Nuclear

Hi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoClax

Plenty to think about there, Mike. Thanks for the post. I'll be doing some more research before responding. But a couple of points off the top of my head...
The concerns I have with many (all?) of the renewables is that they just move the problem elsewhere and hide the nasties (often to the third world) while we pat ourselves on the back for being green. Solar cells are an ecological disaster given the way they are actually made in the real world. The tech exists to do it much better/cleaner but that's really expensive and we all want our cheap panels... The mining and refinement of precious metals, etc for batteries is even worse. Wind turbines have their own issues (and so many of ours are older gen cheaper hand-me-downs from developed countries upgrading), as do pretty much all forms of alternative energy. Hydro is considered one of the cleanest and that involves drowning large areas and altering water flows, etc. There is no truly "green" energy source that is commercially viable at this time. I'm absolutely not saying we should abandon 'clean' energy, just be a bit more realistic about the true impact and whole of life cycle. A number of those nuclear disasters you refer to were caused by environmental upheavals that we just don't get here (tsunami, for example) and/or the plants were quite old and outdated and considered unsafe by current thinking. I do believe there is a place for nuclear in Australia, and moreso than anywhere else. To my mind the experiences of old plants in unstable areas doesn't necessarily relate to a high risk profile here for a well planned and executed installation. Their energy density is extraordinary and possibly unsurpassed. I don't think we should just write that off. I'm far from an expert and always interested to learn from others :)

---

> The concerns I have with many (all?) of the renewables is that they just move the problem elsewhere and hide the nasties (often to the third world) while we pat ourselves on the back for being green.
> Solar cells are an ecological disaster given the way they are actually made in the real world.

That's not an argument that should be used to support nuclear power. It is a good argument to support solar panel manufacturing in Australia. That way we take control of and responsibility for its consequences. We make it with proper enviro controls and don't use exploited labour. Yes we would pay more. It is not an "ecological disaster". Solar cell manufacturing is a process whereby all chemicals used in the manufacturing can be handled safely, disposed of OK, and are no where near as risky as radioactive products. Its cheese and chalk.

> The mining and refinement of precious metals, etc for batteries is even worse.
Yes it's bad in some countries. It's a political problem not a technological one. It's not to hard to fix technically. Nuclear technology is it appears an intractable problem that still has no easy solutions.

> There is no truly "green" energy source that is commercially viable at this time.
That needs to be qualified. Split up the statement. "There is no truly 'green' energy source." Correct. As you have correctly pointed out with all renewables there are downsides, flooding with Hydro, bird kills with wind turbines, etc. But there are dirty solutions and "greener" solutions.
As for not commercially viable ... the greenest of the options are commercially viable and have been for decades. We prob should be paying more so that they are greener and made in Australia where we can vouch for their green credentials though. And that creates jobs here.

> To my mind the experiences of old plants in unstable areas doesn't necessarily relate to a high risk profile here for a well planned and executed installation.
They were all planned by experienced engineers, overseen by Govt regulations, and build according to specifications. Goes to show that when the **** hits the fan no amount of "worlds best practice" will mitigate the disaster. Just read the list of accidents (I updated my earlier post with references).

> Their energy density is extraordinary and possibly unsurpassed.
Absolutely correct. Renewables cannot match it. Already in Aust we have some towns that don't want the large solar farms on good productive farmland. That's a difficult issue.
But those panels can be removed at any time in the future and that land can go back to farming for food. It's never going to contaminate that town or their land.

Mike

From what I've read, it would take about 10 years to build and commission a 2500MW nuclear power plant. In the same time you could build hundreds of solar/battery farms and be bringing them online incrementally reaching the same 2500MW generating capacity in about 7 years. It's not really a valid question to ask whether we should be considering nuclear power, we should really be asking whether we should be considering any more large scale power plants of any type over local or on-site power generation.

The argument for large scale commercial power generating facilities is diminishing daily. Pretty soon anyone who can, commercial or residential, will be generating their own power on-site. Ultimately it will be the grid itself that kills commercial power generation. Maintenance costs of poles and wires as well as transmission power loss is making it an increasingly inefficient way to distribute electricity. Natural disasters always impact the grid, but not necessarily the power plants, not to mention the visual benefits of getting rid of all that crap strung out all over the countryside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solmanic

From what I've read, it would take about 10 years to build and commission a 2500MW nuclear power plant. In the same time you could build hundreds of solar/battery farms and be bringing them online incrementally reaching the same 2500MW generating capacity in about 7 years. It's not really a valid question to ask whether we should be considering nuclear power, we should really be asking whether we should be considering any more large scale power plants of any type over local or on-site power generation.

The argument for large scale commercial power generating facilities is diminishing daily. Pretty soon anyone who can, commercial or residential, will be generating their own power on-site. Ultimately it will be the grid itself that kills commercial power generation. Maintenance costs of poles and wires as well as transmission power loss is making it an increasingly inefficient way to distribute electricity. Natural disasters always impact the grid, but not necessarily the power plants, not to mention the visual benefits of getting rid of all that crap strung out all over the countryside.

---

I know nothing of this, but I think we need big power sources to stablise the grid. ie: big alternators running at exacting frequencies/voltages that works as a filter/stabliser for all of the smaller power generators.

seeya,
Shane L.

[emoji23]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...d36f4967d2.jpg

OK, so after staying up way too late last night looking into this in more detail I have summarised the various plants Mike used as examples in the attached spreadsheet. Many of those I'd never heard of so it was a voyage of discovery and a history lesson. The file is pretty rough, but I think it captures the main issues.

Attachment 151834

The first thing that I noted is that all of these occurred in very old plants ('60s design, typically) and that the vast majority were relatively minor incidents that happen in any power plant or similar industrial environment. Systems typically operated as intended and safely contained any potential issue and they are there as a line item for record rather than there being anything untoward. There was some worrying evidence of slap-dash management and poor process and attitudes to safety, etc in some cases. And there were some environmental concerns raised that weren't unusual for the era in any power station as we just didn't think about the impact of sucking huge amounts of water in and then pouring it back into bays and rivers significantly hotter. Hazelwood isn't that different in that regard. Excluding Chernobyl, and to a lesser extent Fukushima and Ibaraki, the number of incidents and injuries is pretty minimal and, I would think, generally comparable to coal/gas steam turbine power stations of similar age. Surely we know a lot more after half a century of running hundreds of nuclear plants around the world? There are over 450 nuclear plants running today, globally, with that number planned to rise to over 500 with those under construction. I think the file is there to read and interpret so I won't bang on further regarding those examples.

I still believe that nuclear, using modern control systems and materials and the attitudes we have to health and safety nowadays, is viable enough to be on the table for inclusion and should not just be discarded as an option due to mistakes of the past and the antiquated equipment and thinking from that era. I'd rather have a nuclear power station in my town than be surrounded by hundreds of wind turbines, for example.

I'd like to understand the reprocessing better as I thought new methods and technologies were developing to extract the next chunk of energy from 'spent' fuel as it currently exists. So much of the energy is still in there not being used and instead going to waste, literally. However I haven't researched that so maybe I'm tilting at windmills and that's not able to be realised anytime soon. Does anyone have anything on this they can share?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoClax

OK, so after staying up way too late last night looking into this in more detail I have summarised the various plants Mike used as examples in the attached spreadsheet. Many of those I'd never heard of so it was a voyage of discovery and a history lesson. The file is pretty rough, but I think it captures the main issues.

Attachment 151834

The first thing that I noted is that all of these occurred in very old plants ('60s design, typically) and that the vast majority were relatively minor incidents that happen in any power plant or similar industrial environment. Systems typically operated as intended and safely contained any potential issue and they are there as a line item for record rather than there being anything untoward. There was some worrying evidence of slap-dash management and poor process and attitudes to safety, etc in some cases. And there were some environmental concerns raised that weren't unusual for the era in any power station as we just didn't think about the impact of sucking huge amounts of water in and then pouring it back into bays and rivers significantly hotter. Hazelwood isn't that different in that regard. Excluding Chernobyl, and to a lesser extent Fukushima and Ibaraki, the number of incidents and injuries is pretty minimal and, I would think, generally comparable to coal/gas steam turbine power stations of similar age. Surely we know a lot more after half a century of running hundreds of nuclear plants around the world? There are over 450 nuclear plants running today, globally, with that number planned to rise to over 500 with those under construction. I think the file is there to read and interpret so I won't bang on further regarding those examples.

I still believe that nuclear, using modern control systems and materials and the attitudes we have to health and safety nowadays, is viable enough to be on the table for inclusion and should not just be discarded as an option due to mistakes of the past and the antiquated equipment and thinking from that era. I'd rather have a nuclear power station in my town than be surrounded by hundreds of wind turbines, for example.

I'd like to understand the reprocessing better as I thought new methods and technologies were developing to extract the next chunk of energy from 'spent' fuel as it currently exists. So much of the energy is still in there not being used and instead going to waste, literally. However I haven't researched that so maybe I'm tilting at windmills and that's not able to be realised anytime soon. Does anyone have anything on this they can share?

---

Yes, lets forget about the absolute mind blowing costs of decommissioning them. Our kids and grandkids can worry about that. "Not my problem so long as I get what I want now" ...... :)

Chernobyl, USSR Catastrophic core meltdown

not sure i agree with this, more of an excursion, leading to steam explosions in the core and fires, with no containment building.

Nuclear is by far the most expensive of the new power generation options. Renewables are by far the cheapest new power option.
It's almost impossible to insure, except by governments.
Also, it's wrong to say Australia is a stable continent. We have dozens of earthquakes every day. We're also moving north, and the Pacific Ocean plate is moving towards us. Not stable at all.
So no, nuclear is not a viable option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Also, it's wrong to say Australia is a stable continent.

---

umm....

Dammit Mike. Now I've got all this new reading to do! :P Thanks for the links, will trawl through them and expand my brain.

You stated above... "It is not an "ecological disaster". Solar cell manufacturing is a process whereby all chemicals used in the manufacturing can be handled safely, disposed of OK, and are no where near as risky as radioactive products. Its cheese and chalk." You said it CAN be and I 100% agree and wrote that myself. I was stating that it typically isn't in the real world based on my experience and talking to those that have been exposed to third-world manufacture first hand - and that is the norm. I 100% agree that it's a reason we should be manufacturing here where our culture just doesn't allow that sort of environmental vandalism. But I believe that we should still have a manufacturing industry here and the death of almost all of it has crippled our country.

Ditto for precious-metal mining. CAN and ARE are unfortunately not necessarily aligned and politics trump technology regularly. There are too many reports of corruption and sheer exploitation and widespread, wanton destruction. Appalling to our way of thinking.

I'll stand by my statement on green sources and being commercially viable. The two are linked and it relates to scale. It has to be big enough and generate enough energy to make sense. To do that it'll have some significant effect on the environment irrespective of what the power source is. "Green" stuff can make money, absolutely, and does or it wouldn't exist. I have no issue with paying more for something that delivers a 'greener' footprint and I believe we should step up and do exactly that to drive towards that. There are definitely greener and dirtier methods and we should go after the greener ones wherever possible.

You stated "They were all planned by experienced engineers, overseen by Govt regulations, and build according to specifications. Goes to show that when the **** hits the fan no amount of "worlds best practice" will mitigate the disaster. " However I haven't seen any data showing a plant less than thirty years old having any reported issues. Everything I saw related to plants conceived in the 50s and 60s. That's almost like comparing HUE166 with an L405 Rangie. Regulations, technology, safety culture and knowledge all move on. My main point is that these were plants often hastily thrown up in the post-war nuclear age and then sticky-taped with updates over the decades. They are old and fundamentally flawed, borderline unsafe and inefficient (a bit like the majority of our coal stations here I suppose...but they aren't radioactive thankfully). Chernobyl should remind us of what can go wrong if we let it, not paralyse us a third of a century later.

I'm not saying we should shelve everything else and go 100% nuclear as that's the cleanest way by any means, just that it should be part of the mix where it makes sense. Potentially as a stepping-stone while other greener options develop.

Good to see some good, robust debate on here. Cheers.