“I’m seeing a lot more of those ugly solar panels on roofs these days. So I wanted to show Australians what a nuclear-powered option looked like. You can hardly notice it at all"
THEY FUCKING MISSED AN ENTIRE CLASS OF NUCLEAR REACTOR. They had one fucking job compare all the power options and they ignored any reactor that was not a small scallable bullshit silicon valley hyptrain piece of shit. This “unbiassed” report funded with million of dollars just happened to accidentally forget the cheapest and most economically efficient reactor design this is heigly sus and very much looks like it is purposefully misleading. I thought the CSIRO was unbiassed but this is an aggressiouse error that canot be overlooked.
Their rationale for why larger Nuclear Reactors were not and could not be included in the report seem to make sense.
GenCost has been advised by stakeholders that small modular reactors are the appropriate size nuclear technology for Australia. Australia’s state electricity grids are relatively small compared to the rest of the world and planned maintenance or unplanned outages of large-scale nuclear generation would create a large contingent event of a gigawatt or more that other plants would find challenging to address.
In the present system, it would take two or more generation units to provide that role. As such, large-scale nuclear plants which are currently lower cost than nuclear SMR, may not be an option for Australia, unless rolled out as a fleet that supports each other - which represents a much larger investment proposition.
The second issue is that observations of low cost nuclear overseas may in some cases be referring to projects which were either originally funded by governments or whose capital costs have already been recovered. Such prices will not be available to countries that do not have existing nuclear generation such as Australia.
For more detail go to GenCost section 2.4.4 Perceived inconsistency between high nuclear SMR capital costs and low-cost nuclear electricity overseas from page 17.
Have you actually read the report or do you just get your opinions from Sky News?
I read the report then went and spoke to my engineering proffessor for nuclear engineering and confirmed that csiro where being dickheads. Why not include it anyways and still give that disclaimer and let the people judge still seems misleading to totally leave it out.
How would people be able to accurately judge the cost factors of a solution which cannot be priced properly as there are no projects to compare with? It would be completely useless in the report. That’s without considering the time it would take for the supposedly “cheaper” Nuclear option to be operational. It would’ve been a good idea maybe 30-40 years ago, but it would not be suitable today considering the urgency of climate change
First there ars more large scale nuclear plants globaly bullshit we dont have a comparison. Second we dont know that they didnt run the numbers so we cant make the comparison.
THEY FUCKING MISSED AN ENTIRE CLASS OF NUCLEAR REACTOR. They had one fucking job compare all the power options and they ignored any reactor that was not a small scallable bullshit silicon valley hyptrain piece of shit. This “unbiassed” report funded with million of dollars just happened to accidentally forget the cheapest and most economically efficient reactor design this is heigly sus and very much looks like it is purposefully misleading. I thought the CSIRO was unbiassed but this is an aggressiouse error that canot be overlooked.
Their rationale for why larger Nuclear Reactors were not and could not be included in the report seem to make sense.
Have you actually read the report or do you just get your opinions from Sky News?
I read the report then went and spoke to my engineering proffessor for nuclear engineering and confirmed that csiro where being dickheads. Why not include it anyways and still give that disclaimer and let the people judge still seems misleading to totally leave it out.
How would people be able to accurately judge the cost factors of a solution which cannot be priced properly as there are no projects to compare with? It would be completely useless in the report. That’s without considering the time it would take for the supposedly “cheaper” Nuclear option to be operational. It would’ve been a good idea maybe 30-40 years ago, but it would not be suitable today considering the urgency of climate change
First there ars more large scale nuclear plants globaly bullshit we dont have a comparison. Second we dont know that they didnt run the numbers so we cant make the comparison.
This is a 3 month old thread I’d rather not continue it as you have proven incapable of engaging with my arguments and the article