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 > Lobbyists debate responses to the nuclear power crisis > Comments

Lobbyists debate responses to the nuclear power crisis : Comments

By Jim Green, published 27/3/2017

Small or large reactors, consolidation or innovation, conventional reactors or Generation IV pipe-dreams ... it's not clear that the nuclear industry will be able to recover however it responds to its current crisis.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
In the next decade there should be a vivid demonstration of the need for baseload power without expensive and dwindling gas supplies, billions of dollars of batteries or the distastefulness of replacing old coal stations with new coal stations. Germany by the way has no qualms about the latter with a new coal station going online in 2018 despite spending 25 bn a year on renewables subsidies. Germany says it will close its last nuke in 2022 which could be why they along with Japan are going back to coal.

In this time SA and perhaps Victoria will have blackouts and power price rises while China forges ahead. Incidentally the cooling pond, transmission facilities and skilled workforce at Hazelwood would suit a nuclear power plant.

I suspect Westinghouse will be bought by Chinese or South Korean interests. Engie (coincidentally the owners of Hazelwood) want to build several AP1000 reactors in the UK. The US is now starting to worry about the future price of gas, now cheaper than it was a decade ago but for how long. Gas backup and subsides/quotas is what makes intermittent wind and commercial solar viable but again for how long. NuScale the maker of a new small reactor thinks it can sell dozens of modules a year so the US could get back in the nuclear game.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 27 March 2017 10:17:50 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
Thanks to Jim Green for setting out comprehensively the economic plight of the nuclear industry. It's a sad reflection on the nuclear lobby, who, like Monty Python's Black Knight, keep on fighting for their cause, despite near-terminal injuries.

Sadder still, because from any humane point of view, the fewer nuclear facilities, the safer. Apart from their intrinsic problems of radiation danger, and no solution to the accumulating radioactive trash, there is also the connection between nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. The lobbyists with throw up their hands in horror at this suggestion - but - there are no nuclear weapons without nuclear reactors, which is probably why places like Saudi Arabia want to get nuclear reactors.

Sadder again - because the huge funds, energy, skill that go into the nuclear industry would be so much better spent on developing energy efficiency and clean renewable energy.
Posted by ChristinaMac1, Monday, 27 March 2017 10:35:13 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
It isn't only the nuclear power industry that is heading for a crisis. The same scenario applies to the coal fired industry as well. Hazellwood is just the start of the shutdown of major aging power stations. Unfortunately, because of the technical nature of power distribution, a subject which seems to be beyond the comprehension of the greens, we really need to embrace nuclear as the only large scale source of non- polluting base load power. It is about time governments of all persuasions got their heads out of the sand and started to do something about it. They can build as many storage facilities as they like, but you cannot, repeat cannot have a stable distribution system without a considerable percentage of stable frequency, voltage, and phase, base load stations, and they must be built by government whatever the cost.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 28 March 2017 10:37:20 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
Looks like this article fairly shafts the Engineer-Man SMR and Thorium spruikers. Let's risk $Billions of public money on 20 years of studies, research, production, Court Appeals, subsidies, anti-protester security and pro-nuclear laws.

Not to mention your Nuclear-good, four legs bad, salaries.
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 28 March 2017 12:10:29 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
And what, pray tell, is your solution to our inevitable power problems, Planty.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 28 March 2017 2:42:48 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 solutions include a 4 stage plan that will remove the need to build/develop/trial/error nuclear reactors over 2 decades.

ie.

1. 1 to 2 years - Mass battery storage of renewables in South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania.

2. 7 years - Snowy 2.0

3. 7-10 years - 2 or 3 strategically placed gas-fired power stations

4. serious examination of the latest technology, high efficiency, low carbon, Japanese designed power stations

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/australias-electricity-crisis-rapidly.html
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 28 March 2017 3:37:41 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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