That was my suggested headline for my latest piece in Crikey, which ran under the sub-editors (blander IMO) choice of “We don’t need a nuclear renaissance.
You seem to have missed "hydro" in the OP. And, while I didn't mention it, the expansion of grids since 2014, along with Rewiring the Nation, mean that a week of rain isn't a problem unless it rains everywhere.
But to focus on our points of agreement, we don't need either coal or nuclear, which was the point of the article.
“Peak load in NSW occurs on cold winter evenings when people turn their heaters on.”
This is incorrect/out of date. The peak load in NSW and even in Victoria occurs on hot summer days, and the summer peak is predicted to grow further. And looking at the network as a whole, the southeastern Australia winter peak is a time of low demand in Queensland, whereas the summer peak coincides with peak demand here"
Thank you, JQ.
And even if you were right on this point, none of this justifies the baseload concept. Peaks favor controllable energy such as gas and hydro, not fixed supply technologies like coal, nuclear and geothermal.
Being antinuclear is SO boomer ✨it’s now quite a quaint “old nutter” position. Or it’s what happens when an economist tries to do physics.
There’s about a dozen countries with reliable, low carbon electricity thanks in a large degree to nuclear. There’s exactly zero that have achieved this with intermittent sources, even with extraordinary government subsidisation.
Ontario has commenced the build of the extension to Darlington and provided the money and the SMRs in the Province budget. UK currently also building Sizewell in addition to Hinkley. No new plants were announced for several years it is true, but that has changed now the countries getting more serious about climate change. Funding for nuclear in the EU Patrionomy, a significant change.
As you say, I'm out of date. It's 2023 here, and they are still planning preparations for Sizewell. They've done a bit of site preparation at Darlington but no one is providing SMRs because they don't yet exist. Since you are writing from my future, can you tell me what's happened to crypto.
Except what you are saying is wrong. Your Wiki link is out of date. Politics not economics was behind the pause in keeping with a pause in many countries. Ontario is expanding both its large scale plants and is building 3 SMRs to meet rising demand from EVs and economic expansion and to get rid of the last 9% of its grid that still uses fossil fuels.
Finland, Poland, Czech Republic, UK, Netherlands, France, Romania, Slovakia have all announced nuclear expansion plans and Sweden likely too. Most are existing nuclear users.
These are all announcements. If announcements constitute success, nuclear power has done pretty well, notably including cold fusion. But I thought you were asking about actually existing plants.
The French transition from fossil fuels to clean power wa the fastest in history. Compare that to Germany, 20 years into their transition they are nowhere near zero and are unlikely to ever get there.
If as you say nuclear is not the reason France was successful, why hasn’t the German or Danish transition worked? Why has Ontario worked and California failed? The common factor in France and Ontario is of course the use of nuclear energy and the failure in California and Germany due to trying to do the transition without it.
Germany was stupid to shut down nukes before coal, but that hasn't stopped the transition in Europe, despite only one nuclear plant being added in the last 20 years (in Finland)
As we approach 100 per cent renewables, we'll need either some longer-term storage options (pumped hydro for example) or some gas peakers. But we won't need coal.
https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1002543/ontario-breaks-ground-on-world-leading-small-modular-reactor
Unless the tradies are working for nothing Canada is spending money
Well yes. Spending money is one thing, generating electricity is another.
'we'll need either some longer term storage options'
Since your linked post on baseload power is from 14 years ago, & such an option has not been developed in the interim I'll call this handwaving
Agreed on gas peaking plants, rather than coal.
You seem to have missed "hydro" in the OP. And, while I didn't mention it, the expansion of grids since 2014, along with Rewiring the Nation, mean that a week of rain isn't a problem unless it rains everywhere.
But to focus on our points of agreement, we don't need either coal or nuclear, which was the point of the article.
The rain then in '89 was over SE Australia [Tri State area]. There was another wet week in Sydney in '92 which was more localised.
Did not know that about the grid [I was involved in launching NEMCO 22 years ago]
Even though I've worked in the nuclear industry, this is good news. We don't have the engineering capability to build N-power, & it's too expensive.
"
jquiggin says:
July 30, 2009 at 6:47 am
“Peak load in NSW occurs on cold winter evenings when people turn their heaters on.”
This is incorrect/out of date. The peak load in NSW and even in Victoria occurs on hot summer days, and the summer peak is predicted to grow further. And looking at the network as a whole, the southeastern Australia winter peak is a time of low demand in Queensland, whereas the summer peak coincides with peak demand here"
Thank you, JQ.
And even if you were right on this point, none of this justifies the baseload concept. Peaks favor controllable energy such as gas and hydro, not fixed supply technologies like coal, nuclear and geothermal.
Being antinuclear is SO boomer ✨it’s now quite a quaint “old nutter” position. Or it’s what happens when an economist tries to do physics.
There’s about a dozen countries with reliable, low carbon electricity thanks in a large degree to nuclear. There’s exactly zero that have achieved this with intermittent sources, even with extraordinary government subsidisation.
A twofer. Generation game slurs and pro-nuclear nonsense.
In reality, renewables have surpassed coal and nuclear in many countries, and will soon do so everywhere. That's true whatever your birth cohort
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-renewable-energy-will-surge-past-coal-and-nuclear-by-years-end/
Ontario has commenced the build of the extension to Darlington and provided the money and the SMRs in the Province budget. UK currently also building Sizewell in addition to Hinkley. No new plants were announced for several years it is true, but that has changed now the countries getting more serious about climate change. Funding for nuclear in the EU Patrionomy, a significant change.
As you say, I'm out of date. It's 2023 here, and they are still planning preparations for Sizewell. They've done a bit of site preparation at Darlington but no one is providing SMRs because they don't yet exist. Since you are writing from my future, can you tell me what's happened to crypto.
Except what you are saying is wrong. Your Wiki link is out of date. Politics not economics was behind the pause in keeping with a pause in many countries. Ontario is expanding both its large scale plants and is building 3 SMRs to meet rising demand from EVs and economic expansion and to get rid of the last 9% of its grid that still uses fossil fuels.
Finland, Poland, Czech Republic, UK, Netherlands, France, Romania, Slovakia have all announced nuclear expansion plans and Sweden likely too. Most are existing nuclear users.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/ontario-plans-more-nuclear-reactors-meet-rising-electricity-demand-2023-07-07/
These are all announcements. If announcements constitute success, nuclear power has done pretty well, notably including cold fusion. But I thought you were asking about actually existing plants.
The French transition from fossil fuels to clean power wa the fastest in history. Compare that to Germany, 20 years into their transition they are nowhere near zero and are unlikely to ever get there.
Did you even read the article?
If as you say nuclear is not the reason France was successful, why hasn’t the German or Danish transition worked? Why has Ontario worked and California failed? The common factor in France and Ontario is of course the use of nuclear energy and the failure in California and Germany due to trying to do the transition without it.
Ontario didn't work. Massive cost over-runs and delays. That's why Canada stopped building nukes and CANDU was abandoned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlington_Nuclear_Generating_Station
Germany was stupid to shut down nukes before coal, but that hasn't stopped the transition in Europe, despite only one nuclear plant being added in the last 20 years (in Finland)
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/08/31/a-sign-of-the-times-eu-reliance-on-fossil-fuels-falls-to-record-low-report-reveals
But what about baseload power?
I can remember in May, 1989 when it rained in Sydney for an entire week
In a Renewables Future State that's scores of dead people on respirators; either that or we retain at least one coal plant per state.
Baseload is a nonsense concept https://johnquiggin.com/2009/07/22/the-myth-of-baseload-power-demand/
As we approach 100 per cent renewables, we'll need either some longer-term storage options (pumped hydro for example) or some gas peakers. But we won't need coal.