There is an ongoing debate in Australia to finally adopt nuclear reactors for "carbon free" electricity needs. This debate is heightened by reactor companies (eg. GE Hitachi and Rolls-Royce) marketing small reactors.
PETE COMMENT
Tristan Prasser at ON LINE opinion, August 22, 2019 argued
"...Nuclear
power could prove to be the circuit breaker needed for Australia to resolve its
current energy and climate woes. It is a technology that is already proven to
decarbonise large electricity grids in combination with hydro and/or renewable
technologies as has been achieved in France, Sweden and Ontario
Canada.
According to data
from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019, countries that have the highest shares of nuclear power
also have some of the cleanest electricity grids on the planet. Their ability
to generate large flows of electrons cleanly, affordably, and reliably means
citizens of these countries continue to enjoy modern and energy-rich lives,
without worrying about whether they are killing the planet.
...Should
Australia choose to go down the nuclear power path, it will be considering
designs of the future, not the past. Nuclear reactor designs have evolved since
the days of Chernobyl and Fukushima. Today numerous companies...are working on smaller, safer, and more efficient designs
often referred to as Small
Modular Reactors (SMRs).
Such
reactors promise to overcome the financial burdens and safety concerns that
have long plagued conventional reactors, particularly in the West. The ability
of SMRs to be deployed as single or multiple modules provides wider flexibility
in their applications, from supporting remote and regional communities to
combining with other clean energy technologies to provide grid-scale
generation. This makes them ideally suited to Australia's diverse range of
energy needs..."
___________________________________________________________
PETE COMMENT
Tristan Prasser points to France, Sweden and Ontario, Canada as successful users of nuclear energy. But this success is not from using small (up to 300 MW), new technology, reactors but instead they use VERY LARGE CONVENTIONAL REACTORS. It also needs to be noted that civilian nuclear power in these countries gained initial impetus from nuclear knowledge and facilities for military purposes, ie:
- "France" where:
; all reactor complexes are VERY LARGE conventional multi GW. A Gigawatt being 1,000
Megawatts. Note France is now constructing reactors
of 1.6 GW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#France
; France mainly began its nuclear investment as a military activity in the late 1940s. France
continues to cross subsidise its knowledge and civilian reactor base with its nuclear
weapon/submarine propulsion base.
- "Sweden", which:
; first embarked on reactors for its 1940s-ended 1970s nuclear weapon
- "France" where:
; all reactor complexes are VERY LARGE conventional multi GW. A Gigawatt being 1,000
Megawatts. Note France is now constructing reactors
of 1.6 GW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#France
; France mainly began its nuclear investment as a military activity in the late 1940s. France
continues to cross subsidise its knowledge and civilian reactor base with its nuclear
weapon/submarine propulsion base.
- "Sweden", which:
; first embarked on reactors for its 1940s-ended 1970s nuclear weapon
program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program
; which provided a lower cost knowledge/infrastructure base for Sweden's civilian nuclear sector
; where all reactor complexes are VERY LARGE conventional multi
; which provided a lower cost knowledge/infrastructure base for Sweden's civilian nuclear sector
; where all reactor complexes are VERY LARGE conventional multi
GW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Sweden and
- "Ontario Province, Canada". Noting:
; Canada first embarked on nuclear reactors in support of the US MANHATTAN NUCLEAR
WEAPONS PROJECT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project#Canadian_sites which
- "Ontario Province, Canada". Noting:
; Canada first embarked on nuclear reactors in support of the US MANHATTAN NUCLEAR
WEAPONS PROJECT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project#Canadian_sites which
subsequently provided a lower cost knowledge/infrastructure
base for Canada's civilian nuclear
sector
; reactors that are operational in Ontario are at the Pickering complex of reactors
sector
; reactors that are operational in Ontario are at the Pickering complex of reactors
equalling 3GW and Darlington complex equalling 3.5GW.
So for France and even for SWEDEN and CANADA they cut some costs by beginning with Nuclear weapons reactor knowledge-infrastructure bases which then transitioned to VERY LARGE civilian electricity reactors
_________________________________________________
So the author falls down when he suggests NON-COMMERCIALLY proven VERY SMALL MODULAR REACTORS (SMRs) (which are up to 300MW) http://www.iaea.org/topics/small-modular-reactors
Australia's low nuclear knowledge/reactor base and very small electricity market compared to the main reactor building nations (US, UK, France, China, Japan, Canada, Russia, India) means AUSTRALIA by itself CANNOT DEVELOP AND DEPLOY Small Modular Reactors without spending maybe $100+ Billions.
Australia needs to wait for Small Modular Reactors to be:
- developed
- legally/publically accepted
- then cheaply deployed en masse
in North America, Europe and/or Asia.
___________________________________________
Visions of SMALL Modular Reactors being deployed in SMALL Australian country towns-small cities (Alice Springs? Longreach? Kalgoorlie? Broken Hill?) forget
the HUGE public/political/legal/police security opposition that would descend AGAINST EVEN VERY SMALL, HIGH COMMERCIAL RISK, reactor proposals
and delay them at Australian Federal, State and Local GOVERNMENT and COURT (Supreme and High Court) can levels for DECADES.
So for France and even for SWEDEN and CANADA they cut some costs by beginning with Nuclear weapons reactor knowledge-infrastructure bases which then transitioned to VERY LARGE civilian electricity reactors
_________________________________________________
So the author falls down when he suggests NON-COMMERCIALLY proven VERY SMALL MODULAR REACTORS (SMRs) (which are up to 300MW) http://www.iaea.org/topics/small-modular-reactors
Australia's low nuclear knowledge/reactor base and very small electricity market compared to the main reactor building nations (US, UK, France, China, Japan, Canada, Russia, India) means AUSTRALIA by itself CANNOT DEVELOP AND DEPLOY Small Modular Reactors without spending maybe $100+ Billions.
Australia needs to wait for Small Modular Reactors to be:
- developed
- legally/publically accepted
- then cheaply deployed en masse
in North America, Europe and/or Asia.
___________________________________________
Visions of SMALL Modular Reactors being deployed in SMALL Australian country towns-small cities (Alice Springs? Longreach? Kalgoorlie? Broken Hill?) forget
the HUGE public/political/legal/police security opposition that would descend AGAINST EVEN VERY SMALL, HIGH COMMERCIAL RISK, reactor proposals
and delay them at Australian Federal, State and Local GOVERNMENT and COURT (Supreme and High Court) can levels for DECADES.
Pete
Bigger reactor complexes are a necessity if a 'safe' environmentally friendly base load source has to be found.
ReplyDeleteEven with the best demand response renewable energy technology, there is no way renewables can give 100% electricity needs especially as population grows to 10 billion plus and energy needs only moderate slowly per capita. Germany is an important case study to the impracticality of renewables as Germany uses 'Brown Coal' to cover nuclear shortfall.
this 'substitution' mentality needs to go, as realistically costs are too high to think 100% power can come from solar wind and other renewable sources..
environment covering 'scare story' journalists were both scientifically illiterate and environmentally irresponsible when they spooked many common folk into an almost irrational fear of nuclear power. Australia's sorry lot are no exception to this madness.
The short comings of power supply that was displayed in South Australia, was more to do with infrastructure short falls more than anything else. We are all familiar with the “Rinky Dink” cable towers bent like tooth paper clips, ( alt power didn’t bend towers) and the distinct lack of an interchange to even out power flow in SA. It’s very convenient to make up BS excusses for the lack of infrastructure. Today SA doesn’t have the problems they had back then. Where is that interchange and the incremental add ons. Australians are sick of all the lies, there is never going to be Coal Fired power stations and the addition of both pumped hydro and batteries will be Ven out more peaks and troughs. As far as Hi Drain power consumers are concerned, itabout time they took the initiative and developed their own. Sanjev Gupta is doing it why can’t the rest?. Stop bludging off the system.
ReplyDeleteHi GhalibKabir and Lee McCurtayne
ReplyDeleteI think energy solutions very with each country. India's large military nuclear sector knowledge and facilities can enjoy economies of scale with, and boost the civilian nuclear energy sector.
The promise Small Modular Reactors (SMR) are promoted by commercial concerns who haven't brought them to market for 50 years. Many SMRs, be they fueled up and on trucks or defended in a small town/city by only 5-10 security-men on shift are easier than well defended large reactors to be blown up by terrorists or organised crime.
Chinese and Indian mega cities surroundeed by much needed suburbs, industrial and farmland won't have the space for vast wind-turbine or solar farms. Also cold cloudy countries like Germany get little from solar.
Australia's vast windy hot desert open spaces (especially South Australia) with large lithium batteries for peak backup, are a much more favourable place for wind and solar renewables. Australia also has no military nuclear to boost civilian nuclear.
Yes new coal powered stations are a non-starter in Australia when even banks won't extend loans to coal power companies.
I see Sanjeev Gupta’s Cultana solar farm in Whyalla, South Australia has gotten the green light https://reneweconomy.com.au/guptas-cultana-solar-farm-gets-green-light-overcomes-objections-from-adani-54645/ a May 14, 2019 article.
Regards
Pete