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 > The energy revolution must be nuclear > Comments

The energy revolution must be nuclear : Comments

By Wade Allison, published 20/6/2019

If the world is going to get the energy revolution it requires, it needs realistic energy policies that are scientifically sound and promote a fuel that provides plentiful energy on demand, while doing the least harm to nature. That fuel is nuclear.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
People can be relied upon to think rationally when all other means are exhausted.

Nuclear energy is and always was the energy source of the future for an energy hungry world. It baggers belief that Australia, with abundant supplies of uranium refuses to acknowledge this inconvenient truth. But nuclear energy will eventually be used in Australia because sooner or later the socialists holding this country back will eventually get back into power, and make such a dog's breakfast of the economy, that they will be swept away in a wave of electoral discontent that intelligent people will be elected into government.

The Greens oppose fossil fuels, hydro electricity, and nuclear energy, which just happens to constitute around 95% of the world's energy output. They are living in fantasyland. Future historians will marvel at how educated ands supposedly intelligent people could be mesmerised into accepting a quasi religious belief system which is inimitable to their own survival.

Labor and the Greens are not much better, both are in thrall to this human induced global warming religion which is looking more shonky year by year, as global temperatures refuse to rise.

Build some more coal fired power stations as an interim measure until we can get our nuclear energy system up and running. We can mine it, reprocess it, and dispose of it safely because of our unique geography of stable rock formations.

Then buy some 688 class nuclear submarines off the yanks instead of these shonky French subs that everybody on planet Earth knows will be a catastrophe, both militarily and financially.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 20 June 2019 8:32:19 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
Lego.

*...that they will be swept away in a wave of electoral discontent that intelligent people will be elected into government...*

Sadly Lego, no. Do you rember Julia Gillard? What a nightmare! Then were presented with Shorten as an alternative. The less comment on him the better.

The alternative camp which slithered into power with its own special brand of corruption, but singing from the same song sheet, is not Democracy.

What that situation says to me is, that nothing is ever likely to changes with the entrenched political system of the West; and certainly not through the electoral system at our disposal, which dishes this entrenchment up as Democracy.

So how do the ordinary folk claim a stake in their own future, if we remain chained to a corrupted system which ignores our own best interests, but more particularly, the genuine interests of a broader society?

Dan
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 20 June 2019 8:53:11 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
Labor party policy is against Nuclear power! When asked to explain the alternative energy minister, said and I quote, nuclear energy is against party policy. When asked why, this genius replied, it's against Labor party policy.

I can train a pea brain parrot to say and endlessly repeat that garbage. Or better yet a brainless broken record!

The coalition is energy agnostic, but recently were considering using taxpayers funds to build a coal-fired power station when the normal finance houses and due diligence declined.

Uranium (which is as rare as platinum and requires expensive enrichment, has a half-life of around 5 billion years, meaning we will eventually need to replace this fuel with something better and more abundant. And that something is thorium. Thorium has a half-life of around 15 billion years (is as abundant as lead) and exceeds the expect life f the universe at 13 billion years.
Meaning, we can never ever run out of it!

Compare these two reactors, a light water enriched nuclear-powered reactor of 350 MW. Over and operational lifetime of 30 odd years, it will require 2551 tons of enriched uranium. And will burn less than 1% of it!

Now take a walk away safe. MSR a FUJI 350MW using thorium as the primary fuel. Will during an operation lifetime of thirty years require 1 ton of refined thorium and of that burns a tad north of 99%, leaving a far less toxic waste as the byproduct.

. Which just happens to be eminently suitable as long life space batteries, that burn up with reentry.
TBC Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 20 June 2019 9:44:06 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
Cont. A light water reactor, needs 2551 tons of fuel during an operational thirty year, lifetime.

Burns less than 1% of it, meaning, it has to create in the process, 2550 tons of highly toxic waste with a half-life of thousands of years. However, not as radioactive as that may infer, given the longer the half-life the fewer rads emitted per hour!

And means uranium as the ore is not particularly dangerous and thorium as the refined mineral is, ton for ton, or gram for gam, less radioactive than a banana.

Some communities are exposed to double the national average of radiation exposure and the study of homeosis has shown they're on average, healthier than the national average, meaning some exposure is not only not harmful but may have some health benefits/protection?

The alpha particle bismuth 213 the decay product of U233, which is what thorium becomes when irradiated in the blanket of an operational reactor.

In numerous trials around the world, credible peer-reviewed reports indicate that bismuth 213, when attached to appropriate antibodies has cured numerous death sentence cancers. Cancers like stage four ovarian cancer and some very nasty brain cancers.

[The average life span of a brain cancer patient, for diagnosis to death, averages 14 months. With less than 2% surviving beyond 5 years!
I asked an oncologist, what was the difference between a benign cancer and a malignant one? His reply? About 12 months!]

Both the cancer types, remain stubbornly terminal and each produces an annual death toll the world over, greater than the annual road toll!

Yet we could have, I believe, eliminated most of that toll HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS ANNUALLY anytime in the last fifty-seventy years, I believe, by accepting MSR thorium and deploying its byproduct, bismuth 213 in the fight by CONVENTIONAL, RADIOISOTOPE medicine, against death sentence cancers!

THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE. AND EVEN WORSE, WHEN THAT BLINDNESS IS BLATANTLY WILLFULL!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 20 June 2019 10:25:04 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
Hang on. If we went to nuclear power, that might queer the pitch of the wind, sun and climate rent seekers and crooks.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 20 June 2019 10:26:41 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
Nuclear & add birth control to that !
Posted by individual, Thursday, 20 June 2019 10:37:19 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
Wade Allison's website http://www.radiationandreason.com/

I'm very much hoping the Nationals planned Senate Select Committee on nuclear energy in Australia can make enough headway for the LNP to take it to the people at the next election, rather than a further incremental, and pointless, renewables thrust towards emissions reduction.
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 20 June 2019 11:35:32 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
Finally, and here's the real kicker,(CARBON FREE) MSR thorium can also be tasked with burning and re-burning other folks nuclear waste. Which in an MSR, is just unspent CARBON FREE)fuel. And be paid annual billions for providing a safe service the entire world will thank us for.

And after we've extracted the unspent(CARBON FREE) energy, around 98% from a product that powered reactors for 30+ years with just 1%, we could power the entire world for thousands of (CARBON FREE) years with its current nuclear waste stockpile.

Now some green anti-nuclear activists, have as usual for them, come out with veritable mountains of misinformation. Made all sort of bogus claims about (CARBON FREE) nuclear energy and nuclear waste.

Talked about gamma radiation almost as if highly credential operators would actually ever run an unshielded reactor, talked about meltdowns and other BS!
As if in a (CARBON FREE) MSR the molten salt would melt.
When the stuff is already molten and designed to percolate away in designed passive walk away very-very safety at operating temperatures between 700-1200C.

And at less than 3 cents PKWH if just (CARBON FREE) thorium and under one cent if burning other folks (CARBON FREE) nuclear waste. And the annual billions we could earn supplying the service would currently pay for all the new reactors and associated (CARBON FREE) power plants we could ever require! Ever!

It just doesn't get any better or any easier! All while or "intelligent" leaders have waffled and quibbled/prevaricated away about a non-existent or mad hatter's (CARBON LOADED) energy policy!

Go figure!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 20 June 2019 12:44:36 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 fear the 100% renewable energy crowd are going to lead us into energy shortages in the next decade, notably for dispatchable electricity and transportation fuel. I predict they will call for more of what demonstrably doesn't work. The latest quarterly emissions bulletin covering mid 2001 to 2019 shows just a 3% decrease in emissions despite many billions in renewable subsidies. Meanwhile the price of gas has tripled since 2015.

The replacement for coal which generates about 64% of Australia's electricity is logically nuclear perhaps incentivised by CO2 constraints. Alternatively we could have a sixfold increase in wind and solar with at least 2 Twh of storage. The trouble with storage is that large scale pumped hydro won't be ready in time and batteries are too small and expensive. I fear this penny won't drop until after the next big coal closure in 2022. Time to hold the green dreamers to account.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 20 June 2019 1:35:09 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
LEGO , Did you really mean the 688 class?

Half of them have been junked already and the youngest is over 20 years old.

Did you mean the SSN-774 class ?
Posted by Aspley, Thursday, 20 June 2019 3:02:23 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
Consider for a moment, the cost of nuclear power, currently twice that of coal. And because of the extremely high pressures conventional reactors need to withstand, the extremely high cost of prefabricated fuel rods and the fact that rods in the centre of the reactor must be moved from the centre to the outer perimeter every eighteen months with the reactor requiring brand new replacement rods every 4.5 years.

Even then, still only uses less than 1% of the available energy leaving 99% of it trapped in the so-called waste product. [The rods then transferred to water-filled holding tanks until they're less radioactively hot! water being a natural shield against neutron transfer.]

And have to incorporate numerous fail-safe systems in case one system fails and another needs to kick in to keep the whole thing stable!

Now, imagine a different system (MSR thorium) that operates at near normal atmosphere, self regulates the reaction and does not require special reactor vessels nor expensive hardened buildings. And then uses the remaining unspent energy of nuclear waste or around a further 98%.

That's 98 times more energy than that the estimated cost 12 cents PKWH, for just 1% of the available stored energy!

Do the sums. divide 12 by 98 to see the projected cost PKH, when the device, very safely burns a further 98% of it and at normal atmospheric pressure!

And for the annual billions, we also earn safely disposing of other nation nuclear waste stockpiles, and even weapons-grade plutonium, if the world and the green anti-nuclear brigade and the (too clever by half) government ever regains its sanity!

Imagine power so cheap, clean and safe, the high tech manufacturers of the world (jobs, jobs, jobs and our future) will queue to get in.

Moreover, able to be tasked to very economically to, not just drought-proof the nation, but, turn some of its most arid regions into food bowls that feed and clothe the world?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 20 June 2019 3:07:33 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
if we had not been so dumb as to swallow the gw Koolaid in the first place and line the pockets of charlatans we would not be having this debate. Unfortunately real scientist were either silenced or sacked. Hopefully the conservatives have learn't their silence and playing the dumb game has greatly contributed to the energy mess. Thank God Turnbull and his mates are gone.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 20 June 2019 3:22:49 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. The Sun's power IS NUCLEAR.

FUSION to be precise.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power (at right sidebar)

"The Sun, like other stars, is a natural fusion reactor, where stellar nucleosynthesis transforms lighter elements into heavier elements with the release of energy."

Australia, with all its land and ample sunlight, is successfully building large solar collection arrays (and about 2 million household arrays so far).

Increasing use of Lithium-ion BATTERIES (Australia has a lot of Lithium...) are successfully being used to store solar energy for use when the Sun isn't shining.
_______________________________________________

2. The author failed to mention that:

- after a 1,000MW reactor is built for around $10 Billion and runs for the standard 30-40 years until it wears out

- it costs about five times more (eg. $50 Billion) to Decommission/Cleanout the nuclear slag and dismantle the reactor. That $50 Billion is unproductive money down the drain. And the nuclear waste is an additional cost burden for 1,000s years.

see http://www.michaelwest.com.au/whats-more-chilling-watching-chernobyl-or-cogitating-the-cost-of-going-nuclear/

"The 2018 forecast for future clean-up of Britain’s aging 17 nuclear power stations has blown out to

£121 billion [thats 222 Billion Australian dollars] which has had to be spread across the next 120 years."
___________________________________________

Hi Alan B.

3. The economics and costs of THORIUM are unknown because commercial Thorium reactors haven't been built or commercially operated.

Australia doesn't have the experience, budget or industrial base to lead the way on RESEARCH or COMMERCIAL THORIUM reactors.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 20 June 2019 9:23:43 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 Sun's power IS NUCLEAR.
Yeah, I think we all know but how many people live there ?
Posted by individual, Friday, 21 June 2019 8:15:09 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
Australia doesn't have the experience, budget or industrial base to lead the way on RESEARCH or COMMERCIAL THORIUM reactors.

Pete

Can't we just import it like we do with everything else ?
Posted by individual, Friday, 21 June 2019 11:59:25 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 individual

1. to your first point which was "The Sun's power IS NUCLEAR.
Yeah, I think we all know but how many people live there ?"

My response is: Whoever talked about living on the Sun? My point is you can get the benefits of the Sun's nuclear energy without the cost and safety downsides of hosting nuclear reactors on Earth.

2. to your second point "Pete, Can't we just import [Thorium Reactors] like we do with everything else?"

My response is: My comments were anticipating some of Alan B.'s modular/Thorium posts over the years that suggest Australia should lead the way in modular/Thorium Research and then lead the way in operating modular/Thorium reactors.

Yes I agree Australia should "just import" Commercial [modular and/or] Thorium reactors once they are developed and operationally proven as business and safety propositions overseas.

Cheers

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 21 June 2019 12:37:55 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
Planta, instead of being clever-by-half with your brilliant observation that we already enjoy free nuclear energy from the sun (so why bother setting it up here!), why don't you explain this:

Germany has spent hundreds of billions on renewables to achieve FA on emissions. When faced with building storage, and infrastructure to charge it, it saw the complete folly and chose to build reticulation for Russian gas instead, as well as coal-power.

At what point in the energy debacle does it dawn on you die-hards that hold sway on nuclear policy in Oz that your solution for emissions isn't one, FFS?
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 21 June 2019 1:47:27 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
Whenever there's talk about nuclear power to replace coal, my simple mind wanders to ships. big, massive ships, Aircraft carriers to be precise. They and, nuclear powered submarines can operate for years on a tiny bit of whatever they call the stuff that creates the power.
Ships went from coal to nuclear so why not communities or towns ? Build several smaller nuclear stations in river deltas or wherever cooling water is readily available for the reactors & when an accident does happen it's not in the middle of a town ! Why not anchor old nuclear Aircraft carriers near towns just to see how it'll work ?
We have so many options to do things that are environmentally so much better than what we're doing now so why not do them ? Stuff the Greens, they only care about themselves & their Superannuations courtesy of taxpayers. They don't have any answers they just bleat alternative power without actually having any alternatives ! Let's build nuclear power stations & many dams & all will be good especially if we throw in a National service also while we're at it !
Posted by individual, Friday, 21 June 2019 8:38:12 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
posts over the years that suggest Australia should lead the way in modular/Thorium Research and then lead the way in operating modular/Thorium reactors.
plantagenet,
That'd be great but that's not in the Australian Psyche anymore.
There's a very, very slight chance this could possibly be achieved if we can keep Labor out of Govt for the next few terms ! If only the present Govt could reintroduce education to enhance the natural aptitude of smart young people instead of the insidious dumbing-down of recent decades then yes, good things could be achieved again !
We really need to put a stop to the economic & social sabotage by the progressives to halt regression.
Posted by individual, Friday, 21 June 2019 11:42:13 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
With a burgeoning nuclear energy industry and the best place in the world to store it in South Australia, how could a weak politician or two turn down applications from friends and allies to share our great facility with them?

In a fierce debate a couple of years ago on whether we should be the nuclear dump for the world the infantile premier of SA was salivating over streets paved with gold as the nuclear powers pressed billions of dollars in storage fees on him.

A citizen's committee, convened to act as a conduit to the public and to be the cheering squad was regaled with golden promises of riches untold, promises that upon examination were empty and or deceptive.

The nuclear industry invested substantially in this exercise. Its motives were to cajole an innocent into solving their problems for them. Their tactics were dishonest, the "balanced" debate of pros and cons was so obviously desperate to sell the idea that the narrative became embarrassingly biased. Questioning of "experts" was discouraged and allocated too brief a time while lectures were roughly 5 pro to 1 con. Lecturers against the proposal were replaced by presentations in favour.

The committee was not guiled by the bias and gave the proposal a big raspberry.

Beware the nuclear industry representatives bearing wonderfull promises of a Golden Age for everyone if Australia will only be a responsible nuclear citizen. The industry made much of an approaching crisis. That crisis must surely be on the boil today. How desperate are they now? Experience of that proposal should teach us that the nuclear industry will use any subversive tactic, any deception, any blandishment to sell its waste problem to someone else. The risk to our precious artesian assets is too great. The risk of a Red Centre that one day glows in the dark is also too great. The whole world must face this problem and the creators of the waste made to provide the solution that rids us of this curse.

Rockets carrying payloads of waste fired into the sun might be one approach to investigate.
Posted by Pogi, Saturday, 22 June 2019 2:34:10 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
Once again, with the crisis of nuclear waste at a desperate stage [if we are to believe the industry a couple of years back] pressure groups and agendum-pushers have emerged in aggressive new guise, hurling abuse at the unconvinced and waffling on with a jargon comprised of arcane abbreviations, chemical formulae and rarified International System of Units in a way that implies that if you don't understand the narrative then you're probably too stupid to understand what the issue is all about anyway.

Concentrated nuclear irradiation in very brief doses might be considered optimal in cancer treatments. Can anyone advise at what levels of radiation does constant exposure become inimical to good health? Is such level of radiation to be encountered in a collapsed or exploded thorium reactor?

Does this reactor contain molten salt when in operation? If so or not, is it table salt, NaCl? Sea salt? Or another kind of chemical salt? How is the salt made liquid if it's not dissolved in something?

It might appear a stupid question but it's not to a lot of interested people: We are advised that radiation can be harmless, even beneficial yet a layman can legitimately ask, based on his own perceptions and experience and without being belittled: Radiation from a bomb dropped on Hiroshima was far from harmless, so how is today's radiation different? Please be as detailed, clear and simple as the subject allows so a layman [and woman] might understand.

If you want to placate some of the hostility to nuclear power, you might indulge lay suspicions by telling the public, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. At my age, I've had numerous encounters with hucksters who hide inconvenient truths and the listener is not erudite enough to know he is being deceived. VESTED INTERESTS MUST ALWAYS BE DISTRUSTED.

The citizens' committee encountered it a few years ago but was not as gullible as the organisers had hoped. The industry has a lot to live down because of that absence of honesty and integrity.
Posted by Pogi, Saturday, 22 June 2019 4:18:41 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 Luciferase

I'd be happy to respond if you:

A. Expanded your arguments

B. revealed your acronyms eg. "FFS"?

and

C. Removed such straw men as "Russian gas". Noting Russia regularly wedges Germany from broader NATO defence policy by threatening to turn-off Germany's gas supply during the bitter German winter.

Cheers

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 22 June 2019 8:02:09 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 individual

Re your "Friday, 21 June 2019 8:38:12 PM" comment.

1. Your idea of using an old nuclear aircraft carrier [eg. say tethered in Sydney Harbour] as a mobile power station is not a bad idea...in principle.

But even reactors on aircraft carriers wear out. A real life old nuclear carrier is USS Enterprise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65) whose naval operational life was 1961 to 2012. As the world's first nuclear carrier she was a very large, extremely expensive experiment.

Enterprise's "eight" reactors quickly became obsolete, needed frequent Uranium refueling, and were always extremely expensive to maintain. After 50 years her reactors wore out and modern reactors (eg. in the Nimitz class) were vastly more efficient and cheaper to maintain.

Being the longest serving nuclear warship in history USS Enterprise was decommissioned (reactors and all) after 2012.

______________________________________

2. BUT "Let's build nuclear power stations" may be a good approach. Not from second hand nuclear ships or subs but built-for-purpose floating power stations.

Floating power stations may eventually prove an efficient solution in very isolated environments eg. Arctic and Antarctic

RUSSIA HAS ACTUALLY BUILT A FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER STATION
the "Akademik Lomonosov". See it being towed off on 28 April 2018 at http://youtu.be/pgGPDuTWjuo

Akademik Lomonosov is capable of generating 70 MW of electricity or 300 MW of heat. Heat is particularly important in Akademik Lomonosov's intended home in the Arctic port town of Pevek in Russia's Far East.

More see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station

BUT there are many security problems of having mobile nuclear reactors that float in the sea eg:

- Natural (Tsunamis, storms/cyclones, or being crushed by sea ice etc)

and

- man-made (more vulnerable than land reactors to terrorism, employee sabotage or naval missile sinking, or even piracy etc.)

Regards

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 22 June 2019 8:57:53 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
Well, if we keep worrying what some terrorists may do than we might as well crawl back into caves.
Why not simply deal with the baddies as they should be dealt with full stop !
The only reason the baddies keep getting up is because of the morons in authority & their do-gooder supporters who foster the criminal elements..
Here in Australia we could have power stations being guarded by National Service.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 22 June 2019 2:28:40 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
"Why not simply deal with [terrorists] as they should be dealt with full stop !"

Terrorism COULD be defined as a mass killing political tactic, untied to race, religion or other category. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

How bout dealing with (or historically itemising) all the white terrorists who slaughtered Aborigines?
Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 22 June 2019 3:38:23 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
AND Terrorism Scenario 101:

"Polically motivated heterosexual abstinence - as practiced by Catholic churchmen - also leaves eggs in females unfertilised. Hence killing eggs lived.

But don't leave priests, bishops or laymen, alone with choir boys.
Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 22 June 2019 4:12:39 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
Plantagenet, I'm not sure what there is to expand.

I request to be shown feasible, viable grid-scale storage that makes renewables THE solution to emissions while powering a modern civilization with growing energy needs.

Obviously Germany can't find this holy grail so it invests in gas and coal with attendant emissions instead. Where the gas comes from is a fact irrelevant to the argument, not a straw-man.

The acronyms arise from exasperation at renewablistas like yourself keeping us fiddling while Rome burns. FFS is a vulgarity found at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/FFS, as is FA found at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/FA
Posted by Luciferase, Saturday, 22 June 2019 4:32:58 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
How bout dealing with (or historically itemising) all the white terrorists who slaughtered Aborigines?
plantagenet,
Exactly the same way the Aborigines used to deal with each other & those Whities they could get hold of ! Mind you, being a defenceless Castaway wasn't an enviable position to be in either !
Posted by individual, Saturday, 22 June 2019 7:06:36 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
Hiya Luciferase

I sit here good sense denied
Excess booze last night imbibed

Re "I request to be shown feasible, viable grid-scale storage that makes renewables THE solution to emissions while powering a modern civilization with growing energy needs."

Here tis http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-14/australias-largest-solar-and-battery-farm-opens-in-kerang/11209666

Poida
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 23 June 2019 9:36:12 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
Guten Morgen individual

Re: "Exactly the same way the Aborigines used to deal with each other & those Whities they could get hold of !"

Such a racist statement inny!

Two wongs don't make a white, y'know.

BoPete
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 23 June 2019 9:43:01 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
Two wongs don't make a white, y'know.

plantagenet,
A huge component of the regressing Progressive Left disagrees !
Posted by individual, Sunday, 23 June 2019 7:05:16 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
Just the usual hype, Poida, but thanks for trying.

It's no example of going off-grid with 100% renewables (except locally for an hour if fully charged, according to the claims) but has, among other functions, an arbitrage role through charging through sunshine, or coal, then discharging to take advantage of market distortion created the RET, while soaking up grants and subsidies. Another rent-seeker's paradise.

It did create a bit of an economy around its build, of course, but so too would building a nuclear power-plant or any other investment stimulus.
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 23 June 2019 7:17:43 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
Just the usual spin, Luciferase, but thanks for trying!
>It's no example of going off-grid with 100% renewables
Of course it isn't - have you forgotten you'd requested examples of grid scale storage?

Going off grid is likely to become profitable in a few remote areas where the usage is too low to justify the infrastructure cost, but everywhere else it's a silly idea as it destroys the economies of scale.

>(except locally for an hour if fully charged, according to the claims)
Why are you so quick to dismiss a great boost to reliability?

>but has, among other functions, an arbitrage role through charging through sunshine,
>or coal, then discharging to take advantage of market distortion created the RET,
>while soaking up grants and subsidies. Another rent-seeker's paradise.
A very inaccurate description there! Its arbitrage role taking advantage of PRICE FLUCTUATIONS rather than market distortions. And of course price fluctuations have long predated the RET

If the RET is distorting the market then it's the good kind of distortion that makes it more efficient! Currently the most profitable strategy for existing generation companies is to fail to add capacity, as this results in higher electricity prices and hence higher profits. But the RET forces them to add capacity, ultimately bringing prices down. It does exacerbate the fluctuations, hence the need for storage, which is why the NEG is needed.

Remember the economics now are not what they were a decade ago. Renewables are no longer the expensive option - they work out cheaper then new coal.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 24 June 2019 3:07:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nothing is worth investing in if money is the sole aim !
Posted by individual, Monday, 24 June 2019 7:11:13 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
Well said Aidan

1. Noting "RET" is Renewable Energy Target http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/RET/About-the-Renewable-Energy-Target

Problems with the coal power station pundits:

- being trapped in the economic assumptions of the 250 year old coal power station BUSINESS

- refusal to accept that not even Australian Banks will finance coal power stations because they see such stations as a high risk and being replaced by renewables.

Nuclear is currently a public-political dead end in Australia and likely to remain so for the next 20 years.
_________________________

2. Only large scale conventional nuclear power stations are commercially viable overseas - not hope/faith based nifty ideas of Thorium or Modular reactors.

The celebrated nuclear electricity case of FRANCE relies on constructing ever larger conventional electricity reactors - most recently of 1,650 MW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#1650_MWe_class_(EPR_design)

________________________

3. But also note the French nuclear sector is only viable because this sector is DUAL CIVILIAN-NUCLEAR WEAPON USE http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096340212470817

The same is true of the military-civilian UK, US, Russian, Chinese and Indian nuclear sectors.

Japan and Germany have/are/will so easily dispense with their nuclear sectors because they are purely civilian use with no military-national security incentives.

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2014/01/iranian-nuclear-program-iranian.html
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 24 June 2019 8:02:36 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
How is the Kerang installation relevant to my question? You highlight one part of my sentences, Aidan, and ignore the rest like a weasel.

Again, and as I have asked every which way in the past, show me feasible, viable grid-scale storage that makes renewables THE solution to emissions while powering a modern civilization with growing energy needs.

http://www.gemenergy.com.au/lalbert-solar-farm-at-kerang-is-expected-to-create-150-jobs-for-northern-victoria/

How many of these installations will power the touted 220,000 households 24/7/365 without emissions? How much will it cost, including all the subsidies? The facility is not designed to achieve this, which is why it is not a response to my question.

One more time Aidan, why isn't Germany, which has access to the same batteries, building storage and wind and solar charging capacity and infrastructure instead of gas reticulation and gas and coal-power? Could it possibly be because it's just not viable, even with all the political power and will behind it that exists there?

This Little Battery That Could is doing little towards the big picture. It has its functions, of course, while subsidies flow and the RET marginalizes baseload sources, but achieving much towards emissions reductions isn't one of them. It doesn't even claim to, but nothing will stop you and the Poidas believing it should be rolled out everywhere.

http://www.spectator.com.au/2018/09/are-renewables-more-or-less-expensive-er/

Poida, conventional nuclear is affordable, as South Korea shows, and other countries that are getting on with it, even third world countries like Bangladesh. Mass produced SMR's, and MSR's, are the cream on top and imminent.

As for Australian public opinion about nuclear, that is always in process. Before Fukushima, more supported than opposed it. That disaster, and a lot of the misinformation surrounding it (see Wade Allison) must be put into perspective, especially with the acceleration of climate change concern since then. The nuclear ban will be challenged within this parliament, and we'll see what the public thinks after the facts are aired.

It's a bit far fetched to suggest that France's drive towards nuclear energy was a mask for weaponary aspirations. But far-fetched is your forte, as your belief in 100% renewables suggests.
Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 24 June 2019 11:34:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article and much needed in this crazy world of fake news and fake fears. Nuclear fission will have its day in the sun (pun intended), and eventually be supplemented with controllable fusion power (we control the 'sun' sort of). However, a by product of fission power is heat - lots of it - and this needs to be trapped and converted into useful energy to minimise the 'energy generation footprint' on the planet.
Posted by Pliny of Perth, Monday, 24 June 2019 12:11:39 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
Lucifwease, I can tell you in a word or two why wind and solar failed in Germany.
Too Small !

I read an article by a US Engineering Group who tried to specify a 100%
wind and solar solution for the USA.
Unfortunately I did not record the source and having spent a lot of
time trying to find it again I had no luck.
The upshot of the article was that the whole US area would be needed to
install the 15,000 wind and solar farms to take advantage of the
various geographic wind systems and times and seasons.
That area was needed to install the windfarms taking into account the
seasonal differences and that even the windiest places have times
of no wind.
Solar was easy compared as the areas of best sunlight were well known
and they could be spread along the best latitude to take advantage
of the time difference.
The study concluded that the cost would be uneconomic.
They then looked at maintenance. Their report on the solar farms
showed that using the mtbf (mean time between faults) of solar panels
showed they would have to replace 100,000 panels a day forever.
I do not remember any figures for turbines.
Currently in the US there is a problem with abandoned wind farms.
There are hundreds of derelict turbines sitting on hills in California.

As Australia is about the same size as the USA and we also have wide
spread wind systems it is not unreasonable to assume that Australia
would need a similar number of wind and solar farms.
It is just that we would have less turbines and panels on farms.
We would howver need a very high power capable grid able to move very
large amounts of power everywhere.

The upshot is you DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY !

Gradually that fact will sink in as more particularly solar farms are
installed.
Already they are having trouble matching them into the grid.

As the problems sink in the opposition to nuclear will fade.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 24 June 2019 2:44:25 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
Perhaps this, Bazz:

http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722?fbclid=IwAR34kNUvWFq4Dpt_N5SrlsHyU3U9xW3urB46PjacvhaUzBXXQDaqU4yIBrI
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 25 June 2019 10:43:28 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
Luciferase,
It's relevant because it includes some grid scale storage. Duh!
Please also note that you are not the arbiter of what constitutes grid scale storage.

I make no apologies for highlighting the erroneous parts of your posts. I'm not aware of weasels being able to do that – but if you have a link showing they can, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Why are you asking me to show you storage that makes renewables THE solution when I have only ever claimed it's A solution? I have consistently acknowledged tat nuclear power is also a solution. And though I've concluded a renewables based solution would be cheaper in the Australian context, I did not say the same applied worldwide. FWIW I think Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power is an economically detrimental one.

We have a grid, so we don't need a particular number of households to get all their electricity from one particular source 24/7/365. If you want to many installations would be needed, you're welcome to calculate it yourself, but don't pretend your answer will have any real world relevance!

If you want a proper explanation of Germany's motives, ask Germany! I could point out that Germany already has at least one big battery and a much higher proportion of its power sourced from renewables than Australia does. I can speculate that they're waiting for the cost to come down a bit more, or perhaps to gain a better understanding of the technical performance, before committing large amounts of money to it. But do you really want to read my speculation?

While the market share of renewables is so small, it's unsurprising that their role is so small in the big picture. But their role will become much bigger as we get more of them and more of our power comes from renewables.

As for your spectator link, its claims about the connection costs of rooftop solar users are dubious, and its main point is out of date. Renewables are cheaper than any other new build option even when storage costs are included: http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2018/Annual-update-finds-renewables-are-cheapest-new-build-power
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 25 June 2019 3:41:49 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
Aidan,

Your continuing aversion to the terms "feasible" and "viable" (and "scalable" in other posts) in relation to THE solution to emissions you choose to power Australia, and its growing energy needs, is again noted. My bad for questions requiring your acknowledgement of the importance of these terms.

On a positive note, you do imply support for lifting the nuclear ban in Australia. Great to have you on-board :)

The CSIRO estimations, which is in the blind grip of "The Transition" fever, relies on a non-peer-reviewed article (Blakers et al on PHES) for storage costs, and completely ignores damning critiques of the article. Also unscientific is projecting cost of renewables downwards through innovation, and nuclear costs upwards. I no longer give the organization, nor its estimations, any credence.
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 26 June 2019 2:55:54 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
Another advisor to CSIRO on storage cost is Endura.

http://www.entura.com.au/dispatchable-renewables-a-contradiction-in-terms/

To cut its very long-winded story short about "dispatchable renewables", pumped hydro (PHES) is the cheapest storage at scale. It's bead on the cost of that applied across Australia, applied to achieving 100% renewables, is about as convincing as Blakers' et al. This is principally because the amount of storage is underestimated by almost an order of magnitude, and, it presumes 100% efficiency in energy conversion.

How on earth can CSIRO, a supposedly scientific body, refer to the estimates of Blakers or Endura with any confidence, whatsover, then come up with renewables plus storage costs less than new (HELE) coal, even putting aside the new transmission system cost? Garbage in garbage out.

The CSIRO is imbued with renewables fervour to the point of blind acceptance of concocted garbage. It's not to be trusted.
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 27 June 2019 6:01:41 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. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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