Plastic bags, climate change, renewable energy,

Oddjob

Eats Squid
You should have another look at that Lancet article you mention. Here you go - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61253-7/fulltext.
Note the fact that solar and wind are in last place in terms of effects on human heath in both the short and long term, described as "small". Articles I've read and quoted earlier in the thread indicate managing environmental impact to fauna are trivial compared to nuclear facilities for both types.

As for your other points, disposing of wind turbines is a snap, as the towers and drivetrain are metal. Only the blades are problematic, but they last at least 25 years anyway, and can last many more with enhanced inspection regimes. I don't know as much about solar panels but IIRC there are few disposal or handling concerns. We have several customers of our technolgy coming up with automated inspection systems for the inside and outside of turbine blades for this very reason.

Nuclear waste is of course manageable, but I disagree about scalability. For nuclear to make much of a dent in world carbon emissions, the developing world would need to adopt it en mass, and the geopolitical risks of that are absolutely huge. Wind and renewables face no such scalability problems and can be deployed immediately. And lastly, gas and hydro are excellent standby options, however rarely they are required.
Uh are we reading the same article. Nuclear is clearly the safest in Table 2. The Lancet article is less specific with actual deaths from wind and solar but we have those stats from other sources. The Lancet article handily repeats all the usual problems with renewables.

I disagree abour scalability with wind and solar. The physical constraints mean that they cannot be scaled up enough to meet the needs of developing countries. Which is why we are seeing coal, gas and nuclear (India, China) fill in the gaps.

The question marks around renewable transmission are not trivial either. A small number of high voltage transmission lines is much cheaper to build and operate than a large number of small transmission lines. This is part of the reason why energy prices in countries with a large portion of renewables is climbing despite the marginal cost of renewables being close to 0. Note: energy prices reflect average cost.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk
 

John U

MTB Precision
Are you saying that what he says about renewables taking up land and needing gas fired reserve capacity is wrong?

Play the ball not the man.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk
He over cooks those things dramatically. Look at all the land used by farming.
He over eggs a number of things. Showing a couple of people who are stuck on a wind turbine and are about to die from an industrial accident to down play the feasibility of wind power! If this is what TEDX dishes up I am glad I have been notified.
 

rangersac

Likes Dirt
Nuclear for the win.
Yeaaaaah, nah. Here we are in the land of Oz, which has a bunch of uranium mines and low level enrichment of the fuel, with one currently working reactor at Lucas Heights for producing medical isotopes that is coming to the end of its lifespan, and no proper nuclear fuel waste disposal system, with most of the glowing stuff either sitting in sheds at Lucas Heights, at hospitals around the country or at Maralinga with big fuck off keep out signs and fences to keep adventurous folks away. So if we decide tomorrow, hey let's kick off some nuke generated electrons we've got to do the following.
  1. Build a nuke power station
  2. Either invest in further fuel processing to produce ore that makes the grade for use in reactors, or import fuel rods
  3. Develop a safe transport system from our enrichment plant, or from the docks to our power station
  4. Develop a waste disposal area that will contain waste for the next x millenia.
So let's look at the costs.

1. We probably wanna go for a modern reactor with fail safes built in, in case the lights unexpected go out like at Fukushima. Something like the Westinghouse AP1000 which China is basing much of their modern nuclear fleet on, or the EPR which has also been built in China, and is being constructed in France, Finland and the UK. Cost wise we're going to be at least on a par with the UK/ US in terms of labour. Hinkley Point in the UK is estimated to be over 20 billion pounds and that's before any construction has begun. In the US, two AP1000 reactors that are under construction are estimated to cost $25 billion US. Importantly in both these cases, they are reactors that are being constructed at existing nuclear power stations, so have limited planning issues to overcome, and in countries that have mature nuke construction industries which Australia does not have. I would be comfortably adding 50% of the costs of those plants to any constructed in Australia to overcome these hurdles. So let's say $50 billion AUD in construction costs. We've then got to site the reactor(s) somewhere. They pump out a lot of juice, so having them in areas where there are existing large scale generation makes sense as the grid infrastructure is already there. Think La Trobe Valley or the Hunter. Wanna bet those communities will be happy about a reactor showing up?

2. Fuel. So we mine and export yellowcake which needs further enrichment before you can stick it in a reactor. So we need to build an enrichment plant which are a whole bunch of centrifuges spinning away to separate out the uranium. Buggered if I know how much one costs to build, but suffice to say given we have to import the technology and build from scratch I'd be saying in the billions. Or we have to import fuel assemblies, which aren't the sort of thing you pick up on ebay. A good calculator is here which tracks cost from mine to power station. Then we have to transport it which leads to...

3. Getting our fuel from either the enrichment plant to the power station, or from the docks to the power station. We probably don't want to use roads as they aren't too secure and it could be pretty disruptive, so rail would be sensible. If we're just getting it from the docks to either the Hunter or the La Trobe valley, that's not a big deal as the infrastructure already exists, we just need specialized transport equipment and additional security. If we're getting it from the processing plant, that's a bigger deal, as you'd probably wanna site that near a Uranium mine, say Olympic Dam. Gotta build a rail spur and associated infrastructure out there then, that'd be in the 100s of millions. Then transport it safely half way across the country. Lastly:

4. Waste disposal. So let's dump everything out at Maralinga because it's already contaminated. Build a rail spur off the Nullabor line and associated unloading infrastructure and dig a big hole in the ground to stick it in. Or use Kimba as ARPANSA is proposing. Either way the cost of setting up such a facility would more than likely run into the billions.

So what are we up to in costs here? $60 billion? $70 billion? Then it's 10-15 years to construct and get going. For probably a third of that money and way less time you could do construct Snowy 2.0, Tasmania's Battery of the Nation project, the interconnectors and extra pumped storage in small hectare scale reservoirs, and bring online the 20GW of renewable generation (not exactly challenging with 1-2GW of solar and wind being currently deployed every year) required to turn Australia electricity production into 100% renewables. Don't take my word for it, read the peer reviewed literature

Edit: Because hifiandmtb is on the money!
 
Last edited:

John U

MTB Precision
‘The question marks around renewable transmission are not trivial either. A small number of high voltage transmission lines is much cheaper to build and operate than a large number of small transmission lines. This is part of the reason why energy prices in countries with a large portion of renewables is climbing despite the marginal cost of renewables being close to 0. Note: energy prices reflect average cost.’

I thought this was one of the benefits of renewables, generation occurring close to where it is used, on roof tops
 

Oddjob

Eats Squid
Nah I'm saying he has a record of talking a lot of bullshit to advance his agenda of nukes good everything else bad. That premise, is utter bullshit.

The economic reality is that it just costs too much. This article exlpains it well:

http://theconversation.com/the-unholy-alliance-that-explains-why-renewable-energy-is-trouncing-nuclear-93519
Which is why energy prices in France are lower than Germany? So much so that France provides most of Germany's low emissions KWs.

The french model of rolling out a well designed single type of reactor each generation and regulating the industry well, works. The ad hoc model of the US/UK/Japan has been a continuing disaster.

Korea has followed the French model. The new president initially planned to phase out nuclear power but after strong voter support for the continuation of the industry has switched focus to phasing out coal.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk
 

Oddjob

Eats Squid
Yeaaaaah, nah. Here we are in the land of Oz, which has a bunch of uranium mines and low level enrichment of the fuel, with one currently working reactor at Lucas Heights for producing medical isotopes that is coming to the end of its lifespan, and no proper nuclear fuel waste disposal system, with most of the glowing stuff either sitting in sheds at Lucas Heights, at hospitals around the country or at Maralinga with big fuck off keep out signs and fences to keep adventurous folks away. So if we decide tomorrow, hey let's kick off some nuke generated electrons we've got to do the following.
  1. Build a nuke power station
  2. Either invest in further fuel processing to produce ore that makes the grade for use in reactors, or import fuel rods
  3. Develop a safe transport system from our enrichment plant, or from the docks to our power station
  4. Develop a waste disposal area that will contain waste for the next x millenia.
So let's look at the costs.

1. We probably wanna go for a modern reactor with fail safes built in, in case the lights unexpected go out like at Fukushima. Something like the Westinghouse AP1000 which China is basing much of their modern nuclear fleet on, or the EPR which has also been built in China, and is being constructed in France, Finland and the UK. Cost wise we're going to be at least on a par with the UK/ US in terms of labour. Hinkley Point in the UK is estimated to be over 20 billion pounds and that's before any construction has begun. In the US, two AP1000 reactors that are under construction are estimated to cost $25 billion US. Importantly in both these cases, they are reactors that are being constructed at existing nuclear power station, so have limited planning issues to overcome, and in countries that have mature nuke construction industries which Australia does not have. I would be comfortably adding 50% of the costs of those plants to any constructed in Australia to overcome these hurdles. So let's say $50 billion AUD in construction costs. We've then got to site the reactor(s) somewhere. They pump out a lot of juice, so having them in areas where there are existing large scale generation makes sense as the grid infrastructure is already there. Think La Trobe Valley or the Hunter. Wanna bet those communities will be happy about a reactor showing up?

2. Fuel. So we mine and export yellowcake which needs further enrichment before you can stick it in a reactor. So we need to build an enrichment plant which are a whole bunch of centrifuges spinning away to separate out the uranium. Buggered if I know how much one costs to build, but suffice to say given we have to import the technology and build from scratch I'd be saying in the billions. Or we have to import fuel assemblies, which aren't the sort of thing you pick up on ebay. A good calculator is here which tracks cost from mine to power station. Then we have to transport it which leads to...

3. Getting our fuel from either the enrichment plant to the power station, or from the docks to the power station. We probably don't want to use roads as they aren't too secure and it could be pretty disruptive, so rail would be sensible. If we're just getting it from the docks to either the Hunter or the La Trobe valley, that's not a big deal as the infrastructure already exists, we just need specialized transport equipment and additional security. If we're getting it from the processing plant, that's a bigger deal, as you'd probably wanna site that near a Uranium mine, say Olympic Dam. Gotta build a rail spur and associated infrastructure out there then, that'd be in the 100s of millions. Then transport it safely half way across the country. Lastly:

4. Waste disposal. So let's dump everything out at Maralinga because it's already contaminated. Build a rail spur off the Nullabor line and associated unloading infrastructure and dig a big hole in the ground to stick it in. Or use Kimba as ARPANSA is proposing. Either way the cost of setting up such a facility would more than likely run into the billions.

So what are we up to in costs here? $60 billion? $70 billion? Then it's 10-15 years to construct and get going. For probably a third of that money and way less time you could do construct Snowy 2.0, Tasmania's Battery of the Nation project, the interconnectors and extra pumped storage in small hectare scale reservoirs, and bring online the 20GW of renewable generation (not exactly challenging with 1-2GW of solar and wind being currently deployed every year) required to turn Australia into 100% renewables. Don't take my word for it, read the peer reviewed literature
The first question to answer is how badly you want zero emission KWs. If your happy to build a lot more hydro capacity then renewables will work, but there is a big ecological footprint.

  1. I would go with a Korean APR1400. They are in service and the build and operational costs are known.
  2. An Australian company invented laser enrichment. You could do it in an industrial estate, which is why the specifics are a bit hush hush.
  3. You could do the enrichment on site so just need to worry about rail infrastructure and water cooling.
  4. There are lots of potential storage sites. The cost is probably in the billions but so is new transmission lines.
The Basslink dc line was out of action for six months in 2016 due to a line fault 100kms off the coast. Tasmania won't work as a battery without an expensive secondary line. There probably isn't enough suitable sites on the mainland for cost effective pump storage. And by cost effective I mean cheaper than batteries which are already way way up the cost scale.

There is no cheap zero emissions option. We are currently looking at an options that are neither cheap or zero emissions.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk
 

Oddjob

Eats Squid
‘The question marks around renewable transmission are not trivial either. A small number of high voltage transmission lines is much cheaper to build and operate than a large number of small transmission lines. This is part of the reason why energy prices in countries with a large portion of renewables is climbing despite the marginal cost of renewables being close to 0. Note: energy prices reflect average cost.’

I thought this was one of the benefits of renewables, generation occurring close to where it is used, on roof tops
Rooftop solar only works if you have large amounts of battery storage on site and even then you would only get 2 days reserve if you get a really big system. And this only works if you have a house with a big roof, and your rich. For plebs in units or smaller houses that are overshadowed rooftop, solar won't work, you still need the grid.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk
 

Haakon

Not happy, Jan.
Yeaaaaah, nah. Here we are in the land of Oz, which has a bunch of uranium mines and low level enrichment of the fuel, with one currently working reactor at Lucas Heights for producing medical isotopes that is coming to the end of its lifespan, and no proper nuclear fuel waste disposal system, with most of the glowing stuff either sitting in sheds at Lucas Heights, at hospitals around the country or at Maralinga with big fuck off keep out signs and fences to keep adventurous folks away. So if we decide tomorrow, hey let's kick off some nuke generated electrons we've got to do the following.
  1. Build a nuke power station
  2. Either invest in further fuel processing to produce ore that makes the grade for use in reactors, or import fuel rods
  3. Develop a safe transport system from our enrichment plant, or from the docks to our power station
  4. Develop a waste disposal area that will contain waste for the next x millenia.
So let's look at the costs.

1. We probably wanna go for a modern reactor with fail safes built in, in case the lights unexpected go out like at Fukushima. Something like the Westinghouse AP1000 which China is basing much of their modern nuclear fleet on, or the EPR which has also been built in China, and is being constructed in France, Finland and the UK. Cost wise we're going to be at least on a par with the UK/ US in terms of labour. Hinkley Point in the UK is estimated to be over 20 billion pounds and that's before any construction has begun. In the US, two AP1000 reactors that are under construction are estimated to cost $25 billion US. Importantly in both these cases, they are reactors that are being constructed at existing nuclear power station, so have limited planning issues to overcome, and in countries that have mature nuke construction industries which Australia does not have. I would be comfortably adding 50% of the costs of those plants to any constructed in Australia to overcome these hurdles. So let's say $50 billion AUD in construction costs. We've then got to site the reactor(s) somewhere. They pump out a lot of juice, so having them in areas where there are existing large scale generation makes sense as the grid infrastructure is already there. Think La Trobe Valley or the Hunter. Wanna bet those communities will be happy about a reactor showing up?

2. Fuel. So we mine and export yellowcake which needs further enrichment before you can stick it in a reactor. So we need to build an enrichment plant which are a whole bunch of centrifuges spinning away to separate out the uranium. Buggered if I know how much one costs to build, but suffice to say given we have to import the technology and build from scratch I'd be saying in the billions. Or we have to import fuel assemblies, which aren't the sort of thing you pick up on ebay. A good calculator is here which tracks cost from mine to power station. Then we have to transport it which leads to...

3. Getting our fuel from either the enrichment plant to the power station, or from the docks to the power station. We probably don't want to use roads as they aren't too secure and it could be pretty disruptive, so rail would be sensible. If we're just getting it from the docks to either the Hunter or the La Trobe valley, that's not a big deal as the infrastructure already exists, we just need specialized transport equipment and additional security. If we're getting it from the processing plant, that's a bigger deal, as you'd probably wanna site that near a Uranium mine, say Olympic Dam. Gotta build a rail spur and associated infrastructure out there then, that'd be in the 100s of millions. Then transport it safely half way across the country. Lastly:

4. Waste disposal. So let's dump everything out at Maralinga because it's already contaminated. Build a rail spur off the Nullabor line and associated unloading infrastructure and dig a big hole in the ground to stick it in. Or use Kimba as ARPANSA is proposing. Either way the cost of setting up such a facility would more than likely run into the billions.

So what are we up to in costs here? $60 billion? $70 billion? Then it's 10-15 years to construct and get going. For probably a third of that money and way less time you could do construct Snowy 2.0, Tasmania's Battery of the Nation project, the interconnectors and extra pumped storage in small hectare scale reservoirs, and bring online the 20GW of renewable generation (not exactly challenging with 1-2GW of solar and wind being currently deployed every year) required to turn Australia into 100% renewables. Don't take my word for it, read the peer reviewed literature
Yep. Like has been said, nukes are expensive fuckers and take a long to put together. Wind and solar is modular and get be rolled out with relatively no trouble or delay and for a shit tonne less cash.

It can also be done in bits and spread the financial hit around - not one giant up front cost you're locked into forever.
 

rangersac

Likes Dirt
The first question to answer is how badly you want zero emission KWs. If your happy to build a lot more hydro capacity then renewables will work, but there is a big ecological footprint.

  1. I would go with a Korean APR1400. They are in service and the build and operational costs are known.
  2. An Australian company invented laser enrichment. You could do it in an industrial estate, which is why the specifics are a bit hush hush.
  3. You could do the enrichment on site so just need to worry about rail infrastructure and water cooling.
  4. There are lots of potential storage sites. The cost is probably in the billions but so is new transmission lines.
The Basslink dc line was out of action for six months in 2016 due to a line fault 100kms off the coast. Tasmania won't work as a battery without an expensive secondary line. There probably isn't enough suitable sites on the mainland for cost effective pump storage. And by cost effective I mean cheaper than batteries which are already way way up the cost scale.

There is no cheap zero emissions option. We are currently looking at an options that are neither cheap or zero emissions.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk
1. The costs of a Korean APR1400 are known in a nuclear mature country which has an experienced construction and operational industry. The costs to construct and operate in Australia would be significantly higher

2. The Australian company has never commercialized that laser technology therefore the costs and requirements to do so are unknown. Indeed they withdrew from trying to do so in the US in 2018

3. As above you could maybe do it on site, but given the technology has never been commercialized how do you assess that as viable?

4. The costs of new transmission lines are known. Nuclear Waste storage is not. A new Basslink is costed at $2 billion based on the last one. And as for the fault that knocked out the line in 2016, you'd hope Aurora has learned not to fry it again trying to max out their green tariff profits from their mainland power company Momentum.

As for mainland pumped storage sites, 22,000 have been identified by ARENA, all of which are off river and out of existing national parks. The estimated land use for the required storage is 3,600 hectares. Will there be an ecological impact? Yes, but at 0.0005% of Australia's landmass I reckon that's a price worth paying for a grid that supports 100% renewables.
 

climberman

Likes Dirt
Yeaaaaah, nah. Here we are in the land of Oz, which has a bunch of uranium mines and low level enrichment of the fuel, with one currently working reactor at Lucas Heights for producing medical isotopes that is coming to the end of its lifespan, and no proper nuclear fuel waste disposal system, with most of the glowing stuff either sitting in sheds at Lucas Heights, at hospitals around the country or at Maralinga with big fuck off keep out signs and fences to keep adventurous folks away. So if we decide tomorrow, hey let's kick off some nuke generated electrons we've got to do the following.
  1. Build a nuke power station
  2. Either invest in further fuel processing to produce ore that makes the grade for use in reactors, or import fuel rods
  3. Develop a safe transport system from our enrichment plant, or from the docks to our power station
  4. Develop a waste disposal area that will contain waste for the next x millenia.
So let's look at the costs.

1. We probably wanna go for a modern reactor with fail safes built in, in case the lights unexpected go out like at Fukushima. Something like the Westinghouse AP1000 which China is basing much of their modern nuclear fleet on, or the EPR which has also been built in China, and is being constructed in France, Finland and the UK. Cost wise we're going to be at least on a par with the UK/ US in terms of labour. Hinkley Point in the UK is estimated to be over 20 billion pounds and that's before any construction has begun. In the US, two AP1000 reactors that are under construction are estimated to cost $25 billion US. Importantly in both these cases, they are reactors that are being constructed at existing nuclear power stations, so have limited planning issues to overcome, and in countries that have mature nuke construction industries which Australia does not have. I would be comfortably adding 50% of the costs of those plants to any constructed in Australia to overcome these hurdles. So let's say $50 billion AUD in construction costs. We've then got to site the reactor(s) somewhere. They pump out a lot of juice, so having them in areas where there are existing large scale generation makes sense as the grid infrastructure is already there. Think La Trobe Valley or the Hunter. Wanna bet those communities will be happy about a reactor showing up?

2. Fuel. So we mine and export yellowcake which needs further enrichment before you can stick it in a reactor. So we need to build an enrichment plant which are a whole bunch of centrifuges spinning away to separate out the uranium. Buggered if I know how much one costs to build, but suffice to say given we have to import the technology and build from scratch I'd be saying in the billions. Or we have to import fuel assemblies, which aren't the sort of thing you pick up on ebay. A good calculator is here which tracks cost from mine to power station. Then we have to transport it which leads to...

3. Getting our fuel from either the enrichment plant to the power station, or from the docks to the power station. We probably don't want to use roads as they aren't too secure and it could be pretty disruptive, so rail would be sensible. If we're just getting it from the docks to either the Hunter or the La Trobe valley, that's not a big deal as the infrastructure already exists, we just need specialized transport equipment and additional security. If we're getting it from the processing plant, that's a bigger deal, as you'd probably wanna site that near a Uranium mine, say Olympic Dam. Gotta build a rail spur and associated infrastructure out there then, that'd be in the 100s of millions. Then transport it safely half way across the country. Lastly:

4. Waste disposal. So let's dump everything out at Maralinga because it's already contaminated. Build a rail spur off the Nullabor line and associated unloading infrastructure and dig a big hole in the ground to stick it in. Or use Kimba as ARPANSA is proposing. Either way the cost of setting up such a facility would more than likely run into the billions.

So what are we up to in costs here? $60 billion? $70 billion? Then it's 10-15 years to construct and get going. For probably a third of that money and way less time you could do construct Snowy 2.0, Tasmania's Battery of the Nation project, the interconnectors and extra pumped storage in small hectare scale reservoirs, and bring online the 20GW of renewable generation (not exactly challenging with 1-2GW of solar and wind being currently deployed every year) required to turn Australia electricity production into 100% renewables. Don't take my word for it, read the peer reviewed literature

Edit: Because hifiandmtb is on the money!
And in which electorate o_O ?
And over around five Federal Electoral cycles.
 

Oddjob

Eats Squid
1. The costs of a Korean APR1400 are known in a nuclear mature country which has an experienced construction and operational industry. The costs to construct and operate in Australia would be significantly higher

2. The Australian company has never commercialized that laser technology therefore the costs and requirements to do so are unknown. Indeed they withdrew from trying to do so in the US in 2018

3. As above you could maybe do it on site, but given the technology has never been commercialized how do you assess that as viable?

4. The costs of new transmission lines are known. Nuclear Waste storage is not. A new Basslink is costed at $2 billion based on the last one. And as for the fault that knocked out the line in 2016, you'd hope Aurora has learned not to fry it again trying to max out their green tariff profits from their mainland power company Momentum.

As for mainland pumped storage sites, 22,000 have been identified by ARENA, all of which are off river and out of existing national parks. The estimated land use for the required storage is 3,600 hectares. Will there be an ecological impact? Yes, but at 0.0005% of Australia's landmass I reckon that's a price worth paying for a grid that supports 100% renewables.
Unfortunately there isn't a single country anywhere near 100% renewable and the ones that are closest are seeing significant increases in electricity costs and are burning more coal, gas and garbage. If you think that Australia is somehow exceptional and can do better than the northern European countries that's great, but I prefer proven solutions like France.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
 

99_FGT

Likes Bikes and Dirt
4. The costs of new transmission lines are known. Nuclear Waste storage is not. A new Basslink is costed at $2 billion based on the last one. And as for the fault that knocked out the line in 2016, you'd hope Aurora has learned not to fry it again trying to max out their green tariff profits from their mainland power company Momentum.

As for mainland pumped storage sites, 22,000 have been identified by ARENA, all of which are off river and out of existing national parks. The estimated land use for the required storage is 3,600 hectares. Will there be an ecological impact? Yes, but at 0.0005% of Australia's landmass I reckon that's a price worth paying for a grid that supports 100% renewables.
Aurora are part of tasnetworks now, but it is hydro Tasmania that own momentum. Not sure the fault was due to operating the cable at its limits, but the resultant power shortage was a direct result...

And you beat me to the arena sites.
 

climberman

Likes Dirt
Unfortunately there isn't a single country anywhere near 100% renewable and the ones that are closest are seeing significant increases in electricity costs and are burning more coal, gas and garbage. If you think that Australia is somehow exceptional and can do better than the northern European countries that's great, but I prefer proven solutions like France.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Albania, Congo, Iceland, Paraguay
Another 8 are over 90%


I'd be prepared to overlook the nuclear waste issue but a career in infrastructure development has taught me it'd never fly, I can't see anyone game enough politically for long enough to propose, plan and fund one.

The Hinkley Point one in the UK, as well as being over 20 billion pounds has also required government to guarantee a strike price - which will be on opening, and continue to be for the life of the project, over and above the general price of power. So Government has to guarantee funding and guarantee a price. I can't see that flying here with the current level of political discourse.
 

climberman

Likes Dirt
La Trobe
Kennedy
Maranoa
Grey

Basically any electorate with dying industry and a skilled workforce.
Sure.
"Hi, we're putting a nuclear reactor in your electorate, vote for us."
"Hi, we're putting a nuclear reactor in the adjoing electorate, vote for us."

I can't see it happening.
 

Oddjob

Eats Squid
Albania, Congo, Iceland, Paraguay
Another 8 are over 90%


I'd be prepared to overlook the nuclear waste issue but a career in infrastructure development has taught me it'd never fly, I can't see anyone game enough politically for long enough to propose, plan and fund one.

The Hinkley Point one in the UK, as well as being over 20 billion pounds has also required government to guarantee a strike price - which will be on opening, and continue to be for the life of the project, over and above the general price of power. So Government has to guarantee funding and guarantee a price. I can't see that flying here with the current level of political discourse.
Well lets start building some more hydro then and see how that goes down...

Thats the problem, there is not costless solution, so currently we are not working on a solution.

The UK is the exact opposite of what we should do. They are basically going to be screwed every which way when the North Sea dries up and their current nuclear plants reach end of life. Until batteries significantly improve, gas is going to be the standby of choice for wind/solar, and the price is going up.



Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
 
Top