The war against renewable energy

[HurleyHepsHird]

What about all the headlines about expensive nuclear and cheap solar and wind? They are largely an illusion resulting from the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the costs of building nuclear plants are up-front, whereas the costs given for solar and wind don’t include the high cost of transmission lines, new dams, or other forms of battery.


So we have three choices. Do nothing and cop CO2. Follow renewable pathway of Germany and continue to see electricity prices increase and CO2 emmissions maintained or increased. Follow a pathway that is tried tested and proven to be the only way to reduce CO2 and save the planet.

Firstly, quillette is trash. You might as well cite Breitbart.

Secondly, the point they make is not only wrong but demonstrably so. Countries with a preexisting nuclear industry face lower up front costs and lag time, this isn't true for Australia, where the lead in would be 20-25 years due to a global shortage of specialised workers, including plant operators, nuclear physicists, materials scientists and engineers etc. We need to partially train a domestic workforce. Produce some of the materials and components domestically. Completely change our intelligence and security framework. These are all significant difficulties and costs the public sector will bear.

Next, there are huge long term associated costs with nuclear power, outside of the supply chain for materials. Those exist in terms of waste storage, security and insurance (easily the largest). Likely the state will be on the hook and have to assume liability. Given Australia's very poor history when it comes to management of power infrastructure etc. that's a gigantic risk to assume.

Finally, the second two articles are not agreeing with the bold, not at all. The first suggests that the issue is not a switch to renewables, but that investment in new capacity is not keeping pace with divestment from fossil fuels.

So we either need to build more renewables, or slow the rate of divestment. The ABC article which is specific to Australia hints at similar. That high prices drove new investment in renewable capacity, which is cheaper long term, but the corresponding price drop at the wholesale level as more capacity came online, meant that many early stage or peripheral projects will struggle to make a return.

As many others have stated before, this is a demonstration of market failure. A purely capitalist or market based approach is insufficient to deal with the challenges posed by climate change. I agree. Instead of relying on private investment, a mixture of subsidy for current projects and new investment by the state is required, so we can bring enough new capacity online to both meet peaks in demand and meet our current emissions reduction targets. There also needs to be significant reform of the market regulator. But this honestly is exactly the same as every other shift in generation technology throughout history, since no previous iteration, be it blubber, oil, gas, coal or nuclear has ever been independent of the state and succeeded.

 

[Generalissimo]

Additionally, by the time a nuclear plant comes on line it will already have been rendered obsolete by advances in renewables, battery and pumped hydro storage, and probably fusion. No private investor is going to plunge billions into a project that'll be out of date even before it starts. Nor should a government.

 

[Power Raid]

Firstly, quillette is trash. You might as well cite Breitbart.

Secondly, the point they make is not only wrong but demonstrably so. Countries with a preexisting nuclear industry face lower up front costs and lag time, this isn't true for Australia, where the lead in would be 20-25 years due to a global shortage of specialised workers, including plant operators, nuclear physicists, materials scientists and engineers etc. We need to partially train a domestic workforce. Produce some of the materials and components domestically. Completely change our intelligence and security framework. These are all significant difficulties and costs the public sector will bear.

A non issue

As when you buy a reactor, it comes with 10 years supply of fuel and a fully trained workforce to train up locals until they are licenced.

Next, there are huge long term associated costs with nuclear power, outside of the supply chain for materials. Those exist in terms of waste storage, security and insurance (easily the largest). Likely the state will be on the hook and have to assume liability. Given Australia's very poor history when it comes to management of power infrastructure etc. that's a gigantic risk to assume.

Incorrect again

We have already decided on the storage and reprocessing facility with a private entity stumping up all capital for $220m. It's being built for the existing CSIRO waste and then the national medical waste.

Post that, it will be used for the army's nuclear reactors.

Finally, the second two articles are not agreeing with the bold, not at all. The first suggests that the issue is not a switch to renewables, but that investment in new capacity is not keeping pace with divestment from fossil fuels.

Agree but this is due to the paralysis in the market due to political policy failings.

So we either need to build more renewables, or slow the rate of divestment. The ABC article which is specific to Australia hints at similar. That high prices drove new investment in renewable capacity, which is cheaper long term, but the corresponding price drop at the wholesale level as more capacity came online, meant that many early stage or peripheral projects will struggle to make a return.

Incorrect.

Germany will reduce it's 1990's CO2 emmissions by 10% on a kw/hr basis by 2035. That's 45 years and $1.5 trillion for 10%. A repeat of this achievement is expected to cost $3 trillion.

Meanwhile France achieved an outcome 10-15 times better in the 1980s.

As many others have stated before, this is a demonstration of market failure. A purely capitalist or market based approach is insufficient to deal with the challenges posed by climate change. I agree. Instead of relying on private investment, a mixture of subsidy for current projects and new investment by the state is required, so we can bring enough new capacity online to both meet peaks in demand and meet our current emissions reduction targets. There also needs to be significant reform of the market regulator. But this honestly is exactly the same as every other shift in generation technology throughout history, since no previous iteration, be it blubber, oil, gas, coal or nuclear has ever been independent of the state and succeeded.

I simply ask, what CO2 per kw/hr is acceptable. Where on the planet has achieved it?

Given hydro and nuclear are the only solutions to delivered an outcome 10-15 times better than Germany's 2035 ambition. It begs the question is it market failings or technology? Can you really claim the whole world got has it wrong? surely if the answer only exists in a greens head and not reality................you have to start asking questions.

 

[Power Raid]

Additionally, by the time a nuclear plant comes on line it will already have been rendered obsolete by advances in renewables, battery and pumped hydro storage, and probably fusion. No private investor is going to plunge billions into a project that'll be out of date even before it starts. Nor should a government.

????????

surely you mean the other way around? Nuclear and hydro have delivered and delivered for decades. Meanwhile Germany's 2035 CO2 emissions will be 10-15 times higher than world's best practice.

When do you think renewables will deliver 30-60g CO2 per kw/hr?

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

A non issue

As when you buy a reactor, it comes with 10 years supply of fuel and a fully trained workforce to train up locals until they are licenced.

Incorrect again

We have already decided on the storage and reprocessing facility with a private entity stumping up all capital for $220m. It's being built for the existing CSIRO waste and then the national medical waste.

Post that, it will be used for the army's nuclear reactors.




Agree but this is due to the paralysis in the market due to political policy failings.



Incorrect.

Germany will reduce it's 1990's CO2 emmissions by 10% on a kw/hr basis by 2035. That's 45 years and $1.5 trillion for 10%. A repeat of this achievement is expected to cost $3 trillion.

Meanwhile France achieved an outcome 10-15 times better in the 1980s.


I simply ask, what CO2 per kw/hr is acceptable. Where on the planet has achieved it?

Given hydro and nuclear are the only solutions to delivered an outcome 10-15 times better than Germany's 2035 ambition. It begs the question is it market failings or technology? Can you really claim the whole world got has it wrong? surely if the answer only exists in a greens head and not reality................you have to start asking questions.

The highlighted is such a weird and bald faced lie.

Qualified engineers and technical staff are typically trained on the plants operation (which takes years), but there is no plug and play style setup that has ever been deployed. For example even the integration of Chinese investment into the preexisting UK nuclear program has been fraught. The huge cost, drawn out build time, issues over investment etc. which have characterised Hinkley Point are a great example of the difficulty faced when building new nuclear capacity, even where an established industry exists and Arevas EPR even has a existent rollout history in both Europe and China.

My opinion isn't a lone one, it's one supported by industry experts and advocates who have literally given up on the idea of a domestic nuclear industry.

 

[Generalissimo]

????????

surely you mean the other way around? Nuclear and hydro have delivered and delivered for decades. Meanwhile Germany's 2035 CO2 emissions will be 10-15 times higher than world's best practice.

When do you think renewables will deliver 30-60g CO2 per kw/hr?

I don't have the same phobia of nuclear that others do. But we don't have any nuclear plants currently, and building one will take decades and cost billions. No private investor will ever go for it so the Government would have to subsidise it-- against the loud objections of the nimbies and over quite legitimate concerns about nuclear weapon proliferation. Not to mention equally legitimate concerns about waste storage. And why would anyone handcuff themselves to outdated technology? Two decades of research and innovation is only going to improve the cost and efficiency of both the renewables themselves, and battery storage.

In the mean time it's only the intermittency problem preventing anyone from going 100% renewable, and Australia has more than enough pumped hydro storage capacity to deal with that. That's where we should be focusing our efforts, not retreating back to the 1950s.

Fission is a pipe dream. It'll never happen in Australia- nor should it.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Incorrect.

Germany will reduce it's 1990's CO2 emmissions by 10% on a kw/hr basis by 2035. That's 45 years and $1.5 trillion for 10%. A repeat of this achievement is expected to cost $3 trillion.

Also, this is a spectacular lie.

You have just made up numbers.

The BDI industry federation asked for a $1.5 trillion fund to be established, which would account for an 80%+ reduction (conservative estimate) over 15 odd years. It's a transformational proposal, specifically unique to Germany's economic conditions and doesn't provide an exact breakdown of power mix etc. It however is not a government cost projection for a 10% emissions cut by 2035. I know you like to play fast and lose with the truth, but again, this is outrageous bullshitting, even by your standards.

 

[Power Raid]

The highlighted is such a weird and bald faced lie.

Qualified engineers and technical staff are typically trained on the plants operation (which takes years), but there is no plug and play style setup that has ever been deployed. For example even the integration of Chinese investment into the preexisting UK nuclear program has been fraught. The huge cost, drawn out build time, issues over investment etc. which have characterised Hinkley Point are a great example of the difficulty faced when building new nuclear capacity, even where an established industry exists and Arevas EPR even has a existent rollout history in both Europe and China.

My opinion isn't a lone one, it's one supported by industry experts and advocates who have literally given up on the idea of a domestic nuclear industry.

if you were correct, you'd have a catch 22. you can't have a licenced, trained and experienced staff without a reactor and you can't have a reactor without licensed staff. So the only way around this...........to "sell a reactor" is for the builder like Areva to provide a turn key solution.............with staff.

 

[Power Raid]

Also, this is a spectacular lie.

You have just made up numbers.

The BDI industry federation asked for a $1.5 trillion fund to be established, which would account for an 80%+ reduction (conservative estimate) over 15 odd years. It's a transformational proposal, specifically unique to Germany's economic conditions and doesn't provide an exact breakdown of power mix etc. It however is not a government cost projection for a 10% emissions cut by 2035. I know you like to play fast and lose with the truth, but again, this is outrageous ********ting, even by your standards.

Let's bookmark this and see what happens when they close their nuclear power


oh and.............

I simply ask, what CO2 per kw/hr is acceptable. Where on the planet has achieved it?

Given hydro and nuclear are the only solutions to delivered an outcome 10-15 times better than Germany's 2035 ambition. It begs the question is it market failings or technology? Can you really claim the whole world got has it wrong? surely if the answer only exists in a greens head and not reality................you have to start asking questions.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

if you were correct, you'd have a catch 22. you can't have a licenced, trained and experienced staff without a reactor and you can't have a reactor without licensed staff. So the only way around this...........to "sell a reactor" is for the builder like Areva to provide a turn key solution.............with staff.

Not at all.

You need to develop a domestic program first. Countries don't just buy reactors. The UK has one of the oldest and most sophisticated nuclear industries in the world, behind countries like Japan, France and the US. It's taken nearly a decade from government announcement, to start of construction. It will cost 20+ billion pound, take another 6 years minimum till construction is complete, require the technical expertise, IP and investment of 3 countries (UK, France and China) and generate a strike price of some 50 billion pound for consumers over the first phase of it's life cycle.

Australia by comparison, would be starting from a near blank slate.

 

[Power Raid]

I don't have the same phobia of nuclear that others do. But we don't have any nuclear plants currently, and building one will take decades and cost billions. No private investor will ever go for it so the Government would have to subsidise it-- against the loud objections of the nimbies and over quite legitimate concerns about nuclear weapon proliferation. Not to mention equally legitimate concerns about waste storage. And why would anyone handcuff themselves to outdated technology? Two decades of research and innovation is only going to improve the cost and efficiency of both the renewables themselves, and battery storage.

In the mean time it's only the intermittency problem preventing anyone from going 100% renewable, and Australia has more than enough pumped hydro storage capacity to deal with that. That's where we should be focusing our efforts, not retreating back to the 1950s.

Fission a pipe dream. It'll never happen in Australia- nor should it.

Bill Shorten has already approved Australia's nuclear reactors being small modular reactors for off shore military use.

The biggest issue for military is supply lines and diesel. With the potential of an EV fleet of vehicles, diesel requirements will shrink dramatically but need significant power generation. Do they set up solar, wind, diesel generators or 20-50 megawatt reactors?

This then facilitates the need to change our laws regarding bringing nuclear waste back to Australia and even the use of nuclear power in Australia.............for training.

The next roll out would be remote locations and then the national grid.


It will be interesting re timing

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Let's bookmark this and see what happens when they close their nuclear power


oh and.............

I simply ask, what CO2 per kw/hr is acceptable. Where on the planet has achieved it?

Given hydro and nuclear are the only solutions to delivered an outcome 10-15 times better than Germany's 2035 ambition. It begs the question is it market failings or technology? Can you really claim the whole world got has it wrong? surely if the answer only exists in a greens head and not reality................you have to start asking questions.

Wind generation could have substituted Hinkley Point C at half the per megawatt hour cost, in half the build time. Without 10 years of planning and approvals etc. etc.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Bill Shorten has already approved Australia's nuclear reactors being small modular reactors for off shore military use.

Exactly where and how?

 

[Power Raid]

Not at all.

You need to develop a domestic program first. Countries don't just buy reactors. The UK has one of the oldest and most sophisticated nuclear industries in the world, behind countries like Japan, France and the US. It's taken nearly a decade from government announcement, to start of construction. It will cost 20+ billion pound, take another 6 years minimum till construction is complete, require the technical expertise, IP and investment of 3 countries (UK, France and China) and generate a strike price of some 50 billion pound for consumers over the first phase of it's life cycle.

Australia by comparison, would be starting from a near blank slate.

we've already been through the strike price comparisons for wind and nuclear in the UK. The cost of nuclear was lower and has the added benefit of being reliable.

The issue for Australia is size with most reactors globally opting for 1.2+Gw which simply wouldn't make sense given our needs. That's why I predict the small modular reactors required by the ADF would be the right direction. The ADF needs would be 20-50 megawatt and 200-250 megawatt probably more appropriate size for civilian use.



The other alternative is simply identify one area on the planet that uses wind and solar that comes close to hydro or nuclear. I'll say close is with in 300% worse.

 

[Power Raid]

Wind generation could have substituted Hinkley Point C at half the per megawatt hour cost, in half the build time. Without 10 years of planning and approvals etc. etc.

incorrect

go back and do your numbers rather than the false half truths published by some news outlets. The half truths compared the first tranche of nuclear with the second tranche of wind. The weighted average of first and second for both, had nuclear slightly cheaper...........but one for reliable power and the other when it worked.

Feel free to go back through this thread for the numbers if you wish.

 

[Power Raid]

Exactly where and how?

not privy to the detail but the ADF has received approval to pursue the nuclear power in conjunction with an EV fleet. This could only logically happen if we are following the US.

My gut feel on timing would be 10-20 years given the limitations on EV at the moment. However EV makes so much more sense from a military perspective in terms of noise, heat, moving parts, control of power through the wheels etc etc.......................but something has to generate the power

where...............it will start with off shore deployments similar to Afghanistan

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

we've already been through the strike price comparisons for wind and nuclear in the UK. The cost of nuclear was lower and has the added benefit of being reliable.

No it wasn't.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

incorrect

go back and do your numbers rather than the false half truths published by some news outlets.

Feel free to go back through this thread for the numbers if you wish.

So you are going the Trumpian "fake news" angle. Dude, just stop.

 

[Power Raid]

So you are going the Trumpian "fake news" angle. Dude, just stop.

not at all

The half truths compared the first tranche of nuclear with the second tranche of wind. The weighted average of first and second for both, had nuclear slightly cheaper...........but one for reliable power and the other when it worked.

I guess it depends on whether one just believes what they read or looks a little deeper at the actual facts.

 

[Power Raid]

So you are going the Trumpian "fake news" angle. Dude, just stop.

here's the numbers

To compare like with like the first project for hornsea is £140 and the the second £57.50 which delivers an average cost of £95/MWhr
whilst the Hinkley project first reactor is £92.50 and the the second £60 which delivers an average cost of £76/MWhr

Then consider what the price of reliability is worth?





Lazy people would simply believe the half truths of dodgy news outlets comparing the £57.50 with the £92.50 rather than the weighted average guaranteed price

 

[Power Raid]

No it wasn't.

you do know £76/MWhr is less than £95/MWhr ?

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

you do know £76/MWhr is less than £95/MWhr ?

Old figures.

Two tenders had a guaranteed price for the same capacity of £57.50 per megawatt hour.

Hinkley Point C will now receive a subsidy of £92.50 per megawatt hour, with consumers likely to cover a significant premium on top.

 

[its free real estate]

As many others have stated before, this is a demonstration of market failure. A purely capitalist or market based approach is insufficient to deal with the challenges posed by climate change. I agree. Instead of relying on private investment, a mixture of subsidy for current projects and new investment by the state is required, so we can bring enough new capacity online to both meet peaks in demand and meet our current emissions reduction targets. There also needs to be significant reform of the market regulator. But this honestly is exactly the same as every other shift in generation technology throughout history, since no previous iteration, be it blubber, oil, gas, coal or nuclear has ever been independent of the state and succeeded.

Weird thing for a supposed anarchist to say.

 

[Power Raid]

Old figures.

Two tenders had a guaranteed price for the same capacity of £57.50 per megawatt hour.

Hinkley Point C will now receive a subsidy of £92.50 per megawatt hour, with consumers likely to cover a significant premium on top.

again, even with the facts presented above you cherry pick? try the full weighted average for the reality

 

[Baltimore Jack]