Another great read, cheers Larry. Some recurring themes in there.
Given that energy generation is privatised in Aotearoa, and that the NZ governing bodies lack the clout to coerce the major generators to build any significant new high inertia generation facilities, there appear to be limited options.
What's your view on the emerging SMRS tech? It seems to me the only way to secure high density, high inertia power generation with a reasonable EROI (without breaking the bank) might be for the NZ Govt to potentially partner/subsidise this new tech to enable someone in the private sector to give it a crack. I'd be interested to hear your view.
Yeah I need to some how do a comparison of state coordinated generation vs the NZ privatisation model. We were the first to adopt our current model and I'm not sure it has worked out as intended. To be fair though a big chunk of the problem the generators are grappling with is the rapid decline of gas.
SMR's are interesting. As far as I can establish its still very much in development space. There is a grid connected floating unit in Russia and a pebble bed unit in China. Beyond that its all R&D stuff. I think shielding is the biggest challenge at the moment. If they can crack the magic formula it could possible work really well her and they could be deployed in a distributed fashion that would help with the transmission network infrastructural requirements and line loses. My best guess is that they are probably still quite a few years away.
IIRC there are at least three US companies that are actually building production prototypes in the 50-250Mwe range. Nuscale, Terrapower and Oklo, with Nuscale apparently close to operating. Terrapower is a Bill Gates joint venture with Chinese companies so may actually be first to have completed an operating reactor. We are looking at about 18-24 months for Nuscale's pilot at INL. Nuscale and Oklo both intend to bury their units in the ground and incorporate significant passive safety. Disclosure - I own shares in Nuscale and Oklo.
Thank’s to Charl for the handy introduction to the author, and a big thank you Larry, for what is a very intriguing view of the energy conversation. What you say all makes perfect sense, but I will add that there is also an emphatic technical reason to dispense with any suggestion that intermittent and unrealiable renewables generation is a workable proposition.
Just consider the difference between synchronous and asynchronous generation, and the argument is over. We have covered this topic in small detail (so far), in our introductory discussion papers on the Australian Future Energy Initiative site here on SubStack (also available free to anyone interested), and are presently working on more detailed material to satisfy our unexpected audience of experts. There is also more material planned, including a comprehensive overview of nuclear power generation.
Beyond this, the cost of renewables, in combination with the necessary underpinning synchronous base load generation, simply confirms the stupidity of ever going down this road.
Ultimately, nuclear energy is the answer, but don’t jump to conclusions about the types of nuclear power plants that are best for every nation. For a start, SMR’s are relatively inefficient and an uneconomical compromise (look at the current experience of Ontario Power).
The only sustainable renewable nuclear option is a combination of CANDU (yes, Canadian, with a long and well-proven history), and Fast Neutron Reactors. They are ‘sustainable’ because they effectively recycle old nuclear fuel. Yes, FNR’s are new tech, but they do exist (just ask Terrapower and the nuclear engineers who have been developing them).
Other than that, do keep up the great work, and the readability of your writing.
Cheers, Graeme Jorgensen (once a Meremere boy, but don’t hold that against me).
Graeme, thanks and welcome aboard! If there is one thing about writing this Substack it has been the great connections it generates. There are so many great contributions out there from people with vast experience and knowledge.
With regards to intermittency, I have been trying to come up with an analogy to make it more relatable to the reader. It's not yet fully developed in my mind, but it is something along the lines of trying to operate a car that has no accelerator, you have to be able to able to operate it without crashing while having no ability to regulate the speed.
Looking forward to getting up to speed and subscribed to the "Australian Future Energy Initiative".
"The nightmares of nuclear war and Chernobyl that are etched into large swathes of the human psyche" though the incubus is fading as those who remember Nagasaki and Hiroshima pass through the mortal coil. BTW In the hierarchical listicle of energy sources is there a reason for not including hydro electricity?
Its a curious thing that the societies most affected by Chernobyl continued with the program, Russia, Ukrane, Germany, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia all have nuclear to this day. Germany not so much but that's their self inflicted disaster.
I should have included hydro and geothermal in that article. Hydro in NZ would have a fantastic EROI probably close to 100. I need to do a piece on hydro with that in mind.
All good. I just googled Russia. It's one of the biggest hydro power nations: in the top 5. Be interesting to know if it has the transmission problem and found any solutions
I've only read one article on deep geothermal, but it wasn't encouraging. Basically only ceramics can handle the temperatures at the depths involved, so at present it's still theoretical.
Another great read, cheers Larry. Some recurring themes in there.
Given that energy generation is privatised in Aotearoa, and that the NZ governing bodies lack the clout to coerce the major generators to build any significant new high inertia generation facilities, there appear to be limited options.
What's your view on the emerging SMRS tech? It seems to me the only way to secure high density, high inertia power generation with a reasonable EROI (without breaking the bank) might be for the NZ Govt to potentially partner/subsidise this new tech to enable someone in the private sector to give it a crack. I'd be interested to hear your view.
Hi Charl, thanks!
Yeah I need to some how do a comparison of state coordinated generation vs the NZ privatisation model. We were the first to adopt our current model and I'm not sure it has worked out as intended. To be fair though a big chunk of the problem the generators are grappling with is the rapid decline of gas.
SMR's are interesting. As far as I can establish its still very much in development space. There is a grid connected floating unit in Russia and a pebble bed unit in China. Beyond that its all R&D stuff. I think shielding is the biggest challenge at the moment. If they can crack the magic formula it could possible work really well her and they could be deployed in a distributed fashion that would help with the transmission network infrastructural requirements and line loses. My best guess is that they are probably still quite a few years away.
IIRC there are at least three US companies that are actually building production prototypes in the 50-250Mwe range. Nuscale, Terrapower and Oklo, with Nuscale apparently close to operating. Terrapower is a Bill Gates joint venture with Chinese companies so may actually be first to have completed an operating reactor. We are looking at about 18-24 months for Nuscale's pilot at INL. Nuscale and Oklo both intend to bury their units in the ground and incorporate significant passive safety. Disclosure - I own shares in Nuscale and Oklo.
Good stuff Evan. I’d love to see them succeed as it satisfies the physics and would keep things simple.
I lived in New Zealand for 47 years and never knew about Matariki. It's a great day when you learn something new!
Thank’s to Charl for the handy introduction to the author, and a big thank you Larry, for what is a very intriguing view of the energy conversation. What you say all makes perfect sense, but I will add that there is also an emphatic technical reason to dispense with any suggestion that intermittent and unrealiable renewables generation is a workable proposition.
Just consider the difference between synchronous and asynchronous generation, and the argument is over. We have covered this topic in small detail (so far), in our introductory discussion papers on the Australian Future Energy Initiative site here on SubStack (also available free to anyone interested), and are presently working on more detailed material to satisfy our unexpected audience of experts. There is also more material planned, including a comprehensive overview of nuclear power generation.
Beyond this, the cost of renewables, in combination with the necessary underpinning synchronous base load generation, simply confirms the stupidity of ever going down this road.
Ultimately, nuclear energy is the answer, but don’t jump to conclusions about the types of nuclear power plants that are best for every nation. For a start, SMR’s are relatively inefficient and an uneconomical compromise (look at the current experience of Ontario Power).
The only sustainable renewable nuclear option is a combination of CANDU (yes, Canadian, with a long and well-proven history), and Fast Neutron Reactors. They are ‘sustainable’ because they effectively recycle old nuclear fuel. Yes, FNR’s are new tech, but they do exist (just ask Terrapower and the nuclear engineers who have been developing them).
Other than that, do keep up the great work, and the readability of your writing.
Cheers, Graeme Jorgensen (once a Meremere boy, but don’t hold that against me).
Graeme, thanks and welcome aboard! If there is one thing about writing this Substack it has been the great connections it generates. There are so many great contributions out there from people with vast experience and knowledge.
With regards to intermittency, I have been trying to come up with an analogy to make it more relatable to the reader. It's not yet fully developed in my mind, but it is something along the lines of trying to operate a car that has no accelerator, you have to be able to able to operate it without crashing while having no ability to regulate the speed.
Looking forward to getting up to speed and subscribed to the "Australian Future Energy Initiative".
"The nightmares of nuclear war and Chernobyl that are etched into large swathes of the human psyche" though the incubus is fading as those who remember Nagasaki and Hiroshima pass through the mortal coil. BTW In the hierarchical listicle of energy sources is there a reason for not including hydro electricity?
Its a curious thing that the societies most affected by Chernobyl continued with the program, Russia, Ukrane, Germany, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia all have nuclear to this day. Germany not so much but that's their self inflicted disaster.
I should have included hydro and geothermal in that article. Hydro in NZ would have a fantastic EROI probably close to 100. I need to do a piece on hydro with that in mind.
All good. I just googled Russia. It's one of the biggest hydro power nations: in the top 5. Be interesting to know if it has the transmission problem and found any solutions
Russia has a lot of everything and I am very interested to look deeper into their breeder reactor program.
NZ lead the way with the DC link. Also the weak link in the recent Spanish-Portugese fiasco, I understand. Everything has pros and cons.
Deep geothermal
100%. A technically challenging and risking drilling proposition but one definitely worth pursuing.
I've only read one article on deep geothermal, but it wasn't encouraging. Basically only ceramics can handle the temperatures at the depths involved, so at present it's still theoretical.
Yes and no. Thats ultra deep.. same rules apply though. If it’s there to be unlocked, why are we not trying?