After heavy criticism, Australia's leading science agency doubles down its findings that the cost of nuclear power for Australia would likely be double that of renewable energy, and it would take at least 15 years for a plant to be built.
If we went nuclear a couple of decades ago, maybe it would make sense to continue.
But we’re at the point where renewables are cheaper anyway.
Why does the nuclear conversation keep happening? There’s no new information being brought to the table, except every fresh costing just shows that renewables have gotten even cheaper since last time.
Nuclear is just steam with radioactivity, why not push for steam with molten salt? That way we can combine our renewables and the same generating principles and everyone is happy.
It is a political strategy. It isn’t intended to solve our problems or the worlds problems. It solves problems for the coalition (getting the teal vote) and the fossil fuel industry (increases life of their assets by diverting investment and attention from more competitive alternatives). People will vote for it based on the feels and their echo chamber. It isn’t supposed to make hard headed intellectual sense. It is supposed to win votes and it probably will.
Why does the nuclear conversation keep happening? T
Appeal to stupidity.
This was they can continue with fossil fuels (gas) while they “plan” for nuclear and the current government is well gone by the time the entire charade comes crashing down and everything is worse.
Because batteries aren’t getting good enough fast enough to handle base load. Molten salt works… The same way all solar power works. By day, and even then only on ridiculously sunny days.
Without dedicating the majority of all batteries that have ever been or will ever be made out of accessible materials on earth to renewable energy storage, you will not have enough reserve power to ever move to renewable-only energy.
Base load power is a myth. It’s a dinosaur that does not apply to today’s energy market (and never applied in the way people try to use the term anyway). This is a fact that people who study energy have known for over a decade. The only people repeating the idea that renewables can’t work because “base load power” are climate denialists hoping to stall a transition away from fossil fuels, and useful idiots who believe the former group’s propaganda.
With diverse renewable types spread out over diverse geographic regions, combined with diverse energy storage solutions, you can absolutely run our entire energy grid using 2024 technology, and it can be cheaper by far than nuclear. This is what every expert in the field has been telling us for a long time.
During the summer. Even then it doesn’t scale and is an ecological nightmare given its footprint. Best designs give 10 hrs of operation per 12 hours of strong daylight. This means less than 8 hours during the winter anywhere except the equator.
I don’t, but that doesn’t matter. Geothermal is limited in use case. Hydro is worse for the environment than coal unless you make it a hydro battery, and then you only have so many places you can build it, and wind is naturally unreliable by definition. Solar is the most consistent renewable, and the cheapest, and it’s useless on average half of a day.
Renewables are great, and eventually when we figure out perfect energy storage using hydrogen or other super common material based battery they’ll be almost good enough for most use cases on earth.
Until then, though, and for all future applications, fission and fusion are going to be needed.
Edit: also lol if you think wave generators are anything but an express way to shed micro plastics into the ocean.
Out of interest, would you care to share with us your PhD thesis? I have to assume it’s in a field like energy grid engineering, given how confidently you’re disagreeing with CSIRO and the scientists who work for it.
If we went nuclear a couple of decades ago, maybe it would make sense to continue.
But we’re at the point where renewables are cheaper anyway.
Why does the nuclear conversation keep happening? There’s no new information being brought to the table, except every fresh costing just shows that renewables have gotten even cheaper since last time.
Nuclear is just steam with radioactivity, why not push for steam with molten salt? That way we can combine our renewables and the same generating principles and everyone is happy.
It is a political strategy. It isn’t intended to solve our problems or the worlds problems. It solves problems for the coalition (getting the teal vote) and the fossil fuel industry (increases life of their assets by diverting investment and attention from more competitive alternatives). People will vote for it based on the feels and their echo chamber. It isn’t supposed to make hard headed intellectual sense. It is supposed to win votes and it probably will.
Only way it works is if they use it to counter the “turning off solar at peak times” threat.
Appeal to stupidity.
This was they can continue with fossil fuels (gas) while they “plan” for nuclear and the current government is well gone by the time the entire charade comes crashing down and everything is worse.
Because batteries aren’t getting good enough fast enough to handle base load. Molten salt works… The same way all solar power works. By day, and even then only on ridiculously sunny days.
Without dedicating the majority of all batteries that have ever been or will ever be made out of accessible materials on earth to renewable energy storage, you will not have enough reserve power to ever move to renewable-only energy.
Base load power is a myth. It’s a dinosaur that does not apply to today’s energy market (and never applied in the way people try to use the term anyway). This is a fact that people who study energy have known for over a decade. The only people repeating the idea that renewables can’t work because “base load power” are climate denialists hoping to stall a transition away from fossil fuels, and useful idiots who believe the former group’s propaganda.
With diverse renewable types spread out over diverse geographic regions, combined with diverse energy storage solutions, you can absolutely run our entire energy grid using 2024 technology, and it can be cheaper by far than nuclear. This is what every expert in the field has been telling us for a long time.
And at night, that’s kind of the point of it.
During the summer. Even then it doesn’t scale and is an ecological nightmare given its footprint. Best designs give 10 hrs of operation per 12 hours of strong daylight. This means less than 8 hours during the winter anywhere except the equator.
Why do you keep translating “renewables” to “solar, just solar, literally only solar considered, no other sources of renewable energy whatsoever”?
I don’t, but that doesn’t matter. Geothermal is limited in use case. Hydro is worse for the environment than coal unless you make it a hydro battery, and then you only have so many places you can build it, and wind is naturally unreliable by definition. Solar is the most consistent renewable, and the cheapest, and it’s useless on average half of a day.
Renewables are great, and eventually when we figure out perfect energy storage using hydrogen or other super common material based battery they’ll be almost good enough for most use cases on earth.
Until then, though, and for all future applications, fission and fusion are going to be needed.
Edit: also lol if you think wave generators are anything but an express way to shed micro plastics into the ocean.
Out of interest, would you care to share with us your PhD thesis? I have to assume it’s in a field like energy grid engineering, given how confidently you’re disagreeing with CSIRO and the scientists who work for it.