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.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..
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.
Bankruptcy (in this scenario) unlikely as the plants are profitable, although having looked into this it depends when & where they were built.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.
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.Bankruptcy (in this scenario) unlikely as the plants are profitable, although having looked into this it depends when & where they were built.
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.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.
I have explained it enough times for you now. Anyway you can believe what you like; have a good day.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.
That is happening as we speak with coal plant.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.
Then you require 24/7 full output, renewables struggle with that.
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
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.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.
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.
Your first paragraph summed it up perfectly.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.
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.The Greens will kick up a stink about nuclear even more than they do about coal even though nuclear is virtually emission free.
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
The only premise to all that is, you have enough energy to move around, that is the whole issue.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
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?