This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Nuclear Power For Australia?

Jump to new
If its going to take ten years for the first nuclear reactors to come online why not instead spend the billions of dollars on other renewable projects. With the right investment and ten years at least one of the renewable technologies should be able to supply reliable 24hr power. Imagine what a couple of billion dollars investment by the government would do for the renewables sector.
 
billhill said:
If its going to take ten years for the first nuclear reactors to come online why not instead spend the billions of dollars on other renewable projects.
Click to expand...
Because presumably other technologies will also have a reasonably lengthy lead time. Technology available -today- will take 10 years. If we then wait 10 years to develop technology and only then look to bring it to production then we're going to have serious gaps in our energy production.

Where will this base line load come from in the mean time if not coal?
 
One of the problems in this whole debate is willingness to pay. Sure, people say they're happy to pay. But they started screaming at a mere rise in petrol to just $1.50 a litre which is still damn cheap and a minor cost compared to the costs associated with doing something about climate change.

So I can understand the government being a bit wary on the issue. I mean, rising petrol prices are GOOD if you're really concerned about climate change. But I'm a little wary as to just how committed the average Aussie really is on the issue. They say they are, but when it means opening the wallet for some big $...

WHY are people so unwilling to pay just $2000 for a solar hot water heater (above the cost of electric only)? And yet they quie happily blow $5000 on a TV or $40,000 on a car. Concerned about the environment?
 
I just keep hearing that quote 'compared to global warming, chernyobel will pale into insignificance' - I'm 110% behind nuclear. - and 120% for giving the next generation a situation that , if not perfect, at least NOT QUITE at "the point of no return". (which is where it is currently heading !!!)

Smurf - howdy - I hear you!! but I personally think we should be thinking less than $2K for solar - solar hot water systems can be as simple as an array or black pvc pipes on your roof - plenty of em (to give storage). (and bags being first bath, and before dinner thanks mum, ! lol) - some "habits" may change but - gee. won't our consciences feel good

PS you'd better believe that any car that guzzles gas with have hopeless resale value in 10 years !!
 
I think there's a need to broaden the debate here (at a national level, not just on this thread).

Electricity is not the entire energy industry. Indeed it's not even the dominant form of commercial energy purchased in most parts of the country.

Whilst they are produced from various primary resources, most purchases of energy are:

Electricity
Natural gas
Oil and derived products
Coal
Biomass (mostly wood)

Apart from the steel industry and use as boiler fuel in a few other applications (eg paper mills, cement kilns etc) coal isn't something that most energy consumers directly purchase. They use it indirectly in the form of electricity but don't order a tonne of coal dumped in the driveway.

Wood is confined largely to space heating and tends to be most common outside the major cities. That and some use as boiler fuel in (mostly rural) industry.

So in practice our society is powered mostly by purchased electricity, natural gas and petroleum products. The importance of coal being as a source of electricity.

In most states it is oil and derived products which are the largest energy commodity purchased and in WA it is natural gas. Only in Tasmania is electricity the largest form of energy used by consumers and industry.

In view of the generally accepted limit to oil reserves, with near universal agreement that a peak in production will occur within 30 years (with many expecting it well before then) it seems foolish to concentrate solely on electricity in any energy policy debate.

It must also be said that gas production in Australia and globally is, based on present modelling, likely to have peaked before 2050 as well. Another major issue given the extensive dependence of industry and homes on this energy source.

So really what we need to be doing is not solely debating the means of generating electricity, but looking at the bigger picture. What, exactly, are we going to do in order to replace oil and gas? Combined, they are about 2 and a half times the size of the electricity industry (not including gas used in power stations). Everything from agriculture to urban transport depends on oil and gas.

In terms of availability, coal is by far the most abundant fossil fuel both in Australia and internationally. Oil and gas are minor resources in comparisson but are more heavily used at present (hence the rapid depletion of reserves).

Why do we use coal for electricity? There's plenty of it and it's cheap if you ignore the environmental costs. And there's not a lot else it can easily be used for.

I'll avoid making a huge post here and see what others have to say. But the logical starting point for any energy policy IMO is that we shouldn't be using relatively scarce oil and gas to generate electricity given that we're so dependent on them for other uses and supplies are dwindling globally.

The next logical point is to be planning for a phase out of oil beginning relatively soon (years not decades). And then a phase out of gas beginning in perhaps 30 years time (noting that we're likely to be using gas to replace oil...).

Trouble is, no politician is ready for the oil debate yet. That said, the decision to leave gas off the agenda (so far at least) for electricity surely constitues some form of acknowledgement that it's not likely to be cheap in the long term. Otherwise it would be such an easy option and politically popular too.

Nuclear power will keep the lights on, as will anything else from water to sewer gas. But it doesn't run aeroplanes, trucks, buses or present day cars. Nor does it fire the furnaces of industry (at least not at reasonable cost - neither would coal-fired power) or produce plastics and lubricants. Oil and gas do those things.
 
You make very valid points Smurf. As for oil i think eventually cars will run on hydrogen or electricity. This is probably quite a way away and also puts forward the point that an energy source is required to produce the fuel. In the mean time Biofuels and maybe the conversion of coal to diesel may fill the void however again a problem arises in the release of carbon for coal and the lack of capacity for biofuels. As for gas it can be produced from landfill, sewerage and via solar concentrators but it still will probably not be enough.
As for the production of plastics and the like i think the technology may gradually move toward natural fibre such as hemp. I don't know how far along this is but i have heard promising results from universities making plastic like materials using such materials.
 
Another thing to consider is that the existing power stations could be run more efficiently than they are at present. By efficiency I mean MWh produced per tonne of coal used - the less fuel burned per unit of production the lower the emissions will be.

In short, the National Electricity Market is subject to various forms of gaming. The basic trick being for large generators (in terms of their physical plant) to offer very high prices for part of their capacity, in order that that capacity will not in practice be dispatched (ie the power won't be produced) when market conditions allow.

This results in other, generally smaller, power stations being started up in order to meet the demand. Since their price offered to the market is higher (that's why they weren't otherwise running) the overall market price rises. This delivers a substantial profit to the larger generators who have lowered production - price doubles or more whilst they are only losing perhaps 30% of their output.

So, in a financial sense what happens is the total cost of generation is pushed up (ultimately passed on to consumers) but those in the generation industry see an even bigger jump in profit. Since the smaller generators are also profiting from the situation, nobody is complaining.

But the problem is one of efficiency. If you cut the output of a coal-fired plant (or simply don't ramp it up as load rises during the day) and run a pumped storage plant instead (which is effectively stored coal-fired power with a 30% loss of efficiency) then the end result is that the power being produced by the pumped storage plant results in 40% higher emissions than if the coal-fired plant just ran at higher output.

Same with gas. Yesterday afternoon a combined cycle (highly efficient - low emissions) plant was operating at reduced output (don't want to depress the price...) whilst an open cycle gas turbine plant literally just across the water was running flat out. Open cycle gas turbines are far less efficient, and therefore more polluting, than combined cycle.

Even without the plant efficiency differences, simply stop-start running wastes fuel in itself. Quite a lot of fuel is burned to simply get a steam turbine plant up and running - a total waste when the only reason for doing it is so that some other perfectly good plant can be run at reduced output. But it makes money...

This situation arises on a regular basis, often daily, and both government and privately owned generators are playing the game. It happens in every NEM state with large fossil fuel power stations (ie all except Tas). That said, Tasmania runs its system pretty hard in order to take advantage of the situation interstate which lowers efficiency - the loss being made up through coal-fired power imports and local gas-fired generation.

Occasionally it goes to the ridiculous level. Coal-fired boilers don't run below a certain minimum output but it's not unknown to simply dump steam into the condenser (ie TOTAL waste of the coal burned) in order to get generation down below that level. When? When demand is high so as to force up the price via running less efficient plants - a total loss as far as the environment is concerned.

I'm not opposed to a competitive electricity market per se, but the current market doesn't maximise generation efficiency. Basically all the good we are doing with wind turbines, efficiency upgrades at old hydro plants, solar hot water etc is being undone playing a trading game.

If a nuclear plant is to actually reduce emissions then it basically needs to be running flat out 24/7 apart from maintenance shutdowns. Proper running of a baseload power station - something we ought to be doing with our existing coal-fired plant.

I should add that there are some individual plants which don't seem to be playing this game, at least not blatantly.That said, they are profiting from others doing it.
 
I can see case for nationalisation of all power generating outlets run on gas, coal and future nuclear.

Then it will be easier for the government to make it run carbon dioxide/pollution efficient.
Government can afford not maximise profits but concentrate on higher values.
 
The Kyoto Protocol sounds good in theory yet it's been stated that even the rich Western Europeans who have signed and ratified are exceeding the emission targets they've set for themselves.

I can understand the Fed Govt stance on not signing the KP until the Yanks, Indians and Chinese - who combined contribute 25% of the worlds carbon emissions - why would we go out on a limb and destroy our industry, economy and put many out of work almost overnight?

Reminds me of the 'banana republic' days when Hawke stupidly jumped the gun and agreed to reduce tarrifs (too young then to recall why) and we were flooded with cheap bananas from Sth America while our banana farmers were left with tonnes of produce they couldn't sell...nor could they give it away to the needy for free, seems Hawke and Keating didn't have enough in the national coffers.

Howard has made it very clear we need a national debate where all energy alternatives are put on the table. I agree with this; put forth all the contenders, tell us their advatages and disadvantages and how each will impact out current coal industry in the short and long term.

Bottom line: To achieve a green Australia, but surely not until we've exhausted all avenues to find the cheapest and cleanest solution that the majority of Australians agree with that's not detrimentral to our economy.
 

Sorry TR - but personally I disagree with most of your post here - possible exception ofthe last sentence (but lets see some ACTION, - QUICK! imho ) -
1. firstly - Johnny Howard says he wont/didnt sign - YET he says we've met the targets we would have been set - so why didn’t we sign?? What absurd logic!! So much for the threats that jobs would be decimated etc etc -

The rest of Europe who tried still have a credible reputation as signatories to the original document - who have improved even if not as much as their allotted targets required. (Meanwhile we refused to be allotted a target !!)

2. secondly we all know that China is going through the most incredible growing pains - Why else are we making money on the ASX? - Why else is Australia getting rich? Why else does every (other) statement out of Canberra congratulate China for growing so fast !! Yet Johnny (and Peter Costello) happily blame China for more emissions than us !! - what bludy hypocrisy.

BTW, When China gets up to our standard of living, then the real global warming will start!! - are we going to protest that? - well we'd better stop sending them our coal etc - how stupid would that be!! There's no way a kangaroo can stand in the way of a charging dragon. lead by example now - get them on board

3. thirdly - how incredibly selfish are we? - "China makes more emissions than us ?" - taking this argument further, are we saying our 20million Aussies are allowed to make the same total emissions as 1.3+ BILLION Chinese!! - let's talk about per capita - we come across as totally selfish, and (with these sort of comments from JH and PC etc) total hypocrites - Politically cunning yes !!! Accomplished Spin doctors ? yes!! - convincing? - you've gotta be kidding.
"If you can bear to see the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools" = old Chinese proverb - adapted by Kipling.

4. the developing world were not on board with Kyoto stage 1 - that's how it was always intended ! - and the plan was that they come on board later. But the way they are going , they will be on board next stage - and we will still be arguing gobblegook.

USA and Australia were the only "rich men" in the Titanic lifeboat - in amongst the poor country "women and children" - leaving the other men to do the honorable thing - which on this occasion was to shoulder some of the burden until the next stage - How do we look the other people in the lifeboat in the eye ?

5. Incidentally - only peripherally related to Kyoto - I used to vehemently disagree with the "cut the tariffs" policy ( and Keating / Hawke take much of the credit here - these days I've changed sides) – I remember an economist saying – and I agreed with him at the time –
a) “if we keep adding oncosts to employing people - like superannuation, sickies, leave loading, etc – AND
b) take away the tariffs that apply for the same products imported from countries - where they would laugh if you told them you made more money on leave than when you worked – THEN …
c) the only conclusion is that “we’ll all be out of a job”
However, today we are going gangbusters. This is irrelevant to Kyoto I know - But I just thought I'd add to your comments on the "banana republic" statements - the plan was to get us into a new thought process - value add where others couldn't - and in the process give up some menial jobs where Asia might be more efficient. "or we'd be a banana republic as well"

6. As for the excuse to have yet another gabfest - oh boy !! lol - how do they justify their salaries over the last 10 years. - But to be fair - the "Nuclear Alternative" is not an easy sell , and the change in public attitude has been incredible both in magnitude and direction - and the debate will surely be healthy. - And Johnny has at least been openminded at last to the options.
 
2020hindsight said:
"If you can bear to see the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools" = old Chinese proverb - adapted by Kipling.
Click to expand...
Oh, I wouldn't trust anything old Rudyard says, haha.
 
By 2009, just 3 years away, it is expected that China will overtake the USA in terms of emissions. Spectacular growth with China alone emitting more than is sustainable worldwide.

It wouldn't be such an issue if China were simply an exporter (though transport emissions from globalisation are substantial). But there is a very strong probability that as the Chinese become wealthy, they will increase their own consumption levels. It's virtually certain. And that's where the trouble starts.

Realistically, I think there's more chance of me landing on Mars than emissions actually being seriously cut (worldwide) in the next few decades unless it becomes obvious that it is already too late to avoid serious climate change. Hence I think we would be wise to plan for the consequences of climate change rather than pinning all our hopes on avoiding it. Not the moral high ground but the only practical option we have IMO.

The underlying problem is, of course, the notion of constant growth on a finite planet.

If you want 100 MW of power (nationally) then you build a few small power plants in the major cities and nobody will care what comes out the stack because quite simply there won't be much of it. We did just that 100 years ago - small plants with no emission controls whatsoever and right in the CBD of major cities. It didn't matter simply because they were small. Whilst they no longer operate and none of them have since the 1980's, the shell of some of these plants survives to this day.

If you want 1000 MW (World War 2 era) then we can easily do all that with hydro. Indeed we do twice that level right now so no problem there apart from geographic concentration in Tas and the Snowy. But that's easily fixed - just put industry where the power is. We've done that before and until the 1970's Tasmania, with less than 3% of the population, accounted for a quarter of industrial power consumption.

If you want 10,000 MW (around 1980) then that's when the trouble starts. Emissions from individual power plants become significant so location becomes a problem. And we can't do 10,000 MW easily with hydro or small plants in the cities. Hence the big coal-fired plants we have today. Just one of which replaced every small plant built before it.

If you want 25,000 MW (roughly where we are now) we just scale it up and people start to worry. But it still works so no panic yet.

If you want 75,000 MW (about what's expected in 2050) then you'd better be prepared for some serious environmental damage no matter what source of power it is. Build 10 massive coal-fired plants each the size of Loy Yang, dam every river right down to the last creek and put wind farms all over the place and it's still not enough. Build all 25 nuclear reactors, enough to virtually do away with coal completely at present levels of power use, and we still end up using MORE non-nuclear power than we do today. Twice as much in fact and all of that's going to be either coal or renewable. Even if we built nuclear AND the same amount of renewable energy, we'll still be burning just as much coal as we do today.

Now, if you keep doing this then we end up with over 200,000 MW in 2100. Anyone like to suggest how we generate that sort of power? Even the largest power station today is pretty much irrelevant in that context. The entire brown coal industry as it stands today will do 3% of that and every hydro plant in the country will do another 1%. We'd run out of coal long before we actually built enough plants to burn it if we're going down this track. Likewise we'd run out of uranium. And yet that is exactly the track we are on - constant growth. And that's the real problem.
 
You've sure convinced me Smurf. It will get much worse before it gets better.

Smurf, can I ask, do you find Johnny Howard's words somewhat hollow on the subject of how "bad" China is at this pollution business (resulting mainly from the fact that they are simply growing) - and yet , in the next breath, how much we depend on them and their growth. ?

The ABSOLUTE CLASSIC was Peter Costello saying on ABC last Sunday morning (paraphrasing) "this problem with become serious in 50 years, and there's no urgency, and we'll get around to doing something then..or maybe a bit before. " - unbelievably unconcerned !! FAROUT!! when will we get someone in Canberra who says it like it is!!

or Johnny Howard saying that Al Gore's motives were to sell his FILM!!! - I giv in lol - Please tell me people that you find this stuff from Canberra...mmm .. unacceptable bulldust!! You've lost all cred with me with those comments, Johnny (and Peter).
 
Who said 'The earth is Burning'?......and now he is an MP.....!


2020hindsight said:
You've sure convinced me Smurf. It will get much worse before it gets better.

Smurf, can I ask, do you find Johnny Howard's words somewhat hollow on the subject of how
Click to expand...
 
Two words, Bjorn and Lomberg.
 
Sorry TR - but personally I disagree with most of your post here - possible exception ofthe last
sentence (but lets see some ACTION, - QUICK! imho )
Click to expand...

No need to be sorry 2020hindsight, afterall this is a public forum

firstly - Johnny Howard says he wont/didnt sign - YET he says we've met the targets we would have been set - so why didn’t we sign?? What absurd logic!! So much for the threats that jobs would be decimated etc etc -
Click to expand...

Can you please provide a link where he is on the record of saying this? In parliament he has made it clear that KP can’t work and we need a new KP.

The rest of Europe who tried still have a credible reputation as signatories to the original document - who have improved even if not as much as their allotted targets required. (Meanwhile we refused to be allotted a target !!)
Click to expand...

Come on! That's like saying the US still has a credible reputation as signatory to the original UN doco

I for a second don't believe that any countrie's government would stick to the emission levels it had been set within the KP if one of it's industries suddenly found itself in a boom driving it's economy and currency up, unemployement and interest rates down and more importantly keeping itself in office for another term.


How is it hypocrisy? We only ship them iron ore etc. It's up to them to introduce best practise and implement new technology in the production of steel and reduce pollution.

Surely we can't be responsible for selling them iron ore that is then used in their growing automotive industry to produce gas burning cars. If I recall what I read, it's growing at a production rate of 20% a year. As a growing economy you'd think they would look seriously at eco alternatives.


Would you look a gift horse in the mouth? If you were leading the country would you stop such a vital export? Knowing full well the -ve implications of 'black diamond' yet the +ve contribution it makes to your economy etc?

What would you do??? Look to export a cleaner power source like uranium?

Incidently, the US is already protesting China's boom. Just ask your Chinese friends/work colleagues their opinion on the subject and watch them fly off the handle!


Of course it's selfish. But it's also silly to state that China has just as much right as us - if not more per capita to pollute the earth. As an emerging economy they are in a better position than old world economies to become green.

I'm pretty sure you'd rather see 1.3billion driving around in eco-friendly cars than gas guzzling ones, preferrably even pushbikes for that matter ;-)


Well of course they'll be talking goobblegook - India and China ratifying KP is one thing but not being asked to reduce emissions is another.


How do they (industrialised countries) look us in the eye after signing up to the KP yet not even meeting the targets they've been set? Yet want to point the finger at us for not signing. What's the point of signing if your not serious about carbon reduction???


Well the thought process of offshoring has reared it's ugly head again - this time moving back office jobs to ChIndia Don't know how moving jobs whether professionally menial or blue collar menial like those in the now defunct rag trade overseas stops us from becoming a banana republic.


Don't worry about the salaries, check out the superannuation payouts they're guaranteed. Coalition, ALP, greens..they're all on the same side when it comes to fattenig up their nest eggs!
 
Howard has no interest in Nuclear Power, it is just a smoke screen for his IR laws. No wonder the ALP are having problems with leadership, what a prize for the leader. Howard will loose the next election on IR itself, remember there are more employees that there are employers!
Nuclear power is not even on the agenda.
 
To be blunt, I don't think there is ANY Australian politician in a sufficiently high place with any real credibility on this issue.

Labor, Liberal and Green have all backed increased emissions both locally and globally at various times when it just happened to suit some other agenda. I would struggle to pick any real winner out of John, Kim or Bob Brown on the overall issue of energy. None of them seem to comprehend oil depletion, likewise none of them seem to comprehend the need to ultimately move to a TOTALLY renewable energy system and that this will require more electricity than we use today as the use of other fuels declines.

John will give us another form of pollution, Kim's living in a 1960's world of unlimited natural gas and Bob will shift the point where it is emitted. End result with any of them is that the problem, at a global level, gets worse rather than better. I wouldn't give any of them more than 2 out of 10 - an outright failure.
 
Smurf1976 said:
End result with any of them is that the problem, at a global level, gets worse rather than better. I wouldn't give any of them more than 2 out of 10 - an outright failure.
Click to expand...

Smurf, We have come a fair way since the 1970's though If I'm not mistaken, Johnny Howard was treasurer in the late 1970's. So he has come a long way as well. But obviously not enough. - Here's a repeat post of that quote from Ayn Rand must have been about 1974, probably typical of that era (only 30 years ago)!! :-

I also requote another post.... the result of not doing something about global warming has been estimated at 15% drop in GDP. (FINALLY put in a format that these blokes understand , i.e. in $ terms !!) - The only problem is that the cure is a 25% drop in GDP. (and worldwide).

PS I should add that I'm getting on thin ice when I talk economics But you get my ghist I trust. i.e. I'm only repeating your statement that the concept of unlimited growth on Earth is unsustainable." or words to that effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
501
Smurf1976
Australian Use Of Uranium For Aussie Nuclear Weapon - Defence Review
Replies
14
Views
2K
SirRumpole
February 2025
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
ducati916
Albo's Coal and Gas Price Cap and Financial Aid proposal
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Smurf1976
Basic chart analysis/chart reading 101 for beginners
Replies
10
Views
4K
Gunnerguy
G
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...