Nuclear Power For Australia?

[qldfrog]

At least we will get the benefit of their experience and work around solutions.

You mean repeating same errors but in full knowledge, that summarises Australia indeed

 

[sptrawler]

You mean repeating same errors but in full knowledge, that summarises Australia indeed

Well it isn't as though they haven't been warned, Bowen today said it is different here, we are smarter.

It's a big call and I'm sure the veracity of his statement will be tested.

Time will tell.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/chris-bowen-flatly-rejects-risk-of-spainstyle-blackouts-in-australia-despite-experts-raising-alarm-over-renewables/news-story/71a99b048ba86cbddfbe1fa815edd2d1

Energy Minister Chris Bowen has rejected the claim that Australia faces similar risks of mass blackouts to those observed in Spain and Portugal,

When asked if the mass blackouts in Spain and Portugal proved the risk of over-relying on renewable energy sources, Mr Bowen dismissed the claim, before conceding that energy transitions come with challenges.

“I’m sure the Spanish and Portuguese authorities will provide a full update on what’s gone wrong there, obviously every system that’s undergoing change has to very carefully calibrate its changes [and] that’s what we’re doing in Australia” he told Sky News on Friday.

 

[wayneL]

Fits into four categories:

1. They have an electricity industry structure ruthlessly based on engineering and economic fundamentals.

2. They don't have the above but the cost has been socialised.

3. Geopolitical. Either to protect the country against the risk of fuel supply disruption and/or as a decision to acquire "broad nuclear capability" in order to scare the proverbial out of others who, once they realise the country has functional nuclear reactors and is enriching its own fuel, lose confidence that they're not also nuclear armed since plausibly they could be.

4. Trade balance. They could build nuclear themselves with most of the cost incurred domestically in their own currency versus ongoing imports of fossil fuels.

Pretty much everywhere with nuclear has at least one of those reasons behind it.

Do not some of those apply to Oz, or least should do?

 

[IFocus]

Fits into four categories:

1. They have an electricity industry structure ruthlessly based on engineering and economic fundamentals.

2. They don't have the above but the cost has been socialised.

3. Geopolitical. Either to protect the country against the risk of fuel supply disruption and/or as a decision to acquire "broad nuclear capability" in order to scare the proverbial out of others who, once they realise the country has functional nuclear reactors and is enriching its own fuel, lose confidence that they're not also nuclear armed since plausibly they could be.

4. Trade balance. They could build nuclear themselves with most of the cost incurred domestically in their own currency versus ongoing imports of fossil fuels.

Pretty much everywhere with nuclear has at least one of those reasons behind it.

Nuclear weapons?

 

[Smurf1976]

Do not some of those apply to Oz, or least should do?

Geopolitical traditionally not really, given coal, gas and hydro, all of which are domestically source, have historically accounted for the vast majority of electricity generated with only a minor contribution from oil.

Trade balance much the same, we haven't been using foreign resources or detracting from exports. Equipment from overseas to some extent yes, but that also applies to nuclear.

Historically we had large integrated utilities, a structure well suited to nuclear (among other options) and every single one of them did seriously look at it, they all went as far as identifying at least one suitable site in their state to locate a full scale nuclear power station.

The economics didn't stack up at the time, closest it came was a 20% price premium for nuclear, hence never built but it was certainly looked at.

Today's industry structure with dispatch in 5 minute intervals and multiple competing owners and operators of generation doesn't suit nuclear even slightly however. No company in the NEM is individually large enough to take it on, and even if they did the 5 minute dispatch process makes it extremely difficult.

For the "other" side of it, that one's solely down to government. It'd be a government decision to decide that it wants "broad nuclear capabilities" for soft (or active) defence purposes.

To be clear a nuclear power station isn't a bomb factory. But if a government wants broad scientific and technical competency in all things nuclear well then having a nuclear power station isn't a bad idea. It provides a convenient explanation for why all these people have been employed, what the uranium enrichment is for, and so on.

 

[mullokintyre]

New York that bastion of Demcrat Green energy revolution, has joined the long list of entities comitted to builduing a Nuclear Electricity generating plant.
And Oz still maintains that it is not viable.
Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

Modular thorium reactors ?

 

[Knobby22]

Modular thorium reactors ?

Good pick up.

China is currently leading the development of thorium molten salt reactors (TMSRs), including a 10MW demonstration plant in the Gobi Desert when I looked it up.

Copenhagen Atomics is a “product-first” company and has already built and is operating its first full size non-fission prototype reactor, running at 600°C. To get to this point extensive R&D and testing has been carried out in support of achieving this major milestone, in accordance with an aggressive roadmap that calls for a commercial launch by 2028.

Surely Australia would be a market.

 

[mullokintyre]

Nuclear continues to grow, and just refuses to be killed off.
Except in Oz of course.
Mick.

From Oil price.com

 

[SirRumpole]

Nuclear continues to grow, and just refuses to be killed off.
Except in Oz of course.
Mick.

From Oil price.com

View attachment 206428
View attachment 206429

Name a country with a population of 50million or less that has nuclear power?

 

[mullokintyre]

Name a country with a population of 50million or less that has nuclear power?

Slovenia pop 2 mill , Armenia, pop 3 mill, UAE, pop 12 mill has 4 reactors, Ukraine with a population of 38 mill has 15 reactors, switzerland has around 9 mill population and 4 reactors, Sweden with a population of 10 mill has 6 reactors, Romania with 19 mill population has 2 reactors, Slovakia has 5 million people and 5 rectors, Netherlands with 18mill population has one reactor, Hungary with a population of 9 million has 4 reactors, Finland with a population of 6 mill and 5 reactors.
There may be others in this list of who has rectors, but I got sick of checking the populations.

 

[SirRumpole]

Slovenia pop 2 mill , Armenia, pop 3 mill, UAE, pop 12 mill has 4 reactors, Ukraine with a population of 38 mill has 15 reactors, switzerland has around 9 mill population and 4 reactors, Sweden with a population of 10 mill has 6 reactors, Romania with 19 mill population has 2 reactors, Slovakia has 5 million people and 5 rectors, Netherlands with 18mill population has one reactor, Hungary with a population of 9 million has 4 reactors, Finland with a population of 6 mill and 5 reactors.
There may be others in this list of who has rectors, but I got sick of checking the populations.
View attachment 206488

I said name ONE.

 

[mullokintyre]

I said name ONE.

Geez your hard to please sir Rumpole.
Igive you bonus countries and you still complain!.
Mick

 

[PZ.]

China 13% growth rate ? Good. More targets to hit in the war

 

[sptrawler]

Geez your hard to please sir Rumpole.
Igive you bonus countries and you still complain!.
Mick

The issue will be self resolving, if renewables can't supply the load the economy calls for, our economy will tank and all the bleeding hearts living in the cities will scream.
Then a lot of soul searching by politicians will result in many taking the pension and moving on, while the encumbered next generation have to sort it out, prices of assets will reset and like Argentina there will be a rebuilding.
On the other hand if renewables work and if we become the only country in the World with a wholly renewable grid, the question then will be, is it able to support a competitive industrialised economy.
Interesting times.
If China perfects gen 4 reactors and can make Hydrogen as a byproduct of the waste heat, well it will make a whole new energy and economic boom, that will reset everything and we will be in an awkward situation.
Time will tell and IMO a lot is hanging on the outcome, hopefully we are on the right horse, because we are putting all our money on the nose not having a bet each way.

 

[Logique2]

Probably been said before on this thread, energy, - it's about politics:

Q : Where would you place a nuclear power plant = on site of a discontinued coal power plant, where there are existing transmission lines, already in place = in ALP seats

Q: Where would you place windmill turbines and panel farms, land and sea ..and destroy native forest.. to build associated new electricity transmission lines = out in the bush where nobody in the city can see = in LIB/NP seats

Only a change of Government will deliver cheap sustainable electricity, and halt the wanton destruction of our national farmland and national parks. How many birds have to die in the windmill blades before people wake up?

Let's see some wind turbines on Manly Beach (Teals MP) Zali Steggall

 

[PZ.]

Out of the 7 nuke sites proposed by the Coalition only 1 was / is an ALP seat. None of the seats flipped in 2025.

Better "wake up" and do that one again

“You have all the trolls who say, ‘Well, why can’t you have wind turbines off Manly?’ Well, I don’t have an industrial zone in Warringah that requires the energy that would be generated from an offshore wind.

Zali Steggall stands by controversial offshore wind, seeks to broaden climate debate

Recent climate catastrophes underscore the need to harden communities against natural disasters even as emissions are cut, says the federal independent MP.

www.smh.com.au

 

[PZ.]

Gotta hand it to David Littleproud... doing his bit to keep the dung n dirt Coalition in opposition.
That should be enough time to get the 16 yr olds to vote. Yo Go Bro !

David Littleproud vows to take nuclear energy to next election and claims ‘no malice’ behind brief Coalition split

Nationals leader rails against regional Australia becoming littered with transmission lines, solar panels and wind turbines at LNP conference

www.theguardian.com

 

[SirRumpole]

AI analysis of Sweden's electricity system makes interesting reading.

If nuclear power is so expensive, how can Sweden with a population of 10 million support 3 reactors and maintain low power prices?

ChatGPT said:​

That’s a really good question — it gets at the tension between sticker price and system economics. Let’s break it down in Sweden’s case:

---

1. Sweden’s nuclear fleet is already built and paid off​

• Sweden built most of its reactors between the 1970s and 1980s.
• The construction debt and interest costs were paid off long ago.
• Once a plant is depreciated, the marginal cost of running it is very low — mainly fuel, staffing, and maintenance.
• This makes the operating cost cheap, even if the construction cost was high.

So while building new reactors today is expensive, old ones can supply power cheaply for decades.

---

2. Economies of scale from large, reliable baseload​

• A few reactors running 24/7 provide a big chunk of stable electricity.
• This lowers wholesale prices because they displace higher-cost generation (e.g. natural gas or oil).
• Sweden generates ~30–40% of its electricity from nuclear, which stabilizes the grid.

---

3. Complement with hydropower​

• Sweden gets ~40–45% of its power from hydro.
• Hydro is cheap to run and can ramp up and down quickly.
• Nuclear + hydro is a powerful combination: nuclear supplies cheap baseload, hydro balances peaks.
• This reduces reliance on expensive imports or fossil fuels.

---

4. Sweden’s energy policy and market design​

• Sweden liberalized its power market but also maintained strong state involvement in grid infrastructure.
• The grid operator (Svenska kraftnät) ensures stability.
• Nuclear plants benefit from this system since their output has a guaranteed place in the market.

---

5. Why nuclear seems expensive elsewhere​

• New nuclear builds in countries like the UK, US, and France are extremely costly because:
  • Complex regulatory environments
  • Long delays and financing costs
  • Loss of industrial expertise (since few reactors have been built for decades)
• Sweden avoids this problem because it’s not building new reactors — it’s just running old ones.

---

So, the short answer:
Sweden can afford cheap nuclear power because the expensive part (building the plants) happened decades ago. The reactors are fully amortized, and now they run at low marginal cost alongside hydro, keeping electricity prices low for a population of only 10 million.

---

Would you like me to also compare Sweden to a country like Australia (no nuclear, heavy reliance on gas/coal/renewables) so you can see why the economics look different?

You said:​

Would you like me to also compare Sweden to a country like Australia (no nuclear, heavy reliance on gas/coal/renewables) so you can see why the economics look different? Yes please

ChatGPT said:​

Great Let’s compare Sweden vs Australia in terms of electricity mix, costs, and why their economics look different:

---

Sweden​

Population: ~10 million
Electricity mix (2023):

• ~40–45% Hydro
• ~30–35% Nuclear
• ~15–20% Wind
• ~<5% Fossil fuels

Key features:

• Cheap baseload: Nuclear + hydro supply stable, low-cost power.
• Flexibility: Hydro balances nuclear (acts like a giant battery).
• Low emissions: Almost no coal/gas means very low carbon intensity.
• Result: Wholesale power prices tend to be low and relatively stable.

---

Australia​

Population: ~26 million
Electricity mix (2023, National Electricity Market – NEM):

• ~60–65% Coal
• ~10–15% Gas
• ~30% Renewables (wind/solar growing fast, but variable)
• 0% Nuclear (legally banned).

Key features:

• Coal dominance: Many plants are old, inefficient, and becoming unreliable.
• Gas reliance: Gas fills gaps when renewables drop — but gas is expensive, especially after global LNG demand surged.
• No hydro scale: Hydro is only ~7% nationally, and limited to certain regions (Snowy, Tasmania).
• Result: Wholesale prices can swing wildly depending on gas markets, weather, and coal outages.

---

Economic Comparison​

Factor	Sweden	Australia
Baseload source	Nuclear + hydro (cheap, stable)	Coal (aging, costly to maintain) + gas (expensive)
Balancing source	Hydro (cheap, flexible)	Gas (expensive, volatile)
New build costs	Mostly paid off (nuclear/hydro from 1970s–80s)	Constant investment needed in renewables, storage, and transmission
Carbon emissions	~50 g CO₂/kWh (very low)	~600–700 g CO₂/kWh (high)
Wholesale price stability	High (low marginal cost plants)	Low (sensitive to fuel prices, weather)
Policy environment	Nuclear allowed (though politically debated)	Nuclear banned, heavy focus on renewables + gas backup

---

Why Australia’s power is more expensive​

1. Dependence on fossil fuels — when global gas prices spike, Australian electricity prices rise.
2. Aging coal fleet — old plants break down often, creating supply shortages.
3. Weak firm baseload — no nuclear, limited hydro → makes the system heavily dependent on gas for reliability.
4. Transition costs — Australia is spending billions on renewables, batteries, and transmission, which are necessary but add near-term costs.

---

Why Sweden can keep prices low​

• Nuclear plants are already paid off → cheap to run.
• Hydro gives flexible backup → no need for gas.
• Renewables add extra cheap energy on top → not the backbone, but a complement.

---

In short:

• Sweden: “Old nuclear + hydro backbone = cheap, clean, stable.”
• Australia: “Coal + gas backbone = costly, dirty, unstable. Renewables are growing, but storage isn’t yet at Sweden’s hydro scale.”

---

 

[PZ.]

I haven't done the research, but Canada might be a better comparison.