Fester,

Again, the "commercial in confidence" nature of the report is standard practice, so the lack of transparency doesn't suggest a cover-up.

Estimating the necessary units of wind, solar, and energy storage to meet Australia's daily power demand is a complex calculation. Firstly, it's important to understand the specifics of Australia's daily energy demand - both peak demand and the average demand over a 24-hour period.

The capacity factors for wind and solar (essentially, how much of the time they're producing energy at full capacity) play a key role in these calculations. On average, solar panels might have a capacity factor of around 20-25%, while wind turbines might be around 30-40%. This means that to meet continuous demand, the installed capacity for each would need to exceed the actual demand.

If we then assume Australia's daily demand is 1 unit (say 1 unit = 1 GWh), then due to the capacity factor, you'd need about 4 units of solar capacity and roughly 2.86 units of wind capacity. However, since these sources are intermittent, the actual installed capacity would need to be even higher to ensure a continuous supply.

Storage needs depend on the difference between the energy generated and the energy demanded, and for how long this energy needs to be stored. Storage is measured both in terms of the rate of energy delivery and the total amount of energy stored. The required capacity would depend on the variability patterns of wind and solar output.

Additional factors to consider are geographic diversification and integration with existing grid infrastructure, along with demand-side management strategies.

Addressing your point on the long-term management of nuclear waste, the comparison with coal ash waste streams highlights broader waste management challenges across different energy sectors. However, the high-level radioactive waste from nuclear processes requires stringent containment due to its long half-life and radiological risks, which differ from the waste management requirements of other industrial by-products.

Your reference to the World Nuclear Association underscores the unique challenges and stringent safety standards required for managing nuclear waste, which extend beyond political considerations to technical and environmental safety concerns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233

The decay path and radiation produced in different radioactive isotopes nuclear equations have different risk levels- as I understand decay paths also have branches with different probabilities. If a decay reaction produces beta radiation it is much less dangerous than gamma radiation, alpha and neutron sources are somewhere in between. Ingestion of radioactive material seems to be the most dangerous for animal and plant life but supplemental iodine can be used to block the effects of radiation poisoning. In a sense a longer half life indicates less radiation per atom but it depends on the number of atoms. Protactinium 233 is a lower danger beta source. Loosely speaking the danger of radiation to biology is related to it's ability to ionize and it's ability to penetrate shielding- resulting in radiation burns- (really bad skin cancer). Obviously the danger of radioactive materials also relates to it's state of matter (solid, liquid, gas)- solids are easiest to manage.

Nuclear fission is probably an interim technology until we are able to develop something better and reduce Earths population to more sustainable levels.

Many activists on the communist Marxist side which includes climate activists seem to struggle to hold nations such as China and India responsible for their massive populations and see them reduced to at least the 300 million mark. So climate activists are part of the problem. Until something is done in this regard nothing will be achieved and there will be an increasing demand for energy

Syoksya,
The protactinium 233 and Uranium 233 are part of the nuclear cycle within the reactor. I won't explain it here, you can go and look it up on Wikipedia or for a more complete run down look up Copenhagen Atomics pages.

VK3AUU,

It's true that these isotopes are central to the operation of thorium reactors and their fuel efficiency. However, while these elements are integral to the reactor's functionality, their presence doesn't fully alleviate concerns regarding radioactive waste and its longevity.

Firstly, the longevity of the waste produced is a critical factor. Uranium-233, which is a key byproduct of the thorium fuel cycle, has a half-life of about 160,000 years. This fact challenges the claim that all waste from thorium reactors decays within 300 years. The issue here is the management of uranium-233 once it's no longer useful as fuel, as it remains radiologically significant for a very long time.

Moreover, despite the efficiency of the thorium cycle, the end-of-life management of these materials, including safe storage or reprocessing, is a significant challenge. This aspect is not negated by the efficient use of fuel within the reactor's operational cycle.

It's also crucial to consider the current stage of thorium reactor technology. While theoretical models and research provide valuable insights, the practical application and real-world data from operational thorium reactors are essential for a complete understanding of the waste management challenges, particularly for long-lived isotopes like uranium-233.

While the internal workings of thorium reactors involving protactinium-233 and uranium-233 are innovative, they do not completely solve the issue of radioactive waste production and longevity. The claim of waste decaying within 300 years remains an oversimplification of the complex realities of nuclear waste management in the context of thorium reactors.

Hi Syoksya,

Synergy is a Western Australian energy supply company. The report was about the viability of a pumped hydro project. The suggestion was that pumped hydro was unlikely to be viable anywhere in Western Australia, so aside from protecting the intellectual property related to assessing pumped hydro projects it is hard to understand why the report was kept from public scrutiny.

Yes, calculating the amount of wind, solar and storage is challenging, but once you do you have three numbers. I thought that as you believed nuclear to be more costly you might have an idea what a stand alone wind and solar system might cost, or at least an idea of the quantities of generating capacity and storage needed. You don't appear to have a clue what they might be, so on what basis do you believe a stand alone wind and solar system to be cheaper than nuclear?

As for the matter of nuclear waste it is totally a political issue.

Firstly, the classification of waste differs, so low level waste from the nuclear industry must be put in deep storage whereas waste with an identical actinide content from the coal industry can be used to build houses. Such stupidity panders to anti-nuclear hysteria, adds to costs, and greatly adds to the volume of waste. Despite this treatment, the volume of waste from the nuclear industry is still very small.

Secondly, the high level waste, as numerous contributors here have remarked, notably Alan B, can be reprocessed and reused in reactors. After several cycles there is a much smaller quantity that need only be contained for a few hundred years. Note also that the time line for containment relates to a comparison with the radioactivity of naturally occurring uranium, an arbitrary and political classification.

The reason that high level nuclear waste exists is because of valid concern about the generation of weapons grade actinides. Were this not the case the world today would be far more prosperous with most of our energy generated very cheaply by nuclear reactors, with little or no concern about global warming.

Hi Syoksya,

"Moreover, despite the efficiency of the thorium cycle, the end-of-life management of these materials, including safe storage or reprocessing, is a significant challenge. This aspect is not negated by the efficient use of fuel within the reactor's operational cycle."

That statement is utter nonsense. Fast neutron reactors can do all the things you think impossible, including the destruction of long lived actinides, including plutonium. The critical factor is the design of such reactors.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors.aspx

"About 20 fast neutron reactors (FNR) have already been operating, some since the 1950s, and some supplying electricity commercially. Over 400 reactor-years of operating experience has been accumulated. Fast reactors more deliberately use the uranium-238 as well as the fissile U-235 isotope used in most reactors. If they are designed to produce more plutonium than the uranium and plutonium they consume, they are called fast breeder reactors (FBRs). But many designs are net consumers of fissile material including plutonium.* Fast neutron reactors also can burn long-lived actinides which are recovered from used fuel out of ordinary reactors."