the cheapest and most widespread nuclear reactor design
Can you share this knowledge, please?
Mountaineer
joined 1 year ago
So 450 x 1.8 = $810B
(I’m assuming I haven’t made a mistake about the 14 hours of storage and the converting between GW and GWh).
You have, that $1.8B would get 14GWh, not 1.
So 450 / 14 = 32.2
32.2 * 1.8 = $57.96B
These are all back of the envelope numbers of course, but 58 is ~ 14 times less than 810.
Would their seven proposed nuclear stations be cheaper than $810 Billion?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-22/nuclear-power-double-the-cost-of-renewables/103868728
CSIRO has cranked these numbers out in a whole bunch of configurations.
In short: Australia's leading scientific organisation found it would cost at least $8.5 billion to build a large-scale nuclear power plant in the country.
8.5 * 7 = $59.5B
So it's within the ballpark to build 7 nuclear powerplants, compared to 33 (more likely less but bigger) off river pumped hydro locations.
Which don't cost as much to run, have no "scary" nuclear and can be operable much sooner, integrating with the existing infrastructure (instead of replacing it, as Nuclear effectively would have to).
If we build even one Nuclear power plant, we're going to see continuing solar and wind curtailment, exactly like they do with coal right now - which will effectively set an expensive floor on power prices.
Nuclear isn't happening if we follow the science, the money and the NIMBY sentiment.
Edit to add:
The BIGGEST difference in my mind is where the money will come from.
No financial institution will touch Nuclear, it would have to be tax dollars.
Whilst private companies are always angling for government subsidy, they are also clamouring to invest in this themselves.
A quick google search gives me a private example that is projected to come online this year: https://genexpower.com.au/250mw-kidston-pumped-storage-hydro-project/
It's only 2GWh, but it's going to start contributing to the end of coal by the end of this year, which ignoring the environmental benefit, is going to reduce wholesale power prices.
Waiting for Nuclear will make power prices worse, as the interim calls for continuing to run the coal and gas, which isn't going to make it 15 years, so new coal (or more likely a buttload more gas) will have to be built.
Which is going to RAISE prices, as it's no longer just running costs on paid off installations, it's repaying loans on new constructions.
That source doesn’t have a link to their paper that works.
Yeah, link rot.
I did some googling for you: https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/Low%20Emission%20Fossil%20Scenarios.pdf
But as far as I know we can’t build anywhere near enough hydro in Australia.
A study at the Australian National University (ANU) identified about 3,000 low-cost potential sites around Australia with head typically better than 300 metres and storage larger than one gigalitre (see Figure 3). The sites identified have a combined energy storage potential of around 163,000 GWh. To put this into perspective, a transition to a 100% renewable electricity system would need 450 GWh of PHES storage. The potential pumped hydro energy storage resource is almost 300 times more than required. Developers can afford to be very selective since only about 20 sites (the best 0.1% of sites) would be required to support 100% renewable electricity generation.
Emphasis mine.
Let me paraphrase the LNP here:
"Private companies have researched Nuclear and decided it's not cost effective."
"Financial institutions have investigated Nuclear and decided they WILL NOT INVEST."
"But our financial backers at the Mineral Council and the private companies dragging the last of the profit out of their end of life coal power stations are insisting that we continue with our current market AS LONG AS POSSIBLE, so we've decided to announce an extremely long term plan, to scare private investment out of renewables short term."
"Don't worry, between NIMBYs in the target areas, laws surrounding nuclear energy, lack of local expertise and the general unsuitability of Nuclear for our widely dispersed yet small population, we won't actually build more than one of these things."
"Jokes on them, we were only pretending to be retarded."
And thank you for modding.
I didn't want to call you out by name.
You've already noticed that I've transferred here as my official instance.
"Be the change you want to see in the world".
Then a moderator was unhappy with my posts, so I stopped.
My gut suggests it's a font issue, like librewolf is using a system font and firefox is using embedded or downloaded fonts.
backing that up with a search, I see there's lots of people complaining of font rendering issues of various types in the librewolf subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/LibreWolf/search/?q=font
I don't know what your fix is, but I hope this helps guide you.
This requirement is designed to be hard, and as such is a major red flag to me.
What else is this company going to be difficult with?
Can i only get customer support or cancel my account in person, between 9-4 on the 2nd Friday of the month?
I would consider alternatives, if possible.
Can't tell if you're joking, but a Request For Comments is effectively a proposal for how a process should be performed.
Some of them are eventually ratified as internet standards by the IETF.
Plenty of them remain useful as defacto standards even without formal acknowledgement.
Sure I read it, but Simon's premise is incorrect.
Even his tangential commentary is incorrect.
Neither Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott were booted for making "captains calls", they were booted as fall guys by their parties before going to election.
The US get to show just how tough they are on whistleblowers and their associates.
Assange gets to go home.
If I was him, I'd keep my head down and try to get to know my kids.