Dutton goes nuclear

[octave]

I just read that Canada has 19 reactors which generate 15 percent of if it's power needs. What percentage will the 6 or 7 proposed here contribute?

[spacesailor]

Perth. Melbourne.  Sydney. Brisbane.  And two spare..

The rest of Australia is to sparce of people to need a nuclear reactor to keep their  "Kerosene " fridge going .

Hobart. Darwin & Alice Springs are to far for those wires to reach , the sag will have the wire touching the ground.

spacesailor

 

[pmccarthy]

1 hour ago, octave said:

I just read that Canada has 19 reactors which generate 15 percent of if it's power needs. What percentage will the 6 or 7 proposed here contribute?

That is because Canada runs on hydro power. They don't call it electricity, they call it hydro. As in "our house is connected to the hydro," which just means the grid.

[octave]

6 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

That is because Canada runs on hydro power. They don't call it electricity, they call it hydro. As in "our house is connected to the hydro," which just means the grid.

My question still stands though. What percentage of our power needs would the 6 or 7 reactors proposed for Australia contribute?  Without this information how can anyone make a rational call on this?

[willedoo]

12 minutes ago, octave said:

My question still stands though. What percentage of our power needs would the 6 or 7 reactors proposed for Australia contribute?  Without this information how can anyone make a rational call on this?

One figure I read was a Climate Council estimate of 12% of power needs by 2050. I think their estimate is based on one reactor per site. That poses another question - will the seven sites have only one reactor per site or will they eventually have multiple reactors per site.

[facthunter]

Sure we have Uranium here  but what you dig up is far from what goes in the reactors. Same as  Clay is not aluminium  Red brown dirt is NOT steel sections. The fuel for SMR's is even more refined. O Brien was talking of many  SMR's at particular sites,  The LNP proposal is not nuclear. Its completely UNclear.  Nuclear is not the sort of thing to turn on and off. 50 years ago might have been a better time to  consider some nuclear  but THAT doesn't mean NOW is. It's too expensive..  Dutton's just doing it as a STUNT. He'll be dead before anything is finished. .Nev

Edited June 24 by facthunter

[Marty_d]

If the LNP were fair dinkum about power prices and/or climate change they would have gone to the CSIRO and said "What is the best mix, location, storage and distribution of generation which results in the lowest cost to consumers and can be up and running the quickest?"

Instead they start with a solution that is NOT quick, not costed, and has countless legislative barriers.  No thought, no planning.

If that's how they do policy then why would you want them in government?

[pmccarthy]

As a start I have looked at what our needs are.  Next step after this will be to look at possible contributions from nuclear or other sources.

 

A starting point is to look at current electrical energy consumption. Quoting from AEMO (Australian Energy Statistics, Table O Electricity generation by fuel type 2022-23 and 2023 | energy.gov.au )

 

Total electricity generation in Australia remained steady in 2023 with an estimated 273,106 gigawatt hours (GWh) generated. Renewable sources contributed an estimated 95,963 GWh, making up 35% of Australia’s total electricity generation, up 3 percentage points on the share in 2022.

The largest source of renewable generation was solar (16% of total generation) followed by wind (12%) and hydro (6%). Fossil fuel sources contributed 177,142 GWh (65 per cent) of total electricity generation in 2023, down 3 percentage points on 2022. Coal accounted for the largest share of electricity generation, at 46% of total generation in 2023, down from 47% in 2022.

These statistics cover all electricity generation in Australia, including by power plants and by businesses and households for their own use.

 

So if the aim is to replace fossil fuel we need to replace 177,142 GWh or 65% of current production with something. But remember we are also replacing fossil transport fuel, switching from diesel and petrol to more electric. The ABS says ( Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, Australia, 12 Months ended 30 June 2020 | Australian Bureau of Statistics (abs.gov.au))

 

In total 33,019 megalitres of fuel were consumed, 49.0% petrol and 49.1% diesel, the relative usage of diesel has increased to be equal with petrol for the first time.

 

33,019 megalitres of fuel is only 3,900 GWH of electricity after considering thermal efficiency, so only about 2% of total energy needs. Perhaps we can ignore vehicle fuel in further discussion.

[spacesailor]

The oil industry makes more than just fuel .

So we will still have " oil exploration " as well as all the other bad oil things 

spacesailor

Edited June 24 by spacesailor
Spelling

[old man emu]

I am thinking that this will be my last posting on this topic. "Why?" I hear you ask. Basically its because no matter what the opinions of the common folk are, any decision will be made by the Faceless, without reference to those opinions. If you think we live in a democracy, think again. We believe that we have freedoms, and we are probably freer to what we want than in many other places, but we really have no say in the end.

 

So I'll happily sit back and watch you all lob references back and forth simply to enjoy your debating skills. I mean no insult to either side, it's just that I am fed up with the general disregard for well throughout ideas of the common folk being ignored by the rich and powerful as they have been since time immemorial.  

[Litespeed]

I thought it was the Ostrich that sticks it head on the sand.

 

 

[Litespeed]

7 minutes ago, Litespeed said:

I thought it was the Ostrich that sticks it head on the sand.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/24/coalition-nuclear-policy-peter-dutton-power-plants-100-years-run-time

[Jerry_Atrick]

20 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

This seems to be the labor party kumbaya thread. An ugly and dangerous place to visit. 

 

18 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

The "facts" quoted here by the Albanese sycophants are 75% nonsense.

<snip>

Hmm the above are really solid-researched facts...

 

But, I do like this quote earlier in the thread, and in thee context of the above two quotes, whole-heartedly agree.

 

 

On 21/06/2024 at 11:28 AM, pmccarthy said:

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

 

Edited June 24 by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

14 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

As a start I have looked at what our needs are.  Next step after this will be to look at possible contributions from nuclear or other sources.

 

A starting point is to look at current electrical energy consumption. Quoting from AEMO (Australian Energy Statistics, Table O Electricity generation by fuel type 2022-23 and 2023 | energy.gov.au )

 

Total electricity generation in Australia remained steady in 2023 with an estimated 273,106 gigawatt hours (GWh) generated. Renewable sources contributed an estimated 95,963 GWh, making up 35% of Australia’s total electricity generation, up 3 percentage points on the share in 2022.

The largest source of renewable generation was solar (16% of total generation) followed by wind (12%) and hydro (6%). Fossil fuel sources contributed 177,142 GWh (65 per cent) of total electricity generation in 2023, down 3 percentage points on 2022. Coal accounted for the largest share of electricity generation, at 46% of total generation in 2023, down from 47% in 2022.

These statistics cover all electricity generation in Australia, including by power plants and by businesses and households for their own use.

 

So if the aim is to replace fossil fuel we need to replace 177,142 GWh or 65% of current production with something. But remember we are also replacing fossil transport fuel, switching from diesel and petrol to more electric. The ABS says ( Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, Australia, 12 Months ended 30 June 2020 | Australian Bureau of Statistics (abs.gov.au))

 

In total 33,019 megalitres of fuel were consumed, 49.0% petrol and 49.1% diesel, the relative usage of diesel has increased to be equal with petrol for the first time.

 

33,019 megalitres of fuel is only 3,900 GWH of electricity after considering thermal efficiency, so only about 2% of total energy needs. Perhaps we can ignore vehicle fuel in further discussion.

 

I am trying to understand what your point is. After about 15 years of investment, renewables have shown they can handle around 35% of the electricity requirements, and it is still a maturing industry with a lot of technological progress to be made. That, to me sounds like an argument for renewables. Yep, it will have to develop to be able to handle 100% of the demand, including EVs, which is also a developing technology To me, what you have posted is a bright future, not a dim one for renewables, and one that we can achieve at much more total cost and ecological effieicnxcy than nuclear - in Australia.

 

I do beleieve you have finally come around.

 

As I have said, 20 years ago, I would have definitely supported nuclear, not knowing the renewable industry development and growth. Times have changed.

 

And if one of the key benefits is that the electricity will be cheaper, er, all evidence points the other way.. But don't take my word for it; as usual, I like to try and work with facts rather than fiction or selective facts. Here is Monash University's take on it, of course, unless you thing they are also Albo psycho[phants: https://lens.monash.edu/@technology/2024/06/21/1386823/how-would-a-switch-to-nuclear-affect-electricity-prices-for-households-and-industry

 

Note, until we actuall see the details of the policy, it is mostly what is likely... and I don't think anyone else can be in that bucket.. unless they have the, ahem, facts of the policy.

 

 

[Siso]

We need to remember that putting 30% renewables is reasonably easy. As the penetration get more we need to start adding storage and it gets harder as the base load generators start falling off because it is not profitable. Ireland has some pumped hydro that is filled every night and handles the extra demand during the day. Renewable storage that we need has to handle the multiple days of low wind we had NEM wide like we had at the end of May and other times this year. We still don't really know what this is going to cost because it has never been done anywhere in the world at Australia's scale. (large amount of hydro would help but we don't have the resources for this.)

[pmccarthy]

I have been reading up on nuclear power.  It is close to impossible to come up with a defensible argument about nuclear cost in Australia. The CSIRO report itself says “there may be no meaningful comparison that can be made between overseas nuclear electricity prices and the costs that Australia could be presented with in building new nuclear”.

 

The time to build would be dominated by the delays in permitting and public protests, which could add a decade to any carefully estimated design and construction schedule. However, similar delays are likely to apply increasingly to the building of renewable grids and generating sites.

 

In response to Octave’s earlier question, Dutton proposes seven nuclear plants. He says SA and WA will have small modular reactors only, with the other five getting either small reactors or larger-scale plants, depending on what is deemed to be "the best option". So, let’s assume four small-scale plants and three big ones.

 

Small modular reactors are operating in China and Russia, though many western designs exist. They are typically 300 MW per unit, though of course several units can operate at a site. Large reactors are typically three times that size, say 1200 MW. So, Dutton’s plan might give us 4800 MW of capacity.

 

Australia’s 273,106 GWH per year converts to a continuous average of 31,176 MWH. So, Dutton’s nuclear proposal would provide 15% of Australian electricity. However, as wind and solar may have less than 50% availability, the installed instantaneous capacity of these would need to be about 10,000 MW to replace the nuclear option. And even then, they would not provide base load which would have to come from coal and gas.

 

The Federal government’s current target is to have 82% renewables by 2030. In 2022 this was estimated to require forty 7 MW wind turbines every month and 22,000 500W solar panels every day until 2030. As we are now well behind this build schedule and renewables are currently at 35% (2023) this is clearly not going to happen.

 

The above is my own research and estimates. I hope you folks accept that it is fact-based and unbiased.

[old man emu]

I know I said I was going to keep out of this one anymore, but it's addictive.

 

Nobody seems to be addressing the bunyip in the billabong - energy appetite, or maybe energy gluttony.

 

It would be interesting to see a comparison of Australia's electrical energy consumption from, say 1995 which is probably close to the beginning of the digital age. My gut feeling is that there has been an increase consumption of energy on a 'per 100,000 person' basis. If the data were available and displayed on a consumption -v- time graph, I think it would show more of an exponential growth than a linear one. If that was so, then it would really put a spanner in the works of estimating generation requirements in the future. It would be a situation of catch-up, with the capability to generate electricity never getting shoulder to shoulder with consumption demand.

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

However, similar delays are likely to apply increasingly to the building of renewable grids and generating sites.

Not so. Costs of building new  HV grid infrastructure have been consistently predictable for a long time.

 

For instance:-

Recent extending of Qld grid to Roma and beyond, to supply electricity for CSG pumps, came in on time and on budget. Approx 3yrs and approx $500 million, for hundreds of km of grid and more than 20 completely new substations.

 

BTW note this 'investment' was to support a fossil fuel.

 

Maybe when the gas runs dry, this grid can be used to feed solar farm energy from sunny semiderert, to Brisbane.

[nomadpete]

Our collective guestimates are plagues by  variables.

 

Did anybody try to predict the uptake of private battery storage removing households from the grid?

Or small community battery setups?

 

As pointed out several postings, whatever power generation is used, the demand will always increase.

 

Be aware that NEMCO and state grid operators generally have fairly accurate plans predicting demand and infrastructure requirements. Ten year plans that allow lead times for construction. In Qld they have kept ahead of demand by a comfortable margin. Grid and power stations.  The knockers disparagingly called it 'gold plating'.

 

Maybe these plans are being ignored by governments and media.

 

[octave]

22 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Nobody seems to be addressing the bunyip in the billabong - energy appetite, or maybe energy gluttony.

I believe energy consumption has decreased. I will have a look for the figures. I think the reason is improved efficiencies etc.

[octave]

Australia’s energy consumption fell 0.1% in 2021-22 to 5,762 PJ, the third successive year of decline and down 7% from the all-time peak of 6,188 PJ in 2018-19. The drop in consumption in 2021-22 was 7 PJ.

https://www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-energy-statistics/energy-consumption

 

This is all energy not just electricity. I am still looking for a more clear source.

 

Edited June 25 by octave

[octave]

Annual electricity consumption in the NEM in Australia from financial year 2010 to 2023

[old man emu]

33 minutes ago, octave said:

This is all energy not just electricity

Yeah. This discussion is about electricity, so we should not muddy the waters with other energy sources. Don't forget that COVID would have had a major effect in 21/22. 

 

Can you find historical data?

[octave]

7 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Yeah. This discussion is about electricity, so we should not muddy the waters with other energy sources. Don't forget that COVID would have had a major effect in 21/22. 

 

Can you find historical data?

My last post is electricity 2010 to 2023. It shows a modest fall. This of course may not continue.  I think some of the factors in this fall are increased efficiencies such as LED lighting etc. Also the enormous uptake of rooftop solar.  Economic conditions may also play a part.  This small decrease seems to be worldwide.

[octave]