Nuclear Power For Australia?

Energy experts slam Coalition’s ‘always on’ nuke plan​

Labor seems to be panicking.

From fantasy to reality: How Peter Dutton will make his nuclear plans come true and challenge Labor

Peter Dutton will today seek to turn a nuclear fantasy into an economic an energy reality.

On the numbers, the Albanese government will now find this difficult to contest.

Labor has failed in its attempt to dispute the modelling that found its renewables-only plan would cost more than $600bn.

In fact, it offered no contest. So let’s assume it’s correct.

Ipso facto, it can hardly now argue against the same modelling that has found that a nuclear-firmed renewables future as proposed by the Coalition will cost about half that.

There is also the climate cusp. Under Dutton’s modelling, the Coalition’s fossil fuel trajectory in the end is lower than Labor’s.

Who would have thought?

What is now abundantly clear is that Australians need to understand the cost of what is trying to be achieved here.

In a cost-of-living crisis, this debate takes on a new hue. The numbers are staggering, whatever option is being presented.

Dutton is offering a transition option that will save taxpayers $10bn a year.

But is it deliverable?

And this is now the novel debate that is emerging in the new climate wars.

Both sides have abandoned the primary purpose, rhetorically speaking.

It is no longer a dispute between the left and the right over climate change.

It is now an economic war. An ideological contest over how to get to where most people now accept is desirable.

The 2050 ambition in itself was always a farcical notion. It misses the point of the debate upon which it was founded. But there are now real political risks, as well as energy market risks, on both sides of the political equation, with both having succumbed to a political trigger point in the Australian context.

Australia is now a country that has failed to transition from one of its economic strengths, cheap energy, to a nation encumbered by its now high cost of doing business.

What was once an advantage has now become an economic drag.

Dutton’s nuclear plan has been given economic credibility in the Frontier Economics report. The international experience gives weight to its efficacy.

But the political contest in Australia is one without precedent.

Times have changed. And how Labor responds is now critical to its own electability.

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen continues to be a weak chink in Labor’s armour in this debate.

Labor’s plan has been discredited. Not only because of its ambition but because of its failure to deliver.

Reduced to a fundamental argument, this is now a contest not over climate targets but a debate about a rewriting of a dubious Australian compact over a civil nuclear industry.

This is a worthy debate. But it also completely misses the point of the original argument and ambition about what is trying to be achieved.

Labor’s dogmatic approach and its obsession with targets now risks undermining its global assignment. It has underestimated the domestic objections to the impositions.

The guarantee of energy security and pricing must be central to an electoral acceptance of change.

Labor has failed to make the case that its policy prescription is deliverable on either front.

For Dutton, the risk is the believability that it can deliver a nuclear option. It’s not necessarily a case of opposition to the idea, it scepticism about its deliverability.

Dutton will present a credible and contestable alternative to Labor’s plan. This will become a central theme of the election debate.

The question is whether either side is truly addressing the central thesis of the problem they are purporting to resolve.

Simon Benson
Political Editor

Click to expand...

SirRumpole said:

Energy experts slam Coalition’s ‘always on’ nuke plan​

Energy experts slam Coalition's 'always on' nuke plan

Clean energy experts have poured scorn on the Coalition's nuclear plan, warning of even higher energy bills if it goes ahead.

www.thenewdaily.com.au

Click to expand...

Did you read who the experts in the article were?
Did they actually say how much energy is required?
Situation normal LOL.
Like I say, let's get some facts and figures, rather than self interest opinions.
Remempber 15 years ago, every kid needs to go to university, because all the jobs in the future will be in technology.
Now we have a shortage of tradespeople, well lets see what happens if the problem is a shortage of power.
The "experts" will be conspicuous by their silence, as is happening on the jobs front now. Lol

JohnDe said:

Dutton’s nuclear plan has been given economic credibility in the Frontier Economics report.

Click to expand...

Here is a page containing the staff of Frontier Economics.


They all look remarkably similar, they are basically all economists.

No nuclear engineers or scientists among them, so what do economists know about building nuclear reactors ?

Who did they ask for technical opinions?

This goes back to the fundamental reasons why costs of nuclear reactors and other technical infrastructure blow out. Get someone to give a blue sky opinion, then the engineers find they can't build it for the price quoted unless they cut serious corners.

The CSIRO on the other hand, contains scientists and engineers.

I know who I believe.

sptrawler said:

Like I say, let's get some facts and figures, rather than self interest opinions.

Click to expand...

When you apply the same scrutiny to Frontier Economics, get back to me.

SirRumpole said:

When you apply the same scrutiny to Frontier Economics, get back to me.

Click to expand...

I'll look them up when I get back to a computer, the other mob were Gratton Institute, like I've said over and over, why don't they post up facts rather than opinions.
I'm not being emotional about it, if they lay out the FACTS, the answers will be obvious IMO.
Funny that neither side are doing that, which is leading to the general public making emotional stances, with zero knowledge of why they are doing it. Lol

SirRumpole said:

Here is a page containing the staff of Frontier Economics.

Our Economists - Frontier Economics

Through training and experience our economists have a well-honed understanding of how markets work. You’ll find we know your sector and have the economics skills to deliver the results you need. We hope you’ll also find us fun to work with.

www.frontier-economics.com.au

They all look remarkably similar, all but one are economists.

No nuclear engineers or scientists among them, so what do economists know about building nuclear reactors ?

Who did they ask for technical opinions?

This goes back to the fundamental reasons why costs of nuclear reactors and other technical infrastructure blow out. Get someone to give a blue sky opinion, then the engineers find they can't build it for the price quoted unless the cut serious corners.

The CSIRO on the other hand, contains scientists and engineers.

I know who I believe.

Click to expand...

When could a scientist and engineer cost a job and keep it to budget?

You are mimicking the Labor Party at the moment - clutching at straws.

sptrawler said:

I'll look them up when I get back to a computer, the other mob were Gratton Institute, like I've said over and over, why don't they post up facts rather than opinions.
I'm not being emotional about it, if they lay out the FACTS, the answers will be obvious IMO.
Funny that neither side are doing that, which is leading to the general public making emotional stances, with zero knowledge of why they are doing it. Lol

Click to expand...

Their work is world renown for accuracy.


Hydrogen storage and power plant combination proposed by SA Labor

Water we doing about hydrogen?

JohnDe said:

Their work is world renown for accuracy.


Hydrogen storage and power plant combination proposed by SA Labor

Hydrogen storage and power plant combination proposed by SA Labor - Frontier Economics

Frontier Economics provided economic analysis for a proposed hydrogen storage and power plant in SA.

www.frontier-economics.com.au

Water we doing about hydrogen?

Water we doing about hydrogen? - Frontier Economics

This Frontier Economics bulletin focuses on the economics of water security in Australia’s hydrogen transition.

www.frontier-economics.com.au

Click to expand...

There is a lot of vested interests involved in this, like I keep saying lay out the facts, how much generation and storage will be required to de carbonise the economy, it really is as simple as that.

Once that is known, the choices will become obvious, if it can be done with a sensible amount of hydro, batteries and renewables, then that's the way to go.

If it will require a certain amount of at call firming well then a small amount of nuclear may be the way to go.
Why wont some of these experts break it down to basic numbers? Obviously they don't want it that simple LOL.

JohnDe said:

You are mimicking the Labor Party at the moment - clutching at straws.

Click to expand...

Nope. Just saying I would rather trust scientists and engineers to build things than economists.

Just parroting Frontier Economics advertisements doesn't mean they are good at their jobs.

A lot of people thought PWC were good at their jobs too.

sptrawler said:

Well we are getting the nuclear subs, so that blows that theory out of the water, so to speak.

You need to start being pragmatic, rather than a cheer leader.

With your electrical background, I would have thought you would take a less emotional and more technical stance.

If you don't have a clue how much generation and storage you require, how can you be so convinced it can be achieved successfully? You can't you are just singing from the song sheet.

I've actually being involved in this industry and I don't know so I'm not saying which way is the go, because there hasn't been enough information put forward, yet you can stand hand on heart and say renewables are the go.
Go figure, hope you don't have to apologies down the track, if your wrong.

Click to expand...

What ever it is you are smoking I'll have some...

WTF has nuclear subs got to do with generation, answer nothing unless you nuclear arm the subs.

As for your experience in generation maybe you could have paid more attention

As for my opinions they have got SFA to do with emotions stop projecting

If all you have is personal sniping and running pissing contests give up now its embarrassing

And as you cannot read my opinion is renewable are 100% deliverable now but will require gas.

Nuclear isn't deliverable now and will also need gas plus it will cost a motsa and tax payers will have to stump it up.

IFocus said:

For Australia nuclear does have significant sovereign risk, we don't and cannot make the fuel.

Click to expand...

You must have short term memory loss, you brought up the issue of nuclear soveriegn risk, I was just jogging you memory that we are already committed to nuclear in the subs, if anyone is smoking something it obviously isn't me. Lol

By the way, you still can't answer the question of how much renewables we actually need, all you seem to do is rant and blather on, but that probably helped a lot in the union position.

Maybe if you had actually worked in generation, you would have valid points, rather than parroting media trash. Lol

Another thing on the subject of gas, if the Labor Govt in W.A had shut down Muja, rather than Kwinana, they wouldn't be burning coal now, Kwinana could run on gas or coal. Lol
But you would know that, with your brilliance.

sptrawler said:

You must have short term memory loss, you brought up the issue of nuclear soveriegn risk, I was just jogging you memory that we are already committed to nuclear in the subs, if anyone is smoking something it obviously isn't me. Lol

By the way, you still can't answer the question of how much renewables we actually need, all you seem to do it rant and blather on, but that probably helped a lot in the union position. Maybe if you had actually worked in generation, you would actually have valid points, rather than parroting media trash. Lol
Also you obviously aren't aware, gas does give off emissions, you rabbit on more about gas than the renewables. Lol
Another thing on the subject of gas, if the Labor Govt in W.A had shut down Muja, rather than Kwinana, they wouldn't be burning coal now, Kwinana could run on gas or coal. Lol

Click to expand...

For gods sake grow up the nuclear subs fuel is almost for the life of the sub that wont be the case for generation.

Mean while back at the farm or station

Gina Rinehart to build “eye sore” solar farm on family property to help power new iron ore project​

Gina Rinehart, Australia’s richest person, may not be a fan of renewable energy – she describes solar as an “eye sore”, but her private company is now planning to build a major solar farm to help power a big new iron ore project on the family’s historic pastoral property.

The addition of the solar farm is revealed in a revised application for the Mulga Downs iron ore project in the Pilbara to the state’s Environment Protection Authority.

As has been widely reported elsewhere, the new plans will see the scale of Mulga Downs – to be built on the pastoral property where Rinehart spent much of her childhood – downsized considerably, seeking to produce 40 per cent less iron ore than previously expected, and reducing the amount of groundwater to be extracted.

IFocus said:

For gods sake grow up the nuclear subs fuel is almost for the life of the sub that wont be the case for generation.

Click to expand...

What has that got to do with your percieved soveriegn risk, or was it just another brain fart on your part?

IFocus said:

As for your experience in generation maybe you could have paid more attention

Click to expand...

Well as you want to make it personal about my ability and knowledge on generation, compared to yours. Lol

How clever was it to shut down 600MW of gas fired steam generation, while then having to use tax payers money to pay an Indian owned mine, to suply coal to a Japanese owned coal fired power station? And it is still happening.

Go figure, yet you say they are on top of the game.
I certainly hope so. Lol.
Because blind faith doesn't keep the lights on, as you well know from personal experience. Lol

JohnDe said:

When could a scientist and engineer cost a job and keep it to budget?

Click to expand...

I don't know about this economics consultant specifically but I do know how certain others operate.

Give them the required conclusion and a pile of money and they produce a report to suit.

Seen that done many years ago.

How the private sector does it is engineering lead. There are certainly finance professionals involved but the process is engineering lead, since there's no point coming up with prices without having first worked out the physical side. Basic steps are engineering identifies the differing options and what's required for each, then there's a combined effort to price them and assess financial risks.

That's why the private projects usually come in close to the estimates. Because the estimates are done to inform the decision not to justify a decision that's already made.

Therein lies the problem with politics as a basis for decision making and the reason the states, most notably Victoria and Tasmania, intentionally gagged their own governments on the subject a century ago.

Personally I'm not impressed with either Labor or the Coalition on all of this. A competent team of engineers, project managers, accountants etc could run rings around either. Both are guilty of politics - it was a given that Labor would come up with a non-nuclear solution and I doubt there's even one person anywhere in Australia who expected the Coalition to not come up with a pro-nuclear position.

Both are starting with the conclusion and working backwards to find arguments for it rather than objectively considering the options and crunching the numbers.

Smurf1976 said:

How the private sector does it is engineering lead. There are certainly finance professionals involved but the process is engineering lead

Click to expand...

Adding that if we consider what an engineer actually does, it's fundamentally a derivative of economics.

Using structural engineering as the example, if you just build everything far stronger than it needs to be then there's no need to worry about proper engineering. Hence any competent handyman can build themselves a deck, fence or anything else simply by using an abundance of heavy gauge materials.

Why you need an engineer is if you want to calculate the lowest specifications that won't fall down.

The bit the economists miss, and I've seen this many times, is failing to understand that the engineering design is not a given and that if it turns out a particular approach is too expensive then changing the design is an option. That's the mistake invariably made by all-economics approaches, they tend to get the best possible price for doing x, but don't optimise x itself.

Engineers aren't experts in materials prices, labour or project management however. They can seek to minimise quantities but they're not the best people to be determining the total project cost and factoring in the cost of capital during construction and so on. Finance people are much better at that.

But if the two are combined along with others such as project management well now everything can be optimised in terms of the total cost, bearing in mind, and this is a key point, that usually won't mean anything is optimised in terms of itself. That is, being 80% perfect with the technical, construction, capital management and so on tends to end up cheaper than being 100% perfect with one and ignoring the others.

One practical outcome of that being there are very few electrical power systems globally based on a single technology. Because it's not true that nuclear, hydro, wind, coal, solar, gas or whatever is cheaper outright but rather, it's true that a particular technology is cheaper for a certain load profile. Hence the cheapest approach becomes to break the load down into portions and build the type of generation that can do each portion most economically.

Now in case that's lost anyone, well the most commonly known portion of the load profile is the base load, and that is where the concept of base load generation originates from. The idea of building generation specifically for the base load but not for other load, and the reasons for that are economic far more than they are technical.

Likewise other components - peak load, intermediate (aka shoulder), load following (aka regulating), spinning reserve and cold reserve plant (which is typically just old outdated plant retained for the purpose, but could be purpose built if required).

It always has been an exercise in breaking down the task and using the most cost effective technology for each component of it. Suffice to say that won't be achieved without the involvement of both engineering and finance people as well as others in the process, it's well beyond the scope of any one profession.

Looking at Australia specifically, several times within living memory we've driven costs down by a combination of engineering and construction approaches sufficiently to make otherwise unviable projects outright winners. The key was to treat both as contributing to the same outcome, coming up with designs that could be cheaply built and coming up with construction approaches that enabled a cheap design.

Failure on that means both the renewables and the nuclear proposals are inferior compared to what they could be, resulting a situation where taxpayers end up footing the bill and the nation's international competitiveness suffers.

Something's going very wrong in Australia if, despite having such a highly educated population, we're not taking an intellectual approach to this. It ought be well within our capabilities to crunch the numbers and come up with definitive answers.

Smurf1976 said:

I don't know about this economics consultant specifically but I do know how certain others operate.

Give them the required conclusion and a pile of money and they produce a report to suit.

Seen that done many years ago.

How the private sector does it is engineering lead. There are certainly finance professionals involved but the process is engineering lead, since there's no point coming up with prices without having first worked out the physical side. Basic steps are engineering identifies the differing options and what's required for each, then there's a combined effort to price them and assess financial risks.

That's why the private projects usually come in close to the estimates. Because the estimates are done to inform the decision not to justify a decision that's already made.

Therein lies the problem with politics as a basis for decision making and the reason the states, most notably Victoria and Tasmania, intentionally gagged their own governments on the subject a century ago.

Personally I'm not impressed with either Labor or the Coalition on all of this. A competent team of engineers, project managers, accountants etc could run rings around either. Both are guilty of politics - it was a given that Labor would come up with a non-nuclear solution and I doubt there's even one person anywhere in Australia who expected the Coalition to not come up with a pro-nuclear position.

Both are starting with the conclusion and working backwards to find arguments for it rather than objectively considering the options and crunching the numbers.

Click to expand...

Do a little more research and reading, then get back to me

Danny Price has been around for a long time, and is trusted by many in the industry, and his services have been used by past premiers and PM's from both sides of politics, including having a massive input into South Australian energy policy that is working to this day.

sptrawler said:

Well as you want to make it personal about my ability and knowledge on generation, compared to yours. Lol

How clever was it to shut down 600MW of gas fired steam generation, while then having to use tax payers money to pay an Indian owned mine, to suply coal to a Japanese owned coal fired power station? And it is still happening.

Go figure, yet you say they are on top of the game.
I certainly hope so. Lol.
Because blind faith doesn't keep the lights on, as you well know from personal experience. Lol

Click to expand...

sptrawler said:

What has that got to do with your percieved soveriegn risk, or was it just another brain fart on your part?

Click to expand...

No idea what you are on about other than trolling.

As to the amount of renewables required you keep harping on about the AEMO say we are running nearly 40% now what comes next will be location dependent the short fall will need to be gas or even revert back to coal that's the reality of now waiting for new tech.