Looking at NEM Watch just now I see that about 16 GW of 24 GW electricity demand comes from burning coal and gas. We've had the renewable energy target since 2001 for only a modest reduction in fossil fuel dependence. Logic says to try a different approach. We're also supposed to shift to electric cars and replace gas appliances with electric without knowing where this extra electricity will come from at the times it is needed.

For just 3 days of energy storage we would need hundreds of billions worth of overheating prone lithium batteries. The beauty of SMRs is that they could be installed at former coal sites like Hazelwood. They would not need new transmission lines nor require frequency correction like wind and solar. We have the uranium though likely to be enriched overseas noting the new laser enrichment process was invented in Australia. Those who oppose nuclear for Australia will have to explain to the public when there are energy shortages.

Agree with most of this, Graham. As for the problematic waste? We can burn and reburn his product, ours and theirs. For centuries of virtually free power in MSR technology! And reduce the half-life to 300 years. Producing a far less toxic product in the process. Which is eminently suitable as long life space batteries that burn up with reentry.

Moreover, if the latter option is exercised? We could earn annual millions for providing the service. Nuclear power and nuclear reprisal weaponry? It's a no brainer! And we need to make this decision now! Given there' no longer the luxury of time or deferring decisions!

We also need to get very active in space to be able to knock out missile weaponry there! Preferably in the space above those who have fired them! And not as difficult as some might choose to believe! Nor as costly as some would believe! I kid you not!
Alan B.

Taswigen, as usual, you make perfect sense! Moreover, if we would reduce the 75% transmission and distribution losses by more than 50%? Overhead transmission lines and distribution solutions, could be progressively replaced over time, with underground graphene cored cables.

Reducing losses is a guaranteed way to reduce reticulation costs as would cooperative employee-owned distribution! The proposed outcome would enable lower voltages, fewer staging reduction facilities and fewer of the problems associated with the latter. Note that underground solutions are less costly over time, given they are less impacted by firestorms, and tempest!
Alan B.

Ever since they dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima in 1945 the conservative right has felt all warm and fuzzy about all things nuclear. They tell us to forget the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island melt down disasters, all is rosy in the world of nuclear power generation these days, those horrific nuclear disasters of the past, were just teething problems which are all fixed now, so they would have us believe. Heck, that fool in Britain, Johnson has commissioned the Rolls-Royce car company to build nuclear reactors that fit in your garden shed or some such place. The idea is to have a proliferation of these little nuclear generators on every street corner. Reminds me of Westinghouse and his push for DC power in the early days of electricity generation, he wanted to build dirty coal fired power generators on every street corner, a man before his times it seems. As for wind and solar, just as RR are producing 2021 model cars now, and not stuck in some time warp of the 1960's, renewable technology will progress, resulting in reduced costs, and increased reliability.

Interesting that; "We conducted polling in late May and early June of this year" who are the we, its usurping the survey gives results that favour nuclear power generation, that's what "we" wanted. What is amusing is the fruitcake groups; far right nationalist, the racists and the religious fundo's ae the big supporters. Not to be out done by Johnson in the UK, the one term wonder of Queensland politics Campbell Newman is also gung-ho with the idea of nuclear power, well blow me down what a surprise. We've signed up on the never never for Yankee nuclear attack submarines to menace China with sometime in the distance future, when Uncle Sam orders us to do so. The 'Usual Suspects' want us to sign up to the crazy idea of nuclear power, no thanks from me.

OPINION POLLS ARE AGAINST NUCLEAR SUBS AND ENERGY

Continuing anti-nuclwear Labor-Green dominance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Australian_federal_election#Graphical_summary

before the next Federal Election spells the end of the AUKUS submarine project before its begun.

Labor Green electoral dominance will also make nuclear energy aspirations moot.

Put another way:

Polls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Australian_federal_election#Graphical_summary

pointing to a win by anti-nuclear Labor-Greens in the next Federal Election make nuclear energy aspirations moot.

That anti-nuclear Labor-Greens win will also spell the end of the AUKUS submarine project before its begun.

>...it must include nuclear as the only reliable baseload power source which has zero emissions...
And with that comment Graham displays his lack of understanding of the issue. Baseload is obsolete - we will soon* have so much subbaseload power that we won't need it.

His comments about the capability and cost of renewables confirm his lack of understanding.

Globally we do need nuclear power. But Australia, having an unusually low population density and an unusually high amount of sunshine, does not and it does not make economic sense here.

And we've been waiting for decades to see those small modular reactors. When they were first announced they may well have been suited to Australia's needs, but our needs have changed.

It's highly likely those nuclear submarines aren't a cost effective solution to our defence requirements either, but the fact that the requirements can't be made public means we can't know for sure. I expect the plans to be quietly dropped a few years from now.

The more overbuild of renewables there is, the less their intermittency is a problem, as hydrogen production does not need to be done on a JIT basis.

* Probably by 2040, though if we made a decent effort we could easily reach that stage before 2030.

Australia needs less people and more renewables.
In other words a sustainable society.
Solar IS nuclear and we already have plenty of it.

"Ever since they dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima in 1945 the conservative right has felt all warm and fuzzy about all things nuclear."

The conservatives dropped the bomb?
The US president was a Democrat.
The US Congress (both houses) were Democrat
Australia was run by the ALP
Britain was run by Labour.

Explain again how it was the conservatives who dropped the bomb. Oops...forgot. Paul never explains. Or more exactly Paul never CAN explain.

Re Three Mile Island. How many people died in that 'disaster'? How much contamination was released? Hint: no deaths and the radiation released was equivalent to less than half that of a chest x-ray. But the chicken littles will always see the sky falling.

Its perfectly obvious that we'll never get to net zero CO2 using or relying on so-called renewables only. Or more exactly we won't get there while retaining anything even resembling current standards of living.

Its also perfectly obvious that those myriad nations who promise to get there, won't. They are making promises they can't and won't achieve in the same way they made promises about Paris that they couldn't and didn't keep. Its all smoke and mirrors. By the time it becomes clear that the promises were unachievable the promisers will have long since gone. But for now they can preen themselves on their unachievable virtue.

At the moment the populace has been hoodwinked into thinking net zero is something that can be painlessly achieved or, at the very least, the pain will be borne by someone else.

There will come a time when the decline in the power grid starts to impact the populace. At that time, whoever's holding the hot potato will move to rectify the errors of the past (our present). Will it be coal? or will it be nuclear? Who knows. But we know it won't be wind or solar.

There remains a chance that some new technology will save the day for the co2 fetishists. Something like thorium - the Chinese are promising a demonstration project in the next 24 months.

mhaze, what is "perfectly obvious" to you is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS to anyone with a reasonably good understanding of the situation.

Where do you get the preposterous idea that there will be a decline in the power grid, when in reality the power grid is continually being improved?

Aidan,

Fossil fuels currently provide ~80% of all electricity in Australia, so-called renewables the balance.

To get within the cooee of nett zero, irrespective of what date is chosen, that 80% will need to fall precipitously. One calculation says we have to close 2/3rds of coal stations by 2035.

Now I know those who live in fantasy-land think that renewables will pick up the slack, but those who don't believe in fairy-dust know that the slack won't be picked up by renewables and therefore the supply of power will be reduced and/or rationed.

At that point, the revolt of those who suddenly learn the true cost of co2 fetishism will require decisions to support total output and that'll be either a return to coal/oil/natural-gas and/or nuclear.

Of course, as Lomborg predicted a decade ago, solar will become increasingly efficient. But equally, resource depletion of things like
rare-earths will mean that sufficient back-up battery power will mean that solar will never be a primary power source.

Equally some other technology may yet save the day. But then, they'll happen irrespective of what the co2 averse do now.

Have a look at a night photo Google Earth at night & where you see lights there are the people you should ask to curb their excesses.
Where I live the satellite cameras don't pick up any glow.

Anyone who thinks Nuclear is an answer doesn't understand the question...

There is no emissions reduction with out a massive curtailing of demand side,

Is NOT possible with nuclear short of magical thinking, look at Finland's Olkiluoto for an idea of why, a brownfields nuclear plant, 30 years in the building and its still not working and that's ONE plant next to two that are working. The most recent US plant that took 50 years and they finally closed it down and gave up. Then look to Sellafield (renamed after the nuc disaster) for an idea of the cost of pulling one down.

We have all the Sun we need for Solar and pumped hydro storage all
As Wikipedia tell you "Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were cancelled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable."

over the place (ocean with a cliff, like they do in Japan) All that empty land near the old Jackson Oilfields with infrastructure in place. That combined with a significant energy cut to the richest 20% (who make most of the emissions) and the issue is solved.

mhaze,
Fairy dust is nothing more than an audio effect - like a long echo changing pitch. And whether you believe that or not has absolutely no correlation with what you know about the capability of renewables. Which is very little, because you're letting personal incredulity keep you from seeing the truth, and flinging around ad hominems in a pathetic attempt to keep others as ignorant as you are.

I don't know where you get your 80% figure from, but I think it's out of date and 'm wondering if it excludes rooftop solar. AIUI renewables (including rooftop solar) generated more than a third of Australia's electricity over the past month.

Closing 2/3 of coal stations by 2035 is a woefully inadequate target, and there's no reason to believe the slack won't be picked up by renewables. Rare earths are not as rare as you think they are, and many batteries don't use them anyway.

Big news, they thought they had dug up the Worlds dumbest dinosaur fossil in a coal seam in Queensland yesterday. It turned out to be nothing more than Barnyard Barney, he was just taking one of his regular 20 year naps.

mhaze show me some evidence Truman wasn't a conservative, like all Yankee Presidents before and after. American politics is a two headed monster, the fact one head is on the right and the other head is on the left makes no difference, they both will drop bombs on people.

Valley Guy,

If you want to be taken seriously don't post bogus information as facts. Olkiluoto #3 was only started in 2005 and the delays were due to changes in regulations that required a redesign. This new reactor is reaching completion and short of any bureaucratic meddling will start in early 2022 and produce roughly 20% of Finland's electrical power.

Paul,

"show me some evidence Truman wasn't a conservative,"

Yes, yes, I forgot. To an old red ragger such as Paul, anyone to the right of Trotsky is a conservative.

Aidan,

"I don't know where you get your 80% figure from...."

http://www.energy.gov.au/sites/default/files/Australian%20Energy%20Statistics%202020%20Energy%20Update%20Report_0.pdf

(go to table 3.2 page 28.)

That you are unaware of that gives some perspective to your constant assertions that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant of the facts.

At the end of the day, we can have as much renewable as we are prepared to pay for. But as those costs continue to escalate and as the inefficiency of renewables begins to bite, the revolt will similarly escalate.

This is of course the story behind the Nationals determination to ensure the costs are borne equally before signing up for nett zero. Last time around, (Kyoto) the nation luxuriated in sorta, kinda meeting its self-imposed obligations by moving the costs to the regions. If the costs bite in inner-city Sydney/Melbourne, the enthusiasm for nett zero will evaporate rather rapidly.

.

Dear Graham,

.

We have been discussing this subject on OLO, off and on, for many years now, and I continue to consider that the best solution for Australia would, indeed, be to set up a network of small to medium-sized nuclear power plants throughout the country.

The current development of SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) would correspond, in large part, to our overall requirements, though we may need slightly larger reactors for some regions, and the continued development of renewable energy facilities for others.

You mention Britain’s Rolls-Royce as a possible supplier of SMRs. The UK and France have both announced that their first SMR is due to be ready for grid use by about 2030.

Rolls-Royce is the leader of a consortium of companies developing the UK’s SMR. The consortium includes Cavendish Nuclear, Babcock International as well as eight other British companies.

EDF’s (Electricité de France’s) partners include the US company NuScale Power LLC and, interestingly, the China National Nuclear Corp.

EDF built the first nuclear power plant in China at Daya Bay in 1983 in partnership with the Chinese national nuclear industry.

There are currently four SMRs in advanced stages of construction in Argentina, China, and Russia, and several existing and newcomer nuclear energy countries are conducting SMR research and development.

It is reported that there are currently about 50 SMR designs and concepts globally. Most are said to be in various stages of development but some claim to be close to being deployable.

Once again, we in Australia could find ourselves faced with a choice between two different strategies. We could either, as you suggest, confirm, once more, our steadfast and unwavering allegiance to the Anglosphere by choosing the wholly British SMRs or, alternatively, mark our difference as a young, but (for obvious reasons) maturing Eurasian nation, and buy French/US/Chinese SMRs.

Unfortunately, judging from our recent track record, there seems little doubt as to what that choice might be.

Never mind, I guess we'll eventually grow up – maybe in another couple of hundred years or so – if we manage to survive !

.

I was sure Scott meant nuclear when he said "Technology not Taxes." I think he is waiting for just the right moment to break it to everyone.

I think there is a problem with the MSRs. As the whole energy crunch
is looking very synchronised world wide the demand for MSRs will very
large indeed. Graham mentioned that they are 50 Mwatt, well that is
very small and to replace a station like Hazelwood which had 8 stacks
and was 2 Gw would mean 40 MRSs.
I may have been presuming they would hook them up to existing
turbines, but apparently not.
Rolls is talking of suppling Britain in 2030 !
How far down the list will we be ? There maybe only three manufacturers.
There seems to be only one practical path.
Give an order to the French ? for one or two large nuclear power
stations. In the meantime spend a lot of money refurbishing our
existing coal fired stations.
When the green scream in agony, tell them there just isn't time
and anyway; IT IS THE SUN STUPID !

Gauwd if what I suspect might be true we will be able to run the
country on red faces !

Hi AB and Bazz

"I think he is waiting for just the right moment (to drop the bomb on) everyone."

Bazz, your got to come out of La La Land, it isn't going to happen.

Well Paul, it is not La La Land, the cycle is real, but not
necessarily anything for the AGW warriors to worry about.
It does seem that it has peaked at this time just about on schedule.
The CO2 demon that everyone is in a tizz about might well be true.
Doesn't mean the Maunder cycle is not true also.
The cycle seems to vary between 600 years and 1000 years very roughly.
Not enough cycles have been observed to be sure which is why they were
going to use Fourier analysis to get a better idea.

Anyway in another 100 years it will be obvious if they are different cycles.