Nuclear Power For Australia?

[fleathedog]

Nuclear reactors simply won't happen in this country. No government could survive an election supporting N-power stations. The left would probably mangage to drag the Aboriginies into the whole thing again...

Since this report has come out though it has focussed on power generation and put mining and peripheral industries like enrichment and storage.

It s***s me no end that we have a ban on mining uranium in this country. We also have vast amounts of empty geologically stable land where we could safely store others' waste. All this talk about us turning our country into a N-dump for money is just parochial political crap.

An example the insanity I'm talking about look at ALK. It's the 10th(?) biggest U mine in Aus, yet it's not a uranium mine, just a potentially profitable byproduct. Same deal with Olympic Dam. So if ALK's zircon mine goes ahead, do they just throw the uranium ore back in the ground? It all just seems so crazy...

 

[chops_a_must]

solar cells generate DC power, nothing in your house execpt for probably a clock radio and your LED garden lights runs on DC power. To convert this DC to the AC we all use today is expensive and inefficient. Plus if everyone had solar cells on their house trying to supply power to the grid, every persons house would need complex isolation and protection systems to ensure a quality supply and safty for the public. It is impractical to use only in your house to because most people aren't at home using power in the peak of the day when they are making the most power.

It's a funny looking clock that heats my water.

And that's exacty the point, during the day, the power generated is put into the grid.

The manufacturers of home solar system kits say the total cost of the kits pay for themselves within 5 to 8 years, isolaters and converters included.

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

Solar hot water systems do not convert sunlight into electricity they simply use the suns heat to minimise the amount of extra energy you need to put in , they cost the same to run as a gas storage heater except the upfront cost is way more for solar about 3 times the cost.

you can't just connect a solar cell to the grid through your house.You need a battery and inverter to convert it to 240V AC.

plus in the current network when something happens to your OH lines out the front of your house the electricity company simply turns off one switch at a substation to isolate the supply and fix the problem.

If everyone was exporting energy to the grid you would have to go to every house fed by that OH line and isolate them, and whats happens if you miss one house, the poor guy out the front working on the line gets electrocuted.

apart from all this if you export power to the grid you will have to pay the local electricity company money for using their assets to distribute your power.

Basically it is in no way as easy as most people think which makes it logistically and economically once of the least effective ways to save money and reduce greenhouse gas emmisions. But large scale solar furnaces which can produce large amounts of energy are a different story.

 

[Smurf1976]

The wind doesn't stop blowing at night...

Even the best wind turbine sites see the average output at only 50% of installed capacity. For most, it's closer to 35% and even if you spread the wind turbines across a large area, only 8% of the installed capacity can be considered "reliable".

Hence wind works well in NZ, Tasmania etc when integrated with hydro but is confined to being a mere supplement to conventional sources elsewhere. Lack of storage means it isn't an alternative to conventional power even though it saves a bit of fuel - that makes the economics fall in a hole big time due to the need to build duplicate systems.

 

[Smurf1976]

The manufacturers of home solar system kits say the total cost of the kits pay for themselves within 5 to 8 years, isolaters and converters included.

Based on transferring network costs to customers not using solar panels. A situation which falls down spectacularly if more than a few people do it.

In rough terms, about 40% (varies between states) of your household power bill is for electricity per se. The rest is transmission, distribution (itself in the order of 40% of the total), generating capacity (reflected in a higher unit rate for non-baseload customers) and retail costs.

That's why big industry pays a third of what a householder pays - they are taking electricity (baseload) and not much else. Compare that to the householder with a load that's all over the place and requires a massive network to distribute it and even a meter read every 3 months for every tiny consumer. That all costs a fortune and those costs don't go away when people put solar panels on their roof.

To do a fair comparisson requires that network costs etc are still paid even if the house with solar has NO net power consumption. You'll still be paying hundreds of $ per year for these costs which makes it a 15 - 25 year payback on those solar panels.

Factor in the cost of capital even at 7% and they NEVER work financially. That's the problem. It would be far cheaper to just build large scale solar if we're going to use tha as an energy source. It loses less money and, due to efficiencies of scale, produces lower emissions than putting panels on roofs.

The way I see it, decentralised generation is promoted as an "alternative" safely in the knowledge that it is economically and to some extent technically prohibitive. That is, it is promoted as a competitor safely knowning that it can't actually win the race and thus doesn't threaten coal etc.

Don't believe me? Consider the costs of running your own small coal-fired plant at home. You wouldn't do it and it's much the same with solar. LArge scale is far more viable both technically and economically.

 

[billhill]

Even the best wind turbine sites see the average output at only 50% of installed capacity. For most, it's closer to 35% and even if you spread the wind turbines across a large area, only 8% of the installed capacity can be considered "reliable".

This may be true at the moment Smurf but i posted this link on another thread and i'll post it here.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:High_Altitude_Wind_Power
There is no reason these systems shouldn't work with a little bit more development. Don't know how long it will be before we see any but it at least shows that baseload wind power is possible therefore why bother with just as expensive more devastating Nuclear.

 

[money tree]

Solar hot water systems do not convert sunlight into electricity they simply use the suns heat to minimise the amount of extra energy you need to put in , they cost the same to run as a gas storage heater except the upfront cost is way more for solar about 3 times the cost.

my parents had solar water heating and never had to flick the booster switch on in the 3 years I was there.

I was on this guys roof once, had a flat iron roof, connected 50m of black plastic pipe to the water main, had the pipe laid out over the roof, water fed into hot water system. On a hot day, the incoming thermostat said 16 degrees, the outgoing (after running through black pipe) said 27 degrees. thats 11 degrees the element doesnt have to work for. not bad for free....and for life.

 

[Smurf1976]

This may be true at the moment Smurf but i posted this link on another thread and i'll post it here.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:High_Altitude_Wind_Power
There is no reason these systems shouldn't work with a little bit more development. Don't know how long it will be before we see any but it at least shows that baseload wind power is possible therefore why bother with just as expensive more devastating Nuclear.

Agreed that it is possible to tap virtually constant power from wind. No problem with that at all and someday it will probably happen (unless something else is cheaper).

But in the context of decisions made today, and they have to be made soon because we need the power plants operating in years not decades, wind is an intermittent energy source and so is solar. For that matter, hydro is also intermittent unless you have enough storage - hence my point about energy storage systems.

Long term we have no choice but to go renewable since non-renewable energyu sources are just that - non-renewable and they will either run out or we cook/nuke ourselves using them.

For interest, National Electricity Market (NEM) demand at the moment is 27359 MW which is pretty high but not excessively so. The entire South Australian wind industry is operating in the order of 15% capacity during this period of high demand (and relatively high price). As I said, it's an intermittent source with present technology.

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

The main problem is that the main consumer of electricity in australia is not residential properties. all your doing by installing any sort of energy saving device or generation at home is giving yourself the idea that your helping the world.

Our efforts at home would best be served by installing rainwater tanks, recycling as much as possible and not turning heating on inside during winter while your wearing a singlet and shorts.

i agree nuclear is not the right alternative for Australia but it is for alot of other countries.

I believe carbon sequestrian is our best option and if these two alternatives turn out to be the best option Australia will be doing alright with our massive coal and uranium reserves.

So i say lets mine it, maybe even enrich it. but i dont want a reactor in my back yard or a nuclear waste dump at Ayres rock.

 

[Happy]

From ABC, November 21, 2006
Countries agree to build fusion power reactor
A seven-member international consortium has agreed to build a multi-billion-dollar experimental nuclear reactor in southern France designed to emulate the power of the Sun.
Scientists hope the reactor will eventually lead to the production of abundant supplies of cheap, clean nuclear power without radioactive waste.
The French poetically refer to the project as a way for mankind to recreate the energy of the Sun and the stars on Earth.
The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is the biggest international science project so far this century.
It unites countries representing more than half the world's population behind the search for a clean, safe source of energy for the future.
The project was launched after years of talks between France, South Korea, Russia, China, the EU, the US, India and Japan.
ITER will first build a demonstration plant and says the project could produce electricity for the power grid within 30 years.
This expensive experiment is aimed at using nuclear fusion rather than fission to create energy.
The French president, Jacques Chirac, says action must be taken as soon as possible.
"If nothing changes, humanity will have consumed in 200 years the fossil fuel resources that have been built up over hundreds of millions of years, giving rise at the same time to a real climate earthquake," he said.
"The decline in natural resources and the struggle against global warming require a revolution in our ways of producing and consuming."
-BBC

Nuclear alternative without spent radioactive material.

Possibly there will be more clean options in a future, if we don’t change climate too much and there is future.

 

[chops_a_must]

my parents had solar water heating and never had to flick the booster switch on in the 3 years I was there.

I was on this guys roof once, had a flat iron roof, connected 50m of black plastic pipe to the water main, had the pipe laid out over the roof, water fed into hot water system. On a hot day, the incoming thermostat said 16 degrees, the outgoing (after running through black pipe) said 27 degrees. thats 11 degrees the element doesnt have to work for. not bad for free....and for life.

Exactly. I think people are missing the point to a large degree. It's not about providing base load, it's about reducing overall emissions, simply.

 

[Ants]

Nuclear is another(poisonous) quick fix why are we always stalling on projects we know work , i.e. tidal, solar, wind?

 

[chops_a_must]

Because Australia is a very conservative society and dominated by century old thinking and dinosaurs of companies?

 

[Smurf1976]

Major power sources by fuel type and location.

Figures from NEMMCO data compiled by Smurf. Data does not add to 100% due to rounding. This is for the combined power system covering Qld, NSW/ACT, Vic, Tas and SA. Summer is the period of higher demand in the mainland states and lower demand in Tasmania.

At 4pm yesterday afternoon (high demand): Total generation 29800 MW

1. NSW coal (30.7%)
2. Qld coal (21.2%)
3. Vic coal (17.9%)
4. Snowy hydro (5.3%)
5. Tas hydro (5.1%)
6. SA gas (4.9%)
7. Vic gas (4.0%)
8. Qld gas (3.7%)
9. SA coal (2.1%)
9. Vic hydro (1.3%)
10. Qld hydro (1.1%)
11. SA wind (0.8%)
12. Tas gas (0.6%)
13. NSW gas (0.5%)
14. Vic wind (0.3%)
15. Qld sugar processing waste (0.2%)
16. Tas wind (0.1%)
17. Minor sources - Qld wind, all states landfill gas etc.

Coal total = 72.0%
Gas total = 13.8%
Hydro total = 12.6%
Wind total = 1.2%
Minor sources = 0.4%
.............................

At 3 am this morning (low demand) the situation was as follows: Total generation 18590 MW

1. NSW coal (35.2%)
2. Vic coal (27.6%)
3. Qld coal (26.3%)
4. SA coal (3.4%)
5. SA gas (2.7%)
6. Tas hydro (2.7%)
7. Qld gas (2.1%)
8. SA wind (0.8%)
8. Vic hydro (0.7%)
9. Tas gas (0.6%)
10. Vic gas (0.5%)
11. NSW gas (0.4%)
12. Qld sugar etc waste (0.3%)
13. Vic wind (0.2%)
14. Tas wind (0.2%)
15. Qld wind (0.2%)
16. Minor sources - landfill gas etc
17. Qld hydro (-0.8%)*
18. Snowy hydro (-3.0%)*

Coal total = 92.5%
Gas total = 6.4%
Wind total = 1.3%
Minor sources total = 0.6%
Hydro total = -0.8%

*The negative figures for Qld and Snowy hydro are due to pumping loads exceeding hydro generation at that time.

Bottom line - we are very dependent on coal for baseload generation whilst gas and hydro take care of the intermediate and peak loads.

 

[billhill]

Nuclear alternative without spent radioactive material.

Yeah i can't believe the Australian government did not get on this band wagon. If it works out energy problems solved.

 

[doctorj]

So the question is what reliable source can we use to take the baseload generation away from the old stalwart - coal.

Solar is out as effeciency is low, they're expensive and energy intensive to produce and it isn't so good at night time (and batteries are prohibitively expensive). Wind is out as its unreliable - we'll only have power when there is wind. Hot rock has potential and i'd be interested to hear if there is potential to produce a significant chunk of our power requirement.

Nuclear is a technology we have available today that's able to take a considerable portion of the load away from coal generation. I'm certainly in favour of it.

 

[chops_a_must]

Wind is out as its unreliable - we'll only have power when there is wind.

See, this is an opinion that annoys me. As I said in earlier post, I've never been to Fremantle, in the many years I've been going there, when it's not blowing a gale. And it's the same all along the WA coast. Our trees grow horizontally because of the force of the wind, and its persistence.

 

[constable]

So the question is what reliable source can we use to take the baseload generation away from the old stalwart - coal.

Solar is out as effeciency is low, they're expensive and energy intensive to produce and it isn't so good at night time (and batteries are prohibitively expensive). Wind is out as its unreliable - we'll only have power when there is wind. Hot rock has potential and i'd be interested to hear if there is potential to produce a significant chunk of our power requirement.

Nuclear is a technology we have available today that's able to take a considerable portion of the load away from coal generation. I'm certainly in favour of it.

Clean coal and nuclear energy are both apparently 10 years away neither is really a short term answer but i bet i know which one the aust. public would be backing if forced into a corner on the issue!

 

[doctorj]

The technology exists today. Admittedly, it will take some time to bring capacity on time, but that's the nature of the beast.

Any new capital works will take time. Whether its hot rocks, solar or even just more gas fired power stations. It alone is not a reason to discount nuclear.

 

[Rafa]

check this out,

Perth unveils wave power project
November 22, 2006

PERTH could source power from the sea with a wave-power machine which has produced electricity and fresh water in a year-long trial off Fremantle.

The technology, which was invented by local businessman Alan Burns, allows a machine called CETO to sit on the seabed and use the power and movement of the waves to force seawater ashore at high pressure through a small pipe.

Once ashore, the water is used to drive a turbine generator to produce electricity, West Australian Energy Minister Francis Logan said today.

This can be sold, or used for desalination.

Mr Logan said the current CETO prototype would be replaced by CETO II pre-commercialisation units, which would be installed in 2007.

"The CETO technology is being developed by the Perth-based company Seapower Pacific and they are aiming for full commercialisation by 2010," the minister said.

"I am very hopeful that wave energy will become an important addition to the suite of renewable energy generators in this state."

Mr Long said a hectare-sized wave farm of 125 CETO units may be able to produce 18 megawatts of electricity with no greenhouse gas emissions.

That would be enough to either power 10,000 households or, instead, to produce 45 billion litres of fresh drinking water each year, he said.