The future of Australian coal

[Nuggs Bunny]

When your answer to a debate about nuclear power is "bUiLd iT iN yOuR oWn bAcKyArD"

 

[Craven Morehead]

When your answer to a debate about nuclear power is "bUiLd iT iN yOuR oWn bAcKyArD"

View attachment 698873

If they were being honest, they regard the entire continent as their backyard on this issue.
But they'd be the first to scream blue murder if the Siberian Tundra was devastated or someone let a dirty bomb off in Sydney, New York or London.
(They could let one go in Adelaide thou. No-one would care to much.).

 

[Power Raid]

Exactly like that. And it will only get bigger, better and cheaper with increased research and development, and the economies of scale associated with mass production.

Interesting article in the Australian

The article is about a Union Super Industry was bagging the Tesla battery. The union claims it would cost $6.5 trillion a 1.5 day back up system, to make renewables reliable. They also claimed it would cost $700b if a Snowy Mountain like scheme




$6.5 trillion!!!!!!!!

 

[Power Raid]

Fine, it can go in your backyard if it's going to be so good for the economy. You won't mind that sacrifice for the sake of the country.

France, UK and the US have had it in their backyard. China and India following suit to preserve the world's environment.

Coal is on the way out, gas is half as bad as coal and thus no real solution given the growth in consumption, renewables don't work evidenced by Germany. So do we give up on the environment?

Let's not forget the EV is coming and the doubling of CO2 per vehicle will occur as we move away from diesel, simply because Germany's renewable lead power system is so dirty......dirtier than diesel.

Alternatively we could do our bit, even if it means being in our backyard.

 

[HairyO]

Nuclear advocates in Australia will be taken seriously when they're prepared to put an honest figure on the immense Government subsidy needed to get any nuclear generation off the ground.

What is the full level of subsidies renewables have received at Local State and Federal level for producers and consumers ?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Interesting article in the Australian

The article is about a Union Super Industry was bagging the Tesla battery. The union claims it would cost $6.5 trillion a 1.5 day back up system, to make renewables reliable. They also claimed it would cost $700b if a Snowy Mountain like scheme

The mistake they make is neglecting to factor in further development, economies of scale, and making their calculations with the moronic assumption that people are demanding 100% renewables overnight. This is an obvious straw man argument.

 

[Power Raid]

The mistake they make is neglecting to factor in further development, economies of scale, and making their calculations with the moronic assumption that people are demanding 100% renewables overnight. This is an obvious straw man argument.

from $6.5 trillion, what is you cost estimate and your time frames for your advancements?

No one is arguing for renewables overnight other than some loonies on this forum since 2007. Some claim we only have years to act......for the last decade but Germany's failed plan is 60 years, which was overly aggressive. evidenced by being a decade behind already and in 2035 and delivering an outcome 10-15 times worse than world leaders and only marginally ahead of Australia that has done F all.

The question to ask, is 100 year (optimistically) behind world leaders satisfactory for the environment? Do we have that much time?

 

[Freo Big Fella]

What is the full level of subsidies renewables have received at Local State and Federal level for producers and consumers ?

I've got no idea, but it'll be dwarfed by the handout needed to build up the technology base, infrastructure and tp attract and retain the personnel to establish the nuclear power industry people like to fantasise about. Even getting the stuff out of the ground (outside of Olympic Dam) at the moment is a stretch - none of WA's projects have moved beyond the theoretical stage due to the global uranium slump.

I'm not an opponent either - it makes sense to look at it. Just amused by the inconsistency.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

That would not be needed if we took the obvious step of becoming a repository for nuclear waste.
That would change, and indeed supercharge, our entire economy.

Again - nice idea in theory. But still ignores the fact that we don't have the knowledge, technology or infrastructure base to build multiple nuclear power plants, let alone run and maintain them.

No regional community is going to put their hand up to host a waste facility without significant Government incentives either. Barndioota's getting $31 million to take Australia's low-grade waste, for instance - you'll need to pour in a fair bit more than that if you're talking global waste.

 

[Power Raid]

I've got no idea, but it'll be dwarfed by the handout needed to build up the technology base, infrastructure and tp attract and retain the personnel to establish the nuclear power industry people like to fantasise about. Even getting the stuff out of the ground (outside of Olympic Dam) at the moment is a stretch - none of WA's projects have moved beyond the theoretical stage due to the global uranium slump.

I'm not an opponent either - it makes sense to look at it. Just amused by the inconsistency.

You can simply look at the recent guaranteed prices offered to the wind vs nuclear in the UK, being £76/MWhr for nuclear £95/MWhr for wind.

In regards to the relevance of the uranium price to nuclear, the all in sustainable cost is around $45-60 which is the price offered under long term contracts. The sub $30 spot price has no bearing on operations long term as it's a place for traders rather than operators. To incentivise new entrants to the the uranium price will need to be $65 plus. Regardless of the price of uranium, it has little bearing on the price of nuclear power as it represents 4-10%.

In regards to the "regional community", an aboriginal group has already agreed to the storage and reprocessing. The facility will be classed medium rather than low, which is the same as high. The steps will be CSIROs waste, followed by SAs medical and industrial waste, followed by the other states. The only international waste we would take would be our own, in the case we move towards small nuclear reactors with our military.

Definitely a lot to think about though, if we are to pursue this any further than mining, medical and dumping in sea containers across our suburbs

 

[Craven Morehead]

Again - nice idea in theory. But still ignores the fact that we don't have the knowledge, technology or infrastructure base to build multiple nuclear power plants, let alone run and maintain them.

No regional community is going to put their hand up to host a waste facility without significant Government incentives either. Barndioota's getting $31 million to take Australia's low-grade waste, for instance - you'll need to pour in a fair bit more than that if you're talking global waste.

Again, it's being made out that this facility is in some regional communities backyard.
Show me where this has been proposed?
And to say that we "don't have the knowledge, technology or infrastructure base to build multiple nuclear power plants, let alone run and maintain them" is utter, utter crap.
Who's we?

 

[Power Raid]

And this sadly, is why Australia will never have a nuclear reactor. Or should never have one.

I don't trust the country to run what should be a relatively safe form of power generation. Even worse if it ends up in private hands.

Two workers exposed to unsafe radiation dose at Lucas Heights nuclear facility

Two workers exposed to unsafe radiation dose at Lucas Heights nuclear facility

Exclusive: production at Australia’s only nuclear medicine facility halted after ‘safety incident’

www.theguardian.com

turns out the guardian was a little cute

moly 99 is a beta emitter with a half life of 66 hours........relatively safe but care to be taken

the medical daughter product is the one that requires much greater care which only starts to appear in transport or in its destination at hospitals

nevertheless an unacceptable incident

 

[Freo Big Fella]

You can simply look at the recent guaranteed prices offered to the wind vs nuclear in the UK, being £76/MWhr for nuclear £95/MWhr for wind.

In regards to the relevance of the uranium price to nuclear, the all in sustainable cost is around $45-60 which is the price offered under long term contracts. The sub $30 spot price has no bearing on operations long term as it's a place for traders rather than operators. To incentivise new entrants to the the uranium price will need to be $65 plus. Regardless of the price of uranium, it has little bearing on the price of nuclear power as it represents 4-10%.

You still ultimately need to source the fuel though - and the argument continuously put forward by local nuclear advocates is "we've got 44% of the global uranium supply; why aren't we using it!" To put that into practice will require an enormous amount of cash that no-one in the private sector has been willing to action so far.

In regards to the "regional community", an aboriginal group has already agreed to the storage and reprocessing. The facility will be classed medium rather than low, which is the same as high. The steps will be CSIROs waste, followed by SAs medical and industrial waste, followed by the other states. The only international waste we would take would be our own, in the case we move towards small nuclear reactors with our military.

Again, it's being made out that this facility is in some regional communities backyard.
Show me where this has been proposed?

I was privy to the Northern Goldfields bid that was eventually knocked back in favour of SA (despite running close) - the reason small regional towns and Indigenous Communities are putting their hands up for these facilities isn't because of some idealised commitment to nuclear; it's the guaranteed injection of millions of dollars up front, heaps of recurring spending and jobs - almost all of which stems from Federal Government subsidies. Not to mention the constant monitoring to ensure adequate storage standards.

Even private proposals (like the Tellus Resource Kaolin Mine/Med Waste proposal near Coolgardie) are small in scale and come with an expectation of Government buy-in and support.

And to say that we "don't have the knowledge, technology or infrastructure base to build multiple nuclear power plants, let alone run and maintain them" is utter, utter crap.
Who's we?

Australia - a country with one (research focused) nuclear facility, no nuclear power plants, aging energy infrastructure spread over millions of square kilometres. With an ingrained anti-nuclear culture and one of entrenched NIMBYism to boot. None of that gets overcome without massive Government buy-in and subsidy.

We struggle to maintain, repair and replace fixed solar panels outside of major metro centres (indeed, Horizon has only just managed to stabilise the grids in the Kimberley and Great Southern enough to finally allow for alternative energy sources).

But go on, tell me about the hundreds of private sector experts and employees currently ready to drop minaturised thorium reactors into regional towns at the drop of a hat?

 

[Craven Morehead]

I was privy to the Northern Goldfields bid that was eventually knocked back in favour of SA (despite running close) - the reason small regional towns and Indigenous Communities are putting their hands up for these facilities isn't because of some idealised commitment to nuclear; it's the guaranteed injection of millions of dollars up front, heaps of recurring spending and jobs - almost all of which stems from Federal Government subsidies. Not to mention the constant monitoring to ensure adequate storage standards.

Even private proposals (like the Tellus Resource Kaolin Mine/Med Waste proposal near Coolgardie) are small in scale and come with an expectation of Government buy-in and support.

Again, how were these proposals in a towns backyard?

Australia - a country with one (research focused) nuclear facility, no nuclear power plants, aging energy infrastructure spread over millions of square kilometres. With an ingrained anti-nuclear culture and one of entrenched NIMBYism to boot. None of that gets overcome without massive Government buy-in and subsidy.

We struggle to maintain, repair and replace fixed solar panels outside of major metro centres (indeed, Horizon has only just managed to stabilise the grids in the Kimberley and Great Southern enough to finally allow for alternative energy sources).

But go on, tell me about the hundreds of private sector experts and employees currently ready to drop minaturised thorium reactors into regional towns at the drop of a hat?

Love how you bring the issue automatically to on-shore expertise and then conflate it with a well known clusterf*** in the north.
I'm 100% sure that any nuclear enterprise would have FAR more stringency and oversight than any half-cocked solar scheme put up to keep the blackfella's happy.
We bring the best people, with the best track records to plan, build and then train local people.
It's almost like new projects can't succeed because of previous failures.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Again, how were these proposals in a towns backyard?

I never said they were? Only that, again, the reason communities are so enthusiastic for them is the guaranteed injection of Government money.

Why are nuclear advocates so hyper-sensitive to any small criticism?

Love how you bring the issue automatically to on-shore expertise and then conflate it with a well known clusterf*** in the north.
I'm 100% sure that any nuclear enterprise would have FAR more stringency and oversight than any half-cocked solar scheme put up to keep the blackfella's happy.
We bring the best people, with the best track records to plan, build and then train local people.
It's almost like new projects can't succeed because of previous failures.

So you basically acknowledge that we have no in-built, ready to go nuclear expertise, there's no private sector finance lining up to back these projects and any industry development would require billions in subsidies to get off the ground.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Craven Morehead]

I never said they were? Only that, again, the reason communities are so enthusiastic for them is the guaranteed injection of Government money.

Why are nuclear advocates so hyper-sensitive to any small criticism?

Hyper-sensitive?
I merely asked, prior to your initial post, where any of these proposals were in anyone's backyard?
You went on a nonsensical rant about about Governments injecting money to rejuvenate communities and garner support.
Well, noshitsherlock.
That's what Governments do.

So you basically acknowledge that we have no in-built, ready to go nuclear expertise, there's no private sector finance lining up to back these projects and any industry development would require billions in subsidies to get off the ground.

Thanks for proving my point.

Don't, lamely, attempt to put words in my mouth.
It's like any other new industry will never get off the ground because the host country has no on-ground expertise.
It's a really, really, REALLY stupid argument.

What's the subsidies we're paying for renewables again?

 

[Power Raid]

You still ultimately need to source the fuel though - and the argument continuously put forward by local nuclear advocates is "we've got 44% of the global uranium supply; why aren't we using it!" To put that into practice will require an enormous amount of cash that no-one in the private sector has been willing to action so far.

100% right re having so much uranium. At ordinary prices we have a huge % of the world's resources.

However at $230 you can mine the uranium from sea water, meaning anyone with a coast and particularly a desal plant should mine it rather than drink it. Further it would add an immaterial cost to Gen IV reactors. This means we have a very limited window to establish control over the sector before we lose our competitive advantage.

The reason why we should harness nuclear......isn't for the uranium itself as uranium is a very small global commodity representing 66kT per annum (half a ship load per year). For reference purposes only, the waste is 15 times less than that, so globally it would take 30 years of global waste to fill a ship using Gen 3 and 150 years for Gen IV. That's why we don't have proper storage facilities yet, as we simply don't have the demand yet.

The opportunity for Australia though, is to lease uranium rather than sell it. That means we mine it, lease it, enrich it, cool it, reproces it and then store before re-using it. We can collect $13 for every $1 of uranium through the life cycle and ensure proper monitoring and controls. Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan who are co-incidentally moving closer together would represent 90% of current supply essentially capable of forming an OPEC. Working in partnership with China, France, Russia and the US we could very quickly get up the technology curve.

Taking a step back, it's already happening and will grow.........the question is, will Australia be a part of it or just "dumb" mine it?


Then contrast to renewables which claim many jobs and take a look at Germany's failure to deliver jobs despite being an established engineering hub. China's cost model has simply squeezed them out of the market.

At least with a competitive advantage in uranium, we can in partnership corner the market and force the life cycle to start, finish and re-start under our lease control. That's something China can't take away until uranium hits $230.

 

[CM86]

Please refer Germany’s 45 year failed plan

This cannot be referred to, as it doesn't exist.

Why did you tell us to refer to something, that doesn't exist?

Why do you constantly try to muddy the water like that?

 

[Mofra]

US generates more electricity from renewables than coal for first time ever

In April, clean energy provided 23% of America’s electricity compared to coal’s 20% – the first time coal has been surpassed by renewable sources

www.theguardian.com

The US generated more electricity from renewable sources than coal for the first time ever in April, new federal government data has shown.

Obviously the US don;t rely on coal for baseline power like we do, but it does show the economies for coal/renewables are slowly shifting.

 

[Power Raid]

This cannot be referred to, as it doesn't exist.

Why did you tell us to refer to something, that doesn't exist?

Why do you constantly try to muddy the water like that?

Actually it does exist, that's why there are budgets, forecasted costs,

So thats a no you can't provide us a link to the 45 year plan you've told us to refer to?

I have provided my data and references

rather than just get all emotional, please provide a date your comfortable with, with the costing and the targets. I'm comfortable using as at today, 2020, 2030, 2035, 2050 and 2070. I'm also happy if you prefer a date in between.......they all tell the same story.

Actually it does exist, that's why there are budgets, forecasted costs, planned activities such as the closure of nuclear, the closure of coal etc etc. Further 1990-2035 is 45 years, thus the 45 year plan.

Or are you suggesting Germany has no plan?

I know you guys would prefer to ignore a failed plan and stay in the "emotional" and "hope" zone to remain unaccountable. Unfortunately that's not how life works in strategic policy and planning.

As I highlighted, I'm happy to use 2020, 2030, 2035, 2050 and 2070. If you prefer a date in between, let's do that. As they all tell the same story.

If you prefer to use "as at today", so it's less work for you to refer to benchmarks, costs, CO2 levels, then let's do that.

2035 though is a better see through date on renewables, as Germany can't hide behind it's 15% nuclear providing clean 40g per kwhr compared to their average at closer to 500g per kwhr. We will also see a greater number of EVs on the road by 2035, meaning the doubling of CO2 as diesel is cleaner than their dirty renewables focused power.

 

[Power Raid]

US generates more electricity from renewables than coal for first time ever

In April, clean energy provided 23% of America’s electricity compared to coal’s 20% – the first time coal has been surpassed by renewable sources

www.theguardian.com

Obviously the US don;t rely on coal for baseline power like we do, but it does show the economies for coal/renewables are slowly shifting.

That EIA link embedded is a great resource

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Don't, lamely, attempt to put words in my mouth.
It's like any other new industry will never get off the ground because the host country has no on-ground expertise.
It's a really, really, REALLY stupid argument.

So are you for or against Government subsidies for the energy sector? The little logic present in your inane ranting is hard to follow.

I never said nuclear will never get off the ground - I said generation will never get off the ground in Australia without significant (if not total) Government subsidy. Power Raid at least seems to understand that this whole thought bubble goes nowhere without Government buy-in.

Advocate for nuclear all you want; just don't pretend you're any less of a rent seeker than those on the renewable side of the equation.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

100% right re having so much uranium. At ordinary prices we have a huge % of the world's resources.

However at $230 you can mine the uranium from sea water, meaning anyone with a coast and particularly a desal plant should mine it rather than drink it. Further it would add an immaterial cost to Gen IV reactors. This means we have a very limited window to establish control over the sector before we lose our competitive advantage.

The reason why we should harness nuclear......isn't for the uranium itself as uranium is a very small global commodity representing 66kT per annum (half a ship load per year). For reference purposes only, the waste is 15 times less than that, so globally it would take 30 years of global waste to fill a ship using Gen 3 and 150 years for Gen IV. That's why we don't have proper storage facilities yet, as we simply don't have the demand yet.

The opportunity for Australia though, is to lease uranium rather than sell it. That means we mine it, lease it, enrich it, cool it, reproces it and then store before re-using it. We can collect $13 for every $1 of uranium through the life cycle and ensure proper monitoring and controls. Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan who are co-incidentally moving closer together would represent 90% of current supply essentially capable of forming an OPEC. Working in partnership with China, France, Russia and the US we could very quickly get up the technology curve.

Interesting - where's the incentive for the Canadians and Kazakhs to play ball though? They're largely winding back production due to the supply glut (or at least they were when I was last looking at this stuff in any great detail) I can't see them being all that enthusiastic to add to that in any great amount.

The geopolitcal implications for the leasing idea would be interesting as well.

Taking a step back, it's already happening and will grow.........the question is, will Australia be a part of it or just "dumb" mine it?

At least with a competitive advantage in uranium, we can in partnership corner the market and force the life cycle to start, finish and re-start under our lease control. That's something China can't take away until uranium hits $230.

The million dollar question - look how sensitively Lynas reacted at suggestions to localised downstream processing where rare earths are concerned?

The debate ultimately has to be an honest one though - you can't peg subsidies for solar and wind, then talk as if nuclear is going to be some sort of miracle cost-saving where taxpayer coin is concerned.

 

[Power Raid]

Interesting - where's the incentive for the Canadians and Kazakhs to play ball though? They're largely winding back production due to the supply glut (or at least they were when I was last looking at this stuff in any great detail) I can't see them being all that enthusiastic to add to that in any great amount.

The geopolitcal implications for the leasing idea would be interesting as well.



The million dollar question - look how sensitively Lynas reacted at suggestions to localised downstream processing where rare earths are concerned?

The debate ultimately has to be an honest one though - you can't peg subsidies for solar and wind, then talk as if nuclear is going to be some sort of miracle cost-saving where taxpayer coin is concerned.

Uranium production has been a real interesting one, with an insight into long term contracting. Cameco only recently pulled back production even though spot price was low, as they had long term pricing contracts keeping them well into the money. They pulled back production but will run out of inventories in the next 60-90 days. So I don't know if they turn to the spot market or have dealt with Japan or other on borrowing uranium.

The Kazakh production story is only what a former soviet state could do. It is against the law to export anything in Kazakhstan other than market prices. Meaning, rather than getting $55 they get $25.......madness. The reason why the continued production was they misunderstood their own costs. They were using cash cost when they should have been using all in sustaining costs. It took 12-18 months to understand this and finally pulled back production to get into the black.

Who knows where Canada and the Kazakhs land but I can assure you Australia is in there, with the Kazakhs adopting the Australian mining act and harmonising many other laws. Leasing though is the key but possibly a step too far for Australia and Canada. So far the Kazakhs, India and Russia support the idea. Fingers crossed.

I haven't followed the Lynas story but interestingly it did come up at the board table this morning. There are many moving pieces there, so unsure how that will play out but there radioactive waste will be one to watch.


In terms of costs, power should only cost $0.04/kwhr but those days are over given the introduction of renewables and the doubling and tripling of infrastruture. Anything under $0.12 is probably the new $0.04.

The question before cost, is how much CO2 per kwhr we want to achieve. If it doesn't matter, at 500+g/ kwhr, we go back to coal and $0.04/kwhr. If it kinda doesn't matter at 250g/kwhr we go for a gas boom and renewables which would be around $0.08-10. If CO2 is really the issue claimed, hydro and nuclear are the only solutions which would be around $0.08-10 and 40g/kwhr.

Note UK wind came in at 0.10 pounds and nuclear 0.076 pound per kw/hr.

So I guess it comes down to whether global warming is real or not and whether we value reliable power.

 

[Power Raid]

The Australian government have advised Rio and BHP to find new markets for their coal due to trade wars

This could kill our industry dead