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 > Trashing nuclear promises > Comments

Trashing nuclear promises : Comments

By Tilman Ruff, published 21/8/2008

Time for Australia to stand up and be counted on the India-US nuclear deal.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Geoff,

What a monumental blunder. 4+4= 2?

I assume your background is liberal arts, as it certainly isn’t maths oriented. (Probably theology, as it is a requirement to believe fervently without proof). My 11 year old son has a better grasp of the terms average, peak and capacity. I would recommend you repeat year 4.

The figures I quoted were from multiple websites incl the US dept of statistics, and as Democritus observed, it is physically impossible to have an average consumption higher than capacity.

If you look at the hot patches near the larger cities, they are deep, not as hot as the site at Cooper Pedi, and the geology is not yet determined to be suitable.

In all your posts you have yet to indicate a single economically viable GHR plant in production similar to what you have been trumpeting as the answer to all our woes.

As the only present technology that can replace coal as a base load is nuclear, the holy grail of the green movement is to find an alternative. While I applaud this search, the danger is that we will find ourselves in 2020 with 95% power generated by coal and looking at 2050 with the empty promises of yesteryear.

In 11 years we could have 20 large nuclear plants and reduce CO2 by 50%

The way we are going we will have 0% reduction by 2020. The greens must choose to lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 2 September 2008 10:35:55 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
Answer to Democritus and Shadow Minister, apologies for delay as only 2 posts allowed in 24 hours, and only 350 words, refer to Democritus’s last post.
Dear Democritus, your confusion is understandable,trying a short answer.
You have a car capable of 200kmph, the maximum requirement on your journey was 120, therefore you had an excess capacity of approx 67%, (had you done that with your house insurance your insurer would have had you for dinner) which in a car may be OK, as long as you don’t have to pay extra for fuel, taxes, or purchase price, or if you did you did not mind for other reasons. Of course your consumption, at whatever speed you went, would remain unchanged at 900 kms.
However, you can readily see that a capacity of 90kmph would have not been enough, - that would have then become your maximum, and the whole journey would have taken longer as the minimum speeds would have dragged down the average.
In a Power supply system such as the national grid, however, the consequences of running out of capacity, are more severe, - part of the grid may have to be shut down, or loads disconnected, (in the old days we had “brown outs” and many countries with less rigorous voltage controls still do) which is not happy making.
There are many ways in which this difference in capacity and consumption can be illustrated, - I am a renewable energy system designer, supplier, installer, this is my daily life, so I am constantly explaining to customers the difference between capacity and consumption, - as I said in my last post, the difference is time, - capacity has no time, consumption is over time.
In a Stand Alone Solar system, for instance, capacity is determined by the size of the Inverter, consumption by the battery bank, a small inverter will not run a pump, a large one can run a welder, although it may use the entire amount of energy in the battery bank in an hour or two, leaving no TV for the kids that night.
Posted by Geoff Thomas, Tuesday, 2 September 2008 1:12:09 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
Dear Shadow Minister, it is a logical absurdity to claim a totally unknown debating opponent has a literary background and therefore his maths are wrong, it is also on the shady side of moral.
By now you will have read, (or if not go and read it immediately) my reply to Democritus's Question, (not observation) in which I further explain the difference in the engineering world between capacity and consumption, - remember, we were talking of capacity and consumption, not your eleven year old's contribution of average and peak.
To respond however, to your comment on the incredible Australian Geothermal Hot Rock resource,
http://www.empower.iig.com.au/gone/Geothermal2pages.pdf
You claim the areas near the cities are deep and not as hot, but had you read the second page of the link with the map, you would have seen they are judged by the same criterion and if they are there, they meet that criterion. Then you lied and said they were not determined to be suitable. - there are many companies developing those so-called unsuitable sites and the one near Newcastle was proven to be particularly suitable but continually blocked by the state Govt. (-probably to protect the coal companies,) otherwise that field would be already working on a large scale.
Your final point, that this particular form of Geothermal electrical generation has not actually got a working plant, while true for only a very little longer, is as true as to say that the current planned new generation of Nuclear reactors have yet to be built so there can be no surety that they will not continue to leak, melt down, crack, release clouds of radioactive gas, kill their workers etc as in so many reported (and how many unreported, is it true Lucas Heights has a pipe leaking into the local creeks?) all over the world, - and still not solved the waste problem, just planning to increase it.
There is a growing understanding all over the world that Geothermal HR is the answer, - Quicker, much safer and cheaper than Nuclear, and do-able now,
Hooray.
Posted by Geoff Thomas, Wednesday, 3 September 2008 9:16:16 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
GT,

My presumption of a liberal arts degree was based on your mathematical ineptitude not the other way round, however, based on your inability to read or comprehend what others are saying, this first assessment was too generous.

My perception was that the delay in answering my previous post was due to the large crow you had to digest after claiming that the US’s capacity was lower than its average consumption.

I am well aware of the thermal map of Aus, and my comment that the site had not YET been determined as suitable, was due to other geological issues not covered by the polemic article you linked to.

As the NSW labor party is trumpeting its contribution to geothermal exploration, the claim that they are blocking it to safeguard the coal industry reeks of paranoia.

Basic thermodynamics shows that theoretical efficiencies drop drastically as one approaches 70C (the temperature at one can expel waste heat). As the steam extracted is at a low pressure, it cannot be used directly to drive the turbines and is used to generate steam via heat exchangers.

500C n= 55% (Modern coal plants generally achieved = 48%)
400C n= 49% (Modern nuclear plant generally achieved 42%)
200C n= 27% (Probable temp of process steam via heat exchanger from Habanero probable efficiency = 17%)
160C n= 19% etc

Which means that the vast majority of heat extracted needs to be expelled requiring massive cooling towers and water consumption, or even more massive air coolers which drop the efficiency further, and are hugely expensive.

The technology using ammonia due the low temperature is extemely dangerous and probably poses a far greater risk to the employees than any nuclear facility. For this very reason it was phased out as use as a refridgerant and why it is not used in present generation plants.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 4 September 2008 9:27:32 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 Shadow Minister, - Oh you are so ignorant it is painful, - despite having it proved that in fact the capacity of power generation is much less than the yearly consumption, you continue to believe your ignorant comments to the contrary, I can only suggest you contact some one in the electrical engineering trade if you have the courage to be proved wrong, again. - Probably one of our universities could help.
I suppose seeing you are so wrong there it is not surprising you have it wrong about all other facets of this discussion, - the blocking of the NSW field was some years ago now, - unlike you the labour Govt. seems to have been able to learn and change.
The efficiencies you quoted, given your total ignorance it is understandable you got it wrong, - the heat harvested waste water is pumped straight back into the ground to pick up more heat, as is clear in those simple pictures that you have looked at, - as I said earlier, you need to chisel the scales off your eyes.
It has however been informative that a pro nuclear person is so ignorant, - despite the evidence from that link I sent you, that there is very little adequate grade uranium so nuclear can not be the answer, that almost every one now knows the waste problem has not been solved, and possibly can never be afforded to be, you still adhere to that suicidal option. Apparently you believe that that understanding just turns all those poor misguided souls into greenies. - A very self protective argument but total hogswash.
What is necessary at this time is to waste no more money on the failed nuclear non-option but to develop as quickly as possible our enormous Geothermal Hot Rock resource and not only leave the uranium in the ground but as quickly as possible close our coal fired power stations and re-employ all those workers to the Geothermal industry.
The fact that Geothermal works beautifully with Solar, Wind, etc means a whole new area of productive employment awaits.
Posted by Geoff Thomas, Thursday, 4 September 2008 10:15:16 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
GT,

In spite of your name calling I will try and use small words to explain what you have missed. As Democritus observed, your claim that capacity is less than the average consumption is like claiming that a car with a max speed of 30kmph can get an average speed on the trip to Melbourne of 90kmph. The key word you have missed is average.

I would suggest you catch up on some of the eduction you missed such as high school. Or simply ask a 10 year old to explain the finer details. Ignorance is absence of knowledge, having the inability to grasp the knowledge when it is in front of you is stupidity.

As a engineer who has designed and built big generation plants (not the tinker toy solar systems you dabble with) I would be most fascinated in how the system runs without any waste heat, as you have just found a way to defeat the second law of thermodynmics.

What next? breaking the speed of light.

Reading your posts it has become increasingly obvious that your sources of information consist mostly of political sites and pamphlets, where reality plays little part.

Fortunately business and government have taken a more measured response choosing to invest in research, and not make unsubstantiated claims.

GHR has potential, but until an economically viable site is established and connected, claiming it as a solution to all the worlds power needs is ludicrous
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 4 September 2008 12:27:10 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. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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