|
Post by LancedDendrite on Apr 26, 2012 23:13:00 GMT 9.5
Does anyone know of some good resources for determining siting locations for large nuclear power plants in Australia (as in >2000MWe per site)? I've only been able to find a paper by the Australia Institute, which seems to over-emphasise the seismic risks but nonetheless has some good locations. Australia seems to have some good characteristics for siting nuclear power plants, such as a large and sparsely populated coastline for seawater cooling and load centres mostly concentrated near the coast (particularly the east coast) My basic technological assumptions for this discussion are Light Water Reactors on the basis of familiarity and short to medium-term availability and direct connection to a high voltage AC transmission network for simplicity. My layman's perspective on siting criteria would be (and this is just a basic start, feel free to add and elaborate on these): - Type and availability of cooling water (seawater, lake/pondage, river)
- Proximity to load centres and/or existing electricity transmission infrastructure like power line easements
- Surrounding population density and proximity to regional centres for safety concerns (mostly perceived concerns more than actual, but that's not really the topic of this thread)
- Access to transport infrastructure for delivering components and fuel to a plant. This actually might be a factor with some significance for large nuclear power plants given the size of components such as turbines, HV transformers, pressure vessels and so on during construction at least.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Anon on Apr 27, 2012 23:34:49 GMT 9.5
Look up where there's a coal plant and build near there, keeps some jobs in the area and the transmission infrastructure is already there (and when they finally do realise that the coal plant will close getting its replacement will seem much better than becoming a ghost town).
Though for Australia we'd probably be looking at more 600 MWe units (which would probably mean CANDUs if you bought right now) as I don't think all the states electricity grids could actually handle 1 GWe units. I suspect we'll have to wait until GenIV reactors are on sale before we actually get nuclear power (though the higher temperature might allow the existence turbines of coal plants to be used for significant cost savings, also providing a good reason to reuse the old sites of coal burners).
|
|
|
Post by LancedDendrite on Apr 28, 2012 1:55:03 GMT 9.5
Look up where there's a coal plant and build near there, keeps some jobs in the area and the transmission infrastructure is already there. That would be a good idea, except that access to coal supplies is generally favoured over access to good sources of cooling water when sites for coal power plants are being considered. The existing transmission infrastructure is a bonus though, I must say. I can think of at 10 different coal-fired power plants in Australia with 1GWe+ capacities. The Latrobe Valley power stations in Victoria for instance, total roughly 6 GWe in power in a rather small area. Every one of those plants has sub-optimal cooling water supplies - Hazelwood Pondage only gets away with being as warm as it is because it's an artificial lake, Loy Yang uses a river + cooling towers and Yallourn W has to use cooling towers to get within heat discharge regulations for it's source of water, Lake Narracan. I wouldn't put any large reactors in the Latrobe Valley for those reasons - SMR plants like a 2x S-PRISM 'power block' (622 MWe total) would be better suited to that environment. I would look at locations on the coast that are nearby the Latrobe Valley, probably around Port Welshpool or further to the east. As for NSW - Bayswater, Liddell and Eraring are all located fairly close to each other and each one generates 2 GWe+. Again, a suitable location on the nearby coast would work well. I would therefore contend that a large light water reactor such as the Westinghouse AP1000 would be an excellent greenfields solution to replacing the coal-fired plants in Victoria and NSW at least. The standard AP1000 plant size seems to be 'blocks' of 2 reactors with options for an extra pair (if the first two aren't being built on an existing site). Every planned and ongoing project that uses AP1000s follows that design, so that would be the most appropriate. With enhanced interconnectors (there's rumours of another HVDC link from Victoria to Tasmania being built, for instance) there would be even less problems. Enhanced interconnectors are part of a renewables roll-out strategy too, so they're even harder to oppose on the basis of them being required for the nuclear plants to operate effectively.
|
|
|
Post by Anon on Apr 28, 2012 2:41:59 GMT 9.5
That would be a good idea, except that access to coal supplies is generally favoured over access to good sources of cooling water when sites for coal power plants are being considered. The existing transmission infrastructure is a bonus though, I must say. True, though the lack of NIMBY opposition once it becomes apparent that coal must go could very well well make up for it (and more advanced reactors could be air cooled, cooling towers also help). I personally suspect that when we do finally decide to solve global warming we'll end up going the coal to nuclear route and even keeping the old turbines of the old coal burners and just replacing the boiler with a GenIV reactor. I can think of at 10 different coal-fired power plants in Australia with 1GWe+ capacities. Yes, but you won't find many units at that level, it'll typically be multiple 250 MWe units (and the concern about unit size has to do with the grid handling losing a unit unexpectedly). IIRC Victoria and NSW could handle 1 GWe units. I would look at locations on the coast that are nearby the Latrobe Valley, probably around Port Welshpool or further to the east. Coastal sites near existing coal plants then, that way its close enough for workers who used to work at the old coal plant to get to without needing to buy a new house and you don't need much in the way of additional transmission line. I would therefore contend that a large light water reactor such as the Westinghouse AP1000 would be an excellent greenfields solution to replacing the coal-fired plants in Victoria and NSW at least. I tend to agree, it's being proven in China so should be possible to get it done on schedule (assuming decent regulations) and CANDU-6 for the other mainland states with DUPIC to recycle the spent fuel from the PWRs.
|
|
|
Post by LancedDendrite on Apr 28, 2012 10:00:10 GMT 9.5
I personally suspect that when we do finally decide to solve global warming we'll end up going the coal to nuclear route and even keeping the old turbines of the old coal burners and just replacing the boiler with a GenIV reactor. I don't think that's going to be an entirely wise thing to do from an engineering perspective - those turbines and gensets may not 'fit' the reactor properly unless the core is built around them, and there are hidden costs in inspection and refurbishment - turbines from a coal plant probably have lower safety inspection and maintenance standards than nuclear-grade ones, and turbines don't tend to last as long as the Nuclear Steam Supply System anyway. That is an issue and certainly an area where ~200 MWe SMRs could do quite well. IIRC the AP1000 uses a single 1250 MVA genset - certainly a nasty loss of power if it trips! I recall that in around about 2009 the NSW Bayswater coal-fired plant (2200 MWe) tripped - the grid operator (AEMO) was writing reports about the event for the next year! It will be interesting to see the outcome of the Darlington Nuclear Power Plant replacement competition - it's an Enhanced CANDU-6 against an AP1000. The EC6 is quite a versatile little unit. However, the use of heavy water would require a heavy water distillation plant to be built in Australia as well, although we might be able to avoid enrichment plant construction because of that choice as well. The lack of passive safety features compared to the AP1000 could be a deal-breaker for getting public acceptance too.
|
|
|
Post by Anon on Apr 28, 2012 15:42:24 GMT 9.5
I don't think that's going to be an entirely wise thing to do from an engineering perspective - those turbines and gensets may not 'fit' the reactor properly unless the core is built around them, It'd really just be a matter of the reactor providing the same amount and temperature of steam as the turbines need (you might even throttle back the reactor a bit at least until you get aronud to getting new turbines). and there are hidden costs in inspection and refurbishment - turbines from a coal plant probably have lower safety inspection and maintenance standards than nuclear-grade ones, The standards applied to nuclear are too high anyway, I personally can't see any safety issue with using old coal plant turbines (it has already been done in the US). and turbines don't tend to last as long as the Nuclear Steam Supply System anyway. The plane would be to replace the turbines at a later date, just that by not buying new ones right away you can save a bit of money in the short term. That is an issue and certainly an area where ~200 MWe SMRs could do quite well. IIRC the AP1000 uses a single 1250 MVA genset - certainly a nasty loss of power if it trips! I recall that in around about 2009 the NSW Bayswater coal-fired plant (2200 MWe) tripped - the grid operator (AEMO) was writing reports about the event for the next year! Then there was the time the interconnect bringing Snowy River scheme power to Victoria was cut by bushfire, that was IIRC 4 GW lost. The EC6 is quite a versatile little unit. However, the use of heavy water would require a heavy water distillation plant to be built in Australia as well, although we might be able to avoid enrichment plant construction because of that choice as well. We could always buy the heavy water from Canada (or someone else who separates it), besides, a CANDU will only require the heavy water once. On the subject of enrichment there also isn't any problem with contracting it out to other countries. The lack of passive safety features compared to the AP1000 could be a deal-breaker for getting public acceptance too. Hard to say, I suspect that the people who wouldn't accept a CANDU wouldn't accept anything else nuclear no matter what passive safety mechanisms it had (and CANDUs are still safer than basically anything which isn't nuclear).
|
|
|
Post by Luke Weston on Apr 28, 2012 17:59:34 GMT 9.5
All your basic "layperson" criteria are basically quite sensible and accurate.
Proximity to a marine port is sometimes considered desirable, as some nations like to bring in new fuel assemblies by sea (and take out used fuel, if they're removing it.)
Proximity to major demand centers (major cities and population centers, and industrial users like Alcoa Portland) reduces transmission losses.
Coal-fired power plants are always built close to where the coal is, and they almost always use evaporative cooling towers.
Nuclear power plants can use once-through seawater cooling on the coast, and therefore they use much less water ("use" means evaporate, not just pass through) than coal fired plants with evaporative cooling.
|
|
|
Post by wilful on May 8, 2012 15:00:51 GMT 9.5
Speaking as a gippslander, I would expect that we'd have a nuclear power plant or three in the Valley, taking over from the big four coal generators. There's much more acceptance of heavy industry here, there's a skilled workforce, the power lines are already there, and the water infrastructure used for the current systems, while less than ideal, could be adapted.
Elsewhere in Victoria, near Portland would be good because it's on the coast but geologically stable, with a deepwater port and some power infrastructure. The shores of Westernport bay would be OK, but in the case of an uncontrolled release of radioactive elements, I'd be concerned that the ecologically important wetlands would be affected, without enough flushing. Also, too low lying in response to sea level rises. Inside the bay near Werribbee or Avalon airport I'm sure a site could be found. Along the Gt Ocean road there would be a lot of local opposition and not many semi-remote areas.
|
|
|
Post by LancedDendrite on May 8, 2012 22:10:56 GMT 9.5
Here's some work that I've done on siting for Victoria. Expect some more detailed work on this when I have some time (in about a month). My shortlist of sites in Victoria for plants would be: Westernport- Large plant, initial size of 2000MW (2x AP1000 or 2-3x EC6)
- Site would be either Hastings, Crib Point or perhaps somewhere more towards the south of the Western Mornington Peninsula
- Port of Hastings is ideal for logistics
- The Mornington Peninsula is fairly close by to Melbourne, which satisifies the demand centre criteria
- Exsiting transmission easement (dual circuit 220kV) goes to Tyabb from Cranbourne, could be expanded further down towards the site and the whole easement upgraded to double circuit 500kV to handle a nuclear plant.
Bellarine- Large plant, initial size of 2000MW (2x AP1000 or 2-3x EC6)
- Portarlington-St Leonards area would probably be best for a site, but I'm not familiar enough with the area.
- Port of Geelong is nearby but is in the middle of Geelong, potentially hindering radioactive material logistics.
- Geelong is a decent-size demand centre, but supplying Melbourne is probably the first priority. Point Henry in Geelong has an aluminium smelter, but it's not likely to be around for much longer.
- 220kV transmission lines go to East Geelong/Point Henry and then towards Anglesea. Moorabool is the closest point in the existing 500 kV transmission network, so a new easement that skirts Geelong might be required if there is no room and/or opposition to upgrading the Point Henry-Geelong-Moorabool easement.
- If there is difficulty with getting access to large enough transmission lines a smaller plant (Single EC6 or SMR park) could be considered instead so that the local 220kV network is not overloaded (how much power in MVA it can handle escapes me, I know that 500kV can handle about 3000MVA per circuit)
Portland- Large plant, initial size of 2000MW (2x AP1000 or 2-3x EC6)
- A location close to the smelter would be best, with an option of integrating the existing switchyards with the nuclear power plant's.
- Portland has an exisiting deepwater port that recives large shipments of alumina for the Portland aluminium smelter. This makes it ideal for logistics.
- The only significant load in the area is the smelter, which requires about 260MW. Possible power export opportunities via the Heywood interconnector to South Australia
- What Portland lacks in local demand, it makes up for in access to existing high voltage electricity transmission infrastructure.
- Was considered as a site for a 2000MW British Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor in the 1980s in a State Electricity Commission of Victoria study. Someday I'll go digging around the State Library for the actual study.
Gippsland- Due to cooling water constraints, 1000MW-1400MW would be the maximum size per site. Either a single AP1000, 2x EC6 or SMR park.
- Sites would be located at the existing Hazelwood and Yallourn W power station sites. The Loy Yang site is a furthur-out option as well.
- The Latrobe Valley has plenty of electricity infrastructure that is geared towards power export to Melbourne.
- There is an existing railway to Traralgon that could be adapted to carry freight such as plant equipment from the Port of Hastings or Port of Melbourne.
Point Wilson- - Large plant, initial size of 2000MW (2x AP1000 or 2-3x EC6)
- Site would probably be close to the Werribee sewage treatment plant.
- Logistics are an issue - both the ports of Geelong and Melbourne are slighlty too far out. There is a nearby railway line.
- Located near both Melbourne and Geelong, which comprise the majority of Victoria's electricity demand.
- Transmission infrastructure is an issue - the Moorabool-Sydenham 500 kV line is a bit too far out, and would require a new easement that crosses the Princes Freeway and the approach at Avalon Airport.
Sites not considered:- Anywhere in Port Phillip Bay aside from the shortlisted sites, as the area is increasingly being urbanised around the coast.
- The Kilcunda-Wonthaggi area. There's already a desalination plant located in the area that is powered with the world's longest underground high voltage cable. Local opposition and transmission easement issues would both be immense.
|
|