Thread: Grid can go 75% renewable

Nuclear will never happen in Australia. Its very expensive, would take at least a decade to build, the electricity would be so expensive taxpayers would have to subsidise to make it affordable and it creates highly radioactive wastes to store for thousands of years. Why would you choose nuclear when there are much cheaper, faster and safer alternatives?

I read AGL is planning to spend $20b on storage and renewables.
The trend is clear at Gladstone and the Hunter, which is to turn them into renewable energy hubs by upgrading the existing transmission networks and adding hydrogen, batteries and renewables.
Qld will also have 4 pumped hydro stations - the existing one at Wivenhoe, the one being built near Townsville and new pumped hydro at Borumba near Gympie and near Mackay. It is also building a new gas plant which could run on hydrogen.

NZ is showing the way. It has already passed 80%, mainly from hydro and geo-thermal.

NZ is showing the way. It has already passed 80%, mainly from hydro and geo-thermal.[/QUOTE]

And has nearly the highest charge rate to consumers per KWhr from what I have read. Perhaps they should go solar and wind. We have been told that energy is free and electricity will be cheaper. I wont hold my breath!!!

Originally Posted by dirvine

NZ is showing the way. It has already passed 80%, mainly from hydro and geo-thermal.

And has nearly the highest charge rate to consumers per KWhr from what I have read. Perhaps they should go solar and wind. We have been told that energy is free and electricity will be cheaper. I wont hold my breath!!![/QUOTE]

No surprise there,power will never be cheaper going to renewables,that is a given.

The big issue is also reliability,no doubt that will get worse as well,as has happened in other places around the globe.

NZ is showing the way. It has already passed 80%, mainly from hydro and geo-thermal.

Not surprising when you consider that NZ is virtually a giant volcano (geo thermal) and its annual rainfall far exceeds anything in Australia so it also has plenty of water to play with.

Renewables DO have an important roll in our power grid But untill they can come up with a system that will provide power 24/7 RELIABLY nuclear power is a FAR cleaner option to coal or even gas fired generators.
Remember that we have come a bloody long way since Chernobyl was built/designed and we also has massive deposits of fuel for these reactors in Australia as well.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Nuclear will never happen in Australia. Its very expensive, would take at least a decade to build, the electricity would be so expensive taxpayers would have to subsidise to make it affordable and it creates highly radioactive wastes to store for thousands of years. Why would you choose nuclear when there are much cheaper, faster and safer alternatives?

It may or may not be true Mick.
Its very expensive,
Bespoke was expensive. Mass production is already starting with China for example suggesting they can build 10 old school Nuclear per year. 88 Small Nuclear reactors are in advanced planing stages. Costs are falling very very fast and will fall even faster I think.


would take at least a decade to build,
Australian Climate council suggests it is “9.4 years to build”

84 months is the Medium time across the world – You can do the maths to see Australian Climate council cherry picked. If I cherry picked I would point out four years or less in China! That is for the Large old school ones as well!

SMR build and construction times ‘may’ be “An SMR has a projected construction time of three to five years, while a large reactor takes six to 12 years. And it is possible to construct a reactor with a single module or use units in combination for greater power output.” ANSTO who know a lot more than the climate council





the electricity would be so expensive taxpayers would have to subsidise to make it affordable
No power, Not enough power or not reliable power is about to show what poor planning does in the Northern Hemisphere particularly in the European Union. If you want a BMW, VW or other item built in Germany get it quickly!


it creates highly radioactive wastes to store for thousands of years.
Myth # 5: There is no solution for huge amounts of nuclear waste being generated.
Truth: All of the used nuclear fuel generated in every nuclear plant in the past 50 years would fill a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards, and 96 % of this ​“waste” can be recycled ^[5]. Used fuel is currently being safely stored. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the equivalent scientific advisory panels in every major country support geological disposal of such wastes as the preferred safe method for their ultimate disposal and
Myth # 9: Used nuclear fuel is deadly for 10,000 years.

Truth: Used nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts ^[10]. Most of the waste from this process will require a storage time of less than 300 years. Finally, less than 1% is radioactive for 10,000 years. This portion is not much more radioactive than some things found in nature, and can be easily shielded to protect humans and wildlife. Link

Why would you choose nuclear when there are much cheaper, faster and safer alternatives?

Solar, Hydro, Wind.... are all helpful. None are 100% Wind is 25%, Wind is 50% and hydro is weather dependent and we can all recall or see droughts impacting here and all over the world right now. Hover Dam is one to watch?

Calling them cheap is also questionable with trillions invested in them and clearly where that has occurred are in some of the worst and least reliable power! They are fine. They are only part of the required solution for almost everywhere. If you want to trust wind, solar.... 100% I suspect your in for a shock like all the places who did that including Germany and California.

I might be wrong of course. I hate nuclear weapons myself and fully understand why most people hate them as well.

Anti Nuclear is a bit one eyed perhaps? Confusing weapons with Nuclear power, Nuclear Medicine and similar is a bit like blaming roads for drunk drivers. Nuclear Medicine unquestionably saved my life or at the very least allowed amazing Doctors to fix the many broken or smashed bones.

Two of the amazing Doctors from ANSTO are likely to fund my retirement


Edit this was rather good I thought. It is on safety. IF we also added small land area required and scale of power output per kilogram only one of the two safest would be streets ahead.

safest fuels.jpg

I have to add molten salts storage and natrium reactors via Bill Gates .... ( not my company or yours yet) suggest 30% nuclear with storage like molten salts storage or my favourite Hydrogen Need the 70%
or so wind, solar and similar C02 free power


The claimed integration by the new Natrium nuclear power plant which will be located in Kemmerer funded largely by US Government and the seed capital by Mr Gates and co are great yet note the molten salts storage and Hydrogen fit well with wind, solar and similar C02 free power.

A former sailor who is Nuclear sub reactor expert is working for Terra Power via his interview gave a bit to much information to impart with out sounding like I am ranting so I will shhhh

It could be hype or I hope it is safe and almost ready to build and multiply via the two + companies I know are striving to help. Not just fund my retirement

A Hydrogen /Musk/ Tesla challenge is very very very worth watching I think as it has massive implications to our 4wd and towing passions Paris -Dakar is a hint on that one

Renewables are already the cheapest form of electricity generation by far, which is why coal generation is already uncompetitive when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Hydro and batteries will make that true all the time.
I see the Qld energy plan predicts in 10 years it will make electricity charges 15% lower than if it had not happened.
One of the new plants is configured to use sugar as a feedstock, predicted to double sugarcane production in Qld.

Originally Posted by scarry

And has nearly the highest charge rate to consumers per KWhr from what I have read. Perhaps they should go solar and wind. We have been told that energy is free and electricity will be cheaper. I wont hold my breath!!!

No surprise there,power will never be cheaper going to renewables,that is a given.

The big issue is also reliability,no doubt that will get worse as well,as has happened in other places around the globe.[/QUOTE]

Renewables aren’t cheaper - they’re subsidised to the hilt.

Renewables ironically need continual renewing to maintain outputs.

Batteries have finite life and pay back is well beyond life span at the moment. Solar only pays back owners quickly if the FIT is great otherwise it is a long time to recover - can be reduced if you change all your habits (and can accomodate them) by using your power as generated - otherwise it’s difficult.

Example: my FIT well and truly exceeds purchase price.
So I can generate cash all day, and run all my washing etc at night and I’m well in front.

My mate, on a pitiful FIT is better off doing his laundry etc during the day and using as little as possible at night.

Problem is he works all day and has to do all this stuff in the evenings - so really all his system is doing is running his fridge during the day for free and giving almost free energy to the grid. He looked at battery storage - the price to install will mean he’s still paying it off when they cells need replacing.