The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

[DJC]

Nuclear needed to be actioned a long time ago (if it is going to happen)

- There is commentary that the proposal will deliver 4% of our power.  Does this justify the investment?
- Need water for plants (1,514L and 2,725L litres of water per MWh although a lot is recylced through the plant)
- Coal power will be gone by the time nuclear will be ready, so need to be ready to replace that energy with a non nuclear solution.
- There is going to be years of site suitability and type of generator etc discussion
- Talk of complementing renewables, but to get the best value, would need to run at 100%.  It isn't a Victorian Salinty plant (that's never been used?)
- There will be a lot of debate about the sites proposed - state forest WA, Perisher, Latrobe Valley, port augusta etc
- I do hope the 'three eyed fish' from Simpsons doesn't come out - I think they're past that
- I also hope no politician talks about cheap energy.  Just 'install' the best mix for our country.

Hopefully there will be more detail released and hopefully there can be sensible debate about which option.  This should be bipartisan, but given the the parliamentary state is to oppose each other and be beligerent, it is doubtful that it will happen.

The timing is the key.

90% of our coal powered power plants will be decommissioned by 2035 and there’s no way that we could have nuclear power stations operating by then, even if the obstacles to construction could be overcome.