Great response @Smurf1976, clear, concise and factual as usual.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some of that's a bit unclear at this stage but most likely to end up as assets of the transmission companies.Does that mean it is government owned and should continue to be?
I'll post something tonight or weekend.Your figure of 46% "hangers on" is intriguing, could you expand on that a bit,
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 don't think that there is much concern about reactors failing, it's more the volume and toxicity of waste produced that's an issue.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?
I don't think that there is much concern about reactors failing, it's more the volume and toxicity of waste produced that's an issue.
Nuclear reactors if properly designed and built and don't encounter a major natural disaster are safe, but they need a lot of expense in decommissioning as well as construction, compared to hydro plants of similar output that are rarely decommissioned and should last for centuries.
Because as we have said here before, they are politicians not scientists. I'm not saying Labor are better than anyone else, but the Coalition nuclear plan doesn't stack up in my opinion.The flood of memes from the Labor Party said otherwise. They started a fear campaign, rather than an educated discussion. Makes me think that they know that nuclear is a good option.
Interesting. for USA, planned construction time average 7.5 years, actual 14 years.A pretty good article by the ABC, well balanced and not technical and with no obvious bias. Absolutely breath of fresh air from the ABC, what a difference, from their usual tripe IMO.
The only thing I thought was a little vague, was when the explained water usage, there is a difference between water usage depending on how the condenser cooling water is cooled.
If anyone is interested, there are difference, but basically there are two different water systems that aren't connected.
There is the distilled water that is made into steam and then goes through the turbine to turn it, then it goes through a condenser( like a radiator), to get changed back into water so that it can be pumped back up to the boiler and start again. That is a closed loop system with minimal losses.
The water that goes around the outside of the condenser tubes(radiator) is the cooling medium, that cools the steam inside the tubes down and changes it back to water.
If big cooling towers are used as they do on inland stations a lot of cooling water is lost in evaporation, if the power station is built next the ocean seawater is used so probably nill evaporation.
What is nuclear energy and how does it work?
Nuclear power is in the headlines a lot right now. So we ask energy experts to break down exactly what it is.www.abc.net.au
Always do your own research.Interesting. for USA, planned construction time average 7.5 years, actual 14 years.
So take what Dutton is saying for time and double it. (and probably the same for cost).
"However, reactors can have a long lifespan. The average age of operational reactors in the US is 42 years, with the oldest clocking in at 55 years. "
I heard Dutton claiming an 80 year life span for nukes.
Take what he says with a Siberian salt mine.
Well of course operators want their stuff to last longer, saves them building new ones.Always do your own research.
The 80-Year Club
Fifteen reactors are already using this research to apply for a second 20-year extension.
Florida Power and Light’s Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 became the first reactors to apply to the NRC to operate for up to 80 years.
Exelon's Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, Dominion's Surry Units 1 and 2, in addition to several other utilities, including Duke Energy, have applied or announced plans to apply for SLRs. Xcel Energy is also considering submitting applications for reactors in its fleet.
To date, 20 reactors, representing more than a fifth of the nation’s fleet, are planning or intending to operate up to 80 years. More are expected to apply in the future as they get closer to the end of their operating licenses.
Well of course operators want their stuff to last longer, saves them building new ones.
Whether they get the licence is another matter.
Where the US is concerned they always want fuel for nuclear weapons so that is a factor too.
Anyway I was relying on your opinion that the article was "pretty good".
The flood of memes from the Labor Party said otherwise. They started a fear campaign, rather than an educated discussion. Makes me think that they know that nuclear is a good option.
Associate Professor Tony Hooker, director of the Centre for Radiation Research, Education and Innovation at the University of Adelaide, called the proliferation of memes and pop culture references in attacking the Coalition’s plan “not helpful for true scientific debate”. “There’s a lot of misinformation in those memes,” he told Crikey, calling nuclear as safe as wind and solar per terawatt of electricity produced per hour. “Saying that it’s risky is actually untrue — and that’s taking into consideration Chernobyl and Fukushima,” he said, referencing the two most significant accidents in the history of nuclear power.
'Unhelpful': Experts criticise Labor's radioactive memes
In the wake of the Coalition's nuclear energy policy announcement, the Labor Party has become obsessed with Simpsons memes. But experts say it's unhelpful.www.crikey.com.au
The problem with the GENCOST report is that it is an economic one.For those interested, the CSIRO/AEMO Gencost report can be downloaded here.
GenCost: cost of building Australia’s future electricity needs
Each year, CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) collaborate with industry stakeholders to update GenCost. This leading economic report estimates the cost of building new electricity generation, storage, and hydrogen production in Australia out to 2050.www.csiro.au
This debate speaks to a key problem with GenCost and similar reports that strive to nail down numbers for the cost of new power sources.
The problem is, these numbers depend on many, many variables. We can’t simply say one type of power is cheaper than another.
Do we have any idea of the qualifications of the people in the IPA and Fin Review that wrote their reports?The Fin Review conducted a review of the CSIRO report and highlighted some contentious issues.
The IPA , not surprisingly perhaps, also points out the contentious natutre of the GENCOST valuation, but more from what it left out of the calculations.
Do we have any idea of the qualifications of the people in the IPA and Fin Review that wrote their reports?
I would doubt that they compare with those at CSIRO or AEMO for relevance to the subject.
I could be wrong, but who knows? Were they named?
Not much experience in electrical network design by the sound of it.IPA's author Scott Hargreaves
He has a Bachelor of Arts in Politics and Economics, a Post Graduate Diploma in Public Policy, an MBA from the Melbourne Business School, and a Master of Commercial Law.
plus
Kevin You
Senior Fellow
Dr Kevin You is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs. His background is in the fields of political economy, industrial relations and organisational studies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?