The operation of just one nuclear power station in Queensland would require cutting off renewable energy output equivalent to tens of thousands of home solar power systems every day says Queensland Conservation Council (QCC).
The Coalition wants to see nuclear plants at what are or will eventually be shuttered coal power sites around the country, including two in Queensland – one at Callide and the other at Tarong. The Coalition’s plan would mean increased burning of fossil fuels for many years while these power stations are being constructed. Australia’s existing ban aside, nuclear power plants are incredibly expensive and slow to build, and nuclear power doesn’t play well with renewable energy.
Nuclear power stations can’t be switched on and off as demand dictates. While output can be dialled down to a degree, there may still often be electricity surplus to demand during the “solar window” each day; and this could pose a threat to grid stability.
Nuclear-Powered Home Solar Shutdowns?
Something has to give during these times – either the expensive nuclear electricity or the cheap power from renewable energy. This could include home solar systems.
The tools needed for remote solar power system shutdowns are already in place in Queensland. Ergon Energy and Energex have the capability to remotely switch off some systems via a “dumb” device called a GSD, which is meant to be a tool of last-resort.
But “last resort” may become more common in a grid with nuclear power. And it’s simply not needed, as by the time the first nuclear plant could be built – around 2040 at the earliest – technologies such as batteries and pumped hydro should be providing the flexible storage needed to support renewables.
According to Queensland Conservation Council:
“Baseload generation is what our power system was built on, but it’s not what we need in the future. Saying that we need baseload generation is like saying that we need floppy disks to transfer files between computers.”
In its report titled Delayed Reaction: Why Queensland Will Never Need Nuclear Energy, the QCC estimates 3,700 GWh of cheap renewable energy would need to be wasted every year just to allow a single 1GW nuclear power station to run.
“This means the equivalent of an average of 45,000 Queensland household solar systems would need to be shut off every day.”
The organisation bases its estimates on the Australian Energy Market Operator’s “Step Change” scenario in the AEMO’s 2024 Integrated System Plan.
Queensland is not an island. Interconnectors between the state and New South Wales allow it to export power south. But if the Coalition’s plans reach fruition, there may not be anywhere to export it to. Whether it’s shutting down home solar or more curtailment of large-scale wind and PV, the “solution” is an awful waste of cheap-as-chips power.
Nuclear Spectre Scaring Investors
Even if the Coalition’s nuclear dream isn’t achieved, that it exists is starting to make some renewable energy investors nervous. Policy uncertainty has held back Australia’s renewable energy transition in years gone by. This rehashed nuclear debate has the potential do the same.
Raising this rotten old chestnut (yet again) seems to be an Opposition specialty. Whichever way it turns out, the distraction of nuclear power in Australia will be a huge waste of time, money – and energy.
Queensland has nearly doubled its renewable energy capacity in five years says QCC. While there are plenty of large-scale facilities operating or currently under construction, a significant part of the growth is associated with home solar power in QLD. This has fundamentally changed when the state needs energy to support the grid and QCC believes it’s where the Opposition should be directing its attention.
“We would like to see the Federal Opposition focus on a real plan for bringing down emissions and power prices and that would mean backing renewable energy and storage.”
About Michael Bloch
RSS - Posts
Ah. Now the truth comes out – the Coalition’s nuclear dream is making renewable energy investors nervous! Except, hasn’t Labor’s anti-coal, pro-wind, pro-solar, pro-battery plans made other energy investors nervous? The failure of the 2 major parties to agree to a constant(ish) energy policy means a change in government, and energy policy, places any investment at risk.
There’s also a high degree of support for nuclear power in Australia. According to a JWS survey a majority of men support the proposal, though women are far less certain – 29.75% support it, 28.75% oppose, and the rest are neutral or can’t say. There’s not an absolute majority of voters supporting it yet, but at 41% in favour and only 25% opposed, the anti-nuclear crowd will need to work hard to drum up support.
And given the nuclear plants are intended to replace current coal power plants, ultimately what matters is what locals want – they’re the ones who have to live with any issues. Same as locals should get to decide if battery farms or solar farms or wind farms get placed in their areas. Except it seems some don’t think locals should get the right to refuse renewable energy investments – unless they’re affecting the views of 1%ers or the like. Double standards no?
Hi George,
The hard right science deniers in the Queensland LNP rump have a problem, either they’ve so little imagination they can’t comprehend the damage they’re doing, or they’re simply bent by the short term gains of the resource industry. Either way nobody is investing in new coal burners thankfully, but investment uncertainty is an ongoing disaster for all of us.
Most coal will retire well before nuclear is ready to replace it. The LNP want to slow the deployment of utility solar & wind. Ted O’Brien has admitted that their policy will require a lot more gas, and that’s the point. They know that nuclear is unviable but it’s an excuse to carry on with the failed idea of a “gas fired recovery” until we hit a tipping point of disorderly transition because gas too becomes unviable.
Estimates are that it will actually require ~2,400 TWh of gas generation out to FY2052, from ~26 GW of gas power stations. That will require the construction of 18 GW of mostly combined cycle gas turbines costing ~$31b. The fuel cost at $10/GJ would be approx $170b.
In contrast, the 2024 ISP requires ~17 GW of gas generating ~270 TWh out to FY2052. It is unclear where all this extra gas will come from under the LNP nuclear+gas scenario, particularly in Victoria which is already being warned about gas supply shortfalls in the coming years.
All this gas will result in ~1700 MT more emissions than the 2024 ISP step-change scenario (3.5x more). That’s equivalent to 380 years of emissions at the annual rate predicted by the ISP in its last 5 years. Thanks to David Osmond for the analysis.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/536404290091553
The climate wars are still with us and in a dismal display of short sightedness, they’re being turned into culture wars.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-12/ret-clean-energy-sector-uninvestable-analyst-says/6013090
2015 is some time ago, but it’s not entirely wrong. What the Left want for energy the Right do not, what the Right want for energy the Left will not tolerate. Since no government has managed more than 2 terms since the Howard Era, any investment has to be secure within a 3-6 year period, else be government funded like the ‘good old days’.
I’m unclear on why you’re referencing QLD’s LNP when it’s the federal Coalition pushing nuclear. To refer to either the Coalition or the LNP, or a subset thereof as Hard Right science deniers is unhelpful. Should we refer to refer to Labor’s Hard Left or the Radical Extremist Greens as science deniers too? A mutual exchange of insults limits dialogue or any chance of common ground.
Oh if you’re interested in the JWS source, it was this piece: https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/sustainability/peter-dutton-visits-queensland-back-country-in-nuclear-energy-push/news-story/c4c311c83edf71a99738c76c484fc542 To repeat what I said before though, albeit simplistically, men want nuclear, women are undecided.
I’m not aware of Ted O’Brien’s (who?) nuclear is an excuse to get gas, and the most I’m getting in searches is Ted O’Brien promising gas and renewable energy policies before the election, presumably these will support nuclear baseload power – I’m summarising headlines and blurbs.
From what I can see most nations with nuclear power are either building more nuclear plants or planning to. According to Statistica there’s 59 under construction worldwide, with China alone accounting for 25! There are about 440 currently in operation, though Australia’s doesn’t count as 1 of them.
The NEM Watch\Facebook link is interesting. Like Kiewa Valley, my area does not want to have a battery farm dumped on them. If Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide etc want battery farms then let them build them in Sydney, Melbourne etc! But they don’t because imposing them on rural areas means money saved & less risks for big business & TPTB.
Hi George,
Ted O’Brien tells lies and when he does it at an energy conference full of people who actually know what they’re taking about, they are known to walk out instead of listening to his insulting dribble.
The LNP are a Queensland conglomeration of National and Liberal Party and unlike the former Country Party, the Nationals are representing mining interests not farmers. If Dutton doesn’t cater to some of these LNP science denying cranks then his coalition is in trouble. The Liberal party isn’t really pushing for nuclear and they’ll never win back teal seats doing it, so that should make for some political stability. ie the left want Dutton to keep talking about nuclear because it makes him unelectable.
Except that if the “alternative government” is talking about long term public subsidy for nuclear then it creates doubt and prevents any further private investment in everything else. The lunacy is that 5 out of the 7 proposed sites are in states with nuclear bans and they won’t get up without compulsory acquisition because the owners have other plans for them.
The push for nuclear isn’t a plan, there’s no detail so it is at once a brain fart and a political tool to make Dutton look like a leader who will take on tough positions.
They have no intention of building nuclear, most of the people arguing for it will retire before any ribbon cutting happens, they’re just looking to expand gas and keep business as usual coal going.
George Kaplan: – “There’s also a high degree of support for nuclear power in Australia.”
I’d suggest most Australians don’t have a clue about the pros & cons regarding nuclear tech. I think most of the media has a lot to answer for this gross deficiency in informing Australians.
On 24 Jun 2024, ABC TV’s Media Watch broadcast a segment titled Dutton’s nuclear play. Per the transcript, it included a reference to:
https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/nuclear/104016088
Most, if not all ageing, increasingly unreliable & increasingly more expensive to run coal-fired generators in Australia will be closed by 2038 – see the latest AEMO’s ISP. What would keep the ‘lights on’ in Australia while we wait 20+ years for any prospective nuclear generator units to become operational, George? I think that’s the serious conversation Australians need to have.
And global supplies of fossil methane gas are only going to get more expensive and scarcer.
US petroleum geologist Art Berman was in conversation with Johan Landgren in the YouTube video titled Arthur Berman: The Perfect Energy Storm – Peak Cheap Oil and Natural Gas is here, published 16 Feb 2024, duration 55 minutes. On when the US shale gas decline is likely, Art Berman said (from around the 37 minute mark):
“I’m quite confident that before this decade is over we’re going to see some serious supply concerns by markets for both oil and natural gas…”
We’ll see soon if Berman is correct.
Couldn’t one say the same about most things, that most Australian’s know very little & thus reliant on politicians, approved groups of experts, &\or the media to shape their views?
Well of course Crikey is hostile to Dutton, they’re recognised as a strong Left media outlet, & that’s according to the Media Bias/Fact Check site. For comparison purposes ABC (Australia) is classed as ‘Left-Center’ with News.com.au ‘Right-Center’.
Technically true, if highly misleading:
– 50% of VIC power is provided by Loy Yang, owner Alinta has stated they intend to operate until 2047, state Labor has declared a 95% renewable energy target for 2035.
– Yallourn, which supplies 20%, should close within the next couple of years.
– Brown Coal was responsible for 68% of Victorian generation in the last 12 months.
– NSW has 4 coal plants & plans to close 83% of capacity by 2035. Eraring comprises over a third of generation & is supposed to shut next year.
– Black Coal was responsible for 72% of NSW generation in the last 12 months.
– Half of QLD’s power stations are currently scheduled to close by 2037, but this is ‘only’ 52% of capacity.
– Black Coal was responsible for 74% of QLD generation in the last 12 months.
-Gas is over 3x coal capacity in WA. The largest – supplying half the capacity will shut in the next couple of years, with a second smaller station shutting shortly after. There’s also a mine which will run out by 2035 & its power station presumably shut. That will leave a quarter the current coal generation.
20+ years is about a worst case interpretation for nuclear plant construction. Median construction time over the past 40 years ranges from 10 years – worst case scenario, to 58 months!
The global average since the 1950s is 6-8 years for a reactor, but it can be done in 3-5. South Korea, Japan, & of course China are fastest to build them. 83% were built in less than 10 years, 95% less than 15 years, & one took 43 years because government muddle. It can be done.
George Kaplan: – “Median construction time over the past 40 years ranges from 10 years – worst case scenario, to 58 months!”
Construction cannot happen without the pre-implementation phase (i.e. planning, licensing, design, procurements, site prep, etc.).
ICYMI/FYI, the IAEA produced a document as part of their Nuclear Energy Series, Technical Report No. NP-T-2.7, titled Project Management in Nuclear Power Plant Construction: Guidelines and Experience, published Feb 2012. It includes FIG 8, which highlights the typical prerequisite time required of the order of 5 years, for planning, licensing, design, equipment procurements and site preparations that must happen before the first concrete pour milestone can even happen.
https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1537_web.pdf
The construction times for reactors are usually quoted—they’re easy enough to find; just look at the IAEA’s Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) data—but it seems to me the prerequisite pre-project implementation time is conveniently ignored by the Coalition, nuclear boosters, and the incurious media/commentators.
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryStatisticsLandingPage.aspx
Per the World Nuclear Industry Status Report-2023, ten countries completed 66 reactors over the decade 2013–2022—of which 39 in China alone—with an average construction time of 9.4 years, slightly higher than the 9.2 years of mean construction time in the decade 2012–2021.
https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2023-.html
Add 5 years of pre-project implementation time to the 9.4 years global average construction time, and on average, experienced nuclear power countries are demonstrating they are requiring much more than a decade to deploy new civilian nuclear powered electricity generator units.
George Kaplan: – “20+ years is about a worst case interpretation for nuclear plant construction.”
Is it? Some examples I see that provide a closer approximation to how long it actually takes to deploy existing nuclear technologies include:
• United Arab Emirates has demonstrated it took more than 15-years to get its first nuclear reactor unit operational from scratch, from an Energy Planning Study in 2006 through to announcement of their Nuclear Policy in 2008, to construction commencing for BARAKAH-1 on 19 Jul 2012 to full operations on 1 Apr 2021, and more than 18-years for its BARAKAH-4 (yet to be fully operational) unit;
• Finland has demonstrated it took more than 22-years to get its OLKILUOTO-3 unit operational, from a first licence application in Dec 2000, to construction commencing on 12 Aug 2005 to full operations on 1 May 2023;
• USA has demonstrated it took almost 17-years to get its VOGTLE-3 unit operational, from Southern Nuclear’s formal application for an Early Site Permit in Aug 2006, to construction commencing on 2 Mar 2013 to full operations on 31 Jul 2023, and 18-years for (yet to be fully operational) VOGTLE-4 unit;
• China has demonstrated it took more than 18-years to get its twin demonstration reactors designated SHIDAOBAY-1 (SHIDAOWAN-1) operational, from initial approval in Nov 2005, to construction commencing on 9 Dec 2012 to full operations on 6 Dec 2023;
• Russia has demonstrated it took around 20-years to get its floating twin small reactors designated AKADEMIK LOMONOSOV-1 & -2 operational, from when the Ministry for Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation (Rosatom) chose Severodvinsk in Arkhangelsk Oblast as the construction site in 2000, to construction commencing on 15 Apr 2007 to full operations on 22 May 2020.
I’d suggest Australia, as an inexperienced nuclear energy country, would likely take 20+ years.
Minor Addendum – while 6-8 years is the average for reactor construction, Australia is already facing further soaring power prices. It’s recently been reported that AEMO wholes prices this June were 23% higher than last year. Higher AEMO prices means higher bills in the future. Low wind and reduced rain in the south means hydro and wind generation dropped significantly (-20% & -18%) with gas picking up most of the slack (+16%), and black coal providing a minor boost (+7%).
If government won’t support reliable energy, and instead foist an unaffordable renewable energy grid on customers, those who can will simply opt out leaving those who can’t opt out to fund the entire thing.
Nuclear power to provide reliable affordable power, plus the other benefits, would seem to be the smart play. But is Australia a smart nation? Or does it prefer to be a dependent state?
George Kaplan: – “Nuclear power to provide reliable affordable power, plus the other benefits, would seem to be the smart play.”
How without fuel?
Per the WNA, world uranium ore production hasn’t met world demand since about 2015. See the graph titled World uranium production and reactor requirements (tonnes U).
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/world-uranium-mining-production
High-grade uranium ores are only going to get scarcer & more expensive. See the Energy Watch Group’s report titled Fossil and Nuclear Fuels – the Supply Outlook, Figure 113: Historic and possible future development of uranium production and demand.
https://energywatchgroup.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/EWG-update2013_long_18_03_2013up1.pdf
Reprocessing spent fuel rods is another option but that more expensive to do, and very hazardous from a radiological perspective. And there are currently limited facilities around the world to process them.
Thorium has no fissionable isotopes: it is impossible to start any fission chain reaction purely on mined thorium, and therefore any nuclear system relying on thorium would be initially dependent on prior generation of fissile matter (extracted from uranium or bred in uranium systems).
The development of new fuels or new reactor concepts is a time- and resource-consuming process likely to span several decades. Any industrial application of thorium as a nuclear fuel would continue to require the input of fissile material from the existing uranium/plutonium cycle until the required amounts of ²³³U could be produced to ultimately make the thorium cycle self-sustaining.
Nuclear technologies are demonstrating ever diminishing returns, both energetically and monetarily.
Nuclear technologies use finite fuels inadequate to sustain long-term a so-called “nuclear renaissance”.
We installed solar in March 2019 (In SA). It paid off 2.5 years later. Then the Fit dropped to 6 cents but we pay 46 cents to the retailer!. I don’t see the ROI on solar is viable so we won’t replace or expand our system. In short, I’m done with paying to generate electricity for the retailers.
Talking to others, there is a growing sentiment that advent of renewables has increased prices. The source might be free but the rest isn’t.
Before anyone suggests battery storage, I prefer to not risk burning my house down especially with us in it at the time.
For me, nuclear cannot come fast enough.
FIT dropped to 2c/kWh in WA and we pay about 28c/kWh, but in WA the main generation is still gov. owned and with my 6.6/5kW solar and regular cost-of-living adjustments due to the election year I am still smiling as I have been in credit for a long time!
My inverter has stopped only once so far due to voltage going above 253VAC.
Let’s hope that the new Kwinana battery soaks up the daily PV surplus as we are in trouble in WA once Muja (Collie) closes. Alcoa uses 60% of the gas and the pipe from the NW does not have any more extra capacity to allow for “gas firming” to take place.
You just need to change your behavior to take advantage of the cheap power you’re generating. It’s what I would do.
LG didnt help with home energy storage safety perception, neither did the reporting and handling of it. It should never have been a voluntary recall to begin with. Reminds me of the Takata airbags
You need to be objective about these things.
Yes the LG batteries/management system was/is a problem, but there is a large gap between installing a home battery will burn you house down eventually to a LG made battery has caused a dozen or so instances of property damage, 1 destroyed house, 1 personal injury.
We do far riskier things every day
When we lose our feed in of 44c here in QLD we will be changing what we do to take advantage of the cheap solar. We’ve already budgeted it out. Batteries and all.
Waiting on nuclear to provide cheap power is a fools errand.
In the forum “Whirlpool” – site “Economics of the transition” interesting figures are being discussed for variable RE vs. nuclear and be happy you are living in an election year as Qld is getting a $1,000 cost-of-living adjustment due to higher VRE power prices and us sandgropers in WA only get $700, but we are better looking!
Silly Ted O’Brian is still spruiking SMRs despite the fact that no reliable cost figures are available yet. Clever Dutton as a smart politician is promising jobs in places of dead or dying coal plants and has got one thing right, namely new transmission lines will not be required if you place a 2GW or 3GW CO2-free reactor in place of the 2,850MW Eraring coal-fired station.
The worst example is the Hume Link for Snowy H2, where 360km cost us $5billion, so the required 10,000km by 2030 will alone cost $139bn.
We used to have 20GW of coal baseload and by 2050 we will need 40GW. Using the Barakah UAE reactor figure of $8.7bn/GW or the Finnish Okiluto or Polish reactor cost of $11bn/GW, by 2050 40GW x $11bn will cost us $440bn in reactors.
Total VRE cost by 2050 without new grid costs $400bn and with 28,000km of new transmission lines will cost us $800bn! The figures show us that both, VRE and nuclear will cost us eye-watering billions and like SH2 with 2GW dispatchable at $12bn and rising or $6bn/GW and 350GWh storage far too long in time to completion.
Dominic Wild: – “Using the Barakah UAE reactor figure of $8.7bn/GW or the Finnish Okiluto or Polish reactor cost of $11bn/GW…”
Multiple examples suggest the $/GW cost for Australia would likely be significantly more…
UAE’s BARAKAH-1, -2, -3 & -4; 4x APR-1400; 1,337 MWₑ net capacity each; project cost US$34 billion (around AU$51 billion);
Finland’s OLKILUOTO-3; EPR; 1,600 MWₑ net capacity; project cost €11 billion (over AU$17.5 billion);
USA’s VOGTLE-3 & -4; 2x AP-1000; 1,117 MWₑ net capacity each; project cost more than US$30 billion (AU$44 billion);
France’s FLAMANVILLE-3; EPR; 1,630 MWₑ net capacity; project cost €13.2 billion (AU$21 billion);
China’s SHIDAO BAY-1; HTR-PM; 200 MWₑ net capacity; project cost US$6,000 (AU$9,200) per kilowatt;
Russia’s AKADEMIK LOMONOSOV-1 & -2; 2x KLT-40S ‘Floating’; 32 MWₑ net capacity each; project cost least 37 billion roubles as of 2015 (US$₂₀₁₅740 million).
UK’s HINKLEY POINT C-1 & -2; 2x EPR-1750; 1,630 MWₑ net capacity each; project cost at around £31–34 billion, or AU$58.3–63.9 billion.
On 17 Jul 2024, the Czech government announced that KNHP had submitted the winning bid to build at least two, and possibly four APR-1000 reactors to replace existing Soviet-era reactors at Dukovany, which set the cost per GW at US$8.6 billion (over AU$13 billion). Czechia is offering a brownfield site, at no additional cost. By contrast, under Dutton’s proposals, the costs of a nuclear plant in Australia would need to include the compulsory acquisition of existing sites, from mostly unwilling vendors.
Dutton’s nuclear fantasy cost order of magnitude is likely in the hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps over a trillion. Is it any wonder the Coalition won’t reveal their cost estimate?
Geoff: “Finland’s OLKILUOTO-3; EPR; 1,600 MWₑ net capacity; project cost €11 billion (over AU$17.5 billion);”
1.6GW for AUS$17.5bn or AUS$11bn/GW does not look too terrifying. By 2035 all our coal should have disappeared, so as a mathematical exercise and without variable RE, our former 20GW of coal energy produced via nuclear would cost about 20GW x $11bn or 220bn.
I know CSIRO Gencost and AEMO ISP 2024 talk of our nuclear cost doubling due to FOAK or first-of-a-kind-guessing with nuclear, but in their reports they do what the French diplomatically call “corrige la fortune” like giving nuclear a life of only 30 years vs. 60, solar a CF of 35% and wind at 45%, using the “sunk cost” trick and leaving firming and connection costs out to bend the figures their way.
Dominic Wild: – “1.6GW for AUS$17.5bn or AUS$11bn/GW does not look too terrifying.I know CSIRO Gencost and AEMO ISP 2024 talk of our nuclear cost doubling due to FOAK or first-of-a-kind-guessing with nuclear, but in their reports they do what the French diplomatically call “corrige la fortune” like giving nuclear a life of only 30 years vs. 60”
Lazard does. Per Lazard LCOE+ v17, on page 9:
Nuclear LCOE ranges from $US142–222/MWh with an illustrative midpoint LCOE for VOGTLE-3 & -4 at $US190/MWh. Note 4 includes (bold text my emphasis):
https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf
VOGTLE-3 & -4 LCOE: US$190/MWh ≈ AU$290/MWh
circa 2.5 times Australian ‘firmed’ wind + solar (AU$100-135/MWh GenCost).
And Australia would need to wait 20+ years for any operational generator units. What keeps the ‘lights on’ in the interim? I’d suggest that’s the serious question Australians should be exploring.
It seems to me that the author objects to nuclear power because it can’t be turned on and off to cope with solar power which can’t reliably be turned on. That’s about as backwards as logic gets.
As always when there are money and careers at stake there are too many people pushing too many barrows. It is really hard to get people to understand anything when their paychecks depend on them not understanding.
I’ve done my best to minimize dependence on the grid. And I’m pleased with the results. My battery gets me through all but very low solar generation days. And my life would not be materially different if I disconnected from the grid entirely.
Now, as far as the grid goes, just engineer something which provides the necessary levels of power even during a week or two of overcast, windless weather. THEN start having a debate about the merits of the alternatives.
Hi Forest,
Excuse the canned response but I have a few links saved here:
“Baseload” is electricity jargon which used to mean the minimum load you could justify running a thermal plant.
Now it’s been hijacked by the coal industry, it roughly translates to “please remember when we were kings”
Things like off peak water heaters were introduced so that large thermal plants could be kept ticking along at a base rate. Stoking them up and down every day shortens the life of a boiler, so artificially cheap tariffs were introduced to -create- demand where it would otherwise never be.
Instead of shaping demand with limited availability tariffs designed to suit lumbering inefficient steam engines, we now have real time pricing to incentivise use when energy is cheap… so SAPN has for years now offered a “solar sponge” tariff at 25% normal rates compared to 125% for peak use.
There is genuine surplus in the system so the cheap rates are in the middle of the day now, and they’re cheaper than ever. So much so that feed in tariffs for consumers have fallen to almost zero.
That means people have incentive to change their behaviour, use their own energy, be more efficient. It’s actually well suited to large thermal batteries like hot water and ceramic heat banks.
Combined with demand response, where you’re effectively paid to curtail your use, and dynamic tariffs to incentivise batteries, “baseload” just disappears in a puff of smoke called negawatts.
https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/the-real-lesson-about-the-end-of?fbclid=IwAR2SLUYvlNVRNPeXlpHQuMv8hxrioJHXjuJAiljidvCr9218axMyESh0xd8
Very disappointing that a reputable site would distribute such flagrant propaganda.
And there’s a few more points here Forest:
The economics haven’t favoured nuclear since the Howard days, and he’s the one who made it illegal.
2007 Howard’s Switkowski Report: Nuclear would be double the price of coal or gas.
Carbon pricing could make nuclear power cost competitive
2016 Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Report: it would not be viable in SA to develop a nuclear power station.
2016 SA Citizen’s Jury on Nuclear Waste: 66% of the Jury do not want nuclear to proceed under any circumstances: poor economics, unsubstantiated modelling, high cost of infrastructure, undermines SA’s reputation.
AEMO GenCost 2020-2024 says nuclear is 5x the cost of renewables and batteries and 3x the time.
2019 Senate Committee said not economically unviable in Australia.
2020 Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry: nuclear without enormous subsidies is economically unviable.
2022: former Chief Scientist Alan Finkel admits: “[nuclear is] nowhere near the level to justify the government seriously considering it…. it’s hard to see any nuclear in Australia in less than 20 years,”
If nuclear was so good why didn’t anything happen in the last decade under the last LNP government?
Its too slow to implement and too expensive.
The CSIRO have been conservative when calculating the costs. They deemed it too expensive even before the Czech government proved it doubly so.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/czech-nuclear-deal-shows-csiro-gencost-is-too-optimistic-and-new-nukes-are-hopelessly-uneconomic/
https://ieefa.org/resources/small-modular-reactors-still-too-expensive-too-slow-and-too-risky?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3XBXBz0VhklHbOpnPLZp9U3SRvCqfbJSR5Wfd3IlxHoooXiE_-FMmhaTI_aem_AT6lbaH_8bizpq9TVNkspJdTXaGy53UcBm9oatfh5tb3mrW4id2eUKrFtxyj4xqo-C4e92tvhgbdOZVhXOLWbxsk
https://www.democracyco.com.au/…/Final-Report_-SA…
https://www.smh.com.au/…/coalition-s-campaign-for…
And even in two posts you have not addressed any of my points.
Very disappointing.
Hi Ross,
I’d address your points but there don’t appear to be any, beyond veiled insults and vague arsertions about “just engineering something”
Fact is that Australia has the world’s best renewable resources and we’re getting on with harnessing them, as well as making the efficiencies needed and deploying the storage required so we no longer have to import 90% of our transport fuel.
The good news is that we don’t need nuclear, however the opposition is set on doing damage to progress by whatever irresponsible means possible.
23 industrialised countries (except Austria) are running 440 nuclear reactors, which are generating 10% of present requirements and they all take out two billion tons of CO2/year equivalent.
Even less endowed countries like Pakistan or the oil-rich UAE use reactors now and many countries made a committment towards nuclear at the last energy conference in the UAE.
Dick Smith received an apology from the CSIRO/ABC fact checkers after he engaged his lawyers and after the ABC claimed there are some countries 100% VRE at the moment, like Bhutan, Albania, etc. Yes, if you use unhealthy open wood or dried dung fires for cooking – no comparison! ICE transport was not considered.
At the moment taxpayers pay for coal to stay open, we get cost-of-living adjustments and subsidies (federal and state) as compensation for higher power prices and industry gets payed for curtailment to keep the lights on.
When I expressed doubts if aluminium can be smelted via batteries, I was told by Solarquotes the Tomago smelter can be throttled down from 850MW to 250MW, but I ask you, is that defensible for our economy’s well being? Plus we pay industry for any curtailments.
Tomago is now asking for VRE investment and it is going to be interesting what the cost figures are going to be for 850MW of PV panels and batteries times four or five – the so-called VRE overbuild ” … as the sun don’t ………”.