So he IS capable of honesty…amazing. They don’t believe in needing to lower emissions, but need to be seen to be wanting to, without a hope of ever being able to, which suits them..
I wish the LNP would stop dedicating all their efforts to solving their political problems, and to start thinking about how to solve real problems for real people.
Dick Smith is growing old and tired. There are many other forms of renewable energy storage solutions, other that Lithium batteries, like Zinc Bromine batteries developed in Australia. Also, lithium storage batteries are often recycled EV batteries.
I don't think anyone is making the argument that nuclear is the cheapest form of power.
But it would be optimal to have nuclear energy as one segment of the energy source for a country like Australia. Nuclear energy is quite green compared to fossil fuels and also statistically safer. Costly upfront
The power grid is frequently operating at its limits.....especially in summer. Nuclear power would provide depth to Australia's energy sources. We need that to become competitive.
What is meant by “operating at its limits”? If you mean the transmission grid, which is currently often the limiting factor, nuclear does nothing to solve this.
My understanding is that projections for future energy needs in Australia predict regular shortfalls.
Nuclear energy aspartof the energy mix along wifh infrastructure upgrades can help to mitigate against this.
Incorrect, unless you're referring to the coalition's nuclear plans that are predicated on a reduction in demand and only meeting a small portion of the reduced demand with high cost nuclear.
In reality, Australia's electricity demand will increase. Firmed renewables are lowest cost&emission sol'n.
The amount of nuclear the coalition is proposing won't solve that - in fact it will make things worse. Remember they won't build any new transmission infrastructure- so no growth in capacity.
I don't endorse the Coalition's plan. I think Dutton is just using the nuclear argument to keep fossil fuels in the mix.
I think that Nuclear Energy could have a role in securing Australia's energy needs over the next 100 years.
AI reveals the real cost of renewables: 5,200 km² of solar farms are needed to produce 250 TWh annually—an enormous land use!
Nuclear delivers the same energy on a fraction of that space. Are we making the smartest energy choices? Let’s talk. ⚡🌍 https://chatgpt.com/share/6784a909-b9c0-8012-b5fe-e0149d9ad78a
That's because they aren't using real world data to do the math to create 250TWh via renewables annually.
The math is incredibly simple if you just take a 60 seconds to look at it.
Here is the Wikipedia link to Topaz Solar Farm that is a summary of it's data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm
It just saves me from typing out a table manually...
This is not "ChatGPT data"; this is official data on these renewable energy projects from Wikipedia and all other major sites that detail RE project information.
Your inability to look up basic costs/etc of the biggest RE projects is showing.
That's bc they aren't using real world math to reach 250TWh annually.
Topaz_solar_farm_1.20_TWh_year x 208 = ~250TWh
Topaz_solar_farm_$2.4 billion x 208 = ~$500 bln
3 x $500_bln_rebuilds_to_match_60year_life_of☢️ = $1.5 Trillion
T_solar_farm_25 km² x 208 = ~5,200 km² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm
Comments
But it would be optimal to have nuclear energy as one segment of the energy source for a country like Australia. Nuclear energy is quite green compared to fossil fuels and also statistically safer. Costly upfront
Nuclear energy aspartof the energy mix along wifh infrastructure upgrades can help to mitigate against this.
In reality, Australia's electricity demand will increase. Firmed renewables are lowest cost&emission sol'n.
I think that Nuclear Energy could have a role in securing Australia's energy needs over the next 100 years.
Nuclear delivers the same energy on a fraction of that space. Are we making the smartest energy choices? Let’s talk. ⚡🌍
https://chatgpt.com/share/6784a909-b9c0-8012-b5fe-e0149d9ad78a
The CSIRO's work is consistent with at least 11 other international reports on the comparative costs of energy.
If you think the CSIRO has made an error I'm happy for you to point out on what page.
The math is incredibly simple if you just take a 60 seconds to look at it.
Here is the Wikipedia link to Topaz Solar Farm that is a summary of it's data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm
This is not "ChatGPT data"; this is official data on these renewable energy projects from Wikipedia and all other major sites that detail RE project information.
Your inability to look up basic costs/etc of the biggest RE projects is showing.
Topaz_solar_farm_1.20_TWh_year x 208 = ~250TWh
Topaz_solar_farm_$2.4 billion x 208 = ~$500 bln
3 x $500_bln_rebuilds_to_match_60year_life_of☢️ = $1.5 Trillion
T_solar_farm_25 km² x 208 = ~5,200 km²
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm