Siso

They are paying now though!

We could go back to the old saying, fusion has been 20 years away for the last 50 years

They have plenty of offshore wind turbines and is a smaller country so don't need the 1000'a of km of transmission to be built. They are also interconnected to France and Norway, but still want to build their own NPPs

And yet the UK are going to build more NPPs. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-expansion-of-nuclear-power-for-70-years-to-create-jobs-reduce-bills-and-strengthen-britains-energy-security

So you are saying any extra heat the nuclear plant puts out against coal and gas is worse than the green house warming the emiisions from coal and gas? Can't see that mentioned in the article.

Just expanding the information you put out there.

Gen 3 reactors have a large tank of water to cool an over heating reactor just sitting there, in the very rare case it may overheat. (passive cooling) Coal also needs water for dust suppression in mines and crushing plants. Cooling can be done with sea water if available. France did have trouble once in 2022. It is only a matter of using larger heat exchangers. They still abate more CO2 then any other technology for the footprint and possibly cost. The countries that are doing the best in this regards are France and Sweden. Denmark have been trying to do it for 50 years and still have a coal fired power station See https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR/72h/hourly. A bit of interesting reading here for people who think it is windy somewhere https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/2024/06/13june-lowwind/ There was a roughly 3 month wind lull in April , May and June last year. https://wattclarity.com.au/market-operations/eventful-days/2024-q2-wind-lull/

Pumped hydro doesn't generate power, it stores it from somewhere else. Hydrogen needs to compressed a great deal and refrigerated to liquify it for good storage which loses more efficiency. Solar has less than 30% capacity factor.

Nuclear power uses about the same amount of water as coal. It also gives emission free water desalination when needed. Just making the point they don't need anymore cooling than other technologies.

Nuclear power stations don't put out anywhere near the heat than the CO2 they displace from coal or gas stations.

You don't get a bill every 3 months for your car. Once you have a car you don't need to worry about it again until you buy another car. Nothing like buying a car really! I have better things to do then look at previous bills as with pretty well everyone else I know.

I was being a bit tongue in cheek regarding the whole economist and a lawyer thing but even what you have gone through should not be necessary. It is a necessity and not all people are that computer illiterate. If I need to look at a page on the internet I start thinking about other stuff. It is a joke! The lesser educated people are the ones that are going to suffer the most. A lot of people aren't home to use there solar if they have it.

It's cheaper remember, about $275 a year.

It would be nice if you didn't need to be a lawyer or economist to get cheap affordable electricity. It is a necessity, not just a nice to have. Not everyone can or wants to decipher data, especially it seems if you are more of a hands-on type person.

Sorry, I thought you said you pay a couple of extra cents. Still kinds of misleads the general public. I had a friend say the Adelaide City Council only uses renewable energy which is not right obviously to some of us but not to the non engineering background people. There is at least 2 gas turbines running continuously in Adelaide directed by AEMO for grid stability so ACC will be getting some of that. ACC purchase some of there energy from a solar farm near Streaky bay on the west coast of the state about 500 km away in a straight line so really they would not be using any of the energy from there. I feel it is misleading and hides how hard the renewable grid is going to be. It also does a dis-service to the rural towns who host these facilities. Does this mean they only use the fossil fueled part of the grid. The ACT do the same thing but are close to the grid stabilising coal plants in NSW. When they say SA got 85% of there power from renewable, I wander if that is minus the stuff the ACT claim from the Hornesdale wind farm or is it double dipped. There is no Wind turbines even visible from Adelaide because it will ruin the view.

Why do you pay extra for green electricity. It is a well publicised fact by our energy minister that wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy.

Indonesia are advancing with some new type nuclear. Hopefully this helps. https://www.petromindo.com/news/article/thorcon-plans-4-gw-of-nuclear-power-by-2035-in-indonesia Thorcon has been working with there government for quite a few years.

Sounds like the renewable policy. No one has done what Australia is attempting with Wind and solar unless the have lots of hydro and accessible geothermal. Looks like a lot of storage in the ISP is behind the meter(electric cars, power walls) Do we really want the public controlling our energy system (towards the end of the video)

Also ban politicians and their staffers from taking jobs with companies that they had contact with during their political careers. Conflict of interests don't seem to matter. Couple in recent times have gone into the gas industry

Love pumped hydro, 80%round trip efficiency, multiple GW size storage and a mature technology.

sorry I'm late on this. Regarding the report the coalition have on NP. It can't be worse than the gen cost report. It sounds like the new one still give NP a 30 year life which is not right. Some plants have been given 20 year extensions on their 40 year lives which will bring them out to 60 years. There is no reason not to expect the new reactors to be capable of 80 years. They also gave wind a 40-50% capacity factor. The farm I worked was in the low 30's and one year I know was under 30%. There hasn't been much private interest in NP in Australia because the easiest way for companies to make money is the status quo. Do we really want private companies running our power. It hasn't really been to successful in the last 30 years. NP can load follow, it just never has had to and hasn't been a top priority. The other thing with private retailers is that the general public should not have to be corparate lawers or economists to get the best deal on electricity. This harms less educated (I'm a fitter and work with my hands. If I start reading documents my mind goes blank after a few minutes unless they are technical) people more. Electricity is not just a nice to have but is a necessity. Nuclear spent fuel problem has been solved with recycling, 300year storage for fission products (approx 10 half lives and then very little radiation left) and burial for the long lived waste. (long lived because it is not very radioactive) The biggest issue with it is the new fuel is so damn cheap it may not be economic. Same story with wind turbine blades. Denmark has been going down the renewable path a long time but they still have a coal fired plant. (see www.electrictymaps.com) Germany's opposition are talking about restarting some nuclear plants that are still in one piece. There is a plan for large virtual battery's using everybody's home battery. Do we want our grid to reply on the home owner. I know people that are getting so little return on the excess they are putting into the grid while the retailer gets a lot more saying the will turn them off. Energy Australia was looking at doing pumped storage in SA near port Augusta using sea water but there was not enough profit in it. They will probably hang off until the government (taxpayers)give more money to make it more profitable. I am not anti renewables (worked on a wind farm for over 10 years) but they are far from the answer by themselves. Finished now.

There are different parts to the spent fuel. The fission products that is the high level waste which needs to be stored for 10 half lives (about 300 years) and it will be back to background, this is the nasty stuff and is really radioactive but decays reasonably quickly. Unused fuel(uranium 235 and one of the isotopes of plutonium 239?) which can be reused in the reactor. Light water reactors only use about 3 % of this so it can be recycled and the long lived waste which is not very radioactive and can be stored safely underground. You would need to eat this for the radioactivity to hurt you- Alpha radiation. I wouldn't because it is still a heavy metal. This needs spent fuel reprocessing to separate these parts. France currently does this.

The bad spent fuel is only bad for a small number of years. After 300 it is only as radioactive as normal. It gets less radioactive everyday. The long lived spent fuel is only long lived because it is not very radioactive. There is still a lot of potential energy left in the spent fuel that can/should be recycled. Hopefully new reactors will be built with decommissioning in mind. Yes I would quite have a Nuclear spent fuel facility next to me. Not saying we should use NPPs, but it should seriously looked at.

Storing h2 for export is not easy. High pressures and low temps are needed, losses in efficiency. I think Fortescue have given up in NW WA

The salt has a higher boiling point(>1000degrees) then water meaning that the reactor part of the cycle can be kept at or close to atmospheric pressure instead of high pressure to keep the water liquid around the core. (70 bar in a BWR) The salt is then passed through a heat exchanger to turn water to steam for the turbines. Also in the very unlikely event that the reactor leaks it falls on the floor, cools and solidifies instead of flashing to steam.