I largely agree with the points you've raised Cam. The problem in the Aus context is how the economics of nuclear stacks up. On the one hand, you can attempted to build a nuclear reactor in 14 years (history and project management studies all indicate massive cost blow outs and delays are overwhelming likely - how big things get done is offering some great insights). Over that period of 14-20 years, you are sinking in time, labour, capital and significant amounts of debt with no energy generation. Then once the thing switches on, it has to compete in a grid where half the time it sells its electricity into the grid at spot negative prices (or sinks it and makes no money), while struggling to ramp up and down. It doesn't matter if the thing lasts 80 years because discount rates and economic life mean the later years have marginal pay off in present value terms.
Meanwhile you can build in modular succession, multiple turbines and PV panels, storage systems etc. Over that 14-20 year period. All producing power immediately. All roughly on time and on budget (based on historical data). The capital costs are not only lower but the pay off is much faster. Especially when Aus has some of the best renewables resources in the world.
The only way around this would be to include Nuclear in the Capacity Investment Scheme and subsidise it's zero sales price periods. Possible, but would it stack up in the tenders? Idk.
It doesn't mean we shouldn't do nuclear, given there can be value in diversification. The real question is... Diversification at what cost? I don't think this question has been adequately resolved in the Australian context
The time line issue I find less convincing as an argument against nuclear. We are going to need a lot more electricity in 40 years time. Every solar farm and wind project that exists today will probably be ready to replace/upgrade by then.
We know that historical nuclear rollouts have been very quick once you have a reactor design and competent build teams—just like what has happened with solar. Twenty years ago the argument for solar was that we will learn by doing and the price will fall. This happened, and it happened in the French and Korean nuclear rollouts and probably will in current nuclear roll outs in the Middle East etc where the politics doesn't interfere with the process.
It is also true that solar and wind locations are getting more controversial.
In terms of capital costs, we are at the stage now where a huge amount of distribution and storage and generation duplication (with gas especially) is required to accommodate unpredictable and highly variable energy generation like wind and solar. Aidan Morrison has clearly articulated the basic engineering and physics problem here. These engineering and economic realities for solar are being hit now globally (with people being penalised for generating power with their solar when the sun is out because there is too much generation at that point in time).
I suspect as there is a global nuclear renaissance in the next twenty years that the capital cost will decline greatly.
"The time line issue I find less convincing as an argument against nuclear. "
Really ? To me it is the single most convincing one.
The UAE example is not really applicable to a democracy like Australia to start with, and that's before even considered the history of large construction works in this country.
20 years to the first power station to me seems like an incredibly optimistic timeline. I would find 30 years more believable, and 40-50 more likely before there would be any serious nuclear online.
Meanwhile in the interim, either renewables have already stepped in to solve the problem or (if artificially constrained) there's been enormous amounts of gas power running full blast for twenty years at astronomical cost and emissions levels.
"We are going to need a lot more electricity in 40 years time."
Are we though ?
Electricity consumption in Australia has been flat for the better part of twenty years. Sure, there's a lot of electrification that needs to be done, but what's the ISP projection - about 50% more by 2050 ?
And even then, increased demand is only really a convincing point if renewables cannot deliver on increased demand (and nuclear can).
Why is there an issue overcapitalising on battery storage if it’s a storage rather than a generation and transmission problem we have?
The suns always shining or the winds always blowing somewhere in Australia. As acknowledged people are being asked to “switch off their solar” because too much power is being generated.
The answer to that problem is more storage - not a nuclear energy industry which gives that solar the middle finger.
I assume there is both a financial, time, environmental cost in just building a nuclear industry.
We need the fastest way out of what is turning into a very painful energy transition which imho the biggest drivers of inflation and tardy growth in our wider economy. Ie all government resources need to be focused on energy solutions now. Not 50 years away.
The problem with this comparison is you are comparing big scale nuclear projects, which trends have shown have rising costs, with modular renewable projects which trends show have falling costs. Similarly transmission lines are modular, you are building the same thing repeatedly over and over. (Sure there are political issues in land acquisition, but compulsory acquisition powers would be needed for nuclear anyway given the sites are privately owned, so seems like a mute point when it comes to community land use issues.)
I don't think you can compare the scale of those technologies or their deployment timeframes (not until such time commercial SMRs become a thing, which is who knows when).
Here is the problem. We have a supply gap emerging now and over the next 10 years. Meanwhile instead of producing power to fill this supply gap, we are hearing proposals to build nuclear power stations that won't be built in time to meet those gaps. Sure you might build them in time to replace other aged assets, but not in time to replace stuff we need today. By the time you need to build assets to replace existing assets (which the nuclear plants obstensively replace), we could've used all that labour and capital to build assets to fill the supply gap we need sorted for the coal power plants going offline in 5-10 years.
I just don't see Dutton's proposal as credible. Sure by all means we should consider nuclear power, but at the moment things are already incredibly stretched. We are trying to build renewables supply to meet the coal gaps that will emerge before any such nuclear powerplants will be built, aspiring to build 1.2 million dwellings, infrastructure, AUKUS, as well as deal with issues in aged care etc. I just don't see how throwing another massive undertaking of setting up a nuclear industry is a good use of scarce skilled labour and capital right now. Post GFC under falling interest rates would've been perfect timing, although when I look at how the UK did just that and Hinkley C still isn't finished... I do wonder how we would've really faired. Take a look at any major public infrastructure project recently and they've all blown out in time and money. The only stuff staying on budget is the renewable stuff because it's modular, hence the private sector will invest in it so long as the revenue side is underwritten since the cost side is easily controlled. With nuclear, costs are anything but controlled. And if you want to control costs, you need to put a lot of time into meticulous planning. Trying rush to get boots on the ground will make the project blow out.
But who really believes Dutton is going let these planners take the time they need to get it right? Politics derails this stuff. The suburban rail loop has the hallmarks of a project doomed to fail like California's high speed rail. I shudder to think how the SRL is going to end, and a push for nuclear would be no different just observing at how the process is being undertaken.
It seems the CSIRO was too optimistic in estimating the cost of a 1GW nuclear plant to be AUD 8.6 billion. The Czechs have just signed a contract with the Koreans for 1GW plant costing USD 8.6 billion, which would be AUD12.8 billion. The target date to start generating power is 2038.
That will be an interesting case study. As will many others. However, I remember the argument a decade ago (and earlier) was that although solar and wind was expensive, the more we invest the cheaper it will get. That was true. And it will be true for nuclear too.
It isn't true for nuclear, it is the only technology that has become more expensive as it matured.
Vogtle 1&2 completed in the eighties at $8.8bn - $19-20bn in current dollars.
- Vogtle 3&4 $36.8 Billion
Civaux 1&2 completed 2001-2002 €4.1bn ( €1.5/GW) €2.1bn/GW in 2024
- Flammanville 3 €14.5bn - €9bn/GW
Bruce B (Canada) C$6bn - C$1.2bn Canadian/GW 1987
- Darlington B $14.4 bn - C$4.1bn/GW 1993
Sizewell B £3.6 bn 1995 ( £8.4 bn today- £7bn/GW)
- Hinckley Point C £46 bn- (£14.3bn/GW)
Further although some things get cheaper with higher volumes, most of the cost saving come from the same people making higher batch runs so reducing the setup cost per unit. As we will not build more than two units in one place with a new setup and largely new people for each location the savings between the first and the sixth reactor would not be more than 15%.
The real savings come from Design>Build>Test>Install>Operate>Learn>Redesign.... In the case of things like phones and solar panels that is a 2-3 year cycle driven by twenty or more competitors and gets on average about 5-10% savings per cycle after the first couple of rounds. In the case of nuclear power there are really only one or two competitors in each market and the DBTIOR cycle takes 15-20 years. Further about half the cost of nuclear power is common or garden things like turbogenerators, transformers, concrete, condensers etc and these are established technologies with very slow learning curves. Consequently 5-10% per iteration is heroic that is about 0.5% per year and vastly swamped by inflation, new safety regulations etc.
Peter you are an absolute legend with your facts and research. Its a shame the author claims this "Changing your mind is a skill. It is hard to learn. And having a tribe makes it harder"
<----- The author likes and responds to people who stroke his tribal ego but refuses to learn or grow from somebody and respond to anybody stating facts or even like their posts. He just reads them and ignores any factual or logical response. But as they say in psychology its called projecting. When a used car salesman says trust me im an honest salesman then you start running. Same as here. When a guy over compensates and projects he is not tribal in his very article you can bet he is ultra tribal.
As Aristotle allegedly said, it takes an educated mind to entertain an idea without accepting it.
The problem with the nuclear vs renewable debate is that it starts with the presumption that a centralised energy system is paramount, stifling other energy debates that we should be having.
The technology for decentralised energy systems is already available, can be implemented immediately and would ensure system resilience. Hopefully that is something we consider more carefully after this week's CrowdStrike incident.
A big issue facing both coal and nuclear power is the rapacious need for water. The Millennium drought came close to imperilling the on-going operation of power stations in some of our capital cities. Even if most water from nuclear plants is recycled and pure, it is often returned back to the environment warmer, risking local ecosystems.
"The technology for decentralised energy systems is already available, can be implemented immediately and would ensure system resilience. Hopefully that is something we consider more carefully after this week's CrowdStrike incident.
"
And there we go.
Wind is by its nature CENTRALIZED, but spread out over a wide area. IOW, some 99% of it will depend on the grid and utility versions. As such, wind is not only unreliable, but it will require a great deal of storage since it depends on winds of which these depend on un-even heating of the surface. Volcanoes, forest fires, etc kill the output of down wind generators. For all intents and purposes, these are expensive renewables when compared to Nuclear power. Worse, they offer very little national security advantage other than being different from Nuclear. About the only one I can see is that having these spread out means that even in an attack, not all of these will be taken out, whereas a Nuclear reactor really is centralized.
PV is far more interesting for a number of reasons. This is the ONLY form of renewable that is capable of being truly distributed. These can be put on buildings and over parking lots, along with a bit of local storage, and then distributed generation to the grid, as well as local support esp for emergency and disasters.
The problem is that every nation and business is pushing utility level PV, which has absolutely NO ADVANTAGE for national security. It is easily taken out by clouds, smoke, missile, drones, etc. It requires the grid. It provides NOTHING during emergency/disaster/war. And it will require 2-3x the storage that wind does since it has the LOWEST Cap. Factor.
Water for thermal power plants is a non-issue. Look at Arizona's plant. They actually use a small reservoir to handle this for one of the largest power plants in America. With that said, yes, most of today's (actually, 40-50 years ago) power plants were not designed to deal nicely with this. Ideally, we will make these smaller, locate them in cities, industrial areas, and use the excess waste for heating and cooling.
While the points you make about individual technologies have some merit, the point of a renewable grid is to use a mix of technologies, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, marine, waste to energy etc.
It is much harder to block out solar and wind over a wide area than it is to take out an NPP. you don't hit the reactor itself, just the output transformers or even the cooling tower or condenser, or just a couple of the transmission towers leading away from the plant and it is months to years before it is back online
Water is a big issue, the reservoir at Arizona's plant uses most of the waste water from Phoenix which could otherwise be cleaned up and put back into aquifers or the environment.
Well said Erin. This article just paints Nuclear as rainbows and unicorns and has left out dozens of downsides. Well done for exposing a major downside.
Very good points about the introspection (and courage) required to change your mind, as well as the role “facts” can play in hiding our own emotions from us. Can I humbly suggest you assess the facts again, given the price and volume of solar and batteries has changed dramatically since 2018.
"4. People have said for 20 years that nuclear is too slow and expensive. And yet it took only 14 years for the United Arab Emirates to decide to build nuclear power and get four reactors up and running at Barakah by contracting a Korean nuclear construction firm. "
<----------------
14 years and $32 Billion USD which is $50 Billion AUD is not slow and expensive? 99.999% of Australian projects (Govt and private) the past few decades are built quicker and cheaper yet you consider this not slow and expensive? What do you consider slow and expensive out of cuiosity? 100 years and 3 trillion dollars?
"2. People say things like “Would you want a nuclear reactor in your suburb?” But then they proceed to holiday in France, Japan, and the United States in towns and cities close to nuclear reactors and never think twice. And of course, battles over where to put wind farms and solar are heating up too."
<----- Everybody i know does not care about holidaying in countries with nuclear reactors or ever mentioned it ever. You ever heard of somebody saying the reason i refuse to holiday in Paris or NYC due to the city being run by nuclear reactors? never happened in my lifetime!
But if you ask somebody if they want a nuclear reactor built in their backyard and live in the 10-20km exclusion zone nuclear reactors set up then everybody i ever asked said no way build it elsewhere once they learn the facts. Why? Because real estate values usually drop at least 10% - 50% (depending how close you are to the reactor) which means alot will need to sell and or foreclosed on their houses and be upside down in their mortgages losing alot of money.
Not to mention insurance companies refuse to cover you in case of a meltdown with clauses. Hence why comparing holidaying to Paris/NYC and a reactor built in your backyard (which will actually cost homeowners money) is the most ilogical, emotional comparison i ever heard to be honest. What made you come up with it out of curiosity?
You find 1 random study from the USA (by the NRC themselves so a huge conflict of interest there) and think this now applies to Australia where Aussies love housing more than their own newborn kids? I worked in real estate. Ask anybody trying to sell a house next to a powerline or anything considered controversial or unslightly like a sewer, unslightly large factory even etc etc how much values drop and how difficult it was to sell. I remember my uncle trying to sell his house and he had the exact same stubborn thinking you did. Oh i found a study from Europe that shows real estate does not drop at all no matter where it is. Well reality is different and after firing and arguing with multiple agents for 5 years (leaving it empty for 3 of them losing even more money) he finally woke up to reality and sold it for 20% less. Amazingly you cited a study from the NRC themselves but ignore everything that happens when it comes to Aussie real estate sales every single day.
I grabbed the first one. There are many other studies that show that resale values in America, Canada, France, Sweden, etc did NOT go down.
Now, how many nuclear power plants are in Australia that were studied?
Oh yeah. ZERO.
As such, you have not a SINCE IOTA OF DATA other than your BS comment that 'I worked in real estate' and I know what will happen.
The funny thing is, that power lines DOES bring down resale value ALL OVER THE WORLD and numerous studies have shown that. BTW, so do coal power plants. I have not bothered to look, but I would guess that wind generators also bring down the value. BUT to claim that one equals the other is insane.
I have friends and family who live at Hunters hill and met local council people over the years. For decades they been trying to find 1 simple site in Australia to dispose of the local nuclear waste and even offered them money. Guess what happened in every single case? The locals lost their minds protesting to the max they hated the idea so much and was rejected every single time. As soon as locals heard the world "nuclear" with no other facts or details to know if its nuclear waste or nuclear electrcity etc all the locals went abslolutely ape shit mainly due to the fact local house prices would fall. Nobody in all of Australia wanted the nuclear waste and after decades of begging and looking it had to be sent to the USA.
But according to you they were all singing kombayah welcoming it saying send us more and everybody was fighting over the idea. Ye right as the exact opposite happened. Or ill give you the benfit of the doubt and picture you there holding a sign saying send us the nuclear waste it does not affect real estate prices at all because i found a sponsored USA NRC study that says nuclear is great for Local Aussie property values :)
Nuclear waste is a different issue from power plants.
Most power plants are thermal reactors which leaves 98% of the energy AND volume of the original fuel. With fast reactors, ~90% of the energy and volume is used. What remains is 10% of original volume, and it is 100% safe within 300 years, not 10,000 year half-lifes. In fact, more than 99% of it will be non-radioactive in the first 100 years.
So, if you created 100 tonnes of fuel over 100 years, you would have 10 tonnes remaining. Where to put it? Try simple boreholes of 2-5 km in one of your Deserts where the spent fuel has first been vitrified. vitrification will last over 1000 years, and this is 100% safe in under 100 years. Inside of these boreholes that are WELL BELOW aquifers, well.... these become non-issues.
Again you ignored every fact i stated. I spoke to the hunters hill council people. The issue is people are not very educated on nuclear waste or nuclear electrcity etc. Most know jack all about anything nuclear. The council found that the sheer mention of nuclear in multiple areas , even offering money and jobs ot the local community caused complete utter outrage and protests. THATS A FACT!
Aussies will pay 10%-20% less for a property with some rusted chairs upfront even, I seen it first hand. They over react. Thats my point yet you still struggling to understand the most basic fact.
We get it you dont care and would pay extra to live near a nuclear reactor and garbage tip and power lines and a sewer. Nothing seems to faze you. I get it. But over 50% of aussies i talk to do not think like you. Maybe as you a yank as you stated as you have zero idea about the aussie market? You remind me of my stubborn uncle who paid top dollar for the house next to the power lines and when it came time to sell he refused to believe his house was worth 10-20% less because he used emotion and feelings in his analysis. Ohhh i dont care about a garbage tip or a sewer or a electrcity grid next to my house so everybody in Australia should think like me and pay top dollar. Sorry but only stubborn people think this way and he learnt a very valuable lesson in the end. You and him are basically twins based on your arguments :)
I know multiple real estate agents who own offices with 20-40 years experience and they all say the same thing. Powerlines, Sewers, large factories, busy roads, mobile phone towers, wind turbines, coal factories etc etc (insert another 100 issues here and stop focusing on nuclear reactors only).
EVERY SINGLE ISSUE affects aussie house prices. AND Has for 30 years and nothing has changed.
Its a fact in Australia. But you so obssesed with winning this argument knowing you are 100% wrong, will admit everything affects real estate prices except nuclear reactors. why just nuclear reacors? Is Everybody is lining up to have nuclear reactors in their backyards with signs. Where are all these people? are they elves and unicorns perhaps?
Your argument defies all logical reasoning and critical thinking. Many years ago i sold a house in a street and the neighbour a few houses up approached me to sell his property. His neighbours front lawn had 2 rusty chairs, and some old toys and rubbish. And even though the property was clearly better the offers came in 10% less. A massive sum of money for some chairs/rubbish? i was mindblown! And no study will ever tell you this but i learnt this the hard way. Life is a great teacher. Even i was thinking big deal but i learnt quick smart how fickle aussies are.
We had to take it off the market then re market it again after we cleaned up the neighbours house 6 months later and then set a record price.
I learn't this 30 years ago and you still don't know this simple fact that aussies are even more fickle today??? Ask anybody with experience in the aussie real estate market, sales agents, valuers etc how any issue no matter how small affects "Aussie" property values in 2024. Not find a useless conflict of interest study from the NRC in the USA. Show me evidence and proof issues no matter how big or small do not affect Aussie real estate prices. Instead of asking an aussie local property valuer ( an actual expert in this field who will tell you exactly what i just told you as its a clear fact) you are so allergic to facts you find a useless NRC sponsored article from the USA thinking you can fool me.
You seem to be highly emotional with very low critical thinking skills to admit 100 issues no matter how big or small affect Aussie reql estate prices but a huge issue like a nuclear reactor will not affect local real estate values at all as you found a biased NRC sponsored article.
You do not realize it, but your own argument destroyed itself.
First, you say that you have all this experience in everything related to real estate. Great. So you are god in it and want to win. But then you go on to state that EVERYTHING of any industrial nature brings down real estate values in Australia.
Look, Australia has the second lowest continental population density going (Antarctica is lower). Your national pop. density is 3.3 person / km. That is just a bit higher than Alaska with 1.3 person / km. What is interesting is that majority of your population lives pretty much on the coastal area, with you cities having some major population density. All this means that your population density for the MAJORITY of your land IS probably lower than Alaska's. You have huge wide-open areas which are where industry, including power plants, are likely located. IOW, you likely do not have too many coal power plants or petroleum processing plants located in the center of Sydney, Melbourne, etc.
Why? Because as soon as ANYTHING of an industrial nature is within sight, it will decrease resale value. You have already said that multiple times. So, worrying about a nuclear power plant that will almost certainly be located far from homes, and certainly not in the middle of your cities or population areas, is an absolute non-issue.
As such, trying to claim that all of the industrial items hit on resale is a joke. And building this will likely lead to industry surrounding the power plant for cheap, base-load power which will push residential and office buildings away from this.
One last thought for you is that Nuclear power will pump water for cooling. There is plenty of heat from these if you do not fully use it for electricity. That heat is IDEAL for Desalination and uses less energy than most other forms of desalination.
Of course, with that said, a new approach to desalination just came up that I think will become the cat's meow by using as little as energy, but be able to deal nicely with the higher concentration of brine. This will work wonderfully with nuclear power plants' powerful pumps.
So, you can continue to push correlation => causation, as well as appeal to authority ( even one that is poorly that), but it does not back up your argument. Not one iota.
Fact is, that throughout the world, nuclear power plants are accepted WITHIN local communities, but even then, Australia will solve this just by having the massive land that you have.
You really think i would fall for the most illogical counter argument you just made?
Once again you ignored all the facts about aussie real estate buyers, aussie real estate valuers, aussie real estate sales people, my experience in real estate and countless logical facts i presented.
And replied stating nuclear power plants worldwide are accepted within local communities and all the proof you showed was a sponsored NRC article from the USA. Even if that was true this discussion is about Australia is it not? Aussie's love real estate more than their first borns so stick to the facts we discussed. The facts are clear as listed above about the "Aussie" real estate market. Yet you keep thinking if you change the topic to worldwide with zero proof, facts or data you won the argument. Nice try but FAILED!
Then you post an article about a desalination article that has nothing to do with aussie real estate prices topic we are discussing to again "try and win the argument" posting about a desalination plant? Whats next?
You now using misdirection like OJ simpsons lawyers used in court and got a guilty man off scott free. But im 5 steps ahead of you and these ilogical tactics do not work on me sorry,
Thanx for opening up. This IS an important issue. Im a yank, but, I do try to pay attention to what is happening in various fields, but especially nations like Australia (I really want to see you folks push Tesla to manufacture cells there, and for your nation to expand processing of local minerals to make these; you are ONLY nation to have ALL OF THEM ).
With nuclear, the biggest issue for the west is that it does take time to either build them on-site (gen 3) or to manufacture the plants ( SMRs ) due to lack of excess manufacturing.
In fact, in other posts here, you point out the 10+ years for a supposed 5 year build-out plant. BUT, there is a simple way to get around this:
Design and build new nat gas power plants to accept 2-3 thermal sources.
These could be built quickly (as in 1-2 years), be up and making revenue and profits.
Later one, the reactor(s) are added all while the power plant is running, making profits. This would have shut down the entire Georgia issue. Yes, the reactors were late and over costs, but the real problem is that the entire site took 10+ years, when the bulk of it could have been making revenue/profits. Even if done with boilers, these are relatively inexpensive and not a big deal to either shut them down in 10-15 years, while the power plant has moved on to running fully nuclear.
The nat gas portion also allows the reactors to be put in, started and ran for say 2-5 years BEFORE shutting down the nat gas portion fully. Why do this? Because most power plants will have lots of ups/downs with various parts/aspects/etc for the first couple of years. After 5-10 plants with 5-15 reactors added, then we will likely see the plants up and running quickly and have little need to continue running the nat gas portion once the first reactor is in.
With 2-3 thermal sources, this also allows for other forms of nuclear, but also thermal salt storage, and possibly geothermal. With the thermal storage, it handles the varying demand, and with enough, could serve as emergency for 1-2 days. This also allows for switching from say thermal reactors to fast reactors on-site and then moving the spent fuel from the thermal to the fast reactors. Or possibly moving to fusion, such as Helion energy (though the thermal waste will not be as large).
Regardless, with a small change in your new power plants, it leaves open future possibilities. ANd the fact is, that you nation is large enough that you should not depend on 1 type of energy (wind and PV depend on the sun) to even 50% levels. For a national security POV, you need an energy matrix, with all clean energy, and ideally, no one more than 1/3 of your energy (though one of them them might go up to 50% for a decade or 2).
Natural gas plants need little cooling, nuclear needs a lot,
Natural gas plants run at about 1,600 C, nuclear at 310C so the turbine is completely different.
Natural gas plants have very small steam systems if any.
In other words only about 20% of the gas plant would be reusable in the nuclear scenario
Thermal salt storage is now probably unviable as heat storage where there is a fuel cost, batteries are a better idea, more efficient more reliable and cheaper
One of the things you have omitted is reliability.
Here are just a few instances:
- Canadian nuclear output hit 107 TWh in 1994 by 2008 with eight out of 22 reactors offline it fell to 71 TWh and took until 2014 to fully recover and since then it has declined unevenly to 89TWh. Over the twenty years Canada lost the equivalent of 4.5 times 1994 generation
- In Japan in 2003 long before Fukushima, output fell to 230 TWh from 314 TWh in 2002 27% down.
That is equivalent to draining 315 Snowy IIs
- In France in 2022, output fell from 379 to 294 TWh but also from 451 TWh in 2005 - 1230 odd Snowy IIs over 2020 to 2023 compared to 2003 to 2006
- In Belgium H2 2018 down 60% on 2017- 35 Snowy IIs in six months
- In Switzerland for 10 days in June 2022 down 80% 1.5 Snowy IIs in ten days
- In Finland in March this year imports exceeded entire output of nuclear for 10 days. March April May was down 40% on December-February and 27% on March-May 2023
Well said Peter. This article just paints Nuclear as rainbows and unicorns and has left out dozens of downsides. Well done for exposing a major downside.
I’ve had a similar experience regarding renewables and nuclear power
The energy paradigm has shifted
Nuclear power has undergone a lot of R&D in the last decade which has not been well communicated in Australia
In the last decade there has been no structured transition plan put in place which will guarantee the current or future energy requirements via renewable power
Nuclear power is in my opinion the future given the lack of collaboration of coal power alongside renewable power as a phased approach by private-public investment
This came to a head in 2022 when I had someone educate me about the advancements in nuclear power
To that point in time I had made many of the same arguments that you had
None of the R&D has made i cheaper or apparently more reliable, it may have made it more flexible and safer and possibly slightly more thermally efficient, but apparently much more costly
To me, the entire argument is based on wrong assumptions. Have you even defined the problem correctly? You ask, "If we are in the business of managing climate change," are we? Have you just taken the word of others on this or have you done some hard work drilling down? An economic human-centric interpretation clouds your entire approach. You don't even seem to realize how controlled your thinking is by an unexamined paradigm.
I largely agree with the points you've raised Cam. The problem in the Aus context is how the economics of nuclear stacks up. On the one hand, you can attempted to build a nuclear reactor in 14 years (history and project management studies all indicate massive cost blow outs and delays are overwhelming likely - how big things get done is offering some great insights). Over that period of 14-20 years, you are sinking in time, labour, capital and significant amounts of debt with no energy generation. Then once the thing switches on, it has to compete in a grid where half the time it sells its electricity into the grid at spot negative prices (or sinks it and makes no money), while struggling to ramp up and down. It doesn't matter if the thing lasts 80 years because discount rates and economic life mean the later years have marginal pay off in present value terms.
Meanwhile you can build in modular succession, multiple turbines and PV panels, storage systems etc. Over that 14-20 year period. All producing power immediately. All roughly on time and on budget (based on historical data). The capital costs are not only lower but the pay off is much faster. Especially when Aus has some of the best renewables resources in the world.
The only way around this would be to include Nuclear in the Capacity Investment Scheme and subsidise it's zero sales price periods. Possible, but would it stack up in the tenders? Idk.
It doesn't mean we shouldn't do nuclear, given there can be value in diversification. The real question is... Diversification at what cost? I don't think this question has been adequately resolved in the Australian context
The time line issue I find less convincing as an argument against nuclear. We are going to need a lot more electricity in 40 years time. Every solar farm and wind project that exists today will probably be ready to replace/upgrade by then.
We know that historical nuclear rollouts have been very quick once you have a reactor design and competent build teams—just like what has happened with solar. Twenty years ago the argument for solar was that we will learn by doing and the price will fall. This happened, and it happened in the French and Korean nuclear rollouts and probably will in current nuclear roll outs in the Middle East etc where the politics doesn't interfere with the process.
It is also true that solar and wind locations are getting more controversial.
In terms of capital costs, we are at the stage now where a huge amount of distribution and storage and generation duplication (with gas especially) is required to accommodate unpredictable and highly variable energy generation like wind and solar. Aidan Morrison has clearly articulated the basic engineering and physics problem here. These engineering and economic realities for solar are being hit now globally (with people being penalised for generating power with their solar when the sun is out because there is too much generation at that point in time).
I suspect as there is a global nuclear renaissance in the next twenty years that the capital cost will decline greatly.
"The time line issue I find less convincing as an argument against nuclear. "
Really ? To me it is the single most convincing one.
The UAE example is not really applicable to a democracy like Australia to start with, and that's before even considered the history of large construction works in this country.
20 years to the first power station to me seems like an incredibly optimistic timeline. I would find 30 years more believable, and 40-50 more likely before there would be any serious nuclear online.
Meanwhile in the interim, either renewables have already stepped in to solve the problem or (if artificially constrained) there's been enormous amounts of gas power running full blast for twenty years at astronomical cost and emissions levels.
"We are going to need a lot more electricity in 40 years time."
Are we though ?
Electricity consumption in Australia has been flat for the better part of twenty years. Sure, there's a lot of electrification that needs to be done, but what's the ISP projection - about 50% more by 2050 ?
And even then, increased demand is only really a convincing point if renewables cannot deliver on increased demand (and nuclear can).
Why is there an issue overcapitalising on battery storage if it’s a storage rather than a generation and transmission problem we have?
The suns always shining or the winds always blowing somewhere in Australia. As acknowledged people are being asked to “switch off their solar” because too much power is being generated.
The answer to that problem is more storage - not a nuclear energy industry which gives that solar the middle finger.
I assume there is both a financial, time, environmental cost in just building a nuclear industry.
We need the fastest way out of what is turning into a very painful energy transition which imho the biggest drivers of inflation and tardy growth in our wider economy. Ie all government resources need to be focused on energy solutions now. Not 50 years away.
The problem with this comparison is you are comparing big scale nuclear projects, which trends have shown have rising costs, with modular renewable projects which trends show have falling costs. Similarly transmission lines are modular, you are building the same thing repeatedly over and over. (Sure there are political issues in land acquisition, but compulsory acquisition powers would be needed for nuclear anyway given the sites are privately owned, so seems like a mute point when it comes to community land use issues.)
I don't think you can compare the scale of those technologies or their deployment timeframes (not until such time commercial SMRs become a thing, which is who knows when).
Here is the problem. We have a supply gap emerging now and over the next 10 years. Meanwhile instead of producing power to fill this supply gap, we are hearing proposals to build nuclear power stations that won't be built in time to meet those gaps. Sure you might build them in time to replace other aged assets, but not in time to replace stuff we need today. By the time you need to build assets to replace existing assets (which the nuclear plants obstensively replace), we could've used all that labour and capital to build assets to fill the supply gap we need sorted for the coal power plants going offline in 5-10 years.
I just don't see Dutton's proposal as credible. Sure by all means we should consider nuclear power, but at the moment things are already incredibly stretched. We are trying to build renewables supply to meet the coal gaps that will emerge before any such nuclear powerplants will be built, aspiring to build 1.2 million dwellings, infrastructure, AUKUS, as well as deal with issues in aged care etc. I just don't see how throwing another massive undertaking of setting up a nuclear industry is a good use of scarce skilled labour and capital right now. Post GFC under falling interest rates would've been perfect timing, although when I look at how the UK did just that and Hinkley C still isn't finished... I do wonder how we would've really faired. Take a look at any major public infrastructure project recently and they've all blown out in time and money. The only stuff staying on budget is the renewable stuff because it's modular, hence the private sector will invest in it so long as the revenue side is underwritten since the cost side is easily controlled. With nuclear, costs are anything but controlled. And if you want to control costs, you need to put a lot of time into meticulous planning. Trying rush to get boots on the ground will make the project blow out.
But who really believes Dutton is going let these planners take the time they need to get it right? Politics derails this stuff. The suburban rail loop has the hallmarks of a project doomed to fail like California's high speed rail. I shudder to think how the SRL is going to end, and a push for nuclear would be no different just observing at how the process is being undertaken.
Thank you for having been open to changing your mind regarding this topic!
Indeed nuclear policy has been highly emotional and tribal in the past. I hope that new generations will grow up with a new take on it.
Coincidentally, the next message in my inbox after your item was from John Quiggin:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/czech-nuclear-deal-shows-csiro-gencost-is-too-optimistic-and-new-nukes-are-hopelessly-uneconomic/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
It seems the CSIRO was too optimistic in estimating the cost of a 1GW nuclear plant to be AUD 8.6 billion. The Czechs have just signed a contract with the Koreans for 1GW plant costing USD 8.6 billion, which would be AUD12.8 billion. The target date to start generating power is 2038.
That will be an interesting case study. As will many others. However, I remember the argument a decade ago (and earlier) was that although solar and wind was expensive, the more we invest the cheaper it will get. That was true. And it will be true for nuclear too.
It isn't true for nuclear, it is the only technology that has become more expensive as it matured.
Vogtle 1&2 completed in the eighties at $8.8bn - $19-20bn in current dollars.
- Vogtle 3&4 $36.8 Billion
Civaux 1&2 completed 2001-2002 €4.1bn ( €1.5/GW) €2.1bn/GW in 2024
- Flammanville 3 €14.5bn - €9bn/GW
Bruce B (Canada) C$6bn - C$1.2bn Canadian/GW 1987
- Darlington B $14.4 bn - C$4.1bn/GW 1993
Sizewell B £3.6 bn 1995 ( £8.4 bn today- £7bn/GW)
- Hinckley Point C £46 bn- (£14.3bn/GW)
Further although some things get cheaper with higher volumes, most of the cost saving come from the same people making higher batch runs so reducing the setup cost per unit. As we will not build more than two units in one place with a new setup and largely new people for each location the savings between the first and the sixth reactor would not be more than 15%.
The real savings come from Design>Build>Test>Install>Operate>Learn>Redesign.... In the case of things like phones and solar panels that is a 2-3 year cycle driven by twenty or more competitors and gets on average about 5-10% savings per cycle after the first couple of rounds. In the case of nuclear power there are really only one or two competitors in each market and the DBTIOR cycle takes 15-20 years. Further about half the cost of nuclear power is common or garden things like turbogenerators, transformers, concrete, condensers etc and these are established technologies with very slow learning curves. Consequently 5-10% per iteration is heroic that is about 0.5% per year and vastly swamped by inflation, new safety regulations etc.
Peter you are an absolute legend with your facts and research. Its a shame the author claims this "Changing your mind is a skill. It is hard to learn. And having a tribe makes it harder"
<----- The author likes and responds to people who stroke his tribal ego but refuses to learn or grow from somebody and respond to anybody stating facts or even like their posts. He just reads them and ignores any factual or logical response. But as they say in psychology its called projecting. When a used car salesman says trust me im an honest salesman then you start running. Same as here. When a guy over compensates and projects he is not tribal in his very article you can bet he is ultra tribal.
Thankyou for the compliment. I am sure I also have my biases and blindspots, but I try hard to let the facts direct my comments
As Aristotle allegedly said, it takes an educated mind to entertain an idea without accepting it.
The problem with the nuclear vs renewable debate is that it starts with the presumption that a centralised energy system is paramount, stifling other energy debates that we should be having.
The technology for decentralised energy systems is already available, can be implemented immediately and would ensure system resilience. Hopefully that is something we consider more carefully after this week's CrowdStrike incident.
A big issue facing both coal and nuclear power is the rapacious need for water. The Millennium drought came close to imperilling the on-going operation of power stations in some of our capital cities. Even if most water from nuclear plants is recycled and pure, it is often returned back to the environment warmer, risking local ecosystems.
"The technology for decentralised energy systems is already available, can be implemented immediately and would ensure system resilience. Hopefully that is something we consider more carefully after this week's CrowdStrike incident.
"
And there we go.
Wind is by its nature CENTRALIZED, but spread out over a wide area. IOW, some 99% of it will depend on the grid and utility versions. As such, wind is not only unreliable, but it will require a great deal of storage since it depends on winds of which these depend on un-even heating of the surface. Volcanoes, forest fires, etc kill the output of down wind generators. For all intents and purposes, these are expensive renewables when compared to Nuclear power. Worse, they offer very little national security advantage other than being different from Nuclear. About the only one I can see is that having these spread out means that even in an attack, not all of these will be taken out, whereas a Nuclear reactor really is centralized.
PV is far more interesting for a number of reasons. This is the ONLY form of renewable that is capable of being truly distributed. These can be put on buildings and over parking lots, along with a bit of local storage, and then distributed generation to the grid, as well as local support esp for emergency and disasters.
The problem is that every nation and business is pushing utility level PV, which has absolutely NO ADVANTAGE for national security. It is easily taken out by clouds, smoke, missile, drones, etc. It requires the grid. It provides NOTHING during emergency/disaster/war. And it will require 2-3x the storage that wind does since it has the LOWEST Cap. Factor.
Water for thermal power plants is a non-issue. Look at Arizona's plant. They actually use a small reservoir to handle this for one of the largest power plants in America. With that said, yes, most of today's (actually, 40-50 years ago) power plants were not designed to deal nicely with this. Ideally, we will make these smaller, locate them in cities, industrial areas, and use the excess waste for heating and cooling.
While the points you make about individual technologies have some merit, the point of a renewable grid is to use a mix of technologies, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, marine, waste to energy etc.
It is much harder to block out solar and wind over a wide area than it is to take out an NPP. you don't hit the reactor itself, just the output transformers or even the cooling tower or condenser, or just a couple of the transmission towers leading away from the plant and it is months to years before it is back online
Water is a big issue, the reservoir at Arizona's plant uses most of the waste water from Phoenix which could otherwise be cleaned up and put back into aquifers or the environment.
Well said Erin. This article just paints Nuclear as rainbows and unicorns and has left out dozens of downsides. Well done for exposing a major downside.
Very good points about the introspection (and courage) required to change your mind, as well as the role “facts” can play in hiding our own emotions from us. Can I humbly suggest you assess the facts again, given the price and volume of solar and batteries has changed dramatically since 2018.
"4. People have said for 20 years that nuclear is too slow and expensive. And yet it took only 14 years for the United Arab Emirates to decide to build nuclear power and get four reactors up and running at Barakah by contracting a Korean nuclear construction firm. "
<----------------
14 years and $32 Billion USD which is $50 Billion AUD is not slow and expensive? 99.999% of Australian projects (Govt and private) the past few decades are built quicker and cheaper yet you consider this not slow and expensive? What do you consider slow and expensive out of cuiosity? 100 years and 3 trillion dollars?
"3. The Fukushima meltdown I think proved how safe nuclear is, not how scared we should be of it."
<----
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-will-approach-one-trillion-dollars-just-for-nuclear-disaster/
1 trillion dollar cleanup (the largest in human history) that will take decades proved how safe they are? Please explain your logic?
"2. People say things like “Would you want a nuclear reactor in your suburb?” But then they proceed to holiday in France, Japan, and the United States in towns and cities close to nuclear reactors and never think twice. And of course, battles over where to put wind farms and solar are heating up too."
<----- Everybody i know does not care about holidaying in countries with nuclear reactors or ever mentioned it ever. You ever heard of somebody saying the reason i refuse to holiday in Paris or NYC due to the city being run by nuclear reactors? never happened in my lifetime!
But if you ask somebody if they want a nuclear reactor built in their backyard and live in the 10-20km exclusion zone nuclear reactors set up then everybody i ever asked said no way build it elsewhere once they learn the facts. Why? Because real estate values usually drop at least 10% - 50% (depending how close you are to the reactor) which means alot will need to sell and or foreclosed on their houses and be upside down in their mortgages losing alot of money.
Not to mention insurance companies refuse to cover you in case of a meltdown with clauses. Hence why comparing holidaying to Paris/NYC and a reactor built in your backyard (which will actually cost homeowners money) is the most ilogical, emotional comparison i ever heard to be honest. What made you come up with it out of curiosity?
Real estate value does NOT drop
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ml1233/ML12335A686.pdf
A number of real studies have shown that resale value of homes are not impacted in the least by Nuclear Power plants.
Basically, no real study of this has shown that resale value has gone down.
You find 1 random study from the USA (by the NRC themselves so a huge conflict of interest there) and think this now applies to Australia where Aussies love housing more than their own newborn kids? I worked in real estate. Ask anybody trying to sell a house next to a powerline or anything considered controversial or unslightly like a sewer, unslightly large factory even etc etc how much values drop and how difficult it was to sell. I remember my uncle trying to sell his house and he had the exact same stubborn thinking you did. Oh i found a study from Europe that shows real estate does not drop at all no matter where it is. Well reality is different and after firing and arguing with multiple agents for 5 years (leaving it empty for 3 of them losing even more money) he finally woke up to reality and sold it for 20% less. Amazingly you cited a study from the NRC themselves but ignore everything that happens when it comes to Aussie real estate sales every single day.
I grabbed the first one. There are many other studies that show that resale values in America, Canada, France, Sweden, etc did NOT go down.
Now, how many nuclear power plants are in Australia that were studied?
Oh yeah. ZERO.
As such, you have not a SINCE IOTA OF DATA other than your BS comment that 'I worked in real estate' and I know what will happen.
The funny thing is, that power lines DOES bring down resale value ALL OVER THE WORLD and numerous studies have shown that. BTW, so do coal power plants. I have not bothered to look, but I would guess that wind generators also bring down the value. BUT to claim that one equals the other is insane.
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/radioactive-waste-haunts-hunters-hill-residents-20111029-1mpb6.html
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-30/hunters-hill-radioactive-waste-to-be-removed-sent-to-us/100106174
I have friends and family who live at Hunters hill and met local council people over the years. For decades they been trying to find 1 simple site in Australia to dispose of the local nuclear waste and even offered them money. Guess what happened in every single case? The locals lost their minds protesting to the max they hated the idea so much and was rejected every single time. As soon as locals heard the world "nuclear" with no other facts or details to know if its nuclear waste or nuclear electrcity etc all the locals went abslolutely ape shit mainly due to the fact local house prices would fall. Nobody in all of Australia wanted the nuclear waste and after decades of begging and looking it had to be sent to the USA.
But according to you they were all singing kombayah welcoming it saying send us more and everybody was fighting over the idea. Ye right as the exact opposite happened. Or ill give you the benfit of the doubt and picture you there holding a sign saying send us the nuclear waste it does not affect real estate prices at all because i found a sponsored USA NRC study that says nuclear is great for Local Aussie property values :)
Nuclear waste is a different issue from power plants.
Most power plants are thermal reactors which leaves 98% of the energy AND volume of the original fuel. With fast reactors, ~90% of the energy and volume is used. What remains is 10% of original volume, and it is 100% safe within 300 years, not 10,000 year half-lifes. In fact, more than 99% of it will be non-radioactive in the first 100 years.
So, if you created 100 tonnes of fuel over 100 years, you would have 10 tonnes remaining. Where to put it? Try simple boreholes of 2-5 km in one of your Deserts where the spent fuel has first been vitrified. vitrification will last over 1000 years, and this is 100% safe in under 100 years. Inside of these boreholes that are WELL BELOW aquifers, well.... these become non-issues.
Again you ignored every fact i stated. I spoke to the hunters hill council people. The issue is people are not very educated on nuclear waste or nuclear electrcity etc. Most know jack all about anything nuclear. The council found that the sheer mention of nuclear in multiple areas , even offering money and jobs ot the local community caused complete utter outrage and protests. THATS A FACT!
Aussies will pay 10%-20% less for a property with some rusted chairs upfront even, I seen it first hand. They over react. Thats my point yet you still struggling to understand the most basic fact.
We get it you dont care and would pay extra to live near a nuclear reactor and garbage tip and power lines and a sewer. Nothing seems to faze you. I get it. But over 50% of aussies i talk to do not think like you. Maybe as you a yank as you stated as you have zero idea about the aussie market? You remind me of my stubborn uncle who paid top dollar for the house next to the power lines and when it came time to sell he refused to believe his house was worth 10-20% less because he used emotion and feelings in his analysis. Ohhh i dont care about a garbage tip or a sewer or a electrcity grid next to my house so everybody in Australia should think like me and pay top dollar. Sorry but only stubborn people think this way and he learnt a very valuable lesson in the end. You and him are basically twins based on your arguments :)
Are you allergic to facts?
I know multiple real estate agents who own offices with 20-40 years experience and they all say the same thing. Powerlines, Sewers, large factories, busy roads, mobile phone towers, wind turbines, coal factories etc etc (insert another 100 issues here and stop focusing on nuclear reactors only).
EVERY SINGLE ISSUE affects aussie house prices. AND Has for 30 years and nothing has changed.
Its a fact in Australia. But you so obssesed with winning this argument knowing you are 100% wrong, will admit everything affects real estate prices except nuclear reactors. why just nuclear reacors? Is Everybody is lining up to have nuclear reactors in their backyards with signs. Where are all these people? are they elves and unicorns perhaps?
Your argument defies all logical reasoning and critical thinking. Many years ago i sold a house in a street and the neighbour a few houses up approached me to sell his property. His neighbours front lawn had 2 rusty chairs, and some old toys and rubbish. And even though the property was clearly better the offers came in 10% less. A massive sum of money for some chairs/rubbish? i was mindblown! And no study will ever tell you this but i learnt this the hard way. Life is a great teacher. Even i was thinking big deal but i learnt quick smart how fickle aussies are.
We had to take it off the market then re market it again after we cleaned up the neighbours house 6 months later and then set a record price.
I learn't this 30 years ago and you still don't know this simple fact that aussies are even more fickle today??? Ask anybody with experience in the aussie real estate market, sales agents, valuers etc how any issue no matter how small affects "Aussie" property values in 2024. Not find a useless conflict of interest study from the NRC in the USA. Show me evidence and proof issues no matter how big or small do not affect Aussie real estate prices. Instead of asking an aussie local property valuer ( an actual expert in this field who will tell you exactly what i just told you as its a clear fact) you are so allergic to facts you find a useless NRC sponsored article from the USA thinking you can fool me.
You seem to be highly emotional with very low critical thinking skills to admit 100 issues no matter how big or small affect Aussie reql estate prices but a huge issue like a nuclear reactor will not affect local real estate values at all as you found a biased NRC sponsored article.
You do not realize it, but your own argument destroyed itself.
First, you say that you have all this experience in everything related to real estate. Great. So you are god in it and want to win. But then you go on to state that EVERYTHING of any industrial nature brings down real estate values in Australia.
Look, Australia has the second lowest continental population density going (Antarctica is lower). Your national pop. density is 3.3 person / km. That is just a bit higher than Alaska with 1.3 person / km. What is interesting is that majority of your population lives pretty much on the coastal area, with you cities having some major population density. All this means that your population density for the MAJORITY of your land IS probably lower than Alaska's. You have huge wide-open areas which are where industry, including power plants, are likely located. IOW, you likely do not have too many coal power plants or petroleum processing plants located in the center of Sydney, Melbourne, etc.
Why? Because as soon as ANYTHING of an industrial nature is within sight, it will decrease resale value. You have already said that multiple times. So, worrying about a nuclear power plant that will almost certainly be located far from homes, and certainly not in the middle of your cities or population areas, is an absolute non-issue.
As such, trying to claim that all of the industrial items hit on resale is a joke. And building this will likely lead to industry surrounding the power plant for cheap, base-load power which will push residential and office buildings away from this.
One last thought for you is that Nuclear power will pump water for cooling. There is plenty of heat from these if you do not fully use it for electricity. That heat is IDEAL for Desalination and uses less energy than most other forms of desalination.
Of course, with that said, a new approach to desalination just came up that I think will become the cat's meow by using as little as energy, but be able to deal nicely with the higher concentration of brine. This will work wonderfully with nuclear power plants' powerful pumps.
https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/10/a-new-wave-of-desalination-startups-argues-that-deeper-is-better
So, you can continue to push correlation => causation, as well as appeal to authority ( even one that is poorly that), but it does not back up your argument. Not one iota.
Fact is, that throughout the world, nuclear power plants are accepted WITHIN local communities, but even then, Australia will solve this just by having the massive land that you have.
You really think i would fall for the most illogical counter argument you just made?
Once again you ignored all the facts about aussie real estate buyers, aussie real estate valuers, aussie real estate sales people, my experience in real estate and countless logical facts i presented.
And replied stating nuclear power plants worldwide are accepted within local communities and all the proof you showed was a sponsored NRC article from the USA. Even if that was true this discussion is about Australia is it not? Aussie's love real estate more than their first borns so stick to the facts we discussed. The facts are clear as listed above about the "Aussie" real estate market. Yet you keep thinking if you change the topic to worldwide with zero proof, facts or data you won the argument. Nice try but FAILED!
Then you post an article about a desalination article that has nothing to do with aussie real estate prices topic we are discussing to again "try and win the argument" posting about a desalination plant? Whats next?
You now using misdirection like OJ simpsons lawyers used in court and got a guilty man off scott free. But im 5 steps ahead of you and these ilogical tactics do not work on me sorry,
Thanx for opening up. This IS an important issue. Im a yank, but, I do try to pay attention to what is happening in various fields, but especially nations like Australia (I really want to see you folks push Tesla to manufacture cells there, and for your nation to expand processing of local minerals to make these; you are ONLY nation to have ALL OF THEM ).
With nuclear, the biggest issue for the west is that it does take time to either build them on-site (gen 3) or to manufacture the plants ( SMRs ) due to lack of excess manufacturing.
In fact, in other posts here, you point out the 10+ years for a supposed 5 year build-out plant. BUT, there is a simple way to get around this:
Design and build new nat gas power plants to accept 2-3 thermal sources.
These could be built quickly (as in 1-2 years), be up and making revenue and profits.
Later one, the reactor(s) are added all while the power plant is running, making profits. This would have shut down the entire Georgia issue. Yes, the reactors were late and over costs, but the real problem is that the entire site took 10+ years, when the bulk of it could have been making revenue/profits. Even if done with boilers, these are relatively inexpensive and not a big deal to either shut them down in 10-15 years, while the power plant has moved on to running fully nuclear.
The nat gas portion also allows the reactors to be put in, started and ran for say 2-5 years BEFORE shutting down the nat gas portion fully. Why do this? Because most power plants will have lots of ups/downs with various parts/aspects/etc for the first couple of years. After 5-10 plants with 5-15 reactors added, then we will likely see the plants up and running quickly and have little need to continue running the nat gas portion once the first reactor is in.
With 2-3 thermal sources, this also allows for other forms of nuclear, but also thermal salt storage, and possibly geothermal. With the thermal storage, it handles the varying demand, and with enough, could serve as emergency for 1-2 days. This also allows for switching from say thermal reactors to fast reactors on-site and then moving the spent fuel from the thermal to the fast reactors. Or possibly moving to fusion, such as Helion energy (though the thermal waste will not be as large).
Regardless, with a small change in your new power plants, it leaves open future possibilities. ANd the fact is, that you nation is large enough that you should not depend on 1 type of energy (wind and PV depend on the sun) to even 50% levels. For a national security POV, you need an energy matrix, with all clean energy, and ideally, no one more than 1/3 of your energy (though one of them them might go up to 50% for a decade or 2).
Natural gas plants need little cooling, nuclear needs a lot,
Natural gas plants run at about 1,600 C, nuclear at 310C so the turbine is completely different.
Natural gas plants have very small steam systems if any.
In other words only about 20% of the gas plant would be reusable in the nuclear scenario
Thermal salt storage is now probably unviable as heat storage where there is a fuel cost, batteries are a better idea, more efficient more reliable and cheaper
One of the things you have omitted is reliability.
Here are just a few instances:
- Canadian nuclear output hit 107 TWh in 1994 by 2008 with eight out of 22 reactors offline it fell to 71 TWh and took until 2014 to fully recover and since then it has declined unevenly to 89TWh. Over the twenty years Canada lost the equivalent of 4.5 times 1994 generation
- In Japan in 2003 long before Fukushima, output fell to 230 TWh from 314 TWh in 2002 27% down.
That is equivalent to draining 315 Snowy IIs
- In France in 2022, output fell from 379 to 294 TWh but also from 451 TWh in 2005 - 1230 odd Snowy IIs over 2020 to 2023 compared to 2003 to 2006
- In Belgium H2 2018 down 60% on 2017- 35 Snowy IIs in six months
- In Switzerland for 10 days in June 2022 down 80% 1.5 Snowy IIs in ten days
- In Finland in March this year imports exceeded entire output of nuclear for 10 days. March April May was down 40% on December-February and 27% on March-May 2023
Well said Peter. This article just paints Nuclear as rainbows and unicorns and has left out dozens of downsides. Well done for exposing a major downside.
I’ve had a similar experience regarding renewables and nuclear power
The energy paradigm has shifted
Nuclear power has undergone a lot of R&D in the last decade which has not been well communicated in Australia
In the last decade there has been no structured transition plan put in place which will guarantee the current or future energy requirements via renewable power
Nuclear power is in my opinion the future given the lack of collaboration of coal power alongside renewable power as a phased approach by private-public investment
This came to a head in 2022 when I had someone educate me about the advancements in nuclear power
To that point in time I had made many of the same arguments that you had
None of the R&D has made i cheaper or apparently more reliable, it may have made it more flexible and safer and possibly slightly more thermally efficient, but apparently much more costly
To me, the entire argument is based on wrong assumptions. Have you even defined the problem correctly? You ask, "If we are in the business of managing climate change," are we? Have you just taken the word of others on this or have you done some hard work drilling down? An economic human-centric interpretation clouds your entire approach. You don't even seem to realize how controlled your thinking is by an unexamined paradigm.