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

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
sptrawler said:
Which is exactly what I said to you ages ago, the easiest way to shut down coal is to reduce demand.
Click to expand...

Thing is, any realistic plan to shift Australia to fully renewable energy requires more electricity not less.

Therein lies the problem with all of this. It's often not about some wholistic end goal but about benefiting whoever in particular.

Eg in Victoria "energy efficiency" has since the 1970's been code for "use more gas" and for that reason gas is extremely entrenched in Victoria, indeed it's among the highest market penetration globally. Victoria's going to be using gas for decades to come that's a given. SA and WA aren't far behind with that one though not quite as extreme.

If the aim is less electricity then that's a good policy.

If the aim is to cut emissions then ultimately it has placed a roadblock to going beyond a certain limit. A roadblock that SA's already running into and which the others will meet in due course.

Therein lies the big dilemma - what's the objective?

Lower bills? Less electricity? Lower emissions?

They are not the same.
 


In my opinion, we need small modular reactors built on the proven molten salt reactor (MSR) nuclear principles. We need these MSRs in every major city in Australia.

I still support wind, solar, tidal barrage, marine, gas and coal. Australia needs to build energy security through adopting all energy streams, for power/electrical generation, which are practical, reasonable and economically sensible.
 
Very true smurf, but if the those who are most vocal, just want to reduce coal burning the fastest way is to reduce consumption.
Which can be done by increasing efficiency or taxing high demand periods.
The problem is, as you say they are replacing coal with gas, because storage for renewables is a problem.
Which is another thing I have been saying for ages.
People can't have it all ways, they want more electronic gadgets, bigger t.vs, and want the Government to somehow supply the extra electricity, cleaner and cheaper.
Well best of luck with that.
I haven't seen the internet get cheaper with the NBN, I don't see any unlimited $30/month deals, since the NBN miracle.
 
Wow, I think I heard basilio hit the floor, from my place.
But I do think you are right, every option has to be considered on its merits, the ultimate goal is to achieve 100% renewables. But it has to be achieved in an orderly manner, not some half ar$ed emotionally driven brain fart, that leaves us sitting in the dark rubbing two sticks together to get fire.
 

Absolutely; we all want to tread as lightly as possible on the planet, but we aren't going to plunge the entire modern, advanced and industrialised world back into the Stone Age. We need to be realistic and sensible when it comes to energy security.

MSR nuclear reactors are safe and proven. Australia has plenty of space in our deserts for the spent fuel waste; where we can store it until we have the technology to adequately deal with it.

The energy density that nuclear provides can't be beaten; the energy released from a nuclear reaction is 10s of millions of times greater than a conventional fossil fuel chemical reaction.

Nuclear fusion seems to be making some progress in France, with the international collaborative ITER project; which Australia doesn't want to be a part of. https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines
 
The U.K is installing 3 x 1.5GW reactors, in Australia the situation is very different to Europe, due to population densities, as you say smaller modular reactors may be the way forward.
They are still in the development stage from what Ive read.
 
Chronos-Plutus said:
MSR nuclear reactors are safe and proven
Click to expand...

Interesting. Can you provide evidence of commercial operational MSR reactors and their costs ?
I had a look and as far as I can see there are no commercial operational reactors at present. Plenty of research. Companies trying to promote the concept. Research hubs around the world.

Their seem to be a few issues with focusing on Thorium Reactors as substantial current contributor to cleaner, safer energy supplies

1) The cost is still very high and very uncertain. These costs in fact make it uneconomical when compared to the current proven technologies around wind, solar and back up batteries, pumped hydro or green hydrogen.

2) On all accounts Thorium reactors will not be commercially available for at least 5 -7 years on the best estimate or 25-30 years on more realistic timeframes. However the pressure of CC means we have to see huge changes to energy production virtually immediately if we are to have any chance of making an impact on a rapidly warming environment.

If MSR reactors were operationally ready and cost competitive with other current technologies it should definitely be part of a mix. But at the moment it is still in speculative, costly, blue sky territory. They also suffer economically because of the rapid decrease in costs and improvements in efficiency of wind, solar and batteries technologies


Development time
Although a test reactor was successfully operated in the 1960’s during the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, the MSR will still require substantial investment of time until commercial deployment. This is likely to be on the order of 2 decades or more under ideal support conditions, although estimates vary.

The Chinese MSR development program estimates market entry around 2030, so about 20 years from 2011 when the programme commenced. TU Delft’s professor Kloosterman estimates that it is technically feasible to build a demonstration reactor within ten years under ideal support conditions, availability of experienced personnel and test facilities, so development is likely to take longer in absence of those.

The most optimistic estimates come from MSR start-ups, where many predict a finished prototype or commercial deployment in the 2020’s, i.e. 5-15 years from now. It should be noted however that these companies, even though working on molten salt reactor designs, mostly base their technology on the uranium/plutonium fuel cycle, and thus are able to build on a fuel cycle that is very well known, and does not require the more complex initiation of the thorium fuel cycle. These designs are expected not to have all of the advantages of the thorium MSR however.

The longest recorded estimate is for the European Molten Salt Fast Reactor design which suggests commercial deployment around 2045-2050. This a molten salt reactor with a fast neutron spectrum, which could well be more difficult to realize than the thermal spectrum MSR and take more time to develop. The design is nevertheless pursued because it offers the advantage of a closed plutonium uranium cycle, in line with the existing fuel cycle and fuel (waste) available in many countries (Gen IV International Forum, 2014) (Adams, 2015) (LeBlanc, 2015) (Transatomic Power, 2016) (IThEO, 2015) (Kloosterman, 2016).
https://www.thmsr.com/en/challenges/

In depth: Costs
Cost Competitiveness should be a design goal
...
Standardized, modular designs will be crucial for developing cost competitive nuclear reactors, regardless of the technology used. This is relevant to the licencing cost, but also to deployment times. Mass produced thorium-MSR’s could even replace the power generation components in existing fossil fuel powered plants, integrating with the existing electrical distribution infrastructure which would also save large amounts of money (Deutch, et al., 2009, p. 6), (Juhasz, et al., 2009, p. 4), (Hargraves & Moir, 2010, pp. 310,311).

The challenge however will be to get past the initial cost. This will not only involve the designing and building the first thorium MSR, it will also involve setting up a proper licensing framework, which will be largely design specific, and requires the initiation of the thorium fuel cycle.
https://www.thmsr.com/en/costs/
 
As far as I can see the Dutch are leaders in making MSR work. But their timeline for commercial production is 30 years plus.

‘The Nederlands will really need a thorium reactor’
According to Jan-Leen Kloosterman, the Netherlands needs nuclear power to reduce CO2 emissions. Last summer, he led a conference in Delft on a new type of nuclear reactor: the thorium reactor. The professor of reactor physics thinks the Netherlands should invest in a prototype.

....Practical research

Both Kloosterman and Dr Danny Lathouwers (who led the research on potential accidents with the MSFR) feel that when the project ends in four years, it will be high time for practical research.
Just like the researchers in the SINAP laboratory in Shanghai, they want to build a small prototype MSFR, at an estimated cost of €200 million.

Isn't that a lot of money for a small country? Kloosterman doesn't think so, and points to Belgium that is investing € 500 million for its special Myrrha reactor that is suitable for splitting long-lived nuclear waste.

If the government decides to support the development of a thorium reactor, he thinks a small prototype could be ready by 2030. A rough timeline could then be: a demonstration reactor by 2040 and a European commercial thorium reactor operational by 2050. This would then probably be just what is needed to stabilise the electricity grid.

https://www.tudelft.nl/en/delft-outlook/articles/the-nederlands-will-really-need-a-thorium-reactor/
 


MSRs have been proven; it was done in the 1960s by the Oak Ridge boys. The MSR was initially designed to power aircraft. MSRs operate at high temperature and low pressure; which make them operationally stable and safe. Australia can use uranium for a Molten Salt Small Modular Reactor (MSSMR). Maybe I just created a new nuclear design concept here

Australia has the greatest uranium resources in the world; it is a no brainer for us to have a nuclear industry.
 

I'm puzzled Chronos. What part of the extensive posts I researched from the information site that explains and supports MSR did you misunderstand or just not read ?

The fact that its costs are still substantially higher than current, proven , commercially operational renewable energy sources?

The fact that on the very best time frame a commercial unit might be ready in 10 years time but realistically the major researchers in the field think 2050 is more likely ?

And the final fact that a key objective of moving ASAP to a clean renewable energy society is to somehow mitigate the effects of CO2 emissions on our climate now - not 20 years into the future ?

Sure a MSR pilot plant worked in the 1960's. The reality is that turning that feat into a commercially replicable mass production program is still, on the advice available, decades away.

And on all indications it will not be economically competitive with many other energy sources ?

Of course there is very busy promotion for the concept. The commercial nuclear industry, individual companies involved with particular products and nuclear research scientists would still like to make a living.

And I can see a possibility for it so I agree that we should keep our eyes open on the research labs in Holland and elsewhere. But I believe our research and investment funds will be better directed to other more immediate technologies.
 


Not sure why you're puzzled. Good things take time. If we adopt your recommendations, we will never develop and establish a nuclear industry in Australia. A piece of uranium, the size of a golf ball, has enough energy in it to provide power for an individual's lifetime in a Western country.

As for the MSR, research has demonstrated that it is commercially feasible; it is just a matter when, not if it will be done. Australia can either join the nuclear community and become a leader, or just sit back and do nothing.

You prefer the nothing option.
 

You're argument about capital intensity is valid, but it hasn't been put into context. Nuclear power is cheaper and more reliable than renewables once the plant has been built; furthermore nuclear powerplants have a lifespan of up to 60 years, which double that of solar and wind infrastructure, and a capacity factor generally 3 times that of solar and wind.

 

Attachments

  • upload_2020-6-22_22-34-38.png
    137 KB · Views: 3
Chronos-Plutus said:
As for the MSR, research has demonstrated that it is commercially feasible; it is just a matter when, not if it will be done. Australia can either join the nuclear community and become a leader, or just sit back and do nothing.
Click to expand...
The question for nuclear is whether or not there's a long term future in it?

Commercial use for power generation commenced in the 1950's but was relatively minor at the global level until the late 1960's. After that it started to increase and gained a huge push from the 1973-74 oil embargo which prompted a major shift away from oil as a means of electricity generation, significant noting that oil accounted for 22% of global power production in 1973.

Nuclear peaked at about 18% in the mid-1990's and was in third place after coal and hydro but has been losing market share ever since. It's down to about 10% now and in fourth place behind coal, gas and hydro with the trend remaining down.

For a new nuclear design to reverse that trend it needs to come in well under the cost of current designs.

In terms of costs, well if we look at the cost of Hinkley Point C in the UK and convert that to Australian Dollars then it's $168 per MWh. In contrast, if we look at prices in Australia then the average spot price over the past 12 months is:

Queensland = $65.42
Tasmania = $70.42
NSW = $80.51
SA = $84.28
Victoria = $88.42

In relation to those prices and looking internationally, $60 would be nice and $80 is the absolute limit really. Beyond that industry walks away - even at $80 they'd be wanting a damn good deal from government in other ways to consider it.

So any Australian nuclear plant needs to come in well under half the UK's costs for Hinkley Point C.

Personally I don't take the "religious" view about this that many do. It's just maths and business - any given approach either stacks up commercially or it doesn't.
 
Last edited:
I think we have to remember also that a number of countries that have nuclear power systems also have nuclear weapons and therefore have the need to produce the materials that go into bombs without importing them from elsewhere.

That fact tends to distort the economics somewhat.
 
Chronos-Plutus said:
capacity factor generally 3 times that of solar and wind
Click to expand...

Capacity factor is inherently limited for solar and wind but for the rest it's a function of design and operation.

There's hydro plant in Tasmania with a design CF of up to 84% for example and there's coal plant in Victoria that's much the same. Both can achieve it in practice. There's also hydro plant in Tas with a CF down at 30% by design and there used to be peaking coal plant in Vic that was even lower.

What can be done differs from what's actually done. It comes down to need and economics as to what's done in practice.

Eg there's an inherent limit on CF across the generating fleet in SA simply because the capacity factor of the load itself is barely above 40%. That necessarily means generating plant sitting idle more of the time than it's running. In contrast Queensland and Tasmania with load factors over 70% can push things along much harder on the supply side which keeps costs down.
 

It is short-term political vision that has killed the nuclear energy option in Australia. Our politicians think in 3 to 4 year political cycles, not in half century energy security cycles. Then there is the environmental activist army that have been indoctrinated to believe that nuclear energy is dangerous. Australia can't afford to continue down this path of myopic stupidity. We need leaders with vision, and we need them yesterday.

As for the concept of a Molten Salt Small Modular Reactor (MSSMR), Australia would have been able to look into such a proposition if we had of built and established a nuclear industry decades ago.

Back on the issue of capital intensity for nuclear energy; as I said, nuclear power has an infrastructure lifespan ~2 times, and a capacity factor ~3 times, that of wind and solar. This means that for a wind or solar farm to produce the same amount of electricity; it needs to built twice and have a nameplate capacity 3 times greater than the nuclear powerplant. So for a 1GW nuclear powerplant equivalent, the wind or solar farm needs to be 3GW and be built twice.
 

Hydro capacity factor in Tasmania is ~41%: "Due to the prevalence of hydro plants in Tasmania, the capacity factor of hydropower for the state is the highest, reaching 41 per cent in 2015-16." (https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/capacity-factors-understanding-the-misunderstood/)

What is clearly needed is an Australian energy mix that is practical, sensible and fit for purpose according to the environment that the power is generated in.

I am not advocating for 100% nuclear power; only for nuclear to be part of the energy mix.
 
Perhaps the piece of information missing here, and noting that this is a stock market forum not an energy forum, is about the medium term situation in Australia and the implications of that.

The following major sources of energy supply are about to be removed and that's what creates the need for replacements.

I'm posting here only that data which the Australian Energy Market Operator has released via reports available to the public etc. You could interpret that to mean the list may have omissions but I won't comment on anything not public knowledge.

2020: Closure of 2 x 120 MW units at Torrens Island A power station (SA, gas)

2021: Closure of another 1 x 120 MW at Torrens Island A

2022: Closure of the final 120 MW at Torrens Island A. Closure of 1 x 420 MW at Liddell (NSW, coal).

2023: Closure of the final 3 x 420 MW units at Liddell. Closure of the 180 MW Osborne power station (SA, gas). End of all gas production from currently producing fields in the Otway Basin which has a current capacity of 113 TJ / day.

2023 or 2024: Reduction of approximately 40% in peak gas production capacity from the Longford gas plant in Victoria due to depletion of a key gas field will reduce capacity substantially. Dates are estimated and subject to some uncertainty but it's in that window of time as follows (figures are for Gippsland Basin production processed at Longford gas plant, by far the largest supply source into south-eastern Australia):

2018 = 1168 TJ / day (full plant capacity)

2020 = 1059 TJ / day maximum flow rate
2021 = 1007 TJ / day maximum flow rate
2022 = 992 TJ / day maximum flow rate
2023 = 967 TJ / day maximum flow rate
2024 = 629 TJ / day maximum flow rate

Companies involved with the above:

Torrens Island 'A' power station = AGL
Liddell = AGL
Osborne = Origin Energy

Otway Basin gas production = multiple operators.

Gippsland Basin gas production processed at Longford = BHP / Esso joint venture.

Note that the above is not set in stone and is subject to ongoing revision of data based on observed field pressures etc (gas fields) and plant condition (power stations).

Now there is still gas which can be developed, it is certainly possible to build new power generation and so on so I am not saying the end of the world is coming, the sky is falling and so on. What I am attempting to do however is outline the environment into which any company you invest in which operates in this area will be selling into. An environment of diminishing gas production and closure of significant existing generating capacity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
883
moXJO
M
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
659
Smurf1976
The Effect of Deepseek on Australian Stocks
Replies
7
Views
751
Smurf1976
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
Sean K
How to totally xuck the worlds largest economy with a chainsaw
Replies
14
Views
570
basilio
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...