The Nuclear debate

Remove this Banner Ad

Cap said:
Its almost funny how quickly Nuclear is dying as a topic in Australia.


I doubt the LNP will even take it to the election now.
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure - in the seat of Wannon - Wind Farm Capital of Australia - Local Member “Dickhead Dan” Tehan is quoted in the local paper today speaking if it’s virtues…you can’t make this shut up
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Mr Dutton, proudly dismissive of facts.
reneweconomy.com.au

“I’m not interested in the fanatics:” Dutton responds to science academy’s report on nuclear SMRs

Dutton dismisses report on nuclear SMRs by the highly respected Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, saying he is not interested in the views of “fanatics.”
reneweconomy.com.au reneweconomy.com.au
Mr Dutton dismisses the science academy's report on SMR's, saying he's not interested in what the fanatics have to say. When told they were pixie dust he replied he had greater trust in pixie dust than reports by the CSIRO or the Academy of Sciences.
 
CD Xbow said:
Mr Dutton, proudly dismissive of facts.
reneweconomy.com.au

“I’m not interested in the fanatics:” Dutton responds to science academy’s report on nuclear SMRs

Dutton dismisses report on nuclear SMRs by the highly respected Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, saying he is not interested in the views of “fanatics.”
reneweconomy.com.au reneweconomy.com.au
Mr Dutton dismisses the science academy's report on SMR's, saying he's not interested in what the fanatics have to say. When told they were pixie dust he replied he had greater trust in pixie dust than reports by the CSIRO or the Academy of Sciences.
Click to expand...

It’s not a lie if you believe it. George costanzas
 
Wondering is there anyone qualified on the forum to support or refute the common arguments against renewables with some evidence? Or, someone who, at least, knows where to find good data to challenge the validity of the below claims.

Regardless of the country that I'm in, I seem to hear:

Wind:
  • Half of them don't even work half of the time.
  • They could never provide the power that we need, countries are having to build more gas stations because they aren't getting the job done.
  • They're extremely bad for the local ecosystem, e.g. birds
  • Economically, they're a waste of money, they cost more to build and that money is not recuperated via the electricity they produce
  • There are always issues with them. They don't last very long before mechanical failure. Motors get burned out, etc. Then it's a waste
  • The materials to construct them outweigh any environmental advantage in generating power through them.
Solar:
  • What happens when it's not sunny? We still need coal and gas anyway.
Batteries:
  • They pose a threat, they could blow up or be blown up.
  • The technology will never get to the point where it can store that much energy. It will cost too much, they'll require too much space.

Usually, I respond:
  • I think some of the wind turbines would need a break from running 24/7 so that the motors don't burn out, but I'm not entirely sure.
  • Wind turbines provide some energy, but I don't think anybody said they could provide all of the energy we need.
  • In terms of environmental impacts on the local ecosystem; turbines and solar panels can't be worse than coal fired power plants, right?
  • I'm not sure on exact costings, but I think wind turbines make more sense than nuclear power plants in terms of initial construction costs and recuperation via electricity generated long term
  • In terms of the durability of wind turbines and solar panels, we haven't found anything that will generate electricity until the end of time yet. But I've read that they last an average of 19 years. Surely, they can be recycled afterwards too?
  • In Australia, I don't think the weather is a problem for solar. However, battery technology is advancing and we can store generated energy in batteries
  • I guess in relation to batteries, much would depend on the engineering of the battery itself but also how it is contained as to how safe they are. I think it's possible.

You'll notice in most, if not all of my statements, I find my arguments reasonable, but I'm not responding with a great deal of conviction. So, I'm looking for some data to help.

It would also help to understand who is the world leader in transitioning to renewables, what are they doing and what is the proportions of different types of energy generation in their energy mix?

In earnest curiosity. Thank you
 
peetoo said:
Yeah the entire world is going renewable because those in power are in the grip of fanatical environmentalists.

Maybe they can do something about plastic pollution
Click to expand...

This argument too has me scratching my head.

Put whatever motives aside for a minute (of fanatical environmentalists or whoever) and use reason and logic only...

How can going renewable be a bad thing if we are lessening our reliance on non-renewables (which by definition, will become increasingly scarce in the future or may require more resources to find)?
 
rjslcM said:
Wondering is there anyone qualified on the forum to support or refute the common arguments against renewables with some evidence? Or, someone who, at least, knows where to find good data to challenge the validity of the below claims.

Regardless of the country that I'm in, I seem to hear:

Wind:
  • Half of them don't even work half of the time.
  • They could never provide the power that we need, countries are having to build more gas stations because they aren't getting the job done.
  • They're extremely bad for the local ecosystem, e.g. birds
  • Economically, they're a waste of money, they cost more to build and that money is not recuperated via the electricity they produce
  • There are always issues with them. They don't last very long before mechanical failure. Motors get burned out, etc. Then it's a waste
  • The materials to construct them outweigh any environmental advantage in generating power through them.
Solar:
  • What happens when it's not sunny? We still need coal and gas anyway.
Batteries:
  • They pose a threat, they could blow up or be blown up.
  • The technology will never get to the point where it can store that much energy. It will cost too much, they'll require too much space.

Usually, I respond:
  • I think some of the wind turbines would need a break from running 24/7 so that the motors don't burn out, but I'm not entirely sure.
  • Wind turbines provide some energy, but I don't think anybody said they could provide all of the energy we need.
  • In terms of environmental impacts on the local ecosystem; turbines and solar panels can't be worse than coal fired power plants, right?
  • I'm not sure on exact costings, but I think wind turbines make more sense than nuclear power plants in terms of initial construction costs and recuperation via electricity generated long term
  • In terms of the durability of wind turbines and solar panels, we haven't found anything that will generate electricity until the end of time yet. But I've read that they last an average of 19 years. Surely, they can be recycled afterwards too?
  • In Australia, I don't think the weather is a problem for solar. However, battery technology is advancing and we can store generated energy in batteries
  • I guess in relation to batteries, much would depend on the engineering of the battery itself but also how it is contained as to how safe they are. I think it's possible.

You'll notice in most, if not all of my statements, I find my arguments reasonable, but I'm not responding with a great deal of conviction. So, I'm looking for some data to help.

It would also help to understand who is the world leader in transitioning to renewables, what are they doing and what is the proportions of different types of energy generation in their energy mix?

In earnest curiosity. Thank you
Click to expand...
I think you may be watching too much skynews.

Your comments in the first para about wind turbines are nearly all incorrect. Alan Jones would be proud of those comments.

Battery tech is getting better and better and would be able to be scaled up to meet our needs with adequate capacity and cost. It looks like some Na+ ion tech may be the winner long term for static batteries, because of cost and safety.

The comment about solar is just silly. Of course we need 'back up' but it doesn't need to be a fossil fuel.

Solar cells are designed to work between 20-30 years. Older cells still produce electricity but not up to spec. Service life of modern wind turbines is 25-30 years. Allegedly 85% to 90% of decommissioned wind turbine components are recycled, the blades being the hardest part. Wind Turbines are regarded as very reliable, solar cells are even more so. Each wind turbine is estimated to kill 4-6 birds per year. To put it in perspective, a pet pussy cat that is allowed to run free kills 40+ animals per year, though not all are birds. Cats have much greater impact on wildlife than wind turbines ever will.
 
CD Xbow said:
I think you may be watching too much skynews.

Your comments in the first para about wind turbines are nearly all incorrect. Alan Jones would be proud of those comments.

Battery tech is getting better and better and would be able to be scaled up to meet our needs with adequate capacity and cost. It looks like some Na+ ion tech may be the winner long term for static batteries, because of cost and safety.

The comment about solar is just silly. Of course we need 'back up' but it doesn't need to be a fossil fuel.

Solar cells are designed to work between 20-30 years. Older cells still produce electricity but not up to spec. Service life of modern wind turbines is 25-30 years. Allegedly 85% to 90% of decommissioned wind turbine components are recycled, the blades being the hardest part. Wind Turbines are regarded as very reliable, solar cells are even more so. Each wind turbine is estimated to kill 4-6 birds per year. To put it in perspective, a pet pussy cat that is allowed to run free kills 40+ animals per year, though not all are birds. Cats have much greater impact on wildlife than wind turbines ever will.
Click to expand...
Hello CD Xbox,
I don't watch the news. I am part of the generation who only turn the TV on for a streaming service to watch a movie or a doco. I usually get my news from word of mouth, the Guardian, the Economist or satire from the Betoota Advocate via Instagram. In fact, these comments that I presented in my previous post are from passengers in cars while driving past wind turbines, in both Australia and France.

In my post, I stated that my responses usually include with 'battery tech is getting better and better; wind turbines last 19 years (close to your 25-30); that most wind turbines are recycled.' Its nice that you gave me an estimate on death of birds per year, as I didn't know that. Yes about cats outdoors; the Melbourne Zoo ran a good campaign about a 'happy cat' is an indoor cat a while ago.

All that aside, I was actually looking for some data so that I could speak with more conviction the next time I spoke. Although its nice that we agree, it's not what I was looking for.

Thanks anyway.
 
rjslcM said:
Wondering is there anyone qualified on the forum to support or refute the common arguments against renewables with some evidence? Or, someone who, at least, knows where to find good data to challenge the validity of the below claims.

Regardless of the country that I'm in, I seem to hear:

Wind:
  • Half of them don't even work half of the time.
  • They could never provide the power that we need, countries are having to build more gas stations because they aren't getting the job done.
  • They're extremely bad for the local ecosystem, e.g. birds
  • Economically, they're a waste of money, they cost more to build and that money is not recuperated via the electricity they produce
  • There are always issues with them. They don't last very long before mechanical failure. Motors get burned out, etc. Then it's a waste
  • The materials to construct them outweigh any environmental advantage in generating power through them.
Solar:
  • What happens when it's not sunny? We still need coal and gas anyway.
Batteries:
  • They pose a threat, they could blow up or be blown up.
  • The technology will never get to the point where it can store that much energy. It will cost too much, they'll require too much space.

Usually, I respond:
  • I think some of the wind turbines would need a break from running 24/7 so that the motors don't burn out, but I'm not entirely sure.
  • Wind turbines provide some energy, but I don't think anybody said they could provide all of the energy we need.
  • In terms of environmental impacts on the local ecosystem; turbines and solar panels can't be worse than coal fired power plants, right?
  • I'm not sure on exact costings, but I think wind turbines make more sense than nuclear power plants in terms of initial construction costs and recuperation via electricity generated long term
  • In terms of the durability of wind turbines and solar panels, we haven't found anything that will generate electricity until the end of time yet. But I've read that they last an average of 19 years. Surely, they can be recycled afterwards too?
  • In Australia, I don't think the weather is a problem for solar. However, battery technology is advancing and we can store generated energy in batteries
  • I guess in relation to batteries, much would depend on the engineering of the battery itself but also how it is contained as to how safe they are. I think it's possible.

You'll notice in most, if not all of my statements, I find my arguments reasonable, but I'm not responding with a great deal of conviction. So, I'm looking for some data to help.

It would also help to understand who is the world leader in transitioning to renewables, what are they doing and what is the proportions of different types of energy generation in their energy mix?

In earnest curiosity. Thank you
Click to expand...
What happens when its not sunny? You literally post one of the answers in your next line. Batteries.

Theres also pumped hydro, hydro, wind (which most of the time complements solar), hydrogen and demand side flexibility. All these things can ensure the gird provides power to all that want it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

rjslcM said:
Wondering is there anyone qualified on the forum to support or refute the common arguments against renewables with some evidence? Or, someone who, at least, knows where to find good data to challenge the validity of the below claims.

Regardless of the country that I'm in, I seem to hear:

Wind:
  • Half of them don't even work half of the time.
  • They could never provide the power that we need, countries are having to build more gas stations because they aren't getting the job done.
  • They're extremely bad for the local ecosystem, e.g. birds
  • Economically, they're a waste of money, they cost more to build and that money is not recuperated via the electricity they produce
  • There are always issues with them. They don't last very long before mechanical failure. Motors get burned out, etc. Then it's a waste
  • The materials to construct them outweigh any environmental advantage in generating power through them.
Solar:
  • What happens when it's not sunny? We still need coal and gas anyway.
Batteries:
  • They pose a threat, they could blow up or be blown up.
  • The technology will never get to the point where it can store that much energy. It will cost too much, they'll require too much space.

Usually, I respond:
  • I think some of the wind turbines would need a break from running 24/7 so that the motors don't burn out, but I'm not entirely sure.
  • Wind turbines provide some energy, but I don't think anybody said they could provide all of the energy we need.
  • In terms of environmental impacts on the local ecosystem; turbines and solar panels can't be worse than coal fired power plants, right?
  • I'm not sure on exact costings, but I think wind turbines make more sense than nuclear power plants in terms of initial construction costs and recuperation via electricity generated long term
  • In terms of the durability of wind turbines and solar panels, we haven't found anything that will generate electricity until the end of time yet. But I've read that they last an average of 19 years. Surely, they can be recycled afterwards too?
  • In Australia, I don't think the weather is a problem for solar. However, battery technology is advancing and we can store generated energy in batteries
  • I guess in relation to batteries, much would depend on the engineering of the battery itself but also how it is contained as to how safe they are. I think it's possible.

You'll notice in most, if not all of my statements, I find my arguments reasonable, but I'm not responding with a great deal of conviction. So, I'm looking for some data to help.

It would also help to understand who is the world leader in transitioning to renewables, what are they doing and what is the proportions of different types of energy generation in their energy mix?

In earnest curiosity. Thank you
Click to expand...
I feel like you may be being disingenuous, but I will answer in good faith.

Firstly, I think you need to read widely and educate yourself if you want to have meaningful conversations about these things as most of these answers are complex and very much ‘it depends’.

To understand Australia’s situation better you could read the Integrated System Plan issued by AEMO, the GenCost report issued by CSIRO and Net Zero Australia issued by some universities. It is good to understand the constraints and principles that these documents worked under in order to more fully understand them.

A few simple answers:

Wind turbines on the National Energy Market have an average Capacity Factor of about 32%, so the first statement is kind of true. If you don’t understand Capacity Factor you need to read up. The CF is taken into account when planning so the wind turbines do produce useful amounts of electricity. There is quite a lot of variety across the NEM. For example I think south east Queensland has lower CF, the south coast higher.

The Integrated System Plan does identify the need for a lot more peaker gas fired power stations that will only be used very intermittently. It is thought the use of gas will probably increase from currently about 3% of generation to maybe 10 or 15% of generation and coal will disappear from current 50+% of generation. This means a lot less emissions but still some.

The local ecosystem thing is hard to gauge. I feel concerned about the wind turbines being installed in south east QLD as capacity factors are quite poor and there is bulldozing of pristine forest, which some claim are impacting rare species. I am unconvinced we have the trade off right. I am not overly concerned about wind turbines going on farming land as long as our food production is not overly impacted.

Economically those so far seem to be making money. However to go further the government is implementing its Capacity Investment Scheme which basically underwrites the profits of the developers, suggesting to me that, as the grid currently stands, making money would be difficult in the future. This is because quite often little generation is required thru the middle of the day due to solar meeting needs. Also as more wind turbines come on line, when wind is good there will be too much generation and turbine operators cannot all make money. This situation will change with batteries, pumped hydro (if Snowy 2.0 is ever completed) and more transmission. Even with these extras there is expected to be generation capability that cannot be used at times in the future and I think it is unknown just where that leaves things economically.

I am tired of writing now but maybe you get the picture that these things are nuanced and often the same thing can be expressed in a positive or negative way.
 
rjslcM said:
How can going renewable be a bad thing
Click to expand...
Its purely ideological now. You'll notice the type of people still pushing nuclear or are anti Renewables quote places like Sky News or Specator Australia, these arent people with strong cognitive capacity.


The argument had now devolved to renewables aren't perfect so why bother.
 
Cap said:
www.abc.net.au

Solar industry sees first projects put on ice as nuclear proposal sows doubt among investors

At least one solar project has been put on hold indefinitely, as some energy investors grow nervous over whether renewables will still be supported under the Coalition's nuclear proposal.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

And this is the only goal of the LNP nuclear brain fart.

Slow down the transition
Click to expand...
Brain fart is a great term for it as the way things are going, it is going to cost them what could have been a surprisingly winnable election if they had shown discipline and focussed on issues people actually care about.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Rob R said:
Brain fart is a great term for it as the way things are going, it is going to cost them what could have been a surprisingly winnable election if they had shown discipline and focussed on issues people actually care about.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...
Its incredible what Dutton had done to keep Gina happy.

It won't suprise me if the LNP is wiped out in most capital cities next election.
 
dockerfemme said:
I feel like you may be being disingenuous, but I will answer in good faith.

Firstly, I think you need to read widely and educate yourself if you want to have meaningful conversations about these things as most of these answers are complex and very much ‘it depends’.

To understand Australia’s situation better you could read the Integrated System Plan issued by AEMO, the GenCost report issued by CSIRO and Net Zero Australia issued by some universities. It is good to understand the constraints and principles that these documents worked under in order to more fully understand them.

A few simple answers:

Wind turbines on the National Energy Market have an average Capacity Factor of about 32%, so the first statement is kind of true. If you don’t understand Capacity Factor you need to read up. The CF is taken into account when planning so the wind turbines do produce useful amounts of electricity. There is quite a lot of variety across the NEM. For example I think south east Queensland has lower CF, the south coast higher.

The Integrated System Plan does identify the need for a lot more peaker gas fired power stations that will only be used very intermittently. It is thought the use of gas will probably increase from currently about 3% of generation to maybe 10 or 15% of generation and coal will disappear from current 50+% of generation. This means a lot less emissions but still some.

The local ecosystem thing is hard to gauge. I feel concerned about the wind turbines being installed in south east QLD as capacity factors are quite poor and there is bulldozing of pristine forest, which some claim are impacting rare species. I am unconvinced we have the trade off right. I am not overly concerned about wind turbines going on farming land as long as our food production is not overly impacted.

Economically those so far seem to be making money. However to go further the government is implementing its Capacity Investment Scheme which basically underwrites the profits of the developers, suggesting to me that, as the grid currently stands, making money would be difficult in the future. This is because quite often little generation is required thru the middle of the day due to solar meeting needs. Also as more wind turbines come on line, when wind is good there will be too much generation and turbine operators cannot all make money. This situation will change with batteries, pumped hydro (if Snowy 2.0 is ever completed) and more transmission. Even with these extras there is expected to be generation capability that cannot be used at times in the future and I think it is unknown just where that leaves things economically.

I am tired of writing now but maybe you get the picture that these things are nuanced and often the same thing can be expressed in a positive or negative way.
Click to expand...

Hello dockerfemme, thank you very much for pointing me in the right direction - this was the kind of answer I was hoping for. Sorry if I came across disingenuous, I could have asked for reading material on the subject more directly.

All your points only give me more to think about. I didn’t know what capacity factor was but didn’t take long to understand. Makes more sense to build more solar up north and more wind down south where the CF of each would be higher in those respective locations, though I’m sure there’s pockets of QLD and VIC where the inverse is likely true as well. Nuanced as you say. I’d like to find out what analysis is conducted to find and choose the best sites to build solar/wind, so it seems I have some reading to do on that too.

Yes I expected that with gas as it can be heated more instantaneously than coal, making it far more effective to intermittently produce electricity. but it will be interesting to see how big of a part of the energy mix that gas becomes - smaller or larger than expectations.
 
rjslcM said:
Hello dockerfemme, thank you very much for pointing me in the right direction - this was the kind of answer I was hoping for. Sorry if I came across disingenuous, I could have asked for reading material on the subject more directly.

All your points only give me more to think about. I didn’t know what capacity factor was but didn’t take long to understand. Makes more sense to build more solar up north and more wind down south where the CF of each would be higher in those respective locations, though I’m sure there’s pockets of QLD and VIC where the inverse is likely true as well. Nuanced as you say. I’d like to find out what analysis is conducted to find and choose the best sites to build solar/wind, so it seems I have some reading to do on that too.

Yes I expected that with gas as it can be heated more instantaneously than coal, making it far more effective to intermittently produce electricity. but it will be interesting to see how big of a part of the energy mix that gas becomes - smaller or larger than expectations.
Click to expand...
I am glad you were asking in good faith. I am an amateur energy transition nerd. I am happy to try and point you in the right direction if I can. I am a person who likes facts and data and recognise that lots of things have trade offs and balance. Facts are facts but how different individuals may weight trade offs is opinion.

A couple of things that I think newbies don’t recognise are:

1. Transmission is always going to have constraints. For example generating lots of solar in QLD and thinking unlimited amounts can be made available in Victoria is wrong. It will be constrained by the carrying capacity of the transmission, and transmission is quite expensive and socially unpopular. Also transmission is one of the weak points of a grid, so the more transmission, the more chance of downtime.

2. Generation has to match demand on a minute by minute basis all across the grid. Batteries and pumped hydro can provide demand on an intermittent basis which helps. Thinking in terms of averages is a trap though as the minute by minute basis is a must.

Selecting the best sites for wind turbines is something that involves trade offs. The best CF tends to be on hilltops or the ridges of a range of hills or mountains. However this has a high impact on scenery and the ridge tops are often uncleared so a high impact on eco systems. As I say trade offs.
 
dockerfemme said:
I feel like you may be being disingenuous, but I will answer in good faith.

Firstly, I think you need to read widely and educate yourself if you want to have meaningful conversations about these things as most of these answers are complex and very much ‘it depends’.

To understand Australia’s situation better you could read the Integrated System Plan issued by AEMO, the GenCost report issued by CSIRO and Net Zero Australia issued by some universities. It is good to understand the constraints and principles that these documents worked under in order to more fully understand them.

A few simple answers:

Wind turbines on the National Energy Market have an average Capacity Factor of about 32%, so the first statement is kind of true. If you don’t understand Capacity Factor you need to read up. The CF is taken into account when planning so the wind turbines do produce useful amounts of electricity. There is quite a lot of variety across the NEM. For example I think south east Queensland has lower CF, the south coast higher.

The Integrated System Plan does identify the need for a lot more peaker gas fired power stations that will only be used very intermittently. It is thought the use of gas will probably increase from currently about 3% of generation to maybe 10 or 15% of generation and coal will disappear from current 50+% of generation. This means a lot less emissions but still some.

The local ecosystem thing is hard to gauge. I feel concerned about the wind turbines being installed in south east QLD as capacity factors are quite poor and there is bulldozing of pristine forest, which some claim are impacting rare species. I am unconvinced we have the trade off right. I am not overly concerned about wind turbines going on farming land as long as our food production is not overly impacted.

Economically those so far seem to be making money. However to go further the government is implementing its Capacity Investment Scheme which basically underwrites the profits of the developers, suggesting to me that, as the grid currently stands, making money would be difficult in the future. This is because quite often little generation is required thru the middle of the day due to solar meeting needs. Also as more wind turbines come on line, when wind is good there will be too much generation and turbine operators cannot all make money. This situation will change with batteries, pumped hydro (if Snowy 2.0 is ever completed) and more transmission. Even with these extras there is expected to be generation capability that cannot be used at times in the future and I think it is unknown just where that leaves things economically.

I am tired of writing now but maybe you get the picture that these things are nuanced and often the same thing can be expressed in a positive or negative way.
Click to expand...
The complete unsuitability of coal in a renewables mix is not well understood and is also one of the main reasons nuclear is also completely unsuitable.

We have had all sorts of programs over the years to even out coal fired electricity production (off peak, industrial use out of hours, etc) because coal fired generation is as flexible as an angry wife.

The total inflexibility also applies to nuclear which is also inflexible. It is not an effective variable power source.

Nuclear + renewables is pretty much a useless mix. You can turn gas on and off relatively easily and efficiently. You cannot turn coal and nuclear off easily or efficiently.

Nuclear (and coal) are simply the wrong tools for the mix we have already moved towards.
 
QuietB said:
The complete unsuitability of coal in a renewables mix is not well understood and is also one of the main reasons nuclear is also completely unsuitable.

We have had all sorts of programs over the years to even out coal fired electricity production (off peak, industrial use out of hours, etc) because coal fired generation is as flexible as an angry wife.

The total inflexibility also applies to nuclear which is also inflexible. It is not an effective variable power source.

Nuclear + renewables is pretty much a useless mix. You can turn gas on and off relatively easily and efficiently. You cannot turn coal and nuclear off easily or efficiently.

Nuclear (and coal) are simply the wrong tools for the mix we have already moved towards.
Click to expand...

Even nuclear powered countries have substantial pumped hydro
 
QuietB said:
The complete unsuitability of coal in a renewables mix is not well understood and is also one of the main reasons nuclear is also completely unsuitable.

We have had all sorts of programs over the years to even out coal fired electricity production (off peak, industrial use out of hours, etc) because coal fired generation is as flexible as an angry wife.

The total inflexibility also applies to nuclear which is also inflexible. It is not an effective variable power source.

Nuclear + renewables is pretty much a useless mix. You can turn gas on and off relatively easily and efficiently. You cannot turn coal and nuclear off easily or efficiently.

Nuclear (and coal) are simply the wrong tools for the mix we have already moved towards.
Click to expand...

If you build a nuclear power station , its going to cost a lot.
You will want to get a return on that investment.
You will want to achieve that return by running the thing flat out, 24 /7.
You will not want to be turning it up and down depending on the weather.

For the record:
France has 60GW of Nuclear capacity. A bit more than 20GW of wind, 20GW of Hydro , Nearly 20GW of Solar, around 15 gas.

Nuclear can run at its rated capacity except when planned stoppages occur. ( Or Tsunami's).
Wind produces its rated capacity at wind-speeds at 50/60kmh. Its a "square" function, so the rated output is around 25 times what you'd get with 10/kmh wind.
Hydro can produce its rated capacity, but unless its in a high rainfall area, it will be limited by water volume.
Solar works when the sun is shining. In Melbourne a PV panel gets an average of less than 4hours worth of generation a day. Of course its a lot more in summer and a lot less on overcast days.

Gas is a good option to reduce CO2.
If we used "efficient" gas instead of Coal, our CO2 emissions would be less than 1/4 what it is now, and gas stations can turn on and off easily with the weather conditions. Too bad our gas is being sold at world prices.


app.electricitymaps.com

Live 24/7 CO₂ emissions of electricity consumption

Electricity Maps is a live 24/7 visualization of where your electricity comes from and how much CO2 was emitted to produce it.
app.electricitymaps.com app.electricitymaps.com
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The Nuclear debate

Similar threads

anchor man
Gina the politician.
Replies
0
Views
256
anchor man
anchor man
Bunk Moreland
The major parties versus social media
Replies
8
Views
595
Gough
Gough
M
How the coalition can win the next Victorian election
2 3 4 5
Replies
110
Views
5K
HurleyHepsHird
HurleyHepsHird
anchor man
The Nightly
Replies
8
Views
789
anchor man
anchor man
Aristotle Pickett
Vic The joke that is the Victorian Liberal Party.
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
182
Views
10K
The Punter
The Punter
Geoff
The Joke that is the West Australian Liberal Party
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
5K
E Shed
E Shed
Seeds
Australias tax system takes from the young to give to the old
2 3
Replies
72
Views
3K
rank and file
rank and file

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top