This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Nuclear Power For Australia?

Jump to new
I wonder what else will change.

Who seriously thought that we could compete against China and build solar panels at competitive prices and technologically equal including all the ongoing improvements to the manufacturing process and panels?

Maybe nuclear energy is more plausible now that realisation of real-world facts is biting.

"It took less than six months for the Albanese government and some of Australia’s biggest climate investors to change their mind on a solar panel manufacturing plunge."​

The government and the project backers discovered the enormous costs in challenging China in the areas where it dominates the market and slashes prices to keep others out.​

 
I guess someone doesn't want us to see all the available information.

Are we going to start burning books soon?




Dozens of Facebook users promoting pro-nuclear lobby group Nuclear for Australia’s content have had posts removed for being “misleading”, triggering claims some people are trying to “suppress vital information that could change the future of our country”.

Months out from the federal election – in which nuclear will be a key issue – and after anti-nuclear groups had their content blocked or accounts temporarily deleted across social media platforms, Nuclear for Australia has received 44 complaints from supporters who have had posts taken down.

The users had shared a Nuclear for Australia petition to legalise nuclear energy and a video interview between the organisation’s founder, Will Shackel, and businessman Dick Smith supporting the energy source in June and July.

But a Meta spokeswoman played down the issue, denying it had censored the two posts The Australian was able to share with it.

“Based on the information available, we believe the content was removed due to a technical error by our automated systems. The error was identified and fixed in late July and all impacted posts were reinstated,” the spokeswoman said.
 
JohnDe said:
Watch and comment -
Click to expand...
The big problem is at the 36 minute mark.

All the scenarios, both renewable and nuclear, are financially uncompetitive in a situation where the majority of electrical load going forward is price sensitive.

Simply going down either path does not deliver good outcomes. That's the elephant in the room being missed by the entire debate. Changing the means of generation is, of itself, nowhere near sufficient to address the fundamental problems. There's a lot more than that which needs to change if an overall successful outcome is to be achieved.

Because no consumer cares about the components of the cost. What they care about is the total.
 
The other elephant in the room IMO is, the whole debate appears to revolve around a fixed load, which is the current system load.
But the load is constantly increasing and we are already looking as though the current load is going to be difficult to cover.
I may be wrong, but I would be surprised if the system load in 2030 will be the same as in 2024.
Also if everything was A OK, W.A and the Eastern States wouldn't be paying coal generators to keep running, that is just simple logics.
What happens if by some stroke of magic, the built in Australia idea does happen lol, I know, but if it did how the hell would we power it.
Even Twiggy has worked out that will never happen, the Govt needs to realise this isn't a game, or a fairy tale you tell the kids before bedtime, it's the kids future.
Blowing up some superannution money can be covered, blowing up the energy system will crush our economy, ask South Africa.
I'm not knocking South Africa, just saying when the energy supply goes to $hit so does your economy and what happened there seems to be a reflection of our run down system.
Get on with it, or get another plan happening IMO.

South Africa’s electricity crisis: a series of failures over 30 years have left a dim legacy

After 30 years of democracy, South Africa is in a deep electricity crisis which can only be solved if the government moves speedily to set up solar and wind plants.
theconversation.com
 
Last edited:
This is the technology that has the most potential IMO.
If this project gets up and running, China will be the hydrogen superpower, Australia and renewable H2 will be a distant dream, from this green can dreaming period of time.
The quantities that will be produced as a by product of generating electricity will be huge.

China to build first-ever thorium molten salt nuclear power station in Gobi Desert

China plans to build the world's first-ever nuclear power station using molten salt as the fuel carrier and coolant, and thorium as a fuel source — revealed in a since-deleted report posted on the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics website.
www.abc.net.au
 
France is sticking to the nuclear theme apparently.
Maybe they have worked out they may be able to poach manufacturing off Germany, or make a lot of money supplying Germany electricity to support their manufacturing base.
Interesting times.

France drops renewables targets, prioritises nuclear in new energy bill

Critics are deriding as a step backward a new French energy bill that favours the further development of nuclear power and avoids setting targets for solar and wind power and other renewables.
www.france24.com
 
I think one thing that's widely missed in the public debate is that if you want nuclear to succeed then it requires essentially the same things that renewables need in order to succeed.

It needs electricity, not gas, to be the fuel of choice for homes and businesses.

It benefits enormously if that electricity, particularly when used for water heating, is a controlled load.

It benefits from any electrification of transport.

It needs a means of coping with above average demand or above average generation outages in an economic manner and in both cases sensible options for that are the same - hydro or gas turbines.

It needs a strong transmission system albeit for different reasons.

Etc. A lot of what's said is political hot air but the real requirements to make nuclear work well are the same as the requirements to make renewables work well. They are, of course, also the same requirements to optimise coal. That being so, doing those things is essentially a risk free approach, it's the right decision no matter what is done on the generation side.
 
Absolutely smurf, IMO it is more likely that a hybrid system will eventuate, than a fully renewable system due to constant load growth.

So cleaning up the low hanging fruit of domestic load, is the cheapest and easiest way to reduce the target you are trying to achieve.

Constantly chasing an ever increasing target is the dumb way, slow the growth by converting the load is the logical first step, but way too many vested interests in play.

There would be a lot of redundant infrastructure and income, those vested interests would lose.
I'm getting an ever increasing feeling, the penny is dropping and like I mentioned earlier I think the narrative will have changed a lot in three to four years time.

One way or another the whole process has to be sped up, optics and luck can only carry the debate so far and the only thing that is looking certain ATM is, 2030 is getting closer and closer.
 
Last edited:
Noted that three mile island will be reopening.
As other economies start either shifting to nuclear power, cancelling the closure of nuclear plants or restarting old plants, politics in Australia just keep parroting the strident claims that everyone else is wrong and its them that are correct.
Australia will at some stage likely have top embrace nuclear energy, whether its fission, fusion or some other form.
But as usual, it will be about ten years too late.
Mick
 
Absolutely smurf, IMO it is more likely that a hybrid system will eventuate, than a fully renewable system due to vonstant load growth.
So cleaning up the low hanging fruit of domestic load, is the cheapest and easiest way to reduce the target you are trying to achieve.
Constantly chasing an ever increasing target is the dumb way, slow the growth by converting the load is the logical first step, but way too many vested interests in play
 
Meanwhile heavy industrial loads will have moved offshore, or closed.
The clever country, sad really.
It's a shame we can't run Power Stations on smugness, then we could locate them all in Canberra, where there is endless fuel.
 
sptrawler said:
One way or another the whole process has to be sped up
Click to expand...
The old way is the utilities did detailed studies of future requirements, the options to supply them, and the costs and other attributes of those options then recommended the best one.

The various utilities, ETSA, the HEC, SECWA and so on, all had some rather obviously named section responsible for that with a name like "planning and design" or "investigations" or something similarly descriptive. Staffed by an assortment of scientific, maths and engineering people whose job was to measure everything that could possibly be measured, forecast everything that could be forecast, and so on.

It just wasn't a political thing historically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
472
Smurf1976
Australian Use Of Uranium For Aussie Nuclear Weapon - Defence Review
Replies
14
Views
2K
SirRumpole
Albo's Coal and Gas Price Cap and Financial Aid proposal
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Smurf1976
Basic chart analysis/chart reading 101 for beginners
Replies
10
Views
4K
Gunnerguy
G
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...