Number of SMRs to replace Earing, Loy Yang, Vales Point

[Sparty]

Eraring (NSW, retiring 2025):

Capacity: 2,880 MW
Would require: 29-30 x 100 MW SMRs
or 10 x 300 MW SMRs

Loy Yang A (VIC, retiring 2035):

Capacity: 2,210 MW
Would require: 22-23 x 100 MW SMRs
or 8 x 300 MW SMRs

Vales Point (NSW, retiring 2029):

Capacity: 1,320 MW
Would require: 13-14 x 100 MW SMRs
or 5 x 300 MW SMRs

Key considerations:

Capacity factor comparison:

Coal plants typically run at 60-70% capacity factor
SMRs run at ~90% capacity factor
So actual number of SMRs needed could be reduced by ~20-30%


Grid integration:

Multiple smaller SMRs provide better redundancy
Can be built in stages as coal plants phase out
More flexible siting options than large coal plants


Cooling requirements:

Most Australian coal plants use seawater/freshwater cooling
SMRs have lower cooling requirements but still significant

[Sparty]

Current Coal Fleet Total: ~23,000 MW

Requiring approximately 77 x 300MW SMRs (accounting for higher nuclear capacity factor)

Cost Breakdown (AUD):

Initial units (first 10 units):


~$1.5-1.8B each
Subtotal: ~$15-18B


Subsequent units (67 units):


~$1.2-1.4B each (learning curve reduction)
Subtotal: ~$80-94B

Additional Infrastructure:

Grid upgrades: ~$15-20B
Cooling systems: ~$8-10B
Initial regulatory/licensing: ~$3-4B
Workforce development: ~$2-3B

Total Program Cost: ~$123-149B

Timeline considerations:

15-20 year deployment period
Staged replacement as coal plants retire
Construction 3-4 years per unit
Multiple simultaneous builds

Key cost reduction factors:

Local supply chain development
Workforce experience
Regulatory streamlining
Fleet standardization
Multiple unit sites

Please do not rely on the above figures as I have not fully substantiated the info above.

[Sparty]

NSW:

Eraring (2,880 MW):

Near Newcastle/Lake Macquarie
~120km from Sydney
Population exposure: ~1 million within 50km


Vales Point (1,320 MW):

Central Coast
~100km from Sydney
Population exposure: ~300,000 within 50km


Mt Piper (1,400 MW):

Near Lithgow
~150km from Sydney
Population exposure: ~50,000 within 50km



Victoria:

Loy Yang A & B (3,280 MW combined):

Latrobe Valley
~150km from Melbourne
Population exposure: ~75,000 within 50km


Yallourn (1,480 MW):

Latrobe Valley
~140km from Melbourne
Population exposure: ~75,000 within 50km



Queensland:

Gladstone (1,680 MW):

In Gladstone
Population exposure: ~60,000 within 50km


Stanwell (1,460 MW):

Near Rockhampton
Population exposure: ~80,000 within 50km



Most distant from population centers:

Callide (Queensland)
Millmerran (Queensland)
Kogan Creek (Queensland)

[Sparty]

Nuclear Transition in Australian Coastal Communities: A BRIEF Socioeconomic Analysis

https://claude.site/artifacts/e9131b...e-1208cf2488a2

[Sparty]

https://claude.site/artifacts/e9131b...e-1208cf2488a2

Nuclear Transition in Australian Coastal Communities: A Socioeconomic Analysis
Executive Summary

Australia's potential transition from coal to nuclear power presents unique challenges and opportunities, particularly given the coastal location of many existing power facilities. This analysis examines the socioeconomic implications of such a transition, contrasting international experiences with Australia's distinct circumstances.

International Precedents and Australian Distinctions

International examples, particularly from France's nuclear transition in the 1970s-80s, demonstrate that nuclear facilities often correlate with increased property values and enhanced community economic stability. However, Australia's context differs significantly due to several key factors:
Coastal Premium
Unlike many international examples of nuclear transition, Australian power facilities often occupy premium coastal locations. These sites represent some of the country's most valuable real estate, creating unique tensions between industrial and residential development potential. The Lake Macquarie region exemplifies this dynamic, where industrial infrastructure coexists with high-value waterfront properties.

Community and Property Impacts
International transitions have shown several consistent patterns:

Increased local property values
Enhanced infrastructure development
Improved educational facilities
Demographic shifts toward technical professionals

However, Australia's coastal context suggests potentially different outcomes:

Competition with premium residential development
Tourism industry concerns
Complex insurance and climate considerations
Heightened environmental scrutiny due to coastal ecosystems

Socio-Political Landscape
Australia presents distinct challenges:

Deep-Rooted Division: Stronger anti-nuclear sentiment than comparison countries
Regional Variations:

Hunter Valley communities differ from Latrobe Valley
Queensland shows stronger resistance to energy transition
Western Australia demonstrates greater openness to nuclear infrastructure



Economic Implications
The economic impact varies by region and context:
Coastal Property Dynamics

Premium waterfront locations create unique value propositions
Potential conflict between industrial and residential development
Tourism industry considerations
Insurance and climate change factors

Employment and Skills

Potential for higher-wage technical positions
Need for workforce transition programs
Opportunity for multi-generational employment stability

Community Identity and Social Structure
The transition would likely impact community identity through:

Shift from "coal town" to "energy town" status
Changed demographic composition
Altered social stratification
Modified regional economic stability

Conclusion
While international examples provide valuable insights, Australia's coastal context creates unique challenges and opportunities for nuclear transition. The high value of coastal real estate, combined with existing community divisions and environmental considerations, suggests that any transition strategy must be carefully tailored to local conditions.

Success factors for consideration include:

Extended community consultation processes
Robust environmental impact assessments
Clear economic benefit demonstration
Strong regulatory frameworks
Comprehensive workforce transition programs

Recommendations

Conduct detailed site-specific analyses of property value impacts
Develop community engagement strategies addressing coastal concerns
Create targeted workforce transition programs
Establish clear regulatory frameworks for coastal nuclear facilities
Design environmental protection measures specific to coastal contexts

[Sparty]

The Australian context presents some unique challenges and potential differences from international examples:

1. Cultural/Political Landscape:
- Deeper entrenched anti-nuclear sentiment than many comparison countries
- Strong environmental movement with historical opposition to nuclear
- More pronounced urban-rural divide on energy issues
- Indigenous rights and land use considerations unique to Australia

2. Regional Differences:
- Hunter Valley (NSW) communities show different attitudes from Latrobe Valley (VIC)
- Queensland coal communities often express stronger resistance to energy transition
- Western Australian mining communities tend to be more open to nuclear, given uranium mining experience

3. Potential Divergences from International Examples:
- Likely stronger initial community resistance
- May require more extensive community consultation and engagement
- Could face more complex regulatory and social license hurdles
- Might need stronger economic incentives to overcome established opposition

4. Unique Australian Factors:
- NIMBY attitudes potentially stronger than in French or US examples
- Union influence more significant in Australian energy sector
- Greater skepticism of government-led energy initiatives
- Coastal location of many plants raises different environmental concerns

Would you like me to elaborate on any of these aspects or explore specific regional variations?

[Sparty]

The last point (above) seems very germane as Australia's highest price real estate is mostly "coastal"

The coastal dynamic in Australia creates a unique tension that wasn't present in many international examples:

Premium Coastal Real Estate:

Many Australian coal plants occupy prime coastal locations (e.g., Vales Point, Eraring)
These sites often have waterfront views and cooling water access
Nearby areas like Lake Macquarie already balance industry with premium housing
Different from inland nuclear plants in France/US that often raised property values


Competing Land Use Pressures:

Growing demand for coastal residential development
Increasing "sea change" demographic movement
Tourism potential conflicts
Environmental concerns about coastal ecosystems


Specific Regional Examples:

Lake Macquarie area balances some of Australia's most expensive waterfront property with industrial use

Victorian coastal areas like Gippsland face similar tensions

Sydney's northern beaches opposition to industrial development shows potential resistance patterns


Economic Tensions:


Potential conflict between industrial land use value vs residential development value
Tourism industry concerns about impact on coastal appeal.

Insurance and climate change considerations for coastal infrastructure
Different risk perception for coastal nuclear vs inland facilities

The approximate distances from water for these major power stations:

Directly on Water:

Vales Point (Lake Macquarie) - Immediate waterfront
Eraring (Lake Macquarie) - Immediate waterfront
Gladstone Power Station - Directly on Port Curtis
Torrens Island - Immediate waterfront on Port Adelaide River
Kwinana - Immediate waterfront on Cockburn Sound

Near Coast/Major Waterways:

Loy Yang (Latrobe Valley) - ~50km from coast
Yallourn (Latrobe Valley) - ~45km from coast
Stanwell - ~40km from coast and Fitzroy River
Former Port Augusta stations - Immediate waterfront on Spencer Gulf

The proximity to water is crucial because:

These plants require massive amounts of water for cooling
Port access was historically important for coal delivery
Many used seawater cooling systems to avoid competing with agricultural/urban water needs.

It's worth noting that some newer technologies like dry cooling could potentially reduce water dependency, though with some efficiency and xples of cost trade-offs:

comparison between traditional water cooling and dry cooling systems:
Traditional Water Cooling:

Uses approximately 20,000-50,000 gallons of water per megawatt-hour
Achieves optimal thermal efficiency (around 33-40% for typical thermal plants)
Works best in cooler climates and regions with abundant water
Can impact local aquatic ecosystems through thermal pollution and water withdrawal

Dry Cooling (Air-Cooled Condensers):

Uses minimal water (roughly 5% of traditional systems)
Reduces efficiency by about 2-5% on average
Efficiency drops further in hot weather (up to 10-15% loss on very hot days)
*Higher capital costs (roughly 2.5 - 3.5 times more expensive than water cooling)
Requires more land area for the cooling infrastructure
Fan operation creates additional parasitic power load
More suitable for arid regions where water is scarce

The efficiency trade-offs become particularly significant in Australia's climate:

During summer heat waves when power demand peaks
In inland areas where ambient temperatures are highest
When coinciding with periods of peak electricity pricing

The economic impact of these efficiency losses needs to be weighed against:

Water conservation benefits
Environmental impact reduction
Location flexibility (not needing to be near water sources)
Long-term water availability and climate change considerations

*The capital cost differential between dry cooling and wet cooling systems:
Base Equipment Costs: Dry cooling systems are typically 2-3x more expensive for the basic equipment
Total Installation Costs: When including additional factors:

Extra land requirements
Larger structural support needs
Additional fan and electrical infrastructure
More complex piping systems
The total cost multiplier ends up being roughly 2.5-3.3x more expensive



Key factors affecting the cost ratio:

Plant size (economies of scale can reduce the ratio for larger plants)
Location (land costs vary significantly)
Design type (different dry cooling technologies have varying costs)
Local climate (affects required cooling capacity)

I should note that while operating costs weren't included in my analysis, they're also significant:

Higher parasitic power load for fans
Higher maintenance costs for more moving parts
Lower fuel efficiency due to reduced thermal performance
Water cost savings (which can be substantial in water-scarce regions)

dry cooling systems have significant noise implications that could face similar community opposition as wind farms. Let me break this down:
Dry Cooling Fan Characteristics:

Multiple large diameter fans (typically 5-10 meters)
High airflow requirements (hundreds of thousands of cubic meters per hour)
Continuous 24/7 operation
Fan speeds increase during hotter weather when more cooling is needed
Multiple fans running simultaneously (often 20+ fans for large facilities)

Typical Noise Levels:

Individual large cooling fans can generate 85-95 dB(A) at source
Combined fan arrays can exceed 100 dB(A) at source
Even with noise reduction measures, can still be 45-55 dB(A) at property boundaries
Low-frequency noise component which travels further and penetrates buildings more easily
Tonal qualities that can be more noticeable than broadband noise

For comparison:

Wind turbines typically generate 35-45 dB(A) at 350m
Dry cooling arrays often produce higher noise levels than wind farms

The continuous nature of cooling fan operation (vs variable wind turbine noise) could be more impactful

Given Australia's experience with wind farm opposition, this suggests dry cooling systems would likely face similar or stronger noise-based objections, particularly if located near residential areas. The 24/7 operational requirement could make community acceptance even more challenging than for wind farms.

[Sparty]

Given that many Australian wind farm developments/projects have been blocked due to "unsightliness" it seems unlikely that coastal nuclear power-plants could ever become a reality here in Australia?

That highlights an important paradox in Australian energy infrastructure debates.

Visual Impact Comparison:

Wind farms are typically much less visually imposing than nuclear facilities
Australia has rejected wind projects even in non-premium inland and over horizon locations

Nuclear plants require significant security infrastructure, cooling towers (in some designs), and exclusion zones
Coastal views are often considered even more "sacred" than inland vistas

Historical Precedent:

Existing coal plants were established in different social/political eras
Modern development faces much stronger NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) sentiment
Even small infrastructure projects face intense local opposition
Recent battles over apartment developments in coastal areas show heightened sensitivity


Key Barriers:

If communities reject relatively low-profile wind turbines
Nuclear facilities require much larger visual and physical footprints
Coastal property values now drive significant political influence
Environmental impact assessments would be extraordinarily challenging


Socio-political Reality:

Local councils often respond to wealthy coastal resident pressure
Property value concerns drive political decisions
Tourism industry would likely strongly oppose
Combined opposition from environmental groups AND property interests would be formidable

If Australia can't accept wind turbines' visual impacts, the prospect of coastal nuclear facilities faces an even steeper, possibly insurmountable, challenge in terms of public acceptance.

[Sparty]

I asked Deepseek: "Large Nuclear Reactors (1,000+ MW):" would they need a very substantial upgrade of our current transmission systems?

Yes, deploying large nuclear reactors (1,000+ MW) in Australia would likely require substantial upgrades to the current transmission systems. Here's why:

1. Centralized vs. Distributed Generation
Large nuclear reactors are typically centralized power plants, meaning they generate electricity in one location and transmit it over long distances to demand centers.

Australia's current grid is designed around a mix of centralized coal/gas plants and increasingly decentralized renewable energy (solar and wind). Large nuclear reactors would require significant transmission infrastructure to connect them to the grid and deliver power to where it's needed.

2. Grid Stability and Baseload Requirements
Large nuclear reactors provide baseload power, which is consistent and reliable but not flexible. This could create challenges in a grid with high penetration of variable renewables (solar and wind), which require flexible generation and storage to balance supply and demand.

To integrate large nuclear reactors, the grid would need upgrades to handle the increased baseload capacity and ensure stability, especially during periods of low demand or high renewable generation.

3. Transmission Line Capacity
Australia's existing transmission infrastructure is not designed to handle the concentrated output of a 1,000+ MW nuclear plant. New high-voltage transmission lines would likely be needed to connect the reactor to the grid and transport power over long distances.

For example, if a large nuclear reactor were built in a remote location (e.g., near a water source for cooling), hundreds of kilometers of new transmission lines might be required to connect it to major population centers like Sydney, Melbourne, or Brisbane.

4. Cost of Transmission Upgrades
Building new transmission infrastructure is expensive. For example, the Project EnergyConnect transmission line between South Australia and New South Wales (900 km) is estimated to cost $2.3 billion.

Connecting a large nuclear reactor to the grid could require similar or even larger investments, depending on the location and distance to demand centers.

5. Location Challenges
Nuclear reactors require access to large amounts of water for cooling, which could limit their placement to coastal areas or near major rivers. Many of these locations are far from existing transmission infrastructure or major population centers.

For example, if a reactor were built in a coastal area like South Australia or Western Australia, new transmission lines would be needed to connect it to the eastern states, where most of the population and demand are located.

6. Grid Modernization
Integrating large nuclear reactors would also require grid modernization to handle the unique characteristics of nuclear power, such as its inability to ramp up or down quickly. This could include:

Enhanced grid management systems.

Additional energy storage (e.g., batteries or pumped hydro) to balance supply and demand.

Upgrades to distribution networks to handle increased power flows.

Comparison with SMRs
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) (e.g., 50–300 MW) could be deployed in a more distributed manner, closer to demand centers, reducing the need for extensive transmission upgrades.

SMRs are also more flexible and can complement renewables, making them potentially easier to integrate into the existing grid.

Conclusion
Deploying large nuclear reactors (1,000+ MW) in Australia would indeed require substantial upgrades to the transmission system, including new high-voltage transmission lines, grid modernization, and potentially energy storage. These upgrades would add significant costs and complexity to the project, making large nuclear reactors less attractive compared to alternatives like renewables, storage, and SMRs.

For Australia, a more practical approach might be to focus on renewables + storage for the bulk of electricity generation, with SMRs potentially playing a complementary role in the future if costs decrease and regulatory barriers are addressed. This would minimize the need for massive transmission upgrades and align with the country's existing energy transition strategy.

?Are large SMRs water cooled....
Most large Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in the 300 MW range are indeed water-cooled, typically using light water reactor (LWR) technology. For example, NuScale's larger design uses pressurized water reactor (PWR) technology, though theirs is smaller at 77 MW per module. The BWRX-300 from GE Hitachi, which is exactly in that 300 MW range, is a water-cooled boiling water reactor (BWR).