The simple reality is if we don't have a viable nuclear programme & we keep exporting nuclear materials & the breakthrough comes for say maybe cold fusion or tomakhawk reactor we will be a third world country exporting our resources with out the technology to utilise it ourselves.
China has produced a self sustaining reactor and they say it will be in production in 2020 .
Solar ,wind ,tidal , geothermal I personally like is all fantastic but it falls short .
We need to be cutting-edge .
It's not like we don't have the resources or the people smart enough to make it happen.
Another problem is the brain drain with our best & brightest going overseas because we have our head up our assholes there's no future for our best & brightest if we want to keep hashing out tiny improvements in established technology.
The 1st patent on a car was for an electric one so battery power is not a new thing at all it's 300 years old ."
Ffs why does New Zealand & Samoa have a space program & we don't ?

Select to expand quote

actiomax said..It's not like we don't have the resources or the people smart enough to make it happen.

So in your mind, why does this only apply to nuclear power and not renewable energy? Are we dumbstruck all of a sudden?

I don't buy it.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
So in your mind, why does this only apply to nuclear power and not renewable energy? Are we dumbstruck all of a sudden?

I don't buy it.

That's a good point. Unfortunately, you're stuck with certain fundamentals of the different systems and ended physics that means you're simply not ever going to get the reliability and performance out of "renewables" as you will nuclear.

Unless there's a fundamental breakthrough PV technology you're not going to get a lot more efficiency out of them...and you still have to address all the "toxic chemicals".

energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Solar_cell_efficiency

And FFS you can't surf the entire coast of Australia, get some ****ing OWC stations in there!

How the hell did we ever get out of the stone age?
How the hell did we then ever invent electricity?
I'm sure the equine industry were out in force against early automobiles - cause they would never be very practical. (and no I'm not going to google it)
LOL, I'm sure if some here used as much effort on inventive thinking as is being used in the relentless countering, renewable energy would be "problem solved".
I'm not getting drawn into any head to head argument with anyone, you are way too skilled in the art for me.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

get a lot more efficiency out of them

It is hard to understand reason of your hatred toward sun energy.If Japan don't receive sunlight because of air pollution and sky is dark all the time? You need to come to Australia to see how much free energy is constantly pumped for free from the sky here.
Efficiency? Unless you want to power automobile or airplanes efficiency improvement isn't required. We have enough land herein Australia to power whole globe 3x over.Solar farms in Australia are happy to receive 4c per kwh and still make profit on investment. The problem is that beside feeding public wite electricity we have no idea what to do with such energy abundance. Japan could get 10c worth of electricity and produce something worth 20 cents at the scale required - steel, or machinery.We have this cheap energy and no idea what to do with them. We could not turn 4c of electricity into 10c product, on mass scale.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..
So in your mind, why does this only apply to nuclear power and not renewable energy? Are we dumbstruck all of a sudden?

I don't buy it.

That's a good point. Unfortunately, you're stuck with certain fundamentals of the different systems and ended physics that means you're simply not ever going to get the reliability and performance out of "renewables" as you will nuclear.

Unless there's a fundamental breakthrough PV technology you're not going to get a lot more efficiency out of them...and you still have to address all the "toxic chemicals".

energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Solar_cell_efficiency

And FFS you can't surf the entire coast of Australia, get some ****ing OWC stations in there!

Depends on how you measure reliability and performance. We're not talking about going 100% solar, wind and hydro tomorrow. These technologies are very reliable. If you mean reliable as in 100% power 100% of the time then no, that kind to dumb argument is not the issue.

Efficiency? Pfft. We have so much sun we could power the entire planet. Who gives a toss about 20% efficiency in a solar PV cell? How about hydro and wind? They are very efficient. Convenient to forget those...

How efficient is nuclear power anyway? How much of the energy in the atom actually goes into boiling water? Probably much less than 20%.

When are you going to address the toxic chemicals pouring out of current reactor core melt downs in Japan?

What is the true death toll from those exposed to the radiation from Chernobyl's reactor melt down?
www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll

Or is radiation not toxic now? Use it as seasoning on your steak...

Id' say someone is wearing deep rose coloured glasses....

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
It is hard to understand reason of your hatred toward sun energy.If Japan don't receive sunlight because of air pollution and sky is dark all the time? You need to come to Australia to see how much free energy is constantly pumped for free from the sky here.
Efficiency? Unless you want to power automobile or airplanes efficiency improvement isn't required. We have enough land herein Australia to power whole globe 3x over.Solar farms in Australia are happy to receive 4c per kwh and still make profit on investment. The problem is that beside feeding public wite electricity we have no idea what to do with such energy abundance. Japan could get 10c worth of electricity and produce something worth 20 cents at the scale required - steel, or machinery.We have this cheap energy and no idea what to do with them. We could not turn 4c of electricity into 10c product, on mass scale.

You're strawmanning.

You don't get sunlight 24 hours a day, and you need electricity 24 hours a day.

If you're only getting 30% efficiency at peak operating times, you're going to need to over-build your power stations to supply demand. Which means you're producing more than you "need" and adding more pollution etc etc to the environment.

This has all been responded to before, multiple times.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
Depends on how you measure reliability and performance. We're not talking about going 100% solar, wind and hydro tomorrow. These technologies are very reliable. If you mean reliable as in 100% power 100% of the time then no, that kind to dumb argument is not the issue.

Efficiency? Pfft. We have so much sun we could power the entire planet. Who gives a toss about 20% efficiency in a solar PV cell? How about hydro and wind? They are very efficient. Convenient to forget those...

How efficient is nuclear power anyway? How much of the energy in the atom actually goes into boiling water? Probably much less than 20%.

When are you going to address the toxic chemicals pouring out of current reactor core melt downs in Japan?

What is the true death toll from those exposed to the radiation from Chernobyl's reactor melt down?
www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll

Or is radiation not toxic now? Use it as seasoning on your steak...

Id' say someone is wearing deep rose coloured glasses....

Reliability and performance. Yes it really is about getting 100% of the power output 100% of the time. On demand. Scalable.

So you're happy to over-build your installation by 300% or more? You have 120 hydroelectric power stations, producing 8.8Gw. 120 versus what could be 8 nuclear. Someone do the math on costs there.

You design a 1Gw nuclear power station, you get up to 1Gw, scalable to demand . That's what we're talking about. Your 11Gw "renewable" station in the link there won't be producing 11Gw even when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. And you still have to "store" it. Are you factoring that into your pricing?

About the time you address the toxic chemicals involved in producing and using PV
You can look up what's "pouring out" of ****ushima and please, pay attention to what the actual levels mean. The damage is in the dose.
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-****ushima-disaster-key-takeaways-years.html

Simply flying commercial will nail you with four times background radiation. OH MY GOD!!!

Exceeding annual doses won't kill you; in fact, case studies of the Chernobyl "Liquidators" have found no increases in cancers or tumors in the surviving cleanup workers, and some sources attribute as few as 50 deaths to the actual incident. The "liquidators" biggest complaints seem to be ever decreasing benefits...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators

Nobody died from radiation sickness at ****ushima. ALL the casualties were due to the earthquake and tsunami.

Radiation Is radiation and toxicity is not radiation. Uranium is about as chemically toxic as lead. You can handle yellow cake with as little protection as surgical gloves and mask. Just ... don't eat the yellow cake. The toxicity will kill you -- not the radiation.

You really need to learn the basics about the science involved. From actual scientists, not The Guardian op eds or Greenpeace freak-out brochures.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

You don't get sunlight 24 hours a day, and you need electricity 24 hours a day.

One day humanity could build a cable that span around the globe. Once we do it , the Sun will always be shining at one side and feeding electric power to the dark one.
Obviously the problem is less technical but ideological and political.At this stage of evolution each country is interested in bulling the rest as much as can, and cooperation on global scale may be more remote then fussion reactors. Ie US will be more interested in shutting electricity in daytime to Russian counterparts, then earning rubles. If one country will completely rely on electric energy supply then the first comes to mind of politicians will be shutting this power to " rogue"country- means any political or economical opponent. But taking into account the world from London to Japan span already half a 24h we don't need whole world to apply, We just need one more belt- this time electric one to have electric power shared between Europe and Asia. Sharing not only solar but also wind energy where is available. So we could start with 20,000 km High Voltage Direct Current line ( supercoduction ASAP) from London to Tokyo , across whole Europe and Asia.This project make much more sense then nuclear plants here or there ready to burst anytime.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Id' say someone is wearing deep rose coloured glasses....

Nuclear can't be all that uneconomic, quite few under construction in countries with better economists than you or I doing the sums. I've heard that even modern coal mines, despite all the filters and air pumps, are still crappy places to work. Given a choice between work in a nuclear power station or a coal mine... go nuclear.

www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/dozens-of-new-black-lung-cases-qld-advocates-say/10851482
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

Macroscien said..
It is hard to understand reason of your hatred toward sun energy.If Japan don't receive sunlight because of air pollution and sky is dark all the time? You need to come to Australia to see how much free energy is constantly pumped for free from the sky here.
Efficiency? Unless you want to power automobile or airplanes efficiency improvement isn't required. We have enough land herein Australia to power whole globe 3x over.Solar farms in Australia are happy to receive 4c per kwh and still make profit on investment. The problem is that beside feeding public wite electricity we have no idea what to do with such energy abundance. Japan could get 10c worth of electricity and produce something worth 20 cents at the scale required - steel, or machinery.We have this cheap energy and no idea what to do with them. We could not turn 4c of electricity into 10c product, on mass scale.

You're strawmanning.

You don't get sunlight 24 hours a day, and you need electricity 24 hours a day.

If you're only getting 30% efficiency at peak operating times, you're going to need to over-build your power stations to supply demand. Which means you're producing more than you "need" and adding more pollution etc etc to the environment.

This has all been responded to before, multiple times.

We don't need the same amount of energy 24 hours a day, though.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..
Depends on how you measure reliability and performance. We're not talking about going 100% solar, wind and hydro tomorrow. These technologies are very reliable. If you mean reliable as in 100% power 100% of the time then no, that kind to dumb argument is not the issue.

Efficiency? Pfft. We have so much sun we could power the entire planet. Who gives a toss about 20% efficiency in a solar PV cell? How about hydro and wind? They are very efficient. Convenient to forget those...

How efficient is nuclear power anyway? How much of the energy in the atom actually goes into boiling water? Probably much less than 20%.

When are you going to address the toxic chemicals pouring out of current reactor core melt downs in Japan?

What is the true death toll from those exposed to the radiation from Chernobyl's reactor melt down?
www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll

Or is radiation not toxic now? Use it as seasoning on your steak...

Id' say someone is wearing deep rose coloured glasses....

Reliability and performance. Yes it really is about getting 100% of the power output 100% of the time. On demand. Scalable.

So you're happy to over-build your installation by 300% or more? You have 120 hydroelectric power stations, producing 8.8Gw. 120 versus what could be 8 nuclear. Someone do the math on costs there.

You design a 1Gw nuclear power station, you get up to 1Gw, scalable to demand . That's what we're talking about. Your 11Gw "renewable" station in the link there won't be producing 11Gw even when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. And you still have to "store" it. Are you factoring that into your pricing?

About the time you address the toxic chemicals involved in producing and using PV
You can look up what's "pouring out" of ****ushima and please, pay attention to what the actual levels mean. The damage is in the dose.
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-****ushima-disaster-key-takeaways-years.html

Simply flying commercial will nail you with four times background radiation. OH MY GOD!!!

Exceeding annual doses won't kill you; in fact, case studies of the Chernobyl "Liquidators" have found no increases in cancers or tumors in the surviving cleanup workers, and some sources attribute as few as 50 deaths to the actual incident. The "liquidators" biggest complaints seem to be ever decreasing benefits...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators

Nobody died from radiation sickness at ****ushima. ALL the casualties were due to the earthquake and tsunami.

Radiation Is radiation and toxicity is not radiation. Uranium is about as chemically toxic as lead. You can handle yellow cake with as little protection as surgical gloves and mask. Just ... don't eat the yellow cake. The toxicity will kill you -- not the radiation.

You really need to learn the basics about the science involved. From actual scientists, not The Guardian op eds or Greenpeace freak-out brochures.

Always forgetting that the future may have micro grids and standalone systems. You think old school. Most people will be able to power themselves and these nuclear power plants will provide power only to urban infrastructure and industry. Unless of course indusrty also transitions to their own power sources.

Think smarter, not bigger.

Select to expand quote

evlPanda said..

Kamikuza said..

Macroscien said..
It is hard to understand reason of your hatred toward sun energy.If Japan don't receive sunlight because of air pollution and sky is dark all the time? You need to come to Australia to see how much free energy is constantly pumped for free from the sky here.
Efficiency? Unless you want to power automobile or airplanes efficiency improvement isn't required. We have enough land herein Australia to power whole globe 3x over.Solar farms in Australia are happy to receive 4c per kwh and still make profit on investment. The problem is that beside feeding public wite electricity we have no idea what to do with such energy abundance. Japan could get 10c worth of electricity and produce something worth 20 cents at the scale required - steel, or machinery.We have this cheap energy and no idea what to do with them. We could not turn 4c of electricity into 10c product, on mass scale.

You're strawmanning.

You don't get sunlight 24 hours a day, and you need electricity 24 hours a day.

If you're only getting 30% efficiency at peak operating times, you're going to need to over-build your power stations to supply demand. Which means you're producing more than you "need" and adding more pollution etc etc to the environment.

This has all been responded to before, multiple times.

We don't need the same amount of energy 24 hours a day, though.

Gee, some logical perspective! Indeed we don't. Most people sleep at night I reckon and manufacturing powers down a lot.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Oh, you got me, you whacky troll!

Select to expand quote

evlPanda said..
We don't need the same amount of energy 24 hours a day, though.

Right. But....

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Normal-24-Hour-Power-Demand_fig2_316515753
www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=830
www.iitk.ac.in/npsc/Papers/NPSC2016/1570293957.pdf

Without some form of storage, you won't be able to supply times of peak demand -- like in the evening.

And don't forget, solar generating efficiency drops when the angle to the sun is more acute too. Lose, lose, lose.
www.civicsolar.com/article/solar-array-tilt-angle-and-energy-output

And you need to be able to ramp up supply when demand changes moment by moment too. Now imagine having to rely on wind for that...****ing wind.

I'd bet that the reason the consortium in HG's link is looking at 11Gw of "renewables" is so that they can cover base demand in the least favorable conditions. Really is starting to sound more and more like "renewables" aren't what you want to be relying on for a national grid...!

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
Gee, some logical perspective! Indeed we don't. Most people sleep at night I reckon and manufacturing powers down a lot.

See the graphs. 8-9pm seems to be daily peak demand...

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

Oh, you got me,

Now you can change you avatar to more adequate selfie.

This thermographic picture show where you overheating brain is located and whole wisdom come from.BTW calling somebody troll, only because you lost all your arguments is not so smart.Hopefully that is the place where our exchange ends, I am not going to respond or comment to another monkey arrogant posts.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Kamikuza said..

Oh, you got me,

Now you can change you avatar to more adequate selfie.

This thermographic picture show where you overheating brain is located and whole wisdom come from.BTW calling somebody troll, only because you lost all your arguments is not so smart.Hopefully that is the place where our exchange ends, I am not going to respond or comment to another monkey arrogant posts.

Come on mate, a copper wire the length of the US? If such preposterous comments are not trolling then you've got not a leg to stand on to call anyone else ignorant.

Wisdom LOL science actually, it's science. Read the links, don't ignore them.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

Come on mate, a copper wire the length of the US? If such preposterous comments are not trolling then you've got not a leg to stand on to call anyone else ignorant.

Wisdom LOL science actually, it's science. Read the links, don't ignore them.

HVDC has advantages and disadvantages. (transmission efficiency the main advantage). The length of the US is not out of the question. Read the link.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

"The longest HVDC link in the world is the Rio Madeira link in Brazil, which consists of two bipoles of ?600 kV, 3150 MW each, connecting Porto Velho in the state of Rond?nia to the S?o Paulo area. The length of the DC line is 2,375 km (1,476 mi).[6]"


www.energy.gov/articles/war-currents-ac-vs-dc-power
"Starting in the late 1880s, Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla were embroiled in a battle now known as the War of the Currents."

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..
Depends on how you measure reliability and performance. We're not talking about going 100% solar, wind and hydro tomorrow. These technologies are very reliable. If you mean reliable as in 100% power 100% of the time then no, that kind to dumb argument is not the issue.

Efficiency? Pfft. We have so much sun we could power the entire planet. Who gives a toss about 20% efficiency in a solar PV cell? How about hydro and wind? They are very efficient. Convenient to forget those...

How efficient is nuclear power anyway? How much of the energy in the atom actually goes into boiling water? Probably much less than 20%.

When are you going to address the toxic chemicals pouring out of current reactor core melt downs in Japan?

What is the true death toll from those exposed to the radiation from Chernobyl's reactor melt down?
www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll

Or is radiation not toxic now? Use it as seasoning on your steak...

Id' say someone is wearing deep rose coloured glasses....

Reliability and performance. Yes it really is about getting 100% of the power output 100% of the time. On demand. Scalable.

So you're happy to over-build your installation by 300% or more? You have 120 hydroelectric power stations, producing 8.8Gw. 120 versus what could be 8 nuclear. Someone do the math on costs there.

You design a 1Gw nuclear power station, you get up to 1Gw, scalable to demand . That's what we're talking about. Your 11Gw "renewable" station in the link there won't be producing 11Gw even when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. And you still have to "store" it. Are you factoring that into your pricing?

About the time you address the toxic chemicals involved in producing and using PV
You can look up what's "pouring out" of ****ushima and please, pay attention to what the actual levels mean. The damage is in the dose.
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-****ushima-disaster-key-takeaways-years.html

Simply flying commercial will nail you with four times background radiation. OH MY GOD!!!

Exceeding annual doses won't kill you; in fact, case studies of the Chernobyl "Liquidators" have found no increases in cancers or tumors in the surviving cleanup workers, and some sources attribute as few as 50 deaths to the actual incident. The "liquidators" biggest complaints seem to be ever decreasing benefits...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators

Nobody died from radiation sickness at ****ushima. ALL the casualties were due to the earthquake and tsunami.

Radiation Is radiation and toxicity is not radiation. Uranium is about as chemically toxic as lead. You can handle yellow cake with as little protection as surgical gloves and mask. Just ... don't eat the yellow cake. The toxicity will kill you -- not the radiation.

You really need to learn the basics about the science involved. From actual scientists, not The Guardian op eds or Greenpeace freak-out brochures.

Always forgetting that the future may have micro grids and standalone systems. You think old school. Most people will be able to power themselves and these nuclear power plants will provide power only to urban infrastructure and industry. Unless of course indusrty also transitions to their own power sources.

Think smarter, not bigger.

"May have". And I have thought about it.
Micro-grids are a fine idea in principle but you're shifting the burden of capital investment to the populace aren't you, AND you'll still have the associated issues PLUS having citizens responsible for maintaining the apparatus.
And you're going to have to sweeten the pot to make people take on that responsibility...
Compare how Japan and NZ handled this.

Japan heavily subsidized PV (and hybrids) and made it mandatory for the power companies to buy the power back at an attractive rate. PV is now incredibly widespread in Japan (AS are hybrids); example, farmers are converting plots of land to small-scale solar farms...


You wouldn't have to be a good shot to their a rock and hit half a dozen houses around you.

Compare with NZ ... no subsidies AFAIK and in some areas up pay a subsidy if you have your own PV.

Kicking around my home town in NZ, you won't see a half dozen houses with PV in the roof. I know cos I counted them.

Some things large industries can just do better, and I think this is a case of simpler is smarter.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Kamikuza said..

Come on mate, a copper wire the length of the US? If such preposterous comments are not trolling then you've got not a leg to stand on to call anyone else ignorant.

Wisdom LOL science actually, it's science. Read the links, don't ignore them.

HVDC has advantages and disadvantages. (transmission efficiency the main advantage). The length of the US is not out of the question. Read the link.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

"The longest HVDC link in the world is the Rio Madeira link in Brazil, which consists of two bipoles of ?600 kV, 3150 MW each, connecting Porto Velho in the state of Rond?nia to the S?o Paulo area. The length of the DC line is 2,375 km (1,476 mi).[6]"


www.energy.gov/articles/war-currents-ac-vs-dc-power
"Starting in the late 1880s, Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla were embroiled in a battle now known as the War of the Currents."

Fair point about the practicality, if not the cost.

But good luck running Macro's cable through a half dozen independent states in the US, which I thought was the more obvious point.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

Fair point about the practicality, if not the cost.

But good luck running Macro's cable through a half dozen independent states in the US, which I thought was the more obvious point.

One advantage of HVDC is it can be transmitted without the synchronisation issues of AC.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_power_transmission_grid

The electrical power grid that powers North America is divided into multiple wide area synchronous grids. The Eastern Interconnection and the Western Interconnection are the largest. Three other regions include the Texas Interconnection, the Quebec Interconnection, and the Alaska Interconnection. Each region delivers power at a nominal 60 Hz frequency. The regions are not usually directly connected or synchronized to each other, but there are some HVDC interconnections.

If you are sending the electrons in one direction only, what happens to the build up of positive charge at the upstream end?

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
If you are sending the electrons in one direction only, what happens to the build up of positive charge at the upstream end?

Earth return? Either that or two wires.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

can be transmitted without the synchronisation issues of AC.

Yep,Absolutely right. Even our Australian Tesla ,the biggest in the world battery bank design is not so much to supply power when is needed the most but grid fluctuations stabilisation. Specifically for great country like US synchronization AC across whole country seems to be nightmare, then fault cascading could render whole country blackout. We have to take into account natural event like solar flares also that could effect grid anytime. Century ago the battle was won by Tesla over Edison because simple transformer was know but silicon transistor needed to build inverter not yet. Lets imagine difficulty in synchronizing 50 and 60Hz grids if we want to build global electric network. As mcu as internet make sense if apply and cover whole world , not your backyard - electricity supply must have similar global coverage.Obviously that is great opportunity for some countries to become main electricity supplier, most likely renovable , because on this global market the cheapest wins.
Luckily we did first step and Australia could become leader on this new market.
www.smh.com.au/business/markets/billionaires-invest-in-massive-solar-farm-to-supply-power-to-singapore-20191120-p53cf7.html

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

actiomax said..It's not like we don't have the resources or the people smart enough to make it happen.

So in your mind, why does this only apply to nuclear power and not renewable energy? Are we dumbstruck all of a sudden?

I don't buy it.

This guy gets it. Full on environmentalist recognising that the blind push for renewable at any cost is achieving a worse result than what we started with.

Who here is advocating a "blind approach" and at "any cost"? That's just a poor interpretation of the discussion.

My point is simply that as coal fired power stations close and efficiency improves we may only need hydro, solar and wind energy with storage to pick up the slack for the foreseeable future.

At 2050 we'll see what works but I'm betting by then the efficiency dividends of renewable energy will be hard to beat.

We don't need a mega new nuclear industry in Australia. That would be a "blind approach" and at "any cost". That would lock us in for decades with expensive proprietary technology and contracts.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
Who here is advocating a "blind approach" and at "any cost"? That's just a poor interpretation of the discussion.

My point is simply that as coal fired power stations close and efficiency improves we may only need hydro, solar and wind energy with storage to pick up the slack for the foreseeable future.

At 2050 we'll see what works but I'm betting by then the efficiency dividends of renewable energy will be hard to beat.

We don't need a mega new nuclear industry in Australia. That would be a "blind approach" and at "any cost". That would lock us in for decades with expensive proprietary technology and contracts.

"may"

The "renewables" crowd always seem to be relying on something magic happening in the future to rescue their sacred cow from low-efficiency and toxic production ... and thus avoiding the horrors the low emission, high reliability of nuclear power.

You may *not* need nuclear in Australia, but you'll have to do better than 6 years of gathering pledges for a renewables fairy tale. This won't be a one-size fits all solution.

PS. one of the links I posted included a graph of how PV efficiency has developed. Best result over the last 30 years (same timeframe as til 2050) was about 15%. In laboratory conditions.

One is for sure. Wind turbines do kill birds and that is why we could not allow them here to cause our native emu extinctions.
Kiwi should follow us with total ban on wind turbines as Kiwi bird is ever more endangered.
Then according to the greatest expert in the field those wind turbines do cause cancer by noise and sometime only remote view on the horizons/.
edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/12/24/trump-windmills-attack-jeanne-moos-ebof-pkg-vpx.cnn
I love that part about how pollution from wind turbines do spread around the world to effect on another continent. This is way we all should demand to close all wind turbines in Chna and Norway as their pollution is killing us.