[input_sh]

Or... hear me out... nuclear.

Like France, often cited as the the world leader, with around 70% of its generated electricity coming from nuclear. Or Belgium, with around 50%, or Bulgaria around 30%, or Czechia around 40%, Finland around 35%, Hungary around 50%, Slovakia around 60%, Slovenia around 40%, Sweden around 30%, Switzerland around 35%...

Compared to Australia's one nuclear power, which isn't even being used to generate power, or the US' 18%, or UK's 14%, or Canada's 13%.

[sien]

Yep.

If you look at : https://app.electricitymaps.com/map

and look for 1 year as the time period then the places with low emissions from electricity either have lots of hydro, import power or are nuclear powered.

As yet there does not yet appear to be a single place in the world that uses solar and wind and has low emissions for electricity.

Germany's emissions given the Energiewende and the huge cost of that are particularly noteworthy.

[toomuchtodo]

https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-fast-tracks-100-... ("South Australia fast-tracks 100 pct renewables target to 2027")

https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/AU-SA?wind=false&solar=... ("Electricity Maps: South Australia")

https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=all&interval=1M&vie... ("OpenNEM: South Australia")

https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-to-reach-100-pct... ("South Australia, the state with a world-leading average share of renewable energy of more than 71.5 per cent in its grid, is expected to reach “net” 100 per cent renewables within four years, according to the state’s transmission company.")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_South_Australia

I am somewhat disappointed you aren't aware, as an Australian.

[thatfrenchguy]

Average emissions there are 5x the average emissions of France.

[toomuchtodo]

And in four years, they’ll be close to zero. How long will it take France to replace all of its end of life reactors? Decades. France is coasting on fifty year old capital investments and labor.

> The first and only EPR under construction in France is Flamanville-3, a project led by EDF as developer, constructor, owner and operator. This project is an industrial failure with endless delays and substantial cost overruns observed. When the construction of this reactor started in 2007, its commissioning was scheduled for 2012 at a cost of around €4 billion. In 2022, Flamanville-3 is still not operational and it will not be before 2023 – at least an 11-year delay on a five-year project. Its cost has spiraled to more than €20 billion, a multiplication by a factor five compared to the cost estimate when decision was taken. As a result, the generation cost of Flamanville-3 is now estimated at €115-125/MWh. Explanations provided blame for unpreparedness, incorrect technical references and insufficient detailed studies as well as the loss of competences in the French nuclear industry. The absence of skills maintenance, or “learning by doing”, has proven particularly problematic for the quality of welds – requiring repairs, notably.

https://www.renewable-ei.org/en/activities/column/REupdate/2...

[kragen]

conventional fixed nuclear is even less dispatchable than coal; you need totally different plant designs to make it dispatchable. those designs do exist (all naval reactors are highly dispatchable) but they diverged from commercial nuclear power over half a century ago

[temp9864]

It would be interesting to know the potential cost difference between dispatchable and fixed output nuclear is more dispatchable, at least in theory.

[rstuart4133]

The OP's point about renewables fast fluctuations driving coal broke applies twice as much to nuclear. The problem coal has is it takes a few hours to ramp down, and during that time the electricity price is often negative. With nuclear, it isn't 1 or 2 hours, it takes 1/2 a day to ramp down. Worse, while a major cost of running coal generation (digging up the coal) does eventually ramp down, with nuclear the major cost is interest payments. They never stop, so they are paying interest while getting a negative price for the power they are generating (at the most expensive price per kWh of all generation methods).

It's all over bar the shouting for nuclear at this point. But granted, the shouting level seems to be going up not down. You would think NuScale going broke would damper the enthusiasm but no, Dutton's response to that seems to be to shout louder.

As for the OP claim Australia needs coal - South Australia has no coal. It's one of the few places in Australia that isn't build on coal seams. Consequently South Australia is now at 70% renewables, higher than any other OECD place on the planet with a substantial population (including other Australia states). That's 70% average over a year, not peak. Without coal. So much for "needing it".

[pstrateman]

Canada would likely be more than 13% except there was an abundance of easy hydro electric projects.

As the population of Canada grows past the point that the hydro projects provide nearly all electricity, I expect them to start burning more and more natural gas.

Initially this will show as New York state using more natural gas since Canada produces a huge amount of the total power there.

[esarbe]

France is having massive problems operating their reactors and had to shut them down in summer the last few years.

It's also most expensive.

[eqvinox]

> had to shut them down in summer the last few years

Yep. It's sad-funny — they had to shut down reactors because the cooling water was getting too hot. To be fair this seems to be environmental regulations and not the reactors themselves, but then again the water is from rivers and at some point you really grill the river.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Heatwave-forces-...

[KptMarchewa]

There's no cheaper stable source of electricity then existing nuclear power plant.

[eqvinox]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz...

The only thing more expensive than nuclear — in these stats at least — is small-scale solar installations.

Btw, this widespread (but wrong) belief that nuclear is cheap stems from the fact that a lot of countries heavily subsidized their nuclear industry in order to gain know-how and/or materials for atomic weapon production. It's not even cost-covering at current energy prices without those subsidies.

[KptMarchewa]

The _existing_ is the important part.

[esarbe]

Unfortunately, you cannot build an existing plant. You have to build a new one.

[eqvinox]

Funniest thing I've read this year so far, thanks ;D

[KptMarchewa]

You can do a lot of other stupid things, for example consider it EOL after very short time, like 40 years and close it though.

[ViewTrick1002]

Just need half a century of first construction and then amortizing the loans to get an existing paid off nuclear plant.

[KptMarchewa]

You need 0 years to construct an already existing plant, and would pay those loans either way.

[esarbe]

Everything is cheaper than nuclear, at this point.