A nuclear debate is always an interesting one. I would just like to make the following points to bring the debate back to reality from a commercial perspective:
- If you advocate nuclear, you are saying you don't believe in free markets. The non-government power industry cannot build a nuclear power station without a government guarantee sitting behind it because no-one (investors or banks) is prepared to take the risk. People may like to think "government knows best" and should just build nuclear itself and there are countries where that stance is justified (eg Japan) to maintain their standard of living but in Australia we are so far from needing to do that it's just not funny. Why take the risk? Why not let the free market operate?
- The Australian power market is irrelevant on a global scale for nuclear. The Switkowski report acknowledged that traditional nuclear power stations (circa 5GW) don't have a place in the Australian power market because we don't have either the demand or transmission capacity to accomodate lumps like that. Already Australia is swimming in overnight base load capacity and power stations are having heaps of trouble maintaining operation at their minimum loads. In WA we are seeing negative overnight winter wholesale power prices (think about that for a second...) because there isn't enough load on the system and it's too expensive to switch off coal power stations overnight that haven't been designed for it if you want them to be available in the morning. Nuclear has to be kept on 24/7 - that's its key disadvantage - we need load-coincident (daytime) generation - there is far too much generation at night already. Anybody who knows anything about the Australian power industry would know this.
- Switkowski suggested smaller scale newer technology plants but failed to give any reliable evidence as to the real costs of these things, particularly when the large scale ones are already so expensive for a new build (all that concrete and steel ain't cheap!). At the very least he acknowledged new nuclear build at this scale is likely to be just as expensive as many renewables so what's the point?
There are places where nuclear is inevitable because their governments have just run out of options. We have so many options it's just not funny - Australia is one of the very last countries where nuclear power would make sense - very little load, very little of it centralised, cheap electricity prices and abundant alternative energy sources able to be rolled out in the right scale to meet market demand (and prices).
Having said all that, a philosophical ban on nuclear power and storing nuclear waste when you're exporting uranium is indefensible. It should be removed IMO as it distracts people from the real reasons nuclear can't work in Australia for a very long time... at least without that well intentioned govt intervention that this govt seems to be so fond of!
Anyway, sorry for the diversion - back on topic! Dams...
- If you advocate nuclear, you are saying you don't believe in free markets. The non-government power industry cannot build a nuclear power station without a government guarantee sitting behind it because no-one (investors or banks) is prepared to take the risk. People may like to think "government knows best" and should just build nuclear itself and there are countries where that stance is justified (eg Japan) to maintain their standard of living but in Australia we are so far from needing to do that it's just not funny. Why take the risk? Why not let the free market operate?
- The Australian power market is irrelevant on a global scale for nuclear. The Switkowski report acknowledged that traditional nuclear power stations (circa 5GW) don't have a place in the Australian power market because we don't have either the demand or transmission capacity to accomodate lumps like that. Already Australia is swimming in overnight base load capacity and power stations are having heaps of trouble maintaining operation at their minimum loads. In WA we are seeing negative overnight winter wholesale power prices (think about that for a second...) because there isn't enough load on the system and it's too expensive to switch off coal power stations overnight that haven't been designed for it if you want them to be available in the morning. Nuclear has to be kept on 24/7 - that's its key disadvantage - we need load-coincident (daytime) generation - there is far too much generation at night already. Anybody who knows anything about the Australian power industry would know this.
- Switkowski suggested smaller scale newer technology plants but failed to give any reliable evidence as to the real costs of these things, particularly when the large scale ones are already so expensive for a new build (all that concrete and steel ain't cheap!). At the very least he acknowledged new nuclear build at this scale is likely to be just as expensive as many renewables so what's the point?
There are places where nuclear is inevitable because their governments have just run out of options. We have so many options it's just not funny - Australia is one of the very last countries where nuclear power would make sense - very little load, very little of it centralised, cheap electricity prices and abundant alternative energy sources able to be rolled out in the right scale to meet market demand (and prices).
Having said all that, a philosophical ban on nuclear power and storing nuclear waste when you're exporting uranium is indefensible. It should be removed IMO as it distracts people from the real reasons nuclear can't work in Australia for a very long time... at least without that well intentioned govt intervention that this govt seems to be so fond of!
Anyway, sorry for the diversion - back on topic! Dams...
