Dutton goes nuclear

[octave]

5 minutes ago, old man emu said:

But then, if I said that, I would feel the weight of a tonne of bricks falling on me from a great height.

Do you feel I come down on you like a ton of bricks? Or do I just link to data that you are free to dispute?    Disagreeing is the lifeblood of this forum.  Sometimes all of us can feel we are a voice in the wilderness when the majority of others hold a different opinion.  I am happy for people to disagree with me as long as they are willing to back up their assertions and are polite

[old man emu]

12 minutes ago, octave said:

Do you feel I come down on you like a ton of bricks?

 

No. It's a joke, Joyce.

[octave]

 

3 minutes ago, old man emu said:

No. It's a joke, Joyce.

That's good to hear.

[pmccarthy]

I grew up in Broken Hill, where the town of 32,000 people and the mines were run entirely on diesel generators in three power stations. We could hear them humming at night. Trains full of diesel seemed to arrive every day. The town was not connected to the grid until 1986. Now it has a 53 MW solar farm.

[pmccarthy]

 Keeping the nuclear power debate alive...

• 33 other countries have nuclear power 
• Snowy 2.0 will take at least as long as a nuclear plant from inception to become operational
• Renewable energy is being subsidised through renewable energy certificates at about $3 billion a year
• Energy minister Chris Bowen says Labor's target will require 40 large wind type turbines every month and 22,000 solar panels every day for eight years plus 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines
• The cost of the transmission lines alone will be $80 billion
• According to Labor at about $3 M each the wind turbines will cost about $12 billion
• The 4 million new 9 kW home solar systems will cost about $32 billion at $8000 each
• Together that's $44 billion to provide 54,000 megawatts of installed power which due to intermittency is only about 1/3 of that at any one time say 18,000 megawatts
• A Net Zero Australia study involving three universities says that the cost of going to renewables without nuclear is about $1.5 trillion by 2030
• The cost of nuclear power looks quite good in comparison

[octave]

50 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Renewable energy is being subsidised through renewable energy certificates at about $3 billion a year

 

51 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

The cost of nuclear power looks quite good in comparison

 

PM The thing is that if we go nuclear we are extremely unlikely to be 100% nuclear.   I believe that the country with the largest percentage of Nuclear is France at 65%.   If we compare a similar country to Australia, lets say Canada, they have 15% nuclear. The bulk of their power is non-nuclear.   

 

Electricity sector in Canada

• Coal: 5.7 (5.7%)
• Natural gas, oil, and others: 11.8 (11.8%)
• Nuclear: 14.6 (14.6%)
• Hydro: 60.2 (60.1%)
• Non-hydro renewables: 7.8 (7.8%)

Whatever happens a large percentage of electricity generation will be non-nuclear unless we do something that no other country has done and go 100% nuclear.   As far as 3$ billion in renewable energy certificates, it is my understanding that the proposals for nuclear will involve substantial government financial input.   This is how it appears to work in the rest of the world.

 

"Subsidies have been a part of nuclear policy since the beginning of the industry. No nuclear power project has proceeded anywhere without government support."

 

I am not necessarily against government subsidies or nuclear power for that matter, but the economic case has not been presented and I fear it won't be before the next election.   It seems pointless to talk about subsidies to wind and solar without the knowledge of subsidies that will be required for nuclear.

 

Again if we build 7 nuclear reactors it it will not be instead of solar and wind etc but as well as. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I saw a documentary about small nuclear power stations in shipping containers. The hypocrisy against nuclear is never-ending though, and I doubt that such a cost-effective method would be permitted in Australia. 

Personally. I reckon that the only good argument against nuclear power is the cost one. As long as the cost-comparison is honestly done. It would be very easy to magnify the nuclear costs and minimise the other's costs.

Not long ago, there was a story about Hiroshima, where we looked in vain for all the extra cancer cases we had been led to believe were out there.

Doing energy correctly would sure change my vote.

[octave]

I think if we are to do it we need to know the relevant costs including decommissioning and how that will be done.   It seems in many parts of the world they went ahead with it hoping a solution to waste would become apparent when the time came.  Here is a short doco on the closed-down nuclear power station in the US. It is not a rabidly anti nuclear doco but it does illustrate the need to have a plan for waste an decommissioning.  I think it is entirely reasonable and responsible to demand this information before we get on board with this.

 

 

 

Finland seems more proactive.  The price of this disposal will have to be reflected in the cost of electricity.

 

 

 

Edited June 27 by octave

[pmccarthy]

I agree nuclear will be only part of the mix (say 30% eventually). Then say 50% renewable (in 30-50 years from now) and 20% gas.

[red750]

Decommissioning or ongoing maintenance/replacement of wind towers and solar panels won't be cheap either.

[octave]

5 minutes ago, red750 said:

Decommissioning or ongoing maintenance/replacement of wind towers and solar panels won't be cheap either.

 

Nowhere near the time of a nuclear plant.   It takes years to decommission a power plant.  The power plant in the first video I posted closed in 2013 and still is nowhere near finished. They don't even have anywhere yet to put the waste other than leaving it onsite.  The Finish underground vault is an enormously expensive complicated construction.    Demolishing a wind farm I would imagine is not that much different than a bridge or other similar structure.   As I have said lots of times, show me the expected costs of building, running, decommissioning and safeguarding the waste. Without that information up front, how can anyone throw their support behind it.     

[spacesailor]

Those  " wind generators " blades are not recyclable  & are just buried. 

The oil industry makes more than just fuel .

So !, will be in demand forever . But what will they do 

With all that " oily-waste " , that we burn as transport fuels. 

spacesailor

[octave]

3 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Those  " wind generators " blades are not recyclable  & are just buried. 

 I believe that newer blades are more recyclable than the first-generation blades. The bulk of a wind turbine is recyclable anyway, certainly the metal parts.  

 

"Approximately 85–94 per cent of a wind turbine (by mass) is recyclable and can be recycled in Australia – mostly steel, aluminium, copper and cast iron. This is well above the national average for commercial and industrial waste streams in 2018-19 (57 per cent) and the National Waste Policy Action Plan target (80 per cent average resource recovery rate across all industries by 2030)."

 

Is burying a small percentage of a decommissioned turbine better or worse than storing waste that has to be kept away from people for many generations?

 

Very true.   The problem is not using oil to make things but burning it.  I suspect future generations will not look kindly on us. We had this amazing substance and we chose to burn it.

 

[pmccarthy]

Decommissioning a mine takes years to decades. There are hundreds of mines in Australia. A nuclear plant would be no different in the time required.

 

 

[octave]

18 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Decommissioning a mine takes years to decades. There are hundreds of mines in Australia. A nuclear plant would be no different in the time required.

 

I would suggest it is more complicated and I would have thought more costly.    Here is some information from  The World Nuclear Association which represents the nuclear industry, so not lefty ratbags.

 

Considerable experience has been gained in decommissioning various types of nuclear facility. About 200 commercial, experimental or prototype power reactors, as well as over 500 research reactors have been retired from operation. About 25 reactors have been fully dismantled.

 

Of the eight German units shut down in March 2011 for political reasons, most will be dismantled over about 15 years. The four operators had €38 billion set aside for decommissioning and waste disposal.

 

A total of 32 power reactors have been closed and decommissioned. NRC requires that the operating licence of a closed reactor be terminated and decommissioning activities be completed within 60 years. 

 

 

Duke’s Crystal River 3 (860 MWe) was expected to cost $1.18 billion (2013 dollars) to decommission via Safstor over 60 years, during which time the funds reserved for the purpose would accrue interest, thereby fully covering the cost, despite the fact that is was closed after only 35 years of operation. Immediate decommissioning (Decon) was then expected to cost $994 million, but the decommissioning fund would have had less time to grow sufficiently to cover it, and a $195 million impact on Florida ratepayers would have resulted.

 

Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities

 

I think my point about needing to know the lifetime costs and timeframes and waste disposal methods is sound isn't it? The situation at San Onofre power station is unacceptable, isn't it?

 

 

 

 

Edited June 27 by octave

[old man emu]

Any reason why decommissioning would take 60 years to decommission a nuclear power station? Is it that while the buildings and generating turbines can be removed in a time that would be reasonable for dismantling something like a steel works, the nuclear hotspot is the problem?  

[octave]

According to the World Nuclear Association, there are 3 methods of decommissioning.

 

 

• Immediate Dismantling (or Early Site Release/'Decon' in the USA): This option allows for the facility to be removed from regulatory control relatively soon after shutdown or termination of regulated activities. Final dismantling or decontamination activities can begin within a few months, depending on the facility. Following removal from regulatory control, the site is then available for re-use within a decade.
•  
• Safe Enclosure ('Safstor') or deferred dismantling: This option postpones the final removal of controls for a longer period, usually in the order of 40 to 60 years. The facility is placed into a safe storage configuration until the eventual dismantling and decontamination activities occur after resudual radioactivity has decayed. There is a risk in this case of regulatory change which could increase costs unpredictably.
•  
• Entombment (or 'Entomb'): This option entails placing the facility into a condition that will allow the remaining on-site radioactive material to remain on-site without ever removing it totally. This option usually involves reducing the size of the area where the radioactive material is located and then encasing the facility in a long-lived structure such as concrete, that will last for a period of time to ensure the remaining radioactivity is no longer of concern.

Each approach has its benefits and disadvantages. National policy determines which approach or combination of approaches is adopted or allowed. In the case of immediate dismantling (or early site release), responsibility for completion of decommissioning is not transferred to future generations. The experience and skills of operating staff can also be utilised during the decommissioning programme, which may be undertaken by the utility or handed over to a specialist company, with transfer of licence and accumulated funds. Alternatively, Safe Enclosure (or Safstor) allows significant reduction in residual radioactivity, thus reducing radiation hazard during the eventual dismantling. The expected improvements in mechanical techniques should also lead to a reduction in the hazard and also costs.

In the case of nuclear reactors, about 99% of the radioactivity is associated with the fuel which is removed following permanent shutdown. Apart from some surface contamination of plant, the remaining radioactivity comes from "activation products" in steel which has long been exposed to neutron irradiation, notably the reactor pressure vessel. Stable atoms are changed into different isotopes such as iron-55, iron-59 and zinc-65. Several are highly radioactive, emitting gamma rays. However, their half life is such (2.7 years, 45 days, 5.3 years, 245 days respectively) after 50 years from closedown their radioactivity is much diminished and the occupational risk to workers largely gone.

 

[octave]

So it seems that the longer they wait the more radioactive decay has occurred meaning radiation levels are lower, This makes the job cheaper and less hazardous.

 

 

[Siso]

22 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

 Keeping the nuclear power debate alive...

• 33 other countries have nuclear power 
• Snowy 2.0 will take at least as long as a nuclear plant from inception to become operational
• Renewable energy is being subsidised through renewable energy certificates at about $3 billion a year
• Energy minister Chris Bowen says Labor's target will require 40 large wind type turbines every month and 22,000 solar panels every day for eight years plus 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines
• The cost of the transmission lines alone will be $80 billion
• According to Labor at about $3 M each the wind turbines will cost about $12 billion
• The 4 million new 9 kW home solar systems will cost about $32 billion at $8000 each
• Together that's $44 billion to provide 54,000 megawatts of installed power which due to intermittency is only about 1/3 of that at any one time say 18,000 megawatts
• A Net Zero Australia study involving three universities says that the cost of going to renewables without nuclear is about $1.5 trillion by 2030
• The cost of nuclear power looks quite good in comparison

Just a update on the cost of a wind turbine I got a quote for a new 3.5MW turbine for an insurance company about 4 years ago. The price was 6,000,000 installed. This doesn't include the price of the civil work, switch yard and the KM's of underground cabling needed for the whole farm.

 

A major hurdle in keeping up with the installation of turbine is the supply chain for new turbines.

[nomadpete]

Every solution has it's  costs and problems.

[onetrack]

I still don't understand how the Europeans, and especially the Danes, in the shape of Vestas, got the jump on everyone with the manufacture of wind turbines. Despite the fact that Vestas operates manufacturing facilities in about 12 countries, the fat profits are going straight back to Denmark. And they are fat profits.

I'd like to see Australian companies benefiting from the surge in wind turbine demand, instead of us adding greatly to the Europeans wealth and social welfare taxes.

[old man emu]

A wind farm has just been approved  for a site about 15 km from my place. I hope that the location is well away from the Newell Highway which passes through that area. If is is hidden from the highway, I am not upset about its being constructed. Out of sight; out of mind.

[Bruce Tuncks]

While I like the whole wind-power thing, surely we have to step back and ask " what is the true cost per kWh?" . And, we have to be smart enough to separate out costs which are caused by excessive regulation.

[old man emu]

In our modern society to meet the need for more and more electricity, it's going to be "Bugger the cost. Just do it." Either that or we start taking lessons for the Amish.

[onetrack]

We've had a very large wind farm at a place called Collgar, just S.E. of Merredin in W.A.'s Eastern wheatbelt in operation since 2011 - so, it's 13 years into its projected 30-year lifespan.

This wind farm can supply enough energy to power around 150,000 homes (at rated output), but of course, it doesn't produce the makers full nameplate power all that often.

However, it does provide a sizeable percentage of power for Southern Western Australia, and it has been very reliable. The Collgar wind farm cost around AU$750M and the calculations on payback were calculated on 30% of the makers nameplate output.

 

It has been a success by anyones measure and despite a few gripes from aviators in the early days, due to the height of the turbines, no-one has hit a turbine yet with an aircraft - and the farmers who rented the land for the turbines are quite happy with their lease money returns, and they can still farm underneath the turbines, and no-one has complained about turbine hums or tones or noise levels. Plus, I think the local birds have adjusted to the turbines existence, as no-one has produced any evidence of an excessive number of bird deaths due to the turbines blades.

 

https://www.collgar.com.au/_files/ugd/5b2fe6_1bbfa037cbfc4d82b259ae838e9c8fa4.pdf

 

Edited June 28 by onetrack