7 ms·

Nuclear engineer dismisses claim that modular reactors could be viable soon

45 points by johnea 2y ago

baybal2 2y ago
[dead]
jdonaldson 2y ago
Western Australia and Queensland have a good deal of Monazite sands that one can extract Thorium from. This would greatly reduce the need for more complex safety and disposal regulations necessary with larger fission reactors. A small college in Texas was able to build and run a Thorium reactor, so it can't be that far out of reach for a small country : https://youtu.be/kCrrrmh-eMo?si=NChlWACDXajKm9hr https://youtu.be/kCrrrmh-eMo?si=NChlWACDXajKm9hr
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
  There is a valley of death between something that works in a research lab and something that world in the real world. A research reactor does not have to produce electricity at anything close to an economic price, just as the fusion reactors. A Thorium reactor might work, and might be built in some future, and it might even not come super over budget or over time like more or less every fission reactor we've built. In the meantime, wind/solar/batteries are being continuously delivered on time, on budget, are getting continuously cheaper, and are available today.
  - jdonaldson 2y ago
    Wind/solar can’t make the order of magnitude jump we need in power.
    - defrost 2y ago
      * What is the figure on the magnitude of power Australia needs? * How many 2MW molten salt reactors like the built and being tested TMSR-LF1 reactor would Australia need to meet that figure? What would be the cost and time to construct that number in parallel? * There's a 10MW version planned - what's the cost | timeline | number for those? * Eventually there might be a ~ 300MW version built and tested .. what's the timeline on that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMSR-LF1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMSR-LF1 The CSIRO GenCost report seems to think the costs of batteries + renewables will be far less overall and more immediately available in Australia as we scale them out .. rather than waiting decades and still having to fudge about in the meantime .. thoughts? https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Gen...
      - jdonaldson 2y ago
        Australia's electricity consumption in 2021 was approximately 265 TWh (terawatt-hours) per year. Napkin math works out to: Annual energy production of one 2 MW reactor: 2 MW * 8760 hours/year = 17,520 MWh/year = 17.52 GWh/year. Number of reactors required: 265,000 GWh/year / 17.52 GWh/year = ~15,130 reactors. This is of course a silly computation for scaling a research grade molten salt reactor. 300+ MW reactors knocks things down to a few dozen. Now, how about if we apply this same requirement to solar power? How many solar panels will we need to get the same power gain? Total energy required: 265,000 GWh/year = 265,000,000 MWh/year = 265,000,000,000 kWh/year. Number of panels needed: 265,000,000,000 kWh/year / 584 kWh/year per panel ≈ 453,767,123 panels. I know Chinese panels are cheap and all, but the notion that Australia will maintain a network of 450M panels is silly, and this is just to replace what we have now, not what is needed in the future.
    - _aavaa_ 2y ago
      That's an unsourced and unbacked assertion, not at argument. And I have seen no convincing argument for why this would be even remotely true. As a counter argument, consider how poorly such predictions have done in the past (i.e. early 2023) [0]. For over a decade the IEA has been saying the same thing, and for every year in that decade they have been wrong, comically wrong. So if you want to make your argument, you'll have to explain why the literally exponential curve is going to not just flatten, but go to zero. [0]: https://stacker.news/items/581737 https://stacker.news/items/581737 (original image from https://www.economist.com/interactive/essay/2024/06/20/solar-power-is-going-to-be-huge https://www.economist.com/interactive/essay/2024/06/20/solar...)
      - jdonaldson 2y ago
        Curves always flatten when faced with a constraint and/or risk. In this case it's surface area and climate variability.
arnaudsm 2y ago
Technological moonshots are great. Modular reactors, renewable energy grids with large scale storage, are all very exciting. But with the climate emergency and its potential tipping points being a decade away, we should immediately fix the problem with clean tech that already works. Classical nuclear reactors are great, scalable, proven and clean. They just have bad public image from PR disasters of the past. We don't have time for fancy rebrands like SMRs, MSRs, fusion, and other stuff that could take half a century
- greenthrow 2y ago
  Renewables with grid scale storage are not a moonshot. It exists today in many places around the world, and has for years. Nuclear takes way too long and is too expensive. Wind and solar with storage are faster, cheaper and safer.
  - arnaudsm 2y ago
    Which places? Can you find a region with >10M people without hydro storage that reached <50 g CO2/kWh? https://app.electricitymaps.com https://app.electricitymaps.com France is the only one, has been 70% nuke for decades, and has competitive electrity prices
    - lispm 2y ago
      > and has competitive electrity prices By passing the true costs to the tax payer and the next generations.
      - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
        Is there a european country that doesn't do that?
        lispm 2y ago
        Guess why Germany has high electricity costs? The energy consumer pays quite a bit more for the transition to renewable energy, not the tax payer.
GolfPopper 2y ago
I believe Admiral Rickover made a very similar case with his "Paper Reactor" memo back in 1953[1]:"The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. He has not had to assume any real responsibility in connection with his projects. He is free to luxuriate in elegant ideas, the practical shortcomings of which can be relegated to the category of “mere technical details.” The practical-reactor designer must live with these same technical details. Although recalcitrant and awkward, they must be solved and cannot be put off until tomorrow. Their solutions require man power, time, and money." 1. https://whatisnuclear.com/rickover.html https://whatisnuclear.com/rickover.html
- izacus 2y ago
  Maybe quoting the person which had to be forcefully retired to stop them from holding back development of nuclear navy (not to mention his tendency to settle political scores by holding back certifications) after 1970 isn't the best in given context.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    63 years of active duty service (1918 - 1982). Zero naval reactor accidents. Finally forced to retire after refusing to agree to pay General Dynamics Electric Boat $634 million for mistakes they made in submarine construction. ... yeah, what an asshole.
    - izacus 2y ago
      I think you should really read more on his track record, history and reasons for dismissal.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        If you've got a bone to pick, then include the entire story, good and bad.
- cmdrk 2y ago
  "Since they are innocently unaware of the real but hidden difficulties of their plans, they speak with great facility and confidence. Those involved with practical reactors, humbled by their experiences, speak less and worry more." Replace 'reactors' with any sufficiently complex system and you'll find this resonates incredibly strongly even today.
miketery 2y ago
It can't be done, until someone does it. There is nothing from a physics standpoint preventing modular reactors. Many advanced large US Navy vessels have reactors.
- bagels 2y ago
  While I agree with the sentiment, comparing to a navy ship reactor isn't useful, they don't have to turn a profit, nuclear is used to make the ships less dependent on refuelling.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  If it isn't cheaper than batteries and solar in Australia, it is dead on arrival, someone has to pay for it. As of this comment, Australia has 18.4GW of coal fired generation capacity and 20GW of solar [1] (very roughly, lots of behind the meter solar that is hard to suss out, ends up being reduced demand as seen by the grid operator). Even if you assume worst case capacity factor, the last of their fossil generation will be gone before any nuclear sees first kwh to grid (global solar deployment is on track for ~660GW this year, and rapidly approaching 1TW/pa [2]). Germany is routinely pumping out 40GW of solar [3] (with ~81GW of total capacity), and Australia has far more solar potential [4] (along with appetite to lean into batteries [5]). [1] https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/AU?wind=false&solar=false https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/AU?wind=false&solar=fal... ("ElectricityMaps: Australia") [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40727619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40727619 ("HN: Global PV installations may hit 660 GW in 2024") [3] https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE?wind=false&solar=false https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE?wind=false&solar=fal... ("ElectricityMaps: Germany") [4] https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/other-renewable-energy-resources/solar-energy https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/oth... ("Australia receives an average of 58 million PJ of solar radiation per year, approximately 10,000 times larger than its total energy consumption. However, Australia's current use of solar energy is low with solar energy accounting for only about 0.1 per cent of Australia's total primary energy consumption.") [5] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-07/end-of-coal-power-in-australia-means-a-boom-for-battery-makers-like-tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-07/end-of-co... | https://archive.today/2owbd https://archive.today/2owbd ("Australia’s rapid shift from coal-fired power to cleaner alternatives is underwriting a boom in battery projects able to store solar and wind energy. The country has at least 250 planned battery developments with a potential capacity of almost 130,000 megawatt-hours, a pipeline that’s second only to China, data compiled by BloombergNEF show. While Australia still relies on coal for more than half of its electricity generation, many major plants are set to close in the next decade.")
t43562 2y ago
Engineering with Rosie is a great channel with insights into the energy system in Australia - she worked in Denmark too and has lots of interesting things to say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_47LWFAG6g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_47LWFAG6g Roughly - why would you spend a dollar on a long term return risky nuclear venture when you could spend it on something certain and get a result tomorrow? Doubly so in a hot sunny country like Australia.
- vertis 2y ago
  Peter Dutton is not about to support wind and solar though. Yuck.
  - stephen_g 2y ago
    I very much hope it won’t matter and he proves unelectable. Look at his record - doctors voted him the “worst Minister for Health in Australian History” when he was in that position. Later in Home Affairs as minister there was massive grift (massive, corrupt looking contracts to dodgy companies to run detention camps) and internal staff surveys in the public service consistently rated his department as the worst managed across the whole Government… He does not has any record of good policy or any kind of effective executive management.
- ninininino 2y ago
  Probably because you consider redundancy and emergency preparation important, sunlight is not guaranteed in event of supervolcanic eruption, asteroid impact, nuclear winter, and other similar events.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    > not guaranteed in event of supervolcanic eruption, asteroid impact, nuclear winter, and other similar events Are these the standards we're building to, now?
rjsw 2y ago
... in Australia. Likely to be viable a lot sooner in countries that already have a nuclear industry.
- Symmetry 2y ago
  Or that have very limited land, or don't have much sunlight. Australia is not the place I would try them, but they may or may not work somewhere else.
cjbgkagh 2y ago
Cynically I think the intent of this push is to stimy the lefts push for Solar / Wind without evoking 'climate change denialism.' I.e. the liberals are acquiescing on the point of need for green energy and proposing this as an alternative solution. That nuclear is unpopular with the left helps stake the ground for the boarder culture war. The problem is that it's likely that tariffs will be raised on cheap solar imports from China so either way, nuclear or solar, there will be no cheap electricity for Australians. In my view, either a corrupt nuclear firm syphons off a bunch of public money, or another bunch of money will be wasted trying to get Australian solar manufacturing competitive with China. Sadly not wasting a bunch of money is not an option. That's the problem with the government funded ventures, trying and failing makes more money than trying and succeeding. At least they're not pushing clean coal anymore.
lukan 2y ago
I think modular reactors certainly could be build with some investment and in a different world it might make sense to build lots of them (and if possible underground, to contain the worst in the worst case). But the required security alone, to prevent the spread of material to all kind of terrorist organisations or rougue states, will likely not make them a economical alternative.
aurizon 2y ago
Australia can deal with all energy needs with wind/solar. In 5 years Perovskite/Silicon solar cells will get to 35% efficiency, perhaps more, and Australia has huge useable areas with the needed insolation as well as temperate weather. lithium cells are not economic or suitable - they need to build Vanadium Flow cells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery. Flow cells are made with 2 liquid vats - one for charged liquid and the other for discharged. Operational parameters are vat size(how many megawatt-hours stored) and the charge/discharge cell between the vats which determines the rate at which used fluid is charged and charge fluid is discharged to the grid. Commercial Vanadium redox cells are made now and are being ramped up steadily. So you need vat space for the time you need to store the power, and you need enough charge/discharge cells for the max rate of charge/discharge. And, of course, enough wind/solar to achieve load needed. Land is cheap in Australia and large cheap fields of vats and the needed conversion cells can be laid out as solar cell field first story - it is just a large building, and in that climate, could even be built outside with the right cladding, all piping can be surface runs as nothing in Australia will damage them, but I suppose fences against 'roos/rabbits/snakes ight come in handy. Stats on operational Vanadium cells are out there, as this search shows. https://www.google.com/search?q=Vanadium+redox+cells&rlz=1C1CHZN_enCA1101CA1101&oq=Vanadium+redox+cells&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCjEyMTE1ajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=Vanadium+redox+cells&rlz=1C1...
kortex 2y ago
Regardless of your stance on nuclear energy, can we all agree that articles of the form of "Person X of Authority Y dismisses Z as unviable" is a non-headline? It's basically "Person of vaguely adjacent qualification has opinion". I see it everywhere and it's the "cures cancer (in vitro)" of engineering articles.
RVuRnvbM2e 2y ago
The background here is that Peter Dutton, the conservative opposition leader in Australia, has recently announced a plan to switch to nuclear energy instead of renewables. However it isn't a serious policy. Instead it's just political cover to kick the climate change can down the road and allow the existing highly subsidised fossil fuel industry in Australia to continue operating for a few more decades. For example here is Dutton just a few days ago using the old trope that taking action on climate change would destroy the economy https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2024/jun/12/australia-news-live-cost-of-living-climate-wars-emissions-target-chris-dawson-appeal-pwc-report?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-6668f8468f086110b00fca66#block-6668f8468f086110b00fca66 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2024/jun/12/...
- yfw 2y ago
  This, he never talked about how much would be produced, promising figures after the election. He revealed sites where he wants to build with zero effort getting approval or buy in from the owners or even the state. Stop wasting time pretending this is a serious policy

45 points by johnea 2y ago

[dead]

Western Australia and Queensland have a good deal of Monazite sands that one can extract Thorium from. This would greatly reduce the need for more complex safety and disposal regulations necessary with larger fission reactors. A small college in Texas was able to build and run a Thorium reactor, so it can't be that far out of reach for a small country : https://youtu.be/kCrrrmh-eMo?si=NChlWACDXajKm9hr https://youtu.be/kCrrrmh-eMo?si=NChlWACDXajKm9hr

_aavaa_ 2y ago
There is a valley of death between something that works in a research lab and something that world in the real world. A research reactor does not have to produce electricity at anything close to an economic price, just as the fusion reactors. A Thorium reactor might work, and might be built in some future, and it might even not come super over budget or over time like more or less every fission reactor we've built. In the meantime, wind/solar/batteries are being continuously delivered on time, on budget, are getting continuously cheaper, and are available today.
- jdonaldson 2y ago
  Wind/solar can’t make the order of magnitude jump we need in power.
  - defrost 2y ago
    * What is the figure on the magnitude of power Australia needs? * How many 2MW molten salt reactors like the built and being tested TMSR-LF1 reactor would Australia need to meet that figure? What would be the cost and time to construct that number in parallel? * There's a 10MW version planned - what's the cost | timeline | number for those? * Eventually there might be a ~ 300MW version built and tested .. what's the timeline on that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMSR-LF1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMSR-LF1 The CSIRO GenCost report seems to think the costs of batteries + renewables will be far less overall and more immediately available in Australia as we scale them out .. rather than waiting decades and still having to fudge about in the meantime .. thoughts? https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Gen...
    - jdonaldson 2y ago
      Australia's electricity consumption in 2021 was approximately 265 TWh (terawatt-hours) per year. Napkin math works out to: Annual energy production of one 2 MW reactor: 2 MW * 8760 hours/year = 17,520 MWh/year = 17.52 GWh/year. Number of reactors required: 265,000 GWh/year / 17.52 GWh/year = ~15,130 reactors. This is of course a silly computation for scaling a research grade molten salt reactor. 300+ MW reactors knocks things down to a few dozen. Now, how about if we apply this same requirement to solar power? How many solar panels will we need to get the same power gain? Total energy required: 265,000 GWh/year = 265,000,000 MWh/year = 265,000,000,000 kWh/year. Number of panels needed: 265,000,000,000 kWh/year / 584 kWh/year per panel ≈ 453,767,123 panels. I know Chinese panels are cheap and all, but the notion that Australia will maintain a network of 450M panels is silly, and this is just to replace what we have now, not what is needed in the future.
  - _aavaa_ 2y ago
    That's an unsourced and unbacked assertion, not at argument. And I have seen no convincing argument for why this would be even remotely true. As a counter argument, consider how poorly such predictions have done in the past (i.e. early 2023) [0]. For over a decade the IEA has been saying the same thing, and for every year in that decade they have been wrong, comically wrong. So if you want to make your argument, you'll have to explain why the literally exponential curve is going to not just flatten, but go to zero. [0]: https://stacker.news/items/581737 https://stacker.news/items/581737 (original image from https://www.economist.com/interactive/essay/2024/06/20/solar-power-is-going-to-be-huge https://www.economist.com/interactive/essay/2024/06/20/solar...)
    - jdonaldson 2y ago
      Curves always flatten when faced with a constraint and/or risk. In this case it's surface area and climate variability.

arnaudsm 2y ago

Technological moonshots are great. Modular reactors, renewable energy grids with large scale storage, are all very exciting. But with the climate emergency and its potential tipping points being a decade away, we should immediately fix the problem with clean tech that already works. Classical nuclear reactors are great, scalable, proven and clean. They just have bad public image from PR disasters of the past. We don't have time for fancy rebrands like SMRs, MSRs, fusion, and other stuff that could take half a century

greenthrow 2y ago
Renewables with grid scale storage are not a moonshot. It exists today in many places around the world, and has for years. Nuclear takes way too long and is too expensive. Wind and solar with storage are faster, cheaper and safer.
- arnaudsm 2y ago
  Which places? Can you find a region with >10M people without hydro storage that reached <50 g CO2/kWh? https://app.electricitymaps.com https://app.electricitymaps.com France is the only one, has been 70% nuke for decades, and has competitive electrity prices
  - lispm 2y ago
    > and has competitive electrity prices By passing the true costs to the tax payer and the next generations.
    - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
      Is there a european country that doesn't do that?
      - lispm 2y ago
        Guess why Germany has high electricity costs? The energy consumer pays quite a bit more for the transition to renewable energy, not the tax payer.

GolfPopper 2y ago

I believe Admiral Rickover made a very similar case with his "Paper Reactor" memo back in 1953[1]:"The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. He has not had to assume any real responsibility in connection with his projects. He is free to luxuriate in elegant ideas, the practical shortcomings of which can be relegated to the category of “mere technical details.” The practical-reactor designer must live with these same technical details. Although recalcitrant and awkward, they must be solved and cannot be put off until tomorrow. Their solutions require man power, time, and money." 1. https://whatisnuclear.com/rickover.html https://whatisnuclear.com/rickover.html

izacus 2y ago
Maybe quoting the person which had to be forcefully retired to stop them from holding back development of nuclear navy (not to mention his tendency to settle political scores by holding back certifications) after 1970 isn't the best in given context.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  63 years of active duty service (1918 - 1982). Zero naval reactor accidents. Finally forced to retire after refusing to agree to pay General Dynamics Electric Boat $634 million for mistakes they made in submarine construction. ... yeah, what an asshole.
  - izacus 2y ago
    I think you should really read more on his track record, history and reasons for dismissal.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      If you've got a bone to pick, then include the entire story, good and bad.
cmdrk 2y ago
"Since they are innocently unaware of the real but hidden difficulties of their plans, they speak with great facility and confidence. Those involved with practical reactors, humbled by their experiences, speak less and worry more." Replace 'reactors' with any sufficiently complex system and you'll find this resonates incredibly strongly even today.

miketery 2y ago

It can't be done, until someone does it. There is nothing from a physics standpoint preventing modular reactors. Many advanced large US Navy vessels have reactors.

bagels 2y ago
While I agree with the sentiment, comparing to a navy ship reactor isn't useful, they don't have to turn a profit, nuclear is used to make the ships less dependent on refuelling.
toomuchtodo 2y ago
If it isn't cheaper than batteries and solar in Australia, it is dead on arrival, someone has to pay for it. As of this comment, Australia has 18.4GW of coal fired generation capacity and 20GW of solar [1] (very roughly, lots of behind the meter solar that is hard to suss out, ends up being reduced demand as seen by the grid operator). Even if you assume worst case capacity factor, the last of their fossil generation will be gone before any nuclear sees first kwh to grid (global solar deployment is on track for ~660GW this year, and rapidly approaching 1TW/pa [2]). Germany is routinely pumping out 40GW of solar [3] (with ~81GW of total capacity), and Australia has far more solar potential [4] (along with appetite to lean into batteries [5]). [1] https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/AU?wind=false&solar=false https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/AU?wind=false&solar=fal... ("ElectricityMaps: Australia") [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40727619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40727619 ("HN: Global PV installations may hit 660 GW in 2024") [3] https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE?wind=false&solar=false https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE?wind=false&solar=fal... ("ElectricityMaps: Germany") [4] https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/other-renewable-energy-resources/solar-energy https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/oth... ("Australia receives an average of 58 million PJ of solar radiation per year, approximately 10,000 times larger than its total energy consumption. However, Australia's current use of solar energy is low with solar energy accounting for only about 0.1 per cent of Australia's total primary energy consumption.") [5] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-07/end-of-coal-power-in-australia-means-a-boom-for-battery-makers-like-tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-07/end-of-co... | https://archive.today/2owbd https://archive.today/2owbd ("Australia’s rapid shift from coal-fired power to cleaner alternatives is underwriting a boom in battery projects able to store solar and wind energy. The country has at least 250 planned battery developments with a potential capacity of almost 130,000 megawatt-hours, a pipeline that’s second only to China, data compiled by BloombergNEF show. While Australia still relies on coal for more than half of its electricity generation, many major plants are set to close in the next decade.")

t43562 2y ago

Engineering with Rosie is a great channel with insights into the energy system in Australia - she worked in Denmark too and has lots of interesting things to say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_47LWFAG6g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_47LWFAG6g Roughly - why would you spend a dollar on a long term return risky nuclear venture when you could spend it on something certain and get a result tomorrow? Doubly so in a hot sunny country like Australia.

vertis 2y ago
Peter Dutton is not about to support wind and solar though. Yuck.
- stephen_g 2y ago
  I very much hope it won’t matter and he proves unelectable. Look at his record - doctors voted him the “worst Minister for Health in Australian History” when he was in that position. Later in Home Affairs as minister there was massive grift (massive, corrupt looking contracts to dodgy companies to run detention camps) and internal staff surveys in the public service consistently rated his department as the worst managed across the whole Government… He does not has any record of good policy or any kind of effective executive management.
ninininino 2y ago
Probably because you consider redundancy and emergency preparation important, sunlight is not guaranteed in event of supervolcanic eruption, asteroid impact, nuclear winter, and other similar events.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > not guaranteed in event of supervolcanic eruption, asteroid impact, nuclear winter, and other similar events Are these the standards we're building to, now?

rjsw 2y ago

... in Australia. Likely to be viable a lot sooner in countries that already have a nuclear industry.

Symmetry 2y ago
Or that have very limited land, or don't have much sunlight. Australia is not the place I would try them, but they may or may not work somewhere else.

cjbgkagh 2y ago

Cynically I think the intent of this push is to stimy the lefts push for Solar / Wind without evoking 'climate change denialism.' I.e. the liberals are acquiescing on the point of need for green energy and proposing this as an alternative solution. That nuclear is unpopular with the left helps stake the ground for the boarder culture war. The problem is that it's likely that tariffs will be raised on cheap solar imports from China so either way, nuclear or solar, there will be no cheap electricity for Australians. In my view, either a corrupt nuclear firm syphons off a bunch of public money, or another bunch of money will be wasted trying to get Australian solar manufacturing competitive with China. Sadly not wasting a bunch of money is not an option. That's the problem with the government funded ventures, trying and failing makes more money than trying and succeeding. At least they're not pushing clean coal anymore.

lukan 2y ago

I think modular reactors certainly could be build with some investment and in a different world it might make sense to build lots of them (and if possible underground, to contain the worst in the worst case). But the required security alone, to prevent the spread of material to all kind of terrorist organisations or rougue states, will likely not make them a economical alternative.

aurizon 2y ago

Australia can deal with all energy needs with wind/solar. In 5 years Perovskite/Silicon solar cells will get to 35% efficiency, perhaps more, and Australia has huge useable areas with the needed insolation as well as temperate weather. lithium cells are not economic or suitable - they need to build Vanadium Flow cells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery. Flow cells are made with 2 liquid vats - one for charged liquid and the other for discharged. Operational parameters are vat size(how many megawatt-hours stored) and the charge/discharge cell between the vats which determines the rate at which used fluid is charged and charge fluid is discharged to the grid. Commercial Vanadium redox cells are made now and are being ramped up steadily. So you need vat space for the time you need to store the power, and you need enough charge/discharge cells for the max rate of charge/discharge. And, of course, enough wind/solar to achieve load needed. Land is cheap in Australia and large cheap fields of vats and the needed conversion cells can be laid out as solar cell field first story - it is just a large building, and in that climate, could even be built outside with the right cladding, all piping can be surface runs as nothing in Australia will damage them, but I suppose fences against 'roos/rabbits/snakes ight come in handy. Stats on operational Vanadium cells are out there, as this search shows. https://www.google.com/search?q=Vanadium+redox+cells&rlz=1C1CHZN_enCA1101CA1101&oq=Vanadium+redox+cells&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCjEyMTE1ajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=Vanadium+redox+cells&rlz=1C1...

kortex 2y ago

Regardless of your stance on nuclear energy, can we all agree that articles of the form of "Person X of Authority Y dismisses Z as unviable" is a non-headline? It's basically "Person of vaguely adjacent qualification has opinion". I see it everywhere and it's the "cures cancer (in vitro)" of engineering articles.

RVuRnvbM2e 2y ago

The background here is that Peter Dutton, the conservative opposition leader in Australia, has recently announced a plan to switch to nuclear energy instead of renewables. However it isn't a serious policy. Instead it's just political cover to kick the climate change can down the road and allow the existing highly subsidised fossil fuel industry in Australia to continue operating for a few more decades. For example here is Dutton just a few days ago using the old trope that taking action on climate change would destroy the economy https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2024/jun/12/australia-news-live-cost-of-living-climate-wars-emissions-target-chris-dawson-appeal-pwc-report?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-6668f8468f086110b00fca66#block-6668f8468f086110b00fca66 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2024/jun/12/...

yfw 2y ago
This, he never talked about how much would be produced, promising figures after the election. He revealed sites where he wants to build with zero effort getting approval or buy in from the owners or even the state. Stop wasting time pretending this is a serious policy