Science/Environment Nuclear power: The ultimate climate solution

[Werewolf]

Werewolf ?

I'm predicting a "no contest"

Obviously nuclear wins easily. You need about 400 wind turbines to produce 1000 MW (one nuclear power station) - that's heaps of real estate gone. At least most people can realistically own solar panels - the ones at my parents' place have basically eliminated their energy bills!

I think Andrew Birch posted a comparison in the CC thread. Then factor in the lifetime of a Gen III plant which has been estimated at 60+ years, but in practice could be extended to 100+ years (considering that most Gen II plants have already exceeded their lifetimes)

 

[Mofra]

Would be interesting to get a comparison of the land mass used versus terrawatt hours of energy produced each year for nuclear v solar/wind.

The logical place to build a nuclear plant would be on the site of a decommissioned coal plant (due primarily to existing infrastructure) so for a nuclear plant it may as well be factored in as zero additional land mass required.

That's of course excluding the NIMBYism any proposed plant would attract.

 

[Bazzar]

The logical place to build a nuclear plant would be on the site of a decommissioned coal plant (due primarily to existing infrastructure) so for a nuclear plant it may as well be factored in as zero additional land mass required.

That's of course excluding the NIMBYism any proposed plant would attract.

True, but im concerned with the massive ammount of land used with wind/solar when we should be a nuclear based country.

 

[Mofra]

True, but im concerned with the massive ammount of land used with wind/solar when we should be a nuclear based country.

According to the AEMO, over 1/5th of our power generation by 2040 is likely to come from rooftop solar.

2020 Integrated System Plan (ISP)

The 2020 ISP is currently under development, with a detailed timeline shown below. The consultation on scenarios, inputs and assumptions was completed in August 2019. The Draft 2020 ISP has now been released, and consultation on this document opened on 12th December 2019, along with a separate...

www.aemo.com.au

Windfarms can co-exist with existing farming areas, like they do around Ararat.
The private sector (guys from Atlassian) are building an enormous solar plant in the top end to supply Singapore with power via undersea cable.

The issue isn't so much the land used to generate the power, it's reconfiguring the grid that is the major concern. Our power mix means a higher proportion of our power is being generated away from the old coal grid network which is in need of overhaul anyway.

 

[Papa G]

Why do people always use the time frame as an excuse? The Snowy Mountains Hydro scheme took 25 years to complete. I finished school in 1991. It feels like yesterday. Long term planning is what is necessary. The Chinese understand this.

 

[Deliverance]

It won't be the coal lobby protesting in the streets

Nope, they'll just spend another 60 million on anti Labour advertising at the next election.

 

[Mofra]

Why do people always use the time frame as an excuse? The Snowy Mountains Hydro scheme took 25 years to complete. I finished school in 1991. It feels like yesterday. Long term planning is what is necessary. The Chinese understand this.

Mostly because of the current pollies we have. Their timeframe is 'next election'.

 

[Messenger]

Mostly because of the current pollies we have. Their timeframe is 'next election'.

True, but we are also discussing a technology that in its most “desirable” form, won’t be realised in this country this side of 2035 at least. If it posited as the lynchpin of the decarbonisation process it is going to be much too late on the scene to meet our climate needs. Renewables on a large scale with batteries can be delivered on a shorter timeframe.

I‘m not convinced of nuclear on the basis of safety. Big problems are rare, but outcomes can be significant. These reactors would be built near or in metropolitan areas.

 

[Mofra]

I‘m not convinced of nuclear on the basis of safety. Big problems are rare, but outcomes can be significant. These reactors would be built near or in metropolitan areas.

There were figure earlier in this thread showing nuclear is the safest form of energy on an incident per GW basis.
Hazelwood is 150km+ away from Melbourne in any case.

The most recent nuclear projects have had enormous cost and time delays though, that still projects as a huge hurdle even if the regulatory/political side could be resolved (I'm not hopeful).

 

[Messenger]

There were figure earlier in this thread showing nuclear is the safest form of energy on an incident per GW basis.
Hazelwood is 150km+ away from Melbourne in any case.

The most recent nuclear projects have had enormous cost and time delays though, that still projects as a huge hurdle even if the regulatory/political side could be resolved (I'm not hopeful).

Understood (Although measuring as a rate per GW is interesting), but some outcomes are not injuries or death.

There are still 150k+ people excluded from the area around Fukushima. Put that 30km zone around a theoretical reactor at Hazelwood and you’ve just evacuated Moe, Morwell and Traralgon.

When it goes wrong with Nuclear, it goes very bad very quickly.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Obviously nuclear wins easily. You need about 400 wind turbines to produce 1000 MW (one nuclear power station) - t

You also need wind.

 

[Lethality]

Understood (Although measuring as a rate per GW is interesting), but some outcomes are not injuries or death.

There are still 150k+ people excluded from the area around Fukushima. Put that 30km zone around a theoretical reactor at Hazelwood and you’ve just evacuated Moe, Morwell and Traralgon.

When it goes wrong with Nuclear, it goes very bad very quickly.

I don't think there's going to be any tsunamis around Moe anytime soon though.

 

[Messenger]

I don't think there's going to be any tsunamis around Moe anytime soon though.

You can’t imagine any other issues?

A entire facility for producing radiopharmaceuticals failed because a single valve got stuck in the wrong position. It took weeks before they could fix it because it was in the middle of a hot cell, so they needed to wait four weeks while the radioactivity was either removed (and some of it physically couldn’t be removed) or decayed to a level that was safe for humans to enter.

In Australia. Last year.

Now there were people affected (patients) and it cost a number of groups a lot of money but it wasn’t a “nuclear accident” in the sense we’re discussing. It was, however, an event caused by a mechanical failure that couldn’t be rectified immediately because it wasn’t physically possible to do safely.

Modern reactors have complex computer systems, algorithms and “AI” and will have rigorous safety protocols. As they should.

But they also have their fair share of mechanical components and 10 cent LED lights and transistors too. They may also have some humans involved*.

So a problem doesn’t have to be a cataclysmic event. It can be a faulty valve or a busted piece of electronics or a mistake in an algorithm (Boeing 737 Max) or some other unforseen mechanical issue. It can just be a human error ****up. The truck carrying fuel rods down the Monash at 2am has an accident. Use your imagination.

So my point about nuclear is that for all the processes and systems reducing the probability of an incident to close to zero, it isn’t zero and will never be zero. And if you have a major incident the ability of governments and emergency services to mitigate this sort of incident is very limited with the health and social ramifications played out over a generation.


*automated to within an inch of its life. Those coal jobs are still going to disappear.

 

[quotemokc]

You can’t imagine any other issues?

A entire facility for producing radiopharmaceuticals failed because a single valve got stuck in the wrong position. It took weeks before they could fix it because it was in the middle of a hot cell, so they needed to wait four weeks while the radioactivity was either removed (and some of it physically couldn’t be removed) or decayed to a level that was safe for humans to enter.

In Australia. Last year.

Now there were people affected (patients) and it cost a number of groups a lot of money but it wasn’t a “nuclear accident” in the sense we’re discussing. It was, however, an event caused by a mechanical failure that couldn’t be rectified immediately because it wasn’t physically possible to do safely.

Modern reactors have complex computer systems, algorithms and “AI” and will have rigorous safety protocols. As they should.

But they also have their fair share of mechanical components and 10 cent LED lights and transistors too. They may also have some humans involved*.

So a problem doesn’t have to be a cataclysmic event. It can be a faulty valve or a busted piece of electronics or a mistake in an algorithm (Boeing 737 Max) or some other unforseen mechanical issue. It can just be a human error fu**up. The truck carrying fuel rods down the Monash at 2am has an accident. Use your imagination.

So my point about nuclear is that for all the processes and systems reducing the probability of an incident to close to zero, it isn’t zero and will never be zero. And if you have a major incident the ability of governments and emergency services to mitigate this sort of incident is very limited with the health and social ramifications played out over a generation.


*automated to within an inch of its life. Those coal jobs are still going to disappear.

 

[Messenger]

Some adverse outcomes are not deaths.

We can put this in your suburb, then?

 

[quotemokc]

Some adverse outcomes are not deaths.

We can put this in your suburb, then?

You sure can.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Some adverse outcomes are not deaths.

We can put this in your suburb, then?

Hey, you can always choose to disconnect your power from any source that offends your ethics.

No one is forcing you to use any of this stuff.

 

[Messenger]

Hey, you can always choose to disconnect your power from any source that offends your ethics.

No one is forcing you to use any of this stuff.

My objection isn’t ethical.

I‘m not using it now and I don’t believe I ever will.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Rolls-Royce factory plan puts nuclear reactors on mini scale

Rolls-Royce plans on building mini nuclear reactors, which could be in operation by 2029. They are less the size of traditional nuclear reactors and they do not take as many years to build.

techxplore.com

 

[Snake_Baker]

SANITY!

 

[Power Raid]

Understood (Although measuring as a rate per GW is interesting), but some outcomes are not injuries or death.

There are still 150k+ people excluded from the area around Fukushima. Put that 30km zone around a theoretical reactor at Hazelwood and you’ve just evacuated Moe, Morwell and Traralgon.

When it goes wrong with Nuclear, it goes very bad very quickly.

Gen 4 can’t go critical, meaning that safety zone isn’t required

 

[Power Raid]

Obviously nuclear wins easily. You need about 400 wind turbines to produce 1000 MW (one nuclear power station) - that's heaps of real estate gone. At least most people can realistically own solar panels - the ones at my parents' place have basically eliminated their energy bills!

I think Andrew Birch posted a comparison in the CC thread. Then factor in the lifetime of a Gen III plant which has been estimated at 60+ years, but in practice could be extended to 100+ years (considering that most Gen II plants have already exceeded their lifetimes)

It’s actually 1,000 wind turbines = 1,000 MW power station as the efficiency is so low

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Why do people always use the time frame as an excuse? The Snowy Mountains Hydro scheme took 25 years to complete. I finished school in 1991. It feels like yesterday. Long term planning is what is necessary. The Chinese understand this.

It's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy at the moment; we can guarantee nuclear will never happen in our lifetime if we keep debating whether nuclear will happen in our lifetime.

The same excuse was trotted out 15 years ago; nuclear would take too long to build and coal would need to be phased out sooner. Yet 15 years on, coal is still here and so is the tired argument of nuclear will take too long to establish.

 

[Mofra]

Rolls-Royce factory plan puts nuclear reactors on mini scale

Rolls-Royce plans on building mini nuclear reactors, which could be in operation by 2029. They are less the size of traditional nuclear reactors and they do not take as many years to build.

techxplore.com

This is most likely the only chance we have of building nuclear in Australia. Existing mini-reactors on decommissioned power sites in Australia.

It would provide other opportunities - e.g. re-establishing aluminium smelting capacity in Australia so we become more than just exporters of bulk ore. Portland smelter uses ~25% of Victoria's power generation, it would be a massive boost to the region to not have to transmit power from 400km away and have a local power source that will allow expansion of the facility.

 

[Snake_Baker]