Carlton Supporters Club

https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/nuclear-energy-too-expensive-to-replace-fossil-fuels-20220711-p5b0pd

Many of the sources and ideas Ludlow quotes / promotes have come from vested interests, including CSIRO, entitles that are making a living off grants for advanced manufacturing R&D including renewables. For example, there is a CSIRO site right here in Melbourne that houses Printable Solar PV R&D, Advanced Manufacturing, Hydrogen Economies and Carbon Capture and Sequestration, almost under the one roof! You can walk 100m and get a diametrically opposed opinion, which one you or the media choose is arbitrary.* In many many cases they compete for the same grant money!

I worked in / with the same industry for over a decade, they lost me when after years working on low CO2 alternatives they started kyboshing pretty anything that competed for grant money, no matter how effective, viable or achievable it might be, the green energy industry is not as altruistic as many think.

*The truth is there is no one best, cheapest, greenest solution, and the field of renewable energy is as full of profiteers as any other including oil, coal, gas, nuclear, etc., etc.. Claiming one is better than the other is a bit like preferring a Gulag over a Stalag.

The fastest solution is a broad mix of all technologies, technologies that are based on actual immediately achievable and attainable results/actions and not promises at the end of a rainbow. The rainbow stuff has it's place, but it's not going to happen in the timeframe needed.

At the moment, the funding models lead to paralysis by indecision, they debate and debate and debate, too gutless to make a choice, it's like a punters lament scared to lose a bet, but it's not black and white like the media make out, the black and white opinions are a subjective choice not an objective analysis. They should be pushing forward on every available avenue and chipping away at the problem as much as possible on all fronts, it's not the all in winner takes all option that commerce wants!

Most of the electrical overhead equipment and transmission lines are a antiquated hybrid mess.
I used to be involved in the project maintenance of this equipment and there were never enough resources to fix it properly and we were always bandaiding solutions. It's needs a rebuild to service a nuclear grid and the only way that will happen is with overseas private investment with people like Cannon Brookes and the Chinese stumping up the money and building the reactors.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J

https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-nuclear-power-plants-cost-so-much-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/

And a counter view:

https://www.mackinac.org/blog/2022/nuclear-wasted-why-the-cost-of-nuclear-energy-is-misunderstood

There is some significant irony in people arguing against nuclear because of the issues of dealing with hazardous waste, only to claim batteries are a solution to 24x7 power from Solar PV and Wind!   ------------ Don't mention the war!

...and it may be the only 'climate change' we need to worry about is the Nuclear Winter.

Nuclear power plants are way more expensive than alternatives and require very long lead times.  We’ve missed the boat on conventional nuclear power by several decades.

I recently watched a fascinating documentary on one of Scotland’s nuclear power plants.  Apart from the technology and environmental requirements, the youth of the highly qualified technicians was surprising.

Part of the conversation was about the inevitable de-commissioning of the power station.  The head honcho explained that no more power stations using that nuclear technology would be built in the UK.  It wasn’t clear what would replace them; perhaps smaller plants.

I also saw a documentary that briefly looked at the last “coal-fired” power station in the UK.  It burns sustainably harvested timber by-products 🤔

Way more expensive to set up, but once running they are bang for buck in terms of gigawatt procured vs uranium required vs waste created.

I chose the word efficient for a reason.  Watching Australia roll out solar technology over the last 20 years doesn't make me say that its quick to produce nor cheap, and I don't see us having an abundance of redundant energy that we are storing (quite the opposite seems to occur frequently).  People seem hung up on the waste component of this.  Things aren't static.  The waste isn't what it used to be, and im sure that there are technology advancements that could be done to reduce the waste further by recycling it somehow.

The economic analyses are unequivocal, nuclear power generation is now too expensive.  That’s why the private sector won’t invest in nuclear power and is cutting its losses by cancelling power stations under construction.

There may be issues with the economic analyses but the corporate bean counters are convinced.  The only new nuclear power plants will be underwritten by governments.  As EB pointed out, most governments will struggle to find the funds, or private sector partners, to get the power distribution networks up to scratch.

the same applies to renewables about the grid and storage of energy. 

Its still moving forward.

  Im not arguing right vs wrong here, I'm saying the bean counters don't always measure things with saving the most amount beans, rather they count beans with politics involved, and will waste more beans for many reasons not to do with being efficient with the beans.

We all know that a nuclear power plant is unwanted on anyone's doorstep and thats the main blocker behind any of them being built and consequently a political lover which is the main blocker behind them being built.

The waste isn't what it used to be, and im sure that there are technology advancements that could be done to reduce the waste further by recycling it somehow.