Dutton goes nuclear

[Litespeed]

If South Korea are building at $20 billion in the UAE, that's $30 billion in Australian dollars approx.

 

Now account for the UAE been a dictatorship and mainly sand and rock. Also the labour would be similar as the World cup,  ie basically slaves to do the vast non technical construction. 

 

So using fair wages and conditions, we would easily take twice as long and cost a lot more.  More like $40 billion Aus is realistic for a similar reactor.  

 

Which will make the same power as $2 billion in solar and battery storage or wind, which keeps getting cheaper.

 

The LNP are fuckin nuts to think of this as a winner.

 

[Marty_d]

18 minutes ago, Litespeed said:

 

The LNP are fuckin nuts to think of this as a winner.

 

Yes, they are.

But what worries me is the kind of unthinking agreement they'll get in a certain segment of the population.  Hell, see the first response to the original post.

What makes it worse is that they will appear to be striving to bring in a "clean" energy source, whereas they'll cynically drag it out, blowing out costs and wasting tens of billions of our money, to give their fossil fuel mates more profitable pollutin' time.

I really hope a majority of Australians see through this charade and soundly reject the LNP.

[Litespeed]

All whilst getting richer just like their pollute and perish mates.

 

Just look at all the former LNP government goons getting huge consulting deals etc for the nuclear subs they forced in before the election.

 

They see a pot of gold in their future and will destroy the planet to get it.

[spenaroo]

honestly,

its probably the only chance to nationalize the energy grid and take the power away from the private market to set costs.

I think this could be a positive in the long term. (until a future government decides to sell them)

 

renewable s are fine... but the government will just subsidize and lose money supporting a private industry to pillage us with pricing anyway.
if we are throwing money at it, may as well own the means of production

Edited June 20 by spenaroo

[Marty_d]

Normal operating procedure for government (usually conservative) is:

 

- use / waste taxpayer's money to produce the asset

- charge taxpayers more money to use the asset

- as soon as the asset starts making a profit, sell to private enterprise

- private enterprise reduces service and raises prices.

 

Either way the public is screwed.

 

As soon as I can I'll be getting more panels, battery, and stop making the power company richer.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

The nationalisation v privatisation debate is really separate from whether or not we go nuclear. The government as the opportunity now to invest in government owned renewable infrastructure to transform the energy economy and although Dan Andrews promised it at the last Vic election, there really doesn't seem to be an appetite to move forward on it. What would make you think any government in Aus will move forward on it with nuclear. In fact, WA, SA, and Tas are fully government owned and only the billing is privatised in QLD. An interesting article on renationalising the rest is here: https://www.uow.edu.au/the-stand/2022/should-australian-governments-nationalise-the-electricity-sector-its-not-that-simple.php

 

Nuclear can have a role in the energy mix, absolutely, but is it really viable for Australia? If you asked me 20 or so years ago, I would have said yes because the alternatives were either so much more polluting (fossil) or the technology not yet developed, or more accurately, matured enough for a mass scale deployment. But today the generation market is entirely different. So, for a country like the UK, that is small, has a bog population, lots of water, nuclear generation can have a case made to be a required part of the mix. Although, look up Hinkley Point C, and how that cost and time blowouts are spiralling and there is now  question of whether any of the other planned sites should go ahead.

 

Of course, nuclear tech has been progressing, too. Some of the latest light water reactors look the bees knees, adn Japan is developing some floating reactor of some sort within the building) to protect against seismic activity. Small module reactors, which I think should the come to commercial fruition, may be of benefit to the Australian system because, in theory they are "plug an play" into existing fossil fuel based plants. But the jury is out on whether that will be achievable.

 

But, with a country so large and a relatively small population, and alternative viable sources that require a hell of a lot less investment and don't use one of the most precious resources in Australia, water, nuclear just doesn't seem appropriate. The base load requirement is a bit of a fallacy especially with a well thought out and decentralised energy generation mix. And the price guarantee (of which EDF has a similar one set at £94/mwh about 20 years ago), just means your electricity bills will be covering the cost regardless of how your electricity is generated.

 

Old technology such as magnox were relatively quick to build as they were simpler in addition to the lower levels of regulation, They have a peak outputof about 300 mw/h per unit. Compare this to EPWs of 1600 mw/h and the technology and systems needed to drive this, and that will give you an indication of why they are a little more difficult and time consuming to build. A 300 mw/h plant these days is just not viable, an outage costs each unit £1m/day - and that was when I was in the business over 20 years ago, now.

 

I don't know of any Chinese plant that was put together within a couple of years from conception even with their ability toi ride rough shot over environmental issues.

 

But think about the logistics:

• A whole new regulatory regime needs to be developed. Yeah we can pick stuff from other countries, but we do need to ultimately develop it for out unique requiremnts
• Feasibility - geo/seismic/capacity/distribution/build costs/operating costs, etc against candidate sites will take a couple of years.. Can be done in parallel with the regulatory development I guess, but will ultimately be dependent on it.
• Skilling up the workforce - the construction and then operations staff have to be trained specifically in nuclear build and operation. You don't want newbies only so you will need to import the skilled workforce. I am not sure of the Asian market, but the European and US markets are a dwindling supply, so best of luck with that. Nuclear is not sexy nor pays that well compared to other industries
• Where are you going to site it? Do we want it remote with a FIFO workforce? Doubtful. But even so, be prepared for NIMBYs and of course, the environmental impact assessments which can take years and no doubt any plannign will be dragged through the courts for years.
• And you haven't even submitted the construction plans for regulatory scrutiny, let alone started a concrete pour yet.
• After the build you have as big an eyesore as any wind  or solar farm. Although, I don't consider either an eyesore myself, but look at some of the ageing sites in the UK.. They are a definite eyesore and usually on pristine coastline or rivers.
• Also, there's this thing called security. For some reason, nuclear plants attract all sorts of nutters and wannabe terrorists. And Eco Warriors, too. I was a Temelin in the Czech Republic that had to be evacuated because of a security threat. I don't recall anything of the sort at Morwell.
• They aren't exactly clean, either. Like EVs a lot of the pollutants and carbon is incurred at the build stage. Yes, they are less damaging than fossil fuel stations over the loife time, but no other renewable source comes close. Hinkley Point C has approx. 18m cubic metres of concrete alone,, and the ongoing maintenance is significant and not carbon free.
• Unlike EVs, what happens to the spent fuel - will we do a Sellafield and have an extremely dangerous reprocessing plant? Maybe we should go into the Nuclear arms business while we are at it. To be fair, if we were to go nuclear, it is probably not an entirely bad idea (to reprocess the fuel; not develop a nuclear military capability - although there is merit in that, too).
• Where to the profits go? Will Australia ever develop its own systematic high tech industrial engineering capability?
• Licensing alone is a real pain... Unlike even a fossil fuel plant, if a nuclear operator wants to change its engineering or plant  maintenance systems, it has to be licensed. This alone costs £15m/$20m which is why I would stand to gain personally should Aus take up nuclear.. There are a few in Aus who know the systems as they were implemented at a couple of fossil sites in Aus, but not many people do know it, and because it is so expensive to re-certify, it hasn't changed much in the last 20 years (I keep in touch with people in the industry still and they do ask me to do a little moonlighting here and there),

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

21 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

Normal operating procedure for government (usually conservative) is:

 

- use / waste taxpayer's money to produce the asset

- charge taxpayers more money to use the asset

- as soon as the asset starts making a profit, sell to private enterprise

- private enterprise reduces service and raises prices.

 

Either way the public is screwed.

 

As soon as I can I'll be getting more panels, battery, and stop making the power company richer.

 

Its called privatising the profits and socialising the losses.

[Marty_d]

I call it upper-class welfare - enriching the shareholders at the expense of all taxpayers.

[red750]

Why Dick Smith is backing Peter Dutton's nuclear energy plan - as he makes stunning prediction about Anthony Albanese's anti-nuke stance

 

Report here.

[pmccarthy]

The objection to nuclear because it needs lots of water must be a furphy. It is a steam generator, so would use the same amount of water as a coal or oil fired generator. 

Edit,,, just found this:

Coal, on average, consumes roughly the same amount of water per kilowatt-hour as nuclear, while it does very more heavily depending on the type and age of the individual power plant.

Edited June 20 by pmccarthy

[Jerry_Atrick]

I didn't say it needed more water than a coal station... the fact it needs water compared to other now viable methods of generation was my point

 

It is an argument against relatively inefficient steam generation period

 

 

Edited June 20 by Jerry_Atrick

[Litespeed]

7 hours ago, red750 said:

Why Dick Smith is backing Peter Dutton's nuclear energy plan - as he makes stunning prediction about Anthony Albanese's anti-nuke stance

 

Report here.

1. It's from the mad nut jobs at the daily mail. Who are renowned for click baiting and misrepresentation of people's comments to suit their pro LNP agenda.

 

2. If Dick Smith is pro Duttwitts plans, than I expect his mind at 80 has deteriorated badly. He was always a Greenie at heart. He did start Australian Geographic magazine and it's researchers from his own pocket, the environment not profit was the rationale.

 

Red, if you use the Daily Mail as a source, it's hard to have a informed discussion.

 

 

[Litespeed]

8 hours ago, spenaroo said:

honestly,

its probably the only chance to nationalize the energy grid and take the power away from the private market to set costs.

I think this could be a positive in the long term. (until a future government decides to sell them)

 

renewable s are fine... but the government will just subsidize and lose money supporting a private industry to pillage us with pricing anyway.
if we are throwing money at it, may as well own the means of production

Nationalisation of the grid is a good idea, by that I mean the network infrastructure and overall management of pricing. 

 

The means of production for a renewable economy exist all onshore, but we dig it up. We develop the tech, like solar but it's imported from China, because Howard refused to invest.  We are now investing in a local solar panel plant at Liddell, the old power station. One Dutton wants as Nuclear. Coincidence?

 

The generation in some states is already private and government mixes. For renewables the private market has billions to spend and are eager to happily compete on very cheap power. The government could contract private companies to build,  then it's gov owned and managed.

 

Inherent in such a design is the cheapest to meet the needs and regulations get built. So nuclear is a dead duck. 

 

The proper management of a grid at cost is the goal. It's not for profit but rather to provide cheap stable power that's carbon and other pollutants free. It would mean cheap power anywhere in Australia for everyone, not bullshit where you get ripped off blind having the wrong deal.

 

Power systems currently have rent seekers at every level and a pricing system that rewards bad behaviour from coal generators which generates them huge profits. The competitive market idea in Australia , is actually a perfect example of what economists call " market failure". It is extremely inefficient for an essential service, and has inbuilt profiteering by design. The customer and government carry the cost and risk, while the profits go mainly untaxed to investors, often overseas.

 

To have a proper Nationalised grid would mean the cheap power for everyone including industry. The huge expense of power is what has killed manufacturing in Australia , we can be a high tech manufacturing base if power is cheap.

 

Fundamentally, a carbon tax must be included to ensure actual costs are realised rather than pollutants been uncosted.  By not actually taxing carbon and that includes in building a power source, we distort the market and subsidise heavily polluting.  It would generate a huge amount of revenue, which can be invested into the power system. It would drive investment in efficiency for the economy and greater productivity whilst reducing costs. Power is the engine of our lives and the economy. The beauty is the Carbon tax must only be used to decarbonise/ pollutants by a electricized economy and for environmental projects. A electric economy includes transport and it's infrastructure of charging and solar/ battery production.

 

A Carbon tax by design will reduce over time as the economy decarbonises, it's only paid if you pollute. 

 

Currently we have a Carbon credit system, it's bullshit. It's easily manipulated and the government gives rights to privately trade and create fake credits. The last LNP goons literally paid billions to big polluters for nothing.

Carbon credits are a "Market failure" , same as water trading rights.

 

It might seem left wing and Greenie and I am happily guilty as charged. It's also proper economics and the efficient use of capital in a regulated market economy. 

 

It's a example of "social economics" which is the government providing the best fundamentals for the basics and regulations, to allow the market/ people to thrive in a positive rather than negative feedback loop. This when combined with a understanding that we are sustained by our environment, leads to economic theory of ecology.

 

Hence " Social Ecology"  is the big picture which takes into account all the systems at play, everything is connected and has effects to everything else. This means everything has costs and can be a + or-, just like any organism in our greater ecology. If it is a negative influence, the ecology changes to make it positive/ evolution or it dies out. It's a positive feedback system when healthy. 

 

Currently all the big negative influences get rewarded by rampant capitalism and it's a destructive negative feedback to doom.

 

 

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Yep, it is rigged...

[facthunter]

It DOES NEED $#!tloads of water to COOL the whole inefficient process. ALL WASTE HEAT energy.

  In Collie WA the experts have already stated there's no hope of Having  the necessary water.. I like Dick Smith but he's been very wrong before. The FACTS will  sort this one out IF we get  the chance to access them.. Why is it necessary  for the GOVT to fund it? Because Private money think it.s a bad idea.. Just imagine the furore if Albo had suggested such a thing..  Nev

[facthunter]

 Dutton acting like he is a good bloke and knowledgably in these things. Oh the IRONY. It'll go down well with Our Pacific Island Neighbours NOT. Dutton oi obsessed with mucking up Labor's  effort to get us off  Reliance on fossil fuels. The Aukus Nuclear POWERED Subs are sealed and fuelled for life. We will never get access to that technology so any connection to that is a furphy.  Nev

[red750]

Artificial intelligence may come for our jobs one day, but before that happens, the data centers it relies on are going to need a lot of electricity.

 

So how do we power them and millions of U.S. homes and businesses without generating more climate-warming gases?

 

Microsoft founder, billionaire philanthropist and investor Bill Gates is betting that nuclear power is key to meeting that need — and he’s digging into his own pockets to try and make it happen.

 

Gates has invested $1 billion into a nuclear power plant that broke ground in Kemmerer, Wyo., this week. The new facility, designed by the Gates-founded TerraPower, will be smaller than traditional fission nuclear power plants and, in theory, safer because it will use sodium instead of water to cool the reactor’s core.

 

Read report here.

[facthunter]

HE hasn't got a VESTED Interest  MUCH Has he.. We are basically ENERGY Junkies very capable of making this place unfit to live in. Rich people are Money Junkies and don't care. Nev

[pmccarthy]

Bill Gates and Dick Smith are both greenies at heart. No vested interest in nuclear, it just makes sense.

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

Bill Gates and Dick Smith are both greenies at heart. No vested interest in nuclear, it just makes sense.

Great, maybe you can buy it, subsidise the electricity costs and dispose of the waste.  I'd rather have wind, solar and storage - battery and pumped hydro - which are all achievable at lower cost, have much lower ONGOING costs, and guess what - zero radioactive waste.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Bill Gates and Dick Smith are both greenies at heart. No vested interest in nuclear, it just makes sense.

I've trained my dog to wake up and fart to provide an excitor windcurrent to the windmill generator. He also thinks nuclear just makes sense, which makes as much sense as the above.

 

Edited June 21 by Jerry_Atrick

[facthunter]

In the US they Call it Nuculer which makes it LESS CLEAR. .  Nev

[Litespeed]

[pmccarthy]

That sort of nonsense is going to tip the balance in favour.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I agree that there is a place for Nuclear. And, despite the potential downfalls, I learned a lot about how the industry on a global and nationa/supranational basis mitigate the risks. Yes, things have gone wrong, and it would be interesting to see the ecological damage per mw/h of generation between fossil and nuclear generation - I would suspect nuclear owuld be streets ahead. I know of a plant (and the protaganist involved) that almost resulted in an accident that would have shut down the industry in the UK. The fact it didn't was testament to the safety culture and redundancy in systems and supervision built into the industry, where global organisations set the bar - WANO being just one.

 

So, the ecological disaster thing is not what I am buying into. When I started in the industry, I was, ironically, dead against it. When I finished in the industry I was all for it.. in the right circumstances.

 

My beef with a nuclear generation plan in Australia is not with nuclear generation itself, but with whether or not it is the most applicable for a given situation.. In the days of magnox and AGRs, it was a lot cheaper to build and run; in fact there was a time in the USA where they could almost give away the electricity provided by it and still make a profit. But, as demand increases, and the need to produce more energy form the same footprint, and therefore denser/more intense reactors, the cost has gone up significantly. Certainly, the EPRs and similar designs are expensive, unreliable, and even after coming online, often are shut down for months with technical issues that develop.

 

New technologies may buck this trent. Light water is one; SMRs is another, but neither of these are really commercially viable, yet. A company my partner works for had partnered with another company to develop an SMR, but last I heard, they had shelved it. Rolls Royce, Seimens, and I think GE as well as no doubt some Asian manufacturers are in the race. None have been commissioned yet, although I think the 2030's is when some intend to be.

 

Of course, we can wait for fusion reactors, which are only 10 years away.. Just in case, come back to this post in 10 years time, and that statement will be as valid then as it is today..

 

Personally, I would live Australia to go for nukes as I would be recruited for my partner's firm and maybe set up an office there. And I have both developed the systems (so I know the tech) and led business implementations of the systems (so I know the business) of design engineering and plant maintenance - and all the supporting functions of these. Happy daze!

 

Bit, despite this, and probably a reason I will never be a millionaire, today, we have technology in renewables and batteries that has advanced in leaps and bounds from yesteryear. So, the options for "clean" energy are far more than they were. And it is developing. Yes, despite the cost in SA, it will come down as the induustries mature. Also, if we localise our generation (home-based or at least community based generation and storage), the electricity doesn't have as far to travel, which means losses due to resistance and inversion are kept to a minimum. Which means that you don't have to put so much into the energy generation to get the same output. I haven't got the stats, but I would imagine for solar, output efficiency will be high, whereas anything mechanical in generation (including wind) is much lower - nuclear is (or used to be) 35%.

 

A country like Australia is at the end of the day sparesely populated, although the cities are densly populated. Large centralied generation regardless of fuel source is horribly inefficient, but where are you going to site a nuclear plant close to population. Most of Australia has a perfect climate and geogrpahy. We can scale renewables far quicker than nuclear, and the capacity through the diffeent channels - and we haven't even spoke sea wave generation yet, which lets face it, there is a vast amount of energy in the seas and oceans that surround us - although I do admit, they are both eyesores and have ecoloogical consequences as well, but it all means there is a mix of renewables that should be able to supprort our energy demand in the future, even if the country went to BEV cars only.