Nuclear Power Related Media Thread, page-5191

Thanks - there are also other issues with the battery solution such as the cost of extended grid to connect them (and nearby renewables) to population centres (they are highly unlikely to be co-located) and the necessary frequency stabilization (e.g synchronous condensers) to provide "inertia" for frequency/voltage stability and the risk of a fire.

An analogy of this issue the purchase of a house to live in - you can either rent of purchase. Over the life of a mortgage it may actually be cheaper to rent than to buy (particularly since the landlord pays many of the bills (e.g water, rates, strata fees etc)) but after 15 years you still have carry on paying rent and have no "equity". Alternatively if you buy (and pay the landlord's bills) after the mortgage has been repaid you have the "equity" of the house. It's similar for renewables - after 15 years you are left with a remediation issue - the asset is "clapped out" but if you have a nuclear power station then you still have an asset with 45 years to 65 year life - I know which I would prefer. Also batteries do NOT generate a watt of power - NPP's generate Gwatts

What many do not recognize (see HERE) is that the February 2021 in Texas is estimated to have cost US$195Bn and 57 deaths (about the same as Chernobyl) - just think of the additional penalty for blackout Bowen's renewables only project - Snowy 2 is just the start!