Nuclear Power: Do you support it?

[Muckman]

With metrics.

 

[Muckman]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

 

[Smurf1976]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You don’t trust APPEA?

 

[rederob]

[/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]

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]

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]

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.