This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Nuclear Power For Australia?

Jump to new
C

constable

Joined
30 October 2006
Posts
866
Reactions
0
Just watching the 7.30 report and cant believe howard's using nuclear power as his get out of jail free card on the carbon debate. Liberals have sat on their hands for far to long in regards to Australia's energy needs and not signing the kyoto agreement (siding with america) certainly reveals howard's old school way of thought concerning the environment.
Stated on the program clean coal and nuclear energy are both a minimum 10 years off. Why on earth are we considering nuclear power when renewable sources such as wind, tidal and solar can be bought on line far quicker and with less expense and with no waste to deal with.
Australia is one of the most backward countries when it come to pollution why?
 
Re: Nuclear Power For Australia ?

constable said:
renewable sources such as wind, tidal and solar can be bought on line far quicker and with less expense
Click to expand...

Got any facts to back this up? I seriously doubt the cost per MW for renewable would be less than solar. Would be interesting to confirm....
 
Re: Nuclear Power For Australia ?

Narkov said:
Got any facts to back this up? I seriously doubt the cost per MW for renewable would be less than solar. Would be interesting to confirm....
Click to expand...
Only going off what the report said . It did clearly state that nuclear power would not be compeditive against coal unless a tax was applied to coal. As far as solar power goes i realise this expensive per mw but then again what are the "real" costs associated with n'power and the disposal of its waste.
I will endeavor to find out more about the comparitive costs between the two and get back to this point.
 
Solar power is effectively the cost of electricity generated by oil at the price of about $110 per barrel. But that's very rough, because the ongoing costs of solar are low in comparison.

I'll post later after I have seen the article and when I have more time to fully explain things.
 
As a country we have an opportunity become self sufficient using solar power... I invest In nuclear but don't want a bite of it in Australia because we still have an option unlike some countries. I want uranium mined but that's it
 
chops_a_must said:
Solar power is effectively the cost of electricity generated by oil at the price of about $110 per barrel. But that's very rough, because the ongoing costs of solar are low in comparison.
Click to expand...
The problem is that much of the electricity demand would not exist if we actually used oil at $110 or even $60 a barrel (the present price) to generate it. So not much point in going down that track.

The power produced, assuming we're talking about heavy fuel oil in a conventional steam turbine power station, comes to about $230 per MWh (megawatt hour).

That compares with new coal-fired costs in the order of $35 - 40 per MWh and natural gas not much higher (though the world doesn't have anywhere near enough known gas to switch most or all electricity generation to gas - the UK, and New Zealand in particular have been switching from gas to coal solely due to gas resource depletion and the situation is similar in the long term in most countries outside Russia and the Middle East which dominate global gas reserves).

In Australia, much of our gas is committed to export and we'll need much of the rest to run cars, trucks, buses etc (a point completely ignored by those proclaiming an abundance of gas) as oil peaks and declines in the coming years. We just don't have enough of it to use gas to replace coal for electricity - hence it's coal versus nuclear versus renewables with little mention of gas.

Simply running the existing plants comes to around $15 for black coal and much less than that for brown coal. Gas about $30 for major existing plants although it comes down to around $20 for those with the best technology and is considerably higher ($45+) for the least efficient plants.

Looking at renewables, costs for wind come down to about $60 for the best sites (Tasmania in the Australian context) but $70 is more realistic in general.

Large scale solar is unproven in terms of the economics for a major industry but in theory at least a solar tower (which is effectively a run-of-river hydro-electric scheme turned literally upside down in every aspect of its operation) is somewhat cheaper than wind. Perhaps $60 on a large scale in suitable locations (those with lots of sun - eg southern NSW) although getting down towards $40 is theoretically not out of the question given sufficient scale (forget decentralised power if you actually want renewables to be built...).

A new conventional hydro-electric scheme is absolutely site specific and also depends on the cost of capital since return on investment amounts to over 90% of the total cost typically. If you financed it at 6% and built it over the shortest possible timeframe (otherwise interest during construction is a financial killer) and used the best sites then it's no more than $40 per MWh. Trouble is, we don't have enough undeveloped resources to be an alternative to more than one nuclear plant. And of course there's that little point about the best sites all just happening to be in conveniently proclaimed (in one case by literally a few metres) National Parks and World Herritage Areas. We had that debate in 1979-83...

Geothermal is where the real potential lies IMO. On a large scale and if we can convince the anti-everything brigade that water supply is simply a matter of engineering (which it is) then, on paper at least, it stacks up pretty well against coal and is cheaper than gas or nuclear over the long term for supply into SA, Vic, NSW/ACT (noting that Qld and Tas could access some power from this source via existing transmission).

Solar hot water stacks up under some circumstances. It saves emissions, no doubt about that, but it generally adds NOTHING to peak generating capacity since it displaces off-peak, rather than peak, electricity or the direct use of natural gas. So it is a way of reducing emissions but is not an alternative to the construction of new power stations.

In a technical sense, the one big problem in actually going solar, wind etc is lack of enough large scale hydro to act as a storage mechanism. I mean, you do want power when it's dark...

If we're ever going to get rid of coal without going nuclear then we're going to have to revisit the big dams debate and actually build some this time. A technical reality which will test just how serious certain politicians are when they proclaim climate change as the number one priority.
 
insider said:
As a country we have an opportunity become self sufficient using solar power... I invest In nuclear but don't want a bite of it in Australia because we still have an option unlike some countries. I want uranium mined but that's it
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Its not like we have a huge population. If the government actually supported renewables we could easily become a zero emmissions self sufficient country. As i said on the uranium thread we shouldn't blindly rush into nuclear without considering all the other option. The cane toad was brought in as a quick fix and look where that got us. Learn from the errors of our past to find solutions to the future.
 
I'm actually confused about what Howard is up too.

I would support Nuclear, but only if it was economically viable.

The cost of power from Wind is currently about $70MW/h in round figures. Coal is a little less than $40MW/h.

Earlier this decade Howard, under pressure from the public brought in Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets or MRET. I think it required retailers to buy 1 or 2% of its energy from renewables and introduced RECs or Renewable Energy Certificates which traded at about $35/MWh. Essentially it was a form carbon tax. The $35 REC on top of a wholesale $40MWh helped make Wind Viable.

A year or two after RECs started, there was a review. At the time other countries had targets of 5 and 10%. However MRET was never increased and extended after I think 2010 because this extra couple of percent would cause dire straights to manufacturing and resources and hence our GDP. Not only that - it would costs jobs.


Now today, Howard wants to bring in Nuclear. Nuclear has very much similar costs than Wind - somewhere around $70 MW/h, but no one has really built a plant in Australia, nor do we know what the regulatory framework is and how many hoops you have to jump though all impacting capital and operational costs.

So to do this we much bring in Carbon Trading - about $40 a tonne and a roughly a tonne of CO2 is produced per MW in round figures. So about the same costs than RECs.

But the difference is now we are not talking 1 or 2% of power generation. We are talking about base load and Howard is talking 25 Nuclear power stations - maybe 50% of Australia's power. Now Howard, can you imagine what doubling the price of Electricity is going to do to our GDP and to jobs? Its going to wreck our economy . .


The other thing I can't understand is how Nuclear fits in to our existing market place. All the eastern states, South Australia and now Tassy thanks to Basslink trade in a National Electricity Market (NEM). Many of the participants is private enterprise. The NEM, I believe is something like the second biggest financial market in Australia after the ASX.

Now I don't hear these companies lobbing the government to bring in Nuclear. In fact, its the government lobbing the private sector? Will the private sector want to build Nuclear? Can they make it viable? Or will the government have to build and run them? How will other market participants react to the Government muscleling in? Current generation assets are long term 25 - 50 years. If the government brings on line 25GW of Nuclear in 10 years or what ever their target is, will the other players do? Go broke? Without a fight? Doubt it - I suspect the price of power would fall to below costs, some players would go broke and it could also be an expensive exercise for tax player funded Nuclear generation. Selling power for less than it costs to produce it (and remember we forget about the cost of storage - how many years is the half life?)
 
Smurf1976 said:
Geothermal is where the real potential lies IMO.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more (I was at Geodynamic's ASX:GDY Adelaide meeting last night)

Andrew Stock MC'ed the meeting. Andrew is not only a director of Geodynamic's but also holds the position of Executive General Manager, Generation with Origin Energy Limited, and a Director of SEA Gas, Osborne Cogeneration and other Origin Energy joint ventures.

If I had the oportunity, I should of asked him what Origin's take was on Nuclear? But then I suspect given the current climate and lack of direction or regulatory framework they probably have no clearer direction than we do.
 
YChromozome said:
I'm actually confused about what Howard is up too.
Click to expand...
I suspect someone's noticed the private sector's focus on gas-fired power and is getting worried now that they've seen in NZ, US, UK etc where this leads. What on earth do we do whenever gas inevitably gets revalued globally as a transport fuel? The potential economic consequences of sending power costs to the moon are alarming to say the least.

That and the failure of the generation industry / NEMMCO to maintain would would be internationally regarded as prudent reserve levels. Given that certain plants can't reliably generate at their full output used in the minimum reserve calculations anyway, it's a time bomb that will go off someday.

Building some nuclear plants would fix both of these and cut emissions as well. Hence the attraction.
 
Exactly right, who is going to fund 25 nuclear power stations at half a billion each there abouts, and what of the existing players on the grid?
I dont own any of their shares but if i was the government i'd be throwing a little more money than whats been given at present to gdy. The heat resource claimed to have enough energy to power aust. for the next 25 + years.
 


No nukes for Oz !~!

Hi folks,

Aside from solar and wind power, we have a geologically
stable continent, that lends itself well to further
development of power generation, through proven
hot-rock technology, which can be employed right
across Australia.

At least two listed companies are pursuing this option
already and it is available 24/7, day or night or whether
the wind is blowing or not and there's no airborne emissions, at all !~!

One hot-rock project has been generating power in USA
for more than 25 years, at Los Palmos in New Mexico.

Hot-rock technology is very efficient and leaves a smaller
environmental footprint than both solar and wind for a
similar amount of power generated.

So, if we employ these more environmentally-friendly
means of power generation, why should we even consider
nuclear power, with all its inherent risks???

This issue could well blow up in Howard's face and bring
this government to it knees, in the next election .....

..... politically, a very hot potato .....

happy days

yogi

 
yogi-in-oz said:
At least two listed companies are pursuing this option
already and it is available 24/7, day or night
Click to expand...

The listed companies are :

GDY : Geodynamics (http://www.geodynamics.com.au)
PTR: Petratherm (http://www.petratherm.com.au/)
GRK: Green Rock Energy (http://www.greenrock.com.au/)
GHT: Geothermal Resources (http://www.geothermal-resources.com.au/)
EDE: Eden Energy (http://www.edenenergy.com.au/)

There is also mention of Origin Energy Resources Ltd, although I'm unclear on what GELs they own. Origin and Woodside (via Metasource) have a holding in GDY.

Private is

Scopenergy (Planning to list - Look for the IPO)
Pacific Hydro (Was delisted after being brought out by IFM)
Proactive Energy Developments
Osiris Energy
Kuth Energy
Hot Rock Energy
Torrens Energy
Red Hot Rocks
 
To me, it is purely a planning issue. Spain has recently introduced legislation that makes it mandatory for new homes to be built with solar panels on their roofs. I can't see why the same shouldn't be done here.

Actually, I can. Howard wants to make a (pardon the pun), smokescreen with the nuclear debate. "There is no other option", he keeps saying. Bollocks. There are other options. What he wants us to keep doing, is to continue paying money for something we can produce from our own homes, electricity. If every home has solar panels, it's bad for business, right? That's why he doesn't want to promote this idea.

Does anyone else find it hilarious that the Woodside Petroleum has big f*ck off solar panels on top of it?

And as to opponents of wind saying, "you can only generate power when the wind is blowing", well, in my 22 years of going to Fremantle, I've never been there when it's not blowing a gale. Our trees grow sideways ffs.

Nuclear to me is not practical in Australia. We can't even decide where windmills should be placed, let alone a nuclear powerstation. Farmers have used windmills for centuries, why all of a sudden have we forgotten this? Why all of a sudden are they against this?

Sure, this isn't going to account for all of Australia's power use, but it's better than resorting to a technology that is proven to cause serious medical problems for those living nearby.

Sensible legislation, sensible design, and sensible leadership will get us through this.
 
Smurf1976 said:
In a technical sense, the one big problem in actually going solar, wind etc is lack of enough large scale hydro to act as a storage mechanism. I mean, you do want power when it's dark...
Click to expand...
The wind doesn't stop blowing at night...
 
Geothermal power stations in Australia? do we have a Rotorua here I havent heard about? I saw a Geothermal station in NZ, and cant see how we could possibly have one here. There are only two geothermic land areas in the world, the other being Yellowstone National Park. NZ has a lot of hyrdo electric stations, which I think is the cleanest, cheapest power source available, but maybe less practical in Australia?

As for Nuclear, and bearing in mind we have around 60% of the worlds uranium, it seems ironic. What if the mid east decided to go solar when they are sitting on oil? We are morons for sitting on the worlds most important future resource & not setting an example. In 100 years, Australia will be where Saudi Arabia is today. get nuclear!
 
Guys i work in the power industry and i would just like to point out that all these figures bewn thrown around about cost of electricity generation aren't entirely correct.

Firstly, the announcement yesterday that Nuclear could be competitive if there was a carbon tax wasn't taking the costs involved in safly storing and securing the waste for the next 10000 + years. look at America they spent billions building an underground storage facility which was supposed to be able to contain the waste for tens of thousands of years, now thats is uncertain.

As for all these people that say solar, wind etc can also be competitive, you will need to look at the broader problems associated with each.

solar cells generate DC power, nothing in your house execpt for probably a clock radio and your LED garden lights runs on DC power. To convert this DC to the AC we all use today is expensive and inefficient. Plus if everyone had solar cells on their house trying to supply power to the grid, every persons house would need complex isolation and protection systems to ensure a quality supply and safty for the public. It is impractical to use only in your house to because most people aren't at home using power in the peak of the day when they are making the most power.

Wind power is expensive, unreliable (unless you have many diversified farms) and realistically to have any real generating capacity we would need many thousands of them. plus they take out flocks of unlucky birds.

The best solutions I believe we have is
Geothermal power for base load generation,

energy efficient products (eg.light globes, water heaters)

Flatening out the peak periods of consumption (at the moment we have to buils a network which is used at 100% for about 3 days a year, which is a waste of assets and standby power generation)

and Waste recycling. with current technology we can generate power and recycle more than 50% of the waste in landills.

One last thing i would like to say is that even though Global warming is a big problem for the modern world it is not the only big problem, i feel we may be concentrating on one thing and forgetting the others such as:

Fish stocks which are predicted to be gone by 2050

Desertification of huge amounts of land both in Australia and around the world.

Deforestation


 
Money tree

Australia has one of the largest Geothermal resource in the world located at the cooper basin with thousands of square KM's of heated rocks about 4km down
 

Howard on his knees??? I'd like to see THAT! )

Seriously, I think you are right about the political bombshell ... errr... hot potato aspect.

This could be the biggest political stuff-up in Howard's career to date. He is usually pretty savvy when it comes to saving his pollyskin, but maybe he has been in the job for too long and thinks all the people of Australia believe he is a "genius" or sumfink...

"Bomber" Beazley's sides must be splitting with mirth right now - if he can't win the next election riding what I suspect will be a massive "NO NUKE POWER" support base, he ain't NEVER going to win!

Of course, Lil' Johnny might wake up to (prod) himself shortly and step "Jiggy Ziggy" sideways out of the Nuke limelight, when he sees the pollysafe numbers start stacking up agin' him.

Personally, I think the 'politically safe' approach for at least the next 10-15 years would be to promote development for existing gas, geothermal, wind, solar and clean coal technologies.

Cheers,

AJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
562
Smurf1976
Australian Use Of Uranium For Aussie Nuclear Weapon - Defence Review
Replies
14
Views
2K
SirRumpole
February 2025
2 3
Replies
53
Views
4K
ducati916
Albo's Coal and Gas Price Cap and Financial Aid proposal
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Smurf1976
Basic chart analysis/chart reading 101 for beginners
Replies
10
Views
4K
Gunnerguy
G
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...