Thanks Alex, even if the Federal government repelled the prohibition on nuclear power generation, I am not sure who would invest the funds needed to get a plant commissioned. Having been to Lucas Heights for a second time in my career last month to do some training (radiation) there I've seen the previous and current small nuclear reactors (20 MW thermal) operating onsite. If Australia ever got nuclear power plants in the next couple of decades, I think the expertise within ANSTO and ARPANSA would be helpful, as would be our Navy's nuclear-qualified engineers and technicians. To date several of our Navy personnel have graduated from the US Navy's Nuclear Propulsion Plant course.
FYI, a US nuke submarine reactor is around 210 MW (thermal) and that for a US Navy carrier around 700 MW (thermal).
Just wanted to focus in on the commentary around the current coal sites and proponents having plans for them. Currently Brookfield owns Westinghouse Nuclear technology, having bought in 2018 in partnership from Cameco. So our current commercial coal energy operators have both the capability and knowledge to bring nuclear to their existing Origin and AGL stakes and ownership, just a couple of pieces of paper (changeable policy and legislation) prevent that approach. It also seems that this article becomes a bit of a hit job, dismissing the externalities of renewables that the communities are opposing and experiencing as powerlines vs nuclear, when the real issue is the massive land and biota costs not factored in or attributed to the whole-of-renewables approach or technologies, and their lack of jobs that this technology supplants, the low operating costs, the incredibly long lives of these assets, and even if the worst case comes true in terms of delivery (20-years), when switched on these assets immediately and very materially deliver emissions free massive energisation to the network inside the objective - 2050. Even that argument articulated by the solely renewables show what's wrong, its 8-10 years to deliver based on known and existing delivery history, and 10 years to solve bureaucracy and politics. So its politicisation of the bureaucracy that is the real constraint to nuclear., and the marketisation of energy that is not a commodity but a critical utility. Energy IS the economy, that why not nationalise such critical investments? We have three off balance sheet (!) programs of tens of billions already, why not life-giving, economic performance critical energy generation. Regardless, we know that commercial players as above will carry this once the paper constraint is ripped up - they continually invest in it and friendly nations technology is readily available and being shipped to Europe, Asia. Finally, you have totally avoided the costs of the proposed batteries as the nominated solution here, all for 4-hours current technology, maybe 8 at a stretch. For WA alone it is estimated at desktop level to be say $50 Billion, a cost that would bankrupt the State. Whole of NEM?? And then we could talk about where that technology and domination comes from, including current financing to enable even partial which includes the foreign (less friendly) state-owned banks that enable their domination and penetration. I have enjoyed your previous technical discussions on the NEM, but this piece really left me cold, and the memes really seamed to reflect and dismissive and condescending journalism that can easily be interpreted as closed of mind.
1. In 2022, Frances nuclear plants which used to supply 440 TWh/y delivered 280 TWh, In the NEM context that is equivalent to coal and gas falling from 150 TWh to 95 TWh/y that would have required the storage of 160 Snowy IIs or overbuilding nuclear capacity by 70%. Similar shorter but deeper shortfalls have occurred in Belgium, Switzerland, Canada and the UK.
So over a period of months or years nuclear needs far more backup than a wind/solar system designed for the same annual output.
2. We already know that most of our 330/500kV systems are under-designed for storm weather. Nuclear plants which trip due to storms like LYA did in February take 5-20 times longer to come back on line than coal plants. Therefore if nuclear power was to become common place almost all the HV transmission grid, most of which is nearing its design life would need to be replaced with much more robust towers on wider easements. What social licence or cost is allowed for that in nuclear proponents plans.
3. Nuclear plants require 2-3,000 litres of cooling water per MWh. to replace the existing coal plants about 20% of which are air cooled and all of which are more thermally efficient than nuclear plants would require an extra 100 GL of water per year, enough for a city of 2m people. Where will that come from?
4. The life of the asset is accounted for in the power cost. If a wind farm were only to last twenty years, the vendor supplying the power has to get their money back and make a profit over twenty years, that is built into the price. Similarly a nuclear plant might spread their depreciation over 60 years. When all that is done Plant Vogtle's power cost is three times the cost of a wind/solar hybrid.
5. As for delivery history. China is actually connecting about 2 GW of nuclear per year, Korea 500 MW. That is equivalent to a little under 15,000 GWh/y in China and 3,900 GWh in Korea. Korea has ten to twenty times the heavy industry capacity of Australia, so a heroic build rate for Australia would be one large reactor every four years or maybe one mythical SMR so maybe adding 2,000 GWh/y from nuclear. We have been adding 9,000 GWh from renewables without really trying.
Deeply amusing and highly informative as always my friend, keep fighting the good fight.
Thanks Alex, even if the Federal government repelled the prohibition on nuclear power generation, I am not sure who would invest the funds needed to get a plant commissioned. Having been to Lucas Heights for a second time in my career last month to do some training (radiation) there I've seen the previous and current small nuclear reactors (20 MW thermal) operating onsite. If Australia ever got nuclear power plants in the next couple of decades, I think the expertise within ANSTO and ARPANSA would be helpful, as would be our Navy's nuclear-qualified engineers and technicians. To date several of our Navy personnel have graduated from the US Navy's Nuclear Propulsion Plant course.
FYI, a US nuke submarine reactor is around 210 MW (thermal) and that for a US Navy carrier around 700 MW (thermal).
Just wanted to focus in on the commentary around the current coal sites and proponents having plans for them. Currently Brookfield owns Westinghouse Nuclear technology, having bought in 2018 in partnership from Cameco. So our current commercial coal energy operators have both the capability and knowledge to bring nuclear to their existing Origin and AGL stakes and ownership, just a couple of pieces of paper (changeable policy and legislation) prevent that approach. It also seems that this article becomes a bit of a hit job, dismissing the externalities of renewables that the communities are opposing and experiencing as powerlines vs nuclear, when the real issue is the massive land and biota costs not factored in or attributed to the whole-of-renewables approach or technologies, and their lack of jobs that this technology supplants, the low operating costs, the incredibly long lives of these assets, and even if the worst case comes true in terms of delivery (20-years), when switched on these assets immediately and very materially deliver emissions free massive energisation to the network inside the objective - 2050. Even that argument articulated by the solely renewables show what's wrong, its 8-10 years to deliver based on known and existing delivery history, and 10 years to solve bureaucracy and politics. So its politicisation of the bureaucracy that is the real constraint to nuclear., and the marketisation of energy that is not a commodity but a critical utility. Energy IS the economy, that why not nationalise such critical investments? We have three off balance sheet (!) programs of tens of billions already, why not life-giving, economic performance critical energy generation. Regardless, we know that commercial players as above will carry this once the paper constraint is ripped up - they continually invest in it and friendly nations technology is readily available and being shipped to Europe, Asia. Finally, you have totally avoided the costs of the proposed batteries as the nominated solution here, all for 4-hours current technology, maybe 8 at a stretch. For WA alone it is estimated at desktop level to be say $50 Billion, a cost that would bankrupt the State. Whole of NEM?? And then we could talk about where that technology and domination comes from, including current financing to enable even partial which includes the foreign (less friendly) state-owned banks that enable their domination and penetration. I have enjoyed your previous technical discussions on the NEM, but this piece really left me cold, and the memes really seamed to reflect and dismissive and condescending journalism that can easily be interpreted as closed of mind.
1. In 2022, Frances nuclear plants which used to supply 440 TWh/y delivered 280 TWh, In the NEM context that is equivalent to coal and gas falling from 150 TWh to 95 TWh/y that would have required the storage of 160 Snowy IIs or overbuilding nuclear capacity by 70%. Similar shorter but deeper shortfalls have occurred in Belgium, Switzerland, Canada and the UK.
So over a period of months or years nuclear needs far more backup than a wind/solar system designed for the same annual output.
2. We already know that most of our 330/500kV systems are under-designed for storm weather. Nuclear plants which trip due to storms like LYA did in February take 5-20 times longer to come back on line than coal plants. Therefore if nuclear power was to become common place almost all the HV transmission grid, most of which is nearing its design life would need to be replaced with much more robust towers on wider easements. What social licence or cost is allowed for that in nuclear proponents plans.
3. Nuclear plants require 2-3,000 litres of cooling water per MWh. to replace the existing coal plants about 20% of which are air cooled and all of which are more thermally efficient than nuclear plants would require an extra 100 GL of water per year, enough for a city of 2m people. Where will that come from?
4. The life of the asset is accounted for in the power cost. If a wind farm were only to last twenty years, the vendor supplying the power has to get their money back and make a profit over twenty years, that is built into the price. Similarly a nuclear plant might spread their depreciation over 60 years. When all that is done Plant Vogtle's power cost is three times the cost of a wind/solar hybrid.
5. As for delivery history. China is actually connecting about 2 GW of nuclear per year, Korea 500 MW. That is equivalent to a little under 15,000 GWh/y in China and 3,900 GWh in Korea. Korea has ten to twenty times the heavy industry capacity of Australia, so a heroic build rate for Australia would be one large reactor every four years or maybe one mythical SMR so maybe adding 2,000 GWh/y from nuclear. We have been adding 9,000 GWh from renewables without really trying.