Large scale solar moving forward

I’ve just had an original thought, as usual complicit with my normal anti-car theme. To concentrate on energy solutions is really the main game, but all of it comes to nothing if everyone on the planet has a car. Consider this. Australian cities are clogged with private car congestion, but China has a billion people with similar aspirations in a country of a similar size and it won’t be long before they can all afford one.

If they realise that ambition, would not their roads be hopelessly clogged at say 10% of that population realising car ownership to the level of Australia? Do you think that they might make it their religion?…well they could nearly clog every road in the world possibly if they had car ownership to the level of this counrty, someting we take for granted as some sort of rite. Indians love cars too.

No amount of energy solutions will avoid an end to human society unless we come to value the “car” by popular definition as a specialist vehicle possibly only for the very rich.

At least when the Chinese are more common on our roads before those very roads come to a complete stanstill, we won’t have to endure threads about “roundabout etiquette”, all of that might seem rather quaint to our children, no doubt to busy smsing to notice.

We have to give some thought to this whole car issue in Australia. I know noone wants to talk about it but it is so clear, the dream is over.

Stevian said :

Bramina said :

Stevian, you didn’t take me up on my offer to nominate one of the points to discuss in depth.

– renewable: nuclear waste can be recycled into fuel over and over. More fuel can be bred from U238 and Thorium.

I did previously ask how a finite non-renewable resource can be considered renewable, your statement concerning U238 and Thorium. does not address the issue. It has to run out sometime. If you deny that, I’d love to see your blueprints for a perpetual motion machine

Nuclear is renewable because it breeds fuel from non fuel isotopes like Uranium 238 and Thorium 232.

At present we have enough uranium reserves for perhaps 100 years of the globe’s energy needs if we do not breed fuel. If we were to breed fuel, nuclear would provide our energy needs for tens of thousands of years.

fgzk said :

How does solar price compare to GEN1 nuclear power? Horses for courses. Renewable energy is still in the early days.

Nuclear power has always been fairly cheap. If anything costs have gone up over time as regulation has increased.

Solar on the other hand started of being very expensive and has become slightly cheaper as new technology has been developed. Now it may be 5-10 times more expensive than fossil fuel power (I only know of older studies that do not take newer technologies into account. But there is nothing to say that solar will ever become cheap. There may well be a limit to how cheap solar panels can be.

Even if you could make solar panels for free, electricity must be consumed as soon as it is produced. You would need some form of power generation capacity to take over from solar when it doesn’t work. This costs money.

And what would you use to generate this power? Dirty unsustainable fossil fuels?

ex-victus has identified another undemocratic appliance, the outdoor heater banned in Europe and good riddance. a symbolic car…get used to it folks, the 50’s dream is over and white anglo people are not even the smartest anymore.

Diggety said :

In fact, anyone who claims they want action on climate change whilst adopting an anti-nuclear stance is delusional.

Sad to say, but yes I too think that is bang on nail. Our hunger for energy wont go away; that is probably the reality. Nuclear is as clean as you get (unless it goes wrong, obviously. And ignoring the waste that has to be looked after for 250,000 years – or until a Gen’X’ reactor can use it).

At the moment the returns from wind, solar, bio make it uneconomical (and with bio – growing stuff to burn – there is the ongoing debate about if there is enough water & land to grow energy AND food).

With lots of talk and no action – you only need to walk down a Civic street and see the outdoor heaters, banned in Europe, everywhere – nuclear certainly seems the only way at the moment and let our distant descendants sort out the waste problem. Failing that, do as Mr Abbott does and just deny there is any problem – who knows, maybe he is right and Global Warming is just a big wind-up….

Diggety said :

Was Zed meaning milliwatt (mW) or megawatt (MW)?

Hahah – I thought that too. All this talk for a 210mW scheme!!!

Open your mind, as ever a thoughtful position. However wonderful solar may be and it is, there are 2 points to be made. 1 whilst it will cut down your electricity bill and lower carbon emissions on a local level there is some question concerning the amount of power and what sort of power (chinese coal burning generators in the main) is used to manufacture cells along with transport costs and other externals. There are claims that these extras add more carbon than solar cells save during their lifetime, true or not there is definately something in that.

2, solar is already a proven technology and that is why it has political support. There are plenty of boffins working on higher efficiencies just on that basis. And adding a 3rd though gratuitous point, electric cars whilst good, are not nearly as good as electric bikes in almost every way for an Australian future. Everyone in the world cannot own a car as someone once said any more than a villa on the beach, be it electric or not, as opposed to a toaster or a vacuum cleaner which is a far more democratic appliance. Cars on a social level are not as much fun as everyone thinks and the mass introduction of electric cars in Australia as is likely, will be an opportunity missed.

Hanksinatra, while I totally agree with your suggestion that more Government funded scientific research will benefit our country, I can’t agree with your statement about researching into more viable alternatives than solar. What could be more viable than solar? Solar is getting cheaper and more efficient every year. Research leads to better solar.
Even without subsidies, solar is presenting as a financially viable solution for home owners.
Going into the future, the one big challenge for solar will be storing the abundant energy produced so that it can be delivered 24/7. We already deal with a reverse situation with coal plants. Coal plants stay online 24/7, but demand ebbs and flows throughout the day. This is managed through off peak pricing, pumped water storage and other demand shaping methodologies. There’s no reason solar can’t be managed the same way – particularly as electric cars begin entering the mix.

Bramina said :

Stevian, you didn’t take me up on my offer to nominate one of the points to discuss in depth.

– renewable: nuclear waste can be recycled into fuel over and over. More fuel can be bred from U238 and Thorium.

.

I did previously ask how a finite non-renewable resource can be considered renewable, your statement concerning U238 and Thorium. does not address the issue. It has to run out sometime. If you deny that, I’d love to see your blueprints for a perpetual motion machine

Anyone interested in this topic might also be interested in this webpage http://thebreakthrough.org/ The Breakthrough institute seems to initiate a 3rd way of thinking about the problems confronting our society and in particular energy and environmental issues.

It argues that both “solar energy subsidies” are negative because they divert funds away from research into potentially more viable sources and that politico/economic solutions such as taxes and emissions trading schemes do the same. They advocate direct government funding into research, as was done with the microchip in the US which brought us into the computer age.

They also advocate in an articulate manner the diminishing of patent laws, using the example of medical research. In this case an American “medicare” model could be financed by withdrawing patent protection from medicines. 25% of the savings on the cost of drugs then spent on research would more than adequately cover the current amount spent on research. The same applies in the energy sphere. We need new politics for all these issues not biased towards the old left and right constituencies

A true believer. You scare me. You need to see/experience some of the world or take your meds. You are seeing fairies in the garden.

Breda “What nuclear needs is a strong and well informed regulator that set regulations on the basis of sound scientific, engineering, environmental, safety and economic principles. This regulator needs to be above the industry and above politics.”

How does solar price compare to GEN1 nuclear power? Horses for courses. Renewable energy is still in the early days.

OpenYourMind said :

Continually making the statement that Nuclear Power is cheap doesn’t make it a fact.

The furphy that nuclear is cheap has been bandied since nuclear energy first began. The original message was nuclear power would be ‘too cheap to meter’. Instead, Nuclear energy has proven to be mind bogglingly expensive and is only getting more expensive. The Finnish Olkiluoto plant is about the best parallel we can use for costs. Olkiluoto has a head start over any Australian proposition as there was already a nuclear facility on site – Australia has to choose a site first. The Olkiluoto originally aimed to deliver nuclear capability at $2k per kWh installed. Some estimate the cost could be up toward $8k per installed kWh.

Calculating true cost of Nuclear Plants is difficult to do, but here’s some information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

The wikipedia article on nuclear power kinda proves my point. There is a graph there showing the costs of power from seven studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nuke,_coal,_gas_generating_costs.png

If you take the average of these studies, nuclear is only slightly more expensive than gas. At worst, it is only 50% more expensive than gas. This might seem expensive, but renewables are more expensive.

The Royal Academy of Engineering report says that wind power is roughly 100% more expensive than coal, gas and nuclear. They didn’t price solar power because they don’t get enough light in the UK, which makes solar way too expensive. But solar is still expensive in Australia. Their report is here:

http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Cost_of_Generating_Electricity.pdf

It is important to note that RAEng included additional backup costs for wind power. As they say, energy must be consumed as soon as it is generated. The supply of electricity must match demand every second of the day, otherwise you have blackouts and large spikes in the price of electricity.

Solar has the same problem. You can calculate the ideal output of solar but that isn’t the true cost. You also have to factor in having additional capacity to make up for night time and cloudy days. There is also a cost for having this backup capacity lying idle when solar is producing electricity.

OpenYourMind said :

As for Bramina’s statement: “- cheap: Unless nuclear power is over engineered or over regulated its cost is comparable to fossil fuels. “. Assuming Bramina isn’t joking, I’m thinking most Australians would not accept an under engineered or unregulated nuclear industry!

There is a point between over doing something and under doing something – doing the right amount. Regulations or engineering features that cost money and add no functionality or safety are pointless and a waste of money. Unfortunately there is a tendency with nuclear to add such regulations with no consideration of their value or cost. When this makes nuclear too expensive, everyone complains.

In my opinion, anti nuclear groups deliberately lobby for over regulation for the very reason that it makes nuclear too expensive.

What nuclear needs is a strong and well informed regulator that set regulations on the basis of sound scientific, engineering, environmental, safety and economic principles. This regulator needs to be above the industry and above politics.

Continually making the statement that Nuclear Power is cheap doesn’t make it a fact.

The furphy that nuclear is cheap has been bandied since nuclear energy first began. The original message was nuclear power would be ‘too cheap to meter’. Instead, Nuclear energy has proven to be mind bogglingly expensive and is only getting more expensive. The Finnish Olkiluoto plant is about the best parallel we can use for costs. Olkiluoto has a head start over any Australian proposition as there was already a nuclear facility on site – Australia has to choose a site first. The Olkiluoto originally aimed to deliver nuclear capability at $2k per kWh installed. Some estimate the cost could be up toward $8k per installed kWh.

Calculating true cost of Nuclear Plants is difficult to do, but here’s some information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

As for Bramina’s statement: “- cheap: Unless nuclear power is over engineered or over regulated its cost is comparable to fossil fuels. “. Assuming Bramina isn’t joking, I’m thinking most Australians would not accept an under engineered or unregulated nuclear industry!

Fukushima has only assured that any new nuclear proposal will be even more expensive than anything we’ve seen.

This all falls in the shadow (poor pun intended) of solar following a kind of Moore’s law where outputs increase, and panels get cheaper. For the householder, a time will come in the near future where a solar plus storage solution will be cheaper than power bills and consumers will choose to go off grid. I know of a person on a rural property who has already done exactly this.

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Bramina said :

renewable: nuclear waste can be recycled into fuel over and over. More fuel can be bred from U238 and Thorium.

The energy crisis is over!

Bramina said :

– doesn’t pollute: While nuclear waste is highly toxic dangerous, it is also produced in small quantities whi means it can be contained. If we were to breed fuel from waste, there would essentially be no need to bury the vast majority of it.

Emphasis mine. I don’t think you understand just how little mass is converted into energy in a fission reactor.

It does not need to be buried.

IFR’s reprocess fuel, extracting 100% U energy, as opposed to 0.6% in old technology.

The waste left is a smaller quantity with a half life of decades, rather than 100,000 years. Theengineering already exists for containing such waste and remains on site.

Bramina said :

renewable: nuclear waste can be recycled into fuel over and over. More fuel can be bred from U238 and Thorium.

The energy crisis is over!

Bramina said :

– doesn’t pollute: While nuclear waste is highly toxic dangerous, it is also produced in small quantities which means it can be contained. If we were to breed fuel from waste, there would essentially be no need to bury the vast majority of it.

Emphasis mine. I don’t think you understand just how little mass is converted into energy in a fission reactor.

Diggety said :

fgzk said :

You read like an nuclear industry hack,

This comment is indicative of a anti-nuclear campaigner fresh out of argument. A few facts:

1. There is no nuclear industry in Australia.
2. I am in solar & hydrogen energy research, not nuclear. Important distinction!

“No nuclear” campaigner, thank you. Of course there is no nuclear industry in Australia. No nuclear physicists trained at the ANU. No uranium mining. No nuclear reactor of any kind in the country. Australia does not earn one cent from promoting nuclear power. In Australia we have absolutely no land/water contaminated with radioactive stuff, derived from the world wide use of nuclear power. No nuclear waste has ever been shipped overseas. The US has no influence over the Australian no nuclear industry.

Invest a few billion and we will have no nuclear problems. That is the No nuclear message.

Lucky we only have one real option then.

This plan for 210 MW Large-Scale Solar Feed-in-Tariff system (Large scale solar on the horizon in the ACT http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.php?v=11206&m=53 ) is completely separate and not in Simon Corbell’s plan (Government proposes five pathways to reach carbon neutrality http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.php?v=11183&m=53 ) with “5 pathways”. It is about the same capacity as the 240 MW Gas-Fired power station in “Pathway 3”, but 4-5 times more expensive.

This “Pathway 6” may well be an extravagant rort – a completely redundant solar power generation system earning a guaranteed feed-in-tariff revenue whenever it is operating. The gas-power station will be one of the world’s biggest and most expensive backup generators.

CSIRO’s Solar gas reforming (SolarGas™) technology is ready for commercial application. http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/Energy-Transformed-Flagship/SolarGas.aspx but probably won’t be one of the large-scale solar systems offered to the ACT.

A pity, because a 250 MW SolarGas™-fueled CCGT power station can deliver 50 MW solar energy for up to 24 hours a day (1200 MWh solar).

Stevian, you didn’t take me up on my offer to nominate one of the points to discuss in depth.

I’ll outline my arguments to make it easier to choose if you still want to:

– green: nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide.

– renewable: nuclear waste can be recycled into fuel over and over. More fuel can be bred from U238 and Thorium.

– doesn’t pollute: While nuclear waste is highly toxic dangerous, it is also produced in small quantities which means it can be contained. If we were to breed fuel from waste, there would essentially be no need to bury the vast majority of it.

– provides base load power: Nuclear is a stable source of power. It is essential to provide stable power because people are not flexible in their use of power.

– cheap: Unless nuclear power is over engineered or over regulated its cost is comparable to fossil fuels.

– safe: Modern nuclear reactors with minimal critical parts, multiple redundancy and running at constant output are highly unlikely to fail.

No other form of power generation can do all of these six things as well as nuclear. Burning fossil fuels releases large amounts of carbon dioxide. The burning of fossil fuels emit enormous amounts of toxins. These toxins kill far more people, and cause far more health problems in a year than all of the nuclear disasters put together. The mining of fossil fuels, coal in particular also causes thousands of deaths per year.

Renewables such as wind and solar are expensive, solar particularly so. Both are incapable of providing base load power. Solar is particularly bad here not working at night time. Taking measures to even out power output only drives up their costs.

OpenYourMind said :

Oh, and Diggety I did read your references. There are two papers from 1988 (the Ronald Reagan era) and a Wiki page saying that the IFR project stopped and there are no commercial IFRs. Not exactly compelling evidence. Coupling it with a conspiracy theory about big mining killing the technology doesn’t help your cause. If you think such a technology can be deployed in Australia in 15-20 years then you should probably hand your PhD in now.

You even indicate that an education program is necessary prior to embarking on a nuclear journey. How long do you think this cultural change will take???

Spend some time working on really big projects and you’ll begin to understand why IFR or any other type of nuclear energy in Australia cannot happen in the near term.

OpenYourMind, I can see where you’re coming from and I understand your concerns, but just let me alleviate them a little.

– The practice of economics did not begin after 1988.
– The stage that the IFR project was up to, was roll out of up-scaled generators
– Re ‘conspiracy theory’, I didn’t say it was. I am just repeating what those close to the decision making process said.
– Variations of the IFR (without on site reprocessing) have been online for decades. 15-20 years for our first IFR? I’m simply repeating what the experts are saying, you’re more than welcome to ask them to hand in their PhD’s. Tell them your username is ‘OpenYourMind’, I’m sure they’ll understand.
– Your last sentence I agree with.

Just let me reiterate, the current and projected feasibility of providing the type of energy supply needed for Australia looks implausible without nuclear energy.

I noticed you didn’t answer my ‘renewable & fossil-fuel or renewable % nuclear’ scenario. If you think that renewables can do the job within realistic costs and reliability, please share.

fgzk said :

You read like an nuclear industry hack,

This comment is indicative of a anti-nuclear campaigner fresh out of argument. A few facts:

1. There is no nuclear industry in Australia.
2. I am in solar & hydrogen energy research, not nuclear. Important distinction!

fgzk said :

Molten salt reactor using molten fluoride salt carrying nuclear fuel. Its Chinese technology but they claim it will be commercial in 10 to 20 years. Of course the push in Australia is only focused on American technology, as being the “only option” (US paying the lobby bills). Buy USA. Buy Nuclear. They really need the cash cos hardly anyone is buying their stories anymore.

The only problem I see with training nuclear scientists is they all start to whine that they have to live in America to make any money. Then they want a job here and the whining gets louder…….I think I hear it now………

This: “Molten salt reactor using molten fluoride salt carrying nuclear fuel” could mean several types of of reactor designs. The only ones the Chinese are researching matching your description is the LFTR model (Thorium) type.

One which:
– Is US technology, so that kind of wipes out your theory on technological specific advocacy. Sorry!
– It is also one of the only types of nuclear I would welcome on Australian shores. It is behind, however, on development and does not solve the hazardous waste problem we have right now.

I have no comment on graduates ‘whining’.

Oh, and Diggety I did read your references. There are two papers from 1988 (the Ronald Reagan era) and a Wiki page saying that the IFR project stopped and there are no commercial IFRs. Not exactly compelling evidence. Coupling it with a conspiracy theory about big mining killing the technology doesn’t help your cause. If you think such a technology can be deployed in Australia in 15-20 years then you should probably hand your PhD in now.

You even indicate that an education program is necessary prior to embarking on a nuclear journey. How long do you think this cultural change will take???

Spend some time working on really big projects and you’ll begin to understand why IFR or any other type of nuclear energy in Australia cannot happen in the near term.

johnboy said :

p1 said :

On the nuclear topic…

How s*** are we as a nation that we are willing to dig up and pre-process uranium ore (one of the worst polluting parts of the nuclear energy production process), then ship it off to places like China and India with all sorts of regulatory, military and human rights concerns which we think suck. Yet we don’t want to even consider building a nuclear plant our selves because it is too “evil”.

I always figured opponents of nuclear power in australia had written us off as stupid.

Now you’ve worked it out we won’t have to try and hide our opinion

p1 said :

On the nuclear topic…

How s*** are we as a nation that we are willing to dig up and pre-process uranium ore (one of the worst polluting parts of the nuclear energy production process), then ship it off to places like China and India with all sorts of regulatory, military and human rights concerns which we think suck. Yet we don’t want to even consider building a nuclear plant our selves because it is too “evil”.

I always figured opponents of nuclear power in australia had written us off as stupid.

On the nuclear topic…

How s*** are we as a nation that we are willing to dig up and pre-process uranium ore (one of the worst polluting parts of the nuclear energy production process), then ship it off to places like China and India with all sorts of regulatory, military and human rights concerns which we think suck. Yet we don’t want to even consider building a nuclear plant our selves because it is too “evil”.

Molten salt reactor using molten fluoride salt carrying nuclear fuel. Its Chinese technology but they claim it will be commercial in 10 to 20 years. Of course the push in Australia is only focused on American technology, as being the “only option” (US paying the lobby bills). Buy USA. Buy Nuclear. They really need the cash cos hardly anyone is buying their stories anymore.

The only problem I see with training nuclear scientists is they all start to whine that they have to live in America to make any money. Then they want a job here and the whining gets louder…….I think I hear it now………

Could there be only one option. Your option. Is that even an option? You read like an nuclear industry hack, hijacking a solar panel thread.

“I Diggerty IFR’s are the ONLY option after we objectively trawl through all the info available work out what we need for the future.”

OpenYourMind said :

Diggety, if you are going to make comparisons, at least choose a technology that is in production. IFRs may well be a great concept, however as per your link, there are no IFR’s in commercial use.

The lead time on nuclear is one of the biggest downsides. The time it takes to bring a nuclear project to fruition is so great that even if the costs seems ok up front, by the time the plant is commissioned, costs have usually greatly increased. Factors leading to costs escalating are: not using ‘off the shelf’ technology eg, IFRs, unfamiliarity with technology (no nuclear power plants in Oz), external factors eg protest/politics (guaranteed). USA scrapped their IFR project a couple of decades ago. The lead time on IFR would almost certainly be greater than a standard modern reactor.

If you want to talk more modern (but real) nuclear reactors, how bout Finland’s Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant. The latest reactor has taken years longer and cost much more to build than ever anticipated. The 1.6GW reactor has cost over $4billion before the green lever has been flipped to the on position. That’s $2500 per installed kW – just for construction! Now of course a reactor doesn’t last forever, so it will need to be decommissioned (a monstrously expensive project that nobody ever wants to pay for), it will need 24/7 guarding, and highly paid experts (let’s call them Homers) monitoring it 24/7. The entire nuclear industry is just plain expensive.

Given Australia’s history with very large complex projects eg. New Submarine Project, the future would not bode well for such a construction.

I can already picture the well dressed consultants working such a project for all its worth. A nuclear project would be good for employment if nothing else.

You didn’t read one scrap of material I gave you, did you? Read about the economics of GenII and IFR’s before commenting please!

1. IFR’s were shut down in 1994 due to anti-nuke, mining and coal industry pressure. At the time of shutting it down, the technology had completed all the objectives it intended to deliver, and was delivering high grid power generation. Even the main lobbyist responsible for shutting it down admitted it required no further testing, and was fit for service.

It was shut down by politics. A mix of financial benefit (mining/coal industry) and paranoia (the public, who if they actually knew what it was, would be celebrating it).

Australia is in the BEST position to be considering this technology. I would predict our first IFR to be online in 15-20 years.

2. Feasibility for Australia- we aren’t looking to even plan to build one tomorrow. We first need to change people’s minds (people like you) with cold, hard facts and reasoning. This needs to happen in the US first, but in the meantime in Australia, we need to get educated so that when this is available (could be very soon) we are prepared.

I’m about to go off to a meeting for my university faculty, where we are planning our teaching and learning agenda for the next decade. I am going to suggest we start teaching nuclear physics and civil power. These are the sorts of things we need to do BEFORE handing planning for a reactor, unless we of course import all the brains needed.

3. Nuclear will keep popping up in Australia, more and more. We can stick our heads in the sand and kiss our future goodbye, or we could look at the facts and prepare for nuclear power.

4. To reduce our effect on the climate, and to make sure we don’t run out of resources, we either need fossil-fuel or nuclear. Which do you choose?

Renewables are handy today to offset some of our emissions and reach agreed targets (or at least cope with some growth), but to change the way we consume energy and resources, needs a long term plan with technology capable of achieving this task.

IFR’s are the ONLY option after we objectively trawl through all the info available work out what we need for the future.

Your Finland example is irrelevant and has nothing to do with what we are going to consider.

Your username is pretty hypocritical.

Diggety, if you are going to make comparisons, at least choose a technology that is in production.  IFRs may well be a great concept, however as per your link, there are no IFR’s in commercial use.
 
The lead time on nuclear is one of the biggest downsides.  The time it takes to bring a nuclear project to fruition is so great that even if the costs seems ok up front, by the time the plant is commissioned, costs have usually greatly increased.  Factors leading to costs escalating are: not using ‘off the shelf’ technology eg, IFRs, unfamiliarity with technology (no nuclear power plants in Oz), external factors eg protest/politics (guaranteed).  USA scrapped their IFR project a couple of decades ago.  The lead time on IFR would almost certainly be greater than a standard modern reactor.
 
If you want to talk more modern (but real) nuclear reactors, how bout Finland’s Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant.  The latest reactor has taken years longer and cost much more to build than ever anticipated.  The 1.6GW reactor has cost over $4billion before the green lever has been flipped to the on position.  That’s $2500 per installed kW – just for construction!  Now of course a reactor doesn’t last forever, so it will need to be decommissioned (a monstrously expensive project that nobody ever wants to pay for), it will need 24/7 guarding, and highly paid experts (let’s call them Homers) monitoring it 24/7.  The entire nuclear industry is just plain expensive. 
 
Given Australia’s history with very large complex projects eg. New Submarine Project, the future would not bode well for such a construction.
 
I can already picture the well dressed consultants working such a project for all its worth. A nuclear project would be good for employment if nothing else.

Diggety said :

poetix said :

I’m just plugging in my nuclear popcorn maker.

Which has about the same chance of a ‘Fukushima’ as an IFR 😉

Load it up with GM corn.

Stevian said :

Is the IFR the cheapest nuclear option? If it isn’t it certainly won’t be the option chosen. I know that much about our decision makers, it nothing else

Right now, GenIII would be our only choice (which is non-Fukushimable).

But by the time we get around to actually planning to build one, GenIV would be our only (and likely far cheaper) option.

Personally, if we were to use nuclear power in this country, IFR’s would be the only one I’d consider for widely held reasons on nuclear power.

Diggety said :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

Have a read of this first. Let me know if you want more details on it or solar, wind or geothermal for a comparison.

And after you’ve read that, have a read of this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/05/sellafield-nuclear-energy-solution

It was written by an ex anti-nuclear/hippy/Green-socialist (scumbag)/environmentalist campaigner.

He is basically calling all the old Greenies who refuse to look at new technologies idiots.

poetix said :

I’m just plugging in my nuclear popcorn maker.

Which has about the same chance of a ‘Fukushima’ as an IFR 😉

Diggety said :

HenryBG said :

5 of the 6 points are completely false. no.4 is marginally true, but could be said for any other method of generasting power, so it’s not a selling point.

no.5 is not true in the short-term any more than the long-term.

All nuclear operations survive thanks to massive government subsidisation. It is in fact the most expensive form of power generation by a long mile, once you factor in the subsidies the industry (and governments that supports it) try to hide.

Nuclear power plant operators can not get insurance cover, so the government has to underwrite them for it – Japanese taxpayers are in the process of finding out the cost of having to underwrite these risks.

– There’s nothing green whatsoever about the messy business of mining Uranium, producing yellowcake, turning it into fuel, then allowing that fuel to undergo fission thus releasing all sorts of shit much of which the nuclear industry is allowed to vent in steam and release in waste water from the power plant.

– There’s nothing renewable about nuclear power. Worldwide, recoverable uranium would last about 25 years if we all switched to nuclear today.

Proponents of nuclear power are all either self-interested or deluded. It is a completely senseless waste of money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

Have a read of this first. Let me know if you want more details on it or solar, wind or geothermal for a comparison.

Is the IFR the cheapest nuclear option? If it isn’t it certainly won’t be the option chosen. I know that much about our decision makers, it nothing else

I’m just plugging in my nuclear popcorn maker.

HenryBG said :

5 of the 6 points are completely false. no.4 is marginally true, but could be said for any other method of generasting power, so it’s not a selling point.

no.5 is not true in the short-term any more than the long-term.

All nuclear operations survive thanks to massive government subsidisation. It is in fact the most expensive form of power generation by a long mile, once you factor in the subsidies the industry (and governments that supports it) try to hide.

Nuclear power plant operators can not get insurance cover, so the government has to underwrite them for it – Japanese taxpayers are in the process of finding out the cost of having to underwrite these risks.

– There’s nothing green whatsoever about the messy business of mining Uranium, producing yellowcake, turning it into fuel, then allowing that fuel to undergo fission thus releasing all sorts of shit much of which the nuclear industry is allowed to vent in steam and release in waste water from the power plant.

– There’s nothing renewable about nuclear power. Worldwide, recoverable uranium would last about 25 years if we all switched to nuclear today.

Proponents of nuclear power are all either self-interested or deluded. It is a completely senseless waste of money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

Have a read of this first. Let me know if you want more details on it or solar, wind or geothermal for a comparison.

Stevian said :

Bramina said :

Diggety said :

Stevian said :

Bramina said :

Nuclear power, it’s green, renewable, doesn’t pollute, provides base load power, cheap and is safe. What more could you want?

Pinnocchio, what a long nose you have

In fact, Stevian, I’ll help you out:
-green
– renewable
– doesn’t pollute
– provides base load power
– cheap and
– is safe.

On which of these points would you call someone a liar?

I’m happy to argue one of these points, whichever Stevian thinks is the biggest lie. Arguing all six would be way too cumbersome.

All six points are false, with the possible exception of no. 4, no 5 may be true in short-term purely monetary terms, but in the end the damage caused will cost us all.
How is nuclear power green? Unless you refer to the glow of radiation as it slowly pollutes the environment and destroys all life around it.
How is a finite resource renewable?

Evidence, Stevian. You’re right, but if we put a ‘est’ on the end…

– Green[est]. IFR’s consume nuclear ‘waste’. If we rejected IFR’s we would have a serious waste problem. If we allowed IFR’s, we wouldn’t. For the necessary resources and damage to the environment to energise our future, nothing comes close to IFR’s. I include solar, wind and geothermal in that comparison.
– Renewable[est]. No fuel source is finite, But the fuel required to source our whole growing world with energy* for 50,000 years from IFR’s has already been dug up. IFR’s use ‘spent’ fuel from old reactors. If, however, we consider cradle to grave scenarios, it is IFR’s are the only capable technology of delivering the energy we need, IFR’s are the only sustainable option.
– Least polluting. Hands down. The mining, embodied energy, de/commissioning of other forms of energy generation are more polluting than IFR’s (solar farm in discussion included). Start thinking condition/Watt, i.e. $/W, CO2/Watt, etc.
– Provides base-load power. Enough said.
– Cost. The economics of IFR’s (perhaps not in up front capital) are likely to be far cheaper than any other reliable power generation.
– Nuclear/Watt is safe. IFR’s are inherently safer still.

When faced with fresh facts and reasoning, the only people still opposed to considering this are those who use faith for decision making, i.e. dudes who haven’t come down from a trip in the 60’s, for example. Either way, the rest of us aren’t going to wait for them.

If we Australian’s don’t drop their Luddite attitude to nuclear power, we’ll be screwed in the future. Fossil-fuels won’t be an option, without heavy penalties!

* including energy for desal water, transportation, embodied in food, materials, etc. In fact, the uranium fuel for ALL the energy you consume in your lifetime from this technology could fit in your pocket. Think of how much fuel you put in your car every week. Tons of coal are burned for just you, every year.

HenryBG said :

Holden Caulfield said :

Diggety said :

In fact, anyone who claims they want action on climate change whilst adopting an anti-nuclear stance is delusional.

Rightly or wrongly, I think Japan has Fukushima’d any real chance of serious nuclear debate in this country for at least 20 years.

Spot on.
Fukushima means it’s a complete waste of time even engaging with the periodic burst of PR activity from the nuke-spruikers: they’re backing a horse that’s alreday been scratched.

……… yet Australian involvement in nuclear power has just been extended to India. It is worth reading the Safety History on the Fukushima wiki. If Japan can not control its industry, what hope does India have. We are fueling disaster for profit. That is my delusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Safety_history

farnarkler – have you got your bearings right? 15km West of Canberra is the water supply for half the southern states of Oz – Murrumbidgee River – and the wind usually blows from the SW or NW. So you’d like the pollutants to flow through N.S.W and VIC and also drift across the A.C.T???
Nuclear also requires a lot of water for cooling. That is why the countries you mentioned have their rectors on the coast or at a reliable source of water. Now, where would we get that considering the high cost and apparent lack of this in Canberra?
Earthquakes will not be a problem, but a drought may be just as disastrous as Fukushima.

Holden Caulfield said :

Diggety said :

In fact, anyone who claims they want action on climate change whilst adopting an anti-nuclear stance is delusional.

Rightly or wrongly, I think Japan has Fukushima’d any real chance of serious nuclear debate in this country for at least 20 years.

Spot on.
Fukushima means it’s a complete waste of time even engaging with the periodic burst of PR activity from the nuke-spruikers: they’re backing a horse that’s alreday been scratched.

Stevian said :

Bramina said :

Diggety said :

Stevian said :

Bramina said :

Nuclear power, it’s green, renewable, doesn’t pollute, provides base load power, cheap and is safe. What more could you want?

Pinnocchio, what a long nose you have

In fact, Stevian, I’ll help you out:
-green
– renewable
– doesn’t pollute
– provides base load power
– cheap and
– is safe.

On which of these points would you call someone a liar?

I’m happy to argue one of these points, whichever Stevian thinks is the biggest lie. Arguing all six would be way too cumbersome.

All six points are false, with the possible exception of no. 4, no 5 may be true in short-term purely monetary terms, but in the end the damage caused will cost us all.
How is nuclear power green? Unless you refer to the glow of radiation as it slowly pollutes the environment and destroys all life around it.
How is a finite resource renewable?

5 of the 6 points are completely false. no.4 is marginally true, but could be said for any other method of generasting power, so it’s not a selling point.

no.5 is not true in the short-term any more than the long-term.

All nuclear operations survive thanks to massive government subsidisation. It is in fact the most expensive form of power generation by a long mile, once you factor in the subsidies the industry (and governments that supports it) try to hide.

Nuclear power plant operators can not get insurance cover, so the government has to underwrite them for it – Japanese taxpayers are in the process of finding out the cost of having to underwrite these risks.

– There’s nothing green whatsoever about the messy business of mining Uranium, producing yellowcake, turning it into fuel, then allowing that fuel to undergo fission thus releasing all sorts of shit much of which the nuclear industry is allowed to vent in steam and release in waste water from the power plant.

– There’s nothing renewable about nuclear power. Worldwide, recoverable uranium would last about 25 years if we all switched to nuclear today.

Proponents of nuclear power are all either self-interested or deluded. It is a completely senseless waste of money.

Bramina said :

Diggety said :

Stevian said :

Bramina said :

Nuclear power, it’s green, renewable, doesn’t pollute, provides base load power, cheap and is safe. What more could you want?

Pinnocchio, what a long nose you have

In fact, Stevian, I’ll help you out:
-green
– renewable
– doesn’t pollute
– provides base load power
– cheap and
– is safe.

On which of these points would you call someone a liar?

I’m happy to argue one of these points, whichever Stevian thinks is the biggest lie. Arguing all six would be way too cumbersome.

All six points are false, with the possible exception of no. 4, no 5 may be true in short-term purely monetary terms, but in the end the damage caused will cost us all.
How is nuclear power green? Unless you refer to the glow of radiation as it slowly pollutes the environment and destroys all life around it.
How is a finite resource renewable?

Bramina said :

Nuclear power, it’s […] renewable

Heh. You do know fissile elements are made in exploding stars… right?

Diggety said :

Stevian said :

Bramina said :

Nuclear power, it’s green, renewable, doesn’t pollute, provides base load power, cheap and is safe. What more could you want?

Pinnocchio, what a long nose you have

In fact, Stevian, I’ll help you out:
-green
– renewable
– doesn’t pollute
– provides base load power
– cheap and
– is safe.

On which of these points would you call someone a liar?

I’m happy to argue one of these points, whichever Stevian thinks is the biggest lie. Arguing all six would be way too cumbersome.

Stevian said :

Bramina said :

Nuclear power, it’s green, renewable, doesn’t pollute, provides base load power, cheap and is safe. What more could you want?

Pinnocchio, what a long nose you have

In fact, Stevian, I’ll help you out:
-green
– renewable
– doesn’t pollute
– provides base load power
– cheap and
– is safe.

On which of these points would you call someone a liar?

Stevian said :

Bramina said :

Diggety said :

poetix said :

Stevian said :

steveu said :

To be honest with you I would feel better if we reduced our dependence on fossil fuels from the middle east…

That’s heresy, surely. Common sense, but heresy

So are you both supporting nuclear power as an option?

In fact, anyone who claims they want action on climate change whilst adopting an anti-nuclear stance is delusional.

Nuclear power, it’s green, renewable, doesn’t pollute, provides base load power, cheap and is safe. What more could you want?

Pinnocchio, what a long nose you have

Instead of using a useless analogy of a fictional character, perhaps you’d like to present some argument, Stevian?

Giddy-up.

“Keep dreaming. It just isn’t going to happen.”- OpenYourMind

If I were to take your position on our energy future, I would agree. I would also agree with your attitude if Australia (and indeed the ACT) was not deserving of a first world energy supply.

“ Even if your arguments were valid, which they aren’t,” -OpenYourMind

See below. But I’d wish you actually took the time to identify them and provide evidence to their invalidity.

“ the fact is that the previous message that was told over and over was that Chernobyl was Russian, old and crap and it wouldn’t happen in the West. It happened in a modern industrialised country like Japan. Sure Fukushima may have been old tech,” -OpenYourMind

If you’d bothered to look, like I asked you to do before commenting- and you claim to work in science, therefore I presume you can understand the mountains of info available- you’d notice that these scenarios are physically impossible[1,2].

Integral Fast Reactors (IFR) and even all GenIII (running for 30+ years) reactors combined, have a far lower accident/mortality rate than all other renewable forms of power generation/W.

“ but that’s not relevant to the real argument, and I’m not talking about the scientific one, I’m talking about the emotive argument. That alone will stop nuclear in its tracks.” –OpenYourMind

And this is the problem. We have anonymous comments from people with usernames such as “OpenYourMind” shutting down rational scientific endeavours to remedy our climate and resource crisis with emotional appeal. As I said, have a look over the facts before making a emotional opinion, it can’t hurt!

“There’e also the economic argument.” -OpenYourMind

If you were arguing for our carbon emission or resource depletion rate to continue on an unsustainable path, I’d agree. But the only substantial, peer-reviewed literature available for Australia’s case, makes it quite economically clear that nuclear energy is the most cost effective energy cost/W[1]

“You all complain about subsidies to solar,” –OpenYourMind

I do yes, but i complain from a personal view. Not much to do with nuclear or renewable from a technological point of view. Of which, I won’t bore you with because it is not my highest priority in this discussion.

“how much subsidy do you think our Governments would need to provide to underwrite that kind of risk.” -OpenYourMind

I can’t be sure, granted (of IFR). It is often stated by nuclear proponents that “nuclear can’t be
insured”, which of course is not true.

“ I get the science of nuclear energy, in fact I work in science.” –OpenYouMind

Great. Now update your information, please! IFR’s are new to a lot of people who ‘get’ the science of nuclear energy, it is simply a matter of brushing up your education, and scrutinizing pertinent information, rather than that of 40 years ago.

“What you are all missing is the ridiculousness of your statements such as build one in Canberra. Hell, it took us half a decade to build the GDE. Setting up a nuclear power industry in Australia would be one of the most expensive undertakings our country has ever embarked on. Expensive and risky.” -OpenYourMind

Expensive? No. Unless of course you commission the same spastics to complete a task as simple as the GDE, or spend silly amounts of perfectly good AU currency on solar farms which don’t have any real benefit- unless of course it was a fly-by image you were after, which I’m sure is priceless. On which case, well done! Until a few years time when those interstate friends you were so willing to impress are scratching their heads at the lack of cost-benefit analysis you were so willing to avoid to make you *feel good*, on someone else’s money.

Don’t lecture me about costs whilst supporting climate change action (and presumably avoiding financial meltdown) when you are willing to support this solar farm.

I never said we’d have one in CBR. Although if we did, you wouldn’t notice much- they are quite small.

Risky? No. You need to read up the technology I asked you to look at. If we follow through with your logic, humans would never harnessed fire.

“Even the most modern plant can’t assure 100% safety. There’s so many risks that just can’t be easily mitigated.” -OpenYourMind

Nothing that I know of can ensure 100% safety. We can only evaluate risk on probability. The NEA confirms the probability of IFR reactors (feeding all forms of electrical energy to the WHOLE WORLD) that there is a 1/430,000 year probability of a IFR sodium liquid coolant exploding. And even in this case, the reactor (through it’s inherent reactor design) does not cause a meltdown or anything like the kind of hazardous flux we see in cases like Fukushima (which casue zero deaths, and likely no ongoing health affects.)

“Now all of this silly talk of nuclear lies in the shadow of ever cheaper renewable energy options. Take a look at the price per kW of solar and you’ll see how solar may well have already dropped below nuclear (especially true nuclear) cost.” –OpenYourMind

I have discussed this with you before, we can’t rely on renewable energy. I have a PhD in solar energy, and have been in solar industry and academia for years. I also take a close interest in our energy future. Solar, wind and geothermal cannot feasibly sustain either our current or projected energy with any realistic attempts at significantly lowering our GHG fottprints or reducing out dependence on finite resources.

Nuclear is no threat to renewable energy- it is a support. There is no ‘silver bullet’, The reality is we either choose a combination of fossil-fuel/renewable OR nuclear/renewable. That is why (combined with key advantages of new nuclear) so many environmentalists, energy experts and engineers are starting to agree with IFR’s.

The only real blockade is politicians and uninformed people. I just hope with a username like OpenYourMind, you come around quicker than most.

[1] http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6572843
[2] http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6151427
[2] Energy Volume 36, Issue 1, January 2011, Pages 305-313

Note: If you’d like any more response on any points raise, OpenYourMind, just ask. If you can’t access the papers I reference, or would like more, go to the library or ask me and I’ll send them to you. If you’d like confirmation of my claimed credentials, ask johnboy to confirm for you.

Bramina said :

Diggety said :

poetix said :

Stevian said :

steveu said :

To be honest with you I would feel better if we reduced our dependence on fossil fuels from the middle east…

That’s heresy, surely. Common sense, but heresy

So are you both supporting nuclear power as an option?

In fact, anyone who claims they want action on climate change whilst adopting an anti-nuclear stance is delusional.

Nuclear power, it’s green, renewable, doesn’t pollute, provides base load power, cheap and is safe. What more could you want?

Pinnocchio, what a long nose you have

Keep dreaming. It just isn’t going to happen. Even if your arguments were valid, which they aren’t, the fact is that the previous message that was told over and over was that Chernobyl was Russian, old and crap and it wouldn’t happen in the West. It happened in a modern industrialised country like Japan. Sure Fukushima may have been old tech, but that’s not relevant to the real argument, and I’m not talking about the scientific one, I’m talking about the emotive argument. That alone will stop nuclear in its tracks.

There’e also the economic argument. Think about this. Shoreham plant in New York state was built but never commissioned as it was a victim of poor timing – 3 mile island etc. It was a $5billion white elephant. You all complain about subsidies to solar, how much subsidy do you think our Governments would need to provide to underwrite that kind of risk. I get the science of nuclear energy, in fact I work in science. What you are all missing is the ridiculousness of your statements such as build one in Canberra. Hell, it took us half a decade to build the GDE. Setting up a nuclear power industry in Australia would be one of the most expensive undertakings our country has ever embarked on. Expensive and risky.

Nuclear is simply a terrible financial proposition – and that was before Fukushima. How many more safety checks and balances would a new plant need, how much more red tape, how many more protests. Someone mentioned France – well France had a recent break-in where Greenpeace almost walked through the security thus demonstrating the vulnerability of these plants.

Even the most modern plant can’t assure 100% safety. There’s so many risks that just can’t be easily mitigated. They are usually the outlandish ones, but Fukushima showed how a poor chain reaction (pun intended) of events can create an almost unmanageable catastrophe. Recent riots in London have demonstrated how quickly stable states can fluctuate in unanticipated ways.

Now all of this silly talk of nuclear lies in the shadow of ever cheaper renewable energy options. Take a look at the price per kW of solar and you’ll see how solar may well have already dropped below nuclear (especially true nuclear) cost.

Diggety said :

poetix said :

Stevian said :

steveu said :

To be honest with you I would feel better if we reduced our dependence on fossil fuels from the middle east…

That’s heresy, surely. Common sense, but heresy

So are you both supporting nuclear power as an option?

In fact, anyone who claims they want action on climate change whilst adopting an anti-nuclear stance is delusional.

Nuclear power, it’s green, renewable, doesn’t pollute, provides base load power, cheap and is safe. What more could you want?

Diggety said :

OpenYourMind said :

As I’ve said in previous posts, nuclear is a poor choice in pretty much every way. It’s sucha stupid idea that even Americans have realised it’s stupid! If for no other reason, the real cost of any kind of nuclear solution in Australia would make green energy look like chump change.

But more importantly, it just won’t happen, it’s a big glowing green hot potato that no self respecting politician would put their name to any time in the near future. Fukushima has assured us of that.

Please update your information of GenIV reactor technology before commenting on any Australian nuclear future.

The reason I limit to GenIV is that by the time we are in a position to plan nuclear power, GenIV will be the:
– least cost (in $ and CO2)
– least hazardous (by that I mean waste)
– safest (including solar, geothermal and wind)
– most efficient (of any known consumable electrical energy source)
– least resource dependent
– least land dependent
– least water dependent
– least politically sensitive
– least environmentally damaging

Australia is already behind on this. Why?

The French, Belgians, Swedes and Swiss have been using nuclear power plants successfully for years. As with anything, there is a risk of something going wrong but I’m sure a nuclear powerplant could fuel Canberra’s electricity requirements well. They’d just have to make sure it was built 15km West of the city. And we’re not particularly prone to even moderate earthquakes.

OpenYourMind said :

As I’ve said in previous posts, nuclear is a poor choice in pretty much every way. It’s sucha stupid idea that even Americans have realised it’s stupid! If for no other reason, the real cost of any kind of nuclear solution in Australia would make green energy look like chump change.

But more importantly, it just won’t happen, it’s a big glowing green hot potato that no self respecting politician would put their name to any time in the near future. Fukushima has assured us of that.

Please update your information of GenIV reactor technology before commenting on any Australian nuclear future.

Even once prominent anti-nuclear activists have changed their minds. It’s only really those willing to stick their head in the sands and ignore science, environmental issues, resource issues and economics opposed to it.

(Please)

Holden Caulfield said :

Diggety said :

In fact, anyone who claims they want action on climate change whilst adopting an anti-nuclear stance is delusional.

Rightly or wrongly, I think Japan has Fukushima’d any real chance of serious nuclear debate in this country for at least 20 years.

Sad, but true.

Even though any nuclear power options Australia would commission make the Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl incidents a physical impossibility.

Politics…

As I’ve said in previous posts, nuclear is a poor choice in pretty much every way. It’s sucha stupid idea that even Americans have realised it’s stupid! If for no other reason, the real cost of any kind of nuclear solution in Australia would make green energy look like chump change.

But more importantly, it just won’t happen, it’s a big glowing green hot potato that no self respecting politician would put their name to any time in the near future. Fukushima has assured us of that.

Diggety said :

In fact, anyone who claims they want action on climate change whilst adopting an anti-nuclear stance is delusional.

Rightly or wrongly, I think Japan has Fukushima’d any real chance of serious nuclear debate in this country for at least 20 years.

#9

Hear, hear

poetix said :

Stevian said :

steveu said :

To be honest with you I would feel better if we reduced our dependence on fossil fuels from the middle east…

That’s heresy, surely. Common sense, but heresy

So are you both supporting nuclear power as an option?

In fact, anyone who claims they want action on climate change whilst adopting an anti-nuclear stance is delusional.

poetix said :

Stevian said :

steveu said :

To be honest with you I would feel better if we reduced our dependence on fossil fuels from the middle east…

That’s heresy, surely. Common sense, but heresy

So are you both supporting nuclear power as an option?

I certainly am.

poetix said :

Stevian said :

steveu said :

To be honest with you I would feel better if we reduced our dependence on fossil fuels from the middle east…

That’s heresy, surely. Common sense, but heresy

So are you both supporting nuclear power as an option?

I know you weren’t asking me, but ‘yes’ again.

Stevian said :

steveu said :

To be honest with you I would feel better if we reduced our dependence on fossil fuels from the middle east…

That’s heresy, surely. Common sense, but heresy

So are you both supporting nuclear power as an option?

steveu said :

To be honest with you I would feel better if we reduced our dependence on fossil fuels from the middle east…

That’s heresy, surely. Common sense, but heresy

This is just as absurd as the ideas being proposed to enable the A.C.T to be carbon neutral by 2060. If our energy dollars go interstate, or overseas, at a cost much more than elsewhere then business and energy users will simply change where they buy. What’s to stop all Canberran’s changing to an interstate energy provider who charges less because it’s not green energy? Nothing, unless the government makes it illegal [not likely though, with free enterprise and the like]. Unless the costs of paying for this solar energy come from direct taxation through means that we cannot escape such as rates, you will see the A.C.T become less carbon friendly and not the other way.
In any case, I’ve done some maths…
The cost of purchasing the 210MW of solar panels alone [no other components, just the panels] is $123 million.
The area required to produce this amount of solar power is 210,000 sq/metres. At current A.C.T land prices that would be $99.393 million.
That total is over $220 million.
At the current feed in tarriff, which at wholesale prices is around $25/MWh, over 20 years you would reap $136 million.
So, over the lifespan of your solar installation you’d LOSE $64million give or take a bit.
Well worthwhile if you ask me, if you have that kind of money, and can find the land to stick it on.
No wonder it will go interstate.
[These figures were researched on the net, stuck together with a bit of glue and I don’t have a master’s degree in numerology. If anyone wishes to add or amend any of these figures, get a job with the government and make somesense of it all]

Was Zed meaning milliwatt (mW) or megawatt (MW)?

To be honest with you I would feel better if we reduced our dependence on fossil fuels from the middle east…

I wonder how many emissions we could reduce by simply not creating the panels in the first place?