Comments on: Nuclear Power for Australia: Where to put it? http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/nuclear-power-for-australia-where-to-put-it/ An independent scientist's observations on society, technology, energy, science and the environment. "Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop. Many passengers would rather have stayed home." - Carl Sagan Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:19:13 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: John Newlands http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/nuclear-power-for-australia-where-to-put-it/#comment-593 John Newlands Sat, 23 Aug 2008 03:20:25 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/?p=168#comment-593 Recall when the boat people started arriving in numbers they were detained at Woomera rocket range, perhaps more for punishment than difficulty of escape. Notwithstanding water and transmission issues I think there is good psychology behind siting reactors in tough towns. I'd mention 1) the abattoir factor – kept out of sight so people don't think of those cute little lambs as they munch on lamb chops 2) rubbing salt into the wound - building a nuke next to an existing coal station is like saying you have sinned and must now be publicly corrected 3) battle hardened locals – the people who can live in places like faded mining towns may not only be grateful they may not have the sensitivities of city slickers. 4) co-location with desalination since warmer inlet water for vacuum flash or reverse osmosis means less pressure difference is needed. On the question of cooling water the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2006-07/07rn12.pdf" rel="nofollow">Parliamentary report</a> suggests (Table 4) that a 1000MWe plant with cooling towers will lose 24 gigalitres per year or 66 megalitres per day. Well that cuts out Woomera but with some pumping effort a town like Broken Hill could draw on Medindee Lakes, currently full. On transmission line if the easement already exists I've seen a figure of $300,000 per kilometre for high voltage alternating current, with 10% power loss per 1000 km. Thus I wonder whether it might pay to trade off some efficiency for sites with fewer hassles. As a former SA resident I was always surprised that the two Pt Augusta coal plants can use such shallow salty water at the top of the gulf. I understand the nearby mangroves are showing signs of stress. The more logical site seems to be near Whyalla (Pts Lowly/Bonython/Stony) down the gulf with strong currents at normal salinity and temperature. That is where BHP Billiton plans a big desal plant. Thus overbuild at Whyalla (say 1600 MW) and forget Pt Stanvac near Adelaide. Sure there will be higher costs but also less political opposition. Each of the above 'psychology' factors works out better. Recall when the boat people started arriving in numbers they were detained at Woomera rocket range, perhaps more for punishment than difficulty of escape. Notwithstanding water and transmission issues I think there is good psychology behind siting reactors in tough towns. I’d mention
1) the abattoir factor – kept out of sight so people don’t think of those cute little lambs as they munch on lamb chops
2) rubbing salt into the wound – building a nuke next to an existing coal station is like saying you have sinned and must now be publicly corrected
3) battle hardened locals – the people who can live in places like faded mining towns may not only be grateful they may not have the sensitivities of city slickers.
4) co-location with desalination since warmer inlet water for vacuum flash or reverse osmosis means less pressure difference is needed.

On the question of cooling water the Parliamentary report suggests (Table 4) that a 1000MWe plant with cooling towers will lose 24 gigalitres per year or 66 megalitres per day. Well that cuts out Woomera but with some pumping effort a town like Broken Hill could draw on Medindee Lakes, currently full. On transmission line if the easement already exists I’ve seen a figure of $300,000 per kilometre for high voltage alternating current, with 10% power loss per 1000 km.
Thus I wonder whether it might pay to trade off some efficiency for sites with fewer hassles. As a former SA resident I was always surprised that the two Pt Augusta coal plants can use such shallow salty water at the top of the gulf. I understand the nearby mangroves are showing signs of stress. The more logical site seems to be near Whyalla (Pts Lowly/Bonython/Stony) down the gulf with strong currents at normal salinity and temperature. That is where BHP Billiton plans a big desal plant. Thus overbuild at Whyalla (say 1600 MW) and forget Pt Stanvac near Adelaide. Sure there will be higher costs but also less political opposition. Each of the above ‘psychology’ factors works out better.

]]> By: Fifi http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/nuclear-power-for-australia-where-to-put-it/#comment-592 Fifi Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:10:23 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/?p=168#comment-592 Or try this one: http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=51.013923,2.136787&spn=0.005609,0.015986&z=16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravelines_Nuclear_Power_Plant Gravelines nuclear power plant : 6 x 950 MWe over 100 hectares (about 250 acres). Who said that sitting reactors was such a problem? All you need is a cooling source and the grid. Or try this one:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=51.013923,2.136787&spn=0.005609,0.015986&z=16

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravelines_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Gravelines nuclear power plant : 6 x 950 MWe over 100 hectares (about 250 acres).

Who said that sitting reactors was such a problem? All you need is a cooling source and the grid.

]]> By: David Walters http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/nuclear-power-for-australia-where-to-put-it/#comment-591 David Walters Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:57:09 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/?p=168#comment-591 I decided Luke to stir this up. I did my own version of your plan for the US and posted it to davidwalters.dailykos.com 174 comments so far! David I decided Luke to stir this up. I did my own version of your plan for the US and posted it to davidwalters.dailykos.com

174 comments so far!

David

]]> By: Jim Baerg http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/nuclear-power-for-australia-where-to-put-it/#comment-590 Jim Baerg Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:56:43 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/?p=168#comment-590 Sorry that didn't work. Try this. http://maps.google.ca/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=43.809454,-79.066404&spn=0.00276,0.004828&t=h&z=18 Sorry that didn’t work. Try this.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=43.809454,-79.066404&spn=0.00276,0.004828&t=h&z=18

]]> By: Jim Baerg http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/nuclear-power-for-australia-where-to-put-it/#comment-589 Jim Baerg Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:52:49 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/?p=168#comment-589 ("because people’s fears are simply NEVER going to reconcile living near a NP)" What Never? Zoom out from this. http://maps.google.ca/maps?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hl=en&tab=wl (“because people’s fears are simply NEVER going to reconcile living near a NP)”

What Never? Zoom out from this.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hl=en&tab=wl

]]> By: David Walters http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/nuclear-power-for-australia-where-to-put-it/#comment-588 David Walters Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:29:24 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/?p=168#comment-588 Luke, excellent post! Really. We need more "Grand Plan" type posts on our blogs and in response to the antis to give a better picture. We are trying to do this at energyrfromthorium.com as well. Your country is one of most ideally suited countries in the world for large scale nuclear energy given that 90% of the people live within 20 miles of the ocean. Any NEW site that could be located on the coast and far away from a large population center (because people's fears are simply NEVER going to reconcile living near a NP) but can be largely clustered....4 to 6 reactors producing 6GW to 12GWs. Clustering them makes them cheaper for all sorts of reason but also for grid access. If a new HVDC or high voltage AC transmission line has to be built, the cost of doing this for a "nuplex" makes a lot more sense and becomes *almost* an incremental cost. Thus you can have nuplexes further away and not spent so much for tying it altogether. I think you plan is great, just that the new, greenfield sites ought to be 3 or more reactors. David Luke, excellent post! Really. We need more “Grand Plan” type posts on our blogs and in response to the antis to give a better picture. We are trying to do this at energyrfromthorium.com as well.

Your country is one of most ideally suited countries in the world for large scale nuclear energy given that 90% of the people live within 20 miles of the ocean. Any NEW site that could be located on the coast and far away from a large population center (because people’s fears are simply NEVER going to reconcile living near a NP) but can be largely clustered….4 to 6 reactors producing 6GW to 12GWs. Clustering them makes them cheaper for all sorts of reason but also for grid access. If a new HVDC or high voltage AC transmission line has to be built, the cost of doing this for a “nuplex” makes a lot more sense and becomes *almost* an incremental cost. Thus you can have nuplexes further away and not spent so much for tying it altogether.

I think you plan is great, just that the new, greenfield sites ought to be 3 or more reactors.

David

]]> By: Ed http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/nuclear-power-for-australia-where-to-put-it/#comment-584 Ed Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:07:21 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/?p=168#comment-584 Nice post Luke. I've drafted a similar one and used your IEA information to make a related point - in the end, fossil based generation is 5% higher that the same period last year. Doesn't get much more objective than that. Regarding the confusing maths, I found the below assumptions in UPNER. "Projections suggest the need for over 100 GW of capacity by 2050 (compared to the current Australian installed capacity of 48 GW)." - Pg. 5 "Electricity consumption is projected to reach approximately 410 TWh by 2029–2030.[55] Figure 4.1 shows the projection to 2050, with an annual electricity demand of more than 550 TWh. Servicing such demands would require over 100 GW of generating capacity by 2050. Large baseload plant may provide two-thirds or more of this capacity." - Pg. 45 Nice post Luke. I’ve drafted a similar one and used your IEA information to make a related point – in the end, fossil based generation is 5% higher that the same period last year.

Doesn’t get much more objective than that.

Regarding the confusing maths, I found the below assumptions in UPNER.

“Projections suggest the need for over 100 GW of capacity by 2050 (compared to the current Australian installed capacity of 48 GW).” – Pg. 5

“Electricity consumption is projected to reach approximately 410 TWh by 2029–2030.[55] Figure 4.1 shows the projection to 2050, with an annual electricity demand of more than 550 TWh. Servicing such demands would require over 100 GW of generating capacity by 2050. Large baseload plant may provide two-thirds or more of this capacity.” – Pg. 45

]]>