D

John Smith wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 6:16pm:

Quote: The invention and ability to upgrade nuclear technology has already been invented and proven Not the reactors Duttons talking about.  Not that Australia has any workforce experienced even in the older technology  :D

Building nuclear reactors is like nothing else we've ever done here in Australia -
we'll have to try and recruit 1000s of people with specialist skills from overseas.

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 6:10pm:

It's all in the OP Lee.

It wasn't in the link you provided. ::)

John Smith wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 6:09pm:

No where in any of that does it say that the jobs will last forever.

Ah, you do semantics. ;)

OK the renewable jobs are gig economy. Only available while the gig is ongoing. The very definition of short term. No job security, which is what Labor and Greens have promised. Capiche Guido? ::)

Literature review of the cost of nuclear:

https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/Sort_66425.pdf

lee wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 7:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 6th, 2024 at 6:09pm: No where in any of that does it say that the jobs will last forever. Ah, you do semantics. ;)

No  I just call out bullshit. You were the idiot that invented an excuse about jobs not lasting 'forever '. It's not my fault you made it up in an attempt to cover your stupidity.

From your wiki link -

Your batteries are listed as less than $200/KWh. Now that's not cheap, and batteries don't last. Neither do solar panels and wind turbines.

Levelized Cost Of Storage - "Regardless of technology, however, storage is but a secondary source of electricity dependent on a primary source of generation. Thus, a true cost accounting demands that the costs of both primary and secondary sources be included when the cost of storage is compared to the cost of generating electricity in real time to meet demand.[citation needed]

A cost factor unique to storage are losses that occur due to inherent inefficiencies of storing electricity, as well as increased CO2 emissions if any component of the primary source is less than 100% carbon-free.[11] In the U.S., a comprehensive 2015 study found that net system CO2 emissions resulting from storage operation are nontrivial when compared to the emissions from electricity generation [in real time to meet demand], ranging from 104 to 407 kg/MWh of delivered energy depending on location, storage operation mode, and assumptions regarding carbon intensity."

Cost Factors "While calculating costs, several internal cost factors have to be considered.[21] Note the use of "costs," which is not the actual selling price, since this can be affected by a variety of factors such as subsidies and taxes: "

https://web.archive.org/web/20220404150706/https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf

So the levelized cost of storage have their own "Non-trivial" CO2 losses. ::)

Cost factors don't include subsidies. And yet subsidies do affect cost, it simply hides a part of the cost. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Levelized cost of Electricity - "The LCOE "represents the average revenue per unit of electricity generated that would be required to recover the costs of building and operating a generating plant during an assumed financial life and duty cycle", and is calculated as the ratio between all the discounted costs over the lifetime of an electricity generating plant divided by a discounted sum of the actual energy amounts delivered.[3] Inputs to LCOE are chosen by the estimator. They can include the cost of capital, decommissioning, fuel costs, fixed and variable operations and maintenance costs, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

So once again it depends on ASSUMPTIONS made. ::)

Maybe you should do some further reading. ;)

John Smith wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 7:36pm:

I just call out bullshit.

And yet you are the biggest bullschitter here. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 7:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 6th, 2024 at 7:36pm: I just call out bullshit. And yet you are the biggest bullschitter here. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Don't cry,  just because you got caught lying again.    ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 7:15pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 6th, 2024 at 6:10pm: It's all in the OP Lee. It wasn't in the link you provided. ::)

Yes it is. It's still there in the wikipedia article. Wind with storage is cheaper and going down in price. Same with solar with storage. Nuclear power is the most expensive and is going up in price.

John Smith wrote on Jul 6^th, 2024 at 6:10pm:

Gnads wrote on Jul 6th, 2024 at 5:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 3:10pm: lee wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 3:03pm: You mean like FIFO's? DIDO's? ( we've had a a mining industry to train and draw experience from for centuries. We don't have anyone to draw personnel from  in regards to nuclear BS ...you're as thick as Booby. What part is bs exactly? Apart from you pretending to have a clue  that is.

Speaking of who is clueless.

What part of any of the sciences, infrastructure engineering & construction projects wasn't garnered in Australia without OS assistance?

Railways, Sydney Harbour Bridge, Opera House &

the biggest one of all The Snowy Mountains Scheme......overseen by a NZ born engineer Sir William Hudson and it used 100,000 plus migrant workers.


Quote:

Construction of the Snowy Scheme was managed by the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority. It officially began on 17 October 1949 and took 25 years, being officially completed in 1974. An agreement between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and Snowy Mountains Hydro to provide technical assistance and training of engineers was agreed between the United States and Australia in Washington, D.C., on 16 November 1951.[10] A loan for $100 million was obtained from the World Bank in 1962.[11]

You're clutching at straws like Booby crapping on we can't build nuclear because we have no one here with experience in the field.

Christ on a bike what seasoned experience would the Argentinians, Armenians, Bangladeshis, Brazilians, Bulgarians, Indians, Iranian, Pakistan, Romania etc had to have built or are building nuclear power stations????????

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2024 at 8:37am:

Yes it is.

It is in the OP, but not in the link provided yesterday which only goes to the graphic.
freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2024 at 8:37am:

Wind with storage is cheaper and going down in price. Same with solar with storage.

And with threatened lithium supply... what would be the effect?

Trends do change. ;)