Read back through the **RAN** thread. It's been thrashed a few times and if GF0012 has commented on it pay very close attention to what he has said, because he is rather knowledgeable in the sub area, without going into too much detail.
Mate, the 'bridge too far' is the political aspect, it simply can't be brushed aside, it is the start, middle and end of the matter at the moment, and I can't see it will change anytime soon.
The french have actually apparently got their reactor working. But I am still skeptical if they will meet the lifetime targets and how cost effective it ill be. Going with regular low enriched uranium will mean french subs will have to watch their power budgets more than US/Russian CONOPs, particularly the soviets who were known for plowing at 30 or even 40 kts through the water. The Barracuda SSN is the best SSN to convert because the french have had a real go at reducing the drag and other factors that should help reduce noise and energy required to operate. Shrinking the K15 down to fit in the Baracuda has been a tremendous problem. I wonder how brazil will built their custom reactor to fit into their subs given the headache its given the french.
@John Newman in the interests of fairness etc., World Nuclear News is basically an industry body so there is somewhat of a bias in its reporting. Having said that, I do agree with your conclusion that at present there is no bipartisan or public support for an Australian nuclear industry, let alone RAN SSNs and that any discussion about SSNs in RAN service is really a waste of time until that dynamic changes.
Nuclear power generation is dead. At least in terms of the national grid.
Through late winter and early spring a high pressure system sitting over the Bight can deliver days of cloudy skies and slight winds over much of SE Australia. Wind and solar will offer very little power under such conditions.. Yes we now have Li battery storage that will power the SA for about 1-2 hours. I have read somewhere that proper backup storage for wind and sun renewables against long cloudy periods will cost about $1Tn. Also just 2 years ago wind farms in SA had to shut down due to strong winds in stormy conditions with no solar was being produced - we had hours of blackout partly because wind generated power fell outside the specified tolerances of the Australian power regulators. I attended a course on how to help people on the pension with their power bills. The lady who gave the course had migrated from California to SA to marry and told us of her shock to discover SA power bills twice that of California. She said Californian power bills were being held down by competition between nuclear power plants.Nuclear power generation is dead. At least in terms of the national grid.
For all its coal loving reputation, Australia is having one of the fastest roll outs of renewable energy per capita.
Australia has succeeded where Germany failed.
Australia has met its renewable energy target. But don’t pop the champagne
It has become apparent that Australia has large sites that are perfect for solar and wind. Watch as Australia deploys more roof top PV than Japan and the US, combined.
Just build the best conventional submarines you can.
Sorry, but your post completely ignores the cost, availability and impact of solar.Nuclear power generation is dead. At least in terms of the national grid.
For all its coal loving reputation, Australia is having one of the fastest roll outs of renewable energy per capita.
Australia has succeeded where Germany failed.
Australia has met its renewable energy target. But don’t pop the champagne
It has become apparent that Australia has large sites that are perfect for solar and wind. Watch as Australia deploys more roof top PV than Japan and the US, combined.
At its current rate, Australia is on track for 50% renewable electricity in 2025
At this rate, no new coal or even gas will get much of a look in. Let alone nuclear. Small scale nuclear might be useful for the Non NEM parts of the grid. Perth, Darwin and perhaps remote communities like Broome. But all of those also get lots of sun light and significant wind.
I don't think linking nuclear with power generation is helpful any more. I think keep it military. Nuclear weapons and submarine reactors. With that I would say put in some infrastructure to have latent capability if we ever needed. I would fund a pilot silex enrichment plant, that would be able to do general isotopes and could be adapted to nuclear. Very high end, high quality isotopic refinement. But small scale. Kilograms, not tonnes etc.
But submarine nuclear reactors are fraught with difficulty. Off the shelf US/UK are likely not to be applicable.
Just build the best conventional submarines you can.
Peak solar contribution to the National Electric Market (i.e. excluding NT and WA) is up to 20% of 30-minute averaged demand, of cause, that's then offset by no solar generation at night. There's been occasions within the last week (see same source on NEM 30-minute averaged input) where solar+wind+hydro has accounted for 40%.
There's a few official reports on the 2016 blackout out there. The TLDR is, yes, a lot of wind capacity was shut off due to overly conservative settings on fault ride through and voltage limits when hit by a one in fifty year storm; but what turned things from an hour in the dark into people without power for days was damage to transmission lines and towers (to quote the above report):
I would argue that as both the atmosphere and the oceans heat up, storm events will become more energetic and pronounced, meaning that wind turbines will have to be shut down during storm events due to high wind velocities, solar arrays will not generate due to cloud cover, and both will be prone to storm damage; from wind, inundation and hail. There will be a higher frequency of cyclones and tropical cyclones, with these having higher intensities and wider geographic distributions, probably down to the lower 30, possibly upper 40 degrees South latitude. This means cyclones in all states & major cities of Australia, excluding Ettamoggah, but including Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney & Hobart, the North Island and the top half of the South Island of NZ.Nuclear power generation is dead. At least in terms of the national grid.
For all its coal loving reputation, Australia is having one of the fastest roll outs of renewable energy per capita.
Australia has succeeded where Germany failed.
Australia has met its renewable energy target. But don’t pop the champagne
It has become apparent that Australia has large sites that are perfect for solar and wind. Watch as Australia deploys more roof top PV than Japan and the US, combined.
At its current rate, Australia is on track for 50% renewable electricity in 2025
At this rate, no new coal or even gas will get much of a look in. Let alone nuclear. Small scale nuclear might be useful for the Non NEM parts of the grid. Perth, Darwin and perhaps remote communities like Broome. But all of those also get lots of sun light and significant wind.
I don't think linking nuclear with power generation is helpful any more. I think keep it military. Nuclear weapons and submarine reactors. With that I would say put in some infrastructure to have latent capability if we ever needed. I would fund a pilot silex enrichment plant, that would be able to do general isotopes and could be adapted to nuclear. Very high end, high quality isotopic refinement. But small scale. Kilograms, not tonnes etc.
But submarine nuclear reactors are fraught with difficulty. Off the shelf US/UK are likely not to be applicable.
Just build the best conventional submarines you can.
I sometimes wonder if perhaps we shouldn't look at the other way around and use Nuclear Submarines as a way to get into the nuclear power industry. Given that there would probably be a 20+ year development period for any new nuclear submarines that time could be used putting together the infrastructure for a nuclear industry.
The problem with this scenario is that there is nowhere to train nuclear engineers, where would the RAN find them?
Sure, but why stop at a fleet of SSNs? Why not a fleet of SSBNs too? Go the whole hog and procure a couple of CVNs while we are at it as well.......
@John Newman never say never. Have you been drinking the Fosters again? You know that stuff's not good for your guts.