Max, that csiro article to which you pointed us is no longer available.

Hi Bazz,
well spotted.

Try here:
http://publications.csiro.au/publications/publication/PIcsiro:EP2022-2576

Look for the PDF at:

"Full text availability
GenCost2021-22Final_20220708.pdf (pdf) (2.05MB)"

Hi Max,

This link will give you an idea of why nuclear is so cheap:

http://www.oecd-nea.org/lcoe/

I have no problem with the CSIRO, but I do wonder why the CSIRO has such a big problem with nuclear energy. Their cost projections for nuclear energy seem to be vastly inflated, which makes me wonder whether their cost modelling for 24/7 renewables are overly optimistic. Cost modelling done with great skill and integrity can be highly inaccurate, which is why I like technologies to be well tried and tested. That is the case with fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear. It is not the case for renewable energy. South Australia is at 60 to 70 percent renewable energy currently. Getting to 100% could be very challenging and expensive.

Cheers

Yeah, um, back at ya.

I'm not sure what I'm meant to make of that table - at all!

Who wrote it? Where does the data come from? How am I meant to even read it? Where is the legend? What does it do? Why is it variable - what sort of adjustments am I meant to be making?

You basically rejected CSIRO because you didn't like the conclusions.

I'm not rejecting your table - just saying I don't know WHAT it is concluding! It's very random, and likewize - some bits seem way too high, some way too low. But that's quite different to rejecting Australia's premier scientific and engineering conclusions - because you don't LIKE the conclusions!

Anyway, at least now that I'm quoting CSIRO everyone's being a bit more honest about where they are coming from.

Hi Max,

The table lists the lcoe from different sources by country. You might note that nuclear is by far the cheapest energy source. You might also note that wind and solar generation does not include the cost of storage to allow 24/7 supply. Maybe that is why the table makes no sense to you?

I don't have an issue with real world data as per the link I gave. I do take issue with cost modelling for energy generation systems that are not tried and tested. If there were working models then what could I dispute?

ANSTO has a different take on nuclear to the CSIRO. Why might that be?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWxYF5-iDBc

Max,

The article you linked was talking about worldwide pumped storage. The number of sites in Aus is severely limited as Aus is generally very flat and the greens would shoot down building 1000s of dams. The hydro dam that was planned was the Franklin dam in Tas which the greens blocked.

Also about 40-50% of the energy in pumped storage is wasted in pump, turbine and motor inefficiencies.

As an ex-power systems engineer, I find the "LCOE from a 100% renewable Australian electricity system is US$70/MWh" wildly optimistic at best.