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 > The energy revolution must be nuclear > Comments

The energy revolution must be nuclear : Comments

By Wade Allison, published 20/6/2019

If the world is going to get the energy revolution it requires, it needs realistic energy policies that are scientifically sound and promote a fuel that provides plentiful energy on demand, while doing the least harm to nature. That fuel is nuclear.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. All
Great article and much needed in this crazy world of fake news and fake fears. Nuclear fission will have its day in the sun (pun intended), and eventually be supplemented with controllable fusion power (we control the 'sun' sort of). However, a by product of fission power is heat - lots of it - and this needs to be trapped and converted into useful energy to minimise the 'energy generation footprint' on the planet.
Posted by Pliny of Perth, Monday, 24 June 2019 12:11:39 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
Lucifwease, I can tell you in a word or two why wind and solar failed in Germany.
Too Small !

I read an article by a US Engineering Group who tried to specify a 100%
wind and solar solution for the USA.
Unfortunately I did not record the source and having spent a lot of
time trying to find it again I had no luck.
The upshot of the article was that the whole US area would be needed to
install the 15,000 wind and solar farms to take advantage of the
various geographic wind systems and times and seasons.
That area was needed to install the windfarms taking into account the
seasonal differences and that even the windiest places have times
of no wind.
Solar was easy compared as the areas of best sunlight were well known
and they could be spread along the best latitude to take advantage
of the time difference.
The study concluded that the cost would be uneconomic.
They then looked at maintenance. Their report on the solar farms
showed that using the mtbf (mean time between faults) of solar panels
showed they would have to replace 100,000 panels a day forever.
I do not remember any figures for turbines.
Currently in the US there is a problem with abandoned wind farms.
There are hundreds of derelict turbines sitting on hills in California.

As Australia is about the same size as the USA and we also have wide
spread wind systems it is not unreasonable to assume that Australia
would need a similar number of wind and solar farms.
It is just that we would have less turbines and panels on farms.
We would howver need a very high power capable grid able to move very
large amounts of power everywhere.

The upshot is you DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY !

Gradually that fact will sink in as more particularly solar farms are
installed.
Already they are having trouble matching them into the grid.

As the problems sink in the opposition to nuclear will fade.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 24 June 2019 2:44:25 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
Perhaps this, Bazz:

http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722?fbclid=IwAR34kNUvWFq4Dpt_N5SrlsHyU3U9xW3urB46PjacvhaUzBXXQDaqU4yIBrI
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 25 June 2019 10:43:28 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
Luciferase,
It's relevant because it includes some grid scale storage. Duh!
Please also note that you are not the arbiter of what constitutes grid scale storage.

I make no apologies for highlighting the erroneous parts of your posts. I'm not aware of weasels being able to do that – but if you have a link showing they can, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Why are you asking me to show you storage that makes renewables THE solution when I have only ever claimed it's A solution? I have consistently acknowledged tat nuclear power is also a solution. And though I've concluded a renewables based solution would be cheaper in the Australian context, I did not say the same applied worldwide. FWIW I think Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power is an economically detrimental one.

We have a grid, so we don't need a particular number of households to get all their electricity from one particular source 24/7/365. If you want to many installations would be needed, you're welcome to calculate it yourself, but don't pretend your answer will have any real world relevance!

If you want a proper explanation of Germany's motives, ask Germany! I could point out that Germany already has at least one big battery and a much higher proportion of its power sourced from renewables than Australia does. I can speculate that they're waiting for the cost to come down a bit more, or perhaps to gain a better understanding of the technical performance, before committing large amounts of money to it. But do you really want to read my speculation?

While the market share of renewables is so small, it's unsurprising that their role is so small in the big picture. But their role will become much bigger as we get more of them and more of our power comes from renewables.

As for your spectator link, its claims about the connection costs of rooftop solar users are dubious, and its main point is out of date. Renewables are cheaper than any other new build option even when storage costs are included: http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2018/Annual-update-finds-renewables-are-cheapest-new-build-power
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 25 June 2019 3:41:49 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
Aidan,

Your continuing aversion to the terms "feasible" and "viable" (and "scalable" in other posts) in relation to THE solution to emissions you choose to power Australia, and its growing energy needs, is again noted. My bad for questions requiring your acknowledgement of the importance of these terms.

On a positive note, you do imply support for lifting the nuclear ban in Australia. Great to have you on-board :)

The CSIRO estimations, which is in the blind grip of "The Transition" fever, relies on a non-peer-reviewed article (Blakers et al on PHES) for storage costs, and completely ignores damning critiques of the article. Also unscientific is projecting cost of renewables downwards through innovation, and nuclear costs upwards. I no longer give the organization, nor its estimations, any credence.
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 26 June 2019 2:55:54 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
Another advisor to CSIRO on storage cost is Endura.

http://www.entura.com.au/dispatchable-renewables-a-contradiction-in-terms/

To cut its very long-winded story short about "dispatchable renewables", pumped hydro (PHES) is the cheapest storage at scale. It's bead on the cost of that applied across Australia, applied to achieving 100% renewables, is about as convincing as Blakers' et al. This is principally because the amount of storage is underestimated by almost an order of magnitude, and, it presumes 100% efficiency in energy conversion.

How on earth can CSIRO, a supposedly scientific body, refer to the estimates of Blakers or Endura with any confidence, whatsover, then come up with renewables plus storage costs less than new (HELE) coal, even putting aside the new transmission system cost? Garbage in garbage out.

The CSIRO is imbued with renewables fervour to the point of blind acceptance of concocted garbage. It's not to be trusted.
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 27 June 2019 6:01:41 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. All

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