This appeared last week:
Coalition nuclear power plants could host multiple reactors, O’Brien reveals
The Coalition’s energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has revealed a surprising new detail for the opposition’s nuclear energy plan.
Jack Quail - June 23, 2024 - 8:37AM
But in a major concession, Mr O’Brien said on Sunday the Coalition would not go to the election announcing the estimated generation capacity of its nuclear power plan, leaving this decision to an independent body until after the election.
“One of the lessons we learned from overseas, in order to get prices down, you need multi-unit sites,” Mr O’Brien told the ABC’s Insiders program.
“Let’s say the small modular reactors … When you talk about a nuclear plant, these are modularised compartments. You can add another 300, add another 300.
“You’re talking about multi-unit plants.”
An independent nuclear energy coordinating authority would make recommendations on the number and type of reactors per site, Mr O’Brien said, which would then determine the final generation capacity.
“The independent body would look at each plant, and come up with a recommendation as to what sort of technology should be used,” he said.
“From there, it would be exactly what capacity based on that technology.
“Only from there can you come down to a specific number of gigawatts”.
Last week the Coalition unveiled plans to build seven nuclear power plants by 2050 with the first reactor slated to be operational in just over a decade in a move designed to deliver cheaper, zero-emissions and reliable power supply.
The large-scale and small modular generators would be Commonwealth-owned, similar to arrangements governing the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme, requiring a multibillion-dollar funding commitment from taxpayers.
The Coalition has proposed to locate the reactors in Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia.
Estimates from the Smart Energy Council and the Grattan Institute had placed the combined output of seven reactors at up to 11GW, or less than 4 per cent of the total generation capacity in the national energy market (NEM) by 2050.
While hosting more than one reactor at each site would increase the share of generation from nuclear power, it would significantly drive up the cost incurred by taxpayers and place further pressure on the already tight deadline to have the reactors online by mid-century.
With energy policy set to be a key battleground in the next election, Mr O’Brien said the Coalition would not go to the poll detailing a specific amount of nuclear power it expected, but would rather indicate the share of the total energy generation in the NEM “in due course”.
“Until we release renewables policy and gas policy, I won’t be talking about the proportion of the mix,” he said.
“We’ll be clear as to what we believe the potential capacity could be through to 2050.”
While committing that renewable generation would remain under the Coalition’s proposal, Mr O’Brien also declined to reveal what proportion it would contribute.
Plibersek takes aim at lack of cost, detail
Also speaking on Sunday, Labor frontbencher Tanya Plibersek added her voice to the tirade of criticism against the Opposition’s nuclear energy push, criticising the Coalition for its refusal to detail the estimated cost to add nuclear generation to the national electricity market in the biggest overhaul of energy policy in decades.
“He’s saying to Australians: ‘I don’t trust you. I don’t trust you with the costing we’ve done,’ if he’s got costings,” Ms Plibersek told Sky News.
“On every analysis internationally, renewables are cheaper, nuclear is the most extensive.
“What is it going to do to pay for his power bills if the government is recouping the very expensive cost of building and running those nuclear reactors?”
Last the week Coalition unveiled plans to build seven nuclear power plants by 2050 with the first reactor slated to be operational in just over a decade in a move designed to deliver cheaper, zero-emissions and reliable power supply.
The large-scale and small modular generators would be Commonwealth-owned, similar to arrangements governing the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme, requiring a multibillion-dollar funding commitment from taxpayers.
Asked why Australia had eschewed nuclear power when many other advanced economies had adopted the technology, Ms Plibersek pointed to Australia’s comparative advantage in renewable power generation.
“We’ve got the room, we’ve got the resources, we’ve got the critical minerals we need, battery manufacturing, we’re investing in green hydrogen,” Ms Plibersek said.
“We can be a renewable energy superpower and instead Peter Dutton wants to slam the brakes on, instead of leading the world with renewable energy investment.
“He wants to fast track nuclear, and put us on the slow lane when it comes to renewables. It’s just mad.”
Here is the link:
I really am just amazed how
irrational this whole debate is! I think it reveals a level of national scientific
literacy which is frankly terrifying! How can it be news you can have 2 (or more) reactors on the same site!
The facts are that nuclear reactors are used all over the world for power generation for decades and the technology is proven to be very safe, a country as large as ours can find a spot to store nuclear waste safely and we have excellent access to all the fuel we need from a multitude of mines. We also are developing our own nuclear technology expertise via AUKUS. Whether we go down the nuclear power-generation path is a purely economics driven decision IMVHO.
Right now solar, hydro and wind energy are cheaper as emission free sources of power and so the questions are around continuity and reliability of supply from what we presently use and may have and whether nuclear makes economic sense to develop.
Despite the apparent public hysteria the technologies are safe, proven but pretty expensive and we have cheaper options for the present. Whether this changes at some point I have no idea!
Anyway if we are going down the nuclear submarine route some stationary reactors are hardly a stretch. The main limitation will be water for cooling, of which a lot is needed!
Can we have a properly informed debate on all this please!
David.
No comments:
Post a Comment