Meanwhile back in 2023 SMRs are still being viewed with caution “..the technology’s safety and economic competitiveness must be fully demonstrated before SMRs can be more widely deployed”
The stock "reason" given for the failure of Nuclear power to develop is that it is poorly regulated, being held to higher safety standards than other forms of energy production or large industrial facilities. I think we should tax net CO2 emissions, regulate all technologies better, and let investors decide among zero and negative CO2 emitting technologies.
Since the real point of LNP promoting nuclear is protecting Australian fossil fuels from global warming and renewable energy it doesn't matter that nuclear is very expensive, very slow to build, requires high levels of government regulation intervention and subsidy support, is very unpopular or symbolically illegal. Or that they don't actually DO anything tangible to make it happen.
On the most critical problem of our times, that will hurt Australians in ways that can never be reversed alarmist economic fears and scapegoating to keep the things that cause it profitable in perpetuity is the best we get from them.
Like Rupert's "no climate change denial around here" (it's always been changing, ha, ha) our LNP don't mean it when they say they say they accept there is a serious climate problem - all those scientists and environmentalists banging on about it and upsetting fossil fuel companies; damned right they take global warming seriously. They can say they can fix global warming better than anyone, ever but everyone knows they don't mean it.
Allowing a 4:1 ratio in the capacity factors of reactors and PV farms, these numbers are the equivalent of 112 and 250 1-GW new nuclear reactors *a year*, orders of magnitude greater than current nuclear deployments or even wishful thinking. Reactors are normally must-run, and therefore unsuitable for a role as firming resources for a grid dominated by solar and wind production, quite apart from their ridiculously high costs and long lead times. For that, you need despatchable resources grid managers can call on in minutes: flow and pumped hydro, large batteries, geothermal, demand management, and V2G. Oh, and legacy gas turbines converted to run on biofuels, or, improbably, on green hydrogen.
Manufacturing capacity greatly exceeds projections of new installations. But marginal costs must be getting close to zero now, so production is likely to be near capacity, with a resulting price glut. I'm still working on thisl
Would have been even better on December 13, St Lucy's day, along with John Donne (allowing for a slight difference in literary talent). BTW, Donne wasn't being ignorant in identifying that day as the winter solstice (" 'Tis the world's midnight.."). Protestants rejected the entirely proper calendar correction by the hardline Counter-Reformation Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. In England they stuck with the inaccurate Julian calendar till 1752, when the error had grown from 10 days to 11.
Vogtle 3 completed this year. Vogtle 4 due soon, if all goes well - It's loading fuel. Total cost $34b+ for 2x1117MW electricity. Ten years to build, but Westinghouse went bankrupt in the process.
Smaller nuclear plants are generally less efficient in their fuel use, increasing costs.
Nuscale's SMR lost its only customer when costs grew from $7500/kW to $20,000/kW - higher than Vogtle!
Meanwhile nuclear power suffers ftom similar problems to coal not coping with low demand physically & needing high utilisation rates to deliver its economically.
Even $7500/kW is higher than the unsubsidised $14,000 installed cost of our domestic 6kw solar+ 2kw/5kwh battery system 2 years ago, but Melbourne winter sun is poor.
quite appositely, the front page of The Australian last weekend trumpeted the dawn of the new nuclear age ...
Of course it did. The Lolstralian ceased to be a serious journal of record over a decade ago.
Meanwhile back in 2023 SMRs are still being viewed with caution “..the technology’s safety and economic competitiveness must be fully demonstrated before SMRs can be more widely deployed”
And that’s from the horses mouth.
https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featureiaea-ups-support-for-smrs-10528638/
The stock "reason" given for the failure of Nuclear power to develop is that it is poorly regulated, being held to higher safety standards than other forms of energy production or large industrial facilities. I think we should tax net CO2 emissions, regulate all technologies better, and let investors decide among zero and negative CO2 emitting technologies.
They have.
Chris:
I thought you were looking for the Johnson brothers, Lee.
Lee: I found them.
Since the real point of LNP promoting nuclear is protecting Australian fossil fuels from global warming and renewable energy it doesn't matter that nuclear is very expensive, very slow to build, requires high levels of government regulation intervention and subsidy support, is very unpopular or symbolically illegal. Or that they don't actually DO anything tangible to make it happen.
On the most critical problem of our times, that will hurt Australians in ways that can never be reversed alarmist economic fears and scapegoating to keep the things that cause it profitable in perpetuity is the best we get from them.
Like Rupert's "no climate change denial around here" (it's always been changing, ha, ha) our LNP don't mean it when they say they say they accept there is a serious climate problem - all those scientists and environmentalists banging on about it and upsetting fossil fuel companies; damned right they take global warming seriously. They can say they can fix global warming better than anyone, ever but everyone knows they don't mean it.
To put the boot in, the IEA says that global PV manufacturing capacity passed 450 GW/yr in 2022 and will near 1 TW by 2025. ( https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/67ff3040-dc78-4255-a3d4-b1e5b2be41c8/RenewableEnergyMarketUpdate_June2023.pdf , page 66).
Allowing a 4:1 ratio in the capacity factors of reactors and PV farms, these numbers are the equivalent of 112 and 250 1-GW new nuclear reactors *a year*, orders of magnitude greater than current nuclear deployments or even wishful thinking. Reactors are normally must-run, and therefore unsuitable for a role as firming resources for a grid dominated by solar and wind production, quite apart from their ridiculously high costs and long lead times. For that, you need despatchable resources grid managers can call on in minutes: flow and pumped hydro, large batteries, geothermal, demand management, and V2G. Oh, and legacy gas turbines converted to run on biofuels, or, improbably, on green hydrogen.
Manufacturing capacity greatly exceeds projections of new installations. But marginal costs must be getting close to zero now, so production is likely to be near capacity, with a resulting price glut. I'm still working on thisl
The glut is already there. Prices in *Europe* are projected to hit 10c per watt in Q! 2024 ( https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/12/19/p-type-perc-solar-modules-now-selling-in-europe-for-e0-10-w-to-e0-115-w/ ), and the share prices of big producers have fallen by half this year (Longi https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/601012.ss/ , Jinko https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/JKS )
At what point will we be adding renewable energy capacity at greater rates than any prior rates of energy additions of any kind?
(OT) Over at JQ's old blog, a Christmas ode to gallium nitride. No kidding. https://johnquiggin.com/2023/12/18/monday-message-board-627/#comment-264501
Would have been even better on December 13, St Lucy's day, along with John Donne (allowing for a slight difference in literary talent). BTW, Donne wasn't being ignorant in identifying that day as the winter solstice (" 'Tis the world's midnight.."). Protestants rejected the entirely proper calendar correction by the hardline Counter-Reformation Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. In England they stuck with the inaccurate Julian calendar till 1752, when the error had grown from 10 days to 11.
Oops. Should be
" 'Tis the <i>year's</i> midnight, and it is the day's,
Lucy's, who scarce seven hours herself unmasks ..."
Wow - 2017! Not much has changed (except renewables have got much cheaper and more reliable, and storage much more efficient).
The Liberal Party should read this.
Vogtle 3 completed this year. Vogtle 4 due soon, if all goes well - It's loading fuel. Total cost $34b+ for 2x1117MW electricity. Ten years to build, but Westinghouse went bankrupt in the process.
Smaller nuclear plants are generally less efficient in their fuel use, increasing costs.
Nuscale's SMR lost its only customer when costs grew from $7500/kW to $20,000/kW - higher than Vogtle!
Meanwhile nuclear power suffers ftom similar problems to coal not coping with low demand physically & needing high utilisation rates to deliver its economically.
Even $7500/kW is higher than the unsubsidised $14,000 installed cost of our domestic 6kw solar+ 2kw/5kwh battery system 2 years ago, but Melbourne winter sun is poor.
They won't. Dutton's talking about SMRs like they're coming off the production lines now.