Government dismisses Coalition's 10-year nuclear claim as a 'dream'


ABC News
March 10 2024

Energy Minister Chris Bowen has said that Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy Ted O'Brien is 'dreamin' if he believes Australia could have a nuclear power plant operational in 10 years.


The energy minister has rubbished his shadow counterpart's claims Australia could have nuclear power plants up and running in 10 years as the Coalition prepares to announce the nuclear plan it will take to the next election.

Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy Ted O'Brien said on Sunday morning Australia could have a nuclear power plant up in that time. 

"The best experts around the world with whom we've been engaging are saying Australia could have nuclear up and running within a 10-year period," he told Sky News.

Chris Bowen, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, resorted to a quote made famous by the film The Castle to respond to the opposition's future plans.

"Tell 'im he's dreamin'," Mr Bowen told ABC's Insiders.

"I don't know what experts he is talking to.

"With a very developed [nuclear] regulatory regime, with a very developed nuclear industry [in] the nuclear leader of the world, the average build time of a nuclear power plant in the United States is 19 years.

"Ted O'Brien thinks he can do it in Australia in 10 with a standing start, no regulations, banned not only internationally, but throw in the Opera House and Harbour Bridge, you might sell him something."

Australia has a total ban on nuclear energy in place, which the Coalition would have to win the support of parliament to lift even if it won government at the next federal election.   :)

The regions most likely to go nuclear under Coalition plan
With the Coalition interested in replacing retiring coal plants with nuclear reactors, there are just a handful of regions that would be likely candidates under the opposition's yet to be announced plans to go nuclear.


Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said he would be upfront with voters about where the Coalition was looking to place potential nuclear reactors when the party announced its policy in the coming weeks.

Speaking on Channel Seven on Tuesday morning, Mr Dutton confirmed the party was "interested" in replacing retiring coal plants with nuclear because the sites came ready with poles and wires to distribute power.

"The problem is with all Mr Dutton and Mr O'Brien's cases for nuclear, when you put scrutiny on them, they crumble like a Sao in a blender," Mr Bowen said.

When asked if the government would look to lift the ban on nuclear, the energy minister said it could come at a high cost to taxpayers.

"I hear this argument about just lift the ban and let the market sort it out. Well, the market hasn't sorted it out in any other country in the world," he said.   :(

"Every country in the world with nuclear has required massive transfers of taxpayer wealth to the nuclear constructors."

whiteknight wrote on Mar 10^th, 2024 at 3:36pm:

Energy Minister Chris Bowen has said that Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy Ted O'Brien is 'dreamin' if he believes Australia could have a nuclear power plant operational in 10 years.

Yes. It could be done in five years if they took out all the greentape.

Chris Bowen is not called BoneHead for nothing.  ;)

Notice he doesn't produce his own experts to debunk this, but the greentape blocked USA. ::)

So-called, "greentape" exist to protect the people and the environment from idiots like you, Lee and the failed Queensland ex-Copper.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2024 at 4:56pm:

So-called, "greentape" exist to protect the people and the environment from idiots like you, Lee and the failed Queensland ex-Copper.

Oh you mean like environmental idiots who want to destroy the environment by putting up Solar arrays and wind turbines. Weather dependant renewables will not power Australia. Therefore something else has to happen.

"Green" Germany is cutting down 120,000 trees to put in more wind turbines. And Germany is suffering from the cuts to reliable, dispatchable electricity.

Australia want to put in wind turbines off Portland, don't worry about the whales. ::)

lee wrote on Mar 10^th, 2024 at 5:12pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10th, 2024 at 4:56pm: So-called, "greentape" exist to protect the people and the environment from idiots like you, Lee and the failed Queensland ex-Copper. Oh you mean like environmental idiots who want to destroy the environment by putting up Solar arrays and wind turbines. Weather dependant renewables will not power Australia. Therefore something else has to happen. "Green" Germany is cutting down 120,000 trees to put in more wind turbines. And Germany is suffering from the cuts to reliable, dispatchable electricity. Australia want to put in wind turbines off Portland, don't worry about the whales. ::)

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, Lee your concern is commendable even if fake.  You just want belching Chimney stacks spewing smoke and pollution and it seems radiation across the land.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2024 at 5:53pm:

You just want belching Chimney stacks spewing smoke and pollution and it seems radiation across the land.

Dearie, Dearie me. The fake PM2.5 strikes again. Cigarette smoke is PM2.5. If it were true millions would die on their first puff. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Editor of scientific journal says fake study linking whale deaths to wind farms is 'deliberate misinformation'   :(

ABC News
7 November 2023

Share article

The federal government's resolve to establish an offshore wind industry is being tested by the emergence of community opposition which the government claims is being influenced by misinformation.

Key points:
The editor of a scientific journal says a study linking wind farms to whale deaths is fake
The claims were shared by a Facebook group opposing the development of offshore wind farms in the Illawarra region
Scientists have refuted other claims about wind farms, including that they will significantly impact swell size and coastal winds
It was the contents of a social media post in a community group that had Professor Quentin Hanich, editor-in-chief of respected scientific journal Marine Policy, trawling through hundreds of academic papers.

The post in the Facebook group No Offshore Wind Farm for the Illawarra referenced a University of Tasmania study purportedly published in his journal that predicted offshore wind turbines "could kill up to 400 whales per year".

"That paper does not exist," Professor Hanich said.

"We never received this imaginary paper … I am seeing no evidence that the study ever took place."

The post has since been deleted, but members of the group continue to regularly post content and videos suggesting a link between whale deaths and wind turbines.   :(

"There is no science which demonstrates that wind farms have any significant impact on whales," Professor Hanich said.

It is 'deliberate misinformation'
How the wind turbines will affect marine life, particularly whales, is a popular topic of discussion in the Facebook group which boasts 7,000 members.

Hundreds of people sitting on a hill some holding protest signs.
Protesters gather on Flagstaff Hill in Wollongong to oppose offshore turbines.(ABC Illawarra: Kelly Fuller)
Content linking whale deaths off the United States east coast with site surveys for offshore wind turbines regularly appears.

The claims, which are a talking point of former US president Donald Trump, have been refuted by the US government's own National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Whale deaths offshore wind facebook
NOAA repeatedly refutes the social media posts (pictured) saying "there is no scientific evidence that noise resulting from offshore wind site characterisation surveys could potentially cause mortality of whales".(Facebook)
Professor Hanich believes the fake information is part of a "culture war" attempting to undermine the wind industry.   :(

"We are not seeing any real science so far," he said.

"But we are seeing these types of claims being 'experted' by people like Donald Trump, which seems to imply that it is deliberate misinformation."

whiteknight wrote on Mar 10^th, 2024 at 7:00pm:

Editor of scientific journal says fake study linking whale deaths to wind farms is 'deliberate misinformation'

So which study was bogus? Interested people want to know.


whiteknight wrote on Mar 10^th, 2024 at 7:00pm:

"That paper does not exist," Professor Hanich said.

Oh an Australian paper. All papers are not the same.

See BOEM and the allowed "take" that's political speech for kill. ;)


whiteknight wrote on Mar 10^th, 2024 at 7:00pm:

NOAA repeatedly refutes the social media posts (pictured) saying "there is no scientific evidence that noise resulting from offshore wind site characterisation surveys could potentially cause mortality of whales".

Actually NOAA says there is CURRENTLY no evidence, quite apart from the allowed "take".

Letter to Dr Spinrad, NOAA, “Dear Dr. Spinrad: We are writing to alert your attention to urgent and credible information involving offshore sonar activity occurring within wind lease areas in the Atlantic. Specifically, our data show that the sonar is producing Level B harassment noise levels at distances that exceed those set by NOAA Fisheries (NMFS). Consequently, the protective distances adopted in NMFS issued Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHAs) for offshore wind sonar work are not protective at all. Rather, marine mammals are likely getting much closer to the sonar than should be allowed. We believe this is a major factor behind the recent spate of whale deaths in the Atlantic Ocean since December 1, 2022 and the ongoing Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs) dating back to 2017-18. The only mitigation for noise is distance. The shortened Level B the IHAs have, in effect, rendered any expected mitigations useless.”

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/61132164df0a2c56cfb0ffbd/t/64fddae8728fa92c0064459c/1694358248598/SRWC+-+NOAA+Letter+2023-09-08+FINAL.pdf

Wow. NOAA using the wrong Sonar data. I wonder who gave them that? ;)

lee wrote on Mar 10^th, 2024 at 5:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10th, 2024 at 5:53pm: You just want belching Chimney stacks spewing smoke and pollution and it seems radiation across the land. Dearie, Dearie me. The fake PM2.5 strikes again. Cigarette smoke is PM2.5. If it were true millions would die on their first puff. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The only fake is yourself, Lee.  You really should acquaint yourself properly with renewable energy sources.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Nuclear will not happen in Australia without bi-partisan support from both major Parties....Nuclear would take too long too build....Nuclear is too expensive....Once Nuclear is anounced investment in future renewable projects would stall....The Coalition are determined to do anything accept supporting renewable energy!!!

::) ::) ::)

And renewables have not been shown to work anywhere, despite protestation about how good it is. To go all electric as some nations seem to want to do requires a vast amount of overbuild to get the same nameplate capacity as now. However nameplate capacity is not actual electricity produced. All those new EV's, smart phones etc all need power as well as the humdrum things like stoves.

They want to outlaw gas, it is one of the Green's dreams. No gas stoves, they have to be scrapped for electric. ::)

Well said PHILPERTH 2010, this will probably be a main issue at the next election.  Now also one must ask the question, how much will all this nuclear cost people?.  Maybe a lot more than what people think.   :(     

whiteknight wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 5:00pm:

Now also one must ask the question, how much will all this nuclear cost people?.

Tell us when you get the figures for the new transmission lines needed for the Renewable energy and we can compare.

And the batteries.

BTW - "Investment in new Australian wind and solar farms stalls amid ‘raft of barriers’, report finds"

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/23/investment-in-new-australian-wind-and-solar-farms-stalls-amid-raft-of-barriers-report-finds

lee wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 5:13pm:

Tell us when you get the figures for the new transmission lines needed for the Renewable energy and we can compare.

Nuclear doesn't run on transmission lines?

Interesting :D :D :D :D

The average construction time for a nuclear power plant is 7.5 years.  This can be increased by the amount of green tape that is put in the way by anti-nuclear politicians, activists  and bureaucrats.  it should be noted that this green tape is in no way related to safety and environmental issues but is a deliberate stumbling block designed to make progress as difficult as possible for ideological reasons.

John Smith wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 5:15pm:

lee wrote on Mar 11th, 2024 at 5:13pm: Tell us when you get the figures for the new transmission lines needed for the Renewable energy and we can compare. Nuclear doesn't run on transmission lines? Interesting :D :D :D :D

A nuclear power plant can utilise the existing network. It does not require an extra 10,00 kilometres to link up like these widely scattered 'renewable' sites.

John Smith wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 5:15pm:

Nuclear doesn't run on transmission lines?

Of course it does dummy. But they can be co-located with the existing infrastructure. And you don't need 3 times overbuild to get the same electricity out. ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2024 at 5:53pm:

lee wrote on Mar 10th, 2024 at 5:12pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10th, 2024 at 4:56pm: So-called, "greentape" exist to protect the people and the environment from idiots like you, Lee and the failed Queensland ex-Copper. Oh you mean like environmental idiots who want to destroy the environment by putting up Solar arrays and wind turbines. Weather dependant renewables will not power Australia. Therefore something else has to happen. "Green" Germany is cutting down 120,000 trees to put in more wind turbines. And Germany is suffering from the cuts to reliable, dispatchable electricity. Australia want to put in wind turbines off Portland, don't worry about the whales. ::) Oh, dearie, dearie, me, Lee your concern is commendable even if fake.  You just want belching Chimney stacks spewing smoke and pollution and it seems radiation across the land.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Utter rubbish. Nuclear is clean, safe and reliable, the only issue is the ill informed fear mongering by those with an agenda. ::) 

"With a very developed [nuclear] regulatory regime, with a very developed nuclear industry [in] the nuclear leader of the world, the average build time of a nuclear power plant in the United States is 19 years.   :(

Belgarion wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 5:18pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2024 at 5:15pm: lee wrote on Mar 11th, 2024 at 5:13pm: Tell us when you get the figures for the new transmission lines needed for the Renewable energy and we can compare. Nuclear doesn't run on transmission lines? Interesting :D :D :D :D A nuclear power plant can utilise the existing network. It does not require an extra 10,00 kilometres to link up like these widely scattered 'renewable' sites.

Sure, if the locals want a reactor in their back yards. Otherwise it's new lines for nuclear too. :D :D

lee wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 5:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2024 at 5:15pm: Nuclear doesn't run on transmission lines? Of course it does dummy. But they can be co-located with the existing infrastructure. And you don't need 3 times overbuild to get the same electricity out. ::)

The only overbuild is the calcium overbuild in your head. Didn't leave enough room for your brain.

Australia has a total ban on nuclear energy in place, which the Coalition would have to win the support of parliament to lift even if it won government at the next federal election.   :)

So the coalition is right that they could do it in under 10 years, so long as they were faced with some kind of alternate reality where half their problems are already solved?

whiteknight wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 5:22pm:

"With a very developed [nuclear] regulatory regime, with a very developed nuclear industry [in] the nuclear leader of the world, the average build time of a nuclear power plant in the United States is 19 years.

In the United States only. That's why it is called Greenmail.  Meanwhile - France and Italy are for, part of 13 countries out of the 27.
Sweden looking at overturning the ban on uranium mining.

US mines re-opening.

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 5:28pm:

So the coalition is right that they could do it in under 10 years, so long as they were faced with some kind of alternate reality where half their problems are already solved?

Which problems?

lee wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 5:31pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2024 at 5:28pm: So the coalition is right that they could do it in under 10 years, so long as they were faced with some kind of alternate reality where half their problems are already solved? Which problems?

For example, the ones you brought up in your first post in the thread.

Are you saying that the coalition are not lying with this promise because you have already found the excuse for when they fail to deliver?

John Smith wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 5:27pm:

The only overbuild is the calcium overbuild in your head.

Once again JS shows the world how little he knows.

The wind and solar farms use NAMEPLATE capacity. They have a RATED capacity at about 25% to 35% of nameplate. That means at least a 3 times overbuild to get the same amount of electricity. ::)

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 5:32pm:

For example, the ones you brought up in your first post in the thread.

Ah Greentape. A federal government would have the right to remove the Bill. It would only need a simple majority. ::)

lee wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 5:43pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2024 at 5:32pm: For example, the ones you brought up in your first post in the thread. Ah Greentape. A federal government would have the right to remove the Bill. It would only need a simple majority. ::)

What about time? Would they also need time?

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 5:51pm:

What about time? Would they also need time?

Only you would think it could be done ex officio. ::)

lee wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 5:53pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2024 at 5:51pm: What about time? Would they also need time? Only you would think it could be done ex officio. ::)

I think you missed the point Lee.

Which bill were you referring to?

A Bill to rescind the ban on nuclear power. Can be simple.

lee wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 6:00pm:

A Bill to rescind the ban on nuclear power. Can be simple.

And that's all they need to do in order to get a nuclear power plant built in 5 years?

Rooftop solar is already connected to the grid....Nuclear power is too expensive and would take too long to build....Dutton showed it was a thought bubble with no substance when he proposed Small Modular Nuclear Reactors but when he was told they are not currently available within a few days he had switched from his non existent thought bubble to Full Scale Nuclear Reactors....Australia does not need Nuclear Power Plants or the Nuclear Waste and it will not happen without bi-partisan support....Dutton will propose anything to avoid supporting renewable energy!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 6:17pm:

Rooftop solar is already connected to the grid.

And suffers from the same problems wherever it is located. Doesn't work well before 9am or after 3pm. ::)


philperth2010 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 6:17pm:

Dutton will propose anything to avoid supporting renewable energy!!!

Yeah. With good reason. It doesn't work well enough. If it did, it wouldn't need expensive batteries or hydro as backup. ::)

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 6:04pm:

And that's all they need to do in order to get a nuclear power plant built in 5 years?

They don't need to reinvent the wheel. There are plans out there. ::)

lee wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 6:40pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2024 at 6:04pm: And that's all they need to do in order to get a nuclear power plant built in 5 years? They don't need to reinvent the wheel. There are plans out there. ::)

I mean, do you think they would only have to repeal the law banning nuclear power? No other legislative changes?

How long do you think it would take them to choose a location for our first nuclear power plant?

Mt Warning would be a good place for a Nuclear Power Plant.
They can even re-name it Mt Doom. Progress!

Belgarion wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 5:16pm:

The average construction time for a nuclear power plant is 7.5 years.  This can be increased by the amount of green tape that is put in the way by anti-nuclear politicians, activists  and bureaucrats.  it should be noted that this green tape is in no way related to safety and environmental issues but is a deliberate stumbling block designed to make progress as difficult as possible for ideological reasons.

As already mentioned, "greentape" exists to protect people and the environment. It has been created because of environmental disasters in the past because there was no. "tape" designed to protect people and the environment. Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Belgarion wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 5:21pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10th, 2024 at 5:53pm: lee wrote on Mar 10th, 2024 at 5:12pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10th, 2024 at 4:56pm: So-called, "greentape" exist to protect the people and the environment from idiots like you, Lee and the failed Queensland ex-Copper. Oh you mean like environmental idiots who want to destroy the environment by putting up Solar arrays and wind turbines. Weather dependant renewables will not power Australia. Therefore something else has to happen. "Green" Germany is cutting down 120,000 trees to put in more wind turbines. And Germany is suffering from the cuts to reliable, dispatchable electricity. Australia want to put in wind turbines off Portland, don't worry about the whales. ::) Oh, dearie, dearie, me, Lee your concern is commendable even if fake.  You just want belching Chimney stacks spewing smoke and pollution and it seems radiation across the land.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Utter rubbish. Nuclear is clean, safe and reliable, the only issue is the ill informed fear mongering by those with an agenda. ::)

Tell that the residents of Sellafield, 3 mile Island, Chernabyl and Fukashima, Belgarion.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 9:01pm:

I mean, do you think they would only have to repeal the law banning nuclear power? No other legislative changes?

Now you start asking questions. That's good. Of course there will be legislation. To enable nuclear generation, the safeguards are generally in place vis a vis Lucas Heights.


freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 9:01pm:

How long do you think it would take them to choose a location for our first nuclear power plant?

I am sure there are many that have been earmarked from earlier years, before the nuclear power ban.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 9:43pm:

Tell that the residents of Sellafield, 3 mile Island, Chernabyl and Fukashima

Sellafield? 1957? Wow. Nuclear has not advanced since? ::)

3 Mile Island? "Local activism in the 1980s, based on anecdotal reports of negative health effects, led to scientific studies being commissioned. A variety of epidemiology studies have concluded that the accident had no observable long-term health effects."...wiki

Fukushima? An earthquake and tsunami with the pumps below the reactor. And no adverse health effects.

lee wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 9:54pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2024 at 9:01pm: I mean, do you think they would only have to repeal the law banning nuclear power? No other legislative changes? Now you start asking questions. That's good. Of course there will be legislation. To enable nuclear generation, the safeguards are generally in place vis a vis Lucas Heights. freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2024 at 9:01pm: How long do you think it would take them to choose a location for our first nuclear power plant? I am sure there are many that have been earmarked from earlier years, before the nuclear power ban.

So how long do you think it would take to make all the necessary legislative changes? Or are you suggesting that our country is so lacking in "green tape" that we could start building nuclear power plants after repealing a single law?

You cannot build a power plant in many earmarked locations. You have to choose one. How long do you think that would take?

lee wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 9:54pm:

I am sure there are many that have been earmarked from earlier years, before the nuclear power ban.

Like the one at Hyams Beach, in the middle of Jervis Bay national Park and Marine Park? That won't take long at all . They've even got the foundations already poured  :D :D :D :D

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 9:43pm:

Belgarion wrote on Mar 11th, 2024 at 5:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10th, 2024 at 5:53pm: lee wrote on Mar 10th, 2024 at 5:12pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10th, 2024 at 4:56pm: So-called, "greentape" exist to protect the people and the environment from idiots like you, Lee and the failed Queensland ex-Copper. Oh you mean like environmental idiots who want to destroy the environment by putting up Solar arrays and wind turbines. Weather dependant renewables will not power Australia. Therefore something else has to happen. "Green" Germany is cutting down 120,000 trees to put in more wind turbines. And Germany is suffering from the cuts to reliable, dispatchable electricity. Australia want to put in wind turbines off Portland, don't worry about the whales. ::) Oh, dearie, dearie, me, Lee your concern is commendable even if fake.  You just want belching Chimney stacks spewing smoke and pollution and it seems radiation across the land.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Utter rubbish. Nuclear is clean, safe and reliable, the only issue is the ill informed fear mongering by those with an agenda. ::)  Tell that the residents of Sellafield, 3 mile Island, Chernabyl and Fukashima, Belgarion.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Tell us how many people were harmed by radiation in each of these incidents. ::)

Lets talk about Nuclear Waste!!!


Quote:

AUKUS’ nuclear waste dump is the secret no-one talks about. So what’ll it cost? The $360 billion cost of AUKUS might be startling, but on top of that is another undiscussed figure: the cost of building storage for nuclear waste. The secret within that secret was that Australia would be responsible for the radioactive waste generated by its involvement in the AUKUS program. For the first time, Australia had signed up to construct a storage facility for high-grade nuclear waste, robust enough to last 1000 years In 2016, a royal commission in South Australia made a stab at calculating the cost of establishing a storage facility for radioactive waste. It was part of a push for the state to build an industry as an international nuclear waste dump. A specialist consulting firm estimated the cost of the construction, decommissioning and closure of the facility to be about $41 billion. This included a new port, road, rail, airport and other infrastructure for what would be a remote location. Total operating costs — including labour, contracted services, maintenance and equipment — were estimated at $877.7 million a year in the first 40 years and $765.2 million after that. This produced a total capital and operating cost estimated to be $145.3 billion over the 120-year life of the project.

:-? :-? :-?

https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/07/24/aukus-nuclear-waste-dump-cost-australia/

lee wrote on Mar 11^th, 2024 at 10:04pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 11th, 2024 at 9:43pm: Tell that the residents of Sellafield, 3 mile Island, Chernabyl and Fukashima Sellafield? 1957? Wow. Nuclear has not advanced since? ::) 3 Mile Island? "Local activism in the 1980s, based on anecdotal reports of negative health effects, led to scientific studies being commissioned. A variety of epidemiology studies have concluded that the accident had no observable long-term health effects."...wiki Fukushima? An earthquake and tsunami with the pumps below the reactor. And no adverse health effects.

They were all accidents involving the nuclear industry.  All have long term health effects.  You cannot argue they represent the idea that nuclear reactors are safe.  They are not.  I note you didn't try and argue Chernabyl was safe, you're not that big an idiot.  Mistakes happen, accidents happen.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 11:58am:

They were all accidents involving the nuclear industry.

Yes and things were learned. ::)


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 11:58am:

You cannot argue they represent the idea that nuclear reactors are safe.  They are not.

They are. You have cited 4 accidents in 65 years.


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 11:58am:

I note you didn't try and argue Chernabyl was safe, you're not that big an idiot.

Chernobyl was an old design and poorly maintained by the Russians. ::)

Belgarion wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 8:18am:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 11th, 2024 at 9:43pm: Tell that the residents of Sellafield, 3 mile Island, Chernabyl and Fukashima, Belgarion.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Tell us how many people were harmed by radiation in each of these incidents. ::)

Cumulatively?  Millions.  The problem with your demand for casualties is that casualties are hidden, Belgarion.  You cannot claim there were none because babies yet born are likely to develop Cancer as a consequence of events decades ago.  Radiation lasts for thousands of years.  Can you guarantee that you won't develop Cancer from Sellafield/Chernabyl/Fukashima?  I can't.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 7:15am:

So how long do you think it would take to make all the necessary legislative changes? Or are you suggesting that our country is so lacking in "green tape" that we could start building nuclear power plants after repealing a single law?

Nope I never said or even implied that. It could be done in months if not sooner.


freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 7:15am:

You cannot build a power plant in many earmarked locations.

Why is that?


freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 7:15am:

How long do you think that would take?

Another month. ::)

lee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 12:02pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 11:58am: They were all accidents involving the nuclear industry. Yes and things were learned. ::) Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 11:58am: You cannot argue they represent the idea that nuclear reactors are safe.  They are not.  They are. You have cited 4 accidents in 65 years. Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 11:58am: I note you didn't try and argue Chernabyl was safe, you're not that big an idiot. Chernobyl was an old design and poorly maintained by the Russians. ::)

Can you gurantee that you won't develop Cancer from these accidents, Lee?  How about from Operations HURRICANE and TOTEM, which occurred in Australia?   We are all vulnerable to radiation leaks and tests from decades ago. Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Have a read of this and tell us how dangerous nuclear power is. 

https://energycentral.com/c/ec/deaths-nuclear-energy-compared-other-causes

BTW Brian, do you like bananas? Something to ponder here.
https://theconversation.com/are-bananas-really-radioactive-an-expert-clears-up-common-misunderstandings-about-radiation-193211

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 12:06pm:

Can you gurantee that you won't develop Cancer from these accidents, Lee?

I can't guarantee not getting cancer from many different types of accident. Use of Class B fire fighting foam being one. ::)


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 12:06pm:

How about from Operations HURRICANE and TOTEM, which occurred in Australia?

Actually Hurricane was on the Monte Bellos, not IN Australia.


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 12:06pm:

We are all vulnerable to radiation leaks and tests from decades ago.

So then you can show how you are affected, seeing as we ALL are at risk. ::)

Your hype is getting the better of you.

John Smith wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 8:18am:

Like the one at Hyams Beach, in the middle of Jervis Bay national Park and Marine Park?

That appears to be untrue. There does appear to be one at Murrays Beach.

lee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 12:15pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 12:06pm: Can you gurantee that you won't develop Cancer from these accidents, Lee?  I can't guarantee not getting cancer from many different types of accident. Use of Class B fire fighting foam being one. ::)

That is another but there are radiation leaks as well.


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 12:06pm: How about from Operations HURRICANE and TOTEM, which occurred in Australia? Actually Hurricane was on the Monte Bellos, not IN Australia.

The Monte Bello Islands are part of Australia.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 12:06pm: We are all vulnerable to radiation leaks and tests from decades ago. So then you can show how you are affected, seeing as we ALL are at risk. ::) Your hype is getting the better of you.

And yours is doing the same, "Nukes are safe as houses!  Nukes are hindered by Greentape" to name a few pieces of your propaganda.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

lee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 12:17pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 8:18am: Like the one at Hyams Beach, in the middle of Jervis Bay national Park and Marine Park? That appears to be untrue. There does appear to be one at Murrays Beach.

Ok Murrays beach, same scenario.

John Smith wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 12:50pm:

Ok Murrays beach, same scenario.

And some may not now be viable. It doesn't mean ALL will  not be viable. ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 12:34pm:

That is another but there are radiation leaks as well.

Where are these leaks? You are using present tense.


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 12:34pm:

The Monte Bello Islands are part of Australia.

BUT they are not IN Australia. So what happened to the Montebello's?

Oh that's right they allow camping and fishing.


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 12:34pm:

"Nukes are safe as houses!  Nukes are hindered by Greentape" to name a few pieces of your propaganda.

So is it propaganda? It is true. Houses have been known to fall down, as have apartment buildings. So tell us where you think greentape is untrue. ::)

lee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 1:24pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 12:34pm: That is another but there are radiation leaks as well. Where are these leaks? You are using present tense. Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 12:34pm: The Monte Bello Islands are part of Australia. BUT they are not IN Australia. So what happened to the Montebello's? Oh that's right they allow camping and fishing. Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 12:34pm: "Nukes are safe as houses!  Nukes are hindered by Greentape" to name a few pieces of your propaganda. So is it propaganda? It is true. Houses have been known to fall down, as have apartment buildings. So tell us where you think greentape is untrue. ::)

As I said, "Greentape" exists for a reason.  It stops fools like you from running rampant to the detriment of the environment and people.  Until you can prove you are safe you are considered unsafe as far as development goes.  You would love to be able to spew radioactivity across the countryside to the detriment of  the environment.  You would love to just put a reactor where you want without regard to people.  Lee you are a danger to yourself and everybody else.  Oh, poor, poor, Lee, held back by terrible "Greentape" from being able to spew radioactivity everywhere.  Boo, hoo.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

lee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 1:17pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 12:50pm: Ok Murrays beach, same scenario. And some may not now be viable. It doesn't mean ALL will  not be viable. ::)

Viable or not, NOTHING will happen quickly.  It doesn't matter where you put it, you'll spend years fighting the locals in courts who will try to prevent it

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 4:15pm:

lee wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 1:24pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 12:34pm: That is another but there are radiation leaks as well. Where are these leaks? You are using present tense. Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 12:34pm: The Monte Bello Islands are part of Australia. BUT they are not IN Australia. So what happened to the Montebello's? Oh that's right they allow camping and fishing. Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 12:34pm: "Nukes are safe as houses!  Nukes are hindered by Greentape" to name a few pieces of your propaganda. So is it propaganda? It is true. Houses have been known to fall down, as have apartment buildings. So tell us where you think greentape is untrue. ::) As I said, "Greentape" exists for a reason.  It stops fools like you from running rampant to the detriment of the environment and people.  Until you can prove you are safe you are considered unsafe as far as development goes.  You would love to be able to spew radioactivity across the countryside to the detriment of  the environment.  You would love to just put a reactor where you want without regard to people.  Lee you are a danger to yourself and everybody else.  Oh, poor, poor, Lee, held back by terrible "Greentape" from being able to spew radioactivity everywhere.  Boo, hoo.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

What are the radioactive emissions from a nuclear vs a coal fired power station?

lee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 12:06pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 7:15am: So how long do you think it would take to make all the necessary legislative changes? Or are you suggesting that our country is so lacking in "green tape" that we could start building nuclear power plants after repealing a single law? Nope I never said or even implied that. It could be done in months if not sooner.

How many months?


Quote:

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 7:15am: You cannot build a power plant in many earmarked locations. Why is that?

Can you not read? Or think for yourself? It is explained in the bit you left out of the quote, the very next sentence - you have to choose a single location. Earmarking a lot of locations is not the same thing as selecting one.


Quote:

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 7:15am: How long do you think that would take? Another month. ::)

A month to select the location of our very first nuclear power plant? That's a bit naive don't you think? Even a pretend public consultation period takes longer than that.

So we have "months" to make the necessary legislative changes. Another month to select the location. How long do you think it would take to prepare the tender documentation?

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 4:36pm:

How many months?

3


freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 4:36pm:

Earmarking a lot of locations is not the same thing as selecting one.

But it gives a range of options. ::)


freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 4:36pm:

A month to select the location of our very first nuclear power plant? That's a bit naive don't you think? Even a pretend public consultation period takes longer than that.

It depends on how real the attempt is. ;)


freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 4:36pm:

How long do you think it would take to prepare the tender documentation?

2 months

John Smith wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 4:17pm:

It doesn't matter where you put it, you'll spend years fighting the locals in courts who will try to prevent it

yep. greentape. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 4:54pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 4:36pm: How many months? 3 freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 4:36pm: Earmarking a lot of locations is not the same thing as selecting one. But it gives a range of options. ::) freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 4:36pm: A month to select the location of our very first nuclear power plant? That's a bit naive don't you think? Even a pretend public consultation period takes longer than that. It depends on how real the attempt is. ;) freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 4:36pm: How long do you think it would take to prepare the tender documentation? 2 months

Let's assume the government is doing a real public consultation process, in an effort to stay in power? How long do you think that would take?

And how long for the tenders to come back in?

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 4:15pm:

It stops fools like you from running rampant to the detriment of the environment and people.

And yet the same concerns do not worry you for wind or solar. ::)


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 4:15pm:

You would love to be able to spew radioactivity across the countryside to the detriment of  the environment.

Please show where this radiation is coming from. Hint: It doesn't come from the power plants. There are radioactive emissions from coal.


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 4:15pm:

Lee you are a danger to yourself and everybody else.

Poor Bwian. Gets lost in his own rhetoric. So tell us more on the Montebellos, You know the corals, that apparently can't survive climate change, but can survive atomic blasts. ;)

lee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 5:02pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 4:15pm: It stops fools like you from running rampant to the detriment of the environment and people. And yet the same concerns do not worry you for wind or solar. ::)

What contamination or pollution occurs, Lee?


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 4:15pm: You would love to be able to spew radioactivity across the countryside to the detriment of  the environment. Please show where this radiation is coming from. Hint: It doesn't come from the power plants. There are radioactive emissions from coal.

Which is why coal needs to be eliminated.


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 4:15pm: Lee you are a danger to yourself and everybody else. Poor Bwian. Gets lost in his own rhetoric. So tell us more on the Montebellos, You know the corals, that apparently can't survive climate change, but can survive atomic blasts. ;)

Quote:

The Montebello Islands were the site of three atmospheric nuclear weapon tests by the British military: one in 1952, and two in 1956.[9][10] HMS Plym, moored in Main Bay on Trimouille Island, was the site of Operation Hurricane, the first-ever atomic weapon tested by the United Kingdom, on 3 October 1952.[11][12] While subsequent British tests were conducted at sites on mainland Australia, in 1956 there were two land-sited tower-mounted tests, on Trimouille and Alpha Islands.[13] The second of these, codenamed "Mosaic G2", was the largest nuclear explosion in Australia, with an official yield of 60 kilotons. Mosaic G2 was later described as an "exceptionally dirty explosion", whose fallout contaminated large areas of mainland Australia, as far away as the Queensland towns of Mount Isa, Julia Creek, Longreach and Rockhampton.[14][15][16]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montebello_Islands]Source[/url]

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipMYZJiTxXSJz2JQYDWx3DxnwMqOBjd2j1jQv1kJ=w1029-h771-p-k-no

Quote:

it is a forbidden island because of the 1952 nuclear testing and remain forbidden till 2027

[url=https://www.google.com/maps/place/Trimouille+Island/@-20.7974392,115.2542044,9.5z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x2c07e49c3cf99927:0xe9d6a690ae9f6ca3!8m2!3d-20.3880074!4d115.5592266!16s%2Fg%2F11bxf4fdtt?entry=ttu]Source[/url]

Yeah, real safe, hey, Lee? Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Five pages so far reminding ourselves that the Libs and Labs are past their use-by date

Coal is concentrated solar. Totally natural.

Co2 is plant food. Totally natural. Not pollution. A byproduct  of life and a food for life.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 7:51pm:

Mosaic G2 was later described as an "exceptionally dirty explosion", whose fallout contaminated large areas of mainland Australia, as far away as the Queensland towns of Mount Isa, Julia Creek, Longreach and Rockhampton.

And the fatalities or cancers from that? ::)


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 7:51pm:

Yeah, real safe, hey, Lee?

So what is the residual radiation? Interested people want to know. Were they using LNT safeguards?

"The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has classified the area as an “existing exposure situation” with radiation levels “not considered to be excessively dangerous”."

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/08/radiation-hotspots-legacy-of-british-nuclear-tests-lingers-on-idyllic-islands-in-western-australia

The whole proposal is bonkers!!!


Quote:

'Will be starting from scratch': Report paints grim picture of Australia's long road to nuclear power A four-year-old report on Australia's nuclear power prospects has cast doubt over Opposition Leader Peter Dutton's plan to introduce a nuclear industry in the country if elected, with the study claiming it would take "decades" to build the workforce required and is "naive" to think a power plant could be built in less than 20 years.

::) ::) ::)

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/will-be-starting-from-scratch-report-paints-grim-picture-of-australias-long-road-to-nuclear-power/news-story/dec9f44aed1e82c65f224bb5dd34a959

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 9:06am:

The whole proposal is bonkers!!! Quote: 'Will be starting from scratch': Report paints grim picture of Australia's long road to nuclear power A four-year-old report on Australia's nuclear power prospects has cast doubt over Opposition Leader Peter Dutton's plan to introduce a nuclear industry in the country if elected, with the study claiming it would take "decades" to build the workforce required and is "naive" to think a power plant could be built in less than 20 years. ::) ::) ::) https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/will-be-starting-from-scratch-report-paints-grim-picture-of-australias-long-road-to-nuclear-power/news-story/dec9f44aed1e82c65f224bb5dd34a959

The negativity and ignorance in some people is palpable.  India has nuclear power... Pakistan has nuclear power.... South Africa has nuclear power.....Bangladesh is building nuclear power plants!   Yet all these naysayers reckon it can't be done here. ::)

lee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2024 at 9:30pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: Mosaic G2 was later described as an "exceptionally dirty explosion", whose fallout contaminated large areas of mainland Australia, as far away as the Queensland towns of Mount Isa, Julia Creek, Longreach and Rockhampton. And the fatalities or cancers from that? ::) Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: Yeah, real safe, hey, Lee? So what is the residual radiation? Interested people want to know. Were they using LNT safeguards? "The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has classified the area as an “existing exposure situation” with radiation levels “not considered to be excessively dangerous”." https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/08/radiation-hotspots-legacy-of-british-nuclear-tests-lingers-on-idyllic-islands-in-western-australia

What that article tells us is that we just don't know what the long -term effects of nuclear testing are.  As contamination was detected as far away as Gladstone in Queensland, we have potentially hundreds of thousands affected.  You want more affected.  What happened to your claims about Operation HURRICANE and MOSAIC sites being now safe enough for camping, Lee?  Dead in the water, hey?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 11:19am:

lee wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 9:30pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: Mosaic G2 was later described as an "exceptionally dirty explosion", whose fallout contaminated large areas of mainland Australia, as far away as the Queensland towns of Mount Isa, Julia Creek, Longreach and Rockhampton. And the fatalities or cancers from that? ::) Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: Yeah, real safe, hey, Lee? So what is the residual radiation? Interested people want to know. Were they using LNT safeguards? "The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has classified the area as an “existing exposure situation” with radiation levels “not considered to be excessively dangerous”." https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/08/radiation-hotspots-legacy-of-british-nuclear-tests-lingers-on-idyllic-islands-in-western-australia What that article tells us is that we just don't know what the long -term effects of nuclear testing are.  As contamination was detected as far away as Gladstone in Queensland, we have potentially hundreds of thousands affected.  You want more affected.  What happened to your claims about Operation HURRICANE and MOSAIC sites being now safe enough for camping, Lee?  Dead in the water, hey?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

You are conflating nuclear weapons tests half a century ago with nuclear power plants of today. There is no comparison whatsoever.  ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 11:19am:

What that article tells us is that we just don't know what the long -term effects of nuclear testing are.  As contamination was detected as far away as Gladstone in Queensland, we have potentially hundreds of thousands affected.

Why is it that when your "radiation from Nuclear power plants" gained no traction are you going back even further in time? The two are only casually related. Like a 1830's electric car and today's EV's. ::)

Belgarion wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 10:22am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 9:06am: The whole proposal is bonkers!!! Quote: 'Will be starting from scratch': Report paints grim picture of Australia's long road to nuclear power A four-year-old report on Australia's nuclear power prospects has cast doubt over Opposition Leader Peter Dutton's plan to introduce a nuclear industry in the country if elected, with the study claiming it would take "decades" to build the workforce required and is "naive" to think a power plant could be built in less than 20 years. ::) ::) ::) https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/will-be-starting-from-scratch-report-paints-grim-picture-of-australias-long-road-to-nuclear-power/news-story/dec9f44aed1e82c65f224bb5dd34a959 The negativity and ignorance in some people is palpable.  India has nuclear power... Pakistan has nuclear power.... South Africa has nuclear power.....Bangladesh is building nuclear power plants!   Yet all these naysayers reckon it can't be done here. ::)

Who is saying it cannot be done here mate....Nuclear will not happen without bi partisan support from both major parties....Nuclear would take too long to build up to 20 years....Nuclear is the most expensive power source available....Nuclear waste is expensive to dispose of and dangerous to transport....What does Australia do for the next decade pluss whilst Dutton pursues his thought bubble....Two weeks ago it was SMR's now once Dutton realised they do not exist yet he has gone fully Nuclear....How can you support such a stupid idea that was only trashed out a month ago with no costings no feasability study and zero support from most experts....We will be paying to store this waste for centuries you do realize that don't you???

::) ::) ::)


Quote:

Stanford-led research finds small modular reactors will exacerbate challenges of highly radioactive nuclear waste

https://news.stanford.edu/2022/05/30/small-modular-reactors-produce-high-levels-nuclear-waste/

Belgarion wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 12:19pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 11:19am: lee wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 9:30pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: Mosaic G2 was later described as an "exceptionally dirty explosion", whose fallout contaminated large areas of mainland Australia, as far away as the Queensland towns of Mount Isa, Julia Creek, Longreach and Rockhampton. And the fatalities or cancers from that? ::) Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: Yeah, real safe, hey, Lee? So what is the residual radiation? Interested people want to know. Were they using LNT safeguards? "The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has classified the area as an “existing exposure situation” with radiation levels “not considered to be excessively dangerous”." https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/08/radiation-hotspots-legacy-of-british-nuclear-tests-lingers-on-idyllic-islands-in-western-australia What that article tells us is that we just don't know what the long -term effects of nuclear testing are.  As contamination was detected as far away as Gladstone in Queensland, we have potentially hundreds of thousands affected.  You want more affected.  What happened to your claims about Operation HURRICANE and MOSAIC sites being now safe enough for camping, Lee?  Dead in the water, hey?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) You are conflating nuclear weapons tests half a century ago with nuclear power plants of today. There is no comparison whatsoever.  ::)

No, I am not, Belgarion.  You are the one doing the conflating.  What I am doing is stating that we still do not know the long-term effects of Radiation and the nuclear tests are just one example of that.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 3:12pm:

Nuclear is the most expensive power source available...

So why are the EU planning more nuclear facilities? 13 out of 27 members want nuclear. And young professional in Spain want the decision to close them walked back.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/eu-countries-split-over-support-nuclear-energy-2024-03-04/

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Young-nuclear-groups-aim-for-Spanish-nuclear-closu


philperth2010 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 3:12pm:

.What does Australia do for the next decade pluss whilst Dutton pursues his thought bubble...

The same timeframe to prove renewables don't work in an industrial nation? ;)

Quote:

Nuclear will not happen without bi partisan support from both major parties....Nuclear would take too long to build up to 20 years....Nuclear is the most expensive power source available....Nuclear waste is expensive to dispose of and dangerous to transport

All true!!!

Where is the costings and feasability study into Nuclear Power in Australia....All we have is a thought bubble from Mr Potato Head!!!

How much will it cost???
How long will it take to build these reactors from scratch???
Where will these Nuclear Power plants be located???
Where will the Nuclear Waste be stored???
What roads, ports and rail will be used to transport this hazourdous Nuclear Waste???
Who will build these Nuclear Reactors???

A thought bubble with no detail....Complete bullshit!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 5:23pm:

All we have is a thought bubble from Mr Potato Head!!!

Well that's the level of understanding on renewables. They won't work in an industrial nation.

And Batteries? How many MWh should they last? The haven't even got a number for that. In the UK they used one years data, and that is proving to be so far out it isn't funny.

Meanwhile the CSIRO GenCost report shows wind and solar 100% efficient and Nuclear 30% efficient. ;)

Build times for wind, solar and nuclear 3 years.

Table B.9

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 5:41pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 5:23pm: All we have is a thought bubble from Mr Potato Head!!! Well that's the level of understanding on renewables. They won't work in an industrial nation. And Batteries? How many MWh should they last? The haven't even got a number for that. In the UK they used one years data, and that is proving to be so far out it isn't funny. Meanwhile the CSIRO GenCost report shows wind and solar 100% efficient and Nuclear 30% efficient. ;) Build times for wind, solar and nuclear 3 years. Table B.9

Do you have a link to this report???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 5:49pm:

Do you have a link to this report???

So you can't even do a basic search. ::)


https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2023-24Consultdraft_20231219-FINAL.pdf

Quote:

Timelines for nuclear power are longer than renewable energy alternatives. Estimates and experience of nuclear generation build times are between 6 to 10 years. But that doesn't include approval processes that can add another 10 years to a project's timeline. Renewable planning processes are around 4 years, and build times for solar and wind farms are 6 to 12 months. The result, renewable energy projects are quicker than nuclear to build. Finally, environmental risk makes nuclear less attractive than renewable energy. Posing both catastrophic risk from accidents, and long term risk from the storage of nuclear waste. Key Takeaways Nuclear power is not a cost-effective solution compared to renewable energy sources. The risks associated with nuclear power outweigh the benefits. The future of energy lies in renewable energy sources, which are becoming cheaper and more accessible.

::) ::) ::)

https://energyaction.com.au/nuclear-power-versus-renewable-energy/#:~:text=Estimates%20and%20experience%20of%20nuclear,are%206%20to%2012%20months.

Nuclear power is already the most expensive type, and the others are getting cheaper rapidly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

poor phil. The report was too complex for him so he had to go for an easier option.

Energy Action sounds like a lobby group.

"To achieve Net Zero emissions"

"We’re a responsible Net Zero business."

Oh dear.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 5:52pm:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

From your ref -

"The levelized cost of storage (LCOS) is analogous to LCOE, but applied to energy storage technologies such as batteries.[10] Regardless of technology, however, storage is but a secondary source of electricity dependent on a primary source of generation. Thus, a true cost accounting demands that the costs of both primary and secondary sources be included when the cost of storage is compared to the cost of generating electricity in real time to meet demand.[citation needed]

A cost factor unique to storage are losses that occur due to inherent inefficiencies of storing electricity, as well as increased CO2 emissions if any component of the primary source is less than 100% carbon-free.[11] In the U.S., a comprehensive 2015 study found that net system CO2 emissions resulting from storage operation are nontrivial when compared to the emissions from electricity generation [in real time to meet demand], ranging from 104 to 407 kg/MWh of delivered energy depending on location, storage operation mode, and assumptions regarding carbon intensity.[11] "

You do understand NON-TRIVIAL?

Also, nuclear is the most expensive option in countries that already have an established industry. You might as well double it for a country like ours. And with most of the other options getting rapidly cheaper, it would have to be the worst of them all.

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 5:55pm:

poor phil. The report was too complex for him so he had to go for an easier option. Energy Action sounds like a lobby group. "To achieve Net Zero emissions" "We’re a responsible Net Zero business." Oh dear.

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 5:41pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 5:23pm: All we have is a thought bubble from Mr Potato Head!!! Well that's the level of understanding on renewables. They won't work in an industrial nation. And Batteries? How many MWh should they last? The haven't even got a number for that. In the UK they used one years data, and that is proving to be so far out it isn't funny. Meanwhile the CSIRO GenCost report shows wind and solar 100% efficient and Nuclear 30% efficient. Build times for wind, solar and nuclear 3 years. Table B.9

Quote:

Do you have a link to this report???

:-? :-? :-?

Do you have a link to support your bullshit or not....My guess is not which is why you deflected with bullshit!!!

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 6:02pm:

Also, nuclear is the most expensive option in countries that already have an established industry.

And yet their electricity is cheaper apart from the renewables.

More from your ref -
"Real life costs can diverge significantly from those estimates. Olkiluoto block 3, which achieved first criticality in late 2021 had an overnight cost to the construction consortium (the utility paid a fixed price agreed to when the deal was signed of only 3.2 billion euros) of €8.5 billion and a net electricity capacity of 1.6 GW or €5310 per kW of capacity.[26] Meanwhile Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Canada had an overnight cost of CA$5.117 billion for a net electric capacity of 3512 MW or CA$1,457 per kW of capacity."

CAD to Euro multiply 1.5

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 6:07pm:

Do you have a link to support your bullshit or not....My guess is not which is why you deflected with bullshit!!!

Try my post at 3.51pm. See what I mean about your eyesight? ::)

philperth2010 wrote Today at 6:07pm:
Do you have a link to support your bullshit or not....My guess is not which is why you deflected with bullshit!!!


Try my post at 3.51pm. See what I mean about your eyesight? Roll Eyes

The report is massive....Can you post the relevant text and it's reference number???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 6:13pm:

The link does not work....Do you have a working link or a reference???

It works when I click on it. I am not responsible for your search parameters. ::)

Try googlefu. CSIRO CostGen Report 23-24 and then the first clickable link below.

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 6:15pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 6:13pm: The link does not work....Do you have a working link or a reference??? It works when I click on it. I am not responsible for your search parameters. ::)

I found it!!!

:-? :-? :-?

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 6:08pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 6:02pm: Also, nuclear is the most expensive option in countries that already have an established industry. And yet their electricity is cheaper apart from the renewables. More from your ref - "Real life costs can diverge significantly from those estimates. Olkiluoto block 3, which achieved first criticality in late 2021 had an overnight cost to the construction consortium (the utility paid a fixed price agreed to when the deal was signed of only 3.2 billion euros) of €8.5 billion and a net electricity capacity of 1.6 GW or €5310 per kW of capacity.[26] Meanwhile Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Canada had an overnight cost of CA$5.117 billion for a net electric capacity of 3512 MW or CA$1,457 per kW of capacity." CAD to Euro multiply 1.5

I see you use the same rose tinted glasses as the coalition.

Go to table B.9. Column C. You will find Nuclear, Wind and Solar there. Both for 2023 and 2030

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 6:23pm:

I see you use the same rose tinted glasses as the coalition.

It is your reference. Own it. ;)

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 6:02pm:

Also, nuclear is the most expensive option in countries that already have an established industry. You might as well double it for a country like ours. And with most of the other options getting rapidly cheaper, it would have to be the worst of them all.

Not so:

---

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 3:30pm:

Belgarion wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 12:19pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 11:19am: lee wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 9:30pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: Mosaic G2 was later described as an "exceptionally dirty explosion", whose fallout contaminated large areas of mainland Australia, as far away as the Queensland towns of Mount Isa, Julia Creek, Longreach and Rockhampton. And the fatalities or cancers from that? ::) Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: Yeah, real safe, hey, Lee? So what is the residual radiation? Interested people want to know. Were they using LNT safeguards? "The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has classified the area as an “existing exposure situation” with radiation levels “not considered to be excessively dangerous”." https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/08/radiation-hotspots-legacy-of-british-nuclear-tests-lingers-on-idyllic-islands-in-western-australia What that article tells us is that we just don't know what the long -term effects of nuclear testing are.  As contamination was detected as far away as Gladstone in Queensland, we have potentially hundreds of thousands affected.  You want more affected.  What happened to your claims about Operation HURRICANE and MOSAIC sites being now safe enough for camping, Lee?  Dead in the water, hey?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) You are conflating nuclear weapons tests half a century ago with nuclear power plants of today. There is no comparison whatsoever.  ::) No, I am not, Belgarion.  You are the one doing the conflating.  What I am doing is stating that we still do not know the long-term effects of Radiation and the nuclear tests are just one example of that.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

You are ignoring the fact that there is NO dangerous radiation emitted by nuclear power plants.  ::)

Belgarion wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 8:30pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 6:02pm: Also, nuclear is the most expensive option in countries that already have an established industry. You might as well double it for a country like ours. And with most of the other options getting rapidly cheaper, it would have to be the worst of them all. Not so:

Do you understand the difference between price and cost?


Quote:

The measure essentially subsidised the electricity price for people in France, at the cost of the national debt, which now stands at over €3,000billion.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 9:08pm:

Quote: The measure essentially subsidised the electricity price for people in France, at the cost of the national debt, which now stands at over €3,000billion.

And yet France manages to sell to, not only the EU but UK, at a profit. ;)

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 9:11pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 9:08pm: Quote: The measure essentially subsidised the electricity price for people in France, at the cost of the national debt, which now stands at over €3,000billion. And yet France manages to sell to, not only the EU but UK, at a profit. ;)

I understand your confusion.

I am not confused about a socialist government, spending on the never, never. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Belgarion wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 8:33pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 3:30pm: Belgarion wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 12:19pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 11:19am: lee wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 9:30pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: Mosaic G2 was later described as an "exceptionally dirty explosion", whose fallout contaminated large areas of mainland Australia, as far away as the Queensland towns of Mount Isa, Julia Creek, Longreach and Rockhampton. And the fatalities or cancers from that? ::) Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: Yeah, real safe, hey, Lee? So what is the residual radiation? Interested people want to know. Were they using LNT safeguards? "The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has classified the area as an “existing exposure situation” with radiation levels “not considered to be excessively dangerous”." https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/08/radiation-hotspots-legacy-of-british-nuclear-tests-lingers-on-idyllic-islands-in-western-australia What that article tells us is that we just don't know what the long -term effects of nuclear testing are.  As contamination was detected as far away as Gladstone in Queensland, we have potentially hundreds of thousands affected.  You want more affected.  What happened to your claims about Operation HURRICANE and MOSAIC sites being now safe enough for camping, Lee?  Dead in the water, hey?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) You are conflating nuclear weapons tests half a century ago with nuclear power plants of today. There is no comparison whatsoever.  ::) No, I am not, Belgarion.  You are the one doing the conflating.  What I am doing is stating that we still do not know the long-term effects of Radiation and the nuclear tests are just one example of that.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) You are ignoring the fact that there is NO dangerous radiation emitted by nuclear power plants.  ::)

Apart from accidents, you mean?  Why do you ignore the possibility of an accident occuring?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 9:22pm:

I am not confused about a socialist government, spending on the never, never. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Why do you ignore a right-wing government doing the same thing, Lee?  Doesn't it fit your view of the world? Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 9:40pm:

Why do you ignore a right-wing government doing the same thing, Lee?

Which one is that?

You can't mean Labour in the UK or Labor in Australia on renewables. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 9:38pm:

Apart from accidents, you mean?  Why do you ignore the possibility of an accident occuring?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

What sort of accident?

whiteknight wrote on Mar 10^th, 2024 at 3:36pm:

Government dismisses Coalition's 10-year nuclear claim as a 'dream' ABC News March 10 2024 Energy Minister Chris Bowen has said that Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy Ted O'Brien is 'dreamin' if he believes Australia could have a nuclear power plant operational in 10 years. The energy minister has rubbished his shadow counterpart's claims Australia could have nuclear power plants up and running in 10 years as the Coalition prepares to announce the nuclear plan it will take to the next election. Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy Ted O'Brien said on Sunday morning Australia could have a nuclear power plant up in that time.  "The best experts around the world with whom we've been engaging are saying Australia could have nuclear up and running within a 10-year period," he told Sky News. Chris Bowen, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, resorted to a quote made famous by the film The Castle to respond to the opposition's future plans. "Tell 'im he's dreamin'," Mr Bowen told ABC's Insiders. "I don't know what experts he is talking to. "With a very developed [nuclear] regulatory regime, with a very developed nuclear industry [in] the nuclear leader of the world, the average build time of a nuclear power plant in the United States is 19 years. "Ted O'Brien thinks he can do it in Australia in 10 with a standing start, no regulations, banned not only internationally, but throw in the Opera House and Harbour Bridge, you might sell him something." Australia has a total ban on nuclear energy in place, which the Coalition would have to win the support of parliament to lift even if it won government at the next federal election.   :) The regions most likely to go nuclear under Coalition plan With the Coalition interested in replacing retiring coal plants with nuclear reactors, there are just a handful of regions that would be likely candidates under the opposition's yet to be announced plans to go nuclear. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said he would be upfront with voters about where the Coalition was looking to place potential nuclear reactors when the party announced its policy in the coming weeks. Speaking on Channel Seven on Tuesday morning, Mr Dutton confirmed the party was "interested" in replacing retiring coal plants with nuclear because the sites came ready with poles and wires to distribute power. "The problem is with all Mr Dutton and Mr O'Brien's cases for nuclear, when you put scrutiny on them, they crumble like a Sao in a blender," Mr Bowen said. When asked if the government would look to lift the ban on nuclear, the energy minister said it could come at a high cost to taxpayers. "I hear this argument about just lift the ban and let the market sort it out. Well, the market hasn't sorted it out in any other country in the world," he said.   :( "Every country in the world with nuclear has required massive transfers of taxpayer wealth to the nuclear constructors."

You just stock up on your candles Whiteknight ...

your ALP idiot mates & the Greens will have us back in the dark ages very soon.

Belgarion wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 9:18am:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 9:38pm: Apart from accidents, you mean?  Why do you ignore the possibility of an accident occuring?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) What sort of accident?

That results in a leak of radioactivity. Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 9:44pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 9:40pm: Why do you ignore a right-wing government doing the same thing, Lee? Which one is that? You can't mean Labour in the UK or Labor in Australia on renewables. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Why talk about left-wing parties when the discussion is about the mismanagement of right-wing Governments, Lee?  Stop trying to shift the conversation.  How were the Tories described under Howard?  "Like drunken sailors spending on leave..."  Morrison was worse than a drunken sailor.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 11:31am:

How were the Tories described under Howard?  "Like drunken sailors spending on leave..."  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

You are lying, of course, once again.

That is what Abbott said of The Rudd/Gillard government:

Senior navy officials expressed their outrage yesterday after Opposition Leader Tony Abbott went overboard and described Labor's fiscal policies as "spending like drunken sailors".

"The former government were spending like drunken sailors," Mr Abbott told the Nine Network's Today program.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 11:26am:

Belgarion wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:18am: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 9:38pm: Apart from accidents, you mean?  Why do you ignore the possibility of an accident occuring?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) What sort of accident? That results in a leak of radioactivity. Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

And how will this happen?

Belgarion wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 12:56pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 11:26am: Belgarion wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:18am: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 9:38pm: Apart from accidents, you mean?  Why do you ignore the possibility of an accident occuring?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) What sort of accident? That results in a leak of radioactivity. Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) And how will this happen?

As consequent of an accident.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 1:27pm:

Belgarion wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 12:56pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 11:26am: Belgarion wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:18am: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 9:38pm: Apart from accidents, you mean?  Why do you ignore the possibility of an accident occuring?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) What sort of accident? That results in a leak of radioactivity. Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) And how will this happen? As consequent of an accident.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

OK, lets break this down...you are afraid of a 'nuclear accident', so lets refer to holy trinity of the anti nuclear fearmongers. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima.

1. Chernobyl: 

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx

2. Three Mile Island:

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

3. Fukushima:

https://www.world-nuclear.org/focus/fukushima-daiichi-accident/fukushima-daiichi-accident-faq.aspx

We can see that in the case of Chernobyl it was deliberate circumventing of safety protocols in a very old reactor design, probably because the system did not encourage reporting of failures, that caused the accident.

For TMI  there was a pump failure and the reactor scrammed exactly as it was designed to do. The problem occurred when a valve that should have shut when pressure inside the reactor vessel returned to normal  didn't.  This resulted in a small mount of radioactive steam being deliberately leaked into the atmosphere to relive the pressure. This level of radiation was not dangerous.  TMI continued to operate safely until 2019.

At Fukushima the reactors shut down safely as designed whern the earthquake happened. The problem was the pumps that kept cooling water circulating around the shut down reactors were flooded when the subsequent tsunami struck, causing partial meltdowns and some hydrogen gas -not nuclear- explosions over the next 3 days. Small amounts of radiation were released but not in harmful quantities. 

In spite of the fear mongering there were no radiation related deaths at TMI or Fukushima.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 1:27pm:

Belgarion wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 12:56pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 11:26am: Belgarion wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:18am: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 9:38pm: Apart from accidents, you mean?  Why do you ignore the possibility of an accident occuring?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) What sort of accident? That results in a leak of radioactivity. Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) And how will this happen? As consequent of an accident.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

I am sensing a personal angle here - do you have leaking accidents, Bbwian?
Tsk, tsk,  ::) ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 11:31am:

Why talk about left-wing parties when the discussion is about the mismanagement of right-wing Governments, Lee?

Only your discussion.

Belgarion wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 2:51pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 1:27pm: Belgarion wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 12:56pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 11:26am: Belgarion wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:18am: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 9:38pm: Apart from accidents, you mean?  Why do you ignore the possibility of an accident occuring?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) What sort of accident? That results in a leak of radioactivity. Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) And how will this happen? As consequent of an accident.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) OK, lets break this down...you are afraid of a 'nuclear accident', so lets refer to holy trinity of the anti nuclear fearmongers. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. 1. Chernobyl:  https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx 2. Three Mile Island: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html 3. Fukushima: https://www.world-nuclear.org/focus/fukushima-daiichi-accident/fukushima-daiichi-accident-faq.aspx We can see that in the case of Chernobyl it was deliberate circumventing of safety protocols in a very old reactor design, probably because the system did not encourage reporting of failures, that caused the accident. For TMI  there was a pump failure and the reactor scrammed exactly as it was designed to do. The problem occurred when a valve that should have shut when pressure inside the reactor vessel returned to normal  didn't.  This resulted in a small mount of radioactive steam being deliberately leaked into the atmosphere to relive the pressure. This level of radiation was not dangerous.  TMI continued to operate safely until 2019. At Fukushima the reactors shut down safely as designed whern the earthquake happened. The problem was the pumps that kept cooling water circulating around the shut down reactors were flooded when the subsequent tsunami struck, causing partial meltdowns and some hydrogen gas -not nuclear- explosions over the next 3 days. Small amounts of radiation were released but not in harmful quantities.  In spite of the fear mongering there were no radiation related deaths at TMI or Fukushima.

There where radiation leaks at Chernabyl and Fukashima.  Land and people were contaminated.  The accident at Fukashima might have a natural cause but it still happened.   Chernabyle might have been man made but it still happened. Are you prepared to 100% guarantee that no accidents will occur here, Belgarion?  We have had earthquakes, we have had human error mistakes in other industries.  Nuclear reactors are not, despite what you and Lee maintain, "as safe as houses".  They have accidents.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

lee wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 3:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 11:31am: Why talk about left-wing parties when the discussion is about the mismanagement of right-wing Governments, Lee? Only your discussion.

Don't try and change the discussion, Lee.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Never mind Bwian, we have proof it was you.


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 9:40pm:

lee wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 9:22pm: I am not confused about a socialist government, spending on the never, never. ;D ;D ;D ;D Why do you ignore a right-wing government doing the same thing, Lee?  Doesn't it fit your view of the world? Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Nothing in the topic, previously about never, never spending. ;)

Plutonium-239, one of the radioactive by-products of nuclear power stations, has a half-life of 24,000 years. That does not mean it is gone after 24,000 years, it means half of it is still there. High-level wastes are hazardous because they produce fatal radiation doses during short periods of direct exposure.

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 6:04pm:

High-level wastes are hazardous because they produce fatal radiation doses during short periods of direct exposure.

And of course there is no science to say it can be safely sequestered. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

How long would it need to be stored for Lee?

Belgarion wrote on Mar 13^th, 2024 at 8:33pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 3:30pm: Belgarion wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 12:19pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2024 at 11:19am: lee wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 9:30pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: Mosaic G2 was later described as an "exceptionally dirty explosion", whose fallout contaminated large areas of mainland Australia, as far away as the Queensland towns of Mount Isa, Julia Creek, Longreach and Rockhampton. And the fatalities or cancers from that? ::) Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2024 at 7:51pm: Yeah, real safe, hey, Lee? So what is the residual radiation? Interested people want to know. Were they using LNT safeguards? "The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has classified the area as an “existing exposure situation” with radiation levels “not considered to be excessively dangerous”." https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/08/radiation-hotspots-legacy-of-british-nuclear-tests-lingers-on-idyllic-islands-in-western-australia What that article tells us is that we just don't know what the long -term effects of nuclear testing are.  As contamination was detected as far away as Gladstone in Queensland, we have potentially hundreds of thousands affected.  You want more affected.  What happened to your claims about Operation HURRICANE and MOSAIC sites being now safe enough for camping, Lee?  Dead in the water, hey?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) You are conflating nuclear weapons tests half a century ago with nuclear power plants of today. There is no comparison whatsoever.  ::) No, I am not, Belgarion.  You are the one doing the conflating.  What I am doing is stating that we still do not know the long-term effects of Radiation and the nuclear tests are just one example of that.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) You are ignoring the fact that there is NO dangerous radiation emitted by nuclear power plants.  ::)

And your ignoring the fact that when you replace reliable power(coal generated) with unreliable power(renewables) that an alternative reliable source is required.

If we can't have coal according to the green & Labor nutters then we need to seriously consider nuclear.

The only people making money out of wind & solar are the manufacturers & installers ...

they have a short life span compared to coal fired power & nuclear power stations.

Recycling is non existent & maintenance & replacement of solar & wind will only drive up the price of power....... it's also unreliable.

There are so many negatives attached to so called renewables it should have been cast into the scrapheap of bullshyte ideas.

"Naturally, safety is the main requirement for the viability of these technologies. In this context, one inherent design detail is of major importance. SMRs have exceptionally small nuclear cores – one of the technology’s most compelling by-design safety feature. Given its small size, cooling of the core can be easily ensured by natural convection, and consequently, the continued control of the core temperature is no longer dependent on external factors in an abnormal situation.

The inherent safety design also means that the potential of radioactive aerosol releases in an accident is inherently smaller in SMRs than in conventional NPPs. Owing to this and because SMRs have low rated thermal power levels, the exclusion zone (EZ) around SMRs can be significantly reduced. Whereas standard NPPs have EZs that are on average 5 to 10 km in radius – depending on the country, NPP type and production capacity – SMR EZs can be minimized to a few kilometers, or even to the site boundaries. But as is the case in all nuclear accidents, the same general safety precautions apply, including community emergency measures and off-site responses."

https://www.sustainability-times.com/low-carbon-energy/de-mystifying-small-modular-reactors/

Let's have a read of this:

The Spectator Australia 11 March 2024
In recent days, headlines from Net-Zero-inclined publications have become increasingly unhinged. Why nuclear power is ‘madness on steroids’! Peter Dutton wonders when batteries will be ‘discovered’, and if wind turbines are sentient… There are lots more, but those two made me laugh. Perhaps you have also noticed an online scare campaign doing the rounds asking, Would you live next to a reactor?
Most appear to be unaware that ANSTO exists, as does the Climate Change and Energy Minister, given some of his bizarre comments about Saos and blenders. (What is Bowen cooking?)
The reason for this panic is a tangible mood-shift in favour of nuclear energy.
As wind farms and solar farms march across the landscape, localised objections have become a nationwide grumble. By now, everyone knows someone whose life has been (or is about to be) destroyed by renewable energy.
It has long been suspected that objection to nuclear energy from the renewable industry has nothing to do with cost, nothing to do with how long it takes to build, and nothing to do with safety.
Rather, nuclear energy is opposed because its existence in the grid invalidates wind turbines, solar panels, and battery backups. All those lucrative government grants … cancelled. Random Net Zero projects like carbon capture and green hydrogen? Bye-bye.
Do nuclear plants need 10s of 1,000s of kilometres of transmission lines? Nope.
Do they need thousands of acres of rainforest or 70 per cent of Victoria’s agricultural heartland? Nope.
Do they need to sit in the middle of whale migration sites? Nope.
Do they enjoy shredding endangered birds? Nope.
Do they cost a bit to set up? Sure. Most things of high value carry a cost, but it is nothing compared to the cheap renewable transition which, at low estimates, is set at $1.9 trillion to reach by 2050 and then repeat that every 20-odd years and increase for an expanding population and demand, such as ecars plugging in.
A handful of reactors, powered by Australian uranium, is all that’s required to create a fully functioning, reliable energy grid with enough fuel for several billion years. It is not only renewable, it is eternal.
There’s no need to bulldoze rainforests.
Destroy coastal waters with wind turbines.
Or cut up farmland with transmission lines.
It also means that renewable energy companies, mining giants, and Labor’s mates in the myriad of Net Zero industries have no reason to drain the Treasury.
As a bonus, it frees Australia from the incalculable risk of relying on China for replacement parts.
Nuclear energy is the saviour of birds, bats, bugs, and koalas.
This a huge problem for Chris Bowen, who runs around pretending that nuclear is some random impossible technology that no one can use despite New South Wales having a nuclear facility for longer than Bowen has been alive. It is so well behaved most people have never heard of it even though it provides lifesaving isotopes to Sydney hospitals for cancer treatment.
We hear a lot of Greens talk about free healthcare, and almost none who realise more than 90 per cent of the pharmaceutical industry is built on fossil fuels, while specialty treatments often come from nuclear science. Just stop oil? Please…
Chris Bowen makes the argument that we have to carpet bomb Australia with wind turbines to ‘save the Pacific’ because Australia has been conned into believing it is a regional saviour with the power to stop the tides. Meanwhile, the Pacific region is full of nuclear power plants and the ‘drowning’ islands are selling their fossil fuel reserves to China who use them to make … wind turbines … for us. It’s an excellent scam.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is finally taking good advice and dipping his toes into the nuclear conversation.
‘If there’s a retiring coal asset, so there’s a coal-fired generator that’s already got an existing distribution network, the wires and poles are already there to distribute the energy across the network into homes and businesses, that’s really what we’re interested in,’ said Dutton.
‘We just can’t pretend that solar panels work of a night time, and we can’t pretend that wind turbines – 260 metres out of the seabed – are environmentally conscious. And we can’t pretend that it is a baseload energy It’s just not. Hopefully, the battery technology is about to be discovered, but not yet.’
Comments like these have upset various die-hard renewable publications, countering Dutton with comments like, ‘…actually, the grid is moving away from baseload.’ This is said as if it is some kind of rebuttal rather than a declaration of idiocy.
The entirety of the renewable grid – every wind turbine, solar panel, and battery – will be rotting in landfill by 2050. Think about that for a moment.
Bowen is building a renewable energy grid to reach Labor’s Net Zero 2050 targets with infrastructure that will be in landfill by that date.
So, what exactly is Bowen building?
A renewable money tree for mining companies and wind turbine manufacturers?
A pile of junk?
Why doesn’t the government release energy costing over a hundred-year period?
The rest of the world has embraced nuclear, but for some reason Australia is trapped in a backwards, Cold War mindset that believes ‘the world is ending because of emissions’ while pouring emissions into the atmosphere in one of the biggest mining booms we have ever seen.

Continued:

Either the world is ending because of carbon emissions, forcing us to destroy our energy grid at huge expense – or it’s not.
Net Zero ideology cannot have this both ways, not while the taxpayer is picking up the bill.
If the world is ending, nuclear is the answer. If the world isn’t ending, then politicians have some explaining to do.
Peter Dutton’s proposal to build traditional nuclear reactors on the sites of old coal-fired plants is an election-winning proposition if he takes his message to the millions of Australians facing the destructive and ugly reality of wind turbines, solar panels, and transmission lines.
They will all vote for Dutton if it means keeping their beautiful valleys, oceans, and forests free of scrap.

lee wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 6:14pm:

"Naturally, safety is the main requirement for the viability of these technologies. In this context, one inherent design detail is of major importance. SMRs have exceptionally small nuclear cores – one of the technology’s most compelling by-design safety feature. Given its small size, cooling of the core can be easily ensured by natural convection, and consequently, the continued control of the core temperature is no longer dependent on external factors in an abnormal situation. The inherent safety design also means that the potential of radioactive aerosol releases in an accident is inherently smaller in SMRs than in conventional NPPs. Owing to this and because SMRs have low rated thermal power levels, the exclusion zone (EZ) around SMRs can be significantly reduced. Whereas standard NPPs have EZs that are on average 5 to 10 km in radius – depending on the country, NPP type and production capacity – SMR EZs can be minimized to a few kilometers, or even to the site boundaries. But as is the case in all nuclear accidents, the same general safety precautions apply, including community emergency measures and off-site responses." https://www.sustainability-times.com/low-carbon-energy/de-mystifying-small-modular-reactors/

SMRs do not exist.  You are wishing on a star, Lee.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 9:16pm:

SMRs do not exist.  You are wishing on a star, Lee.

There are companies building them. But seeing as you are so opposed perhaps you have an energy solution that will actually work, as you reckon SMR's won't.

lee wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 9:19pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:16pm: SMRs do not exist.  You are wishing on a star, Lee. There are companies building them. But seeing as you are so opposed perhaps you have an energy solution that will actually work, as you reckon SMR's won't.

If they are building them and they are safe, my only concern with them is their accident rates and their costs.  Who is building them and where, Lee?  I bet you don't know.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 9:29pm:

I bet you don't know.

Making foolish bets? Try Canada. Expected delivery 2025.

Then of course there is Westinghouse.

"Only SMR based on Licensed, Operating & Advanced Reactor Technology

The Westinghouse AP300™ Small Modular Reactor is the most advanced, proven and readily deployable SMR solution. Westinghouse proudly brings 70+ years of experience developing and implementing new nuclear technologies that enable reliable, clean, safe and economical sources of energy for generations to come."
https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/ap300-smr
But I see you don't have a clue about another reliable energy supply. Why is that. Too much tsk,tsking. ;)

lee wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 9:37pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:29pm: I bet you don't know. Making foolish bets? Try Canada. Expected delivery 2025. Then of course there is Westinghouse. "Only SMR based on Licensed, Operating & Advanced Reactor Technology The Westinghouse AP300™ Small Modular Reactor is the most advanced, proven and readily deployable SMR solution. Westinghouse proudly brings 70+ years of experience developing and implementing new nuclear technologies that enable reliable, clean, safe and economical sources of energy for generations to come." https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/ap300-smr But I see you don't have a clue about another reliable energy supply. Why is that. Too much tsk,tsking. ;)

None of those is operational as yet, Lee.  The only operational SMRs are in Russia and soon in China.  There are none in the US or any other Western country.  So, should we buy from Russia or from China?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 9:44pm:

lee wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:37pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:29pm: I bet you don't know. Making foolish bets? Try Canada. Expected delivery 2025. Then of course there is Westinghouse. "Only SMR based on Licensed, Operating & Advanced Reactor Technology The Westinghouse AP300™ Small Modular Reactor is the most advanced, proven and readily deployable SMR solution. Westinghouse proudly brings 70+ years of experience developing and implementing new nuclear technologies that enable reliable, clean, safe and economical sources of energy for generations to come." https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/ap300-smr But I see you don't have a clue about another reliable energy supply. Why is that. Too much tsk,tsking. ;) None of those is operational as yet, Lee.  The only operational SMRs are in Russia and soon in China.  There are none in the US or any other Western country.  So, should we buy from Russia or from China?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Every nuclear powered submarine has effectively an SMR..... ::)

Belgarion wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 9:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:44pm: lee wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:37pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:29pm: I bet you don't know. Making foolish bets? Try Canada. Expected delivery 2025. Then of course there is Westinghouse. "Only SMR based on Licensed, Operating & Advanced Reactor Technology The Westinghouse AP300™ Small Modular Reactor is the most advanced, proven and readily deployable SMR solution. Westinghouse proudly brings 70+ years of experience developing and implementing new nuclear technologies that enable reliable, clean, safe and economical sources of energy for generations to come." https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/ap300-smr But I see you don't have a clue about another reliable energy supply. Why is that. Too much tsk,tsking. ;) None of those is operational as yet, Lee.  The only operational SMRs are in Russia and soon in China.  There are none in the US or any other Western country.  So, should we buy from Russia or from China?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Every nuclear powered submarine has effectively an SMR..... ::)

And how many accidents have they had, Belgarion? Unless you are proposing that the military run all nuclear power stations, submarines are completely different to civilian run reactors.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Nation's science agency CSIRO hits back at Dutton claim that nuclear power costings were 'discredited' >:(

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14^th, 2024 at 9:44pm:

None of those is operational as yet, Lee.

What part of operational 2025 didn't you understand?  And you still can't provide a source for reliable energy. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Don't you think 70 years after nuclear tests, we have that data? How long do you think? 1,000 years? ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 10:45am:

Nation's science agency CSIRO hits back at Dutton claim that nuclear power costings were 'discredited' >:(

So have a look at the CSIRO's CostGen 23-24. Table B.9 Column C, to be specific.

It shows Wind and solar 100% efficient. Nuclear 30% efficient.

Do you agree with those figures? I will even give the url again.

https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2023-24Consultdraft_20231219-FINAL.pdf

I provided it to phil, he has gone quiet since. You?

lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 12:38pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:44pm: None of those is operational as yet, Lee. What part of operational 2025 didn't you understand?  And you still can't provide a source for reliable energy. ;D ;D ;D ;D Don't you think 70 years after nuclear tests, we have that data? How long do you think? 1,000 years? ::)

A figure of 24,000 years has been mentioned as the half life of Uranium waste. I reckon that would be a fair number to work on, Lee.  You seem to think 70 years is a long time.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 12:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 10:45am: Nation's science agency CSIRO hits back at Dutton claim that nuclear power costings were 'discredited' >:( So have a look at the CSIRO's CostGen 23-24. Table B.9 Column C, to be specific. It shows Wind and solar 100% efficient. Nuclear 30% efficient. Do you agree with those figures? I will even give the url again. https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2023-24Consultdraft_20231219-FINAL.pdf I provided it to phil, he has gone quiet since. You?

Interesting.  Have you read the full report?  Then you should realise that the CSIRO has mentioned many caveats to the deployment of a nuclear SMR project.  Perhaps most interestingly is the earliest deployment date - 2038.  Then there is the costs being appreciably higher than for Photo-voltaic or Wind generation.  Factors which you have failed to mention or it appears understand.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 1:33pm:

Perhaps most interestingly is the earliest deployment date - 2038.

And yet that Table says 3 years.  ;)


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 1:33pm:

Then there is the costs being appreciably higher than for Photo-voltaic or Wind generation.

Uranium mined in Australia will be far cheaper than replacing Solar panels and wind turbines. They have a maximum life of 25 years apparently, although offshore ones probably a lot less due to corrosion. Nuclear at least a 75 year lifetime.

lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 1:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 1:33pm: Perhaps most interestingly is the earliest deployment date - 2038.  And yet that Table says 3 years.  ;)

As I expected you haven't read the full report.  2038 is the projected deployment for an SMR in Australia if a policy to do so is adopted today, Lee.  You really need to take into the full picture rather than just a chart.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 1:33pm: Then there is the costs being appreciably higher than for Photo-voltaic or Wind generation. Uranium mined in Australia will be far cheaper than replacing Solar panels and wind turbines. They have a maximum life of 25 years apparently, although offshore ones probably a lot less due to corrosion. Nuclear at least a 75 year lifetime.

Still avoiding the fuller picture.  Australia does not enrich it's own Uranium.  It sends it overseas.  75 years is a drop in the ocean.  Photo-voltaics and wind effectively last forever, they just need replacing when they wear out. Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Here is a balanced article that looks at both sides of the debate!!!


Quote:

Explainer: What is a small modular nuclear reactor? As our energy systems focus more on renewables, and coal and oil are phased out, there’s been increasing talk about nuclear power – specifically about “small modular reactors”. So, what exactly is a small modular reactor? Cosmos explains. What is a small modular reactor? A small modular reactor, or SMR, is a nuclear reactor, generally with a capacity of 300 megawatts (MW) or less. For comparison, the smallest conventional nuclear reactors at present are at least 400 MW, and most are over 1000 MW. The “modular” part refers to the construction of the reactors: they’re designed to be made in factories, ready for transportation to their sites. Modules could also be added once the reactor is running, if more energy is needed. At the moment, there are two SMRs in operation: one 70 MW “floating” reactor on a barge in northeastern Russia, and one 200 MW high temperature gas reactor in northeastern China. While the two SMRs currently operating took about a decade to build, ANSTO estimates that SMRs could take 3-5 years to construct. SMRs in Canada and the US, both already nuclear nations, are expected to come online by 2028 and 2029 at the earliest. Australia could expect to take years longer to do things like get community support and build approval and environmental impact plans. “The other problem the industry has had is that they keep coming up with new designs, rather than having a learning curve, which gradually improves the economics,” says Lowe. “All of the three [conventional nuclear power stations] being built in Western Europe at the moment are all one-off, and they’re all years behind schedule, and billions over budget.” But Irwin thinks that the skillset demanded by AUKUS could open up a new industry for Australia. “We’ve got an opportunity to manufacture SMRs in Australia, for our region. We could supply ourselves, but also our position in this region would be very good for a manufacturing centre for SMRs.” Lowe disagrees, saying that while nuclear might make sense for other countries, it’s not necessary in Australia. “I’ve seen studies that show that almost everywhere, getting to 80% renewables is pretty straightforward. But the last 20% is difficult in countries that don’t have the sort of solar and wind resources we do, and have larger populations, so greater demand for energy,” says Lowe. “There will be countries, I think, that have to consider nuclear, but we’re fortunately not in that position.”

:) :) :)

https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/energy/smrs-nuclear-australia/#:~:text=A%20small%20modular%20reactor%2C%20or,most%20are%20over%201000%20MW.

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 2:19pm:

“I’ve seen studies that show that almost everywhere, getting to 80% renewables is pretty straightforward.

Well Germany has enough wind to theoretically drive their grid, but they can't do it. And that's with overbuilding.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 2:12pm:

As I expected you haven't read the full report.

Then why do they say three years? ::)

You missed this bit - "Regardless of whether this date is accurate, and
there remains a high degree of uncertainty, continuing to apply the 2030 date to the presentation of GenCost nuclear SMR cost data is no longer appropriate –"

lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 2:24pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 2:12pm: As I expected you haven't read the full report. Then why do they say three years? ::) You missed this bit - "Regardless of whether this date is accurate, and there remains a high degree of uncertainty, continuing to apply the 2030 date to the presentation of GenCost nuclear SMR cost data is no longer appropriate –"

Quote:

12.4.5 Timing of deployment in Australia Commencing from the GenCost 2020-21 report, nuclear SMR capital costs were only reported from 2030. This was due to advice from stakeholders that nuclear SMR costs before 2030 were irrelevant for Australia because before that date there is no prospect of an Australian project (allowing 10 years from the time of that discussion). This date has not been revised for several years. However, in 2023 a senate committee for the Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 heard evidence about nuclear SMR development completion times. The view from regulators was that it would be around 15 years to first production from a decision to build nuclear SMR in Australia, emphasising the time taken to revise regulations7. Even though legislation in the US is more developed, it is interesting to note that had the CFPP proceeded in the US it would have taken 15 years from its formal launch8 to complete full operation in 2030 as planned. This new information on deployment timing suggests that if a decision to pursue a nuclear SMR project in Australia were taken today, with political support for the required legislative changes, then the first full operation would be in 2038. Regardless of whether this date is accurate, and there remains a high degree of uncertainty, continuing to apply the 2030 date to the presentation of GenCost nuclear SMR cost data is no longer appropriate – that is, Australia is very unlikely to see a project that early. However, rather than extending our previous approach to exclude data before 2038, this report has reverted to showing the full timeline of nuclear SMR capital costs but with this added commentary on timing.

[url=file:///C:/Users/brian/Downloads/GenCost2023-24Consultdraft_20231219-FINAL.pdf]Source [/url]
(Emphasis added)

Read the full report, Lee, it will demolish a great deal of what you have claimed.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 2:12pm:

Australia does not enrich it's own Uranium.

And Australia has no ability? ;)


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 2:12pm:

Photo-voltaics and wind effectively last forever, they just need replacing when they wear out

They are all made using fossil fuels. And seeing as China will soon be the only one using fossil fuel, where will they come from? And the cost of replacing them many times? Will they need new footings, or will they be the same size? New footing means new cement. More cement means more CO2, and that is the postulated reasoning for renewables.

Siemens is having troubles and so are others.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 3:07pm:

Read the full report, Lee, it will demolish a great deal of what you have claimed.

Nope. Have a look yourself. Ten years from now is 2034. Only 4 years outside that guesstimated timeline. So it couldn't be done 4 years earlier? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

But why don't you try and rebut the Table B.9. It is what they wrote.

BTW - your link defers to your computer. ;)

Lee how long would you give companies to quote on the construction of our firs nuclear power plant?

Also, how long do you think the radioactive waste would have to be stored for?

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 3:16pm:

Lee how long would you give companies to quote on the construction of our firs nuclear power plant?

With a 3 year build time 7 years. ;)

But you do understand MODULAR? It can be built offsite in a complex and 2 or 3 could be on the go at once. ;)


freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 3:16pm:

Also, how long do you think the radioactive waste would have to be stored for?

For however long it takes. Some short periods some 24,000 year periods. But surely you knew that? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 3:11pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 2:12pm: Australia does not enrich it's own Uranium. And Australia has no ability? ;)

Not without a large investment in manufacturing abilities, Lee.  And of course, Electricity.


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 2:12pm: Photo-voltaics and wind effectively last forever, they just need replacing when they wear out They are all made using fossil fuels. And seeing as China will soon be the only one using fossil fuel, where will they come from? And the cost of replacing them many times? Will they need new footings, or will they be the same size? New footing means new cement. More cement means more CO2, and that is the postulated reasoning for renewables. Siemens is having troubles and so are others.

You can offset CO^2 production with planting trees, Lee.  You can manufacture things without using fossil fuels.  You seem to be mindset that it must come from either fossil fuels or nuclear and nothing else.  Such childishness such a lack of vision.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 3:20pm:

Not without a large investment in manufacturing abilities, Lee.  And of course, Electricity.

So not via renewables then. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 3:20pm:

You can offset CO^2 production with planting trees, Lee.

But you have already razed the land to build solar and wind. They are not conducive to trees. ;)


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 3:20pm:

You can manufacture things without using fossil fuels.

Let's see. Solar panels? No you need a steady reliable supply for the semi-conductor junctions. Wind turbine blades? No you need a steady reliable supply to cure the fibreglass resin.


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 3:20pm:

Such childishness such a lack of vision.

So tell us where in this "vision" of yours from whence they come. ;)

Quote:

Some short periods some 24,000 year periods.

24,000 year is the short period. You still have a very large pile of radioactive waste after 24,000 years.

Would you like to have another go at demonstrating you know what you are talking about?

How long do you think the radioactive waste would have to be stored for?

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 3:26pm:

24,000 year is the short period.

Nope Hydrogen-3 is one of the shortest. Hydrogen -5 is shorter.
Plutonium-239m1 193nS

lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 3:34pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 3:26pm: 24,000 year is the short period. Nope Hydrogen-3 is one of the shortest. Hydrogen -5 is shorter. Plutonium-239m1 193nS

24,000 years is the half life. What makes you think it would be a good idea to only store it for that long?

Do you know what half life means?

lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 3:26pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 3:20pm: Not without a large investment in manufacturing abilities, Lee.  And of course, Electricity. So not via renewables then. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 3:20pm: You can offset CO^2 production with planting trees, Lee. But you have already razed the land to build solar and wind. They are not conducive to trees. ;)

Where the electricity comes from is immaterial.  The US used hydropower for it's first enriched Uranium.


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 3:20pm: You can manufacture things without using fossil fuels. Let's see. Solar panels? No you need a steady reliable supply for the semi-conductor junctions. Wind turbine blades? No you need a steady reliable supply to cure the fibreglass resin.

Wind, pumped hydro, hydrogen, photo-voltaic, all as being proposed and built for steel production at Whyalla,  If it works for steel and copper smelting it will work for fibreglass.  You are being left behind as we speak, Lee.


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 3:20pm: Such childishness such a lack of vision. So tell us where in this "vision" of yours from whence they come. ;)

Already mentioned.  Hydro power, hydrogen power, wind, photo-voltaic are all sources of electricity, Lee.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 1:11pm:

lee wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 12:38pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:44pm: None of those is operational as yet, Lee. What part of operational 2025 didn't you understand?  And you still can't provide a source for reliable energy. ;D ;D ;D ;D Don't you think 70 years after nuclear tests, we have that data? How long do you think? 1,000 years? ::) A figure of 24,000 years has been mentioned as the half life of Uranium waste. I reckon that would be a fair number to work on, Lee.  You seem to think 70 years is a long time.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Watch and learn....

https://www.tiktok.com/@theradguyglows/video/7302016199993445674

Belgarion wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 4:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 1:11pm: lee wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 12:38pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:44pm: None of those is operational as yet, Lee. What part of operational 2025 didn't you understand?  And you still can't provide a source for reliable energy. ;D ;D ;D ;D Don't you think 70 years after nuclear tests, we have that data? How long do you think? 1,000 years? ::) A figure of 24,000 years has been mentioned as the half life of Uranium waste. I reckon that would be a fair number to work on, Lee.  You seem to think 70 years is a long time.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Watch and learn.... https://www.tiktok.com/@theradguyglows/video/7302016199993445674

What he doesn't mention is that the nuclear waste is still radioactive, even if encased in glass.  You still have to store it for it's life, which is over 24,000 years.  Are you going to guarantee it during that period as safe, Belgarion?  Really?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 4:28pm:

Belgarion wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 1:11pm: lee wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 12:38pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:44pm: None of those is operational as yet, Lee. What part of operational 2025 didn't you understand?  And you still can't provide a source for reliable energy. ;D ;D ;D ;D Don't you think 70 years after nuclear tests, we have that data? How long do you think? 1,000 years? ::) A figure of 24,000 years has been mentioned as the half life of Uranium waste. I reckon that would be a fair number to work on, Lee.  You seem to think 70 years is a long time.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Watch and learn.... https://www.tiktok.com/@theradguyglows/video/7302016199993445674 What he doesn't mention is that the nuclear waste is still radioactive, even if encased in glass.  You still have to store it for it's life, which is over 24,000 years.  Are you going to guarantee it during that period as safe, Belgarion?  Really?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Little waste is generated

Nuclear fuel is very energy dense, so very little of it is required to produce immense amounts of electricity – especially when compared to other energy sources. As a result, a correspondingly small amount of waste is produced. On average, the waste from a reactor supplying a person’s electricity needs for a year would be about the size of a brick. Only 5 grams of this is high-level waste – about the same weight as a sheet of paper.

The generation of electricity from a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic metres of vitrified high-level waste per year, if the used fuel is recycled. In comparison, a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power station produces approximately 300,000 tonnes of ash and more than 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, every year.

https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 3:52pm:

If it works for steel and copper smelting it will work for fibreglass.

If it works. The SA Green hydrogen plant already runs at a 50MW loss. 250MW in 200MW out.  ;)


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 3:52pm:

You are being left behind as we speak, Lee

Nope you believe. That sums it up.


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 3:52pm:

Hydro power, hydrogen power, wind, photo-voltaic are all sources of electricity, Lee.

So which ones will be reliable? And of course the problem with hydrogen storage.

You do understand reliable?

Frank wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 4:39pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:28pm: Belgarion wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 1:11pm: lee wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 12:38pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:44pm: None of those is operational as yet, Lee. What part of operational 2025 didn't you understand?  And you still can't provide a source for reliable energy. ;D ;D ;D ;D Don't you think 70 years after nuclear tests, we have that data? How long do you think? 1,000 years? ::) A figure of 24,000 years has been mentioned as the half life of Uranium waste. I reckon that would be a fair number to work on, Lee.  You seem to think 70 years is a long time.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Watch and learn.... https://www.tiktok.com/@theradguyglows/video/7302016199993445674 What he doesn't mention is that the nuclear waste is still radioactive, even if encased in glass.  You still have to store it for it's life, which is over 24,000 years.  Are you going to guarantee it during that period as safe, Belgarion?  Really?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Little waste is generated Nuclear fuel is very energy dense, so very little of it is required to produce immense amounts of electricity – especially when compared to other energy sources. As a result, a correspondingly small amount of waste is produced. On average, the waste from a reactor supplying a person’s electricity needs for a year would be about the size of a brick. Only 5 grams of this is high-level waste – about the same weight as a sheet of paper. The generation of electricity from a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic metres of vitrified high-level waste per year, if the used fuel is recycled. In comparison, a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power station produces approximately 300,000 tonnes of ash and more than 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, every year. https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx

So, Soren, are you volunteering to store this nuclear waste in your home?  Really?   Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 4:48pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 3:52pm: If it works for steel and copper smelting it will work for fibreglass. If it works. The SA Green hydrogen plant already runs at a 50MW loss. 250MW in 200MW out.  ;)

That is 200MW which is created by green means, Lee.  Why do you concentrate continually on the negatives?  Afraid of the positives?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 3:52pm: You are being left behind as we speak, Lee Nope you believe. That sums it up.

No, I am basing my comments on facts, facts you don't like.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 3:52pm: Hydro power, hydrogen power, wind, photo-voltaic are all sources of electricity, Lee. So which ones will be reliable? And of course the problem with hydrogen storage. You do understand reliable?

All will complement each other, Lee.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 4:56pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:39pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:28pm: Belgarion wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 1:11pm: lee wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 12:38pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:44pm: None of those is operational as yet, Lee. What part of operational 2025 didn't you understand?  And you still can't provide a source for reliable energy. ;D ;D ;D ;D Don't you think 70 years after nuclear tests, we have that data? How long do you think? 1,000 years? ::) A figure of 24,000 years has been mentioned as the half life of Uranium waste. I reckon that would be a fair number to work on, Lee.  You seem to think 70 years is a long time.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Watch and learn.... https://www.tiktok.com/@theradguyglows/video/7302016199993445674 What he doesn't mention is that the nuclear waste is still radioactive, even if encased in glass.  You still have to store it for it's life, which is over 24,000 years.  Are you going to guarantee it during that period as safe, Belgarion?  Really?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Little waste is generated Nuclear fuel is very energy dense, so very little of it is required to produce immense amounts of electricity – especially when compared to other energy sources. As a result, a correspondingly small amount of waste is produced. On average, the waste from a reactor supplying a person’s electricity needs for a year would be about the size of a brick. Only 5 grams of this is high-level waste – about the same weight as a sheet of paper. The generation of electricity from a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic metres of vitrified high-level waste per year, if the used fuel is recycled. In comparison, a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power station produces approximately 300,000 tonnes of ash and more than 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, every year. https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx So, Soren, are you volunteering to store this nuclear waste in your home?  Really?   Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

A very moronic question from a very moronic, spineless, vain idiot.

Do you store the waste products of your life in your home, cockwomble?  No.

In your head, sure. But not in your home.

Frank wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 5:09pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:56pm: Frank wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:39pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:28pm: Belgarion wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 1:11pm: lee wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 12:38pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:44pm: None of those is operational as yet, Lee. What part of operational 2025 didn't you understand?  And you still can't provide a source for reliable energy. ;D ;D ;D ;D Don't you think 70 years after nuclear tests, we have that data? How long do you think? 1,000 years? ::) A figure of 24,000 years has been mentioned as the half life of Uranium waste. I reckon that would be a fair number to work on, Lee.  You seem to think 70 years is a long time.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Watch and learn.... https://www.tiktok.com/@theradguyglows/video/7302016199993445674 What he doesn't mention is that the nuclear waste is still radioactive, even if encased in glass.  You still have to store it for it's life, which is over 24,000 years.  Are you going to guarantee it during that period as safe, Belgarion?  Really?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Little waste is generated Nuclear fuel is very energy dense, so very little of it is required to produce immense amounts of electricity – especially when compared to other energy sources. As a result, a correspondingly small amount of waste is produced. On average, the waste from a reactor supplying a person’s electricity needs for a year would be about the size of a brick. Only 5 grams of this is high-level waste – about the same weight as a sheet of paper. The generation of electricity from a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic metres of vitrified high-level waste per year, if the used fuel is recycled. In comparison, a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power station produces approximately 300,000 tonnes of ash and more than 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, every year. https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx So, Soren, are you volunteering to store this nuclear waste in your home?  Really?   Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) A very moronic question from a very moronic, spineless, vain idiot. Do you store the waste products of your life in your home, cockwomble?  No. In your head, sure. But not in your home.

I expected nothing less from a coward like you, Soren.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 5:00pm:

That is 200MW which is created by green means, Lee.

Providing the weather works.


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 5:00pm:

Why do you concentrate continually on the negatives?

Because we need RELIABLE electricity. Weather dependant renewables are NOT. ::)


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 5:00pm:

No, I am basing my comments on facts, facts you don't like.

Which facts? That renewables are not weather dependant? ::)


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 5:00pm:

All will complement each other, Lee.

So if you have a wind drought for 7 days and overcast conditions not being moved because there is no wind, so little solar energy, what is your back plan? The green hydrogen won't work under those conditions at all. ::)

"Climate influence on compound solar and wind droughts in Australia"

"We find that compound solar and wind droughts occur most frequently in winter, affecting at least five significant energy-producing regions simultaneously on 10% of days. The associated weather systems vary by season and by drought type, although widespread cloud cover and anticyclonic circulation patterns are common features. Indices of major climate modes are not strong predictors of grid-wide droughts, and are typically within one standard deviation of the mean during seasons with the most widespread events. However, the spatial imprints of the teleconnections display strong regional variations, with drought frequencies varying by more than ten days per season between positive and negative phases of climate modes in some regions."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-023-00507-y

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 5:32pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 5:09pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:56pm: Frank wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:39pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:28pm: Belgarion wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 1:11pm: lee wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 12:38pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:44pm: None of those is operational as yet, Lee. What part of operational 2025 didn't you understand?  And you still can't provide a source for reliable energy. ;D ;D ;D ;D Don't you think 70 years after nuclear tests, we have that data? How long do you think? 1,000 years? ::) A figure of 24,000 years has been mentioned as the half life of Uranium waste. I reckon that would be a fair number to work on, Lee.  You seem to think 70 years is a long time.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Watch and learn.... https://www.tiktok.com/@theradguyglows/video/7302016199993445674 What he doesn't mention is that the nuclear waste is still radioactive, even if encased in glass.  You still have to store it for it's life, which is over 24,000 years.  Are you going to guarantee it during that period as safe, Belgarion?  Really?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Little waste is generated Nuclear fuel is very energy dense, so very little of it is required to produce immense amounts of electricity – especially when compared to other energy sources. As a result, a correspondingly small amount of waste is produced. On average, the waste from a reactor supplying a person’s electricity needs for a year would be about the size of a brick. Only 5 grams of this is high-level waste – about the same weight as a sheet of paper. The generation of electricity from a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic metres of vitrified high-level waste per year, if the used fuel is recycled. In comparison, a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power station produces approximately 300,000 tonnes of ash and more than 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, every year. https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx So, Soren, are you volunteering to store this nuclear waste in your home?  Really?   Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) A very moronic question from a very moronic, spineless, vain idiot. Do you store the waste products of your life in your home, cockwomble?  No. In your head, sure. But not in your home. I expected nothing less from a coward like you, Soren.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

And, of course, I expect nothing more from you, moronic, spineless, vain deficit-riddled old fool.

Lee how long do you think you would have to store the waste for?

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 5:59pm:

Lee how long do you think you would have to store the waste for?

Even millions of years is not enough:



Nuclear waste takes too long to decay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Some common nuclear waste half lives:

Plutonium 239 half life      24,110 years.
Americium 241 half life          432 years
Radium 226     Half life      1,600  years
Uranium 236  Half life   15 million years.
Plutonium 244 Half life   80 million years
Uranium 235  Half life  704 million years
Uranium 238 half life      4.5 billion years

Radioactive water could be a problem???


Quote:

Nuclear power and water consumption The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that one nuclear reactor requires between 1,514L and 2,725L litres of water per MWh. It equates to billions of gallons of water per year, and all this water requires filtering somehow.

:-? :-? :-?

https://smartwatermagazine.com/news/membracon/nuclear-power-and-water-consumption#:~:text=The%20Nuclear%20Energy%20Institute%20estimates,this%20water%20requires%20filtering%20somehow.

Have a look at SMR requirements. Water is not absolutely necessary.

SMR's don't.

"Various coolant systems are employed in SMRs, depending on the reactor design and desired operating conditions. The three primary types of coolant systems utilized in SMRs are:

    Light Water Coolant Systems
    Gas Coolant Systems
    Liquid Metal Coolant Systems"

https://small-modular-reactors.org/smr-coolant-systems/

lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 5:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 5:00pm: That is 200MW which is created by green means, Lee. Providing the weather works.

The weather always works, Lee.  Under what rock do you live?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 5:00pm: Why do you concentrate continually on the negatives? Because we need RELIABLE electricity. Weather dependant renewables are NOT. ::)

Which is why weather dependent renewables is only part of the story.  If the wind doesn't blow, the sun shines, if the sun doesn't shine, then water from the pumped hydro works, if the pumped hydro doesn't work the generated hydrogen works.  Which is why I said they complement one another, Lee. You seem to think if the wind does not blow, the world stops.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 5:00pm: No, I am basing my comments on facts, facts you don't like. Which facts? That renewables are not weather dependant? ::) Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 5:00pm: All will complement each other, Lee.  So if you have a wind drought for 7 days and overcast conditions not being moved because there is no wind, so little solar energy, what is your back plan? The green hydrogen won't work under those conditions at all. ::) "Climate influence on compound solar and wind droughts in Australia" "We find that compound solar and wind droughts occur most frequently in winter, affecting at least five significant energy-producing regions simultaneously on 10% of days. The associated weather systems vary by season and by drought type, although widespread cloud cover and anticyclonic circulation patterns are common features. Indices of major climate modes are not strong predictors of grid-wide droughts, and are typically within one standard deviation of the mean during seasons with the most widespread events. However, the spatial imprints of the teleconnections display strong regional variations, with drought frequencies varying by more than ten days per season between positive and negative phases of climate modes in some regions." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-023-00507-y

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, there are other means than just wind or the sun to generate electricity.  Have you ever been to Whyalla?  No, I didn't think so. Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Frank wrote on Mar 15^th, 2024 at 5:36pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 5:32pm: Frank wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 5:09pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:56pm: Frank wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:39pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:28pm: Belgarion wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 4:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 1:11pm: lee wrote on Mar 15th, 2024 at 12:38pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2024 at 9:44pm: None of those is operational as yet, Lee. What part of operational 2025 didn't you understand?  And you still can't provide a source for reliable energy. ;D ;D ;D ;D Don't you think 70 years after nuclear tests, we have that data? How long do you think? 1,000 years? ::) A figure of 24,000 years has been mentioned as the half life of Uranium waste. I reckon that would be a fair number to work on, Lee.  You seem to think 70 years is a long time.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Watch and learn.... https://www.tiktok.com/@theradguyglows/video/7302016199993445674 What he doesn't mention is that the nuclear waste is still radioactive, even if encased in glass.  You still have to store it for it's life, which is over 24,000 years.  Are you going to guarantee it during that period as safe, Belgarion?  Really?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Little waste is generated Nuclear fuel is very energy dense, so very little of it is required to produce immense amounts of electricity – especially when compared to other energy sources. As a result, a correspondingly small amount of waste is produced. On average, the waste from a reactor supplying a person’s electricity needs for a year would be about the size of a brick. Only 5 grams of this is high-level waste – about the same weight as a sheet of paper. The generation of electricity from a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic metres of vitrified high-level waste per year, if the used fuel is recycled. In comparison, a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power station produces approximately 300,000 tonnes of ash and more than 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, every year. https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx So, Soren, are you volunteering to store this nuclear waste in your home?  Really?   Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) A very moronic question from a very moronic, spineless, vain idiot. Do you store the waste products of your life in your home, cockwomble?  No. In your head, sure. But not in your home. I expected nothing less from a coward like you, Soren.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) And, of course, I expect nothing more from you, moronic, spineless, vain deficit-riddled old fool.

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img673/4087/gIlzsx.jpg