The future of energy generation and storage

[basilio]

Nailed it.

Every state in Australia plus the NT have looked seriously at nuclear at some point historically and bottom line is none considered units over 600MW at the time, and for most it was considerably smaller than that.

First commercially operated nuclear generation in the UK was 4 x 50MW. Second one was 4 x 60MW.

Some of the military ones aren't that big either. 15MW for one I recall, 110MW for another.

Those are all electrical outputs not thermal.

So it's always been possible to build small nuclear reactors, that's how they started out. It's just that nuclear power is one of the more extreme examples of scale of economy - they're built as large as possible not for technical reasons but simply for economic reasons.

Similar with coal. Smallest units in the NEM are now the 280MW units at Gladstone whereas if we go back 40 years there were still 30MW machines in use in the 5 mainland states with coal-fired steam and there were 7.5MW machines still in service in the NT albeit with oil-fired steam not coal. Nobody would contemplate building anything that small today due to the economics.

The figures just don't add up do they ? Building a small nuclear power station is great for the company doing the building.
Absolutely RS for people/companies having to pay for it.

 

[IFocus]

Gosh who to believe, one of life's quandaries, one labor party ridiculing it and another stepping on all in its way to install it.

Labour set to take on NIMBYs blocking new nuclear power stations

Ministers will slash red tape and take on the 'blockers' to build nuclear reactors across Britain.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Labour minister set to slash red tape and take on the NIMBYs blocking the construction of new nuclear powers across Britain​

Ministers will slash red tape and take on the ‘blockers’ to build nuclear reactors across Britain.

More nuclear plants will be built across the country creating thousands of highly skilled jobs, the Prime Minister and Chancellor said.

The last nuclear power station to be built in the UK was in 1995. Construction on Hinkley Point C began in 2017 and it will open in around five years after multiple delays.

Last night, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves told the Mail: ‘We were once a world pioneer in nuclear power but now we’re left floundering in the global race.

'Years of delay from a Conservative government too weak to take on the vested interests has stopped the country leading the way, but this government will not accept that.

‘The opportunity on offer is immense. New nuclear will boost UK energy security and has the potential to create thousands of jobs and kickstart economic growth – our number one mission.

'Sizewell C alone is expected to support 10,000 jobs and stimulate £4.4 billion worth of investment in the East of England.

‘But seizing the opportunity requires bold decisions. This Government is taking on the new nuclear blockers to put the UK back at the forefront of the global race.

'Our plans will shake up planning rules to make it easier and cheaper to build nuclear power stations across the country and put a stop to the endless dithering and debate. And they will help us renew the nuclear deterrent, protecting the UK for generations to come.

‘We’ve already begun axing red tape and tearing regulatory barriers that hold back economic growth, including overhauling the legal challenges to major infrastructure projects.

'This Government is going further and faster to kickstart economic growth, to put more money in working people’s pockets.’

Sir Keir said: ‘This country hasn’t built a nuclear power station in decades. We’ve been let down and left behind.

Not really comparing apples with apples UK has long been a nuclear power so nuclear generation makes sense (still very expensive) as far as I know its always been supported by both parties plus their base load is significant so can build larger scale units (assumption).

Australia on the other hand has long been anti nuclear (not arguing the merits) has no production technology or capability and now nuclear energy lobby supported shrills telling us it will be fast and cheaper which is total BS.

I am not saying we shouldn't have nuclear generation but the current politics over it is just dumb IMHO.

 

[Knobby22]

And they will help us renew the nuclear deterrent, protecting the UK for generations to come.

Is that the real reason? Do they need a new reactor to make nuclear weapons?

 

[IFocus]

Is that the real reason? Do they need a new reactor to make nuclear weapons?

No but my understanding is making nuclear arms grade for weapons a spin off is fuel grade that can be used in reactors.

 

[sptrawler]

Not really comparing apples with apples UK has long been a nuclear power so nuclear generation makes sense (still very expensive) as far as I know its always been supported by both parties plus their base load is significant so can build larger scale units (assumption).

Australia on the other hand has long been anti nuclear (not arguing the merits) has no production technology or capability and now nuclear energy lobby supported shrills telling us it will be fast and cheaper which is total BS.

I am not saying we shouldn't have nuclear generation but the current politics over it is just dumb IMHO.

I agree with you, I was just highlighting how the situation drives the politics and the narrative, if it eventuates that nuclear is indeed needed in Australia the narrative will turn 180 degrees.
At the moment nothing is being debated in a sensible manner by either side of politics IMO, both sides are treating the issue and their preferance as an all or nothing solution, which isn't helpful to the general public.
The more open and accurate the debate, the more likelyhood of a good outcome, at the moment the general public are ill informed and nervous.

 

[SirRumpole]

The more open and accurate the debate, the more likelyhood of a good outcome, at the moment the general public are ill informed and nervous.

And if the politicians had confidence that their side of the debate is correct they would de-politicise it by handing over the decisions to a panel of experts rather than religiously sticking to their own agendas.

It's the only way I can see to get us out of the mess.

 

[sptrawler]

And if the politicians had confidence that their side of the debate is correct they would de-politicise it by handing over the decisions to a panel of experts rather than religiously sticking to their own agendas.

It's the only way I can see to get us out of the mess.

Nailed it.
I just can't believe it is being dealt with so flipantly, it is such a hugely important issue, I can't believe that politicians are so matter a fact about it.
Either they are a lot sillier than I give them credit for, or they know something that isn't common knowledge.

 

[basilio]

Rio Tinto has done the sums on renewable energy vs fossil fuel. They have a huge energy spend and they don't want to spend any more than they need to. Hence the following decision.
And this isn't from The Shovel.

Rio Tinto turns to big batteries to underpin green smelters, as firmed renewables eclipse gas and coal​

Sophie Vorrath

Feb 7, 2025

Battery Storage

Rio Tinto’s global aluminium chief says the resources giant is looking to add battery storage to the clean energy mix powering its Queensland Boyne Island smelter, as part of a plan to replace coal with firmed renewables and shift its Australian assets to “the good half of the global cost curve.”

In a detailed, two-part post on LinkedIn, Rio Tinto’s chief executive Jérôme Pécresse says there is no reason why Australian aluminium smelters can’t be powered by a mix of intermittent renewables, provided that mix is “firmed” via batteries.

Rio is already working hard to gather together the renewables part of the equation. Of the 5 gigawatts of new capacity required for its Gladstone smelters and refineries, it has locked in more than 2.2 GW of wind and solar generation through power purchase agreements, or PPAs.

The message this week from Pécresse, at the end of a tour of Rio Tinto’s Pacific aluminium operations, is that Rio will now turn its attention to the other part of the equation – adding battery storage to firm the contracted renewables.

“Such a solution is what we are working to put in place at our Boyne smelter,” Pécresse says. And he says this, not because he is an inner-city greenie, nor to spite Peter Dutton, who remains adamant smelters can run only on baseload coal or nuclear, but because – to borrow a recent Dutton-ism – it’s the economics of it.

Rio Tinto turns to big batteries to underpin green smelters, as firmed renewables eclipse gas and coal

Rio Tinto is looking to add battery storage to contracted wind and solar to power its giant smelters in Australia, saying they have no future with coal generation because of high costs and emission…

reneweconomy.com.au

 

[basilio]

While Peter Dutton and the fossil fuel industry lie their darnedest to insist that Black is White and Gas is Great - the financial reality of how Australian manufacturers and the public have been screxed senseless by the industry is getting another show,

Read this article in full to appreciate why the expansion of the gas industry only serves the industry. Not its customers, Not Australia as a country, Not Australia manufacturing.

When an industry exists purely and simply to extract maximum value and holding its customers to ransom it is no longer fit for purpose. (Except of course to create a few more billionaires and millions more paupers)

I have attached a link to the full report.

“Golden age of gas” has not paid off for Australian consumers, manufacturers​

Royce Kurmelovs

Feb 6, 2025


Gas Policy & Planning

Queensland’s LNG export industry has been a “pretty poor investment” that has driven up domestic gas prices along the east coast, destroyed demand, threatened shortages and failed to deliver the royalties promised, a new analysis suggests.

The state’s LNG sector celebrated the ten-year-anniversary in January 2025 but a review of the period undertaken by the Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) says the industry’s track record has failed to deliver on the hype.

According to the report, Queensland set up the industry at a time of growing Chinese demand. Despite objections – including from a Queensland government paper – warning the decision would directly link the domestic market to the global gas market in a way that would raise prices, create shortages and lower demand by a fifth, the lure of a big new export industry proved too strong.

Gas finance analyst Kevin Morrison, author of the IEEFA report, said those critics have since been proven correct.

“The government noted it at the time, but they didn’t delve into it,” Morrison said. “There was a lot of hype – but there were also a lot of warnings, people saying prices are going to go up if we start exporting. And that’s what happened.”

“Golden age of gas” has not paid off for Australian consumers, manufacturers

Despite the promised riches from Australia’s east coast gas export gambit, new report finds main result has been “perennial threats of shortages” and higher prices at home.

reneweconomy.com.au

Queensland LNG exports: A decade of high domestic prices, falling local demand

Queensland marked 10 years as an LNG exporter in January 2025, and has emerged as a key supplier of LNG, primarily to China. Besides boosting Australia’s energy trade with Asia’s largest economy, the industry has left a legacy of higher domestic gas prices, weaker domestic gas demand, lower than...

ieefa.org

 

[basilio]

Geez Baz, if you are going to bag Nuclear, at least put some sort of scientific, environmental or economic data up.
Relying on Juice Media for your information is almost as bad as relying The Shovel.
Mick

In fact Mick, Juice Media based their story on the following analysis.

The underestimated costs, unrealistic time lines, misleading comparisons. Everything is laid out. The spunky women , quick fire patter and excellent graphs is the Visual media contribution.

Short story.

Summary

“The Coalition Opposition is risking the public purse on an expensive technology that Australia has limited experience with.

“Nuclear is one of the most expensive forms of electricity generation and we found that introducing nuclear would result in rising bills.

“In our recent report, we looked at the actual, real-world experience of nuclear reactor projects installed overseas and found they were plagued by delays and cost overruns, and had costs far higher than what the Coalition Opposition is assuming.

“Based on overseas reactor projects, we found that nuclear power would cost 1.5 to 3.8 times the current cost of electricity in Eastern Australia.

“For nuclear power plants to be commercial and operating 24/7, the wholesale price would need to rise to these higher levels in order to enable nuclear cost recovery.

“This means household power bills would have to go up by $665 for a typical household and $972 for a four-person household per year.

“If nuclear costs were not recovered through the wholesale market and on power bills, then nuclear would require subsidies to remain commercial, and it appears these have not been included in the modelling.

“There are many remaining open questions around the nuclear proposal.”

Opposition’s nuclear costings are unrealistic​

Coalition Opposition’s forecast of nuclear costs is unrealistic

Underestimated: Nuclear construction costs are too low
Underestimated: Fuel and operations cost of nuclear is lower than expected
Underestimated: Nuclear construction timeline
Unclear costs: SMR considerations are not explored
Unclear costs: Coal power plant extension costs do not seem to be mentioned
Unclear costs: Nuclear waste disposal, nuclear accident liability
Misleading: Nuclear plan is costed for an economy with less electricity consumption
Misleading: Spreading the cost over 50 years with unclear refurbishment costs

Opposition’s nuclear costings are unrealistic

13 December 2024 (IEEFA AUSTRALIA): Australia’s federal opposition Coalition today released modelling from Frontier Economics for its plan to establish nuclear reactors at seven sites across Australia. The following quotes are attributable to Johanna Bowyer, Lead Analyst, Australian Electricity...

ieefa.org

 

[basilio]

This is a scandal. Allowing fugitive methane emissions to escape at a cost of $1Billion a year.
And the solutions are simple, available and cost effective.

A billion dollars going up in the air​

December 12, 2024

 

Methane problem needs urgent government action​

Key Takeaways:​

Methane emissions from coal, oil and gas could increase under current policies – in particular inadequate measurement and settings in the Safeguard Mechanism – and jeopardise emissions reduction targets.

  

Australia could abate two thirds of its fossil fuel methane emissions using readily available technologies, at a net cost of about $1 per tonne of coal in coalmining, and at a net financial benefit in the gas sector due to the option to sell the methane captured.

A billion dollars going up in the air

12 December 2024 (IEEFA Australia): The Australian Government recently announced that it is within striking range of its legislated 43% emissions reduction target by 2030. However, methane emissions from coal, oil and gas could jeopardise achieving this and subsequent targets.

ieefa.org

  

 

[Smurf1976]

Misleading: Spreading the cost over 50 years

I agree with the basic argument about the economics of nuclear but there's nothing inherently wrong with spreading the cost of something over its functional lifespan.

Indeed that's exactly what a rational person would do, spread the cost over the life of the asset in order to assess it on a per unit of production basis. Same regardless of technology.

 

[IFocus]

I agree with the basic argument about the economics of nuclear but there's nothing inherently wrong with spreading the cost of something over its functional lifespan.

Indeed that's exactly what a rational person would do, spread the cost over the life of the asset in order to assess it on a per unit of production basis. Same regardless of technology.

I would be surprised if fuel and waste storge costs have been fully accounted for.

 

[basilio]

I would be surprised if fuel and waste storge costs have been fully accounted for.

They weren't. That was the point.
The Frontier analysis did not include the cost of the nuclear reactor beyond the 2051 modelling period . It also ignored nece4ssary refurbishment costs

Misleading: Spreading the cost over 50 years with unclear refurbishment costs

“The modelling has spread nuclear costs over a 50-year period.

“Since nuclear is not installed in the model until 2036 and onwards, and the nuclear capital cost is spread over 50 years (i.e. from 2036 to 2086 and beyond), IEEFA anticipates much of the nuclear cost will still not be repaid at the end of the Frontier report modelling period, 2051. This means that the Coalition’s proposal appears to have a long tail of cost outside of the modelled period that consumers will continue having to pay for.

“Further, it is not clear how refurbishment costs are considered, despite CSIRO’s latest GenCost report explaining that refurbishment of nuclear reactors is needed beyond the 40-year mark.”

Its worth reading the report in full.

 

[Smurf1976]

IEEFA anticipates much of the nuclear cost will still not be repaid at the end of the Frontier report modelling period, 2051. This means that the Coalition’s proposal appears to have a long tail of cost outside of the modelled period that consumers will continue having to pay for.

If something is going to operate from (for example) 2035 to 2085 then it's entirely reasonable to spread the cost over that period. That's exactly what would be done with any form of generation, the cost is spread over its total life (or more precisely, it's spread over its total generated output).

Now I do agree there are problems and omissions, but if something lasts 5, 10, 50 or 100 years then of itself it's a normal thing to spread the cost over that time.

In saying that I'm inherently wary of arguments for using short lifespans simply because they bias toward gas and diesel. You'll never get a long lived asset such as hydro to stack up if someone decides it's to be written off financially after 20 years, but it's very different if it's run for a century or more.

 

[SirRumpole]

In saying that I'm inherently wary of arguments for using short lifespans simply because they bias toward gas and diesel. You'll never get a long lived asset such as hydro to stack up if someone decides it's to be written off financially after 20 years, but it's very different if it's run for a century or more.

Of course. In the case of nuclear, the operational lifetime is a matter of debate, do they only last 40 years or could they be stretched to 80 or more? And what is the cost of maintaining them for an extended time?

It's doubtful whether they will last as long as a hydro station, and then you have considerable dismantling costs.