Nuclear Power For Australia?

[JohnDe]

I wonder what else will change.

Who seriously thought that we could compete against China and build solar panels at competitive prices and technologically equal including all the ongoing improvements to the manufacturing process and panels?

Maybe nuclear energy is more plausible now that realisation of real-world facts is biting.

"It took less than six months for the Albanese government and some of Australia’s biggest climate investors to change their mind on a solar panel manufacturing plunge."​

The government and the project backers discovered the enormous costs in challenging China in the areas where it dominates the market and slashes prices to keep others out.​

Government retreats on solar panels as China fires up

Given the base facts were known six months ago, the speed of the reversal of the decision to make solar panels in Australia has shocked those who believed that the “Made in Australia” plan could be based on climate investing.

Already, BHP has mothballed its nickel plans because the nickel market is being flooded with low-cost Indonesian nickel funded by the Chinese.

China has vowed to increase investment in manufacturing products such as solar panels, batteries and electric cars, despite the losses because of low prices.

If Donald Trump is elected US president, he will take on China and use tariffs to thwart the Chinese.

What Kamala Harris will do if she wins is not clear.

As I will describe below, China is also set to make the “Made in Australia” investment in rare earths costly and has announced a big increase in Chinese-funded rare earths production.

“Made in Australia” is also in trouble on another front.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen at SunDrive Solar in 2023. Picture: NCA Newswire /Gaye Gerard

As I explained on Wednesday, the nation is set for a substantial fall in manufacturing as the Victorian government starves manufacturers of assured gas (by stopping gas developments) and imposing high taxes. The commonwealth is also harming manufacturing through its industrial relations legislation.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan has been fully briefed on the effects of what she is doing but has other priorities. The Albanese government decision to direct its controversial $1bn Solar Sunshot incentives program towards taking solar panel technology group SunDrive into panel manufacturing was risky, given what is happening in the global solar market.

The announcement was made by Albanese, Industry Minister Ed Husic and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, but it was Bowen who set out the strategy most clearly.

“A lot of people ask me why don’t we make more solar panels in Australia, and we should,” he said. “And so Solar Sunshot will support making solar panels and solar cells in Australia, and as a result, a great Australian company called Sun Drive, that makes the most efficient solar panels in the world, have now said they will move to open a new factory on the site of the old Liddell power station in Muswellbrook and that new factory will employ more people than used to be employed at the Liddell power station.

“So there is a lot more to do, but we are going to bring back solar panel manufacturing to Australia and Solar Sunshot is going to be the policy that gets it done for us”, Bowen declared.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen and Treasurer Jim Chalmers at a press conference at Ampol Oil refinery at Lytton on Tuesday. Picture: Lachie Millard

The announcement surprised the solar panel world because of the strong group backing SunDrive, including Atlassian founder Mike Cannon-Brookes, venture capital groups Blackbird and Main Sequence, Canva founder Cameron Adams, former PM Malcolm Turnbull and Tesla chair Robyn Denholm, plus the federal government-backed Australian Renewable Energy Agency and Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

SunDrive this week announced a “strategic review” to focus on developing technology to transform panel manufacture rather than producing the physical panels.

Significant retrenchments took place as a result of the reversal. It was a sensible decision, and I suspect the wiser heads among the shareholders prevailed.

In rare earths, China is planning to maintain its domination of supply and treatment by expanding in Africa in association with Australia’s Peak Rare Earths company.

China’s Shenghe group has acquired half of Peak Rare Earth’s $US300m Tanzania project, and China effectively finances the project. The Chinese cover most or all of Peak Rare Earth’s capital outlays.

Chinese workers install solar panels at a photovoltaic power station in Huaian city, east China's Jiangsu province. Picture: Imaginechina

This year, the Chinese have stepped up production of rare earths and the prices have plunged, sending many rare earth company shares lower and making it difficult for new developments – exactly what the Chinese are aiming to do.

The Australian government’s investment in rare earths will face similar hazards to those it encountered in solar panels, but in rare earths we are clearly supported by the US, which is determined to be independent of the Chinese.

The economics of each project only makes sense if the US and/or other buyers are prepared to pay above the market for the materials they require to ensure independence from the Chinese.

In just the same way, the solar panel manufacturing plunge only made sense if buyers were prepared to pay above the market for the SunDrive solar panel technology, which was unique.

It produced better panels than those made by the Chinese.

But once again, buyers must be prepared to pay for the better technology to justify the manufacturing investment.

 

[JohnDe]

Watch and comment -

 

[Sean K]

I guess someone doesn't want us to see all the available information.

Are we going to start burning books soon?

Dozens of Facebook users promoting pro-nuclear lobby group Nuclear for Australia’s content have had posts removed for being “misleading”, triggering claims some people are trying to “suppress vital information that could change the future of our country”.

Months out from the federal election – in which nuclear will be a key issue – and after anti-nuclear groups had their content blocked or accounts temporarily deleted across social media platforms, Nuclear for Australia has received 44 complaints from supporters who have had posts taken down.

The users had shared a Nuclear for Australia petition to legalise nuclear energy and a video interview between the organisation’s founder, Will Shackel, and businessman Dick Smith supporting the energy source in June and July.

But a Meta spokeswoman played down the issue, denying it had censored the two posts The Australian was able to share with it.

“Based on the information available, we believe the content was removed due to a technical error by our automated systems. The error was identified and fixed in late July and all impacted posts were reinstated,” the spokeswoman said.

 

[sptrawler]

As I said earlier, if anyone can move nuclear technology forward China can.
It may be hype, or may be advancing technology, time will tell, but people should stay open minded.

China prepares to change world with introduction of revolutionary nuclear power station: 'This design significantly reduces the chances of meltdowns'

It's part of an effort that ramps up through 2035, when China plans to have 150 advanced reactors.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Smurf1976]

Watch and comment -

The big problem is at the 36 minute mark.

All the scenarios, both renewable and nuclear, are financially uncompetitive in a situation where the majority of electrical load going forward is price sensitive.

Simply going down either path does not deliver good outcomes. That's the elephant in the room being missed by the entire debate. Changing the means of generation is, of itself, nowhere near sufficient to address the fundamental problems. There's a lot more than that which needs to change if an overall successful outcome is to be achieved.

Because no consumer cares about the components of the cost. What they care about is the total.

 

[sptrawler]

The big problem is at the 36 minute mark.

All the scenarios, both renewable and nuclear, are financially uncompetitive in a situation where the majority of electrical load going forward is price sensitive.

Simply going down either path does not deliver good outcomes. That's the elephant in the room being missed by the entire debate. Changing the means of generation is, of itself, nowhere near sufficient to address the fundamental problems. There's a lot more than that which needs to change if an overall successful outcome is to be achieved.

Because no consumer cares about the components of the cost. What they care about is the total.

The other elephant in the room IMO is, the whole debate appears to revolve around a fixed load, which is the current system load.
But the load is constantly increasing and we are already looking as though the current load is going to be difficult to cover.
I may be wrong, but I would be surprised if the system load in 2030 will be the same as in 2024.
Also if everything was A OK, W.A and the Eastern States wouldn't be paying coal generators to keep running, that is just simple logics.
What happens if by some stroke of magic, the built in Australia idea does happen lol, I know, but if it did how the hell would we power it.
Even Twiggy has worked out that will never happen, the Govt needs to realise this isn't a game, or a fairy tale you tell the kids before bedtime, it's the kids future.
Blowing up some superannution money can be covered, blowing up the energy system will crush our economy, ask South Africa.
I'm not knocking South Africa, just saying when the energy supply goes to $hit so does your economy and what happened there seems to be a reflection of our run down system.
Get on with it, or get another plan happening IMO.

South Africa’s electricity crisis: a series of failures over 30 years have left a dim legacy

After 30 years of democracy, South Africa is in a deep electricity crisis which can only be solved if the government moves speedily to set up solar and wind plants.

theconversation.com

 

[sptrawler]

Japan to launch world's first steady-state nuclear fusion reactor

Helical Fusion, a Tokyo-based startup, is developing a groundbreaking steady-state fusion reactor that could provide limitless clean energy.

interestingengineering.com

 

[SirRumpole]

Japan to launch world's first steady-state nuclear fusion reactor

Helical Fusion, a Tokyo-based startup, is developing a groundbreaking steady-state fusion reactor that could provide limitless clean energy.

interestingengineering.com

"That could provide limitless clean energy"

In about 30 years...

 

[sptrawler]

"That could provide limitless clean energy"

In about 30 years...

Yes another start up with a blue sky narrative.

 

[sptrawler]

This is the technology that has the most potential IMO.
If this project gets up and running, China will be the hydrogen superpower, Australia and renewable H2 will be a distant dream, from this green can dreaming period of time.
The quantities that will be produced as a by product of generating electricity will be huge.

China to build first-ever thorium molten salt nuclear power station in Gobi Desert

China plans to build the world's first-ever nuclear power station using molten salt as the fuel carrier and coolant, and thorium as a fuel source — revealed in a since-deleted report posted on the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics website.

www.abc.net.au

 

[sptrawler]

France is sticking to the nuclear theme apparently.
Maybe they have worked out they may be able to poach manufacturing off Germany, or make a lot of money supplying Germany electricity to support their manufacturing base.
Interesting times.

France drops renewables targets, prioritises nuclear in new energy bill

Critics are deriding as a step backward a new French energy bill that favours the further development of nuclear power and avoids setting targets for solar and wind power and other renewables.

www.france24.com

 

[sptrawler]

Nuclear fusion: The US led in this clean energy race for decades. Now China is in position to win | CNN

US companies are worried they’re losing their lead in mastering this near-limitless form of energy, as new fusion companies sprout across China, and Beijing outspends DC.

amp.cnn.com

 

[sptrawler]

Phoenix rising.

Three Mile Island is reopening and selling its power to Microsoft | CNN Business

Three Mile Island, the site of worst nuclear disaster in the United States, is reopening and will sell the power to Microsoft for its AI efforts.

amp.cnn.com

 

[Smurf1976]

I think one thing that's widely missed in the public debate is that if you want nuclear to succeed then it requires essentially the same things that renewables need in order to succeed.

It needs electricity, not gas, to be the fuel of choice for homes and businesses.

It benefits enormously if that electricity, particularly when used for water heating, is a controlled load.

It benefits from any electrification of transport.

It needs a means of coping with above average demand or above average generation outages in an economic manner and in both cases sensible options for that are the same - hydro or gas turbines.

It needs a strong transmission system albeit for different reasons.

Etc. A lot of what's said is political hot air but the real requirements to make nuclear work well are the same as the requirements to make renewables work well. They are, of course, also the same requirements to optimise coal. That being so, doing those things is essentially a risk free approach, it's the right decision no matter what is done on the generation side.

 

[sptrawler]

I think one thing that's widely missed in the public debate is that if you want nuclear to succeed then it requires essentially the same things that renewables need in order to succeed.

It needs electricity, not gas, to be the fuel of choice for homes and businesses.

It benefits enormously if that electricity, particularly when used for water heating, is a controlled load.

It benefits from any electrification of transport.

It needs a means of coping with above average demand or above average generation outages in an economic manner and in both cases sensible options for that are the same - hydro or gas turbines.

It needs a strong transmission system albeit for different reasons.

Etc. A lot of what's said is political hot air but the real requirements to make nuclear work well are the same as the requirements to make renewables work well. They are, of course, also the same requirements to optimise coal. That being so, doing those things is essentially a risk free approach, it's the right decision no matter what is done on the generation side.

Absolutely smurf, IMO it is more likely that a hybrid system will eventuate, than a fully renewable system due to constant load growth.

So cleaning up the low hanging fruit of domestic load, is the cheapest and easiest way to reduce the target you are trying to achieve.

Constantly chasing an ever increasing target is the dumb way, slow the growth by converting the load is the logical first step, but way too many vested interests in play.

There would be a lot of redundant infrastructure and income, those vested interests would lose.
I'm getting an ever increasing feeling, the penny is dropping and like I mentioned earlier I think the narrative will have changed a lot in three to four years time.

One way or another the whole process has to be sped up, optics and luck can only carry the debate so far and the only thing that is looking certain ATM is, 2030 is getting closer and closer.

 

[mullokintyre]

Noted that three mile island will be reopening.
As other economies start either shifting to nuclear power, cancelling the closure of nuclear plants or restarting old plants, politics in Australia just keep parroting the strident claims that everyone else is wrong and its them that are correct.
Australia will at some stage likely have top embrace nuclear energy, whether its fission, fusion or some other form.
But as usual, it will be about ten years too late.
Mick

 

[sptrawler]

I think one thing that's widely missed in the public debate is that if you want nuclear to succeed then it requires essentially the same things that renewables need in order to succeed.

It needs electricity, not gas, to be the fuel of choice for homes and businesses.

It benefits enormously if that electricity, particularly when used for water heating, is a controlled load.

It benefits from any electrification of transport.

It needs a means of coping with above average demand or above average generation outages in an economic manner and in both cases sensible options for that are the same - hydro or gas turbines.

It needs a strong transmission system albeit for different reasons.

Etc. A lot of what's said is political hot air but the real requirements to make nuclear work well are the same as the requirements to make renewables work well. They are, of course, also the same requirements to optimise coal. That being so, doing those things is essentially a risk free approach, it's the right decision no matter what is done on the generation side.

Absolutely smurf, IMO it is more likely that a hybrid system will eventuate, than a fully renewable system due to vonstant load growth.
So cleaning up the low hanging fruit of domestic load, is the cheapest and easiest way to reduce the target you are trying to achieve.
Constantly chasing an ever increasing target is the dumb way, slow the growth by converting the load is the logical first step, but way too many vested interests in play

 

[sptrawler]

Noted that three mile island will be reopening.
As other economies start either shifting to nuclear power, cancelling the closure of nuclear plants or restarting old plants, politics in Australia just keep parroting the strident claims that everyone else is wrong and its them that are correct.
Australia will at some stage likely have top embrace nuclear energy, whether its fission, fusion or some other form.
But as usual, it will be about ten years too late.
Mick

Meanwhile heavy industrial loads will have moved offshore, or closed.
The clever country, sad really.
It's a shame we can't run Power Stations on smugness, then we could locate them all in Canberra, where there is endless fuel.

 

[Smurf1976]

One way or another the whole process has to be sped up

The old way is the utilities did detailed studies of future requirements, the options to supply them, and the costs and other attributes of those options then recommended the best one.

The various utilities, ETSA, the HEC, SECWA and so on, all had some rather obviously named section responsible for that with a name like "planning and design" or "investigations" or something similarly descriptive. Staffed by an assortment of scientific, maths and engineering people whose job was to measure everything that could possibly be measured, forecast everything that could be forecast, and so on.

It just wasn't a political thing historically.

 

[sptrawler]

It sounds like there may be a way ahead, but again the time frame is the elusive part, great article explaining how the grid is progressing.
The one advantage W.A has is that it is an islanded grid and the mining sector makes enough money to be able to pay for negating their emissions.

"Absolutely world leading:" Why Australia is leading the charge away from baseload power | RenewEconomy

reneweconomy-com-au.cdn.ampproject.org