The future of energy generation and storage

Sean K said:

The only way nuclear is going to get up in the future is if the Coalition run with it as a key policy position

Click to expand...

Where this gets "interesting" is with where such a move fits in more generally at the political level.

There's nothing in common with nuclear power and a world view based around free trade, low taxation, private enterprise owning utilities, individual employment contracts and so on. A nuclear power plant by its very nature far better suits a world view of protectionism, big government, state ownership and union strongholds. It will be all of these things that's a given.

For the Coalition to be proposing that suggests a much broader rethinking of their policies and that, economically, they're moving a very long way away from the Howard era.

Out with free trade, privatisation, small government and individualism.

In with protectionism, state ownership, big government and collectivism.

Because if we're going nuclear in a big way, especially if we're talking about conventional large reactors, then those are the requirements. Relatively high cost baseload energy that requires a substantial manufacturing base, itself protected from competition, in order to work and which is uninsurable.

Governments can do that whereas it's not something that happens under private ownership in a free market.

The real message as I see it isn't about energy but economics and politics.

Smurf1976 said:

Where this gets "interesting" is with where such a move fits in more generally at the political level.

There's nothing in common with nuclear power and a world view based around free trade, low taxation, private enterprise owning utilities, individual employment contracts and so on. A nuclear power plant by its very nature far better suits a world view of protectionism, big government, state ownership and union strongholds. It will be all of these things that's a given.

For the Coalition to be proposing that suggests a much broader rethinking of their policies and that, economically, they're moving a very long way away from the Howard era.

Out with free trade, privatisation, small government and individualism.

In with protectionism, state ownership, big government and collectivism.

Because if we're going nuclear in a big way, especially if we're talking about conventional large reactors, then those are the requirements. Relatively high cost baseload energy that requires a substantial manufacturing base, itself protected from competition, in order to work and which is uninsurable.

Governments can do that whereas it's not something that happens under private ownership in a free market.

The real message as I see it isn't about energy but economics and politics.

Click to expand...

Just socialism and nanny state: it is impossible in a me me me society to be elected on anything but bribes to the voters so the solution for alp and sadly any party is to say to 51% of the voters, I will give to you while screwing the other 49%..the us vs them now present every where in the west as per the Voice,the boomers term, the Covid attitude or the Trump split in the US.
And this is not capitalism, just collectivism aka communism at best.
What is the link with nuclear energy?
Well in a capitalist society..a real one so more like..hum China at the lowest level..just to show how rate they are, you would have a not questioned coal based grid with gas peak.cheapest by so far a margin...
Anything else would be ludicrous , and solar or wind would be only considered where they have an economic advantage: isolation/remoteness, islands, etc.
And individuals or companies would be free to generate own power and sell it to their neighbours
Small nuclear reactors maybe but honestly, I doubt they can ever compete economically if you include waste treatment and dismantling cost.

Based on the above, it is actually very surprising that the alp, the voice of collectivism and state over individual does not push nuclear.i wonder why, they push big defence spending , unrestrained immigration, all items completely opposed to their voters interests so why not big nuclear, big money in bribes there with nuclear lobbies and corporations.
So as we are cutting Coal and gas, real question is why is the ALP especially not pushing for nuclear power?
And I do not believe the greens alliance...lol..is a valid reason.

Smurf1976 said:

Where this gets "interesting" is with where such a move fits in more generally at the political level.

The real message as I see it isn't about energy but economics and politics.

Click to expand...

Cost, time line, processing technology, not in my backyard.

This will also apply to SMR’s you wouldn’t touch the first generation maybe even the second generation depending on what technology gets up.

We should be running on gas until hydrogen gets up.
Australia is floating on gas and yet it’s not available for domestic consumption at a reasonable price.

The National Party are talking about nuclear, 1000 times the cost total loss of sovereign control (you would have to transport high grade processed nuclear fuel from somewhere overseas)

Thats before you get to the politics

IFocus said:

Thats before you get to the politics

Click to expand...

Politics is the biggest problem of the lot. That plus the media.

They can't manage to say "diesel" without changing it to "dirty diesel" as though that were an inescapable statement of fact.

Natural gas has been rendered essentially unavailable due to the actions of successive governments.

Brown coal has been demonised to a ridiculous extent. Now try and find someone who can tell you what, exactly, is the problem with it that they're so upset about? What's so bad about it compared to black coal?

Unless it's a question of disposing of the ash in which case it's black coal they get upset about.

Can't do anything hydro without someone finding a reason to object.

Then there's the opposition to wind farms at a site that's only 30km from the one proposed by the same individual now leading the protest against it.

Don't even mention nuclear.

Whatever happened to science?

Some pain is inevitable before this is sorted.

IFocus said:

Cost, time line, processing technology, not in my backyard.

This will also apply to SMR’s you wouldn’t touch the first generation maybe even the second generation depending on what technology gets up.

We should be running on gas until hydrogen gets up.
Australia is floating on gas and yet it’s not available for domestic consumption at a reasonable price.

The National Party are talking about nuclear, 1000 times the cost total loss of sovereign control (you would have to transport high grade processed nuclear fuel from somewhere overseas)

Thats before you get to the politics

Click to expand...

All forms of clean energy are going to be required, as well as energy that is less dirty like gas, no one is actually telling the truth IMO.
We will struggle to decarbonise our electrical system, let alone our industries, unless the media and politicians start and face the reality and tell the truth.
Most of our heavy polluting industries will require changing over to sourcing their process heat from electricity also, which just compounds the issue and will require much more electricity to be produced than would normally be required.
The cement manufacturing will have to change over to electric furnaces, aluminium and steel manufacturing, food processing, house heating, everything just about that requires indirect or direct heating will require it to be provided by electricity or hydrogen derived from electricity.
Now lets look at how much current electrical generation adds to emissions.



So as I've said over and over it all boils back to how much clean energy you can source from a given generation, solar is great but it takes up a lot of space and is intermittent, a similar situation with wind, the amount in excess of what is required currently to clean up the other sectors is mind boggling and impractical.
To think that nuclear wont be required at some time is just not accepting the reality of the situation and the longer the politicians and media keep reinforcing how bad it is, the harder it is going to be to get the public to accept that eventually with current technology nuclear has to be accepted, as is happening around the World ATM.
At the moment it is the only source of clean energy that has the energy density required, to supply the amount of electrical energy needed, to convert all the polluting processes.
Those who want clean energy also happen to be the ones that don't want dams or nuclear, one wonders as to their intelligence IMO, it is extremely child like to demand a result and then impose limitations on how to get there when the obviously have no real understanding of the underlying problem.
Loonies in charge of the asylum, no wonder they glue themselves to the road IMO.

Read a Yale Uni article the other day (link to Yale science from Bas) estimates for SMR's still around 20 years which surprised me I was thinking sooner.

Make that 30 years for Australia.

So unless some miracle happens you would have to think the lights will go out once the current coal stations die.

As for the activists realistically they make good headlines but politically not a lot of impact IMHO.

IFocus said:

Read a Yale Uni article the other day (link to Yale science from Bas) estimates for SMR's still around 20 years which surprised me I was thinking sooner.

Make that 30 years for Australia.

So unless some miracle happens you would have to think the lights will go out once the current coal stations die.

As for the activists realistically they make good headlines but politically not a lot of impact IMHO.

Click to expand...

I posted an article the other day, the U.K is pumping about $38billion into SMR development, in reality there are already about 200 SMR's floating around the oceans at the moment, in subs and ships.
The main problem will be licensing and passing regulations, with nuclear it take a huge amount of red tape and time, a bit like clearing medications unless you have a pandemic, then the red tape miraculously disappears.
The same will happen with SMR's if the energy situation becomes drastic.

Over 160 ships are powered by more than 200 small nuclear reactors. Most are submarines, but they range from icebreakers to aircraft carriers.
We think of small modular nuclear reactors as something new that will take nuclear power to a new level, and even marvel at the rollout of new iterations, like Russia's new floating nuclear power plant. But in truth, the U.S. Navy has been operating and perfecting SMRs for 75 years.

Here we go again, pumped hydro site planned for 'culturally significant' mountain at Lithgow.

If we asked our indigenous friends if any site was not culturally significant, would the answer be greater than zero ?

SirRumpole said:

Here we go again, pumped hydro site planned for 'culturally significant' mountain at Lithgow.

If we asked our indigenous friends if any site was not culturally significant, would the answer be greater than zero ?

Fears pumped hydro dam will 'take away identity' of culturally significant mountain

Wiradjuri people around Lithgow in New South Wales are concerned about plans for a 40-metre-high concrete reservoir on top of a mountain that holds great importance to them.

www.abc.net.au

Click to expand...

Once you get the cheque book out plus the Voice, all will be sorted...

SirRumpole said:

Here we go again, pumped hydro site planned for 'culturally significant' mountain at Lithgow.

If we asked our indigenous friends if any site was not culturally significant, would the answer be greater than zero ?

Fears pumped hydro dam will 'take away identity' of culturally significant mountain

Wiradjuri people around Lithgow in New South Wales are concerned about plans for a 40-metre-high concrete reservoir on top of a mountain that holds great importance to them.

www.abc.net.au

Click to expand...

And that one's at the extreme low end of the scale in terms of impacts.

Rex Patrick has a look at the Snowy 2.0 if this was nuclear times the costs blow out by 100

Malcolm Turnbull’s Snowy Hydro 2.0 project was touted as $2 billion bargain in 2017. It now shapes as a $10 billion abominable snowman. Peering through a Kosciusko/Canberra snow storm of FOI brush-offs, Rex Patrick asks what is really going on.​

IFocus said:

Rex Patrick has a look at the Snowy 2.0 if this was nuclear times the costs blow out by 100

Malcolm Turnbull’s Snowy Hydro 2.0 project was touted as $2 billion bargain in 2017. It now shapes as a $10 billion abominable snowman. Peering through a Kosciusko/Canberra snow storm of FOI brush-offs, Rex Patrick asks what is really going on.​

Snow Job - Snowy Hydro 2.0 in a fathomless crevasse of costs - Michael West

Snowy Hydro 2.0 project was touted as $2 billion bargain in 2017. It now looks more like a $10 billion beast. Rex Patrick reports

michaelwest.com.au

Click to expand...

Inflation ?

The worlds largest Fusion reactor.

Mick

SirRumpole said:

Inflation ?

Click to expand...

Pretty much all construction projects are seeing massive cost increases at present. Anything from a footpath to a hospital is having the same basic problem.

There's also the point, seemingly missed by most, that even at $10 billion Snowy 2.0 is ridiculously cheap compared to batteries as a means of bulk energy storage which is its primary purpose. If there's an argument that it's too expensive then that basically sinks the idea of renewables and storage and it's back to coal.

Given it's infrastructure with an extremely long lifespan and low ongoing operating and maintenance costs, I don't agree it's too expensive. It's a far more lasting legacy than a lot of the other things government spends on - in 2100 SH2 will still be there and high chance there'll still be a use for it whereas pretty much everything else funded by taxpayers will be long gone.

Smurf1976 said:

Pretty much all construction projects are seeing massive cost increases at present. Anything from a footpath to a hospital is having the same basic problem.

There's also the point, seemingly missed by most, that even at $10 billion Snowy 2.0 is ridiculously cheap compared to batteries as a means of bulk energy storage which is its primary purpose. If there's an argument that it's too expensive then that basically sinks the idea of renewables and storage and it's back to coal.

Given it's infrastructure with an extremely long lifespan and low ongoing operating and maintenance costs, I don't agree it's too expensive. It's a far more lasting legacy than a lot of the other things government spends on - in 2100 SH2 will still be there and high chance there'll still be a use for it whereas pretty much everything else funded by taxpayers will be long gone.

Click to expand...

Yes in 40 years it will be fine if not sooner no one talks about the mess the Sydney Opera House was now.

Still 5 times over budget is out there if it was a real estimate maybe low balled the cost to get it started?

Check out the cost blow-out on Dan Andrews airport rail line.
As @Smurf1976 said it really is a moot point, it will cost what the contractors can screw out of it, the simple fact is it has to be built, the rest is semantics and political point scoring, which is wearing very thin IMO.
I don't see anyone cancelling it.

sptrawler said:

Check out the cost blow-out on Dan Andrews airport rail line.
As @Smurf1976 said it really is a moot point, it will cost what the contractors can screw out of it, the simple fact is it has to be built, the rest is semantics and political point scoring, which is wearing very thin IMO.
I don't see anyone cancelling it.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.afr.com/politics/victoria-s-suburban-rail-loop-will-blow-out-to-more-than-200b-report-20220818-p5bavl&ved=2ahUKEwjYw8qmxYSBAxUSlFYBHTqlCM4QFnoECCsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1Kd7dmSPMV4hAACP-bxDkp

Click to expand...

Whatever the reason, 200 billions AUD for a Melbourne centric non critical infrastructure makes no sense.
no wonder China will be the next power.
Bring it back to the relatively small number of inhabitants ,let alone users or actual taxpayers, these projects should not have left the drawing board...

qldfrog said:

Whatever the reason, 200 billions AUD for a Melbourne centric non critical infrastructure makes no sense.
no wonder China will be the next power.
Bring it back to the relatively small number of inhabitants ,let alone users or actual taxpayers, these projects should not have left the drawing board...

Click to expand...

That's what I meant by the political point scoring, it is ok to go on and on about what a critical piece of infrastructure costs, that will actually be required to keep the lights on.
But no one mentions the hundreds of billions being wasted on pet projects, just shows a gormless public, which is being manipulated by a narrative and political tribalism, is there any wonder Australia's going round the S bend.

A few folks on ASF have suggested that SMR's are impractical, cost too much, will take forever to build, and are stoll a long way rom being reality.
Obviously the koreans don't read ASF.
From Business Korea

Hyundai E&C and Holtec, a U.S. nuclear power plant design and manufacturing company, will commence construction of a small modular reactor (SMR) in the mainland U.S. by 2026. With the goal to complete the project within 3 years and start electricity production by 2029, the order is expected to exceed 4 trillion won.

On Aug. 15, in an interview at Holtec’s Philadelphia headquarters, Dr. Kris Singh, chairman of Holtec, stated that the “first SMR will be constructed on the Palisades nuclear power site in Michigan,” anticipating power production by 2029. The Palisades plant in Michigan was permanently shut down in May 2022, but with the U.S. government recommending a “restart,” Holtec is pushing for the construction of the SMR on the remaining site. Singh said, “2 to 4 SMRs will be built on our Palisades site,” noting the advantage that no new environmental assessment is required.

Globally recognized, Holtec holds over 100 patents in core areas of nuclear power plant design, materials, and manufacturing. Based on its technical expertise, the company is developing a 160 MW pressurized water SMR, the “SMR-160.”

Hyundai E&C will be in charge of nuclear power plant construction. In November 2021, they signed a Teaming Agreement with Holtec for the development of SMR and a joint business venture. Hyundai Construction aims to complete the project “within 3 years” and will break ground no later than 2026.
Three years for construction. It would take that long to get the permits in OZ.
That 4 trillion won equates to about 4.6 billion AUD.
The article is a bit vague about how many and what size the SMRs are, but assuming they are building one 160MW smr in this prjoect, thats a pretty expensive supply on a per MW basis. But it is not intermittent, and the running costs over the life of the SMR are pretty low compared to either AGS, coal, diesel or biomass.
Assuming that snowy 2.0 only uses spare capacity wind or solar, to pump the water up hill, its running costs will also be low, though somewhat inefficient.
Mick

Mick is the smr fusion or fission?

Couldn’t tell from the article.

I keep banging on about fission being a real problem for Australia, we don’t have the technology for processing (unlike the site in the article) no one will give it to us
also note that they don’t expect to apply for approval for the site used.

The time frame is to short for fusion I would think.

Note I am not against nuclear just looking at the issues which I think are insurmountable IMHO It all needed to be dealt with 20 to 30 years ago