The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Clean energy: the state of play > Comments

Clean energy: the state of play : Comments

By Tom Biegler, published 30/9/2021

An atmosphere of self-congratulation and excited claims tends to obscure the true state of play in Australia’s renewable energy industry. There’s a long way to go and outputs will need to rise many times faster to meet clean energy ambitions.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Nuclear power, not renewables, is what is needed. Renewables are high cost, unreliable and would need an enormous amount of storage to provide a reliable power supply.

Nuclear power is and always has been by far the safest way to generate electricity, since the first power reactor began supplying power to the grid in 1954. Deaths from nuclear are about 0.0001 per TWh of electricity generated compared with coal 15, gas 4, solar 0.44, wind 0.15, hydro 0.01. If each technology was required to pay compensation for the annual cost of the deaths it causes, the amount each would have to pay per MWh (in the USA) are: coal $174, gas $46, solar $5.1, wind $1.7, hydro $0.06, nuclear $0.001 (using US Value of a Statistical Life).

If not for the effects of the anti-nuclear power protest movement since the early 1960’s we could now be using small modular reactors instead of the enormous >1 GW reactors. They would be factory manufactured, delivered to site, installed and powering the grid within about 3 years, not 10 to 20 years, and they could be supplying power at about 15% of current cost.

For more read ‘Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone’.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 30 September 2021 1:04:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There has been a lot said and written that climate change catastrophism and emission reduction has nothing to do with the environment: it's all about control and Marxist economics. But not enough people are interested in that idea, so there is no point in raising it again. The average drones have decided to leave to the "experts" - aka liars and crooks - so we will all have to pay the price.

But, what is the price? If we are going to have to accept this enormous imposition, what will be the cost to jobs, power prices and the cost of living in general? What will be the reduction in temperatures.

The questions on cost and effects have been asked numerous times. The answers - ZERO times.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 30 September 2021 1:35:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang,
Renewables were high cost back in the noughties, but the technology has moved on and now they're low cost. Whereas nuclear power in the 21st century has kept promising the costs will come down, but we're still waiting.

'Tis fossil fuelled power that has the biggest unreliability problems. Did you miss the SA government bragging this week that since it came to power there have been zero customer hours lost to supply shortfalls? No other state was so reliable, and Queensland had by far the most load shedding.

As for an enormous amount of storage, much of that could be as hydrogen. Electrolysers have been developed that can run in reverse (as fuel cells) and the more overbuild we have of renewables (and we'll need a lot of overbuild if we're going to be exporting hydrogen and ammonia) the less storage we need.

The anti nuclear power protest movement was only successful because of the failures of the nuclear power industry. Proponents of small modular reactors tried to present them as the solution to the safety problems, but the cost of electricity produced has always been much higher than from large reactors. For the past twenty years they've been saying that will soon change, and that may be the case... but it hasn't yet.

______________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
Marxist economics? Seriously?
Is the ratio of wages to profits higher or lower with renewables?

It's still very much a case of stemming the increase in temperature rather than causing a reduction. I'm not aware of any good reason why anyone working in the fossil fuel industry can't work elsewhere. And renewables are already cheaper than new coal power, and will soon be cheaper than keeping existing coal fired power stations running.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 30 September 2021 2:35:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My fear is that by 2030 or so Australia will not have enough affordable energy on demand. We will in effect have rationing such as allowing unlimited aircon when it is 35C but not 45C as the grid can't cope. 100% renewables won't occur without cheap long duration energy storage. That precludes lithium ion batteries which are good for 4 hours and would require Snowy 2 pumped hydro to be replicated several times over.

As to nuclear Australia has the biggest uranium reserves. Several intending SMR vendors are talking about a levelised electricity cost well under $100 per Mwh. That's does not involve add on costs like new transmission lines if using brownfield sites, frequency correction, gas backup and green subsidies like the LGC currently $38 per Mwh. All conveniently omitted from discussion of how 'cheap' renewables are. When this penny drops the 100% renewable crowd will have to explain where it all went wrong.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 30 September 2021 3:28:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The psychology of the elite climate change ideologues.

To ttbn. Hope this helps!

Eric Fromm. (Psychoanalyst).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm

Quote from “The Forgotten Language”

*…The “elite” who have to control those who are not “chosen” become the prisoners of their own restrictive tendencies. Thus the human mind, of both rulers and ruled, becomes deflected from its essential human purpose, which is to feel and to think humanly, to use and to develop the powers of reason and love that are inherent in man and without the full development of which he is crippled. In this process of deflection and distortion man’s character becomes distorted. Aims which are in contrast to the interests of his real human self become paramount. His powers of love are impoverished, and he is driven to want power over others. His inner security is lessened, and he is driven to seek compensation by passionate cravings for fame and prestige. He loses the sense of dignity and integrity and is forced to turn himself into a commodity, deriving his self-respect from his salability, from his success. All this makes for the fact that we learn not only what is true, but also what is false. That we hear not only what is good, but are constantly under the influence of ideas detrimental to life. This holds true for a primitive tribe in which strict laws and customs influence the mind, but it is true also for modern society with its alleged freedom from rigid ritualism. In many ways the spread of literacy and of the media of mass communication has made the influence of cultural clichés as effective as it is in a small, highly restricted tribal culture…*

Dan
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 30 September 2021 3:59:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,

You are very poorly informed and haven't a clue what you are talking about. I'd urge you and others here to read the paper linked below - and read the two Appendices and the relevant references.

'Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone'
https://doi.org/10.3390/en10122169
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 30 September 2021 4:10:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy