The climate change debate continues.

[facthunter]

Nuclear puts out a lot of heat and needs water, cost heaps to build reflected in the Price Private enterprise wants to do it. Nuclear test site will remain dangerous forever, effectively.Can't be used for quick response either, like Batteries or Hydro.  Todays demand fluctuates wildly. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

Sizewell B has just been granted a 20 year lIfe extension at a cost of  £800BN. It still hasn't found a home for the nuclear waste which is "temporarily" housed at its on site dome. I have worked at Sizewell B and it is an expensive plant to keep going.

 

But the thing is, it is an extension to existing plant. It is not investing in new plant. It's suitability doesn't automatically apply to Australia.

 

25 years ago - yeah nuclear would have been the way to go for Aus. But renewables technology has moved too far forward now.. And it continues to do so. And allowing it to go ahead is probably more a political decision than technical

[kgwilson]

And certainly not and economic decision either.

[Siso]

It kind of makes a joke of the gencost report that gives NPP a life of 30-40 years. What else have we been misled about. Investment is slowing down making the targets the government for 2030 pretty well impossible to make. The LGC have come down from $40 to $6 at the moment. Maybe you are correct about intermittent generation has gone too far, but we should open the door for NP incase/when the system falls over.

[Siso]

1 minute ago, kgwilson said:

And certainly not and economic decision either.

Remember $275! How much is the intermittent system going to cost? We have the modelling and get told intermittents are cheaper. I received a letter from my supplier the other day telling me my prices are about to go up. I know someone will say shop around but I shouldn't have to spend half a day on a computer looking for the best electricity deal every 6 months. It is an essential service and should be affordable for everyone. The government keeps misleading consumer saying intermittents are cheaper and they quote the wholesale price of electricity. There is a lot more to delivering power to the consumer then generating electricity.

[octave]

1 hour ago, Siso said:

There is a lot more to delivering power to the consumer then generating electricity.

Very true, and this applies to all forms of power generation. 

 I am not philosophically opposed to nuclear; however, I have not seen convincing economic modelling.  If we were to go down the nuclear road, we would be looking at significant costs.  Recent projects in Europe, the UK and the US have experienced substantial cost overruns and delays

 

A question I would have is:

 

Who would build them?  

Australia has world-class engineering and construction capability, but it currently lacks experience in several areas unique to commercial nuclear power, including:

 

• nuclear-qualified pressure vessel manufacturing
• reactor vessel forging
• steam generator manufacturing
• nuclear fuel fabrication
• a nuclear regulatory workforce for commercial power reactors

Those capabilities would need to be developed over time or sourced internationally.

 

Whilst transmission upgrades required may be less than for renewables, they are still substantial.   

 

Nuclear does have an enormous upfront cost and is only viable over many decades.  In the meantime,  storage technology gets cheaper and better.    Storage technology continues to improve and fall in cost, whether lithium-ion, sodium-ion or other emerging technologies. Given the long lead time between deciding to build a nuclear power station and generating the first power, storage technology will continue to advance. 

 

1 hour ago, Siso said:

I received a letter from my supplier the other day telling me my prices are about to go up. I know someone will say shop around but I shouldn't have to spend half a day on a computer looking for the best electricity deal every 6 months.

 

I think some time ago you mentioned that you have a historically fantasic feed in tariff from your retailer, so I imagine you are doing alright.  My power bills have gone up; however, the solar keeps it cheap compared to other bills I have.   

 

For my household, investing further in rooftop solar and storage is likely to reduce my electricity costs far sooner than waiting for a fleet of nuclear stations to be built.

 

Ultimately, I'm less interested in whether a technology is labelled "renewable" or "nuclear" than whether it can deliver reliable, affordable and environmentally responsible electricity for Australians. At this stage, I haven't seen convincing evidence that a nuclear pathway would provide a better overall outcome, particularly given the costs and construction timeframes involved.

 

 

 

 

 

[Siso]

The feed in tariff has nothing to do with reduction in power bills. I am doing OK with my power bill, but its not really the point. There is only a couple of forges across the world that can do a Nuclear pressure vessel as I understand. The transmission is not just less, It is a lot less. The windfarm I worked at probably had 40KM of underground HV cable for a plant of less than 150MW.  which is less then 50MW by the time you put the capacity factor in and that is not including the lines for the transmission. The South Koreans would need to be involved in building them. We had no-one that could build submarines either but we successfully did that. There is enough regulatory systems around the world that we could take the best parts out of all of them. We already have one for the reactor in Sydney, It would just need to be expanded to include NP. It is going to have to be updated for the new subs anyway if they ever come on line. None of these things are insurmountable and other countries have done them. Bangladesh is even getting NP although it looks like it will be built by the Russians.

 

At least with NP, coal and gas we won't be asking (paying) our industry to slow down production. We are shifting from a demand based system to what ever the generators can do depending on the weather, time of day system. Not ideal for a modern economy. Speaking of timeframes, the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is today! 

[octave]

9 minutes ago, Siso said:

The feed in tariff has nothing to do with reduction in power bills

A feed-in tariff reduces an individual household's bill, but it is not evidence that the overall electricity system is cheaper. In a personal sense for those with solar a feed-in tariff has  a great deal to do with a "reduction in power bills"

 

In terms of the cartoon that reawakened this conversation.  India is building NP but it is also aggressively building renewables:

 

 

India aims for 500 GW of non-fossil fuel energy capacity by 2030, a central part of its goal to reach net-zero emissions by 2070. This is divided into aggressive renewable energy (solar, wind, and hydro) and nuclear power targets, coupled with specific green hydrogen and emissions goals. [1, 2, 3]

Renewable Energy Targets

• 500 GW Non-Fossil Capacity by 2030: This is India's primary stated goal to shift its power generation mix. [1]
• Green Hydrogen: Under the National Green Hydrogen Mission, India aims to produce 5 million metric tonnes (MT) of green hydrogen annually by 2030, which will require an additional 125 GW of associated renewable energy capacity. [1]
• Emissions Intensity: India aims to reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33% to 35% from 2005 levels by 2030 and increase non-fossil capacity to 50% of the total installed base. [1, 2, 3]

Nuclear Energy Targets

• 100 GW by 2047: To support the path to net-zero, India has set a long-term target to scale nuclear capacity from roughly 8.8 GW up to 100 GW by 2047. [1]
• Regulatory Expansion: Recent legislative milestones, including the SHANTI Act and amendments to the Atomic Energy Act, allow greater private-sector participation and foreign investment to accelerate these builds. [1, 2]

 

If we go nuclear or not, optimistically,  we need at the very least 10 to 15 years of other means of power generation. If Australia stopped building renewables today and waited for nuclear, it would still need replacement capacity because coal plants are retiring.

 

 

Option 1: Extend coal

Possible, but:

• old plants become less reliable,
• maintenance costs rise,
• unplanned outages increase,
• emissions remain high.

Option 2: Build more gas

Gas turbines are excellent for firming, but:

• gas prices are volatile,
• fuel supply is limited,
• emissions are significant.

Option 3: Build renewables and storage now

This is essentially the current pathway:

• replace retiring coal with wind and solar,
• add batteries, pumped hydro and transmission,
• potentially add firm generation later.

The advantage is that these assets can be built relatively quickly and reduce exposure to fossil fuel prices.

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Siso...You don't mention quick response considerations or storage. That's the game changer. You can easily research the real cost of these things IF you want to . Australia has a relatively small Population over a large area. A grid for any system here will be costly and damage Prone. Long distance equals transmission losses and higher power costs. Tidal and battery could be stand alone for some areas like Broome.. Really, what's Planting trees got to do with nuclear??  Some Countries are almost standing room only, and there's plenty of places where a big tree is a big problem. Nuclear Needs cooling and LOTS of water. Australia is one of the driest continents in the world but we have Wind and sunlight in abundance. Horses for Courses they say.  Look at the condition of some test sites like the Marshal Islands. Nev

Edited 1 hour ago by facthunter
More content

[Siso]

58 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Siso...You don't mention quick response considerations or storage. That's the game changer. You can easily research the real cost of these things IF you want to . Australia has a relatively small Population over a large area. A grid for any system here will be costly and damage Prone. Long distance equals transmission losses and higher power costs. Tidal and battery could be stand alone for some areas like Broome.. Really, what's Planting trees got to do with nuclear??  Some Countries are almost standing room only, and there's plenty of places where a big tree is a big problem. Nuclear Needs cooling and LOTS of water. Australia is one of the driest continents in the world but we have Wind and sunlight in abundance. Horses for Courses they say.  Look at the condition of some test sites like the Marshal Islands. Nev

Have enough synchronous generators on the grid and quick response isn't an issue, they all take part of the load. This what has happened previously.  Realistically you would have some batterys still for that. You would still have solar and wind as well, but you would prioritise the synchronous generators. Being available when the demand is there is worth it. Nuclear does not need much more water then coal and can easily be handled with sea water. We may be able to research the real cost of NP, pity we can't with renewables. As we saw last month in SA, we still need close on 100% gas/coal for intermittents. This in the state that is "leading" the way. Confusing NP with nuclear bombs is so 70's

[Siso]

You are right, India is building a lot of renewables along with their nuclear. Look at Germany as well. Lots of renewables but still have the interconnectors with the countries that have synchronous generation. The Baltic states are the same. India have also loaded fuel into a 500MW fast reactor which will lead to being able to breed fuel from Thorium and U238.(not sure how they are progresing) They are looking at this because they have limited access to Uranium. Australia isn't even looking at having any synchronous generation apart from gas for backing up the intermittents. It would be good to replace the black and brown line with Nuclear and let wind, solar and gas play with the rest of it. It wouldn't be easy, but not much is. Snap shot of Europe today as well.

 

Edited 7 minutes ago by Siso