Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds - eviltoast

Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds::Renewable energy provides the cheapest source of new energy for Australia, a new draft report from the CSIRO and energy market operator has found.

  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    “It’s a good technology for filling in the gaps around renewables, as well as storage and other methods for making sure that power’s still reliable…”

    This does make some sense, like having a diesel generator in your home for the few times a year the power goes out. It’s also useful for shutting up the, “sometimes the wind doesn’t blow and there’s no sun at night” crowd.

    • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s also kind of a slight of hand. Fossil fuels shouldn’t be part of the mix at all, but the article just accepts the premise that they must. If natural gas or other fossil fuels aren’t allowed, then then the economic case for nuclear power is stronger.

      As for needing needing natural gas to “fill in the gaps”, that’s just fossil fuel industry propaganda. It’s a non-issue with nuclear power. Whenever electrical demand drops you can just divert the power to make hydrogen/ammonia to store the extra energy or produce zero-emission fertilizer.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        The article says “gas”, not “natural gas”. Australia already has plenty of gas infrastructure including pipelines so the situation might be similar as to Germany: First, use natural gas as the one fossil fuel that you’re using precisely because gas plants regulate fast and natural gas can be replaced by synthesised gas, then, once you have enough renewable capacity, actually do the switch. And boy oh boy has Australia potential for renewable generation, they’ll also want to produce tons of hydrogen anyway to smelt (and stop being a 3rd-world style economy that’s exporting raw ore).

        • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          The article says “gas”, not “natural gas”.

          Is this “gas” not a naturally occurring mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons consisting primarily of methane?

          Australia already has plenty of gas infrastructure including pipelines so the situation might be similar as to Germany: First, use natural gas as the one fossil fuel that you’re using precisely because gas plants regulate fast and natural gas can be replaced by synthesised gas, then, once you have enough renewable capacity, actually do the switch. And boy oh boy has Australia potential for renewable generation, they’ll also want to produce tons of hydrogen anyway to smelt (and stop being a 3rd-world style economy that’s exporting raw ore).

          Sounds like an excuse to perpetuate the fossil fuel racket.