| Australian Politics Forum | |
|
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> Technically Speaking >> Rinehart backs Nuclear http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1692050375 Message started by issuevoter on Aug 15th, 2023 at 7:59am |
|
|
Title: Rinehart backs Nuclear Post by issuevoter on Aug 15th, 2023 at 7:59am
I don't agree that renewables like Wind and Solar are a threat agriculture, but I would like to see a serious debate on Nuclear power. The success of NP in Europe can not be ignored.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZfwiBobGaA |
|
Title: Re: Rinehart backs Nuclear Post by AusGeoff on Aug 15th, 2023 at 11:27am
Personally I'm a supporter of offshore wind
turbines, but I guess a case could be made in favour of nuclear power generation. |
|
Title: Re: Rinehart backs Nuclear Post by The Heartless Felon on Aug 15th, 2023 at 2:19pm
Nuclear power helps bring down electricity prices by 75% in Finland.
John Benny, The National News, Helsinki, Finland May 14, 2023 The start of a much-delayed nuclear plant in Finland has helped bring down electricity prices by more than 75 per cent in the Nordic country. The Olkiluoto 3 (OL3), Europe’s first new nuclear plant in 16 years, began operating in April and is capable of meeting up to 15 per cent of the country’s power demand. Nuclear made up a third of Finland’s total electricity generation in 2021. Average spot electricity prices in the country fell to €60.55 ($65.69) per megawatt hour in April from €245.98 per megawatt hour in December, a decrease of 75.38 per cent, according to Nord Pool, a physical electricity exchange. In December, Finland, which halted electricity imports from Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, was preparing for rolling power cuts due to high energy demand for heating during the winter. |
|
Title: Re: Rinehart backs Nuclear Post by Baronvonrort on Aug 15th, 2023 at 3:29pm AusGeoff wrote on Aug 15th, 2023 at 11:27am:
Offshore wind appeals to the NIMBYs. Offshore wind is costly and stupid. CSIRO study shows offshore wind costs 3x more than onshore wind. There are no ships in the southern hemisphere capable of installing these bird choppers are we ging to build huge ships to install the bird choppers? The fuel used for these ships is filthy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_fuel_oil#:~:text=Heavy%20fuel%20oil%20(HFO)%20is,and%20cracking%20process%20of%20petroleum. There is also the problem of waiting for calm weather anytime you want to service-inspect these offshore bird choppers.You will have people sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for good weather. |
|
Title: Re: Rinehart backs Nuclear Post by issuevoter on Aug 15th, 2023 at 7:53pm
The waters off our Southern coast are the range of several species of Albatros. Their breeding location are under threat. But once airborn they were thought safe, but they would be extremely vulnerable to huge rotor blades. I'd rather see albatroses gliding across the sea than bloody dangerous windfarms.
|
|
Title: Re: Rinehart backs Nuclear Post by AusGeoff on Aug 16th, 2023 at 7:48am Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 15th, 2023 at 3:29pm:
These claims prove that you know little about the realities of offshore wind farms. I suggest you check out this site in order to reassess some of your dubious claims: Star of The South. The Star of the South wind farm is expected to provide up to 2,000 megawatts (106 W) of power, about 18% of the state’s power demand, and is set to cost between $8 billion and $10 billion, providing enough power for more than 1.2 million Victorian homes. Your 3x cost for OffSW is fiction: OnSW project costs = 1.633 $m/MW. OffSW project costs = 2.967 $m/MW. (1.8x) Importantly, OffSW resources are stronger, more consistent, and more predictable, resulting in capacity factors of around 55%. OnSW in Australia generally has capacity factors of around 30-35%. —Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre, Final Project Report: Offshore Wind Energy in Australia, 2021. —Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, GenCost 2021-22 Final Report, CSIRO, 2022. |
|
Title: Re: Rinehart backs Nuclear Post by AusGeoff on Aug 16th, 2023 at 8:10am issuevoter wrote on Aug 15th, 2023 at 7:53pm:
You may be interested in this report: https://shorturl.at/svVXZ |
|
Title: Re: Rinehart backs Nuclear Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 16th, 2023 at 10:54am
I used to be dead set against Nuclear power but the arrival of Small Modular Reactors has made me reconsider.
Russia's Akademik Lomonosov nuclear power plant began commercial operation in May 2020, using two 35 MW(e) SMRs. SMRs are under construction or in the licensing stage in Argentina, Canada, China, Russia, South Korea and the USA. Key Points Globally there has been significant innovation in nuclear power technologies; in particular, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) Many countries are interested in SMRs because of their advanced features and the USA is expected to have its first SMR operating by 2026 So, what are small modular reactors, or SMRs? The term refers to a class of modern reactors that are essentially “small”, and each unit can be manufactured in a factory. They are “modular” in the sense that each unit can be assembled next to another and scaled up or down to meet the local electricity needs. They are also designed to “plug in” to existing power networks and therefore can essentially replace an aging power station with a modern, reliable, and zero-emissions power source. SMRs differ from today’s more common nuclear power reactors in a few important ways: First, their holistic approach to manufacturing occurs through design simplification. Compared to the complex design and construction of currently operating large-scale reactors, simplification opens up the prospect of assembly-line manufacturing of pre-fabricated modules—providing economies of scale. As the majority of construction takes place off-site, building small modular reactors takes less time. An SMR has a projected construction time of three to five years, while a large reactor takes six to 12 years. And it is possible to construct a reactor with a single module or use units in combination for greater power output. Additional modular units can be added and brought online incrementally for greater power output. Secondly, SMRs are designed with a high level of passive or inherent safety features. This means operator intervention or external power supply are not needed to shut down the reactor and maintain cooling to remove the core’s residual heat in the event that power is lost to the plant. The geographic footprint of nuclear power plants is very small compared with other sources, including hydropower, solar, and wind plants. Small modular reactors will require an even smaller footprint than the large reactor sites that are in existence around the world. Thirdly, “Unlike large reactors, which require an exclusion zone, US regulators have decided that some SMR designs there can have the Emergency Planning Zone, or EPZ, shrunk to the plant’s site boundary,” explains Dr Mark Ho, an expert on nuclear reactors in ANSTO’s Nuclear Analysis Section. The EPZ is area surrounding the nuclear power plant within which special considerations and management practices are pre-planned in case of an emergency. Conventional plants have a 16-kilometre radius for emergency planning, with a wider exclusion zone of up to 80 kilometres to protect food and water sources. Choosing a site for a nuclear reactor involves assessments of health, safety, and security; engineering needs and costs; as well as socio-economic and environmental considerations. For a variety of reasons relating to their design and small geographic footprint, SMRs offer greater flexibility in the choice of a site than large reactors. SMRs use only a small amount of fuel and refuel approximately every two years. They also do not require newly developed reactor fuels, such as accident tolerant fuels with advanced safety characteristics. SMRs can run on standard reactor fuel because of their passive safety systems that make the reactor ‘walk away safe’. There are a number of options to enhance proliferation resistance and ensure safeguards of fuels used in the new SMRs. The International Atomic Energy Agency has a publication which explores these considerations. A smaller reactor core is also advantageous, as it is easier to cool during operation and after shutdown. For some designs, a reservoir of water sits above the reactor core, which is similar to the design of Australia’s OPAL multi-purpose research reactor located in Sydney on the ANSTO campus. It doesn’t totally remove the need for an external water source, but these reactors do not need to be sited on the coast or next to a river. Another feature of the technology in delivering power is its compatibility with the existing electricity grid. SMRs could be used to bring energy to locations at the furthest extent of the grid. Their operation would be expected to enhance reliability of the grid and secure supply, especially when renewables are part of the energy mix. Many billions of dollars in investment have gone into the design of SMRs, and much of the recent progress has been made possible by private venture capital and some overseas government investment. Countries including the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, China, and India, among others, have reinvigorated public and private investment in SMR R&D projects, with the Canadian government, in particular, providing support for the creation of an SMR technology demonstration park. ... |
|
Title: Re: Rinehart backs Nuclear Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 16th, 2023 at 10:54am
American company, NuScale Power, has designed a new type of power plant that uses heat coil steam generators without the use of reactor coolant pumps. The system has a small, efficient core, within a high-strength steel containment vessel that requires no power for shutdown or cooling. NuScale expects to have its first SMR operating by 2026.
Another company, Terra Power, which is backed by Bill Gates, is developing several innovative SMR technologies for potential use in providing electricity to the developing world. The designs use new technologies that reduce the need for new uranium mining and used fuel storage facilities, among other advantages. Although there are uncertainties and complexities in estimating the financial implications, the cost of building a small modular reactor has been estimated at $US 1 billion compared to $US 6 billion for a large 1 GWe reactor. “What is clear is that the economies of scale it offers are bringing down the price per kilowatt-hour of capacity significantly,” said Ho. In explorations of nuclear power options, the question sometimes arises as to whether Australia has the nuclear expertise to introduce nuclear technologies for power applications if the country ever were minded to repeal existing prohibitions. “Because of ANSTO’s expertise in nuclear in operating Australia’s only multi-purpose research reactor and our close association with countries with nuclear expertise, there would be time to acquire the knowledge and to develop the training programs in preparation for a nuclear industry, if the Australian Government ever were to make that decision,” said Ho. As the country explores future energy options, more discussion of SMRs is likely to take place. https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-and-what-makes-them-different |
|
Title: Re: Rinehart backs Nuclear Post by issuevoter on Aug 16th, 2023 at 11:51am
The LNP need to do their homework, and go into the next election with a serious plan for Nuclear power. An increasing number of people who were once against the idea, have changed their opinions. If they can confidently campaign on this and other Labor failings, they may find the Left hamstrung with obscelete policies that they cannot really get out of with any credibility. Especially after they rolled over on nuclear subs.
|
|
Title: Re: Rinehart backs Nuclear Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 18th, 2023 at 11:47am issuevoter wrote on Aug 16th, 2023 at 11:51am:
I reckon you summed things up well. |
|
Title: Re: Rinehart backs Nuclear Post by Dnarever on Aug 18th, 2023 at 11:50am Quote:
Yeah right - She would hire Homer Simpson and pay him $2 a day then wonder why there was a nuclear disaster. There is probably nobody in Australia with less credibility. |
|
Title: Re: Rinehart backs Nuclear Post by lee on Aug 18th, 2023 at 1:30pm
You forgot yourself.
|
|
Title: Re: Rinehart backs Nuclear Post by issuevoter on Aug 19th, 2023 at 1:43am Dnarever wrote on Aug 18th, 2023 at 11:50am:
Classic Aussie tall poppy syndrome. |
|
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved. |