Comments on: NUCLEAR ENERGY – AUSTRALIA’S LEAST COST LOW CARBON ENERGY SOLUTION

By: Rob Parker

Rob Parker — Sun, 30 Oct 2022 22:45:20 +0000

Geoff
Actually we report that 76% nuclear is required. That can be from large or small plants
As German press is reporting, the cost of the recent public offerings for new Polish Plants are #,178/kWe for the South Korean plants, $4,671/kWe for the US plants and $4,898/kWe for French plants
CSIRO are unable to point to any small plants that are likely to be built that comes to $16,200/Kwe
We have actively engaged with suppliers and purchasers of new small modular reactors and to our knowledge CSIRO have not.
CSIRO also make extravagant claims for future cost reductions in wind and solar which do not take proper account of future materials demand for renewables
In Match 2022 the IEA produced a revised version of “The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions”
If renewable generators come to dominate the World’s energy transition then we will have gone from a system of high energy density to high materials demand. This is the inevitable result of going out into the environment to harvest low grade energy to do useful work
An energy system powered by wind and solar technologies differs profoundly from one fuelled by nuclear generators.
From the IEA report wind uses 11 times more materials than conventional nuclear while solar uses 17 times – say 14 times at 50/50 wind and solar. Some small nuclear power plants such as the General Electric BWRX 300 have even halved the materials demand of nuclear energy per unit of installed power.
So, how do you reconcile the difference between our findings?
1) Do more research
2)Take into account who pays the CSIRO bills

By: geoff hendrick

geoff hendrick — Sun, 30 Oct 2022 05:38:58 +0000

A very informative high-quality report!
Your report says nuclear (SMR 76% option 2042) is half cost of renewables.
But the CSIRO annual gencost report says renewables (including transmission, storage) is half cost of nuclear (2040).
How can we reconcile these 2 reports?

By: Jim Bain

Jim Bain — Wed, 13 Oct 2021 04:38:36 +0000

Very well articulated Rob. A solid way forward to zero emissions by 2050 as shown by new nuclear generation coming on stream in France, UK and other countries. A bonus is the additional local industry generated from Australia’s dominant uranium deposits.

By: Peter Cunningham

Peter Cunningham — Wed, 12 May 2021 01:50:40 +0000

Again, a MOST EXCELLENT presentation by Rob – the most tenacious bloke I know!.
The REAL battle isn’t Nuclear – it’s being rid of the political biases and agendas and the hypocritical and idealistic Greens that are on many fronts strangling this nation.
What a pity Australia does not act to introduce the modern nuclear process with equal gusto as it did with the China Virus.

By: Rob Parker

Rob Parker — Mon, 10 May 2021 05:54:19 +0000

In reply to Eric Meyer.

Eric,
Thank you for your endorsement.
The analytical tool we use is an energy model developed by Dr Robert Barr of Electric Power Consulting here in New South Wales.
He’s a very bright guy.
I ran stacks of generation mixes to arrive at our result.
It would be great follow up with a demonstration via a Teams meeting or similar

Thanks for all your continued work on nuclear and it would be great to hear you sing sometime – maybe when we can travel again.
Regards
Rob

By: Eric Meyer

Eric Meyer — Mon, 10 May 2021 04:20:17 +0000

Well done! Haven’t seen a path to carbon free more clearly articulated than this.