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 > Do Jim and the Greens want to sell coal to India? > Comments

Do Jim and the Greens want to sell coal to India? : Comments

By Geoff Russell, published 20/10/2014

A recent global study put the lives saved by nuclear power over the past few decades at about 1.8 million.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
I am still waiting for an answer to the question of what to do with the nuclear waste and where to put it?
Posted by Robert LePage, Wednesday, 22 October 2014 1:03:45 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
Sorry Robert, here's a series I did last year on BraveNewClimate about
waste.

I'm still waiting for anybody to tell me how to capture and make biomass combustion waste safe. That waste kills and sickens people daily ... thousands per day die and the sickness toll is horrific and over and above that. As far as I know, nuclear waste hasn't killed or sickened anybody for at least 50 years.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/07/29/nuclear-waste-series-p1/
http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/07/30/nuclear-waste-series-p2/
http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/07/31/nuclear-waste-series-p3/
http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/08/01/nuclear-waste-series-p4/
Posted by Geoff Russell, Wednesday, 22 October 2014 3:29:20 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 good thing about this is that we are starting to have the essential debate on what energy technologies are best to replace coal and gas. Geoff you've pointed me to two informative websites - bravenewclimate and World Nuclear Assn; no doubt there are many other good pro-nuclear sites. Your articles are informative, if somewhat 'one-eyed'. I hope you have looked at the renewable sites I pointed to - Sustainable Energy Now, Beyond Zero Emissions and also the Government energy costing - Australian Energy Technology Assessments - on the BREE site. Another one for a biomass power station that has been running for 27 years is: https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/.../joseph-c-mcneil-generating-station

Now what is needed is AN UNBIASED WEBSITE LISTING BOTH THE PRO'S AND CONS ON THE NUCLEAR AND RENEWABLE alternatives. No hyperbole, no bias and no omissions. People need to be able to make an informed decision when they vote.

Re trucks. thanks for the 7500 tonnes of yellow cake figure. Multiply it by at least 1000 (WNA figure for average grade) and you have the ore to be moved (not including overburden) at least once. Then there's the water required and the possible flooding events causing leaks from the leaching processes, etc....... We need to have the full unbiased story for both alternatives

Re wood 'waste'. The ash is recovered and spread on agricultural land where it has a similar beneficial effect to liming.

PS I totally agree with you on the Energy Green Paper. I'd go further and say it is a one-eyed fossil crock of crap that refuses to even acknowledge the 'elephant' of global warming.
Posted by Roses1, Thursday, 23 October 2014 12:42:45 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
Ben, regarding 7500t. But the processing of the ore is on-site. And if the process used is insitu leaching, then there's very little extra stuff to deal with. It's nothing remotely comparable to, for example the Sydney-Moree-Sydney truck movements (about 1200km). So the point still stands ... renewables (wind+solar) use far, far, far more stuff than nuclear ... more concrete, more land, more steel, more glass, more money.

Consider the Fukushima plant for a moment. I know you can do the sums, so do them. Work out the land area required to replace the output of the 6 reactors at Daichii with Moree Solar Farm type systems. You'd have to partially level, clear, and cover in concrete and panels almost all the 20 km exclusion zone. With a rational approach to radiation, nobody would ever have had to leave that zone. The suicides and despair are a consequence of decades of fear mongering based on obsolete science.
Posted by Geoff Russell, Thursday, 23 October 2014 7:24:16 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
Yes Geoff, solar farms do have a big footprint and they are materials intensive - as you say '. more concrete, more land, more steel, more glass, more money...' - but that's what industrial revolutions or for that matter mining booms are all about (try living in Perth Eastern Suburbs for the past 7 years and you'll know about swarms of trucks first hand as I do). I don't relish that aspect, but it's only during construction. It's the main reason I think this type of plant should only be for backup of the much less materials-intensive wind and PV (about 20-30% of total generation). And remember the overall emissions are very low as there's no fuel used during operation.

Re materials for solar thermal try this link :http://fossilhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Pihl_etal2012_ConcSolarPower_materials.pdf

Pihl et al conclude that: "With technology improvements, increase in extraction and production capacity of strategic materials and research into substitution, materials availability will not hinder CSP from replacing all of today’s fossil fueled electricity generation. The most important challenges concerning materials for CSP in the coming decades, will be to scale up nitrate salt production and develop good substitutes for silver in reflective surfaces. These issues may affect the cost of CSP on the margin, but are not particularly severe".

A table in the paper shows that current production of NaNo3 is 46 million tonnes per year.

I believe the debate should hinge on what mix is economically and politically possible. In Australia, with its world leading solar and wind resources and vast open spaces, we won't need any nuclear; for India and Europe this may not be the case.

Either way, proper planning and long term Govt policy is essential. Big nuclear is a centralized 'base generation' model with inflexible generation. Renewables are dispersed, with flexible backup for the variable wind and solar energy sources. I believe it would be difficult to marry nuclear with renewables unless small flexible reactors with ramping times of less than 1 hour are commercialized.
Posted by Roses1, Thursday, 23 October 2014 10:22:28 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
Another point Geoff (I sometimes check your figures!) You mentioned 2200 Gemasolar sized plants to replicate Australia's current (45,000 MW) capacity.
- Gemasolar (the first commercial CST plant) is 20 MW, so yes it would be about 2200 of those
- but current economic size is more like 110 MW, like the SolarReserve plant Nevada, currently being commissioned.
- it would require up to 410 of those to supply all generation for Australia
- if CST were only used for backup/ storage as I explained in my previous post, it would only comprise at most 30% of generation capacity - ie up to 123 plants.
- that's about 83,000 ha or less than thirty average 3000 ha wheat marginal wheat / grazing farms taken up to supply renewable backup power for the whole of Australia.
-That's about 0.18% of our arable land. Some plants could be constructed in non-arable semi-desert areas so that would be even less arable land taken up.
Posted by Roses1, Thursday, 23 October 2014 11:03:34 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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