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 > Rock power: Australia's future? > Comments

Rock power: Australia's future? : Comments

By Mike Pope, published 5/8/2009

It is likely that clean coal technology will prove so expensive that it is uncompetitive with renewables.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Rstuart,

Obviously you didn’t read the article or didn’t understand it.

At present Uranium prices the cost of uranium per kWhr is about 0.18c which at present consumption, there is enough supply for more than 200 years. There is no incentive at present to prospect for further supplies, or use the more efficient reactors and / or alternatives such as thorium.

Most of these “new” technologies have been tested and can be implemented reasonably quickly, however with the relative cost /kWhr of uranium being so low that the cost of fuel is almost irrelevant, they have all been mothballed.

If the cost of uranium per kWhr escalates to 0.5c then

• the estimated available uranium increases tenfold,
• Alternative reactor technologies become viable which:
o Increase efficiency 60 fold,
o Enable the use of thorium which is 3x as plentiful, and produces up to 40x as much energy per kg.

This simple calculation gives us at 20TW a supply for about 300 000 years. While you can niggle about some of the calculations it is certainly far longer than 27 years and long enough to tide us past peak oil and global warming.

The viability of nuclear power is more about political will and naïve perceptions than science or economics.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 6 August 2009 9:28:07 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
Fractelle: "For your edification" ...

Reverse osmosis of sea water has a recovery rate typically less than 50%, the discharged water is about twice as salty as normal, meaning it is 93% water.

Recovery Rates: http://www.wwdmag.com/Seawater-Desalination-With-Reverse-Osmosis-article2207
Seawater salinity: http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seawater.htm

Fractelle: "Brine - just maybe be a significant ingredient in molten salt."

No. The salt used in storage systems is NaNO3/KNO3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage#Molten_salt_technology The salt in seawater is mostly NaCl.

Shadow Minister: "there is enough supply for more than 200 years"

If used at current rates. If we scale up nuclear energy from 16% of electricity production to 100%, which is what are are talking about here, then the 200 years drops to 32 years (200*16/100 = 32).

You are a lawyer aren't you, tertiary educated? If so you must be capable of doing this sort of basic back-of-the-envelope calculation. Why don't you treat this self-serving industry drivel with the scepticism it deserves. You seem to have no trouble doing with the hype from other alternate energy evangelists.

Shadow Minister: "Most of these new technologies have been tested and can be implemented reasonably quickly"

The same thing is being claimed for hot rocks here. It is also definitely true for wind and solar + molten salt. "If only were given the money so we can get the process kick started ...", they all cry plaintively. Yeah, right..

Shadow Minister: "If the cost of uranium per kWhr escalates to 0.5c then: the estimated available uranium increases tenfold"

A remarkable claim. Citation?

Shadow Minister: "Enable the use of thorium which is 3x as plentiful, and produces up to 40x as much energy per kg."

No one has built large scale a thorium reactor - experimental or otherwise. Hot rocks have copped a battering here as being speculative - but at least there are cities (eg Auckland) that get most of their power from geothermal right now. No one have every got their power from a thorium reactor Shadow, no one. If you think thorium reactors are anything but wild speculation you are allowing yourself to be duped by industry propaganda.
Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 6 August 2009 11:40:37 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
Perhaps a bigger problem than generating electricity is that we waste more than three quarters of it by using inefficient appliances, long distribution networks and hopelessly inadequate building designs. Of the problems facing Australia and the rest of the world, climate change is just one small factor. Over population and depletion of natural resources to almost zero in some cases is going to bite a lot harder than electricity prices. Our ability to produce enough food is going to drive change far quicker than energy hungry markets.

To make other energy sources viable in any form is going to occur quickly as prices which reflect the real cost of producing electricity rise. It's already happening. In fact this is the best tool of all to drive efforts in increasing energy efficiency. Just like oil, as the price goes up people change their behaviour.

For those who would like to watch a copyright free movie on our headlong race to use all of the worlds resources as quickly as possible look here. As Yann Arthus Bertrand says in the movie HOME, we don't want to believe what we know.

http://www.youtube.com/homeproject
Posted by Help Yourself, Thursday, 6 August 2009 12:24:42 PM
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
Rstuart,

Obviously you didn’t read the article or my post.

The existing CANDU reactors that are being rolled out are already capable of using thorium enriched uranium, and much lower grade uranium. There is very little development required. The down side is that with the present abundance of uranium there is little incentive to build these more expensive plants.

The first thorium reactor was built in 1976, but was shut down due to lack of funding (as uranium was not a resource issue then)

India's Kakrapar-1 reactor is the world's first reactor which utilizes thorium rather than depleted uranium to achieve power flattening across the reactor core. India, which has about 25% of the world's thorium reserves, is developing a 300 MW prototype of a thorium-based Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR). The prototype is expected to be fully operational by 2011, following which five more reactors will be constructed. India currently envisages to meet 30% of its electricity demand through thorium-based reactors by 2030.

The fact that thorium produces only tiny fraction of the waste is another huge bonus.

As far as the citation you requested on the 10 fold increase of uranium at the higher price, I already gave it, and you simply failed to read it. For your benefit:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
and
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/brat_fuel.htm

If the entire world electricity was generated using these reactors there would be sufficient fuel for 1000s of years. Re quoting 200/6 = 32 years is exceedingly dense and simply shows that you are not prepared to actually read my post or the links I provided.

Hot rocks technology has yet to provide a single viable plant world wide. The geothermal plants you quote are not the same. To equate the state of development of Hot rocks with thorium or Gen IV reactors is out by decades.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 6 August 2009 2:35:43 PM
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
Shadow Minister: "The citation you requested on the 10 fold increase of uranium at the higher price, I already gave it, and you simply failed to read it."

You said: "cost of uranium per kWhr escalates to 0.5c then the estimated available uranium increases tenfold". After a hard at the article look I find: "a doubling of price from present levels ... about a tenfold increase in measured resources". Two different statements, but I see you might think they are the same.

Regarding Thorium reactors, I've made the mistake of quoting something from memory. On looking for the source of the quote, I found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

Obviously prototype Thorium reactors do exist. My apologies.

Shadow Minister: "you are not prepared to actually read my post or the links I provided."

No. I read your post, and your link. You are asking me to blindly accept information on a web site set up to promote the nuclear option. I trust it only to give the most rosy spin possible, cherry picking the best numbers available. The problem wasn't me reading it. The problem one of being able to trust the information you provide. Your poor quoting didn't help.

Shadow Minister: "India currently envisages to meet 30% of its electricity demand through thorium-based reactors by 2030."

They've invested $100M's in a prototype, and are now saying they will be producing 30% of India's demand by 2030. Well I guess I would be saying that too, if I were them. But if you read this, you will see it is not quite the done deal you seem to think it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBTR

Shadow Minister: "To equate the state of development of Hot rocks with thorium or Gen IV reactors is out by decades."

Neither side has something that works now. Granted hot rocks are highly speculative, but it doesn't cost billions and decades on each attempt to get it right. So who will win - the powerful but lumbering elephant, or the nibble but unpredictable hare? The difference between you and me Shadow, is I don't claim to know the answer.
Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 6 August 2009 5:31:34 PM
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
Rstuart,

My point was that the slow and powerful elephant has already crossed the line. Nuclear works NOW, and the uranium shortage argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

The 27 / 32 year supply is based on older style reactors that need highly refined uranium, and only use about 0.7% of the total.

The CANDU reactors are in operation, and more are being built. They use lower grade and up to 50% of the mined uranium, and can supplement this with thorium.

The move to thorium with provide reactors that are more stable less fuel hungry, provide a tiny fraction of the waste, and don’t produce weapons grade by products.

The swift and nimble rabbit has not even left the starting blocks.

Nuclear may not be the whole solution, but it is the only non green house gas base load technology presently available.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 7 August 2009 9:56:01 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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