Australian Politics Forum - Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18018
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #240 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 5:15pm

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 10:47am:

The amount of water needed for a Nuclear Power Plant could be an issue for Australia....There is also an issue with conrtamination???

Quote:

Nuclear power and water consumption

In nuclear power stations, water cools the radioactive cores, and the water becomes contaminated with radionuclides.

Figures from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) show that 45% of nuclear plants use the sea for once-through cooling, and 25% use cooling towers (from water mains). 15% use lakes, and 14% use rivers (dictated by which is nearest).

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.

BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) and PWR (Pressurised Water Reactor) nuclear plants need lots of water. In BWRs, the water from cooling is mildly radioactive but kept in the plant, recirculated in a loop to cool the reactor cores. The water is treated with demineralisation, filtration, and distillation.

https://smartwatermagazine.com/news/membracon/nuclear-power-and-water-consumptio...

Coal and Gas boil water to create steam to drive turbines. Nuclear boils water without burning anything to drive turbines.

Locating Nuclear plants where coal and gas plants are is sensible it will use same water source and no need for new expensive transmission lines.

Water has never been a problem for coal and gas nuclear works the same way.

They recirculate contaminated water for cooling.

From your link
Quote:

Nuclear power is safe and is the most reliable energy source, between 2.5 to 3.5 times more reliable than wind and solar.

However, one of the unspoken requirements of nuclear energy is it needs much more water than most other renewable energy sources.

In PWRs, the water does not contact the core, so it is not contaminated and can be released into the environment

Reusing nuclear water
In BWR and PWR nuclear power plants, cooling water is reused by purifying it. The water recycling systems used in the nuclear industry are among the most efficient, capable of recirculating water indefinitely, topped up with new water.

Water is reusable in many processes, and nuclear power stations have advanced water recycling systems that reduce freshwater consumption.

For example, water heated by fission feeds a turbine to produce electricity, and unused steam condenses back to the water for use in the reactor. But what happens to water not reusable in nuclear processes?

The recycling system treats the water to remove strontium and radionuclides through filtration, distillation, and vaporisation. Filtering the water decontaminates it to a level suitable for release or use in other processes.

When nuclear water is recycled, it gets reused

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18018
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #241 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 5:21pm

Belgarion wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 5:03pm:

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 2:45pm:

It's interesting you bring up water.

Only one of those sites has access to seawater, the rest require dams to provide water to the existing power stations.

We've seen in France the issues with water temperature from inland sources, rivers and dams, that require reduced generation or total shutdown.

Once the water exceeds 25 degrees they have to reduce output, and once they exceed 28 degrees they have to shutdown.

In terms of water levels, there are documented instances where the coal plants that currently exist on these sites have had to shut down because supply was too low, let alone because of temperature concerns.

Like I said, the more you start looking at the details, the more you realise that other than consulting lawyers, they've had very little expert consultation that went into their mining policy.

They appear to have started with the goal of, "how can we keep the Nats happy by continuing to deny climate change behind closed door, whil attacking renewables, while keeping the Teal voters open to coming back into the fold by pretending we care about climate change, all while pushing more Gas powered generation to keep our mining benefactors happy" and worked backwards from there.

They didn't start out with, "what will our energy needs be in 30 years. How do we meet those needs while being able to supply reliable baseload power while keeping to our emissions targets".

We already know they want to abandon those targets and push more Gas generation and are using nuclear to legitimise it.

It's going to be a massive payday for the current owners of those coal power plants.

I'd be getting ready to gouge the taxpayer, get the sale, then right against Nuclear and pivot to investing that windfall into renewables.

The chances of a power plant having to shut down because of high water source temperatures are small, the use of cooling towers makes the chances even smaller.

Gas Coal and Nuclear boil water to make steam which drives turbines.

This water temp nonsense sounds like BS for starters i doubt lakes river or sea temps get anywhere near that in France.

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18018
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #242 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 5:26pm

Wind and solar providing 13% of our energy needs right now.

Coal and Gas providing 73%

https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-ne...

The anti nuclear luddites haven't factored in storage costs for renewable rubbish.

2 tesla powerwalls cost over $30K installed giving 27KwH. They will drive a 2000 Watt heater for just over half a day.

How much are these batteries going to cost and since they only last 2500-3000 cycles how many times will they be replaced before 2050?

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 100410
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #243 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 5:37pm

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 10:51am:

Mr Sad,
Quote:

That is why there is a difference between support for Nuclear as a technology as part of our energy mix, vs the Coalition plan which is an attempt to prevent further investment in renewables, push more coal and gas as are primary generation sources and then pretend their goal is Nuclear.

I wanted to hear that for all that financial pain and radioactive risk
that we would get say 50% of our power or 70% like France from nuclear
but 3.7% is stuff all - it might as well be nothing. Roll Eyes

Something is wrong with that 3.7% -

we've only got 27 million people.
That's as much as some single cities in the world.
You'd think that 7 nuclear power stations would be more than enough for 100% of our power?

Back to top

IP Logged

Belgarion

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5395
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #244 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:10pm

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 5:37pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 10:51am:

Mr Sad,
Quote:

That is why there is a difference between support for Nuclear as a technology as part of our energy mix, vs the Coalition plan which is an attempt to prevent further investment in renewables, push more coal and gas as are primary generation sources and then pretend their goal is Nuclear.

I wanted to hear that for all that financial pain and radioactive risk
that we would get say 50% of our power or 70% like France from nuclear
but 3.7% is stuff all - it might as well be nothing. Roll Eyes

Something is wrong with that 3.7% -

we've only got 27 million people.
That's as much as some single cities in the world.
You'd think that 7 nuclear power stations would be more than enough for 100% of our power?

The 3.7% is ridiculous misinformation. There are currently 18 coal power stations in Australia. They generate 54% of Australias electricity. Converting 7 of these to nuclear would mean they would generate about 25% of the power. Also, there is no need to stop at 7. We can build as many as we need.

Back to top

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire.....(possibly)

IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 57658 Here Gender:	Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants Reply #245 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:20pm This isn't about discussing Nuclear v other options. This is about the dangerous garbage the coalition are pushing. Not recognising the difference could see us all glowing in the dark.
Back to top	IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 100410
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #246 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:24pm

Belgarion wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:10pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 5:37pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 10:51am:

Mr Sad,
Quote:

That is why there is a difference between support for Nuclear as a technology as part of our energy mix, vs the Coalition plan which is an attempt to prevent further investment in renewables, push more coal and gas as are primary generation sources and then pretend their goal is Nuclear.

I wanted to hear that for all that financial pain and radioactive risk
that we would get say 50% of our power or 70% like France from nuclear
but 3.7% is stuff all - it might as well be nothing. Roll Eyes

Something is wrong with that 3.7% -

we've only got 27 million people.
That's as much as some single cities in the world.
You'd think that 7 nuclear power stations would be more than enough for 100% of our power?

The 3.7% is ridiculous misinformation. There are currently 18 coal power stations in Australia. They generate 54% of Australias electricity. Converting 7 of these to nuclear would mean they would generate about 25% of the power. Also, there is no need to stop at 7. We can build as many as we need.

Yet the Guardian claims the 3.7% figure is from experts.
Who are they?

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/23/peter-duttons-nuc...

“At best, Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal would deliver 3.7% of the energy required at the same cost as the government’s comprehensive strategy,” John Grimes, the chief executive of the Smart Energy Council, said.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 57658 Here Gender:	Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants Reply #247 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:27pm .
Back to top	IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57658
Here
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #248 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:29pm

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:24pm:

Belgarion wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:10pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 5:37pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 10:51am:

Mr Sad,
Quote:

That is why there is a difference between support for Nuclear as a technology as part of our energy mix, vs the Coalition plan which is an attempt to prevent further investment in renewables, push more coal and gas as are primary generation sources and then pretend their goal is Nuclear.

I wanted to hear that for all that financial pain and radioactive risk
that we would get say 50% of our power or 70% like France from nuclear
but 3.7% is stuff all - it might as well be nothing. Roll Eyes

Something is wrong with that 3.7% -

we've only got 27 million people.
That's as much as some single cities in the world.
You'd think that 7 nuclear power stations would be more than enough for 100% of our power?

The 3.7% is ridiculous misinformation. There are currently 18 coal power stations in Australia. They generate 54% of Australias electricity. Converting 7 of these to nuclear would mean they would generate about 25% of the power. Also, there is no need to stop at 7. We can build as many as we need.

Yet the Guardian claims the 3.7% figure is from experts.
Who are they?

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/23/peter-duttons-nuc...

“At best, Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal would deliver 3.7% of the energy required at the same cost as the government’s comprehensive strategy,” John Grimes, the chief executive of the Smart Energy Council, said.

A risk benefit analysis would fail if it were 35%. If anything like this were correct it would be Risk v nothing, There would be no benefit.

Nobody would lock in cleanup spending for 100,000 years for 3%

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 43384
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #249 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:31pm

Dnarever wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:20pm:

This isn't about discussing Nuclear v other options.

This is about the dangerous garbage the coalition are pushing.

Not recognising the difference could see us all glowing in the dark.

Like the people in dozens of other countried with nuclear energy? Glow like them?

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 57658 Here Gender:	Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants Reply #250 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:31pm .
Back to top	IP Logged

stunspore Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5091 Gender:	Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants Reply #251 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:32pm If the economics was there, private finance would have been onboard They aren't.
Back to top	IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57658
Here
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #252 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:35pm

Frank wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:31pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:20pm:

This isn't about discussing Nuclear v other options.

This is about the dangerous garbage the coalition are pushing.

Not recognising the difference could see us all glowing in the dark.

Like the people in dozens of other countried with nuclear energy? Glow like them?

2024 Nuclear incident at Khabarovsk, Russia
2022-2023 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant leak
2019 Radiation release during explosion and fire at Russian nuclear missile test site
2017 Airborne radioactivity increase in Europe in autumn 2017
2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
2001 Instituto Oncologico Nacional radiotherapy accident
2000 Samut Prakan radiation accident, Thailand.[3]
1999 and 1997 Tokaimura nuclear accidents
1996 San Juan de Dios radiotherapy accident
1994 Theft of radioactive material in Tammiku, Estonia.[4]
1993 Tomsk-7 accident at the Reprocessing Complex in Seversk, Russia, when a tank exploded while being cleaned with nitric acid. The explosion released a cloud of radioactive gas (INES level 4).[5]
1990 Clinic of Zaragoza radiotherapy accident
1987 Goiânia accident
1986 Chernobyl disaster and Effects of the Chernobyl disaster
1985 Explosion during refuelling of the K-431 (formerly K-31) submarine
1982 Lost radiation source in Baku, Azerbaijan, USSR.[6]
1980 Houston radiotherapy accident.[6][7]
1979 Church Rock uranium mill spill
1979 Three Mile Island accident and Three Mile Island accident health effects
1974-1976 Columbus radiotherapy accident.[6][7]
1969 Lucens reactor
1968 Thule B-52 crash
1966 Palomares B-52 crash
1964 SNAP 9a satellite releases plutonium over the planet earth, an estimated 6300GBq or 2100 person-Sv of radiation was released.
1962 Thor missile launch failures during nuclear weapons testing at Johnston Atoll under Operation Fishbowl
1961 SL-1 nuclear meltdown
1961 K-19 nuclear accident
1959 SRE partial nuclear meltdown at Santa Susana Field Laboratory
1958 Mailuu-Suu tailings dam failure
1957 Kyshtym disaster
1957 Windscale fire
1957 Operation Plumbbob
1954 Totskoye nuclear exercise
1950 Desert Rock exercises
Bikini Atoll
Hanford Site
Rocky Flats Plant, see also radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant
Techa River
Pollution of Lake Karachay
1945 and 1946 Demon core
1942 Leipzig L-IV experiment accident

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57658
Here
Gender: male

Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants
Reply #253 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:37pm

stunspore wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:32pm:

If the economics was there, private finance would have been onboard They aren't.

No they will let the government build and we can pay for it. Then they take over at bargain basement price when it is privatised.

They then cut costs raise prices and diminish safety.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 57658 Here Gender:	Re: Dutton reveals 7 sites for nuclear power plants Reply #254 - Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:41pm On the positive side Maralinga is expected to be habitable in only 24,000 years.
Back to top	IP Logged

Poll
Question: Are you supportive of Nuclear power in Australia?
Yes 13 (52.0%) No 9 (36.0%) Undecided 3 (12.0%) Total votes: 25 « Created by: Captain Nemo on: Jun 20^th, 2024 at 10:45pm »