Sensational-Adelaide.com

abc wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 29, 2024 7:22 pm

Algernon wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 29, 2024 5:21 pm

Waewick wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 29, 2024 2:33 pm

Was just about to post this.

We wonder why our power prices are like they are, 10 years! It's not even built yet.

Great to see this one and the larger one Goyder South both under way

On the bright side, that delay allowed quite a bit of technological advancement which gives the project a longer future than if it had gotten up 10 years ago.over twice the efficiency in only 10 years!

And less than half the turbines to cause that... What was it again? Vivid nightmares. Righto mate, maybe hand over the keys and grab a taxi...

Another huge advantage of wind and solar over nuclear. Delaying the former only causes them to come back leaner and stronger. The latter, costs only pile up and detonate the debt bomb.

and you know all of this how?

On the bright side, that delay allowed quite a bit of technological advancement which gives the project a longer future than if it had gotten up 10 years ago.over twice the efficiency in only 10 years!

And less than half the turbines to cause that... What was it again? Vivid nightmares. Righto mate, maybe hand over the keys and grab a taxi...

Another huge advantage of wind and solar over nuclear. Delaying the former only causes them to come back leaner and stronger.

The latter, costs only pile up and detonate the debt bomb.

Premier Peter Malinauskas says new technology might make nuclear power economic

Premier Peter Malinauskas says technology change might make nuclear power economic for Australia.

Paul Starick
Editor At Large
@paulstarick
2 min read
August 16, 2024 - 6:00PM

Premier Peter Malinauskas has left the door ajar on nuclear power, saying technology change might make it economic for Australia in the future.

Speaking at an Adelaide business lunch on Friday, Mr Malinauskas said he was “all for” nuclear energy if power prices became cheaper in South Australia – but carpeted Coalition policy to put a reactor in Port Augusta as “insanely expensive”.

Mr Malinauskas urged debate only on economic terms, saying nuclear energy’s safety was “well-established” and should not be blocked “just because there’s a few lefties who are going to be opposed to it for old-school, nostalgic reasons”.

In wide-ranging comments about energy, Mr Malinauskas also said gas was “mission-critical” to back up renewables and lashed “diabolical” federal planning laws that he branded too time-consuming.

Mr Malinauskas, who has consistently insisted nuclear energy is not economic for Australia, said this should be the sole ground for debate.

“I welcome discussion and debate and I think it’s an analysis that should be ongoing, because, maybe in the future, at some point, the economics of nuclear will change as the technology evolves,” he said.

“The (Peter) Dutton (Coalition) policy is to put a small modular reactor in Port Augusta. If that makes power cheaper in South Australia, I’m all for it.

“There’s a problem. There is not one example anywhere in the world where a small modular reactor has been deployed for civil purposes.

“Why? Because it is insanely expensive. It is the most expensive form, and capital-intensive form, of power that has ever been produced anywhere in the world, ever.”

Mr Malinauskas accused the Coalition of creating political uncertainty that deterred investors in much-needed gas turbines across Australia.

“Why would I build that now if I know that at the next federal election the government could change and then the state, as in the Commonwealth, is going to use its balance sheet to have a state-run power station subsidising electricity, regardless of cost,” Mr Malinauskas said.

“Consumers would just pay for it on their power bills or in your taxes.”

Mr Malinauskas said gas investors would not want to compete against state-run, subsidised nationalised, nuclear power stations backed by a Coalition government.

He said gas was “mission-critical” to the energy transition as a firming, or back-up, fuel for renewable energy.

Mr Malinauskas condemned “an ongoing campaign” against gas, branding this “just so ill-informed” and saying his Adelaide street-corner meetings had been “gatecrashed by activists who want to criticise me and the state government for being pro-gas”.

“What is striking is that when you actually explain to the layperson why gas is so important, they get it,” he said.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 17, 2024 11:43 am

Translation of Mali's comments.

Nuclear isn't economic now.

If it ever becomes economic, get back to us.

But in the meantime, talk of SMRs etc by Dutton is nonsense.

Sounds fair and reasonable. If it ever becomes economic, we should look at it. In the meantime, it's a distraction from addressing SA's power issues.

abc wrote:

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 17, 2024 11:43 am

Translation of Mali's comments.

Nuclear isn't economic now.

If it ever becomes economic, get back to us.

But in the meantime, talk of SMRs etc by Dutton is nonsense.

Sounds fair and reasonable. If it ever becomes economic, we should look at it. In the meantime, it's a distraction from addressing SA's power issues.

its like a religion for you isn't it

rubberman wrote:Translation of Mali's comments.

Nuclear isn't economic now.

If it ever becomes economic, get back to us.

But in the meantime, talk of SMRs etc by Dutton is nonsense.

Sounds fair and reasonable. If it ever becomes economic, we should look at it. In the meantime, it's a distraction from addressing SA's power issues.

abc wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 17, 2024 4:06 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 17, 2024 11:43 am

Translation of Mali's comments.

Nuclear isn't economic now.

If it ever becomes economic, get back to us.

But in the meantime, talk of SMRs etc by Dutton is nonsense.

Sounds fair and reasonable. If it ever becomes economic, we should look at it. In the meantime, it's a distraction from addressing SA's power issues.

its like a religion for you isn't it

Waewick wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 17, 2024 4:58 pm

rubberman wrote:Translation of Mali's comments.

Nuclear isn't economic now.

If it ever becomes economic, get back to us.

But in the meantime, talk of SMRs etc by Dutton is nonsense.

Sounds fair and reasonable. If it ever becomes economic, we should look at it. In the meantime, it's a distraction from addressing SA's power issues.

The challenge in SA is we are going to be net 100% before Mr Potato even gets a chance to enact his plan.


It won't surprise me that in 100 years or so Nuclear Power becomes feasible for lots of different things. But power generation in Australia probably won't be one of them.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 17, 2024 5:47 pm

abc wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 17, 2024 4:06 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 17, 2024 11:43 am

Translation of Mali's comments.

Nuclear isn't economic now.

If it ever becomes economic, get back to us.

But in the meantime, talk of SMRs etc by Dutton is nonsense.

Sounds fair and reasonable. If it ever becomes economic, we should look at it. In the meantime, it's a distraction from addressing SA's power issues.

its like a religion for you isn't it

What part of "... because, maybe in the future, at some point, the economics of nuclear will change as the technology evolves,” he said...
don't you understand?

If I said maybe, sometime in the future, at some point, I'd give you a million dollars, would you realistically imagine it's going to happen?

Further, imagine it's a politician saying to you they are going to give you a million dollars, maybe in the future at some point. I know that we have disagreed in the past on several things, but I do not believe you to be so absolutely clueless as to think that when a politician promises you something, sometime in the future, maybe at some point you'd actually believe them.

Because that's what Mali said. Word for word.

So. You've set yourself up here.

Either, like me, you are sceptical, and according to yourself, I'm being religious. Or, you actually believe that a politician who made a promise that maybe, sometime in the future at some point something will happen.

Which is it? You've converted to my 'religion', or you believe a politician who made a maybe at some point in the future promise? Which is it?

abc wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 17, 2024 8:27 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 17, 2024 5:47 pm

abc wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 17, 2024 4:06 pm

its like a religion for you isn't it

What part of "... because, maybe in the future, at some point, the economics of nuclear will change as the technology evolves,” he said...
don't you understand?

If I said maybe, sometime in the future, at some point, I'd give you a million dollars, would you realistically imagine it's going to happen?

Further, imagine it's a politician saying to you they are going to give you a million dollars, maybe in the future at some point. I know that we have disagreed in the past on several things, but I do not believe you to be so absolutely clueless as to think that when a politician promises you something, sometime in the future, maybe at some point you'd actually believe them.

Because that's what Mali said. Word for word.

So. You've set yourself up here.

Either, like me, you are sceptical, and according to yourself, I'm being religious. Or, you actually believe that a politician who made a promise that maybe, sometime in the future at some point something will happen.

Which is it? You've converted to my 'religion', or you believe a politician who made a maybe at some point in the future promise? Which is it?

this meltdown only confirms how emotionally invested you are in your favourite energy sources

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 17, 2024 8:47 pm

abc wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 17, 2024 8:27 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 17, 2024 5:47 pm

What part of "... because, maybe in the future, at some point, the economics of nuclear will change as the technology evolves,” he said...
don't you understand?

If I said maybe, sometime in the future, at some point, I'd give you a million dollars, would you realistically imagine it's going to happen?

Further, imagine it's a politician saying to you they are going to give you a million dollars, maybe in the future at some point. I know that we have disagreed in the past on several things, but I do not believe you to be so absolutely clueless as to think that when a politician promises you something, sometime in the future, maybe at some point you'd actually believe them.

Because that's what Mali said. Word for word.

So. You've set yourself up here.

Either, like me, you are sceptical, and according to yourself, I'm being religious. Or, you actually believe that a politician who made a promise that maybe, sometime in the future at some point something will happen.

Which is it? You've converted to my 'religion', or you believe a politician who made a maybe at some point in the future promise? Which is it?

this meltdown only confirms how emotionally invested you are in your favourite energy sources

Do you agree with what Mali said, or not?

Let me remind you? '...because, maybe in the future, at some point, the economics of nuclear will change as the technology evolves,..' he said...


Simple question. Yes or no?

abc wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 18, 2024 1:21 am

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 17, 2024 8:47 pm

abc wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 17, 2024 8:27 pm

this meltdown only confirms how emotionally invested you are in your favourite energy sources

Do you agree with what Mali said, or not?

Let me remind you? '...because, maybe in the future, at some point, the economics of nuclear will change as the technology evolves,..' he said...


Simple question. Yes or no?

I don't care what he said. My commentary relates to your dogmatic response.