Nuclear Power: Do you support it?

[sptrawler]

Well AEMO are claiming a ~200% increase in distributed energy resources (rooftop solar) which will increase supply from 7% up to 22% by 2040 for total consumption. Don't think AEMO have factored in a hail storm that wipes out up to 22% of a city's electricity supply

Are you sure that 22% figure isn't the rooftop solar for the whole grid? Not just Sydney.
If it is the whole grid, a hail storm may hit a small section, but a hail storm from Adelaide to Cairns is highly unlikely.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Are you sure that 22% figure isn't the rooftop solar for the whole grid? Not just Sydney.
If it is the whole grid, a hail storm may hit a small section, but a hail storm from Adelaide to Cairns is highly unlikely.

That's the whole grid I assume. The percentage may even be higher in our large cities like Sydney, Newcastle, Brisbane and Melbourne; because that is where the population density and significant consumption is.

 

[Smurf1976]

the solar panels last about 15-25 years

The commercial operators aren't buying junk.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Are you sure that 22% figure isn't the rooftop solar for the whole grid? Not just Sydney.
If it is the whole grid, a hail storm may hit a small section, but a hail storm from Adelaide to Cairns is highly unlikely.

This tool provides the current PV solar density and capacity by region (https://pv-map.apvi.org.au/historical#9/-33.8567/151.1087).

So say a massive hail storm hits the entire greater Sydney in 20 years and we have shutdown our centralised power stations. So my solution is to have all rooftop solar panel installations with a rooftop solar protection covering that will deploy when a hail storm is imminent:

 

[sptrawler]

I would think all the possible scenarios are aired, before the grid is exposed to full renewable penetration and fossil fueled backup is retired.
Distribution modelling is pretty technical, also with electricity it is such a requirement in our lives, that nothing will be left to chance. I think the S.A incident and the Bass Strait link would have driven that point home to the politicians.
With electricity if we lose it, people lose their water, their sewage, the ability to pump petrol, shops can't run their fridges, apartments loose lighting, lifts and air conditioning,traffic lights not working, hospitals and those with back up generators only have the ability for basic services, your telephone service fails. In 2020 we are absolutely dependent on a functioning grid.
If the grid had an extended outage, it would have a 1,000 times bigger affect on Australia than covid 19 IMO.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

I would think all the possible scenarios are aired, before the grid is exposed to full renewable penetration and fossil fueled backup is retired.
Distribution modelling is pretty technical, also with electricity it is such a requirement in our lives, that nothing will be left to chance. I think the S.A incident and the Bass Strait link would have driven that point home to the politicians.
With electricity if we lose it, people lose their water, their sewage, the ability to pump petrol, shops can't run their fridges, apartments loose lighting, lifts and air conditioning,traffic lights not working, hospitals and those with back up generators only have the ability for basic services, your telephone service fails. In 2020 we are absolutely dependent on a functioning grid.
If the grid had an extended outage, it would have a 1,000 times bigger affect on Australia than covid 19 IMO.

Well let's hope that our leaders and advisors on energy, over the coming decades, don't become too complacent with shutting down power stations without first forward planning for such scenarios.

 

[Smurf1976]

Well let's hope that our leaders and advisors on energy, over the coming decades, don't become too complacent with shutting down power stations without first forward planning for such scenarios.

NSW, Victoria and SA are generally seen as the problem states, which from a technical perspective is very true, and it's no coincidence that those are the states which, for practical purposes, gave away decision making over what gets built and what gets shut.

The state governments in those states ultimately have very little say in the matter since they don't own any significant generation. Who does own it is a combination of ASX listed companies, private non-listed companies and other governments. None of those take direction from those state governments. Short of compulsory acquisition of assets they can't actually force anyone to do anything, at best they can try and persuade.

Bottom line is these companies have made it abundantly clear that they aren't interested in further investment into coal and they've also shown no interest in nuclear. What they are keen on is wind, solar, gas and small pumped hydro schemes.

Beyond that, anything else really comes down to what the Queensland, Australian and Tasmanian governments do.

Queensland owns CS Energy, Stanwell Corporation and CleanCo which all generate electricity physically in Queensland but collectively are a significant source of supply to NSW.

Tasmania owns Hydro Tasmania and its associated entities Entura, Momentum Energy and AETV as well as other minor ones eg the Lofty Ranges Power joint venture. Operations comprise physical generation in Tas and on a very limited scale SA, retail in Qld, NSW, Vic, SA plus engineering and project development internationally (including every Australian state and territory).

HT proposes to develop new capacity to supply Victoria in the form of 2 x 750 MW cables across Bass Strait and associated pumped storage and other generation in Tasmania, including wind generation owned by others. That project is collectively known for branding purposes as "Battery of the Nation". It's no secret that ultimately this project could be duplicated - what's proposed isn't the limit, it's just what's proposed at this time.

The Australian Government owns Snowy Hydro which operates physical generation in NSW, Vic and SA that being the Snowy scheme in NSW and on the NSW-Vic border plus an assortment of gas (NSW and Vic) and diesel (SA) facilities. Snowy also owns retailers Red Energy and Lumo as well as Direct Connect, a multi-utility signup facility (which of course points customers straight to Red or Lumo for electricity).

Snowy proposes to develop pumped storage in NSW with a specific project known as Snowy 2.0 which in practice is a single 2000 MW pumped storage facility. Snowy also has options for further similar developments.

As for nuclear, the problem is who would build it?

It needs to be someone willing to commit to a project which spans close to a century from initiation to decommissioning, plus whatever is done with the waste after that, and which is not expected to return a profit. Thus far none of the private, ASX listed or government owned companies involved in the industry are showing any real interest.

Realistically, the only way I can see it happening is if the Australian, Queensland, NSW or Victorian government sets up a new entity for the specific purpose of building and running it or does a deal to subsidise a privately built facility.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

NSW, Victoria and SA are generally seen as the problem states, which from a technical perspective is very true, and it's no coincidence that those are the states which, for practical purposes, gave away decision making over what gets built and what gets shut.

The state governments in those states ultimately have very little say in the matter since they don't own any significant generation. Who does own it is a combination of ASX listed companies, private non-listed companies and other governments. None of those take direction from those state governments. Short of compulsory acquisition of assets they can't actually force anyone to do anything, at best they can try and persuade.

Bottom line is these companies have made it abundantly clear that they aren't interested in further investment into coal and they've also shown no interest in nuclear. What they are keen on is wind, solar, gas and small pumped hydro schemes.

Beyond that, anything else really comes down to what the Queensland, Australian and Tasmanian governments do.

Queensland owns CS Energy, Stanwell Corporation and CleanCo which all generate electricity physically in Queensland but collectively are a significant source of supply to NSW.

Tasmania owns Hydro Tasmania and its associated entities Entura, Momentum Energy and AETV as well as other minor ones eg the Lofty Ranges Power joint venture. Operations comprise physical generation in Tas and on a very limited scale SA, retail in Qld, NSW, Vic, SA plus engineering and project development internationally (including every Australian state and territory).

HT proposes to develop new capacity to supply Victoria in the form of 2 x 750 MW cables across Bass Strait and associated pumped storage and other generation in Tasmania, including wind generation owned by others. That project is collectively known for branding purposes as "Battery of the Nation". It's no secret that ultimately this project could be duplicated - what's proposed isn't the limit, it's just what's proposed at this time.

The Australian Government owns Snowy Hydro which operates physical generation in NSW, Vic and SA that being the Snowy scheme in NSW and on the NSW-Vic border plus an assortment of gas (NSW and Vic) and diesel (SA) facilities. Snowy also owns retailers Red Energy and Lumo as well as Direct Connect, a multi-utility signup facility (which of course points customers straight to Red or Lumo for electricity).

Snowy proposes to develop pumped storage in NSW with a specific project known as Snowy 2.0 which in practice is a single 2000 MW pumped storage facility. Snowy also has options for further similar developments.

As for nuclear, the problem is who would build it?

It needs to be someone willing to commit to a project which spans close to a century from initiation to decommissioning, plus whatever is done with the waste after that, and which is not expected to return a profit. Thus far none of the private, ASX listed or government owned companies involved in the industry are showing any real interest.

Realistically, the only way I can see it happening is if the Australian, Queensland, NSW or Victorian government sets up a new entity for the specific purpose of building and running it or does a deal to subsidise a privately built facility.

I support rooftop solar: however my concern about rooftop solar is what percentage of electrical supply capacity would it provide in say 20 years, and how reliant would the NEM be on the rooftop solar that is produced in a city like Sydney; leading to what the risks are for this energy supply to be wiped out in a few hours by a hail storm and how would it impact the grid. A worse scenario that is unlikely, but possible, is a super cell hail storm that smashes most of the Australian East Coast. My solution was for the solar panels to have a solar panel protection covering mechanism that could be deployed when such events compromised the energy source. If rooftop solar will not be considered to be a major contributor to the NEM, then leave the energy assets vulnerable.

As for nuclear: if we are serious then the Australian federal government will need to establish a commercial nuclear entity and get the states onboard. Then list the entity on the ASX; and deposit the proceeds into the Australian Future Fund (https://www.futurefund.gov.au/)

 

[Smurf1976]

What they are keen on is wind, solar, gas and small pumped hydro schemes.

I should have included batteries in that statement along with the small pumped hydros.

Interest in large pumped hydro, that which will carry the system through multiple consecutive days without much wind or sun, is limited to the government-owned entities however.

 

[Smurf1976]

leading to what the risks are for this energy supply to be wiped out in a few hours by a hail storm and how would it impact the grid. A worse scenario that is unlikely, but possible, is a super cell hail storm that smashes most of the Australian East Coast.

I don't have an answer in terms of how to protect them physically but I certainly do share a concern that having a large portion of them in one place is a high risk.

That's already a concern in SA under normal conditions of weather variation. SA does have the basic problem that the vast majority of the population lives in one city and with a third of all homes having solar, plus quite a few larger systems on warehouses and so on, it only needs clouds to rapidly move across Adelaide and solar output drops like a rock.

Somewhere like Queensland or Tasmania with their more dispersed populations have a natural advantage in that no one city or town is dominant. Brisbane is 45% of Queensland's population and Hobart is about 40% of Tasmania's population. In contrast 78% of South Australians and Victorians live in Adelaide and Melbourne respectively. Victoria and SA are thus far more exposed to a single weather event either affecting solar production (eg sudden clouds moving rapidly over the city) or by causing actual damage (hail on panels, wind bringing lines down, etc).

A question that needs to be answered is how reliable does society want it to be?

99.9% reliable is a lot cheaper than 99.99% for example. Once you get close to perfection, trying to actually make it perfect becomes hugely expensive for that last little bit.

The answer to that in itself is an input to answering how best to go about it all.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

I don't have an answer in terms of how to protect them physically but I certainly do share a concern that having a large portion of them in one place is a high risk.

That's already a concern in SA under normal conditions of weather variation. SA does have the basic problem that the vast majority of the population lives in one city and with a third of all homes having solar, plus quite a few larger systems on warehouses and so on, it only needs clouds to rapidly move across Adelaide and solar output drops like a rock.

Somewhere like Queensland or Tasmania with their more dispersed populations have a natural advantage in that no one city or town is dominant. Brisbane is 45% of Queensland's population and Hobart is about 40% of Tasmania's population. In contrast 78% of South Australians and Victorians live in Adelaide and Melbourne respectively. Victoria and SA are thus far more exposed to a single weather event either affecting solar production (eg sudden clouds moving rapidly over the city) or by causing actual damage (hail on panels, wind bringing lines down, etc).

A question that needs to be answered is how reliable does society want it to be?

99.9% reliable is a lot cheaper than 99.99% for example. Once you get close to perfection, trying to actually make it perfect becomes hugely expensive for that last little bit.

The answer to that in itself is an input to answering how best to go about it all.

If NSW are going to follow this path, with rooftop solar ~25% of electrical capacity by 2040; then I think the NSW government better start thinking about some sort of mandatory protection mechanism for solar panels in a hail storm environment, at least in Greater Sydney, Wollongong and Newcastle:

https://energy.nsw.gov.au/media/1546/download

 

[basilio]

Has this thread gone off track ? It's supposed to be about support for Nuclear Power and somehow it has veered off into the weeds discussing what could happen if a supercell hail storm overnight destroys all the solar panels in Sydney.

I suppose that has happened to somehow compare the option of a "safe reliable Nuclear Power station" with the unreliability of widespread solar cells that could be trashed in moment.

In fact of course there is already much research on the the effect of hailstones on solar cells. We know that solar cells are made from toughed glass and will resist a hailstorm of golf ball size hail. That is system requirements.

There was an excellent research paper in the Netherlands which explored this issue in depth. As climate Change intensifies it will need to be addressed but frankly the damage a supercell storm would do to everything else in the community would way out stretch the acknowledged but repairable damage to solar panels.

On a cost benefit basis it might make sense to protect panels with extra poly carbonate covers. OIr come up with solar panels that are simpler or moire resistant to such damage. But as Smurf has pointed out there is always a cost benefit side to ensuring totl power security.

The vulnerability of solar panels to hail. Climate-KIC project:
‘1 million near-zero energy homes in 2023
https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfil...ulnerability_of_solar_panels_to_hail_risk.pdf


Solar panels and hail

Solar panels are designed to withstand weather, including hail and thunderstorms. However, just like your car windscreen can sometimes get damaged by extreme hail, the same can happen to your panels. Solar panels are made from tempered glass and as such will resist hail stones on most occasions. In order to pass Australian standards, they must be able to withstand the direct impact of hail stones with a diameter of 35mm or approximately the size of a golf ball.
https://www.aef.com.au/news/solar/2019/02/hail-damage-solar-panel-inspection-guide/

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Has this thread gone off track ? It's supposed to be about support for Nuclear Power and somehow it has veered off into the weeds discussing what could happen if a supercell hail storm overnight destroys all the solar panels in Sydney.

I suppose that has happened to somehow compare the option of a "safe reliable Nuclear Power station" with the unreliability of widespread solar cells that could be trashed in moment.

In fact of course there is already much research on the the effect of hailstones on solar cells. We know that solar cells are made from toughed glass and will resist a hailstorm of golf ball size hail. That is system requirements.

There was an excellent research paper in the Netherlands which explored this issue in depth. As climate Change intensifies it will need to be addressed but frankly the damage a supercell storm would do to everything else in the community would way out stretch the acknowledged but repairable damage to solar panels.

On a cost benefit basis it might make sense to protect panels with extra poly carbonate covers. OIr come up with solar panels that are simpler or moire resistant to such damage. But as Smurf has pointed out there is always a cost benefit side to ensuring totl power security.

The vulnerability of solar panels to hail. Climate-KIC project:
‘1 million near-zero energy homes in 2023
https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfil...ulnerability_of_solar_panels_to_hail_risk.pdf


Solar panels and hail

Solar panels are designed to withstand weather, including hail and thunderstorms. However, just like your car windscreen can sometimes get damaged by extreme hail, the same can happen to your panels. Solar panels are made from tempered glass and as such will resist hail stones on most occasions. In order to pass Australian standards, they must be able to withstand the direct impact of hail stones with a diameter of 35mm or approximately the size of a golf ball.
https://www.aef.com.au/news/solar/2019/02/hail-damage-solar-panel-inspection-guide/

These solar panels don't look like they resist hail too well:

This was from the hailstorm in Canberra recently.

You fail to comprehend the serious risk in a scenario where NSW has ~25% of installed electrical capacity from rooftop solar; and a hailstorm wipes out the vast majority of that capacity in a day from a hail storm. It would be like multiple power stations being shutdown in a single day.

I provided a solution to mitigate the risk. Tempered glass will not withstand a golf ball or grapefruit size hail impact at 100mph.

Please try to engage in sensible discussion Basilio.

 

[basilio]

Please try to engage in sensible discussion Basilio.

Droll indeed Chronos. Clearly haven't lost your touch have you ?

I offered a detailed research study on exactly the issue you raised and also pointed out that solar panels are designed to withstand quite severe gold ball size hail impacts which would represent most (but not all) thunderstorms

But obviously there have been more intense hail storms which have damaged panels here and overseas

What can be done ? Yes one could put protection on solar panels. (I did make that suggestion I believe)
But then maybe that is why we have insurance. But this is still just an over bloated "problem" that warrants some thought and action but nowhere near the level you are banging on about.

Bye..
---------------------

And a final observation.
If a Supercell thunderstorm enveloped all of Sydney and Newcastle and was destructive enough to destroy all those solar panels - the damage to the rest of the city would be catastrophic. Lets put this in perspective shall we ?

 

[SirRumpole]

I suggest we just wait for fusion reactors.

Shouldn't be more than 20 years away.

 

[Muckman]

I support moderator reactor heat that can be issued for heating a steel factory. Or for heating water for desalination process. or a thermal reactor that can be used for high volume steam electrolysis hydrogen production.
Windmills and solar panels repurposed to make hydrogen and carbon capture can be an option.
Or even a windmill far repurposed directly to pump water mechanically drive the pumps for reverse osmosis. 100% mechanical efficiency. No electrical motors and transformers and substation.just get that big ass drive into the factory.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Droll indeed Chronos. Clearly haven't lost your touch have you ?

I offered a detailed research study on exactly the issue you raised and also pointed out that solar panels are designed to withstand quite severe gold ball size hail impacts which would represent most (but not all) thunderstorms

But obviously there have been more intense hail storms which have damaged panels here and overseas

What can be done ? Yes one could put protection on solar panels. (I did make that suggestion I believe)
But then maybe that is why we have insurance. But this is still just an over bloated "problem" that warrants some thought and action but nowhere near the level you are banging on about.

Bye..
---------------------

And a final observation.
If a Supercell thunderstorm enveloped all of Sydney and Newcastle and was destructive enough to destroy all those solar panels - the damage to the rest of the city would be catastrophic. Lets put this in perspective shall we ?

ERRRRRRRRRRR, NO!

I MADE THE SUGGESTION TO PROTECT THE SOLAR PANELS, NOT YOU!

I WAS THE PERSON WHO HAD THE VISION AND FORESIGHT, NOT YOU!

I am the person who has the exceptional and extraordinary abilities in strategy and risk management, not you.

The solar panels will not withstand a super cell hail storm, that is obvious and clear. Our government must act now to mitigate the risk and my solution is the best way to go about it.

So stop being a pest and go do something constructive with your time, rather than attempting to claim ideas and solutions that are quite frankly beyond your intellectual capacity.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I WAS THE PERSON WHO HAD THE VISION AND FORESIGHT, NOT YOU!
I am the person who has the exceptional and extraordinary abilities in strategy and risk management, not you.
my solution is the best way to go about it.
So stop being a pest and go do something constructive with your time, rather than attempting to claim ideas and solutions that are quite frankly beyond your intellectual capacity.

Ok.

I call.

Show us your cards.

gg

 

[Muckman]

I suggest we just wait for fusion reactors.

Shouldn't be more than 20 years away.

The problem is wi5 fusion it’s too far away, there too big and way too expensive. All these factors are not the answer. Modular reactors are cheep, small, are multipurpose and can be retro fitted into a existing infrastructure such as decommissioned coal for power stations.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Ok.

I call.

Show us your cards.

gg