Global Warming

[Brodders17]

If you don't know, vote No.

Coalition won't say how much nuclear power its plan will generate until after an election

Coalition energy spokesperson Ted O'Brien, who designed the plan, says the amount of energy generated would depend on the type and number of reactors built at each site.

www.abc.net.au

 

[mrposhman]

Nuclear will works out much cheaper than continued roll outs of renewables,and maintenance/replacing them,and don't forget the costs of households/business having to transition from gas to electricity ,,thats mainly in Victoria at the moment.

With battle lines drawn over who can deliver clean, cheap energy, one key question remains

The Coalition has put its cards on the table, unveiling its plan to build nuclear plants to secure Australia's energy future. But one thing was missing — what will it cost?

www.abc.net.au

You keep saying this but you have nothing to back it up. The opposite is more true based on the independent research that we have.

I can respect Willos POV as he appears to be suggesting that this is more a reliability / energy security issue rather than a cost issue, but you keep repeating this line without any real world examples to prove you right, in fact many of the in development projects are swinging the other way. You've also repeated claims around the CSIRO's independence. There is an issue with the data that they use for their LCOE costings, but I've yet to see you reference the actual issue with their data set (Willo has) which can impact how poorly their data set shows nuclear. The one thing that none of these costings for nuclear show, is what occurs regarding the running costs as the cost of uranium rises which it will have to with demand going up, with all these new plants that you talk about coming into action, and the lack of finding new supplies. We all know what has occurred in the past with oil as an example, as cheap oil gets used up and more expensive oil is required to be developed (deeper water for example), it leads to a lack of investment whilst prices are low, which causes the inevitable swing up in pricing as oil demand / supply curves move adversely, and this WILL happen more and more over the next 10 years with regard to oil in particular.

I'm a facts based person (being a finance guy). I like other tech (like tidal) but I can't claim that its the solution because it just doesn't cost in with the tech that has been developed as yet. Its like when you've brought up Fusion before. Yes it COULD be part of the future, but it frankly doesn't exist as yet.

 

[DavidSSS]

Uranium is underground mining.Lithium is open cut.

You mean like Mary Kathleen:

Or Ranger:

Or Four Mile Uranium Mine:

Olympic Dam:

Yeah, not open cut, anything you say . . .

Zoe Daniel above speaks a lot of sense, so glad she is my local member and we lost the useless Tim Wilson.

DS

 

[Willo]

You mean like Mary Kathleen:

Or Ranger:
I may have been wrong about Ranger. But thats ok. I don’t mind admitting if I’ve got something wrong..At least it doesn’t look like that now.

Or Four Mile Uranium Mine: Hmmm Beverly looks quite different to that when I was there. Very green for the upper NE of South Australia. Must have some good rains.

4 Mile/Beverly/Urananium One was never an open cut mine. See below. They used an insitu leaching process.

Four Mile uranium mine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Olympic Dam:

Yeah, not open cut, anything you say . . .

Zoe Daniel above speaks a lot of sense, so glad she is my local member and we lost the useless Tim Wilson.

DS

If you knew anything about mining, you’d know the difference between open cut mining and underground mining using incline/decline roads for trucking the dirt to the surface. That is in areas that don’t operate skip winders up and down shaft.

Uranium mines in Australia

Olympic Dam is an underground mine. Some 12 million tonnes of ore is mined each year by open stoping. In 2019 production was 3967 tonnes . Do you know what an open stope is? Underground, drilled and blasted, then loaded by bloggers into trucks. That use the incline/decline system of roads to truck it to the crushers.
The open cut is the gold and copper mine at Olympic Dam
Not the one you were showing.


Here is the Ranger site.Nicely rehabilitated.


Mary Kathleen. A tourism hotspot

How 'hot' is this radioactive tourist hotspot?

Mary Kathleen's shuttered uranium mine is bright blue, incredibly Instagram-worthy, radioactive — and Queensland's latest hotspot.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Willo]

You keep saying this but you have nothing to back it up. The opposite is more true based on the independent research that we have.

I can respect Willos POV as he appears to be suggesting that this is more a reliability / energy security issue rather than a cost issue, but you keep repeating this line without any real world examples to prove you right, in fact many of the in development projects are swinging the other way. You've also repeated claims around the CSIRO's independence. There is an issue with the data that they use for their LCOE costings, but I've yet to see you reference the actual issue with their data set (Willo has) which can impact how poorly their data set shows nuclear. The one thing that none of these costings for nuclear show, is what occurs regarding the running costs as the cost of uranium rises which it will have to with demand going up, with all these new plants that you talk about coming into action, and the lack of finding new supplies. We all know what has occurred in the past with oil as an example, as cheap oil gets used up and more expensive oil is required to be developed (deeper water for example), it leads to a lack of investment whilst prices are low, which causes the inevitable swing up in pricing as oil demand / supply curves move adversely, and this WILL happen more and more over the next 10 years with regard to oil in particular.

I'm a facts based person (being a finance guy). I like other tech (like tidal) but I can't claim that its the solution because it just doesn't cost in with the tech that has been developed as yet. Its like when you've brought up Fusion before. Yes it COULD be part of the future, but it frankly doesn't exist as yet.

If I may just jump in for a minute.
To work out all the costs. Whether thats for the initial build and ancillary requirements we need to know the make, the size, the type of reactor, build technology, etc. Whether it is a “one off” design and build (more expensive to build a one off) or a series of same/similar builds (cheaper to build a series of similar types
But before any cost calculations can be done, whether for the building of or the LCOE there must be some known values. Those values (mainly $s) can only be calculated when we know what is actually going to be built.

But I have mentioned before, it’s not just a $ figure. What price do you put on a country’s national security of energy supply? Industry? Defence? Health? Standard of Living?
In my mind there’s a lot more to consider than just cost.

You don’t ask the bank for a loan on the cost of a new Holden Barina when you’re going to buy new Holden Commodore.
And you don’t work out the maintenance costs of a Barina when you own the Commodore..

There’s going to be a lot of conjecture and speculation over the next couple of years, until we get to a federal election.
There will be more *smile* spouted than at a lodge meeting full of politicians, car salesmen and lawyers.

Costs, safety, waste management, locations, types, sizes. I’m sure Homer Simpson might even get a mention.

 

[Willo]

There has been talk regarding SMR’s (even though David will jump in and say they aren’t any at the moment) technology is moving at a fast rate. China and Russia have already built them.

Small modular reactors (SMR) | IAEA

Small and medium-sized or modular reactors are an option to fulfil the need for flexible power generation for a wider range of users and applications. Small modular reactors, deployable either as single or multi-module plant, offer the possibility to combine nuclear with alternative energy...

www.iaea.org

The NEA review concludes that, while a few SMRs are already operating, there is a robust pipeline of SMRs making progress towards first-of-a-kind (FOAK) deployment.

According to the NEA Dashboard, “A large number of SMRs are presently conceptual. The breadth of designs may create opportunities to consolidate global supply chains, foster standardisation and improve the economics of SMRs for commercialisation.”

China and Russia are leading the deployment of SMRs. However, there is progress towards deployment in North America and Europe.

For information on the status of specific projects, see the NEA Dashboard: Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) - The NEA Small Modular Reactor Dashboard: Second Edition (oecd-nea.org)

Small Modular Reactors: An overview | ANSTO

As Australia’s nuclear experts, ANSTO closely follows the development of nuclear technologies around the world, including the emergence of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). The information provided below highlights the latest information on SMR technology from reputable and established sources...

www.ansto.gov.au

 

[DavidSSS]

I wasn't aware that "Small and Medium-sized" was a synonym for "modular".

They equate the 2 and yet you still think the nuclear industry aren't talking out of their arses.

But enlighten me, do small modular reactors exist, or are they making progress towards a first of a kind deployment?

You can't have both.

That article from the OECD NEA states: "SMRs are designed for modular manufacturing, factory production, portability and scalability." The modular aspect is important because nuclear reactors are second only to Olympic Games in going over budget, so the promise is that they can make them cheaper out of modules. But these are the mob who promised power too cheap to meter some decades ago so excuse me for being sceptical. They also claimed Hinkley C would be $AU23billion, the latest estimate is between $AU59billion and $AU66billion, so, 7 reactors at say $AU60billion apiece $AU420billion. Not cheap by any stretch of the imagination and highly unlikely to not blow out further anyway. Note - prices converted from UK pounds. Yeah, let's waste half a trillion (after the inevitable cost blow outs, but likely a lot more) on nukes. Then spend the next 250,000 years trying to store the waste and keep it secure as the waste does include weapons grade plutonium.

DS

PS: yes, I do jump in when you contradict yourself.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Reckon half the cost n delay issues with getting them nuke reactors built would come from all the disruptions n legal battles fighting with the greenies n unions while trying to get anything done.
Need Little Kimmy Jong to rock over for a while n just lock up for life anyone who wants to complain about getting a reactor n the *smile* things will be built in five years each n all under budget. You just know it makes sense.

 

[RoarEmotion]

Reckon half the cost n delay issues with getting them nuke reactors built would come from all the disruptions n legal battles fighting with the greenies n unions while trying to get anything done.
Need Little Kimmy Jong to rock over for a while n just lock up for life anyone who wants to complain about getting a reactor n the *smile* things will be built in five years each n all under budget. You just know it makes sense.

Benevolent dictatorships (aka Singapore's 'democracy') seem the quickest way to get anything done.
Problem is they don't end, then you get that dudes son who bends the whole country over.

 

[tigersnake]

I have plenty of friends who use a Solarhart HWS. Over winter here south of Adelaide it’s just about entirely useless. Not quite but very early. They have to run it on (electrical mains) boost during the winter months. Great for over 8 months of the year, useless, especially for a household with over 2 people.Even further north in Broken Hill, Wilcannia and Menindee. Not as often but still for weeks at a time when there were days of inclement weather and mainly during the winter months.
But once again, a perfect example of solar being weather dependant. In good sunny conditions, just them attractive.

Confusing and strange post. You don't even like solar hot water? But the evidence here actually supports it if you strip it back. Solar hot water greatly reduces household energy costs, full stop, that is significant. They have a booster, of course, which is needed depending on the sun, the time of year as you say. Summer 100% free, spring and autumn 70-80% free, winter 30-50% free. You seem to be saying that is not significant or worth doing, when obviously it is. Its a no brainer.

You seem to be saying they don't meet 100% of needs at all times therefore they are not worthwhile? I find that odd.

(here in Brisbane we basically get free hot water most of the year, probably 2 or 3 months when you may need the booster at times but not much even then).

 

[RoarEmotion]

Who needs nuclear, gas, wind, hydro, wood, coal, more recent animal corpses, biomatter or sun powered solar. Let's go 100% in on this one. It's only 10 more years of folks in lab coats at unis staring at a diode for us to get started.

'Night-time solar' technology can now deliver power in the dark

Innovative research from a UNSW team shows Earth’s radiant infrared heat can be used to generate electricity, even after the sun has set.

www.unsw.edu.au

 

[mrposhman]

If I may just jump in for a minute.
To work out all the costs. Whether thats for the initial build and ancillary requirements we need to know the make, the size, the type of reactor, build technology, etc. Whether it is a “one off” design and build (more expensive to build a one off) or a series of same/similar builds (cheaper to build a series of similar types
But before any cost calculations can be done, whether for the building of or the LCOE there must be some known values. Those values (mainly $s) can only be calculated when we know what is actually going to be built.

But I have mentioned before, it’s not just a $ figure. What price do you put on a country’s national security of energy supply? Industry? Defence? Health? Standard of Living?
In my mind there’s a lot more to consider than just cost.

You don’t ask the bank for a loan on the cost of a new Holden Barina when you’re going to buy new Holden Commodore.
And you don’t work out the maintenance costs of a Barina when you own the Commodore..

There’s going to be a lot of conjecture and speculation over the next couple of years, until we get to a federal election.
There will be more *smile* spouted than at a lodge meeting full of politicians, car salesmen and lawyers.

Costs, safety, waste management, locations, types, sizes. I’m sure Homer Simpson might even get a mention.

Thats all correct BUT until reasonable information is provided by Dutton we can review in line with other countries experiences, afterall, I doubt we know of some revolutionary tech that noone in the rest of the world knows about hence we will likely use a similar approach to overseas. I'm taking western countries here, not 3rd world as obviously cost of labour / construction etc will differ wildly.

So we've already been through Hinckley C - not going to be in operation for a number of years still, expected to cost around 46bnGBP for 3.2GW of power. Roughly $87bn for 3.2 GW of nameplate capacity, so in the region of $27bn per GW of nameplate capacity

In the US (Georgia) they have recently completed Voglte-3 and Vogtle-4, again massive cost over runs and that 2.6GW powerplant is estimated to have cost around about US$30bn, so roughly $45bn, or around about $17.5bn per GW of nameplate capacity.

I've seen articles that you've posted that seem to indicate a cost of about $8.5bn on 1 plant, either these costs are wildly understated or are going to produce such little power that it really isn't worth it, the point being that if you are going to go nuclear that you'd expect a significant proportion of your baseload would come from it, so any talk about small production levels would be miles wide of the expectation.

 

[Willo]

Who needs nuclear, gas, wind, hydro, wood, coal, more recent animal corpses, biomatter or sun powered solar. Let's go 100% in on this one. It's only 10 more years of folks in lab coats at unis staring at a diode for us to get started.

'Night-time solar' technology can now deliver power in the dark

Innovative research from a UNSW team shows Earth’s radiant infrared heat can be used to generate electricity, even after the sun has set.

www.unsw.edu.au

I’ve already posted some articles on that technology previously.

 

[tigersnake]

Here is the Ranger site.Nicely rehabilitated.View attachment 23222

FAKE NEWS ALERT! Come off it Willo. Nicely rehabbed? This is total whackyland. Planting a few shrubs does not a rehab make. Big problems and cost blowouts with Ranger rahab, all on the public record. And more broadly, the Parliamentary Inquiry into Mine Rahab held in 2017 found that in general, mine rahab just doesn't happen. Its gets talked about a lot, and people think it happens, but it doesn't.

Rio Tinto takes over uranium mine clean-up amid spiralling costs

Rio Tinto will take over rehabilitating the former Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory following years of delays and budget blowouts.

www.smh.com.au

Here is the mining industry take:

Ranger rehabilitation moves forward despite delays

ERA has announced an updated timeline for its rehabilitation of the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory.

www.australianmining.com.au

Here is the NIT take:

Rio Tinto takes over Northern Territory's Ranger uranium mine clean up

Rio Tinto will take control of the rehabilitation project at the former Ranger uranium mine in the heritage listed Kakadu region, which has been hit with significant delays and cost blowouts. Th...

nit.com.au

 

[bengal tigers]

You keep saying this but you have nothing to back it up. The opposite is more true based on the independent research that we have.

I can respect Willos POV as he appears to be suggesting that this is more a reliability / energy security issue rather than a cost issue, but you keep repeating this line without any real world examples to prove you right, in fact many of the in development projects are swinging the other way. You've also repeated claims around the CSIRO's independence. There is an issue with the data that they use for their LCOE costings, but I've yet to see you reference the actual issue with their data set (Willo has) which can impact how poorly their data set shows nuclear. The one thing that none of these costings for nuclear show, is what occurs regarding the running costs as the cost of uranium rises which it will have to with demand going up, with all these new plants that you talk about coming into action, and the lack of finding new supplies. We all know what has occurred in the past with oil as an example, as cheap oil gets used up and more expensive oil is required to be developed (deeper water for example), it leads to a lack of investment whilst prices are low, which causes the inevitable swing up in pricing as oil demand / supply curves move adversely, and this WILL happen more and more over the next 10 years with regard to oil in particular.

I'm a facts based person (being a finance guy). I like other tech (like tidal) but I can't claim that its the solution because it just doesn't cost in with the tech that has been developed as yet. Its like when you've brought up Fusion before. Yes it COULD be part of the future, but it frankly doesn't exist as yet.

What are the actual costs for all the renewables roll out,Labor can't answer or won't.
CSIRO estimates in 2017 over a trillion then in 2022 it was cut in half to 500 billion,how did they come to that conclusion when the costs of lithium and other materials increased in cost over that 5 year period.
Dutton used research done by 3 universities and a independent research group ,which estimates the initial cost of renewables to roll out across Australia to be 1 to 1.2 trillion.

Now this is the worse case scenario for nuclear,the 5 large cost 60 billion each and the 2 smr cost 17 billion each ,cost 334 billion and that includes waste removal and running costs ,
Now of course we are talking about a mixture of renewables and Nuclear and Gas as the secure base load in the grid ,well at least for the near future.

Now what a lot of the anti nuclear people forget,is we are talking about power for the long term ,Nuclear plants are expected to last 60-80 years best case scenario,Renewables best case scenario is 20 years ,batteries 10-20.
So put in the total costs for replacing renewables at the very least 3 times the life time of a reactor,Hundreds of Billions,plus the costs of maintaining such a large area of renewables over a period of 60 years would probably out weigh the costs of having all the worlds current reactors in Australia over 60 years,thats debatable though.
Also you have to factor in the costs of replacing solar farms when hit by storms,which has happened here and across the world,insurance companies won't touch Solar farms,not sure about Wind farms,also the costs of recycling millions of tons of solar panels/wind turbines/batteries.

The weather doesn't effect Reactors and they are 24/7
You also have used Uranium as rising in cost ,what about Lithium,Cobalt,Nickel etc etc .
To me it makes much more economic sense to bring in Nuclear ,and we are talking about the comparison being over a period of 60 years.

Heres a reply to CSIRO/Gencost from the world nuclear association .

https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/stakeholder_consultation/consultations/nem-consultations/2023/2024-forecasting-assumptions-update-consultation-page/gencost-submissions/world-nuclear-association.pdf?la=en

Also a bit more about Labors subsides.

Taxpayers to subsidise renewable energy projects as government concedes Australia set to miss targets

Within seven years, the government wants 82 per cent of Australia's power to come from renewable sources. Now it is massively expanding a taxpayer-funded scheme to ensure that happens.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Willo]

Thats all correct BUT until reasonable information is provided by Dutton we can review in line with other countries experiences,

All true.
But as I stated compare and cost like for like. Otherwise it’s just supposition.

afterall, I doubt we know of some revolutionary tech that noone in the rest of the world knows about hence we will likely use a similar approach to overseas. I'm taking western countries here, not 3rd world as obviously cost of labour / construction etc will differ wildly.

There are different types of reactors

What you need to know about the different types of nuclear reactors

Editor's note: This article was originally published on March 27, 2012. It has been revised, updated and republished. Nuclear energy accounts for almost 50% of the Carolinas electricity with zero carbon emissions.Through the fission process, our highly...

nuclear.duke-energy.com

I’m not a nuclear scientist so I’m not sure what will be used or is fit for purpose.

So we've already been through Hinckley C - not going to be in operation for a number of years still, expected to cost around 46bnGBP for 3.2GW of power. Roughly $87bn for 3.2 GW of nameplate capacity, so in the region of $27bn per GW of nameplate capacity

In the US (Georgia) they have recently completed Voglte-3 and Vogtle-4, again massive cost over runs and that 2.6GW powerplant is estimated to have cost around about US$30bn, so roughly $45bn, or around about $17.5bn per GW of nameplate capacity.

As far as I know it won’t be Hinckley C. I also doubt will it be Vogtle types.
More talk around the use of SMR’s as I have said previously. In some locations multiple SMR’s as that’s what the design is for, depending on the base/peak load requirements.

I've seen articles that you've posted that seem to indicate a cost of about $8.5bn on 1 plant, either these costs are wildly understated or are going to produce such little power that it really isn't worth it, the point being that if you are going to go nuclear that you'd expect a significant proportion of your baseload would come from it, so any talk about small production levels would be miles wide of the expectation.

I only post what I can find.
I’d rather a complete study of the required draw, sizing, type and ancillary grid requirements be done. Rather than a “costing” to satisfy those who want the costings, size, type immediately.
It needs to be as thorough as possible, with scientists, economists, technical, power utilities, etc all playing a part.
It wont or shouldn’t be done just to so it’s “out there now”
The costings will be pulled apart by all and sundry, so it needs the right people to come together to work out all the requirements needed. It’s the most responsible way for any project.

It would be like asking Albanese or Chris Bowen for the total costings for renewables, Grid batteries, the massive inverters, the poles and wires required to achieve net zero. When that will be all ready and when will all the coal fired generators be shutdown.
Or will there be backup gas fired generators as a standby? Or how much will gas will be bought or stored for a strategic reserve?
Can they put dollar figures and exact timelines to totally renewable now? How much taxpayers money has been spent on renewable energy grants, subsidies and other programs? How much more taxpayers money will be required? Will the taxpayer subsidise any replacement solar or wind turbine farms when at the end of the lifespan? That is an ongoing cost for renewables. They have a limited life.

If they don’t know, vote NO (eh Brodders)

So when doing the LCOE costings, they need to take into account that solar and wind farms, especially those offshore wind farms will have a life of perhaps a quarter or a third than that of a nuclear reactor. So to get the true cost, ie that Illawarra offshore wind farm instead of being “ $10billion” multiply the replacement by 3 or 4 or 5, depending on the life of being in saltwater/air. If it has a 20 year lif versus 60/80 years for a nuclear reactor. I’m only guessing years and figures here. But I’m sure people get the gist ofit.
So that one off shore wind farm for to cover 60 years (for arguments sake) $10b initially, then maybe $$3 or 4 or 5billion or with inflation $10billion?? I don’t really know.
There still a lot of variables either way.

 

[Willo]

FAKE NEWS ALERT! Come off it Willo. Nicely rehabbed? This is total whackyland. Planting a few shrubs does not a rehab make. Big problems and cost blowouts with Ranger rahab, all on the public record. And more broadly, the Parliamentary Inquiry into Mine Rahab held in 2017 found that in general, mine rahab just doesn't happen. Its gets talked about a lot, and people think it happens, but it doesn't.

Rio Tinto takes over uranium mine clean-up amid spiralling costs

Rio Tinto will take over rehabilitating the former Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory following years of delays and budget blowouts.

www.smh.com.au

Here is the mining industry take:

Ranger rehabilitation moves forward despite delays

ERA has announced an updated timeline for its rehabilitation of the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory.

www.australianmining.com.au

Here is the NIT take:

Rio Tinto takes over Northern Territory's Ranger uranium mine clean up

Rio Tinto will take control of the rehabilitation project at the former Ranger uranium mine in the heritage listed Kakadu region, which has been hit with significant delays and cost blowouts. Th...

nit.com.au

Maybe I should have said, the area they have rehabilitated looks nice with all the shrubbery.

So are they continuing to rehabilitate the area or not?

 

[mrposhman]

I’d rather a complete study of the required draw, sizing, type and ancillary grid requirements be done. Rather than a “costing” to satisfy those who want the costings, size, type immediately.
It needs to be as thorough as possible, with scientists, economists, technical, power utilities, etc all playing a part.
It wont or shouldn’t be done just to so it’s “out there now”
The costings will be pulled apart by all and sundry, so it needs the right people to come together to work out all the requirements needed. It’s the most responsible way for any project.

So hang on, are you saying that Dutton is creating a policy BEFORE its even been costed out? If he's confident enough to talk about his next election strategy around energy policy, surely he'd have done some level of costings to determine that it was the best course of action?

 

[tigersnake]

Maybe I should have said, the area they have rehabilitated looks nice with all the shrubbery.

So are they continuing to rehabilitate the area or not?

Posted a couple of short sharp overviews from both sides of the debate for you. Long story short, billion dollar cost blowouts, years behind schedule. (I tip my hat to Rio for taking responsibility for this shitshow, we'll see how that goes).

 

[bengal tigers]

So hang on, are you saying that Dutton is creating a policy BEFORE its even been costed out? If he's confident enough to talk about his next election strategy around energy policy, surely he'd have done some level of costings to determine that it was the best course of action?

But he isn't in power and the election date hasn't been set yet ,how about Labor WHO ARE CURRENTLY USING TAXPAYERS MONEY COME OUT AND GIVE THE COSTS FOR ALL THE RENEWABLES.
Why aren't the lefties asking that,,AGENDAS AGENDAS .