The next nuclear plants .The answer to our climate goals.

[bob10]

Is this the silver bullet?



The Next Nuclear Plants Will Be Small, Svelte, and Safer | WIRED (https://www.wired.com/story/the-next-nuclear-plants-will-be-small-svelte-and-safer/?bxid=5cc9e26e3f92a477a0ea0693&cndid=52475003&esrc=subscribe-page&source=EDT_WIR_NEWSLETTER_0_DAILY_ZZ&utm_brand=wired&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_mailing=WIR_Daily_121319&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nl&utm_term=list1_p4)


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been reviewing NuScale’s design since 2016; if the commission gives its blessing, the company can finally start building the first commercial reactor of its kind. The review process is brutal—NuScale submitted a 12,000 page technical application—and will likely stretch on for at least another year. But the company has already secured permission to build its first 12-reactor plant at the Idaho National Laboratory, which may start supplying power to communities in Western states as soon as 2026.

[trout1105]

"Is this the silver bullet"?

YES, It always has been[thumbsupbig]

[DiscoMick]

Can it be insured? If not, it can't be built.

[bob10]

Can it be insured? If not, it can't be built.

First one is being built in IDAHO, If normal nuclear plants can be built, this is a shoe in.

[speleomike]

Can it be insured? If not, it can't be built.

No Nuclear power plants in the world are commercially insured. They all are underwritten by their respective countries Government and paid for by tax payers. The same as the disposal of waste. Paid for by the Govt. It's another one of their hidden perks.

It's too late for them now to come up with another design as the cannot sell kW as cheaply as renewable by an order of magnitude at least.

Mike

[NavyDiver]

Adaptation of a naval invention of course

Nuclear-Powered Ships
(https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx) (https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx)(Updated October 2019) (https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx)

[bob10]

The cost advantage of nuclear energy. Apparently. EDIT. the real reason we will never go nuclear


The economic pros of nuclear energy (https://timeforchange.org/about-the-cost-advantage-of-nuclear-energy/)

[DiscoMick]

I think some more research would reveal that nuclear has the highest construction costs, higher even than coal and gas, and much higher than renewables.
Nuclear can rarely get insurance and requires massive taxpayer underwriting.
The world has moved towards privatised electricity generation so that means nuclear can't get insurance so can't be built without government subsidy.
Operating costs for renewables are lower than for nuclear, coal and gas because sunlight and wind are free.

[prelude]

Still,

Nuclear must have improved since the designs of the 60's went wrong. I have a hard time believing that we can't make heaps better nuclear plants these days. Then again operating costs are just one aspect. I know nuclear waste is a "hot" topic, pun intended... but perhaps we should look at how utterly polluting "renewables" are. The cadmium, lead and what not in solar panels (not to mention the bloody lithium batteries in all those e-vehicles and what not) are not very environmentally save nor are those items very recyclable. Sure, the aluminium frame and the glass plate on your solar will be, the doped silicon wafers afaik are not.

[DiscoMick]

Not as dangerous as radioactive waste though.

[Tombie]

I think some more research would reveal that nuclear has the highest construction costs, higher even than coal and gas, and much higher than renewables.
Nuclear can rarely get insurance and requires massive taxpayer underwriting.
The world has moved towards privatised electricity generation so that means nuclear can't get insurance so can't be built without government subsidy.
Operating costs for renewables are lower than for nuclear, coal and gas because sunlight and wind are free.

Let’s get more factual shall we.

Nuclear can and does have insurance - it’s is however underinsured. If they took the total liability cover out they would be more expensive by about €0.06/kWh

Construction cost is high, lifespan is significant.

Renewables are low although have high R&M and short lifespan by comparison.

[Tombie]

Not as dangerous as radioactive waste though.

Never having an X-ray? Never having trace dye procedures? That’s just an isotope doing its job.

Radioactive waste (a misnomer), is primarily produced as a result of production for other industries than Power. It is stored everywhere at the moment. You’ve probably been very close to it and not even realised.

Modern reprocessing of waste into fuel is quite effective and improving. Don’t discount the advance of all types of technology or the reinvention of old into newer methods.

[RANDLOVER]

Still,

Nuclear must have improved since the designs of the 60's went wrong. I have a hard time believing that we can't make heaps better nuclear plants these days. Then again operating costs are just one aspect. I know nuclear waste is a "hot" topic, pun intended... but perhaps we should look at how utterly polluting "renewables" are. The cadmium, lead and what not in solar panels (not to mention the bloody lithium batteries in all those e-vehicles and what not) are not very environmentally save nor are those items very recyclable. Sure, the aluminium frame and the glass plate on your solar will be, the doped silicon wafers afaik are not.

Actually technology is improving and solar panel are recyclable Solar Panel Recycling in 2019: How it Works | EnergySage (https://news.energysage.com/recycling-solar-panels/) as are batteries, and at least that don't have to be encased in thick concrete and stored for thousands of years like nuclear waste.

[cjc_td5]

I believe nuclear energy is a paradigm shift we need but not as it is typically thought of. Large centalised plants are old school and outdated. The future is new generation isotope reactions that can be packaged down to say suitcase size so they can power our homes or cars. Probably not in my lifetime though unfortunately...

[bsperka]

Talk about leaving a legacy for future generations. 200 generations in fact. The radioactive material is "safe" after 5000 to 10000 years.
As a result, the nuclear facilities in the UK have their details on platinum plates to ensure that the information isn't lost as time marches on. And on microfilm. And on archival quality paper. They want to ensure that in 100 years time, let alone 2,000 to 10,000 years time, the information is still available regarding the plant and its materials.
Humans forget so quickly. 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. Or look up the Oak Ridge Reservation regarding USA nuclear contamination. Most people know of it as the site of the Manhattan project. At least 35,000 acres need to be decontaminated due to nuclear waste. So yeah, that's one way to go.

[bsperka]

Fyi: Small brief case size nuclear devices have been available since the 1960s.
- NASA toyed with using them to propel rockets in to space. The risk if the ricket exploded stopped that idea.
- USA airforce for airplane propulsion - the weight of the lead shield to stop those pesky pilots from dying stopped that idea.
- The USA government wanted to use them to duplicate the Panama canal and actually experimented the technology in Alaska by cutting a small canal with nuclear bombs. The isotope contamination of Alaska and Canada stopped this, as too many constituents wrote to senators and quoted the extact name of the isotope in their correspondence.

[DiscoMick]

Never having an X-ray? Never having trace dye procedures? That’s just an isotope doing its job.

Radioactive waste (a misnomer), is primarily produced as a result of production for other industries than Power. It is stored everywhere at the moment. You’ve probably been very close to it and not even realised.

Modern reprocessing of waste into fuel is quite effective and improving. Don’t discount the advance of all types of technology or the reinvention of old into newer methods.I've toured Lucas Heights and seen inside the reactor. The compound was filled with stacks of stored radioactive material. Not impressed.

[prelude]

It's good to see that the renewables corner is actually getting more renewable. Mind you, I do have problems with nuclear waste myself but when put into perspective I think it should not be written of so easily. Did you know that on a flight from the UK to Japan you are exposed to more radiation then when you are on the ground at fukushima?

YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak)

[ATH]

"because sunlight and wind are free. " Absolute rubbish. What's free about the energy intensive towers for wind? What's free about the ongoing maintenance of windmills?
What's free about the manufacture of the huge arrays of solar panels? What's free about the distribution of the power they produce?
And what's free about the power that has to be provided when these wonderful "free" things can't produce power because of a lack of wind or sunlight?
Absolute greenie crap.
AlanH.

[Eevo]

bit like earlier today. wind power make up about 5% of the power generation in SA
currently solar making up 0%

[cripesamighty]

This always makes me chuckle. Something we probably won't need to do in most of Australia...

156299

[RANDLOVER]

"because sunlight and wind are free. " Absolute rubbish. What's free about the energy intensive towers for wind? What's free about the ongoing maintenance of windmills?
What's free about the manufacture of the huge arrays of solar panels? What's free about the distribution of the power they produce?
And what's free about the power that has to be provided when these wonderful "free" things can't produce power because of a lack of wind or sunlight?
Absolute greenie crap.
AlanH.

Why are some people so negative about sunlight, don't they realise when they are burning coal, diesel, petrol they are just using stored sunlight, i.e. photosynthesis grew plants which animals ate, the whole lot got buried and we now use it as fuel. Why not cut out all the processes in between, and just use solar and wind power directly? Also mining/drilling for and transporting of liquid/solid fuels are not free, and all that equipment needs maintenance too. Renewable energy can be stored, either chemically, kinetically or thermally.

[101 Ron]

The problem I see with going nuclear is every step produces waste.
Creating yellow cake makes waste, and then every step to a fuel rod.
The spent fuel rod is then treated and makes more waste.
The pipes and containment vessels with regards to power plant operation need to be replaced from time to time and makes more waste.
Robots and other devices used to treat and move fuel and waste, or by products become waste too.
Just too much waste, yes some of it may be short term low level stuff, but much of it is not.
Lucas Heights I remember as a kid has waste in under ground containment vessels stored off site not far away and what fun that could be if someone who wanted to make trouble.............I cannot see how it has been moved in the years since and the vessels were set up for the long term.
I am not against nuclear, but currently we dont have enough answers to the problems and the true running costs of the whole process from start to long term waste is never factored in.
The Thorum salt reactors, may be able to use lower quailty fuels and be a very safe design, but the waste from radio active pipes which have to replaced often is a big problem and the pipes and waste from thorum reactors emits high levels of radiation of very nasty types for Hundreds of years.
I dont profess to be a expert on this stuff, but my own investigation with a open eye to the whole picture.

[DiscoMick]

"because sunlight and wind are free. " Absolute rubbish. What's free about the energy intensive towers for wind? What's free about the ongoing maintenance of windmills?
What's free about the manufacture of the huge arrays of solar panels? What's free about the distribution of the power they produce?
And what's free about the power that has to be provided when these wonderful "free" things can't produce power because of a lack of wind or sunlight?
Absolute greenie crap.
AlanH.No, it's totally true. Sunshine and wind ARE free. The energy inputs are free. Just a fact.

[Tombie]

No, it's totally true. Sunshine and wind ARE free. The energy inputs are free. Just a fact.

By that same logic - Coal is free.

The extraction or processing is not free, just as the conversion equipment for Solar and Wind is not free.

Technically, Coal is also renewable.

[Eevo]

No, it's totally true. Sunshine and wind ARE free. The energy inputs are free. Just a fact.


excellent. we should be seeing energy prices coming down any day now...

[Eevo]

solar is not renewable

[DiscoMick]

solar is not renewableEnergy gets recycled into new forms in an endless cycle.

[DiscoMick]

By that same logic - Coal is free.

The extraction or processing is not free, just as the conversion equipment for Solar and Wind is not free.

Technically, Coal is also renewable.Solar and wind are free at the processing plant, but coal and gas cost lots of money to mine and transport.

[AndyG]

Can anyone point me to a document that summarises the comparative costs of
Solar/Wind (with the necessary batteries for 24*7)
Hydro
Gas
Diesel
Coal
Nuclear

Appears to be a lot of experts at Aulro, so would appreciate them sharing their knowledge, as opposed ot opinions

Please nothing from The Guardian and the ilk, a source document if possible

[DiscoMick]

It's a contested field because it can be greatly affected by what assumptions are made.
Construction and operation costs vary greatly between energy sources.
For example, nuclear has the highest construction costs, but operating costs are relatively low. Coal and gas have high operating costs because of the cost of mining and transporting the coal or gas.
Solar and wind have their construction costs, but very low operating costs because sunlight and wind are free.
Nuclear can rarely get insurance. Coal is now very difficult to get finance for from the banks.
Another point is that the coal power stations were originally built by governments so their total cost was subsidised by taxpayers, whereas solar and wind are usually privately financed. So finance costs can vary greatly.
Also, society has changed from a highly centralised and regulated system based on coal power stations to a market based system in which generators bid to supply power at a specific time in the daily operations of the grid.
Household solar also now supplies about a third of power so that is changing the dynamics.
Also, should the cost comparisons include the hidden costs from how we generate our power?
What about the cost of emissions and the costs if we fail to reduce emissions and have to clean up the resulting mess? For example, more emissions means more cyclones and bush fires, which cost society many hidden costs. The federal government has just tipped in an extra $11m for waterbombing bush fires, which are getting worse because of climate warming which is worsening because we are releasing more emissions, so shouldn't that cost counted in comparing power sources, if some sources released emissions which worsened the bushfires?
Who pays to dispose of radioactive waste? Who pays to rehabilitate disused coal mines?
We do. There's no-one else to pay the bills.
Also, how should the cost comparisons be expressed? There are several options.
So it's not a simple comparison.
The result is Google is packed with supposed cost comparisons which vary greatly depending on the assumptions made.
So have fun searching...

[Tombie]

One of the more common assumptions used in many calculations is life of asset.

In several financial models for example, calculations were done using 30 year operational life for each asset.

This skews the data as Wind Generators run around 20 years whilst Coal often go 50 years.

[rapserv]

And "all those lithium batteries in electric vehicles" doesn't really come into the argument as I don't think we're likely to see nuclear powered vehicles in the future.
Why are we still even talking about energy sources other than 'renewables' if renewables are now able to do the job at a much lower cost .... economically and environmentally?
Not as dangerous as radioactive waste though.

[rapserv]

Not only have they filled their site ... the govt has been looking for sites around Oz to 'safely' store the excess.
A number of sites have been proposed ... however the local residents have all 'rightly' said ...'not in my backyard!!,
Stil looking.
I've toured Lucas Heights and seen inside the reactor. The compound was filled with stacks of stored radioactive material. Not impressed.

[shanegtr]

I watched a doco series about Bill Gates on netflix a little while ago - the third episode targeted his involvement with a company called terra power. In regards to nuclear power this approach seems to make a lot of sense to me - they are using a new design that basically cannot have a meltdown event - even in a case of total power loss and uses the waste fuel from existing nuclear power plants. The approach that these guys are taking solves alot of issues I currently had with most of the current nuclear power plants around the world. They where on the brink of building a pilot plant in China just before Trump **** canned the trade agreement with China
TerraPower (https://terrapower.com/)

[rapserv]

Who's saying that energy is free?
Of course energy to create the product is not free ... initially
Once the product is built the energy from the Sun or Wind IS 'free'
As with ANY other energy supply maintenance is not and never will be free ... but it will be lower with renewables.
This is not a binary argument.
This argument reminds me of the comment made by our current idiot deputy PM when he stated about the NSW bushfires ... 'most of these fires are because of little lucifers playing with matches .. and not due to dry lightening strikes and climate change' .... completely missing the point that it's not what starts the fire thats the problem ... It's the INTENSITY of the of the burn once is going.... which is a direct result of ACC.
"because sunlight and wind are free. " Absolute rubbish. What's free about the energy intensive towers for wind? What's free about the ongoing maintenance of windmills?
What's free about the manufacture of the huge arrays of solar panels? What's free about the distribution of the power they produce?
And what's free about the power that has to be provided when these wonderful "free" things can't produce power because of a lack of wind or sunlight?
Absolute greenie crap.
AlanH.

[shanegtr]

As with ANY other energy supply maintenance is not and never will be free ... but it will be lower with renewables.

I cant supply any figures, but I have heard that wind power is fairly high in maintenance costs - the gearboxes are built to be a light as possible and apparently break often enough

[rapserv]

NASA,s website, for example, is full of factual evidence.

Plain common sense should tell everyone that 'renewables' are the way forward .... If they weren't .. why is it the way corporates and banking want to go. To them at least .... the 'evidence' is clear!!
Can anyone point me to a document that summarises the comparative costs of
Solar/Wind (with the necessary batteries for 24*7)
Hydro
Gas
Diesel
Coal
Nuclear

Appears to be a lot of experts at Aulro, so would appreciate them sharing their knowledge, as opposed ot opinions

Please nothing from The Guardian and the ilk, a source document if possible

[Tombie]

Not only have they filled their site ... the govt has been looking for sites around Oz to 'safely' store the excess.
A number of sites have been proposed ... however the local residents have all 'rightly' said ...'not in my backyard!!,
Stil looking.

We have a perfect location already, and should be consulting with those people as a potential income stream for them in an already sterilised area.

[Tombie]

NASA,s website, for example, is full of factual evidence.

Plain common sense should tell everyone that 'renewables' are the way forward .... If they weren't .. why is it the way corporates and banking want to go. To them at least .... the 'evidence' is clear!!

Cleaner energy is the way forward, 100% agree.
Cleaner use of the planet is the way forward, 100% agree.

However, Corporate and Banking are going down the path of most financial reward.

To think otherwise is foolish.

[Eevo]

Who pays to dispose of radioactive waste?

easy, built a reactor that runs on "radioactive waste"
other countries will pay us to take their waste. we put it in the reactor to make the electricity.

the fuel isnt free, its actual making us money.
people talking about free wind and sun are not thinking big enough.

[AndyG]

NASA,s website, for example, is full of factual evidence.

Plain common sense should tell everyone that 'renewables' are the way forward .... If they weren't .. why is it the way corporates and banking want to go. To them at least .... the 'evidence' is clear!!

I wasnt asking for the way forward, or questioning renewable s, i was looking for source data, rather than repeated opinions

[Saitch]

NASA,s website, for example, is full of factual evidence.

Plain common sense should tell everyone that 'renewables' are the way forward .... If they weren't .. why is it the way corporates and banking want to go. To them at least .... the 'evidence' is clear!!


Why is it then that Corporates and banks are backing beach front high rise construction and new coastal estate developments when, apparently, the evidence is clear that the sea level is going to rise?

Nothing to do with "Beliefs", all to do with hedging bets and making a motza.

[DiscoMick]

Because the clients will sell and repay the lenders well before the sea rises?

[bob10]

Can anyone point me to a document that summarises the comparative costs of
Solar/Wind (with the necessary batteries for 24*7)
Hydro
Gas
Diesel
Coal
Nuclear

Appears to be a lot of experts at Aulro, so would appreciate them sharing their knowledge, as opposed ot opinions

Please nothing from The Guardian and the ilk, a source document if possible


Google is your friend. But I know you can't be serious. Sarcastic perhaps, but not serious.

Cost of Solar Power vs Cost of Wind Power, Coal, Nuclear, & Natural Gas (https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/25/cost-of-solar-power-vs-cost-of-wind-power-coal-nuclear-natural-gas/)

[ramblingboy42]

Mini nuclear reactor power generators appear to be extremely safe and reliable.

How many are now powering military vessels around the world?

I'm thinking if it is that "easy" to maintain these small reactors on ships , it should be just as easy to put a small reactor safely in small communities.

Never mind the big ones...lots of little ones should do the trick.

[RANDLOVER]

…………………...

Technically, Coal is also renewable.

Just takes millions of years!

[RANDLOVER]

excellent. we should be seeing energy prices coming down any day now...

Absolutely, slap some solar panels on your house and watch your energy bill plummet, put enough on and you'll pro'ly get money back.

[Eevo]

Absolutely, slap some solar panels on your house and watch your energy bill plummet, put enough on and you'll pro'ly get money back.

got 5kw on the roof. still have a bill. 300 in summer, 1000 in winter

[RANDLOVER]

got 5kw on the roof. still have a bill. 300 in summer, 1000 in winter

That looks like either a southerly facing solar array or a heating load problem in winter or a time of use issue. Do you have an electric hot water unit, and/or electric space/room heaters, as these are the least efficient? Still looking on the bright side, the bill would be higher without solar.[bigsad]

Solar Panel Systems - ADELAIDE, SA, 5000 - Energy Matters (https://www.energymatters.com.au/solar-location/adelaide-5000/) Eevo you can check your system performance via this link, and others.

[Ferret]

Can anyone point me to a document that summarises the comparative costs of ....

The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for a range of technologies is tabulated in this report. The LCOE captures the average cost of producing electricity in Australia from a range of technologies over its entire life, given assumptions about how the generator will operate.

At the time this report was prepared (2015) all new technologies had higher LCOEs than the current Australian grid average wholesale price. No single technology is optimal across all metrics. Of the renewable technologies, wind power had the lowest LCOE. However, natural gas combined cycle and supercritical coal fired generation had the lowest LCOE of all the technologies covered in this study.

The study estimated the LCOEs of various technologies out to 2030. It found the overall ranking of each technology's LCOE was not projected to change from 2015 levels but it was likely the difference between lowest and highest cost technology would decrease.

The LCOE rankings of a carbon emissions price was studied. In 2015, for wind to be competitive with the lowest LCOE fossil fuel generator a $30/tCO2 penalty price needed to be applied. For solar a $70/tCO2 penalty price needed to be applied.

The study noted LCOE does not capture the cost of interfacing with the grid, ie LCOE's for all technologies are calculated at the generator's boundary. No allowance in LCOE is made for the costs associated with connecting / interfacing the various technologies to the grid.

http://www.co2crc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/LCOE_Report_final_web.pdf

[RANDLOVER]

The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for a range of technologies is tabulated in this report. The LCOE captures the average cost of producing electricity in Australia from a range of technologies over its entire life, given assumptions about how the generator will operate...…………..

………..
http://www.co2crc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/LCOE_Report_final_web.pdf

I think LCOE is skewed in favour of coal and gas generators as they can profit from "peaking" in our distorted energy market,(think of it as a subsidy), solar & wind without storage can't do this. Also I'm not sure where the report attributed the gains that energy suppliers made from paying for diesel generator owners to run their sets during "peaking". Having said that I think the rooftop solar has all but eliminated the afternoon peak, as I know of places that used to run diesel gensets every hot afternoon in summer form approx. 1400 to 1800 whereas that is no longer the case.

[Ferret]

think of it as a subsidy...

Someone else come up with 'subsidy' theories in another thread. Load of bollocks as was explained by another in that particular thread.

[AndyG]

Google is your friend. But I know you can't be serious. Sarcastic perhaps, but not serious.

Cost of Solar Power vs Cost of Wind Power, Coal, Nuclear, & Natural Gas (https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/25/cost-of-solar-power-vs-cost-of-wind-power-coal-nuclear-natural-gas/)

Actually fairly serious, i live in an off the grid environment, (shock oh horror oil palm) where we make about 8 MW of power

Based on our costings for a 1 MW plant and/or several 500 kva plants our costings give us:
Existing steam turbines, using biomass, can improve efficiency, almost free power, however 11,000 v transmission lines make it expensive for centralised power.
Some new Hydro plants, capex is high , but a 20 year + life with minimal maintenance
Diesel generators, less capex , but high operating costs and fairly short life.
Most expensive for 24/7 power is Solar/battery by a long shot, (no subsidies)

Hydro is probably option 1 to replace some Generators, if we can allocate the capex,
Option 2 is probably a hybrid solution.

On reflection our Hydro is fairly optimal, 50 m of head over a few 100 meters and 5 m of rain. Not everyone has that luck

[AndyG]

got 5kw on the roof. still have a bill. 300 in summer, 1000 in winter

We get 44c feed in tarriff, which is totally crazy, but never a bill is seen. And thats with 3kw

[AndyG]

I watched a doco series about Bill Gates on netflix a little while ago - the third episode targeted his involvement with a company called terra power. In regards to nuclear power this approach seems to make a lot of sense to me - they are using a new design that basically cannot have a meltdown event - even in a case of total power loss and uses the waste fuel from existing nuclear power plants. The approach that these guys are taking solves alot of issues I currently had with most of the current nuclear power plants around the world. They where on the brink of building a pilot plant in China just before Trump **** canned the trade agreement with China
TerraPower (https://terrapower.com/)

I've always been grateful Microsoft dont make aircraft , but now nuclear power plants. Talk about the Blue Screen of Death.
But good luck to him, at least he is contributing to looking for a solution.

[AndyG]

No Nuclear power plants in the world are commercially insured. They all are underwritten by their respective countries Government and paid for by tax payers. The same as the disposal of waste. Paid for by the Govt. It's another one of their hidden perks.

It's too late for them now to come up with another design as the cannot sell kW as cheaply as renewable by an order of magnitude at least.

Mike

So like Wivenhoe Dam or the broken one up the coast, insured by the State (Crown) whats the difference.
Do you think there is a insurance policy on the Gateway Bridge for example

[AndyG]

I think some more research would reveal that nuclear has the highest construction costs, higher even than coal and gas, and much higher than renewables.
Nuclear can rarely get insurance and requires massive taxpayer underwriting.
The world has moved towards privatised electricity generation so that means nuclear can't get insurance so can't be built without government subsidy.
Operating costs for renewables are lower than for nuclear, coal and gas because sunlight and wind are free.

Mick, you keep saying cheaper, but show us the numbers, my attempts to do off grid power in the MW range dont gel with this statement.

[Eevo]

We get 44c feed in tarriff, which is totally crazy, but never a bill is seen. And thats with 3kw


wow! i get i think 12 or 14 cents feed in.

[Ferret]

We get 7 cents feed in.

[AndyG]

wow! i get i think 12 or 14 cents feed in.

It was a Qld Govt initiative back in 2012 to make power more expensive for everyone but me.
Sadly it expires in 2028
Had a credit on every bill since,

[AndyG]

The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for a range of technologies is tabulated in this report. The LCOE captures the average cost of producing electricity in Australia from a range of technologies over its entire life, given assumptions about how the generator will operate.

At the time this report was prepared (2015) all new technologies had higher LCOEs than the current Australian grid average wholesale price. No single technology is optimal across all metrics. Of the renewable technologies, wind power had the lowest LCOE. However, natural gas combined cycle and supercritical coal fired generation had the lowest LCOE of all the technologies covered in this study.

The study estimated the LCOEs of various technologies out to 2030. It found the overall ranking of each technology's LCOE was not projected to change from 2015 levels but it was likely the difference between lowest and highest cost technology would decrease.

The LCOE rankings of a carbon emissions price was studied. In 2015, for wind to be competitive with the lowest LCOE fossil fuel generator a $30/tCO2 penalty price needed to be applied. For solar a $70/tCO2 penalty price needed to be applied.

The study noted LCOE does not capture the cost of interfacing with the grid, ie LCOE's for all technologies are calculated at the generator's boundary. No allowance in LCOE is made for the costs associated with connecting / interfacing the various technologies to the grid.

http://www.co2crc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/LCOE_Report_final_web.pdf

Thanks that will be my Xmas reading, a quick read indicates wind for example, does not include any storage cost, so power is there when you want it. But will have to read all 362 pages to confirm that impression.
Realistically people have an expectation of 24*7 power, and thats how comparitive costings should be done, not nameplate, regardless of technology.

[Ferret]

...a quick read indicates wind for example, does not include any storage cost, so power is there when you want it.

I think things like that are what they lump under costs associated with connecting to a the grid by the various generation technologies which they say they don't include in LCOE.

There needs to be a means of storage to stabilise the grid's frequency and voltage when there are large amounts of power being generated by many thousands of tiny generation units all doing their own thing in response to their own micro-climates.

It's a problem now on WA's grid as the increase in residential solar has soared. The local generator (Synergy) is losing money hand over fist and the local distributor (Western Power) is facing rising costs having to adapt its grid to conditions it was never designed to handle.

[bob10]

My last electricity bill was $8, for the quarter. I don't pretend to know how it all works, but that's fine by me. Looking for someone to explain to me how a battery set up would work, before we consider going that way.

[Tombie]

wow! i get i think 12 or 14 cents feed in.

I get 54 cents feed in [emoji41]

[Eevo]

a big f u to everyone getting more feed in than me

[DiscoMick]

My last electricity bill was $8, for the quarter. I don't pretend to know how it all works, but that's fine by me. Looking for someone to explain to me how a battery set up would work, before we consider going that way.The advice I'm getting is to delay on batteries by at least two years and instead put on more panels plus a 5kW inverter, which is the limit which can be put into the grid by households with single-phase power.
We're already in credit with 3.1 kW and a 15 cents feed in rebate and are about to double our panels to 6.5 kW with a 5kW inverter.

Solar system size limits: How much does your local network allow? - Solar Choice (https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/solar-system-size-limits-by-network)

[AndyG]

The advice I'm getting is to delay on batteries by at least two years and instead put on more panels plus a 5kW inverter, which is the limit which can be put into the grid by households with single-phase power.
We're already in credit with 3.1 kW and a 15 cents feed in rebate and are about to double our panels to 6.5 kW with a 5kW inverter.

Solar system size limits: How much does your local network allow? - Solar Choice (https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/solar-system-size-limits-by-network)

Be careful, with our Contract, changing the inverter size , invalidates the Contract. Of course our tariff is closed off now, yours may still be open.

[AndyG]

a big f u to everyone getting more feed in than me

Your welcome, why am i not surprised Tombie trumped us all (again)

[AndyG]

My last electricity bill was $8, for the quarter. I don't pretend to know how it all works, but that's fine by me. Looking for someone to explain to me how a battery set up would work, before we consider going that way.

If your paying $8 dont even think about batteries, but make sure you get your panels cleaned & checked, say every two years.
We lost a chunk of generation because the kids next door were throwing rocks on our roof, typical white anglo saxon arseholes

[bob10]

If your paying $8 dont even think about batteries, but make sure you get your panels cleaned & checked, say every two years.
We lost a chunk of generation because the kids next door were throwing rocks on our roof, typical white anglo saxon arseholes

Last time I was up on the roof myself. Not doing that again, will get some one to do it. We have to do something about the pigeons, who think the panels are the greatest for making a nest. I love your last bit, makes a change from what we normally hear.

[Tombie]

Your welcome, why am i not surprised Tombie trumped us all (again)

Cost me big $$$ for the array though.
High feed in came during the high system prices.
Of course now that’s all done...

[DiscoMick]

I scrubbed our panels and the solar hot water two weeks ago and got a lot of crud off.
If the dirt washes to the bottom and sticks, blocking sunlight to the lowest section of the panel, that can cause some panels to reduce their total performance, even of the upper sections, I'm told.

[Tombie]

I clean ours using my mobile scaffold and a pool broom.

[Saitch]

I scrubbed our panels and the solar hot water two weeks ago and got a lot of crud off.
If the dirt washes to the bottom and sticks, blocking sunlight to the lowest section of the panel, that can cause some panels to reduce their total performance, even of the upper sections, I'm told.

DM, there was a little episode on tele a year or two ago, where some boffins had a meter hooked into a solar power supply. What they did was place different sized objects to shade bits of the panels. The results were amazing. Doesn't take much to knock the guts out of them.

The fold out 160w car/camping panel was significantly affected by the shadow from just a roof rack.

I tried googling for it but to no avail.

[DiscoMick]

Thanks. I understand the effects can vary.
Our panel supplier said he had tested our particular RCS panels, which he has on his roof, by blocking sunlight from sections and he had to block more than 40% of the panel before it had a noticeable effect. He said other brands of panels may not perform as well.

[bob10]

The advice I'm getting is to delay on batteries by at least two years and instead put on more panels plus a 5kW inverter, which is the limit which can be put into the grid by households with single-phase power.
We're already in credit with 3.1 kW and a 15 cents feed in rebate and are about to double our panels to 6.5 kW with a 5kW inverter.

Solar system size limits: How much does your local network allow? - Solar Choice (https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/solar-system-size-limits-by-network)

Just checked the paperwork, we have a 6.05 KW system with a Growatt GW5000MTL-S inverter.The panels are Hanover Solar from Germany. Tomorrow I read the instruction book that came with it. Only 5 years too late. [bighmmm]

[DiscoMick]

Sounds good. German gear is good quality. If your bill is only $8 then you're doing well.
Assuming your system runs the house and exports the surplus to the grid, then demand management might be the key for you.
Move all possible power consumption to the daytime when your power is free. Run your air-con in the daytime to cool the house and turn it off at dusk. Get your water heater reset to heat in the daytime, not at night when it costs you money.
Minimise what you have to draw from the grid at night. Turn off lights and unnecessary consumption.
Check what feed in tariff you are getting from the power company. It should be at least 15 cents. Shop around. There are deals.
Make the system work for you.

[Eevo]

grrrr

this period (partial)
Solar Electricity Sold to Grid 434.42 kWh
Electricity Bought From Grid 272.99 kWh

last period
Solar Electricity Sold to Grid 1457.41 kWh
Electricity Bought From Grid 1388.60 kWh

damm you small feed in tarrif!

[DiscoMick]

The feed in tariff will keep shrinking as solar becomes more widespread, so don't rely on it. Just put on more panels, they're cheap now. Do you have a 5 KW inverter?

[Tombie]

The feed in tariff will keep shrinking as solar becomes more widespread, so don't rely on it. Just put on more panels, they're cheap now. Do you have a 5 KW inverter?

My feed in Tarif is fixed. As long as I don’t move property I keep it.

[bob10]

Sounds good. German gear is good quality. If your bill is only $8 then you're doing well.
Assuming your system runs the house and exports the surplus to the grid, then demand management might be the key for you.
Move all possible power consumption to the daytime when your power is free. Run your air-con in the daytime to cool the house and turn it off at dusk. Get your water heater reset to heat in the daytime, not at night when it costs you money.
Minimise what you have to draw from the grid at night. Turn off lights and unnecessary consumption.
Check what feed in tariff you are getting from the power company. It should be at least 15 cents. Shop around. There are deals.
Make the system work for you.

No Air-con in summer fans run all night, hot water is gas demand heated, gas stove, the only power points turned on all night are running the fridge freezer. The hot water heater is a pain, because it takes so long to get up to temp, we risk wasting water. So, I shave by boiling the jug, and wash dishes the same way. No dishwasher. I water my gardens by watering can, and keep a mental account of the amount used. Probably not necessary yet, but it pays to have good habits.

[DiscoMick]

Sounds good except for the hot water heater. Can you get it reset to the daytime?
In this weather we don't actually need much hot water for showering.

[Eevo]

Do you have a 5 KW inverter?

yes

[jonesfam]

Now this tread seems to have turned to Solar Pannels instead of nuclear power (I would love a Nuclear Power Plant) I have found out something interesting.
When we first put Solar on the Roadhouse I would walk out the back door for the 3 meter walk to work on a hot, sunny morning & think "Great, we are making power."
But I noticed as the day got hotter & our power usage went up the power the solar produced leveled off.
How can this be? Its 40 odd degrees, the suns overhead, no clouds & the power produced is not going up?

So I phoned the suppliers & was told "Yep mate, once the pannels get hot they decrease in efficiancy!"
What the?
So solar is great as long as it's sunny, but not to hot, or cloudy, or raining, & they are clean, none of the inverters go US & so on.
We save about a 3rd to a half of on our previous power bills which is a substantial amount of money but it is not as much as I thought we would save considering the investment.
We are running 39 A/C units alone, with all the other stuff we do pull a lot of power but free it ain't, especially this time of year!

Jonesfam

[bob10]

Sounds good except for the hot water heater. Can you get it reset to the daytime?
In this weather we don't actually need much hot water for showering.

The gas heater is a Rinnai B20, 50 degree F compliant. Set and forget, apparently. Not as good as our 30 year old one that was replaced, but uses a lot less gas. Once up to temp. there's no problem, but water usage until it gets to temp is. Mainly a problem in the kitchen sink, which we get around by either using the jug, or letting the water run in the 2nd sink [ twin sink setup] until it gets hot, and then use that cold water to water our pot plants, and herbs on the verandah. We recently had all our water and gas pipes replaced. Made quite a difference to the water quality, the old gal. pipes were full of rust. We were getting plenty of iron. The house was built in 1952, and they were the original pipes.

[trout1105]

The gas heater is a Rinnai B20, 50 degree F compliant. Set and forget, apparently. Not as good as our 30 year old one that was replaced, but uses a lot less gas. Once up to temp. there's no problem, but water usage until it gets to temp is. Mainly a problem in the kitchen sink, which we get around by either using the jug, or letting the water run in the 2nd sink [ twin sink setup] until it gets hot, and then use that cold water to water our pot plants, and herbs on the verandah. We recently had all our water and gas pipes replaced. Made quite a difference to the water quality, the old gal. pipes were full of rust. We were getting plenty of iron. The house was built in 1952, and they were the original pipes.

It is very hard to beat an instantaneous gas heater for hot water production using gas.
No need to store and reheat water and these days they don't even run a "pilot" light so even if you are away you don't have to shut it down as it won't use any gas until you turn the hot tap on [thumbsupbig]

[Tombie]

The gas heater is a Rinnai B20, 50 degree F compliant. Set and forget, apparently. Not as good as our 30 year old one that was replaced, but uses a lot less gas. Once up to temp. there's no problem, but water usage until it gets to temp is. Mainly a problem in the kitchen sink, which we get around by either using the jug, or letting the water run in the 2nd sink [ twin sink setup] until it gets hot, and then use that cold water to water our pot plants, and herbs on the verandah. We recently had all our water and gas pipes replaced. Made quite a difference to the water quality, the old gal. pipes were full of rust. We were getting plenty of iron. The house was built in 1952, and they were the original pipes.

Are you aware there is a recirculating system available that primes the pipes with hot water and doesn’t waste any.

[bob10]

Are you aware there is a recirculating system available that primes the pipes with hot water and doesn’t waste any.

No. Can't see it fitting into our system, though.

[Tombie]

No. Can't see it fitting into our system, though.

https://www.rinnai.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/smartstart_installation_manual___oct14.pdf

[bob10]

https://www.rinnai.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/smartstart_installation_manual___oct14.pdf

Thank you for that. Will contact FALLON solutions to have a chat. Cheers.

[Tombie]

Thank you for that. Will contact FALLON solutions to have a chat. Cheers.

No worries Bob. Have a great day.

[Fattima]

I scrubbed our panels and the solar hot water two weeks ago and got a lot of crud off.
If the dirt washes to the bottom and sticks, blocking sunlight to the lowest section of the panel, that can cause some panels to reduce their total performance, even of the upper sections, I'm told.
Was up on the roof cleaning the gutters and noticed lichen growing over my panels. Gave em a good clean down last night so hopefully I'll see a gain in output.
I've only got 1.5 KW but am on the old PFIT (72 cents feed in) in Victoria so not changing anything till 2024 when it expires.

[Tombie]

Was up on the roof cleaning the gutters and noticed lichen growing over my panels. Gave em a good clean down last night so hopefully I'll see a gain in output.
I've only got 1.5 KW but am on the old PFIT (72 cents feed in) in Victoria so not changing anything till 2024 when it expires.

Do the calculations- 1.5kw at 0.72 likely doesn’t come close to what you could be getting with higher outputs and a lower feed-in.

[Fattima]

Do the calculations- 1.5kw at 0.72 likely doesn’t come close to what you could be getting with higher outputs and a lower feed-in.
All well and good if I had the cash to upgrade the panels/inverter. This setup was on the house when I bought it so I'll leave it for now.

[DiscoMick]

Now this tread seems to have turned to Solar Pannels instead of nuclear power (I would love a Nuclear Power Plant) I have found out something interesting.
When we first put Solar on the Roadhouse I would walk out the back door for the 3 meter walk to work on a hot, sunny morning & think "Great, we are making power."
But I noticed as the day got hotter & our power usage went up the power the solar produced leveled off.
How can this be? Its 40 odd degrees, the suns overhead, no clouds & the power produced is not going up?

So I phoned the suppliers & was told "Yep mate, once the pannels get hot they decrease in efficiancy!"
What the?
So solar is great as long as it's sunny, but not to hot, or cloudy, or raining, & they are clean, none of the inverters go US & so on.
We save about a 3rd to a half of on our previous power bills which is a substantial amount of money but it is not as much as I thought we would save considering the investment.
We are running 39 A/C units alone, with all the other stuff we do pull a lot of power but free it ain't, especially this time of year!

JonesfamI've been told their peak efficiency is at about 25 degrees.
One trick is to hose them down about midday.
We have solar hot water on the main house, so that's free hot water during the day.
The studio has gas instant hot water.

[Tombie]

I've been told their peak efficiency is at about 25 degrees.
One trick is to hose them down about midday.
We have solar hot water on the main house, so that's free hot water during the day.
The studio has gas instant hot water.

It’s not a trick, it’s a waste of water! [emoji38]
They will cool for all of about 10 minutes after 100 litres of water.... and then be up to full temp again!

We have instant gas HWS and Cooktop and won’t be looking at any alternatives until they tell us we can’t get gas. The bill is never over $90 a quarter.

[DiscoMick]

Our installer reckons hosing them down should keep them in the peak efficiency range for about an hour, which is worthwhile.

[Tombie]

Our installer reckons hosing them down should keep them in the peak efficiency range for about an hour, which is worthwhile.

Your installer is wrong! We used a Flir camera... tested if it had an effect. It lasted about 10 minutes and then heated right up again.

1 hour @ the high feed in tariff of $0.50 per kWh equates to roughly $1.50 to $3.00 depending on the system size. For the hundreds of litres needed to cool it down how could you suggest it’s even remotely worthwhile?

Better off turning the AC up 1 or 2 degrees, turning something off for an hour etc and saving the water!

[RANDLOVER]

Your installer is wrong! We used a Flir camera... tested if it had an effect. It lasted about 10 minutes and then heated right up again.1 hour @ the high feed in tariff of $0.50 per kWh equates to roughly $1.50 to $3.00 depending on the system size. For the hundreds of litres needed to cool it down how could you suggest it’s even remotely worthwhile?Better off turning the AC up 1 or 2 degrees, turning something off for an hour etc and saving the water!Might be alright if one has a rainwater tank, so just recirculating the water?

[Tombie]

Residual water drops will capture dust and the continuous evaporation of the water will bring more calcium residuals on the panels. Ours are currently covered in Ash particulates and dirt from the nearby fires. I will clean them once the smoke goes.

Current panel efficiency loss is around 7-10% as it heats up.

Once you go back over 40c (moments after the water evaporates) you’ve lost the gain.

[RANDLOVER]

Spray the underside, not sure if it's sealed against water ingress, or even if panels have IP ratings and whether they are the same top and bottom?

[Tombie]

Spray the underside, not sure if it's sealed against water ingress, or even if panels have IP ratings and whether they are the same top and bottom?

The pump power exceeds the gains....

Only system I’ve seen that came close was panels with water cooling jackets. These were used to shed the heat from the panels by using it for a preheat on a HWS.

[DiscoMick]

Nah, think I'll just ignore it. Can't be bothered.

[Tombie]

Nah, think I'll just ignore it. Can't be bothered.

Posting isn’t ignoring [emoji41]

You’re normally a very active participant. Been a long day huh?

[DiscoMick]

Spent a fair part of it up on the roof replacing screws and gutterguard ahead of getting our solar upgraded.
When it got too hot I then did a couple of hours of heavy gardening.
Bit knackered so had to conk out and watch the Aussies just scrape past the Brits in the ATP cup.
So yes, it was a long day. [emoji53]

[Tombie]

Sounds very productive! How big are you taking your system?

We are going to be adding another stand alone set up on our home once the extension is completed with another 6kw and battery storage.

Home itself is being taken off-grid and the existing system will pump direct through the meter to the grid.

[DiscoMick]

Sounds good. We're going from 3.1 to 6.5 kW with a 5 kW inverter, but no batteries, so staying on the grid for now.
Wanted to replace the roofing screws in the area to be covered by the new panels, and most of the gutter guard installed by the previous owner is broken and needs replacing.
There are too many trees to defend this house in a fire, but gutter guard is still a good idea for ember control, as well as for rainwater tank quality. Also installing filters.

[Pickles2]

Sounds good. We're going from 3.1 to 6.5 kW with a 5 kW inverter, but no batteries, so staying on the grid for now.
Wanted to replace the roofing screws in the area to be covered by the new panels, and most of the gutter guard installed by the previous owner is broken and needs replacing.
There are too many trees to defend this house in a fire, but gutter guard is still a good idea for ember control, as well as for rainwater tank quality. Also installing filters.
Disco, can you tell me what you know about batteries.
I've heard that they could be the "missing link" in any solar elec system, but that they are not developed enough yet. Is this true, & if so, how long do you think it will be before they are suitable for everyday use?
Pickles.

[DiscoMick]

Disco, can you tell me what you know about batteries.
I've heard that they could be the "missing link" in any solar elec system, but that they are not developed enough yet. Is this true, & if so, how long do you think it will be before they are suitable for everyday use?
Pickles.Our solar guy, who has been in the industry for about 15 years, says the costs for batteries are still too high, but are falling, and said he has personally deferred making a decision about batteries for his own home for two years.
Meanwhile, he says panels are cheap now and he recommends clients just install more panels.
The other option is to go for cheap AGM batteries, but accept they will have to be replaced in a few years.

BTW he deals in RCS panels, which he says are high quality. I searched them and they do seem to have a good reputation.
Hope that helps.

[Eevo]

says the costs for batteries are still too high, but are falling, and said he has personally deferred making a decision about batteries for his own home for two years.


this is the option ive gone with.

[bob10]

Ontario has had problems with their reactor and false alarms.


Nuclear power alert 'sent in error,' company says (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/nuclear-power-alert-sent-in-error-company-says/ar-BBYT1d8?ocid=spartanntp)

[Chenz]

I have been reading a bit about Thorium reactors: Thorium-based nuclear power generation is fueled primarily by the nuclear fission of the isotope uranium-233 produced from the fertile element thorium. According to proponents, a thorium fuel cycle offers several potential advantages over a uranium fuel cycle—including much greater abundance of thorium on Earth, superior physical and nuclear fuel properties, and reduced nuclear waste production. However, development of thorium power has significant start-up costs. Proponents also cite the lack of easy weaponization potential as an advantage of thorium, while critics say that development of breeder reactors in general (including thorium reactors, which are breeders by nature) increases proliferation concerns.It would be good if governments put some of the money they are currently using to subsidize renewable options like wind and solar and put that into some research into this type of alternative

[rick130]

I have been reading a bit about Thorium reactors: Thorium-based nuclear power generation is fueled primarily by the nuclear fission of the isotope uranium-233 produced from the fertile element thorium. According to proponents, a thorium fuel cycle offers several potential advantages over a uranium fuel cycle—including much greater abundance of thorium on Earth, superior physical and nuclear fuel properties, and reduced nuclear waste production. However, development of thorium power has significant start-up costs. Proponents also cite the lack of easy weaponization potential as an advantage of thorium, while critics say that development of breeder reactors in general (including thorium reactors, which are breeders by nature) increases proliferation concerns.It would be good if governments put some of the money they are currently using to subsidize renewable options like wind and solar and put that into some research into this type of alternativeThorium has been the next big thing for the last thirty years, and I think Australia has the largest reserves.
IIRC Sydney Uni used to be world leaders but no ones been able to make a viable, commercial reactor.

The way it's going Fusion will beat it to viability

[ramblingboy42]

I don't mind the idea of small nuclear power plants scattered around the country.

However in the real context of things these plants require vast amounts of water.....people forget this....we don't have that luxury.

Nuclear power plants manufacture electricity in basically the same way as coal/gas fired plants do. The fuel heats water into superheated steam to drive turbines.

In Australia almost any other form of electrical power generation other than steam turbines has to be better. We really don't have the water for more conventional systems.

If our population continues to increase we are going to have diabolical water problems and the power stations have priority of water usage over the population which needs it for it's daily services...ie life.

So nuclear power although good if properly administrated is not good for Australia's climate goals.

[Eevo]

However in the real context of things these plants require vast amounts of water.....people forget this....we don't have that luxury.




desal plant and the plant has its own big pool.

[bob10]

I don't mind the idea of small nuclear power plants scattered around the country.

However in the real context of things these plants require vast amounts of water.....people forget this....we don't have that luxury.

Nuclear power plants manufacture electricity in basically the same way as coal/gas fired plants do. The fuel heats water into superheated steam to drive turbines.

In Australia almost any other form of electrical power generation other than steam turbines has to be better. We really don't have the water for more conventional systems.

If our population continues to increase we are going to have diabolical water problems and the power stations have priority of water usage over the population which needs it for it's daily services...ie life.

So nuclear power although good if properly administrated is not good for Australia's climate goals.


Australia, being the driest continent, you would expect us to have a world class water management system. No so. We can't even manage our major river system, once again we prove to be world dunces in vital infrastructure management. The best in the world at water management? Israel.

Israel Is the Unsung Hero in Water Management | HuffPost (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/israel-is-the-unsung-hero_b_9212810)

[101RRS]

I don't mind the idea of small nuclear power plants scattered around the country.

However in the real context of things these plants require vast amounts of water.....people forget this....we don't have that luxury.

Nuclear power plants manufacture electricity in basically the same way as coal/gas fired plants do. The fuel heats water into superheated steam to drive turbines.

In Australia almost any other form of electrical power generation other than steam turbines has to be better. We really don't have the water for more conventional systems.

If our population continues to increase we are going to have diabolical water problems and the power stations have priority of water usage over the population which needs it for it's daily services...ie life.

So nuclear power although good if properly administrated is not good for Australia's climate goals.

Remember these type of plants while they need access to a large amount of water, their net use is essentially zero - a lot goes in and a lot goes out, it is not actually consumed in the process.

[Eevo]

Australia, being the driest continent, you would expect us to have a world class water management system.

good point. never thought about it like that.

[ramblingboy42]

desal plant and the plant has its own big pool.

yes Eevo, I agree with you.

We have a desal plant here too, connected from the southern gold coast to the wivanhoe dam by huge pipes......but......they don't use it to pump to Wivanhoe, and the dam levels are getting to the point where they are discussing water restrictions for Brisbane right now.

The desal plant could be run by alternative power generation there. There is equal to best sunlight in the world and onshore /offshore wind every day of the year.

Oh it's so expensive to put the power generation there and the desal plant is so expensive to run and on and on they go.

[shanegtr]

Remember these type of plants while they need access to a large amount of water, their net use is essentially zero - a lot goes in and a lot goes out, it is not actually consumed in the process.
Excatly, most of the water "used" is for cooling which is why most of the traditional nuclear plants are parked next to a major water source (river or ocean). They simply suck in the cooler water and discharge warmer water. The water used in the boilers and turbines is normally a closed loop system and only requires topping up due to leaks and other losses.

[prelude]

The problem with cooling is that in most countries there is a limit as to how much you are allowed to heat up the water. We have a 5c limit and nothing above x (where x is pretty high, almost 30c I believe) so in warm summer days, which you have plenty :) you need to use the cooling towers. These in turn use HUGE amounts of power and some water evaporates.

One of our local (coal fired) stations once explained to me that to run their cooling tower, they need to use up to 10% of their total power generation.

In any case. I know this is a nuclear topic and I don't really believe in solar panels but how about those solar towers? Surely australia is dang near perfect for those types of installations, I reckon they are much more efficient and have a longer lifespan than your average crappy solar installation... Why are there not a **** ton of those around? Running on molten salt with buffer storage you can run them at night as well (residual heat) so they are stable unlike solar panels and actually reasonably good for the environment (no dirty panels, no inverters with electronics for every house that end up in a landfill some day).

I can think of only one good argument: not in my back yard ;) They are kinda big so I would not want one looming in the distance over here...

Cheers,
-P

[AndyG]

I can understand why people are nervous about nuclear, i just watched Chernobyl on HBO and scary stuff, but realistically a totally different technology, era and culture to today, like comparing an early Lada to a Tesla.

For example, Hydro is great, but did you know that possibly 230,000 people died in one incident Banqiao Dam - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam)
Casualties[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php'title=Banqiao_Dam&action=edit&section=3)]The death toll of this disaster was considered a state secret until 2005 when it was declassified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declassification).[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#cite_note-After30Years-4) According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, approximately 26,000 people died in the province[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#cite_note-13) from flooding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood) and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemics) and famine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine). In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. Unofficial estimates of the number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#cite_note-Human_Rights_Watch-1)


Now this could never happen in an advanced western economy like Queensland in the 21st Century with dams overflowing by bad management or partially collapsing with lost documents could it, cough cough, oh bad example. And with no or inadequate insurance to cover all risks.

Point is we dont condemn Hydro dams forever based on such an incident, we lift our game and assess the risks/benefits dispassionately , without playing the Chicken Little game.

BTW, 500 mm in the last week, ash/mud flows from earlier volcanic eruptions, a bridge about to go, but noones complaining. Enjoy your rain down their folk.

[Eevo]

i just watched Chernobyl on HBO and scary stuff,.
please dont take thatt show seriously. radiation does not work as shown in that show.