Has Australia’s Nuclear Debate Killed Renewable Energy Investment?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Expectations that the next Aussie administration will back nuclear over renewables appears to have wrecked attempts to attract private renewable investment.

Coalition opposes Australia tripling renewable energy, backs nuclear power pledge at Cop28

Ted O’Brien declares global climate summit ‘the nuclear Cop’ despite only 11% of nations backing the pledge

Adam Morton in Dubai @adamlmortonSun 10 Dec 2023 09.41 AEDT

The federal Coalition has declared at the Cop28 climate summit that it will back a global pledge to triple nuclear energy if the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, becomes prime minister, but will not support Australia tripling its renewable energy.

Speaking on the sidelines of the conference in Dubai, the opposition’s climate change and energy spokesperson, Ted O’Brien, also said a Coalition government would consider supporting Generation III+ large-scale nuclear reactors, and not just the unproven small modular reactors it has strongly touted.

The statement at the global summit confirmed the Coalition was on a markedly different path to Labor. The Albanese government last week joined more than 120 countries in backing a pledge to triple renewable energy and double the rate of energy efficiency by 2030, but did not sign up with 22 countries that supported tripling nuclear power by 2050.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/dec/10/coalition-tells-cop28-it-will-tback-tripling-of-nuclear-energy-if-peter-dutton-becomes-prime-minister

Opposition backing for nuclear energy appears to have triggered a desperate Aussie government attempt to rescue their Net Zero dreams by bankrolling them with government money. But the current green Aussie government has no hope of providing the level of funding they anticipated would be provided by private investors.

Industry and states welcome Albanese government’s plan to jump-start stalled renewables investment

Albanese government’s expansion of investment scheme is designed to attract financial investment in new wind and solar farms

Peter Hannam Thu 23 Nov 2023 16.05 AEDT

The Albanese government’s plan to turbo-charge the development of renewable energy has been described as a “landmark” policy for the nation’s transition away from fossil fuels and has been broadly welcomed by industry and state governments.

The energy minister, Chris Bowen, revealed a capacity investment scheme originally aimed to support 6GW of batteries and other storage would be expanded to 32GW. Of that total, 23GW would be for new wind and solar farms, with 9GW for storage.

The scheme’s cost is uncertain. Tenders held every six months over four years will set strike prices. Should market prices exceed a ceiling, the commonwealth could make money, and if they fall below a floor, taxpayers would have to make up the difference.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/23/albanese-government-renewable-energy-investment-scheme

To add to the farce, there is growing evidence Australia’s grid is falling apart, due to instability created by the renewables which have been installed to date. Residents of NSW, Australia’s most populous state, have just been told to ration electricity (h/t observa)

‘What a farce’: NSW residents told to ration electricity

“We are asking households and businesses to think about what they can defer between 5pm and 9pm tonight,” NSW Energy and Climate Change Minister Penny Sharpe said during a media conference.

“If you can turn your air conditioning up a little bit, over about 24 is fantastic.” 

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/what-a-farce-nsw-residents-told-to-ration-electricity/ar-AA1luu25

What are we to make of this?

I’m appalled by Australia’s mainstream conservative opposition pandering to climate crisis narratives. I don’t think talking up nuclear Net Zero is doing Aussie conservatives any favours at the ballot box. Even a nuclear Net Zero push would add to the cost of energy, at a time Aussies are already reeling from skyrocketing energy bills. The left wing greens who currently run the government might have won by promoting wildly inaccurate assurances about how renewables would reduce energy bills, but at least they understood that the core voter priority is reducing energy bills.

But Aussie conservative opposition support for a nuclear energy has wrecked government attempts to attract private renewable investment. Private renewable investment makes no sense, if opposition politicians, who have a real chance of winning the next election, have committed to destroying the value of those investments by prioritising nuclear energy when they win government.

The opposition success in collapsing the Australian Government’s hopes for private participation in green energy programmes is a lesson we can all learn from.

Could US Republicans use a nuclear push to wreck Biden’s private green investment dreams, without copying Australia’s shameful pandering to Net Zero narratives?

There is a way.

In 2017, then energy secretary Rick Perry proposed resilience payments for generators which could maintain power output for a minimum of 90 days, if their fuel supply was disrupted.

At the time the plan was shot down by regulators, and also attracted lukewarm responses from libertarian organisations which were discomforted by yet another energy market intervention.

But resurrecting this policy, at least in principle, would have an immediate chilling effect on all Biden’s green energy programmes – especially if there was also an announced intention to investigate green federal loan guarantees, and whether they were granted improperly by the Biden administration – and a promise that if guarantees were improperly granted, banks would be liable for any losses.

A 90 day resilience requirement, if implemented, would make renewables impossibly expensive – any wind or solar installation would have to be backed by 90 days of battery capacity, or have an ironclad agreement for 90 days of replacement power with a hydro, gas or coal plant, including demonstrable fuel reserves. Renewable operators would have to buy lots of coal to fulfil this requirement.

Even the threat of such a regime in the near future would stall Biden’s green energy plans, just as Australia’s green energy private investment plans have been stalled by opposition threats of a switch to nuclear.

If the Republicans commit to sabotaging Biden’s green energy transition by announcing energy policies which would kill renewables, they might save the United States a heap of federal money which might otherwise still be squandered by the Biden administration under existing programmes put in place by the previous Democrat congress.

4.7 24 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
61 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kpar
December 15, 2023 2:13 pm

There is a way out of all this. Elect Donald J. Trump!

Drill, Baby, Drill!

And let’s go NUKES! I am particularly interested in Gen IV reactors, especially the modular Thorium MSRs.

More Soylent Green!
Reply to  Kpar
December 15, 2023 2:38 pm

I’m not sure the Trumpster will be more effective than the first time around. My retirement accounts did very well until the pandemic, that’s for sure.

Maybe Trump has learned something. The media says Trump has figured out how to make himself dictator and how to make it stick this time. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m hoping he’s learned how to manage the press better and learned to pick his battles. He needs to learn how to make allies, for sure.

Now, in all fairness, what’s the energy policies of Trump, Haley and DeSantis? How do they compare? Anybody endorsing decarbonization? Anybody planning to rollback Team Brandon environmental mandates?

John Hultquist
Reply to  More Soylent Green!
December 15, 2023 9:13 pm

So far, Nikki has endorsed “carbon” capture — not a good sign.

gezza1298
Reply to  More Soylent Green!
December 17, 2023 1:19 pm

I would think Donald has learnt that the swamp is much deeper than he thought and will be more determined to get it drained next time.

KevinM
Reply to  Kpar
December 15, 2023 5:24 pm

Nikes… have to wait for the early cold war generation to “hand off” control. Could be decades.

Leo Smith
December 15, 2023 2:17 pm

Nuclear was always the only future for civilization. The gamble is to whether civilization will realize it in time.

bnice2000
Reply to  Leo Smith
December 15, 2023 3:16 pm

In Australia, there is no need to rust to nuclear.

There is plenty of high-quality coal available for hundreds of years.

Plus good supplies of gas… even oil if we had the political willpower to get it.

bnice2000
Reply to  bnice2000
December 15, 2023 3:17 pm

rust -> rush !!

Richard Page
Reply to  bnice2000
December 15, 2023 3:24 pm

Yeah, I think we could guess that one.

scvblwxq
Reply to  Leo Smith
December 16, 2023 8:46 am

The US has about 200 years of coal.

usurbrain
Reply to  scvblwxq
December 17, 2023 12:21 pm

Does that consider the fact that the newest generation of Coal fired power plants have a significantly greater fuel to energy ratio? Presently close to that of NG CCTG generators in terms of efficiency and CO2 emissions.

China is ahead of the US on Advanced Ultra Supercritical Coal.

https://www.ge.com/steam-power/coal-power-plant/usc-ausc

usurbrain
Reply to  Leo Smith
December 17, 2023 12:23 pm

Since Australia has ZERO NP how do they increase it by a factor of three?

Corrigenda
Reply to  usurbrain
December 20, 2023 5:23 am

It has nuclear facilities though none specifically for power generation since there is still a ludicrous legal ban on such. The sad thing is that Australian Energy generation has long been a disaster with the grossly naive thinking that somehow there must be sufficient so-called (but of course unidentified) green energy options available. But the problem is that we can have huge temperature swings and droughts/floods which need massive power availability. That means the nation needs urgently to embrace all available sources of energy including coal, water and nuclear power. The development (eg by RR) of mini nuclear generators has to be ideal for Australia since the generators can be sited where the power is needed. On top of that Australia has over 30% of the world’s uranium and a huge supply of coal. Yet where are the proposals for developing these? We cannot keep lifting Warragamba every few years…

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Corrigenda
December 21, 2023 4:45 am

And what is inevitably missed by those pushing the NOT “green” and NOT “clean” energy “sources” (i.e., wind and solar) is that all of the energy inputs used to produce the worse-than-useless “collectors” of energy from breezes and sunshine come from…coal, oil and gas.

Same goes for batteries.

And you can’t eliminate the coal, oil and gas unless you’re prepared to accept frequent blackouts of your grid and life returning to The Stone Age. The “green/clean only if I don’t look very closely” wind and solar need 100% backup.

So it’s a tail-chasing exercise for those ignorant about where all the things they have had the privilege of taking for granted their whole lives actually come from.

Rud Istvan
December 15, 2023 2:34 pm

I don’t think ‘we’ have to do anything. Nutty schemes fall apart on their own—unfortunately, usually after some collateral damage.

As for nuclear, both AUS and US have plenty of natural gas. Build quick, relatively inexpensive, efficient, and flexible CCGT good for 4+ decades. Use that time to wring out Gen 4 nuclear engineering designs, then build and test the best for at least a decade. Like what Kaisor is doing (previous recent WUWT guest post). Then go nuclear with the best of gen 4, whatever that turns out to be—plausible candidates include SMR, MSR, TerraPower,…

Don’t build more Gen 3 after the Foglte 3/4 and Finnish (French design) economic disasters.

Richard Page
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 15, 2023 3:25 pm

Vogtle units 3 & 4.

RickWill
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 15, 2023 4:17 pm

I don’t think ‘we’ have to do anything. 

Australia is being forced to do something. Most of the coal plants are clapped out and will never be refurbished..

There is already a stated intention to triple gas plants for “firming” duties. Some States have locked away gas reserves so it is in short supply and prices are driven by global markets. Electricity from gas plants using gas at global pricing is expensive.

Investments in grid wind and solar need to be guaranteed subsidies until they have enough market share to set the prices most of the time. Right now, the Australia grid is saturated with “renewables”. More grid scale capacity just lowers the capacity factor. Rooftops produced more “renewable” energy in Q1 2023 in Australia than the combined output of grid wind, solar and hydro. Rooftops are the fastest growing sector because household that install them shift the burden to the remaining consumers. Grid wind and solar are no longer competing with coal but rooftops. South Australia has demonstrated they can power the State from rooftops.

Adding grid scale wind and solar to the electricity grid in the hope of increasing the proportion of “renewable” energy is no different than pushing on string and expecting it to move a heavy load. This situation will remain until there is substantial storage available such as Snowy 2; likely around 2029.

It doesnot add up
Reply to  RickWill
December 15, 2023 5:26 pm

If coal gets closed down there will have to be a big increase in gas to balance renewables output. See what happened in the UK.

KevinM
Reply to  RickWill
December 15, 2023 5:27 pm

Investments in grid wind and solar need to be guaranteed subsidies” Rent and Investment are not synonyms.

Iain Reid
Reply to  RickWill
December 15, 2023 11:41 pm

Rick,

on what basis can you say that South Australia has demonstrated that they can power the state from roof tops?
Solar is the very worse of all renewable sources of generation as it relies on the sun’s time table, not the consumer’s. In addition it is asynchronous so cannot balance suply and demand. It does not provide reactive power for stable voltage, it has no inertia for stable freqency and cannot support short circuit level current required for timely and proportionate grid protection systems.
It can produce electricity and that is it, it cannot meet all the other necessary criteria for a stable grid supply. I’m in the U.K. so not as familiar with the Australian grids but I suspect that it is neighbouring state(s) grid(s) that are doing all the support required?
Snowy 2, it it is ever completed, is not a ‘substantial storage facility’ in grid terms. Excellent for frequency support but not for covering intermitency.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  RickWill
December 16, 2023 3:36 am

sa powered by rooftops?
dream on
just an hr on a hot summers day at best
and poor dry creek gas turbines battling the rest of the time or sucking from vic grid
most expensive power costs last I looked

jtom
Reply to  RickWill
December 16, 2023 8:13 am

Adelaide gets an average of 4.5 hours of direct sunshine hours a day in June. Please describe how large your outbuilding is to house enough batteries to provide power for the other 19.5 hours, and how many acres of ‘rooftops’ are required to charge all those batteries in 4.5 hours, daily, in addition to supplying the concurrent real time electric needs.
https://www.climatestotravel.com/climate/australia/adelaide

Or is SA HIGHLY dependent on sources other than rooftop solar?

Drake
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 16, 2023 9:59 am

BUT plants built in the early 70s are now being licensed for 80 years, SO the OLD designs work fine, and have already been “tested” for 50 years.

See Surrey and N. Anna in Virginia, built to use fresh water cooling from a river and a lake, without the wasteful cooling tower construction and operation.

Everyone talks of NEW designs when the OLD designs are proven. Only issue at 3 Mile Island was the failure to replace a Pressure Overflow Relief Valve, so that when it stuck open, the pressure on the core was not maintained and the cooling/heat transfer water boiled off.

When I worked for the City of Las Vegas, I attended a in house class of writing memos, etc. for best results. An example provided was a memo written by a middle management J-@ss about the PORV problem. In the memo, it took the clown 5 or 6 paragraphs to get to then point that catastrophic failure could occur if the problem was not addressed. The point was that beginning garbage would not concern the “higher ups” to keep reading the memo. I recognized the document for what it was, from 3 Mile Island, since I had read about that failure. BTW, it was largely a failure of the Governments’ incompetent oversite, in addition to corporate cowardice of middle management and apparent arrogance of higher management that created the middle management cowardice.

Plenty of blame to go around, but NO blame can be placed on the design.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
December 15, 2023 2:37 pm

The useful idiots don’t realize how much petroleum is used for things other than transportation and electricity generation. Without it society would grind to a halt even with all the nuclear plants possible in the world. Petroleum can’t be replaced like coal and coal will continue to be the affordable source of electricity for centuries to come …. especially for developing countries. The Marxists know this, that’s why they want to control fossil fuels.

Editor
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
December 15, 2023 3:55 pm

I would like to see less fossil fuels burned and more used for those other things. Nuclear can help us get there.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 15, 2023 4:25 pm

Why?

I say use the least-cost energy source that is currently available. With the only caveat that we should not despoil nature in the process.

Synthesis gas derived from biomass or coal will always allow us to produce any petrochemical we need, provided that we have a cost-effective source of energy to drive the reactions. Crude oil is in no way a necessity. It is a currently convenient and cheap feedstock, but not the only viable choice.

Burning fossil fuels while they are cheap and abundant doesn’t destroy the carbon or hydrogen atoms. They will be recycled via solar energy into trees and other biomass. If we no longer can extract fossil fuels for less than the cost of nuclear power then we should switch to nuclear at that point.

In reality, nuclear SHOULD be the cheapest energy source. If not for lawfare and regulations designed to prohibit the technology, it would be most likely.

cgh
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 15, 2023 6:07 pm

The problem here is that nuclear is a high capital cost investment. Modern private investors want to recover their capital investment much faster than governments and ratepayers will allow.

Tom Halla
December 15, 2023 2:38 pm

The crucial thing is eliminating the current environmental review system. As it allows multiple successive challenges to any project, arranging the financing for any project the Green Blob finds politically incorrect is difficult and much more expensive.
The French were able to do an extensive nuclear project as it was the national utility operating at the behest of the national government.

DD More
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 15, 2023 7:07 pm

“they might save the United States a heap of federal money which might otherwise still be squandered by the Biden administration under existing programmes put in place by the previous Democrat congress.”

Would that include where they put us on the path to a convenient and equitable network of 500,000 chargers and make EVs accessible to all Americas for both local and long-distance trips. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes $5 billion in formula funding for states with a goal to build a national charging network.

Dec 13, 2021 press release and so far the “Network” stands at 0 stations built or operating, but that’s only after 2 years. Anyone else looking for a refund?

Drake
Reply to  DD More
December 16, 2023 10:02 am

No chance for any refund. The money has already been laundered to the Democrat party and Democrat politicians for the 2024 election cycle.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 19, 2023 8:38 am

Unfortunately the likely result with current lunatics-running-the-asylum “administration” in control of things is that they would use the relaxation of environmental review processes to shove industrial wind and solar down people’s throats, not to build anything remotely useful.

When Manchin sold out on the Inflation Enhancement Act, I was glad he didn’t get the promised “payback” on “permitting reform,” for two reasons – 1, because his supposed payback for his key vote in no way justified support of that catastrophe of a piece of legislation, and his being backstabbing by the scum of the Earth dems was a lesson he needed to learn; and 2, because of what I just described above.

Manchin was gullible enough to (a) trust the democrats to give him what they promised, and (b) gullible enough to think that IF he got it, that it would aid the fossil fuel projects he wanted to advance, as opposed to being used to shove wind and solar down people’s throats.

Bob
December 15, 2023 2:44 pm

“Even a nuclear Net Zero push would add to the cost of energy, at a time Aussies are already reeling from skyrocketing energy bills. The left wing greens who currently run the government might have won by promoting wildly inaccurate assurances about how renewables would reduce energy bills, but at least they understood that the core voter priority is reducing energy bills.”

I can solve this for you. Fire up all of your fossil fuel generators while you are building nuclear generators and even some new fossil fuel generators. Remove wind and solar from the grid as quickly as possible. Removing renewables will stabilize the grid, fossil fuels will provide affordable, reliable and steady power until nuclear can come on line and you can remove older fossil fuel generators as they become unnecessary. It’s a win win.

bnice2000
Reply to  Bob
December 15, 2023 4:45 pm

3 modern coal-fired power stations, one in each eastern state, would solve the knife-edge/ extreme cost supply that sometimes happens in the NEM.

Would reduce costs and massively increase reliability.

No new transmission lines needed for connection to remote area or off-shore unreliables, either.

Bob
Reply to  bnice2000
December 15, 2023 9:11 pm

Sounds good to me.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  bnice2000
December 16, 2023 3:39 am

SNAP!! same as I said…scary huh?

Chris Hanley
December 15, 2023 2:49 pm

As I understand it the Australian Opposition (Liberal-National Coalition) policy is to remove the current national ‘moratorium’ ban on nuclear power generation.
‘Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best’ (Otto von Bismarck).

Given current public sentiment and politics that policy is sensible.
‘The best’ is peacetime governments getting out of mandating subsidising or otherwise interfering with energy policy and leaving it to the market viz. consumers to determine sources of energy like everything else.

Ray Sanders
December 15, 2023 2:54 pm

The issues with renewables are not just about storage against inevitable intermittency. Solar, and batteries are DC asychronous generators/stores, wind is similarly asynchronous. Neither solar nor wind offer inertia, synchronicity, frequency management, voltage control, reactive power management, very low short circuit level ride through and usually need significant grid reinforcements to be connected.
To overcome all theses shortfalls, additional (and very expensive) devices have to be installed such as Synchronous Condensers, Static VAR compensators, STATCOMs to name just a few.
Here is an example that details the need for kit simply to make up for the shortcomings of renewables in the Australian context.

https://www.engineerlive.com/content/synchronous-condensers-south-australia

What this article highlights is that services which effectively come free with conventional generators are now much increased extra costs. The sync-con is a effectively a generator that is not generating but being powered up at consumption of energy so why not simply power it up properly?

As this UK site explains (with reference to a US major blackout) these ancilliary services are critical

https://www.drax.com/power-generation/silent-force-moves-electricity

So what this all boils down to is that continually running Nuclear plants offer reliable and long term generation together with all the additional grid management services built in. Australia desperately needs steam turbines like this, currently being installed at Hinkley Point C. It certainly does not slow down easily.

https://www.ge.com/steam-power/products/steam-turbines/nuclear-arabelle

RickWill
Reply to  Ray Sanders
December 15, 2023 4:34 pm

I am guessing there is not one politician on Earth who understands any of this:

Neither solar nor wind offer inertia, synchronicity, frequency management, voltage control, reactive power management, very low short circuit level ride through and usually need significant grid reinforcements to be connected.

There in is the problem. Lazards keep publishing their LCOE comparisons and politicians AND consumers keep buying it. We were told last night on the news that Putin’s war, COVID and climate change are the reason for escalating electricity prices in Australia.

You cannot explain a complex message to simpletons. Or economists or lawyers or any of the clowns infesting the UN.

Australia’s AEMO has just released a draft of the 2024 Integrated System Plan. There is no where in the entire document that provides an estimate of the total cost to come. It just compares the relative merits of different pathways. It is a document designed to hoodwink politicians making it all appear plausible:
https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/stakeholder_consultation/consultations/nem-consultations/2023/draft-2024-isp-consultation/draft-2024-isp.pdf?la=en

bnice2000
Reply to  RickWill
December 15, 2023 5:07 pm

I am guessing there is not one politician on Earth who understands any of this”

Malcolm Roberts would be the closest to being able to comprehend any of these things.

Karen Andrews also has an Engineering background (mechanical)

Eng_Ian
Reply to  bnice2000
December 15, 2023 6:55 pm

It’s a big leap from Mech Eng to power station/generator operation. I’d say a bridge too far.

Just grasping the concept that an AC generator slows down under load would be difficult for the larger majority of mech engineers that I’ve coached over the years, (HR had really excelled in finding the lowest cost employees). The lead Mech engineers have little experience in reactive power and how or why it is important to target AC voltage and current being in phase.

I’ve even had electrical engineers who failed to understand the concept or leading and lagging currents. Is this a sign of our failed universities or of specialisation?

In summary, a short circuits for most politicians would be better than building a longer circuit. Some engineers may agree.

Ray Sanders
Reply to  Eng_Ian
December 16, 2023 2:16 am

Working at a sub station (UK) a colleague and I were talking about “VAR”. Someone nearby asked us what football had to do with this (Video Assistant Referee) and we assumed he was cracking a joke. He looked equally perplexed that we thought he was joking. It transpired he genuinely did not know what Volt Ampere Reactive meant. Problem….he is the head honcho site manager!
Later on I looked up his personal profile on LinkedIn. He has a Masters degree in “Energy Policy” which requires only rudimentary actual engineering knowledge.
Further research showed that as specialist sub contractors we were all making far more money than he was. So it appears that the second raters are those that get into the state managed positions largely on the cheap. .

Drake
Reply to  Ray Sanders
December 16, 2023 10:05 am

Those that can, do, those that can’t teach, or go into management.

RickWill
December 15, 2023 3:59 pm

I’m appalled by Australia’s mainstream conservative opposition pandering to climate crisis narratives. 

Me too. The only thing Australia should be doing with regard the UN is not participating in any of its treaties and not supporting this morass created by would-be dictators. It is socialism by stealth.

The UN has proven ineffective in any of its primary objectives. Countries that comply with its treaties are doomed to be overrun by fanatics.

Many western governments completely disregarded the treaty on human rights during Covid by declaring an “emergency”.

And a story tip. AEMO has released the draft of 2024 ISP. It makes interesting reading. I have never seen a better effort of avoiding ever stating the full costs of this “transition” by looking at the relative merits of different scenarios. It is like looking at temperature anomalies – confuse the ignorant politicians:
https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/stakeholder_consultation/consultations/nem-consultations/2023/draft-2024-isp-consultation/draft-2024-isp.pdf?la=en

You need to use a separate link for Appendix 6 that covers the scenarios.

Bryan A
December 15, 2023 4:21 pm

Private renewable investment makes no sense, if opposition politicians, who have a real chance of winning the next election, have committed to destroying the value of those investments by prioritising nuclear energy when they win government

An interesting statement

Apparently the affordably cheap energy supplied from free wind and solar Generation simply can’t compete against the far more costly nuclear energy without having consistent energy supplies destroy the value of free intermittent supplies

cgh
Reply to  Bryan A
December 15, 2023 6:10 pm

Intermittent isn’t free. Rates go up for ratepayers disproportionately as wind/solar are added to the grid.

Bryan A
Reply to  cgh
December 15, 2023 7:01 pm

Did I really need a SNARK tag???

John Hultquist
Reply to  Bryan A
December 15, 2023 9:15 pm

Yes. See Poe’s Law.

Gary Pearse
December 15, 2023 4:23 pm

“(If Conservatives) will back nuclear over renewables appears to have wrecked attempts to attract private renewable investment.”

Look, it’s the lousy performance and upward spiraling costs of renewable energy that has bankrupted dozens of renewables companies and and hammered the big companies’ (Orested, Siemens) stock prices and caused withdrawals from signed contracts. Investors had already lost their appetite a couple of years ago for winf and solar.

The idiots even regulated out of existence and starved FF companies of development funding leading to critical shortages and soaring prices, apparently not realizing that coal and natural gas are strategic essential enablers for renewables to actually work at all. Moreover, since coal and gas are also essential for the manufacturing of renewable equipment, this is an additional escalator of costs. Investors have been gone for a couple of years.

Consensus Climateers even know now that this meme is dead. That’s why the hysterics over quickly instilling coercive climate policy That’s why they are bleating about geoengineering and finally coming around on nuclear. They are worried sick that these are the only way to get ahead of the parade so that they can say their swift action saved the planet . Otherwise, there is a growing worry that there is no crisis to worry about. They fear a Climate Nuremberg over the massive damage to the global economy and the multiplying casualties.

Beta Blocker
December 15, 2023 4:28 pm

So we hear talk from some quarters that the world’s supply of nuclear power ought to be be tripled by 2050. And we also hear endless harping that over-regulation is the primary impediment to greater reliance on nuclear power.

Sure, over-regulation is a problem. But over-regulation isn’t the chief reason why nuclear power isn’t growing as fast as its advocates would like it to grow.

The primary obstacle to the growth of nuclear power is the worldwide lack of a sufficiently robust nuclear construction industrial base in terms of a trained and experienced nuclear construction workforce, and in terms of the numbers of QA-capable nuclear component suppliers required to support the number of new projects which can be cost-effectively funded and initiated.

Another obstacle becoming ever larger in its worldwide impact is growing competition for the industrial resources needed to quickly expand nuclear power — including competiton from wind and solar projects which consume enormously larger quantites of industrial materials and resources relative to the energy these projects will actually produce.

Two decades of hard work are needed to upgrade the world’s nuclear construction industrial base before a noticeable acceleration in nuclear construction initiations and completions can be achieved.

Australia’s only hope for deliverance from Net Zero hell lies in constructing a new generation of coal-fired and gas-fired power plants using the latest and greatest in coal and gas technology. Doing anything else in Australia is an exercise in futility, and an exceptionally dangerous exercise at that.

KevinM
December 15, 2023 5:23 pm

… has no hope of providing the level of funding they anticipated would be provided by private investors.”

Wow. You mean private investors (or the people managing money for private investors, which is really not private investors) expect a positive return that beats inflation? Who would have imagined?

Tom Johnson
December 15, 2023 6:37 pm

The requirements for the grid are quite simple:

1 You can’t use more energy than that which is produced.
2 You can’t produce more energy than that which is used.
3 Voltage cannot vary.
4 Frequency must be precisely 60 Hz.

It wouldn’t take much analysis to prove this is impossible.

It might help if the grid operators would require that before they can connect to the grid, all rooftop solar installations must include as much synchronous condenser inertia as they are eliminating from the grid. They could at least use the heat from efficiency loss to help heat their homes in the winter.

John Hultquist
December 15, 2023 9:09 pm

 China became the first in the world to put the latest generation of nuclear power technology into use as a power plant with two new 4th generation reactors started commercial operations in the eastern province of Shandong. The new plant is located near Shidao Bay;
Lat./Long.: 36.972328, 122.528989

MyUsername
December 16, 2023 12:37 am

“Opposition backing for nuclear energy appears to have triggered a desperate Aussie government attempt to rescue their Net Zero dreams by bankrolling them with government money.”

Nice fan fiction. Misses some spicy scenes, though. Still funny. 6/10

bnice2000
Reply to  MyUsername
December 16, 2023 10:50 am

What a moronic non-comment !!

GeorgeInSanDiego
December 16, 2023 12:51 am

Small Modular Reactors are relatively impractical because of the lack of thermal efficiency. GW scale is the way to go. And libertarian and conservative free market purists fail to understand that because of safety, security, and proliferation concerns, economically viable nuclear power has to be done by empowered and centralized government planning. The first thing that has to be agreed on is one reactor design. Then the cadre of people who can design and build that reactor has to be identified and trained. Then the industrial capacity and infrastructure to build numerous plants quickly and efficiently has to be developed. Then the sites themselves have to be selected and approved. As divided and hyperpoliticized as the populace are I do not think that the USA can muster the national consensus necessary for such a program to succeed.

Ray Sanders
Reply to  GeorgeInSanDiego
December 16, 2023 8:21 am

“Small Modular Reactors are relatively impractical because of the lack of thermal efficiency.” Complete TWADDLE. May I ask what motivates you to make such a bizarre remark?

GeorgeInSanDiego
Reply to  Ray Sanders
December 17, 2023 1:10 am

Because it’s accurate. When it comes to thermal generation of any kind, bigger is always better.

ozspeaksup
December 16, 2023 3:32 am

when all the warmist shite kicked off i started laughing that the greens would have hysterics as the only really no co2 fuel was nuke and Aus is strongly against it. roll on nearly 30yrs and Im still laughing.
theres a slight…chance of small nukes getting a nod(with a LOT of work)
a hell of a lot bigger chance of at least 3 large new coalplants or gas at considerably less cost and time to get running on the east coast, after all the sites are there could be rebuilt(except for vic one they turned into a ???stunt of some kind)
and pt agutta that they blew up
publish cost
land use
and time to start
as well as the LESS transmission lines required, cos the ones we have are set up for that NOT for running both ways
mention the N word(nuke) here and the abc and the rest are full on immediately with risks etc
and after Chernobyl and Fukushima they tend to win that every time

Drake
Reply to  ozspeaksup
December 16, 2023 10:28 am

Chernobyl, bad design and bad operation.

And Fukushima because the put the BU generators in the basement, not on the hill above the plant.

And 3 Mile Island, bad management/maintenance.

US Navel vessels have had NO major problems with their nukes for over 60 years of operation. Those heat sources designed to provide variable output based on need.

observa
December 16, 2023 6:25 pm

It’s simple. Nuclear is not primitive enough for leftys-
Chris Bowen lampooned for Indigenous acknowledgement during COP28 speech (msn.com)

SteveG
December 17, 2023 2:02 am

Australia a >>> “Green Energy Superpower” LOL!!!

%d
Verified by MonsterInsights