In a recent issue of Dissent magazine, a regular commenter here on Brave New Climate, industrial engineer Graham Palmer, engaged in a debate with Mark Diesendorf on energy futures. Unfortunately, this exchange of prose is not available online, although Graham did send me a scanned version (because of potential copyright issues, I won’t post it here). The promo from Dissent was as follows:
Mark Diesendorf says that nuclear energy is a very dangerous, complicated and expensive way of boiling water which is not a sensible alternative to renewable energy in the production of base-load electricity.
Graham Palmer argues that because base-load electricity cannot be stored and wind and solar power are dependent on the wind and sun, renewable energy must be backed up by fossil or nuclear base-load capacity.
Fortunately, Graham also delivered a condensed version of his side of the debate to a national radio audience this weekend, via Robyn William’s ABC show Ockham’s Razor. With Graham’s permission, I’ve reproduced the transcript of his essay below (with a few hyperlinks and relevant pictures added), because I think it provides a useful context for discussion on the BNC blog. I trust you’ll find it interesting.
Coal dependence and the renewables paradox
(by Graham Palmer)
Listen to audio MP3 reading by Graham, here (6.5 MB, 14 min)
Just about everyone agrees that the most pressing challenge in averting climate change is reducing our dependence on coal. Like most environmentalists, I used to pretty much go along with the idea that a combination of wind and solar, combined with serious energy efficiency policies, could probably go a long way towards achieving that aim in the long term. But after two decades of intense international efforts, we seem to be running fast but actually getting nowhere. And growth in coal continues unabated. Even countries like Denmark and Germany, that have invested heavily in renewables over decades, despite managing modest relative reductions in emissions, have not found a way to displace their base-load coal with wind and solar. Indeed, despite around 100,000 wind turbines globally, and enormous investment in solar, there is not a single example anywhere in which a coal plant has been retired as a direct result of the installation of wind or solar. So what’s going on? To answer this, requires stepping back to 1865, and re-examining Stanley Jevons economics classic, The Coal Question.
Jevons proposed that an improvement in efficiency in steam engines would lead to an increase in the consumption of coal, arguing ‘It is a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.’ His logic was impeccable – an improvement in efficiency led to the widespread diffusion of Watt’s steam engine, driving the industrial revolution. In fact, some ecological economists believe that improvements in technological efficiency, and the accompanying productivity gains, actually enable the increased affluence and population that are the primary drivers of resource depletion and pollution. Consider the substantial efficiency gains of modern aircraft and jet engines that have been achieved without a carbon price – fuel costs have always been a large proportion of airline operating budgets – we now have more efficient aircraft flying an expanding middle class, consuming more fuel than ever before.
Jevon’s Paradox helps explain why we continue to use more energy, and reveals one of the hidden traps of carbon pricing, but why hasn’t the enormous investment in renewables led to the retirement of coal plants?
The electricity network is based on one simple underlying principle – generate and distribute the power demanded by households and industry, every second of every year. It is this instantaneous demand that drives the highly dynamic operation of the market-driven network, and it is the peak demand that occurs for only a few hours a year that drives underlying capital investment. As electricity consumers, it is easy to think of our electricity connection as being somehow equivalent to an electrical tap in which there is a vast reservoir of electricity waiting to be consumed. But unlike our water supplies where there is more than a year’s supply waiting in dams, electricity must be consumed the very instant it is produced.
In one sense, power is what we use, but it is energy that we pay for. This subtle, but important distinction between power and energy is vital to appreciating the important difference between conventional generators that supply dispatchable power, and techno-renewables that supply non-dispatchable energy.
But green sources, such as rooftop solar, are amendable to community participation. These decentralized energy sources empower people, and encourage a richer understanding of the role of energy in our lives. Rooftop solar is community friendly, and although expensive, it offsets energy costs at the retail tariff rather than competing in the wholesale market.
But despite this, the sobering reality is that the intermittency of wind and solar requires the maintenance of conventional generation to ensure reliability of supply. Contrary to popular folklore, the mantra that ‘the wind is always blowing somewhere’ has no significance in electricity supply. The combined total of all South Australian wind farms, which make up around half of Australian wind capacity, can be counted on to supply a mere 3% of their rated capacity during periods of peak demand. Even adding in Victoria’s substantial wind capacity does little to improve this ‘reliable minimum’. Similarly, maximum wind power is just as likely to be developed when it is least needed.
Unlike wind, solar benefits from the regular daily correlation of daytime demand and sunlight, but regrettably, the correlation is too weak to ensure reliability of supply. Household solar’s greatest strength should be in the highly valuable niche role of reducing network and peak generation costs during summer air conditioner usage. But the peak on the hottest days typically occurs late in the afternoon on week days as people arrive home from work, after solar output has fallen.
What does this mean in practice? When the wind is blowing, or the sun is shining, the fuel consumption of the conventional plants will be reduced. But the need to ensure reliable supply ensures that fossil fuel plants cannot be turned off. As much as these innovative technologies seem to offer an intuitive appeal to energy supply for a large sun-drenched continent, a reliable electricity grid requires reliable dispatchable supply. Technology cannot undo this enduring truth.
This is the renewable paradox – it is only the availability of a reliable grid that permits the intermittent sources to have any value in reducing emissions, but it is replacing the fossil fuel generators that provide the reliable backbone that remains pivotal to delivering deep cuts in emissions. Does it make sense to deploy intermittent renewables, en masse, while we still remain dependent on coal, and are forced to use the least efficient peaking gas turbines to backup for intermittent renewables, rather than installing high-efficiency base-load gas turbines in the first place?
Yet the idea of energy transformations, perpetual motion machines and fuel saving innovations is deeply embedded in society – from the American guru of energy efficiency, Amory Lovins’ proposals in the 1970s for a wind and solar based society, to the radical, eco-socialist model of the Australian ‘Beyond Zero Emissions’ plan.
It is difficult to overstate the enormity of the challenge in potentially reverting to a society based on naturally occurring solar and renewable energies. One only has to consider a pre-industrial farmer who, relying on his own labour from consuming foods grown with traditional agriculture powered by sunlight, could sustain 100 watts of sustained effort, requiring several hours work each day to feed one person. With the use of horses, he gained access to perhaps 400 watts per animal, substantially improving his labour productivity and lifting the standard of living of his family and village. A modern farmer driving a diesel-powered John Deere harvester now has access to 300 thousand watts, and with modern agricultural methods, feeds thousands. Similarly, consider the proposed use of concentrated solar-thermal for electricity – all solar technologies rely on collecting very low density intermittent energy over a very large area – a solar thermal plant requires 15 times the concrete and 70 times the steel as a modern nuclear plant to deliver the equivalent quantity of energy – both materials with a significant environmental footprint – and constructed on massive allotments in remote desert locations far from industrial and demand centres, subject to the vagaries of climate, cloud cover and sand storms.
Renewable energy technologies will continue to get more efficient and cheaper. But taking a diffuse, intermittent, energy source and converting it into a reliable power source is not merely a case of stumbling upon a novel solution, or a project to be solved with the modern equivalent of an Apollo space program. These are inherent obstacles that will always remain as characteristic issues regardless of how cheap the basic generation technologies might become. Consider the technical brilliance of the Concorde passenger airliner – to some aviation observers of the early 1970s, it seemed perfectly obvious that the future of commercial aviation would be supersonic, but innovation was still not capable of undoing the physics of supersonic flight – both the supersonic boom and a substantial fuel consumption penalty compared to a Boeing 747 were inherent problems that undermined the Concorde’s business case for its 27 years of subsidised operation. For those with eyes to see it, there are indeed striking similarities with today’s energy debates.
Advocates of a twenty first century energy revolution should be reminded that Marchetti showed that coal’s displacement of wood in the early nineteenth century, then oil and gas’ displacement of coal, have followed similar progressions, taking 40 to 50 years to graduate from a 1 to a 10% share of global primary energy, or a hundred years to becoming the dominant primary energy source. Not even Henry Ford’s Model T, or big oil’s power was able to drive oil’s global penetration any faster.
So, is there a path out of Garnaut’s diabolical policy dilemma? While a carbon price will affect the relative price of alternatives to coal, it does not alter the physics of energy supply. Indeed, it is a triumph of hope over experience to assume that the emerging energy sources can take on a meaningful role for at least 2 to 3 decades.
The only feasible means to overcoming coal dependence is to deploy mature technologies that can meaningfully displace coal. Only gas and nuclear are capable of this pivotal role for the foreseeable future, with only nuclear providing the opportunity for deep cuts to emissions. But the most enthusiastic supporters of carbon mitigation are often the most strident critics of both of the only off-the-shelf, low carbon, base-load technologies, ensuring that deep cuts to Australian emissions prior to 2050 will remain an unfulfilled aspiration. Most of the claimed reductions in the proposed emissions trading scheme will come from purchasing forestry offsets, or in other words, paying landholders in Indonesia and New Guinea, not to chop down trees.
So what of the future? There is no fundamental reason why a suite of renewables could not play an important role in Australia’s energy needs in the second half of this century, but the obstacles to reaching this goal are much greater than merely an erratic policy environment, or resistance from the energy incumbents. Indeed, one can admire Europe’s willingness to embrace a new energy paradigm based around the mass deployment of renewables, but as they are now learning, the false promise of an early retreat from fossil fuels using a suite of renewables which are not fit-for-purpose is leading to higher energy costs, limited reductions in emissions, and delaying the long term transition to a low carbon future. Australia should be taking heed.
Brave New Climate 
195 replies on “Coal dependence and the renewables paradox”
Following.
LikeLike
What a pleasure it is to read (and hear) such intelligent discussion. Thanks.
LikeLike
Graham Palmer,
This is an excellent presentation. Well done and thank you.
I agree whole heartedly.
Barry, the chart is excellent too. Could you state what are the y-axis units
LikeLike
Excellent.
“Household solar’s greatest strength should be in the highly valuable niche role of reducing network and peak generation costs during summer air conditioner usage. But the peak on the hottest days typically occurs late in the afternoon on week days as people arrive home from work, after solar output has fallen.”
I do some work for an SME that has developed a DC solar panel powered air conditioning system. Of course, the cost of the system is increased by the necessary batteries for storing the power generated. It is possible to use solar for this purpose, but I’m not sure it is financially viable when the consumer can be connected to the the grid.
Good for off-grid applications though, which is where the firm sees its market.. .
LikeLike
I completely agree with Graham Palmer that it would be an excellent idea to build a couple of hundred nuclear plants in Australia and stop using and exporting coal.
I don’t agree with him that there is some fundamental law of physics that makes 100% renewable energy impossible. And it seems that his position is that of a rather small minority in most countries.
Support for renewable energy polls consistently very high in most industrialized countries. I just posted on my own blog a couple of poll results, most of them between 80 and 90 percent support.
So if your pro-nuclear advocacy is based on the premise that you need to convince people to refrain from building renewable energy projects, that seems to make the job that much harder.
LikeLike
The popularity of the idea of 100% renewable energy does not mean it has been properly considered. The environmental impacts of collecting solar energy are being ignored. This is idealism, not reality. Mark Diesendorf has a difficult case to defend. I would like to see him try on this site.
Well done, Graham Palmer. I think you have put your finger on a weakness in reasoning that should be taken seriously.
LikeLike
Great article, thanks Graham Palmer.
LikeLike
I think the comments Graham Palmer’s presentation on the Ockham’s Razor web site http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2011/3322792.htm
could do with some balance and explanation. I’ve just added a comment using the full 3000 character allowance. Hopefully some others may chime in.
LikeLike
Great piece Graham … to BNC regulars, this is all old news, but I suspect it will dazzlingly new to many regular ABC listeners
who are not also BNC readers. I spent some time looking at the
Azimuth project blog the other day … lamenting that the level of the
energy debate would have benefited from BNC exposure. Everywhere
I turn these days I keep hearing arguments where I want to
respond … ” … if only your read more BNC, you’d understand why
that argument/fact is nonsense … it was dealt with months/years back!”.
LikeLike
Geoff Russel. Yes to all. Try your hand at educating those commenting at OckHam’s Razor.
LikeLike
Excellent summary of the problems with solar and wind. In retrospect, the idea of powering modern civilizations with energy sources that are not there 75-90% of the time, seems rediculous to me, at best, it is asking for continued lock-in of fossil fuels. But in the past good data on real solar and wind projects was not available and I assumed it would get better. In recent years I’ve come to realize that the fault wasn’t with the technology, it’s the resource. Solar panels can get cheaper and more efficient. The sun will always be unreliable as a resource.
I think that most people don’t realize just how critical a product electricity is. This is because they’re so used to reliable electricity. Turn the switch, the light goes on. If it doesn’t it is considered unacceptable. Even a 99.99% reliability is considered very poor where I live. And if the sun is out, which is most of the time (night+winter+cloudy+rainy times) we have no choice but to fire up the fossil fuel generators. The alternative isn’t acceptable.
Oddly enough, there are no commercial developments that lead to cheaper electricity storage. All proposed technologies will be more expensive that what we’ve got right now (eg deep cycle lead acid batteries).
Combining the above, we quickly see why wind and solar are marginal energy sources. Only good in small amounts and only when you have lots of fossil fuels available to back them up. Actually it would be a fossil grid with a bit of solar and wind on it for pretty pictures and good feelings – talking about fossil fuel ‘backup’ is the understatement of the century.
LikeLike
Cyrl R, yes to all you say. This statement jumped out at me:
It is interesting to think about that. Wht would happen if the electricity system went down for an extended period:
No ATMs. Not banking transactions can take place. No money.
No water. Water supply system stops functioning.
Shop doors can’t open
No petrol – bowsers can’t operate, So we can’t get out of the cites to where there is food and water.
No transport, no ambulances,
No hospital equipment once their back up genberators run out of fuel
People in the cities would be gin dying from lack of water within days and from lack of food within weeks.
We are totally dependent on our electricity system. It is an essential service. Almost as essential as our water supply system.
LikeLike
The problem I have whenever Jevon’s Paradox is quoted is that it needs a causal link between saving energy and economic activity. This seems a magical thing to me. Isn’t it instead that if we find ourselves with a few spare pennies in our pocket at the end of the day we will be inclined to spend them and this has nothing to do with how those spare pennies get into our pocket.
LikeLike
Peter Lang, that’s a good thing to think about. In my country, large areas are kept from inundating by active pumping of water. A day of no electricity isn’t a problem but if it holds for weeks large areas of my country would flood. We won’t allow that. We’ll burn diesel in disgusting inefficient diesel gensets or mobile diesel driven pumps before we allow the country to flood.
Without electricity there would be no emergency communications. So no police. People would get murdered and raped in the dark nights without power.
A world without electricity would be a medieval world. We won’t allow this to happen; we’ll burn anything we can find. It is why wind and solar are dangerous distractions leading to dangerous fossil fuel lock-in.
Solar has its uses. Making chilled water for airconditioning seems like a good idea on first thought. And probably still a good idea on second thought. But solar isn’t suited for powering our country; failure to realise that is causing the conundrum that we see in Germany. They claim to be green but use more coal per capita than any other European country. They recycle paper and plastic but drive 3 ton vehicles at 250 kph (150 Mph) over the Autobahn, guzzling more fuel than an old American guzzler. Germany isn’t a sunny country and they need to realize this, just like they need to realize that driving 250 kph over the freeway is incompatible with being energy efficient. Germany shows us what happens if we try to cheat reality by taking a concept that has uses (solar aircon) to an extreme it cannot do (solar powering Germany’s grid). Conversely, putting nuclear reactors in cars or using nuclear reactors to directly drive an airconditioner is also an example of taking a good concept to an extreme it can’t do.
People will eventually realize this. But solar is sexy. Let’s face it. Putting solar panels on your roof, and generating electricity from the sun, is cool. It is like that beautiful, but mean and cheating girlfriend. You don’t want to let her go. But you’ll find out sooner or later, she’s really bad for you.
LikeLike
Karl-Friedrich Lenz, on 25 September 2011 at 7:02 PM said:
“Support for renewable energy polls consistently very high in most industrialized countries.”
The fact that what Mr. Lens says is true simply highlights the sad and unfortunate state of global energy policy. Addressing complex engineering issues by consulting a vast committee of, not just ignorant, but actively misinformed laymen is precisely the road that led us to our current dilemma.
It does not bode well for “industrialized countries” that public opinion poll results are “sold” (literally in some cases) as being equivalent to scientific data.
Damn shame…
LikeLike
John Rogers, that is precisely the point I made as well.
In my professional life I’m something of a consultant. As a consultant I know that clients place great faith in the know-how of consultants, because they simply can’t know everything themselves. So that means the quality of the client’s work is dependant on the quality and know-how of the consultant. If the consultant is ignorant, the client will suffer as well.
The public is basically ignorant of energy and science. So they are stupid and lousy consultants. They should not be consulted at all on this matter. But I realise this is a hard sell in a democracy. So the only other alternative we have is to educate the public about basic energy analysis. Making energy analysis a standard course in high school would help a lot for future energy transition decisions. It needs to be an objective and numerical course, something like David Mackay’s book would be a good book to base the course on.
LikeLike
@ Kevin Bennewith. Why use batteries to store PV electricity for airconditioning in a pure DC system (ie not grid connected)?
You can just make chilled water (just above freezing point) with the PV system and use a large well insulated chilled water tank. You can store 1-2 days of PV output this way fairly cheaply.
Then the rest of the grid demand would be fairly flat, ideal for nuclear baseload.
LikeLike
every kwh that is generated from renewables is one less kwh that is not generated in a fossil plant with the associated drop in overall CO2.
If your object is to lower CO2 then renewables helps one achieve that goal….and at least the public accepts it.
How many new nuclear plants are getting installed in the US?? Close to zero….and zero means zero reduction in CO2.
At least renewables do SOMETHING. No new NUKES do NOTHING.
So how’s the battle going in Australia?????
How many new nuclear plants are scheduled for construction???
LikeLike
Finally some sobering reality check for hard core renewable energy supporters. 45 years ago, an electrical engineering instructor told our class.,”without nuclear power the global society is doomed” It is interesting that in 45 years no amount of expended renewable energy effort and wishful thinking has changed anything about this fact.
LikeLike
Cyril R quote:
“Making energy analysis a standard course in high school would help a lot for future energy transition decisions.”
Excellent idea. High school kids could start getting an idea about kw’s and kwh. The difference between power and energy. and how it is produced, the types of energy conversion that take place. I think high school kids would really ENJOY it. No Calculus req’d. just fundamentals.
Perhaps a new generation will be smart enough to figure out that nuclear is the only logical solution…..say maybe by around 2050.
Will it be too late by then??
LikeLike
GeorgeS, on 26 September 2011 at 2:38 AM said:
“every kwh that is generated from renewables is one less kwh that is not generated in a fossil plant with the associated drop in overall CO2.”
Uhmm… Mr. S… this statement is patently untrue. If you reread the post above, as well as dozens of others on this site, you will discover that renewables have done nothing to reduce overall CO2. Big picture, solar is essentially useless except as a rich man’s toy, and wind is nothing less than a windfall for natural gas. These are the facts, which have been vetted and validated over and over again on this forum.
As previously stated, public acceptance can be (and is, in this case) a vice rather than a virtue, particularly when that acceptance is predicated on falsehoods like the ones in your response above. Popularity is often at odds with wisdom, and requires no necessary linkage with truth to exist.
The key “SOMETHING” that renewables “do” is foster an environment of public complacency, providing a sense of accomplishment in the public mind for an on-going activity that yields no tangible result other than delaying the adoption of energy policy equal to the task at hand.
So far, there is no evidence that ANY amount of renewables has reduced ANY CO2 production, and much evidence that as more renewables come on-line, more natgas plants come on-line to smooth out the inherent variability.
The only statement in your offering that rings true is, “No new NUKES do NOTHING.” Of course, that suggests other truisms…
“Every new NUKE does SOMETHING.”
“Many new NUKES would do a GREAT DEAL.”
“A long term, dedicated NUCLEAR ENERGY POLICY offers real prospects for a SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY SOLUTION!”
LikeLike
GeorgeS, on 26 September 2011 at 2:38 AM said:
every kwh that is generated from renewables is one less kwh that is not generated in a fossil plant with the associated drop in overall CO2.
We’ve had this discussion multiple times in the past. It’s not a 1 for 1 exchange. The fossil fuel plants still are running as ‘spinning reserves’. Also as a general rule fossil plants that are being run as ‘load followers/peakers’ are less efficient then fossil plants that are being run at optimal efficiency.
So intermittent renewable ends up forcing fossil plants to spend a greater proportion of the time and resources in ‘load following’ mode then in ‘maximum efficiency’ mode.
So the ratio ends up being less then 1 to 1.
How much less requires a detailed complex study of the ‘unintended consequences’ of introducing intermittent generation onto the grid based on local conditions.
In the US Pacific Northwest ‘wind power’ ends up displacing a not insignificant amount of hydro-power in the spring.(My tax dollars at work, replace one form of clean energy with another at enormous expense while the owner of our ‘old smokey coal plant’ laughs all the way to the bank).
LikeLike
Harrywr2,
I understand that it would not be 1 to 1. I also agree that Nuclear is the best solution. Even if it was 1 to 1 you still have to have full backup so you end up essentially buying 2 forms of power gen that can be accomplished w/ 1 (ie nuclear).
The problem is that it is just extremely frustrating that nothing gets done on the nuclear front and it looks like nothing WILL get done in the near future here in the US anyway.
Hopefully you will get something accomplished in Australia.
Meanwhile I WILL NOT get disappointed that I installed my 3 kw solar PV here in AZ. and I will not get upset when it gets called a “rich man’s toy”.
At least I did something.
Kind of goes along the lines of a very famous management phrase we had at Honeywell:
“Do something, even if it is wrong.”
Please update me on what progress is being made towards getting nuclear in Australia.
LikeLike
GeorgeS, on 26 September 2011 at 5:28 AM said:
The problem is that it is just extremely frustrating that nothing gets done on the nuclear front and it looks like nothing WILL get done in the near future here in the US anyway
Vogtle #3 and Vogle #4 will almost certainly be built in the US as well as VC Summer #2 and VC Summer #3.
Those are the ‘test beds’.
If I put my ‘investment bankers’ hat on there are a number of unanswered questions that make investment in nuclear difficult
1) Can I get regulatory approval to build a nuclear power plant
2) Can I build the power plant on time and on budget
3) If I build the plant will I be able to sell the electricity at enough of a profit to guarentee a return
At the moment the answers to all 3 questions is ‘maybe’.
The (hopefully) final round of licensing hearings begins next week for Vogtle #3 and Vogtle #4.
http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/government/2011-09-24/hearings-licensing-new-plant-vogtle-reactors-begin-tuesday?v=1316897565
.
.
LikeLike
Thx for the links Harrywr2. The video was good too.
LikeLike
Do something, even if it is wrong is why the flawed carbon tax is a step in the right direction. It beats another decade of wailing and academic analysis.
LikeLike
By following World Nuclear News one will see the progression of nuclear power developments world wide. [One reason for the paucfity of new builds in the USA has been the upgrading of many of the older Gen II units to produce more power each.]
LikeLike
I’ve just left some comments on Ockham’s Razor, hopefully others will do so also. It’s appalling that the ABC should allow falsehoods in the form of unsubstantiated assertions to spread from its site.
LikeLike
@John Newlands,
Indeed. It may be the “tax we had to have”, with apologies to Keating. Otherwise a couple of governments hence, some bright spark will come up with the idea of a carbon tax and we will be no further advanced than we are now.
Sometimes it is better to learn by doing, even if it is very imperfect than by doing nothing at all.
LikeLike
@quokka:
Very true – even if the lesson is simply: “A carbon tax doesn’t do squat to reduce emissions”, it will have been worth learning.
I suspect that by the time the lessons have been learned from the carbon tax experiment, that sufficient other lessons will have been learned from changes to the climate that the need for urgent action will be clear & obvious.
If Germany do go ahead & shut down their nukes, then the lessons from that experiment should be clear by then as well.
LikeLike
Quokka and John Newlands,
Regarding the carbon tax, did you see this:
and this:
LikeLike
Quokka
That seems to me to be the lamest argument ever for the carbon tax.
If your argument was valid, then you should argue the same for renewables: implement the BZE plan to power Australia with renewable energy by 2020. Then we’ll know it doesn’t work. How ridiculous is that argument?
If your argument is where the argument for the carbon tax has got to, surely it is time we recognise it is a very bad policy approach and we move on to advocating good policy instead.
MODERATOR
Quokka, JN, PL etc you are drifting off topic here. Please continue this discussion on the Carbon Tax thread.
LikeLike
“Do something, even if it is wrong.”
A problem with this is when people decide that they must spend their entire life protesting and roadblocking nuclear construction. Even if it turns out that nuclear is the right choice, at least they were doing something.
That phrase is only useful if there is the awareness that what you are doing is potentially the wrong thing. If there is an absolute faith that what you are doing is the right thing, then such ways of thinking can lead to disastrous results.
LikeLike
Following.
Yes, I have paid a visit to the Occam’s Razor site.
They say that they provide moderation. It’s scandalous that they fail to moderate adequately.
LikeLike
Petitions to Obama:
Please sign my petition at http://wh.gov/gtV.
“WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Stop Global Warming by shutting down the coal industry.
If we do not stop Global Warming [GW] now, the desertification will continue and increase. Some time between 2050 and 2055, the land surface will be 70% desert and agriculture will collapse. Collapses due to small climate changes have happened many times before. If agriculture collapses, civilization collapses. If civilization collapses, everybody or almost everybody dies. We must prevent this by shutting down the coal industry. Let the electric companies figure out how to make electricity without making CO2, as long as they do so. Set a time limit of the end of 2015 to reduce the CO2 from a power plant by at least 95%.
Created: Sep 24, 2011
Issues: Energy, Environment”
And go to
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions?utm_source=092311&utm_medium=graphic&utm_campaign=daily
and start another petition.
LikeLike
Even to move Australia completely off fossil fuels, Australia’s energy requirements do not require anything even remotely close to a “couple of hundred” nuclear power plants.
LikeLike
In fact, about 30 would do now, in about eight nuclear power stations – two in each of Qld, NSW and Vic, and one in each of SA and WA.
LikeLike
The criterion of eliminating ALL fossil fuels would need to include dedicated synfuel production plants for IC engines for transport and other uses. They promise to be energy-hungry.
LikeLike
30 might be enough for Australia, but if you want to also replace all the coal exports with exports of hydrogen or quicklime or electricity over a world wide grid…
Anyway, my point was only that I agree with the article in supporting nuclear power.
LikeLike
On the other hand, I may be wrong, but this article did not convince me that renewable energy is hopeless on principle.
I have read it a couple of times, but the main objection seems to be that renewable energy is intermittent.
I think we can all agree that this has been mentioned before on this blog and elsewhere. Does not impress me as a new argument, but I may have overlooked something here.
LikeLike
Karl, just because an argument isn’t new doesn’t make it unimpressive.
Let me put it differently.
Solar is not there 80% of the time in the desert and 90% of the time in a cloudy country such as my own (thousands of miles away from the nearest desert).
This is not ‘intermittent’. It is ‘not there most of the time, unreliable, undispatchable and marginal’. Intermittent is far too kind a word to describe nearly useless marginal energy sources.
You can never do just one thing. Adding useless marginal unreliable unproductive non-dispatchable energy sources to your grid means you have to balance it out with lots of storage and/or fossil fuel.
Energy storage, too expensive and bulky. No learning curve. No chances of getting much cheaper. So no way out there either.
Geographic spreading of wind turbines, not good enough. Still unreliable.
This leaves just one option: a little bit of solar and a lot of fossil.
If you don’t like this, and I don’t, we need to get back the option that isn’t allowed right now: a little fossil and a lot of nuclear.
Trying to power grids such as Germany with solar will lock Germany into fossil fuels indefinately.
LikeLike
For a proper thrashing of wind and solar, and to back up some of my claims above, please read the posts on this blog
http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&updated-max=2011-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=38
Just compare some of the numbers there, which are apples to apples comparisons, and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
LikeLike
David B. Benson, on 26 September 2011 at 7:33 AM said:
“By following World Nuclear News one will see the progression of nuclear power developments world wide.”
Good suggestion! WNN is now on my daily read along w/ BNC.
LikeLike
Cyrl R, 26 September 2011 at 11:57 PM
what an interesting link you found. And look at this link embedded within it:
Click to access 45528378.pdf
Clever find because it is a link to an errata sheet for a report that costs $100. Book mark this for future use.
LikeLike
What I find interesting is that nuclear is cheaper than coal at 5% discount rate in nearly all countries and roughly the same as coal at 10% discount rate in most countries. In Korea at 10% discount rate, nuclear is about 60% the cost of coal.
Recent studies in Australia have been using weighted average cost of capital (or discount rate) of about 7.5% to 8.5% (depending on whether it is before or after tax rate).
Conclusion: If Australia implements something along the lines of what I laid out here, (Attachment 1 within this comment: https://bravenewclimate.com/2011/07/06/carbon-tax-australia-2011/#comment-136436 ) we could achieve what France has achieved (75% nuclear generated electricity and 8% of Australia’s current emissions from electricity generation per MWh) by 2040 ro 2050 with only a relatively small injection of taxpayers money to get it going. Thereafter “no more to pay” from the taxpayer.
LikeLike
@Cyril R.
I agree that solar and wind are not available all the time. Again, nothing new for anyone.
You probably agree that hydro, biomass and geothermal are available whenever one chooses to use them. These are also renewable sources.
You seem to like the book by McKay. Each of his plans makes use of renewable energy, even his most nuclear based “plan E”:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c27/page_206.shtml
If you think that Australia should choose a plan based only on nuclear energy under the current poll numbers, good luck with your advocacy effort. I think that is hopeless, but I would be quite happy to see you succeed.
LikeLike
Peter Lang,
The whole 2010 Projected Costs of Generating Electricity is available free here:
Click to access Projected%20Costs%20of%20Electricity.pdf
Get it while you can.
LikeLike
Quokka, Thank you.
LikeLike
Another point of interest from the first table here http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/50/45528378.pdf : EPRI’s LCOE ($/MWh) for nuclear is $48 and $73 for 5% and 10% discount rates respectively.
Why is the LCOE nearly three times these figures in the EPRI report to the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism?
The EPRI report commissioned by Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism gives the LCOE of nuclear as $173/MWh at 8.4% discount rate (WACC before tax).
Refer: Table 10-1 and Table 10-13 here: http://www.ret.gov.au/energy/Documents/AEGTC%202010.pdf
Why the large difference between these two EPRI estimates of LCOE for nuclear? Both were done in 2010.
LikeLike
Karl-Friedrich Lenz, on 27 September 2011 at 7:31 AM — For the Columbia River system, the hydro is largely use it. Period. Compared to annual fllow there is only modest storage possible. Also, there are limitations on spill rates for fisheries reasons. This led to a rather embrassing overgeneration situation in June of 2010.
LikeLike
Peter Lang, on 27 September 2011 at 8:42 AM — VC Summer (Westinghouse AP1000) planning document gives an LCOE of US$76/MWh. I just checked that via the NREL calculator and obtained US$74/MWh, close enough.
LikeLike
Quokka, Ahh! I remember now, that’s the OECD report with the $30/tonne CO2 price included in the LCOE for fossil fuel generated electricity in the OECD countries but not in the non-OECD countries. Hmmm! Fair comparison??
LikeLike
Peter Lang, on 27 September 2011 at 8:42 AM said:
Why the large difference between these two EPRI estimates of LCOE for nuclear? Both were done in 2010.
All the thermal plants(including nuclear) in the EPRI report done for the Australian Department of Resource, Energy and Tourism were specified as having ‘dry cooling'(closed loop)..
I didn’t see ‘dry cooling’ mentioned in the OECD report. Dry cooling is not a common method of cooling thermal power plants.
LikeLike
Many thanks, Peter, David and quokka.
These are very interesting references, indeed.
I have been on the lookout for some dry cooling cost estimates and these are the first I have seen.
The median NPP LCOE goes from $60 (in USA) to $170 (round figures, in Australia plus dry cooling).
Am I correct to infer that dry cooling will add a similar penalty to coal fired options? I.e, of the order of $100/MWh difference in LCOE.
This is significant in relation to the proposed Bayswater B Power Station of 2000+MW in the Hunter Valley. Interim planning approval has been received on the basis that this station would either be CCGT or dry cooled, “CCS-ready” coal. The cost of dry cooling appears to make that outcome very improbable.
So, CCGT it will be, if at all, especially in a market (the NEM) that has for the past couple of years hovered in the $40/MWh range. Even CCGT or conventional coal would fail to be commercial in that environment. It looks very much as though B2 Power Station will not go ahead.
LikeLike
This article (half way down) says Kogan Ck air cooled power station is 37% efficient but would be 43% if seawater cooled
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6180681/Kogan-Creek-enters-the-commissioning.html
Putting a desal next to NPP helps justify a coastal location. Around Fukushima there seems to me more concern over airborne contamination than seaborne.
LikeLike
John Bennetts, on 27 September 2011 at 10:29 AM — Dry cooling will add some cost for any Rankine cycle irrespective of the source of heat. However, the fossil fuel fired Rankine cycle turbines surely have a higher upper temperature, so the added cost for dry cooling will be different.
LikeLike
Peter Lang – “In fact, about 30 would do now, in about eight nuclear power stations – two in each of Qld, NSW and Vic, and one in each of SA and WA.”
Interesting you should say that however how exactly would it be done for WA? Here is the real and projected load data for the South West Interconnected System (SWIS)
http://www.imowa.com.au/rc-capacity-in-the-swis
The interesting part is that the base load (dark grey) requirement for WA is pretty steady from 2007 to 2010 at around 1.5GW. The growth requirement is peaking power which in combination with load following (mid grey) will be 50% of capacity in 2012/2013. The planned capacity increase of baseload for 2010/11 until 2012/13 is only very small rising to 3GW in this time period.
To replace the present fossil fuelled fleet with conventional nuclear we would need 3 X 1.5GW reactors. We would need three because of the operational reserve requirement. WA would have to increase its operational reserve to cope with the loss of one of the nuclear plants. We could of course use AP-1000 then we would need seven of these to match the capacity plus reserve of the present day baseload. Of course the operational reserve could be supplied by leaving some or all of the coal plants running as spinning reserve.
The problem is the required 3GW of mid-merit load and peaking load. The only people to run load following nukes are the French:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html
“PWR plants are very flexible at the beginning of their cycle, with fresh fuel and high reserve reactivity. But when the fuel cycle is around 65% through these reactors are less flexible, and they take a rapidly diminishing part in the third, load-following, aspect above. When they are 90% through the fuel cycle, they only take part in frequency regulation, and essentially no power variation is allowed (unless necessary for safety).”
The only present nuke with load published load following capability is the EPR. Otherwise if you used other designs you would have to modify most of our reactors to be load following, because as you can see, there are limitations and the load following has to be shared around. Modifiying the reactors would be expensive and require re-certification and testing delaying the program. The two EPRs under construction in France and FInland are both over budget and behind schedule while being built in countries with present extensive nuclear experience. This does not bode well for a similar construction in Australia with no nuclear.
And of course the 3GW of peaking capacity would have to stay in its present form without load following nukes WA could only replace half of its capacity with nuclear leaving the rest fossil fuelled. So what is the plan for a nuclear Western Australia given these limitations?
References: From http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html
” The Flamanville construction schedule then slipped about nine months, with first power then expected in 2012 and commercial operation in 2013. The reactor vessel nozzle support ring was forged by JSW in 2006 and the vessel manufacturing is at Areva’s St Marcel factory. Forging of steam generator shells was at Areva’s Le Creusot factory from 2007.
At the end of 2008 the overnight cost estimate (without financing costs) was updated by 21% to €4 billion in 2008 Euros (€2434/kW), and electricity cost to be 5.4 cents/kWh (compared with 6.8 c/kWh for CCGT and 7.0 c/kWh for coal, “with lowest assumptions” for CO2 cost). These costs were confirmed in mid 2009, when EdF had spent nearly EUR 2 billion. In July 2010 EdF revised the overnight cost to about EUR 5 billion and the grid connection to early 2014 – two years behind schedule. In July 2011 EdF again revised the completion time to 2016 due to re-evaluation of civil engineering works and to take into account interruptions during the first half of the year. There have been problems coordinating the nine main subcontractors, and EdF hopes the new schedule will progress “the construction of the Flamanville EPR …… under optimized conditions.” The cost was now put at EUR 6 billion.”
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Startup_of_Finnish_EPR_pushed_back_to_2013-0806104.html
LikeLike
The ACIL-Tasman (2009) report shows the difference in LCOE between dry cooling and wet cooling for coal plants. It assumes nuclear is wet cooling, as does the EPRI report (I think from memory). So I don’t think this explains the difference between the EPRI figures in the IEA-NEA report and the DRET.
ACIL-Tasman, 2009, Table 55, http://www.aemo.com.au/planning/419-0035.pdf for 2011-12:
SC BLACK (WC) NQ = $53.43
SC BLACK (AC) NQ = $54.54
So, about 2% higher for air cooled (normally, I’ve heard the difference is a bit more than this).
Nuclear is only slightly less thermall efficient than coal, so if we factor up from the ACIL Tasman LCOE difference, nuclear air cooled to be about 2.5% higher than water cooled. However, again from memory, the EPRI report says it would be unlikely we’d build air cooled nuclear. So I wouldn’t push that option.
By the way, Millmeran and Kogan Creek in Queensland are both supercritical, air cooled plants. I think they are the only two in Australia.
LikeLike
DBB: Agreed. What I was getting at was the disparity between guesstimates I have heard socially regarding air cooled plant and the figures I have just cited.
The additional costs for air cooling amount to pumps, fans and radiators – plenty of very big ones. I had expected an additional energy cost (for fans) of about 10% and an additional capital cost of about 10%. I have no figures to substantiate these guesses.
From JN’s reference: The energy sent out figure of 711MW for a station with busbar generating capacity of 750MW suggests that the additional energy requirements for air cooling are way less than even 10%. Auxiliary energy consumption of 20MW would be about right for a unit of this size and wet cooling. That means perhaps 30MW additional for dry cooling, or 4.2% on an energy sent out basis.
So, when I see figures which suggest LCOE $110 penalty for air cooling of NPP’s I am surprised, because the principles and engineering are identical.
I guess that I will stick to a nominal 10% penalty for capital cost and adopt 5% energy cost for the air cooling, till respectable figures come along. The $110 figure is way over the top.
LikeLike
Thanks, Peter L.
Re those two Qld units, I agree – they are supercritical. They also have very low staffing levels. I don’t know how they can get by with only 3 dozen operator/maintainers for a 1-unit station.
jb
LikeLike
That’s the result of allowing free enterprise. NSW could be a lot more efficient too if they could privatise the electricity generators and transmission as Victoria has done so successfully. :)
LikeLike
I think this is a misunderstanding. I don’t think the $110/MWh difference in LCOE is due to wet cooling versus dry cooling. I think both figures are for wet cooling (from memory).
I think the difference is due to the terms of reference the DRET provided to EPRI and the assumptions EPRI were directed to use for estimating the cost of nuclear in Australia.
LikeLike
Ender,
What point are you trying to make about the cost of the Flamanville EPR? If a capital cost of 4 billion euro results in electricity cost of 5.4 cents/kWh, then escalation to 6 billion should result in an electricity cost of <= 8.1 cents/kWh. Agreed?
Where else will you get low emission reliable baseload electricity for that price other than hydro (where feasible)?
The UK Climate Change Committee estimates cost of on shore wind in the range 8-9.5 p/kWh ~ 9.2-10.2 cents/kWh (Euro cents). Off shore wind, solar, tidal etc are all substantially more expensive.
Click to access The%20renewable%20energy%20review_Printout.pdf
So even with FOAK costs, and a project that it seems has not been well executed using the most expensive reactor in the world, nuclear is competitive on a simple LCOE basis, not to mention reliability.
LikeLike
Ender,
I don’t understand your concern.
Firstly what is wrong with having load-following nukes? After all, nuke powered ships control their speed without any problem. And we wouldn’t need load following nukes in WA until it has nuclear generating most of its baseload power – say around 2040 or so. Surely you are not arguing that load-following nukes will not be ubiquitous by then, are you? The French plants have been load following for 30 years. The EPR is designed to load follow down to 25% of full power and ramp at 5% per minute; that’s 80 MW per minute.
Secondly, if solar and wind need storage, wouldn’t it be far cheaper to match storage with nuclear rather than wind or solar? After all, with nuclear, the storage is recharged reliably each day. With solar we need to have enough storage to provide most of our power from storage through lengthy periods of overcast whether, and much more transmissions line capacity and length, and the requirements go on and on. But we’ve covered all that before, haven’t we?
LikeLike
Peter Lang – “Firstly what is wrong with having load-following nukes?”
Nothing except that they only exist in France. No other design other than the EPR has a load following capability, so unless the other designs are re-worked then this load following capability does not exist. Both EPRs are over budget and schedule in nuclear capable countries. How do you really think this would go in Australia with no nuclear capacity or experience?
Additionally as you can see from the French experience the load following capacity of PWRs varies over the fuel load. Going on the current price of the EPR we would have to spend 6 billion Euro overnight cost (12 billion finished and financed) times three or four. If we started them today then they would be operating very optimistically in 2019 (7 years based on the Flamanville plant). Who do you think would cough up the money for this when some of them would be operating as mid-merit capacity with a CF of between 25% and 75%?
If you are saying that nuclear needs storage then what is the advantage of nuclear over renewables in WA if they both need backup? Remember WA has a some of the best solar resources in the world. A solar thermal plant with storage would have a very minimal gas burn <10%. We also can disperse wind from Geraldton with a CF of 47% to Albany which is not far behind.
Apart from your statement that we only need one station which seems to be wrong are you suggesting all the peaking power for WA come from storage? With our renewable resources charging storage is no less a problem with renewables than nuclear.
References:
http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/WindWA.html
"This wind farm has the, so far as I know, otherwise unheard of capacity factor of 47%. This means that the amount of electricity generated is 47% of the rated capacity of the wind farm. A more typical capacity factor is 30%; 33% is the average for most Eastern Australian wind farms. Miles George of Babcock and Brown Wind Partners also informed me that this c.f. is the best for all of B&B's 79 wind farms."
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/sunshine-hours/index.jsp
MODERATOR
Please read your comment before posting. I have made 3 changes for you but this is very time consuming.
LikeLike
quokka – “What point are you trying to make about the cost of the Flamanville EPR?”
Only that these are both being build in countries that are very experienced with nuclear power. They have the supply chains and logistics plus presumably trained manpower in place. Even with all of this they are still over budget and over schedule.
If they cannot build an EPR to budget and schedule what do you think the chances are that one could be built in WA with no nuclear experience, manpower or logistics?
LikeLike
Ender @ 27 September 2011 at 12:21 PM
I think you have made many underlying assumptions that are not stated.
All the existing power stations will reach the end of their economic lives and will have to be replaced eventually. They should be replaced with the most economically viable option at the time, with no government imposed market distortions forcing preference for renewables.
It is unlikely WA would build the 1 GW or larger NPPs. I expect it would go for smaller units, as many other countries have done.
It will be some time before the first NPP is commissioned in WA. Even longer until the third is commissioned. By which time baseload will have increased and load following plants will be common, etc. So I do not agree there is any reason why WA cannot and should not go nuclear, along with the remainder of Australia.
You like to point out the cost overruns on the FOAK Finnish EPR NPP. But never seem to highlight the massive overruns that occur on renewable projects. Why not?
Here is just one example. Gemasolar incurred a real cost increase of 300% from 2005 and 2009. (€ 53 million to € 230 million).
A few comments on the “Capacity of the SWIS’ link: http://www.imowa.com.au/rc-capacity-in-the-swis
1. The “Competition” section shows that WA has found a good way to move progressively from government ownership to private ownership of the electricity system. The chart shows that this is progressing well.
2. The “Fuel Diversity” section shows renewables are an insignificant contribution. A joke. A toy to satisfy the idelogical believers. Just like everywhere else in the world.
This http://www.imowa.com.au/f175,877592/MRCP_Transmission_Cost_Estimate_for_2013_14_Capacity_Year_V4.PDF gives examples of the additional constraints (and therefore, costs,) resulting from mandating intermittent, unreliable generators, like wind and solar.
LikeLike
Ender,
If you go to Section 6.2.5 (page 121) of the IEA 2010 Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, you will find that the LCOE of solar and wind are substantially more sensitive to load factor than is nuclear.Their economics are highly dependent on being paid for every kWh they are capable of producing. At 65% or 70% load factor, nuclear looks quite competitive. It will of course depend on how the particular market prices their electricity.
Also while on the topic of cost and time overruns, the LCOE of solar and wind is substantially more sensitive than that of nuclear. (S 6.2.4).
LikeLike
Peter Lang – “They should be replaced with the most economically viable option at the time, with no government imposed market distortions forcing preference for renewables.”
And no government imposed market distortions preferencing nuclear either!!!
“I expect it would go for smaller units, as many other countries have done.”
So what smaller reactors are presently certified and ready to be built?
“You like to point out the cost overruns on the FOAK Finnish EPR NPP. But never seem to highlight the massive overruns that occur on renewable projects. Why not?”
Because as the inventors of a quite large section of recent solar thermal and PV technology Australia is well placed with expertise to build solar power plants. There is very little in the way of restricted trades, like nuclear certified welders for example, required to build either wind or solar power plants. Many such have been build mostly on time and budget and are operating today.
“By which time baseload will have increased and load following plants will be common, etc. So I do not agree there is any reason why WA cannot and should not go nuclear, along with the remainder of Australia.”
If load following plants were to become common why have they not done so in the 50 years or so nuclear power plants have been operating and been heavily subsidised?
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/26/328612/new-report-energy-subsidies/
“With that said, even if you threw all these other investments together, the subsidies for fossil resources and nuclear would far surpass anything in renewable energy. According to the report, the American oil, gas and nuclear industries have cumulatively taken in more than $630 billion, with most of those government subsidies created in the earliest days of those sectors in order to build them up.”
“The “Fuel Diversity” section shows renewables are an insignificant contribution. A joke. A toy to satisfy the idelogical believers. Just like everywhere else in the world.”
It also shows nuclear at exactly zero, so at least I have some renewables to satisfy my ideological beliefs. You have nothing at all. Also both solar and wind are being built and the proportion will rise.
LikeLike
Ender,
Armenia, Netherlands and Slovenia each have one reactor (capacity 376MW to 696MW).
Argentina Romania have two reactors (average 468 MW and 665 MW)
Pakistan has 3 reactors (average 242 MW)
Slovakia, Hungary and Finland have 4 reactors (average 454 MW, 470 MW and 685 MW)
Source: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html
WA could commission several small to mid size reactors to meet baseload capacity increase and replace existing coal power stations as they reach retirement age over the next 20 years before we’d need load following plants.
I have a bias towards Canada’s CANDU. The curent version is 700 MW sent out.
LikeLike
Ender,
By the way, the Candu has on line refuelling. It does not need to be shut down for refueling. And just for interest, the Wolsung plant in Korea had the highest life time capacity factor of any NPP anywhere in the world (last time I looked).
LikeLike
Graham Palmer has a strong argument and I thought the Ockham’s Razor broadcast was excellent. The response by the anti-nukes was disappointing. They didn’t even critique Graham’s main argument. Most just trotted out their time-worn arguments. Even with a carbon tax it seems the need for nuclear power is not yet urgent enough to overcome their fear campaign. They would rather pay the Indonesians to conserve their forests. I am sure the price of doing so will rapidly increase as time progresses.
LikeLike
Peter Lang – if you look at the Reactors proposed and planned only a very few are under 1000MW. Additionally how many of the smaller designs are certified safe? I am pretty sure we would follow the US with reactor certification standards.
“WA could commission several small to mid size reactors to meet baseload capacity”
Yes we could however at what price? Commissioning FOAK small reactors would be a horrendous risk with little chance of success given our lack of nuclear expertise. Why would nuclear be any good for us here when our renewable resources are so large? Even given the cost overruns of the FOAK Gemsolar plant, subsequent plants could be built in WA at a much smaller risk given our solar resource which is far better than Spain. 50MW increments of added capacity are far easier to manage than commissioning a new type of small reactor design. BTW I think you will need to supply a reference for the cost increase of Gemasolar. I can only find ones like this:
http://www.thefuturebuild.com/torresol-energy-commissions-19-9mw-gemasolar-power-plant-in-spain-27587/news.html
and
http://www.renewable-energy-sources.com/2009/01/19/171-million-euro-secured-to-fund-gemasolar-the-worlds-first-solar-power-plant-with-central-tower-and-salt-receiver-technology-commences-construction-in-spain/
and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1393879/Gemasolar-Power-Plant-The-worlds-solar-power-station-generates-electricity-NIGHT.html
I see no mention of a cost blowout.
LikeLike
@ Peter Lang, on 27 September 2011 at 1:14 PM:
Qld’s two supercritical coal fired power plant were constructed for a corporatised but not privatised state owned entity. Just like the State Owned Corporations which have been half-sold or not sold at all in NSW: Delta, Eraring Power and Macquarie Generation.
The control systems at Liddell, for example, have been centralised into one plant control room, so 4 units are run by one Shift Manager and a few Plant Operators and Assistant Plant Operators. Their tasks include coal dozer driving and operation and fault finding of remote plant such as conveyors and ash disposal systems. Add a cleaner/labourer or three, a few technicians and a few mechanical fitters and the total crew quickly becomes 7 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 16. Times 5 = 80. Add a few more to cover annual and long service leave and there’s no change from about 100.
For Queensland to cover all the skills required and run single unit stations with 3 dozen operating staff is interesting.
But, with all due respect to your distinction between private and public ownership, I don’t think that the basic difference lies there. I suspect that all external functions have been contracted out, which is quite a rational arrangement.
I’ll ask a friend or two and get back to you.
Our friends who deal with renewables appear to have the same issues regarding maintenance costs, cleaning, management of the unexpected. In particular, I have been amazed to read of the horrendous working conditions for maintenance crews in the North Sea off Scotland. The work environment alone should outlaw some locations and designs… that is, assuming that the approach to safety is to engineer out risks where possible. For example, by constructing clean, reliable, safe nuclear PP’s on shore and leaving the North Sea to the fishes.
LikeLike
Ender,
A twin Candu 6, 1400 MW, would avoid about 11 Mt/a at a cost of $50/t
1400 MW of solar thermal with some storage, would avoid about 4 Mt/a at a cost of $300/t
LikeLike
Ender @ 27 September 2011 at 5:04 PM
The CANDU 6 is being marketed all over the world.
You have not managed to come to grips with the cost aspects of the choice between renewable and nuclear. See my last post for example. And please do read the section “Addendum Attachment 1” in this comment: https://bravenewclimate.com/2011/07/06/carbon-tax-australia-2011/#comment-136436
That is a falacious argument. The FOAK cost include the costs of getting started. All countries have started fro scratch. UAE is just getting started with their first. We will have to also. There is no other way to significantly reduce emissions and meet our electricity needs.
I laid out in the “Alternative to Carbon Price” lead article a progamme to get our first NPP commissioned. It covers the establishment of the regulatory regime and the education and training regimes. https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/31/alternative-to-cprs/
Solar Tres became Gemasolar. Costs were obtained from
:
2005: http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/2007/martin_solar_tres.pdf
2007: http://www.needs-project.org/RS1a/RS1a%20D12.2%20Final%20report%20concentrating%20solar%20thermal%20power%20plants.pdf
2009: http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/project_detail.cfm/projectID=40
LikeLike
quokka – “If you go to Section 6.2.5 (page 121) of the IEA 2010 Projected Costs of Generating Electricity”
It also says this:
“With all the caveats inherent to the EGC methodology, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity nevertheless
enables the identification of a number of tendencies that will shape the electricity sector
in the years to come. The most important among them is the fact that nuclear, coal, gas and,
where local conditions are favourable, hydro and wind, are now fairly competitive generation
technologies for baseload power generation.3 Their precise cost competitiveness depends more
than anything on the local characteristics of each particular market and their associated cost of
financing, as well as CO2 and fossil fuel prices.4 As mentioned earlier, the lower the cost of financing,
the better the performance of capital-intensive, low-carbon technologies such as nuclear,
wind or CC(S); at higher rates, coal without CC(S) and gas will be more competitive. There is no
technology that has a clear overall advantage globally or even regionally. Each one of these technologies
has potentially decisive strengths and weaknesses that are not always reflected in the
LCOE figures provided in the study.
Nuclear’s strength is its capability to deliver significant amounts of very low carbon baseload
electricity at costs stable over time; it has to manage, however, high amounts of capital at risk and
its long lead times for construction. Permanent disposal of radioactive waste, maintaining overall
safety, and evolving questions concerning nuclear security and proliferation remain issues that
need to be solved for nuclear energy.”
Do you really think that in the current financial environment WA could borrow billions of dollars for a high risk nuclear power plant at low interest rates?
Also about the LCOE
“Because nuclear and coal with CC(S) have much higher fixed costs than alternative fossilfuelled
baseload generating technologies, their total LCOE is most affected by the load factor
variation, in particular at a 10% discount rate, where fixed costs weigh more heavily. Variable
generation sources, wind and solar PV, where fixed costs constitute an even higher share of total
costs, are logically even more sensitive to the variation of load factor. Of all generating technologies,
gas, where variable costs weigh most in total costs (fuel and CO2 costs together account for
between 78% and 84% of total LCOE, depending on the discount rate), is the least affected by the
load factor variation. In other words, running or not running a gas plant makes a much smaller
difference to the profitability of a project (due to the high variable costs of gas) than running or
not running a nuclear, wind or solar power plant since all three must resolutely cover their high
fixed costs, while their variable costs are very low.”
In the opinion of the study nuclear, wind and solar are all equally affected by CF. The axis are different for the various generating methods. For renewables the upper limit of CF is 27.5% where both wind and solar PV are going to 90% of their original LCOE. Given WA fantastic resources with Walkaway demonstrating over 40% CF and Gemasolar in Spain, with less sun than WA, demonstrating a CF of over 50% the analysis does not count in this case. If you wanted to follow the graphs on page 121 downward to the actual CF of WA renewables you would have something like 50% of the original CF being realised.
LikeLike
JB,
Yes. I accept all this. But how much further would the efficency and productivity improvements be taken if it was in private hands? Generally, the people who are in the business cannot see the potential that outsiders can see.
I recognise that you have been working in the NSW electricity generation system for most of your career and, therefore have extensive knowledge about the NSW plants and the electricity industry.
I am somewhat familiar with the arguments on both sides of the private/public ownership argument. I have another senior engineer friend who has also worked all his life in the NSW electricity industry. He passionately believes that the public sector can do a better job than the private sector at providing this essential service, over the long term. He sends me lots of reports showing that, for example, US states with publically owned electricity supply have lower electricity costs than the states where the electricity industry is in private hands.
He argues for example that the power station where he worked couldn’t cut the work force much more than it already has.
My response is to suggest he look at what happens when industries are privatised. Here are some example:
1. Victoria’s electricity generation and transmission system is running more efficiently than NSW, despite the many government interventions in the Australian electricity market which seriously constrains productivity and efficiency (and accepting all the differences between NSW and Vic that are brought up by the advocates in defending their state and ridiculing the other).
2. When Patrick managed to get control of the wharves from the unions, after 50 years of fighting and strikes, they improved efficiency and productivity enormously – container loading and unloading rates doubled.
3. The banks are far more efficient than they would be if they were still publically owned.
4. Imagine if our groceries stores (Woolworths, Coles, IGA) were publically owned. Getting a litre of milk would be like lining up to get your licence or your car reregistered.
I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph.
LikeLike
I don’t follow why Graham went from Jevon’s to dismissing renewables.
The graph (from Barry??) says to me; cheap source of energy, rape and waste it, then move onto the next one. To that end, what possible problem can occur if there is a Rebound Effect from renewables causing more use of renewables?
BTW, Australian energy intensity is falling, with energy supplied via the sunk cost of fuel, that surely is a good thing for our living standards.
Click to access RR10.08_energy_intensity_REPORT.pdf
LikeLike
Peter Lang – “The CANDU 6 is being marketed all over the world.”
Interesting article about the Candu:
http://www.energyquest4nanticoke.ca/green2.htm
“I am writing as a former OPG research scientist, with 23 years experience in nuclear operations, to suggest that any further investment in generating capacity based on the CANDU design would be a serious mistake. I have put together a summary of my reasons for rejecting CANDU technology in an attachment to this letter and would ask that this material be considered by the OPA.
Sincerely,
Dr. F. R. Greening”
“The FOAK cost include the costs of getting started.”
Maybe but that did not help the Fins. We are starting far behind them as we do not even have the infrastructure that they would have supporting their current nuclear capacity.
“Solar Tres became Gemasolar. Costs were obtained from”
Sorry – nothing in any of those references that indicate a cost blowout. you will have to be more specific.
BTW you have not mentioned the 50% peaking power still required. Your best nuclear effort would be 50% of capacity – hardly a sterling effort.
LikeLike
Just a quick question to those here critical of renewable energy. Does anyone of you go so far as to require shutting down already existing capacity, mirroring the anti-nuclear campaigners who want all nuclear plants closed tomorrow?
LikeLike
K-F L, no, I very much doubt it. The commenters on this blog are, by and large, rationalists, not ideologues.
LikeLike
Just reading this post there are two suppositions that I find highly questionable:
Graham Palmer argues that because base-load electricity cannot be stored
Why not? I wasn’t aware that storage facilities gave a damn about where or how the input power was produced. Some further details on why some power is storable whereas others aren’t – based purely on the production technology – would be useful.
solar benefits from the regular daily correlation of daytime demand and sunlight, but regrettably, the correlation is too weak to ensure reliability of supply.
This is an extraordinary statement. Given that demand is highest during the day and lowest at night (to the point where the demand curve is nearly an overlay of the solar supply curve) – viz off peak power – the idea that the correlation is weak boggles the mind. Especially since the first use of the word ‘correlation’ completely contradicts the second usage.
Could the author provide a rigorous analysis to back this complete statement up? Otherwise it is nonsense on its face.
LikeLike
Ender, all, it’s not true the EPR is the only load following reactor. The AP1000 can load follow and is based on the same engineering as the French fleet AND the EPR:
Click to access AP1000_Plant_Description.pdf
The Korean APR1400 can also be *configured* for load-following (but not as good as the EPR) and, the reality is that almost all the Gen III plants can be configured as such.
Thus if you have a 1.5GW base load with peak of 3GW (I’m using base load as the *minimum* 24 hour average load) then in theory 3 AP1000s can handle this. Obviously, in a true regional grid, you’d have to account for outages scheduled or otherwise.
Secondly, the article posted here is about eliminating coal. We can do *this* in any country with Gen II or Gen III reactors *now*. We don’t need load following to do this. It’s only one part…a big part…of the whole climate issues, but it can be done.
And, just to needle Peter Lang: it’ll never happen without massive gov’t assistance and out right ownership, like in the UAE and China. :)
LikeLike
And just to be clearer about my second point at 12:37
The first phrase of the sentence re. solar vs demand says that there is a beneficial correlation between the two.
The second phrase however says there is effectively no correlation.
Which is which?
LikeLike
David, how can you possibly make nonsensical statements like this:
The AP1000 can load follow and is based on the same engineering as the French fleet AND the EPR:
The AP1000 is identified as a different generation from the French “fleet” which is based on 30 year designs both of which are also distinguished from the EPR.
There are only one way to make sense of such a statement: the assertion:
It’s nuclear, it’s a reactor, therefore it’s the same as every other
LikeLike
BJ, then you didn’t read the quote. By same engineering method I meant that the AP1000 load following is similar to the EPR. both use ‘grey rods’ and, in a fleet or reactors, stagger their load following capabilities. But its’ based on the same paradigm, the use of special control rods for load following.
If you compare this, to, say how nuclear propulsion systems work, which is somewhat classified, that can do zero to full load in about 4 minutes (also classified :), that don’t use control rods like this, they rely as much on temperature control of the steam generator to control neutron poisons like xenon.
The main point is that we are trying to phase out coal here (here being Austr. and the US) and the current fleet of reactors can do that. Coal isn’t used for peaking power. This shouldn’t even be part of the discussion. Its for baseload generally, with frequency and *some* load following. That’s it.
Secondly, people make a big deal about the lack of load following capability of Gen II reactors with the exception of the French fleet. This is not, I repeat “not” an engineering question but one of financing. You pay for load following capability. It’s an ancillary service that one can garner revenue from. If load-following is built into the tender, then the reactor can be *slightly* modified along with the controls to accomplish this.
I can’t stand it when pro-nuke types can’t think outside the box.
David
LikeLike
Lets talk about load-following but from yet a different angle. Let’s talk a “non” load following Gen III reactor, that is one that isn’t deployed for load following as we know it. But….we want it to be able to rise and fall with load demand *anyway*. Is this an “oops! We’re screwed”? No.
How many discussion threads have there been here about “desal” (desalination of seawater into potable water)? Dozens. Hundreds maybe. Suppose instead of the reactor following the load, we have the reactors 100% out 2/47 but we divert some of the electricity generated to a desal. When load goes down, the reactor sits at 100% but the power is automatically diverted to a desal unit, someplace, doesn’t even have to be close to the power plant. At night, we produce H20 to green Australia a bit as morning progresses toward noon, we send the power out toward the grid. The load determines the rate of H20 production. QED.
I don’t know if this is economically feasible but it’s certainly doable. This way, from simply an engineering perspective, we could get rid of Aussie coal burning and throw in all the natural gas and any diesel generation being used as well. We can do this folks.
LikeLike
Karl-Friedrich Lenz, on 27 September 2011 at 11:19 PM said:
Does anyone of you go so far as to require shutting down already existing capacity
In Oregon and Washington in the US there were high hopes that we would have been able to shut our coal fired plants in 2010 as a result of all the windmills we built. The licenses were set to expire and public opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of closing them.
In addition to ‘climate issues’ there are NOx issues and haze issues that occasionally spoil the view of our snow covered mountains. In Washington State our last coal mine closed in 2006 so there is no ‘miners union’ left to advocate for coal usage.
In Oregon there is a single 550 MW coal fired plant and in Washington we have two 688 MW coal fired plants.
Oregon and Washington each have 2.3 GW of installed wind power.
On an annualized basis the windmills produce between 28 and 34% of their nameplate capacity which is well within the range of ‘performing as advertised’.
Unfortunately there are seasonality issues. It’s one thing to store enough water for a few days of load balancing, It is another thing to store enough water for a few months of load balancing.
The current plan is that 2 of our 3 coal fired plants in Washington and Oregon will close by 2020. They didn’t close in 2010 and their licenses had to be extended at the ‘last minute’.
it took the Washington State Legislature all of a few minutes to vote on the extension and the Governor a few more minutes to sign it in to law. Then they all went on TV and blathered on about how it was a ‘difficult decision’ but there really wasn’t a viable alternative at the current time.
LikeLike
Ender,
Re: your link to the 2005 Greening letter arguing against further development of CANDU. Is this an example of the sort of anti-nuclear site you rely on for your information?
Enough said on this one!
So you don’t consider a 300% increase in cost (€ 53 million to € 230 million) over 4 years a blow out?
I did. I also pointed out that replacing 1400MW of baseload avoids more emissions at much lower cost that replacing peaking capacity.
Therefore, we should focus on baseload first.
LikeLike
KFL an unresolved question is whether renewables would increase or slide if subsidies and quotas were removed. In Australia the government’s own advisers said new renewables should stand on their own feet once carbon tax was introduced. That advice was ignored. Now we have wind and solar getting multiple layers of support – carbon tax to handicap coal and gas, capital assistance, loan guarantees, a 20% target, State feed-in tariffs and Federal renewable energy certificates worth about 4c per kwhe.
Take some or all of that away and I doubt there will be any more wind and solar installation. Some already built low yield projects could get mothballed.
LikeLike
Ender — The Atmea1, 5 under construction, does load folowing @ 5%/minute between 30% and 100%. Even the nearby old BWR can (and has done) diurnal load following between about 80% amd 100%; this after a period when it had intentionally been trottled back to 20%. That BWR ddoesn’t ordinarily run that way, but the situation in June of 2010 was rather bizarre.
LikeLike
Peter Lang, on 28 September 2011 at 5:43 AM — I’ve written a peer-reviewed paper, nonw published, with Frank Greening although I’ve nev er actually met him. His views on the CANDU are based on his knowledge of radiochemistry. I think his opinions ought to be considered quite seriously; that doesn’t mean I think he is right (or wrong) as I don’t have the expertise to judge.
LikeLike
@Barry Brook
I am not sure why it would be not rational to consistently oppose renewable energy regardless of the state of projects. Actually, the reason for opposition given in the article (intermittent availability) would seem to apply for an existing capacity even more than for one still only in the planning stage.
So if it is true that no one calls for shutting down existing projects and opposition to renewable is limited only to projects or policies still in the planning stage, how is that difference explained? Is there a specific level of renewable penetration that triggers the opposition? If so, what level would that be?
@John Newlands
You point out a third alternative I hadn’t thought of when asking that question. An opponent of renewable might take the position that there is no need to shut down existing projects, but that there will be no more feed-in tariffs paid even for those.
LikeLike
KFL:
An argument against capital expenditure offering only the very meagre returns which unsubsidised PV offers is easy to mount.
Argument for dismantling existing PV capacity is entirely different. It would, if rational, be based on the premise that there is a better use for the existing resource – ie, that the dismantled components could be recycled or reused more benefitially otherwise. Unless the scrap market for panels and support frames, etc, increases many-fold, these gadgets might as well stay where they are, providing whatever they can whenever the sun is shining.
My gut feeling is that few panels would be maintained optimally and some would soon become dilapidated eyesores.
Perhaps then, municipalities will mandate the removal of abandoned PV panels and wind turbines and solar thermal arrays and towers. Why so many are currently strewn, abandoned and unwanted about the landscape already without prompting regulatory action is beyond me.
See:
http://www.radicalgreenwatch.com/main/?p=1137 and
http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/
Perhaps abandoned solar panels will be recycled by thieves, as in this case of $50k worth of Australian federally funded panels being abandoned after only one year in service and then nicked from a NSW public school:
http://northcote-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/solar-shame/
LikeLike
Peter Lang – “So you don’t consider a 300% increase in cost (€ 53 million to € 230 million) over 4 years a blow out?”
No I would consider that a cost blowout its just that the references you supplied do not have that information. The best that I can find is two rounds of financing:
The first one is this:
http://www.renewable-energy-sources.com/2009/11/17/gemasolar-2006-sau-secures-financing-for-concentrated-solar-power-plant-in-spain/
Which is an 80 million Euro loan and this:
http://www.renewable-energy-sources.com/2009/01/19/171-million-euro-secured-to-fund-gemasolar-the-worlds-first-solar-power-plant-with-central-tower-and-salt-receiver-technology-commences-construction-in-spain/
which is a separate 171 million Euro loan. If you want to interpret this as a cost blowout then go ahead however it is not – it is just two rounds of financing. One from the European Central investment bank and one from another consortium.
” Is this an example of the sort of anti-nuclear site you rely on for your information?
MANDATE: “To continue the quest for non-nuclear electricity production at Nanticoke and elsewhere in Canada,”
Enough said on this one!”
I guess then Peter you will not be posting any information from BNC, Nuclear Green or any other pro-nuclear website that disparage renewables. As a later poster said the person that wrote the letter is highly qualified and you would be well to take heed of what he says rather then dismissing it out of hand as it does not suit your mindset.
” I also pointed out that replacing 1400MW of baseload avoids more emissions at much lower cost that replacing peaking capacity.”
Only if you assume a very low cost for nuclear and an very high cost for renewables. The IEA report referenced earlier says that the LCOE of any low carbon generating source is highly sensitive to the discount rate. Nuclear has very high capital costs and long build lead times. These are things you cannot imagine away. A question I asked earlier is looking from an investor’s point of view how attractive is a FOAK nuclear power plant in this current financial climate? How much chance do you think there is of getting low interest finance to hold down your LCOE especially if load following modifications have to be done and the plant may only run at 25% CF sometimes? As you are the free market champion on BNC there will be no subsidies or loan guarantees as these are distortions of the free market and I am sure you will bitterly oppose such socialist handouts.
So just how do you pitch a nuclear power plant to investors in Western Australia?
LikeLike
Ender, on 28 September 2011 at 12:50 PM — To finance NPPs in the USA requires a federal loan guarantee that the invsetors won’t lose their capital. This secures 30 year loans @ 10.8%.
At those rates and on a pure LCOE basis NPPs are currently less expensive than nominally 30% CF wind even with the government subsidy for the later.
As for begin FOAK, don’t build one. Use a proven design which is actually running elsewhere in the world. If the UAE can do it, surely WA can do at least as well.
LikeLike
David Walters – “Ender, all, it’s not true the EPR is the only load following reactor. The AP1000 can load follow and is based on the same engineering as the French fleet AND the EPR:”
If you look carefully I actually said that the EPR is the only one with published and acknowledged load following capabilities. It is a French reactor and the French, as they use load following nukes. would of course ensure that their new design could do this. The point is that a conventional, “off the shelf” PWR design like the AP-1000 is not load following unless it is modified with the same modifications as the French designs. I also do not know if the required modifications would then require re-certification with the NRC. I am sure that Australia would copy and/or acknowledge the US NRC certification process and demand similar certification of any design. Additionally the load following capability varies with the fuel load age. The French nuclear fleet is large enough to have baseload and load followers. WA would only have a small amount of reactors by comparison. They would have to be mostly load following to ensure that two or more load following reactors were capable of matching demand at all times.
” Suppose instead of the reactor following the load, we have the reactors 100% out 2/47 but we divert some of the electricity generated to a desal.”
It is a question of ramp rates and starting and stopping the desal units. You would have to have a control that ramped down the desal tubes in response to demand and then if you did this how much are you shortening the desal tubes life? What desal operator would like the plant stopped and started several times a day potentially?
Current peak summer demand is 3GW in WA.
Click to access Air%20conditioning%20paper.pdf
Demand can drop to 1GW during the day at the lowest point. This is a 2 GW range that you would have to cover with desal. Our current desal plant that produces 17% of Perths water consumes 24MW of electricity.
http://www.water-technology.net/projects/perth/
2GW of nuclear power plants output at 90%CF = 15 768 000 MWhrs
Current requirement for 17% of Perths water = assume that 24MW is used 24X7 = 210 240 MWhrs
The requirement to cover the highs and the lows of energy demand in WA is 75 times as much as we currently have. We only need so much water not 20 times our current demand. Also if we are going to find make up work for inflexible nuclear plants to do we are getting on a increasing load spiral that is the exact opposite of what we require. We need to be increasing efficiency and reducing demand in the future not encouraging extra loads just for make up work.
LikeLike
Ender:
I can think of three or four ways to achieve increasing efficiency and reducing demand. First, let us have a short discussion about personal choice and allocation of resources. In a reasonably free world, purchasing decisions (eg, on electricity) are determined via a ranking of the marginal utility of the proposed expenditure on electricity against all other available options for expenditure. The winner gets the purchase.
If the person whose money it is decides that money spent on electricity has the greatest marginal utility – ie, is valued more highly than the alternatives which are available – then electricity is what the money is spent on. Ender’s personal opinion is entirely irrelevant for all other consumers apart from Ender.
Now, Ender may think that the amount of electricity purchased/consumed is greater than is optimal. In the current free-ish market, there are only a few ways in to drive changes to the many personal decisions to purchase and perchance to waste electricity.
Option 1. Increase the retail cost of electricity to promote efficiencies through high prices. This might work a bit, but is Ender suggesting that prices should double via taxation so that I and others will buy half as much with a given number of dollars? Even that might not work, because I might divert some discretionary expenditure from food, grog or cigs to electricity (short term) or even sell assets to fund purchase of electricity (longer term). My consumption, and that of others, will probably be somewhat resistant to change via pricing alone. Besides which, many of us might act together and forcably overthrow the government (short term response) or wait a while and vote into office a government which has a policy of not doubling the retail price of electricity through taxation (longer term response).
erhaps Ender does not envision using taxation to achieve this – he might instead choose to drive us back towards the Dark Ages by forcing PV, etc, onto the market via MRET’s, FiT’s, subsidies, handouts and other chicanery. In which case, see (4) below.
2. Education. Marvellous in theory, but can Ender support hopes of massive reductions of electricity consumption through education by reference to a similarly successful education campaign? I suspect not, otherwise obesity, diabetes and many other ailments would, through education alone, have been reduced below their current epidemic levels.
3. Induced shortage of supply. Japan is enduring just such an event right now. Which West Australian power stations does Ender propose to shut down, when, and by what means, in order to restrain the electricity supply market? As in Japan, this will require extreme action and is likely to fail in the long term due to new entrants emerging and constructing even more power stations in order to benefit from the community’s demand for electricity.
4. Replace capitalism by installing a command economy. Central planning and central edicts will ensure that electricity is rationed, strictly limited, and personal choice will no longer matter. Best of luck… Aussies tend to love our freedoms.
So, Ender, please stop worrying about setting goals for huge reductions in electricity demand, unless they are based on actual, rational, democratically supported mechanisms. Forget it. It won’t happen in the short term without massive social disruption.
Meanwhile, in the short term, some of us seek to respond to threats of climate change, others choose to search for ways to reduce the cost of electricity, or to improve safety outcomes or a number of other things. It is delusional to pretend that, by process of taking thought, consumption of electricity in the state of Western Australia, or anywhere else, will be affected either up or down.
The determinant is the balance between supply and demand at a given level of satisfaction.
LikeLike
Load following specification for AP1000:
Click to access 7-7_r7.pdf
This is not the same this as transient performance.
LikeLike
David – ” Use a proven design which is actually running elsewhere in the world. If the UAE can do it, surely WA can do at least as well.”
I think Peter and I agreed given the total lack of nuclear expertise in Australia any nuclear plant would be a FOAK. The UAE is getting a turnkey unit. Basically Korea is building, fuelling and operating the plants for 20 years for 40 billion dollars. The UAE will only get electricity – no technology transfer or anything. If that is desireable then yes we could do it however I am pretty sure I would rather have my power generating capacity in Australian hands rather than South Korean.
LikeLike