Nuclear Power For Australia?

[JohnDe]

The True Lifetime of Nuclear Power plants.
Check out teh PDF which details the history of tehse plants.

The True Lifespan of Nuclear Power Plants ​

Though nuclear plants are theoretically engineered to operate safely for 40 years—their initial permit life—our analysis of the overall record of US first generation commercial nuclear plants shows that almost two dozen reactors were shut down long before their initial license/design life expired.
View attachment 190207
Nuclear Plant Closure Chart
Among plants built before 1973, fully HALF did not make it to 40 years, or much beyond that, before closing down. Some of these shutdowns were for economic reasons, but in most cases the plants simply wore out, broke down, or never functioned properly. This record of failure can be viewed in our plant closure chart.

In addition to normal industrial wear-and-tear, nuclear plants have the unique and often irreparable liability of having their components continually exposed to varying levels of radiation. Over time, radiation embrittles and/or corrodes the infrastructure (metal components in particular) and will eventually lead to structural failure (hopefully not catastrophic!)

The most common point of failure occurs in the steam generators. Nuclear steam generators are composed of thousands of small tubes that corrode and crack, leading to radioactive water leaks into the secondary cooling system and the environment. Some plants have had their steam generators replaced at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, while many others simply closed in the face of the expense. This issue has been detected at the Seabrook plant, though it’s unclear how far the damage has progressed at this point in its life.

The True Lifespan of Nuclear Power Plants - Seacoast Anti-Pollution League

Though nuclear plants are theoretically engineered to operate safely for 40 years—their initial permit life—our analysis of the overall record of US first

saplnh.org

MIT technology review

The new owner of a plant in Michigan that was shut down in 2022 is now working to reopen it, as I reported in my latest story. If the restart is successful, the plant could operate for a total of 80 years. Others are seeing 20-year extensions to their reactors’ licenses. Extending the lifetime of existing nuclear plants could help cut emissions and is generally cheaper than building new ones. So just how long can we expect nuclear power plants to last?

Why the lifetime of nuclear plants is getting longer

 

[basilio]

MIT technology review

The new owner of a plant in Michigan that was shut down in 2022 is now working to reopen it, as I reported in my latest story. If the restart is successful, the plant could operate for a total of 80 years. Others are seeing 20-year extensions to their reactors’ licenses. Extending the lifetime of existing nuclear plants could help cut emissions and is generally cheaper than building new ones. So just how long can we expect nuclear power plants to last?

Why the lifetime of nuclear plants is getting longer

Two main components determine a plant’s lifetime: the reactor pressure vessel and the containment structure, says Jacopo Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear engineering at MIT.

• The reactor pressure vessel is the heart of a nuclear power plant, containing the reactor core as well as the associated cooling system. The structure must keep the reactor core at a high temperature and pressure without leaking.
• 
  
• The containment structure is a shell around the nuclear reactor. It is designed to be airtight and to keep any radioactive material contained in an emergency.

Both components are crucial to the safe operation of a nuclear power plant and are generally too expensive or too difficult to replace. So as regulators examine applications for extending plant lifetimes, they are the most concerned about the condition and lifespan of those components, Buongiorno says.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is why Torness is closing down as well as many other power stations.
Yep if, somehow, there is a way to repair/restore ancillary parts of Nuclear Power station it might make sense to do so.( I note that the writer also hedges his bet on the overall cost effectiveness of trying to repair various failing elements of a reactor. I think engineers would be very cautious about trying to restore 30 year old Nuclear Power stations. And if so at what final cost ?)

But that is not the case in the overall scheme of things. And it certainly should be postulated as the basis for a blue sky nuclear program in Australia.

 

[basilio]

 

[JohnDe]

Two main components determine a plant’s lifetime: the reactor pressure vessel and the containment structure, says Jacopo Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear engineering at MIT.

• The reactor pressure vessel is the heart of a nuclear power plant, containing the reactor core as well as the associated cooling system. The structure must keep the reactor core at a high temperature and pressure without leaking.
• 
  
• The containment structure is a shell around the nuclear reactor. It is designed to be airtight and to keep any radioactive material contained in an emergency.

Both components are crucial to the safe operation of a nuclear power plant and are generally too expensive or too difficult to replace. So as regulators examine applications for extending plant lifetimes, they are the most concerned about the condition and lifespan of those components, Buongiorno says.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is why Torness is closing down as well as many other power stations.
Yep if, somehow, there is a way to repair/restore ancillary parts of Nuclear Power station it might make sense to do so.( I note that the writer also hedges his bet on the overall cost effectiveness of trying to repair various failing elements of a reactor. I think engineers would be very cautious about trying to restore 30 year old Nuclear Power stations. And if so at what final cost ?)

But that is not the case in the overall scheme of things. And it certainly should be postulated as the basis for a blue sky nuclear program in Australia.

For every negative reaction there a multiple positive reports.

In June 2019 the OECD’s International Energy Agency (IEA) published a report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, which concluded that a failure to invest in existing and new nuclear plants in advanced economies would make global efforts to transition to a cleaner energy system drastically harder and more costly.​

​

In June 2022 the IEA report on Nuclear Power and Secure Energy Transitions concluded that nuclear energy can “help make the energy sector's journey away from unabated fossil fuels faster and more secure,” with nuclear being “well placed to help decarbonize electricity supply.” The report emphasizes the significant role nuclear plants can play in securing the global pathway to net zero carbon emissions.​

World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power - World Nuclear Association

The world will need significantly increased energy supply in the next 30 years, especially cleanly-generated electricity. Electricity demand is increasing much more rapidly than overall energy use.

world-nuclear.org

 

[sptrawler]

Two main components determine a plant’s lifetime: the reactor pressure vessel and the containment structure, says Jacopo Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear engineering at MIT.

• The reactor pressure vessel is the heart of a nuclear power plant, containing the reactor core as well as the associated cooling system. The structure must keep the reactor core at a high temperature and pressure without leaking.
• 
  
• The containment structure is a shell around the nuclear reactor. It is designed to be airtight and to keep any radioactive material contained in an emergency.

Both components are crucial to the safe operation of a nuclear power plant and are generally too expensive or too difficult to replace. So as regulators examine applications for extending plant lifetimes, they are the most concerned about the condition and lifespan of those components, Buongiorno says.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is why Torness is closing down as well as many other power stations.
Yep if, somehow, there is a way to repair/restore ancillary parts of Nuclear Power station it might make sense to do so.( I note that the writer also hedges his bet on the overall cost effectiveness of trying to repair various failing elements of a reactor. I think engineers would be very cautious about trying to restore 30 year old Nuclear Power stations. And if so at what final cost ?)

But that is not the case in the overall scheme of things. And it certainly should be postulated as the basis for a blue sky nuclear program in Australia.

View attachment 190209

I guess the obvious question is Bas, where and when are the mega dams going to be built, to supply the long duration storage?
Snowy 2.0 is one, but several more will be required, yet no one is talking about it, I find that strange because everyone knows batteries can't do it and gas isn't much cleaner than coal.

So there is no point comparing nuclear with nuclear, people need to compare nuclear with something else that is clean and can supply long term grunt when it is required, otherwise it is just another hollow argument and a scam IMO.

People are quick to complain about the build time for nuclear and I do agree, but Snowy 2.0 has been going on for nearly 10 years and no other similar sized dam projects have been announced, so really isn't the nuclear argument similar to the renewables long duration argument?
People aren't stupid and both sides if politics have holes in both their stories, so credibilitity is a huge issue ATM.

Currently you have Dutton saying that nuclear wont cost a lot, but will supply the clean power required and the public dont believe the cost or the time frame, but they do believe the power output.
Labor is saying trust us we have this, but really a lot aren't sure, because there isn't any long term storage, there is a lot of issues with installing adequate renewable generation and there isn't many definitive answers on how much of anything renewable is required.
It is like a leap of faith project and I hope Labor get in to see it through, because the coal generators can't go on forever and people need to own the dream to get it done, or die on the cross trying, because it is a huge undertaking and kudos to them if they pull it off.
My guess is it will be a mop and bucket issue that will require a huge amount of money and pain to fix, time will tell.
First things first, we have to get Labor back in.

 

[JohnDe]

I guess the obvious question is Bas, where and when are the mega dams going to be built, to supply the long duration storage?
Snowy 2.0 is one, but several more will be required, yet no one is talking about it, I find that strange because everyone knows batteries can't do it and gas isn't much cleaner than coal.

So there is no point comparing nuclear with nuclear, people need to compare nuclear with something else that is clean and can supply long term grunt when it is required, otherwise it is just another hollow argument and a scam IMO.

People are quick to complain about the build time for nuclear and I do agree, but Snowy 2.0 has been going on for nearly 10 years and no other similar sized dam projects have been announced, so really isn't the nuclear argument similar to the renewables long duration argument?
People aren't stupid and both sides if politics have holes in both their stories, so credibilitity is a huge issue ATM.

Currently you have Dutton saying that nuclear wont cost a lot, but will supply the clean power required and the public dont believe the cost or the time frame, but they do believe the power output.
Labor is saying trust us we have this, but really a lot aren't sure, because there isn't any long term storage, there is a lot of issues with installing adequate renewable generation and there isn't many definitive answers on how much of anything renewable is required.
It is like a leap of faith project and I hope Labor get in to see it through, because the coal generators can't go on forever and people need to own the dream to get it done, or die on the cross trying, because it is a huge undertaking and kudos to them if they pull it off.
My guess is it will be a mop and bucket issue that will require a huge amount of money and pain to fix, time will tell.
First things first, we have to get Labor back in.

Yeah, because we’re heading down the socialist route we might as well continue towards the goal of highest taxed and most expensive electricity in the world.

"project cost estimates from 2020 with those given in 2024. Most projects costs were wildly underestimated...but we don't even know which projects the CSIRO included in the model because they haven't given us the data"​

​

​

What’s missing from the CSIRO’s latest GenCost draft​

 

[JohnDe]

Another wind farm cancelled under Labor government, state & federal.

Planned $2bn South Australian offshore wind farm scrapped
​

A planned $2bn wind farm off the South Australian coast has been axed, with the application for the Kingston project pulled this month.

Another proposed wind farm development has been shelved, with the partners behind a contentious plan in South Australia quietly pulling the project.

An application with federal environmental regulators for the almost $2bn SA offshore wind farm project – also known as the Kingston project – was withdrawn without explanation this month.

The project was originally proposed by British company Australis Energy.

German group Skyborn Renewables – which is involved in operating or under-construction wind farms in Germany, Taiwan, France and the US – stepped in as a 50-50 joint venture partner in 2022.

Under the original plan for the project, about a third of the proposed 75 wind turbines would have sat in state, as opposed to commonwealth, waters.

The closest of the turbines – which together would have been capable of generating up to 600 megawatts of energy – would have been about 6.5km from the coast.

But that initial proposal was knocked back in August 2023 by SA Planning Minister Nick Champion, who said at the time that he believed the project had the potential to cause real harm to local aquaculture and fishing industries.

Skyborn said in the wake of the rejection that they continued to push on with a plan to develop the project further out to sea but wholly within commonwealth waters. That plan, too, now looks in doubt following the withdrawal of the federal application.

A spokeswoman for Skyborn declined to comment on the decision.

The apparent demise of the project makes it the latest in a string of failed wind proposals around Australia, despite the Albanese government’s advocacy for the sector and its reliance on wind power to help meet its 2030 renewable energy target.

In October, UK-headquartered RES Group formally withdrew its proposal to develop the 63-turbine, 441 megawatt Barneys Reef wind farm north of Gulgong in central NSW.

In that instance, RES cited the impact of new planning requirements in NSW as well as challenging economics for the decision.

And in July, Korea Zinc subsidiary Ark Energy pulled its plans for a 430MW, 54-turbine Doughboy wind farm between Armidale and Coffs Harbour, in northern NSW, after determining that the project was “no longer viable”.

The outlook for large-scale wind power in Australia has been further complicated by the position of Peter Dutton, who has vowed to scrap three of the six priority wind farm areas declared by Energy Minister Chris Bowen.

The federal Opposition Leader has promised to abolish the declared areas off the coast of NSW’s Illawarra and Hunter regions as well as off the coast of Bunbury in Western Australia, adding to the regulatory uncertainty facing would-be developers eyeing off those regions.

The Coalition’s energy policy is underpinned by introducing nuclear power to the electricity grid.

Mr Dutton this month released the Coalition’s nuclear-plus-renewables plan based on a Frontier Economics report that showed it would cost up to $263bn less than Labor’s renewables-only plan and result in cheaper electricity prices for consumers.

Jim Chalmers on Friday mounted a new government attack on the Coalition plan, which has also attracted opposition from the states. The Treasurer released government modelling suggesting that for Mr Dutton’s plan to work it would have to rely on the east coast states shedding $4 trillion of economic growth by 2050.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/planned-2bn-south-australian-offshore-wind-farm-scrapped/news-story/e2ed6a7522c17de9fccf3588f8879616

 

[sptrawler]

Yeah, because we’re heading down the socialist route we might as well continue towards the goal of highest taxed and most expensive electricity in the world.

"project cost estimates from 2020 with those given in 2024. Most projects costs were wildly underestimated...but we don't even know which projects the CSIRO included in the model because they haven't given us the data"​

​

View attachment 190214​

​

What’s missing from the CSIRO’s latest GenCost draft​

Well if the majority want that, so be it, that's how democracies work.

One thing for sure it is better coming to a head sooner, rather than later, if Labor get in next election then serious decisions have to be made because if they aren't the system will fail.

Apparently from what I have read and been told renewables can do it, but I do know it will take a massive amount of renewables/ batteries and hydro.

Therefore next term it will have to be explained exactly where and how much, because the grid will be under a huge amount of strain and if failures start happening and there is no light at the end of the tunnel it will bring on an early election.

So I say bring on the transition, the sooner the better, if it works well it saves having to go nuclear, if it doesn't work nuclear will have to be used regardless of what people say.

It will at least make the decision obvious, rather than all this BS, double talk and smoke and mirrors, the longer the crap goes on the bigger the problem will become.
At the moment coal is carrying the day, the talk is gas will take over, but that isn't sustainable, so lets get on with separating the chaff from the hay.
IMO there will be a lot of Labor stalwarts leaving after the next election.

 

[JohnDe]

Australia is the only G20 country that maintains a nuclear ban.​

​

Bowen can’t sustain any credible argument about costs until the Albanese government makes public its whole-of-system costings for its Reliable Renewables plan.​

​

The opaque underwriting of secret contracts for renewable projects provides a bonanza in what’s described as crony capitalism. The government’s costings remain a mystery, and the Energy Minister maintains the fiction that the plan would cost $122bn.​

Keeping the door closed on nuclear makes zero sense​

JENNIE GEORGE

Many nations believe that achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 requires nuclear in their energy mix.

Australia is the only G20 country that maintains a nuclear ban. It has been 26 years since the Howard government agreed to the Greens’ amendment, a condition of proceeding with a research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney’s southwest. There’s no rational reason for maintaining the ban.

Just days ago the government signed an agreement with Britain described as “an important step in establishing a sovereign nuclear submarine build capability in Australia”.

Keeping the door closed on emissions-free, next-generation nuclear technologies makes no sense and is not in our national interest.

The recent Frontier Economics report outlined a less costly pathway to 2050 with nuclear in the mix. Labor clings to its mistaken belief that intermittent, weather-dependent renewables can power our economy.

With Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen rejecting gas even as a transition fuel, how will the government ensure reliable baseload power 24/7 to meet the demands of industry and households? Bowen’s immediate instinct was to score political points by challenging the credibility of Frontier Economics.

He described its costings as not passing the “sniff test” and claimed the figures were dodgy. Another minister said it had “the shelf life of a seafood milkshake”.

Bowen can’t sustain any credible argument about costs until the Albanese government makes public its whole-of-system costings for its Reliable Renewables plan. We know the government’s energy transition is anchored in magic pudding economics, held together by subsidy upon subsidy, taxpayer-funded relief packages and off-budget outlays.

The opaque underwriting of secret contracts for renewable projects provides a bonanza in what’s described as crony capitalism. The government’s costings remain a mystery, and the Energy Minister maintains the fiction that the plan would cost $122bn.

Bowen references the use of that figure by the Australian Energy Market Operator but conveniently fails to mention its exclusions. AEMO makes clear that “the $122bn value includes transmission augmentation, utility-scale generation and storage capex, and does not include the cost of commissioned, committed or anticipated projects, consumer energy resources and distribution network upgrades”.

What is being constructed is not the cheapest energy system for consumers, it’s the lowest-cost pathway to meet the government’s targets and objectives. That’s precisely why AEMO’s chief executive, at a Senate hearing, could not promise lower power prices.

Frontier Economics costed the opposition’s plan at $331bn, $263bn less than Labor’s at $594bn. How that 44 per cent cost differential will affect power prices is still to be revealed.

The Darlington Nuclear generating station in Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada. Picture: Getty Images
Bowen argues that extending the life of coal-fired power stations is “terrible news for Australia’s emissions … and for the reliability of our grid”. His statement is disingenuous.

A few days earlier he’d reached initial agreement to give the states the power to mandate the extension of retiring coal and gas-fired plants if that was needed to keep the lights on and ensure reliable supply – yet another confirmation of problems with Labor’s transition. This is the inevitable result of Labor’s plan that prioritises meeting the 2030 targets at the expense of ensuring reliable and affordable power all day, every day.

NSW Premier Chris Minns understood thisand reached agreement with Origin Energy to keep the Eraring coal-fired power station operating at least until 2027. The Victorian government, in secret contracts, extended the life of Yallourn to mid-2028 and Loy Yang A until 2035. That leaves 10 coal-fired plants in the national market scheduled to remain operating beyond 2030; three in NSW, six in Queensland and one in Victoria.

Then there’s the critical issue of power prices and the broken 2022 election promise of power bills to be cut by $275 a year by 2025.

In a recent interview Bowen was asked: “If it wasn’t for cost-of-living subsidies, would power bills be cheaper next year?” He replied: “Well, I don’t quite follow the logic of that question. But look, we’ve just had the largest reduction on energy bills in Australian history according to the ABS.” Why did he resort to spin instead of stating the obvious?

An analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics data reveals that without taxpayer subsidies we’d be paying prices that were higher by 66 per cent. Power bills will keep going through the roof while reliability falls and the queues in energy poverty grow.

Energy and cost-of-living pressures will be key issues at the election, which could be held as soon as late February. This timing would suit the government to avoid disclosing its 2035 emissions reduction target (previously suggested at 65-75 per cent); the draft power price increases for 2025-26, due in early March; and the bad news budget scheduled for March 25.

The Albanese government wants us to believe it governs in the Hawke tradition. On nuclear energy they are miles apart.

Bob Hawke believed in the contest of ideas and as a known supporter argued we should “put all the passions and prejudices to one side and look at the facts”. It would be a fitting tribute to his legacy for the government to lift the nuclear ban, make public its whole-of-system costings and lead a meaningful debate on an issue of such national importance.

Jennie George is a former ACTU president and Labor MP for Throsby.

 

[JohnDe]

Flying into Canberra and I noticed the size of a solar farm. Compare it to the house nearby.

I wonder how many this size is required to power Australia?

 

[JohnDe]

Riding around the ANU grounds, it is amazing.

The ANU has all the skills and technology to teach our brightest minds, as well as those from other countries.

Nuclear science is becoming an important field that crosses fields such as medical physics, mining, defence, security, policy as well as the classic field of physics. Our research-led teaching spans undergraduate and postgraduate levels and covers all aspects of nuclear science, including reactor science, nuclear fuel cycles and how to ensure policy debates on nuclear issues are informed by science and best practice.​

Department of Nuclear Physics & Accelerator Applications

Department of Nuclear Physics & Accelerator Applications at the Australian National University

physics.anu.edu.au

 

[sptrawler]

Riding around the ANU grounds, it is amazing.

The ANU has all the skills and technology to teach our brightest minds, as well as those from other countries.

Nuclear science is becoming an important field that crosses fields such as medical physics, mining, defence, security, policy as well as the classic field of physics. Our research-led teaching spans undergraduate and postgraduate levels and covers all aspects of nuclear science, including reactor science, nuclear fuel cycles and how to ensure policy debates on nuclear issues are informed by science and best practice.​

Department of Nuclear Physics & Accelerator Applications

Department of Nuclear Physics & Accelerator Applications at the Australian National University

physics.anu.edu.au

Is the Coalition's nuclear power plan cheaper than renewable energy? - ANU Policy Brief

policybrief.anu.edu.au

Go figure, if the renewables plan falls on its butt, I wonder what plan B will be.

 

[SirRumpole]

Go figure, if the renewables plan falls on its butt, I wonder what plan B will be.

I don't think it will be nuclear. I think they will build more coal stations first and take the flak from the Greens.

 

[JohnDe]

Is the Coalition's nuclear power plan cheaper than renewable energy? - ANU Policy Brief

policybrief.anu.edu.au

Go figure, if the renewables plan falls on its butt, I wonder what plan B will be.

Post #491

Labor's energy flaws exposed
Amid the political fight over the Coalition's nuclear plan, the flaws in the federal government's own renewables-driven energy models - and the huge hidden costs to consumers- are being exposed.
The first Frontier Economics report did a service to the debate by unwinding an accounting trick. It revealed the real cost of the Integrated System Plan (ISP) - which has become de-facto policy for Labor - is around $600 billion. This figure towers over the discounted "present value" $121 billion figure touted by Energy Minister Chris Bowen.
But the second report - modelling the Coalition's nuclear policy - was more revealing. It showed that adopting nuclear would save more than $100 billion compared to a renewables-driven plan — sending critics diving into the details. What they end up surfacing may do more damage to Labor's plan than the Coalition's.
Bowen and his allies were quick to attack Frontier's modelling, accusing the report's authors of being silent on bill impacts for consumers.
This overlooks the fact that Frontier's analysis simply followed the ISP - the government's energy transition roadmap - which also doesn't project power bill impacts.
The ISP can't project power bills because its modelling depends on a host of heroic assumptions, and arbitrary exclusions and inclusions. These range from speculative reliance on hydrogen and uncosted batteries, to a rigid commitment to government targets.
For example, some critics have claimed that the 90 per cent capacity factor assigned to nuclear -the amount of electricity a plant generates relative to its maximum potential - is unrealistic. With wind and solar providing half the energy, the argument goes, nuclear's remaining 38 per cent share of generation would not be able to operate in a continuous state.
If Frontier's model was built from the ground up to reflect reality, this critique might be valid. However, Frontier has anchored its analysis to the ISP, which supports implausibly low levels of spillage for wind and solar through a combination of acrobatic modelling and unrealistic assumptions.
The average capacity factors in the ISP model - 25 per cent for large-scale solar and 35 per cent for onshore wind-are extremely optimistic. Even today,
averages are closer to 20 per cent and 30 per cent. This will inevitably get worse as the share of wind and solar in the system more than triples, and the new generators cannibalise their own output.
The ISP makes this appear possible because it contains so much unrealistic, uncosted "spongy filling" to support a high penetration of weather-dependent generators- whose mismatch with demand is far worse than nuclear. The same fudge factors that make a 90 per cent weather-dependent system physically possible could easily allow a large nuclear fleet to run at 90 per cent.
The spongy filling in the ISP's Step Change scenario includes around 15 GW of ultra-flexible hydrogen electrolyser loads designed to perfectly soak up oversupply of solar - a pipe dream that's quickly unravelling as industry players pull out.
The plan also calls for a staggering 157 gigawatt-hours of home and electric vehicle batteries by 2050- that's more than 11 million new Tesla Powerwalls- with 90 per cent of these batteries controlled by grid operators to manage surplus wind and solar.
Under the government's plan, EV owners are increasingly expected to charge during the day and discharge in the evening - exactly the opposite of what they want. Surprisingly, none of these "consumer energy resources" are included as a cost in the ISP.
On top of that, the ISP assumes batteries can accurately predict the weather to optimise charging and discharging.
These crutches that keep the ISP from collapsing under its own weight are known to be unreasonable. Mr Bowen's own department commissioned a review - kept from the public for 11 months -that described this reliance on fully submissive consumer energy resources as "problematic" and a "limitation of the current ISP"
If the crutches were kicked away, the estimated costs of the renewables-only energy system would skyrocket, almost certainly exposing even greater benefits from nuclear.
The reality dawning on Australians is that we don't have any energy plan remotely close to giving us an honest picture of our future power prices.
Because Frontier has anchored its analysis to the ISP, it has made a transparent comparison that is almost certainly directionally correct: a system with nuclear will cost much less.
But because the baseline is so far out to sea, the dollar figures presented for either system are close to meaningless.
Australians are still none the wiser about whether or when prices will actually come down.
This uncertainty about eventual prices was laid bare during a Senate inquiry, when the market operator's CEO was asked whether following the ISP would lower power bills. His response? "I can't guarantee that, no."
The energy transition is too important and too costly to rely on models riddled with biases and fantastic assumptions. If Frontier's model has flaws, they're mostly inherited from the government's own fatally flawed plan.

Michael Wu and Zoe Hilton are senior policy analysts at the Centre for Independent Studies

 

[sptrawler]

I don't think it will be nuclear. I think they will build more coal stations first and take the flak from the Greens.

I doubt it, not because it wouldn't make sense because we do have a lot of coal, but because until it is proven emissions are not causing global warming reducing emissions is the main game.

There is no way new coal will go ahead, if it means global warming keeps increasing, that wouldn't make sense.

That's why I keep going back to the energy density of nuclear over renewables, at the moment the energy density of renewables is $hit, but in 50 years or 100 years time it may be brilliant, but we have to work with what we have.

Hopefully renewables can do it, but I doubt it, on the other hand nuclear can do it, but it is a finite resource, so eventually renewables have to do it.

It is just a case of being pragmatic and sensible, rather than tribal, it's a shame both sides are tribal rather than Australian IMO.

 

[SirRumpole]

There is no way new coal will go ahead, if it means global warming keeps increasing, that wouldn't make sense.

1. if people have to decide between keeping their beer cold or our tiny contribution to climate change, what would they pick do you reckon ?

2. The Greens are going to oppose anything to do with hydro or gas, the only viable options for firming renewables and won't vote nuclear either, so until they go nothing good will happen.

3. Nothing has been said about all the other contributions to GHG emissions, like agriculture etc.

 

[sptrawler]

1. if people have to decide between keeping their beer cold or our tiny contribution to climate change, what would they pick do you reckon ?

2. The Greens are going to oppose anything to do with hydro or gas, the only viable options for firming renewables and won't vote nuclear either, so until they go nothing good will happen.

3. Nothing has been said about all the other contributions to GHG emissions, like agriculture etc.

I think they will pick nuclear, young people don't have the inherent fear of it and they know it has plenty of grunt, the worst outcome for young people would be the fear of actually not being able to get online and game.

They wouldn't even realise the problem with having no power, they have never really experienced it, so if it becomes commonplace they wont know how to cope and the backlash will be epic, much like the anti Vietnam protests IMO.

Interesting times. I must borrow @IFocus caravan if it goes pear shaped, I could put it on the sons block until everything is sorted.

On a side note, we just had a quick 5 minute blackout, so I quickly jumped on the scooter and went around the corner to the CBD, the power was still on, my guess is they have finished installing the new remote controlled meters in our sector and were testing it during a low demand period.

 

[sptrawler]

3. Nothing has been said about all the other contributions to GHG emissions, like agriculture etc.

Pick off the low hanging fruit first, but people wont be happy if the low hanging fruit goes pear shaped.

I've actually attended meetings where it was said if the public has to have a few blackouts so be it, then when the blackouts start those same people start screaming that it isn't acceptable.

Everything changes when people actually have to face a bit of hardship, I don't think a lot of the East Coast elites have, so it will be interesting if that situation eventuates.

As I've said, I would be surprised in Albo and Chris hang about after the next election, hopefully they do.

 

[sptrawler]

2. The Greens are going to oppose anything to do with hydro or gas, the only viable options for firming renewables and won't vote nuclear either, so until they go nothing good will happen.

I was reading today the Green vote has fallen with young voters, as I said they are connecting and discussing on social media, so some of the young will go with the renewable story others will go with the nuclear story.
What they wont go with is the Greens opposition to everything, it doesn't make sense and the young WONT go without power, they have never been in that situation and as I said it would get ugly quickly IMO.

 

[IFocus]

Interesting times. I must borrow @IFocus caravan if it goes pear shaped, I could put it on the sons block until everything is sorted.

Took our new van (2nd hand 1 year old) to Bremer Bay recently for the 1st trip you would enjoy it everything works very comfortable, Bremer was stunning.