Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Nuclear Power For Australia?

why is Tazzy so energy intensive, heating?
Five basic reasons.

One is simply it's by far the most electrified economy in the nation indeed it's right up there globally.

Electricity has a 72% market share for residential space heating, over 90% for commercial, it has a 90% market share for cooktops, 94% for hot water and almost 100% of ovens in Tasmania are electric. Add in the climate and the need for space heating and that leads to high consumption.

Versus just across Bass Strait in Victoria where gas overwhelmingly dominates for heating, cooking and hot water.

The other four reasons are more specific - Bell Bay Aluminium, Nyrstar, TEMCO and Norske Skog collectively "the big 4" between them use about 56% of all electricity in the state.

BBA - runs 3 potlines producing about 185,000 tonnes of aluminium metal each year. Most is exported as metal but some's supplied in molten form to the Ecka plant next door which produces aluminium powder (used to make metallic paint, explosives, rocket fuel etc). The ultimate owner of BBA is Rio Tinto.

Nyrstar - equal third largest zinc refinery on the planet, producing about 260,000 tonnes each year of zinc metal and about 350,000 tonnes a year of sulphuric acid. If you've been to Hobart as a tourist and caught the ferry to MONA then you sailed straight past this place, almost certainly failing to realise just how big a business it actually is:


As I've said to many, it's certainly not the prettiest thing in Tas in terms of aesthetics but it's outright beautiful in other ways. There's an awful lot of people who've at some point relied on that place for employment either directly or as a contractor or who did a trade apprenticeship there.

TEMCO (an acronym for Tasmanian Electro-Metallurgical Company) runs 4 furnaces producing ~270,000 tonnes per annum split roughly equally between ferromanganese and silicomanganese plus a separate sinter production facility producing ~325,000 tonnes per annum. These products being sold to steel producers as a key ingredient in steel production.

Norske Skog - runs two production lines one each producing newsprint and magazine paper. Long term it's almost certainly doomed for obvious reasons but for now it's still in business, it's outlasted many competitors who are long since gone, and uses about 7% of the state's electricity.

Now all that might seem off the topic of nuclear power and in some ways it is but in other ways it's getting to the heart of the issue.

Those factories are collectively producing $ billions worth of product for export or to replace what would otherwise be imported, the zinc metal alone exceeds $1 billion a year, and between them they're exporting to over a third of all countries in the world. But they're doing so in direct competition with countless others in China, the Middle East, various European countries, Brazil, USA, Canada and so on.

In short there's zero chance that production would be occurring in Australia without cheap energy, that's what it comes down to. Energy is the single largest production cost for BBA and it's a top three cost for the others. If an adequate supply of competitively priced and sufficiently reliable electricity wasn't available then they wouldn't be viable businesses in Tasmania or for that matter in Australia, the production would go offshore.

It's similar with the heating loads. That Tasmanians are using electricity for space heating, water heating and cooking comes down to it being reliable and reasonably cheap. The willingness of Tasmanians to cook, heat and shower with electricity would change real quick if prices were comparable to what we have in SA (roughly double the price in Tas) or if supply were unreliable.

So if the aim is to electrify society, to shift consumption away from gas to electricity, and if we want to have manufacturing and refining type industries in Australia then the key ingredient to making that work is cheap and reliable electricity. If we don't have that, forget the rest because it ain't happening.

Nuclear? It comes down to the above. Can it be done cheaply enough that it's viable for industry and it's viable for electricity to replace gas? Because if it can't then it's pointless - because if we're not going to be able to use it to run heavy industry, if it's too costly to electrify homes and businesses and replace gas, then there's not actually much point in it since the notion that society needs lots of electricity is dependent on it being used for industry and heat. Without that, if we're just running lights, computers and so on, well that's not a huge demand and it won't really matter how it's supplied.

Now contemplate the economic benefits to the nation if WA's minerals were refined through to metal rather than just selling the ore, the scale of that would vastly exceed what's being done in Tasmania given the quantities being mined, the money it'd bring in would be huge. To have any chance of happening though it needs cheap energy, without that it's no go. Same with any other sort of manufacturing.

A debate about energy supply isn't something that exists in isolation. It's really a debate about industry, since if we're going to produce large volumes of cheap electricity then ultimately that's what it'll be used for. :2twocents
 
As usual The Shovel totally nails this discussion.

“Why Dutton’s Plan for New Flying-Mermaid Cheese Planets Makes Economic Sense”


flying-mermaid-cheese-planets.jpg



A guest post by The Australian’s Economics Editor, Judith Sloan

“This week Peter Dutton released his much-anticipated plan to build a hundred new planets out of cheese by 2035. It was a relief to finally see a mature proposal put forward for solving Australia’s energy crisis.

According to Dutton, the new planets will be built by flying mermaids, with cheese grown in bat caves using yet-to-be-developed dragon-fire technology. Which, when you think about it, makes perfect economic sense.

While News Corp hasn’t advocated for, or even heard of flying mermaid dragon-fire cheese before today, now that it’s been fed to us as a Coalition talking point, it couldn’t be clearer that this is the only way forward for Australia.

The benefits, although they haven’t been articulated or costed in any way, are so obvious, they don’t even require explanation.
What we should be asking ourselves instead, is why Labor is standing in the way of spending an unknown amount on dragon-fire cheese planets built by imaginary mermaids. By stubbornly refusing to even consider ideas such as these, as usual, they are holding Australia back.

As anyone who has read the press release leaked to us today will tell you, Cheese-Enabled Planetary Technology (CEPT) is a far superior form of energy generation to wind and solar. And without the need for ugly panels or turbines (see image above).

It’s important to point out that the often-referenced CSIRO modelling, which claimed that building cheese-based planets using mermaid labour was "xucking ridiculous”, is based on flawed data. Their assumptions that mermaids and dragons don’t exist are nothing more than that – assumptions. Clearly the ‘scientists’ at the CSIRO haven’t read the Coalition’s extensive one-page analysis which shows that mermaids, once invented, can build cheese-based celestial objects quickly and affordably.

Dutton’s plan is the well-thought-through energy solution we’ve been waiting for for decades. As Peter Dutton so eloquently explained this week, the bat caves can be up and running within a year, and the first twenty cheese planets can be fully operational and producing electricity by the end of the decade. This is the level of certainty Australians so desperately need.

No doubt the usual naysayers will rear their heads. They’ll complain about the lack of costings, proven technology, and community consultation, or the fact that planets made out of cheese could melt as they rotate around the sun. Some will claim that cheese planets don’t exist. But that’s merely a ploy from desperate hecklers trying to distract you from what is clearly a sensible economic plan for Australia’s future.

As we head to the next election, Australians will have a choice to make. Do they want wacky energy solutions dreamed up on the back of an envelope? Or do they want cheese planets built by mermaids and powered by dragon fire? I look forward to sharing my further thoughts on the merits of cheese-based power in a further seventy columns between now and then”.

 
Very good analysis from Simon Holmes a' court on Duttons Nucleart power fantasy.
Simon stakes out his position as a supporter of nuclear power. He thinks it has merit. However he dissects the proposals by Peter Dutton and concludes this is just a charade to promote a vast expansion of expensive gas fired power generators

 
That is fascinating, Smurf.
Victoria would be lower due to the temperate climate but why is Tazzy so energy intensive, heating?
SAs heat is dry so evap systems would work well.

Why would you say WA is a hard place for renewables? Lack of hydro? The tropical environment of far north Queensland would make renewables difficult imo.

I was hearing the Hunter Valley is fairly keen for a nuclear power station to keep the place going as the coal mines and power stations close.
Build it on the old Liddell power station site near Muswellbrook, already hooked into the grid with Big capacity, has its own dam onsite and it is far enough away from houses for people to accept it
 
As usual The Shovel totally nails this discussion.

“Why Dutton’s Plan for New Flying-Mermaid Cheese Planets Makes Economic Sense”


View attachment 179062


A guest post by The Australian’s Economics Editor, Judith Sloan

“This week Peter Dutton released his much-anticipated plan to build a hundred new planets out of cheese by 2035. It was a relief to finally see a mature proposal put forward for solving Australia’s energy crisis.

According to Dutton, the new planets will be built by flying mermaids, with cheese grown in bat caves using yet-to-be-developed dragon-fire technology. Which, when you think about it, makes perfect economic sense.

While News Corp hasn’t advocated for, or even heard of flying mermaid dragon-fire cheese before today, now that it’s been fed to us as a Coalition talking point, it couldn’t be clearer that this is the only way forward for Australia.

The benefits, although they haven’t been articulated or costed in any way, are so obvious, they don’t even require explanation.
What we should be asking ourselves instead, is why Labor is standing in the way of spending an unknown amount on dragon-fire cheese planets built by imaginary mermaids. By stubbornly refusing to even consider ideas such as these, as usual, they are holding Australia back.

As anyone who has read the press release leaked to us today will tell you, Cheese-Enabled Planetary Technology (CEPT) is a far superior form of energy generation to wind and solar. And without the need for ugly panels or turbines (see image above).

It’s important to point out that the often-referenced CSIRO modelling, which claimed that building cheese-based planets using mermaid labour was "xucking ridiculous”, is based on flawed data. Their assumptions that mermaids and dragons don’t exist are nothing more than that – assumptions. Clearly the ‘scientists’ at the CSIRO haven’t read the Coalition’s extensive one-page analysis which shows that mermaids, once invented, can build cheese-based celestial objects quickly and affordably.

Dutton’s plan is the well-thought-through energy solution we’ve been waiting for for decades. As Peter Dutton so eloquently explained this week, the bat caves can be up and running within a year, and the first twenty cheese planets can be fully operational and producing electricity by the end of the decade. This is the level of certainty Australians so desperately need.

No doubt the usual naysayers will rear their heads. They’ll complain about the lack of costings, proven technology, and community consultation, or the fact that planets made out of cheese could melt as they rotate around the sun. Some will claim that cheese planets don’t exist. But that’s merely a ploy from desperate hecklers trying to distract you from what is clearly a sensible economic plan for Australia’s future.

As we head to the next election, Australians will have a choice to make. Do they want wacky energy solutions dreamed up on the back of an envelope? Or do they want cheese planets built by mermaids and powered by dragon fire? I look forward to sharing my further thoughts on the merits of cheese-based power in a further seventy columns between now and then”.

That's got to be the most sensible thing that Judith Sloane every written.... And confirms to me yet again her business acumen.
 
I reckon this one takes the cake

"

Man Who Was Paralysed With Fear Over Lack Of Details About Indigenous Voice Provides A One-Page Media Release For His Half A Trillion Dollar Nuclear Plan"​


 
The new Finland reactor is 1.6gw.
This appears pretty typical of modern reactors. Started building in 2005 and finished last year. Meant to be earlier but there were problems.

Very logical for Finland to build to
1. Stop reliance on Russian gas and reduce reliance on Sweden and Norway,
2. Not very suitable place for solar systems.

Not as clear a case in Australia.


We could probably pick any of the very few Nuclear reactors being built as real life examples of what will happen. To quote from the article

Construction of the 1.6 gigawatt (GW) reactor, Finland's first new nuclear plant in more than four decades and Europe's first in 16 years, began in 2005. The plant was originally due to open four years later, (2009!!) but was plagued by technical issues.
OL3 first supplied test production to Finland's national power grid in March last year and was expected at the time to begin regular output four months later, but instead suffered a string of breakdowns and outages that took months to fix.

.................................................................................................

The Olkiluoto 3 is a third generation European-type pressurized water reactor developed and built by a joint venture between France’s Areva and Germany’s Siemens. Construction began in 2005 and was to be completed four years later. However, the project was plagued by several technological problems that lead to lawsuits.

Finnish public broadcaster YLE said late last year that the reactor’s final price tag was put at around 11 billion euros ($12 billion) - almost three times more than what was initially estimated. ( This article was published in march 2022 before the string of breakdowns and outages noted above)

 
This guy has vested interests. He has way too much say in government affairs

Or you could discuss what he says and point out factual errors.

And maybe you could check out people like former Chief Scientist under the Liberal Government Alan Finkel and see his take. It is very similar. He also has cautious support for long term nuclear power but sees no place for it in the next 20 years when all the critical decarbonisation of our energy systems must be achieved.

 
Talking about U Turns.
When the Morrison Government decided to use US technology for our new submarines the Ausralia Government expressly followed non nuclear proliferation requirements as part of teh deal.

Peter Dutton has just ripped them up.

 
Trump gives us some tips, on how not to be bent over the barrel with nuclear.

In an interview when asked about Australia going to nuclear power, his statement was don't do it like the U.S where the private sector want to make huge reactors that cost a fortune, do it like France and make smaller reactors and just duplicate them if you want to increase the output.

Maybe he isn't as stupid as some would make out, other than those who want to beat the private sector drum, vested interests overiding climate concerns? :rolleyes:


20240622_073925.jpg
 
Last edited:
Or you could discuss what he says and point out factual errors.

And maybe you could check out people like former Chief Scientist under the Liberal Government Alan Finkel and see his take. It is very similar. He also has cautious support for long term nuclear power but sees no place for it in the next 20 years when all the critical decarbonisation of our energy systems must be achieved.

I'm not convinced on nuke. But Holmes a court has big investment and will reap the benefits. F@$k all those guys and their opinions. I want the people that will do what's best for the interests of the country. Not for the climate cult.
 
Or you could discuss what he says and point out factual errors.

And maybe you could check out people like former Chief Scientist under the Liberal Government Alan Finkel and see his take. It is very similar. He also has cautious support for long term nuclear power but sees no place for it in the next 20 years when all the critical decarbonisation of our energy systems must be achieved.

Jeez, Baz, we contribute three tenths of FA to the carbon cycle but you want us to lead the way.
We could stop putting out carbon tomorrow and it would make not one iota of difference.

The ones who might make a difference, the Chinese, Indians, the Russians, etc etc will go on their merry way putting out more CO2.
If you and the Holmes a courts of this world think the world is gunna boil, go after them first.
otherwise your just wasting everyones time and handing the brics a free ride.

Mick
 
I want the people that will do what's best for the interests of the country. Not for the climate cult.
You have to careful saying something logical, you will be up for a cancelling. ;)

Some interesting current facts on nuclear:

Planned global nuclear power reactor additions 2024, by country​

Published by
M. Garside,
Jun 6, 2024
As of May 2024, almost half of the planned nuclear reactors worldwide were in China. This country planned the construction of 41 nuclear units out of the total global number of 92. Russia followed in second place with 14 planned nuclear reactors.

Nuclear reactors​

Nuclear reactors are used to start and control a nuclear chain reaction in power plants. The heat from the reaction is transferred to a working fluid which in turn runs through turbines for both electricity generation and ship propulsion. Nuclear reactors can also be used in the creation of isotopes for medical or industrial purposes, as well as for weapons production.
The mean construction time for global nuclear reactors completed between 2013 and 2022 averaged nine years, ranging from a minimum of six in China to a maximum of 43 in the United States.

Nuclear power reactors worldwide​

While China and Russia had the largest number of planned nuclear reactors as of May 2024, the United States reported the largest number of operable nuclear reactors at the time, with 94 units. China was tied with France for second, with both having 56 operable reactors at that time.
In terms of nuclear reactors under construction, China led the ranking, with 25 units as of June 2024.
 
Last edited:
Rolls Royce are touting Micro reactors in the 1 to 10 megawatts of power.
RR Micro reactors
Mick
Also 4 other manufacturers. I don't believe any of them have built a full prototype yet.


 
Top