this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
195 points (90.5% liked)

Technology

60136 readers
3341 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
195
Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s to c/technology
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IchNichtenLichten 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year 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.