Dutton's Folly (nuclear power)

[spacesailor]

I was , under the impression, it was 36 volts ! .

spacesailor

  PS. : even 12 v DC in an aluminium caravan,  can store thousands of lethal amps .

[facthunter]

32 Volt systems were used for domestic. Petrol powered. I have one that was made in Ballarat.  Water cooled (thermo-syphon) Not in use of course.  Nev

[onetrack]

The first 7 years after I left school and living in the city, were spent living in a rented farmhouse in the wheatbelt, where we only had 32V power. We had a stack of 2V lead-acid batteries and a 32V generator run by a single-cylinder, hand cranked, YB model Southern Cross diesel engine. It was no fun cranking up that engine on cold Winter mornings!

 

There was a brass cup inserted upside down into the rocker cover, you filled this brass cup with oil and poured it into the orifice, and the oil ran into the intake and assisted in cold starting.

The decompression device was a pin that went under the inlet valve and held it open, and which pin was operated by a lever and rod assembly, which was actuated by turning a pipe sleeve that rotated on the cooling water intake pipe.

 

So you filled the old YB with oil, rotated the sleeve as you slowly cranked the engine, until the inlet valve was held open, then you picked up cranking speed until it felt like your arm would fall off, and then you rotated the decompression sleeve to close the intake valve, and hopefully, she'd fire up! Cold mornings with frost on the ground and thick oil made this a "short straw" job!!

 

The engine was built in the Toowoomba Foundry and I was surprised to see Southern Cross built over 14,000 of them! They were the days when we built good stuff in Australia, designed by Australians!

We had also Dunlite Wind Generators, too, they were quite advanced for their time, and large numbers were exported, even to places such as Canada and the U.S.

 

Edited yesterday at 01:07 AM by onetrack

[facthunter]

My engine is a !/4 of a 26 chev. Petrol OHV. Generator direct drive. DC (Brushed with commutator) all on a cast iron base. .  Nev

[nomadpete]

As good a place as any to put up this quote - and not my own smazement that I agree with something Matt Canavan said.....

 

“I’m not saying we should be 100% coal, or not build nuclear, or not invest in renewable. But the balance has shifted so far away from investing in reliable power.”

 

“We shouldn’t build a complex electricity system based on focus groups. The focus group approach to our energy system is leading to constant warnings of blackouts … All sides of politics are deciding their energy based on focus group, not a real world analysis of impact.”

 

 

So far neither major party have been starting serious investment in electricity security. Major storage is needed and it is needed fast.

 

Are Labor waiting for the LNP mob to win the next election so they can blame LNP for the blackouts?

 

The pollies of both sides are trying to buy votes with magic promises - but no good will come without solid investment in new infrastructure.

Edited yesterday at 04:42 AM by nomadpete

[facthunter]

Matt Canavan is associated with COAL Interests. Battery and pump hydro etc is what we need to BALANCE changing demand. Nuclear is NOT good for that. Australia is Unique with the amount of Sun and wind and tidal etc and the sources can be spread across the Continent  not lose a lot when there's one failure. AGING Coal fired Power Stations are FAILURE Prone and it usually happens when they are operating full chat. . They are also Old Tech Not worth investing in. While they work they are cheap as their cost has been amortized long ago.. The Owners ADVISED the then LNP Gov't of their closure dates. Nev

[spacesailor]

If we want more panels on roofs .

Why 

Do they cut out the low user's of power .

That " minimum power bill " clause , has stopped many a home having ' rooftop solar ' installed .

The wealthier homes use the most of what their panels produce. 

Those that use the least, & therefore contribute more to the grid , get no help installing panels. 

spacesailor

[facthunter]

You pay about $400/ year to be connected to the grid. That's about the Price of hiring Oxy and acetylene bottles.  Nev

[old man emu]

A technical question.

 

I looked up how a photovoltaic cell works at the photon level, and found that an electron is released when a photon strikes the molecules that make up the cell. I'm getting right down to the very lowest level of interaction.

 

My question is: Photons are continually coming from the Sun, during the hours of daylight. Apart from things like sunspot activity, the concentration of photons should be constant for any given angle of the Sun above the horizon. Does that mean that the number of photons colliding with photoelectric cell is not diminished if it is a cloudy day compared to a cloudless day?

 

To clarify my example. Suppose it is the moment of a day when the Sun is directly overhead a point on the Earth's surface. If it is a cloudless day, that should mean that the number of photons reaching the surface is a maximum. Now, at the exact same time the next day, it is cloudy. Would there be a difference in the number of photons reaching the surface? 

 

I wonder if the thickness of the cloud cover would make a difference.

[onetrack]

The W.A. Govt is charging ahead and investing in large storage ("grid-scale") batteries, as fast as the manufacturers can supply them, and as fast as State budgeting will allow.

 

https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/energy-policy-wa/energy-storage

 

https://www.synergy.net.au/Our-energy/SynergyRED/Large-Scale-Battery-Energy-Storage-Systems

[nomadpete]

5 hours ago, facthunter said:

Matt Canavan is associated with COAL Interests.

That is why I was surprised to find he said something logical.

[Marty_d]

In good news, Keith Pitt is not contesting the next election.  Presumably because the National party has slid too far to the left for him.

[facthunter]

 Good riddance but he did fight for Jabiru.   Birmingham and Fletcher  (moderates) are going too. Nev

[kgwilson]

16 hours ago, old man emu said:

A technical question.

 

I looked up how a photovoltaic cell works at the photon level, and found that an electron is released when a photon strikes the molecules that make up the cell. I'm getting right down to the very lowest level of interaction.

 

My question is: Photons are continually coming from the Sun, during the hours of daylight. Apart from things like sunspot activity, the concentration of photons should be constant for any given angle of the Sun above the horizon. Does that mean that the number of photons colliding with photoelectric cell is not diminished if it is a cloudy day compared to a cloudless day?

 

To clarify my example. Suppose it is the moment of a day when the Sun is directly overhead a point on the Earth's surface. If it is a cloudless day, that should mean that the number of photons reaching the surface is a maximum. Now, at the exact same time the next day, it is cloudy. Would there be a difference in the number of photons reaching the surface? 

 

I wonder if the thickness of the cloud cover would make a difference.

I have not studied the detail of how photo voltaic arrays actually work but while they produce some power on cloudy days it is small compared to full sun. The angle at which the suns rays reach the panel also has a profound effect. Heat is also the enemy of PV cells and they produce less power in mid Summer when the sun may be directly overhead at a perfect angle of 90 degrees than they do in Spring when the angle is not so good but it is cooler.

 

My system tracks the power output in real time & it is very clear when a cloud obscures the sum even for only a minute or 2.

 

Most PV systems are fixed so face whatever direction and angle the roof is. Tracking the suns movement (though it really is the other way around) to get a perfect angle will provide the best results but there is a technology cost plus the system uses some power to operate & then there is maintenance. There are some solar farms that use tracking but most do not as it is not economically viable.

[facthunter]

Newer versions have better results with diffuse light. Panels have dropped to only about 20% of their former price. This is by far the cheapest energy for the average person. Battery back up could be a community or local area project, completely INDEPENDANT of the system. ALL getting cheaper when everything else will get more expensive.. We are NOT a Nuclear Nation and it's not a simple or  Popular move to become one. Nuclear has to be Cooled and that ADDS heat. Disposal and cleaning up the sites after decommissioning is NOT (conveniently?) mentioned in Dutton's Costs. The whole thing is sneaky and Deceptive and lacking in detail. IF the Market won't fund it there's SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG. Look no further.  than that.  Nev

[nomadpete]

Not about  Mr Dutton's plans, but relevant to the looming energy crisis....

 

There is a lot of marginal farmland out past Roma in Qld. The area also has great annual sun radiation. Sounds like a suitable location for a big PV farm.

 

A couple of years ago, the grid owners invested around $500 million in extending the coastal grid out to Roma - to supply power the power hungry gas industry. Note this might be redundant after the gas seams have been emptied. But the HV grid can work in either direction.

 

So, there is now a grid connection between a perfect solar farm location and the populous east coast grid.

 

All we need is the government to get off its ass and build some coastal pumped storage.

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

Battery back up could be a community or local area project, completely INDEPENDANT of the system

Rather than "could", I would say "should" or more strongly, "must'.

 

Establishing community batteries  and maintaining a distribution network would cost money, no matter whose money it was. Who owns the distribution network at the moment? Is it government or private?

 

Would it be acceptable for private companies to install community batteries and maintain them by charging a rent to "store" electricity for those charging the batteries with  excess domestic solar generated electricity? The rent could be calculated on the amount delivered to the battery and the amount a household used when a premises' system was not generating. That withdrawal charge could also be applied to non-contributors in the same way that we pay for electricity at the moment. 

[old man emu]

3 hours ago, kgwilson said:

My system tracks the power output in real time & it is very clear when a cloud obscures the sum even for only a minute or 2.

Thanks. That is sufficient answer to my question.

 

I do realise that the number of photons striking the generating surface is dependent on the angle between the Sun and the surface. If I remember my traffic radar training correctly, this difference is due to cosine error, which introduces a numerical factor resulting in a lower actual value than the theoretical value.

 

I would have thought that heat would have a positive effect on solar electricity generation, since heat increases the energy of a substance, making it more likely to shed electrons. Perhaps the opposite is correct and heat lets the substance hold on to its electrons more strongly.

[nomadpete]

What matters is the longer term balance between generation and consumption. Well it matters, as long as there is a storage media to smooth out supply & demand.

 

My humble 3Kw PV produces approximately the same energy annually as our house consumes annually.

 

I just can't afford a flywheel big enough to tide me over the dark times.

[facthunter]

Your rooftop could probably produce 10x that amount.. It doesn't really matter a lot whether the storage is  funded by private enterprise Or a Co- op.  Ideally you're in a market and competition would exist. With Dutton there won't be any. Take it or leave it everyone. THEN you WILL have something to whinge about.  You'll also be stuck with a grid to supply from very few sources .Nev

[Siso]

sorry I'm late on this.

 

Regarding the report the coalition have on NP. It can't be worse than the gen cost report. It sounds like the new one still give NP a 30 year life which is not right. Some plants have been given 20 year extensions on their 40 year lives which will bring them out to 60 years. There is no reason not to expect the new reactors to be capable of 80 years. They also gave wind a 40-50% capacity factor. The farm I worked was in the low 30's and one year I know was under 30%.

 

There hasn't been much private interest in NP in Australia because the easiest way for companies to make money is the status quo. Do we really want private companies running our power. It hasn't really been to successful in the last 30 years. NP can load follow, it just never has had to and hasn't been a top priority. The other thing with private retailers is that the general public should not have to be corparate lawers or economists to get the best deal on electricity. This harms less educated (I'm a fitter and work with my hands. If I start reading documents my mind goes blank after a few minutes unless they are technical) people more. Electricity is not just a nice to have but is a necessity.

 

Nuclear spent fuel problem has been solved with recycling, 300year storage for fission products (approx 10 half lives and then very little radiation left) and burial for the long lived waste. (long lived because it is not very radioactive) The biggest issue with it is the new fuel is so damn cheap it may not be economic. Same story with wind turbine blades.

 

Denmark has been going down the renewable path a long time but they still have a coal fired plant. (see www.electrictymaps.com) Germany's opposition are talking about restarting some nuclear plants that are still in one piece.

 

There is a plan for large virtual battery's using everybody's home battery. Do we want our grid to reply on the home owner. I know people that are getting so little return on the excess they are putting into the grid while the retailer gets a lot more saying the will turn them off.

 

Energy Australia was looking at doing pumped storage in SA near port Augusta using sea water but there was not enough profit in it. They will probably hang off until the government (taxpayers)give more money to make it more profitable.

 

I am not anti renewables (worked on a wind farm for over 10 years) but they are far from the answer by themselves.

 

Finished now.

[nomadpete]

QUEENSLAND'S pumped storage was commissioned circa 1980 and is still running and unlikely to shut down any time soon. There is no hazardous products nor expensive maintenance coming from a couple of big flywheels spinning on greased bushes.

 

Peak output 600Mw with cut in time measured in milliseconds. Like a big battery without all the chemicals.

 

The entire construction is achieved with simple well proven local engineering.

 

I am dumbfounded by the absence of such a simple, relatively quick solution to storage has not been built.  Other than the Qld one.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

The market not buying into nuclear power is not, in itself, an argument that nuclear power is inefficient or expensive. I don't know about the other states, but when I was a kid and yo0ung adult, all pwoer in Vic was, as I recall, owned by the SEC and privatised, I think by Kennett, do retire some debt. I haven't double checked my memory, but the point is, often in countries like Australia, it takes the government to do the big investments, and then they sell to private enterprise to continue. However, the market is investing in renewables, so I would say that, despite the status quo being the easiest way to make money, the private sector sees more value in renewables than seeing keeping the status quo.

 

For example, Origin, does not even mention nuclear here: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/companies-taking-action/case-studies/origin-energy

 

But here is an excerpt:

What steps are you taking to implement the target now it is set?

Origin has a five-pillar approach to progressively decarbonise our business:

1. Exit coal-fired power generation by 2032
2. Significantly grow renewables in our portfolio
3. Utilise our strong gas position as a lower-emissions firming fuel in the medium term
4. Empower customers with cleaner, smarter energy solutions
5. Demonstrate leadership in climate change advocacy.

 

While Nuclear is "low emissions" (I would argue not quite in whole of life calculations), they are not featuring it. Nucelar is sort of technically renewable thanks to fuel reprocessing, but the problem with fuel reporcessing is not the residual uranium or plutonium.. it is the radioactive organic fluid (can't remember the composition). That is still and issue, and is concentrated now. It does, however, mean a much smaller volume of radioactive mateirals to store, but they are for more radioactive. There is no such thing as a free lunch in physics, I am afraid.

 

5 hours ago, Siso said:

Denmark has been going down the renewable path a long time but they still have a coal fired plant. (see www.electrictymaps.com) Germany's opposition are talking about restarting some nuclear plants that are still in one piece.

I am not familiar with the power generation history of Denmark, but one coal power plant to power a nation is not a bad thing.. They plan to stop using coal in 2028, though..

 

Germany's nuclear shutdown was another disaterous decision by Merkel in the wake of the Fukashiima plant failure after the tsunami that hit the Japanese coast. I can honestly say, it was one of the dumbest knee-jerk reactions I have seen. Fukashima outperformed its safety design parameters. Germany's nukes aren't really subject to the same geological risks, and I can only think there may have been some very heavy lobbying by fossil fuel lobyistsm, because a quantum chemist (of which she has a PhD) would know the risks reasonably well compared to taking her country to, at the time, mostly fossil fuel. Quite frankly, I am surprised it has taken Germany so long to try and pull some of the facilities out from the mothballs.

 

Australia, however, doesn't have existing nuclear power infrastructure. Renewables are getting better and better, and as technology progresses, cheaper and cheaper. Nuclear is about technologically peaked, though there is a Japanese reactor technology that is emerging that could be postivie for the induswtry (though I have to look it up again.. ). 20 Years ago, I wouldh happily say nuclear is right for Aus.. Time have moved on.. We can do what we mormally do and embrace yesterday's technology, or we can embrace tomorrow, and for once, get ahead of th curve. We've missed the boat for becoming world leading manufacturers of it.. at least we should benefit by using it.