Apologies Ludwig: But having worked with radioactive materials and machines for years, I think I might just have a modicum of knowledge on the subject.
And the stock standard seventies objections were very relevant then but not now.
FBR, potentially can reduce the radio active half life of nuclear waste to just 300 years.
And your objections were that one time too many spurious claims, of which I've already had more than my fill.
You clearly are years behind in your knowledge, with your if this and if that, which clearly challenges my integrity.
As your say, we seem to agree on many other things, and I'm not a nuclear advocate.
I just want to argue the case on current facts.
And contrary to another posters claims, ceramic cells don't actually burn lighter than air methane, which as you probably know is mostly hydrogen.
The action inside a ceramic cell is a chemical reaction that produces power by converting Hydrogen and oxygen back into water, and producing raw electrical energy in the process.
One could say, it is essentially electrolysis in reverse?
Links that might prove useful include,www.ecogeek.org/component/article/3657-alternative-nuclear- power-pebble-bed-reactor.
And www.world-nuclear.org/info/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste-management/#/UYoa 8aI-vp8.
Rhrosty.

<< But having worked with radioactive materials and machines for years, I think I might just have a modicum of knowledge on the subject >>

Thanks Rhrosty for that snippet of background information. And thanks for the links.

<< You clearly are years behind in your knowledge… >>

Well, please correct my failings. I am only too willing to learn.

<< …with your if this and if that, which clearly challenges my integrity. >>

Absolutely. I certainly do challenge your integrity, Rhrosty! I don’t know you from a bar of soap, so I challenge you to convince me that you are genuine and highly knowledgeable in this field.

I find it interesting that thorium has for a long time been espoused by some as our great energy saviour, and yet the message hasn’t been widely accepted. If it was as good as some people have made it out to be, then surely it would have gained widespread backing and become of great interest to governments around the world. Same with the pebble-bed reactor.

I hit your second link. It doesn’t take me to where you intended because the link isn’t live. It took me to the main page of the World Nuclear Association. I would have expected the pebble-bed reactor, if it as amazing as you have said it is, to have jumped out from that page and bitten me on the nose. But no, I could see no mention of it.

I note that pebble-bed technology was developed in the 1940s but was abandoned because of insurmountable problems! The graphite that encases the fuel pellets is combustible. So that if there was a fire, it could still have catastrophic results.

Could you please repost your links as live links. Thanks.

Martin Nicholson has again demonstrated the weaknesses in a major report. For this, he has been exposed to ridicule and false accusations.

Thankfully, other contributors have gently pointed out the truth, which is that MN is a careful, conservative (by which I mean he does not make unsubstantiated claims) author. Why he continues, I can only guess, but I am thankful that he has done so.

AEMO has published half a report. They have intentionally ignored the suite of nuclear options available. They disregard enormous land costs, much of the essential upgrade of the distribution system which 100% renewable will force upon us. They have assumed costs which are (a) estimates for technologies that do not exist, such as hot rocks, wave power and more and (b) worse still, they discount the expected costs by presuming (inventing/guessing) mature design and build costs, thus ignoring design development and the inevitable First Of A Kind costs involved with trialling new technologies.

Half a report is worse than no report at all. It leaves questions hanging, such as demolition, site restoration and insurance, where these should be explored, quantified and included in the analysis.

This should be easy - after all, AEMO is Australia's peak energy body, is it not? They have vastly easier access to funding than our universities, do they not?

AEMO has its own reasons for becoming involved in this example of unprofessionalism.

I move that the report be returned to the student with the note "Student to complete and resubmit this assignment".

What is clear is that in spite of the wild claims by the anti nuke lobby, that nuclear power is still the safest means of generating electricity in the world, even safer so far than renewables.

Fukushima is the latest rallying cry by the anti nuke rabble who conveniently forget that the wave that caused this disaster killed more than 20 000 people and left thousands of square kilometers of farm land unusable for many years due to salt and debris inundation. That no one has yet died from radiation yet is testament to how feeble their case is.

France is the model for the nuclear generators, and their solution to waste treatment is simple in that they recycle and reuse the bulk of the fuel rods and separate out the 4% which is the highly radioactive "waste" which can be disposed of or used in industrial or medical equipment. (which has saved millions of lives)

As for renewables, the activists generally ignore the indirect costs of renewable power such as the land, and cost of distribution network to connect these systems to the grid, which generally cost more than the generation itself.

There is only an emotional argument against nuclear power not a rational one.

John, thank you for your confidence in my veracity but to be fair to AEMO, it wasn’t them that decided not to include nuclear but the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) who commissioned the AEMO study.

I agree that the study should be revisited to include nuclear power. Perhaps after the election the government will request an update.

Hi Martin; good post.

Tom Quirk and Andrew Miskelly have a paper which I think goes to the crux of why ANY financial comparison between renewables and nuc and fossils is meaningless

Tom’s paper is here:

http://aefweb.info/data/Wind%20farming%20in%20SE%20Australia.pdf

Looking at Table 1 we can see the usual suspects; if we use Cullerin range we can see that the Installed Capacity is 30MW and their Capacity Factor is 34% or 10.2 MW.

That 10MW is the actual power produced as an average over a period, usally at least a 1/4, more commonly a year.

The Reliability Point is the crucial indice.

What the Reliability Point shows is the probability at any one moment of that Capacity Factor occuring; for Cullerin it is 3%; so what I take from that is that at any moment the odds of the Cullerin installation producing power is 34/100 X 3/100 = 0.0102 or negligible.

Would you agree with that?