octave

According to the World Nuclear Association, there are 3 methods of decommissioning. Immediate Dismantling (or Early Site Release/'Decon' in the USA): This option allows for the facility to be removed from regulatory control relatively soon after shutdown or termination of regulated activities. Final dismantling or decontamination activities can begin within a few months, depending on the facility. Following removal from regulatory control, the site is then available for re-use within a decade. Safe Enclosure ('Safstor') or deferred dismantling: This option postpones the final removal of controls for a longer period, usually in the order of 40 to 60 years. The facility is placed into a safe storage configuration until the eventual dismantling and decontamination activities occur after resudual radioactivity has decayed. There is a risk in this case of regulatory change which could increase costs unpredictably. Entombment (or 'Entomb'): This option entails placing the facility into a condition that will allow the remaining on-site radioactive material to remain on-site without ever removing it totally. This option usually involves reducing the size of the area where the radioactive material is located and then encasing the facility in a long-lived structure such as concrete, that will last for a period of time to ensure the remaining radioactivity is no longer of concern. Each approach has its benefits and disadvantages. National policy determines which approach or combination of approaches is adopted or allowed. In the case of immediate dismantling (or early site release), responsibility for completion of decommissioning is not transferred to future generations. The experience and skills of operating staff can also be utilised during the decommissioning programme, which may be undertaken by the utility or handed over to a specialist company, with transfer of licence and accumulated funds. Alternatively, Safe Enclosure (or Safstor) allows significant reduction in residual radioactivity, thus reducing radiation hazard during the eventual dismantling. The expected improvements in mechanical techniques should also lead to a reduction in the hazard and also costs. In the case of nuclear reactors, about 99% of the radioactivity is associated with the fuel which is removed following permanent shutdown. Apart from some surface contamination of plant, the remaining radioactivity comes from "activation products" in steel which has long been exposed to neutron irradiation, notably the reactor pressure vessel. Stable atoms are changed into different isotopes such as iron-55, iron-59 and zinc-65. Several are highly radioactive, emitting gamma rays. However, their half life is such (2.7 years, 45 days, 5.3 years, 245 days respectively) after 50 years from closedown their radioactivity is much diminished and the occupational risk to workers largely gone.

I would suggest it is more complicated and I would have thought more costly. Here is some information from The World Nuclear Association which represents the nuclear industry, so not lefty ratbags. Considerable experience has been gained in decommissioning various types of nuclear facility. About 200 commercial, experimental or prototype power reactors, as well as over 500 research reactors have been retired from operation. About 25 reactors have been fully dismantled. Of the eight German units shut down in March 2011 for political reasons, most will be dismantled over about 15 years. The four operators had €38 billion set aside for decommissioning and waste disposal. A total of 32 power reactors have been closed and decommissioned. NRC requires that the operating licence of a closed reactor be terminated and decommissioning activities be completed within 60 years. Duke’s Crystal River 3 (860 MWe) was expected to cost $1.18 billion (2013 dollars) to decommission via Safstor over 60 years, during which time the funds reserved for the purpose would accrue interest, thereby fully covering the cost, despite the fact that is was closed after only 35 years of operation. Immediate decommissioning (Decon) was then expected to cost $994 million, but the decommissioning fund would have had less time to grow sufficiently to cover it, and a $195 million impact on Florida ratepayers would have resulted. Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities I think my point about needing to know the lifetime costs and timeframes and waste disposal methods is sound isn't it? The situation at San Onofre power station is unacceptable, isn't it?

I believe that newer blades are more recyclable than the first-generation blades. The bulk of a wind turbine is recyclable anyway, certainly the metal parts. "Approximately 85–94 per cent of a wind turbine (by mass) is recyclable and can be recycled in Australia – mostly steel, aluminium, copper and cast iron. This is well above the national average for commercial and industrial waste streams in 2018-19 (57 per cent) and the National Waste Policy Action Plan target (80 per cent average resource recovery rate across all industries by 2030)." Is burying a small percentage of a decommissioned turbine better or worse than storing waste that has to be kept away from people for many generations? Very true. The problem is not using oil to make things but burning it. I suspect future generations will not look kindly on us. We had this amazing substance and we chose to burn it.

Landslide in Taiwan in 2010 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna36782187

Nowhere near the time of a nuclear plant. It takes years to decommission a power plant. The power plant in the first video I posted closed in 2013 and still is nowhere near finished. They don't even have anywhere yet to put the waste other than leaving it onsite. The Finish underground vault is an enormously expensive complicated construction. Demolishing a wind farm I would imagine is not that much different than a bridge or other similar structure. As I have said lots of times, show me the expected costs of building, running, decommissioning and safeguarding the waste. Without that information up front, how can anyone throw their support behind it.

I think if we are to do it we need to know the relevant costs including decommissioning and how that will be done. It seems in many parts of the world they went ahead with it hoping a solution to waste would become apparent when the time came. Here is a short doco on the closed-down nuclear power station in the US. It is not a rabidly anti nuclear doco but it does illustrate the need to have a plan for waste an decommissioning. I think it is entirely reasonable and responsible to demand this information before we get on board with this. Finland seems more proactive. The price of this disposal will have to be reflected in the cost of electricity.

PM The thing is that if we go nuclear we are extremely unlikely to be 100% nuclear. I believe that the country with the largest percentage of Nuclear is France at 65%. If we compare a similar country to Australia, lets say Canada, they have 15% nuclear. The bulk of their power is non-nuclear. Electricity sector in Canada Coal: 5.7 (5.7%) Natural gas, oil, and others: 11.8 (11.8%) Nuclear: 14.6 (14.6%) Hydro: 60.2 (60.1%) Non-hydro renewables: 7.8 (7.8%) Whatever happens a large percentage of electricity generation will be non-nuclear unless we do something that no other country has done and go 100% nuclear. As far as 3$ billion in renewable energy certificates, it is my understanding that the proposals for nuclear will involve substantial government financial input. This is how it appears to work in the rest of the world. "Subsidies have been a part of nuclear policy since the beginning of the industry. No nuclear power project has proceeded anywhere without government support." I am not necessarily against government subsidies or nuclear power for that matter, but the economic case has not been presented and I fear it won't be before the next election. It seems pointless to talk about subsidies to wind and solar without the knowledge of subsidies that will be required for nuclear. Again if we build 7 nuclear reactors it it will not be instead of solar and wind etc but as well as.

That's good to hear.

Do you feel I come down on you like a ton of bricks? Or do I just link to data that you are free to dispute? Disagreeing is the lifeblood of this forum. Sometimes all of us can feel we are a voice in the wilderness when the majority of others hold a different opinion. I am happy for people to disagree with me as long as they are willing to back up their assertions and are polite

Yep, overnight night. I lived in a house on a property with no mains power and my battery bank was similar except with more capacity. I was able to power my house overnight. Most days I had the solar capacity to run my house and charge my batteries. This is not a one-off there are plenty of community batteries installed and proposed. it is not just about independence from the grid. Some of these towns have unreliable power due to infrastructure (poles and wires etc) Although a diesel generator may have a lower upfront cost it is also loud smelly and carcinogenic. Benefits of community batteries Allows more rooftop solar and electric devices, such as electric vehicle chargers to be connected. They will strengthen the grid reducing the need to limit (curtail) solar exports and help customers maximise their solar investment. Helps share more solar within the local area, including to households without solar. Creates a positive impact on wholesale electricity prices that could eventually flow through to reduced electricity prices Helps to regulate voltage on the network and improves network quality in the local area. Offers a flexible alternative to traditional poles and wires investment and helps lower network costs. Access to an online information hub where the community can see how much energy was stored and used daily.

In terms of home batteries and safety, I guess it comes down to the a risk-benefit situation. Houses have been burned down by a gas leak and people have died from carbon monoxide poisoning form inadequately ventilation. I think the point is what is the track record of home batteries. Another issue is that battery chemistry is progressing fast. Sodium shows great promise especially for static use although these batteries are in some cars already. First sodium-ion battery EVs go into serial production in China Here is an interesting home "battery" that is available right now https://www.lavo.com.au/lavo-hydrogen/ This is a unit that uses excess solar to produce hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis and then when needed recombines them in a fuel cell. I know what you are thinking hydrogen could explode. The hydrogen is stored not under pressure but within a metal hydride. The downside at this point in time is that it is more expensive than a traditional battery. I foresee a time when each house will power itself. I guess the power retailers will hate that. There are country towns that already have community batteries. One to look at is the town of Yackandandah or Yack as the locals call it. To me, these are interesting times

There is no doubt that society's appetite for electricity will increase. There are factors that will help stem the increase. As you have pointed out rooftop solar is a huge factor. In my case since I have installed solar my monitoring app shows that I have produced 25,4 MWh and I have used 14.8MWh and sent my excess 10.6MWh back to the grid. Of course, I do need the grid for night and adverse weather unless I get a battery or an EV which could also act as a battery. Basically, I with my small system produce much more than I use. Recently flying interstate and landing over the city (Adelaide) it was amazing to see how many houses and factories have panels. EVs may pose some challenges but also are a huge benefit. Overnight the demand for power drops dramatically. There is even a name for it (duck curve) EVs are an advantage when they charge overnight and with v2g technology can sell some back during peak times. This is not fiction but is starting to happen overseas and can be especially useful to fleet owners who operate 9 to 5. I was going to post some links but you can look it up yourself. It is fascinating even exciting to me at least. Data centres have been mentioned. I know many especially Google are working on this, even if only for monetary reasons. "In 2022 – for the sixth consecutive year – Google matched 100 percent of its global annual electricity consumption with purchases of renewable energy." If we need more power generation then it becomes a question of what methods we adopt. We certainly want clean electricity but it also has to be cost effective. My question is, is Nuclear the most economical method when taking into account building running and decommissioning? By the way, look up decommissioning and note the cost and time and the few power stations have been fully decommissioned. I am not totally philosophically opposed to nuclear but it must be shown that it is cheaper and cleaner. Anyone who is on board with the opposition plan must surely have doubts without those questions being answered. Other issues are, who will build them? I doubt we have the expertise here. To those who are totally onboard without knowing the answers to these questions, I would ask them to give me an example of a country similar to Australia so we can see how long it took them to build theirs and how much it cost them and if they have had any challenges. Even if we do go nuclear we will need other clean methods to use in the meantime and to support nuclear. France has been aggressively nuclear and now 70% of its power comes from reactors which means 30% comes from somewhere else. I believe I am being rational by saying I can not decide without knowing the cost, how long will it take to get them online, who will build them and how will waste and decommissioning be handled.

My last post is electricity 2010 to 2023. It shows a modest fall. This of course may not continue. I think some of the factors in this fall are increased efficiencies such as LED lighting etc. Also the enormous uptake of rooftop solar. Economic conditions may also play a part. This small decrease seems to be worldwide.

Annual electricity consumption in the NEM in Australia from financial year 2010 to 2023

Australia’s energy consumption fell 0.1% in 2021-22 to 5,762 PJ, the third successive year of decline and down 7% from the all-time peak of 6,188 PJ in 2018-19. The drop in consumption in 2021-22 was 7 PJ. https://www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-energy-statistics/energy-consumption This is all energy not just electricity. I am still looking for a more clear source.

I believe energy consumption has decreased. I will have a look for the figures. I think the reason is improved efficiencies etc.

My question still stands though. What percentage of our power needs would the 6 or 7 reactors proposed for Australia contribute? Without this information how can anyone make a rational call on this?

I just read that Canada has 19 reactors which generate 15 percent of if it's power needs. What percentage will the 6 or 7 proposed here contribute?

I have not so far expressed a strong opinion and am not necessarily philosophy opposed to nuclear power. I do however need to know the cost of construction and decommissioning. I want to know who would build it. know about waste storage. When I look at recent constructions they do appear to be expensive and slow. I also need to make comparisons with other methods. I think this is fair and open-minded

My son's first EV had this arrangement - BMWI3 very practical in some respects but flawed in other ways

The change from the Julian calender to the Gregorian.

Spacey can you post an actual link. This was the figure in question. No drama though. I thought perhaps a typo

Yes quite correct, Posted in haste I meant the Earth. Certainly not 50 billion.

Billion? the universe is only 4.5 billion years old.