The Power Options Debate (A Professionals View)

June 21, 2024

As a hydropower engineer, responsible for the economic justification of aa of my projects I suppose I should weigh in on the power options debate.

I agree with Geoff Davies assessment (P&I June 26, 2014) which coincidentally is the same as that of the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator.

Nuclear Power has never been an economical option even for systems larger than those existing in the interconnected system of the eastern states of Australia. China has nuclear power providing a small proportion of their total installed capacity but State Power acknowledge that this is not the least cost option but it is built based on energy security since China is so reliant on imports for a large proportion of their energy. Other countries such as France and South Korea build nuclear because they do not have the renewable energy resources that Australia has.

Having been responsible for financing several pumped storage pants, three in China totalling 4000 MW, one in Thailand (1000MW) and two in construction in Indonesia (2000 MW), I can confirm that pumped storage was the least cost storage option particularly when peaking hydro was exhausted or when other considerations militate against dam construction. Batteries do not compete.

Another factor which reduces the need for storage is to widen the scope of interconnection geographically, taking advantage of time differences and weather differences across the country. These have the effect of turning intermittent power into base load power.

As Geoff notes, options such as carbon capture are distractions promoted by the fossil fuel industry. The conditions required for carbon capture render it uneconomical.