Nuclear Power For Australia?

[IFocus]

Take 6 equally sized generating units, run them all at two thirds capacity, and in practice you've got adequate spinning reserve. Noting that's an example only, the actual maths gets more complicated but as a concept that's workable.

In my day spinning reserve was the common practice in all North West diesel stations, still didn't stop me blacking most of them out.

 

[JohnDe]

The article fails to address issues around nuclear that pertain to Australia.

The vast majority of reactors under construction are in China (25) and India (7) where there are massive base loads, the tech is in house, they have nuclear weapons (money has already been spent for fuel) and so fuel technology and availability are spin offs.

Though the article does mention the increase investment from US and UK and multi-national businesses -

Last year, 22 countries, including our AUKUS partners the US and UK, pledged to triple global nuclear energy output by 2050. Google has announced a deal with Kairos Power to deploy several small modular reactors (SMRs) to power AI data centres, with the first reactor to be in place within six years; Amazon announced a $US500m ($750m) deal for SMRs; Microsoft has underwritten the reopening of a reactor at the infamous Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania; and Oracle is building a data centre requiring a gigawatt of power supplied by three small reactors.​

 

[SirRumpole]

Though the article does mention the increase investment from US and UK and multi-national businesses -

Last year, 22 countries, including our AUKUS partners the US and UK, pledged to triple global nuclear energy output by 2050. Google has announced a deal with Kairos Power to deploy several small modular reactors (SMRs) to power AI data centres, with the first reactor to be in place within six years; Amazon announced a $US500m ($750m) deal for SMRs; Microsoft has underwritten the reopening of a reactor at the infamous Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania; and Oracle is building a data centre requiring a gigawatt of power supplied by three small reactors.​

6 years for countries that already have nuclear infrastructure means 20+ for us, after the other countries get what they want.

 

[JohnDe]

Why build Nuclear Power Stations, when we can create jobs by clearing the land and laying down solar panels?

Doesn't that look pretty -

View attachment 185346

What is wrong with people, don't they understand that by clearing the land and installing wind and solar farms we're saving the environment and creating jobs at the same time?

“Scientists have been talking to government about this for a long time, at least 10 years, because we could see what would happen — the footprint of renewables on the Australian continent and other parts of the world is substantial.​

Scientists sound alarm over renewables impact on nature

Ardent supporters of action on climate change are warning of another looming crisis: damage to sensitive ecosystems to make way for renewable energy. They say it’s time for a rethink.

Ecological experts are joining calls for a temporary halt to new large-scale renewables in crucial nature hotspots, amid growing concern over the destruction of the environment to make way for green energy projects.

Former Queensland government principal botanist Jeanette Kemp said there would be “considerable backlash’’ if the general public was fully aware of the extent of land clearing and fragmentation of valuable habitat to make way for some wind farms in Queensland.

“Because of the great speed at which renewable developments are going ahead we are paying a very high price in terms of the degradation of rugged, remote and ecologically important ranges,’’ she said.

Former Queensland chief scientist, Professor Hugh Possingham, agreed that some developments should be temporarily suspended while detailed regional biodiversity mapping is undertaken to show areas suitable for renewables development, and no-go zones which should never be considered.

Rather than hinder the rollout, this analysis would ultimately speed it up, he said, because developers would have more certainty and fewer planning roadblocks. Experts at the University of Melbourne plan to release detailed biodiversity analysis this year.

Communities in renewable energy zones in NSW and Victoria have long voiced concerns about quality agricultural land being used for the rush of large-scale solar, wind, battery and transmission projects but there is growing alarm at the damage to sensitive landscapes and areas close to national parks, world heritage areas, protected wetlands and migratory flight paths.

The Wet Tropics Management Authority has issued concerns about the cumulative scale of proposed developments that would involve clearing of relatively intact land near the world heritage area. The National Parks Association of NSW has fought the planned construction of high voltage power lines in Kosciuszko National Park as part of the Snowy 2.0 project.

‘Maybe with so many people on the more conservative side of politics and the left wing side of politics all saying this is out of control, we’ll get something done.’​

Another group, Rainforest Reserves Australia, has warned that the most significant threat to remnant habitats along the Great Dividing Range - home to vulnerable species such as koalas and greater gliders — comes from poorly-placed renewable developments. “We have magnificent mountains that should not be fragmented and smashed for wind farms,’’ said co-founder Steve Nowakowski, a vocal opponent of some projects.

Environmentalist Steven Nowakowski near the proposed site of the Chalumbin Wind Farm which was withdrawn this year after the Federal Government indicated it would refuse the application due to unacceptable impacts on the environment. Picture: Steven Nowakowski

When built in the wrong locations, Possingham said solar farms posed a risk to native vegetation, wind turbines threatened birds and bats, and the roads, powerlines, turbines and new mines for critical minerals were increasing habitat loss, compounding existing pressures from climate change, land clearing and natural disasters.

Possingham, co-chief councillor at the Biodiversity Council and a professor of mathematics and ecology at the University of Queensland, said the rollout, while necessary, had proceeded without enough thought and planning

“Scientists have been talking to government about this for a long time, at least 10 years, because we could see what would happen — the footprint of renewables on the Australian continent and other parts of the world is substantial.

“We urged them repeatedly to plan, just plan. But for some reason governments refused to put in place the processes by which you could actually tell people where renewable energy infrastructure could be placed for a win win outcome, to generate energy and not cause loss of biodiversity.

“Maybe with so many people on the more conservative side of politics and the left wing side of politics all saying this is out of control, we’ll get something done.”

Like Kemp, Possingham is a supporter of renewable energy and the need to tackle climate change but they say it cannot be at the expense of the environment. It’s an approach echoed by former Greens leader Bob Brown who has warned that the impacts of some wind farms on critical habitat outweigh the benefits and could contribute to the extinction crisis.

Clearing for the Kaban Wind Farm in far north Queensland. Picture: Steven Nowakowski

Kemp said conservation groups, traditionally reluctant to acknowledge that not all renewable developments were green for fear of delaying climate change action, were becoming more vocal as bulldozers head into high quality tracts of native vegetation to cut roads and bases for wind turbine foundations.

“Maybe 150 hectares disappear here, 200 hectares disappear there. It’s small relative to land clearing in New South Wales and Queensland but you end up getting death by a thousand cuts,’’ Possingham said.

Concerns centre around north and central Queensland, which has a huge pipeline of projects, some of which involve clearing koala, greater glider and threatened bird habitat. Conservationists were heartened when the Wooroora Station wind farm proposal next to the Wet Tropics world heritage area was withdrawn earlier this year after the federal government indicated it would refuse it on environmental grounds. It was a rare case.

Many other projects have cleared planning hurdles with environmental controls and limits on how much habitat can be cleared. The Lotus Creek wind farm, now owned by the Queensland Government, was knocked back by the previous Federal coalition government but later approved by Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek despite potential significant impacts on the habitat of koalas, greater gliders and squatter pigeons.

Squadron Energy’s Clarke Creek wind farm 150km north-west of Rockhampton was approved on the basis that no more than 1513 ha of habitat suitable for koalas is cleared. It has pledged to “ensure no animal or threatened species is harmed as a result of project activity.”

Clarke Creek Wind Farm, north-west of Rockhampton on the southern end of the Connors Range. Picture: Steven Nowakowksi

The Gawara Baya Wind Farm, 65km southwest of Ingham, will involve the removal of 598 hectares of Sharman’s rock wallaby habitat, 614 hectares of koala habitat and 581 hectares of northern greater glider habitat.

Wind farm developers pledge to minimise clearing, conduct ongoing surveys and relocate wildlife where necessary. They employ ecologists and other experts and have detailed environmental management plans. However opponents say the cumulative impacts of a string of wind farms following transmission lines down the Great Dividing Range need to be assessed.

Kemp said environment groups should band together to demand a review of the locations of all Queensland renewable proposals occurring in remnant vegetation. “Whilst this is happening we need to halt the progress of all proposals which have not completed clearing,’’ she said.

“This is a huge state and we have many areas with already fragmented and cleared vegetation. This is where we should be building renewable developments. I’m not against most of the wind farms, it’s just those in really highly intact areas that must be reconsidered.’’

These comments come as a team at the University of Melbourne prepare to release analysis that will show zones where renewables could be rolled out on degraded and cleared land.

Brendan Wintle, director of the University of Melbourne Biodiversity Institute and a lead councillor at the Biodiversity Council, said areas further west had high energy generation potential and posed fewer problems.

“The general story is that the further west you go, the lower the impact on nature and high productivity agricultural land, and the lower the general conflict,’’ he said

Notwithstanding challenges around transmission infrastructure in more remote places, the analysis, to be released in about two months’ time, will show this to be a viable medium-term option, he said.

“I’m confident enough on our existing analysis that we can prove that it’s possible to meet full domestic demand, and also, potentially the energy export industry in a way that doesn’t impact on nature values and major agriculture, and that’s actually going to be faster and cause less community conflict.

“And basically the difference in cost is a rounding error, effectively, in the 5pc range.’’

Transmission giant Transgrid is also looking at future remote inland renewable energy zones as sources of additional renewable power in the mid-2030s.

Wintle said he did not support a temporary halt to approved developments but said a rethink was urgently needed. “We recognise that a rapid transition to renewable energy is absolutely critical but we need to carefully plan where to put it.

“The first order of thing is to not destroy native vegetation to build wind and solar farms, because that’s really counterproductive. We need more vegetation.’’

The scientific community is attempting to take the lead in the face of ongoing uncertainty from government: Labor’s long awaited overhaul of national environmental laws has been further delayed and the states are working on different plans to identify land planning issues around the new energy rollout.

Earlier this year the Victorian government announced plans for new guidelines to protect biodiversity and research into the threat of wind turbines to bird and bat species. NSW is looking to implement a new energy impact policy later this year. Queensland’s direction is unclear under the new Liberal National coalition government, which has pledged to repeal the state’s renewable energy target and dump a pumped hydro project.

Former energy infrastructure commissioner Andrew Dyer said in a major report late last year that land use planning was urgently needed. “Mapping of this information will assist with better identification of highly preferred locations for new projects, as well as provide confirmation regarding ‘no-go’ or inappropriate zones. Planning authorities, developers and other stakeholders should carefully review this information and associated maps before commencing any prospecting or development activity at a site,’’ his report said.

Lack of clarity over biodiversity risks has also frustrated the renewables industry. “A lack of policy direction to assess and mitigate risks to biodiversity has contributed to significant delays in project assessment, particularly for wind farms,’’ the Clean Energy Council said in response to Victoria’s planned guidelines.

“Wind farms do have some environmental impacts but these are well down the lists or threats to any species or ecosystem, when compared to… feral cat and fox predation and wetland degradation, among others.’’

 

[Smurf1976]

What is wrong with people, don't they understand that by clearing the land and installing wind and solar farms we're saving the environment and creating jobs at the same time?

As I've said many times, including on this forum, "All power pollutes".

Because it does. There's no such thing as energy that doesn't impact something somehow. What we get to choose is the nature of that impact and where it occurs.

From there it's a relatively familiar debate in that it applies to a great many things not just energy:

1. Some will focus on sustainability, as distinct from impact per se, as the most important criteria. They'll accept an impact as long as it's sustainable.

2. Some will accept any impact that they can't see and which doesn't personally involve them. That is, classic NIMBY but it's just fine if it's done out of sight.

3. Some will focus on human health as a key criteria, others will say no humans are just another species so don't treat them differently.

4. Others will see the question as ideological, in particular in the context of the potential for conflict.

5. Some will focus on the present, others will focus on the long term future, in terms of the above.

Those are all subjective in that whilst it's very possible to quantify them as such, it's a matter of opinion as to which is more important. It's a value judgement, it's not a situation where someone can do some calculations and prove that one criteria is more important than another.

Personally my own key criteria are sustainability, avoidance of species extinction, avoidance of conflict, and no major known human health impacts. As for the scenery, personally I don't consider that a priority given it's inevitable something has to be sacrificed. But if scenery is considered a priority, well looking at land use electrical infrastructure's a very long way down the list of impacts there. It's an order of magnitude smaller than agriculture for example, then towns, cities, roads, airports and so on all with huge impacts that've trashed the natural scenery - there's nothing pretty about a city skyline, farm or highway. Not to mention open cut mining.

I mean seriously, have a look at Australia on Google Earth and what do you see? It's not electrical infrastructure that's lead to the widespread demolition of nature. Take a look between Melbourne and Adelaide for example, the vast majority of the land has been cleared for agriculture whereas you'll have trouble even finding the wind and solar farms unless you already know exactly where they are. Meanwhile transmission lines are even harder to find.

Others will of course hold different views on what the priorities are and neither them nor myself can prove either to be wrong or right, since it's a values issue.

 

[Smurf1976]

Adding to the previous that I'm not against farming, but I will spot inconsistencies.

If land clearing for wind farms is a problem then land clearing for agriculture is a few orders of magnitude greater problem being the point.

Suffice to say I don't expect to hear the Coalition objecting to land used by agriculture anytime soon.

 

[JohnDe]

Adding to the previous that I'm not against farming, but I will spot inconsistencies.

If land clearing for wind farms is a problem then land clearing for agriculture is a few orders of magnitude greater problem being the point.

Suffice to say I don't expect to hear the Coalition objecting to land used by agriculture anytime soon.

Yeah, but governments put a stop to all that with strict legislation

In 1990, first-time clearing accounted for 74% of the total area cleared, while by 2009 the proportion had fallen to 33%. This reflects the progressive introduction of land clearing restrictions by state governments from the early 1990s onwards.​

It's much easier, and more lucrative, to build wind and solar farms. And if done correctly the government help fund it. Look at all the mechanical beauty and jobs.

 

[Smurf1976]

Yeah, but governments put a stop to all that with strict legislation

In 1990, first-time clearing accounted for 74% of the total area cleared, while by 2009 the proportion had fallen to 33%. This reflects the progressive introduction of land clearing restrictions by state governments from the early 1990s onwards.

Commenting purely on the politics not any science, as with anything the test of someone's position and the integrity of it is whether they maintain that view when it's not in their interests to do so.

If the Coalition opposes any further land being cleared for agriculture or mining then, whilst I disagree with the significance of that as an issue, It would at least be a consistent policy approach presumably based on a belief of that being the right thing to do.

But if they argue that land clearing for renewables is bad, but land clearing for open cut mining or agriculture is just fine, well that looks awfully like a political game being played.

 

[JohnDe]

Commenting purely on the politics not any science, as with anything the test of someone's position and the integrity of it is whether they maintain that view when it's not in their interests to do so.

If the Coalition opposes any further land being cleared for agriculture or mining then, whilst I disagree with the significance of that as an issue, It would at least be a consistent policy approach presumably based on a belief of that being the right thing to do.

But if they argue that land clearing for renewables is bad, but land clearing for open cut mining or agriculture is just fine, well that looks awfully like a political game being played.

I don’t know about your agricultural examples, I haven’t seen any clearing. And haven’t heard any complaints from the Liberals or National Party.

It’s those dam greenies that are making the fuss, they’d rather we live like cave people than develop the land.

Imagine the job creation with all the land preparation for solar and wind farms. Plus all the new walking trails.

Impacts of large-scale renewables — Rainforest Reserves Australia

www.rainforestreserves.org.au

 

[JohnDe]

Oh, look what is going ahead, more scenery and job creation.

The Federal Court has dealt the government an embarrassing defeat, after concluding Energy Minister Chris Bowen wrongfully interpreted legislation when its rejected an offshore wind application from a developer backed by one of Japan’s largest companies.​

Look at those beauties.

Flotation executive director for Australia Carolyn Saunders said the decision was welcomed, and the “ball was now in the court of the minister”.

“It provides useful clarity and assists in helping Australia meet its energy goals and support energy transition,” Ms Saunders told The Australian.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen. Picture: Martin Ollman

A spokeswoman for Mr Bowen said the ruling illustrated the nascent nature of the legislation and the industry.

“Establishing Australia’s offshore wind industry is a complex but critical step in decarbonising our energy market,” she said.

“Government and industry alike have an interest in regulatory certainty and that is what this process in the Federal Court is about.

“The minister will review the judgment and consider next steps in relation to Seadragon’s application.”

 

[sptrawler]

I wonder if Trump will continue with the Democrats plan.

Biden admin sets new target to triple US nuclear capacity from 2020 levels | Fox News

US will aim to reach 200 gigawatts of net nuclear capacity by 2050

www.foxnews.com