Comments on: Why Don’t we Demand Zero Emissions, “Always On”, Affordable Power?

By: James Fleay

James Fleay — Sun, 24 Jan 2021 03:12:06 +0000

Hi Colin,
Thanks for the comment. You’ve neatly captured some of the issues around Government interference with markets that I covered in my piece. I recently “attended” the IFNEC virtual conference “Financing New Nuclear” and the highly experienced presenters outlined that out-of-market subsidies are only part of the problem. The other part of the problem (and the reason for the high CfD strike price for Hinkley Point C (HPC)) is project completion risk and this is something that the nuclear industry must tackle head on (and it seems they are doing just that). It is unarguable that western nations nuclear project performance in the last 20 yrs has been truly awful and there will need to be evidence of improvement if investors are to dip their toes back in the water.
Thankfully, the reasons for NPP poor performance in the west since 2000 are well understood, can be remedied and are actively being worked on by SMR vendors in consultation with tier 1 engineering houses. Whilst we wait to see the project performance of HPC and the first SMR projects, we must take steps to be ready to deploy these technologies if they perform well during the project phase. A very low cost action that the federal Government could consider would be the appointment of a NEPIO (see IAEA website) which would cost nearly nothing but have very large option value in 3-5 yrs time.

By: James Fleay

James Fleay — Sun, 24 Jan 2021 03:00:38 +0000

In reply to Peter Farley.

Hi Peter,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I think you’ve raise some very valid points around NPP unit size and how this could work in the NEM. My instinct is that the optimal unit size for an NPP in Australia is probably less than 1 GW for the reasons you’ve described BUT a comprehensive system study that runs multiple scenarios would be needed. The same system study would also need to run the renewables-heavy alternative you’ve described as other high-VRE locations (i.e. California) are running into real supply adequacy issues. Baseload plants often run at a little less than 100% so that several of them in combination have sufficient incremental reserve margin to accommodate a trip of a single unit – indeed this is how power networks have always been managed. On this simple basis, 4-6 strategically located APR-1400 reactor pairs should present no challenges to network operators. Accommodating NPP re-fueling outages has not presented other power systems with supply adequacy challenges.

I can’t agree with your view on SMRs. I think some pro-nuclear people make the mistake of over-hyping the likely timelines for Gen IV reactors which are likely at least 15 years away because of the technology and fuel qualification processes. However, LWR SMRs are scaled down versions of mature designs with greatly reduced complexity and use existing fuel technology. There are at least two highly credible vendors advancing towards first deployment by mid decade. I think these designs (GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 and NuScale) should be considered as a prospective option for Australia.
Thanks again for your comment.

By: James Fleay

James Fleay — Sun, 24 Jan 2021 02:33:17 +0000

In reply to Kenneth Charles Muir.

Hi Kenneth,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I have recently read the GENCOST report and you have nailed their position on LCOE.
The take away for me was that calculating VaLCoE using their method can only be done on a system-by-system basis, giving regards to market size, market type, incumbent generation, geography, climate etc. We’ve trawled through the academic literature to try and find some simple “factors” to estimate the gap between LCOE and S-LCOE in the NEM with regards intermittent supply but we’ve been unable to find anything. OECD, MIT and others have done excellent work but the simplified factors we’ve look for don’t exist and the GENCOST report describes why this is the case.
I agree that VRE has a role in the technology mix but that this falls short of 100% renewable energy.
Thanks again for your comment.

By: James Fleay

James Fleay — Sun, 24 Jan 2021 02:26:43 +0000

In reply to Paul Kristensen.

Hi Paul,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I regularly find myself cursing the vested interests you refer to and I agree they are not above criticism. However, I have to remind myself that state and federal governments created the liberalised power market with substantial Government support for a particular type of technology, and big energy businesses are simply doing what could be expected of any rational actor who bears no responsibility for the performance of the power system with respect to price, reliability and emissions.
It will take a politically courageous Government to acknowledge that our current market approach has been flawed from the start and that outsourcing power system long-range planning to the market borders on an abdication of responsibility.
Thanks again for your comment.

By: Engineer-Poet

Engineer-Poet — Fri, 22 Jan 2021 18:55:23 +0000

There are solutions to the problem of “too much power”, namely interruptible loads and dump loads. The refusal to consider them is a consequence of thinking of the grid as an isolated element, rather than part of a larger energy system. Plug-in vehicles make for good interruptible loads; every watt going into a charger can be used as spinning reserve. Plasma gasification of garbage makes a good dump load. It’s even feasible to dump electricity into electric heaters at conventional power plants, replacing fuel. It’s highly inefficient, but if you are using energy which has no emissions and zero marginal cost (which describes both WASPs and NPPs) you might as well.

Also, is there any chance of persuading the webmaster to stop setting ridiculously low-contrast text colors? The default is #000, and it’s clear and readable. What’s set for this text box is #3f3f3f, and it’s hard to read. Why do you mess with something that isn’t broken?

By: Peter Farley

Peter Farley — Tue, 19 Jan 2021 03:36:34 +0000

One other comment:
We seem to persist in the notion that we have a power crisis in this country. If we did power prices would be high and blackouts frequent. Neither is true.
Over the last 9 months power prices have been at or near their lowest prices since the NEM was commissioned. The only blackouts due to lack of supply that have occurred in the last three years have been associated with transmission failures not generation.
On Thursday 17th of December seven of sixteen NSW coal units and a transmission link to Victoria were offline simultaneously and yet still no load shedding. Prices shot up to $15,000/MWh briefly but spot prices financial year to date in NSW have still fallen to about $53.50, the lowest prices since 2015 and much lower than 19/20 average of almost $72

By: Peter Farley

Peter Farley — Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:09:40 +0000

The problem with this argument is that no-one has ever built an always on power generator. Even the much lauded AP1400 has a design availability of 90% and while some reactors have achieved better than that for some years, none have achieved it over their life and some very much worse. In fact 5 or Swiss reactors were offline at once a few years ago
Then there is the problem that demand varies. In the past France was generally acknowledged as the best operator of Nuclear plants, but their best utilisation was 75% because they cannot use all the power at night or weekends even though they export significant quantities of power to Italy, Spain and others at night so those countries can scale back their gas and hydro generators. The US manages about 92% utilisation, because nuclear supplies less than 20% of annual generation so nuclear is always far less than minimum demand.
Now Australia has three further complications,
1. Australia can’t export excess power or like France or the US, import at peak system demand, so Australia must have more peak capacity, which is rarely used. Even if that peak capacity is pumped hydro, it has to be built and by definition it will only run flat out two or three times a year or, in a summer like this, the last 10% of capacity will not be used, but will still add to system costs
2. Demand is more variable. NEM demand varies from 16.5 to 36 GW. Victorian demand varies from 2.2 GW to 9.4 GW and South Australia from 380 MW to 3,400 MW. How does an always on nuclear system cope with that. It doesn’t without a lot of storage
3. SMRs are not yet realistic, they have been promised for 50 years. In the 80’s they were 4 years away. Now they are 10-12 years away so if we want nuclear we will have to go with GEN III large plants. The only Western company willing to take an order for a GEN III plant that has actually been built is EDF. Toshiba Westinghouse has withdrawn from new plant construction. Korea has legislated to stop building nuclear and the GE Hitachi JV has yet to receive an order.
The EPR is 1.6 GW therefore a single unit must have at least 1.6 GW of spinning reserves in case of a trip and 1.6 GW long term generation for at least 6 weeks every three years for refuelling. 1.6 GW of spinning reserve does not mean 1.6 GW of gas for example it means hot running gas at 20-30% capacity and at least 14,000 MWs of inertia so that if the plant trips the grid does not crash. So SA needs to maintain at least 2 GW of gas on line all the time running at 20-30% of capacity and install a large number of syncons/pumped hydro as well to match the inertia of the nuclear plant. The problem then is that SA will be generating at least 1.6 GW of power all the time when demand often falls as low as 500-600 MW. What will it do with the extra power. Will it build two new export transmission lines and hope other states need power, when SA doesn’t, will it build 1,000 MW x 36 hours of pumped hydro or will it skip nuclear. Because even with the pumped hydro it will still have to export half the power it generates. It will still have to have 3.4 GW of alternative dispatchable capacity on the reasonable assumption that every two or three years there will be at least a 20% chance that the nuclear plant is offline in hot weather
Similar calculations apply to the SWIS, Tasmanian and North Queensland grids so we are left with SE Queensland, the Hunter Valley and the Latrobe Valley as the only places where an EPR nuclear reactor could be installed without requiring significant expansion of transmission and backup. So lets see how they would fare there.
Let us make the heroic assumption that the APR 1400 could be built for the same price in Australia as it is in Korea, when we do not have the facilities or experience to do it. allowing for inflation since the Barrakah order was signed and this is two units not four, a pair of 1,345 MW generators could possibly be built for about A$18 bn and at rated capacity and duty cycle of 85% (two reactors + spinning reserve would often be more than Victoria’s demand) the reactors would generate 20,000 GWh per year, about half Victoria’s annual grid demand. Again about 3 GW of gas and hydro would still be required in case one tripped while the other was being maintained.
Alternatively at current costs we could distribute 3 GW of wind plants around the state, add 2 GW of 100-300 MW solar plants and 5 GW of rooftop solar. Now because wind + solar is never zero at peak demand, it will actually need less peak backup than the nuclear plant to guarantee 2.7 GW of power. Also as the sun shines every day and the wind blows every hour, the duration of the backup will be less than for a two unit nuclear plant, but for simplicity lets assume that the backup is the same. There will also be times where wind and solar generates more than is needed so assume we need to curtail 15% of the wind and solar so we should up the capacity to 3.3 GW of wind 2 GW of tracking solar and 5 GW of rooftop. At modern capacity factors of 45%, 28% and 14% respectively that will provide 20,000 GWh per year even after 15% curtailment. The cost of the wind+ solar generation will be about $14 bn for the same annual output. The kicker is that the wind and solar system will have an operating cost of about $375 m per year, but at current costs (US$40/MWh) the nuclear system would have operating costs of almost $1.1 bn. If the process started today the whole wind solar system would be operating in three to four years. The nuclear plant wouldn’t even have turned the first sod.

By: Kenneth Charles Muir

Kenneth Charles Muir — Mon, 18 Jan 2021 08:38:21 +0000

Hello Rob
A case of preaching to the choir when you write to electrical engineers from the power industry. (Interested how you acquired my email address). In other words I totally support your drawing attention to SCoE, the only thing that matters. The IEA’s 2020 cost of generation report is a good read on the theme, if you haven’t already done so. It rather damns the use of LCoE as a metric by faint praise and has come up with VaLCoE – the declining value of VRE to the system as its share increases. SCoE appears a bit more straightforward but VaLCoE might raise some sensible questions for VRE.
And indeed the energy close out price approach of the NEM warrants a hard eye’s review. Arguably it only worked for so long due to the excess firm capacity in the NEM from when this market approach started till relatively recently (and the tiny role of VRE at that time).
VRE has a place in the optimal technology mix, but how big needs rigorous study.
Regards

By: Paul Kristensen

Paul Kristensen — Mon, 18 Jan 2021 07:57:17 +0000

Excellent summary of the main, self-created barriers against the introduction of nuclear power plants in Australia. If anyone had set out to make a mess of our power supply, they could hardly have achieved a greater success.
The problem is the design of the market that we currently have in Australia. Clearly, a sensible redesign is both imperative and urgent.
So, how might such a change be achieved against the now massive vested interests that have come to dominate our power system? That is an issue I have no solution for.