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

DiscoMick · 17th December 2019, 12:34 PM

It's a contested field because it can be greatly affected by what assumptions are made.
Construction and operation costs vary greatly between energy sources.
For example, nuclear has the highest construction costs, but operating costs are relatively low. Coal and gas have high operating costs because of the cost of mining and transporting the coal or gas.
Solar and wind have their construction costs, but very low operating costs because sunlight and wind are free.
Nuclear can rarely get insurance. Coal is now very difficult to get finance for from the banks.
Another point is that the coal power stations were originally built by governments so their total cost was subsidised by taxpayers, whereas solar and wind are usually privately financed. So finance costs can vary greatly.
Also, society has changed from a highly centralised and regulated system based on coal power stations to a market based system in which generators bid to supply power at a specific time in the daily operations of the grid.
Household solar also now supplies about a third of power so that is changing the dynamics.
Also, should the cost comparisons include the hidden costs from how we generate our power?
What about the cost of emissions and the costs if we fail to reduce emissions and have to clean up the resulting mess? For example, more emissions means more cyclones and bush fires, which cost society many hidden costs. The federal government has just tipped in an extra $11m for waterbombing bush fires, which are getting worse because of climate warming which is worsening because we are releasing more emissions, so shouldn't that cost counted in comparing power sources, if some sources released emissions which worsened the bushfires?
Who pays to dispose of radioactive waste? Who pays to rehabilitate disused coal mines?
We do. There's no-one else to pay the bills.
Also, how should the cost comparisons be expressed? There are several options.
So it's not a simple comparison.
The result is Google is packed with supposed cost comparisons which vary greatly depending on the assumptions made.
So have fun searching...

**Tombie** · 17th December 2019, 12:49 PM

One of the more common assumptions used in many calculations is life of asset.

In several financial models for example, calculations were done using 30 year operational life for each asset.

This skews the data as Wind Generators run around 20 years whilst Coal often go 50 years.

**rapserv** · 17th December 2019, 01:17 PM

And "all those lithium batteries in electric vehicles" doesn't really come into the argument as I don't think we're likely to see nuclear powered vehicles in the future.
Why are we still even talking about energy sources other than 'renewables' if renewables are now able to do the job at a much lower cost .... economically and environmentally?

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Not as dangerous as radioactive waste though.

**rapserv** · 17th December 2019, 01:25 PM

Not only have they filled their site ... the govt has been looking for sites around Oz to 'safely' store the excess.
A number of sites have been proposed ... however the local residents have all 'rightly' said ...'not in my backyard!!,
Stil looking.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

I've toured Lucas Heights and seen inside the reactor. The compound was filled with stacks of stored radioactive material. Not impressed.

**shanegtr** · 17th December 2019, 01:42 PM

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

**rapserv** · 17th December 2019, 01:43 PM

Who's saying that energy is free?
Of course energy to create the product is not free ... initially
Once the product is built the energy from the Sun or Wind IS 'free'
As with ANY other energy supply maintenance is not and never will be free ... but it will be lower with renewables.
This is not a binary argument.
This argument reminds me of the comment made by our current idiot deputy PM when he stated about the NSW bushfires ... 'most of these fires are because of little lucifers playing with matches .. and not due to dry lightening strikes and climate change' .... completely missing the point that it's not what starts the fire thats the problem ... It's the INTENSITY of the of the burn once is going.... which is a direct result of ACC.

Originally Posted by ATH

"because sunlight and wind are free. " Absolute rubbish. What's free about the energy intensive towers for wind? What's free about the ongoing maintenance of windmills?
What's free about the manufacture of the huge arrays of solar panels? What's free about the distribution of the power they produce?
And what's free about the power that has to be provided when these wonderful "free" things can't produce power because of a lack of wind or sunlight?
Absolute greenie crap.
AlanH.

**shanegtr** · 17th December 2019, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by rapserv

As with ANY other energy supply maintenance is not and never will be free ... but it will be lower with renewables.

I cant supply any figures, but I have heard that wind power is fairly high in maintenance costs - the gearboxes are built to be a light as possible and apparently break often enough

**rapserv** · 17th December 2019, 01:57 PM

NASA,s website, for example, is full of factual evidence.

Plain common sense should tell everyone that 'renewables' are the way forward .... If they weren't .. why is it the way corporates and banking want to go. To them at least .... the 'evidence' is clear!!

Originally Posted by AndyG

Can anyone point me to a document that summarises the comparative costs of
Solar/Wind (with the necessary batteries for 24*7)
Hydro
Gas
Diesel
Coal
Nuclear

Appears to be a lot of experts at Aulro, so would appreciate them sharing their knowledge, as opposed ot opinions

Please nothing from The Guardian and the ilk, a source document if possible

**Tombie** · 17th December 2019, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by rapserv

Not only have they filled their site ... the govt has been looking for sites around Oz to 'safely' store the excess.
A number of sites have been proposed ... however the local residents have all 'rightly' said ...'not in my backyard!!,
Stil looking.

We have a perfect location already, and should be consulting with those people as a potential income stream for them in an already sterilised area.

**Tombie** · 17th December 2019, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by rapserv

NASA,s website, for example, is full of factual evidence.

Plain common sense should tell everyone that 'renewables' are the way forward .... If they weren't .. why is it the way corporates and banking want to go. To them at least .... the 'evidence' is clear!!

Cleaner energy is the way forward, 100% agree.
Cleaner use of the planet is the way forward, 100% agree.

However, Corporate and Banking are going down the path of most financial reward.

To think otherwise is foolish.

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

Thread Tools

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions