Campbell Newman is busy spruiking the Liberal Democrats’ “Freedom Manifesto” and the party’s penchant for nuclear power in Australia.
Who Is Campbell Newman?
You might remember Mr. Newman from roles including Premier of Queensland – and his attempts during that time to demonise solar power. His anti-renewables efforts included a bungled approach to phasing-down the state’s Solar Bonus Scheme that backfired spectacularly, creating a rush on solar panels.
Mr. Newman was described at the time as:
“.. the most anti-solar Premier in Australia’s history, writing the playbook for Tony Abbott’s assault on solar and renewable energy.”
While Campbell Newman led the Liberal National Party of Queensland to its first victory at the 2012 state election, it was booted out in 2015 and Mr. Newman also lost his own seat. He must have really pissed off a lot of Queenslanders; no doubt a bunch of solar power system owners among them.
In July last year he announced his resignation from the LNP and in August said he would be running for federal Senate representing Queensland under a Liberal Democrats banner.
Campbell Newman Really Likes Nuclear Energy
A source of electricity generation Mr. Newman and the Liberal Democrats are pretty fond is nuclear energy.
“.. we want to open up the door to the cleanest, safest and lowest CO2 emitting source of energy – nuclear power,” he states.
Wrong on all three counts and something that wasn’t mentioned in that statement – conspicuous by its absence – is cost. Back in October last year, SQ’s Ronald provided a simple reason why Australia will never have nuclear power plants:
… and went into detail on that aspect, plus also tackled the claimed emissions advantage Mr. Newman mentions:
- Nuclear power uses up resources that would result in greater emission cuts if used for wind and solar energy generation, plus energy storage.
Anyway, you can check out what Campbell Newman has to say about nuclear power in Australia in the LibDems’ video at the end of this article, which is titled “Freedom Manifesto – Policy 7 – Cheap Energy”. The nuclear energy bit starts around 1:10.
I’m a little wary of first two words in the title as “freedom” is sometimes used by people not understanding it entails great personal responsibility and accountability. Without that, it’s just the worst form of anarchy. As for “manifesto”, it has been associated with the written babblings of deranged individuals before they head out into the community and cause havoc. On a somewhat related note, there was the pro-coal “Monash Manifesto” thing back a few years ago (that mob has gone really quiet).
Something Mr. Newman did get right:
“All sources of energy should compete on the market on their own merits of reliability and cost.”
… assuming environmental and human health impact is part of that cost, we’re set for a very level playing field showdown.
CSIRO has previously noted even taking into account extra system integration costs such as storage and additional transmission expenditure, solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind continue to be the cheapest new sources of electricity – and new nuclear energy (SMR – still pretty much vapourware) one of the most expensive.
For your viewing pleasure (or otherwise) – presenting Campbell Newman, star of the Liberal Democrats:
About Michael Bloch
RSS - Posts
Campbell Newman is still a thing? Who knew!
I’d encourage readers of this blog to adopt to follow the example of
both Winston Churchill and more recently the Ukrainians and adopt the motto “Never, never, NEVER give up”.
You might also find it helpful to remind yourself at least once a day of a very ancient saying : “Those whom God would destroy, he first makes mad with power”
The “God” being referred to at that time was the Roman god “Jupiter”, and was the Roman Empire version of the earlier Greek god “Zeus”.
In that pre-christian era, the Greeks viewed Zeus as being in charge of the entire universe and he was THE ultimate ‘boss’ of all the other gods around.
Quite apart from keeping a very watchful eye on all the other “gods”, Zeus was in charge of the weather and climate , and also had an endless supply of lightning bolts and thunder-claps which could be used to completely terrify everyone (including the other ‘gods’) who wasn’t doing the ‘right thing”.
There’s plenty of ambiguity about Zeus and his role, so feel completely free to make your own personal interpretations regarding the meaning of the word ‘power’ and the then inferred applicability of the rest of the saying..
Anyway, there’s some interesting con-incidences in the relevance of that ancient saying to both wider current events and local energy policies.
I’d also draw attention to the recent report that missiles have set buildings adjacent to Europe’s largest nuclear plant (located in the Ukraine).on fire.
If this plant becomes inoperable, then 25% of Ukraines electricity generation capacity mmediately disappears. .
See: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-04/russia-ukraine-war-invasion-updates/100880512
Inoperability isn’t really the problem. What concerns me are the explosives Russia is now setting up near the plant. Are they planning on creating a Chernobyl 2.0 if they can’t beat Ukraine via direct military combat?
Reply to George Kaplan,
Firstly, In today’s unstable world it seems sheer folly to me to continue with our centralised grid structure here in OZ.
Here’s why I think that way.
The major point I’ll make is that being heavily dependent on a largely centralised source of electricity to a grid means that if EITHER the energy generation source OR just the grid alone is put out of action, that severely disrupts energy supply for just about every activity you can think of,
IMO that’s a problem to be truly concerned about here in OZ at the moment..
Doesn’t really matter (in a sense) if the central major generating sources are nuclear, coal, natural gas or whatever.
I’ll use Melbourne as a hypothetical illustration
Knock out just a few key points in the Melbourne Metro local grid, and the activities of some 5.6 million Victorian people, along with hundred’s of thousands of businesses, infrastructure such as traffic lights, sewage and water plants are either stopped completely or severely disrupted.
Slightly over 19% of the entire OZ population live there. That same area also represents about 24% of Victoria’s GDP. in terms of its level of economic activity.
The potential impacts including flow-on effects to elsewhere (including other states) are truly massive..
Such initial shut-downs can increasingly be done via cyber-attacks, and the sophistication of those increases rapidly and will continue to do so in the coming years. It’s a far far cheaper form of warfare that can bring a nation to its knees economically.
But there’s other factors as well. The wide-spread grid is equally vulnerable to such things as natural disasters, extreme weather events, extremely high temperatures and the like, and the frequency and intensity of those things is clearly increasing.overall
IMO what I’ve outlined above is a key factor in why more and more businesses and households are heading towards fully or partial
“energy-independence” where and when they can. .
In effect, that group of people are transiting toward a completely opposite
view of how electricity should be generated and distributed as a nation. In other words, you spread your electrician generation over a very wide-spread geographic area, which tends to make overall national or state and region electricity generation considerably less impacted by adverse events. .
To make a metaphorical comparison:
Having one big egg in a very large basket makes it very easy for
that egg to be found and then smashed.
In 2006 there were around 7.04 million detached houses, 1.77 million semi-detached dwellings plus 0.89 million high density. See:
https://profile.id.com.au/australia/dwellings
Having 9.5 million or so household roofs each in its own small basket requires far more effort to locate and smash, even if some of them are close together.
George, I do share your genuine concerns about Ukraine possibilities and associated ‘insane’ actions. Possibly those concerns have been deliberately created for propaganda reasons to add to general ‘fear’ levels. A ‘possible threat’ is far more difficult to handle psychologically, and creating enough of them can lead those affected into a state where their mind tells them ‘this is all too overwhelming so I’ll simply give-up’..
I don’t know how much support there will be for future ‘new nuclear power plants’ in Australia or even world-wide from now on; it may take the nuclear industry and it’s advocates some time to re-group and rethink their marketing approach. .
.
Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station in Ukraine is the largest nuclear power station in Europe. Wikipedia currently lists its status as “on fire”.
Some excellent timing there by Campbell Newman.
You’d think by now he would have learned to at least pronounce “Nuclear”
Failed politicians never learn anything, particularly those who were failures prior to entering politics. His claims are just pandering to the likes of those who may be inclined to direct their votes toward him The technical explanations as to the economic uselessness of nuclear generated electricity obviously do not appeal to the moronic supporters he seeks.
Yes. I said that to my partner this morning, before I read the article.
“Nucular” seems to be the pronunciation of choice among the “no ideas’.
I can’t say as I recall Newman expressing an opinion on solar whilst premier, but it wasn’t really on my radar back then. Rather his primary foci was building Queensland’s infrastructure, albeit not to the extent of Sir Joh Bjelke Peterson – makes sense given his engineering background, and trimming the number of Queensland public servants – said service is back to about a quarter of a million! Naturally the unions screamed at losing cushy jobs and combined with other problems Newman became a one term wonder. Oh there was also some privatisation (ugh!) to pay for said new infrastructure but honestly how could Labor complain after their own privatisation efforts? (No the hypocrisy didn’t even remotely faze them).
Liberal Democrats? … Oh so libertarians. It’s one of those parties you occasionally hear about but never remember exist, and stare blankly at when trying to number the 100 or so candidates on the Senate form.
Cleanest, safest and lowest CO2 emitting source of energy? Well SQ makes clear that’s in dispute. Frankly it depends on the definitions you use and the figures you look at.
Lowest CO2? Technically untrue – Hydro is the cleanest, safest, and lowest, but environmentalists hate Hydro and frankly Australia is very limited in its ability to build such. At 4g CO2/kWhe a median performance Hydro plant’s lifecycle emissions is hard to beat! Onshore wind is … reasonably close at 12, but frankly who wants to live near a windmill farm? Plus there’s the whole reliability issue. Nuclear is breathing down the neck of onshore wind at 16. Solar PV is … not even remotely close at 46 – 3x the CO2 generated by Nuclear. As for coal, ooh look over there everyone! 😀 Okay in the interest of full disclosure it’s apparently 1,001g CO2/kWhe. If climate change is your bugbear that could be an issue.
On the cost front, while 2018-2021 figures vary, the average per MWh for new nuclear plants is lower than rooftop solar or offshore wind. While utility scale solar and onshore wind is cheaper per MWh, this is only where no battery storage exists. The absolute cheapest form of power however is nuclear extensions. The 2 most expensive forms of power are Gas Peakers (not for base power), and (battery) storage.
Yes Ronald provided a reasoned argument why Nuclear doesn’t suit Australia back in October, but respectfully it depends on the values you apply. For instance, what is the value of energy security, reliability, and independence? If the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine it doesn’t matter how cheap sun and wind options are. At the very least you have to compare Solar\Wind + Battery Storage to Nuclear for comparable per kW capital costs, not just the cheap end of the equation to Nuclear. Note Ronald himself admits that if he’s completely wrong and other countries can build reactors that are cheaper than Solar or Wind, then Australia should go Nuclear, but he doesn’t believe he’s that badly mistaken. My contention is that Nuclear doesn’t need to be absolutely the cheapest option, only close enough and with better performance in certain areas.
I’m somewhat surprised by the resistance to the term freedom. It sounds disturbingly akin to the CBC propaganda during the Freedom Convoy – academics trotted out to denounce freedom as a dangerous and foreign concept. Likewise manifesto. The Communist Manifesto might be most well known, and perhaps you do consider it the deranged babbling of individuals seeking to cause havoc in communities – we can debate history another time, but many manifestos don’t call themselves such and both propose and produce a better society e.g. the (US) Declaration of Independence.
As regards the CSIRO report, while there is large scale PV, biomass, and batteries, the report explicitly rejects large scale nuclear. What counts as large scale and why is large scale nuclear unsuitable? CSIRO seems to limit their focus to SMRs, and yet as this article notes, SMR is still pretty much vapourware. Wouldn’t it make more sense to consider Gen 3+ (current designs), or Gen IV which would come of age about the same time Australia would break ground on any theoretical nuclear plant? And while batteries\storage is mentioned, there appears to be no life span given. Instead of the 10 years plus a bit, hopefully, for home storage, or the 30 years or so given for most power plant options in the report, it looks like storage is considered immortal.
Finally, and frankly this is probably why some are so opposed to nuclear development, Australia embracing nuclear energy puts the country on the path to nuclear autonomy. Unlike the Ukraine which has been unable to fully defend itself from Russian invasion having sacrificed its nukes, a nuclear armed Australia need never fear invasion from a certain imperalistic dragon to the north. Then too, as the nation with the greatest share of the world’s uranium reserves – roughly a quarter of the global total, isn’t it basic common sense to look at the feasibility of utilising the resources the nation has been blessed with? Dig up the uranium, enrich it, then sell it to allies and friends – processed materials are always worth more than raw. Remember, Australia is roughly the same size as the contiguous United States, but with less than a tenth of the population – plenty of space for heavy industry and power plants. Should power ever get cheap like Iceland with their geothermal energy, Australia could even look at getting back into energy intensive industries like aluminium.
Yes I’ll probably be denounced for this, but hey, you need someone to challenge the group think. 😀
George Kaplan,
“If the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine it doesn’t matter how cheap sun and wind options are.</i"
George, does your water supply stop when the rain stops? Perhaps having adequate water storage might help with having a reliable water supply? Likewise, having adequate energy storage coupled with renewables enables having a reliable electricity supply. It seems your comment indicates you are (wilfully?) ignorant about energy storage. I'd suggest your extensive presence here at this website shows IMO you have apparently learned very little and continue to trot-out ill-informed memes.
"What counts as large scale and why is large scale nuclear unsuitable?”
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
Evidence/data I see indicates nuclear fission energy:
* is too slow to deploy – experienced countries require 10+ years (plan, procure, construct, commission) – see Fig 9 – inexperienced countries like Australia would probably take 15-20 years
* is far too expensive – see Fig 45
* globally is producing less TWh per annum than non-hydro renewables – see Fig 48
* needs many highly skilled people that Australia simply doesn’t have
* is not long-term sustainable – uses finite fuels that cannot sustain a so-called ‘nuclear renaissance’
* will leave a toxic waste legacy that will long outlast any energy benefits gained.
https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2021-773.html
IMO, the only reason for Australia to go down the nuclear path that makes sense is for access to fissile materials for nuclear weapons/military purposes. Our close northern neighbours understand this and would likely respond accordingly.
George Kaplan,
“My contention is that Nuclear doesn’t need to be absolutely the cheapest option, only close enough and with better performance in certain areas.”
Triple (and probably more than) the cost of the cheapest (solar-PV) option? Is that close enough, George?
Nuclear is inflexible energy. Nuclear usually comes in big chunks (i.e. 1-1.5 GWe) that can trip-out without warning, potentially destabilising the grid. How is that better, George?
“Finally, and frankly this is probably why some are so opposed to nuclear development, Australia embracing nuclear energy puts the country on the path to nuclear autonomy.”
For how long, George? Your comments suggest to me you have no idea of the extent of available high-grade uranium resources and how quickly these can be depleted.
These graphs might provide an idea, from the Mar 2013 report Fossil and Nuclear Fuels – the Supply Outlook:
* Figure 114: Historical uranium production and projection until 2100 with mine-by-mine production profiles based on Reasonably Assured Resources < 130 USD/kg
* Figure 115: Historical uranium production and projection until 2100 with mine-by-mine production profiles based on Reasonably Assured Resources < 260 USD/kg and Inferred Resources < 260 USD/kg
https://www.energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG-update2013_long_18_03_2013up1.pdf
"Yes I’ll probably be denounced for this, but hey, you need someone to challenge the group think.”
What “group think”, George? Do you mean you are challenging solid evidence/data with your apparent baseless ideology? ?
Geoff, perhaps it’s escaped your attention but reservoirs hold months worth of water and are replenished by rainfall. The recent rain\flood event saw one dam level rise 120% which put it well beyond its drinking water capacity!
How does this compare to storage for electricity? You’re talking about a few hours, maybe, for some fraction of a community. If water reservoirs had the same capacity as power storage we’d all be digging wells in our backyards!
If under 700 MWe is medium, then it follows over 700 MWe is large, correct? Using that criteria NSW has 5 large coal plants, QLD has 6 or 7, Victoria has 2 or 3, and WA 1. NSW also has 2 large Hydro plants, and SA a large Gas plant. If you sub like for like then Australia could easily accommodate half a dozen or more large scale nuclear plants as a green\low carbon alternative.
Too slow to deploy? Well you like cherry picking your data don’t you! Per the figures from your anti-nuclear report, of the 63 units started-up 2011-2020, the fastest took a mere 4.1 years, the slowest 42.8 but the US plant is a major outlier. I’m guessing this refers to Watts Bar Unit 2 . That was halted back in 1985, construction not begun again until 2007, then further delayed after new nuclear regulations required modifications to the old Gen 2 design. The report never provides a name, but then that’s not the point of the report. Alternatively look at China. They built 37 of the 63 units started-up for the period with a mean time of 6.1 years. That’s considerably less than the 10+ years you allege. Now I’m not sure if you consider China an experienced nation, and I’m not saying Australia ought to follow Beijing’s model, OH&S and all that, but they do have 52 units currently operational.
You contend nuclear power is too expensive per the anti-nuclear report, but that’s not based on actual figures, rather it’s based off 30 year predictions which claim offshore wind will drop to a third its current cost, and solar more than halve. According to US Energy Information Administration weighted figures for 2026 in 2020 dollars, offshore wind costs $115.04 per MWh, and battery storage is worse – $121.84 per MWh. If you look at their unweighted figures, the picture is even worse – $120.52 for offshore wind and $119.84 for battery storage. This contrasts with advanced nuclear which costs a mere $76.88 per MWh. Standalone solar is of course cheaper – $32.78 per MWh, but as noted before, when the sun don’t shine … In short it depends which figures you look at.
Honestly I don’t get how this anti-nuclear group arrive at their figures. According to them, in 2019 nuclear had the same output as Wind + Solar + Other Renewables. On the IEA site there’s a graph showing Hydro comprised 16% of global production, Nuclear only 10.3%. But perhaps Hydro isn’t considered Renewable by this group? Wind comprised a mere 5.3%, Solar 2.6%, Biofuels and waste 2.4% (is this considered Renewables?) and Geothermal\Tidal\Other a pitiful 0.5%. By contrast Coal comprised 36.7%, Natural Gas 23.5%, and oddly enough Oil 2.8%. You can’t magically substitute a sector comprising barely more than a tenth for roughly 75% of power actually generated.
Australia lacks skilled people? Well then either promote immigration, or encourage training. Not sure how this is so difficult. If you can do it for doctors and nurses why can’t it be done to keep the lights on?
Not a long term solution? How so? Australia has 147,435 million tonnes of coal as compared to uranium’s 1,780,800 tonnes – roughly 83,000 times as much, but Uranium contains thousands of times as much energy as coal – assuming it can be harvested and utilised. You don’t want coal to be utilised, so why not use uranium which is abundantly plentiful? Remember, in 2020 the top 10 nuclear countries used than 60,000 metric tons. Huh … Apparently peak uranium is a thing – never heard of it. Current uranium reserves can meet 42 years of current consumption levels. If military and secondary sources are added this may be stretched to 72. Was this what you were referring to by “finite fuels that cannot sustain a so-called ‘nuclear renaissance’”? If so that’s a very very cryptic way of phrasing it!!!
Toxic waste legacy? So like the toxic lakes in China produced by Wind\Solar production? Pretty sure Australia can do better.
Oh it’s not the only reason to go down the nuclear path, but it absolutely is a reason. If America is no longer willing to function as a shield for the West then it is up to each independent nation to step up and make its own security decisions.
Based on whose figures, the anti-nuclear report you previously linked to? Look I don’t dispute that Solar is cheaper than Nuclear, the issue is Storage which makes a Renewable exclusive system potentially more expensive than Nuclear – it’s getting late so I won’t track the figures tonight.
Nuclear energy is inflexible? That doesn’t even make sense. Slovakia, France, and the Ukraine all rely on nuclear power for more than half their energy (or at least the Ukraine did pre-invasion) and Hungary is very close – 48% in 2018. If Nuclear is inflexible then how do those countries function? You also claim Nuclear comes in large chunks e.g. 1GWe, but previously you stated small and medium scale Nuclear is sub 300\700 MWe.
What group think? Absolute faith in the supremacy of Renewables. I mean I get SQ’s support for Solar – it’s both a business interest and a community service we all learn from, but there is no one size fits all. A quick Duck for instance suggests it take around 15 MWh per tonne of aluminium to be smelted – something Solar can do, except aluminium smelters tend to produce thousands of tonnes. The Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in the Mojave Desert has a capacity of 392 MW, which sounds great, until you realise that New Zealand’s aluminium smelter alone requires 570 MW or 13% of the power used nationwide. Now New Zealand uses Hydro which means cheap power, but that’s not an option for Australia. Sorry slight tangent there. My point is I’m not challenging solid evidence\data with baseless ideology. If that were that were the case you wouldn’t be relying on activist data and I wouldn’t be referencing facts and figures including government sources. Feel free to believe differently though. Like I said, avoiding group think and being challenged is good.
George Kaplan,
“How does this compare to storage for electricity?”
There’s already the Snowy Scheme:
https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/generation/the-snowy-scheme/
There’s Snowy 2.0 under construction, with an additional 2,000 MW with up to 350 GWh storage. https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/
There are a range of other pumped-hydro projects (proposed, announced, under construction and operating) with a range of capacities and storage.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/pumped-hydro-energy-storage-map-of-australia/
“Alternatively look at China. They built 37 of the 63 units started-up for the period with a mean time of 6.1 years. That’s considerably less than the 10+ years you allege.”
Like many others, you don’t see the whole picture. In the WNISR-2021, Figure 9 · Delays for Units Started Up 2018–2020, shows Expected vs. Real Duration from Construction Start to Grid Connection for Startups 2018–2020. I’d suggest it’s very difficult to hide how long it takes to construct and commission a nuclear generator, because satellites can observe these activities over time. What’s not included (and what is also critical) but can be easily hidden from prying eyes is how much extra time is required to plan, design, license and procure.
The pre-construction phase (that can be easily hidden from view) includes, per IAEA’s report No. NP-T-2.7: Project Management in Nuclear Power Plant Construction: Guidelines and Experience, in FIG. 8. Typical durations for the main contracts:
* Feasibility Study (begins typically 5 years before first concrete pour)
* Detailed Site Survey, EIS (begins 4 years before first concrete pour)
* License
* Design and procurement (begins 4 years before first concrete pour)
* Site preparation (begins 2.5 years before first concrete pour)
From first concrete pour, through construction to startup shown is 64 months (~ 5.3 years). Total project time is ~ 10.3 years. For experienced countries at greenfield sites for the first generator unit it seems consistent that it won’t get better than that, and data indicates usually it will take longer. Where multiple generators are built, it seems it may be possible to reduce construction times slightly for subsequent units.
https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1537_web.pdf
“You also claim Nuclear comes in large chunks e.g. 1GWe, but previously you stated small and medium scale Nuclear is sub 300\700 MWe.”
Smaller generators have higher costs per MWh generated. Most nuclear plants are large.
As at March 2022, there were 437 operating nuclear generator units.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx
Per IAEA, in 2020, there were 442 generator units operational with 392.61 GWe installed capacity. That averages out at 0.89 GWe per unit.
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/WorldTrendNuclearPowerCapacity.aspx
“Honestly I don’t get how this anti-nuclear group arrive at their figures.”
It seems to me you refuse to accept compelling evidence/data (on a range of subjects) that is inconvenient to your ideological narrative.
I think Lazard, CSIRO, etc. are presenting compelling cost data – it’s neither ‘pro-‘ nor ‘anti-‘. It seems to me it’s you that just refuses to accept the evidence/data (apparently on many things) – that’s on you.
The pro-nuclear argument is oxymoronic at all levels. Why would we create something that is already available and free to use? You know, that big old thing in the sky called the sun. It sits safely 150 million kms away generating the same amount of energy that falls on the planet for 1 hour for what the world burns in FF in a year.
1 hr of sunlight = 1 years worth of global FF burned. That’s 8000x times more free energy over FF! If we only captured 1% of solar energy, we would be 80x in front and it’s clean energy! We only need 5% of land surface to capture that solar. So, that’s 1% on each continent. Easy.
I don’t give a flying fig about all the positive arguments about nuclear power. It’s tarnished by two critical points – accidents and safe disposal of waste. These two points is enough reason never to pursue nuclear. And now we have the terrifying prospect in the Ukraine from that dicktator Putin targeting nuclear power stations. God help us, if something ever goes wrong. We’re safe here in Australia, but think of what Europe is facing because of one dick. At least solar/wind generators don’t have that problem of a fallout. It’s just stops working. The equipment will just decay and rust with very minimal impact to the environment and easy to clean-up. Nuclear clean-up? Pfftt… absolute nightmare. Japan and Chernobyl are still reeling from their nuclear accidents and still no end in sight for safe habitation of the area. This should be enough reason never to seek nuclear energy as an electricity generator.
There have been over 90 accidents since 1952 for nuclear power stations. Estimated damage is about US$20B. Who’s paying for this? Who knows what the long term effects will be of the “so called” safe disposals of nuclear waste. We don’t even know about it. And what about the impact on people’s health. Radiation sickness is one thing no one ever wants to be exposed to, let alone FF pollution.
The reality is that the capitalists and mining magnates don’t want people to use free energy. Pure and simple. They want everyone to pay at the expense of a living planet so money can be made. They’ll use any argument to lob against free electricity energy generators (solar/wind/hydro) to preserve their status quo. Well, they can suck eggs. I’m not giving them my money. Can’t wait to get my next car which will be an EV. Already have solar PV, battery, and solar thermal hot water. My days of using FF is dwindling fast. Can only wish more people can transition faster to solar/EV. It will happen just like it did to the dismay of the blacksmiths and cartwheelers when the horse and buggy gave way to ICE. Solar/Wind/Hydro/EV will do the same thing to FF, just a matter of time if it’s not too late already.
Even if it wasn’t for climate change, who doesn’t want free energy?
Geoff Meill’s estimate that an overall time frame of around 10 years is needed to finally end up with an SMR operating at it’s full capacity seems very reliable to me. It’s pretty close to the time span I’d come up with myself .
There’s also the issue of its final cost.
Here’s some info on that from Wise International concerning Generation IV SMR’s which is itself quoting from a 2016 European Commission study:
“It notes that claims supporting SMR economics ‒ which emphasize standardization, learning effects, cost sharing and modularization ‒ “are difficult to quantify due to the lack of existing examples”. The Staff Working Document further states: “Due to the loss of economies of scale, the decommissioning and waste management unit costs of SMR will probably be higher than those of a large reactor (some analyses state that between two and three times higher).”
‘the nuclear industry has been considering the deployment of commercial SMRs since the 1950s, but little has come of it and only a few SMRs are (actually) under construction around the world.”
see: https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/872-873/smr-cost-estimates-and-costs-smrs-under-construction
Wise also refer to the May 2016 final report of the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission and states:
“The Royal Commission was stridently pro-nuclear but was nevertheless unimpressed by the economic case for nuclear power in South Australia.15 In its May 2016 Final Report, the Commission stated: “Taking into account the South Australian energy market characteristics and the cost of building and operating a range of nuclear power plants, the Commission has found it would not be commercially viable to develop a nuclear power plant in South Australia beyond 2030 under current market rules” This initial statement was followed by a very long list of reasons why that was so.
That same Royal Commission also quoted from yet another report they obtained from consulting firm – WSP / Parsons Brinckerhoff. That latter report mentions that the true levelized cost of electricity produces was in the order of 2.5 times higher than “the implausible figures being quoted by NuScale”.
It’s a bit difficult to come up with an understandable final total cost for a Generation IV SMR because there’s so many variables involved in each individual case. But there’s a consistent pattern of nuclear generating plants in general ending up costing far more than expected.
Wise International give the following examples:
“SMR projects won’t be immune from the major cost overruns that have beset large reactors. Indeed cost overruns have already become the norm for SMR projects:
– estimated construction costs for Russia’s floating SMRs increased more than four-fold;
– the estimated construction cost of China’s demonstration HTGR is about twice the initial estimate; and
– recent construction cost estimates for Argentina’s CAREM SMR are 22 times greater than the number being floated in 2004 and the current estimate is a hopelessly uneconomic US$21,900 / kW (well outside the range suggested by the above-mentioned experts)
As well: “The authors also systematically investigated how a domestic market could develop to support a SMR industry across a range of applications ‒ producing process heat for industrial applications; switching SMRs back and forth between electricity generation and water desalination to complement intermittent generation from renewable energy sources; and deploying SMRs as a source of electrical and thermal energy for US military bases. But none of those options show promise.”
I’d also refer any reader to the Nuclear Cost website at:
https://www.nuclearcosts.org/ That website details the extent to which communities in the USA are quickly backing away from SMRs, even subsequently cancelling an intended project.in some instances
The underlying reasons for this can be demonstrated by the cost outcomes so far from the Plant Vogtle project underway in Waynesboro, Georgia.
“Key cost stats: Costs have ballooned from $14 billion to over $27 billion for the new units, and every additional month of delay costs another $90 million. The first two units, constructed between 1976-1987, were expected to cost $660 million but ended up costing almost $9 billion.”
See: https://www.nuclearcosts.org/track-record
The project is still incomplete
Nuclearcost.org also mentions that: : “American utilities lost $100 billion on nuclear plants that were never finished. More than 100 nuclear reactors in the U.S. have been cancelled, nearly half of which had already begun construction. ”
Just to conclude, it seems to me that a 2 unit SMR would probably have a quoted initial cost at to-days’ prices around $27 Billion USD. Factor in delays in construction, delays etc etc you might find yourself paying around $55 billion USD by the time the project is completed. (if it ever was)
You’d also have to allow for the costs involved in prefabrication of various portions of the final complete reactor set-up and shipping them out to Australia. The cost of shipping the various bits and pieces out to Australia, and then further transporting those to the construction site would be very high, and you may also have to initially pay for the costs of transporting and loading those on-board in the USA if you want a FOB price.
If we assume $27 billion as the cost of this one plant, then it seems to me that it would be far more beneficial to Australia’s national interests to split that amount in half, and allocate it 50/50 between upgrading military defense and putting as much solar as we can on household and industrial roofs so our dependency on a ‘grid’ as a major source of our national energy supply is reduced as much as possible.
George Kaplan,
“Nuclear energy is inflexible? That doesn’t even make sense.”
https://physicsworld.com/a/can-nuclear-be-used-to-balance-renewables/
“If Nuclear is inflexible then how do those countries function?”
The remainder of generating capacity (within the country or imported from other countries) must be very flexible.
“Australia lacks skilled people? Well then either promote immigration, or encourage training.”
That all takes time – time it seems Australia doesn’t have. A former coalition resources minister and coal lobbyist says coal-fired power stations could be closed within a decade. An inexperienced country like Australia would need 15-20 years to get the first nuclear reactor operational – far too late to replace retiring coal generators.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-04/coal-fired-power-could-end-within-10-year-says-ian-macfarlane/100850994
“Toxic waste legacy? … Pretty sure Australia can do better.”
Apparently, it doesn’t look like it with what Australia is doing now.
https://theconversation.com/the-uranium-mine-in-the-heart-of-kakadu-needs-a-better-clean-up-plan-115566
“Current uranium reserves can meet 42 years of current consumption levels.”
Reactor units typically have an operational life of 50-60 years. Increase the consumption rate and the time to depletion of high-grade ores reduces proportionally. Reactor units ain’t much good if they don’t have adequate nuclear fuel to keep them running. Thus, a so-called ‘nuclear renaissance’ is not long-term sustainable, even utilising military and secondary sources that may be difficult to access.
The “All sources of energy….” quote – essentially, that nuclear should compete on a level playing field with everything else – sums up my position. The practical implications vary enormously based on circumstances. Germany had nuclear capacity it is now mothballing – that may be reversed in whole or part. France has substantial capacity. China is building capacity and plans fuelling it in part with Australian sourced uranium. Australia has minimal capacity – none contributing to retail electricity consumption. The hurdles for establishing it are very high indeed, but perhaps not insurmountable. Hydro supplies a very small fraction of retail demand – about 6%. George is right to highlight the value of continuity of supply in a network dominated by renewables. That is why the wholesale price of electricity in Australia – normally measured in single cents per kWh – occasionally increases by a factor of 300. The 100 year old practice of using hydro power for baseload power is nuts, and has to end. We need to value – and price – hydro power for the depth of supply it can deliver – in a network structured to take advantage of that supply. Emptying storages daily at 20c a kWh, when the value of the last available MWH at the end of a bleak, windless winter (night) is north of $20, is crazy. Yes, batteries may be able to supply a good deal of this, much of the time. But they depend upon regular, consistent recharging to keep supplying. I’d like to see the analysis around the one-in-20 years events of low wind and poor solar across the grid. Data and analysis beats uninformed conjecture every time.
Joseph,
Why don’t you instead do the analysis of 1 in 20 years yourself, or locate some authoritative source of info such as the Australian Bureau of Meteorology who may already have some similar sort of analysis relating to low wind speeds and poor solar radiation?
Then show that to us and give us the sources so we can evaluate them.
It’s a bit ridiculous to simply chant the equivalent of a wishful mantra such as ‘when the wind doesn’t blow etc etc.” as though that’s some ‘secret knowledge’ kept hidden for aeons, and that no-one but yourself and like-minded initiates have actually noticed for the very first time that
(a) the sun stops shining for roughly half a 24 hour day on average.
(b) people who build wind turbines don’t build them in areas where there’s little or no wind, and THEN…
ask those who disagree with your “conclusions” to “prove” you wrong.
The venture capitalists and highly experienced engineers who build wind farms are not dumb. They don’t invest $millions of their own money without doing their ‘home-work’ .
.
.
Des, two points in response. First, I do think the onus of ‘proof’ (using that word somewhat loosely) is on those seeking to make significant societal changes. My point remains – both nationally and internationally using hydro power for baseload electricity seems to me a gross under-valuation of that resource, especially looking forward. Secondly, I am sure – like you – that most investors in large scale renewables do their homework and will make a reasonable return from their investments. However, each of those investments will be on its own terms, and I am certain all of them will express howls of outrage if they are are subject in future to some form of new cost (or tax) to ensure grid reliability and continuity of supply. The trouble with externalities is that they are external, but society and governments still have to deal with them. For the record, I have just installed an 18.9 kW system down here in Tasmania.
George Kaplan,
Here’s another very recent news item that supports my above general contention at: https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/campbell-newman-nuclear-mb2380/#comment-1394033 that continuing to build large-scale electricity generation capacity accompanied by an electricity grid distribution that has huge numbers of people and businesses dependent on it for a large proportion of their energy needs is now proving to be an act of folly..
It’s just been reported by Sky News that thousands of South Koreans were fleeing their homes because of fears that a rapidly spreading wildfire would engulf the nearby Hanul nuclear power plant, and possibly their Samcheok liquefied natural gas complex as well.
See: https://news.sky.com/story/south-korea-thousands-flee-their-homes-after-wildfire-engulfs-city-and-threatens-nuclear-power-station-12557995
Earlier, back on the 15th February 2022, Sky News also reported that North Korea’s nuclear site had been hit by a series of small earthquakes following the testing of their largest thermonuclear device to date. . “In the weeks after the explosion experts said a series of tremors and landslides near the nuclear test base was a sign the large blast had destabilised the region, which had never previously registered natural earthquakes.”
See: https://news.sky.com/story/north-koreas-nuclear-site-hit-by-series-of-earthquakes-south-korea-says-12542515
Wow! Solar industry blog run by solar aggregator selling solar, says nuclear is not a good idea and slams politician who is not keen on solar. Well that’s gotta be balanced unbiased info then!!! ????
I’d say you’re smart to suspect bias, but you can check for it by looking up which is clearly cheaper — new nuclear capacity or solar+wind+storage. Let me know if I got it wrong.
Michael, speaking as a layman, SQ naturally have their own biases, but civil debate can prove educational. I’m pro-nuclear, at least in theory, but a little bit of reading left me shocked to discover that we may run out of uranium before we run out of oil and coal – ignoring whether Greenies outlaw the use of fossil fuel..
I’m a skeptic when it comes to variable unreliable energy aka Wind and Solar, but we need all sorts to advance. To badly paraphrase an old lecturer, you start with the thesis (a hypothetical proposition, especially one devoid of proof), giving rise to an anti-thesis (contradicts or negates said thesis), with the tension and contradictions resolved through the creation of a synthesis (which becomes the new thesis). SQ’s thesis\focus is on Solar (and Wind) supplanting reliable energy – Coal etc. Those of us who fall into the Skeptic category get to argue the anti-thesis, and perhaps one day we’ll arrive at a superior Synthesis. 😀
Now as to what sort of energy mix that Synthesis will entail, well we ain’t there yet, and technology continues to develop. Could it entail fusion power or some sort of SF technology? Perhaps. Could it entail heavy use some sort of energy storage? Perhaps.Could it entail … who knows? For now the debate is at least partially over centralised power – Hydro\Coal etc sending it to home and business users, versus decentralised power where homes and businesses produce their own power and send to or draw from the grid (or personal storage), as needed.
George,
The war in Ukraine has triggered the realisation of many that the transition to a variety of renewable based sources of energy needs to be significantly sped up. . That’s in addition to turning our present concept of a ‘grid’ totally on it’s head.
Unless of course our country is perfectly happy to run the risk of being ‘held to ransom’ for most of its electricity supply in various ways, or face such issues as – ‘oil shock’ because price per barrel rises from $60 to around $300, control mechanisms for ancillary equipment of nuclear power plants (which surround the actual reactor) get either cyber-hacked or sabotaged , or a single huge hydro-power dam collapses or becomes almost completely useless because of such things as an earthquake, or its water supply drying up.or reducing significantly.
I’d suggest that the Keynesian model, which tends to make ‘the lowest unit cost’ the most significant factor in economic comparisons between competing alternatives, is not appropriate when national projects that affect the lives of millions of people, the economic output of our entire country, along with our national security are involved.
As an aside, the nuclear power industry seems to have a history of sometimes fudging numbers, which tends to reduce the validity of any comparisons with other generating alternatives
You might find it worthwhile to do a search using the term “nuclear power industry corruption’ and spend 30 minutes or so going through some of the results of that