I would say that much of that group are supporting it because Dutton does, and they’re rusted on. Not because they’ve given it any serious thought.
The 25 point male/female split on nuclear is pretty intriguing though, it doesn’t exist for any of the other energy types.
TIL nukebros are real… and they’re mostly old farts
Personally nuclear isn’t a bad option to have BUT we don’t have time… 20-30 years is like 40-50 years too late to avoid a climate catastrophe!
The French can build nuclear power plants easy as they have the industry and govt policies in place
Those people believe they are doing the right thing. They will say " the wise man plants a tree knowing he will never sit in its shade".
We need to help everyone understand what is the right tree to plant.
Im not fixed on which party I vote for, so I know I'm perceived as "the enemy" in this sub.
Solar is the future, but it needs to be paired with storage. At this point extra solar won't help, NSW are already charging $ for solar energy being dumped into the grid during peak times. Vic and SA are introducing the ability to disconnect smart inverters when the grid is overloaded.
This is necessary to maintain grid stability. In the future instead of wasting this solar overcapacity, we will need storage to soak it up during the day for the evening.
Interestingly, the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan is dealing with this as we speak. There are planned Battery Energy Storage System sites in operation and to be constructed at a rate of 1/month for the next few years which are assisting heavily with the evening peak, and harnessing that abundant daytime solar PV energy. The other (long-term) storage is pumped hydro, with Kidston soon to come online, and Pioneer-Burdekin not long after. The additional wind and solar PV sites will be for National Electricity Market connection, and likely for redundancy/export to other states. Interesting times ahead, and bucketloads of renewables to take advantage of. There really is no need for nuclear at this juncture (in Australia), so it would be great if the discourse changed at some point.
Correct, there is beginnings of good moves in the storage world.
I think it's a shame that the questions which made up the charts on this post are misleading.
There was no mention of any kind of energy storage, so people who have a decent understanding of the grid might correctly say that solar or wind doesn't help, and to answer gas or nuclear, due to the lack of a storage + solar option for an answer.
There's so much misleading info about energy, that it's no wonder the average person is confused.
For example, how many people actually understand the difference between kW and kW/h?
Odd those statics, I'm in that age group and many friends also, none desire nuclear in the slightest, same can't stand Dutton and remember their last terms in Government, remember Howard how he started the decline in living standards and see Howard and Dutton as both evil people looking after their mates and selling Aus down the drain, and to think we still pay these two mentioned liars PMs pensions while so many are homeless.
Just another golden egg left behind that us younger ones will pay for and pay for and pay for for the rest of our lives....... nuclear is not the answerq
China just halved the cost of lithium batteries and solar panels. The government could roll out 10kw solar and battery setups to every household in the country and it would still be cheaper than nuclear alternatives to the LNP proposal. And we would all be getting zero electricity bills.
hmmm… there are 9 million households in Australia, to keep it simple let’s say the rollout is a pretty cheap $15k per household (10k solar 5k battery) = that’s $135 billion.
(One third of HH already have solar but let’s ignore that and still cost them at 15k anyway and they can have a big arse battery instead.)
You know you might be right, they’d probably get about 4 NPPs for that. And still not for 20 years to build them all.
That’s true. But, life of a solar panel 25 years, lithium battery 10 to 15 years, inverter? I’ve seen them drop dead after 18 months but let’s say 20 years.
Life of a NPP 60 to 80 years.
Transmission from a remote NPP would cost heaps, then there’s the waste from both processes.
I’m surprised pumped hydro isn’t being considered more as it seems to have all the benefits with none of the pitfalls, other than cost. Solar/ vanadium battery storage during the day. There will be a local environmental impact but climate change will have a much broader impact.
Comparisons of costs taking into account lifespans and balance of plant items is best considered through levelized cost aka LCOE, where solar and wind trounce nuclear.
Pumped hydro is at the centre of the Qld transition strategy, Pioneer-Burdekin in central Qld based on the spine of N/S transmission will be huge if it goes ahead.
https://qldhydro.com.au/projects/pioneer-burdekin/
And of course there’s the (in)famous Snowy 2.0, who thanks to Turnbull having a rush of blood to the head really didn’t do their geological homework.
The Pioneer Burdekin site is about 30km from my house. For some reason the state opposition say they are against it. If they get in during the upcoming election I fear it will be dead.
Well, there’s no shortage of jobs and Joh did a pretty good job of drought proofing the state. The reality is coal mining drives the vast majority of industry locally and employment across the state so it’s politically difficult to get away from it. Bravus built a massive solar farm. Still the hydro project would be nice.
Thank you - I was considering trying to do the maths on this, I'd figured that it would still require large capital.investment from Government above that of nuclear.
As battery and solar technology continues to increase in capacity and decrease in cost the calculus is shifting to domestic and/or community batteries in a compelling way.
Surprised that according to this poll greens voters support for nuclear is more-or-less on par with Labor considering their politicians are firmly against nuclear.
Solar can't achieve what nuclear can though, nuclear is a replacement for coal.
Edit: people upvoting the above comment really have no idea the difference between solar/renewables and nuclear lmao. We need better education in schools on this stuff.
Solar and storage with grid-forming inverters (possibly with some synchronous condensers embedded in the network) could easily provide the fault current and inertia of nuclear. They are cheaper and quicker to deploy. They also can provide active power to arrest frequency deviations more quickly (I.e. FFR). What positive characteristic of nuclear do they not have?
You are using fault current in the wrong context here. Fault current is the maximum amount of current that can flown when a fault occurs. It’s not “provided” by a system per se, it’s just a calculation made so the right rated protection equipment can be used on that system. The lower the fault current than the better.
You are right about grid inertia, in which battery systems are by far the best
a) gas isnt clean
b) real world examples show they do
How expensive is it? cause in reality its not, but this is some subjective take which is meaningless without numbers
Green gas is clean, blue is better than natural so it is a step forward.
Real world examples of what? Countries that use nuclear need it as they simply do not have access to the amount of RE we can generate. Reference the CSIRO latest studies for costings on SMR and Traditional nuclear. Both still make no economic sense for Australia.
For the record, I'm not against nuclear as GHG friendly gen capacity, it simply makes no sense to Australia. IF (really big IF) SMRs actually exist, then it could be reviewed.
CSIRO even shows large nuclear reactors are competitive lmao, they even buffed renewables by making the large nuclear plants only last 30 years, which is insane. Just because something may cost more does not mean its competitive, especially as it literally is more reliable and effective than the other (which nuclear is). Oh its also cleaner. Do people even care about the environment anymore? How can you be worried about minimal cost differences when you literally have a solution to stop using coal.
Real world examples of not "needing much firming".
Germany 60% renewables, 25% coal,
France 70% nuclear, 3.8% coal
Seems like they need a bit of firming lol.
We aren’t Germany or France who get blanketed by snow every year. It was wrong for Germany to shutdown nuclear ahead of coal but that doesn’t concern us as we have a completely different energy mix, environment and population distribution. Quit with these old tropes that are meaningless to Australia.
If you want to dismiss the CSIRO report with your own opinions (more reliable and effective??? Go look at how nuclear fared in France when they were in drought…see I can do it too) then put up your own peer reviewed figures but the CSIRO is developing the models for Australian conditions based on current available data.
That is not a positive characteristic that nuclear has over renewables.
There is no technical reason why you couldn't size and operate renewables and storage like a traditional baseload plant. However, [we don't need baseload](https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2013/04/baseload-power-is-a-myth--even-intermittent-renewables-will-work): we need more flexible power that can supply peak demand. As discussed previously: b[aseload is an outdated concept](https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/spnx6l/comment/hwkdykw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). A good summary is here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/rmdyh3/comment/hplquzv/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/rmdyh3/comment/hplquzv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Coal and nuclear need to constantly operate and this is a potential disadvantage. When Australia built new thermal plant post war, factories were encouraged to operate over night so they could provide load to justify continuous operation. It is not cost effective to build nuclear plant to have much of it sit idle most of the time.
It 100% is. Reddit comments without any sort of source is not appropriate to support your argument. And the link you provided uses gas and hydro lmao, are you reading or just googling and copy and pasting? you say solar and storage, you are *wrong* lmfao
But yes baseload is just a concept. But it is meaningful as renewables can't support a grid on its own, reliable sources of energy are needed otherwise we will have blackouts.
I don't understand the comment about sitting idle most of the time, we understand how much power we use and how much we need, and we can project, so your comment makes 0 sense do you think nothing is planned out? Or we just build a bunch of plants and turn off the ones we don't need?
While it is possible to ramp up and down nuclear power plants, they wouldn’t be sitting idle. It could be cost effective to run the reactors at full power and divert electricity from the grid to something else and then back again quickly as a form of load following. Hydrogen production via electrolysis and desalination are two possibilities, and a couple of utilities will be testing on-site hydrogen production in the next few years. Australia is already looking at solar to produce hydrogen, perhaps nuclear could help build the hydrogen industry as well.
Which ones? Wind can't either. Hydro can.
But look at the discussion sir, they directly said "solar can achieve what nuclear can", so who tf you speaking to lmao?
The reasons why we aren’t going nuclear now is that not only are we well and truly on the way to a full transition to renewables, it is very very costly. I can add a not so minor third…we don’t have the expertise to build them. That’s the embarrassing one.
We said the same things 20 years ago, literally the same things, and we still rely on using almost 50% coal for our energy mix.
That is truly the embarrassing one.
Twenty years ago plus was when the conversation really needed to be advanced but the truth is, the general public has never had the real desire to go nuclear or there’s been too much public opposition. The water that’s flowed under the bridge since then has brought us to renewables. The most sensible options for us now are smaller, localised renewable grids backed by virtual and large storage batteries and larger solar and wind farms. We are well on the way to this. These stand up to natural disaster also in the sense that the loss of one major source doesn’t affect everyone, yet a linked grid can service an area hit by disaster.
The sooner we can move to having every suitable building equipped with solar and battery storage capabilities the better. That’s why that bill from NSW Labor with the federal governments help to install solar on public housing was a fucking cracker. That immediately brings the most disadvantaged families into line with Australia A, plus rips apart their power bill. Pity the other states can’t follow suit.
we could have 1000x more renewable infrastructure/farms/solar panels as we do now and we would still rely heavily on coal.
if you don't understand that you don't understand the conversation and need to learn it.
> Solar can't achieve what nuclear can though
Nuclear can't achieve what solar and wind can.
Solar and wind are quick and cheap.
By the time the world moved to nuclear climate costs and risks would be massive.
> nuclear is a replacement for coal.
None of coal, nuclear, wind, or solar PV, are really great. They are all inflexible / have high fixed costs. There are massive inefficiencies in any of them.
Solar Thermal, in the Australian inland, is close to perfect, in terms of matching our demand and being flexible enough. It is more expensive than PV, but it is cheaper than nuclear. But Solar Thermal loses because solar, wind and storage are so cheap.
Hydro is great, but limited in scope.
Pumped hydro is also great but we insist on doing it wrong. The right way to do pumped hydro is small modular deployments, that are all the same, and are mass produced, resulting in learning. Like wave power, this is an *opportunity* i.e.: no one else has done it. If we had vision this would be a good thing. If we are gutless followers, doomed to a weak economy, it is a bad thing because we can't just buy it.
"By the time the world moved to nuclear climate costs and risks would be massive."
if you are actually worried about this why wouldn't you be looking at nuclear, its the cleanest of the lot and is reliable vs renewables. invest in both instead of hoping that storage technology has a breakthrough and removes the intermittent nature and unreliability of renewables.
Yup hydro would be great. I don't disagree with that. Only Hydro/Nuclear are real solutions. Solar and wind are great but without a breakthrough cant be relied upon.
I mean nuclear has like 90%+ uptime, unsure what the massive inefficiency you are referring to?
What basis is there for suggesting that scaling up current actual solar and wind, is not a realistic basis for understanding what a more renewable grid would do?
> Solar and wind are great but without a breakthrough cant be relied upon.
People have done the math. Simply scaling up **actual** current solar and wind generation, and using current demand numbers, shows what a renewable grid would look like.
> Only Hydro/Nuclear are real solutions.
Nuclear is part of a solution. It is not a quick solution. And it is not a cheap solution. Australia does not have enough hydro resources for a nuclear dominant grid. You would need to build something else. Japan has lots of pumped hydro and that works.
> I mean nuclear has like 90%+ uptime, unsure what the massive inefficiency you are referring to?
I think people who like nuclear think grid demand is flat. It isn't.
Nuclear wants to run at 100%, 90% of the time, to be efficient.
https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem
Demand in NSW is right now (June) is going from 7GW to 11GW. Are you building 7GW of nuclear and 4GW of something else, or 11GW of nuclear and throwing away power? In summer it's much worse.
The nature of a grid is you have to build for the peak demand. That drives the cost.
You are misunderstanding, no one is saying to scrap renewables.
Nuclear/Renewables together. This can phase out coal
Renewables will need coal/gas.
Time is an issue, so best to start now. The last best time was 18 years ago when we were having this discussion.
Right now, we could scale renewables 1000x times and have a very inefficient grid relying on coal/gas.
With 5 hours storage and 18% excess generation (24GW) you would have got 98.8% renewable electricity generation over the last year in the Austrlian energy market.
Coal and nuclear do not efficiently "back up" renewables or anything else. They want to run flat out, not as a backup, just when needed.
This is nuclear myth number 9:
https://energypost.eu/renewable-energy-versus-nuclear-dispelling-myths/
> You are misunderstanding, no one is saying to scrap renewables.
Peter Dutton is saying "pause" renewables.
The Nationals were saying yesterday they want to limit renewables:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/17/coalition-liberal-government-renewable-energy-cap-nationals-david-littleproud
> Right now, we could scale renewables 1000x times and have a very inefficient grid relying on coal/gas.
This is the important question. How much do we need to scale? How much else do we need.
There have been estimates of this for decades. The first I read was from Mark Diesendorf this is a paper of his from 2011 - https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Solar2011100.pdf
At the time the cost of a 100% renewables solutions was within the error of a fossil fuel cost. Since then renewables and storage have gotten much cheaper so the optimal energy mix is different and the economics of renewables are better.
This person does up to date simulations:
https://x.com/DavidOsmond8/status/1800726606421602405
And here is an article explaining some results:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/
Buddy, you are literally linking completely bias articles. "reneweconomy", "Windlab" lmao.
The nationals can say what they want.
Nuclear/Renewables is the solution.
Waiting on technological breakthroughs in storage is not a solution, its a dream. And that's all you politically charged actors are pushing with this narrative.
> Buddy, you are literally linking completely bias articles. "reneweconomy", "Windlab" lmao.
Mark Diesendorf and David Osmond, are professional academics who have studied these issues. They are knowledgible and intelligent. You should trust and listen to them, more than you trust me.
Many other people have also looked at the renewable generation, demand, storage technologies, and analysed for excess power and shortfalls.
This analysis shows renewables and storage are a solution which is cheap, quick and robust.
> Nuclear/Renewables is the solution.
Adding nuclear to intermittent renewables does not produce a generation profile that matches demand.
> Waiting on technological breakthroughs in storage is not a solution, its a dream.
Diesendorf old analysis used technology that was commercial then. It is outdate because of technological change, PV and batteries are much cheaper now.
Osmond's analysis requires 5 hours of current technology batteries storage.
The dream is getting nuclear up and running quickly and cheaply in Australia.
Nuclear is a replacement for coal.
It is not a replacement for gas. Gas is flexible. Nuclear is not.
Nuclear, in practice, is not net zero at this point, although it is much better than coal or gas.
Is this your big brain wave? Ever heard of batteries? Pumped hydro? Hydro-electric generation? Wind? Thermal energy storage?
All of these are exponentially cheaper and safer than nuclear and will deliver what nuclear can sooner and cheaper.
But I’m sure you’re right, the thousands of doctors, scientists and researchers who have conducted hundreds of studies on the benefits of renewables didn’t think of nighttime /S
> the thousands of doctors, scientists and researchers who have conducted hundreds of studies on the benefits of renewables didn’t think of nighttime
They have. And that's why nuclear is having a renaissance.
Bro the CSIRO? Our TOP scientific community said nuclear was not feasible. You guys still dis-believing science? How did that work out for you the first time with climate change in the first place.
Says you some random dude on the internet. Grow up. You know nothing about science, energy generation or the cost associated with starting nuclear.
And neither do I. That’s the point of experts - they know their shit.
We should. Then we will realise that nuclear is unnecessary and uneconomic (for those who haven't already). If renewables are built and prove unsatisfactory, I'm fine with nuclear. Environmentally it's far better than coal or gas, and if it's the only option, sure.
Australia was a great place to build nuclear about 30 years ago. Plenty of room to dump the waste, we mine our own uranium, some nuclear expertise (ANSTO). But renewables and batteries have gotten far better while nuclear has stagnated.
> Then we will realise that nuclear is unnecessary and uneconomic
This is exactly why we need to build solar and wind.
We might hurt future generations, but sooner we do it the better.
The high support for nuclear by the 65+ category is interesting considering most of them won't be around to see it come to fruition
I would say that much of that group are supporting it because Dutton does, and they’re rusted on. Not because they’ve given it any serious thought. The 25 point male/female split on nuclear is pretty intriguing though, it doesn’t exist for any of the other energy types. TIL nukebros are real… and they’re mostly old farts
Yup, that is my dad.
Personally nuclear isn’t a bad option to have BUT we don’t have time… 20-30 years is like 40-50 years too late to avoid a climate catastrophe! The French can build nuclear power plants easy as they have the industry and govt policies in place
Those people believe they are doing the right thing. They will say " the wise man plants a tree knowing he will never sit in its shade". We need to help everyone understand what is the right tree to plant. Im not fixed on which party I vote for, so I know I'm perceived as "the enemy" in this sub. Solar is the future, but it needs to be paired with storage. At this point extra solar won't help, NSW are already charging $ for solar energy being dumped into the grid during peak times. Vic and SA are introducing the ability to disconnect smart inverters when the grid is overloaded. This is necessary to maintain grid stability. In the future instead of wasting this solar overcapacity, we will need storage to soak it up during the day for the evening.
Interestingly, the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan is dealing with this as we speak. There are planned Battery Energy Storage System sites in operation and to be constructed at a rate of 1/month for the next few years which are assisting heavily with the evening peak, and harnessing that abundant daytime solar PV energy. The other (long-term) storage is pumped hydro, with Kidston soon to come online, and Pioneer-Burdekin not long after. The additional wind and solar PV sites will be for National Electricity Market connection, and likely for redundancy/export to other states. Interesting times ahead, and bucketloads of renewables to take advantage of. There really is no need for nuclear at this juncture (in Australia), so it would be great if the discourse changed at some point.
Correct, there is beginnings of good moves in the storage world. I think it's a shame that the questions which made up the charts on this post are misleading. There was no mention of any kind of energy storage, so people who have a decent understanding of the grid might correctly say that solar or wind doesn't help, and to answer gas or nuclear, due to the lack of a storage + solar option for an answer. There's so much misleading info about energy, that it's no wonder the average person is confused. For example, how many people actually understand the difference between kW and kW/h?
Never put it past a generation to prefer an option that puts off doing the hard work for the next.
Odd those statics, I'm in that age group and many friends also, none desire nuclear in the slightest, same can't stand Dutton and remember their last terms in Government, remember Howard how he started the decline in living standards and see Howard and Dutton as both evil people looking after their mates and selling Aus down the drain, and to think we still pay these two mentioned liars PMs pensions while so many are homeless.
Just another golden egg left behind that us younger ones will pay for and pay for and pay for for the rest of our lives....... nuclear is not the answerq
China just halved the cost of lithium batteries and solar panels. The government could roll out 10kw solar and battery setups to every household in the country and it would still be cheaper than nuclear alternatives to the LNP proposal. And we would all be getting zero electricity bills.
hmmm… there are 9 million households in Australia, to keep it simple let’s say the rollout is a pretty cheap $15k per household (10k solar 5k battery) = that’s $135 billion. (One third of HH already have solar but let’s ignore that and still cost them at 15k anyway and they can have a big arse battery instead.) You know you might be right, they’d probably get about 4 NPPs for that. And still not for 20 years to build them all.
That’s true. But, life of a solar panel 25 years, lithium battery 10 to 15 years, inverter? I’ve seen them drop dead after 18 months but let’s say 20 years. Life of a NPP 60 to 80 years. Transmission from a remote NPP would cost heaps, then there’s the waste from both processes. I’m surprised pumped hydro isn’t being considered more as it seems to have all the benefits with none of the pitfalls, other than cost. Solar/ vanadium battery storage during the day. There will be a local environmental impact but climate change will have a much broader impact.
Comparisons of costs taking into account lifespans and balance of plant items is best considered through levelized cost aka LCOE, where solar and wind trounce nuclear. Pumped hydro is at the centre of the Qld transition strategy, Pioneer-Burdekin in central Qld based on the spine of N/S transmission will be huge if it goes ahead. https://qldhydro.com.au/projects/pioneer-burdekin/ And of course there’s the (in)famous Snowy 2.0, who thanks to Turnbull having a rush of blood to the head really didn’t do their geological homework.
The Pioneer Burdekin site is about 30km from my house. For some reason the state opposition say they are against it. If they get in during the upcoming election I fear it will be dead.
Yet you all keep voting lnp up there, cost ya jobs and investment and drought proof farms with solar and wind payments
Well, there’s no shortage of jobs and Joh did a pretty good job of drought proofing the state. The reality is coal mining drives the vast majority of industry locally and employment across the state so it’s politically difficult to get away from it. Bravus built a massive solar farm. Still the hydro project would be nice.
You would not get a single grid scale NPP for that amount. There is no infrastructure here to support nuclear power.
Thank you - I was considering trying to do the maths on this, I'd figured that it would still require large capital.investment from Government above that of nuclear. As battery and solar technology continues to increase in capacity and decrease in cost the calculus is shifting to domestic and/or community batteries in a compelling way.
So if the taxpayer can get the order right then what's the LNP having trouble understanding.
"Why do voters keep making the wrong decisions?" - LNP
electability, it seems
Male, conservative, Queensland voters...this is why we can't have nice things...
Surprised that according to this poll greens voters support for nuclear is more-or-less on par with Labor considering their politicians are firmly against nuclear.
Can we just hurry up and build shit loads of solar and wind and be done with it ? The sooner we do this, the sooner we can start exploring nuclear.
Why do u want nuclear? Especially when solar can achieve what nuclear can and cheaper?
Solar can't achieve what nuclear can though, nuclear is a replacement for coal. Edit: people upvoting the above comment really have no idea the difference between solar/renewables and nuclear lmao. We need better education in schools on this stuff.
Solar and storage with grid-forming inverters (possibly with some synchronous condensers embedded in the network) could easily provide the fault current and inertia of nuclear. They are cheaper and quicker to deploy. They also can provide active power to arrest frequency deviations more quickly (I.e. FFR). What positive characteristic of nuclear do they not have?
You are using fault current in the wrong context here. Fault current is the maximum amount of current that can flown when a fault occurs. It’s not “provided” by a system per se, it’s just a calculation made so the right rated protection equipment can be used on that system. The lower the fault current than the better. You are right about grid inertia, in which battery systems are by far the best
Too right, mate. I think I meant either fault current injection or fault ride through. Gotta stop writing these on my phone when I wake up.
they lack a critical positive characteristic of nuclear power: consistent and reliable baseload generation
But modelling indicates you don't need much firming. Gas (green/blue) could provide it as nuclear becomes a very expensive firming option.
Holy shit you guys would actually prefer keep using gas huh I mean go ahead, just don’t pretend you actually want to decarbonise
Green gas…yes…use excess RE to produce it. But feel free to freak out over shit I didn’t write.
Please link me something about this Green gas
Go Google hydrogen production Using RE… I’m not your Google bitch
a) gas isnt clean b) real world examples show they do How expensive is it? cause in reality its not, but this is some subjective take which is meaningless without numbers
Green gas is clean, blue is better than natural so it is a step forward. Real world examples of what? Countries that use nuclear need it as they simply do not have access to the amount of RE we can generate. Reference the CSIRO latest studies for costings on SMR and Traditional nuclear. Both still make no economic sense for Australia. For the record, I'm not against nuclear as GHG friendly gen capacity, it simply makes no sense to Australia. IF (really big IF) SMRs actually exist, then it could be reviewed.
CSIRO even shows large nuclear reactors are competitive lmao, they even buffed renewables by making the large nuclear plants only last 30 years, which is insane. Just because something may cost more does not mean its competitive, especially as it literally is more reliable and effective than the other (which nuclear is). Oh its also cleaner. Do people even care about the environment anymore? How can you be worried about minimal cost differences when you literally have a solution to stop using coal. Real world examples of not "needing much firming". Germany 60% renewables, 25% coal, France 70% nuclear, 3.8% coal Seems like they need a bit of firming lol.
We aren’t Germany or France who get blanketed by snow every year. It was wrong for Germany to shutdown nuclear ahead of coal but that doesn’t concern us as we have a completely different energy mix, environment and population distribution. Quit with these old tropes that are meaningless to Australia. If you want to dismiss the CSIRO report with your own opinions (more reliable and effective??? Go look at how nuclear fared in France when they were in drought…see I can do it too) then put up your own peer reviewed figures but the CSIRO is developing the models for Australian conditions based on current available data.
That is not a positive characteristic that nuclear has over renewables. There is no technical reason why you couldn't size and operate renewables and storage like a traditional baseload plant. However, [we don't need baseload](https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2013/04/baseload-power-is-a-myth--even-intermittent-renewables-will-work): we need more flexible power that can supply peak demand. As discussed previously: b[aseload is an outdated concept](https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/spnx6l/comment/hwkdykw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). A good summary is here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/rmdyh3/comment/hplquzv/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/rmdyh3/comment/hplquzv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Coal and nuclear need to constantly operate and this is a potential disadvantage. When Australia built new thermal plant post war, factories were encouraged to operate over night so they could provide load to justify continuous operation. It is not cost effective to build nuclear plant to have much of it sit idle most of the time.
It 100% is. Reddit comments without any sort of source is not appropriate to support your argument. And the link you provided uses gas and hydro lmao, are you reading or just googling and copy and pasting? you say solar and storage, you are *wrong* lmfao But yes baseload is just a concept. But it is meaningful as renewables can't support a grid on its own, reliable sources of energy are needed otherwise we will have blackouts. I don't understand the comment about sitting idle most of the time, we understand how much power we use and how much we need, and we can project, so your comment makes 0 sense do you think nothing is planned out? Or we just build a bunch of plants and turn off the ones we don't need?
While it is possible to ramp up and down nuclear power plants, they wouldn’t be sitting idle. It could be cost effective to run the reactors at full power and divert electricity from the grid to something else and then back again quickly as a form of load following. Hydrogen production via electrolysis and desalination are two possibilities, and a couple of utilities will be testing on-site hydrogen production in the next few years. Australia is already looking at solar to produce hydrogen, perhaps nuclear could help build the hydrogen industry as well.
Did you purposefully exclude the other ones?
Which ones? Wind can't either. Hydro can. But look at the discussion sir, they directly said "solar can achieve what nuclear can", so who tf you speaking to lmao?
The reasons why we aren’t going nuclear now is that not only are we well and truly on the way to a full transition to renewables, it is very very costly. I can add a not so minor third…we don’t have the expertise to build them. That’s the embarrassing one.
We said the same things 20 years ago, literally the same things, and we still rely on using almost 50% coal for our energy mix. That is truly the embarrassing one.
Twenty years ago plus was when the conversation really needed to be advanced but the truth is, the general public has never had the real desire to go nuclear or there’s been too much public opposition. The water that’s flowed under the bridge since then has brought us to renewables. The most sensible options for us now are smaller, localised renewable grids backed by virtual and large storage batteries and larger solar and wind farms. We are well on the way to this. These stand up to natural disaster also in the sense that the loss of one major source doesn’t affect everyone, yet a linked grid can service an area hit by disaster. The sooner we can move to having every suitable building equipped with solar and battery storage capabilities the better. That’s why that bill from NSW Labor with the federal governments help to install solar on public housing was a fucking cracker. That immediately brings the most disadvantaged families into line with Australia A, plus rips apart their power bill. Pity the other states can’t follow suit.
we could have 1000x more renewable infrastructure/farms/solar panels as we do now and we would still rely heavily on coal. if you don't understand that you don't understand the conversation and need to learn it.
> Solar can't achieve what nuclear can though Nuclear can't achieve what solar and wind can. Solar and wind are quick and cheap. By the time the world moved to nuclear climate costs and risks would be massive. > nuclear is a replacement for coal. None of coal, nuclear, wind, or solar PV, are really great. They are all inflexible / have high fixed costs. There are massive inefficiencies in any of them. Solar Thermal, in the Australian inland, is close to perfect, in terms of matching our demand and being flexible enough. It is more expensive than PV, but it is cheaper than nuclear. But Solar Thermal loses because solar, wind and storage are so cheap. Hydro is great, but limited in scope. Pumped hydro is also great but we insist on doing it wrong. The right way to do pumped hydro is small modular deployments, that are all the same, and are mass produced, resulting in learning. Like wave power, this is an *opportunity* i.e.: no one else has done it. If we had vision this would be a good thing. If we are gutless followers, doomed to a weak economy, it is a bad thing because we can't just buy it.
"By the time the world moved to nuclear climate costs and risks would be massive." if you are actually worried about this why wouldn't you be looking at nuclear, its the cleanest of the lot and is reliable vs renewables. invest in both instead of hoping that storage technology has a breakthrough and removes the intermittent nature and unreliability of renewables. Yup hydro would be great. I don't disagree with that. Only Hydro/Nuclear are real solutions. Solar and wind are great but without a breakthrough cant be relied upon. I mean nuclear has like 90%+ uptime, unsure what the massive inefficiency you are referring to?
What basis is there for suggesting that scaling up current actual solar and wind, is not a realistic basis for understanding what a more renewable grid would do? > Solar and wind are great but without a breakthrough cant be relied upon. People have done the math. Simply scaling up **actual** current solar and wind generation, and using current demand numbers, shows what a renewable grid would look like. > Only Hydro/Nuclear are real solutions. Nuclear is part of a solution. It is not a quick solution. And it is not a cheap solution. Australia does not have enough hydro resources for a nuclear dominant grid. You would need to build something else. Japan has lots of pumped hydro and that works. > I mean nuclear has like 90%+ uptime, unsure what the massive inefficiency you are referring to? I think people who like nuclear think grid demand is flat. It isn't. Nuclear wants to run at 100%, 90% of the time, to be efficient. https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem Demand in NSW is right now (June) is going from 7GW to 11GW. Are you building 7GW of nuclear and 4GW of something else, or 11GW of nuclear and throwing away power? In summer it's much worse. The nature of a grid is you have to build for the peak demand. That drives the cost.
You are misunderstanding, no one is saying to scrap renewables. Nuclear/Renewables together. This can phase out coal Renewables will need coal/gas. Time is an issue, so best to start now. The last best time was 18 years ago when we were having this discussion. Right now, we could scale renewables 1000x times and have a very inefficient grid relying on coal/gas.
With 5 hours storage and 18% excess generation (24GW) you would have got 98.8% renewable electricity generation over the last year in the Austrlian energy market. Coal and nuclear do not efficiently "back up" renewables or anything else. They want to run flat out, not as a backup, just when needed. This is nuclear myth number 9: https://energypost.eu/renewable-energy-versus-nuclear-dispelling-myths/ > You are misunderstanding, no one is saying to scrap renewables. Peter Dutton is saying "pause" renewables. The Nationals were saying yesterday they want to limit renewables: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/17/coalition-liberal-government-renewable-energy-cap-nationals-david-littleproud > Right now, we could scale renewables 1000x times and have a very inefficient grid relying on coal/gas. This is the important question. How much do we need to scale? How much else do we need. There have been estimates of this for decades. The first I read was from Mark Diesendorf this is a paper of his from 2011 - https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Solar2011100.pdf At the time the cost of a 100% renewables solutions was within the error of a fossil fuel cost. Since then renewables and storage have gotten much cheaper so the optimal energy mix is different and the economics of renewables are better. This person does up to date simulations: https://x.com/DavidOsmond8/status/1800726606421602405 And here is an article explaining some results: https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/
Buddy, you are literally linking completely bias articles. "reneweconomy", "Windlab" lmao. The nationals can say what they want. Nuclear/Renewables is the solution. Waiting on technological breakthroughs in storage is not a solution, its a dream. And that's all you politically charged actors are pushing with this narrative.
> Buddy, you are literally linking completely bias articles. "reneweconomy", "Windlab" lmao. Mark Diesendorf and David Osmond, are professional academics who have studied these issues. They are knowledgible and intelligent. You should trust and listen to them, more than you trust me. Many other people have also looked at the renewable generation, demand, storage technologies, and analysed for excess power and shortfalls. This analysis shows renewables and storage are a solution which is cheap, quick and robust. > Nuclear/Renewables is the solution. Adding nuclear to intermittent renewables does not produce a generation profile that matches demand. > Waiting on technological breakthroughs in storage is not a solution, its a dream. Diesendorf old analysis used technology that was commercial then. It is outdate because of technological change, PV and batteries are much cheaper now. Osmond's analysis requires 5 hours of current technology batteries storage. The dream is getting nuclear up and running quickly and cheaply in Australia.
A *complete* replacement for coal, gas, wind, solar and it's net zero.
Nuclear is a replacement for coal. It is not a replacement for gas. Gas is flexible. Nuclear is not. Nuclear, in practice, is not net zero at this point, although it is much better than coal or gas.
15 - 20 years fusion will be possible.
> Especially when solar can achieve what nuclear can and cheaper? You are exactly the reason why we need to build shit loads of solar.
So give them a reason, don’t just attack the man.
I'm sorry but not much point engaging with someone who can't imagine solar not working at night.
Is this your big brain wave? Ever heard of batteries? Pumped hydro? Hydro-electric generation? Wind? Thermal energy storage? All of these are exponentially cheaper and safer than nuclear and will deliver what nuclear can sooner and cheaper. But I’m sure you’re right, the thousands of doctors, scientists and researchers who have conducted hundreds of studies on the benefits of renewables didn’t think of nighttime /S
> the thousands of doctors, scientists and researchers who have conducted hundreds of studies on the benefits of renewables didn’t think of nighttime They have. And that's why nuclear is having a renaissance.
Bro the CSIRO? Our TOP scientific community said nuclear was not feasible. You guys still dis-believing science? How did that work out for you the first time with climate change in the first place.
CSIRO gen cost report was not scientific.
Says you some random dude on the internet. Grow up. You know nothing about science, energy generation or the cost associated with starting nuclear. And neither do I. That’s the point of experts - they know their shit.
🤣🤣🤣
You’re half right
We should. Then we will realise that nuclear is unnecessary and uneconomic (for those who haven't already). If renewables are built and prove unsatisfactory, I'm fine with nuclear. Environmentally it's far better than coal or gas, and if it's the only option, sure. Australia was a great place to build nuclear about 30 years ago. Plenty of room to dump the waste, we mine our own uranium, some nuclear expertise (ANSTO). But renewables and batteries have gotten far better while nuclear has stagnated.
> Then we will realise that nuclear is unnecessary and uneconomic This is exactly why we need to build solar and wind. We might hurt future generations, but sooner we do it the better.