Written by Peta Credlin, just thought I would mention that.
Yes I think voicing our own thoughts on this, is probably a more accurate reflection of where the public perception and understanding is.Written by Peta Credlin, just thought I would mention that.
Why is that an issue?
I only occasionally read her articles, and they have all been well researched as far as I could see. I know that she has a TV show, but I don't subscribe so have never watched it. And I know that she was a bureaucrat, which aren't my favourite people, though they are well trained.
Has she fudged the facts in her current article?
The problem is, it is like posting up an article from Peter Dutton or Chris Bowen, no one is going to believe it isn't biased and isn't going to only presenting their argument.Why is that an issue?
I only occasionally read her articles, and they have all been well researched as far as I could see. I know that she has a TV show, but I don't subscribe so have never watched it. And I know that she was a bureaucrat, which aren't my favourite people, though they are well trained.
Has she fudged the facts in her current article?
I agree, which is where a couple of nukes could help to support them, but I think it's overkill for the general grid.The fact is heavy industry needs grunt and they want it cheaply, conveniently, reliably and locally that is going to be hard to achieve IMO.
Possibly, i really don't know, smurf would have a better understanding of that, also I don't think they would be talking the whole grid.I agree, which is where a couple of nukes could help to support them, but I think it's overkill for the general grid.
The time to produce and cost is just one of them things, the time to put in the dams, the renewable farms, the transmission lines, the gas plant.The main problem is time to produce and cost. If someone said "yes, we will build a couple for industry in about 20 years, but continue the renewables installations in the meantime, I'd say "yes". But gambling the entire grid of something that "may" happen in 20 years is stupid imo, especially as it's not a bipartisan agreement and probably never will be. Politics again.
Are you aware that she was Tony Abbott's Chief of Staff? (Who used to spoonfeed him, literally).
FFS , I want to hear from experts, not political hacks.
If she has a degree in nuclear science, fine, but I don't think she has.
Well, even when experts have their say, there are different opinions so its tough for the rest of us.Possibly, i really don't know, smurf would have a better understanding of that.
e.g if gas/hydro is going to be required to firm a constant say 5GW 24/7 365 days a year, and then the next 5GW is only required for the really cold winter months so that I guess would be ideal for the hydro and renewables can carry the remaining 60% of the load.
Like I say I'm only making this up, but the above scenario might mean nuclear could carry the constant 5GW base load firming and hydro could carry the 5GW variable seasonal firming. It may save having to put in 3 extra snowy 2's and the extra renewables to charge them in the winter months.
It depends purely on the 24 hr 12 month load profile and I really don't know that, smurf would.
The time to produce and cost is just one of them things, the time to put in the dams, the renewable farms, the transmission lines, the gas plant.
It is all going to take time and that is the problem, both ways are going to take the same time. It is better to spend the time and come up with the right result, than spend the time and find you have a huge F#ck up.
Well you never know who is pizzing in who's pocket, that's the problem, as the AEMO report says we can only work with facts and the facts are nuclear isn't allowed.Well, even when experts have their say, there are different opinions so its tough for the rest of us.
Ziggy Switkowsi says "go nuclear", but he's in the nuclear business and pushes what he knows.
I'd prefer to go with the CSIRO who are public servants and hopefully don't have ties to any particular industry. If they say nuclear is too expensive I'm inclined to believe them.
The problem is, it is like posting up an article from Peter Dutton or Chris Bowen, no one is going to believe it isn't biased and isn't going to only presenting their argument.
IMO it is much better to debate the issues from our own personal perspective, which gives a more realistic viewpoint of legitimate arguments.
Then posters have to actually research and improve their own knowledge, rather than just having a debate of copy and pastes from each political party.
I think her points are actually a bit vague. 1. nuclear is expensive, 2. just because nuclear is suitable for one country, doesn't make it suitable for all, 3. The Government is paying the coal generators because there isn't enough renewables and storage in place yet, The Coalition will have to do the same.
It's a bit like people who go on about the problems with electric cars and have never owned one, yet post up heaps of negative articles, if you know what i mean.
So what "expert" opinion would you actually believe ?Well you never know who is pizzing in who's pocket, that's the problem, as the AEMO report says we can only work with facts and the facts are nuclear isn't allowed.
That's the first hurdle, until we overcome that, nuclear will never be considered.
CSIRO says nuclear cost from memory around $14b, but fails to mention that Snowy is now going to cost $12B when it was originally expected to cost $2B.
Like I said, to me cost is immaterial, the thing that really matters is we get the right outcome.
There really isn't any easy way to fix a really bad outcome, that would be tragic for Australia.
It isn't an NBN, it's the whole economy, the grid isn't a game and the politicians need to stop treating it as one.
Take that to the bank.
A submarines nuclear reactor is the size of a garbage bin and produces about 200Mw. We don't know how much it costs
- Yet how can it be perfectly practical to have nuclear power at sea but not on land;
It's comparative to other sources of energy in some countries that don't have a lot of sun
- economic for at least 33 other countries to have nuclear power but not for us;
Lucas Height's waste is low level medical waste not highly radioactive waste from power reactors
- not dangerous to have a medical nuclear reactor a stone’s throw from houses at Lucas Heights in Sydney but dangerous to have more;
Snowy hydro is underway(if stalled), reactors will need years of approvals before construction even starts and the coal stations will be on their last legs by then.
- too time consuming to have nuclear plants that will take a decade to build when the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro plant will take at least that long to become operational?
It's an incentive to investment in renewables.
- If the government’s claims are correct –
that renewable energy is the cheapest form of power – why is it still being subsidised through the renewable energy certificates that power generators are forced to buy, to the tune of well over $3bn a year?
Because the previous Coalition government sat on their arses for 10 years and let coal plants close and did nothing to replace them
- if weather-dependent renewable power really can keep the lights on, why are the Victorian and NSW Labor governments now paying millions in subsidies to keep coal-fired power stations open
Because there is not yet enough generation in the system to lower prices by competition. (See previous answer).
- And if the system really is generating the cheapest possible power, why have both federal and state Labor governments started to directly subsidise the power bills of households?
So why wouldn't they be pizzing in people's pockets?The AEMO if they were given free reign and wide guidelines.
A submarines nuclear reactor is the size of a garbage bin and produces about 200Mw. We don't know how much it costs
It's comparative to other sources of energy in some countries that don't have a lot of sun
Lucas Height's waste is low level medical waste not highly radioactive waste from power reactors
Snowy hydro is underway(if stalled), reactors will need years of approvals before construction even starts and the coal stations will be on their last legs by then.
It's an incentive to investment in renewables.
Because the previous Coalition government sat on their arses for 10 years and let coal plants close and did nothing to replace them
Because there is not yet enough generation in the system to lower prices by competition. (See previous answer).
That's why I said they need to be given free reign. They are a Government Dept and work for the Govt, that's the problem.So why wouldn't they be pizzing in people's pockets?
That's what I said.Anyway, they manage what is there it's not their job to advise what actually needs to be built.
We need some body like them to design the future network.
Great, we have reached agreement, for now.That's why I said they need to be given free reign. They are a Government Dept and work for the Govt, that's the problem.
That's what I said.
@JohnDe now for the non left leaning answers.A submarines nuclear reactor is the size of a garbage bin and produces about 200Mw. We don't know how much it costs
That's true, same as at the moment, nuclear isn't suitable for W.A IMO, unless Gen4 SMR are developed commerciallyIt's comparative to other sources of energy in some countries that don't have a lot of sun
It is a very small reactor.Lucas Height's waste is low level medical waste not highly radioactive waste from power reactors
That's trueSnowy hydro is underway(if stalled), reactors will need years of approvals before construction even starts and the coal stations will be on their last legs by then.
That's trueIt's an incentive to investment in renewables.
Australia has one of the highest penetrations of renewable energy, relative to grid size (40%), in the World.Because the previous Coalition government sat on their arses for 10 years and let coal plants close and did nothing to replace them
Sorry they started Kurri Kurri gas and Snowy Hydro 2.0, but they are a pimple on the bum of what is needed.
Because an election is coming up and there is no hope in hell that electricity prices are coming down in quite a few years.Because there is not yet enough generation in the system to lower prices by competition. (See previous answer).
At sea, especially under the sea, the options available are drastically more limited.Yet how can it be perfectly practical to have nuclear power at sea but not on land;
Comes down to the available alternatives, economic system and technical attributes which determine cost.economic for at least 33 other countries to have nuclear power but not for us
not dangerous to have a medical nuclear reactor a stone’s throw from houses at Lucas Heights in Sydney but dangerous to have more
too time consuming to have nuclear plants that will take a decade to build when the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro plant will take at least that long to become operational?
If the government’s claims are correct – that renewable energy is the cheapest form of power – why is it still being subsidised through the renewable energy certificates that power generators are forced to buy, to the tune of well over $3bn a year?
if weather-dependent renewable power really can keep the lights on, why are the Victorian and NSW Labor governments now paying millions in subsidies to keep coal-fired power stations open?
And if the system really is generating the cheapest possible power, why have both federal and state Labor governments started to directly subsidise the power bills of households?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?