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.
Hydro capacity factor in Tasmania is ~41%
And nuclear waste has to be cooling ina sed swimming pool for 1000 years yeap. Tell me about capital costs and running costs or short term visions.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.
Anyway; I think that I have made my point tonight on the theme of nuclear energy. It isn't as dangerous or as costly as so many people claim.
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.
If we really want to go nuclear , then maybe this is an option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator-driven_subcritical_reactor
believe the Thorium mini reactor was the proposal Chronos was suggesting.
You may think that Chronos.
The facts of Nuclear power indicate otherwise.
And nuclear waste has to be cooling ina sed swimming pool for 1000 years yeap. Tell me about capital costs and running costs or short term visions.
France has/had 70pc of electricity power from nuclear....i think i know what i am talking about if i say it is an economic no go
But definitively try fusion or thorium if you feel like development of a new branch..good luck with Australia expertise...
I believe the Thorium mini reactor was the proposal Chronos was suggesting.
It does have merit but the costs are still far higher than other technologies and as I suggested it won't be commercially available for another 20 years.
But the critical point you make is still valid. Nuclear power has always been developed with huge Government subsidies for development. And governments have had to pick up the tab for clean ups and disasters.
And no one yet has cleaned up an end of life nuclear power station.
Proponents of nuclear power in Australia it seems to me always want to privatise the profits and socialise the costs.
There is no way a private company could pay the costs of insurance (in the unlikely event that they could even get insurance in the first place) of cleaning up after a Fukishima type accident or the costs of storing nuclear waste for thousands of years. Those costs would necessarily fall onto the government/taxpayers and I doubt if any government in Australia would want to take on that responsibility when there are less risky options available.
If we really want to go nuclear , then maybe this is an option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator-driven_subcritical_reactor
Basilo, I have just provided you with the undisputed scientific facts. I have a background in finance and mechanical engineering; so I think I have a stronger grasp of how nuclear powerplants work with the associated capital costs; than the vast majority of commentators.
Given your overwhelming confidence in your various finance and engineering skills I'm amazed you havn't been head hunted to kick start Australia's new glorious cost competitive nuclear industry.
Get a grip Chronos. There is some serious talent on ASF. Smurf for one is respected by on and off the Forum as a fair dinkum expert in the analysis of capital costs of the various energy sources. Regardless of your opinion my skills I can also read numbers that make it absolutely clear that currently:
1) Nuclear energy projects still require massive external financial support to come to fruition
2) New projects including MSR will not be commercially available for decades to come
3) The risks associated with nuclear energy can only be assumed by Governments. No insurance company or the industry itself is willing to take on these responsibilities.
The overwhelming problem for nuclear however is the fact that alternative renewable energy sources have become so much cheaper in the past decade. Economics, mature and still rapidly improving technology and the capacity to bring decentralized,clean, renewable energy to production in a very short time frame is a powerful new reality.
But don't take my word for it. Check out what the scientists at the CSIRO have to say.
,
New CSIRO, AEMO study confirms wind, solar and storage beat coal, gas and nuclear
An updated study on current and future generation costs by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator confirms that wind, solar and storage technologies are by far the cheapest form of low carbon options for Australia, and are likely to dominate the global energy mix in coming decades.
The first report, GenCost 2018, identified that wind and solar were by far the cheapest forms of new generation technologies, clearly cheaper than coal, and even when combined with storage, remained easily the cheapest form low carbon electricity options.
A draft of the updated study, GenCost 2019-20, has been quietly posted on the AEMO website and confirms that wind and solar and storage remain the cheapest technologies, now and into the future, and much cheaper than the technologies promoted by the Australian government – gas, carbon capture, and nuclear.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-csi...-and-storage-beat-coal-gas-and-nuclear-57530/
Also it was 50 years old, so that made the design a 1960's model, many things have improved since the 1960's.Fukishima was built on a coastline prone to tsunamis.
With all due respect this is pure BS look at UK France and US...Nuclear is a political no-go, not an economic no-go. The economics for nuclear stack up over a half century timeline when compared to solar and wind.
With all due respect this is pure BS look at UK France and US...
The only reason we use nuclear is weapon grade uranium
For Japan, it was independence
Obviously include the cost of building running and then cutting your power plant in small packets wrapped in melted glass and stored in pool or in ancient salt mine with 24/7 cooling protection etc
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?