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

41–50 of 257 posts

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

#41

Post by erentz »

gdy wrote: post #39
arcticbull wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-c…

> Funny article. It talks about time to build nuclear reactors but never mentions Russia. > ... > For example, the reactor in Belarus was built in 8 years[1].

Sorry to break it to you but Belarus is still not russia, yet.

If you look again at the article you'll see lots of countries that have nuclear reactors are not specifically mentioned, however in the one section where countries are specifically mentioned a group for all former USSR countries is called out that includes russia and other countries. This will be due to how reactor data was recorded prior to the dissolution of the USSR.

Slava Ukraini

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

#42

Post by whatever1 »

cavisne wrote: post #38
dgivney wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Quadruple the energy price in return for replacing coal plants with junk batteries.

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

#43

Post by toomuchtodo »

asdefghyk wrote: post #33
toomuchtodo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

Hydro. Snowy 2 and Tasmania. Worst case, we’re still burning some small amount of fossil gas, or perhaps ammonia or hydrogen generated from renewables that would’ve otherwise been curtailed.

Consider that enough energy falls on the Earth every ~60 minutes to power humanity for a year. We just need to continue to drive down renewables and storage costs. The world is already fusion capable, at a distance.

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

#44

Post by gdy »

erentz wrote: post #41
gdy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-c…

> Funny article. It talks about time to build nuclear reactors but never mentions Russia. > ... > For example, the reactor in Belarus was built in 8 years[1]. Sorry to break it to you but Belarus is still not russia, yet. If you look again at the article you'll see lots of countries that have nuclear reactors are not specifically mentioned, however in the one section where countries are specifically mentioned a group…

Just like UAE isn't South Korea but the reactors there are designed and built by a South Korean company. What's your point?

Sorry to break it to you, but the USSR dissolved over 30 years ago.

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

#45

Post by erentz »

bsder wrote: post #37
erentz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Wind and solar also have many years (and decades) of planning involved. And many also fail to get past the planning phase.

> However, in the US, we simply don't have the political will to build them.

Fair enough, though this article is about Australia. Here in the US we do have the TVA that is looking to go ahead with new nuclear. But we will likely lag other countries such as Canada (OPG and SaskPower are proceeding with new nuclear builds).

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

#46

Post by gdy »

erentz wrote: post #41
gdy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-c…

> Funny article. It talks about time to build nuclear reactors but never mentions Russia. > ... > For example, the reactor in Belarus was built in 8 years[1]. Sorry to break it to you but Belarus is still not russia, yet. If you look again at the article you'll see lots of countries that have nuclear reactors are not specifically mentioned, however in the one section where countries are specifically mentioned a group…

[flagged]

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

#47

Post by erentz »

gdy wrote: post #44
erentz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Funny article. It talks about time to build nuclear reactors but never mentions Russia. > ... > For example, the reactor in Belarus was built in 8 years[1]. Sorry to break it to you but Belarus is still not russia, yet. If you look again at the article you'll see lots of countries that have nuclear reactors are not specifically mentioned, however in the one section where countries are specifically mentioned a group…

Just like UAE isn't South Korea but the reactors there are designed and built by a South Korean company. What's your point? Sorry to break it to you, but the USSR dissolved over 30 years ago.

You are confused. The article talks about reactor construction time in countries.

E.g. Hinkley Point C is being built in the UK, that means it gets recorded in data about construction in the UK, even though it is designed by a French company, and owned by a French and Chinese company.

The same applies for reactors designed by Rosatom and built around the world. A VVER-1200 built in China may be a russian design, but the data is recorded as construction in China for obvious reasons.

> Sorry to break it to you, but the USSR dissolved over 30 years ago.

Yes, you're the one that was confused why Belarusian projects did not count as russian, and you ignored the Former USSR information in the article. If you would like to know why she aggregated the data that way and didn't break it out into before and after USSR dissolution, you should go and post a comment asking on her Substack.

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

#48

Post by gdy »

erentz wrote: post #47
gdy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like UAE isn't South Korea but the reactors there are designed and built by a South Korean company. What's your point? Sorry to break it to you, but the USSR dissolved over 30 years ago.

You are confused. The article talks about reactor construction time in countries. E.g. Hinkley Point C is being built in the UK, that means it gets recorded in data about construction in the UK, even though it is designed by a French company, and owned by a French and Chinese company. The same applies for reactors designed by Rosatom and built around the world. A VVER-1200 built in China may be a russian design, but…

Firstly, it's meaningless -- the construction time depends on who is building, not where.

Secondly, it doesn't matter -- reactors in Russia are built by Rosatom just a little slower and still on par with South Korea.

I have zero interest in asking her about anything.

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

#49

Post by Gustomaximus »

andrewinardeer wrote: post #40
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…

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.

Is this true?

Greens sometimes have influence in balance of power, but ultimatly they are a smaller party with limited influence or policy making decisions.

Logically that view seems to look at one side of the position only, if they had the power to stop nuclear you'd have to think they also have the power to significantly reduce/replace coal, which hasn't been the case.

Generally doesn't seem fair statement to me but open to reading information that shows otherwise.

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

#50

Post by jeeeb »

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...

The big jump in the last couple of years coincides with the war in Ukraine and high international gas prices.

The government response has been to pressure gas producers to reserve more for the domestic market.

Post reply on HN