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 > Legislation banning nuclear power in Australia should be retained > Comments

Legislation banning nuclear power in Australia should be retained : Comments

By Jim Green, published 27/2/2020

Nuclear power has clearly priced itself out of the market and will certainly decline over the coming decades. Indeed the nuclear industry is in crisis - as industry insiders and lobbyists freely acknowledge.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
I wonder if Mr Green is one of the people lobbying the Senate to overrule the choice of of Kimba SA as an intermediate level waste facility. Democracy at work. Better for all that mildly radioactive stuff to remain in the cities. Ironically for all the accusations levelled against nuclear some serious shortcomings are emerging over wind and solar. These include seemingly indefinite dependence on subsidies, new power lines (so much for 'gold plating') high carbon backup through open cycle gas and fast ramped coal, line losses and congestion from remote areas and charges for frequency correction under FCAS rules.

If new nuclear is as expensive as he says it won't get a look in. SMR makers NuScale and Rolls Royce say their electricity will cost under $A100 per Mwh day and night, calm or windy without $200/Mwh storage. If they are located at brownfield sites like Hazelwood and Liddell they won't need new cooling water sources nor new transmission lines. Just let it all unfold without political interference.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 27 February 2020 9:42:32 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
Garbage in, garbage out. And lots of subjectively selected cherry-picked data. If Green is correct in it being too dam expensive!?

Then the market will choose more profitable options! IT WILL!

He raises the spectre of Chernobyl and Fukushima as if anybody who actually knows anything about nuclear (not him) would choose! It's typical of this anti-nuclear anti-development recalcitrant to argue against the only carbon-free, reliable, dispatchable power available to us. He talks about the water consumed by conventional nuclear power, as if only water could cool a reactor?

And proven not true in a place called Oak Ridge Tennessee over half a century ago! Gree does not know this because both he and his ilk are even further back in their understanding of how a nuclear reactor operates! In fact, you'd be forgiven, for believing, it's so far back? Greenie Green was along with his cave-dwelling recalcitrants, running their food down with a stone tied to a stick?

Those who would know how we could have nuclear power without any of Greenie Green promulgated (the sky will fall) fearmongering fears? Only need read me commenting here on OLO two days ago, if only to understand how much BS Greenie Green pedals. And where every alleged concern is rebutted by the facts.

Look at, Thorium in four minutes, the factual presentation by Former NASA scientist and nuclear technologist, Kirk Sorensen.

Read Thorium, Super Fuel, subtitled, green energy by prize-winning investigative Journalist and science writer, Richard Martin,

Read, Thorium, cheaper than coal by ivy league Professor and economist (ret) Robert Hargraves.

Take butchers at engineer Jam Petersen's presentation on google tech talks to understand that a thorium burning, walk away safe reactor, can also be tasked with burning nuclear waste! Or weapons-grade plutonium. And Thorium> U233, is a very fine source of miracle cancer cure, alpha particle, bismuth 213!

Green in his advocacy? Leaves us with coal or gas as our only other option as reliable, dispatchable, 24/7 energy! And he has to understand that!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 27 February 2020 9:49:53 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
If we would have, reliable dispatchable power for less than a cent PKWH? Here's how we could have it and from power plants paid for us, with other folks money!

First, we need to agree to become the world's safest repository for nuclear waste.

And reluctantly accept the annual billions we'd earn for providing the service.

Then use these funds for all the remaining R+D and the mass production in factories of, walk away safe, waste burning MSR's as SMR's that are connected to microgrids.

That use much more efficient heated air turbines to generate electricity from virtually anywhere. And transmitted to the users via underground systems laid out (cling wrap thin) as double service, bitumen or concrete topped, graphene highways that also allow electric vehicles to be recharged on the go.

Coal ired fossil fuel stooges (Green?) will argue against nuclear for as long as they can, given once this transition is complete, their payday gravy train ride is over!?

The waste product from thorium burning MSR's is a form of depleted plutonium that stabilises in around thirty years, is still useful as long life space batteries, And now in critically short supply the world over!

Moreover, is burnt up with reentry. Waste? What waste?

So you see if we just allow ourselves to be guided by the proven factual information, rather than coal company stooges and anti-development, anti-nuclear, fearmongering advocacy, we can have an abundant prosperous future as indeed can our kids and their kids! And who wouldn't want that? Jim Green?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 27 February 2020 10:18:02 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
Some interesting data from the UK and USA in this 5 minute video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lUaJYBxfEk
Posted by EQ, Thursday, 27 February 2020 10:50:43 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
Jim Green,

You are totally ignorant of the relevant facts, and have been for ever. Read this paper - with an rational and objective mindset, if that is possible:

'Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone'
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169

"Abstract
This paper presents evidence of the disruption of a transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power, and finds the benefits forgone as a consequence are substantial. Learning rates are presented for nuclear power in seven countries, comprising 58% of all power reactors ever built globally. Learning rates and deployment rates changed in the late-1960s and 1970s from rapidly falling costs and accelerating deployment to rapidly rising costs and stalled deployment. Historical nuclear global capacity, electricity generation and overnight construction costs are compared with the counterfactual that pre-disruption learning and deployment rates had continued to 2015. Had the early rates continued, nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost. The additional nuclear power could have substituted for 69,000186,000 TWh of coal and gas generation, thereby avoiding up to 9.5 million deaths and 174 Gt CO2 emissions. In 2015 alone, nuclear power could have replaced up to 100% of coal-generated and 76% of gas-generated electricity, thereby avoiding up to 540,000 deaths and 11 Gt CO2. Rapid progress was achieved in the past and could be again, with appropriate policies. Research is needed to identify impediments to progress, and policy is needed to remove them."
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 27 February 2020 11:19:36 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
Jim Green,

Here's a short summary of the paper linked above, in case you are incapable of comprehending 4500 words, charts and tables, and key relevant material in the Notes in Appendix B.

'What Could Have Been If Nuclear Power Deployment Had Not Been Disrupted'
https://www.thegwpf.com/what-could-have-been-if-nuclear-power-deployment-had-not-been-disrupted/
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 27 February 2020 11:23:45 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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