Hi Syoskya,

"while it’s true that Germany’s pursuit of renewable energy has led to higher energy costs, the reverse will almost certainly be the case in the not-too-distant future."

Based on what other than the glossy brochure claims of the renewable energy industry? France's nuclear infrastructure was built in 15 years, starting in the early 1970's. Over the past 15 years, Germany has achieved very little with wind and solar: The problem of integrating the chaotic power output without collapsing the supply grid is yet to be resolved, let alone the very costly challenge of making wind and solar dispatchable.

"Furthermore, your statement about "the biggest lie" overlooks the decreasing cost of solar energy. IRENA reports that the global average cost of solar energy has dropped by 89% since 2010 and is projected to continue declining. This dramatic cost reduction makes solar energy increasingly competitive with other generation sources."

You don't seem to appreciate the irrelevance and inherent dishonesty of that statement. The cost of dispatchable energy from nuclear power facilities over their lifetime is similar to that of non-dispatchable wind and solar. Dispatchable wind and solar is many times the cost. The reason you see claims of wind and solar being cheaper is because of the many dishonest metrics used in the calculations, including not making a distinction between dispatchable and non-dispatchable energy. Here is a link to a table of life time energy costs by source. Note that this real world data supports my claim that dispatchable nuclear energy costs are similar to non-dispatchable wind and solar energy costs.

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculator

"Clearly this is a very emotional topic for you."

Australians are suffering high energy prices because of the irrational rantings of climate catastrophists and anti-nuclear nut jobs. The reason that you are seeing so many countries adopting nuclear is because it has proven a viable option for providing dispatchable energy. To this end wind and solar have been a failure.

Fester,

While Germany's energy costs have increased in recent years, attributing this solely to their renewable energy pursuit is an oversimplification. Other factors like grid modernisation costs, regulatory changes, and fossil fuel price fluctuations also contribute to the equation.

While Germany faces challenges integrating variable renewables, it's important to recognise that they are actively developing solutions. They are investing heavily in grid modernisation, storage technologies, and demand-side management strategies. These efforts, alongside technological advancements, are expected to improve the integration of renewables over time.

Your claim that dispatchable wind and solar are "many times the cost" of other sources needs to be examined more closely. While it's true that integrating and making renewables dispatchable adds additional costs, the cost differential is narrowing rapidly.

The LCOE analysis shows that the cost of dispatchable renewable energy is rapidly approaching that of nuclear power. For instance, in the United States, the LCOE for onshore wind with four hours of storage is estimated at $47/MWh, while nuclear power is at $48/MWh.

Moreover, the cost comparison should consider the full life cycle of each energy source, including decommissioning costs. Nuclear power plants carry significant decommissioning liabilities that can be substantial and long-lasting.

The table you provided should be interpreted with caution. LCOE is a complex metric, and different methodologies can lead to variations in results. Additionally, comparing costs based solely on LCOE doesn't capture all the relevant factors.

Claiming all metrics regarding renewable energy costs are "dishonest" is a broad and unsubstantiated statement. Many reputable organisations, including IRENA and the IEA, provide comprehensive data on energy costs, considering various factors and methodologies.

The energy landscape is evolving rapidly, and both renewable and nuclear energy have important roles to play in a sustainable future. Engaging in honest and constructive discussions based on accurate data and diverse perspectives is crucial for making informed decisions about the future of energy generation. Focusing on absolutes and making generalisations, on the other hand, will not get us anywhere.

You are so right Graham when you say "A sensible person would slow down the implementation of renewables" & they should do it regardless of storage being possible. But of course if there are any sensible persons in the current government they are keeping very quiet, with their heads right down. To speak up would be instant death.

Of course there not too many on the opposition benches either, so I suppose only those of us who live to a very ripe old age, & survive the current catastrophe plan, will ever see anything intelligent thinking come out of an Oz government on power generation.

Hi Syokska,

"Claiming all metrics regarding renewable energy costs are "dishonest" is a broad and unsubstantiated statement."

Indeed, but I claim that the metrics are used selectively to make renewable energy look cheap when the reality is much higher energy prices for consumers. That is at best misleading and at worst dishonest. You demonstrate the point with this remark:

"The LCOE analysis shows that the cost of dispatchable renewable energy is rapidly approaching that of nuclear power. For instance, in the United States, the LCOE for onshore wind with four hours of storage is estimated at $47/MWh, while nuclear power is at $48/MWh."

Four hours of storage for a technology with an average capacity factor of less than 30% is far short of being dispatchable energy, yet your statement uses such metrics to suggest wind energy to be cheaper than nuclear. That I find misleading and probably dishonest.

"The table you provided should be interpreted with caution. LCOE is a complex metric, and different methodologies can lead to variations in results. Additionally, comparing costs based solely on LCOE doesn't capture all the relevant factors."

What I take from the data is that if you develop nuclear power you end up with a dispatchable power supply that is comparable in cost with non-dispatchable wind and solar. The French discovered this with their 1970s foray into nuclear energy. They stopped at about 50 reactors in 1990 (170 reactors were planned) because their entire energy demand was being met with only 60% of the generating capacity. For Australia I see an opportunity to foster economic development with nuclear energy as opposed to the current destruction of industry with high cost renewable energy. France exports 3 billion Euros of energy annually, compared with Germany paying 300 million Euros annually in emissions fines. French citizens pay 40% less for their electricity than Germans.

"Engaging in honest and constructive discussions based on accurate data and diverse perspectives is crucial for making informed decisions about the future of energy generation."

Given your numerous misleading statements thus far I think that good advice for yourself.

Fester,

I agree that presenting dispatchable wind energy with limited storage capacity as comparable to nuclear power can be misleading. My only point (delivered clumsily) was that while dispatchable wind shows promise in terms of cost competitiveness, a more comprehensive analysis is needed to compare it fairly with nuclear power and other energy sources.

Four points regarding your thoughts on LCOE:

1. LCOE is a comprehensive metric designed to compare the lifetime costs of different electricity generation methods. However, these comparisons must account for diverse factors like capital, operational, and maintenance costs, as well as facility lifespan.

2. Suggesting that nuclear power provides a dispatchable, cost-comparable alternative to variable renewables like wind and solar is an oversimplification. Nuclear energy offers consistent output and dispatchability but comes with significant capital costs, lengthy construction times, and concerns about safety and waste disposal. Conversely, renewable energy costs have dropped markedly, and advances in energy storage and grid management are addressing their variability.

3. France's heavy investment in nuclear energy in the 1970s was influenced by its lack of fossil fuels and the era's geopolitical landscape. The halt at 50 reactors, despite initial plans for 170, reflects considerations beyond mere demand fulfilment, such as cost, over-reliance concerns, and changing energy technologies. Directly comparing France and Germany overlooks the distinct motivations behind their energy policies. Germany's Energiewende focuses on renewables for environmental and safety reasons, accepting short-term costs like higher electricity prices and emissions fines for a long-term sustainable goal.

4. In Australia, energy policy must consider its unique resources and potential for solar and wind energy. While nuclear could offer a stable supply, factors like high initial investment, construction duration, public opposition, and the availability of cheaper renewable options are crucial. The view that renewables are detrimental to industry overlooks their potential to spur economic growth, job creation, and technological innovation.

While nuclear power has its advantages, particularly in terms of steady energy output, it isn't categorically superior to renewables. A balanced energy policy should weigh the pros and cons of each source, considering environmental impacts, economic viability, and technological progress.

Thanks Fester, Hasbeen, VK3AUU, Indyvidual, Alan B, Graham Young- Kudos.