The Nuclear debate

[nut]

As always our political landscape and our media destroy any real hope for a serious debate on the future of nuclear in the country.

Is it possible just once that the we can be presented with the facts and not sides cherry picking stats that suit their argument.

What are the actually cost to build?
What are long term running costs?
What will be the price per megawatt?

We have a situation where one side of politics thinks it’s viable … how?

Is someone prepared to do the work and try and convince me that nuclear is the answer?

And please don’t just say it’ll firm up renewables.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

What are the actually cost to build?

Most recent completed nuclear plants I can see are Vogtle units 3&4 in the USA. They have a combined capacity of about 2230 MW. They cost US$35 billion.

Plant Vogtle: Not a Star, but a Tragedy for the People of Georgia

What are long term running costs?

"Another energy advisory, Lazard from the US, calculated the levelised cost of nuclear and renewables – which means the average net present cost of electricity generation for a generator over its lifetime. It found that one-megawatt hour from solar power, including back-up storage, costs between $72 to $160 per megawatt hour, while a traditional nuclear plant costs from $220 to $347."

Is nuclear energy feasible in Australia (and how much would it cost)?

Debate has erupted over nuclear energy’s role in Australia’s shift from fossil fuels. Could it work? And why is it so controversial?

www.smh.com.au

What will be the price per megawatt?

Also from the SMH link:

"A joint study by the CSIRO and AEMO, the GenCost report, calculated the future cost of energy generation for a range of technologies. It found that solar and wind energy generation would cost between $60 and $100 per megawatt hour by 2030, including back-up power from either batteries, pumped hydro or gas plants. (This figure also includes CSIRO and AEMO-termed “sunk costs” of new transmission lines.)

GenCost forecast that one megawatt hour of power from a small modular reactor in 2030 would cost between $200 and $350 per megawatt hour."

 

[Sttew]

OECD electricity generating costs for year 2025 onwards – 10% discount rate, $/MWh
Source: OECD IEA & NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2020 Edition, Tables 3.11a, 3.12, 3.13a, assuming 85% capacity factor. In 2018 currency values.

Country	Nuclear	Coal	Gas CCGT
France	96.9	-	-
Japan	112.1	111.3	97.1
Korea	67.2	81.0	90.2 - 100.4
Slovakia	146.1	-	-
USA	98.6	100.2 - 148.8	48.9
China	82.1	78.5	86.3
Russia	56.6	-	-
India	83.9	76.0 - 105.5	-

 

[peetoo]

Kidston gold mine lives on as pumped hydro plant

ARENA has announced funding for Genex to construct a pumped hydro energy storage system at the former Kidston Gold Mine in north Queensland.

arena.gov.au

No recent reports though

 

[Saint]

As always our political landscape and our media destroy any real hope for a serious debate on the future of nuclear in the country.

Is it possible just once that the we can be presented with the facts and not sides cherry picking stats that suit their argument.

What are the actually cost to build?
What are long term running costs?
What will be the price per megawatt?

We have a situation where one side of politics thinks it’s viable … how?

Is someone prepared to do the work and try and convince me that nuclear is the answer?

And please don’t just say it’ll firm up renewables.

It's not really a debate.

It's an advertising campaign by the fossil fuel lobby/LNP to justify opposition to renewables (like offshore wind) by the LNP/fossil fuel industry.

Nobody is even pretending they're thinking about actually building a facility.

Nuclear is very expensive and environmentally sensitive (i.e. you can't just build them anywhere). No serious person has said it's viable in Australia, especially the LNP when in Govt for 9 years. And they didn't just ignore it, they slow-walked the approvals for a much-needed nuclear waste facility and just after they left Govt, the Federal Court tossed their approval out.

Much like asylum seekers, the LNP strategy is to drag things out and hope they're not in power when the court rules against them, then they blame their stuff-up on the ALP.

 

[QuietB]

OECD electricity generating costs for year 2025 onwards – 10% discount rate, $/MWh
Source: OECD IEA & NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2020 Edition, Tables 3.11a, 3.12, 3.13a, assuming 85% capacity factor. In 2018 currency values.

Country	Nuclear	Coal	Gas CCGT
France	96.9	-	-
Japan	112.1	111.3	97.1
Korea	67.2	81.0	90.2 - 100.4
Slovakia	146.1	-	-
USA	98.6	100.2 - 148.8	48.9
China	82.1	78.5	86.3
Russia	56.6	-	-
India	83.9	76.0 - 105.5	-

Is that new or existing plant?

 

[Sttew]

Is that new or existing plant?

Existing, I believe

 

[QuietB]

As always our political landscape and our media destroy any real hope for a serious debate on the future of nuclear in the country.

Is it possible just once that the we can be presented with the facts and not sides cherry picking stats that suit their argument.

What are the actually cost to build?
What are long term running costs?
What will be the price per megawatt?

We have a situation where one side of politics thinks it’s viable … how?

Is someone prepared to do the work and try and convince me that nuclear is the answer?

And please don’t just say it’ll firm up renewables.

Most recent completed nuclear plants I can see are Vogtle units 3&4 in the USA. They have a combined capacity of about 2230 MW. They cost US$35 billion.

Plant Vogtle: Not a Star, but a Tragedy for the People of Georgia




"Another energy advisory, Lazard from the US, calculated the levelised cost of nuclear and renewables – which means the average net present cost of electricity generation for a generator over its lifetime. It found that one-megawatt hour from solar power, including back-up storage, costs between $72 to $160 per megawatt hour, while a traditional nuclear plant costs from $220 to $347."

Is nuclear energy feasible in Australia (and how much would it cost)?

Debate has erupted over nuclear energy’s role in Australia’s shift from fossil fuels. Could it work? And why is it so controversial?

www.smh.com.au

Also from the SMH link:

"A joint study by the CSIRO and AEMO, the GenCost report, calculated the future cost of energy generation for a range of technologies. It found that solar and wind energy generation would cost between $60 and $100 per megawatt hour by 2030, including back-up power from either batteries, pumped hydro or gas plants. (This figure also includes CSIRO and AEMO-termed “sunk costs” of new transmission lines.)

GenCost forecast that one megawatt hour of power from a small modular reactor in 2030 would cost between $200 and $350 per megawatt hour."

And this encapsulates the entire problem - all of the information is there and available.

But the Liberal party, the conservative think tanks and the media who are all either entirely owned or captured by the elite are 100% committed to narrative management and NOT facts.

The longer we are arguing about the alternative to gas and coal the longer they can make money from gas and coal. That is the entire game.

 

[nut]

Existing, I believe

So not relevant to new builds

 

[Theseventhhamster]

So not relevant to new builds

Assuming that's running costs too not the levelised costs that is relevant.

 

[nut]

Labor should come out and say “ok, let’s see what you’ve got … if it makes sense, then let’s do it”…

Ask to the Libs to put forward their policy. Full details….

If they don’t …. Guess what !!!

WHERES THE DETAIL!!!!

What are they hiding!!?

 

[Cap]

CSIRO boss hits back at Dutton over nuclear power research

The CSIRO has rebuked politicians seeking to undermine its research showing nuclear energy would be much more expensive than solar or wind power, after Liberal leader Peter Dutton claimed that research had been "discredited".

www.abc.net.au

I find this so disappointing, I get Dutton is trying to appeal to a certain subset, but why does he need to try and discredit places like the CSIRO.

 

[Forward Press]

CSIRO boss hits back at Dutton over nuclear power research

The CSIRO has rebuked politicians seeking to undermine its research showing nuclear energy would be much more expensive than solar or wind power, after Liberal leader Peter Dutton claimed that research had been "discredited".

www.abc.net.au

I find this so disappointing, I get Dutton is trying to appeal to a certain subset, but why does he need to try and discredit places like the CSIRO.

The pro-nuclear/anti-renewables camp and climate change science denial camp are a near perfect circle on a Venn diagram.

 

[Forward Press]

Personally I've always favoured having nuclear as a transitional stage to renewables as the technology developed (because the actual reality is that unfortunately solar/wind/wave as it stands cannot entirely cover the basic electricity needs of a city 24/7/365 days a year) but this is based on already having the infrastructure in place. It makes sense for say the UK and US to keep the nuclear plants going for now as they wean off coal and gas. Of course, nuclear power plants also have far fewer carbon emissions than fossil fuel-based power generation once they are up and running.

There is zero economic sense however in Australia building a new nuclear power plant that will not be operational, guaranteed, for at least a decade and which by then renewables technology would have improved an exponential amount. It's an easy out for people who don't think too closely about the reality of building a nuclear power plant such as what to do with the eventual waste.

 

[nut]

Which states dont have a ban on nuclear in Aus?

 

[barreness]

Personally I've always favoured having nuclear as a transitional stage to renewables as the technology developed (because the actual reality is that unfortunately solar/wind/wave as it stands cannot entirely cover the basic electricity needs of a city 24/7/365 days a year) but this is based on already having the infrastructure in place. It makes sense for say the UK and US to keep the nuclear plants going for now as they wean off coal and gas. Of course, nuclear power plants also have far fewer carbon emissions than fossil fuel-based power generation once they are up and running.

There is zero economic sense however in Australia building a new nuclear power plant that will not be operational, guaranteed, for at least a decade and which by then renewables technology would have improved an exponential amount. It's an easy out for people who don't think too closely about the reality of building a nuclear power plant such as what to do with the eventual waste.

Agree with your post but there does need to be some calm about these things, there are physical limits to solar/wind efficiencies and chemical batteries. There's been a lot of research money already and it's mature tech. Gains will come but they won't be exponential, most likely slowing

 

[peetoo]

Agree with your post but there does need to be some calm about these things, there are physical limits to solar/wind efficiencies and chemical batteries. There's been a lot of research money already and it's mature tech. Gains will come but they won't be exponential, most likely slowing

Sunlight energy might as well be infinite.

But earth rotation weather etc means shadowing for earth bound collectors. Watch this space

 

[barreness]

Sunlight energy might as well be infinite.

It is finite, and it gets used rather efficiently by biology

But earth rotation weather etc means shadowing for earth bound collectors. Watch this space

Ohhhhhh you're on the satellite solar collectors beaming it back to earth, tell 'im he's dreaming. The resources to put up meaningful payloads into space? how are we going to maintain them? What system of power transfer are we using to beam it back that doesn't lose 90+% in waste

People really have to realise we aren't gonna tech our way out of a problem that tech has created.

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

It's embarrassing

Nine years in power and not a word about nuclear

The Coalition do not deserve to exist

And their enablers, Murdoch, Stokes and Costello can all die in a fire

 

[Hojuman]

This is classic, Thanks Ted.

Nuclear power in Australia — a silver bullet or white elephant?

Our fleet of coal plants is falling apart, forcing us to rethink our power supply and consider an urgent question for both climate and energy security reasons: what will fill that gap?

www.abc.net.au

 

[Johnny Bananas]

CSIRO boss hits back at Dutton over nuclear power research

The CSIRO has rebuked politicians seeking to undermine its research showing nuclear energy would be much more expensive than solar or wind power, after Liberal leader Peter Dutton claimed that research had been "discredited".

www.abc.net.au

I find this so disappointing, I get Dutton is trying to appeal to a certain subset, but why does he need to try and discredit places like the CSIRO.

Most conservatives are anti-intellectual and hate any publicly funded organisation. Dutton is trying to double down on the conservative vote rather than appeal to the middle, so it's no surprise he sees the CSIRO as public enemy number one.

 

[peetoo]

If the voice was a distraction, what is nuclear?

 

[peetoo]

Most conservatives are anti-intellectual and hate any publicly funded organisation. Dutton is trying to double down on the conservative vote rather than appeal to the middle, so it's no surprise he sees the CSIRO as public enemy number one.

Conservatives attacking Long standing institutions? Word disconnect there

 

[peetoo]

It is finite, and it gets used rather efficiently by biology

Ohhhhhh you're on the satellite solar collectors beaming it back to earth, tell 'im he's dreaming. The resources to put up meaningful payloads into space? how are we going to maintain them? What system of power transfer are we using to beam it back that doesn't lose 90+% in waste

People really have to realise we aren't gonna tech our way out of a problem that tech has created.

It’s a fantasy thread mate

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Personally I've always favoured having nuclear as a transitional stage to renewables as the technology developed (because the actual reality is that unfortunately solar/wind/wave as it stands cannot entirely cover the basic electricity needs of a city 24/7/365 days a year) but this is based on already having the infrastructure in place. It makes sense for say the UK and US to keep the nuclear plants going for now as they wean off coal and gas. Of course, nuclear power plants also have far fewer carbon emissions than fossil fuel-based power generation once they are up and running.

There is zero economic sense however in Australia building a new nuclear power plant that will not be operational, guaranteed, for at least a decade and which by then renewables technology would have improved an exponential amount. It's an easy out for people who don't think too closely about the reality of building a nuclear power plant such as what to do with the eventual waste.

They can, with a sufficient amount of hydro storage or batteries. I can't say I've read an analysis of the comparison, but I'd imagine building these would still come in cheaper than a nuclear plant. As you say, there is zero economic sense in Australia building a new nuclear plant. The time for it was back when Howard was in office, and he squibbed it.