The future of energy generation and storage

sptrawler said:

I personally think we will end up with nuclear power, it is the only thing with the grunt, to rid the world of fossil fuel generation.
Also as I said, the amount of H2 required to replace fossil fuel in transport needs, will force the adoption IMO.
But I can't be bothered arguing about it, been there done that.

Click to expand...

Personally; I think it is safe, reliable and economical.

We leave this in the hands of the energy big boys now; Shell, BP and so on; also our political leaders.

I do not believe current nuclear is economical but it is reliable, mostly safe..and i put my hope on micro fusion reactors.

But more important now is that first step forward
https://www.news.com.au/finance/wor...h/news-story/a42b07e94ea9673a6ec15746ebc75b6f
I hope it will lead somewhere

Regarding the argy bargy Chronos initiated with his prosecution of Nuclear Power as Australias new energy hope.

I think that is an argument suited for a Nuclear Power thread. ASF has enough contentious debates which are often ideologically driven and disparage any independent evidence. This thread on future energy generation and storage was conceived to enable a more constructive discussion about possibilities and opportunities in the field rather than staring a new battle ground.

basilio said:

Regarding the argy bargy Chronos initiated with his prosecution of Nuclear Power as Australias new energy hope.

I think that is an argument suited for a Nuclear Power thread. ASF has enough contentious debates which are often ideologically driven and disparage any independent evidence. This thread on future energy generation and storage was conceived to enable a more constructive discussion about possibilities and opportunities in the field rather than staring a new battle ground.

Click to expand...

@Chronos-Plutus has posted on topic but I know there are at least 2 other relevant threads on nuclear.
If nuclear is as good as people think, why has it not prospered in the USA where the NIMBY issue is not so prevalent?
The one nuclear plant still being built in Georgia has a 2019 cost estimate of over US$27B after an original estimate of only $14B.
If people here want to promote nuclear, then they should put up the maths, which does not stack up in the USA and would be considerably less compelling in Australia for a host of reasons.

basilio said:

Regarding the argy bargy Chronos initiated with his prosecution of Nuclear Power as Australias new energy hope.

I think that is an argument suited for a Nuclear Power thread. ASF has enough contentious debates which are often ideologically driven and disparage any independent evidence. This thread on future energy generation and storage was conceived to enable a more constructive discussion about possibilities and opportunities in the field rather than staring a new battle ground.

Click to expand...

The problem is Bas, the whole argument against nuclear is driven by emotion, not by reasonable discussion.
There is every possibility nuclear power will be in the clean energy mix, as I said it lends itself to compliment a solar/wind farm with electrolyser, to overcome the intermittency of renewables without the requirement for storage and the added advantage of H2 production.

The size of the nuclear plant wouldn't need to be huge in that instance, there are already small modular reactors in use and have been in use for decades, in aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.

The issue isn't about making them, it is about the economies of scale, this to a degree is removed if they are part of a solar/wind/H2 installation.

It isn't about emotion, it is about a realistic way of getting to a clean energy economy, to just refuse to entertain one component because it is emotive isn't sensible.
As you rightly stated, the thread was concieved to enable a more constructive discussion about possibilities and opportunities in the field.

It isn't just a thread on renewable energy, we already have threads covering that also, of course nuclear belongs in this thread it has the highest 'clean' energy density available to mankind.

Anyway here is the size of some small modular reactors.

Reactor sizes range up to ~500 MWt (about 165 MWe) in the larger submarines and surface ships. The French Rubis-class submarines have a 48 MW reactor that needs no refueling for 30 years. The nuclear navies of the Russian Federation, the United States, and the United Kingdom rely on steam turbine propulsion.

A Nimitz-class carrier is powered by two nuclear reactors providing steam to four steam turbines and is 1,092 feet (333 m) long, Gerald R. Ford class, one 110,000-ton, 1,106 ft long fleet carrier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor
The A1B reactor plant is an aircraft carrier nuclear reactor developed by the United States Navy. It is used in Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers to provide electrical and propulsion energy. The A1B is the first naval reactor produced by Bechtel Corporation, which has "performed engineering and/or construction services on more than 80 percent of [land-based] nuclear plants in the United States".[1]

Aircraft carriers' nuclear reactors provide the electrical and motor energy of the ship by splitting enriched uranium to produce heat and convert water to steam to power steam turbines. This process is largely the same as land-based nuclear reactors, although smaller naval reactors have several design differences.
The new reactor was named A1B, following the Navy's reactor-designation scheme of type, generation, and manufacturer: A for aircraft carrier, 1 for the maker's first reactor plant design, and B for Bechtel.[3] Two A1B reactor plants will power each Ford ship.

It is estimated that the total thermal power output of the A1B will be around 700 MW, some 25% more than provided by the A4W.[4] Improved efficiency in the total plant is expected to provide improved output to both propulsion and electrical systems. Using A4W data[5] with a 25% increase in thermal power, the A1B reactors likely produce enough steam to generate 125 megawatts (168,000 hp) of electricity, plus 350,000 shaft horsepower (260 MW) to power the four propeller shafts.[6]

The increased electrical generation capacity will allow for elimination of service steam on the ship, reducing staffing requirements for maintenance.[7] Electrical aircraft catapult (EMALS) power will also free the ship's air wing from reactor plant constraints.

In addition, the A1B reactor uses modernized technology that is both more advanced and adaptable than previous reactor technology, is smaller and weighs less than the A4W, and has operator interfaces that are expected to be improved as well.

I didn't have a problem with Nuclear Power being discussed as a topic for future energy.
I did have a problem with the discussion turning into a full blooded push to promote the technology and a refusal to acknowledge the financial an logistical arguments that make it a doubtful proposition.

sptrawler said:

The problem is Bas, the whole argument against nuclear is driven by emotion, not by reasonable discussion.
There is every possibility nuclear power will be in the clean energy mix, as I said it lends itself to compliment a solar/wind farm with electrolyser, to overcome the intermittency of renewables without the requirement for storage and the added advantage of H2 production.

The size of the nuclear plant wouldn't need to be huge in that instance, there are already small modular reactors in use and have been in use for decades, in aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.

The issue isn't about making them, it is about the economies of scale, this to a degree is removed if they are part of a solar/wind/H2 installation.

It isn't about emotion, it is about a realistic way of getting to a clean energy economy, to just refuse to entertain one component because it is emotive isn't sensible.
As you rightly stated, the thread was concieved to enable a more constructive discussion about possibilities and opportunities in the field.

It isn't just a thread on renewable energy, we already have threads covering that also, of course nuclear belongs in this thread it has the highest 'clean' energy density available to mankind.

Anyway here is the size of some small modular reactors.

Reactor sizes range up to ~500 MWt (about 165 MWe) in the larger submarines and surface ships. The French Rubis-class submarines have a 48 MW reactor that needs no refueling for 30 years. The nuclear navies of the Russian Federation, the United States, and the United Kingdom rely on steam turbine propulsion.

A Nimitz-class carrier is powered by two nuclear reactors providing steam to four steam turbines and is 1,092 feet (333 m) long, Gerald R. Ford class, one 110,000-ton, 1,106 ft long fleet carrier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor

Click to expand...

I think there is merit is the proposed small modular nuclear reactors. But from what I have seen the economics don't stack up at this stage and a commercial product will not be available for decades to come. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be researched and at some stage it becomes a clean, safe , economically viable proposition for Australia. I can also see how it would be more appropriate in some locations.

My responses were based on the current cost benefit analysis of various energy sources and persistent rubberiness of Nuclear installation costs. The ground has changed significantly with the speed of solar and wind and battery development. There are now more cost effective and cost certain alternatives. Why would one risk investing in a huge financial hole in the ground with a nuclear power plant ?

The Hinkley Nuclear Power plant in the UK is the most striking example of how such a venture can become a gigantic white elephant. Check out the costs to consumers section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station

It's true there are nuclear reactors on ships and submarines. But these are used becasue of the overwhelmingly military advantage of a no fuel operation and the fact that military budgets have very deep pockets. However the issues of safety and consequences of a nuclear accident on these ships is still on the table. And who knows how the de commissioning of these vessels will happen ?

basilio said:

I didn't have a problem with Nuclear Power being discussed as a topic for future energy.
I did have a problem with the discussion turning into a full blooded push to promote the technology and a refusal to acknowledge the financial an logistical arguments that make it a doubtful proposition.

Click to expand...

Like I said, I think everyone is thinking of massive big Nuclear power stations, not modular ones that could be skid mounted.
I personally think, the idea of batteries and pumped hydro as a long term solution, is a more doubtful proposition.
Anyway time will tell and what we think, wont have any bearing on the outcome.
I just read your last post, at least you are starting to thaw somewhat.

basilio said:

The Hinkley Nuclear Power plant in the UK is the most striking example of how such a venture can become a gigantic white elephant. Check out the costs to consumers section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station

Click to expand...

That must be why they are planning on building another one?
https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/sizewell-c/about

Anyway, enough of the circular argument, time will tell.

sptrawler said:

That must be why they are planning on building another one?

Click to expand...

To provide the materials for nuclear weapons for one reason.

At least the UK has a reasonable excuse for nuclear, lack of sunshine and resources like coal (Thatcher shut down most of the coal mines). The UK is heavily invested in wind power and its gas reserves won't last forever.

SirRumpole said:

To provide the materials for nuclear weapons for one reason.

At least the UK has a reasonable excuse for nuclear, lack of sunshine and resources like coal (Thatcher shut down most of the coal mines). The UK is heavily invested in wind power and its gas reserves won't last forever.

Click to expand...

Exactly.
Way too much emotion and virtue signalling involved in the discussion, along with very little knowledge of the the thread subject.
Placing emotion in front of what will actually work, wont be part of the engineering brief, that will be left to the media to do.

sptrawler said:

Exactly.
Way too much emotion and virtue signalling involved in the discussion, along with very little knowledge of the the thread subject.
Placing emotion in front of what will actually work, wont be part of the engineering brief, that will be left to the media to do.

Click to expand...

I notice no maths.Here's how the numbers stack up (unsubsidised) in the USA:

Renewables continue to get cheaper.
Nuclear has not.
Battery storage is also decreasing substantially year on year.
In terms of "not enough knowledge," those advocating nuclear would do well to at least read this. Governments have been throwing hundreds of millions at small nuclear research and development for the past decade and there's still nothing commercialised, despite this technology being in operation since the mid-1950s.

rederob said:

I notice no maths.Here's how the numbers stack up (unsubsidised) in the USA:
View attachment 105174
Renewables continue to get cheaper.
Nuclear has not.
Battery storage is also decreasing substantially year on year.
In terms of "not enough knowledge," those advocating nuclear would do well to at least read this. Governments have been throwing hundreds of millions at small nuclear research and development for the past decade and there's still nothing commercialised, despite this technology being in operation since the mid-1950s.

Click to expand...

You need to keep in mind the lifespan of the nuclear asset, which is ~50 to ~ 60 years. Wind and solar is ~25 to ~30 years. Then there is also the amount of land and sea that wind and solar take-up.

rederob said:

I notice no maths.Here's how the numbers stack up (unsubsidised) in the USA:
View attachment 105174
Renewables continue to get cheaper.
Nuclear has not.
Battery storage is also decreasing substantially year on year.
In terms of "not enough knowledge," those advocating nuclear would do well to at least read this. Governments have been throwing hundreds of millions at small nuclear research and development for the past decade and there's still nothing commercialised, despite this technology being in operation since the mid-1950s.

Click to expand...

US Department of Energy numbers suggest otherwise


The publication is from 2015 though:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f25/LCOE.pdf

Offshore wind and solar is quite expensive relative to nuclear

rederob said:

I notice no maths.Here's how the numbers stack up (unsubsidised) in the USA:
View attachment 105174
Renewables continue to get cheaper.
Nuclear has not.
Battery storage is also decreasing substantially year on year.
In terms of "not enough knowledge," those advocating nuclear would do well to at least read this. Governments have been throwing hundreds of millions at small nuclear research and development for the past decade and there's still nothing commercialised, despite this technology being in operation since the mid-1950s.

Click to expand...

Here is the 2023 forecast LCOE from the US DOE:


https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo19/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Any company investing in new generating capacity in Australia is going to be looking at the economics of it very seriously. That applies regardless of whether it's the likes of AGL or Origin Energy (both ASX listed), Alinta or Energy Australia (not listed) or CleanCo or Hydro Tasmania (Queensland and Tasmanian government owned respectively).

They're all going to be crunching the numbers, none of them are keen on losing money. The listed companies will feel the wrath of shareholders if they get it wrong whilst the government owned ones may well cease to exist if they get it badly enough wrong.

In that context I'll list here some data as to the revenue received by different types of generation based on spot prices. Whilst much electricity is traded under contract, as with anything contract prices will tend to broadly reflect the spot market at the long term - nobody enters a contract for something at $20 if they expect the spot price to average $100 for example, it's going to be reasonably close on average.

Unfortunately we don't have any one state which has every generating technology in use in the main grid. SA and Victoria are highly correlated in terms of prices however and NSW comes next so I've used Victorian data where that plant type exists within the state followed by SA then NSW and between them that covers the lot in terms of what's currently in use in Australia.

Average spot prices for generation output past 12 months to date:

Wind (Victoria) = $62.10

Solar (Rooftop) (Victoria) = $66.40

Solar (Large scale) (Victoria) = $71.36

Brown coal (Victoria) = $74.51

Black coal (NSW) = $76.37

Combined cycle gas turbine (SA) = $79.69

Gas internal combustion (SA) = $89.61 (based on limited data, plant commissioned late 2019)

Battery Discharging (Victoria) = $135.84

Gas-fired steam (Victoria) = $146.10

Hydro (Victoria) = $155.89

Open cycle gas turbines (Victoria) = $168.14

Diesel and kerosene-fired gas turbines (NSW) = $919.30
Diesel-fired gas turbines and internal combustion engines (SA) = $968.14

I emphasize that these are not the cost of generation from the respective sources but rather they are the spot market price at the time x the generated output. Or in simpler terms, what it's worth in the market.

I don't have info for the energy used for battery charging in Victoria and what that cost but as an order of magnitude it would be about half the price received for discharging.

For those contemplating nuclear, the existing plant with the closest characteristics is brown coal. They both have similar attributes of very low marginal operating costs and will thus operate with very high capacity factors. In contrast the NSW black coal plants were with one exception specifically built to follow load and spend very little time at maximum output in practice (and even the one which wasn't built to do it still can and does to some extent just not as easily or to the same extent as the rest but it does ramp up and down).

Chronos-Plutus said:

Here is the 2023 forecast LCOE from the US DOE:
View attachment 105184https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo19/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Click to expand...

The private sector deals with market realities, and Lazard has worked with that sector for over 170 years. I
You are welcome to believe the EIA's forecasts, but they don't even accurately reflect today's renewables costs, let alone their declining cost into the future.
Aside from renewables, combined cycle gas is also significantly cheaper than nuclear, so it's a bit of a non event unless you have no other energy options and cn wait at least 5 years for construction.

rederob said:

The private sector deals with market realities, and Lazard has worked with that sector for over 170 years. I
You are welcome to believe the EIA's forecasts, but they don't even accurately reflect today's renewables costs, let alone their declining cost into the future.
Aside from renewables, combined cycle gas is also significantly cheaper than nuclear, so it's a bit of a non event unless you have no other energy options and cn wait at least 5 years for construction.

Click to expand...

So you want to disregard the most credible energy data source in America which has a multi billion dollar budget.

Another reality is, as soon as coal is de commissioned, the next push will be to shut down gas generation.
So it seems pointless comparing combined cycle GT's to nuclear fueled steam plant, in 10 years time GT's will be on the nose as much as coal is currently.
The whole argument is based on nonsense, intermittent renewable generation will require storage or some form of backup.
Batteries are the flavour of the month, but I doubt they will be in 15 years, unless the technology improves considerably.
Using a cost base analysis on nuclear Vs anything, relies on somebody caring what it costs, as has just been shown with the splash of cash on the virus just print it.
If the system becomes unreliable and needs 24/7, 365 day, at call clean energy, then cost wont come into the equation, most who have worked for the Government know that.
If Australia doesn't require nuclear to get a stable clean distribution grid, that will be great, if it needs nuclear to achieve it then it will be built simple really. People can hold their breath untill they go blue in the face, it wont change the outcome, a secure and reliable grid is an essential part of a first world country.

That is why the U.K is building very large reactors, as we speak, the U.S doesn't need to so it wont yet.

sptrawler said:

Another reality is, as soon as coal is de commissioned, the next push will be to shut down gas generation.
So it seems pointless comparing combined cycle GT's to nuclear fueled steam plant, in 10 years time GT's will be on the nose as much as coal is currently.
The whole argument is based on nonsense, intermittent renewable generation will require storage or some form of backup.
Batteries are the flavour of the month, but I doubt they will be in 15 years, unless the technology improves considerably.
Using a cost base analysis on nuclear Vs anything, relies on somebody caring what it costs, as has just been shown with the splash of cash on the virus just print it.
If the system becomes unreliable and needs 24/7, 365 day, at call clean energy, then cost wont come into the equation, most who have worked for the Government know that.
If Australia doesn't require nuclear to get a stable clean distribution grid, that will be great, if it needs nuclear to achieve it then it will be built simple really. People can hold their breath untill they go blue in the face, it wont change the outcome, a secure and reliable grid is an essential part of a first world country.

That is why the U.K is building very large reactors, as we speak, the U.S doesn't need to so it wont yet.

Click to expand...

I support rooftop solar; but I find it impractical to use 10s of square kilometres of land for a 1 GW solar farm. A solar farm that will need to be replaced in a couple of decades.