# Nuclear Power: Do you support it?



## The Mint Man (29 May 2006)

This subject has been on the News, in parliment, in papers recently. So I thought I would find out what the members of ASF thoughts on the subject are.

I am yet to make a 100% commitment to a 'yes' or 'no' answer, however I am leaning towards a 'yes' (80/20).
Personally I want more information, I want ALL the pros and cons in black and white so I can make an informed decision.

here is a quote from an article I read which I agree with


> The (nuclear) debate must focus on the facts and not be biased by emotion




you can read the article here 
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19268910%5E911,00.html


----------



## The Mint Man (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Just to add to the topic:
I would like to hear your reasons for supporting it and visa versa.

Also, If you do support it, would have a nuclear power plant in your backyard so to speak.


----------



## Yezzy (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

I'm against it purely because of the lifespan of the waste. If it was as simple as loading the waste on to some space ship and aiming it at the sun, sure fine, whatever. But storing it in our backyard(Australia), no thanks.


----------



## Happy (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

I would disperse the waste; after all we have nuclear power in the land in very diluted state.

We mine it, concentrate, use it or sell to others to use it, then all greenies cry about the waste, and everybody runs scared about storage of waste product...

All the hype is just that, we are exposed to millions of years of half time needed to radioactive material to vanish or at least become of minute concentration, well we can atomise it disperse it and voila, problem's gone.

As I said we have it, if we don't use it will decompose regardless, so what do you say now?


----------



## wayneL (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

The best case scenario is attractive.

The worst case scenario is almost too hideous to contemplate.

As far as dispersing nuclear material by atomizing it... well it appears the evil empire is doing just that, in a way, by spreading DU dust all over Iraq. The consequences of that do not excite me in the slightest.

On balance === against.


----------



## Rafa (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Against....

But I think your question is wrong... 'Nuclear' does not equate to Uranium...

People are still working on Fusion reactors, Thorium reactors (half life of 500 years, no weapon uses).... 

I am no expert... But Solar, Wind, Hot Rocks (GeoThermal), Hydro, Ocean Currents, etc, etc.... are they, or a combination of these, enough drive a base load supply.... Smurf is the expert on power it think.... would like to know more...


----------



## MalteseBull (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Yes, so ERA, TOE, PDN, DYL all go up


----------



## rederob (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				Happy said:
			
		

> All the hype is just that, we are exposed to millions of years of half time needed to radioactive material to vanish or at least become of minute concentration, well we can atomise it disperse it and voila, problem's gone.



Not a single solution to the nuclear waste problem since "the bomb".
Not even the yanks have got a clue about what is the best option, except to use depleted uranium in ordnance, especially armour piercing.
If Happy thinks it's all "hype" he should visit Chernobyl and help clean up the problem 'cause he reckons it won't kill him, I'll bet.
Decomissioning nuclear reactors is comparatively cheap, but waste storage is never factored into the equation for nuclear energy costs - because there is no solution (yet)!
That's why the nuclear option stacks up well commercially.


----------



## chemist (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				Rafa said:
			
		

> Against....
> 
> But I think your question is wrong... 'Nuclear' does not equate to Uranium...
> 
> People are still working on Fusion reactors, Thorium reactors (half life of 500 years, no weapon uses)....




Sorry to burst your bubble, but the only naturally occuring isotope of thorium (232) has a half-life of about 10 billion years. To use thorium in reactors you need thorium breeders to convert 232Th to 233Th, which has weapons potential.

The unfortunate thing about fusion reactors for electricity production is that none of them exist. We're told it could be 40 years before they are commercially viable, which, funnily enough, what they were saying in the 70s.

cheers,
Chemist


----------



## chemist (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> Not a single solution to the nuclear waste problem since "the bomb".
> Not even the yanks have got a clue about what is the best option, except to use depleted uranium in ordnance, especially armour piercing.
> If Happy thinks it's all "hype" he should visit Chernobyl and help clean up the problem 'cause he reckons it won't kill him, I'll bet.
> Decomissioning nuclear reactors is comparatively cheap, but waste storage is never factored into the equation for nuclear energy costs - because there is no solution (yet)!
> That's why the nuclear option stacks up well commercially.




Your argument is hysterical.

In fact this whole thread is an example of wrong thinking. The only considerations should be commercial, yet this thread (like people in general) treats it as a political question. Should we have nuclear power? let's have an opinion poll of the uninformed and then the govt can either make nuclear power compulsory or ban it. Should businesses use four cylinder or six cylinder vans for deliveries? let's have an opinion poll of the uninformed and then the govt can either make six cylinder vans compulsory or ban them. Absurd.

cheers,
Chemist


----------



## wayneL (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				chemist said:
			
		

> Your argument is hysterical.
> 
> In fact this whole thread is an example of wrong thinking. The only considerations should be commercial, yet this thread (like people in general) treats it as a political question. Should we have nuclear power? let's have an opinion poll of the uninformed and then the govt can either make nuclear power compulsory or ban it. Should businesses use four cylinder or six cylinder vans for deliveries? let's have an opinion poll of the uninformed and then the govt can either make six cylinder vans compulsory or ban them. Absurd.
> 
> ...




Chemist you obviously consider yourself of superior intellect and obviously of right thinking.

I could not disagree more vehemently that the considerations are purely commercial. This to me is the epitome of wrong thinking. The selling of crack cocaine should therefore be a purely commercial desicion... ludicrous. 

The incident at Cherbobyl so obviously introduces factors other than commercial considerations. While not disagreeing with your basic tenets of the uninformed making desicions (and this appears to be an intentional facet of modern politics and life) the consideration of factors in addition to the purely mercantile aspects of nuclear power generation is essential. 

The results of mistakes tend to persist in this game.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Fundamentally, the nuclear question is about power stations and energy supply despite most debate focusing on the (perfectly legitimate) concerns about waste and so on. Nuclear power is just that - power.

I'll try and keep this easy to follow despite it being a complex and highly technical topic.

Energy sources suitable for electricity generation are:

1. Fossil fuels - coal, oil, natural gas and related fuels.
2. Nuclear energy - uranium and in the future possibly thorium or fusion reactors.
3. Renewable energy which is itself generally divided into hydro, biomass (wood etc) and others (wind, wave, solar, geothermal etc).

Electricity generation is by far the largest single use of fuel and it is also the only application where any fuel can be used to produce the exact same result. Cars don't run on uranium and planes don't run on coal but power stations run on anything from water to sunlight to coal and the electricity produced is _exactly_ the same. Electricity generation thus represents the sole large scale ability to shift between different energy sources over the medium term.

Oil is needed for everything from plastics to aeroplane fuel - all uses for which alternatives are problematic. And with discovery falling steadily since the early 1960's and rising demand it is an increasingly scarce (and expensive) resource. It is also a relatively small portion of the total fossil fuel energy available to man. It this makes little sense to use oil for electricity generation given that alternatives are available that are both practical and far cheaper.

Gas is similar to oil except that its' primary use is for direct heat in industry and homes as well as fertilizer manufacture (that is, the food supply!) and chemical production. Used this way it is a cheap and highly efficient energy source. It is also the most readily available large scale substitute for oil. But just like oil, gas is a geographically concentrated (mostly in Russia and the Middle East) resource where discovery is falling and demand is rising. Gas is now about double the price of coal on an energy equivalent basis and that gap seems likely to increase. It thus doesn't make a lot of sense to inefficiently use the limited gas resources to generate electricity and thus deprive ourselves of supplies for more beneficial uses. That said, gas is relatively more abundant than oil.

Whilst it is often claimed that Australia has enough gas to last 100+ years, fully two thirds of that gas is likely to be exported. And then there is demand growth and oil-replacement demand as well. It's worth noting that Bass Strait gas is around 50% depleted now and the Cooper Basin (SA) is more depleted than that. There are plans to import gas into eastern Australia within the next few years as local supplies are exhausted.

Internationally, NZ, UK and the US already are experiencing serious depletion of gas resources. It is something of an understatement to say that this has broad scale political implications globally. With Russia and the OPEC countries effectively controlling future supply it's not likely to remain cheap. Indeed OPEC has long expressed the view that oil and gas should be equally priced or thereabouts.

Given the need for gas imports and the worldwide trend towards globalisation of practically everything, it is only a matter of time before Australian gas prices are set by international factors. Indeed with the competition for supplies from LNG export projects this is already emerging - why would a gas producer sell cheaply to the domestic market if exporting is more profitable? They won't and for that reason Australian gas prices are unlikely to stay detached from global pricing.

So, in short, neither oil nor gas are viable long term sources of economically priced electricity.

Other energy sources are either renewable or relatively abundant (though there is ultimately a limit to uranium and coal). It thus makes good sense to concentrate electricity production on these resources. The choice is thus between coal, nuclear and renewables.

Environmentally, it makes sense to minimise transport distances for bulky materials. To the extent that coal is to be used it thus makes sense to use it near where it is mined rather than shipping it around the world. Since it is relatively light weight, it makes sense to use uranium in those parts of the world lacking coal or viable renewable energy sources. So it makes sense to use nuclear energy in Japan, for example, but it doesn't make sense to build a nuclear power station next to a coal mine unless the world is going to completely do away with coal use.

There is also a major efficiency and environmental benefit in reducing the number of energy conversions which take place. It would be foolish to use natural gas for power generation and then have to produce automotive fuels from coal.

It's worth considering that a gas hot water service is about 80% efficient. That's a good example of using gas to great advantage since that's about 3 times the efficiency (and hence much lower greenhouse gas emissions) of an electric water heater. But burning gas inefficiently in power stations precludes its more efficient use elsewhere since supplies are relatively limited globally.

However, Australia is under pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's no secret that the Kyoto Protocol was known to many as the "Nuclear Protocol". That's not to say that nuclear energy is essential to reduce greenhouse emissions, it isn't, but Kyoto imposed timescales which heavily favoured large scale options of which nuclear is the only choice. Thankfully, the world isn't taking too much notice of Kyoto and so there is an opportunity to pursue other options which are more sustainable in the long term despite being slower to develop.

In any power system there are TWO quantities of interest to this debate. One is POWER and the other is ENERGY. In brief, energy is the total quantity and power is the rate at which it is delivered. Like saying that 10 kilometres is the distance (energy) but you drove there at 50 kilometres per hour (power).

Since electricity can not be economically stored it is necessary to produce it on demand. And that demand varies considerably throughout the day and between seasons.

Intermittent sources of electricity such as wind can contribute _energy_ to the system (effectively saving fuel) but they do not add to the firm capability to meet a given level of power demand. That is, the wind will blow sometime (thus saving fuel at power stations) but not necessarily when electricity demand is high. So you still need just as many conventional power stations but they won't burn as much fuel as they otherwise would. 

This need for duplication adds to the economic problems with such power sources. This applies equally to any intermittent power source although solar has the advantage that you can count on _some_ generaton during the day even though the quantity will vary depending on cloud cover.

Wind etc is thus not a direct replacement for conventional power stations. It is a means of saving fuel and greenhouse gas emissions but not a means of avoiding building coal or other power stations in the first place. We would still need new and replacement conventional power stations no matter how many wind turbines were built.

Conventional fossil or nuclear power stations are limited by their maximum output. For example, Torrens Island power station (SA) can generate 1280 MW (1,280,000,000 Watts) at full output. Apart from maintenance, it can do that constantly as long as there is adequate fuel supply.

Most power stations don't have limited fuel supply although hydro-electric plants are normally limited in this way. For example, the Tasmanian system can generate about 2300 MW at peak but the average output over the long term is limited to 1170 MW by water availability. The Snowy can generate about 3700 MW at maximum but the average is around 580 MW - it was intentionally built as a peak load scheme. 

By now you have probably realised that a lot of peak power (needed when it's hot, cold, people cooking meals etc) can be generated from hydro even though the total output is relatively low on average. There's also an obvious synergy between an energy constrained hydro system with reliable peak power capacity and wind etc which intermittently add energy but not peak power. The two work well together. So if we're going to use wind then Tasmania is the logical place to do it since it is the only state with a predominantly hydro-electric generating system.

To be continued...


----------



## twojacks28 (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

my I remind you all that only 80-90 people died as a direct link to the chernobyl disaster. hundreads of people die a year on our roads! we don't make that sound very bad


----------



## wayneL (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				twojacks28 said:
			
		

> my I remind you all that only 80-90 people died as a direct link to the chernobyl disaster. hundreads of people die a year on our roads! we don't make that sound very bad




http://www.nirs.org/mononline/consequ.htm

excerpt:


> Other estimates range from several thousand, mostly "liquidators" who have died, to an estimate by Greenpeace Ukraine of 32,000 now dead. Greenpeace derived their figure by examining death rates from illnesses before and after the accident. Their research was solid enough that Yuri Shcherbak, the Ukraine Ambassador to the United States, accepts that estimate in the April 1996 issue of Scientific American.




and while on the subject of things mercantile:



> Economically, the consequences have been staggering. Even conservative estimates, counting direct costs, interdicted land, health costs, and related losses, are at $300 Billion and more.
> 
> First, consider that Chernobyl was in a very remote area, 80 miles from Kiev to the south and 80 miles from Gomel to the north. Then consider that Indian Point is only 35 miles from Manhattan; Limerick a similar distance from Philadelphia; Zion even closer to Chicago; Wolf Creek and Callaway in the center of our nation's agricultural heartland. According to the 1982 Sandia National Laboratories CRAC-II report (Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences), we could expect as much as $300 billion from a meltdown at Indian Point, and far less at most other locations. Fat chance. A meltdown at nearly any U.S. reactor, and at most European ones as well, clearly would reach the Trillion-Dollar range


----------



## twojacks28 (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

hence the word GREENPEACE. every other report I have read has said that only 80-90 people died as a result of the chernobyl disaster. I did not mention anything about economic problems


----------



## wayneL (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				twojacks28 said:
			
		

> hence the word GREENPEACE. every other report I have read has said that only 80-90 people died as a result of the chernobyl disaster. I did not mention anything about economic problems




I know you didn't. I did.  



> Their research was solid enough that Yuri Shcherbak, the Ukraine Ambassador to the United States, accepts that estimate in the April 1996 issue of Scientific American.


----------



## rederob (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				chemist said:
			
		

> Your argument is hysterical.
> 
> In fact this whole thread is an example of wrong thinking. The only considerations should be commercial, yet this thread (like people in general) treats it as a political question. Should we have nuclear power? let's have an opinion poll of the uninformed and then the govt can either make nuclear power compulsory or ban it. Should businesses use four cylinder or six cylinder vans for deliveries? let's have an opinion poll of the uninformed and then the govt can either make six cylinder vans compulsory or ban them. Absurd.
> 
> ...



Chemist
I did not present an argument, although I made a number of points.
I did say "_*That's why the nuclear option stacks up well commercially*_", and your position is that _considerations should be commercial_  - odd that we are saying, in part, the same thing, but my position is "hysterical".
If you believe what I said to be "hysterical" you should indicate what I posted is wrong/erroneous.
I am armed with a formidable array of "facts" on the nuclear industry and welcome you putting some of yours into play.


----------



## twojacks28 (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

so what if one person believes there crap. there are many other reports which state otherways. greenpeace always pump up the numbers on everything to make it sound worse. I saw a report on chernobyl a few weeks ago and they said the deaths from the accident were 90,000. the number seem to grow by every report.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Continued...

Apart from Tasmania where it would add energy to an energy-constrained hydro system (thus being a legitimate alternative to building new power stations of any type), wind is not an alternative to building new power stations for the other states. 

Much is often said about air-conditioners adding to power demand. Whilst they do add greatly to peak power demand (especially in Vic and SA) they use relatively little energy overall. So they cause more power stations to be built but don't add hugely to fuel use or emissions. Indeed there are several power stations (particularly in Vic and SA) which rarely run for this reason - they generate large amounts of power infrequently and thus use little fuel overall despite burning it at a high rate when operating. Dry creek, Quarantine, Hallet (all in SA), Somerton (Vic) and Jeeralang (Vic) are all examples of such plants.

Despite being connected to Victoria via two separate interconnectors (interstate transmission lines), the SA grid is too small to support any single power generation unit on the scale of an economic nuclear power plant. Nuclear generating units are large for economic reasons. The large power plants in SA (Torrens Island is the only "large" plant in SA) use multiple smaller (200 MW and 120 MW at Torrens Island) generating units for this reason. The underlying problem is simply what happens when the machine unexpectedly goes offline (this happens quite often with all types of power generation). Take 800 MW out of the SA, WA or Tas grids and the whole lot will go down with it. NT doesn't have a much of a grid to start with. 

Imports to Tas via Basslink (the Tas - Vic interconnector) are typically limited to 250 - 380 MW for this reason (the link can carry 480 MW continuously or 600 MW at peak). If it tripped offline from, say, 500 MW in the middle of the night then that would take the rest of the Tas grid down with it - a complete statewide blackout which would take some hours to restore. Given that this could happen quite often, it's not an option. Indeed even having a single 350 MW source (the largest generating unit in Tas apart from Basslink is 144 MW (3 units each of that size in the one power station for this very reason of system stability if it fails)) is only possible with a rather complex system which automatically cuts power to some very large customers (mostly smelters and paper mills) if Basslink shuts down unexpectedly.

It's worth noting that wind turbines lack the physical inertia of conventional generating plant and will thus tend to trip offline if anything goes wrong in the power system. For that reason having 50% wind in the grid isn't really an option either. One transmission line fails and that causes half the generation to shut down thus overloading the remaining generation causing that too to shut down - the whole grid goes down.

It would, however, be possible to generate large amounts of electricity in SA for export to Vic if smaller generating units were used. So this problem doesn't preclude the development of a large geothermal industry there provided that it consists of multiple smaller turbines and not one large one as a nuclear plant would.

So the debate about nuclear power is necessarily one about building a nuclear power staton in Qld, NSW or Vic. Since Queensland has an existing abundance of power generation and more already under construction and also has the cheapest coal costs, that isn't the logical place for a new nuclear power station.

That leaves NSW and Vic, both of which are relatively short on electricity and are needing new capacity. 

The much maligned Victorian brown coal is actually very clean in a chemical sense. The problem is that due to high water content (up to 70% in operating mines) a lot of energy is used driving off that water at the power stations (hence the large steam plumes from the stacks at Loy Yang and Yallourn in particular). This causes more coal to be used per unit of electricity than the higher grade (low water content) black coal used in Qld and NSW (lower grade black coal is used in SA and WA) and hence higher greenhouse gas emissions.

But the good news on brown coal is that, apart from carbon dioxide and water, it doesn't emit too much else. It's chemically "clean" despite being inefficient and a big source of carbon dioxide (about 20% more than black coal). 

Given the close proximity of the Bass Strait oil and gas fields and their depletion (the oil is over 90% gone) this makes Victoria the most logical place if there is to be capture and storage of carbon dioxide emissions from power stations. It's still not a cheap or easy process, but it should be easier in Vic than elsewhere.

In the meantime, there is also the possibility of converting brown coal to diesel fuel. Given the oil situation this would make considerable sense both physically (secure supply) and economically. The wastes from that process are then burnt to generate electricity more cleanly (in terms of greenhouse gas emissions) than conventional brown coal power generation. There has already been one proposal to do just that.

NSW on the other hand has lesser prospects for storing carbon dioxide underground and higher coal costs than Qld. And it needs new generating capacity but doesn't have the brown coal useful for making diesel. Nor does it have large scale access to natural gas for peaking power plants. However, there is a lot of potential to add peaking hydro capacity in NSW via modification of the Snowy scheme or building new hydro capacity. Whilst this wouldn't add energy to the system, it would add peak power. Existing NSW coal-fired plants have substantial unused energy capability but insufficient peak generating capacity. So run them harder and push the existing hydro output more towards the peaks. This would, however, do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Solar thermal power stations can generate power 24 hours per day. Basically it's a large greenhouse (literally) producing hot air which rushes up a "chimney" at very high speed to drive turbines located at the base. Like a hydro-electric scheme but in reverse (air rising instead of water falling) and using hot air rather than water. Not a total solution but estimates suggest that it ought to be reasonably cheap (comparable to coal or at least gas).

As for biomass, that's simply burning wood etc in a conventional power station rather than coal (though it's typically done at separate plants built near the wood to minimise transport).

Conclusions...

Geothermal seems likely to have real potential for development in SA. Given SA's high electricity prices (due to substantial reliance on gas) the economics aren't that bad. And it's virtually zero emissions and should be cheaper than nuclear. Geothermal also holds considerable potential in WA, Qld and NSW although SA is the leader.

Hydro can add modestly to total energy production (new dams) but can add greatly to peak power production. Doing this delays the need for new fossil fuel or nuclear power stations and is mostly of relevance to the eastern states.

Wind isn't overly cheap but as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions it would make sense to build more wind power in Tasmania rather than Tas relying more on mainland coal-fired power as would otherwise be the case.

High-tech brown coal power stations could both help solve the liquid fuels problem and also supply huge amounts of electricity in Victoria. Again, the process is reasonably economic especially when compared with nuclear.

Solar towers are somewhat unproven on a large scale but in theory at least it's reasonably economic. Certainly cheaper than nuclear as a means of reducing emissions and it does add some firm power capacity (unlike wind). There are good sites convenient to the NSW grid.

So overall I think the way ahead is to push ahead as fast as possible with geothermal since that is the big hope for cheap, clean electricity in this country. It would also end SA's problematic high dependence on natural gas.

Elsewhere, solar towers seem to have a contribution to make in NSW especially as does wind in Tasmania. Biomass has a limited role to play in various locations. 

With new brown coal plants in Victoria (cleaner than existing plants plus the diesel production) there is another large source of electricity. It is also possible to build considerably cleaner coal-fired plants (about one third lower emissions) without the diesel production. And of course geosequestration is another option (put the carbon dioxide into old gas fields).

A reworking of hydro power more towards peak production would add to the viability of any new approach to power generation, nuclear included, and thus makes a lot of sense. Greens will fight to the end to stop it though since opposing hydro is to the greens what industrial relations is to Labor.

Nuclear? We may have to eventually but the alternatives haven't been properly investigated yet. It would make economic and environmental sense ONLY if geothermal, solar towers and geosequestration are not viable. Given the projected economics of geothermal and solar towers they are quite likely to be a cheaper option. At the very least we should build a medium size geothermal and solar tower plant to assess the costs before comitting to what is certain to be an expensive nuclear power plant.

For the nuclear industry there is thus a degree of urgency - build it now before geothermal, solar towers of carbon capture becomes a cheaper option. Given that greenhouse is a long term problem rather than a short term one, waiting another 5 years to assess the viability of these alternatives would be a low risk strategy.


----------



## wayneL (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				twojacks28 said:
			
		

> so what if one person believes there crap. there are many other reports which state otherways. greenpeace always pump up the numbers on everything to make it sound worse. I saw a report on chernobyl a few weeks ago and they said the deaths from the accident were 90,000. the number seem to grow by every report.




From the BBC. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/722533.stm



> 30 killed immediately
> 15,000 relief workers killed
> 50,000 relief workers invalid
> 5 million exposed to radiation
> 52,000 fled the area around Chernobyl


----------



## wayneL (29 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

The Chernobyl Biker Chic Site:

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-revisited/



> Radiation will stay in the Chernobyl area for the next 48.000 years, but humans may begin repopulating the area in about 600 years - give or take three centuries. The experts predict that, by then, the most dangerous elements will have disappeared - or been sufficiently diluted into the rest of the world's air, soil and water. If our government can somehow find the money and political will power to finance the necessary scientific research, perhaps a way will be discovered to neutralize or clean up the contamination sooner. Otherwise, our distant ancestors will have to wait untill the radiation diminishes to a tolerable level. If we use the lowest scientific estimate, that will be 300 years from now......some scientists say it may be as long as 900 years.


----------



## BraceFace (30 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

2 Comments.
1. Re: Chernobyl - Certainly a tragedy but really now just a historical reminder of how the Soviet communist dogma was a complete failure. Do you really think that Nuclear Power Plants in a developed country circa 2006 and onwards would bare even a passing resemblence to the Chernobyl reactor and its management protocols? This argument is a furphy which the anti-nuke lobby wheel out over and over and over. France and other EU countries have shown for decades how safe a properly managed nuclear power program can be.

2. Re: Nuclear Waste - Agreed, this stuff takes millions of years to decay. But you know what, none of us will be around to give a rats if the current rate of fossil fuel use and associated CO2 emmisions into the biosphere continues. Global warming/Greenhouse effect, call it what you like is happening NOW (if you believe the scientists). Unless cheap,clean and sutainable energy sources are utilized very soon on a global scale, forget about your holidays to the south pacific people, those islands won't be there anymore. Figure out the economic cost of that sort of global population displacement.
Nuclear energy seems like the logical choice NOW seeing as the technology is already available to utilize this energy source to meet current demands.Other options have potential (see Smurfs comments) but still need a lot of R&D.
Technology is also available to make nuclear waste "safe" - developed right here in Australia. Do a google search on Synroc and have a read.

Also I object to the use of the emotive term "backyard" in this waste disposal issue. I would not consider the geologically and politically stable remote central areas of Australia my "backyard" any more than Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, Australian Antarctic Territory and other parts of our sovereign nation that are also thousands of kms from 99% of the Australian population. No, I would not want spent nuclear fuel in my 1/4 acre backyard, but I have no problem whatsoever with it being disposed of sensibly and safely underground (from where it originally came from) somewhere out of harms way.


----------



## noirua (30 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Australia selling uranium does not appear to be a problem. Will the ships delivering the new uranium also bring back the waste, and to be stored where??


----------



## wayneL (30 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

I'm not vehemently against nuke power (only slightly against), I mean I made a s4!tload on FXR ferchrissake, but playing the devils advocate here. Lets not lull ourselves into an attitude of complacency.

*Earthquake Would Cause Power Excursion on Nuclear Reactors*

Japan is well-known as a country belonging to the unstable Pan-Pacific Earthquake Belt. Dangerous areas are specified and intensively monitored as the special zones, in which the big earthquakes did occur repeatedly in some historical span. Japan has 52 reactors in operation at present and most of these are located in or close to these dangerous zones. It is unbelievable that such dangerous zones were selected as the nuclear sites. Among them Hamaoka nuclear power station is most vulnerable, for it has been constructed at the center of the seismic source area of the anticipated Tokai Earthquake. There have been found many active faults on seabed, which are regarded as the source of earthquakes. Big earthquakes of magnitude 8 class in Richter Scale have been repeated every 120 years in this district and 140 years have passed since the last earthquake in 1854.

Pro-nuclear people are claiming that nuclear facilities are designed so as to even stand the biggest earthquake - not supposed to occur. The acceleration applied to important reactor components are determined for each facility and the largest value is 600 gals (a measuring standard for forces) for Hamaoka. But on Hanshin Earthquake some 800 or 900 gals of accelerations were actually observed. Immediately after Hanshin Earthquake, some of utilities announced their nuclear facilities could stand for such an earthquake and acceleration up to 1000 gals. But they did not give any evidence or data supporting their argument.

It is easy to suppose an earthquake causes damage on important reactor components or pipes, or reactor building walls. However, another possibility was recognized recently in Japan: Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), one of the typical light water reactor in Japan might suffer big damage from a power excursion - abrupt increase of output. This is an severe accident which might lead to a nuclear explosion or a steam explosion in the reactor. In 1993 an earthquake (M 5.9) happened in the northern part of Japan. Than Onagawa No. 1 reactor was being operated at the rated power level. It was automatically stopped (scrammed) by an earthquake. At that time actual rising of neutron flux was caused inside the reactor. In BWR's light water is used as the moderator, lowering the neutron velocity so that uranium can readily capture the neutron for a chain reaction. Usually, BWR is filled with an enormous amount of voids, that is to say, bubbles, and these bubbles do not act as moderator as liquid water does and the nuclear reaction is automatically suppressed by generation of bubbles. Quakes are likely to remove such bubbles stuck to fuel rods and push them up outside the reactor core. Then the nuclear reaction was increased and neutron flux level rose above 118 percent of rated value, at which the system is designed so as to generate the scram signal to avoid the serious condition.

This means the reactor almost went on power excursion. The scram signal was sent at 118% but this does not mean the actual value of neutron flux was restricted at that level. It only means the signal was generated. The actual neutron level can reach 400 % or even 1000 %. Fortunately, in every case the scram was successfully fulfilled so far. But this cannot be expected to be repeated all the time. Scram failures did occur in other situations and will continue to occur from now on.

Recently, cracks have been found on the core-shroud of many BWR's in United States, Japan and some European countries. The core-shroud is a huge cylinder surrounding a reactor core and regulating water flow in it. Those cracks, fairly long and deep, go along the circumferential direction and are located on the various parts of the shroud. National Regulatory Commission in the US and General Electric are very upset when cracks were found on the welded parts of the shrouds.

Most serious situation on this issue is that if the shroud would fall down to the bottom of a pressure vessel, lateral water flow will be generated and this flow disturbs the insertion of control rods at emergency situation. With the vibrating control rods and fuel rod assemblies, control rods would be blocked not to be inserted into the space gap among the fuel rods. In that case, we cannot expect the automatic shutdown - the last possibility of preventing a reactor from power excursion. And it should be noted that the falldown of a shroud is anticipated to be caused by the vibration of an earthquake. Utilities have a plan for repairing cracks on a shroud or replacing a shroud itself by new one within 5 years, but who knows when a huge earthquake will occur. From the technical point of view, nuclear reactors, especially BWR's, are extremely weak for earthquakes.

Power excursion mentioned above is likely to be caused even by a relatively small earthquake. A huge earthquake can destroy many components and pipes simultaneously. Coolant will flow out of a reactor, while water storage tanks (suppression pool etc.) attached to the reactor will be crashed. No water available for preventing loss of coolant accident. We cannot suppose what will actually happen when a nuclear reactor is exposed to a big earthquake.

Sources: AMPO magazine, Vol.26 No.3, 1995 and an article written by Hiroo KOMURA, Department of Engineering, Shizuoka University, 3-5-1 Johoku, Hamamatsu, Japan

Contact: Hiroo KOMURA, Department of Engineering, Shizuoka University, 3-5-1 Johoku, Hamamatsu, Japan
Tel & Fax : +81-53-478-1096


----------



## emma (30 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

An interesting discussion on Radio National last night on this subject featured a number of options including reducing comsumption (what a novel idea!) and in the foreseeable future every building having photo-voltaic cells and thus being able to reduce demand on the national grids.


----------



## mit (30 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

I voted for more information. We are getting mixed messages at the moment about the total costs of this option. I agree that it should be a commercial decision but this decision should include adequate safeguards and the cost of disposal. I have also read elsewhere that if nuclear power is increased substantially that we will run out of uranium in a matter of decades.

Don't fast breeder reactors create their own fuel? I know that they also can create weapons grade material as well unfortunately.

I'm just worried that this will be another one of Johnnie's debates where the government just does what it wants to do anyway no matter anybody elses arguments.

I think that the big solution to a lot of this is to lower consumption. Before all of the electricity industry was made competitive most states had a strong program on demand management. No state utility wanted to build power stations and additional powerlines etc.  This is not true in a competitive industry where your profits are linked to how much energy you can sell.

MIT


----------



## Rafa (30 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

thanks for you articulate and educated response Smurf... 
much food for thought there....


----------



## Happy (30 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Any fuel (coal, petrol, liquid hydrogen, gas) can be and is dangerous in certain circumstances and fear can be fuelled by opponents who actually might have stake in alternative fuel, suppose can be compared to de-ramping.

How many of you use car or gas stove and don’t consider it to be excessively dangerous?
Somebody with time and access to archives could dig up some negative and alarming comments on petrol and gas circulated in late 19th and early 20th century. 
We seem to be well over the hype and get on with our lives despite some people are burned to death every year in kerosene, gas or petrol fires.

25,000 people die on USA roads every year, about 1,000,000 dies or are severely disabled on the World roads every year and nobody tears up the bitumen to prevent carnage.


----------



## Sean K (30 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Happy, your argument doesn't wash.

Doing anything in life is a calculated risk: Like getting out of bed. It just so happens that getting out of bed enables us to do other things. Like wash. 

At the moment driving on the road is a calculated risk. It is necessary to live our lives. 

The argument for nuclear energy could be framed this way as well. 

Economic cost, global warming, accidents, other sources of fuel are all part of that risk analysis. 

Anyway, I say atm, the risk of not developing nuclear energy is too high for the survival of the species in the short to medium term.


----------



## Happy (30 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Quote - 
‘the risk of not developing nuclear energy is too high for the survival of the species in the short to medium term.’


I am confused now, but no argument from me.


----------



## The Mint Man (31 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Just like to say a big thanks to Smurf for his great replys, very informative indeed.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 May 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				mit said:
			
		

> I voted for more information. We are getting mixed messages at the moment about the total costs of this option. I agree that it should be a commercial decision but this decision should include adequate safeguards and the cost of disposal. I have also read elsewhere that if nuclear power is increased substantially that we will run out of uranium in a matter of decades.
> 
> Don't fast breeder reactors create their own fuel? I know that they also can create weapons grade material as well unfortunately.
> 
> ...



Uranium reserves - yes they're fairly limited. Certainly not enough for conventional nuclear power to be a replacement for all present fossil fuel electricity for long enough to warrant building that many nuclear plants.

However, there hasn't really been that much exploration worldwide for high grade uranium. That's in start contrast to oil where national and private oil companies have collectively explored most of the likely oil-bearing areas with steadily diminishing returns over the past 4 decades (gas is going the same way but with a 30 year or so time lag). So whilst present reserves aren't adequate for the long term widespread use of conventional nuclear energy it is quite likely that significant new reserves await discovery.

Fast breeder reactors certainly do produce nuclear fuel as a by-product. Problem is the large amounts of plutonium (literally bomb material) that would need to be dealt with. Quite technically viable but the problem is terrorists etc since in a world powered in this way it would become easier to count the countries that DON'T have access to plutonium than those that do. 

As for demand management, absolutely agreed that it _should_ be a primary focus but unfortunatley I think there's more chance of me dancing naked at lunch time in Cat & Fiddle (city centre shops in Hobart) than demand reduction actually happening on a sufficient scale for that in itself to be a solution. 

The problem isn't technology but rather attitude. Just walk around any Australian city suburb looking at the roofs on houses and contemplate that solar water heaters are one of the cheapest options for saving fossil fuels. 

People spend and extra $1500 for minor features on a car almost without thinking. Someone who smokes 10 a day spends a similar amount on cigarettes every year. But trying to convince them to pay that $1500 just once to go solar instead of gas/electric (and get the money back in savings) meets with either a blank stare or "it's more profitable to invest in...". But the extra money spent on a car isn't similarly met with "it's not profitable..." and nor is money spent on smoking, gambling or whatever. The environment is clearly a LONG way down the list of priorities for ordinary Australians when they actually need to pay to do something positive.

Or for something less physical, just walk around practically any office at lunch time and switch off all the computer monitors that were left on, each wasting about 130 watts of power. Then prepare for a verbal bashing from your colleagues when they return. No doubt many of those people oppose nuclear power, want greenhouse emissions cut, were glad the Franklin wasn't dammed and don't like wind farms because they are "unsightly". A fine example of saying one thing whilst doing another.

Or you could just sit beside any urban road and wonder just where that city street that's so bad as to need a fuel-guzzling 4WD actually is. 

Actions speak louder than words IMO. The actions of ordiary Australians are quite clearly saying that they aren't really that concerned about the impact of energy use. Sad but it means that effective demand reduction just isn't likely to happen in practice. And yet there's so much fuss about water use when, apart from lack of infrastructure, it isn't actually a scarce resource in much of Australia (though in some parts it is scarce) and it's 100% renewable. 

I know that sounds a bit harsh towards the ordinary person. But IMO actions do speak the truth far more than words and not many are willing to open the wallet, or even go to minor inconvenience (just how hard is turning a monitor off?), to reduce energy use and the associated impacts. Short of massive energy taxes (which would hit the poor especially hard and also encourages production shifting offshore etc) I just can't see it changing.


----------



## emma (1 June 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Smurf  - A concentrated public education/information policy on how to consume less energy would be a start.  My 17 year old grandson wandered in the other day in his shirt sleeves and put the air conditioning on to warm up?  Hadn't occured to him to put some warmer clothes on!

I've had solar hot water for 34 years and green electricity since it was available.   Interestingly that first solar heater cost $1200 - so the price in relation to average wage has come down over the years.


----------



## The Mint Man (1 June 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

cant Agree more emma,
People do need to be more educated, probably even myself. We just have to be willing to learn and be able to take constructive criticism, such as smurf's.
My dad worked for rheem for about 30 years (give or take a few) and has had a solar water heater on his roof for well over 20 years (since the house was built). Sure it can run out of hot water at times (but im sure technology has fixed this problem to an extent by now) but we always had a switch on the wall that could turn it on manualy, incase it was cold.


----------



## Happy (1 June 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

And lets not forget that half time clock is ticking regardless if it is used in reactor or not, so if we don’t look for Nuclear Energy to harness it could be looked as wasted energy.

As I said clock is ticking regardless!


----------



## Rafa (1 June 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

great comments all, especially on the demand reduction being the best way to save...

just got a quote for a solar pool heater... $3300 bucks, lifespan of close to 20 years... ok, it only heats the pool from sept to april, but thats fine by me... the alternative is an electric or gas pool heater... i can only imagine the power required to heat 50000L of water... and the pool is hardly used every day of winter...

people attitudes are the key, and the best way to change that is to hit where it hurst, the wallet! The best way to drive down demand, is price... but whose going to raise the price of energy???


----------



## twojacks28 (1 June 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Rafa I have a solar heating system in our pool and it works great. It heats the pool in just hours and is quite cheap in the long term. all you have to pay for is the electricity when its on! I think it is better then the gas heater as it is cheaper and doesnt take as long to heat the pool. however we do havegas for the spa but rarely use it.


----------



## Rafa (1 June 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

can understand gas for the spa... you want that steaming...  

Cool, that great to hear the solar works well for the pool, will definitely go for it then...


----------



## twojacks28 (1 June 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

but I guess it is what brand and what type of solar power you get installed. 
I have one with lots of little black pipes on the roof which the water runs through. not sure what brand ours is but it is very good.


----------



## Rafa (1 June 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

yeah, its similar, i think its WaterCo / Zane brand name...
comes with a 15yr warranty too...


----------



## mista200 (1 June 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

hmm the usual lefties are here again!!! Bring the nuclear power!


----------



## mit (2 June 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				mista200 said:
			
		

> hmm the usual lefties are here again!!! Bring the nuclear power!




Typical rightie response - ad homenim attack and ignore any issues raised  

MIT


----------



## The Mint Man (22 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Considering this is probably going to be a hot topic again.... plus theres more members that have joined ASF since I posted this thread, I thought I would bump it up so we can continue this discussion.
If your new to the forum feel free to add your vote to the poll

cheers


----------



## trading_rookie (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Re: risk factors, it was explained to me many years ago that Lucas Heights was chosen as the site for a reactor in the outer southern suburbs of Sydney due to the stability of the surrounding rock. 

This all happened way back in 1958 long before the surrounding land was occupied with dwellings and thus far without any tremours or earthquakes.

Still, it's the fear of the unknown, a reactor meltdown is something no one wants to hear about, let alone radiation poisoning.

People have been able to argue that nuclear powerplants have been around since the 1950's and we are better equiped to deal with them now than 60 years ago. 

Is the path of the moon ever gonna collide with the earth? If not can't we transport the waste there?  And, if a meteorite did crash into the moon are we far enough away for minimal nuclear contamination?


----------



## Sean K (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

I vote yes, because I own a lot of uranium shares and I want to buy a yacht to sail around the world in soon. Preferrably about 50ft, teak fit out, good DVD/sound system, yada yada....

Plus, we need an interim measure before cold fussion saves the earth.


----------



## tech/a (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Of course we should use Nuclear power.

*Not only * that but we should charge like blazzes to accept waste---use the money for scientists to work out how to recycle it then sell it back to those that dumped it here in the first place.


----------



## Rafa (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> I vote yes, because I own a lot of uranium shares and I want to buy a yacht to sail around the world in soon. Preferrably about 50ft, teak fit out, good DVD/sound system, yada yada....





i hope its going to be a nuclear powered yatch...
don't wan't you polluting the atmosphere as your cruise around the globe!


----------



## The Mint Man (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				Rafa said:
			
		

> i hope its going to be a nuclear powered yatch...
> don't wan't you polluting the atmosphere as your cruise around the globe!




Are you crazy   thats too dangerous....
Kennas just use wind power :   all the energy you need!


----------



## Sean K (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Gents, I'll need crew, but unfortunately you wont fit the mould. Anyone looking like Prospector is welcome aboard!    Don't tell Rach, YT!


----------



## Tim (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

I would prefer to live next to a Nuclear Power station rather than a Coal Power station *100 times out of 100*.

But what about the waste? If two miners can get stuck 1000m below the surface, surely we can dig at least 2000m down for a new long term storage facility. (You can start the digging in my backyard, next to the Nuclear reactor. This wouldn't upset me.)

Also, one could argue that there is a finite amount of uranium in the earth. And one could also argue that it's more than likely that this uranium will be used by _someone_ at _some stage_. And that same person could argue that it might in fact be better to use that uranium in our own backyard, where we can see what it's being used for. Rather than say exporting a tonne of it to China, and wondering why there are sizeable earth tremmors in North Korea after China received their half-tonne of uranium.

And I find it amusing how many people criticise the Russians for everything from corruption to communism to the fact that most of the country lives in absolute poverty etc, etc. Yet we are seem to be awestruck with their Chenobyl reactor. Because according to most people's comments and conversation, *a Russian Nuclear reactor in the 1980's (which was run by Russia (in the 80's)) is the absolute best that any country can strive to achieve in the year 2006*. We fear that any reactor built today in Australia would inevitably have "Chenobyl-like-consequences".

Do I think Nuclear is the holy grail? No. But let's cut the crap out of the conversation and realise that if something isn't done soon.....well....think about it.


----------



## wayneL (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

If we support "nukular" power here, do we also support it for places like Iran, North Korea... even Iraq if the west ever extracts itself from that disaster?


----------



## Sean K (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				wayneL said:
			
		

> If we support "nukular" power here, do we also support it for places like Iran, North Korea... even Iraq if the west ever extracts itself from that disaster?



Not at the moment Wayne. Are you really comparing Australia with the 'Axis of Evil' in terms of international responsibility and 'conscious' governance?


----------



## wayneL (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Not at the moment Wayne. Are you really comparing Australia with the 'Axis of Evil' in terms of international responsibility and 'conscious' governance?



How then, can we morally prevent them from developing nuclear power for electricity generation?

What right do we have to do that?


----------



## Sean K (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				wayneL said:
			
		

> How then, can we morally prevent them from developing nuclear power for electricity generation?
> 
> What right do we have to do that?



Well, you've got to prove that you are a moral, reasonable, logical, caring, and responsible country for a start. 

Overall, I can not put my hand on my heart and say that these countries should be given liscence to run an industry so closely related to developing you know what, therefore further shifting the balance of power on the planet making it even more unstable. 

I actually didn't mind Russia's solution where they would provide the enriched uranium to Iran for power development, but Iran didn't want that because they want to develop their own nukular industry to gain 'power'.


----------



## barney (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Well, you've got to prove that you are a moral, reasonable, logical, caring, and responsible country for a start.
> 
> Overall, I can not put my hand on my heart and say that these countries should be given liscence to run an industry so closely related to developing you know what, therefore further shifting the balance of power on the planet making it even more unstable.
> 
> I actually didn't mind Russia's solution where they would provide the enriched uranium to Iran for power development, but Iran didn't want that because they want to develop their own nukular industry to gain 'power'.




Howdy Lads, I guess the country with the most Uranium theoretically has the "balance of power" .......... we are pretty lucky here in Oz in that case ......... Just wondering ...Does anyone know if countries such as Iran are actively searching for U deposits (not that we'd here about it in the west) If they were to get their hands on their own supplies, what they do with it it their own business, and that could be frightening in a few years time .......... Strict international laws and policing need to be implemented early in the piece as to where all the U goes to and what its used for ........ thats gona be hard to keep a track of ...........


----------



## CanOz (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Yes i support it. Also agree that Thorium should be used. Uranium is only used for one reason really isn't it?

Cheers,


----------



## wayneL (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Well, you've got to prove that you are a moral, reasonable, logical, caring, and responsible country for a start.



Well, I think you have just excluded countries like the USA, Israel, China, Russia (and other ex USSR republics) Pakistan, Germany etc etc etc

There is nothing to stop a supposed "reasonable" country with nuke power to fall into the hands of a despot, dullard or psychopath (***e.g. the USA, the most dangerous country on the planet... with the exception possibly of Israel)

On another point, how to we intend to stop "undesirable nations":

a/ developing nuke energy anyway
b/ spewing carbon emissions  instead?

Splatter them with DU munitions?  

*** The USA and it's circle of influense are the only counrty(s) busily spreading nuclear material with a half life of some billion years or something all over great patches of the planet.


----------



## Sean K (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				wayneL said:
			
		

> Well, I think you have just excluded countries like the USA, Israel, China, Russia (and other ex USSR republics) Pakistan, Germany etc etc etc
> 
> There is nothing to stop a supposed "reasonable" country with nuke power to fall into the hands of a despot, dullard or psychopath (***e.g. the USA, the most dangerous country on the planet... with the exception possibly of Israel)



The problem we have is that it is out there already.

Now we need a balance of power so that the world can get by. 

Unfortunately, we do not have that at the moment, and the US is turning fascist and proving the theory that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'. 

I hope that China, India, Japan, and Russia grow to create a more balanced world, but at the same time they do not form alliances that destabilise the world. What we all need right now, is for US power to deminish to be replaced by a new world order that has a more balanced politico/social outlook on how humans should best live. I hate to say it, but I think pure Capitalism does not work, just as much Communism does not work. And Dictatorships do not work, just like some 'democracies' do not work. The answer is in the middle somewhere. Wherever that is.


----------



## Rafa (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				The Mint Man said:
			
		

> Are you crazy   thats too dangerous....
> Kennas just use wind power :   all the energy you need!





No way, what happens when the wind stops blowing!!!   
Nuclear is the way to go...



OK... time to be serious now.
Kennas, choosing prospector over any of us is a blatant discrimination.
You'll be hearing from my lawyers.  



Ok... getting serious... take 2.
WW3 is going be fought on energy...
The US knows it and the Jihad'ist (disguised as holy warriors) know it.
France, Germany know it, and have positioned themselves on the Arab side. Frankly, i don't think russia or china can be trusted to side with the US over Arab states if push comes to shove. And they already have nukes.
And all this carnage is just about oil...


Think of the other enery cross roads we are going to reach in the next 50 - 100 years...
Its going to be an interesting century...


----------



## Sean K (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				Rafa said:
			
		

> No way, what happens when the wind stops blowing!!!
> Nuclear is the way to go...
> 
> OK... time to be serious now.
> ...




Can you row Rafa? You're in if you can pull an oar! But only if you look like Prospector, or Angelina. 

It's going to be very very interesting to see who takes whose side in the comming 20-50 years, and we will see it unfold. It really could go any direction. Wasn't long ago America had a civil war! Perhaps the next war will be Australian v New Zealand. I think they will win, their Hakas are just too scary!


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				Rafa said:
			
		

> Think of the other enery cross roads we are going to reach in the next 50 - 100 years...  Its going to be an interesting century...



I sure agree there Rafa- Just think, we can sit back and watch experts run the power plants :homer:  
- but hopefully Bart will be smarter than Homer - like, Marge was a positive influence in the IQ department   -  Better still Lisa (or Maggie?) 
:jerry


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

I posted this one previously - allegedly true story 
I'm reminded of a story I heard of a fellow who bought a yacht in San Francisco - advertised for an all female crew -"Girls only need apply! crew needed for a year or two to cruise the South Pacific" etc etc. Troubles started when the replies to the ad came flooding in - so many applicants !! - and of course he had to interview them individually usually over candlelit dinners - that he took MONTHS to meet them all - and by then it was cyclone season and he had to put it off. And do the same next year.  (and the year after etc lol)

PS this is not necessarily a male sexist tactic - no reason why women cant buy yachts and advertise for all male crews.

PPS Has anyone heard how Cog is going with his Camper/bus and his all female crew?


----------



## Caliente (24 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

i dont support nuclear power in australia, as I feel we don't have the need to switch yet but rather the export of uranium to countries overseas.


----------



## pacer (24 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*






			
				2020hindsight said:
			
		

> I posted this one previously - allegedly true story
> I'm reminded of a story I heard of a fellow who bought a yacht in San Francisco - advertised for an all female crew -




Nuclear power sux..if everyone spent another $1 a week on our power bill we could be totaly self sufficient......what the hell are these idiots up to.....

It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Imagine what the SP of oil companies would do if all the PATENTED good ideas on efficency  were to be implemented.....I know a dude that was paid  3mill to keep his mouth shut on one of these improvenments.....

GOD HELP US....I'm just glad my house is 5 metres above sea level!!!!


----------



## pacer (24 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Can you row Rafa? You're in if you can pull an oar! But only if you look like Prospector, or Angelina.
> 
> It's going to be very very interesting to see who takes whose side in the comming 20-50 years, and we will see it unfold. It really could go any direction. Wasn't long ago America had a civil war! Perhaps the next war will be Australian v New Zealand. I think they will win, their Hakas are just too scary!




We already have the comps... one or three or 5 or....Rugby, Cricket....ahhh everything....But we will always go to war for each other and be mates in the trenches....

And I've noticed the Abbos (and I have abbo mates) ain't all that stupid when it comes to defending thier country....the whiteys tried everything from shootin' to introducing disease...the shame of your forefathers is being reaped now......Australia is rooted!...and you dickheads let in the muslims as well!!!!!....that's their plan to take over the world......

It's called *MULTICULTURISM.......and it's supposed to be good for us....WAKE UP!.....Bring back Pauline!*


----------



## chops_a_must (24 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				pacer said:
			
		

> Nuclear power sux..if everyone spent another $1 a week on our power bill we could be totaly self sufficient......what the hell are these idiots up to.....
> 
> It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> 
> ...



Yup.

The oil companies, and especially BP, went on a massive patent buying frenzy in the 90s to keep all this technology down. But it looks as if BP now has the edge over the others because of this now...


----------



## marklar (24 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Yes, I do support it.

I think we're clever enough to figure out something useful to do with the waste in the future and we need to stop burning coal ASAP!

m.

PS. I don't own any U stocks, so I'm not biased.


----------



## The Mint Man (24 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Yup.
> 
> The oil companies, and especially BP, went on a massive patent buying frenzy in the 90s to keep all this technology down. But it looks as if BP now has the edge over the others because of this now...



Yes it does seem that they do push green power more then any other oil company ATM.


> .....I know a dude that was paid 3mill to keep his mouth shut on one of these improvenments.....



then you know a dude that accepted too little


----------



## barney (24 November 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				pacer said:
			
		

> We already have the comps... one or three or 5 or....Rugby, Cricket....ahhh everything....But we will always go to war for each other and be mates in the trenches....
> 
> And I've noticed the Abbos (and I have abbo mates) ain't all that stupid when it comes to defending thier country....the whiteys tried everything from shootin' to introducing disease...the shame of your forefathers is being reaped now......Australia is rooted!...and you dickheads let in the muslims as well!!!!!....that's their plan to take over the world......
> 
> It's called *MULTICTURISM.......and it's supposed to be good for us....WAKE UP!.....Bring back Pauline!*




You are a funny bugga Paceman ..... Always crack a smile when I read your posts.

PS Tell those oil Co's that I'll keep quiet for 3 mill as well  ........... make that 1 mill ... I'm not greedy ........ (actually atm I'd take a hundred grand and smile all the way to the bank!!)   PS Whats your fav. bourbon? ... Barney


----------



## billhill (13 December 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

I was reading the sites i visit daily and found this that may be of some interest.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/ind...20061212-12370100-bc-netherlands-reactors.xml

May be onto finding a solution to the waste problem.


----------



## mrWoodo (19 December 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Been surfing the web re. Fusion reactors and not suprisingly, find China dabbling in experimental devices.

A few links here and here (pics)  That's one helluva homebrew bucket   

Unfortuntely can't find any more recent news regarding the reactor.

It makes you wonder how long coal / gas / oil / u308 have got. Give it 30 years and hopefully fusion will be a reality


----------



## The Mint Man (19 December 2006)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

very interesting, Good find!


----------



## chops_a_must (7 January 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

There was a thought provoking documentary on SBS just then called, "Nuclear Nightmares". Was a very interesting look at radiation and it's effects. Apparently radiation is good for us, ha!


----------



## scsl (8 January 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				chops_a_must said:
			
		

> There was a thought provoking documentary on SBS just then called, "Nuclear Nightmares". Was a very interesting look at radiation and it's effects. Apparently radiation is good for us, ha!



I managed to see the last 10 minutes of it. One fact that I found quite amazing was that if you were to eat a serving of lamb taken from the area around the Chernobyl disaster for a year, the combined radiation from it all would only be a fraction of the radiation you'd receive from one dental x-ray!


----------



## Happy (8 January 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				scsl said:
			
		

> I managed to see the last 10 minutes of it. One fact that I found quite amazing was that if you were to eat a serving of lamb taken from the area around the Chernobyl disaster for a year, the combined radiation from it all would only be a fraction of the radiation you'd receive from one dental x-ray!





I understood that it was lamb in fallout area in UK, but I wasn’t properly glued to the screen, so might be not true.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (8 January 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

apparently people dont absorb much of the radioactive particals from the digestive system. The most dangerous form is airbourne which is easily transfered to the blood through the lungs.

This is especially the case with the depleted uranium ammunitions used in kosovo and Iraq, which the bullets disintergrate when they hit something they make radioactive particals small enough to breath. WHO has done studies but the results are inconclusive there are people who think that using DU is equivalent to chemical/bio warfare and others that say its harmless.

Another interesting fact is that the Chernoble nuclear plant was still operating up to a few years ago , well after the explosion


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 January 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				KIWIKARLOS said:
			
		

> Another interesting fact is that the Chernoble nuclear plant was still operating up to a few years ago , well after the explosion



There were 4 reactors at Chernobyl power station, only one of which exploded. Hence the other 3 could (and did) continue operating for over a decade after the disaster.


----------



## Happy (8 January 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

There is background radiation whether we like it or not.

Some levels are dangerous, of course, but lets not be paranoid.

We can safely handle petrol, hydrogen, and explosives.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (8 January 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Sorry mate i don't understand what your saying in your post  

Isn't background radiation the radiation caused by naturally occuring radioactive substances in rocks etc like natural uranium. I wasn't aware of any naturally occuring radioactive sources strong enough to be bad for you, are there any?


----------



## Happy (8 January 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

I tried to say that not using nuclear energy would not prevent us from exposure to radiation.

Then I tried to say that we have many dangerous goods, which we managed to control and handle safely.

Actually I did not say anything, all clichÃ©.


----------



## mswiggs (10 January 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

On the topic of Radiation,
Recently I saw a documentary on Radiation, where it appears a certain amount of radiation is beneficial for the prevention of cancer.
They found in a community which was exposed to fallout caused by the Chernobyl incident and had higher than normal background radiation, that genes which are associated with cancer "prevention" were being expressed (utilised by the body) at a higher rate than those from areas of normal background radiation.

Also the documentary noted that a flock of sheep which was exposed to fallout from Chernobyl had to be slaughtered as the authorities felt that they were a health hazard. This was despite that fact that someone would have to eat a serving of "chops" from these sheep for a year to be exposed to half the radiation from a dental x-ray.


----------



## Dukey (24 March 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Have just been catching up on this thread... very interesting reading. 
... As for me... I think the best solutions to our energy problems would be the cleanest / safest / cheapest solutions - and for me that means Nuclear is out for the time being. 

I like Smurf's suggestion to push geothermal , & Solar-thermal sounds interesting as well. 

Questions for Smurf - or anyone else for that matter
(....sorry Smurf to put the load on your back mate - but your posts are very informative, and you obviously know the subject backwards!!)

1. Is it feasible (or useful) to incorporate Geo & Solar thermal in the one plant??? Would it improve efficiency or reliability of supply? (I know nothing about the structure of such plants).

2. Re Nuclear -  whats your take on the 'fusion reactors' in China (posted below)- is it for real or just a propaganda exercise?? How close is this technology to actual implementation??

3. Would also be interested in your views regarding issues around nuclear waste.

-Dukey


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 March 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				Dukey said:
			
		

> Re Nuclear -  whats your take on the 'fusion reactors' in China



hell I just voted for the Fishin party - I thought they were for alternative nuclear power !! turns out all they know about is flatheads and mackerels and stuff.!!  (I wish they had spellcheck at electoral offices) 
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission )


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 March 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



			
				Dukey said:
			
		

> Questions for Smurf



1. The short answer is no. I'll explain how it works...

A geothermal plant is basically the same as a coal-fired plant (or nuclear or older technology oil or gas-fired plants) but with a different source of heat. 

In a coal (or nuclear etc) plant what you have is a heat engine to turn an alternator. That's it. The engine being a steam turbine.

All the coal, nuclear etc is used for is to produce the steam. A nuclear reaction heats water, so does burning coal or oil. Once you're past the point of producing the steam it's the exact same process whether it's a brand new nuclear plant or a 1950's coal-fired plant.

Look at a power station and you're basically looking at a giant boiler. All the big physical parts are associated with steam production. The stacks, cooling towers, conveyor belts, mines, water supply etc. It's all just to produce steam.

So all a geothermal plant really is, is a coal-fired plant with a different means of producing the steam. And that's the really good point about it.

We can build large, controllable steam turbine plants that run 24/7. Due to scale, they are quite economic (scale is critical to this - a small coal-fired plant, and 100MW would be small, is generally uneconomic unless you're using zero cost coal mine waste to run it).

So as long as we can get steam from geothermal sources at a reasonable cost and in a reliable manner then we know that we can generate reliable and reasonably cheap electricity using it. No question beyond the point of actually getting the steam from the ground.

In places like New Zealand they have been using geothermal electricity since the 1950's. The steam flows naturally from the ground so it was no big deal to just run that through a turbine and generate electricity.

In Australia, we have the heat underground but not the water so we don't have steam flowing naturally. But, in theory at least, we ought to be able to put water down and get steam back up. It's just using the hot rock to provide the heat instead of coal or nuclear.

We could generate virtually all of our baseload (24/7) electricity this way. That's 80% of total power consumption. From a technical perspective it could go over 90% but the economics of building capital intensive geothermal plants for use only when demand is high would likely be poor just as they are for coal-fired plant used in that application (though it was done historically in the absence of an alternative).

Obviously getting the water is an issue since we're talking about power stations located in the middle of a desert. But if we're going to build a major national power system then it's really just a case of adding a pipeline from northern Australia in as part of the overall project. We're talking about tens of billions of $ anyway so a pipeline isn't likely to blow out the costs too much.

The other issue is transmission. With coal near the major cities we don't lose that much energy in transmission. It's only a few % lost (contrary to popular belief). Those losses will be larger for the longer distances associated with geothermal.

Losses in this context are an economic issue rather than a major technical or environmental problem. It's like sunlight. Nobody cares about the actual efficiency of using solar since there is plenty of sunlight. Efficiency only matters to the point that higher efficiency reduces the cost. This is very different to, say, coal where losses mean waste of a limited resource and the associated pollution due to having to use more of it. 

This is basically the same for geothermal - losses are an economic cost but if that's the only way of using geothermal energy (which it is) then it simply becomes part of the overall cost of production. We shouldn't dismiss geothermal on the grounds of, say, 20% transmission losses just because we can do coal or nuclear with lower losses since the geothermal resource itself is so much more abundant and relatively non-polluting that a bit less efficiency isn't going to matter beyond the economic issues. 

Solar thermal.

These plants are basically a hydro-electric scheme turned upside down and using hot air rather than falling water. 

In a hydro scheme you have a catchment and storage at the top, penstocks (pipelines) down the hill and turbines at the bottom. Those turbines turn an alternator just like in a coal or nuclear plant - it's only the means of getting the mechanical power to turn the alternator that is different.

A key benefit of hydro is flexibility. With nothing to heat up, it can be turned on and off quite easily. Hydro can run flat out in the afternoon and completely shut down overnight and can change output very quickly if, for example, a coal-fired plant breaks down. That flexibility is one key advantage of hydro compared to fossil fuel or nuclear.

That you have a storage of energy (water) is the other major advantage compared to, say, wind. No significant rain for months but we can still run both the Snowy and Tasmanian systems flat out when power demand is high. Obviously it needs to rain sometime, but it doesn't need to coincide with the need for power.

But hydro is limited in a country without too much rain or good dam sites (though we do have substantial undeveloped hydro potential).

So how about turning the whole thing upside down? Use the sun rather than the rain, put the storage at the bottom rather than the top, use air rather than water as the working fluid and have it rise rather than fall. But still use turbines turning alternators to produce the actual electricity.

In a physical sense this means building a giant greenhouse. That's the catchment (solar collector) and also a storage of hot air. Then build a fairly conventional "chimney" stack. Hot air rises just as water falls and the further it rises the more energy it can produce. This rush of rising hot air can then turn the turbines (located on the ground at the inlet to the stack) in essentially the same manner as water spins the hydro turbines.

And with the storage capabiltiy it will still produce some power in the middle of the night. The storage is nowhere as large as many hydro schemes so it can't produce constant power but there is storage nonetheless. So it would be possible to ensure maximum production during hot Summer afternoons or around 6pm in Winter when demand peaks. This is a massive advantage compared to wind - you never know when it's going to blow. That it works in Winter when demand peaks (noting that it is dark at that time) is a major advantage over solar panels or other solar systems without storage.

From an efficiency perspective there isn't much to gain by combining geothermal and solar thermal in the same plant. Sure, solar thermal using steam is quite possible but it is the hot air system that seems to have the cost advantage. 

So the way to do it would be to have geothermal providing the baseload. This is 80% of total power generation. Then use the available hydro for peak loads (realisically 5 - 10% depending on whether or not any additional dams are built) and use solar thermal for the intermediate loads to make up the balance.

In a technical sense it could work just as well as present power sources. Economics is the question but geothermal and solar thermal do seem to have advantages over other non-fossil fuel options both with cost and through not requiring major backup (fossil fuel) facilities since they produce power in a consistent, predictable manner. 

2. Fusion. 

I'll believe it when I see it as far as commercial power generation is concerned. I'm no expert on the specifics of fusion technology but it's had more false starts and claims of success than practically anything else.

Doing it in a lab or in an experimental plant without regard to cost or actually generating real power is one thing. Nobody's going to worry about how much power you're taking FROM the grid to make it work or how many $ you're spending if the purpose is to prove that you can make fusion happen.

But real power station needs to be producing more power than it consumes and doing so at a reasonable cost. There's just no point in generating electricity at, say, 10 times the present cost since we wouldn't be using too much of it at that price. And if we're not going to use much of it then we don't actually need fusion power. 

It's just like we wouldn't use much petrol it if cost $50 a litre. And if we used so little of it then we wouldn't be worried about future supply since the oil reserves would be adequate for thousands of years to come. It is only the scale of consumption that creates the problem. 

So either it's cheap or there's no point in having it beyond that required for essential uses such as refrigeration, communications systems, lighting etc. 

It's a national or global version of the Tasmanian experinece of the 1980's and 90's. When the cheap power sources (the Franklin dam - 60% the size of the Snowy had it been built) were ruled off-limits by the Commonwealth the result was simply an end to significant power demand growth and with it the end of population and economic growth. That happened virtually overnight and persisted until another reasonably cheap power source (importing first gas then coal-fired power from Victoria) was found. And now demand's up 35% in a decade and the economy has grown once again.

So it's not a question of energy per se. It needs to be reasonably cheap or there's no point in producing it. Tasmania had plenty of physical electricity supply from oil during the 80's and 90's but it was expensive and thus sat largely idle. 

I strongly suspect fusion will have much the same problem - too expensive to be useful except for essential uses (not industry etc) in places with no alternative. Just like oil-fired power is today.

To be continued...


----------



## Dukey (25 March 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Thanks Smurf - great detailed answers and explanations as usual...
I reckon you should write a book on this stuff!!

Seem like there is no need for nuclear here in Oz. Geo thermal certainly sounds like the winning technology to me.

I wonder then if Johnny's push for nuclear simply is a case of wanting the $$$ from U mining. ... 
I mean If we approve use of Nuclear energy here in Oz - then we as a nation can hardly take any kind of anti-nuclear, anti Uranium high ground. - Hence, soon enough, U mining will be open season and of course the economic benefits will be enormous. (And Johnny can say... 'I did that!!').
Basically - once it's done - it's done and the Nuclear issue will be relegated to history. 
except that... probably before long - every nation on earth will be armed to the teeth with diabolical weapons, just waiting for the next crackpot leader to takeover and use them at will.  

Or am I just paranoid...I mean... the quality of so called 'world leaders' today makes us all feel safe right.....

-dukey


----------



## Mofra (25 March 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



Smurf1976 said:


> To be continued...



I hope so, found that post extremely interesting.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 March 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Continued...

3. Nuclear waste.

It's pretty easy to store whilst the power station is still in operation. You just literally store it in a building on site in the same manner as chemicals, tools, spare parts or anything else would be stored. It's little different to a farmer having a shed full of fertilizer and another one where the tractors etc are stored when not in use. Easy...

HOWEVER, the big problem comes when the power station eventually closes. They don't last forever - 60 years is pretty much the limit and in practice it's usually less than that. Same with coal-fired plants and indeed all non-hydro power stations - if your first job upon leaving school is building it then odds are you'll still be around when it closes.

All of the Australian capital cities have disused coal or oil-fired power station sites, many of them within walking distance from or even within the city centre. Go to those places today and they are either derelict and literally abandoned, are empty shells used for theatres, restaurants or offices or have been flattened completely and put to some other use. And yet most of these plants were still running until at least the late 1970's, some until the late 80's.

It's the same story with the earlier non-city plants too - either demolished or likely to be soon. 

If these had been nuclear plants then we'd have had to do something with the waste once the plant closed. That's when the real trouble starts. 

We haven't had any real success with keeping ANYTHING industrial intact for long once it ceased to be used productively unless we turned it into a museum open to the public. Other than that, even where we have consciously tried, the best that has generally been achieved is to slow the rate of decay where the facility is not actually in ongoing use. And if you just completely walk away and come back 40 years later then it's usually just about fallen down (literally) at the hands of nature. Man isn't very good at building anything that doesn't require ongoing maintenance and there's a limit to how many nuclear power museums we're going to want.  

So I'm not at all confident that humans would actually safely maintain a nuclear waste store for 10,000+ years. Indeed a point could well arrive during that time when we are not ABLE to maintain it safely.

So the only sensible option IMO is to either not produce it in the first place, make it safe to abandon or put it somewhere that doesn't require ongoing human involvement to keep it safe. That basically leaves underground in the middle of nowhere as the only realistic long term disposal site if we're going to be creating hazardous nuclear waste that needs long term storage.

........................................................................................................

Off the topic of those questions, a few things have been happening lately in the Australian energy business that will influence the decision to build any nuclear plant here.

1. A 400 MW high tech coal-fired plant has been announced for Victoria. Backed with Commonwealth funding, it is expected to commence operations in 2009 (though I wouldn't be surprised if it were later since that's a rather short construction time). The plant will be built by an Australian company with Chinese financial backing.

2. The Hydro-Electric Corporation (Hydro Tasmania) has announced its intention to exit fossil fuel generation altogether (apart from small diesel plants on the Bass Strait islands). It proposes to sell 100% owned subsidiary company Bell Bay Power to Alinta thus ending its almost 40 year largely unprofitable involvement with oil and more recently gas-fired generation, something it has attempted by various means on several occasions since the second oil shock in 1979. Its last use of oil was in 2003 whilst gas-fired operations will cease in 2009 if the deal goes ahead.

Alinta plans to use the 3 existing open cycle gas turbines (total 105MW) purchsed from Hydro as part of it's peaking plant (see below) whilst the main part of Bell Bay power station, the steam turbines (total 240MW), is likely to be scrapped. 

3. Alinta has announced plans to build a high efficinecy 200MW combined cycle gas turbine plant plus 180 MW of open cycle (peaking) gas turbines in Tasmania. Plans for both are well advanced noting that Alinta already owns the Vic-Tas gas pipeline which runs well below capacity thus giving Alinta effectively zero gas transmission cost. Alinta has negotiated a 15 year gas supply contract associated with this power station development. The new power station will use around one third less fuel per unit of electricity produced compared to the existing steam turbines at Bell Bay power station.

4. It has been announced that the leaders of Russia, Iran, Qatar, Algeria and Venezuela will meet on April 9th to form a "natural gas OPEC''. This cartel will control approximately 70% of the world's natural gas reserves.

5. Another Hydro subsidiary, Roaring 40's, has announced the construction of an additional 3 wind farms in China valued at AUD240 million, doubling the company's presence in China and bringing the company's number of wind farms to 8 (one in Tasmania, one in South Australia, six in China).

...

So we've got the first actual "clean coal" plant about to be built, Hydro's running away from gas, Alinta's locking in a fixed price for 15 years and increasing the efficiency of its use whilst moves are afoot to form a gas cartel. China's involved with clean coal in Victoria and Hydro's building wind power in China.

Spot the consistent themes here? It all points towards those investing the $ wanting to be either less exposed to gas prices or out of that business altogether and developing alternatives whilst those holding the gas reserves are forming a cartel.  

As for nuclear, Alinta's plant adds to the list of power stations with fuel supply contracts or physical mines ending in the middle of the 2020's whilst the new clean coal plant aims to prove that technology as an alternative.

The electricity issue for SE Australia will come to the crunch at that point in the 2020's. Gas seems likely to be more expensive in real terms by then so it's either cleaner coal, nuclear or renewables that get built to replace Yallourn, Hazelwood and Morwell (Vic, coal-fired) and the reduced production from gas-fired plants as they presumably shift from base to peak or  intermediate load production. Given the construction lead time, that gives us no more than a decade to decide on a nuclear plant if that's to be the long term solution. If we haven't committed to it by then, we'll be building something else instead or literally sitting in the dark.

We will, of course, need new capacity for increasing demand before that time so the nuclear issue could well come earlier. But the withdrawal of over 3000MW of basload generation, literally half the baseload generation in Victoria, most certainly brings it to a head. If it doesn't happen then, it probably never will.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 March 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



Dukey said:


> I wonder then if Johnny's push for nuclear simply is a case of wanting the $$$ from U mining. ...
> I mean If we approve use of Nuclear energy here in Oz - then we as a nation can hardly take any kind of anti-nuclear, anti Uranium high ground. - Hence, soon enough, U mining will be open season and of course the economic benefits will be enormous. (And Johnny can say... 'I did that!!').
> Basically - once it's done - it's done and the Nuclear issue will be relegated to history.



It's got a lot of "now or never" about it. If the nuclear industry can't get an Australian nuclear power station built at a time of mass public concern over climate change, a need for new generating capacity across several states and a Liberal government then odds are they never will.

It's a bit like not being able to sell ice creams when it's 45 degrees. If you cant sell them at that time then you might as well give up on ever selling them. Now is the best opportunity the nuclear industry's likely to get short of an actual climate catastrophy or the earth opening up and swallowing all the coal.

Leave it another decade and the geothermal industry will likely have an operational plant and know exactly what its costs are. So too the solar thermal industry will likely prove (or otherwise) its potential by then. And we're all but certain to have a cleaner brown coal plant up and running well before then. 

All it takes is one federal Labor government and you can be pretty certain it will happen. For that matter, the states are very seriously considering mandating the use of renewable energy if Johnny does remain in office so it will probably happen anyway.

So a decade from now the nuclear industry potentially has a lot more competition than it does today. Whereas 10 years ago most weren't too worried about coal. Hence the window of opportunity the nuclear industry sees.


----------



## AnalysisParalysis (25 March 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

This may cause intelligent people's blood to boil, but couldn't nuclear waste be launched into space. There's plenty of it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 March 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



AnalysisParalysis said:


> This may cause intelligent people's blood to boil, but couldn't nuclear waste be launched into space. There's plenty of it.



That idea was around in the 1980's and was a popular current affairs question asked / answered by celebrities etc at the time.

Interviewer: "What should we do with nuclear waste"?

Actress / model: "I think blasting it into space would be a good idea".

Only problem I can see is if something goes wrong with the launch and we end up scattering the stuff over a very wide area. Fine if all goes well but an outright disaster if it doesn't - much like nuclear power itself.


----------



## macca (26 March 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

I am a bit concerned as to where we are going to be in 50 - 100 years.

I do think that either hot rocks or nuclear will be our next major supplier of electical power.

Hot rocks tech is still very new and has a lot of work to do, Nuclear is also a viable option IMO.

I think that as our space flights improve or semi space flight happen, with ultra high reusable space /aircraft type craft , sending the scrap into space will be a lot more plausible.

A cargo plane that shoots a canister of waste into space and returns to earth is really all that is needed.

We are going to run out of oil, gas and coal one day, eventually it MUST happen, we should be prepared.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (26 March 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



> I think that as our space flights improve or semi space flight happen, with ultra high reusable space /aircraft type craft , sending the scrap into space will be a lot more plausible.
> 
> A cargo plane that shoots a canister of waste into space and returns to earth is really all that is needed.
> 
> We are going to run out of oil, gas and coal one day, eventually it MUST happen, we should be prepared.




Its that sort of attitude thats puts us in the position were in now, sweep it under the carpet and let someone else clean it up when it becomes unmanageable or a problem. Shoot all our junk into space and maybe when Haileys comet passes by again it will be a radioactive tip. More research needs to be conducted on what can be done to neutralise toxic waste otherwise there are more alternatives out there that are viable. If there are other lifeforms out there do you think they want our rubbish?
O.K here is a scenario Your neighbours bin is full the tip is full, is it alright if he dumps his rubbish behind your garden shed where you cant see it or maybe at night he jumps your fence digs a hole, fills it with rubbish and covers it up without a trace, or he could research and look back through his rubbish find out why he has so much and recycle where he can. My biggest qualm is what do we do with all the toxic waste from reactors.


----------



## value investor (6 April 2007)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

I believe that a better way to start to solve the problem is energy efficiency. I know that efficient light globes will hardly put off the need for more power plants, however there are other items that can make a huge difference. I previously had a normal electric hot water system that was getting old so I decided to replace it. I looked at solar as it provides around 70% reduction in energy. But they are ugly. I then by chance found a system called solar heat pump that works like youre fridge only in reverse and for water not air ( therefore it works night/day, summer/winter, clear or cloudy). I have had this system installed now for 4 months and have been monitoring my electricity usage. Before we averaged a total household useage of 18kwh per day. Now we are averaging 11.2kwh per day simply by changing our hot water system. Just think if the government gave enough of a rebate to encourage people( they do offer a rebate but not enough to sway most people as normal systems are way cheaper in the first place, not the long run) we could probably reduce our electricity needs by at least 1/3. These systems can also be used in industry. The company I used is called quantum energy. They have a really good website (quantumenergy.com).


----------



## happyjack (26 March 2008)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

Mostly when they are talking about nuclear power they are talking Sydney\Melbourne and houses would get built up to the power station fence more viable options would be Darwin, at the old the old Rum Jungle Uranium mine, and Mount Isa/Cloncurry the old Mary K uranium mine, both areas have enough "power usage" to warrant a nuke site and both have HUGE lakes for water supply cooling towers etc to dispose of waste just drill 500ft 6 inch holes drop a 20 ft 5 inch pipe with the waste in it and cement it down there, True I have no idea how much waste a nuke plant produces but I am sure it is not that much

It is not a matter of if you support it or not we are running out of alternatives eventually it will definitely get used, the only variable is  WHEN 

Happyjack :horse:


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 March 2008)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*



happyjack said:


> Mostly when they are talking about nuclear power they are talking Sydney\Melbourne and houses would get built up to the power station fence more viable options would be Darwin, at the old the old Rum Jungle Uranium mine, and Mount Isa/Cloncurry the old Mary K uranium mine, both areas have enough "power usage" to warrant a nuke site and both have HUGE lakes for water supply cooling towers etc to dispose of waste just drill 500ft 6 inch holes drop a 20 ft 5 inch pipe with the waste in it and cement it down there, True I have no idea how much waste a nuke plant produces but I am sure it is not that much
> 
> It is not a matter of if you support it or not we are running out of alternatives eventually it will definitely get used, the only variable is  WHEN
> 
> Happyjack :horse:



You're going to need some serious new industry in Darwin and Mt Isa to make it work there. You wouldn't get a single modern reactor up to full output even supplying both at once. And a grid relying on a single unit is guaranteed to be unreliable. 

Every other state has individual power stations that are larger than either of these two grids. Nothing wrong with that, Darwin just doesn't _need_ that much power. It's not as though they're running smelters or have freezing weather up there. But small scale makes it a dud location for a nuclear plant.


----------



## Miner (3 April 2008)

*Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?*

An extract on Uranium shares - probably fits in this forum to correlate shares vs this debate.  
Extract from Eureka Report 

*Energy hunger will lift uranium 
By Tim Treadgold   
*

PORTFOLIO POINT: Increasing energy demand, particularly from China, will push up uranium prices. It’s time to reconsider a handful of stocks. 


Apart from investing in fringe financiers there was one other way to lose money very quickly last year: uranium exploration stocks. It will take a long time for second-tier finance companies to recover, but there are already signs that uranium is the resource category most likely to fire in 2008. 

The prices of the “energy resources” coal and oil offer a clue as to why uranium will stage a comeback. Both are at near-record levels as buyers scramble for supplies. Last week, without anyone seeming to notice, most of Australia’s specialist coal stocks hit 12-month share price highs. 

A second clue is evidence of investment fund activity, such as that of the Canadian-based Uranium Participation Corporation (UPC), which last month waded into the market with an order to buy 900,000 pounds of uranium because it believes the price is “at, or near, the bottom”. And that's from James Anderson, chief financial officer of UPC, which is already sitting on a stockpile of 4.5 million pounds of uranium managed by a major uranium producer, Denison Mines. 

Not everyone agrees. In the uranium market there are still as many bears as there are bulls. Deutsche Bank is one of the bears, last week talking down an immediate uranium revival – though even a report from such a well-regarded investment house contained the seeds of optimism. 

Deutsche Bank says it will not be “until the final quarter of 2008” that the spot uranium price climbs back over $US100 a pound. 

While pessimists seized on that forecast as evidence of a delayed comeback for uranium, optimists might as easily have pointed out that the $US100 price tip represents a 37% increase on the current spot market price of $US73 – and any commodity looking at a possible price rise of more than a third in less than nine months cannot be ignored. 

That’s why it’s time to dust of your uranium files and start sifting through the 250 listed stocks, discarding about 240 of them as the boom-time rubbish they always were, and focus on the handful of companies with quality assets, in jurisdictions that actually allow uranium mining. 

In Australia, that means looking at companies active in the Northern Territory or South Australia, or those with exposure to stable overseas countries such as the US, Canada, or a few southern African states such as Namibia, Malawi, or Zambia. 

Do that, and you finish up with a list headed by: 

Energy Resources of Australia, the local market leader set to benefit from an extended life at its Ranger mine in the NT and the higher uranium price. 

Paladin Resources, which is steadily increasing production at its Langer Heinrich mine in Namibia and building a second mine in Malawi. 

Equinox Minerals, which has started with copper production at its Lumwana mine in Zambia and is moving on to a separate uranium pit at the same location. 

Extract Resources, a longer shot but a company that has reported a string of excellent exploration hits in Namibia, including the latest adjacent to Rio Tinto’s big Rossing mine. 

Those four stocks cover the different segments of the market. ERA is a world-class producer; Paladin an emerging producer; Equinox a quality company with a proven uranium resource in the ground; and Extract is a pure explorer, but one with a better chance of delivering than most of its competitors. 



Sifting out the few quality uranium stocks from the over-supply of chancers is not easy, but is more important than this time last year when the faintest click of a scintillometer (Geiger Counter) sent a stock into orbit. It is highly unlikely that those conditions of rampant, mindless, speculation will return. 

The next phase of the uranium story will see a clear line drawn between companies with some hope of survival, discovery and development, and the rest of the pack. Many of the smaller explorers are likely to abandon the uranium search in search of easier targets. 

The principal problem with uranium last year was that it rocketed up too far, too fast – driven largely by inflated estimates of future demand, and a shortfall in supply because of flooding at big mines in Canada and Australia. Those physical factors, combined with debt-fuelled hedge fund buying pushed the uranium price to a peak of $US137 a pound. 

By the middle of last year it was obvious that a lot of the trading in the physical uranium market, and in uranium companies, was debt-driven. When the credit crunch hit the US there was an exodus from both markets with the result that the uranium price collapsed and speculative stocks collapsed even more sharply. 

From its peak of $US137 a pound of uranium has fallen by 46.7%. Explorers that were once highly rated have fallen much further. Toro Energy, which is closely associated with Oxiana Resources, has fallen 84% from a peak price last year of $1.36 to recent trades around 21.5 ¢. Marathon is down 77% from a peak of $6.68 to $1.51, and Deep Yellow is down 65% from 71 ¢ to 25 ¢. 

The four stocks suggested as worth including in a second-generation uranium portfolio have held up better. ERA has fallen 27.8% from its peak of $27.35 to $19.70. Paladin has dropped by 54% from $10.80 to $4.90. Equinox has benefited from its copper operations to slide 26.6% lower from $7.05 to $5.17, and Extract has done very well as a pure explorer, falling 28.4% from $1.48 to $1.06. 

The questions every investor should be asking are: (a) is the worst over? and (b*) is uranium a serious investment class given its track record of 30 years in the doldrums and one summer of irrational exuberance? *
The answer to (a) is that the jury remains out. Natural enthusiasts such as Charlie Aitken can see the bottom. Others can’t. But, what can safely be said about the next 12 months on the market is that it will be better than the past 12 for the simple reason that it is hard to imagine it being any worse. 

Accept that the green shoots of an overall recovery are starting to sprout as the worst excesses of the boom are transferred into the hands of insolvency practitioners and then consider the case for uranium. This is strong ground because much of the action in the next phase of the resources market will be energy-related. Quite simply, China wants it, and it is prepared to pay. 



Oil has been the star in the energy sector, and will continue to shine as the reality of “peak oil” becomes obvious to the few remaining bears who believe that the oil price will somehow decline significantly. To do that a series of major new oilfields must be found, or thirsty countries such as the US and China must cut demand. 

Coal is a more accurate proxy for uranium because both have electricity production as their major uses. That’s why last week’s action among coal stocks was a useful pointer to a recovery in the uranium market. 

Macarthur Coal reached a record $13.79 last week, compared with a 12-month low of $4.65. Gloucester Coal hit a peak of $9.79, up from a low of $3.63, and Felix Resources sold as high as $12.71 compared with a low of $4.52. 

Prices for those coal stocks have slipped back this week, but the message from last week’s trading was crystal clear: global demand for all forms of energy is high, and rising, and uranium is a critical part of future energy supply, which is why countries such as the US and Britain are reviving their nuclear power plans. 

If there is a major difference between coal and uranium it lies in the fact that the world is already hooked on coal, despite the protests of the environmental movement. Coal-fired power stations are much easier to build than nuclear reactors, and there is a much deeper market for coal, which is also easier to transport. 

But, over time, uranium will claw its way back into a market dominated by coal. The worldwide push to cut carbon emissions is a prime factor underpinning the revival of interest in nuclear power, which has seen a sharp increase in the number of planned reactors. 

Resource Capital Research estimates that over the past 12 months 93 new reactors have been added to the worldwide inventory of planned and proposed nuclear power plants. There are now 315 reactors in the planning stage, compared with 222 a year ago, and just 153 reactors being planned 18 months ago. 

If all the planned reactors are built it will represent an effective doubling in uranium demand, given that most of the next-generation reactors are substantially bigger. 

*As with all resource-linked investment concepts, the country likely to do most for uranium demand (and price) is China. It currently has 11 active reactors, and 116 in planned and/or proposed. category. **

This time around the uranium market will be different to the 2007 boom. It is unlikely that there will be a burst of speculative hype. It is more likely that the market will rise steadily with quality stocks leading the way.   
*


----------



## fiftyeight (5 June 2013)

Pretty much what I have been arguing to my friends and family, although a lot more eloquently 

http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/j...-toll-none-dead-none-sick-20130604-2nomz.html


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 June 2013)

But how much public money has been poured into dealing with the problems in Japan?

If TEPCO shareholders had to foot the entire bill, including paying hourly wages to displaced persons until such time as they can safely return home, then that would see the end of commercial nuclear power in an instant.

Why use a technology that costs a fortune? Why not pump the same public subsidies into large scale integrated wind, solar and hydro which can provide firm, dispatchable power with higher reliability than nuclear?


----------



## qldfrog (5 June 2013)

as well as the usual scary radiation, etc effect, the fact is I have not yet been convinced that any reactor is economically viable:
fuel not that abondant (as per oil) so what will be done once the easy picks are taken,and the fuel price rises?
and even with cheap/free uranium, the cutting into small pieces and store into molden glass of the millions of tonnes of a nuclear plant is never ever factored in the equation;
Has anyone heard of a single nuclear plant being decomissionned AND cleaned up?
From what I know, the lifetime get extended until the plant basically collapse and then is stopped..and left as is  with vague promises

it is usually running like that:
a private business get the initial investment, the running cost/profit (and there isprofit at this stage)and the state has to end up cleaning the mess after;
Most of nuclear plants were built as an excuse to get fuel for the bomb:
USSR, USA, FRANCE, UK, and the electricity was just a way to sell the lot to the public.
The economics do not stack up, but I would not mind going for nuclear plant not based on uranium but on thorium.
This got stopped in the US when the bomb was required.
India is maybe working on this again if I remember well


----------



## CanOz (5 June 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> But how much public money has been poured into dealing with the problems in Japan?
> 
> If TEPCO shareholders had to foot the entire bill, including paying hourly wages to displaced persons until such time as they can safely return home, then that would see the end of commercial nuclear power in an instant.
> 
> Why use a technology that costs a fortune? Why not pump the same public subsidies into large scale integrated wind, solar and hydro which can provide firm, dispatchable power with higher reliability than nuclear?




Nuclear energy is extortionately expensive, especially if you include the cleanup cost in the, what seems to be, inevitable accident....or two. They just refurbished the Point LePreau Nuclear Facility in my home province at a cost of $2.3 Billion....

My question is though Smurf, what would that equivalent get you in alternative energy in MW?

I agree that in concept it sounds like the right thing to do.

CanOz


----------



## fiftyeight (5 June 2013)

There are long term costs associated with coal/fossil fuels as well. Are any of these passed on to coal energy producers? Increased rates of cancer in populations associated in mining and burning of coal? Cost of smog?

I am hesitant in bringing up the cost of global warming and the cost of fighting wars for oil, but 

Our energy needs will not decrease not matter how efficient we become. Add to this Asia's growing middle class. Fossil fuels will run out. Green energy cannot currently support our ever increasing demand for energy, currently. Im sure people will say otherwise.

I say all of this as somebody who voted Green last election and a massive supporter of green tech (one of my first posts was in the GRK thread as I have been interested in this company long before I was interested in investing)

Fiftyeight


----------



## CanOz (5 June 2013)

I don't think you need to be "green" to be thinking of alternative energies, i reckon if the TRUE cost were accounted for, the decision would be a straight forward business case.

CanOz


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 June 2013)

fiftyeight said:


> Fossil fuels will run out. Green energy cannot currently support our ever increasing demand for energy, currently. Im sure people will say otherwise.



In a purely technical sense it can indeed be done with "green" energy. It's just an engineering issue which, in most parts of the world, is solvable.

What the alternatives can't do however is do it as cheaply as fossil fuels. Indeed the alternatives are too expensive economically to be workable in many cases. But then the same is true of nuclear power so that's no solution either.

In terms of the actual resources, most estimates show coal to be plentiful whereas uranium is comparatively scarce. That is assuming, of course, that we can use either of those without totally ruining the ecology.

Estimates vary slightly, but in terms of worldwide electricity generation here's where it comes from:

Coal =41%
Gas = 21%
Hydro = 16%
Nuclear = 13%
Oil = 6%
Others (mostly wind) = 3%

There are huge regional variations in that both internationally and even within the same country. For example, Australia relies very heavily on coal with most of the rest from gas and hydro plus a bit of wind. Oil use is trivial, and nuclear is zero. 

But even within Australia there are big differences. For example, Victoria is over 80% from coal, Tasmania's electricity is primarily hydro, and the NT is almost totally reliant on gas.


----------



## fiftyeight (7 June 2013)

Thanks for the detailed replys smurf.

Using current technology, political environment and lets assume man made global warming, what would your solution be for one the major cities in OZ say Perth for example?


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 June 2013)

fiftyeight said:


> Using current technology, political environment and lets assume man made global warming, what would your solution be for one the major cities in OZ say Perth for example?



I'll give you a bigger example than Perth....

Technically, it's entirely feasible to run the whole of Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas and SA (which already have an interconnected grid) fully on renewable energy. It would be technically easier and cheaper if PNG were added into the system, but is possible without it.

For that to work basically relies on a few key points:

1. Large scale wind generation in SA, Vic and Tasmania (including the Bass Strait islands) as a bulk energy source.

2. Large scale solar thermal, and solar photovoltaic, generation primarily in Qld and NSW with smaller scale use in Vic and SA.

3. Hydro in Tas, NSW, PNG and to a lesser extent Qld and Vic as the storage medium and a major energy source in its' own right.

4. An upgraded transmission network linking it all together.

Technically it's all very doable although it's not cost competitive under current circumstances with coal or gas (but the gap is steadily reducing). 

As for the politics, well that's the hard part. It's no secret that there is organised opposition to any attempt at building any of this and that won't likely go away. So technically it's doable but politically it's easier to stick with coal and gas rather than do battle with greens.

In terms of how a fully renewable system as I've described would "look", the answer is that about 30% of the total generation would be hydro, about 15% solar and the other 55% would mostly be from wind (much of it stabilised and re-dispatched via hydro). If dry geothermal can be made to work then it represents an alternative to much of the wind and hydro although that's a technical uncertainty at this stage.

And yes, we do have enough suitable sites for hydro and wind to make this work at least in a technical (as distinct from political) sense.

In practice, I think a few bits and pieces will be built but none of the major parties have what it takes to get us to a fully renewable system. It goes against the ideology of all of them - Labor is joined at the hip with coal mining unions etc, Liberals focus on short term profit and don't like the inherent central planning in such a scheme meanwhile Greens will never support the very thing the party was formed specifically to oppose (dams). So you'd be pretty safe to invest in coal or gas for quite a while yet.


----------



## chops_a_must (7 June 2013)

CanOz said:


> I don't think you need to be "green" to be thinking of alternative energies, i reckon if the TRUE cost were accounted for, the decision would be a straight forward business case.
> 
> CanOz




Agreed.

It's one of the reasons utility prices are going up - less users of the system, and increased inefficiency.

Centralised power producers for my mind will be in a prolonged down trend until they completely upturn their business model. Because any of the old tricks, exacerbate the original problem.


----------



## fiftyeight (8 June 2013)

I did not realise wind could provide so much energy. It is spoken about these days as "old technology". Any rough ideas on on the size of the land that would needed.

It must be very inefficient pumping water up a hill as a storage method, cant believe that's the best we have come up with haha 

So this system is technically viable but not cost competitive (yet) or politically viable. What in your opinion is the best place to start? For example if Gillard or Abott came out with something to take to the election, what would make you think, well at least we are on the correct path? Might be a carbon policy change, further R&D, the beginnings of infrastructure, aything? or are you happy with the current set up?

Not very well written but I hope you get the gist of what I am asking.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 June 2013)

fiftyeight said:


> I did not realise wind could provide so much energy. It is spoken about these days as "old technology". Any rough ideas on on the size of the land that would needed.



All the options we have are either "old technology" or are far too expensive.

Nuclear power is a 1950's technology in commercial use, based on ideas from the 1940's. It's an old technology too, just like the others. 

Wind and solar are the only "new" forms of large scale generation, in that they are the only things being used on a significant scale today which haven't been around for at least 40 years in this country. Everything else is either too small and not capable of scaling up, still at the R&D stage, or too expensive.



> It must be very inefficient pumping water up a hill as a storage method, cant believe that's the best we have come up with haha




It is not the technically best method but it's the cheapest and most proven. Hydro is inherently efficient by its' very nature, and pumped storage returns to the grid at least 70% of the energy taken out for storage (and it can be pushed a bit higher than that).

The oldest working power station on a major grid in Australia is the Lake Margaret hydro-electric scheme in Tasmania. But, and here's the point, this "working museum" complete with its' 99 year old equipment is still more than twice as efficient technically as a modern nuclear plant. And needless to say, a modern hydro turbine and alternator set is more efficient than one built a century ago.

There are certainly other options for storing energy as heat, chemically (batteries), compressed air and the like. But at present, large scale hydro pumped storage is generally the cheapest when we're talking about storing enough energy to run entire cities etc. The other technologies are certainly getting better however.

There are lots of sites in NSW and Tas where such things could be built, and a fair amount of engineering investigation has actually been done into them at various times. But there is at present no real point in building them, and of course doing so would mean a battle since greens and dams don't mix well.  



> So this system is technically viable but not cost competitive (yet) or politically viable. What in your opinion is the best place to start? For example if Gillard or Abott came out with something to take to the election, what would make you think, well at least we are on the correct path? Might be a carbon policy change, further R&D, the beginnings of infrastructure, aything? or are you happy with the current set up?




Public and political acceptance that (1) it needs to happen and (2) that renewables are a legitimate option which can be made to work reliably and (3) there will be economic and environmental trade offs in doing it - there's no such thing as zero environmental impact. 

Get that in place and then it's fairly straightforward to make a transition gradually over a period of time. But it won't happen as long as a protest group springs up every time someone tries to build a wind farm, dam or even just a transmission line. 

In terms of actual physical infrastructure, the places to start are:

1. Development of hydro generation in PNG with a cable link to Queensland. Origin Energy has been pursuing this. In the absence of large scale geothermal, this represents the single largest "magic bullet" for renewable energy supply in Australia.

2. Additional transmission capacity between SA and Vic / NSW. There have been various proposals, but thus far the actual capacity is still fairly limited particularly in the direction of exporting energy from SA (capacity being higher in the opposite direction).

3. The TasWind project on King Island is effectively the first stage of what eventually becomes a baseload source to supply 600 MW into Victoria. Hydro Tas is pursuing it, although there's well organised opposition from the usual suspects who will quite likely kill the idea.

4. Get on and prove (or otherwise) hot dry rocks as a generating technology. The saga of this one is pretty much following the steps of the brown coal industry a century ago - it's taking far too long due to unwillingness to take on the technical risk. There's a need for someone to take charge and get the job done - if that's government then so be it but it needs to happen and happen quickly.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 June 2013)

For the record, supply into the main grid (Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas, SA) literally right now is from:

Black coal =53%
Brown coal = 25%
Gas = 11%
Hydro = 8%
Wind = 3%

This doesn't count distributed generation such as solar panels on houses etc however.

Looking at a time of higher demand, for example last Thursday night at 6pm, it was:

Black coal = 50%
Brown coal = 20%
Hydro = 12%
Gas = 12%
Wind = 6%

So basically we have a system based on coal, with some hydro and gas plus a bit of wind. That's what we actually have at present.


----------



## fiftyeight (8 June 2013)

Just had a read of your posts smurf.

Just about to head out, but I think you have convinced me. Will ponder this over the weekend and do some more research of my own.

Can I ask how you are so informed?


----------



## sptrawler (8 June 2013)

fiftyeight said:


> Just had a read of your posts smurf.
> 
> Just about to head out, but I think you have convinced me. Will ponder this over the weekend and do some more research of my own.
> 
> Can I ask how you are so informed?





Because it is his job, just feel privileged your getting information that not many in Aust are privy to.

There is nothing better than acurate info, to develop an informed understanding of the real issues. 
Not just reacting to spin and garbage pumped out by the media


----------



## sydboy007 (11 June 2013)

I'd support nucelear power in Australia ONLY if we start building along term storage facility at the same time as construction on the first power station occurs.

Fukushima was so bad not because of a core meltdown, but because the storage ponds lost most of the water covering spent fuel rods that had been stored near the reactor for decades.  Similar issues occur in the USA.

I'd also like the Govt to work with other countries on the best way to reprocess spent fuel rods so as to remove the issue of storage all together.

Once they have achieved that, then we can get down to the dirty politics of where to build them - might be good to start highlighting all the health issues of those living near coal fired power stations and compare that to those living near nuclear reactors.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 June 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Once they have achieved that, then we can get down to the dirty politics of where to build them - might be good to start highlighting all the health issues of those living near coal fired power stations and compare that to those living near nuclear reactors.



There are certainly health issues associated with coal-fired generation, although to some extent there is hype there as well as fact. 

Many people probably aren't aware that it was only in the 1980's that we stopped running coal-fired generation within walking distance of the city centers of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. So whilst there are issues with coal, it's been cleaned up and moved out a lot compared to how it used to be. Melbourne had some heavy oil-fired plant in operation until the early 1980's too.

Apart from emissions from burning the fuel, all (well, at least most) of those old plants are full of asbestos too. The stuff was pretty much everywhere in some of them. Needless to say, this is a major driver of statistics which show shorter than average life expectancy amongst power station workers and, in at least one well documented case that I'm aware of, the entire region where power generation was for many years by far the largest employer.


----------



## basilio (12 June 2013)

*Really appreciate your professional input  into this discussion Smurf*.  The analysis of how Australia could relatively easily be serviced with renewable energy was excellent.

Unfortunately your comments highlight just how removed our current system is from rational and responsible decision making to simply making as much money as possible. It would be good (fantastic even) to inject some  rationality into the public  conversation  on moving Australia to a renewable energy path.

Cheers


----------



## basilio (12 June 2013)

Regarding the fate of power workers who were exposed to asbestos.

I'm pretty sure (very sure ) that the thousands of workers in the Yallorn Power stations were at risk from asbestos.  I also understand  that these workers have been dispersed  and relevant records lost.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 June 2013)

Fundamentally, the concept of a renewable system is pretty much the same as agriculture.

You have an intermittent energy supply (food), which is stored (gain silos etc) then made available as required.

Or you have an intermittent energy supply (wind, solar radiation, rainfall etc) which is stored (as water pumped up a hill) then made available as required.

Provided that it is not over loaded, that is there is sufficient production established to meet demand, and the storage is large enough to ride out the variations, then there is no reason why it cannot be reliable.

Nuclear? In short, I just don't see the point of switching from a relatively abundant but still finite natural resource (coal) to one that is comparatively scarce, difficult to handle and which involves ongoing dependence on overseas technology and companies. If it was cheap and there was an unlimited supply of uranium then maybe, but it's not cheap and it's not unlimited.


----------



## sptrawler (12 June 2013)

basilio said:


> Regarding the fate of power workers who were exposed to asbestos.
> 
> I'm pretty sure (very sure ) that the thousands of workers in the Yallorn Power stations were at risk from asbestos.  I also understand  that these workers have been dispersed  and relevant records lost.




It worries me, I worked in Power Stations from the early 1970's through to 2011. It will be interesting to see how mine and my workmates health evolves in our later years.
I am in contact with several of them and the only ones that appear to be suffering health problems due to asbestos, appear to be ex navy. Time will tell if that ratio changes.

Back to the 70's, asbestos lagging was knocked off pipes, it was like walking through a snow storm. 
No plastic wrapping, dust masks, or screening then, thinking back it is a bit frightening.
But hey what did anyone know, especially a 15 year old kid.

Anyway back to nuclear power.


----------



## fiftyeight (2 July 2013)

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/          (Wind Storm)

Thought this might be relevant as smurf had mentioned this as a solution. 

If wind towers in a community struggling economically kicks up this much of a stink regarding wind towers, nuclear will never go ahead in Australia.

Fiftyeight


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 July 2013)

TasWind (the King Island wind farm project referred to) is a 600 MW wind farm and associated cable feeding directly to Victoria. A notable feature is that the average output would be 45% of peak capacity since King Island has fairly consistent wind, that being the reason to build it there in the first place.

Technically, a possible future extension of the project is a cable running south to Tasmania, enabling integration with the existing hydro-electric system thus creating the possibility of it becoming a firm (non-intermittent) source of supply. This is not proposed at this stage, but is a technically possible future addition. 

Construction cost of the project is estimated at $2 billion. If it goes ahead, construction is planned for 2017 - 2019. The project website is www.taswind.com.au

The project is highly contentious and a proper opinion poll with a formal voting process has been run by independent consultants on King Island. The result is 59% support for the wind farm. Needless to say, opponents aren't giving up without a fight.

Apart from the location on King Island and both being Hydro Tasmania projects, TasWind is separate to the King Island Renewable Energy Integration Project (KIREIP) which is here http://www.kingislandrenewableenergy.com.au


----------



## sptrawler (2 July 2013)

It would appear W.A is moving away from coal, as more coal fired steam plant is scheduled to shut down in the near future.
It will leave the State with a big exposure and dependence on gas and renewables.


----------



## basilio (17 June 2019)

There is currently a HBO program on Chernobyi.  Quite horrific - but apparently it just scratches the surface. This story is well worth a read.  The reporter went to the scene.

I think its worth revisiting because the question of what happens if nuclear power goes wrong is so catastrophic  it should rule out any further efforts in that direction.  At the same time we still have people like Andrew Bolt who continue to say the effects of Chernoby are over rated.

*The truth about Chernobyl? I saw it with my own eyes… *
Kim Willsher reported on the world’s worst nuclear disaster from the Soviet Union. HBO’s TV version only scratches the surface, she says
 The remains of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant after the explosion. Photograph: AP 

There is a line in the television series _Chernobyl_ that comes as no surprise to those of us who reported on the 1986 nuclear disaster in what was the Soviet Union – but that still has the power to shock:

*“The official position of the state is that global nuclear catastrophe is not possible in the Soviet Union.”*

It was not possible, so in the days and months after the world’s worst such accident, on 26 April, the Kremlin kept up its pretence. It dissembled, deceived and lied. I began investigating Chernobyl in the late 1980s after Ukrainian friends insisted authorities in the USSR were covering up the extent of the human tragedy of those – many of them children – contaminated by radiation when the nuclear plant’s Reactor 4 exploded, blasting a cloud of poisonous fallout across the USSR and a large swathe of Europe.

When photographer John Downing and I first visited, the Soviet Union, then on its last political legs, was still in denial about what happened despite president Mikhail Gorbachev’s new era of _glasnost_.

Sun 16 Jun 2019 09.00 BST   Last modified on Sun 16 Jun 2019 09.06 BST 
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...yl-was-even-worse-than-tv-series-kim-willsher


----------



## SirRumpole (17 June 2019)

Interesting story about thorium reactors.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energy...clear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/#7de041bf1d80


----------



## qldfrog (17 June 2019)

thorium..
if one day the world want to be serious about CO2 emission...or could it be that it is not actually the problem?Anyway good on India who may soon be the leader there
That could also be a way for australia to get base load...at a low health risk and with easy to get opinion approval


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 June 2019)

If you look at nuclear power around the world then one thing stands out and that's the connection with socialism.

Free market economies tend to either not have it at all or it's a relatively minor source of energy. Of the supposed 10 most economically free countries (according to a Google search a short time ago), Switzerland with its 39% nuclear power share is the highest user followed by Hong Kong with 23%. It's 19% in the UK, 15% in Canada and zero in Singapore, NZ, Australia, Ireland, Estonia and the UAE although the latter does have one under construction.

Go somewhere more socialist if you want to find more enthusiasm for nukes.

It has some positives, I'm not opposed as a concept although I do note the downsides, but one things's for sure - it ain't cheap hence being more common in places with greater government involvement in the economy.


----------



## sptrawler (17 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> It has some positives, I'm not opposed as a concept although I do note the downsides, but one things's for sure - it ain't cheap hence being more common in places with greater government involvement in the economy.



If the push to clean energy maintains its current trajectory, money isn't going to be a consideration and IMO nuclear is the only "clean" energy with enough grunt to replace fossil fuel.
Even if the decision is to replace coal with gas, it will only be a stop gap, as the gas will be depleted quite quickly.
Renewables will take way too long to install and something is required in the near future, as the coal generating plant is falling to bits.
So in reality the options are limited. Just my opinion


----------



## PZ99 (18 June 2019)

Without playing the NIMBY card I'm against it purely on prohibitive running costs. When this thread started the narrative from the Govt of the day was to increase our power prices from fossil fuels with an ETS and make nuclear a viable clean alternative. I don't think it's viable now; it takes years to build just one and that's after the unwieldy process of 3 tier OZ Govt involvement.

During the life of this thread we've changed prime ministers 6 times mostly due to energy policy and all we got is a muppet show. Add nuclear to the debate and it becomes a Jurassic Park


----------



## qldfrog (18 June 2019)

I would be ok with thorium, not conventional uranium fission
I come from a heavy nuclear power user country, and the only reason we have nuclear power there is the bomb..add the accent
Otherwise, it is economically a disaster.
You just have to visit La Hague and see a pool where a straight face engineer shows you a refrigerated pool of high level waste telling you you it needs to be maintained like that a few thousand years and then we can pack it in glass to realise the economy or realism is not there...
And i am an engineer 
As for super generator concepts,i always remember our professor of nuclear physics, definitively not a greeny, telling us he would never ever live in the vincinity of one due to the inherent unstability..
At its worst meltdown, a std nuclear reactor melts and sinks slowly by gravity, any explosion is just a side effect, it does not become a bomb
So overall no thanks but give thorium or fusion a go


----------



## Dona Ferentes (2 August 2020)

The *United Arab Emirates *has launched operations at the Arab world's* first nuclear power plant*, on the Gulf coast just east of Qatar.

Nuclear fission has begun in one of four reactors at the Barakah plant, which uses South Korean technology. The plant was expected to open in 2017 but the start-up was repeatedly delayed because of various safety issues.

The oil-rich UAE wants Barakah to meet a quarter of its energy needs, as it adopts more sustainable energy sources. The UAE is also investing heavily in solar power - a plentiful energy source in the Gulf. Some energy experts question the logic of Barakah - which means "blessing" in Arabic. They argue that solar power is cleaner, cheaper and makes more sense in a region plagued by political tensions and terrorism.

The Barakah plant was developed by the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC) and Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO). Energy will be generated by 1,400-megawatt pressurised water reactors, designed in South Korea, called APR-1400.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-53619916

_(no such place as the Arab world, btw_)


----------



## Barry2020 (2 August 2020)

Dona Ferentes said:


> The *United Arab Emirates *has launched operations at the Arab world's* first nuclear power plant*, on the Gulf coast just east of Qatar.
> 
> Nuclear fission has begun in one of four reactors at the Barakah plant, which uses South Korean technology. The plant was expected to open in 2017 but the start-up was repeatedly delayed because of various safety issues.
> 
> ...




Dona Kebab posting in the General Chat. What has the world come to? Cya tomorrow sweetheart


----------



## Dona Ferentes (2 August 2020)

Barry2020 said:


> Dona Kebab posting in the General Chat. What has the world come to? Cya tomorrow sweetheart



Swipe left. Right.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (3 August 2020)

Dona Ferentes said:


> The *United Arab Emirates *has launched operations at the Arab world's* first nuclear power plant*, on the Gulf coast just east of Qatar.
> 
> Nuclear fission has begun in one of four reactors at the Barakah plant, which uses South Korean technology. The plant was expected to open in 2017 but the start-up was repeatedly delayed because of various safety issues.
> 
> ...





Concentrated Solar is still quite expensive. We can look at the Ouarzazate Solar Power Station in Morocco, which according to Wikipedia, has cost US$2.5 billion dollars just for 510 MW of nameplate capacity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouarzazate_Solar_Power_Station

Nuclear is much cheaper than this if we look at power equivalence: 

So capital cost for 1GW nuclear reactor is around ~US$6 billion according to South Australia's Royal Commission. We need to multiply solar installed capacity by 3 to compensate for capacity factor for it to be a rough equivalent to nuclear. As such: looking at Ouarzazate; a rough equivalent to a 1 GW nuclear reactor would cost ~US15 billion (510 MW x 2 = 1020 MW : 1020 MW x 3 = 3060 MW : 3060 MW costs ~US15 billion dollars @ 510 MW per US$2.5 billion dollars)

I support rooftop solar for residential and commercial property.


----------



## sptrawler (3 August 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> Concentrated Solar is still quite expensive. We can look at the Ouarzazate Solar Power Station in Morocco, which according to Wikipedia, has cost US$2.5 billion dollars just for 510 MW of nameplate capacity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouarzazate_Solar_Power_Station
> 
> Nuclear is much cheaper than this if we look at power equivalence:
> 
> ...



I'm not for or against nuclear, I just try to apply logics to the problem with the main focus being a reliable grid and 'clean' generation.

But another aspect of the nuclear argument is, the nuclear plant will last about 50-60years, whereas the solar panels last about 15-25 years in which time they will require replacing.
Not only that, but not only will the solar farms we put in now need replacing, but twice as many will be required, for increased population and industry. So eventually the environmental impact will have to be addressed, the increased deployment of solar panels and storage, has to eventually become an issue IMO.

It would be nice to think solar/wind can replace at call generation, whether that proves feasible, will in time become obvious one way or another.
If it can, that will be great, if it can't nuclear will be the goto energy source IMO.
At the moment it is all speculation and over time that will change to cold hard reality.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (3 August 2020)

sptrawler said:


> I'm not for or against nuclear, I just try to apply logics to the problem with the main focus being a reliable grid and 'clean' generation.
> 
> But another aspect of the nuclear argument is, the nuclear plant will last about 50-60years, whereas the solar panels last about 15-25 years in which time they will require replacing.
> Not only that, but not only will the solar farms we put in now need replacing, but twice as many will be required, for increased population and industry. So eventually the environmental impact will have to be addressed, the increased deployment of solar panels and storage, has to eventually become an issue IMO.
> ...




I support nuclear to be a part of the energy mix. Just as I support rooftop solar for residential and commercial properties. Just as I support large scale biogas anaerobic digestion production from green/garden waste and sewage waste, which can be used for gas powerplant generation. Just as I support general municipal waste incineration to produce electricity as opposed to landfill.

Being reliant on just a few energy sources will create systemic energy supply vulnerabilities. We need a well diversified energy mix to build and sustain energy supply resilience in Australia.


----------



## sptrawler (3 August 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> I support nuclear to be a part of the energy mix. Just as I support rooftop solar for residential and commercial properties. Just as I support large scale biogas anaerobic digestion production from green/garden waste and sewage waste, which can be used for gas powerplant generation.
> 
> Being reliant on just a few energy sources will create systemic energy supply vulnerabilities.



IMO that is the only way a sensible outcome can happen, if any suitable energy source is banned from the mix, as you say it could leave us in a very awkward position.
It is better to include it as an option in the planning phase, than to realise you need it but have done no planning surrounding its implementation.
For example, it may be better to preserve one or more of the existing coal station sites, as a possible reactor site in the future.
Rather than demolish and remove all site services, when they are decommissioned, the adjoining mines could well be utilised as reserve cooling water, switch yards, cooling towers etc.
Usually we just demolish everything in the name of public liability, or to make a political statement.
Just my opinion.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (3 August 2020)

sptrawler said:


> IMO that is the only way a sensible outcome can happen, if any suitable energy source is banned from the mix, as you say it could leave us in a very awkward position.
> It is better to include it as an option in the planning phase, than to realise you need it but have done no planning surrounding its implementation.
> For example, it may be better to preserve one or more of the existing coal station sites, as a possible reactor site in the future.
> Rather than demolish and remove all site services, when they are decommissioned, the adjoining mines could well be utilised as reserve cooling water, switch yards, cooling towers etc.
> ...




Totally agree; it is prudent to keep all energy options on the table, rather than running an ideological narrative that compromises the energy security of the nation.

A scenario would be that if we are heavily reliant on rooftop solar in Sydney; and we get a once in a decade hail storm that smashes all the solar panels.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (3 August 2020)

sptrawler said:


> IMO that is the only way a sensible outcome can happen, if any suitable energy source is banned from the mix, as you say it could leave us in a very awkward position.
> It is better to include it as an option in the planning phase, than to realise you need it but have done no planning surrounding its implementation.
> For example, it may be better to preserve one or more of the existing coal station sites, as a possible reactor site in the future.
> Rather than demolish and remove all site services, when they are decommissioned, the adjoining mines could well be utilised as reserve cooling water, switch yards, cooling towers etc.
> ...




Continuing on with the solar panel hail storm scenario: have our government even contemplated or explored this scenario? I doubt it. Sure the hail storm threat to solar panels can be mitigated with a hail storm solar panel protection covering that deploys before the storm; however is this a mandatory requirement for all rooftop solar panels to have this security feature in Sydney? I doubt it.

I think our government has an enormous amount of work to do before we let the 100% solar, wind, hydro narrative take full control over our nation's energy direction.


----------



## sptrawler (3 August 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> Continuing on with the solar panel hail storm scenario: have our government even contemplated or explored this scenario? I doubt it. Sure the hail storm threat to solar panels can be mitigated with a hail storm solar panel protection covering that deploys before the storm; however is this a mandatory requirement for all rooftop solar panels to have this security feature in Sydney? I doubt it.
> 
> I think our government has an enormous amount of work to do before we let the 100% solar, wind, hydro narrative take full control over our nation's energy direction.



With the grid having large generators spread over five States, the amount of lost generation through a localised hailstorm would in all probability be negligible, but it is one of the reasons that so much extra capacity has to be deployed over on call generation.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (3 August 2020)

sptrawler said:


> With the grid having large generators spread over five States, the amount of lost generation through a localised hailstorm would in all probability be negligible, but it is one of the reasons that so much extra capacity has to be deployed over on call generation.




At the moment it is negligible: however in 20 years time if Sydney has ~25% of electricity supply coming from rooftop solar and a large hail storm hits Sydney; it will cause enormous problems for months at least. Unless all the rooftop solar panels have a security feature that deploys when a storm is approaching.

Hail storm in Canberra that damaged rooftop solar panels:







https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-21/solar-panels-damaged-1/11886316?nw=0


----------



## sptrawler (3 August 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> At the moment it is negligible: however in 20 years time if Sydney has ~25% of electricity supply coming from rooftop solar and a large hail storm hits Sydney; it will cause enormous problems for months at least. Unless all the rooftop solar panels have a security feature that deploys when a storm is approaching.
> 
> Hail storm in Canberra that damaged rooftop solar panels:
> 
> ...




Sydney wont be 25% of solar generation IMO, the majority of generation will be in massive GW solar/wind farms in South Australia, Northern Victoria, Western and North Western NSW and Western Queensland.
But as you say a storm will have an effect, that is why storage is so important.
It is a massive issue, that not many can actually comprehend.
Just my opinion.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (3 August 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Sydney wont be 25% of solar generation IMO, the majority of generation will be in massive GW solar/wind farms in South Australia, Northern Victoria, Western and North Western NSW and Western Queensland.
> But as you say a storm will have an effect, that is why storage is so important.
> It is a massive issue, that not many can actually comprehend.
> Just my opinion.




Well AEMO are claiming a ~200% increase in distributed energy resources (rooftop solar) which will increase supply from 7% up to 22% by 2040 for total consumption. Don't think AEMO have factored in a hail storm that wipes out up to 22% of a city's electricity supply


----------



## sptrawler (3 August 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> Well AEMO are claiming a ~200% increase in distributed energy resources (rooftop solar) which will increase supply from 7% up to 22% by 2040 for total consumption. Don't think AEMO have factored in a hail storm that wipes out up to 22% of a city's electricity supply



Are you sure that 22% figure isn't the rooftop solar for the whole grid? Not just Sydney.
If it is the whole grid, a hail storm may hit a small section, but a hail storm from Adelaide to Cairns is highly unlikely.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (3 August 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Are you sure that 22% figure isn't the rooftop solar for the whole grid? Not just Sydney.
> If it is the whole grid, a hail storm may hit a small section, but a hail storm from Adelaide to Cairns is highly unlikely.




That's the whole grid I assume. The percentage may even be higher in our large cities like Sydney, Newcastle, Brisbane and Melbourne; because that is where the population density and significant consumption is.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 August 2020)

sptrawler said:


> the solar panels last about 15-25 years



The commercial operators aren't buying junk.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (3 August 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Are you sure that 22% figure isn't the rooftop solar for the whole grid? Not just Sydney.
> If it is the whole grid, a hail storm may hit a small section, but a hail storm from Adelaide to Cairns is highly unlikely.




This tool provides the current PV solar density and capacity by region (https://pv-map.apvi.org.au/historical#9/-33.8567/151.1087).

So say a massive hail storm hits the entire greater Sydney in 20 years and we have shutdown our centralised power stations. So my solution is to have all rooftop solar panel installations with a rooftop solar protection covering that will deploy when a hail storm is imminent:


----------



## sptrawler (3 August 2020)

I would think all the possible scenarios are aired, before the grid is exposed to full renewable penetration and fossil fueled backup is retired.
Distribution modelling is pretty technical, also with electricity it is such a requirement in our lives, that nothing will be left to chance. I think the S.A incident and the Bass Strait link would have driven that point home to the politicians.
With electricity if we lose it, people lose their water, their sewage, the ability to pump petrol, shops can't run their fridges, apartments loose lighting, lifts and air conditioning,traffic lights not working, hospitals and those with back up generators only have the ability for basic services, your telephone service fails. In 2020 we are absolutely dependent on a functioning grid.
If the grid had an extended outage, it would have a 1,000 times bigger affect on Australia than covid 19 IMO.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (3 August 2020)

sptrawler said:


> I would think all the possible scenarios are aired, before the grid is exposed to full renewable penetration and fossil fueled backup is retired.
> Distribution modelling is pretty technical, also with electricity it is such a requirement in our lives, that nothing will be left to chance. I think the S.A incident and the Bass Strait link would have driven that point home to the politicians.
> With electricity if we lose it, people lose their water, their sewage, the ability to pump petrol, shops can't run their fridges, apartments loose lighting, lifts and air conditioning,traffic lights not working, hospitals and those with back up generators only have the ability for basic services, your telephone service fails. In 2020 we are absolutely dependent on a functioning grid.
> If the grid had an extended outage, it would have a 1,000 times bigger affect on Australia than covid 19 IMO.




Well let's hope that our leaders and advisors on energy, over the coming decades, don't become too complacent with shutting down power stations without first forward planning for such scenarios.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 August 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> Well let's hope that our leaders and advisors on energy, over the coming decades, don't become too complacent with shutting down power stations without first forward planning for such scenarios.




NSW, Victoria and SA are generally seen as the problem states, which from a technical perspective is very true, and it's no coincidence that those are the states which, for practical purposes, gave away decision making over what gets built and what gets shut.

The state governments in those states ultimately have very little say in the matter since they don't own any significant generation. Who does own it is a combination of ASX listed companies, private non-listed companies and other governments. None of those take direction from those state governments. Short of compulsory acquisition of assets they can't actually force anyone to do anything, at best they can try and persuade.

Bottom line is these companies have made it abundantly clear that they aren't interested in further investment into coal and they've also shown no interest in nuclear. What they are keen on is wind, solar, gas and small pumped hydro schemes.

Beyond that, anything else really comes down to what the Queensland, Australian and Tasmanian governments do.

Queensland owns CS Energy, Stanwell Corporation and CleanCo which all generate electricity physically in Queensland but collectively are a significant source of supply to NSW.

Tasmania owns Hydro Tasmania and its associated entities Entura, Momentum Energy and AETV as well as other minor ones eg the Lofty Ranges Power joint venture. Operations comprise physical generation in Tas and on a very limited scale SA, retail in Qld, NSW, Vic, SA plus engineering and project development internationally (including every Australian state and territory).

HT proposes to develop new capacity to supply Victoria in the form of 2 x 750 MW cables across Bass Strait and associated pumped storage and other generation in Tasmania, including wind generation owned by others. That project is collectively known for branding purposes as "Battery of the Nation". It's no secret that ultimately this project could be duplicated - what's proposed isn't the limit, it's just what's proposed at this time.

The Australian Government owns Snowy Hydro which operates physical generation in NSW, Vic and SA that being the Snowy scheme in NSW and on the NSW-Vic border plus an assortment of gas (NSW and Vic) and diesel (SA) facilities. Snowy also owns retailers Red Energy and Lumo as well as Direct Connect, a multi-utility signup facility (which of course points customers straight to Red or Lumo for electricity).

Snowy proposes to develop pumped storage in NSW with a specific project known as Snowy 2.0 which in practice is a single 2000 MW pumped storage facility. Snowy also has options for further similar developments.

*As for nuclear, the problem is who would build it?*

It needs to be someone willing to commit to a project which spans close to a century from initiation to decommissioning, plus whatever is done with the waste after that, and which is not expected to return a profit. Thus far none of the private, ASX listed or government owned companies involved in the industry are showing any real interest.

Realistically, the only way I can see it happening is if the Australian, Queensland, NSW or Victorian government sets up a new entity for the specific purpose of building and running it or does a deal to subsidise a privately built facility.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (3 August 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> NSW, Victoria and SA are generally seen as the problem states, which from a technical perspective is very true, and it's no coincidence that those are the states which, for practical purposes, gave away decision making over what gets built and what gets shut.
> 
> The state governments in those states ultimately have very little say in the matter since they don't own any significant generation. Who does own it is a combination of ASX listed companies, private non-listed companies and other governments. None of those take direction from those state governments. Short of compulsory acquisition of assets they can't actually force anyone to do anything, at best they can try and persuade.
> 
> ...




I support rooftop solar: however my concern about rooftop solar is what percentage of electrical supply capacity would it provide in say 20 years, and how reliant would the NEM be on the rooftop solar that is produced in a city like Sydney; leading to what the risks are for this energy supply to be wiped out in a few hours by a hail storm and how would it impact the grid. A worse scenario that is unlikely, but possible, is a super cell hail storm that smashes most of the Australian East Coast. My solution was for the solar panels to have a solar panel protection covering mechanism that could be deployed when such events compromised the energy source. If rooftop solar will not be considered to be a major contributor to the NEM, then leave the energy assets vulnerable.

As for nuclear: if we are serious then the Australian federal government will need to establish a commercial nuclear entity and get the states onboard. Then list the entity on the ASX; and deposit the proceeds into the Australian Future Fund (https://www.futurefund.gov.au/)


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 August 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> What they are keen on is wind, solar, gas and small pumped hydro schemes.



I should have included batteries in that statement along with the small pumped hydros.

Interest in large pumped hydro, that which will carry the system through multiple consecutive days without much wind or sun, is limited to the government-owned entities however.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 August 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> leading to what the risks are for this energy supply to be wiped out in a few hours by a hail storm and how would it impact the grid. A worse scenario that is unlikely, but possible, is a super cell hail storm that smashes most of the Australian East Coast.



I don't have an answer in terms of how to protect them physically but I certainly do share a concern that having a large portion of them in one place is a high risk.

That's already a concern in SA under normal conditions of weather variation. SA does have the basic problem that the vast majority of the population lives in one city and with a third of all homes having solar, plus quite a few larger systems on warehouses and so on, it only needs clouds to rapidly move across Adelaide and solar output drops like a rock.

Somewhere like Queensland or Tasmania with their more dispersed populations have a natural advantage in that no one city or town is dominant. Brisbane is 45% of Queensland's population and Hobart is about 40% of Tasmania's population. In contrast 78% of South Australians and Victorians live in Adelaide and Melbourne respectively. Victoria and SA are thus far more exposed to a single weather event either affecting solar production (eg sudden clouds moving rapidly over the city) or by causing actual damage (hail on panels, wind bringing lines down, etc).

A question that needs to be answered is how reliable does society want it to be?

99.9% reliable is a lot cheaper than 99.99% for example. Once you get close to perfection, trying to actually make it perfect becomes hugely expensive for that last little bit. 

The answer to that in itself is an input to answering how best to go about it all.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (3 August 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> I don't have an answer in terms of how to protect them physically but I certainly do share a concern that having a large portion of them in one place is a high risk.
> 
> That's already a concern in SA under normal conditions of weather variation. SA does have the basic problem that the vast majority of the population lives in one city and with a third of all homes having solar, plus quite a few larger systems on warehouses and so on, it only needs clouds to rapidly move across Adelaide and solar output drops like a rock.
> 
> ...




If NSW are going to follow this path, with rooftop solar ~25% of electrical capacity by 2040; then I think the NSW government better start thinking about some sort of mandatory protection mechanism for solar panels in a hail storm environment, at least in Greater Sydney, Wollongong and Newcastle:




https://energy.nsw.gov.au/media/1546/download


----------



## basilio (4 August 2020)

Has this thread gone off track ? It's supposed to be about support for Nuclear Power and somehow it has veered off into the weeds discussing what could happen if a supercell hail storm overnight destroys all the solar panels in Sydney.

I suppose that has happened to somehow compare the option of a "safe reliable Nuclear Power station"  with the unreliability of widespread solar cells that could be trashed in moment.

In fact of course there is already much research on the the effect of hailstones on solar cells.  We know that solar cells are made from toughed glass and will resist  a hailstorm of golf ball size hail. That is system requirements.

There was an excellent research paper in the Netherlands which explored this issue in depth.  As climate Change intensifies it will need to be addressed but frankly the damage a supercell storm would do to everything else in the community would way out stretch the acknowledged but repairable damage to solar panels.

On a cost benefit basis it might make sense to protect panels with extra poly carbonate covers. OIr come up with solar panels that are simpler or moire resistant to such damage. But as Smurf has pointed out there is always a cost benefit  side to ensuring totl power security.

*The vulnerability of solar panels to hail. Climate-KIC project: *
*‘1 million near-zero energy homes in 2023*
https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfil...ulnerability_of_solar_panels_to_hail_risk.pdf


Solar panels and hail

*Solar panels* are designed to withstand weather, including *hail* and thunderstorms. However, just like your car windscreen can sometimes get damaged by extreme *hail*, the same can happen to your *panels*. Solar panels are made from tempered glass and as such will resist hail stones on most occasions. In order to pass Australian standards, they must be able to withstand the direct impact of hail stones with a diameter of 35mm or approximately the size of a golf ball.
https://www.aef.com.au/news/solar/2019/02/hail-damage-solar-panel-inspection-guide/


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (4 August 2020)

basilio said:


> Has this thread gone off track ? It's supposed to be about support for Nuclear Power and somehow it has veered off into the weeds discussing what could happen if a supercell hail storm overnight destroys all the solar panels in Sydney.
> 
> I suppose that has happened to somehow compare the option of a "safe reliable Nuclear Power station"  with the unreliability of widespread solar cells that could be trashed in moment.
> 
> ...





These solar panels don't look like they resist hail too well:





This was from the hailstorm in Canberra recently.

You fail to comprehend the serious risk in a scenario where NSW has ~25% of installed electrical capacity from rooftop solar; and a hailstorm wipes out the vast majority of that capacity in a day from a hail storm. It would be like multiple power stations being shutdown in a single day.

I provided a solution to mitigate the risk. Tempered glass will not withstand a golf ball or grapefruit size hail impact at 100mph.

Please try to engage in sensible discussion Basilio.


----------



## basilio (4 August 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> Please try to engage in sensible discussion Basilio.




Droll indeed Chronos.  Clearly haven't lost your touch have you ? 

I offered a detailed research study on exactly the issue you raised and also  pointed out that solar panels are designed to withstand quite severe gold ball size hail impacts which would represent most (but not all) thunderstorms

But obviously there have been more intense hail storms which have damaged panels here and overseas

What can be done ? Yes one could put protection on solar panels. (I did make that suggestion I believe)
But then maybe that is why we have insurance. But this is still just an over bloated "problem" that warrants some thought and action but nowhere near the level you are banging on about.

Bye..  
---------------------

And a final observation. 
If a Supercell thunderstorm enveloped all of Sydney and Newcastle and was destructive enough to destroy all those solar panels - the damage to the rest of the city would be catastrophic. Lets put this in perspective shall we ?


----------



## SirRumpole (4 August 2020)

I suggest we just wait for fusion reactors.

Shouldn't be more than 20 years away.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

I support moderator reactor heat that can be issued for heating a steel factory. Or for heating water for desalination process. or a thermal reactor that can be used for high volume steam electrolysis hydrogen production.
Windmills and solar panels repurposed to make hydrogen and carbon capture can be an option.
Or even a windmill far repurposed directly to pump water mechanically drive the pumps for reverse osmosis. 100% mechanical efficiency. No electrical motors and transformers and substation.just get that big ass drive into the factory.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (5 August 2020)

basilio said:


> Droll indeed Chronos.  Clearly haven't lost your touch have you ?
> 
> I offered a detailed research study on exactly the issue you raised and also  pointed out that solar panels are designed to withstand quite severe gold ball size hail impacts which would represent most (but not all) thunderstorms
> 
> ...





*ERRRRRRRRRRR, NO!

I MADE THE SUGGESTION TO PROTECT THE SOLAR PANELS, NOT YOU!

I WAS THE PERSON WHO HAD THE VISION AND FORESIGHT, NOT YOU!*

I am the person who has the exceptional and extraordinary abilities in strategy and risk management, not you.

The solar panels will not withstand a super cell hail storm, that is obvious and clear. Our government must act now to mitigate the risk and *my solution is the best way to go about it.*

So stop being a pest and go do something constructive with your time, rather than attempting to claim ideas and solutions that are quite frankly beyond your intellectual capacity.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 August 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> *
> I WAS THE PERSON WHO HAD THE VISION AND FORESIGHT, NOT YOU!*
> I am the person who has the exceptional and extraordinary abilities in strategy and risk management, not you.
> *my solution is the best way to go about it.*
> So stop being a pest and go do something constructive with your time, rather than attempting to claim ideas and solutions that are quite frankly beyond your intellectual capacity.



Ok.

I call.

Show us your cards.

gg


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> I suggest we just wait for fusion reactors.
> 
> Shouldn't be more than 20 years away.




The problem is wi5 fusion it’s too far away, there too big and way too expensive. All these factors are not the answer.  Modular reactors are cheep, small, are multipurpose and can be retro fitted into a existing infrastructure such as decommissioned coal for power stations.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (5 August 2020)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Ok.
> 
> I call.
> 
> ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 August 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> *
> I WAS THE PERSON WHO HAD THE VISION AND FORESIGHT, NOT YOU!*
> I am the person who has the exceptional and extraordinary abilities in strategy and risk management, not you.
> *my solution is the best way to go about it.*
> So stop being a pest and go do something constructive with your time, rather than attempting to claim ideas and solutions that are quite frankly beyond your intellectual capacity.






Garpal Gumnut said:


> Ok.
> I call.
> Show us your cards.
> gg




These are extraordinary claims about yourself and a slur on a fellow ASF Member. 

Please provide your full CV with references to validate your statements about your history and ability.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> The problem is wi5 fusion it’s too far away, there too big and way too expensive. All these factors are not the answer.  Modular reactors are cheep, small, are multipurpose and can be retro fitted into a existing infrastructure such as decommissioned coal for power stations.



Yes the SMR's will be available a lot sooner than fusion and as you say will suit Australia's relatively small load grid.
Whether they will be required, is yet to be seen and that will depend a lot on the storage capacity available for renewables and the amount committed to IMO.
Renewable generation isn't an issue, it is cheap to install and run, installing storage doesn't have the same commercial return so nowhere near as attractive. The unfortunate part is twice as much storage is required, than generation.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (5 August 2020)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> These are extraordinary claims about yourself and a slur on a fellow ASF Member.
> 
> Please provide your full CV with references to validate your statements about your history and ability.
> 
> gg



Actually the slur was against me and you're defending a person that is claiming what is not theirs to claim.

If this behaviour continues there will be no more ideas or solutions posted on here by me.

Your first and final warning.

I have the quals and experience. I don't need to post it on here. An intelligent person would know that I am qualified and experienced, just from my posts.

Go back and review them all.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (5 August 2020)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> These are extraordinary claims about yourself and a slur on a fellow ASF Member.
> 
> Please provide your full CV with references to validate your statements about your history and ability.
> 
> gg





If you can answer this 1st year uni mechanical engineering question correctly; I will post parts of my qualifications for you. Measurements are 4m, 1.2m and .8m with 85kg, if you can read the numbers well enough. If you can't answer it correctly, I suggest you and Basilio need to be taught some manners:


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (5 August 2020)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> These are extraordinary claims about yourself and a slur on a fellow ASF Member.
> 
> Please provide your full CV with references to validate your statements about your history and ability.
> 
> gg




You will also need these given inputs to solve the problem: D1 is 2.677m and angle at B is 26.57 Degrees:





I will give yourself and Basilio 3 hours from now to respond, at which point this contract will expire.

I will post the correct answer with my workings later tonight Sydney time.

If you fail to respond correctly with your workings; then I will consider accepting your apology, as yours and Basilio's challenge is unsuccessful.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Yes the SMR's will be available a lot sooner than fusion and as you say will suit Australia's relatively small load grid.
> Whether they will be required, is yet to be seen and that will depend a lot on the storage capacity available for renewables and the amount committed to IMO.
> Renewable generation isn't an issue, it is cheap to install and run, installing storage doesn't have the same commercial return so nowhere near as attractive. The unfortunate part is twice as much storage is required, than generation.




Your right storage is the problem. Unfortunately batteries are not the answer in my view.
The answer is liquid storage not batteries. Carbon Engineering has already shown you can create carbon capture fuels using renewable energy and getting efficient results. 
An energy in a liquid form can be transferred, stored and used way more efficient then batteries. 
Look at formula E, there answer for a refuel is jumping into a new car lol. That is not the answer. 
I believe they even charge there cars up at the track using synthetic fuels in there generators.


----------



## sptrawler (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> Your right storage is the problem. Unfortunately batteries are not the answer in my view.
> The answer is liquid storage not batteries. Carbon Engineering has already shown you can create carbon capture fuels using renewable energy and getting efficient results.
> An energy in a liquid form can be transferred, stored and used way more efficient then batteries.
> Look at formula E, there answer for a refuel is jumping into a new car lol. That is not the answer.
> I believe they even charge there cars up at the track using synthetic fuels in there generators.



Yes it is a huge subject and covers many aspects, we have a good thread on electric cars and another on the future of power generation and storage, there are some very knowledgeable posters who contribute.
It would be great if you joined in.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

Another question I have is,
Being that Australia basically has an abundant supply of natural gas, dose anyone Evan see a future for nuclear energy in Australia?
Can nuclear energy and natural gas coexist, or will they be a competitive market?
I’m in no way to put my hands up for a gen4 reactor installed in my neighbourhood anytime soon lol, but places like Adelaide where water levels get extremely low, and power supplies are at critical levels. Having nuclear thermal desalination would be game changing. 
Farm produce would be cheeper. We can fertilise the land much faster and in wider areas then before. Australia farms be much greener.  These are the things renewables can not deliver.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 August 2020)

@Chronos-Plutus

You are an @rsehole and on permanent ignore.

Next time we meet I'll stick that triangle up you where the sun don't shine and I'll put my request again and I dare say I'll get my answer.

You are all hat and no herd.

gg


----------



## rederob (5 August 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> You will also need these given inputs to solve the problem: D1 is 2.677m and angle at B is 26.57 Degrees:
> View attachment 106947
> 
> 
> ...



Theta could have been derived from your first drawing.
A better test would have been to calculate the diameter of a hailstone in millimetres that could shatter a standard PV panel.

On topic, given that solar/wind+storage is significantly cheaper than nuclear, what would cause Australia to adopt it?  That bastion of the free world, the USA, cannot find a commercial case for it.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

When you say nuclear what kind of nuclear are you suggesting ?


----------



## rederob (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> When you say nuclear what kind of nuclear are you suggesting ?



*Any *type that start with "nu" and end "clear."


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

What fuel are you suggesting? What reactor design? 
What vessel?


----------



## sptrawler (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> Another question I have is,
> Being that Australia basically has an abundant supply of natural gas, dose anyone Evan see a future for nuclear energy in Australia?
> Can nuclear energy and natural gas coexist, or will they be a competitive market?
> I’m in no way to put my hands up for a gen4 reactor installed in my neighbourhood anytime soon lol, but places like Adelaide where water levels get extremely low, and power supplies are at critical levels. Having nuclear thermal desalination would be game changing.
> Farm produce would be cheeper. We can fertilise the land much faster and in wider areas then before. Australia farms be much greener.  These are the things renewables can not deliver.



The thing is for humans to survive on earth, we can't just keep using up natural resources at a faster and faster rate eventually you run out even if you recycle you never get 100% recovery.
The other factor of course is also emissions, which at the moment is the flavour of the month, we can't just keep polluting the atmosphere because it is convenient.
So getting to your question regarding gas, at the moment the big push is emissions causing warming and data would indicate that coal generation is a large contributor, so alternative sources of generation are being used to replace it.
In a perfect world renewables would be used to replace it, in reality to replace it in a timely manner gas will also be used, however gas gives off emissions also just not the same quantity.
So in a matter of time, gas will become tomorrows coal and it also will have to be phased out.
By then hopefully renewables have advanced to the point, that they can effectively service the load, if they can't then nuclear has to become an option as it all progresses it will become obvious one way or the other.
The other issue with the trajectory we are going presently, it involves greater use of non renewable materials e.g nickel, cobalt, lithium and the associated residual waste.
So that will drive the agenda toward hydrogen, which will require more energy to produce it, but has less waste, negligible emissions and is more abundant than raw material minerals.
So IMO and it is only my opinion, currently the only clean energy known to man that can produce enough energy from a relatively small footprint is nuclear, so eventually I think it will be inevitable.
But it wont be in the forseable future, it will be when renewables and their limits have been reached. Who knows, by then there may be another form of energy, we can only speculate with what is currently known.
But as I say it is only my opinion and there are many on here who will say i'm a dick head, but I've been called worse.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (5 August 2020)

rederob said:


> Theta could have been derived from your first drawing.
> A better test would have been to calculate the diameter of a hailstone in millimetres that could shatter a standard PV panel.
> 
> On topic, given that solar/wind+storage is significantly cheaper than nuclear, what would cause Australia to adopt it?  That bastion of the free world, the USA, cannot find a commercial case for it.




I didn't want to make it too difficult for them 

Now for Basilio's tempered glass


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (5 August 2020)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> @Chronos-Plutus
> 
> You are an @rsehole and on permanent ignore.
> 
> ...




OK thanks for showing me that you're not worthy to see my quals and experience.

Here is the answer:


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

Kinda agree and disagree. I believe in partnership natural gas and modular reactors have a huge potential.
Natural gas provides far easier and cleaner ways of hydrogen extraction and other gasses. It plays a huge part in carbon capture.
Everything is a resource no matter what it is even the sun is a resource. Carbon engineering has proven effective methods of capturing a ton of Co2 for less then $100 using natural gas. And in return producing synthetic fuels. 
That’s my gas point of view but the reactors can be put in where heat is needed. Not electrical energy it self.
Take tommago aluminium in Newcastle for example. Been told it takes up a 3rd of Newcastle’s power supply lol. That’s where you want a reactor. 100% thermal efficient. Instead of using a power plant to melt steal. Why not have a reactor to do the job and have the factory off grid ? To make heat out of electricity is just straight up ridiculous. 
We’re talking about turning heat into electricity then back to heat lol what a waste of efficiency. 
Put the reactor in the factory.


----------



## rederob (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> What fuel are you suggesting? What reactor design?
> What vessel?



You choose.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

Oh where would I start lol

My favourite so far is the pebble bed reactor.
A reactor that reprocess its fuel and refuels it self I’d have to say that’s my fav.
But I don’t think there is one reactor to all solutions.
What ever reactor design as long as it’s an efficient in a way that there is as little waste as possible. Either be u238 or u233 
As long as it can be reprocess and refuelled keeping the high level waste to a minimum.
And that’s the real problem with nuclear energy. The waste. 
And that’s where modular reactors come in. 
It’s like a battery. Ones your done with replace it, it goes back to the factory to be reprocessed in a controlled production line that is more cost effective. Ones it’s done you got a fully fuel reactor on the back of a flat bed ready to be delivered on site


----------



## rederob (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> Oh where would I start lol



With metrics.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

rederob said:


> With metrics.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

rederob said:


> With metrics.




Not sure if you know how nuclear energy works. It it’s not that simple using “metrics” lol
But if your serious about where I get my research 
Start here 
View attachment 6300-comparison-fuel-cycles.pdf

Very good read for anyone who’s interested


----------



## sptrawler (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> Kinda agree and disagree. I believe in partnership natural gas and modular reactors have a huge potential.
> Natural gas provides far easier and cleaner ways of hydrogen extraction and other gasses. It plays a huge part in carbon capture.
> Everything is a resource no matter what it is even the sun is a resource. Carbon engineering has proven effective methods of capturing a ton of Co2 for less then $100 using natural gas. And in return producing synthetic fuels.
> That’s my gas point of view but the reactors can be put in where heat is needed. Not electrical energy it self.
> ...



Agree and you make good points, however known gas reserves at current consumption rates I believe is 40 years, so as demand for generation goes up so will gas consumption.
Say for arguments sake we have 200 years of gas, it isn't much in the scheme of things.
With regard nuclear, it is usually used to make steam, which as you say can be used to operate a process, that can be generating electricity or steam as used in many industrial processes.
Whether the cost ever becomes effective for process steam might be debatable, when it may be cheaper to use geothermal, I guess it boils down to how much you can get for your end product from the process.
That is where nuclear power generation over the long term isn't too bad, if they use supercritical boilers and ultra supercritical boilers, the efficiency becomes quite high. Technology is certainly moving along.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_water_reactor


----------



## rederob (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> Not sure if you know how nuclear energy works. It it’s not that simple using “metrics” lol



I have followed nuclear energy for over 20 years.
Can you show it offers a better alternative to renewables?
That's the crux.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

Lol I think your miss informed about the amount of gas Australia has lol
At the moment we have at this stage officially over 800 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in Australia scoring to shall gas and my sources tell me it’s way more then Can almost Argue the fact we have an unlimited amount of gas in Australia. 
There is definitely a future with gas, and the gov is gearing up for it and so are the oil companies. Gas is the new oil for I see. But it has to be paired with a nuclear family.


----------



## sptrawler (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> Lol I think your miss informed about the amount of gas Australia has lol
> At the moment we have at this stage officially over 800 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in Australia scoring to shall gas and my sources tell me it’s way more then Can almost Argue the fact we have an unlimited amount of gas in Australia.
> There is definitely a future with gas, and the gov is gearing up for it and so are the oil companies. Gas is the new oil for I see. But it has to be paired with a nuclear family.



Fair enough, interesting points.
When I googled known Australian gas reserves, it came up with this:
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/EnergyResources#:~:text=Australia is rich in natural,of production at current rates.
From the article:
_*Australia is* rich in natural *gas* on a per capita basis, possessing 2.0% of the world's *proven gas reserves*, but only 0.3% of the world's population. Economically demonstrated resources amount to 147,000 petajoules (PJ) of natural *gas*, *sufficient for around 60 years of production at* *current rates*_.
_This figure includes both conventional and coal seam gas (CSG). Significant further resources of unconventional gas (including CSG and shale gas) have been inferred by geologists; Geoscience Australia speculates these potential resources could yield an additional 753,000 PJ of gas. Although this represents a large additional gas resource, only a fraction of this will be economically recoverable in the foreseeable future_.

So I thought I was being very open minded when I said 200 years, my appologies, maybe you could update google and the Australian Government?


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

rederob said:


> I have followed nuclear energy for over 20 years.
> Can you show it offers a better alternative to renewables?
> That's the crux.




Well for one it’s what powers the universe so that it self should be something to inspire us to harness.
Your got your head wrong if you think it’s back or white when it comes to energy production. Your not following what iv been saying in the past posts.
There is no one solution to energy production. 

For example your not gonna put a bunch of solar panels on a steal mill ok. It’s not gonna work. Your not going to get the thermal efficiency. So forget it you need big power. But let’s think differently. If it’s just heat we need why not just use heat? That’s where a small modular reactor comes in place. Off grid steal production.
Now solar can be use for all types energy production not just electricity you know? How about solar panels that produce hydrogen ? 

https://reneweconomy.com.au/austral...r-direct-solar-to-hydrogen-solar-cells-63927/
This is just the tip if the ice burg 

Now you have solar panels that maybe more effective. 
Or what about a windmill for water desalination or even hydrogen production. All of these prowess will take the load off the grid that would of been originally made into electricity. 

I’m sick of the name alternatives. Because it means nothing. There is no energy alternative.

The bottom line is. Your question is the problem we face today. I’m so sick of the argument and winging should we go this should we go that . 

Look it’s this simple. 

Pick a number say 500
Australia need 500GWh’s base load for the year 

I don’t care how you make it


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> At the moment we have at this stage officially over 800 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in Australia



Deduct from that all gas which has been committed to export.

Deduct from what's left all gas which has an extraction cost that's uncompetitive as a source of electricity in a global market. If we can't compete globally then, under present economic circumstances, the demand (and our living standards) diminish greatly. That's a point the power industry is all too aware of at least among some participants - they're in a global market like it or not, manufacturers can and will go elsewhere if prices here aren't competitive.

It's much the same with all natural resources even renewable ones - only a portion of what exists can be used at a price that's affordable. The rest is either technically problematic or costs too much economically and/or environmentally to be of any real value.


----------



## rederob (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> Well for one it’s what powers the universe so that it self should be something to inspire us to harness.
> Your got your head wrong if you think it’s back or white when it comes to energy production. Your not following what iv been saying in the past posts.
> There is no one solution to energy production.
> 
> ...



The bottom line is that you cannot do other than spin your wheels on information available to anyone.
Nuclear is currently a poor option for Australia, and our solar and wind infrastructure is still in its infancy.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)




----------



## Smurf1976 (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> There is no one solution to energy production.



Agreed definitely.

The days of reliance on a single resource in any given location are gone and they're not coming back anytime soon that seems pretty certain.



Muckman said:


> I’m so sick of the argument and winging should we go this should we go that




The big problem in my view is that it has become somewhat "religious" in nature. People become rusted on to a view that x is the solution and aren't interested in hearing about anything else.

Looking at what the companies involved in the industry are actually doing however, well I'll simply observe that none of the major players see any one technology as being the total solution. It's only those who are advocating one specific project who tend to focus on that one technology, and even most of those won't claim it's a total solution they'll just say it's the bit they're interested in building, owning and/or operating.

Those who do believe in a single solution are, in general, politicians or others approaching it from an ideological perspective rather than a practical one. 

Just my observation as someone who's been aware of all this far longer than most. Most of the companies have objectively looked at all sorts of things and have similar conclusions that the future involves an assortment of technologies not one single approach.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

rederob said:


> The bottom line is that you cannot do other than spin your wheels on information available to anyone.
> Nuclear is currently a poor option for Australia, and our solar and wind infrastructure is still in its infancy.









You can’t compare it as an option because it’s not evan an option lol
How can you put a price on something that don’t have a price tag ?

SMR’s are not on the market and there is no price for them yet, but there is already high demand for them.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> View attachment 106965



Now how much of that can be extracted at competitive prices?

That's what's actually useful in practice.

Same with anything. You can find gold and still go broke if every $2000 worth of gold costs you $5000 to mine it. etc.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

Yeh ya right. But surly if there is an abundance of it, there should be no reason for any other competition such as oil or any other fossil fuel ? The more the cheeper right ? 
If the public knows the real amount we have, then there is no excuse for companies to jack up energy prices.


----------



## sptrawler (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> View attachment 106965



Nice advertising brochure, I tend to defer to Government or official information, but everyone to their own.
As smurf said and the article I posted said, there is only a certain amount that is economically viable.
Also by your blog posting, if there is enough gas to supply 1m people for 16,000 years, how many years can it supply 100m people?
Which is less than half the population of Indonesia.
The other thing I mentioned was, the usage rate will increase as coal is phased out, so the time it will last in all reality should decrease.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

You don’t trust APPEA?


----------



## rederob (5 August 2020)

[/QUOTE]You can’t compare it as an option because it’s not evan an option lol
How can you put a price on something that don’t ha e a price tag lol?
SMR’s are not on the market and there is no price for them yet but there is already high demand for them.[/QUOTE]If you cannot show that nuclear can compete with solar energy, which now costs less than $30/MWh in many major economies, then you do not have a viable option.


----------



## sptrawler (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> You don’t trust APPEA?



I don't know what the point is you are trying to make, you seem to be arguing there is limitless amounts of viable gas, when I said there are say 200 years worth.
Government figures say 60 years at current extraction rates, I'm guessing extraction methods will improve and prices will rise making more viable over time.
Even by your AAPEA post there isn't that much by their statement of 1m people for 16,000 years, that really isn't that much.
I'll put it another way, there are 512 cities in the world with more than 1m people, so the gas would last them 16,000/512=31.2 years.
But there are cities with a lot lot more than 1m people, so like I said it really isn't that much.
What is it you are actually arguing?


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

Lol not arguing at all lol I’m just asking do you think there findings are bogus or factual? 
 My friend thinks they are a bit old believes it’s a bit higher then that.


----------



## sptrawler (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> Lol not arguing at all lol I’m just asking do you think there findings are bogus or factual?
> My friend thinks they are a bit old believes it’s a bit higher then that.



Like I said, I expect extraction methods to improve and as easily recovered reserves deplete the price will go up and make more difficult extraction viable.
But 200 years is a lot longer than what is currently expected, and in reality isn't a long time in human history, so gas isn't a long term solution it is more of a stop gap for the removal of coal. IMO
The other point that not many people take into consideration is, with our current known technologies, gas is one of the most versatile fuels we have.
To be wasting it through a gas turbine, to make electricity, may well prove to be the biggest mistake humans make IMO.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (5 August 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Like I said, I expect extraction methods to improve and as easily recovered reserves deplete the price will go up and make more difficult extraction viable.
> But 200 years is a lot longer than what is currently expected, and in reality isn't a long time in human history, so gas isn't a long term solution it is more of a stop gap for the removal of coal. IMO
> The other point that not many people take into consideration is, with our current known technologies, gas is one of the most versatile fuels we have.
> To be wasting it through a gas turbine, to make electricity, may well prove to be the biggest mistake humans make IMO.




If we want hydrogen; we need nuclear for the large scale electrolysis. Even using an enormous tidal barrage powerplant in North WA to produce hydrogen might be feasible.

Methane reforming (mixing gas and high pressure steam to produce hydrogen) is a waste of energy and time in my opinion.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

100% 
Gas is versatile. To use it for electricity only is just lazy and profiteering. 
Responsible use such as synthetic fuel and carbon capture and other recycling processes is the a more useful option for gas. 
 But still, we need more power, we need more water. Wind and solar is not going to provide us the future demands and reliably. We need large stable amounts of power. Wind and solar can not provide a large base load for the nation. I just can’t see that happening. 
You can’t put all put energy needs on the climate.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> If we want hydrogen; we need nuclear for the large scale electrolysis. Even using an enormous tidal barrage powerplant in North WA to produce hydrogen might be feasible.
> 
> Methane reforming (mixing gas and high pressure steam to produce hydrogen) is a waste of energy and time in my opinion.




According to sunfire, there steam electrolysis efficiency is at 80% 
With an input power of 150 kWel the module produces 40 Nm³ per hour of hydrogen. It can also be reversed into fuel cell mode with an output power of 30 kWel.

I’d say that’s more then ok lol

You have a windmill to run a 80% efficiency creating non stop hydrogen, I see that a far better advantage the. Storing it in a battery. 


https://www.sunfire.de/en/company/n...trolysis-module-to-salzgitter-flachstahl-gmbh


https://www.thechemicalengineer.com...rld-s-most-powerful-steam-electrolysis-plant/


----------



## sptrawler (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> 100%
> Gas is versatile. To use it for electricity only is just lazy and profiteering.
> Responsible use such as synthetic fuel and carbon capture and other recycling processes is the a more useful option for gas.
> But still, we need more power, we need more water. Wind and solar is not going to provide us the future demands and reliably. We need large stable amounts of power. Wind and solar can not provide a large base load for the nation. I just can’t see that happening.
> You can’t put all put energy needs on the climate.



I agree, the demands we are going to put on 'clean energy' in the immediate future, to supplying domestic needs, industrial needs, transport needs etc, IMO will make it impossible for solar/wind to supply it on a global scale.
How that is explained to the vocal minority is the problem, because when they find out it will become a marching in the streets and looting event, so there is no point in crossing that bridge untill we have to.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> do you think there findings are bogus or factual?



Resources versus reserves.

As just one example to illustrate the point and since I'm familiar with the figures, coal in Tasmania.

There's about 370 million tonnes of known coal resources in Tas. Not huge but significant given the local population.

About 100 million tonnes of that are technically problematic to recover. When the seam's 20 - 30cm thick and it's under a huge amount of rock and so on that's a real problem.

About 120 million tonnes is very low quality. The only plausible use of it would be in a power station next to the mine but every examination of that one, and there have been quite a few, concluded that it was uneconomic. That being so, it would likely proceed only if there really was no other option.

96 million tonnes is under a National Park.

That leaves about 54 million tonnes as the useful coal reserve. That which is physically practical to mine at an economical cost and which is considered acceptable to society in terms of what gets dug up. 

The rest, for practical purposes, is worthless. Hence CRA (now Rio Tinto) and Shell (as in the oil company) both ended up surrendering those leases long ago. They'd reached the same conclusions as everyone else - they'd found coal in the ground and that's exactly where it's staying so no point holding a lease over it. Obviously when they went exploring they were hoping to find something valuable but they failed to do so.

Much the same concept with resources everywhere. Eg there's plenty of oil shale in Queensland and also known deposits in NSW, SA and Tas with some past efforts at production from the Qld, NSW and Tas deposits. 

Plenty have tried it over period spanning roughly a century. Small private companies gave it a shot, listed companies had a go, in Tas the state government itself pondered the idea of becoming an oil company at one point and did a lot of study into it, more recently Chinese interests had a look too. 

All ultimately came to the same conclusion - it's there, it can be extracted and turned into petrol, the problem is the cost of doing so is simply too high and as such there's zero market for it at any price that would cover the cost of operation.

Even the idea of simply using it "as is" in raw unprocessed form to fire the kilns in a major cement works didn't stack up economically and that cement works is literally within walking distance of the shale.

Plenty more cases like that where someone's found a mineral resource but it ends up being worthless due to the cost of extraction being too high and/or problematic technically or environmentally. 

The energy business, indeed all resource businesses, have that same fundamental issue. It's one thing to have a technically viable source of gas, iron, zinc, copper or whatever but it's another thing entirely to have one that's also economically profitable. 

Are the claims correct? For resources sure they likely are. Resources aren't necessarily any use however, it's reserves that are useful and they're always smaller than resources.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

I don’t think it will come to that extent, not in Australia at least lol. The gov has definitely got a keen eye on gas,  nuclear is not something anyone can invest in just yet. It just doesn’t exist yet. China is the only country to even fire up the worlds first 4th gen reactor and I still wouldn’t invest into that technology just yet. Conventional nuclear power plants for Australia I think just isn’t viable to be honest. These plants are huge and take years to build and require large population to support the repayments of them. A 4th gen reactor in Adelaide or somewhere that needs it is just too big of a infrastructure plan to undertake. China on the other hand have large density population that can easily benefit from such a large project. 
For us to have a cost effective power plant we need the rest of the world to follow through to bring he cost down. 
No one builds nuclear power anymore that’s why it’s so expensive. But modular reactors on the other hand that can be built either over seas or here in country and shipped around, that’s more logical and cost effective and way more safer. 
Retrofitting existing coal fire infrastructure.


----------



## sptrawler (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> I don’t think it will come to that extent, not in Australia at least lol. The gov has definitely got a keen eye on gas,  nuclear is not something anyone can invest in just yet. It just doesn’t exist yet. China is the only country to even fire up the worlds first 4th gen reactor and I still wouldn’t invest into that technology just yet. Conventional nuclear power plants for Australia I think just isn’t viable to be honest. These plants are huge and take years to build and require large population to support the repayments of them. A 4th gen reactor in Adelaide or somewhere that needs it is just too big of a infrastructure plan to undertake. China on the other hand have large density population that can easily benefit from such a large project.
> For us to have a cost effective power plant we need the rest of the world to follow through to bring he cost down.
> No one builds nuclear power anymore that’s why it’s so expensive. But modular reactors on the other hand that can be built either over seas or here in country and shipped around, that’s more logical and cost effective and way more safer.
> Retrofitting existing coal fire infrastructure.



I'm sure there are many looking at that idea as we speak, but at the moment the  push toward renewables is warranted and should be pursued untill it is either no longer viable, or no longer practical.

They are still in their infancy and there is still plenty of opportunity to deploy them, the limits of practical deployment or limits of sensible storage will be found, by then alternatives will become obvious.
We are at the very beginning of this journey and a lot of technological advancements will happen on all fronts.

It is a bit like 50 years ago when I was a teenager, Dr Hook sang a song 'Sylvia's mother', the chorus said '40cents more for the next three minutes', today's teenagers wouldn't have a clue what that meant.
They all have mobile phones, back then you had to stand in a phone box with a pocket full of coins and you could only talk to someone who actually had a phone, not many did and the internet wasn't even a word let alone an application.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 August 2020)

Some practical examples of what real, actual companies in the energy sector own:

For the "big three" gentailers:

AGL (ASX listed):
*Generation from coal from their own mine and also coal purchased from others
*Coal mining
*Is the exclusive coal supplier to a rival electricity generating company
*Gas-fired generation including some that's also capable of firing diesel. Gas is almost entirely purchased from others.
*Third largest operator of conventional hydro-electric generation in Australia
*Wind and solar either owned or under contract from other companies
*Developing large scale battery storage
*Actively investigating developing pumped hydro and LNG import facilities.
*Retails under its own name as AGL and separately as Powerdirect.

Origin (ASX listed):
*Generation from coal purchased from others
*Gas-fired generation both owned and under contract from other companies
*Gas production and LNG exports
*Supplies gas to rival energy companies including gas used for power generation
*LPG bulk storage, distribution and retail including bulk supply to others
*Third largest pumped hydro operator in Australia
*Wind and solar either owned or under contract from other companies
*Retails under its own name as Origin Energy

Energy Australia (not listed):
*Generation from coal both from their own coal and coal purchased from others
*Coal mining
*Gas-fired generation much of which also has the ability to fire diesel. Gas is all purchased from others.
*Has contracted the use of a new pumped hydro facility to be built by another company
*Wind and solar either owned or under contract from other companies
*Retails under its own name as Energy Australia

Snowy Hydro (Australian Government owned):
*Largest conventional hydro operator by installed capacity and second largest by annual production.
*Largest pumped hydro operator.
*Gas-fired generation most of which also has the ability to fire diesel. Gas is all purchased from others.
*Diesel (without the ability to use gas) generation.
*Well known as being very heavily contracted with other energy companies
*Actively proposing further pumped hydro development.
*Retails under the names Red Energy and Lumo as separate to each other

Hydro Tasmania (Tasmanian Government owned):
*Largest conventional hydro operator by annual production and second largest by installed capacity.
*Gas fired generation via subsidiary company AETV almost half of which also has the ability to fire diesel. Gas is purchased from others.
*Actively proposing new pumped hydro development.
*Actively promoting wind development by others.
*Has contracts with other energy companies
*Engineering consultancy and project management in the hydropower, wind, water / dams and electrical fields internationally.
*Retails outside Tasmania under the brand name of Momentum Energy

So there's the three largest gentailers as well as the big two hydro operators and it's no coincidence that they all have an overall similar profile.

The big three are all spread across coal, gas and renewables, they all own or are developing storage, they all produce some fuel themselves and buy the rest from others, they all retail primarily under their own name etc. All pretty similar.

The two largest hydro operators are both #1 on different measures, both also operate gas-fired generation on a smaller scale and have partial diesel backup on that. Both are proposing new pumped hydro development. Both retail via other brand names. Both pretty similar.

None of those will claim there's any one solution or single way forward. Even the smaller companies that only operate one or two assets won't claim that's the silver bullet, they'll just say that's the piece of the puzzle they're involved with and so on but everyone's well aware that there's multiple pieces to this puzzle.

On the political side well there's politics and there's business. Don't doubt for a moment that some of those throwing mud when the media's looking have contracts with those they're throwing it at. It's part of the deal that someone gets to take the heat but ultimately business is business.

As for nuclear, well none of them are proposing it which leaves the most obvious problem - if Australia were to go down that track then it first needs someone who's willing and able to build and operate such a facility.

Worth noting that a single large large nuclear plant of capacity equal to a third of Victoria's peak demand would, based on the costs of Hinkley Point C presently under construction in the UK, fall not far short of the combined market cap of AGL and Origin Energy plus the entire asset value of the non-listed Energy Australia, Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tasmania.

Needless to say it would be a massive step for any of them to build such a thing even when assessed from a purely financial perspective. If it were going to happen then government would have to do it realistically.

My comments are purely from a pragmatic perspective noting that this is a stock market forum and that quite a few listed companies are involved in this industry either as a whole or in parts of it. Ideologically I don't really have a view so long as something is done (that is, we don't end up left in the dark) and it's done in a manner that's economical and acceptable to the community in terms of environment etc.

I wouldn't rule nuclear out altogether but I'll note that no company that's currently generating substantial amounts of power is proposing it as a solution. What they are proposing is some combination of gas, diesel, wind, solar, hydro, batteries and moderately extending the life of existing coal plant plus minor things like using waste materials to produce energy and so on.


----------



## sptrawler (5 August 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> As for nuclear, well none of them are proposing it which leaves the most obvious problem - if Australia were to go down that track then it first needs someone who's willing and able to build and operate such a facility.
> 
> Worth noting that a single large large nuclear plant of capacity equal to a third of Victoria's peak demand would, based on the costs of Hinkley Point C presently under construction in the UK, fall not far short of the combined market cap of AGL and Origin Energy plus the entire asset value of the non-listed Energy Australia, Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tasmania.
> 
> Needless to say it would be a massive step for any of them to build such a thing even when assessed from a purely financial perspective. If it were going to happen then government would have to do it realistically.



Summed up perfectly smurf, and the only way that scenario would transpire would be if there was no other option.
As has been shown with this pandemic, if there is no other option, money doesn't come into it.
How much has the splash of cash been this year? Apparently it will cost the Government $131billion, Hinkley Point C is about $40billion, so in reality the cost is probably the least significant issue.
The issue would be where to put it and how to get the public to accept it.
IMO the more likely outcome, would be small modular reactors, supporting renewable hubs. Smaller, less for the public to swallow and located in remote regions.
But who knows, crystal ball gazing.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

I think your kinda repeating what iv been saying the whole time lol there is no one solution.  I repeat a large scale 4th gen nuclear plant is just not feasible in Australia. 
Small modular reactors are the answer to Australia’s energy gap and will drive prices down.
These units are to estimate to be in the thousands of dollars not billions. Producing over 300M watts each. And they can be fitted in existing coal fire infrastructure. That is the answer to our ageing coal fire industry. 






A sealed capsule unit fully fuelled. All you need to do is plumb it up and plug it in.
The biggest advantage this has over conventional plants is there is no need for a containment shelter. 
These can be submerged under out of public view. 





The problem is every man and his dog has there own design. 







This a brilliant idea in the way that they can be used for more then just electricity production.
But if we can just retro fit our ageing coal infrastructure with a high output clean energy source at a low cost. That is the silver bullet.


----------



## sptrawler (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> I think your kinda repeating what iv been saying the whole time lol there is no one solution.  I repeat a large scale 4th gen nuclear plant is just not feasible in Australia..



I think the problem is, you are new to the forum, we have been discussing this for several years.
Also smurf and I have worked in power generation for our working careers.
But it is an interesting subject and I never loose interest in discussing it.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

What sector yous in? I have a lot of fa,ily and friends in the mining and power sector. 
I work on gas turbines a lot but not in the power production but power plant units 
Looking at getting into a new industry


----------



## sptrawler (5 August 2020)

Here is a you tube clip on SMR's


And here is the pin up boy for SMR's, well he is no longer a boy. Taylor Wilson


Taylor Wilson wiki:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Wilson


----------



## sptrawler (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> What sector yous in? I have a lot of fa,ily and friends in the mining and power sector.
> I work on gas turbines a lot but not in the power production but power plant units
> Looking at getting into a new industry



I have worked in most sections of power generation, major stations, minor stations, diesel generation, maintenance, planning, installation and operation of them all.
Also worked in mining, HF and VLF transmission and did a few weeks as dockers offsider in a saw mill.
I do know smurf knows more than me about it, so he knows his way around power generation.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

Yeh I remember noticing him back when he was in high school. I think he was picked up by bill gates at some point and had some investment from him.
He is one of the most underrated people of the modern age. 
You wouldn’t happen to be in the SA area would you lol cause the power industry here is a joke lol
Nah I kid, the water sector takes the cake for that one. Every day there’s a water main bursting. Don’t get me started on the road conditions.
I was always told SA has the worst roads but I never believed it but my god the roads here are 3rd world. 
SA infrastructure is falling to bits. And when ever they build new developments, it doesn’t make sense lol they put roads in places that go no where


----------



## sptrawler (6 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> Yeh I remember noticing him back when he was in high school. I think he was picked up by bill gates at some point and had some investment from him.
> He is one of the most underrated people of the modern age.
> You wouldn’t happen to be in the SA area would you lol cause the power industry here is a joke lol
> Nah I kid, the water sector takes the cake for that one. Every day there’s a water main bursting. Don’t get me started on the road conditions.
> ...



No I'm W.A


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (6 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> According to sunfire, there steam electrolysis efficiency is at 80%
> With an input power of 150 kWel the module produces 40 Nm³ per hour of hydrogen. It can also be reversed into fuel cell mode with an output power of 30 kWel.
> 
> I’d say that’s more then ok lol
> ...




I don't mind producing hydrogen via electrolysis; the process is simple to do. I can produce hydrogen in my apartment today with basic everyday home products. A 9v battery, some water and salt, some wires with croc clips, and a couple of lead pencils.


----------



## basilio (6 August 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Here is a you tube clip on SMR's
> 
> 
> And here is the pin up boy for SMR's, well he is no longer a boy. Taylor Wilson
> ...





Thanks for the Taylor Wilson reminder/clips. Absolutely inspiring.
I followed him up a bit further and he did another Ted talk a few years later (2016) on The Future of Energy. Exceptionally clear well balanced analysis.
Again he wants to see SMR's as cheap, safe base load power sources. (I'd love to know how the progress is going on this project.)

But something else I noticed was his acknowledgment and support for renewable energy to power the world.
*The caveat of course was back up storage to ensure reliability supply.*
He noted that if/when back up costs *"dropped to  under $100p/kwhr for storage we're golden" 12min 42 sec. *
Current indications are that Teslas million mile battery will come in at less than $100p/kwr.


----------



## sptrawler (6 August 2020)

basilio said:


> But something else I noticed was his acknowledgment and support for renewable energy to power the world.
> *The caveat of course was back up storage to ensure reliability supply.*



Which is exactly what we have been saying.


----------



## basilio (6 August 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Which is exactly what we have been saying.




Agreed. And that is why lowering of battery storage costs to less than $100k/whr  should be the turning point in economic analayis of renewable energy/ back up vs other options.

And that is now well within sight.


----------



## sptrawler (6 August 2020)

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...5-p55iwe.html?js-chunk-not-found-refresh=true
Australia’s clean energy investment agency is broadening its focus from renewable energy to drive growth in the hydrogen industry and improve the electricity network's ability to accommodate the growing volume of wind and solar power in the grid.

Announcing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation’s results for the past financial year, chief executive Ian Learmonth said the agency had made investment commitments of more than $1 billion into 23 clean energy investments, which leveraged a combined value of $4.2 billion of co-investment from private industry.
The $1 billion Grid Reliability Fund, which was announced last year by the Morrison government, comes as additional funding on top of the $10 billion allocated when the agency was established in 2012.


----------



## rederob (6 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> Small modular reactors are the answer to Australia’s energy gap and will drive prices down.



There is really no basis for that statement.  Conversion of coal to CCGT would reduce prices significantly if supply constraints could be removed.
As @Smurf1976 points out, there is no operator in Australia even contemplating nuclear as an option.


----------



## Muckman (6 August 2020)

And as I pointed out as well you can’t contemplate an option when there is no option yet. 
Imagine if AGL announced that they are purchasing 50 hitachi GE modular reactors, stock market would crash, everyone would go in a panic buy, Australia would go in a nuclear panic mode. All on a product that doesn’t exist yet. Not to mention the nuclear ban is still in place so  for any company to even suggest to start in vestments in a nuclear industry in Australia would seem very suspicious. So it’s obvious no company is going to release any announcements to have any interest or investments for a nuclear reactor. Im hearing 2022 will be the time of the modular reactor.


----------



## rederob (6 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> And as I pointed out as well you can’t contemplate an option when there is no option yet.
> Imagine if AGL announced that they are purchasing 50 hitachi GE modular reactors, stock market would crash, everyone would go in a panic buy, Australia would go in a nuclear panic mode. All on a product that doesn’t exist yet. Not to mention the nuclear ban is still in place so  for any company to even suggest to start in vestments in a nuclear industry in Australia would seem very suspicious. So it’s obvious no company is going to release any announcements to have any interest or investments for a nuclear reactor. Im hearing 2022 will be the time of the modular reactor.



I don't believe in fairy tales like you do.


----------



## Muckman (6 August 2020)

rederob said:


> I don't believe in fairy tales like you do.




Ever herd of project trinity lol?
The idea of even splitting of an atom was a fairy tale.
Or what about space flight? Or even landing a man on the moon? 
That’s pretty small minded


----------



## rederob (6 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> Ever herd of project trinity lol?
> The idea of even splitting of an atom was a fairy tale.
> Or what about space flight? Or even landing a man on the moon?
> That’s pretty small minded



You have posted a great deal of stuff we all can freely read.
Unfortunately there are no metrics to pin your ideas to.  This covers what we need to see.
Instead, this gives an idea of the range of costs of SMRs based on what we presently know and can extrapolate.  
On a best case basis SMRs would run at twice the cost of grid scale solar PV.


----------



## Muckman (6 August 2020)

I don’t know how you can say it’s going to cost so much when no one has a clue yet
But I do agree in the first article 
There dose need to be a standard of manufacturing just like cars or buildings.  It as for cost, I just can’t see how anyone can put a price on anything just yet. 
Say for instance the UAE and the US order 1000 hitachi he reactors driving the price down rapidly and starting mass production and perfecting standardisation. Then prices will come down. 
I’m not saying we go out and buy one right now. But give it a few years, companies like nuscale will have cheep alternatives for our decommissioned coal plants. That’s there business model.


----------



## basilio (6 August 2020)

rederob said:


> You have posted a great deal of stuff we all can freely read.
> Unfortunately there are no metrics to pin your ideas to.  This covers what we need to see.
> Instead, this gives an idea of the range of costs of SMRs based on what we presently know and can extrapolate.
> On a best case basis SMRs would run at twice the cost of grid scale solar PV.




I checked out Redrobs references and they are very sobering and realistic analysis of the situation. 
In a nutshell
1)  The costs of developing SMR is  still far too high in competitive terms in comparison to any current energy alternatives. 

2) *Nuclear Industry promotion of the SMR option in Australia is palpably dishonest.  *The figures promoted for final costs of any SMR represent the most unrealistic guesses of a very opaque industry.

Well worth a read.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032119307270 Economic of SMRs
https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-claims-and-corporate-spin-about-small-nuclear-reactor-costs-65726/


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (6 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> Ever herd of project trinity lol?
> The idea of even splitting of an atom was a fairy tale.
> Or what about space flight? Or even landing a man on the moon?
> That’s pretty small minded



Rolls Royce will build SMRs:
"



MENU
READ LESS

*Rethinking nuclear power*
SMRs offer a truly innovative and effective solution to meeting global power needs.

Their modular design, coupled with the opportunity to produce the reactors centrally, means they bring a number of benefits to the world of low-carbon power that traditional nuclear power stations cannot offer.


View Benefits

*A flexible solution to a global demand for power*
Building on our global pedigree of more than half a century in the nuclear industry, Rolls-Royce is leading a consortium of companies in the UK’s largest-ever national engineering collaboration. The Rolls-Royce SMR Consortium brings together some of the most respected and innovative engineering organisations in the world. Rolls-Royce, ARUP, Laing O’Rourke, Nuvia and Wood Group all have a successful track record of delivering large-scale, complex engineering and infrastructure programmes.

Rolls-Royce already holds over 35 patents for elements of SMR technology and has decades of design, manufacture, delivery and operations experience. Using this already-proven technology and nuclear capability, we are developing a modular concept for nuclear technology that can be installed and commissioned quickly on site because it will be factory built and commissioned. Adoption of our modular approach will reduce cost and project risk by being faster to build. It will be a new way to generate electricity that will be available to the world.

With the first plant able to be up and running by 2030, the UK will remain at the forefront of nuclear power generation technology."

(https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/innovation/2017/smr.aspx#application)

Personally I would like to see a Small Modular Molten Salt Reactor (SMMSR)


----------



## Muckman (6 August 2020)

They are definitely a company I have an interest in


----------



## basilio (6 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> I don’t know how you can say it’s going to cost so much when no one has a clue yet
> But I do agree in the first article
> There dose need to be a standard of manufacturing just like cars or buildings.  It as for cost, I just can’t see how anyone can put a price on anything just yet.
> Say for instance the UAE and the US order 1000 hitachi he reactors driving the price down rapidly and starting mass production and perfecting standardisation. Then prices will come down.
> I’m not saying we go out and buy one right now. But give it a few years, companies like nuscale will have cheep alternatives for our decommissioned coal plants. That’s there business model.




It's well worth putting some time into the first paper Muckman.  It should become very clear that the economies of scale of building many SMR's  are still unlikely to see final costs reduced to any cost effective levels compared to current alternatives.

There are also engineering constraints on the processes which will put a high floor under the costs. In the best case scenario parts won't be mass produced in the tens of thousands but rather the hundreds.

And finally. The big one. The companies that intend to make these units don't get out of bed for less than $10m a day. The profit expectation, the executive cost  bottom line are all written history. Thi industry is never cheap.


----------



## basilio (6 August 2020)

Tall Corporate stories from Nu Scale.

*Corporate spin #2: NuScale Power *

US company NuScale Power has put in a submission to the federal nuclear inquiry, estimating a first-of-a-kind cost for its SMR design of US$4.35 billion / gigawatt (GW) and an nth-of-a-kind cost of US$3.6 billion / GW.

NuScale doesn’t provide a $/MWh estimate in its submission, but the company has previously said it is targeting a cost of US$65/MWh for its first SMR plant. That is 2.4 lower than the US$155/MWh (A$225/MWh) estimate based on the NuScale design in a report by WSP / Parsons Brinckerhoff prepared for the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.

NuScale’s cost estimates should be regarded as promotional and will continue to drop – unless and until the company actually builds an SMR. The estimated cost of power from NuScale’s non-existent SMRs fell from US$98-$108/MWh in 2015 to US$65/MWh by mid-2018. The company announced with some fanfare in 2018 that it had worked out how to make its SMRs almost 20% cheaper – by making them almost 20% bigger!

Lazard estimates costs of US$112-189/MWh for electricity from large nuclear plants. NuScale’s claim that its electricity will be 2-3 times cheaper than that from large nuclear plants is implausible. And even if NuScale achieved costs of US$65/MWh, that would still be higher than Lazard’s figures for wind power (US$29-56) and utility-scale solar (US$36-46).

Likewise, NuScale’s construction construction cost estimate of US$4.35 billion / GW is implausible. The latest cost estimate for the two AP1000 reactors under construction in the US state of Georgia (the only reactors under construction in the US) is US$12.3-13.6 billion / GW.

NuScale’s target is just one-third of that cost – despite the unavoidable diseconomies of scale and despite the fact that every independent assessment concludes that SMRs will be more expensive to build (per GW) than large reactors.

Further, the modular factory-line production techniques now being championed by NuScale were trialled with the AP1000 reactor project in South Carolina – a project that was abandoned in 2017 after the expenditure of at least US$9 billion.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-claims-and-corporate-spin-about-small-nuclear-reactor-costs-65726/


----------



## basilio (6 August 2020)

Worth checking out. 
*NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION FINAL REPORT*

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND INITIAL BUSINESS CASE – ESTABLISHING A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT AND SYSTEMS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/05/WSP-Parsons-Brinckerhoff-Report.pdf


----------



## sptrawler (6 August 2020)

basilio said:


> Worth checking out.
> *NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION FINAL REPORT*
> 
> QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND INITIAL BUSINESS CASE – ESTABLISHING A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT AND SYSTEMS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA
> ...



There are quite a few being built around the world, interesting article.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (6 August 2020)

sptrawler said:


> There are quite a few being built around the world, interesting article.




A 2019 UK government independent report for the Market and Technical Assessment of Micro Nuclear Reactors have found them to be feasible in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/market-and-technical-assessment-of-micro-nuclear-reactors


----------



## SirRumpole (6 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> And as I pointed out as well you can’t contemplate an option when there is no option yet.
> Imagine if AGL announced that they are purchasing 50 hitachi GE modular reactors, stock market would crash, everyone would go in a panic buy, Australia would go in a nuclear panic mode. All on a product that doesn’t exist yet. Not to mention the nuclear ban is still in place so  for any company to even suggest to start in vestments in a nuclear industry in Australia would seem very suspicious. So it’s obvious no company is going to release any announcements to have any interest or investments for a nuclear reactor. Im hearing 2022 will be the time of the modular reactor.




Nuclear reactors cannot currently be built in Australia under any Federal or State law, and I see no prospect of that changing any time soon.

N.R's built by private companies in Oz are a pipe dream, Labor and the Greens will block it, and you have to ask why any Coalition members would support it, looking for a cosy job on a Board perhaps ?


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (6 August 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Nuclear reactors cannot currently be built in Australia under any Federal or State law, and I see no prospect of that changing any time soon.
> 
> N.R's built by private companies in Oz are a pipe dream, Labor and the Greens will block it, and you have to ask why any Coalition members would support it, looking for a cosy job on a Board perhaps ?




Thank you for highlighting the stupidity of the nuclear prohibition in Australia!

I am very sure that there have been many Labor and Greens politicians that have travelled to many European countries for their holidays; European countries that have nuclear power!

I recall Sarah Hanson-Young traveling to Switzerland for Davos, or for some other global function. If the Greens and Labor were so against nuclear energy, then why do they travel to countries that have it?

I thought we are all supposed to be scared of nuclear energy?


----------



## Muckman (6 August 2020)

I think with everything going on right now, if they passed the nuclear ban no one would even notice lol


----------



## Muckman (6 August 2020)

Putting hypotheticals aside, how does everyone see the Shidao Bay Nuclear Power Plant. Is it too soon to call it a success story? 
16 billion dollars, construction time of 10 years not to mention the Fukushima incident had made huge delays. 

Was this a big flop ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 August 2020)

basilio said:


> that is why lowering of battery storage costs to less than $100k/whr should be the turning point in economic analayis of renewable energy/ back up vs other options.




Agreed and all of these things should be seen as fluid in terms of relative costs.

Different materials, different countries where things are produced, different land requirements, different labour requirements and so on. Change any one input cost and it doesn't simply change the cost as such but it also changes relativities between the options.

Even using a very similar fuel that can be the case. For example, a comparison of Bayswater (NSW) with Loy Yang A (Victoria). Both are coal-fired plants brought into operation during the mid-1980's under government ownership and both are currently owned by AGL.

Bayswater has a capacity of 2640 MW versus 2210 MW at Loy Yang A. So not identical but very similar. Both stations comprise 4 generating units.

Bayswater burns black coal which has an export value and as such is worth the commodity price of the coal plus the cost of transporting it to the power station.

Loy Yang A uses low grade coal from a mine right next to the power station. The coal is well below export grade specifications, indeed it's about 58% water "as mined", and has zero value as a commodity as there's simply no market for coal like that. The cost of the coal is that of mining it plus royalties to the Victorian state government. Transport cost is trivial - it goes on a conveyor belt in the mine and that belt runs straight to the power station, no trains or trucks required.

Due to the coal moisture content, boilers at Loy Yang are physically more than twice the size of those at Bayswater per unit of output. So that's more steel used in construction, more labour, more cranes and so on to build it, etc. It's also more to maintain and, noting that all coal contains ash, clean.

The lower energy density of coal at Loy Yang also means everything else is scaled up simply to handle the greater volume of material. So larger conveyors, larger mills (which crush the coal) and so on. More materials to build all that stuff, more materials and labour to maintain it, even a warehouse storing spare parts needs to be larger.

So everything costs more at Loy Yang except that the coal is worthless, that's the one thing massively in its favour which offsets the other costs of more materials, labour, maintenance etc.

Change any one input cost there, so labour or steel or the commodity price of black coal and it changes not only the total cost but it also changes the relativity between the two stations. Two stations with a very similar output, built at the same time and with the same owner.

Now throw gas, hydro, wind and so on into the mix and it becomes far more complex. Change the cost of steel for example and there's a different amount of steel per unit of output in a gas turbine versus a wind farm.

Also cost changes may result in design changes. For example there's quite a few ways a dam can be built including methods which use practically no concrete. If cement becomes expensive, or the cost to transport it is expensive, then that of itself may prompt a radically different approach to design of the dam so as to enable the use of some cheaper material.

Even just using gas or oil as the fuel there's more than one way to go about it and different cost inputs for open cycle turbines, combined cycle or reciprocating engines. How the plant is intended to be used (base load versus peak) and the cost of those inputs (fuel, labour, equipment etc) will influence the decision as to the most economical plant type. 

So it's all variable and with that in mind I'm cautious as to what's about to happen given the pandemic and overall circumstances. It wouldn't seem out of the question that we see significant shifts in exchange rates, material costs, equipment costs and labour in the aftermath of it all.

As one example, solar panels (largely imported from China) versus the locally sourced labour to install them or indeed anything. Given tensions with China, and mass unemployment, it wouldn't seem out of the question that there's a shift in the relative costs there and that then influences the non-solar options also.


----------



## wayneL (7 August 2020)

Sidebar @Smurf1976 

I look at the mount of ash generated by coal/coke just in my little one man forge and have always wondered about the logistics of disposing of that in a power station... What do they do with it all?


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (7 August 2020)

wayneL said:


> Sidebar @Smurf1976
> 
> I look at the mount of ash generated by coal/coke just in my little one man forge and have always wondered about the logistics of disposing of that in a power station... What do they do with it all?





You can mix in with concrete mixes, use it in plastic solutions, or just bury it.

I have done a fair bit of research on this for a waste-to-energy plant concept of mine.


----------



## sptrawler (7 August 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Nuclear reactors cannot currently be built in Australia under any Federal or State law, and I see no prospect of that changing any time soon.
> 
> N.R's built by private companies in Oz are a pipe dream, Labor and the Greens will block it, and you have to ask why any Coalition members would support it, looking for a cosy job on a Board perhaps ?



Plenty of ex Labor members on boards.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 August 2020)

wayneL said:


> Sidebar @Smurf1976
> 
> I look at the mount of ash generated by coal/coke just in my little one man forge and have always wondered about the logistics of disposing of that in a power station... What do they do with it all?



Used in concrete or as fill as others have said and the rest is dumped as landfill for disposal.

Where to dump it varies. If the mine is open cut and right near the power station then putting the ash back in the mine is one option. If not then it's generally dumped at a suitable location nearby. Dumped as in legitimately disposed of, I don't mean anyone's doing something they shouldn't be etc.

Following image shows the Yallourn open cut in Victoria as an example of that.

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-38.197041,146.351679,9856m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Or at Port Augusta it was simply dumped on ground and later sealed. The now demolished power stations were to the immediate south and there's still some visible remnant infrastructure (most obviously the appropriately named Power Station Rd and Northern Power Station Rd). That is the facility best known for having been blown up - literally blown up with explosives.

The coal came from a mine ~250km away so not sensible to send the ash back to it.

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-32.5346167,137.7794248,5286m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

How much of a problem it is depends on the detail. Some contains toxic nasties certainly but then there's other coal which actually has a second use as fertilzer and is deemed safe for that purpose. So "it depends" is very much the case there.


----------



## Muckman (9 August 2020)




----------



## Chronos-Plutus (9 August 2020)

Muckman said:


>


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (11 August 2020)

Asia embracing Nuclear:






https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-worlds-nuclear-reactor-landscape/


----------



## IFocus (11 August 2020)

Think I have posted here before about the only reason you would go nuclear power to justify the cost and lead time is if you are looking to acquire nuclear weapons.

The problem or one of the problems is enrichment (Australia has no capability or technology) which has a long lead time to develop and is very expensive but if you enrich for weapons then there is plenty of fuel to run power stations.

At some point if China continues to expand its aggression nuclear weapons maybe Australia's only realistic means of defence unless some other Armageddon type weapons turn up.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (11 August 2020)

IFocus said:


> Think I have posted here before about the only reason you would go nuclear power to justify the cost and lead time is if you are looking to acquire nuclear weapons.
> 
> The problem or one of the problems is enrichment (Australia has no capability or technology) which has a long lead time to develop and is very expensive but if you enrich for weapons then there is plenty of fuel to run power stations.
> 
> At some point if China continues to expand its aggression nuclear weapons maybe Australia's only realistic means of defence unless some other Armageddon type weapons turn up.




The nuclear market is fast evolving towards small and micro modular reactors that can be built in mass production and sent anywhere in the world. Here is a recent Market and Technical assessment in the UK which states that micro modular reactors are feasible:

"This study concludes that MNRs are feasible and have a potential market in the hundreds by 2030. MNRs could also bring significant economic benefits to the UK but must be decisively supported as they will only proceed with clear support and facilitation of political, regulatory and financial factors. The study also concludes that, whilst there are differences with the larger SMRs, no specific cut-offs have yet been identified in technical, financial or regulatory factors. However, further investigation may yield more definitive differentiators depending on the regulatory and market requirements of specific countries."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/market-and-technical-assessment-of-micro-nuclear-reactors


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (11 August 2020)

I like Terrestrial Energy with small/micro modular manufactured molten salt reactors:





https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/market-and-technical-assessment-of-micro-nuclear-reactors




https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/technology/competitive/


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 August 2020)

IFocus said:


> Think I have posted here before about the only reason you would go nuclear power to justify the cost and lead time is if you are looking to acquire nuclear weapons.



Ideologically I'm not keen on nuclear weapons.

Pragmatically I think we probably have no choice.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 August 2020)

IFocus said:


> Think I have posted here before about the only reason you would go nuclear power to justify the cost and lead time is if you are looking to acquire nuclear weapons.




Possibly, but also fuel for things like nuclear submarines, the air breathing ones are just too archaic.


----------



## basilio (12 August 2020)

If one thought the promotional figures of companies  promoting their nuclear plans was honest and  likely then we would have already built scores of modular reactors and there would be a thriving industry. 

*Of course they would say they were cheaper than others. *The fact is that  all other alternatives ct have operational plants and  can be costed on real dollars. The nuclear industry figures are vapourware designed to extract multi billion  subsidies from governments just to keep them going.
*
The evidence of the nuclear industry is public, historical and damning.* These plants will *never* be economically competitive with renewable energy plus back up systems. Of course they can be built for very specific military  or other installations where, frankly, cost is a secondary issue. But the idea of  arguing cost effective baseload domestic power is based on a series of heroic assumptions that  have seen spectacular failure.

_Tall Corporate stories from Nu Scale.

*Corporate spin #2: NuScale Power *

US company NuScale Power has put in a submission to the federal nuclear inquiry, estimating a first-of-a-kind cost for its SMR design of US$4.35 billion / gigawatt (GW) and an nth-of-a-kind cost of US$3.6 billion / GW.

NuScale doesn’t provide a $/MWh estimate in its submission, but the company has previously said it is targeting a cost of US$65/MWh for its first SMR plant. That is 2.4 lower than the US$155/MWh (A$225/MWh) estimate based on the NuScale design in a report by WSP / Parsons Brinckerhoff prepared for the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.

NuScale’s cost estimates should be regarded as promotional and will continue to drop – unless and until the company actually builds an SMR. The estimated cost of power from NuScale’s non-existent SMRs fell from US$98-$108/MWh in 2015 to US$65/MWh by mid-2018. The company announced with some fanfare in 2018 that it had worked out how to make its SMRs almost 20% cheaper – by making them almost 20% bigger!

Lazard estimates costs of US$112-189/MWh for electricity from large nuclear plants. NuScale’s claim that its electricity will be 2-3 times cheaper than that from large nuclear plants is implausible. And even if NuScale achieved costs of US$65/MWh, that would still be higher than Lazard’s figures for wind power (US$29-56) and utility-scale solar (US$36-46).

Likewise, NuScale’s construction construction cost estimate of US$4.35 billion / GW is implausible. The latest cost estimate for the two AP1000 reactors under construction in the US state of Georgia (the only reactors under construction in the US) is US$12.3-13.6 billion / GW.

NuScale’s target is just one-third of that cost – despite the unavoidable diseconomies of scale and despite the fact that every independent assessment concludes that SMRs will be more expensive to build (per GW) than large reactors.

Further, the modular factory-line production techniques now being championed by NuScale were trialled with the AP1000 reactor project in South Carolina – a project that was abandoned in 2017 after the expenditure of at least US$9 billion.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-claims-and-corporate-spin-about-small-nuclear-reactor-costs-65726/_

Report Bookmark


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (12 August 2020)

basilio said:


> If one thought the promotional figures of companies  promoting their nuclear plans was honest and  likely then we would have already built scores of modular reactors and there would be a thriving industry.
> 
> *Of course they would say they were cheaper than others. *The fact is that  all other alternatives ct have operational plants and  can be costed on real dollars. The nuclear industry figures are vapourware designed to extract multi billion  subsidies from governments just to keep them going.
> *
> ...




The independent UK government assessment for micro modular nuclear reactors is definitive that they are feasible.

You talk of subsidies and tax credits! What sort of subsidies and tax credits are there for EVs and solar?

Tesla wouldn't be able to operate without the tax credits.


----------



## basilio (12 August 2020)

I found a Literature on the economics and finance of SMR's. Probably the most salient points was the concern that projected economies of scale with large production of SMR's was quite unclear. See Section 3.

Everyone is aware that the initial costs for an operational reactor will be $3-4B. The  theory  propounded by the industry has always been that if Government supplied funds for the first reactor, underwrote the financing of future reactors and  then ensured a electricity cost to the consumer that would cover all costs and profits SMR's would be viable. (certainly for the companies..)

*Economics and finance of Small Modular Reactors: A systematic review and research agenda*
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032119307270


----------

