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

Nuclear to cost $17b and twice as expensive as renewable energy, page-9

First 9 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
johngalt815

4,643 Posts.

10

22/05/24

11:48

Post #: 73951930
Share

Originally posted by cowcockie: ↑

Doesn’t matter what it costs if it provides 24/7 power for at least 50 years.
Zero carbon to worry the lovelies.
No wind turbine blades to have to bury after 15 years.
No solar panels to dispose of after 20 years.
No need for massive transmission lines destroying farmland to go ahead. They utilise existing infrastructure.
Snowy will cost 20 billion if it is ever completed. Which I seriously doubt.

Expand

Wind turbines and solar panels can be recycled and reused.

Nucleae waste cannot. Furthermore, it is hazardous.
5 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

AL8

From the Floor question: "What is the focus of AL8 and how is management going to attract shareholders to the registry?" | Alderan Resources

SXG

From the Floor question: "Could gold be manufactured in a lab like diamonds?"

CC9

The USA's dominance requires a domestic lithium supply chain. Chariot stands to benefit

FEX

From the Floor question: "When will FEX start using rail to augment & de-risk their haulage solution?" | Fenix Resources

Chris Judd's Talk Ya Book: Tracking Life360 on a journey to the stars

There are more pages in this discussion • 223 more messages in this thread...

First 9 Last

SPONSORED BY