Meanwhile, back on the solar farm, Chinese pv module prices fell 42% in 2023. Reuters: “At the end of 2023, China's annual production capacity for finished solar modules was 861 gigawatts (GW) equivalent [...], more than double global module installations of 390 GW. […] Production capacity is expected to increase by a further 500 or 600 GW this year.”
At a generous 4:1 ratio to account for the different capacity factors, Chinese pv production capacity equates to 215 1-GW nuclear reactors per year at end 2023, 340 reactors per year this December. The pampered and shrinking nuclear industry is a mere pimple on the backside of the solar giant. The Australian government could go to Longi or Jinko today and buy 16 GW of panels, enough to balance Dutton’s four reactors by God knows when, for delivery in 12 months, and they would get a quotation by return of post.
Ah, intone the nuclear fans, “the sun doesn’t always shine”, as if grid managers had not thought of the fact. You do need to firm solar with storage, as you indeed have to do with nuclear reactors that shut down regularly for maintenance. If you were trying to match the output curve of a reactor with solar, you would need 1:1 daily backup, very expensive. But the flat output curve of a must-run reactor is itself is a problem for grid managers. Their ideal generator is both reliable and flexible: a shopping list met today only by gas, geothermal, hydro and batteries. Gas pollutes, geothermal is scarce (hydrothermal) or jam tomorrow (hot rocks), so hydro and batteries it is.
The curve they need to match is sine-wave daily load, not nuclear’s flat output. For solar you need eight hours’ or so of backup, not 24. This turns out to be doable and affordable. Adding cheap wind energy, typically with variation inversely correlated to solar on a cycle of weeks not hours, complicates the picture without changing the conclusion. Adding hydrogen generation is a strange Rube Goldberg scheme that complicates the picture without offering lower costs or greater reliability. WWS has solved the problem, people. Get on with it.
A personal footnote. I recently added to my rooftop solar, and looked for the first time at the five-minute daily output. It was still 170 watts – 4% of peak output – just before sunrise and after sunset, from light backscattered by the whole sky. In a way, the sun doesn’t actually need to shine for pv to keep working.
US$8.6 billion per-reactor or per-GW? The media I've seen says per-reactor which equates to A$9.2 billion / GW. The UK and US figures are A$27.2 billion / GW and A$23.4 billion / GW, respectively, in France it is A$19.4 billion / GW.
My problems and objections to nuclear power differ from what you'd expect. They are about people, not technology and cost. One only has to look at far simpler infrastructure projects like those of Westconnex or the light rail projects to be concerned. Consider the level of misdirection and lack of proper planning that has accompanied these builds and realise how incompetence has manifested in such ventures. And this is nuclear power, so the “fallout” of mismanagement will have a significant impact. It is not whether nuclear power is safe or has the capacity for energy generation. It is whether humans driven by a neoliberal agenda to cut costs and encourage shortcuts can be trusted to run a nuclear plant. All the accidents in that industry would have been avoidable had they been appropriately managed. The problem isn't the nuclear material you use. It is the human material and the sociopolitical context.
Yes, nuclear fusion may be technically possible, but do you want to trust fallible, corrupt, and indulgent humans to secure it correctly for the betterment of humanity? Really, you have learned nothing from the past few millennia of human history? Poor industrial management, resource depletion, shortcutting industrial relations, and economic rationalism all contribute to the poor management of such potentially dangerous energy generation.
The problem is never the potential of the technology, but the application of the technology, managed through shortcuts, economic cost reduction, political manoeuvring, laziness, construction oversights, and corruption, will always be the problem. The trouble, as always, that the geeks and engineers overlook, is the human element.
It is a bad idea to look for consent on its technical merits by people who want to ignore, overlook, or excuse the human elements that will ultimately be responsible for its failure, just as in Fukushima and Chernobyl. This will never ultimately succeed until we get out of this budget-cutting austerity, economic rationalism mode of consideration for evaluating infrastructure projects. You must change the value paradigms of society and capitalism to expect the human element to implement nuclear power safely.
You are far better off pursuing solar and wind, and geothermal energy projects backed by battery technology where when humans f**k up (because they will), then the consequences are not massively destructive.
Meanwhile, back on the solar farm, Chinese pv module prices fell 42% in 2023. Reuters: “At the end of 2023, China's annual production capacity for finished solar modules was 861 gigawatts (GW) equivalent [...], more than double global module installations of 390 GW. […] Production capacity is expected to increase by a further 500 or 600 GW this year.”
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-solar-industry-faces-shakeout-rock-bottom-prices-persist-2024-04-03/
At a generous 4:1 ratio to account for the different capacity factors, Chinese pv production capacity equates to 215 1-GW nuclear reactors per year at end 2023, 340 reactors per year this December. The pampered and shrinking nuclear industry is a mere pimple on the backside of the solar giant. The Australian government could go to Longi or Jinko today and buy 16 GW of panels, enough to balance Dutton’s four reactors by God knows when, for delivery in 12 months, and they would get a quotation by return of post.
Ah, intone the nuclear fans, “the sun doesn’t always shine”, as if grid managers had not thought of the fact. You do need to firm solar with storage, as you indeed have to do with nuclear reactors that shut down regularly for maintenance. If you were trying to match the output curve of a reactor with solar, you would need 1:1 daily backup, very expensive. But the flat output curve of a must-run reactor is itself is a problem for grid managers. Their ideal generator is both reliable and flexible: a shopping list met today only by gas, geothermal, hydro and batteries. Gas pollutes, geothermal is scarce (hydrothermal) or jam tomorrow (hot rocks), so hydro and batteries it is.
The curve they need to match is sine-wave daily load, not nuclear’s flat output. For solar you need eight hours’ or so of backup, not 24. This turns out to be doable and affordable. Adding cheap wind energy, typically with variation inversely correlated to solar on a cycle of weeks not hours, complicates the picture without changing the conclusion. Adding hydrogen generation is a strange Rube Goldberg scheme that complicates the picture without offering lower costs or greater reliability. WWS has solved the problem, people. Get on with it.
A personal footnote. I recently added to my rooftop solar, and looked for the first time at the five-minute daily output. It was still 170 watts – 4% of peak output – just before sunrise and after sunset, from light backscattered by the whole sky. In a way, the sun doesn’t actually need to shine for pv to keep working.
But we can build nuclear, apparently, merely through Peter Dutton's willpower. Oh and a huge government (ie. taxpayer) subsidy.
US$8.6 billion per-reactor or per-GW? The media I've seen says per-reactor which equates to A$9.2 billion / GW. The UK and US figures are A$27.2 billion / GW and A$23.4 billion / GW, respectively, in France it is A$19.4 billion / GW.
These are APR1000 reactors, so 1GW per reactor. Price well below recent disasters, as you say, and unclear who bears the risk of blowouts.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/czechs-pick-south-koreas-khnp-over-french-bid-nuclear-power-tender-2024-07-17/
My problems and objections to nuclear power differ from what you'd expect. They are about people, not technology and cost. One only has to look at far simpler infrastructure projects like those of Westconnex or the light rail projects to be concerned. Consider the level of misdirection and lack of proper planning that has accompanied these builds and realise how incompetence has manifested in such ventures. And this is nuclear power, so the “fallout” of mismanagement will have a significant impact. It is not whether nuclear power is safe or has the capacity for energy generation. It is whether humans driven by a neoliberal agenda to cut costs and encourage shortcuts can be trusted to run a nuclear plant. All the accidents in that industry would have been avoidable had they been appropriately managed. The problem isn't the nuclear material you use. It is the human material and the sociopolitical context.
Yes, nuclear fusion may be technically possible, but do you want to trust fallible, corrupt, and indulgent humans to secure it correctly for the betterment of humanity? Really, you have learned nothing from the past few millennia of human history? Poor industrial management, resource depletion, shortcutting industrial relations, and economic rationalism all contribute to the poor management of such potentially dangerous energy generation.
The problem is never the potential of the technology, but the application of the technology, managed through shortcuts, economic cost reduction, political manoeuvring, laziness, construction oversights, and corruption, will always be the problem. The trouble, as always, that the geeks and engineers overlook, is the human element.
It is a bad idea to look for consent on its technical merits by people who want to ignore, overlook, or excuse the human elements that will ultimately be responsible for its failure, just as in Fukushima and Chernobyl. This will never ultimately succeed until we get out of this budget-cutting austerity, economic rationalism mode of consideration for evaluating infrastructure projects. You must change the value paradigms of society and capitalism to expect the human element to implement nuclear power safely.
You are far better off pursuing solar and wind, and geothermal energy projects backed by battery technology where when humans f**k up (because they will), then the consequences are not massively destructive.