News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1696 Post by rev » Sat Jun 22, 2024 10:37 pm

rubberman wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2024 6:54 pm
The Reserve BANK alone has $100bn of gold and foreign exchange reserves. It's easily found by googling.

Australian banks also have about 15% of assets as liquid reserves. That's a lot of money.

So, the bank analogy is valid. PeFe is absolutely correct.

I have been hearing tales of how renewables can't work from people absolutely certain of themselves for over twenty years.

Each and every prediction of renewables not working has proven wrong. Efficiency of batteries has improved way beyond predicted. Efficiency of solar panels as well. Prices of solar and wind have also reduced. This is despite repeated predictions that this is impossible.

This continuous record of being wrong hasn't deterred people from repeating themselves and making further wrong predictions over those decades... it's as if their previous wrong predictions had never happened. Shameless.

What is even worse, the increased costs we really do see, get blamed on renewables. There's this refusal to acknowledge that gas is the leading factor, and that the hundreds of millions spent on repairs to decrepit coal burners has any effect.
Lets assume you have $100k in your bank account, pick any branch, go try take that money out.
Let's make it $30k. Go try.

First and foremost, they wont give you that money on the spot. Because they don't have that money on hand, and if they do its very likely almost the majority of their cash on hand (usually around the $30k mark) so they wont release it all to just you. So the analogy is invalid.
Second, and this is a big if with that sort of money, if they agree to actually release that sort of money to you (and after grilling you on why you need to withdraw it), they'll tell you to come back another day because they have to place an order for that money. So the analogy is invalid.
Do the batteries you froth at the mouth over prevent their supply of electricity being withdrawn? Do they delay that withdrawal? No? The analogy is invalid.
Some branches will have that sort of money ordered in for repeat business clients though on specified days/weeks.

Back to ignore.

User avatar
gnrc_louis
Legendary Member!
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:04 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1697 Post by gnrc_louis » Sat Jun 22, 2024 11:00 pm

Algernon wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2024 9:14 pm
10 years into "building nuclear power plants" they will discover the solution to the transmission problem. They'll decide it's better to continue burning coal and "scrap" their "plan" to "build nuclear power plants".
I suspect this is exactly what will happen. They'll get elected and a few years into their term declare nuclear to be too expensive or slow to develop, allowing for the current status quo of coal and gas to continue.

SBD
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2708
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1698 Post by SBD » Sat Jun 22, 2024 11:11 pm

gnrc_louis wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2024 11:00 pm
Algernon wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2024 9:14 pm
10 years into "building nuclear power plants" they will discover the solution to the transmission problem. They'll decide it's better to continue burning coal and "scrap" their "plan" to "build nuclear power plants".
I suspect this is exactly what will happen. They'll get elected and a few years into their term declare nuclear to be too expensive or slow to develop, allowing for the current status quo of coal and gas to continue.
Are there any government-owned coal burning power stations? Most of them were built by their states, then privatised a few decades ago. Eventually the private owners will decide that no matter how much subsidy they milk out of the government, it's no longer possible to meet the contracted level of reliability.

Apparently the "proposed" nuclear power stations will run for 50-90 years with no maintenance or support. I presume they will be built from unobtainium! Every other machine such as solar or wind farms require maintenance to keep them running, just like having your car serviced. Sometimes parts wear out and need replacing like putting new tyres on your car or replacing the windscreen wiper blades.

New transmission line apparently require rent paid to the land owner for the easement and towers/poles. Does anyone know whether SAPN and Electranet make ongoing payments for the poles, towers and lines that were installed in the 1950s, or is this a new phenomenon?

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1699 Post by rev » Sun Jun 23, 2024 11:18 am

gnrc_louis wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2024 11:00 pm
Algernon wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2024 9:14 pm
10 years into "building nuclear power plants" they will discover the solution to the transmission problem. They'll decide it's better to continue burning coal and "scrap" their "plan" to "build nuclear power plants".
I suspect this is exactly what will happen. They'll get elected and a few years into their term declare nuclear to be too expensive or slow to develop, allowing for the current status quo of coal and gas to continue.
I don't think so. I think they'll build the SMR's in SA & WA, and then call it a day with the usual political spin and blame. No way they'll end up seeing the entirety of their nuclear plan to fruition. May even just end up with one SMR as a pilot being built and powered on.
If the Coalition get back into government, they are staking their near term political futures on this stuff mind you, they'll want to deliver something, because it will be a long time in the wilderness afterwards if they don't.
It's very unlikely they'll be able to do anything to bring down the cost living in general, just like Labor is unable to do anything to bring it down as well.
And then the AUKUS stuff and the frigates are long term projects which will face more delays and cost over runs as those sorts of projects inevitably always do.
So other then pumping money into transport infrastructure and housing schemes, they will need to get something done on their nuclear policy if they don't want to be a one term government if they manage to get elected.
Dutton already said in a presser I think that the federal government has the power for compulsory acquisition of land much like the state government with south road, I don't know about WA but I think in SA that's what they'll end up doing, as there is some article out there about the owners of the land that's been selected for the SMR saying they have other plans for their land.

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles ... dular-nucl

China has been building an SMR.
Construction started in 2021. Completion estimated 2026.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Arti ... -sign-agre

Argentina has an SMR being built as well. Started in 2014 but work suspended, not sure why but it is a politically and economically unstable country so.
Expected to be complete by the end of this year and switched on in 2027.

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles ... to-start-i
Finland next year is starting construction on a pilot plant too, a little differently though.
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles ... ct-heating
Sweden as well getting in on the SMR game

This is Canada's SMR roadmap.. of course Canada has a nuclear industry a lot more mature then Australia.
https://smrroadmap.ca

mattblack
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1084
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:20 am

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1700 Post by mattblack » Sun Jun 23, 2024 11:32 am

SBD wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2024 9:46 pm
If it is so important for the grid to have reserve dispatchable backup sources, why is the state government not lining up to buy the two gas turbine power stations that are being closed as they have no contracts? Snuggery may be 46 years old, but Port Lincoln is only 25 years old and seems not to have been heavily used so is likely to still have a long working life if maintained.

Snuggery and Port Lincoln power stations are 63MW and 75MW, diesel-fueled. The contract to provide backup power was not renewed by Electranet last year, so Engie is cutting its losses.

Engie to shut two South Australian generators as losses mount Australian Financial Review 6 February 2024
Because they are building a hydrgen plant with 250mw generation capacity in Whyalla due to start constructionthis year. Whatever your thoughts this govt will not be investing in non renewables.

rubberman
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2006
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1701 Post by rubberman » Sun Jun 23, 2024 5:22 pm

mattblack wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2024 11:32 am
SBD wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2024 9:46 pm
If it is so important for the grid to have reserve dispatchable backup sources, why is the state government not lining up to buy the two gas turbine power stations that are being closed as they have no contracts? Snuggery may be 46 years old, but Port Lincoln is only 25 years old and seems not to have been heavily used so is likely to still have a long working life if maintained.

Snuggery and Port Lincoln power stations are 63MW and 75MW, diesel-fueled. The contract to provide backup power was not renewed by Electranet last year, so Engie is cutting its losses.

Engie to shut two South Australian generators as losses mount Australian Financial Review 6 February 2024
Because they are building a hydrgen plant with 250mw generation capacity in Whyalla due to start constructionthis year. Whatever your thoughts this govt will not be investing in non renewables.
I'd suggest it's more that if the present Government bought those assets, they'd be sold off asap by any incoming Liberal Government. That's the record.

Of course, if there was bipartisan agreement, possibly. However, given that the Liberals vowed and declared they wouldn't sell ETSA, and immediately sold ETSA, I see a problem.

For the record, I think SBD's idea is worth looking at from a technical point of view. However, if there's no guarantee it won't be sold off for a song after a change of government, it's very risky.

The Rann government bought a small non-renewable plant after the 2017 debacle caused by strong winds and software failures. That was immediately sold by the incoming Marshall government. What can you do under those circumstances? Heck. That's another problem with nuclear. Even if one party starts to have it built, the next party can scrap it while half built. The planning and environmental approvals take longer than 3 years, so an incoming government could entirely reverse the process.

User avatar
PeFe
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:47 am

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1702 Post by PeFe » Sun Jun 23, 2024 7:40 pm

I was doing some more reading today and came across a prediction if all Duttons small nuclear power plants were built then in the 2040's nuclear would be providing 3% of Australia's electricity needs.

SBD
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2708
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1703 Post by SBD » Sun Jun 23, 2024 8:02 pm

rubberman wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2024 5:22 pm
mattblack wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2024 11:32 am
SBD wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2024 9:46 pm
If it is so important for the grid to have reserve dispatchable backup sources, why is the state government not lining up to buy the two gas turbine power stations that are being closed as they have no contracts? Snuggery may be 46 years old, but Port Lincoln is only 25 years old and seems not to have been heavily used so is likely to still have a long working life if maintained.

Snuggery and Port Lincoln power stations are 63MW and 75MW, diesel-fueled. The contract to provide backup power was not renewed by Electranet last year, so Engie is cutting its losses.

Engie to shut two South Australian generators as losses mount Australian Financial Review 6 February 2024
Because they are building a hydrgen plant with 250mw generation capacity in Whyalla due to start constructionthis year. Whatever your thoughts this govt will not be investing in non renewables.
I'd suggest it's more that if the present Government bought those assets, they'd be sold off asap by any incoming Liberal Government. That's the record.

Of course, if there was bipartisan agreement, possibly. However, given that the Liberals vowed and declared they wouldn't sell ETSA, and immediately sold ETSA, I see a problem.

For the record, I think SBD's idea is worth looking at from a technical point of view. However, if there's no guarantee it won't be sold off for a song after a change of government, it's very risky.

The Rann government bought a small non-renewable plant after the 2017 debacle caused by strong winds and software failures. That was immediately sold by the incoming Marshall government. What can you do under those circumstances? Heck. That's another problem with nuclear. Even if one party starts to have it built, the next party can scrap it while half built. The planning and environmental approvals take longer than 3 years, so an incoming government could entirely reverse the process.
It doesn't even need a full change of government. Some of the concrete footings were poured for the Jervis Bay nuclear power station by the Gorton government and the project cancelled when McMahon took over as PM from the same party. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jervis_Ba ... e_proposal - Peter Dutton would have still been wearing nappies!

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1704 Post by rev » Mon Jun 24, 2024 9:14 am

PeFe wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2024 7:40 pm
I was doing some more reading today and came across a prediction if all Duttons small nuclear power plants were built then in the 2040's nuclear would be providing 3% of Australia's electricity needs.
You mean you read it on the Guardian tabloid site.


Anyhow, actual news on the topic instead of propaganda and clickbait.
Japanese eye investment in Australian nuclear rollout


Tokyo | Japan’s giant energy trading houses would consider helping to pay for a nuclear rollout in Australia in return for decades-long investment returns, industry insiders say.

The Coalition’s announcement that it would build seven nuclear power plants sparked a flurry of conversations in Tokyo this week around how Japan’s largest power players could become involved.

Investment bankers, trade liaisons and energy company representatives are understood to be quietly costing out how development of a nuclear supply chain in Australia might work, should Peter Dutton’s plan eventuate.

Japan’s own nuclear industry is re-emerging as a core tenet of the island-nation’s energy security strategy alongside renewable energy. These sources are replacing the country’s LNG demand, which has fallen substantially over the last several years.

Energia Group and J-Power are constructing new nuclear reactor plants in north-west and central Japan, while Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kansai Electric Power have recently reopened plants that were shuttered following the Fukushima disaster in 2011.

Mike Newman, former trade commissioner for the NSW government, said Japanese investment houses like Mitsubishi Heavy Industries have investment strategies like Canada’s Brookfield.

“The Japanese have been thinking about [Australian nuclear] for several years,” Mr Newman said.

“It’s the kind of investment that aligns with their big picture strategy, and they have plenty of experience building and operating these kinds of assets.”

Mr Newman said Japanese companies would also accept losses in the early part of any deal as well as provide low-cost financing over long time frames, such as 50 years.

South Korea could also be a possible investment partner for any nuclear program in Australia.

In March, Korea Electric Power Corporation, better known as KEPCO, finished building four nuclear energy plants in Barakah in the United Arab Emirates. The $US20 billion project began in 2009, and marked South Korea’s first export of a homegrown atomic power plant.

“Developing nuclear in Australia would certainly pique their interest,” Ross Gregory, partner at New Electric Partners and chairman of AustCham Korea, said. “They’ve got the know-how and the track record.”

China has also developed a profound nuclear development capability. Nuclear accounts for nearly 5 per cent of the total national electricity output, according to the China Atomic Energy Authority.

One dealmaker based in Beijing said it was unlikely the Chinese would bid for this kind of work, given the sensitives around Chinese investment in Australian resource projects.

In early June, the Australian government ordered China-linked investors to sell their shares of Perth-based Northern Minerals, a miner of rare-earth minerals used in magnets for EV motors and missiles.

“But they could build it in record time and within some semblance of the budget,” the dealmaker said on the condition of anonymity.

In the last 10 years, more than 34 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity have been brought online in China, bringing the country’s number of operating nuclear reactors to 55. Another 23 reactors are under construction.

The United States has the largest nuclear fleet, with 94 reactors, but it took nearly 40 years to add the same nuclear power capacity as China added in a decade.

The latest nuclear power plant completed in China was in Guangxi province, 45 kilometres from the Vietnam border. Construction began in 2016 and power began feeding into the network last month.

According to state-run media, the total investment was nearly 70 billion yuan ($US10.4 billion) and consisted of loan agreements between a syndicate of Chinese banks and financial institutions.
https://www.afr.com/world/asia/japanese ... 620-p5jnb7

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1705 Post by rev » Mon Jun 24, 2024 9:44 am

Poll shows majority of Aussies support nuclear power plan
Six in 10 Australians back nuclear energy, exclusive new polling shows. See what the nation really thinks about the energy source, including the communities which could host a reactor in their backyards.

Clare Armstrong
National political editor
Follow
@ByClare
3 min read
June 24, 2024 - 4:30AM

Six in 10 Australians say they support nuclear energy as a part of the nation’s energy mix in a boost for Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s ambitious plan to build seven power plants by 2050.

Mr Dutton’s plan was also bolstered by most of the nominated regions supporting having a reactor in their back yard, led by the Latrobe Valley with almost 60 per cent of those surveyed there comfortable with the idea.

A snapshot survey of 923 randomly selected people conducted across the weekend after the Coalition announced its energy plan found about 60 per cent of voters said nuclear power “has a place” in Australia’s future energy mix.

Mr Dutton last week announced if elected he would pursue a plan to build seven nuclear plants at the sites of retiring coal-fired power stations, including the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, Hunter Valley in NSW, South Burnett and Gladstone region of Queensland, and Port Augusta in South Australia.

Image

The survey included just over 100 people on average in each of these five regional areas, plus 100 people in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane.

In every location, except Melbourne, there was majority support for an Australian nuclear energy industry, but this backing fell away somewhat when respondents were specifically asked if they would be “comfortable with a nuclear reactor being built in your region”.

Many Australians living where coal has long been the dominant source of employment and economic revenue said they were supportive.

In Victoria, Morwell man Clinton Saffron is in the metalwork industry, and said he ­believed nuclear power would bring welcome economic ­development to the region.

“It’s renewable power – it’s better than the old, dirty that we have been digging out of our valley for years,” Mr Saffron said.

“I think it’s better for the environment – I think it’s better for the environment in that sense, waste is the issue.

“Myself and my father are in the metal work industry – he has serviced all these power stations as a boiler maker.

“They are building the furnaces and boilers and old steam pipes that goes with it – they have taken it out of our valley.

“We have got no industry left – most of us sit at home with no jobs because there’s nothing. It will give us something to do again.”

Traralgon man Bruce Dell, 60, said the Latrobe Valley had the infrastructure necessary to build nuclear.

“We have got the heavy industry here, it makes sense to build it in the valley,” he said.

Lakes Entrance woman Theresa Jordan said she was “100 per cent” supportive of nuclear power coming to the valley.

“With what we have going on in our region – it would be a great source of power. The coal mine industry has had a huge impact on so many families and livelihood and to bring (nuclear power) into here and to bring more jobs into our town would be amazing,” she said.

In South Australia, Dean Sellars worked at the now shuttered Northern Power Station just outside Port ­Augusta for 33 years, and said he believed the Coalition’s ­nuclear plans would be unsuccessful, mostly due to the cost.

But Port Augusta real estate agent Darren Sherriff, 53, said Australia should embrace the Coalition’s proposed nuclear power plans.

“We’re one of the only countries that hasn’t gone ­nuclear yet, to our own great detriment,” he said.

A separate poll again found that support varied, especially between city dwellers and in the region a reactor could be built. Just 39 per cent of Melbourne residents supported nuclear power in Australia’s energy mix.

However, this jumped to 71 per cent among Latrobe Valley residents, where Mr Dutton has said a reactor could be located.

When asked if respondents were comfortable with a reactor in Victoria, 28 per cent of city respondents said yes.

This jumped to 59 per cent of Latrobe Valley residents.

In response to the mixed results on support, a state government spokesman said: “Our position is clear, we will not allow a toxic nuclear power plant in our state.”

He described it as “waiting decades and spending billions on a half-baked plan drawn up on the back of a napkin”.
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/vic ... 8f64787115

rubberman
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2006
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1706 Post by rubberman » Mon Jun 24, 2024 2:53 pm

Apparently the AFR and Newscorp publications are real news, but the Guardian is clickbait?

Wouldn't it be better to just post the articles and let people decide?

There's no real context to those articles, and they could provoke some healthy debate, but why bother if it leads to people throwing round falsehoods like the banks have no money, and then doubling down on it? Then it devolves into personal nonsense.

mattblack
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1084
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:20 am

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1707 Post by mattblack » Mon Jun 24, 2024 3:49 pm

rev wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2024 9:44 am
Poll shows majority of Aussies support nuclear power plan
Six in 10 Australians back nuclear energy, exclusive new polling shows. See what the nation really thinks about the energy source, including the communities which could host a reactor in their backyards.

Clare Armstrong
National political editor
Follow
@ByClare
3 min read
June 24, 2024 - 4:30AM

Six in 10 Australians say they support nuclear energy as a part of the nation’s energy mix in a boost for Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s ambitious plan to build seven power plants by 2050.

Mr Dutton’s plan was also bolstered by most of the nominated regions supporting having a reactor in their back yard, led by the Latrobe Valley with almost 60 per cent of those surveyed there comfortable with the idea.

A snapshot survey of 923 randomly selected people conducted across the weekend after the Coalition announced its energy plan found about 60 per cent of voters said nuclear power “has a place” in Australia’s future energy mix.

Mr Dutton last week announced if elected he would pursue a plan to build seven nuclear plants at the sites of retiring coal-fired power stations, including the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, Hunter Valley in NSW, South Burnett and Gladstone region of Queensland, and Port Augusta in South Australia.

Image

The survey included just over 100 people on average in each of these five regional areas, plus 100 people in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane.

In every location, except Melbourne, there was majority support for an Australian nuclear energy industry, but this backing fell away somewhat when respondents were specifically asked if they would be “comfortable with a nuclear reactor being built in your region”.

Many Australians living where coal has long been the dominant source of employment and economic revenue said they were supportive.

In Victoria, Morwell man Clinton Saffron is in the metalwork industry, and said he ­believed nuclear power would bring welcome economic ­development to the region.

“It’s renewable power – it’s better than the old, dirty that we have been digging out of our valley for years,” Mr Saffron said.

“I think it’s better for the environment – I think it’s better for the environment in that sense, waste is the issue.

“Myself and my father are in the metal work industry – he has serviced all these power stations as a boiler maker.

“They are building the furnaces and boilers and old steam pipes that goes with it – they have taken it out of our valley.

“We have got no industry left – most of us sit at home with no jobs because there’s nothing. It will give us something to do again.”

Traralgon man Bruce Dell, 60, said the Latrobe Valley had the infrastructure necessary to build nuclear.

“We have got the heavy industry here, it makes sense to build it in the valley,” he said.

Lakes Entrance woman Theresa Jordan said she was “100 per cent” supportive of nuclear power coming to the valley.

“With what we have going on in our region – it would be a great source of power. The coal mine industry has had a huge impact on so many families and livelihood and to bring (nuclear power) into here and to bring more jobs into our town would be amazing,” she said.

In South Australia, Dean Sellars worked at the now shuttered Northern Power Station just outside Port ­Augusta for 33 years, and said he believed the Coalition’s ­nuclear plans would be unsuccessful, mostly due to the cost.

But Port Augusta real estate agent Darren Sherriff, 53, said Australia should embrace the Coalition’s proposed nuclear power plans.

“We’re one of the only countries that hasn’t gone ­nuclear yet, to our own great detriment,” he said.

A separate poll again found that support varied, especially between city dwellers and in the region a reactor could be built. Just 39 per cent of Melbourne residents supported nuclear power in Australia’s energy mix.

However, this jumped to 71 per cent among Latrobe Valley residents, where Mr Dutton has said a reactor could be located.

When asked if respondents were comfortable with a reactor in Victoria, 28 per cent of city respondents said yes.

This jumped to 59 per cent of Latrobe Valley residents.

In response to the mixed results on support, a state government spokesman said: “Our position is clear, we will not allow a toxic nuclear power plant in our state.”

He described it as “waiting decades and spending billions on a half-baked plan drawn up on the back of a napkin”.
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/vic ... 8f64787115
Well, until the issues of cost, generation capacity (stated that this will be decided after the election), direct impact on household bills, continued action for transition in the meantime depending on build time, federal legislative constraints (passing senate), state legislative constraints (libs have stated that they will just throw money at the states that will host these plants so they will change state legislation bans on nuclear), community engagement (which libs have started will take place over 2.5 yrs), waste disposal location and transport (more than just a coke can size) and federal legislation that enshrines all these matters and governance, any poll is completely meaningless.

SA had a royal commission in 2016 I think into the nuclear life cycle and although Mali is a supporter because of the benefit to the state has outright discounted it on cost. Think that may be something in that.

abc
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:35 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1708 Post by abc » Mon Jun 24, 2024 3:56 pm

why is it cost prohibitive in Australia but not in France...
tired of low IQ hacks

rubberman
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2006
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1709 Post by rubberman » Mon Jun 24, 2024 4:54 pm

abc wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2024 3:56 pm
why is it cost prohibitive in Australia but not in France...
France hasn't got as much land to build solar arrays. France has a nuclear technological base that Australia doesn't have, and would have to develop. The average French approval build time is over 16 years. Our present coal plants are decrepit and won't last that long. Then, of course, much of it is government funded. When it's funded by the taxpayer, does cost prohibition come into it?

How about this? The French government is looking to take money from savings accounts to fund nuclear. I know a few people who'd think that was prohibitive.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/articl ... 425_7.html#

Edit. Construction of the Flamanville reactor started in 2007. The facility was originally planned to cost €3.3 billion ($3.6 billion), but it is now expected to eat up more than €12 billion.

Ok. Let's do that. Taxpayer funded through a tax on savings accounts with prices ballooning 4X. This is the NBN, submarines, Inland Rail, Snowy Mk2 all over again. Oh. And then complain about high taxes.

abc
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:35 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1710 Post by abc » Mon Jun 24, 2024 5:02 pm

rubberman wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2024 4:54 pm
abc wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2024 3:56 pm
why is it cost prohibitive in Australia but not in France...
France hasn't got as much land to build solar arrays. France has a nuclear technological base that Australia doesn't have, and would have to develop. The average French approval build time is over 16 years. Our present coal plants are decrepit and won't last that long. Then, of course, much of it is government funded. When it's funded by the taxpayer, does cost prohibition come into it?

How about this? The French government is looking to take money from savings accounts to fund nuclear. I know a few people who'd think that was prohibitive.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/articl ... 425_7.html#

Edit. Construction of the Flamanville reactor started in 2007. The facility was originally planned to cost €3.3 billion ($3.6 billion), but it is now expected to eat up more than €12 billion.

Ok. Let's do that. Taxpayer funded through a tax on savings accounts with prices ballooning 4X. This is the NBN, submarines, Inland Rail, Snowy Mk2 all over again. Oh. And then complain about high taxes.
what use are low taxes when the cost of living is among the highest in the world... thanks to... energy prices

wrt to 'solar' if it were just about cost we would be building solar thermal everywhere and not polluting solar cell arrays... the latter of which are a rort and the main investment vehicle for The Teals.
tired of low IQ hacks

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests