Thread: The next nuclear plants .The answer to our climate goals.

Originally Posted by Ferret

The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for a range of technologies is tabulated in this report. The LCOE captures the average cost of producing electricity in Australia from a range of technologies over its entire life, given assumptions about how the generator will operate...…………..

………..
http://www.co2crc.com.au/wp-content/..._final_web.pdf

I think LCOE is skewed in favour of coal and gas generators as they can profit from "peaking" in our distorted energy market,(think of it as a subsidy), solar & wind without storage can't do this. Also I'm not sure where the report attributed the gains that energy suppliers made from paying for diesel generator owners to run their sets during "peaking". Having said that I think the rooftop solar has all but eliminated the afternoon peak, as I know of places that used to run diesel gensets every hot afternoon in summer form approx. 1400 to 1800 whereas that is no longer the case.

Originally Posted by RANDLOVER

think of it as a subsidy...

Someone else come up with 'subsidy' theories in another thread. Load of bollocks as was explained by another in that particular thread.

Originally Posted by bob10

Google is your friend. But I know you can't be serious. Sarcastic perhaps, but not serious.

Cost of Solar Power vs Cost of Wind Power, Coal, Nuclear, & Natural Gas

Actually fairly serious, i live in an off the grid environment, (shock oh horror oil palm) where we make about 8 MW of power

Based on our costings for a 1 MW plant and/or several 500 kva plants our costings give us:
Existing steam turbines, using biomass, can improve efficiency, almost free power, however 11,000 v transmission lines make it expensive for centralised power.
Some new Hydro plants, capex is high , but a 20 year + life with minimal maintenance
Diesel generators, less capex , but high operating costs and fairly short life.
Most expensive for 24/7 power is Solar/battery by a long shot, (no subsidies)

Hydro is probably option 1 to replace some Generators, if we can allocate the capex,
Option 2 is probably a hybrid solution.

On reflection our Hydro is fairly optimal, 50 m of head over a few 100 meters and 5 m of rain. Not everyone has that luck

Originally Posted by Eevo

got 5kw on the roof. still have a bill. 300 in summer, 1000 in winter

We get 44c feed in tarriff, which is totally crazy, but never a bill is seen. And thats with 3kw

Originally Posted by shanegtr

I watched a doco series about Bill Gates on netflix a little while ago - the third episode targeted his involvement with a company called terra power. In regards to nuclear power this approach seems to make a lot of sense to me - they are using a new design that basically cannot have a meltdown event - even in a case of total power loss and uses the waste fuel from existing nuclear power plants. The approach that these guys are taking solves alot of issues I currently had with most of the current nuclear power plants around the world. They where on the brink of building a pilot plant in China just before Trump **** canned the trade agreement with China
TerraPower

I've always been grateful Microsoft dont make aircraft , but now nuclear power plants. Talk about the Blue Screen of Death.
But good luck to him, at least he is contributing to looking for a solution.

Originally Posted by speleomike

No Nuclear power plants in the world are commercially insured. They all are underwritten by their respective countries Government and paid for by tax payers. The same as the disposal of waste. Paid for by the Govt. It's another one of their hidden perks.

It's too late for them now to come up with another design as the cannot sell kW as cheaply as renewable by an order of magnitude at least.

Mike

So like Wivenhoe Dam or the broken one up the coast, insured by the State (Crown) whats the difference.
Do you think there is a insurance policy on the Gateway Bridge for example

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

I think some more research would reveal that nuclear has the highest construction costs, higher even than coal and gas, and much higher than renewables.
Nuclear can rarely get insurance and requires massive taxpayer underwriting.
The world has moved towards privatised electricity generation so that means nuclear can't get insurance so can't be built without government subsidy.
Operating costs for renewables are lower than for nuclear, coal and gas because sunlight and wind are free.

Mick, you keep saying cheaper, but show us the numbers, my attempts to do off grid power in the MW range dont gel with this statement.

Originally Posted by AndyG

We get 44c feed in tarriff, which is totally crazy, but never a bill is seen. And thats with 3kw

wow! i get i think 12 or 14 cents feed in.