Essay by Eric Worrall
Opposition party support for nuclear energy appears to have collapsed renewable investment.
Clean Energy Council launches national ad campaign against “nuclear distraction”
Giles Parkinson Mar 22, 2024
…
The CEC says there are two key messages from the campaign: “Nuclear is a distraction”, and “Don’t risk Australia’s Future.”
The campaign is already appearing in more than 2,200 locations in city building lifts and lobbies in Sydney and Melbourne, and on animated digital billboards in airport lounges at Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne Airport.
…
The campaign by the CEC follows an intense push by the federal Coalition, amplified and often widely supported in mainstream media, to bring a halt to the rollout of large scale renewables, and keep coal fired power stations open until some sort of nuclear option becomes available.
…
It is becoming increasingly clear that the nuclear push is designed to bring the rollout of renewables to a halt – not just temporarily, but for good.
The Coalition’s chief advisors admit that nuclear, which apart from its extremely high costs, is inflexible and has poor ramping rates, to respond in changes of demand or supply, is effectively not comparable with a grid supplied larger by wind and solar, which needs fast and flexible capacity to support it.
In effect, because the grid is morphing from a system built around centralised “baseload” principles to a more distributed system based around wind, solar and flexibility, the two technologies – nuclear and renewables – are effectively incompatible.
…
Read more: https://reneweconomy.com.au/clean-energy-council-launches-national-ad-campaign-against-nuclear-distraction/
I agree with the Clean Energy Council that the Australian opposition plan to build nuclear on decommissioned coal sites is not the best solution – though given 25+ years of failure to make renewables useful, their advocacy for more green energy is absurd.
Nuclear might be affordable in the long run, but financing high up-front costs is not something financially stretched energy consumers could easily absorb. Building low cost brown coal plants or refurbishing old plants would be a much better strategy for lowering end user energy prices.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of nuclear, and there are plenty of remote sites in Australia where nuclear would be the cheaper option. But ignoring our vast remaining reserves of brown coal does not make economic sense.
Brown coal does not have value as a saleable commodity, because unlike black coal, brown coal cannot be transported economically. Brown coal has lower energy density than black coal, and when stored for transport has a distressing tendency to spontaneously combust. Brown coal’s only value comes from digging it up then immediately shovelling it into an adjacent coal power plant.
Having said this, it is hilarious that an economically challenged opposition plan for dispatchable zero carbon nuclear energy is enough to crash actual investment in green energy.
Why on any sane planet would anyone want to invest in an energy supply that CAN’T AFFORDABLY and RELIABLY replace current generation options without government mandates and/or subsidies?
If you delete the last six words, your comment would be more accurate.
They can’t RELIABLY replace current generation, even with massive subsides.
And certainly not with government mandates.
Even with massive mandates and subsidies, renewables can’t replace current generation.
Doesn’t burning money also release CO2?
Given the success of the first French nuclear program, which was able to proceed without lawfare by and by, Australia could copy that approach. South Korea seems to have a reasonable approach currently, and should be willing to sell advice.
Or the Finns who’ve just paid the price for getting up to pace. What are the Greenies afraid of dropping the nuke ban if solar and wind plus dispatchability 24/7/365 with FCAS is cheapest? As if we didn’t know deniers.
Thanks, Eric. It seems to me the only necessary government role in planning, permitting, constructing, operating, and monitoring nuclear energy plants is to keep frivolous lawsuits from interfering in the process. Larger energy companies should be willing to fund the project, as long as the critical path to remunerative production is not artificially prolonged. Sure, consumers would probably pay an enhanced fee in the payback years, but the price would settle down and the steady energy supply would be worth it.
I agree nuclear is reliable and affordable, my complaint is in many cases for Australia brown coal would deliver lower prices. Australia’s manufacturing industry shrivelled since the 1950s because of energy prices, only by removing obstacles to the cheapest possible energy can we begin the road to recovery.
Having said that, if someone wanted to put up private cash and build a nuclear reactor, I certainly wouldn’t stand in the way.
Energy prices is more recent , Australian manufacturing has shrivelled since 2000s because of reduction on tariffs and protectionism
Once Melbourne had car plants for majors Holden, Ford but also Nissan, Volkswagen Toyota ( when it was small), Renault. They built there own bulk carriers in SA – with some subsidy . The national airline was supported with a policy of having 50% of the passengers on all routes. Many of the big mining companies route sales through low tax Singapore so only leave Australia with the pittance of royalties ( made to look generous by the share volume.
Now the wonder material Lithium- who would have guessed batteries arent everything… has crashed in price and the miners are being bailed by the government…before any real royalties flow
If the brown coal deposits are near the point of demand and the losses and costs of transmission don’t overcome the savings of coal plants relative to nuclear, then it makes economic sense to exploit the coal reserves as you recommend.
Is that the case?
Gippsland brown coal in Victoria is very close to the surface, basically just scrape it up in open cut mines, and very close to the main user area of Melbourne
….. and all the transmission infrastructure is already in place.
While Murray basin is huge (see map above)… a lot is deemed “uneconomical” to recovery
Brown coal is mainly in Victoria.. yes.. rebuilding Hazelwood to modern standards would be a really good plan.
NSW and Qld have mainly black coal.. and should use that supply.
Would be rather silly to ship brown coal to NSW !
im curious that map shows a green spot close to where I am BUT Ive never seen/heard of coal mined around that area? along the vic /sa coastline?
So, the greenies recognize that a zero carbon, everlasting energy supply is a threat to their intermittent, and NOT renewable energy scheme is a threat? Damn, I have to give them more credit than I have in the past. Sun is effective less than 12 hours a day, planet wide. It has to be at the proper angle in order to even work. You can only use it while the sun is shining effectively. Wind? It is either there or it is not.
It is ENERGY INTENSIVE to make solar arrays and wind farms. They have a short lifetime, after which they cannot be recycled, but must be replaced, not to mention the ongoing maintenance to keep them running, and the death of wildlife as a result of them functioning.
Somehow, ‘they’ think there is no cost to digging the minerals needed to support these schemes, and they forget that their ‘renewable’ energy is not used to build these monstrosities. It is the very energy source that they seek to replace that is required to build them. Let’s see solar energy companies use only solar energy to make their panels and wind farm companies use only wind power to build and install them. If that becomes fact, I will start believing. I am not holding my breath, however.
So, the greenies recognize that a zero carbon, everlasting energy supply is a threat….
…. to their subsidy incomes.
There are only a couple things that need to be said here.
Number one whining that nuclear isn’t flexible enough to backup wind and solar is absurd. A proper energy source doesn’t require copious backup. Wind and solar does therefore it is not a suitable energy source.
Number two if nuclear had half the support and backing that wind and solar has it wouldn’t be nearly as expensive.
Number three burn brown coal if you want but it is not a substitute for nuclear.
There is no need to make this more complicated. It is not complicated at all, we need a constant, reliable source of energy at a reasonable cost, it is as simple as that. Wind and solar aren’t constant, aren’t reliable and aren’t affordable.
Once again it’s not about things that matter and all about chasing an ideology.
You can bet EVERYONE on the Clean Energy Council has a massive vested interest in keeping the wind and solar scam going.
They are the very last people anyone should listen to.
GEC says ““Don’t risk Australia’s Future.””
So they are advocating a total reversal of the wind and solar boondoggle…
That is what is putting Australia’s energy future into a dire predicament.
It is a massive 100% risk to future generation… and to future generations.
“It is becoming increasingly clear that the nuclear push is designed to bring the rollout of renewables to a halt – not just temporarily, but for good. “
THREE CHEERS !!
Seems the GEC are on the Coalition’s side….. Even doing free advertising for them. 🙂
Ramping..??? That is why GAS fired power exists.
Wind and solar certainly cannot do anything resembling controlled ramping….
.. so they are effectively arguing AGAINST wind and solar.
Another own goal !!
.. and anyway… black coal, nuclear.. can ramp to follow loads.
Both do so all the time where they are in common use.
Australia has vast reserves of black and brown coal, natural gas and uranium ore and has been first second or third in global exports of all the above in recent years yet all the above are in some way restricted or banned from use locally.
That defies any rational explanation.
At present the country is on course for a big energy crunch and whichever party happens to be in power at the time will have to decide to lift whichever of those current restrictions on local use will get them in least trouble electorally.
Ideally governments should get out of the way and allow consumers decide what energy sources they want to pay for.
TERRIFIC! 😃
Die, “renewables,” die!
The entire “Renewables” edifice is built on lies, and lies are always exposed in the end.
The Truth will out
well you’d hope so. BUT when the medias controlled, its a LOT harder
Nobody is panicking in Australia. We have Reality as the controller of the energy game.
The Australian Ban on Domestic Nuclear will be overturned and that will be the signal to return to 24/7/365/50 years of Baseload electricity.
Good luck joining the Battery Brigade😁😂
Yes. The smaller reactors are perfect for Australian baseload with its wide apart population centres like Perth Brisbane etc and the 15 mill in the SE part of the country with an existing grid
https://envirotecmagazine.com/2024/02/12/uks-first-small-modular-reactors-to-be-built-in-north-teeside/
‘The 8 February announcement detailed the intention to deploy four Westinghouse AP300 SMRs at the site, a technology previously selected by Great British Nuclear (GBN) in October. These are expected to be up and running by the 2030s, providing 1.5 GW of power, or enough to power up to two million homes.”
One or two units sounds good to me for reliable baseload in 2 or 3 sites in Australia. To me it makes sense to standardise on one type for the whole country.
If Westinghouse is well enough advanced , choose them ?
Rolls Royce is royally pi$$ed that their SMR design didn’t get the nod. And so RR is now looking for a customer on the European continent for support to build their first SMR project.
Not only hilarious but obviously wrong. Rooftops in Australia are killing the economics and investment grid scale WDGs.
Tis Saturday so demand is a little lower than week days but all Australian regions have experienced negative wholesale price today. All regions, apart from Tasmania, experienced economic offloading of WDGs.
Imagine if the LNP came out and stated they plan to scrap the RET theft. That would blow the minds of the government and union super funds that are literally banking on the theft lasting forever.
Wholesale price isnt retail price which is extremely high. Its called surge pricing
Any chance you could explain the TLA’s?
WDG -weather dependent generator
LNP – Liberal National Party (Australian faux conservatives)
RET – renewable energy target
Thanks.
The current mentality in Australia is renewables, (wind and solar), battery, hydro and pumped hydro. That is the considered base load system.
Coal, natural gas and diesel are the backup. Backups only generate electricity when all the renewables don’t work as planned, often actually.
A coal power plant must run all the time because one cannot fire up a boiler and have it running on a now basis. The same for natural gas power stations unless they are the small on/off systems, jet engine style.
The current mentality is that there must be subsidies for these wonderful renewables, one for building and another for running even when they don’t produce anything. How much in subsidies the tax payer is paying for this renewable wonder thing is seldom if ever publicly available.
The same may, I don’t know, is being paid for all the extra runs of high tension power lines is also a another story.
My limited opinion is that many people, who are easily persuaded against nuclear, look at nuclear power as some form of stand by generation. Hence it is a very high cost. These same people do not know or if the know, what the subsidies to the renewable this is do not include that in the cost of renewables. It’s not the “VIBE”.
A small note re brown coal. In some locations brown coal was made in to briquettes for domestic heating. Also, so were sawdust/fine wood chips.
Brown coal exists mainly in Victoria. Leigh Creek coal is sub bituminous black coal, incorrectly called brown coal. The Leigh Creel coal also can spontaneously combust, but mainly at the coal field not at the power station storage site.
The current state of the cola fired power stations in Australia is such that they are beyond real repair. Government incentives, both LNP and ALP/Greens/Teals have made sure of that.
Here in Australia, I bet elsewhere, things are all back to front.
Base load power is I suspect something available 24/7 all the time. It has no dependence on the weather.
Base load power is a fixed value for any given time. It also has an ability to ramp up or return to normal if needed.
Top up power is the extra that is generated by some fluffy thing such as renewables, (wind and solar), battery, and pumped hydro. It in theory is there to fill in the gap between base load and actual demand at a specific time zone.
If the various political parties were actually intelligent, sorry mistake there, there would be a complete removal of all subsidies from all forms of renewable power sources, including domestic solar panels and the extensive transmission line needed. Also, no subsidies for domestic feed in traffic or home solar batteries.
All these subsidies could be fed into a government/private industry system to build nuclear power stations that run as 24/7 base load power generation.
The only real draw back is the fact no political party is prep eared to:
1. Remove subsides.
2. Stop lawfare
3. Grow a brain cell, (even 2)
4. The unions will force a cost blowout
5. The IR laws and pretend regulations will force build over run.
6. Accept that any form of “renewables”, battery etc are short time space power generation that suffer for weather conditions.
7. Plated rating of wind or solar is just that a plated rating, but reality is only 30% approx. of that plated rating is ever produced.
8. Everything I missed due to political and geeny things.
I would be less delicate but I may not get approved..
burp
A cola fired power station would likely release more CO2 than a coal fired power station.
Medieval doctors knew it. When the bloodletting does not work, more. bloodletting is called for.
CEC knows it. When the unreliable renewables do not work, clearly more unreliable renewables are needed.
“…the grid is morphing from a system built around
centralisedcapitalist “baseload” principles to a moredistributedsocialist system…”fixed it
“Brown coal has lower energy density than black coal, and when stored for transport has a distressing tendency to spontaneously combust.”
Just curious, but why is that?
I am curious about that, too.
Brown coal as in the Victorian field will at time spontaneous combust. This tends to be more in the coal field vs general storage.
This is similar to the SA Leigh Creek coal fields as I have already mentioned.
Much is due to the additional gases with in the coal and moisture content.
I have forgotten much of the geology and coal composition as I was working at Leigh Creek a long time ago. The main thing I do remember is both coals were moist and this was partly for the reason of the combustion.
Neither Victorian brown coal and the Leigh Creek sub bituminous black coal are financial in terms of export.
Simply they are not high quality thermal coals. Furnace burners must be designed specifically for these colas to get the correct heat and also fuel mix. Fuel mix is an issue, as in the Port Augusta Power station as there needed to be a fine line between coal and “over burden to balance the burner flame.
Burner deign becomes expensive as it requires testing and not computer modelling.
Sorry but that is the best I can remember.
iirc , they have overcome a lot of the issues with brown coal’s moisture content by using waste heat to pre-dry the coal as it is powderised.
This can greatly increase burn efficiency.
Heat of hydration most likely. The coal slacks quickly in humid air. PRB coal will do something similar.
“but why is that?”
My understanding is that the water content allows chemical reactions to take place that can generate heat once exposed to some air..
Sort of like can happen when “composting”.
Mind you… it’s quite a while since I looked at that, only briefly, in a subject at uni.
So the obvious conclusion here is that the warmunists really don’t give a you-know-what about CO2 – they just want to remake the modern world to their preferences by centralizing government control over our lives.
They almost said the quiet part out loud.
How on Earth did reason slip into the energy systems narrative for Australia? There must be a crack in the matrix.
If the goal was the reduction of CO2 emissions, as they claim, why should they care how that goal is achieved?
Nuclear can be designed as base load only. Nuclear can be designed so that it is capable of load following. Whether it can be designed to do both is something I do not know.
Their claims about nuclear’s inability to load follow are just as bogus as their belief that more wind and solar will solve the problems of wind and solar.
“Whether it can be designed to do both is something I do not know.”
easy…. just have a couple of working units of each type.
The absolute minimum “base load” on the NEM is a pretty stable quantity.
It was not the Opposition party support for nuclear energy that collapsed ‘renewable’ investment but it was the fact that ‘renewable’ investment is a black hole loss maker.
when all this crap started I laughed n said only nuke is co2 free and watch the greenies scream if you even try it in aus.
point well n truly proved yet again.
coal thanks or gas or burn waste like they do OS and save the landfill and other issues
Bearing in mind that no country has made wind plus solar plus storage work yet it would seem Australia needs a plan C.
A recent fact check by the ABC claimed there were 4 countries that were 100% renewable. The industrial powerhouses known as Albania, Nepal, Bhutan and Paraguay (I think) are as near as dammit 100% renewable because they are entirely reliant on hydro, which is perhaps a little irrelevant for most of Australia.
I see AGL is moaning that nuclear is a distraction, and nukes can’t be sited at coal generating stations because the sites will be repurposed for something else. They can’t bear to have the subsidised cash-cow, high priced intermittent renewables, replaced.
Modern SMRs are much cheaper than old large nuclear reactors. One company has an estimated price of USD1.4 bn for two 500MW units Some of the designs which have received Governmental design approval in the USA and Canada have the ability to wrap up and down at a rate of 3% to 5% per minute from 25% capacity.