Personally I'm a supporter of offshore wind
turbines, but I guess a case could be made in
favour of nuclear power generation.

AusGeoff wrote on Aug 15^th, 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)%...

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.

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 15^th, 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%.

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.

...

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.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 18^th, 2023 at 11:50am: