As in power generation, not bombs.

Discuss.

It would be nice if it could be a Thorium design:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0

A meltdown is impossible.
in fact - at worst case it's walk away safe.

Yes

Gordon wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 12:48pm:

Yes

What about the inviroments etc?

Put me down for a big fat "NO" our temperament is not compatible with nuclear and there are no safe models currently available and none on the horizon.

Also there is no safe disposal of the waste material.

All in all it is a disaster waiting to happen on several fronts.

Very dangerous and 100% unnecessary for Australia until solutions are found. I suspect a better solution than nuclear will be available well before nuclear is ever a viable option.

In the longer term nuclear will cost more saddle us with unsolvable problems and not supply our requirements.

What temperament is required to be compatible with nuear power generation?

Model for what are you referring to.

How is synroc buried in the desert not safe?

What disasters are you expecting?

Your post seems irrational  at best.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 12:58pm:

Put me down for a big fat "NO" our temperament is not compatible with nuclear and there are no safe models currently available and none on the horizon. Also there is no safe disposal of the waste material. All in all it is a disaster waiting to happen on several fronts. Very dangerous and 100% unnecessary for Australia until solutions are found. I suspect a better solution than nuclear will be available well before nuclear is ever a viable option. In the longer term nuclear will cost more saddle us with unsolvable problems and not supply our requirements.

Unless we wait for a proven Thorium design.
It could be less than 2 years away.

Term Dog wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 12:53pm:

Gordon wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 12:48pm: Yes What about the inviroments etc?

The pollution from coal at the mining and burning stage is far far more environmentally detrimental than nukes.

We have an abundance of the raw material and geologically safe spots to run them.

Most of the anti-nuke squad talk about fukushima, designed in the 1950s, built from 67-71.

Put a Generation IV fast reactor in Syd, Bris, Melb, Perth and power will become cheap and clean grimy faces will never be seen.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 1:06pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 12:58pm: Put me down for a big fat "NO" our temperament is not compatible with nuclear and there are no safe models currently available and none on the horizon. Also there is no safe disposal of the waste material. All in all it is a disaster waiting to happen on several fronts. Very dangerous and 100% unnecessary for Australia until solutions are found. I suspect a better solution than nuclear will be available well before nuclear is ever a viable option. In the longer term nuclear will cost more saddle us with unsolvable problems and not supply our requirements. Unless we wait for a proven Thorium design. It could be less than 2 years away.

People have been saying that for about 40 years or more.

My view on that is asses it when you see it, my suspicion is it will still be just around the corner in another 40 years.

Gordon wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 1:17pm:

Term Dog wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 12:53pm: Gordon wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 12:48pm: Yes What about the inviroments etc? The pollution from coal at the mining and burning stage is far far more environmentally detrimental than nukes. We have an abundance of the raw material and geologically safe spots to run them. Most of the anti-nuke squad talk about fukushima, designed in the 1950s, built from 67-71. Put a Generation IV fast reactor in Syd, Bris, Melb, Perth and power will become cheap and clean grimy faces will never be seen.

Quote:

Put a Generation IV fast reactor in Syd, Bris, Melb, Perth and power will become cheap and clean

Rubbish - the only difference is that prices will go up as will profits justified by the cost of investment in the technology.

This things cost around $12 Billion or more a unit and are no basis for reducing the cost of power production in fact guaranteed to do the exact opposite.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 1:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 1:06pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 12:58pm: Put me down for a big fat "NO" our temperament is not compatible with nuclear and there are no safe models currently available and none on the horizon. Also there is no safe disposal of the waste material. All in all it is a disaster waiting to happen on several fronts. Very dangerous and 100% unnecessary for Australia until solutions are found. I suspect a better solution than nuclear will be available well before nuclear is ever a viable option. In the longer term nuclear will cost more saddle us with unsolvable problems and not supply our requirements. Unless we wait for a proven Thorium design. It could be less than 2 years away. People have been saying that for about 40 years or more. My view on that is asses it when you see it, my suspicion is it will still be just around the corner in another 40 years.

Considering that one was actually working in 1965 till 1968
means that they do work.
What is lacking is the political will to have safe, unlimited, cheap power.
We're talking 3 cents per kilowatt hour not
28 cents as most of us pay now.

I suspect that coal & other fossil fuel interests have stopped it.
The world is run by criminals - I'm convinced of that.

Term Dog wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 12:29pm:

As in power generation, not bombs. Discuss.

Yes

Dnarever wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 1:31pm:

Gordon wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 1:17pm: Term Dog wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 12:53pm: Gordon wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 12:48pm: Yes What about the inviroments etc? The pollution from coal at the mining and burning stage is far far more environmentally detrimental than nukes. We have an abundance of the raw material and geologically safe spots to run them. Most of the anti-nuke squad talk about fukushima, designed in the 1950s, built from 67-71. Put a Generation IV fast reactor in Syd, Bris, Melb, Perth and power will become cheap and clean grimy faces will never be seen. Quote: Put a Generation IV fast reactor in Syd, Bris, Melb, Perth and power will become cheap and clean Rubbish - the only difference is that prices will go up as will profits justified by the cost of investment in the technology. This things cost around $12 Billion or more a unit and are no basis for reducing the cost of power production in fact guaranteed to do the exact opposite.

Expensive to build, cheap to run and the Gen IV units will work for a long time. Don't forget to factor in the cost savings of reduced respiratory disease that coal creates.

I'm all for solar as infill but we need power plants that can pump out gobs of power 24/7/.

Please don't be such a nukeophobe. Tsk tsk tsk.

The half life of Thorium is 14 billion years - as old as the universe.

You could have a brick of it on your coffee table and it wouldn't hurt you.
It doesn't even dissolve in water.

As long as the first is built in Canberra right next to parliament house.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 1:53pm:

The half life of Thorium is 14 billion years - as old as the universe. You could have a brick of it on your coffee table and it wouldn't hurt you. It doesn't even dissolve in water.

Thorium is actually highly poisonous, wouldn't recommend keeping it in the house.

Valkie wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 3:36pm:

As long as the first is built in Canberra right next to parliament house.

That's fair.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 1:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 1:26pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 1:06pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 12:58pm: Put me down for a big fat "NO" our temperament is not compatible with nuclear and there are no safe models currently available and none on the horizon. Also there is no safe disposal of the waste material. All in all it is a disaster waiting to happen on several fronts. Very dangerous and 100% unnecessary for Australia until solutions are found. I suspect a better solution than nuclear will be available well before nuclear is ever a viable option. In the longer term nuclear will cost more saddle us with unsolvable problems and not supply our requirements. Unless we wait for a proven Thorium design. It could be less than 2 years away. People have been saying that for about 40 years or more. My view on that is asses it when you see it, my suspicion is it will still be just around the corner in another 40 years. Considering that one was actually working in 1965 till 1968 means that they do work. What is lacking is the political will to have safe, unlimited, cheap power. We're talking 3 cents per kilowatt hour not 28 cents as most of us pay now. I suspect that coal & other fossil fuel interests have stopped it. The world is run by criminals - I'm convinced of that.

they were talking about it 60 years ago - whatever the reason they
will likely be talking about it in 40 years time.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 3:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 1:53pm: The half life of Thorium is 14 billion years - as old as the universe. You could have a brick of it on your coffee table and it wouldn't hurt you. It doesn't even dissolve in water. Thorium is actually highly poisonous, wouldn't recommend keeping it in the house.

Breathing in Thorium dust would not be very healthy but if
you had a solid brick of it on your coffee table it wouldn't hurt you.
Thorium is all around you in your daily life - it's so abundant
and you have eaten plenty of it by now as it's in all your food.

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=658&tid=121


I am referring to comparisons between other radioactive materials.
It obviously wouldn't be healthy to have a solid brick of Uranium
on your coffee table as it's highly radioactive.
It also dissolves in water.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 3:43pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 1:34pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 1:26pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 1:06pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 12:58pm: Put me down for a big fat "NO" our temperament is not compatible with nuclear and there are no safe models currently available and none on the horizon. Also there is no safe disposal of the waste material. All in all it is a disaster waiting to happen on several fronts. Very dangerous and 100% unnecessary for Australia until solutions are found. I suspect a better solution than nuclear will be available well before nuclear is ever a viable option. In the longer term nuclear will cost more saddle us with unsolvable problems and not supply our requirements. Unless we wait for a proven Thorium design. It could be less than 2 years away. People have been saying that for about 40 years or more. My view on that is asses it when you see it, my suspicion is it will still be just around the corner in another 40 years. Considering that one was actually working in 1965 till 1968 means that they do work. What is lacking is the political will to have safe, unlimited, cheap power. We're talking 3 cents per kilowatt hour not 28 cents as most of us pay now. I suspect that coal & other fossil fuel interests have stopped it. The world is run by criminals - I'm convinced of that. they were talking about it 60 years ago - whatever the reason they will likely be talking about it in 40 years time.

They weren't talking about it they had a working reactor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment

The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) was an experimental molten salt reactor at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) researching this technology through the 1960s; constructed by 1964, it went critical in 1965 and was operated until 1969.[1]

Bobby. wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 4:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 3:43pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 1:34pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 1:26pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 1:06pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 27th, 2018 at 12:58pm: Put me down for a big fat "NO" our temperament is not compatible with nuclear and there are no safe models currently available and none on the horizon. Also there is no safe disposal of the waste material. All in all it is a disaster waiting to happen on several fronts. Very dangerous and 100% unnecessary for Australia until solutions are found. I suspect a better solution than nuclear will be available well before nuclear is ever a viable option. In the longer term nuclear will cost more saddle us with unsolvable problems and not supply our requirements. Unless we wait for a proven Thorium design. It could be less than 2 years away. People have been saying that for about 40 years or more. My view on that is asses it when you see it, my suspicion is it will still be just around the corner in another 40 years. Considering that one was actually working in 1965 till 1968 means that they do work. What is lacking is the political will to have safe, unlimited, cheap power. We're talking 3 cents per kilowatt hour not 28 cents as most of us pay now. I suspect that coal & other fossil fuel interests have stopped it. The world is run by criminals - I'm convinced of that. they were talking about it 60 years ago - whatever the reason they will likely be talking about it in 40 years time. They weren't talking about it they had a working reactor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) was an experimental molten salt reactor at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) researching this technology through the 1960s; constructed by 1964, it went critical in 1965 and was operated until 1969.[1]

Yes I know that - an experiment.

There has never been a working reactor delivering power or a serious attempt to make it work commercially..

They weren't talking about it they had a working reactor.


You think they conducted an experiment without talking about it ?

You know that everything you are saying is supporting my case ?

They weren't talking about it -

they had a working Thorium reactor.

Yes, Australia should be nuclear powered ... in fact, we have a perfectly functioning Fusion Reactor located approximately 150,000,000 km above us which can supply all of our energy needs if we could be bothered to build collection devices to capture and store the FREE energy landing on us.

:)


p.s.

Australia is the "sunniest" country on Earth.

We receive approximately 6 kWh per m²

That's a lot of energy we could be making use of.

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 28^th, 2018 at 12:04pm:

Yes, Australia should be nuclear powered ... in fact, we have a perfectly functioning Fusion Reactor located approximately 150,000,000 km above us which can supply all of our energy needs if we could be bothered to build collection devices to capture and store the FREE energy landing on us. :) p.s. Australia is the "sunniest" country on Earth. We receive approximately 6 kWh per m2 That's a lot of energy we could be making use of.

The technical reasons why solar is not a solution are well known, most people that take the topic seriously know this.

Term Dog wrote on Oct 28^th, 2018 at 12:27pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 12:04pm: Yes, Australia should be nuclear powered ... in fact, we have a perfectly functioning Fusion Reactor located approximately 150,000,000 km above us which can supply all of our energy needs if we could be bothered to build collection devices to capture and store the FREE energy landing on us. :) p.s. Australia is the "sunniest" country on Earth. We receive approximately 6 kWh per m2 That's a lot of energy we could be making use of. The technical reasons why solar is not a solution are well known, most people that take the topic seriously know this.

Improved battery technology and Solar liquid salt power generators have made Solar a viable option.
Best of all, it is clean and the input source is free.

Unlike Coal or uranium or thorium where the input source is not free.  :)

Show any large  scale trial proven to be reliable and economical including manufacturing costs installation etc.

Curious not trying to refute.

The solar roads project was basically a fail.

There are manufacturing and installation costs no matter which technology one goes with.

Point being, once Solar is set up, the input cost is zero as opposed to other energy types where the input cost is not zero and in fact rises over time. Gas, coal, uranium, thorium. Not to mention that even nuclear is not truly renewable.

As for large scale test sites ... what is needed are a large number of widely dispersed sites, where one can be "guaranteed" that it is sunny at some places when not sunny in others.

It is surprising just how small an area is required to generate a lot of power.

One pretty good idea is to build floating solar panels on dams ... cools the collectors from the under side making them more efficient and you receive the added bonus of reducing water surface evaporation.

That sort of thinking would suit Australian conditions especially.

The latest nuclear power station in the United States was completed in 2016 and took 43 years to build:

https://qz.com/681753/the-united-states-newest-nuclear-power-plant-has-taken-43-years-to-build/

How long do you think it will take in Australia, with all the red tape and greenie bulls@#t you'd have to deal with?