As a direct answer I would like to post the following idea. Let’s focus on what we know and understand, not speculative conjecture and keep our reliable 24/7 cost effective power generation technologies in place until we can develop a new viable alternative that can produce 24/7 baseload power at a realistic cost. Total cost per MWh: Nuclear: $40–70/MWh over 60+ years. Coal (low-emission plants): $50–80/MWh Gas (combined cycle): $60–90/MWh 100% Renewables (with storage & backup): $120–250/MWh.
Hi thank you for your question here’s the References Australian Energy Council. (2023). Battery storage: Australia’s current climate. Retrieved from https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/battery-storage-australia-s-current-climate Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW). (2023). Australia’s fuel security. Australian Government. Retrieved from https://www.dcceew.gov.au/energy/security/australias-fuel-security
Department of Industry, Science and Resources (DISR). (2023). How Australian gas is used today. Australian Government. Retrieved from https://www.industry.gov.au/publications/future-gas-strategy/how-australian-gas-used-today International Energy Agency (IEA). (2022). Nuclear power and secure energy transitions. Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-and-secure-energy-transitions
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). (2023). Renewable energy statistics 2023. Retrieved from https://www.irena.org/publications Parliament of Australia. (2022). Australia’s electricity grid: Reliability and transition challenges. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Research/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2223/ElectricityReliabilit
Please understand these costings are done with respect to the fact that, a 100% renewables system, based on currently available technology, will require a 100% back up system using Nuclear, Coal, Gas and Diesel generators and therefore doubles the cost of our electricity. Hence why our electricity bills are currently increasing. A 100% Nuclear, Coal, and Gas system does not require any backup and therefore is as posted a less expensive and has to be built anyway, so it makes sense.
The costs you provide are simply not plausible and are not supported by any credible economists. And it's a very inflexible and backward approach to suggest we shouldn't explore any new technologies or ideas. Renewables have so many advantages over a centralised fossil/nuclear fuel system, including very cheap, small scale and local rollouts and potential autonomy in case of natural disasters.
Theres a point to be made about including some non-renewable reserve capacity to substitute the need for extensive battery capacity in cases of low renewable energy production or particularly high demand, but it doesn't seem to me that thats a different plan than the one currently being implimented. I'm not sure I trust your costings, and can't see evidence of them in the sources posted.
I was actually suggesting that we explore new technologies and in the meantime keep our reliable 24/7 cost effective power generation technologies in place until we can develop a new viable alternative that can produce 24/7 base load power at a realistic cost.Can you name any of the credible and by credible I'll assume you mean not connected with the with the renewables windfall benefits, economists with costings? You say renewables have so many advantages, what are they?
You say we do not have time to wait, from my understanding, in the last 10 years 9 trillion US dollars have been spent on renewables, with little to no effect. Please let me know where it has worked. All the evidence from industrialised countries where they have tried to implement 100% renewables have failed, (Germany). China is responsible for 31.8% of the worlds human carbon emissions and are commissioning 1-2 new coal fired power stations a week and will continue for at least another 10yrs
Your point that some non-renewable reserve capacity to substitute the need for extensive battery capacity in cases of low renewable energy production or particularly high demand sounds reasonable until you drill down into the facts. Based on current technology, batteries only last hours at best and that is with back up from Gas and Diesel fired generators, both costly and increase carbon emissions. Then once depleted, we have to default back to reliable 24/7 back up of coal fired power stations.
Where are you getting your costings from? The CSIRO draft GenCost 2024-25 report found the cost of electricity generated from nuclear reactors by 2040 would be about $145-$238 per MWh, compared to $22-$53 for solar, and $45-$78 for wind. So that’s at least twice as much for nuclear, or up to 10 times as much when comparing with the lowest-cost solar.
We do understand renewables, and storage. This is not an unknown or speculative. We do not have time to wait, this is the decade we decide our future.
This content is created by the open source Your Priorities citizen engagement platform designed by the non profit Citizens Foundation