Nuclear Power: Do you support it?

sptrawler said:

Like I said, I expect extraction methods to improve and as easily recovered reserves deplete the price will go up and make more difficult extraction viable.
But 200 years is a lot longer than what is currently expected, and in reality isn't a long time in human history, so gas isn't a long term solution it is more of a stop gap for the removal of coal. IMO
The other point that not many people take into consideration is, with our current known technologies, gas is one of the most versatile fuels we have.
To be wasting it through a gas turbine, to make electricity, may well prove to be the biggest mistake humans make IMO.

Click to expand...

If we want hydrogen; we need nuclear for the large scale electrolysis. Even using an enormous tidal barrage powerplant in North WA to produce hydrogen might be feasible.

Methane reforming (mixing gas and high pressure steam to produce hydrogen) is a waste of energy and time in my opinion.

100%
Gas is versatile. To use it for electricity only is just lazy and profiteering.
Responsible use such as synthetic fuel and carbon capture and other recycling processes is the a more useful option for gas.
But still, we need more power, we need more water. Wind and solar is not going to provide us the future demands and reliably. We need large stable amounts of power. Wind and solar can not provide a large base load for the nation. I just can’t see that happening.
You can’t put all put energy needs on the climate.

Chronos-Plutus said:

If we want hydrogen; we need nuclear for the large scale electrolysis. Even using an enormous tidal barrage powerplant in North WA to produce hydrogen might be feasible.

Methane reforming (mixing gas and high pressure steam to produce hydrogen) is a waste of energy and time in my opinion.

Click to expand...

According to sunfire, there steam electrolysis efficiency is at 80%
With an input power of 150 kWel the module produces 40 Nm³ per hour of hydrogen. It can also be reversed into fuel cell mode with an output power of 30 kWel.

I’d say that’s more then ok lol

You have a windmill to run a 80% efficiency creating non stop hydrogen, I see that a far better advantage the. Storing it in a battery.


https://www.sunfire.de/en/company/n...trolysis-module-to-salzgitter-flachstahl-gmbh


https://www.thechemicalengineer.com...rld-s-most-powerful-steam-electrolysis-plant/

Muckman said:

100%
Gas is versatile. To use it for electricity only is just lazy and profiteering.
Responsible use such as synthetic fuel and carbon capture and other recycling processes is the a more useful option for gas.
But still, we need more power, we need more water. Wind and solar is not going to provide us the future demands and reliably. We need large stable amounts of power. Wind and solar can not provide a large base load for the nation. I just can’t see that happening.
You can’t put all put energy needs on the climate.

Click to expand...

I agree, the demands we are going to put on 'clean energy' in the immediate future, to supplying domestic needs, industrial needs, transport needs etc, IMO will make it impossible for solar/wind to supply it on a global scale.
How that is explained to the vocal minority is the problem, because when they find out it will become a marching in the streets and looting event, so there is no point in crossing that bridge untill we have to.

Muckman said:

do you think there findings are bogus or factual?

Click to expand...

Resources versus reserves.

As just one example to illustrate the point and since I'm familiar with the figures, coal in Tasmania.

There's about 370 million tonnes of known coal resources in Tas. Not huge but significant given the local population.

About 100 million tonnes of that are technically problematic to recover. When the seam's 20 - 30cm thick and it's under a huge amount of rock and so on that's a real problem.

About 120 million tonnes is very low quality. The only plausible use of it would be in a power station next to the mine but every examination of that one, and there have been quite a few, concluded that it was uneconomic. That being so, it would likely proceed only if there really was no other option.

96 million tonnes is under a National Park.

That leaves about 54 million tonnes as the useful coal reserve. That which is physically practical to mine at an economical cost and which is considered acceptable to society in terms of what gets dug up.

The rest, for practical purposes, is worthless. Hence CRA (now Rio Tinto) and Shell (as in the oil company) both ended up surrendering those leases long ago. They'd reached the same conclusions as everyone else - they'd found coal in the ground and that's exactly where it's staying so no point holding a lease over it. Obviously when they went exploring they were hoping to find something valuable but they failed to do so.

Much the same concept with resources everywhere. Eg there's plenty of oil shale in Queensland and also known deposits in NSW, SA and Tas with some past efforts at production from the Qld, NSW and Tas deposits.

Plenty have tried it over period spanning roughly a century. Small private companies gave it a shot, listed companies had a go, in Tas the state government itself pondered the idea of becoming an oil company at one point and did a lot of study into it, more recently Chinese interests had a look too.

All ultimately came to the same conclusion - it's there, it can be extracted and turned into petrol, the problem is the cost of doing so is simply too high and as such there's zero market for it at any price that would cover the cost of operation.

Even the idea of simply using it "as is" in raw unprocessed form to fire the kilns in a major cement works didn't stack up economically and that cement works is literally within walking distance of the shale.

Plenty more cases like that where someone's found a mineral resource but it ends up being worthless due to the cost of extraction being too high and/or problematic technically or environmentally.

The energy business, indeed all resource businesses, have that same fundamental issue. It's one thing to have a technically viable source of gas, iron, zinc, copper or whatever but it's another thing entirely to have one that's also economically profitable.

Are the claims correct? For resources sure they likely are. Resources aren't necessarily any use however, it's reserves that are useful and they're always smaller than resources.

I don’t think it will come to that extent, not in Australia at least lol. The gov has definitely got a keen eye on gas, nuclear is not something anyone can invest in just yet. It just doesn’t exist yet. China is the only country to even fire up the worlds first 4th gen reactor and I still wouldn’t invest into that technology just yet. Conventional nuclear power plants for Australia I think just isn’t viable to be honest. These plants are huge and take years to build and require large population to support the repayments of them. A 4th gen reactor in Adelaide or somewhere that needs it is just too big of a infrastructure plan to undertake. China on the other hand have large density population that can easily benefit from such a large project.
For us to have a cost effective power plant we need the rest of the world to follow through to bring he cost down.
No one builds nuclear power anymore that’s why it’s so expensive. But modular reactors on the other hand that can be built either over seas or here in country and shipped around, that’s more logical and cost effective and way more safer.
Retrofitting existing coal fire infrastructure.

Muckman said:

I don’t think it will come to that extent, not in Australia at least lol. The gov has definitely got a keen eye on gas, nuclear is not something anyone can invest in just yet. It just doesn’t exist yet. China is the only country to even fire up the worlds first 4th gen reactor and I still wouldn’t invest into that technology just yet. Conventional nuclear power plants for Australia I think just isn’t viable to be honest. These plants are huge and take years to build and require large population to support the repayments of them. A 4th gen reactor in Adelaide or somewhere that needs it is just too big of a infrastructure plan to undertake. China on the other hand have large density population that can easily benefit from such a large project.
For us to have a cost effective power plant we need the rest of the world to follow through to bring he cost down.
No one builds nuclear power anymore that’s why it’s so expensive. But modular reactors on the other hand that can be built either over seas or here in country and shipped around, that’s more logical and cost effective and way more safer.
Retrofitting existing coal fire infrastructure.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there are many looking at that idea as we speak, but at the moment the push toward renewables is warranted and should be pursued untill it is either no longer viable, or no longer practical.

They are still in their infancy and there is still plenty of opportunity to deploy them, the limits of practical deployment or limits of sensible storage will be found, by then alternatives will become obvious.
We are at the very beginning of this journey and a lot of technological advancements will happen on all fronts.

It is a bit like 50 years ago when I was a teenager, Dr Hook sang a song 'Sylvia's mother', the chorus said '40cents more for the next three minutes', today's teenagers wouldn't have a clue what that meant.
They all have mobile phones, back then you had to stand in a phone box with a pocket full of coins and you could only talk to someone who actually had a phone, not many did and the internet wasn't even a word let alone an application.

Some practical examples of what real, actual companies in the energy sector own:

For the "big three" gentailers:

AGL (ASX listed):
*Generation from coal from their own mine and also coal purchased from others
*Coal mining
*Is the exclusive coal supplier to a rival electricity generating company
*Gas-fired generation including some that's also capable of firing diesel. Gas is almost entirely purchased from others.
*Third largest operator of conventional hydro-electric generation in Australia
*Wind and solar either owned or under contract from other companies
*Developing large scale battery storage
*Actively investigating developing pumped hydro and LNG import facilities.
*Retails under its own name as AGL and separately as Powerdirect.

Origin (ASX listed):
*Generation from coal purchased from others
*Gas-fired generation both owned and under contract from other companies
*Gas production and LNG exports
*Supplies gas to rival energy companies including gas used for power generation
*LPG bulk storage, distribution and retail including bulk supply to others
*Third largest pumped hydro operator in Australia
*Wind and solar either owned or under contract from other companies
*Retails under its own name as Origin Energy

Energy Australia (not listed):
*Generation from coal both from their own coal and coal purchased from others
*Coal mining
*Gas-fired generation much of which also has the ability to fire diesel. Gas is all purchased from others.
*Has contracted the use of a new pumped hydro facility to be built by another company
*Wind and solar either owned or under contract from other companies
*Retails under its own name as Energy Australia

Snowy Hydro (Australian Government owned):
*Largest conventional hydro operator by installed capacity and second largest by annual production.
*Largest pumped hydro operator.
*Gas-fired generation most of which also has the ability to fire diesel. Gas is all purchased from others.
*Diesel (without the ability to use gas) generation.
*Well known as being very heavily contracted with other energy companies
*Actively proposing further pumped hydro development.
*Retails under the names Red Energy and Lumo as separate to each other

Hydro Tasmania (Tasmanian Government owned):
*Largest conventional hydro operator by annual production and second largest by installed capacity.
*Gas fired generation via subsidiary company AETV almost half of which also has the ability to fire diesel. Gas is purchased from others.
*Actively proposing new pumped hydro development.
*Actively promoting wind development by others.
*Has contracts with other energy companies
*Engineering consultancy and project management in the hydropower, wind, water / dams and electrical fields internationally.
*Retails outside Tasmania under the brand name of Momentum Energy

So there's the three largest gentailers as well as the big two hydro operators and it's no coincidence that they all have an overall similar profile.

The big three are all spread across coal, gas and renewables, they all own or are developing storage, they all produce some fuel themselves and buy the rest from others, they all retail primarily under their own name etc. All pretty similar.

The two largest hydro operators are both #1 on different measures, both also operate gas-fired generation on a smaller scale and have partial diesel backup on that. Both are proposing new pumped hydro development. Both retail via other brand names. Both pretty similar.

None of those will claim there's any one solution or single way forward. Even the smaller companies that only operate one or two assets won't claim that's the silver bullet, they'll just say that's the piece of the puzzle they're involved with and so on but everyone's well aware that there's multiple pieces to this puzzle.

On the political side well there's politics and there's business. Don't doubt for a moment that some of those throwing mud when the media's looking have contracts with those they're throwing it at. It's part of the deal that someone gets to take the heat but ultimately business is business.

As for nuclear, well none of them are proposing it which leaves the most obvious problem - if Australia were to go down that track then it first needs someone who's willing and able to build and operate such a facility.

Worth noting that a single large large nuclear plant of capacity equal to a third of Victoria's peak demand would, based on the costs of Hinkley Point C presently under construction in the UK, fall not far short of the combined market cap of AGL and Origin Energy plus the entire asset value of the non-listed Energy Australia, Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tasmania.

Needless to say it would be a massive step for any of them to build such a thing even when assessed from a purely financial perspective. If it were going to happen then government would have to do it realistically.

My comments are purely from a pragmatic perspective noting that this is a stock market forum and that quite a few listed companies are involved in this industry either as a whole or in parts of it. Ideologically I don't really have a view so long as something is done (that is, we don't end up left in the dark) and it's done in a manner that's economical and acceptable to the community in terms of environment etc.

I wouldn't rule nuclear out altogether but I'll note that no company that's currently generating substantial amounts of power is proposing it as a solution. What they are proposing is some combination of gas, diesel, wind, solar, hydro, batteries and moderately extending the life of existing coal plant plus minor things like using waste materials to produce energy and so on.

Smurf1976 said:

As for nuclear, well none of them are proposing it which leaves the most obvious problem - if Australia were to go down that track then it first needs someone who's willing and able to build and operate such a facility.

Worth noting that a single large large nuclear plant of capacity equal to a third of Victoria's peak demand would, based on the costs of Hinkley Point C presently under construction in the UK, fall not far short of the combined market cap of AGL and Origin Energy plus the entire asset value of the non-listed Energy Australia, Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tasmania.

Needless to say it would be a massive step for any of them to build such a thing even when assessed from a purely financial perspective. If it were going to happen then government would have to do it realistically.

Click to expand...

Summed up perfectly smurf, and the only way that scenario would transpire would be if there was no other option.
As has been shown with this pandemic, if there is no other option, money doesn't come into it.
How much has the splash of cash been this year? Apparently it will cost the Government $131billion, Hinkley Point C is about $40billion, so in reality the cost is probably the least significant issue.
The issue would be where to put it and how to get the public to accept it.
IMO the more likely outcome, would be small modular reactors, supporting renewable hubs. Smaller, less for the public to swallow and located in remote regions.
But who knows, crystal ball gazing.

I think your kinda repeating what iv been saying the whole time lol there is no one solution. I repeat a large scale 4th gen nuclear plant is just not feasible in Australia.
Small modular reactors are the answer to Australia’s energy gap and will drive prices down.
These units are to estimate to be in the thousands of dollars not billions. Producing over 300M watts each. And they can be fitted in existing coal fire infrastructure. That is the answer to our ageing coal fire industry.


A sealed capsule unit fully fuelled. All you need to do is plumb it up and plug it in.
The biggest advantage this has over conventional plants is there is no need for a containment shelter.
These can be submerged under out of public view.


The problem is every man and his dog has there own design.




This a brilliant idea in the way that they can be used for more then just electricity production.
But if we can just retro fit our ageing coal infrastructure with a high output clean energy source at a low cost. That is the silver bullet.

Muckman said:

I think your kinda repeating what iv been saying the whole time lol there is no one solution. I repeat a large scale 4th gen nuclear plant is just not feasible in Australia..

Click to expand...

I think the problem is, you are new to the forum, we have been discussing this for several years.
Also smurf and I have worked in power generation for our working careers.
But it is an interesting subject and I never loose interest in discussing it.

What sector yous in? I have a lot of fa,ily and friends in the mining and power sector.
I work on gas turbines a lot but not in the power production but power plant units
Looking at getting into a new industry

Here is a you tube clip on SMR's

And here is the pin up boy for SMR's, well he is no longer a boy. Taylor Wilson

Taylor Wilson wiki:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Wilson

Muckman said:

What sector yous in? I have a lot of fa,ily and friends in the mining and power sector.
I work on gas turbines a lot but not in the power production but power plant units
Looking at getting into a new industry

Click to expand...

I have worked in most sections of power generation, major stations, minor stations, diesel generation, maintenance, planning, installation and operation of them all.
Also worked in mining, HF and VLF transmission and did a few weeks as dockers offsider in a saw mill.
I do know smurf knows more than me about it, so he knows his way around power generation.

Yeh I remember noticing him back when he was in high school. I think he was picked up by bill gates at some point and had some investment from him.
He is one of the most underrated people of the modern age.
You wouldn’t happen to be in the SA area would you lol cause the power industry here is a joke lol
Nah I kid, the water sector takes the cake for that one. Every day there’s a water main bursting. Don’t get me started on the road conditions.
I was always told SA has the worst roads but I never believed it but my god the roads here are 3rd world.
SA infrastructure is falling to bits. And when ever they build new developments, it doesn’t make sense lol they put roads in places that go no where

Muckman said:

Yeh I remember noticing him back when he was in high school. I think he was picked up by bill gates at some point and had some investment from him.
He is one of the most underrated people of the modern age.
You wouldn’t happen to be in the SA area would you lol cause the power industry here is a joke lol
Nah I kid, the water sector takes the cake for that one. Every day there’s a water main bursting. Don’t get me started on the road conditions.
I was always told SA has the worst roads but I never believed it but my god the roads here are 3rd world.
SA infrastructure is falling to bits. And when ever they build new developments, it doesn’t make sense lol they put roads in places that go no where

Click to expand...

No I'm W.A

Muckman said:

According to sunfire, there steam electrolysis efficiency is at 80%
With an input power of 150 kWel the module produces 40 Nm³ per hour of hydrogen. It can also be reversed into fuel cell mode with an output power of 30 kWel.

I’d say that’s more then ok lol

You have a windmill to run a 80% efficiency creating non stop hydrogen, I see that a far better advantage the. Storing it in a battery.


https://www.sunfire.de/en/company/n...trolysis-module-to-salzgitter-flachstahl-gmbh


https://www.thechemicalengineer.com...rld-s-most-powerful-steam-electrolysis-plant/

Click to expand...

I don't mind producing hydrogen via electrolysis; the process is simple to do. I can produce hydrogen in my apartment today with basic everyday home products. A 9v battery, some water and salt, some wires with croc clips, and a couple of lead pencils.

sptrawler said:

Here is a you tube clip on SMR's

And here is the pin up boy for SMR's, well he is no longer a boy. Taylor Wilson

Taylor Wilson wiki:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Wilson

Click to expand...

Thanks for the Taylor Wilson reminder/clips. Absolutely inspiring.
I followed him up a bit further and he did another Ted talk a few years later (2016) on The Future of Energy. Exceptionally clear well balanced analysis.
Again he wants to see SMR's as cheap, safe base load power sources. (I'd love to know how the progress is going on this project.)

But something else I noticed was his acknowledgment and support for renewable energy to power the world.
The caveat of course was back up storage to ensure reliability supply.
He noted that if/when back up costs "dropped to under $100p/kwhr for storage we're golden" 12min 42 sec.
Current indications are that Teslas million mile battery will come in at less than $100p/kwr.

basilio said:

But something else I noticed was his acknowledgment and support for renewable energy to power the world.
The caveat of course was back up storage to ensure reliability supply.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly what we have been saying.

sptrawler said:

Which is exactly what we have been saying.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And that is why lowering of battery storage costs to less than $100k/whr should be the turning point in economic analayis of renewable energy/ back up vs other options.

And that is now well within sight.