The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Nuclear is for Life: a cultural revolution > Comments

Nuclear is for Life: a cultural revolution : Comments

By Tom Quirk, published 8/2/2016

The simple central message of this book is that we have been mistaken about the hazards of nuclear power. Some of this has been willful and some well intentioned.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
It should be clear by now that neither the Emissions Reduction Fund nor the Renewable Energy Target are particularly effective at reducing emissions. That's despite the exceedingly generous LGC subsidy now about $85 per Mwh, roughly double the wholesale price of coal fired electricity.

Therefore we have to change tack. Progressively replacing coal baseload plants with nuclear will make serious inroads into emissions. Aiming to radically reduce emissions but ruling out nuclear is like boxing with your hands tied.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 8 February 2016 8:40:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If I lived next door to a nuclear reactor, I'd probably be exposed to more radiation, if I were also a frequent flyer, or lived in a stone house made from quarried granite!

In any event, the nuclear reactor I'd want to live near to would be a thorium reactor.

And for any number of reasons! one would be the reaction is one that produces heat, rather than a possible nuclear thermal explosion?

And thorium is a fifties technology abandoned because there was no weapons spinoff!

Critics have noted that prototype thorium reactors have yet to produce more than 40 MW. However the indians are working on a 300 MW generator, which they hope to have in service by 2016?

Others are working on miniaturization, which may cost as little as $1000.00 and power around ten houses for a lifetime, and needing only triennial inspections? That's just a $100.00 per household, per lifetime?

This is where the nuclear promise is, as endless cheap as chips power and buried safely deep in solid bedrock beneath our very feet, eliminating all those gold plated transmission lines.

Moreover, we have enough thorium to power the world for up to 700 years; or ourselves for considerably longer, if we're smart enough to keep it here as our own source of ultra cheap carbon free power and competitive high tech manufacturing edge!?

Thorium reactors consume as much as 95% of their fuel, and such waste as they do produce is far less toxic than than produced in an uranium reaction. And thorium waste is eminently suitable in long life space batteries. As may be required in the interminable satellites the world puts into orbit and not just around home planet!

Moreover, uranium reactors only consume around 5% of their fissile fuel material, the rest being highly toxic waste.

Given the way they use fuel, one can fuel a thorium reactor for life with just a truckload of highly refined material?

And that is where they outperform coal, which in a lifetime, may use up millions of comparable truck loads of washed fuel!?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 8 February 2016 9:29:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately, by the time we educate the unscientific community, it will probably be too late and the bloody greenies who want to save the world, will have destroyed it.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 8 February 2016 10:35:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tom Quirk,

Thanks you for this excellent post. It's so good I reblogged it on Climate Etc. here:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/06/week-in-review-energy-edition-2/#comment-763621

Also see my comments immediately above this and another further down thread: https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/06/week-in-review-energy-edition-2/#comment-763374

Also see my post (19 January 2016): "Is nuclear the cheapest way to decarbonize electricity?" https://judithcurry.com/2016/01/19/is-nuclear-the-cheapest-way-to-decarbonize-electricity/ This is a discussion of an excellent analysis by ERP; excerpt from my Introduction:

"A recent report by the Energy Research Partnership (ERP), ‘Managing Flexibility Whilst Decarbonising the GB Electricity System’ compares the total system costs of decarbonizing the electricity system in Great Britain for various proportions of seventeen technologies. The analysis considers and does sensitivity analyses on important inputs and constraints that are seldom included in analyses intended for informing policy analysts about policy for a whole electricity system. The ERP report has policy-relevance for other electricity systems and the methodology should be broadly applicable.

The ERP is co-chaired by Prof John Loughhead FREng, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). ERP members include a broad spectrum of stake holders from electricity industry, academics, government agencies and NGOs."

The report has three main conclusions. I suggest there should be a fourth (the author doesn't endorse it):

"Given the inputs used in the ERP analysis, the results show all or mostly nuclear is likely to be the least cost generator technology option for achieving deep decarbonisation of the GB electricity system, e.g. to meet the 100 g/kWh and 50 g/kWh targets."

Read this post and comments - especially those by the ERP Senior Analysis and lead author of the report, Andy Bolton, ERPUK and my discussion with him.
Posted by Peter Lang, Monday, 8 February 2016 11:13:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would love to see a nuke plant replace the coal fired power station closing down at Pt Augusta is SA. Yellow cake is railed right past it now. Why not stop be processed into fuel rods and used as based load to all the wind and solar farms near by.
A nice gas fired one to handle the fast demand changes.

We could then use the vast brown coal deposits to make oil.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Monday, 8 February 2016 12:38:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cobber despite past practices I don't think Pt Augusta is a good place for either seawater cooled thermal plant or desalination. Type Pt Augusta SA in the Google Earth search box and you can see how the gulf narrows to a tidal creek. Water temps hit 30C in summer and salinity is elevated.

The coal stations were built there because of the rail line from Leigh Creek. Ditto Pt Pirie as a nuke site. Almost all the rest of the SA coastline is better than the a*crack of the gulfs.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 8 February 2016 12:50:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pt Augusta might suit a pebble reactor, which is cooled by helium, not water.

These reactors have no rods, just marbles of fuel. the fuel is coated in super tough refractory grade graphite? And the helium is piped up through the reactor, which keeps the balls up and moving around.

These things can be mass produced in factories and trucked to almost anywhere, and put into service within weeks, rather than the years needed for conventional systems.

Moreover, as need grows, more modules can be trucked out and bolted on! Decommissioning is just the same thing done in reverse. Given they can be trucked onsite, means they probably replace diesel engines in shipping and subs?

Meaning, they can probably run for up to 25 years before needing to refuel? By which time diesel powered shipping may have run into peak oil and become prohibitively costly.

The big advantage, with pebble reactors, is the fact, if these things ever run out of coolant? the graphite capsules surrounding the fissile material prevents any possibility of an accidental melt down, via a pooling of unprotected fissile material! Like Chernobyl or Fukushima!

Which by any reckoning, were the model T version of nuclear reactors! We are not limited to that technology or old type oxide reactors, nor are we compelled to use the national grid, which is extremely vulnerable and a costly great white elephant which doubles the distribution costs!

Very local supply could include allowable competition, which would force those who supply energy, be they public entities or private suppliers to compete for business. as opposed to current practise, where a single supplier can even levy a charge against a property holder, just because the service passes the property?

Free enterprise must include a truly free market and fair competition! All that's missing is the essential government regulations to enable just that competition and carbon free energy options!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 8 February 2016 2:08:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The ideal place for a nuclear reactor is Wilson's Promotory, with seawater available on both sides, no permanent inhabitants close by and short power line run to the Latrobe Valley distributor. The brown coal plants there could be closed down.
Posted by Outrider, Monday, 8 February 2016 2:49:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cobber, Port Augusta is much better suited to solar thermal, and that could be constructed much faster than nuclear.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Taswegian, Spencer Gulf is a lot wider at Port Pirie. If a reactor is to be built anywhere in SA, it should be there.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Rhrosty, Gas cooled reactors are expensive and pebble bed reactors have never got past the prototype stage. Economically it's a non starter in such a sunny location.

The national grid is far from a white elephant. It is effective at getting electricity from where it is generated to where it is needed, with relatively small losses. Poor regulation has resulted in relatively high charges. But the solution is better regulation, not a costly duplication of infrastructure in some places.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 8 February 2016 8:57:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As always Adian you're full of it!

Your idea of using the RBA to fund an expanded economy was tried in Zimbabwe. And one supposes where you got the idea, of how to ruin an economy without really trying.

And yes a solar thermal plant not necessarily connected to an energy wasting grid, could be the way to?

And nothing wrong with sensible duplication that actually reduces costs.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 9 February 2016 9:55:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhosty,

For the past two years you were telling anyone who'd listen that the Chinese were on the brink of a commercial thorium reactor, until I asked for evidence. Whereupon you caved like a house of cards.
Now without missing a beat you're sure that the Indians are gunna build one this year.

No they aren't. No one has built one and no one will build one this decade. There are no 40mw thorium reactors as you assert. And no one is even sure the myriad technical problems around thorium can ever be overcome. I think and hope they will, but it won't happen this side of 2025 and probably long after that.

You have to stop believing marketing hype from people whose only real expertise is generating government subsidies.

Ditto pebble reactors.

"Free enterprise must include a truly free market and fair competition! All that's missing is the essential government regulations to enable just that competition and carbon free energy options"
Quiet a giggle. The only thing stopping a free market is more regulation!!. She's be a natural blonde if only she used more peroxide.

_______________________________________________

We won't go nuclear. Its too hard politically and the scare campaigns are too easily run. The cost to fight the green spoilers would be prohibitive. It might happen if we were truly convinced that CO2 was gunna kill us all. But, while people are prepared to pay lip-service to the so-called consensus, there is no constituency for actually taking hard decisions that might actual affect people.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 9 February 2016 12:32:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The aftereffects of fukashima have yet to be realised, let alone mentioning having such a potent piece of machinery here.
Posted by 579, Tuesday, 9 February 2016 1:19:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As always Rhosty you're full of it!

Obviously you've heard the myth that borrowing money from your own central bank is the same as printing money and causes hyperinflation. But if you look at what happened in Zimbabwe, you'll find there were several contributors to their economic collapse, none of which is even remotely related to what I'm proposing:

• Zimbabwe effectively declared war on what was by far its most productive industry: agriculture. White farmers were regarded as enemies of the state, and their farming operations disrupted, further reducing productivity at a time when agricultural output was already down due to drought.
[I'm not declaring war on any industries. I would like to see the coal industry phased out, but gradually and in a way that lets other industries replace it]

• At the same time, Zimbabwe implemented a policy of economic nationalism, making it harder for foreign companies to invest in Zimbabwe.
[I've got nothing against foreign investment and would like to see some of the existing restrictions lifted, though I'd also like to see a broad based land tax which would ensure that all Australians benefit from the foreign demand for our land]

• Despite this, Zimbabwe had a fixed official exchange rate, which (despite official devaluations) they kept above the market rate.
[Fixed exchange rates are unequivocally a bad thing, as they prevent the market from correcting trade imbalances and they introduce the danger of running out of money]

• Meanwhile, Zimbabwe was wasting a lot of money fighting in a war in the Congo.
[Wars nowadays are never productive, so are always bad for the economy, but the economic effects are much worse with a fixed exchange rate]

• Zimbabwe was also indebted to the IMF, and printed money to sell internationally to repay overdue debt (a sure way to trigger hyperinflation).
[We have no such debt as the Australian government does not borrow in foreign currencies. That's been general policy since the 1980s and absolute policy since the 1990s]

{TBC}
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 9 February 2016 1:21:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhosty {continued}

• Zimbabwe resorted to physically printing money.
[In countries such as Australia, where central banks pay a positive interest rate on reserves, borrowing from your own central bank is sometimes regarded as printing money, but in reality the overall effects aren't significantly different from borrowing from any other domestic source. Alternatively, excess reserves can also be drained by issuing government bonds]

• Zimbabwe kept printing money to finance a huge budgetary deficit
[I think the government should run surpluses when there is high inflation and/or high interest rates]

The biggest similarity between what I'm proposing and what happened in Zimbabwe is that they were both misunderstood by you when you jumped to conclusions about causes and effects.

Duplication of infrastructure increases capital costs, and increasing capital costs is at best an inefficient way to bring down prices.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 9 February 2016 1:22:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
579, I think you will find that the after effects of Fukushima are minimal and things are returning to normal. I suggest you read
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/03/16/the-fukushima-disaster-wasnt-very-disastrous/#5fd9e3ec51e7

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 9 February 2016 4:15:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nuclear is far cheaper and stable than solar thermal, and for a replacement for coal is the only really feasible solution.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 10 February 2016 6:54:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tom Quirk's article opens with:

"The South Australian Royal Commissioners looking into nuclear energy and politicians both state and federal should read Nuclear is for Life by Wade Allison. It is a "tour d'horizon" of the scientific understanding of radiation and the human body. It should also be read by all the NGO and green activists who assembled in Paris last November in the City of (nuclear) Lights.

The simple central message of this book is that we have been mistaken about the hazards of nuclear power. Some of this has been willful and some well intentioned."

For those interested, I'd recommend watching this video by Wade Allison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ6aL3wv4v0
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 10 February 2016 9:13:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy