Nuclear Power For Australia?

[sptrawler]

Here is an interesting real life start from scratch nuclear story, in a Country that prior to the decision for nuclear, was full on fossil fuel.

Like I've said previously, I'm not fussed either way, just like to have a bit of honesty in the whole debate, rather than loony tunes.

Nuclear power in the United Arab Emirates - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The United Arab Emirates is installing nuclear-powered plants to meet their electricity demand, which is estimated to increase from 15 GWe to over 40 GWe in 2020.[1] In December 2009, the US and UAE signed a Section 123 Agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation.[2] The UAE has also signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), along with the additional protocol.[

The Barakah nuclear power plant is the first nuclear power station in the United Arab Emirates. Construction began in 2012, and four APR-1400 nuclear reactors were planned to start operating successively between 2017 and 2020.[4] As of March 2024, all four new nuclear reactors are now fully operational in the Barakah Nuclear station, producing 5,348 MWe of electricity[5] and allowing the UAE to produce 40 TWh of electricity per year, driving the proposed Net Zero economy.[6]

In December 2009, Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC) awarded a coalition led by Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) a $20 billion bid to build the first nuclear power plant in the UAE. Barakah, about 50 km west of Ruwais, was chosen as the site.[7][8] In 2011 Bloomberg reported that following detailed finance agreements, the build cost was put at $30 billion: $10 billion equity, $10 billion export-credit agency debt, and $10 billion from bank and sovereign debt. South Korea may earn a further $20 billion from operation, maintenance and fuel supply contracts.[9] However, a later Bloomberg report indicates the price as $25 billion.[10]

As of 2023, the United Arab Emirates began talks with the South Korean Nuclear power contractor (KEPCO) Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. to potentially develop two additional reactors to the existing four operational (APR 1400) reactors at the facility. Soil preparation work has been partially outlined at the Barakah facility, indicating that steps are being implemented to develop the new reactors at the site. The addition of two additional APR(1400) reactors project is estimated at $15.3 billion US dollars. Large steps are being taken, showing the desire for the UAE and Korea to continue the project.[16]

 

[SirRumpole]

If you don't know, vote NO ?

Coalition won't say how much nuclear power its plan will generate until after an election

Coalition energy spokesperson Ted O'Brien, who designed the plan, says the amount of energy generated would depend on the type and number of reactors built at each site.

www.abc.net.au

 

[mullokintyre]

From CNN

Democrats and Republicans in a bitterly divided Congress can agree on one thing: the US needs more nuclear to power America’s rapidly growing energy appetite — and fast.
The Senate overwhelmingly approved a major bill Tuesday night to make it easier, cheaper and faster to permit and build new nuclear reactors. The ADVANCE Act, which passed with just two senators voting no, now heads to Biden’s desk for signing, which he is expected to do.
The bill represents one of the most significant actions Congress has taken to advance clean energy since Democrats narrowly passed the Inflation Reduction Act almost two years ago. And it comes as the US tries to revive an aging nuclear energy industry at home and bolster cutting-edge technologies abroad.


“In a major victory for our climate and American energy security, the U.S. Senate has passed the ADVANCE Act with overwhelming, bipartisan support,” Democratic Sen. Tom Carper, the chair of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement.
The bill works to bring down costs for developers by streamlining the permitting process — cutting fees and speeding approval times — and spurs more development of new-wave projects, like small modular nuclear reactors.
It also incentivizes deploying advanced American nuclear technologies overseas, as the US competes with Russia and China for global nuclear energy dominance.

Why is it that so many other countries such as America and UAE are making the huge and costly mistake of wasting money on Nuclear energy when so many Australian experts have said its too costly?
Just because these other countries have the experience and expertise to build them having done so already, unlike their Australian counterparts who have zero experience or expertise, they are obviously out of kilter with current thinking.
/sarc
Mick

 

[macca]

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?


View attachment 179144

And that is why they all hate him, he rocks the boat with those who have their foot on the throat of the workers

 

[sptrawler]

And that is why they all hate him, he rocks the boat with those who have their foot on the throat of the workers

It's also funny the ones who hate him here, also hate nuclear and so do the private sector. Go figure.

Wait until they have to release where the dams are going to be built and they work out gas fired generation gives off half the emissions coal does, they will hate that also, there's no pleasing some.

There will probably be a mass extinction event, when they work it all out and hold their breaths in anger and protest.

 

[sptrawler]

From CNN


Why is it that so many other countries such as America and UAE are making the huge and costly mistake of wasting money on Nuclear energy when so many Australian experts have said its too costly?
Just because these other countries have the experience and expertise to build them having done so already, unlike their Australian counterparts who have zero experience or expertise, they are obviously out of kilter with current thinking.
/sarc
Mick

Well when you get headlines like this one posted below, it shows how little research is done.
Why wouldn't the Government put in mutltiple units at a site, it allows the turn down ratio of smaller units and also allows individual units to be taken off line for maintenance.
The write i posted up on the UAE nuclear station, shows it can be done and can be done in a sensible timeframe, they installed 4 units on a greenfield site in a 12 year time frame.
How long will it take to build 5 Snowy 2.0's, which from memory is what is required and sites haven't even been declared so will they get the environmental and cultural ok to do them.
There is long way to go in this debate, that's for sure.
Hopefully we chose a sensible long term solution that stands Australia in good stead as we try to fund our welfare system and lifestyles.
Like I keep saying, it boils back to honesty:
Do we really want to get to emissions free?
If so what can do it?
Just using energy density of nuclear and forgetting cost, it can do it.
If we are going to use renewables, they need to fess up on long duration stored energy(not batteries) and also how much is required to actually get emissions free outcome. Using gas isn't a long term answer, so therefore they need to get on with more dams.
Easy really, if they are all honest, the answer will be obvious IMO.

‘Multiple reactors’: New detail in nuke plan​

The Coalition’s energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has revealed a surprising new detail for the opposition’s nuclear energy plan.

 

[moXJO]

We should be talking about renewables and how much we have to increase the grid.
@Smurf1976 is it true we would need to double it on the east coast?

 

[IFocus]

Well when you get headlines like this one posted below, it shows how little research is done.
Why wouldn't the Government put in mutltiple units at a site, it allows the turn down ratio of smaller units and also allows individual units to be taken off line for maintenance.
The write i posted up on the UAE nuclear station, shows it can be done and can be done in a sensible timeframe, they installed 4 units on a greenfield site in a 12 year time frame.
How long will it take to build 5 Snowy 2.0's, which from memory is what is required and sites haven't even been declared so will they get the environmental and cultural ok to do them.
There is long way to go in this debate, that's for sure.
Hopefully we chose a sensible long term solution that stands Australia in good stead as we try to fund our welfare system and lifestyles.
Like I keep saying, it boils back to honesty:
Do we really want to get to emissions free?
If so what can do it?
Just using energy density of nuclear and forgetting cost, it can do it.
If we are going to use renewables, they need to fess up on long duration stored energy(not batteries) and also how much is required to actually get emissions free outcome. Using gas isn't a long term answer, so therefore they need to get on with more dams.
Easy really, if they are all honest, the answer will be obvious IMO.

‘Multiple reactors’: New detail in nuke plan​

The Coalition’s energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has revealed a surprising new detail for the opposition’s nuclear energy plan.

Smaller units = massive increase in costs, current builds are 1gw plus heaps trying to get the scale which all works for heavy industry bases that run 24hrs.

Still costs a mosta ++ and the one for the Arabs I wonder how safe.

Quoting Trump as if he knows something...

 

[sptrawler]

Smaller units = massive increase in costs, current builds are 1gw plus heaps trying to get the scale which all works for heavy industry bases that run 24hrs.

Still costs a mosta ++ and the one for the Arabs I wonder how safe.

Quoting Trump as if he knows something...

They will probably call you, when they run into trouble and need your technical input. Lol
Yee of little faith, we will have to wait until Labor get on board, before you will take a positive view.
If it's anything like the subs, Snowy and Kurri Kurri, it may only be a matter of time.

 

[Smurf1976]

We should be talking about renewables and how much we have to increase the grid.
@Smurf1976 is it true we would need to double it on the east coast?

Data for the past 12 months (up to date as of end of last week) for the eastern states (Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, SA, Tas collectively) as follows.

Coal = 56.7%
Solar = 18.7%
Wind = 12.6%
Hydro = 6.8%
Gas = 4.9%
Bio (wood etc) = 0.2%
Diesel = 0.03%

Electricity isn't about averages however, it's about what happens at any given time and that's where it gets more painful.

30th of May wind and solar were 39.5% between them.

13h of June wind and solar were 12.4% between them.

At 5:30pm on Saturday night, 22 June, wind and solar were 3.7%. Just 19 hours later at 12:30pm on Sunday they were 51.1%.

Even more extreme over a smaller area. Eg SA wind and solar was 2.5% at 5:30pm (SA time) on Saturday night. At 12:30 pm on Sunday they were 104.7% of consumption (the excess going to Victoria).

30 May wind and solar met 60.4% of total consumption in Victoria. 13 June it was 3.2%.

How to deal with that variability is the problem with renewables and in particular, the reality that for political etc reasons the technically viable solutions are often not the ones that many would prefer.

Batteries work technically and for peak power they're great. Just one problem:

2H 2023 Energy Storage Market Outlook | BloombergNEF

Three years into the decade of energy storage, deployments are on track to hit 42GW/99GWh, up 34% in gigawatt hours from our previous forecast.

about.bnef.com

Three years into the decade of energy storage, deployments are on track to hit 42GW/99GWh

Sounds impressive? Not so fast.....

For the eastern states + SA total consumption is an average of 576 GWh per day, and peaks close to 700.

Great Lake, Tasmania, stores 6567 GWh. Arthurs Lake is 795, Gordon and Pedder combined are 4699, St Clair and King William combined are 802, Echo is 892, Burbury is 234, Murchison and Mackintosh combined are 176, and so on. Heck even the 110 year old working museum that is the Lake Margaret scheme stores 11 GWh and that's a baby by modern standards.

At the moment in Australia we're basically meandering (at best) toward an approach that uses wind + solar with batteries for short duration storage and gas to deal with the longer periods (anything more than a few hours) of low wind and sun. Advocates will say gas isn't coal, that it won't be used too much and so on. Technically however there's a few holes in that.

At present peak demand for gas used "as gas" in NSW is just on 500 TJ/d. Don't worry about the units if you can't get your mind around terajoules per day, just focus on the 500 as the quantity.

Now suppose that wind and solar were scaled up so that they produce 100% of NSW's electricity on an annual basis. OK so far. For the record that would require them to be 3.6 times present capacity so not out of the question but a significant task.

Now what would happen on a day of poor yield? Well let's see.....

On the 13, 14 and 15 June, output was 48%, 34% and 45% of average respectively. Meanwhile consumption on those days was 116%, 115% and 107% of average.

So just burn gas then?

Well for a start that requires a fleet of gas turbines, some already exist and the rest would need to be built.

The big one though is the gas that would be needed to run them. Anyone like to guess how much?

The answer is 1450 TJ for the 13th June, 1735 TJ for the 14th June, and 1375 TJ for the 15th of June.

So that's a 350% increase in gas supply capability required to meet requirements on the 14th of June. That right there is the elephant in the room with all this - having gas in the ground doesn't cut it, having the ability to get it to Sydney (or somewhere nearby) over the course of 12 months also doesn't cut it. What's required is to be able to get it into power stations at extremely high rates in real time when required and doing that requires a huge increase in the ability to supply gas.

That could be built to be clear, I'm not suggesting otherwise, but point is it would need to actually be built and that's some pretty serious infrastructure. For the NT or at a stretch SA it works for much the same reasons that having everyone in a small town drive to the town center isn't a problem. But somewhere bit like NSW it's far more difficult much like having everyone drive into the Sydney CBD isn't a particularly easy thing to make work. Possible, could be done, but oh wow that's a lot of pipes, storage and so on and it's $ billions to build it all.

Now that wouldn't be so bad if gas were a long term solution. If the infrastructure was going to be built then used for its full working life which is a very long time - a full human lifetime basically, or even longer. But that's not the intention, there's this idea that the gas is only temporary and isn't sustainable and in that context building all that infrastructure starts to look very shaky indeed as a concept.

That leads engineers to start looking closely at topographic maps for possible hydro sites. Not because engineers are obsessed with hydro but just because it works and it's a permanent solution, albeit one that requires some serious work to design and build but there's proof beyond all doubt that it's possible and it works once completed.

Snowy 2.0 of itself can get rid of about 460 TJ of peak day gas requirements and that's using conservative assumptions as to its performance, anything in engineering always erring on the side of caution (well, at least it should be). Real world in practice it should be closer to 510 TJ it saves and best case can go as high as 560 TJ on a single day of gas it avoids needing to be supplied.

Now realise all this is even worse in Victoria where bad yield days for wind and solar are considerably worse than in NSW. Eg 13 June in Vic was just 11% of average and the following day was 36% of average meanwhile demand on those days was above average due to cold weather. In contrast, it's a lot easier in Queensland due to climate.

So the basic options for Australia come down to this:

1. Wind + Solar + Batteries + A major new investment into gas.

2. As above but replace at least some of the gas with diesel. Diesel itself is more expensive, but a diesel storage tank is cheap - it avoids the high infrastructure cost of gas to just put a big tank of diesel next to the generating plant and deliver fuel to it gradually by road or rail tankers (or even better, put the power station next to an existing oil terminal that receives delivery by ship).

3. As above but use hydro to replace some of the gas / diesel.

4. Downsize the whole renewables + storage thing by using nuclear. It doesn't just replace some of the gas, it replaces a portion of the wind, solar and batteries as well since it's firm dispatchable power.

My view isn't rusted on to any one approach but it's very much that the general public needs to understand what the option are and that they all involve some pain. It's not an option to just put solar on roofs, install some batteries and it all works, that by itself doesn't cut it.

If the public understood and accepted that reality then a rational debate becomes far easier. It's far easier to have the conversation about diesel or hydro when people understand there's no easy option, pain is required and the question is the detail of it. Once people realise what the options are, all of a sudden they start thinking yeah, OK, so as long as we're putting these diesels somewhere sensible or as long as we're not putting hydro somewhere that wipes out a species then there's an argument for it as an alternative to gas for deep firming. But yes, some gas will also be part of it, it's a case by case question as to what's best where.

Gas or arguments for alternatives in the form of hydro or diesel aren't about bulk generation, nobody's sensibly suggesting we run the nation on those alone. What they're about is dealing with three days straight of terrible yields from the wind and sun meanwhile everyone's got their heaters on. So they're about high outputs but intermittently for shortish periods, hence the need to either have a very high ability to deliver gas to the site, or to have energy stored behind a dam or as diesel in a tank. Noting that the dam or diesel tank can be filled gradually, that's the benefit of the storage.

Nuclear? I'm not convinced on cost, nothing I've seen says it's going to stack up, but if it's a goer anywhere then it'll be Victoria first and next comes WA. Victoria because the weather's hugely problematic with wind and solar, and WA because of the very limited hydro options and that it's an isolated system. Despite what most might assume the grid in WA actually covers a small area geographically when compared to the eastern states and that increases weather vulnerability with wind and solar - if it's cloudy on one panel, odds are it's cloudy on the lot. Versus the eastern states where between far north Qld and southern Tasmania and across to SA, which are all one big system, odds are it's windy or sunny at least somewhere which does help somewhat.

Which brings up the other point - transmission is also key to making any of this work. The existing transmission system was built to connect generation to loads but, key point, the generation was mostly built where resources (coal or hydro) are and that generally isn't where the best wind and solar is.

 

[Smurf1976]

Incidentally wind alone is presently generating 108.9% of demand in SA and 45.8% in Victoria.

So it absolutely can and does work. But it's only a replacement for coal (or nuclear) if as a society we're willing to build and run the storage and/or backup generation (hydro, gas, diesel) to go with it.

If we don't want all that, then nuclear is an alternative.

 

[SirRumpole]

Data for the past 12 months (up to date as of end of last week) for the eastern states (Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, SA, Tas collectively) as follows.

Coal = 56.7%
Solar = 18.7%
Wind = 12.6%
Hydro = 6.8%
Gas = 4.9%
Bio (wood etc) = 0.2%
Diesel = 0.03%

Electricity isn't about averages however, it's about what happens at any given time and that's where it gets more painful.

30th of May wind and solar were 39.5% between them.

13h of June wind and solar were 12.4% between them.

At 5:30pm on Saturday night, 22 June, wind and solar were 3.7%. Just 19 hours later at 12:30pm on Sunday they were 51.1%.

Even more extreme over a smaller area. Eg SA wind and solar was 2.5% at 5:30pm (SA time) on Saturday night. At 12:30 pm on Sunday they were 104.7% of consumption (the excess going to Victoria).

30 May wind and solar met 60.4% of total consumption in Victoria. 13 June it was 3.2%.

How to deal with that variability is the problem with renewables and in particular, the reality that for political etc reasons the technically viable solutions are often not the ones that many would prefer.

Batteries work technically and for peak power they're great. Just one problem:

2H 2023 Energy Storage Market Outlook | BloombergNEF

Three years into the decade of energy storage, deployments are on track to hit 42GW/99GWh, up 34% in gigawatt hours from our previous forecast.

about.bnef.com

Sounds impressive? Not so fast.....

For the eastern states + SA total consumption is an average of 576 GWh per day, and peaks close to 700.

Great Lake, Tasmania, stores 6567 GWh. Arthurs Lake is 795, Gordon and Pedder combined are 4699, St Clair and King William combined are 802, Echo is 892, Burbury is 234, Murchison and Mackintosh combined are 176, and so on. Heck even the 110 year old working museum that is the Lake Margaret scheme stores 11 GWh and that's a baby by modern standards.

At the moment in Australia we're basically meandering (at best) toward an approach that uses wind + solar with batteries for short duration storage and gas to deal with the longer periods (anything more than a few hours) of low wind and sun. Advocates will say gas isn't coal, that it won't be used too much and so on. Technically however there's a few holes in that.

At present peak demand for gas used "as gas" in NSW is just on 500 TJ/d. Don't worry about the units if you can't get your mind around terajoules per day, just focus on the 500 as the quantity.

Now suppose that wind and solar were scaled up so that they produce 100% of NSW's electricity on an annual basis. OK so far. For the record that would require them to be 3.6 times present capacity so not out of the question but a significant task.

Now what would happen on a day of poor yield? Well let's see.....

On the 13, 14 and 15 June, output was 48%, 34% and 45% of average respectively. Meanwhile consumption on those days was 116%, 115% and 107% of average.

So just burn gas then?

Well for a start that requires a fleet of gas turbines, some already exist and the rest would need to be built.

The big one though is the gas that would be needed to run them. Anyone like to guess how much?

The answer is 1450 TJ for the 13th June, 1735 TJ for the 14th June, and 1375 TJ for the 15th of June.

So that's a 350% increase in gas supply capability required to meet requirements on the 14th of June. That right there is the elephant in the room with all this - having gas in the ground doesn't cut it, having the ability to get it to Sydney (or somewhere nearby) over the course of 12 months also doesn't cut it. What's required is to be able to get it into power stations at extremely high rates in real time when required and doing that requires a huge increase in the ability to supply gas.

That could be built to be clear, I'm not suggesting otherwise, but point is it would need to actually be built and that's some pretty serious infrastructure. For the NT or at a stretch SA it works for much the same reasons that having everyone in a small town drive to the town center isn't a problem. But somewhere bit like NSW it's far more difficult much like having everyone drive into the Sydney CBD isn't a particularly easy thing to make work. Possible, could be done, but oh wow that's a lot of pipes, storage and so on and it's $ billions to build it all.

Now that wouldn't be so bad if gas were a long term solution. If the infrastructure was going to be built then used for its full working life which is a very long time - a full human lifetime basically, or even longer. But that's not the intention, there's this idea that the gas is only temporary and isn't sustainable and in that context building all that infrastructure starts to look very shaky indeed as a concept.

That leads engineers to start looking closely at topographic maps for possible hydro sites. Not because engineers are obsessed with hydro but just because it works and it's a permanent solution, albeit one that requires some serious work to design and build but there's proof beyond all doubt that it's possible and it works once completed.

Snowy 2.0 of itself can get rid of about 460 TJ of peak day gas requirements and that's using conservative assumptions as to its performance, anything in engineering always erring on the side of caution (well, at least it should be). Real world in practice it should be closer to 510 TJ it saves and best case can go as high as 560 TJ on a single day of gas it avoids needing to be supplied.

Now realise all this is even worse in Victoria where bad yield days for wind and solar are considerably worse than in NSW. Eg 13 June in Vic was just 11% of average and the following day was 36% of average meanwhile demand on those days was above average due to cold weather. In contrast, it's a lot easier in Queensland due to climate.

So the basic options for Australia come down to this:

1. Wind + Solar + Batteries + A major new investment into gas.

2. As above but replace at least some of the gas with diesel. Diesel itself is more expensive, but a diesel storage tank is cheap - it avoids the high infrastructure cost of gas to just put a big tank of diesel next to the generating plant and deliver fuel to it gradually by road or rail tankers (or even better, put the power station next to an existing oil terminal that receives delivery by ship).

3. As above but use hydro to replace some of the gas / diesel.

4. Downsize the whole renewables + storage thing by using nuclear. It doesn't just replace some of the gas, it replaces a portion of the wind, solar and batteries as well since it's firm dispatchable power.

My view isn't rusted on to any one approach but it's very much that the general public needs to understand what the option are and that they all involve some pain. It's not an option to just put solar on roofs, install some batteries and it all works, that by itself doesn't cut it.

If the public understood and accepted that reality then a rational debate becomes far easier. It's far easier to have the conversation about diesel or hydro when people understand there's no easy option, pain is required and the question is the detail of it. Once people realise what the options are, all of a sudden they start thinking yeah, OK, so as long as we're putting these diesels somewhere sensible or as long as we're not putting hydro somewhere that wipes out a species then there's an argument for it as an alternative to gas for deep firming. But yes, some gas will also be part of it, it's a case by case question as to what's best where.

Gas or arguments for alternatives in the form of hydro or diesel aren't about bulk generation, nobody's sensibly suggesting we run the nation on those alone. What they're about is dealing with three days straight of terrible yields from the wind and sun meanwhile everyone's got their heaters on. So they're about high outputs but intermittently for shortish periods, hence the need to either have a very high ability to deliver gas to the site, or to have energy stored behind a dam or as diesel in a tank. Noting that the dam or diesel tank can be filled gradually, that's the benefit of the storage.

Nuclear? I'm not convinced on cost, nothing I've seen says it's going to stack up, but if it's a goer anywhere then it'll be Victoria first and next comes WA. Victoria because the weather's hugely problematic with wind and solar, and WA because of the very limited hydro options and that it's an isolated system. Despite what most might assume the grid in WA actually covers a small area geographically when compared to the eastern states and that increases weather vulnerability with wind and solar - if it's cloudy on one panel, odds are it's cloudy on the lot. Versus the eastern states where between far north Qld and southern Tasmania and across to SA, which are all one big system, odds are it's windy or sunny at least somewhere which does help somewhat.

Which brings up the other point - transmission is also key to making any of this work. The existing transmission system was built to connect generation to loads but, key point, the generation was mostly built where resources (coal or hydro) are and that generally isn't where the best wind and solar is.

A great dissection of the realities @Smurf1976.

The choice is really hydro or nuclear, gas and batteries alone wont stack up in the long term.

If the Federal and State governments want VRE, then they have to bite the bullet and put in hydro firming to match. No exuses, no escape, no alternative.

What is your estimate of a reasonable number of hydro projects that will be needed, and where?

 

[mullokintyre]

A great dissection of the realities @Smurf1976.

The choice is really hydro or nuclear, gas and batteries alone wont stack up in the long term.

If the Federal and State governments want VRE, then they have to bite the bullet and put in hydro firming to match. No exuses, no escape, no alternative.

What is your estimate of a reasonable number of hydro projects that will be needed, and where?

I would prefer a mix.
Hydro is fine if there is enough water.
There have been periods of prolonged drought, some like the millenium drought in 2001 to 2009 lasting multiple seasons.
Tasmania, which has a large resource of hydro, in both 2007 and 2016 had severe drought that threatened to curtail power supplies.
If we are to believe the climate experts, Australia, already a pretty dry climate, is going to have lower rainfall in the future, just as we get a large increase in population requiring more water.
We need to spread the risk.
Mick

 

[IFocus]

Incidentally wind alone is presently generating 108.9% of demand in SA and 45.8% in Victoria.

So it absolutely can and does work. But it's only a replacement for coal (or nuclear) if as a society we're willing to build and run the storage and/or backup generation (hydro, gas, diesel) to go with it.

If we don't want all that, then nuclear is an alternative.

If you could switch nuclear on and off the argument over cost would go away problem is at the moment you cannot.

Nuclear fills a small part of the problem at massive cost which currently can only be fixed with gas in the short term, some one has to sort out the supply.

And I totally agree with you about building one nuclear plant.

 

[moXJO]

I swear we have had the same discussions for nearly 2 decades

Just watching the 7.30 report and cant believe howard's using nuclear power as his get out of jail free card on the carbon debate. Liberals have sat on their hands for far to long in regards to Australia's energy needs and not signing the kyoto agreement (siding with america) certainly reveals howard's old school way of thought concerning the environment.
Stated on the program clean coal and nuclear energy are both a minimum 10 years off. Why on earth are we considering nuclear power when renewable sources such as wind, tidal and solar can be bought on line far quicker and with less expense and with no waste to deal with.
Australia is one of the most backward countries when it come to pollution why?

Back in 2006 page 1 of this thread.

 

[mullokintyre]

I swear we have had the same discussions for nearly 2 decades

Back in 2006 page 1 of this thread.

And like the discussion now, so much of it is politcally based.
Like those original posts from 2006, so many of the current posts are along party lines, except now its bagging Dutton and Bowen rather than Howard and the then minister for Environment, none other than A Albanese.
As Jean Karr once said “plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose “.
Mick

 

[sptrawler]

If you could switch nuclear on and off the argument over cost would go away problem is at the moment you cannot.

Nuclear fills a small part of the problem at massive cost which currently can only be fixed with gas in the short term, some one has to sort out the supply.

And I totally agree with you about building one nuclear plant.

You could always build an large elecrolyser plant near to nuclear plant to make bulk hydrogen, rather than switch the nuclear off, so when the renewables are supplying the load the nuclear makes hydrogen for storage or export?
There are always options, if you look for them.
An electrolyser plant could be huge, it still wouldn't take up as much space as a solar farm. Lol

 

[mullokintyre]

You could always build an large elecrolyser plant near to nuclear plant to make bulk hydrogen, rather than switch the nuclear off, so when the renewables are supplying the load the nuclear makes hydrogen for storage or export?
There are always options, if you look for them.
An electrolyser plant could be huge, it still wouldn't take up as much space as a solar farm. Lol

You could also setup a desalination plant on the WA coast and pump the water inland, either for town supply or irrigation.
Or you could build an electric arc furnace and turn some of the abundance of iron ore we currently export.
The excess oxygen generated from the elctrolysis plant producing Hydrogen would feed into the EAF.
Mick

 

[sptrawler]

You could also setup a desalination plant on the WA coast and pump the water inland, either for town supply or irrigation.
Or you could build an electric arc furnace and turn some of the abundance of iron ore we currently export.
The excess oxygen generated from the elctrolysis plant producing Hydrogen would feed into the EAF.
Mick

Absolutely, it's never just black or white, there are a myriad of things that clean energy can be used for, we're only limited by our imagination and unforrtunately our inherent bias and underlying negativity.
On the subject of desalination plants in W.A, we already have two and I think I heard another was being built, therefore that base load is already existing. The Kwinana desal is about 100MW, the Binningup desal is bigger and the Alkimos one just North of Perth is going to be bigger again, I heard the Govt is taliking about putting in 400MW of renewables to mitigate the desal energy usage.
That is a lot of extra base load, that will require firming from something and we don't have dams.

 

[SirRumpole]

You could always build an large elecrolyser plant near to nuclear plant to make bulk hydrogen, rather than switch the nuclear off, so when the renewables are supplying the load the nuclear makes hydrogen for storage or export?
There are always options, if you look for them.
An electrolyser plant could be huge, it still wouldn't take up as much space as a solar farm. Lol

Exactly. Or use it for other energy intensive industries like aluminium and steel.

But you do these things when you are ready and to gamble the whole grid on nuclear while shutting down renewables investment is utterly foolish in my view.