Are you for or against Nuclear Energy in any shape or form?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Danske, Nov 1, 2011.

?

Are you for or against Nuclear Energy?

  1. For

    334 vote(s)
    91.0%
  2. Against

    33 vote(s)
    9.0%
  1. Aetherone

    Aetherone Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,612
    Location:
    Adelaide, SA
    Who cares, we'll have a thermonuclear war with the Russians by 1990...
     
  2. Gunna

    Gunna Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2001
    Messages:
    7,208
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I think witht he cost of solar, batteries and renewables as a whole dropping in price so quickly that nuclear power plants in AUS will never happen.

    The timeline to approve and plan for fuel disposal would far outweigh the time it takes for renewables to be developed and reduce in price even more. The sun shines an awful lot on Australia and the coasts have a lot of wind. Between the 2 i'm sure 24 hour supply could be maintained with LNG as a backup instead of a primary source.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2019
    metamorphosis, Urbansprawl and RnR like this.
  3. intransigent

    intransigent New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2019
    Messages:
    6
    I support it as a transitional method for gearing towards green technologies and recycling.
    If we need to seriously slow down our carbon footprint, instantly ramping up of solar production without knowing the ins and outs intrinsically is none the less an industrialized process that in itself requires energy, which shouldn't be coming from coal.
    What this means is we should be facilitating a transition with readily available alternative high density power (nuclear) while we sustainably produce current technologies (wind, solar, wave generation, hydro, etc.) and develop the efficiency of those green products while identifying how we are going to start our structural changes necessary to capitalize on our emerging green technologies.
     
    Hive likes this.
  4. Aetherone

    Aetherone Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,612
    Location:
    Adelaide, SA
    I pretty much agree with you, except that we should have gone Nuclear 20 years ago and be harnessing it's excess energy to expand green tech right now. If we started this afternoon, by the time we got a nuke plant running, the green tech may well already have overtaken it off the back of billions of tonnes of carbon pollution. :(
    Boat, missed.
     
  5. elcarter1

    elcarter1 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    639
    Location:
    Adelaide
    I tend to agree with this but that said a few nukes could help bolster the green techs main weakness which is over night capacity.

    It should be a stepping stone not a permanent solution.
     
  6. RnR

    RnR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,305
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Its not really cost effective to do just a few nukes. You really have to roll out a good number of identical units to reduce the expensive 'learning a new tech' costs per unit. France rolled out 58 reactors. Australia should roll out at least 8 if not more to maximise its bang for buck value.
     
  7. JSmithDTV

    JSmithDTV Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    3,519
    Location:
    Algol, Perseus
    Australia simply has no need for nuclear fission power reactors.


    JSmith
     
  8. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    15,441
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    https://www.originenergy.com.au/blog/electricity-generation-in-australia/
    [​IMG]
    lolz

    ---
    https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/basics

    ...if it was urgent.
    obviously urgency isn't...urgent. :rolleyes:

    https://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/
    it can take as little as 3 years to construct a nuclear plant.

    i also have no doubt that it will not happen in australia. other countries actually need them. because they are bursting at the seams with hooomans, and land area is at a premium. of course! there are vast deserts where no humans live. rawsome!

    4/5ths of current housing occupants in australia live in detached dwellings. all of which could have solar panels on them...and most of them require grid connection because they generally aren't willing to pay for batteries. :p
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019
  9. cvidler

    cvidler Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    12,482
    Location:
    Canberra
    Yeah let's just keep burning shit until that 13% (solar/wind/hydro) = 100% (when exactly?)

    biofuels may be renewable, but they still result in carbon release into the atmosphere.
     
  10. JSmithDTV

    JSmithDTV Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    3,519
    Location:
    Algol, Perseus
    If Australia implemented an ETS like we should have then coal wouldn't be so cheap...

    There is no point embarking on a up to 10 year program to build nuclear here as by that time renewables will have taken over, not to mention the copious expense and environmental risks inherent with the tech. We missed the boat with nuclear about 20 - 30 years ago, it's too late now and there is no point now with so many other power generation tech's available.


    JSmith
     
  11. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    15,441
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    not going to happen. i'll check back in 10 years. if we are all still around at that time :D

    oil has 50 years minimum global supply remaining and coal and gas even longer.

    the odds of a nuke plant in australia are about 0.0% also...as we all probably know already.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019
  12. cvidler

    cvidler Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    12,482
    Location:
    Canberra
    Yes, We'll end up with an energy crisis. starting off the massive cost hikes, ending with rolling black outs. because no one would make an politically unpalatable decision (be that decision, nuclear, or 'carbon tax').

    Make sure your home solar is off-grid capable.
     
  13. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,832
    Location:
    Dark City
    Great article on small nuclear plants.

    https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/the-new-nuclear-option-small-safe-and-cheap-20190813-p52gr6

    The core of it is small enough to put onto a truck. So they manufacture the cores in a workshop and drive them to site, which makes it way cheaper to manufacture and much lower risk and much quicker and cheaper to build. Decommissioning? Same thing, you can defuel it, wait a decade or two, seal it up,disconnect it, decontaminate, drive the core off site and do a deep burial something, and the cores are small enough you could build a facility to store 20-30 of them in a single chamber. Because of this, you could probably just refit the entire site and put in a new core and piping and have a multiple 50 year life spans for the project.

    Probably looking a low enriched U for fuel. So what we currently run our research reactor on. Low enriched U is pretty cheap compared to highly enriched. A nuclear plant at <$ billion is probably something you could find investment for, and risk and cost runs are more manageable. Because the project is smaller, there are more affordable (and better) contractors and construction options. $20 billion mega projects quickly become the domain of very large entities with prices to match.

    Even if it doesn't work out for Australia, its likely this is the future for nuclear globally. We are already part of it, Australian engineering firms are involved in the designs and Australia is a uranium ore exporter.
     
    adamsleath likes this.
  14. JSmithDTV

    JSmithDTV Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    3,519
    Location:
    Algol, Perseus
    https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ear-energy-in-australia-before-2040-is-absurd

    A differing opinion...


    JSmith
     
  15. Gunna

    Gunna Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2001
    Messages:
    7,208
    Location:
    Brisbane
    https://www.inverse.com/article/584...f-farmland-could-meet-humanity-s-energy-needs

    Interesting idea
     
    JSmithDTV likes this.
  16. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,832
    Location:
    Dark City
    Not really. I never said that nuclear reactors will be built and up and running and powering the grid before 2025, 2030, or 2040. I doubt we could build a greenfield coal plant that quick (<10 years).
    Even these proposed reactors won't be operational at the 2030's at the earliest, and some of those are under design/construction. I think the CAREM is the closest to competition likely to come one online in the next few years.

    John Quiggin is a social scientists. I don't know of any social scientists that have built a nuclear reactor, or even fundamentally understand the science and engineering involved. He seems on good ground on harpooning Joyces plans for instant nuclear power, but on weaker ground on the legislation of nuclear reactors. As I have said many times, Australia already operates a nuclear reactor and has done so for 50 years. Social scientists seem to think there is magical forbidden religion on getting a nuclear reactor to generate electricity other than one used for nuclear medicine. We have steam turbine powerstations. We have nuclear reactors. We even have nuclear waste. I suggest he studies engineering for a decade, make some friends at ANSTO and in the electricity industry and revisits his understanding.

    If it seems I am picking on John and am on thin ice myself, my background is, the company I worked for built the support facilities at the OPAL site and worked right up to the reactor wall and I teach Engineering at university and have a background in Physics.

    At 2040 we will have to start decommissioning the earliest solar and wind plants, ramping up to 2050 where tearing down and burning/landfilling solar cells, restoring PV sites will be big business. So there will be opportunities to look at other technologies.

    So I think its worth having a look at it, for the long term. Ideally we would get away from batteries for major grid storage (grid stabilization is another issue) and be on pumped hydro. Nuclear has potential. It is at its core, not CO2 emission technology. It can also work in conjunction with pumped hydro and solar. Its not incompatible. We need to plan for a grid with out gas, with out oil, coal, diesel, etc. We need to plan for ships free of diesel. We need to plan for a Co2 free future.

    An ideal brownfields site for a 100MWe nuclear reactor is the ANSTO site. Next to our other reactors. Other sites would be decommissioned coal power stations. They are like to be co-located with PV, Wind and pumped hydro. It is complimentary.

    What nuclear offers is consistent output the whole time, this output can be purchased by pump hydro and stored for peaks, to increase their profitability and reliability. They bridge capability during seasonal changes and conditions. They can also strike deals and provide cover with/for industry who needs 100% consistent power delivery. There are also remote parts of the grid that nuclear may offer the best outright option full stop. Perhaps Darwin, Broome, Alice etc.
     
  17. Hive

    Hive Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    5,448
    Location:
    Some place far away
    The costs to generate from 100% renewable is massive. It cannot be done with population growth the way it is and the fact there's a game-changer the electricity network is going to have to adapt to - growing energy demands from electric cars. I would love if someone did the napkin math on that. 100km average per car per day, 10kWh usage per electric car per day.

    Renewable energy supplements coal/gas/nuclear. It cannot replace it. There's no economic model where that works out.

    Phasing out coal/gas is an environmental thing. The least expensive option to replace them with is nuclear, in the absence of coal/gas to smooth out the supply you cannot scale up renewables to the point where you can run a whole country off of it day in day out sun shining birds chirping or not without bankrupting everyone in the process.

    Risks are extremely small if not completely absent with modern nuclear plants. The safety in them is extreme and let's face it this is australia, if they could they would regulate taking a shit. Workplace health safety / fair trading AS3000 blah blah blah. The job standards would be through the roof. There is always a valid point of human error, but technology is here to prevent that for the most part.

    Don't confuse modern day society with soviet russia and the rat race of party life.

    Can we move on to your next gripe that is the nuclear waste?
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019
  18. RnR

    RnR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,305
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Source?
    wut? wut? Can't keep up with a mere 2-3% growth rate?
    Average is ~50km/day per car, and I did napkin math and its about 1/3 20% more power generation, if most of the drivers don't install more solar along with a batter and charge their car overnight in their garage - calcs.

    Edit: added calc link
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019
    Hive likes this.
  19. Hive

    Hive Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    5,448
    Location:
    Some place far away
    This is what i was referring to. Let me re-phrase "To supply power from"

    Good calcs by the way!

    And it's a good wager most people get home at 6-7 and throw the car on charge. It creates a huge peak, in the same sense as tariff (ripple) triggered water heating. Depending on the charger it may saturate the inverter and start pulling from the grid, all get's expensive quickly. Sure you could get solar batteries... use a battery to charge another battery... and stuff.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019
  20. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    15,441
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    https://chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/

    bigger is better right?

    ====
    https://www.clickenergy.com.au/news-blog/how-australias-energy-landscape-has-changed-over-time/
    australia energy article bla bla.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019
    Hive likes this.

Share This Page

Advertisement: