Fifty years of the French Nuclear Industry
The dismal, destitution of our national energy debate
You would think our former Chief Scientist would know how to do basic research before commenting in the national news?
Alan Finkel says Australia probably couldn’t build one nuclear plant in less than twenty years, because the UAE took fifteen years. But fifty years ago the French built 56 nuclear plants in just 15 years. Isn’t that relevant and shouldn’t we at least mention that? At the time, the population of France was 51 million — twice what Australia is today. So pro rata, Australia could be aiming for 26 reactors.
If we ask nicely, perhaps we could borrow the old 1973 plans? The Messmer plan was launched in response to the oil crisis and the French started construction on three plants in the same year. The slogan they used was “In France, we do not have oil, but we have ideas.”
In Australia, our slogan it seems, is we don’t have oil, but we buy solar panels from China.
In a similar vein, two weeks ago Sweden announced it would be building 10 new nuclear reactors by 2045. With 10 million people, the pattern apparently is that building one nuclear plant per million people is the norm.
Now both those countries already have or had a few nuclear plants running, so they weren’t starting cold. Australia just has one medical grade reactor and some hypothetical nuclear subs. But in 1973, France didn’t have fifty years of industrial research to draw on, and there weren’t 436 reactors operating around the world. If hypothetically, we were in an existential crisis of world ending proportions, you’d think we could build faster than we used to in the 1970s?
Alan Finkel was Special Adviser to the Australian Government for Low Emissions Technologies for two years up to November 2022, so he was paid to know this sort of thing. Nuclear power is the ultimate low emission technology. It was his duty to figure this out. Last year he was awarded the Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) in the Australia Day Honours for “eminent service to science, to national energy innovation and research infrastructure capability, to climate change and COVID-19 response initiatives, and to science and engineering education”. These prizes have become a bad joke.
Alan Finkel clearly doesn’t mind giving Australians half the truth and the Sydney Morning Herald is of course, happy to print drivel. All Mike Foley, said journalist, had to do to be investigative was phone up anyone in the nuclear industry in the USA or France, or search on a climate skeptics blog.
Coalition’s campaign for nuclear energy implausible, experts say
Mike Foley Sydney Morning Herald
Former chief scientist Alan Finkel says it would take decades to develop a local nuclear energy industry, as he and other experts reject the Coalition’s push to switch focus from renewables to nuclear as implausible since Australia needs urgent replacement for its ageing coal-fired power plants.
Finkel said it was highly unlikely that Australia could open a nuclear power plant before the early 2040s, saying autocratic United Arab Emirates took more than 15 years to complete its first nuclear plan using established technology.
Instead of being an “Order of Australia” kind of guy, serving his country, Finkel sounds like a salesman for renewable energy:
The economic viability of Australia’s ageing fleet of coal-fired power stations, which still make up two-thirds of the electricity grid, has been hammered by cheaper sources of renewable energy. Replacement power is urgently needed, with five of 15 plants due to shut within a decade and more tipped to follow.
The whole system cost is ultimately what matters to families. We keep adding renewable energy and yet the more we add the more the prices rise. That’s the evidence that matters, the observation a “scientist” is supposed to notice.
In the end, Australia needs cheap energy and nothing is cheaper than coal. Burn the coal, feed the world, and then set up a nuclear industry…
h/t indefatigable David from Cooyal in Oz
Wikimedia photo compiled from photos by Utilisateur:Djampa, Andrzej Otrębski, Panelfestoon, Esby, Soviflo, Sancio83, Florian Pépellin, François GOGLINS, Xtrasystole, Stefan Kühn, Raimond Spekking, SashiRolls, Pablo el ciclista, Serlito, Yelkrokoyade, Felix König.
Well timed article, Jo. Many of us shake our heads at the drivel past and present governments have told us on energy sources. it’s fine we sell coal that basically underpins our economy but we cannot use it here with new coal technology but China opens a new one every other week. Same with uranium, we cannot use it but we can sell it. Sometimes it feels like our governments have a death wish for our country. On top of that, continuing to buy solar and wind components from a hostile and aggressive China makes no sense to many of us.
730
Got to agree Dave.
Remember “orange man bad “ warned Germany &rest of EU not to be reliant on Russian oil & gas. ( enemies seldom are reliable trading partners ) & look where they are today!!
Australia is following the dumb ALP policies of reliance on the worlds biggest enemy.
When the turbines burn out & solar panels die the rest of the world will have nuclear & we will be begging China for replacement windmills & panels.
Morons identifying as a government doesn’t quite describe the idiocy of the ALP / Greens coalition!
576
except Russia is not an enemy.
66
I agree Dave, I have said many times of late that Albo clearly dislikes this country and is happy to see it go down the tube. Learning to pronounce the name of it would be a help. No Albo, it’s NOT Shtraya. ToM
360
I can’t help thinking what can Australia build now?
200
Sand castles?
261
With all the environmental impact statements, consultations with the local Aboriginal land council, council permits, etc., they’d still take as long as a nuclear power to build and they’d be Chinese-owned as well.
140
Until the Chinese developers come and offer those being consulted some stuff in brown paper bags – then all gets approved in no time and Bob’s your uncle.
180
Would the sandcastles help with the homeless problem?
90
They’d solve it.
60
Haven’t you heard? With Chinese solar panels and wind turbines, that we purchase with our coal, Australia is going to become a renewables superpower.
Eat your heart out, Pingo.
190
Since solat panels are faily robust we could repurpose them as a building product. Joined and silasticised they could make a reasonable shelter. Better than land fill. Propellor blades look like a skate park accessory.
20
Dept.
50
‘ … what can Australia build now?’
Hang onto the mix of coal and renewables until fusion comes into play.
Apparently there is an abundance of Helium-3 on the moon, so within a couple of decades Fusion Power should be on the market.
32
I always thought that fusion was always just a decade away… doing nothing whilst we wait seems foolish and lazy.
120
They already have the technology for Fusion, they just didn’t have enough Helium-3 to make it viable.
So the race is now on to mine the moon, which will be a game changer for life on earth.
On the question of nuclear power, Australians are not in favour and it would take at least a decade to convince them otherwise.
01
It would have been nice if China had embargoed solar panels and wind turbines rather than barley, wine, coal, lobster…
We won in the World Trade Organization Court of Arbitration earlier this year, but what did Penny Wong promise Beijing in return for us dropping the case?
190
Not so subtle anti-Taiwan stances, “student” visa relaxation, silence or pretend outrage when CCP attacks SE Asian states (eg: Philippines), no possible further action at WTO, no domestic nuclear industry – for starters.
90
Of the 20 Countries in the G20, 19 of them use Nuclear Energy to generate electricity. There is one Country that doesn’t. And that Country is Australia – The ‘Cleva Country’……./sarc
160
ZTT Cable is going to get the biz for the 500kV ring cables to connect those wind & solar farms to Snowy 2.0
China will be able to turn the switch to Melbourne and Sydney OFF.
50
I think Dr Hansen’s description of COP 21 Paris should be used here.
Everything yapped about our Energy needs are just BS and fraud and we should build only BASE-LOAD Coal, Gas or SM Nuclear ASAP.
How any so called sane person BELIEVEs that W & S are cheap is just delusional nonsense as is shown around the world.
I think that Small Modular Nukes are the answer for Australia and could be sited where the Coal plants are today.
In the interim we should maintain our old coal generators until we wake up and start to think.
570
Agree with Dave and Neville above and I’m sure many people in Australia feel the same.
Instead of this silly voice referendum perhaps we should be voting on nuclear power . .
510
Not only does the World have the expertise to build NPP’s they have become smaller and more compact. we should build NPPs before fooling ourselves with nuclear submarines!
180
Unfortunately hardly anyone seems to understand countries’ co2 emissions since 1988.
Since Dr Hansen’s speech in Washington DC the wealthy OECD countries have added an extra 0.16 billion tonnes per annum ( by 2021) and the developing NON OECD countries have added another 14.4 billion tonnes p.a.
Shipping and Air travel have also added another 1 billion + tonnes p.a over that time, or up to 2021.
IOW the OECD are irrelevant and can have ZERO impact on their so called climate change by 2050 or 2100. But we can WASTE endless TRILLIONs of $ for NOTHING and we will become weak and vulnerable to future attacks.
260
I was in Dubai, UAE, about 18 months ago. I had talks with a number of engineers from the petroleum area (there are quite a few of these engineers, of course).
The 15 year period that Finkel makes so much of was mostly taken up with internal UAE argument over whether to use nuclear technology or add additional gas-fired plants. A slightly similar situation to Aus …
By the way, the reason that Finkel and the lefties have suddenly talked about UAE and nuclear grid power is because they are aware that we know, so the SMH article is a pre-emptive strike. And note the use of the adjective “autocratic” – lefty objections can’t be cancelled, only righty ones. Shows they are worried by the pressure.
Once the UAE decision was committed to, French expertise and (still ongoing) training had the first of these operational within 5 years, with the second now under construction budgetted for 3 years.
Aus can’t use French expertise now, of course, but US and UK experience is there for the hiring.
370
According to Wikipedia, Barakah was designed and built by the folks from South Korea, using I believe nuclear technology based on the Canadian CANDU system. Didn’t think the French were involved.
Please correct me if I’m wrong here.
In any case, Barakah was built on time, on budget, about 8 years for each unit. When Unit 4 is brought online, will deliver 5.6GW reliably for many years, with costs to its users around A$0.26/kWh.
250
“On time and on budget” is impossible in Victoria and will become increasingly so with Federal government projects now that the unions have showing their claws well and truly stuck into the Albanese Government.
280
Hi Graeme,
All the UAE plants are PWRs, the Westinghouse APR1400 design. So, not the CANDU design. Built by a South Korean consortium, and designed by them. Any confusion may have arisen as South Korea has a number of CANDU reactors in their nuclear fleet. Rather than Wikipedia, for all things nuclear, it is far better to visit World Nuclear News. There is extensive cross-referencing on the various pages there. For the Barakah plants, start at, for example: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Third-unit-completed-at-Barakah.
Cheers,
Paul Miskelly
320
Thank you, Paul.
Those with actual hands-on in the nuclear scene sometimes feel like pulling hair out when time after time well-meaning supportive onlookers seem to regard our nuclear future as a popularity poll on which all and sundry can vote.
In reality, it is now a serious, desperate matter when decisions to proceed or not have large future consequences for all Australians.
There are no real impediments to prevent Australia doing a France. The only impediments are those in the uneducated minds of decision makers.
I count Dr Finkel as uneducated. He has written some bad science on topics about which he knows little, coming across as a gifted amateur. I have done much more for the betterment of fellow Aussies than he has, but my effort has not involved gift. Geoff S
230
Ian,
32 countries have nuclear power . They can’t put that cat back in the bag . We have had nuclear energy for 65 years and have ironed out the big issues . The big problem is getting people with intelligence and practical knowledge involved . Nuclear technology is not tolerant of mistakes .
240
And Japanese, Korean and Canadian.
50
The trouble with politically motivated people like Finkel – aside from their intrinsic field of expertise is their lack of wisdom to go with it. I’ve met many erudite people in my life but only a few have the ability to grasp a strategic concept. I accept his field is electrical engineering and application to neuroscience but that is where it ends. We can and should follow the best option after fossil fuels and that is NUCLEAR.
180
Given the previous post.
With a budget of $1.5T, and a ‘cost,’ of $5B per reactor. Australia could build 5/1500 = 300 1GW reactors….
200
And scatter them around the country where they are needed, thus removing the need for long expensive transmission lines that destroy farming property.
310
Some folks are trying to gain mileage from France’s recent hiccup when many of the nuclear plants had to be shut down for urgent work. During this time, France had to import power after being a net energy exporter for 40 years.
I believe that at least 43/56 plants have been returned to service, and I’m sure that soon France will once again be a net exporter.
170
“…and I’m sure that soon France will once again be a net exporter…” That’s a no-brainer with the trajectory of the majority of the EU NIMBYs.
100
France extends the lifespan of its biggest nuclear power plant.
https://rmx.news/france/france-extends-the-lifespan-of-its-biggest-nuclear-power-plant/
The French Atomic Energy Authority (ASN) has extended the operating license of one of the country’s first nuclear power plant units by 10 years, which means the power plant will be in operation for 50 years.
[Energy Transition Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher] also recalled that only nuclear power plants can meet France’s energy needs and its climate objectives.
France plans to build 14 new nuclear power plants by 2050 and to increase the operating lifetime from 40 to 50 years of modernized plants that are about to close but meet safety standards.
10
AGAIN here’s the countries’ co2 data up to 2021.
Just add OECD to NON OECD + about another 1 billion tonnes p,a ( shipping + planes) by 2021 to get to 37.1 billion tonnes p.a (world) by 2021.
The graphs are active, so allows you to check the difference over a period of time.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=OWID_WRL~Non-OECD+%28GCP%29~OECD+%28GCP%29
30
When a panellist recently suggested on morning TV that we have an inquiry on nuclear, Shorten’s responded that we may as well also have an inquiry on unicorns. This is the sad state of debate in our country right now.
340
The sad thing is, he’s probably right.
70
Mr. Shorten may be “right” but only because he would rather debate unicorns. A comment above (#6.2) referred to the challenge of “getting people with intelligence and practical knowledge involved”. Given the considerable failure of Australian education (all levels) the problem appears insurmountable.
40
I don’t believe they’re lacking intelligence. Most of them are beholden to group-think which was ingrained in their student politician days. I was in the Uni system in the past, and I still hear Uni pollies – not on campus but on MSM.
50
Why anyone wants to increase our electricity costs yet again by going nuclear remains a mystery to me. We can do it with coal and gas for a fraction of the cost. We should stop debating this issue on the rent seeker’s terms. They know the nuclear argument is a dead end.
261
Agreed Uber. Nuclear is just a huge red herring and the pro renewables (ruinables) lobby will just use the subject to create a diversion. We’ve had government inquiries into nuclear. Ziggy concluded last time that yes, nuclear is possible , but why bother when you have hundreds of years of coal just sitting there with the infrastructure already built.
210
Why bother? diversity of energy sources, preparing for future transition, knowledge building, skill transfer and genetally doing things other than being a quarry.
30
Well if you can get rid of terms like Net Zero and Carbon pollution you’ve got the argument in the bag. I personally favour new generation coal fired plants but I think we’re on the losing end on that one.
120
If a country is at ‘net zero’ it is not adding to so called “carbon pollution”. Meanwhile there is objective and growing evidence (via published papers in top science journals) that Australia is already at net zero. And this is by simply following the current accounting rules as articulated by the UNFCCC & IPCC. See: https://www.beefcentral.com/news/renowned-scientist-says-australia-could-already-be-at-net-zero/. This claim flabbergasts everyone who hears it. But just consider the type of country and management which leads to Australian government approved “Carbon Offset” schemes and you will be on your way to understanding that what is being measured on selected rural landscapes, logically applies to the whole of the Australian continent. QED. [Apologies in advance to any who might think I am simply promoting my own studies in this subject area. The fact is that I have researched these matters for over a 40 year working career and for another 20 years in retirement. Now at age 81 I’m just about ready to hang up my boots. But to watch this country disintegrating its economy under the thrall of agenda driven zealots and poorly advised politicians and public servants is breaking my heart]. Poor fellow my country indeed!
80
Nuclear would provide a useful backup to the base load power requirements and educate Australia in its use. If we don’t our “allies” might just punish us because we are naughty carbon emitters, further destroying any manufacturing base that’s left in Australia.
130
Uber,
Do you have any actual experience to back your words?
Perhaps your argument is that nuclear is expensive. If it is, it has been made expensive by activists who have loaded on costs for 50 years, seldom taken any off.
If you think it unsafe, it has the safest record by far for electricity on large scale.
You should put a price on future uses of fossil fuels apart from burning them in large quantities.
Geoff S
141
I don’t know, look at Fukushima, will not be habitable for the foreseeable future.
https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2021/03/fukushimas-tragic-legacy-radioactive-soil-ongoing-leaks-and-unanswered-questions
The foreseeable future is now.
33
Hmm, ?.. some thought that about Hiroshima, Bikini Atol, etc, and even Chernoble, but some people and a lot of wildlife is thriving there again !
Someday, we will stumble across the secret to neutralise excess radiation contamination.
61
Seriously?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki couldn’t be rebuilt for 12 months, give it there was a war thingy going on at the time, which may have delayed it 11 or so months
Links are there for a reason.
Don’t know what they’re growing on those farms but I bet there big.
https://earth.google.com/web/search/fukasima+power/@37.38045343,140.79561614,601.80236496a,76701.01767266d,35y,0h,0t,0r/data=CigiJgokCe_f65JyxkFAEayYBrBgwUFAGZbvPRhOkGFAIZBEPvuRjWFA
40
WA’s Monte Bello islands, the site for a lot of nuclear testing, is now regarded as a top fishing spot, with many fishing charters there. Maralinga also runs guided tours. You were saying?
60
Look at Hiroshima, look at Nagasaki, people can never live there again, is that what you want for Australia?
23
???….wtf ?
Hiroshima has a population of 2+ million..
Nagasaki is 1.5 + million ..
61
Still can’t open links Chad.
Those population numbers are head counts, we all know that the contamination causes mutations so you can halve those numbers.
12
With respect,MP,
Gy
You write a load of baloney unless it is satire.
The regulatory limits for land use following nuclear radiation change have been forced by power and money to follow a horribly faulty model, the LNT for Linear No Threshold, which claims fairy land style that one man-made nuclear impact on the body is enough to cause cancer or other damage like mutations.
I wrote a WUWT article about this and the Rockefeller Foundation a few months ago. Easy to search, easy to read, factually accurate.
Nuclear technology will persist to be nobbled by people who know not what they do – but are not forgiven by this Father – until the proper science of dose/harm relations is adopted as standard and failed regulators are sacked for the huge damage they have done to people needing electricity, better health and more.
The regulatory parasites will be called out one day, bit by bit, like drawing decayed teeth. Indeed, I can see signs of the corrections starting at last, with Repub members questioning officials in US Congress open sessions.
It is the swamp again, as usual, doing immense harm to nuclear technology, science in general and social progress. Sick bastards.
Geoff S
32
So you’re a satire theorist as well.
I read no respect in your writings, but an attack on our one true source of truths, our governments is obvious.
When you get a peer reviewed article published in the conversation I will read it, WUWT is a well-known denier site, your hanging with the wrong crowds.
My wife brought baloney the other day, first time I have tried it, I can tell you’ve swallowed a bit in your time though.
23
Because it looks like it’s that or the diabolical renewables. Yes, I know we would be better off with coal and gas.
60
Agreed. Nuclear would increase our power bills by quite a bit. HELE coal and gas would be the best, most reliable and cheapest way to go, and we need to start building now. The problem is that nobody would be wiling to put up the capital because of fear the plants would be shut down by regulators before recouping the investment.
Wind and solar are very inefficient with regard to land use and require thousands of km of transmission lines at a cost for Australia of several trillion dollars. They cannot provide reliable base load power without a battery backup for which the technology does not yet exist. Current battery technology just for Australia would exhaust the world’s known reserves of lithium.
The only reason Australia needs nuclear is that the alternatives are either political poison or even more eye wateringly expensive.
70
Uber, some FCOE cost comparisons for you, calculated over the long lifetimes of coal, gas and SMR nuclear:
USC coal: $4800/kW
CCGT gas: $4112
SMR nuclear: $5600
Wind: $12400 ( Transmission line cost not included)
Large scale solar: $14800 (Transmission line cost not included)
And I would expect the SMR cost to reduce a bit.
60
The narrative needs to be changed. The real threat to humanity is the next glaciation.
Glaciation is coming and every little bit of CO2 in the atmosphere will be needed to avoid starvation as the available arable land gets covered under hundreds of metres of ice. The solar panels will be first to stop once ice covered. The wind turbines might survive a few years if there are adequate de-icing facilities.
The Northern land masses above 40N are the regions prone to ice accumulation.
Australia should be doing its bit to maximise CO2 production – like China. Burn lignite like there is no tomorrow. Because putting CO2 back into the atmosphere is the only way the human race will survive in anything like the current numbers.
I can guarantee that by the end of this year, there will be new snowfall records. The water is already building in the atmosphere.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=156.24,36.79,587/loc=158.588,48.179
57mm at 48N – now that is impressive. Will eventually make a lot of snow when it moves over land that has cooled below 0C.
It has taken about 100 years to increase CO2 by 120ppm. We should be targeting 1000ppm total so another 550ppm before the permafrost starts moving south next century. This will be one way to ensure agricultural productivity can sustain around the existing level.
92
Yes. What we need now is less expensive hurry hurry fashion statements and more CO2. Maintain what is left then Just put back what we had before the delusions caused things we were using and needed to be run down, worn out and torn down.
20
1. Australia buys solar panels and batteries from China.
2. China is supporting Russia in its war with Ukraine.
3. Australia is sending military and financial aid to Ukraine.
Does this make sense to anyone, anyone at all?
290
John,
The more you drill down the crazier it gets . A large part of the oil/fuel being used by Ukraine is coming from Russia via 3rd party . Both sides are using mostly Soviet (Russian) munitions. Follow the money….remember Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world . The death toll is staggering and so many people think more money and weapons are needed….
110
Old Goat:
Ukraine gets natural gas from Russia (via the pipelines through their territory to Europe). There are 4 through Ukraine going to Hungary and Slovakia (hence Austria, Czech Republic etc) and another going through Ukraine to supply Rumania and Bulgaria. There is also one going to Belarus where it splits up and supplies Poland, Germany and the Baltic States.
As far as I know they are all working and no-one has blown them up with explosives, although some might have been shutdown for politics. I know Germany still gets some gas from Russia.
https://joequinn.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Russian-gas-pipelines.gif
60
Finkel’s just a modern scientist, told by his political masters what results to find and then goes looking for them, ends up a talking head desperate for media exposure just like Fauci.
I love the exposure of Sadiq Khan ordering the censoring of the study he paid for. It showed his ULEZ car tax in London would do nothing for pollution. The Imperial College scientists who studied it are independent, not like most these days.
170
Not sure you should be quoting Imperial College KP. That’s Neil Ferguson. He’s the one who totally messed up predictions for BSE( mad cow) , Swine flu and COVID.
120
I’m still trying to adjust the OWI Data graph to show co2 emissions since 1988 only . We’ll see if this works?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?time=1988..latest&country=OWID_WRL~Non-OECD+%28GCP%29~OECD+%28GCP%29
And here’s the same graph showing relative change over the same period, 1988 to 2021.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?stackMode=relative&time=1988..latest&country=OWID_WRL~Non-OECD+%28GCP%29~OECD+%28GCP%29
32
I’m sorry that doesn’t work.
But if you copy the 2 links from Jo’s page and try again it works. Grrrrrrr.
But I’ll try the copy of the copy again.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?stackMode=relative&time=1988..latest&country=OWID_WRL~Non-OECD+%28GCP%29~OECD+%28GCP%29
22
Sorry that doesn’t work either, but you can copy from Jo’s page yourself and paste that into your browser.
Then it works okay. Does anyone understand why it doesn’t copy or retain the full link from OWI Data?
I’m afraid what I know about computers would fit on the head of a pin.
22
Neville – the blog software is taking the two dots as being the end of the link, so the link you’re left with is what’s before those two dots (and doesn’t work). If you copy what you’ve put above (right to the end of the of the %29) and paste it into the address bar then the link works.
Probably no actual fix for getting a working link because the double dot is going to be taken as end of link. Maybe inserting apostrophes either side of the link would make sure it’s not interpreted as a link, but then you’ll still need to copy/paste that bit of text into the address bar.
20
The massive increase of billions of tons of new energy materials will be a further TOXIC disaster that is easily ignored by the elites in the MSM, or govts or the UN or ….?
AGAIN who gives a stuff about kids or slaves when you can ignorantly call these new sources CLEAN ENERGY?
Unbelievable but true.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/21/carnage-of-child-labor-and-ecological-destruction-elsewhere-acceptable-to-wealthy-countries/
80
If there is one huge advantage of nuclear power generation, it is that the technology can be used to ‘drive’ a turbine/generator that can deliver vast amounts of deliverable power from the one Unit.
In the U.S. they have a Nameplate for Nuclear Power of 99,960MW. There are only 93 Units in all, and most plants have Two Units. Work that out. Just the average for each Unit is over 1,000MW. There are just 53 Nuclear power plants in all, and those 53 plants deliver around 19% of ALL the generated power in the U.S. Most of those plants were constructed during the 70s, 80s, and 90s.
So here we have power plants most of them 40 years old and older, and they deliver their power at almost 90% of Nameplate. That 90% rate of power delivery has been pretty much stable since the late 90s, so for the last 30 years they have been operating at almost ‘full whack’.
For the sake of comparison, let’s look at just one of the three largest wind plants in Australia, Macarthur Industrial Wind Plant. It has a Nameplate of 420MW from its 140 individual turbines. However it is only operating at 16% Capacity Factor over the most recent 12 Months, and only 23.3% across its (so far) 11 years of operation.
So, just using its whole of life, that’s an average of 860GWH of power ….. PER YEAR.
Just ONE of those nuclear Units in the US (on average) will deliver that same 860GWH EACH AND EVERY ….. 37 DAYS.
The total output of Australian wind plants for the most recent 12 Months is 27,270GWH.
That same yearly wind total can be delivered from just THREE of those average Units.
Sometimes comparisons can be so unfair.
And now, having just written all of that, there’s zero chance a Nuclear Power Plant will be constructed here in Australia inside of 25 years.
Tony.
Take this link to an interactive data chart for those U.S. Nuclear power plants. Now, directly under the timeline for the graph itself, (1950 to 2020+) you see the shaded legend for all sources of generation. Okay, so cancel out all the power generation colours excepting that one for Nuclear. All that is left on the graph is the yellow graph showing Nuclear Power. That left side Y axis is in (translated) GWH. You see that Nuclear power has been higher than 750,000 since the year 2000. That 750,000GWH line for Nuclear power is around 86% Capacity Factor.
240
Thanks Tony, but the Labor Greens donkeys call Nuclear plants dangerous and too expensive, but then call TOXIC W & S CLEAN energy and want to build offshore wind as well.
110
I check the output of the Loy Yang B brown coalie in Victoria (500 MW) from time to time (Aneroid Energy website) and for years its been operating at about 110 % capacity. So, yes more than “full whack”. Yet, the other day, dumber and dumber ( Daniel Andrews and Lily d’ Ambrosio) announced Victoria is subsidising the station to remain open until 2035. Originally planned to got to 2048. In their press conference, they referred to coal as “unreliable”, which is so untrue it’s not funny.
220
If not nuclear then we will have to keep on with coal and gas to give 24/7/365 (366 in a Leap Year) support to those ‘Un-Reliables’.
Otherwise it is ‘Goodnight Vienna’.
50
Anton,
Please let me thank you again for your experienced, clear, accurate accounts of electricity corruption.
Re nuclear, if we started with a true, clean slate comparison of nuclear, hydrocarbon (like coal, oil, gas), plus things wrongly termed “renewables” after subtracting the large components of poor science, rumour, fairy tale and malicious,evil, deliberate deceit, nuclear would easily beat all comers at country scales like our east Australian network. France has the working, real life data over decades. Countries that do not start on warp speed (but correct) expansion into nuclear will be quickly behind the 8 ball of global economics. This is easy to claim in a short sentence, but it is the ultimate, demonstrable, correct outcome of an unbiased analysis using true operational costs, like costing renewables by including full provision for intermittency.
I have been involved with medium complexity studies of Australian electricity economics since 1970 and am confident of these conclusions. What has emerged is dismay at the depths of deceit that some players have sunk to. The list of failed former Chief Scientists with their civil honours danglies is quite a cause for disgust and pity. I have problems being heard because my conclusions are often against the tide of media reporting, so people find my stuff unbelievable. They cannot bring themselves to contemplate reality any more. Our current political heavies, Fed and State, almost all parties, are so clueless that they are expensive, dangerous and backward.
Still, one has to keep going, for sooner or later truth will out. Sadly, after the awakening there is a dark time of correcting the mistakes before the fun times start again, the golden years when the daily chat of people is positive stuff like top company profits, stock exchange tips, new startups with fab ideas and so on. All we have at present is leaderless drifting from one sad topic to another, like how many people are dead and dieing from drug abuse and who we should do war with next and why our descendents are so poorly educated. Down, down, down.
One evening I might write a rant about such things. Geoff S
60
Australia will get nuclear generated power eventually. We could get it as early as the 2030’s if we get the navy to plug one of the docked AUKUS submarines into the power grid as a peak demand backup. How novel: floating mobile nuclear power.
90
“[T]he French built 56 nuclear plants in just 15 years. Isn’t that relevant and shouldn’t we at least mention that? . . . . . . . . Australia could be aiming for 26 reactors.”
Our politicians don’t have the nous or strength of character to mention it and our country no longer has the nous or strength of character to even think about it.
I am convinced that economically, industrially, militarily, socially, politically, environmentally, educationally, philosophically, domestically, sexually and even historically, Australia is in a vertical nosedive from which it will never recover. We have let our politicians destroy this country.
220
” We have let our politicians destroy this country.”
Our politicians are doing what the German and Japanese High Commands did to their countries but with not as many deaths.
120
yet.
80
Man goes to doctor suffering extreme pain from what he believes is hemorrhoids. After review doctor’s diagnosis is “atomic piles”. Doctor assures him a very simple operation will deliver him a new clear free rrr’s….
50
Did you hear about the elderly lady that went to her doctor complaining of crotch discomfort? Doc popped her in for immediate surgery and cut two inches off her wellies!
50
Fukushima radioactive water release.
Chernobyl disaster.
Storage of waste for 100,000.
Watch how Finland plans to store uranium waste for 100,000 years
Construction is underway at a facility designed to safely entomb radioactive fuel rods.
https://www.science.org/content/article/watch-how-finland-plans-store-uranium-waste-100-000-years
If the entire world goes nuclear how many dumps will be need for the 100,000 active waste?
Geo thermal works
013
Eventually those used rods will be reprocessed they still contain in excess of 95% of there energy content
Bring on the breeder reactor and this waste will be a thing of the past all burnt up and the little waste remaining will be back to background levels in less than 100 years
100
What are a few nuclear accidents compared to world (the leftist kind) burning up in a couple of decades? Or don’t you really believe that either?
20
That was fifty years ago. Since then there has been a general dumbing-down of society, a proliferation of legislated restrictions, and the death of a generation of trained experts to be replaced by the products of modern ‘education’.
120
Sweden…. and do not forget the Netherlands. By 2035, it plans to have two new nuclear power plants.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/netherlands-talking-three-suppliers-build-new-nuclear-power-plants-2023-06-29/
60
Not forgetting at the 1958 “Atoms for Peace” conference in Geneva they built two (2) working Nuclear Reactors on the conference floor during the week of the conference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqQ0c6UAsMk
Boy have we lost our way… 🙁
130
Hungary with a population less than half of Australia at around 10 million, has a four unit nuclear power station, it supplies about half their power needs as of 20121.
120
France used a standardized design. That alone aided spares, training, controls, construction, etc. That’s a big help.
And, France has a fuel reprocessing system. Also a great help.
If AU has ideas of nuclear energy, a lot can be learned from other countries efforts. Standardization, fuel reprocessing, cascade reactor designs to minimize waste, thorium fuel cycles, MOX fuel cycles, and a host of lessons learned.
Nuclear energy is a system of design and management choices and a commitment to them, not a knee jerk reaction. If anything, pay attention to fuel cycles, transuranic wastes, thorium cycles, reprocessing of fuels, and district heating possibilities. Thorough analysis of fuel cycles, reprocessing of fuels, cascaded re-use of fuels, waste minimization, and learning from what has already been done. It is a commitment. Yes it can work well if effected wisely and properly. Yes it can be a burden if not properly considered. Nuke reactors are best used for baseload, as they are most efficient at full output operation and no significant ramping. One will still need gas/coal/oil peaking plants . It is the “generation mix” that needs attention for efficient operation. Each system has their strengths and weaknesses. Smart people realize that.
120
If the state and federal governments are still keen on their lefty greenie ideas then I repeat my challenge: Create a town that is 100% fully off grid – off grid electricity generation via solar and wind, all electric vehicles, no external power, off grid water, off grid sewerage and off grid rubbish disposal. Completely self contained. Complying 100% with your ‘renewable’ and ‘sustainable’ criteria. Implement it and let’s have it running with plenty of publicity – let’s see how it goes. Show us how it’s done. If they can’t do it with a single town then they certainly can’t do it with the nation.
200
Kim I know King island isn’t a good example, but it’s in the roaring forties and is a hopeless W & S disaster where the Diesel is the only source of RELIABLE energy 24/7.
It’s amazing in the night time when the wind is often still a failure and of course no Solar.
BTW their population is under 2000 people and yet it’s still a W & S failure.
https://www.hydro.com.au/clean-energy/hybrid-energy-solutions/success-stories/king-island
90
“BTW their population is under 2000 people and yet it’s still a W & S failure.”
Just needs more windmills and solar panels, Bowen told me so.
40
KP,
My employer company operated the Kink Island Scheelite mine for a couple of decades. The dominant, really only, electricity source for the mine was diesel shipped in by boat. You can be sure that wind and solar were evaluated carefully, because diesel was a big operating cost and cheaper, reliable options were prized. We did not find them.
The later adoption of W&S by others was economically foolish, given the prior experience at the mine. A good deal of common sense had to be ignored by those who though they could do without diesel, or minimise it.
I wish the current crop would not just publish, but publicise the real economics of their green experiment.
Man up and admit the negatives. That is what honest, frank people do. Geoff S
20
Kim, can you imagine the outcry from the lefty inhabitants of your village as they whip out their fondle slabs from the pockets of their trendy, half-mast trousers, only to discover the windmill powered internet connection is down again? A village of idiots.
50
Okay, but don’t let them out for holidays.
50
Canberra should be that town, so its inhabitants get (suffer) the effects first hand.
71
Then build a wall around it and fill it with water.
51
I’m up for it.
31
At some point, Australia went from a land of “can do” with a nation-building vision with projects such as the Snowy Mountains Scheme, or Victoria’s electricity supply designed by Sir John Monash, to a country of “can’t do”.
It’s impossible to do good, useful projects like a coal fired or nuclear power station but countless billions can be thrown away on utterly useless wind and solar projects which are done in double quick time.
In fact, wind and solar is FAR worse than useless, it is extremely destructive of the economy and its power to destroy goes far beyond just high electricity prices, but the destruction of our industrial base.
At the present rate we are going, under Australia’s worst Government EVER (by far), and with the education system destroyed, Australia has no worthwhile future and we just continue to degenerate into a Second World country like much of South America, or even a Third World country.
And the Liberals (pretend conservatives) offer no viable alternative government.
170
Anything worthwhile is nobbled by the lefties, greenies, and nimbys, then if after all that it gets up, the unions will do their level best to drag it out with go-slows, restrictions, bans and general bastardry.
60
People still aren’t getting it.
How much energy will you need to provide for those still around by 2040/50?
A fraction of what you have now.
Pushing dysfunctional renewables and avoiding nuclear are just parts of the big trap.
Say after me – “it’s not about energy, it’s about control”
60
BTW John here’s the latest ABS projections for our Aussie population out to 2066.
They give different scenarios, but how we’re supposed to provide that increased population with the new required energy increase as well is a complete mystery. Especially using TOXIC W & S. See the current hopeless tiny case of King island for example and in the roaring 40s and a population under 2000 people.
We’ll certainly need a lot more USEFUL BASE- LOAD energy in the next 10 to 30 + years.
And at double the energy cost just to support their BARKING MAD TOXIC W & S energy over the next few decades.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-projections-australia/2017-base-2066
40
Thanks Jo,
But “indefatigable” is too generous. Old and retired with time to read some of their garbage, while longer, is a better description.
A million years ago I used to play rugby league so I think at best I’m like the second rower who just passed the ball to a try-scoring winger.
Well played.
Dave B
60
Hi Jo,
As Dave at #1 said, very well timed indeed.
In hindsight, the Chief Scientist appointment of Finkel was a national disaster.
He may be trained in Electrical Engineering, but his writings show that he knows little or nothing about electric power engineering.
Rather than quote a non-expert, the writer of the SMH article would have done far better to speak with such as Tony Irwin, who commissioned OPAL at Lucas Heights, and/or Robert Parker, of the Australian Nuclear Association, who can provide up-to-date, detailed information.
As a for-example, Mr Parker has a prepared “road-show” presentation, in which he discusses Canada’s current state of implementation of a set of four BWRX-300 SMR’s being sited at Darlington Point on Lake Ontario. See, for example: https://www.opg.com/stories/opg-darlington-small-modular-reactor-project-passes-significant-milestones/
I am not attempting here to sell a particular reactor design, but indicating that Australia could, rather than take notice of pontificating non-experts such as Finkel, learn a great deal about the detailed practicalities of installing a SMR. What emerges is that it really isn’t rocket science.
If I might draw a similar comparison to what you have done, Jo, in your excellent article, I might add that we could do worse than seek to emulate our Commonwealth partners, the Canadians. There are many similarities between our two nations, not the least being the need to supply electricity to far-flung, remote communities. With not-dissimilar populations, it is also useful to remind ourselves that Canada made the decision years ago to go it alone in its path to nuclear power, developing the extraordinarily successful CANDU reactor technology, a design that is radically different from the BWR and PWR route taken by their US neighbours.
It is worth pointing out that ANSTO staff at Lucas Heights have had, and continue to have, an excellent professional relationship with those within the Canadian nuclear community.
Regards,
Paul Miskelly
110
And the CANDU design was sold to various Countries who didn’t want to produce nuclear bombs (very difficult with CANDU). Also the extra cost was offset by the reduced downtime for maintenance and refuelling.
40
so what is the basis of this expertise?
from Office of the Special Adviser to the Australian Government on Low Emissions Technology:
About Dr Alan Finkel
Dr Finkel is a neuroscientist, engineer and entrepreneur
From Energy Source & Distribution magazine:
“After completing his studies in electrical engineering at Monash University, Alan decided to pursue a PhD. He discovered there was a biomedical engineering group in the department, and one of the researchers, Steve Redman, was studying how nerve cells work in the spinal cord to maintain motor reflexes.”
“I ended up doing a PhD with Steve as my supervisor, trying to understand electrical and chemical communication between nerve cells. And it was absolutely fascinating.”
Wikipedia
Research
After receiving his doctorate in electrical engineering, Finkel worked for two years as a neuroscience Research Fellow at the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University. His research investigated the electrical and chemical transmission between brain cells in mammalian spinal cord and brain ganglia, and he developed a revolutionary measurement approach – the Discontinuous Single-Electrode Voltage Clamp
Commercial enterprises
-Axon Instruments: developer of software, electronic precision amplifiers, and robotic screening instruments for cellular neurosciences, genomics, and pharmaceutical drug discovery
-Cosmos Magazine: Finkel co-founded Cosmos Media Pty Ltd to publish the science publication COSMOS Magazine
-Better Place Australia: From 2009 to 2012, Finkel served as Chief Technology Officer at the electric car charge network company
-Stile Education: In 2012, Finkel co-founded and Chaired Stile Education, Australia’s leading provider of science curriculum materials to schools
60
How revolutionary was it, really? There are few references to its “revolutionary” nature.
50
what’s the connection between neuroscience/biomedical engineering and “Low Emissions Technology”?
50
Ahh, yes Better Place…. That was a brilliant success !…..an idealogical daydream with zero chance of practical or financial success.
…No wonder Finkel was attracted to it .
50
‘Special’ alright. Perfect candidate for the yes-man advisory role.
80
So why do we continue to waste trillions of $ when there’s a much cheaper, faster and easier way to cool cities and save lives in so called summer heatwaves etc?
Here Lomborg looks at the recent Lancet study and points out their manipulation of the heat deaths to make it appear far worse than it is.
He also tells us AGAIN that temps in cities can be reduced by many degrees by just painting the areas with lighter cooler colours and also providing more water features as well in the worst areas.
But he’s also correct that heatwaves are often shorter in duration than very cold spells that kill many more people in the winter months.
And he’s correct that the warming so far has saved many more global deaths anyway.
Of course wealthy countries now handle extreme hot or cold temps much more easily than we did in earlier times.
This only takes 17 minutes, but you’ll learn a lot and make you wonder why we’re WASTING TRILLIONs of $ to make our lives much harder and miserable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwOYjC2IzZc
50
Now if only we had a Federal Opposition that would put a plan for Nuclear power forward as a policy and let the people of Australia decide.
40
AGAIN here’s Dr Finkel’s reply to Senator MacDonald when he was our Chief Scientist.
We could reduce all Aussie co2 emissions and it would obviously make ZERO difference or the same as Finkel’s “virtually nothing” comment.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/finkel-was-right-first-time-virtually-nothing/news-story/763a69d7fdbc383cf3a210342842aac3
30
Just in passing your government is contemplating an increase in GST. Probably going to tell us fairly soon and it will help reduce inflation according to Chalmers Bidenomics instruction manual. They’ll be chasing a 15% GST. Any other bidders on the %!
40
Probably difficult to increase it more than 50% at a time.
12.5% is handy as its an 1/8th and people who retain any semblance of their times tables can calculate that easily. I suppose in a world of mobile phones no-one needs times tables..
20
I think it will go 50% at a time so 10% to 15% to 22.5% to 33.75%.
I think they might be able to get away with 22.5% if they combine it with another plandemic, 33.75% if combined with a major war.
30
Fifty years ago, men were men and women were women. The challenge in Australia today is to establish a recruitment policy that does not offend anyone. It would take two years to get that policy sorted. Then there is the environment impact study with all the court challenges. That alone adds another 5 to 10 years.
Then you get into the really gritty stuff negotiating with the construction union. That will add another three years. By then you should have a preliminary design ready for negotiating construction permits and operating licences wth the various government departments. I am reasonably certain that any nuclear plant requires Federal approval. Site prep could bender way in parallel. Thirty years would be realistic!
40
And the rest! You haven’t sought approval from the local so-called “traditional owners” yet.
In Victoria there is no time limit for that approval process.
50
So true. There is a trick to that though that does not take too long. With the right negotiatiator it can be done in a year or so. and should be done faster than the project labour (or should it be Labor) agreement. You simply appoint the local clan as the artefact hunters for the region. Salaries ranging from a mere $100k to $200K can buy a lot of cooperation from 20 or so local tribe. And they only need turn up when they want to. If you turn up a bone or shell make sure you contact the elder though and stop work until they give the OK.
40
Not realistic. Optimistic.
40
Sounds like an episode ripe for Utopia Australia…
30
As far as I recall, the UK built its first reactor in 4 years. The current EDF reactors have overrun their build by 12 years so not a good sign for the one under construction in the UK. They were also 3 and 5 times over budget.
30
Hinkley C and Vogtle are outliers, yet they are always dredged up as “examples” when they are anything but.
30
I believe the main reasons for the delays were political and funding.
The UK is unable to come up with a plan and stick with it. Look what happened with the Air Craft Carriers and the Type 45 Destroyers – total fiasco.
30
Do you know how long it would take to build Hoover Dam today?
Answer – today it could not ne built at all.
20
because of lack of water in the Colorado River?
01
As Ita Buttrose was to Their ABC, so Finkel was to the Office of the Chief Scientist.
Both incredible disappointments for the thinking community and both ended their careers in ways that future historians (if we have a rational future) won’t regard well at all. They basically blew their careers and reputations on woke nonsense.
40
“In Oz we don’t have oil, but we have delusions.”
40
A gas transition to a nuclear energy future is the only sensible route under present technology to ensure human equity in progression
Gas will still play an important role outside power generation, as will oil, for decades to come
20
IMO, Australia has three choices, re. Nuclear.
1. Develop and build their own;
2. Buy/partner with China;
3. Buy/partner with USA.
I’d suggest that the moronic government will use the excuse of lack of skills and timescales to exclude 1. However, with the right ‘JFK’ type spirit Oz could do this in less than 10 years. Especially if going down the SMR route.
They will also use the excuse that ‘China bad’, plus USA won’t allow, to exclude 2. Even though China is producing many reactors in less than 10 year timeframes.
Politically, the pressure will be on to adopt 3. Buy USA tech, pay a fortune, wait an age and take delivery of a second rate product.
20
Or we have 300 years of coal to burn powering 70% of our country and making $100b a year in exports too…
70
[…] us standing still. It is moving us backward. 50 years ago we could land people on the moon and aggressively pursue massive infrastructure projects both of which we are no longer capable of. We are conforming our way back to the dark ages and we […]
10
The crazy thing is if they would’ve started with nuclear 10 or 12 years ago when the Kyoto agreement came into being wed nearly have a nuclear industry by now except idiot scientists like Finkel thought renewables and hydrogen and battery storage would work. Even in Australia we’d be almost finished our plants ready to replace coal. Ironically it’s not the aging set of coal fired plants that nuclear will be replacing but the aging set of renewables with a workable life cycle of 15-20 years. Finkel has already said that whatever we do isn’t going to make any difference to the temperature so why are we bothering anyway.
Why any scientist thinks it’s appropriate to destroy an economy on a futile exercise is also crazy. I don’t disagree that if climate change is an immediate existential threat then nuclear will take too long but why would you then support an action that you are on the record as claiming won’t make any difference.
If he really was a person with some insight he would say there is nothing we can do let’s look at actions that will enable man to cope with the impact of climate change. Ironically it’s the actions that they have taken to try to change the weather that have weakened our power grid and made us vulnerable to the extremes of climate events. How many people will die when the grid breaks down during a future heat wave or arctic blitz. The system we are building will almost certainly fail most likely when we need it most.
I would respect Finkel more if he would just admit he was wrong and recommend a different tack. Like all fanatics he’d rather double down rather than admit to being wrong.
30
I call upon Alan Finkel to hand back his Companion of the Order of Australia immediately, and wear sackcloth and ashes henceforth! It’s for the children and grandchildren, Alan.
10
The French achievement is remarkable. Alongside building all those nukes they also expanded their hydro capacity massively which gave them lots of flexible, fast-responding and dispatchable power to handle swings in demand. They also electrified much of the country and, thinking ahead, brought in split tariff options to minimise the peak/off-peak demand gap.
More recently, they have quietly set about refurbishing and modernising the whole fleet (bar one) to bring the plants up to the latest standards and extend their working lives to at least 60 years. The programme (the “Grand Carenage”) is spending about €1 bn per reactor.
Chapeau, as they say.
30