Thread: Nuclear

Industry super urges Australia to consider the nuclear power option
The study also raised concerns about battery schemes, finding that using Tesla batteries to achieve 1.5 days power backup would cost $6.5 trillion, or the cost of building around 1,000 nuclear reactors.

Industry super urges Australia to consider the nuclear power option - Business - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Originally Posted by austastar

Hi,
Nuclear power in Indonesia - Wikipedia

Power plants are still in the planning stage yet I think.

Cheers

yes, research reactors only.

Whatever the other arguments are, it can't be argued that coal is a safe alternative to anything. Three deaths in six months in central Queensland.

Man dies after wall collapses at Central Queensland coal mine - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Whatever the other arguments are, it can't be argued that coal is a safe alternative to anything. Three deaths in six months in central Queensland.

Man dies after wall collapses at Central Queensland coal mine - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Can’t argue cars are safe either.

Originally Posted by NavyDiver

Industry super urges Australia to consider the nuclear power option
The study also raised concerns about battery schemes, finding that using Tesla batteries to achieve 1.5 days power backup would cost $6.5 trillion, or the cost of building around 1,000 nuclear reactors.

Industry super urges Australia to consider the nuclear power option - Business - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

That article has so many disingenuous arguments and no references to how they calculate (via some devious methodology) that batteries would be 1000 times more $ than nuclear reactors. And there have been other articles in the media over the last few months likewise with very similar statements "Nuclear reactors should be considered as a realistic option ...". Some organisation is "feeding" this into the media.

And it's in this forum! Who are the shills in this forum? Maybe I should post this in the Conspiratory thread :-)

Mike

It also ignores the point that nuclear could only be built as a centralised plant by a government prepared to indemnify potential victims, since insurers are unlikely to insure a nuclear plant against claims, whereas battery banks can be decentralised and can easily be insured by power companies and individual householders, and so the cost would be widely spread and affordable.
The reality is there is a rapid rise in the number of people installing battery banks and that will skyrocket as costs fall, whereas no-one is offering to build nuclear.

Originally Posted by speleomike

That article has so many disingenuous arguments and no references to how they calculate (via some devious methodology) that batteries would be 1000 times more $ than nuclear reactors. And there have been other articles in the media over the last few months likewise with very similar statements "Nuclear reactors should be considered as a realistic option ...". Some organisation is "feeding" this into the media.

And it's in this forum! Who are the shills in this forum? Maybe I should post this in the Conspiratory thread :-)

Mike

Steady on Mike!

I assure you it is possible to be in favour of considering the use of nuclear power while not being a 'shill'. If your argument is that since a number of media articles are making the same case about an issue (nuclear power) then it must be a conspiracy, does not the same logic apply to the frequent discussion about the certainty of dangerous global warming? Perhaps the increased number of media articles about the need to consider nuclear power reflects a gradual realization that intermittent renewables cannot achieve 'decarbonisation' of the power generation industry alone?

I agree that the estimated cost of battery power even surprised me, and I also agree that the implied price of 7 billion per reactor looks low to me. Nevertheless, even if the estimated cost of the battery backup is incorrect by a factor of ten, there is an important point that battery backup currently looks to be exceedingly expensive, and that inclusion of the full cost of the battery backup makes intermittent renewables much more expensive than a simple calculation based on the cost of the solar or wind generation facilities alone.

Michael

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

It also ignores the point that nuclear could only be built as a centralised plant by a government prepared to indemnify potential victims, since insurers are unlikely to insure a nuclear plant against claims, whereas battery banks can be decentralised and can easily be insured by power companies and individual householders, and so the cost would be widely spread and affordable.
The reality is there is a rapid rise in the number of people installing battery banks and that will skyrocket as costs fall, whereas no-one is offering to build nuclear.

Your point about insurability is an interesting one. Can you confirm that no privately owned reactors in the OECD have insurances against failure? That said, I agree with you that reactors should be run by the State or at least very seriously regulated.

You claim that '..no one is offering to build nuclear.'. Surely you miss the point - the ABC article relates to a suggestion from our superannuation funds that they might want to do just that!