Greens target tots, teeth and solar power


THE Greens have urged disenchanted Labor voters to think twice about supporting the Coalition and instead switch their vote to the Greens, pledging free preschool, more dental funding and solar thermal power plants.

The Greens' federal leader, Bob Brown, joined candidates at Balmain Town Hall yesterday for the party's campaign launch in a suburb that was once Labor heartland. Balmain and Marrickville are the two lower house seats the party is tipped to win on March 26.

The upper house MP David Shoebridge said there was a clear appetite for change that would not be met by the Coalition, which is widely backed to win the election and could, with the support of the Shooters and Fishers and Christian Democratic parties, control the upper house.
Advertisement: Story continues below

''Real change isn't electing a new government that is just going to outsource, to downsize, to franchise and to privatise our key assets and public services,'' Mr Shoebridge said.

Three big policy commitments were made at the launch, including three new baseload solar thermal plants in the state's central west. The first plant would cost $2.1 billion, paid for by issuing $525 million of Green Bonds for each of the four years of construction.

The party also pledged to provide two years' free preschool education for every child, a program targeting 10,000 children in its first stage at a cost of $128 million, and to boost dental care funding by $102.5 million.

Senator Brown said the Coalition leader, Barry O'Farrell, should not be trusted on the environment: ''We've already seen a much more moderate Coalition regime [in Victoria] bring 400 cattle into the delicate alpine national parks of Australia, with no scientific study.''

A recent Newspoll showed primary support for the Greens plummeting 6 points to 11 per cent, while a recent Galaxy poll showed a boost in Greens support in Marrickville to 44 per cent of the primary vote compared with Labor's 33 per cent.

The Coalition yesterday dismissed the Greens' attacks and pointed to their federal alliance with Labor on issues such as the carbon tax.

The Greens have ruled out preferencing Labor in the upper house and most lower house seats.


http://www.smh.com.au/national/state-election-2011/greens-target-tots-teeth-and-solar-power-20110313-1bt28.html

____ wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 5:54pm:

Greens target tots, teeth and solar power THE Greens have urged disenchanted Labor voters to think twice about supporting the Coalition and instead switch their vote to the Greens, pledging free preschool, more dental funding and solar thermal power plants. The Greens' federal leader, Bob Brown, joined candidates at Balmain Town Hall yesterday for the party's campaign launch in a suburb that was once Labor heartland. Balmain and Marrickville are the two lower house seats the party is tipped to win on March 26. The upper house MP David Shoebridge said there was a clear appetite for change that would not be met by the Coalition, which is widely backed to win the election and could, with the support of the Shooters and Fishers and Christian Democratic parties, control the upper house. Advertisement: Story continues below ''Real change isn't electing a new government that is just going to outsource, to downsize, to franchise and to privatise our key assets and public services,'' Mr Shoebridge said. Three big policy commitments were made at the launch, including three new baseload solar thermal plants in the state's central west. The first plant would cost $2.1 billion, paid for by issuing $525 million of Green Bonds for each of the four years of construction. The party also pledged to provide two years' free preschool education for every child, a program targeting 10,000 children in its first stage at a cost of $128 million, and to boost dental care funding by $102.5 million. Senator Brown said the Coalition leader, Barry O'Farrell, should not be trusted on the environment: ''We've already seen a much more moderate Coalition regime [in Victoria] bring 400 cattle into the delicate alpine national parks of Australia, with no scientific study.'' A recent Newspoll showed primary support for the Greens plummeting 6 points to 11 per cent, while a recent Galaxy poll showed a boost in Greens support in Marrickville to 44 per cent of the primary vote compared with Labor's 33 per cent. The Coalition yesterday dismissed the Greens' attacks and pointed to their federal alliance with Labor on issues such as the carbon tax. The Greens have ruled out preferencing Labor in the upper house and most lower house seats. http://www.smh.com.au/national/state-election-2011/greens-target-tots-teeth-and-solar-power-20110313-1bt28.html

I would have to start liking the far left for that to happen.

They, The Greens, have a chance in Western Australia to make more inroads....

...simply because: Barnett is a joke and so is Ripper.

I am a default Labor voter but I will not vote for Eric Ripper ever!

I will probably vote Liberal instead.

Probably not what you want to hear but I want Ripper to get lost and this is the best way to make that happen!

My rationale is simply to get rid of Ripper and then I will switch back to voting Labor and possibly think about voting them 2 with Greens 1......BUT THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN UNTIL I MAKE SURE RIPPER IS TOLD TO GET THE (&^% OUT OF MY HOUSE!

IT'S  ::)MY VOTE AND I WILL DO WHAT I LIKE WITH IT!   ;) ;)

kanga wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 6:02pm:

____ wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 5:54pm: Greens target tots, teeth and solar power THE Greens have urged disenchanted Labor voters to think twice about supporting the Coalition and instead switch their vote to the Greens, pledging free preschool, more dental funding and solar thermal power plants. The Greens' federal leader, Bob Brown, joined candidates at Balmain Town Hall yesterday for the party's campaign launch in a suburb that was once Labor heartland. Balmain and Marrickville are the two lower house seats the party is tipped to win on March 26. The upper house MP David Shoebridge said there was a clear appetite for change that would not be met by the Coalition, which is widely backed to win the election and could, with the support of the Shooters and Fishers and Christian Democratic parties, control the upper house. Advertisement: Story continues below ''Real change isn't electing a new government that is just going to outsource, to downsize, to franchise and to privatise our key assets and public services,'' Mr Shoebridge said. Three big policy commitments were made at the launch, including three new baseload solar thermal plants in the state's central west. The first plant would cost $2.1 billion, paid for by issuing $525 million of Green Bonds for each of the four years of construction. The party also pledged to provide two years' free preschool education for every child, a program targeting 10,000 children in its first stage at a cost of $128 million, and to boost dental care funding by $102.5 million. Senator Brown said the Coalition leader, Barry O'Farrell, should not be trusted on the environment: ''We've already seen a much more moderate Coalition regime [in Victoria] bring 400 cattle into the delicate alpine national parks of Australia, with no scientific study.'' A recent Newspoll showed primary support for the Greens plummeting 6 points to 11 per cent, while a recent Galaxy poll showed a boost in Greens support in Marrickville to 44 per cent of the primary vote compared with Labor's 33 per cent. The Coalition yesterday dismissed the Greens' attacks and pointed to their federal alliance with Labor on issues such as the carbon tax. The Greens have ruled out preferencing Labor in the upper house and most lower house seats. http://www.smh.com.au/national/state-election-2011/greens-target-tots-teeth-and-solar-power-20110313-1bt28.html I would have to start liking the far left for that to happen.

Go to bunnings: embracing the future aint for little sheltered people like you!  :D :D

All Australians know the Greens are not interested in free, clean energy and fuel, through public consolidated revenue they are paid price spruikers for the organized crime gangs running carbon trading scams through privatized energy companies and Oil cartels. 8-)

As I mentioned to you previously Solar Thermal would be the ideal way to go however it costs are massively high and excessive when compared with the cheaper alternatives.
The cheapest energy is coal.
The next best alternative to coal is nuclear. It is clean, it safe and it is cheap.

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 6:44pm:

As I mentioned to you previously Solar Thermal would be the ideal way to go however it costs are massively high and excessive when compared with the cheaper alternatives. The cheapest energy is coal. The next best alternative to coal is nuclear. It is clean, it safe and it is cheap.

Yes sunshine is so expensive to create ... we have to build a star, mine sunshine and transport it.

Coal that is subsidized by the environment and human health and lowers Australian living standards is cheap ... and as we see in Japan, nuclear is clean, safe and oh so cheap also.





Gee

____ wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 7:00pm:

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 6:44pm: As I mentioned to you previously Solar Thermal would be the ideal way to go however it costs are massively high and excessive when compared with the cheaper alternatives. The cheapest energy is coal. The next best alternative to coal is nuclear. It is clean, it safe and it is cheap. Yes sunshine is so expensive to create ... we have to build a star, mine sunshine and transport it. Coal that is subsidized by the environment and human health and lowers Australian living standards is cheap ... and as we see in Japan, nuclear is clean, safe and oh so cheap also. Gee

You dont know how solar thermal plants work.
I tell you that they would be ideal and you jump on onboard without a clue.

The fact is solar thermal are too expensive to build.

Nuclear is cheap and clean and safe.

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 7:07pm:

____ wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 7:00pm: frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 6:44pm: As I mentioned to you previously Solar Thermal would be the ideal way to go however it costs are massively high and excessive when compared with the cheaper alternatives. The cheapest energy is coal. The next best alternative to coal is nuclear. It is clean, it safe and it is cheap. Yes sunshine is so expensive to create ... we have to build a star, mine sunshine and transport it. Coal that is subsidized by the environment and human health and lowers Australian living standards is cheap ... and as we see in Japan, nuclear is clean, safe and oh so cheap also. Gee You dont know how solar thermal plants work. I tell you that they would be ideal and you jump on onboard without a clue. The fact is solar thermal are too expensive to build. Nuclear is cheap and clean and safe.

I don't think miss ugly understands irony!

No sorry.... whatever that words is I can't think of at the moment!  :o :o :-?

Masdar Raises $600 Million for U.A.E. Solar Project With Total,


AbengoaMasdar, the Abu Dhabi-backed renewable energy company, and its European partners Total SA (FP) and Abengoa SA (ABG) raised $600 million in financing for the Shams 1 concentrated solar thermal plant.

Shams Power Co. received a 22-year loan from 10 lenders including BNP Paribas (BNP), which is also the financial adviser, and National Bank of Abu Dhabi PJSC (NBAD), according to an e-mailed statement today.

Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates and holder of almost all of the country’s oil reserves, is expanding its use of solar and wind power in an effort to become a regional hub for renewable energy. The emirate is building Masdar City, a business and residential complex designed to emit minimal carbon emissions, and serves as headquarters for the International Renewable Energy Agency.

Shams 1 will be one of the largest concentrated solar power plants in the world, extending over an area of 2.5 square kilometers with a capacity of 100 megawatts. Concentrated solar reflects sunlight, usually with mirrors, to heat liquids that generate power with steam turbines. Photovoltaic plants use solar panels that convert sulight directly to electricity.

Shams Power, which will build, operate and maintain Shams 1, is 60 percent owned by Masdar. Total and Abengoa hold 20 percent each. Construction began in the third quarter of 2010 and will be completed in two years, the statement said.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-07/masdar-raises-600-million-for-shams-solar-project-with-total-abengoa.html

Researchers Use Molten Salt Mixtures to Boost Solar Thermal Plant Efficiency


Siemens aims to enhance the solar thermal plant’s efficiency and in turn reduce power generation costs. Hence, the company’s researchers intend to use molten salts, a blend of potassium and sodium nitrates, in solar thermal projects.


To achieve this aim, Siemens plans to build a pilot facility in Portugal for testing application of molten salts as a heat transfer medium in parabolic power plants. The parabolic power plants employ concave parabolic mirrors, which focuses sunlight using an absorber tube. The tube allows the heat transfer medium to flow through it. Later, the heat gets transformed into power by a generator and a steam turbine. Heat transfer medium’s highest working temperature determines the thermal power process efficiency.

University of Evora in Portugal has been chosen for construction of the pilot facility. The plant will be equipped with a steam generator, pipework system, solar components and pumps to manage the temperatures and properties of heat transfer media and molten salts. Siemens’ scientists will use the pilot results for implementation at commercial plants with more than 50 MW of installed powers. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Germany is funding  this solar thermal pilot plant project.

Siemens Corporate Technology and Siemens Energy researchers work on a major goal to enhance properties and composition of molten salts. Molten salts will be used as an alternative for thermal oil. This boosts the working temperatures ranging from 400° to over 500° Celsius. High vapor pressure and extremely flammable property are major drawbacks of thermal oil, whereas molten salts have about zero vapor pressure and they are non-flammable. Hence, power plant operations will be safe without pressure. In addition, molten salt mixtures possess greater heat storage ability and they are economical for use.

http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=28387

---

The bloke from BEYOND ZERO was talking about 15 hours of storage being attempted.

 ;) 8-) 8-)

____ wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 7:44pm:

Researchers Use Molten Salt Mixtures to Boost Solar Thermal Plant Efficiency Siemens aims to enhance the solar thermal plant’s efficiency and in turn reduce power generation costs. Hence, the company’s researchers intend to use molten salts, a blend of potassium and sodium nitrates, in solar thermal projects. To achieve this aim, Siemens plans to build a pilot facility in Portugal for testing application of molten salts as a heat transfer medium in parabolic power plants. The parabolic power plants employ concave parabolic mirrors, which focuses sunlight using an absorber tube. The tube allows the heat transfer medium to flow through it. Later, the heat gets transformed into power by a generator and a steam turbine. Heat transfer medium’s highest working temperature determines the thermal power process efficiency. University of Evora in Portugal has been chosen for construction of the pilot facility. The plant will be equipped with a steam generator, pipework system, solar components and pumps to manage the temperatures and properties of heat transfer media and molten salts. Siemens’ scientists will use the pilot results for implementation at commercial plants with more than 50 MW of installed powers. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Germany is funding  this solar thermal pilot plant project. Siemens Corporate Technology and Siemens Energy researchers work on a major goal to enhance properties and composition of molten salts. Molten salts will be used as an alternative for thermal oil. This boosts the working temperatures ranging from 400° to over 500° Celsius. High vapor pressure and extremely flammable property are major drawbacks of thermal oil, whereas molten salts have about zero vapor pressure and they are non-flammable. Hence, power plant operations will be safe without pressure. In addition, molten salt mixtures possess greater heat storage ability and they are economical for use. http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=28387

I could have sworn someone was already doing this some 2 years ago. It may not have worked out as planned but maybe I have missed new information.

It sounded good, especially that it holds the heat for much longer periods. Good for when there is a lack of sunlight.

kanga wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 8:11pm:

____ wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 7:44pm: Researchers Use Molten Salt Mixtures to Boost Solar Thermal Plant Efficiency Siemens aims to enhance the solar thermal plant’s efficiency and in turn reduce power generation costs. Hence, the company’s researchers intend to use molten salts, a blend of potassium and sodium nitrates, in solar thermal projects. To achieve this aim, Siemens plans to build a pilot facility in Portugal for testing application of molten salts as a heat transfer medium in parabolic power plants. The parabolic power plants employ concave parabolic mirrors, which focuses sunlight using an absorber tube. The tube allows the heat transfer medium to flow through it. Later, the heat gets transformed into power by a generator and a steam turbine. Heat transfer medium’s highest working temperature determines the thermal power process efficiency. University of Evora in Portugal has been chosen for construction of the pilot facility. The plant will be equipped with a steam generator, pipework system, solar components and pumps to manage the temperatures and properties of heat transfer media and molten salts. Siemens’ scientists will use the pilot results for implementation at commercial plants with more than 50 MW of installed powers. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Germany is funding  this solar thermal pilot plant project. Siemens Corporate Technology and Siemens Energy researchers work on a major goal to enhance properties and composition of molten salts. Molten salts will be used as an alternative for thermal oil. This boosts the working temperatures ranging from 400° to over 500° Celsius. High vapor pressure and extremely flammable property are major drawbacks of thermal oil, whereas molten salts have about zero vapor pressure and they are non-flammable. Hence, power plant operations will be safe without pressure. In addition, molten salt mixtures possess greater heat storage ability and they are economical for use. http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=28387 I could have sworn someone was already doing this some 2 years ago. It may not have worked out as planned but maybe I have missed new information. It sounded good, especially that it holds the heat for much longer periods. Good for when there is a lack of sunlight.

No poo sherlock!

Go get a heady off one of your liberal voting mates why don't ya!

Ya poof!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 8:33pm:

kanga wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 8:11pm: ____ wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 7:44pm: Researchers Use Molten Salt Mixtures to Boost Solar Thermal Plant Efficiency Siemens aims to enhance the solar thermal plant’s efficiency and in turn reduce power generation costs. Hence, the company’s researchers intend to use molten salts, a blend of potassium and sodium nitrates, in solar thermal projects. To achieve this aim, Siemens plans to build a pilot facility in Portugal for testing application of molten salts as a heat transfer medium in parabolic power plants. The parabolic power plants employ concave parabolic mirrors, which focuses sunlight using an absorber tube. The tube allows the heat transfer medium to flow through it. Later, the heat gets transformed into power by a generator and a steam turbine. Heat transfer medium’s highest working temperature determines the thermal power process efficiency. University of Evora in Portugal has been chosen for construction of the pilot facility. The plant will be equipped with a steam generator, pipework system, solar components and pumps to manage the temperatures and properties of heat transfer media and molten salts. Siemens’ scientists will use the pilot results for implementation at commercial plants with more than 50 MW of installed powers. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Germany is funding  this solar thermal pilot plant project. Siemens Corporate Technology and Siemens Energy researchers work on a major goal to enhance properties and composition of molten salts. Molten salts will be used as an alternative for thermal oil. This boosts the working temperatures ranging from 400° to over 500° Celsius. High vapor pressure and extremely flammable property are major drawbacks of thermal oil, whereas molten salts have about zero vapor pressure and they are non-flammable. Hence, power plant operations will be safe without pressure. In addition, molten salt mixtures possess greater heat storage ability and they are economical for use. http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=28387 I could have sworn someone was already doing this some 2 years ago. It may not have worked out as planned but maybe I have missed new information. It sounded good, especially that it holds the heat for much longer periods. Good for when there is a lack of sunlight. No poo sherlock! Go get a heady off one of your liberal voting mates why don't ya! Ya poof!

What did you say speghetti, your sluring

There are many ways to trap and use the sun's energy

Even with a large solar tower - perfect for Australia - and the good news is that the worlds patents for this technology is held by the Australian company Enviromission which is based in Melbourne
http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/1/l_34ed658c721bc42a56f2e3423563f001.png
http://infranetlab.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/09_01_11_solar_tower61.jpg

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 7:59pm:

The bloke from BEYOND ZERO was talking about 15 hours of storage being attempted.  ;) 8-) 8-)

Exactly......BEING ATTEMPTED.... :D :D :D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 9:18pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 7:59pm: The bloke from BEYOND ZERO was talking about 15 hours of storage being attempted.  ;) 8-) 8-) Exactly......BEING ATTEMPTED.... :D :D :D

Yeh, well, how does scientific and therefore technological endevour work then if it's not by attempting?

Oi, spastic: tangle with that one!

For someone who preaches market forces I would have thought that it wouldn't be too hard to see the validity of attempting stuff!??!

 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

The crack is poison to some people!!  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 9:33pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 9:18pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 7:59pm: The bloke from BEYOND ZERO was talking about 15 hours of storage being attempted.  ;) 8-) 8-) Exactly......BEING ATTEMPTED.... :D :D :D Yeh, well, how does scientific and therefore technological endevour work then if it's not by attempting? Oi, spastic: tangle with that one! For someone who preaches market forces I would have thought that it wouldn't be too hard to see the validity of attempting stuff!??!  :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( The crack is poison to some people!!  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D

The crack is poison to some people!!
Yeah, YOU at a guess..

An experimental process is not something to replace a workable system with...

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 9:33pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 9:18pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 7:59pm: The bloke from BEYOND ZERO was talking about 15 hours of storage being attempted.  ;) 8-) 8-) Exactly......BEING ATTEMPTED.... :D :D :D Yeh, well, how does scientific and therefore technological endevour work then if it's not by attempting? Oi, spastic: tangle with that one! For someone who preaches market forces I would have thought that it wouldn't be too hard to see the validity of attempting stuff!??!  :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( The crack is poison to some people!!  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D

So what is your goal tonight for making derogatory remarks of people. Can we get a count on poof, idiot, spastic.

Mate how do you survive around here.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 9:39pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 9:33pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 9:18pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 7:59pm: The bloke from BEYOND ZERO was talking about 15 hours of storage being attempted.  ;) 8-) 8-) Exactly......BEING ATTEMPTED.... :D :D :D Yeh, well, how does scientific and therefore technological endevour work then if it's not by attempting? Oi, spastic: tangle with that one! For someone who preaches market forces I would have thought that it wouldn't be too hard to see the validity of attempting stuff!??!  :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( The crack is poison to some people!!  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D The crack is poison to some people!! Yeah, YOU at a guess.. An experimental process is not something to replace a workable system with...

An experimental process is not something to replace a workable system with....

Yeh, OK!

That's true, and it is why R and D is generally only done by the big boys because it takes a long time to find what is truly useful!

You're getting there dood!

This thread is truly evolving I feel!

 ;)

Yay!!!!!

____ wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 7:41pm:

Masdar Raises $600 Million for U.A.E. Solar Project

As suspected greens wins doesnt know how much a solar thermal plant costs.

\
You're a few zeros short green wins, but we all knew that didnt we.

As stated already solar thermal is far too expensive for consideration.
Not many countries have implemented a solar thermal plant due to the massive costs involved.

Whereas nuclear is cheap, is safe and is clean.

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 10:07pm:

... nuclear is cheap, is safe and is clean.

Yeah, right







Japan’s nuclear crisis has escalated with two more blasts and a fire rocking a quake-stricken atomic power plant, sending radiation up to dangerous levels.

Radiation around the Fukushima No 1 plant on the east coast had ‘‘risen considerably’’, Prime Minister Naoto Kan said, and his chief spokesman announced the level was high enough to endanger human health.


http://www.theage.com.au/environment/radiation-levels-rise-in-tokyo-as-nuclear-crisis-deepens-20110315-1buq7.html

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 10:07pm:

As stated already solar thermal is far too expensive for consideration. Not many countries have implemented a solar thermal plant due to the massive costs involved. Whereas nuclear is cheap, is safe and is clean.

If nulcear power plants were so cheap why isnt there a single nuclear plant in the world today that has been PURELY financed and built by the private sector?

How does Japan factor in the clean up and health costs from this nuclear mess?

And anyway your hero Mr Abbott has declared that nuclear energy is too expensive in Australia

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 11:18pm:

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 10:07pm: ... nuclear is cheap, is safe and is clean. Yeah, right Japan’s nuclear crisis has escalated with two more blasts and a fire rocking a quake-stricken atomic power plant, sending radiation up to dangerous levels. Radiation around the Fukushima No 1 plant on the east coast had ‘‘risen considerably’’, Prime Minister Naoto Kan said, and his chief spokesman announced the level was high enough to endanger human health. http://www.theage.com.au/environment/radiation-levels-rise-in-tokyo-as-nuclear-crisis-deepens-20110315-1buq7.html

Yes thank you for agreeing that nuclear plants are safe, clean and cheap.

Guess you havent heard the latest about Japan getting the all clear.
But don't let the safety of the Japan incident dampen your hystrical scare campaign.
Its fun to laugh at you running around like a chook without a head LOL

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 11:27pm:

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 10:07pm: As stated already solar thermal is far too expensive for consideration. Not many countries have implemented a solar thermal plant due to the massive costs involved. Whereas nuclear is cheap, is safe and is clean. If nulcear power plants were so cheap why isnt there a single nuclear plant in the world today that has been PURELY financed and built by the private sector? How does Japan factor in the clean up and health costs from this nuclear mess? And anyway your hero Mr Abbott has declared that nuclear energy is too expensive in Australia

You're not too bright are you.

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 4:41am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 11:18pm: frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 10:07pm: ... nuclear is cheap, is safe and is clean. Yeah, right Japan’s nuclear crisis has escalated with two more blasts and a fire rocking a quake-stricken atomic power plant, sending radiation up to dangerous levels. Radiation around the Fukushima No 1 plant on the east coast had ‘‘risen considerably’’, Prime Minister Naoto Kan said, and his chief spokesman announced the level was high enough to endanger human health. http://www.theage.com.au/environment/radiation-levels-rise-in-tokyo-as-nuclear-crisis-deepens-20110315-1buq7.html Yes thank you for agreeing that nuclear plants are safe, clean and cheap. Guess you havent heard the latest about Japan getting the all clear. But don't let the safety of the Japan incident dampen your hystrical scare campaign. Its fun to laugh at you running around like a chook without a head LOL

Live updates: Nuclear emergency declared in earthquake-struck Japan
March 16, 2011 6:51AM

5:29am Good morning. An overview of the latest developments in the Japan disaster.

Official death toll is 3373, but 10,000 feared dead in Myagi alone
Crews battling to avert a nuclear disaster to stop fuel rods from being exposed
Radiation near Fukushima No.1 plant has reached levels harmful to health
Food, water and fuel are running short in parts of Japan, authorities say


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world/magnitude-quake-strikes-japan/story-e6frfkyi-1226019903430#ixzz1GhSY7P00

6:30am Press statement from Toyko Electrical Power Company about an explosion at reactor 4 of the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power Station.

A loud explosion was heard from within the power station. Afterwards, it was confirmed that the 4th floor rooftop area of the Unit 4 Nuclear Reactor Building had sustained damage. After usage, fuel is stored in a pool designated for spent fuel. Plant conditions as well as potential outside radiation effects are currently under investigation.


http://www.news.com.au/world/magnitude-quake-strikes-japan/story-e6frfkyi-1226019903430#ixzz1GhVHoTYO

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 10:07pm:

As stated already solar thermal is far too expensive for consideration. Not many countries have implemented a solar thermal plant due to the massive costs involved. Whereas nuclear is cheap, is safe and is clean.

How much is it to build a nuclear reactor and store the radioactive waste for it's radioactive life?

If you are claiming nukes are cheap then you would know.


As for the NSW Green's plan to build three solar thermals for NSW, first one will be $2.1 billion.

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 6:10am:

6:30am Press statement from Toyko Electrical Power Company about an explosion at reactor 4 of the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power Station. A loud explosion was heard from within the power station. Afterwards, it was confirmed that the 4th floor rooftop area of the Unit 4 Nuclear Reactor Building had sustained damage. After usage, fuel is stored in a pool designated for spent fuel. Plant conditions as well as potential outside radiation effects are currently under investigation. http://www.news.com.au/world/magnitude-quake-strikes-japan/story-e6frfkyi-1226019903430#ixzz1GhVHoTYO

That news report must be wrong because frenchyjen said Nukes are cheap, clean and safe. And frenchyjen must known since he/she has posted this over and over and over ... without any evidence.

Note all of Japans Nuclear reactors are responding predictably, the situation is well contained, this is an outstanding success for Japans Nuclear industry and a devastating blow for organised Carbon Trading Crime Syndicates and their paid fear mongers and price spruikers the Greens.  Ask Bob Brown and his colleagues what sort of a retainer they are on to spread alarm on energy and fuel... :)

Prevailing wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 6:53am:

Note all of Japans Nuclear reactors are responding predictably, the situation is well contained, this is an outstanding success for Japans Nuclear industry and a devastating blow for organised Carbon Trading Crime Syndicates and their paid fear mongers and price spruikers the Greens.  Ask Bob Brown and his colleagues what sort of a retainer they are on to spread alarm on energy and fuel... :)

Japan nuclear crisis puts industry revival in doubt
37 minutes ago






Events in Japan could kill the last chances of revival for an American nuclear industry struggling to emerge from the shadow of its own disaster at Three Mile Island, experts have predicted.

Renewed fears about the technology may also snuff out a nuclear renaissance worldwide that had been sparked by fears over climate change and a need for low-carbon energy.

"This is going to be a Three Mile Island moment – maybe not a Chernobyl moment, but a Three Mile Island moment that is going to give people pause for at least several years," said Alan Madian, an energy analyst at the Brattle consulting group. "There is no question that the public is going to be rightfully concerned."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/15/japan-nuclear-crisis-industry-revival

____ wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 6:34am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 16th, 2011 at 6:10am: 6:30am Press statement from Toyko Electrical Power Company about an explosion at reactor 4 of the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power Station. A loud explosion was heard from within the power station. Afterwards, it was confirmed that the 4th floor rooftop area of the Unit 4 Nuclear Reactor Building had sustained damage. After usage, fuel is stored in a pool designated for spent fuel. Plant conditions as well as potential outside radiation effects are currently under investigation. http://www.news.com.au/world/magnitude-quake-strikes-japan/story-e6frfkyi-1226019903430#ixzz1GhVHoTYO That news report must be wrong because frenchyjen said Nukes are cheap, clean and safe. And frenchyjen must known since he/she has posted this over and over and over ... without any evidence.

And  the best the clean, green and safe nuclear power industry can offer people with homes damaged by earthquakes, tsunami and nuclear radiation is go indoors and stay there.

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 6:44pm:

As I mentioned to you previously Solar Thermal would be the ideal way to go however it costs are massively high and excessive when compared with the cheaper alternatives. The cheapest energy is coal. The next best alternative to coal is nuclear. It is clean, it safe and it is cheap.

Maybe not so

"Generation III Nuclear Plants are Australia’s third-most economical low-carbon electricity generation technology option, according to a study released this week by the Australian  Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE).  Nuclear Gen III came in behind Combined Cycle Gas Turbines with CCS, and Wind, and ahead of geothermal, solar and coal (with CCS) technologies."

http://www.hacaustralia.com/carbonsignal/?p=907

____ wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 6:30am:

As for the NSW Green's plan to build three solar thermals for NSW, first one will be $2.1 billion.

Gee thats a big difference to the $600 million that you were trying to deceive all before.

And the $2.1 b will not be that much rather it will be around $10billion plus.

I told you before solar thermal was massively expensive and $10b would be a cheap one too!

____ wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 6:34am:

frenchyjen said Nukes are cheap, clean and safe. And frenchyjen must know

Dam right too!

I was just doing some research, and found that in 2004 we had 50GW of electricity generation.

So I presume in 2020 we will need about 55 - 60 GW of generation.

50% of that generation is currently from coal.

That fits with Ziggy's 25 NPPs, each being about 1.5 GW. Each station might have multiple reactors.

So how much will 25 nuclear reactors cost to build?

Please delete wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 12:28pm:

I was just doing some research, and found that in 2004 we had 50GW of electricity generation. So I presume in 2020 we will need about 55 - 60 GW of generation. 50% of that generation is currently from coal. That fits with Ziggy's 25 NPPs, each being about 1.5 GW. Each station might have multiple reactors. So how much will 25 nuclear reactors cost to build?

...and building cost is the only issue to consider?

I left out decommisioning cost.

Capital cost is the single biggest overhead for Nuclear. So it's a prime question.

It would probably be the westinghouse AP1000 - gen III, 1154 MW.

So 25 of those is what Ziggy was hoping for, yes?

Debating with myself. This is fun.

http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/03/23/new-nuclear-construction-vogtle-unit-3-and-4/

So, in Georgia USA, two of these units are being built, total cost US$14B.

That's $7B each (if we could build them that cheaply - I am sceptical).

And the owners are accessing $3.4B loan guarantee from the US government.

$7B x 25 ----- $175B.

And extrapolated for 25 units, that involves about $42B worth of loan guarantee from the government.

Plus infrastructure costs.

Please delete wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 1:03pm:

Debating with myself. This is fun. http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/03/23/new-nuclear-construction-vogtle-unit-3-and-4/ So, in Georgia USA, two of these units are being built, total cost US$14B. That's $7B each (if we could build them that cheaply - I am sceptical). And the owners are accessing $3.4B loan guarantee from the US government. $7B x 25 ----- $175B. And extrapolated for 25 units, that involves about $42B worth of loan guarantee from the government. Plus infrastructure costs.

I don't know that the AP1000s were what Ziggy was talking about when he said 25 units....

2 AP1000's will provide power to 1.1 million homes in America.....

So 25 AP's would supply 13,750,000 homes...are there even THAT many homes in NSW???

I feel that you have the wrong unit of currency gizmo.

In my opinion, the only thing that matters is how much we GENERATE now (because we know that works) and what the projections are.

50GW in 2004 (i'm sure the more current figures are out there, but I didn't find them in my quick search), with some growth - I thought a conservative 55-60 GW.

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 12:13pm:

____ wrote on Mar 16th, 2011 at 6:30am: As for the NSW Green's plan to build three solar thermals for NSW, first one will be $2.1 billion. Gee thats a big difference to the $600 million that you were trying to deceive all before. And the $2.1 b will not be that much rather it will be around $10billion plus. I told you before solar thermal was massively expensive and $10b would be a cheap one too!

Deceive ... yeah I wrote the article I used as a link to back up my post.

Gee you are a real dickhead.

"So 25 AP's would supply 13,750,000 homes...are there even THAT many homes in NSW??? "

Australia, not NSW - and don't forget industry.

Please delete wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 1:44pm:

I feel that you have the wrong unit of currency gizmo. In my opinion, the only thing that matters is how much we GENERATE now (because we know that works) and what the projections are. 50GW in 2004 (i'm sure the more current figures are out there, but I didn't find them in my quick search), with some growth - I thought a conservative 55-60 GW.

No, I'm working of the number of houses, not specific $ cost...

Your 'mate' talked about 25 reactors in NSW after all....But given it was 2007 when he said it, I'd guess it was Gen 2 reactors he meant....

2 AP1000's will produce 1100Mw....so the 25 AP1000 reactors would just about supply ALL of Australia.....which is a bit of an over-estimate of need, after all, we do already have assorted Hydro systems, windfarms and on house solar power....So we wouldn't need any thing like 25 nuclear power stations.....

There were only about 33 coal power station in the whole of Australia....About half of them are either closed down, or produce significantly less than 1100 MW....Some are as low as 150mw for the whole coal station...

I think, if combined with solar,wind, hydro etc....if you just replaced nuclear with coal, we'd probably only need 10 or 15 AP1000s...at 'worst'....

Please delete wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 1:46pm:

"So 25 AP's would supply 13,750,000 homes...are there even THAT many homes in NSW??? " Australia, not NSW - and don't forget industry.

Yeah sorry,.....someone mentioned something about '25 nuclear reactors along the NSW coast'...in another thread...

When so-called "Green" power sources can provide the same power within the same footprint and at the same or less cost as existing coal and nuke types, then I'll begin taking them seriously.

Life_goes_on wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 2:32pm:

When so-called "Green" power sources can provide the same power within the same footprint and at the same or less cost as existing coal and nuke types, then I'll begin taking them seriously.

Yes, that's MY problem too.....the 'spotty' generation of 'Green' power...we NEED a 24/7 backup for baseload...

"2 AP1000's will produce 1100Mw....so the 25 AP1000 reactors would just about supply ALL of Australia.....which is a bit of an over-estimate of need, after all, we do already have assorted Hydro systems, windfarms and on house solar power....So we wouldn't need any thing like 25 nuclear power stations....."

No, 2 x AP1000s will produce 2200 MW.

25 AP1000's will produce half of Australia's current total electricity requirement.

ie 25 x 1.1 GW = 27.5 GW, which is half of the 55 GW we will need (rough figures).

1. AP1000s are the latest and best Gen III - Ziggy would have known all about them.

2. I don't know who you mean by "my mate". Greens?

3. I'm debating - isn't that what YOU want, gizmo?

Life_goes_on wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 2:32pm:

When so-called "Green" power sources can provide the same power within the same footprint and at the same or less cost as existing coal and nuke types, then I'll begin taking them seriously.

The levelised costs of several "green" power sources are the same or less than nuclear.

Most notable (for me) is Gas Turbine Cogeneration plants, as I have highlighted in other threads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Levelized_energy_cost.jpg

____ wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 1:46pm:

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 16th, 2011 at 12:13pm: ____ wrote on Mar 16th, 2011 at 6:30am: As for the NSW Green's plan to build three solar thermals for NSW, first one will be $2.1 billion. Gee thats a big difference to the $600 million that you were trying to deceive all before. And the $2.1 b will not be that much rather it will be around $10billion plus. I told you before solar thermal was massively expensive and $10b would be a cheap one too! Deceive ... yeah I wrote the article I used as a link to back up my post. Gee you are a real dickhead.

That`s the way woody, you tell him to get sucked, better still, do it yourself. :o :o :o

Please delete wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 2:39pm:

"2 AP1000's will produce 1100Mw....so the 25 AP1000 reactors would just about supply ALL of Australia.....which is a bit of an over-estimate of need, after all, we do already have assorted Hydro systems, windfarms and on house solar power....So we wouldn't need any thing like 25 nuclear power stations....." No, 2 x AP1000s will produce 2200 MW. 25 AP1000's will produce half of Australia's current total electricity requirement. ie 25 x 1.1 GW = 27.5 GW, which is half of the 55 GW we will need (rough figures). 1. AP1000s are the latest and best Gen III - Ziggy would have known all about them. 2. I don't know who you mean by "my mate". Greens? 3. I'm debating - isn't that what YOU want, gizmo?

Yes debating IS what I want...

The 'my mate' thing was sarcasm...and why would a government enquiry, 4 years ago, use the latest and greatest technology....it would have been the 'most' expensive, at the time...

And you're assuming that ALL of the 55 GW would HAVE to be supplied by nuclear power......which is not true....

Don't think that the 'pro-nuke' lobby is suggesting 100% nuclear power......because as far as I can see, they're NOT....

The only suggestion is to replace the coal power stations with nuclear power..and since some of the coal power station produce as little as 12mw, you wouldn't even need as many nuclear power stations as there are coal power stations...
It's a combination idea (from MY view, anyway)....Solar, wind, hydro, tidal, maybe gas (although that's still a little Co2 intensive) AND some nuclear for backup, at night, or when it's a still day etc...

So you'd probably only need a quarter or less of the current number of coal stations...just to take up the load at night, or when the wind drops, or what have you....

The Carbon Tax is linked with the Mafia - people pushing the Carbon Tax have no right to live in Australia. 8-)

The ability to ever calculate accurately just what "LONG TERM" costs we will be left to deal with, when talking about Nuclear Power, is the hidden expense that never seems to be considered, when discussing the economic viability of Nuclear, vs Renewable Energy options.
Until that glaring commission is rectified, then we are really making judgment calls, based on false figures.

The following article gives a bit of info on just that subject, and is worth a browse, especially if the cost of Nuclear Power is the dominant reason that you would support it over Solar.

http://centernanosociety.blogspot.com/2011/03/long-term-energy-generation-costs.html

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 3:09pm:

Please delete wrote on Mar 16th, 2011 at 2:39pm: "2 AP1000's will produce 1100Mw....so the 25 AP1000 reactors would just about supply ALL of Australia.....which is a bit of an over-estimate of need, after all, we do already have assorted Hydro systems, windfarms and on house solar power....So we wouldn't need any thing like 25 nuclear power stations....." No, 2 x AP1000s will produce 2200 MW. 25 AP1000's will produce half of Australia's current total electricity requirement. ie 25 x 1.1 GW = 27.5 GW, which is half of the 55 GW we will need (rough figures). 1. AP1000s are the latest and best Gen III - Ziggy would have known all about them. 2. I don't know who you mean by "my mate". Greens? 3. I'm debating - isn't that what YOU want, gizmo? Yes debating IS what I want... The 'my mate' thing was sarcasm...and why would a government enquiry, 4 years ago, use the latest and greatest technology....it would have been the 'most' expensive, at the time... And you're assuming that ALL of the 55 GW would HAVE to be supplied by nuclear power......which is not true.... Don't think that the 'pro-nuke' lobby is suggesting 100% nuclear power......because as far as I can see, they're NOT.... The only suggestion is to replace the coal power stations with nuclear power..and since some of the coal power station produce as little as 12mw, you wouldn't even need as many nuclear power stations as there are coal power stations... It's a combination idea (from MY view, anyway)....Solar, wind, hydro, tidal, maybe gas (although that's still a little Co2 intensive) AND some nuclear for backup, at night, or when it's a still day etc... So you'd probably only need a quarter or less of the current number of coal stations...just to take up the load at night, or when the wind drops, or what have you....

Gizmo, take a deep breath and read what I wrote.

Half of Australia's current electricity generation is coal fired. The other half comes from other sources.

That's about 25 GW from coal.

If we replace all the coal fired power stations with Nuclear (that's my assumption), that coincides with Ziggy's estimate of 25 reactors (ie 25 reactors at 1.1 GW each).

Does that make sense to you?

And a government enquiry would assume that the technology currently being installed in the USA (back in 2007) would be the way to go - what else would you install? The reactors that they are phasing out?

You lost me at "blog".

Prevailing wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 3:12pm:

The Carbon Tax is linked with the Mafia - people pushing the Carbon Tax have no right to live in Australia. 8-)

You are really starting to worry me now prevailing.
If you were not so consistent with these posts, I would think you were just pulling our legs, and having a bit of fun at the expense of the Denialist set.
Time to pull out the special coat again.

---

Please delete wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 3:26pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 16th, 2011 at 3:09pm: Please delete wrote on Mar 16th, 2011 at 2:39pm: "2 AP1000's will produce 1100Mw....so the 25 AP1000 reactors would just about supply ALL of Australia.....which is a bit of an over-estimate of need, after all, we do already have assorted Hydro systems, windfarms and on house solar power....So we wouldn't need any thing like 25 nuclear power stations....." No, 2 x AP1000s will produce 2200 MW. 25 AP1000's will produce half of Australia's current total electricity requirement. ie 25 x 1.1 GW = 27.5 GW, which is half of the 55 GW we will need (rough figures). 1. AP1000s are the latest and best Gen III - Ziggy would have known all about them. 2. I don't know who you mean by "my mate". Greens? 3. I'm debating - isn't that what YOU want, gizmo? Yes debating IS what I want... The 'my mate' thing was sarcasm...and why would a government enquiry, 4 years ago, use the latest and greatest technology....it would have been the 'most' expensive, at the time... And you're assuming that ALL of the 55 GW would HAVE to be supplied by nuclear power......which is not true.... Don't think that the 'pro-nuke' lobby is suggesting 100% nuclear power......because as far as I can see, they're NOT.... The only suggestion is to replace the coal power stations with nuclear power..and since some of the coal power station produce as little as 12mw, you wouldn't even need as many nuclear power stations as there are coal power stations... It's a combination idea (from MY view, anyway)....Solar, wind, hydro, tidal, maybe gas (although that's still a little Co2 intensive) AND some nuclear for backup, at night, or when it's a still day etc... So you'd probably only need a quarter or less of the current number of coal stations...just to take up the load at night, or when the wind drops, or what have you.... Gizmo, take a deep breath and read what I wrote. Half of Australia's current electricity generation is coal fired. The other half comes from other sources. That's about 25 GW from coal. If we replace all the coal fired power stations with Nuclear (that's my assumption), that coincides with Ziggy's estimate of 25 reactors (ie 25 reactors at 1.1 GW each). Does that make sense to you? And a government enquiry would assume that the technology currently being installed in the USA (back in 2007) would be the way to go - what else would you install? The reactors that they are phasing out?

And THAT is where you made the mistake Ernie......while 'half' of Australia's current power generation IS coal powered, that doesn't mean that we'd need as many nuclear reactors as our current coal power stations... nuclear produces a far higher MWH rating than some (or most) of the coal stations...some of the 'current' coal power stations produce as little as 12MWH....So 2 nuclear stations would more than replace 10 coal stations.......A 151 Mw coal station (of which there are several) produces only 15% of the power that an AP1000 reactor produces, yes???

Cruise through THIS site and check the power generation levels for some of the stations...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Coal-fired_power_stations_in_Australia

But ziggy recommended 25 (reactors or power stations).

He didn't say one, or five, he said 25.

Yes, you could replace several coal fired power stations with one NPP. That's not in question.

So I guess you;re now saying that the number of (reactors/power stations) is fluid? How many then?

"that doesn't mean that we'd need as many nuclear reactors as our current coal power stations"

We would need enough to generate the same amount of electricity that  the coal stations that are being replaced produce.

Logical?

A nuclear power station houses more than one reactor.

If you could supply all of the country with just one power station - you'd still need a minimum of two of them.

Please delete wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 3:47pm:

"that doesn't mean that we'd need as many nuclear reactors as our current coal power stations" We would need enough to generate the same amount of electricity that  the coal stations that are being replaced produce. Logical?

Yes, very logical...if it takes 10 coal power stations to generate 10gwh and 4 nuclear stations will generate 10gwh....
THEN we only 'need' 4 nuclear stations....don't we????

How expensive is it, what do you do with the existing plants and how much does it cost per unit to generate versus existing methods?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 3:52pm:

Please delete wrote on Mar 16th, 2011 at 3:47pm: "that doesn't mean that we'd need as many nuclear reactors as our current coal power stations" We would need enough to generate the same amount of electricity that  the coal stations that are being replaced produce. Logical? Yes, very logical...if it takes 10 coal power stations to generate 10gwh and 4 nuclear stations will generate 10gwh.... THEN we only 'need' 4 nuclear stations....don't we????

Yes.

To produce 2.5 GW each in each power STATION, it would need 3 x 1 GW reactors. That's the unit of currency.

But we "need" to replace 25 GW of coal fired power.

So that's 25 Reactors at 1 GW each. Yes???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 2:33pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on Mar 16th, 2011 at 2:32pm: When so-called "Green" power sources can provide the same power within the same footprint and at the same or less cost as existing coal and nuke types, then I'll begin taking them seriously. Yes, that's MY problem too.....the 'spotty' generation of 'Green' power...we NEED a 24/7 backup for baseload...

Or else, start building a global 1MV HVDC feeder network.  That way Australia could export Solar electricity during the day to (say) Europe and vice versa.

Verge wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 3:55pm:

How expensive is it, what do you do with the existing plants and how much does it cost per unit to generate versus existing methods?

read the whole thread, verge. Some of your questions may be answered. Certainly there is a link to cost comparisons.

Catch you all in 2 hours.

The Mafia are up to their eyeballs in globalization reaching into all of the rackets involving food, power, energy consumption, food, public transport, Education and health.  Anyone who denies the Greens and Gillard are fear mongering and whoring for the mob are just playing semantics and word games they are in denial or they are deniers. :)

Great reading guys.
Amazing how this article has developed once the propaganda poster wasnt here.
Good stuff.

So, gizmo.

What part of my picture don't you accept? The 25 reactors?

He told The Australian Online today the assessment was based on the assumption it would take much longer to start up the first reactor.

“In the review we did in 2006 for example we estimate it would take 15 years to get the first reactor up once you got policy approval. Since then another number of countries including Italy have forecast or have undertaken programs aimed at building a reactor within 10 years,” he said.

“I formed the view that we have both the capability in Australia and evidence of an accelerated process overseas that we could move faster than we thought in 2006.

“My view is that if we get to 50 reactors by 2050, they would produce about 75 gigawatts of electricity which would be about 90 per cent of the country's needs.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/ziggy-switkowski-calls-for-50-nuclear-reactors-in-australia-by-2050/story-e6frgczf-1225851024425

Australia has 38 per cent of the world's uranium reserves and 20 per cent of global production. In energy terms, uranium may overtake oil as the key fuel later this century. Australia can lead as a supplier nation, and further opportunities exist.

Australia could and should plan for its first nuclear reactor by 2020 aiming for a fleet size of 50 large reactors by 2050. With a moderate amount of hydroelectricity, renewable and residual coal/gas generation, this could meet all Australia's electricity needs reliably, safely, cleanly and cost effectively.

It solves our greenhouse gas challenge in the electricity sector completely, provides for energy security and independence, creates a modern high-technology industry and establishes the energy platform which can charge electric cars and produce hydrogen fuel dependably and cleanly as will be required in the latter part of this century.

Compact reactors are expected on the market by about 2015. These reactors are appealing because they are gas cooled (and therefore do not require access to water), can be incrementally extended, are perhaps the size of two shipping containers, can be built underground, and are much less intimidating than a full-scale installation.

The introduction of nuclear power via these smaller installations may be the path which wins Australian community and political support earliest.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/australia-must-add-a-dash-of-nuclear-ambition-to-its-energy-agenda-20091201-k3pq.html

Please delete wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 12:03pm:

Australia has 38 per cent of the world's uranium reserves and 20 per cent of global production. In energy terms, uranium may overtake oil as the key fuel later this century. Australia can lead as a supplier nation, and further opportunities exist.

If that happened then hopefully Australia can really dictate to the Arab nations what our price will be.

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 12:07pm:

Please delete wrote on Mar 17th, 2011 at 12:03pm: Australia has 38 per cent of the world's uranium reserves and 20 per cent of global production. In energy terms, uranium may overtake oil as the key fuel later this century. Australia can lead as a supplier nation, and further opportunities exist. If that happened then hopefully Australia can really dictate to the Arab nations what our price will be.

I see - corporate fascism in a nutshell

The free market ethic is for others to adhere to

Please delete wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 11:57am:

So, gizmo. What part of my picture don't you accept? The 25 reactors?

Basically, what I don't accept about your picture ( 25 reactors)  is that it seems to ignore the 'renewable' power generation systems...

Granted we 'currently' get 50% of our power from coal....but that doesn't need to continue......There's still solar, solar thermal (which is not quite up to baseload yet), wind, tidal, wave and the gas combined system (which seems good, depending on the natural gas reserves)...

So with ALL those other methods, it shouldn't be necessary to replace ALL the coal stations with nuclear stations....some of the coal stations are pretty low capacity after all..

I'm not entirely sure that you'd 'need' 25 reactors (straight away) to meet our power needs...

As for the waste problem, reproccesing through 'breeder' reactors can recover up to 95% the uranium from waste material...

Gizmo

60GW of power generation in Australia.

50% of that is from coal, 50% from other sources (rough figures) - hydro, solar, wind etc.

So in terms of replaing coal power generation, we're talking about 30GW.

Ziggy in 2006 talked about 25 reactors. 25 reactors to produce 30 GW suits the "workhorse" Gen III reactor, the westinghouse AP1000, which the USA are installing, and China. It's my bet that any Australian installation would go with those reactors.

In 2009 he talked about 50 reactors, stating that smaller scale reactors would become available in 2016 - the sort that could power a small town, for instance.

So, 25 AP1000 reactors to produce 30GW of electricity comes to at least $175B.

Where do you think I am wrong?

See also:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1300233085/69#69

Please delete wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 2:37pm:

Gizmo 60GW of power generation in Australia. 50% of that is from coal, 50% from other sources (rough figures) - hydro, solar, wind etc. So in terms of replaing coal power generation, we're talking about 30GW. Ziggy in 2006 talked about 25 reactors. 25 reactors to produce 30 GW suits the "workhorse" Gen III reactor, the westinghouse AP1000, which the USA are installing, and China. It's my bet that any Australian installation would go with those reactors. In 2009 he talked about 50 reactors, stating that smaller scale reactors would become available in 2016 - the sort that could power a small town, for instance. So, 25 AP1000 reactors to produce 30GW of electricity comes to at least $175B. Where do you think I am wrong?

Simply on the percent of generation..if we increase our 'other' sources generation to, say 75%, then we'd halve our requirements for AP1000 reactors, wouldn't we??

And if we add 'battery storage' to our solar,wind and tidal/wave generating capacity, the number of reactors 'required' would drop even further..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 3:00pm:

Please delete wrote on Mar 17th, 2011 at 2:37pm: Gizmo 60GW of power generation in Australia. 50% of that is from coal, 50% from other sources (rough figures) - hydro, solar, wind etc. So in terms of replaing coal power generation, we're talking about 30GW. Ziggy in 2006 talked about 25 reactors. 25 reactors to produce 30 GW suits the "workhorse" Gen III reactor, the westinghouse AP1000, which the USA are installing, and China. It's my bet that any Australian installation would go with those reactors. In 2009 he talked about 50 reactors, stating that smaller scale reactors would become available in 2016 - the sort that could power a small town, for instance. So, 25 AP1000 reactors to produce 30GW of electricity comes to at least $175B. Where do you think I am wrong? Simply on the percent of generation..if we increase our 'other' sources generation to, say 75%, then we'd halve our requirements for AP1000 reactors, wouldn't we?? And if we add 'battery storage' to our solar,wind and tidal/wave generating capacity, the number of reactors 'required' would drop even further..

I am fully in agreement about increasing the renewable energy sources.

But, why go nuclear at all, if increasing renewables is an attractive option (ie not out of our price range)?

Have you come to accept the unit price of nuclear as at least $7B per GW?

muso wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 3:57pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 16th, 2011 at 2:33pm: Life_goes_on wrote on Mar 16th, 2011 at 2:32pm: When so-called "Green" power sources can provide the same power within the same footprint and at the same or less cost as existing coal and nuke types, then I'll begin taking them seriously. Yes, that's MY problem too.....the 'spotty' generation of 'Green' power...we NEED a 24/7 backup for baseload... Or else, start building a global 1MV HVDC feeder network.  That way Australia could export Solar electricity during the day to (say) Europe and vice versa.

?!! Is this even possible ?!!?

Life_goes_on wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 2:32pm:

When so-called "Green" power sources can provide the same power within the same footprint and at the same or less cost as existing coal and nuke types, then I'll begin taking them seriously.

LIFE CHANGING: MAN I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE WORLD WOULD BE WITHOUT THAT COMMENT!

 :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

____ wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 7:00pm:

frenchyjen70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 6:44pm: As I mentioned to you previously Solar Thermal would be the ideal way to go however it costs are massively high and excessive when compared with the cheaper alternatives. The cheapest energy is coal. The next best alternative to coal is nuclear. It is clean, it safe and it is cheap. it is astonishing that Green can be so stupid as to ignore the costs of solar thermal. Yes sunshine is so expensive to create ... we have to build a star, mine sunshine and transport it. Coal that is subsidized by the environment and human health and lowers Australian living standards is cheap ... and as we see in Japan, nuclear is clean, safe and oh so cheap also. Gee

muso wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 3:57pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 16th, 2011 at 2:33pm: Life_goes_on wrote on Mar 16th, 2011 at 2:32pm: When so-called "Green" power sources can provide the same power within the same footprint and at the same or less cost as existing coal and nuke types, then I'll begin taking them seriously. Yes, that's MY problem too.....the 'spotty' generation of 'Green' power...we NEED a 24/7 backup for baseload... Or else, start building a global 1MV HVDC feeder network.  That way Australia could export Solar electricity during the day to (say) Europe and vice versa.

yeah... because the word has a spare $10T to build such a network. and NO ONE is going to put their energy requirements at the whim of a foreign country not to mention breakdowns, earthquakes, terrorism etc.

seriously dumb idea

So much for debate.

Please delete wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 6:00am:

So much for debate.

what did u expect on a thread that is so idiotic that it focuses on the most recent, least-proven and most expensive R/E technology around and promotes it as the salvation of everything?

You are lucky it went as well as it did!

Feel free to pick holes in my points, longweekend.

I'm sure I've got something wrong, but generally I think my case stands up.

Gas fired turbines stack up VERY well against nuclear.

Please delete wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 3:28pm:

Feel free to pick holes in my points, longweekend. I'm sure I've got something wrong, but generally I think my case stands up. Gas fired turbines stack up VERY well against nuclear.

I actually agree that fossil fuel plats are slightly cheaper than nuclear and always has been. The major RATIONAL argument against nuclear in australia has always been that teh economics arent there at the moment.

So is there any reason for you to continue supporting nuclear?

Gas fired Cogeneration plants are cheaper to build, more flexible, don't need access to major water supplies (future NPPs according to Ziggy will not have this limitation) with none of the drawbacks, and would answer our GG emmisions problems.

Because they are cogen plants, other power sources could be piggybacked, if gas fired became less attractive.

For mine, I would like to see more companies do what AGL's customer has done - build their own plants, with short payback periods, and take the load off the "public" infrastructure.

Towns could take the same approach.

There are even cogen machines for houses, which use Stirling Engines - amazing technology, but too expensive. But that will change.

Please delete wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 3:40pm:

So is there any reason for you to continue supporting nuclear? Gas fired Cogeneration plants are cheaper to build, more flexible, don't need access to major water supplies (future NPPs according to Ziggy will not have this limitation) with none of the drawbacks, and would answer our GG emmisions problems. Because they are cogen plants, other power sources could be piggybacked, if gas fired became less attractive. For mine, I would like to see more companies do what AGL's customer has done - build their own plants, with short payback periods, and take the load off the "public" infrastructure. Towns could take the same approach. There are even cogen machines for houses, which use Stirling Engines - amazing technology, but too expensive. But that will change.

I have repeatedly tried to get this through to you: I am NOT an advocate for nuclear power but rather I would like it to remain an option for us. the anti-nuke debate has remained predominatly hysterical and devoid of facts. At the moment the economics are not in it but however, with a 10year lead time on construction  we need to consider future costs. Nuclear is way cheaper than R/E and obviously has baseload - something R/E generally does not have. Its disadvantages of course are waste and the very high capital cost before any power is generated. So just to repeat... I am not an ADVOCATE for nuclear energy but rather wish it to remain one of the options on the table. Is that clear?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 3:54pm:

Please delete wrote on Mar 18th, 2011 at 3:40pm: So is there any reason for you to continue supporting nuclear? Gas fired Cogeneration plants are cheaper to build, more flexible, don't need access to major water supplies (future NPPs according to Ziggy will not have this limitation) with none of the drawbacks, and would answer our GG emmisions problems. Because they are cogen plants, other power sources could be piggybacked, if gas fired became less attractive. For mine, I would like to see more companies do what AGL's customer has done - build their own plants, with short payback periods, and take the load off the "public" infrastructure. Towns could take the same approach. There are even cogen machines for houses, which use Stirling Engines - amazing technology, but too expensive. But that will change. I have repeatedly tried to get this through to you: I am NOT an advocate for nuclear power but rather I would like it to remain an option for us. the anti-nuke debate has remained predominatly hysterical and devoid of facts. At the moment the economics are not in it but however, with a 10year lead time on construction  we need to consider future costs. Nuclear is way cheaper than R/E and obviously has baseload - something R/E generally does not have. Its disadvantages of course are waste and the very high capital cost before any power is generated. So just to repeat... I am not an ADVOCATE for nuclear energy but rather wish it to remain one of the options on the table. Is that clear?

You mean you want me to accept your assertion that you haven't said something? You want me to understand that I am misrepresenting your position, and that you didn't say what I am suggesting?

Poor diddums. You're a rude arrogant hypocrite, whose debating style is pure bluster and misrepresentation.

To my recollection, you have made this claim twice, and only after the tsunami in Japan.

You have been a constant advocate for nuclear. You have defended it in every argument, and dismissed or disparaged every other form of energy generation as either too expensive or somehow unacceptable.

Now that nuclear is a bit more on the nose (temporarily I suspect)  you want to appear open minded. Bollocks.