wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,578
- Reactions
- 12,705
FWIW
Nuclear Power For Australia?
- Thread starter constable
- Start date
-
- Tags
- australia nuclear power
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,652
- Reactions
- 11,952
To use a vernacular that should be familiar to you,
"Horses for courses".
More that 10 times our population means more consumers to pay the cost of anything, plus they have been doing it for decades, plus nuke stations will always be present in the US to feed the nuke weapons.
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,471
- Reactions
- 4,465
Yep the US already has the sites, technology, fuel, large requirement for base loads yada yada.
Recon the report will be coming from a nuclear lobby group suspect the numbers will be cooked still hard to see how they could get the cost below renewables.
But we should be progressing in some way towards nuclear current pro / anti climate political debate is pretty dumb.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,578
- Reactions
- 12,705
I don't think your first point is valid as fewer/smaller plants are required.
Your second and third points are valid.... But maybe we should be producing nukes, maybe.
I would just appreciate a genuine discussion on it devoid of ideology and vested interests in unrenewables.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,652
- Reactions
- 11,952
Yes, I agree we should, but the way Dutton wants to do it is crazy. He won't even state the costs and what he has proposed so far will produce only about 4% of the total demand.
So, we should remove the ban, but imo any nuclear program should be under the auspices of our national authorities, ANSTO and CSIRO not blue sky merchants selling reactors that don't exist or haven't been proven.
And we shouldn't stop the renewables rollout on the hope of nukes in 20 years.
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,608
- Reactions
- 6,398
Yea, we all know if he gets in the first thing that will happen is a study that won't be released until the following election. there is no way he will throw $10 billion at a normal reactor if he wins the election.
I would love there to be a real world relatively low cost SNR, really would. Solve so much. Not there yet unfortunately.
imo Dutton is just using it to keep the extreme right, neos and denialists in line behind him so he can concentrate on the middle during the election campaign without them causing problems. Clever and strategic.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,652
- Reactions
- 11,952
And placate the farmers or regional people who don't like looking at wind turbines or solar farms.
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,608
- Reactions
- 6,398
100%.
Especially the hobby farmers around Daylesford and Hepburn Springs like Catroina Rowntree and my sister!
She doesn't want to have to drive past windmills on the way to her property.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,578
- Reactions
- 12,705
The unrenewables?
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,096
- Reactions
- 16,869
Those paying close attention to public discussion on the subject may have noticed something.
Not something that's happening but more the opposite, what's missing.
At this point every engineer and engineering organisation has totally or at least largely walked away from engaging in public debate on the subject. Even those effectively forced such as AEMO and CSIRO are now visibly cautious in what they say and how they say it. Meanwhile the individuals and others not under pressure to comment have just left the room outright.
Because they've all reached the same conclusion that it's just not possible to have a non-emotional, factual discussion on the subject in the public domain. We've a situation where practically everyone seems to have a strong opinion and yet most can't even state the basic facts of where we are now.
How an engineer would approach it is really quite simple but it's seemingly beyond the capabilities of politics and the public. Rationally it's a number crunching exercise and some carefully thought through value judgements concerning the "softer" environmental aspects*. What it's not is a subjective or ideological exercise.
*Soft environmental issues meaning things like scenery that are inherently subjective as to their importance and whether or not human interference represents a problem. As distinct from "hard" environmental issues such as species extinction which can at least be given a firm yes / no answer as to whether they're a plausible consequence of a proposed development or not.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,652
- Reactions
- 11,952
I'd say that most genuine engineers know that electricity is now poliical and whatever they say they are going to be attacked by one side or the other, even to the extent of being threatened on social media by the extremes of the argument, so it's better to keep stum , in public anyway.Those paying close attention to public discussion on the subject may have noticed something.
Not something that's happening but more the opposite, what's missing.
At this point every engineer and engineering organisation has totally or at least largely walked away from engaging in public debate on the subject. Even those effectively forced such as AEMO and CSIRO are now visibly cautious in what they say and how they say it. Meanwhile the individuals and others not under pressure to comment have just left the room outright.
Because they've all reached the same conclusion that it's just not possible to have a non-emotional, factual discussion on the subject in the public domain. We've a situation where practically everyone seems to have a strong opinion and yet most can't even state the basic facts of where we are now.
How an engineer would approach it is really quite simple but it's seemingly beyond the capabilities of politics and the public. Rationally it's a number crunching exercise and some carefully thought through value judgements concerning the "softer" environmental aspects*. What it's not is a subjective or ideological exercise.
*Soft environmental issues meaning things like scenery that are inherently subjective as to their importance and whether or not human interference represents a problem. As distinct from "hard" environmental issues such as species extinction which can at least be given a firm yes / no answer as to whether they're a plausible consequence of a proposed development or not.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 6,255
- Reactions
- 11,851
Hot on the heels of Three Mile Island nuclear plant reopening, comes news that another mothballed nuclear plant has scheduled to reopen courtesy of a 1.5 bill loan from the feds.
from Reuters
Mick
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,471
- Reactions
- 4,465
This bit caught my eye
"Restarting shut nuclear plants is a complicated and expensive process never before accomplished in the country."
This is a good read into the real issues around building nuclear power stations in the US, it ain't easy even though they have 90 odd reactors already in production of electric power 18% of the total US load.
Nuclear Power in the USA - World Nuclear Association
The USA's reactors provide about 20% of its electricity. These have a high level of performance.
world-nuclear.org
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,044
- Reactions
- 23,578
Sounds like a lot of incompetence, cutting corners and finger pointing, between multiple suppliers.
Bringing manufacturing back to the U.S, obviously is going to be harder than Trump thinks.
As with any large and complex installation, keeping the number of critical suppliers to a minimum and buying an off the shelf product when possible, is always the best outcome in my experience.
Things are obviously desperate in the U.S, if they are refitting ancient 50 year old power stations.
As I said, buying a package deal would be the sensible way forward, if it was decided to proceed.
Loading...
www.reuters.com
Barakah nuclear power plant - Wikipedia
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,652
- Reactions
- 11,952
Looks like a vote of no confidence in the next generation of nukes.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,044
- Reactions
- 23,578
I don't think it sounds like a vote of no confidence, I think the next generation aren't available yet, but they need some grunt in the system.
Restarting a closed down, 50 year old coal power station, would be a nightmare, let alone a 50 year old nuclear one.
To put it in context a really 'New' power station that hasn't been run for a while was required recently, apparently it blew a tube when coming on.
Imagine bringing one back that hasn't been operated for several years, it really would be a massive undertaking.
When large industrial plant is closed it doesn't take long for corrosion and rust to grow, the heat and vibration when it is running holds decay at bay.
When it shuts down.
If anything it is a vote of no confidence that renewables will be able to shoulder the load, but the U.S isn't Australia, it's a completely different situation.
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,471
- Reactions
- 4,465
I don't think it sounds like a vote of no confidence, I think the next generation aren't available yet, but they need some grunt in the system.
Restarting a closed down, 50 year old coal power station, would be a nightmare, let alone a 50 year old nuclear one.
To put it in context a really 'New' power station that hasn't been run for a while was required recently, apparently it blew a tube when coming on.
Imagine bringing one back that hasn't been operated for several years, it really would be a massive undertaking.
When large industrial plant is closed it doesn't take long for corrosion and rust to grow, the heat and vibration when it is running holds decay at bay.
When it shuts down.
If anything it is a vote of no confidence that renewables will be able to shoulder the load, but the U.S isn't Australia, it's a completely different situation.
Hard to image how it would be viable to restart, all the auxalies just sitting there would be knacked, control systems out of date, no spares, reactors surely wouldn't meet compliance still would provide plenty of jobs
Would be interesting to see how they went about it.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,096
- Reactions
- 16,869
Not with nuclear but restarting plant after extended shutdown has been done before, the basic concept isn't unprecedented and there's been a few in Australia in the past.
That said, it'll really depend on whether it was intentionally preserved on shutdown with the intention that a restart was expected or at least possible, versus being simply shut and abandoned. Plus of course the overall condition of plant at the time of closure.
Being nuclear I assume there'd at least have been constant security, so nobody's likely to have broken in and stolen parts, smashed things and so on. I say it because that's definitely happened at old thermal generation sites, including in Australia, where they've simply been abandoned.
That said, it'll really depend on whether it was intentionally preserved on shutdown with the intention that a restart was expected or at least possible, versus being simply shut and abandoned. Plus of course the overall condition of plant at the time of closure.
Being nuclear I assume there'd at least have been constant security, so nobody's likely to have broken in and stolen parts, smashed things and so on. I say it because that's definitely happened at old thermal generation sites, including in Australia, where they've simply been abandoned.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,044
- Reactions
- 23,578
Yes one would think that a couple of units in good condition would be nitrogen sealed and mothballed, I'm yet to see that happen here in W.A, Stages A and C at KPS would have been good candidates.Not with nuclear but restarting plant after extended shutdown has been done before, the basic concept isn't unprecedented and there's been a few in Australia in the past.
That said, it'll really depend on whether it was intentionally preserved on shutdown with the intention that a restart was expected or at least possible, versus being simply shut and abandoned. Plus of course the overall condition of plant at the time of closure.
Being nuclear I assume there'd at least have been constant security, so nobody's likely to have broken in and stolen parts, smashed things and so on. I say it because that's definitely happened at old thermal generation sites, including in Australia, where they've simply been abandoned.
Hopefully someone gives it some thought over East, but thinking ahead hasn't been a strong trait in Australia recently.
JohnDe
La dolce vita
- Joined
- 11 March 2020
- Posts
- 3,920
- Reactions
- 5,751
Why build Nuclear Power Stations, when we can create jobs by clearing the land and laying down solar panels?
Doesn't that look pretty -
Doesn't that look pretty -
Similar threads
