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.

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.

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.

Some interesting data from the UK and USA in this 5 minute video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lUaJYBxfEk

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 69,000–186,000 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."

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/

Do we want to produce the world's lowest costing electricity?
Would it hurt us economically if it was carbon-free and available on-demand, 24/7?

Would we be hurt economically or jobs wise, if we produced the world's lowest costing steel or aluminium?

And would we be harmed if either of those generated here, product came, minus a carbon footprint?

Well, all possible with the following. giant arc furnaces that use hydrogen as the reductant, not coal. Hydrogen made possible as that generated via the cracked water molecule method thanks to the deployment of MSR thorium, walk away safe, nuclear energy! As the essential flameless heat source!

And or, nuclear waste burning MSR's as the power source.

All operated by, funded and facilitated, employee-owned co-ops that would ensure maximum efficiency, maximum productivity, maximum reliability as a preferred supplier, maximum economic flows that then make one dollar do the work of at least seven, in OUR economy!

Assisted by genuine tax reform manifesting as a 15% unavoidable, flat tax.

Nuclear power is the key to all this and us entering a new period as a supercharged superpower and CARBON FREE manufacturing hub for the world and never ever previously realised, unprecedented, universal prosperity! In a drought-proofed Australia!
Alan B.

Those for nuclear power, sign up. Those against it, get back in your caves !

Green Jim and the anti-nukes will have us all in caves if we don't get some politicians to put them in their place; the sort of politicians we don't have now and don't look to be having before it's too late.

Meanwhile as far as I know the advocates of full scale nuclear power never tell us what happens to the 400 or so nuclear power plants that are now in use when they come to their use-by-date and are de-commissioned.
And what about the hundreds more that are proposed by the nuke boosters?
Can the plants be safely demolished?
If not who is going to look after them and keep them safe for what probably amounts to forever-and-a-day. And pay the costs of doing doing.
The companies that now own and run the plants? Or the government, that is you and me the taxpaying ordinary citizen?
Of course one strategy for USA companies is to declare bankruptcy, thus leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

Where and how are the demolished parts going to be stored or whatever? Who is going to look after them for forever-and-a-day? Who is going to pay for it?

And contrary to the boosters there is no guaranteed safe place to store the current nuclear waste. Such facilities need to be safe, and safely guarded for forever-and-a-day too.

I do wonder who reads this journal? - astonishing comments attacking
Jim Green. Jim supplied heaps of facts and logically argued points.
With the transition to renewable energy now well on the way, and the costs of nuclear power, especially of its radioactive wastes, now patently obvious - well, those comments sound like the work of "recalcitrant cave-dwellers""

Nuclear power is an outdated technology, now useful only because of its military, applications - and for space travel, which itself is mainly useful for military applications.

if the nuclear option is so viable, why not all countries doing it and using it for 100% of energy.

Good question Chris. And because we're hamstrung at the behest of a right-wing dominated, conservative government.

The danger with conventional nuclear has always been the extreme pressure, 150 atmospheres, they were required to operate at and the fact that they needed electromagnets that had a guaranteed electrical assured supply. To maintain effective control

This is where MSR beats them hands down in both areas. They do not need to be pressurised, given the boiling point of fluoride is 1400C and the max operating temp for MSR is capped at 1200C.

Cannot brew up a runaway reaction, given as the reaction heats up. The medium expands, pulling the nuclear grains further apart, thus slowing the reaction and then causing the medium to contract bringing the atomic material closer and thereby allowing the reaction to speed once more, forcing the resultant expansion and all self-regulating like your very own pulse.

And pumped around and through the immediately adjacent reprocessing plant which refreshes the fuel allowing it to be burnt and burnt until all that remains is completely depleted plutonium, that is still useful as long life space batteries.

As to your question? Nobody wants this technology!

Not big nuclear who'd have yo kiss the fuel fabrication business goodbye and that's where all their real profit is! Not the fossil fuel companies, who'd be ruined by energy at less than 3 cents PKWH!

Big pharma who'd likely see the billions they generate from managing cancer with sublethal doses of lethal medicine and the latter palliative care which generates around 60% of their cancer care profits.

Last but not least are rooftop solar installers and merchants and associated battery bank installers/merchants.

So there are a lot of self-interested voices out there who'd kill to prevent the foregoing? Or the truth being told/promulgated!

It's because it MSE thorium, is so good, that that is so!

Read the Authors I've suggest or take butchers at their U Tube incapsulated presentations. And stop asking infantile questions when the answers are as obvious as the nose on your face, but only if you're looking! Capisce?
Alan B.

ChristinaMac1,

Renewables are an ideological obsession. They can never supply much of the world's ever growing demand for energy.

On the other hand, nuclear is the only energy sources that can supply all our energy needs effectively indefinitely. There is enough fission fuel, at what will eventually be economically recoverable concentrations, to supply the worlds energy needs (all of it including transport fuels) for tens of thousands of years (for a population of 10 billion consuming at the current rate of the US per capita average). And fusion energy is effectively unlimited. The message: the only currently known energy source that can power the world in future is nuclear.

Regarding the safety issue (always raised by the greenies), the arguments about nuclear safety are more green alarmism. Nuclear power is the safest way to generate power and always has been, since the first power reactor went on line in 1954. Read the relevant Note in Appendix C here: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm

See the main points of why nuclear here: https://www.thegwpf.com/what-could-have-been-if-nuclear-power-deployment-had-not-been-disrupted/

Chris Lewis asks: "if the nuclear option is so viable, why not all countries doing it and using it for 100% of energy."

The reason is because of the fear generated by the anti nuclear power protest movement beginning in the 1960s - and the disruption that caused. Read this to understand: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm

Thanks Jim Green

For another excellent article.

Nuclear power industries are seen by militaries wouldwide as enablers for nuclear weapons.

Australia's refusal to build nuke power stations has denied engineers, in ever-suspicious INDONESIA, reasons to build nuclear power stations.
See Indonesia's healthy anti-nuclear movement at http://youtu.be/SNSR38M1Eek clicking the cc button for subtitles.

Indonesia sits on the highly dangerous "Ring of Fire" which is very earthquake, Tsunami and volcanic eruption prone. Indonesia also has a poor record of industrial safety. See http://youtu.be/UM4-fyndJyI?t=1m55s

I wonder how Indonesia would handle a Fukushima style nuclear power plant gas explosion with northerly winds blowing fallout on Darwin?

________________________________

@ChristinaMac1

A great comment.

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2020/02/french-russian-israeli-to-india-nuclear.html

Unfortunately I may not be around to see what is happening after all the coal and gas fired power stations have been closed down and no nuclear stations have been built. I wonder what expensive solutions the greenies will have devised to cover the shortfall. Please explain Jim Green.
David

JG, I might not be the brightest light in the street, but I know BS when I come across it.
You must be aligned to the anti nuclear losers.
Your facts in your header statement are false and misleading and therefore render your whole premise moot.
What IS true is that nuclear IS the cheapest of power sources today.
Even cheaper is Alan's thorium salt offering, which seems a better option to straight out nuclear.
But what is also true is that the greens are amongst the biggest vandals, liars, and con-men around today.
Renewable's are like a fart in a bottle compared to the existing and past forms of power generation.
Because it is now being shown that GW is a con, at least the part where we caused ti, we can happily continue with fossil fuels until another REAL and VIABLE source of power generation is found.
Renewable's at present are a failure, they are just a means for some govt mates to steal money from the public purse

Daffy Duck asks - "Meanwhile as far as I know the advocates of full scale nuclear power never tell us what happens to the 400 or so nuclear power plants that are now in use when they come to their use-by-date and are de-commissioned."
Exactly that question should asked about the disposal of hundreds of millions of photovoltaic solar panels that reach their use by date in 20 years or less.

Bluebottle, the buildings used for the nuclear power plants, will simply be decommissioned and treated like any other building, even demolished if necessary.
The reactor or radio active parts like the fuel rods etc; in the past, and as far as I know, to this day, are being stored in all manner of random sites, till they can figure out what to do with them.
Sites as vulnerable to decay and leakage as old ships, in certain coves and coastal sites around the world.
I think it is well and truly time to revisit thorium salt reactors.
From what Alan says they sound like a definite starter and come witj little or no safety implications.

Thanks ALTRAV, I don't have an issue with nuclear reactors. My concern is with the MILLIONS of photovoltaic panels which are full of toxins, being erected without limit or control all over the world and for which there is no clear method of disposal. They are already getting dumped in landfills.

Bluebottle,

And solar panels may produce more CO2 in their construction and maintenance and eventual replacement, than they save. Wind towers too.

On the other hand, the biotic environment - plants etc. - NEED CO2 to survive and grow and reproduce. I'm always a bit puzzled about reports of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere -after all, how much SHOULD there be in order for the biotic environment to survive ? 200 parts per million ? i.e. we need to deal with the other 210 parts per million, not the whole shebang ?

Clearly, a fool can ask questions that may stump the geniuses on OLO :)

Joe

Bluebottle, you make a valid point about solar panels and so too, loudmouth on wind turbines.
I have a particular dislike for them both as I challenge the more obvious reason of visual pollution.
As a rule I dismiss any negative emissions produced in the process of manufacture, only because I believe the end justifies the means.
But current renewables are a useless and politically motivated and propagated or driven ideological nightmare which has already begun to bight us on the bum, financially, performance, reliability and of course let's not sideline the greatest negative of all; visual pollution.
So these stupid renewables, are costing a fortune, are way too under-performing, needing constant attention and service, are continually self destructing, cannot EVER produce full load base-line power, and are a bloody great eyesore.
So WTF is so good about them.
They should never have been launched at this level of incompetence and reliability.
Renewable's will NEVER be able to handle the extreme power demands required for now and in the future.
The greens need to be removed from the face of the Earth and we need to look at strong, reliable power generation, such as nuclear or thorium salt reactors.
Not this ignorance and arrogance based stupid renewable joke of a NON-solution.

What we need to do is go back to coal fired power station, which supply cheap reliable power, & simultaneously feed the flora which we require to survive.

Having reestablished a sensible power supply we should allow anyone to build any form of nuclear power station, anywhere that locals desire it, provided it is up to accepted safe standards, to compete with that coal.

We could also allow any other form of generation, proven safe, to be built by anyone who wants to compete on equal terms with coal, again only where locals want it.

Then we should stand back & let the best system win.

Joe, et al. The problem with too much CO2 in the atmosphere is that it also dissolves in the ocean and lowers the pH. This extra acidity is causing grief to molluscs and crustacea. So, even if there was no AGW it would still be advisable to limit our production of CO2. With regard to nuclear power, in whatever form we are able to construct, I fear that it will probably too late to make for the shortfall before that happens. I may just be around to see that happen, only 16 years to go before I receive birthday wishes from King Charles III.
David

That is another complete furphy VK3AUU. A typical attempt by the warmist scammers to come up with something bad they can hang on CO2. It can only very mildly reduce the alkalinity of the ocean, & only then during an ice age.

Any increase in temperature will cause the ocean to out gas CO2 making it even more alkaline.

Hasbeen. Well, at the moment the pH is getting lower because of the increase of the partial pressure of CO2 getting ahead of the temperature increase. I suspect that trend will continue into the indefinite future.
David

VK3AUU, if your suggesting that the increase in CO2 is causing the increase in temp and it's affecting the state of the oceans, you're wrong.
We are beginning to accept that the planet is going though a warming cycle, and because it is a CYCLE, it will eventually peak at a particular temp.
Now it is because the planet is warming, that CO2 is being released from the oceans, NOT the other way round.
Just thought I'd clear that up.

Altrav.
If the CO2 is being released from the oceans then how come the pH is getting lower.
David

VK3AUU, I don't know about Ph's but so as to not give any mis-information, what I now know, and is becoming more widespread is, that the planet is warming because of it's natural and normal life cycle, mostly affected by the sun.
It will slowly swing back to it's cold cycle in a few hundred year or so, and this has been happening since the planet was born.
Now where the lie, or con, comes into it is that if they had just said; the planet is warming, and left it at that there would have been no need for all this fuss over Fossil fuels and GW.
But no, for reasons known only to the scum who instigated this lie, they attached; because WE are burning fossil fuels.
NOT TRUE!
The CO2 is released from the oceans, because of the warming.
So warming first, CO2 after.
NOT the other way round!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVc-Y-mJ_uY

Give this a look in, I have many more, if need be.

I must apologise to other members.
In my zeal to inject some light into the discussion I should have realised the futility of trying to teach a simple scientific principle to people who obviously have no appreciation of science, having learned what little they have from people with about the same minimal level of knowledge of the subjects.

David

VK3AUU, I don't get sarcasm, but I think you're attempting to say that I "have minimal knowledge of the subject", and you would be completely and utterly right.
I agree, and that goes especially for me.
BUT, you see VK, luckily I don't give personal opinions for the very reason you highlight.
ALL my comments are the passing on of said comments from another previously accessed and researched source.
Now I do not have the mental capacity to store such things as where I got the info for a particular comment, I simply remember the comment or the content or relevant point/s it was making.
The videos I offer are merely as back up, or further proof or confirmation or background to justify my submission.
So you see VK, I am absolutely devoid of any personal knowledge or background on most/many of the topics on OLO, but between what I do know and what I find out, I always hope that it keeps me in good stead and able to engage in verbal intercourse on whatever level and topic I feel knowledgeable enough to comment on.
I have learned a lot since becoming involved in forums, and that is, I never knew of such a headstrong, and closed mindset as what has been called the left.
I was truly shocked.
I had NEVER been exposed to such people so set in their ways.
Ways that even I knew, before I did any research or asked any questions, that they were wrong, and impossible to reason with them to try and instill the truth.
Anyway always good to have an informed debate/conversation with someone with an open, mature, pragmatic mind.