Waewick wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 4:01 pm
rev wrote:abc wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 2:54 pm
you want everyone to be a fence sitter like you
there is a right and there is a wrong, you can't have it both ways
There's no fence to sit on champ, there's two extreme sides who haven' left a fence to sit on for anyone in the middle. As you can see, share an opinion or news that differs and the attacks come from both sides. Thank you.
What I want is our elected officials to stop being useless and driven purely by their political ideologies, and instead do what's in the interests of this country and it's people for a change. At least on one issue affecting us all.
I want them to seriously have a look at all the options on the table, including nuclear, with a non-partisan approach, and then determine what the best outcome is.
The options have been put on the table and Nuclear was taken off because its not worth it.
Its ideology that's put it back on the table.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
You mean the royal commission which said the following?
While it is not clear whether nuclear power would be
the best choice for Australia beyond 2030, it would
be prudent for it not to be precluded as an option.
In Australia, nuclear power cannot contribute to
emissions reductions before 2030 because of the
long lead time to make new capacity operational.
It could contribute after that time, which may be
important if more rapid action is required to be
taken to reach a net zero emissions target from
energy generation by 2050.
Are we not failing to meet emissions reduction targets at the moment? The answer to that is yes.
It would be wise to plan now for a contingency in
which external pressure is applied to Australia to
more rapidly decarbonise. Action taken now to
settle policy for the delivery and operation of
nuclear power would enable it to potentially
contribute to reducing carbon emissions.
So, party politics aside, why not do what the Royal Commission says here, and plan? Isn't that what the Liberals have done, all be it partially released that plan?
Shouldn't a prudent government that wasn't purely driven by blind faith in an ideology, step back and make some rational decisions and say sorry we aren't going to meet our targets we need to look at other/all options for the coming decades?
Is it too much to expect that the people elected and paid to run this country, are going to do what's in our interests for once instead of doubling down on a policy that has failed to meet their own targets?
To make a range of technologies available, action is
required now.
In the case of nuclear power, those actions include the:
• amendment of existing legislation
• setting of key policies that would send relevant signals for
private sector investment
• development of an electricity market structure
• development of a new regulatory framework that addresses
key principles of non-proliferation, safety and security in
the use of nuclear energy.
How much of this has been done by any Labor or Liberal government?
Making nuclear power available as an option does not mean
it would be the best choice for Australia in 2030. Other
developments may well lessen the need for it. However,
that should not be assumed. The present considerable
optimism about the future cost of renewable generation and
storage does not ensure certainty about these outcomes.51
Nor should the development of nuclear be regarded as static.
As nuclear projects are implemented in other countries, and
as new systems are developed, particularly small modular
reactors, the costs of nuclear may demonstrate that it should
be part of a low-cost, low-carbon energy system in Australia.
You guys are well versed in cherry picking and assuming outcomes. Probably because of the belief that nobody you're arguing against will bother to look.
Well, I looked.
And in just a few short minutes of admittedly skim reading through the report, I've found multiple instances where you are wrong.
I'm happy to be proven wrong in your return serve.
If nuclear power were to be considered in
South Australia, analysis should focus on a
proven design that has been constructed with
active and passive safety features. For commercial
electricity generation in the foreseeable future
this would include analysis of potential small
modular reactors based on light water designs
because of their suitability for integration in
smaller markets, but not advanced fast reactors
or other innovative reactor designs.
The AP1000 reactors mentioned by the Liberals, are light water reactors, and the AP1000 also comes in a SMR variant.
Relative to other regions of the NEM, South
Australia has one of the highest average wholesale
prices and some of the greatest price volatility.
That said in 2015, yet with all the wonderful renewable projects popping up that were meant to bring costs down, things have gotten worse.
But when the other guys propose something different, it's trust me bro that wont work.
An assessment of the viability of establishing
a nuclear power plant in the South Australian
NEM would require a full systems investigation.
Was this done after the Royal Commission?
The conclusion that nuclear power is not viable
in South Australia remains the case:
a. on a range of predicted wholesale electricity prices
incorporating a range of possible carbon prices
b. for both large or proposed new small reactor
designs
c. under current and potentially substantially
expanded interconnection capacity to Victoria
and NSW
While nuclear generation is not currently viable,
it is possible that this assessment may change.
Its commercial viability as part of the NEM in South
Australia under current market rules would be
improved if:
a. a national requirement for near-zero CO 2
emissions from the electricity sector made it
impossible to rely on gas generation (open cycle
gas turbine and combined cycle gas turbine) to
balance intermittency from renewable sources
b. the intermittency of renewables could not be
supported adequately by cost-effective storage
at scale or by new demand sources such as ‘power
to fuel’, which converts surplus power into a
transport fuel source
c. system augmentations required to support
substantially greater wind generation and
commercial solar PV were more expensive
than anticipated
d. the costs and risks associated with demonstrating
and integrating carbon capture and storage with
fossil fuel generation at scale are greater than
presently anticipated
e. current capital and operating costs of nuclear
plants were substantially reduced, which would
require overcoming complexities and inexperience
in project construction. Some reductions in costs
have been partially demonstrated for recent
plants constructed in China, but not yet in
Europe or the USA
f. changes to government policy resulted in a
combination of:
i. a price on carbon emissions in the economy
(including from electricity generation)
ii. finance at lower cost than available on the
commercial market (that is, a form of loan
guarantee)
iii. long-term revenue certainty for investors.
The challenges to the viability of nuclear power
generation under current market conditions in South
Australia should not preclude its consideration as
part of a future energy generation portfolio for the
NEM. There is value in having nuclear as an option
that could be implemented readily
A future national electricity supply system must
be designed to be low carbon and highly reliable at
the lowest possible system cost. Resolving this
‘trilemma’ will be difficult and will require carefully
considered government policies.
There are many combinations of generation
technologies for a future low-carbon electricity
system: it is not a simple choice between nuclear
or renewables.
At present, there is no analysis of a future NEM that
examines total system costs based on a range of
credible low-carbon energy generation options.
Such an analysis would be required before it could
be asserted that any option would deliver reliable,
low-carbon electricity at the lowest overall
cost—with or without nuclear power.
A critical issue to be determined in a total systems
cost analysis of a future NEM is whether nuclear
could lower the total costs of electricity
generation and supply
Well, we've seen renewables haven't done that. But we shouldn't look at any other possible options, that may reduce those costs. Let's just stick with the policy that has clearly failed.
From what I've read so far skimming through it, it does indeed say that back in 2015, it wasn't viable for nuclear for a variety of reasons.
But, it also says that nuclear should not be ruled out and that it may play a role in the future for Australia. Which is what I'm saying.
Things are considerably worse for consumers, will continue to be for quite a while probably well into the next decade and then some, emissions targets aren't going to bet met.
So why not consider other options, why not have a serious non-partisan look at what else can be done, or what should be done, and how whats been done can be done better if more renewables and batteries are the solution.