Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australia is quitting coal in record time thanks to Tesla

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 257 posts

Re: Australia is quitting coal in record time thanks to Tesla

#31

Post by arcticbull »

robbiep wrote: post #26
arcticbull wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chicken and egg thing. If you listen to the DOE Loan Program head, he says it takes so long and costs so much because each plant is a bespoke hand-crafted special construction project. They can be made much cheaper and much faster if you standardize the design and copy-paste them to where it's a good fit. This isn't an issue inherent to nuclear power at all, but instead in how we approach it. This isn't speculation e…

Again, you’re saying that it’s cheap, but then responding to criticism they’re bespoke by presenting an untested technology that has further lead time delays and may even be vapourwear. You still can’t spin up an industrial base in less than 5-10 years, and there sure as hell isn’t the political will to ask the Chinese to build it for us

I didn't say it was cheap. I said current nuclear reactor technology is cheaper than a mix of renewables and lithium batteries. They're both quite expensive, and headline renewable 'low costs' exclude storage. But that's ok, I think the fact it's expensive isn't a reason to avoid either of them.

I then said that we can also make it significantly cheaper than it is to construct nuclear plants, and offered a path presented by someone very knowledgeable about the space. Jigar Shah from DOE. [1]

> ... but then responding to criticism they’re bespoke by presenting an untested technology that has further lead time delays and may even be vapourwear.

What untested technology lol, nuclear has been around since 1955. I'm talking about layouts.

> You still can’t spin up an industrial base in less than 5-10 years, and there sure as hell isn’t the political will to ask the Chinese to build it for us

That's ok just get the Canadians to do it. Check out the CANDU family. [2] And you know all those solar panels are being made in China right? 85% of all panels - 45% of polysilicon comes from Xinjiang. So that's exactly what is being done. [3]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXRmlcsqHtk

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor

[3] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/china-made-solar-pv-created...

Re: Australia is quitting coal in record time thanks to Tesla

#32

Post by rippercushions »

Australia also has a remarkable tax incentive that lets you buy EVs basically tax free (fringe benefits tax exemption for novated leases, in bureaucratese). Basically, instead of paying $70k for a Tesla post-tax, you can get it deducted directly from your paycheck for around $45k pretax. The exact math depends on your income, and perversely enough the subsidy increases the more you earn and the higher your taxes, but it has definitely been effective at turbocharging EV sales in a country that was otherwise a comparative laggard (only 3.8% of new sales in 2022, before the incentive kicked in).

Re: Australia is quitting coal in record time thanks to Tesla

#33

Post by asdefghyk »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #6
arcticbull wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost however remains remarkably high. A combination of renewables and giant piles of lithium is more expensive than nuclear, by quite a bit. [1] Anyways, the future is a mix of all sorts of things and this is a strict improvement so it's hard to be anything other than supportive. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-energy-storage-would-have-to-...

You’re assuming long duration lithium storage vs excess renewables with curtailment. Australia is going 100% renewables at a reasonable cost with solar, wind, hydro, transmission, and some batteries. No nuclear is required to decarbonize. https://aemo.com.au/newsroom/media-release/engineering-frame... https://aemo.com.au/initiatives/major-programs/engineering-f...

RE "...Australia is going 100% renewables at a reasonable cost with solar, wind, hydro, transmission, and some batteries....." The level of network supply reliability ( as in outages ) and the cost will be higher than the predicated "reasonable " in my opinion. Id like to know how several days of "overcast weather over extended areas " will be dealt with. Batteries are ok for short term storage .

Re: Australia is quitting coal in record time thanks to Tesla

#34

Post by robbiep »

arcticbull wrote: post #29
robbiep wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not against nuclear but it is a long way from being cheap and easy. Look at the recent andventures with Hinkley C. And that’s with an existing industrial base for nuclear power. 25 bn pounds is 45 billion AUD which is what previous governments paid to wire the whole country up with a patchwork of broadband (inflation unadjusted). And don’t say they small modular will step into the breach because it is not a prove…

> We will end up passing nuclear by, the economics and time lag just don’t stack up for us Again the economics are better than what is being done. However. > I’m not against nuclear but it is a long way from being cheap and easy. Ah yes just like JFK said about going to space. "We choose to decarbonize the grid with solar not because it is the best option, not because the cheapest option or even because it is hard -…

You haven’t managed to make any strong assertions, just a smattering of pseudo-intellectualism. Thanks and good luck

Re: Australia is quitting coal in record time thanks to Tesla

#35

Post by rippercushions »

asdefghyk wrote: post #21

RE "South Australia’s last coal-fired power plant had closed, leaving the province of 1.8 million heavily reliant on wind farms and power imports from a neighboring region. " So - now they import power from places that use coal fired power stations and they have grid stability problems. NOT quitting coal at all. Id ask what is the price of their power KWh?

If you keep reading, that was the situation seven years ago before the giant Tesla battery that solved their stability problems.

Re: Australia is quitting coal in record time thanks to Tesla

#36

Post by TheLoafOfBread »

asdefghyk wrote: post #21

RE "South Australia’s last coal-fired power plant had closed, leaving the province of 1.8 million heavily reliant on wind farms and power imports from a neighboring region. " So - now they import power from places that use coal fired power stations and they have grid stability problems. NOT quitting coal at all. Id ask what is the price of their power KWh?

> So - now they import power from places that use coal fired power stations and they have grid stability problems.

That sounds like Austria. They really dislikes nuclear power, and are suing all their neighbors for it. But when they have power deficit, they are happily importing power from Czechia or Hungary, where Czechia is having 2 NPPs at the southern border with Austria. Austrians obviously have no issues where the imported power is coming from...

Re: Australia is quitting coal in record time thanks to Tesla

#37

Post by bsder »

erentz wrote: post #14
bsder wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter that nuclear is cheaper if you can't build a nuclear plant . The difference is that a lithium battery facility can be installed and functional in 12-24 months. A nuclear plant takes 12-24 years . Much like World War I strategies, a solution that nobody has the political will to implement isn't a solution.

> The difference is that a lithium battery facility can be installed and functional in 12-24 months. These things aren't comparable without putting it together as a system. > A nuclear plant takes 12-24 years. You're thinking about wild outliers there. It's around 6.5 years median [1]. [1] https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/nuclear-construction-ti...

That's from start of "building" not "planning". In the US, getting the permits and handling the planning far exceeds the actual construction.

In addition, there have only been 7 reactors constructed in North America since 1990 and none from 1995 to 2005.

I'm actually a fan of nuclear reactors. However, in the US, we simply don't have the political will to build them.

Re: Australia is quitting coal in record time thanks to Tesla

#38

Post by cavisne »

dgivney wrote: post #28
asdefghyk wrote: post #21

RE "South Australia’s last coal-fired power plant had closed, leaving the province of 1.8 million heavily reliant on wind farms and power imports from a neighboring region. " So - now they import power from places that use coal fired power stations and they have grid stability problems. NOT quitting coal at all. Id ask what is the price of their power KWh?

> Id ask what is the price of their power KWh? https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-e... and historically aggregated: https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/wholesale-statistic...

Hilarious, that last graph really shouldve been in this puff piece article.

Re: Australia is quitting coal in record time thanks to Tesla

#39

Post by gdy »

arcticbull wrote: post #25
gdy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny article. It talks about time to build nuclear reactors but never mentions Russia.

Why would it?

Rosatom builds faster than South Korea, which takes 9 years to build a reactor [0]. For example, the reactor in Belarus was built in 8 years[1]. The first reactor at the Akkuyu site in Turkey is going to be built in 6 years [2].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...

[2] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Major-components...

Re: Australia is quitting coal in record time thanks to Tesla

#40

Post by andrewinardeer »

robbiep wrote: post #24
arcticbull wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not actually making that assumption, I linked an article with the numbers as [1] in an edit to my initial reply. Nuclear is renewable :) [2] But yes, adjusting demand is far more efficient than adjusting supply. However it seems there's limited appetite. > No nuclear is required to decarbonize. No but it's less expensive, and better from a space utilization and environmental impact perspective. It's the best ener…

I’m not against nuclear but it is a long way from being cheap and easy. Look at the recent andventures with Hinkley C. And that’s with an existing industrial base for nuclear power. 25 bn pounds is 45 billion AUD which is what previous governments paid to wire the whole country up with a patchwork of broadband (inflation unadjusted). And don’t say they small modular will step into the breach because it is not a prove…

You can politically thank The Greens for no nuclear power plants in Australia (apart from Lucas Heights, medical).

Ironically, their 100% outright, non negotiable no nuclear policy has pushed heavy carbon emitting coal power plants for the last 30 years until the recent policy shift of winding them down in lieu of solar.

Post reply on HN