On the money, Graham. There's a lot of BS in Bowen's rhetoric. As for stalled investment, the smart money is waiting for a change in government and nuclear power investment opportunities.

SMRs can be mass produced and installed in numbers at former coal fired power stations to use the existing transmission lines. All up such transitions should be completed inside 12 months.
Alan B.

Nuclear and pumped hydro work well together in France minimising the need for gas peakers or batteries. Snowy 2 if/when built is said to store 350 GWh or 2GW X 175 hours. AEMO was suggesting Australia needs 650 GWh energy storage of various durations. Lithium batteries won't cut it; for example a solar farm may send 250 MW to the grid from say midday to 2pm as well as charging a battery. Then from say 6pm to 8pm that battery supplies 50 MW before it goes flat. The retailer will have to buy electricity from some other business to meet customer needs.

Suppose required energy storage was 1% or 3.65 days of annual electricity consumption. That would be 2732.65 GWh call it 2,700,000,000 kWh. My lithium battery cost about $700 per kWh so Australia would need to spend about $1.89 trillion on energy storage. Hence I think Eraring and Yallourn will still be with us in 2030.

Its always difficult to post a reply when authors post entitlement based posts (cake and eat it) that ignores the science completely.

We need emissions significantly reduced, that means we high emitters need a significant reduction before 2035 or so, because if we don't and go much past 2035 on this path then the tipping points will likely have been crossed and we'll lose control anyway, and 2c becomes 4c and civilisation collpases. We need a massive reecution in enrgy use, that means no privat ecars, no flying, heavily inuslated houses that dont; need massive amount sof energy to heat and cool).

Now you can deny the science all you want or bleat about all the entitlement you want but that doesn't change the laws of physics.You mention prudence, if we were prudent we'd insist on emissions cuts of 10% a year for the next decade as well as staring to managed abandonment of places like North Qld. I'd suggest starting with banning flying, then working to ban all private car ownership as we infill medium density housing, solar panels on rooves and trees and shrubs in cities to help ameliorate the heat island effect. but instead we get Nuclear Sibs that are unlikely to ever do anything. What a nonsense they are.

The choice is now stark, the incrementalism of the past 430 years has achieved nothing but increased emissions an increased temp, we've run out of time. We either collapse the economy, equitably ie staring with the wealthy, or collapse civilization, there is no longer a choice, we've left it to late.

If I and 1000s of climate scientist are wrong we'll end up with a livable more sustainable society, if you're wrong we end up with an unlivable planet.

Here's Professor Kevin Anderson's take from earlier this year, hes a Professor of Climate Change and Energy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT6NCbFrb7c&t=2s

Perhaps Valley Guy believes that Indian's and Chinese are "entitled" to have as many children or as large a population as they want- even though together they are bigger than the next 18 nations combined. If India and China reduced their population's to 300 Million people the world might stand a chance. They have known about this problem for more than 100 years but they just blame someone else. The communists still hardly acknowledge it- sadly this means more misery for the masses. Wokeism and Communism- it was never really about fixing problems but using them as a battering ram to obtain power. 100 million dead under Communism all in the name of equality.

We need emissions significantly reduced,
Valley Guy,
Pollution is the result of non-thinking & or very stupid people led by intellectual morons.

Companies such as Copenhagen Atomics, and there are a few others, are slowly but surely working to produce Small modular reactors about the size of a shipping container that will produce 100 Giga watts of power using cheap thorium and waste radioactive materials. The whole process runs on molten salt at temperatures in mid 300s. They are aiming to have a small pilot unit operating by 2028. Their process has virtually no waste and what there is only needs to be stored for 300 years. They can park one of these containers in a suburban back yard.

The first place to prove that the chemistry of the process works was ORNL in Tennessee back in the days of President Kennedy, but the Americans wanted something that produced Plutonium to make bombs and the project was abandoned. There were also some metallurgical problems with corrosion of containment vessels, but these have been sorted out.

Power from this technology will be produced continuously at cents per kilowatt hour.

The author presents an inaccurate and misleading picture of the CIS and the potential for renewable energy in Australia.

Firstly, while the variability of solar and wind is a valid concern, the 32 GW capacity target is just one part of the government's broader energy strategy, which also includes investments in transmission infrastructure, energy efficiency, and demand management. The article also ignores the rapidly declining costs of battery storage and the potential for other forms of storage like pumped hydro and compressed air energy storage.

Secondly, the article provides no evidence to suggest that the CIS is inefficient and will waste taxpayer money. The CIS is a competitive bidding process designed to incentivise efficient projects, and the government has stated that it will only provide support to projects that are financially viable and offer value for money.

Thirdly, the article conveniently ignores the government's existing investments in storage, such as a commitment to investing $1 billion in new grid-scale storage projects, which will help to smooth out price fluctuations. Moreover, renewable energy prices are declining rapidly and are expected to continue to fall.

Fourthly, the government has released a detailed public consultation paper outlining the key elements of the CIS, and have committed to providing regular updates on the progress of the scheme. So it is incorrect to claim that the CIS lacks transparency. The final costs of the CIS will depend on the outcome of the competitive tender process.

Finally, the article suggests nuclear energy as an alternative solution despite its own set of challenges, including high upfront costs, long construction times, and waste disposal issues. Furthermore, the cost of nuclear power has historically been high, and there is no guarantee that it will become significantly cheaper in the future, nor anything to suggest this.

The article is biased against renewable energy and fails to acknowledge the significant progress that has been made in recent years. It focuses on the short-term challenges of transitioning to a clean energy future while ignoring the long-term benefits, such as reducing air pollution and mitigating climate change.

"Furthermore, the cost of nuclear power has historically been high, and there is no guarantee that it will become significantly cheaper in the future, nor anything to suggest this. "

You conveniently ignore that French nuclear energy is a third the cost of German renewables, and note that the cost of stand alone renewable energy would be vastly higher with the cost of storage to make the power dispatchable.

Nuclear power stations can operate for many decades longer than renewable generators, and produce energy at very high capacity, allowing minimal duplication of supply.

As for what a stand alone wind/solar dispatchable system would cost, I think the question moot as I think that the chaotic power output problem with wind and solar will precipitate its demise, and the sooner the better. Australia has been damaged enough by the cultish pursuit of renewable energy.

Fester, you are absolutely right. The cost estimates put up by the anti nuclear mob are all based on the cost of old technology. New thorium based molten salt reactors which are still under development, will be built in a factory and transported to wherever they are needed. Long transmission lines and wind turbines will not be blotting the landscape. Expensive, fire prone batteries will be a thing of the past.
David

"Moreover, renewable energy prices are declining rapidly and are expected to continue to fall."

This is by far the biggest lie (wind energy is not longer becoming cheaper), as the raw energy cost of renewables is only part of the cost of making renewable energy dispatchable. The following link gives a comparison of Germany, which pursued renewable energy, and France, which has a nuclear foundation augmented with renewable energy.

https://carboncredits.com/nuclear-education-how-germany-lost-another-world-war-to-france/

The disastrous consequences of pursuing wind and solar as base load power is being heeded by many nations, but unfortunately not by the zealots in Australia's cult government.

Fester,

Germany’s renewable energy sector is still relatively young and faces higher initial investment costs. France, on the other hand, has a long history with nuclear energy and has benefited from economies of scale and technological advancements. So, while it’s true that Germany’s pursuit of renewable energy has led to higher energy costs, the reverse will almost certainly be the case in the not-too-distant future.

As for storage, again, advancements in battery technology are rapidly reducing costs and increasing capacity, and other forms of storage, such as pumped hydro and thermal storage, are also being developed and deployed. The costs must also be weighed against the environmental benefits and the decreasing feasibility of fossil fuels due to climate change.

While the cost of wind energy has stabilised somewhat in recent years, it's not accurate to say it's not becoming cheaper. The IRENA reports that the global average cost of wind energy has fallen by 57% since 2010 and is expected to continue declining in the coming years. This decline is driven by various factors, including technological advancements, economies of scale, and increased competition in the market.

Furthermore, your statement about "the biggest lie" overlooks the decreasing cost of solar energy. IRENA reports that the global average cost of solar energy has dropped by 89% since 2010 and is projected to continue declining. This dramatic cost reduction makes solar energy increasingly competitive with other generation sources.

Technological innovations like smart grids and microgrids are enhancing the efficiency and flexibility of the electricity grid, too, making it easier to integrate variable renewable energy sources. Also, the rise of rooftop solar and community-based wind projects is contributing to a more decentralised and resilient energy system, reducing the need for expensive grid upgrades.
While the France-Germany comparison you provide offers some insights, it's important to note that the two countries have different energy landscapes, policies, and cost structures. Relying solely on one specific comparison can be very misleading.

Clearly this is a very emotional topic for you.

Syoksya No one seems to be factoring the replacement costs of all this so called renewable energy which will all ramp up in 20 odd years time.

MSR thorium reactors will keep going for a lot longer before their critical elements need replacing.

David

Hi Syoskya,

"while it’s true that Germany’s pursuit of renewable energy has led to higher energy costs, the reverse will almost certainly be the case in the not-too-distant future."

Based on what other than the glossy brochure claims of the renewable energy industry? France's nuclear infrastructure was built in 15 years, starting in the early 1970's. Over the past 15 years, Germany has achieved very little with wind and solar: The problem of integrating the chaotic power output without collapsing the supply grid is yet to be resolved, let alone the very costly challenge of making wind and solar dispatchable.

"Furthermore, your statement about "the biggest lie" overlooks the decreasing cost of solar energy. IRENA reports that the global average cost of solar energy has dropped by 89% since 2010 and is projected to continue declining. This dramatic cost reduction makes solar energy increasingly competitive with other generation sources."

You don't seem to appreciate the irrelevance and inherent dishonesty of that statement. The cost of dispatchable energy from nuclear power facilities over their lifetime is similar to that of non-dispatchable wind and solar. Dispatchable wind and solar is many times the cost. The reason you see claims of wind and solar being cheaper is because of the many dishonest metrics used in the calculations, including not making a distinction between dispatchable and non-dispatchable energy. Here is a link to a table of life time energy costs by source. Note that this real world data supports my claim that dispatchable nuclear energy costs are similar to non-dispatchable wind and solar energy costs.

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculator

"Clearly this is a very emotional topic for you."

Australians are suffering high energy prices because of the irrational rantings of climate catastrophists and anti-nuclear nut jobs. The reason that you are seeing so many countries adopting nuclear is because it has proven a viable option for providing dispatchable energy. To this end wind and solar have been a failure.

Fester,

While Germany's energy costs have increased in recent years, attributing this solely to their renewable energy pursuit is an oversimplification. Other factors like grid modernisation costs, regulatory changes, and fossil fuel price fluctuations also contribute to the equation.

While Germany faces challenges integrating variable renewables, it's important to recognise that they are actively developing solutions. They are investing heavily in grid modernisation, storage technologies, and demand-side management strategies. These efforts, alongside technological advancements, are expected to improve the integration of renewables over time.

Your claim that dispatchable wind and solar are "many times the cost" of other sources needs to be examined more closely. While it's true that integrating and making renewables dispatchable adds additional costs, the cost differential is narrowing rapidly.

The LCOE analysis shows that the cost of dispatchable renewable energy is rapidly approaching that of nuclear power. For instance, in the United States, the LCOE for onshore wind with four hours of storage is estimated at $47/MWh, while nuclear power is at $48/MWh.

Moreover, the cost comparison should consider the full life cycle of each energy source, including decommissioning costs. Nuclear power plants carry significant decommissioning liabilities that can be substantial and long-lasting.

The table you provided should be interpreted with caution. LCOE is a complex metric, and different methodologies can lead to variations in results. Additionally, comparing costs based solely on LCOE doesn't capture all the relevant factors.

Claiming all metrics regarding renewable energy costs are "dishonest" is a broad and unsubstantiated statement. Many reputable organisations, including IRENA and the IEA, provide comprehensive data on energy costs, considering various factors and methodologies.

The energy landscape is evolving rapidly, and both renewable and nuclear energy have important roles to play in a sustainable future. Engaging in honest and constructive discussions based on accurate data and diverse perspectives is crucial for making informed decisions about the future of energy generation. Focusing on absolutes and making generalisations, on the other hand, will not get us anywhere.

You are so right Graham when you say "A sensible person would slow down the implementation of renewables" & they should do it regardless of storage being possible. But of course if there are any sensible persons in the current government they are keeping very quiet, with their heads right down. To speak up would be instant death.

Of course there not too many on the opposition benches either, so I suppose only those of us who live to a very ripe old age, & survive the current catastrophe plan, will ever see anything intelligent thinking come out of an Oz government on power generation.

Hi Syokska,

"Claiming all metrics regarding renewable energy costs are "dishonest" is a broad and unsubstantiated statement."

Indeed, but I claim that the metrics are used selectively to make renewable energy look cheap when the reality is much higher energy prices for consumers. That is at best misleading and at worst dishonest. You demonstrate the point with this remark:

"The LCOE analysis shows that the cost of dispatchable renewable energy is rapidly approaching that of nuclear power. For instance, in the United States, the LCOE for onshore wind with four hours of storage is estimated at $47/MWh, while nuclear power is at $48/MWh."

Four hours of storage for a technology with an average capacity factor of less than 30% is far short of being dispatchable energy, yet your statement uses such metrics to suggest wind energy to be cheaper than nuclear. That I find misleading and probably dishonest.

"The table you provided should be interpreted with caution. LCOE is a complex metric, and different methodologies can lead to variations in results. Additionally, comparing costs based solely on LCOE doesn't capture all the relevant factors."

What I take from the data is that if you develop nuclear power you end up with a dispatchable power supply that is comparable in cost with non-dispatchable wind and solar. The French discovered this with their 1970s foray into nuclear energy. They stopped at about 50 reactors in 1990 (170 reactors were planned) because their entire energy demand was being met with only 60% of the generating capacity. For Australia I see an opportunity to foster economic development with nuclear energy as opposed to the current destruction of industry with high cost renewable energy. France exports 3 billion Euros of energy annually, compared with Germany paying 300 million Euros annually in emissions fines. French citizens pay 40% less for their electricity than Germans.

"Engaging in honest and constructive discussions based on accurate data and diverse perspectives is crucial for making informed decisions about the future of energy generation."

Given your numerous misleading statements thus far I think that good advice for yourself.

Fester,

I agree that presenting dispatchable wind energy with limited storage capacity as comparable to nuclear power can be misleading. My only point (delivered clumsily) was that while dispatchable wind shows promise in terms of cost competitiveness, a more comprehensive analysis is needed to compare it fairly with nuclear power and other energy sources.

Four points regarding your thoughts on LCOE:

1. LCOE is a comprehensive metric designed to compare the lifetime costs of different electricity generation methods. However, these comparisons must account for diverse factors like capital, operational, and maintenance costs, as well as facility lifespan.

2. Suggesting that nuclear power provides a dispatchable, cost-comparable alternative to variable renewables like wind and solar is an oversimplification. Nuclear energy offers consistent output and dispatchability but comes with significant capital costs, lengthy construction times, and concerns about safety and waste disposal. Conversely, renewable energy costs have dropped markedly, and advances in energy storage and grid management are addressing their variability.

3. France's heavy investment in nuclear energy in the 1970s was influenced by its lack of fossil fuels and the era's geopolitical landscape. The halt at 50 reactors, despite initial plans for 170, reflects considerations beyond mere demand fulfilment, such as cost, over-reliance concerns, and changing energy technologies. Directly comparing France and Germany overlooks the distinct motivations behind their energy policies. Germany's Energiewende focuses on renewables for environmental and safety reasons, accepting short-term costs like higher electricity prices and emissions fines for a long-term sustainable goal.

4. In Australia, energy policy must consider its unique resources and potential for solar and wind energy. While nuclear could offer a stable supply, factors like high initial investment, construction duration, public opposition, and the availability of cheaper renewable options are crucial. The view that renewables are detrimental to industry overlooks their potential to spur economic growth, job creation, and technological innovation.

While nuclear power has its advantages, particularly in terms of steady energy output, it isn't categorically superior to renewables. A balanced energy policy should weigh the pros and cons of each source, considering environmental impacts, economic viability, and technological progress.

Thanks Fester, Hasbeen, VK3AUU, Indyvidual, Alan B, Graham Young- Kudos.

Hi Syoksya,

"So, while it’s true that Germany’s pursuit of renewable energy has led to higher energy costs, the reverse will almost certainly be the case in the not-too-distant future."

Not when you consider system lcoe, a concept which prompts little or no discussion from CSIRO and AEMO, and silence from the renewable energy industry. The inevitable conclusion is that the more you use wind and solar, the more expensive your energy becomes due to the extra infrastructure required to integrate these intermittent supply sources. For example, some studies suggest that the price of wind energy more than triples at 90% supply.

"Nuclear energy offers consistent output and dispatchability but comes with significant capital costs, lengthy construction times, and concerns about safety and waste disposal. Conversely, renewable energy costs have dropped markedly, and advances in energy storage and grid management are addressing their variability."

Again, real world data suggests otherwise. Most nuclear power plants had a planned life of 40 years. That life has been exceeded by many, some increasing their power output by over 30%, and the belief is now that service lives of over a century are possible. This greatly improves their economics, which is why older plants produce dispatchable energy at a cost lower than non-dispatchable wind and solar. In contrast, many wind and solar projects have failed miserably. The tracked solar plant at Windorah was to last 25 years and save heaps of diesel. It under-performed due to frequent breakdowns and was shut down less than 15 years after it was commissioned. I'd also point out that nuclear technology is advancing as well, and China is now building nuclear power plants for $2500 US per kw (compare this with CSIRO's $15000 per kw estimate), and there is speculation that design improvements could further reduce costs to $2000 per kw.

Yes, I understand that with many hundreds of billions of dollars at stake the renewable energy industry wants to paint a rosy picture to protect their profits, but Australians will have to live with the economic disaster when renewable energy fails.

Fester,

The assertion that renewable energy invariably becomes more expensive with increased use due to infrastructure for integration is a simplification. While it's true that integrating intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar can involve additional costs for storage and grid management, this doesn't necessarily mean a linear increase in overall costs. The cost of renewables has been decreasing rapidly, and improvements in technology, including more efficient and cheaper storage solutions, are expected to continue reducing these integration costs.

The claim that many nuclear plants have extended their operating life and increased their output is correct, but it doesn't universally apply to all nuclear facilities. Each plant's ability to extend its operational life safely and economically depends on its design, maintenance, and regulatory environment. Furthermore, while some older nuclear plants may produce energy at a cost lower than new renewable installations, this doesn't consider the full lifecycle costs, including decommissioning and waste management, which can be substantial.

The reference to specific failures in renewable energy projects, such as the Windorah solar plant, should be viewed in the broader context of technological development. All forms of energy production have faced challenges and failures, especially in the early stages of technology deployment. Highlighting isolated failures in renewable projects without acknowledging their overall success and rapid improvement can be misleading.

While it's true that there have been advancements in nuclear technology, including more cost-effective construction in some countries like China, these examples might not be universally replicable due to different regulatory environments, labour costs, and safety standards. Additionally, the lower cost estimates for new nuclear builds should be critically examined for their comprehensiveness, including factors like long-term waste management and decommissioning costs.

While it's fair to acknowledge that there might be biases in the renewable energy industry, it's equally important to recognise that this is not unique to renewables. All energy industries, including fossil fuels and nuclear, have their biases and interests, so it's essential to rely on a broad spectrum of scientific research and economic analysis rather than industry statements alone to form a balanced view.

Syoksya
2. Suggesting that nuclear power provides a dispatchable, cost-comparable alternative to variable renewables like wind and solar is an oversimplification. Nuclear energy offers consistent output and dispatchability but comes with significant capital costs, lengthy construction times, and concerns about safety and waste disposal. Conversely, renewable energy costs have dropped markedly, and advances in energy storage and grid management are addressing their variability.

Au Contraire. The thorium powered units being developed by Copenhagen Atomics overcomes all those problems. Cost is low, construction uses readily obtainable sub units, safety is built in, doesn't rely on external pumps or power, waste is minimal, only short life of 300 years and the whole process can use up radioactive waste from old plants.

Hi Syoksya,

"The assertion that renewable energy invariably becomes more expensive with increased use due to infrastructure for integration is a simplification"

Unfortunately it is a fact. While solar might get cheaper (wind seems to to have its bottom), there are physical constraints that are fixed, and those constraints mean that nuclear is a far cheaper option and probably always will be, especially given the long service life of power plants.

"The cost of renewables has been decreasing rapidly, and improvements in technology, including more efficient and cheaper storage solutions, are expected to continue reducing these integration costs."

That statement is untrue as wind and solar are still being used undispatchably, so building batteries and pumped hydro increases cost. On the pumped hydro issue, Snowy 2.0 has had massive cost overruns, and Walpole pumped hydro did not proceed for reasons that have been kept secret from the plebs (now why is that do you think?).

" All forms of energy production have faced challenges and failures, especially in the early stages of technology deployment."

Exactly, and that is why historical data is gold and allows the Chinese to build safer and cheaper nuclear power, and it means that Australia can use proven and predictable nuclear instead of unproven and more expensive renewables.

"While it's true that there have been advancements in nuclear technology, including more cost-effective construction in some countries like China, these examples might not be universally replicable due to different regulatory environments, labour costs, and safety standards."

True, costs would likely be higher in Australia, but we would have proven technology with a small environmental footprint and multiple times the service life of wind and solar. That is what makes it better in the long run.

Fester,

You emphasised the inevitable increase in costs due to the physical constraints of renewable energy, particularly when compared to nuclear energy. While your point on the long service life of nuclear plants is taken, it again overlooks the rapid advancements and cost reductions in renewable technologies. The decreasing costs of solar and wind, driven by technological improvements and economies of scale, are critical factors here. Additionally, a comprehensive cost comparison should also consider the environmental impacts and full lifecycle costs of nuclear energy.

Your argument that storage solutions like batteries and pumped hydro inherently increase the cost of renewable energy deployment presents a limited view. While projects like Snowy 2.0 have faced challenges, they are not universally representative of the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of all renewable projects. You are again generalising based on specific instances, and the unfounded suggestions of secrecy or hidden agendas seems to detract from the objectivity required in such a discussion.

You rightly point out the value of historical data, especially in the context of nuclear power. However, this perspective might be underestimating the capacity of renewable technologies to evolve and overcome initial hurdles. The history of technological development in energy sectors, including nuclear, suggests that initial challenges are part and parcel of innovation and improvement.

While you acknowledge the potential for higher costs in nuclear energy deployment in Australia, you advocate for its benefits based on proven technology and a smaller environmental footprint. As I've mentioned before, it's important to recognise that the applicability of nuclear energy varies greatly depending on local contexts, such as regulatory environments and public acceptance. Additionally, the management of nuclear waste and inherent risks are significant factors that need equal consideration.

While your arguments raise some valid points, but continue to lack a more nuanced approach that considers both the potential and the challenges of renewable and nuclear energies is needed and would lead to a more balanced understanding. It’s essential in such debates to maintain objectivity and avoid oversimplifying complex issues.

Hi Syoksya,

I agree that renewable solar is getting cheaper, but there are inherent problems with intermittent power sources when making them dispatchable. One is the duplication you need to cope with the variability. Another is storage capacity. It is an optimisation problem, but I believe that you need around eight times your average demand in generating capacity, which doubles the cost. On top of this you need storage, perhaps a number of days, else you need generating capacity from other sources that would sit idle if not needed. It is an incredibly complicated endeavour and likely extremely costly. Note that the energy from a nuclear power plant after several decades is comparable to the cost of non-dispatchable wind and solar. So why bother with such a pointless endeavour?

As for "unfounded suggestions of secrecy", you can read about it here:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-26/wa-government-abandons-pumped-hydro-plans-south-west/103026522

And nuclear waste is a much hyped issue by the anti-nuclear crowd. A 1gw reactor will produce about a cubic metre of waste per year, of which less than 40 litres is high level waste. Comparing this with all the toxic waste from decommissioned renewable energy, I'd say it is a very small problem. Also, future advances in nuclear technology could see the high level waste reprocessed and used as fuel, obviating the problem. You seem to believe that great advances are possible for renewable energy (and don't mention the toxic waste issue), yet would you think that such advances aren't possible for nuclear?

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx

I really can't understand how you can support a generating system when you cannot define its parameters and the current cost of non-dispatchable wind and solar is similar to that of long life dispatchable nuclear. Better the devil you know.

Fester,

Your concerns about renewable energy's intermittency are valid. However, the notion that we need around eight times the average demand in generating capacity for renewables is likely an overestimation. With advancements in grid management, smart technologies, and a diversified mix of renewable sources, managing variability is becoming more feasible.

Indeed, storage is a crucial factor for renewables. However, the rapid improvements in battery technology and strategies like demand response are enhancing the viability of renewables. While extensive storage is a challenge, the actual storage needs vary and are often less than several days of backup.

Comparing the long-term costs of nuclear with renewable energy is complex. Nuclear plants have substantial initial capital and decommissioning costs, whereas the capital costs of renewables are decreasing, making them more competitive over their lifecycle. I recognise that nuclear technology, like renewables, is advancing. However, we need to be realistic about the current feasibility, costs, and deployment timelines of these advancements, which entail high up-front capital costs, lengthy development and deployment timelines, and the need for further cost and economic studies.

The management of nuclear waste is a significant challenge, and while reprocessing used fuel is promising, it's still a developing field with its challenges, including proliferation risks. While the physical volume of nuclear waste is relatively small, the long-term management of its radioactivity and the search for permanent, safe storage solutions are significant challenges. These issues are widely acknowledged in scientific and policy discussions, beyond the scope of anti-nuclear advocacy.

Renewable energy technologies also face challenges, including waste management. However, the potential for significant advances in renewables, similar to nuclear, should not be underestimated. For example, the waste management challenges in renewables are more about material recovery and recycling, whereas nuclear waste management is primarily concerned with long-term containment of radioactivity.

Regarding your reference to the ABC News article, the decision to abandon pumped hydro in Western Australia was based on a feasibility study that highlighted environmental and logistical challenges. The "commercial in confidence" nature of the report is standard practice and doesn't suggest a conspiracy.

Syoksyo,
There is virtually no waste from Thorium powered reactors and what there is has decayed in 300 years.

Hi Syoksya,

"the report is standard practice and doesn't suggest a conspiracy"

Hmmm, not a conspiracy, but not transparent either.

You seem to think substantial reductions in cost for dispatchable wind and solar are possible and will make all the difference, so here is a question for you.

Just say the daily demand for power in Australia is one unit and you want to provide the power with a dispatchable wind and solar system. How many units of wind, solar and energy storage would you need? Note that if you say one unit for each, your system is twice the cost of long term nuclear plus the cost of storage. Even if the solar cost falls to zero, the cost of nuclear is still cheaper by the cost of storage. So what are your estimates for the number of units of wind, solar and storage?

" the long-term management of its radioactivity and the search for permanent, safe storage solutions are significant challenges"

Much of it is political, e.g.:

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx

"The largest Tenorm (technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials) waste stream is coal ash, with around 280 million tonnes arising globally each year, carrying uranium-238 and all its non-gaseous decay products, as well as thorium-232 and its progeny. This ash is usually just buried, or may be used as a constituent in building materials. As such, the same radionuclide, at the same concentration, may be sent to deep disposal if from the nuclear industry, or released for use in building materials if in the form of fly ash from the coal industry."

Interesting comments from Fester. Small Modular Nuclear seems to have two main advantages over renewables 1. Storage 2. Can be located near the user hence reducing/ removing last mile problem of energy distribution. It's not so easy to move a dam. The big problem of renewables is that many alternatives are their own storage medium- eg. Nuclear and Hydrocarbons. In the future it may be possible to mine hydrocarbons from the atmosphere. But it's a difficult to ask investors to commit capital to half baked technology. The only way to drive the investment seems to be to use government taxation and incentives- where the public doesn't have a choice- or potentially distorting the energy and other markets- this translates to political risk. It's hard to beat the raw energy density of nuclear but of course additional infrastructure is required. It seems that renewables investors know that consumers seek the lowest price point of their energy- and source is low on their list of priorities- that is why investors focus on manipulating legal means to establish a basis for their industry. Thorium hasn't been used broadly but the principle appears to be well established.

In future there may be some method for converting spent nuclear fuel rods into unspent rods in a type of rechargeable nuclear battery- maybe it could use renewable energy. In a sense nuclear energy already powers stars throughout the universe so it would be useful for humanity to gain a better grasp of this pervasive technology.

VK3AUU,

While thorium reactors, which operate on a thorium-232 to uranium-233 cycle, are indeed more efficient in some ways compared to traditional uranium reactors, they don't entirely eliminate radioactive waste.

The assertion that all waste from thorium reactors decays within 300 years isn't accurate. A significant byproduct of these reactors is uranium-233, which has a half-life of about 160,000 years – far exceeding 300 years. There are also other isotopes produced in the thorium fuel cycle, like protactinium-233 and thorium-228, with longer half-lives that need to be considered.

While it's true that thorium reactors may produce a lower volume of long-lived radioactive waste, it's misleading to suggest there is 'virtually no waste'. All nuclear reactors, including those based on thorium, generate radioactive waste that needs to be managed.

It's also crucial to note that the technology for thorium reactors is still not fully mature or widely implemented. This means our understanding of their long-term waste profile is not complete. They do hold potential for reducing the volume and longevity of radioactive waste, but they don't completely eliminate it, and certainly not to the extent of decaying within 300 years.

Fester,

Again, the "commercial in confidence" nature of the report is standard practice, so the lack of transparency doesn't suggest a cover-up.

Estimating the necessary units of wind, solar, and energy storage to meet Australia's daily power demand is a complex calculation. Firstly, it's important to understand the specifics of Australia's daily energy demand - both peak demand and the average demand over a 24-hour period.

The capacity factors for wind and solar (essentially, how much of the time they're producing energy at full capacity) play a key role in these calculations. On average, solar panels might have a capacity factor of around 20-25%, while wind turbines might be around 30-40%. This means that to meet continuous demand, the installed capacity for each would need to exceed the actual demand.

If we then assume Australia's daily demand is 1 unit (say 1 unit = 1 GWh), then due to the capacity factor, you'd need about 4 units of solar capacity and roughly 2.86 units of wind capacity. However, since these sources are intermittent, the actual installed capacity would need to be even higher to ensure a continuous supply.

Storage needs depend on the difference between the energy generated and the energy demanded, and for how long this energy needs to be stored. Storage is measured both in terms of the rate of energy delivery and the total amount of energy stored. The required capacity would depend on the variability patterns of wind and solar output.

Additional factors to consider are geographic diversification and integration with existing grid infrastructure, along with demand-side management strategies.

Addressing your point on the long-term management of nuclear waste, the comparison with coal ash waste streams highlights broader waste management challenges across different energy sectors. However, the high-level radioactive waste from nuclear processes requires stringent containment due to its long half-life and radiological risks, which differ from the waste management requirements of other industrial by-products.

Your reference to the World Nuclear Association underscores the unique challenges and stringent safety standards required for managing nuclear waste, which extend beyond political considerations to technical and environmental safety concerns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233

The decay path and radiation produced in different radioactive isotopes nuclear equations have different risk levels- as I understand decay paths also have branches with different probabilities. If a decay reaction produces beta radiation it is much less dangerous than gamma radiation, alpha and neutron sources are somewhere in between. Ingestion of radioactive material seems to be the most dangerous for animal and plant life but supplemental iodine can be used to block the effects of radiation poisoning. In a sense a longer half life indicates less radiation per atom but it depends on the number of atoms. Protactinium 233 is a lower danger beta source. Loosely speaking the danger of radiation to biology is related to it's ability to ionize and it's ability to penetrate shielding- resulting in radiation burns- (really bad skin cancer). Obviously the danger of radioactive materials also relates to it's state of matter (solid, liquid, gas)- solids are easiest to manage.

Nuclear fission is probably an interim technology until we are able to develop something better and reduce Earths population to more sustainable levels.

Many activists on the communist Marxist side which includes climate activists seem to struggle to hold nations such as China and India responsible for their massive populations and see them reduced to at least the 300 million mark. So climate activists are part of the problem. Until something is done in this regard nothing will be achieved and there will be an increasing demand for energy

Syoksya,
The protactinium 233 and Uranium 233 are part of the nuclear cycle within the reactor. I won't explain it here, you can go and look it up on Wikipedia or for a more complete run down look up Copenhagen Atomics pages.

VK3AUU,

It's true that these isotopes are central to the operation of thorium reactors and their fuel efficiency. However, while these elements are integral to the reactor's functionality, their presence doesn't fully alleviate concerns regarding radioactive waste and its longevity.

Firstly, the longevity of the waste produced is a critical factor. Uranium-233, which is a key byproduct of the thorium fuel cycle, has a half-life of about 160,000 years. This fact challenges the claim that all waste from thorium reactors decays within 300 years. The issue here is the management of uranium-233 once it's no longer useful as fuel, as it remains radiologically significant for a very long time.

Moreover, despite the efficiency of the thorium cycle, the end-of-life management of these materials, including safe storage or reprocessing, is a significant challenge. This aspect is not negated by the efficient use of fuel within the reactor's operational cycle.

It's also crucial to consider the current stage of thorium reactor technology. While theoretical models and research provide valuable insights, the practical application and real-world data from operational thorium reactors are essential for a complete understanding of the waste management challenges, particularly for long-lived isotopes like uranium-233.

While the internal workings of thorium reactors involving protactinium-233 and uranium-233 are innovative, they do not completely solve the issue of radioactive waste production and longevity. The claim of waste decaying within 300 years remains an oversimplification of the complex realities of nuclear waste management in the context of thorium reactors.

Hi Syoksya,

Synergy is a Western Australian energy supply company. The report was about the viability of a pumped hydro project. The suggestion was that pumped hydro was unlikely to be viable anywhere in Western Australia, so aside from protecting the intellectual property related to assessing pumped hydro projects it is hard to understand why the report was kept from public scrutiny.

Yes, calculating the amount of wind, solar and storage is challenging, but once you do you have three numbers. I thought that as you believed nuclear to be more costly you might have an idea what a stand alone wind and solar system might cost, or at least an idea of the quantities of generating capacity and storage needed. You don't appear to have a clue what they might be, so on what basis do you believe a stand alone wind and solar system to be cheaper than nuclear?

As for the matter of nuclear waste it is totally a political issue.

Firstly, the classification of waste differs, so low level waste from the nuclear industry must be put in deep storage whereas waste with an identical actinide content from the coal industry can be used to build houses. Such stupidity panders to anti-nuclear hysteria, adds to costs, and greatly adds to the volume of waste. Despite this treatment, the volume of waste from the nuclear industry is still very small.

Secondly, the high level waste, as numerous contributors here have remarked, notably Alan B, can be reprocessed and reused in reactors. After several cycles there is a much smaller quantity that need only be contained for a few hundred years. Note also that the time line for containment relates to a comparison with the radioactivity of naturally occurring uranium, an arbitrary and political classification.

The reason that high level nuclear waste exists is because of valid concern about the generation of weapons grade actinides. Were this not the case the world today would be far more prosperous with most of our energy generated very cheaply by nuclear reactors, with little or no concern about global warming.

Hi Syoksya,

"Moreover, despite the efficiency of the thorium cycle, the end-of-life management of these materials, including safe storage or reprocessing, is a significant challenge. This aspect is not negated by the efficient use of fuel within the reactor's operational cycle."

That statement is utter nonsense. Fast neutron reactors can do all the things you think impossible, including the destruction of long lived actinides, including plutonium. The critical factor is the design of such reactors.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors.aspx

"About 20 fast neutron reactors (FNR) have already been operating, some since the 1950s, and some supplying electricity commercially. Over 400 reactor-years of operating experience has been accumulated. Fast reactors more deliberately use the uranium-238 as well as the fissile U-235 isotope used in most reactors. If they are designed to produce more plutonium than the uranium and plutonium they consume, they are called fast breeder reactors (FBRs). But many designs are net consumers of fissile material including plutonium.* Fast neutron reactors also can burn long-lived actinides which are recovered from used fuel out of ordinary reactors."

AEMO released its draft Integrated System Plan yesterday:

https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/stakeholder_consultation/consultations/nem-consultations/2023/draft-2024-isp-consultation/draft-2024-isp.pdf?la=en&hash=17DED079F7A2066D2872D36B76012749

I note that according to the plan, the cost of wind and solar generation alone (excluding integration costs like inverters, batteries and transmission cables) will make power about twice the price of going nuclear. Add to that the cost of battery storage and a substantial amount of gas generation on standby and it is easy to see costs at least triple that of going nuclear. I'm hoping that Australia abandons this renewable energy idiocy soon.

Hi VK3AUU,

Did you see that China is planning a container vessel powered by a thorium molten salt reactor?

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3243966/chinese-shipyard-unveils-plans-worlds-first-nuclear-tanker-powered-cutting-edge-molten-salt-reactor