Politics Should Australia go nuclear?

[Play by Numbers]

I can only quote the stats and numbers

I can't help it if the facts don't reflect your views

They do reflect my views. Nuclear is horribly expensive and requires huge subsidies. Current estimates for the UK's reactor are around 40ish billion pound, up from 17 a couple of years ago.

Likewise, accidents cause huge cost, 100 billion for the cleanup in Japan.

Australia cannot afford nuclear.

 

[RobbieGray17]

They do reflect my views. Nuclear is horribly expensive and requires huge subsidies. Current estimates for the UK's reactor are around 40ish billion pound, up from 17 a couple of years ago.

Likewise, accidents cause huge cost, 100 billion for the cleanup in Japan.

Australia cannot afford nuclear.

Most people who are incredibly pro nuclear tend to have some vested interest in nuclear, be it financial, or career.

 

[Power Raid]

They do reflect my views. Nuclear is horribly expensive and requires huge subsidies. Current estimates for the UK's reactor are around 40ish billion pound, up from 17 a couple of years ago.

Likewise, accidents cause huge cost, 100 billion for the cleanup in Japan.

Australia cannot afford nuclear.

why is China rolling out the largest fleet in the history of man if it is so expensive? why is japan rolling out the old reactor fleet and building new ones? why is the middle east, so rich in hyro carbons, building reactors? why is myanmar with so much hydro potential looking at nuclear? why is the US building new reactors? why it the UK building new reactors? why is germany going to reverse their nuclear decision?

but I do agree, we shouldn't look to build 1960s rectors in Australia. That would not be a good idea.

 

[RobbieGray17]

why is China rolling out the largest fleet in the history of man if it is so expensive? why is japan rolling out the old reactor fleet and building new ones? why is the middle east, so rich in hyro carbons, building reactors? why is myanmar with so much hydro potential looking at nuclear? why is the US building new reactors? why it the UK building new reactors? why is germany going to reverse their nuclear decision?

but I do agree, we shouldn't look to build 1960s rectors in Australia. That would not be a good idea.

Because there's money in it. has nothing to do with any other factors fabricated to make nuclear seem so nice. Its all about money.

 

[Power Raid]

They do reflect my views. Nuclear is horribly expensive and requires huge subsidies. Current estimates for the UK's reactor are around 40ish billion pound, up from 17 a couple of years ago.

Likewise, accidents cause huge cost, 100 billion for the cleanup in Japan.

Australia cannot afford nuclear.

oh and for the record, go back and see what my views are on Oz going nuclear

 

[Play by Numbers]

why is China rolling out the largest fleet in the history of man if it is so expensive? why is japan rolling out the old reactor fleet and building new ones? why is the middle east, so rich in hyro carbons, building reactors? why is myanmar with so much hydro potential looking at nuclear? why is the US building new reactors? why it the UK building new reactors? why is germany going to reverse their nuclear decision?

but I do agree, we shouldn't look to build 1960s rectors in Australia. That would not be a good idea.

In all bar China, lobbying. Why do politicians do anything? They are incentivised by donations, potential jobs etc.

The Chinese situation is different. It may not be cost effective, but they need to diversify options. They can't relly on low fossil fuel prices forever, hence probably the biggest investment in renewables and the biggest investment in nuclear ever. China also needs top build stuff, at the moment jobs>long term viability, lets not forget the ghost cities, high speed rail to regional towns etc.

Why not argue that because China is investing so much in renewables, then they must be the best option? Both examples are reasonably weak arguments.

 

[Power Raid]

Because there's money in it. has nothing to do with any other factors fabricated to make nuclear seem so nice. Its all about money.

of course there is money in it. that's the point, it is extremely competitive and there are very few options that can provide clean, safe, affordable base load power required to sustain industry and provide the energy required to switch to the electric car.

Places like China and India have zero choice but to go nuclear. Given they will go that way, then all other manufacturing jurisdictions will have to follow to remain competitive. or face extinction like our manufacturing thanks to high priced boutique solutions tried in places like SA.

Nuclear by itself though will not be the full answer as 20-30% of total power seems to be the right amount. The rest will need to be supplemented by gas and renewables (different jurisdictions will have different %s).

Oz should only look to nuclear at the next generation of reactors which is still 15 years away in the western world (russia already has them and china is far more advanced technically too). The obvious places are the pilbara and whyalla.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Because there's money in it. has nothing to do with any other factors fabricated to make nuclear seem so nice. Its all about money.

Exactly.

The argument for the current nuclear reactor in the UK was economic, laws barred subsidies and it would be cost effective.

In the end it was so expensive, ownership of pre-existing capacity was opened to Chinese investment, causing a national security bruha, all because the industry cannot survive.

It also turned out the pre-existing laws meant nothing and sideways subsidy was predicted to be 17 billion.

As of 2015, law changes are being proposed to allow direct intervention and the EU will end up picking up some of the bill indirectly leading to a taxpayer cost just for subsidies of 40 billion pound. How can you justify it on cost grounds when taxpayers in other countries are protesting cost.

 

[Power Raid]

In all bar China, lobbying. Why do politicians do anything? They are incentivised by donations, potential jobs etc.

The Chinese situation is different. It may not be cost effective, but they need to diversify options. They can't relly on low fossil fuel prices forever, hence probably the biggest investment in renewables and the biggest investment in nuclear ever. China also needs top build stuff, at the moment jobs>long term viability, lets not forget the ghost cities, high speed rail to regional towns etc.

Why not argue that because China is investing so much in renewables, then they must be the best option? Both examples are reasonably weak arguments.

as per my post that followed. renewables will be in the mix but simply can not be compared to nuclear as they are a different product.

the reason renewables were rolled out first was a variety of reasons. the obvious being a lower capex and faster roll out. the other was china didn't have sufficient nuclear technology or industry knowledge. so they asked westinghouse/ general electric and areva to build different reactors. they then chose a winning technology and will roll out the model T-ford of reactors being the chinese rebranded AP-1000.

china then paused after fukushima to learn the lessons from the incident and have only started the next wave very recently.


so yes, fossil fuels does have its limitations, so too does nuclear and renewables. they really aren't in competition with each other as they will all play their role.

 

[RobbieGray17]

of course there is money in it. that's the point, it is extremely competitive and there are very few options that can provide clean, safe, affordable base load power required to sustain industry and provide the energy required to switch to the electric car.

Places like China and India have zero choice but to go nuclear. Given they will go that way, then all other manufacturing jurisdictions will have to follow to remain competitive. or face extinction like our manufacturing thanks to high priced boutique solutions tried in places like SA.

Nuclear by itself though will not be the full answer as 20-30% of total power seems to be the right amount. The rest will need to be supplemented by gas and renewables (different jurisdictions will have different %s).

Oz should only look to nuclear at the next generation of reactors which is still 15 years away in the western world (russia already has them and china is far more advanced technically too). The obvious places are the pilbara and whyalla.

You can only call nuclear 'clean' if you are referring to the carbon emissions. Lets talk about waste. How is it now clean?

 

[Play by Numbers]

of course there is money in it. that's the point, it is extremely competitive and there are very few options that can provide clean, safe, affordable base load power required to sustain industry and provide the energy required to switch to the electric car.

Places like China and India have zero choice but to go nuclear. Given they will go that way, then all other manufacturing jurisdictions will have to follow to remain competitive. or face extinction like our manufacturing thanks to high priced boutique solutions tried in places like SA.

Nuclear by itself though will not be the full answer as 20-30% of total power seems to be the right amount. The rest will need to be supplemented by gas and renewables (different jurisdictions will have different %s).

Oz should only look to nuclear at the next generation of reactors which is still 15 years away in the western world (russia already has them and china is far more advanced technically too). The obvious places are the pilbara and whyalla.

See the US.

The only money is public money.

For all their free market spruiking, its interesting that the industry has only survived due to multiple bailouts, despite billions in public subsidy and investment in technology, the gov taking insurance costs, a levy for disposal of waste and the state spending billions to ensure a security framework

 

[Power Raid]

You can only call nuclear 'clean' if you are referring to the carbon emissions. Lets talk about waste. How is it now clean?

very clean as it is a closed cycle

30 years cooling before reprocessing......and guess where the important materials for medical science come from? you guessed it, nuclear material

then it can be wrapped in copper and stored below the oxidation level before reprocessing again.


much of this will be a mute point with fast breeder reactors which will use an additional 99.7% of the U rather than just the 0.3% it uses today. the result will be less feed, less waste and effectively a never ending supply of feed. The U price to make that effective is about $85 which would see a 3% increase in power costs despite an effective doubling in U price compared to today.

 

[Play by Numbers]

so yes, fossil fuels does have its limitations, so too does nuclear and renewables. they really aren't in competition with each other as they will all play their role.

I support a broad multi layered approach, but nuclear simply makes no sense on economic grounds. None.

It's a huge liability and security risk, costs are stupid for outlay, the only argument is that it can help big consumers ween off fossil fuels at tremendous expense.

It doesnt suit Australia. We have massive supplies of gas and capacity for renewables. Also a huge opportunity to decentralise supply, which is a security boon. Just look at the Californian experience, rellying on to few providers in a captive market is a recipe for paracitism and exploitation.

 

[Power Raid]

I support a broad multi layered approach, but nuclear simply makes no sense on economic grounds. None.

It's a huge liability and security risk, costs are stupid for outlay, the only argument is that it can help big consumers ween off fossil fuels at tremendous expense.

It doesnt suit Australia. We have massive supplies of gas and capacity for renewables. Also a huge opportunity to decentralise supply, which is a security boon. Just look at the Californian experience, rellying on to few providers in a captive market is a recipe for paracitism and exploitation.

the world has a different view, despite being not politically popular

give australia 15 years and we too will be on board with our own plans

 

[Play by Numbers]

the world has a different view, despite being not politically popular

give australia 15 years and we too will be on board with our own plans

The world doesn't have any view.

Demand increases as population increases, likewise as countries develop.

However again, just because nations are investing doesn't mean it is the right decision.

It is not cost effective, end of. If you remove gigantic public subsidies, there would be no industry.

 

[Power Raid]

 

[Play by Numbers]

View attachment 175744

Dodgy graph is dodgy.

No context, no source.

Is nonsense. Likely nabbed from some pro-nuke astroturphing site.

First, cost is wildly different for preexisting and new nuclear power. Secondly, nuclear is capital intensive, based on IEA estimates, a body which is in the backpocket the industry, in the 10% borrowing bracket the median cost of nuclear is still the most expensive of the major sources of power generation, more than gas, or coal.

https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ElecCost2015SUM.pdf

Now, this does not take into account cost of insurance, legacy costs for disposal or decommissioning. In fact it can cost in excess of 5 billion to decommission a plant.

The outlay for new plants is prohibitive:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/utilities/article4552404.ece

40 billion pounds in indirect subsidy. Some figures have put it even higher, claiming it will total 100 billion plus euro, factoring in inflation. This despite 20 billion euro of gov credit guarantees, already provided.

The dodgy numbers around nuclear subsidy spruiked by the industry, are just that, hence why they put up artificially low figures. They only highlight direct subsidy, yet ignore R&D costs, nuclear being the highest in the US and int. post 75.

Still just looking at direct subsidy:

That's in the US, which historically is the biggest subsidiser sans OPEC of oil. It ignores R&D costs, which are treble the next highest in oil and bailouts, and indirect subsidy.

If we look at liability exposure in the US, the government has upwards of 300 billion per reactor in worst case scenario. This is because legislation mandates that government provide worst case cover as it is uneconomic for the insurance industry. One accident could incur billions in damages, something Aus cannot manage.

Looking at current levelised costs from reliable sources:

This is from the EIA on projected costs:

 

[Power Raid]

Out of the above this is the most informative graph as the first graph was comparing very different times

from above you have natural gas which should only be a peaking fuel. Then you have wind which is great whilst the wind is blowing and seems to be capped at about 18-23% of supply capacity. Hydro is by far the best despite the UNs resistance to it (yep, the UN doesn't want hydro built in place like Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia) but for obvious reasons isn't a solution for everywhere. coal will continue to grow but let's face it, its not great. solar is dirty, costly, unreliable, only works during the day and is expensive but will improve. So that's why nuclear is a solution.

where else are we going to find the energy to power the electric car especially in high populated jurisdictions?

 

[Play by Numbers]

Out of the above this is the most informative graph as the first graph was comparing very different times

from above you have natural gas which should only be a peaking fuel. Then you have wind which is great whilst the wind is blowing and seems to be capped at about 18-23% of supply capacity. Hydro is by far the best despite the UNs resistance to it (yep, the UN doesn't want hydro built in place like Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia) but for obvious reasons isn't a solution for everywhere. coal will continue to grow but let's face it, its not great. solar is dirty, costly, unreliable, only works during the day and is expensive but will improve. So that's why nuclear is a solution.

where else are we going to find the energy to power the electric car especially in high populated jurisdictions?

Not nuclear, too expensive.

A mixture of gas, wind and consumer solar.

 

[Power Raid]

Not nuclear, too expensive.

A mixture of gas, wind and consumer solar.

let's revisit in 15 years with the model T-Ford of reactors that China is rolling out (westinghouse/GEs AP-1000) and even more important and relevant to Oz, gen 4 reactors (which is the standard we will build)

other wise you will be referring to the past and I the future

 

[Play by Numbers]

let's revisit in 15 years with the model T-Ford of reactors that China is rolling out (westinghouse/GEs AP-1000) and even more important and relevant to Oz, gen 4 reactors (which is the standard we will build)

other wise you will be referring to the past and I the future

People have been saying this for yonks.

I expect other technologies will be changing the market.

 

[Power Raid]

People have been saying this for yonks.

I expect other technologies will be changing the market.

and that's great

 

[Power Raid]

People have been saying this for yonks.

I expect other technologies will be changing the market.

BTW, thanks for the debate

 

[Pie eyed]

Evidence given to royal commision last week into nuclear energy clear stated reknewables are much cheaper and quicker, as well as safer than nuclear. The royal commission was told, there's no need for nuclear power.

What looks like happenning is SA will process al the waste from the products it exports. Which is the moral thing to do. The right thing is not sell anymore uranium until a solution to the world wide plague of radioactive waste is fixed.

Evidence given to royal commision last week into nuclear energy clear stated reknewables are much cheaper and quicker, as well as safer than nuclear. The royal commission was told, there's no need for nuclear power.

What looks like happenning is SA will process al the waste from the products it exports. Which is the moral thing to do. The right thing is not sell anymore uranium until a solution to the world wide plague of radioactive waste is fixed.

Have you ever noticed that the term "evidence" is used totally differently in Law than it is in Science?
Any idiot can give evidence, which in essence is nothing but opinion in Law.
Tony Abbott could give "evidence" about the good character of a pedophile for instance with no actual empirical evidence to support his "evidence" whatsoever. Even totally in the face of the actual evidence.

 

[Power Raid]

another issue which people are forgetting with 70 years of global peace (no major wars) and 40 years since an energy crisis is energy security.

renewables are good in this manner as they are JIT and don't require storage of fuel. The issue of course is the reliability of supply requiring the sun or the wind.

So to guarantee supply, stock piles are required for nations not blessed with natural resources like Oz. Most gas storage reserves, for most nations, can be measured in days. If you stockpile coal you require 3mt for a 1GW power station for 12 months or just 30t for nuclear.