The future of energy generation and storage

[SirRumpole]

So maybe read the statements, check for logic and check the evidence ?

Everything he said may be true, but its propaganda supporting his case. He will not state facts that don't support his case and neither will the other side.

So therefore we need to find experts who don't have a foot in a political camp, like some on this website (if you know who I mean ).

 

[basilio]

Everything he said may be true, but its propaganda supporting his case. He will not state facts that don't support his case and neither will the other side.

So therefore we need to find experts who don't have a foot in a political camp, like some on this website (if you know who I mean ).

I take your point. In a more nuanced situation where there could be competing arguments that deserve attention I would agree.

I don't believe this debate is in that field. When one checks with the independent experts the points raised against pushing for SMR's are repeated and repeated every time. The economics are just not viable. The time span is too far into the future to deal with our current needs to progress a renewable energy future. The technical side of SMRs has proven a repeated stumbling block culminating in the failure of the major SMR player NuLine to progress an approved project.

All of these issues were raised in the various posts I put up. Bowen simply parroted them off again. This is a dead parrot.

 

[SirRumpole]

I take your point. In a more nuanced situation where there could be competing arguments that deserve attention I would agree.

I don't believe this debate is in that field. When one checks with the independent experts the points raised against pushing for SMR's are repeated and repeated every time. The economics are just not viable. The time span is too far into the future to deal with our current needs to progress a renewable energy future. The technical side of SMRs has proven a repeated stumbling block culminating in the failure of the major SMR player NuLine to progress an approved project.

All of these issues were raised in the various posts I put up. Bowen simply parroted them off again. This is a dead parrot.

I agree that at the moment the economics of nuclear power in this country are very shaky, given the size of our economy and all the other resources we have, but it shouldn't be off the table forever. If the Coalition want to stick their butts on the line over nuclear then I think they are heading for defeat, but the other side has to come up with a credible plan which they haven't to date.

Ten years to get a wind farm approved in NSW is ridiculous, who knows what it will take to get a hydro dam approved. It's not good enough at the moment.

 

[basilio]

I agree that at the moment the economics of nuclear power in this country are very shaky, given the size of our economy and all the other resources we have, but it shouldn't be off the table forever. If the Coalition want to stick their butts on the line over nuclear then I think they are heading for defeat, but the other side has to come up with a credible plan which they haven't to date.

Ten years to get a wind farm approved in NSW is ridiculous, who knows what it will take to get a hydro dam approved. It's not good enough at the moment.

They are issues that have to be dealt with. However jumping back into the weeds with a hugely expensive 10 year program with no clear cost or technical certainty is not a good ( or even poor ) option. It's just ludicrous.

By all means keep an open mind on SMRS when an effective unit has been built and is operating. However what would we do if said unit was Made in China ? From what I can see this is one of the more advanced SMR around at the moment.

Over 200 global nuclear experts visit world's first onshore small modular reactor in China

Global experts are eyeing the potential of small modular reactors (SMRs) as the world seeks options for producing green energy under the growing pressure of climate change.

news.cgtn.com

 

[sptrawler]

They are issues that have to be dealt with. However jumping back into the weeds with a hugely expensive 10 year program with no clear cost or technical certainty is not a good ( or even poor ) option. It's just ludicrous.

By all means keep an open mind on SMRS when an effective unit has been built and is operating. However what would we do if said unit was Made in China ? From what I can see this is one of the more advanced SMR around at the moment.

Over 200 global nuclear experts visit world's first onshore small modular reactor in China

Global experts are eyeing the potential of small modular reactors (SMRs) as the world seeks options for producing green energy under the growing pressure of climate change.

news.cgtn.com

Funnily enough I thought I heard Dutton was talking about large reactors now, in ex coal plant locations, so the SMR issue isn't on the table.

What is even funnier is I actually don't agree with the large reactor idea and think the SMR would be the only suitable option for Australia.

Thirdly if as I said read back a few pages, as I suggested, you would also have read that I said that Australia is one of the only Western countries that has the ability to go full renewables.

But as usual you just head down your media driven idelogical path, rather than debate the issue. Lol

Let's be honest, you knew nothing about SMR's or the Marinus link issues, before we started this debate, yet your trying to project a learned opinion. Lol

I will try and explain my reasoning in a further post, then I will call it quits and we can agree to disagree, I've already more or less explained it over previous posts but I will try and present it in a format you may follow.

 

[sptrawler]

@basilio to address the Bowen article you posted, I will extract the parts that are relevant and not just fluff.
Well that didn't take long, there is nothing in that article that we haven't already debated and shown that it is a backward looking ideology, as is Duttons IMO.
The real issue that I think is the elephant in the room is the ability to make a replacement for fossil fuel, that is how we move to a clean air future.
Renewables are great in their place and will achieve a massive amount of fossil fuel replacement, in places that it can be deployed at scale, like Australia can.

The real issue is in high density low land mass countries and those that have poor climatic conditions, I've said for a long time H2 is the go to fuel to replace fossil fuel in a lot of cases, especially at the moment when batteries have such low energy density.

That's why Twiggy Forrest is trying very hard to get a renewable energy H2 industry up and running, which is smart, but it is hugely difficult on the logistics scale.

So keeping it simplistic and not using fluff and emotional blackmail:

Solar/wind is cheap to install, but has poor per unit volume energy output and H2 requires a lot of energy to produce in large scale.

Right now at the opposite end of the bell shaped curve, nuclear has huge per unit volume energy output, but is very expensive to install.

So one all, one takes a lot of area, the other takes a lot of money.

The demand for H2 will IMO be huge, it is like fossil fuel, it is versatile, has great energy density and is transportable, I think I mentioned that years ago in the EV thread.

Even Chris Bowen acknowledges that, so moving on from there we have common ground, everyone realise H2 is where the money is.

Right what is the best way to make H2 cleanly?

Well with renewables, as Twiggy is talking about is through electrolysis, it is very inefficient and there are a lot of losses, but it is clean, cheap but also intermittent.
20 - 30% of energy is lost in the process of creating hydrogen by electrolysis.

Another way is through thermochemical separation, which use very high temp water.
The thermodynamic performance of a lab-scale Cu-Cl thermochemical cycle for hydrogen production has determined the overall energy and exergy efficiencies to be 11.6% and 34.9%, respectively.

So back to nuclear, as I posted last week and apologies for repeating myself the big problem with the current gen2 style reactors is their operating temperature is too low, therefore their efficiency is low.

If gen4 reactors are indeed already in service that issue is gone, their water temp is about 1,000c, therefore their waste heat can be used to produce H2, add that to the fact they can also run electrolysers when they aren't required for firming.

How much H2 would be produced as opposed to electrolysers running solely off renewable farms, which are dedicated to producing hydrogen, not to feed the grid. In a word they would be pissant production and really comparably low output.

So now moving on to the economics, if countries could deploy gen4 nuclear to firm up their renewables, who do we sell our"clean" H2 from sunshine to and how much do we get paid for it? Or does it become another nickel story.

I'm not saying that will be the scenario, but it is a credible one.
To put your fingers in your ears and say it wont happen @basilio because Chris said so, isn't being logical.

Everyone has to keep an open mind and not get too tunnel visioned on an evolving situation, if we do we could find ourselves importing H2 to feed our yet to be built green steel furnaces, as we are doing with our grid batteries.
We send all the raw materials to China and buy the batteries off them, the scenario is very similar.
Renewables are great and they should be used where ever possible and sensible, but to ignore the obvious has caused many a downfall IMO.
Anyway enough on that subject, I don't think either side has got a realistic plan and I think that has been shown on numerous occassions.
The problem is IMO, the Government has to take over the electricity system again and neither want to do it, also the privates don't want to lose the cash cow.

 

[Smurf1976]

How decisions used to be made is by looking at all the options and crunching the numbers.

Investigation and Planning

Planning and Design

Investigation - Design

That was three of the actual names in different states but they all had a division with a boring and descriptive name which did exactly what that name implied. Investigated all the future options for future electricity supply and objectively assessed their merits.

So there used to be a proper, formal process to answer the question by means of calculating rather than arguing. It's the lack of that today, anything to do with planning became a dirty word back in the 1990's and was seen by politics as an outdated relic from the past, that's directly responsible for the present situation.

For the record all of those groups did investigate nuclear during the 1950's - 70's period, it wasn't off limits, just that at the time it was uneconomic.

Also a lot more co-operation between the states back then. Investigations in the NT late 1970's when they were looking at alternative options were considerably assisted by the other states where experience already existed with particular options. Same with the (never built) Tasmanian coal plant. Same with a lot of things.

Adopt the same approach today and that would fix most of the issues.

 

[basilio]

@basilio to address the Bowen article you posted, I will extract the parts that are relevant and not just fluff.
Well that didn't take long, there is nothing in that article that we haven't already debated and shown that it is a backward looking ideology, as is Duttons IMO.
The real issue that I think is the elephant in the room is the ability to make a replacement for fossil fuel, that is how we move to a clean air future.
Renewables are great in their place and will achieve a massive amount of fossil fuel replacement, in places that it can be deployed at scale, like Australia can.

The real issue is in high density low land mass countries and those that have poor climatic conditions, I've said for a long time H2 is the go to fuel to replace fossil fuel in a lot of cases, especially at the moment when batteries have such low energy density.

That's why Twiggy Forrest is trying very hard to get a renewable energy H2 industry up and running, which is smart, but it is hugely difficult on the logistics scale.

So keeping it simplistic and not using fluff and emotional blackmail:

Solar/wind is cheap to install, but has poor per unit volume energy output and H2 requires a lot of energy to produce in large scale.

Right now at the opposite end of the bell shaped curve, nuclear has huge per unit volume energy output, but is very expensive to install.

So one all, one takes a lot of area, the other takes a lot of money.

The demand for H2 will IMO be huge, it is like fossil fuel, it is versatile, has great energy density and is transportable, I think I mentioned that years ago in the EV thread.

Even Chris Bowen acknowledges that, so moving on from there we have common ground, everyone realise H2 is where the money is.

Right what is the best way to make H2 cleanly?

Well with renewables, as Twiggy is talking about is through electrolysis, it is very inefficient and there are a lot of losses, but it is clean, cheap but also intermittent.
20 - 30% of energy is lost in the process of creating hydrogen by electrolysis.

Another way is through thermochemical separation, which use very high temp water.
The thermodynamic performance of a lab-scale Cu-Cl thermochemical cycle for hydrogen production has determined the overall energy and exergy efficiencies to be 11.6% and 34.9%, respectively.

So back to nuclear, as I posted last week and apologies for repeating myself the big problem with the current gen2 style reactors is their operating temperature is too low, therefore their efficiency is low.

If gen4 reactors are indeed already in service that issue is gone, their water temp is about 1,000c, therefore their waste heat can be used to produce H2, add that to the fact they can also run electrolysers when they aren't required for firming.

How much H2 would be produced as opposed to electrolysers running solely off renewable farms, which are dedicated to producing hydrogen, not to feed the grid. In a word they would be pissant production and really comparably low output.

So now moving on to the economics, if countries could deploy gen4 nuclear to firm up their renewables, who do we sell our"clean" H2 from sunshine to and how much do we get paid for it? Or does it become another nickel story.

I'm not saying that will be the scenario, but it is a credible one.
To put your fingers in your ears and say it wont happen @basilio because Chris said so, isn't being logical.

Everyone has to keep an open mind and not get too tunnel visioned on an evolving situation, if we do we could find ourselves importing H2 to feed our yet to be built green steel furnaces, as we are doing with our grid batteries.
We send all the raw materials to China and buy the batteries off them, the scenario is very similar.
Renewables are great and they should be used where ever possible and sensible, but to ignore the obvious has caused many a downfall IMO.
Anyway enough on that subject, I don't think either side has got a realistic plan and I think that has been shown on numerous occassions.
The problem is IMO, the Government has to take over the electricity system again and neither want to do it, also the privates don't want to lose the cash cow.

A lot to consider there SP. In the end it feels as if we could put a cigarette paper between our positions.

Overall I don't believe in perfect or even very good solutions. I've been around enough blocks to recognise that there are many ways to skin a cat. In the end it is effectiveness of action that wins the day vs careful/brilliant plans/technology. Sloppy execution can ruin anything.

The role of H2 ? My understanding is that it is intended for industrial uses that are otherwise very hard to make carbon neutral. The particular ones noted are steel and fertiliser production, heavy transport and shipping. Producing H2 on the spot and using it for these industrial processes seems to be most cost effective procedure.

As far as my knowledge of SMRs ? I went into the weeds a few years ago on ASF when the topic was raised. I had another look when it was raised again now. The biggest changes seemed to be the collapse of the NuLine SMR project, the continued realisation that it was wildly uneconomic compared to renewable energy and finally, that the Chinese appeared to be the closest to working system.

One of the biggest issues as far as I can see is that the road to a renewable energy society is not as profitable as a host of other investment opportunities. Oil and gas projects make scads more profits. FMG is earning untold billions from its iron ore ops. There is no universe that anything close to those returns will come from its green energy programs.

As you point out we cannot rely on the unfettered market place to create a green, renewable energy economy. It really does require an international mobilisation effort.

I also agree this topic has been done to death. We have other fish to fry. Personally I have spent way too much time on ASF. I need to reprioritise.

 

[Smurf1976]

Overall I don't believe in perfect or even very good solutions. I've been around enough blocks to recognise that there are many ways to skin a cat. In the end it is effectiveness of action that wins the day vs careful/brilliant plans/technology. Sloppy execution can ruin anything.

If there's anything to be learned here it's about the human condition far more than it's about engineering, economics, environment or resources.

Putting aside personal views, and I think I've demonstrated a definite willingness to acknowledge things that could fairly be considered "inconvenient truths", and just stand back and look at the whole thing. The entire debate from its origins at the end of the 1960's through to the present.

Some valid points have been raised but taken as a whole it's quite a circus. That goes for all sides.

Coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, biomass and now wind. All have at some point been championed as the solution and at other times firmly opposed. Indeed there's more than a few examples where the same organisations, the same people even, have switched sides on the same subject.

Meanwhile society demands, and to an extent needs, energy.

I also agree this topic has been done to death. We have other fish to fry.

Now understand that's pretty much the point most not only in the industry but also more broadly in business and mainstream politics have reached with all of this.

Every possible option has been explored and ultimately nothing's going to satisfy the activists. Latest we've got the federal government drastically shrinking the scale of offshore wind development but still the activists complain - not about climate but about the wind farms because 80% less isn't enough, they want none at all.

That's not a criticism of yourself or anyone on this forum. It's simply an observation of the overall situation in society.

My personal view is it'll only be resolved with some sort of disaster - either a major energy crisis, serious economic recession, war or an actual major manifestation of climate change. It'll take that to bring about the circumstance where someone's given the power to do whatever it takes.

What happens after that will depend heavily on the detail of broader circumstances at the time. The one prediction I'll make is the outcome will be vastly inferior to "what could've been" and that anyone who objects won't get far.

Meanwhile, my shares are up today.

 

[mullokintyre]

I see a number of problems with this statement.
Firstly what are these "more cost effective and reliable energy sources" he speaks of?
It can't be coal, oil or gas, as these are being phased out.
It can't possibly be Wind or Solar power, as these are not reliable when the wind does not blow, or the sun does not shine.
Can it be hydro? I have not seen anything from the government that suggests it is even looking at hydro, much less supporting it.
Is it hydrogen perhaps? Could be, but when you look at the official gov policy, its a word salad of aspirations and hopes.

As for the truth being that the market has made its decision on nuclear energy, its a tad self serving when the current Labour gov policy is to ban nuclear energy, so its hardly surprisng that the market sees no value in pursuing it.
It may well be that nuclear is not viable ( I am agnostic either way), but at least be open and honest about evaluations.

Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

View attachment 172270
I see a number of problems with this statement.
Firstly what are these "more cost effective and reliable energy sources" he speaks of?
It can't be coal, oil or gas, as these are being phased out.
It can't possibly be Wind or Solar power, as these are not reliable when the wind does not blow, or the sun does not shine.
Can it be hydro? I have not seen anything from the government that suggests it is even looking at hydro, much less supporting it.
Is it hydrogen perhaps? Could be, but when you look at the official gov policy, its a word salad of aspirations and hopes.


As for the truth being that the market has made its decision on nuclear energy, its a tad self serving when the current Labour gov policy is to ban nuclear energy, so its hardly surprisng that the market sees no value in pursuing it.
It may well be that nuclear is not viable ( I am agnostic either way), but at least be open and honest about evaluations.

Mick

Trouble is that there isn't really a private capital "market" solution to the energy issue.

Basically, any form of energy requires government subsidies , especially so in Australia with a small market and a large land mass, so the "market" therefore constitutes both private and public interests and without the approval and participation of governments nuclear won't be going ahead in this country. That seems to imply bi-partisanship, as even if Dutton decides to do it, no company will invest if they think a future Labor government will pull the plug.

I encourage people to read to the saga of the Hinkley Point C nuclear reactor which has been mentioned in this thread to see just how much taxpayers will be in hock to the private sector if nuclear reactors go ahead here.

 

[sptrawler]

Trouble is that there isn't really a private capital "market" solution to the energy issue.

Basically, any form of energy requires government subsidies , especially so in Australia with a small market and a large land mass, so the "market" therefore constitutes both private and public interests and without the approval and participation of governments nuclear won't be going ahead in this country. That seems to imply bi-partisanship, as even if Dutton decides to do it, no company will invest if they think a future Labor government will pull the plug.

I encourage people to read to the saga of the Hinkley Point C nuclear reactor which has been mentioned in this thread to see just how much taxpayers will be in hock to the private sector if nuclear reactors go ahead here.

Spot on Rumpy, I think we are a long way out from nuclear, if ever.
I just think there should be an open and honest debate about it, rather than this polar opposite stance by both parties.

 

[SirRumpole]

Spot on Rumpy, I think we are a long way out from nuclear, if ever.
I just think there should be an open and honest debate about it, rather than this polar opposite stance by both parties.

I agree. I haven't seen the media interview an actual nuclear scientist (maybe because the journos all have Arts Degrees not Science ones so they don't know what questions to ask), they just keep parroting what the politicians say, and so the public remains uninformed.

 

[sptrawler]

I agree. I haven't seen the media interview an actual nuclear scientist (maybe because the journos all have Arts Degrees not Science ones so they don't know what questions to ask), they just keep parroting what the politicians say, and so the public remains uninformed.

Yes it would be great if the ABCactually had a panel of nulear experts and a forum of energy experts covering fossil fuel, renewables etc and have an orderly debate where experts can question experts and have a moderator who gave everyone reasonable time without interuptions.
That would be worth watching IMO.
Just a balanced debate between experts, difficult but doable, like the ABC used to do, before the loaded attack sessions that have been the norm of late.
The fact is we are getting nuclear subs, so we are going to have a certain degree of exposure to the safety aspect regarding it.
A lot of what is said at the moment is regurgitated history, it would be great to hear what the state of play actually is.
As you say Hinkley point has cost a fortune and it is gen2, but they are going to build a second one, when Hinkley is finished apparently.
Australia is definitely not in the same situation as the U.K, IMO the U.K doesn't have a lot of options other than nuclear, unlike Australia which as you say has abundant land mass.
Personally I'm not a fan of large scale gen2 reactors, they have to be too big to have economies of scale, but the design IMO is inherently inefficient.
I just hope the gen4 reactors are as far advanced as some are saying, IMO that would suit many small population countries, due to flexibility, efficiency and lower waste production.
It is certainly an exciting time in what is normally a very quiet background industry, electrical generation is one of those industries that is usually seen but not heard, until something goes wrong.

UK Commits to Another Large-Scale Nuclear Plant in Net Zero Push

The UK will build another large-scale nuclear power plant, beyond current projects by Electricite de France SA, as the nation maps out its biggest expansion of atomic energy in 70 years.

www.bloomberg.com

UK Commits to Another Large Nuclear Plant in Net Zero Push​

• Talks will start after investment decision made for Sizewell C
• Britain wants to quadruple its nuclear-power capacity by 2050

The UK will build another large-scale nuclear power plant, beyond current projects by Electricite de France SA, as the nation maps out its biggest expansion of atomic energy in 70 years.

Discussions on the next site will begin once EDF and the government reach a final investment decision on the Sizewell C station, Andrew Bowie, the minister for nuclear and renewables, said in an interview. That’s expected to happen this year. Competition for a new project would also be open to other developers, potentially at the Wylfa or Moorside sites.

Getting Sizewell C built is vital for the UK to prove it can deliver on its strategy to quadruple nuclear-power capacity by 2050. Construction of complex atomic plants is notoriously slow, and cost overruns and delays make investors wary, stalling Britain’s progress.
“There is no net zero without nuclear,” Bowie said. “No one is trying to suggest that it’s not expensive to deliver, but it’s an expense we can’t afford not to spend.”

A road map published Thursday sets out how the UK will reach 24 gigawatts of capacity by 2050. This would require adding between 3 and 7 gigawatts of new projects every five years from 2030 to 2044, the government said.

That would be a considerable acceleration from the current pace. Hinkley Point C, due to start its two reactors in 2027 and 2028, will be the first new station since Sizewell B began generating in 1995.

UK Nuclear Output Slumps to 42-Year Low in Threat to Net Zero

In 2016, the UK had a pipeline 18 gigawatts of nuclear capacity at six sites, including Hinkley. That shrank as investors, including Hitachi Ltd. and Toshiba Corp., walked away from projects they deemed too expensive.

“Our plans will give investors the confidence to back new UK projects,” Bowie said. “We have seen moments in the past when investors have been bruised by projects that haven’t delivered.”

The government is asking for views on how to encourage private investment in future plants after taking years to agree on the regulated asset base, or RAB, model for Sizewell. That’s supposed to encourage private capital in the building stage and dilute the construction risk for the developer and taxpayers.

This model was criticized by a government advisory committee for leaving consumers unfairly exposed.

“The RAB is perfect for Sizewell C, but I wouldn’t want to speculate that it would be for future gigawatt-scale projects,” Bowie said. “We don’t want to be restrictive.”

The government says it will reach a final investment decision on two more nuclear projects by the end of 2029. Those could use small modular reactors or other advanced nuclear technologies.

Small modular reactors, or SMRs, will play a key role in expanding the sector. SMRs can be assembled in factories, making construction faster and less expensive.

A competition will begin soon where companies such as EDF and Rolls Royce Holdings Plc can bid to build demonstration projects.

The UK also is consulting on a new way to determine sites for future reactors beyond the eight already designated. The idea is to be more flexible about locations, Bowie said.

BloombergGreen

 

[sptrawler]

Interesting clip on the Calide unit destruction, the technical lead up is until the 15 minute mark, the resulting destruction from then on.

 

[IFocus]

Nuclear may get a look in after if and when the subs turn up but even if all get on board and decide it's a great idea or "nation building project" whatever still the problems of build time (10 years min more likely 20 years) and cost just to build then where is the fuel coming from? (cost again).

You really need the processing technology to avoid sovereign risk and the stupid costs that fuel would attract.

If you develop the technology to make fuel (10 to 30 years pick a number) then might as well continue on and make warheads then it will all make sense.

This is as already mention if the government (tax payers) stump it all up and accept the risk well beyond other options question is why would you?

 

[sptrawler]

Nuclear may get a look in after if and when the subs turn up but even if all get on board and decide it's a great idea or "nation building project" whatever still the problems of build time (10 years min more likely 20 years) and cost just to build then where is the fuel coming from? (cost again).

You really need the processing technology to avoid sovereign risk and the stupid costs that fuel would attract.

If you develop the technology to make fuel (10 to 30 years pick a number) then might as well continue on and make warheads then it will all make sense.

This is as already mention if the government (tax payers) stump it all up and accept the risk well beyond other options question is why would you?

Spot on, you would only do it, if you have to and I really can't see any sense in it unless gen4 is the chosen option and is actually proven and available.

That tech is still being developed, apparently China have just commissioned one, if that becomes viable I think everyone will be on board, otherwise they will become a second tier energy country.

That IMO is why an open debate needs to be held, to dispel a lot of myths and present a lot of information to educate the public, most only know the bits and pieces gleaned when going through school, which is very dated.

IMO the Libs are just blowing air up everyones butt, they talk about SMR's, which currenty aren't viable, now they flip and talk about gen2 large stations in ex coal station locations, which just shows they really are all over the show and have no plan.

 

[IFocus]

Spot on, you would only do it, if you have to and I really can't see any sense in it unless gen4 is the chosen option and is actually proven and available.

As you guys have already mention if the lights go out and all options are on the table cost would likely be no object even then nuclear in its current form would struggle to get up but I guess you would have a very long look at it.

 

[sptrawler]

As you guys have already mention if the lights go out and all options are on the table cost would likely be no object even then nuclear in its current form would struggle to get up but I guess you would have a very long look at it.

Yes I agree, there really isn't a lot of sense in putting in big units, like the U.K has.
The main problem IMO is being steam sets, they really are designed to be online 24/7, so in a lot of ways they would limit the installation of renewables.

The other problem with the big units 1GW+, they would probably have a limited turn down ratio, therefore they could only be backed off a certain amount, so flexibility IMO would be an issue as more renewables were put in.

The renewables would probably have to be curtailed as they are currently by the coal steam sets, that again limits the attractiveness of renewables, which we are trying to encourage.

Again as I've said earlier, the only feasible reason for putting in nuclear IMO, would be if 300MW(mid size) high temperature reactors became available, if they become available as I said earlier they will be brilliant at producing H2, when they aren't required for firming.

Again just my opinion and as has been said Gen4 is in the early stages of development, but to completely cancel the idea of investigating the deployment as the technology matures, would leave us in a very vulnerable position financially IMO.
This would be due to the advantage other nations would have in the production of bulk H2, at a very cheap cost and high production rate.

As I've said many times it is an interesting period in time and if we get left behind because of stubbornness and tribalism, it will be impossible to hold our current living standards IMO.
We are banking a lot on being able to sell bulk H2 as a replacement for our fossil fuel sales, if the countries we hope to sell it to can produce their own as a byproduct of generating their own electricity, it will be difficult to sell ours.
Much the same as our 'clean nickel' advantage over Indonesia, one minute it's there the next minute its gone and our nickel is shut down, while we are still trying to convince everyone of our moral high ground.
Playing politics is a lose/lose on most occassions.

 

[sptrawler]

Following on from the above post, now the missus has run out of jobs for me.
Why I think it needs to be debated now, even though it isn't probable at this point in time, a lot of decisions as to where things are put will have a long term consequence.

For example if it does become feasible, cost effective and practical to have small reactors, where would it be sensible to put them with regard interfacing them in the grid, for system security, complimenting the renewables and also with an eye to water supply for the reactors.

Then if there is an arbitrary decision to the location of transmission lines, solar/ wind farms, consideration for the future location of a reactor could be thrown into the thought and decision process, it may make no difference at the moment, but in years to come it may save a huge amount of extra cost and time if they actually do need to be installed. If there is no extra cost, why not?

Doing the preliminary groundwork at this early stage makes a huge amount of sense IMO, it may save a lot of money, heartache and public backlash, if the discussions are held now.

I think it would be a master stroke by Bowen, to actually assemble a forum of experts from all the relevant fields and get a genuine discussion and learned consensus on the issue, at this point in time.
It would show a huge amount maturity and objectivity on the issue as he still continues along the chosen path, but also negates the nuclear issue as it is allowed for in contingency planning.

Again all just my thoughts, I'm obviously bored, holiday in 3 weeks.