Georgia on my mind

Over 80 years, in place of Georgia-type nuclear power plants, three lots of solar generation capacity must be about 20 times as large. Four lots of wind generation capacity must be about 13.3 times as large. Battery capacity must be at least 8,000 – 16,000 Hornsdale 'big batteries'.

These large numbers are minimal estimates of needed renewable energy capacity to match large-scale nuclear power plants delivering the same power and reliability, 24/7, for 80 years.

What will that renewables capacity cost? Those promising zero net emissions should tell us.

Transparent policy answers should be evidence-based, not political assertions.

It's said the Hornsdale SA 'big battery' cost A$90 million. To 'keep the lights on' in the NEM each day, averaged over the year, 2,000 Hornsdales would cost $180,000 million. Over 80 years, allowing for 8,000 – 16,000 Hornsdales, that's A$720,000 million - A$1,440,000 million.

That's just for the batteries. Generation and transmission are extra. Nuclear looks cheaper.

Will solar, turbine, and battery storage costs collapse? If so, who can compete supplying them?

Will renewables have more emissions over their full renewables asset cycle than nuclear?

It would be nice to get some answers. Based on objective evidence, not mere assertion.