💧simon holmes à court Profile picture
Mar 9 30 tweets 9 min read Read on X
⚛️ why #nuclear power is a distraction for australia

if implemented, the #coalition's plan would see:
• increased gas & coal usage
• increased cost
• increased emissions
• higher chance of blackouts

read on to find out why… 🧵 Image
firstly, let me say i have a deep interest in nuclear.

i've visited multiple nuclear plants, met with companies planning to build SMRs and nuclear VCs, taken a nuclear course at @MIT and closely watched the sector for years.

i encourage the use of nuclear where it makes sense. Image
some context: nuclear has had a long history of nothing in australia, including the start of construction in jervis bay (promptly cancelled by a liberal PM) and a federal ban (under a liberal PM).

important to note there are also state bans, including in NSW, VIC & QLD. Image
those who say "we need to have a mature conversation" about nuclear must have missed the *six* inquiries held since 2006, including a royal commission.

hundreds of submissions, thousand of pages of expert reports, transcripts and analyses. Image
the fact is that every time the #coalition has no serious policy, they opt for a pre-commercial technology they have no intention of delivering.

…whether that's carbon capture & storage #CCS, "HELE clean coal" or small modular reactors #SMRs.

it's deja vu, all over again Image
the transition of our power grid is well underway.

12yrs ago the NEM was ~10% renewable & included 27 coal power stations. almost 1/2 have closed.

we're now up to ~40% RE.

AEMO's 4th #ISP projects ~95% RE 12 years from now, with all but one coal power stations closed. Image
we're moving at such a pace that it's clear that #nuclear has missed _this_ energy transition. Image
…there are 4 key barriers to #nuclear in #australia… Image
1. availability.

firstly, commercial SMRs do not exist.

yes, there are nuclear subs plying the ocean, a pair of small reactors on a barge in russia's arctic circle and a pair of pilot reactors in china… but none are commercially viable.

nothing commercial before the 2030s. Image
yes, we could build large reactors, but they're not fast nor cheap.

of the 5 nuclear power projects to start construction this century in north america & western europe, one was cancelled and the others will average 21 years from announcement to commercial operation. Image
this plant, VS summer in south carolina, was cancelled after US$10bn spent.

the utility company folded and the CEO and COO are serving time in jail for lying to regulators. Image
hinkley point C, in the UK, will be ~24 years from the project announcement to commercial operation… and the cost has blown out to ~A$90bn.

its wholesale cost of power is A$250/MWh… or 2.5x as much as the average in australia over the past 5 years. Image
you'll see people claim it takes 3 years, or 6 or 10, to build a nuclear power station, but that's usually just the time from pouring first 'nuclear concrete' to first grid connection in countries with mature and warm nuclear supply chains — and excludes many many prerequisites.
i'm not saying it has to take 24 years to build a nuke in australia… but there's really no way we could have our first nuclear kilowatt hour in australia before 2040, and that's a very ambitious timeframe.
2. extraordinary cost.

we have the world's best resources of wind & solar. much lower than most nuclear countries.

CSIRO's estimates that the costs of SMRs would yield energy for ~20c/kWh more than a high-renewables scenario.

nuclear — big & small — is uneconomic in 🇦🇺. Image
3. intractable politics

the greens, implacably opposed, hold the balance of power. many in labor will die on the same hill — the party wouldn't risk a schism.

i bet labor strategists want the coalition to talk about nuclear energy every day between now and the next election.
polling shows:
• nuclear is almost as unpopular as coal
• coalition voters prefer renewables over nuclear
• a significant number of coalition voters dislike nuclear.

oh, it's also banned in NSW, VIC & QLD — ie. it's a state _and_ federal issue.
Image
Image
4. suitability for our grid

this is the last week in the national electricity market… turquoise = renewables, black = fossils.

that's at ~40% RE… there's some room in that grid for "baseload" generation (in NSW, VIC or QLD).

but that's 2024… Image
here's a slightly different view of SA over the same period, with ~70% RE.

turquoise = wind and solar, purple = residual demand.

residual demand, "everything else", must be filled with dispatchable power. Image
this is the same chart, but showing just residual demand. it's very spiky.

the whole NEM will look like this by ~2030 — though the spikes will get skinnier and sparser as renewables and storage increase through the decade.

nuclear wants to supply flat, constant power. Image
yes, nuclear can theoretically work at a low level in a grid with spiky residual demand… but it's _really_ challenging to operate that way and it smashes the economics.
the #coalition hasn't detailed its plans, but we know this:
• @tedobrienmp objects to the 82% renewable energy target.
• @D_LittleproudMP supports a moratorium on utility-scale wind & solar.

so, what'd happen if we had a moratorium on utility RE?

aap.com.au/news/demo-agai…
if we assume the plan is to slow RE, prolong coal, build nuclear _fast_, and fill the gaps with gas…

by 2050 we could:
• burn 19,000 PJ more gas
• burn 255 Mt more coal
• push emissions up 2,100 MtCO₂
• spend $200bn+ more on electricity Image
…since our coal power stations are becoming less reliable (see AEMO reports) and we don't have that much gas, @PeterDutton_MP is asking for blackouts.

the gas usage above is 12x current projections, the equivalent of 13.5 years of our export volumes.

…that's just to 2050!
the #coalition has many tough questions to answer as they unveil their policy. it's going to be a wild ride: Image
…but the biggest question will be left to voters.

which button will you press? Image
to sum up…

who cares whether you are pro- or anti-nuclear? put aside the culture war.

there's no conceivable world where we #nuclear could play a meaningful role before our coal power stations have all retired.

…unless you want higher prices, higher emissions and blackouts.
…that said, maybe the nuclear sector will get its act together over the coming decades.

maybe the technology… one i greatly admire… will play a role in our next energy transition?

never say never.

…but for now, the coalition is just playing politics.
adapted from a talk given at #SmartEnergy24 — slides available here:
scribd.com/document/71160…
"hey chatGPT, please summarise thread in just 6 words"

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with 💧simon holmes à court

💧simon holmes à court Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @simonahac

Jul 20
hardly a week goes by without some 🪿telling me that "saudi arabia built a nuclear power station in just 8 years" or similar.

south korea built it for the UAE & it'll be 16+ years from formal announcement to project completion.

no, it was not on time & likely not on budget Image
any 🪿telling you nuclear can be built in australia in 2-3, 5, 10 or 15 years:
• ignores years of work required before construction starts
• doesn't understand IAEA's "construction" ignores _years_ of actual construction
• assumes an established regulator & warm supply chain.
Read 6 tweets
Jun 28
🤓 icymi, latest data from @EnergyInstitute is out!

this dataset has been lovingly curated since 1952, until recently by @bp_plc.

a good report, lots of charts and most exciting for energy nerds, lots of raw data!

i knocked up a few charts 🧵

energyinst.org/statistical-re…
🤓 global electricity generation by technology

gas and coal still growing, but at a slower pace than renewables.

quite likely we'll see coal and gas both peak in the next few years. Image
🤓 global nuclear and wind+solar, as energy

nuclear peaked in 2006. IEA expects that a new peak may be set in 2025. Image
Read 9 tweets
Jun 18
☢️ with the #coalition expected to announce its #nuclear plan on wednesday, here are 18 questions every diligent journalist should be seeking answers to:

🧵
1. how will dutton remove the ban?

the coalition would require control of the senate to repeal the ban, which is embedded in two acts.

the coalition hasn’t controlled the senate since 2004-2007.
2. which state(s) would dutton build the reactors in?

only VIC, NSW and QLD grids are big enough to handle a large nuclear reactor.

WA, SA and TAS grids are too small to host a GW-scale reactor.
Read 20 tweets
May 20
🤓 you'll probably hear scary claims today about "blackouts" in NSW, due to a "reliability gap".

…caused by delays with SA-NSW transmission line, a few batteries & mothballed generators.

to meet the 99.998% reliability standard, NSW needs to build more kit.

not a big deal. 🧵 Image
the eraring power station has 4 units, each 720MW. delaying closure of 1-2 units could fill the gap.

a 500MW–1GW gas generator operating <10 hours a year would also suffice. lower emissions and might be cheaper?

helpfully AEMO has provided 9 options to fill the gap: Image
small reliability gaps are forecast in VIC and SA, but far enough out that they'll likely evaporate… as they often do for this regular report.

why? because the reports show what happens if we don't do anything more than committed — and we pretty much always do.
Read 6 tweets
May 15
i attended the ‘navigating nuclear’ conference on monday in sydney.

up front: there were some high quality presentations — on issues such as health impacts, safety culture, regulatory systems. Image
…but sadly there was also some abject nonsense…
the presentation below argued that we have two options:

1. build a complex grid of wind, solar, hydro, hydrogen, batteries, pumped hydro, transmission and EVs.

2. just build nuclear and use existing powerlines.

…apparently #2 is the way to go. 🙄 Image
Read 10 tweets
Mar 21
⚛️ @abcnews's recent #FactCheck made a classic rookie error in calculating that the latest US nukes had "build times of 10.1 and 10.4 years".

depending how you count it, it took somewhere between 13.9 years and ~19 years to build them.

easy mistake to make.

let me explain… 🧵
ABC's analysis assumes the build time is the elapsed period between "construction start" and "grid connection" dates.

in the real world, a nuclear power building project begins years before "construction start" and often finishes months after "grid connection".
"construction start" is defined by the IAEA as the "the date when first major placing of concrete for the base mat of the reactor building is made."

"grid connection" is when "the plant is first connected to the electrical grid for the supply of power."

pris.iaea.org/PRIS/Glossary.…
Read 18 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(