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 > Premier's nuclear push is proof of a government in meltdown > Comments

Premier's nuclear push is proof of a government in meltdown : Comments

By Mia Pepper, published 12/12/2016

This debate has been had repeatedly and the answer is always the same. It is time to put this tired talking point to bed and get on with the energy transition we can no longer ignore.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Articles that consist entirely of "No matter how reasonable and rational it is to consider all options for addressing what we both agree are two major issues, I simply refuse to allow that to happen" add nothing of value to the debate or to the outcome.

This author is seeking to prolong the already very long debates about nuclear waste management and action to limit climate change while at the same time seeking to leave dissenting voices unheard.

That is not the way to make decisions or to develop what is quaintly called "social licence", which in reality only exists when all voices have been heard and considered.

Without open and fair discussion, there can be no social licence.

Bullying, by whatever means, leads only to resentment, division and poor decisions.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Monday, 12 December 2016 8:12:26 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
Emissions are rising commensurate with food production and a corresponding increases in the biosphere worldwide.
Mean average global temperatures, measured by satellite data, have not risen for 20 years.
Posted by Prompete, Monday, 12 December 2016 8:12:56 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
They say if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. More of what doesn't work is not going to help. SA is now looking at an $800m connector to NSW. When I looked at live data a minute ago
http://www.nem-watch.info/widgets/RenewEconomy/
NSW was getting 85% of its electricity from black coal. Out of sight out of mind I guess. What happens if NSW decides to follow SA and go for 40% intermittent generation? It will be like two people on crutches trying to support each other.

Apart from the industry exodus young people are also leaving SA. Nuclear is SA's best shot. It is not a nuclear virgin after 7 A-bomb tests at Maralinga and the world's biggest uranium deposit at Olympic Dam. If SA passes up on getting further into the nuclear fuel cycle I'm afraid there may be no more opportunities left.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 12 December 2016 8:19:41 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
There is only one issue at stake here - why on earth does the Conservation Council of WA think it needs a Nuclear Free Campaigner? Surely there is more potential for such efforts in areas where one or more of the world's 479 nuclear power stations are located. It's a pretty dry argument in WA, or anywhere in Australia for that matter.
Posted by Tombee, Monday, 12 December 2016 8:34:34 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
I don't know if the writer has actually noticed but SA already has more renewable energy than it can handle - so much so that authorities have proposed a second interconnector with the horrible fossil fuel plants in Victoria that actually produce electricity when required. So why so many wind farms in SA? All I can think of is that the planning restrictions are tough in Vic and NSW and SA has a lot of empty space.

The other posters are right to point out that there is no real possibility of a nuclear plant in Australia, so why do we need an anti-nuclear campaigner.
Posted by curmudgeonathome, Monday, 12 December 2016 9:13:13 AM
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
There seems to be a reluctance to look the big problem square in the face.
Reliability !
The following is the current standard;
The reliability standard currently requires that no more than 0.002
per cent of customer demand within a region (11 minutes per year)
be unserved as a result of a shortage of generation capacity once
demand-side response and imports from other regions are taken into account.

Using solar & wind as you approach that standard the cost escalates
in what looks like an exponential curve and I suspect would reach
a cost of $infinity.

As that is an impossibility, some cost isolated base generation is
not just necessary, but must be the centre around which solar & wind
are just useful additions.

It is just the way it is, get used to it !
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 12 December 2016 9:36:35 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
What a stupid 'adage' to start a conversation with. But, of course, we expect stupidity from the loony-Left that cannot tell us how much difference in temperature "clean renwable energy" will make. The rest of us know the answer - no difference at all - and that the only way that society can survive is with reliable, cheap energy; and this means coal or nuclear. We already have the coal, which has made Australia competitive and a big exporter of the stuff to growing economies with the commonsense to use it.

As for nuclear, well it is expensive to set up, and its introduction here would be too late to solve the mess we are already in, thanks to mental defectives in the climate hysteria industry. So, it's coal, coal, coal. At least until we have established nuclear plants.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 12 December 2016 9:37:43 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
The federal regulator AEMO tells us that
1) gas is the answer to the reliability problem
2) gas will run out fast.
I'm not sure where that leaves us. Too bad if the Commonwealth spent nearly a billion on interstate connectors to get coal to do the heavy lifting for SA then put the kibosh on coal.

The Royal Commission did say nuclear electricity was uneconomic and that taking in foreign waste was the best idea. Now strangely that was also the view of a few waste enthusing consultants working for the RC and not that of dozens of independent submissions. That inner circle concluded that nuclear power would be far more expensive in Australia than other countries (eg France) where it is cheap. Maybe we are fast approaching a time when nuclear is competitive (say $100/Mwh) if the aim is serious emissions cuts. Remember wind power gets $90 subsidy on top of the wholesale trading price.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 12 December 2016 9:57:28 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
THe reports quoted, extremely dated and written by folks whose knowledge was hopelessly incomplete! Particularly given, it willfully and deliberately excluded thorium.

Thorium is at least three times more abundant than uranium and is less radioactive than a banana! Thorium is very easily recovered and ready to use without costly enrichment!

If I were to step outside my back door and dig up dirt, then fill a one cubic metre box, I'd be able to recover around 8 grams of thorium and at a cost of around $100.00!

And given that 8 grams of thorium could power my house, car and provide all my material wants for 100 years! My total energy bill would be just $1.00 a year!

And this is what frightens the bejesus out of the fossil fuel industry and big nuclear alike! And some simple minded governments, focused exclusively on the fuel excise they'd stand to lose! And, without considering any number of truly massive economic upsides that would more than make up for presumed lost revenue!

The central graphite core of such a reactor, needs on be around one cubic metre! and molten salt the cooling and heat transfer medium. Meaning they and Co2, helium or nitrogen gas powered turbines can be placed anywhere a standard sized shipping container can be trucked or ferried to!

And taken together, able to produce significant profits from walk away safe, mass produced, factory built technology, for up to 100 years, from the most energy dense material on the planet, which by the way is less radioactive than a banana!

Moreover, can be designed and tasked with burning and burning again and again most radioactive waste until the half life is reduced to 300 years.

And have other nations pay us billions for the service! Which can be achieved without shut downs? Similarly, miracle cure medical isotopes can be also extracted from any operational reactor, without needing costly time consuming shut downs or start ups, which can then be reserved exclusively for routine maintenance!

What do we have to lose? only our depressed economy and carbon pollution!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 12 December 2016 10:06:08 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 you take the cleanest safest cheapest energy on the planet, for which we have a thousand year supply in our topsoil. And then use it to power the world's newest cheapest desalination, via the new deionization electronic shock wave dialysis method, which treats the uninterrupted water in situ as it transfers up or down the pipeline, producing 95% as potable water.

And for four times less cost than current reverse osmosis membrane filter technology! Then couple the world's safest, cleanest, cheapest energy to it, and you virtually drought proof Australia!

And in so doing, place Australia and Australians at the head of the queue in the new boom, the food boom!

And then replace our aid dollars with both technologies shipped as economic gifts that produce economic benefits and indeed, new trade partners, who grow economically with us!

As that happens, stabilize then reduce population numbers! And by the only means shown thus far, to actually work!

I kid you not, used together, these two are, end war and want; and save the planet technology!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 12 December 2016 10:35:19 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
Ah yes you say, all well and good, but pipelines to carry this new water can be costly and our current foreign aid budget is miniscule!

Yes sure, but even impoverished nations have some existing pipelines, which can be retasked, patched, and have a few lifter pumps installed to reduce pressure?

And given that water is then used to overfill disused or empty dams or water storages, with potable water! Changing some harsh landscapes is doable and not just for economically depressed people, but local flora and fauna as well!

Simply put, the time for talking is over and needs to be replaced with on the ground action now!

Or just don't bother? After all, you are warm and comfortable aren't you? And that's all that really matters after all, isn't it?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 12 December 2016 10:55:58 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
Why do leftards just assume that other people can't see through their double-talk, shallow-brained illogic, and hypocrisy?

If nuclear is not commercially viable, then there's no need for any governmental intervention to stop it from happening, is there?

And if renewables need government support, that means they are running at a loss, which means you have to use *more* resources to achieve a given outcome, which means they're *less* sustainable, not more, you moron.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Monday, 12 December 2016 11:08:25 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
Typically superficial article from one who thinks they know all the questions as well as the answers. If the continuing use of coal presages the end of the world as we know it, then all options should be on the table. Furthermore, Australia could disappear from the planet and the world problem of increasing CO2 emissions would not be changed anything more than a minuscule amount.
Posted by Pliny of Perth, Monday, 12 December 2016 11:19:52 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
Dear oh dear - no less than 11 posts trashing Mia Pepper's fine article!

I sometimes wonder who are the readers of Online Opinion. The same little bevy of pro nuclear spruikers pop up with comments on any article that touches on the nuclear industry.

And the same old methods - attack - not the facts presented, but the person presenting those facts.

So we again get the silly mantras of the nuclear lobby - phrases like these - "stupidity from the loony-Left" "mental defectives in the climate hysteria industry" "The reports quoted, - written by folks whose knowledge was hopelessly incomplete! "

Still, one useful little gem did appear. They don't often mention the schism in the nuclear lobby - the thorium promoters versus the uranium promoters. That was inadvertently revealed by thorium enthusiast Alan B
Posted by ChristinaMac1, Monday, 12 December 2016 11:33:01 AM
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
Wrong again CM and as usual as you seek to continually verbal or misrepresent! I guess to you all radiation is just radiation and all nuclear technology is dangerous technology?

Even where some of the radiation is life saving alpha radiation and other deadly gamma radiation!

That some nuclear reactors can be used to produce nuclear weapons and some like thorium cannot!

Moreover, there was nothing whatsoever inadvertent about the way I made those comparisons! No ifs, buts or maybes!

Suggest you read the whole comment next time rather than cherry pick those parts you hope, confirm your pre darwinian antinuclear bias?

I'll thank you not to misrepresent my views again before becoming actually informed. By getting on U tube, google tech talks and thorium V greens.

Alternatively you could note this is my fourth comment on this thread and just like a St Petersburg troll continue to willfully and quite deliberately misrepresent both my views and the verifiable facts?

And should you continue to quite deliberately and willfully impugn and misrepresent me my views and the facts in this way?

I expect other lees disrespectful readers to do some fact checking of their own before giving your, business as usual, diatribe the time of day!

Must be getting cold in St Petersburg around now?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 12 December 2016 12:38:08 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
Noel Wauchope, AKA ChristinaMac1,

The posters 'trashing' the already trashed are people honestly expressing their opinions. Honesty is not a big thing for you though. You are quite happy to deceive your employer by not using your real name in some instances because you fear that your employer is as narrow-minded and devious as you are, and you might lose your "fairly responsible job". Nobody could take you seriously. You are a menace even to the causes you champion. Pseudonyms are OK for people just expressing opinions; not OK for people who set themselves up as authorities, and take to leccturing other people.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 12 December 2016 12:53:04 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
So what is ttBaboon's real name?
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 12 December 2016 1:59:17 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
17 posts thus far, only one real name.

I much prefer the approach of The Conversation regarding use of noms-de-plume, which is:

Don't.

C'mon, OLO. Make discussion real.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Monday, 12 December 2016 2:20:40 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
In reply to John Bennetts

I would certainly put my real name - Noel Wauchope. I have registered it with Online Opinion, but because I previously registered as ChristinaMac1 - its technology always comes up with that name.

I agree with you, about The Conversation. That publication also has a particular requirement - contributors have to hold an official position. Which is fine. There is also scope for complete nonentities, such as myself, to be able to publish articles in online journals, - at the discretion of the editors.
Posted by ChristinaMac1, Monday, 12 December 2016 2:34:16 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
Mia, I think you need to acquaint yourself with some of the cold hard facts about power generation.
First of all you need to understand that the system provides power to the consumer as alternating current at a frequency of 50 Hertz and 240 volts. In order for this to be accomplished, all sources need to be able to connect at both the right frequency and just as importantly the right phase. The reference for these two parameters has to to be a system of base load power stations which make up a sizeable proportion of the total interconnected system. It doesn't matter whether these sources are gas turbines, hydro, diesel or coal fired. They are all capable of doing the job.

With this solid base, you can then introduce wind turbines which can then lock into the base system. Because wind speed is not constant, you can't run wind powered generators as an independent system because you have difficulty in maintaining constant frequency, voltage and phase.

Now you can also add in solar power. While the sun is up this can also be added to the system fairly easily, but it isn't available 24 hours a day and battery technology or other means of storage are a long way off producing practical solutions.

If the percentage of these intermittent renewable sources becomes too great, then the intermittent use of back up base load power stations make these stations uneconomic and that is what has happened in South Australia. As you might have observed, had you been awake at the time, the system then had to draw on coal fired power from interstate, at a considerable cost. With the imminent closure of Hazellwood in the near future, this power will not always be available, so what is your suggestion as a viable alternative to Victoria building another 1 gigawatt brown coal station in the Latrobe Valley.
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 12 December 2016 5:54:52 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
cont.
As our population expands, this will be a minimum requirement. Remember that for every Megawatt of wind power you build, you need to both build and finance an equal amount of base load power.

Nuclear power might appear more expensive, but that is a cross we are going to have to bear if you want to reduce carbon emissions.

David. (if you want to know my real name, do a Google search.)
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 12 December 2016 5:55:51 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
Thanks, David.

When considering South Australia's particular circumstances, it is a good idea to acquaint oneself with the three AEMO reports which relate specifically to their recent islanding event which resulted in loss of electricity for up to four days.

They are available from the AEMO site, so I won't clog up this thread with specific references unless requested to do so.

The third, issued only this afternoon and 107 pages long, considers the transmission system upgrades that will be necessary in order to keep the national electricity grid stable and reliable to and beyond 2030. It is based on deep knowledge of the current generation plant and transmission systems, as well as the probable future scenarios based on state and federal objectives as announced publicly.

"At least two large synchronous generating units must be online in South Australia to maintain a secure operating state."

The author and all others who contemplate 100% "renewable" (ie, unreliable) generation must read and understand this necessity. One truth embedded in it is that South Australia's power system was not secure before the wind event which resulted in loss of a large number of wind turbines even before the transmission towers collapsed. Generating plant without adequate inertia simply must be supported by synchronous plant of one kind or another.

If this goes over any reader's head, I suggest studying the final 10 pages or so of the report first, because they contain succinct definitions of all terms and abbreviations used in the report.

Today's report is available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3235211-2016-AEMO-2016-National-Transmission-Network.html

Those who know me will recognise that I support considering nuclear power because it is the cheapest, safest way to provide carbon-free electricity which has the necessary inertia, but this isn't the place to argue the merits of nuclear power. Let's understand the terminology and the minimum engineering requirements first.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Monday, 12 December 2016 7:54:51 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
Mia you state:-

"The national nuclear waste problem in Australia has zero to do with x-rays and everything to do with spent nuclear fuel from the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney – material that is far more serious and long lived."

Do you even have a basic understanding of the decay of nuclear materials? Here is something you should learn to understand, material which decays in say three weeks, three days or months is what is dangerous to human health. The other stuff which decays, with say a half life of 125,000 years is pretty much harmless, put it in your pocket and your body will hardly know it is there.

You obviously don't understand the issues at the most basic level, so why the rush to condemn something you basically know nothing about?

Get an education before going into print please!

Cheers
Geoff
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Monday, 12 December 2016 8:34:33 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
David, the Sth Aus wind turbines are cheapies. Did you see what I
wrote on the other thread about European turbines.
They have some, perhaps not all, capable of a black start.
Must have a 50 cycle standard oscillator and build up from that to drive the choppers.
They also have synthetic inertia to lock the network on frequency.
Very interesting read that interum report.
Do you have a WIA email address ?
73 Bazz
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 12 December 2016 10:37:49 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
Bazz,
Not only are the SA wind turbines and, as far as I know, every other wind turbine in Australia, not technological leaders, they had undisclosed "features" which made matters worse.

AEMO have, in several reports now, indicated that the manufacturers and Generators (ie the owners) did not fully detail their operational shortcomings during the licencing process. This was a serious oversight. Hence, they were something of surprise packages. The critical issue is not lack of black start capacity or inability to provide their own frequency control or synthetic inertia. It was their extremely limited ability to ride through faults. Some were reported to have shut down after the first fault - often taking the whole wind farm down - despite having nominal capacity to ride through a number of faults - reportedly up to 12 for some turbine types.

(Continued)
Posted by JohnBennetts, Tuesday, 13 December 2016 8:07:35 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
...Continued (Pardon the delay - I had an appointment down town).

That is an issue which is being addressed by AEMO currently, along with the relevant manufacturers and owners. It seems that significant improvements are available, but were overlooked during commissioning, the result being that the turbines were subjected to the minimum risk. The risk to the system was consequently maximised.

Maybe during future wind storms that 400+ MW of wind turbines will not shut themselves down prematurely. The two transmission lines still collapsed very soon afterward but the wind would have remained on line via the surviving system without dumping additional load onto the interconnector. Future AEMO studies will provide details, including of preventative actions.

Summing up, the Heywood Interconnector didn't trip because of collapse of about half of the HV transmission system north of Adelaide. That would have resulted in local blackouts and loss of load (demand) and a reduced flow through the Heywood. It tripped because of loss of the wind turbines.

Secondary influences which extended the degree and timing of the islanding include the failure of the contracted standby gas turbines to kick in - hence the new requirement that at least two "large" GT's must be in service at all times.

Possibly also (I'm hypothesising here), the protection settings in the transmission system were too broad - the system should have isolated individual transmission and distribution line faults within SA before the interconnector disconnected... the branches should have been pruned in order to save the trunk, but they were not.

The wind farms stayed off-line instead of riding through the early faults, which could well have been lightning strikes or conductor clashes, etc and thus only fleeting events.

Wait till March for the final AEMO report.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Tuesday, 13 December 2016 11:25:24 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
One needs only one Fukushima to destroy South Australia's (or even Australia's) finances,

"The total cost of decommissioning the stricken nuclear power plant at Fukushima and providing compensation to victims has nearly doubled, with a new estimate placing the cost at $250 billion.

Five and a half years after the nuclear disaster, the painstaking work of cleaning up the radioactive disaster zone is progressing very slowly."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-17/fukushima-nuclear-clean-up,-compensation-costs-nearly-double/8127268
Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 17 December 2016 9:48:36 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
Might I ask, what are the odds of that happening in SA or for that matter, anywhere else in south east Oz, with up to date designs of nuclear power plant. Don't be such a fraidy cat.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Saturday, 17 December 2016 2:03:18 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
Replying to David, on the odds of a nuclear disaster. Yes, the probability of a nuclear disaster is very small indeed. However, one must look to the insurance industry for a reality check on this.

The insurance equation is to balance the probability of disaster against the consequences of disaster. That's why insurance companies won't touch nuclear power reactors.

And - We can expect more severe nuclear accidents - statistical analysis shows - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists http://linkis.com/tandfonline.com/acti/kgNSn
Posted by ChristinaMac1, Saturday, 17 December 2016 2:18:32 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
ChristinaMac1 linked to an article which presumes that core meltdowns are the primary cause of nuclear power mishaps.

The answer is to stop constructing power plant such as LWR and PWR types which may have inherent tendency to do so. There are many alternatives. Google Gen IV Reactors for some possibilities, or consider some of the emerging SMR designs.

Since the presumption about the future of nuclear power is false, it follows that so is the conclusion.

Rule one of risk assessment: Design out the problem. That is a 100% solution.
Lowest priorities: Rely on insurance or erect a warning notice. That is not a solution.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Saturday, 17 December 2016 3:08:33 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
Reply to JohnBennetts. Well I fell into the "New Nuclear" trap there, didn't I? The New "Nuclear argument - new nuclear is different from conventional nuclear reactors - therefore it must be safer? Can't have an accident, etc?

Well, anyway there are all sorts of disaster possibilities - especially in the transport and storage of nuclear wastes, and particularly in the recycling and breeder reactor systems.

Sodium cooled nuclear reactors safer? Not necessarily so. http://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/nuclear-plant-accidents-fermi-unit-1
Posted by ChristinaMac1, Saturday, 17 December 2016 3:24:15 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
So ChristinaMac1, what is your solution to producing sufficient base load power to maintain a stable grid, particularly when the renewables are not generating sufficient power to do the job? Remember that both oil and gas produce CO2.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Saturday, 17 December 2016 10:03:05 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
I did hear a report on the BBC that a fusion reactor in Europe was
able to maintain the plasma for some minutes.
Now that is a significant step forward.
It is said they can get output 10 times the input power.
That is an ERoEI of 10, or is it ?
Actually by the time you take all the energy used in ancillary equipment
and the maintenance and construction of the system the ERoEI could be a lot lower.

So promising but not soon enough.
So what do we use if not oil, gas & coal ?
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 18 December 2016 7:32:31 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
ChristinaMac1 posted:

"Well, anyway there are all sorts of disaster possibilities - especially in the transport and storage of nuclear wastes..."

Did ChristinaMac1 link to a list that might support her rhetoric? No, of course not.

They're only "possibilities", after all, ie imagined.

I don't know why I bother to respond.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Sunday, 18 December 2016 5:09:09 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
ChristinaMac1. Back in the dark ages the boilers in steam engine were blowing up, but they overcame those problems. They didn't stop using them. Same goes for nuclear.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 19 December 2016 8:11:16 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
Mia Pepper has followed a long tradition of anti nuke activists in printing half truths and outright falsehoods.

The RC's finding was "The Commission has found that commercial electricity generation from nuclear fuels is not viable in South Australia under current market rules." given that the market rules effectively ban nuclear, not that "it would not be commercially viable to develop a nuclear power plant in South Australia…" as Ms Pepper lied.

The RC also found that "However, it has found that nuclear energy has the potential to contribute to national emissions abatement after 2030"
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 19 December 2016 11:51:22 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
Not a surprise that VK3AUU has found that the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission (NFCRC) actually did, if rather quietly, find that nuclear energy had that "potential after 2030" for South Australia.

In the "half truths and lies" department, I think that the NFCRC is the real leader. The whole ill-fated, and ill-advised campaign by the NFCRC was directed by the nuclear lobby. Ostensibly they spruiked the (supposed) bonanza to be gained by importing nuclear wastes. Underneath that, the almost completely hidden agenda - the waste dump as a necessary precondition for kickstarting the. "new nuclear" industry. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18465&page=1
Posted by ChristinaMac1, Monday, 19 December 2016 12:02:27 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
WILL SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION ?
If we do not use coal, gas or oil what do we use for a system with
the reliability we now have ?
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 19 December 2016 2:04:24 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
Noel,

The area chosen for nuclear waste in SA is solid impermeable granite with little to no rain or groundwater, where nuclear waste could be stored for millennia with infinitesimally small risk of contamination. The $bns of dollars gained from putting stable glassified radioactive materials in a hole in the ground is like printing money.

The anti nuke campaign is as emotionally driven and fact free as the anti vax campaign, as nuclear power is demonstrably the safest source of electrical generation with more people killed in a plane crash than have died in the nuclear industry worldwide in half a century.

The vastly different results from the RC based on expert testimony and the preordained result from nauseatingly ignorant citizens' jury is testament to the power of emotion over reason.

The most successful country in the world with respect to climate change is France with 80% nuclear generation and reprocessing of waste.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 19 December 2016 2:59:40 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
French nuclear industry in chaos. French taxpayers face huge nuclear bill as EDF financial crisis deepens,

Nuclear giant EDF could be heading towards bankruptcy, writes Paul Brown, as it faces a perfect storm of under-estimated costs for decommissioning, waste disposal and Hinkley C. Meanwhile income from power sales is lagging behind costs, and 17 of its reactors are off-line for safety tests.

The liabilities of Électricité de France (EDF) – the biggest electricity supplier in Europe, with 39 million customers – are increasing so fast that they will soon exceed its assets, according a report by an independent equity research company,
Bankruptcy for EDF seems inevitable ....http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2988433/french_taxpayers_face_huge_nuclear_bill_as_edf_financial_crisis_deepens.html
Posted by ChristinaMac1, Monday, 19 December 2016 3:59:54 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
Noel,

What drivel, a bunch of greenies dreaming up "liabilities". Most of the French reactors have many decades to run, and even when the reactors need to be de commissioned, most of the containment facilities can be reused.

Secondly the cost of power in France is negotiated to give EDF a reasonable profit, and it does so at half the price of Germany or Denmark who are reliant on wind and solar.

According to EDF's balance sheet, their debt is decreasing, and the Eur 36bn they owe now is a fraction of value of their assets.

https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/finance/investors-analysts/credits/net-financial-debt-and-cash-flow

"The Group’s net financial debt was €36.2 billion at 30 June 2016 compared to €37.4 billion on 31 December 2015. This decrease of €1,187 million was mainly due to a positive Group cash flow (+€107 million) and to a favourable currency effect (+€1,036 million) due to the depreciation of the exchange rate of the pound sterling. The net financial debt/EBITDA ratio was 2.1x at 30 June 2016, stable compared to 31 December 2015 and within the 2x to 2.5x range set by the Group for the 2016 fiscal year."
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 20 December 2016 6:07:54 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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