Or they could get with the times and build a ton of battery like California. Down to 25% fossil in 2026 due to the massive success of shifting solar into the night with batteries.
the answers exist, euro states just can’t get out of their own way and actually build things
The $12 billion Snowy 2.0 scheme will cop further cost and timeline blowouts, auditors say, but the project has been beset with management failures and the government-owned corporation delivering the project cannot yet say how much more it will cost and how much longer it will take.[1]
My proposed solution: invite any of the 31 nuclear power reactor operating countries over to Australia to build them for us, and teach us how to do it.
CSIRO releases final 2024-25 GenCost report following consultation
* The report found renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation technology, while nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) are the most costly.
* Electricity systems rely on a mix of technologies, because no single option can deliver all the capabilities required for a reliable, secure and flexible supply.
Nuclear power, in Australia, relies upon high upfront costs with an uncertain delivery timeline; there are no sizeable existing nuclear power skillsets in the country, no living experience of construction, and a history of global clusterfucks when it comes to third party power station construction / delivery.
For the same money that maybe gets Australia some turnkey nuclear power by 2040 (ish) there can be nearly immediate delivery of solar power, battery farms, geological hydrogen storage, mini hydro, etc.
Right now, in Australia, nuclear isn't a pragmatic economically feasible choice.
Uranium based nuclear is ... a headache to say the very least, if not for the realisation that any waste sites will require much more security than they do presently, not ideal for the issue of decommissioning large uranium nuclear plants when they reach end of life. [1] [2] Perhaps the smaller reactor plants might not quite the same level of trouble decommissioning them.
Almost always what echoes in the quiet gap between the reality there is if not multiple billions of dollars of expenditure to implement going nuclear with Uranium, is the repetitive assertion just having all that Uranium is why we should go ahead with it. Well actually we have plenty of Thorium too, and the by product waste is not as great an issue.
"A 2009 poll conducted by the Uranium Information Centre found that Australians in the 40 to 55 years age group are the "most trenchantly opposed to nuclear power". This generation was raised during the Cold War, experienced the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s, witnessed the 1979 partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor in the US, and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. It was the generation which was also subject to cultural influences including feature films such as the "nuclear industry conspiracies" The China Syndrome and Silkwood and the apocalyptic Dr Strangelove. Younger people are "less resistant" to the idea of nuclear power in Australia. Analysis of opinion polls from 2012 shows a "significant decrease in favourable views of nuclear power" following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster."
Decarbonisation is very much discussed in Australia, but not much progress has been done, because coal and natural gas is cheap in Australia. Australia also one of the largest coal exporters in the world.
Australian electricity in 2026 is about 45% renewable. And rising fast. 40% of Australian homes have rooftop solar. How is this “not much progress”? Yes more could be done but that is massive progress
Also, I’m not sure what point you’re making about public opinions. They’ve soured because it’s an economicly uncompetitive option, plus some safety fears. Seems rational to me.
I find this a correct and astute observation, and I don’t think you’re getting enough credit for it. I started noticing this SV C level groupthink a few years ago too. It’s just so _weird_ how lockstep everyone is, it’s like there isn’t a single original thought amongst today’s leaders. Just copy, mimic, converge, repeat. Same ideas, same moves (layoffs of exactly 10-20%) same org structures (flattening!) same team structures (smaller teams with AI!) same same . It’s almost creepy, and if I was more of a conspiracy theorist it would be easy to believe in shadowy leadership cabals orchestrating everything.
It didn’t used to be this way - say circa 2006-2015 you had so much more diversity in the style and ideas of leadership. Eg early Dorsey, early zuck, all these other ceos at that time trying all kinds of wild and whacky ideas of how to run their companies. I’m not sure why this convergence happened, but now everyone’s singing from the same hymn sheet, it’s anti-innovation, and I hate it.
Is that supposed to be an example of a good decision? Outside the US hybrids are quickly becoming irrelevant. The decision is looking like it will cost Toyota the crown
Worldwide outside the US BEVs are about 16% of new car sales (BEVs + PHEVs are about 25%). Hybrids are still going to be relevant worldwide for quite a while.
The peak of ICE car sales (which includes hybrids) was in 2017 and it’s been downhill since then, and it’s going to plummet from here as EV share keeps growing rapidly. Bev share is growing significantly faster than hybrid. I personally wouldn’t be betting my company on a rapidly shrinking market
This is some “both sides” absolute bullshit. The Biden administration passed the IRA, huge incentives for personal and commercial renewable energy production, EVs, all kinds of things.
Trump is paying people to burn more coal, blocking solar, canceling wind.
Could the dems have done more, sure. Are those programs perfect, absolutely not. But one party is moving in the right direction and the other is actively trying to accelerate climate change. Gtfo with that both sides crap.
They are both not doing enough. Yes, the Republicans and Trump are much worse, I was not saying they were same at all. But what needs to happen is far from anything the Biden administration has done or proposed. IF you think what Biden has done was good enough then you do not understand what is happening with the climate right now. Yes I will vote for a Democrat over a Republican, but I am not expecting change to come from them, it needs to come from us. The Democrats get money from the same corporations.
which is great, but as i understand it will still lead to an overall decline in share of nuclear power. The scale of their power production is unfathomable
Solar produces incredibly cheap power for the daytime hours, pushing any nuclear off the grid (why would a data center buy expensive nuke power in the hours when cheap renewables are available?). Nuclear needs to be running and selling power at its high price 24/7 for it to be even close to economically viable. Only supplying power that people want(due to its high price) during the night is fatal to nuclear.
base load demand does not mean it has to be met with a constant matched source, and in fact that no longer works economically.
Natrium has an interesting design for a 345MW reactor that has thermal storage that can boost output to 500MW for 5.5 hours. This lets it increase output during peak prices.
I mean, sounds kinda cool. But that 2023 idea is very clearly not going to happen in the current US political environment.
We’re in an era of brutal capitalism, and nothing else matters but price. Not even emissions sadly. Green compacts like this have no chance, and neither do nukes. Unless they pay the right bribes for some subsidies.
The Trump admin is actually very pro-nuclear power. They are ending the "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) standard in favor of fixed limits which is actually a good idea, possibly the only one the Trump admin has ever had.
i know they are (or claim to be). Im extremely unconvinced that meaningfully changes the flawed economics of nuclear power. I would love to be proven wrong and a wave of innovative economically competitive nuclear technology emerges... possible, but seems vanishingly unlikely.
I think we'll see a few companies and projects connected to the administration get grants and tax breaks and favors, pull a few headlines, seem like there's movement. Maybe even build something! but ultimately be a meaningless footnote in the energy transition. Just another grift for the most corrupt admin in US history.
The flawed economics of nuclear are largely due to the NRC basically making it as hard as possible to make a new reactor. China and Korea can build reactors for reasonable cost per watt.
thats, not true at all. Safety costs a little, but they are fundamentally massively complicated, huge, specialized, EXPENSIVE things to build. They require 100s of staff to run at all times. The insurance is so expensive only nation states can back them. The economics are flawed because on modern grids with cheap renewables, they will never pay back the ridiculous up front capex. Relaxing regulations changes very little about this situation.
China and Koreas are massively state subsidized (koreas 51%, chinas 100%). Which obscures the real cost, and these state enterprises dont have to pay insurance or decommissioning. Which is the only way you can make them work today - massive state subsidies.
if your argument is "well without regulations someone could build a reactor that somehow avoids all these economic constraints" . Maybe, but today thats a fantasy.
You can't compare wind and solar to nuclear you have to compare wind and solar with enormous amounte of battery storage which is extremely expensive and it would be hard to make enough storage
That is soft on timeline, skills and expertise, sourcing to make it happen, etc. All the things that caused the Australian scientific body's energy feasibility report to conclude that nuclear in Australia (no existing reactors, staff, etc) wasn't economic or rational given so much can be done with the upfront cost of nuclear that immediately begins with returning energy compared to an uncertain timeline and blowouts not returning energy for ???
> Australia is the best case scenario for solar power.
Yes. (and no - it's a big country)
The USofA is also a large country with the same land area (mainland USofA at least) and many places suitable for solar and wind.
The South Australian capital, Adelaide, is on the 35th parallel (South), what works there likely works in the US at or below the 35th parallel North.
The essential point is that nuclear isn't a flat parameter free answer to all that ails - some places it makes no economic sense, other places it makes good economic sense ... and there's a world in between.
You just keep moving the goalposts and not responding to arguments. Until you have some idea of how nuclear is ever going to be cost competitive on today’s grids, good day to you.
it is not at all a perfect match for nuclear. Solar produces incredibly cheap power for the daytime hours, pushing the nuclear off the grid (why would a data center buy expensive nuke power in the hours when cheap renewables are available?). Nuclear needs to be running and selling power at its high price 24/7 for it to be even close to economically viable. Only supplying power that people want(due to its high price) during the night is fatal to nuclear.
Thats what OP means by baseload generation being irrelevant.
boy am i tired of hearing that Dunkelflaute word as if its some kind of gotcha. Even ignoring the fact that you can continue to source power from other geographies during a localized phenomenon..... Just burn gas in peaker plants for the few days a year that this happens. That small amount of emissions wont matter for the next 50 years of decarbonization, after which we'll likely have plenty of other options.
The absolutism in all these arguments is so tiring, as if its not 100% perfect solution for 100% of every imaginable scenario than its no good. 95% reduction over a year would be astounding, we would have won the climate battle.
That's fine, but you need to include the cost of having barely-used gas peaker plants when calculating the cost of "renewables+storage". Laymen keep using arbitrary "marginal cost of solar with sun shining" to say "solar is cheaper than everything!". If it's true that capex of 80% gas peaker (and LNG storage and employees on standby and so on) + solar + wind + batteries is cheaper, then people should make that argument and provide the data.
The latest figures from ember etc are not only “sun shining”, they’re talking about 24hr firmed solar-storage costs, and they’re still mostly cheaper than fossil in most geos. It is true that we will have to pay for having gas fill the gaps - how much exactly is a very complicated function of market economics and real time power auctions. Depends on so many variables, how big is the shortfall, how long, what competition does the gas have locally and extra-geographically, many other things. For connected countries in Europe you are never going to get to a situation where you need an 80% sized backup to your production, there will always be varied other sources. And perhaps you just choose to load shed in truly black swan scenarios, rather than paying for enough backup for every possible rare scenario. Life does go on.
Though I confess predicting it is beyond me and I’m not sure how you would model it to achieve conclusions generally applicable to every country / market .
the answers exist, euro states just can’t get out of their own way and actually build things
reply