Politics Should Australia go nuclear?

[Power Raid]

Excellent to see Australia becoming involved in research like this, isn't it? Surely you'd have to really ******* hate science to not think this is a good step for Australia in terms of energy, education and careers.

From a personal perspective I don't want to see Gen 3 or 3.5 reactors being built in Oz (except in the Pilbara).

Gen 4 is some time away yet but Russia have built and operated quite a few Gen 4 reactors with the first one due to become commercial (from memory) in the early 2020s.

The benefit of Gen 4 is four fold. Firstly they burn all the uranium not just the enriched 4%, so they operate like a thorium reactor by breeding the possible other 96%. Secondly, they can be large 1.2+GW reactors or much smaller systems that can be "plug and play". Thirdly as they breed and burn most of the uranium, the waste is even less than today's 1980s reactors which is already minimal. Lastly, they can use the waste product of older reactors and feed, essentially reducing the waste by converting it to energy.

 

[Power Raid]

Excellent to see Australia becoming involved in research like this, isn't it? Surely you'd have to really ******* hate science to not think this is a good step for Australia in terms of energy, education and careers.

If you join the dots in Oz we have a very interesting trajectory.

The new ANSTO bill has increased the organisations powers and mandate.
The new high level and low level medical and "other" radioactive waste storage and reprocessing facilities.
The ordering of a submarine that "can't" be operated under conventional power
The new Gen 4 research


It could be a sign we are willing to do more than just dig up our minerals and send them overseas. Perhaps we are willing and capable of achieving great things in the field of science, engineering and the environment.

 

[Pie eyed]

If you join the dots in Oz we have a very interesting trajectory.

The new ANSTO bill has increased the organisations powers and mandate.
The new high level and low level medical and "other" radioactive waste storage and reprocessing facilities.
The ordering of a submarine that "can't" be operated under conventional power
The new Gen 4 research


It could be a sign we are willing to do more than just dig up our minerals and send them overseas. Perhaps we are willing and capable of achieving great things in the field of science, engineering and the environment.

Not while there is a Liberal Party.

 

[Power Raid]

source: an email and the fin review

 

[Snake_Baker]

Good luck with that.

 

[Power Raid]

CFMEU's position

Key Points
•The CFMMEU Mining & Energy Division of Victoria (the Union) supports Victoria’s transition to low-carbon power generation sources. It urges that energy decisions be made with system reliability, economic viability, and Victorians’ jobs in mind.

•The Union is concerned by the approach of using only non-dispatchable renewable energy sources, supplemented by hydro and battery storage, for Victoria’s energy transition. It believes that this will lead to major blackouts, unaffordable electricity and the future economic shutdown of Victoria’s industry,resulting in massive job losses and a decline in citizen wealth.

•Coal plant workers and their communities demand a ‘Just Transition’ of their industry, a transition where their livelihoods are not unwittingly destroyed by the rush to reduce emissions.

•Nuclear power is a proven choice of a dispatchable and economically viable, zero greenhouse gas emission power generation technology, that is available today. The nuclear prohibition in Victoria should be lifted to allow sufficient time to replace existing generation with nuclear reactors.

•The guarantee of a Just Transition should also provide the essential social licence to satisfy any concerns in local communities about the safe operation of the nuclear industry.

 

[madmug]

CFMEU's position

Key Points
•The CFMMEU Mining & Energy Division of Victoria (the Union) supports Victoria’s transition to low-carbon power generation sources. It urges that energy decisions be made with system reliability, economic viability, and Victorians’ jobs in mind.

•The Union is concerned by the approach of using only non-dispatchable renewable energy sources, supplemented by hydro and battery storage, for Victoria’s energy transition. It believes that this will lead to major blackouts, unaffordable electricity and the future economic shutdown of Victoria’s industry,resulting in massive job losses and a decline in citizen wealth.

•Coal plant workers and their communities demand a ‘Just Transition’ of their industry, a transition where their livelihoods are not unwittingly destroyed by the rush to reduce emissions.

•Nuclear power is a proven choice of a dispatchable and economically viable, zero greenhouse gas emission power generation technology, that is available today. The nuclear prohibition in Victoria should be lifted to allow sufficient time to replace existing generation with nuclear reactors.

•The guarantee of a Just Transition should also provide the essential social licence to satisfy any concerns in local communities about the safe operation of the nuclear industry.

I guess the efficacy of nuclear is a core discussion point, especially the economic aspect. The cost of renewables is coming down all the time. The storage battery systems likewise are improving & reducing in cost.

A question remains as to whether this, together with pumped hydro schemes will do the job.

I'm sure the modern nuclear plants are relatively safe.

Not sure what they mean by 'just transition'. Certainly retraining must be part of any 'package'.

For sure, & despite the LNP dinosaur wing, Coal is dying.

 

[Power Raid]

I guess the efficacy of nuclear is a core discussion point, especially the economic aspect. The cost of renewables is coming down all the time. The storage battery systems likewise are improving & reducing in cost.

A question remains as to whether this, together with pumped hydro schemes will do the job.

I'm sure the modern nuclear plants are relatively safe.

Not sure what they mean by 'just transition'. Certainly retraining must be part of any 'package'.

For sure, & despite the LNP dinosaur wing, Coal is dying.

coal is dead regardless of whether people love it or hate it. I do agree with the CFMEU that a "Just Transition" needs to happen with care, as communities and families need time to transition. This may include the buy back of homes in coal towns or the waiver of stamp duty on the purchase of a new family home etc.



The cost point of view, the concept of renewables being cheap simply doesn't add up. You hear wind costs $0.04 per kwh type stuff, which if it is true then that's back to the good old days of cheap coal power. However we simply don't see a cost plus 10-15% flowing through to the wholesale consumer.

Why? because it isn't $0.04 kwh.

Even if we use a C1 cost of power production of $0.04 at the wind turbine gate, the cost of back up power systems, storage and the rolls roycing of the grid to support intermittent energy production has to be added. The last price I had on stroage was $0.40 kwh, the rolls roycing of the grid was identified as the major reason for power price rises ($0.10?) and a back up system that would ordinarily be the primary system amortising over 85% capacity now has to amortize over 50% capacity.



I believe pumped hydro is great but it has major limitations in capacity and competing uses of water. Hydrogen looks like a major technology break through but the three current technologies for hydrogen are:
- using brown coal to make hydrogen (obvious issue here and also competes with agricultural products which will lead to starvation in parts of the world)
- is made from turning fresh water and adding salt (another crazy idea as we need energy to desal to make fresh water, then turn fresh into brackish, then make energy!!!)
- nuclear power plants

There is a new Australian technology that is looking at making hydrogen from ground water but that has major technology challenges. The Australian guys are now in touch with a car company and a battery company to test the concept and get expert input "material engineering". If they can crack the issue with the anodes, this will be a game changer. Imagine a remote or city fuel station making energy out of the ground water immediately beneath them. No storage, no transportation, no fresh water etc etc

 

[Power Raid]

CFMMMEU reference to cost and rolls roycing of grids


A large downside of wind turbines is variable generation leading to major transmission lines infrastructure under-utilisation and increased transmission cost. For example, two 1,000 MW nuclear reactors would fully utilise a 2,000 MW, 500 kV transmission line for 95% of the time but an offshore wind turbine system (such as the proposed 2,000 MW ‘Star of the South’) wouldrequire the same 2,000 MW transmission line (to cater for its full capacity); however, on average would only supply 860 MW and most frequently 600 MW. Wind farms are also geographically disaggregated which leads to increased transmission lines being required. In effect, wind farms lead to increased transmission line infrastructure in the order of 2.5 to 3.0 times that of other dispatchable generators or 2.5 to 3.0 times the cost. This cost is very significant and must be passed on to the end users of electricity.

 

[Power Raid]

Limitation on hydro in Oz

The major shortcoming of hydroelectric generation in Australia is that there are limited opportunities to build them because our continent is so flat and dry. Water releases are also often limited and controlled to meet the needs of other end users downstream, such as releases for irrigation or drinking water. For example, the Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme has an installed capacity of 4,100 MW but only delivers about 4,500 GWh of electricity per annum or 12.5% of its capacity on average each year.

 

[Taylor]

We would need to build a mountain with a water tank on it/in it to hold the wet season water that hits the north of the nation.

Massive undertaking.

 

[Power Raid]

Extracts from submission 40 - the nuclear prohibition review: note my comments in italics

Australia is just as successful as Germany in reducing CO2 with renewables

Australia’s annual emissions from electricity generation for the year to June 2014 were 179.4 million tonnes CO2-e (National Greenhouse Gas Inventory).
Five years later, and after billions of dollars spent on wind and solar, Australia’s annual emissions from electricity generation for the year to June 2019 were 179.9 million tonnes CO2-e.

Australia has one of the world’s highest emission intensities, typically 820 kg CO2-e /MWh (Finkel Review). Countries with low emissions intensities either have large hydro resources (Norway) or have nuclear as part of their energy mix (France, Belgium).



Australia's net global emissions if you include international savings from our uranium is greater than our emissions

In 2015/16, Australia exported 8,417 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate (ASNO Annual Report) which would have generated ~280 TWh and saved the recipient countries more than 250 million tonnes CO2-e, yet Australia does not take advantage of this valuable resource.




Process heat and hydrogen

Australia is looking at hydrogen as a key fuel for the future. This relies on the efficient and economic production of hydrogen. In his address to the Press Club on 12 February 2020, Chief Scientist Alan Finkel stated that “There’s a nearly A$2 trillion global market for hydrogen come 2050, assuming that we can drive the price of producing hydrogen to substantially lower than A$2/kg.” Process heat increases the efficiency of hydrogen production. Renewables cannot produce process heat, but nuclear reactors do, particularly the Gen IV types like the Terrestrial Molten Salt Reactor which supplies process heat at 600 degrees C for high temperature electrolysis. This enables hydrogen production at a cost comparable to steam methane reforming, but with low emissions and a cost less than one third of renewable energy electrolysis



Costs

Large scale solar PV capital cost in the GenCost 2018 report is $1,500/kW at ~25% capacity factor. Levelised to the NuScale 95% capacity factor, this equates to $ 5,700/kW for large scale solar PV. Nuclear capital costs are competitive with large scale solar PV even without including firming costs.
It would be appropriate to compare the LCOE cost of nuclear with firmed VRE. The CSIRO/AEMO Gen Cost 2018 report fig 4-2 (page 28) shows the LCOE in 2020 for solar PV firmed with 6 hrs pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) as $95-$130/MWh. A nuclear LCOE of ~$100/MWh would therefore be competitive with firmed solar.
The SMR Start report shows a LCOE of US$70-$90 for an investor owned utility and US$62-$70 for a municipal owned utility in the USA. Projected LCOE costs in Canada4 are CDN$58-$90/MWh.

Although the generation costs of wind and solar are lower than nuclear, the true cost to the power system is higher. This is due to:
(i) their low capacity factor,
(ii) additional transmission costs and
(iii) firming costs.
Modelling by the Australian consultancy Electric Power Consulting of Kiama in 2018 showed that the cost of a system with 100% renewables would be more than 4 times the cost of a system where coal was replaced by nuclear

 

[SizeMatters]

coal is dead regardless of whether people love it or hate it. I do agree with the CFMEU that a "Just Transition" needs to happen with care, as communities and families need time to transition. This may include the buy back of homes in coal towns or the waiver of stamp duty on the purchase of a new family home etc.



The cost point of view, the concept of renewables being cheap simply doesn't add up. You hear wind costs $0.04 per kwh type stuff, which if it is true then that's back to the good old days of cheap coal power. However we simply don't see a cost plus 10-15% flowing through to the wholesale consumer.

Why? because it isn't $0.04 kwh.

Even if we use a C1 cost of power production of $0.04 at the wind turbine gate, the cost of back up power systems, storage and the rolls roycing of the grid to support intermittent energy production has to be added. The last price I had on stroage was $0.40 kwh, the rolls roycing of the grid was identified as the major reason for power price rises ($0.10?) and a back up system that would ordinarily be the primary system amortising over 85% capacity now has to amortize over 50% capacity.



I believe pumped hydro is great but it has major limitations in capacity and competing uses of water. Hydrogen looks like a major technology break through but the three current technologies for hydrogen are:
- using brown coal to make hydrogen (obvious issue here and also competes with agricultural products which will lead to starvation in parts of the world)
- is made from turning fresh water and adding salt (another crazy idea as we need energy to desal to make fresh water, then turn fresh into brackish, then make energy!!!)
- nuclear power plants

There is a new Australian technology that is looking at making hydrogen from ground water but that has major technology challenges. The Australian guys are now in touch with a car company and a battery company to test the concept and get expert input "material engineering". If they can crack the issue with the anodes, this will be a game changer. Imagine a remote or city fuel station making energy out of the ground water immediately beneath them. No storage, no transportation, no fresh water etc etc

What's your trade? Where do you work? Just interested.

 

[Power Raid]

What's your trade? Where do you work? Just interested.

Marine Science and Chartered Account by training. Semi retired these days and no longer in executive roles.....

But run a mining fund and investment banking focused on Eastern Europe, Central Asia and parts of North Africa but excludes coal, oil, gas and uranium. Backed by the EU and 46 nations, two car companies, a vacuum cleaning company and instos; with a focus on ESG and regional security.

Run a Philippines gold project, a guinea bauxite project and base metals in Peru. Two property companies and a variety of technology and support businesses to local communities here and overseas (health, education, chocolate, timber, soda bottling etc).

Recently got involved in hydrogen technology and a hydroponics technology focused on sustainability with reusable inputs.

 

[CD Xbow]

CFMEU's position

Key Points
•The CFMMEU Mining & Energy Division of Victoria (the Union) supports Victoria’s transition to low-carbon power generation sources. It urges that energy decisions be made with system reliability, economic viability, and Victorians’ jobs in mind.

•The Union is concerned by the approach of using only non-dispatchable renewable energy sources, supplemented by hydro and battery storage, for Victoria’s energy transition. It believes that this will lead to major blackouts, unaffordable electricity and the future economic shutdown of Victoria’s industry,resulting in massive job losses and a decline in citizen wealth.

•Coal plant workers and their communities demand a ‘Just Transition’ of their industry, a transition where their livelihoods are not unwittingly destroyed by the rush to reduce emissions.

•Nuclear power is a proven choice of a dispatchable and economically viable, zero greenhouse gas emission power generation technology, that is available today. The nuclear prohibition in Victoria should be lifted to allow sufficient time to replace existing generation with nuclear reactors.

•The guarantee of a Just Transition should also provide the essential social licence to satisfy any concerns in local communities about the safe operation of the nuclear industry.

When did nuclear energy become 'economically viable' in a world with cheap renewables?
Has something changed all of a sudden?
It's 3-4x or more renewables, it simply can't compete here.
Nuclear is as expensive as coal with carbon capture etc
The projects always run vastly over budget. No one has solved waste problems. Nor do they usually factor waste costs into calculations.
In Oz we don't have a pre-existing industry to base it on. Starting from scratch means it will be more difficult and even more expensive construction elsewhere.
Crazy in our large, barely populated continent with ample wind and sun.

 

[Power Raid]

When did nuclear energy become 'economically viable' in a world with cheap renewables?
Has something changed all of a sudden?
It's 3-4x or more renewables, it simply can't compete here.
Nuclear is as expensive as coal with carbon capture etc

You've got it arse about. Renewables are 4 times more expensive than nuclear.

this is the problem with the debate, as too many don't stop and think when stats and figures are quoted. do you feel the full cost of renewables is quoted or the price of energy production of renewables is spruiked? What is the cost of transmission of renewables (and no the cost of unreliable transmission is not the same for all energy production sources), what is the cost of storage, what is the cost of back up and reliability?

https://epc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Case-6-revised-ModelOutputReport.pdf

The projects always run vastly over budget.

Modern reactors that Australia is looking at and commissioned by the Labor goverment, are not "projects". Rather they are no different to buying a car, with the Model T ford of reactors to be built in factories and either simple earth works or operating from the back of a truck.

No one has solved waste problems. Nor do they usually factor waste costs into calculations.

It takes 30 years to have nuclear waste ready for storage. Then you need enough waste to warrant storage, so after 70 years we still don't have enough to warrant storage. Further the waste of Gen I to Gen 3.5 is the fuel for Gen IV. So why would you build storage for something that will be reduced by 80 to 99.7%?

For a formal reference of the past:

There is extensive experience of decommissioning nuclear power plants, with more than 140 decommissioned worldwide. After operations cease, the fuel and coolants are removed. This takes about 2 years and removes the major radiation hazards - 99% of the radioactivity is in the used fuel. The plant buildings are then dismantled and the site remediated, leaving a greenfield site that can be reused.
There is an excellent example of decommissioning a research reactor in Australia. ANSTO’s Moata research reactor at Lucas Heights operated from 1961-1995. The used fuel was removed after shutdown and sent back to the USA. In 2009/10 the reactor was completely dismantled. The concrete shielding was cut with a diamond saw and checked for radiation levels. Most of the concrete was able to be moved to landfill as industrial waste. The cost of dismantling was $4.15m. Considering that Moata operated for 34 years and laid the foundations of nuclear research in Australia, the cost of decommissioning is clearly a small proportion of the total project cost.

and the future

720 MW 12 module NuScale SMR would produce each year only 120m3 (two shipping containers) of low level waste that is packaged and stored in drums before being transported to a Low Level Waste repository.



Meanwhile.....

The lifetime of a solar plant is around 25 years. By 2016, it had been estimated that 23 million solar panels had been installed in Australia. Reclaim PV (SA) has estimated that 100,000 - 150,000 PV panels every year are faulty and need replacing. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has projected that by 2050 there will be up to 78 million tons of PV waste. Parts of PV panels can be recycled, but this requires the panels to be dismantled and the materials separated - an energy intensive process.

In Oz we don't have a pre-existing industry to base it on. Starting from scratch means it will be more difficult and even more expensive construction elsewhere.
Crazy in our large, barely populated continent with ample wind and sun.

Lucas heights suggests otherwise. What do you think will power our military's EV fleet in the future?

The reactors we are looking at currently and will buy in the future will be plug and play, with no operational requirements or maintenance or refueling.

 

[SizeMatters]

Who are "we" - I assume you mean the Federal/State and Territory Governments? Why would you think they would be looking at SMRs?
Costs don't stack up unfortunately and no one wants a nuclear reactor in their backyard. There is no political will for this outside a few Nationals spruiking it every couple of years that go on to generate a few BuzzFeed articles. Shot down time and time again.

 

[Power Raid]

Who are "we" - I assume you mean the Federal/State and Territory Governments? Why would you think they would be looking at SMRs?
Costs don't stack up unfortunately and no one wants a nuclear reactor in their backyard. There is no political will for this outside a few Nationals spruiking it every couple of years that go on to generate a few BuzzFeed articles. Shot down time and time again.

we are assessing a MMR for Woomera. The reason for Woomera is obvious based on remote, expensive unreliable power at the end of the grid, at a strategic location where we already store CSIRO nuclear waste, to stabilise the grid and prepare for the military's EV fleet. In addition to that nuclear subs have not been ruled out as yet which could mean a dozen reactors.

Woomera was commissioned by Lib and Lab (under shorten) in the lead up to the election. Let's be clear, it won't happen in the short term. Canada who has already decided to proceed with the same MMR is targeting 2026. Idaho is looking at 2 to 3 and 2028, university of Illinois 1 and Namibia 8.

The biggest names on the planet are behind this.

For the grid, SMRs are more likely than MMRs

 

[SizeMatters]

we are assessing a MMR for Woomera. The reason for Woomera is obvious based on remote, expensive unreliable power at the end of the grid, at a strategic location where we already store CSIRO nuclear waste, to stabilise the grid and prepare for the military's EV fleet. In addition to that nuclear subs have not been ruled out as yet which could mean a dozen reactors.

Woomera was commissioned by Lib and Lab (under shorten) in the lead up to the election. Let's be clear, it won't happen in the short term. Canada who has already decided to proceed with the same MMR is targeting 2026. Idaho is looking at 2 to 3 and 2028, university of Illinois 1 and Namibia 8.

The biggest names on the planet are behind this.

For the grid, SMRs are more likely than MMRs

oh and no political will...........why have the laws been changing re nuclear? interesting times

Given the sensitivities involved with a proposal like this and the political damage it could have on State/Federal government I'm certain I would have heard something on this given I work in energy policy! Commissioning a MMR on Commonwealth lands...

Also what laws are changing? The EPBC Act that is undergoing a highly contentious review...? should be independent so maybe you are onto something given how the APS works these days. One of my old managers is currently working the the EPBC Act Review Task Force so I could ask him about this.

 

[Power Raid]

Given the sensitivities involved with a proposal like this and the political damage it could have on State/Federal government I'm certain I would have heard something on this given I work in energy policy! Commissioning a MMR on Commonwealth lands...

Also what laws are changing? The EPBC Act that is undergoing a highly contentious review...? should be independent so maybe you are onto something given how the APS works these days. One of my old managers is currently working the the EPBC Act Review Task Force so I could ask him about this.

Just to be clear, the commissioning of a study of a particular technology at a particular location is different to commissioning a reactor.

The three lead departments behind this are CSIRO, ANSTO and ADF. The ADF for the reasons highlighted above and the two science bodies for logical reasons. A third science group will be formed "in between" the CSIRO and ANSTO.

There have been a number of law changes and yes the biggest one under review is EPBC. That said, my understanding is no rule changes are required for the ADF to have nuclear power, so the EPBC changes will only need to be made if we move to civilian use.

The movement of radioactive waste is one that has already been done.

Further a particluar federal government department is moving into structures with private enterprise, for $1, to get around legislation that only related to civilian use. Essentially by-passing legal constraints and process.


Again we are years behind Canada and the US on this but it does suggest the wheel is turning. For me, this will be managed carefully evidenced by Libs and Labs both supporting this endeavor but doing it quietly until there is something to firm to talk about. Further a "need" will need to be manufactured for political consumption be it the ADFs EVs, a nuclear sub, tensions with China or the fact that renewables have not made a dent in our CO2.

 

[ascendancy6000]

For sure, & despite the LNP dinosaur wing, Coal is dying.

reality suggest other wise! really
coal is booming and will always be in fashion regardless of what the idiot left tell you
its an essential product for the making of as wind turbine and solar panel, its used to manufacture most products uses in our daily lives for starters really.