News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[PeFe]

Rev wrote
You can’t have be seriously trying to make a point against nuclear power by using foreign studies based on what’s happening in other countries.

Well yes I am......if Australia ever really decided to go down the nuclear pathway, the first thing a government would do is initiate a study into the costs and operations of nuclear power. Since Australia doesnt have any nuclear power you would look at operating systems (and costs)......in other countries.

[SRW]

To those calling for yet more studies into nuclear power: we had a Royal Commission, it found it was unlikely to be profitable. (A repository for global waste, however, had a marginal business case.) So I don’t think the government should spend any more time or money pursuing a fantasy. If the private sector thinks it stacks up, let them prove it.

[rev]

To those calling for yet more studies into nuclear power: we had a Royal Commission, it found it was unlikely to be profitable. (A repository for global waste, however, had a marginal business case.) So I don’t think the government should spend any more time or money pursuing a fantasy. If the private sector thinks it stacks up, let them prove it.

Under which government was it done? Labor?
Do a study under a conservative government, the results will be different.

It’s abaolutely ridiculous that we are not considering nuclear and the ideological psychopaths of Labor and Greens rule it out flatly because it doesn’t for their political ideology, when we have an abundance of fuel for reactors.
Then again we have an abundance of pretty much everything and what we do mine or extract is for foreigners and not for the true national interest, while we remain vulnerable and reliant on foreigners when we could be self sufficient.

[rhino]

Under which government was it done? Labor?
Do a study under a conservative government, the results will be different.

Are you suggesting that the government tilts the outcome of a Royal Commission?
Do you have any basis for that?

[claybro]

I find it interesting also that discussion around nuclear energy in Australia always puts costs and revenue in direct correlation without any subsidies. Without heavy subsidies the renewable industry would never have got off the ground. Fair enough, I get that it is new technology, but the same could also be argued with nuclear, that it is constantly evolving as a technology, so why does it not attract the same subsidies? Also, there is no requirement for renewable energy generators to generate power 24/7- so why is the additional cost of other sources not taken into account when they are not able to generate-both the provision of the equipment and the fuel? Surely the cost of fossil fuel backup should be factored into the cost of each individual generator?-The cost of the giant batteries, is that included in the wind/solar cost per kw/h? The cost of the diesel generators? Also, the lifespan of renewable generation equipment such as wind turbines and solar panels. These have a limited lifespan in relation to a nuclear power plant, so do they take into account the constant replacement of the equipment? I just don't believe they compare apples with apples with the raw cost figures.

[SRW]

To those calling for yet more studies into nuclear power: we had a Royal Commission, it found it was unlikely to be profitable. (A repository for global waste, however, had a marginal business case.) So I don’t think the government should spend any more time or money pursuing a fantasy. If the private sector thinks it stacks up, let them prove it.

Under which government was it done? Labor?
Do a study under a conservative government, the results will be different.

It’s abaolutely ridiculous that we are not considering nuclear and the ideological psychopaths of Labor and Greens rule it out flatly because it doesn’t for their political ideology, when we have an abundance of fuel for reactors.
Then again we have an abundance of pretty much everything and what we do mine or extract is for foreigners and not for the true national interest, while we remain vulnerable and reliant on foreigners when we could be self sufficient.

The whole point of royal commissions is that they conduct inquiries independent of government. Sure, a government has some influence in the way it is establishes the terms of reference and time allowed. But the complete panic the federal Liberals had about setting up a banking royal commission demonstrates that they are not government playthings - once unleashed, they have no control. I actually think it’s a bit of a shame that our politics have become so partisan that the only way we seem to be able to examine serious issues these days is to throw them off to royal commissions (and the productivity commission too).

In any event, your assumption of events is completely contrary to fact. Both the Rann & Weatherill Labor governments were avid advocates for the nuclear fuel cycle, from the overturning of the 30+ year ban on uranium mining in the party platform to setting up the Nuclear Royal Commission. Weatherill would have put us well on the path to having a nuclear waste respository if his government hadn’t been roundly humilated by the citizen jury it established and if Steven Marshall’s Liberals hadn’t so cynically opposed it.

And FYI, although I think nuclear power in SA is a moot point given how fast renewables are advancing, I’m agnostic about the nuclear industry generally (uranium, waste, etc). I think the only way we’d ever see a nuclear reactor in this state is if we get into the nuclear medicine industry. I read recently that there are issues with Lucas Heights in Sydney, and growing global demand for dosages. Given we’ve got the first proton therapy unit coming to the BioMed precinct, perhaps we can leverage that into a larger nuclear medicine industry by building a research reactor somewhere secure like Edinburgh base.

[Listy]

John Howard was a very enthusiastic supporter of nuclear power throughout his prime minister-ship, but despite having a complete majority in both houses of federal parliament for several years, he never introduced legislation to clear the way for nuclear power in this country. That suggests that his cabinet couldn't find a compelling economic or national interest argument for it in the early 2000's and that was before Fukoshima or the rise of solar PV. The wiki entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics ... wer_plants on the economics of nuclear power notes that no nuclear power station has ever been built in a privatized electricity market.

[claybro]

The wiki entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics ... wer_plants on the economics of nuclear power notes that no nuclear power station has ever been built in a privatized electricity market.

This is an interesting observation. But if a private company was guaranteed their new nuclear power station would be guaranteed access to a minimum of 25% of the market, with an almost guaranteed increase in wholesale price year on year for say 20 years, I wonder if the outcome would be different?- because that is effectively the head start the renewables have received in Australia. Coal of course had a 100% subsidy in most cases as various governments funded their construction, but those same government then recouped their money in the sale of the same assets decades later.

[rubberman]

The wiki entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics ... wer_plants on the economics of nuclear power notes that no nuclear power station has ever been built in a privatized electricity market.

This is an interesting observation. But if a private company was guaranteed their new nuclear power station would be guaranteed access to a minimum of 25% of the market, with an almost guaranteed increase in wholesale price year on year for say 20 years, I wonder if the outcome would be different?- because that is effectively the head start the renewables have received in Australia. Coal of course had a 100% subsidy in most cases as various governments funded their construction, but those same government then recouped their money in the sale of the same assets decades later.

Well, if there's a government guarantee, private industry might build it. However, that's just putting the economic risk on the taxpayer. It really doesn't matter who builds it, from an economic perspective, it's a matter of looking at the costs and returns and seeing if they add up. If they do, then you could look at it. However, those championing nuclear have had an awful long time to put their case, without anything seeming to have come forward.

In the case of a guaranteed 25% of the market, how would that work with people putting solar panels and batteries in their houses and going off grid? Or selling into the grid? Or to their neighbours over the fence? What would the 25% be a proportion of?

With quite a few thermal plants going defunct over the next ten years, if nuclear has even the slightest chance, now's the time. If it was remotely possible to build an economic case, why has nobody done so? There are superannuation funds with a couple of trillions of dollars in Australia, looking for solid long term investments. If nuclear has a case, let those who support it make a case.

[claybro]

Well, if there's a government guarantee, private industry might build it. However, that's just putting the economic risk on the taxpayer. It really doesn't matter who builds it, from an economic perspective, it's a matter of looking at the costs and returns and seeing if they add up. If they do, then you could look at it. However, those championing nuclear have had an awful long time to put their case, without anything seeming to have come forward.

In the case of a guaranteed 25% of the market, how would that work with people putting solar panels and batteries in their houses and going off grid? Or selling into the grid? Or to their neighbours over the fence? What would the 25% be a proportion of?

With quite a few thermal plants going defunct over the next ten years, if nuclear has even the slightest chance, now's the time. If it was remotely possible to build an economic case, why has nobody done so? There are superannuation funds with a couple of trillions of dollars in Australia, looking for solid long term investments. If nuclear has a case, let those who support it make a case.

Since renewables are all about reducing carbon output from electricity generation, a renewable energy target was set up to ensure a percentage of Australia's power came from renewables. But if nuclear can also be shown reduce the amount of carbon pollution in power generation, why wouldn't it attract the same guarantee? I'm not sure I understand your question regarding what the 25% would be a portion of. It would be a guarantee to access 25% of the entire market, just as renewables have been guaranteed access to a percentage of the entire market. Suddenly in Australia the argument has switched to cost, when it should also be about reliability of supply 24/7 as well as emissions and cost. From where I see it, there has been no compulsion for the renewable companies to have to guarantee supply 24/7, despite guaranteed access to a percentage of the market 24/7. If wind and solar are now indeed cheaper at producing power, then remove the guarantee, and let private companies bid for generation, provided their emissions are below a certain threshold, but make sure they are required to provide power 24/7, be it from a combination of storage and renewables, nuclear, gas, new coal or whatever.

[Norman]

I think a 20 percent renewables target is different to a guarantee... Unless I'm wrong on that front.

[Nort]

The wiki entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics ... wer_plants on the economics of nuclear power notes that no nuclear power station has ever been built in a privatized electricity market.

This is an interesting observation. But if a private company was guaranteed their new nuclear power station would be guaranteed access to a minimum of 25% of the market, with an almost guaranteed increase in wholesale price year on year for say 20 years, I wonder if the outcome would be different?- because that is effectively the head start the renewables have received in Australia. Coal of course had a 100% subsidy in most cases as various governments funded their construction, but those same government then recouped their money in the sale of the same assets decades later.

Perhaps if the cost of carbon emissions was factored into the construction and operating costs you could see a better case for it, but this current government has pushed back continually on that.

[SBD]

The wiki entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics ... wer_plants on the economics of nuclear power notes that no nuclear power station has ever been built in a privatized electricity market.

This is an interesting observation. But if a private company was guaranteed their new nuclear power station would be guaranteed access to a minimum of 25% of the market, with an almost guaranteed increase in wholesale price year on year for say 20 years, I wonder if the outcome would be different?- because that is effectively the head start the renewables have received in Australia. Coal of course had a 100% subsidy in most cases as various governments funded their construction, but those same government then recouped their money in the sale of the same assets decades later.

Perhaps if the cost of carbon emissions was factored into the construction and operating costs you could see a better case for it, but this current government has pushed back continually on that.

The trouble with that is that there is no direct cost of carbon emissions. Any price put on it is an arbitrary decision of governments, and it can be as large or small as they want. A "market" for carbon emissions is still governed by whatever market rules are created to govern it.

Before everyone on this forum jumps down my throat, I don't mean that there is no value in reducing carbon emissions across the globe, but that value cannot be boiled down to a monetary cost for each individual atom of carbon that had been locked up in the ground, plants and animals and is now released to the atmosphere.

[PeFe]

Bungala Solar Farm's second stage has come online, making it Australia's largest solar farm.......until bigger farms are built in the eastern states.
From Renew Economy

Bungala – second stage of what will be country’s biggest solar begins generation

The second stage of what will be – at least for a brief time – the country’s biggest solar farm has begun generating to the grid.

The Bungala solar farm – near Port Augusta in South Australia – will be a 220MW solar farm the first two stages are complete. The first 110MW stage was completed earlier this year, and now the second stage – after delays including strike action – has begun producing to the grid.

The project is owned by Enel Green Power and the Dutch Infrastructure Fund and its output is contracted to Origin Energy.

Full article : https://reneweconomy.com.au/bungala-sec ... ion-42676/

[rev]

Is there any plan to install Tesla powerwalls or something similar at our mobile phone towers and other critical infrastructure?