News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[Algernon]

social media is notorious for misinformation

Absolutely!

Which makes the point about how absolutely pathetic the mainstream media is when it's no more credible than social media.

mainstream media is always reliable because of journalistic integrity and ethics

So to be clear here, the 'renewables caused the lights to go out at the adelaide oval' is confirmed as the hill you've chosen to die on?

[rubberman]

Absolutely!

Which makes the point about how absolutely pathetic the mainstream media is when it's no more credible than social media.

mainstream media is always reliable because of journalistic integrity and ethics

So to be clear here, the 'renewables caused the lights to go out at the adelaide oval' is confirmed as the hill you've chosen to die on?

He's just bored and having a lend.

Given the long list of things blamed on renewables, and time after time being debunked, he's going to have to try harder.

[PeFe]

Another 675mw of wind power for South Australia.

From Renew Economy

CIS auction wins ensure South Australia will be first grid in world to reach 100 pct net wind and solar


Wind turbine en route to Goyder South. Photo: Neoen.

Two key project wins in the first large scale generation tender under the Capacity Investment Scheme means that South Australia is now set to become the first gigawatt-scale grid in the world to reach 100 per cent “net” renewables, all through wind and solar.

The state currently leads the country, and the world, with an average share of more than 72 per cent renewables (all wind and solar) over the last 12 months, and has recently accelerated its target of reaching 100 per cent net renewables to 2027, rather than 2030 as first planned.

That target has received a major boost with news that two large wind projects – the 300 MW first stage of the massive Goyder North renewable hub and the 274 MW Palmer wind project – were among the 19 awarded contracts under the first tender of the CIS, the largest renewables auction ever to be held in Australia.

Reaching 100 per cent “net renewables means the state will still export excess wind and solar at times, and import power from neighbouring states when needed.

The amounts it can export and import will increase with the addition of the new transmission link to NSW, Project EnergyConnect, the first stage of which is going through tests.

Critics of renewables often complain that “net” percentages are deceiving because of the imports and exports, but the reality is that this is common to every connected grid.

France, for instance, is said to generate 65 per cent of its electricity needs from nuclear, but it also exports large amounts when it has surplus power (their plants do not like to be turned down), and also imports a lot when needed, as in 2022 when half of its reactors were off line due to varying reasons.

The two new wind farms, along with the soon to be completed 412 MW Goyder South wind farm, will lift the state’s installed wind capacity from 2.3 GW to more than 3.2 GW, boosting its share of generation to around 60 per cent.

The state has already secured contracts for another four big battery projects under the first pilot stage of the CIS, which was focused on long duration storage.

hese include the 250 MW/1,000 MWh Limestone West battery proposed by UK-based Pacific Green Energy, Zen Energy’s 170 MW/650 MWh Solar River battery, Pacific Blue’s 60 MW/ 143 MWh Clements Gap battery, and EnergyAustralia’s 50 MW, 200 MWh Hallett battery.

They will add to the exiting Hornsdale, Lake Bonney, Torrens Island and Dalrymple batteries, and the nearly complete Blyth and Templer batteries, and will enhance the state’s ability to store excess wind and solar, particularly rooftop PV, and feed it back into the grid at peak times.

Goyder North is being built by Neoen, which already operates the Hornsdale wind farms and big battery, and is nearing completion of the 412 MW first stage of the Goyder South wind farm.

Goyder South and Goyder North, located either side of the town of Burra, have the potential to develop into a multi gigawatt renewable hub with the addition of more wind, solar and potentially more than 4 gigawatt hours of battery storage.

Palmer is being developed by Tilt Renewables, about 50kms east of Adelaide, and will add to the Snowtown 1 wind project that the company already operates in that state.

South Australia is often criticised as having an unreliable grid. But a recent report from the Australian Energy Market Operator showed that it was actually the only state that it not face a shortfall in “system strength”, despite having no so-called “baseload” power stations and being largely dependent on inverter based technologies.

It has relied on peaking plants, both gas and diesel, to fill in the gaps of wind and solar – along with imports – but it should be noted that nearly all of these peaking generators were built to support the state when it relied heavily on the now shuttered coal generators and large combined cycle gas generators.

The state has sought an emergency rule change that will allow it to keep two mothballed peaking generators on standby over the next two summers – until the new interconnector and the new batteries are completed.

It is also piloting a new capacity scheme to provide incentives for many of the remaining peaking generators to stay in the system for a few more years and is manages the transition. Some will need to stay in the grid for a long time, although they will be rarely used.

The state is also working on a 250 MW hydrogen power plant near Whyalla to boost its dispatchable power resources.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/cis-auction ... and-solar/

[rev]

Out of curiosity, if we do reach 100% wind and solar, how much of each will there be? Will it be 70% wind and 30% solar for eg or...?
And if one isn't available, will the other be able to meet demand in South Australia, and whatever is sent across state borders?
say for a few hours, or a day, or even a few weeks or longer?
How long will the battery storage be able to meet that demand, if it could meet it all?
If for some reason we lose the capacity to generate from solar, how long will the wind turbines be able to keep enough electricity coming through and/or recharging the battery storage?

What is the back up in place?

[PeFe]

100% net renewables means renewables (plus storage and hydrogen generated power) matches 100% of power requirements.

However this may not not "match" all at the same time....for example South Australia may be generating 120% of its power requirements from renewables (exporting the 20% excess) during the day but at night it falls 20% short, the shortfall made up by gas or interstate coal.

Absolute 100% renewables and net 100% renewable are two different beasts.

To achieve absolute 100% renewables South Australia needs a lot more battery storage. Large projects like the large Goyder battery proposal and the 500mw/1500mwh proposal in the south east would get us very very close to absolute 100% renewables.

Solar and wind are variable (to state the obvious) so batteries are there "to fill in the gaps". Same with the proposed hydrogen plant.

Net 100% renewables by 2027 is looking very achievable.

We don't need a small nuclear reactor , that only outputs a small amount of power and costs anywhere between 8 to 23 billion AUD. We need that money spent on batteries....their cost is actually going down.

[Algernon]

Out of curiosity, if we do reach 100% wind and solar, how much of each will there be? Will it be 70% wind and 30% solar for eg or...?
And if one isn't available, will the other be able to meet demand in South Australia, and whatever is sent across state borders?
say for a few hours, or a day, or even a few weeks or longer?
How long will the battery storage be able to meet that demand, if it could meet it all?
If for some reason we lose the capacity to generate from solar, how long will the wind turbines be able to keep enough electricity coming through and/or recharging the battery storage?

What is the back up in place?

When you see a graph showing the percentage breakdown of renewables and gas and exports etc, it is showing the breakdown of what demand was supplied by that type at a given time interval, not how much was being generated. How that % breaks down is a combination of supply, a market mechanism on price, the total amount of demand and capacity constraints.

The dips in the graph overnight aren't because there is less power produced, it's because less is being used.

The capacity constraint is in being able to move excess energy either to something soaking up the excess (recharging batteries) or exporting to victoria (a 650mw capacity atm).

When there is nowhere for the excess to go, it is curtailed. The turbines keep spinning, the panels keep sitting in the sun, but momentarily unplugged.

Why this is important: the current system is capable of producing far more than merely what is shown on a graph of what demand was filled. At peak, the system produces roughly 250% of the state's demand but there's nowhere for the excess power to go: yet.

Right now, there is battery capacity u/c or as good as u/c that will supply a quarter of SA for 4 hours. The NSW interconnect u/c is a rough doubling of the import/export capacity. Those 2 combined get SA to 100% net. The reason 2027 is the new target because it's very predictable to set it around when a couple of things already u/c will be finished.

As for true 100, not net: Build more batteries than what is currently u/c.Build more wind and solar. Goyder south/north currently u/c probably get the capacity part sorted, just a case of a few more batteries.

[rubberman]

Out of curiosity, if we do reach 100% wind and solar, how much of each will there be? Will it be 70% wind and 30% solar for eg or...?
And if one isn't available, will the other be able to meet demand in South Australia, and whatever is sent across state borders?
say for a few hours, or a day, or even a few weeks or longer?
How long will the battery storage be able to meet that demand, if it could meet it all?
If for some reason we lose the capacity to generate from solar, how long will the wind turbines be able to keep enough electricity coming through and/or recharging the battery storage?

What is the back up in place?

When you see a graph showing the percentage breakdown of renewables and gas and exports etc, it is showing the breakdown of what demand was supplied by that type at a given time interval, not how much was being generated. How that % breaks down is a combination of supply, a market mechanism on price, the total amount of demand and capacity constraints.

The dips in the graph overnight aren't because there is less power produced, it's because less is being used.

The capacity constraint is in being able to move excess energy either to something soaking up the excess (recharging batteries) or exporting to victoria (a 650mw capacity atm).

When there is nowhere for the excess to go, it is curtailed. The turbines keep spinning, the panels keep sitting in the sun, but momentarily unplugged.

Why this is important: the current system is capable of producing far more than merely what is shown on a graph of what demand was filled. At peak, the system produces roughly 250% of the state's demand but there's nowhere for the excess power to go: yet.

Right now, there is battery capacity u/c or as good as u/c that will supply a quarter of SA for 4 hours. The NSW interconnect u/c is a rough doubling of the import/export capacity. Those 2 combined get SA to 100% net. The reason 2027 is the new target because it's very predictable to set it around when a couple of things already u/c will be finished.

As for true 100, not net: Build more batteries than what is currently u/c.Build more wind and solar. Goyder south/north currently u/c probably get the capacity part sorted, just a case of a few more batteries.

The other reason for 2027 is that about half of the coal plant capacity is due to go offline then. That's if those plants can hold together for that long. They've had some bad failures over the past few years with outages of several months at a time. Loy Yang and Callide B are hanging on by their fingernails if the record of outages is anything to go by.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-13/ ... /103459626

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-13/ ... /103461222

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/vict ... 5f4xk.html

https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/202 ... april2022/

[rev]

Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy policy costed at $331bn, which is $250bn less than Labor’s plan

A price tag has finally been put on the Coalition’s proposal for an energy grid that includes nuclear and it’s $250bn less than the plan Labor is pursuing. Find out why.

John Rolfe
@publicdefender
4 min read
December 12, 2024 - 10:00PM
National News Network

The first detailed costing of Peter Dutton’s bold plan to add nuclear energy to the power grid forecasts a saving of more than a quarter of a trillion dollars compared to Anthony Albanese’s renewables-heavy strategy.

The Coalition’s proposal favouring reactors across the nation finds that between now and 2050, the price would be $331 billion versus $594bn for Labor’s preferred approach, according to analysis by Frontier Economics to be made public on Friday.

The Opposition’s plan is cheaper due to a lesser need for new transmission infrastructure – relative to what the government is pursuing – and because the cost of the plants could be spread over a 50-year life, as well as an assumption that

Australia’s electricity needs will not increase as fast as the ALP is betting, meaning the size of the overall task is reduced.

Ahead of the release of the new costing last night, Mr Dutton vowed the Coalition would deliver “massive savings”.

“This means reduced power bills for households, lower operating costs for small businesses, and a stronger, more resilient economy,” the Opposition leader said.

Energy policy is set to be the most fiercely contested policy area at the next election, which must be held by May.

While the Coalition uses Frontier’s analysis to argue that the nuclear option can combat power price increases, the government is expected to attack the credibility of the new research by seizing on a decision to revise down the cost of Labor’s renewables strategy by nearly $50bn since initial figures were published a month ago.



Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen is also likely to criticise the absence of detail about where the first of seven proposed reactors will be built and what type of technology would be used.

The Coalition has flagged opening nuclear plants on the sites of five currently operating coal-fired power stations. They are Queensland’s Tarong, northwest of Brisbane, and Callide, west of Gladstone, as well as NSW’s Mount Piper near Lithgow, Loy Yang in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, plus Muja in WA. The two other sites are former coal plants – Liddell in NSW’s Hunter Valley and Port Augusta in South Australia.

Mr Dutton has said that if the Coalition wins the election, two “establishment projects” will be chosen in that term, with electricity to flow from the mid-2030s.

A Liberal-National government would also need to overcome state and federal bans on nuclear energy.

The new Frontier costings assume 13.2 gigawatts of power would come from fission by 2050, slightly less than the Opposition’s stated objective of 14GW.

The calculations are based on nuclear entering as currently operating coal-fired power exits.

The major parties are at odds on timing of coal-plant closures.

Under the path being followed by Labor, nearly all of the existing 21GW of coal-fired power is anticipated to leave the system within a decade.

Frontier’s modelling of the Coalition plan is premised on only a third of the present coal capacity retiring by then.

Coal-plant owners’ stated closure timetables are slightly faster than what Frontier assumes but considerably slower than what the ALP and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) envision.

Frontier doesn’t identify which coal plants would stay open for longer; the Coalition has not divulged that either, saying only that it isn’t in favour of “premature” shutdowns.

In reality, the Coalition expects replacement nuclear capacity to be turned on for a year or more before a coal plant is decommissioned.

Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien last night said: “Labor’s plan will see 90 per cent of Australia’s 24/7 baseload power forced out of the system by 2034, leaving the grid vulnerable to blackouts and instability.

“In contrast, the Coalition’s approach ensures retiring coal plants are replaced with reliable, zero-emissions nuclear energy, supported by renewables, gas, and storage.”



Still, there would be no power from coal by the late 2040s and less reliance on gas than under the Labor strategy because there would not be the same volume of renewables to “firm”.

By introducing baseload capacity at sites with existing network infrastructure, the new transmission costs of the Opposition plan are kept to $14bn versus $67bn for the government’s pathway, according to Frontier.

By 2050, nuclear would account for eight per cent of capacity but 38 per cent of electricity output because it is always on, the consultancy says in its report.

The Opposition is expected to refute accusations that it is anti-renewables by pointing out that its plan would still see 54 per cent of power derived from wind and solar in 25 years from now, which would require a doubling from current levels.

The government plan relies on renewables providing about three-quarters of Australia’s electricity in the middle of the century.

The Coalition is also likely to highlight that even if the cost of nuclear energy turns out to be double what Frontier has forecast, its proposal is still cheaper than Labor’s strategy.

The $331bn cost of the Opposition policy is based on AEMO’s “progressive” scenario, which assumes a lesser rate of growth in demand compared to the “step change” outlook that underpins Labor’s actions. Progressive adopts a global temperature increase of 2.6 degrees Celsius versus 1.8C for step change.

Step change is AEMO’s preferred scenario. It has assigned a 43 per cent likelihood to step change – just one percentage point more than progressive.

Electricity demand under step change is about two-thirds higher in 2050 than for the progressive outlook.

To justify its choice of progressive, the Coalition is expected to note that AEMO has consistently over-estimated demand over more than two decades.

Frontier’s new work shows that if the step change scenario is applied to the Opposition policy, it is still nearly $150bn cheaper than Labor’s strategy.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscrib ... nt-2-SCORE

[Waewick]

I managed to watch the presser, and it was absolutely hilarious.

The three guys presenting it seemed to have no understanding of what they were talking about and just kept trying different election slogans to see what stuck.

It reminded me of a yr 8 science project presentation you see in a movie.

It's one of the worst policies I've seen put out by a opposition party since the birthday cake debacle.

[abc]

I managed to watch the presser, and it was absolutely hilarious.

The three guys presenting it seemed to have no understanding of what they were talking about and just kept trying different election slogans to see what stuck.

It reminded me of a yr 8 science project presentation you see in a movie.

It's one of the worst policies I've seen put out by a opposition party since the birthday cake debacle.

remind me what your scientific credentials are again?

[PeFe]

AP1000 Westinghouse Nuclear Reactor.......cost $ 7 billion USD (thats 11 billion AUD)......power output 1100mw......estimated time of completion, if everything goes right, 2038-2040

What else could you buy for 11 billion AUD? Well how about lots of batteries for a start....
11 (eleven) 500mw/2000mwh batteries.....cost 11 billion AUD....power output 5500mw for 4 hours, 2,750mw for 8 hours, 1375mw for 16 hours
If the batteries were ordered today when would they be operational.....my guess 2027

Westinghouse reactors were built at the Vogtle plant in Georgia USA. The build was for 2 new reactors (so the plant itself was already established, Australia must start from scratch) The initial budget was $14 billion USD (22 billion AUD). The cost at completion was $34 billion USD (53 billion AUD) and the project was 7 (seven) years behind schedule.....and this was just for reactors.....not the cost setting up the power plant.

Nuclear builds are notorious for their cost overruns and delay in finishing....all across the western world this is the case....in countries that have been building nuclear for the last 50 years like

Hinkley Pt C in the UK, originally budgeted at 35 billion AUD, latest cost estimate 92 billion AUD

Flammanviile C in France, just a reactor not even a new plant, 16 billion AUD in cost overruns, 12 years late

NuScale small nuclear in the USA, 470mw reactor, original budget 5 billion USD, actual cost to build as told to potential investors 9.2 billion USD. The American free market said a big NO to that one.

The Olkiluoto reactor in Finland, just a reactor, not a new plant, 6 billion AUD in cost overruns and 4 years late....

This is an ominous warning for Australia, if you do not heed the mistakes of others , you will end up repeating them.

[claybro]

AP1000 Westinghouse Nuclear Reactor.......cost $ 7 billion USD (thats 11 billion AUD)......power output 1100mw......estimated time of completion, if everything goes right, 2038-2040

What else could you buy for 11 billion AUD? Well how about lots of batteries for a start....
11 (eleven) 500mw/2000mwh batteries.....cost 11 billion AUD....power output 5500mw for 4 hours, 2,750mw for 8 hours, 1375mw for 16 hours
If the batteries were ordered today when would they be operational.....my guess 2027

Westinghouse reactors were built at the Vogtle plant in Georgia USA. The build was for 2 new reactors (so the plant itself was already established, Australia must start from scratch) The initial budget was $14 billion USD (22 billion AUD). The cost at completion was $34 billion USD (53 billion AUD) and the project was 7 (seven) years behind schedule.....and this was just for reactors.....not the cost setting up the power plant.

Nuclear builds are notorious for their cost overruns and delay in finishing....all across the western world this is the case....in countries that have been building nuclear for the last 50 years like

Hinkley Pt C in the UK, originally budgeted at 35 billion AUD, latest cost estimate 92 billion AUD

Flammanviile C in France, just a reactor not even a new plant, 16 billion AUD in cost overruns, 12 years late

NuScale small nuclear in the USA, 470mw reactor, original budget 5 billion USD, actual cost to build as told to potential investors 9.2 billion USD. The American free market said a big NO to that one.

The Olkiluoto reactor in Finland, just a reactor, not a new plant, 6 billion AUD in cost overruns and 4 years late....

This is an ominous warning for Australia, if you do not heed the mistakes of others , you will end up repeating them.

Yes that kind of money would build a lot of batteries. But you haven't mentioned the lifespan of all those batteries.- Do they all require replacement in 10 years? 15? 20? What are the rates of degradation of the batteries? 20% after 5 years? Or the cost of the infrastructure connecting those batteries to their renewable generators and then the grid. Or the environmental destruction of thousands of wind turbines, and their associated connections to the grid, and the interconnection between them all, and their relatively short lifespan. The cost to maintain thousands of wind turbines and solar panels, often in remote locations. The fire risk of all those turbines and solar panels in remote bush locations with thier associated powerlines. Destruction of some of the most pristine mountain ridge environments in Australia....none of this gets a mention.
Now i'm no nuclear scientist. But a quick Google search of power reactors under construction show there are now 61 under construction world wide. You might say that not every country is suitable for large scale renewables and would rely on nuclear- maybe they are too snowy, or don't have enough land, or sun or wind. But a country like Argentina has 2 operational, 1 planned, and 1 under construction. (Plus 1 under maintenance ). A country poorer than Australia, with a similar variable climate. What do they know that we don't? Canada 17 in operation and 4 planned. Would they be planning 4 new plants if renewables were so much cheaper and more reliable? Lets not get started on China, India...even Turkey!!?..4 under construction. Seems something is not adding up here. We keep being told renewables with battery storage is "Far" cheaper....seems many countries have run their own numbers and don't think so.

[Waewick]

AP1000 Westinghouse Nuclear Reactor.......cost $ 7 billion USD (thats 11 billion AUD)......power output 1100mw......estimated time of completion, if everything goes right, 2038-2040

What else could you buy for 11 billion AUD? Well how about lots of batteries for a start....
11 (eleven) 500mw/2000mwh batteries.....cost 11 billion AUD....power output 5500mw for 4 hours, 2,750mw for 8 hours, 1375mw for 16 hours
If the batteries were ordered today when would they be operational.....my guess 2027

Westinghouse reactors were built at the Vogtle plant in Georgia USA. The build was for 2 new reactors (so the plant itself was already established, Australia must start from scratch) The initial budget was $14 billion USD (22 billion AUD). The cost at completion was $34 billion USD (53 billion AUD) and the project was 7 (seven) years behind schedule.....and this was just for reactors.....not the cost setting up the power plant.

Nuclear builds are notorious for their cost overruns and delay in finishing....all across the western world, this is the case....in countries that have been building nuclear for the last 50 years like

Hinkley Pt C in the UK, originally budgeted at 35 billion AUD, latest cost estimate 92 billion AUD

Flammanviile C in France, just a reactor not even a new plant, 16 billion AUD in cost overruns, 12 years late

NuScale small nuclear in the USA, 470mw reactor, original budget 5 billion USD, actual cost to build as told to potential investors 9.2 billion USD. The American free market said a big NO to that one.

The Olkiluoto reactor in Finland, just a reactor, not a new plant, 6 billion AUD in cost overruns and 4 years late....

This is an ominous warning for Australia, if you do not heed the mistakes of others , you will end up repeating them.

Yes that kind of money would build a lot of batteries. But you haven't mentioned the lifespan of all those batteries.- Do they all require replacement in 10 years? 15? 20? What are the rates of degradation of the batteries? 20% after 5 years? Or the cost of the infrastructure connecting those batteries to their renewable generators and then the grid. Or the environmental destruction of thousands of wind turbines, and their associated connections to the grid, and the interconnection between them all, and their relatively short lifespan. The cost to maintain thousands of wind turbines and solar panels, often in remote locations. The fire risk of all those turbines and solar panels in remote bush locations with thier associated powerlines. Destruction of some of the most pristine mountain ridge environments in Australia....none of this gets a mention.
Now i'm no nuclear scientist. But a quick Google search of power reactors under construction show there are now 61 under construction world wide. You might say that not every country is suitable for large scale renewables and would rely on nuclear- maybe they are too snowy, or don't have enough land, or sun or wind. But a country like Argentina has 2 operational, 1 planned, and 1 under construction. (Plus 1 under maintenance ). A country poorer than Australia, with a similar variable climate. What do they know that we don't? Canada 17 in operation and 4 planned. Would they be planning 4 new plants if renewables were so much cheaper and more reliable? Lets not get started on China, India...even Turkey!!?..4 under construction. Seems something is not adding up here. We keep being told renewables with battery storage is "Far" cheaper....seems many countries have run their own numbers and don't think so.

This is the kind of perspective the LNP are hoping people have.

A quick google search also reveals that investment in renewables far outweighs that of Nuclear on a scale that it isn't even close. Thats because they all know its cheaper.

Hopefully, there will be enough pushback on the absurdity of the Nuclear plan of the coalition that voters like you are able to easily acess the information to see have crazy it is.

Otherwise, future generations will be thanking us for locking them into higher electricity costs for decades.

Edit - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-13/ ... tent=other

I just don't think this has the cut through, people that are going to vote for this and the LNP already don't believe experts, we need hard data to be given to swing voters.

(Edit - also i don't mean like you in a negative way either, your post was a reasonable response)

[PeFe]

The cost of connecting batteries to the grid is minimal..
all batteries in Australia have been sited next to existing transmission lines.

How long will batteries last? Now that is a more technical question? I have heard 15,000 cycles quoted, so if that you charge and discharge every day for 20 years the battery will degrade.

One answer is to look at the big Tesla battery at Jamestown, coming up to its 7th year anniversary, no plans to close, no plans to replace any sections of the battery. I think this is a pretty good sign that big batteries have good longevity and are here to stay.

I am always amazed that people quote "environmental degradation" as an argument against renewables yet when you look at what actually happens ie agriculture easily exists with both wind and solar farms....compare that mining and it's relationship with the agricultural sector.

And yes solar and wind farms require staff.....but far far fewer than coal or gas and especially nuclear. Renewables have a clear advantage with ongoing costs.

Nuclear is a nightmare, waste that you have to guard for 10,000 years at a cost of millions of dollars.

[rubberman]

AP1000 Westinghouse Nuclear Reactor.......cost $ 7 billion USD (thats 11 billion AUD)......power output 1100mw......estimated time of completion, if everything goes right, 2038-2040

What else could you buy for 11 billion AUD? Well how about lots of batteries for a start....
11 (eleven) 500mw/2000mwh batteries.....cost 11 billion AUD....power output 5500mw for 4 hours, 2,750mw for 8 hours, 1375mw for 16 hours
If the batteries were ordered today when would they be operational.....my guess 2027

Westinghouse reactors were built at the Vogtle plant in Georgia USA. The build was for 2 new reactors (so the plant itself was already established, Australia must start from scratch) The initial budget was $14 billion USD (22 billion AUD). The cost at completion was $34 billion USD (53 billion AUD) and the project was 7 (seven) years behind schedule.....and this was just for reactors.....not the cost setting up the power plant.

Nuclear builds are notorious for their cost overruns and delay in finishing....all across the western world this is the case....in countries that have been building nuclear for the last 50 years like

Hinkley Pt C in the UK, originally budgeted at 35 billion AUD, latest cost estimate 92 billion AUD

Flammanviile C in France, just a reactor not even a new plant, 16 billion AUD in cost overruns, 12 years late

NuScale small nuclear in the USA, 470mw reactor, original budget 5 billion USD, actual cost to build as told to potential investors 9.2 billion USD. The American free market said a big NO to that one.

The Olkiluoto reactor in Finland, just a reactor, not a new plant, 6 billion AUD in cost overruns and 4 years late....

This is an ominous warning for Australia, if you do not heed the mistakes of others , you will end up repeating them.

Yes that kind of money would build a lot of batteries. But you haven't mentioned the lifespan of all those batteries.- Do they all require replacement in 10 years? 15? 20? What are the rates of degradation of the batteries? 20% after 5 years? Or the cost of the infrastructure connecting those batteries to their renewable generators and then the grid. Or the environmental destruction of thousands of wind turbines, and their associated connections to the grid, and the interconnection between them all, and their relatively short lifespan. The cost to maintain thousands of wind turbines and solar panels, often in remote locations. The fire risk of all those turbines and solar panels in remote bush locations with thier associated powerlines. Destruction of some of the most pristine mountain ridge environments in Australia....none of this gets a mention.
Now i'm no nuclear scientist. But a quick Google search of power reactors under construction show there are now 61 under construction world wide. You might say that not every country is suitable for large scale renewables and would rely on nuclear- maybe they are too snowy, or don't have enough land, or sun or wind. But a country like Argentina has 2 operational, 1 planned, and 1 under construction. (Plus 1 under maintenance ). A country poorer than Australia, with a similar variable climate. What do they know that we don't? Canada 17 in operation and 4 planned. Would they be planning 4 new plants if renewables were so much cheaper and more reliable? Lets not get started on China, India...even Turkey!!?..4 under construction. Seems something is not adding up here. We keep being told renewables with battery storage is "Far" cheaper....seems many countries have run their own numbers and don't think so.

The nuclear plants being built worldwide are to a varied extent using expertise available to the nations building them.

India and China, for example have a cadre of experienced designers, builders and operators. They can build fast. The US and France let much of their expertise lapse, but still had some capability. Their build times have been woeful. Czechia is somewhere in the middle, but are looking at 12 years.

Australia has no cadre of engineers or technicians being developed for nuclear power. None.

So, if Dutton or anyone else wants to build nuclear, we need 15 years, just to get enough people trained up, let alone do it. We absolutely know this because we are going through the exercise for the AUKUS submarines. Uni of NSW has ramped up a course in nuclear engineering. Those graduates will then go to the US and UK to get trained and gain further experience. For submarine deliveries in the late 2030s. That time frame is bog standard for most branches of engineering.

That's it. Fifteen years, and then we can build nuclear plants for the 2040s.

The idea that somehow, without experienced engineers, we can build and operate nuclear plants, is fantasy. If I said someone who was a clerk could design and build a motor car in the same time as a car factory, people would say I was crazy. But apparently, Australia with almost no nuclear engineers, can build a nuclear plant. How does that even start to make sense?