News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[Waewick]

https://reneweconomy.com.au/no-room-for ... -a-decade/

AGL saying there's no room for nuclear.

Found that interesting as well.

The no meed fot always on base load is a comment I'm suprised hasn't got more noise given the whole 'base load' power myth that is core to the anti Renewables push.

“AGL saying” . Would that be AGL that is having its strings pulled by Mike Cannon Brookes, who also has a large interest in renewable projects he is receiving funding from the taxpayer that are yet to see the light of day? He has been using his significant shareholding in AGL to activate for divestment in fossil fuel generation. Not much of a conflict there eh? And as a reminder.. wind is still struggling around 10% again today… so sure.. let’s shut down more gas??

Wealthy businessman making good business decisions?

Again, constantly quoting todays wind power generation is a nonsense, we are in the midst of a transition with the amount of renewables coming on line increasing.

It would have been like trying to stop the transition from horse and cart to cars/trucks/tractors because after a year there were only 20 of them.

Edit- i did get a chuckle, SA currently has negative wholesale prices, hopefully we see that flow through to retail soon enough!

Wind also at 20%, so wind and solar at 31%.

[rubberman]

Found that interesting as well.

The no meed fot always on base load is a comment I'm suprised hasn't got more noise given the whole 'base load' power myth that is core to the anti Renewables push.

“AGL saying” . Would that be AGL that is having its strings pulled by Mike Cannon Brookes, who also has a large interest in renewable projects he is receiving funding from the taxpayer that are yet to see the light of day? He has been using his significant shareholding in AGL to activate for divestment in fossil fuel generation. Not much of a conflict there eh? And as a reminder.. wind is still struggling around 10% again today… so sure.. let’s shut down more gas??

Wealthy businessman making good business decisions?

Again, constantly quoting todays wind power generation is a nonsense, we are in the midst of a transition with the amount of renewables coming on line increasing.

It would have been like trying to stop the transition from horse and cart to cars/trucks/tractors because after a year there were only 20 of them.

Edit- i did get a chuckle, SA currently has negative wholesale prices, hopefully we see that flow through to retail soon enough!

Wind also at 20%, so wind and solar at 31%.

Yup. A businessman making business decisions. I mean, who'd have thought it?

States sell their assets, and shock horror, those businesses make decisions some people don't like. This is especially so with nuclear plants which are almost always government funded or guaranteed everywhere in the world.

[claybro]

Found that interesting as well.

The no meed fot always on base load is a comment I'm suprised hasn't got more noise given the whole 'base load' power myth that is core to the anti Renewables push.

“AGL saying” . Would that be AGL that is having its strings pulled by Mike Cannon Brookes, who also has a large interest in renewable projects he is receiving funding from the taxpayer that are yet to see the light of day? He has been using his significant shareholding in AGL to activate for divestment in fossil fuel generation. Not much of a conflict there eh? And as a reminder.. wind is still struggling around 10% again today… so sure.. let’s shut down more gas??

Wealthy businessman making good business decisions?

Again, constantly quoting todays wind power generation is a nonsense, we are in the midst of a transition with the amount of renewables coming on line increasing.

It would have been like trying to stop the transition from horse and cart to cars/trucks/tractors because after a year there were only 20 of them.

Edit- i did get a chuckle, SA currently has negative wholesale prices, hopefully we see that flow through to retail soon enough!

Wind also at 20%, so wind and solar at 31%.

Funny how you keep trying to isolate SA to make the figures for renewables look better. Sure isolate SA all the time. See how long that works… and you well know wide dispersal of production is the entire point behind renewables. SA has a tiny population, and small industrial base…. you know that also.. Its generation requirements pale in comparison to the East. Point being, Aus has one of the highest rooftop solar take ups in the world, and the country is now spending $6 billion per year, on a transition to variable generation that even the renewable industry acknowledge will require massive amounts of storage, by a technology that doesn’t exist for purpose yet.

[Waewick]

“AGL saying” . Would that be AGL that is having its strings pulled by Mike Cannon Brookes, who also has a large interest in renewable projects he is receiving funding from the taxpayer that are yet to see the light of day? He has been using his significant shareholding in AGL to activate for divestment in fossil fuel generation. Not much of a conflict there eh? And as a reminder.. wind is still struggling around 10% again today… so sure.. let’s shut down more gas??

Wealthy businessman making good business decisions?

Again, constantly quoting todays wind power generation is a nonsense, we are in the midst of a transition with the amount of renewables coming on line increasing.

It would have been like trying to stop the transition from horse and cart to cars/trucks/tractors because after a year there were only 20 of them.

Edit- i did get a chuckle, SA currently has negative wholesale prices, hopefully we see that flow through to retail soon enough!

Wind also at 20%, so wind and solar at 31%.

Funny how you keep trying to isolate SA to make the figures for renewables look better. Sure isolate SA all the time. See how long that works… and you well know wide dispersal of production is the entire point behind renewables. SA has a tiny population, and small industrial base…. you know that also.. Its generation requirements pale in comparison to the East. Point being, Aus has one of the highest rooftop solar take ups in the world, and the country is now spending $6 billion per year, on a transition to variable generation that even the renewable industry acknowledge will require massive amounts of storage, by a technology that doesn’t exist for purpose yet.

Yes lets only talk about SA power prices when they are bad, Thats how we do it?

But no one is suggesting the transition was going to be easy.

But it's going to be easier, cheaper and quicker
going renewables.

And stop using the whole 'variable' generation claim, its a lazy argument.

[claybro]

Do you say people only talk about SA wholesale prices when they are bad, and now when they are good, kind of proves a point. Sometimes they are bad… very bad which is why they come up in conversation. It also points to the highly variable nature of renewable generation, usually all at once, in the middle of the day, when peak usage is in the late afternoon. But we are apparently not allowed to talk about variability because it is lazy… or something.

[rubberman]

“AGL saying” . Would that be AGL that is having its strings pulled by Mike Cannon Brookes, who also has a large interest in renewable projects he is receiving funding from the taxpayer that are yet to see the light of day? He has been using his significant shareholding in AGL to activate for divestment in fossil fuel generation. Not much of a conflict there eh? And as a reminder.. wind is still struggling around 10% again today… so sure.. let’s shut down more gas??

Wealthy businessman making good business decisions?

Again, constantly quoting todays wind power generation is a nonsense, we are in the midst of a transition with the amount of renewables coming on line increasing.

It would have been like trying to stop the transition from horse and cart to cars/trucks/tractors because after a year there were only 20 of them.

Edit- i did get a chuckle, SA currently has negative wholesale prices, hopefully we see that flow through to retail soon enough!

Wind also at 20%, so wind and solar at 31%.

Funny how you keep trying to isolate SA to make the figures for renewables look better. Sure isolate SA all the time. See how long that works… and you well know wide dispersal of production is the entire point behind renewables. SA has a tiny population, and small industrial base…. you know that also.. Its generation requirements pale in comparison to the East. Point being, Aus has one of the highest rooftop solar take ups in the world, and the country is now spending $6 billion per year, on a transition to variable generation that even the renewable industry acknowledge will require massive amounts of storage, by a technology that doesn’t exist for purpose yet.

There have been 12, repeat, 12, major fossil fuel plants closed since 2012. It wouldn't matter if renewables didn't exist, we'd still be looking at spending billions per year. Further, if that was nuclear, it would be even higher.

A technology that doesn't exist? Last year, 2.5 gWH of storage was installed. One year. So, with existing tech it can be done. Now. How many SMR nuclear plants exist? When does the criterion of technology that doesn't exist matter?

Even on the crazy optimistic time frame of ten years that nuclear boosters put out, say 2035, 80% of the existing coal plants, will be gone. Plus the 12 already gone, and there's very little left for nuclear plants to provide. Possibly, 5% of previous capacity.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ckout=true

Eraring is closing in two years. Torrens A, 2026. They. Are. Closing. Whatever replaces them will not be nuclear. Even if there's a panic, it will be gas. With a life of 40 years. So. No nukes there. Yallourn 2028. No nukes there.

By that optimistic 2035 when nukes could be built, 90% of existing coal plants will have closed either replaced by renewables, or maybe gas. In a practical sense, that's 5% of 2012 fossil fuel generation. (Some estimates have it as low as 3%).

Nuclear advocates are getting emotional over 3-5% of 2012 production levels. Because even with the totally unrealistic timeline of ten years, that's all that would be left. Further, in the worst case, where gas expansion is required, so there's a mix of renewables, batteries, and gas, each of those is infinitely more variable in output than nuclear which is economic running at constant output. They will destroy nuclear economically. There won't be a time of day where nuclear is more economic.

It's dead. It's passed on! This nuclear idea is no more! It has ceased to be! 'It's expired and gone to meet 'its maker! 'It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'It's off the twig! 'It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-Nuclear Policy!!

[Waewick]

Do you say people only talk about SA wholesale prices when they are bad, and now when they are good, kind of proves a point. Sometimes they are bad… very bad which is why they come up in conversation. It also points to the highly variable nature of renewable generation, usually all at once, in the middle of the day, when peak usage is in the late afternoon. But we are apparently not allowed to talk about variability because it is lazy… or something.

Because they aren't variable in the way you are implying. That is they may or may not generate power over time.

We've known when the sun comes up and goes down for literal centuries, when they develop wind farms or solar farms they do studies to work out when and how much power they will generate over the course of a year and they work out the reliable amount. Its not just putup a farm and hope.

Its like calling coal variable because we don't know when they'll breakdown.

The push into renewables constantly shows lowering of wholesale prices. Its just a matter of time until that flows through to retail prices, the issue is we don'thave enough..

Batteries are also part of the next phase and as anyone following along has seen, they are getting cheaper and more advanced by the year.

Nuclear won't be doing anything for over a decade.

[rubberman]

Do you say people only talk about SA wholesale prices when they are bad, and now when they are good, kind of proves a point. Sometimes they are bad… very bad which is why they come up in conversation. It also points to the highly variable nature of renewable generation, usually all at once, in the middle of the day, when peak usage is in the late afternoon. But we are apparently not allowed to talk about variability because it is lazy… or something.

Not lazy...crazy.

In 2035, assuming the optimistic build times and technology appear, a nuclear plant which cannot operate economically unless it is relatively constant output, is competing with gas that ramps up over 15 minutes, and batteries that ramp up in milliseconds. During the middle of the day, and when wind is working, nuclear plants will have to give power away.

So, let's talk about variability, at your request.

How will a nuclear plant be economic if it cannot sell power during the day because it is competing with power sources that can ramp up to snatch its market within minutes...or seconds?

How exactly, would you propose an invariable power plant to make money competing with almost instantly variable competitors?

Edit. And I'll add that if gas plants can predict an increase in demand, which is very common, then those plants can be started ahead of time, and have spinning reserve ready to go in seconds.

[PeFe]

Federal government committed to funding South Australia on its path to 100% net renewables. More solar and wind and at least one big battery (hopefully around 500mw/2000mwh)
Personally I would have liked to see more wind and more batteries. Batteries are cheaper than gas and undermine gas's dominance on low wind nights, gas pushing the wholesale price of power skywards. Also battery prices (in real terms) are coming down....

From Renew Economy

South Australia locks in federal funds to become first grid in world to reach 100 per cent net wind and solar



South Australia has locked in federal funding to ensure that it becomes the first non-hydro grid in the world to reach 100 per cent net renewables.

The funding deal – through what’s known as a Renewable Energy Transformation Agreement – means that the federal government will underwrite a minimum one gigawatt of new wind and solar generation capacity and another 400 MW (1,600 MWh) of storage – to ensure it meets its target of 100 per cent net renewables by 2027.

South Australia already leads Australia – and the world – with a wind and solar share of around 70 per cent over the last 12 months. The addition of the new capacity, along with the new Project Energy Connect transmission link from NSW, will enable it to become the first in the world to reach 1`00 per cent net renewables based around wind and solar.

That does not mean it will be powered at all times by wind and solar. But the amount of wind and solar generated and stored each year will be equivalent to what it consume each year. The state will export power at times and import at other times, and can fall pack on existing peaking gas plants to fill in the gaps.

Reaching that milestone will be a landmark for the state, and for advocates of the renewable energy transition, particularly as conservative and legacy fossil fuel interests continue to push back on the idea that a modern economy can be powered by renewables and storage.

The irony about South Australia is that the target of 100 per cent net renewables was originally committed by the state Liberal government. The state Labor government merely accelerated it from 2030 to 2027.

“South Australia has been a renewable energy pioneer – so much so that we recently brought forward our renewable energy target by three years, committing to ensure electricity generation can be sourced from net 100 per cent renewables by 2027,” state energy minister Tom Koutsantonis said in a statement.

“So we warmly welcome this agreement to accelerate the roll out of renewables while ensuring the reliability of the energy system.

“Our government is committed to working with the Commonwealth to establish a secured grid, supporting the power needs of South Australian households and businesses.”

South Australia has not added a new wind or solar project to the grid for around two years, although the biggest wind project in the state – the 412 MW Goyder South wind farm – is about to connect and send its first power to the grid.

Several new battery projects are also under construction – at Blyth, Hallett, Clements Gap and Templers and another, Tailem Bend, still waiting to be commissioned.

These projects will help propel the state towards 80 per cent renewables over the coming year and the additional capacity of 1,000 MW of wind and solar, 400 MW of battery capacity (plus the minimum 200 MW included in the current CIS auction) will take it towards 100 per cent net renewables.

South Australia is also building the world’s first green hydrogen power plant at Whyalla, which will be accompanied by a 250 MW green hydrogen electrolyser and storage facilities, which will also be the world’s biggest when complete.

The state is also fielding huge number of inquiries from industry keen to source zero emissions and low cost green energy – with the local transmission company ElectraNet reporting that more than 2 gigawatts of load inquiries have been made.

Federal energy and climate minister Chris Bowen says the signing of the Renewable Energy Transformation Agreement means that South Australia is the first state to lock in the funding required to meet its targets under the federal government’s Capacity Investment Scheme.

The CIS aims to contract an additional 32GW of renewable generation and storage across the country to help it deliver most of the capacity needed to meet its 82 per cent renewable energy target by 2032.

The first tender of 6 gigawatts of new wind and solar capacity has been flooded with interest, with more than 40 GW of projects showing interest, while the first storage tender – for 600 MW, 2,400 MWh in Victoria and South Australia – was also heavily oversubscribed with some 19 GW of proposals.

Bowen says the bilateral agreements have been designed specifically to address the barriers developers, communities, and governments face in delivering renewable projects, and to replace ageing infrastructure that was built half a century ago.

“The Albanese Government is delivering the certainty and confidence the market spent a decade asking for,” Bowen said in a statement.

“The more renewable energy we have in our grid, the more downward pressure it puts on energy bills because it is the cheapest form of energy to power households and industry.

“Giving the market the confidence to build new projects is good; signing an agreement to collaborate with South Australia on practical steps to get the best out of this energy transformation for South Australian workers, communities and industry, is great.

“The Albanese Government’s Reliable Renewables Plan is the only plan supported by experts to deliver the clean, cheap, reliable and resilient energy system that Australians deserve. This is in sharp contrast to Peter Dutton’s anti-renewables nuclear plan – which remains uncosted and unexplained.”

As part of the deal, South Australia, will establish its own specific grid reliability mechanism and benchmark to be used in place of the national framework, and to be responsible for identifying and delivering new projects and technologies that will maintain reliability to that standard.

Renew Economy is seeking more information to understand what that means in practice.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-austr ... and-solar/

And another potential large hydrogen project for South Australia

From InDaily

Global firm announces major SA hydrogen project

An international developer will build two major green hydrogen projects in South Australia and the Northern Territory, as the state government signs a renewables agreement with the Commonwealth.



Climate Impact Corporation (CIC) today announced its intention to develop two 10GW green hydrogen projects in central Australia, utilising modular technology that draws on water in the air to produce hydrogen energy.

Each project will be 50 times larger than the state government’s proposed Whyalla hydrogen power plant, and utilise a different type of technology that CIC said uses less water and is not reliant on grid power.

CIC – a multinational climate tech firm – said each project would be the largest of their kind developed in Australia to date.

Developed in partnership with GE Verona, the hydrogen production module contains atmospheric water generators, solar panels, electrolysers and additional infrastructure.

CIC said the technology can produce renewable hydrogen in solar-rich locations and does not rely on ground water, desalination or grid electricity.

CIC co-founder and chairman David Green said the approach would unlock inland hydrogen production in solar-rich locations such as the Northern Territory and South Australia. The company hopes to be producing hydrogen at test modules as soon as the end of the year.

“Renewable hydrogen production requires a significant amount of energy and water, which aren’t often found together in places like Australia,” Green said.

“Rather than repeating the same approach, we’re looking to solve this challenge by creating modules that use Australia’s abundant solar resources, combined with proven atmospheric water generation technology.

“It’s an approach that solves one of the biggest challenges Australia has faced in becoming a renewable hydrogen superpower, and we’re excited to be bringing it to market first in Australia.”


A render of CIC’s proposed modular hydrogen generators. Photo: Supplied.

Green said CIC had secured enough offtake buyers for Australian-produced renewable hydrogen and hydrogen derivatives to support the development of large-scale projects in Australia.

“The demand for dependable, sustainable, and affordable renewable fuels in the Asia-Pacific is growing, and Australia is perfectly placed to become a regional hydrogen superpower to meet that need,” he said.

“But that means we need to invest in technology that maximises Australia’s advantages, and come up with creative solutions to challenges like water scarcity without a huge financial burden being placed on governments and communities.

“Modular, off-grid hydrogen is based on proven technology and has enormous potential to meet Australia and the region’s renewable fuel needs.”

Green added that CIC required political will to support new technologies like its modular hydrogen projects.

“We need Australian governments to lean in if we want Australia to lead in this technology instead of being of it being used in other countries first,” he said.

“We’re speaking to leaders in Adelaide and Darwin about renewable hydrogen projects in their states and territories, as well as component manufacturing, that will provide ongoing jobs for hundreds of people while producing zero-carbon fuels.

“Government support on permitting, streamlining approvals process, and ensuring suitable sites are available would accelerate this investment significantly.”

Commonwealth renewables agreement penned
Green’s comments come as the South Australian government today signed a final Renewable Energy Transformation Agreement with the federal government.

SA is the first state to sign such an agreement, under which the Albanese Government will underwrite developers to build a minimum 1000MW of new wind and solar projects in the state.

The federal government will also underwrite 400MW of new storage capacity to ensure renewable power is available for homes and businesses 24/7.

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen said renewable energy would put downward pressure on energy bills.

“The more renewable energy we have in our grid, the more downward pressure it puts on energy bills because it is the cheapest form of energy to power households and industry,” Bowen said.

“Giving the market the confidence to build new projects is good; signing an agreement to collaborate with South Australia on practical steps to get the best out of this energy transformation for South Australian workers, communities and industry, is great.”

State Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis welcomed the agreement.

“South Australia has been a renewable energy pioneer – so much so that we recently brought forward our renewable energy target by three years, committing to ensure electricity generation can be sourced from net 100 per cent renewables by 2027,” Koutsantonis said.

“So we warmly welcome this agreement to accelerate the roll out of renewables while ensuring the reliability of the energy system.

“Our government is committed to working with the Commonwealth to establish a secured grid, supporting the power needs of South Australian households and businesses.”

State Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis welcomed the agreement.

“South Australia has been a renewable energy pioneer – so much so that we recently brought forward our renewable energy target by three years, committing to ensure electricity generation can be sourced from net 100 per cent renewables by 2027,” Koutsantonis said.

“So we warmly welcome this agreement to accelerate the roll out of renewables while ensuring the reliability of the energy system.

“Our government is committed to working with the Commonwealth to establish a secured grid, supporting the power needs of South Australian households and businesses.”

https://www.indaily.com.au/business/ene ... en-project

Claybro wrote

Do you say people only talk about SA wholesale prices when they are bad, and now when they are good, kind of proves a point. Sometimes they are bad… very bad which is why they come up in conversation. It also points to the highly variable nature of renewable generation, usually all at once, in the middle of the day, when peak usage is in the late afternoon. But we are apparently not allowed to talk about variability because it is lazy… or something.

The average South Australian wholesale power in quarter 1(2024) of South Australia was 5.8 cents per kwh.
https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/202 ... y-2024-q1/
The avearage retail price of electricity in South Australia in Q1 (2024) was 47 cents per kwh. Huge huge ripoff.......huge disparity between the wholesale price and the retail price.
South Australian suffers from price gouging at a retail level......yes the prices came down on July 1 but not nearly enough.
The energy regulator should be braver in pushing down prices....my wish is that they pushed own prices 20% immediately.

[claybro]

Do you say people only talk about SA wholesale prices when they are bad, and now when they are good, kind of proves a point. Sometimes they are bad… very bad which is why they come up in conversation. It also points to the highly variable nature of renewable generation, usually all at once, in the middle of the day, when peak usage is in the late afternoon. But we are apparently not allowed to talk about variability because it is lazy… or something.

Not lazy...crazy.

In 2035, assuming the optimistic build times and technology appear, a nuclear plant which cannot operate economically unless it is relatively constant output, is competing with gas that ramps up over 15 minutes, and batteries that ramp up in milliseconds. During the middle of the day, and when wind is working, nuclear plants will have to give power away.

So, let's talk about variability, at your request.

How will a nuclear plant be economic if it cannot sell power during the day because it is competing with power sources that can ramp up to snatch its market within minutes...or seconds?

How exactly, would you propose an invariable power plant to make money competing with almost instantly variable competitors?

Edit. And I'll add that if gas plants can predict an increase in demand, which is very common, then those plants can be started ahead of time, and have spinning reserve ready to go in seconds.

Gas should not be used to generate electricity. It is too valuable a resource for chemical, agricultural, and medical requirements. Yes batteries can ramp up instantly, but still have very limited output time wise and a relatively limited lifespan. Regarding nuclear having large downtime at massive cost due to eventual penetration of renewables, it has already been stated that excess nuclear power would be used to power energy intensive industries, which currently have/ are about to offshore due to cost and availability of existing generation. It is being proposed to greatly expand the industrial manufacturing capacity of Australia, which will then improve its cost v benefit. Most discussion around renewables seem to revolve around just keeping the lights on… not expansion.. except for green hydrogen.. which at this point is unproven in commercial quantities.

[Waewick]

The green hydrogen market is going to be an interesting space to watch.

I know Germany is betting big on Hydrogen replacing their reliance on gas, but how confident are we its the future ? Ive heard plenty of conflicting views in that space

[PeFe]

It has already been stated that excess nuclear power would be used to power energy intensive industries, which currently have/ are about to offshore due to cost and availability of existing generation. It is being proposed to greatly expand the industrial manufacturing capacity of Australia, which will then improve its cost v benefit.

What excess nuclear power? Dutton is proposing to build small nuclear plants.....ie a small amount of power.

Eraring is closing in 2027, you would need 6 small nuclear reactors to replace Eraring, let alone the other 6 coal fired power stations that will close over the next 12 years.

So what is the coalitions plan to replace this power.....there is no plan....the only plan that makes sense for them is to do nothing and try and keep all those coal fired power stations going forever.....or at least until 2050 when small nuclear has claimed their prices will come down.

In 2016 the South Australian Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle estimated the cost of power coming from a small nuclear reactor @ $238 per mwh, my guestimate in 2024 dollars is @ $350 per mwh. Who interstate wants to buy electricity at that price when solar/wind will cost $60 per mwh via an interstate connector? And coal at $120per mwh....and pumped hydro @ $190 per mwh, gas @ $200 per mwh..... The free market will say NO to nuclear....

And as for energy intensive industries....like mining for example....BHP mining operations in South Australia in 2025 will be entirely powered by renewables. Power for BHP will be coming from the Port Augusta Renewable Park (solar and wind) and Goyder South Wind Farm and on low wind nights the soon to be completed Blyth battery will kick in. I will of course post more on this as it all happens next year.

And what about other really intensive industries like aluminium smelting? Reportedly the most electricity power use intensive industry of all time...

https://reneweconomy.com.au/giant-alumi ... bles-deal/

https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/rio- ... -aluminium

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscr ... our=append

[abc]

turbines as 'renewable energy' is a myth

I'm not against renewable energy, hydro electricity is one of the best

https://x.com/Artemisfornow/status/1804049959303389282

[claybro]

It has already been stated that excess nuclear power would be used to power energy intensive industries, which currently have/ are about to offshore due to cost and availability of existing generation. It is being proposed to greatly expand the industrial manufacturing capacity of Australia, which will then improve its cost v benefit.

What excess nuclear power? Dutton is proposing to build small nuclear plants.....ie a small amount of power.

Eraring is closing in 2027, you would need 6 small nuclear reactors to replace Eraring, let alone the other 6 coal fired power stations that will close over the next 12 years.

So what is the coalitions plan to replace this power.....there is no plan....the only plan that makes sense for them is to do nothing and try and keep all those coal fired power stations going forever.....or at least until 2050 when small nuclear has claimed their prices will come down.

In 2016 the South Australian Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle estimated the cost of power coming from a small nuclear reactor @ $238 per mwh, my guestimate in 2024 dollars is @ $350 per mwh. Who interstate wants to buy electricity at that price when solar/wind will cost $60 per mwh via an interstate connector? And coal at $120per mwh....and pumped hydro @ $190 per mwh, gas @ $200 per mwh..... The free market will say NO to nuclear....

And as for energy intensive industries....like mining for example....BHP mining operations in South Australia in 2025 will be entirely powered by renewables. Power for BHP will be coming from the Port Augusta Renewable Park (solar and wind) and Goyder South Wind Farm and on low wind nights the soon to be completed Blyth battery will kick in. I will of course post more on this as it all happens next year.

And what about other really intensive industries like aluminium smelting? Reportedly the most electricity power use intensive industry of all time...

https://reneweconomy.com.au/giant-alumi ... bles-deal/

https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/rio- ... -aluminium

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscr ... our=append

So, we have renewables proponents on one hand saying nuclear doesn’t stack up because the nuclear plants will be idle most of the time,due to the renewables.. then you ask what excess energy as they are only 7 small plants. So which is it? No excess, or idle all the time?
Also, “ the libs have no plan for energy” … well their plan is the same as Labor. More and more renewables. That is their plan… except they realise.. like most of the rest of the developed world, that backup will be an absolute necessity, even if only on average for small amounts of time, at a time. Some here … and the likes of Bowen, won’t even acknowledge the fact that renewables just might not be able to power an expanding economy, being more electrified, and using infinately more electricity from the likes of data centres powering AI. At least they have opened up a discussion. And BTW… on discussion with a Physics professor from UWA at a recent function, there are many academics asking the same questions.

[Waewick]

It has already been stated that excess nuclear power would be used to power energy intensive industries, which currently have/ are about to offshore due to cost and availability of existing generation. It is being proposed to greatly expand the industrial manufacturing capacity of Australia, which will then improve its cost v benefit.

What excess nuclear power? Dutton is proposing to build small nuclear plants.....ie a small amount of power.

Eraring is closing in 2027, you would need 6 small nuclear reactors to replace Eraring, let alone the other 6 coal fired power stations that will close over the next 12 years.

So what is the coalitions plan to replace this power.....there is no plan....the only plan that makes sense for them is to do nothing and try and keep all those coal fired power stations going forever.....or at least until 2050 when small nuclear has claimed their prices will come down.

In 2016 the South Australian Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle estimated the cost of power coming from a small nuclear reactor @ $238 per mwh, my guestimate in 2024 dollars is @ $350 per mwh. Who interstate wants to buy electricity at that price when solar/wind will cost $60 per mwh via an interstate connector? And coal at $120per mwh....and pumped hydro @ $190 per mwh, gas @ $200 per mwh..... The free market will say NO to nuclear....

And as for energy intensive industries....like mining for example....BHP mining operations in South Australia in 2025 will be entirely powered by renewables. Power for BHP will be coming from the Port Augusta Renewable Park (solar and wind) and Goyder South Wind Farm and on low wind nights the soon to be completed Blyth battery will kick in. I will of course post more on this as it all happens next year.

And what about other really intensive industries like aluminium smelting? Reportedly the most electricity power use intensive industry of all time...

https://reneweconomy.com.au/giant-alumi ... bles-deal/

https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/rio- ... -aluminium

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscr ... our=append

So, we have renewables proponents on one hand saying nuclear doesn’t stack up because the nuclear plants will be idle most of the time,due to the renewables.. then you ask what excess energy as they are only 7 small plants. So which is it? No excess, or idle all the time?
Also, “ the libs have no plan for energy” … well their plan is the same as Labor. More and more renewables. That is their plan… except they realise.. like most of the rest of the developed world, that backup will be an absolute necessity, even if only on average for small amounts of time, at a time. Some here … and the likes of Bowen, won’t even acknowledge the fact that renewables just might not be able to power an expanding economy, being more electrified, and using infinately more electricity from the likes of data centres powering AI. At least they have opened up a discussion. And BTW… on discussion with a Physics professor from UWA at a recent function, there are many academics asking the same questions.

You make an interesting point, i will admit I've always read every article about the transition to renewables as meeting future demand, I've even read papers that expect energy demand to increase significantly once renewables are the main source as it will be cheaper and therefore people can do things that in the past were simply not feasible due to cost.

In relation to growing demand, I know the International Enegery agency often talk about how new demand is being met by renewables, which feels a bit misleading, because clearly that means the backbook isnt.