Nuclear

[laney]

should Australia be considering nucular power as a reliable power source.

[Blknight.aus]

yes

[Homestar]

Yes. You should have made a Poll with the thread - do you want me to add one?

[350RRC]

Absolutely should be considered, but only when the costs of construction, commissioning, decommissioning and waste disposal are transparent.

I'm not opposed to it by any means but the economics need to stack up in an age where all the investment seems to be going to renewables and add ons like batteries, and research into these.

DL

[Eevo]

yes
noone's ever died from a properly designed and operated nuclear power plant.

[goingbush]

Yes, absolutely

I'd even have no concerns using an RTG to help power my car.
They are not very efficient but last 22 years, you could just have it constantly charge the battery as an adjunct to regular charging.

[Saitch]

Absolutely should be considered, but only when the costs of construction, commissioning, decommissioning and waste disposal are transparent.

I'm not opposed to it by any means but the economics need to stack up in an age where all the investment seems to be going to renewables and add ons like batteries, and research into these.

DL

I'm thinking that if the economics stacked up then private consortia would have been all over it.

[speleomike]

Hi

When you factor in the decommissioning costs they are uneconomic.
No insurance company will touch them so all insurance is borne by the Govt i.e. the taxpayer.
The US has had to pass legislation to extend the operating life of many of their reactors beyond their designed lifespan to postpone decommissioning them - just because of the cost.
Just last week it was announced that the cost of decommissioning Hanford has blown out to US$660 billion and has stalled because that amount of $ is simply not available from Congress.
The prices of power from renewable energy sources has undercut nuclear power so much that the later is now not viable.

When I say we should not have Nuclear power is Australia - trust me 'I'm a Doctor" :-)
(PhD in Physics)

Mike

[p38arover]

When I say we should not have Nuclear power is Australia - trust me 'I'm a Doctor" :-)
(PhD in Physics)

I shall have to ask my wife's brother in law. He's a PhD nuclear physicist (used to work at Lucas Heights).

[DiscoClax]

We have the most stable conditions on Earth for nuclear reactors. Political, geological, environmental, economic, etc, etc. And the raw material is abundant and easily mined. And we have large areas in which to store the 'waste' until it can be reprocessed and much more energy extracted in the future. Yes, we absolutely should be using modern, efficient, safe nuclear technology here in Aus. Completely bonkers that the scare mongering surrounding issues seen elsewhere have stopped this clean energy source locally. Boggles my mind.

[Xtreme]

Definitely

[Xtreme]

Yes. You should have made a Poll with the thread - do you want me to add one?
Yes please.

[speleomike]

Hi


We have the most stable conditions on Earth for nuclear reactors. Political, geological, environmental, economic, etc, etc. And the raw material is abundant and easily mined. And we have large areas in which to store the 'waste' until it can be reprocessed and much more energy extracted in the future. Yes, we absolutely should be using modern, efficient, safe nuclear technology here in Aus. Completely bonkers that the scare mongering surrounding issues seen elsewhere have stopped this clean energy source locally. Boggles my mind.

> we have large areas in which to store the 'waste'
I hope your not thinking of the Nullarbor - it's porous limestone with caves.
Storing it for several hundred or more years. Will a metal sign do which will last that long? Oh and some MS Word docs stored in Canberra for each generation to read so they remember.

> reprocessed and much more energy extracted in the future.
Reprocessing won't be done. It's too extensive and you don't get anything back for free the second time around.

> modern, efficient, safe
Renewables are also modern and efficient. You can't disagree that they are much safer than nuclear.
You would have to agree with me that solar is very safe. We might disagree if I said nuclear is unsafe.
Because of the complexity of nuclear it will always be problematic.

It's also a question of risk vs consequences. Even if you make a low risk one (pebble bed?) the consequences of failure are still huge.

> scare mongering surrounding issues seen elsewhere
I'll ignore military ones and just include power reactors. I'll ignore the dozens of accidents prior to the 1980's when we had safe, modern ones. So we are left with the failures, accidents and several deaths at Athens Alabama, Plymouth Massachusetts, Chernobyl, Delta Pennsylvania, Nine Mile New York, Lusby Maryland, Waterford Connecticut, Crystal River Florida, Ibaraki Japan, Oak Harbour Ohio, Paks Hungary, Mihama Japan, Forsmark Sweden, Fukushima Japan, Marcoule France.
So don't worry if we have a few here. Us Aussies are much better at design, engineering, building and maintenance :-)
Refs:
Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents)
Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_inciden ts)
Brief History of Nuclear Accidents Worldwide from Union of Concerned Scientists (https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-accidents/history-nuclear-accidents)
Nuclear power plant accidents: listed, visualised and ranked since 1952 from The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank)

> clean energy source
Well the waste isn't black coloured like coal but that's the best you can say about it.

I do like the physics behind it all. But the nuclear industry has had now 60 years, i.e. since the late 50's when commercial power stations were first commissioned, and they still haven't a single power reactor that has produced power for its designed lifetime and been fully decommissioned as an example of what can be achieved. Sixty years later and combinations of human error and mechanical failure still dog the industry. Coupled with a highly non-transparent set of subsidies to the industry.

It didn't deliver all that it promised. It looked promising through to the 70's but by the 80's and 90's the cracks started to appear in its safety and cost. Time to ditch it. Move on.

Mike

[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 :)

[Toxic_Avenger]

Just going to add,
I watched the Chernobyl HBO mini series on a streaming service.
Would recommend.

[Pickles2]

My Brother In Law, has a PHD in Nuclear Physics,...he has no problems with Nuclear.
So, I'm a definite "Yes".
Pickles.

[Redback]

The whole world is going RE-NEWABLE and we are still dicking around with COAL and now you want NUCLEAR:Thump:

I can just see us driving around in Nuke powered Land Rovers with our lead lined clothing looking like the Man from Snowy River, no need for headlights, the car lights the way, don't worry about the waste, we'll just fill the hole created by Adani when they close that down, I'm sure QLD won't mind, it should create jobs for all the 2 headed children in the future:MileStone:

[NavyDiver]

should Australia be considering nuclear power as a reliable power source.

Yes

[ramblingboy42]

NO

for no other reason than the timing is now way out of whack.

we should have seriously considered it 30yrs ago before the onset of alternatives or renewables.

every town in Australia can now , relatively cheaply , set up their own independent power generation system.....(again)

the days of big centralised power generation facilities are over.

I grew up in the bush and every town had its own power station or generator shed...no national grid. No power monopoly companies except in the cities.

because of renewables per se, it appears to be reverting back to the old system where the power generator was owned by the local town council and the users only paid what it cost.

it wasn't a profit making business for the councils but a part of the council's job to provide power to the town.

modern renewable/alternative systems now allow the local councils to control electricity production and costings independent of the big monopolies.

if we were to plan for and build a suitable nuclear power facility in Australia , by the time all feasability studies and costings were done and accepted and the project started , it would be 25+ years into the future before it would even be commissioned.....I just don't think there is an opportunity left now for serious consideration , with the alternative options running along side it.

[DoubleChevron]

I'm guessing almost everyone that says "Yes" is a baby boomer ( The generation that has happily sold off every bit of public infrastructure there parents/grandparents built to the enormous detriment of the kids/grandkids )........

It is a definite "no/never" from me. Forget the left over waste and costs of building one. There is no way I'm saddling my grandkids with the mind blowing costs of decommissioning one ( or several :o:o:o ) of those dinosaurs.

You'd have to be absolutely insane. Build another brown coal power station or two before nuclear. At least if we shut down the brown coal powerstations.... All we will end up with is big empty buildings next to a hole in the ground.

seeya
Shane L.

[speleomike]

Hi


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

[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.

[DoubleChevron]

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.

[LRJim]

[emoji23]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190613/ae7540bc2031d3af6f54c9d36f4967d2.jpg

[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.

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?

[DoubleChevron]

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.

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" ...... :)

[Eevo]

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.

[DiscoMick]

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.

[Eevo]

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

umm....

[DiscoClax]

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.

[Geedublya]

Nuclear isn't going to happen. We can't even setup storage for low level waste in the current climate.

The other point is that it is easy for people right now to make a decision on producing waste which will still be dangerous for many generations to come. No-one can predict the future and I think it is too dangerous to produce and store the waste. I'd rather burn coal and natural gas.

[trout1105]

I have No doubt that the tech for using the power left in nuclear waste will be developed in the not so distant future so there won't be a waste problem.
As for earthquakes being a problem in Aus , Well I call BS on that call.
Solar and wind generation are definitely the way forward But we need a RELIABLE back up source to keep the grid going at night or when the wind isn't blowing.
Battery storage works But at the end of the day a battery has a limited lifetime and then we end up with the problem of disposing all that heavy metal in the batteries.
Nuclear is by far the best option to supplement the grid[thumbsupbig]

[speleomike]

Hi all

I particularly agree with ramblingboy42's comments about having country councils setting up and maintaining their own independent power generation systems. It gives us a lot more resiliency and local ratepayers get more control over operation and pricing. All really good points that he raises below.


NO

for no other reason than the timing is now way out of whack.

we should have seriously considered it 30yrs ago before the onset of alternatives or renewables.

every town in Australia can now , relatively cheaply , set up their own independent power generation system.....(again)

the days of big centralised power generation facilities are over.

I grew up in the bush and every town had its own power station or generator shed...no national grid. No power monopoly companies except in the cities.

because of renewables per se, it appears to be reverting back to the old system where the power generator was owned by the local town council and the users only paid what it cost.

it wasn't a profit making business for the councils but a part of the council's job to provide power to the town.

modern renewable/alternative systems now allow the local councils to control electricity production and costings independent of the big monopolies.

if we were to plan for and build a suitable nuclear power facility in Australia , by the time all feasability studies and costings were done and accepted and the project started , it would be 25+ years into the future before it would even be commissioned.....I just don't think there is an opportunity left now for serious consideration , with the alternative options running along side it.

[DiscoMick]

I have No doubt that the tech for using the power left in nuclear waste will be developed in the not so distant future so there won't be a waste problem.
As for earthquakes being a problem in Aus , Well I call BS on that call.
Solar and wind generation are definitely the way forward But we need a RELIABLE back up source to keep the grid going at night or when the wind isn't blowing.
Battery storage works But at the end of the day a battery has a limited lifetime and then we end up with the problem of disposing all that heavy metal in the batteries.
Nuclear is by far the best option to supplement the grid[thumbsupbig]
Five earthquakes were recorded in Australia yesterday and 10 on Tuesday. So far today there has been one.

Latest earthquakes in and around Australia interactive map & list: past 30 days / VolcanoDiscovery (https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/earthquakes/australia.html)

The whole world is a bit shaky.

Interactive Map of Active Volcanoes and recent Earthquakes world-wide (https://earthquakes.volcanodiscovery.com/)

[DoubleChevron]

Hi all

I particularly agree with ramblingboy42's comments about having country councils setting up and maintaining their own independent power generation systems. It gives us a lot more resiliency and local ratepayers get more control over operation and pricing. All really good points that he raises below.

Holly crap .... Our ****house council can't even be relied on to pickup rubbish bins once a week. The lights would NEVER be on if those clowns were responsible for power generation (except in there own mansions .... and the mansions of there big business friends of course). At least it would make it harder for them to be seen in the dark heading for Queensland to hide from the police (again) when they have finally been found fiddling the books (again)

seeya,
Shane L.

[DiscoMick]

Nuclear power stations are two to three times as expensive as renewables and gas and can't compete without massive government subsidies. Obsolete nuclear plants are closing and being replaced with gas and renewables.
It's just not going to happen.

Nuclear Energy in the U.S.: Expensive Source Competing with Cheap Gas and Renewables | Climate Nexus (https://climatenexus.org/climate-news-archive/nuclear-energy-us-expensive-source-competing-cheap-gas-renewables/)

[DiscoClax]

Nuclear power stations are two to three times as expensive as renewables and gas and can't compete without massive government subsidies. Obsolete nuclear plants are closing and being replaced with gas and renewables.
It's just not going to happen.

Nuclear Energy in the U.S.: Expensive Source Competing with Cheap Gas and Renewables | Climate Nexus (https://climatenexus.org/climate-news-archive/nuclear-energy-us-expensive-source-competing-cheap-gas-renewables/)

Lots of countries are still building them... World Nuclear Power Reactors | Uranium Requirements | Future Nuclear Power - World Nuclear Association (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/world-nuclear-power-reactors-and-uranium-requireme.aspx)

The key word above is 'obsolete' as I see it. As many/most of these were built in the 60s and 70s and have a service life of 40 years (with 20 year extension if updated) I think we are seeing a natural lifecycle of old equipment being retired and being replaced with modern equivalents that make sense in the current political and environmental landscape. "Nuclear" is still a dirty word and there is a lot of pressure to close down existing ones and not build new just due to that alone. You don't get votes for building a nuclear anything, but bung in a wind farm or a few hectares of solar and you are in with a chance. Equally, once built, our access to the required raw materials to fee it are second to none so running costs aren't directly comparable with other countries. if governments actually just did things that genuinely made sense there would be much cleverer decisions being made. But instead they are looking at the next election and how they'll get up.

[DiscoClax]

Five earthquakes were recorded in Australia yesterday and 10 on Tuesday. So far today there has been one.

Latest earthquakes in and around Australia interactive map & list: past 30 days / VolcanoDiscovery (https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/earthquakes/australia.html)

The whole world is a bit shaky.

Interactive Map of Active Volcanoes and recent Earthquakes world-wide (https://earthquakes.volcanodiscovery.com/)

Anything much under 3 isn't generally able to be felt even if you are right on top of it and there's not much on that list breaching even that low limit. Not sure these quakes are really what we're talking about. We are in the dead centre of a nice big plate so we get tremors where those in areas less fortunate have half their country levelled. The odd exception, sure, but rare and relatively minor (ie. easily able to be engineered around). Cool link though [thumbsupbig]

[NavyDiver]

Nuclear power stations are two to three times as expensive as renewables and gas and can't compete without massive government subsidies. Obsolete nuclear plants are closing and being replaced with gas and renewables.
It's just not going to happen.

Nuclear Energy in the U.S.: Expensive Source Competing with Cheap Gas and Renewables | Climate Nexus (https://climatenexus.org/climate-news-archive/nuclear-energy-us-expensive-source-competing-cheap-gas-renewables/)

It is easy to mount arguments both ways. Renewable stored as hydrogen might be a option soon but not yet. Pumped hydro and similar storage is a great idea but not any where near sufficient unfortunately. Batteries ( I have two 10kwh at work) are not cost effective at a large scale. Pumped hydro is in my view a lot more effective than large scale batteries. hydrogen 20time more effective again. Nuclear is where done correctly the best option in my view.

Hot topic with power shortages forecast for Vic yet again for this coming summer!

[cjc_td5]

We have several coal and other mines here with 100m+ deep pits. I often wonder why they don't plan for shaping the tailings heaps to create a reservoir as high as possible, then create pumped hydro setups when the mines close.

[speleomike]

As for earthquakes being a problem in Aus , Well I call BS on that call.


My wife and I attended the Newcastle Earthquake as rescue personnel in 1989. And just west of Sydney is the Kurajong Fault. That will slip sometime. We do have significant quakes in Aust. In the next 1000 years we WILL have serious earthquakes where people will die and buildings collapse.

Mike

[Eevo]

Five earthquakes were recorded in Australia yesterday and 10 on Tuesday. So far today there has been one.



and none of them large enough to worry about

[Homestar]

Nuclear power stations are two to three times as expensive as renewables and gas and can't compete without massive government subsidies. Obsolete nuclear plants are closing and being replaced with gas and renewables.
It's just not going to happen.

Nuclear Energy in the U.S.: Expensive Source Competing with Cheap Gas and Renewables | Climate Nexus (https://climatenexus.org/climate-news-archive/nuclear-energy-us-expensive-source-competing-cheap-gas-renewables/)

Renewables aren’t as cheap as what you think when you start getting anywhere near a critical mass of it together - it becomes problematic and expensive to overcome these hurdles - I posted a video about this in Alternate Energies - you should go check that out.

[Bigbjorn]

Hi all

I particularly agree with ramblingboy42's comments about having country councils setting up and maintaining their own independent power generation systems. It gives us a lot more resiliency and local ratepayers get more control over operation and pricing. All really good points that he raises below.

Until the statewide power grid was organised most Qld. country towns had a small power generating plant. Fine if you lived in town. Not good if you lived outside on a farm or grazing property. The stations were typically a slow speed oil engine with an "engineer" who ran it and maintained it. Longreach had a gas engine and they railed coal in to produce gas for the power station. One small town had a private syndicate who owned the power station. To get electricity you had to join the syndicate by buying shares in it. It was rumoured that certain persons were refused shares because they were the wrong old school, religion, or lodge. I don't think our farmers and graziers would want a return to this system. Most in the west only got an electricity mains supply with the fairly recent Homestead Power Initiative using the single wire system.

Edit:- Typically these local power stations often did not provide a 24 hour service (like the manual telephone exchanges) closing for maintenance or overnight due to low demand. Think on this. If the oil engine stuck a leg out of bed the nearest spare parts were often in Manchester or Buffalo. Sorry folks. No power for 6 months.

[Blknight.aus]

We have several coal and other mines here with 100m+ deep pits. I often wonder why they don't plan for shaping the tailings heaps to create a reservoir as high as possible, then create pumped hydro setups when the mines close.

couple of reasons.

the mines arent always hydrostatically stable and the water pressing down can have interesting effects on seepage, local soil stability and the water table.

mines generally have one big pit which if you fill with water to make a pumped water storage system you then need to make another reservior to pump to or from.

before you think of askingAhh but what if we damn it half way along?

you run out of head height very quickly

(someone may or may not have looked into this as a school science/social studies project as part of studying the oconner pipeline to Kalgoorlie

[Milton477]

Yes please but for base load only. Renewables can do the rest. We are gong to have to charge all those EV's at night when the sun sleeps & when the wind doesn't blow.

I worked on the control system on a plant which is re-packaging nuclear waste & learned that when correctly packaged, the waste is manageable & stored above ground.

[V8Ian]

Simply yes or no.

[Bigbjorn]

Simply yes or no.

Plenty of old underground coal mines around Bundamba to store the waste in and stop the back yards falling in.[bigwhistle]

[V8Ian]

Plenty of old underground coal mines around Bundamba to store the waste in and stop the back yards falling in.[bigwhistle]
GEE, Gritty East Express.[biggrin]

[laney]

solar and wind have massive government subsidies they are very expensive to put up and remove then there is the cost of breaking theses units into there individual parts the life span of a solar farm is about 25 years and over that time the power produced becomes less as the panels age. We all want cheap power for our family and industry the thing is what price are we prepared to pay for this.

[WhiteD3]

I don't think there's a need for Nuclear (I'm ambivalent about the risks) given the advances in solar/wind/tide (no risks). I'd rather see the billions required for Nuclear put into the development (Australian IP), manufacture (jobs) and maintenance (jobs) of power storage (Batteries, pump hydro, whatever) to make solar/wind/tide work 24/7.

I'm thinking long term which these days is not the Australian way I know..................

[Meccles]

It’s not going to happen because it would take 10 years of debate to reach a decision

[DiscoMick]

And at least seven years to build, at huge cost. It's a fantasy.

Instead of exporting ore and buying it back as metal products, we should be using our copious reserves of wind and solar to manufacture cheap aluminium, steel and lithium products including batteries for export. That would create real jobs.

[Eevo]

cheap aluminium, steel and lithium products

yeah. australia making anything cheap. that will be the day. wages will have to come down a long way for that to happen.

[Meccles]

I dunno. There’s still some expertise enthusiasm and hard work around that I haven’t yet found elsewhere. That makes me want to pay high wages. Not to drive forklift but to recognise and tell someone forklifts broken and we shouldn’t drive it anymore

[DiscoMick]

yeah. australia making anything cheap. that will be the day. wages will have to come down a long way for that to happen.We could be a renewables superpower if we had better leadership, instead of a 'dig it up and ship it off overseas' mentality.

[DiscoMick]

Cheap wages aren't the answer. Chinese wages aren't cheap, but they rule the world in manufacturing now. Smart leadership and determination are the keys to success.

[ramblingboy42]

for those that are sucked in by the "when the wind stops blowing " syndrome , there are places in Australia where the anabatic and katabatic winds never cease.

some windfarms are already being built in some of those areas , that gives 24 hour power from that source , some windfarms in other areas are not as efficient. this will all pan out over time.

no single source of renewable or alternative energy is going to meet the worlds needs but combined and correctly distributed sources will.

in a few years time when all us baby boomers have died and passed everything on to the millenials , everyone then will wonder what the fuss was all about.

[DiscoMick]

It's amazing how little wind is actually needed to make a wind generator turn. I have stood unable to feel any wind, no sign of leaves even moving, yet the wind generator is turning. Of course, it is up higher than ground level, but it's still interesting.
The wind is always blowing somewhere in Australia.

[Xtreme]

.........................
The wind is always blowing somewhere in Australia.
However, the wind generators aren't always 'somewhere' to take advantage of it. [bigwhistle]

[Homestar]

It's amazing how little wind is actually needed to make a wind generator turn. I have stood unable to feel any wind, no sign of leaves even moving, yet the wind generator is turning. Of course, it is up higher than ground level, but it's still interesting.
The wind is always blowing somewhere in Australia.

Light winds may turn them but they need a decent push to make anywhere near full power. The governors in them vary the electrical output to meet the wind conditions. Light winds equal light electrical output.

[biggin]

It's amazing how little wind is actually needed to make a wind generator turn. I have stood unable to feel any wind, no sign of leaves even moving, yet the wind generator is turning. Of course, it is up higher than ground level, but it's still interesting.
The wind is always blowing somewhere in Australia.

It’s also amazing how much power is lost in Transmission. Perfect the superconductor and we’re in business, until then it’s a pipe dream.

[speleomike]

Hi

If the poll here is representative of the wider Australia population I hope the Libs don't run a federal pol to get a mandate :-)

Mike

[DiscoMick]

Yeah, I'm not sure why people are so keen on a power source which would be hugely expensive, costing far more than any other option, would be guaranteed to send electricity prices sky-high and produce plutonium waste with a half-life of 24,000 years, posing a real risk, particularly if stored in a mine subject to earthquakes and release into the water table.

[Homestar]

Because no one wants a coal fired station to be built. Costs are going to skyrocket anyway as renewables take over - again, I urge you to watch the video from that Engineer on this - switching to 100% renewables will cost orders of magnitude more than what it currently costs to supply power to the grid - we can't do it the way people think we can - there needs to be more than solar, wind and batteries to make a large scale supply 100% renewable.

[solmanic]

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.

If the sole benefit of large scale power generators is to "stabilise the grid", then I would argue there are clearly better ways to do this. Australia has the world's second largest deposits of lithium, so we should be making batteries like crazy.

Tesla’s big South Australian battery: Documents show cost (https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/true-cost-of-sas-big-tesla-battery-revealed/news-story/4c6dbf0505b6b0a6697ab8fc97cdf9b2)
How the Tesla big battery kept the lights on in South Australia | RenewEconomy (https://reneweconomy.com.au/how-the-tesla-big-battery-kept-the-lights-on-in-south-australia-20393/)
By every measure, the giant Tesla battery is a winner for South Australia | Business Insider (https://www.businessinsider.com.au/tesla-battery-south-australia-cost-state-savings-2018-10)
South Australia's Tesla battery on track to make back a third of cost in a year | Technology | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/27/south-australias-tesla-battery-on-track-to-make-back-a-third-of-cost-in-a-year)

Things we have tons of here in Australia:
Coal
Uranium
Lithium
Sun
Open space
NIMBYs

The last one basically rules out the first two as power sources into the future.

[1984V8110]

Afternoon All

I am a little surprised that anyone could say no to the proposal that Australia considers nuclear power as an option. Even if you are strongly oposed to the idea surely we should consider it, and if you really think it is a bad idea for economic or environmental reasons then following due consideration one would assume that we would decide not to go down this path.

I must admit to some amazement about some comments about intermittent renewables such as wind and solar since we have yet to see (as far as I am aware) an economically defensible means of storing energy on the scale required to manage grid scale renewables - and this problem becomes greater as intermittent renewables increase as a proportion of grid generation capacity. What is apparent is that as regards wind that there are periods when the capacity factors of the entire constelation of wind farms drops to below 10% for extended periods of time (days). To manage such intermittency, storage capacities several orders of magnitude greater than are currently envisaged will be needed as intermittent renewables penetrate the market.

It is now 5 PM. Wind capacity factors have averaged around 20% of installed capacity for the last 24 hours (Wind Energy in Australia | Aneroid (https://anero.id/energy/wind-energy)). Solar generation will have pretty well diminished to zero. If you really want to transition from fossil fuels (coal and gas) you either have to go nuclear or you have to produce a properly costed storage solution with storage capacities of the order of 100s of gigawatt hours. Batteries like Elon Musk's in SA cost around 1 billion AUD/GWh (it is reported to have cost around 90 million and has a storage capacity of 130 MWh - which I have rounded down to 100 MWh as I doubt it can be repeatedly driven to zero capacity without serious damage). Right now electricity demand in Eastern Australia sits at 25 GW. If we assume a largely solar/wind system with little fossile fuel input, then at the very least you need to be able to store 25 GW for (say) 16 hours of energy to handle a windless winter day. That's around 400 GWh, which at current Tesla prices requires a cool 300- 400 billion dollars in storage cost. And yes, battery prices will decrease, but how fast? Pumped storage is a possibility (I argued many years ago for pumped storage to be part of the aborthed Tully Millstream proposal) but again, at what cost?

So there are no easy solutions, and to ignore one option that could be part of the solution seems strange to me, assuming of course that the electricity grid does have to transition away from coal and gas.

Michael

[Eevo]

Australia has the world's second largest deposits of lithium, so we should be making batteries like crazy.
.

wages are too high to make it profitable

[Tins]

Afternoon All

I am a little surprised that anyone could say no to the proposal that Australia considers nuclear power as an option. Even if you are strongly oposed to the idea surely we should consider it, and if you really think it is a bad idea for economic or environmental reasons then following due consideration one would assume that we would decide not to go down this path.

I must admit to some amazement about some comments about intermittent renewables such as wind and solar since we have yet to see (as far as I am aware) an economically defensible means of storing energy on the scale required to manage grid scale renewables - and this problem becomes greater as intermittent renewables increase as a proportion of grid generation capacity. What is apparent is that as regards wind that there are periods when the capacity factors of the entire constelation of wind farms drops to below 10% for extended periods of time (days). To manage such intermittency, storage capacities several orders of magnitude greater than are currently envisaged will be needed as intermittent renewables penetrate the market.

It is now 5 PM. Wind capacity factors have averaged around 20% of installed capacity for the last 24 hours (Wind Energy in Australia | Aneroid (https://anero.id/energy/wind-energy)). Solar generation will have pretty well diminished to zero. If you really want to transition from fossil fuels (coal and gas) you either have to go nuclear or you have to produce a properly costed storage solution with storage capacities of the order of 100s of gigawatt hours. Batteries like Elon Musk's in SA cost around 1 billion AUD/GWh (it is reported to have cost around 90 million and has a storage capacity of 130 MWh - which I have rounded down to 100 MWh as I doubt it can be repeatedly driven to zero capacity without serious damage). Right now electricity demand in Eastern Australia sits at 25 GW. If we assume a largely solar/wind system with little fossile fuel input, then at the very least you need to be able to store 25 GW for (say) 16 hours of energy to handle a windless winter day. That's around 400 GWh, which at current Tesla prices requires a cool 300- 400 billion dollars in storage cost. And yes, battery prices will decrease, but how fast? Pumped storage is a possibility (I argued many years ago for pumped storage to be part of the aborthed Tully Millstream proposal) but again, at what cost?

So there are no easy solutions, and to ignore one option that could be part of the solution seems strange to me, assuming of course that the electricity grid does have to transition away from coal and gas.

Michael

A thousand likes. Maybe a million.

[DiscoClax]

Agreed. Well said.

[DiscoMick]

Afternoon All

I am a little surprised that anyone could say no to the proposal that Australia considers nuclear power as an option. Even if you are strongly oposed to the idea surely we should consider it, and if you really think it is a bad idea for economic or environmental reasons then following due consideration one would assume that we would decide not to go down this path.

I must admit to some amazement about some comments about intermittent renewables such as wind and solar since we have yet to see (as far as I am aware) an economically defensible means of storing energy on the scale required to manage grid scale renewables - and this problem becomes greater as intermittent renewables increase as a proportion of grid generation capacity. What is apparent is that as regards wind that there are periods when the capacity factors of the entire constelation of wind farms drops to below 10% for extended periods of time (days). To manage such intermittency, storage capacities several orders of magnitude greater than are currently envisaged will be needed as intermittent renewables penetrate the market.

It is now 5 PM. Wind capacity factors have averaged around 20% of installed capacity for the last 24 hours (Wind Energy in Australia | Aneroid (https://anero.id/energy/wind-energy)). Solar generation will have pretty well diminished to zero. If you really want to transition from fossil fuels (coal and gas) you either have to go nuclear or you have to produce a properly costed storage solution with storage capacities of the order of 100s of gigawatt hours. Batteries like Elon Musk's in SA cost around 1 billion AUD/GWh (it is reported to have cost around 90 million and has a storage capacity of 130 MWh - which I have rounded down to 100 MWh as I doubt it can be repeatedly driven to zero capacity without serious damage). Right now electricity demand in Eastern Australia sits at 25 GW. If we assume a largely solar/wind system with little fossile fuel input, then at the very least you need to be able to store 25 GW for (say) 16 hours of energy to handle a windless winter day. That's around 400 GWh, which at current Tesla prices requires a cool 300- 400 billion dollars in storage cost. And yes, battery prices will decrease, but how fast? Pumped storage is a possibility (I argued many years ago for pumped storage to be part of the aborthed Tully Millstream proposal) but again, at what cost?

So there are no easy solutions, and to ignore one option that could be part of the solution seems strange to me, assuming of course that the electricity grid does have to transition away from coal and gas.

MichaelYou need to stop thinking about centralised power through a small number of power stations. The future is numerous decentralised power stations.
One day every building will be a power station, making, using and storing it's own power first.
The grid will become redundant. This will be a new Industrial Revolution, based on self-sufficient energy sources.
It's a whole way of thinking.
First, more and more people will install their own solar and wind. They are already wiring it to meet their own needs first, and only export the surplus to the grid. This is happening now. Our youngest son did it to his house renovation only a week ago, for example.
Then, as battery prices fall, more people will install battery banks to store their own power to use when needed. Some have already done this.
Then more people will realise the grid is redundant and disconnect from it. Some have already done this, including some businesses.
Then the grid will become redundant and wither. We won't need it.
This is a whole new way of thinking about energy generation, usage and storage.
It's hard for people raised in the old ways to consider, but technology is freeing us from centralised control. It's not pie in the sky, it's already happening.
It will be great. Our plans are already formed to go that way. Bring it on!

[biggin]

Or, every building could have its own nuclear power source. Yes, I think that could work. It will be great.

[trout1105]

A Huge percentage of Australians don't own their own home so they wont be installing an off grid setup anytime soon and many that do cannot afford to install a solar/wind setup to be able to disconnect from the grid so your dream of Everyone disconnecting from the grid is just that a "Pipe" Dream.
With Australia's population expanding at the rate it is now we don't want to remove the grid we need to expand it and make it more reliable and Nuclear power will be a huge improvement on coal and gas fired power stations.
****ing tree huggers have NO idea what they are talking about But that doesn't stop them being bucket mouths.

[dero]

Simply ...NO

[1984V8110]

You need to stop thinking about centralised power through a small number of power stations. The future is numerous decentralised power stations.
One day every building will be a power station, making, using and storing it's own power first.
The grid will become redundant. This will be a new Industrial Revolution, based on self-sufficient energy sources.
It's a whole way of thinking.
First, more and more people will install their own solar and wind. They are already wiring it to meet their own needs first, and only export the surplus to the grid. This is happening now. Our youngest son did it to his house renovation only a week ago, for example.
Then, as battery prices fall, more people will install battery banks to store their own power to use when needed. Some have already done this.
Then more people will realise the grid is redundant and disconnect from it. Some have already done this, including some businesses.
Then the grid will become redundant and wither. We won't need it.
This is a whole new way of thinking about energy generation, usage and storage.
It's hard for people raised in the old ways to consider, but technology is freeing us from centralised control. It's not pie in the sky, it's already happening.
It will be great. Our plans are already formed to go that way. Bring it on!

Thanks DiscoMick for your comment on my earlier post.

Perhaps we will revert to decentralised power stations as you claim. My point is that at the moment the economics of storage make this impractical. Moreover it is not clear to me how such a scheme would allow, for example, the operation of an aluminium smelter. Perhaps you could explain this for me. My understanding is that the Gladstone smelter uses a constant 900 MW of power. So to run that off solar (ignoring the costs of the solar PV panels) will require storage capacity of around 900 MW multiplied by (say) 16 hours (for when solar is not a full capacity in winter) or around 14GWh or, based on recent costs around 12-14 billion dollars worth of battery.

You comment that your son has installed solar. That will have been subsidised by the commonwealth's RET (Renewable Energy Target) scheme. The fact that such subsidies exist indicate that, except for very remote locations, renewables still are not economic, and note that that analysis excludes the fact that the renewables costing do not include the cost of 'firming' the supply when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine.

So while it will be great if storage costs drop by the 10-100 fold that is needed to solve the problem of intermittency of renewables, I do not think we should assume that is going to happen any time soon. Therefore alternative options to provide low Greenhouse gas emission electricity such as nuclear should be considered (and in my opinion, implemented) if we wish to 'decarbonise' the electricity generation system.


Michael

[bsperka]

Let's pass some more pollution (nuclear in this case) for other generations to deal with. What a great idea!!! It's only for 10,000 years, so only 200 to 300 generations.

[DiscoMick]

Thanks DiscoMick for your comment on my earlier post.

Perhaps we will revert to decentralised power stations as you claim. My point is that at the moment the economics of storage make this impractical. Moreover it is not clear to me how such a scheme would allow, for example, the operation of an aluminium smelter. Perhaps you could explain this for me. My understanding is that the Gladstone smelter uses a constant 900 MW of power. So to run that off solar (ignoring the costs of the solar PV panels) will require storage capacity of around 900 MW multiplied by (say) 16 hours (for when solar is not a full capacity in winter) or around 14GWh or, based on recent costs around 12-14 billion dollars worth of battery.

You comment that your son has installed solar. That will have been subsidised by the commonwealth's RET (Renewable Energy Target) scheme. The fact that such subsidies exist indicate that, except for very remote locations, renewables still are not economic, and note that that analysis excludes the fact that the renewables costing do not include the cost of 'firming' the supply when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine.

So while it will be great if storage costs drop by the 10-100 fold that is needed to solve the problem of intermittency of renewables, I do not think we should assume that is going to happen any time soon. Therefore alternative options to provide low Greenhouse gas emission electricity such as nuclear should be considered (and in my opinion, implemented) if we wish to 'decarbonise' the electricity generation system.


MichaelYou make interesting points.
My comments were about small consumers who can generate their own needs and so won't need the grid.

Large consumers will still use the grid. Many large organizations are already signing supply deals with energy farms for a reliable supply of discounted power. The farms use the supply contracts as security to raise the loans to build the energy farms. If they have battery banks they store power to sell at the highest prices during peak demand.
They sell the power into the grid on the National Energy Market at the best spot price available every day. The customers draw power from the grid.
The customers get a guaranteed supply, the energy farms get customers and the grid gets extra power. It's a win-win.
This isn't theoretical - it's already happening.

Once the power stations are built, renewable power is already cheaper than coal to generate because there is no cost to mine, transport and burn coal or gas. Sun and wind are free.
Old coal stations can only compete when renewable power is not available because the loans to build the coal stations were paid off by taxpayers a long time ago, when they were built by government energy authorites.

Nuclear is hugely expensive and takes a long time to build, so nuclear electricity would be much more expensive than renewable power.

If you want higher power bills, go nuclear or build new coal power stations.
If you want cheaper power, go renewable. It's that simple.

[DiscoMick]

Re. you comment about renewable subsidies, keep in mind that all coal fired power stations in Australia were originally built by state government energy agencies, so they were 100% funded by taxpayers. Renewable subsidies only cover part of the cost - a third in my son's case. So coal was totally subsidised, but renewables are only partly subsidised.

[DiscoMick]

A Huge percentage of Australians don't own their own home so they wont be installing an off grid setup anytime soon and many that do cannot afford to install a solar/wind setup to be able to disconnect from the grid so your dream of Everyone disconnecting from the grid is just that a "Pipe" Dream.
With Australia's population expanding at the rate it is now we don't want to remove the grid we need to expand it and make it more reliable and Nuclear power will be a huge improvement on coal and gas fired power stations.
****ing tree huggers have NO idea what they are talking about But that doesn't stop them being bucket mouths.
Rental renewables is a current gap. There needs to be a system to encourage landlords or body corporates to install solar power, to benefit tenants. It can be done, it just needs a government willing to rewrite the rules.
Having solar is already an advantage when selling a property. Buyers want solar.

[trout1105]

If you expect a government to "Rewrite the rules" or in other words cover the cost of the solar installations then don't be at all surprised when that same government initiates a solar Tax to recover the costs and as with all taxes once it is in there is No chance of it going away.[bigwhistle]

[dero]

Those in favor of nuclear power have a tendency to ignore the huge problem of waste.
To think that nothing disastrous is going to happen in the lifespan of the waste is absolutely foolhardy , **** happens , has happened , does happen , and will happen again .
The life span is so long & the potential harm is so bad , it is madness to even consider it .
There was a credible program on the TV a while back looking at Brittan's waste facility in the North sea , slowly leaching [ at an acceptable rate ] into the sea & being taken by currents to the coastal waters of other countries causing major problems for them .
Any body got the details of North Korea's etc nuclear waste program ?
Some people with power & money think more about profit than right & wrong , guess who will be in charge of dumping nuclear waste .
Guess who will foot the bill for thousands of years of nuclear waste management & will this cost be included on your power bill ? NO WAY.
Guess who will foot the bill for cleaning up the [ unexpected ] spills , will this be factored into your power bill ? NO WAY
This is not tree hugging , this is madness .
All things considered , what are the good points ?

[Milton477]

There is a lot of very useful information being posted here by I suspect, people who are more than qualified to comment. Thanks for sharing the benefit of your knowledge.

Would anyone be prepared to hazard a guess at the size & cost of a off grid stand alone power system to provide for the average household? This needs to be big enough so that the way power is consumed from the stand alone system is the same as being connected to the grid.

How much solar & battery power? Do you add some wind power to the system? Do you need a standby generator?

[dero]

That would depend on the consumer, A hunter's hut or a decadent mansion ?
A 5 kw system with a reasonable battery bank would require most people to think about how they use their power .
Cost is basically related to quality & size .
I would consider a gen backup as essential .

[Milton477]

That would depend on the consumer, A hunter's hut or a decadent mansion ?
A 5 kw system with a reasonable battery bank would require most people to think about how they use their power .
Cost is basically related to quality & size .
I would consider a gen backup as essential .

I did say average household.

[Meccles]

This is what I’d be using. My company has just built a 1 GW gas fired plant in Texas and they are working on these zero emissions design. As interim why not use gas?
NET Power’s Clean Energy Demonstration Plant, La Porte, Texas - Power Technology | Energy News and Market Analysis (https://www.power-technology.com/projects/net-powers-clean-energy-demonstration-plant-la-porte-texas/)

[Meccles]

And this McDermott Joins Entergy Texas in Groundbreaking Ceremony for Montgomery County Power Station (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mcdermott-joins-entergy-texas-in-groundbreaking-ceremony-for-montgomery-county-power-station-300796709.html)

[DiscoMick]

There is a lot of very useful information being posted here by I suspect, people who are more than qualified to comment. Thanks for sharing the benefit of your knowledge.

Would anyone be prepared to hazard a guess at the size & cost of a off grid stand alone power system to provide for the average household? This needs to be big enough so that the way power is consumed from the stand alone system is the same as being connected to the grid.

How much solar & battery power? Do you add some wind power to the system? Do you need a standby generator?Depending on consumption, to go off the grid maybe about 6.5kW of solar panels and 6kW of batteries with total cost from about $16k depending on the batteries chosen. We already have solar hot water.

To stay on the grid and eliminate power bills you might need about 6-7kW of solar panels wired to power the house first and export the excess to the grid during the daytime, earning a rebate of about 20 c/kW hour.

All those figures are only estimates depending on variables, of course.

[DiscoMick]

No need for a generator.
I have looked at small wind generators similar to those on yachts in the $2-3k range. Main benefit is at night to replace some power drained from the batteries to run the house.

[DiscoMick]

M

[Eevo]

Depending on consumption, to go off the grid maybe about 6.5kW of solar panels and 6kW of batteries with total cost from about $16k depending on the batteries chosen. We already have solar hot water.

To stay on the grid and eliminate power bills you might need about 6-7kW of solar panels wired to power the house first and export the excess to the grid during the daytime, earning a rebate of about 20 c/kW hour.

All those figures are only estimates depending on variables, of course.


way off.

wit 10kw of solar and 12 kwh of batteries, i wouldnt break even.

[AndyG]

Re. you comment about renewable subsidies, keep in mind that all coal fired power stations in Australia were originally built by state government energy agencies, so they were 100% funded by taxpayers. Renewable subsidies only cover part of the cost - a third in my son's case. So coal was totally subsidised, but renewables are only partly subsidised.
Not quite, Qld govt builds a power station, said station sells power nationally, makes a profit, gives dividend to govt that made the INVESTMENT, thats not a subsidy.

So for equal comparison there should be no renewable subsidies, rather, get a loan or pay with your own cash, like i did. And getting 52c buy in tarrif, which is the most stupid thing ever. But thank you all the renters and pensioners for subsiding my installation

[AndyG]

To answer the poll, dont know, but rather than put my head in the sand, get the CSIRO to do a review of technology so informed decisions can be made

[donh54]

wages are too high to make it profitableAustralia has always had relatively high wages. We were still competitive because of our abundance of cheap coal fired electricity!

[DiscoMick]

way off.

wit 10kw of solar and 12 kwh of batteries, i wouldnt break even.That makes you a far higher than average electricity user. I said 6kW because that should cover most people.
Have a look at this:

How Much Solar Power Do I Need? - Solar Panel System Sizing Advice (https://www.solarquotes.com.au/how-does-solar-power-work/how-much-power-do-i-need/)

[DiscoMick]

Not quite, Qld govt builds a power station, said station sells power nationally, makes a profit, gives dividend to govt that made the INVESTMENT, thats not a subsidy.

So for equal comparison there should be no renewable subsidies, rather, get a loan or pay with your own cash, like i did. And getting 52c buy in tarrif, which is the most stupid thing ever. But thank you all the renters and pensioners for subsiding my installationStill a 100% taxpayer construction subsidy.

[Eevo]

Those in favor of nuclear power have a tendency to ignore the huge problem of waste.

waste isnt the probem it used to be,

there are reactors they can run off waste now days. we could actually make good money from taking other countries waste and "burning" it to make cheap elec.

[bsperka]

Fyi: Germany, a major coal consumer,*announced in January*that it would shut down all 84 of its coal-fired power plants over the next 19 years (the Germans are already committed to phasing out nuclear power by 2022 — 12 of the country’s 19 nuclear plants have been closed so far). Renewables now account for 41% of Germany’s electric generation.

[1984V8110]

Fyi: Germany, a major coal consumer,*announced in January*that it would shut down all 84 of its coal-fired power plants over the next 19 years (the Germans are already committed to phasing out nuclear power by 2022 — 12 of the country’s 19 nuclear plants have been closed so far). Renewables now account for 41% of Germany’s electric generation.

Good point. It should also be noted that Germany now has the second most most expensive electricity in Europe (Denmark is first, and also has a high penetration of intermittent renewables). Germany has been able to push intermittent renewables up and up because it is linked by a grid to other countries, including France that produces 70% of its electricity from nuclear power. My source for these data are the official EU data at : Electricity price statistics - Statistics Explained (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_price_statistics). German price to household consumers is 0.30 Euro/kWh. France, incidentally, is 0.18 Euro/kWh.

I refer to 'intermittent' renewables to distinguish between renewables with no inbuilt storage (such as solar PV and wind - which are hence intermittent and need some sort of storage or backup genset) and hydro-electricity which generally has significant storage capacity and hence is more reliably despatchable.

To go back to my initial point in my original post - it is a strange state of affairs that anyone would object to at least considering nuclear as part of the mix of electricity supply that is needed if we want to decrease CO2 emissions from the electricity generation sector. In fact if, as many of us hope, we see electric vehicles become an important part of the effort to decrease CO2 emissions from the transport sector, the need to find a mix of low CO2 emission electricity sources becomes more important. I'm aware that there are some commentators who argue that we'll be able to use the batteries in electric cars as part of a solution to the storage problem of intermittent renewables. However I have yet to see a detailed analysis of how this might actually work. If anyone knows of such an analysis I would be very interested tosee the link.

Interesting discussion!

Michael

[Blknight.aus]

from the last time I did some numbers on this...

you would want at least 10KWh worth of storage and about 7kw worth of generation to run an average size house that was well planned and laid out.

while the minimum numbers are nearer to 6 and 4 for an average DINKS setup thats the absolute minimum I used from another source with no practicable reserve or buffer. it was also laid out (as near as I remember) accounting for people who were practicabley not home during the day had gas for all cooking. effectively half the living power costs were being picked up while the couple were at work with things like the washing machine running only when storage was over a certain percentage and power generation was in excess. the cost of the house and gear was more than $120K over a stockish house

There's a budget balance point that needs to be reached when you go off grid, thousands of dollars spent on insulation and power conservation things reduce the cost of your power input requirements but at some point the extra cost of the minimal gains is easily under cut by putting the money into a bigger generation and storage system.

Pro's and cons each way.

ITs the same with nuclear stuff a larger understressed plant will run cleaner for longer and with lower issues as well as having the ability to soak up the ever growing power demands but with a larger start up and end of life (if it hits end of life) shutdown cost. It comes with fixed data for infastructure you always can get X amount of power and no more so your transmission grid is a one way affair, cheap and easy (relatively) to design and build.

if you want to switch to renewables (excluding hydro to a large extent) you have a grid design that requires multiple smaller output production sites that now has to be able to deal with varying power outputs from each site. one day all the power could be coming from the NE corner, the next the SE and on some days everything will be running at max output and will be wanting some loading to keep it under control and on the others load will be screaming for generation to meet demand. The benefit is that the grid while expensive now has cheaper startup and shutdown costs for the generation.

Personally.

I think the scaremongers are going to win this one and the most likely way of the future is going to be solar with super capacitors with a heavy distribution of micro wind generation.

Those near the coast will get tidal pumps to assist and lifestyles will change to suit the available basegen from the solar and tidal arrays

[DiscoMick]

Agree with most of that.
Solar hot water can cut a significant amount from electricity consumption, maybe a quarter.
The advice I've had is 6-7kW of both battery and storage plus solar hot water should meet our needs. If we went off the grid I'd increase that.
I have estimates that all of that could be done for under $20k.
We have already installed solar hot water for about $4k.
Our son's 6.5 kW of solar panels installed this month cost about $6k after the subsidy.
So I think these are realistic figures, particularly as the cost of lithium batteries falls.

[DiscoMick]

Nuclear is the most expensive and dangerous option.

[AndyG]

Still a 100% taxpayer construction subsidy.
Accounting is not your forte is it?

[AndyG]

Nuclear is the most expensive and dangerous option.

Can you provide evidence, or stating an opinion, i would have put underground coal mining in third world countrirs as most dangerous IMHO or maybe burning dung to cook with, and the associated respiratory problems

Incidently to address the challenges of cooking over open fires, i have bought several 1,000 Eco Zoom stoves and distributed them at cost, roughly a 1/3 of the shop price in oz. So doing my small part in improving lives and reducing environmental damage. Quite a wonderful simple product

[austastar]

Hi,
We have 20 panels, the best ever max output was 5kW, today, blue sky, midwinter, it is sitting on 2kW.
Ours is network connected and $3000 in credit, which will erode as soon as we get put back to 8c per kW feed in tarrif. We pay 28c from the grid.
That is for 2 adults, using wood heating (with a hot water wet back) in winter and electric element hot water in summer.
As an aside on solar hot water, I was told that it is now cheaper to use PV and a normal hot water storage heater rather than dedicated water heating panels, considering install, running and repair/maintenance costs over the life of the system.
Cheers

[Blknight.aus]

Hi,
I was told that it is now cheaper to use PV and a normal hot water storage heater rather than dedicated water heating panels, considering install, running and repair/maintenance costs over the life of the system.
Cheers

only under some circumstances.

for a low or smart consumption hot water user yes but not for higher volume or less effective users..

There isnt much in it At the moment and I'd almost be willing to bet that if you went to a long term study then a heat pump storage system driven off of a solar array will wind up being the overall best bang for buck, especially if you get smart with the ducting and use the heat pump to pull heat out of the house rather than out of the outside environment.

Of course if you got really clever you could just park the house outside the cooling tower and ask for a divirting line off of the secondary cooling loop and a heat exchanger for your HWS

[scarry]

only under some circumstances.

for a low or smart consumption hot water user yes but not for higher volume or less effective users..

There isnt much in it At the moment and I'd almost be willing to bet that if you went to a long term study then a heat pump storage system driven off of a solar array will wind up being the overall best bang for buck, especially if you get smart with the ducting and use the heat pump to pull heat out of the house rather than out of the outside environment.

Of course if you got really clever you could just park the house outside the cooling tower and ask for a divirting line off of the secondary cooling loop and a heat exchanger for your HWS

But those heat pumps aren't the most reliable item around,one repair,out of warranty and you have well and truly blown your $.

[DiscoMick]

Hi,
We have 20 panels, the best ever max output was 5kW, today, blue sky, midwinter, it is sitting on 2kW.
Ours is network connected and $3000 in credit, which will erode as soon as we get put back to 8c per kW feed in tarrif. We pay 28c from the grid.
That is for 2 adults, using wood heating (with a hot water wet back) in winter and electric element hot water in summer.
As an aside on solar hot water, I was told that it is now cheaper to use PV and a normal hot water storage heater rather than dedicated water heating panels, considering install, running and repair/maintenance costs over the life of the system.
CheersYes, I agree a normal water heater with solar would be cheaper than solar hot water. However our hot water heater died, we needed to move it from inside to outside to make way for a reno inside, which was going to be expensive, we didn't have the funds free to do the full solar upgrade, but we did have the cash for $4k in solar hot water, and we figured it would help our solar anyway, so we went that way.

[DiscoMick]

Accounting is not your forte is it?Which part of taxpayers paid 100% would be changed by accounting practices?

[DiscoMick]

Can you provide evidence, or stating an opinion, i would have put underground coal mining in third world countrirs as most dangerous IMHO or maybe burning dung to cook with, and the associated respiratory problems

Incidently to address the challenges of cooking over open fires, i have bought several 1,000 Eco Zoom stoves and distributed them at cost, roughly a 1/3 of the shop price in oz. So doing my small part in improving lives and reducing environmental damage. Quite a wonderful simple productThose Eco Zoom stoves were a good idea. Well done.
Underground coal mining is certainly dangerous, open cut less so, that's true. How do you put a price on Chernobyl?

[DiscoMick]

Hi,
We have 20 panels, the best ever max output was 5kW, today, blue sky, midwinter, it is sitting on 2kW.
Ours is network connected and $3000 in credit, which will erode as soon as we get put back to 8c per kW feed in tarrif. We pay 28c from the grid.
That is for 2 adults, using wood heating (with a hot water wet back) in winter and electric element hot water in summer.
As an aside on solar hot water, I was told that it is now cheaper to use PV and a normal hot water storage heater rather than dedicated water heating panels, considering install, running and repair/maintenance costs over the life of the system.
CheersCompanies such as Origin and AGL are now offering 20c/kWh. Might be worth investigating. I have two rellies who have just signed up to that with Origin.

[austastar]

Hi,
We only have Aurora in Tas, though I did see an advertisement for 1st Energy the other day.
Would my credit transfer I wonder?
Cheers

[trout1105]

How do you put a price on Chernobyl?
Chernobyl happened 33 years ago and it was a Russian plant, I am absolutely certain that the tech has advanced 100 fold since then.
It is the same as saying that todays cars are just as unsafe and use the same tech as they did back in 1986[bigwhistle]

[DiscoMick]

Hi,
We only have Aurora in Tas, though I did see an advertisement for 1st Energy the other day.
Would my credit transfer I wonder?
CheersMaybe I'm wrong, but I thought these companies operated nationally. Might be worth checking.

[DiscoMick]

Chernobyl happened 33 years ago and it was a Russian plant, I am absolutely certain that the tech has advanced 100 fold since then.
It is the same as saying that todays cars are just as unsafe and use the same tech as they did back in 1986[bigwhistle]No, it's quite different, I think.
When nuclear waste has a half-life of up to 45,000 years, we should take a long-term view.
Besides, nuclear is very expensive and dangerous, so let's choose cheaper, safer alternatives.

[Eevo]

When nuclear waste has a half-life of up to 45,000 years,.

which waste is that?

[austastar]

which waste is that?Hi,
Everything from rods down to filters and protective clothing.
Even Australia's Lucas Heights has warehouses full of contaminated single use items sealed in drums,
It just won't go away, leaving a burden of contamination for future generations who may or may not understand what it is.
Cheers

[ramblingboy42]

I wonder how toxic some of that "low level' waste is...

I had a friend in the army knocked off one of those night gun left/right of arc indicators which are powered by some low level isotope or something.

He pulled it down and removed the little green lumination ball and would stick it in his ear when he went to Pips/Swizzles disco in Brisbane , (for those who may share memories of the place) and he'd walk around with a glowing green ear.

Those who were in the army and night sited guns/mortars would know what I mean.

Those who went to Pips/swizzles would know where I mean. It had another name before it was called Pips. same owner mgr, Brian(forget his name) , never forget him.

had a brainstorm....it was originally Chequers.

[DiscoMick]

Hi,
Everything from rods down to filters and protective clothing.
Even Australia's Lucas Heights has warehouses full of contaminated single use items sealed in drums,
It just won't go away, leaving a burden of contamination for future generations who may or may not understand what it is.
CheersI toured Lucas Heights quite some time ago. Drums of waste were stacked everywhere. We went inside the reactor. I was not impressed. I would never consider living anywhere near it.

[Eevo]

Hi,
Everything from rods down to filters and protective clothing.
Even Australia's Lucas Heights has warehouses full of contaminated single use items sealed in drums,
It just won't go away, leaving a burden of contamination for future generations who may or may not understand what it is.
Cheers


which waste is 45,000 years?

[3toes]

Green Party in Germany is replacing the existing nuclear power plants with coal fired power plants. The coal to be used is brown coal from Poland. Government is doing this as is their policy to remove nuclear from grid and brown coal is a cheaper alternative so the cost to voters is not increased as would be the case if used green alternatives.

[DiscoMick]

which waste is that?There are various grades of nuclear waste, with some grades of plutonium having half-lives of up to 80 million years. That long enough for you?
Also, all storage of nuclear waste in the USA is temporary. There is NO permanent storage solution. Burial in mine shafts could contaminate the groundwater supply.

Plutonium - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium)

[DiscoMick]

The most commonly-used form, plutonium 239, has a half-life of 24,000 years.

[LRT]

What about Thorium? I’ve heard it is a better alternative to uranium.

The way lithium is extracted from the ground and chemicals used to dissolve the soil doesn’t sound good either. They can’t go to landfill afterwards.

[Eevo]

The most commonly-used form, plutonium 239, has a half-life of 24,000 years.

we can now use this "waste" as fuel. therefor, not waste.

[Eevo]

There are various grades of nuclear waste, with some grades of plutonium having half-lives of up to 80 million years. That long enough for you?
Also, all storage of nuclear waste in the USA is temporary. There is NO permanent storage solution. Burial in mine shafts could contaminate the groundwater supply.

Plutonium - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium)


do you know the longer the halflife, the less radioactive it is.

something with a halflife of 80million years would not be a threat at all.

[DiscoMick]

Are you volunteering to test it?

[trout1105]

The older glow in the dark watches contained radium which has a half life of 1600 years and yet they are not too harmful unless you eat one[bigwhistle]

[Homestar]

The older glow in the dark watches contained radium which has a half life of 1600 years and yet they are not too harmful unless you eat one[bigwhistle]

The RAAF just spent a small fortune on going through every box of spare parts for every aircraft that had instrumentation that contained radium dials - and removed anything that did for disposal - they had an entire old storage warehouse cordoned off as 'radioactive' for 6 months while doing this in just one location despite they fact it had all been sitting there for decades. [emoji16]. Security wasn't what you'd call 'tight' - 'If you go in there, just don't touch anything that is glowing' [emoji38]

[ramblingboy42]

found this , this morning , interesting but long read.

it is also written in the negative but the information is very good about comparitive costs to alternatives.
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Freneweconomy.com.au%2Fnuclea r-power-exits-australias-energy-debate-enters-culture-wars-47702%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3cAb_ht1HdCABdrmHaYjh-Gy7KBXOlZ_03Ki9MI-wuVVDNxEy0MTxbjmA&h=AT1EFqHkCpj1bQXAzlLlK-qJlu2F7jN_HN-fdTFVmkbMipTM_vFKAnV0r7WgV337LFa6YsStYR4FdQ2A-h48Bkn02S_Sw-OOEixuZ_FTTkX_gNJ4cNNCJ6JBrJXzO27w3zQdM2z3LkieUu1K GnksUW3M1r2vPXr2Vd7u

[Eevo]

Are you volunteering to test it?


yes.
in fact there is only 1 isotope with a halflife of 80million years and its not even produced in a nuclear reactor.

[Eevo]

reusing "spent nuclear waste" would actually made nuclear a renewable energy source.

[Eevo]

The older glow in the dark watches contained radium which has a half life of 1600 years and yet they are not too harmful unless you eat one[bigwhistle]


radium was replaced with Tritium which has a halflife of 12 years, but much safer.

[Tombie]

Nuclear is the most expensive and dangerous option.

Rubbish.

One of the safest industries in the world today.

[speleomike]

Rubbish.

One of the safest industries in the world today.

I think you posted in the wrong topic. You prob meant to post it in the jokes topic :-)

Mike

[Tombie]

I think you posted in the wrong topic. You prob meant to post it in the jokes topic :-)

Mike

Not at all.

The 2 safest industries on the planet at the moment are:

- The Nuclear industry
- The Aviation Industry

[Eevo]

Not at all.

The 2 safest industries on the planet at the moment are:

- The Nuclear industry
- The Aviation Industry


hmm, i have an idea. a nuclear powered plane.

[LRJim]

hmm, i have an idea. a nuclear powered plane.Nuclear-powered aircraft - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft)

[goingbush]

Nuclear-powered aircraft - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft)

Interesting article. (I'm pro Nuclear)


I wonder how many people realise the US have accidentally dropped 6 nuclear weapons that have never been recovered , and 32 lost in accidents.

My wife has written a book (under revision) about the one dropped in Wassaw sound (true) and recovered by terrorists (fiction) , its actually still there , The Navy can't find it.

1958 Tybee Island mid-air collision - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Tybee_Island_mid-air_collision)

[speleomike]

Hi

Wow. What an interesting bit of history. Even with just a tiny bit of Pt in there one could make a dirty bomb. I bet there would still be close scrutiny of any boats or divers that go to that location.


Interesting article. (I'm pro Nuclear)

I wonder how many people realise the US have accidentally dropped 6 nuclear weapons that have never been recovered , and 32 lost in accidents.

My wife has written a book (under revision) about the one dropped in Wassaw sound (true) and recovered by terrorists (fiction) , its actually still there , The Navy can't find it.

1958 Tybee Island mid-air collision - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Tybee_Island_mid-air_collision)

[Blknight.aus]

Not at all.

The 2 safest industries on the planet at the moment are:

- The Nuclear industry
- The Aviation Industry

yes but the aviation industry is safer, they haven't left anyone up there yet.

[RANDLOVER]

The older glow in the dark watches contained radium which has a half life of 1600 years and yet they are not too harmful unless you eat one[bigwhistle]

Unfortunately the ladies who painted these dials thought it was safe, but developed "Radium Jaw" from licking the brushes to point them...Radium Girls - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls) an apt demonstration of the law of unintended consequences, which is why I think nuclear is just too dangerous.

[Eevo]

yes but the aviation industry is safer, they haven't left anyone up there yet.

MH370??

[Blknight.aus]

MH370??

nahh, that one crashed into a secret US neonazi coalition military bases underwater nuclear power plant and its a huge russian comunist cover up fueled by the flat earthers so no one discovers that what really happened is that due to the location of the reactor on the edge of the disc the force of the explosion ripped a whole in the the space time continuum and has slung the plane through a gravitational assist in the very narrow band of circumfrencial gravity wave distortion to allow it to "dive" past the periphery to the underside.

every ones ok they just dont want to come back to this side

[ramblingboy42]

nahh, that one crashed into a secret US neonazi coalition military bases underwater nuclear power plant and its a huge russian comunist cover up fueled by the flat earthers so no one discovers that what really happened is that due to the location of the reactor on the edge of the disc the force of the explosion ripped a whole in the the space time continuum and has slung the plane through a gravitational assist in the very narrow band of circumfrencial gravity wave distortion to allow it to "dive" past the periphery to the underside.

every ones ok they just dont want to come back to this side

you didn't use quantum anywhere Dave....

[Homestar]

Unfortunately the ladies who painted these dials thought it was safe, but developed "Radium Jaw" from licking the brushes to point them...Radium Girls - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls) an apt demonstration of the law of unintended consequences, which is why I think nuclear is just too dangerous.

No ones asking you to lick the power station. [emoji56]

[Homestar]

Regarding safety - coal has killed orders of magnitude more people over the years than Nuclear ever has - and continues to do so, however because it's impossible to collate exact numbers who have died of lung diseases and cancers caused by this it's all ok - nice and safe...

[DiscoMick]

Yes, particularly from underground mining and respiratory diseases caused by burning coal for heating and cooking.

[trout1105]

Yes, particularly from underground mining and respiratory diseases caused by burning coal for heating and cooking.

Not to mention all the greenhouse gasses being emitted from coal fired power plants and the effect that has concerning global warming.
Nuclear power in comparison is by far a much safer option.

[speleomike]

Hi


Regarding safety - coal has killed orders of magnitude more people over the years than Nuclear ever has - and continues to do so, however because it's impossible to collate exact numbers who have died of lung diseases and cancers caused by this it's all ok - nice and safe...

This is fallacious logic. If one wishes to compare current coal versus nuclear safety you can't include all those that died from coal mining and coal burning from the 17th to the 19th century. You need to compare using "current world best practice" what might be the expected death rate from current coal and nuclear for a given power requirement.

For instance for coal one would include Black lung disease, mine accidents, etc. Black lung is preventable. Accidents do and will happen and if it was an entire underground crew it might be dozens of deaths. It's limited to the mine workers only. Costs are really limited by the mine cost and compensation (which is insurable against).

For nuclear it would include mine accidents (probably less than underground coal as uranium is open cut) and nuclear accidents. In the later it might be thousands of persons and is not limited to the reactor crew. Costs are unlimited and not able to be insured.

So it's a case of risk versus consequences. Coal power has limited consequences, spatially and monetary. Nuclear has potentially massive lethal consequences and costs.

Choose wisely :-)

Mike

[BMKal]

Hi

For nuclear it would include mine accidents (probably less than underground coal as uranium is open cut) and nuclear accidents.

Mike

Never heard of Roxby Downs ????? Last time I was there, it was underground - has been since it started.

Most mining starts out as predominantly open cut (surface mining) until economical surface deposits are depleted. They then move to more expensive underground mining operations to recover the deeper ore. Uranium mining is no different - as known surface deposits are depleted, underground mining of the commodity will increase provided the demand remains sufficient and it is economical to continue mining.

[DiscoMick]

Chernobyl uplifted massive amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere which has been circulating the planet ever since. It's impossible to calculate the health effects on the entire human population because one cause can't be isolated.
This is also true of burning coal, which has put huge amounts of material into the atmosphere.
So it's impossible to accurately estimate the precise answers.

[jillr]

Concrete also has natural background radiation from thorium and uranium oxides in the original crushed limestone (I have measured these materials in limestone using XRD). Fly ash (from burning coal) has a lot more of these materials as an earlier post indicated. Similar natural sources of radiation include potassium (both from food and granitic rock) and from outer space during solar minimums such as at present. It's probably a good source of genomic mutations, some good, some not so good.
- Jill

[Blknight.aus]

you didn't use quantum anywhere Dave....

now you're just being silly, everyone knows that the concept of quantum mechanics is as sound as a pintos fuel tank when you're working in the nuclear relativistic version of space time continuums. what snake oil will you be trying to sell us next? That the oil mongols are trying to protect their profit margins? That a politician might consider raising their own renumeration over putting it towards the National debt, vet affairs or helping the homeless?

next you'll be denouncing the true cause of global warming being tied to the decline in pirates...

[Eevo]

next you'll be denouncing the true cause of global warming being tied to the decline in pirates...

umm, sorry to burst your bubble, buts its tied to the rising sales of toilet paper.

[Disco-tastic]

While I'm not really educated enough on the topic to add anything to this discussion, I did just find this video and found it interesting. Either it shows a side of Renewables I hadn't really considered or it shows how easily swayed i am ;)

YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w)

[AndyG]

nahh, that one crashed into a secret US neonazi coalition military bases underwater nuclear power plant and its a huge russian comunist cover up fueled by the flat earthers so no one discovers that what really happened is that due to the location of the reactor on the edge of the disc the force of the explosion ripped a whole in the the space time continuum and has slung the plane through a gravitational assist in the very narrow band of circumfrencial gravity wave distortion to allow it to "dive" past the periphery to the underside.

every ones ok they just dont want to come back to this side

Well that explains Harold Holt, Elvis and Customer Service at Telstra

[AndyG]

umm, sorry to burst your bubble, buts its tied to the rising sales of toilet paper.

Actually, not a bad analogy

correlation vs causation

There has been much effort to correlate Global Warming to CO2, but the model is shaky
No one has been able to prove Causation re global warming & C02 , certainly a lot of opinions.

A cynic would say there is causation between R&D grants, and papers published/views expressed of a certain viewpoint.
JCU for example at the moment is a good example at the moment.

[AndyG]

For example

152096

stupid computer, please click.

[speleomike]

Hi


Actually, not a bad analogy
There has been much effort to correlate Global Warming to CO2, but the model is shaky
No one has been able to prove Causation re global warming & C02 , certainly a lot of opinions.


That correlation is well established. But you won't find the evidence at 2GB or The Australian :-)

Mike

[ramblingboy42]

now just leave the pirates out of this ya scab.....

I have a copy of the Pirates Creed of Ethics and in the 14 paragraphs of the creed , global warming is not mentioned once.

[Blknight.aus]

now just leave the pirates out of this ya scab.....

I have a copy of the Pirates Creed of Ethics and in the 14 paragraphs of the creed , global warming is not mentioned once.

of course its not... they knew about it but because of the deminishment of their numbers they were in the minority and thus the opinion was oppressed.

[Meccles]

I’ve been accused of being a pirate only interested in plunder pillage and treasure we took it as quite a compliment [emoji3]

[frogg]

Consideration does not imply pursuit.

There are lots of options to consider. Some better than others.

[Meccles]

I still reckon gas fired plants as interim solution are worth looking at.

[AndyG]

I’ve been accused of being a pirate only interested in plunder pillage and treasure we took it as quite a compliment [emoji3]

You have a car dealership ?

[ramblingboy42]

of course its not... they knew about it but because of the deminishment of their numbers they were in the minority and thus the opinion was oppressed.

now why does your statement sound so familiar to my ears?


tread lightly.....

[Blknight.aus]

tread lightly.....

and carry a big stick

[Meccles]

You have a car dealership ?

Worse - deep sea sat diver [emoji3]

[donh54]

I still reckon gas fired plants as interim solution are worth looking at.As we will soon be the largest exporter of LNG in the world, it should be obvious to all, that we won't be able to afford gas-fired electrical generation. Our far-sighted pollies have sold off our future production to pad out their budget projections for the next few dozen electoral cycles!

[shanegtr]

we can now use this "waste" as fuel. therefor, not waste.
I've just been doing some reading on one website about nuclear waste. They mentioned that most power plants only use around 5% of the energy in uranium fuel and that's around 3 years in service. After this the fuel is considered waste even though it has capacity to fuel reactors for longer. The waste could be reused to fuel reactors, but they are a different type to the normal nuke power plant. Different reactors could pull 95% of the energy out of the fuel - but I did find an interesting comment that the US banned this sort of use at the height of the cold war as plutonium is a key ingredient in nuclear weapons.

I seems using more of the fuels energy is still very uncommon.

I voted no for the poll. I think nuclear power has its benefits, but at the current moment the issue of waste and decommissioning make it a no - and that's without even considering a worst case malfunction. Nothing is unsolvable however and I'm sure with a decent nuclear weapons program we could find a use for that plutonium as well[thumbsupbig]

[Eevo]

I've just been doing some reading on one website about nuclear waste. They mentioned that most power plants only use around 5% of the energy in uranium fuel and that's around 3 years in service. After this the fuel is considered waste even though it has capacity to fuel reactors for longer. The waste could be reused to fuel reactors, but they are a different type to the normal nuke power plant. Different reactors could pull 95% of the energy out of the fuel - but I did find an interesting comment that the US banned this sort of use at the height of the cold war as plutonium is a key ingredient in nuclear weapons.

I seems using more of the fuels energy is still very uncommon.

I voted no for the poll. I think nuclear power has its benefits, but at the current moment the issue of waste and decommissioning make it a no - and that's without even considering a worst case malfunction. Nothing is unsolvable however and I'm sure with a decent nuclear weapons program we could find a use for that plutonium as well[thumbsupbig]


yes and no. there are few ways of doing it.

a "normal nuke power plant", is generally a gen II reactor, which has a very narrow range for burning uranium. yes, it is called burning. some reactors dont even need enriched uranium to run.

different reactors can pull; "95% of the energy out of the fuel", it actually 100% (closed loop), they are called gen IV reactors. gen III reactors are an improvement in fuel efficiently, but gen IV is where its become closed loop.

re: plutonium, im guessing the reactor could be used to breed plutonium which can be used in nuclear weapons. so its more about the US trying to keep their monopoly on it.

[ozscott]

Arent we all waiting for fusion? Then it's all go for Nuc power plants.

Cheers

[Eevo]

Arent we all waiting for fusion? Then it's all go for Nuc power plants.

Cheers


not to be a pessimist, but i doubt we'll see it in our lifetime

[Tins]

Arent we all waiting for fusion? Then it's all go for Nuc power plants.

Cheers

All I'm waiting for is intelligence. Ask me if I'm holding my breath.

[ozscott]

All I'm waiting for is intelligence. Ask me if I'm holding my breath.Intelligence in nuclear physics or...?

Cheers

[speleomike]

Hi


As we will soon be the largest exporter of LNG in the world, it should be obvious to all, that we won't be able to afford gas-fired electrical generation. Our far-sighted pollies have sold off our future production to pad out their budget projections for the next few dozen electoral cycles!

It's actually worst than that. Incitec in Qld which manufactures fertiliser for Aust is unable to obtain all the feed gas they need for manufacturing and has informed the Qld Govt as to how dire their situation is. Aust may run out of locally made fertiliser very soon. Sterilisation of glass bottles is shutting down, kilns for pottery are now close to non-economic as the gas price is too high. Large coffee roasters use gas and are struggling with costs. There are dozens of industries that have always used gas as that was always far cheaper than electricity. Electricity often is not suitable for kilns and roasters. Even the plastics manufacturing that still survives in Aust uses that gas as a major feed stock. Propane to plastics manufacture is like hay to cattle.

Several years ago the gas producers saw how much they could make if they exported it all and were greedy and didn't consider that they had any "domestic responsibilities" and our Govt at the time was monumentally stupid and greedy as it saw export royalties more than national security and domestic manufacturing.

Mike

[BradC]

Several years ago the gas producers saw how much they could make if they exported it all and were greedy and didn't consider that they had any "domestic responsibilities" and our Govt at the time was monumentally stupid and greedy as it saw export royalties more than national security and domestic manufacturing.

Tell 'em to move West.
WA Domestic Gas Policy (https://www.jtsi.wa.gov.au/economic-development/economy/domestic-gas-policy)

[Tins]

Intelligence in nuclear physics or...?

Cheers

Are you serious? Because NP is probably the last bastion of intelligence we have left if we mean to keep on living the way we do. Nothing else cuts it.

[BradC]

NP is probably the last bastion of intelligence we have left if we mean to keep on living

I realise I'm misquoting, but I know several people who are still living entirely due to Nuclear Physics. So there is always another side to the dice.

[ozscott]

I didn't know what you were talking about. I'm for nuclear power. If we can develop.and use fusion even better.

Cheers

[Tins]

I realise I'm misquoting, but I know several people who are still living entirely due to Nuclear Physics. So there is always another side to the dice.

I'm tipping you have the wrong end of the stick where I'm concerned. Nuclear is the future, as I thought I'd made clear...

There is nothing else.

[Tins]

See? Gav came up with a brilliant thread about "off topic". I AGREE with most of this. But we cross over as we type.

[Tins]

Err, I'm broken. Talk tomorrow if you still want...

[BradC]

I'm tipping you have the wrong end of the stick where I'm concerned. Nuclear is the future, as I thought I'd made clear...

There is nothing else.

Not at all. I with you all the way. I just wanted to highlight one of the often overlooked parts of Nuclear physics.

[biggin]

Nuclear is the only option for future sustainable reliable power to the masses.
The room for technological improvement is vast.
I don’t know what the numbers are, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the global cost of R&D into nuclear wasn’t 20 times less than that of windmills. And therein lies the problem.

[DiscoMick]

As we will soon be the largest exporter of LNG in the world, it should be obvious to all, that we won't be able to afford gas-fired electrical generation. Our far-sighted pollies have sold off our future production to pad out their budget projections for the next few dozen electoral cycles!Not in Qld and WA, where far-sighted state governments have reserved supplies for local usage.

[V8Ian]

I toured Lucas Heights quite some time ago. Drums of waste were stacked everywhere. We went inside the reactor. I was not impressed. I would never consider living anywhere near it.
Hardly a glowing report.

[V8Ian]

Do you still trust the energy industry?

Giant explosion rocks Philadelphia refinery complex, gas prices rise (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/giant-explosion-rocks-largest-refinery-complex-on-the-east-coast-sends-gasoline-prices-higher.html)

[trout1105]

Do you still trust the energy industry?

Giant explosion rocks Philadelphia refinery complex, gas prices rise (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/giant-explosion-rocks-largest-refinery-complex-on-the-east-coast-sends-gasoline-prices-higher.html)

That has Nothing whatsoever to do with Nuclear power[bighmmm]

[V8Ian]

It demonstrates that even in a sector of the energy industry (in which nuclear power falls) that has a high safety record, serious accidents happen.

[biggin]

That has Nothing whatsoever to do with Nuclear power[bighmmm]

I agree, it has as much to with nuclear, as it has with renewables (which are part of the same energy industry, by the way). Some people like to draw a long bow when it comes to nuclear, or any other entity they feel they shouldn’t like.

[V8Ian]

I agree, it has as much to with nuclear, as it has with renewables (which are part of the same energy industry, by the way). Some people like to draw a long bow when it comes to nuclear, or any other entity they feel they shouldn’t like.
And others choose to cherry-pick facts, ignoring or dismissing those that don't support their point of view.

[ozscott]

I think the future with long distances and growing populations is probably nuclear but if it goes wrong in a bad way the downsides are immense. No debate about the possibility of nuclear power can take place without addressing the risks. A lot of us are old enough to recall growing up with the risks of thermonuclear war and Chernobal's cloud doing massive damage to people, crops, animals etc.

Cheers

[biggin]

And others choose to cherry-pick facts, ignoring or dismissing those that don't support their point of view.

Good, we agree on something.

[ramblingboy42]

I agree, it has as much to with nuclear, as it has with renewables (which are part of the same energy industry, by the way). Some people like to draw a long bow when it comes to nuclear, or any other entity they feel they shouldn’t like.

nuclear power is not part of the same energy industry as you say biggin.

it is certainly low carbon emission once commissioned, but has a massive carbon footprint.

it also has left over dangerous waste which uses much energy to be safely dealt with.

[biggin]

The way things are now, yes. But technological breakthroughs could change that, and research in this area should not be ignored.

[DiscoMick]

Nuclear is by far the most expensive option, would produce the most expensive electricity, takes about 7 years to build, is dangerous and produces wastes which remain dangerous for thousands of years. It's just not a serious option.

[speleomike]

Hi

"For the first time since the Industrial Revolution, Britain is obtaining more power from zero-carbon sources than fossil fuels. The milestone has been passed for the first five months of 2019. National Grid says clean energy has nudged ahead with 48% of generation, against 47% for coal and gas. The rest is biomass burning. The transformation reflects the precipitous decline of coal energy, and a boom from wind and solar. National Grid says that in the past decade, coal generation will have plunged from 30% to 3%. Meanwhile, wind power has shot up from 1% to 19%. Mini-milestones have been passed along the way. In May, for instance, Britain clocked up its first coal-free fortnight and generated record levels of solar power for two consecutive days."
Ref: Clean electricity overtaking fossil fuels in Britain - BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48711649)

In the graphs Nuclear has been providing about 20% of Britain's power plants for the last decade as there were built a few decades ago and will still be operational for some time. Gas is about the same but the big change is coal. That's where the renewables are eating into and replacing. Says a bit about Australia's decision to support Adani when the global coal market is literally collapsing. Britain though would not be building any more Nuclear plants in the future given the rise of the renewables, and their public's distrust of Nuclear energy.

Mike

[speleomike]

Hi all

Some one earlier mentioned about how much more energy there is in uranium compared to coal. Being a physics person myself I certainly know how much energy there is in one kg of U-235 compared to coal but there is nothing like a nice comic, especially from the folks at XKCD, to really put it in perspective :-)

152174
Reference: xkcd: Log Scale (https://xkcd.com/1162/)

Mike

[1984V8110]

Hi

"For the first time since the Industrial Revolution, Britain is obtaining more power from zero-carbon sources than fossil fuels. The milestone has been passed for the first five months of 2019. National Grid says clean energy has nudged ahead with 48% of generation, against 47% for coal and gas. The rest is biomass burning. The transformation reflects the precipitous decline of coal energy, and a boom from wind and solar. National Grid says that in the past decade, coal generation will have plunged from 30% to 3%. Meanwhile, wind power has shot up from 1% to 19%. Mini-milestones have been passed along the way. In May, for instance, Britain clocked up its first coal-free fortnight and generated record levels of solar power for two consecutive days."
Ref: Clean electricity overtaking fossil fuels in Britain - BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48711649)

In the graphs Nuclear has been providing about 20% of Britain's power plants for the last decade as there were built a few decades ago and will still be operational for some time. Gas is about the same but the big change is coal. That's where the renewables are eating into and replacing. Says a bit about Australia's decision to support Adani when the global coal market is literally collapsing. Britain though would not be building any more Nuclear plants in the future given the rise of the renewables, and their public's distrust of Nuclear energy.

Mike

Thanks Mike

I do think some caution is needed regarding the BBC report and your comments.

Firstly, one of the key causes for the decline in coal fuel use in the UK has been the conversion of the Drax coal fired power station to the burning of wood pellets largely sourced from the USA. Energy generated from this biomass is treated as though it has no CO2 emissions since if the forests that were cleared to produce the pellets was to regenerate, then, in the long run, the CO2 emitted by the power station would be removed from the atmosphere. Setting aside the assumption that the forests will be regenerated, there is an issue that the rate of CO2 fixation by the forests is slow, so that there is in fact a long period when CO2 emissions rise from this allegedly green power source.

Secondly the claim that the coal market is 'collapsing' is difficult to square with the current price of thermal coal. Moreover the BP statistical review of world energy which is generally regarded as being authoratative has recently reported that coal consumption grew by 1.4% in 2018. However it does note that 'coal's primary share in primary energy fell to 27.2%. Incidentally, the largest increase in coal production in 2018 was in China.

Thirdly, the UK has approved the construction of a new nuclear plant - the Hinkley C plant. This has been controversial for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the high guaranteed price that has been agreed to to support the construction of the plant - of GBP 92.50/MWh. This, I think, is one of DiscoMick's points - that nuclear is expensive.

Since I have stuck my neck out and noted the high costs of the Hinkley C plant, why do I persist in arguing that nuclear should be at least considered? Well firstly one of the reasons that the Hinkley plant is so expensive is that it is an early version of a relatively new design. Rightly or wrongly I suspect that unit costs would decrease in the event of further plants being built - this is a key question that an Australian review of the nuclear option should consider. Secondly, if you include the cost of firming the capacity of intermittent renewables into the full cost of renewables, it is highly questionable that renewables really are cheaper than nuclear - once again a matter that needs a full analysis rather than assertions by people like me. [As an aside, for the last 4 days wind capacity factors across the eastern australian grid have averaged less than 15% due a large high pressure dropping wind speeds across Eastern Australia. Just as proponents of nuclear power need to explain the economic and environmental matters associated with nuclear power so proponents of intermittent renewables must explain and produce plausible costings as to how such variability is to be managed.]



Michael

[AndyG]

It is so very easy to put the blinkers on and cherry pick, or possibly some are just taking the **** O:)

The Comet jet was a disaster, pressurised jets will never work,
Chernobyl was a disaster nuclear will never work
The mining of Cobalt in the congo is wrong on so many levels, but lets not question the morality behind our renewable/ EV / battery purchase
And so on,
Take the blinkers of and go beyond

[AndyG]

It is so very easy to put the blinkers on and cherry pick, or possibly some are just taking the **** O:)

The Comet jet was a disaster, pressurised jets will never work,
Chernobyl was a disaster nuclear will never work
The mining of Cobalt in the congo is wrong on so many levels, but lets not question the morality behind our renewable/ EV / battery purchase
And so on,
Take the blinkers of and go beyondAn addendum
I work in the Oil Palm industry in png, no orang-utans or Sumatran tigers are harmed, we preserve hcv (high carbon value) forests, we have an active engagement with the community providing jobs, power, water, roads, schools, clinics etc, but all oil palm is evil.

[speleomike]

Hi Michael

Nice detailed reply. I didn't know about burning of wood pellets largely sourced from the USA. That seems to me to be astounding. It's pumping out CO2 and the idea to ship them from the US is ridiculous. If it is economic to do so the it indicated the market has something wrong with it! Unless the US is subsidising it to keep jobs for wood chippers in some states :-)

"Incidentally, the largest increase in coal production in 2018 was in China." China is sending mixed messages and information. In some reports they are reducing coal use and even shutting some power stations. But that may only be temporary when pollution levels are high. Their reporting is based on what they want us to believe (e.g. their perfect GDP predictions each year) and reporting here also might be skewed. China though is prob one of the few countries that can "mandate" max CO2 emissions if they really wanted to.

Hinkley C plant. I looked that up on Wikipedia Hinkley Point C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station). I can see why it's controversial. That lists many problems that we would face in Aust if the Govt were to decide to build one here. I like the 9% interest rate!

"Rightly or wrongly I suspect that unit costs would decrease in the event of further plants being built.." Yes, IF they were mass produced and if the new design lessened the safety and disposal problems. The later might occur but they will never be mass produced.

Thanks for the excellent reply.

Mike

[DiscoMick]

I believe that Chinese coal is mainly soft and low energy and mined underground whereas our coal is mainly hard black and high energy, but no doubt someone will correct that.
It's still a fact that China is leading the way in investment in renewables, both to reduce complaints from Chinese people about pollution in its cities, and to generate jobs in manufacturing renewable equipment.
Its not a Coal vs Renewables situation - both have a future, but renewables will increase while coal will decrease.
Why isn't Australia investing to create jobs in manufacturing renewables, including lithium batteries? Once again, we are just digging it up and shipping it out and buying the resulting products, when we could create a lot of jobs by making them here.

[Bigbjorn]

Why isn't Australia investing to create jobs in manufacturing renewables, including lithium batteries? Once again, we are just digging it up and shipping it out and buying the resulting products, when we could create a lot of jobs by making them here.

I have been beating my gums about this for decades. We seem to have an economy based on selling houses and flats to each other. Our economy should be based on value adding to our natural resources and primary produce instead of just digging it up, chopping it down, exporting it on the hoof.

Only manufacturing and processing industries will provide the low skilled jobs necessary to gainfully employ the 800,000 or so unemployed plus a large number of disability pensioners who have some capacity to work.

[DiscoMick]

Very true. Typical short-sighted thinking. We should be using our advantage in resources to leverage our way to the top of manufacturing, but instead we just take the lazy way every time.

Anyway, the nuclear power debate seems to be mostly a culture war pursued by people who refuse to accept that climate change is real and ignore the facts that nuclear is the most expensive and dangerous option while renewables are the cheapest, cleanest and safest choice.

[JDNSW]

As I have pointed out elsewhere, Australia has had an economy based on the export of primary products either rural or mining, and largely unprocessed, for two hundred years. The only times that manufacturing has been a significant part of the economy has been when it has had very substantial protection or subsidy.

While this was understandable in wartime and in those times that protection was seen as the norm pretty much worldwide, as this regime wound back from about the end of the fifties, and specifically with the growth of the EU, and as improved communications began to make it clearer to the average Australian buyer how much these policies cost the consumer, continuing with them became politically untenable, both domestically and internationally.

If Australia were to reintroduce significant tariffs and /or subsidies, this would in most circumstances result in retaliatory action by our trading partners, and at the same time result in a substantial drop in Australian living standards as prices rose and the economy shrank.

The major reasons for the dearth of manufacturing in Australia are not principally labour costs, as is often trumpeted, but a combination of several factors. These include labour costs as a minor factor, but the biggest single factor is lack of a large enough local market to allow manufacturing on a scale that can be produced by major manufacturing countries such as China, or any of dozens of other countries. Other factors include the high cost of doing business in Australia, from red tape, environmental regulations, high power costs, the cost of shipping to overseas markets etc.

There is, and can be, successful manufacturing here, but it will usually be where the market is actually small worldwide, where there is a market for goods that are specific to Australian markets but have low overseas demand (e.g. bullbars), or where there is some very special Australian expertise, again usually for a very small worldwide market - an example here is a friend of mine who is planning to manufacture a competitor for some specialised geophysical equipment currently available only from a Canadian company. He already manufactures and sells other unique equipment. All in small quantities, as the market is very small.

[DiscoMick]

We just have to think regionally rather then domestically. The Asian and Pacific markets are huge and on our doorstep.

[JDNSW]

Yes, but the problem is that their domestic manufacturing is inside the doorstep! And in most cases they are in a very similar boat, unable to compete with China.

[DiscoMick]

So we need to get inside the doorstep. For a start, we could apply to join ASEAN. As for China, ASEAN's costs are lower than China's, which is why some Chinese companies are building factories in ASEAN. For example, Yangon is surrounded by Chinese factories. Apply will probably have to move production from China to ASEAN because of Trump's tariffs. We already receive many products made in ASEAN, such as motor vehicles and electronics made in Thailand. If we were inside, we could sell a lot of our products to their member countries free of duties.

[DiscoMick]

If there are no major earthquakes in Australia to threaten the storage of dangerous nuclear wastes, how come this earthquake in Darwin today cracked walls?

Tsunami all-clear after magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Darwin
Darwin CBD buildings evacuated after magnitude-7.2 earthquake in Banda Sea - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-24/darwin-earthquake-forces-evacuation-of-buildings/11241044)

[trout1105]

If there are no major earthquakes in Australia to threaten the storage of dangerous nuclear wastes, how come this earthquake in Darwin today cracked walls?

Tsunami all-clear after magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Darwin
Darwin CBD buildings evacuated after magnitude-7.2 earthquake in Banda Sea - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-24/darwin-earthquake-forces-evacuation-of-buildings/11241044)

The quake was 200k down and 700k north of Darwin and as such It bears NO threat whatsoever to a Modern Nuclear plant.

[AndyG]

Hopefully he doesnt teach geography
Incidently we have had a number of 7.0+ earthquakes close to our Mills, i cant stand up types, nil damage as they are engineered to take it. They are also designed to shut down automatically in such an event, so no biggie

[speleomike]

Bet its not designed to survive a nearby magnitude 8 :-) That would be an expensive design.

[RANDLOVER]

An addendum
I work in the Oil Palm industry in png, no orang-utans or Sumatran tigers are harmed, we preserve hcv (high carbon value) forests, we have an active engagement with the community providing jobs, power, water, roads, schools, clinics etc, but all oil palm is evil.

Don't they have to clear the animals out before planting the palms (I suspect there are no orangs or tigers in PNG) but others, and also is palm oil evil if it's made into bio-diesel?

[DiscoMick]

As I understand it, if an earthquake is dangerous depends on if it is vertical or horizontal. Horizontal doesn't normally cause big problems, just shaking. Vertical underwater causes tsunamis. I saw Phuket and Pi Pi island after that one. Everything was stripped bare. If we had a vertical 7.0 here it would be chaos. I hope it never happens.

[DiscoMick]

So, there were 32 earthquakes in the world today and 26 of them were in our region. Maybe Australia is not as dormant and stable a place to store dangerous nuclear wastes as we assume, hey?
AndyG, you were surrounded, are you used to a whole lotta shaking going on up in PNG?

Interactive Map of Active Volcanoes and recent Earthquakes world-wide (https://earthquakes.volcanodiscovery.com/)

[DiscoMick]

Deleted.

[AndyG]

Bet its not designed to survive a nearby magnitude 8 :-) That would be an expensive design.Managed a 7.8 ok, but that did the residential areas no good

[AndyG]

So, there were 32 earthquakes in the world today and 26 of them were in our region. Maybe Australia is not as dormant and stable a place to store dangerous nuclear wastes as we assume, hey?
AndyG, you were surrounded, are you used to a whole lotta shaking going on up in PNG?

Interactive Map of Active Volcanoes and recent Earthquakes world-wide (https://earthquakes.volcanodiscovery.com/)Sometimes its daily, then you go a few months with minimal, mt ulawun, about 40km away makes me nervous, if that blows im screwed

[AndyG]

Sometimes its daily, then you go a few months with minimal, mt ulawun, about 40km away makes me nervous, if that blows im screwedWhile you might not put a reactor in Newcastle for example, Australia is a big place with a lot of stable geology, Flinders ranges spring to mind for example. Be good to get Lucas out of Sydney for a start

[speleomike]

Hi


While you might not put a reactor in Newcastle for example, Australia is a big place with a lot of stable geology, Flinders ranges spring to mind for example. Be good to get Lucas out of Sydney for a start

Oh yes, good idea. The cancer patients in Sydney could be flown to the Flinders Ranges resort for their treatment given that the radio isotopes produced by Lucas heights have such short half lives (e.g. Tc 99 is 6 hours).

(I'm anti nuclear power but there are medical and industrial needs for some nuclear technology.)

Mike

[speleomike]

BTW ... ace bit on the pushing of pro nuclear power views tonight on Media Watch.
Seems like Sky, Murdoch news, radio like 2GB, Barilano and other politicians have been pushing it for the last month.
Something is up :-) Watch it on ABC iview.

[DiscoMick]

Two workers exposed to unsafe radiation dose at Lucas Heights nuclear facility

Two workers exposed to unsafe radiation dose at Lucas Heights nuclear facility | Australia news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/24/two-workers-exposed-to-unsafe-radiation-dose-at-lucas-heights-nuclear-facility?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard)

[trout1105]

Two workers exposed to unsafe radiation dose at Lucas Heights nuclear facility

Two workers exposed to unsafe radiation dose at Lucas Heights nuclear facility | Australia news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/24/two-workers-exposed-to-unsafe-radiation-dose-at-lucas-heights-nuclear-facility?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard)

Its Not exactly a Nuclear meltdown or a major radiation leak Mick and Lucas heights would have to be a Far safer work environment than Most other manufacturing plants.
Our emergency response people get injured at a much more frequent rate than the people at Lucas Heights, Maybe we should shut down that service[bigwhistle]

[Tombie]

I believe that Chinese coal is mainly soft and low energy and mined underground whereas our coal is mainly hard black and high energy, but no doubt someone will correct that.
It's still a fact that China is leading the way in investment in renewables, both to reduce complaints from Chinese people about pollution in its cities, and to generate jobs in manufacturing renewable equipment.
Its not a Coal vs Renewables situation - both have a future, but renewables will increase while coal will decrease.
Why isn't Australia investing to create jobs in manufacturing renewables, including lithium batteries? Once again, we are just digging it up and shipping it out and buying the resulting products, when we could create a lot of jobs by making them here.

Partially because we don’t have the largest ingredient for Lithium batteries.
Lithium batteries use a very high volume of Graphite per unit.

2 versions exist - one is mined, the other synthetic from Petroleum coke.

[trout1105]

Partially because we don’t have the largest ingredient for Lithium batteries.
Lithium batteries use a very high volume of Graphite per unit.

2 versions exist - one is mined, the other synthetic from Petroleum coke.

Graphite isn't exactly a Rare commodity Nor is it hard to source, Lithium however [bigwhistle]

[ozscott]

There are plenty of geologically stable places is Oz.

Cheers

[Saitch]

Partially because we don’t have the largest ingredient for Lithium batteries.
Lithium batteries use a very high volume of Graphite per unit.

2 versions exist - one is mined, the other synthetic from Petroleum coke.


https://www.theage.com.au/national/enormous-lithium-waste-dump-plan-shows-how-shamefully-backward-we-are-20190621-p52054.html

Whilst I have posted this, I have to admit that I know nothing about the credibility of The Age however, there's always an element of truth in all stories, isn't there?

[Ean Austral]

I believe that Chinese coal is mainly soft and low energy and mined underground whereas our coal is mainly hard black and high energy, but no doubt someone will correct that.
It's still a fact that China is leading the way in investment in renewables, both to reduce complaints from Chinese people about pollution in its cities, and to generate jobs in manufacturing renewable equipment.
Its not a Coal vs Renewables situation - both have a future, but renewables will increase while coal will decrease.
Why isn't Australia investing to create jobs in manufacturing renewables, including lithium batteries? Once again, we are just digging it up and shipping it out and buying the resulting products, when we could create a lot of jobs by making them here.

Where as i totally agree with your concept Mick , it seems to me that we have become a country that expects to be paid the most , to do the least amount of work possible , to sell what we have at the most expensive end of the scale , but will only buy the cheapest. Usually this results in industries closing down or moving offshore ,and most people buying imported goods from China or wherever its the cheapest regardless of quality.

My industry is going thru the stage as we speak, local Aussies wont work the hours required with the extended time away from home , so the companies are starting to look for people from other countries. It started with the boats engineers a few years back and is starting to progress to deck crew now.

Just my 2c worth

Cheers Ean

[Saitch]

[/B]Where as i totally agree with your concept Mick , it seems to me that we have become a country that expects to be paid the most , to do the least amount of work possible , to sell what we have at the most expensive end of the scale , but will only buy the cheapest. Usually this results in industries closing down or moving offshore ,and most people buying imported goods from China or wherever its the cheapest regardless of quality.

My industry is going thru the stage as we speak, local Aussies wont work the hours required with the extended time away from home , so the companies are starting to look for people from other countries. It started with the boats engineers a few years back and is starting to progress to deck crew now.

Just my 2c worth

Cheers Ean

There are still a few issues to be addressed apparently, if you can trust a journo! There's always a modicum of truth in a media story, isn't there?

Dardanup lithium waste dump plan shows how shamefully backward we are (https://www.smh.com.au/national/enormous-lithium-waste-dump-plan-shows-how-shamefully-backward-we-are-20190621-p52054.html)

[AndyG]

Yes Aussies increasingly want the easy path, in png its too hot, too remote, too dangerous. Jobs that used to be filled by Aussie/NZ sre being taken up by those fromthe sub continent or the Philippines, entrepreneurs are all Chinese. Gawd, how hard is it to fill jobs in Australia with crazy expectations

[Tombie]

Graphite isn't exactly a Rare commodity Nor is it hard to source, Lithium however [bigwhistle]

Really... it’s very rare when your country doesn’t have any... hence why very expensive mines on the African continent do so well.

The other major holder of Graphite stocks are:

Canada, India, Brazil, Sri Lanka and North Korea

The volume it’s found in won’t have a chance of keeping up with demand...

[AndyG]

Sometimes its daily, then you go a few months with minimal, mt ulawun, about 40km away makes me nervous, if that blows im screwed

I spoke too soon,
Today
Ash clouds
Roads cut by lava flow
Evacuations underway

Just organising a load of face masks, googles, tarpaulins, water containers, wood stoves etc to the evacuation centre
Need to check beer supplies

How's your day going

This will do CO2 levels no good at all

[vnx205]

It won't have as much effect on CO2 levels as some people claim.

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans? (https://skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm)

Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities? | NOAA Climate.gov (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities)

Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.

[AndyG]

I think sulper is the main emission but im not going up there with a test tube. Getting mighty black in that direction, now spitting rocks with a steady rumble.
Im off to the bar to join the 'dont panic committee'

[DiscoMick]

I spoke too soon,
Today
Ash clouds
Roads cut by lava flow
Evacuations underway

Just organising a load of face masks, googles, tarpaulins, water containers, wood stoves etc to the evacuation centre
Need to check beer supplies

How's your day going

This will do CO2 levels no good at allStay safe. Don't attempt anything brave.

[AndyG]

Stay safe. Don't attempt anything brave.Thers no chance of that

[DiscoMick]

I spoke too soon,
Today
Ash clouds
Roads cut by lava flow
Evacuations underway

Just organising a load of face masks, googles, tarpaulins, water containers, wood stoves etc to the evacuation centre
Need to check beer supplies

How's your day going

This will do CO2 levels no good at allNot sure where you are, but plenty of activity in Papua and Irian Jaya, Indonesia.

Interactive Map of Active Volcanoes and recent Earthquakes world-wide (https://earthquakes.volcanodiscovery.com/)

[Eevo]

i think indonesia has a nuke plant or two

[austastar]

Hi,
Nuclear power in Indonesia - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Indonesia)

Power plants are still in the planning stage yet I think.

Cheers

[NavyDiver]

Industry super urges Australia to consider the nuclear power option
The study also raised concerns about battery schemes, finding that using Tesla batteries to achieve 1.5 days power backup would cost $6.5 trillion, or the cost of building around 1,000 nuclear reactors.[biggrin][biggrin][biggrin]

Industry super urges Australia to consider the nuclear power option - Business - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-26/industry-super-funds-consider-the-nuclear-option/11248202'section=business)

[Eevo]

Hi,
Nuclear power in Indonesia - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Indonesia)

Power plants are still in the planning stage yet I think.

Cheers


yes, research reactors only.

[DiscoMick]

Whatever the other arguments are, it can't be argued that coal is a safe alternative to anything. Three deaths in six months in central Queensland.

Man dies after wall collapses at Central Queensland coal mine - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-27/central-queensland-coal-mine-death/11251110)

[Tombie]

Whatever the other arguments are, it can't be argued that coal is a safe alternative to anything. Three deaths in six months in central Queensland.

Man dies after wall collapses at Central Queensland coal mine - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-27/central-queensland-coal-mine-death/11251110)

Can’t argue cars are safe either.

[speleomike]

Industry super urges Australia to consider the nuclear power option
The study also raised concerns about battery schemes, finding that using Tesla batteries to achieve 1.5 days power backup would cost $6.5 trillion, or the cost of building around 1,000 nuclear reactors.[biggrin][biggrin][biggrin]

Industry super urges Australia to consider the nuclear power option - Business - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-26/industry-super-funds-consider-the-nuclear-option/11248202'section=business)

That article has so many disingenuous arguments and no references to how they calculate (via some devious methodology) that batteries would be 1000 times more $ than nuclear reactors. And there have been other articles in the media over the last few months likewise with very similar statements "Nuclear reactors should be considered as a realistic option ...". Some organisation is "feeding" this into the media.

And it's in this forum! Who are the shills in this forum? Maybe I should post this in the Conspiratory thread :-)

Mike

[DiscoMick]

It also ignores the point that nuclear could only be built as a centralised plant by a government prepared to indemnify potential victims, since insurers are unlikely to insure a nuclear plant against claims, whereas battery banks can be decentralised and can easily be insured by power companies and individual householders, and so the cost would be widely spread and affordable.
The reality is there is a rapid rise in the number of people installing battery banks and that will skyrocket as costs fall, whereas no-one is offering to build nuclear.

[1984V8110]

That article has so many disingenuous arguments and no references to how they calculate (via some devious methodology) that batteries would be 1000 times more $ than nuclear reactors. And there have been other articles in the media over the last few months likewise with very similar statements "Nuclear reactors should be considered as a realistic option ...". Some organisation is "feeding" this into the media.

And it's in this forum! Who are the shills in this forum? Maybe I should post this in the Conspiratory thread :-)

Mike

Steady on Mike!

I assure you it is possible to be in favour of considering the use of nuclear power while not being a 'shill'. If your argument is that since a number of media articles are making the same case about an issue (nuclear power) then it must be a conspiracy, does not the same logic apply to the frequent discussion about the certainty of dangerous global warming? Perhaps the increased number of media articles about the need to consider nuclear power reflects a gradual realization that intermittent renewables cannot achieve 'decarbonisation' of the power generation industry alone?

I agree that the estimated cost of battery power even surprised me, and I also agree that the implied price of 7 billion per reactor looks low to me. Nevertheless, even if the estimated cost of the battery backup is incorrect by a factor of ten, there is an important point that battery backup currently looks to be exceedingly expensive, and that inclusion of the full cost of the battery backup makes intermittent renewables much more expensive than a simple calculation based on the cost of the solar or wind generation facilities alone.

Michael

[1984V8110]

It also ignores the point that nuclear could only be built as a centralised plant by a government prepared to indemnify potential victims, since insurers are unlikely to insure a nuclear plant against claims, whereas battery banks can be decentralised and can easily be insured by power companies and individual householders, and so the cost would be widely spread and affordable.
The reality is there is a rapid rise in the number of people installing battery banks and that will skyrocket as costs fall, whereas no-one is offering to build nuclear.

Your point about insurability is an interesting one. Can you confirm that no privately owned reactors in the OECD have insurances against failure? That said, I agree with you that reactors should be run by the State or at least very seriously regulated.

You claim that '..no one is offering to build nuclear.'. Surely you miss the point - the ABC article relates to a suggestion from our superannuation funds that they might want to do just that!

[Tombie]

It also ignores the point that nuclear could only be built as a centralised plant by a government prepared to indemnify potential victims, since insurers are unlikely to insure a nuclear plant against claims, whereas battery banks can be decentralised and can easily be insured by power companies and individual householders, and so the cost would be widely spread and affordable.
The reality is there is a rapid rise in the number of people installing battery banks and that will skyrocket as costs fall, whereas no-one is offering to build nuclear.

Still missing the massive ecological challenges of battery production and disposal. Of fading capacities and other challenges.