Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

That's why the French linked their nuclear energy production to...

First 2 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Tarvold

18,879 Posts.

1208

12/04/24

11:07

Post #: 73311398
Share

Originally posted by acorn: ↑

Uh oh.

" Due to its inability to switch on and off and ramp below 50%, nuclear has to continue to generate even when much lower cost RE is available and has to be spilled (See Figure 2). This is the major issue that makes nuclear unsuitable for integration with RE.

‘Nuclear with Existing RE’, (scenario 5 in Table 1) is the other ‘less implausible’ scenario. RE build is curtailed in 2027 and 3900 MW of nuclear would be completed after 2040. This would provide electricity at $203/ MWh, which is 59% higher the RE scenario 1.

Scenarios 6 and 7 – ‘Nuclear and natural gas’ and ‘Nuclear only’ – are included for cost comparison only. They could never be implemented as the electricity cost is exorbitant – 80% and 115% respectively higher than the RE equivalent scenarios. "

https://reneweconomy.com.au/coalition-nuclear-plan-would-force-consumers-to-wait-20-years-longer-for-30-higher-electricity-bills/

Expand

That's why the French linked their nuclear energy production to the UK, to sell their excess power that wasn't required in Europe at low demand points.

If Australia invested in a national power grid & even a link to Singapore/NZ/Malaysia etc it wouldn't be an issue but again the payback wouldn't be there.

Nuclear in Australia is a pipedream, Australia is about 40 years too late to start a nuclear industry.
8 Upvote

Reply

There are more pages in this discussion • 38 more messages in this thread...

First 2 Last