WTF?

ttbn states: "how "cheap" wind and solar is refers only to a period, way into the future."

AEMO documents show that the 2024 estimated levelised costs of electricity is $102 per MWh for coal, $70 per MWh for wind and $43 for solar. That's last year not some point in the future.

Now AEMO uses the CSIRO calculations and the CSIRO shows a range of values while AEMO summarises this into one number.

CSIRO in their final 2024-25 GenCost report states: ""The report found renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation technology, while nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) are the most costly."

ttbn seems to be getting a little emotional again. It's time to be reminded again ttbn - the facts don't care about your feelings.

Hi WTF,

You are not reading between the lines, sure the very first visible line says; "The report found renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation technology, while nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) are the most costly." Now that's very ambiguous, if you read the invisible line it says, just the opposite. has that cleared it up for you, Fester understands it that way.

Hello Paul,
Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Just to clear things up for the pedantic. That first line appears on the introductory webpage for the report. But the findings are repeated throughout the report so it is almost impossible not to get the message.

Now Fester would have us view the CIS analysis on the findings. Essentially a push-for-nuclear organisation.

I for one would not discount an energy future that included nuclear but that is not what this thread is about. Plenty has been said about the cost and logistics about nuclear on OLO over the last few weeks so maybe Fester could start his own thread if he is still confused.

But Fester did get this correct when he said "but current costs, like the AEMO data I linked, are precise."

And once more just in case AEMO states:"The report found renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation technology, while nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) are the most costly."

ttbn- "black coal produces the cheapest power at $111 per kW hour"

Answer- No surprise to me. Kero and petrol (7-9 Carbon atoms per molecule) are also very efficient because of their high energy density also carbon dominant organic chemicals. Ethanol also has a relatively high energy density (2 carbon atoms per molecule) and it can be produced by plant sources. These chemicals with long carbon chains seem to be correlated with high energy density. I find myself referring to the Energy Density Table by Wikipedia a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density_Extended_Reference_Table

Diamonds appear to have an extremely high energy density due to it's packed carbon crystaline structure- not that most people would want to burn diamonds. Pure silicon having a similar allotope is probably comparable.

From Search Assist AI

Energy Density Comparison

The energy density of diamond combustion can be compared to other carbon-based materials. Here’s a table summarizing the energy density of diamond and other common fuels:
Material Energy Density (kJ/mol)
Diamond 397.3
Coal ~24.0
Gasoline ~31.5
Conditions for Burning

Ignition Temperature: Diamonds require a high ignition temperature of about 900 °C (1650 °F) to burn in air.
Pressure: The combustion occurs at atmospheric pressure.

Summary

Burning diamond is a high-energy process, releasing more energy per mole than many common fuels. However, it requires specific conditions, including high temperatures and sufficient oxygen, to initiate and sustain the combustion.

If we burned diamonds rather than coal the volume of the transport could be 10x smaller, but for a similar weight, and cheaper transport (because of wind resistance and other factors). But our engines would need to be redesigned to handle the different fuel.

Kudos Kid and ttbn

You pair are real wack jobs. the debate is over, wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy production, taking all factors into consideration, that's indisputable. All you old fossils are doing is pissing in the wind, arguing from your ideological view point, believing all this renewable nonsense is some Marxist conspiracy, when all it is, is a scientific fact.