Future of the Australian Electricity Market

[ian]

Are Nukes back on the table?

Peter Dutton hints at controversial shift towards nuclear power (thenewdaily.com.au)

I did take this extract from the article in particular:

"Tony Wood, who heads energy and climate policy at the Grattan Institute, says nuclear energy could make a contribution to Australia’s transition from fossil fuels if public concerns could be overcome and the technology became economically viable."

I don' think these aspects can be stated enough, plus it may be ten years before the first MW is generated: No quick fix here amongst all the other isues.

Curious they talk about this one week after being SLAIN from government.

Didn't mention it previously.....

I personally think nuclear is a big part of the answer, but getting everyone else to think this way is a mighty big ask. Ten years will be too late... wind/solar/hydro/sea current/thermal and storage will make it a total economic failure if it ever starts.

Having the largest deposit of uranium in the world up at Olympic Dam we have a big incentive to take advantage of that resource here in SA and we looked at it in detail but the economic arguments for it just don't stack up for electricity generation here in Australia.

Ahh

but don't forget that in 2021, the Australian Government cancelled their contract to buy 12 French nuclear subs -- the French subs were to be reconfigured so that they are powered by diesel engines.
What does that decision (nuclear powered submarines) mean in terms of the future of nuclear power for Australia.
The current research reactor at Lucas Heights doesn't cut it.

So will Australia be supplied with highly enriched uranium to run the new [US or, more likely UK designed and constructed] subs? The basis being that highly enriched uranium allows the sub's reactors to be fuelled for life.
HOWEVER, note that supplying Australia with highly enriched uranium would seemingly violate the wording of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Australia is a signatory. However, I'm not sure that leasing the subs, and their uranium filled reactors, to Australia would necessarily violate the wording of the NNPT. If Australia were to only lease the nuclear subs, would the highly enriched uranium fuel still be technically under US or UK control? If that were the case, the reactors, once their cores were depleted, could be returned to the US for NNPT verification.

Alternatively, Australia might need to develop their own nuclear industry so that they can operate the planned nuclear subs independently of the US's and/or UK's nuclear industry.
That would be an argument to develop a domestic Australian nuclear power industry that does not require any rational economic evaluation.


Alternatively, Australia could return to the, now cancelled, contract to acquire eight or so French nuclear subs. Australia's decision to adopt nuclear power for their new subs would mean that the design delays associated with attempting to shoe-horn a diesel engine, and the large fuel tanks required to attain the operation range desired, into a space designed for a nuclear reactor would no longer be an issue.
Note that although the French subs need refuelling every ten (?) years, they run on low enriched uranium so don't violate the NNPT.


And if a Los Angles class or an Astute class nuclear sub were redesigned to accommodate refuelling, there is no guarantee that the design delays experienced with the French subs would not be repeated.

[woodPixel]

It would need a very special negotiator to go have a chat with France. One that can, and be willing, to hear from some rather cranky people with a legitimate grievance.

I'm pretty sure we are at the top of their $hit-list right now.

The last two posts have brought up some of the very real problems with nuclear... Implementation is long, nobody wants this beast in their back yard, it requires a level of expertise to run we simply don't have natively (??) and decommish is a pretty penny. Then there is the fuel and disposal.

If these could be solved, cool.... but ...

For the same money we could build quite a juicy renewable solution?

[Bushmiller]

We are going slightly off track here, not that this is enought to halt our conversations .

WP:

Your comments are right on the money and I don't see these issues being resolved in the forseeable future; Just the lead time alone is mind boggling.

"The last two posts have brought up some of the very real problems with nuclear... Implementation is long, nobody wants this beast in their back yard, it requires a level of expertise to run we simply don't have natively (??) and decommish is a pretty penny. Then there is the fuel and disposal."

Ian:

I am not really familiar with nukes in subs, although a brief look seems to indicate that some may be using uranium at a higher level of enrichment. However, this thread is about land based nukes for electricity generation and the level of enrichment for those is in the range of 4% to 7%. This is a long way from weapons grade material that is enriched at >97% and a big step in technology. While there are huge issues around nuke power before it becomes acceptable I don't see the transition to nuclear armament as being at the forefront: Arguably, a long way down the track some power hungry nutter may see an opportunity, but that could be a subject for a separate thread.

My understanding of the Lucas Heights reactor is thatit has a nominal capability of 5MW, but that is just a power rating as it is not used to generate electricity. I believe the primary use is for medial supplies and some element of research.

Regards
Paul

[Chris Parks]

As an aside and to give some insight into one operation of the Lucas Heights which is close to me, when they are transporting used material for export all the roads south of the reactor are closed to all traffic between the reactor and Port Kembla. I have been caught twice by this in the last few years and it lasts for the best part of an hour and there is no advanced warning of it happening until just before they do it.

[Bushmiller]

As an aside and to give some insight into one operation of the Lucas Heights which is close to me, when they are transporting used material for export all the roads south of the reactor are closed to all traffic between the reactor and Port Kembla. I have been caught twice by this in the last few years and it lasts for the best part of an hour and there is no advanced warning of it happening until just before they do it.

Interesting.

Regards
Paul

[GraemeCook]

... The last two posts have brought up some of the very real problems with nuclear...

If these could be solved, cool.... but ...

For the same money we could build quite a juicy renewable solution?

Sorry, Woody, but you lost me.

Are you really advocating solar powered submarines?

[GraemeCook]

... The last two posts have brought up some of the very real problems with nuclear... Implementation is long, nobody wants this beast in their back yard, it requires a level of expertise to run ...

This lead time really puzzles me with respect to submarines, whether French, USA or UK. Delivery will be in 2040 or later. 20 years in the future.

Just imagine if we had ordered a bunch of submarines in 1930 to be delivered in 1950. They might have missed something significant!

[Chris Parks]

This lead time really puzzles me with respect to submarines, whether French, USA or UK. Delivery will be in 2040 or later. 20 years in the future.

Just imagine if we had ordeed a bunch of submarines in 1930 to be delivered in 1950. They might have missed something significant!

The complication in modern defenses is amazing and if another intense fight action like the Battle of Britain were to happen they would be back to flying Spitfires and Mossies within a month.

[Chris Parks]

Sorry, Woody, but you lost me.

Are you really advocating solar powered submarines?

Awesome, post of the thread!!

[woodPixel]

Sorry, Woody, but you lost me.

Are you really advocating solar powered submarines?

Not solar, but you've started me on a dangerous thought process.... renewables!

They could be run on bio-diesel, corn syrup, compressed air, or even hydro.

Since they are so deep, they are effectively IN the "dam". They could build a small turbine, let the outside water in via that turbine and generate power like that. The deeper they go, the more pressure and therefore power they have!

Once the sub is full, they could surface, let it all out, then sink to the bottom again to generate more power.

[havabeer69]

get a bunch of nuclear subs
when not needed for war
throw a couple of extension cords out of them and plug into the grid

island nations have been known to just ram large ships into shore and use the diesel generators on board to power the local town.

[ian]

It would need a very special negotiator to go have a chat with France. One that can, and be willing, to hear from some rather cranky people with a legitimate grievance.

I'm pretty sure we are at the top of their $hit-list right now.

The person who put Australia on the French $hit list was replaced on May 21.

There's a whole new lot in power now -- reactivating the French nuclear sub deal could be a possibility.

It will all depend on how the new lot view the previous lot's attempted wedge on nuclear power.

[Mr Brush]

The person who put Australia on the French $hit list was replaced on May 21.

There's a whole new lot in power now -- reactivating the French nuclear sub deal could be a possibility.

It will all depend on how the new lot view the previous lot's attempted wedge on nuclear power.

Not exactly Scomo's Finest Hour......

Now we start reading that Defence will need a bridging capability between existing Collins Class subs and the vapourware that is our nuclear (sorry, "nookular" for our US readers) submarine fleet....gosh, what a surprise !

Defence procurement in Australia is a shambles. I wouldn't trust them to go down to the local corner shop and procure me a litre of milk.

[FenceFurniture]

Not exactly Scomo's Finest Hour......

There was something else that was? Musta missed it.

Edit: WAIT! I remember it now. His finest hour was between 10.30 and 11.30pm in May 21.

[GraemeCook]

The person who put Australia on the French $hit list was replaced on May 21.

There's a whole new lot in power now -- reactivating the French nuclear sub deal could be a possibility.

It will all depend on how the new lot view the previous lot's attempted wedge on nuclear power.

How quaint; expecting politicians of any genre to act intelligently.