>>Nuclear power is the least cost way to generate low emissions electricity.>>

I don't think we have to make a one size fits all decision. It depends on geography, availability of other resources, etc. Texas apparently has a wind power boom because there are regions where the wind blows nearly all the time.

California is sunny.

I have no ideological objection to nuclear.

Rhosty, where did you get the idea that transmission losses were anywhere near 50%?

Hi stevenlmeyer

I agree with your non-ideological, science based arguments.

---

In contrast

@Peter Lang

You label all those who disagree with you as ideological - presumably leftwing.

Reds under the Bed at every turn?

You don't know me very well.

You appear so steeped in tthe mechanics of nuclear engineering that you forget about the politics of what people want.

Would you gain financially if Australia went nuclear Peter Lang?

:)

Transmission line losses average out at 0.6% a mile.
And the national grid covers thousands of miles. And each one of those miles is accompanied by 0.6% transmission line losses.
I mean, just take a thousand mile of wires, (1000 x 0.6) and the loss is 60%!
How many thousands of miles of wires do you think are needed just to reticulate power to any of the capital cites/2-3 million consumers?
We live some 15 miles from the nearest power station, yet our power is sent down better than a hundred miles, and sent back up through a feeder line.
And it's not just wires that create loss through friction, heat, resistance; but transformers, capacitors and conductors as well.
And the hotter the line the more the resistance!
Power doesn't travel down the wires, but rather electrons bump into other electrons, displacing them, which in turn pass the favor on, and remarkably, just under the speed of light.
And we're talking about a national grid that stretches from Tasmania to Cains on the east coast; criss crossing the landscape.
Lord only knows how the other states fare or if they're also connected to this huge white elephant, we call the national grid. Conversely, if you piped gas and then turned it into electricity onsite, providing there were no leaking pipes; any transmission losses would be negligible.
Aidan, what makes you think that just by asking lots of uninformed questions, you can somehow make the science go away?
Simply put, it hasn't changed since I worked for a power authority, and in a science related capacity.
Aidan, what makes you think I intend to respond to any more of your asinine questions?
I am not your science teacher, and I think you'd learn a lot more, and or, not appear so dumb, if you simply bothered to do your own research.
Rhrosty.

Rhosty

Transmission losses 0.6% per mile?!! That computes to 70% of the electricity produced at Collie being lost before it gets to Perth, 120 miles away?! Only 30% of the power produced at the power stations that supply more than half of Perth actually get to that city?!

I audited a mine > 200 miles from Collie where its electricity came from. Total line losses (including transmission and switch yards) were 9%.

Check you figure; you're out by a factor of more than 10.

Before you challenge the science OR MY INTEGRITY, roses1, you first need to be able to do the very simple maths!
i.e., 120 (miles) x 0.6 (T.L.L.)= 0.72% as transmission line losses between Collie and Perth!
But in the interest of being helpful to someone who is usually very much right on the money, with extremely well researched posts, 99.99% of the time; I'll give you the maths formula you actually need to work out your transmission line losses.
i.e., 0.6 times 120 divided by 100 = 0.72%!
I hope you find that helpful, and I haven't left too much egg on your face, one of your greatest admirers; and with all due respect, Rhrosty.