Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure
Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2024 4:45 pm
Even if that eventuates, it simply won't be nuclear. The scenario you paint is for a once in a while start up and run. Gas is not only cheaper to build anyway, but under your scenario, the amount of gas used will be minimal over a year. Indeed, in many years, it will be zero. I'd like to see how you manage mothballing nuclear plants, and then running for a month or so, then mothballing it again. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the company boardroom when you pitch that idea to the Board. Your observations about the need to cover renewables from time to time are valid, but nuclear is the absolute worst means of addressing it.claybro wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 3:52 pmSo, 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?PeFe wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 3:13 pmWhat excess nuclear power? Dutton is proposing to build small nuclear plants.....ie a small amount of power.claybro wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 2:40 pmIt 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.
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
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.