- Mar 16, 2002
- 22,507
- 14,138
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #376
Batteries have already been factored in when referring to the cost of renewables. It’s called Firm renewables.There was a discussion back a bit that talked about the French.
So they do in fact have a nuclear reactor.
The French were going to build a pilot of a smaller one, but costs were looking like blowing out so they cancelled it.
They aren't sci fi.
Lucas Heights is a small reactor and Submarines run small reactors. ( I watched widowmaker, scary stuff ).
Battery has a pretty big cost , so your stored sustainable electricity won't be cheap, but i agree that a nuclear plant is so expensive you don't want to run it "part time" because at that cost you want to be paying it off by selling electricity.
The best interim measure is probably gas, a good gas plant can be 1/3 or 1/4 the CO2/KWh than a brown coal power plant.
But those with the eyes on profit prefer to export our gas and run our coal Stations.
Batteries are getting cheaper and cheaper… except when countries put tariffs on them.
There will ALWAYS be excess solar.. I think the plan is 200% above what’s needed.
Solar still works when it’s cloudy..
You are best to size a system for winter.
There will be plenty of days when batteries and lakes are full and solar is still producing.
Thats why there is no room for nuclear in the mix. It’s dumb.