this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
64 points (94.4% liked)

Australia

3620 readers
120 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
64
Let's chat about these SEVEN nuclear power plants the LNP want to build ... (www.youtube.com)
submitted 5 months ago by Sarsaparilla@aussie.zone to c/australia@aussie.zone
63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The press conference is currently still live so this was the best short video I could find on the topic.

To begin, I'm absolutely against this proposal, but I want to see a discussion - hopefully a constructive one - between Aussies (comments are always turned off for Australian news on YT) to gauge some idea of how people generally feel about the idea.

Fire off.

(page 2) 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bigschnitz@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Existing nuclear tech is dramatically more expensive than every competing low carbon power generation alternative and will never have any place in Australia.

Future nuclear tech (be it fission or fusion) may be a different story, but our power plants are at end of life so we need new power gen now, the world is dying so we need carbon neutral now.

We can't sideline this for 20 years to wait and see what happens, the strategy should be the roll out renewables to the point where the grid doesn't need any major changes. When we hit the point where the grid does need big investment, reassess available alternatives. If nothing has changed, roll out the grid changes and more renewables or if fusion drilling geotehermal or nuclear or whatever has come viable work it out then.

[–] badcommandorfilename@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Have a look at this breakdown of the NEM.

The black parts are coal. The blue bars are gas.

[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 0 points 5 months ago (7 children)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EsBiC9HjyQ

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee -3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Nuclear is fucking awsome and had the ability to fix our energy issues. There is strong evidance that the oil corporations are actually responsible for manufacturing nuclear fear narrative because it poses an actually economically viable alternative.

Thats not to mention the CSIRO who access tally forgot to include the most economically viable nuclear energy method of there analysis of "all" energy production methods. So much for independence.

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In 3 years, solar panel cost has mostly dropped in half (you can buy a 10kw system for the same as 6.6 a few years ago). Battery cost dropped 25% over the past year.

Nuclear can't dispatch any power (incrementally or otherwise), until its fully built. Nuclear is also expensive power, and it can't be dispatched as quickly or cheaply as solar/batteries (so the nuclear power station will remain offline). Don't forget that generators need to sync to the grid fully, and can even lose sync and take hours to come back online (which happened to Loy Yang recently, and there were huge blackouts in victoria). When more despatchable power is needed, batteries will win EVERY time (because its cheap and instant).

Its reasonable to think that even 40kwh batteries will be cheaper and safer than even 10kwh batteries too and much higher efficiency solar panels (and possibly solar windows), so people will get off the grid and can have days of solar eclipse too.

Battery capacity is limited by cost still.. It won't be in the future (don't forget, residential is about $ per kwh, NOT density)

One thing that is also misunderstood, is that panels still also produce power when its cloudy too.. Solar panel efficiency in 10 years will increase rapidly, and this will only improve..

Nuclear is like an average olympic athlete who isn't allowed to start a race for 10 years. Sure it looks competitive now, but there are so many other athletes around, that by the time Nuclear gets to the starting line, the other athletes will be finishing.

[–] stepchook@mastodon.au 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

So you propose building a reactor that doesn't have anything actually working beyond demonstration reactors yet?

It still has many of the same issues coal and gas has:

  1. Its still centralised. The power companies can still rip us off.
  2. Solar is already cheap and already only takes 4 years to pay off. The Government would have to subsidise the power during the construction period to prevent people moving to solar. And, Solar is effectively free after it has been installed
  3. It STILL needs instantly dispatchable power. You can't just turn on a generator. You need to spin it up to the correct speed, and it needs to be in the same phase. If its out of phase, the generator jumps forward or backwards and damages itself.. Safety circuits will kick in. Loy Yang's kicked in during the storms. Nuclear will likely have the same issue.
  4. It doesn't solve the unreliable power in Rural areas. Whereas, solar, wind and batteries can because they can effectively treat it more like a "microgrid", with less central points of failure.. ie, instead of centralising the batteries, scatter them in various areas.
  5. Whilst there is reduced radiation, and its cleaner than Coal, you STILL have radioctive byproducts that will last ages. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how well they're stored, there is always a risk they'll end up in the water table and not secure and it will be expected that a future generation will likely need to use excess energy to convert the radioactive materials to non-radioactive (somehow)

The only real problem it solves is that its more reliable than solar, and cleaner than coal. But.. In two and a half years, solar panel efficiency also increased by 5%. So, in 10 years, that could be a 20% efficiency increase too.. And in 6 years, the cost halved.

In the unlikely case the thorium plant does need to be shut down (natural disaster as an example, similar to Fukashima), we're basically screwed. Microgrid's wouldn't have this trouble.. Also, it basically requires that we just do nothing about the pollution for 10-20 years whilst they're building it, or the extra power requirements we'll need to transition to non-fossil fuel cars.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›