The first detailed costing of Peter Dutton’s bold plan to add nuclear energy to the power grid forecasts a saving of more than a quarter of a trillion dollars compared to Anthony Albanese’s renewables-heavy strategy.

The Coalition’s proposal favouring reactors across the nation finds that between now and 2050, the price would be $331 billion versus $594bn for Labor’s preferred approach, according to analysis by Frontier Economics to be made public on Friday.

The Opposition’s plan is cheaper due to a lesser need for new transmission infrastructure – relative to what the government is pursuing – and because the cost of the plants could be spread over a 50-year life, as well as an assumption that Australia’s electricity needs will not increase as fast as the ALP is betting, meaning the size of the overall task is reduced.

Ahead of the release of the new costing last night, Mr Dutton vowed the Coalition would deliver “massive savings”.

“This means reduced power bills for households, lower operating costs for small businesses, and a stronger, more resilient economy,” the Opposition leader said.

Energy policy is set to be the most fiercely contested policy area at the next election, which must be held by May.

While the Coalition uses Frontier’s analysis to argue that the nuclear option can combat power price increases, the government is expected to attack the credibility of the new research by seizing on a decision to revise down the cost of Labor’s renewables strategy by nearly $50bn since initial figures were published a month ago.

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen is also likely to criticise the absence of detail about where the first of seven proposed reactors will be built and what type of technology would be used.

The Coalition has flagged opening nuclear plants on the sites of five currently operating coal-fired power stations. They are Queensland’s Tarong, northwest of Brisbane, and Callide, west of Gladstone, as well as NSW’s Mount Piper near Lithgow, Loy Yang in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, plus Muja in WA. The two other sites are former coal plants – Liddell in NSW’s Hunter Valley and Port Augusta in South Australia.

Mr Dutton has said that if the Coalition wins the election, two “establishment projects” will be chosen in that term, with electricity to flow from the mid-2030s.

A Liberal-National government would also need to overcome state and federal bans on nuclear energy.

The new Frontier costings assume 13.2 gigawatts of power would come from fission by 2050, slightly less than the Opposition’s stated objective of 14GW.

The calculations are based on nuclear entering as currently operating coal-fired power exits.

The major parties are at odds on timing of coal-plant closures.

Under the path being followed by Labor, nearly all of the existing 21GW of coal-fired power is anticipated to leave the system within a decade.

Frontier’s modelling of the Coalition plan is premised on only a third of the present coal capacity retiring by then.

Coal-plant owners’ stated closure timetables are slightly faster than what Frontier assumes but considerably slower than what the ALP and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) envision.

Frontier doesn’t identify which coal plants would stay open for longer; the Coalition has not divulged that either, saying only that it isn’t in favour of “premature” shutdowns.

In reality, the Coalition expects replacement nuclear capacity to be turned on for a year or more before a coal plant is decommissioned.

Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien last night said: “Labor’s plan will see 90 per cent of Australia’s 24/7 baseload power forced out of the system by 2034, leaving the grid vulnerable to blackouts and instability.

“In contrast, the Coalition’s approach ensures retiring coal plants are replaced with reliable, zero-emissions nuclear energy, supported by renewables, gas, and storage.”

Still, there would be no power from coal by the late 2040s and less reliance on gas than under the Labor strategy because there would not be the same volume of renewables to “firm”.

By introducing baseload capacity at sites with existing network infrastructure, the new transmission costs of the Opposition plan are kept to $14bn versus $67bn for the government’s pathway, according to Frontier.

By 2050, nuclear would account for eight per cent of capacity but 38 per cent of electricity output because it is always on, the consultancy says in its report.

The Opposition is expected to refute accusations that it is anti-renewables by pointing out that its plan would still see 54 per cent of power derived from wind and solar in 25 years from now, which would require a doubling from current levels.

The government plan relies on renewables providing about three-quarters of Australia’s electricity in the middle of the century.

Cont'd...

Cont'd...

The Coalition is also likely to highlight that even if the cost of nuclear energy turns out to be double what Frontier has forecast, its proposal is still cheaper than Labor’s strategy.

The $331bn cost of the Opposition policy is based on AEMO’s “progressive” scenario, which assumes a lesser rate of growth in demand compared to the “step change” outlook that underpins Labor’s actions. Progressive adopts a global temperature increase of 2.6 degrees Celsius versus 1.8C for step change.

Step change is AEMO’s preferred scenario. It has assigned a 43 per cent likelihood to step change – just one percentage point more than progressive.

Electricity demand under step change is about two-thirds higher in 2050 than for the progressive outlook.

To justify its choice of progressive, the Coalition is expected to note that AEMO has consistently over-estimated demand over more than two decades.

Frontier’s new work shows that if the step change scenario is applied to the Opposition policy, it is still nearly $150bn cheaper than Labor’s strategy.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/peter-duttons-nuclear-energy-policy-costed-at-331bn-which-is-250bn-less-than-labors-plan/news-story/19c7539c906e87c24d3b0b2274d7d1e4

Wow, who would've thunk it? All those claims by Labor that nuclear would be too expensive were nothing more than lies from a pathetic scare campaign not based on facts or science and the Coalition plan is actually almost half the price of Labor's while delivering a reliable source of baseload power compared to the unreliability of Labor's horrifyingly expensive fantasy renewables plan.

so it's cheaper because they're pretending we won't need as much electricity and because they're spreading the ocst over 50 yrs? :D :D :D

Why didn't they include the cost of securing nuclear waste for the next 100yrs into it's forecasts? Worried they can't fudge their figures?? ;D

How did their costings for the NBN work out?
Paid twice as much for third world infrastructure :D :D

John Smith wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 7:34am:

so it's cheaper because they're pretending we won't need as much electricity and because they're spreading the ocst over 50 yrs? :D :D :D Why didn't they include the cost of securing nuclear waste for the next 100yrs into it's forecasts? Worried they can't fudge their figures?? ;D How did their costings for the NBN work out? Paid twice as much for third world infrastructure :D :D

It's cheaper because it won't need as much investment in terms of new transmission lines, as Labor's expensive and unreliable renewables plan will. It's cheaper because the cost can be spread over at least a 50 year lifespan of a nuclear reactor, unlike Labor's expensive and unreliable renewables plan, because solar panels need replacing every 25 years, batteries need replacing every 5 to 15 years, wind turbines need replacing every 20 years.

John Smith wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 7:34am:

so it's cheaper because they're pretending we won't need as much electricity and because they're spreading the ocst over 50 yrs? :D :D :D

They're spreading the cost over 50 years because that is the average life of a nuclear reactor. Also, the idiots in the ALP are trying to justify their fantasy renewables plan by grossly overestimating the need for electricity in coming years. It's like they suddenly expect Australia to double its industrial electricity needs in the next few decades. Not gonna happen! The plan put forward by Dutton is the more sensible and reasonable approach. Not that I expect you to see the sense in it. All you see is "nuclear = bad" and have no idea as to why you think that other than Labor said so.

Poll added.

One of Airbus Albo's core election promises was that he would reduce electricity prices by $275. Instead, it's gone up by many times that number under Labor's insane policy on so-called "renewables". Still waiting on my $275, Albo!!!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 11:50am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:34am: so it's cheaper because they're pretending we won't need as much electricity and because they're spreading the ocst over 50 yrs? :D :D :D They're spreading the cost over 50 years because that is the average life of a nuclear reactor. Also, the idiots in the ALP are trying to justify their fantasy renewables plan by grossly overestimating the need for electricity in coming years. It's like they suddenly expect Australia to double its industrial electricity needs in the next few decades. Not gonna happen! The plan put forward by Dutton is the more sensible and reasonable approach. Not that I expect you to see the sense in it. All you see is "nuclear = bad" and have no idea as to why you think that other than Labor said so.

they need to spread the cost of securing nuclear waste for the next thousand years into their figures if they want to be taken seriously

and nuclear is bad, irrespective of what labor says about it. Only a dumbarse would push for nuclear. Congrats, you qualify.

Costing coming up on the news on TV - one thing you can guarantee is that the 'savings' will never appear for the consumer under the current FAILED economic narrative...... trickle-down is in reality a sewer outlet...

The choice is not between more subsidised power from renewables vs more subsidised power from nuclear. People keep forgetting that the whole reason for this is to reduce GHG emissions, and there is a far cheaper way to do this - one that actually raises government revenue instead of costing it billions. A carbon tax.

Government costings?

When was the last time ANY government project came in on budget or even on time?

Arguing over which government plan will be cheaper is a complete waste of time.

It’s the argument both parties want to avoid questions over the privatisation of the new grid.

The current private business model favours the companies not the customers.
Unless that’s changed it won’t matter which path we take as we will continue to be worse off compared to a public owned electricity supplier.

Dutton's nuclear plan a 'heroic', cherrypicked 'recipe for higher energy bills', experts say >:(

Brian is a Troll

freediver wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 5:27pm:

People keep forgetting that the whole reason for this is to reduce GHG emissions, and there is a far cheaper way to do this - one that actually raises government revenue instead of costing it billions. A carbon tax.

How does a carbon tax, of itself, reduce emissions? ::)

freediver wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 5:27pm:

The choice is not between more subsidised power from renewables vs more subsidised power from nuclear. People keep forgetting that the whole reason for this is to reduce GHG emissions, and there is a far cheaper way to do this - one that actually raises government revenue instead of costing it billions. A carbon tax.

Nonsense. Taxing existing energy source without having an alternative, non-taxed source is nonsense.

"Carbon tax" is Greta Thought. Are you going to tax vegetable growers, meat packers, soda water producers for their CO2? No.

Are humans causing climate change by using NATURAL resources?
If so, to what degree? Is human use of NATURAL resources the only cause of climate variation?
If it is, what are the options?  Eliminating NATURAL resources isn't  one of them. We have no others.
Whatever energy source we use it comes from nature.

Fossil fuels are natural solar batteries. That IS what they are. And you do not need to mine rare earths and manufacture expensive batteries in China to have access to nature's ready-made solar power batteries called fossil fuels.


Windmills on every roof and every hat!
No.

lee wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 7:33pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 5:27pm: People keep forgetting that the whole reason for this is to reduce GHG emissions, and there is a far cheaper way to do this - one that actually raises government revenue instead of costing it billions. A carbon tax. How does a carbon tax, of itself, reduce emissions? ::)

Carbon tax benefits the rich, when the tax is used it makes the product more expensive thus pushing the poor out from using the resource and the rich still have access to the product. The only person who loses with carbon tax is the poor. Government benefit from the tax, rich still access the product and the poor miss out.

freediver wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 5:27pm:

The choice is not between more subsidised power from renewables vs more subsidised power from nuclear. People keep forgetting that the whole reason for this is to reduce GHG emissions, and there is a far cheaper way to do this - one that actually raises government revenue instead of costing it billions. A carbon tax.

I don’t believe that is feasible in a election year regardless it’s merits.

lee wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 7:33pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 5:27pm: People keep forgetting that the whole reason for this is to reduce GHG emissions, and there is a far cheaper way to do this - one that actually raises government revenue instead of costing it billions. A carbon tax. How does a carbon tax, of itself, reduce emissions? ::)

Because money talks, and BS walks. If you put a price on something was was previously free, people will use it less. There are literally millions of decisions we make that affect our GHG emissions. But without a price on those emissions, we often do not even know which is the less carbon intensive option.


Quote:

I don’t believe that is feasible in a election year regardless it’s merits.

It won't happen until the majority support it. The coalition got away with one scare campaign on it, treating voters like morons. It worked, unfortunately. But maybe not the second time.


Leroy wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 7:39pm:

lee wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:33pm: freediver wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 5:27pm: People keep forgetting that the whole reason for this is to reduce GHG emissions, and there is a far cheaper way to do this - one that actually raises government revenue instead of costing it billions. A carbon tax. How does a carbon tax, of itself, reduce emissions? ::) Carbon tax benefits the rich, when the tax is used it makes the product more expensive thus pushing the poor out from using the resource and the rich still have access to the product. The only person who loses with carbon tax is the poor. Government benefit from the tax, rich still access the product and the poor miss out.

A carbon tax is one of a small number of taxes that the government wants you to avoid paying. The rich will no doubt pay it. The poor are more likely to find ways to avoid it. This is not a bad thing. Keep in mind, the "product" here is greenhouse gas emissions. Nobody actually needs them. Nobody in their right mind even wants them. You cannot eat or drink CO emissions. You cannot sleep on them or wrap yourself in them. You cannot even see them.

China is making a new coal fired power station every week.
We should have built a new coal station in every State and
ran them on high quality – low emission anthracite coal from Queensland.
We don’t really need nuclear power – we are energy rich in Australia.

Anyway – it’s all far away –
It would be 20 years before any nuclear stations are built –
they always take twice as long as they say and come in at double or triple the price.
Also – they need lots of cold water to cool them – where’s that in the Latrobe valley?

freediver wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 10:07pm:

lee wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:33pm: freediver wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 5:27pm: People keep forgetting that the whole reason for this is to reduce GHG emissions, and there is a far cheaper way to do this - one that actually raises government revenue instead of costing it billions. A carbon tax. How does a carbon tax, of itself, reduce emissions? ::) Because money talks, and BS walks. If you put a price on something was was previously free, people will use it less. There are literally millions of decisions we make that affect our GHG emissions. But without a price on those emissions, we often do not even know which is the less carbon intensive option. Quote: I don’t believe that is feasible in a election year regardless it’s merits. It won't happen until the majority support it. The coalition got away with one scare campaign on it, treating voters like morons. It worked, unfortunately. But maybe not the second time. Leroy wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:39pm: lee wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:33pm: freediver wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 5:27pm: People keep forgetting that the whole reason for this is to reduce GHG emissions, and there is a far cheaper way to do this - one that actually raises government revenue instead of costing it billions. A carbon tax. How does a carbon tax, of itself, reduce emissions? ::) Carbon tax benefits the rich, when the tax is used it makes the product more expensive thus pushing the poor out from using the resource and the rich still have access to the product. The only person who loses with carbon tax is the poor. Government benefit from the tax, rich still access the product and the poor miss out. A carbon tax is one of a small number of taxes that the government wants you to avoid paying. The rich will no doubt pay it. The poor are more likely to find ways to avoid it. This is not a bad thing. Keep in mind, the "product" here is greenhouse gas emissions. Nobody actually needs them. Nobody in their right mind even wants them. You cannot eat or drink CO emissions. You cannot sleep on them or wrap yourself in them. You cannot even see them.

My reference to the product is whatever is made using processes that create CO2.

lee wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 7:33pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 5:27pm: People keep forgetting that the whole reason for this is to reduce GHG emissions, and there is a far cheaper way to do this - one that actually raises government revenue instead of costing it billions. A carbon tax. How does a carbon tax, of itself, reduce emissions? ::)

It doesn’t. It just makes the cost of living crisis needlessly worse.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 10:10pm:

China is making a new coal fired power station every week. We should have built a new coal station in every State and ran them on high quality – low emission anthracite coal from Queensland. We don’t really need nuclear power – we are energy rich in Australia. Anyway – it’s all far away – It would be 20 years before any nuclear stations are built – they always take twice as long as they say and come in at double or triple the price. Also – they need lots of cold water to cool them – where’s that in the Latrobe valley?

The difference between coal and nuclear is that coal does produce harmful emissions. Nuclear doesn’t - it uses a nuclear reaction to create heat that generates steam. Once nuclear fuel is spent, the nuclear waste is stored. It does not produce emissions and Australia has huge reserves of uranium to draw upon.

Leroy wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 11:38pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 10:07pm: lee wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:33pm: freediver wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 5:27pm: People keep forgetting that the whole reason for this is to reduce GHG emissions, and there is a far cheaper way to do this - one that actually raises government revenue instead of costing it billions. A carbon tax. How does a carbon tax, of itself, reduce emissions? ::) Because money talks, and BS walks. If you put a price on something was was previously free, people will use it less. There are literally millions of decisions we make that affect our GHG emissions. But without a price on those emissions, we often do not even know which is the less carbon intensive option. Quote: I don’t believe that is feasible in a election year regardless it’s merits. It won't happen until the majority support it. The coalition got away with one scare campaign on it, treating voters like morons. It worked, unfortunately. But maybe not the second time. Leroy wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:39pm: lee wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:33pm: freediver wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 5:27pm: People keep forgetting that the whole reason for this is to reduce GHG emissions, and there is a far cheaper way to do this - one that actually raises government revenue instead of costing it billions. A carbon tax. How does a carbon tax, of itself, reduce emissions? ::) Carbon tax benefits the rich, when the tax is used it makes the product more expensive thus pushing the poor out from using the resource and the rich still have access to the product. The only person who loses with carbon tax is the poor. Government benefit from the tax, rich still access the product and the poor miss out. A carbon tax is one of a small number of taxes that the government wants you to avoid paying. The rich will no doubt pay it. The poor are more likely to find ways to avoid it. This is not a bad thing. Keep in mind, the "product" here is greenhouse gas emissions. Nobody actually needs them. Nobody in their right mind even wants them. You cannot eat or drink CO emissions. You cannot sleep on them or wrap yourself in them. You cannot even see them. My reference to the product is whatever is made using processes that create CO2.

Pretty much every product and service out there has a carbon footprint. How big that footprint is, you cannot know. The complexity of the relationship also means that there are some very cheap ways to significantly reduce GHG emissions, at very little cost or inconvenience. These options are lost to a government that wants to be seen to be taking "direct action", but will inevitably be found with a carbon tax.

People will not "lose access" to anything they actually want to buy, because no-one actually wants to buy carbon emissions.

They are far more likely to lose access because the government wastes billions subsidising nuclear, renewables etc and has to hike up some other tax to pay for it.

I get it, I got it the first time it was suggested.
It’s simply a carrot in front of a donkey.

I believe it would need a second term majority labor government and a leadership of steal to ever be put on the radar again.

Yes there would be increased cost to both customers and business.
That’s the whole point of it.
The market would weed out the heavy pollution generators as customers would simply vote with their wallets to do business with the cheaper business not generating as much pollution.

At the mention of a new tax everyone screams unfair.

However it’s you and I and our children , children looking at paying the trillions of dollars it’s going too cost for either new power grid that becomes developed.

The carbon tax was/ is the best solution, yes it had a scare campaign run successfully against it but it was so poorly presented it could never gain traction ( a little like Albo voice).

Quote:

I believe it would need a second term majority labor government and a leadership of steal to ever be put on the radar again.

I think they only ever did it because they needed the Greens to form a minority government. Since then the Greens have drifted away from environmental issues towards token idiot socialism. Some liberal Leaders have openly supported a carbon tax.

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:09am:

Quote: I believe it would need a second term majority labor government and a leadership of steal to ever be put on the radar again. I think they only ever did it because they needed the Greens to form a minority government. Since then the Greens have drifted away from environmental issues towards token idiot socialism. Some liberal Leaders have openly supported a carbon tax.

I agree....A carbon tax or ETS provides incentive for the free market to reduce emissions at the lowest cost....It could actually make Nuclear more economically feasible and help fund Nuclear through the private sector....Which was why the ETS was introduced and then rejected by Tony Abbott to support fossil fuel!!!

::) ::) ::)

freediver wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 10:07pm:

Because money talks, and BS walks. If you put a price on something was was previously free, people will use it less.

How do homeowners use less electricity? Any "carbon tax" adds to costs which will be added to bills. Adding an EV? Removing Gas Stoves will reduce electricity? ::)


freediver wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 10:07pm:

But without a price on those emissions, we often do not even know which is the less carbon intensive option.

So the underlying assumption is bogus unlessyour nirvana is true. ::)


freediver wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 10:07pm:

A carbon tax is one of a small number of taxes that the government wants you to avoid paying. The rich will no doubt pay it. The poor are more likely to find ways to avoid it.

How will the poor more likely to find ways to avoid it? Creative accountants? ::)


freediver wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 10:07pm:

Keep in mind, the "product" here is greenhouse gas emissions. Nobody actually needs them.

So you disagree with the notion of CO2 greening the earth? You denier you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You know more CO2 smaller plant stomata, reduced water uptake? ::)


freediver wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 10:07pm:

You cannot sleep on them or wrap yourself in them. You cannot even see them.

And yet they allow life on  earth. Without Either H2O or CO2 the planet would be a lot cooler. ::)

Quote:

How do homeowners use less electricity?

There are plenty of ways Lee. Do you actually want me to answer your stupid questions for you, or are they rhetorical?

Remember, you cannot eat electricity either. Or sleep on it. Even though it is the simplest and most direct link you can think of between what people want and GHG emissions, there are still several opaque layers between what people actually want and the emissions. For most of what people want, there are many more complex and opaque layers, all of which offer opportunities for individuals, but not governments, to make decisions that reduce GHG emissions. That is why a carbon tax is such a powerful and cheap way to reduce emissions, and why it is universally endorsed as such by economists.

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:25pm:

There are plenty of ways Lee.

Not using air conditioning in what is said to be a climate existential threat? The Government mandating no gas stoves? No wood stoves? To invest their money in batteries to run electric stoves? To charge EV's? To then plug those EV's back into the grid? You have heard of "losses"?


freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:25pm:

Do you actually want me to answer your stupid questions for you, or are they rhetorical?

Please. I have LED lights, They have required more replacements than the fluoro's. I have gas hot water (bugger). Tell us how MUCH we can save. ::)


freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:25pm:

That is why a carbon tax is such a powerful and cheap way to reduce emissions, and why it is universally endorsed as such by economists.

Oh economists. Those well paid boffins who aren't on the poor list. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

The Government mandating no gas stoves?

You are very confused Lee. How did you get from a carbon tax to this?

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:35pm:

Quote: The Government mandating no gas stoves? You are very confused Lee. How did you get from a carbon tax to this?

Because the Government wants to outlaw fossil fuels. They even backtracked when they saw there was a need for gas. However, that decision may not last. The greens are very angry. Did you not know that?

"Secured $1.7 billion in total funding to help homes and businesses get off gas."

"Made it harder for new gas projects to proceed by adding billions in extra costs, helping derail the giant climate-bomb Beetaloo and Barossa gas projects."

"Secured changes to the law so that the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund cannot fund new coal and gas projects."

https://greens.org.au/climate

Quote:

Because the Government wants to outlaw fossil fuels.

So you were only pretending to discuss the merits of a carbon tax vs subsidising nuclear and renewables?

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:25pm:

Quote: How do homeowners use less electricity? There are plenty of ways Lee. Do you actually want me to answer your stupid questions for you, or are they rhetorical? Remember, you cannot eat electricity either. Or sleep on it. Even though it is the simplest and most direct link you can think of between what people want and GHG emissions, there are still several opaque layers between what people actually want and the emissions. For most of what people want, there are many more complex and opaque layers, all of which offer opportunities for individuals, but not governments, to make decisions that reduce GHG emissions. That is why a carbon tax is such a powerful and cheap way to reduce emissions, and why it is universally endorsed as such by economists.

100 years ago
Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country - Lenin.

Now
Can't eat electricity, nor sleep on it.



Is the world becoming brighter or dimmer?

Look, lets just be honest.   In order to have nuclear energy, we need to change the federal law first.  In order for the coalition to do this, it needs to comprehensively win 2 elections in a row, over 8 years, in order to gain a majority in both the upper and the lower house.   

AND

At the same time, ALL the state government need to replicate the same. 

I do not think this had never happened in Australia before.

In addition.

We dont have the talents to run those nulcear power plants.   Running an experimental nuclear plant for medical use is vastly different when running one for power.  We would have to import talents - and thats not even just nuclear scientists, but also architects, engineers, and even specialized brick layers!   You dont really think your plumber neighbour next door can do the plumbing to drain dirty water do you? 

Case study:

The Hinkley C reactor, was projected to be 15 billion pounds in 2015, with expected completion in 2025 (just around 10 years).  And that is in a country already has laws for nulcear reactor,  and talents for building and running a nuclear reactor.  It is now scheduled to complete in 2025 (over 20 years), and expected to cost 47.9 billion pounds - which is around 90 billion Australian dollars.   

SO, in which fantasy / parallel universe, do you believe that Dutton can build 7 nuclear reactors for 300 billion dollars before 2040? 

tickleandrose wrote on Dec 15^th, 2024 at 2:40pm:

Look, lets just be honest.   In order to have nuclear energy, we need to change the federal law first.  In order for the coalition to do this, it needs to comprehensively win 2 elections in a row, over 8 years, in order to gain a majority in both the upper and the lower house.    AND At the same time, ALL the state government need to replicate the same.  I do not think this had never happened in Australia before. In addition. We dont have the talents to run those nulcear power plants.   Running an experimental nuclear plant for medical use is vastly different when running one for power.  We would have to import talents - and thats not even just nuclear scientists, but also architects, engineers, and even specialized brick layers!   You dont really think your plumber neighbour next door can do the plumbing to drain dirty water do you?  Case study: The Hinkley C reactor, was projected to be 15 billion pounds in 2015, with expected completion in 2025 (just around 10 years).  And that is in a country already has laws for nulcear reactor,  and talents for building and running a nuclear reactor.  It is now scheduled to complete in 2025 (over 20 years), and expected to cost 47.9 billion pounds - which is around 90 billion Australian dollars.    SO, in which fantasy / parallel universe, do you believe that Dutton can build 7 nuclear reactors for 300 billion dollars before 2040?

Utterly ridiculous argument. Countries like Armenia, Mexico, Pakistan, South Africa, even Bangladesh, have nuclear power  either operating or in development.  If they can do it we certainly can.  ::)

freediver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2024 at 9:47am:

So you were only pretending to discuss the merits of a carbon tax vs subsidising nuclear and renewables?

You were the one commenting on a carbon tax. And have failed to prove it cheaper for the poor. You were the one suggesting the poor may have better access to cheap electricity. How is that without subsidies which can only increase prices? ::)

tickleandrose wrote on Dec 15^th, 2024 at 2:40pm:

Look, lets just be honest.   In order to have nuclear energy, we need to change the federal law first.  In order for the coalition to do this, it needs to comprehensively win 2 elections in a row, over 8 years, in order to gain a majority in both the upper and the lower house.    AND At the same time, ALL the state government need to replicate the same.  I do not think this had never happened in Australia before. In addition. We dont have the talents to run those nulcear power plants.   Running an experimental nuclear plant for medical use is vastly different when running one for power.  We would have to import talents - and thats not even just nuclear scientists, but also architects, engineers, and even specialized brick layers!   You dont really think your plumber neighbour next door can do the plumbing to drain dirty water do you?  Case study: The Hinkley C reactor, was projected to be 15 billion pounds in 2015, with expected completion in 2025 (just around 10 years).  And that is in a country already has laws for nulcear reactor,  and talents for building and running a nuclear reactor.  It is now scheduled to complete in 2025 (over 20 years), and expected to cost 47.9 billion pounds - which is around 90 billion Australian dollars.    SO, in which fantasy / parallel universe, do you believe that Dutton can build 7 nuclear reactors for 300 billion dollars before 2040?

This is a ridiculous argument. Australia has never operated nuclear submarines, yet we now have sailors and officers operating onboard US nuclear submarines after attending US Navy nuclear submarine schools. By your logic, Australia is incapable of operating such submarines, but I think the officers and sailors from the RAN training onboard US Virginia class submarines would disagree. What we don't know, we can learn from the US and UK. To say that we can't do it because we never have is an absurdly ridiculous argument bordering on the nonsensical.

lee wrote on Dec 15^th, 2024 at 6:19pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 15th, 2024 at 9:47am: So you were only pretending to discuss the merits of a carbon tax vs subsidising nuclear and renewables? You were the one commenting on a carbon tax.

We were discussing it. Both of us. This is what you posted:


lee wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:32pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:25pm: lee wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 8:22pm: freediver wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 10:07pm: lee wrote on Dec 13th, 2024 at 7:33pm: How does a carbon tax, of itself, reduce emissions? ::) Because money talks, and BS walks. If you put a price on something was was previously free, people will use it less. How do homeowners use less electricity? There are plenty of ways Lee. Not using air conditioning in what is said to be a climate existential threat? The Government mandating no gas stoves? No wood stoves?

Now I am never quite sure whether your questions are rhetorical or merely incredibly stupid. I even ask you, though I never get a clear answer. Is the problem that you are always talking about something else, but you never think to tell anyone else?

Now, do you actually need me to explain to you how people might use less electricity, or or more importantly, create fewer GHG emissions? Or do you think you can figure that out for yourself?

Quote:

Sweden Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Energy Ebba Busch stated today that "she's furious with Germany" for dismantling its nuclear power plants, causing a spike in energy prices in Sweden. Southern Sweden has record-high energy prices today due to having send electricity to Germany via undersea power cables today. Cold weather coupled with no wind has driven up the demand in Germany from other sources than wind. EU regulations force Sweden to send that electricity to Germany, driving up prices in southern Sweden today to be nearly 200 times higher than they are in northern Sweden. A 10-minute shower in southern Sweden costs around USD 5 during today's price spike. Ebba Busch added that Germany's decision to dismantle its nuclear power plants has also other detrimental effects for Europe: "I'm furious with the Germans. They have made a decision for their country, which they have the right to make; it's their right to decide. But it has had very serious consequences, also for the EU's competitiveness because we see that German competitiveness has dropped significantly." She said that Germany's actions have also reduced its ability to help Ukraine. - “After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, they still chose to dismantle their nuclear power plants... I respect that people can have different opinions about nuclear power plants, but we could have kept it. They are important because they are baseload power plants. Having access to such baseload power plants would have increased the transmission capacity from Germany to other electricity price areas in Europe, driving down prices for all of us" https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1867190438941061429 No wind how are those solar panels going in winter with fewer hours of sunlight?

---

I heard Bowen saying on TV the other day that Dutton's nuclear plan would cause grid overload during peak solar generation times (especially during summer) and force home owners to have their solar panels turned off to stop the grid overloading with nuclear power also providing power. He was shown by an expert just how stupid he really is when the expert point blank shot Bowen down by saying that nuclear power generation can be reduced at such times in order to ensure there is no grid overload (conversely, it can be increased to take up the slack when "renewables" aren't producing enough power). The same cannot be said for solar, as panels need to be turned off to avoid grid overload. Nuclear provides the grid with great flexibility, whereas solar does not as the sun does not always shine! In short, Bowen is a moron who I wouldn't trust to run a piss up in a bar.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 5:10am:

I heard Bowen saying on TV the other day that Dutton's nuclear plan would cause grid overload during peak solar generation times (especially during summer) and force home owners to have their solar panels turned off to stop the grid overloading with nuclear power also providing power. He was shown by an expert just how stupid he really is when the expert point blank shot Bowen down by saying that nuclear power generation can be reduced at such times in order to ensure there is no grid overload (conversely, it can be increased to take up the slack when "renewables" aren't producing enough power). The same cannot be said for solar, as panels need to be turned off to avoid grid overload. Nuclear provides the grid with great flexibility, whereas solar does not as the sun does not always shine! In short, Bowen is a moron who I wouldn't trust to run a piss up in a bar.

Well you aint no expert are you....Why not post the actual comments from this so called expert mate....Your opinion is not worth crap???

:-? :-? :-?


Quote:

Coalition’s nuclear plan to switch off solar for up to 3 million homes

https://smartenergy.org.au/coalitions-nuclear-plan-to-switch-off-solar-for-up-to-3-million-homes/#:~:text=New%20analysis%20from%20the%20Smart,panels%20in%20millions%20of%20households.


Quote:

Yes, nuclear power plants can be ramped up and down, but they are generally considered inflexible because of the potential safety issues and thermal stresses that can arise: Nuclear plants are often operated in baseload mode, which means they run at their maximum capacity whenever they are online. This is done to help meet base-load demand in a grid system and to recoup the large costs of construction. Nuclear plants can help manage variability in demand or renewable energy output, and can respond to market prices or system operator dispatch. However, ramping up and down the power output of a nuclear plant on a daily or weekly basis can compromise its efficiency

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-reactors#:~:text=Nuclear%20power%20plants%20are%20best,to%20most%20coal%2Dfired%20plants.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 5:10am:

I heard Bowen saying on TV the other day that Dutton's nuclear plan would cause grid overload during peak solar generation times (especially during summer) and force home owners to have their solar panels turned off to stop the grid overloading with nuclear power also providing power. He was shown by an expert just how stupid he really is when the expert point blank shot Bowen down by saying that nuclear power generation can be reduced at such times in order to ensure there is no grid overload (conversely, it can be increased to take up the slack when "renewables" aren't producing enough power). The same cannot be said for solar, as panels need to be turned off to avoid grid overload. Nuclear provides the grid with great flexibility, whereas solar does not as the sun does not always shine! In short, Bowen is a moron who I wouldn't trust to run a piss up in a bar.

Bowels is blinkered by ideology and will not let his judgement be clouded by common sense.

Now even the Australian Energy Market Operator has admitted our electricity transition will have to rely on gas for decades. On November 12, Uhlmann quoted Australian Energy Market Operator CEO Daniel Westerman saying “gas would be essential to ensure the reliability of the eastern grid to 2050 and beyond”.

Given likely gas shortages in Australia without a domestic gas reservation policy, Westerman admitted there may be times when there is too little gas during periods of low solar and wind output to keep gas-fired power stations running.

The politics of this have not yet hit home in Canberra: because of engineering difficulties, Australia may never reach a time when it does not need fossil fuel back-up of renewables.

Adi Paterson, former CEO of ANSTO (the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation), says there is too much politics in power system discussions and not enough engineering expertise.

“The Australian east coast power grid is the single biggest machine in the southern hemisphere. The grid is the precision timing signal for hundreds of industries across the country. This links not just to manufacturing but to things like landing aircraft safely and even to pumping sewage,” Dr Paterson says.

“People who use the grid to do precision manufacturing are starting to get the rattles. In fact, South Australia has lost 4000 precision manufacturing engineering jobs but no one will talk about it. Those jobs have gone to the west coast of the US.

“Data centres also depend on precision timing systems in the grid. All sorts of things are wobbling as the grid becomes less stable.”

This is an inevitable function of using inverters to introduce power from wind and solar into the synchronous grid stabilised by spinning turbines.

Dr Paterson believes neither AEMO nor the CSIRO understand the engineering challenges and are yet to consider weather events such as east coast blocking lows that could affect wind and sun for up to 10 days at a time.

He points to the latest GenCost report’s admission that the CSIRO had underestimated the life span of nuclear plants and their average operating capacity, but against all logic had found correcting both had no positive effect on the economics of nuclear.

Dr Paterson points out Gencost “does not actually measure the cost of power at the meter but the cost of generation to the fence. One of its fatal flaws is not measuring the cost of the big new grid needed to make renewables work.”

Interestingly, in considering the wider economic effects of renewables, France – 70 per cent-dependent on nuclear power – is not facing the same industrial downturn as Germany.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 8:34am:

Quote: Coalition’s nuclear plan to switch off solar for up to 3 million homes https://smartenergy.org.au/coalitions-nuclear-plan-to-switch-off-solar-for-up-to...

And?


philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 8:34am:

Quote: Yes, nuclear power plants can be ramped up and down, but they are generally considered inflexible because of the potential safety issues and thermal stresses that can arise: Nuclear plants are often operated in baseload mode, which means they run at their maximum capacity whenever they are online. This is done to help meet base-load demand in a grid system and to recoup the large costs of construction. Nuclear plants can help manage variability in demand or renewable energy output, and can respond to market prices or system operator dispatch. However, ramping up and down the power output of a nuclear plant on a daily or weekly basis can compromise its efficiency https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-r... Posted by: Armchair_Politician  Mark & Quote Quote

Whereas ramping up and down renewables have no effect? How do you ramp down on undersupply? Oh, that's right renewables don't have efficiency at all. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Synergy are already offering incentives to enable your solar to be turned off. This is because renewables are causing disruptions to the grid. Nothing to do with nuclear.

As talk is billions and trillions I ask how much is the private companies that currently provide electricity at a inflated price due to politicians poor contract negotiations are paying towards this?
“There “ core business.

It’s a private enterprise, why is the taxpayer funding this?

Daves2017 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 1:24pm:

As talk is billions and trillions I ask how much is the private companies that currently provide electricity at a inflated price due to politicians poor contract negotiations are paying towards this? “There “ core business. It’s a private enterprise, why is the taxpayer funding this?

Companies that are large users of power do have contracts where they can be isolated from the grid when they agree to have their power turned off when the grid is under stress. They get cheap power on the condition that they can be turned off when the load on the grid is to much.

Daves2017 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 1:24pm:

As talk is billions and trillions I ask how much is the private companies that currently provide electricity at a inflated price due to politicians poor contract negotiations are paying towards this? “There “ core business. It’s a private enterprise, why is the taxpayer funding this?

You seem to think that politicians act without advice.  I wonder why?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Have a read of this and be better informed. Many of you will be no smarter, but still, you will be better informed:

Sweden’s Energy Minister took to social media last Thursday to voice her displeasure with the Germans. German demand for Scandinavian electricity had sent power prices through the roof.

“It is a result of decommissioned nuclear power,” Ebba Busch wrote on X.

“When it’s not windy, we get high electricity prices with this failed electricity system.”

In Norway last week the ruling centre-left Labour Party pledged to cut the interconnector with the EU grid after Germany’s latest wind drought sent Norwegian power prices to record highs. Norway’s Energy Minister Terje Aasland summed it up thus: “It’s an absolutely poo situation.”

The nuclear power debate runs on different lines in Europe and North America. A country can invest in its own reactors or scrounge nuclear power from its neighbours. The only exception to the rule is Norway, which invested heavily in hydro generation until the green­ies put a stop to it in the mid-1980s.

The case for nuclear generation in flat and dry Australia is compelling. The case against it is embarrassingly weak, as we discovered last Friday when Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen set out to discredit Frontier Economics modelling and failed.

Accusing Frontier of pushing “dodgy figures” and labelling Peter Dutton’s endorsement of its findings as “a Christmas con job” provided copy for plodding journalists. Yet Bowen could not refute the report’s most damaging finding: the cost of decarbonising the grid under his policy.

Frontier’s headline figure of $594bn is a conservative underestimate. It does not include the cost of cleaning up the grids in Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

Costs incurred directly by the consumer to install solar panels and batteries are excluded. So is the price of trading in gas appliances for electrical appliances.

Frontier does not attempt to model externalities such as the loss of amenity in regional Australia caused by wind and solar generators and augmented transmission networks. Frontier says if these were included, the total cost of the transition in the energy sector would be well more than $1 trillion.

Bowen was wise to avoid getting trapped into a messy argument about Frontier’s claim that the new transmission lines needed to accommodate variable renewable energy would cost $66bn.

Wise because the Australian Energy Market Operator’s transmission cost estimates are all over the place.

In 2020, AEMO said transmission lines to support the New England Renewable Energy Zone would cost $1.5bn. In the 2024 Integrated System Plan, AEMO has upped that figure to $3.7bn.

The Queensland SuperGrid was supposed to cost $500m. Now they’re telling us it’s $3.3bn. The HumeLink was supposed to set us back $2.4bn. AEMO’s latest guesstimate is $4.9bn.

The integrity of Frontier’s report is hard to question. It has a solid record in climate and energy research stretching back 25 years. It can hardly be accused of skewing its findings to satisfy its client since the research was conducted at the company’s expense.

For its trouble, Frontier can kiss goodbye to any government contracts so long as Labor is in power. It can expect to be shunned by the cashed-up renewable sector.

Frontier’s Danny Price could not have been blind to the reputational risk. He would’ve known that the time-poor, economically illiterate press corp would not read the report before jumping on its imagined failings.

Frontier’s motives appear genuinely publicly spirited under the circumstances.

“We have decided to do the work because of the large amount of ill-informed and misleading cost comparisons being publicly made about nuclear power,” Frontier explains in the introduction to its first report.

“We feel Australia deserves better quality analysis and commentary on this important issue.”

If Bowen were sure of his ground, he would test the report’s findings by asking AEMO to replicate its work. AEMO describes its ISP reports as “least-cost modelling”, implying they point the way to the least expensive method of meeting consumer demand for electricity. In practice, however, it self-censors its work to conform with the government’s emissions target and insistence on the use of renewables. By adding nuclear to the mix, Frontier has merely done what AEMO should have done in the first place.

AEMO’s road map is based on shaky assumptions that Frontier has been fearless in challenging.

Chief among these is the prediction that electricity demand will almost double in the next 26 years from 180,000 gigawatt hours to 340,000GWh, the so-called step change scenario. AEMO and its processor NEMMCO have a woeful record of forecasting demand.

Frontier says the step change demand forecast is so far from the historic trend that it looks incredible. It assumes that 98 per cent of new vehicles by 2050 will be fully electric and that green hydrogen technology will mature.

Frontier’s assumption that the nuclear option is $260bn cheaper than the government’s current policy is based on a more modest expectation of a rise in demand to 250,000GWh by 2050.

It also assumes the increasing power demand from AI computing largely will be met behind the meter. Data storage and processing centres will generate their own electricity to reduce outage risk. Should demand exceed expectations, nuclear technology is relatively easy to scale up.

Continued:

Additional reactors can be added in sequence on the large tracts of land vacated by retiring coal-fired generators.

Scaling up renewable energy is a nightmare proposition. The scarcity of suitable land, the fragility of supply chains, the challenge of gaining community consent and the demand for yet more transmission will only increase.

Global interest in nuclear is gaining momentum. At COP29 in Azerbaijan, six more countries joined the pledge to triple the world’s nuclear energy capacity by 2050, bringing the number of nations on board with the agreement to 31. Microsoft is reopening a mothballed reactor at Three Mile Island. Some of the world’s largest banks, including Bank of America, Barclays and BNP Paribas have agreed to bankroll nuclear.

Six new reactors have gone online this year, three of them in China, where the average build time is five years. Another 65 are under construction.

Meanwhile, Australia muddles along, legally shackled to a 34 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 that it cannot possibly meet under a Luddite government fighting a rearguard action against nuclear energy that defies rational explanation.

Nick Cater
The Australian
16 Dec.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 2:27pm:

Continued: Additional reactors can be added in sequence on the large tracts of land vacated by retiring coal-fired generators. Scaling up renewable energy is a nightmare proposition. The scarcity of suitable land, the fragility of supply chains, the challenge of gaining community consent and the demand for yet more transmission will only increase. Global interest in nuclear is gaining momentum. At COP29 in Azerbaijan, six more countries joined the pledge to triple the world’s nuclear energy capacity by 2050, bringing the number of nations on board with the agreement to 31. Microsoft is reopening a mothballed reactor at Three Mile Island. Some of the world’s largest banks, including Bank of America, Barclays and BNP Paribas have agreed to bankroll nuclear. Six new reactors have gone online this year, three of them in China, where the average build time is five years. Another 65 are under construction. Meanwhile, Australia muddles along, legally shackled to a 34 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 that it cannot possibly meet under a Luddite government fighting a rearguard action against nuclear energy that defies rational explanation. Nick Cater The Australian 16 Dec.

The headline to that article

Bowen’s response to nuclear plan proves his irrational mind

And the cartoon that goes with it says Bowen would not let his judgement be clouded by common sense.

On average, a residential electricity bill comprises:

wholesale electricity costs make up 34%
retail costs and profit margins make up 16%
network costs make up 43%
environmental costs make up 6%.


Another estimate, pretty similar:
https://www.solarrun.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/graph-1-1.png
https://www.solarrun.com.au/electricity-cost-comparison/

Note: solar and wind requires a new, extensive set of network of poles and wires. Gas, coal, nuclear do not.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 2:12pm:

You seem to think that politicians act without advice.  I wonder why?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

No one questions that politicians act on advice, what is of most concern is what that advice is for, is it to run the grid to its potential and most efficiently. Or is that advice on the best decisions to protect that politicians voting block.

Leroy wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 2:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 2:12pm: You seem to think that politicians act without advice.  I wonder why?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) No one questions that politicians act on advice, what is of most concern is what that advice is for, is it to run the grid to its potential and most efficiently. Or is that advice on the best decisions to protect that politicians voting block.

I note you didn't include the possibility that the advice might be for the best service possible.  I wonder why?  Australia has always been a dog's dinner in the area of electricity generation and distribution.  It's growth has been largely unfetted and has been more about demand from users than industry or more industry rather than users.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 15^th, 2024 at 9:14pm:

tickleandrose wrote on Dec 15th, 2024 at 2:40pm: Look, lets just be honest.   In order to have nuclear energy, we need to change the federal law first.  In order for the coalition to do this, it needs to comprehensively win 2 elections in a row, over 8 years, in order to gain a majority in both the upper and the lower house.    AND At the same time, ALL the state government need to replicate the same.  I do not think this had never happened in Australia before. In addition. We dont have the talents to run those nulcear power plants.   Running an experimental nuclear plant for medical use is vastly different when running one for power.  We would have to import talents - and thats not even just nuclear scientists, but also architects, engineers, and even specialized brick layers!   You dont really think your plumber neighbour next door can do the plumbing to drain dirty water do you?  Case study: The Hinkley C reactor, was projected to be 15 billion pounds in 2015, with expected completion in 2025 (just around 10 years).  And that is in a country already has laws for nulcear reactor,  and talents for building and running a nuclear reactor.  It is now scheduled to complete in 2025 (over 20 years), and expected to cost 47.9 billion pounds - which is around 90 billion Australian dollars.    SO, in which fantasy / parallel universe, do you believe that Dutton can build 7 nuclear reactors for 300 billion dollars before 2040?  This is a ridiculous argument. Australia has never operated nuclear submarines, yet we now have sailors and officers operating onboard US nuclear submarines after attending US Navy nuclear submarine schools. By your logic, Australia is incapable of operating such submarines, but I think the officers and sailors from the RAN training onboard US Virginia class submarines would disagree. What we don't know, we can learn from the US and UK. To say that we can't do it because we never have is an absurdly ridiculous argument bordering on the nonsensical.

Well, lets take the subs for example.  First of all, we DONT have to build those subs.  They will be built by the USA, using US technology and talents.   EVEN, then the first sub is not expected until at least the late 2030, and early 2040s.   Plus, we are now, starting to train for those who can man and or train the next generation to man those subs.   And this process it self, will take 1 decade. 

And Dutton, wants to train or buy talents, change the laws, and get those nuclear power plant on line before 2050.   At the cost of less than 300 billion AUD.  All of this, is just a dream, designed to confuse us the public.   This will add at least another 1 trillion dollar debt to our economy. 

By 2050, nuclear as a power will be surpassed by something better.

Deciding who is right in nuclear debate depends on your assumptions :o

Inquiry into Nuclear Power Generation in Australia travels to Collie for public hearing ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 3:49pm:

Leroy wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 2:59pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 2:12pm: You seem to think that politicians act without advice.  I wonder why?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) No one questions that politicians act on advice, what is of most concern is what that advice is for, is it to run the grid to its potential and most efficiently. Or is that advice on the best decisions to protect that politicians voting block. I note you didn't include the possibility that the advice might be for the best service possible.  I wonder why?  Australia has always been a dog's dinner in the area of electricity generation and distribution.  It's growth has been largely unfetted and has been more about demand from users than industry or more industry rather than users.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

So with that history, what makes you think that the advice given now is the best?


Do you even understand the shite you post, from the beginning to the final, inevitable moronic tut tut and eye rolling?

Of course you don't.

You just reveal how unbelieavably stupid you are every time you venture beyond moronic yawning.

You are stupid. Yawn.

You are a Righ-wing Islamophobic/Xenophobic/Misogynist Troll, Soren.  A complete WOFTAM.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

If some cosmic power prevented you from saying

Tsk tsk  ::) ::)


You'd be dumbstruck. There in NEVER anything else to your utterances.


A completely automated f***wit.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 8:22pm:

You are a Righ-wing Islamophobic/Xenophobic/Misogynist Troll, Soren.  A complete WOFTAM.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Say "thank you" for the compliment, Frank.

Words of wisdom from the Swedish energy minister:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90N6tcTC92s

Belgarion wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 7:45am:

Words of wisdom from the Swedish energy minister: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90N6tcTC92s

Shhh, don't tell Bowen or Bandt. They'll have a fit!

Yet more rational argument the anti nuclear Luddites have no answer to:

https://www.tiktok.com/@realscottynorth/video/7449229976924130561

Angus Taylor's word salad blurs the truth about power bills under the Coalition's $331b nuclear plan ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 5:03pm:

Angus Taylor's word salad blurs the truth about power bills under the Coalition's $331b nuclear plan ::) ::)

Brett Worthington, eh?

Brett is a senior digital political correspondent with ABC News. He started his career in newspapers before joining the ABC as a rural reporter. Brett presented the South Australian Country Hour and was the ABC's Parliament House national rural reporter. His claims to fame are growing a backyard wheat crop as the western Victorian rural reporter and later baking scones with the CWA live on the radio.

Frank wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 5:27pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 5:03pm: Angus Taylor's word salad blurs the truth about power bills under the Coalition's $331b nuclear plan ::) ::) Brett Worthington, eh? Brett is a senior digital political correspondent with ABC News. He started his career in newspapers before joining the ABC as a rural reporter. Brett presented the South Australian Country Hour and was the ABC's Parliament House national rural reporter. His claims to fame are growing a backyard wheat crop as the western Victorian rural reporter and later baking scones with the CWA live on the radio.

Jealousy again, Soren?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Belgarion wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 9:01pm:

Yet more rational argument the anti nuclear Luddites have no answer to: https://www.tiktok.com/@realscottynorth/video/7449229976924130561

Yes, life span is a very significant issue.

The other is transmission costs. Wind and solar farms are not located at existing transmission lines. Nuclear reactors would be.
That is why transmission costs for solar and wind are significantly higher than for nuclear - the former needs new pylons and poles, the latter doesn't.
About 40% of the retail cost of electricity is transmission costs. (That is why it can be privatised: there's money in dem der poles...)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 5:33pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 5:27pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 5:03pm: Angus Taylor's word salad blurs the truth about power bills under the Coalition's $331b nuclear plan ::) ::) Brett Worthington, eh? Brett is a senior digital political correspondent with ABC News. He started his career in newspapers before joining the ABC as a rural reporter. Brett presented the South Australian Country Hour and was the ABC's Parliament House national rural reporter. His claims to fame are growing a backyard wheat crop as the western Victorian rural reporter and later baking scones with the CWA live on the radio. Jealousy again, Soren?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Once more, with feeling:


If some cosmic power prevented you from saying

Tsk tsk   ::) ::)


You'd be dumbstruck. There in NEVER anything else to your utterances. You'd just yawn, like the completely automated f***wit you in fact are.

Yawn or tsk, tsk  ::) ::) - that's your range. More educated than most here, but. Fuck.

Former CEO of ANSTO calls out Bowen's irresponsible scare campaign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fojOugxH0Cg

Modified to add the offending message. Utter bullsihit.  ::)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oJimnFhi3r8

Belgarion wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 6:49pm:

Former CEO of ANSTO calls out Bowen's irresponsible scare campaign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fojOugxH0Cg

Bowels is a middle aged gelded Greta.

His blinkered insistence is a hallmark lefty stance. And the media are like him. They should be putting the blowtorch to his belly, as the minister, not clap and nod like the ABC, Granuiad and the rest.

Of course I'm aware that fusion "is always two decades away" but when we're talking about a fifty year lifetime for new plants (starting operation ten or fifteen years from now) there is a very real prospect that fusion will obsolete fission plants.

There are also costs which pro-nuclear people like to pretend don't exist. Decommissioning, and waste storage.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 5:33pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 5:27pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 5:03pm: Angus Taylor's word salad blurs the truth about power bills under the Coalition's $331b nuclear plan ::) ::) Brett Worthington, eh? Brett is a senior digital political correspondent with ABC News. He started his career in newspapers before joining the ABC as a rural reporter. Brett presented the South Australian Country Hour and was the ABC's Parliament House national rural reporter. His claims to fame are growing a backyard wheat crop as the western Victorian rural reporter and later baking scones with the CWA live on the radio. Jealousy again, Soren?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Everyone with a brain stem knows the ABC is so left biased it's not funny.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 5:09am:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 5:33pm: Frank wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 5:27pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 5:03pm: Angus Taylor's word salad blurs the truth about power bills under the Coalition's $331b nuclear plan ::) ::) Brett Worthington, eh? Brett is a senior digital political correspondent with ABC News. He started his career in newspapers before joining the ABC as a rural reporter. Brett presented the South Australian Country Hour and was the ABC's Parliament House national rural reporter. His claims to fame are growing a backyard wheat crop as the western Victorian rural reporter and later baking scones with the CWA live on the radio. Jealousy again, Soren?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Everyone with a brain stem knows the ABC is so left biased it's not funny.

thats not a brain stem in your head, it's a broccoli stem

EVERY independent report has found that if anything, the ABC leans slightly to the right. And those were before ABbott put his stooges in charge

Must suck to get it so wrong all the time

100% correct. The output of the ABC, no matter the politics of the reporters etc, was slightly to the right.

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 6:03am:

EVERY independent report has found that if anything, the ABC leans slightly to the right. And those were before ABbott put his stooges in charge

And since? Heston, a modified tape? Defence reporting - right wing? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

For those that like the media bias fact check website -

https://i0.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/leftcenter09.png

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 12:17pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 6:03am: EVERY independent report has found that if anything, the ABC leans slightly to the right. And those were before ABbott put his stooges in charge And since? Heston, a modified tape? Defence reporting - right wing? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D For those that like the media bias fact check website - https://i0.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/leftcenter09.png

afraid to put up the actual reports ehhh dumbarse :D

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 12:38pm:

lee wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:17pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 6:03am: EVERY independent report has found that if anything, the ABC leans slightly to the right. And those were before ABbott put his stooges in charge And since? Heston, a modified tape? Defence reporting - right wing? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D For those that like the media bias fact check website - https://i0.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/leftcenter09.png afraid to put up the actual reports ehhh dumbarse :D

You mean you don't have access to them. Dummy. Just wombling as usual. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, what a WOFTAM.  We get you don't like the truth, Lee.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 2:02pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, what a WOFTAM.

At least you learned one thing in the Army, even if the epithet was aimed at you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 2:02pm:

We get you don't like the truth, Lee.

So far Guido has made a claim. He just hasn't backed it up. Perhaps you can do it for him? ;)

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 2:12pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 2:02pm: Oh, dearie, dearie, me, what a WOFTAM. At least you learned one thing in the Army, even if the epithet was aimed at you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 2:02pm: We get you don't like the truth, Lee. So far Guido has made a claim. He just hasn't backed it up. Perhaps you can do it for him? ;)

Unlike you, I don't edit my opponents posts, Lee.  I have addressed this numerous times in the past.  Critics like you always fail to produce any proof of what they are claiming.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

lee wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:32pm:

Oh economists. Those well paid boffins who aren't on the poor list. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Too funny to see you making this statement -  so you ridicule orthodox economists who want a carbon tax,  as well as heterodox economists who prefer government ownership of energy resources funded via  the national  treasury. 

Hmm...that leaves - er -  lee-onomics.  :o

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 2:40pm:

Too funny to see you making this statement -  so you ridicule orthodox economist who want a carbon tax,  as well as  heterodox ecomists who don't.....

You do understand economics is not science, don't you? "What if" statements have no place in science. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 2:40pm:

Hmm...that leaves - er -  lee-onomics.

No that leaves someone who can think for themselves, unlike you who reads the headlines and can't even quote properly. "Estimated deaths". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 2:45pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 2:40pm: Too funny to see you making this statement -  so you ridicule orthodox economist who want a carbon tax,  as well as  heterodox ecomists who don't..... You do understand economics is not science, don't you? "What if" statements have no place in science. ::)

Too funny, you pontificating on science, given your 'clean fossils' and 'climate hoax' theories.

Indeed economics is not a science,  but people who study economics - from heterodox to unorthodox - have considered the range of policies re mobilization and distribution of resoures.

Whereas 'lee-onomics' obviously consists of sticking your head in the ground  and ingoring - even denying -  the problems which economists are attempting to solve.



Quote:

No that leaves someone who can think for themselves, unlike you who reads the headlines and can't even quote properly. "Estimated deaths". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Too funny: unscientific fallacies are not "thinking for your self"; and "estimated deaths " are ---estimated deaths...

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 3:15pm:

Too funny, you pontificating on science, given your 'clean fossils' and 'climate hoax' theories.

So much for debate. You can't even point to where I have said it. You are just making schit up as usual. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 3:15pm:

Indeed economics is not a science,  but people who study economics - from heterodox to unorthodox - have considered the range of policies re mobilization and distribution of resoures.

And where have they got it right? Peak oil? No. Peak Coal - No. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 3:15pm:

Whereas 'lee-onomics' obviously consists of sticking your head in the ground  and ingoring - even denying -  the problems which economists are attempting to solve.

Oh, only attempting to solve. So they haven't done it in the decades they have been attempting, but you still believe. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 3:15pm:

Too funny: unscientific fallacies are not "thinking for your self"; and "estimated deaths " are ---estimated deaths...

You haven't pointed out any unscientific fallacies and estimate deaths are ... guess work. Something on which you rely. Poor dummy. ::)

You've all been suckered, as predicted.  The Opposition admits it's nuclear policy is bullshit.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Nationals senator says Coalition introduced nuclear as a political fix

ah, politicians. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Now tell us why renewables are NOT a political fix. ::)

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 1:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:38pm: lee wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:17pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 6:03am: EVERY independent report has found that if anything, the ABC leans slightly to the right. And those were before ABbott put his stooges in charge And since? Heston, a modified tape? Defence reporting - right wing? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D For those that like the media bias fact check website - https://i0.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/leftcenter09.png afraid to put up the actual reports ehhh dumbarse :D You mean you don't have access to them. Dummy. Just wombling as usual. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I've already told you what they said. And you know what I said was correct that's why you deflected to something else.

'Smoke and mirrors lee' is what you should be named. Zero substance, just deflection

John Smith is a moron.
Brian is a bore.
Peccary is a creep.
Monk is a drunk.
Mothra is their Mommy

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 4:31pm:

ah, politicians. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Now tell us why renewables are NOT a political fix. ::)

Renewables are the only sensible answer to the question of where we get our society's energy from, Lee.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 4:34pm:

I've already told you what they said.

Yes and you can't link it. BIG fail. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 4:53pm:

Renewables are the only sensible answer to the question of where we get our society's energy from, Lee.

So how do renewables make more renewables? It hasn't even be demonstrated, let alone a full operational plant. Given renewables only last half the time of coal etc, there must be someway, according to you. Or is there something else you haven't told us? ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 4:53pm:

Renewables are the only sensible answer to the question of where we get our society's energy from

If we had Hydro then maybe.

---

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 5:07pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 4:53pm: Renewables are the only sensible answer to the question of where we get our society's energy from, Lee. So how do renewables make more renewables? It hasn't even be demonstrated, let alone a full operational plant. Given renewables only last half the time of coal etc, there must be someway, according to you. Or is there something else you haven't told us? ::)

Is nuclear self-regenerating then, Lee? News to me (and I suspect even you).  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 5:45pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 4:53pm: Renewables are the only sensible answer to the question of where we get our society's energy from If we had Hydro then maybe.

We have Hydro, Baron.  Which is amazing, considering that we are the second driest continent on the planet.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 7:26pm:

We have Hydro, Baron.

That hasn't been designed well. The larger storage is at the top. And if you have a wind or solar drought for days, the hydro won't cut it, even when in gets finished. Something that was supposed to have happened already.  ::)


Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 7:26pm:

Which is amazing, considering that we are the second driest continent on the planet.

And then of course Tassie. But that is not in the drier climate part of the country. ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 7:24pm:

Is nuclear self-regenerating then, Lee?

No, but it has dispatchable energy, so that things can be made from it. You know things that require constant power, otherwise they clog up. Glass, Metals. ::)

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 7:55pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 7:24pm: Is nuclear self-regenerating then, Lee? No, but it has dispatchable energy, so that things can be made from it. You know things that require constant power, otherwise they clog up. Glass, Metals. ::)

Who says renewables cannot deliver constant power, Lee?  You are living in the last century.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 7:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 7:26pm: We have Hydro, Baron. That hasn't been designed well. The larger storage is at the top. And if you have a wind or solar drought for days, the hydro won't cut it, even when in gets finished. Something that was supposed to have happened already.  ::) Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 7:26pm: Which is amazing, considering that we are the second driest continent on the planet. And then of course Tassie. But that is not in the drier climate part of the country. ::)

Still denying reality, Lee?  We have Hydro, in Australia. Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Is it smart to build all your nuclear plants around extensive mining sites. Surrounded by a honeycomb of underground tunnels or a series of huge open cut excavations ?

This is literally the Spuds plan. He is adding unacceptable risk to the equation right up front as the basis of the plan, the starting point is flawed.

This is just asking for a future disaster.

Even if you support nuclear power you shouldn't translate that to supporting open stupidity.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 8:18pm:

lee wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 7:55pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 7:24pm: Is nuclear self-regenerating then, Lee? No, but it has dispatchable energy, so that things can be made from it. You know things that require constant power, otherwise they clog up. Glass, Metals. ::) Who says renewables cannot deliver constant power, Lee?

Everybody. Solar and wind are weather dependant - ie inconsistent.

Hydro - problematic on a drought prone continent with Greens in Parliament to block any damming of rivers.


Renewables - controlled by the gods
Fossil, nuclear - controlled by man.

Reading the comments here shows how the anti nuclear mob are becoming ever more desperate in their attempts to stop the inevitable. Their ignorance is palpable and their ridiculous arguments become more bizarre by the day.

Frank wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 8:42pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 8:18pm: lee wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 7:55pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 7:24pm: Is nuclear self-regenerating then, Lee? No, but it has dispatchable energy, so that things can be made from it. You know things that require constant power, otherwise they clog up. Glass, Metals. ::) Who says renewables cannot deliver constant power, Lee? Everybody. Solar and wind are weather dependant - ie inconsistent. Hydro - problematic on a drought prone continent with Greens in Parliament to block any damming of rivers. Renewables - controlled by the gods Fossil, nuclear - controlled by man.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, renewables are wide and far and controllable by man, Soren.  Fossil and nuclear power is controllable but wastes are not.  A factor overlooked by the pro-nuclear crowd.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

[media width=400]https://youtu.be/DY17Ep0iDa8[/media]

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 5:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 4:34pm: I've already told you what they said. Yes and you can't link it. BIG fail. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I don't need to link it. If it was incorrect, you would have linked it. Instead you deflected in your usual lame arse way :D

Lets look at when these 'renewables' were put to the test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqzT48LOPUg Big fail! This shows that 'renewables' will not be any sort of  replacement for coal and gas. The only alternative to these proven fuels is nuclear.

John Smith wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 9:18am:

don't need to link it. If it was incorrect, you would have linked it.

Yes you do. It was your claim. I can't find it. You? ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 11:48am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2024 at 9:18am: don't need to link it. If it was incorrect, you would have linked it. Yes you do. It was your claim. I can't find it. You? ;D ;D ;D ;D

you couldn't have looked very hard :D :D


Quote:

https://www.smh.com.au/business/study-finds-abc-bias-leans-towards-coalition-20090902-f8gm.html

It's common knowledge .. this topic has been done to death countless times on this forum and each and every time you anti abc nuts get your arses handed to you

John Smith wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 11:56am:

Quote: https://www.smh.com.au/business/study-finds-abc-bias-leans-towards-coalition-20090902-f8gm.html

You do realise that is a report of a report. Not the report. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

From your reference -

"Economists Joshua Gans and Andrew Leigh made the finding in a research paper, How Partisan is the Press?, that also said that on another measure of bias The Age slants towards Labor."

Wow economists now do bias. And they have different measures. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And 2009? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Also -

"Overall, we find that the Australian media are quite centrist, with very few outlets being statistically distinguishable from the middle of Australian politics."

Here is the 2009 paper -

https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/items/4a79702f-fb4e-4caf-a918-9abd0ba36ee3/request-a-copy?bitstream=e89653db-84fb-4228-b5f6-c1f1afa7d513

" On this metric, the only media outlet that is significantly slanted is ABC Channel 2 television news, which is significantly pro-Coalition during the period in question."

Wow. One period of time, an election year, and coverage of 107 "intellectuals". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


John Smith wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 11:56am:

this topic has been done to death countless times on this forum and each and every time you anti abc nuts get your arses handed to you

If the latest you can find is 2009 maybe your research skills aren't up to scratch.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 7:26pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 5:45pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 4:53pm: Renewables are the only sensible answer to the question of where we get our society's energy from If we had Hydro then maybe. We have Hydro, Baron.  Which is amazing, considering that we are the second driest continent on the planet.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Real hydro Bwhine not that pumped hydro BS that consumes more power than it produces.

How is Snowy Hydro 2 (pumped hydro) going? Over $12 billion and counting not predicted to work for another few years when it should have been operational years ago

Hydro is the cheapest and most reliable of renewables you can turn it on and off like a tap.

Why do all those pushing renewables never mention the cheapest form?  ::)

A friend has a hunting cabin bottom of a valley so no wind shaded most of the day so solar isn't really viable.
Has a creek running through it small turbine gets around 250W 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 3:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 7:26pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 5:45pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 4:53pm: Renewables are the only sensible answer to the question of where we get our society's energy from If we had Hydro then maybe. We have Hydro, Baron.  Which is amazing, considering that we are the second driest continent on the planet.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Real hydro Bwhine not that pumped hydro BS that consumes more power than it produces.

Gee, amazing how you overlook Snowy Hydro 1 and Tasmania, Baron.  What is wrong, isn't it sexy enough for you?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 4:16pm:

Gee, amazing how you overlook Snowy Hydro 1 and Tasmania, Baron.

So tell us what happens when there is too much irrigation from Snowy 1? ::)

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 4:37pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 21st, 2024 at 4:16pm: Gee, amazing how you overlook Snowy Hydro 1 and Tasmania, Baron.  So tell us what happens when there is too much irrigation from Snowy 1? ::)

It is your story, Lee, you tell us what happens...  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 6:22pm:

It is your story, Lee, you tell us what happens.

So you have no common sense. Who knew? Snowy 1 supplies irrigation and power. Too much irrigation the power available drops. ::)

It seems in the recent past there has been too much and too little for generation. And that is beyond the environmental degradation of the Snowy river.

https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/file/6720b7ac-a3dc-4ad1-95ec-4d1f74c0ae57/1/PDF%20%28Published%20version%29.pdf

I have not heard of the Snowy environment being "fixed". ;)

Australia will face pressure from the UK to set an ambitious goal after Keir Starmer’s Labour government committed to cut emissions by 81 per cent by 2035. *

Australia’s 2030 climate target, to cut emissions from 2005 levels by 43 per cent by 2030, is viewed as a relatively modest aim as it does not comply with the objective of the Paris Agreement for nations to commit to action consistent with limiting global warming to under 2 degrees.

Australia’s Climate Change Authority is currently considering responses to a draft target it issued in April to reduce emissions by 65 to 75 per cent by 2035.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/australia-to-delay-2035-climate-target-as-trump-disrupts-global-action-20241220-p5kzy8.html


* In the UK Nuclear power is a significant percentage of the yearly electricity source.
They are building more Nuclear plants.

https://i.imgur.com/oO23e4j.jpg

https://grid.iamkate.com/

Does anyone know how that works, if a British owned company with manufacturing plants overseas but profits go to  Britain, are their emissions counted as British or the country where the manufacturing is done.

Communities vent frustration at Coalition's nuclear plan for their towns :o

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 11:50am:

Communities vent frustration at Coalition's nuclear plan for their towns :o

Yeah and renewables. Who knew? ::)

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 3:30pm:

So much for debate. You can't even point to where I have said it. You are just making schit up as usual. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

Now you are actually denying your claim that AGW-CO2 is a "hoax" , and that  fossil pollution is not injurious to health.

You are the ultimate fraud. 


Quote:

And where have they got it right? Peak oil? No. Peak Coal - No. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Dummy, you said economics is not a science, I agree; as to peak oil,  it depends on discoveries of new oil and whether we leave it in the ground or not.
Your lack of logic is egregious; estimates of peak oil are also related to political decisions re transitioning from oil. 


Quote:

Oh, only attempting to solve. So they haven't done it in the decades they have been attempting, but you still believe. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

"believe"....what? That economies function spontaneously without design by economists? 

Dummy, economists study resource mobilization and distribution; obviously politics is a factor.

[I promote a major role for government plannng in the economy, because there is no shortage of resources which woud actually enforce poverty, ie. poverty is a political  choice benefitting the wealthy.

"Markets are good servants, but a poor master, and  a worse religion": Amory Lovins]

But obsolete orthodox economists insist a carbon tax will  most efficiently engender the transition to a green economy - despite making electricity even more unaffordable for the poor.


Quote:

You haven't pointed out any unscientific fallacies

 

Too funny; a range of AGW-CO2 projections  arrived at by scientific consensus isn't unscientific, even if not absolute  like scientific laws of physics;  and correlations between fossil use and harm to health ARE based on scientific observation. 


Quote:

... and estimate deaths are ... guess work. Something on which you rely. Poor dummy. ::)

Not guess work;  you ran away from the studies which have shown a positive correlation between poverty and youth crime, BECAUSE you can't grasp the meaning of projections and estimates based on proven correlations.

eg, estimates of savings to the community if poverty and associated youth crime are reduced by effective intervention.

Or - closer to the topic of this thread - estimates of the  quantity of  pumped hydro storage required, as we approach 100% renewables, estimates which will be firmed-up (pun?) as we approach 100% renewables...despite your low IQ assertion 100% renewables are impossible "because PVs wear out".

Excess storage of free solar and wind energy means the replacement PVs etc can be manufactured as required, using renewable energy.   

Nuclear may be required in some countries, but not in Oz......which is not to deny the last unit of elecricity to be added to the Oz grid might be cheaper via an always on  nuclear plant than by adding more excess renewables storage  (batteries/ puped hydro).

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 11:50am:

Communities vent frustration at Coalition's nuclear plan for their towns :o

..."sentiments about renewable projects are echoed by farmers in other parts of Australia including Therese Creed, who is a beef cattle producer from Queensland's Callide Valley.

"It's using up and consuming large tracts of agricultural land," Ms Creed said.

"In a country like Australia where we have so much uranium, we have the ability to be self-sufficient in power production rather than outsourcing our power to foreign companies.

"I think it's clearly a choice that nuclear is going to be preferable [to] the move towards renewables if we're trying to reach net zero." ...

8-)

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 11:59am:

Now you are actually denying your claim that AGW-CO2 is a "hoax" , and that  fossil pollution is not injurious to health.

And yet you can't show where I have said it. Of course that is easy to answer as I haven't. That makes you a liar and a fraud, but that's repetitious. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 11:59am:

Dummy, you said economics is not a science, I agree; as to peak oil,  it depends on discoveries of new oil and whether we leave it in the ground or not. Your lack of logic is egregious; estimates of peak oil are also related to political decisions re transitioning from oil.

You finally got something right. It is all about Political decisions first and foremost. One the political decisions have been made, it makes it clearer on the costs involved. But not the other way around. ::)

Like renewables and subsidies and their effects on cost of other energy products. Have you come up with that eponymous PM2.5 study by the EPA yet? ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 11:59am:

[I promote a major role for government plannng in the economy, because there is no shortage of resources which woud actually enforce poverty, ie. poverty is a political  choice benefitting the wealthy.

You promote? Oh the idiot serving the idiotcracy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 11:59am:

But obsolete orthodox economists insist a carbon tax will  most efficiently engender the transition to a green economy - despite making electricity even more unaffordable for the poor.

And yet you can't even show where the green e;ectricity is cheaper, why is that? ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 11:59am:

Too funny; a range of AGW-CO2 projections  arrived at by scientific consensus isn't unscientific, even if not absolute  like scientific laws of physics;

Ah the consensus. Now what are the physics behind the models, what are the assumptions behind the models, why is neccessary to take the mean of a number of climate models? Only one model can be right, if at all. All taking the mean of a number of wrong models does is to make the closest one an outlier. And if it is not physics it is not climate science. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 11:59am:

and correlations between fossil use and harm to health ARE based on scientific observation.

And yet you can't show that either. Estimates are guesses, so what is uncertainty range on thes guesses?  Is wood a fossil fuel? Is dung a fossil fuel? Try reading about their effects on health. ::)
thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 11:59am:

Not guess work;  you ran away from the studies which have shown a positive correlation between poverty and youth crime, BECAUSE you can't grasp the meaning of projections and estimates based on proven correlations.

And you don't know science - Correlation is NOT Causation. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 11:59am:

Or - closer to the topic of this thread - estimates of the  quantity of  pumped hydro storage required, as we approach 100% renewables, estimates which will be firmed-up (pun?) as we approach 100% renewables...despite your low IQ assertion 100% renewables are impossible "because PVs wear out".

So is your assertion that renewables don't wear out? Estimate of pumped hydro? Oh dear. Snowy 2 is running years late amid vast cost overruns, but you have a way to do it. Cheaper and faster? You still haven't shown renewable can be made from renewables. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 11:59am:

Excess storage of free solar and wind energy means the replacement PVs etc can be manufactured as required, using renewable energy.

Answered above. Reading between the headlines doesn't cut it. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 11:59am:

Nuclear may be required in some countries, but not in Oz......which is not to deny the last unit of elecricity to be added to the Oz grid might be cheaper via an always on  nuclear plant than by adding more excess renewables storage  (batteries/ puped hydro).

So why do renewables in the first place?

10 Suncables at $30 billion a pop? ;)

If renewables are so "cheap" ...

WHY has the default price of electricity has gone up by 25% in NSW, SA and South East Queensland between 2019 and 2024 and 27% in Victoria? *

* https://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/five-common-items-adding-hundreds-to-your-energy-bill-this-summer-season-revealed/news-story/359c6e6d9f764355f6c2b3c030cf11fe

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2024 at 12:45pm:

If renewables are so "cheap" ... WHY has the default price of electricity has gone up by 25% in NSW, SA and South East Queensland between 2019 and 2024 and 27% in Victoria? * * https://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/five-common-items-adding-hundreds-to-your-energy-bill-this-summer-season-revealed/news-story/359c6e6d9f764355f6c2b3c030cf11fe

Its only gone up 25% because of subsidies, if you were to take the real cost into consideration the rise would have been much more.

Renewables and nuclear are very expensive.

Reducing GHG emissions is cheap.

Madness:


Australia’s energy ministers are developing a plan to kickstart the first deliveries of huge liquefied gas shipments into Victoria and NSW, fearing they are out of time and other viable options to avert a domestic gas crisis.

Despite Australia’s position as a top global gas exporter, homes and businesses in the south-east are facing a shortage of the fuel by 2028 unless urgent measures are taken to offset rapidly depleting gas fields in the Bass Strait that have supplied the local market for decades.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/time-is-running-out-victoria-nsw-turn-to-gas-imports-as-energy-crisis-nears-20241219-p5kznj.html

Australia needs to cut the bullshit about coal.

How the eff are we going to cut back on emissions when we export 54% of the worlds exported coal.
We are not burning the coal but we are selling it so others can burn it.

Companies make billions selling our coal, government make millions in royalties and us poor taxpayers have to pay for expensive and unreliable solar and wind power.

Shafted I tell ya, we are all being shafted.

Quote:

How the eff are we going to cut back on emissions when we export 54% of the worlds exported coal.

That is not generally counted as our emissions.

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2024 at 3:30pm:

Reducing GHG emissions is cheap.

And bad for manufacturing, jobs and many other things. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 24^th, 2024 at 3:45pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2024 at 3:30pm: Reducing GHG emissions is cheap. And bad for manufacturing, jobs and many other things. ;)

No it isn't.

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2024 at 3:44pm:

Quote: How the eff are we going to cut back on emissions when we export 54% of the worlds exported coal. That is not generally counted as our emissions.

I know, stupid isn't it. If we want to be real about cutting emissions we would not sell 350million tonnes of coal for burning every year would we.

Quote:

I know, stupid isn't it. If we want to be real about cutting emissions we would not sell 350million tonnes of coal for burning every year would we.

We could be really tricky with this. We could put a GHG emissions tax on coal exports, and agree to waive that tax for any country that implements a carbon tax that is at least 50% of what ours is. We could do the same with jet fuel for international flights - charge a GHG emissions tax for the incoming and the outgoing flights, and agree to waive the tax for incoming flights from any country that does the same.

But in terms of emissions accounting, it makes more sense to attribute it to wherever the coal is burned.

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2024 at 3:53pm:

No it isn't.

Logic not your strong suit?

A carbon tax? Increases business costs, which go onto the bottom line, forcing up prices. Even if that carbon tax is somehow distributed to the taxpayers generally, it is a subsidy on their costs. It doesn't make the product cheaper, it merely masks the cost.

And then there is the cost of collection and distribution. Even the GST does not wholly get back to the states.

Or perhaps you have some unexplained reason for thinking that? ::)

Quote:

Even if that carbon tax is somehow distributed to the taxpayers generally, it is a subsidy on their costs.

Can you explain your logic here? If we substitute a tax on something we don't want taxed, like income, for a tax on something we do want taxed, like GHG emissions, why does it suddenly become a "subsidy on their costs"?

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2024 at 7:24pm:

If we substitute a tax on something we don't want taxed, like income, for a tax on something we do want taxed, like GHG emissions, why does it suddenly become a "subsidy on their costs"?

Because the taxpayers are paid so it artificially lowers their cost of electricity. If it artificially lowers a cost it is a subsidy.

But who said anything about WE do want a tax on GHG emissions? For whom exactly are you speaking? ;)

lee wrote on Dec 24^th, 2024 at 7:29pm:

Because the taxpayers are paid so it artificially lowers their cost of electricity. If it artificially lowers a cost it is a subsidy.

So not being taxed on your income is an artificial subsidy on electricity, even if GHG emissions are being taxed? And you accuse me of not having strong logic?

https://www.spectator.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/weisser-14-dec_post.jpg

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2024 at 8:38pm:

So not being taxed on your income is an artificial subsidy on electricity, even if GHG emissions are being taxed?

Who said anything about not being taxed on your income? This is a payment to the taxpayer by the government, and they don't treat it as taxable income to the taxpayer, otherwise they would have to pay PAYG.


freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2024 at 8:38pm:

And you accuse me of not having strong logic?

I accuse you of being obtuse, perhaps deliberately. ;)

Quote:

Who said anything about not being taxed on your income?

Is one post in a row the limit for you logic?


lee wrote on Dec 24^th, 2024 at 7:29pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2024 at 7:24pm: If we substitute a tax on something we don't want taxed, like income, for a tax on something we do want taxed, like GHG emissions, why does it suddenly become a "subsidy on their costs"? Because the taxpayers are paid so it artificially lowers their cost of electricity. If it artificially lowers a cost it is a subsidy.

Would you like to have another go at making sense?

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2024 at 6:46pm:

Is one post in a row the limit for you logic?

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2024 at 6:46pm:

Would you like to have another go at making sense?

So you don't understand government payments not being part of taxable income? Not like pensions. Who knew?  Think state government payments to reduce electricity and other costs, not a part of taxable income. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

We should not be subsidising electricity Lee.


Quote:

Even if that carbon tax is somehow distributed to the taxpayers generally, it is a subsidy on their costs.

Are you suggesting the government would tax electricity with a carbon tax and use the revenue generated from that tax to subsidise electricity?

Dutton’s nuclear policy will end up costing ten times what their political–based estimate said.

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2024 at 6:45am:

Are you suggesting the government would tax electricity with a carbon tax and use the revenue generated from that tax to subsidise electricity?

Are you suggesting that hasn't been done in the past, that it won't happen in the future? Look to history.

From UNSW -

"Carbon emissions would be taxed at $50 per ton, with the proceeds returned to ordinary Australians as carbon dividends.

The dividends would be significant — a tax-free payment of about $1300 per adult."

https://businessthink.unsw.edu.au/articles/A-carbon-tax-that-would-leave-households-better-off

Or from Ross Garnaut -

"Part of that increased revenue could support payments to power users to ensure there was no increase in power prices to users until expansion of renewable generation and storage had brought costs down – along the lines of the A$300 per household introduced in the 2024 budget, but larger."

https://theconversation.com/lets-tax-carbon-ross-garnaut-on-why-the-time-is-right-for-a-second-shot-at-carbon-pricing-241806

Now the thing is IF electricity costs are not brought down and they haven't anywhere in thw world that has some carbon pricing mechanism, then those payments must continue. ::)

We have nothing to fear from nuclear energy

Marco Visscher's The Power of Nuclear debunks the relentless green scaremongering.


https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/12/17/we-have-nothing-to-fear-from-nuclear-energy/

We do have something to fear from nuclear—huge costs, 10x what Dutton is spruiking.

I am not against some nuclear in the mix BUT cost is a HUGE obstacle. Waste can be managed—store it in the old Mt Painter, SA, uranium mine.

Need good sites: no major earthquakes so on craton* (ruling out the Eastern states apart from  Broken Hill etc) and plenty of water for cooling—so has to be the coast without some heroic redirection of water from northern Australia.


*Craton:

Quote:

A craton is a large, coherent domain of Earth's continental crust that has attained and maintained long-term stability, having undergone little internal deformation, except perhaps near its margins due to interaction with neighbouring terranes. What is a craton? How many are there? How do they relate ... Harvard University http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu › abs › abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUSM.T41C..01B/abstract#:~:text=A%20craton%20is%20a%20large,to%20interaction%20with%20neighbouring%20terranes.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 26^th, 2024 at 3:38pm:

We do have something to fear from nuclear—huge costs, 10x what Dutton is spruiking.

And Labor's "plan" is even more expensive. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 26^th, 2024 at 3:38pm:

Need good sites: no major earthquakes so on craton* (ruling out the Eastern states apart from  Broken Hill etc) and plenty of water for cooling—so has to be the coast without some heroic redirection of water from northern Australia.

Modern nuclear reactors don't need water cooling. ::)

"A gas-cooled reactor (GCR) is a nuclear reactor that uses graphite as a neutron moderator and a gas (carbon dioxide or helium in extant designs) as coolant."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-cooled_reactor

Can explode etc—from your link.

Water cooled be betterer.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 26^th, 2024 at 5:21pm:

Can explode etc—from your link.

There are two mentions of explosive mixes.

"Lower danger of hydrogen explosion as no water is present"

"Boudouard reaction between graphite moderator and CO2 coolant can produce explosive and poisonous carbon monoxide"

So one has a lower chance of explosion and the other "can" produce explosive and poisonous Carbon monoxide. NOT WILL. And of course the CO2 is contained, so poisonous CO is a non-issue, especially when they have controls in place. Or do you think there will be no controls? ::)

Frank wrote on Dec 26^th, 2024 at 1:12pm:

We have nothing to fear from nuclear energy Marco Visscher's The Power of Nuclear debunks the relentless green scaremongering. https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/12/17/we-have-nothing-to-fear-from-nuclear-energy/

The crucial point is this.

As Frontier Economics admits, under the opposition’s blueprint, “renewables continue to dominate the provision of electricity to consumers”, with wind and solar accounting for between 50 and 60 per cent of electricity generated in 2051 and nuclear between 38 and 29 per cent (depending on the demand scenario chosen).

Given that wind and solar currently account for 32 per cent of electricity output, their system-wide share will rise significantly under the Coalition’s plan. This is a recipe for still higher power prices. It means that subsidies for renewables must continue to rise, new transmission networks built, and expensive system back-ups must be put in place for the inevitable renewable droughts and gluts.

Make no mistake, this amounts to an escalating negative supply shock to the economy, lowering living standards and growth rates. We are already experiencing this.

As their policies currently stand, both Labor and the Coalition want this to be our energy future, with the latter’s nuclear twist making only a marginal difference. Both parties’ adherence to net zero means they must ditch low-cost coal, which currently provides 60 per cent of our power.

But this need not be our fate.

As I have argued in these pages before, Donald Trump’s election has effectively killed off the Paris climate agreement and net-zero agenda. As John Maynard Keynes would say, “the facts have changed”. Regardless of your view on climate change, it therefore makes no economic or environmental sense for Australia and other small economies to cling to net zero: it’s a pointless act of economic self-harm.

As Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out, there are better – less anti-growth – ways to deal with climate change. Our “road to Damascus” moment may still be some way off, but I dare say we are closer to it than our political elites realise.

David Pearl is a former Treasury assistant secretary.



If not nuclear for that 40ish % then build new coal or gas power stations on existing sites. Sorted.

lee wrote on Dec 26^th, 2024 at 5:34pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 26th, 2024 at 5:21pm: Can explode etc—from your link. There are two mentions of explosive mixes. "Lower danger of hydrogen explosion as no water is present" "Boudouard reaction between graphite moderator and CO2 coolant can produce explosive and poisonous carbon monoxide" So one has a lower chance of explosion and the other "can" produce explosive and poisonous Carbon monoxide. NOT WILL. And of course the CO2 is contained, so poisonous CO is a non-issue, especially when they have controls in place. Or do you think there will be no controls? ::)

So you agree they can explode. OK.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 26^th, 2024 at 3:38pm:

We do have something to fear from nuclear—huge costs, 10x what Dutton is spruiking.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gfw8UKuWwAAFs6M?.jpg

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 9:47am:

So you agree they can explode. OK.

Yes and so can hydrogen, petrol, gas... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 11:41am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 9:47am: So you agree they can explode. OK. Yes and so can hydrogen, petrol, gas... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

They used in a nuke powerplant?

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 11:42am:

They used in a nuke powerplant?

You didn't make specific. ;)

So tell us how this explosion would not be contained. Please.  ::)

lee wrote on Dec 26^th, 2024 at 12:00pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 26th, 2024 at 6:45am: Are you suggesting the government would tax electricity with a carbon tax and use the revenue generated from that tax to subsidise electricity? Are you suggesting that hasn't been done in the past

Obviously not Lee. I would say it if that was what I was saying.

Have you figured out what you are saying yet? Because no-one else has. For example, should we simply dismiss this as simply  more meaningless gibberish from you?


lee wrote on Dec 24^th, 2024 at 5:10pm:

Even if that carbon tax is somehow distributed to the taxpayers generally, it is a subsidy on their costs.

freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 2:48pm:

I would say it if that was what I was saying.

Nope. ;)


freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 2:48pm:

For example, should we simply dismiss this as simply  more meaningless gibberish from you? lee wrote on Dec 24th, 2024 at 3:10pm: Even if that carbon tax is somehow distributed to the taxpayers generally, it is a subsidy on their costs.

So you don't believe a payment to taxpayers to pay for increased cost-of-living is a subsidy on costs?

That Cost-of-living payments are a not subsidy on costs?

How do YOU figure that? Instead of making statements try answering questions, so we can see what you really mean. ;)

"The opposition will back the energy bill subsidy but oppose the tax breaks in the Future Made in Australia policy. "

https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-budget-fight-looms-on-future-made-in-australia-tax-breaks-230095

I have no idea what you are talking about Lee. That is why I am asking you to explain what you mean. Asking yet another incredibly stupid question does not clarify anything.


lee wrote on Dec 24^th, 2024 at 5:10pm:

Even if that carbon tax is somehow distributed to the taxpayers generally, it is a subsidy on their costs.

For example, should we simply dismiss this as more meaningless gibberish from you?

freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 3:15pm:

I have no idea what you are talking about Lee. That is why I am asking you to explain what you mean. Asking yet another incredibly stupid question does not clarify anything.

Ah, So you are incredibly stupid because you do not understand. Understood. Out. ;)

I cannot agree with the pool of dribble under your chin Lee. Nor can I disagree with it. It is just a pool of dribble under your chin. Demanding to know whether I agree or disagree before explaining what you mean just deepens the pool.


lee wrote on Dec 24^th, 2024 at 5:10pm:

Even if that carbon tax is somehow distributed to the taxpayers generally, it is a subsidy on their costs.

Poor dear doesn't understand self-evident truths. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Reducing income tax is not a subsidy Lee.

Do you see it as the government's job to keep the cost of living unaffordable?

lee wrote on Dec 26^th, 2024 at 5:07pm:

And Labor's "plan" is even more expensive. ;)

Libs spent years telling us that about the NBN ... then introduced a third world system that cost twice as much

thats all the libs are good for, scare mongering and screwing things up

freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 4:04pm:

Reducing income tax is not a subsidy Lee.

Who said reducing income tax? I said a payment to taxpayers, which is income tax exempt from the government. At least those cost-of-living payments so far have been. And you think that won't continue? ::)


freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 4:04pm:

Do you see it as the government's job to keep the cost of living unaffordable?

No, it is the duty of the government to make sure the supply of electricity is as cheap as possible, something that renewables have not done anywhere in  the world. ::)

John Smith wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 4:27pm:

Libs spent years telling us that about the NBN ... then introduced a third world system that cost twice as much

And Labor?

"NBN Co's new board conducted a strategic review that contentiously found Labor's plan would have taken three years longer to achieve than previously stated and $29 billion more than forecast.

https://www.afr.com/technology/it-took-11-years-for-government-to-admit-it-was-wrong-about-broadband-20200923-p55yc6


John Smith wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 4:27pm:

thats all the libs are good for, scare mongering and screwing things up

And Labor don't do that? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

Who said reducing income tax? I said a payment to taxpayers, which is income tax exempt from the government. At least those cost-of-living payments so far have been. And you think that won't continue?

I would have to know what you are talking about to answer your questions Lee. All I see is a pool of dribble under your chin, completely unrelated to the topic we are discussing.


lee wrote on Dec 24^th, 2024 at 5:10pm:

Even if that carbon tax is somehow distributed to the taxpayers generally, it is a subsidy on their costs.

The easiest way to distribute it to taxpayers generally is to reduce income tax Lee. Not sure how you manage to turn that into some kind of subsidy. Do you have a problem with tax cuts, or are you just dribbling?

freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 5:50pm:

The easiest way to distribute it to taxpayers generally is to reduce income tax Lee.

And yet that is something they haven't done with the cost-of-living payments. Perhaps you can explain why not? ;)


freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 5:50pm:

Not sure how you manage to turn that into some kind of subsidy.

You are the one calling them tax cuts, not me. ::)

Fight Fight Fight!!!😆

Quote:

And yet that is something they haven't done with the cost-of-living payments. Perhaps you can explain why not?

Because they are two different things Lee. Do I need to explain everything the government has ever done to get you to stop dribbling? Do I need to explain why building roads is not a tax cut?


Quote:

You are the one calling them tax cuts

I am calling tax cuts tax cuts Lee. What are you calling them? And why do you think income tax cuts are such a bad thing that you try to twist them into a subsidy?


lee wrote on Dec 24^th, 2024 at 5:10pm:

Even if that carbon tax is somehow distributed to the taxpayers generally, it is a subsidy on their costs.

The easiest way to distribute it to taxpayers generally is to reduce income tax Lee. Not sure how you manage to turn that into some kind of subsidy. Do you have a problem with tax cuts, or are you just dribbling? And what do you think is being subsidised?

freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 7:15pm:

Quote: And yet that is something they haven't done with the cost-of-living payments. Perhaps you can explain why not? Because they are two different things Lee.

And yet that is precisely what the energy component of the cost-of living payment is. You seem very confused. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 7:15pm:

I am calling tax cuts tax cuts Lee.

And yet there is no government call for further tax cuts. ::)


freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 7:15pm:

The easiest way to distribute it to taxpayers generally is to reduce income tax Lee. Not sure how you manage to turn that into some kind of subsidy. Do you have a problem with tax cuts, or are you just dribbling? And what do you think is being subsidised?

Oh dear. Mindless repetition. ::)

Only allowed 3 strikes for repetition, then it's trolling.
FD you might get banned.

freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 7:15pm:

The easiest way to distribute it to taxpayers generally is to reduce income tax Lee.

Ah, now I see. You are confusing easy with politicians. ;)

Energy Minister Chris Bowen “weaponised” the public service by instructing his department to produce “entirely flawed” figures to allege Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plan would see a 49 per cent electricity shortfall by 2035, the Coalition claims.

Mr Bowen in September last year said “detailed government analysis of (Australian Energy Market Operator) forecasts show the Coalition’s plan … will result in massive supply short­ages over the next decade”.

The Department of Climate Change and Energy now says what it did was “not an analysis of the Coalition’s nuclear energy proposals” but an “assumption-driven calculation”.

Those assumptions, it said, were provided by Mr Bowen’s office. The department, in a response to a question on notice during Senate estimates, revealed those five assumptions about the Coalition’s energy plan and its calculations.



Ah. How did Chwissy Bowels do that.
Let's read on.




Mr Bowen, on the back of those calculations, asserted the Coalition’s energy plan would “result in a staggering 49 per cent gap between demand and the supply available to meet it”.

Frontier Energy managing director Danny Price – whose firm recently released commissioned modelling of the ­Coalition’s nuclear energy plan and had previously advised parties on either side of the political aisle on energy policy – said Mr Bowen “dreamt up his own method” to assert the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan would result in energy shortfalls in a “half-arsed” way that produced a “meaningless bunch of numbers”.

Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien accused Mr Bowen of “weaponising the public service” and the department’s testimony showed “Labor lacks any intellectual argument against the Coalition’s plan”.

“Chris Bowen has decided to weaponise the public service by unfairly instructing them to do a calculation based on his own flawed assumptions about the Coalition’s plan and then packaging it up for the Australian public as if it is the calculation of the department itself, as if it’s departmental modelling, but it’s not departmental modelling,” he told The Australian.

lee wrote on Dec 28^th, 2024 at 12:35pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 7:15pm: The easiest way to distribute it to taxpayers generally is to reduce income tax Lee. Ah, now I see. You are confusing easy with politicians. ;)

Would you consider an income tax cut to be a "subsidy on our costs"?

lee wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 4:41pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 4:27pm: Libs spent years telling us that about the NBN ... then introduced a third world system that cost twice as much And Labor?

tried to stop them but were shouted down by murdochs minions

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2025 at 10:44am:

tried to stop them but were shouted down by murdochs minions

Poor Guido. The part you ignored.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Never lets the truth get in the way of his bias.  ;)



lee wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 4:41pm:

"NBN Co's new board conducted a strategic review that contentiously found Labor's plan would have taken three years longer to achieve than previously stated and $29 billion more than forecast.

Just couldn't find a way to refute it. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jan 10^th, 2025 at 12:18pm:

Just couldn't find a way to refute it

your link is paywalled you dumbarse :D

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2025 at 12:23pm:

your link is paywalled you dumbarse

So the opening two paragraphs don't match? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jan 10^th, 2025 at 12:35pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2025 at 12:23pm: your link is paywalled you dumbarse So the opening two paragraphs don't match? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

ohh, i thought you wanted a comment on the article, i didn't realise we were playing word match :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2025 at 12:57pm:

ohh, i thought you wanted a comment on the article, i didn't realise we were playing word match

Nope. I offered the article. You wanted to comment, but couldn't get past the word "paywalled". You can't even count matches let alone play word match. ;)

lee wrote on Jan 10^th, 2025 at 1:10pm:

You wanted to comment,

By ignoring it until you cried about it? :D :D :D

To call you a dumbarse is an insult to dumbarses everywhere

Never mind petal. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Your post was the cry about it. ;)

But back to the topic.

How much would batteries cost that last more than a few minutes?

"1. Capital Costs

The capital cost of a 1 MWh BESS includes the cost of the batteries, PCS, BMS, and other ancillary equipment. The cost of batteries is typically the largest component of the capital cost, accounting for about 50-70% of the total cost. The cost of PCS and BMS accounts for about 20-30% of the total cost, while the cost of ancillary equipment accounts for about 10-20% of the total cost.

The capital cost of a 1 MWh BESS can vary depending on several factors, including the type of batteries used, the performance specifications of the system, and the installation location. Generally, lithium-ion batteries are more expensive than lead-acid batteries, but they offer better performance and a longer lifespan. The cost of a 1 MWh BESS can range from $500,000 to $1.5 million or more, depending on these factors.

2. Operating and Maintenance Costs

The operating and maintenance costs of a 1 MWh BESS include the cost of electricity for charging the batteries, the cost of cooling and other ancillary systems, and the cost of maintenance and repair services. These costs can vary depending on the usage patterns of the system and the local electricity rates.

Generally, the operating and maintenance costs of a 1 MWh BESS are relatively low compared to the capital cost. However, they can still add up over time and should be considered when evaluating the overall cost-effectiveness of the system.

3. Lifetime Costs

The lifetime cost of a 1 MWh BESS includes the capital cost, operating and maintenance costs, and the cost of replacing the batteries over the lifetime of the system. The lifetime of a BESS can vary depending on several factors, including the type of batteries used, the usage patterns, and the maintenance practices. Generally, lithium-ion batteries have a lifespan of about 10-15 years, while lead-acid batteries have a shorter lifespan of about 5-10 years.

When evaluating the lifetime cost of a 1 MWh BESS, it is important to consider the cost of battery replacement and the potential for technology advancements that could reduce the cost of the system over time."

https://www.ritarpower.com/industry_information/1-MWh-Battery-Energy-Storage-System-amp40BESSamp41-A-Comprehensive-Overview_290.html

So $500,000 for the cheapest, lead-acid. More for lithium.

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2025 at 9:52am:

lee wrote on Dec 28th, 2024 at 12:35pm: freediver wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 7:15pm: The easiest way to distribute it to taxpayers generally is to reduce income tax Lee. Ah, now I see. You are confusing easy with politicians. ;) Would you consider an income tax cut to be a "subsidy on our costs"?

Lee? Are you abandoning this claim now?

lee wrote on Jan 10^th, 2025 at 6:14pm:

Never mind petal. ;D ;D ;D ;D

I don't mind highlighting your stupidity.