Sir Vivor,

Thanks for your emotional response to a technical issue.

My answer is

I don't want a reactor in my back yard,
I don't want climate change,
I don't want neuclear proliferation.

Yes, there is wind somewhere in the county all the time, and some electricity can be generated all the time, but not enough to meet peak demand or even base demand all the time.

Unless you consider the CSIRO to be an organisation bent on destroying the environment (as per the report refered to by Democritus above) then maybe the cold light of reality might filter through.

Advocating neuclear power is political suicide in this country, the fact that it is occuring is not because it is wanted, but because it is needed.

re Shadow Minister's kind reply:

"Sir Vivor,
Thanks for your emotional response to a technical issue."

No problem, Shad, and thank you for sharing, too.

Did you speed-read the link I provided? I'll put it again and catch up with the slow readers in 24 hours:

[Google]
[PDF] SECURE ENERGY?File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
OxfordResearchGroup Secure Energy? About the authors. Dr. Frank Barnaby is Nuclear ...... 3. www.dti.gov.uk/files/file23300.pdf?pubpdfdload=04%2F418 p.7. ...
www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/pdf/secureenergy.pdf

Cheers,

Sir Vivor,

There is no connection between the west coast and the east coast electricity grids so when it is daytime, it is daytime across our grid and vice versa.

It is irrelevant that it is not windless everywhere at 7pm in the evening, the significantly reduced amount of wind available is not going to be enough to meet base load, let alone peak load, requirements.

There is absolutely no technology which can make up for short falls in GENERATING capacity. This is not a gap that can be papered over.

Australia’s biggest wind farm at Wattle Point (SA) - has a generating capacity of about 90.75MW. On average this means they can produce 20MW of electricity. Australia’s energy requirements are about 50,000MW of generating capacity.

Wind and other renewables are far less economically attractive than nuclear, even given the costs of waste storage and plant decommissioning. The nuclear and other options are only being considered because of the detrimental effect of CO2 in the environment.

Greenhouse emissions of nuclear power plants are virtually NIL, when compared with fossil fueled power generators. Nuclear plants have been operating for nearly 50 years so their emissions are well known and are regularly captured and analyzed by regulating bodies.

I support wind and other renewables providing some of our electricity needs, but they are not going to be able to viably produce our base load electricity needs in the short to medium term. Nuclear is the only real alternative to coal fired power stations for this problem.

PS I had a look at the polemic you posted. I prefer to trust the CSIRO than a bunch of far left anti nuclear nuts.

Dickie

The question the rest of us ask is should we trust the economic vandals who want to destroy our economies so they can satisfy their religious like faith in renewables for all occasions.

When nuclear power was introduced in the UK the problem was the opposite of the intermittency of wind and tides in that it was diffcult to power it down at night. The solution of building pumped storage systems in the Scottish and Welsh mountains, so that water could be pumped up at night and released through turbine generators at peak times, was augmented with night storage heaters and heating domestic hot water at night encouraged with the cheaper so-called Economy 7 tariff.

Pumped storage is also the answer for wind and tide power. When the wind blows some of the output can be used to pump water to reservoirs from where it can be let down through turbines at peak demand times.

There used to be countless tide mills around the shores of the UK associated with tidal lagoons. In coastal barriers turbines can be arranged to work with both the flow and ebb to and from an artificial tidal lagoon or an estuary. In the US large-scale solar power is stored in molten salt to obtain a constant output.

Energy storage of intermittent renewable sources also has the advantage of reducing the size of the exporting transmission lines.

However, it is unlikely that renewables will ever provide more than a quarter of the UK's current energy demand and the task of the government is to engender a low-energy lifestyle to match the reality of the end of fossil fuels. Sponsoring nuclear power, which can only provide a marginal contribution, is just a public relations device to dodge coming to terms with such an unelectable prospect.

The report by the Oxford Research Group is an opinion piece cobbled together by a handful of academics with a political agenda to push. The article’s research appears to consist of selectively using portions from other articles that aligned with their agenda and discarding those that did not. (Yes I did read those articles too) If I called myself the Harvard institute for strategic studies maybe I too would be quoted.

In my time as I have read many well considered and balanced reports of which this is not one. I can also pull “reports” from the net on most issues including ones that supporting a flat earth.

A report from a recognised institute such as the CSIRO might actually carry weight.

Interesting facts gleaned from the other articles referred to in the report is that the consensus on life cycle CO2 emissions per kWhr generated would tend to indicate that nuclear is on a par or better than wind generation, but photo voltaic is only marginally better than natural gas. You learn something new every day. (I notice that was omitted)

With regards proliferation, these seem mostly focused on rogue states who aren’t bound by the strictures of the IAEA which should be a reason to develop a healthy power industry rather than one that deals in secrecy.

Countries such as France and Finland due to a lack of other fuels generate about 70% of their power from nuclear sources, and intend to expand even this. Using existing technology we can reduce green house gases by 40% by 2050 if we start now.

If as predicted by the greens the new renewable technologies are developed, then in 50 years when the nuclear plants are coming to the end of life this new source will be large enough to take over. If we wait for other politically more acceptable sources we will wake up to the consequences too late.

Nuclear Waste Dump in the Northern Territory at last three cheers we thought it would never come. Welcome Pangea we now have provision whereby we can import the worlds Nuclear Waste in a remote region which will not harm those that live condensed populated areas. We must also encourage Indonesia to place Nuclear Power Stations in Bali, Java Island and Madura so that we can export our Uranium to them. Ziggy Switkowski has assured us that if Indonesia do have earthquakes any Nuclear Power facility will be perfectly safe. So the Northern Territory and Queensland have nothing to worry about.