Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

It looks as though the curtain has finally come down on nukes for Oz:

Political battle over nuclear power moves to the states (thenewdaily.com.au)

A former energy minister in the NSW government was just one dissenter:

"Liberal dissent

Matt Kean, a former energy minister and treasurer in Dominic Perrottet’s NSW government, has resigned from a Liberal and National Party member-run renewable energy advocacy group because it supported nuclear energy over wind and solar.
“The reality is there is no feasible pathway [for nuclear energy] to play any material role in helping Australia replace our coal-fired power stations in line with the climate science,” Kean said."

and this in particular:

[I]“Large-scale nuclear reactors have proven costly and slow to deliver and would refer you to the UK experience with the Hinkley Point C power station, and the fact that small modular nuclear reactors are not currently commercial anywhere in the world.”

Of course this has been known for some time, but those with an agenda were attempting to give it life like Frankenstein's monster. It remains to be seen how one prominent Liberal stalwart will save face or even accept this decision.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Of course this has been known for some time, but those with an agenda were attempting to give it life like Frankenstein's monster. It remains to be seen how one prominent Liberal stalwart will save face or even accept this decision.

Maybe that'll teach him not to nail his colours to a mast that was already underwater??

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

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

this is a few days old for a reply bush miller


but just remember origin energy mainly deal with gas supply, Imagine what might happen if you take 2800MW out of the grid from coal. It's almost like the Gas plants may need to run harder to cover the gap in the production. I wonder what might happen to gas prices if there was a sudden demand for it...



most of the people you talk to at Eraring are basically saying the company is just holding out to get a big cash grab from the government to stay open.

Whether the pro-nuclear lobby will let the facts get in the way remains to be seen.

I read recently that Bill Gates is getting into liquid sodium reactor nuclear power. Apparently he started his fund raising (via a company know as TerraPower) back in 2008 and the first reactor will be up and running by 2030 (hah hah). Given the way bill's foundation has managed to botch pretty well everything they touch (human health, agriculture, media, science etc) I don't rate the chances that this will get anywhere significant. It also needs to be born in mind that this is taking place in a country that already has a nuclear energy regulatory system and industry, and we have none of this

Originally Posted by havabeer69

this is a few days old for a reply bush miller


but just remember origin energy mainly deal with gas supply, Imagine what might happen if you take 2800MW out of the grid from coal. It's almost like the Gas plants may need to run harder to cover the gap in the production. I wonder what might happen to gas prices if there was a sudden demand for it...



most of the people you talk to at Eraring are basically saying the company is just holding out to get a big cash grab from the government to stay open.

HAB

No need to apologise for late replies. Life has to go on and the Forum is probably way down the list of priorities for most.

Yes, Origin's other interests are a good point and I can see that the demand for gas could rise dramatically without Erarings contribution. This would inevitably mean that electricity prices would rise too. Possibly this is the scenario Origin is putting to the government (State gov I am assuming in the first instance, although it could become federal too). Unfortunately, maintenance of aging stations becomes expensive as maintenance morphs into replacement and Eraring's owners have a very good case for their proposal to shut it down. The galling aspect is how cheaply they were "gifted" the station in the first place and their attitude today.

It rather sounds as if either way Origin comes out with a win.

Just as a small aside our Unit 1 at Millmerran was taken offline yesterday for a major, planned outage. One of the jobs is to replace some attemperators. These pieces of equipment are called "superheater de-superheaters" in the NSW systems and are a method of controlling the steam temperatures at different points in the steam flow path (information for the non-power station readers). Ours are situated on the top level of the boiler. The largest of them weights about 8.5T. The only way they can be moved into place is by crane and removal of a section of the roof. This was done a few days ago in readiness for the "shut."

A crane was hired for this purpose: A big bastad. 350T, which is for the reach required more than the weight. Some pix:

This is without the top boom raised:

P1090506.jpgP1090507.jpgcrane.JPG

The top boom extension has it's own trailer to assist mobility. Aside from the mobile crane itself, I was told the components came on five separate trailers.

P1090511.jpg

The attemperator being lifted by a 20T Franna.. quite easily.

P1090519.jpg

Some idea of the reach required:
P1090515.jpgP1090523.jpg crane 2.JPG


All this comes at quite a price even though the crane was only there for three days. If it had been too windy or even wet, it might have been four or five days! Just showing this to provide some pictorial relief and to demonstrate the sort of costs that can be encountered as time goes on. We, at Millmerran, are only twenty two years old!

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

We, at Millmerran, are only twenty two years old!

There is no way that everybody there could be the same age.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

There is no way that everybody there could be the same age.

FF

Agreed and 22 years old is not even a memory any more .

Regards
Paul

Now I am not really advocating that the "Mini Grid" is any sort of solution to Australia's electrical future, but it does highlight the variety of options out there:

What are mini-grids, and why are they important? (msn.com)

Having said that I believe there are a number of new housing developments and other locations that have been set up to be self-sufficient as far as electricity needs are concerned.

People power: everyday Australians are building their own renewables projects, and you can too (theconversation.com)

Regards
Paul

Not sure if mini grids differ from Micro Grids but there are at least 4 micro grids operating in WA and a bunch more in the pipeline.

Recently a couple of new micro grids in Nullagine and Carnarvon using 100/400kWh ZnBr flow and 250/1450 kWh NaS long term batteries have been announced.
See
https://arena.gov.au/assets/2024/03/...d_25032024.pdf

Originally Posted by Mr Brush

Luckily Dutton's pro-nookular arguments are likely to blow up in his face long before we ever build anything than can blow up more seriously. He clearly subscribes to the Trump model of ignoring any inconvenient facts that get in the way of his agenda. I'm glad to see that the CSIRO guys scampered into the net and volleyed his idiotic comments straight back at him.

Before seeing Dutton spouting his crap on TV, I used to think that builders were the only people who would tell a lie to your face even in the sure and certain knowledge that they'd be called out on it inside 10 minutes... "Yeah, mate, it's supposed to be like that. Nothing we can do about it now."

If the information now surfacing is true, the CSIROs data is 5 years out of date and a recent interview with the head of the CSIRO had him saying “ we will look into nuclear generation later” .

Originally Posted by Lappa

If the information now surfacing is true, the CSIROs data is 5 years out of date and a recent interview with the head of the CSIRO had him saying “ we will look into nuclear generation later” .

That doesn't necessarily mean that 5 year old data has changed much, if any. We know that it's still extremely expensive to set up, with a very long lead time, and with eye-watering de-commissioning costs to be passed on to 2 to 3 generations down the track.

I still think that whether or not it can be made viable will be a moot point because renewables, and storage in particular, will have matured well before nuclear would be ready, and probably before the argument has finished (because it WILL be a very long argument).

I don’t believe the average time of 6 to 8 years to build a large scale nuclear reactor is all that long when you look at Snowy 2 and the estimated time to wire the grid from the renewables and have enough renewables in place to replace current coal or gas fired generators.
In regards to the CSIRO - they should be advising the Govt with reliable and up-to- date information.
Currently it appears the Govt is sdvising the CSIRO.
Here’s an interesting opinion
More misinformation from CSIRO on Nuclear - YouTube

There are, to my mind, two big advantages of nuclear power. Firstly, in this modern era, it is not an emitter of CO2. Secondly, the fuel itself is relatively cheap, primarily because it does not use much fuel in terms of volume.

However, neither of these advantages come into play without a huge amount of initial expense as the setup costs and regulation, which in this country would still have to be established (another minefield), are mindboggling.

As to contamination, admittedly there is not much in the way of CO2, but there will be an abundance of radiated material that cannot just be exploded or otherwise recycled when the use by date is up and the plant is de-commissioned.

In a practical context we have to ask ourselves if nuclear can compete with renewables during the day on the one hand and through the night on the other. Right now, nothing competes with renewables during the day. The coal fired stations back off to their minimum practical loads and pay to stay online. The gas units (years ago we used to call them "wizzers") stop completely, hence their peaking capabilities. The nukes would be in the same position as the coal fired units. So, although the nuke's fuel costs are relatively low, the owners or investors are hugely in debt to the financiers (banks and others). This is a debt that is likely to be in place for at least two thirds of the station's life, if not longer. The question now is whether a nuke could make enough money through the night to make up for the loss through the day.

Unlikely.

Furthermore, this means that any prospective investor would be looking at the situation in Australia as to whether they could make money, bearing in mind that the cost of setting up a nuke is around twice, or maybe more, than a fossil fired station. The answer: Nah!

End of story. Look for another solution to the nighttime supply problem and find it sooner rather than later. Wake up Australia.

Regards
Paul