Nuclear

[trout1105]

Solar and Wind power is a relatively cheap and clean option of electrical power production However the storage of this power is neither cheap or Clean, Nor is it reliable in the long term as far as battery life goes.
Nuclear power is a more reliable, more cost effective and a cleaner option to millions of batteries as a backup to our solar/wind grids.

[RANDLOVER]

A "battery" doesn't have to be L-ion, Li Po, etc, it can be pumped hydro, molten salt, etc.

[Tombie]

A "battery" doesn't have to be L-ion, Li Po, etc, it can be pumped hydro, molten salt, etc.

Not much pumped hydro or molten salt on the side of your house or powering your future EV I hope.

Molten salt - is also mined.

Having just spent a significant amounts of time working with the Government on a potential Pumped Hydro Project - let’s look at the implications....
3.2Mega litres of Potable water will be used to initially set up the dam.
Concrete use is astronomical.
To make an optimum design set up the Mine being used is being mined larger. 25,000l of Diesel a day is going into those machines.
Total run time - 10-12hrs
These “batteries” are being built because they can cash in when demand is high and prices are up.

[Eevo]

A "battery" doesn't have to be L-ion, Li Po, etc, it can be pumped hydro, molten salt, etc.

i would like to see more pumped hydro. australia doesnt have the best geography for it, but we can do better.

[Toxic_Avenger]

This might be interesting to some:

I heard Imgur Likes Math - Album on Imgur (https://imgur.com/gallery/aB6Mf4L)

Wind has approx 25% efficiency, with a 12-15 year life span.
Nuclear is 100% efficient (operating at approx 90% of it’s capacity) for a design life of 70 years.

We have space, we have the raw materials, we should strongly consider it on merit.

[Ferret]

This might be interesting to some:

I heard Imgur Likes Math - Album on Imgur (https://imgur.com/gallery/aB6Mf4L)

Wind has approx 25% efficiency, with a 12-15 year life span.
Nuclear is 100% efficient (operating at approx 90% of it’s capacity) for a design life of 70 years.

We have space, we have the raw materials, we should strongly consider it on merit.

Not sure how you're measuring or defining efficiency here but nuclear is not 100% efficient. Heat from nuclear is converted to electricity in exactly the same way as heat from coal is converted to electricity. That conversion process is ~30 - 40% efficient in terms of converting available heat energy to electrical energy.

I believe nuclear power stations deliberately run a little lower on efficiency so as not to push the bounds of the envelope for safety reasons.

Not against nuclear myself but to say it's 100% efficient is not correct.

[Toxic_Avenger]

I was paraphrasing a 3rd party’s opinion off the internet. I’m no expert. Perhaps they were referring to fuel efficiency from new rods to end of life? We may never know.

[DiscoMick]

Nuclear is hugely expensive, takes up to a decade to build, creates highly dangerous wastes which are a threat for thousands of years and can't be insured, meaning only governments can underwrite it. No government is going to choose nuclear over renewables. Its just a dead duck. Or, as Monty Python might have said, it is expired, karked it, gone to heaven - it is an ex option. Just forget it. It can't happen.

[Homestar]

Well not with that attitude... 😆

[Tombie]

Mining and processing Spodumene isn’t the nicest thing to do either.

Concrete production isn’t particularly safe or friendly.

A few glowing rods are easy to safely and effectively dispose of.

TCO won’t be to bad... Solar is not the be all and end all, it’s a lot worse than believed.

[speleomike]

Wind has approx 25% efficiency, with a 12-15 year life span.
Nuclear is 100% efficient (operating at approx 90% of it’s capacity) for a design life of 70 years.


The nuclear reactors had a design life of 30 years. In many countries like the US the Govt has had to give dispensation to allow them to continue operating past their designed lifetimes as they cannot afford to decommission them. There is nowhere where they can be disposed of economically. Hence why they are still operating. There are NONE that had design lives of 70 years.

Mike

[speleomike]

A few glowing rods are easy to safely and effectively dispose of.


That's nearly as funny as Eevo's one liners in the Jokes thread :-)

Mike

[Tombie]

It’s only the lack of agreement by multiple parties globally and the entire NIMBY problem that stops a safe solution being developed.

[speleomike]

It’s only the lack of agreement by multiple parties globally and the entire NIMBY problem that stops a safe solution being developed.

I quite agree, those NIMBYs living in Sellafield, Idaho Falls, Three Mile Island (all in the US), Leningrad, Hamm-Uentrop (West Germany), Paks (Hungary), Fukui (Japan) had just a bit of "stuff" released into their backyard and of course Chernobyl & Fukushima had just a bit more. I don't know what their complaining about :-) Although probably many of those have ceased complaining.

Mike

[Tombie]

I quite agree, those NIMBYs living in Sellafield, Idaho Falls, Three Mile Island (all in the US), Leningrad, Hamm-Uentrop (West Germany), Paks (Hungary), Fukui (Japan) had just a bit of "stuff" released into their backyard and of course Chernobyl & Fukushima had just a bit more. I don't know what their complaining about :-) Although probably many of those have ceased complaining.

Mike

Hardly a modern comparison - humouring comment but hardly relevant to modern systems and modern processing and handling.


Your obvious distaste of all things nuclear is clear. Why not make your stand against it complete.

Make sure all your friends and family have nothing to do with anything based on radioactive isotopes of any kind.
No nuclear medicines, Chemotherapy, no x-rays, or medical treatments using radiation of any type.

Unfortunately one of the best learning tools is failure. Modern plants have come so far that those old incidents are nigh on impossible to replicate.

How many lives have been ruined to produce renewables? How much processing and byproducts to make silicone wafers, concrete, spodumene processing, synthetic graphite, steel, oil, diesel, gas?

You can pick and choose your protest, just like all other humans like to do. I’ll put money on it though, the Benzine and all the other rubbish you’re inhaling/ingesting in day to day life is going to be the root cause of more deaths through cancers etc than any nuclear event on this planet has ever caused or continues to cause.

Until world governments work together on efficient, effective and safe (by design) forms of power generation rather than ad-hoc implementation of random solutions - we will likely never solve the issue.

[speleomike]

Hi

> Your obvious distaste of all things nuclear is clear. Why not make your stand against it complete.
> Make sure all your friends and family have nothing to do with anything based on radioactive isotopes of any kind.
> No nuclear medicines, Chemotherapy, no x-rays, or medical treatments using radiation of any type.

In this thread I have only stated my opinion on nuclear power, which I'm against. This does not include everything that is nuclear based. I'm quite OK with many medical or metallurgical applications of nuclear energy. I'm even amenable towards Lucas Heights staying where it is, which has done some pretty public stuff ups over the last few years.

> Modern plants have come so far that those old incidents are nigh on impossible to replicate.

Current US, French and Japanese reactors are older Generation II designs. Yes, Gen III and III+ designs will be using passive cooling systems that require no user intervention to operate. They are also known as "advanced design reactors". In that aspect they probably are safer. There is one being tested now in Japan. But they will not be ready for commencement of building before 2020 according to the World Nuclear Association.

Too late. More economically renewable technology has simply passed them by.

Mike

[bsperka]

Latest nuclear energy economics study
"Nuclear energy is never profitable", new study slams nuclear power business case | RenewEconomy (https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-energy-is-never-profitable-new-study-slams-nuclear-power-business-case-49596/)

[DiscoMick]

How could it ever be profitable? It can only be profitable if the disposal costs are ignored for spent material to be stored safely for thousands of years. Add in that real cost on future generations and it would be enormous. For example, imagine how much it is going to cost taxpayers to keep Chernobyl safe in the future. Remember also that you can't just bury the radioactive wastes or tip them down a mine and walk away. They could poison the water table and everyone who drinks that water, as well as food crops and nature. The potential real costs are so huge that they can't even be insured.

[speleomike]

The potential real costs are so huge that they can't even be insured.

Absolutely correct. Commercial insurance companies do not take on nuclear power stations. They are "insured" or "indemnified" by their countries government and their citizens taxes. A very nice tidy deal there.

Mike

[DiscoMick]

Coal is now in the same position for new mines like Adani.

[VladTepes]

Yes. But fusion., 😁

[Tombie]

How could it ever be profitable? It can only be profitable if the disposal costs are ignored for spent material to be stored safely for thousands of years. Add in that real cost on future generations and it would be enormous. For example, imagine how much it is going to cost taxpayers to keep Chernobyl safe in the future. Remember also that you can't just bury the radioactive wastes or tip them down a mine and walk away. They could poison the water table and everyone who drinks that water, as well as food crops and nature. The potential real costs are so huge that they can't even be insured.

Basics like energy and water shouldn’t be profitable.

That’s half the problem with this world.

[speleomike]

Hi


Basics like energy and water shouldn’t be profitable.


Now that's a left aligned sentence :-)

There are those that think water should be profitable and made into a saleable commodity where the whoever pays the most gets to use it. Think "Murray Darling Basin Plan" and water traders that don't own any land. Anyways let's not open that can or worms here :-)

Mike (left aligned)

[Tombie]

Hi



Now that's a left aligned sentence :-)

There are those that think water should be profitable and made into a saleable commodity where the whoever pays the most gets to use it. Think "Murray Darling Basin Plan" and water traders that don't own any land. Anyways let's not open that can or worms here :-)

Mike (left aligned)

All good Mike, I’m not aligned to any party or specific ideology. In this case I just believe these 2 resources and how they are provided to the population are almost a no-brainer.

[Eevo]

All good Mike, I’m not aligned to any party or specific ideology. In this case I just believe these 2 resources and how they are provided to the population are almost a no-brainer.


im with you on this.

public utilities: water, power, possibly internet, defense.
most of the discussion is where to draw the line. healthcare? universal basic income? schooling? etc etc

[LRT]

Nuclear reactors called SMRs are being touted as possible energy source for Australia - Politics - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-07/small-modular-reactors-nuclear-explained/11386856)

[gofish]

Rather than putting our rubbish in big holes then burning coal, why not just burn the rubbish instead ? Just a thought.

[Tombie]

Rather than putting our rubbish in big holes then burning coal, why not just burn the rubbish instead ? Just a thought.

It’s been looked at - I also worked on a project of using biomass to produce steel.

Very interesting stuff...

And it’s viable to a degree. Not to the scale of significant power production though.

[Don 130]

Nuclear power not the answer as renewables continue to boom in Australia, report finds - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-27/energy-audit-finds-nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer-for-australia/11450850?WT.ac=statenews_nsw)

Don

[NavyDiver]

Australia to acquire nuclear submarine fleet as part of historic deal with US and UK to counter China'''s influence - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/australia-nuclear-submarine-partnership-us-uk/100465814)

Australia to acquire nuclear submarine fleet in historic deal with US and UK
Suspected the German hydrogen might - got it wrong. The very cool O boats I knew and had kill me again and again ( In exercises) are gone. A Boat that can circumnavigate Australia underwater is clearly a lot smarter than a smelly old oil burner.

A lot of Anti Nuclear weapons types will be concerned. I share concerns with N weapons. I love Nuclear power with of course a caveat that nuclear waste must be considered and dealt with. Oddly this just might put me in a Hydrogen truck.

I have been overweight in my silly investment in this sphere for several years. Now for the first time I have been green plus some big margin. Nice to have to consider some big tax payments now [bigrolf]

[W&KO]

Australia to acquire nuclear submarine fleet as part of historic deal with US and UK to counter China'''s influence - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/australia-nuclear-submarine-partnership-us-uk/100465814)

Australia to acquire nuclear submarine fleet in historic deal with US and UK
Suspected the German hydrogen might - got it wrong. The very cool O boats I knew and had kill me again and again ( In exercises) are gone. A Boat that can circumnavigate Australia underwater is clearly a lot smarter than a smelly old oil burner.

A lot of Anti Nuclear weapons types will be concerned. I share concerns with N weapons. I love Nuclear power with of course a caveat that nuclear waste must be considered and dealt with. Oddly this just might put me in a Hydrogen truck.

I have been overweight in my silly investment in this sphere for several years. Now for the first time I have been green plus some big margin. Nice to have to consider some big tax payments now [bigrolf]


I assume we won’t be taking them to NZ for any joint exercises………or show them off

[101RRS]

I assume we won’t be taking them to NZ for any joint exercises………or show them off

Nor Sydney and maybe some other Australian ports which are declared nuclear free zones where nuclear powered or nuclear armed ships are banned from entering.

A nuclear powered ship has not been into Sydney since before 1976. USS Truxton a nuclear powered cruiser was the last to try to visit Sydney in about 1980 but was banned and had to visit Jervis Bay instead.

The yanks get around the nuclear armed issue by not confirming or denying they are nuclear armed and this is accepted. (NZ requires a declaration of yes or no - hence their political and intelligence dispute with the US many years back).

Such a declaration obviously does not work for nuclear powered vessels so our own submarines will not be able to visit Sydney.

[Tombie]

Yes they will, they’ll just change the decree.

Nothing funnier than Sydney’s stance on Nuclear yet has hospitals all over and a medical reactor etc.

[NavyDiver]

Yes they will, they’ll just change the decree.

Nothing funnier than Sydney’s stance on Nuclear yet has hospitals all over and a medical reactor etc.

Let not chat about Lucas Heights them[bigrolf] https://www.google.com/url'sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjA3s6Hz4LzAhXZzjgGHVDxDosQFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ansto.gov.au%2Fabout%2Fcomin g-to-visit%2Fvisit-our-sydney-facilities&usg=AOvVaw3iArTvfQG4hzAdcWlGL34i

I just read it is 8 Subs. Big difference in my books between Nuclear power and Nuclear weapons. NP is essential to Nuclear Medicine

Happy honestly the NIMBY types get up my nose a bit.

Was watching a German A.I.R. sub announcement (Hydrogen) and wondering just yesterday. I then woke up to this. Notices a fellow naughty boy sailor( Kidding) Former Leading Junior Recruit navy boy now Senator Rex P is happy the french long lunch has stopped.[biggrin]

[trout1105]

Nor Sydney and maybe some other Australian ports which are declared nuclear free zones where nuclear powered or nuclear armed ships are banned from entering.

A nuclear powered ship has not been into Sydney since before 1976. USS Truxton a nuclear powered cruiser was the last to try to visit Sydney in about 1980 but was banned and had to visit Jervis Bay instead.

The yanks get around the nuclear armed issue by not confirming or denying they are nuclear armed and this is accepted. (NZ requires a declaration of yes or no - hence their political and intelligence dispute with the US many years back).

Such a declaration obviously does not work for nuclear powered vessels so our own submarines will not be able to visit Sydney.

If an Aussie sub needs to go to Sydney it will, end of storey[thumbsupbig]

[Homestar]

My biggest issue with all of this is that Scotty from Marketing can’t pronounce Nuclear!!!

[JDNSW]

So I notice!

[ramblingboy42]

at least he doesn't say it like newcula.....I can't remember who used to say that....

[Homestar]

at least he doesn't say it like newcula.....I can't remember who used to say that....

Homer Simpson. 👍😁

[johnp38]

I gave up on telling people to say new-clear as one word decades ago

[trout1105]

Homer Simpson. 👍😁

Morrison's Doppelganger [biggrin]

[NavyDiver]

The poms just added a bit, Japan is restarting (https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Japan-Restarts-Nuclear-Power-Plants-To-Slash-Emissions.html). BCA here just added a goal/target that is admirable yet I feel almost impossible to do with out doing what the poms and others are going to do.

LONDON (BLOOMBERG) - Britain will reserve a key role for nuclear power in the nation's electricity system as a backup for renewables in a plan to phase out natural gas by 2035.
Fossil fuels will no longer be used to generate power by the middle of the next decade as Britain tackles the double threat of climate change and an energy supply crunch that has sent prices spiralling to record highs.
The government says the plan is "a landmark move to end Britain's dependency on volatile fossil fuels".



Screws are now on Australia really.
Business Council of Australia calls for ambitious short-term carbon emissions reduction target (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-09/business-council-australia-new-ambitious-carbon-emissions-target/100526742)

While it might be hard, I wonder if this now urgent change might force rethinking our bans for local power generation? As much renewables as possible is fine with me. Enough power is required by all. Suspect some change will occur even here.

[speleomike]

Hi

I do not want the nuclear power industry to even try to start their machinations here in Australia. Otherwise the public i.e. us will end up footing the bill. And it will be a big bill.

Reactors are becoming a big liability. Insurance companies and investment companies will not touch them. Here is another one that bites the dust. Below is an extra from: The end of an era: TVA gives up construction permit for Bellefonte nuclear plant after 47 years. By Dave Flessner, Chattanooga Times Free Press, Tenn. September 17, 2021

America's federally-owned electric utility, the Tennessee Valley Authority, has spent billions of dollars with nothing to show for it, reports the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

"Nearly 47 years after construction began on the Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant in Northeast Alabama, the Tennessee Valley Authority is giving up its construction permit for America's biggest unfinished nuclear plant and abandoning any plans to complete the twin-reactor facility..."

Giving up the construction permit at Bellefonte signals the end of any new nuclear plant construction at TVA with only seven of the 17 nuclear reactors the utility once planned to build ever completed.... Since the 1970s, a total of 95 nuclear reactors proposed to be built by U.S. utilities have been canceled due to rising construction costs, slowing power demand and cheapening power alternatives.

TVA spokesman Jim Hopson said in the past two decades, the growth in power demand in the Tennessee Valley has continued to slow as more energy efficiency measures have been adopted and the price of natural gas, solar power and additional hydroelectric generation has declined in competition with nuclear.

[dero]

When forming an educated opinion on nuclear power , DON'T FORGET THE WASTE , Britain is leaching theirs into the North sea [ ask their neighbors ] What is the rest of the world doing with theirs ?
What does Australia plan to do with ours ?
When you look at the costing , look for the part where they have budgeted for the long term disposal of the waste & included it in the financial & environmental cost .

[johnp38]

I like new-clear power, well, once it becomes nuclear fusion anyway.

I also like solar and wind and wave and and hydro and other forms of power generation that minimise emissions.

I am in favour of a highly regulated as safe as humanly possible nuclear industry in the world so we can keep learning and perfecting, we may need to live on a small cold rock one day in the future as explorers powered by microwave or refrigerator sized power plants.

And heaven forbid we get hit by an asteroid darkening our skies for months in a time when we may have gone nuts on solar generation and other weather events destroying wind turbines.

We live in a world where 'once in a hundred year' events (as the pollies like to say to excuse lack of preparedness) have happened multiple times in a few decades. Bushfires, Floods, Storms etc destroying infrastructure.

Don't know how nuclear power plants fare in earthquakes but I am not advocating building more anyway, just suggesting that research needs to go on , not just for medicine but for power generation and the best way to learn is to build and evaluate. Computer modelling is only based on real world results, which then has to be tested and remodelled with extra data.

[NavyDiver]

When forming an educated opinion on nuclear power , DON'T FORGET THE WASTE , Britain is leaching theirs into the North sea [ ask their neighbors ] What is the rest of the world doing with theirs ?
What does Australia plan to do with ours ?
When you look at the costing , look for the part where they have budgeted for the long term disposal of the waste & included it in the financial & environmental cost .


Fully agree a storage a reprocessing for N waste is needed. The Lucas Heights ANSTO Nuclear reactor in your back yard making the stuff we use for Xrays and medical I think I have added before doing Nuclear war training in the 80s was not inspiring any support for nuclear weapons which is an entirely different issue in my view. The anti nuclear power crew NIMBY's have used nuclear medicines like almost all of us during medical treatment and radiology. We all benefit from this amazing science [thumbsupbig]

Sydney has been Nuclear since 1958 [biggrin] The High Flux Australian Reactor (HIFAR) has gone now and a newer Open-pool Australian lightwater reactor (OPAL).

If you have a fire alarm in your house your in the nuclear age as well[bigwhistle]

The Best to date in Nuclear waste storage is possibly Onkalo, on the Finnish island of Olkiluoto, planned to be the first geologic storage facility for high-level nuclear waste: eventually sealed for 100,000 years.

I think we will have a much smart option to use n-waste well before 100,000 years



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoy_WJ3mE50

[chuck]

As much as i hate saying it, i think the time for nuclear power reactors has past.

Not from a safety perspective but from a cost & waste storage perspective.

The reason the Fukushima plant melted down was as simple as fuel supply to pump water to cool rods was broken during emergency.

Why you would locate your fuel source so far away form a generator astounds me - i would have thought better minds would have thought of this and engineered it out.

The cost of a new plant is the other major item - you could just about give every household generous size solar power & batteries for the same sort of cost.

[NavyDiver]

As much as i hate saying it, i think the time for nuclear power reactors has past.

Not from a safety perspective but from a cost & waste storage perspective.

The reason the Fukushima plant melted down was as simple as fuel supply to pump water to cool rods was broken during emergency.

Why you would locate your fuel source so far away form a generator astounds me - i would have thought better minds would have thought of this and engineered it out.

The cost of a new plant is the other major item - you could just about give every household generous size solar power & batteries for the same sort of cost.

France and 10 EU country's labeling N energy as Green
(https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/11/led-by-france-10-eu-countries-call-on-brussels-to-label-nuclear-energy-as-green-source)
A group of ten EU countries, led by France, have asked the European Commission to recognise nuclear power as a low-carbon energy source that should be part of the bloc's decades-long transition towards climate neutrality.
The letter, which was initiated by France, has been sent to the Commission with the signature of nine other EU countries, most of which already count nuclear as part of their national energy mix: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania.
Nuclear plants generate over 26% of the electricity produced in the European Union.
"The rise of energy prices have also shown how important is it to reduce our energy dependence on third countries as fast as possible," says the letter, as seen by Euronews.



my big font sorry [biggrin]

Overnight France added 30 billion+++ investment for NEW nuclear not to remove it. Germany who has reduced from 25% nuclear to about 10% is being forced to returning by simple economics.

You simply cannot remove 26% of the electricity and remove the other "35% of the EU's" very dirty coal and gas can you?

Wind, Solar, Hydro, geothermal .... are all fanatic yet no feasibility of the EU replacing 50% of its current power (N, Coal and gas). The easy sites for all the Wind, Solar, Hydro, geothermal and other are already taken.

We will all be very happy with a future technological development enabling perpetual motion. Until then we need real options that don't emit C02. I think hydrogen is a rockstar. It takes energy to produce, store and move.

The size and scale of the really dirty power to be replaced is not a few thousand solar panels or wind generators.

Have to add as the EU trades power Germany already buys N power and will be help pay for the New French one or will they do a GermExit :)

[ramblingboy42]

Regardless of the contested points about nuclear power generation in Australia , it will never happen.

We can't even decide on the manufacture of a fleet of submarines.....no Ethyl , we have cancelled the order for French submarines which were designed to be nuclear powered and formed alliance with a couple of other english speaking countries to perhaps build what the French could have supplied anyway....but no one knows the options except they will maybe be nuclear powered.

That's not the reason it won't happen though.

The reason is establishing the cost....establishing the location .....establishing the necessary labour force.....establishing the ongoing technology required.....passifying a severely doubting nation.....the list goes on.

Traditionally , based on worlwide existing nuclear plants construction times , our country would have gone through possibly anything from 6-10 changes of government with the same style of dishonest , untrustworthy politicians , before the plant would even be commissioned.

what hope do we as a nation have?....In reality....none.

[NavyDiver]

Not betting your wrong here Tote. We do have space for wind, solar and other options. Germany and similar have no such luxury. I do think Australia will as well honestly just not betting on it.
It is a good day to be a uranium miner regardless[thumbsupbig]

A economist or the London Economist I like listening to discussed green house gas elimination impact of German heavy industry. It seems a wipe out if a better option was not found. Russian gas has been the key for 30 plus years for the EU. The billions spent on the pipe line completed in 2011 is still a mind numbing number. Its is over 1000km long. I wonder if it can be used for hydrogen??? [bigwhistle]

[NavyDiver]

Rolls Royce 210 million for Small N Reactor (https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/)and then the AWU here gets on side (https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Time-for-nuclear-Australian-union-says)

So much rolling the right way

Honestly not a care if we do it or not myself. Suspect we will follow the leaders


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfyEpmQM7bw

[NavyDiver]

Energiekrise: Energie-Versorger gehen pleite und kundigen Vertrage | agrarheute.com (https://www.agrarheute.com/management/finanzen/energiekrise-energie-versorger-gehen-pleite-kuendigen-vertraege-586393)

English translation ""Unfortunately, we are currently unable to offer you any natural gas products," said the energy giant E.ON's website last week. The reason for this is the massive increase in wholesale prices , which have quadrupled within a very short time, says Otima Energie, for example. These high additional costs can only be passed on to customers to a limited extent by contract. So the companies are making massive losses. In other European countries - such as the United Kingdom - a number of energy providers have already filed for bankruptcy. In other countries - such as France, Spain, Poland or Italy - the state tries to protect consumers and companies from the worst consequences of the crisis through subsidies or price caps ....
Politicians are now discussing possible measures to curb gas prices for consumers. The EU Commission proposed a whole series of measures that are already being implemented in France, Spain, Italy and Poland. However, the Commission considers the current rise in energy prices to be temporary, as it is mainly driven by the high demand for the corona pandemic. The Commission experts believe that the situation will stabilize in spring at the latest."

The only solution is clear. No possibility of replacing all that power with out Nuclear being a part of it. Germany will turn back to nuclear FAST and the game is on for the U price.[thumbsupbig]

POMS GAS woes are now "Goto Energy's collapse takes the number of customers affected by the current wave of UK energy company failures to more than two million. (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58959620)"

Its sink and drown with fixed prices for the suppliers meaning they are dead as "Britain's energy minister Kwasi Kwarteng said this month that more companies could collapse but ruled out providing support for struggling energy firms (https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-shell-energy-take-customers-three-failed-suppliers-2021-10-18/)"

Royal Dutch Shell pick up the scraps of the dead business in the UK in the link above. I wonder how much they extracted from the UK Government to keep gas flowing?

[NavyDiver]

Super cycle mentioned? Spot price is [biggrin][biggrin][biggrin] My long time suspicion and a few $$ has now turned to $$$$$$$$$. Not suggesting any investment or financial advice. My win plus in this sector is not in any way assured in the future!

I knew all the data this gent explains well. I am not a pump and dump promise. Not selling anything I have.


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDmY09g5tiR0ocNXvEnOddg

[simonmelb]

30 years ago nuclear looked like a very very good choice to reduce risks of climate change and was supported by the late David Suziki.

Times have changed significantly since then with a mix of solar and wind as the primary generation mechanisms now beating all other forms of generation from a cost perspective.

Simply add pumped hydro, hydrogen and some battery for storage and you win. Then also add ammonia as the intermediate and safety transportable and saleable ingredient for hydrogen production and we can not only generate enough green energy for our own use, but also export - see here: What is green hydrogen, how does green ammonia fit in, and could they pave Australia's way to a renewable future?


What is green hydrogen, how does green ammonia fit in, and could they pave Australia'''s way to a renewable future? - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-16/qld-science-renewable-green-ammonia-hydrogen-hub/100542506)

[gusthedog]

Speaking of batteries, a mate works for a power company and did the sums on how many big batteries we'd need to meet peak demand in Victoria over summer for one day of demand just for ****s and giggles. 1147 times the size of the SA tesla battery is the answer. Staggering.

Also, wind, hydro and solar are all great but they don't provide good base load like coal does. The only alternative to produce the reliable base load is nuclear with current tech.

Once the other technologies catch up there might be alternatives but base load is what we need to source.

[NavyDiver]

30 years ago nuclear looked like a very very good choice to reduce risks of climate change and was supported by the late David Suziki.

Times have changed significantly since then with a mix of solar and wind as the primary generation mechanisms now beating all other forms of generation from a cost perspective.

Simply add pumped hydro, hydrogen and some battery for storage and you win. Then also add ammonia as the intermediate and safety transportable and saleable ingredient for hydrogen production and we can not only generate enough green energy for our own use, but also export - see here: What is green hydrogen, how does green ammonia fit in, and could they pave Australia's way to a renewable future?


What is green hydrogen, how does green ammonia fit in, and could they pave Australia'''s way to a renewable future? - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-16/qld-science-renewable-green-ammonia-hydrogen-hub/100542506)

Fully agree here, Eu, Japan, US Canada....... ++++ are all having an Energy crunch right now. 30 plus years much of the tech you mention ( I love) may be close to close to replacing the current demand in just a few of those other less fortunate places. Storage here is in no way close to cover the lulls in solar and wind. Each of the current big batteries are sub 30 minutes. I may be wrong yet 15 N plants in Japan are restarting now suggesting other options are not yet close to here?

[NavyDiver]

I have subscribe for what we can see for free

Such a lot of money !!! Some other news which is private may!!!!! just might----- could or NOT make the 90% +++ 'un' realized gains I have look????

At least 150 new reactors is known news Needs 450 billion investment by china[bigwhistle]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv2oboz6G3w

[B] Not suggesting any investment or financial advice. My win plus in this sector is not in any way assured in the future!

[NavyDiver]

Germany is a flash point for Nuclear Energy I think as is its naibours

Austrian Defense Minister Klaudia Tanner was the first national figure to warn consumers last month that low energy supplies might make the lights go out this winter. Tanner launched a nationwide poster campaign (https://www.wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/politik/oesterreich/2124385-Verteidigungsministerium-startete-Plakat-Info-Aktion-zu-Blackouts.html) instructing Austrians to prepare for power cuts by keeping 15 days' worth of food on hand.

“The question is not whether a blackout will come, but rather when,” she told the press.

Spain was next, after Algeria shut off (https://www.politico.eu/?p=1882516) one of its two pipelines feeding natural gas to the Iberian Peninsula at the end of October. Algiers says it will fulfill its contracts, and the Spanish government is projecting an aura of calm about gas supplies. Ecological Transition Minister Teresa Ribera insists the country has enough gas reserves (https://www.enagas.es/enagas/es/Comunicacion/NotasPrensa/31_10_2021_NP_Nota_Enagas_sistema_gasista) to cover at least 40 days’ worth of demand, far more than it should need.



Ayuso's statements, and the ensuing media speculation over blackouts, triggered panic buying (https://www.eleconomista.es/actualidad/noticias/11465288/11/21/Miedo-a-un-posible-apagon-Se-disparan-las-ventas-de-camping-gas-bombonas-pilas-y-linternas.html) in Spain, with hardware stores reporting a run on camping stoves, flashlights and canned food. The stockpiling of survivalist supplies has been especially noticeable (https://www.majorcadailybulletin.com/news/international/2021/11/05/92413/mallorca-energy-electricity-blackout.html) on the Balearic island of Mallorca, which is home to a large German-speaking population that has been exposed to talk of blackouts coming from both Vienna and Madrid.


The title is interesting "Europe’s energy freakout (https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-energy-crisis-pipeline-natural-gas-eu/)" Watching and waiting in my investments[biggrin]

[NavyDiver]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck3SMdXIpfc

Honestly N and hydrogen are my worst habits. You may have thought it was a kooky little EV [biggrin] Henrik Langer restart with contracted prices locked at above cost + Uranium is nuts at present. Add poor Russian soldier ordered to dig Trenches in chernobyl and YEP its crazy+++ They were ordered by some ignorant russian officer to fry their testicles and themself with Significant dose of radiation - OUCH. Bet they are grumpy with a issue best left to C.A.!

If you are interest in how Uranium is now becoming a traded commodity you might like to look at "Sprott Physical Uranium Trust" Not investment advice!

[NavyDiver]

"SEOUL -- South Korea has embraced mini reactors as part of the government's approach to achieving carbon neutrality, even though the move backpedals from President Moon Jae-in's earlier pledge to phase out nuclear power.The small modular reactors, or SMRs, will be developed primarily at Munmu Daewang Science Research Center, which is scheduled to open in 2025 in the city of Gyeongju. The government earmarked 326.3 billion won ($281 million) for construction, and the whole project is expected to cost over $500 million."Our country will further develop nuclear technology as the driving force for energy and the economy," Prime Minister Kim Boo-kyum said at the groundbreaking ceremony in late July.The complex will house 16 research facilities. Apart from SMRs, the research center will explore technology for storing nuclear waste and dismantling reactors.
" Link is/maybe paywalled (https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Energy/Small-is-beautiful-in-South-Korea-s-pivot-back-to-nuclear-power) IF have looked at it in the last year

With France. US, Russia, UK and South Korea trying to get SMR commercial and for sale news is getting hotter[biggrin]

[NavyDiver]

Our good mates the Poms giving a very good explanation on power link (https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-61601755) BBC scince

Had a look at a huge array of nuclear plants built and being built in India this morning. They are just over 1% of power from Nuclear.

Another report showing pollution costs India $96USD billion every year (https://www.cleanairfund.org/resource/air-pollution-in-india-and-the-impact-on-business/#:~:text=Air%20pollution%20costs%20Indian%20busine ss,150%25%20of%20India's%20healthcare%20budget.) for health and economic cost was perhaps even more interesting as the trillion plus needed to fix the dirty power supply in India may actually be much cheaper than the current plans which is killing a huge amount of people and costing them billions each year.

Looking at air pollution after listening about the death of a 9 year old girl in London. I think the Doctor who nailed it was remarkable myself (https://open.spotify.com/episode/0cVcnItSKleoZTDYujMIj1'si=74a179b34c624c6f).

Rosamund didn’t know why any of this was happening. How did her kid go from being perfectly healthy… to being in the ICU in just a couple of months… Ella would go to some of the best doctors in London, many different hospitals[2] (https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRXpu6-L7zgEuFZdWV0C9uZBy5XQlmTdYiMAW5e0qH4MfW7iiJM8vVsGL oSxhxBV3yNdSk7B5hzGIIQ/pub#ftnt2)
, and no one could tell them what was going on. After the break, the story of Ella’s medical mystery - and how it made the invisible visible. full transcript (https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRXpu6-L7zgEuFZdWV0C9uZBy5XQlmTdYiMAW5e0qH4MfW7iiJM8vVsGL oSxhxBV3yNdSk7B5hzGIIQ/pub)


RIP
Ella. Happy to hear your not forgotten by your very cool mum or the world

[NavyDiver]

Every now and again I wonder how I can miss very big news. Mia Culpa. 2018 Noble prize is huge news.

10,000 years storage for nuclear waste cut to just 30 minutes is an amazing change.

https://twitter.com/NavyDiver12/status/1533255859014619137's=20&t=YKssXgGXzKvq0BNq1bZqKw

[NavyDiver]

I am not having a go at wind or solar. The scale needed is massive and growing. All options are needed. Nuclear is one of them.

Teewtter[thumbsupbig] (https://twitter.com/TwainsMustache/status/1533916714903257091's=20&t=K-pfmgsrtVfoKzIJM1FYdg)

Not mine but a OMG when you think about it in terms of what is needed for C02 free!


Twain's Mustache


(https://twitter.com/TwainsMustache)
@TwainsMustache

(https://twitter.com/TwainsMustache)



·
8h (https://twitter.com/TwainsMustache/status/1533916714903257091)











Over the last 20 years world governments have spent north of $5 trillion on "green" energy. That has taken fossil fuels share of primary energy from 86% to 84% and world oil consumption increased from 77 million barrels per day to 100 million barrels per day. Do you get it?

[RANDLOVER]

I am not having a go at wind or solar. The scale needed is massive and growing. All options are needed. Nuclear is one of them.



I don't understand the need for nuclear power when we have a ball of nuclear energy in the sky, that generates solar and wind energy that we can use easily and safely to generate power. For a lot of the world it has got to be cheaper and quicker install solar panels and even batteries than build a nuclear power station and transmission lines to rural villages.

[NavyDiver]

I don't understand the need for nuclear power when we have a ball of nuclear energy in the sky, that generates solar and wind energy that we can use easily and safely to generate power. For a lot of the world it has got to be cheaper and quicker install solar panels and even batteries than build a nuclear power station and transmission lines to rural villages.

A little trivia on the sun. Kilogram for kilogram. 1 kg of the sun produces less energy than our compost bins/pile

As much solar as possible is not nearly enough I understand. Power consumed in the "EU in 2020 amounted to 37 086 PJ," (10301667GW)
item 2 "By the end of 2019, a cumulative amount of 629 GW of solar power"[B] entire world

I think you can see the gap? Grow solar by a factor of 16377.85[bighmmm] is not possible and thats just the EU! Add China, USA and India perhaps and that number is more like a few million times to get even close

Add we need much more electricity to replace fossil fuel We need solar but need a lot more than it can provide.

[dero]

Having lived on solar for 3 years & raised 6 kids , I see the biggest issue being waste .
I look how others use their power & see that most could reduce their power usage by nearly half ,simply by taking sensible notice of their power usage .
Living with a limited resource has made acutely aware of what I do .
I run a business & a workshop & my power usage is around half of that used by friends in a purely domestic situation .
I did not really appreciate how much I wasted , for no gain whatsoever , until I had to supply my own.
It is not always possible , especially in a commercial situation , but if you take a critical look , you will soon see how much waste there is , not just power .

[JDNSW]

A little trivia on the sun. Kilogram for kilogram. 1 kg of the sun produces less energy than our compost bins/pile

As much solar as possible is not nearly enough I understand. Power consumed in the "EU in 2020 amounted to 37 086 PJ," (10301667GW)
item 2 "By the end of 2019, a cumulative amount of 629 GW of solar power"[B] entire world

I think you can see the gap? Grow solar by a factor of 16377.85[bighmmm] is not possible and thats just the EU! Add China, USA and India perhaps and that number is more like a few million times to get even close

Add we need much more electricity to replace fossil fuel We need solar but need a lot more than it can provide.

Wind power produces more power worldwide than solar, I believe, although getting comparable numbers is difficult (e.g. installed capacity vs actual amount produced etc). And there is a problem getting the same dates, with both solar and wind capacity climbing rapidly.

[NavyDiver]

Wind power produces more power worldwide than solar, I believe, although getting comparable numbers is difficult (e.g. installed capacity vs actual amount produced etc). And there is a problem getting the same dates, with both solar and wind capacity climbing rapidly.

I Love wind John

More the better sir

Scale up is a little above my ability to calculate. I do know wind is often the most cost effective option if put in the right spot. I did hear every bit we can produce in optimal spots in a very cool Western state have been flagged for use[bigwhistle] I also hear those billion $$$ projects cover just a fraction of the need they are going to cover. I think I added a link to that huge WA project in the Hydrogen Thread? Just in case a link again (https://intercontinentalenergy.com/asian-renewable-energy-hub)

Nuclear is really the only other Carbon free option to fill the HUGE gap unless Fusion greats unlimited free power. I am often wrong of course. [biggrin]

[RANDLOVER]

Wind power produces more power worldwide than solar, I believe, although getting comparable numbers is difficult (e.g. installed capacity vs actual amount produced etc). And there is a problem getting the same dates, with both solar and wind capacity climbing rapidly.

IIRC the rule of thumb is a factor of three, installed capacity versus power produced as the wind doesn't blow all the time.

[ramblingboy42]

I've never been anti nuclear power generation.

I have been against the manner in which it is done , the cost involved and the time it takes to actually design and commission a nuclear power generation facility. It seems the world governments still prefer to develop nuclear weapons than a true cost efficient power generation facilities.

One of the biggest requirements for any type of thermal power generation of which nuclear power is , is cooling water, huge supplies of it.

For some reason , the proposers of nuclear power stations want them to be a massive industrial development focussed in the centre of development.

Ships/submarines use small, very efficient nuclear plants and have shown to be extremely safe and durable.

Why can't small efficient similar plants be dotted around our planet , just as the other alternate power generators are doing , and negating the need for huge water supplies for cooling , centralisation of populations and logistics and better selection of sites.

After the demise of the current dinosaur generators , I don't think there will ever be a population centralised industry in this country again.

[Homestar]

I've never been anti nuclear power generation.

I have been against the manner in which it is done , the cost involved and the time it takes to actually design and commission a nuclear power generation facility. It seems the world governments still prefer to develop nuclear weapons than a true cost efficient power generation facilities.

One of the biggest requirements for any type of thermal power generation of which nuclear power is , is cooling water, huge supplies of it.

For some reason , the proposers of nuclear power stations want them to be a massive industrial development focussed in the centre of development.

Ships/submarines use small, very efficient nuclear plants and have shown to be extremely safe and durable.

Why can't small efficient similar plants be dotted around our planet , just as the other alternate power generators are doing , and negating the need for huge water supplies for cooling , centralisation of populations and logistics and better selection of sites.

After the demise of the current dinosaur generators , I don't think there will ever be a population centralised industry in this country again.

The tech on small reactors is pretty much all owned by the Military so they would have no interest in letting the world know how this is done - also, with it being so controversial to put in 1 reactor, how would you go suggesting dozens or hundreds of them being dotted around the place?

[ramblingboy42]

yes , any argument in favour of a practical , cost efficient , problem free and durable system almost self defeats itself.

I think a lot of people just dont realise how much endurance the fuel source has.

[JDNSW]

Not only is the tech on small reactors mostly owned by the military, but unless I am mistaken, they depend on the use of more highly enriched uranium, production of which implies nuclear weapons capability! (The enrichment needed is not to weapons grade, but .......)

Natural uranium is 99% U-238, less than 1% U-235. U-238 is not in itself suitable as a nuclear fuel (but can be converted to U-239, or plutonium, which are, in some reactors), so that the key requirement for a nuclear fuel is to increase the proportion of U-235. Most reactors require 3-5% U-235, nuclear weapons, >20%, in practice 50-90%. Submarine reactors are typically >50%. The prototype "small" reactor used 26.5%.

The problem is that any country using a significant number of "small" reactors will necessarily have access to the ability to produce, quite rapidly, a lot of nuclear weapons. This is in many circles considered an undesirable situation, and the International Atomic Energy Agency will want to know exactly what you are doing and why.

(The most economically practical method used for enrichment is to use a large number of centrifuges to separate uranium hexaflouride into a stream with less and more U-235. While the the equipment is basically simple, you need a lot of it, and uranium hexaflouride is really nasty stuff to handle. And it uses a lot of power.)

[ramblingboy42]

mmm ok, so I'll get down off my camel and resort to blowing , shining and flowing....it's so crazy....this stuff was proposed over 40yrs ago and we really havent made that big an advance. Except in the manufacturing which has a massive footprint.

And possibly the best alternative being nuclear is around 75yrs old without major basic design advances either except for weapons.

Now if we can make hydrogen easily , then we can make water easily to cool our reactors and boilers.

[BradC]

efficient similar plants be dotted around our planet , just as the other alternate power generators are doing , and negating the need for huge water supplies for cooling , centralisation of populations and logistics and better selection of sites..

Water is the issue. Water has always been the issue and water will always be the issue. Not cooling water, but drinking water. Centralisation of population is always around a clean drinkable water source. The power just naturally follows as "civilisation" gets built where people can survive, but as we've shown there's no trickery to transporting power long distances.

[NavyDiver]

Water is the issue. Water has always been the issue and water will always be the issue. Not cooling water, but drinking water. Centralisation of population is always around a clean drinkable water source. The power just naturally follows as "civilisation" gets built where people can survive, but as we've shown there's no trickery to transporting power long distances.


Hit the nail on the Head Brad. Desalination plants use signification amounts of power. Nuclear is already flagged as essential to desalination in many countries. The new small reactors are not water hogs at all happily.

Other big news in Nuclear is The very anti nuclear Germans have "allegedly" just decided to hold off shutting the last 3 operating Nuclear energy plants in Germany. They were schedule to shut them off in December. [thumbsupbig]

[NavyDiver]

Lasers could cut lifespan of nuclear waste from “a million years to 30 minutes,” says Nobel laureate (https://bigthink.com/the-present/laser-nuclear-waste/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1SGPBkLOyefejYsFkdPRaAwq5-lsM6IJIUzig_5fw1Q8KDV)


Excuse me if I shared this before. The "SILEX’ laser isotope separation technology in Sydney during the 1990’s" is a area I watch and play with a bit- NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE

It is a interesting time in the entire nuclear cycle.

[JDNSW]

.....
And possibly the best alternative being nuclear is around 75yrs old without major basic design advances either except for weapons.
......

Bit hard to know due to the lack of public information, but from what is available, it seems unlikely that there have been major advances in nuclear weapons since the 1950s. In delivery methods, yes, but not in the weapons themselves.

[NavyDiver]

Bit hard to know due to the lack of public information, but from what is available, it seems unlikely that there have been major advances in nuclear weapons since the 1950s. In delivery methods, yes, but not in the weapons themselves.

Want some new try technology- TRISO nuclear fuel. (TRi-structural ISOtropic particle fuel)

TRISO particles cannot melt in a reactor and can withstand extreme temperatures well beyond the threshold of current nuclear fuels. Feel the buzz yet? Link (https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/triso-particles-most-robust-nuclear-fuel-earth)

They are not NEW yet these technologies are going to completely change the way the word with see and use nuclear power

Even the Germans are flipping