…and what a lot of 🐂💩 followed! THREAD 👇
afr.com/policy/energy-…
• their goals are very ambitious
• they're way ahead of schedule in the electricity sector — the entire focus of her article.
meanwhile australian emissions are down just 12% from 1990 if we include the (dubious) land sector… and *up* 31% otherwise.
they're doing a lot better than we are.
(how do we feel about getting most of our oil from the middle east? hmmm...)
but firstly… is germany's more dependent on gas?
now they invest because its the cheapest way to add capacity.
the 2016 SA nuclear royal commission was clear about that. the recent federal inquiry found (again) there's no role for current nuclear technology here.
the only nuke under construction in north america is on track to cost A$40bn.
that's about the same value as the entire balance sheets of @aglenergy, @originenergy and @EnergyAustralia… combined.
(applied for permit in 2006, completion expected ~2022.)
the company furthest along with this technology, @NuScale_Power, *might* have a full demonstration pilot by end of this decade.
if all goes well, it *might* be available here in the mid-late 2030s.
the truth is there's not a hope in hell of nuclear playing a significant role in our grid in the next 15-20 years.
forget politics, it's economics & engineering that stand in the way.
renewables, of course.
but how?
they've got ~60 people in their long range forecasting section. they've been forecasting grid scenarios for years.
(side question: how does someone write a column about our energy challenges without being across this body of work?)
emissions down ~85% over the next 20 years.
costs only marginally than the business as usual investment.
the lights stay on.
aemo.com.au/Electricity/Na…
maybe we can harness the passion of australia's nuke spruikers for good?
for some, the following might seem faustian, but hey, i reckon it'd be worth it.
/FIN
#auspol