Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

FormulaNova said..
....Maybe nuclear will be a good idea when they can ramp it up within minutes and ramp it down again in order to compensate for lack of production with renewables. Maybe the new technology being developed will resolve those deficiencies? Are we there yet? It doesn't sound like it....

See, these are the arguments I don't really get.

Just to punch it in one more time, I am not sold on nuclear bieng the answer in Australia (I get it maybe elsewhere), so I am not arguing for it, I am just not sold on the argument against it.

But as to the argument, why should the nuclear be responsible for the failings of renewables ?

Rather than worrying about ramping nulcear generation up and down to cover the intermittent and unpredicatble nature of wind and solar generation, why not query why wind and solar isn't required to have a better way of feeding consistent and predicable power to the grid ?

Wind and solar is cheaper if the cost of having to make up for its failings goes somewhere else. Seems like a dumb argument.

The grid and our consumption of electricity is founded on the principal of relatively consistent and predicatable input. If you want renewables to compete on an equal footing you need to ask them to do that.

The alternative of wanting the entire system to be changed to work around renewables, is fine, but you have to accept it comes at a cost. Part of that cost is something like gas (which isn't zero emission), nuclear or somebody say what else. But that cost is as much associated with renewables as with anything else.



Edit : cammd beat me to it. I vote cammed deputy Energy Minister.

It was a tie

and can I have multiple portfolios like scomo

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
I don't know if nuclear sits well with renewables, does anything. Seems like the deficiency is a renewables problem not a Nuclear problem. In simple terms my understanding is coal, gas, nuclear all just heat water to make steam to spin a turbine that spins a generator. Is that wrong.

The proposal is to build them on old power station sites where the transmission lines already exist. Seems like a common sense approach

I am not pro nuclear for the sake of nuclear, just as happy with fossil fuels, cause I don't think the world is ending, but if we have to have net zero to keep all the chicken littles happy then why not Nuclear like the rest of the developed world. Its clean green and reliable.

100% renewables is a utopian dream, it might be doable for your camper van or a house in the bush, not for a modern industrial country. Can't be done. Has never been done. So WTF do you propose in order to get to net zero, sit in the dark.

The deficiency is probably renewables if you consider their ability to provide power all the time or at least to match demand curves. By the same token, coal and nuclear are deficient. They cannot ramp up or down quickly. They cannot match demand if the demand is erratic. But we have coped with this in the past by various methods.

Gas is a bit different. Which is why it has been more used in the last decade. Based on pricing for energy it became more economic to have gas fired generators to fill in the difficult periods. I believe that this would not work if they were required to provide base load as it is just more expensive than coal.

Maybe this free energy market is a bad thing? The notion of private enterprise will fill the void has turned into private enterprise will just profit where it can. Maybe the government needs more control to assign power assets to provide power when they want rather than when the operator wants to.

I agree that solar seems to not deliver what it needs to, if you need reliable 24/7 power. Wind is better, but still not reliable enough. Do we need to consider more methods of power generation? Tidal/wave? Geothermal?

The good news is that even if we decided to agree on nuclear today, it would take a long time before it became available. So in the short term we need more renewables and/or a way to cope with base load, or stick with coal.

Using existing power lines sounds like it makes sense, but the people there in those localities did not agree to a nuclear power station there. If a coal power plant catches fire, its just a big fire with lots of smoke. If you follow the argument that it is "safe" then why not in the metro areas? Close to where the demand is? Clearly that wouldn't work politically as no one believes it is 100% safe and would not choose to live near one if they have a choice.

I bring this up every now and then, but it was sort of funny when the government decided to ban electric water heaters because they were inefficient. What they ignored was that off-peak hot water demand provided a good use of excess basel-load power. An example of one government desire conflicting with another. If we go to nuclear, we might need to mandate electric hot water heaters, just to take care of the base-load generation.

I have never been a proponent of net zero. I have been the person that has sat on the side-lines and said 'good luck with that one'. But it has to start somewhere and not defining these targets gets nothing done. Governments do not provide incentives if there is no incentive for them to do it.

I would think as a first step it would be good to interconnect the grids across Aus. But I am not a power engineer, so I have no idea if it is economic at all. Probably not. But is it in the context of helping support power requirements across Aus with renewables?

Too much typing. I need to find a video instead

^can you put that in a meme?

Select to expand quote

remery said..

FormulaNova said..

^can you put that in a meme?

I did bother to read it. This is the meme that seems most appropriate to what FN typed:


Hang-on, maybe this ?:

Select to expand quote

remery said..
^can you put that in a meme?

The Shovel have got it sorted: Full article here:
theshovel.com.au/2024/06/26/julian-assange-leaks-full-details-of-peter-duttons-nuclear-power-plan/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking_julian_assange_leaks_full_details_of_peter_dutton_s_nuclear_power_plan&utm_term=2024-06-26

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

I would think as a first step it would be good to interconnect the grids across Aus. But I am not a power engineer, so I have no idea if it is economic at all. Probably not. But is it in the context of helping support power requirements across Aus with renewables?

Too much typing. I need to find a video instead

There already is this thing called the East Coast grid. Harrow reckons he built a fair chunk of it

One small point that they are VERY reluctant to mention is that solar will have to switch off when demand drops. Nuclear power have to run near 100% for efficiency and to recover the large start up costs. Just like coal they are slow to power up and down, that's why we had cheap off peak power.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

FormulaNova said..

I would think as a first step it would be good to interconnect the grids across Aus. But I am not a power engineer, so I have no idea if it is economic at all. Probably not. But is it in the context of helping support power requirements across Aus with renewables?

Too much typing. I need to find a video instead

There already is this thing called the East Coast grid. Harrow reckons he built a fair chunk of it

Yeah, I was suggesting ACROSS Aus, not up and down. I know that the grid to the east is connected. It is one of the reasons that SA can claim 100% renewable generation because it outsources its dirty energy requirements to other states ;-)

The bass straight link was covered in ETI or Silicon Chip magazine a long time ago, and it was a means to provide hydro elect power to Vic and to get energy when hydro levels were low.

The WA grid is independant and has a few separate instances as well. But I was wondering if it makes sense to supply solar power to WA when it is still dark in WA, and power to the east coast when WA still has decent sunshine.

The truth is its a long way to go, and no cities between, so no reasons to drag power all that way. Maybe some nuclear plants dotted across the way, and link the states? It would be expensive though, so clearly not inline with cheaping out on Nuclear power.

^^^ Where's Macro when you need him?
I would like to propose that we just set up some mirrors offshore in the east that can reflect the sun up to a geostationary orbiting mirror and back down to WA. That way you'd have your toasters powered up before you head off to a long shift digging stuff up for China

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
^^^ Where's Macro when you need him?

Yep, Macro solved it years ago, if only we would listen.

Super-conductor helix wires running in supercooled spiral wound lined tunnels burrowed through the earth by an army of Elon Musk's robot moles.

Pretty sure Carantoc's patented cordless extension cable could be useful as well.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
^^^ Where's Macro when you need him?
I would like to propose that we just set up some mirrors offshore in the east that can reflect the sun up to a geostationary orbiting mirror and back down to WA. That way you'd have your toasters powered up before you head off to a long shift digging stuff up for China

Hay if we have enough mirrors like high up etc can we just keep someone's house permanently lit up to piss them off ?

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
^^^ Where's Macro when you need him?
I would like to propose that we just set up some mirrors offshore in the east that can reflect the sun up to a geostationary orbiting mirror and back down to WA. That way you'd have your toasters powered up before you head off to a long shift digging stuff up for China

Like you said, 'where is Macro'? When you think about it a bit, it sort of makes sense to just position the mirror in a geostationary orbit and reflect it down to WA. You don't need mirrors in the east at all... well at least this is the case if you believe that rubbish about the earth being a sphere or something.

You could even have it tilt and get solar energy a lot longer than natural. You might be on something. I mean onto something.

There is meant to be a project to send solar energy from here to Indonesia isn't there? The irony is that the cable to link to Indonesia is probably easier than running it across the country.

Gates recons there is 3 generations of nuclear plants

1st Gen: Ability to overheat (Chernobyl, ****ushima- built in the 60s and 70s)

2nd Gen: Don't overheat, but cost a fortune to build

3rd Gen: Don't overheat, much more efficient and don't overheat eg Gate's Terra project.

apnews.com/article/bill-gates-nuclear-terrapower-wyoming-climate-change-electricity-23176f33200b22b9ede7f4ccf4f2ec3b

The other unspoken cost is how you decommission and not how it's currently done. A barbed wire fence and a keep out sign is the current method. Approx current cost is 2 Trillion USD. Mmmmmm

^^ agree.

Given how successive governments continue to kick the can down the road with the old South Freo power station over PFASs, PCBs and asbestos, I shudder to think how local, state or federal governments could ever find a workable solution for the nuclear artifacts of a commercial scale industry.

Isn't the building heritage listed and that is most of the issue ? You can't knock it down, but it is too damaged to be able to economically remain standing ? Dealing with the issues without knocking it down is more the problem, than just dealing with the issues.

Not sure too many nuclear plants would ever become heritage listed. Then again not sure I can see the heritage value in a derelict and vandalised shell of a dirty old coal power station.

You are right and that's another part of the issue. Politics.

In effect, the site including the building is held captive to emotional arguments, nostalgia in particular. It was a functional building that has reached end of life, the end. It is now a health and environmental hazard that gets worse by the year because of the lack of action. There's little to say those who insist that the freo power station is architecturally/culturally significant won't do the same with nuclear sites. Certainly the old traffic bridge fiasco is another point in case of a similar type.

Either way there is no solution on the horizon, it's a political hot potatoe. In the meantime piece by piece the contaminated building/site ends in the water table, in the encroaching neighbourhoods and in the ocean.

Now apply this rationale to a nuclear industry. There are a lot of good people with the best of intentions overseeing the very worst of outcomes.

Select to expand quote

kato said..
The other unspoken cost is how you decommission and not how it's currently done. A barbed wire fence and a keep out sign is the current method. Approx current cost is 2 Trillion USD. Mmmmmm

There is quite a few decommissioned plants, from a large range of countries. Which cost a trillion to decommission?

Select to expand quote

bjw said..

kato said..
The other unspoken cost is how you decommission and not how it's currently done. A barbed wire fence and a keep out sign is the current method. Approx current cost is 2 Trillion USD. Mmmmmm

There is quite a few decommissioned plants, from a large range of countries. Which cost a trillion to decommission?

The latest price to get remedial works done on the south freo site was $60-80,000,000.

Select to expand quote

bjw said..

kato said..
The other unspoken cost is how you decommission and not how it's currently done. A barbed wire fence and a keep out sign is the current method. Approx current cost is 2 Trillion USD. Mmmmmm

There is quite a few decommissioned plants, from a large range of countries. Which cost a trillion to decommission?

I believe that there's only one and they're still going. One in England, the rest get fences and signs

Select to expand quote

kato said..

bjw said..

kato said..
The other unspoken cost is how you decommission and not how it's currently done. A barbed wire fence and a keep out sign is the current method. Approx current cost is 2 Trillion USD. Mmmmmm

There is quite a few decommissioned plants, from a large range of countries. Which cost a trillion to decommission?

I believe that there's only one and they're still going. One in England, the rest get fences and signs

Why is decommisioning an unspoken cost, why are naysayers not making that an issue. It doesn't make sense why that would not be spoken of.

world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities

A Table showing shutdown reactors is at the end of this paper. About 25 of these have completed the decommissioning process


If the reference to 'one in England' is Sellafield, then that isn't really a typical example. Sellafield was never just a power production plant. It is also a nuclear bomb development facility, several different waste processing plants taking spent fuel from elsewhere, a couple of different versions of experimental reprocessing facilities and multiple other nuclear and also other industrial sites.

It is more like multiple nuclear 'facilities' with legacy military and industrial issues all in the one area now just called "Sellafield', It is not and never was just a nuclear power plant.

Ok so the "unspoken cost" is just a bit of misinformation, I thought that might be the case. This debate about using Nuclear energy in the mix to reach Net Zero is just going to get more and more difficult to refute as the misinformation gets exposed for what it is. I think labor are going to backflip at some point in time.

Check out San Onofre in Southern California. Ran for 40 pretty good years and was decommissioned about 10 years ago. It ran well and once again, it's the end of life that is causing serious headaches.

There are 3.55 million pounds of highly radioactive waste stored at San Onofre in 123 canisters of depleted fuel rods. The Department of Energy has picked 13 partners and doled out $26 million to explore the possibility of finding a community willing to host an interim storage site for spent nuclear fuel.

When I was last there, none of the surrounding counties wanted anything to do with the transport of the waste through their jurisdictions let alone housing it. Keep in mind the facility is on the coast, next to what is now a major freeway and in close proximity to fault lines.

All worth being on the table as Aus debates another Yes/No topic. Personally, I think nuclear should be part of the mix. It is the political will to deal with the long term consequences of commercial quantities of radio active byproduct that concerns me.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..

China emits a little over double the US. The meme obviously a lie.

Correct for population and the US looks even worse.

How about considering historical emissions, you know the ones that put us in this mess. China contributed little to them.

Who wants geothermal in their backyard?
These Yanks are doing something pretty much the same as what EAVOR are doing in Germany. Adapting oil & gas techniques to drill down and then horizontally to get a bigger yield of steam per hole.
And they are constructing a couple of mid size projects in Utah to feed 400MW into the California grid.
fervoenergy.com/fervo-energy-announces-320-mw-power-purchase-agreements-with-southern-california-edison/

Select to expand quote

remery said..
How about considering historical emissions, you know the ones that put us in this mess. China contributed little to them.

True or not ? I dunno. Going to take an order of magnitude more effort to prove otherwise. Lucky somebody else already started :

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#:~:text=China%20has%20the%20largest%20CO,but%20also%20the%20largest%20population.

Evans, Simon (5 October 2021). "Analysis: Which countries are historically responsible for climate change? / Historical responsibility for climate change is at the heart of debates over climate justice". CarbonBrief.org. Carbon Brief. Archived from the original on 26 October 2021. Source: Carbon Brief analysis of figures from the Global Carbon Project, CDIAC, Our World in Data, Carbon Monitor, Houghton and Nassikas (2017) and Hansis et al (2015).

Select to expand quote

remery said..
... The meme obviously a lie.

Given ABC fact-check is no more, it is left to others to fact-check these things:

The same Wiki sources as referenced above says in 2022 :

China 12.7B tonnes Co2

USA : 4.8 B
EU : 2.8 B
Japan : 1.0B
S Korea : 0.6B
Aus : 0.4B
UK : 0.3B
Taiwan : 0.3B
Canada : 0.6B
Total Developed Nations : 10.8 B

Simple maths to check if 10.8B is less than 12.7B

So I am sure I have missed out some nation that somebody would include in 'developed world', but the meme looks extremely probable.

And therefore the claim it is obviously a lie is debunked

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

remery said..
... The meme obviously a lie.

Given ABC fact-check is no more, it is left to others to fact-check these things:

The same Wiki sources as referenced above says in 2022 :

China 12.7B tonnes Co2

USA : 4.8 B
EU : 2.8 B
Japan : 1.0B
S Korea : 0.6B
Aus : 0.4B
UK : 0.3B
Taiwan : 0.3B
Canada : 0.6B
Total Developed Nations : 10.8 B

Simple maths to check if 10.8B is less than 12.7B

So I am sure I have missed out some nation that somebody would include in 'developed world', but the meme looks extremely probable.

And therefore the claim it is obviously a lie is debunked

"Developed nations"