Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Nuclear Power For Australia?

Jump to new
Another voice in the wilderness.

look-beyond-nuclear-price-tag-industry-veteran-urges

"We should be setting Australia up to have the most flexible, secure and advanced power generation system and workforce looking forward to the next 50 to 100 years," he said on Tuesday.

Dr Green, who worked in the nuclear industry in the US and Europe for 40 years after graduating from the University of Sydney, recommended state and federal legislation reform to remove the ban on nuclear reactors.

He also called for the nation's nuclear knowledge base to be bolstered with more training, and to ensure correct information in the political debate.

Dr Green also urged the federal government to remain engaged with the international nuclear forum, and for the development of a secure nuclear waste storage facility to replace the current mix of locations.
 
sptrawler said:
That's the problem, we have to be open minded about stuff, be it dams, windfarms, solar farms, nuclear, gas, biofuels etc.
Hopefully technology fixes the failings and shortcomings of everything, then everyone will be happy. ;)
Click to expand...

I like your optimism, but tell it to the vested interests like our indigenous friends who want every bit of "sacred" land to be a goldmine for them.
 
SirRumpole said:
I like your optimism, but tell it to the vested interests like our indigenous friends who want every bit of "sacred" land to be a goldmine for them.
Click to expand...
It will all get sorted out, or we wont be living the life we have now, no one will get much out of the Chinese if we become their colony. :roflmao:

With the power system, the answer lies somewhere between what Labor want, what the Coalition want and what the Greens can stuff up. ;)
 
"the CSIRO won't release their calculations"

"because the CSIRO won't release their data"

 
SirRumpole said:
When you apply the same scrutiny to Frontier Economics, get back to me.
Click to expand...


"project cost estimates from 2020 with those given in 2024. Most projects costs were wildly underestimated...but we don't even know which projects the CSIRO included in the model because they haven't given us the data"

1734491441413.png


What’s missing from the CSIRO’s latest GenCost draft
 
JohnDe said:
Yes, any environmentally damaging projects. And instead concentrate on locations that have minimal impact on the area, like existing coal fired power stations.

The proposed Port Stephens offshore wind farm has raised concerns about its environmental impact, including:
  • Marine life: The turbines could interact with migrating humpback whales, which travel through the area from May to October. The turbines could also disrupt shipping movements, which could threaten whales.

  • Habitat loss: The turbines could destroy natural habitats and displace marine species.

  • Noise pollution: The turbines could create noise pollution.

  • Electromagnetic fields: The turbines emit electromagnetic fields that could interfere with the ocean's natural fields, affecting the migration patterns of fish and mammals.

  • Exclusion zones: The scale of the farms could create exclusion zones that impact fishing activities.

  • Tourism: Some say the turbines could be unappealing to tourists, which could harm the local tourism industry.

View attachment 189318
Click to expand...

"prior to the policy commitments the model built no offshore wind in any state because it is just too dam expensive"


1734492266520.png


1734492743374.png


 
Bowen and his allies were quick to attack Frontier's modelling, accusing the report's authors of being silent on bill impacts for consumers. This overlooks the fact that Frontier's analysis simply followed the ISP - the government's energy transition roadmap - which also doesn't project power bill impacts.​

Labor's energy flaws exposed
Amid the political fight over the Coalition's nuclear plan, the flaws in the federal government's own renewables-driven energy models - and the huge hidden costs to consumers- are being exposed.
The first Frontier Economics report did a service to the debate by unwinding an accounting trick. It revealed the real cost of the Integrated System Plan (ISP) - which has become de-facto policy for Labor - is around $600 billion. This figure towers over the discounted "present value" $121 billion figure touted by Energy Minister Chris Bowen.
But the second report - modelling the Coalition's nuclear policy - was more revealing. It showed that adopting nuclear would save more than $100 billion compared to a renewables-driven plan — sending critics diving into the details. What they end up surfacing may do more damage to Labor's plan than the Coalition's.
Bowen and his allies were quick to attack Frontier's modelling, accusing the report's authors of being silent on bill impacts for consumers.
This overlooks the fact that Frontier's analysis simply followed the ISP - the government's energy transition roadmap - which also doesn't project power bill impacts.
The ISP can't project power bills because its modelling depends on a host of heroic assumptions, and arbitrary exclusions and inclusions. These range from speculative reliance on hydrogen and uncosted batteries, to a rigid commitment to government targets.
For example, some critics have claimed that the 90 per cent capacity factor assigned to nuclear -the amount of electricity a plant generates relative to its maximum potential - is unrealistic. With wind and solar providing half the energy, the argument goes, nuclear's remaining 38 per cent share of generation would not be able to operate in a continuous state.
If Frontier's model was built from the ground up to reflect reality, this critique might be valid. However, Frontier has anchored its analysis to the ISP, which supports implausibly low levels of spillage for wind and solar through a combination of acrobatic modelling and unrealistic assumptions.
The average capacity factors in the ISP model - 25 per cent for large-scale solar and 35 per cent for onshore wind-are extremely optimistic. Even today,
averages are closer to 20 per cent and 30 per cent. This will inevitably get worse as the share of wind and solar in the system more than triples, and the new generators cannibalise their own output.
The ISP makes this appear possible because it contains so much unrealistic, uncosted "spongy filling" to support a high penetration of weather-dependent generators- whose mismatch with demand is far worse than nuclear. The same fudge factors that make a 90 per cent weather-dependent system physically possible could easily allow a large nuclear fleet to run at 90 per cent.
The spongy filling in the ISP's Step Change scenario includes around 15 GW of ultra-flexible hydrogen electrolyser loads designed to perfectly soak up oversupply of solar - a pipe dream that's quickly unravelling as industry players pull out.
The plan also calls for a staggering 157 gigawatt-hours of home and electric vehicle batteries by 2050- that's more than 11 million new Tesla Powerwalls- with 90 per cent of these batteries controlled by grid operators to manage surplus wind and solar.
Under the government's plan, EV owners are increasingly expected to charge during the day and discharge in the evening - exactly the opposite of what they want. Surprisingly, none of these "consumer energy resources" are included as a cost in the ISP.
On top of that, the ISP assumes batteries can accurately predict the weather to optimise charging and discharging.
These crutches that keep the ISP from collapsing under its own weight are known to be unreasonable. Mr Bowen's own department commissioned a review - kept from the public for 11 months -that described this reliance on fully submissive consumer energy resources as "problematic" and a "limitation of the current ISP"
If the crutches were kicked away, the estimated costs of the renewables-only energy system would skyrocket, almost certainly exposing even greater benefits from nuclear.
The reality dawning on Australians is that we don't have any energy plan remotely close to giving us an honest picture of our future power prices.
Because Frontier has anchored its analysis to the ISP, it has made a transparent comparison that is almost certainly directionally correct: a system with nuclear will cost much less.
But because the baseline is so far out to sea, the dollar figures presented for either system are close to meaningless.
Australians are still none the wiser about whether or when prices will actually come down.
This uncertainty about eventual prices was laid bare during a Senate inquiry, when the market operator's CEO was asked whether following the ISP would lower power bills. His response? "I can't guarantee that, no."
The energy transition is too important and too costly to rely on models riddled with biases and fantastic assumptions. If Frontier's model has flaws, they're mostly inherited from the government's own fatally flawed plan.

Michael Wu and Zoe Hilton are senior policy analysts at the Centre for Independent Studies.
Click to expand...
 
Can we find out which companies Simon HaC is invested in? I wanna short the s4it out of them. His fear is palpable.
 
My holiday plans is to visit Australia’s museums, art galleries, libraries etc.

Today, at the National Motor Museum, I saw something that reminded me of the anti nuclear days of the 80’s & 90’s. When the majority of opinions were anti nuclear. Mention the word and there was instant debate, anger and opposition to the idea.

It is very different today, people are more interested in the idea, positive discussion is easy to have.

IMG_7300.jpeg


IMG_7301.jpeg
 
What does an AGR Nuclear Reactor look like up close ? The nuts and bolt. The technology. The engineering involved.
This is a fascinating insight into one of the most complex and well engineered projects of the 1980's in the UK. It was commissioned in 1988 and was a State of the Art build.

"Nothing like this will be built again"​


I've just had a really amazing experience: a guided tour of the nuclear reactor complex at Torness on the Scottish coast. What made this tour unusual is that the tour guide in question, Les, happens to be one of the reactor engineers (as well as a friend) -- and he showed me (and a couple of other friends) right around the plant over a period of several hours. This wasn't the usual cheery public relations junket: it was the real thing. I got to crawl on top of, over, under, and around, one of the wonders of the modern engineering world: an operational AGR reactor. I got to look around the control room, be deafened in the turbine hall and steam-baked in the secondary shutdown test facility, gawp at the shiny bright zirconium tubes full of enriched uranium in the fuel rod assembly room, be subjected to the whole-body contamination detectors at the checkpoints, and boggle at the baroque masses of sensors and control racks that trigger a reactor trip if any of its operational parameters go out of bounds.

 
I got interested in the State of the Art Torness Nuclear Power station. Did a quick Wiki search.

Very interesting and brings the entire Nuclear power conversation back to the reality that Peter Dutton willfully and criminally (IMV) refuse to acknowledge.

The Torness Power Station was conceived in the early 70's , planned in the last 70's and construction begin in 1980. It was commissioned over 1988-9.

The power station will be closed down and then decommissioned by 2030 or even earlier in 2028. A total operational life of 40 years. It is spent. The new Nuclear push is premised on somehow spreading the massive building costs of nuclear power over 80-100 years. Apparently there magical fairies that will sprinkle their special dust to ensure 40 year plants will just keep on going for another 40 + years.

It is also worth noting that this plant took around 15 years to go from proposal to completion in a country with an extensive and skilled Nuclear Industry in place. I also understand it was a pretty clean build (unlike the current Hinkley Nuclear power station build which has gone financially toxic ) .

en.wikipedia.org

Torness nuclear power station - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Torness Power station had an original design life of 30 years. This was extended in 2016.
Has Peter Dutton ever seen the history of Nuclear Power plants to date ?

www.bbc.com

Torness nuclear plant has operating life extended by EDF

The Torness nuclear power station on the east coast of Scotland is to have its life extended by at least seven years, operator EDF has announced.
www.bbc.com
 
Last edited:

Safety warnings as cracks rise at Torness nuclear plant​

Rob Edwards
July 21, 2024
0:00 / 9:04


BeyondWords
The number of cracks in the core of an ageing nuclear reactor at Torness in East Lothian has risen to 46, prompting warnings that prolonging its operation would be “gambling with public safety”.

The UK Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) told The Ferret that the cracks were detected in April 2024 and were “at the upper end of expectations”. The first three cracks were discovered at Torness in February 2022.

ONR has previously said that spreading cracks could result in debris inhibiting the cooling of hot radioactive fuel. This can lead to a reactor meltdown, which can result in the escape of radioactivity to the environment.

In 2021 the plant’s operator, EDF Energy, said that Torness would be closed in 2028 – two years earlier than expected – because of expected cracking. The station was originally scheduled to close in 2023, and in 2016 its expected life was extended to 2030.

theferret.scot

Safety warnings as cracks rise at Torness nuclear plant

The number of cracks in a nuclear reactor at Torness has risen to 46, prompting warnings that prolonging its operation would be “gambling with public safety”.
theferret.scot theferret.scot
 
basilio said:
I got interested in the State of the Art Torness Nuclear Power station. Did a quick Wiki search.

Very interesting and brings the entire Nuclear power conversation back to the reality that Peter Dutton willfully and criminally (IMV) refuse to acknowledge.
Click to expand...

“criminally”. Really?
  • About 65 reactors are under construction across the world. About 90 further reactors are planned.
  • Most reactors under construction or planned are in Asia.
  • New plants coming online in recent years have largely been balanced by old plants being retired. Over the past 20 years, 107 reactors were retired as 100 started operation.

Plans For New Reactors Worldwide - World Nuclear Association

Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily. Most reactors under construction are in the Asian region. Significant further capacity is being created by plant uprating.
world-nuclear.org
 
JohnDe said:
“criminally”. Really?
  • About 65 reactors are under construction across the world. About 90 further reactors are planned.
  • Most reactors under construction or planned are in Asia.
  • New plants coming online in recent years have largely been balanced by old plants being retired. Over the past 20 years, 107 reactors were retired as 100 started operation.

Plans For New Reactors Worldwide - World Nuclear Association

Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily. Most reactors under construction are in the Asian region. Significant further capacity is being created by plant uprating.
world-nuclear.org
Click to expand...

My point was the realistic life span of Nuclear Power stations. The engineers posit a 30 year design life. The reality is that many Nuclear Power stations have closed down in less than 30 years and extensions to older plants are made despite evidence of significant deterioration in core structure. That is why I posted the situation with Torness.

Peter Dutton has been attempting to massage the cost of Nuclear power stations by pretending they will be amortized over 80-100 years. That is the lie I am referring to.
 
The True Lifetime of Nuclear Power plants.
Check out teh PDF which details the history of tehse plants.

The True Lifespan of Nuclear Power Plants ​



Though nuclear plants are theoretically engineered to operate safely for 40 years—their initial permit life—our analysis of the overall record of US first generation commercial nuclear plants shows that almost two dozen reactors were shut down long before their initial license/design life expired.
closure-256x300.png

Nuclear Plant Closure Chart
Among plants built before 1973, fully HALF did not make it to 40 years, or much beyond that, before closing down. Some of these shutdowns were for economic reasons, but in most cases the plants simply wore out, broke down, or never functioned properly. This record of failure can be viewed in our plant closure chart.

In addition to normal industrial wear-and-tear, nuclear plants have the unique and often irreparable liability of having their components continually exposed to varying levels of radiation. Over time, radiation embrittles and/or corrodes the infrastructure (metal components in particular) and will eventually lead to structural failure (hopefully not catastrophic!)

The most common point of failure occurs in the steam generators. Nuclear steam generators are composed of thousands of small tubes that corrode and crack, leading to radioactive water leaks into the secondary cooling system and the environment. Some plants have had their steam generators replaced at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, while many others simply closed in the face of the expense. This issue has been detected at the Seabrook plant, though it’s unclear how far the damage has progressed at this point in its life.

saplnh.org

The True Lifespan of Nuclear Power Plants - Seacoast Anti-Pollution League

Though nuclear plants are theoretically engineered to operate safely for 40 years—their initial permit life—our analysis of the overall record of US first
saplnh.org saplnh.org
 

Similar threads

Garpal Gumnut
Australian Use Of Uranium For Aussie Nuclear Weapon - Defence Review
Replies
14
Views
2K
SirRumpole
SirRumpole
Craton
Albo's Coal and Gas Price Cap and Financial Aid proposal
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Smurf1976
Smurf1976
over9k
Basic chart analysis/chart reading 101 for beginners
Replies
10
Views
4K
Gunnerguy
G
kahuna1
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
10K
divs4ever
divs4ever
R
6 Ways to Make Smarter Investment Decisions
Replies
0
Views
1K
RickyY
R
Top