Plant,

There is no water shortage at Hazelwood, and the water cooling ponds designed for 8x 300MW condensing turbines of 1970s vintage would easily cope with 3 x 1000MW or 2x 1500MW nukes.

Given the several large brown coal plants in close proximity, these could easily be replaced with Nukes dramatically reducing the CO2 produced.

These could be built in a decade, any longer would be due to Greenie whining.

plantagenet,

Do you understand what rational discussion means? In case you don't here is a flow chart to allow you to determine if you are having a rational discussion: http://twentytwowords.com/a-flowchart-to-help-you-determine-if-youre-having-a-rational-discussion/

You commented above:

"Further on the nuclear spruikers denial of responsibility for Fukushima's nuclear cleanup."

Could you remind Online Opinion readers how many people died as a result of radiation leakage from Fukushima
[Hint: Answer = 0, and likely there will never be any fatalities resulting from the nuclear accident. All the fatalities were due to the tsunami and the evacuation forced by government as a result of the irrational fear caused by the anti-nukes "Who Killed Hamako Watanabe?" http://euanmearns.com/who-killed-hamako-watanabe/ ].

Given that there were no fatalities and never likely to be any from the nuclear accident, was there a rational justification for the evacuation?

What is the cost of the response and clean up per fatality (including long term)?

How does that cost per fatality compare with the cost of responses to fatalities from other energy chains?

How does the cost compare with the Value of a Statistical Life?

Given you are capable of determining these numbers, on what objective and rational basis do you continue to hold your fears and how do you think your doomsday preaching is benefiting humanity?

BTW, since you are interested in submarines, can you tell me how many fatalities have been caused by radiation related causes in nuclear powered submarines over the past 60 years?

Hi Shadow Minister

Thanks for the water source for Hazelwood's reactors info.

I also thought that Victoria could build a 1,000 MW reactor on the coast southeast of Melbourne. As well as servicing Melbourne some of its capacity could be set aside for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Desalination_Plant .

The desalination plant is apparently in standby mode due to current higher rainfull but sooner or later drought will return and it will at last be needed.

I understand the always on nature of nuclear reactors is well suited to being networked to desalinators.
____________________________________________________________

Hi Peter Lang

Thanks for all those questions - maybe you haven't read my Friday, 1 April 2016 12:09:13 PM post on this thread.

Cheers

Pete

Plant,

Your comment is not relevant to your question I answered. It seems your approach to dealing with facts that show how baseless your beliefs are and to questions you don't like is to avoid addressing them. That is #4 of the '10 signs of intellectual dishonesty'. You practice most or perhaps all of the '10 signs of intellectually dishonesty' in comments on Online Opinion. That is a fair indication of what the quality and intellectual integrity of your work and your web site would be like - i.e. rubbish.

'10 signs of intellectual dishonesty'
https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

Hi P L

There's a whole neclear world out there beyond your hangups http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/trumps-nuclear-triad-amazing-knowledge.html

I'm with Geoff of Perth. While there are thousands of ways to do nuclear power, and dozens of new nuclear waste-eating breeder reactor designs to choose from, my favourite is the LFTR.

LFTR's *cannot* melt down as they are already a liquid.

LFTR's require power to hold the liquid fuel up in the reactor (the only place it can fission and maintain heat). If there’s a power failure all the liquid drains down into a safe drain tank that leaks decay heat passively. No backup generators required. No power required. No humans required. Power failure = gravity takes over.

Also, the hot liquid salt that carries the nuclear fuel dries into a solid at 450 degrees C! So even if someone shot a missile into it, the liquid salt dries almost instantly and would fall to earth in that locality, preventing radiation spreading across the continent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Safety

Banning modern nuclear power plants because of Chernobyl or Fukushima is worse than banning modern aviation because of the Hindenburg. There are so many new passive safety systems that it is hard to list them.