6 ms·

Very timely article for Australia, which is just beginning another debate about whether they should go Nuclear (there is currently no Nuclear power in Australia

Very timely article for Australia, which is just beginning another debate about whether they should go Nuclear (there is currently no Nuclear power in Australia). Seems Australia has dodged a bullet by NOT having Nuclear, now some are trying to catch that bullet for political points.

matthewfelgate 2y ago
How have they dodged a bullet by not having nuclear?
- benfortuna 2y ago
  FTA: "The next ten-fold increase will be equivalent to multiplying the world’s entire fleet of nuclear reactors by eight in less than the time it typically takes to build just a single one of them." I understand exponential is hard to grasp..
  - exe34 2y ago
    are there limits to the growth (other than the obvious land limitations which only exists in certain parts and the dark winters for some places)? like certain expensive materials that will get harder to find, or where production is limited and can't easily scale up?
    - pjc50 2y ago
      In some senses, everything is finite, but the reason crystalline Si cells have beaten all the other fancier technologies in the market is the raw simplicity. Pure boule silicon, phosphorous and boron dopants in very small quantities, then wiring (silver/copper/aluminium). Then a glass/upvc frame structure. The low kerf diamond wire saw is also a critical technology for this, but the powdered diamond required can be synthetic.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    That isn’t the relevant bit. If decarbonisation is your aim, you build both as quickly as you can. The fact that “the all-in cost of the electricity they produce promises to be less than half as expensive as the cheapest available today” is what sinks nukes. Burn fossil fuels longer, be judicious in adding gas so batteries have a chance to take hold (we’ve already fucked this up in Europe and America), and accept that while the transition will be dirtier you’ll have a cheaper grid in the end. That said, just as decarbonisation isn’t the only variable, LCOE isn’t either. Australia will have to maintain a nuclear fleet for military purposes. Taking into account that sunk cost, a civilian fleet’s math might change. (I’m doubtful, but maybe.)
  - alvah 2y ago
    You're in the "we only need power during the day" camp, but with extra snark. Well done.
- energy123 2y ago
  It's bad because of Australia's unique situation. They are uniquely well suited for solar while being uniquely unsuited for new nuclear. Australia has 2x the sunshine of Europe, more spare land for panels, and less seasonal variability. Australia has no existing nuclear plant experience. No experienced regulator or legal regime. High labor costs and little relevant local labor. And a track record of project cost blowouts and time overruns on large projects. Australia's small energy needs are also an issue. The marginal cost of new nuclear drops after you build the first few plants but Australia has such small energy needs that it won't reap the fruits of scale benefits. Australia has large community opposition to nuclear but not to solar. About 35% of the electorate approve of nuclear, with almost all state premiers publicly stating opposition, while 80% approve of solar. This will lead to social licensing risks like what Germany, Japan, Taiwan and California face with planning and legislative delays, and potential early plant closures leading to wasted capex and higher energy costs. Australia's peak scientific body, the CSIRO, estimates that a mostly decarbonized grid will be 2x more expensive with nuclear than pure renewables with transmission and storage. The above local factors contribute to that conclusion. In other words, Australia is not China. And even in China, solar is beating nuclear.
preisschild 2y ago
> Seems Australia has dodged a bullet by NOT having Nuclear Yeah, because having a cheaper and cleaner grid would be soo bad
- benfortuna 2y ago
  Not cheaper at all by all accounts, this article included.
  - exe34 2y ago
    that's because the cost of nuclear includes every possible cost, while for everything else we only include the immediate costs. for example, oil and gas have only been so cheap for so long because we didn't include the cost of climate adaptation, mass migration, geoengineering, etc.
    - locallost 2y ago
      I don't know what you base this on. Nuclear is heavily subsidized and cannot survive on its own. The price of nuclear waste storage is usually not included and even when money is put aside it's not enough. Germany's plant operators paid 23 billion to wash their hands of the mess and the tax payers will cover the rest (estimates go over 100 billion). Sellafield in the UK will cost over 200 billion to clean up. The French government is perpetually bailing out EDF and doing so as we speak because the EDF can't fund maintenance and building of its own planta. Etc. Etc.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > price of nuclear waste storage is usually not included We don’t include the cost of disposing of spent panels and turbines either. Nuclear waste’s risks are hyped beyond reason. What kills nuclear is the capital cost of building it. In the end, it’s fine. We’ll do gas + wind + solar and that will take us through 2050.
        2y ago
kgabis 2y ago
Definitely, cheap and predictable energy would be fatal for Australian economy.
- flipbrad 2y ago
  First time I've heard of nuclear being a cheap technology to deploy
  - chgs 2y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter
    - pjc50 2y ago
      The sarcasm is heavy in that phrase, because it's always been promised by nuclear advocates and never delivered.
  - kgabis 2y ago
    Considering it's lifespan and low external costs (like grid extension and energy storage for renewables) - it is cheap. What makes it expensive is politics.
frodo8sam 2y ago
It probably would have been nice to have one build now or even better 10 years ago. It's a good base of stable green energy to have during the transition. But planning to build a new one now seems purely political. It doesn't make sense when it takes 10 years to build at best. Every recent plant build in the west has had huge cost and time overruns. But then to make those costs back the plant has to compete with solar/wind/batteries for a good 20 years, STARTING IN 2035-2040. That's never going to work out financially. Solar is already cheaper and you will have to make those investments in the grid either way before the nuclear plant comes online.

matthewfelgate 2y ago

How have they dodged a bullet by not having nuclear?

benfortuna 2y ago
FTA: "The next ten-fold increase will be equivalent to multiplying the world’s entire fleet of nuclear reactors by eight in less than the time it typically takes to build just a single one of them." I understand exponential is hard to grasp..
- exe34 2y ago
  are there limits to the growth (other than the obvious land limitations which only exists in certain parts and the dark winters for some places)? like certain expensive materials that will get harder to find, or where production is limited and can't easily scale up?
  - pjc50 2y ago
    In some senses, everything is finite, but the reason crystalline Si cells have beaten all the other fancier technologies in the market is the raw simplicity. Pure boule silicon, phosphorous and boron dopants in very small quantities, then wiring (silver/copper/aluminium). Then a glass/upvc frame structure. The low kerf diamond wire saw is also a critical technology for this, but the powdered diamond required can be synthetic.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  That isn’t the relevant bit. If decarbonisation is your aim, you build both as quickly as you can. The fact that “the all-in cost of the electricity they produce promises to be less than half as expensive as the cheapest available today” is what sinks nukes. Burn fossil fuels longer, be judicious in adding gas so batteries have a chance to take hold (we’ve already fucked this up in Europe and America), and accept that while the transition will be dirtier you’ll have a cheaper grid in the end. That said, just as decarbonisation isn’t the only variable, LCOE isn’t either. Australia will have to maintain a nuclear fleet for military purposes. Taking into account that sunk cost, a civilian fleet’s math might change. (I’m doubtful, but maybe.)
- alvah 2y ago
  You're in the "we only need power during the day" camp, but with extra snark. Well done.
energy123 2y ago
It's bad because of Australia's unique situation. They are uniquely well suited for solar while being uniquely unsuited for new nuclear. Australia has 2x the sunshine of Europe, more spare land for panels, and less seasonal variability. Australia has no existing nuclear plant experience. No experienced regulator or legal regime. High labor costs and little relevant local labor. And a track record of project cost blowouts and time overruns on large projects. Australia's small energy needs are also an issue. The marginal cost of new nuclear drops after you build the first few plants but Australia has such small energy needs that it won't reap the fruits of scale benefits. Australia has large community opposition to nuclear but not to solar. About 35% of the electorate approve of nuclear, with almost all state premiers publicly stating opposition, while 80% approve of solar. This will lead to social licensing risks like what Germany, Japan, Taiwan and California face with planning and legislative delays, and potential early plant closures leading to wasted capex and higher energy costs. Australia's peak scientific body, the CSIRO, estimates that a mostly decarbonized grid will be 2x more expensive with nuclear than pure renewables with transmission and storage. The above local factors contribute to that conclusion. In other words, Australia is not China. And even in China, solar is beating nuclear.

preisschild 2y ago

> Seems Australia has dodged a bullet by NOT having Nuclear Yeah, because having a cheaper and cleaner grid would be soo bad

benfortuna 2y ago
Not cheaper at all by all accounts, this article included.
- exe34 2y ago
  that's because the cost of nuclear includes every possible cost, while for everything else we only include the immediate costs. for example, oil and gas have only been so cheap for so long because we didn't include the cost of climate adaptation, mass migration, geoengineering, etc.
  - locallost 2y ago
    I don't know what you base this on. Nuclear is heavily subsidized and cannot survive on its own. The price of nuclear waste storage is usually not included and even when money is put aside it's not enough. Germany's plant operators paid 23 billion to wash their hands of the mess and the tax payers will cover the rest (estimates go over 100 billion). Sellafield in the UK will cost over 200 billion to clean up. The French government is perpetually bailing out EDF and doing so as we speak because the EDF can't fund maintenance and building of its own planta. Etc. Etc.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > price of nuclear waste storage is usually not included We don’t include the cost of disposing of spent panels and turbines either. Nuclear waste’s risks are hyped beyond reason. What kills nuclear is the capital cost of building it. In the end, it’s fine. We’ll do gas + wind + solar and that will take us through 2050.
      - 2y ago

kgabis 2y ago

Definitely, cheap and predictable energy would be fatal for Australian economy.

flipbrad 2y ago
First time I've heard of nuclear being a cheap technology to deploy
- chgs 2y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter
  - pjc50 2y ago
    The sarcasm is heavy in that phrase, because it's always been promised by nuclear advocates and never delivered.
- kgabis 2y ago
  Considering it's lifespan and low external costs (like grid extension and energy storage for renewables) - it is cheap. What makes it expensive is politics.

frodo8sam 2y ago

It probably would have been nice to have one build now or even better 10 years ago. It's a good base of stable green energy to have during the transition. But planning to build a new one now seems purely political. It doesn't make sense when it takes 10 years to build at best. Every recent plant build in the west has had huge cost and time overruns. But then to make those costs back the plant has to compete with solar/wind/batteries for a good 20 years, STARTING IN 2035-2040. That's never going to work out financially. Solar is already cheaper and you will have to make those investments in the grid either way before the nuclear plant comes online.