News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[rev]

Nuclear power: Port Augusta earmarked in Coalition policy to replace coal-fired generator

A South Australian city has been earmarked for a nuclear power station in a Coalition clean energy plan.

Paul Starick
Editor At Large
@paulstarick
3 min read
March 8, 2024 - 5:30AM

A nuclear power station is being earmarked for Port Augusta to replace a prematurely shuttered coal-fired plant under Coalition energy policy, in a direct challenge to South Australia’s world-leading renewables embrace.

Senior Liberals have told The Advertiser the Upper Spencer Gulf city was “the obvious option” for a nuclear reactor, because substantial electricity grid connections remained after the 2016 closure of the 520MW Northern Power Station.

The nuclear power push was boosted by an energy economist who costed key state Labor projects complaining about its price was “insanity”, because International Energy Agency studies showed nuclear power was cheaper than solar and wind.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton wants to legalise nuclear power, overturning a late 1990s ban, and have the first large-scale plant running by the 2030s. A policy release is planned before the May federal budget.

Sites for five or six nuclear power stations across Australia, in NSW, Victoria and beyond, are poised to be announced by the Opposition in a policy designed to replace retiring coal-fired plants.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Premier Peter Malinauskas have repeatedly dismissed nuclear as uneconomic for Australia, although the Premier in late 2022 said building at least eight nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS pact would demonstrate safety concerns were based on decades-old sentiment.

But Frontier Economics managing director Danny Price, who played a key role in costings for state Labor’s $593m hydrogen power plant and the “big battery” delivered by Elon Musk, urged an overturning of a nuclear ban so it could be part of the Australian energy mix.

Federal opposition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said: “While we are yet to announce potential host communities, our coal-to-nuclear strategy aims to leverage existing infrastructure and the benefits of working with high energy-IQ local communities.

“We envisage zero-emissions nuclear energy as part of a balanced mix of technologies, including renewables and gas, to get prices down and keep the lights on as we decarbonise.

“I don’t know if it’s due to the state’s track record with clean energy, its abundance of uranium or its role in AUKUS, but I find South Australians just seem to ‘get it’ when it comes to the case for Australia embracing nuclear technology.”

Mr Price said a comprehensive International Energy Agency study of about 25 countries’ nuclear power plants showed a cost between $100 and$120 per megawatt hour to produce electricity. Rooftop solar panels were about 80 per cent more expensive than nuclear.

“So here we are, busily subsidising very expensive on-roof solar PV, which is way more expensive than nuclear and we’re complaining about nuclear power. I mean, it’s insanity,” he said.

Mr Price said solar and wind farms’ cost was up to about $150 per megawatt hour, because they needed to be about three times bigger than their base $40-$50 per megawatt hour cost to ensure reliable generation, “so that’s way more expensive than nuclear”.

“You should be very wary of making cost comparisons between, say, the cost of a wind farm or a solar farm, which might be between $40 or $50 a megawatt hour, because they only produce about a third of the time,” Mr Price said.

“So, to get the same reliability, security, you have to build two, two-and-a-half, three times as much capacity in wind and solar, plus you have to firm it (ensure enough energy is always available).”

A ban on nuclear was “a hangover from the ‘70s” which had to stop, he said, because both sides of politics had weaponised the issue.

“It means that we’re going to be relegated to technological prescriptionists. The real danger of that is it’s then in the hands of politicians what technology is going to be put in place, and you go, well: ‘Who trusts a politician to make a decision like that?’,” Mr Price said.

Asked in Port Augusta on February 27 why his clean energy plans did not capitalise on the world’s largest uranium resource at Olympic Dam, Mr Malinauskas said nuclear power could help decarbonise the world, but ruled it out as he accelerated the state’s 100 per cent renewables net electricity generation target from 2030 to 2027.

Mr Malinauskas said this was “all about price”, which did not stack up for Australia.

State Opposition Leader David Speirs last August said small modular nuclear reactors costing in the “low billions” should be considered for SA.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... dac623c0d8

[SBD]

This sounds like a great policy....

...for the 1980s.

The Northern Power Station was built in the 1980s, and plausibly could have been nuclear instead, using some of the first uranium from Olympic Dam. It was retired "prematurely" at about 30 years old instead of lasting 50 years like some others (including Torrens Island).

South Australia's share of the NEM doesn't appear to require very much baseload, always-on, generation. Policy and technology over the last three decades have led to development of significant renewable power generation, including the rooftop solar. Battery and inverter technology is improving to make firming more practical at the smaller and medium scale. I'm yet to be fully convinced of the economy of the Hydrogen Hub, but the goal of providing a larger dispatchable reserve of electricity generation (and a dispatchable load) is valid. I'm not sure if all the proposed pumped hydro projects failed.

I think the time for a large nuclear power station in SA has passed. We should be planning to retire it, not to build it. Maybe there is a need/opportunity to put one where the concentration of coal power stations near Newcastle is, but I'm not even sure anyone (state or federal government or private enterprise) would see an economic business case to build one.

[PeFe]

You cant trust News Corp articles on nuclear power.....they are just like press releases from the Nuclear Fuel Producers Association.

They never have any costings.......they never mention the build timeline......they never mention the price of the power when the plant finally opens.

The US just recently said a resounding NO to small nuclear (ie NuScale Idaho plant). The reason being that the costs ballooned from $USD 5 billion to $USD 9.3 billion
thats 13 billion AUD.........yep 13 billion and all you got for that was 462 mw of power.

And what about the price of power when these small nuclear plants open? Well on articles I have read about the costs they will be very near the same as large nuclear so here goes some sort of price comparison

Rooftop solar (homes and small businesses): $30 per mwh
Large solar farms : $50 per mwh
Onshore wind farms : $60 per mwh
Batteries : $150 per mwh
Small and large nuclear : $250-$300 per mwh (expected price of power from Hinkley Pt C nuclear plant in the UK)

And another issue with nuclear.....its very slow ie if there is a power outage (from a storm for example) and you needed to increase the output of the nuclear plant from 200mw to 400mw right now to meet a shortfall it would take 2 hours of ramping the power output to get there. Yes nuclear power plants ramp up and down just like old coal and gas plants. Batteries are almost instant.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 024-01-10/

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... sing-costs

https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/sub ... -stations/


If you want to spend 13 billion in Australia you could buy 2000mw of solar, 2000mw of onshore wind and 8 (yes eight) large 500mw/2000mw batteries. otherwise if you want to make South Australia 100% renewable 3 large batteries should get us very close.

[SBD]

I'm not even sure the premise of excess underused transmission lines at Port Augusta is valid.

Northern Power Station was 520MW. Port Augusta Renewable Energy Park is 317MW connecting to the same substation. Not far away on the network is the 220MW Bungala solar farm and 212MW Lincoln Gap wind farm.

It's more likely there might be underused transmission capacity at Torrens Island when the gas boilers close. I think there's still an active proposal for a wind farm in the middle of Yorke Peninsula. At least one version of that was going to use an undersea cable to connect to the grid at Torrens Island rather than require upgrades to the upper Yorke Peninsula network.

[Spurdo]

lol bc the whole renewables thing has just gone so well hasn’t it

[SBD]

lol bc the whole renewables thing has just gone so well hasn’t it

I don't know!

I have no visibility whatsoever of how electricity transmission is charged or costed. For example, several SA wind farms have contracts with the ACT government. Do those electrons travel via the SA-VIC and VIC-NSW interconnectors, and who makes the profit, or are they traded on some electron commodity market somewhere and don't actually move?

Most days this week, the wholesale electricity price in SA has been negative for part of the day. That price only reflects the spot price, we have no information on the bulk contract prices, or notional prices where the generator and retailer are the same company.

This week, there's been quite a bit of time with low wind generation. It's hard to tell if this is because the turbines couldn't generate due to lack of wind, or only that they didn't generate and for what reason.

I suspect that there will be gas turbines available as reserve for quite some time to come, gradually getting used less and less.

At some point, there will be a market disruption when someone comes up with a way of demonstrating the reduced costs end-to-end. As someone else said, they're still paying fossil fuel prices or more, but assured by their supplier that only green electrons are delivered. One day, someone will call the bluff on that one, but the retailer also has big investment in fossil fuel technology to support for the time being.

[PeFe]

There was a lot of wind last night so the prices were reasonable when the sun went down

So when there is not a lot of wind one night and go to this site to see the gas price....it will probably be three times as expensive.
Gas companies making as much money as possible before renewables and batteries kill them off.

https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?rang ... crete-time

[Listy]

There was a lot of wind last night so the prices were reasonable when the sun went down

So when there is not a lot of wind one night and go to this site to see the gas price....it will probably be three times as expensive.
Gas companies making as much money as possible before renewables and batteries kill them off.

https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?rang ... crete-time

If you look at the yearly data then for the whole of last year in SA, 71% of our electricity (9995 GWh) came from renewables at $35 per MWh. For gas the figures were 22% (3147 GWh) at $181 per MWh. In total the renewables cost $350 million and the gas $570 million (despite being a much, much smaller part of the generation mix). The difference in cost per MWh between the two generation types has never been bigger than last year, and it does seem to be getting larger.

[rubberman]

lol bc the whole renewables thing has just gone so well hasn’t it

How's coal doing in SA?

[rev]

You cant trust News Corp articles on nuclear power.....they are just like press releases from the Nuclear Fuel Producers Association.

They never have any costings.......they never mention the build timeline......they never mention the price of the power when the plant finally opens.

The US just recently said a resounding NO to small nuclear (ie NuScale Idaho plant). The reason being that the costs ballooned from $USD 5 billion to $USD 9.3 billion
thats 13 billion AUD.........yep 13 billion and all you got for that was 462 mw of power.

And what about the price of power when these small nuclear plants open? Well on articles I have read about the costs they will be very near the same as large nuclear so here goes some sort of price comparison

Rooftop solar (homes and small businesses): $30 per mwh
Large solar farms : $50 per mwh
Onshore wind farms : $60 per mwh
Batteries : $150 per mwh
Small and large nuclear : $250-$300 per mwh (expected price of power from Hinkley Pt C nuclear plant in the UK)

And another issue with nuclear.....its very slow ie if there is a power outage (from a storm for example) and you needed to increase the output of the nuclear plant from 200mw to 400mw right now to meet a shortfall it would take 2 hours of ramping the power output to get there. Yes nuclear power plants ramp up and down just like old coal and gas plants. Batteries are almost instant.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 024-01-10/

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... sing-costs

https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/sub ... -stations/


If you want to spend 13 billion in Australia you could buy 2000mw of solar, 2000mw of onshore wind and 8 (yes eight) large 500mw/2000mw batteries. otherwise if you want to make South Australia 100% renewable 3 large batteries should get us very close.

Show us your detailed costings then. Not just cherry picked and wishywashy conversions and screenshots.
Show us proof. Hard proof. Not from some blatantly biased source, a neutral source.

But Frontier Economics managing director Danny Price, who played a key role in costings for state Labor’s $593m hydrogen power plant and the “big battery” delivered by Elon Musk, urged an overturning of a nuclear ban so it could be part of the Australian energy mix.

Lets just pretend this isn't in the article eh? What would this guy know eh?

[rubberman]

You cant trust News Corp articles on nuclear power.....they are just like press releases from the Nuclear Fuel Producers Association.

They never have any costings.......they never mention the build timeline......they never mention the price of the power when the plant finally opens.

The US just recently said a resounding NO to small nuclear (ie NuScale Idaho plant). The reason being that the costs ballooned from $USD 5 billion to $USD 9.3 billion
thats 13 billion AUD.........yep 13 billion and all you got for that was 462 mw of power.

And what about the price of power when these small nuclear plants open? Well on articles I have read about the costs they will be very near the same as large nuclear so here goes some sort of price comparison

Rooftop solar (homes and small businesses): $30 per mwh
Large solar farms : $50 per mwh
Onshore wind farms : $60 per mwh
Batteries : $150 per mwh
Small and large nuclear : $250-$300 per mwh (expected price of power from Hinkley Pt C nuclear plant in the UK)

And another issue with nuclear.....its very slow ie if there is a power outage (from a storm for example) and you needed to increase the output of the nuclear plant from 200mw to 400mw right now to meet a shortfall it would take 2 hours of ramping the power output to get there. Yes nuclear power plants ramp up and down just like old coal and gas plants. Batteries are almost instant.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 024-01-10/

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... sing-costs

https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/sub ... -stations/


If you want to spend 13 billion in Australia you could buy 2000mw of solar, 2000mw of onshore wind and 8 (yes eight) large 500mw/2000mw batteries. otherwise if you want to make South Australia 100% renewable 3 large batteries should get us very close.

Show us your detailed costings then. Not just cherry picked and wishywashy conversions and screenshots.
Show us proof. Hard proof. Not from some blatantly biased source, a neutral source.

But Frontier Economics managing director Danny Price, who played a key role in costings for state Labor’s $593m hydrogen power plant and the “big battery” delivered by Elon Musk, urged an overturning of a nuclear ban so it could be part of the Australian energy mix.

Lets just pretend this isn't in the article eh? What would this guy know eh?

How relevant is nuclear power when one party, the ALP, won't build one, and the other party, the Coalition, can't build one?

Further, going by projects round the world, nuclear plants of any size take about twenty years from start of planning to start up. That's 2044 IF we started now. If anyone thinks that the present coal fired plants have twenty years' life left in them, I have the rights to the Jervois Street Bridge to sell them.

So, just to put things in perspective, to be of the slightest use at all, you would have to either:

A). Convince the ALP to change policy and build it in half the time other countries can do it, or

B). Convince yourself that the Coalition, which bungled the NBN, submarines, Murray Darling Basin Plan, Snowy Mk2, Inland Rail, and couldn't even build rorted car parks could build a nuclear plant in half the time other countries can do it.

Now, I would by no means suspend any pleasure of yours, but if you seriously wish to waste your time on a noble, but fruitless quest, then pursuit of nuclear energy in Australia to be useful in time to take over from coal plants will certainly serve you well as an exercise in futility.

To have had a chance at commissioning a nuclear plant in Australia, the government would have had to start in 2015. I hope you aren't pinning your hopes on the party that was in power at the time, and could have tried then...but didn't.

As for the costs etc you referred to. The market is working as we speak. Batteries are being built, solar and wind plants are being commissioned, people are installing rooftop solar. All the while, the market window for coal and nuclear is closing. It's happening whether people like it or not, and the longer it goes on, the more difficult it becomes for coal or nuclear to find finance. You have demanded figures, and that's good. However, you know who really demand figures, too? It's the flinty hearted bankers that the likes of AGL and Alinta need to convince, and it's those flint hearted bankers who are not seeing coal and nuclear as worth financing. It's only either dictatorships or governments wishing to risk taxpayer's money putting up the cash. So, if flint hearted bankers are not willing to underwrite coal and nuclear, and it looks like taxpayers are on the hook, well it seems that it's up to coal and nuke proponents to put up the figures. Independent figures.

[rubberman]

Nuclear power: Port Augusta earmarked in Coalition policy to replace coal-fired generator

A South Australian city has been earmarked for a nuclear power station in a Coalition clean energy plan.

Paul Starick
Editor At Large
@paulstarick
3 min read
March 8, 2024 - 5:30AM

A nuclear power station is being earmarked for Port Augusta to replace a prematurely shuttered coal-fired plant under Coalition energy policy, in a direct challenge to South Australia’s world-leading renewables embrace.

Senior Liberals have told The Advertiser the Upper Spencer Gulf city was “the obvious option” for a nuclear reactor, because substantial electricity grid connections remained after the 2016 closure of the 520MW Northern Power Station.

The nuclear power push was boosted by an energy economist who costed key state Labor projects complaining about its price was “insanity”, because International Energy Agency studies showed nuclear power was cheaper than solar and wind.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton wants to legalise nuclear power, overturning a late 1990s ban, and have the first large-scale plant running by the 2030s. A policy release is planned before the May federal budget.

Sites for five or six nuclear power stations across Australia, in NSW, Victoria and beyond, are poised to be announced by the Opposition in a policy designed to replace retiring coal-fired plants.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Premier Peter Malinauskas have repeatedly dismissed nuclear as uneconomic for Australia, although the Premier in late 2022 said building at least eight nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS pact would demonstrate safety concerns were based on decades-old sentiment.

But Frontier Economics managing director Danny Price, who played a key role in costings for state Labor’s $593m hydrogen power plant and the “big battery” delivered by Elon Musk, urged an overturning of a nuclear ban so it could be part of the Australian energy mix.

Federal opposition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said: “While we are yet to announce potential host communities, our coal-to-nuclear strategy aims to leverage existing infrastructure and the benefits of working with high energy-IQ local communities.

“We envisage zero-emissions nuclear energy as part of a balanced mix of technologies, including renewables and gas, to get prices down and keep the lights on as we decarbonise.

“I don’t know if it’s due to the state’s track record with clean energy, its abundance of uranium or its role in AUKUS, but I find South Australians just seem to ‘get it’ when it comes to the case for Australia embracing nuclear technology.”

Mr Price said a comprehensive International Energy Agency study of about 25 countries’ nuclear power plants showed a cost between $100 and$120 per megawatt hour to produce electricity. Rooftop solar panels were about 80 per cent more expensive than nuclear.

“So here we are, busily subsidising very expensive on-roof solar PV, which is way more expensive than nuclear and we’re complaining about nuclear power. I mean, it’s insanity,” he said.

Mr Price said solar and wind farms’ cost was up to about $150 per megawatt hour, because they needed to be about three times bigger than their base $40-$50 per megawatt hour cost to ensure reliable generation, “so that’s way more expensive than nuclear”.

“You should be very wary of making cost comparisons between, say, the cost of a wind farm or a solar farm, which might be between $40 or $50 a megawatt hour, because they only produce about a third of the time,” Mr Price said.

“So, to get the same reliability, security, you have to build two, two-and-a-half, three times as much capacity in wind and solar, plus you have to firm it (ensure enough energy is always available).”

A ban on nuclear was “a hangover from the ‘70s” which had to stop, he said, because both sides of politics had weaponised the issue.

“It means that we’re going to be relegated to technological prescriptionists. The real danger of that is it’s then in the hands of politicians what technology is going to be put in place, and you go, well: ‘Who trusts a politician to make a decision like that?’,” Mr Price said.

Asked in Port Augusta on February 27 why his clean energy plans did not capitalise on the world’s largest uranium resource at Olympic Dam, Mr Malinauskas said nuclear power could help decarbonise the world, but ruled it out as he accelerated the state’s 100 per cent renewables net electricity generation target from 2030 to 2027.

Mr Malinauskas said this was “all about price”, which did not stack up for Australia.

State Opposition Leader David Speirs last August said small modular nuclear reactors costing in the “low billions” should be considered for SA.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... dac623c0d8

Would this be the Coalition that bungled the NBN, the Murray Darling Basin Plan, submarines, Robodebt, Inland Rail, Snowy Mk2, Aged care, gave $40bn to companies that didn't need it during Covid, bungled the vaccine rollout? That Coalition? The idea that a political party that couldn't even build a set of rorted car parks could build a nuclear plant is hilarious. Is that Newscorp reporter on hallucinogens? I mean, not to mention that the Coalition made no move to do anything with coal or nukes in its 9 years in office, nor from 2018-2022 when Libs were in power in SA and Canberra.

What a load of unbelievable codswallop.

[abc]

Nuclear power: Port Augusta earmarked in Coalition policy to replace coal-fired generator

A South Australian city has been earmarked for a nuclear power station in a Coalition clean energy plan.

Paul Starick
Editor At Large
@paulstarick
3 min read
March 8, 2024 - 5:30AM

A nuclear power station is being earmarked for Port Augusta to replace a prematurely shuttered coal-fired plant under Coalition energy policy, in a direct challenge to South Australia’s world-leading renewables embrace.

Senior Liberals have told The Advertiser the Upper Spencer Gulf city was “the obvious option” for a nuclear reactor, because substantial electricity grid connections remained after the 2016 closure of the 520MW Northern Power Station.

The nuclear power push was boosted by an energy economist who costed key state Labor projects complaining about its price was “insanity”, because International Energy Agency studies showed nuclear power was cheaper than solar and wind.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton wants to legalise nuclear power, overturning a late 1990s ban, and have the first large-scale plant running by the 2030s. A policy release is planned before the May federal budget.

Sites for five or six nuclear power stations across Australia, in NSW, Victoria and beyond, are poised to be announced by the Opposition in a policy designed to replace retiring coal-fired plants.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Premier Peter Malinauskas have repeatedly dismissed nuclear as uneconomic for Australia, although the Premier in late 2022 said building at least eight nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS pact would demonstrate safety concerns were based on decades-old sentiment.

But Frontier Economics managing director Danny Price, who played a key role in costings for state Labor’s $593m hydrogen power plant and the “big battery” delivered by Elon Musk, urged an overturning of a nuclear ban so it could be part of the Australian energy mix.

Federal opposition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said: “While we are yet to announce potential host communities, our coal-to-nuclear strategy aims to leverage existing infrastructure and the benefits of working with high energy-IQ local communities.

“We envisage zero-emissions nuclear energy as part of a balanced mix of technologies, including renewables and gas, to get prices down and keep the lights on as we decarbonise.

“I don’t know if it’s due to the state’s track record with clean energy, its abundance of uranium or its role in AUKUS, but I find South Australians just seem to ‘get it’ when it comes to the case for Australia embracing nuclear technology.”

Mr Price said a comprehensive International Energy Agency study of about 25 countries’ nuclear power plants showed a cost between $100 and$120 per megawatt hour to produce electricity. Rooftop solar panels were about 80 per cent more expensive than nuclear.

“So here we are, busily subsidising very expensive on-roof solar PV, which is way more expensive than nuclear and we’re complaining about nuclear power. I mean, it’s insanity,” he said.

Mr Price said solar and wind farms’ cost was up to about $150 per megawatt hour, because they needed to be about three times bigger than their base $40-$50 per megawatt hour cost to ensure reliable generation, “so that’s way more expensive than nuclear”.

“You should be very wary of making cost comparisons between, say, the cost of a wind farm or a solar farm, which might be between $40 or $50 a megawatt hour, because they only produce about a third of the time,” Mr Price said.

“So, to get the same reliability, security, you have to build two, two-and-a-half, three times as much capacity in wind and solar, plus you have to firm it (ensure enough energy is always available).”

A ban on nuclear was “a hangover from the ‘70s” which had to stop, he said, because both sides of politics had weaponised the issue.

“It means that we’re going to be relegated to technological prescriptionists. The real danger of that is it’s then in the hands of politicians what technology is going to be put in place, and you go, well: ‘Who trusts a politician to make a decision like that?’,” Mr Price said.

Asked in Port Augusta on February 27 why his clean energy plans did not capitalise on the world’s largest uranium resource at Olympic Dam, Mr Malinauskas said nuclear power could help decarbonise the world, but ruled it out as he accelerated the state’s 100 per cent renewables net electricity generation target from 2030 to 2027.

Mr Malinauskas said this was “all about price”, which did not stack up for Australia.

State Opposition Leader David Speirs last August said small modular nuclear reactors costing in the “low billions” should be considered for SA.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... dac623c0d8

Would this be the Coalition that bungled the NBN, the Murray Darling Basin Plan, submarines, Robodebt, Inland Rail, Snowy Mk2, Aged care, gave $40bn to companies that didn't need it during Covid, bungled the vaccine rollout? That Coalition? The idea that a political party that couldn't even build a set of rorted car parks could build a nuclear plant is hilarious. Is that Newscorp reporter on hallucinogens? I mean, not to mention that the Coalition made no move to do anything with coal or nukes in its 9 years in office, nor from 2018-2022 when Libs were in power in SA and Canberra.

What a load of unbelievable codswallop.

oh boy here we go again
another ALP stooge parroting party propaganda

[Spurdo]

You cant trust News Corp articles on nuclear power.....they are just like press releases from the Nuclear Fuel Producers Association.

They never have any costings.......they never mention the build timeline......they never mention the price of the power when the plant finally opens.

The US just recently said a resounding NO to small nuclear (ie NuScale Idaho plant). The reason being that the costs ballooned from $USD 5 billion to $USD 9.3 billion
thats 13 billion AUD.........yep 13 billion and all you got for that was 462 mw of power.

And what about the price of power when these small nuclear plants open? Well on articles I have read about the costs they will be very near the same as large nuclear so here goes some sort of price comparison

Rooftop solar (homes and small businesses): $30 per mwh
Large solar farms : $50 per mwh
Onshore wind farms : $60 per mwh
Batteries : $150 per mwh
Small and large nuclear : $250-$300 per mwh (expected price of power from Hinkley Pt C nuclear plant in the UK)

And another issue with nuclear.....its very slow ie if there is a power outage (from a storm for example) and you needed to increase the output of the nuclear plant from 200mw to 400mw right now to meet a shortfall it would take 2 hours of ramping the power output to get there. Yes nuclear power plants ramp up and down just like old coal and gas plants. Batteries are almost instant.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 024-01-10/

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... sing-costs

https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/sub ... -stations/


If you want to spend 13 billion in Australia you could buy 2000mw of solar, 2000mw of onshore wind and 8 (yes eight) large 500mw/2000mw batteries. otherwise if you want to make South Australia 100% renewable 3 large batteries should get us very close.

Show us your detailed costings then. Not just cherry picked and wishywashy conversions and screenshots.
Show us proof. Hard proof. Not from some blatantly biased source, a neutral source.

But Frontier Economics managing director Danny Price, who played a key role in costings for state Labor’s $593m hydrogen power plant and the “big battery” delivered by Elon Musk, urged an overturning of a nuclear ban so it could be part of the Australian energy mix.

Lets just pretend this isn't in the article eh? What would this guy know eh?

How relevant is nuclear power when one party, the ALP, won't build one, and the other party, the Coalition, can't build one?

Further, going by projects round the world, nuclear plants of any size take about twenty years from start of planning to start up. That's 2044 IF we started now. If anyone thinks that the present coal fired plants have twenty years' life left in them, I have the rights to the Jervois Street Bridge to sell them.

So, just to put things in perspective, to be of the slightest use at all, you would have to either:

A). Convince the ALP to change policy and build it in half the time other countries can do it, or

B). Convince yourself that the Coalition, which bungled the NBN, submarines, Murray Darling Basin Plan, Snowy Mk2, Inland Rail, and couldn't even build rorted car parks could build a nuclear plant in half the time other countries can do it.

Now, I would by no means suspend any pleasure of yours, but if you seriously wish to waste your time on a noble, but fruitless quest, then pursuit of nuclear energy in Australia to be useful in time to take over from coal plants will certainly serve you well as an exercise in futility.

To have had a chance at commissioning a nuclear plant in Australia, the government would have had to start in 2015. I hope you aren't pinning your hopes on the party that was in power at the time, and could have tried then...but didn't.

As for the costs etc you referred to. The market is working as we speak. Batteries are being built, solar and wind plants are being commissioned, people are installing rooftop solar. All the while, the market window for coal and nuclear is closing. It's happening whether people like it or not, and the longer it goes on, the more difficult it becomes for coal or nuclear to find finance. You have demanded figures, and that's good. However, you know who really demand figures, too? It's the flinty hearted bankers that the likes of AGL and Alinta need to convince, and it's those flint hearted bankers who are not seeing coal and nuclear as worth financing. It's only either dictatorships or governments wishing to risk taxpayer's money putting up the cash. So, if flint hearted bankers are not willing to underwrite coal and nuclear, and it looks like taxpayers are on the hook, well it seems that it's up to coal and nuke proponents to put up the figures. Independent figures.

The only thing renewables have accomplished is killing Australian industry and burdening households with some of the highest bills in the world

Maybe if we build another 150,000,000 wind turbines electricity bills might go down 1¢ for a single year before skyrocketing another 500%

[rubberman]

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... dac623c0d8

Would this be the Coalition that bungled the NBN, the Murray Darling Basin Plan, submarines, Robodebt, Inland Rail, Snowy Mk2, Aged care, gave $40bn to companies that didn't need it during Covid, bungled the vaccine rollout? That Coalition? The idea that a political party that couldn't even build a set of rorted car parks could build a nuclear plant is hilarious. Is that Newscorp reporter on hallucinogens? I mean, not to mention that the Coalition made no move to do anything with coal or nukes in its 9 years in office, nor from 2018-2022 when Libs were in power in SA and Canberra.

What a load of unbelievable codswallop.

oh boy here we go again
another ALP stooge parroting party propaganda

Lol. So, in your reality, the Coalition actually succeeded? Fibre to the node worked? The French subs are built? We actually got extra water from the Murray Darling Basin Plan? Snowy Mk2 is now commissioned for $2bn? The Inland Rail project is finished on time and budget? Mkay.