nomadpete Posted September 18 Posted September 18 7 minutes ago, facthunter said: What have they done with EVERYTHING? SELL it cheaper than anyone Else can? Nev Not really. They play business with long term goals, not short term profit. The asian mindset is that business is like war. They act for the long term good of china, which does not always mean selling stuff. 1
facthunter Posted September 18 Posted September 18 Care to share some examples? ALL countries don't share Military based technology. The ASIAN mind (if such a thing is exclusive) is Trading for Profit and they work Hard. Nev
Siso Posted September 18 Posted September 18 Can you list problems with nuclear that are not political or public perception, not Chernobyl or Fukushima 1
pmccarthy Posted September 18 Author Posted September 18 In 70 years and with a total of 667 nuclear power plants that have ever operated, only three major accidents have taken place. Using the official internationally-recognized death statistics for Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, the combined loss of lives from the three major nuclear accidents is 32 people. In fact, estimates on the number of deaths caused by the nuclear energy sector overall is 90 per 1000TWh—the least of any energy sector. 2
facthunter Posted September 19 Posted September 19 Decommissioning and safe waste disposal and COST, Can't be ramped up and down easily, security in war and is Centralised and needs cooling. Anyone can check these things IF they really want to. Nev
onetrack Posted September 19 Posted September 19 The true cost of nuclear power is well hidden, though, and it can't be measured just by accidents, and lives lost in those nuclear accidents. The true cost has to involve the total cost of nuclear waste, and the clean-up costs for those accidents mentioned - and for any potential future accidents. Too many areas selected for nuclear power plants are earthquake-prone. And I can't believe it's only 32 deaths in total - hundreds died from radioactivity exposure during the Chernobyl cleanup, the Russians are good at hiding casualties, they just bury them with falsified records, or non-existent records. 1
Siso Posted September 19 Posted September 19 Decommissioning cost can be added to the electricity cost, part of a cent/kW. I believe this is how it is done in the US. Newer nuclear plants are built with decommissioning in mind. The spent fuel is no more hazardous than many other chemicals that we use that are dangerous forever, just gets a lot more publicity. The nasty stuff decays in 300 or 500 years depending who you ask. Most of the rest can be recycled and reused-France. Pretty well all can be used if fast reactors become main stream. It was found that the waste products in the natural reactor in Oklo Gambon didn't migrate far from the reactor. (energyprof -youtube.) Nuclear can be ramped up and down. Frances reactors do this pretty well every day. Traditionally it wasn't a priority in the design as they just ran flat out. There are newer reactors that have this in mind and are being usd to heat a salt like the coal plant does in Ireland with pumped hydro. The generator runs flat out, fills the dam at night and then get extra capacity. New design of reactor, some of which have been built have passive cooling. The whole war thing is the only thing I have reservations about. France exporting about 12GWs at the moment 2.16 into industrial basket case Germany. Unfortunately Australia has no France or Sweden. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR/72h/hourly 1
facthunter Posted September 19 Posted September 19 France has Probably done it better than anybody. Nev 1
pmccarthy Posted September 19 Author Posted September 19 Many natural elements such as arsenic are poisonous forever and have no half-life. Thousands, perhaps millions of tonnes of arsenic are produced every year in processing ores of copper and gold alone. It is safely managed and disposed of. 1 1
facthunter Posted September 19 Posted September 19 Radioactivity works differently as you well Know. Arsenic is NOT managed safely, Really. Nev 1
Siso Posted September 21 Posted September 21 Used fuel can be managed safely and will only get better. Only problem is uninformed public and politicians. People are getting cancers from badly manage chemicals all the time from houses built on contaminated sites, bad ground water, asbestos etc. Radiation is easily detected. 1
nomadpete Posted September 21 Posted September 21 Thread title: 'Albo to the Rescue' Albo (Trump lite) is unlikely to Rescue anything other than foreign owned salmon farms and fossil fuel interests. 1 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted September 21 Posted September 21 I think Chump lite is a little harsh... One of the issues Labor has is that the press is generally hostile towards it.. If he takes policies against the interests of those that pay the media for their advertising, those whose interests are being challenged will instruct their media fellas that no play, no pay. And, people still believe everythign they read, or allow it to feed their confirmation bias, and votes are lost. The other issue is the electorate will likely punish any sitting party that makes it more expensive in the short term, even if prices will eventuall drop and the economy becomes competitive again. Of course, that is assuming prices will lower.. Leaving markets to private enterprise where there is a monopoly or concentration of large players often means the market doesn't enter price wars because of this thing called collective pretoction of interests.. in this case to preserve margins. 1 1
pmccarthy Posted September 21 Author Posted September 21 Press is hostile to Labor? On which planet? 1 1
pmccarthy Posted September 21 Author Posted September 21 Australia will not hit the targets of 62-70 per cent reduction by 2035 and net zero by 2050 because the logistics of doing so require new forests the size of half of Victoria to be grown in 10 years, followed by further forests the size of two Tasmanias. These plantations are not to be grown in the outback, either, but on existing farmland near the coast. 1
Siso Posted September 21 Posted September 21 We are only at about 40%? after 15 years or so which has been the easy part. If we are going to continue down the weather dependent intermittents path it is going to get a lot harder because we need to build all the supporting infrastructure, a lot which will be underutilised anyway.- batterys, syncons some more gas turbines to replace the older ones and transmission as well as the extra generation. Pipe Dream! Has anybody heard the cost to the tax payer and electricity consumer? 1
facthunter Posted September 21 Posted September 21 (edited) See what Matt Keene has to say about COST and note who agrees with him. Tassie is 200% renewable NOW. "Weather Dependent Intermittants" A very LOADED description. are used in CONJUNCTION with Pumped Hydro and Batteries. A LARGE % of Australians WANT action and CERTAINTY on Climate action . Taking none is NOT an OPTION. Nev Edited September 21 by facthunter extra content 2
Siso Posted September 22 Posted September 22 Pumped hydro and battery's don't generate electricity. Not a loaded description, just describes Australia's situation, only about 7% traditional hydro available, the rest is weather depended intermittent generation. Any country in the world that has decarbonised their electricity grid has large amounts of traditional hydro or/and NP. No one really knows how much it will cost, but the government will just keep throwing OUR money at it as it looks like they did on the Weekend. Not sure Matt Keanes opinion would be non biased. It is just as easy to find someone who does not agree with him. Tassie also use Victoria's Brown coal through the Bass Link and run there gas turbines regularly so not really even 100% renewable. Last time gas turbines ran August 2025
facthunter Posted September 22 Posted September 22 The water is recycled. Keane's Job is what? He's always been a Facts Person. .Your first sentence is a statement of the Obvious and wasn't what I was referring to either. Nev
Siso Posted September 22 Posted September 22 Open Electricity: Tasmania Tassies energy profile last 12 months. gas is orange, purple imports from Victoria. In the real physical world, Tassie isn't 100% renewable. Using creative accounting, maybe.
Grumpy Old Nasho Posted September 22 Posted September 22 Albo is a hypocrite, he travels on commercial jets that belch out noxious fumes into the atmosphere. At any one time, there are thousands of jets in the air ... https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/number-of-planes-in-air
Siso Posted September 22 Posted September 22 17 minutes ago, facthunter said: Look at the Most recent figures. Nev Creative accounting, look at the link, real world generation. All the planning for net 0 has been done by modelling which isn't always accurate. CSIRO won't release the modelling. Open Electricity: Tasmania
facthunter Posted September 22 Posted September 22 Your source showed what I was saying. I spent a lot of time going through it. Things are changing fast regarding Generation and transmission down there. My supplier is Momentum, and has been for a long time. Nev 1
pmccarthy Posted September 22 Author Posted September 22 Modelling is not just inaccurate, it is totally unreliable and unverifiable. Models with dozens of input variables are meaningless. They can be tweaked to prove whatever political point you are trying to make 1 1
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now