In another few years after Yallourn and Liddell power stations have been closed down, you will be wondering why we don't have some nuclear power stations of our own, because all your renewables and batteries are not meeting the demands for peak power.

David

"Kerrie-Ann Garlick is the Conservation Council of Western Australia, Nuclear Free campaigner. She has extensive experience in campaigning to stop uranium mining in WA that spans over two decades" - and she has little experience of reality.

Who does she think she is fighting? It's not any politicians in Australia. We can't even have nuclear submarines to defend ourselves against Chinese nuclear submarines. We can't have it for cheap, clean power. Uranium for our own use is verboten.

Hypocritically, a little bit at Lucas Heights is OK, in case the high and mighty need treatment for cancer.

Why does the anti-nuclear crowd always denounce NP on account of these super large plants that failed.
The only reason for their failure was that they were too large to be controlled effectively.
Just look at how many np war ships there are operating for decades without a mishap.
So, why not build smaller, controllable NP stations around the place instead of these super large uncontrollable monstrosities ? Smaller plants could pay the way for more smaller plants instead of unaffordable up-front costs for large plants. A chain reaction of an economic kind !

Solar is Nuclear.

Ataday, solar might be the end product of nuclear however, it is never going to be scalable to provide the base load power required, even with huge advances in battery storage, to come anywhere near that which is required to satisfy even current users needs.

Nuclear will be our energy supply future, if not, we will all be living a lifestyle no one will want.

The author’s have absolutely no grasp on reality.
Galen

MORRISON (OR INDUSTRIAL LABOR) NEED TO LEAD THE WAY ON NUCLEAR SOON

I agree VK3AUU, ttbn, individual and Galen

Australia definitely needs Nuclear Power Reactors.

Best to start planning them soon. Reactors generally take 20+ years to plan and build and can be introduced as the coal fired power stations close down in Australia.
____________

@ateday

Solar and wind energy (even working to battery) do not provide sufficient base load power and can fail even in sunny South Australia.

This is on cold, still, Winter nights and during storms - no sunlight and wind-propellers are locked down (by power companies) to prevent over-rotational damage.

Australian electricity needs will rise sharply as plug-in, full electric cars "siphon off" more electricity from the grid, particularly after return from work, peak need, period (6pm-10pm) in competition with home electic heaters and especially Aircons which already compete for grid capacity.
______________________________

Australia is in a no large economy, experienced nuclear user condition to experiment with small "cutting edge" reactor technology, endlessly suggested by Alan B.

Best to use medium-large One Giga-watt (GW) size reactors - requiring Australia's non-Tsunami coastal coolant water flows. The water flow, sealed-piped, not in contact with radioactivity.

There are many Off-the-shelf Design, efficient, environmentally safe, reactors of this size in France http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx

or

Better still Canada (speak English, similar culture) see http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/canada-nuclear-power.aspx which has built reactors since the 1940s. Prices seem high but all large power stations (eg. highly polluting coal, gas and Dams (eg. Snowy 2.0)) already cost $Billions.

What a DH !
The only reason that the Japanese plant failed was because they built
it on the wrong coast.
It was facing in an earthquake zone a continental plate.

The question these DHs can't answer is what do we use if coal and nuclear
are forbidden ?
As soo as the ERoEI on coal reaches 7 then we will have no alternative but nuclear.
California is litted with abandoned wind farms. We are already seeing
solar farms in difficulties here.

Bazz,
Exachery ! With oil being on the nose as well, what are they going make Green Energy equipment out of ?
I have said it many times, why not take jobs presently occupied by a Green & give them to people who lose theirs because of Greens. If the Greens are so hell-bent on destroying industry i.e. jobs, let them go find employment in the environment they subject others to !

Worth mentioning following on from comment by individual above about the need for small nuclear power stations. I read an article somewhere recently about a town on the north coast of Russia that recently received a new floating power station to replace their old coal fired one that left a lot of soot fallout on snow in local area over winter. Gather it was built in shipyard in Murmansk and towed to appropriate permanent mooring place from which it could be connected to the local grid. Most likely the components of nuclear reactors and steam turbines in it were largely the same or similar to those used in Russian nuclear powered submarines. Also, worth noting that Russians now have several nuclear powered icebreakers which helps give them much better capabilities in Arctic and Antarctic waters These also probably have similar nuclear powerplants.. Anyway, maybe there could be even be commercial possibilities for building these floating nuclear power stations "on spec". The selling or hiring them to places accessible to sizeable ships and with a safe mooring area where they could be connected to grid. Note this could be arranged in a fraction of the time to build a nuclear power station on land for supplying reliable base load power, which wind and solar cannot. . Then for periodic shutdown of reactors for maintenance or decommissioning of old ones, they could be towed elsewhere. Maybe back to shipyard where they were assembled. This could help overcome one reason for resistance to nuclear power. ie the likelihood of having junk of which some is radioactive left after power stations close down.

A theory of the Fukushima nuclear disaster which the strongly Jewish influenced mainstream media would avoid even mentioning if possible is the cause was sabotage on behalf of Israel. I have seen first hand dirty things some treacherous Zionists will do to people who had helped them and thought they were friends if think to their own advantage and can get away with it. Google "USS Liberty" for details of an all time classic story on this.

There is a detailed account, largely the work of freelance journalist Jim Stone of evidence consistent with Israeli interests being responsible for causing the Fukushima disaster. . Motivation was apparently Japan had proposed to reprocess spent uranium from Iran, which has been the main opponent to expansion of what amounts effectively to the Criminal Apartheid Zionist Settler State in Occupied Palestine. Israelis ware unscrupulous at stopping this by causing a "false flag" type of disaster which would result in both punishing Japan severely and gaining political support for closing down the Japanese nuclear industry. I have forgotten many of the details. Seems an important one is that an Israeli company was in charge of security and at the time of the disaster, the local managers "happened" to have gone back to Israel for a few days. Then sabotage was helped with the Stuxnet computer virus, originally developed to sabotage Iranian computers controlling nuclear reactions. Their "capability" apparently included ability to make reactors malfunction while gauges indicating especially that temperatures were within acceptable ranges while actually they were not. Seems one way to avoid this problem being largely hidden is to install non electronic gauges. Operators watching operation could then often readily pick up gauge malfunctions. For both analogue and digital thermometers. both deliberate or accidental.

Well Mox, I know the Israelis are clever people so please do tell how
they managed to get the offshore continental plate to rise up and
cause a tsunami ?
You really do not understand do you ?
Stuxnet was designed to speed up centrifuges that were refining
uranium to a speed that destroyed them.
It was a hack of a common commercial industrial controller.
How did the Israelis get access ? It is rumored that they just left
memory sticks lying around the plant district knowing an employee
could not resist plugging it in to his computer at work to see what was on it !
You really need to avoid the conspiracy theory sites and read real
world information. It is far more believable than the nonsense you read.

Oh Mox, I should have made it clear to you the use of Stuxnet was in
Iran not Japan. As there would be no centrifuges in Fukushima it
would have been no point there.

Sorry, but you really do make yourself look silly.

While I am on the subject a few points.
Electric cars are not related to CO2 problems at all.
Long term problems for the oil industry is where the electric car
move originates.
Does anyone think all motor companies all just deciding en mass to
stop making petrol and diesel vehicles and make electrics is just a
odd sort of coincidence ?
If you do then you need to read more widely.

Re the small nuclear power module systems. There is a company in the
US who has been trying to get one design approved, without success
last I heard. One problem we might have here with them would be a
supply of cooling water if they were used inland.
That something will have to be done because the people opposing
nuclear power have failed their primary school arithmetic.
They think as far as the Yallorn station is concerned that a
350 Megawatt/hr battery will backup the equivalent of the
1,500 Megawatt coal station in wind and solar.
Do the simple maths.
1500/350 = 4.28, divide (1 hour) by /4.28 = 14 minutes.
That is how long the battery will backup the closed coal stations
solar cells and wind.
I shouldn't poke fun I made a mistake there also !

Our politicians have so many examples from overseas to learn from but do they take notice ? Nope !
Imagine the fertility of west of the GDR if only some of of the gits would engage their brains to think for the Nation instead of their own pockets & kick- started a Bradfield kind of scheme NOW. There'll never be another opportunity as now with so many people needing & wanting to get out of the congested cities to look for work.
Start a huge project in small affordable steps & in time it'll become self-supporting & people will start to appreciate the opportunities.
Same with NP stations, small ones but more. Particularly at Lake Eyre, cooling water wouldn't be problem were there a channel built from Spencer Gulf or thereabouts. Lake Argyle too could easily support a NP plant as could the Carpentaria Gulf area.
The opportunities are literally begging for brains to start engaging !

From Noel Wauchope. Three pages of comments on this article! And not one of them addresses the real message of the article!

It's easy to understand why they don't. Whenever any mention of uranium/nuclear issues appears on OnlineOpinion, there's a knee-jerk reaction on behalf of the nuclear lobby. It ranges ofrom an attack on the individual author, and on renewable energy technologies, to a hymn of support for nuclear power, especially for small nuclear reactors. In today's case there's even a bizarre claim about the Jews, not nuclear faults, causing the Fukushima catastrophe. (Even the pro nuclear lobbyists have a bit of trouble with that claim)

But, importantly, the article is an explanation of the need for Western Australia (and indeed, all Australia) to preserve the precious natural environment. The author advises the Western Australian government to take up this challenge, as environmental approvals for uranium licences are due to end, and legislate to ban uranium mining.

The commentators, so far, show no interest in this important matter of preserving Western Austra's environment, nor of the economic disaster that is uranium mining. Indeed - no understanding at all, of this article.

This situation looks like a bit of pro-nuclear-panic - probably msade worse by the historic re-election of a Western Australian Labor government that is not particulsarly keen on the nuclear industry.

MOX

Where you write "Jewish influenced mainstream media...sabotage on behalf of Israel...dirty things some treacherous Zionists" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=21352&page=0#376914

WTF! You should leave your strange anti-Semitism to the likes of LEGO.

Just click here http://www.afp.gov.au/what-we-do/our-work-overseas .

Any connections matey? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-02/sonnenkrieg-division-first-right-wing-terror-group-listed/13206756

From Noel Wauchope. Well this is a first for me - finding myself congratulating commenter Plantagenet. But I am glad to see his comment refuting the anti semitic remarks made by another commenter. I thought those remarks had been silly and ridiculous - but they are also nasty and hurtful.

NUCLEAR NECESSARY DESPITE GREEN WANTS

Hi Noel Wauchope/ChristinaMac1

I think you're disappointed that commenters increasingly see the need for Nuclear base-load electricity.

More homes and (pro-Environmental full-electric plug-in) cars will need increasing amounts of Nuclear base-load energy as hydro-carbon power stations close down.

The anti-Semitic racist in this thread has been rightly disowned.

Australia's population growth need more power:

- Rooftop solar on high (tower block) and many medium density structures is inadequate for occupants.

- Solar farms can't keep up with mass city consumption.

- Windpower is unreliable, uses a lot of land, and needs to go offline at critical times.

- Hydro-power remains a marginal source in Australia's dry continent.

- Home and Large batteries are high energy intensive, chemically polluting to make, need regular replacement, and contain many toxic chemicals on disposal.

"Aware" often upper middle class environmentalist are frequently older, have made their money, and so are unrepresentative of most Australian "battlers" who need to get their hands "dirty". Put another way: Australia needs manufacturing, hydro-carbon (eg. gas) energy extraction and mining for people to work - jobs that aren't "green".

Even if Morrison loses the next Election, Labor's base still knows poeple demand jobs - jobs that will need increasing amounts of Nuclear base-load energy as hydro-carbon power stations close down.

Labor's other (environmental base) still relies on manufacturing/energy/mining wealth generation to trickle feed its
standard of living (especially in Perth).

1. A source https://ecos.csiro.au/baseload-power/ "Australia is currently aiming for around 23 per cent renewable energy"

2. Covid caused decline in demand for electricity in Australia is not typical of average high use years.

"Does anyone think all motor companies all just deciding en mass to
stop making petrol and diesel vehicles and make electrics is just a
odd sort of coincidence"? Bazz. No of course not Bazz. Car companies are investing in insurance. They can see crazy politicians are planning to ban petroleum fuels sooner or later.

Well they will try, but when the fiasco of insufficient electricity, & the cost & impractically of plug in cars starts to become apparent, they will be out on their ear, & a new bunch of hopefully smarter politicians will emerge.

Meanwhile car manufacturers will need something to sell to stay in business through the turmoil, & people will need transport.

Of course there is no need for nuclear, although I have nothing against us developing it here, but as we all know, coal & it's CO2 is good for all flora, without which we can not survive. We should return to our natural competitive advantage, & generate our electricity with coal for the next few hundred years. With our bauxite, iron ore & cheap power we should be the aluminum & steel supplier to the world.

A railway line from the coal fields to the iron ore mines should give us the 2 largest steel manufacturing centers in the world, one at each end swapping raw materials.

It is ridiculous that bauxite ships travel empty from Gladstone, a major coal exporting port, back to Weipa. They should be carrying coal to fuel power generation in Weipa to supply a major aluminum plant.

We could have it all if not for idiot greenies, & dumb pollise who listen to them.

The most stupid thing anyone can ever do is, listen to an addled greenie.

Err Noel or is it Christina,
OK, then just what do you propose we use to generate electricity ?
I presume you also do not want to use coal or Natural gas.
Hydrogen ? Look at the energy cycle and dangers of hydrogen.
The danger of hydrogen might be manageable, but the cycle is very lossey.

HUGE $50BN Pilbara GREEN HYDROGEN Hub Granted Major Project Status

Hi again Noel Wauchope/ChristinaMac1 and other Readers

A major PS: Reported 23 October 2020 at http://reneweconomy.com.au/huge-50bn-pilbara-green-hydrogen-hub-granted-major-project-status-17416/

"A plan to build a massive renewable energy hydrogen project of up to 26GW of wind and solar capacity in Western Australia’s Pilbara region is set to enjoy a fast-tracked approvals process, after securing ‘major project status’ from the federal government.

The Asian Renewable Energy Hub proposes to invest more than $50 billion in establishing a massive renewable energy EXPORT hub in the Pilbara region, which would include the export of wind and solar energy to Asia, through the production of renewable hydrogen fuels and ammonia.

...“We look forward to working closely with the Western Australian and Federal Governments to entrench Australia’s status as a world leader in renewables and to deliver the world’s largest new power facility – and it’s GREEN.”

"...our project is at the forefront of an emerging green hydrogen industry for Australia, and the opening of a massive new export market to the fast-growing Asian economies to our north.”

The project is expected to create more than 20,000 direct and indirect jobs throughout its construction, as well as supporting more than 3,000 jobs once operational."

PETE COMMENT

This Hydrogen base-load option should be going to Australia first for DOMESTIC USE.

The Federal Government should not make the (PM John Howard's) Great Gas Mistake of selling cheap gas (by longterm contract) to Asia.

Meanwhile gas was/is expensive hence in practice unavailable to Australian users.

Hasbeen, I think your petrol head is writing off electric cars.
I have a friend who has had one as a commuter vehicle for eight years
and swears by it. It has never needed a service, and he might need some tyres soon.
I know of a couple of others who have couple of year old Hyundais
EVs and they would NEVER go back to an ICE car.

Mmm... http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/10/fukushima-meltdown-did-not-damage-health-un-japan

Hi mox

No harm done mate.

The security services are mainly after offenders who plan/do violence or constantly write things inciting others to do same.

Some ideologues have managed to let truth in e.g. Zion Lights (ex- Extinction Rebellion) http://youtu.be/0LC_LQbOjE8

The Finnish Green also understand http://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/finlands-greens-soften-stance-on-nuclear-energy/

So, coal is nearly dead. Oh well, long live the King! Gas producers stand to gain massively as coal gives way to gas backup of intermittents and transport is electrified (largely with that gas!). This is why BP, Shell et al. are so fond of renewables, knowing there isn't, and won't be, a storage solution to ever make 100% renewables economically viable. And where did I read gas is touted be quarantined from any future carbon tax in Europe because it's a 'transition' fuel! I'll find it eventually
http://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/european-super-majors-shell-bp-leading-the-charge-to-electrification-52447328

Bazz, please give me your understanding of the full life cycle cost of EVs, & the full life cycle emissions of the same.

You could also suggest just how, without coal, nuclear or gas power generation, we are going to supply the amps to charge the things

I thought our smart government was going to solve all our energy problems with gas to make up for the shortfall from renewables and storage. They had better extractus digitus and start building before Yallourn and Liddell close down.

David

Noel.

Nuclear power is statistically the safest form of power in the world. That it is a low carbon source makes it the logical choice.

NUCLEAR REACTOR MEASURES LACK SAFETY AGAINST LARGE AIRCRAFT TERRORISM

Hi Noel/Christina

You would already know that I'm a "swinging voter" on nuclear issues. I now vote AGAINST NUCLEAR. After some research:

Reason One - LACK OF SAFETY AGAINST LARGE AIRCRAFT TERRORISM:

Noting photo, courtesy ABC News http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-27/lucas-heights-nuclear-reactor-breakdown-medical-supply-shortage/9915242

AT:

http://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/7aef675f5eab8ccecae03aa7738c4506?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=266&cropW=400&xPos=0&yPos=17&width=862&height=575

Following "9/11" there was/is international concern that large suicide one-way-terrorist-piloted aircraft could be used against nuclear reactors.

Such is official Australian concern that a huge crash barrier - but useful against light planes only - has been placed around-over Australia's suburban Lucas Heights reactor. Unfortunately it is well recognised that its inadequate against the large jets (eg. 757s used in 9/11) let alone 747s or A380s. See Sydney Morning Herald July 3, 2004 at http://www.smh.com.au/national/safety-net-to-shield-reactor-from-plane-20040703-gdj9c3.html

The crash barrier is useful against a Light Aircraft attempting to rupture Lucas Reactor.

But useless against a "Jumbo Jet" eg. a 550,000kg A380 merely travelling at its cruising speed of 900 km/h let alone a terminal dive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Specifications_(A380-800,_Trent_engines .

The "Jumbo Jet" would in less than 1/20th second penetrate into the still hot fissioning reactor core meanwhile destroying the coolant pool and perhaps the reactor floor.

Less than 1/20th second is too short a time BEFORE any emergency measures, like control rod drop, can arrest the fission. Exposed reactor core, steam (perhaps radio-active) explosion, possible meltdown if reactor floor ruptured.

Lucas Heights reactor's cage and concrete shell need major and expensive reinforcement before the reactor is restarted.

P.S. No new-fangled new-reactor type safety measure can be declared safe against a very large jet impact - unless the reactors are built
deep underground - and even then leak into water table concerns...

Hasbeen,
The experience with EVs so far is that an owner who drives
some 20,000Km a year is better off due to the savings in fuel and
service chargers. Quite true if like me I do a very much smaller a
distance because of the higher cost of the ev it is more expensive.
That is why I do not have an EV. (Yet)
As I said my friend has had one for 8 years and will soon be up for
a set of tires soon. His first maintenance cost. Charging $2-50 weekly.
I agree that the mad greenies think you can close power stations and
run the economy on sun & wind. When the public buys EVs and plugs
them in at home after arriving home from work then it will be obvious
that nuclear will be demanded by the next morning.
However I doubt there will be no choice but to buy EVs as the oil
companies slowly reduce their presence in our economy.
Shell & BP have decided to install chargers in every service station
in the world. Shell has already started installing them in Europe and UK.
I just cannot see millions of evs being charged on a cold still night
no matter how many BIG batteries are hung onto the grid.
Hydrogen does not look promising because of the energy inefficiency
of the full cycle from sun to electricity to hydrogen to compression
to transport to car to fuel cell to electricity to motor to wheels.
I think it is a no goer.

Whoops this should be'
However there will be no choice but to buy EVs as the oil
companies slowly reduce their presence in our economy.
Or buy a horse !

Hasbeen, you asked me about the life cycle of the emissions of co2
for EVs.
I haven't a clue about that and to me it is not relevant.
I guess we could look at steam cars, now that would be interesting !
In a time when refineries are closing, major oil fields are becoming
uneconomic, and the tight oil companies are going belly up, what else
is there that can do the job other than coal and uranium ?

Now you are talking Bazz. I believe the future, if there is any future for privately owned transport, would be a chip of nuclear material, installed on the production like, generating steam for the life of the vehicle.

Meanwhile there is plenty of petroleum, we have heaps of shale oil here in Oz, & it will be the cheapest most useful fuel for many decades, unless governments make it less so. With out current fuel excise petrol would be half the price, but all those lovely government services in education, health & a lot of other stuff would not be possible. Getting sick or injured would be a recipe for bankruptcy.

What do you think the cost of electric motoring is likely to be when the replacement cost of fuel taxes is loaded onto it.

Incidentally, I am now paying $20 for the LiPo batteries for my remote control planes, that cost $6 just 3 years ago. Don't expect the reduction in battery costs the greenies promise.

NUCLEAR UNNECESSARY: AS COAL-FIRED PLANTS CLOSE, PRICES ARE FALLING

Second reason I'm swinging away from Nuclear Power Plants - nuclear lacks ramp-up despatchability. Ideas drawn from The Conversation via ABC, 17 March 2021 reports http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-17/electricity-has-become-a-jigsaw-coal-missing-pieces/13253392

Before South Australia Northern coal-fired generator closed, South Australia had Australia's highest price. In 2021 after closure of Northern in 2016, and 4 years after the closure of Hazelwood in 2017, South Australia and Victoria have wholesale prices one-third lower than those in NSW and two-fifths lower than those in Queensland.

South Australia became a renewables powerhouse. The ANU's Hugh Saddler points out that renewable-sourced power — wind and grid solar — now accounts for 62% of power supplied to the South Australian grid, and at times for all of it.

When the wind doesn't blow and not much sun prices can get high. But coal can barely move.

As with NUCLEAR power, coal-fired power needs to be either on (in which case it can only slowly ramp up) or off, in which case turning it on from a standing start would be way too slow.

Batteries can respond instantly to a loss of power from other sources (although not for very long), hydro can respond in 30 to 70 seconds, gas peaking plants can respond within minutes.

Hydro or gas could be turned on in the morning when we turned on our lights and heaters and factories got down to business, and coal-fired power could be slowly ramped up. To some extent gas will be a transition fuel, able to fill gaps in a way that coal cannot.

But gas has become expensive, and batteries are being installed everywhere. Energy Australia plans to replace its Yallourn power station with Australia's first four-hour utility-scale battery with a capacity of 350 megawatts, more than any battery operating in the world today. South Australia is planning an even bigger one, up to 900 megawatts.

As cheap as coal-fired power was and is, it is being forced out of the system by sources of power that are cheaper and more dispatchable.

Batteries are OK as a standby while gas ramps up, but gas produces too much CO2 as well. After Yallourn and Liddell close we are going to have daily blackouts.

David

Those who seem to have the fantasy that coal will soon be phased out for electricity generation in Australia should study www.anero.id to get views into proper perspective. It provides ongoing reports of daily output of all forms of generation used for the Eastern Australia grid. Note the total small proportion of wind and solar and how with even eg doubling or trebling the capacity it is still not much. Also, they cannot provide reliable base load. Then remember these big expensive batteries can just store a very small proportion of total daily requirements and do not generate anything. Is an idiotical claim that a big battery can replace a coal fired power station.

I'm standing at the gate to the nuclear power plant and a road sign pointing to the plant reads ARMAGEDDON.

I say Farewell to the human race, turn and walk through the gate, and embrace our extinction event.

Dear Mopi

As you stand "at the gate to the nuclear power plant" lest we forget Fukushima.

Join little kiddies, nuns, and other radicals proudly clutching placards, with those immortal words "F-K U".