Nuclear Power: Do you support it?

[basilio]

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]

Interesting story about thorium reactors.

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

 

[qldfrog]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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

 

[Dona Ferentes]

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

Swipe left. Right.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

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)

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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:

View attachment 106867

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

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]

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