Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
It still eventually wears out and has to be disposed of. The UK is spending £130B on dismantling its fleet of first generation reactors.
A back of the envelope calculation got me to a figure of about 15c/kwh that should have been charged for the electricity they produced on top of building and running costs to cover that end of life bill

one may say that using our nuclear subs as power station is very smart move!
We never need to pay to decommission them.
We could simply send them to struck underwater hill on CS, and sink peacefully.
Nobody ever knows.
I guess that life insurance cover for the sailors. If not then still cheaper then decommission nuclear plant.
military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submarines

still more expensive that any wind or solar , but at lease no decommission costs ( if sink properly into Marianne Trench)


www.power-technology.com/news/russia-floating-nuclear-power-plant/

Now attention everybody!

If we cast our votes next time wisely ,
our next PM may alternate a bit our order for nuke subs and request few of those from our UK and US friends instead! \
At least our 100bln will not completely sink into ocean!

PS. to keep the same military significance we could arrange helipad on top. Our heli will have the same probability to reach Chinese land as our subs.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Mr Milk said..
It still eventually wears out and has to be disposed of. The UK is spending £130B on dismantling its fleet of first generation reactors.
A back of the envelope calculation got me to a figure of about 15c/kwh that should have been charged for the electricity they produced on top of building and running costs to cover that end of life bill

True enough, but that was 50 year old infrastructure. Hindsight is a wonderfull thing, but most importantly all the current fleet are required to maintain funds to cover decommissioning. I might note that solar and wind generally do not have that requirement.

You mean like the bonds that miners lodge to cover rehabilitation?
Consensus seems to be that they are inadequate.

Have we considered doing a pragmatic tidy up and just fencing them off, as a dedicated wildlife reserve, at the end of useful life? Look at Chernobyl. It's become a haven for wildlife. Wouldn't be any wolves in the area if it hadn't blown up 45 yrs ago.

I also suspect an objective environmental impact assessment of nuclear vs solar might come out in favour of nuclear. We'll need to cover a huge area with solar panels, dig up huge amounts of lithium for batteries to get us through the night.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
Have we considered doing a pragmatic tidy up and just fencing them off, as a dedicated wildlife reserve, at the end of useful life? Look at Chernobyl. It's become a haven for wildlife. Wouldn't be any wolves in the area if it hadn't blown up 45 yrs ago.

I also suspect an objective environmental impact assessment of nuclear vs solar might come out in favour of nuclear. We'll need to cover a huge area with solar panels, dig up huge amounts of lithium for batteries to get us through the night.

fencing off could be good idea,
specifically if we could make a signs on post and fences for radionucleotides on another side
to Keep away and do not jump fences!
Now all crossing borders nucleoids will be instantly arrested and put to lead prison.

Gurus jumping fences will be easy to spot and deal with.
They will glow green and blue at night.



Yep, I love to have green glowing at night Koalas in my backyard!

If we are lucky, we could do even that our national specialty!
Growing Glowing Pets, for export ! Forget coal and iron ore! Nuke era is coming !



Now every kid in china will be begging ! :
"Mum, buy my glowing mice made in Australia, now !"


Properly designed radioactive mouse should be also able to recharge your mobile phone.
Just plug in USB cable and go!

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
Have we considered doing a pragmatic tidy up and just fencing them off, as a dedicated wildlife reserve, at the end of useful life? Look at Chernobyl. It's become a haven for wildlife. Wouldn't be any wolves in the area if it hadn't blown up 45 yrs ago.

I also suspect an objective environmental impact assessment of nuclear vs solar might come out in favour of nuclear. We'll need to cover a huge area with solar panels, dig up huge amounts of lithium for batteries to get us through the night.

Lithium is not the only battery chemistry.
Besides which there can be pumped water, compressed air, molten salts and H2 or other synthetic gas storage

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

Ian K said..
Have we considered doing a pragmatic tidy up and just fencing them off, as a dedicated wildlife reserve, at the end of useful life? Look at Chernobyl. It's become a haven for wildlife. Wouldn't be any wolves in the area if it hadn't blown up 45 yrs ago.

I also suspect an objective environmental impact assessment of nuclear vs solar might come out in favour of nuclear. We'll need to cover a huge area with solar panels, dig up huge amounts of lithium for batteries to get us through the night.

Lithium is not the only battery chemistry.
Besides which there can be pumped water, compressed air, molten salts and H2 or other synthetic gas storage

don't forget sodium chemistry
and sulfur
era of laptop batteries used for power stations should be forgotten already with shame.
battery that was designed to power a toy
now power whole city !

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
Have we considered doing a pragmatic tidy up and just fencing them off, as a dedicated wildlife reserve, at the end of useful life? Look at Chernobyl. It's become a haven for wildlife. Wouldn't be any wolves in the area if it hadn't blown up 45 yrs ago.

Thats exactly the preferred method and is used. Most of the harmfull radiation has short half life. so they just make the building safe and let it all sit for 50 years. Then much easier to go in and do a final removal. They like to do this with the spent fuel anyway. It sits in pools until much less radioactive then can be easily recycled.

ukinventory.nda.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Fact-sheet-decommissioning-of-nuclear-power-facilities.pdf

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Ian K said..
Have we considered doing a pragmatic tidy up and just fencing them off, as a dedicated wildlife reserve, at the end of useful life? Look at Chernobyl. It's become a haven for wildlife. Wouldn't be any wolves in the area if it hadn't blown up 45 yrs ago.

Thats exactly the preferred method and is used. Most of the harmfull radiation has short half life. so they just make the building safe and let it all sit for 50 years. Then much easier to go in and do a final removal. They like to do this with the spent fuel anyway. It sits in pools until much less radioactive then can be easily recycled.

ukinventory.nda.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Fact-sheet-decommissioning-of-nuclear-power-facilities.pdf

Most like next 10,000 ears for radiation level to decline a bit and technology should be then to remove waste safer, by then.
I guess the any fencing doesn't last 10,000 year,
Mine at 30 years , barbed wire is considered ancient, although still standing !

on another hand by next 4.5 billion years one of two should happen:
-promised Aliens should arrive from near by galaxy, to help us deal with our nuclear waste
-our Earth worm will consequently evolve to replace Homo Sapiens as top predator here

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
I also suspect an objective environmental impact assessment of nuclear vs solar might come out in favour of nuclear. We'll need to cover a huge area with solar panels, dig up huge amounts of lithium for batteries to get us through the night.

I did an excercise for my sons assignment the other week on solar panels. Worked out that if storage was a viable thing (ie can store grid level power for up to 24hours), then to replace a typical coal, gas or nuclear 1GW generator with solar panals backed up by storage would require an area 36km x 36km. ie 1,300 square kilometers. I can't even fathom the environmental harm that would do. Thats with efficient storage. If you want to use solar to create hydrogen to burn then that can be trippled.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
Most like next 10,000 ears for radiation level to decline a bit and technology should be then to remove waste safer, by then.
I guess the any fencing doesn't last 10,000 year,
Mine at 30 years , barbed wire is considered ancient, although still standing !

No, that is a common missconception. The dangerous radionucleides in nuclear fuel have very short half lives. The level of radiation drops significantly in 50 years.

There is still some radation after 100's or 1000's of years, but it is not much different to background radiation and is not high energy.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Ian K said..
I also suspect an objective environmental impact assessment of nuclear vs solar might come out in favour of nuclear. We'll need to cover a huge area with solar panels, dig up huge amounts of lithium for batteries to get us through the night.

I did an excercise for my sons assignment the other week on solar panels. Worked out that if storage was a viable thing (ie can store grid level power for up to 24hours), then to replace a typical coal, gas or nuclear 1GW generator with solar panals backed up by storage would require an area 36km x 36km. ie 1,300 square kilometers. I can't even fathom the environmental harm that would do. Thats with efficient storage. If you want to use solar to create hydrogen to burn then that can be trippled.

this is why Singapore is doing solar power plant on our land
not theirs



now all we need to do is : multiply $7,000 per m2 by the size of Sun project in NT.

I am not good to work with big numbers , so we may need to ask K or your son to complete calculation:

1. Convert 12,000 Ha into m2

2. Multiply result by price of m2 in Singapore $7,,000

Then we know the answer. How much Singaporeans are saving, and we are loosing on the deal.

For simplicity lets say that 636 km of land for transmission line is free !
( although for our needs 250 km snowy2 cost us 10 bln)

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Macroscien said..
Most like next 10,000 ears for radiation level to decline a bit and technology should be then to remove waste safer, by then.
I guess the any fencing doesn't last 10,000 year,
Mine at 30 years , barbed wire is considered ancient, although still standing !

No, that is a common missconception. The dangerous radionucleides in nuclear fuel have very short half lives. The level of radiation drops significantly in 50 years.

There is still some radation after 100's or 1000's of years, but it is not much different to background radiation and is not high energy.

There is also another option,
Since humans managed to change climate in two hundred year , what naturally take few millions years,
maybe our human evolution process could be accelerated in similar pace?

If humans could quickly evolve to withstand 100 REM radioactivity daily, then all talk about harm became useless.

I have few ideas already!
How about small dose of radionuclide in every next COVID vaccine booster? The strongest survive! Well. I suspect that bigger dose will be also effective to deal with viruses itself>
If only COVID survive few next generations, thanks to new radioactive booster we may have new humans radio proof!

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Ian K said..
I also suspect an objective environmental impact assessment of nuclear vs solar might come out in favour of nuclear. We'll need to cover a huge area with solar panels, dig up huge amounts of lithium for batteries to get us through the night.

I did an excercise for my sons assignment the other week on solar panels. Worked out that if storage was a viable thing (ie can store grid level power for up to 24hours), then to replace a typical coal, gas or nuclear 1GW generator with solar panals backed up by storage would require an area 36km x 36km. ie 1,300 square kilometers. I can't even fathom the environmental harm that would do. Thats with efficient storage. If you want to use solar to create hydrogen to burn then that can be trippled.

That's 1.3 by 10^9 square metres for 1.0 by 10^9 watts?
Easy to lose a couple of zeros in these calculations. What does a square metre of solar panel average over 24 hrs?

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Ian K said..
I also suspect an objective environmental impact assessment of nuclear vs solar might come out in favour of nuclear. We'll need to cover a huge area with solar panels, dig up huge amounts of lithium for batteries to get us through the night.

I did an excercise for my sons assignment the other week on solar panels. Worked out that if storage was a viable thing (ie can store grid level power for up to 24hours), then to replace a typical coal, gas or nuclear 1GW generator with solar panals backed up by storage would require an area 36km x 36km. ie 1,300 square kilometers. I can't even fathom the environmental harm that would do. Thats with efficient storage. If you want to use solar to create hydrogen to burn then that can be trippled.

Did you get very good marks?
If Solar panels produce 200W/sqm, then 1GW requires 5 million sqm. That's 5 square km.
Allow for only 20% output due to night and early morning and evening sun and cloudy days and you've only got 20 sq km

Big one planned


www.sciencealert.com/world-s-largest-solar-farm-to-pipe-power-internationally-from-australia-under-the-sea

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

Paradox said..

Ian K said..
I also suspect an objective environmental impact assessment of nuclear vs solar might come out in favour of nuclear. We'll need to cover a huge area with solar panels, dig up huge amounts of lithium for batteries to get us through the night.

I did an excercise for my sons assignment the other week on solar panels. Worked out that if storage was a viable thing (ie can store grid level power for up to 24hours), then to replace a typical coal, gas or nuclear 1GW generator with solar panals backed up by storage would require an area 36km x 36km. ie 1,300 square kilometers. I can't even fathom the environmental harm that would do. Thats with efficient storage. If you want to use solar to create hydrogen to burn then that can be trippled.

Did you get very good marks?
If Solar panels produce 200W/sqm, then 1GW requires 5 million sqm. That's 5 square km.
Allow for only 20% output due to night and early morning and evening sun and cloudy days and you've only got 20 sq km

What about the storage requirement?

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

Paradox said..

Ian K said..
I also suspect an objective environmental impact assessment of nuclear vs solar might come out in favour of nuclear. We'll need to cover a huge area with solar panels, dig up huge amounts of lithium for batteries to get us through the night.

I did an excercise for my sons assignment the other week on solar panels. Worked out that if storage was a viable thing (ie can store grid level power for up to 24hours), then to replace a typical coal, gas or nuclear 1GW generator with solar panals backed up by storage would require an area 36km x 36km. ie 1,300 square kilometers. I can't even fathom the environmental harm that would do. Thats with efficient storage. If you want to use solar to create hydrogen to burn then that can be trippled.

Did you get very good marks?
If Solar panels produce 200W/sqm, then 1GW requires 5 million sqm. That's 5 square km.
Allow for only 20% output due to night and early morning and evening sun and cloudy days and you've only got 20 sq km

I am sure the young millennia generation will google something rather then use calculator.


practical answer is here.

www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/


but what I found very amazing in this article,
is how author calculate power of that solar farm.

30GW solar farm== 10GW solar panel + 20GWh battery storage!

bananas = apple's +mango

reneweconomy.com.au/sun-cable-worlds-biggest-solar-and-battery-project-expands-again-gets-indonesia-approval/

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Mr Milk said..

Paradox said..

Ian K said..
I also suspect an objective environmental impact assessment of nuclear vs solar might come out in favour of nuclear. We'll need to cover a huge area with solar panels, dig up huge amounts of lithium for batteries to get us through the night.

I did an excercise for my sons assignment the other week on solar panels. Worked out that if storage was a viable thing (ie can store grid level power for up to 24hours), then to replace a typical coal, gas or nuclear 1GW generator with solar panals backed up by storage would require an area 36km x 36km. ie 1,300 square kilometers. I can't even fathom the environmental harm that would do. Thats with efficient storage. If you want to use solar to create hydrogen to burn then that can be trippled.

Did you get very good marks?
If Solar panels produce 200W/sqm, then 1GW requires 5 million sqm. That's 5 square km.
Allow for only 20% output due to night and early morning and evening sun and cloudy days and you've only got 20 sq km

I am sure the young millennia generation will google something rather then use calculator.


practical answer is here.

www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/


but what I found very amazing in this article,
is how author calculate power of that solar farm.

30GW solar farm== 10GW solar panel + 20GWh battery storage!

bananas = apple's +mango

reneweconomy.com.au/sun-cable-worlds-biggest-solar-and-battery-project-expands-again-gets-indonesia-approval/

Well using Mr Milk's 200 watts/sq metre, 14 X 10^9 watts/200 = 7 X 10^7 sq metres = 7 X 10^3 hectare = 70 sq km

But you need vehicle access tracks between panels so there's your 12,000 hectares.

So that's 14 GW peak power under the midday sun. ( no calculator Macro, pencil and paper. How old does that make me?)

Now something for Gold Seekers



Now we could calculate how much we could get $$
if unload quickly back to the grid:
- electric bicycle battery (20AH 48V)
-Tesla S sedan, 100kWh
-Tesla power wall 14kwh
-run full speed power petrol generator 4,5kw
-run my 20kw solar panels full speed at 5am

I need to do similar check to water bills. Does water usage cost also different during the day or night?
I am surprised by recent water bills!

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Paradox said..

Ian K said..
I also suspect an objective environmental impact assessment of nuclear vs solar might come out in favour of nuclear. We'll need to cover a huge area with solar panels, dig up huge amounts of lithium for batteries to get us through the night.

I did an excercise for my sons assignment the other week on solar panels. Worked out that if storage was a viable thing (ie can store grid level power for up to 24hours), then to replace a typical coal, gas or nuclear 1GW generator with solar panals backed up by storage would require an area 36km x 36km. ie 1,300 square kilometers. I can't even fathom the environmental harm that would do. Thats with efficient storage. If you want to use solar to create hydrogen to burn then that can be trippled.

this is why Singapore is doing solar power plant on our land
not theirs



now all we need to do is : multiply $7,000 per m2 by the size of Sun project in NT.

I am not good to work with big numbers , so we may need to ask K or your son to complete calculation:

1. Convert 12,000 Ha into m2

2. Multiply result by price of m2 in Singapore $7,,000

Then we know the answer. How much Singaporeans are saving, and we are loosing on the deal.

For simplicity lets say that 636 km of land for transmission line is free !
( although for our needs 250 km snowy2 cost us 10 bln)

Of course there is no difference in climate between Singapore and Alice Springs is there micro.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Macroscien said..

Mr Milk said..

Paradox said..

Ian K said..
I also suspect an objective environmental impact assessment of nuclear vs solar might come out in favour of nuclear. We'll need to cover a huge area with solar panels, dig up huge amounts of lithium for batteries to get us through the night.

I did an excercise for my sons assignment the other week on solar panels. Worked out that if storage was a viable thing (ie can store grid level power for up to 24hours), then to replace a typical coal, gas or nuclear 1GW generator with solar panals backed up by storage would require an area 36km x 36km. ie 1,300 square kilometers. I can't even fathom the environmental harm that would do. Thats with efficient storage. If you want to use solar to create hydrogen to burn then that can be trippled.

Did you get very good marks?
If Solar panels produce 200W/sqm, then 1GW requires 5 million sqm. That's 5 square km.
Allow for only 20% output due to night and early morning and evening sun and cloudy days and you've only got 20 sq km

I am sure the young millennia generation will google something rather then use calculator.


practical answer is here.

www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/


but what I found very amazing in this article,
is how author calculate power of that solar farm.

30GW solar farm== 10GW solar panel + 20GWh battery storage!

bananas = apple's +mango

reneweconomy.com.au/sun-cable-worlds-biggest-solar-and-battery-project-expands-again-gets-indonesia-approval/

Well using Mr Milk's 200 watts/sq metre, 14 X 10^9 watts/200 = 7 X 10^7 sq metres = 7 X 10^3 hectare = 70 sq km

But you need vehicle access tracks between panels so there's your 12,000 hectares.

So that's 14 GW peak power under the midday sun. ( no calculator Macro, pencil and paper. How old does that make me?)

Fantastic !
Now I am trying to verify author claim about 2 bln income from Sun Singaporean Investment Scam.

I must say I am lost again by those big numbers.

What arbitrary price per MWh whole sale price we could assume ??



Lets say $10 per MWh will be fair price ,for us to sell electricity on such scale. ( Lowest bid was possibly about $12 somewhere in Middle East recently)
Lets assume 14GW solar panel produce:

14,000 MW x 6 (avarage output) = 84,000 MWh per day

for a year

365 x 84,000 = 30,660,000 MWh - produced every year

now we are selling those at $10 per 1MWh

30,660,000MWh x $10= 306,600,000 $$$

Now we need how much billions dollars it is ????

lets divide by 1,000,000,000

?????
0.3 bln !???
Did I misplaced "." ??? Not even close to 2bln!!

Please double check !

I know that author being smart / or negligent - did not tell us if 2bln is every year income or over 30 years life time investment.
If we read article - that is not clear at all.

reneweconomy.com.au/sun-cable-worlds-biggest-solar-and-battery-project-expands-again-gets-indonesia-approval/?utm_source=seabreeze.com.au


PS> K, I try to imagine everything first, and not a paper, not calculator, Looks like number is bigger then own digits , I am lost

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Paradox said..

Ian K said..
I also suspect an objective environmental impact assessment of nuclear vs solar might come out in favour of nuclear. We'll need to cover a huge area with solar panels, dig up huge amounts of lithium for batteries to get us through the night.

I did an excercise for my sons assignment the other week on solar panels. Worked out that if storage was a viable thing (ie can store grid level power for up to 24hours), then to replace a typical coal, gas or nuclear 1GW generator with solar panals backed up by storage would require an area 36km x 36km. ie 1,300 square kilometers. I can't even fathom the environmental harm that would do. Thats with efficient storage. If you want to use solar to create hydrogen to burn then that can be trippled.

this is why Singapore is doing solar power plant on our land
not theirs



now all we need to do is : multiply $7,000 per m2 by the size of Sun project in NT.

I am not good to work with big numbers , so we may need to ask K or your son to complete calculation:

1. Convert 12,000 Ha into m2

2. Multiply result by price of m2 in Singapore $7,,000

Then we know the answer. How much Singaporeans are saving, and we are loosing on the deal.

For simplicity lets say that 636 km of land for transmission line is free !
( although for our needs 250 km snowy2 cost us 10 bln)

Since I have my calculator handy working full power I could finish this calculation
How much it may cost Singaporeans to build this size solar plant on their soil on NT.

12,000 Ha
to convert into m2

12,000 x 10,000=120,000,000 m2

at the price $7,000 per meter in Singapore

120,000,000 x 7,000 = 840,000,000,000$

lets convert to bln $$

$840 bln

So summarizing. If Singaporeans want to build solar station at their own land
it may cost them $840 bln for the land under panels alone.

In comparison to deal made with Australia worth $ 30 bln ( and we /I still don't know who pays for what. We or them)

Big savings could be made , by avoiding 4500km undersee cable, but finding free patch of 12,000 Ha land in Singapore could be a challenge too.

Please fill free everybody to check my calculation and reports mistakes, if any.




After Sub deal and now Sing, I think that World Bank headquarter should be now moved to Sydney or Canberra.
Since we needs to fund richest country in the world running.
Who is next? Who need free money from lucky country?

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

What does a square metre of solar panel average over 24 hrs?

6kwh per day from 1kw solar panel ?
works for mine panels at summer
a bit more for NT commercial ideally positioned/ inclined panels, not random on roof.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

That's 1.3 by 10^9 square metres for 1.0 by 10^9 watts?
Easy to lose a couple of zeros in these calculations. What does a square metre of solar panel average over 24 hrs?

The calcs are pretty accurate. Most people don't understand Watts are an instaneous power measure, Work in GWh's are what matters. A 1GW thermal power plant can produce 24GWh per day. A 1GW solar farm might produce about 6GWh per day, if it's sunny and its not covered in dust...or snow. The calcs were done using a real world example, ie the largest solar farm in the world in India. Using both land area covered and average output per day in GWh. It is easy to scale up the farm size required to generate 24GWh whilst sunny. Then apply some real world storage losses to scale it up a little bit more and bobs your uncle, a massive land area.

Happy to share the calcs but its not hard. Forget the theroeticals, There are plenty of real world examples to use to apply factors.

EDIT: I will have to apologise. I should know I am too old to go off memory. I checked the calcs and the numbers were a size for all of Queenslands power generators. I will include the commentary for the assignment on calcs below, it is 1,400km2 for 8GW or all of QLD's power needs, still massive but not what I originally said.

Calcs are:General rule of thumb is 25km2 for a 1GW solar farm. This is backed up by Bhadla Solar Park, India which is 2.2GW over 56km2 and is largest solar farm in the world. The average output from Bhadla is 5.8GWh per day per GW of capacity. Therefore a 1GW solar farm outputting say 6GWh per day will take up 25km2 of land.A 1GW coal or Nuclear station can output 24GWh per day. For a solar farm to output 24GWh per day you would need 4x1GW plants taking up 100km2 of land. That is an area 10km long by 10km wide.A solar farm would also need to store much of it's energy to meet the daily needs when the sun is not shining. Cost is prohibitive and the technology is not even viable at that scale, however current storage efficiencies are around 80%. That would add another 20km2 to the needs. The storage technology is not available, but assuming it was a solar farm to match say a 1GW power station in QLD would have to be 120km2 in size. The Toorong power station in SE QLD is 1.4GW capacity and occupies an area of approximately 1km2. Queensland currently has 8GW of coal power stations in operation and 3.4GW of Gas turbine. To replace them with solar would utilise 1,368km2 or a 37km x 37km area. Noting that this only has power for one day. Any rain or overcast days would result in no power.

I would not bother to spent a $1 on traditional fission reactor, here in Australia.
because
promised FUSION is just about the corner.


We don't want to stay with old crappy scrap uranium/thorium/molten or not salt when pure FUSION powered by Hydrogen (isotopes) is almost here !

www.sciencefocus.com/future-technology/fusion-power-future/

By the time new subs arrive 2050 - they may have also engines upgraded to run on fusion !

So when Sun is not shining here, we may have our own sun in the box !

Fusion was always only 20 years away for last 70 years, but now seems that everybody compete to deliver by Christmas 202x.
Quite few competitors in the line, each one with different solutions - magnets or lasers to warm up!

PS. Paradox, Lovely informational and accurate post! Nothing to critique or improve for me.



futurism.com/china-cheap-nuclear-fusion
Nothing to loose for Australia, If Chinese stop buying our coal , may still want our gold to make capsules for fusion reactors.
Lets be friends.


www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-09/aussie-gold-glitters-the-brightest-but-for-how-long/100439040#:~:text=Australia%20has%20become%20the%20biggest,mine%20in%20Western%20Australia's%20Goldfields.

www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-09/aussie-gold-glitters-the-brightest-but-for-how-long/100439040?utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Calcs are:General rule of thumb is 25km2 for a 1GW solar farm. Queensland currently has 8GW of coal power stations in operation and 3.4GW of Gas turbine. To replace them with solar would utilise 1,368km2 or a 37km x 37km area. Noting that this only has power for one day. Any rain or overcast days would result in no power.

(8 + 3.4) x 25 = 285

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Paradox said..

Calcs are:General rule of thumb is 25km2 for a 1GW solar farm. Queensland currently has 8GW of coal power stations in operation and 3.4GW of Gas turbine. To replace them with solar would utilise 1,368km2 or a 37km x 37km area. Noting that this only has power for one day. Any rain or overcast days would result in no power.

(8 + 3.4) x 25 = 285

x24?
or
x4?

??
(say 6kwh from 1kw per day)

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Ian K said..

Paradox said..

Calcs are:General rule of thumb is 25km2 for a 1GW solar farm. Queensland currently has 8GW of coal power stations in operation and 3.4GW of Gas turbine. To replace them with solar would utilise 1,368km2 or a 37km x 37km area. Noting that this only has power for one day. Any rain or overcast days would result in no power.

(8 + 3.4) x 25 = 285

x24?
or
x4?

??
(say 6kwh from 1kw per day)

25 is the rule of thumb for the number of square kilometers of land you need to replace a 1GW power station (that runs 24/7) with solar panels and batteries.

24 is the number of hours in a day

4 is the number is the number you divide 24 by to get the number of kWh you get in a day from a roof load of solar panels that are rated to produce a peak of 1 kW power under full sun.

1 watt = 1 joule per second.
1 watt for a second = 1 joule
1 watt hour = 1 watt output for an hour = 3600 joules

k = 1000
M = 1,000,000
G = 1,000,000,000

Joules are the unit of energy that is neither created or destroyed. Was fairly easy to grasp until Einstein decided you could turn them into mass.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

25 is the rule of thumb for the number of square kilometers of land you need to replace a 1GW power station (that runs 24/7) with solar panels and batteries.

No, 25km2 is what is needed to create a 1GW solar farm. That farm might produce 6GWh per day. To produce 24GWh in a day (during daylight hours) you will need 4 of them and then you have to store 18GWh of that and discharge it. ie 100km2, plus a 20% more to cover storage losses. So 120km2 of solar panels to replace a typical coal plant.

Just for added context, SA's telsa battery was $172million for 129MWh. so thats $1.3billion per GWh. 1.3x18 = $23billion just for the storage. Actually add 20% to that to upsize for the storage losses. so $28billion

So for one power station equivilant we need 120 square km of land and $28billion just in storage and you still have to pay for 120km2 of solar panels.

EDIT: just looked at some costs of solar farms in Australia and they go for around $2mill per MW or 2billion per GW. So our 4.8GW of panels (adding 20% for storage losses) will cost $9.6billion. Add the Storage and we are at $38billion and 120km2 to replace one coal plant.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Ian K said..

25 is the rule of thumb for the number of square kilometers of land you need to replace a 1GW power station (that runs 24/7) with solar panels and batteries.

No, 25km2 is what is needed to create a 1GW solar farm. That farm might produce 6GWh per day. To produce 24GWh in a day (during daylight hours) you will need 4 of them and then you have to store 18GWh of that and discharge it. ie 100km2, plus a 20% more to cover storage losses. So 120km2 of solar panels to replace a typical coal plant.

Just for added context, SA's telsa battery was $172million for 129MWh. so thats $1.3billion per GWh. 1.3x18 = $23billion just for the storage. Actually add 20% to that to upsize for the storage losses. so $28billion

So for one power station equivilant we need 120 square km of land and $28billion just in storage and you still have to pay for 120km2 of solar panels.EDIT: just looked at some costs of solar farms in Australia and they go for around $2mill per MW or 2billion per GW. So our 4.8GW of panels (adding 20% for storage losses) will cost $9.6billion. Add the Storage and we are at $38billion and 120km2 to replace one coal plant.

I bought nice size lifestyle land in qld and has,to pay fair price for it.
Funny that this 120km2 for solar farm comes at no cost at all. All you pau is just a panel, battery, piece of calbe to conect to local grid and labor to install the lot.
From pure business point for those billions dollars of initial investment you could create fish farm on desert and extract 10x income from ha.
You could also split 120km 2 into nice 1000m2 blocks and build 120,000 homes to accommodate half a million people's.
That move obviously will ruin existing housing market by bringing prices back to the point where it should be.
How much it cost us to build 120,000 homes in one big go, bulk order?
Can 1 not build solar farm bring to knees whole housing scam in Australia?