Select to expand quote

cisco said..
For goodness sake, leave the politics out of it and the money interests then look at the science.

Technology currently exists that can solve all the problems of the world except greed and egotistical desires for power.

Tell that to kami, what he's proposing is inherently political. He ignores the fact that it's expensive because it proves(to him) that lefties and greenies and commies are full of ****. The truth is nuclear will be leapfrogged by other more renewable methods.

^^ Simply because of economics. Renewables are cheaper and much faster to deploy.

We can build 1GW+ solar farms with 500MWh storage in under a couple of years.

We couldn't design a 1GW nuclear plant in that time, let a lone turn a sod or enrich the fuel.

There are nuclear power plants of this capacity currently running at a financial loss and that will increase as renewables demonstrate the primacy of capitalism.

For instance, I don't see any banks lining up to fund 11GW coal or nuclear powered plants in Australia but I do see them funding 11GW renewable energy projects:

www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2018/10/09/macquarie-provides-capital-for-11-gw-pilbara-renewable-energy-hub/

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..
So what?
Opportunity was designed to last 3 months and gave us almost 15 years.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity(rover)

Science (and engineering), bitches!

Science and engineering?
Boeing Max

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
Interesting that nuclear proponents implore us to embrace technology but when it comes to advancing truly sustainable technologies like renewable energy they balk and claim it's all too hard.

Hypocrisy.

Yes, that's the sort of argument that tells you something is emotional and not based on logic.

Even so, I think renewables are an emotional topic, but maybe they should be if they have the potential to improve the world and are still economic.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

I think renewables are an emotional topic,

We live in interesting times .Things like clean electricity , water essentials could become boring topic very soon.From all problems facing humanity those possibly the easiest to resolve and we have almost all technical means to do so already.This is just a matter now to implement those. We don't need to wait to resolve Fusion concodrum while to comes to solar panels. There are already here, available and cheap as dirt. Battery storage _ predominately for those stationery use are not rocket science too (unlike batteries for airplanes that are still a decade away) .Summarizing: we should be happy that we could be emotionally involved in such prosaic topic like energy and water, because subject will become obsolete in few years . Like air to breath. It is just here and nobody bother.Those teething problems with reliability of renewables will be resolved soon simply by mass market. Slowly comes to the mind of decision makers that solar or wind energy is not confined to plain solar panel but require whole infrastructure like battery condensers to rectify fluctuations and transmitting lines. Like Steam engine that is useless without rail roads. DC HV or even superconducting is obvious solution for long term future. The problem for scientist and engineers to resolve and decide if existing AC network is what we need, or we may need complete redesign of whole grid and network to DC. Seems obvious the while you switch to DC all existing problems with 50-60Hz sync, voltage fluctuation - remain obsolete/ rosolved instantly while you switch to DC.In such case end user will need inverter to convert DC to AC for home appliances- until those could be also DC capable.So after century of Tesla , Edisson could win the future anyway!

The problem with switching global electric grid from AC to DC is similar to those with Imperial vs. metric. The longer you wait the more difficult it becomes. In in incoming era of superconducting AC doesn't seems to be the option ( unless we could design superconducting AC channels) .We could be specifically interested in superconducting infrastructure for planned network in space on Mars and Moon where low temperatures already favour DC superconducting lines.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Straw man. Straw man straw man straw man, straw man straw man .

Yawn.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
^^ Simply because of economics. Renewables are cheaper and much faster to deploy.

We can build 1GW+ solar farms with 500MWh storage in under a couple of years.

We couldn't design a 1GW nuclear plant in that time, let a lone turn a sod or enrich the fuel.

There are nuclear power plants of this capacity currently running at a financial loss and that will increase as renewables demonstrate the primacy of capitalism.

For instance, I don't see any banks lining up to fund 11GW coal or nuclear powered plants in Australia but I do see them funding 11GW renewable energy projects:

www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2018/10/09/macquarie-provides-capital-for-11-gw-pilbara-renewable-energy-hub/

OMG what a load of crap. Do you write press releases for Greenpeace or are just incapable of the most basic googling?

We are in desperate need of a rolleyes emoji...

You don't design a brand new power station every time you build one.

Build a 1Gw nuclear power station and get almost 1Gw from it day in, day out for almost all its life time. You're simply not going to get reliability out of "renewable" power.

Love your link. They've done NOTHING since 2014 but no doubt have really productive meetings.

Pledges aren't investments LOL it's a Kickstarter scam.

This is only 1Mw but it went up in less than a week: corporate.murata.com/en-global/about/newsroom/news/company/general/2013/0411

Including clearing the paddy field. Didn't need six years LOL

Didn't say one had to design a nuke station from scratch, but one still has to get approvals, do the civil engineering, do the architecture, get the enriched fuel...commission it and we can't do that in a year or two.

And it's expensive.....

And it's not renewable.....

Emoji, emoji

Are you by chance in the nuke industry kami?

As I said, if it was feasible politically and economically in Australia, we'd have it.

But alas dreamer, it's not.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
Didn't say one had to design a nuke station from scratch, but one still has to get approvals, do the civil engineering, do the architecture, get the enriched fuel...commission it and we can't do that in a year or two.

And it's expensive.....

And it's not renewable.....

Emoji, emoji

Are you by chance in the nuke industry kami?

As I said, if it was feasible politically and economically in Australia, we'd have it.

But alas dreamer, it's not.

Obviously can't do anything with wind/solar in six years either. I mean, it's not like it's a big job to layout some panels on frames.

Y'know, the more I look into it, PV cells should not be classed "renewable". They have a finite lifespan and ever decreasing generating capacity then they have to be "recycled", assuming that's even possible -- or economically feasible.

You're still not going to get 100% steady power generation out of "renewable". Estimates range from 30 to 80%, versus 90 to 100% for nuclear day in, day out.

"Politically feasible" is the operant phrase there. With bull**** mongers like Greenpeace leading the charge against the most effective and greenest form of power production, you'll be stuck with what is "politically feasible" regardless of how "economical" it truly is. Never let the facts get in the way, eh?

Not in the nuclear industry, but it doesn't take a PhD in nuclear physics to spot the yawning chasms in your arguments.

Let's talk about nuclear power
First we will talk about ****ushima and Chernobyl.
Than we will talk about the radioactive waste it produces which cannot be stored.

Thorium may be an option as there are uses for it after however again we are not quite at that level of managing it.

Our skill set in Australia also lacks the depth of knowledge to build operate and maintain a nuclear power station, our power company in west oz cannot even maintain the network of poles and wires let alone be put in charge of a nuclear power plant.

When we talk about renewables such as solar and wind power , if we invest now and properly the efficiencies and pricing will get to a point where it is so cheap and readily available that it will steamroll any other option and become so economically viable we as a species will be kicking ourselves we didn't do it 50 years ago.

Okay so maybe we cannot quote recycle solar panels properly as yet, sure beats trying to store nuclear waste for 500 years.

Yes it's new technology and a bit inefficient, invest in our future now and our kids kids may be able to breathe air as clean as we do.......

what do do we lose if we don't do it..... well quite a lot actually

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said.....(nuclear), the most effective and greenest form of power production...

Referring to nuclear power as the "greenest" from of energy production is a joke ... and you think I have chasms in my argument!

Blaming Greenpeace for why renewables are so damn cheap is only slightly more ridiculous.

DC the answer eh?
Connect a cable to a DC power source, then measure the power lost over say 10 metres.
There's not enough copper on earth to fatten up all cabling to feed DC power everywhere.
That's where the greeny arguments are really lost- ignorance!
My 5 year old solar panels are down around 15% in output.
But its okay they are producing CLEAN energy. Can I dump them at your place when they expire?

Select to expand quote

boofta said..
DC the answer eh?
Connect a cable to a DC power source, then measure the power lost over say 10 metres.
There's not enough copper on earth to fatten up all cabling to feed DC power everywhere.
That's where the greeny arguments are really lost- ignorance!
My 5 year old solar panels are down around 15% in output.
But its okay they are producing CLEAN energy. Can I dump them at your place when they expire?

Did you try to clean your solar panels, remove leafs at least and bird poo?

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Kamikuza said.....(nuclear), the most effective and greenest form of power production...

Referring to nuclear power as the "greenest" from of energy production is a joke ... and you think I have chasms in my argument!

Blaming Greenpeace for why renewables are so damn cheap is only slightly more ridiculous.

"Most effective and greenest "
It's a set. You can have slightly more green power generation but it's nowhere as effective.

"So damn cheap"
They're not.
And from your own link up there: $22 billion would get you three nuclear plants producing as much power far more reliably.


You're ignoring the facts in favor of the propaganda, aren't you. Both those points have been covered before.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

boofta said..
DC the answer eh?
Connect a cable to a DC power source, then measure the power lost over say 10 metres.
There's not enough copper on earth to fatten up all cabling to feed DC power everywhere.
That's where the greeny arguments are really lost- ignorance!
My 5 year old solar panels are down around 15% in output.
But its okay they are producing CLEAN energy. Can I dump them at your place when they expire?

Did you try to clean your solar panels, remove leafs at least and bird poo?

No that's just how the things work.

Select to expand quote

Razzonater said..
if we invest now and properly the efficiencies and pricing will get to a point where it is so cheap and readily available

That's quite the gamble though isn't it?


And if you wait 6 years it might be even cheaper and more reliable. Might be.

Select to expand quote

boofta said..
DC the answer eh?
Connect a cable to a DC power source, then measure the power lost over say 10 metres.
There's not enough copper on earth to fatten up all cabling to feed DC power everywhere.
That's where the greeny arguments are really lost- ignorance!
My 5 year old solar panels are down around 15% in output.
But its okay they are producing CLEAN energy. Can I dump them at your place when they expire?

Are you entirely sure that the loss of generation isn't due to a variation in cloud cover, atmospheric moisture and dust?
Anyway, it is well known that solar panels slowly lose efficiency as they age. You can accept the loss for as long as you like. After a century or so, I imagine that they might have dropped to only 20% of their initial output. By then the rest of the roof will need replacing and there will be a mature recycling route for the panels.

I don't get why people don't get that solar energy is limited by the ability to store it. The argument is not about renewable V dispatchable, its about how much renewable we can realistically put into the system.

Solar is a viable contributor to the Energy network, but it's effectiveness declines rapidly when it hits a certain %. After that you need dispatchable sources (coal, gas, nuclear). There are no realistically effective means of storing renewable energy on a scale large enough to meet all our energy needs. These are simple and verifiable facts.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..That's quite the gamble though isn't it?

Razzonater said..
if we invest now and properly the efficiencies and pricing will get to a point where it is so cheap and readily available

No that's the crux of scale in capitalism....

A gamble would be for Australia to embark now on adopting a nuclear power industry using expensive proprietary systems like the one above when it's the most expensive option.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..I don't get why people don't get that solar energy is limited by the ability to store it.

Dunno who you're talking about, but I understand that.

We may store it in batteries, pumped hydro, superheated molten salts and as hydrogen. The options are there.

Hydrogen can be exported like LNG is now. If we don't do it, someone else will.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Paradox said..I don't get why people don't get that solar energy is limited by the ability to store it.

Dunno who you're talking about, but I understand that.

We may store it in batteries, pumped hydro, superheated molten salts and as hydrogen. The options are there.

Hydrogen can be exported like LNG is now. If we don't do it, someone else will.

But none of those options are actually feasible from an economic or technological viewpoint.

I'll reframe your comment from above in the context of those solutions: "A gamble would be for Australia to embark now on adopting a pumped hydro, superheated molten salts and hydrogen" They just are not actual practical solutions from either a technology or economic viewpoint. Maybe they will one day but not now or the near future. Except for pumped hydro, that will never work here on any scale.

I agree Nuclear has some economic challenges, but those challenges are mostly regulatory. A robust regulatory framework and a partnership with someone like South Korea to build the plants would actually make it cheaper than any of the options you have put forward.

Nuclear is the safest and cleanest form of energy per watt than any other source, including renewable. It may not be renewable but it is certainly not putting a burden on the environment. And despite what you like to think, no renewable energy is actually fully renewable. The cost of building and maintaining the facility to capture the energy generally has a high cost too.

Select to expand quote

boofta said..
DC the answer eh?
Connect a cable to a DC power source, then measure the power lost over say 10 metres.
There's not enough copper on earth to fatten up all cabling to feed DC power everywhere.
That's where the greeny arguments are really lost- ignorance!
My 5 year old solar panels are down around 15% in output.
But its okay they are producing CLEAN energy. Can I dump them at your place when they expire?

You have totally missed the point -- we're talking about high voltage DC here, which is able to be converted to low voltage DC using electronics now.

AC used to be the only way to get high voltage, because transformers only work with AC. However now we have electronics that can do the same job as a big heavy transformer, which means that high voltage DC transmission lines are now possible.

Transmission losses are dependant on current, not power, which is why high voltage is used on transmission lines.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Kamikuza said..That's quite the gamble though isn't it?

Razzonater said..
if we invest now and properly the efficiencies and pricing will get to a point where it is so cheap and readily available

No that's the crux of scale in capitalism....

A gamble would be for Australia to embark now on adopting a nuclear power industry using expensive proprietary systems like the one above when it's the most expensive option.

Don't understand that sorry, do you mean economies of scale? Cos that applies for nuclear as well.

You keep switching between blanket statements about nuclear power and what is suitable for Australia, with little trip wires like "proprietary systems" tucked in the middle.
If it isn't already clear, I'm not advocating that nuclear if the best choice for Australia, I simply don't know any more than you know it isn't. That nuclear is the wrong choice always is where you are wrong.


"Proprietary systems" sounds like an acknowledgment that you can get off-the-shelf nuclear solutions and cut down your imaginary drawn-out design phase

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said.
????

I noted the post denying the statement that Nuclear is the safest and cleanest. It's gone and I will assume you actually did a bit of research on it and realised I was correct. That's great, knowledge is a wonderful thing.

It's safest by a long way. No amount of selective googling will deny that. There are many studies on cleanest, some put hydro and wind ahead on per KW CO2 emissions, some put nuclear ahead. Suffice to say they are all pretty close on a very low whole of life CO2 footprint.

For a bit of really good reading try this: www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints

"The study finds each kilowatt hour of electricity generated over the lifetime of a nuclear plant has an emissions footprint of 4 grammes of CO2 equivalent (gCO2e/kWh). The footprint of solar comes in at 6gCO2e/kWh and wind is also 4gCO2e/kWh."

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

might have dropped to only 20% of their initial output.

there will be a mature recycling route for the panels.

That's some Apollo-program level optimism there

So HG's 11Gw renewables station is down to 1Gw peak, while the nuclear has been pumping out 100% of its capacity day in day out.
Isn't putting off the problems of what we're doing now until a future date for a future generation to solve what Greta and ER having a tantrum about...?

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said.

I noted the post denying the statement that Nuclear is the safest and cleanest. It's gone and I will assume you actually did a bit of research on it and realised I was correct. That's great, knowledge is a wonderful thing.

It's safest by a long way. No amount of selective googling will deny that. There are many studies on cleanest, some put hydro and wind ahead on per KW CO2 emissions, some put nuclear ahead. Suffice to say they are all pretty close on a very low whole of life CO2 footprint.

For a bit of really good reading try this: www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints

"The study finds each kilowatt hour of electricity generated over the lifetime of a nuclear plant has an emissions footprint of 4 grammes of CO2 equivalent (gCO2e/kWh). The footprint of solar comes in at 6gCO2e/kWh and wind is also 4gCO2e/kWh."

Yes your safety and clean claims are questionable. Depends who does the study. Depends on whether you factor in waste and toxic accidents. I removed my post because I realised you were referring only to greenhouse gases. Obviously if you take into account all issues with nuclear it's hardly the safest or greenest. Nothing to do with research.

Depends on what you mean by safest. Is that number of deaths per MWh produced? If so yes, nuclear power is quite safe...until it melts down.

So when a plant melts down and pollutes large areas of land, the fractionally lower greenhouse emissions don't seem so relevant at that point.

Cue claims that anti-nuke people always bring up accidents but.....sorry, there is a history. Fuuuku is still being addressed now with no end in sight. Depleted uranium is placed into weapons and used on warfare, leading to all manner of horrendous disfigurements in babies etc.

Sure blame earthquakes and tsunamis....

It's certainly not the lowest cost and probably never will be.

Select to expand quote

nebbian said..

high voltage DC here,

one day when technology mature ( and people too) we could see solar panel arranged in such way to deliver high voltage DC without the need for any inverter. We could connect solar cells in series to reach very high voltages.
Too early for that now because high voltage DC in this arrangement will be quite difficult to handle safely.But for Moon and Mars colony that could be first thing we will do.BTW
Instead of talking about nuclear nonsense we could do something useful and realistic. HVDC lines across Australia seems to be doable task. Realible transfer lines at high power capacity that is what the country need the most. Electric energy is usually always available somewhere is Australia, but we don't have means to ship from one side to another. Electricity is possibly the easiest of all to transport, don't need pipelines, rails, trucks, ships just a piece of conductor cable.The main problem Australia face in energy sector, is not lack of electricity but inability to ship it from place when can be produced to place when can be utilized. We could build aluminium smelters ( or any other electricity hungry plant) in Adelaide and use energy manufactured in Queensland. Future development of this renewable energy sector is already compromised by lack of industry able to use it. All we could think about is packing this energy and sending overseas for others to make a good use of it.The main problem solar farms already face is lack of demand for their electricity.
reneweconomy.com.au/negative-pricing-events-hit-record-levels-as-solar-takes-big-bite-out-of-coal-70728/

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
Yes your safety and clean claims are questionable. Depends who does the study. Depends on whether you factor in waste and toxic accidents. I removed my post because I realised you were referring only to greenhouse gases. Obviously if you take into account all issues with nuclear it's hardly the safest or greenest. Nothing to do with research.

Depends on what you mean by safest. Is that number of deaths per MWh produced? If so yes, nuclear power is quite safe...until it melts down.

So when a plant melts down and pollutes large areas of land, the fractionally lower greenhouse emissions don't seem so relevant at that point.

Cue claims that anti-nuke people always bring up accidents but.....sorry, there is a history. Fuuuku is still being addressed now with no end in sight. Depleted uranium is placed into weapons and used on warfare, leading to all manner of horrendous disfigurements in babies etc.

Sure blame earthquakes and tsunamis....

It's certainly not the lowest cost and probably never will be.

Only questionable because of your confirmation bias. Factor in the waste and "toxic accidents" (WTF are those now?) and you're still clutching at straws.


I notice you're still not talking about the toxic waste produced in manufacturing PV though...magically disappears, does it?

Chinese and Japanese experts agree. "If a recycling plant carries out every step by the book," a Chinese expert toldThe South China Morning Post[/i], "their products can end up being more expensive than new raw materials."
www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#75d2f95b121c


How about all the deaths nuclear could prevent massive reduction of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels? Thought of that?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nuclear-power-is-safest-way-to-make-electricity-according-to-2007-study/2011/03/22/AFQUbyQC_story.html
cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html


Name one person who died from the reactor meltdown or cleanup at ****ushima. OrThree Mile Island. I'll wait. I'll be waiting a long time though.


"The end" of what is not in sight? Cleanup? So what? It's not going anywhere.


Define "pollution"? You simply haven't looked at the levels of "pollution" in these scenarios, what the numbers actually mean and how that plays out in the future.


"Fracionaly lower" CO2 but substantially more reliable.


Depleted uranium and birth defects now that's like not driving a car because of all the road deaths in the US. Or flying anymore because the aircraft might have DU counterweights. Or getting medical treatment because it's used as shielding for radiography equipment.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Studies_indicating_negligible_effects

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said.
one day when technology mature ( and people too) we could see solar panel arranged in such way to deliver high voltage DC without the need for any inverter. We could connect solar cells in series to reach very high voltages.
Too early for that now because high voltage DC in this arrangement will be quite difficult to handle safely.But for Moon and Mars colony that could be first thing we will do.BTW
Instead of talking about nuclear nonsense we could do something useful and realistic. HVDC lines across Australia seems to be doable task. Realible transfer lines at high power capacity that is what the country need the most. Electric energy is usually always available somewhere is Australia, but we don't have means to ship from one side to another. Electricity is possibly the easiest of all to transport, don't need pipelines, rails, trucks, ships just a piece of conductor cable.The main problem Australia face in energy sector, is not lack of electricity but inability to ship it from place when can be produced to place when can be utilized. We could build aluminium smelters ( or any other electricity hungry plant) in Adelaide and use energy manufactured in Queensland. Future development of this renewable energy sector is already compromised by lack of industry able to use it. All we could think about is packing this energy and sending overseas for others to make a good use of it.The main problem solar farms already face is lack of demand for their electricity.

I thought you were the one primarily concerned about the toxicity of nuclear?

The toxic chemicals in solar panels include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride. Additionally, silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of producing crystalline silicon, is highly toxic.
sciencing.com/toxic-chemicals-solar-panels-18393.html

Luckily, you never have earthquakes or tsunami or storms or fires in Australia, so you'll never have to worry about that **** getting blown across the countryside...