Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread (Read 122760 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #810 –
Quote from: dodge – on
It is so hard to know what is right and I'm not going to spend hours trying to find out.

One thing that I am curious about with the oppositions nuclear plan is that typically the LNP has been about privatisation. Why is nuclear power an exception?
 - is it too expensive upfront to build and then run?
 - does it not make a sufficient return for private enterprise?
 - other?
The only way it will be built is if there is overseas investment and overseas companies doing the building as well as doing the infrastructure upgrades. A renewables only electricity grid has “failed miserably” in Germany and California due to the Germans being forced to cut gas off and in California they have had to import electricity from other States produced by coal and gas because they cant generate enough via their renewable sources.
Nuclear has to be the way forward imho but in Australia it will be a struggle to get consensus and do it right. Another overlooked benefit of nuclear will be in the future, as water poverty becomes more and more of an issue, nuclear power can also provide a low-carbon option for sea water desalination.
Im not a fan of Dutton or Albanese but given the choice I would support the LNP and their ideas of how to power the country for the next century but would be suspicious of their costings and would want independent figures on how much it will cost to build and support, and who would actually own and run the nuclear reactor network in Australia.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #811 –
I found a recent letter in The Age on this subject to be of interest.

"The UK has had 60 years of experience building and running nuclear power plants, which is 60 more years than Australia.  Yet it is unable to build new plants on time and on budget.  Hinkley Point C in Somerset is clear evidence.  Its original budget of 18 billion british pounds in 2017 has now blown out to 46 billion british pounds and the completion date has gone from 2025 to 2031."

Figures I have seen relating to French, British and Russian nuclear power plants show that, on average, the life of a nuclear power plant is approximately 30 years with a decomissioning life of 60 years.

Currently, from the time the first sod is turned, it takes approximately 15 years to get a nuclear plant up and running.

One of the many problems faced in the UK is the lack of skilled specialist welders.  We will have the same problem.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #812 –
I have to take issue with the The Rage's Mike Foley and his alarmist misreporting regarding the generation of nuclear waste.

While Dutton was selective in his declaration about a nuclear waste filling a coke can, The Rage's Mike Foley is being equally selective report of 27,000 cans is the opposite extreme.

Dutton is unequivocally correct in that the annual high level waste, the stuff lasting thousands of years that people think of when we talk about nuclear waste, fits in a coke can, this is the genuine unusable (spent) long term waste. If you do not believe that then know this, the entire energy efficiency of the first bomb dropped on Japan consumed a total of less than 2 grams of material, the rest was medium to low level waste.

Foley is correct if we regard nuclear waste the same way we regard nuclear waste in the 1950s and 1960s, back then a power station generates many tonnes of nuclear waste per annum.

The modern truth is that used fuel rods are something like 99% recyclable, and modern nuclear uses a raft of processes and procedures to turn the residues in those used fuel rods into new fuel, often the used fuel rods for dramatic purposes get referred to in media as "spent fuel rods", but the spent component in minimal.

The waste that comes out of a nuclear power station has a spectrum of radioactivity, on average by volume, much of it is less radioactive than the accumulated dust emitted from the traditional brown coal fired power station. ( That should alarm people about coal but they seem indifferent to it, as it gets diffusely discharged into the surrounding environment. Actually, if you live in or own a basement, much more radiation enters your lungs through the ground than you'll ever get from X-rays or a nuclear accident. ) Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, like Chernobyl, much of the vast bulk of the waste / contamination from such events is gone in just over a decade or two.

The bulk of a modern reactors nuclear waste has a half-life of less than 100 years, a lot of it has a half life of less than 20 years, the bit that has a half life measured in thousands of years fits comfortably in a coke can and that is the tiny tiny bit that must be stored safely for thousands of years. But even now, science and industry are finding ways to use even the high level waste, for space, medicine, advanced manufacturing, and demand for access to it is growing.

You get far more toxic waste every year from the manufacture of an energy equivalent number of solar panels, and based on current SolarPV longevity you have to deal with second round of a similar amount to be disposed of in 20 years time when the panels fall in efficiency.

To me Foley's claim just exhibits how far the renewables sector is prepared to go to tarnish the low or zero carbon alternatives, it is a disgraceful position and exposes how disingenuous the debate has become, zero carbon is no longer the focus or the priority, the battle is for long term profit.

The real irony for me set in when the fusion Industry started spreading misinformation about nuclear fission energy, the last thing fusion wants is diminished interest in fusion which would happen if energy sources become effectively carbon free, reliable and cheap. Fusion has $Trillions invested and have not yet built a single break-even facility, they do not want funding cut. Renewables have similar big $ at risk, yet after almost two decades still cannot even supply 10% of 24/7 demand on average, and that milestone / achievement ignores the 3-fold growth predicted to be required to electrify the transport sector.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #813 –
Seems to me that Dutton has hung so much of his persuasion to be PM on a Someday Isle proposition. And it has sucked in so many.

Surely a hopeful PM would focus on the issues effecting people in the here and now in Oz ...and those things would be interest rates and cost of living. Seems pretty cynical to make huge promises that things will be so much better... in a decade (at least). Suggests to me that he is bereft of effective ideas to help Aussies who are hurting (financially) right now.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #814 –
Quote from: Baggers – on
Seems to me that Dutton has hung so much of his persuasion to be PM on a Someday Isle proposition. And it has sucked in so many.

Surely a hopeful PM would focus on the issues effecting people in the here and now in Oz ...and those things would be interest rates and cost of living. Seems pretty cynical to make huge promises that things will be so much better... in a decade (at least). Suggests to me that he is bereft of effective ideas to help Aussies who are hurting (financially) right now.
I think cost of living will be the major factor at the next election as it was in the USA and the incumbent Government will find the public less forgiving on the subject of the economy and not overly interested in the details of where the future of our energy creation/supplies is going  and more interested in who/what is going to save them the most money when the bill arrives.
Neither Dutton or Albanese have much idea on the Economy or Energy imho and its clear the Reserve bank dont trust the Government enough to drop interest rates even though Treasurer Chalmers is trying to rejig both boards with more Government friendly members.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #815 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
Quote from: Baggers – on
Seems to me that Dutton has hung so much of his persuasion to be PM on a Someday Isle proposition. And it has sucked in so many.

Surely a hopeful PM would focus on the issues effecting people in the here and now in Oz ...and those things would be interest rates and cost of living. Seems pretty cynical to make huge promises that things will be so much better... in a decade (at least). Suggests to me that he is bereft of effective ideas to help Aussies who are hurting (financially) right now.
I think cost of living will be the major factor at the next election as it was in the USA and the incumbent Government will find the public less forgiving on the subject of the economy and not overly interested in the details of where the future of our energy creation/supplies is going  and more interested in who/what is going to save them the most money when the bill arrives.
Neither Dutton or Albanese have much idea on the Economy or Energy imho and its clear the Reserve bank dont trust the Government enough to drop interest rates even though Treasurer Chalmers is trying to rejig both boards with more Government friendly members.

Aint that the truth, EB1... neither is inspiring in any way shape or form!
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #816 –
If Trump makes good on his promise to put a 60 per cent tariff on all Chinese goods entering the US then our federal budgets will take such a massive hit that it won't matter which party is in power.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #817 –
FMD, the NT Chief Minister come out to kybosh Nuclear, she is listed as a Country Liberal, which must be some sort of code for fundamentalist National Party membership.

The woke media are so desperate to hang this on Dutton as some sort of Liberal defection they reported it as another Liberal State / Minister declaring themselves to be anti-nuclear, the other was Qld.

The woke media conveniently omit that the preferred energy for Qld and NT is mining for Gas in the Arnhem Land, the Gulf and Arafura Sea as a conventional power source. Who would have thunk it, States that make $Billions from mining raw materials and exporting the resource want even more of it.

So much for the planet, stick a fork in it it's done!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #818 –
The Nationals’ Matt Canavan, who is well known for his very conservative policy position on almost every issue, has delivered his assessment of the Coalition’s nuclear policy; “a sham policy for political gain!”

It’s not often that (a) I agree with Canavan, and (b) Canavan’s opinion agrees with the science and the economics 🙄
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #819 –
The other was Qld. ;D 
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #820 –
Germany needs a bigger battery, the UK too!

The calculation has been done, the battery to guarantee base load supply during a dunkelflauten, and the answer is 63.

I was hoping for 42, but alas it wasn't to be!

But surely a dunkelflauten is rare, unfortunately not that rare, a little less than twice a year lasting 3 weeks.

Not a model or forecast, reality, just ask Ye Oldey Sailor
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #821 –
So the most recent spate of energy scaremongering, related to pending winter blackouts courtesy of government pushing towards electrification over gas, is it a real or imaginary risk?

Green sector lobbyists and apparatchiks are already claiming it's scare mongering by the fossil fuel industry.

But it seems to me one of the biggest potential winners from scare-mongering will be the battery, SolarPV or possibly the small generator industry, anybody that can offer residential on demand offline energy solutions.

So I gravely doubt that the scaremongering is the sole domain of the fossil fuel industry, the renewables / green energy sector equally benefits.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #822 –
I knew the issues were much bigger than green lobbyists let on, but this is even worse than I thought, keeping in mind this is the renewables sector self-reporting about obsolescence and recycling! :o
Quote
..... in Australia at the moment are such that the blades from Codrington are kind of a drop in the ocean compared to our overall amount of waste.

Renewable energy giant ACCIONA, which operates in 40 countries, announced last week it was seeking innovation partners in Australia to explore transforming decommissioned wind turbine blades into new products, and its supplier Nordex is aiming for fully recyclable turbine blades by 2032.

The company said its recent wind farm developments would operate for 40 years, with the aim of extending that to 50 years soon.

Solar panels are already a multimillion-unit per year issue for Australia.

The Smart Energy Council estimates that across Australia more than 4 million rooftop solar panels are being retired each year and says the rate will grow rapidly.

By 2045, the council estimates 145 million solar panels will have been retired across Australia. Reforms are needed to prevent the majority of these materials being stockpiles, or even going into landfill, it says

Currently, about 80 per cent of the retired solar panels are packed up and shipped overseas by Australian exporters, who sell them mostly to developing nations where they are set up to produce electricity once again.

But China is investing gargantuan sums in its solar panel manufacturing capability and the price of new panels is falling so rapidly the reuse market could soon become defunct.
Think about these figures relative to claims about targets, coverage, longevity and cost, and this is an industry body reporting with a green spin! For example by 2030 we are sup[posed to be targeting 45GWh renewables, but the waste figure above is equivalent to 47GWh by 2035, we have to double what we've done over the last ten or twenty years, and double it again just to keep up with the waste! The equivalent of a single ground plane solar farm approaching the size of Port Phillip bay!

Our green waste is Green NIMBY waste, sent to the 3rd world, silica stuff doped with various elements that the same Green lobbyists demand is partitioned away as toxic waste in the same manner as a piece of asbestos!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"