Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Originally Posted by AlexS

Thanks for those photos and the post. I suspect that the small hut and weir are a flow measurement station. The weir looks like a shallow V notch similar to a Crump weir, and the hut would house an instrument measuring the upstream & probably downstream water levels, from which the flow can be calculated.

Alex

I had initially thought the dilapidated hut and weir were associated with the Hydro plant, but apparently not and it was a previous enterprise for breeding up fish! I say a previous enterprise as it hadn't been used for twenty years and the hydro plant was commissioned in 2016 by Bjorn's father.

I expect that the flows are measured in some other way by modern instrumentation. I just have a slight question mark over the flow rate as appearing on the sign. It seems a little too high, but I am not a hydro person. Maybe L/s is not "litres" per second. At work our machines have a steam flow rate of 350kg/sec admittedly at 242 bar (24,200KPa). I wish now I had queried that figure.

Regards
Paul

PS: I did see some spare pipes lying around, which I assumed were suction pipes from the dam and they were about 500mm diameter. I guess we could work out the flow rate from the head pressure (140m) and the pipe diameter. My understanding is that pipework is usually designed for a flow rate between 4m and 7m per second.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The irony here is that the ban was a liberal policy.

Are you being ironic in suggesting that they have any policies?

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Are you being ironic in suggesting that they have any policies?

Graeme

Not really sure what I am being. Trying to be polite in the face of of political stupidity.



Regards
Paul

This article on the future of Eraring Power Station in the Lower Hunter is interesting. One aspect it highlights is the significant "assistance" afforded by the government already.

State faces huge bill for major coal-plant's lifeline (msn.com)

It seems to make a nonsense of renewables being criticised for subsidies as it would appear all power sources receive some benefit. Actually, that's not true as I am fairly certain we don't at Millmerran. I fail to understand how there will be sufficient supply for the whole twenty four hours of the day should Eraring be shut down. It does not address the nighttime issue when renewables, solar in particular, are either diminished or non-existent.

Eraring has a capacity of 2880MW from the four units and, apparently, despite being purchased for only $75m in 2013 is unable to make a profit. I can only assume the coal supplies down there are very expensive, but I have no inside knowledge of this. However, it is true to say that at 42 years old for the first unit it is getting towards the end of the typical 50 year lifespan of a thermal station.

Interestingly, the station was bought from the government by Origin in 2013 after the wet Bottom Ash system had been retrofitted with a dry Magaldi conveyor (2009 - 2013). The dry conveyor uses no water, as you might imagine, and consequently is far less demanding on water resources and less polluting as well. Also, between 2011 and 2012 the units' capacity were upgraded from 660MW to 720MW. Both these improvements would have been quite an expense and it looks as though the sale price would have just about covered those retrofits. The rest was given away.

After this "gift" Origin can't make a profit!



I can't quite recall the original financing arrangements of Eraring, but my memory is that there was some sort of consortium. It was not owned in the same way as the other stations that formed the NSW Electricity Commision during the early eighties.

Regards
Paul

To celebrate the return of 'shmiller from deepest darkest Norge (and my own successful return from Penrith) I purchased a 6-pack of Trost Lager at Dan Murphy's a little earlier.

TROST LAGER.jpg

It's....well....it doesn't promote "Oh!" on the first sip followed by "WOW!" on the second, but it does have some interesting characteristics (maybe regional), and is not offensive. Upon closer inspection of the fine print it is brewed by Aass (!?) Bryggeri "for Pinnacle Drinks" (aka Dan Murphy), so I would guess that it's a second (or less) tier brew designed to suck in Aussies who don't read all the fine print (like me).

Lord Nelson Brewery "Three Sheets" it is not.

This was a brief story on Sky News with presenter Chis Kenny:

Call for government to give ‘all the answers’ for a less politicised nuclear power debate (msn.com)

GNSP ((Global Nuclear Security Partners) is fundamentally a public relations firm, whose objective is to promote the cause of their backers.

GNSP Australia | GNSP

I have no real problem with that. I believe the ban on nuclear power should be removed. It would then be up to interested parties to put forward proposals to build a station on their merits and would remove the distractions of the proponents. To my mind nuclear is, on a good day, an almost impossible task for the Australian market for these reasons:

1. Even the early proponents of SMR have backed away from what is an untried area. The development most quoted in Canada has been cancelled. The Russian Unit is located on a ship and the Chinese installation by CHG is also unknown and non commercial. There is a unit under construction in Argentina too. So we are really discussing larger units greater than 400MW. Around the world nukes tend to be large averaging around 750 - 800MW.

2. Nuclear units have a long lead time to completion.

3. Nukes are expensive to build.

4. Approvals are both lengthy and onerous.

5. The technology and expertise is "lean" in Australia, but of course new technologies have to start somewhere and there is plenty of experience overseas.

6. Agreement on where to put a reactor is going to be difficult. That is a euphemism of the first order.

7. De-commissioning costs need to be considered.

8. Any plant that can't compete with solar during the daylight hours (few plants can do that) will have to be viable only running for half the day and be capable of ramping down to zero and back to full load rapidly. This is not something that nuclear reactors have been good at in the past. That is not to say it can't be a design feature into the future.

9. A plant would have to be viable without government assistance or guarantees.

10. Waste disposal is an old bug bear.

11. Lastly, for the moment, and really this just emphasises some of the other steps, it has to be commercial, because the market is a competitive, private business arena, at least for anybody entering now.


Perhaps the largest hope for the nuclear lobby is the Aukus enterprise as it potentially opens the door for nuclear power and would provide some justification for removal of the ban: In fact, it is difficult to see how the ban can remain when the first subs appear. When will that be again?

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

This was a brief story on Sky News with presenter Chis Kenny:

Call for government to give ‘all the answers’ for a less politicised nuclear power debate (msn.com)

GNSP ((Global Nuclear Security Partners) is fundamentally a public relations firm, whose objective is to promote the cause of their backers.

GNSP Australia | GNSP

I have no real problem with that. I believe the ban on nuclear power should be removed. It would then be up to interested parties to put forward proposals to build a station on their merits and would remove the distractions of the proponents. To my mind nuclear is, on a good day, an almost impossible task for the Australian market for these reasons:

1. Even the early proponents of SMR have backed away from what is an untried area. The development most quoted in Canada has been cancelled. The Russian Unit is located on a ship and the Chinese installation by CHG is also unknown and non commercial. There is a unit under construction in Argentina too. So we are really discussing larger units greater than 400MW. Around the world nukes tend to be large averaging around 750 - 800MW.

2. Nuclear units have a long lead time to completion.

3. Nukes are expensive to build.

4. Approvals are both lengthy and onerous.

5. The technology and expertise is "lean" in Australia, but of course new technologies have to start somewhere and there is plenty of experience overseas.

6. Agreement on where to put a reactor is going to be difficult. That is a euphemism of the first order.

7. De-commissioning costs need to be considered.

8. Any plant that can't compete with solar during the daylight hours (few plants can do that) will have to be viable only running for half the day and be capable of ramping down to zero and back to full load rapidly. This is not something that nuclear reactors have been good at in the past. That is not to say it can't be a design feature into the future.

9. A plant would have to be viable without government assistance or guarantees.

10. Waste disposal is an old bug bear.

11. Lastly, for the moment, and really this just emphasises some of the other steps, it has to be commercial, because the market is a competitive, private business arena, at least for anybody entering now.


Perhaps the largest hope for the nuclear lobby is the Aukus enterprise as it potentially opens the door for nuclear power and would provide some justification for removal of the ban: In fact, it is difficult to see how the ban can remain when the first subs appear. When will that be again?

Regards
Paul

That's well thought through with good detail Paul.
First Aukus sub around 2040 if it's been a good decade? Not sure.

There are two points that I have different thoughts on:
1. I don't believe it to be necessary to remove the current ban to have micro-detailed discussions at the highest levels required on all the points that you raise. However, as I have opined before, removing the ban first is like removing the meat from the sealed container, putting in the dog's bowl, and telling the dog it can't have it until the Govt says that kind of meat is legal to eat. The dog will find a way, pronto.

2. We have previously discussed whether the Govts selling off the power stations and other allied assets was a good idea or not. IIRC, it was largely agreed that as things turned out it probably was not a good idea, but am happy to stand corrected. Just for one thing, we wouldn't be in the position where the Govts have to hand out rebates to protect lower income earners from the crazy prices we have had imposed on us. I think we have also discussed re-nationalising the energy industry, but that Genie is way out of the bottle.

So if a Nuclear Plant is (somehow) allowed to go ahead it may be much better for it to be built by sub-contractors, but 100% Govt owned and run, and to legislated to stay that way. I know the argument about NBN, Snowy 2.0 etc, but this would be building something that has been done many times before, and there would be fierce competition amongst experienced players to win the contract.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Upon closer inspection of the fine print it is brewed by Aass (!?) Bryggeri

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

This was a brief story on Sky News with presenter Chis Kenny:

Call for government to give ‘all the answers’ for a less politicised nuclear power debate (msn.com)

As for Chis Kenny (nice typo), he can Chis my Aass! I'll even keep a can of it for him. Less politicised is exactly what he neither wants nor knows how to do.

(and beware the poster who considers clicking "Pictures please": I do have have a pic of my right buttock hours after a hip replacement It is NOT for those who wish to preserve their remaining mental health.)

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

c 8. Any plant that can't compete with solar during the daylight hours (few plants can do that) will have to be viable only running for half the day and be capable of ramping down to zero and back to full load rapidly. This is not something that nuclear reactors have been good at in the past. That is not to say it can't be a design feature into the future.

During a sabbatical in Japan in 1995 I worked on a small (about the size of 20ft container) nuclear (research) reactor that was turned on at 10am and shut down at 4pm every day. It was capable of about 100kW at peak but normally run at 20kW, and was dialled back to just ticking over (I think it was 1kW) when test samples were exchanged every hour or so. This was done by climbing stairs up on top of the reactor and lowering test samples into the core on lengths of string down inside a tube. Then we'd climb down and crank the power back up. Radiation monitoring was moderately well done.

This reactor was donated to Japan by a US Methodist church in the mid 1950's as part of an Atoms for Peace program. This is of course very different from say a massive 2GW steam generating reactor plant which has a huge thermal inertia and needs massive cooling. I believe gas cooled rectors are inherently safer and can react quicker to load changes but there's only one semi experimental version of these in the world (China) producing about 250MW and these are still largely in the development phase. It also uses He gas and there's doubts the world has enough He to support many of these reactors.

I'm all for nuclear power in places where there is high population density and limited renewables, which is not Australia. My primary objection to NP is that nuclear power is a highly centralised bureaucratic form of power production and my preference is to set up energy systems that give as much control to users as possible.

Originally Posted by BobL

During a sabbatical in Japan in 1995 I worked on a small (about the size of 20ft container) nuclear (research) reactor that was turned on at 10am and shut down at 4pm every day. It was capable of about 100kW at peak but normally run at 20kW, and was dialled back to just ticking over (I think it was 1kW) when test samples were exchanged every hour or so. This was done by climbing stairs up on top of the reactor and lowering test samples into the core on lengths of string down inside a tube. Then we'd climb down and crank the power back up. Radiation monitoring was moderately well done.

This reactor was donated to Japan by a US Methodist church in the mid 1950's as part of an Atoms for Peace program. This is of course very different from say a massive 2GW steam generating reactor plant which has a huge thermal inertia and needs massive cooling. I believe gas cooled rectors are inherently safer and can react quicker to load changes but there's only one semi experimental version of these in the world (China) producing about 250MW and these are still largely in the development phase. It also uses He gas and there's doubts the world has enough He to support many of these reactors.

I'm all for nuclear power in places where there is high population density and limited renewables, which is not Australia. My primary objection to NP is that nuclear power is a highly centralised bureaucratic form of power production and my preference is to set up energy systems that give as much control to users as possible.

Thanks Bob

I was hoping you would weigh in on this subject with your practical knowledge.

Problems can often be overcome and necessity breeds invention. The problem I have is with people proposing solutions, without having a grasp on the realities, as if it were done and dusted. This is the current issue with nuclear in Australia. The big hurdle is the combination of privatiseation and the need for profitability. The proponents of nuclear would say they are cheap to run, requiring only relatively small amounts of fuel, but that does not take into account the huge upfront cost, which has to be repaid to the financier, and the considerable requirements of "safe" running amd maintenance, which are focused around cooling and containment.

Nuclear, as it exists, is not a commodity to be trifled with. When something goes wrong, it goes horribly wrong. Consequently, stringent safeguards have to be in place to minimise such an occurrence. They are all additional costs. There should not be any budget reactors built!

This is a little information (and we all know a little information is dangerous) on fast breeder reactors and their place in the nuclear world.

Breeder reactor - Wikipedia

and I dug up a little information on the Chinese SMR:

"ACP100 small modular reactor[edit]

In July 2019, China National Nuclear Corporation announced it would start building a demonstration ACP100 small modular reactor (SMR) on the north-west side of the existing Changjiang Nuclear Power Plant by the end of the year.^[64] Design of the ACP100 started in 2010 and it was the first SMR project to pass an independent safety assessment by International Atomic Energy Agency in 2016. It is also referred to as Linglong One and is a fully integrated reactor module with an internal coolant system, with a 2-year refuelling interval, producing 385 MWt and about 125 MWe, and incorporates passive safety features, and can be installed underground."

What is MWt compared to MWe?

Megawatts thermal - Energy Education

Easy really

It is in fact a joint project in conjunction with CHNG, who have an interest in the Millmerran Power Station. My take on CHNG (we just call them CHG, but that does not bring up the desired result in searches) is that they are receptive to alternative methods of power generation and their huge portfolio covers almost every type of generation currently available.

Regards
Paul

It doesn't say when manufacturing will commence (I'd guess around 3 years from now) but certainly appears to be a very good step:

Anthony Albanese announces Solar SunShot manufacturing program to boost Australian production - ABC News

"One in three Australian households have solar panels, the highest rate in the world, but only 1 per cent of them are manufactured locally."



The alternative idea from
Petato Dutton.JPG
is to put a Nuclear reactor on these old sites by maybe 2040??? (about 6-8 years after we have excellent battery storage happening?). 2040 will also be 12 years after we have lost around half of our Eastern Seaboard base load production that remains now (I posted supposedly accurate figures for that some months ago).

Thanks FF

A Cannon-Brooks initiative.

Regards
Paul

Re. making more solar panels here, I'm not sure how they propose to overcome the massive difference in labour costs between here and China? Possibly through massive automation/robotics, but that won't look good on the jobs creation front.

I'm sure we have superior panel technology, and can make a better quality, better performing product, but that still won't cut it if it comes out at twice the price of Chinese offerings. Tariffs on imported panels would only result in retaliation from China, and we're still unravelling the last lot of tariff hostilities caused by Scomo.

Originally Posted by Mr Brush

... I'm not sure how they propose to overcome the massive difference in labour costs between here and China? Possibly through massive automation/robotics, but that won't look good on the jobs creation front.

Yebbutt we HAVE to start making a stand to get some manufacturing happening here again. We can no longer afford to wait it out until Chinese wages force the labour costs up towards the rest of the world, hence making the field more level. It is an inevitable fact that that will happen, just as it has in Japan, just as it will also happen in Vietnam, followed by India, and eventually followed by Africa.

I say that because the power struggle between the USA and China will only increase, and we are going to be the shight in the shight sandwich. China will try to crush us economically (we've already seen them try and partially succeed) and eventually militarily if we don't take their side, and the USA will try to crush us diplomatically if we don't take their military side. China patrols our shores already, and knows all of the USA military sites here that are the eyes into China – they will be the very first targets because they are soft but crucial – too easy. It would only take a weak, discombobulated USA leader to do something dumb to set it all off (and yes, I do have someone in mind)

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Yebbutt we HAVE to start making a stand to get some manufacturing happening here again. We can no longer afford to wait it out until Chinese wages force the labour costs up towards the rest of the world, hence making the field more level. It is an inevitable fact that that will happen, just as it has in Japan, just as it will also happen in Vietnam, followed by India, and eventually followed by Africa.

FF

I call that the inexorable rise followed by the inevitable fall.

Regards
Paul