Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread (Read 138175 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #750 –
Another article trying to spin cost;
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-didn-t-put-a-price-on-nuclear-power-plants-the-world-shows-they-come-at-a-cost-20240619-p5jn0i.html

Even if you took the worst case this article makes, $35B for a multi-Gigawatt scale nuclear power plant, that still means we could 8 or 9 of them for the isolated cost of household off-grid SolarPV! :o That's households alone which is just 10% of the market, but 8 to 9 large scale nuclear plants would supply base load for the whole country.

The figures being used in the article are not new, they are the same old distorted rubbish that does nobody any favours. The low renewables energy cost is the subsidised cost distributed over an unrealistic best case scenario lifetime for SolarPV, and compared to the worst case capital cost of nuclear over an unrealistically short lifetime, adding in ridiculous overhead costs for huge volumes of waste that will never exist in volume or raioactivity.*

*They frequently use the total volume of waste, choosing the waste with the longest half-life, but the reality there is a spectrum of waste from nuclear plants with widely varying half-life, much of it having very short half-life and functionally safe for low level storage within 20 years. And even the volume of the really problematic stuff is low compared to the total volume of waste. I've heard nuclear scientists from the NSW reactor describe that the really hazardous stuff from enough plants to supply the whole country for 300 years would fit comfortable in the area of an average house block not that you would store it like that, but that's the volume of the really hazardous stuff for our whole country!

In any case new technologies exist to turn the really hazardous stuff in new types of fuel for future use in technologies such as space exploration. At the moment NASA and Russia have a monopoly supplying these Nuclear Battery / RTG energy sources, but ESA is just about to start.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #751 –
Quote from: LP – on
Not faulty at all, we had quite a debate about the issue.

As you may recall I worked with a segment of the CSIRO advanced manufacturing group for almost a decade, intermittently at first then intensely for 3 years, I don't need to read a paper to know the opinions and politics of those involved, for many I can just ask them. But you won't find the opinions being published because funding is vindictive.

And that's one of the reasons why the CSIRO has to be even-handed, although it's generally the Coalition that cuts their funding more heavily.

And you're mistaken about my past CSIRO position.  Having dealt with many government funded research bodies, and having a brother who, as a senior defence scientist, gave evidence at the Blackhawk enquiry that the government of the day didn't want aired, I know that our government funded research institutions go where the data leads, rather than where politics desires.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #752 –
Quote from: DJC – on
And that's one of the reasons why the CSIRO has to be even-handed, although it's generally the Coalition that cuts their funding more heavily.
You do realise that CSIRO future funding depends on commercialisation of the SolarPV and Printable Electronics technologies they have developed? They may just have a tad  of a vested interest, as does AEMO. Remember that AEMO is Gas as well as Electricity, and it's very wrong for the public to assume the Gas or Coal part of big business is aligned with Nuclear, and Bill Gates didn't do it!

The full 130 page GenCost report is freely available to download and read, many of the technology assumptions and data restrictions that are put in place is interesting to say the least, especially given AEMO being a partner.

I have no reasons to question the conclusions based on the data provided and analysed, they are valid, but as we've written elsewhere garbage in equals garbage out. Not that the data in is garbage, but it's selected data and that selection / rejection process might not be so objective.

For example, you'll notice that households are so insignificant that in many segments of the analysis they are disregarded entirely. That's because as I've pointed out all the houses in the land add up to little more than 10%, yet to go 100% carbon zero off-grid using SolarPV would cost about $250B retail. That's horrendous costs for only 10% of the marketplace, about $10,000 per person at current market rates, yet you won't find it in the GenCost report.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #753 –
Interesting to see what ANSTO says about it, given they are the experts in Nuclear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J50hWO2DKHc
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #754 –
Quote from: LP – on
Interesting to see what ANSTO says about it, given they are the experts in Nuclear.

Paterson lost me completely when he claimed that the new nuclear power plant in Finland caused electricity prices to drop.  Jukka Ruusunen, who is the CEO of Finland's grid operator, explained that the price drop was driven by an unexpected glut of renewable energy and Finns cutting back on energy use because of the crisis caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. 

Paterson is a renowned scientist and engineer but he's no economist.


It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #755 –
I'd love to see how green everything is without carbon offset credits.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #756 –
AEMO are hopeless..... In 2018 AEMO estimated that HumeLink (then called SnowyLink North) would cost
between $575m and $1,725m (and would be completed by 2025). TransGrid now Chinese controlled has now admitted it
will cost more than $5 billion (excluding interest during construction and project management
costs) and construction of it is yet to begin. For Project Energy Connect from South Australia,
AEMO estimated it would cost $1bn in 2016 (and be completed by 2021), but in 2021 the Australian
Energy Regulator allowed $2.3bn.  The latest estimate is $3.5bn although neither
Electranet, Transgrid or AEMO have said so publicly yet.
AEMO says that VNI-West plan will only raise transmission charges by 25% in Victoria. But AEMO uses 2021 prices, connecting 500kv lines to the Victorian 220kv transmission system is expensive and transmission charges will be up over 100%.
There is an alternate plan B I have seen for Victoria which uses the existing 220kv transmission system with a few upgrades, some new 220kv lines and doesnt require the building of the superhighway 500kv system, just one small 500kv transition point and , half the price, less land being chewed up.This would be phased in from 2023 to 2035 and cost around 6 billion with only minor increases on your electric bill, the VNI West will cost 11 billion and put up your electric bills plenty...
Of course with AEMO being the driving force that plan B wont see the light of day as it curtails profits, needless to say neither will nuclear  see the light of day either with such a heavy green, teal, minor parties number in the senate so Duttons plans are null and void and without foreign investment which means China no full plan will make it to the start line given Chinese Investment is on the slide in Aus thanks to the political situation.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #757 –
A polly on the wireless this morning spoke about Bangladesh firing up its first nuclear reactor later this year and suggested that, if they can do it, it would be a doddle for us.

He neglected to mention that the power plant was first proposed in the 1960s, confirmed in 2007, and a US2bn contract to build it was signed with Russia in 2010.  The actual cost is closer to US13bn, much of that subject to a loan from Russia.

I dread to think of the cost blowouts if our governments embarked on a nuclear power plant construction program.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #758 –
Quote from: DJC – on
A polly on the wireless this morning spoke about Bangladesh firing up its first nuclear reactor later this year and suggested that, if they can do it, it would be a doddle for us.

He neglected to mention that the power plant was first proposed in the 1960s, confirmed in 2007, and a US2bn contract to build it was signed with Russia in 2010.  The actual cost is closer to US13bn, much of that subject to a loan from Russia.

I dread to think of the cost blowouts if our governments embarked on a nuclear power plant construction program.

China build them in 5-7 years, thats their average since 2010.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #761 –
No idea about the worthiness of sources, but a couple of things that a reportedly happening in China:

 - China intends to build 150 new nuclear reactors between 2020 and 2035, with 27 currently under construction and the average construction timeline for each reactor about seven years, far faster than for most other nations
 - China is building ‘300 wind and solar’ sites for every nuclear power plant
 - China installed a record 293 gigawatts (GW) of wind and solar in 2023 – pushing its total capacity to 1,050GW, according to a new report
 - In 2022, China installed roughly as much solar capacity as the rest of the world combined, then doubled additional solar in 2023.
 - 2022 Electricity generation was 63% coal, 14% Hydro, 9% Wind, 5% nuclear, 5% Solar, 4%Gas & Bio

Yet is still about 70% coal - partly due to not using all the renewable energy generated.

I stress that I have not tried verifying this info - it seems interesting, don't really know its significance!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #762 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
Built in 1984, connected to grid in 1991...

Construction of the first 330 MW Qinshan reactor, known as the "Glory of China", commenced in 1983, the foundations were poured in 1985, it was connected to the grid in 1991 and commercial operation began in 1994.

The other reactors built at Qinshan have taken four to seven years from foundations poured to commercial operation.

Of course, the Chinese focused all of their energy and resources on one reactor.  How are we going to build seven simultaneously?
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #763 –
The Trawsfynydd Nuclear Power Station was commissioned in 1965 and decommissioned in 1991.  It can’t be demolished because of the radioactivity. It has been inactive but maintained for the last 33 years after operating for just 26 years.

Yes, Trawsfynydd is old technology but, despite the nuclear boosters’ claims, not much has changed.  Modular reactors are still a concept that hasn’t been put into practice … and that includes the two Russian reactors using repurposed ship power plants.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #764 –
Quote from: DJC – on
The Trawsfynydd Nuclear Power Station was commissioned in 1965 and decommissioned in 1991.
Isn't that the Welsh site they are now planning to recommission with twin SMRs, a project considered critical to the UK meeting it's carbon emission reduction targets?

Don't mention the war! ;)
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"