Given that there is currently debate about adding Nuclear to the energy mix in Australia I have a few things that come to mind.
Is this Nuclear option just F.U.D. over renewables and storage so that investment dries up and fossil fuels remain to be used?
Is something like Nuclear required to power the "AI" data centres of the future given that they're likely to consume a large load of power continuously? So if Australia does not have something like a large base load of power (coming from Nuclear) it will get left behind in having large scale data centres onshore?
> Is this Nuclear option just F.U.D. over renewables and storage so that investment dries up and fossil fuels remain to be used?
Pretty much.
The "plan" put forward by Dutton is pure vaporware - there are no costings, there is no agreement on using the peoposed sites, there is nothing planned about repealing an existing nuclear ban .. it's 100% kick the can of climate action down the road to some magical time when nuclear will be "off the shelf" and affordable in Australia.
The Australian scientific advisory have recently done a full report on realistic energy options, their costings for nuclear rely on things happening in the world that haven't happened yet and nuclear still comes in as the most expensive per unit energy - and that's being optimistic about the kinds of delays actually seen in the US and the UK.
Now, nuclear is working in South Korea, in parts of Europe, China has a 100 reactor plan and they're all in on construction of new reactors now.
Australia is different, smaller population, no existing nuclear power generation experience or skills - it's cold start.
The reality is that Dutton and many of the Liberal|National Coalition don't take climate change seriously and they simply want to build new coal fired power stations and extend current gas usage "until nuclear is cheap".
> So if Australia does not have something like a large base load of power (coming from Nuclear) it will get left behind in having large scale data centres onshore
Hardly - Australia mines minerals in the billions of tonnes per annum, easily dwarfing anything attempted in the US - these operations run 24/7/365 non stop and consume large amounts of energy.
Already the large miners, Rio Tinto, Fortescue, et al. are buying up cattle stations to convert to solar farms to generate power 24|7 - excess solar during daylight for direct power plus hydrogen and by product production, and gas turbines at night using daytime generation - the largest trains with the heaviest loads in the world are going electric, 100 tonne dump trucks are already electric (with onboard fossil fuel generators) and being converted to use batteries | burn gas, etc.
The same kind solar at massive scale that is planned to export power to Indonesia and elsewhere can power data centres if needs be - Adelaide is already powering smelters with renewables.
So with this the main reasoning behind having some nuclear power generation would be to have a capable nuclear industry with a trained nuclear workforce to support the new batch of nuclear submarines that both major parties want to get.
I kind of support nuclear energy generation as an alternative to coal and gas. Also as Uranium is another thing we dig out of the ground so we don't need to buy the fuel from elsewhere. Though I'm not at all enthusiastic about the politics behind it actually having my/our best interests in mind. I suspect that this will just be all talk, delays, and then be cancelled.
> So with this the main reasoning behind having some nuclear power generation would be to have a capable nuclear industry with a trained nuclear workforce to support the new batch of nuclear submarines that both major parties want to get.
I have no idea where you'd get that notion from, did Dutton hand wave that in during a press conference?
It's an unrealistic option to imagine a crossover between military small onboard proven reactors and civilian power stations for many reasons, in terms of Australia's immediate energy policy less so .. any actual AUKUS subs are as far in the future as hypothetical nuclear power stations and, as stated, the political angle here is to avoid doing anything other than fire up more coal power now and forget about any commitments made wrt emmissions.
In pragmatic terms, being neutral about nuclear "as a bogeyman" and focusing on the engineering, it's an aspirational dream to float in front of voters not an actual plan with costings, preliminary agreement from land holders, and a time line for construction (let alone lifting the existing nuclear ban in Federal law).
The immediate need for an energy plan as old coal power stations are being retired is already being met to a degree by sloar, wind, large battery parks, pilot thermal storage plants, etc and the costings on expanding these existing and proven (within Australia) technologies to the scale required come in far cheaper than "vague nuclear" (which as outlined by Dutton is still lessthan the energy supply required).
> Also as Uranium is another thing we dig out of the ground so we don't need to buy the fuel from elsewhere.
The "digging out" part isn't a great expense or challenge, maybe you might want to read up on processing requirements to isolate isotopes of uranium - raw yellowcake isn't a ready to rock and roll fuel.
And then there's the matter of building a GW scale reactor - checkout the timeline, delays, and cost blowouts on the UK's latest (still unfinished) reactor.
> I have no idea where you'd get that notion from, did Dutton hand wave that in during a press conference?
No this is just my mind connecting vaguely related things together in an attempt to have some logical rationalisation behind the idea of civillian nuclear power plants. We are going to need trained operators for the subs, so having a comparable civillian industry might also have some synergies.
> The "digging out" part isn't a great expense or challenge, maybe you might want to read up on processing requirements to isolate isotopes of uranium - raw yellowcake isn't a ready to rock and roll fuel.
I know, just as with other things like rare earth minerals it's the processing that is toxic, expensive, and difficult.
I guess I'm longing for Australia to do more than just (stereotypically) digging things out of the ground. If given the right incentives there could be an entire nuclear supply chain with good jobs and good safety providing relatively clean fuel to power the country and as export to select partners. The current plan does not do this to my knowledge so I don't really treat it seriously.
120 GWh of storage is approximately zero storage. Which, for Australia, population 30 million and literally near-tropical light patterns, might well be enough.
For the UK alone, not the most northerly of populations, you need 50 TWh. Get some investors to give you the numbers on that.
Is this Nuclear option just F.U.D. over renewables and storage so that investment dries up and fossil fuels remain to be used?
Is something like Nuclear required to power the "AI" data centres of the future given that they're likely to consume a large load of power continuously? So if Australia does not have something like a large base load of power (coming from Nuclear) it will get left behind in having large scale data centres onshore?