• 7 Posts
  • 32 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle

  • Just one example of the lies and misinformation out there:

    Smart people I know believe that we have to go Nuclear because it’s the only green way to achieve baseload.

    When press on what baseload is, they seem to think it’s the minimum amount of power needed to keep the grid up.

    Which for anyone listening in, is backwards, baseload is actually the minimum amount of load required because it’s un-economical to spin old coal burners down. That’s why people used to heat their water at night on the cheap, because the power HAD to go somewhere.

    And these are smart people, just disinterested in the how and why of electricity generation.
    They flick a switch, the lights come on.
    Every 3 months they pay a bill and tut-tut about how expensive it is now “because of the green obsession”.


  • Mountaineer@aussie.zonetoMemes@lemmy.mlDear iPhone users:
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

    Funnily enough, I’ve got a few friends who are long time iPhone users, who actually point this stuff out themselves:

    “OMG! Have you seen the eye watering price of the new one?”
    “Yay, I finally get stuff you’ve had for years.”

    Neither party would ever consider anything else, and they both buy the new model every year. 🤷

    At this point I admit that my reasons for choosing Android all those years ago no longer exist or matter, but I can’t imagine changing ecosystem either.























  • So 450 x 1.8 = $810B

    (I’m assuming I haven’t made a mistake about the 14 hours of storage and the converting between GW and GWh).

    You have, that $1.8B would get 14GWh, not 1.
    So 450 / 14 = 32.2
    32.2 * 1.8 = $57.96B

    These are all back of the envelope numbers of course, but 58 is ~ 14 times less than 810.

    Would their seven proposed nuclear stations be cheaper than $810 Billion?

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-22/nuclear-power-double-the-cost-of-renewables/103868728

    CSIRO has cranked these numbers out in a whole bunch of configurations.

    In short: Australia’s leading scientific organisation found it would cost at least $8.5 billion to build a large-scale nuclear power plant in the country.

    8.5 * 7 = $59.5B

    So it’s within the ballpark to build 7 nuclear powerplants, compared to 33 (more likely less but bigger) off river pumped hydro locations.

    Which don’t cost as much to run, have no “scary” nuclear and can be operable much sooner, integrating with the existing infrastructure (instead of replacing it, as Nuclear effectively would have to).

    If we build even one Nuclear power plant, we’re going to see continuing solar and wind curtailment, exactly like they do with coal right now - which will effectively set an expensive floor on power prices.

    Nuclear isn’t happening if we follow the science, the money and the NIMBY sentiment.

    Edit to add:
    The BIGGEST difference in my mind is where the money will come from.
    No financial institution will touch Nuclear, it would have to be tax dollars.
    Whilst private companies are always angling for government subsidy, they are also clamouring to invest in this themselves.

    A quick google search gives me a private example that is projected to come online this year: https://genexpower.com.au/250mw-kidston-pumped-storage-hydro-project/

    It’s only 2GWh, but it’s going to start contributing to the end of coal by the end of this year, which ignoring the environmental benefit, is going to reduce wholesale power prices.

    Waiting for Nuclear will make power prices worse, as the interim calls for continuing to run the coal and gas, which isn’t going to make it 15 years, so new coal (or more likely a buttload more gas) will have to be built.
    Which is going to RAISE prices, as it’s no longer just running costs on paid off installations, it’s repaying loans on new constructions.