News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[PeFe]

I always have a little chuckle to myself whenever I hear someone say ''We can build nuclear in a 10 year timeframe"
Why? Because real world experience says it wont work like that.

Europe and North America have had nuclear power since the 1950's so their level of expertise is way above ours so how have their nuclear power projects gone this century?
Lets go through them one by one to learn from their experience....

Hinkley Pt C, large new nuclear plant in an already built nuclear site, originally budgeted at 35 billion AUD, latest estimate 92 billion AUD and 4 years late.
Estimated wholesale cost of electricity when it opens $350-450 per mwh.....solar and wind in Australia in 2024 $50-60 per mwh wholesale.

Flammanville C (France), new reactor at an existing nuclear site with all necessary infrastructure, original cost 3.3 billion Euros, latest cost estimate 13.2 billion Euros and 12 years behind schedule

Vogtle (USA) 2 large new reactors at an already existing nuclear facility. Original cost $14 billion USD, final cost $30 billion USD, 5 years late

Okkiluto 3 (Finland) new reactor at an already built nuclear facility. Original cost 3 billion Euros, final cost 11 billion Euros. 14 years late.

Canada is building a small nuclear reactor in Ontario but the Canadian government refuses to release any information on how much it is actually costing....

NuScale went to the market in the US to finance its 470mw 9.2 billion USD small scale reactor........the market said no.

And on a different note Elon Musk has indicated that the next generation of PowerPak (version 3, we have have version 1 at Hornesdale) will be able to be plugged DIRECTLY into the grid.....no need to build a battery power park. This is due in 2025 and if it works as Musk indicates I have no doubt this will kill nuclear.

[abc]

we should return to gas in the short term, then transition to nuclear in the longer term...not because of cLiMaTe ChAnGe but because of energy security

wind turbines and solar panels are unsustainable and will send our economy into third world status

[PeFe]

Wholesale electricity prices in South Australia over the last 24 hours.

[rubberman]

I always have a little chuckle to myself whenever I hear someone say ''We can build nuclear in a 10 year timeframe"
Why? Because real world experience says it wont work like that.

Europe and North America have had nuclear power since the 1950's so their level of expertise is way above ours so how have their nuclear power projects gone this century?
Lets go through them one by one to learn from their experience....

Hinkley Pt C, large new nuclear plant in an already built nuclear site, originally budgeted at 35 billion AUD, latest estimate 92 billion AUD and 4 years late.
Estimated wholesale cost of electricity when it opens $350-450 per mwh.....solar and wind in Australia in 2024 $50-60 per mwh wholesale.

Flammanville C (France), new reactor at an existing nuclear site with all necessary infrastructure, original cost 3.3 billion Euros, latest cost estimate 13.2 billion Euros and 12 years behind schedule

Vogtle (USA) 2 large new reactors at an already existing nuclear facility. Original cost $14 billion USD, final cost $30 billion USD, 5 years late

Okkiluto 3 (Finland) new reactor at an already built nuclear facility. Original cost 3 billion Euros, final cost 11 billion Euros. 14 years late.

Canada is building a small nuclear reactor in Ontario but the Canadian government refuses to release any information on how much it is actually costing....

NuScale went to the market in the US to finance its 470mw 9.2 billion USD small scale reactor........the market said no.

And on a different note Elon Musk has indicated that the next generation of PowerPak (version 3, we have have version 1 at Hornesdale) will be able to be plugged DIRECTLY into the grid.....no need to build a battery power park. This is due in 2025 and if it works as Musk indicates I have no doubt this will kill nuclear.

Exactly. Plus, SMRs are still not in large scale production. So that ten years guess is not based on any real production experience. Rolls Royce is a proponent fo SMR. It takes more than 10 years to develop a jet engine.

[rev]

[rev]

[Waewick]

That's a Liberal aligned think tank, i wouldn't take it too seriously.

They also tweet things about multiculturalism failing.

The other posters here seem to be easy better balanced

[rev]

Posts about other subjects have nothing to do with what they're saying about the costs of renewables vs nuclear.

And the sources you guys use are all aligned with Labor & the Greens socialist movements. So what?

Being aligned with Labor or Liberal does not discredit what's being said.

[Waewick]

Posts about other subjects have nothing to do with if what they're saying about the costs of renewables vs nuclear.

And the sources you guys use are all aligned with Labor & the Greens socialist movements. So what?

Being aligned with Labor or Liberal does not discredit what's being said.

The majority of sources that point out Nuclear isn't viable are not aligned to anyone, nor are the posters posting the information in this thread.

I think anyone who calls market driven results socialst whilst pushing for Govt driven results such as state owned power plants perhaps needs to review what socialism is.

Its not a cover all for things you don't like.

But it is always important to understand where your information comes from.

[rubberman]

Posts about other subjects have nothing to do with what they're saying about the costs of renewables vs nuclear.

And the sources you guys use are all aligned with Labor & the Greens socialist movements. So what?

Being aligned with Labor or Liberal does not discredit what's being said.

The fact that they make fanciful claims discredits what's being said.

About one third of coal capacity comes off line in three years. That means you can't have nuclear in that time frame. They make zero mention of that rather pertinent fact.

By not addressing that, they are discredited.

I'd go the opposite to waewick though. The fact that these people produce skewed arguments discredits the liberal Party think tank...not the other way round.

[rev]

Subsidies subsidies...oops I meant market driven.

[Waewick]

Subsidies subsidies...oops I meant market driven.

Ian Plimer

[rubberman]

Subsidies subsidies...oops I meant market driven.

One thing we can agree on is removing subsidies.

As long as they are removed from both fossil fuels as well as renewables. Diesel fuel rebate...bye bye. Subsidised nuclear plants...bye bye.

[Waewick]

Subsidies subsidies...oops I meant market driven.

One thing we can agree on is removing subsidies.

As long as they are removed from both fossil fuels as well as renewables. Diesel fuel rebate...bye bye. Subsidised nuclear plants...bye bye.

I would love to know the subsidies that have gone into Power generation over time.

You could include petrol/desiel as well. Don't get me wrong understand they were done for economic benefit but it would be interesting to be able to compare.

[rev]

Subsidies subsidies...oops I meant market driven.

Ian Plimer

Ian Plimer -
Eureka Prize 1995 & 2002
The Eureka Prizes are awarded annually by the Australian Museum, Sydney, to recognise individuals and organizations who have contributed to science and the understanding of science in Australia.

Centenary Medal 2003
The Centenary Medal is an award which was created by the Australian Government in 2001. It was established to commemorate the centenary of the Federation of Australia and to recognise "people who made a contribution to Australian society or government".

Clarke Medal 2004
The Clarke Medal is awarded by the Royal Society of New South Wales, the oldest learned society in Australia and the Southern Hemisphere, for distinguished work in the Natural sciences.


And now waewick, I'm sure you'll share with us all what distinguished awards you've received for your contributions to society and the sciences?
We'll probably be waiting a while just like we're still waiting for rubberman to present his credentials and qualifications that make him the foremost expert, ahead of the actual experts that he disagrees with.

I'm not suggesting they are right and you guys are wrong, or vice versa.
I'm merely asking that you guys, since you guys think you're right and everyone else is wrong, present us with your qualifications, credentials, and anything of the sort relevant that deems you experts above and beyond the actual experts we know, so that the rest of us can make a more informed decision on the things you are posting and trying to pass off as factual.

I don't think that's too much to ask for.