News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[rubberman]

No, you're missing the point.

This shouldn't be a debate about which party when in government fucked up what project, which is what half the posts you guys have made since yesterday were basically ranting about. One guys ranting about covid vaccines, another guy about snowy hydro 2.

Nope. It's about whether or not what you are talking about can be delivered.

If it was Tom Playford proposing to deliver a nuclear plant, on time, on budget, then it would happen. Why do I believe that? No politics. It's because he had a list of big projects HE DELIVERED ON. If it's anyone else, of whatever party, I apply exactly the same criteria. What is their record in delivering major projects?

Please provide me with evidence, without politics, of the projects delivered by any side of politics of a successful record who will go for nukes. That's all. Simple. Keep politics out. Just provide a list of successful major projects delivered. Because if you cannot do that, you will never convince people it can be done.

I'll wait.

Keep waiting, you're a silver spoon fed simpleton (or just generally clueless with no sense of reality) who thinks that everyone can afford roof top solar and batteries therefore if they don't have them its their own fault for having high power prices.

To continue to attempt to have a rational discussion with someone with that attitude, a party lapdog who is engaging in party mudslinging, while others try to move the discussion to the merits of and benefits of multiple sources of power, what it would all mean for the economy let alone the majority of Australians, is to waste ones time.

Ill leave it at that, add you to the ignore list, and let you continue arguing with abc about your politics, in a thread about electricity infrastructure.

A couple of paragraphs of abuse, and simply no answer? Seriously? If that's all. I agree. Time to wrap this up. With the proviso that debates on power with data are worth it. Anyone has data, bring it on.

[abc]

I'm not interested in the politics by the way.

[Algernon]

For those into the politics, here it is.

SA will be at 100% net renewables in 3 years. Australia at 80% in 6 years (currently nudging 40).

Building a nuclear power plant typically takes 7-15 years if, IF, you have an existing nuclear industry, related infrastructure (hello waste storage again), the workforce, regulatory framework and don't have at the first turn a federal ban on it that at the absolute soonest can be turned around IF the opposition win both houses in the next election.

The politics is over. It has been for years. You can't build nuclear in time. It is dead.

I'm not anti nuclear. I live in a country powered by it. We are not resource rich and we just don't have the options of an entire continent. A few countries down, France is majority powered by nuclear and the carbon intensity of its electricity is 1 6th of Australia. Yes, it's an option, just not in Australia anymore.

Those crying about this are like the die hards screaming at the umpire when your team is 20 goals down in the 4th quarter.

Nuclear isn't bad. It's just too late

[Nort]

Yeah, it would have been a better outcome overall had Australia built nuclear power in the 60s, but we didn't.

[abc]

why is it too late?

[Algernon]

If absolutely everything went perfectly for nuclear, you'd get your first nuclear plant commissioned in time to see the entire NEM already 100% renewable.

Without getting into the debate of whether solar/wind is cheaper than nuclear (which it is, I just don't have the capacity for idiots on a Saturday, I work M-F).

The costs of all the solar/wind/batteries will be sunk. That means at the point you are starting a nuclear plant with its upfront costs of construction and time horizon to pay it off, on top of that, you have the costs of running it. In one corner you have the nuclear plant which commands a whole supply chain from mine to plant to waste dump and has its own workforce running it. On the other, you have solar with an input cost of the sun and wind with the cost of the wind blowing.

ABC, if this is too much for you to read, try this pratical example.

Fly to Beijing right now and go to the national stadium. Stand at the starting line and start tying your laces if you know how. Once you're done, catch Usain. He won gold 16 years ago, but if you try really hard you might get him. Report back what you find.

[abc]

If absolutely everything went perfectly for nuclear, you'd get your first nuclear plant commissioned in time to see the entire NEM already 100% renewable.

Without getting into the debate of whether solar/wind is cheaper than nuclear (which it is, I just don't have the capacity for idiots on a Saturday, I work M-F).

The costs of all the solar/wind/batteries will be sunk. That means at the point you are starting a nuclear plant with its upfront costs of construction and time horizon to pay it off, on top of that, you have the costs of running it. In one corner you have the nuclear plant which commands a whole supply chain from mine to plant to waste dump and has its own workforce running it. On the other, you have solar with an input cost of the sun and wind with the cost of the wind blowing.

ABC, if this is too much for you to read, try this pratical example.

Fly to Beijing right now and go to the national stadium. Stand at the starting line and start tying your laces if you know how. Once you're done, catch Usain. He won gold 16 years ago, but if you try really hard you might get him. Report back what you find.

Why do you people always have to include insults in your responses to reasonable questions?

Solar panels and wind turbines require regular maintenance and they are dispersed which means more people need to travel greater distances to perform that maintenance. You are trying to convince me they require zero maintenance when this is patently false.

You do realise that unlike the Czech Republic, we have a supply of raw materials and ability to manage waste right here in state for nuclear power.

Now why is it too late for nuclear?

[rubberman]

If absolutely everything went perfectly for nuclear, you'd get your first nuclear plant commissioned in time to see the entire NEM already 100% renewable.

Without getting into the debate of whether solar/wind is cheaper than nuclear (which it is, I just don't have the capacity for idiots on a Saturday, I work M-F).

The costs of all the solar/wind/batteries will be sunk. That means at the point you are starting a nuclear plant with its upfront costs of construction and time horizon to pay it off, on top of that, you have the costs of running it. In one corner you have the nuclear plant which commands a whole supply chain from mine to plant to waste dump and has its own workforce running it. On the other, you have solar with an input cost of the sun and wind with the cost of the wind blowing.

ABC, if this is too much for you to read, try this pratical example.

Fly to Beijing right now and go to the national stadium. Stand at the starting line and start tying your laces if you know how. Once you're done, catch Usain. He won gold 16 years ago, but if you try really hard you might get him. Report back what you find.

Why do you people always have to include insults in your responses to reasonable questions?

Solar panels and wind turbines require regular maintenance and they are dispersed which means more people need to travel greater distances to perform that maintenance. You are trying to convince me they require zero maintenance when this is patently false.

You do realise that unlike the Czech Republic, we have a supply of raw materials and ability to manage waste right here in state for nuclear power.

Now why is it too late for nuclear?

It has been explained several times by different people. The answer won't change.

[abc]

If absolutely everything went perfectly for nuclear, you'd get your first nuclear plant commissioned in time to see the entire NEM already 100% renewable.

Without getting into the debate of whether solar/wind is cheaper than nuclear (which it is, I just don't have the capacity for idiots on a Saturday, I work M-F).

The costs of all the solar/wind/batteries will be sunk. That means at the point you are starting a nuclear plant with its upfront costs of construction and time horizon to pay it off, on top of that, you have the costs of running it. In one corner you have the nuclear plant which commands a whole supply chain from mine to plant to waste dump and has its own workforce running it. On the other, you have solar with an input cost of the sun and wind with the cost of the wind blowing.

ABC, if this is too much for you to read, try this pratical example.

Fly to Beijing right now and go to the national stadium. Stand at the starting line and start tying your laces if you know how. Once you're done, catch Usain. He won gold 16 years ago, but if you try really hard you might get him. Report back what you find.

Why do you people always have to include insults in your responses to reasonable questions?

Solar panels and wind turbines require regular maintenance and they are dispersed which means more people need to travel greater distances to perform that maintenance. You are trying to convince me they require zero maintenance when this is patently false.

You do realise that unlike the Czech Republic, we have a supply of raw materials and ability to manage waste right here in state for nuclear power.

Now why is it too late for nuclear?

It has been explained several times by different people. The answer won't change.

kindly link me to the post that explains this then

...I'm beginning to think that 'too late' is another one of those ahem talking points

[rubberman]

Why do you people always have to include insults in your responses to reasonable questions?

Solar panels and wind turbines require regular maintenance and they are dispersed which means more people need to travel greater distances to perform that maintenance. You are trying to convince me they require zero maintenance when this is patently false.

You do realise that unlike the Czech Republic, we have a supply of raw materials and ability to manage waste right here in state for nuclear power.

Now why is it too late for nuclear?

It has been explained several times by different people. The answer won't change.

kindly link me to the post that explains this then

...I'm beginning to think that 'too late' is another one of those ahem talking points

Nope. You go back and read. I'm not repeating myself. Or, better still, do some actual research and come up with a suggested timeline under which you think it can be done. On your history, you simply reject anything you disagree with. In which case, you'll be bashing your head against the wall over this for the next decade...which is hardly my problem.

[mattblack]

Why do you people always have to include insults in your responses to reasonable

Cry me a river mate. I believe I reported u multiple times on another thread which is now locked because of your abusive ranting

[Algernon]

abc. Net renewables in SA in 2027. 3 years.

What are you going to power with a nuclear plant that, if the answer was yes today, would maybe be commissioned by 2040? Nothing in SA. The capacity is already built out.

Now, take the state which has done absolutely fucking nothing - Queensland. From 2018 to 2023, the annual contribution of rooftop solar has gone from 5.1% to 12.2%. The current overall renewable share is 28.2%. If you take that ~1.5% share increase for rooftop solar and apply that linearly to the period between now and when you get your nuclear power plant, you arrive at the renewable share rising to 52% just on average punters putting panels on their roofs, even if the QLD government continues to do absolutely nothing, the worst state in australia would only have half of its capacity that could be filled by nuclear. And nuclear would be fighting over the scraps of utility solar and wind which, despite QLD government doing nothing all this time, have finally started construction there.

What are you going to power with your nuclear power plant?

No need to answer. The renewable energy transition is almost complete anyway. You being you didn't change it.

[Algernon]

Amazing that basically the only thing SA could ever be regarded as a world leader in and you still get those types against it.

[abc]

Why do you people always have to include insults in your responses to reasonable

Cry me a river mate. I believe I reported u multiple times on another thread which is now locked because of your abusive ranting

this is a you problem and the hostility was entirely initiated by your meltdown

[abc]

abc. Net renewables in SA in 2027. 3 years.

What are you going to power with a nuclear plant that, if the answer was yes today, would maybe be commissioned by 2040? Nothing in SA. The capacity is already built out.

Now, take the state which has done absolutely fucking nothing - Queensland. From 2018 to 2023, the annual contribution of rooftop solar has gone from 5.1% to 12.2%. The current overall renewable share is 28.2%. If you take that ~1.5% share increase for rooftop solar and apply that linearly to the period between now and when you get your nuclear power plant, you arrive at the renewable share rising to 52% just on average punters putting panels on their roofs, even if the QLD government continues to do absolutely nothing, the worst state in australia would only have half of its capacity that could be filled by nuclear. And nuclear would be fighting over the scraps of utility solar and wind which, despite QLD government doing nothing all this time, have finally started construction there.

What are you going to power with your nuclear power plant?

No need to answer. The renewable energy transition is almost complete anyway. You being you didn't change it.

in the middle of the night when the sun doesn't shine and the wind isn't blowing...tell me where the electricity is going to come from?