One Nation commits to coal-fired power at Gippsland's Loy Yang and lifting Victoria's nuclear ban   :(

ABC News
Posted 31 Aug 2026

In short:
One Nation has pledged to keep coal-fired power running in Victoria, along with lifting the ban on nuclear energy, if elected at the upcoming November state election.   :(

The party announced its energy policies at Gippsland's Loy Yang power station, which is set to close by 2035.

What's next?
Energy experts have reacted to the policy announcements, citing cost as a main barrier to nuclear in Australia.


One Nation has promised to keep Victoria's largest coal plant running and lift the ban on nuclear energy if it is successful at November's state election.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson and state leader Warren Pickering today travelled to the Latrobe Valley, east of Melbourne, to announce the party's Victorian energy policy.

The pair made the announcement at the Loy Yang A power station, which Mr Pickering said the party would not allow to close in 2035 as planned.

Group of people standing in front of microphones with green hills in the background.
Warren Pickering and Pauline Hanson announce a suite of energy policies in the Latrobe Valley.

The party blames the decline of coal on government policy, which it says has discouraged plant owners from conducting maintenance.

Mr Pickering conceded the party had not spoken to Loy Yang A's owner about keeping the plant open or whether it would cost the state government to keep it open.

"Those figures haven't been discussed just yet," Mr Pickering said.

"The intent would be to encourage the industry through industry future security to tip into the capital expenditure required themselves."

Mr Pickering said One Nation would move to scrap Victoria's 1983 ban on building nuclear power if it won government.   :(

"Victorians deserve an opportunity to partake in the future of nuclear technology," Mr Pickering said.

"Whether that be through new technological innovations in thorium nuclear micro-reactor technology or in accordance with our federal policy position to develop a nuclear facility on the eastern seaboard with Victoria being a beneficiary."

Man and a woman standing against a backdrop of green rolling hills and a power plant station.
One Nation candidate for Narracan Ben Lucas and Pauline Hanson at Loy Yang power station.

Voters will be offered very different energy policies when they head to the polls in November, with the Coalition and One Nation critical of Labor's renewables rollout.

One Nation has also pledged to scrap renewable energy zones (REZs) in the state's west and a coastal zone for offshore wind and abandon Victoria's commitment to net zero emissions.

A spokesperson for Loy Yang operator AGL said it was aware of One Nation's policy announcement and reiterated the planned closure date for Loy Yang A in 2035.

We don't want nuclear power in Australia.   :(

whiteknight wrote on Oct 4^th, 2026 at 10:07am:

We don't want nuclear power in Australia.   :(

We somewhat do. Especially those people that want to see pollution levels cut.

whiteknight wrote on Oct 4^th, 2026 at 10:07am:

We don't want nuclear power in Australia.

You also don't want fossil fuel power.  As someone wrote in this morning's paper here.

"The sun and wind give us permanent energy and independence".

Obviously she has never seen the sun dim because of clouds or nighttime and never seen the wind stopped blowing. How is that for independence?

whiteknight wrote on Oct 4^th, 2026 at 10:07am:

We don't want nuclear power in Australia.   :(

Yes we do.  :)

One Nation just sent new voter support to the currently 14% Victorian Greens. Nice.

Were the Liberals going to build nuclear plants without lifting the ban?

Well - 'AI' skirts around the question of what the final cost of installing 'renewables' is for Australia ... just evading the real question of total cost to install and get running...  funny how that works to suit New City Hall...

https://smartenergy.org.au/nuclear-fallout-116-600-billion-to-build-7-nuclear-reactors/

On the other hand '$116-600B' to build seven nuclear reactor stations...

"This is the same cost as delivering 82% renewables by 2030, and an almost 100% renewable energy mix by 2050, including the cost of building all of the enabling transmission infrastructure."

Then we take into account the need to renew 'renewables' every twenty years - while a nuke is worth seventy years or so, so let's reduce that cost by dividing it by three.... so the top price for nukes across the lifespan is $200Bn over the same twenty year span which incurs massive cost of replacement and repair from 'renewables'  ...

How much has been spent to date on 'renewables?  City Hall likes to say small figures that do not relate to total costs... which, like nuclear, must include upgrades to grid etc required....

Quote:

Well - 'AI' skirts around the question of what the final cost of installing 'renewables' is for Australia

There is a good page about it on wikipedia.

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

https://thumb.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_%28LCOE%2C_Lazard%29_-_renewable_energy.svg/330px-20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_%28LCOE%2C_Lazard%29_-_renewable_energy.svg.png

freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2026 at 7:30pm:

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

The levelised cost of  electricity is flawed. it doesn't show the levelised full cost of electricity. The levelised full cost includes transmission, storage and subsidies etc. 8-)

lee wrote on Oct 4^th, 2026 at 1:01pm:

whiteknight wrote on Oct 4th, 2026 at 10:07am: We don't want nuclear power in Australia.  You also don't want fossil fuel power.  As someone wrote in this morning's paper here. "The sun and wind give us permanent energy and independence". Obviously she has never seen the sun dim because of clouds or nighttime and never seen the wind stopped blowing. How is that for independence?

You're confusing 'permanent' and 'constant'.

Permanent means something lasts for a long time or forever without changing its state. Constant means something happens over and over again without stopping, or stays at the same level or value over time.

The sun and wind, while maybe not constant, are indeed permanent.

Nukes are the way to go...

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 3:31pm:

ou're confusing 'permanent' and 'constant'. Permanent means something lasts for a long time or forever without changing its state.

You mean like wind turbines failing and solar panels dying? 8-)

lee wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 2:58pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 7th, 2026 at 7:30pm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity The levelised cost of  electricity is flawed. it doesn't show the levelised full cost of electricity. The levelised full cost includes transmission, storage and subsidies etc. 8-)

The levelised cost includes subsidies, if you include them.

Renewables are still cheaper, even when you add the cost of storage. This has also been pointed out to you before. They are also trending down, while coal and nuclear are trending up. So the gap will only get wider.

Transmission costs tend to be cheaper for renewables as they are both more distributed and better placed. For example rooftop solar is often produced in the same location it is consumed, meaning no load on the grid. You can't put a coal or nuclear fired power station in the suburbs. The distributed battery storage also eases loads on the grid.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 5:26pm:

The levelised cost includes subsidies, if you include them.

And the CSIRO NextGen report specifically excludes them.


freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 5:26pm:

Renewables are still cheaper, even when you add the cost of storage. This has also been pointed out to you before. They are also trending down, while coal and nuclear are trending up. So the gap will only get wider. Transmission costs tend to be cheaper for renewables as they are both more distributed and better placed. For example rooftop solar is often produced in the same location

The cost of storage and the cost of transmission etc have to be both added. Not one or the other.

Now that China has stopped trying to control lithiium prices are heading back up.

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium

Transmission from solar farms and Wind turbine farm farms tend to be remote, Distributed from remote areas is not cheap.

Rooftop solar needs local grid upgrades.

Quote:

And the CSIRO NextGen report specifically excludes them.

That's nice dear. Did anyone else here even mention that report?


Quote:

The cost of storage and the cost of transmission etc have to be both added. Not one or the other.

Duh. I did not say otherwise. Would you like to address anything I actually said?


Quote:

Transmission from solar farms and Wind turbine farm farms tend to be remote, Distributed from remote areas is not cheap.

The LCOE includes the grid connection.

whiteknight wrote on Oct 4^th, 2026 at 10:07am:

We don't want nuclear power in Australia.   :(

You're right - we NEED it.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 5:49pm:

That's nice dear. Did anyone else here even mention that report?

So which report, if any, has specified what those subsidies are? Or are you just bloviating? 8-)


freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 5:49pm:

Duh. I did not say otherwise.

No you didn't. You just left them as separate components. ::)


freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 5:49pm:

The LCOE includes the grid connection.

It may include the inteconnection which is not the same as transmission lines. ::)

From AI: Sometimes. Standard LCOE often includes the plant’s own interconnection equipment, but usually excludes broader transmission upgrades and grid-system costs, such as balancing or backup capacity. What counts depends on the study’s cost boundary and assumptions.

Quote:

So which report, if any, has specified what those subsidies are? Or are you just bloviating?

Read the references at the bottom of the wikipedia page. I am not going to read them for you. If you have something to prove, then prove it, rather than bloviating.


Quote:

You just left them as separate components.

Oh dear. Leaving separate comments separated. Were you mislead? Or just terribly confused?

Renewables are cheaper than coal and nuclear. They have been for some time. In fact, renewables have cost less than one third the cost of nuclear for a decade. And they always will be, because their cost is going down and the cost of coal and nuclear is going up. No amount of bloviating on your part and demanding someone else do your research is going to change that.

And One Nation has another dud policy. Lifting the ban is not going to encourage anyone to part with their hard earned money to build us a nuclear power plant. Only someone else's. Because they are already obsolete technology.

ON will not have enough seats to recoment breakfast cerial.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 7:30pm:

Read the references at the bottom of the wikipedia page.

Why not read the main text?

"Significant caution needs to be applied to use of LCOE as outputs are highly sensitive to the selection of input values.[10] The ability to interpret and compare LCOE model outputs is dependent upon the level of detailed justification provided for input values and the results of sensitivity analysis against the selection of input values.[10] For any given electricity generation technology, LCOE can vary significantly from region to region depending on factors such as the cost of fuel or availability of renewable energy resources. For LCOE to be usable for rank-ordering energy-generation alternatives, caution must be taken to calculate it in "real" terms, i.e. including adjustment for expected inflation"
LCOE is often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competitiveness of different generating technologies, however, it has potential limitations. Decisions about investments in energy generation technologies may need to be guided by other measures such as the levelized cost of storage (LCOS) and the levelized avoided cost of energy (LACE), in addition to the LCOE.[14]"

Also - "In particular, if the costs of matching grid energy storage are not included in projects for variable renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, they may produce electricity when it is not needed in the grid without storage. The value of this electricity may be lower than if it was produced at another time, or even negative. At the same time, variable sources can be competitive if they are available to produce when demand and prices are highest, such as solar during summertime mid-day peaks seen in hot countries where air conditioning is a major consumer.[10]"

Hint: that's what renewables do, they price themselves out of the market when costs and income don't align. It's called gaming the system.

Also - "Response to the LCOE ignoring intermittency of most renewable sources has been proposed in System LCOE[16] and Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity (LFSCOE) metrics, which factor in the cost of required grid energy storage or redundant dispatchable power plants for balancing demand during intermitency periods.[15]"

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 7:30pm:

Renewables are cheaper than coal and nuclear.

You really do need to read what they say. and what they don't. ::)


Not when all the costs are added together.


freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 7:30pm:

Leaving separate comments separated. Were you mislead?

Because the costs are additive, and you don't address that at all. ::)

Quote:

Also - "Response to the LCOE ignoring intermittency of most renewable sources has been proposed in System LCOE[16] and Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity (LFSCOE) metrics, which factor in the cost of required grid energy storage or redundant dispatchable power plants for balancing demand during intermitency periods.[15]"

And it still comes out cheaper than nuclear. And the gap is still widening every year that you bloviate on this. But thanks for getting out the crayons for us.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 7:59pm:

And it still comes out cheaper than nuclear.

How about you show your workings. ;)

From AI: The figures I gave earlier—$34/MWh for wind and $43/MWh for solar versus $56–$87/MWh for new nuclear—aren’t a valid full-cost comparison. The OECD figures I referenced specifically excluded system costs for wind and solar, so they can’t establish that renewables are cheaper overall than nuclear.


BTW- Only one of the references which you directed me to covered the Levelised Full Cost of Electricity. The majority is behind a paywall.

"Levelized Costs of Electricity ignore the cost of intermittency of renewables.
•
Including storage to balance them increases the costs of variable renewables.
•
Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity include the cost of balancing.
•
Combining wind and solar with a firm resource reduces costs significantly."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035

Instead of going nuclear -
some say that we could use large solar panel installations and pumped hydro
to store the energy.

For pumped hydro storage you could have a facility close to the ocean
and pump seawater up to a reservoir and then let it run through turbines
back down to the ocean to recover the energy.

However that would require a massive solar panel installation
and a large reservoir close to the ocean which would
take away the best land that we use for farming.
Is there any easier way?

Quote:

How about you show your workings.

I don't need to do my own workings. It only takes half a brain and 5 seconds on google. Have you already forgotten the last time we had the same discussion?

Renewables have cost less than one third the price of nuclear for a decade now. And the gap will only get wider. They are still far cheaper when you throw in the cost of grid storage. And they actually reduce the cost of energy transmission infrastructure. Only a moron (or One Nation and the LNP) would choose now to take the leap into nuclear.

Should we at least have a few nuclear reactors?
France likes them:


AI Overview

France plans to use nuclear energy as a long-term mainstay of its energy system well into the future, with official policy targeting net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.


• 2026–2035 Strategy:
Under the third Multiannual Energy Programme (PPE3) approved in February 2026, France is actively extending the operating lives of its existing nuclear fleet (beyond 50 to 60 years) and building new reactors.


• New Reactors:
The government plans to construct six new EPR2 reactors with the first expected online by 2035, and it has considered plans for an additional eight reactors.


• Fossil Fuel Phase-Out:
Nuclear power provides roughly 65% to 70% of France's domestic electricity, and the country relies on it as the core pillar to phase out fossil fuels entirely by 2050.


• Global Standing:
France operates the largest nuclear reactor fleet in Europe (57 operable reactors) and is tracked via the World Nuclear Association as a primary global producer.

lee wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 8:44pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 9th, 2026 at 7:59pm: And it still comes out cheaper than nuclear. How about you show your workings. ;) From AI: The figures I gave earlier—$34/MWh for wind and $43/MWh for solar versus $56–$87/MWh for new nuclear—aren’t a valid full-cost comparison. The OECD figures I referenced specifically excluded system costs for wind and solar, so they can’t establish that renewables are cheaper overall than nuclear. BTW- Only one of the references which you directed me to covered the Levelised Full Cost of Electricity. The majority is behind a paywall. "Levelized Costs of Electricity ignore the cost of intermittency of renewables. • Including storage to balance them increases the costs of variable renewables. • Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity include the cost of balancing. • Combining wind and solar with a firm resource reduces costs significantly." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035

Quote:

Including storage to balance them increases the costs of variable renewables.

Do you have a nuclear model that includes the costs of storing or processing the nuclear waste for a few hundred thousand years ? They all seem to forget to mention that part.

Quote:

Should we at least have a few nuclear reactors?

It's not something you want to do a small amount of. There are a lot of fairly fixed overheads with managing safety, nuclear waste etc.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 9:46pm:

Do you have a nuclear model that includes the costs of storing or processing the nuclear waste for a few hundred thousand years ? They all seem to forget to mention that part.

Have you not heard? Once a fuel rod has been "used" it is not dead, it only loses about 3-4%. It can be reprocessed. How many existing fuel rods do you reckon there are already? ::)

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 9:15pm:

I don't need to do my own workings. It only takes half a brain and 5 seconds on google.

Then those googles you have done must have given you the figures for you to proclaim it. 8-)


freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 9:15pm:

Renewables have cost less than one third the price of nuclear for a decade now. And the gap will only get wider.

And still you can't provide figures that show that renewables are cheaper under LFCOE. ::)

You keep trying and failing.

My research shows that they can't prove cheaper because too many costs are hidden.

Quote:

Then those googles you have done must have given you the figures for you to proclaim it.

OK, I can see you do not know how to use google, so I will dumb it down for you. Google this: "Are renewables still cheaper than nuclear when you take the cost of grid storage into account".

No need to take my word for it or pretend the numbers belong to me.

Do you actually disagree with any of this, or do you just want other people to show you how to use the internet? I am pretty sure I have walked you through this at least a dozen times in separate threads already, but you always ask the same questions again. Like a broken record.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 12:25pm:

OK, I can see you do not know how to use google, so I will dumb it down for you. Google this: "Are renewables still cheaper than nuclear when you take the cost of grid storage into account".

Ah, so you only want to include some of the costs. Bizarre. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Try this -

is nuclear cheaper than renewables under LFCOE
Duck.ai said

If by LFCOE you mean levelized full cost of electricity, then there isn’t a universal winner. Nuclear can be cheaper once the comparison includes the cost of making power reliable and available when needed—but that depends heavily on nuclear construction and financing costs, and on the renewables mix, storage, and grid assumptions.

Quote:

Ah, so you only want to include some of the costs. Bizarre.

You are, as ever, confused Lee.

lee wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 12:16pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 9th, 2026 at 9:46pm: Do you have a nuclear model that includes the costs of storing or processing the nuclear waste for a few hundred thousand years ? They all seem to forget to mention that part. Have you not heard? Once a fuel rod has been "used" it is not dead, it only loses about 3-4%. It can be reprocessed. How many existing fuel rods do you reckon there are already? ::)

Isn't it cheaper to make a new fuel rod than reprocess old fuel rods?    :-/

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 12:32pm:

You are, as ever, confused Lee.

No petal. I deliberately used the full term of Levelised Full Cost Of Electricity.

I can't help it if you don't see the difference.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 6:55am:

Quote: Should we at least have a few nuclear reactors? It's not something you want to do a small amount of. There are a lot of fairly fixed overheads with managing safety, nuclear waste etc.

But we got out of date - behind in technology -
we should always have had our own nuclear industry - even if small.

Also - we mine Uranium and then sell Yellowcake -
we don't manufacture fuel rods.

lee wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 12:41pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 12:32pm: You are, as ever, confused Lee. No petal. I deliberately used the full term of Levelised Full Cost Of Electricity. I can't help it if you don't see the difference.

This is what I get when I google "Levelised Full Cost Of Electricity - are renewables cheaper than nuclear":

Yes, firmed renewables (wind and solar combined with storage and transmission) are significantly cheaper than nuclear power according to major economic and engineering studies.

Again, google it yourself if you want the numbers.

This is what claude thinks:

How does duck.ai compare with google AI for answer to web search queries?

What about for hot political issues like the cost of nuclear vs renewables for electricity generation?


Quote:

How they differ: Google AI draws on a huge index, so it usually cites well-known sources like Lazard, the IEA, IPCC, national energy agencies and big news outlets. Answers tend to be mainstream and cautious. But Overviews compress a lot, and a one-paragraph summary of a contested cost question loses the nuance that matters. duck.ai depends on which model you pick, and the models differ in tone and in what they emphasise. The smaller models are more likely to give a generic “both have pros and cons” answer without real numbers. Its web search goes less deep, so it may lean on fewer sources.

Sounds to me like you shopped around for the answer you wanted, but the closest you could get was a bit of handwringing.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 12:54pm:

Yes, firmed renewables (wind and solar combined with storage and transmission) are significantly cheaper than nuclear power according to major economic and engineering studies.

And when I do Google AI, it says -

"levelised full cost of electricity - are renewables cheaper than nuclear"

"Yes, firmed renewable energy (such as solar and wind paired with storage and transmission) is significantly cheaper than nuclear power on a levelised full cost of electricity (LCOE) basis" I quried why Google said LCOE, and they admitted their error.

Me: "Your anser sasys levelised foull cost of electricity and then says in brackets LCOE which is not full cost"

Google: "You are entirely correct, and I apologize for that conflation. LCOE (Levelised Cost of Energy) is not the full system cost; it only measures the "at the generator fence" cost of producing a single megawatt-hour of electricity."

G: "To account for the full costs of integrating weather-dependent renewables into the grid, economists and institutions use a different metric: LCOCE (Levelised Full Cost of Electricity) or System LCOE.

"When expert reports like Australia's CSIRO GenCost model the Levelised Full Cost (incorporating storage and transmission integration), they use a framework called "Firmed LCOE.""

I then responded ""Firmed LCOE" is also not  the the full cost"

G:  "You are completely correct, and I appreciate you pushing back on this. "Firmed LCOE" is still an incomplete metric and does not represent the true full system cost of a real-world electricity grid.
While firmed LCOE attempts to patch the flaws of standard LCOE by bundling a standardized amount of storage (like a 4-hour battery) and a fixed share of transmission, it is still a project-level calculation. It fails to capture the complex, compounding costs that occur when you try to run an entire society on a given energy "

Energy economists point out that firmed LCOE routinely leaves out four massive system-wide expenses:

1. The "Dunkelflaute" and Exponential Overbuilding

Firmed LCOE models usually assume a routine, daily cycle of storage (charging by day, discharging at night). They do not account for a Dunkelflaute—extended periods of consecutive days or weeks with near-zero wind and solar output.
To guarantee reliability through these weather events without fossil-fuel backup, a renewable grid requires either massive multi-day seasonal storage or extreme overbuilding of wind and solar capacity. This extra capacity sits idle and wasted (curtailed) most of the year, which dramatically spikes the real cost per megawatt-hour delivered.

2. Inertia and Ancillary Services (Grid Stability)

Large spinning turbines in nuclear, coal, and hydro plants inherently provide synchronous inertia, which keeps the grid’s frequency stable at 50Hz or 60Hz. Wind and solar do not provide this naturally. Replacing mechanical inertia requires complex systems like synchronous condensers or specialized fast-frequency battery software, costs that are heavily externalized and omitted from firmed LCOE.

3. Local Distribution Grid Upgrades

Firmed LCOE accounts for transmission lines (the big towers moving power across regions) but largely ignores distribution networks (the power lines on your street). Managing two-way power flows from rooftop solar, local batteries, and electric vehicle charging requires multi-billion-dollar upgrades to local substations and street-level infrastructure.

4. True System Metrics: LFSCOE and SLOE

To capture the actual macroeconomic reality, researchers use macro-system models like System Levelised Cost of Electricity (SLOE) or Levelised Full System Costs of Electricity (LFSCOE).
• These model an entire region's grid hour-by-hour over decades.
• Studies using these metrics show that while a grid with mostly renewables (e.g., 80-90%) is highly cost-effective, pushing for a 100% weather-dependent grid causes system costs to skyrocket exponentially.
• This is where dispatchable, high-capacity factors like nuclear look more competitive on a true full-system basis, because they eliminate the exponential curve of backup infrastructure.
Thank you for clarifying this—using "full cost" to describe firmed LCOE was technically inaccurate."

Source :Google AI

You're welcome. ;)

lee wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 8:16pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 12:54pm: Yes, firmed renewables (wind and solar combined with storage and transmission) are significantly cheaper than nuclear power according to major economic and engineering studies. And when I do Google AI, it says - "levelised full cost of electricity - are renewables cheaper than nuclear" "Yes, firmed renewable energy (such as solar and wind paired with storage and transmission) is significantly cheaper than nuclear power on a levelised full cost of electricity (LCOE) basis" I quried why Google said LCOE, and they admitted their error. Me: "Your anser sasys levelised foull cost of electricity and then says in brackets LCOE which is not full cost" Google: "You are entirely correct, and I apologize for that conflation. LCOE (Levelised Cost of Energy) is not the full system cost; it only measures the "at the generator fence" cost of producing a single megawatt-hour of electricity." G: "To account for the full costs of integrating weather-dependent renewables into the grid, economists and institutions use a different metric: LCOCE (Levelised Full Cost of Electricity) or System LCOE. "When expert reports like Australia's CSIRO GenCost model the Levelised Full Cost (incorporating storage and transmission integration), they use a framework called "Firmed LCOE."" I then responded ""Firmed LCOE" is also not  the the full cost" G:  "You are completely correct, and I appreciate you pushing back on this. "Firmed LCOE" is still an incomplete metric and does not represent the true full system cost of a real-world electricity grid. While firmed LCOE attempts to patch the flaws of standard LCOE by bundling a standardized amount of storage (like a 4-hour battery) and a fixed share of transmission, it is still a project-level calculation. It fails to capture the complex, compounding costs that occur when you try to run an entire society on a given energy " Energy economists point out that firmed LCOE routinely leaves out four massive system-wide expenses: 1. The "Dunkelflaute" and Exponential Overbuilding Firmed LCOE models usually assume a routine, daily cycle of storage (charging by day, discharging at night). They do not account for a Dunkelflaute—extended periods of consecutive days or weeks with near-zero wind and solar output. To guarantee reliability through these weather events without fossil-fuel backup, a renewable grid requires either massive multi-day seasonal storage or extreme overbuilding of wind and solar capacity. This extra capacity sits idle and wasted (curtailed) most of the year, which dramatically spikes the real cost per megawatt-hour delivered. 2. Inertia and Ancillary Services (Grid Stability) Large spinning turbines in nuclear, coal, and hydro plants inherently provide synchronous inertia, which keeps the grid’s frequency stable at 50Hz or 60Hz. Wind and solar do not provide this naturally. Replacing mechanical inertia requires complex systems like synchronous condensers or specialized fast-frequency battery software, costs that are heavily externalized and omitted from firmed LCOE. 3. Local Distribution Grid Upgrades Firmed LCOE accounts for transmission lines (the big towers moving power across regions) but largely ignores distribution networks (the power lines on your street). Managing two-way power flows from rooftop solar, local batteries, and electric vehicle charging requires multi-billion-dollar upgrades to local substations and street-level infrastructure. 4. True System Metrics: LFSCOE and SLOE To capture the actual macroeconomic reality, researchers use macro-system models like System Levelised Cost of Electricity (SLOE) or Levelised Full System Costs of Electricity (LFSCOE). • These model an entire region's grid hour-by-hour over decades. • Studies using these metrics show that while a grid with mostly renewables (e.g., 80-90%) is highly cost-effective, pushing for a 100% weather-dependent grid causes system costs to skyrocket exponentially. • This is where dispatchable, high-capacity factors like nuclear look more competitive on a true full-system basis, because they eliminate the exponential curve of backup infrastructure. Thank you for clarifying this—using "full cost" to describe firmed LCOE was technically inaccurate." Source :Google AI You're welcome. ;)

That's a lot of bloviating. But it still says that renewables are cheaper than nuclear. For example from your own quote:


Quote:

Studies using these metrics show that while a grid with mostly renewables (e.g., 80-90%) is highly cost-effective.

Why does the remaining 10-20% even need to be nuclear? Why not gas or hydro? Our existing coal fired power stations won't reach the end of their life for several decades. And even if 10 to 20% is nuclear, that is still not saying that nuclear is cheaper.


Quote:

pushing for a 100% weather-dependent grid causes system costs to skyrocket exponentially

No-one is doing that Lee. This is merely the sort of idiotic assumption you need to make in order to make nuclear look not quite so terrible as an option. You keep being told that renewables are cheaper than nuclear, even by your own evidence, but you still desperately seek some way to convince yourself of the opposite.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 8:28pm:

But it still says that renewables are cheaper than nuclear. For example from your own quote: Quote: Studies using these metrics show that while a grid with mostly renewables (e.g., 80-90%) is highly cost-effective.

Why didn't you complete what it said?
lee wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 8:16pm:

pushing for a 100% weather-dependent grid causes system costs to skyrocket exponentially.

Or do you only want four hours of battery?
freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 8:28pm:

Why does the remaining 10-20% even need to be nuclear? Why not gas or hydro? And even if 10 to 20% is nuclear, that is still not saying that nuclear is cheaper.

The fact that in only covers 80-90% shows that it isn't viable, even on average. AT ALL. 8-)


Just go nuclear. No need for intermittent, weather dependant power at all.

What happens under a Dunkelflaute? Freeze in the dark?

Quote:

The fact that in only covers 80-90% shows that it isn't viable, even on average.

No it doesn't Lee. And your evidence does not even say that renewables "only covers 80-90%". You are so confused you post evidence that backs up my argument, and even whn it is pointed out to you, you don't realise.

lee wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 12:16pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 9th, 2026 at 9:46pm: Do you have a nuclear model that includes the costs of storing or processing the nuclear waste for a few hundred thousand years ? They all seem to forget to mention that part. Have you not heard? Once a fuel rod has been "used" it is not dead, it only loses about 3-4%. It can be reprocessed. How many existing fuel rods do you reckon there are already? ::)

You do know that The USA and many other countries do not re process? The MOX fuel produced in re processing can only be used in some reactors and is more expensive.

Also for a material that will be around for a few hundred thousand years how big an impact would be re processing it the once or twice which is the current limit. That is re processing may get you an extre ten years? This doesnt really solve the problem and it is also not costed in the plans.

With nuclear if the full cost of managing the waste for a hundred thousand years were to be included would the cost work out to be something like ten billion dollars a megawatt ?

lee wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 8:36pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 8:28pm: But it still says that renewables are cheaper than nuclear. For example from your own quote: Quote: Studies using these metrics show that while a grid with mostly renewables (e.g., 80-90%) is highly cost-effective. Why didn't you complete what it said? lee wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 8:16pm: pushing for a 100% weather-dependent grid causes system costs to skyrocket exponentially. Or do you only want four hours of battery? freediver wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 8:28pm: Why does the remaining 10-20% even need to be nuclear? Why not gas or hydro? And even if 10 to 20% is nuclear, that is still not saying that nuclear is cheaper. The fact that in only covers 80-90% shows that it isn't viable, even on average. AT ALL. 8-) Just go nuclear. No need for intermittent, weather dependant power at all. What happens under a Dunkelflaute? Freeze in the dark?

Quote:

The fact that in only covers 80-90% shows that it isn't viable, even on average

All the plans are for some sort of mix even with nuclear. Your logic here would mean that nothing is viable. 80 - 90% is really good I doubt what ever is used will meet that standard.
If we can reduce the dirty fuels by 90% I would think it would be a good result.

BTW - I just installed Claude, just for you.


Me: levelised Full Cost Of Electricity - are renewables cheaper than nuclear

Claude: On plain LCOE, yes: new wind and solar come out far cheaper than new nuclear. Once you add the cost of making the grid reliable, the gap narrows, and it depends on the assumptions.

Headline numbers (Lazard’s 2026 report, US, unsubsidised)

Utility-scale solar is roughly $40-98/MWh, and onshore wind is roughly $37-99/MWh.
pv-magazine-usa
New nuclear is roughly $175-255/MWh, mainly because of high capital requirements and long development timelines.
pv-magazine-usa
Lazard’s nuclear figure is based on public cost estimates for Vogtle Units 3 and 4, which were notoriously over budget. A smoother build programme would likely come in lower, and Lazard’s own commentary suggests costs would fall as more plants are built.

There is that pesky Subsidy again.

Me: LCOE is not the levelised full cost of electricity

C: You’re right. I treated your question as plain LCOE, and the figures I gave were only generation costs. Levelised full cost of electricity (LFCOE, also called levelised full system cost) adds the system-level costs LCOE leaves out. Let me check the current evidence on that.

Once you count full system costs, firmed renewables still come out cheaper than new nuclear in most of the studies I found. The gap is smaller than the plain LCOE figures suggest, and the studies disagree about method.

Now the CSIRO next Gen report 25-26, says by 2030 we need 33GWh of battery storage. The east coast of Australia uses about 655GWh per day. That's about 3 minutes.

It then says we need 12GWh of hydro, 7 already existing and hoping Snowy2 finishes in time. Add that to the batteries and we get to 4 minutes. ;)

Dnarever wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 9:00pm:

You do know that The USA and many other countries do not re process? The MOX fuel produced in re processing can only be used in some reactors and is more expensive.

And that was by presidential decree, not for safety reasons. Jimmy done it. ;)


Dnarever wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 9:00pm:

Also for a material that will be around for a few hundred thousand years how big an impact would be re processing it the once or twice which is the current limit. That is re processing may get you an extre ten years? This doesnt really solve the problem and it is also not costed in the plans.

If you only lose about 3% each time it is used your maths is so far out as to be funny. And each time it is processed the worst of the radiation is reduced.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 8:39pm:

And your evidence does not even say that renewables "only covers 80-90%".

Ah, you expect renewables to always be available on demand with firming? ::)


freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 8:39pm:

You are so confused you post evidence that backs up my argument, and even whn it is pointed out to you, you don't realise.

You haven't been able to back your argument that renewables are the cheapest. 8-)

For that you need something that says that. And wiki, pointedly doesn't for LFCOE. ::)

Dnarever wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 9:10pm:

All the plans are for some sort of mix even with nuclear. Your logic hear would mean that nothing is viable

No it means renewables are not viable.


Dnarever wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 9:10pm:

80 - 90% is really good I doubt what ever is used will meet that standard.

It certainly won't be renewables. Batteries and Hydro lasting four minutes on the east coast grid? ;D ;D ;D ;D


Dnarever wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 9:10pm:

If we can reduce the dirty fuels by 90% I would think it would be a good result.

is that for everything? Or do you want electric tractors, trucks etc added to the grid?

Funny that - in my WW IV series books I put forward the concept of solar powered aircraft carriers.... heeeey - now they're working on the idea!

lee wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 9:12pm:

BTW - I just installed Claude, just for you. Me: levelised Full Cost Of Electricity - are renewables cheaper than nuclear Claude: On plain LCOE, yes: new wind and solar come out far cheaper than new nuclear. Once you add the cost of making the grid reliable, the gap narrows, and it depends on the assumptions. Headline numbers (Lazard’s 2026 report, US, unsubsidised) Utility-scale solar is roughly $40-98/MWh, and onshore wind is roughly $37-99/MWh. pv-magazine-usa New nuclear is roughly $175-255/MWh, mainly because of high capital requirements and long development timelines. pv-magazine-usa Lazard’s nuclear figure is based on public cost estimates for Vogtle Units 3 and 4, which were notoriously over budget. A smoother build programme would likely come in lower, and Lazard’s own commentary suggests costs would fall as more plants are built. There is that pesky Subsidy again. Me: LCOE is not the levelised full cost of electricity C: You’re right. I treated your question as plain LCOE, and the figures I gave were only generation costs. Levelised full cost of electricity (LFCOE, also called levelised full system cost) adds the system-level costs LCOE leaves out. Let me check the current evidence on that. Once you count full system costs, firmed renewables still come out cheaper than new nuclear in most of the studies I found. The gap is smaller than the plain LCOE figures suggest, and the studies disagree about method. Now the CSIRO next Gen report 25-26, says by 2030 we need 33GWh of battery storage. The east coast of Australia uses about 655GWh per day. That's about 3 minutes. It then says we need 12GWh of hydro, 7 already existing and hoping Snowy2 finishes in time. Add that to the batteries and we get to 4 minutes. ;)

There you go Lee. Once more you post evidence supporting my position. When your own previous evidence supported 80 to 90% of our electricity come from "weather dependent" renewables as the cheapest option, you still concluded we should go 100% nuclear, even though it did not cite a single circumstance where nuclear was the cheapest. Obvious, given that nuclear is the most expensive and getting worse. Your only apparent reasoning being that getting our electricity from more than one source is too complicated for you to understand.

Is that the sort of logic we should expect from One Nation and LNP voters?

I see no replacement/renewal costs that will offer comparison over the lifespan of the energy creator..... nuclear notoriously runs for over three times longer .... which means over lifespan the cost reduces to at least a third.

There's also that 'assumption' word again..

I think we need a more independent source than that now ageing CSIRO report.... those figures were designer built around a pre-approved approach, guess what - to suit Capital City's 'narrative' and has some serious gaps.

Now this is sort of the 'right wing' - the business approach:-

"There are clear ways to ensure that nuclear power is cost-effective:

        Standardised designs: Instead of expensive, first-of-a-kind projects, Australia could opt for reactors that have already been successfully built and operated.
        Sequencing reactor construction: Building the same reactor design multiple times in a row lowers costs through efficiency and economies of scale.
        Pre-approved designs: Instead of starting from scratch, Australia could license designs that have already passed strict international safety approvals.

The problem isn’t nuclear itself, but how nuclear projects are managed. If done properly, nuclear power plants provide a stable, long-term investment that delivers clean electricity for generations."

https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/questions-and-answers-on-cost-and-bans/

Grappler,

Quote:

The problem isn’t nuclear itself, but how nuclear projects are managed. If done properly, nuclear power plants provide a stable, long-term investment that delivers clean electricity for generations."

The main problem with nuclear power stations is that they can become targets in war
creating a melt down catastrophe.

I don't know how we can overcome that?   :-/

freediver wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 8:22am:

There you go Lee. Once more you post evidence supporting my position.

Ah yes. truncating what I said again.
freediver wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 8:22am:

When your own previous evidence supported 80 to 90% of our electricity come from "weather dependent" renewables as the cheapest option, you still concluded we should go 100% nuclear, even though it did not cite a single circumstance where nuclear was the cheapest.

You didn't read the bit about the CSIRO which Claude quoted, I explained exactly what was in the NextGen 25-26 report.


lee wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 9:12pm:

Now the CSIRO next Gen report 25-26, says by 2030 we need 33GWh of battery storage. The east coast of Australia uses about 655GWh per day. That's about 3 minutes. It then says we need 12GWh of hydro, 7 already existing and hoping Snowy2 finishes in time. Add that to the batteries and we get to 4 minutes.

So what Claude said was also not the leveilised full Cost of Electricity.

BTW- I was wrong about the time it is about 1.6 hours, which is still not long.

The new report, according to Claude also says that -

"The extra firming. The ISP says its full reliability check found more firming was needed than the draft assumed, and that gas was assumed as the firming solution. The summary doesn’t show what that added capacity cost, or whether it is separate from the 17 GW. It also says other options, such as demand flexibility, could be cheaper."

So the LFCOE shows more expense, including overbuilding. NextGen doesn't cover how much is required, therefore it is not in the calculation.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 1:46pm:

Grappler, Quote: The problem isn’t nuclear itself, but how nuclear projects are managed. If done properly, nuclear power plants provide a stable, long-term investment that delivers clean electricity for generations." The main problem with nuclear power stations is that they can become targets in war creating a melt down catastrophe. I don't know how we can overcome that?   :-/

So are the wind farms and solar farms, Bobby - targets and easy to hit... especially when you consider that imported goods such as panels and generators in towers can and do contain 'kill switches' that can be triggered by any passing or stationary satellite... plunging an entire nation into darkness and powerlessness at the drop of an electronic switch.

That's why I support and advocate for Australian home grown industries - with OUR software geniuses at work like beavers... and that includes drones and military aircraft, BTW... we must be very careful who our allies are and who are our suppliers.

Islamic Britain and chickenshit Europe may NOT be our best friends down the track... and China where we get pretty much all of our wind and solar stuff from - holds the switches...  Japan remains a cypher.... ah so - on yo' si'e, Mr Tlump!  But if China is reduced to something near its former technological weakness........ anything could happen.. and we are undermined with Fifth Columns.

Hello, Australia!  Hello darkness my old friend...

BTW - Claude also says -

C: Overbuild isn’t an input.

Me: overbuild isn't an input? Then why do we need it?

C: “Not an input” was poor wording. I meant that the modellers don’t type in an overbuild ratio; the optimiser picks the capacity mix that meets demand at least cost.

So overbuild is not specified, it depends on the modellers assumptions.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 3:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11th, 2026 at 1:46pm: Grappler, Quote: The problem isn’t nuclear itself, but how nuclear projects are managed. If done properly, nuclear power plants provide a stable, long-term investment that delivers clean electricity for generations." The main problem with nuclear power stations is that they can become targets in war creating a melt down catastrophe. I don't know how we can overcome that?   :-/ So are the wind farms and solar farms, Bobby - targets and easy to hit... especially when you consider that imported goods such as panels and generators in towers can and do contain 'kill switches' that can be triggered by any passing or stationary satellite... plunging an entire nation into darkness and powerlessness at the drop of an electronic switch. That's why I support and advocate for Australian home grown industries - with OUR software geniuses at work like beavers... and that includes drones and military aircraft, BTW... we must be very careful who our allies are and who are our suppliers. Islamic Britain and chickenshit Europe may NOT be our best friends down the track... and China where we get pretty much all of our wind and solar stuff from - holds the switches...  Japan remains a cypher.... ah so - on yo' si'e, Mr Tlump!  But if China is reduced to something near its former technological weakness........ anything could happen.. and we are undermined with Fifth Columns. Hello, Australia!  Hello darkness my old friend...

Still not as bad as a meltdown.

lee wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 9:20pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 9:00pm: You do know that The USA and many other countries do not re process? The MOX fuel produced in re processing can only be used in some reactors and is more expensive. And that was by presidential decree, not for safety reasons. Jimmy done it. ;) Dnarever wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 9:00pm: Also for a material that will be around for a few hundred thousand years how big an impact would be re processing it the once or twice which is the current limit. That is re processing may get you an extre ten years? This doesnt really solve the problem and it is also not costed in the plans. If you only lose about 3% each time it is used your maths is so far out as to be funny. And each time it is processed the worst of the radiation is reduced.

Quote:

If you only lose about 3% each time it is used your maths is so far out as to be funny.

It isn't my math it is how it is done in practice - Some Fuel rods are re processed once and others twice before going into long term storage. 1 is the limit for MOX fuel. In theory it can be unlimited but that requires a different type of reactor to be built. Like so often with nuclear it may be a good idea one day just not today.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 7:43pm:

It isn't my math it is how it is done in practice - Fuel rods are re processed once or twice before going into long term storage.

That is not scientifically justified. So if we take it loses 4% of retained power, each time it is processed, that would make it 128 times before it lost half its power.
So " re processing it the once or twice which is the current limit." is NOT the limit. It is what is done,

From AI: Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed multiple times to recover usable materials, but the exact number of times depends on the technology used and regulatory policies. Currently, in the U.S., reprocessing is not permitted, while some countries like France actively recycle spent fuel.

lee wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 7:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 11th, 2026 at 7:43pm: It isn't my math it is how it is done in practice - Fuel rods are re processed once or twice before going into long term storage. That is not scientifically justified. So if we take it loses 4% of retained power, each time it is processed, that would make it 128 times before it lost half its power. So " re processing it the once or twice which is the current limit." is NOT the limit. It is what is done, From AI: Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed multiple times to recover usable materials, but the exact number of times depends on the technology used and regulatory policies. Currently, in the U.S., reprocessing is not permitted, while some countries like France actively recycle spent fuel.

Lee - go back to school.  losing 4% = 0.96 of the original.

0.96 to the power of 17 = 0.4995 =  half.

Not 128 times.


forgiven

namaste.

lee wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 7:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 11th, 2026 at 7:43pm: It isn't my math it is how it is done in practice - Fuel rods are re processed once or twice before going into long term storage. That is not scientifically justified. So if we take it loses 4% of retained power, each time it is processed, that would make it 128 times before it lost half its power. So " re processing it the once or twice which is the current limit." is NOT the limit. It is what is done, From AI: Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed multiple times to recover usable materials, but the exact number of times depends on the technology used and regulatory policies. Currently, in the U.S., reprocessing is not permitted, while some countries like France actively recycle spent fuel.

MOX2 fuel is in development, it should allow multiple re processing. One day maybe.

lee wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 7:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 11th, 2026 at 7:43pm: It isn't my math it is how it is done in practice - Fuel rods are re processed once or twice before going into long term storage. That is not scientifically justified. So if we take it loses 4% of retained power, each time it is processed, that would make it 128 times before it lost half its power. So " re processing it the once or twice which is the current limit." is NOT the limit. It is what is done, From AI: Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed multiple times to recover usable materials, but the exact number of times depends on the technology used and regulatory policies. Currently, in the U.S., reprocessing is not permitted, while some countries like France actively recycle spent fuel.

Quote:

Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed multiple times

Yes in theory it can but it isn't. France use about 10% Mox fuel and 90% normal nuclear fuel. There is no multiple processed fuel in use anywhere other than trials and dev testing.

If Mox fule is reprocessed the level of radioactivity increases and managing it becomes more difficult and dangerous. It is also much more expensive to do it.

Grappler,

Quote:

The problem isn’t nuclear itself, but how nuclear projects are managed. If done properly, nuclear power plants provide a stable, long-term investment that delivers clean electricity for generations."

Yes clean for decades -  Chernobyl and Fukushima are great examples. Its nice and quiet too with all those pesky people gone. They are projecting 20,000 years before people can live at Chernobyl. Thats a bit optimistic too. 

OH and re processed fuel is more radioactive - its worse ?

Chernobyl was a flawed design to start with. 8-)

lee wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 7:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 11th, 2026 at 7:43pm: It isn't my math it is how it is done in practice - Fuel rods are re processed once or twice before going into long term storage. That is not scientifically justified. So if we take it loses 4% of retained power, each time it is processed, that would make it 128 times before it lost half its power. So " re processing it the once or twice which is the current limit." is NOT the limit. It is what is done, From AI: Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed multiple times to recover usable materials, but the exact number of times depends on the technology used and regulatory policies. Currently, in the U.S., reprocessing is not permitted, while some countries like France actively recycle spent fuel.

Lee - go back to school.  losing 4% = 0.96 of the original.

0.96 to the power of 17 = 0.4995 =  half.

Not 128 times.


forgiven

namaste.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 8:14pm:

Yes in theory it can but it isn't.

Because of policy, not limitations on the science.

wiki: The key issue driving this policy was the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation by diversion of plutonium from the civilian fuel cycle, and to encourage other nations to follow the US lead.
;)

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 8:02pm:

Lee - go back to school.  losing 4% = 0.96 of the original.

You are right. I didn't check what I wrote. It should have been 18 times, using the rule of 72.

lee wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 9:41pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11th, 2026 at 8:02pm: Lee - go back to school.  losing 4% = 0.96 of the original. You are right. I didn't check what I wrote. It should have been 18 times, using the rule of 72.

In any case fuel can only be re-processed a couple of times - I think?

It gets full of dangerous daughter products which interefere
in the nuclear reactions and are hard to separate out.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 8:32pm:

Grappler, Quote: The problem isn’t nuclear itself, but how nuclear projects are managed. If done properly, nuclear power plants provide a stable, long-term investment that delivers clean electricity for generations." Yes clean for decades -  Chernobyl and Fukushima are great examples. Its nice and quiet too with all those pesky people gone. They are projecting 20,000 years before people can live at Chernobyl. Thats a bit optimistic too.  OH and re processed fuel is more radioactive - its worse ?

Wild horses and deer are there....

lee wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 2:04pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 11th, 2026 at 8:22am: There you go Lee. Once more you post evidence supporting my position. Ah yes. truncating what I said again. freediver wrote on Oct 11th, 2026 at 8:22am: When your own previous evidence supported 80 to 90% of our electricity come from "weather dependent" renewables as the cheapest option, you still concluded we should go 100% nuclear, even though it did not cite a single circumstance where nuclear was the cheapest. You didn't read the bit about the CSIRO which Claude quoted, I explained exactly what was in the NextGen 25-26 report. lee wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 9:12pm: Now the CSIRO next Gen report 25-26, says by 2030 we need 33GWh of battery storage. The east coast of Australia uses about 655GWh per day. That's about 3 minutes. It then says we need 12GWh of hydro, 7 already existing and hoping Snowy2 finishes in time. Add that to the batteries and we get to 4 minutes. So what Claude said was also not the leveilised full Cost of Electricity. BTW- I was wrong about the time it is about 1.6 hours, which is still not long. The new report, according to Claude also says that - "The extra firming. The ISP says its full reliability check found more firming was needed than the draft assumed, and that gas was assumed as the firming solution. The summary doesn’t show what that added capacity cost, or whether it is separate from the 17 GW. It also says other options, such as demand flexibility, could be cheaper." So the LFCOE shows more expense, including overbuilding. NextGen doesn't cover how much is required, therefore it is not in the calculation.

Your posts show a lot of bloviating. Thanks for the rehash of the finer details of your bloviating, but your own evidence still concludes that renewables are cheaper than nuclear. If anyone failed to read your posts, or understand them, it was you.

freediver wrote on Oct 12^th, 2026 at 12:13pm:

Your posts show a lot of bloviating. Thanks for the rehash of the finer details of your bloviating, but your own evidence still concludes that renewables are cheaper than nuclear.

As was said by multiple sources, it depends on the assumptions. The assumption that the grid on the east coast can rely on 2.6 hours of backup is laughable. A Dunkelflaute can last more than a week. Unless of course you want load shedding. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 9:47pm:

In any case fuel can only be re-processed a couple of times - I think?

That is policy, not engineering.

Quote:

As was said by multiple sources, it depends on the assumptions.

That is not what the sources actually said. Pretty much every source you gave contradicted your conclusions and stated quite clearly that renewables are still cheaper. You were just too busy bloviating to notice.


Quote:

A Dunkelflaute can last more than a week.

A week of darkness? Are you worried about our grid surviving the end times? Or powering northern Germany through their winter?

What country do you think this forum is about Lee?

Are there any LNP or One Nation supporters around who are not as confused as Lee?

lee wrote on Oct 12^th, 2026 at 2:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11th, 2026 at 9:47pm: In any case fuel can only be re-processed a couple of times - I think? That is policy, not engineering.

It's science.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 12^th, 2026 at 5:28pm:

It's science.

policy isn't science either.

lee wrote on Oct 12^th, 2026 at 5:44pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 12th, 2026 at 5:28pm: It's science. policy isn't science either.

Lee- you'd have to a nuclear engineer to understand it all -
neither of us are.   :-[

LOL. Now Lee thinks the fuel can be re-used forever, like a perpetual motion machine. Now wonder he supports the LNP and One Nation.

lee wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 5:27pm:

: C- “Not an input” was poor wording. I meant that the modellers don’t type in an overbuild ratio; the optimiser picks the capacity mix that meets demand at least cost.

Assumptions.


lee wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 5:27pm:

So overbuild is not specified, it depends on the modellers assumptions.

lee wrote on Oct 12^th, 2026 at 2:23pm:

The assumption that the grid on the east coast can rely on 2.6 hours of backup is laughable

BTW -u didn't respond to this - "Ah, you expect renewables to always be available on demand with firming?"

From the AEMO workings from  CSIRO

"The 2025 Inputs and Assumptions Workbook contains data provided by or collected from third
parties, and conclusions, opinions, assumptions or forecasts that are based on that data.

AEMO has made reasonable efforts to ensure the quality of the information in this publication but cannot
guarantee that information, forecasts and assumptions are accurate, complete or appropriate for your
circumstances.

"Updated cost and technology assumptions, including new distribution-connected mid-scale solar and
battery assumptions, and updated pumped hydro energy assumptions.

That is reaaly the long way to go about it. I did a word search of the AEMO paper. The word "Assumptions" appears 647 times.

https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/files/stakeholder_consultation/consultations/nem-consultations/2024/2025-iasr-scenarios/final-docs/2025-inputs-assumptions-and-scenarios-report.pdf?rev=63268acd3f044adb9f5f3a32b6880c27&sc_lang=en

It is linked from - https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Electricity-transition/GenCost

freediver wrote on Oct 12^th, 2026 at 6:05pm:

LOL. Now Lee thinks the fuel can be re-used forever, like a perpetual motion machine. Now wonder he supports the LNP and One Nation.

wow. talk about a science numpty. 8-)

Renewables cost one third the price of nuclear. And the gap is widening. Your sources have backed that up, looking at it from every angle possible. Not a single one has said that nuclear is cheaper than renewables. Have you still not figured that out yet?

Why are LNP and One Nation supporters so ideologically glued to nuclear? So far the closest you have come to an explanation is that we should go 100% nuclear, even though it is the most expensive option, because getting our electricity from more than one source is too complicated for you.

freediver wrote on Oct 12^th, 2026 at 6:05pm:

LOL. Now Lee thinks the fuel can be re-used forever, like a perpetual motion machine. Now wonder he supports the LNP and One Nation.

He is also lacking in arithmetic skills.    :-[

freediver wrote on Oct 12^th, 2026 at 6:17pm:

Renewables cost one third the price of nuclear.

Is that the levelised full cost or the LCOE. You haven't explained that. ;)

Bobby. wrote on Oct 12^th, 2026 at 6:29pm:

He is also lacking in arithmetic skills.

So tell =me when you accidentally pres both 1&2 close together and then the 8. you know  128. I apologised for it.  Find a stile and get over it.

lee wrote on Oct 12^th, 2026 at 7:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 12th, 2026 at 6:29pm: He is also lacking in arithmetic skills. So tell =me when you accidentally pres both 1&2 close together and then the 8. you know  128. I apologised for it.  Find a stile and get over it.

dear Lee,
many blessings.

May I suggest that you proof read your posts before posting?

forgiven

namaste

All this science talk and what ever but it completely ignores the fact that ON couldnt lift a ban on a can of baked beans.

lee wrote on Oct 12^th, 2026 at 2:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11th, 2026 at 9:47pm: In any case fuel can only be re-processed a couple of times - I think? That is policy, not engineering.

No - it is fact given the current technology. To extend this both better fuel and more advanced reactors are needed but neither is predicted over the next decade or more. Even though it is possible for the future at this time both options are more expensive and likely more dangerous.

The current MOX rods can be re used once and are used in maybe 4 countries and account for under 10% of power generated in those countries.

MOX2 is unter development and there are a few testing attempts. It isn't in any production environments. Probably over a decade away.

Every decade since the 1960's there has been the appearance that solutions were just around the corner but it has never happened we are as far away today as we were in 1963.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 12^th, 2026 at 7:33pm:

lee wrote on Oct 12th, 2026 at 7:25pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 12th, 2026 at 6:29pm: He is also lacking in arithmetic skills. So tell =me when you accidentally pres both 1&2 close together and then the 8. you know  128. I apologised for it.  Find a stile and get over it. dear Lee, many blessings. May I suggest that you proof read your posts before posting? forgiven namaste

I am also guilty of missing typos more often than should be the case. I think my eyes self correct when I proof read because they know what it is meant to be.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 12^th, 2026 at 8:28pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 12th, 2026 at 7:33pm: lee wrote on Oct 12th, 2026 at 7:25pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 12th, 2026 at 6:29pm: He is also lacking in arithmetic skills. So tell =me when you accidentally pres both 1&2 close together and then the 8. you know  128. I apologised for it.  Find a stile and get over it. dear Lee, many blessings. May I suggest that you proof read your posts before posting? forgiven namaste I am also guilty of missing typos more often than should be the case. I think my eyes self correct when I proof read because they know what it is meant to be.

It happens to us all.

lee wrote on Oct 12^th, 2026 at 7:23pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 12th, 2026 at 6:17pm: Renewables cost one third the price of nuclear. Is that the levelised full cost or the LCOE. You haven't explained that. ;)

I provided the link and the graph. As I recall, you were clever enough to figure that out for yourself. But not enough to realise that all your evidence also said that renewables are cheaper.

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2026 at 8:31am:

I provided the link and the graph

YES. Wiki only uses LCOE, thanks for admitting your shortcomings. ;D ;D ;D

quote author=leeforward link=1791072281/76#76 date=1791792534]BTW -u didn't respond to this - "Ah, you expect renewables to always be available on demand with firming?"[/quote]
;)

Do you actually think nuclear is cheaper than renewables, or were you just bloviating for no point?

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2026 at 12:58pm:

Do you actually think nuclear is cheaper than renewables, or were you just bloviating for no point?

Google AI:

bloviate


To bloviate means to talk or write at a long, tedious length in a pompous,
boastful, or self-important way, usually without saying anything of real substance.

;D

flip

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2026 at 1:14pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2026 at 12:58pm: Do you actually think nuclear is cheaper than renewables, or were you just bloviating for no point? Google AI: bloviate To bloviate means to talk or write at a long, tedious length in a pompous, boastful, or self-important way, usually without saying anything of real substance. ;D

You can thank Lee for the term. For some reason it makes me think of cows.

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2026 at 1:44pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13th, 2026 at 1:14pm: freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2026 at 12:58pm: Do you actually think nuclear is cheaper than renewables, or were you just bloviating for no point? Google AI: bloviate To bloviate means to talk or write at a long, tedious length in a pompous, boastful, or self-important way, usually without saying anything of real substance. ;D You can thank Lee for the term. For some reason it makes me think of cows.

I remember at work many times when we had meetings -
the people who knew the least said the most.   :)

Australia is already committed to “Nuclear Power’’ with our proposed steam submarines; what is the difference between a steam submarine producing its steam power with heat from a nuclear reactor and a steam powered electric generator using heat from a nuclear reactor a few kilometres from the sub base but on dry land?

Quote:

Australia is already committed to “Nuclear Power’’ with our proposed steam submarines; what is the difference between a steam submarine producing its steam power with heat from a nuclear reactor and a steam powered electric generator using heat from a nuclear reactor a few kilometres from the sub base but on dry land?

Are we building those submarines in Australia?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 19^th, 2026 at 8:25am:

Australia is already committed to “Nuclear Power’’ with our proposed steam submarines; what is the difference between a steam submarine producing its steam power with heat from a nuclear reactor and a steam powered electric generator using heat from a nuclear reactor a few kilometres from the sub base but on dry land?

Additional:
The steam submarines will be visiting all major Australian ports, so Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane etc., will, at times, have active Nuclear reactors in their midst; or shall we bar some RAN vessels from our ports?

freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2026 at 8:31am:

Quote: Australia is already committed to “Nuclear Power’’ with our proposed steam submarines; what is the difference between a steam submarine producing its steam power with heat from a nuclear reactor and a steam powered electric generator using heat from a nuclear reactor a few kilometres from the sub base but on dry land? Are we building those submarines in Australia?

No, they are USA built, but that’s irrelevant because they along with their reactors will be in Australian ports.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 11:05am:

freediver wrote on Oct 19th, 2026 at 8:31am: Quote: Australia is already committed to “Nuclear Power’’ with our proposed steam submarines; what is the difference between a steam submarine producing its steam power with heat from a nuclear reactor and a steam powered electric generator using heat from a nuclear reactor a few kilometres from the sub base but on dry land? Are we building those submarines in Australia? No, they are USA built, but that’s irrelevant because they along with their reactors will be in Australian ports.

It is relevant, according to you. If not, why did you ask us for the difference between a nuclear sub and a nuclear power plant? Do you think being able to simply place an order for one, vs having to actually build it in Australia, makes no difference to cost, delivery time, safety etc, especially considering we have no established nuclear industry here?

Another key difference you seem oblivious to: you cannot make a rational decision on whether to build a nuclear power plant without considering alternatives like wind and solar (unless, perhaps, you are a member of the Liberal party or One Nation). Have you ever heard of a wind or solar powered submarine?

Do you think your question may have been a little bit silly, and yet consistent with the attitude of Liberal and One Nation voters?

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 11:42am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 11:05am: freediver wrote on Oct 19th, 2026 at 8:31am: Quote: Australia is already committed to “Nuclear Power’’ with our proposed steam submarines; what is the difference between a steam submarine producing its steam power with heat from a nuclear reactor and a steam powered electric generator using heat from a nuclear reactor a few kilometres from the sub base but on dry land? Are we building those submarines in Australia? No, they are USA built, but that’s irrelevant because they along with their reactors will be in Australian ports. It is relevant, according to you. If not, why did you ask us for the difference between a nuclear sub and a nuclear power plant? Do you think being able to simply place an order for one, vs having to actually build it in Australia, makes no difference to cost, delivery time, safety etc, especially considering we have no established nuclear industry here? Another key difference you seem oblivious to: you cannot make a rational decision on whether to build a nuclear power plant without considering alternatives like wind and solar (unless, perhaps, you are a member of the Liberal party or One Nation). Have you ever heard of a wind or solar powered submarine? Do you think your question may have been a little bit silly, and yet consistent with the attitude of Liberal and One Nation voters?

Ah - you are back(....)

Exposing the contradictory logic of others eg  "It is relevant, according to you."

(A bit convoluted, if I may say)..

btw, someone said the new Oz subs will be built overseas, but Oz will also be building nuclear subs in Adelaide as part of the AUKUS deal.

I agree the Oz ban on nuclear power is obsolete; the US and China (the world's largest emitters of CO2) are both powering ahead with building 'clean' base-load nuclear plants. 

Hopefully the problem of nuclear waste will be solved sometime in the future; powering the global economy on intermittent sun and wind alone will be a vast engineering challenge, and 'unaffordable' with present Neoclassical 'austerity' financing arrangements (dependent  on private sector finance). 

Meanwhile:   

(ggogle AI)

Building a single large-scale nuclear power plant in Australia is estimated to cost between $8.5 billion and $17 billion in capital costs. However, because Australia has no existing civil nuclear industry, energy experts and national agencies warn that the first-of-a-kind (FOAK) premium could double that initial figure

So that means the $25 billion Snowy 2.0  (with 2 GW capacity)  is still worthwhile, to achieve  net zero.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 11^th, 2026 at 8:32pm:

Grappler, Quote: The problem isn’t nuclear itself, but how nuclear projects are managed. If done properly, nuclear power plants provide a stable, long-term investment that delivers clean electricity for generations." Yes clean for decades -  Chernobyl and Fukushima are great examples. Its nice and quiet too with all those pesky people gone. They are projecting 20,000 years before people can live at Chernobyl. Thats a bit optimistic too.  OH and re processed fuel is more radioactive - its worse ?

Quote:

Inside the Chernobyl 0 - 30 klm exclusion zone. 150 people, including returnees and administrative staff, live inside the semi-abandoned town of Chernobyl. Around 100 to 200 elderly residents—mostly older women—returned to their homes illegally inside the 30-kilometer exclusion zone and live in small, abandoned villages. Roughly 4,000 to 6,000 personnel (including plant technicians, engineers maintaining the sarcophagus, police, firefighters, and foresters) work on rotating shifts inside the zone. Fukushima - People live as close as a few hundred meters to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. About 2.2% of Fukushima Prefecture's land remains under active evacuation orders, down from 12% immediately after the 2011 disaster. In nearby towns like Futaba (where evacuation orders were lifted in 2022), only about 180 out of 5,300 registered residents actually live and sleep there. • Okuma, the town closest to the power plant, the population dropped from over 10,000 to roughly 500–600 residents, with large portions of the area still designated as uninhabitable "difficult-to-return zones". • Namie and Tomioka: Towns on the edge of the former exclusion zone have seen partial recovery, active rest stops, and returning populations (such as Namie's population recovering to around 1,900), though many former residents have permanently settled elsewhere. •  Measured radiation levels in many lifted zones are now quite low—often lower than the exposure experienced during a transatlantic flight—and local atmospheric radiation matches major world cities. • The Plant Itself: The Fukushima Daiichi plant site remains an active decommissioning and cleanup zone where workers operate daily, though permanent residential living is restricted strictly outside designated safe perimeters.

20,000 years ey?


Quote:

Wildlife thrives in the 1,000-square-mile Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ) because the absence of human activity outweighs the impact of chronic low-dose radiation. Mammals: • Large Predators: Gray wolves are roughly seven times more abundant inside the zone than in surrounding uncontaminated areas, alongside brown bears, Eurasian lynx, and American mink. • Herbivores: Populations of elk, red deer, roe deer, wild boar, and European bison match or exceed those in nearby protected nature reserves. • Rare & Introduced Species: Free-ranging Przewalski’s horses—introduced to the area in 1998—and Eurasian beavers (which reshape local waterways with dams) maintain stable populations. • Feral Dogs: Descendants of pets left behind during the 1986 evacuation live in packs, showing genetic divergence driven by isolation and inbreeding rather than radiation-induced mutations. Birds: • Species Diversity: Over 200 bird species inhabit the zone, including white-tailed eagles, storks, and songbirds that have returned to the regenerating forests. • Adaptations & Health: Some species exhibit lower lifespans, higher rates of cataracts, or altered gut microbiomes and diets (such as chicks consuming more moths and butterflies in high-radiation zones). However, many local bird populations continue to nest and reproduce successfully.

Chernobyl was 30 years ago & caused by faulty design & turned off safety systems.

Fukushima was 15 years ago caused by an earthquake generated Tsunami.

Russia has built 7 Nuclear power stations with 15 reactors since Chernobyl.

Since the Fukushima nuclear accident, Japan has restarted twelve reactors and fifteen more have applied to restart, including two that are under construction.

Take your Chicken Little hat off Duckwit. ;D

How much does it cost to safely store nuclear waste until it is no longer dangerous?

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 1:07pm:

How much does it cost to safely store nuclear waste until it is no longer dangerous?

After the infrastrucure is built (eg Finland and Sweden), storage costs would be minimal; as for "until it is no longer dangerous" - that's your trick conflation of mere safe storage versus future research into treatment of nuclear waste rendering it safe.

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 2:45pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 1:07pm: How much does it cost to safely store nuclear waste until it is no longer dangerous? After the infrastrucure is built (eg Finland and Sweden), storage costs would be minimal; as for "until it is no longer dangerous" - that's your trick conflation of mere safe storage versus future research into treatment of nuclear waste rendering it safe.

Nuclear waste takes too long to decay.

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

Some common nuclear waste half lives:

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

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 9:15pm:

Quote: How about you show your workings. I don't need to do my own workings. It only takes half a brain and 5 seconds on google. Have you already forgotten the last time we had the same discussion? Renewables have cost less than one third the price of nuclear for a decade now. And the gap will only get wider. They are still far cheaper when you throw in the cost of grid storage. And they actually reduce the cost of energy transmission infrastructure. Only a moron (or One Nation and the LNP) would choose now to take the leap into nuclear.

Yes, but I think Lee's having a lend of you, dear. He's only saying nuclear because he knows it'll never happen.

Lee's a brown coal man. It's a matter of aesthetics.

Superior culture, innit.

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 2:45pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 1:07pm: How much does it cost to safely store nuclear waste until it is no longer dangerous? After the infrastrucure is built (eg Finland and Sweden), storage costs would be minimal; as for "until it is no longer dangerous" - that's your trick conflation of mere safe storage versus future research into treatment of nuclear waste rendering it safe.

You don't have to treat it in any way to render it safe. You just wait a long time.


Quote:

After the infrastrucure is built (eg Finland and Sweden), storage costs would be minimal

;D

Most of the cost is in the infrastructure. Unless it falls apart.

This is like saying that something is cheap if you get it for free or ignore the cost. The sort of thing a communist would say.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 5:18pm:

This is like saying that something is cheap if you get it for free or ignore the cost.

You mean like sunlight or wind? 8-)

lee wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 5:24pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 5:18pm: This is like saying that something is cheap if you get it for free or ignore the cost. You mean like sunlight or wind? 8-)

Do you have a point Lee?

Yes pet. All thoise costs that are not specifically pointed at renewables are forgotten.

BTW - You didn't answer the question about 2.6 hours of battery storage. 8-)

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 1:07pm:

How much does it cost to safely store nuclear waste until it is no longer dangerous?

How come people suffer radiation exposure on a high altitude jet flight?


Quote:

Commercial jets typically cruise between 9,000 and 12,000 meters (30,000 to 40,000 feet). At these heights, there is a much thinner layer of Earth's atmosphere left to block space radiation. Radiation levels at cruising altitude are roughly 10 to 50 times higher than they are at sea level. • Exposure is higher near the North and South poles because the Earth's magnetic field funnels cosmic rays toward the polar regions. Polar flight routes (such as US-to-Asia paths) have higher exposures. • Plane Shielding: Standard aluminum or composite aircraft skin offers minimal protection against high-energy cosmic rays and neutrons. Frequent Flyers and Aircrew: Pilots and flight attendants accumulate high levels of exposure over years of working. Studies analyzing occupational health (including research highlighted by Harvard Medical School and published studies on death certificates) show that aircrew members can face a higher statistical proportion of deaths from certain radiation-associated cancers compared to the general public.

Maybe there should be a moratorium on jet plane travel?

There are deep drilling processes that can put radioactive waste deep into rock far below the earths surface.



Quote:

Operational / Near-Operational Repositories • Finland (Olkiluoto / Eurajoki): The Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository is located 430–450 meters deep in stable 1.9-billion-year-old bedrock. It became the world's first deep geological repository to receive an operating licence in October 2026. • United States (Carlsbad, New Mexico): The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) operates deep in an underground salt formation for defense-related transuranic waste. Repositories Under Construction Sweden (Forsmark): Construction began in 2025 for a spent nuclear fuel repository at a depth of about 500 meters, using the same KBS-3 technology as Finland. Advanced Planning and Siting Projects • France (Bure): The Cigéo project is targeted for operations around 2030–2035 at a depth of 500 meters in clay formations; its license application was submitted in 2023. • Canada (Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation–Ignace area): Selected a preferred site in 2024 to advance its deep geological repository planning. • Switzerland (Nördlich Lägern): Selected as the repository site, with a general licence application submitted in 2024. • China (Beishan region): Actively conducting underground research laboratory and siting work. • Other Countries: Nations like the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Hungary, South Korea, and Belgium are actively engaged in community consultations, underground research labs, or national siting selection processes.

And as for the earth & it's core & the make up & natural radiation.



Quote:

Where Radioactive Elements Are Located • Crust and Mantle: Most radioactive isotopes—such as uranium-238, thorium-232, and potassium-40—are "rock-loving" (lithophilic) elements concentrated heavily in the silicate mantle and crust. • The Core: Traditional bulk-silicate Earth models assume iron-loving (siderophilic) elements dominate the metallic core, leaving little to no room for significant radioactive heating inside the core. • Alternative Theories: Some geochemical and experimental studies suggest that extreme pressures and high temperatures at the core-mantle boundary could allow minor amounts of radioactive elements like uranium to mix into the liquid iron core. What Keeps the Core Molten The heat driving the molten outer core comes from several combined sources rather than radioactivity alone: • Primordial Heat: Leftover thermal energy from the planet's violent accretion and formation 4.5 billion years ago. • Gravitational Differentiation: Friction generated as heavy iron sank toward the center of the young Earth (the iron catastrophe). • Latent Heat: Energy released as the inner core slowly crystallizes and freezes out of the liquid outer core. • Radioactive Decay: While localized radioactive decay plays a massive role in heating the surrounding mantle and crust, its exact contribution inside the metallic core remains uncertain.

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2026 at 1:44pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13th, 2026 at 1:14pm: freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2026 at 12:58pm: Do you actually think nuclear is cheaper than renewables, or were you just bloviating for no point? Google AI: bloviate To bloviate means to talk or write at a long, tedious length in a pompous, boastful, or self-important way, usually without saying anything of real substance. ;D You can thank Lee for the term. For some reason it makes me think of cows.

Yeah nah that's "ruminate".  ::)

whiteknight wrote on Oct 4^th, 2026 at 10:07am:

We don't want nuclear power in Australia.   :(

Why not? we are one of the most stable continents on the planet.

There are many earthquake prone countries with nuclear power plants.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 5:26pm:

lee wrote on Oct 9th, 2026 at 2:58pm: freediver wrote on Oct 7th, 2026 at 7:30pm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity The levelised cost of  electricity is flawed. it doesn't show the levelised full cost of electricity. The levelised full cost includes transmission, storage and subsidies etc. 8-) The levelised cost includes subsidies, if you include them. Renewables are still cheaper, even when you add the cost of storage. This has also been pointed out to you before. They are also trending down, while coal and nuclear are trending up. So the gap will only get wider. Transmission costs tend to be cheaper for renewables as they are both more distributed and better placed. For example rooftop solar is often produced in the same location it is consumed, meaning no load on the grid. You can't put a coal or nuclear fired power station in the suburbs. The distributed battery storage also eases loads on the grid.

When?

The cost of electricity has increased by 50% plus in the last few years under LABORS bs renewables & net zero policy.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 9:06pm:

Instead of going nuclear - some say that we could use large solar panel installations and pumped hydro to store the energy. For pumped hydro storage you could have a facility close to the ocean and pump seawater up to a reservoir and then let it run through turbines back down to the ocean to recover the energy. However that would require a massive solar panel installation and a large reservoir close to the ocean which would take away the best land that we use for farming. Is there any easier way?

;D dickhead.

lee wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 5:35pm:

Yes pet. All thoise costs that are not specifically pointed at renewables are forgotten. BTW - You didn't answer the question about 2.6 hours of battery storage. 8-)

I understand that you are very forgetful. But that isn't really relevant.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 8:28pm:

lee wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 8:16pm: freediver wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 12:54pm: Yes, firmed renewables (wind and solar combined with storage and transmission) are significantly cheaper than nuclear power according to major economic and engineering studies. And when I do Google AI, it says - "levelised full cost of electricity - are renewables cheaper than nuclear" "Yes, firmed renewable energy (such as solar and wind paired with storage and transmission) is significantly cheaper than nuclear power on a levelised full cost of electricity (LCOE) basis" I quried why Google said LCOE, and they admitted their error. Me: "Your anser sasys levelised foull cost of electricity and then says in brackets LCOE which is not full cost" Google: "You are entirely correct, and I apologize for that conflation. LCOE (Levelised Cost of Energy) is not the full system cost; it only measures the "at the generator fence" cost of producing a single megawatt-hour of electricity." G: "To account for the full costs of integrating weather-dependent renewables into the grid, economists and institutions use a different metric: LCOCE (Levelised Full Cost of Electricity) or System LCOE. "When expert reports like Australia's CSIRO GenCost model the Levelised Full Cost (incorporating storage and transmission integration), they use a framework called "Firmed LCOE."" I then responded ""Firmed LCOE" is also not  the the full cost" G:  "You are completely correct, and I appreciate you pushing back on this. "Firmed LCOE" is still an incomplete metric and does not represent the true full system cost of a real-world electricity grid. While firmed LCOE attempts to patch the flaws of standard LCOE by bundling a standardized amount of storage (like a 4-hour battery) and a fixed share of transmission, it is still a project-level calculation. It fails to capture the complex, compounding costs that occur when you try to run an entire society on a given energy " Energy economists point out that firmed LCOE routinely leaves out four massive system-wide expenses: 1. The "Dunkelflaute" and Exponential Overbuilding Firmed LCOE models usually assume a routine, daily cycle of storage (charging by day, discharging at night). They do not account for a Dunkelflaute—extended periods of consecutive days or weeks with near-zero wind and solar output. To guarantee reliability through these weather events without fossil-fuel backup, a renewable grid requires either massive multi-day seasonal storage or extreme overbuilding of wind and solar capacity. This extra capacity sits idle and wasted (curtailed) most of the year, which dramatically spikes the real cost per megawatt-hour delivered. 2. Inertia and Ancillary Services (Grid Stability) Large spinning turbines in nuclear, coal, and hydro plants inherently provide synchronous inertia, which keeps the grid’s frequency stable at 50Hz or 60Hz. Wind and solar do not provide this naturally. Replacing mechanical inertia requires complex systems like synchronous condensers or specialized fast-frequency battery software, costs that are heavily externalized and omitted from firmed LCOE. 3. Local Distribution Grid Upgrades Firmed LCOE accounts for transmission lines (the big towers moving power across regions) but largely ignores distribution networks (the power lines on your street). Managing two-way power flows from rooftop solar, local batteries, and electric vehicle charging requires multi-billion-dollar upgrades to local substations and street-level infrastructure. 4. True System Metrics: LFSCOE and SLOE To capture the actual macroeconomic reality, researchers use macro-system models like System Levelised Cost of Electricity (SLOE) or Levelised Full System Costs of Electricity (LFSCOE). • These model an entire region's grid hour-by-hour over decades. • Studies using these metrics show that while a grid with mostly renewables (e.g., 80-90%) is highly cost-effective, pushing for a 100% weather-dependent grid causes system costs to skyrocket exponentially. • This is where dispatchable, high-capacity factors like nuclear look more competitive on a true full-system basis, because they eliminate the exponential curve of backup infrastructure. Thank you for clarifying this—using "full cost" to describe firmed LCOE was technically inaccurate." Source :Google AI You're welcome. ;) That's a lot of bloviating. But it still says that renewables are cheaper than nuclear. For example from your own quote: Quote: Studies using these metrics show that while a grid with mostly renewables (e.g., 80-90%) is highly cost-effective. Why does the remaining 10-20% even need to be nuclear? Why not gas or hydro? Our existing coal fired power stations won't reach the end of their life for several decades. And even if 10 to 20% is nuclear, that is still not saying that nuclear is cheaper. [quote]pushing for a 100% weather-dependent grid causes system costs to skyrocket exponentially

No-one is doing that Lee. This is merely the sort of idiotic assumption you need to make in order to make nuclear look not quite so terrible as an option. You keep being told that renewables are cheaper than nuclear, even by your own evidence, but you still desperately seek some way to convince yourself of the opposite.[/quote]

Honestly some times no matter how clever you think you are you aint.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 6:04pm:

lee wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 5:35pm: Yes pet. All thoise costs that are not specifically pointed at renewables are forgotten. BTW - You didn't answer the question about 2.6 hours of battery storage. 8-) I understand that you are very forgetful. But that isn't really relevant.

Ah. One of your "Don't want to say ehs". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

@ Freediver -

How's your cliff climbing 2 tonne walruses going?

Freediver gets the evidence of his claims refuted in front of his face - i.e. costs of renewables v nuclear , shown his info(google) isn't correct & it even apologised to Lee for it's misinformation or lacking information ...

and you still refute it .... like a rabid Greenie?

Are you a rabid greenie enviromentalist? .... what?

Dnarever wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 9:10pm:

lee wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 8:36pm: freediver wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 8:28pm: But it still says that renewables are cheaper than nuclear. For example from your own quote: Quote: Studies using these metrics show that while a grid with mostly renewables (e.g., 80-90%) is highly cost-effective. Why didn't you complete what it said? lee wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 8:16pm: pushing for a 100% weather-dependent grid causes system costs to skyrocket exponentially. Or do you only want four hours of battery? freediver wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 8:28pm: Why does the remaining 10-20% even need to be nuclear? Why not gas or hydro? And even if 10 to 20% is nuclear, that is still not saying that nuclear is cheaper. The fact that in only covers 80-90% shows that it isn't viable, even on average. AT ALL. 8-) Just go nuclear. No need for intermittent, weather dependant power at all. What happens under a Dunkelflaute? Freeze in the dark? Quote: The fact that in only covers 80-90% shows that it isn't viable, even on average All the plans are for some sort of mix even with nuclear. Your logic here would mean that nothing is viable. 80 - 90% is really good I doubt what ever is used will meet that standard. If we can reduce the dirty fuels by 90% I would think it would be a good result.

No it's not dickhead - nuclear power generation is illegal in Australia.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 12^th, 2026 at 6:29pm:

[quote author=freediver link=1791072281/75#75 date=1791792336]LOL. Now Lee thinks the fuel can be re-used forever, like a perpetual motion machine. Now wonder he supports the LNP and One Nation.

He is also lacking in arithmetic skills.    :-[/quote]


And you? Like you'd know anything?

You believe Rockys bullshyte.

Booby numpty.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 12^th, 2026 at 8:13pm:

All this science talk and what ever but it completely ignores the fact that ON couldnt lift a ban on a can of baked beans.

If they were in Govt they certainly can.

That's what happens Duckwit.

Gnads wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 6:13pm:

@ Freediver - How's your cliff climbing 2 tonne walruses going? Freediver gets the evidence of his claims refuted in front of his face - i.e. costs of renewables v nuclear , shown his info(google) isn't correct & it even apologised to Lee for it's misinformation or lacking information ... and you still refute it .... like a rabid Greenie? Are you a rabid greenie enviromentalist? .... what?

I don't own any walrusses Gnads. It seems you are struggling just as much as Lee to remain relevant.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2026 at 1:14pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2026 at 12:58pm: Do you actually think nuclear is cheaper than renewables, or were you just bloviating for no point? Google AI: bloviate To bloviate means to talk or write at a long, tedious length in a pompous, boastful, or self-important way, usually without saying anything of real substance. ;D

That's exactly what Freediver does.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 3:49pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 2:45pm: freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 1:07pm: How much does it cost to safely store nuclear waste until it is no longer dangerous? After the infrastrucure is built (eg Finland and Sweden), storage costs would be minimal; as for "until it is no longer dangerous" - that's your trick conflation of mere safe storage versus future research into treatment of nuclear waste rendering it safe. Nuclear waste takes too long to decay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Some common nuclear waste half lives: Plutonium 239 half life      24,110 years. Americium 241 half life          432 years Radium 226     Half life      1,600  years Uranium 236  Half life   15 million years. Plutonium 244 Half life   80 million years Uranium 235  Half life  704 million years Uranium 238 half life      4.5 billion years

Yu know shyte.

You realise all those elements are naturally in the earths crust?

You have no idea.

lee wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 5:24pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 5:18pm: This is like saying that something is cheap if you get it for free or ignore the cost. You mean like sunlight or wind? 8-)

;D [smiley=thumbup.gif]

Touche

Gnads wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 6:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13th, 2026 at 1:14pm: freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2026 at 12:58pm: Do you actually think nuclear is cheaper than renewables, or were you just bloviating for no point? Google AI: bloviate To bloviate means to talk or write at a long, tedious length in a pompous, boastful, or self-important way, usually without saying anything of real substance. ;D That's exactly what Freediver does.

What about you Gnads, do you think nuclear is cheaper than renewables?

Or do you only want to bloviate about walrusses?

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 6:24pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 6:13pm: @ Freediver - How's your cliff climbing 2 tonne walruses going? Freediver gets the evidence of his claims refuted in front of his face - i.e. costs of renewables v nuclear , shown his info(google) isn't correct & it even apologised to Lee for it's misinformation or lacking information ... and you still refute it .... like a rabid Greenie? Are you a rabid greenie enviromentalist? .... what? I don't own any walrusses Gnads. It seems you are struggling just as much as Lee to remain relevant.

I didn't say you owned any you smartarse.

As for relevance - you're fooling yourself you or you argument have any.  ::)

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 6:31pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 6:24pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 13th, 2026 at 1:14pm: freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2026 at 12:58pm: Do you actually think nuclear is cheaper than renewables, or were you just bloviating for no point? Google AI: bloviate To bloviate means to talk or write at a long, tedious length in a pompous, boastful, or self-important way, usually without saying anything of real substance. ;D That's exactly what Freediver does. What about you Gnads, do you think nuclear is cheaper than renewables? Or do you only want to bloviate about walrusses?

You've massively failed to prove renewables are cheaper than nuclear.

Long term cost wise & reliability wise.

You're a typical example of "Figures lie & liars figure".

In fact I'd go close to saying that when it comes to your ideology/belief around this issue ...

you couldn't lie straight in bed.

Does that clarify any bloviation you may think you're encountering?

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 11:42am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 11:05am: freediver wrote on Oct 19th, 2026 at 8:31am: Quote: Australia is already committed to “Nuclear Power’’ with our proposed steam submarines; what is the difference between a steam submarine producing its steam power with heat from a nuclear reactor and a steam powered electric generator using heat from a nuclear reactor a few kilometres from the sub base but on dry land? Are we building those submarines in Australia? No, they are USA built, but that’s irrelevant because they along with their reactors will be in Australian ports. It is relevant, according to you. If not, why did you ask us for the difference between a nuclear sub and a nuclear power plant? Do you think being able to simply place an order for one, vs having to actually build it in Australia, makes no difference to cost, delivery time, safety etc, especially considering we have no established nuclear industry here? Another key difference you seem oblivious to: you cannot make a rational decision on whether to build a nuclear power plant without considering alternatives like wind and solar (unless, perhaps, you are a member of the Liberal party or One Nation). Have you ever heard of a wind or solar powered submarine? Do you think your question may have been a little bit silly, and yet consistent with the attitude of Liberal and One Nation voters?

The relevant thing is that nuclear reactors will be situated in the ports of our major cities and who is talking about rationality?
Certainly not the proponents of the proposed steam submarines.
If a nuclear power plant cannot be located on land 400 miles from a city why can one located on water be but a few miles from a CBD?

Nearly forgot, early submarines were wind powered on the surface if the wind was right.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 6:24pm:

I don't own any walrusses Gnads.

Ah the ghost of Attenborough past. 8-)

Gnads wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 5:55pm:

[quote author=stillcrook link=1791072281/1#1 date=1791072452]We don't want nuclear power in Australia.

But we are going to get it courtesy of the Federal Government via the nuclear reactors in the coming steam powered submarines, which will be berthed in our cities.

Gnads wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 6:16pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 9:10pm: lee wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 8:36pm: freediver wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 8:28pm: But it still says that renewables are cheaper than nuclear. For example from your own quote: Quote: Studies using these metrics show that while a grid with mostly renewables (e.g., 80-90%) is highly cost-effective. Why didn't you complete what it said? lee wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 8:16pm: pushing for a 100% weather-dependent grid causes system costs to skyrocket exponentially. Or do you only want four hours of battery? freediver wrote on Oct 10th, 2026 at 8:28pm: Why does the remaining 10-20% even need to be nuclear? Why not gas or hydro? And even if 10 to 20% is nuclear, that is still not saying that nuclear is cheaper. The fact that in only covers 80-90% shows that it isn't viable, even on average. AT ALL. 8-) Just go nuclear. No need for intermittent, weather dependant power at all. What happens under a Dunkelflaute? Freeze in the dark? Quote: The fact that in only covers 80-90% shows that it isn't viable, even on average All the plans are for some sort of mix even with nuclear. Your logic here would mean that nothing is viable. 80 - 90% is really good I doubt what ever is used will meet that standard. If we can reduce the dirty fuels by 90% I would think it would be a good result. No it's not dickhead - nuclear power generation is illegal in Australia.

It will not be illegal once we get our first nuclear steam generator in our first steam powered submarine.

Gnads wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 6:27pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 3:49pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 2:45pm: freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 1:07pm: How much does it cost to safely store nuclear waste until it is no longer dangerous? After the infrastrucure is built (eg Finland and Sweden), storage costs would be minimal; as for "until it is no longer dangerous" - that's your trick conflation of mere safe storage versus future research into treatment of nuclear waste rendering it safe. Nuclear waste takes too long to decay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Some common nuclear waste half lives: Plutonium 239 half life      24,110 years. Americium 241 half life          432 years Radium 226     Half life      1,600  years Uranium 236  Half life   15 million years. Plutonium 244 Half life   80 million years Uranium 235  Half life  704 million years Uranium 238 half life      4.5 billion years Yu know shyte. You realise all those elements are naturally in the earths crust? You have no idea.

You idiot -
show me where Plutonium 239 -  half life 24,110 years is naturally?

It is created in ordinary nuclear reactors.   ::)

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 6:40pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 11:42am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 11:05am: freediver wrote on Oct 19th, 2026 at 8:31am: Quote: Australia is already committed to “Nuclear Power’’ with our proposed steam submarines; what is the difference between a steam submarine producing its steam power with heat from a nuclear reactor and a steam powered electric generator using heat from a nuclear reactor a few kilometres from the sub base but on dry land? Are we building those submarines in Australia? No, they are USA built, but that’s irrelevant because they along with their reactors will be in Australian ports. It is relevant, according to you. If not, why did you ask us for the difference between a nuclear sub and a nuclear power plant? Do you think being able to simply place an order for one, vs having to actually build it in Australia, makes no difference to cost, delivery time, safety etc, especially considering we have no established nuclear industry here? Another key difference you seem oblivious to: you cannot make a rational decision on whether to build a nuclear power plant without considering alternatives like wind and solar (unless, perhaps, you are a member of the Liberal party or One Nation). Have you ever heard of a wind or solar powered submarine? Do you think your question may have been a little bit silly, and yet consistent with the attitude of Liberal and One Nation voters? The relevant thing is that nuclear reactors will be situated in the ports of our major cities and who is talking about rationality? Certainly not the proponents of the proposed steam submarines. If a nuclear power plant cannot be located on land 400 miles from a city why can one located on water be but a few miles from a CBD? Nearly forgot, early submarines were wind powered on the surface if the wind was right.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but the main criticism of nuclear is that it is too expensive.

That is why. No need for the bloviating.

Have you figured out yet why subs can't run on wind or solar? Or do you still need us to explain the difference for you?

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 8:13pm:

Perhaps you didn't notice, but the main criticism of nuclear is that it is too expensive.

Cost over value is something the Liberal Govts have always done. Know the cost of everything, the value of nothing.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 8:13pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 11:42am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 11:05am: freediver wrote on Oct 19th, 2026 at 8:31am: Quote: Australia is already committed to “Nuclear Power’’ with our proposed steam submarines; what is the difference between a steam submarine producing its steam power with heat from a nuclear reactor and a steam powered electric generator using heat from a nuclear reactor a few kilometres from the sub base but on dry land? Are we building those submarines in Australia? No, they are USA built, but that’s irrelevant because they along with their reactors will be in Australian ports. It is relevant, according to you. If not, why did you ask us for the difference between a nuclear sub and a nuclear power plant? Do you think being able to simply place an order for one, vs having to actually build it in Australia, makes no difference to cost, delivery time, safety etc, especially considering we have no established nuclear industry here? Another key difference you seem oblivious to: you cannot make a rational decision on whether to build a nuclear power plant without considering alternatives like wind and solar (unless, perhaps, you are a member of the Liberal party or One Nation). Have you ever heard of a wind or solar powered submarine? Do you think your question may have been a little bit silly, and yet consistent with the attitude of Liberal and One Nation voters? The relevant thing is that nuclear reactors will be situated in the ports of our major cities and who is talking about rationality? Certainly not the proponents of the proposed steam submarines. If a nuclear power plant cannot be located on land 400 miles from a city why can one located on water be but a few miles from a CBD? Nearly forgot, early submarines were wind powered on the surface if the wind was right. Perhaps you didn't notice, but the main criticism of nuclear is that it is too expensive. That is why. No need for the bloviating. Have you figured out yet why subs can't run on wind or solar? Or do you still need us to explain the difference for you?

Have you not read my remarks on early submarines using sails on the surface?
Have you also figured out that there are no nuclear powered submarines?
Nuclear powered engines cannot be used on Earth, they are used exclusively in space.
The whole point is that RAN nuclear reactors will be in our cities, so what’s the point in not having a few others generating electricity for peaceful use?

Quote:

Have you not read my remarks on early submarines using sails on the surface?

;D

Are you still confused about why we want to have nuclear subs instead of wind powered subs, when we get so much of our electricity from wind?

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 9:24pm:

Quote: Have you not read my remarks on early submarines using sails on the surface? ;D Are you still confused about why we want to have nuclear subs instead of wind powered subs, when we get so much of our electricity from wind?

Not confused at all.
HMAS Stirling is approximately 58 kilometres from Perth, there have been a number of visits by steam powered submarines equipped with nuclear reactors, so give me one good reason why similar reactors can’t be considered safe for use on land?
If one of the floating reactors goes critical and busts, 58 kilometres ain't much of a safety distance, especially if a sea breeze is blowing.

On so-called Nuclear powered submarines

From Google:

‘’ Yes, technically nuclear submarines are incredibly advanced steamships.
Underneath the high-tech sonar, stealth coatings, and guided missiles, a nuclear submarine uses the exact same core concept as a 19th-century paddle wheeler: expanding steam spins a turbine to push the ship forward.
The fundamental difference lies entirely in how the heat is generated to make that steam:
• Traditional Steamships: Burned wood, coal, or oil in a furnace. This required a constant intake of air (oxygen) and produced massive amounts of exhaust smoke and ash.
• Nuclear Submarines: Split atoms in a reactor core. This requires zero oxygen, produces no exhaust, and fits a lifetime of fuel into a space the size of a kitchen refrigerator.
So while a nuclear submarine is absolutely a steam-powered vessel, it replaces the smokestacks and coal shovels with a clean, closed-loop atomic furnace, making it the most powerful and enduring type of steamship ever built’’

Now stop being misled by all the hype, there is no such a thing as a nuclear powered ship, power station, whatever on the face of the earth.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 9:44pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 9:24pm: Quote: Have you not read my remarks on early submarines using sails on the surface? ;D Are you still confused about why we want to have nuclear subs instead of wind powered subs, when we get so much of our electricity from wind? Not confused at all. HMAS Stirling is approximately 58 kilometres from Perth, there have been a number of visits by steam powered submarines equipped with nuclear reactors, so give me one good reason why similar reactors can’t be considered safe for use on land? If one of the floating reactors goes critical and busts, 58 kilometres ain't much of a safety distance, especially if a sea breeze is blowing.

Why are you asking me whether they are safe, when you cannot even get over the first hurdle of whether they are cheaper? Are you on some kind of mission from God to build a nuclear power plant? We aren't going to waste billions of dollars just because it is possible to waste billions of dollars. That's why the Liberals got trounced at the last election. All that One Nation will do with their policy is capture some of the rusted on moron vote from the Libs. Which is great if your end game is to destroy the Liberal party and hand government to Labor for the next generation or two.

It seems to me you have just replaced one stupid question with another. First you asked what the difference was between buying a nuclear sub vs a nuclear power plant. Now you are attempting to ask the same question and demanding we confine our answer to the safety aspects. It is still a stupid question.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2026 at 6:56pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 5:55pm: [quote author=stillcrook link=1791072281/1#1 date=1791072452]We don't want nuclear power in Australia. But we are going to get it courtesy of the Federal Government via the nuclear reactors in the coming steam powered submarines, which will be berthed in our cities.

That's not my quote.

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2026 at 7:30am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 9:44pm: freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 9:24pm: Quote: Have you not read my remarks on early submarines using sails on the surface? ;D Are you still confused about why we want to have nuclear subs instead of wind powered subs, when we get so much of our electricity from wind? Not confused at all. HMAS Stirling is approximately 58 kilometres from Perth, there have been a number of visits by steam powered submarines equipped with nuclear reactors, so give me one good reason why similar reactors can’t be considered safe for use on land? If one of the floating reactors goes critical and busts, 58 kilometres ain't much of a safety distance, especially if a sea breeze is blowing. Why are you asking me whether they are safe, when you cannot even get over the first hurdle of whether they are cheaper? Are you on some kind of mission from God to build a nuclear power plant? We aren't going to waste billions of dollars just because it is possible to waste billions of dollars. That's why the Liberals got trounced at the last election. All that One Nation will do with their policy is capture some of the rusted on moron vote from the Libs. Which is great if your end game is to destroy the Liberal party and hand government to Labor for the next generation or two. It seems to me you have just replaced one stupid question with another. First you asked what the difference was between buying a nuclear sub vs a nuclear power plant. Now you are attempting to ask the same question and demanding we confine our answer to the safety aspects. It is still a stupid question.

Frankly I couldn’t care less about having civilian nuclear reactors boiling the water for steam power stations, my point is that those opposed to such power stations seem to have no objection to similar plants floating in their harbours within a few miles of the CBD.
Which smacks of pure hypocrisy.

Gnads wrote on Oct 24^th, 2026 at 12:04pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 6:56pm: Gnads wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 5:55pm: [quote author=stillcrook link=1791072281/1#1 date=1791072452]We don't want nuclear power in Australia. But we are going to get it courtesy of the Federal Government via the nuclear reactors in the coming steam powered submarines, which will be berthed in our cities. That's not my quote.

No, it’s a quote that you quoted.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 24^th, 2026 at 12:29pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2026 at 7:30am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 9:44pm: freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 9:24pm: Quote: Have you not read my remarks on early submarines using sails on the surface? ;D Are you still confused about why we want to have nuclear subs instead of wind powered subs, when we get so much of our electricity from wind? Not confused at all. HMAS Stirling is approximately 58 kilometres from Perth, there have been a number of visits by steam powered submarines equipped with nuclear reactors, so give me one good reason why similar reactors can’t be considered safe for use on land? If one of the floating reactors goes critical and busts, 58 kilometres ain't much of a safety distance, especially if a sea breeze is blowing. Why are you asking me whether they are safe, when you cannot even get over the first hurdle of whether they are cheaper? Are you on some kind of mission from God to build a nuclear power plant? We aren't going to waste billions of dollars just because it is possible to waste billions of dollars. That's why the Liberals got trounced at the last election. All that One Nation will do with their policy is capture some of the rusted on moron vote from the Libs. Which is great if your end game is to destroy the Liberal party and hand government to Labor for the next generation or two. It seems to me you have just replaced one stupid question with another. First you asked what the difference was between buying a nuclear sub vs a nuclear power plant. Now you are attempting to ask the same question and demanding we confine our answer to the safety aspects. It is still a stupid question. Frankly I couldn’t care less about having civilian nuclear reactors boiling the water for steam power stations, my point is that those opposed to such power stations seem to have no objection to similar plants floating in their harbours within a few miles of the CBD. Which smacks of pure hypocrisy.

It smacks of complete lack of understanding on your part. And an unwillingness to read the discussion. I oppose nuclear because it is the most expensive option. 25 years ago I was actively promoting it, but the cost comparison has reversed since then.

Obviously the same logic does not apply to submarines, which has also been pointed out to you. But all you can see is the hypocrisy you like to imagine, not the reality. You cannot win the actual argument, so you invent an absurd one and diligently stick to having it with yourself. Which smacks of some kind of rusted-on ideological commitment.

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2026 at 1:15pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 24th, 2026 at 12:29pm: freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2026 at 7:30am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 9:44pm: freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 9:24pm: Quote: Have you not read my remarks on early submarines using sails on the surface? ;D Are you still confused about why we want to have nuclear subs instead of wind powered subs, when we get so much of our electricity from wind? Not confused at all. HMAS Stirling is approximately 58 kilometres from Perth, there have been a number of visits by steam powered submarines equipped with nuclear reactors, so give me one good reason why similar reactors can’t be considered safe for use on land? If one of the floating reactors goes critical and busts, 58 kilometres ain't much of a safety distance, especially if a sea breeze is blowing. Why are you asking me whether they are safe, when you cannot even get over the first hurdle of whether they are cheaper? Are you on some kind of mission from God to build a nuclear power plant? We aren't going to waste billions of dollars just because it is possible to waste billions of dollars. That's why the Liberals got trounced at the last election. All that One Nation will do with their policy is capture some of the rusted on moron vote from the Libs. Which is great if your end game is to destroy the Liberal party and hand government to Labor for the next generation or two. It seems to me you have just replaced one stupid question with another. First you asked what the difference was between buying a nuclear sub vs a nuclear power plant. Now you are attempting to ask the same question and demanding we confine our answer to the safety aspects. It is still a stupid question. Frankly I couldn’t care less about having civilian nuclear reactors boiling the water for steam power stations, my point is that those opposed to such power stations seem to have no objection to similar plants floating in their harbours within a few miles of the CBD. Which smacks of pure hypocrisy. It smacks of complete lack of understanding on your part. And an unwillingness to read the discussion. I oppose nuclear because it is the most expensive option. 25 years ago I was actively promoting it, but the cost comparison has reversed since then. Obviously the same logic does not apply to submarines, which has also been pointed out to you. But all you can see is the hypocrisy you like to imagine, not the reality. You cannot win the actual argument, so you invent an absurd one and diligently stick to having it with yourself. Which smacks of some kind of rusted-on ideological commitment.

Obviously your understanding of the use of rhetorical questions is sadly lacking.
The main objection to nuclear reactors has been safety not cost, the hypocrisy is in objecting to them being on land far from the cities but accepting them a few miles from the city centres when they are in a submarine or in a surface ship.

Quote:

The main objection to nuclear reactors has been safety not cost

That's because nuclear "has been" cheaper than renewables. Not any more. So safety is irrelevant. We won't be building them, no matter how safe they are.

This has all been explained to you countless times. You are stuck in the same debate you had 20 years ago. All by yourself. Asking stupid questions. Like why don't we have solar and wind power submarines if we have solar and wind powered TV sets. When has that question ever been relevant? Was it just an excuse for you to bloviate about wallrusses and sailboats?

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2026 at 5:33pm:

Quote: The main objection to nuclear reactors has been safety not cost That's because nuclear "has been" cheaper than renewables. Not any more. So safety is irrelevant. We won't be building them, no matter how safe they are. This has all been explained to you countless times. You are stuck in the same debate you had 20 years ago. All by yourself. Asking stupid questions. Like why don't we have solar and wind power submarines if we have solar and wind powered TV sets. When has that question ever been relevant? Was it just an excuse for you to bloviate about wallrusses and sailboats?

So safety is irrelevant, glad you think so.
The rest of your incomprehensible raving I will charitably ignore.
We may not ever build them?
We are committed to having them regardless of who are the builders.

Observation on the topic.
The ban has already been lifted courtesy of the Federal Government and its intention to acquire steam submarines fitted with nuclear reactors to provide heat for boiling water.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 24^th, 2026 at 7:38pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2026 at 5:33pm: Quote: The main objection to nuclear reactors has been safety not cost That's because nuclear "has been" cheaper than renewables. Not any more. So safety is irrelevant. We won't be building them, no matter how safe they are. This has all been explained to you countless times. You are stuck in the same debate you had 20 years ago. All by yourself. Asking stupid questions. Like why don't we have solar and wind power submarines if we have solar and wind powered TV sets. When has that question ever been relevant? Was it just an excuse for you to bloviate about wallrusses and sailboats? So safety is irrelevant, glad you think so. The rest of your incomprehensible raving I will charitably ignore.

If we aren't going to build them because they cost too much, why are you bloviating about safety? Are you actually incapable of comprehending the point, or do you merely not want to acknowledge reality?

Why are you bloviating about solar powered submarines?

Why are you bloviating about walrusses?

freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2026 at 12:44pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 24th, 2026 at 7:38pm: freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2026 at 5:33pm: Quote: The main objection to nuclear reactors has been safety not cost That's because nuclear "has been" cheaper than renewables. Not any more. So safety is irrelevant. We won't be building them, no matter how safe they are. This has all been explained to you countless times. You are stuck in the same debate you had 20 years ago. All by yourself. Asking stupid questions. Like why don't we have solar and wind power submarines if we have solar and wind powered TV sets. When has that question ever been relevant? Was it just an excuse for you to bloviate about wallrusses and sailboats? So safety is irrelevant, glad you think so. The rest of your incomprehensible raving I will charitably ignore. If we aren't going to build them because they cost too much, why are you bloviating about safety? Are you actually incapable of comprehending the point, or do you merely not want to acknowledge reality? Why are you bloviating about solar powered submarines? Why are you bloviating about walrusses?

Did the nurse drop you on your head when you were born, or is your lack of language comprehension caused by a later accident?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 25^th, 2026 at 12:50pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 25th, 2026 at 12:44pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 24th, 2026 at 7:38pm: freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2026 at 5:33pm: Quote: The main objection to nuclear reactors has been safety not cost That's because nuclear "has been" cheaper than renewables. Not any more. So safety is irrelevant. We won't be building them, no matter how safe they are. This has all been explained to you countless times. You are stuck in the same debate you had 20 years ago. All by yourself. Asking stupid questions. Like why don't we have solar and wind power submarines if we have solar and wind powered TV sets. When has that question ever been relevant? Was it just an excuse for you to bloviate about wallrusses and sailboats? So safety is irrelevant, glad you think so. The rest of your incomprehensible raving I will charitably ignore. If we aren't going to build them because they cost too much, why are you bloviating about safety? Are you actually incapable of comprehending the point, or do you merely not want to acknowledge reality? Why are you bloviating about solar powered submarines? Why are you bloviating about walrusses? Did the nurse drop you on your head when you were born, or is your lack of language comprehension caused by a later accident?

Why are you bloviating about every possible subject except the one that is making nuclear obsolete: cost?

Why do you keep using your new word? it has been a week now. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Oct 25^th, 2026 at 1:11pm:

Why do you keep using your new word? it has been a week now. ;D ;D ;D ;D

I think it is an accurate description of what you and Einy post. Thanks.

freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2026 at 1:13pm:

I think it is an accurate description of what you and Einy post. Thanks.

Oh the ironing. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 24^th, 2026 at 12:30pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 24th, 2026 at 12:04pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 6:56pm: Gnads wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 5:55pm: [quote author=stillcrook link=1791072281/1#1 date=1791072452]We don't want nuclear power in Australia. But we are going to get it courtesy of the Federal Government via the nuclear reactors in the coming steam powered submarines, which will be berthed in our cities. That's not my quote. No, it’s a quote that you quoted.

No it's a quote I responded to old timer. Not mine.

You are the King of Pedants.

freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2026 at 1:13pm:

lee wrote on Oct 25th, 2026 at 1:11pm: Why do you keep using your new word? it has been a week now. ;D ;D ;D ;D I think it is an accurate description of what you and Einy post. Thanks.

bloviating meaning


To bloviate means to speak or write at length in a pompous, boastful, or self-important way, usually while offering very little real substance or meaning.

Key Details

• Definition: To talk on and on while blowing "hot air"—using big, inflated words to sound important without actually saying anything useful.


• Origin: An Americanism originating in the late 19th-century American Midwest (around Ohio), likely formed by combining the word blow with the mock-Latin suffix -ate.


• Famous Association: The word is famously linked to U.S. President Warren G. Harding, who used it and was widely mocked for his own long-winded, vague political speeches. Harding once defined Bloviation as "the art of speaking for as long as the occasion warrants, and saying nothing".


• Common Synonyms: Pontificate, rant, ramble, or windbag.

The Lefties bloviate against Trump all the time

I like my new word of the week. :)

lee wrote on Oct 25^th, 2026 at 1:22pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 25th, 2026 at 1:13pm: I think it is an accurate description of what you and Einy post. Thanks. Oh the ironing. ;D ;D ;D ;D

FD: renewables are cheaper than nuclear.

Lee and Einy: solar powered submarines, safety, walrusses, big words, ironing, we should get all our power from nuclear because it is too complicated to get it from more than one source, longwinded copy and paste jobs that still end up saying renewables are cheaper than nuclear, even more longwinded posts that say nothing at all, things are forgotten, but don't ask me what they are or who forgot them.

etc etc

Bloviating. Thanks for the word of the day Lee.

Jasin wrote on Oct 25^th, 2026 at 1:55pm:

The Lefties bloviate against Trump all the time I like my new word of the week. :)

Even better:

What we see are sanctimonious windbags.


During a heated Question Time in the House of Representatives in June 2000,
Abbott (then a minister in the Howard government) hurled the insult at the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley.
Abbott was promptly ejected from the parliament chamber for using unparliamentary language.


sanctimonious

Sanctimonious is a formal, disapproving adjective that describes someone who
acts as if they are morally superior, more religious, or more ethical than others

Snide One:-  So Beazley was a Recalcitrant™ Bloviate?

Costs spread over sixty years (plus) is one third the cost of those over twenty years.

The Chain Murray stations could be built with a third switch - the one that in an emergency will cut Victoria off from Australia...

https://y.getyarn.io/320bdfbb-061e-44cd-8e72-5f3368c97112_text.gif

Gnads wrote on Oct 25^th, 2026 at 1:27pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 24th, 2026 at 12:30pm: Gnads wrote on Oct 24th, 2026 at 12:04pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 6:56pm: Gnads wrote on Oct 23rd, 2026 at 5:55pm: [quote author=stillcrook link=1791072281/1#1 date=1791072452]We don't want nuclear power in Australia. But we are going to get it courtesy of the Federal Government via the nuclear reactors in the coming steam powered submarines, which will be berthed in our cities. That's not my quote. No, it’s a quote that you quoted. No it's a quote I responded to old timer. Not mine. You are the King of Pedants.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa 😄

freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2026 at 1:01pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 25th, 2026 at 12:50pm: freediver wrote on Oct 25th, 2026 at 12:44pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 24th, 2026 at 7:38pm: freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2026 at 5:33pm: Quote: The main objection to nuclear reactors has been safety not cost That's because nuclear "has been" cheaper than renewables. Not any more. So safety is irrelevant. We won't be building them, no matter how safe they are. This has all been explained to you countless times. You are stuck in the same debate you had 20 years ago. All by yourself. Asking stupid questions. Like why don't we have solar and wind power submarines if we have solar and wind powered TV sets. When has that question ever been relevant? Was it just an excuse for you to bloviate about wallrusses and sailboats? So safety is irrelevant, glad you think so. The rest of your incomprehensible raving I will charitably ignore. If we aren't going to build them because they cost too much, why are you bloviating about safety? Are you actually incapable of comprehending the point, or do you merely not want to acknowledge reality? Why are you bloviating about solar powered submarines? Why are you bloviating about walrusses? Did the nurse drop you on your head when you were born, or is your lack of language comprehension caused by a later accident? Why are you bloviating about every possible subject except the one that is making nuclear obsolete: cost?

Cost is not making the use of nuclear reactors obsolete, Australia is actively pursuing the acquisition and deployment of such technology..

In point of fact, Australia is scheduled to get its first nuclear fuelled electricity generating
power plant in 2030, all going well.
That’s only a few years away.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 25^th, 2026 at 2:43pm:

Cost is not making the use of nuclear reactors obsolete, Australia is actively pursuing the acquisition and deployment of such technology..

;D The policy has cost the Liberals one federal election already. The voters are not morons.


Quote:

In point of fact, Australia is scheduled to get its first nuclear fuelled electricity generating power plant in 2030, all going well.

If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale.

Are you going to vote LNP or One Nation?

Have you figured out the difference between a submarine and a power station yet, or are you still waiting for someone to explain it to you?

The Coalition didn't lose it on that.
They lost it on being to quiet on the Media front.
ALP got all the bias and advertisements.
Australians just do what they're told by the Media

freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2026 at 2:58pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 25th, 2026 at 2:43pm: Cost is not making the use of nuclear reactors obsolete, Australia is actively pursuing the acquisition and deployment of such technology.. ;D The policy has cost the Liberals one federal election already. The voters are not morons. Quote: In point of fact, Australia is scheduled to get its first nuclear fuelled electricity generating power plant in 2030, all going well. If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale. Are you going to vote LNP or One Nation? Have you figured out the difference between a submarine and a power station yet, or are you still waiting for someone to explain it to you?

Depends on how much you want for a bridge?
The Shire could do with a couple if you can beat this mob, we might do business.https://www.vtci.com.au/farm-bridges?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=18933641003&gbraid=0AAAAADNtimP2CsR9E40IdMw7tVPDYE-cO&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1eym_LvUlwMVl14PAh3pNxyoEAAYASAAEgI-D_D_BwE

Yes thanks, I’d appreciate the explanation of the difference; the submarine apparently uses a nuclear reactor to boil the water to make steam to power the turbine[s]  what does a power station do?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 25^th, 2026 at 3:56pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 25th, 2026 at 2:58pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 25th, 2026 at 2:43pm: Cost is not making the use of nuclear reactors obsolete, Australia is actively pursuing the acquisition and deployment of such technology.. ;D The policy has cost the Liberals one federal election already. The voters are not morons. Quote: In point of fact, Australia is scheduled to get its first nuclear fuelled electricity generating power plant in 2030, all going well. If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale. Are you going to vote LNP or One Nation? Have you figured out the difference between a submarine and a power station yet, or are you still waiting for someone to explain it to you? Depends on how much you want for a bridge? The Shire could do with a couple if you can beat this mob, we might do business.https://www.vtci.com.au/farm-bridges?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=18933641003&gbraid=0AAAAADNtimP2CsR9E40IdMw7tVPDYE-cO&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1eym_LvUlwMVl14PAh3pNxyoEAAYASAAEgI-D_D_BwE Yes thanks, I’d appreciate the explanation of the difference; the submarine apparently uses a nuclear reactor to boil the water to make steam to power the turbine[s]  what does a power station do?

1) You can buy the entire submarine from overseas, ready to go.

2) You can't run submarines off wind or solar. Despite the opportunity you recently took to bloviate about wind powered submarines.

It was never about the money, FD. It's all about the coal.

Lee and his ilk see this as a cultural issue. Far too important to save a few dollars, dear.

Those smokestack plumes should be protected by UNESCO - like our children's genitalia or ladies' loos.

CULTURE WARS !!!

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 25^th, 2026 at 4:44pm:

It was never about the money, FD. It's all about the coal. Lee and his ilk see this as a cultural issue. Far too important to save a few dollars, dear. Those smokestack plumes should be protected by UNESCO - like our children's genitalia or ladies' loos. CULTURE WARS !!!

Stop bloviating.

We should have bought Swedish subs.
They're the best atm and half the price.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 25^th, 2026 at 5:05pm:

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 25th, 2026 at 4:44pm: It was never about the money, FD. It's all about the coal. Lee and his ilk see this as a cultural issue. Far too important to save a few dollars, dear. Those smokestack plumes should be protected by UNESCO - like our children's genitalia or ladies' loos. CULTURE WARS !!! Stop bloviating.

Oh? So do you have access to Sky News?

freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2026 at 1:57pm:

we should get all our power from nuclear because it is too complicated to get it from more than one source,

Source? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Poor FD locked in his own tiny brain.

Freediver,

‘’ Have you figured out the difference between a submarine and a power station yet, or are you still waiting for someone to explain it to you?’’

I’m waiting, but not expectantly.
However I’m with you on ‘’source’’.

Are you asking me to prove that we can't get wind and solar powered submarines?

This was Lee's response when I pointed out to him that his own evidence (bloviating copy and paste jobs from AI) said that renewables are cheaper, and to get the best value we should get 80% to 90% of our electricity from weather-dependent renewables:


lee wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 8:36pm:

The fact that in only covers 80-90% shows that it isn't viable, even on average. AT ALL. 8-) Just go nuclear. No need for intermittent, weather dependant power at all.

Bloviating.

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 25^th, 2026 at 6:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 25th, 2026 at 5:05pm: Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 25th, 2026 at 4:44pm: It was never about the money, FD. It's all about the coal. Lee and his ilk see this as a cultural issue. Far too important to save a few dollars, dear. Those smokestack plumes should be protected by UNESCO - like our children's genitalia or ladies' loos. CULTURE WARS !!! Stop bloviating. Oh? So do you have access to Sky News?

No I don't - I don't pay for any news.

All that I’m asking you to do is answer the question that you posed, however if you can’t then that’s only to be expected’

‘’Freediver,

‘’ Have you figured out the difference between a submarine and a power station yet, or are you still waiting for someone to explain it to you?’’

So to reiterate, I’m waiting.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 26^th, 2026 at 11:56am:

All that I’m asking you to do is answer the question that you posed, however if you can’t then that’s only to be expected’ ‘’Freediver, ‘’ Have you figured out the difference between a submarine and a power station yet, or are you still waiting for someone to explain it to you?’’ So to reiterate, I’m waiting.

Have you not noticed the several previous times I answered, or could you not understand the answer?

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2026 at 12:05pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 26th, 2026 at 11:56am: All that I’m asking you to do is answer the question that you posed, however if you can’t then that’s only to be expected’ ‘’Freediver, ‘’ Have you figured out the difference between a submarine and a power station yet, or are you still waiting for someone to explain it to you?’’ So to reiterate, I’m waiting. Have you not noticed the several previous times I answered, or could you not understand the answer?

Then why did you ask the question if you had already answered it?

I think that you can’t and are indulging in a bit of obfuscation.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 26^th, 2026 at 12:28pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 26th, 2026 at 12:05pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 26th, 2026 at 11:56am: All that I’m asking you to do is answer the question that you posed, however if you can’t then that’s only to be expected’ ‘’Freediver, ‘’ Have you figured out the difference between a submarine and a power station yet, or are you still waiting for someone to explain it to you?’’ So to reiterate, I’m waiting. Have you not noticed the several previous times I answered, or could you not understand the answer? Then why did you ask the question if you had already answered it? I think that you can’t and are indulging in a bit of obfuscation.

Are you saying that FD is bloviating?    :-/



bloviating meaning


To bloviate means to speak or write at length in a pompous, boastful, or self-important way, usually while offering very little real substance or meaning.

Key Details

• Definition: To talk on and on while blowing "hot air"—using big, inflated words to sound important without actually saying anything useful.


• Origin: An Americanism originating in the late 19th-century American Midwest (around Ohio), likely formed by combining the word blow with the mock-Latin suffix -ate.


• Famous Association: The word is famously linked to U.S. President Warren G. Harding, who used it and was widely mocked for his own long-winded, vague political speeches. Harding once defined Bloviation as "the art of speaking for as long as the occasion warrants, and saying nothing".


• Common Synonyms: Pontificate, rant, ramble, or windbag.