Global Warming | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Global Warming

And the nuclear can build a reliable base load.
And peak load. Once coal and gas generators are decommissioned, nothing we have now and have planned for the future will give us the security and consistency of 24/7 coverage. Otherwise we just shut the country down. Battery components already limited now. So good luck.
If we are going doing a 100% renewables path and we are going to have blackouts the only fair thing to do is have them in Teal and Green electorates as they are not wanting alternatives to having a reliable base load.
Great idea. They can use a thumbprint at general elections. Then get the address from that (names redacted, use a QR code)
Then ship them to a designated “Green” area.
Confiscate anything plastic, metal or not natural..fibres etc. no cars, pushbikes
Give them some old preloved timber to reuse for a hoochy. No wood fires either. Might have to be somewhere where the weather is mild. Or use skins or timber fibres for clothes and footwear. It might be a fair walk to work though. They may have to take jobs as herdsmen as I’m sure they wouldn’t want to work in an air conditioned office or use computers or mobiles or other stuff not good for the climate.
Just wave to them when you go past 😁 while they’re still gnawing on their sun dried fish
 
All this talk of where they want to put the nukes is irrelevant, this is a distraction. We need real solutions to energy and climate.

DS
 
A more progressive country than Australia like Finland can see that nuclear is sustainable. And it’s even the Green Party! Get with the program progressives.


 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well at least they’ve come that far.
Now to produce the costings

If it’s $10 billion for a 20 offshore wind turbine farm. One of the another 15 wind farms to come . Then the ongoing maintenance of the turbines of over $25 million per year.
Then the total replacement costs as I’ve roughly calculated above of $2billion per year
So the cost so far for the 4 offshore wind turbine farms plus the planned next 15 farms is approx $190 billion. With no hua4entee the wind will be constant or in the right direction for any generator output. If the wind fluctuates they just sit there generating zero. Will there be any battery storage to go with this system? I highly doubt you’d get one for that capacity.
So when the wind is down! So is the power generation.

I wonder what the cost figure is for 7 reactors….depends on sizes I believe.

According to CSIRO's GenCost report, a theoretical 1,000MW nuclear plant built today would cost at least $8.6bn. The report said nuclear costs in that range “can only be achieved if Australia commits to a continuous building program and only after an initial higher cost unit is constructed
But then the CSIRO the next day doubled the cost.Why? The dog ate their homework. Only an $8 billion miscalculation somewhere.

But even using the “updated” figure a total of $112 billion is still far cheaper than 22 offshore wind turbine farms at $190 billion,
Plus the reoccurring costs of $2 billion per year (after year 10) for replacement of turbine towers, nacelles and blades due to seawater/air corrosion. Plus $25 million per year in maintenance costs.Switchgear, inverter replacements costs to come as well.

It’s only money.
No need to bring out the costings yet,the Labor Government haven't given us their costs on all the renewables .
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well at least they’ve come that far.
Now to produce the costings

If it’s $10 billion for a 20 offshore wind turbine farm. One of the another 15 wind farms to come . Then the ongoing maintenance of the turbines of over $25 million per year.
Then the total replacement costs as I’ve roughly calculated above of $2billion per year
So the cost so far for the 4 offshore wind turbine farms plus the planned next 15 farms is approx $190 billion. With no hua4entee the wind will be constant or in the right direction for any generator output. If the wind fluctuates they just sit there generating zero. Will there be any battery storage to go with this system? I highly doubt you’d get one for that capacity.
So when the wind is down! So is the power generation.

I wonder what the cost figure is for 7 reactors….depends on sizes I believe.

According to CSIRO's GenCost report, a theoretical 1,000MW nuclear plant built today would cost at least $8.6bn. The report said nuclear costs in that range “can only be achieved if Australia commits to a continuous building program and only after an initial higher cost unit is constructed
But then the CSIRO the next day doubled the cost.Why? The dog ate their homework. Only an $8 billion miscalculation somewhere.

But even using the “updated” figure a total of $112 billion is still far cheaper than 22 offshore wind turbine farms at $190 billion,
Plus the reoccurring costs of $2 billion per year (after year 10) for replacement of turbine towers, nacelles and blades due to seawater/air corrosion. Plus $25 million per year in maintenance costs.Switchgear, inverter replacements costs to come as well.

It’s only money.

Because those costings were based on the world leading builder, South Korea. Doubling those costs is actually conservative if you take into account lack of nuclear build experience, different site conditions, labour cost, regulatory environment, different materials and transportation costs to Australia.

But the biggest one is lack of local expertise and experience - this means delays and mistakes. Sure, bring experts from OS in - but that costs double of using locals.

Have a look at any large government project in an untried domain and double/triple cost blowouts are frequent.

Of course any estimates provided by the Coalition will be ... interesting.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
No need to bring out the costings yet,the Labor Government haven't given us their costs on all the renewables .
Apparently more than $1trillion.
Then there are the repetitive costs for replacing solar panels and inverters, wind turbine towers, nacelles and blades when their life span expires, between 10-20 years.
Plus all the lasrge grid size batteries which have a finite life span as well, that’s if they come up with a replacement for lithium. Otherwise the whole setup that uses lithium batteries at home, commercially or industrially is obsolete and an alternative will be needed. Which will be what? Build time? Cost? Efficiency? Security? On stand supply upon demand?

Hydrogen, pumped hydro, thermal all still to be developed.
But similarly with the enormous cost of offshore wind farms and the shortcomings they have, no doubt the green brigade and anti nuclear groups won’t care how much it costs or how reliable it is or whether it actually works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Because those costings were based on the world leading builder, South Korea. Doubling those costs is actually conservative if you take into account lack of nuclear build experience, different site conditions, labour cost, regulatory environment, different materials and transportation costs to Australia.

But the biggest one is lack of local expertise and experience - this means delays and mistakes. Sure, bring experts from OS in - but that costs double of using locals.

Have a look at any large government project in an untried domain and double/triple cost blowouts are frequent.

Of course any estimates provided by the Coalition will be ... interesting.
Im sure they will use the same workers that are used for the solar farms,,NOT.


 
Im sure they will use the same workers that are used for the solar farms,,NOT.



Whats the relevance of a specialised nuclear plant build to standard solar builds?
 
Capacity Investment Scheme massively oversubscribed, energy minister says


The first large-scale auction in the revamped Capacity Investment Scheme has indicated the plan will be successful in accelerating new developments, the federal Energy minister has declared.
Colin Packham
June 19, 2024 4:43 pm


The first round of bids for the federal Labor’s centrepiece energy policy attached bids with a combined capacity of four times the government had tendered for and indicates the effectiveness of the mechanism, Energy minster Chris Bowen has declared.


Labor last year said it would underwrite 32GW of new renewable energy and storage development in a bid to meet its 2030 target, but senior industry figures — notably EnergyAustralia’s managing director Mark Collette — said the scheme was potentially too cumbersome.



Moving to defend the policy, Mr Bowen said the first auction for new renewable energy development had now closed and projects with a combined capacity of 24GW had sought to join the scheme. The federal government in conjunction with states had tendered for just 6GW.

“There is a massive pipeline of renewables. Yes, we need the right policy settings and we have them with the Capacity Investment Scheme,” Mr Bowen told The Australian’s Energy Nation Forum.

The majority of tender capacity has been earmarked for NSW, with a target of 2.2GW of capacity for Australia’s most populous state. A further 0.3GW for South Australia, 1.4GW for Victoria and 0.3GW for Tasmania. The remaining 1.8GW will be allocated across the National Electricity Market, including Queensland.


While Mr Bowen seized on the result as evidence of the effectiveness of the scheme, other industry sources said it did not dispel the criticism of Mr Collette.

The EnergyAustralia executive has warned the complexity of the scheme will make picking who will be selected to be underwritten extremely difficult, while there is no onerous requirement on winners to actually deliver the projects.



Labor hopes the scheme will kickstart Australia’s ailing energy transition, but the design potentially exposes the taxpayer to substantial liability,


The scheme sees developers guaranteed a minimum return on new solar and wind projects. Should the wholesale electricity price fall below an agreed threshold, taxpayers will compensate the renewable energy project.

Should the wholesale electricity price exceed a metric, developers pay the government, a design which removes revenue risk from developers and accelerates investment.


Mr Bowen, however, said the substantial interest in the scheme would add downward pressure on contracted terms.


“The Capacity Investment Scheme may not cost the taxpayer a dollar,” said Mr Bowen.

Industry sources, however, said taxpayers were likely to have to subsidise the renewable projects, particularly as Australia’s record proliferation of rooftop solar sends the wholesale price across the National Electricity Market into negative territory frequently during some months.



Still, the scheme is Labor’s attempt to accelerate the development of new renewable energy projects and meet its 2030 targets.

Labor has set aggressive targets of having renewable energy generate more than 80 per cent of the country’s electricity by 2030 — the cornerstone of its plan to reduce emissions by 43 per cent.

But, the target looks increasingly in peril, with authorities saying Australia must develop new renewable energy sources of power urgently or risk a decade of unreliable electricity supplies.


Illustrating the issue, the NSW state Labor government earlier this month was forced to enter into a deal with Origin Energy to keep Australia’s largest coal power station, Eraring, open for at least two more years.

The NSW government insists the extension will provide time for developers to build sufficient replacements.

But, the challenge is stark, underscored by analysis compiled by The Australian which showed 15 of the 79 new energy projects considered by AEMO have experienced delays. The combined capacity of the 15 projects are nearly 3.5GW, which is larger than the output of Eraring.

Industry sources said the delays were the result of inflationary pressures, which have increased the costs of projects, planning holdups, transmission build issues and policy decisions.



Australia is struggling to build the high-voltage transmission lines needed to connect new developments to the grid, while recent policy from the federal government is also weighing on the plans of developers.


I wonder what the overall cost of this scheme is going to cost the taxpayer?
Who pays for the replacement cost of new solar panels and inverters, wind turbine towers, nacelles and turbine blades when they need replacing after the end of their lifespan?
Replacement of grid batteries costs and availability?
Who pays for all the new grid rollout?

It’s all right for these companies to win a contract and build the initial infrastructure. But all the ongoing costs of changing out these plants when their life span expires. They can walk away or go into bankruptcy.
What happens to the domestic, commercial and industrial markets and end users. The government of the day will be responsible. How one does it take to get an alternative 24/7 energy solution built and in place?

Or maybe industry will only work between 10am - 2pm when solar is at its optimum, maybe longer if the wind turbines are blowing.
 
It seems that well known socialist Comrade Dutton has moved from a vague fairyland policy of advocating nukes to a full blown fairy tale involving socialist government owned nukes.

Still, it is all a distraction so no-one need be concerned that the LNP are turning into a bunch of pinkos. Just an excuse to prolong the burning of fossil fuels.

DS
 
Great idea to have a strategic resource like power generation under the federal government.
Better that, than like massively subsidising the build like with renewables and then just giving it over to the big power companies to exploit as the taxpayers expense. We cop it both ways.


When state governments controlled and administered their own power utilities. Then found out flogging them off to private enterprise made them hundreds of $millions. Under the guise of cheaper power by competition. How’d that work out?


Just like defence being under the Feds
Health, Aged Care and also Education should as well.
 
I dunno about all this mumbo jumbo between all you guys re global warming, science etc, but on a very base and pure weather level, bloody hell the weather in Melbourne has been great the last few months. I moaned my guts out about the 2022 Winter (one of the worst on record) and the poor 2023 Spring and start to Summer, but geepers, prepared to acknowledge the weather since mid January has been simply outstanding.

Mid-Jan to February were great Summer months. The Autumn was spectacular with warm days and next to zero wind. And now, Winter so far has also been mild with no wind as well. Ok, couple of chilly days lately but blue skies and barely a breath of wind. Fantastic !

Probably cursed us now..... :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
The waste? Similar to the “forever chemicals” used in EV’s and heat pumps. Obsolete carbon fibre blades from wind turbines.

are you seriously suggesting nuclear waste and an old wind turbine blade are analogous?

serious?

and others comparing OH&S on a solar farm to a nuclear plant?

jeez.

truth was the first casualty of (culture) war.

I personally find the renewable hate (popular amidst the Facebook 'Freedom Community') as bizarre as I found people fighting over toilet paper

if we had Facebook in the early 20th century, would the Southern Cross Windmill have been a big woke lie?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
are you seriously suggesting nuclear waste and an old wind turbine blade are analogous?
I don’t know where you want to put that waste, but sounds painful
serious?

and others comparing OH&S on a solar farm to a nuclear plant?
Did they?
jeez.

truth was the first casualty of (culture) war.

I personally find the renewable hate (popular amidst the Facebook 'Freedom Community') as bizarre as I found people fighting over toilet paper
:giggle: Better than using a sharp, stick…unless
if we had Facebook in the early 20th century, would the Southern Cross Windmill have been a big woke lie?
Where is it?
 
Australian Pipelines and Gas Association chief executive Steve Davies said the industry had been warning about looming shortfalls for half a decade.

“Little has been done to remedy it — the opposite has occurred and businesses are being asked to pay the price,” he said.

“In the first 19 days of June, gas-powered generation in Victoria has already been used as much as the entire winter of 2023, indicating how important it is when it’s desperately needed. But you can’t have gas generation without supply.

“The AEMO warning today on the risks of gas supply to Victoria is a fail against the Andrews/Allan Labor government and its energy policy.

“Their war on gas – their hatred of gas – has left Victorian industry and households vulnerable.

“Gas will have a critical role in managing the intermittent nature of renewable energy supply as shown by the low percentage of renewables in the system over the last few days where coal and gas have carried the load.”

Last year AEMO warned the state’s outlook has deteriorated dramatically in just six months, warning supply reliability will become even more compromised later this decade.

In a damning report it singled Victoria as the most at risk state, forecasting the closure of Energy Australia’s Yallourn power station by 2027-28 would exacerbate the state’s issues.

Supply shortfalls are also expected to drive higher wholesale prices that will flow through to households and businesses, leading to further hikes in Victorians’ power bills.

 
  • Wow
Reactions: 1 user