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


You're right - we NEED it.

Quote:


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:


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.

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


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:


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:


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

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


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:


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.

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


Quote:


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.

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


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?