The future of energy generation and storage

[SirRumpole]

For those interested, a report by the Australian Parliament on nuclear power in Australia.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...DAD5D23EB71D&usg=AOvVaw00jHptfcxtsM3t6NJOcjgy

 

[sptrawler]

I agree with you smurf, a large nuclear reactor is only feasable in a very large grid like the UK, where it can be operating at full load 24/7.
As I said the only way nuclear makes sense in Australia IMO, would be as small modular reactors that are there for a dual function and for that to work the demand and price for h2 would have to be astronomical.
It would be nice to be around in 2050, to seewhat changes have occurred, if ant.

 

[spooly74]

The other alternative of course is to beat the drum on what an "important patriotic, nation building, visionary project" this will be and expect that the public through a dazzled government will pony up whatever is required to ensure the builder and operators will make a suitable profit on the "con" struction and operation of this magnificent project. And of course the Government (ie us) have to underwrite the decommissioning and anything that might go pearshaped..

Not exactly true, the operator underwrites this, although realistically what board looks 60years into the future re: shareholder value? So Nuclear in Aus is going to have to be at least partially funded by us.
I've been doing some digging on Nuclear construction costs and will post more when i have a bit of time but I found this info unbelievable while looking into it.
Upon commissioning of a Nuclear plant. The operator must put money in a trust for decommissioning at the start and add to it annually. This money cannot be touched during the lifetime of the plant. The larger the plant & lifespan, the larger the fund, compounding.
So after many years of operation the plant risks being shutdown not because it isn't profitable, but because its more profitable to shut it down.

 

[SirRumpole]

So after many years of operation the plant risks being shutdown not because it isn't profitable, but because its more profitable to shut it down.

Or at some point the company may think it's more profitable to declare bankruptcy or restructure or simply discontinue operations and start up somewhere else.

So we have a "stranded asset" and who is going to buy such a monstrosity with all the costs involved ?

In other words, the taxpayer is left with a white elephant.

 

[spooly74]

Or at some point the company may think it's more profitable to declare bankruptcy or restructure or simply discontinue operations and start up somewhere else.

So we have a "stranded asset" and who is going to buy such a monstrosity with all the costs involved ?

In other words, the taxpayer is left with a white elephant.

Bankruptcy (in this scenario) unlikely as the plants are profitable, although having looked into this it depends when & where they were built.
Also, the fund is only accessible for decommissioning.
What seems to be the case is that an operator of multiple plants will look at the $'s and decide to decommission/strip the plant for material assets for other operations and access the fund.
win/win.

 

[rederob]

Bankruptcy (in this scenario) unlikely as the plants are profitable, although having looked into this it depends when & where they were built.

Nuclear plants carry tens of billions of dollars of debt for well over a decade, so whilst they might make an annual "operating" profit there is no guarantee their debt will be expunged.

 

[spooly74]

Nuclear plant carry tens of billions of debt for well over a decade, so whilst they might make an annual "operating" profit there is no guarantee their debt will be expunged.

This scenario happens well into the lifespan of a reactor with compounding your best friend. Holco International have been able to reduce decommissioning times from a decade down to a few years giving more incentive to decommission.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

If you are going to promote your ideas, try indulging in rational and meaningful discussion.
There is no real world data showing that either geothermal or nuclear are getting cheaper, but wind, solar and batteries all are.
Iceland will do fine with geothermal and not solar pv, whereas Australia would be the complete opposite.
In many cases it's horses for courses until a more viable solution can be implemented.
In some cases nations are driving transition via policy and/or incentives.
And occasionally the market does the maths and there's a paradigm shift as a result.
Vestas did it for wind, China did it for solar pv, and Tesla did it for batteries.

I have explained it enough times for you now. Anyway you can believe what you like; have a good day.

 

[sptrawler]

Or at some point the company may think it's more profitable to declare bankruptcy or restructure or simply discontinue operations and start up somewhere else.

So we have a "stranded asset" and who is going to buy such a monstrosity with all the costs involved ?

In other words, the taxpayer is left with a white elephant.

That is happening as we speak with coal plant.
At the end of the day we are only crystal ball gazing and what ifs.
That is the fun in all this, using a bit of imagination, non of us know which way this is going to go and it will be the market that drives the outcome.
If renewables can replace fossil fuel 100%, that will be fantastic, it is just from my experience it is possible in Australia due to land mass and small population.
But if on top of producing for domestic consumption, we have to produce for export, it becomes a whole different ball game.
Then you require 24/7 full output, renewables struggle with that.
Appolgies for spelling errors, phone keyboard small and hands like feet.

 

[SirRumpole]

Then you require 24/7 full output, renewables struggle with that.

Indeed so which is why I have been saying we still need baseload, the point is the best way of doing it.

With our gas reserves and being the biggest (yes biggest) gas exporter in the world, why not reserve some of those exports for ourselves instead of it all going o/s and having to import gas for our own consumption ?

I find it hard to believe how stupid our politicians are sometimes.

 

[spooly74]

For those interested, a report by the Australian Parliament on nuclear power in Australia.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjU45yT_Z3qAhXaZSsKHcvuAVQQFjARegQICBAB&url=https://www.aph.gov.au/-/media/02_Parliamentary_Business/24_Committees/243_Reps_Committees/EnvironmentEnergy/Nuclear_energy/Full_Report.pdf?la=en&hash=2826513C078551487B8265502776DAD5D23EB71D&usg=AOvVaw00jHptfcxtsM3t6NJOcjgy

From the paper: cost for a 1000MWe reactor is at $6,200 per kW

Maybe we need to take a look at what the South Koreans are doing?

 

[sptrawler]

Indeed so which is why I have been saying we still need baseload, the point is the best way of doing it.

With our gas reserves and being the biggest (yes biggest) gas exporter in the world, why not reserve some of those exports for ourselves instead of it all going o/s and having to import gas for our own consumption ?

I find it hard to believe how stupid our politicians are sometimes.

I love gas but there are two problems with it, the first is it is the only viable alternative for fossil fuel ice engines at the moment so ripping it through a turbine is a huge waste.
Secondly the greenies are already building up a head of steam against it, so as soon as coal is finished the chorus will start all over again against gas and then the stranded assert problem arises again, which does lead toward the only clean answer at this point in time is nuclear.
So if the small modular reactors can be made at a price point that makes them competitive, it will be just a matter of time before they become accepted.
The real issue is renewables and their intermittency, makes the issue of storage the critical point, this can be overcome with pumped storage and batteries as we have discussed on numerous occasions.
That may be fine when you are talking about just replacing an existing consumer grid, because in a 24 hour period there are low demand periods that can be used to replenish your storage.
If we have to supply h2 or electricity to overseas markets, which is quite possible, you lose those low periods, that is where the base load will be required.
Like we have said it is all just crystal ball gazing.
But if we have to install twice as much renewables to replace on call fossil fueled generators, then add to that the requirement for three times as much storage for intermittency, then add to that enough renewables to make h2 for export, it becomes a huge call.
Interesting times ahead in my opinion, especially if this has to be done in 30 years.

 

[Smurf1976]

Something I'll observe about all this is that nobody wants a power station for the sake of having a power station. What they want is a reliable and economical supply of electricity produced in an manner considered acceptable in terms of the environment etc.

The only real exceptions to that are:

Nuclear - if having a large working reactor is seen as necessary for some other purpose eg military. The power generation just puts it to use the rest of the time and provides a good story to "sell" it to the public.

Hydro - if there's some other use for storing water and releasing it in a controlled manner eg irrigation, flood control or urban supply then there may be a point to the project beyond just the power it produces.

Gas - if a location doesn't have any supply of natural gas available but there are industries wanting it then building a gas-fired power station would bring about a sufficient scale of consumption so as to make supply economically viable. Without the power station, gas consumption would be too low to be economically supplied at all and as such, using gas for power may be seen as desirable for reasons other than just the gas-fired power station itself. A number of examples exist for this one in Australia with gas projects for wider use ultimately underwritten by power generation usage in WA, SA, NT, Tas and Qld.

Employment - if you're out of work and are in a relevant trade or profession then the prospect of someone building a power station near where you live may hold appeal. Regardless of the merits of it as a source of electricity, it has a lot of merit in its ability to put food on your table if you're employed to build it. Even better if you're then also employed to operate or maintain it. Likewise a particular region with whatever natural resource might be keen to have it developed for the employment value to the town etc.

Beyond that though, well nobody wants a power station for the sake of a power station. With a couple of exceptions (Tarraleah, Tumut 3, Gordon Dam) tourists don't take photos of them and so on, they're entirely utilitarian in nature and the only point of them is to keep the lights on.

That being so, well the only reason we'd build nuclear in Australia is if it's the most economical of the acceptable and reliable means of generating electricity. At least that's the only reason unless the real reason is to have a large working reactor for purposes unrelated to power generation (that is, we want plutonium). For those unaware, we've already got a small reactor which takes care of medical needs and so on so no problem there.

Same with any other scheme really with the possible exception of some hydro projects if there's a broader use for the dam or any power station which uses some sort of waste material as a means of disposal (eg bagasse, CO gas from certain industrial processes, landfill gas etc). For those there's some other reason to want it in addition to generating electricity but not for nuclear unless the real reason isn't about power supply.

 

[SirRumpole]

So if the small modular reactors can be made at a price point that makes them competitive, it will be just a matter of time before they become accepted.

The Greens will kick up a stink about nuclear even more than they do about coal even though nuclear is virtually emission free.

 

[sptrawler]

Something I'll observe about all this is that nobody wants a power station for the sake of having a power station. What they want is a reliable and economical supply of electricity produced in an manner considered acceptable in terms of the environment etc.

The only real exceptions to that are:

Nuclear - if having a large working reactor is seen as necessary for some other purpose eg military. The power generation just puts it to use the rest of the time and provides a good story to "sell" it to the public.

Hydro - if there's some other use for storing water and releasing it in a controlled manner eg irrigation, flood control or urban supply then there may be a point to the project beyond just the power it produces.

Gas - if a location doesn't have any supply of natural gas available but there are industries wanting it then building a gas-fired power station would bring about a sufficient scale of consumption so as to make supply economically viable. Without the power station, gas consumption would be too low to be economically supplied at all and as such, using gas for power may be seen as desirable for reasons other than just the gas-fired power station itself. A number of examples exist for this one in Australia with gas projects for wider use ultimately underwritten by power generation usage in WA, SA, NT, Tas and Qld.

Employment - if you're out of work and are in a relevant trade or profession then the prospect of someone building a power station near where you live may hold appeal. Regardless of the merits of it as a source of electricity, it has a lot of merit in its ability to put food on your table if you're employed to build it. Even better if you're then also employed to operate or maintain it. Likewise a particular region with whatever natural resource might be keen to have it developed for the employment value to the town etc.

Beyond that though, well nobody wants a power station for the sake of a power station. With a couple of exceptions (Tarraleah, Tumut 3, Gordon Dam) tourists don't take photos of them and so on, they're entirely utilitarian in nature and the only point of them is to keep the lights on.

That being so, well the only reason we'd build nuclear in Australia is if it's the most economical of the acceptable and reliable means of generating electricity. At least that's the only reason unless the real reason is to have a large working reactor for purposes unrelated to power generation (that is, we want plutonium). For those unaware, we've already got a small reactor which takes care of medical needs and so on so no problem there.

Same with any other scheme really with the possible exception of some hydro projects if there's a broader use for the dam or any power station which uses some sort of waste material as a means of disposal (eg bagasse, CO gas from certain industrial processes, landfill gas etc). For those there's some other reason to want it in addition to generating electricity but not for nuclear unless the real reason isn't about power supply.

Your first paragraph summed it up perfectly.
All the other public rants are white noise, by fringe dwellers, wanting to add some meaning to their sad lives.
Any cause gives a sense of worth, whether it has purpose or not, much better than wallowing in a sea of navel gazing.

 

[Smurf1976]

The Greens will kick up a stink about nuclear even more than they do about coal even though nuclear is virtually emission free.

What's really needed is for government to make a decision as to what the priorities are and then leave it to engineers and business to collectively work out how to do it both technically and financially.

Meanwhile, on one hand I shake my head that we've come to this with a great panic to get things done before Spring 2020 which is just 9 weeks away. That's get it built and working, not just come to a decision by then.....

https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/fil...hresholds-in-south-australia-review.pdf?la=en

On the other hand, well at least I can say "told you so" - this problem is precisely the reason I set my own proof of concept trial up at home quite some time ago.

That doesn't make me a genius of course - anyone who had the data could have reached the same conclusion that we're heading toward great difficulty and getting there real soon.

 

[sptrawler]

Yes there is a lot to be said, for living on an island, at the end of the first world.
W.A what a great place, the muppet brigade hasnt got a foothold yet.

 

[Smurf1976]

Sticking strictly to the economics and looking at the short term, something of note is that the collapse of oil prices has also pushed down the gas price to the point that the more efficient gas-fired plants are now pretty close to equal with those using export grade coal on operating costs in Australia.

So we're seeing coal plant backing off output whilst the best gas-fired plants are remaining at full capacity. We're at a point where that's starting to occur now in Australia.

What's different is that to the extent gas has been cheaper in the past, that has been due to lower construction costs. The idea that it's cheaper to operate gas than to operate coal, when both are already built, is what has changed albeit only for the most efficient gas-fired plants at this stage.

That situation is evident in the market right at this moment hence the comment. No guarantee it'll continue, so don't anyone be reading political meanings into it etc, but it's where the commodity markets are at right now.

 

[basilio]

For those interested, a report by the Australian Parliament on nuclear power in Australia.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjU45yT_Z3qAhXaZSsKHcvuAVQQFjARegQICBAB&url=https://www.aph.gov.au/-/media/02_Parliamentary_Business/24_Committees/243_Reps_Committees/EnvironmentEnergy/Nuclear_energy/Full_Report.pdf?la=en&hash=2826513C078551487B8265502776DAD5D23EB71D&usg=AOvVaw00jHptfcxtsM3t6NJOcjgy

That is a very interesting report. The appendix with the extracts from the various witnesses highlights the many unsolved problems with nuclear production as well as safety, cost and waste management.

The real killer is the cost benefit analysis. Nucelar energy has missed the boat because it is simply far more expensive than comparable firmed solar/wind energy systems. And doesn't even touch the safety issues, final resolution of long term radioactive wastes and the exceptionally unreliable costings for new systems.

I thought this statement summed it up.

Professor Blakers referred to work that he and other ANU colleagues had undertaken in 2017 on precisely this point: The cost of balancing 100 per cent renewables has three components: storage, transmission and occasional spillage—when all the storage is full and you've got lots of wind and sun. The three components are roughly equal. Transmission is required so you can shift energy from a place where the wind and sun are good to where the wind and sun are bad, on a particular day. Storage is to time shift so that if it's a very sunny, windy day, like yesterday, we can store for a day in the future when it's not sunny and windy. Spillage is required because if you build enough storage to absorb all the solar and wind then you'll have built storage that you use once every five years and you're paying for things you don't need. So it's a balancing. Basically, the cost of wind and solar now is about $50 per megawatt hour. If you want to firm up 100 per cent wind and solar you'll add $25 on top, so you'll get to $75 a megawatt hour. That $75 a megawatt hour is below the spot price in every state in all periods in the last financial year; in other words, a fully backed up, firmed solarwind base with some existing hydro is cheaper to run than the entire current electricity system, and this reflects the fact that wind and solar just keep falling in price.
Page 65

 

[sptrawler]

That is a very interesting report. The appendix with the extracts from the various witnesses highlights the many unsolved problems with nuclear production as well as safety, cost and waste management.

The real killer is the cost benefit analysis. Nucelar energy has missed the boat because it is simply far more expensive than comparable firmed solar/wind energy systems. And doesn't even touch the safety issues, final resolution of long term radioactive wastes and the exceptionally unreliable costings for new systems.

I thought this statement summed it up.

Professor Blakers referred to work that he and other ANU colleagues had undertaken in 2017 on precisely this point: The cost of balancing 100 per cent renewables has three components: storage, transmission and occasional spillage—when all the storage is full and you've got lots of wind and sun. The three components are roughly equal. Transmission is required so you can shift energy from a place where the wind and sun are good to where the wind and sun are bad, on a particular day. Storage is to time shift so that if it's a very sunny, windy day, like yesterday, we can store for a day in the future when it's not sunny and windy. Spillage is required because if you build enough storage to absorb all the solar and wind then you'll have built storage that you use once every five years and you're paying for things you don't need. So it's a balancing. Basically, the cost of wind and solar now is about $50 per megawatt hour. If you want to firm up 100 per cent wind and solar you'll add $25 on top, so you'll get to $75 a megawatt hour. That $75 a megawatt hour is below the spot price in every state in all periods in the last financial year; in other words, a fully backed up, firmed solarwind base with some existing hydro is cheaper to run than the entire current electricity system, and this reflects the fact that wind and solar just keep falling in price.
Page 65

The only premise to all that is, you have enough energy to move around, that is the whole issue.
It isnt a problem as such in Australia small population, lots of flat land for renawable installations.
It all boils back to cherry picking, best case scenario.
As Ive said it will be self resolving.