Nuclear Power For Australia?

[sptrawler]

Anyone want to invest in nuclear weapons ?

We are going to need them apparently.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07...aft-defence-spending-china-dominance/11269412

There is one thing for sure, if there is another World War, which everyone hopes doesn't eventuate.
Australia will be the obvious target, for any aggressor, located near the Indian or Pacific ocean.
In the last War, Australia had very little of military significance, since then the energy resources and raw material reserves have been discovered, which any Country engaged in a war would quickly see as a strategic target.
So IMO, hopefully the situation doesn't arise where we test the hypothesis.

 

[StockyGuy]

The anti-US sentiment you often get in our media is sometimes a bit disturbing. That alliance preserves our way of life. All this nonsense about middle power diplomacy and holding bigger nations to account! The AUS-US relationship is utterly sacrosanct. There should never be any serious debate about not joining any significant military action the US undertakes - we simply are not in a position to choose. Wanting to be all high-minded and principled by staying out of wars "over there", will give our allies every reason to stay out of any future wars "over here".

Anyway to tie it somewhat back to the thread's subject, of course it would be great to have our own nukes for defence in uncertain times. If US disavowed the alliance then yes it would clearly be time to start down that path. WMDs make weak actors strong. Australia's considered pursuing nukes at various points; and it would not be especially challenging for us (many comparatively backward nations managed it).

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-24/should-australia-have-a-nuclear-weapons-program/10407610

 

[SirRumpole]

If US disavowed the alliance then yes it would clearly be time to start down that path.

By that time it might be too late.

Better to start sooner if we start at all.

 

[mullokintyre]

The AFR has done a critique on the CSIRO report suggesting Nuclear is more expensive than renewables.
Renewable energy advocates have seized on a report by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation as proof that nuclear energy is financially unviable in Australia.

The analysis asserts that wind and solar are the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation in Australia, significantly below the price of nuclear power.
This is a significant finding given that Australia is gambling its traditional energy security on 82 per cent of its power generation coming from renewables by 2030, which seems very unlikely to be achieved.
It must be a surprise to people living in Europe, where nuclear-rich France has far cheaper energy prices than neighbouring Germany, which is embracing renewables and dumping nuclear and fossil fuels.
The upfront cost of a nuclear power plant is very expensive. The CSIRO’s GenCost report, quite reasonably, estimates the capital cost of a large-scale nuclear plant in Australia is $8655 per kilowatt, which equates to about $8.6 billion for a one-gigawatt reactor.

A new, large-scale, water-cooled nuclear reactor that has just come online in the US state of Georgia is estimated to have cost about $US35 billion ($53 billion).
The potential for large taxpayer subsidies is reason to be circumspect about nuclear, despite its appeal in providing reliable, zero emissions power over a very long time.
But regrettably, the CSIRO’s GenCost report has several shortcomings.
It fails a fair apples-with-apples comparison between Peter Dutton’s nuclear ambitions and the Albanese government’s renewables.
GenCost underplays the potential use of nuclear and underestimates the total system costs of unreliable renewables.


First, GenCost calculates the cost of various energy projects over 30 years.

Nuclear power plants provide always-on power for households and businesses for more than 80 years. Solar panels typically last up to about 30 years, after which they are old and inefficient. Wind turbines last up to about 25 years. Batteries for energy storage last up to about 15 years and may in the future reach 20 years.

After these renewables expire, billions of dollars must be spent – again – on replacements.

The environmentally damaging materials, such as huge amounts of scrap metals, must be replaced. Hopefully, they are recycled.

Repeated investment cycles are required.

For solar panels, replacements are needed 2.7 times over 80 years. For wind turbines, replacements are required 3.2 times over 80 years. For batteries, replacements are needed four to five times over 80 years.


Hence, the cost of energy sources should be benchmarked over a “like for like” whole-of-life period.

If not 80 years, then at least halfway between the 20-30-year life of renewables and the much longer life of a large nuclear power plant. Let’s call it, say, 50 years.

The CSIRO says it uses 30 years because it is the time commercial finance is usually available before repayment is required.

Yet, after 30 years a nuclear power plant should have a residual economic value or resale price, which is ignored by the CSIRO.

A second shortcoming of the GenCost report highlighted by Centre for Independent Studies energy research director Aidan Morrison is the assumption that the capacity range of nuclear power plants is between 53 per cent and 89 per cent.

Modern nuclear plants overseas can run for above 90 per cent of their capacity. The ongoing costs of nuclear power plants are very low after the upfront build, so they typically run near full throttle.


Third, GenCost bizarrely assumes coal is more expensive than renewables.

The CSIRO assumes a single, gold-plated, new coal-fired power plant site, with a new railway line. Moreover, the price of coal is assumed to be around the sky-high price during the Ukraine war when energy costs exploded.

“Renewables are definitely not cheaper than coal,” Morrison says.

Finally, the CSIRO uses the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) to compare the competitiveness of power generation technologies.
But it underplays the advantage of always-on, dispatchable power, such as fossil fuels and nuclear, over mainly off, intermittent wind and solar generation.


Former Treasury economist Geoff Carmody says this “apples versus oranges approach is very misleading”.

To fix this, the LCOE should be calculated on a reliability-equal, whole-of-life-asset basis.

Solar power, on average, is fully on about 20-25 per cent of the 24-hour day and off about 75-80 per cent of the day. Wind power is fully on about 30 per cent of the day and off 70 per cent.

The CSIRO attempts to adjust for the unreliability of renewables in its LCOE estimates by including costs of storage, transmission and firming.

But the assumptions underpinning the renewable integration costs are murky because the CSIRO says it doesn’t want to release modelling that could contradict the Australian Energy Market Operator’s integrated system plan.

The CSIRO admits that LCOE is a “simple screening tool” and is “not a substitute for detailed project cash-flow analysis or electricity system modelling which both provide more realistic representations of electricity generation project operational costs and performance”.


David Pearl, a former Treasury assistant secretary and adviser to former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd, says the LCOE is an accounting metric, not an economic one.

“It measures the total unit costs a generator must recover to meet all expenses – plant, equipment, land, raw materials and labour – including a return on investment,” Pearl writes in The Spectator.

“It says nothing about the revenue side of the commercial equation: what prices can the generator earn on the wholesale market and, given their costs, what profits can be earned?”

Pearl likens it to an unreliable car that costs less to make than a reliable vehicle but is of less value to consumers.

“By the same logic, an inherently unreliable source of power, like solar or wind, cannot be said to be cheaper in an economic sense than a reliable source of power, regardless of how much it costs to supply when the sun is shining and wind is blowing, which as we know is only 20 to 40 per cent of the time,” he writes.

“For the 60 to 80 per cent of the time when intermittent power cannot be supplied at any price, its economic cost can be said to be infinite.”


Pearl calls for the Productivity Commission to conduct a renewable energy audit that includes: the direct cost of subsidies; the system-wide costs – including transmission, storage and back-up dispatchable power including the cost of subsidies to keep coal-fired power stations operating; the economic, social and environmental losses wind, solar and new transmission lines are inflicting on farmers and others living in regional communities; and the welfare costs of a more volatile and less reliable grid.

“This renewable energy audit should be embraced by all in the community, regardless of their views on climate change, net zero and the merits of nuclear energy,” Pearl argues.
The CSIRO has previously fixed shortcomings in its analysis to give a more realistic estimated cost of the net zero energy transition.

Morrison last year exposed the GenCost report for assuming that any pre-2030 cost of building renewables was “sunk”, or effectively zero.

This artificially lowered the estimated cost of renewables, such as the six-fold blowout in the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project to $12 billion and tens of billions being spent on batteries and transmission. These capital costs will be paid for by energy users and/or taxpayers.


To the CSIRO’s credit in response to Morrison’s pressure, it updated the GenCost report to reflect the previously ignored pre-2030 costs.

The independent CSIRO must maintain its credibility and give a realistic “apples with apples” comparison of nuclear and renewables to inform the energy transition debate.

Australia needs evidence-based policy, not policy-based evidence.

Loved that lat line, its a cracker.
Mick

 

[Smurf1976]

Australia needs evidence-based policy, not policy-based evidence.

The big problem with the entire debate is that ideology has become dominant to the point of almost completely excluding evidence.

The debate has been captured by the ignorant to the exclusion of the competent.

 

[Knobby22]

The AFR has done a critique on the CSIRO report suggesting Nuclear is more expensive than renewables.
Renewable energy advocates have seized on a report by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation as proof that nuclear energy is financially unviable in Australia.

The analysis asserts that wind and solar are the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation in Australia, significantly below the price of nuclear power.
This is a significant finding given that Australia is gambling its traditional energy security on 82 per cent of its power generation coming from renewables by 2030, which seems very unlikely to be achieved.
It must be a surprise to people living in Europe, where nuclear-rich France has far cheaper energy prices than neighbouring Germany, which is embracing renewables and dumping nuclear and fossil fuels.
The upfront cost of a nuclear power plant is very expensive. The CSIRO’s GenCost report, quite reasonably, estimates the capital cost of a large-scale nuclear plant in Australia is $8655 per kilowatt, which equates to about $8.6 billion for a one-gigawatt reactor.

A new, large-scale, water-cooled nuclear reactor that has just come online in the US state of Georgia is estimated to have cost about $US35 billion ($53 billion).
The potential for large taxpayer subsidies is reason to be circumspect about nuclear, despite its appeal in providing reliable, zero emissions power over a very long time.
But regrettably, the CSIRO’s GenCost report has several shortcomings.
It fails a fair apples-with-apples comparison between Peter Dutton’s nuclear ambitions and the Albanese government’s renewables.
GenCost underplays the potential use of nuclear and underestimates the total system costs of unreliable renewables.


First, GenCost calculates the cost of various energy projects over 30 years.

Nuclear power plants provide always-on power for households and businesses for more than 80 years. Solar panels typically last up to about 30 years, after which they are old and inefficient. Wind turbines last up to about 25 years. Batteries for energy storage last up to about 15 years and may in the future reach 20 years.

After these renewables expire, billions of dollars must be spent – again – on replacements.

The environmentally damaging materials, such as huge amounts of scrap metals, must be replaced. Hopefully, they are recycled.

Repeated investment cycles are required.

For solar panels, replacements are needed 2.7 times over 80 years. For wind turbines, replacements are required 3.2 times over 80 years. For batteries, replacements are needed four to five times over 80 years.


Hence, the cost of energy sources should be benchmarked over a “like for like” whole-of-life period.

If not 80 years, then at least halfway between the 20-30-year life of renewables and the much longer life of a large nuclear power plant. Let’s call it, say, 50 years.

The CSIRO says it uses 30 years because it is the time commercial finance is usually available before repayment is required.

Yet, after 30 years a nuclear power plant should have a residual economic value or resale price, which is ignored by the CSIRO.

A second shortcoming of the GenCost report highlighted by Centre for Independent Studies energy research director Aidan Morrison is the assumption that the capacity range of nuclear power plants is between 53 per cent and 89 per cent.

Modern nuclear plants overseas can run for above 90 per cent of their capacity. The ongoing costs of nuclear power plants are very low after the upfront build, so they typically run near full throttle.


Third, GenCost bizarrely assumes coal is more expensive than renewables.

The CSIRO assumes a single, gold-plated, new coal-fired power plant site, with a new railway line. Moreover, the price of coal is assumed to be around the sky-high price during the Ukraine war when energy costs exploded.

“Renewables are definitely not cheaper than coal,” Morrison says.

Finally, the CSIRO uses the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) to compare the competitiveness of power generation technologies.
But it underplays the advantage of always-on, dispatchable power, such as fossil fuels and nuclear, over mainly off, intermittent wind and solar generation.


Former Treasury economist Geoff Carmody says this “apples versus oranges approach is very misleading”.

To fix this, the LCOE should be calculated on a reliability-equal, whole-of-life-asset basis.

Solar power, on average, is fully on about 20-25 per cent of the 24-hour day and off about 75-80 per cent of the day. Wind power is fully on about 30 per cent of the day and off 70 per cent.

The CSIRO attempts to adjust for the unreliability of renewables in its LCOE estimates by including costs of storage, transmission and firming.

But the assumptions underpinning the renewable integration costs are murky because the CSIRO says it doesn’t want to release modelling that could contradict the Australian Energy Market Operator’s integrated system plan.

The CSIRO admits that LCOE is a “simple screening tool” and is “not a substitute for detailed project cash-flow analysis or electricity system modelling which both provide more realistic representations of electricity generation project operational costs and performance”.


David Pearl, a former Treasury assistant secretary and adviser to former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd, says the LCOE is an accounting metric, not an economic one.

“It measures the total unit costs a generator must recover to meet all expenses – plant, equipment, land, raw materials and labour – including a return on investment,” Pearl writes in The Spectator.

“It says nothing about the revenue side of the commercial equation: what prices can the generator earn on the wholesale market and, given their costs, what profits can be earned?”

Pearl likens it to an unreliable car that costs less to make than a reliable vehicle but is of less value to consumers.

“By the same logic, an inherently unreliable source of power, like solar or wind, cannot be said to be cheaper in an economic sense than a reliable source of power, regardless of how much it costs to supply when the sun is shining and wind is blowing, which as we know is only 20 to 40 per cent of the time,” he writes.

“For the 60 to 80 per cent of the time when intermittent power cannot be supplied at any price, its economic cost can be said to be infinite.”


Pearl calls for the Productivity Commission to conduct a renewable energy audit that includes: the direct cost of subsidies; the system-wide costs – including transmission, storage and back-up dispatchable power including the cost of subsidies to keep coal-fired power stations operating; the economic, social and environmental losses wind, solar and new transmission lines are inflicting on farmers and others living in regional communities; and the welfare costs of a more volatile and less reliable grid.

“This renewable energy audit should be embraced by all in the community, regardless of their views on climate change, net zero and the merits of nuclear energy,” Pearl argues.
The CSIRO has previously fixed shortcomings in its analysis to give a more realistic estimated cost of the net zero energy transition.

Morrison last year exposed the GenCost report for assuming that any pre-2030 cost of building renewables was “sunk”, or effectively zero.

This artificially lowered the estimated cost of renewables, such as the six-fold blowout in the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project to $12 billion and tens of billions being spent on batteries and transmission. These capital costs will be paid for by energy users and/or taxpayers.


To the CSIRO’s credit in response to Morrison’s pressure, it updated the GenCost report to reflect the previously ignored pre-2030 costs.

The independent CSIRO must maintain its credibility and give a realistic “apples with apples” comparison of nuclear and renewables to inform the energy transition debate.

Australia needs evidence-based policy, not policy-based evidence.

Loved that lat line, its a cracker.
Mick

Great article Mick.
Some very good points.

30 years is considered very conservative when evaluating projects but this is government. Roads aren't built for 30 years. Nuclear is a long term power plant. There is an argument for its use. There is not just the cost of the plant (which is very expensive) but the cost of additional electrical infrastructure, which is not as it can reutlise old coal power plants infrastructure.

The Liberals have been a bit back to front with policy on the run but when they do bed it down it would be good for CSIRO to revisit the estimate with different assumptions.

I do think we may need some baseline power in a future world but how much? Maybe 3 nuclear plants? in say Victoria, Queensland and somewhere in the West of Australia?

Evidence based policy not policy based evidence. It is a cracker.

 

[SirRumpole]

Great article Mick.
Some very good points.

30 years is considered very conservative when evaluating projects but this is government. Roads aren't built for 30 years. Nuclear is a long term power plant. There is an argument for its use. There is not just the cost of the plant (which is very expensive) but the cost of additional electrical infrastructure, which is not as it can reutlise old coal power plants infrastructure.

The Liberals have been a bit back to front with policy on the run but when they do bed it down it would be good for CSIRO to revisit the estimate with different assumptions.

I do think we may need some baseline power in a future world but how much? Maybe 3 nuclear plants? in say Victoria, Queensland and somewhere in the West of Australia?

Evidence based policy not policy based evidence. It is a cracker.

The problem with all this is "social license".

People can't even put in a wind farm without the residents raising hell about losing the view or being sent mad by infrasound or the intrusion of power lines, where are they going to put a nuclear reactor with dangerous fuel being transported through neighbourhoods probably by road and the three eyed frogs hysteria being whipped up by the Greenies. And if you try and put them in the outback then the traditional owners will drag it out for years as well.

These projects are going to be delayed for years in the courts unless there is a quick approval process introduced and the Greens will never accept that.

 

[wayneL]

And vested interests, Horace.

 

[investor13]

The big problem with the entire debate is that ideology has become dominant to the point of almost completely excluding evidence.

The debate has been captured by the ignorant to the exclusion of the competent.

The left living in a fantasy land of the green scam and failings of renewables never working with proven examples from around the world.
Thinking a solar panel or turbine is clean due to not omitting smoke, yet place hands over heads and shut down any debate when questions are raised in how they are made and where the products come from

 

[sptrawler]

Yes I had a chuckled when I read this anti nuclear article, especially this point:

Nuclear power stations are not appropriate for Australia – and never will be | Climate Council

While the move to clean energy is still not happening fast enough, it is underway and starting to speed up. We do not need distractions like nuclear to derail our progress now, so let’s set the record straight.

www.climatecouncil.org.au

From the article, by the climate council.

4. Nuclear power is not renewable, and it is not safe.​

Uranium is a finite resource just like coal, oil and gas. It needs to be mined and, just like mining coal, oil and gas, this carries serious safety concerns, including contaminating the environment with radioactive dust, radon gas, water-borne toxins, and increased levels of background radiation. On the other hand, energy generated from the sun and wind releases no pollutants into the air and is overwhelmingly considered to be safe.



I mean WOW
Maybe they think batteries, solar panels and wind turbines are made by the fairies down the end of the garden with a magic wand, rather than from finite materials that are also mined.
Obviously they don't think things through before chanting.
The big stumbling block for nuclear beside time frames and physical size of units, is the fact the private sector don't make a fast buck from it, as happens when punching out subsidised panels and batteries.
The huge cost and build time frames of nuclear makes return on investment very low IMO and not something the private sector is interested in.

 

[Smurf1976]

The left living in a fantasy land of the green scam and failings of renewables never working with proven examples from around the world.

As I've said many times in the offline world "All power pollutes. All of it. What we get to choose is what the impacts are and to some extent where they occur but there's no such thing as energy that doesn't impact the environment".

Beyond that though, nuclear, fossils and renewables are all technically workable so long as they're properly designed, built and operated but they'll all fail if they aren't.

Properly it's a number crunching exercise involving various branches of engineering, sciences and finance. That politics keeps poking its sticky fingers in is why it's not working.

Ideologically I'm neutral on nuclear but I'll say that given the fundamental problem in Australia is political meddling and having non-technical people calling the shots, well a nuclear reactor is not a good thing to have in that situation. At least not unless it scares them enough that they keep well away and leave the geeks to run it.

 

[SirRumpole]

As I've said many times in the offline world "All power pollutes. All of it. What we get to choose is what the impacts are and to some extent where they occur but there's no such thing as energy that doesn't impact the environment".

Beyond that though, nuclear, fossils and renewables are all technically workable so long as they're properly designed, built and operated but they'll all fail if they aren't.

Properly it's a number crunching exercise involving various branches of engineering, sciences and finance. That politics keeps poking its sticky fingers in is why it's not working.

Ideologically I'm neutral on nuclear but I'll say that given the fundamental problem in Australia is political meddling and having non-technical people calling the shots, well a nuclear reactor is not a good thing to have in that situation. At least not unless it scares them enough that they keep well away and leave the geeks to run it.

My uninformed opinion is that if we say nukes are going to solve everything, then we basically rule everything else out.

But..

I think we should remove the ban on nuclear power and while we continue to install VRE, hydro(hopefully) and gas turbines, we keep a close eye on developments in the nuclear area, develop facilities to process and store fuel in a small way, start educating nuclear scientists, and if nuclear becomes cost effective in the future then we will have some groundwork and don't have to start completely from scratch.

It should be a CSIRO operation only though, no snake oil salesmen from commercial companies selling dreams, just solid science, if that's possible these days.

 

[Smurf1976]

I think we should remove the ban on nuclear power and while we continue to install VRE, hydro(hopefully) and gas turbines, we keep a close eye on developments in the nuclear area, develop facilities to process and store fuel in a small way, start educating nuclear scientists, and if nuclear becomes cost effective in the future then we will have some groundwork and don't have to start completely from scratch.

If it were up to me I'd seriously consider going one step further.

Build one.

ONE

A complete set of equipment for one generating unit only but on land suitable for at least two units should a decision later be made to build a second one.

Location = Victoria.

Capacity = a bit over 1GW and with an SPS (special protection scheme) linked to the Alcoa smelter at Portland so as to accommodate the large unit on the system. Noting this does not require the nuclear plant to be at that location, it just needs to go on the 500kV network in Victoria - logical location would be near Morwell.

Reasons there are two. Technical and scientific competency first and foremost, that's the primary reason to have one up and running. To have a full team of competent people doing everything required and to have the required facilities, equipment and so on.

Second reason is by scheduling maintenance to avoid outages in the autumn and winter period, that makes a very useful contribution to solving the overall energy supply difficulty. That's also the reason for putting it in Victoria, it's the most problematic state for renewables due to seasonal factors.

It would be a financial loss on the original construction but arguably a justifiable one in a broad national interest sense. Emphasis that we only need one for that purpose however.

Timing = targeting commercial operation in 2043.

 

[Sean K]

Listening to all the interviews being conducted with Mr and Mrs Joe Six Pack on the street regarding the LNPs push for nuclear power and I can see why it's going to be a hard sell.

Most of those against nuclear, or are worried about it, site things like 'safety' and 'radiation' and even an ALP politician is claiming nuclear is 'toxic'. Obviously they get their science on nuclear power from watching the Simpsons.

The biggest problem most people have is the cost, that is yet to be presented.

Hopefully the nuclear business case puts up nuclear against the total cost of RE, not just the initial build, but longer term management, maintenance and replacements over the life of a nuke. One thing the CSIRO forgot to do.

The other factor is whether all RE with batteries or hydrogen can even get to net zero without firming from gas or another source. If the Left really want net zero, then they'll have to pay for some firming or some sort.

 

[macca]

Listening to all the interviews being conducted with Mr and Mrs Joe Six Pack on the street regarding the LNPs push for nuclear power and I can see why it's going to be a hard sell.

Most of those against nuclear, or are worried about it, site things like 'safety' and 'radiation' and even an ALP politician is claiming nuclear is 'toxic'. Obviously they get their science on nuclear power from watching the Simpsons.

The biggest problem most people have is the cost, that is yet to be presented.

Hopefully the nuclear business case puts up nuclear against the total cost of RE, not just the initial build, but longer term management, maintenance and replacements over the life of a nuke. One thing the CSIRO forgot to do.

The other factor is whether all RE with batteries or hydrogen can even get to net zero without firming from gas or another source. If the Left really want net zero, then they'll have to pay for some firming or some sort.

I had lunch with a mate who used to work in energy supply and he is gung ho about solar, his house and sheds have panels all over but he does not have a battery, which I though a bit odd.

After the lecture I asked him "what happens at night? " and he said "they will work something out" which seems to be the good old "Sheila be Wright" attitude.

It was the coldest night in years here last night, the way we are going it will take a black out in midwinter before folks realise that it will only be alright if we actually build something.

 

[sptrawler]

From post number 70 in this thread, the biggest stumbling block for nuclear IMO

The big stumbling block for nuclear beside time frames and physical size of units, is the fact the private sector don't make a fast buck from it, as happens when punching out subsidised panels and batteries.

The huge cost and build time frames of nuclear makes return on investment very low IMO and not something the private sector is interested in.

 

[sptrawler]

It was the coldest night in years here last night, the way we are going it will take a black out in midwinter before folks realise that it will only be alright if we actually build something.

That is something, no sector of the media is asking, where is the long duration storage coming from, how much will it cost, how long will it take and where will it be.
Obviously not something anyone from the Hydro/gas sector want to answer.

 

[Smurf1976]

I do think we may need some baseline power in a future world but how much? Maybe 3 nuclear plants? in say Victoria, Queensland and somewhere in the West of Australia?

From a purely technical perspective the hard places to make renewables work are Victoria and WA.

SA and NT are in the middle but largely saved by relatively small scale.

If they can't be made to work in Qld, NSW and Tas then we're not trying.

Noting there, and this is perhaps not well known, but the share of electricity consumption by state isn't in line with population:

NSW = 29%
Qld = 24%
Vic = 18%
WA = 16%
SA = 6%
Tas = 5%
NT = 2%

Versus the population share of the states which is:

NSW = 31%
Vic = 26%
Qld = 20%
WA = 10%
SA = 7%
Tas = 2%
NT = 1%

 

[sptrawler]

Yep, kind of supports the me mentality.

 

[Knobby22]

From a purely technical perspective the hard places to make renewables work are Victoria and WA.

SA and NT are in the middle but largely saved by relatively small scale.

If they can't be made to work in Qld, NSW and Tas then we're not trying.

Noting there, and this is perhaps not well known, but the share of electricity consumption by state isn't in line with population:

NSW = 29%
Qld = 24%
Vic = 18%
WA = 16%
SA = 6%
Tas = 5%
NT = 2%

Versus the population share of the states which is:

NSW = 31%
Vic = 26%
Qld = 20%
WA = 10%
SA = 7%
Tas = 2%
NT = 1%

That is fascinating, Smurf.
Victoria would be lower due to the temperate climate but why is Tazzy so energy intensive, heating?
SAs heat is dry so evap systems would work well.

Why would you say WA is a hard place for renewables? Lack of hydro? The tropical environment of far north Queensland would make renewables difficult imo.

I was hearing the Hunter Valley is fairly keen for a nuclear power station to keep the place going as the coal mines and power stations close.