this is the option ive gone with.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
Printable View
this is the option ive gone with.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
Ontario has had problems with their reactor and false alarms.
Nuclear power alert 'sent in error,' company says
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
Thorium has been the next big thing for the last thirty years, and I think Australia has the largest reserves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chenz
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramblingboy42
desal plant and the plant has its own big pool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramblingboy42
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramblingboy42
good point. never thought about it like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob10
yes Eevo, I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eevo
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.