octave

Nowhere near the time of a nuclear plant. It takes years to decommission a power plant. The power plant in the first video I posted closed in 2013 and still is nowhere near finished. They don't even have anywhere yet to put the waste other than leaving it onsite. The Finish underground vault is an enormously expensive complicated construction. Demolishing a wind farm I would imagine is not that much different than a bridge or other similar structure. As I have said lots of times, show me the expected costs of building, running, decommissioning and safeguarding the waste. Without that information up front, how can anyone throw their support behind it.

I think if we are to do it we need to know the relevant costs including decommissioning and how that will be done. It seems in many parts of the world they went ahead with it hoping a solution to waste would become apparent when the time came. Here is a short doco on the closed-down nuclear power station in the US. It is not a rabidly anti nuclear doco but it does illustrate the need to have a plan for waste an decommissioning. I think it is entirely reasonable and responsible to demand this information before we get on board with this. Finland seems more proactive. The price of this disposal will have to be reflected in the cost of electricity.

PM The thing is that if we go nuclear we are extremely unlikely to be 100% nuclear. I believe that the country with the largest percentage of Nuclear is France at 65%. If we compare a similar country to Australia, lets say Canada, they have 15% nuclear. The bulk of their power is non-nuclear. Electricity sector in Canada Coal: 5.7 (5.7%) Natural gas, oil, and others: 11.8 (11.8%) Nuclear: 14.6 (14.6%) Hydro: 60.2 (60.1%) Non-hydro renewables: 7.8 (7.8%) Whatever happens a large percentage of electricity generation will be non-nuclear unless we do something that no other country has done and go 100% nuclear. As far as 3$ billion in renewable energy certificates, it is my understanding that the proposals for nuclear will involve substantial government financial input. This is how it appears to work in the rest of the world. "Subsidies have been a part of nuclear policy since the beginning of the industry. No nuclear power project has proceeded anywhere without government support." I am not necessarily against government subsidies or nuclear power for that matter, but the economic case has not been presented and I fear it won't be before the next election. It seems pointless to talk about subsidies to wind and solar without the knowledge of subsidies that will be required for nuclear. Again if we build 7 nuclear reactors it it will not be instead of solar and wind etc but as well as.

That's good to hear.

Do you feel I come down on you like a ton of bricks? Or do I just link to data that you are free to dispute? Disagreeing is the lifeblood of this forum. Sometimes all of us can feel we are a voice in the wilderness when the majority of others hold a different opinion. I am happy for people to disagree with me as long as they are willing to back up their assertions and are polite

Yep, overnight night. I lived in a house on a property with no mains power and my battery bank was similar except with more capacity. I was able to power my house overnight. Most days I had the solar capacity to run my house and charge my batteries. This is not a one-off there are plenty of community batteries installed and proposed. it is not just about independence from the grid. Some of these towns have unreliable power due to infrastructure (poles and wires etc) Although a diesel generator may have a lower upfront cost it is also loud smelly and carcinogenic. Benefits of community batteries Allows more rooftop solar and electric devices, such as electric vehicle chargers to be connected. They will strengthen the grid reducing the need to limit (curtail) solar exports and help customers maximise their solar investment. Helps share more solar within the local area, including to households without solar. Creates a positive impact on wholesale electricity prices that could eventually flow through to reduced electricity prices Helps to regulate voltage on the network and improves network quality in the local area. Offers a flexible alternative to traditional poles and wires investment and helps lower network costs. Access to an online information hub where the community can see how much energy was stored and used daily.

In terms of home batteries and safety, I guess it comes down to the a risk-benefit situation. Houses have been burned down by a gas leak and people have died from carbon monoxide poisoning form inadequately ventilation. I think the point is what is the track record of home batteries. Another issue is that battery chemistry is progressing fast. Sodium shows great promise especially for static use although these batteries are in some cars already. First sodium-ion battery EVs go into serial production in China Here is an interesting home "battery" that is available right now https://www.lavo.com.au/lavo-hydrogen/ This is a unit that uses excess solar to produce hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis and then when needed recombines them in a fuel cell. I know what you are thinking hydrogen could explode. The hydrogen is stored not under pressure but within a metal hydride. The downside at this point in time is that it is more expensive than a traditional battery. I foresee a time when each house will power itself. I guess the power retailers will hate that. There are country towns that already have community batteries. One to look at is the town of Yackandandah or Yack as the locals call it. To me, these are interesting times

There is no doubt that society's appetite for electricity will increase. There are factors that will help stem the increase. As you have pointed out rooftop solar is a huge factor. In my case since I have installed solar my monitoring app shows that I have produced 25,4 MWh and I have used 14.8MWh and sent my excess 10.6MWh back to the grid. Of course, I do need the grid for night and adverse weather unless I get a battery or an EV which could also act as a battery. Basically, I with my small system produce much more than I use. Recently flying interstate and landing over the city (Adelaide) it was amazing to see how many houses and factories have panels. EVs may pose some challenges but also are a huge benefit. Overnight the demand for power drops dramatically. There is even a name for it (duck curve) EVs are an advantage when they charge overnight and with v2g technology can sell some back during peak times. This is not fiction but is starting to happen overseas and can be especially useful to fleet owners who operate 9 to 5. I was going to post some links but you can look it up yourself. It is fascinating even exciting to me at least. Data centres have been mentioned. I know many especially Google are working on this, even if only for monetary reasons. "In 2022 – for the sixth consecutive year – Google matched 100 percent of its global annual electricity consumption with purchases of renewable energy." If we need more power generation then it becomes a question of what methods we adopt. We certainly want clean electricity but it also has to be cost effective. My question is, is Nuclear the most economical method when taking into account building running and decommissioning? By the way, look up decommissioning and note the cost and time and the few power stations have been fully decommissioned. I am not totally philosophically opposed to nuclear but it must be shown that it is cheaper and cleaner. Anyone who is on board with the opposition plan must surely have doubts without those questions being answered. Other issues are, who will build them? I doubt we have the expertise here. To those who are totally onboard without knowing the answers to these questions, I would ask them to give me an example of a country similar to Australia so we can see how long it took them to build theirs and how much it cost them and if they have had any challenges. Even if we do go nuclear we will need other clean methods to use in the meantime and to support nuclear. France has been aggressively nuclear and now 70% of its power comes from reactors which means 30% comes from somewhere else. I believe I am being rational by saying I can not decide without knowing the cost, how long will it take to get them online, who will build them and how will waste and decommissioning be handled.

My last post is electricity 2010 to 2023. It shows a modest fall. This of course may not continue. I think some of the factors in this fall are increased efficiencies such as LED lighting etc. Also the enormous uptake of rooftop solar. Economic conditions may also play a part. This small decrease seems to be worldwide.

Annual electricity consumption in the NEM in Australia from financial year 2010 to 2023

Australia’s energy consumption fell 0.1% in 2021-22 to 5,762 PJ, the third successive year of decline and down 7% from the all-time peak of 6,188 PJ in 2018-19. The drop in consumption in 2021-22 was 7 PJ. https://www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-energy-statistics/energy-consumption This is all energy not just electricity. I am still looking for a more clear source.

I believe energy consumption has decreased. I will have a look for the figures. I think the reason is improved efficiencies etc.

My question still stands though. What percentage of our power needs would the 6 or 7 reactors proposed for Australia contribute? Without this information how can anyone make a rational call on this?

I just read that Canada has 19 reactors which generate 15 percent of if it's power needs. What percentage will the 6 or 7 proposed here contribute?

I have not so far expressed a strong opinion and am not necessarily philosophy opposed to nuclear power. I do however need to know the cost of construction and decommissioning. I want to know who would build it. know about waste storage. When I look at recent constructions they do appear to be expensive and slow. I also need to make comparisons with other methods. I think this is fair and open-minded

My son's first EV had this arrangement - BMWI3 very practical in some respects but flawed in other ways

The change from the Julian calender to the Gregorian.

Spacey can you post an actual link. This was the figure in question. No drama though. I thought perhaps a typo

Yes quite correct, Posted in haste I meant the Earth. Certainly not 50 billion.

Billion? the universe is only 4.5 billion years old.

My last month's (actually 24 days) electricity bill was $46.53 however we are in credit. This bill will cost me $16.38 will cost. All electric home. Why is it so low? It helps that we live in a quite small place and we try to schedule as much use during the middle of the day.

6c/kWh super off-peak discount applied to your overnight market rates between 12am - 6am AEST. ENGIE Electric Vehicle (EV) Night Saver

I have read various things about supplies of minerals for modern tech. I do think it is an important issue. Lithium doesn't seem to be a problem. I think I have read more about copper. Recycling will have to be a major part if we are to continue to advance electronic technology. Oil is not a finite resource and can only be burnt once although things like plastic of course can be recycled in some cases. If the minerals required in our electronic devices become harder to source then the price will go up, This also applies to oil.

EVs are generally more expensive to insure. The charging network needs to expand EVs generally have a higher sticker price Longer trips need more planning Rushing out and buying a new EV does not make sense for everyone at this stage 100% EV is many many years away is at all. We are still at the enthusiast stage of adoption These are all things I believe I have mentioned in my posts.