- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,605
- Reactions
- 7,485
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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.
Nailed it.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.
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
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.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.
They weren't. That was the point.I would be surprised if fuel and waste storge costs have been fully accounted 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).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.
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?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.
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?