Dutton goes nuclear

[spacesailor]

" taking lessonsfrom the Amish " .

You must be joking. Do you know the cost of running a

' horse plus the spare ' nowadays. 

It's absolutely ridiculously expensive. 

Even with a 5 acre paddock. 

A car is much cheaper and thousands times more luxurious. 

spacesailor

PS : your dentist is expensive.  But an " equine " dentist 

Charges,  whatever they feel like charging. 

 

Edited June 28 by spacesailor
Spelling

[red750]

There are a number of wind turbines  off the Ballan-Daylesford Road in Victoria. You could see them for kilometres, and from the town of Daylesford. It's been 3 or 4 years since I went there, my late wife's sister lives in Daylesford.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Interesting this has been placed in politics rather than science and tech.

 

Be that as it may:

On 27/06/2024 at 12:23 AM, pmccarthy said:

33 other countries have nuclear power 

Which means some 200 odd others don't. OK, lets say 150 can't afford it or they have too tiny populations; that is still about 80 that it could apply to in total, of which 33 is a minority And there are at least 3 in G20 that don't - Italy and Germany being two of them.. Can't recall the third.

 

On 27/06/2024 at 12:23 AM, pmccarthy said:

Snowy 2.0 will take at least as long as a nuclear plant from inception to become operational

I think if you read the literature, Snowy 2.0 with its cost and time blowouts will likely take as long as nuclear is expected to take minus the inevitable time and cost blowouts. The delays and cost blowouts came partially due to the engineering challenges, but also thanks to covid and a worldwide supply chain crisis.

 

On 27/06/2024 at 12:23 AM, pmccarthy said:

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

Care to comment on the many 10s, if not hundreds of bullions fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks are?

 

On 27/06/2024 at 12:23 AM, pmccarthy said:

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

Couldn't find reference to the 22,000 solar panels; Yes, 40 7 mw/h wind turbines a month is correct. The 28,000 kilometres of tranmission lines is not quite correct. It is 10,000km, and another 18,000 is we want to export the excess power renewables is expected to generate.

 

On 27/06/2024 at 12:23 AM, pmccarthy said:

The cost of the transmission lines alone will be $80 billion

I have not found references to this cost, but as part of a 1.5tn cost, that doesn't seem huge. If it is based on 28,000km of line, you can at least halve the number.

 

On 27/06/2024 at 12:23 AM, pmccarthy said:

• 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

Over what period? According to costs, it will not increase per year GDP investment that we already have (7.5% or thereabouts) creates a lot of jobs (can't recall is if was 70,000 or 700,000 - lets go with the former) , and secures Australia's net-zero energy future. Given nuclear is the only alternative to emmission free generation, going 90% nuclear would cost how much? Its costs look very good in comparison - to the shareholders.

 

Now, imagine if Labor put in place the proper buy Australia policy to ramp up a home grown renewables manufacturing industry.. Maybe that would generate much more, as the world is moving to an increasing share of power generation by renewables..

 

[red750]

Wind turbine on fire Cape Neilson Road Portland

 

https://www.frv.vic.gov.au/wind-turbine-fire-cape-neilson-road-portland

 

 

[old man emu]

9 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Interesting this has been placed in politics rather than science and tech.

An aside: I said elsewhere that politics is tied up with virtually everything we talk about here. Politics is all-pervasive, like the mycelium of a forest floor fungus.

 

Now, back to Nutton'

[nomadpete]

1 minute ago, old man emu said:

 forest floor fungus.

 

Now, back to Nutton'

I can't think of anything else to say

[old man emu]

1 minute ago, nomadpete said:

I can't think of anything else to say

Apologise to the fungus.

[onetrack]

Collgar Wind Farm has never had a wind turbine fire in 13 years of operation, and it comprises a total of 111 massive wind turbines. I think Vestas has enough experience now to be able to understand the conditions that lead to a wind turbine fire. Close monitoring of rotating components on a constant basis would be important.

[facthunter]

There must have been a few struck by lightning by now.. If they do fail you don't have to worry about the bit's being radioactive for about 10,000 years. I think they look graceful .   Nev

[onetrack]

Tornados seem to be a bit of threat to wind turbines. It's just amazing watching them get ripped apart in this storm chasers video.

 

https://x.com/ReedTimmerUSA/status/1804690861768233102

 

[facthunter]

So do houses and cars.  Nev

[old man emu]

If a very strong, consistent wind blew at a whole lot of wind powered generators, would the thrust generated have any effect on continental drift?

[Jerry_Atrick]

Although pitched at a younger audience, this may provide some colour on Nutton's plan:

 

And, yes, he has also made vids critical of Albo and the Labor government to counter the Albo sycophant assertion made earler.. Oh, and he presents his sources, too.

[pmccarthy]

igonre the title. This is a really good explanation of how wind turbines work.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Interesting video, but there was notning compelling about using nuclear specifically for stabilising the grid. As per the prior vid, it owuld appear the current Aussie plan is to use gas. And I draw you to about the 2:51,, "... but, in the grand scheme of things, wind is still incredibly cheap." The same cannot be said about Nuclear. And, there can be other ways to stabilise the grid, as trhe vid points out.

 

So, yeah, there are engineering challenges.. That comes with any infrastructure. But, nah, there doesn't seem to be a compelling case to plug those challenges with nuclear in Aus.

 

And, yeah, Texas is an isolated grid.. thanks to the Republican policies.

[old man emu]

10 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

yeah, there are engineering challenges.. That comes with any infrastructure.

I would have thought that the present high voltage  transmission infrastructure could handle electricity input from any generating location. However, as I think about it, that video spoke a lot about the control of distribution - load balancing - after generation. I suppose that is one of the engineering challenges.

 

 Australia is in an advantageous position. At the beginning of the video this image is shown:  

The brown areas are the places where the wind is best for this type of generation. It speaks initially of Texas being a great place, but if you look at Australia, it seems things are similar west of the Great Divide. Recently the BOM in its domestic daily weather forecasts has spoken of winds at the top of the Great Divide of around 100 kph as fronts move through. 

 

The only negative is that although vast amounts of electricity could be generated, there is nowhere to sell it as it is described for Ireland.

[facthunter]

The "Roaring 40's" is where the winds blow. With those very efficient and large diameter blades they don't need a high velocity wind...  Nev

[pmccarthy]

I was surprised to learn that Ireland is such a wind energy resource.

[old man emu]

37 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

I was surprised to learn that Ireland is such a wind energy resource.

"Tis the wail of the Banshees!

[Litespeed]

Have you ever been with a homesick drunken Irishmen?

 

Until they fall over the, wind is bloody constant.

Lungs like a forest and ya can't understand a word.

 

The Scott's are wind bags as well, so much they make strange sounds with them. Poor buggers must wear a kilt, or they blow their pants clean orf.

 

The English, seem wind deficient, generally all you hear is a strange whiney nasal sound. Everytime I hear it, I never can see their lips move in sync. 

I am sure they have wind, given the constant complaints, the tortured faces, whining sounds.

 

I checked the symptoms and have  cdiagnosed, they are full of shit.

[onetrack]

Bill Gates has a company called Terrapower, and they are in Joint Venture with a range of powerful and experienced companies such as GE, Hitachi and Bechtel to build a new style of nuclear reactor they've named the Natrium Reactor.

The Natrium Reactor is Terrapowers answer in the Small Modular Reactor design - and it uses molten salt for cooling, rather than water. Terrapower is building a demonstration Natrium Reactor in Wyoming, and hope to make it into a fully-functional power plant after its built and tested.

 

They claim the Natrium Reactor can be built in 3 years, only uses 1/3rd of the construction material of a Light Water Reactor, is 1/3rd the cost of an LWR, and it's good for an 80 year lifespan.

Terrapower are not the only ones racing to build viable SMR's, there are many operators around the world vying for a moderate-cost, safe, and effective SMR.

 

Terrapower claim their system separates the components into a nuclear stand-alone section, and a heat-and-energy generating, stand-alone section - and that the reactor is a rapid-response energy arrangement, that is eminently suitable to operate in conjunction with renewable energy sources.

The design is reported to be safer as it is not pressurised like a LWR, and the separation of the nuclear section from the heat and energy section, substantially increases the safety angle.

 

https://www.constructionbriefing.com/news/bill-gates-energy-company-breaks-ground-on-next-generation-nuclear-plant-in-wyoming/8037679.article

 

https://www.terrapower.com/natrium/

 

https://www.terrapower.com/downloads/Natrium_Technology.pdf

 

Edited July 4 by onetrack

[spacesailor]

That " molten salt " is what I go burnt by, cooled to 160°c

spacesailor

 

[Marty_d]

I may have given the impression I'm anti-nuclear.

 

I'm only anti-nuclear compared to other renewables (wind, solar, hydro etc), and only then if the total costs involved (taking into account further reductions in the cost of wind and solar, and ALL costs involved with nuclear - including the ore mining lifecycle, security, storage of spent/radioactive material, construction blowouts and decommissioning) are more for nuclear than wind/solar.

 

If the LNP can show modelling by a respected firm which puts those all-up costs (and the final price to the consumer) as lower than the equivalent generation by wind/solar/storage, then they should do so.  If they can't, then why are they chasing this?

[Jerry_Atrick]

.

Edited July 4 by Jerry_Atrick

[Marty_d]

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

.

I think that's your most succinct message yet Jerry.  Well put.