"There is no costings because work on the first 300 MwH reactor has been abandoned as buyers have pulled out because of rising costs.
Who would buy an untested machine any way. I mean for years."

doog,

That statement makes no sense and likely came from an ALP ideas session. There are nearly ninety proposals for smrs around the world. There are five in operation, six being constructed (Natrium and Kairos have recently started construction), and fifteen are close to construction. That the CSIRO and you only consider one failure (Nuscale) is hardly a surprise. ANSTO makes mention of the XE-100.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors

If the nuclear ban were removed I would suggest that there would be private sector interest in building and operating conventional nuclear reactors. Unlike wind and solar, nuclear is 24/7 power, so nuclear suppliers can offer long term supply agreements which are necessary for project financing. The reason for the difference is that wind and solar are spot price dependent as they are intermittent. With supply saturation the spot price is effectively zero, which explains the loss of investment in new wind and solar despite the annual multi-billion dollar taxpayer subsidies.

Experts in science and technology have more to offer than political cults and renewable energy con artists.

AEMO reveals that the East Coast electricity grid relied more on coal in this June quarter than it did in the same period in 2022.

The speed of the renewable energy roll-out has been “sluggish, slow and anaemic”. Investment in wind and solar has slowed to a trickle. Demand for rooftop solar has also slowed.

Apparently, the renewables in the system have to increase by 160% by 2030 to meet the government target; rooftop panels by 70%. But “social licence” is getting harder to obtain.

And, as already discovered in Europe, the dream is “colliding with reality”.

All this when AEMO is forecasting that demand for electricity will rise by 16% by 2030, by half that again by 2050.

mhaze,

It’s important to recognise that data can be presented in ways that support a particular narrative, which is why the context of Climate Depot’s denialist stance matters so much.

The link from Climate Depot shows a correlation between higher renewable adoption and higher electricity prices, but correlation isn’t causation. In places like Germany and Denmark, high electricity prices are influenced by a range of factors, including taxes, levies, and specific policy choices, not just the cost of renewables. So while it may look like more renewables lead to higher costs, it’s really the broader policy environment that’s at play.

Regarding the long-term promise of renewables, I understand the scepticism, especially given the initial costs. But we’re already seeing costs come down as technology improves and systems adapt. This transition isn’t about instant results; it’s about setting up a sustainable energy future that balances environmental, economic, and social needs.

As for Climate Depot’s data, it’s not so much about whether the numbers are wrong but about how they’re used. Selective data presentation can lead to misleading conclusions, which is why I’m cautious about relying solely on such sources. Independent studies often show a more nuanced picture, where the relationship between renewables and electricity prices is influenced by multiple factors, not just the presence of renewables alone.

In the bigger picture, renewables bring long-term benefits that go beyond immediate costs. Yes, the transition is challenging, but the alternatives (i.e. continuing with fossil fuels and their hidden costs) are far more problematic in the long run.

Fester,

The idea that introducing the cheapest generation sources into the grid is making electricity more expensive is still not a paradox, but stems from a misunderstanding of the factors at play during this transition period.

Wind and solar, when viewed in terms of marginal costs, are indeed among the cheapest sources of electricity. However, the short-term reality has been that integrating these renewables has required substantial upfront investments. These costs include not just building the infrastructure but also upgrading the grid and developing storage solutions to handle the variability of renewable energy. This has led to higher electricity prices in the short term, which I understand can feel like a broken promise.

Yes, SA has embraced wind and solar more than other parts of Australia, and yes, its electricity prices are higher. But those higher prices aren’t solely due to the presence of renewables. South Australia’s market structure, its reliance on gas for backup power, and its limited interconnection with other states have all contributed to the higher costs. This isn’t to say that the transition hasn’t been challenging, but it’s a mistake to pin the blame solely on renewables without considering the broader context.

The constant assurance that cheaper prices are just around the corner, only to face continued delays and rising costs, is frustrating. However, I see this more as a long-term investment rather than a scam. The initial costs are high, but as technology improves and systems adapt, the potential for renewables to provide cheaper, cleaner power is real. We’re already seeing cost declines in renewable technologies, and as storage and grid management solutions continue to advance, the benefits should become more apparent.

The environmental concerns you raise are also valid. The impact of renewable energy projects on wildlife and natural landscapes is a significant issue that needs to be taken seriously. However, we must also weigh these concerns against the ongoing environmental damage caused by fossil fuels. The key is to find a balance where we can transition to cleaner energy in a way that minimises harm to the environment.

Our Far Left PM has put a ban on the Jabiluka uranium mine on behalf of 37 members of the so-called Mirrar clan - better described as a family group.

That's the nutjob in charge of Australia's economy and future.

Fortunately, there will be court challenges to his lunacy, and commonse might prevail.

Fester

Removal of the Albanese Labor, not ventilation stacks, is the best idea.

Albanese and Bowen are like children. They cover their ears and eyes, and kid themselves that what has been proved - that sun and wind will not work - overseas doesn't apply in Ockerville.

Just the loss of a very expensive Swedish ship and load of cars after one of these Tonka Toys went up in flames should have been enough warning even for for moronic Ockers punting for unreliables. But no, they have forgotten that incident and seem to have slept through all the other examples of dangerous, economically ruining, regular examples of the failure of their dream, now a nightmare.