Victorian Nuclear Power Plant locations

Contents

Previous History of Nuclear Plant site studies in Victoria (1960s-1980s)

There are quite a few references into previous site investigations for nuclear energy in Victoria.

The Age has reported on studies conducted by the SEC in the 1960s and 1970s that identified many potential sites, with historical archives mentioning several:

3. French Island (Red Bluff): In the late 1960s, this was favoured as the site for Victoria’s first nuclear power station, with plans to be operational by the early 1980s.
4. Kirk Point (near Werribee): Assessed in internal SEC reports as a prime location due to its isolation from residential areas.
5. Portland: Considered in the 1980s as a potential site to power a large aluminium smelter.
6. Breamlea (near Torquay): Identified in early SEC studies.
7. Powlett River: Studied as a potential location in early reports.
8. Corner Inlet: Identified as a potential site.
9. Stony Point: Identified as a potential site.
10. Cape Reamur / Tyrendarra: Listed among sites deemed suitable in historical assessments. [1, 2, 3]

Other sites that appeared in historical lists included Glenaire and Princetown. [1]

Philip Mallis’ well produced video on previous site investigations can be viewed here:

Crikey previously reported on this link: https://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/21/for-victoria-nuclear-power-was-oh-so-close/
and there’s this link at Stop These Things:

Oh So Close: How Australia’s Nuclear Powered Future Almost Began In 1980

Locations for Nuclear Power Plants in Victoria

Victoria would host approximately 26% of the total planned nuclear capacity This requires 4.2 GW from three plants by 2050 and 7GW from five plants by 2060. A fleet of large APR1400 nuclear power plants would be located at two sites, namely in the Latrobe Valley and on a coastal location. In the Latrobe Valley a suitable site could be selected from Hazelwood, Yallourn or Loy Yang.

While large plants are lower cost per unit of capacity than small plants, they need to be built in multiples at each site to achieve their greatest economies. Cooling capacity will therefore be required to suit a minimum of 2.4GW at each site.

Coastal sites will require a modest increase in transmission capacity. In the following Table 2 we have included locations and suggested capacities for nuclear power plants at four selected sites.

Table 1 Using APR1400 Units

In Table 2 we provide another possible mix of sites and reactor capacities using smaller APR1000 units.

Table 2 – An alternate option with three plants at each of two locations and two units at a single location.

<
<

Possible sites for Nuclear Power Plants in Victoria

Locations for these plants have been chosen using the criteria listed in Site Selection
This image on this website uses a portion of the AEMO REGIONAL BOUNDARIES Map for the NATIONAL ELECTRICITY MARKET produced by AEMO. The nuclear locations have been placed over this map.

Victoria and the National Grid

Transmission and distribution currently make up the largest share of our electricity bills. In Victoria its of the order of 45% while in SA its around 68%. Our analysis shows that going to 100% renewable energy with wind and solar could see this component at least double in cost.
Using nuclear power plants we can make huge saving on the most expensive part of our electricity bills.

In Victoria sites such as those in the old coal plants in the Latrobe Valley can readily be switched over to four new nuclear power plants. Upgrades to the transfer capacity between the states such as VNI-minor, Marinus Link, VNI – West, Hume Link and Energy connect will provide a robust network capable of supplying power to Victoria in the rare event og a single nuclear power unit going off line.

A very detailed discussion of the challenges being faced by countries integrating different forms of energy generation onto their grids can be found at: Electricity Transmission Grids – World Nuclear Association

Cooling Victorian Nuclear Plants

The existing brown coal pits at Loy Yang, Yallourn and Hazelwood are immense both in terms of volume and surface area. Approximate volumes and areas if used for pit cooling and water storage appear in Table 1.

One common means of cooling inland coal or nuclear power plants is through the use of evaporative cooling towers as is currently done at Loy Yang and Yallourn and many other coal fired plants in Australia. Future nuclear power plants constructed in the Latrobe Valley could use this same method by using surface water and ground water from the natural environment.

Another option is the use of cooling ponds. These are used in Australia and internationally for both coal and nuclear thermal power plants. A notable example was Liddell Power Station in NSW where a 2,000 MW coal plant used the 11 square kilometre Lake Liddell both for surface cooling Liddell and also for drought proofing the Liddell and the 2,640 MW Bayswater coal fired power plants.

As a guide to performance, Lake Liddell provides a cooling surface area of 5.5m²/kW for the 2000 MW Liddell coal plant. In comparison, the coal mine pits in the Latrobe would provide a more conservative capacity of 6.6m²/kW for 4,400MW of nuclear power.

Table 1 Pond Capacities in the Latrobe Valley

Cooling ponds have lower evaporative losses than cooling towers but if not existing require considerably greater capital expenditure. A cooling pond transfers a larger percentage of waste heat to the atmosphere via convection and less by evaporation because of the lower differential temperature between the water and the air, reducing the rate of evaporation and thus the rate of water loss relative to cooling towers. Their environmental impacts are typically less than direct cooling. This would be a very suitable option for nuclear power plants located in the Latrobe Valley where the disused coal pits can be re-used as cooling ponds.

If it was decided to use cooling towers then the huge stored volume of water in the ponds would drought proof the nuclear plants. From Table 1, about 800 million cubic metres of water would be held in the ponds of which about 50% would come from ground water infiltration based on assumptions made in the Hazelwood Power station rehabilitation plans. This equates to some 50 years of storage for a 1GW nuclear power plant if using an evaporative cooling solution or 12 years for four typical 1.1 GW nuclear power plants.

The following three images show the cooling ponds constructed adjacent to the existing and demolished coal fired plants. To use the full capacity of these ponds, they would be interconnected by pipelines for water transfer. An additional benefit is provided longer term by filling the ponds with water to maintain the slope stability of the existing excavations. This would significantly reduce the costs of pit rehabilitation.

In conclusion, the existing brown coal pits in the Latrobe offer a significant asset that can provide cooling for significant amounts of ultra-low carbon nuclear generated electricity. This will apply whether cooling ponds or cooling towers are used.

An excellent and detailed outline of the cooling options is available at: Cooling Power Plants | Power Plant Water Use for Cooling – World Nuclear Association