Share
20,977 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 33
clock Created with Sketch.
04/07/24
12:06
Share
Originally posted by acorn:
↑
Finally got a bit of time to have a quick squiz at that document . Clearly you haven't read it . l don't think the Dud or OBrien has either. The funniest part is that in the abstract on page 5 of the 127 page document it says : " Nuclear replacement designs can have alower capacity size because nuclear power plants run at higher capacity factorsthan coal power plants. " The fundamental problem for baseload of any kind is that it's output capacity is compromised by competition with renewables . A baseload plant may be capable of running 90% of the time but because renewables can supply cheaper electricity for part of the day, it is not practical for them to run for 90% of the time. i.e. they would be running at a loss for part of the day . A period that increases every year making baseload less and less economic. At the moment in Australia baseload is running at around 60% hence the reason baseload is going broke. So the study is fundamentally flawed from the start . Then it gets worse. Because it is a US study it is relying on US factors. Particularly that they have an established nuclear industry full of trained nuclear workers. Something that we don't have here. The study refers to the sites as " stranded assets " . ln other words they are talking about sites that they get or free or it is the companies that are looking to repurpose a power station they already own . They don't have to fight a state to change legislation or compulsory aquire a plant at huge cost . The cost of nuclear waste or site repatriation isn't included. Some of the references go back to 2013. An eternity in today's technology terms. One of its references is NuScale . ROFL. ln fact it does a lot of talking about SMRs . You know, the ones that don't exist . So in a quick summary of the first 30 pages, it seems the document is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to Australia. The really funny thing is that we have a study that is much more applicable to Australia . Produced in Australia by Australian professionals using Australian data . lt's called the CSlRO GenCost report.
Expand
"...The study refers to the sites as " stranded assets " . ln other words they are talking about sites that they get or free or it is the companies that are looking to repurpose a power station they already own..." Just highlighting you have a distinct lack of commercial acumen, a stranded asset would be an EOL coal plant, stranded asset does not assign ownership. Sorry to point out the basics. No wonder you didnt understand the report, its gone flying over your head