Is there a role for nuclear energy?

[Outlaw Yogi]

See, every one of your proposals is entirely dependent on externalising all cost and transfering unsolved complications to others/elsewhere. And it wouldn't matter where the electricity used in MOX processing came from, hexaflouride is still a very potent GHG.

[Jovial Monk]

My concern is the world and the danger GHG emissions pose it. You just want to gut-think “nuclear oooohhhhhhhh bad!” when it does not have to be bad.

Have you tried to cost a real multi-megawatt solar thermal station?

Have you asked yourself why there aren’t any windfarms on both sides of Backstairs Passage? The answer to that question is that the fucking Greens, spouting mindless drivel about renewable energy, would oppose such windfarms for cynical vote-buying reasons “it will spoil my nice view.” The Greens, by opposing and voting down the CPRS with the other CC-denier party, the Lib//Nat coalition, destroyed the renewable energy industry (there was no value in renewable energy certificates in the absence of the CPRS) still want to bullshit on and on about renewables.

We no longer have time for such gut-thinking feel-good crap! It is time for clear thinking and action. Only nuclear will do it. End of story. We have the thorium, we have a plethora of cratonised areas providing completely seismic inert and safe ground to site such nuke stations.

[Outlaw Yogi]

We no longer have time for such gut-thinking feel-good crap!

But that's precisely what you're doing with nuke spruiking ... even if ... nuke was an economically viable and genuine GHG emission abatement method .. which is yet to be the case .. new conventional (LWR) reactors take 15 to 20 years to bring online, and comercially viable breeders are not expected till 2050. So even if we could afford it, and it was able to live upto its promises, its still too far off into the future to be of any use to us now.

The planet is rapidly *morphing already. We need proven and affordable options yesterday.
Nuke has never been affordable and as costs continue to increase will become even less viable.
And and history keeps showing, whenever nuke facilities go bung, we're never adequately equipted to deal with it.

Now if ror argument's sake (seismic) Japan had tapped into its geothermal capacity like (seismic) NZ, and the hypothetical geothermal power station got hit by tsunami or quake, the biggest problem (associated with plant per se) would be the loss of power in that area.

Examples of morphing planet >

Disappearing Glacier Reveals Antarctic Wonders
http://www.earthweek.com/2011/ew110429/ew110429b.html

King Crabs Invade Antarctica
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 191022.htm

[Jovial Monk]

Like I said, the Greens have fucked renewables here and really have no idea of the scale of investment needed and will oppose most sites chosen for windfarms or solar thermal. Too cynical, too interested in vote chasing.

So where does that leave us?

Leaves us with 4th Gen nuke is what, until fusion can take over. We can site it safely, half or more of Australia is cratonised. Little waste, BH a secure site to dispose of that 1Km below the surface.

The one possible alternative is geothermal in the Cooper Basin—the ones tried to date the country rocks are too fractured and too much steam is lost. That won’t supply all of Australia tho.

[Outlaw Yogi]

This is not about the Greens, or John Howard's plan for 25 reactors in OZ, its about the viability of nuke power as an affordable power source and/or a GHG emission abatement method, neither of which nuke has been or is even likely to be in the near future able to achieve.

Here's another nail in the nuke power coffin for you to try and extract (especially with regards to OZ).
Since the virtual elimination of CFCs and use of methral brohmide restricted to customs and quarantine authorities, the major cause for ozone damage is hexaflouride, and as the ozone holes have now found to be major factors regarding the GW/CC phenomena, hexaflouride emissions from nuke fuel processing makes nuke power a major contributer of GW/CC in 2 ways.
1 as a very potent GHG itself (like all halogenated substances) and 2 and an ozone destroyer.

Antarctic Ozone Hole Reshapes Hemispheric Climate
http://www.earthweek.com/2011/ew110429/ew110429c.html


If you hate the world, and want to destroy it for revenge, nuke is the best option.

[Jovial Monk]

More gut-thinking!

What do you propose instead? Fairy tales of solar thermal? Just about every bit of crap you have posted is about Gen 1. I am talking about Gen 4.

Renewables are a pipedream, the opiate of the Green class

[Outlaw Yogi]

More gut-thinking!

No, your unwavering support for nuke on the grounds of GHG reduction, in spite of the fact nuke is a double wammy GW/CC contributer, means you are just not thinking at all, as is typical with devotees/believers of discredited concepts regardless of abysmal histories. And explains why you keep repeating debunked myths.

What do you propose instead?

Lots of things, there's a plethora of options.

Fairy tales of solar thermal?

Well numerous other places have implemented this fairytale option.
What's the bet that if we researched the number of (current and intended) nuke reactor plant and solar thermal plant constructions, or even have contracts signed for, solar thermal trumps nuke reactor.

Just about every bit of crap you have posted is about Gen 1. I am talking about Gen 4.

Bull$#!+ you pretentious little queer, you have just made it quite clear you don't even research or have a comprehension of the topics you tout. I have posted (numerous times now) material citing design faults and failures of the very contraptions you advocate, plus multiple fuel related factors and its variable outcomes.

For example you propose feeding fast breeders thorium in stead of non-fissiong uranium (238), but either way you've got to use plutonium to achieve reaction, and wind up with a $#!+load more plutonium.

Renewables are a pipedream, the opiate of the Green class

Generally, what is unaffordable is a pipedream, so for example to most individuals a Ferrari or a castle in Scotland is unaffordable, and for most countries nuke power and space travel programs are unaffordable.
So any country with less money than natural resources nuke and space is out, unless they're chasing nuke weapons in which case ideology overules economics. Any country with debt problems is also out, the bank won't lend you money to buy a Ferrari if you're bankrupt .. eg U$A.

Then on the flip side, while proposals spruiking campaigning and promotion of nuke power ramps up due to nuke industry lobbying along side similar lobbying for renewables from the general community, it is the renewables projects that are getting the nod or are under construction.


Now here's a question on ethics and accountability for you ... bet you dodge it.
Should those in Tokyo who benefited from Fukushima nuke facilities via use of electricity from Fukushima be liable to monetarily compensate those elsewhere (including other countries) who's property, environment or livelyhood/income stream is impacted from radioactive contamination?

Radiation Detected In Drinking Water In 13 More US Cities, Cesium-137 In Vermont Milk
http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/201 ... mont-milk/

[Jovial Monk]

Do you have any idea of the size and complexity of a real ST plant? One that could provide say half or quarter of Sydney with baseload electricity? Do you?

Nothing like that will ever be built. The biggest ST plant is in Spain and it serves barely 80,000 people (could be less, could be more.)

That is a fairy tale. Such a ST plant would need to be built in NW Australia to get the concentrated sunshine, then the power would have to be sent over high voltage DC cables all the way to Sydney. Have you any conception of what is involved? Not a fucking clue, just gut thinking, nukular ooohhhh bad, renewables good would be about the extent of it.

Greens would and have opposed windfarms, that leaves tidal or wave. Just pathetic.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Nothing like that will ever be built.

PV example:
Gillard spruiks massive solar power project
http://www.efarming.com.au/News/general ... oject.html

CS Energy will spend $104 million installing solar panels at the plant which will generate an extra 44,000 megawatt hours of electricity per year.

Now how much does a reactor project cost?
Well the world's only reactor currently under construction (excepting in China and those clandestinely built by rogue states) is in Finland.
Before signing up they were quoted $3 billion, but now the company says it'll cost $6 billion, which is still pretty cheap compared to what the yanks have paid. Basic reactor facilities used to cost about $5.7 billion, but typical projects were in the $10-12 billion range, so probably about $15 billion by now.

Solar thermal example:
China to open bidding for solar thermal plant this year
http://cnbusinessnews.com/china-to-open ... this-year/

This year, China will open bidding for a concession on a new solar thermal power-generation site, which follows the successful establishment of the Dunhuang 10 megawatt photovoltaic power-generation project last year.

The project, to be located in Inner Mongolia, has a designed power generation capacity of 50 megawatts, five times bigger than the Dunhuang photovoltaic project.

Another solar thermal example where each suburb town or village could have its own mini power station.
Solar Thermal Plant Opened
http://www.thecropsite.com/news/5135/so ... ant-opened

The 2MW thermal energy project which spans across 3.8 acres in the hot Kona desert utilizes 1,000 Sopogy proprietary MicroCSP solar panels.

Through the use of mirrors and optics and an integrated sun tracker, these panels achieve higher efficiencies than conventional solar panels.

With the initialisation of the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, the state has become a magnet for renewable energy project development. Sopogy and its local solar project development partner Keahole Solar Power have a goal to bring 30 megawatts of MicroCSP power to the state by 2015.

Now I grew up just across the Woronora river from the Lucas Heights reactor site, and like thousands or hundreds of thousands of other kids know all the bush tracks and terrain surrounding at and around Lucas Heights because that's where we rode our trail bikes. Neither the old 10MW HIFAR or new 20 MW OPAL reactors are for power generation. The reactor containment building itself is no bigger than an astrological observatory but the reactor facilty site looks about 150 acres or more.


U.S. Approves World’s Largest Solar-Thermal Plant
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-1 ... plant.html

The world’s largest power plant using heat from the sun to generate electricity, a planned $6 billion project in California, won approval from U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Salazar approved on Oct. 5 projects in California proposed by Chevron Corp. and Tessera Solar, a unit of the closely held, Dublin-based utility NTR Plc. Before today’s announcement, four solar facilities on public lands in California and a project in Nevada with capacity to generate a total of 1,800 megawatts of electricity won approval this month. A megawatt is enough to power about 800 average U.S. homes, according to the Energy Department.

Blythe Solar will cover 7,025 acres on a site 216 miles (348 kilometers) east of Los Angeles, producing as many as 1,000 megawatts, the Interior Department said. The facility will use rows of parabolic mirrors to focus the sun’s energy onto tubes that carry heated oil to a boiler, which sends steam to a turbine.

Ausra's Las Vegas solar thermal plant comes online
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9980815-54.html

Solar thermal company Ausra on Monday opened a Las Vegas factory meant to produce enough equipment each year to provide 700 megawatts of power.

The 130,000-square-foot facility is designed to manufacture massive mirrors and absorber tubes, employing 50 workers and leading to the creation of 1,400 construction jobs at solar sites.

Ausra makes utility-scale solar equipment that it says costs 30 percent to 40 percent less than photovoltaics. Its compact fresnel reflectors use relatively small amounts of steel and the same kind of glass used in building construction, according to Ausra.

"We're ready to respond now with a clean, reliable, and cost-competitive energy choice that will be an economic development machine for the country," Ausra CEO Robert Fishman said in a statement. Developers in southern Nevada are planning more than $50 billion worth of solar installations, he added.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Japan's wind turbines keep the lights on
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-rig ... 37172.html

... there has been no wind facility damage reported by any association members, from either the earthquake or the tsunami. Even the Kamisu semi-offshore wind farm, located about 300km from the epicenter of the quake, survived. Its anti-earthquake "battle proof design" came through with flying colors.

Mr. Ueda confirms that most Japanese wind turbines are fully operational. Indeed, he says that electric companies have asked wind farm owners to step up operations as much as possible in order to make up for shortages in the eastern part of the country:

Eurus Energy Japan says that 174.9MW with eight wind farms (64% of their total capacity with 11 wind farms in eastern part of Japan) are in operation now. The residual three wind farms (Kamaishi 42.9MW, Takinekoshirai 46MW, Satomi 10.02MW) are stopped due to the grid failure caused by the earthquake and Tsunami. Satomi is to re-start operations in a few days. Kamaishi is notorious for tsunami disaster, but this wind farm is safe because it is locate in the mountains about 900m high from sea level.

The largest wind farm operator in Japan, Eurus Energy with about 22% of all wind turbines in Japan, is a subsidiary of Tokyo Electric Company (TEPCO) which operates the Fukushima nuclear facility. Right now, it is likely the company is very happy about its diversified portfolio:

While shares in the Tokyo stock market have fallen during the crisis, the stock price of Japan Wind Development Co. Ltd. has risen from 31,500 yen on 11 March to 47,800 yen on 16 March.