Nuclear power booster Ted O’Brien has launched a website and survey in an effort to see his small modular reactor (SMR) dreams come true in Australia.
Ted O’Brien is currently the Federal Member for Fairfax and Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy. He’s big on nuclear energy. Among his past activities, Mr. O’Brien chaired the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy. In 2019, he stated:
“Australia should say a definite ‘No’ to old nuclear technologies but a conditional ‘Yes’ to new and emerging technologies such as small modular reactors.”
This was in relation to the Committee’s report on a way forward for nuclear technology in Australia, which SQ’s Ronald dissected here.
Mr. O’Brien has a penchant for small modular reactor (SMR) technology, which essentially involves building bits of small nuclear power stations off-site and putting them together on-site.
The fact there are no terrestrial-based SMR power stations commercially operating aside, a recent study out of Stanford University suggests most small modular reactor designs are inferior to conventional nuclear reactors in several very important aspects. But even ignoring that and various other issues, there is a simple reason Australian power stations will never go nuclear – it’s simply too expensive.
In relation to SMR tech specifically, last month we reported a proposed project in the USA appears to be following the trend set by bigger plants planned or under construction – increasingly pricey power. And that looks likely to happen even with a fistful of fed subsidies thrown at it.
Time to Talk Nuclear Launched
But regardless, Ted O’Brien has continued to whip this dead horse with the launch of his “Time to Talk Nuclear” campaign. He states it’s a program of community engagement putting “the Australian people at the centre of a national discussion on advanced nuclear technology”.
Central to the campaign is the web site, which has an interesting backstory and includes a survey with just 3 questions:
- What do you think could be the benefits of nuclear energy in Australia?
- What concerns (if any) do you have about nuclear energy?
- What questions do you have about nuclear energy?
The web site is pretty lean – it doesn’t have a lot of information at the moment. Among the content available is this statement:
“Nuclear power is the only low-cost, reliable and emissions-free source of energy that can back up renewables at night or at low wind speeds.”
Nuclear power certainly isn’t low-cost and while low emissions, isn’t emissions-free. As for reliability, recently 26 of France’s 56 reactors were offline for maintenance or repairs.
CSIRO’s GenCost 2021-22 report indicated renewables are the cheapest sources of electricity generation in Australia, and that’s including costs associated with energy storage and transmission. No nukes required.
In relation to SMR projects, that same report mentioned projects not happening locally this decade (even without the nuclear power ban in Australia) “given the technology’s commercial immaturity and high cost”.
We can certainly spend more time and resources on conversations about nuclear power. But what we really need is a laser-focus on rolling out renewables including wind and solar energy; backed by storage and appropriate transmission and management infrastructure. Anything else is just a distraction – and given where things are at; a potentially very problematic one.
About Michael Bloch
RSS - Posts
Michael Bloch,
“We can certainly spend more time and resources on conversations about nuclear power.”
How much more time and resources should we waste? How many more inquiries/conversations do you want? I’d suggest the answer won’t change anytime soon (if ever)!
Economist John Quiggin’s op-ed headlined Nuclear power is a stalking horse for gas, published on 9 Jun 2021, included:
https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/nuclear-power-is-a-stalking-horse-for-gas,15174
Any pilot SMR plants would take at least until 2035 to properly evaluate. An establishment of large scale manufacturing would probably take at least another ten more years. So being supremely optimistic, Australia likely wouldn’t see an operating SMR until the late 2040s to early 2050s.
Nuclear technologies cannot be deployed fast enough to compensate for the expected closure of many aging, increasingly unreliable and more costly to operate coal-fired plants currently supplying electricity to the NEM. Waiting for new nuclear power technologies to become operational increases the risks of ‘the lights going out’.
The AEMO regularly updates its generating unit expected closure year data. The latest version is dated 30 Nov 2022, found at: https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-planning-data/generation-information
I think advocating for nuclear power for Australia is risking our energy security (and thus our national security).
While we could spend time and resources talking about nuclear power, I’m pretty sure that wasn’t a recommendation.
Yet here we are! 🙂
Nuclear of course would require an extensive regulatory framework, extensive educational/training framework, getting a qualified workforce up to speed etc. etc..
None of that is likely to happen any time soon – I certainly can’t imagine Ted O’Brien doing the hard miles to get that work done. More likely he’ll just sit around issuing press releases and postings on social media instead.
If he wants to start the conversation or have a debate on nuclear, then let him. Trying to shut down the conversation instead of debating it on its merits is the the woke sentiment that is ruining the world these days.
Small nuclear reactors are being held back by regulations. The US nuclear authority regulations are designed for the big reactors, if this was fixed then SNR could then be developed and tested.
If everything worked out you could have mass produced nuclear reactors you buy from America, ship over and all you need to build in Australia is a building to plonk it in. That sounds like it could be a cheap option to me.
Its carbon free, it works at night and it is super cheap once the reactor is up and running, also wIth 90% of Australia uninhabitable i an sure we could find a solution for waste as well.
James,
“If everything worked out you could have mass produced nuclear reactors you buy from America…”
When, and at what price, James? Do you know, or are you just ‘hand waving’?
When: UAMPS says it still expects to submit the project’s Combined Operating License Application to the NRC in early 2024, and construction to begin in 2026. The first of four modules are still anticipated to be in operation in 2029, with the remaining three entering service in 2030.
So being supremely optimistic, Australia likely wouldn’t see a ‘mass produced’ operating SMR until the late 2040s to early 2050s.
Latest Price: US$120–130/MWh (without IRA subsidy) = circa AU$176–191/MWh (at AU$1 = US$0.68 exchange rate).
https://ieefa.org/resources/small-modular-reactor-update-fading-promise-low-cost-power-uamps-smr
That relies on a very big if that everything continues to go to plan (that it seems to me continues to keep slipping further into the never-never). An ultra-long lead time together with inflation will likely make it increasingly more uneconomic.
“That sounds like it could be a cheap option to me.”
James, wholesale electricity at AU$176-191/MWh isn’t cheap!
Renewables + energy storage will provide reliable electricity around the clock at much lower cost, and be deployed much quicker, than the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) so-called carbon-free power plant (CFPP).
Waiting for new nuclear power technologies to become operational increases the risks of ‘the lights going out’. That would be very inconvenient! ?
Hello Geoff
You are correct, i am just hand waving about the possibility of importing small nuclear reactors. But what i am saying is that is not a good reason to not even have the conversation.
I could say you are just hand waving about the solar plus storage powering a large city, as far as i am aware that has never been done either.
What i am saying is let Ted Obrien have his debate and and come to the conclusion that way, not say “thats not possible” and refuse to have the conversation. if the debate is never had, no one learns from it.
Hi James,
Just how many more times do we need to keep on keeping on with ‘debates’ and ‘discussions we need to have’, and yet more ‘enquirys’ in relation to nuclear power generation amid claims that ‘China is building 50 SMR’s’ when in fact only one has actually been built last time I looked.
See: https://www.revyuh.com/top-news/featured/china-beats-west-and-starts-worlds-first-nuclear-mini-reactor.
That above link was first published on 23rd December 2021, and a key word in the link is ‘starts’. ie… with nuclear power plants you don’t just flick a switch when construction is completed and start generating power at the SMR’s maximum rated capacity.
You first have to make sure that ALL the ancillary equipment such as pumps, pipes, etc that circulate and eventually cool the super-heated helium that arises from the reactors operation. Also – such things as temperature gauges, the alarms that go off if the maximum operating temperature are exceeded. the functioning of all the necessary electrical circuits associated with all such ancillary equipment; all of those things need to be tested as well.
And of course, regardless of the reactor’s size you still need such things as security fences, security guards, sufficient skilled operating staff operating over (say) 3 shifts of 8 hours each, canteens, toilets, time-keeping of each individual so correct wages are paid to each
The above reactor seems to be the same one that is referred to at this Chinese news link: https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-08-22/China-is-building-world-s-first-commercial-land-based-SMR-1cI8GcIqAuY/index.html
which is dated 23rd August 2022.
This later article mentions that “More than 80 SMR designs are under development in 19 countries and two SMR units are already in operation in China and Russia…”
Yes… a mere 2 have actually been built, And both seem to still be in a ramping up and testing phase.
James,
“I could say you are just hand waving about the solar plus storage powering a large city, as far as i am aware that has never been done either.”
I’d suggest Andrew Blakers isn’t ‘hand waving’.
https://theconversation.com/theres-a-huge-surge-in-solar-production-under-way-and-australia-could-show-the-world-how-to-use-it-190241
In Australia, we will soon see it happening. The list of GWh-scale BESSs continues to grow:
* Wallerawang 9 (NSW), by Greenspot, 500 MW / up to 1.0 GWh, NSW DPIE approved 4 Aug 2022, operational 2024?
* Great Western (NSW), by Neoen, 500 MW / up to 1.0 GWh, NSW DPIE Assessment, operational 2024?
* Liddell (NSW), by AGL, 500 MW / up to 2.0 GWh, NSW DPIE approved 8 Mar 2022, Stage 1 operational 2023? Stage 2 operational 2025?
* Eraring (NSW), by Origin, 700 MW / up to 2.8 GWh, NSW DPIE approved 10 May 2022, Stage 1 operational 2023? Stage 2 operational 2025?
* Waratah Super (NSW), by EnergyCo, 700 MW / up to 1.4 GWh, EIS on exhibition at NSW DPIE, operational Q4 2024?
* Orana (NSW), by Blackrock/Akaysha, 200-400 MW / up to 1.6 GWh, prep EIS, operational 2025?
* Mt Piper (NSW), by EnergyAustralia, 500 MW / up to 2.0 GWh, announced feasibility study 13 Oct 2022, operational by 2026?
* Wooreen (VIC), by EnergyAustralia, 350 MW / up to 1.4 GWh, planning application lodged VIC DELWP, operational 2026?
* Melton (VIC), by Equis Developments, 1,200 MW / up to 2.4 GWh, Stage 1 operational 2024? Stage 2 ?
* Robertstown (SA), by Amp Energy, SA Gov approved 4 Jul 2019, pre-construction phase commenced, operational 2025?
* Goyder South (SA), by Neoen, SA Gov approved 15 Mar 2021, Stage 1 operational 2024? Stages 2 & 3 dependent on EnergyConnect
* Bulli Creek (QLD), 400 MW / up to 1.6 GWh, Qld Gov approved, operational 2024-25?
* Supernode (QLD), 800 MW / up to 2.0 GWh
* Collie (WA), by Neoen, 1,000 MW / up to 4.0 GWh, WA Gov approved Dec 2022
I do not think small scale nuclear as proposed by Rolls Royce and others should be so easily dismissed.
If we are serious about carbon reduction there surely has to be an affordable way to bridge the gulf between fossil fueled power and renewables currently at a woeful 8% of consumption (2020-21)
https://www.energy.gov.au/data/renewables
Rob Smith,
“I do not think small scale nuclear as proposed by Rolls Royce and others should be so easily dismissed.”
For what reason(s), Rob?
I’d suggest Rolls Royce SMR’s are currently ‘vaporware.’
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/co2-solar-land-clearing/#comment-1505578
I’d suggest unknown/unverifiable costs, availabilities and performances are good reasons to dismiss these SMR projects.
“If we are serious about carbon reduction there surely has to be an affordable way to bridge the gulf between fossil fueled power and renewables…”
Yep, it’s renewables + energy storage + transmission.
https://theconversation.com/theres-a-huge-surge-in-solar-production-under-way-and-australia-could-show-the-world-how-to-use-it-190241
https://theconversation.com/batteries-of-gravity-and-water-we-found-1-500-new-pumped-hydro-sites-next-to-existing-reservoirs-194330
Actually the Rolls Royce SMR project is proceeding apace.
Rolls Royce have over 60 years experience in building small nuclear reactors for submarines.
Their design leverages their expertise in several critical areas.
One of their partners is Atkins. Expertise with nuclear at Hinkley Point and Sizewell.
he logic in manufacturing the key, critical, building blocks in a controlled factory environment is a very sensible decision.
The key project team is currently being assembled with a 6 month delivery timeline.
Conclusion.. Watch this space.
Gerry Murphy,
“The key project team is currently being assembled with a 6 month delivery timeline.”
Um… Delivery of what exactly, Gerry?
Rolls Royce SMRs still don’t have regulatory approval, and this won’t happen until at least mid-2024, according to Rolls Royce small modular reactors chairperson Paul Stein. I’d suggest being supremely optimistic, by assuming no project slippage (highly unlikely for any new design nuclear technology prototype), the earliest operational SMR is suggested by Rolls Royce to be in 2029, and “up to 10 [SMRs] by 2035”.
https://www.power-technology.com/news/uk-first-smr-rolls-royce/
It seems to me that the costs, delivery schedule, and performance of SMRs are all still highly speculative, and will remain that way well into the 2030s, and perhaps more likely into the 2040s. Meanwhile, it seems to me that solar-PV, wind and energy storage technologies will have already long since become established, and already demonstrating at large-scale they have won the stationary energy technology race.
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/talk-time-nuclear-mb2739/#comment-1512718
Rob Smith,
Apparently, the energy transition is happening at a very fast pace.
The Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, tweeted yesterday (Dec 6):
https://twitter.com/fbirol/status/1599997734764875777
Followed by this tweet:
https://twitter.com/fbirol/status/1599997739617914880
It seems to me that solar-PV is winning the stationary energy technology race.
Meanwhile, it seems that nuclear fission-based energy is in decline. As of mid-2022, 411 reactors were operating in 33 countries, four less than a year earlier, seven less than in 1989, and 27 below the 2002-peak of 438, per the World Nuclear Industry Status Report-2022.
Concentrated generation of electricity MUST HAVE ADDITIONAL TRANSMISSION CAPACITY as additional demand increases.
Somebody start talking about this ‘elephant in the room’.
The fattening of the national power grid, that took 100years and masses of resources and horrendous amounts of finance is a danger to the national wealth.
NOBODY sees the poles and wires to the streets and homes and businesses and industries and buildings and industries and all the millions of ends of the grid.
NOBODY sees the transmission towers.
I worked on the1,650 towers in the ‘desert’ to Kalgoorlie Western Australia.
NOBODY sees the 5,000 klm of towers across Australia.
5 times bigger is stupid.
Unload the existing national grid with the 20million buildings with rooftop PV systems. And just add the EV batteries as the entire system is upgraded.
PV has NO TRANSMISSION COSTS, hello, hello anyone home hello ?
We need the conversation.
Too much national wealth is involved.
Unfortunately, the same conversation by advocates of SMR’s keeps getting repeated ad nauseam, as though it had never ever been held before.
Such conversations often contain comparisons with other countries that might seem valid to the average person at first sight, but can be quite misleading when thought about
For example, about 72% of France’s electricity production is generated by nuclear power stations. The building of reactors commenced in the mid-1980’s, following the 1973 oil crisis. At that time, France was heavily dependent on foreign oil. Those generating facilities are all steadily approaching the end of their useful lives
France also has borders and relatively short distances, (compared to Australia) from numerous other major European cities and countries which are quite densely populated. It takes only about 90 minutes by train from Paris to travel to the capital of Belgium, ie Brussels; which is a mere 195 miles (313 km) away from Paris. The Brussels larger metropolitan area alone has a population of around 2.5 million people, while the total metropolitan area of Paris has about 12.1 million people.
Those 2 cities alone have a combined population of 14.6 million, which is equivalent to slightly over half the entire population of Australia.
If you look at a map of France, it doesn’t take long to realise that placing reactors at carefully evaluated locations through-out France gives access to many large centres of population.
France has done quite nicely over the decades since mid-1980 via it’s selling of reactor generated electricity.
But it’s quite obvious that you can’t really compare Australia and France.
France has considerable expertise in nuclear generation which has been acquired over some 50 years, an existing ‘legacy’ structure of ageing reactors, and close access to significant centres of population.
Australia, with its vast distances and legacy of coal power has totally different problems to solve. .
:
.
Geoff Miell:
Tomago aluminum smelter requires 2850MW or close to 3GW or 25% total of NSW. Now assuming NSW is without sun and wind for two days and nights in winter, it would need a battery field of size 3GW x 2 x 24hrs or 144GWh to keep Tomago running off batteries, let alone all of NSW!
Current hydro storage is only 1.6GW from three dams (Tumut 3, Shoalhaven and Wivenhoe) and Snowy 2.0 will only add 2GW at an initial cost of $2 billion and now has blown out to $10bn.
Extra interconnectors: “The Australian” claims 27,000km at $100bn, the government has allocated $20bn for 10,000km over the next four years.
“The Australian” also claims $60bn has already been spent in subsidies.
20GW of coal-fired plants or 75% of total generating capacity could be replaced by USC (Ultra Super Critical) or HELE (High-Efficiency Low Emissions) at a cost of $50bn with 30-40% lower emissions.
Tomago draws about 950MW and can drop that down to 250MW when required:
https://www.tomago.com.au/tomago-keeps-the-lights-on-across-the-state/
Dominic Wild,
“20GW of coal-fired plants or 75% of total generating capacity could be replaced by USC (Ultra Super Critical) or HELE (High-Efficiency Low Emissions) at a cost of $50bn with 30-40% lower emissions.”
Even the Earth System’s current level of warming of around +1.2 °C is unacceptably dangerous. Your suggestion for more GHG emissions, even if supposedly 30-40% lower, makes this worse.
To reverse dangerous global warming now requires:
1. Reducing emissions to zero at emergency speed;
2. Removing carbon by drawdown to return atmospheric conditions to the Holocene zone; and
3. Albedo modification (AM) to reflect more sunlight away from the planet.
http://www.climatecodered.org/2023/06/three-climate-interventions-reduce.html
In the YouTube video published on 8 Jun 2023 titled A True Paradise: WHERE WE ARE HEADING – Kevin Anderson, duration 0:16:25, climate scientist Kevin Anderson warns that continuing on our current path could result in a 3-4°C temperature rise by the end of the century, a catastrophic outcome to be avoided at all costs. He cautions against believing the political rhetoric about progress in the fight against climate change and calls on us to push for bold policy changes.
A word of advice… if the Australian was a reliable news source they wouldn’t be running so much science denial… from an environment editor who uses an alias to get away from his own hypocrisy.
The Oz doesn’t just give prominence to debunked misinformation… it gets things plain wrong.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/australian-climate-change-sceptics-mislead-the-public-about-bushfires/
https://www.crikey.com.au/2015/06/25/the-secret-life-of-graham-efrem-lloyd-oz-environment-editors-greenie-double-life/
https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/a-real-scoop-or-just-hot-air/9980694
Anthony Bennett:
I realize the Oz as a Murdoch paper is right-wing and more industry centered and as I am only reading the weekend paper I have never seen a denial of global warming article. What I am reading there is that BHP is worried where industry is going to get the energy from:
Eraring coal-fired power station will be shut in 2025, it produces 2,950MW (Google) or close to 3GW – 25% of NSW demand. As a replacement (?) and for $600 Mio. a 460MW or 0.5GW battery will be installed, which is six times smaller and can supply 60,000 homes but for only two hours!
Hazelwood, a former 1,600MW station (1,6GW) is being replaced by a 150MW or ten times smaller storage and not generation system..
Dominic Wild,
“Eraring coal-fired power station will be shut in 2025, it produces 2,950MW (Google) or close to 3GW – 25% of NSW demand.”
https://www.originenergy.com.au/about/who-we-are/what-we-do/generation/eraring-power-station/
But nameplate capacity isn’t the full story…
Average capacity factors for period 29 Jun 2022 – 29 Jun 2023 (daily basis):
ER01: _ _ 39.2%
ER02: _ _ 56.3%
ER03: _ _ 57.2%
ER04: _ _ 57.2%
Average: _52.5%
https://opennem.org.au/facility/au/NEM/ERARING/?range=1y&interval=1d
ERGT01 average capacity factor for period 22 Jun 2022 – 22 Jun 2023 (daily basis): 0.4%
https://opennem.org.au/facility/au/NEM/ERGT01/?range=1y&interval=1d
So far this year renewables are contributing 36.4% to the NEM.
https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=all&interval=1y
“As a replacement (?) and for $600 Mio. a 460MW or 0.5GW battery will be installed, which is six times smaller and can supply 60,000 homes but for only two hours!”
Data indicates there’s much more renewable generation + storage installed and in the ‘development pipeline’:
* Large Scale Solar Farm Map of Australia (10 MW or more):
https://reneweconomy.com.au/large-scale-solar-farm-map-of-australia/
* Large Scale Wind Farm (onshore) Map of Australia (10 MW or more):
https://reneweconomy.com.au/large-scale-wind-farm-map-of-australia/
* Big Battery Storage Map of Australia (10 MW / 10 MWh or more):
https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-battery-storage-map-of-australia/
* Pumped Hydro Energy Storage Map of Australia:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/pumped-hydro-energy-storage-map-of-australia/
I don’t trust the Murdoch media.
Geoff Miell:
I admire your optimism that it will be possible to smelt aluminum via batteries. I hope so and that it will not cost us the earth. However, the following will cost us the earth well before 2050:
China: 1,100 coal-fire power stations, 200 more planned and 90 under construction, “committed” to net zero by 2060, emits 30% of global emissions.
India: 400 stations, 300 Million without electricity will need the entire EU electricity system in the next 40 years, “committed” to net zero by 2070.Will that be a renewable exercise?
China, India and Russia emit more than twice the US and EU combined.
1.4 billion EVs, where will the electricity come from?
Hi Dominic
Did you see the link I sent you on the Tomago aluminium smelter? It can get by with far less power than you thought.
Geoff Miell:
You are certainly well informed judging by the list of links you are quoting including the CSIROs Gencost report. It only lists SMRs in comparison and the problem there is that few data exist for them re costs plus the life for them is listed as 30 years, which is overly pessimistic. Just like our 50 year-old coal plants, the world is just retiring 40 – 50-year old nuclear plants.
Tomago alone needs 3GW and I doubt an SMR can supply that much.
That report is already 800 pages long and not easy to read. It may not include the $60 billion already spent on renewables in its costings. Another elephant in the room is the $100 billion for 27,000km of extra inter connectors – the gov. has budgeted $20 billion for 10,000km over the next four years.
It is talking of only 10% “firming” or 2GW of the present 20GW of total coal and gas production. Does the report include the fine or subsidy for each tonne of CO2 emitted?
It is clear if you compare solar vs. nuclear or wind vs. nuclear on their own as it is done in many tables, the individual renewables come out smelling like roses. I could not see costings of renewables vs. nuclear anywhere.
What I would like to see is solar + wind + storage + sync. condensers + inter connectors + cost of land + subsidies + CO2 fines VS nuclear.
Dominic Wild,
“It only lists SMRs in comparison and the problem there is that few data exist for them re costs plus the life for them is listed as 30 years, which is overly pessimistic.”
That’s because so-called ‘factory-built’ civilian SMRs do not yet physically exist anywhere. So I’d suggest claims about project completion times, operational performance/endurance, costs, safety, waste management, nuclear proliferation & security risks, etc. are not supported by data derived from any physical demonstrations.
NuScale’s proposed 6-module UAMPS SMR demonstration project still needs more subscribers to proceed.
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/usa-nuclear-smr-mb2799/#comment-1522521
Nuclear is a stalking horse for coal and more recently, gas.
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/talk-time-nuclear-mb2739/#comment-1512384
Nuclear is TOO SLOW to deploy to save us!
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/canavan-nuclear-smr-mb1913/#comment-1550254
“Renewables vision blind to the cost of calamity” by Nick Cater, senior fellow at the Menzies Research Centre in The Australian from last weekend and quoted in short:
“Electricity bill would fall by $275 under a Labor government.
Capital costs of decarbonising the grid by 2030 in a report by Net Zero Australia … $1.5 trillion for transforming the grid. Chris Bowen’s estimate of $78bn was out by a factor of 20.
Panels, mills, lines and other bits will cover 20,179 sqkm, half the size of Victoria.
Final bill by 2060 of $7 to 9 trillion.”
This fellow seems to be quoting an official report I hope – I am definitely not gloating but smiling as even the CSIRO report claims renewables are the cheapest. I am supporting a nuclear discussion and HELE coal-fired plants for $50 billion to cover the loss of 20 Gigawatt of present coal-fired production.
With our 25 million people we are alleged to emit “only” 1.2% of the world’s total and here the word “ONLY” is very deceptive. China with its more than a billion people is alleged to emit 30%, so with 40 times more people, China is not emitting 40 x 1.2% or 50% of the world’s emissions.
This is an argument China advances every time we broach the subject of CO2 emissions and our Pacific friends are complaining to us about our emissions/head of population, so the CCP’s information strategy seems to be working in their favour. The EU has been known to threaten us economically due to our high emissions/capita.
China is building 90 new coal-fired stations and also 20 new reactors. May I respectfully suggest our figures look that bad because nuclear is in China’s energy mix and 30 other industrialized nations but not in ours.
My 6.6kW/5kW inverter in WA means I am still in credit as our politicians have given us $600 twice in subsidies and now another $400, despite only 2.5c/kWh FIT, now reduced to 2.25c.
Ronald,
Tomago can be thottled you tell us and that is bad news as industrial output is reduced, but it is politically very convenient as voters are not very happy during blackouts.
The capital expenditure of $1.5 trillion in the Net Zero Report by 2030 is not listed anywhere, but after the heading “Introduction” there is the graph which goes all the way to $9 trillion by 2060 and by looking at 2030 the $1.5 trillion become apparent.
The CSIROs Gencost report has been examined and it looks like the marginal costs of production have been listed after 2030, so the CSIRO has assumed the capital costs have magically been spent by 2030. Net Zero Australia in their report tells us the capital cost of transforming the grid by 2030 will be $1.5 trillion or $6,000/year for every man, woman and child!