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 > Volunteers wanted - to house small modular nuclear reactors in Australia > Comments

Volunteers wanted - to house small modular nuclear reactors in Australia : Comments

By Noel Wauchope, published 11/12/2017

The nuclear industry is very fond of proclaiming that wastes from small thorium reactors would need safe disposal and guarding for 'only 300 years'. Just the bare 300!

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
The SMRs to hit the market before 2030 are likely to be of the light water uranium fuelled type produced by NuScale, Holtec and Rolls Royce. Several molten salt thorium burners are on the drawing board but they are a long way from commercialisation. Enrichment of Australian uranium would be done overseas including a laser process invented here. Spent fuel could be stored in abandoned outback mines (with already elevated radiation) until a reprocessing facility becomes economic. If need be later generation small reactors could use that recycled fuel as well as thorium.

There seems little chance of replacing coal and expensive gas without nuclear. Name one average country that has done it. SMRs could use existing transmission and cooling facilities near the Latrobe and Hunter valleys. That would stabilise frequency from asynchronous generation like wind and solar whose subsidies and quotas will be phased out according to Finkel. SMRs could do desalination on coastline relatively near outback mines. Australia should be one of the first customers for SMRs.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 11 December 2017 1:25:14 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
"Why the security guard out front is likely to cost $21.84 hour, more than the fuel! And therefore a median of $0.1.98, PKH, is more than credible! Ought to try and talk from a little higher up!? As opposed to shovelling it by the shipload?"

Security guards PKH are convinced it's more than credible , likely. A little higher up is an increment of 60 years of big bucks, probably for sure.
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 11 December 2017 1:38:38 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
Alan B wrote:

"The Oak Ridge molten salt reactor operated for around five years without accident or incident! And as a walk away safe reactor that could be shut down for the weekend and restarted Monday."

The decommissioning of the plant took over 40 years after having run for less than 5 and not having produced a watt of commercial power.

"Sampling in 1994 revealed concentrations of uranium that created a potential for a nuclear criticality accident, as well as a potentially dangerous build-up of fluorine gas — the environment above the solidified salt was approximately one atmosphere of fluorine."

The decommissioning project was one of the most technically challenging activities of its type.

"One unexpected finding [ of the project] was shallow, inter-granular cracking in all metal surfaces exposed to the fuel salt. The cause of the embrittlement was tellurium - a fission product generated in the fuel."

Its these unresolved, potentially disastrous problems that have caused the Chinese to constantly push out the estimated start date for a proof of concept thorium plant.

Walk away safe? Not quite.

More like run away safe.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 11 December 2017 2:37:10 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
A few folk with addled brains could be forgiven for thinking, nicknamenick, merely masquerading as no name numbskull and I are singing from the same song sheet?

Or that I am as loopy as the aforementioned or his current tag team mate/ Did someone mention thorium? Thorium stalker, Toni Lavis?

I have no connection whatsoever with either of these stalkers, who appear like anti thorium, fossil fuel industry activists, the second anyone mentions thorium.

Their/Putin's goal?

To stop as many airheads as possible from just looking at the case for thorium. Why? because thorium has the capacity to put both the fossil fuel industry and big nuclear out of business, with a median of $0.1.98!

Repeat and just for nick, who clearly should have gone to specksavers, that's $0.1.98 or just a tad under 2 or two cents!

Repeat, just a tad under 2 or two cents! 2 or two, take your pick nick.

And no matter which way you obfuscate or lay trails of red herrings it will just be a tad under two cents PKH as the median! That's less than two cents Moriarty/SFB's.

That said, the folks with big money and currently retailing our electricity, will have at least done their homework/due diligence! Before even suggesting such a scheme or using their funds to finance it?

Perhaps, here to help, nick could write to them and suggest that we pay Putin megabucks per metre, for Russian gas or something as equally cogent and par for the course, with that, [cruel sensible debate at any cost,] horse!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 11 December 2017 3:19:51 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
Alan B
The .98 is lovely and you will be very happy together , SSM or not with sweetie Hargraves as celebrant. Alan, pie in sky is always greener with extra dollop organic methane cream . When you show me your power bill from Thorium Wowee at US $.98 then I'm not surprised.
It's the way to go and getting there is half the fun with holiday petrol prices at .98 a cupful.
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 11 December 2017 3:39:27 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
From Noel Wauchope. In answer to Alan B. Alan B says:
"the reason they're [new small nuclear reactors] banned in the U.S. Is due to some manifestly mythical safety regulations?
Not true the real reason is economic"

Well, the 'new nuclear' lobby does not agree with Alan B. Pro nuclear writer Katie Tubb from the Heritage Foundation writes:

"Address over-regulation. Over-regulation from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA has put U.S. companies and utilities at a disadvantage."
Nuclear developers must jump over countless regulatory hurdles" http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/29/trump-is-taking-steps-to-help-the-nuclear-power-industry-heres-what-can-be-done/

and pro nuclear Strata writes:

"Policymakers are enacting regulations to promote safety in response to public fears of nuclear energy. Although these regulations can be beneficial for protecting public health from the negative impacts of an industry, regulations also have trade-offs that can increase costs, reducing economic activity and innovation that could provide public benefits such as affordable access to reliable and clean energy.5 Overly stringent regulations, especially for managing nuclear waste and licensing new power plants, are likely reducing investment and innovation in the nuclear industry.
https://strata.org/pdf/2017/us-nuclear-power-summary.pdf

Of course, the reason is also economic. Private investors [with exception of Bill Gates' billionaire pack] won't touch Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. The lobby must persuade government to fund them
Posted by ChristinaMac1, Monday, 11 December 2017 4:51:18 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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