Australian Conservation Foundation says ‘next-generation’ nuclear power a furphy


New Daily
Oct 5 2022

Small-scale nuclear power for Australia’s remote mining sites and communities has been dismissed as toxic and too expensive.

Research released on Wednesday by the Australian Conservation Foundation found the nuclear option would increase power bills, risk catastrophic accidents and bring new challenges for dealing with waste.

“Our energy future is renewable, not radioactive,” report co-author Dave Sweeney said.   :)

Australia’s nuclear power proponents are not calling for large-scale plants with giant cooling towers that have been ruled out for decades by NIMBY (not in my backyard) politics.

“Instead, they promote ‘next-generation’ technology, which simply does not exist in the commercial world,” Mr Sweeney said.

Small modular reactors (SMRs) generate less than 300 megawatts of electricity, while commercial nuclear plants such as Japan’s Fukushima generate more than 5000MW.

The ACF report dismisses the new SMR technology as expensive and unviable, and found small reactors in Russia and China have been subject to serious delays and cost blowouts.

SMRs could not be introduced to Australia without huge taxpayer subsidies, and would result in higher electricity prices, the report said.

“While there are hopes and dreams of ramping up SMR production, the mass-manufacturing facilities needed to produce the technology are found nowhere in the world,” the report said.

Earlier this year, CSIRO estimated 2030 costs at up to $326 per megawatt hour for SMR-generated nuclear power compared to up to $82 for wind and solar in a grid powered 90 per cent by renewable electricity.

Federal energy agencies have also found the designs are at best “paper reactors” and billions of dollars away from being ready.

Banned under current Australian law, nuclear power should at least be discussed as an option, according to Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.

Australia is rich in uranium with the world’s biggest reserves and is the third-biggest exporter, mostly to the United States where it is used in nuclear power plants or processed to be sold to other countries.

A South Australian royal commission in 2016 found nuclear power did not make economic sense in Australia, and a 2019 federal inquiry confirmed large-scale plants weren’t viable and lacked community support.

But small modular reactors should be part of Australia’s energy mix and could connect to the national grid, power regions or independently supply mines, according to the Minerals Council.

Backers say nuclear is a clean energy source that does not produce greenhouse gases and can operate day and night in any weather – unlike solar and wind.

Small-scale nuclear plants could power hydrogen production, steel smelters, refineries and food processing.

But critics say mining, processing and transporting uranium is highly polluting, as is reactor construction and waste management over thousands of years.

Hi Sir Crook,
I was hoping we'd have large scale Thorium molten salt reactors by now
which would be: safe, cheap and give us unlimited power forever.


https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/150#150

There are obviously a lot of technical problems otherwise
we'd have massive Thorium power stations already.
At least India and China are working on it.
I can't wait till they solve all the problems.

Yet more of the increasingly hysterical anti nuclear propaganda being peddled by the usual suspects. Of you want safe reliable power then nuclear is the only way to go.

Belgarion wrote on Oct 5^th, 2022 at 7:52am:

Yet more of the increasingly hysterical anti nuclear propaganda being peddled by the usual suspects. Of you want safe reliable power then nuclear is the only way to go.

Current nuclear reactors are not safe.
Were any designed for war time conditions?

Watch the Ukraine saga.

Belgarion wrote on Oct 5^th, 2022 at 7:52am:

Yet more of the increasingly hysterical anti nuclear propaganda being peddled by the usual suspects. Of you want safe reliable power then nuclear is the only way to go.

Only if the Kangaroo rooting government can bury the waste in your back yard, hippie

Marla wrote on Oct 5^th, 2022 at 8:13am:

Belgarion wrote on Oct 5th, 2022 at 7:52am: Yet more of the increasingly hysterical anti nuclear propaganda being peddled by the usual suspects. Of you want safe reliable power then nuclear is the only way to go. Only if the Kangaroo rooting government can bury the waste in your back yard, hippie

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/02/kakadu-uranium-site-clean-up-in-limbo-amid-calls-to-revive-mine


Kakadu uranium site clean-up in limbo amid calls to revive mine

Rio Tinto wants to fund rehabilitation but Ranger mine owner’s minority shareholders are pushing for further development

Estimates on this rehabilitation work range from $1.6bn to $2.2bn.


The land was supposed to be restored to a similar state to the surrounding national park and handed back to the commonwealth by 2026.

But this month the Albanese government introduced legislation to parliament abolishing the deadline, which all involved agree was not going to be met.

This week the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, which represents the Mirrar people, said generations of traditional owners were, and would continue to be, opposed to mining.

“We don’t just say ‘no’, we are saying ‘never’,” Corben Madjandi, a younger traditional owner, said.

“This report tells me the mining industry is not listening – it’s like we’re talking to ourselves. Are they deaf to us?”

Rio’s chief executive for Australia, Kellie Parker, says her company has learned from the Juukan Gorge debacle in 2020, where it blew up rock shelters that were tens of thousands of years old, and has received the message from the Mirrar people loud and clear.

Parker said she accepted that a valuation could take into account a change of attitudes over generations, but the idea that mining could start within 10 years was “fundamentally disrespectful to the Mirrar, to start with, and then it’s just inconsistent to what they have been saying for decades”.

Here is a very basic starter information article explaining the advantages of nuclear power and dispelling some of the myths around it. https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/debunking-the-myths-around-nuclear-energy?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=wire-page-share&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=debunking-the-myths-around-nuclear-energy&fbclid=IwAR0Ip14xnUXBIJ-sBpomDZ88_os28ny9UgsMxjljwZgLLgP56Gr3yh_fX3Y

Belgarion wrote on Oct 5^th, 2022 at 9:34am:

Here is a very basic starter information article explaining the advantages of nuclear power and dispelling some of the myths around it. https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/debunking-the-myths-around-nuclear-energy?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=wire-page-share&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=debunking-the-myths-around-nuclear-energy&fbclid=IwAR0Ip14xnUXBIJ-sBpomDZ88_os28ny9UgsMxjljwZgLLgP56Gr3yh_fX3Y

But they don't mention the elephant in the room - high pressures.


https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-reactors.aspx


A PWR has fuel assemblies of 200-300 rods each, arranged vertically in the core, and a large reactor would have about 150-250 fuel assemblies with 80-100 tonnes of uranium.

Water in the reactor core reaches about 325°C,
hence it must be kept under about
150 times atmospheric pressure to prevent it boiling.
Pressure is maintained by steam in a pressuriser (see diagram). In the primary cooling circuit the water is also the moderator, and if any of it turned to steam the fission reaction would slow down. This negative feedback effect is one of the safety features of the type. The secondary shutdown system involves adding boron to the primary circuit.

Not all coolants are water. Helium, CO2 etc are also used.

whiteknight wrote on Oct 5^th, 2022 at 3:19am:

Small modular reactors (SMRs) could not be introduced to Australia without huge taxpayer subsidies, and would result in higher electricity prices, the report said.

So as expensive and subsidy-dependant as solar and wind but much more reliable and constant?

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2022 at 12:51pm:

Belgarion wrote on Oct 5th, 2022 at 9:34am: Here is a very basic starter information article explaining the advantages of nuclear power and dispelling some of the myths around it. https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/debunking-the-myths-around-nuclear-energy?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=wire-page-share&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=debunking-the-myths-around-nuclear-energy&fbclid=IwAR0Ip14xnUXBIJ-sBpomDZ88_os28ny9UgsMxjljwZgLLgP56Gr3yh_fX3Y But they don't mention the elephant in the room - high pressures. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-reactors.aspx A PWR has fuel assemblies of 200-300 rods each, arranged vertically in the core, and a large reactor would have about 150-250 fuel assemblies with 80-100 tonnes of uranium. Water in the reactor core reaches about 325°C, hence it must be kept under about 150 times atmospheric pressure to prevent it boiling. Pressure is maintained by steam in a pressuriser (see diagram). In the primary cooling circuit the water is also the moderator, and if any of it turned to steam the fission reaction would slow down. This negative feedback effect is one of the safety features of the type. The secondary shutdown system involves adding boron to the primary circuit.

Yes, and?

Belgarion wrote on Oct 5^th, 2022 at 3:11pm:

Yes, and?

Tons of Uranium that is at high temperature inside a chamber
pressurised to 150 Bar which is 2176 pounds per square inch.
What could go wrong?
Have you heard of a meltdown?

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2022 at 7:40pm:

Belgarion wrote on Oct 5th, 2022 at 3:11pm: Yes, and? Tons of Uranium that is at high temperature inside a chamber pressurised to 150 Bar which is 2176 pounds per square inch. What could go wrong? Have you heard of a meltdown?

On regular occasions I used to wear an air tank on my back pressurised to much greater than 150 bar and never had a problem with it. This sort of pressure is well within the capabilities of modern industrial applications and is no cause for concern. 

Nuclear power plants have been in operation for over 60 years. There are currently some 438 nuclear power stations operating in 32 countries. It is the safest and most reliable form of electricity production by far.

Belgarion wrote on Oct 11^th, 2022 at 12:18pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2022 at 7:40pm: Belgarion wrote on Oct 5th, 2022 at 3:11pm: Yes, and? Tons of Uranium that is at high temperature inside a chamber pressurised to 150 Bar which is 2176 pounds per square inch. What could go wrong? Have you heard of a meltdown? On regular occasions I used to wear an air tank on my back pressurised to much greater than 150 bar and never had a problem with it. This sort of pressure is well within the capabilities of modern industrial applications and is no cause for concern.  Nuclear power plants have been in operation for over 60 years. There are currently some 438 nuclear power stations operating in 32 countries. It is the safest and most reliable form of electricity production by far.

You reckon?

What about 3 mile Island?

What if there's a similar problem as happened at Chernobyl?

What if there's a Tsunami such as Fukushima?

How about a war where a rocket or shell could land on the reactor
such as could happen any second right now
at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station in Ukraine ?

What if we had an ice age, say in 2500AD.

We can site plants on cratonised rock away from tsunamis.

Major problem with nuclear—expensive, long time to build a reactor. Not opposed to having it in the mix but cost and time to build are problems.

In all the decades of nuclear power plant operation the opponents still point to their trinity of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima as examples of why nuclear power is dangerous. I have pointed out previously on here the reality of these incidents and am not going into it again, however it's telling that there are no other 'go to' incidents for them to point to. For the time/cost argument this video gives a good explanation: https://www.tiktok.com/@theradguyglows/video/7056757873300360494?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1

Belgarion wrote on Oct 11^th, 2022 at 8:11pm:

In all the decades of nuclear power plant operation the opponents still point to their trinity of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima as examples of why nuclear power is dangerous. I have pointed out previously on here the reality of these incidents and am not going into it again, however it's telling that there are no other 'go to' incidents for them to point to. For the time/cost argument this video gives a good explanation: https://www.tiktok.com/@theradguyglows/video/7056757873300360494?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1

I said -

What about 3 mile Island?

What if there's a similar problem as happened at Chernobyl?

What if there's a Tsunami such as Fukushima?

How about a war where a rocket or shell could land on the reactor
such as could happen any second right now
at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station in Ukraine ?

I will set you some homework Bobby.  You will find out:

1. The number of radiation deaths caused by the Three Mile Island and Fukushima incidents.

2. What caused the Chernobyl incident? How have procedures changed since then?

3. Detail the safety standards required of a modern reactor containment structure.

4. What is a millisievert?

The answers are all readily available, either in my previous posts on this matter or with a bit of online searching.
 

I don't need your homework -
answer me:

How about a war where a rocket or shell could land on the reactor
such as could happen any second right now
at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station in Ukraine ?

What we gonna do with the waste?

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2022 at 5:26am:

Hi Sir Crook, I was hoping we'd have large scale Thorium molten salt reactors by now which would be: safe, cheap and give us unlimited power forever. https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/150#150 There are obviously a lot of technical problems otherwise we'd have massive Thorium power stations already. At least India and China are working on it. I can't wait till they solve all the problems.

Quote:

I was hoping we'd have large scale Thorium molten salt reactors by now which would be: safe, cheap and give us unlimited power forever.

I agree. However the best policy till that is a reality in my opinion is to just stay out of it.

Go to nuclear when it is safe and cheap, not before.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 12^th, 2022 at 7:31pm:

What we gonna do with the waste?

What do we do with all other waste, turd?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 12^th, 2022 at 7:31pm:

What we gonna do with the waste?

Around 90% can be recycled. The remainder can  be stored safely in special repositories.  As technology advances even that currently unrecyclable  percentage will come down.

Belgarion wrote on Oct 12^th, 2022 at 7:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 12th, 2022 at 7:31pm: What we gonna do with the waste? Around 90% can be recycled. The remainder can  be stored safely in special repositories.

Links?

And, where will the repositories be?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 12^th, 2022 at 8:01pm:

Belgarion wrote on Oct 12th, 2022 at 7:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 12th, 2022 at 7:31pm: What we gonna do with the waste? Around 90% can be recycled. The remainder can  be stored safely in special repositories.  Links? And, where will the repositories be?

This bloke is an expert on the subject. https://www.tiktok.com/@theradguyglows/video/6969767169542425861?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 12^th, 2022 at 8:01pm:

Belgarion wrote on Oct 12th, 2022 at 7:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 12th, 2022 at 7:31pm: What we gonna do with the waste? Around 90% can be recycled. The remainder can  be stored safely in special repositories.  Links? And, where will the repositories be?

In you?

Densest substance known to man.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 12^th, 2022 at 7:48pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2022 at 5:26am: Hi Sir Crook, I was hoping we'd have large scale Thorium molten salt reactors by now which would be: safe, cheap and give us unlimited power forever. https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/150#150 There are obviously a lot of technical problems otherwise we'd have massive Thorium power stations already. At least India and China are working on it. I can't wait till they solve all the problems. Quote: I was hoping we'd have large scale Thorium molten salt reactors by now which would be: safe, cheap and give us unlimited power forever. I agree. However the best policy till that is a reality in my opinion is to just stay out of it. Go to nuclear when it is safe and cheap, not before.

Yes let's wait -
Thorium power is worth waiting for.
Molten salt reactors have worked before -
a reactor was working for 3 years till 1969.
https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/75

I don't believe the engineering problems are insurmountable.
Thorium would answer all of our problems as we would have very cheap power
that was super safe and which made hardly any waste.
Reactors would not be working at high pressures.
They would even be safe during wartime conditions.

Uranium reactors are not safe - they are very dangerous -
they work at high pressures and are like a bomb ready to go off
when something goes wrong -
and they produce mega amounts of radioactive waste.

Belgarion wrote on Oct 12^th, 2022 at 7:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 12th, 2022 at 7:31pm: What we gonna do with the waste? Around 90% can be recycled. The remainder can  be stored safely in special repositories.  As technology advances even that currently unrecyclable  percentage will come down.

There is no such thing as a 400,000 year safe repository. I hate to think about how much nuclear waste has already been lost.

You know for a time they were putting it into deep sea repositories ? That likely means metal containers stored in salt water ?


Quote:

From 1946 through 1993, thirteen countries used ocean disposal or ocean dumping as a method to dispose of nuclear/radioactive waste with an approximation of 200,000 tons sourcing mainly from the medical, research and nuclear industry. The waste materials included both liquids and solids housed in various containers, as well as reactor vessels, with and without spent or damaged nuclear fuel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste

Bury the waste in the Broken Hill mines that are no longer used. The mines are hard rock, no moisture, and go down very deep.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 12^th, 2022 at 6:07pm:

I said - What about 3 mile Island?

What about 3 mile island? Remind me of what happened there? Did it result in hundreds of deaths? No? - a single death? No?

What about coal generated electricity and the radioactive byproducts of that industry?

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 13^th, 2022 at 6:15am:

Bury the waste in the Broken Hill mines that are no longer used. The mines are hard rock, no moisture, and go down very deep.

Too close to a population centre. 20,000 people would have a problem with that. There are better places.

Belgarion wrote on Oct 12^th, 2022 at 6:35pm:

I will set you some homework Bobby.  You will find out: 1. The number of radiation deaths caused by the Three Mile Island and Fukushima incidents. 2. What caused the Chernobyl incident? How have procedures changed since then? 3. Detail the safety standards required of a modern reactor containment structure. 4. What is a millisievert? The answers are all readily available, either in my previous posts on this matter or with a bit of online searching.

At last somebpdy who understands.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 12^th, 2022 at 7:48pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2022 at 5:26am: Hi Sir Crook, I was hoping we'd have large scale Thorium molten salt reactors by now which would be: safe, cheap and give us unlimited power forever. https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/150#150 There are obviously a lot of technical problems otherwise we'd have massive Thorium power stations already. At least India and China are working on it. I can't wait till they solve all the problems. Quote: I was hoping we'd have large scale Thorium molten salt reactors by now which would be: safe, cheap and give us unlimited power forever. I agree. However the best policy till that is a reality in my opinion is to just stay out of it. Go to nuclear when it is safe and cheap, not before.

Yes let's wait -
Thorium power is worth waiting for.
Molten salt reactors have worked before -
a reactor was working for 3 years till 1969.
https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/75

I don't believe the engineering problems are insurmountable.
Thorium would answer all of our problems as we would have very cheap power
that was super safe and which made hardly any waste.
Reactors would not be working at high pressures.
They would even be safe during wartime conditions.

Uranium reactors are not safe - they are very dangerous -
they work at high pressures and are like a bomb ready to go off
when something goes wrong -
and they produce mega amounts of radioactive waste.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2022 at 8:06am:

Belgarion wrote on Oct 5th, 2022 at 7:52am: Yet more of the increasingly hysterical anti nuclear propaganda being peddled by the usual suspects. Of you want safe reliable power then nuclear is the only way to go. Current nuclear reactors are not safe. Were any designed for war time conditions? Watch the Ukraine saga.

Has anyone answered the above question yet?

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 13^th, 2022 at 9:38am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2022 at 8:06am: Belgarion wrote on Oct 5th, 2022 at 7:52am: Yet more of the increasingly hysterical anti nuclear propaganda being peddled by the usual suspects. Of you want safe reliable power then nuclear is the only way to go. Current nuclear reactors are not safe. Were any designed for war time conditions? Watch the Ukraine saga. Has anyone answered the above question yet?

Yes, several times, however the Luddites don't want to listen.  ::)