Hi Syoksya,

"So, 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."

Not when you consider system lcoe, a concept which prompts little or no discussion from CSIRO and AEMO, and silence from the renewable energy industry. The inevitable conclusion is that the more you use wind and solar, the more expensive your energy becomes due to the extra infrastructure required to integrate these intermittent supply sources. For example, some studies suggest that the price of wind energy more than triples at 90% supply.

"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."

Again, real world data suggests otherwise. Most nuclear power plants had a planned life of 40 years. That life has been exceeded by many, some increasing their power output by over 30%, and the belief is now that service lives of over a century are possible. This greatly improves their economics, which is why older plants produce dispatchable energy at a cost lower than non-dispatchable wind and solar. In contrast, many wind and solar projects have failed miserably. The tracked solar plant at Windorah was to last 25 years and save heaps of diesel. It under-performed due to frequent breakdowns and was shut down less than 15 years after it was commissioned. I'd also point out that nuclear technology is advancing as well, and China is now building nuclear power plants for $2500 US per kw (compare this with CSIRO's $15000 per kw estimate), and there is speculation that design improvements could further reduce costs to $2000 per kw.

Yes, I understand that with many hundreds of billions of dollars at stake the renewable energy industry wants to paint a rosy picture to protect their profits, but Australians will have to live with the economic disaster when renewable energy fails.

Fester,

The assertion that renewable energy invariably becomes more expensive with increased use due to infrastructure for integration is a simplification. While it's true that integrating intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar can involve additional costs for storage and grid management, this doesn't necessarily mean a linear increase in overall costs. The cost of renewables has been decreasing rapidly, and improvements in technology, including more efficient and cheaper storage solutions, are expected to continue reducing these integration costs.

The claim that many nuclear plants have extended their operating life and increased their output is correct, but it doesn't universally apply to all nuclear facilities. Each plant's ability to extend its operational life safely and economically depends on its design, maintenance, and regulatory environment. Furthermore, while some older nuclear plants may produce energy at a cost lower than new renewable installations, this doesn't consider the full lifecycle costs, including decommissioning and waste management, which can be substantial.

The reference to specific failures in renewable energy projects, such as the Windorah solar plant, should be viewed in the broader context of technological development. All forms of energy production have faced challenges and failures, especially in the early stages of technology deployment. Highlighting isolated failures in renewable projects without acknowledging their overall success and rapid improvement can be misleading.

While it's true that there have been advancements in nuclear technology, including more cost-effective construction in some countries like China, these examples might not be universally replicable due to different regulatory environments, labour costs, and safety standards. Additionally, the lower cost estimates for new nuclear builds should be critically examined for their comprehensiveness, including factors like long-term waste management and decommissioning costs.

While it's fair to acknowledge that there might be biases in the renewable energy industry, it's equally important to recognise that this is not unique to renewables. All energy industries, including fossil fuels and nuclear, have their biases and interests, so it's essential to rely on a broad spectrum of scientific research and economic analysis rather than industry statements alone to form a balanced view.

Syoksya
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.

Au Contraire. The thorium powered units being developed by Copenhagen Atomics overcomes all those problems. Cost is low, construction uses readily obtainable sub units, safety is built in, doesn't rely on external pumps or power, waste is minimal, only short life of 300 years and the whole process can use up radioactive waste from old plants.

Hi Syoksya,

"The assertion that renewable energy invariably becomes more expensive with increased use due to infrastructure for integration is a simplification"

Unfortunately it is a fact. While solar might get cheaper (wind seems to to have its bottom), there are physical constraints that are fixed, and those constraints mean that nuclear is a far cheaper option and probably always will be, especially given the long service life of power plants.

"The cost of renewables has been decreasing rapidly, and improvements in technology, including more efficient and cheaper storage solutions, are expected to continue reducing these integration costs."

That statement is untrue as wind and solar are still being used undispatchably, so building batteries and pumped hydro increases cost. On the pumped hydro issue, Snowy 2.0 has had massive cost overruns, and Walpole pumped hydro did not proceed for reasons that have been kept secret from the plebs (now why is that do you think?).

" All forms of energy production have faced challenges and failures, especially in the early stages of technology deployment."

Exactly, and that is why historical data is gold and allows the Chinese to build safer and cheaper nuclear power, and it means that Australia can use proven and predictable nuclear instead of unproven and more expensive renewables.

"While it's true that there have been advancements in nuclear technology, including more cost-effective construction in some countries like China, these examples might not be universally replicable due to different regulatory environments, labour costs, and safety standards."

True, costs would likely be higher in Australia, but we would have proven technology with a small environmental footprint and multiple times the service life of wind and solar. That is what makes it better in the long run.

Fester,

You emphasised the inevitable increase in costs due to the physical constraints of renewable energy, particularly when compared to nuclear energy. While your point on the long service life of nuclear plants is taken, it again overlooks the rapid advancements and cost reductions in renewable technologies. The decreasing costs of solar and wind, driven by technological improvements and economies of scale, are critical factors here. Additionally, a comprehensive cost comparison should also consider the environmental impacts and full lifecycle costs of nuclear energy.

Your argument that storage solutions like batteries and pumped hydro inherently increase the cost of renewable energy deployment presents a limited view. While projects like Snowy 2.0 have faced challenges, they are not universally representative of the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of all renewable projects. You are again generalising based on specific instances, and the unfounded suggestions of secrecy or hidden agendas seems to detract from the objectivity required in such a discussion.

You rightly point out the value of historical data, especially in the context of nuclear power. However, this perspective might be underestimating the capacity of renewable technologies to evolve and overcome initial hurdles. The history of technological development in energy sectors, including nuclear, suggests that initial challenges are part and parcel of innovation and improvement.

While you acknowledge the potential for higher costs in nuclear energy deployment in Australia, you advocate for its benefits based on proven technology and a smaller environmental footprint. As I've mentioned before, it's important to recognise that the applicability of nuclear energy varies greatly depending on local contexts, such as regulatory environments and public acceptance. Additionally, the management of nuclear waste and inherent risks are significant factors that need equal consideration.

While your arguments raise some valid points, but continue to lack a more nuanced approach that considers both the potential and the challenges of renewable and nuclear energies is needed and would lead to a more balanced understanding. It’s essential in such debates to maintain objectivity and avoid oversimplifying complex issues.

Hi Syoksya,

I agree that renewable solar is getting cheaper, but there are inherent problems with intermittent power sources when making them dispatchable. One is the duplication you need to cope with the variability. Another is storage capacity. It is an optimisation problem, but I believe that you need around eight times your average demand in generating capacity, which doubles the cost. On top of this you need storage, perhaps a number of days, else you need generating capacity from other sources that would sit idle if not needed. It is an incredibly complicated endeavour and likely extremely costly. Note that the energy from a nuclear power plant after several decades is comparable to the cost of non-dispatchable wind and solar. So why bother with such a pointless endeavour?

As for "unfounded suggestions of secrecy", you can read about it here:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-26/wa-government-abandons-pumped-hydro-plans-south-west/103026522

And nuclear waste is a much hyped issue by the anti-nuclear crowd. A 1gw reactor will produce about a cubic metre of waste per year, of which less than 40 litres is high level waste. Comparing this with all the toxic waste from decommissioned renewable energy, I'd say it is a very small problem. Also, future advances in nuclear technology could see the high level waste reprocessed and used as fuel, obviating the problem. You seem to believe that great advances are possible for renewable energy (and don't mention the toxic waste issue), yet would you think that such advances aren't possible for nuclear?

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx

I really can't understand how you can support a generating system when you cannot define its parameters and the current cost of non-dispatchable wind and solar is similar to that of long life dispatchable nuclear. Better the devil you know.