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 > Should we rethink nuclear power? > Comments

Should we rethink nuclear power? : Comments

By Haley Zaremba, published 11/3/2019

Despite high-profile nuclear disasters like Chernobyl , Fukushima, and Three Mile Island, the deaths related to nuclear meltdowns are actually very few.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Seeing as Solar is Nuclear we can`t really say that Nuclear Power is bad per se.
Most, all, disasters so far were human error caused.
However with the available natural forces which can be utilised, along with a sustainable world population of many less than at present, Nuclear Power is unnecessary.
Posted by ateday, Monday, 11 March 2019 8:13:34 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
On a full life cycle analysis basis nuclear is by far the safest way to generate electricity and always has been-- i.e. since the first power reactor began sending power to the grid in 1954. And, yes, it's much safer than wind and solar.

Reactor accidents are responsible for a trivial number of fatalities compared with all other technologies.

Here's a short opinion piece on my 2017 paper: https://www.thegwpf.com/what-could-have-been-if-nuclear-power-deployment-had-not-been-disrupted/. It summarises key points and points to the relevant parts of the paper where you can find more on each.

And here are some recently published authoritative papers on the costs of nuclear reactor accidents and what the response should be - in most cases the correct response is to provide correct information to the population, explain the true consequences (which are minimal)and don't evacuate people.

Nuttall et al. (2017) 'Compensating for severe nuclear accidents: An expert elucidation.' https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582016303032

Thomas, P. (2017) 'Quantitative guidance on how best to respond to a big nuclear accident.' https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582017302665

Thomas, P.; May, J. (2017) 'Coping after a big nuclear accident.' https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0957582017303166

Waddington et al. (2017) 'J-value assessment of relocation measures following the nuclear power plant accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi.'https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582017300782

Yumashev et al. (2017). 'Economically optimal strategies for medium-term recovery after a major nuclear reactor accident.' https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582017302665
Posted by Peter Lang, Monday, 11 March 2019 8:42:26 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
"Rethink"? To do that, the anti-nuclear brigade would have had to think in the first place. They have not done that.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 11 March 2019 8:46:34 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 strikes me as most odd that South Australia has the most expensive electricity in the developed world, is building a gas fired power station on its 50 year old gas pipeline yet has the world's largest uranium deposit at Olympic Dam. At current restrained rates of uranium production Australia could easily produce over 300 Twh a year of near zero carbon electricity in light water reactors. We used 257 Twh of 85% high carbon electricity last year.

Politicians are falling over themselves to promise 100% renewable energy to power everything from cars to heat pumps. I'd like to see one country with modest hydro actually do that. Germany is supposed to shut its remaining nukes in 2022. Let's see what happens. Australia has a vast outback that not only has uranium but could store spent fuel with plutonium for the arrival of fourth generation reactors. Leave plenty of windmills and solar panels for the virtue signallers but let nuclear replace coal and baseload gas
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 11 March 2019 9:45:47 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
Congratulations on a good, concise article. Much like the bleeding obvious, "Well-off, comfortable, well fed lefties/liberals have stuck their hypocritical heads in he san over nuclear energy for electricity and even more stupidly over nuclear power in submarines (resulting in massive cost and time blowouts).

We sell uranium (and coal) around the world, and indeed the comfortable aussie lifestyles would disappear without such " evil" trades ended. C02 is a global gas, yet we sell it and profit from are sales... we are in fact the "dealer", not the use of the "drug" called coal. Instead, we use up expensive and heavily polluting technologies (solar, wind and batteries use polluting manufacturing processes and scarce rare metals). How hypocritical that we ignore these inconvenient facts, to make pious claims of are green credentials, which is a false as Marie Antoinette's famous concern of "well, let them eat cake, if they have no bread".

Nuclear power is indeed safe, kills less people in all of its lifecycle and could provide cleaner, safer power for billions around the world, while half a dozen could solve Australian's base load power issue, and saving millions of Australian pensioners from power poverty. What this article ignores is simple... the lack of balls from our so called political masters.

We have mainly self serving, greasy-pole climbing, spineless Pollies and we have some fruit loops!! But even if Pauline Hanson, Mark Latham, Clive Palmer, Rob Oakshot...supported/pushed for nuclear power, I would vote for them till the cows come home in a heartbeat.. Hmmm, I doubt I will get the chance...
Posted by Alison Jane, Monday, 11 March 2019 10:05:44 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
Ateday,

Once you are world dictator, how do you propose to bring about " .... a sustainable world population of many less than at present." ? Do you mean, to reduce the number of white people who are more likely to be using far more of the world's resources than other people ? Or do you mean those coloured people, fornicating and breeding so irresponsibly ? What are you going to use ? Kool-Aid ? Solent Green (for the older ones) ?

I wonder if there is a pill for megalomania.....

In any case, populations in wealthier countries are either stagnating or declining. Australia's population would probably be declining (or barely rising) if it weren't for immigration. China's population growth will stall in about twenty years, one generation, and decline rapidly after that (four million births a year, even if everybody lives to be 100,k cracks out at a steady population of only 400 million, down a billion from current population, and probably by 2100).

World population growth may be zero well before 2100, and gradually decline after that, maybe by 0.1 - 0.2 % p.a. (any faster may be disastrous over a generation, certainly over two, if you think about it).

And would you be killing off older people, or minimising births (perhaps by making abortion compulsory for certain groups), in order to bring about your particular Dystopia ? Any ethnic groups you don't like, or maybe left-handers ? Thin people ? Handsome people ? Capable people ? Take your pick, Ateday, it's all a pipe-dream.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 11 March 2019 10:09:11 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
What ever Loudmouth is one, can he, she, it tell us, so we can avoid that diet!

Re Solent Green... hmmm not a bad idea, and much less polluting than coal or nuclear power.

Seriously, you have covered every human woe, but the article was about nuclear power, so... what words of wisdom do you have on the topic?
Posted by Alison Jane, Monday, 11 March 2019 10:32:39 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
wooah.. guys.. nuclear power is NOT the safest, nor the cleanest.. and given its propensity for things that, when they DO go wrong, to go wrong in a big big big way.. its just flat out not a route ANYBODY wants to go down. This is electoral driven foolishness. Its a distraction, a thought bubble put out by climate deniers trying to look green-ish.. at election time. Leaving power aside for a moment; theres the matter of storage of waste. NOTHING AND NOBODY can guarantee a safe storage facility that will maintain its 100% effectiveness and its total integrity for the required 1000s of years. Nobody. This is just pipedream stuff being pushed by the people trying to flog us uranium and thorium and to build nuclear power stations. Is it better than coal? Heck, almost anything is better than coal. Coal is flat out filthy climate wrecking compressed dirt formed from decayed many million year old plant matter thats been destroying the biosphere since the early 1800s; as recognised by the British Admiralty since at least 1911. Is it better than oil? See coal. Is it better than gas? Only marginally so. Is it better than hydro? No. Is it better than solar and wind with battery and energy pump backup? Hell no. It is now 100% possible to achieve complete and total, 100% reliable base load power affordably and completely cleanly. Total 'flick of the switch' reliable. Which is NOT the message the fossil fuel industry wants to tell. Its now cheaper by far to produce power using these methods than using coal.. which is cheaper than oil, or gas, or nukes. So no. 100% no. Its not the answer the fossil industry or the nuclear industry or the investment houses flogging uranium and thorium as the latest be all and end all. The age of coal is gone. Its an 18th century solution which fails to address the needs of 21st century problems. Cleantech wins hands down.
Posted by omygodnoitsitsitsyou, Monday, 11 March 2019 11:22:22 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
Of course, we should rethink nuclear power! The only way you could be harmed standing next to a nuclear reactor? Is if it were not shielded. That said, look at these comparisons.

A conventional light water reactor burning uranium burns less than 1% of that fuel. In the process creates 99% as highly toxic waste.

A 350 MW enriched uranium reactor will require during an operational 30 years, some 2551 tons of uranium, creates more than 2550 tons of nuclear waste.

Whereas an MSR thorium burns just one (1) ton of thorium during the same period in a reactor that, because it's unpressurised, can be sited almost anywhere. Moreover, produces during a comparable period. Less than 1% waste. Waste with most of the energy component burned completely out.

Waste however, eminently suitable as long life space batteries. Further, any gamma radiation leakage safely and completely contained by a surrounding unpressurised water jacket and a concrete box.

For the money required to build one 350 MW conventional reactor. One could likely build as many as 7 MSR thorium ones?

Why?

Because conventional reactors operate at 150+ atmospheres and need continual sharp-eyed supervision to maintain critical mass without ever accidentally exceeding it.

And means any flaw in the pipes drawing heat away from the 7-inch thick solid steel reactor vessel can lead to a rupture and the instant vapourisation and decomposition of the water, which instantly becomes a highly explosive mix of hydrogen and oxygen.

Which was essentially the Chernobyl disaster.

Fukushima, blatantly poor design and stupid site selection!

In MSR thorium, the medium is molten, melts at 400 C, Only boils above 1400, operates in a sweet spot, safe zone of between 700 C and 1200 C and designed thus so.

Therefore a meltdown, not a viable outcome. Further, because of expansion when hot and a completely natural contraction with temperature reductions, the medium automatically controls the reaction which slows with temperature increases and advances when it reverses.

And means an MSR thorium could safely percolate away for several months completely unattended, walk away safe.

TBC, Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 11 March 2019 11:27:03 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
Alan, you may have read this:-

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx

But if you haven't, I would suggest that widespread use of Thorium is some time off yet, if ever.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 11 March 2019 12:04:38 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
Hi Alison Jane,

Sorry, I took umbrage at Ateday's airy declaration to destroy entire human populations, to accord with his particular fantasy.

As for nuclear power, I'm in SA, so of course I'm all for it. But apart from that, it is, after all, the cheapest and safest for of power generation (Chernobyl was thirty-year-old technology, thirty years ago; who in their right mind would build Fukushima, a nuclear power station on a fault line and only a few metres from the beach, knowing of regular tsunamis ?; the Three-Mile Island accident was forty years ago now, using twenty-year-old technology).

Let's be realistic: India is as entitled to rely on electricity as we are; but can adequate solar and wind power infrastructure be built across India to satisfy its future needs ? So, rather than coal-fired power stations (in the short run), nuclear is probably the way they will go eventually, like it or not. Solar and wind power generators and storage are fine for sparsely-populated countries like Australia, but perhaps not India.

Unless Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics can be reversed, (i.e. with no loss of energy generated into the environment, or through friction) there will be limits to solar and wind power, and most well-populated countries will have to use either fossil fuels or uranium/thorium etc. to generate enough electricity (especially once we're all using electric cars, all being charged up at 2 a.m. [hello, Snowy 2]) at acceptable prices.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 11 March 2019 12:19:51 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
The Author is correct when comparing the energy component of uranium with other energy-dense products. And useless if all or most of the energy is unavailable and extremely expensive to access. Requires constant vigilance and monitoring to maintain safe reaction limits.

I a 7-inch thick, solid steel, tightly packed reactor vessel, expansion is a very dangerous, possibly explosive outcome. Pellets of ceramic enriched uranium are packed into metal rods inside the reactor.

Swell with entrapped xenon, when left to long. Potentially rupturing the vessel, allowing the water to instantly flash to white-hot hydrogen and oxygen, a fuel bomb that has to explode! (Chernobyl?)

Therefore needs to be moved from the centre of a tightly packed reactor to the outer internal circumference, every 18 months, replaced every 4.5 years with brand new replacements!!

The reason we should not emulate Chernobyl's example/conventional nuclear power! Instead, build on the highly successful research done at Oak Ridge, between the fifties-seventies, by Alvin Weinberg, the patent holder of the first operational nuclear reactor. But, MSR thorium.

Thorium is the most energy dense material on the planet. So abundant we can never ever run out of it. Moreover, less radioactive than a banana. Needs to be left in the blanket of a reactor for around a fortnight to convert it to U233, Which then sustains a thermal reaction and creates miracle cancer cure bismuth 213.

AN ALPHA PARTICLE, ISOTOPE THAT'S ATTACHED TO AN ANTIBODY THAT THEN EXCLUSIVELY TARGETS THE CANCER CELLS!

Has been reportedly trialled against many death sentence including stage four ovarian, pancreatic, myeloid leukemia and some very nasty brain cancers.

The first and last of which have exceeded the annual road toll for in excess of thirty years.

Why?

Because we don't have bismuth213, nor its precursor, MSR thorium!

Why?

Because the caring "CHRISTIAN" community in the houses of parliament in Canberra have created regulations/rules that forbid it!?

Were this not so? Could/ve embraced MSR thorium over half a century ago, with it, enough bismuth 213, to have cured thousands of cancer victims!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 11 March 2019 12:36:40 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
We are now approaching the time when solar and wind will have to start pulling it's weight in electricity supply. Apparently it is virtually free but my bills go up every six months? When electricity goes up gas is increased as well. That is for industry too which means, or not, jobs.
Lets close some more coal plants. Keep paying billions in solar and wind subsidies. Lets go with hydro which converts electricity when we do not need it to less electricity when we do need it. No one is telling us the true cost but when the brown stuff hits the oscillating blades watch out!
I predict when the great and the good are given the true bill which we will not be able to afford we will look to a new age Sir John Monash who devised the SEC in Victoria in the 1930's to counteract the high cost and unreliability of Victoria's electricity supply. He will suggest lots of small scale nuclear plants like submarines reactors but until then the clowns are running our particular circus.
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 11 March 2019 1:06:02 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
I have very thoroughly researched the topic! And don't find links that may well have been created in Putin's St Petersberg? Very convincing countervailing arguments against thorium!

The only holdup on the rollout of a successful mass-produced operational model? Are, I believe, recalcitrant redundant politicians and the very narrow but extremely powerful vested interests they serve? That would be economically decimated by the widespread acceptance and rollout of MSR thorium.

And I won't mention an army of Adani solicitors and a threat to wage cyberwar on anti-coal activists/nuclear power advocates.

If the inventor and patent holder of the first operational nuclear reactor, Alvin Weinberg, believed and stated, that we should change course and back thorium over uranium.

Then who are we to argue?

Get on U tube and on to thorium in ten minutes, Then the complete Kirk Sorensen address. Then explain if you still can? Why we won't/shouldn't have MSR thorium and its child, bismuth 213, anytime soon.

Preferably in a cancer ward and looking into the eyes of a kid with death sentence brain cancer! Hopefully, one of yours!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 11 March 2019 1:10:28 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
Small modular reactors of the light water type (eg NuScale) should be commercialised before 2030. By that time more coal plants will have closed, gas will be unaffordable and we'll know if energy storage for wind and solar will be anywhere near enough. These SMRs could use the transmission lines and cooling ponds at Liddell and Hazelwood. (Have Hazelwood's barramundi died of cold yet?)

Get our uranium enriched overseas as there is glut of facilities. Store the spent fuel in the outback along with hospital radiological waste. When 4th gen nuclear is commercialised in the West (see e.g. Russia's Beloyarsk 4) use that waste to get higher burnup. Maybe Alan B's thorium could be used as well. Either that or wait for squeaky clean electricity. The latter is when the lights to go out regularly and electric cars fail to get enough charge for the next day.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 11 March 2019 2:17:06 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
Tas. If you had a truck with a hundred-gallon gas tank and the engine could only fire on the first one gallon? People would rightly claim, you were #@&%! in the head?

Even modular light water reactors, burn less of their fuel than 1% and created from stuff that is as rare as platinum, produce 99% as highly toxic waste.

Yes, MSR thorium can be successfully tasked with burning nuclear waste (unspent fuel) until around another 98% of the available energy is released and the remaining waste has had its half-life reduced to 300 years.

And earn annual billions supplying the waste disposal service, as well as providing virtually costless electricity!

Given the plants and associated infrastructure, could all be paid by the income generated by using these things, some of them, as nuclear waste burners! And weapons-grade plutonium, If the world ever comes to its senses?

If you want miracle cancer cure, however, bismuth 213, with a half-life of just 45 minutes, then there are just two sources.

#1/ From radium bombarded with particles in a particle accelerator. However, consumes enormous energy and financial resources to make millionaire only medicine!

#2/ from MSR thorium, which produces it as a virtually free waste product of a thorium sourced U233 reaction. Ditto xenon 233, the only xenon used as the gas in ontological radioisotope medicine, for brain and or lung scans.

Finally, MSR thorium costs a fraction of conventional nuclear power and given its unpressurised status, far-far safer!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 11 March 2019 3:34:46 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 author's sweet little essay forgets the Opportunity Costs of nuclear disasters.

The opportunity cost of the Fukushima reactor disaster is so far estimated at US$187 Billion or AU$266 Billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Compensation

How many Japanese lives could be saved or prolonged if that Japanese Government Cost of 266 Billion Dollars were injected into Japan's Health Budget?

eg. spent on Health Care, more Doctors? Nurses? Medication? Hospital Upgrades? New and more Ambulances?
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 11 March 2019 4:37:28 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
Plantagent,

Please read the links in my earlier comment. If you do, you should learn a great deal.

You have been grossly misled about the true health impact of nuclear power reactor accidents. We have to compare the impacts of all energy sources using the same units -- i.e. deaths per TWh, or work days lost per TWh, or serious health consequences per TWh. Authoritative agencies have been doing just that for over 40 years. The safety ranking of the electricity generator technologies has been fairly stable throughout that time. Nuclear has been the found to be the safest in most authoritative studies throughout that time.

You misunderstand the cause of the huge cost estimate you quoted. It is the cost of the impact as a result of the populations irrational fear of nuclear power.
Posted by Peter Lang, Monday, 11 March 2019 8:03:07 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
Peter, there is no point in casting pearls before swine.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 11 March 2019 8:24:24 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
Might be worth mentioning in the article that there are 98 nuclear reactors generating power in the USA. Seems a lot for a country where nuclear is a "hard sell".
Posted by TomBie, Monday, 11 March 2019 8:34:30 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
There is a factor that no one considers.
From my reading it appears that to get a national electricity system
running on wind, solar and Hydro and batteries you need a country about
as large as Australia. Well that is the first problem overcome.
You need to spread the windfarms around the country to take advantage
of the wind blowing in several other places when not blowing in others.
The bigger the spread the better change of generating supply.
Solar farms can be spread across the country at the best latitude to
get advantage of time difference.

Then you have to build a high capacity grid to link all the farms
together and arrange for any part of the generation to supply any
other part of the load.

Frankly this resolves into thousands of wind & solar farms.
I seriously doubt we can afford such a system.

In ancient times when we started farming and village building we had
slaves to provide the extra energy needed. Time moved on and Rome
was built by slaves.
The coal fired steam engine was cheaper than slaves.
Get the message ?

IT IS EITHER NUCLEAR OR SLAVERY !
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 11 March 2019 10:34:35 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
Bazz, correct on all points.

Here is an estimate I did a decade ago of the cost of an Australia wide transmission system to supply Australia with solar power from high insolation areas
"Solar power realities and transmission costs -- Addendum'
https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/10/solar-realities-and-transmission-costs-addendum/

For other readers, regarding nuclear power plant accidents see Shellenberger's new post on Forbes:
'It sounds crazy, but Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island show why nuclear power is inherently safe.'
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11/it-sounds-crazy-but-fukushima-chernobyl-and-three-mile-island-show-why-nuclear-is-inherently-safe/
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 12 March 2019 9:27:20 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
Peter, there was an article I read by a US engineering group that
worked out what the US would need, 15,000 wind and solar farms spread
out over the US. As Australia is about the same size we would need
something similar based on their calculations. Ours would not need as
many turbines on each farm as the US's but the grid would be similar.
One point they made was maintenance, based on mtbf they would need to
replace 100,000 solar panels every day !
I can no longer find the article.
I personally think all this is so far beyond the average politician and
the man in the street that it is no wonder they do not understand the problem.

My suggestion is for csiro to set up a virtual computer model using
real input data from a network of wx stations around Australia on
likely windfarm sites, real data on electricity demand, real data
from existing wind farms and solar farms, have a virtual grid linking
everything and increase/decrease turbines/solar panels until it works
then get quotes to build the thing.
I suspect everyone would be staggered.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 12 March 2019 1:31:26 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
BAZZ,

You didn't say if you had read the links I posted. Do you have an authoritative estimate for the grid and storage costs for 100% renewables?

CSIRO does not have the necessary expertise. They are scientists, not the highly experienced, competent engineers that are required for such work. Furthermore, their culture is bogged down because of its believe in CAGW and that renewables are the solution.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 12 March 2019 4:39:38 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
Fukushima failed because the backup diesel generators and pumps were not properly designed. Had they been the nuclear reactors would still be functioning.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx
Posted by Fester, Tuesday, 12 March 2019 6:54:23 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
Hello Peter,
I have read the one on the costing of scenarios 1 & 2 and
found it very interesting.
I have no experience or real knowledge of these systems.
I have no idea what is the cost of a single wind turbine.
I must say I was surprised that the grid for your "system" was as low as $B180.
You mentioned a group of solar farms in Sth Australia.
I would have thought that Sth Australia would be too small to get the
advantage of geographical spread.
I had thought about that factor for wind farms and thought reliable
output would decrease to an inverse exponential rate of the decrease in size.

As for solar I have a small 1Kw system and I have noted 5 overcast
days in a row. Any such storage system has to store six days and still
be able to supply the first sunny day and recharge the battery + losses for 6 days.
So needs about 7 days capacity in one day.

Reading your article I think I have reached the same conclusion as ypu.
As a rank amateur I think the whole wind & solar stunt is the greatest white elephant ever !
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 12 March 2019 10:58:17 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
This is relevant to discussion http://4thgeneration.energy/systematic-exclusion-of-nuclear-power-in-decarbonization-models/?fbclid=IwAR0aj_hTcW1UbGJF9KsT3z4GchUUXqL5Os6zc4ciMxY1dYeDjh1LGRmOga0

Also, as I pointed out on another thread in relation to http://www.csiro.au/~/media/News-releases/2018/Annual-update-finds-renewables-are-cheapest-new-build-power/GenCost2018.pdf , this report also questions the the LCOE calculation basis, saying that as share of renewables rises, more firming capacity is needed. It also raises "very different climate policy risks" by various generators (i.e fossil fuels), to which a carbon tax should be applied. So, CSIRO is effectively saying the cost of carbon-taxed, fossil-fueled firming should be included in LCOE calculations for renewables in the interim towards their 100% anticipated attainment firmed with storage.

The supposed lower cost of renewables in the CSIRO paper, from my reading, also doesn't mention RE certificate sales, so presumes generation income to operators as being the only cost of renewables to consumers.

Furthermore, the Blakers Lu and Stock article on PHES is given unquestioning credence without it being a peer-reviewed paper. This reflects very poorly on CSIRO which has become another gov't institution infected with "The Transition" group-think. Below are other non-peer-reviewed articles CSIRO might have consulted, were it less infiltrated with ideology:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/58254e216a496325c2d90145/t/58b80ccd9de4bbe99bd309cb/1488456957086/Blakers+et+al+review.pdf

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/07/future-solar
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 8:39:56 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
More people were killed in the Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick accident than in US nuclear power plant accidents in the past 60 years.
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 8:54:46 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
Peter, I think our problem is that the public, the media and the
politicians have a simplistic view of 100% reliable electricity.
They do not take into account the large multiplication of renewable
generation & storage equipment needed to attain 100%.
They never take into account that the batteries/hydro etc have to be recharged.
They never seem to consider that there might be a week of overcast
still days spread over a large area.
I cannot see it taking less than hundreds of trillions of dollars all up.

The upshot is they have to be told;
YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY !
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 3:51:46 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
Bazz, not only do they not have the money but they don'i have the brains to comprehend the impossible difficulties and hardships they are imposing on the population.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 9:18:18 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
We have been enfeebled by an education system that has indoctrinated two generations with an unwarranted fear of all things nuclear and a faith in the complete adequacy of renewables.

You'll witness this at the student strike on Friday, where the clamor for renewables will be as loud as that for climate action. I remember one young lad in the previous event expounding the virtue of Iceland being a renewables poster-child and 'if we'd just follow its lead'. He didn't grasp that renewable energy there is dense and 24/7/365, not sparse and intermittent. It's not his fault, he's a product of a dumbed down post-modern science curriculum, with a diminished basis in absolute truth. Critical thinking demands a command of facts over ideology but informed and uninformed opinion are given equal validity to keep students engaged in what passes for 'debate'.

There appears no understanding among our students, and not much more in the general population, that there is a massive cost to 100% renewables, were it even technically feasible. There appears no grasp that we we are in a competition where past low energy costs have played hugely in determining capital flow into Australia.

Renewables/anti-nuclear groupthink has infiltrated every institution and level of gov't, the CSIRO and our education system. We appear set to re-fail the great German experiment.

Our poor grandchildren.
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 14 March 2019 12:28:55 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
Very true and we will see a rally of future brainwashed voters !
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 14 March 2019 8:07:17 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
David, I am afraid that by the time enough of the new voters wake up
the economy will not be just in a bad way but collapsed.
Then they will say; "we told you so Global Warming did it !"

73
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 14 March 2019 8:17:26 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
Hi Alan B.

Here's a gift:

"...The US military is conducting research into the development of rapidly deployable, container mounted nuclear reactors to support deployed American and allied forces, reducing threats to traditional supply and support convoys.

...Enter the development of very small modular nuclear reactors (vSMRs), designed to deliver between one and 10 megawatts (MW) for years without refuelling in a rapidly-deployable (road and/or air) package.

Both the US Department of Defense and NASA have collaborated on the development of such reactors for use in military and space exploration contingencies."

From DefenceConnect, 19 March, 2019 http://www.defenceconnect.com.au/key-enablers/3737-us-pursuing-mini-nuclear-reactors-to-support-military-expeditionary-capabilities

COMMENT

But. I don't think the US military is thinking about a Thorium Reactor, more likely a mini-PWR?
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 12:03:39 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. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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