Nuclear Power For Australia?

[JohnDe]

Written by Peta Credlin, just thought I would mention that.

Why is that an issue?

I only occasionally read her articles, and they have all been well researched as far as I could see. I know that she has a TV show, but I don't subscribe so have never watched it. And I know that she was a bureaucrat, which aren't my favourite people, though they are well trained.

Has she fudged the facts in her current article?

 

[sptrawler]

Written by Peta Credlin, just thought I would mention that.

Yes I think voicing our own thoughts on this, is probably a more accurate reflection of where the public perception and understanding is.

As I've said endlessly, I'm more for renewables, but I'm pragmatic enough to know that they are somewhat limited with grunt.
The fact is heavy industry needs grunt and they want it cheaply, conveniently, reliably and locally that is going to be hard to achieve IMO.
It is like the examples I put in an earlier post, Alcoa, Worsley etc, their processes supplies their electrical power as a by product of making their process steam, they will need to now pay for electricity to use electric boilers to make steam. That will mean probably putting in a solar farm and a firming battery and transmission lines, which may or may not add a lot of cost.
Time will tell.

It's like my electric car, I like it, but in all honesty it probably wouldn't be my choice if I was working and or time poor.

 

[SirRumpole]

Why is that an issue?

I only occasionally read her articles, and they have all been well researched as far as I could see. I know that she has a TV show, but I don't subscribe so have never watched it. And I know that she was a bureaucrat, which aren't my favourite people, though they are well trained.

Has she fudged the facts in her current article?

Are you aware that she was Tony Abbott's Chief of Staff? (Who used to spoonfeed him, literally).

FFS , I want to hear from experts, not political hacks.

If she has a degree in nuclear science, fine, but I don't think she has.

 

[sptrawler]

Why is that an issue?

I only occasionally read her articles, and they have all been well researched as far as I could see. I know that she has a TV show, but I don't subscribe so have never watched it. And I know that she was a bureaucrat, which aren't my favourite people, though they are well trained.

Has she fudged the facts in her current article?

The problem is, it is like posting up an article from Peter Dutton or Chris Bowen, no one is going to believe it isn't biased and isn't going to only presenting their argument.

IMO it is much better to debate the issues from our own personal perspective, which gives a more realistic viewpoint of legitimate arguments.

Then posters have to actually research and improve their own knowledge, rather than just having a debate of copy and pastes from each political party.

I think her points are actually a bit vague. 1. nuclear is expensive, 2. just because nuclear is suitable for one country, doesn't make it suitable for all, 3. The Government is paying the coal generators because there isn't enough renewables and storage in place yet, The Coalition will have to do the same.

It's a bit like people who go on about the problems with electric cars and have never owned one, yet post up heaps of negative articles, if you know what i mean.

 

[SirRumpole]

The fact is heavy industry needs grunt and they want it cheaply, conveniently, reliably and locally that is going to be hard to achieve IMO.

I agree, which is where a couple of nukes could help to support them, but I think it's overkill for the general grid.

The main problem is time to produce and cost. If someone said "yes, we will build a couple for industry in about 20 years, but continue the renewables installations in the meantime, I'd say "yes". But gambling the entire grid of something that "may" happen in 20 years is stupid imo, especially as it's not a bipartisan agreement and probably never will be. Politics again.

 

[sptrawler]

I agree, which is where a couple of nukes could help to support them, but I think it's overkill for the general grid.

Possibly, i really don't know, smurf would have a better understanding of that, also I don't think they would be talking the whole grid.

e.g if gas/hydro is going to be required to firm a constant say 5GW 24/7 365 days a year, and then the next 5GW is only required for the really cold winter months so that I guess would be ideal for the hydro and renewables can carry the remaining 60% of the load.

Like I say I'm only making this up, but the above scenario might mean nuclear could carry the constant 5GW base load firming and hydro could carry the 5GW variable seasonal firming. It may save having to put in 3 extra snowy 2's and the extra renewables to charge them in the winter months.

It depends purely on the 24 hr 12 month load profile and I really don't know that is, smurf would.

Same as in W.A nukes wouldn't work, way too big for our system, maybe if ever gen IV SMR come along and the private sector want to buy power off the State, but that's a lot of ifs. It will be gas for us for a long time IMO.

The main problem is time to produce and cost. If someone said "yes, we will build a couple for industry in about 20 years, but continue the renewables installations in the meantime, I'd say "yes". But gambling the entire grid of something that "may" happen in 20 years is stupid imo, especially as it's not a bipartisan agreement and probably never will be. Politics again.

The time to produce and cost is just one of them things, the time to put in the dams, the renewable farms, the transmission lines, the gas plant.
It is all going to take time and that is the problem, both ways are going to take the same time. It is better to spend the time and come up with the right result, than spend the time and find you have a huge F#ck up.

 

[JohnDe]

Are you aware that she was Tony Abbott's Chief of Staff? (Who used to spoonfeed him, literally).

FFS , I want to hear from experts, not political hacks.

If she has a degree in nuclear science, fine, but I don't think she has.

Yes, and so what? By your account, anyone that works for someone and not like by a person is also tainted. That is not fair.

In that case you must be reading and listening to very little, because there have only been a very few experts giving detailed comments.

I think that you are being unfair to journalism. There is no way that a journalist can be an expert in everything that they report, what they should do is research and give us the facts with links. I think that Peta did supply the details to back them up her comments, you just need to do some of your own research..

 

[SirRumpole]

Possibly, i really don't know, smurf would have a better understanding of that.
e.g if gas/hydro is going to be required to firm a constant say 5GW 24/7 365 days a year, and then the next 5GW is only required for the really cold winter months so that I guess would be ideal for the hydro and renewables can carry the remaining 60% of the load.

Like I say I'm only making this up, but the above scenario might mean nuclear could carry the constant 5GW base load firming and hydro could carry the 5GW variable seasonal firming. It may save having to put in 3 extra snowy 2's and the extra renewables to charge them in the winter months.
It depends purely on the 24 hr 12 month load profile and I really don't know that, smurf would.

The time to produce and cost is just one of them things, the time to put in the dams, the renewable farms, the transmission lines, the gas plant.
It is all going to take time and that is the problem, both ways are going to take the same time. It is better to spend the time and come up with the right result, than spend the time and find you have a huge F#ck up.

Well, even when experts have their say, there are different opinions so its tough for the rest of us.

Ziggy Switkowsi says "go nuclear", but he's in the nuclear business and pushes what he knows.

I'd prefer to go with the CSIRO who are public servants and hopefully don't have ties to any particular industry. If they say nuclear is too expensive I'm inclined to believe them.

 

[sptrawler]

Well, even when experts have their say, there are different opinions so its tough for the rest of us.

Ziggy Switkowsi says "go nuclear", but he's in the nuclear business and pushes what he knows.

I'd prefer to go with the CSIRO who are public servants and hopefully don't have ties to any particular industry. If they say nuclear is too expensive I'm inclined to believe them.

Well you never know who is pizzing in who's pocket, that's the problem, as the AEMO report says we can only work with facts and the facts are nuclear isn't allowed.
That's the first hurdle, until we overcome that, nuclear will never be considered.

CSIRO says nuclear cost from memory around $14b, but fails to mention that Snowy is now going to cost $12B when it was originally expected to cost $2B.

Like I said, to me cost is immaterial, the thing that really matters is we get the right outcome.

There really isn't any easy way to fix a really bad outcome, that would be tragic for Australia.

It isn't an NBN, it's the whole economy, the grid isn't a game and the politicians need to stop treating it as one.

Take that to the bank.

 

[JohnDe]

The problem is, it is like posting up an article from Peter Dutton or Chris Bowen, no one is going to believe it isn't biased and isn't going to only presenting their argument.

IMO it is much better to debate the issues from our own personal perspective, which gives a more realistic viewpoint of legitimate arguments.

Then posters have to actually research and improve their own knowledge, rather than just having a debate of copy and pastes from each political party.

I think her points are actually a bit vague. 1. nuclear is expensive, 2. just because nuclear is suitable for one country, doesn't make it suitable for all, 3. The Government is paying the coal generators because there isn't enough renewables and storage in place yet, The Coalition will have to do the same.

It's a bit like people who go on about the problems with electric cars and have never owned one, yet post up heaps of negative articles, if you know what i mean.

I've aways been a supporter of nuclear energy, must have been all the science fiction books I read as a kid. I believe that having nuclear power plants will also help us develop and improve energy sources. And I also believe that humans will one day leave the earth and colonise space, and small portable nuclear power plants will be required.

As for the article I posted, I would like to hear/see some answers to the question posted. Is that too much to ask for, or is it too hard to answer?

Labor’s hysterical over-reaction to the Coalition’s commitment to nuclear power betrays the weakness of its arguments. It insists that nuclear power is impractical, too expensive, potentially dangerous and would take too long.​

• Yet how can it be perfectly practical to have nuclear power at sea but not on land;
• economic for at least 33 other countries to have nuclear power but not for us;
• not dangerous to have a medical nuclear reactor a stone’s throw from houses at Lucas Heights in Sydney but dangerous to have more;
• too time consuming to have nuclear plants that will take a decade to build when the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro plant will take at least that long to become operational?
• If the government’s claims are correct – that renewable energy is the cheapest form of power – why is it still being subsidised through the renewable energy certificates that power generators are forced to buy, to the tune of well over $3bn a year?
• if weather-dependent renewable power really can keep the lights on, why are the Victorian and NSW Labor governments now paying millions in subsidies to keep coal-fired power stations open
• And if the system really is generating the cheapest possible power, why have both federal and state Labor governments started to directly subsidise the power bills of households?

Loading...

www.aussiestockforums.com

 

[SirRumpole]

Well you never know who is pizzing in who's pocket, that's the problem, as the AEMO report says we can only work with facts and the facts are nuclear isn't allowed.
That's the first hurdle, until we overcome that, nuclear will never be considered.

CSIRO says nuclear cost from memory around $14b, but fails to mention that Snowy is now going to cost $12B when it was originally expected to cost $2B.

Like I said, to me cost is immaterial, the thing that really matters is we get the right outcome.

There really isn't any easy way to fix a really bad outcome, that would be tragic for Australia.

It isn't an NBN, it's the whole economy, the grid isn't a game and the politicians need to stop treating it as one.

Take that to the bank.

So what "expert" opinion would you actually believe ?

 

[sptrawler]

The AEMO if they were given free reign and wide guidelines.

 

[SirRumpole]

• Yet how can it be perfectly practical to have nuclear power at sea but not on land;

A submarines nuclear reactor is the size of a garbage bin and produces about 200Mw. We don't know how much it costs

• economic for at least 33 other countries to have nuclear power but not for us;

It's comparative to other sources of energy in some countries that don't have a lot of sun

• not dangerous to have a medical nuclear reactor a stone’s throw from houses at Lucas Heights in Sydney but dangerous to have more;

Lucas Height's waste is low level medical waste not highly radioactive waste from power reactors

• too time consuming to have nuclear plants that will take a decade to build when the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro plant will take at least that long to become operational?

Snowy hydro is underway(if stalled), reactors will need years of approvals before construction even starts and the coal stations will be on their last legs by then.

• If the government’s claims are correct –
  that renewable energy is the cheapest form of power – why is it still being subsidised through the renewable energy certificates that power generators are forced to buy, to the tune of well over $3bn a year?

It's an incentive to investment in renewables.

• if weather-dependent renewable power really can keep the lights on, why are the Victorian and NSW Labor governments now paying millions in subsidies to keep coal-fired power stations open

Because the previous Coalition government sat on their arses for 10 years and let coal plants close and did nothing to replace them
Sorry they started Kurri Kurri gas and Snowy Hydro 2.0, but they are a pimple on the bum of what is needed.

• And if the system really is generating the cheapest possible power, why have both federal and state Labor governments started to directly subsidise the power bills of households?

Because there is not yet enough generation in the system to lower prices by competition. (See previous answer).

 

[SirRumpole]

The AEMO if they were given free reign and wide guidelines.

So why wouldn't they be pizzing in people's pockets?

Anyway, they manage what is there it's not their job to advise what actually needs to be built.

We need some body like them to design the future network.

 

[JohnDe]

A submarines nuclear reactor is the size of a garbage bin and produces about 200Mw. We don't know how much it costs


It's comparative to other sources of energy in some countries that don't have a lot of sun

Lucas Height's waste is low level medical waste not highly radioactive waste from power reactors

Snowy hydro is underway(if stalled), reactors will need years of approvals before construction even starts and the coal stations will be on their last legs by then.

It's an incentive to investment in renewables.

Because the previous Coalition government sat on their arses for 10 years and let coal plants close and did nothing to replace them

Because there is not yet enough generation in the system to lower prices by competition. (See previous answer).

Thank you.

I don't agree with all your answers, but I see your point on some.

Some of the countries with nuclear power plants have a lot of sun. Have you looked at the list?

Lucas height's waste is intermediate Approximately 3.5 cubic metres of solid intermediate-level waste is generated each year.
However, I thought all the fuss being made was about plant failure causing a problem, not the waste produced. Why is no one concerned about the Lucas Height's reactor failing?

Snowy 2.0 is interesting, not every state can have one.

 

[sptrawler]

So why wouldn't they be pizzing in people's pockets?

That's why I said they need to be given free reign. They are a Government Dept and work for the Govt, that's the problem.

Anyway, they manage what is there it's not their job to advise what actually needs to be built.

We need some body like them to design the future network.

That's what I said.

 

[SirRumpole]

That's why I said they need to be given free reign. They are a Government Dept and work for the Govt, that's the problem.

That's what I said.

Great, we have reached agreement, for now.

 

[sptrawler]

A submarines nuclear reactor is the size of a garbage bin and produces about 200Mw. We don't know how much it costs

@JohnDe now for the non left leaning answers.

The Navy nuclear reactors are Gen2 pressure water reactors, which are very inefficient (low Temp) and actually produce a lot of waste compared to their output.
But those issues have never concerned the military, as long as it does the job well, that's all that matters
Most of the World's reactors are Gen 2, but to make them viable they have to be huge 1.5GW or larger, to make them viable.
The newer reactors since about 2010 are Gen3 light water reactors, which have safety and efficiency improvements over Gen 2 and are probably what are being looked at for the East Coast.
The latest step is to try and develop high temperature Gen4 reactors.

It's comparative to other sources of energy in some countries that don't have a lot of sun

That's true, same as at the moment, nuclear isn't suitable for W.A IMO, unless Gen4 SMR are developed commercially

Lucas Height's waste is low level medical waste not highly radioactive waste from power reactors

It is a very small reactor.

Snowy hydro is underway(if stalled), reactors will need years of approvals before construction even starts and the coal stations will be on their last legs by then.

That's true

It's an incentive to investment in renewables.

That's true

Because the previous Coalition government sat on their arses for 10 years and let coal plants close and did nothing to replace them
Sorry they started Kurri Kurri gas and Snowy Hydro 2.0, but they are a pimple on the bum of what is needed.

Australia has one of the highest penetrations of renewable energy, relative to grid size (40%), in the World.
It didn't happen in the last two years, actually in the last two years we have had a reduction in renewable deployment, compared to previously.
Market forces are pushing coal fired plants off the grid, but there is insufficient firming storage to be able to retire them, so they have to be kept running.
Also despite all the ranting and chanting, no new major large scale projects have started, so the pimple on the arse is still all we have.

Labor are finding, it isn't as easy as waving a magic wand, to get things happening. The other thing is the coal power stations come under State control not Federal, so the last Government did get off their ar$e and told the generators either put new plant in or we will build Kurri Kurri.
The new Government for all the fanfare hasn't actually done much at all, but set targets which it looks as though they will have trouble achieving.
That's the non left leaning view.

On 13 March, 2024[1] The Australian Financial Review featured the findings of a new report from the Clean Energy Council assessing the progress of Australia’s clean energy transition. The article states, “Investment in new large-scale renewable energy capacity fell by almost 80% last year as grid bottlenecks, slow planning and environmental approvals, higher costs and tight labour markets took a heavy toll on Australia’s chances of reaching 2030 climate targets”.

Because there is not yet enough generation in the system to lower prices by competition. (See previous answer).

Because an election is coming up and there is no hope in hell that electricity prices are coming down in quite a few years.

 

[sptrawler]

Here is a reasonably easy to follow paper on nuclear reactors going through all the generations, it starts at page 1 and goes to about page 11 on the different generations, then to 22 looking ahead at SMR.
It was written in a while ago, about 2010-11 but gives a good basic easy to read rundown on reactor development.

Loading...

www.amacad.org

 

[Smurf1976]

Yet how can it be perfectly practical to have nuclear power at sea but not on land;

At sea, especially under the sea, the options available are drastically more limited.

It's either nuclear or diesel-electric for a submarine, that's it, and diesel-electric are inferior from a defence operational perspective.

Versus onshore where electricity is electricity. So long as it's properly designed, built and operated the end product is exactly the same regardless and that being so, the reasons to chose a particular method come down to other criteria eg cost, environment, etc.

economic for at least 33 other countries to have nuclear power but not for us

Comes down to the available alternatives, economic system and technical attributes which determine cost.

One problem in Australia is simply scale or lack thereof combined with a highly fragmented market along with erratic physical dispatch given it's 5 minute financial trading which determines it. The former state electricity authorities could've done nuclear if they'd wanted to but the present market isn't at all well designed for that.

Countries with nuclear generally involve monopolies or at least far fewer companies than we have along with a centrally planned approach and operational dispatch certainty. That is, a model far more closely aligned with traditional utilities than with the present market arrangements.

So market reform would be very highly desirable as part of any nuclear proposal. Noting that doesn't necessarily mean scrapping the market outright, but it does mean significant reform.

not dangerous to have a medical nuclear reactor a stone’s throw from houses at Lucas Heights in Sydney but dangerous to have more

So long as it's properly located, designed, built and operated the safety argument isn't rational.

That said, see point above about market - the present market would certainly provide an incentive for reckless operation, it's bad enough with conventional plant in that regard.

too time consuming to have nuclear plants that will take a decade to build when the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro plant will take at least that long to become operational?

Realistically nuclear 14 years minimum and hydro 10 - 11 years. So there is some difference.

In both cases though the bottom line is it's been left far too late. This should've got underway a very long time ago as it's a case of the longer its left, the fewer options are available.

If the government’s claims are correct – that renewable energy is the cheapest form of power – why is it still being subsidised through the renewable energy certificates that power generators are forced to buy, to the tune of well over $3bn a year?

Some of it's a backdoor subsidy of other things that I won't go into. Let's just say not all the money actually goes into new renewable energy.

if weather-dependent renewable power really can keep the lights on, why are the Victorian and NSW Labor governments now paying millions in subsidies to keep coal-fired power stations open?

Simply because action has been far too slow. In those two states various governments sold the power stations but in doing so failed to consider how to bring about their eventual replacement.

Governments focused on economic neoliberalism and ideology along with a few bits about the environment, breaking unions and various other things. Until relatively recently, the one thing completely missing in a full 25 year period was any focus on actually keeping the lights on.

For anyone who doesn't believe that, just go and look through the news archives. You'll find a lot about how to close coal and you'll find a lot about micro-economics (eg ownership, markets, regulation, trading rules, all that) but you'll find practically nothing was said about energy resources or the technical requirements of making it work, or even fundamental economics for that matter.

It wasn't a failure of planning. Rather, planning became a dirty word in a very big way and was actively discouraged in favour of a focus on short term competition etc.

And if the system really is generating the cheapest possible power, why have both federal and state Labor governments started to directly subsidise the power bills of households?

Using SA as an example, about 54% of a household electricity bill can be explained by the wholesale price of electricity plus the cost of transmission and distribution. That figure calculated by me from price information available to anyone from AEMO, ElectraNet and SA Power Networks and using AGL retail pricing for flat rate residential supply in SA.

The other 46%, well there's an awful lot of hangers on and inefficiency taking your money, that I can assure you. An awful lot....

That's not an argument for or against nuclear, it's just saying the market we have now has a huge level of add-on costs and changing the method of generation won't fix that. Even if generation were literally free, retail bills would still be higher in real terms than they were 30 years ago. That is, real price to consumers has approximately doubled but generation is well under half the total - setting it to zero thus doesn't fix the problem.

Overall, I'm neither an advocate nor an opponent of nuclear power but I am definitely an advocate of an impartial, proper process of assessment of all the options. At present that's woefully lacking on all fronts - both sides of politics need an almighty kick there. Both are trying to tilt the table massively in favour of their preferred options to the exclusion of everything else.

Big problem we have in Australia is despite having a very substantial portion of the population with a tertiary education, those making the decisions largely don't have any education at all that's relevant to the decisions they're making. If you look at the average MP, they're way out of their depth. Versus historically when actual experts came up with what needed to be done then sought approval from parliament to do it - a process that wasn't perfect but it did work far better than what we have today.

What ought be done is not to blindly proceed with wind, solar, nuclear, batteries, gas, hydro or whatever. Rather, what ought be done is systems engineering along with environmental science and accounting, in all cases to a professional standard, then implement what comes out of that.

For the record, in the past when that was done nuclear was indeed looked at in every state, it was considered along with the other options and went as far as detailed costings, specific sites being identified, timeframes and transmission routes were identified, etc. Only reason it didn't proceed was cost at the time but it was kept under review and sites were reserved.

That said, as I've previously mentioned there's be an argument for a single nuclear plant, regardless of the economics, for reasons of building up competency and so on and I'd absolutely be in favour of that so long as it's sensibly located both with regard to the environment and putting the electricity to good use. Best and most obvious location = east of Melbourne connecting to to the existing 500kV network. Somewhere near Morwell.