Nuclear Power For Australia?

[sptrawler]

It will all come out in the wash, as they say.
At least there are people discussing it now, hopefully it results in a sensible outcome.
It would be crazy to build nuclear if we don't require it and it would be crazy not to build it, if it is required.
Hopefully the truth prevails.

 

[Smurf1976]

Best and most obvious location = east of Melbourne connecting to to the existing 500kV network.

Explaining this, it comes down to existing transmission combined with Victoria being the most difficult state to do with renewables on account of climate. Plus it would seem logical that it's reasonably accessible to a capital city without being in it.

Latrobe Valley ticks all those boxes better than anywhere else given the existing 500kV transmission network, which is effectively the "backbone" of the Victorian transmission system, originates there and runs through to Melbourne then onto the south-west of the state with connection at lower voltage (275kV) through to SA.

For the map below:
Yellow = 500kV
Orange = 330kV
Pink = 275kV
Blue = 220kV
Red = 132kV
Brown = 66kV

In layman's terms higher voltage = higher transmission capacity and in the Victorian context transmission from the Latrobe Valley is becoming partially redundant wit the closure of existing generation located there.

So more generation to the east of Melbourne connected to the 500kV (yellow) ticks a lot of boxes in terms of using existing infrastructure and being within reasonable proximity of the capital city but not in it.

The 330kV is in practice transmitting output from the Snowy to Melbourne, whilst the 220kV primarily serves the purpose of connecting various other hydro, wind and solar generation along with supply to the regional towns and cities most notably Bendigo and Ballarat (both of which are over 100k people for those unfamiliar).

 

[sptrawler]

Also as long as water wasn't an issue, if at a later date more capacity was required, stringing more conductors wouldn't be a huge issue.
Clever smurf.
The only thing is, because it's clever, the politicians wont use it.
That is unless they think of it, a wink is as good as a nod to a blind man, if you know what I mean.
Could be letters of commendation smurf, if you play it right. Lol

 

[Smurf1976]

the variables used in the GENCOST report can be altered to produce some very differing results.

Absolutely.

People like me will insist that a system approach is the only accurate one for that reason.

It's just not possible to accurately assess nuclear, or anything else, without considering it in the context of the overall system.

To do it properly requires considering the overall generation fleet and the load upon it, noting that the former is absolutely negotiable and the latter can at least be shaped to some extent.

If I were to single out one thing as the biggest problem of the lot with all this in Australia it would be fragmentation. So many different companies all looking only at their little bit, be it a network or generation source, without considering the rest makes it far riskier than it ought to be to invest in anything specific.

 

[Smurf1976]

Your figure of 46% "hangers on" is intriguing, could you expand on that a bit, we need to know who the "bloodsuckers" are.

Some real numbers for SA.

I'm using Origin's prices here, whereas I used AGL's last time, simply because Origin's new rates effective 1 July have been announced and I have it in front of me.

Residential flat rate tariff anywhere in SA on the grid.

Daily supply charge = 108.669c
Price per kWh for first 10.9589 kWh per day = 45.826c / kWh
Price per kWh thereafter = 49.533c / kWh

Those rates include GST so first step is take that out and we get:
Daily supply charge = 98.79c
Price per kWh for first amount = 41.66c
Price per kWh thereafter = 45.03c

Now looking at network tariffs from ElectraNet (transmission) and SA Power Networks (distribution) for tariff RSR (Residential Single Rate):

Transmission = 4.81c / kWh

Distribution:
Fixed supply charge = 53.42c / day
Energy charge = 9.06c / kWh

Total transmission and distribution on RSR tariff:
Fixed supply charge = 53.42c / day
Energy charge = 13.87c / kWh

Now looking at the average wholesale spot energy price for this financial year, which given it's now 29 June is a effectively over in practice, it comes to 7.838c / kWh. Source = AEMO.

Now add 10% network losses, and for residential customers that's about right, and we get an energy price of 8.6218c / kWh.

Adding that all up it comes to 22.4918c / kWh for wholesale energy + transmission + distribution plus a daily charge of 53.42c. Remembering these prices are without GST.

So there's 45.37c / day or 46% of the daily supply charge paid by the consumer that isn't accounted for by generation, transmission or distribution.

And there's 19.1682c / kWh to 22.5382c / kWh, depending on the level of consumption, that isn't accounted for by generation, transmission or distribution. That being 46% to 50% of the amount paid by the consumer.

So things that aren't physical generation, transmission or networks are almost half the entire bill.

Where's it going? A combination of hedging the volatile wholesale price, legal compliance, "green" schemes which are not limited to actual renewable energy, the huge cost of just running a retailer - compliant billing systems alone run to ~$100 million or so, then there's a management team for each retailer, then there's the separation of metering to set that up as an industry in itself, and so on. All up, those overheads are costing almost as much as the actual physical supply does.

So if the concern is price to consumers then arguing about the means of generation is substantially missing the point since it's not the key problem. What the debate's doing is diverting attention from where it needs to be - on all those other costs.

As to where it's going, well for a start there's the hedging. That alone runs to just over 4c / kWh based on present prices + 10% losses + GST. So that's about 4.9c or 10 - 11% of what the consumer pays for retail electricity inclusive of GST. Now that hedging cost only exists, at all, due to the design of the market which intentionally creates volatile pricing. It's got absolutely zero to do with physics, engineering or any other physical requirement of running an electricity supply, it's a purely "artificial" construct. That's just one of the costs.

I'm not blaming the retailers to be clear, those costs are a function of the market design far more than they're anything within the control of retailers individually. The whole arrangement is simply high cost, and inefficient, it results in consumers paying a lot of money that isn't going into the physical infrastructure at all, it's being gobbled up in overheads.

 

[SirRumpole]

CSIRO chief executive says Peter Dutton's comments on energy report 'corrode public trust in science'​

CSIRO chief executive says Peter Dutton's comments on energy report 'corrode public trust in science'

CSIRO CEO Dr Doug Hilton is urging politicians not to undermine scientists in the energy debate, after finding himself in the political firing line.

www.abc.net.au

 

[qldfrog]

CSIRO chief executive says Peter Dutton's comments on energy report 'corrode public trust in science'​

CSIRO chief executive says Peter Dutton's comments on energy report 'corrode public trust in science'

CSIRO CEO Dr Doug Hilton is urging politicians not to undermine scientists in the energy debate, after finding himself in the political firing line.

www.abc.net.au

ABC....

 

[mullokintyre]

CSIRO chief executive says Peter Dutton's comments on energy report 'corrode public trust in science'​

CSIRO chief executive says Peter Dutton's comments on energy report 'corrode public trust in science'

CSIRO CEO Dr Doug Hilton is urging politicians not to undermine scientists in the energy debate, after finding himself in the political firing line.

www.abc.net.au

I guess that would be true if one regards politics and economics as science.
I don't recall Dutton questioning physics, electrical engineering theory, network theory or materials science.
Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

I guess that would be true if one regards politics and economics as science.
I don't recall Dutton questioning physics, electrical engineering theory, network theory or materials science.
Mick

Maybe, but scientific and engineering knowledge are required in order to work out how much engineering projects cost.

I'd rather trust a baker to know how much a "quality" loaf of bread costs than an accountant...

 

[sptrawler]

@ @Smurf1976 40_45cents/kWh is a lot, in WA it's about it's about 28cents and $1 a day supply charge.
We aren't doing so bad after all. Lol

 

[JohnDe]

Maybe, but scientific and engineering knowledge are required in order to work out how much engineering projects cost.

I'd rather trust a baker to know how much a "quality" loaf of bread costs than an accountant...

Then you had better not trust a molecular and cellular biologist to answer questions about nuclear power plants

 

[SirRumpole]

Then you had better not trust a molecular and cellular biologist to answer questions about nuclear power plants

He didn't write the report himself I'm sure.

 

[sptrawler]

Rubbish you have failed to debate the points I put up instead ramble about me and my beliefs both of which you know nothing of.

I am starting to wonder if you have ever seen a power station.

This is all you need to run a thermal Power Station, you probably have one as well.

 

[SirRumpole]

This is all you need to run a thermal Power Station, you probably have one as well.


View attachment 179697

Hey, you came out well in that photo sp.

 

[sptrawler]

I remember it well, wasn't one of my better shots, and now I'm 12 years older I'm a damn sight uglier, if that's possible.

 

[IFocus]

This is all you need to run a thermal Power Station, you probably have one as well.


View attachment 179697

Worked and was responsible for all the hard stuff on one of Australia's top 10 or 20 most hazardous sites what do you want to tell me about.

What SIL rating was the shutdown system?

 

[sptrawler]

Maybe start a thread on decarbonising the hazardous sites, could be interesting, we might learn something.
Writing permits on operational steam plant, was just part of the duties, shutdowns were easy, as the plant was off.
The engineers never put their hand up, to take over permits. Lol
Sounds like you've never been in a major thermal station.
The control room personel write all the permits and carry out all the isolations, for all disciplines and all contractors, from 330kv, to 20Mpa live stream and everything in between. Lol.
But it was a great job, never a dull moment.

 

[IFocus]

Maybe start a thread on decarbonising the hazardous sites, could be interesting, we might learn something.
Writing permits on operational steam plant, was just part of the duties, shutdowns were easy, as the plant was off.
The engineers never put their hand up, to take over permits. Lol
Sounds like you've never been in a major thermal station.
The control room personel write all the permits and carry out all the isolations, for all disciplines and all contractors, from 330kv, to 20Mpa live stream and everything in between. Lol.
But it was a great job, never a dull moment.

I am an expert walked through South Fremantle station once.

Almost forgot also walked through Worsley station as well one of the other EIT's was keen to show me a tag, said "disconnected this wire to stop alarm dont know what it does" true story makes me an expert.

 

[JohnDe]

Britain's new PM seems to be a supporter of nuclear energy -

Britain has had nuclear power stations since 1956 and Starmer is not treading softly on nuclear. His policy states: “Labour will end a decade of dithering that has seen the Conservatives duck decisions on nuclear power. We will ensure the long-term security of the sector, extending the lifetime of existing plants.” He goes on to say new nuclear power stations and small modular reactors will play an important role in helping the country achieve energy security and clean power, while securing thousands of good, skilled jobs.​

‘Puerile nuclear’ debate makes us look like fools. What will our allies think?

In opposing Peter Dutton’s proposal for a pro-nuclear national policy, the Albanese government has exposed itself as hopelessly ignorant of overseas trends in nuclear power. This is most apparent when we view the politics of our two AUKUS partners, the UK and US.

Along with 13 countries of the European Union, the UK is part of a “pro-nuclear bloc” working towards implementation of nuclear energy as a major part of their energy strategies. A statement released in March called for stronger EU policies on nuclear energy, urging EU chiefs in Brussels to recognise the importance of nuclear power in the energy mix, and invest in further concrete projects and funding.

A bipartisan approach to nuclear energy has become apparent in the UK, with the then opposition leader, Sir Keir Starmer, calling for nuclear power to be a critical part of the UK’s energy mix. He laid out Labour Party policy to push forward nuclear as a way of boosting energy security, cutting costs for consumers and creating jobs.

Meanwhile, the now vanquished Conservative Party also firmed up its support for nuclear power. Whereas two years ago former prime minister Rishi Sunak told his citizens that renewables were the solution to climate change, in January he spelt out a pro-nuclear government position. He said the government’s latest support for the nuclear industry was “the next step in our commitment to nuclear power, which puts us on course to achieve net zero by 2050 in a measured and sustainable way”.

Sunak went on to say: “Nuclear is the perfect antidote to the energy challenges facing Britain – it’s green, cheaper in the long term and will ensure the UK’s energy security for the long term”.

Looking ahead five years, UK nuclear policy is now set by policies of the new Labour government, as laid out in pre-election documents. These state a goal for clean power by 2030, utilising a list of green power technologies together with nuclear power.

Britain has had nuclear power stations since 1956 and Starmer is not treading softly on nuclear. His policy states: “Labour will end a decade of dithering that has seen the Conservatives duck decisions on nuclear power. We will ensure the long-term security of the sector, extending the lifetime of existing plants.” He goes on to say new nuclear power stations and small modular reactors will play an important role in helping the country achieve energy security and clean power, while securing thousands of good, skilled jobs.

In congratulating Starmer on becoming PM, Dutton said “there is much Australia can learn” from the UK’s nuclear policy.

What’s important from Australia’s point of view is that recognition of the need for increasing nuclear power in the UK economy is politically bipartisan and has progressed well beyond the puerile name-calling and cartoon pictures of three-eyed fish, which have characterised our local debate during the past month.

Looking to our other AUKUS partner, the US Senate last month overwhelmingly voted (88-2) for new legislation to accelerate the permitting and creation of new incentives for advanced nuclear reactor technologies. This legislation is highly significant to our local debate in that it too embraces bipartisan support, illustrated by a declaration from the Senate committee chair, Democrat senator Tom Carper, who described it as “a major victory for our climate and American energy security”. A high-ranking Republican member of that same committee observed that “congress worked together to recognise the importance of nuclear energy to America’s future and got the job done”. It is expected that President Joe Biden will swiftly sign this legislation into US law.

Our AUKUS partnership, with its collaboration on nuclear-powered submarines, also addresses two other objections frequently raised against nuclear power in Australia; they being the lack of a qualified workforce and the question of storage of nuclear waste. Both these matters will be resolved as part of the military alliance and hence need not be an impediment to the development of civilian nuclear power.

Within Australia, our government’s contributions to such debate are characterised by Anthony Albanese saying nuclear energy will “drive up power prices, lead to more energy insecurity and lead to less jobs being created”. Likewise, Treasurer Jim Chalmers has said “it might be the dumbest policy ever put forward by a major party”. It appears that the uninformed and myopic views of our present government leaders are seriously lagging behind policies and legislation supported by both sides of the political divide in our AUKUS partners, countries with whom we aspire to work with as equals.

A prerequisite to such a partnership will presumably be an ability to conduct adult conversations on energy matters affecting our industry, trade and foreign policy for the rest of this century. Or perhaps this doesn’t matter to our leaders in Canberra?

Michael Asten is a retired professor of geophysics. He is a regular speaker on natural cycles of climate change and options for energy security.

 

[sptrawler]

Britain's new PM seems to be a supporter of nuclear energy -

Britain has had nuclear power stations since 1956 and Starmer is not treading softly on nuclear. His policy states: “Labour will end a decade of dithering that has seen the Conservatives duck decisions on nuclear power. We will ensure the long-term security of the sector, extending the lifetime of existing plants.” He goes on to say new nuclear power stations and small modular reactors will play an important role in helping the country achieve energy security and clean power, while securing thousands of good, skilled jobs.​

Not everyone is as ridiculously obstinate as Australia, we may end up either the last bastion of stupidity, or the lucky country that delivered Neverland. Time will tell.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/south-africa-procure-additional-2500-mw-nuclear-power-minister-2023-12-12/

December 12, 2023
South Africa will launch a bidding process for an extra 2,500 megawatts (MW) of nuclear power by March, as the country attempts to tackle its worst power outages on record.
Businesses and households have been left without power for up to 10 hours on some days this year, hitting South Africa's economic output and prompting plans to boost generation.
However, officials said on Tuesday that the new nuclear power procurement is not a short-term fix, as the first units are only expected to start operating in a decade.