The cost has been a factor in not developing nuclear power in Australia. Nothing hysterical about that point ... economics 101.

Nuclearphobes”. Another category of people, and another name-calling opportunity for the bozos for whom abuse replaces knowledge and logical argument. We pay this bloke to coin new epithets?

I support nuclear power, even though it has been left too long to stop the wheels falling off Australia quite soon. You don't suddenly have nuclear plants. They will take many years to implement when, and if, our apologies for politicians come to terms with reality.

What needs to happen immediately is for people to be educated about the modern possibilities and safety of nuclear rather than calling them names because they have fears. This politician is incapable of that, and is probably doing more harm than good with his I-know-best attitude to everything.

Of course, if governments can introduce something which has proven to be bad for Australia without our permission - multiculturalism - it should be able to introduce something that would be good for Australia without our permission - nuclear power.

Right on, Ttbn.

Modern nuclear power stations seem to be quite safe in France and Finland. France provides much cheaper electricity to Germany (when its wind fails on foggy days) than Germany's renewables can provide, at least for now.

Yes, there have been nuclear accidents, so I would strongly advise any planners, from my Olympian throne, not to use sixty-year-old technology like Chernobyl's, or build old-technology reactors in earthquake and tsunami zones or fifty metres from a beach, like Fukushima.

And just by the way, when that tsunami struck Japan and Fukushima, twenty thousand people were killed. Not one of them from any leakage at Fukushima.

So how are France and Finland doing it ? Have there been technological advances since their reactors were built, making them even safer ?

Of course, Ttbn, as South Australians, you and I have no particular interest in the development of Australia's uranium deposits for the next thousand years, we're just trying to make constructive comments ;)

Cheers,

Joe

Spot on David! No question! Nor in the minds of those who dare to challenge conventional wisdom and look at the actual facts rather than the results of propagandized hysteria! For mine that nuclear power is thorium given the extreme difficulty of weaponizing it. And the fact if burnt in a properly designed MSR, it not only creates little comparative far less toxic waste but that waste may have a half-life of around 300 years. Moreover, this type of reactor cannot melt down nor can it repeat the problems of Chernobyl. Furthermore, it can be used to reprocess then burn other folks nuclear waste. Until every last erg of available energy has been squeezed from what really is unspent fuel. Finally, these reactors can burn weapons-grade plutonium, and can be modulized inside shipping container sized spaces then trucked where we want! Given they don't need water as a coolant nor as steam for the turbines. The only thing really preventing essential R+D is government rules and regulations, without which we could start a modest but important research facility. And with ready willing and able, private non-government money. Ministers and the PM say they're technology agnostic but do nothing to remove the considerable government created/imposed restraints on still forbidden research! Alan B. P.S. There were paragraphs in the completed comment before I hit the post comment button!

When it comes to nuclear power we should opt for thorium for several important reasons. One of which is the sale of for peaceful purpose nuclear power to countries with existing nuclear power stations and the fact we own so much of the world's reserves. Another is the annual billions we can make using MSR's to reprocess and burn then burn again, other folks nuclear waste and in complete safety! N0 QUESTION! As others have noted, there are hundreds of conventional waste creating nuclear reactors in use around the world and all of them creating significant levels of waste. Why? because they rely on fuel fabrication as solid fuel pellets. And the shortcomings of the dated and found wanting technology is the waste and weapons-grade plutonium it creates! Whereas the MSR thorium reactor can and should burn this waste, where inside said MSR, it is just unspent fuel we could burn for up to 400 years as free fuel others pay us annual billions to safely dispose of! AND YES WE CAN! Alan B.

Burn waste for 400 years? Well, not inside a single reactor but at least a dozen and then their at least 8 generations of replacements. Given fluoride is an extremely poor absorber of donated neutrons! Decommissioning a properly drained MSR does not present any real challenges. And can be safely confined inside solid concrete and deep underground in say, any disused, elevated hard rock mine or purpose-built tunnel! And just as safe as the dead sea scrolls of antiquity! Alan B.

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/23/if-solar-and-wind-are-so-cheap-why-are-they-making-electricity-more-expensive/&refURL=https://www.facebook.com/&referrer=https://www.facebook.com/#44be0ac91dc6

" .....many reporters don’t understand electricity. They think of electricity as a commodity when it is, in fact, a service — like eating at a restaurant.

The price we pay for the luxury of eating out isn’t just the cost of the ingredients most of which which, like solar panels and wind turbines, has declined for decades.

Rather, the price of services like eating out and electricity reflect the cost not only of a few ingredients but also their preparation and delivery"

Yes, the restaurant a good homespun homily. Where on one hand you go into MacDonalds for an Angus steak and salad and pay twenty bucks for a satisfying meal or down the road to snobbery incorporated where the toffee-nosed proprietor charges a hundred for basically the same meal. All while he remits most of his price gouge profit to foreign lay-a-bout, wouldn't work in an iron lung, rallies? 2 CENTS PER KwH, ANYBODY!? MSR thorium anybody!? Alan B

Nuclear Power? What of the power of Mrs Avery?

Mrs Avery? Sylvia's Mother!

A fitting epitaph of the poor right now, unable to pay power bills. Forget nuclear power, it's too late, Sylvia's catching the nine o'clock train; she's marrying another, (presumable a wealthier catch, and has moved down Galveston way).

But pleeese! (and on his knees) , if ya got forty cents more you can talk to the ex-Mother in law.

F* off, I'd rather burn candles, its more honourable!

DD,

I'm sure you think there's some relevance there...but you'd be wrong.

BTW Mrs Avery wasn't the ex Mother in law. The author hadn't married Sylvie.

So I'll just take the "next three minutes" to "tell [y]'er goodbye".

The only reason we need to even consider nuclear is because of the jihad against coal.

By far the best and most economic solution for Australia is to go full-on coal of which we have several hundred years supply, and sell as much uranium to the rest of the world as they want to take.

mhaze

Yep, I like your idea, we could burn coal in a five gallon drum in the middle of the loungroom floor. Good heat in that,

We could also reinvent the calcicium carbide lamp, for excellent lighting from acetylene.

And reintroduce the stanly steamer with a coal fired furnace attached to the rear of the vehicle.

Great uses for coal: And affordable for the poor, unable to pay power bills.

Oh and mhaze, Sylvia's mother said thank you for calling and sir won't you call back again, (try next centaury, you'll be dead by then W* ) !

"we could burn coal in a five gallon drum"

Or we could use coal to make this new-fangled electricity (cheap, reliable, efficient) and use that to heat the home. You know just like we did back in ancient times around 2005.

Sylvia's mother says, 'Sylvia's happy
So why don't you leave her alone?'

There was a time when Australia was happy with our power arrangements. If only the pollies had left the electricity market alone, we wouldn't have these problems.

Trust a politician famous for his simple "solutions"?

Unless a country is planning a nuclear weapons program at some future point a civilian nuclear power program is too expensive. This is compared to other baseload electrical energy sources.

Working nuclear power stations these days cost more than A$5 Billion to build and more than A$10 Billion each to decommission. That includes a total of $200 Billion Australian dollars equivalent to decommission 17 British nuclear power stations http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-UK-nuclear-clean-up-cost-estimate-dips-to-154-billion-15071602.html.

Our ABC seems well pleased that a new reactor didn't go ahead in South Africa
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-24/two-south-african-women-stopped-international-nuclear-deal/9691528.
I guess they can power the needed desal plants with coal. Perhaps the ABC should only transmit when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing.

South Australia's half paced uranium production generates over 200 Twh a year of near zero carbon electricity but in other countries. The state itself uses 16 Twh a year with one of the highest retail electricity prices in the world coupled with reliability problems. If they don't get it perhaps it's what they want.

Hi Taswegian

South Australia could certainly maintain its

"highest retail electricity prices in the world" status

1. if it diverted resources for the average 15 years it takes to build 1,000-2,000 MW city suitable nuclear power stations, and

2. then the 20 years after that paying off the particularly high capital costs of nuclear power stations...

Even the politician author can't counter reactor costs or the realities of public opinion in SA or his own state of NSW.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/barilaro-sees-nuclear-future-labor-criticises-lack-of-detail-20180420-p4zaty.html

Small modular reactors (SMRs) in series will do the trick and Oz should aim to be at the forefront.

e.g. http://www.nuscalepower.com/

Manufacturers of light water SMRs say they can get the levelised cost down to $100 per Mwh close to the average wholesale NEM power price. Check https://www.aemo.com.au/ Remember wind and commercial solar get not only the pool price but an $85 aftermarket payment. SMRs should require no backup other than normal spinning reserve, use existing powerlines and should reduce the need for expensive frequency correction FCAS.

SMRs should go to Hazelwood, Liddell and somewhere in SA for starters.

If as has been suggested a number of times that nuclear power on
the large scale is too expensive, then we have an alternative route.
We have very large supplies of coal. Most other countries do not.
The world ERoEI of coal had fallen to somewhere near 10.
But that is a world figure not ours.

So---, why do we not stop the export of coal and keep it for our own
use and build coal fired stations. Other countries might go nuclear.
We could run it like that for a very long time.
Then perhaps thorium and nuclear power, if not obsoleted by then
because of fusion, hot rocks stations etc could then be more economic.

Having lots of coal with good ERoEI gives us many options.

Solar IS nuclear.
However earthbound nuclear is unnecessary given our vast renewable capabilities.

A reality check for renewables enthusiasts. We've had a national Renewable Energy Target since 2001 yet emissions keep going up along with retail power prices. Not only is there the direct cost of subsidies but indirect costs forced on the system like the need for open cycle gas for backup and frequency correction.

A more vivid example may be UK vs Germany. The latter are throwing billions at renewables and phasing out nuclear while retaining coal. The Brits are going the other way. The UK should meet its emissions targets while Germany will fail. Perhaps renewables aren't the salvation they're cracked up to be.

The cost of nuclear power is a factor! No question. And at 6 cents per KwH. twice as much as coal and in building a light water uranium powered reactor! Both in the cost of the enriched and fabricated fuel and in building the power plant. A 350 MW reactor will burn around 2551 tons of fuel during its operational life. Whereas a coal-fired plant will burn millions of tons during its. Even so, using ROM coal able to producing power for 3 cents per KwH. or 6 cents using washed coal. Or here for around 24 cents per KwH. And that's required to make the much vaunted green preferred renewables competitive! Albeit, with a taxpayer-funded subsidy. Contrast that with a 350 MW thorium powered MSR. that only requires one ton of much cheaper more abundant thorium during its similar, operational life. Why, the security guard out front costs more than the fuel! Then understand that because the latter is not pressurized the build cost of the entire power plant is considerably less! Thermal coal has a significant future as alternative transport fuel we make here and as a source of increasingly important man-made graphene. Alan B.

Bazz, I think you are on the right track. We should point out to the anti-coal and anti nuclear lobby, that Australia's vast reserve of uranium could be used overseas if they don't want us to use it here and that could be used to offset the emissions from our modern and cheaper to run coal fired stations which we are going to be forced to build anyway. In the mean time, home owners had better get their solar panels and generators going, because they are all going to need them when Liddell closes down.

Abbott and his merry men might be on a winner.

David

Thorium nuclear power will enable the complete resuscitation of our steel industry. As one step steel smelting giant arc furnaces. And with CARBON FREE nuclear power costing as little as 2 cents per KwH. And as steel with the lowest carbon footprint of all. And if constructed as government funded and facilitated employee/shareholder owned co-ops at prices even nations like China will have a problem competing with on the global market. Nuclear power with that price tag also means we can convert coal to fuel oil, gasoline and diesel and at prices, the importers can't compete with! And as guaranteed local supply good for 700 years that'll save around 20 billion per year as we replace imported products with that made right here. And given there will not be commercial electric planes, nor nuclear-powered ones? For as far ahead as the eye can see! Even as we transition to an electrified economy. You see, there isn't an internal combustion engine that won't run on compressed methane and with 40% less CO2 production into the bargain. So it's not an either either, but both nuclear and coal and with that combination the complete return of our economic sovereignty. It's not too late or too dear! But very much the opposite. and we have the best part of a decade, while we run down our coal-fired power stations, to iron out the few minor bugs they allegedly found in the Oak Ridge trial! It's a no-brainer and to the point where we need to ask the recalcitrant greens and renewable devotees, what the hell have you folks been smoking? Alan B.

Coal is far cheaper than any other source we have available in Australia, but if one decides to get to zero emissions, then coal, and gas as well, has to go. The question then becomes which of the much more expensive alternatives is the cheapest.

In this case nuclear wins hands down on a cost basis. That is because the storage costs with wind and solar, and the backup costs for hydro, are many times the cost of generating power from those sources in the first place. You have to scale up your capital cost by a factor of around 12 to account for storage when you are calculating the cost of intermittent generation.

I'm not sure I like Luceferase's service industry analogy, but you have to understand that you are dealing with a system, and different forms of generation cannot be in isolation from the system. The costs of backing-up intermittents haven't hit the public, or governments yet, because we run fossil fuel plants to provide the backup service. But when they are eliminated, as they must be if Australia wants to get to zero emissions sometime, then the real cost of storage will change the equation dramatically.

Nuclear is the only practical, non-CO2-emitting solution and it becomes the cheapest on this criterion.

Given the subsidies shovelled lout to electricity 'providers' using renewables, one has to ask if, over their lifetimes, nuclear reactors would be any more expensive than coal or renewable electricity generators. Not to mention the inconvenient fact that they produce no CO2, part from that used in their con striation, as with renewables.

And once a nuclear reactor was up and running, their power generation would be used to build other nuclear reactors, avoiding ANY CO2 production whatsoever. Can renewables claim that ? I don't think so, at least not yet.

Whadda we want ? Nuclear Power For CO2-Free Power Generation ! When do we want it ? NOW !

Or is CO2 production not really all that important ? Oh, how conflictual it is to be a Green.

G'day, Paul, I didn't see you there.

Joe

As always with the green anti-development movement. nuclear power takes too long to build? Is too costly! Well, of course, it does and is, if you're talking about traditional uranium fired facilities built from the ground up as massive and hugely expensive infrastructure. And as always they adroitly avoid MSR thorium and modules that can be mass produced like boing aircraft inside factories. And shipped in standard shipping container wherever we want them. The greens want wild rivers and locked up forests, but refuse to allow the one development that will bring the price of desalinated water to below that of dams. And allow our deserts to be revegetated. with all, that means for the environment and the overused Murray/Darling. We can have a future as a socially and environmentally conscious, inclusive economy. But not while the recalcitrant, disingenuous greens are running constant interference and focusing on populist, harmful policies? Legalize Pot? Well why not? we can all smoke our brains while the economy goes to hell in a handbasket and we sleepwalk into our own Armageddon! Alan B.

//Given the subsidies shovelled lout to electricity 'providers' using renewables, one has to ask if, over their lifetimes, nuclear reactors would be any more expensive than coal//

Yes.

//or renewable electricity generators.//

No.

//And once a nuclear reactor was up and running, their power generation would be used to build other nuclear reactors, avoiding ANY CO2 production whatsoever.//

Except for all the cement.

//Whadda we want ? Nuclear Power For CO2-Free Power Generation ! When do we want it ? NOW !//

Where do we want it? NIMBY!

Hi Toni,

Thanks for that - my point about the production of CO2 in the construction of nuclear power stations AND 'renewables' was that all forms of such technology produce CO2 in their construction, and that the total amount of CO2 produced over their respective lifetimes has to be quantified. The benefits of one or another form of technology have to be discounted by the amount of CO2 produced in their construction and maintenance, perhaps divided by the life of the plant. Of course, the price at which they can produce electricity for us consumers also has to be factored in, as well as hidden subsidies.

Nuclear power stations are touted as being able to produce electricity for fifty to seventy years. Wind-towers and solar systems have productive lives of fifteen to twenty years, or less.

So, on balance, with current technology, what is the best deal for consumers in the long run ? Just asking.

Joe

//So, on balance, with current technology, what is the best deal for consumers in the long run ? Just asking.//

Depends how worried about CO2 you are:

If you think it's harmless plant food and that the greenhouse effect is a myth, then keep burning coal.

If you are bothered about climate change, then nuclear is the way to go.

If you're bothered by nuclear as well, you're probably a hippy and nobody cares what you think.

Thanks, Toni. I suppose nuclear, either way ?

One problem with going totally nuclear would be that there may not be enough CO2 being produced to assist plant growth - we may have to deliberately burn coal and oil and gas to keep enough CO2 in the atmosphere to enable plant growth, including in the vegetables that we will come to depend on, in a future vegetarian world.

Whaddo Us Vegetarians Want ?! More CO2 ! When Do We Want ?! Now !

Cheers,

Joe

Its not a case of thinking CO2 is unimportant or thinking the "greenhouse effect is a myth" (no one thinks that anyway). Its about recognising the massive uncertainties about the likely extent and timing of the warming and, more importantly, recognising that Australia's efforts are effectively useless as regards any future warming.

I find it touching that all these people are anxious to protect those nasty capitalists from wasting their money on inefficient and costly nuclear.

The solution to the issue as to which system is the most cost effective is at hand. Its called the market. Get rid of all subsidies, get rid of all mandated targets, open the field to all comers and then let's see which system provides the cheapest most reliable power. We, of course, won't do that because we all know the answer and that answer is unpalatable to those of a certain leaning.

There's great cost to integrating renewables, which become cheaper and cheaper, into the grid. Some on this forum believe that where there's will there's a way towards 100% renewables, regardless of technical and cost issues. They ignore inconvenient truths with dreams of scalable, viable storage and argue that the cost of renewable hardware is falling, these making "The Transition" inevitable.

I provide the same link to an article I did earlier containing the service industry analogy, as well as a follow-up article by the same author who is a pro-nuclear environmentalist standing for election as Governor of California (now there is a dreamer):

https://tinyurl.com/y7ohlts5

https://tinyurl.com/yad42bk7

Alan B suggested;
As one step steel smelting giant arc furnaces.

Not practical, the radio interference produced at those power levels
would be enormous.
You could key it to communicate with Alpha Centauri.

Some on here seem to be trying to avoid nuclear power.
I suggest for the world there is nothing else on the horizon.
Even hot rocks is a gamble, but well worth putting money into trying.

Not much point the holier than thou proponents of wind & solar pushing
their barrow. The 100% argument has finished and its over.

The only argument about wind & solar is it worthwhile as a auxiliary
source of energy.
The real argument now is which is the best way to make the transition
to another source of 24/7/365 electricity ?

Something to think about at the moment Sth Aus's wind is 56 Mwatt !
And that is on a work day !
Over Anzac day it was never above 150 Mwatt each time I looked.
The graph should be interesting for the last week.

Update; Sth Aus wind now 25 Mwatt.
Their diesel generators are doing a good job, so much for renewables.

Qld coal holding up NSW & Vic.

//Thanks, Toni. I suppose nuclear, either way ?//

Seems the most reasonable option to me, but I'm probably biased.

But I will note that it has the best safety record of any type of power generation. What value can you place on a human life? WH&S matters.

//we may have to deliberately burn coal and oil and gas to keep enough CO2 in the atmosphere to enable plant growth//

I think if you look at some history prior to the industrial revolution, you'll be pleasantly surprised to discover that pre-industrial revolution levels of atmospheric CO2 were quite sufficient to enable plant growth.

//or thinking the "greenhouse effect is a myth" (no one thinks that anyway).//

You'd be suprised, mhaze. I have personally witnessed really far-out climate change deniers to flatly declare Svante Arhennius' work on the subject to be a load of codswallop, only believed by deranged lefties. Who'd'a thunk physics could be so controversial?

Then again, this is 2018, and science seems to be less fashionable than it was a few decades ago. Anti-vaxxers seem to be everywhere, my youtube recommendations keep trying to convince me that I want to watch videos from flat-earthers (I really don't), and the public trust that once existed in science seems to be eroding.

Still, you gotta laugh, don't ya?

http://xkcd.com/1278/

//and, more importantly, recognising that Australia's efforts are effectively useless as regards any future warming.//

Our contribution to global emissions probably is fairly small, but that's true of a lot of countries. All those small numbers add up to a big number. Are you familiar with the tragedy of the commons?

Lets get pragmatic about this subject. If we are not going to run out of power, then we will have no alternative to building more coal fired powered stations. With all the best will in the world, no other base load supply can be built in the time available.

David

The trouble 3AUU, is that if they let a contract tomorrow it would
probably take five years to get it on line.
However by the time it battles through the green tape it will probably
take about eight years !
So we will have a major problem for many years.
By that time we will need another one.

73 Bazz

Update; there is a medium breeze in Sth Aus, now generating 648 MW !
Wow !

"climate change deniers to flatly declare Svante Arhennius' work on the subject to be a load of codswallop"

Ahhhh. You're confusing the greenhouse effect and Anthropological Global Warming aka the enhanced GHE.

The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomena governed by water vapour and the assumed natural level of CO2. Without the greenhouse effect the earth's average temperature would be negative 10 degrees or so. With it the average is plus 14 degrees or so.

"All those small numbers add up to a big number. Are you familiar with the tragedy of the commons?"

Actually they don't add up to a big number. The top 10 countries make up 79% of total emmissions. Australia isn't one of them. The top 15 make up 87% of emissions. Australia isn't one of them. The other 170 or so countries make up the other 13%. If they all adopted our policy of reducing emissions by 20% the reduction would be offset by one year's increase in emissions from China and India alone ie utterly worthless other than giving those of a certain leaning the warm inner glow of self-flagellation.

The tragedy of the commons refers to farmers of roughly equal wealth using approximately the same amount of the commons without regard to its upkeep. But here we have some users trashing the commons with impunity while others like us, who use a small corner of the common field, are admonished for that minor use.

If we adhere to our promises to reduce emissions, the effect on world temperatures will be so small that there are no instruments currently precise enough to measure the supposed reduction. Using the maths used by the IPCC the theoretic reduction in temperatures in 2100 as a result of our sacrifice will be about 0.0007 degrees. Now that's a tragedy.

Update Sth Aus generating 49 Mwatts, oh dear, the input from
Queensland is keeping the lights on in Adelaide.
Victoria is contributing some 155 Mwatts.
This is typical of what you see day to day.

Update;
At this very time on a week day Sth Aus is producing from wind
wait for it--- I Megawatt !
Yes ONE MILLION WATTS !
It is getting 427 MWatt from Victoria.

NSW is limping along with 325 Mw from Qld and 150 Mwatt form Victoria.

And they want to do away with coal fired stations, duh !

You're forgetting the diesel and batteries. It's not as dire as you make out, Bazz!

Luciferase. You are also forgetting that diesel generators are much, repeat, much more expensive than coal.

David

Cost is irrelevant, isn't it? Just subsidize and cost just floats away. Someone else will pay. Hmmmm....who would that be?

Hi Luciferase,

Do you mean subsidies to renewable energy companies like AGL? i.e. that that's why they're getting out of coal ?

Cheers,

Joe

Moderate breeze today Sth Aus wind delivering 313 Mwatt, just about
20% of nameplate output.

I am attracted to what Alan B tells us about thorium reactors but
what is surprising is that there is not a large number of countries
building at least thorium test systems.
Is there a catch 22.

Regarding Chernobyl, if the Russians had not been too proud to accept
the advice from those gathered in Vienna in 1956, re carbon graphite
moderators, the disaster would not have happened.

I am surprised, or should I be not surprised, that the government
will refuse, for ideological reasons, to just take over Liddel without
payment and run it.
They and many others just do not realise the implications of repeated
blackouts occurring most days depending on weather.
Thousands of people stuck in lifts, people sitting in the dark in
underground trains, banking coming to halt, workers being sent home
without pay, shopping centres being closed, it goes on and on.
Hospitals I believe have their own generators, true ?
Cars qued up at service station waiting for the power to start the pumps.

This is what MUST happen if you take 850 Mwatt of line.
I have been told, so not proven, that the station because of a lack
of maintenance, cannot reach its maximium capacity of 1,200 Mwatt.
Someone else may be able to affirm that.

Despite what we hear, there is no such thing as a clapped out power station.
They comprise hundreds of individual items, pumps, fans, blowers
conveyor belts, motors, alternators, switch gear, boilers etc etc.
All this can have the three Rs applied;
Repair, Refurbish or Replace.
The plant obviously will need a major maintenance campaign applied.
If the government just takes it over it will repay the cost quickly.

That ideology can get in the way is ridiculous !

Bazz, "
I am attracted to what Alan B tells us about thorium reactors but
what is surprising is that there is not a large number of countries
building at least thorium test systems."

The reality is that no one has yet been able to come up with a practical design which can run for a decent period of time. I believe there are metallurgical problems which no one has yet been able to overcome. Back in the sixties while I still worked in the uranium industry, people had already started work on using thorium, so it obviously isn't for want of trying that it isn't workiing yet. The theory is very simple, just mix a small amount of U233 with a larger amount of Thorium and you gradually build up a larger amount of U233 which then starts a reaction. Apparently not so simple in practice.

David

Nuclear technology should definitely be taken advantage of. It has already been proven functional and safe in countries such as France, Slovakia, Ukraine, Belgium, and Hungary where most of their energy comes from Nuclear Reactors.

No one denies a couple of significant facts;

The world ERoEI of coal is falling, last seen <10.
Australian coal is plentiful, and high quality.

The rest of the world will have to transition to nuclear or else--
We can burn our coal for a very long time before we HAVE to make the transition.
Does it not make sense to restrict our export of coal while, because
of cost, we make a slow transition to nuclear.

Now those who do not like nuclear, what do you suggest instead ?

Hi Bazz,

I suppose the answer to your question is: keep subsidising renewable energy companies until such times as renewable energy artefacts like wind towers and solar arrays, etc., can be made using renewable energy more cheaply - and without subsidies - than using coal or gas or nuclear.

i.e. when the cows come home: what mug company would give away subsidies in the 'meantime' ?

Cheers,

Joe

Luciferase. That is all very good, but those of us who are pro-nuclear will have to fight tooth and nail to get any Australian government on board. Meantime, I will be putting some of my money into the new IPO of 1414 and their molten silicon energy storage technology.

David

Luciferase, that is good news about the modular system. However it
will be a long time before they supply the US demand and we have to
make some decisions well before that time.
One thing that gets ignored regarding storage systems is that they
have to be recharged. Where do you get the electricity or whatever to
recharge them while at the same time supplying the normal load.
So far the only figure I have seen to overcome that problem requires
the wind & solar capacity to be 12 times the size of the load.
Additionally it has to be spread all over the country with a massive
an increase in the interconnector grid.

That of course becomes an impossible financial barrier.
So we have a massive long term problem but also a difficult short term
problem of keeping the lights on over the next five to ten years.
It is only difficult because the politicians and their pride are involved.

VK3AUU, I'm afraid your IPO is just another pig with its snout in the subsidy trough, another pointless false dawn along the road to nowhere.

That's not to say don't invest, heck, the public purse will ensure you reap a reward like everyone else into renewables. I can't blame you for not looking a gift-horse in the mouth, I myself installed 6 kW paid for largely by the taxpayer.

It's just whether you really want to make a difference, or not. I am one voice. I actually lose friends over my position, voice opinion in media avenues, and financially support organizations that are out there trying to do something constructive about nuclear. To me, it's the greatest issue of our time, and we owe our descendants an honest and realistic attempt try to achieve a solution.

Bazz, I'm not averse to staying with current coal, or HELE, until SMR's dawns over the next decade. Public expenditure on renewables is a complete waste of money on a non-solution to AGW.

Perhaps the political the tide is starting to turn on nuclear?

https://tinyurl.com/y9ob9hvu

Someone above parroted the Amory Lovins line about cost. But the reality is that expensive nuclear power is a particularly American problem, due to their unique regulatory framework that cripples American nuclear. There are countries building nuclear far cheaper than America. Check South Korea!

>“We find that trends in costs have varied significantly in magnitude and in structure by era, country, and experience. In contrast to the rapid cost escalation that characterized nuclear construction in the United States, we find evidence of much milder cost escalation in many countries, including absolute cost declines in some countries and specific eras. Our new findings suggest that there is no inherent cost escalation trend associated with nuclear technology.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300106

Dr James Hansen says climate change is too important to bother with unreliable non-baseload wind and solar power, and says that believing in renewables is like believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy. https://bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/05/hansen-energy-kool-aid/ Instead he says the world should build 115 GW of nuclear reactors each year. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
He recommends breeder reactors that eat nuclear waste, and promotes this free book by friends at the Science Council for Global Initiatives. http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/prescription-for-the-planet.html

Hooray, someone's singing my song:

https://tinyurl.com/y7jh75xc

Not only is nuclear a necessity on the (non-hydro) main-grids of the world, it is the "only" necessity. A dollar spent on more renewables or fossil-fueled electricity is a dollar wasted that should have been spent on nuclear.

When will pollies begin to grasp this and talk about it, and how can the public be educated? The green dream of renewables is all pervasive with the public believing the storage issue is licked. Finkel is surely culpable for advocating that storage be added to the grid to accommodate renewables when it is ridiculously expensive option that could ever possibly be contemplated and would dash our economy to the rocks. To accept the Australian prohibition of nuclear without utterance or challenge makes him unfit for purpose.

Luciferase,
Talk to your grandchildren about renewable energy.
They are totally convinced that it is the ONLY way to go.
The very suggestion of coal or nuclear and they look at you in horror.
The schools have completely brainwashed them.
They are the next tranche of voters.

The left has total control of the schools and it starts in primary.
What did some Jesuit say;
"Give me a child at 7 and we will have him for life !"

Perhaps when their computer goes off line in the middle of a game
they may be very annoyed, but they will blame you for not installing more solar cells.

hey, on the culture shifting about nukes, check this.

https://www.facebook.com/environmentalprogress/videos/2070436009889420

There are problems with each individual house having their own solar and expecting it to supply all their electricity needs. Now that winter is approaching, days are shorter and there is more cloud and in consequence the amount of power generated in Southern Australia is only about one tenth of what you get in the summer. You may think that installing more batteries is going to help, but there will not be enough power left over after you have catered for all your household needs to also heat your house and charge the batteries, even if you quadruple the number of panels that you need during the summer.

Even if every dwelling installs solar, this scenario will apply to the whole system, so the shortfall in the winter will have to be made up by base load stations running at night during the cooler months and also during many days as well.

It will be more cost effective for individuals to get their extra power from the grid, rather than install more panels and batteries. As well as that, the grid needs to have fifty percent of the power coming from base load generators in order to maintain voltage and frequency stability.

David

Hi David,

And if we all switch over to electric cars, either the fairies will all have to pedal much harder to generate the extra electricity, or other means will have to be found to massively increase the total amount of electricity generation. Of course, it's important to reduce the amount of CO2 produced by vehicles, but the clean alternative has to be feasible. And possibly nuclear energy - look Ma, no CO2 ! - can take up that slack.

Cheers,

Joe

My solar panels output in winter at 4pm was SIX Watts !
9AM 200 w, 12-30 1Kw, 2PM 400 w, 4PM 200 w Summer figures.
Most people do not have enough roof space to be off grid.
You need to fill your backyard as well (if you have one)
The real interesting wind figures are from AEMO 860 Mwatts now for Sth Aus.
So a reasonable breeze but still a long way below peak o/p 1400 Mw.
Watch it every day and most days it is between about 100 Mwatt and
600Mwatt. However a lot of time is spent between 0, yes zero and 80Mw.
I tried to find the graphs or spreadsheets but could not.
I doubt that their average wind output could be more than 30% of
nameplate rating.

Windfarms are real Duds, a total waste of money.

The case is strong for EV's even with coal power in both in cost and emissions. Nuclear is the key to electrifying urban transport cleanly while producing synthetic fuels for shipping and long-range road-transport, as well as desalination and nitrogen based fertilizer production, etc, etc. It's such a no-brainer yet Finkel can't even utter its name. What a complete dead loss of a Chief-Scientist he is.

Exactly! Renewables advocates contradict themselves.

Position 1. Night time charging: in the race to wean off oil, we're going to move to Electric Vehicles to replace petroleum (gasoline) use in the light vehicle market. Family cars, light delivery trucks, and even garbage trucks and city buses can all be replaced with EV's. (That's the petroleum / gasoline *half* of the oil replaced, and the other diesel half may have to be replaced with synthetic diesel, but that's another story). But how many new power stations will be required to charge the light half of our car and truck fleet? America's NREL studied it, and the answer is that we could charge 86% of all light cars and trucks on today's grid without building a new power station or expanding the grid. How? Turn the power plants up to full, and smart charging overnight. That is, about half these light vehicles charge overnight. Page 10 of this PDF http://energyenvironment.pnnl.gov/ei/pdf/PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1.pdf

Position 2. We’re NOT going to really do anything at night because… who needs power at night? Amory Lovins says the requirement for baseload electric power is a myth, and there’s no real need for power at night. Except for running fridges and hospitals and night transport and some industries and replacing half our petroleum car oil on the existing grid with night time electricity according to the study above! So if the huge spare night-time capacity of a baseload grid can only charge half the light vehicle fleet, then no baseload at night means we must charge the whole light vehicle fleet during the day. Just how many times over are we going to build out the grid again? How are we going to charge all those EV’s? Are we going to double the grid? Triple it? No. Watch Lovin's ‘efficiency gains’. We’re going to halve our electricity supply according to Amory. While replacing oil. Pull the other one, it plains jingle bells. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsgrahFln0s

The real answer? NUCLEAR, and then we can charge most of our cars with half of them charging overnight.