233
Nuclear too slow to replace coal, and baseload “simply can’t compete” with wind and solar, AEMO boss says (reneweconomy.com.au)
submitted 3 months ago by phneutral@feddit.org to c/energy@slrpnk.net
67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The head of the Australian energy market operator AEMO, Daniel Westerman, has rejected nuclear power as a way to replace Australia's ageing coal-fired power stations, arguing that it is too slow and too expensive. In addition, baseload power sources are not competitive in a grid dominated by wind and solar energy anyway.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Drill a hole and a deper hole and pump/turbine water between them.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

That's really really expensive unless you already have natural upper and lower reservoirs.

[-] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It is? More than batteries?

Im surprised.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Based on some numbers I looked up a couple of years ago:

LiPo 15¢/Wh

Flywheel 15¢/Wh

Compressed air 12¢/Wh

Pumped hydro 11¢/Wh

I'll try to dig up the sources when I get home, but the cost advantage isn't too large, so digging your own reservoirs would put it as more expensive.

[-] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 4 points 3 months ago

Thanks! I guess the hydro is with natural reservoirs?

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah I think so

[-] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

Just cause lithium ion is pretty subsidied and quite energy dense

this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
233 points (100.0% liked)

Green Energy

2193 readers
83 users here now

everything about energy production

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
SteveKLord@slrpnk.net
poVoq@slrpnk.net