Reading an Australian energy commentator yesterday, got pissy that those who a few years ago attacked me for suggesting frequency control/system strength are real issues, now write articles reporting on the impacts of it's absence, with no mea culpa...then I thought...
When have I been wrong, and how clearly have I made the point? Well, here are my Greatest Hits of wrongness on the journey. 1. Over-egging SMR way to early. Wow, did I get excited by B&W M-Power and Hyperion etc and build presentations around them.
As an outsider, had scant appreciation of the challenges of bringing new designs to market. 2. Over-egging IFR/PRISM. See point 1, in this case add naive believe that basically the perfect technology to solve climate change + nuclear waste WOULD be supported into commercial life
Right??? I mean how could it not???
3. Being insufficiently critical of USA AP1000 new build/too ready to treat it as done. Scant appreciation of barriers to basically restarting a build industry after hiatus.
Noticing a theme?
3. Being insufficiently critical of USA AP1000 new build/too ready to treat it as done. Scant appreciation of barriers to basically restarting a build industry after hiatus.
Noticing a theme?
4. Believing Australia will have to reach climate/energy/nuclear consensus by oh let's say 2020. No, actually we can let the whole thing degrade even longer and worse than that while we stay in our trenches.
5. Not wrong, having never put out a firm position, but will say did underestimate the steepness of the cost fall for onshore wind and solar PV.
6. Probably most notable, gave my first public presentation 'Nuclear Power - From Opponent to Proponent' March 8 2011 - three days before Japanese tsunami. Wasn't 'wrong' but had to amend my understanding of industry fallibility hard and fast over the next few years
Theme seems clear - enthusiastic outsider, with different qualifications and with strong climate action in mind, short on industry smarts. The good news is I have learned, a lot, keep learning and get better at learning - by starting on the presumption that I don't know...
Now to be nice to myself. Where have I been notably right? 1. The paper 'Beyond Wind' about South Australia's energy transition towards variable renewables aged like a fine Barossa Shiraz. Our system and economic prognostications were absolutely prescient.
2. The paper 'Burden of Proof' ageing just as well, absolutely forced the research sector to take the challenges of excluding nuclear more seriously on grounds of environmental damage, system strength, transmission etc
3. The nuclear meltdowns in Japan are going to cause little health impact from radiation, but a massive setback on decarbonisation if we turn away from fission. 4. Renewable tech is a weak force for decarbonisation on its own. True then, truer now.
5. Thorium is just a freaking mineral - doesn't change anything about challenges of bringing a new and better nuclear product to market, makes some of them bigger. See Greatest Hits of Wrongness above. I learned from it.
That's enough introspection for today. Feel free to chime in with any of my greatest hits and misses I have overlooked.
Oooh I thought of some more. WRONG: Hot dry rock geothermal and ocean power (see Carnegie especially) will be allowing Australia to retire coal in Australia by 2020. I was making that strong inference in reports around 2008.
RIGHT: CCS on coal is, economically and environmentally speaking speaking, sort of the world's silliest nuclear power plant and no one will really do this. So far, so right.
