It’s like the West has forgotten how to build things…
The nuclear debate in Australia is 100 years behind the rest of Western Civilization. Like children, we banned nuclear power before we even built one. We could afford to strut in our anti-nuke super-cape because we were swimming in 300 years worth of coal. (Now we want to ban that too.)
Somehow, despite the burden of all that coal, the idea of nuclear has grown legs, but the rest of the world must be laughing at us. The US built the first reactor way back in 1957, and 50 years ago the French built 56 reactors in just 15 years and most of the reactors were built in 6-8 years.
But our experts in the CSIRO think it will take us 14 years to even build a small one.
Even if the nuclear ban was lifted tomorrow and a decision immediately taken to commission a nuclear reactor, CSIRO estimates the first SMR would not be in full operation before 2038, ruling it out of “any major role” in reaching net zero emissions by 2050.
Today we have computer aided design and supercomputers with AI, but we can’t even build a 50 year old copy of a French plant as fast as the French could in an era when homes still had slide rules.
If we ask President Macron nicely, perhaps he’ll even give us the old plans?
The first 910 MW reactor at Blayais Nuclear Power Plant was built from 1976 to 1981 and is still operating today. The three other turbines were finished by 1983. So the ancient 1970s French industry could build a 4GW nuclear plant in 7 years.
It produces about 26,000GWh of electricitie each year with a capacity factor of about 75%.
Brown coal power is still cheaper.
In Victoria it would take 14 years to NOT build one.
650
We could build a brown coal power plant far more quickly and cheaply. Like Hazelwood but using much higher efficiency generation.
At the same time we could restart making high energy briquettes for export. They have the energy content of black coal. It is amazing that with so much gas and coal in the ground Victoria is a basket case. And in a world coal export boom we are not participating at all. But we are killing of industry after industry.
In black coal we are exporting 10x what we are using. The crippling of Victorian power supplies and rocketing costs are inexplicable except as a deliberate destruction of our economic survival while China booms on our coal.
The War on the West is well underway. Saving the planet is rubbish. Foxy Loxy is in parliament. They tell us the sky is falling. And after 36 years of this nonsense it should be obvious to even Loosy Goosey that it’s not true.
780
The manufacture of briquettes is banned I believe.
Because “carbon”.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/200-jobs-under-threat-briquette-maker-warns-20120501-1xx40.html
And how do they work out that lignite (brown coal) is such a huge CO2 emitter (not that it matters)? It’s mainly the same stuff (but less mature) as regular coal, just with higher water content. Energy efficient methods of drying have been developed.
380
The latest German powerstation using Lignite (brown coal) has a CO2 emission rate of 800 per MWh compared with current Victorian plants of over 1100. That’s a possible reduction of over 30%.
They use the waste heat to dry the lignite.
Also Germany has increased coal fired from 23% to around 35% of electricity generation and is knocking down a wind farm to get at extra brown coal in the ground.
510
The German power station does not have an emission rate of 800 per whatever you said. It does, however, emit a certain amount of CO2.
The point is that “emissions” and “climate change” etc are Newspeak. The greens have followed 1984 as an instruction manual and have changed the language. We must for our own survival change it back.
430
Sure – just buy back all the lefty MSM, which is most of it.
140
Pitchforks are cheaper. But effective politicians would be better.
180
Generally they argue that firstly the low pressure, low temperature furnaces are too inefficient. Fine, we will build the latest ones and that is a real saving in coal, so justified in reduced operating cost, regardless of CO2.
Secondly the usual game is to count tons of something which is 66% water. When you remove all the water, the types of coal are very similar in kw/tonne, as you would think. They are the same stuff, old leaves. The Bracks government banned a $400M order from India. The Age newspaper railed front page against the sale because they said the process they used to remove the water make the coal blacker. And black is the entire problem with coal. Black is toxic, bad, evil. Diamond made from the same stuff though are acceptable?
In particular briquettes are a very efficient way to export coal, brown coal for thermal energy. Why can’t we Victorians make huge profits from dirt, like every other country?
Queensland sells $80Bn of coal a year. We could do the same. And the state government gets about $14Bn in Royalties, which would not hurt bankrupt Victoria.
I do not know the explanation for the gas ban. I doubt there is one. It’s not even black! But Western Australia is allowed export gas. To Singapore. And we Victorians have to import it from Singapore, partly as the Maritime Union would force the shipping cost through the roof if they just sailed to Melbourne.
This is what you get when Unions run the country. No cars. No manufacturing. No coal exports. No gas exports. And all the money we don’t have is going to build windfarms in Bass Strait. Which we don’t need.
430
“Key pollutants that adversely affect human health include carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), ground level ozone and particulate matter (PM). A new pulverized coal plant, with flue gas scrubbers, fabric filters, catalytic reduction and other control equipment and processes, reduces NOX by 83%, SO2 by 98% and PM by 99.8% compared to a similar plant without such pollution control features. (US Dept of Energy)”. So, not only could we easily build more efficient (Ultra Super Critical/ Ultra critical) coal power stations they could also be “clean” as well. Nuclear is as big a red herring as was the “Yes” referendum. Total waste of time and resources and all that nuclear will do is divert the attention of the public and the politicians.
140
In Victoriastan it is taking 7 years to build the 4km long Westgate Tunnel, originally costed at $5.5 billion, now $11 billion, originally scheduled for completion in 2022, now 2025.
But the Unions are very happy as their workers collect their huge pay packets.
Australian construction costs discourage most enterprises from undertaking any manufacturing projects – far easier to import solar panels and windmills and cars and nearly everything else from overseas.
480
Yes! ..and I can believe we will never match the ’70s with our current young workers who are so woke, so casual about wanting jobs at all, and so entitled when it comes to giving value for wages. The DEI documentation and the environmental reports would take longer than 7years.
Never fear, the country will boom as SMRs are built when the Chinese take over.
261
It is hard to build a tunnel when half of your workforce are working from home and the other half are on parent/grandparent/dead pet/’wife ovulating, need to bonk her’ leave
80
In bankrupt Vic it work NEVER get built. If you makes stuff in Danistan you are hated.
160
“In Victoria it would take 14 years to NOT build one.”
Strictly speaking, it would take Victoria 14 years to build, then the day before it could be turned on, Kim Jong Dan would dynamite it.
60
The USA built some experimental reactors pretty fast.
Experimental Breeder Reactor 1 started construction in Idaho in 1949 and was operational at the end of 1951.
It was obviously never designed to be a commercial reactor but it’s still fast when considering that the first self sustaining nuclear reactor, Chicago Pile 1, went critical in 1942.
130
You have to remember that our world famous scientific CSIRO is fully committed to the totally unscientific global warming/climate change hoax. So much for taking the slightest notice of such a hopeless organisation which is on a par with the Climate Council for integrity and accuracy. I don’t know what the CSIRO cost us each year but like the ABC it is far too much.
CSIRO grew to 6,316 people, led by the success of our Impossible without You recruitment campaign, while consolidating our footprint to 49 sites throughout Australia and 2 globally. We increased the number of women in CSIRO leadership positions to 42.9 per cent, an increase of 4.2 per cent from the previous year.
Well there are at least 6316 people who do not deserve a job for failing to call out the fraud.
592
This might apply to CSIRO too –
FWIW on investing –
“My oldest, best friend runs a large, contrarian investment fund. One of his favorite techniques to identify his short-sale targets (i.e., betting the stock price will fall) is counting up the minutes of investor calls devoted to DEI. He swears there is an inverse relationship between the proportion of DEI chatter and future stock performance.
In other words, the more corporate officials talk about their awesome DEI programs, the more it seems like they’re trying to distract investors from problems with their fundamentals. I would add that the more time and attention top management devotes to DEI, the less time and attention it has to give its real mission, which should be delivering a superior product or service.
Let’s test the theory. Victoria’s Secret, Moderna, and ConocoPhillips all significantly expanded their DEI teams last year. But even though the market as a whole is up, the jab company and the now body-positive lingerie firm are down year-over-year. Only the oil and gas company is up, and only about +1%. So.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/coffeeandcovid/p/the-abolition-of-woke-monday-march?r=1vxw0k&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
250
I remember a similar situation when Bush announced that the US was going back to the moon by 2020. 1960s technology and the computing power of a $5 digital watch could get there in less than 10 years, but by 2004 it would take almost twice that long. Go figure.
240
France didnt have rainbow serpents to upset or the help of the CFMEU or at that time a “renewables” industry to protect.
460
They also have a good thing going – selling electricity to the UK and Germany. The only reason the UK isn’t suffering power cuts (their new ‘smart meters’ allow them to do selective power cuts) is because of French supplied nuclear power plus several inter-connector cables from other EU countries
(see http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ for list.
140
Yep, sometimes 25% of our power is imported at times. We do export excess power at times but since that will be when it is windy, everyone else has plenty of power already so it has to be given away. So we end up paying to price to import and get rock bottom when we export.
10
Damnation Yarpos!
you beat me to the rainbow serpent issue!
That’s the most important problem! /sarc
140
Australia used to be a “can do” nation.
Now, thanks to the negative attitudes of the Uniparty and the general dumbing-down of the population, it’s the “can’t do” nation.
Recall that Australia did start in 1969 to build a nuclear power reactor in Jervis Bay and the project was cancelled by the Liberal faction of the Uniparty in 1971. You can still see the cleared land and preliminary foundation works.
Then on a further assault on Australia’s energy independence, the mental midget John Howard (of the Liberal Uniparty faction), who lived at home with his parents until age 32, outlawed nuclear power forever by legislation. The legislation was passed in 1998 with less than ten mins “debate”.
That mental midget also signed away much of Australia’s gas supply to the Chicomms at world’s cheapest prices (on a 30 yr contract, still running, with no provision for inflation or market price) and also allowed non-dispatchable “generators” to connect to the grid. As well as other sins against Australia’s energy supply.
“Decades” to build a nuclear power reactor in the can’t do nation seems plausible when you consider thst it took 50 years just to decide on a second Sydney airport.
It really is tragic.
470
it took 50 years just to decide on a second Sydney airport
Which should have been built at Newcastle.
120
There is already an airport at Newcastle
A high speed rail link between Sydney and Newcastle would have been the sensible solution.
110
High speed rail linking Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney West, East & North, Gold Coast, Brisbane would halve air traffic at Sydney airport, so no second passenger airport would be needed. But this would be too logical!
90
How will you power that rail system?
High speed rail just won’t die; not even under a mountain of reason. Not even under an ocean of ridicule (thank you Working Dog).
Quite a while ago I had a conversation with some proponents. It didn’t end well when I exposed the gaping chasms in their argument. Competitive ticket prices will not even cover operating expenses.
10
We first have to get rid of stupid Labor govts all over Australia and even then we’ll have white ant know nothings who’ll fight for useless, TOXIC RUINABLES forever.
In time we’ll have wrecked our land and sea environments and then step up every 15 to 20 years and repeat the same lunacy again and again.
The cost will be horrendous and blackouts will be a regular feature and also weaken our country and make it impossible to defend ourselves.
Of course ZERO difference for our temp or climate or extreme weather events etc and yet our pollies, so called scientists, MSM and school kids etc will still BELIEVE in their stupid fantasies.
190
That’s the plan…
210
According to google an average human breathes out 2.3 pounds of CO2 per day. leaving aside industrial emissions, China’s population breath out more CO2 than Australia’s total emissions. No wonder the world is getting greener.
Then we are apparently so smart we will spend over 1 trillion dollars to save the planet (and replace the whole ‘sustainable’ lot every 20 years or so). No wonder they call them renewables’. Can Casanova Bowen please explain how this is far cheaper than the nuclear generation systems the rest of the world is rushing to build?
200
The Liberal faction of the Uniparty at least pretend they’ll build a nuclear power station, knowing it will never happen.
Also, the Labor faction of the Uniparty has weaponised CSIRO against the Liberal faction as well as nuclear power in general.
It’s pathetic.
260
Decades? To build a reactor system?
It is ALL about the “spillage” whichever way one turns..
LOTS of lovely taxpayer / investor loot to ply with..
How long did it take to build the “toy” / research reactor at Lucas Heights? What did it cost? What are the annual “operating” costs?.
Brown coal may be cheaper, but it is all in Sicktoria.
REAL coal is more thermally “efficient than brown, but it is mostly in Queensland. The last power station built in Queensland was built beside a sunstantial coal deposit AND a water supply. When, during the last “unprecedented” drought,. water looked like becoming n “issue” the taxpayers funded a serious pipeline from a serious dam, UPHILL to that power station, to guarantee water for the life of the power station and its coal reserve. Such “rational’ actions are now FORBIDDEN.
COOLING water is the catch, be the “power-station coal or Uranium / Thorium fueled. Also, at every turn, there is an opportunity for the pubic serpents and the eco-nazis (and the “offshore” agencies) to stuff things up whilst lapping up the “spillage.
Same old, same old.
Energy starvation as a political weapon? Who ‘da thunk it?
Time to dust off my blueprints for a compact, wood-fired steam generator?
260
First controlled flight of aeroplane, Wright Bros. December 1903
First official supersonic flight Yeager/X1 October 1947
First US sub-orbital spaceflight Shepard/Freedom7 May 1961
First manned Moon landing Apollo 11 July 1969
CSIRO statement December 2023 – “If a decision to pursue a nuclear SMR project in Australia were taken today, with political support for the required legislative changes, then the first full operation would be in 2038”.
Perhaps we need in Australia a fellow like the one who once said “We choose to go to the Moon. We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard,…..”
240
2038. Well, we better get cracking then. We can’t afford to delay.
There are companies (ABB is one, or at least they were 10 years ago and actually did it) that will build a nuclear plant and get it operational, handing it over as a fully functional plant, complete with trained staff. Why would it take 15 years to build? Probably CSIRO is ignoring that such options exist.
210
Even with the CSIROs exaggerated completion estimate, the nuclear reactor would still likely be operational before Snowy 2.0 going by the rate of progress on that project
90
Snowy 2.0 operational!! Now there’s an optimist.
70
R. As I’ve said previously the CSIRO is a fully paid up member of the ALP so produces whatever BS that Albo needs. All their “scientists” have to do is look at what is being done overseas in countries that are nowhere as developed as we are. If Abu Dhabi can build a 5.6 GW power station starting in 2012 and with the fourth and last unit commissioned recently then I’m sure we could too. Cost was $25 billion and it will last 80 years with a capacity factor of about 90%. Nothing in Bowen’s basket comes close.
51
Such a shame. I recall when the CSIRO was a really respected outfit. Way back in the days when their expertise was independent and valued for innovative thinking.
70
The Co2 group of genuine Scientists are doing their best to report and provide real data and evidence to govts in the USA and they’ve just had another win in Wyoming.
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Win-in-Wyoming.html?soid=1101509381788&aid=BMbnPG6MnhQ
90
BTW that Wyoming, Arkansas link from the Co2 Coalition scientists also shows that the Arkansas MAX temp trend has fallen since 1959.
111
Correlation busted once again.
70
The BER, Berlin Airport from the beginning to the end: 14 years, costs over 7 billion Euro instad of planned 2 billion Euro.
100
Berlin Brandenburg Airport: a construction timeline
80
Here is a nostalgic video from 1948 when power production was seen as a good thing and Australia seemed to have a bright future.
Sir John Monash (d. 1931) who built Victoria’s electricity supply back in the day would be appalled at what the Unipary has done to his creation.
https://youtu.be/eWXFnVT5Wj0
3 mins
220
In the UK it takes at least 25 years and that’s with the plans changing every four years because a different gang of crooks, wrongly, decide they have a better idea, which inevitably increases costs. Long term planning is beyond the capability of the modern, western politician. They are complete f##kwits.
Meanwhile, our Chinese friends move their economy forward by developing plans, and delivering against them – currently, six to eight reactors a year !
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
150
And China has developed the 4th generation reactor that does not require cooling water but it might be worth giving it a few years of running before it is a proven success.
20
Does anyone serriously believe that there are any “experts” at the CSIRO? Only government paid hacks who produce rubbish like the Cost Gen Report
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/energy-data-modelling/gencost
200
I think it is time to remind ourselves of the definition of an expert I coined 50odd years ago.
X is the unknown and a Spurt is a drip under pressure (drips were what we called useless idiots that thought they knew it all back then)
100
Also someone from more the 50 miles away
20
So, for a while I have followed the CSIRO twitter feed. About 10 years. In that time the posts have now become so “woke” that they are almost laughable.
But here’s one from 2019, back when there still appeared to be sensible people employed in the organisation.
“Developing advance carbon power technologies
CSIRO are developing an alternative pathway to low emissions electricity from coal and other sources of carbon through two advanced carbon power technologies – the Direct Injection Carbon Engine (DICE) and the Direct Carbon Fuel Cell (DCFC). DICE and DCFC are suitable for large scale electricity generation and decentralised applications at industrial or remote locations.
Benefits of this technology include increased efficiencies in electricity generation; significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions even without CO2 capture and storage; delivery of power in a shorter timeframe and at a smaller scale than conventional coal technologies; and diverse fuel potential including black and brown coal, as well as biomass, tar and plastics.
Pilot-scale demonstrations of advanced carbon power
CSIRO have demonstrated at laboratory and pilot scale that DICE and DCFC could deliver generation efficiencies of more than 50 per cent and 65 per cent respectively. This is a significant gain when compared to existing coal-fired power stations, which operate at 33 to 38 per cent.
Other outcomes:achieved efficiencies similar to diesel operation”
Where are the people who were employed in this project barely 5 years ago?
100
Proper countries build coal, gas and nuclear power stations.
Australia is committed to follies such as random wind and solar, Big Batteries and Snowy Hydro 2 which will likely never be finished or likely won’t work if it is.
The engineering ignorance is staggering. And the silence of those who do know is deafening.
Engineers of yore wouldn’t have considered it professional or ethical to be associated with such useless and wasteful creations.
220
Big Batteries are the Elephant in the Room.
Big Batteries like the Tesla Megapack are being installed with great fanfare In Australia, however these are for grid stablisation purposes and not for back-up.
Current Peak Power of all of these “Big Batteries” is 1415 MW with an energy storage of 2023 MWh (2 GWh)
https://www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-energy-statistics/electricity-generation#
Now 272 TWh = 272,000 GWh
So if called up for back-up power, existing “Big Batteries” would provide 4 minutes of national electricty demand!
To have suficient back-up battereis to replace all of (Coal, gas and oil) reliable electricity production would cost around A$ 10 TRILLION. {Australia’s GDP is 1.553 trillion USD (2021)}
Why has the CSIRO not provided the cost for “firming” unreliable wind and solar power with battery back up?
As our esteemed Energy Minister Chrissy Bowen has said: “If we can store water, then we can store electricity”.
170
And that’s exactly why politicians shouldn’t be allowed to make scientific or engineering decisions.
230
Go on then, let’s have a serios look at pumped hydro then.
We have had Tumut 3 in operation since 1973. (Umm! What? Please don’t tell me it’s been operating for 51 years. Well don’t compare it with the Wind plant people anyway.)
It has a Nameplate of 1800MW, upgraded in 2012 from the original 1500MW.
A shining example of HOW a pumped hydro will operate.
It can be online in as little as five minutes from ‘the call’ ….. “Hey mate, we’ve had some problems with power generation, and we need you to take up some of the slack, until we can get the gas fired plants on line.”
(That’s pretty much basically all it is used for, an extremely fast response backup)
You’d think that knowing what ‘arbitrage’ they would get EVERY evening during Peak Power consumption, they’d be operating at max every day, knowing that at 4AM, they could use coal fired power to run the three pumps to get the water ‘back up the hill’ at a waaaaaay cheaper price than what they would get for selling it at Peak, eh!
So, even though the plant has been in operation since 1973, the AEMO records only date back to when AEMO started in 1998.
Even so, that’s still 26 years worth of recorded data.
It highlights just what pumped hydro can seriously do, you know ….. fill that gap for when power is REALLY needed the most, and it’s just soooooo cheap.
So, across those last 26 years, Tumut 3 pumped hydro has delivered a whoppingly astonishing humungous energy to the grid totalling out at 13,866GWH, mind bogglingly tremungous really. That’s in 26 YEARS.
You know, just a tad less than Bayswater delivered over ….. LAST Year.
Across the last 26 years, Tumut 3 pumped hydro has operated at a Capacity Factor of umm, 4.3% ….. FOUR POINT THREE PERCENT.
That’s the go-to example for large scale Pumped Hydro.
Tony.
220
Oh, I almost forgot to mention how incredibly cheap Snowy Hydro 2 will actually be.
Imagine this if you will.
They sell the generated energy at Peak time for the highest price they can get. It supplies X MWH for the delivery time at the ‘going’ price.
Then, so it can be ready for the next Peak the following evening to make the maximum money, they have to buy energy at the ‘going’ price to pump all that water back up the hill.
Keep in mind that Pumped Hydro is a nett energy consumer, so it consumes more MWH pumping the water back up the hill, that it generates when needed.
So, they get income from generating, lose income from pumping, and what they have left over, well they DO have to pay back the cost of construction, eh.
Thanks heavens it has a 50 year PLUS lifespan eh!
Tony.
200
“But our experts in the CSIRO think it will take us 14 years to even build a small one.”
Is that 14 years after 36 years for approvals, protests, nimbys, and all the other delays that would happen?
What needs to happen is for Labor to lose the next election and the Libs to form Government. The Libs will start talking it up and labor in opposition will keep opposing it. When labor wins another election after that they will suddenly discover that there are benefits to themselves and will propose the nuclear solution as if it has just been discovered.
90
I think the Liberal faction of the Uniparty know it will never be built due to the 36 years of “approvals, protests, nimbys, and all the other delays that would happen” as you say, Maptram.
They can pretend to offer a solution to attract the thinking voter but secretly know it won’t happen which will appease the extreme Green “moderate” faction of the party who control it.
Liberals are not the answer. They are part of the problem.
151
I know Liberals are not the answer. What I am saying is that Labor needs another period in opposition, during which time they will oppose any efforts to bring in nuclear power. When they next win Government after that, they will suddenly see the light (in other words see the benefits, to themselves personally, to the party and to the unions), and go all out the introduce nuclear power. I believe when last in opposition the opposed nuclear subs and AUKUS, not that anyone would know it now, the way they were strutting the world stage as if it was their idea.
70
”
Chrissy Bowen is all for off-shore wind turbines (no farmers to protest about environmental vandalism of productice farm lands) so floating nuclear power stations could be a better solution.
https://www.power-technology.com/news/floating-nuclear-power-plant-in-russia-set-for-refuel/?cf-view
40
“Chrissy Bowen is all for off-shore wind turbines (no farmers to protest about environmental vandalism of productive farmlands) –”
Sounds like he is aware of the 2 March citation from Rafe Champion that “Taking over farmland to build facilities to produce intermittent energy is a violation of Article 2(b) of the Paris Agreement.
Article 2 of the 2015 Paris Agreement states:
“This Agreement… aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by:
“(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production” (See: https://newcatallaxy.blog/2024/03/02/we-are-breaking-the-paris-agreement/comment-page-1 ) . Pointing this inconvenient fact out to Australian governments will just mean they will reclassify all current land designated for agriculture or pastoral use as “multi-use” land or whatever. Hypocrites have no boundaries.
Yet this Paris Agreement article could be one of the factors driving Orchid Energy’s present work up of plans to install 2×3000 MW industrial scale wind plants off the coastline near Gladstone in CQ. (See: https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/05/17/orchid-energy-unveils-10-gw-offshore-wind-plans-in-queensland/ ; https://orchidenergy.com.au/projects/ ). Wind “farms” with 6000 MW capacity would require 400 x 15 MW turbines. Current recommendations are that large installations such as this need the turbines to be c.2 km apart. So the total offshore area required for Orchid’s proposal would be 1600 square km!
Note: these mega sized industrial plants would be totally within the GBR Marine Park/internationally recognised World Heritage Area! Orchid’s plans are for the “farms” to be 30-45 km off the coast but with turbine hubs 150 m above sea level they would still be clearly visible. Especially at night when they must display red warning lights for shipping and aircraft. (The eastern boundary of any installation would be constrained by the Capricorn – Bunker Group of coral cays).
Unbelievable! Which public servant will volunteer to write Australia’s next report to UNESCO on our stewardship of this inscribed World Heritage Area?
100
Why do I not see the “red warning lights” on the existing on shore wind towers? Am I missing something?
60
I’m not a guru on that aspect ozfred. I have photos but can’t display them here. Use your search engine. Reasons for your observation may relate to height of older installations and perhaps their location. Current offshore turbines (e.g. planned for the Illawarra off Bulli) are 268 m above sea level to the tip of the blade. Most city tall buildings below that height have night lights. Yachts at sea must have their navigation lights turned on from dusk to dawn. So it could be just an offshore thing. The latest innovation for offshore lights w.r.t aircraft is to have each turbine’s nacelle equipped with radar. This turns the navigation warning lights on when aircraft are detected at a preset ‘safety’ distance. When the wind does blow at night and the lights are on the turning blades cause the emitted light to flicker. Christmas or an abomination depending on your beliefs. Seen on the horizon from a distance kids may think of fairy lights or that the Martians are coming!
40
Proverb : The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago.
The second best time is now…..
Maybe that applies to nuclear power plants, too.
160
Totally agree. Albo was on the news again last night attacking the Libs for wanting nuclear saying that “nuclear would take 10 years”. That’s the same argument the left has used all along. So does that mean that in 30 years they’ll still be whingeing that it’ll take 10 years. But they’ll be saying it in the dark. Jeez. Is no-one awake in Canberra? Rhetorical question. ToM
150
The best time to expand Snowy Hydro was HOW MANY years ago?
50
Barakah Nuclear Power Plant Qatar
https://www.power-technology.com/projects/barakah-nuclear-power-plant-abu-dhabi/?cf-view
40
Its about time the nation was told the exit from coal fired power would have on everyday activities
Such as
– shortages of co2 gas used for beverages, dry ice, greenhouses etc
– shortages of fertilisers used for sulphate of amonia etc
– shortages of manufactured gypsum used for plaster board sheeting and for soil rehabilitation
– no fly ash for concrete
The list is much longer
So as I understand it we will sell the coal to china and import this stuff back from them. So the soft drink co2 and bubbly co2 and beer co2 will all have to be imported
To top it off we will have to pay more for it, there will be more transport and more co2 emissions somewhere else in the world
When I went to school co2 was considered an essential input for the growth of trees and plants. But the media refer to it as carbon. Carbon is black sooty stuff. They cant even get that right, and funnily enough the nations soils could do with a top up of that.
We really are a country full of morons.
Thanks Jo for doing what you do, I guess it is time the rest of us stood up in our own way and do what we can to fix the misinformation
280
Of course the biggest impact of moving away from coal fired power (or any fossil fueled power) is NO electricity.
Reality check. Solar+wind+batteries = disaster.
Nuclear could be a solution, but politicians are unable to see beyond four years.
110
Recently a Victoria Government Report was discovered that indicates 70 per cent of the State of Victoria will eventually be needed for wind and solar installations, feeder transmission lines from every location to the main grid and a new second main grid for wind and solar only, not needed by power stations.
The recently closed NSW Hunter Valley coal fired Liddell Power Station has Nameplate Capacity of 2,000MW from 4 x 500MW generators and is located not far from Bayswater Power Station that remains operating, they shared water supply and a coal mine.
Not from from Canberra in New South Wales is the Capital Hill Wind Farm and it has a combined Nameplate or Installed Capacity of 140MW (141.7MW) from 67 Wind Turbines located on 15,000 acres/6,000 hectares plus feeder transmission line land.
Consider how many Capital Hill installations would be needed to achieve based on 35 per cent AEMO Capacity Factor of maximum 35 per cent – 49MW – to replace the Liddell Power Station. I acknowledge that since Capital Hill was installed later model Wind Turbines have more capacity.
90
These are only “average” values.
A reliable power grid cannot be designed to meet “average” demand – it must meet both peak demand and be able to meet demand requirements when the wind is not blowing and when the Sun is not shining (which are highly unpredictable).
In 2017 in the middle of winter with very little solar generation, Germany experience a 5 week continuous period of very low wind {dunkelflaute}.
When will the next 5 week period of such low wind re-occur? Nobody knows.
130
the wind is not blowing and when the Sun is not shining (which are highly unpredictable).
Errr…. well at least the last half of that statement would seem to be in error…. Sunrise and Sunset have been accurately predicted since at least the 1700s.
As for wind, reasonable predictions are possible, even if somewhat challenging for the Australian BOM
30
Less so weather fronts and cloudy days.
10
Sunshine at ground level requires daylight hours, yes, and also low cloud cover.
Climate models are very poor at predicting cloud cover, even at average over-the-year levels.
20
Forget nuclear, now that AI can stabilise Fusion reaction we are on the brink of something momentous.
‘Compared to nuclear fission, fusion reaction produces more energy, very less (and short-lived) radioactive waste, and doesn’t require uranium.
‘Many scientists believe that nuclear fusion could also serve as the cleanest and greenest source of energy on Earth. In their new study, Princeton University researchers reveal how the new AI controller can help humans achieve this goal.’ (Interesting Engineering)
51
So the university so called scientists have been playing computer games again. It used to be said that fusion power was 50 years away, now it is very near the 50 years since they said that I note they don’t give any time for availability.
100
Shipping in moon dust will be a free enterprise venture, so presumably its all down to Elon.
12
Can you say “asteroid mining”
30
120
An Invasion by another name
China’s largest global wind energy operator builds NSW Wind Farm
The Gullen Range Wind Farm near Goulburn, with its 73 state-of-the-art wind turbines, will supply electricity for 63,000 households
https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2012/08/case-study-china-wind-energy-nsw-wind-farm.pdf
90
Sales and marketing misleading commentary … will supply electricity … means if Installed Capacity was achievable.
80
You beat me to it Dennis. My version was to be “… will maybe occasionally supply…”.
Cheers
Dave B
70
It’ll take more than 7 years just to negotiate terms with the unions…then there’ll be the green lawfare…and on and on it will go.
100
Easy to blame unions and Green lawfare but who gave them their powers ? The blame, IMO, lies squarely with successive governments – lack of competence, no planning, no leadership. A ship of fools with a jammed rudder.
110
Well highlighted Jo. Keep up the good work.
70
Short Answer: Bureaucratic Red Tape.
100
I tend to think that while the estimate of the CSIRO is ridiculous for a proper country, it is probably the lower limit for Australia, if it were to happen at all.
The more practical answer, assuming we get a non-Uniparty government is to build coal power stations.
Australia’s electricity supply will have to be compromised even more before that happens. People won’t get serious until we have a South Africa style situation with daily load shedding for many hours.
When that happens the right party, a conservative one like United Australia Party, Libertarian Party or One Nation, or a coalition thereof, will need to exercise emergency powers to build coal or gas power stations on the sites of already destroyed ones.
Because of our communist union thugs like the CFMEU, it would not be feasible to employ them as they are grossly overpaid and will drag the job out for years.
Rather, contract the Chicomms to supply and build a coal or gas power station(s) and put the site(s) under 24/7 police or military guard to protect it from Green/Labor/Union sabotage.
The Chicomms can build a 1.35GW ultrasupercritical coal plant in 3 years, probably less because the project described below was first of kind.
140
That is brilliant David, very good.
10
Googles response to “how long does it take to build a nuclear reactor”.
It takes around 6 to 8 years to build a nuclear reactor. That’s the average construction time globally. Reactors can be built very quickly: some have been built in just 3 to 5 years. Some have long over-runs, spanning multiple decades
150
Yup, and why isn’t that simple and effective solution pursued?
Oh right, co2 must be mitigated because of two reasons:
1 It’s a religious superstition.
2 Nutz Zero will destroy western civilization while making a few elites even more rich.
190
Yes, brown coal MIGHT be cheaper, but I wonder what the real cost of a proven nuclear design implemented with NO CHANGES at existing coal fired locations which already have transmission and cooling water would cost. Who knows how long and at what cost permitting would be for either option UNLESS GOVERNMENTS HAVE THE GUTS TO OVERRIDE PERMITTING. In such a case, nuclear could probably be built in 2-3 years per copy.
120
It will take many years to correct Australia’s energy crisis, even if there were a will to do so.
I think people need to think about going off-grid, or at least installing enough generator or solar+battery capacity to keep your house cooled, heated, entertained, fed and otherwise functioning when the inevitable regular blackouts start occurring.
For cooking you can use an LPG (propane) stove or BBQ with portable gas cylinders (assuming cylinders remain available).
In other words, anticipate what’s already happening in South Africa.
151
Some of us with grid connections for electricity still would prefer to have an LPG cooktop as a backup. Until holiday caravans are legislated as illegal I think (at least) the smaller LPG cylinders will be available. A 45kg cylinder used for only the cooktop lasts me about 2 years. Perhaps as a result of a microwave oven addiction?
90
Maybe the solution is to build it on a supertanker hull off shore as the Desal plants should have been.
60
Water mounted SMRs are already in place in Russia and connected to the local power grid
70
And there’s the rub – connectivity.
The Russian floating SMRs are viable because of the shore based infrastructure.
In the west we don’t have a viable infrastructure to allow connectivity of floating generators. That has to be funded and built and is therefore a, hidden, major part of the cost – not to mention, associated power losses.
20
The once-trusted CSIRO has totally lost the plot and all credibility.
It has become an opinion for hire – just keep paying us the $$s.
There have been 311 Nuclear power plants built since 1960 that are in the range of 800 MW to 1,400 MW in output.
The average build time has been 8 years with some notable exceptions.
Japan and Sth Korea have consistently built numerous plants in less than 5 years.
The CSIRO have been deceived by the USA situation where, similar to Australia, the construction unions rule the roost. Av build in USA is >11 years.
The 39 plants built since 1980 have averaged <7 years.
The 3 most recent large scale (~1,400 MW) plants built in the UAE were built in <9 years.
Chris "I couldn't stop the boats" Bowen has zero to add to this discussion.
220
With Artificial Intelligence replacing Natural Stupidity at such a fantastic rate, why not create hologram nuclear powerplants, and hologram engineers to build, man and maintain them? Ditto nuclear submarines and their crews! And fleets of hologram warships and their crews! No potential enemy would dare come near us!
60
Too many snouts in the trough, ludicrous red and green tape, idiot bureaucrats and of course the “good old unions”. Nothing will get built in a hurry now if at all, we are on the slippery slope to failure and disaster.
140
If climate hoax warming politics did not exist the fleet of coal fired power stations would have upgrading and/or replacement with latest technology ultra supercritical boiler technology power stations planned.
Tony from Oz has commented in years past about the former NSW Electricity Commission planning for the NSW assets before they were sold.
100
In the 1950’s we used to build fighter jets. The deliveries were always overdue because of skilled labour shortages and industrial action. Now we can’t even imagine building anything so sophisticated, as we have become utterly useless thanks to the Australian love of socialism and the authoritarian nanny state.
170
Point being, we have zero capability when it comes to building a nuclear power plant, and we know it. It’s too hard.
90
If you export your economy, you export your sovereignty. You make nothing, you are nothing. Welcome to western economics.
60
With SMR’s, it’s more like importing machinery and heavy vehicles.
Australia lacks the depth and breadth of technological capability build “from scratch”. Not by choice but by imposition and market distortions by actors outside of the industries.
If Denmark can produce SMR’s; why can’t Australia?
One of the answers is “moratorium”. Nobody can lawfully invest in developing a technological capacity whose product is prohibited.
10
Some predictions:
In maybe 20 years Australia will have no new coal, gas or nuclear plant, and still no useful energy from wind, solar and Big Batteries, including Snowy Hydro 2.
We will be reliant on limited hydro from the original Snowy Hydro scheme, a very aged fleet of coal plant with fewer than we have today as more will be demolished, and large numbers of people going fully or partially off grid. Our standard of living will continue to drop but at an accelerating pace.
The average age of coal fleet is now around 33 years so in 20 years it will be 53 years, about typical retirement age for coal. Given that there will be no new plant and no nuclear, we will have to engage in life extension programs for the remaining coal plant, at least for those left which aren’t demolished.
Deondustrialisation will continue, but only for a short time because most industry has already gone, there is nothing much left to shut down.
We will be defenceless, useless and well on the way to Third World status.
The newest coal plant is Bluewaters built in 2009 but that will be prematurely demolished by 2029. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-05/bluewaters-coal-fired-power-station-to-close-by-2029/101927824
Gladstone appears to be the oldest coal.power station, commissioned in 1976. It will be 68 years old in 20 years.
80
David, you are sooo pessimistic. Australia’s future is crystal clear: we will be powered by electricity generated in Singapore using hydrogen manufactured in Australia using electricity from Singapore. All we have to do is install one little pipeline and one little cable, and both of them will be free, because they will be paid for by government grants.
50
The deliberate destruction the Left are doing to our nation is incomprehensible.
Gad Saad said it best when talking about the West in general:
https://youtu.be/aYolXVwRWZ4 (under 2 mins)
70
Bull! I used to work at CSIRO when real thinking led to innovation when fully functioning, pilot versions of the real thing were modded up in pretty short time like months, not years. Sadly, thinking at the CSIRO has been nobbled for political reasons. Anyway, all the current doomsday talk from the fright bats of the Green lobby who whisper sweet no can do’s in Labour’s ear are wrecking Australia’s industrial and domestic future with their ridiculous future energy policy based exclusively on renewables. Australia needs a revitalized heavy industry in steel making and aluminium production. The only way to achieve that is with 24/7/365 reliable base load energy from modern clean coal and nuclear. Hopefully, the destructive far left Albanese government will get the flick at the next election. However, an incoming Coalition government needs to start wooing voters now with genuine and appealing plans to get what’s left our reliable coal-fired baseload power generators restored to the grid in the interim whilst plans for various types of nuclear reactors are designed to fit into the existing grid to be implemented in a can do time of under eight or even five years. Time to ‘get the lead out’ and get Australian moving again I say. Australia desparately needs its own version of MAGA.
90
It’s not true that the US built the first [nuclear power] reactor in 1957. Russia awitched one on that was connected to its electricity grid in June 1954.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obninsk_Nuclear_Power_Plant
As I understand it the slow timescale for Western nations to build nuclear power stations today is due to excessive safety regulations introduced by Greens with the tacit aim of hamstringing construction. Can anybody comment?
70
The USSR one was small compared to the USA one.
Both were more or less experimental even though they fed power into the grid.
Shippingport USA 60MWe 1958-1989
Vs
Obinsk USSR 5MWe 1954-2002
20
EBR-1 was the first reactor to generate electricity in 1951. It was not connected to the grid, and only generated about 200 watts, but it did demonstrate the technology.
10
I honestly don’t understand how anyone, especially those who identify as “engineers” or “scientists” think they can run an electricity grid on wind and solar with or without Big Batteries at any acceptable or feasible cost.
Shame on them!
110
We don’t even need the French plans. We can go with a modern ‘Vogtle’ type.
All the Design Control documentation for the AP-1000 are in the public domain at the USNRC here. (no joke).
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1117/ML11171A500.html
All we have to do is download and build.
10
Those green criminals who blocked the Westgate Bridge in Melbourne yesterday spent the night in jail then were released even though one of them also blocked the Sydney Harbour Bridge on another occassion.
Because of the blockage, a woman didn’t get to hospital on time and gave birth in a car. People could also have died of they were blocked going to hospital.
They have been emboldened with little or no penalty.
Imagine how much worse it will be if anyone attempts to build a nuclear reactor.
Criminal behaviour by Leftists is tolerated by our Leftist Governments.
140
But two of them were gaoled for twenty-one days and the third is yet to appear in court according to this morning’s newspaper.
10
The report I heard this afternoon on the radio said they had spent the night in gaol and were then let out.
Even 21 days is inadequate. I think 3 years is more appropriate, far more if someone dies because they blocked an emergency vehicle. Then it should be considered murder.
90
When the SHTF people think we will be able to rent a Russian floating nuclear power plant.
It’s not going to happen.
They only produce 70MWe. They won’t make much difference when Australia’s grid collapses.
In any case trade unions and green criminals would not allow them to be docked.
40
What I find weird about the energy discussion is the idea that there are only two sources of power, windmills and solar panels? Is that it?
When this happened in the 1970s, when oil power was vanishing and prices skyrocketed, we discussed many other ways to get power.
Why is it only medieval windmills and shockingly inadequate solar? And neither has a lifespan over 20 years so who thinks we are building anything? These are houses made of straw.
80
What alternatives were discussed?
10
The Hinkley Point nuclear power station
Location- Hinkley Point, Somerset, UK
Builder- French government firm EDF
Approved in 2016 at a cost estimate of £22 billion for 2023 completion.
Completion date now put at 2031, cost £46 billion.
From this, the point about the French capability and expertise in building nuclear power stations refers only to the past. In the UK (and Australia) today, no large project can be built by anyone within time and cost budgets.
The reasons are mentioned thru-out this website.
20
You could also mention the other 2 EDF plants – Finland and Flamanville. The Finnish plant is finally running but it has been 12 years late and 5 times the budget. Flamanville is approaching fuelling possibly in May. But it is also 12 years and 5 times the budget.
20
Also.
HS2, a complete f*ck up from day 1, and still costing billions and providing nothing.
Aircraft Carriers, overpriced, late, dubious performance, no planes, no support ships.
Crossrail, late and over budget.
‘We’ cannot manage large projects, why’s that ? Stupid and corrupt politicians and outsourcing all work to foriegners and political ‘friends’.
30
Large government projects have always been money pits, because the contractors know that the government pocket is indefinitely deep.
30
Only true in the west.
20
Methinks that the build time for an SMR will be closer to 2 years, by 2030. Most of the workings come in on the back of a truck and are assembled, not engineered, on site.
It’s the on-site stuff that is most vulnerable to milestone stretches.
SMR are more suited to the Australian market as it is now because energy-intensive industries have been shed in the pursuit of false pretext. Progressively replacing old “boilers” at conventional power plants with SMR is infrastructure-friendly and will conserve coal, oil and gas for transport applications where energy density is a priority.
UAE contracted KEPCO to build 4 new (Gen III+) reactors. And they were basically up within 12 years. Unforeseen delays had initially been in training the locals so getting the first online was somewhat delayed.
Same is likely for Australia. Not insurmountable, especially as Germany’s still shedding its experts after the shutting down of their last NPP. But strike while the iron is hot as their government is likely to topple at the next federal election as a consequence of their doomed energy transition.
P.S. Don’t forget that we had a Parliamentary Inquiry into this back in 2019. My submission was #129.
—
Overview
This submission focuses on the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia:
Replacing the ban on nuclear technologies with legislation that provides certainty to potential investors.
Public education about nuclear power and radiation to address irrational fears. Education is necessary to provide information on how the industry manages the risks.
Economic factors such as feasibility and affordability are best assessed by potential investors as they have an enduring interest in the success of their investment. Feasibility is immutably dependent on affordability in a free market.
Health and safety concerns must be considered in the same manner as other industry that manages similar energy densities (outside of the reactor) and hazardous materials.
Environmental considerations must take into account the vastly smaller quantities of materials, and area than other generating technologies of equal generating capacity.
Tertiary Education must support Nuclear Engineering and associated studies for a sustainable workforce capability.
Latent capabilities of existing immigrants with qualifications and experience can be activated via employment opportunities. Work visas for short-term and future, skilled immigration have to be adapted to support industry requirements.
Import and export regulations must be adapted so that related equipment and materials can be traded commercially in a safe and secure manner, without introducing barriers that add unnecessary costs.
—
The whole thing can be found under Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia at the APH web site.
10