Carnegie deploys wave powered barge concept in WA waters

Carnegie Clean Energy has deployed a demonstration of its wave powered barge concept, MoorPower, in waters offshore from the company’s headquarters in Fremantle, Western Australia.

MoorPower uses a version of Carnegie’s CETO technology to deliver clean and reliable electricity to offshore industries. The concept came out of the aquaculture industry, which still relies heavily on diesel.

The technology converts the orbital motion of waves into electricity, but rather than using a stand-alone buoy system, as with the CETO units, the scaled down technology is designed to be integrated with moored offshore vessels.

The $3.4 million WA demonstration project is being delivered in collaboration with a consortium of partners, including Huon Aquaculture and Tassal Group, and with $1.35 million in funding from the Tasmania-based Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre.

The demonstration project aims to show how the technology works in a variety of sea conditions, ahead of a commercial rollout for aquaculture clients. Blue Economy CRC is a government-supported group that brings marine industries, government and researchers from 10 countries.

“The deployment of our MoorPower technology is a significant milestone in the challenge of decarbonising offshore operations, it is an important step in bringing our technology to the world,” said Carnegie Clean Energy CEO Jonathan Fiévez on Wednesday.

“We have listened to the needs of industry operating in isolated offshore environments and adapted our unique CETO technology to their requirements. MoorPower will reduce the requirement for fossil fuels, reduce carbon emissions, reduce risk and drive down cost.

“What we are learning from this demonstration deployment at our testing grounds off Fremantle will be critical to rolling this technology out to aquaculture and other marine industries,” he said.

John Whittington, the CEO of Blue Economy CRC says deployment of the demonstrator is testament to the group’s role in bringing together key technology developers.

“This technology advances Australia’s ocean energy capabilities and provides real-world solutions for
decarbonisation and a tangible pathway to net-zero,” he said.

Carnegies wave energy journey has navigated some rough seas, particularly in its home market, where it endured a short stint in voluntary administration in early 2019.

The company has since shifted the focus for development of its flagship CETO technology to Europe, where there is more policy support for ocean energy, including a target to install 100MW of capacity by 2025.

Last year, Carnegie beat 35 rivals to win €3,746,531 ($A6.3 million) to be part of a competitive program designed to bring wave power technologies to commercial deployment.

The funding will pay for a 400kW version of the CETO wave energy converter to be tested in waters off the Basque Country by 2025.

Rachel Williamson is a science and business journalist, who focuses on climate change-related health and environmental issues.

Comments

83 responses to “Carnegie deploys wave powered barge concept in WA waters”

  1. Martin4444 Avatar
    Martin4444

    “The first thing to note at this point is that the Minerals Council is a
    staunch fossil fuel lobby group that – like the Coalition – has pivoted
    to cheering for nuclear power, as the coal barrow becomes increasingly
    difficult to push”

    I think that the real reason the Minerals Council is “pro-nuclear” is that even if we started building nuclear reactors in Australia tomorrow, there would be many decades of high-priced fossil fuel burning before even the first nuclear reactor came on line, let alone enough to replace current coal and gas plants.

    1. Ken Dyer Avatar
      Ken Dyer

      So the lobby of fossils want nuclear. We all know what should happen to fossils – they should be encased in clear plastic and placed in museums for schoolchildren to marvel over many decades from now. That’s what happens to fossils.

  2. Robert Avatar
    Robert

    I suggest that 2GB take their shock jocks and the Minerals Council on a fact finding tour of the Chernobyl Nuclear plant and dump them there.

    1. smoodster Avatar
      smoodster

      Nah, don’t need to send them that far.

      Just send them to Fukushima in Japan, lots of Nuc wreckage for them to see there to feed their idiotic and simplistic ideas.

      1. Robert Avatar
        Robert

        True! They can try some radiated water sushi on site!

    2. PLDD Avatar
      PLDD

      I think “Nuclear is dangerous” is a weak argument against them. The pro-nuclear lobbyists have lots of data that shows they are relatively safe and the few catastrophic accidents have caused very very few deaths directly. Apparently accidents installing solar panels have a far higher death rate.

      And if arguing about the danger using the UK Windscale example is better. It stores waste generated since the 1950’s. It has had leaks into the local environment and subsequent impacts on health. And it is an old and decaying site with highly radioactive storage units starting to leak. Plus it costs billion each year to run.

      But at the end of the day the economic argument against Nuclear is strongest. It is expensive so why use it if you don’t need to….?

      1. Robert Avatar
        Robert

        I think you’re underestimating the safety aspect. Chernobyl has ruined a huge area of land for 24,000+ years. Fukushima is now dumping radiative water in the Pacific Ocean. The “very few deaths directly” seems to forget the huge rise in cancer deaths and birth mutations after Chernobyl. Sad that solar installers have died but their deaths don’t lead to potentially thousands of other people dying.

  3. Chris Peters Avatar
    Chris Peters

    These media nuclear boosters, along with the Lib-CP SMR pushers are not at all stupid. No, just extremely well paid to say what the Minerals Council wants them to.

    1. smoodster Avatar
      smoodster

      Yes well funded by Gina and Rupert.

      1. Bolstrood Avatar
        Bolstrood

        They reallly ( the Capitalists ) do like to have a fuel to SELL to the public.
        The idea that there is a free soruse of energy does their heads in

        1. smoodster Avatar
          smoodster

          Both Rupy and little Gina are not known for their intellectual capacity for understanding the quirks of physics and how we can take advantage of this to produce energy for virtually free.

  4. AJ Avatar
    AJ

    “In other words, what’s needed to fill that last bit – and particularly in the middle of winter or during future extreme summer heatwaves – is, for now, existing gas, and in the near future different types of long-duration storage combined with renewable hydrogen, demand management and load shifting.”

    The latest draft ISP says we need to bump up our gas generation to 16GW but this will likely be used 5% of the time. Unfortunately I’m not aware of any other long duration storage, demand management or load shifting solution that would be able to get us completely off fossil gas. Fingers crossed that something comes up..

    1. Rob Avatar
      Rob

      The reality is that the current pathway to renewables does not have to have the solution to the 5% short fall in seasonal supply. the ISP is based on technology and prices today. There is time to wait for developments in existing technology eg battery price drops, flow batteries etc. SMR will have a hard time competing with the huge amount of time and money going into existing renewable technology and maturation of existing production and economies of scale. Which will drive down costs and continually increase performance.
      At this point in time there does not appear to be the possibility of SMR mass production in the foreseeable future. Which is a prerequisite for SMR to be a viable economic proposal. The pro nuclear lobby is selling vaporware and they know it.

      1. Andy Saunders Avatar
        Andy Saunders

        I suspect Malcolm Turnbull may eventually be proved right. Snowy 2.0, pumped by renewables that might otherwise spill or be constrained, generating to bridge the 5% seasonal gap, might well be the answer.

        1. Rob Avatar
          Rob

          My understanding is that Snowy 2 is constrained by transmission capacity to be able to meet short fall on own during the rare high demand low renewable events that will occur.

    2. PLDD Avatar
      PLDD

      I have seen the ISP 16GW of gas capacity used by anti RE posters on other forums to declare RE can’t work without a massive expansion of gas.

      And if we need so much more gas Nuclear must be the answer.

      They miss the fact that proportionally the amount of gas the ISP forecasts is far smaller than today…..it just looks big because the grid capacity is expected to be far greater in order to decarbonise process industry, transport etc.

      The also miss that the 16GW capacity will have a very low utilisation as it is generation of last resort. And that means Nuclear is not the answer tothis problem.

    3. dashpool Avatar
      dashpool

      The ‘last 5%’ problem is something we will have to solve eventually, and worth thinking about a little now, but practically so far away, and so much less important than the ‘first 95%’ issue.

      Also, electricity is only about 1/3rd of Australia’s emissions, so there are a whole bunch of other stuff to do before the ‘last 5%’ becomes a pressing problem. i.e. aviation seems like a much harder problem and cement and petrochemicals need thought.

      Too often, the ‘last 5%’ issue is presented as a serious obstacle to taking action now, as if the only goal is to get to 0% some day, and massive reductions in emissions now are not that important. The CO2 we emit over the next 30 years is probably staying there for generations, so need to have deep and immediate cuts.

      I also don’t think the ‘last 5%’ will be a big issue when we get there; this is not that much in energy terms, so even if it is expensive per unit energy (i.e. 2-4x as expensive as solar PV) it isn’t a big fraction of the overall system cost.

      1. AJ Avatar
        AJ

        Agree that our main focus should be on the 95% and just getting the solar, wind and storage built to meet this.

        My point in the previous comment is that the article’s note on having “near future” zero carbon option for the last 5% is a pipe dream, with the ISP stating “The Draft 2024 ISP forecasts only a small contribution from this technology [green hydrogen], as hydrogen is still a relatively expensive fuel to use at scale” and even David Osmond’s analysis states that gas is the only option in the short to medium term.

        In regards to nuclear, I have changed my opinion over the last couple of years and think that countries that already have nuclear shouldn’t retire them (eg. Japan, Germany, USA, UK etc) and that there should be modest subsidies in these countries to expand their nuclear programs especially where density and seasonal issues preclude the Australian model where nuclear makes no sense given our bountiful renewable resources. This article is spot on with regards to saying that Nuclear is the last thing Australia needs.

        1. dashpool Avatar
          dashpool

          “Near future” is somewhat wooly, but really we talking about in something like 20 years time. The (central scenario of the) ISP is talking about a hydrogen consumption of 58TWh compared to 336TWh of NEM generation in 2050, so overall there is a lot of H2 produced. So the ISP is much less pessimistic about H2 than you are implying (they have a whole scenario called Hydrogen Superpower).
          Also, the ISP’s NEM emissions are 5% (of 2020 emissions) as a result of an input assumption of the modelling, this in not an output from their model. AEMO are not claiming that 5% is the minimal feasible emissions from the NEM, they are proposing a plan to allow a 95% emissions reduction.

        2. PLDD Avatar
          PLDD

          Agree with the thought that Nuclear is probably perfect for some situations but not for most.

          At COP 28 only 20 out of 188 signed up to the Nuclear expansion agreement. If nothing else that suggests it is only a minority of countries that recognise they need it – the rest are lucky enough to be able to solve their meeds far more cheaply.

          Although even some of those 20 signatories don’t really need as much as they say – the UK’s recent announcement of big plans is all about getting votes for Conservatives and saving Sunack’s political career.

      2. Diogenes 72 Avatar
        Diogenes 72

        It’s really not that far away. Certain generating companies are looking at replacing their coal fired stations with multiples of that installed capacity with VRE and currently about 1/3 installed capacity with firming before 2030 so it’s ready when the coal plant is retired.

        1. dashpool Avatar
          dashpool

          I’d argue that you aren’t “solving the last 5% problem” until you are actually at or below 5% fossil electricity generation. Most projections see the need for gas plant decreasing over the next decade, so it seems unlikely that there will be that much new plant. Largely just keeping existing ones, and running them less often…

  5. Roger Crook Avatar
    Roger Crook

    The population of the world increased by ~2 billion between 1996 and 2022. Virtually all of that increase was in the developing world.
    As for deaths from various forms of power generation and the capacity to perform, this makes interesting reading, and after all, it is written by engineers so it can’t be wrong, can it?: https://wwwdotengineeringdotcom/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources

    1. Steve Avatar
      Steve

      Estimating deaths from nuclear energy isn’t really an engineering discipline, more medicine and statistics. It is also harder than with solar and wind power. So it may be right or wrong.

      Estimating the death toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima requires investigating death records wherever the nuclear wind blew, and comparing those against a hypothetical death rate had this not happened. This is a modelling exercise including a host of assumptions, so maybe it would be better to say the engineers undoubtedly did the arithmetic right, but the methods are challenging and assumptions are required.

      When I looked at this stuff years ago I concluded that well run nuclear, like solar and wind, have a de minimis mortality associated with them. Coal, on the other hand, does not.

      PS, I didn’t read your linked article, unless it was a few years old.

    2. PLDD Avatar
      PLDD

      I have read other articles relating to these stats. They only generally include deaths associated with accidents on site – so falling off a wind turbine, a mine shaft collapsing etc etc.

      Thankfully there have been very few sudden and catastrophic nuclear plant incidents. When things go wrong they go wrong slowly letting people evacuate in a controlled manner and get to a safe distance.

      However, there are many many “minor” Nuclear accidents that have ramifications for peoples health and good evidences they increase death rates via increased rates of cancer etc.

      A good example is Windscake in the UK. Once a reactor site, now a long term waste storage and treatment facility. It has had numerous incidents like fires, water keaks, gas leaks etc etc. Those resulted in well documented exposures of the local population and workers. Cancer rates locally are higher, and a higher than normal number of people have died prematurely from a variety of cancers – so e quite unique and associated with radiation exposure.

      So be careful when looking at statistics – always check that the data being studied is comprehensive and logical. After all, for years the tobacco industry used lots of statistics to show how safe their products were…..when those who really understood the data knew they were not.

  6. Flauschie Avatar
    Flauschie

    Yeah, nuclear power won’t come to Oz for multiple reasons. Thanks to Trump, we won’t get nuclear subs either fortunately.

    On a global scale I doubt that the story is that simple. The IPCC agrees that the required (mining-) resources for 100% renewables will be a tough call.

    FWIW, the lowest LCOE ( Levelized cost of electricity ) are from a nuclear plant in Sweden: $28.18USD/MWh – thus far cheaper than these $95. In fact, 6 of the top 10 power plants in terms of LCOE are nuclear. But, of course, these are all conventional power plants. Still a nuclear power plant in Oz would be much more expensive due to the lack of expertise and relevant industries.
    There are also renewable power plants with LCOE in the triple digit $/MWh.

    That’s the beauty of it – the spread in these numbers is so extreme – you can tune your case to whatever outcome you desire due to the extreme spreads. Perfect for culture wars. 😉

    The sad thing is that all these wonderful arguments and contra-arguments will just delay the solution as long as every human thinks that only he/she owns the “suppository” of all wisdom. 😉

    1. 0mg Avatar
      0mg

      That $28 is not LCOE, that’s opex of a depreciated plant.

      1. Flauschie Avatar
        Flauschie

        That’s the LCOE of an older plant – but this doesn’t negate its LCOE.

        The LCOE of a modern South Korean 1400 MW reactor is around $55USD / MWh or $83AUD.

        Anyway, won’t happen in Oz.

        1. Andy Saunders Avatar
          Andy Saunders

          Any nuclear LCOE calculation is dubious. You’ve picked one that is especially so, but there are two costs (and another factor) that are exceptionally poorly understood: insurance (I think every nuclear plant in existence has been insured by governments; commercial insurance is simply unavailable) and decommissioning (which has rarely happened so not really properly costed).

          The variation for both will be on the upside, and make an unsubsidised nuclear plant quite risky. Which is the other factor: the discount rate to finance it will increase if unsubsidised, and further crater the economics.

          Which all makes non-government-supported nuclear pretty much non-economic.

          1. Flauschie Avatar
            Flauschie

            The statement that nuclear LCOE is “dubious” is not a proof. Anyone can state “something”.

            About the insurance – nobody ever insured fossil fuel power stations or vehicles for climate change impacts. Hydro power stations are not insured against catastrophic dam failures either.

            As I mentioned – all this – including the different questions around renewables – has a complexity that you can produce calculations to support your own argument if you just pick the right numbers from “some source”. For nuclear power you can take the low cost numbers that South Korea is producing – or you can use the cost blow outs of some poorly managed next gen power plant.

            Costs are also utterly irrelevant in this game anyway. The only thing that counts is a fast solution for -the problem-.

            I, for one, believe that a mix would make the most sense – because a mix mitigates risks – and there are always risks. Nuclear and renewables are so different that there are no parasitic effects in terms of construction time. (Note: I don’t think that more than 10-20% nuclear power globally is meaningful).

            But again – nuclear power won’t come to Oz anyway. And whatever we discuss here is pretty much meaningless. We are (mostly) white men stomping our feets on the ground. 😉

          2. Andy Saunders Avatar
            Andy Saunders

            “The statement that nuclear LCOE is “dubious” is not a proof. Anyone can state “something”.”

            Well, I pointed out that two important costs that feed into the LCOE calculations are wrong, and the discount rate is non-commercial. I believe all three these factors would be significant. Sure, maybe I am just stating those three things but there’s facts behind the first two if you go look, and the third is a logical conclusion.

            No, speed is not the only thing that counts. Cost is pretty vital, at least for the funders, and for the customers.

            I agree, nuclear generation in Oz is unlikely, but mostly because it’s uneconomic without significant government support (insurance, assumption of decommissioning liabilities, probably guarantees to bolster the financing).

          3. Steve Avatar
            Steve

            I don’t think we can comment on what is in or out of a LCOE without some documentation.

          4. Biff Avatar
            Biff

            ‘Dubious’ describes most LCOE calculations, they’re basically a set of assumptions by an analyst, and the more assumptions you make the more problems creep in. Even Lazard admit the metric wasn’t designed for variable power sources.

          5. PLDD Avatar
            PLDD

            LCOE is a useful benchmark tool but it is far from universal.

            Any financial metric assessing a business case or financial performance is going to have strengths and weaknesses.

            The key is to understand what they are. You would be a fool to sign off on an investment case based on LCOE but it is a good tool to give a snapshot of cost trends. Nothing more and nothing less.

        2. Steve Avatar
          Steve

          Hi Flauschie – do you have a source for those LCOE numbers? Both Sweden and South Korea.

          It would be interesting to understand the calculations a bit.

          1. Flauschie Avatar
            Flauschie

            South Korea – search for
            “Economic Evaluation of Long-term Operation of NPPs in Korea ”

            There’s a table in there with the calculation for the new APR1400. At a discount rate of 0%, and capacity factor of 90%, the value is 54.64K Won / KWh (2015). It’s much less at higher discount rates.

            As far as the mentioned low LCOE is concerned – search for “Levelised Cost of Electricity Calculator” of the IEA.

            The table there is also a good showcase for my argument that you can produce all the right numbers that you desire just by playing with the sliders.

    2. PLDD Avatar
      PLDD

      The LCOE of a refurbished Nuclear plant is indeed very low – i believe the IEA track that number. But the obvious problem is you need to start with a fully depreciated 4” year old plant that is suitable for refurbishment (many are not).

      Not in Sweden, but close by in Finland, they also have very inexpensive Nuclear power.But when you look at the data it is far from transparent how they get there. To start with they have a very unique company structure that is profit free so its cost only. But it is commercial not government which even the EU find odd. Then the price of their new reactor was quite low – could this be because the fixed price cost protected them from increased bills and the German company building it needed a massive bail out from the German government.

      There are many other examples of far from transparent cost structures with inter-governmental deals offsetting some cost. Or cross subsidies from other budget. EDF in France is an example where the French government gifted them €500 billion to stay afloat as the costs of delivering Nuclear power were not recovered from prices. And of course in France the nuclear fleet was initially built as a strategic program to help with their weapons program.

      And then we have the Canadian example – not LCOE but instead the actual cost of Nuclear power being so low. But its a cost that is pure OpEx as the capital was government money and the assets are now fully depreciated.

      As you say all this data is perfect for culture wars and is regularity used. But lets not add to that by not challenging these extreme figures.

  7. Ivan Quail Avatar
    Ivan Quail

    A combination of planned maintenance shutdowns along with unplanned shortages of reactor cooling water forced French nuclear power operators to cut electricity generation by 23% in 2022 from the year before to record lows,
    Could that happen in Australia? or are we exempt?

    France 23: The tariff shield is set to cost the state €46 billion this year alone, the Finance Ministry said this week.

    11.22 Around 12.1 trillion yen ($82 billion) has already been spent to deal with the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to sources at the Board of Audit of Japan.

  8. Leeroy Avatar
    Leeroy

    “No-one will build a nuclear plant that is only needed to meet extreme demand for just a handful of days per year, that’s what a peaking plant is for.”
    This is why Nuclear is not a solution.

    1. Flauschie Avatar
      Flauschie

      There are valid arguments against nuclear power but not this one.

      1. Leeroy Avatar
        Leeroy

        It’s the most important point. Building a $30 Billion power plant to run it for just 3% of the time is a massive waste of money.

        1. Joe Avatar
          Joe

          Since when is the LibNat using $’taxpayer hard earned money to prop up their Coal / Oil / Gas – $’s10billionsplus pa subsidy – and now Nuclear to get a slice of the action, a problem for them.
          They ain’t wasting ‘their own’ money, so Nuclear is great to go for them with the bonus that RE is stymied.

        2. Biff Avatar
          Biff

          Who the hell is proposing to do that? It’s absolutely idiotic. If the LNP were genuine in their desire to go nuclear then it would be a return to the old-style power system only, with nuclear doing the heavy lifting.

          1. Leeroy Avatar
            Leeroy

            Hi Bill
            Nobody is proposing it because it would be ridiculous, but if we built nuclear, that would be the position we would be in. Nobody in the LNP wants to talk about it, so it goes un mentioned. We could run Nuclear and curtail renewables but that would be ridiculous too because they are much cheaper. And there is no hope of using excess Nuclear to make Hydrogen because it’s too expensive.

        3. Flauschie Avatar
          Flauschie

          Nuclear power is cheap at full capacity – and you can always shut down renewables at will. Conversely, you can’t ramp up renewables whenever you need it. So don’t twist realities.

          1. Leeroy Avatar
            Leeroy

            Even at full capacity Nuclear is 3 time more expensive than Renewables and that gap is getting wider. It’s why the Global Percentage of Nuclear is falling and Renewables is growing fast.

          2. Flauschie Avatar
            Flauschie

            See the discussion about the LCOE …

          3. Leeroy Avatar
            Leeroy

            Is this the discussion where we show that Nuclear, in a Renewables dominated grid, would need to be curtailed and therefore pushing its LCOE even higher? Renewables with an almost Zero marginal operating cost would be less impacted.
            That LCOE discussion?

          4. Flauschie Avatar
            Flauschie

            Why should nuclear power plant be curtailed if renewables can be easily taken offline? It’s not nuclear power that isn’t flexible – it’s the renewables.
            But that’s an overseas discussion – not an Australian one.
            I was disturbed by your “absolute truth” statement – which just isn’t globally valid.

          5. Leeroy Avatar
            Leeroy

            You want to curtail the most expensive energy on the grid. That way customers are getting the cheapest energy available. With Wind and Solar providing energy at almost Zero marginal cost, you want to keep them operating. Because their energy is so cheap it can be used to fill up storage too or make hydrogen. You don’t want to do that with Nuclear because then you have expensive Power + expensive storage. That doesn’t work economically at all.

          6. Flauschie Avatar
            Flauschie

            Again – see the LCOE discussion on this page.
            Or google “Levelised Cost of Electricity Calculator” of the IEA.”

          7. Leeroy Avatar
            Leeroy

            Yes and it will tell you Nuclear is way more expensive than Wind and Solar, so therefore we shouldn’t be curtailing them.
            What’s your point?

          8. Flauschie Avatar
            Flauschie

            6 of the top 10 power plants listed on the IEA page are nuclear.
            But then we should all listen to you rather than the IEA. Of course. 😉

          9. Leeroy Avatar
            Leeroy

            Don’t listen to anyone in the comments section. Listen to the experts. The smartest people who are involved in this energy transition in Australia. Planning, designing, building. All those people. Ask them to explain why Nuclear is completely irrelevant to Australia…

          10. Flauschie Avatar
            Flauschie

            Yes, I agree that nuclear power doesn’t make much sense in Oz – and I didn’t state anything else. Globally, it’s a different discussion though.

          11. Leeroy Avatar
            Leeroy

            Ah OK. My aplogies.
            As this is an Ausssie Web site, I (wrongly) presumed you were talking about Australia.

          12. Flauschie Avatar
            Flauschie

            Well, this is an Aussie website, yes, but it also publishes world news. 🙂

  9. Truth Missile Avatar
    Truth Missile

    “If you don’t want a nuclear power station in your electorate, vote 1 ALP”

    Welcome back to the Lodge, Mr. Albanese.

  10. ian_vk Avatar
    ian_vk

    Is there a link to the Minerals / Coal Council survey anywhere? I doubt they asked the hard questions like ” Do you want a nuclear power plant built within 100km of your home or built within their electorate ? ” etc.

    1. Nick Kemp Avatar
      Nick Kemp

      Or – Do you want to pay a lot for your electricity?, Do you believe the CSIRO or a bunch of muddle headed LNP politicians?

    2. Joe Avatar
      Joe

      We know how strong Team Dutton is on “the details” from his campaign against the Voice Did this MCA survey include “the details” – like proposed New Clear sites, like the proposed storage site of radioactive waste, like the cost of electricity to consumers?
      We can’t have a survey being, “a blank cheque”, as Team Dutton is fond of letting us know.
      Minister Edward ‘Nuke it’ O’Brien, after that memorable FAIL on Q and A last year, still hasn’t provided a single detail about New Clear in Australia, he has had plenty of time to get to work provide us with details.
      The only “details” that the Edward has been able to come up with is a flat No to CSIRO GenCost Report. Lol.

  11. QldLocal Avatar
    QldLocal

    The best part about David’s weekly post is coming back to it 2 days later and seeing all the idiots overseas who completely misunderstood.

  12. EyingTheLies Avatar
    EyingTheLies

    Why are they pushing nuclear power where it isn’t wanted? Is it because of the AUKUS deal?

    1. REDataCollector Avatar
      REDataCollector

      Because their previous favourite wheelbarrows (Coal and Gas), have thoroughly debunked.

      Unky Tiddles and his LNP colleagues needed something to hang their hats on and they just couldn’t bring themselves to barrack for Solar or Wind as it’s just too woke for them.

    2. Diogenes 72 Avatar
      Diogenes 72

      I would say follow the money. The FF industry wants it because if an Australian government ever did follow this idiotic path and pursue Nuclear instead of renewables, the existing coal plant would have to stagger on for another decade, so the FF industry would be very happy.

    3. simon gray Avatar
      simon gray

      I think because Nuclear still involves mining stuff; so the old ways would continue to some degree. But I could be wrong, who knows? The likely reason of simple delay seems compelling.

  13. REDataCollector Avatar
    REDataCollector

    Yeah, nothing like policy differentiation, to make one be noticed in the media nongs of today.

  14. Maddogeco Avatar
    Maddogeco

    Has soon as people understand ramp rates and how inflexible nuclear power is they pretty quickly realise that it’s a terrible idea considering Australia is often around 50% solar powered in the day and 0% solar output at night

    1. Flauschie Avatar
      Flauschie

      First of all, modern nuclear power plants can do load following – citing Wikipedia:

      “Modern nuclear plants with light water reactors are designed to have maneuvering capabilities in the 30-100% range with 5%/minute slope, up to 140 MW/minute. Nuclear power plants in France (…) operate in load-following mode and so participate in the primary and secondary frequency control. Some units follow a variable load program with one or two large power changes per day. Some designs allow for rapid changes of power level around rated power, a capability that is usable for frequency regulation.”

      The more important argument is that load following won’t make sense in the envisioned future anyway. One of the common goals is to use excess electricity – regardless of whether it’s solar, wind or nuclear – to produce hydrogen so there wouldn’t be any need to reduce the output. No ocean-going ship and no long-haul flight will ever use batteries but use efuels produced from excess electricity. Thus nuclear power plants could run at their most efficient settings all the time.

      The argument about inflexibility is also a bit silly in the first place. Nothing is less flexible than solar and wind energy. 😉 “Accusing” nuclear power stations for not being flexible in this context is somewhat bizarre.

      There are valid arguments against nuclear power – e.g.
      * minimum 300-400 years storage of high radiation nuclear waste in the most optimistic scenario (after fast neutron burning of nuclear waste)
      * socially not accepted in many countries
      * the risks are never absolutely zero
      * very high initial capital expenditure
      * in Oz: no relevant support industry. Next to zero expertise. Would probably take more than a decade just to build one.

      1. Diogenes 72 Avatar
        Diogenes 72

        I agree with many of your points but whilst you can electrolyse hydrogen with excess electricity, producing Efuels such as liquified H2 or NH3 is not a process you can start and stop as and when excess electricity becomes available and storing gaseous H2 as you produce it isn’t really practical.

        1. Flauschie Avatar
          Flauschie

          This issue is the same with renewables.
          Some new tech/procedures will have to be developed along the line.
          See also batteries – lithium-ion will not be the solution long term.

          1. Diogenes 72 Avatar
            Diogenes 72

            Hopefully flow batteries, cryogenic air or storing excess VRE as hot molten salt to drive a rankine cycle will provide medium term storage. All of these have a beter round trip efficiency then electrolysing water to create hydrogen to burn in a turbine.

      2. Maddogeco Avatar
        Maddogeco

        My guess would be closer to 3 decades than 1.

        about the following load, yes modern units can ramp up and down but they are typically the last to do it. I was speaking with a trader who works in the north east USA/south east canada grid. he said they they run their nukes at close to 100% all the time unless they go out for maintenance. everything else will flex around them. granted they could be older units. But its normally cheaper and easier for something else to flex first.

      3. PLDD Avatar
        PLDD

        Doesn’t the value in the flexibility equation depend on the cost/price of the offering.

        Gas plants are cheap to build, ramp quickly and use moderately expensive fuel. In effect they are the ones to beat in the absence of lots of hydro.

        Batteries need ti get a lit cheaper to compete but if they do that drives out gas. And they may get a lot cheaper if things like Solar Thermal silicon storage delivers.

        We know Nuclear is very expensive if costed transparently. That is not just expensive for plugging gaps in Renewables generation but exoensive for day to day use.

        A flexible nuclear plant will never breaK even at low utilisation rates and will never offer cheap power in a renewables resource rich country.

  15. Turdley brown Avatar
    Turdley brown

    If you want a reliable, continuous supply of electricity, then you must have a substantial fossil fuels and/or nuclear generation capacity. To claim otherwise is dishonest or misinformed.

    1. Gyrogordini Avatar
      Gyrogordini

      “Turdley brown”. The name says it all, really … At least the author seems to imply what they think “dishonest and misinformed” mean – they should know.

    2. Nick Kemp Avatar
      Nick Kemp

      Who to believe, you or the CSIRO?

      I think I’ll take the scientists

    3. smoodster Avatar
      smoodster

      What an appropriate name to go with such a comment!

  16. Brad Ashworth Avatar
    Brad Ashworth

    “there is plenty of high level and detailed modelling to suggest otherwise” – and there is the rub. It is modelling – based on input assumption. And thats all modelling to be fair. Any model that is used to prove a point – look at the input assumptions.
    eg I completely agree that solar and wind generation costs are very low – not zero – but very low. BUT – our energy grid is not built that way. So the cost of transformation is the issue. And its a BIG issue. Deploy solar and wind to cover the recovery of ALL of the energy required, ie make it a stable system with contingency – batteries to cover the redeployment of some of that energy when solar and wind are ineffective/inoperable. Dont call it excess – Its not excess energy – its essential energy…. Now do a today cost calcuation for that system as we know it. Australia wide. Ignore hydro for the sake of the exercise.
    That will be Billions.
    But that isnt the only cost involved. We have to rewire the country to make that system work. Now do a today cost calcuation for that part of the system as we know it.
    That is also Billions.
    These Billions currently do not exist. In “modelling” they have to make it work. Its an input assumption.
    Of course we spread this cost over a decade or two or three…..and that is reality.
    The rush to kill off coal, gas even nuclear on an ideological “save the planet” basis ignores the realities of fast tracking the transformation.

    1. Kramhh Avatar
      Kramhh

      Why ignore hydro? It’s an essential peice to make the balancing out of variable renewables work. No wonder you think the costs are higher. The mix of solar wind battery conventional hydro pumped hydro and some backup gas (bio gas?) and soms back up diesel (bio diesel?) is the most economical mix. I think you’ve taken things too far to the extreme in your assessment. Include some pumped hydro. Go for say 95% renewables and keep around 12GW of gas/diesel as back up. In the future that 5% of thermal generation could be supplied by bio or syn fuel to get us completely ff free.

  17. Kramhh Avatar
    Kramhh

    Voters want a fairy tail make-believe to be true. A serious debate by a serious party would also include them telling the voters actual costs not fairy tail costs, and proposing a location for it and the waste storage (no location means no protests) and giving an honest comparison to the cost of solar wind battery hydro (with a small amount of backup gas).
    Lnp are not serious about nuclear, they are avoiding all realities of it so they don’t have to answer difficult questions. This is the populist garbage just to differentiate to get votes and to extend business as usual for their ff funders

  18. Seriously...? Avatar
    Seriously…?

    Ha ha ha! Yeah, just wait until politicians have to push for nuclear facilities IN THEIR ELECTORATE and then watch them projectile vomit and scurry for the door.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.