OK, so nuclear. Replying from a while back. Yes, it seems LCOE does not include the cost of energy storage, we can wonder how to allow for this difference. OK, maybe there are issues around the cost of decommissioning, but decommissioning & nuclear waste are not as bad as they sound. #auspol 1/13 - ThreadSky

johnasydney.bsky.social • 73 days ago

OK, so nuclear. Replying from a while back. Yes, it seems LCOE does not include the cost of energy storage, we can wonder how to allow for this difference. OK, maybe there are issues around the cost of decommissioning, but decommissioning & nuclear waste are not as bad as they sound. #auspol 1/13

Comments

tasmaniacturtle.bsky.social•73 days ago

How long until Chernobyl or sellafield is made safe?
What is the long term storage strategy?

johnasydney.bsky.social•73 days ago

Mate, you could have waited till I got to post No. 13.

tasmaniacturtle.bsky.social•73 days ago

I don't think I need to.
Renewables are the future.
Nuclear is the past.
But play on master Ridley...

johnasydney.bsky.social•73 days ago

Proof by strong assertion.

tasmaniacturtle.bsky.social•73 days ago

The history of nuclear power speaks for itself.

johnasydney.bsky.social•73 days ago

Coal power stations create airborne radiation; you can point at nuclear waste. And while peole talk about "half a million years", after 10,000 years gamma radiation equals that of the original ore & overall radiation is 10,000X less. Over a lifetime, but much less than half a million years. 2/13

tasmaniacturtle.bsky.social•73 days ago

10 000 years.
Sounds reasonable.
LOL

johnasydney.bsky.social•73 days ago

There's hidden deaths from coal power, even with nuclear accidents, you kill 3,000X more people for the same power. Chernobyl was the Soviet Union, Windscale was a weapons ( not power ) reactor, Three Mile Island had in fact a minimal release, and Fukushima resulted from inept regulation. 3/13

johnasydney.bsky.social•73 days ago

Fukushima, well I there I worry about our human frailties, and our ability to properly regulate things, because the fault really rests with our human "original sin" rather than nuclear technology in itself. Still, you kill fewer people overall with nuclear. 4/13

tasmaniacturtle.bsky.social•73 days ago

But human frailties are fixed now?

johnasydney.bsky.social•73 days ago

At the other end of the scale, I recall an administrator of a nuclear power station, that he signed 500 bits of paper a day. Yes, nuclear obliges a regulatory framework with good scrutiny, but driven by unrealistic fears, that's not necessarily what we'll get. 5/13

tasmaniacturtle.bsky.social•73 days ago

Non sequitur

johnasydney.bsky.social•73 days ago

OK, coal fired power stations, what about renewables? I'm happy for household solar cells, but it is a private initiative. While you can pull less power from the grid, it harder to feed more of that power back. And houses take up 30% of our energy consumption, you can only do so much. 6/13

tasmaniacturtle.bsky.social•73 days ago

Four million households have solar panels. That's quite a private initiative.
It's also more electricity generation than the entire coalition "plan"

johnasydney.bsky.social•73 days ago

Yes, let's try to make power users more flexible - aluminium extraction electrolytic cells with better "idle" states - but limiting the power use in hospitals and other places is a bit silly - you can only go so far. 7/13

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply