(04-02-2022, 01:46 PM)ElwoodBlues1 link Wrote:55 new nuke plants being built and plenty more being uprated with 165 uprates in the USA alone.
Nuke plants get retired due to operational lifespan being met and its estimated that 123 will be retired by 2040 but 308 will come online.
Source the World Nuclear Association...

Quote:The USA has 93 operable nuclear reactors, with a combined net capacity of 95.5 GWe. In 2020, nuclear generated 19.7% of the country's electricity.There had been four AP1000 reactors under construction, but two of these have been cancelled. One of the reasons for the hiatus in new build in the USA to date has been the extremely successful evolution in maintenance strategies. Over the last 15 years, improved operational performance has increased utilisation of US nuclear power plants, with the increased output equivalent to 19 new 1000 MWe plants being built. 2016 saw the first new nuclear power reactor enter operation in the country for 20 years. Despite this, the number of operable reactors has reduced in recent years, from a peak of 104 in 2012. Early closures have been brought on by a combination of factors including cheap natural gas, market liberalization, over-subsidy of renewable sources, and political campaigning.
Source: World Nuclear Association

(04-03-2022, 01:17 AM)DJC link Wrote:To summarise the "facts" provided by the World Nuclear Association for the USA:
* There are 93 operable nuclear reactors in the USA.
* Four reactors were under construction but two have been cancelled.
* Improved maintenance has increased operational performance.
* The first new nuclear power plant in over 20 years commenced operation in 2016.
* The number of operable reactors has declined from a peak of 104 in 2012 to 93 in 2020.

It's interesting to read through the nuclear programs of different nations with Germany set to end nuclear power generation this year and France scaling back to 50% by 2035, while countries like Turkey and Bangladesh are starting construction of their first power plants.  However, you do have to treat the World Nuclear Association data with a little caution; Australia is listed as one of about 30 countries that "are considering, planning or starting nuclear power programmes".  The Australian situation is covered in more detail, and quite accurately, in another section but our listing in that category is misleading.

(04-03-2022, 03:37 AM)ElwoodBlues1 link Wrote:France are planning 14 more nuclear reactors by 2050 according to Macron.France has no oil, no gas and no coal and wants to close it's remaining  fossil fuel burning plants.
Australia would need about 25 reactors and they take around 10 -15 years to build.
You need plenty of water and they need to be near consumers so that's building around the coast plus you need foreign investment from companies and the reality is that will come from China etc who already have a strong ownership in our distribution network.
Can't see any Government making the nuke call in Aus and risking the backlash in the short to medium term.

(04-03-2022, 03:37 AM)ElwoodBlues1 link Wrote:Can't see any Government making the nuke call in Aus and risking the backlash in the short to medium term.

Quote:For the most part, Eraring workers aren’t angry at Origin Energy. They have seen the rapid rise of renewables like rooftop solar steal the cream off the plant’s profits. And they’ve watched as their power station, which must run continuously, is forced to keep producing when the price of electricity crashes.

They understand that this, along with growing numbers of large wind and solar farms coming onto the grid, will make their coal-fired power station unviable.

Quote:For its part, Origin Energy plans to install a battery on the site of Eraring Power station.

(04-03-2022, 03:37 AM)ElwoodBlues1 link Wrote:France are planning 14 more nuclear reactors by 2050 according to Macron.France has no oil, no gas and no coal and wants to close it's remaining  fossil fuel burning plants.
Australia would need about 25 reactors and they take around 10 -15 years to build.
You need plenty of water and they need to be near consumers so that's building around the coast plus you need foreign investment from companies and the reality is that will come from China etc who already have a strong ownership in our distribution network.
Can't see any Government making the nuke call in Aus and risking the backlash in the short to medium term.

(04-04-2022, 10:25 AM)Mav link Wrote:Interesting article about the impending closure of Eraring, the biggest coal-fired power station in Australia. Renewable power has resulted in the closure being brought forward by 7 years to 2025.

Switching off, abc.net.au

The article shows how badly the shutdown will affect the workers at the plant and the local businesses which rely upon it. It also notes how well Germany handled the transition from fossil fuel energy generation to renewables and how badly governments handle the transition. The Germans made sure the transition would unfold over 50 years. Our transitions happen almost overnight.

But the fact that the power plant is going to be replaced by a battery is a pretty clear indication that nuclear power has no chance of taking off in Australia. The power plant is called Eraring after Lake Eraring, a plentiful supply of water. It also has the facilities to step up power to transmit it to the grid. After all, it supplies 20% of NSW's power. It's also in a regional location, so it wouldn't attract too many NIMBY complaints. I'd imagine the local residents would prefer the power plant to be replaced by another power station that would bring jobs with it, whereas the battery will only involve a construction crew of 128 and only 10 jobs once it's completed.

Yallourn is also closing by 2028 and will again be replaced by a battery:  Energy Australia to close Yallourn power station early and build 350 megawatt battery, abc.net.au.