Nuclear Power For Australia?

[SirRumpole]

CSIRO reaffirms nuclear power likely to cost twice as much as renewables​

New CSIRO report doubles down on nuclear price and time frames

After heavy criticism, Australia's leading science agency doubles down its findings that the cost of nuclear power for Australia would likely be double that of renewable energy, and it would take at least 15 years for a plant to be built.

www.abc.net.au

 

[sptrawler]

I actually think that if worse comes to worse and the renewable conversion stalls, then it makes much more sense to build more coal stations as they have provided cheap power for decades and we have a lot of coal reserves.

Plus the fact that we know how to build coal stations and the supporting infrastructure is already there. No need for nuclear waste disposal facilities and complex legislation.

Our Pacific neighbors won't like it, but giving them a bit more aid might shut them up.

I agree with you, that would be the most sensible outcome, if renewables are found wanting.

The problem we have at the moment, it has all become tribal as usual, one camp says it has to be one thing so the other camp says something polar opposite.

In reality we are better off reducing our emissions by as much as possible as quickly as possible, but that shouldn't mean stuffing up our electrical grid to do so, hopefully this all works out well because if it doesn't things will get very ugly.

 

[SirRumpole]

I agree with you, that would be the most sensible outcome, if renewables are found wanting.

The problem we have at the moment, it has all become tribal as usual, one camp says it has to be one thing so the other camp says something polar opposite.

In reality we are better off reducing our emissions by as much as possible as quickly as possible, but that shouldn't mean stuffing up our electrical grid to do so, hopefully this all works out well because if it doesn't things will get very ugly.

Indeed. I think the continuous output of coal stations would be good for supplying industries that need power all the time like steel, aluminium and cement. We can't have blast furnaces shutting down during temporary shortages.

Supplying those industries via coal would take the load off the general grid which could be firmed by gas, hydro or batteries.

As you say, it's all political and people just aren't looking at the best technical solutions, it's a matter of saying "we are right and everyone else is wrong", so it will probably come to a crunch sometime, not far away I think.

Here is an example of petty politics, 5gW of wind power would be scrapped by Dutton, for the sake of the "visual impact" on a few residents.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/opposition-leader-peter-dutton-promises-to-scrap-port-stephens-offshore-wind-farm-if-coalition-wins-next-election/news-story/73c0b219e778805b17c978bad7b6b311

 

[sptrawler]

Here is an example of petty politics, 5gW of wind power would be scrapped by Dutton, for the sake of the "visual impact" on a few residents.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/opposition-leader-peter-dutton-promises-to-scrap-port-stephens-offshore-wind-farm-if-coalition-wins-next-election/news-story/73c0b219e778805b17c978bad7b6b311

Both sides are just as bad, neither side is prepared to sit down with a forum of experts and look at the big picture, this isn't actually about the next 5 years, it is about what is actually realisticly required to not only decarbonise the economy but also allow the economy to grow.
There is no point in decarbonising, if it ends up with a third world electrical supply that will destroy the economy, at the moment we have politicians saying what can and can't be achieved, when it isn't their area of expertise.
Let's be honest, in a lot of cases politicians don't have an area of expertise, they just have a huge ego.
IMO the central issue is not about just replacing the existing coal fired stations, that is only the tip of the iceberg, it is about supplying the huge amount of extra generation and storage that will be required to replace not only the current power stations but the extra power stations that will be required if we are to replace fossil fuel.
That's the scary bit, we are having trouble replacing the tip of the iceberg, what about the main body of it?
Both sides of politics are behaving like children IMO, the issue isn't about cost, the main issue is about getting it right, they get it wrong and we're toast.

 

[IFocus]

CSIRO reaffirms nuclear power likely to cost twice as much as renewables​

New CSIRO report doubles down on nuclear price and time frames

After heavy criticism, Australia's leading science agency doubles down its findings that the cost of nuclear power for Australia would likely be double that of renewable energy, and it would take at least 15 years for a plant to be built.

www.abc.net.au

Bleeding obvious hard to understand the Coalition saying that it will be cheaper than renewables.

 

[SirRumpole]

Both sides of politics are behaving like children IMO,

The reason why private investors don't want to touch this country, even nationalists like Twiggy Forrest are going elsewhere.

 

[sptrawler]

The reason why private investors don't want to touch this country, even nationalists like Twiggy Forrest are going elsewhere.

Yes unfortunately politicians here seem to treat the position as a job, rather than as custodians of the countries future.

 

[TimeISmoney]

Here it come folks.

 

[SirRumpole]

Here it come folks.

Someone tell him he's dreamin'

 

[Smurf1976]

. I think the continuous output of coal stations would be good for supplying industries that need power all the time like steel, aluminium and cement. We can't have blast furnaces shutting down during temporary shortages.

Fundamentally what it comes down to is the system rather than any individual consumer.

Now without getting into detailed engineering, suffice to say the minimum load on the system will be substantially higher than the sum total of the minimum load of every individual consumer.

Likewise in the opposite direction, maximum load on the system will be substantially less than the sum total of the maximum load of each consumer.

The maths behind that is really quite simple and comes down to the reality that whilst every consumer will have a minimum and a maximum demand, they won't all be at minimum or maximum simultaneously simply due to the diversity of human activities.

What counts is the maximum and minimum for the total system that are actually reached.

Eg for NSW and including all sources of generation (including rooftop solar) demand over the past 7 days has ranged between about 6.5GW to 14.0GW with an average of 10.02 GW.

What any local area or individual user did has some relevance to transmission and distribution networks but at the generation level it's the overall total that counts. Doesn't matter who's using it or for what.

One thing that does help all forms of generation is to flatten out the variations as much as possible. Narrowing the range between maximum and minimum load improves the economics of nuclear certainly but it also improves the economics of renewables and coal as well. That's the one action that cuts across all of this, it makes sense where practical regardless of the energy source used. Eg using off-peak energy for water heating, bulk water pumping, battery charging etc.

Incidentally on present forecasts load shedding is likely in NSW on 16 and 17 December. Supply's also fairly tight in Queensland on 17 December. That's not a failure of coal, gas, hydro, wind, solar or any other specific technology per se - what it's a failure of is having an overall inadequate system.

 

[sptrawler]

Someone tell him he's dreamin'

Tell both sides, they're dreaming, if they think they can accurately cost either a renewable and gas, or a renewable and nuclear plan.

One just has to look at Snowy 2.0 and Kurri Kurri to realise, both sides talk with a forked tongue, it just depends which tribe you are affiliated with to who you believe and therein lies the problem.

Snowy Hydro expansion hits reset button as costs blow out to $12 billion

The government reveals planned expansions to the Snowy Hydro have suffered an incredible $10 billion blowout over price estimates given by former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull six years ago.

www.abc.net.au

Kurri Kurri gas folly: Cost blowout, limited operation, not hydrogen-ready

The total cost of Kurri Kurri has blown out to more than $1 billion, it won’t have much storage, and it won’t use hydrogen.

reneweconomy.com.au

Also how many hydrogen projects have been shelved, due to expected cost blowouts.

 

[TimeISmoney]

Tell both sides, they're dreaming, if they think they can accurately cost either a renewable and gas, or a renewable and nuclear plan.

One just has to look at Snowy 2.0 and Kurri Kurri to realise, both sides talk with a forked tongue, it just depends which tribe you are affiliated with to who you believe and therein lies the problem.

Snowy Hydro expansion hits reset button as costs blow out to $12 billion

The government reveals planned expansions to the Snowy Hydro have suffered an incredible $10 billion blowout over price estimates given by former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull six years ago.

www.abc.net.au

Kurri Kurri gas folly: Cost blowout, limited operation, not hydrogen-ready

The total cost of Kurri Kurri has blown out to more than $1 billion, it won’t have much storage, and it won’t use hydrogen.

reneweconomy.com.au

Also how many hydrogen projects have been shelved, due to expected cost blowouts.

From start to finish with all the environmental studies done, it would be near impossible to have a fully functioning nuclear plant within 13 years at the best, what are we going to do between now and then?

He's kicking the can down the road and wants to delay net zero costs.

 

[sptrawler]

From start to finish with all the environmental studies done, it would be near impossible to have a fully functioning nuclear plant within 13 years at the best, what are we going to do between now and then?

He's kicking the can down the road and wants to delay net zero costs.

What we are going to do between now and 13years time doesn't alter, whichever model is chosen, what is done in the next 13 years will be exactly the same, renewables with gas/coal firming.

The real issue is what happens in 15 years time if the gas isn't available, the coal is finished and the renewables can't cut it.
That's when it gets really interesting, if it eventuates.

That's the question that really needs answering.

 

[JohnDe]

From start to finish with all the environmental studies done, it would be near impossible to have a fully functioning nuclear plant within 13 years at the best, what are we going to do between now and then?

He's kicking the can down the road and wants to delay net zero costs.

The next 13 years is not the problem.

Renewable projects are already in the pipeline and can't be stopped, so they will still go ahead. That includes battery storage stations.

Gas and coal fired power stations will have their life extended.

The problem is future generation, how large will the solar and wind farms have to be to supply future power needs?
How much more cabling and how many more substations will be required to hook up the future new wind and solar farms?
Which communities will allow more solar and wind farms next to their homes and on sacred land?

“It’s about how do we underpin the economy with a stable energy market where the lights can stay on?.​

​

“You have to overbuild the system and the amount of extra infrastructure required under Labor’s plan, to your point, is going to be expensive and over budget, and over time because you need to overbuild.”​

We are getting a choice for our children and grandchildren.

The Opposition Leader said the Prime Minister’s energy plan would require a costly investment in infrastructure, backing in the Coalition’s estimate the nuclear policy would cost $331bn over 25 years compared to the $600bn model that Labor is pursuing.​

​

“At the next election if there is a choice between the Prime Minister and what you think of his leadership style and abilities of the course of the last 2.5 years and our plan, which will be a vision for our country,” Mr Dutton said.​

 

[TimeISmoney]

What we are going to do between now and 13years time doesn't alter, whichever model is chosen, what is done in the next 13 years will be exactly the same, renewables with gas/coal firming.

The real issue is what happens in 15 years time if the gas isn't available, the coal is finished and the renewables can't cut it.
That's when it gets really interesting, if it eventuates.

That's the question that really needs answering.

There are heaps of coal and gas deposits that are still untapped, I worked on an exploration drill rig for a while in central Qld, it's the other problem of displacing agriculture and ruining the land forever.

 

[SirRumpole]

Renewable projects are already in the pipeline and can't be stopped, so they will still go ahead.

You mean like the Port Stephens offshore wind farm that Dutton says he will cancel?

 

[SirRumpole]

Eg using off-peak energy for water heating, bulk water pumping, battery charging etc.

What is "off peak" these days ?

I recently had my meter changed to a smart meter( not by choice) and the hot water was set to 1am to 6am. Apparently I can change this.

Would it be better to have it set at say 10am to 3pm when the cheapest energy (solar) is being generated?

I don't have solar panels myself.

 

[JohnDe]

You mean like the Port Stephens offshore wind farm that Dutton says he will cancel?

Yes, any environmentally damaging projects. And instead concentrate on locations that have minimal impact on the area, like existing coal fired power stations.

The proposed Port Stephens offshore wind farm has raised concerns about its environmental impact, including:

• Marine life: The turbines could interact with migrating humpback whales, which travel through the area from May to October. The turbines could also disrupt shipping movements, which could threaten whales.
  
  
• Habitat loss: The turbines could destroy natural habitats and displace marine species.
  
  
• Noise pollution: The turbines could create noise pollution.
  
  
• Electromagnetic fields: The turbines emit electromagnetic fields that could interfere with the ocean's natural fields, affecting the migration patterns of fish and mammals.
  
  
• Exclusion zones: The scale of the farms could create exclusion zones that impact fishing activities.
  
  
• Tourism: Some say the turbines could be unappealing to tourists, which could harm the local tourism industry.

 

[IFocus]

The Coalitions current plan is nuclear, limit renewables, gas and coal but relies massively on gas.

That gas isn't currently available.

The current renewables plan although not highlighted relies on gas shorter duration but likely require greater capacity and will require similar planning as the Coalitions proposal.

Again the required gas isn't currently available.

Cost under the renewables plan at least 1/2 if not a 1/3 of the nuclear proposal with 100% better certainty of delivery subject to allowing engineers to design and not interfered with by politician's.

All plans depend on future improvements to technology to remove the gas component.

Its beyond me how any politician no matter what side of politics cannot simply put this up.

 

[JohnDe]

Has anyone wondered how much lubricating oil a windfarm needs?

A wind turbine can hold up to 1,400 liters of oil, hydraulic fluid, and lubricants. Wind turbines have many parts that require lubrication, including greases, gearbox fluids, and hydraulic oils.​

That is a lot of oil that needs to be taken from the ground and converted to the correct lubricant type. And it needs to be replaced periodically.

Imagine one or more leaking into the ocean.

A wind turbine consumes how much hydraulic oil? For lubrication, each wind turbine requires 80 gallons of oil, which is not vegetable oil but a PAO synthetic oil based on crude 12,000 gallons. That oil must be replaced once a year.​

Loading...

react-alliance.squarespace.com