Dutton’s plan to nuke Australia’s renewable energy transition explained in full, page-195

  1. 1,190 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 860
    I don't have a problem with nuclear per se provided that it is not in my back yard - actually it should be a couple of hundred km east of me (prevailing winds blow eastwards) - maybe a good spot would be on the barrier reef? frown.png

    Also it should not be funded by the govt because you can bet your nuts that a few years later the govt will sell them for a song to get a couple of bucks to boost the budget, (it would be interesting to see who puts their hand up to do it.)

    but in addition there are these other considerations:

    1: by 2040 the population will be 23% more at current 1.2% growth rate. That means that the electricity supply must be increased by that much if people continue consuming at the current rate (but we know that people are getting wealthier and so they will consume - and waste - more)

    2: also by then some coal power stations will reach the end of their life. The govt will probably beg the operators to keep them going a little longer, and reward them handsomely to keep the price of electricity stable (but the budget will take the hit)

    3: meanwhile people are putting solar on their roof - 75% of dwellings in Australia are houses - so most people will have the ability to have near free electricity. (Making the economics of power plants worse).

    4: home batteries are becoming cheaper, and more people buying electric cars - V2G (or V2X) technologies improving, and will result in many people being independent of the grid, or even making money from it

    5: an argument often put about excess domestic solar during the day, and charging the homeowner - quite frankly I don't understand why it can't be taken up by heat sinks - eg distillation or desalination plants - they would be able to run for near zero cost,
    ===
    People asked why most industrialised countries have nuclear?
    - because they had no choice - solar & wind was not available, and most places for hydro had already been utilised.

    Why not Australia?
    - because coal is abundant, and now we have plenty of gas too
    - Howard considered nuclear and rejected it. But did nothing to fix the looming crisis - until the current govt nobody did anything - the libs were in power most of the time, so it is funny seeing them complain about the cost of electricity.

 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.