Nuclear Power For Australia?

[sptrawler]

French nuclear giant scraps SMR plans due to soaring costs, will start over​

"It’s the latest problem to hit SMR technology, which the federal Coalition wants to roll out in Australia – starting with reactors in South Australia and Western Australia – as part of its goal of keeping coal plants open, building more gas, stopping renewables and putting clean energy hopes on nuclear.

The federal Coalition says it can have the first SMR up and running by 2035, but no SMRs have been built in the western world, and none have even got a licence to be built.

The closest to reach that landmark, the US-based NuScale, abandoned its plans after massive cost overruns and push back from its customers, who refused to pay high prices."

French nuclear giant scraps SMR plans due to soaring costs, will start over | RenewEconomy

French nuclear giant has scrapped its plans for small modular reactors, and decided to start over after customers raised concerns about costs.

reneweconomy.com.au

Do you get paid for for this?
It's a bit like Bas in the climate change thread.

You profess to be intelligent and being from an electrical background, I give you the benefit of knowing you actually do understand the issues surrounding supply and demand.

So why do you keep trying to decry the obvious benefits of small high temperature reactors, if they can be developed, we aren't wasting any money on them and we obviously wouldn't spend any money on unproven technology, so why all the hype?

Imagine if all the Otto cycle believers, were asked about Brayton cycle engine, they would have sounded just like you.

But then again you were brought up on the diesel cycle and a good dose of ideology.

Now going back to what will replace gas as firming, when gas is no longer acceptable, we will go to the renewable sector posts.

Just keep pushing the barrow sunshine, the problems haven't even started yet.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/snowy-2-0s-updated-business-case-is-flawed-again/

Snowy 2.0 Doesn’t Stack Up

Snowy 2.0, the 2,200 megawatt pumped hydro battery, was announced on 15 March 2017.

npansw.org.au

Snowy 2.0 will not produce nearly as much electricity as claimed. We must hit the pause button

New analysis revealed less than half the extra pumped hydro capacity promised by Snowy 2.0 can be delivered. There is now overwhelming evidence the project should be put on hold.

theconversation.com

Five years on, Snowy 2.0 emerges as a $10 billion white elephant

There is no cause for celebration with this birthday. Snowy 2.0, having blown out to $10 billion-plus from the original $2 billion estimate, will be a burden on taxpayers, cost households more in electricity charges and damage the Kosciuszko National Park.

www.smh.com.au

"Australia's biggest engineering debacle:" Snowy 2.0 costs double again to reported $12bn | RenewEconomy

Experts call for an independent review of Snowy 2.0 as costs of the controversial project are reported to have doubled again to $12 billion, not including transmission.

reneweconomy.com.au

IMO you are way too invested in ideological thinking, rather than personal critical path thinking, time to move on from your working days IMO.
You have to realise you don't matter any more, the same as me and start to think logically.

Let's be honest who knows what will work, you still haven't said how many Snowy 2.0 size pumped hydro systems will be required, yet you can knock the crap out of nuclear, go figure.

And honestly I would prefer there was no nuclear, but if there isn't another option, hey I want my lights on, or else I would have to move onto the oldest sons block and that wouldn't be fun.

 

[IFocus]

Do you get paid for for this?
It's a bit like Bas in the climate change thread.

You profess to be intelligent and being from an electrical background, I give you the benefit of knowing you actually do understand the issues surrounding supply and demand.

So why do you keep trying to decry the obvious benefits of small high temperature reactors, if they can be developed, we aren't wasting any money on them and we obviously wouldn't spend any money on unproven technology, so why all the hype?

Imagine if all the Otto cycle believers, were asked about Brayton cycle engine, they would have sounded just like you.

But then again you were brought up on the diesel cycle and a good dose of ideology.

Now going back to what will replace gas as firming, when gas is no longer acceptable, we will go to the renewable sector posts.

Just keep pushing the barrow sunshine, the problems haven't even started yet.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/snowy-2-0s-updated-business-case-is-flawed-again/

Snowy 2.0 Doesn’t Stack Up

Snowy 2.0, the 2,200 megawatt pumped hydro battery, was announced on 15 March 2017.

npansw.org.au

Snowy 2.0 will not produce nearly as much electricity as claimed. We must hit the pause button

New analysis revealed less than half the extra pumped hydro capacity promised by Snowy 2.0 can be delivered. There is now overwhelming evidence the project should be put on hold.

theconversation.com

Five years on, Snowy 2.0 emerges as a $10 billion white elephant

There is no cause for celebration with this birthday. Snowy 2.0, having blown out to $10 billion-plus from the original $2 billion estimate, will be a burden on taxpayers, cost households more in electricity charges and damage the Kosciuszko National Park.

www.smh.com.au

"Australia's biggest engineering debacle:" Snowy 2.0 costs double again to reported $12bn | RenewEconomy

Experts call for an independent review of Snowy 2.0 as costs of the controversial project are reported to have doubled again to $12 billion, not including transmission.

reneweconomy.com.au

IMO you are way too invested in ideological thinking, rather than personal critical path thinking, time to move on from your working days IMO.
You have to realise you don't matter any more, the same as me and start to think logically.

Let's be honest who knows what will work, you still haven't said how many Snowy 2.0 size pumped hydro systems will be required, yet you can knock the crap out of nuclear, go figure.

And honestly I would prefer there was no nuclear, but if there isn't another option, hey I want my lights on, or else I would have to move onto the oldest sons block and that wouldn't be fun.

Not sure what your problem is nothing in the article that's not already known if you follow SMR's, just though others may find interesting that were not aware making it obvious that SMR's are realistically 10 to 20 years away from being comercial if ever.

 

[sptrawler]

Not sure what your problem is nothing in the article that's not already known if you follow SMR's, just though others may find interesting that were not aware making it obvious that SMR's are realistically 10 to 20 years away from being comercial if ever.

And I asked many, many posts ago how many Snowy 2.0's would be required to achieve net zero by 2050, you still don't seem to be concerned by that.
Maybe you should try and post some positive posts, for how we are going to achieve zero emissions, than just criticising posts that suggest concepts that actually may achieve it.
Just saying, being a surfer they are normally upbeat people, maybe give us some ideas where the non emitting generation firming is coming from BRO.

 

[IFocus]

And I asked many, many posts ago how many Snowy 2.0's would be required to achieve net zero by 2050, you still don't seem to be concerned by that.
Maybe you should try and post some positive posts for how we are going to achieve zero emissions, than just criticising posts that may actually eventually may achieve it.
Just saying, being a surfer they are normally upbeat people, maybe give us some ideas where the non emitting generation firming is coming from BRO.

Again no idea what you are on about just pointing out SMR's are nowhere near comercial if ever simple fact nothing more.

As for net Zero ATM I dont think it will happen, Labor will get kicked out, Coalition wont build renewables, Hydrogen may help gas will fill in until it runs out, nuclear (any tech) won't fill the void any time soon that includes 2050.

Climate realistically will get very nasty if the world continue on as it is.

That could all change tomorrow if some wonder source discovery gets made maybe Elon will step-up and make something instead of going to Mars.

 

[sptrawler]

Again no idea what you are on about just pointing out SMR's are nowhere near comercial if ever simple fact nothing more.

Cop out

As for net Zero ATM I dont think it will happen, Labor will get kicked out, Coalition wont build renewables, Hydrogen may help gas will fill in until it runs out, nuclear (any tech) won't fill the void any time soon that includes 2050.

Hydrogen won't happen with renewables in Australia, Twiggy forrest has already given up on Australia, renewables won't have the energy density.
IMO China will develop high temperature SMR's which will make hydrogen production cheap and we will become a Bali.IMO

I have four kids and 8 grandkids and I'm not happy with what we are leaving them with and I don't think either party is putting up anything that resembles a future.

You seem to think , well it is better than what the opposition would do, but the reality is most kids can't afford to rent a house, would it be better if the opposition was in ? Who knows, probably not.

But they aren't in, so the Government wears it, like it or not, house prices are stupid, rents are stupid, jobs are going to go down the drain unless there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Waxing on and talking green can dreaming, isn't going to fix $hit.

Someone needs to take over the narrative and drive it, rather than trying to appease it IMO.

That's what Governments are elected to do and the reason most are getting thrown out for not doing.

 

[Smurf1976]

As for net Zero ATM I dont think it will happen, Labor will get kicked out, Coalition wont build renewables, Hydrogen may help gas will fill in until it runs out, nuclear (any tech) won't fill the void any time soon that includes 2050.

Climate realistically will get very nasty if the world continue on as it is.

I don't for a moment thing net zero will happen, but I can't see any real political link to it given no party has a serious plan. Labor has some interim goals for 2030 yes but it doesn't have much beyond that.

There's a house being built on vacant land near me at the moment. All they've done thus far is the slab and frame but would anyone be willing to place bets on what energy equipment goes in?

My bet's on a black roof, downlights throughout, ducted reverse cycle A/C, electric oven, gas cooktop, gas hot water. Reason - that's what's been put into every other house I've spotted under construction in SA thus far. Only thing that varies is the occasional one gets split A/C rather than ducted, and some add a gas fireplace. I've yet to see one without gas though.

Point being we're locking in fossil fuels for decades to come, meanwhile pretending otherwise.

 

[SirRumpole]

Do you get paid for for this?
It's a bit like Bas in the climate change thread.

You profess to be intelligent and being from an electrical background, I give you the benefit of knowing you actually do understand the issues surrounding supply and demand.

So why do you keep trying to decry the obvious benefits of small high temperature reactors, if they can be developed, we aren't wasting any money on them and we obviously wouldn't spend any money on unproven technology, so why all the hype?

Imagine if all the Otto cycle believers, were asked about Brayton cycle engine, they would have sounded just like you.

But then again you were brought up on the diesel cycle and a good dose of ideology.

Now going back to what will replace gas as firming, when gas is no longer acceptable, we will go to the renewable sector posts.

Just keep pushing the barrow sunshine, the problems haven't even started yet.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/snowy-2-0s-updated-business-case-is-flawed-again/

Snowy 2.0 Doesn’t Stack Up

Snowy 2.0, the 2,200 megawatt pumped hydro battery, was announced on 15 March 2017.

npansw.org.au

Snowy 2.0 will not produce nearly as much electricity as claimed. We must hit the pause button

New analysis revealed less than half the extra pumped hydro capacity promised by Snowy 2.0 can be delivered. There is now overwhelming evidence the project should be put on hold.

theconversation.com

Five years on, Snowy 2.0 emerges as a $10 billion white elephant

There is no cause for celebration with this birthday. Snowy 2.0, having blown out to $10 billion-plus from the original $2 billion estimate, will be a burden on taxpayers, cost households more in electricity charges and damage the Kosciuszko National Park.

www.smh.com.au

"Australia's biggest engineering debacle:" Snowy 2.0 costs double again to reported $12bn | RenewEconomy

Experts call for an independent review of Snowy 2.0 as costs of the controversial project are reported to have doubled again to $12 billion, not including transmission.

reneweconomy.com.au

IMO you are way too invested in ideological thinking, rather than personal critical path thinking, time to move on from your working days IMO.
You have to realise you don't matter any more, the same as me and start to think logically.

Let's be honest who knows what will work, you still haven't said how many Snowy 2.0 size pumped hydro systems will be required, yet you can knock the crap out of nuclear, go figure.

And honestly I would prefer there was no nuclear, but if there isn't another option, hey I want my lights on, or else I would have to move onto the oldest sons block and that wouldn't be fun.

Bloody hell, if a country like France with long nuclear experience e can't make SMR's work, why would we be able to do it?


Snowy 2.0 might have blown out, but at least it will be around a lot longer than reactor, and with no waste management. But you are right that the government hasn't got a firm plan for firming, so let's see what Bowen has to say about that.

 

[sptrawler]

Bloody hell, if a country like France with long nuclear experience e can't make SMR's work, why would we be able to do it?


Snowy 2.0 might have blown out, but at least it will be around a lot longer than reactor, and with no waste management. But you are right that the government hasn't got a firm plan for firming, so let's see what Bowen has to say about that.

How many times do we have to repeat that SMR's aren't developed yet and may not get developed.
China is the best bet, as money is no object, the U.K is trying, but no doubt they will run out of money as usual.

The East Coast wouldn't probably use SMR's anyway IMO, the grid size would suit a few large reactors as base load, not SMR's.

Hydro is the way to go and with the dividing range and Victorian Alps, there are no doubt plenty of suitable sites, so announce some and get moving on with it, how long do they think the coal will run for? Obviously forever.
At least the nuclear debate has put the spotlight on the underlying issue, that needs addressing to give certainty to where things are going.

 

[SirRumpole]

And I asked many, many posts ago how many Snowy 2.0's would be required to achieve net zero by 2050, you still don't seem to be concerned by that.

I think net zero has gone out of the window now, it's more about keeping the lights on and power prices affordable.

 

[sptrawler]

I think net zero has gone out of the window now, it's more about keeping the lights on and power prices affordable.

I just think the Government needs to explain where it is all going, companies need to be sure of what the power system is going to look like and what their obligations will be, if they are going to plan ahead.
Three years ago, there was all this fanfare about battery materials and developing industries around renewables, now we have a whole sector closed down and very likely others will follow, unless some sort of direction is put in place.
Only my opinion, but i would think there is a gas sector, a coal sector, a nickel sector and a lithium sector wondering where to from here.

The Safeguard Mechanism reforms comes into effect soon, I would think, so a lot of companies will be doing the sums. Interesting times, when you consider we are actually paying the biggest poluters to keep running.

Australia makes biggest carbon polluters curb emissions

The Australian Parliament has created landmark new laws that will make the nation’s biggest greenhouse gas polluters reduce their emissions or pay for carbon credits.

apnews.com

Three more sleeps and the Grandkids go back to school.

 

[JohnDe]

I posted this in the Hydrogen thread, but it also concerns nuclear energy. Watch from the 7:30 minute mark

Watch from the 7:30 minute mark

 

[sptrawler]

I posted this in the Hydrogen thread, but it also concerns nuclear energy.

Yes this is what I have being saying in the future generation thread, renewables are great and there is every chance they will work in Australia.
The problem is that it is like all gambles, where you are all in, if it doesn't work and there are blackouts deep $hit that is not easily sorted.
Germany has got the benefit of interconnectors, to several other countries electrical supply, their decisions will be based on the cost of buying their supply, ours choices are much more limited.
It will be interesting, that's for sure, especially if we are trying to get our manufacturing base up, power costs are a major component and our other input costs are already high.
Sooner or later the correct choices and path will become obvious, Twiggy Forrest has realised that he won't be competitive with the hydrogen path, at this point in time.

 

[mullokintyre]

There has been a lot of talk about the building of Nuclear power plants being a no go because it would take too long to build them.
below is a chart I found listing the South Korean Nuclear power plans.
Note that the larger ones took upwards of 9 years to complete.
The slightly smaller ones were around 4 to 5 years.

The most recent starts are larger than previous plants, but they give no completion date.

There must be a very good reason why we as a nation are unable to follow the lead set by other countries.
But thats politics for ya.
Mick

 

[sptrawler]

There has been a lot of talk about the building of Nuclear power plants being a no go because it would take too long to build them.
below is a chart I found listing the South Korean Nuclear power plans.
Note that the larger ones took upwards of 9 years to complete.
The slightly smaller ones were around 4 to 5 years.

View attachment 181470

The most recent starts are larger than previous plants, but they give no completion date.


View attachment 181471
There must be a very good reason why we as a nation are unable to follow the lead set by other countries.
But thats politics for ya.
Mick

There is a lot more money for the privates, in renewables, than nuclear.

Off the shelf batteries, solar panels and wind generators, with a Govt guaranteed return is nothing to be sneezed at.

Nuclear will cost a lot and will have to run for several years before it breaks even, then there is all the regulation and manning, training etc, there isn't anything attractive about it for the private sector.

So nuclear will no doubt have to be Government owned and operated, not something the Govt likes doing and upsetting the privates isn't what politicians go into politics for.

 

[JohnDe]

So nuclear will no doubt have to be Government owned and operated, not something the Govt likes doing and upsetting the privates isn't what politicians go into politics for.

I think that’s what the LNP are contemplating.

• In short: The Coalition has unveiled seven sites in five states where it proposes to build nuclear power plants if it is elected.
• The plants would be government-owned and the Coalition has promised they would be operational by 2035-2037, a timeline doubted by many experts.
• What's next? The Coalition has not revealed the price tag or whether it will provide incentives to communities hosting plants.

Dutton reveals seven sites for proposed nuclear power plants

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has told his Coalition colleagues he will go to the next election promising to build seven nuclear power stations.

www.abc.net.au

 

[SirRumpole]

There must be a very good reason why we as a nation are unable to follow the lead set by other countries.

Because we are technologically backward, can only train barristas and social workers and we basically decided decades ago that it is cheaper to outsource cheap labour from overseas than to educate them here.

Plus the ban on nuclear means that most of our scientists that want a career I n that area have gone elsewhere.

Good enough reasons?

 

[sptrawler]

I think that’s what the LNP are contemplating.

• In short: The Coalition has unveiled seven sites in five states where it proposes to build nuclear power plants if it is elected.
• The plants would be government-owned and the Coalition has promised they would be operational by 2035-2037, a timeline doubted by many experts.
• What's next? The Coalition has not revealed the price tag or whether it will provide incentives to communities hosting plants.

Dutton reveals seven sites for proposed nuclear power plants

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has told his Coalition colleagues he will go to the next election promising to build seven nuclear power stations.

www.abc.net.au

I would assume the nuclear plants would be sized to negate the requirement for ongoing gas firming and also make it unnecessary to install more large scale pumped hydro like Snowy 2.0.
So it is more a case of which energy source people want to use.

The one issue I think leans toward nuclear IMO, is it is easier to scale up at a later date, if there is a rapid increase in expected load growth.

Say for example there was a rapid devaluation of the Aussie dollar and all of a sudden it was competitive to manufacture here, if the gas generation and supply is stretched as it looks like it will be, it doesn't give much wriggle room for rapid expansion and dams are a slow build, plus renewables will be already deployed enmass and large expansion would be slow.

The above example also applies if say a war broke out and rapid manufacturing capacity was required, all major manufacturing requires a lot of power, supplying it quickly in large chunks isnt easy, especially if your grid is already stretched and fragile. If the underlying base demand is provided by nuclear, it frees up gas reserves, which means less emissions and more fuel flexibility.

Whichever way it goes it will work out IMO, because electricity is the most important infrastructure we have, so everyone is happy and politicians can talk BS endlessly, until the $hit hits the fan and there is no power.

The politicians will be working on idea they will be long gone when the proverbial hits the fan, how many covid leaders are still leaders post covid and how many times are the current politicians saying that was the last leader?

Nothing much changes. Lol
Let's be honest it wont affect us very much, it may affect our Grandkids hugely, whichever way it goes.

Eventually nuclear as we know it will no longer be available, uranium will run out.
By then solar may be 1000 times more powerful or a new power source may come along, that's how we evolve, as long as we are pragmatic, rather than idealistically driven.
That's the real issue.

 

[Smurf1976]

Only my opinion, but i would think there is a gas sector, a coal sector, a nickel sector and a lithium sector wondering where to from here.

Add steel, aluminium and a few others to that list as well as every remaining manufacturer.

 

[Smurf1976]

I think that’s what the LNP are contemplating.

From my perspective as someone with access to a lot of data, they're actually going a step further.

If we go back 30 years then electricity was supplied by state owned monopolies which, broadly, were run with the intent of covering costs but with profit not being a direct objective. The profit came indirectly via the growth of energy and the economy generally pushed along by cheap energy.

Then we took a step to the political "Right" with the idea of a market based approach, with profit as an objective and, except in the states that rejected the idea, mostly private ownership.

What the Coalition seems to be proposing is to now take two steps to the political "Left". That is not simply government ownership but socialising a portion of the cost as well. In that model electricity becomes part user-pays, the rest just another budget item funded from consolidated revenue.

So purely on this issue the politics is interesting to say the least and I'm unsure what to really make of it beyond thinking it signals a broader shift is underway in politics and society generally.

 

[JohnDe]

There has been a lot of talk about the building of Nuclear power plants being a no go because it would take too long to build them.
below is a chart I found listing the South Korean Nuclear power plans.
Note that the larger ones took upwards of 9 years to complete.
The slightly smaller ones were around 4 to 5 years.

View attachment 181470

The most recent starts are larger than previous plants, but they give no completion date.


View attachment 181471
There must be a very good reason why we as a nation are unable to follow the lead set by other countries.
But thats politics for ya.
Mick

Looks like a lot of exaggeration from the anti-nuclear brigade.

Japan's build time for a nuclear power station is 5 years, that is pretty good.