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 > Energy prices, the climate and the nuclear bubble > Comments

Energy prices, the climate and the nuclear bubble : Comments

By Wade Allison, published 12/5/2014

You pay extra for what you insist on – and the more you insist, the more you pay. That is the law of the street and it applies to the safety of nuclear radiation.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Fukushima had the added drama of the tsunami and the hydrogen explosions which the public may forever associate with nuclear power. Between now and mid century will be critical for the nuclear industry. On the one hand there must be an acknowledgement that wind and solar will not materially replace fossil fuels. Ensuing comments will probably show the lesson of Germany has not been grasped. Then fossil fuels themselves will become problematic due to carbon emissions and depletion starting with oil.

In China at least many third generation light water reactors will be built. Will they run glitch free until say 2050? Does the risk increase if the number of reactors doubles? Those who think we don't need nuclear will have to show how to run heavy industry, power a city for a rainy week and replace transport fuels. Otherwise it must eventually be done with coal.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 12 May 2014 9:23:17 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
Scots have been living for generation in stone houses. The stone is principally granite, which exposes the dwellers to higher background radiation than nuclear power station workers!
With no visible side effects!
Coal fired power stations can and do spew more than just carbon emission into our air and water, but also arsenic, carcinogenic cadmium, mercury, lead and uranium, just to mention what has already been found, and or ingested? Where are the protest marches against that?
Helium cooled nuclear power stations can be mass produced as modules, that rely exclusively on nuclear pebbles, encased in virtually bullet proof graphite, grapefruit sized balls.
And just that much innovation ensures that there can't be any nuclear fuel pooling, the actual cause of Chennoble or Fukushima!
And given they no longer need water and can be trucked in and sited almost anywhere. This quite massively reduces the cost, and enables them to be producing power within weeks, or far less time than traditional coal!
Moreover, we own around 40% of the world's uranium, and invented the pulsed laser light method of enriching it; another factor that quite dramatically lowers the cost of value adding.
Which taken together, should make this power source cheaper than coal, and allow us, but only if we are finally, intelligently led, to power our own maritime fleet with a fuel source, that is good for around 25 years, before refueling!
What will others be paying for bunker fuel then? 10-20 dollars a litre?
Who would own the waves then, or more appropriately, just under them?
We also have a choice of developing cheaper than coal thorium powered power stations!
These are 50"s technology, with no weapons spin off, the reason they were abandoned!
China is reportedly building around one a week?
We don't need to go that far, albeit we have more of the stuff than uranium, and enough to power the world for 700 years?
As opposed to oxide reactors, these things consume around 95% of their fuel, and the waste is far less toxic, and is eminently suitable as very long life space batteries!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 12 May 2014 9:33:32 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
It is refreshing to read a sensible article about nuclear power. The hysterical noises from the Greens and other left wing looneys have poisoned the political climate in many countries - small groups can and do cause massive damage and disinformation. There is absolutely no doubt the world will depend on nuclear power at some point in the future - not to far off by my guess - and the more rational debate we have the better.
Posted by Pliny of Perth, Monday, 12 May 2014 11:48:00 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
Ruptured reactors and ruptured expended nuclear fuel rod cooling areas release high level nuclear waste which is not "background" but deadly.

Nuclear disasters may be rare but when they do happen it effects whole countries. Fukushima was unlikely but still happened. The evacuation and cleanup is costing Japanese taxpayers and Fukushima residents many $Billions.

Allison talks of China. China is experiencing civic protest over its plans to build more nuclear power plants. There has been "inter-provincial squabble" over a nuclear power plant being built near the southern bank of the Yangtze River. The plant in the centre of the controversy is located in Pengze county in Jiangxi and across the river the government of Wangjiang county in Anhui wants the project shelved.

More than 1,000 people protested in Jiangmen City Hall in July 2013 to demand authorities abandon a planned uranium-processing facility that was designed as a major supplier to nuclear power stations. The Heshan Nuclear Power Industry Park was to be equipped with facilities for uranium conversion and enrichment as well as the manufacturing of fuel pellets, rods and finished assemblies. As the weekend protest continued, Chinese officials announced the state-run project's cancellation. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China#Public_opposition
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 12 May 2014 12:10:34 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
plantagenet - I think you'r confusing the cleanup due to the tsunami with the cleanup due to the problems with the reactor...

The author mentions thousands of deaths caused by the reaction to the reactor disaster rather than the disaster itself.. I'm not surprised by the figure but what examples of this are there?
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 12 May 2014 1:34:27 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
Hi Curmudgeon

Thanks for the query. I do mean the cleanup for the Fukushima REACTOR complex and reactor accident funds are costing $Billions:

A$95 Billion is just a portion of the money Japanese taxpayers are paying to Tepco the Japanese Company that owns/owned the Fukushima nuclear reactors.

See "Japanese government to bear more Fukushima cleanup costs for Tepco" http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/japan-tepco-idUKL3N0JY1R620131220 :

"Under the new plan, the [Japanese] government, which essentially nationalised Tepco last year with a 1 trillion yen ($9.59 billion) injection of public funds, will nearly double to 9 trillion yen (US$86.35 billion) the amount of interest-free loans it provides [to Tepco] through the state-backed Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Corp (NDLFC)."

Nuclear reactor advocates can talk around these costs as much as they like.

Fukushima was considered extremely unlikely by Japanese engineers - but then it happened.

How about a major nuclear accident happening near of Sydney or Melbourne? Full size nuclear power reactors need to be built near large bodies of water - in Australia that means the coast or perhaps the northern NSW rivers near Byron Bay.

Reactors also need to be built near the consumer cities in order to minimise the lose of electricity sent on heavy cables from reactor to city.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 12 May 2014 3:41:30 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
Pete continues to waffle on about rods and water, when the latest advances require neither.
There will be fewer choices that nonetheless, include nuclear power!
Pete, the latest advances, replace water with helium for cooling and heat transfer purposes!
So these newer technologies can be placed anywhere, even in my backyard!
To obtain a nuclear melt down one needs a critical reaction, or too much nuclear fuel pooling after melting through the bottom of a conventional reactor.
Pebble reactors, just don't face that possibly, given the fuel is retained permanently in very tough graphite balls.
The graphite remains a barrier, that simply keeps the available fuel separated!
Which then precludes the possibility of a nuclear melt down, given there is never enough adjacent fuel to create a self feeding critical reaction.
This assurance is not based on misplaced confidence but scientific fact!
If you've seen a lotto draw, then you may have and inkling how these things work; balls being held in place by a rising column of helium!
So Pete, you just need to stop endlessly repeating the lie that these things need water, so need to be located near the coast, to avail themselves of large bodies of water.
Although some water supplies would be great, given electrolysis can be employed and power sent to its intended destination as hydrogen gas, via a pipeline, then converted back to power via fuel cells.
This would reduce transmission losses down to around 20% or less, if catalysts and prohibitive costs are included in the initial process!
Better we should have many small reactors placed very adjacent to the main industrial consumers!
Think Pete, it is not nuclear fallout or a nuclear winter threatening the world with an extinction event, but carbon and fossil fuels.
The sooner we change to alternatives the better, and the very best alternatives will be those with the lowest costs, and virtually walk out the door.
And those options are likely to be cheaper than coal, and provide power 24/7, regardless of whether the sun shines, or the wind blows!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 12 May 2014 6:17:08 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
The reaction to Fukushima by anti-nuclear zealots has been extraordinary. The UN released its report on 2/4/14:

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/fukushima.html

Page 17 of the report at 38 states:

"38. No radiation-related deaths or acute diseases have been observed
among the workers and general public exposed to radiation from the
accident.
39. The doses to the general public, both those incurred during the first
year and estimated for their lifetimes, are generally low or very low. No
discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are
expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants. The
most important health effect is on mental and social well-being, related to
the enormous impact of the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident, and
the fear and stigma related to the perceived risk of exposure to ionizing
radiation. Effects such as depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms
have already been reported. Estimation of the occurrence and severity of
such health effects are outside the Committee’s remit."

No doubt much of the cause of those mental health issues has been due to the hysterical garbage of the usual anti-nuclear ratbags.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 12 May 2014 6:25:04 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
Are Rhrosty mate

How many of your advanced pebble reactors are actually running on a practical industrial scale? I'm not talking your 10-20 MW test reactors but 1,000 MW.

Problems with pebble reactors, partly explaining why they've been stuck at the test stage since the 1960s include:

- encasing the fuel in combustible graphite poses a hazard. When the graphite burns, fuel material could potentially be carried away in smoke from the fire.

- Some designs for pebble-bed reactors lack a containment building, potentially making such reactors more vulnerable to outside attack and allowing radioactive material to spread in the case of an explosion.

- Since the fuel is contained in graphite pebbles, the volume of radioactive waste is much greater

- An accident occurred in Germany in 1986, which involved a jammed pebble damaged by the reactor operators when they were attempting to dislodge it from a feeder tube. This accident released radiation into the surrounding area, and probably was one reason for the shutdown of the research program by the West German government.

Shutdown.

I can't wait for that reactor at Batemans Bay, Byron Bay, Geelong and Newcastle :)

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 12 May 2014 6:36:43 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
plantagenet,

"I can't wait for that reactor at Batemans Bay, Byron Bay, Geelong and Newcastle"

Why would you be opposed to NPP' near those places. Or near Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth? Do you have an irrational fear of nuclear power?

Are you irrationally opposed to the safest way to generate electricity? Or just ignorant about it? It has to be one of those two choices

Are you opposed to saving lives?

Are you opposed to high tech jobs and great job security? Are you opposed having employment that is interesting and fullfilling for life?

I presume you are aware that nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity, right?

Deaths per 1000 TWh

Coal electricity – world avg 60,000 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)
Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) 440 (0.2% global electricity)
Wind 150 (1.6% global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
Posted by Peter Lang, Monday, 12 May 2014 9:33:49 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
Graphite burning Pete?
Well they really will have to stop them using it in crucibles, that hold liquid metal, with much higher heat than anything generated in a pebble reactor, even where the coolant is shut down for any reason.
I've no problem with 10-20 megawatts, given a reactors of that size can be mass produced, trucked and sited anywhere you need them, particularly, where there are small communities, pretty much dependent on increasingly expensive diesel! Thorium reactors, where 50+ megawatts are needed!
Given mass production and modules able to be trucked virtually anywhere, the cost benefit analysis, still makes pebble reactor power generation outcome, significantly cheaper than coal.
And that could also include most military bases, and industrial estates.
This very local power generation option, will end forever the need for the great white elephant of the national grid, which as you've already pointed out Pete, comes with transmission line looses up to 50%, which the end user still has to pay for, along with the quite enormous maintainence costs!
Also, 10-20 megawatts, is just what we need to power shipping!
However, feel free to advocate carbon fibre oars and a whip equipped task master, beating out the stroke, as your post peak oil alternative?
On second thoughts, the carbon might burn, so I guess we can't make planes, trains, cars or boats out of the stuff, for that reason, particularly, given carbon fibre is more combustible than furnace quality graphite!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 12 May 2014 11:17:19 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
Oh by the way, the pebbles are the marble sized fuel pieces, that are wrapped in grapefruit sized furnace quality, graphite balls!
Why would anyone want to build a 1,000 megawatt generator, that then losses half that, as transmission line losses.
We also have the option of converting all our waste into methane, via digesters, and then using that to power our cities?
Every family or high rise or village or suburb, produces enough biological waste to power the homes,high rises etc. And in combination, power cities 24/7!
Substituting ceramic fuel cells for Co2 producing combustion engines, halves the fuel use for the same power output, creating a very worthwhile salable surplus.
The solid state super silent ceramic fuel cell also produces mostly water vapor, as the exhaust product; and virtually free power, once the infrastructure roll out costs have been returned.
The by products include, endlessly free hot water, carbon, phosphate, nitrate rich, thoroughly sanitized soil improving compost; and reusable water, eminently suitable for endlessly sustainable oil rich algae production; (diesel, jet fuel) with the ex-crush waste, being suitable for animal fodder, or ethanol production!
One industry expert, is on the public record, stating, even with a fuel excise imposed, these new and endlessly sustainable fuel types, could be retailed for around 44 cents a litre!
And as long as we exist, we humans will always produce endlessly sustainable biological waste!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 12 May 2014 11:46:59 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
More regarding the costs of cleaning up the Fukushima and also the Sellafied UK Reactor complexes http://www.tcetoday.com/latest%20news/2014/may/sellafield-and-tepco-will-share-expertise.aspx#.U3FJVfmSySo

"The speed and cost of cleanup at both sites have come under sharp focus. The Fukushima cleanup has been beset with problems including leaks of radioactive coolant that have contaminated groundwater. The cost of cleanup is estimated to be as high as US$60bn and may take 30 years or more.

Meanwhile, the UK's Public Accounts Committee warned that failing management practices at Sellafield have seen cleanup costs balloon to £70bn (US$118bn) from £67.5bn last year.in the space of just one year."
--

Hi Rhrosty

If small power reactors are ever actually built in Australia (ie. runs on the board) you'll have some grounds to build a case ;-)
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 8:30:49 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
plantagenet,

>"The cost of cleanup is estimated to be as high as US$60bn"

So?

What is the cost per MWh of electricity supplied.

Oh. Lets see. Divide by the MWh generated over the life of the plants that generated the waste, and discount the costs over the 30 years.

What's that work out to? Less than 1% of the cost of electricity. Trivial.

Don't you ever think before you write your doomsayer's nonsense?
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 12:00:44 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
Hi Rhrosty

So where in Australia would mini reactors be built and finally decommissioned? How would reactor-on-truck convoys get past the usual protesters and residents of new reactor areas?

Cheers

Planta
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 12:16:57 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
planetagenet

The cost of the Fukushima amounts to about $0.04/MWh, which is $0.4 c/kWh; i.e. about 2% to cost of electricity. Much cheaper and safer than if they'd used coal for the past 40 years instead.

Fukushima accident cost = ~$60 bn
Japan electricity generation from nuclear, 1970-2012 = ~30,000 TWh
Electricity cost in 2011 US$ = ~$50/MWh
Electricity cost = ~$1,500 bn
Fukushima accident cost per MWh = ~$0.04/MWh
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 1:02:29 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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