What would a Dutton Liberal leadership mean for the Liberals and the country?

[peetoo]

being modular is a great strength as they can be mass produced by hyundai like a car, reducing costs accordingly

and yes being the equivalent of 10,000 homes means they can service small townships (50% of Australia's diesel is consumed in generation facilities 20MW or less). Is that great to hear?

being cute/ I mean small, means no site works, rather they can sit on the back of a truck

putting 20 next to each other and one has 200MW

Put them on barges in harbours and if they go rogue. Tow them back to where they came from

Which is probably China. They seem to be leading edge these days

 

[Power Raid]

Awesome… so we will have nuclear reactors getting moved around by trucks… sounds safe.

yes you're right, it is safe.

MMR technology means you can open a reactor with a can opener and no radiation leaks

 

[Power Raid]

Put them on barges in harbours and if they go rogue. Tow them back to where they came from

Which is probably China. They seem to be leading edge these days

the whole idea behind 3D printed fuel rods is they can't catch fire and the MMR technology means when the reactor is compromised, the moderator gas is released and thus the system stops immediately

as such there is no safe working zone required


This is why I advocate waiting for Canada to commission the first reactor, rather than adopting a Gen 3.5 (a 40 year old technology)

 

[Power Raid]

They are not that small though - this is Dutton in front of a schematic SMR - it is the size of a shopping centre

View attachment 2150021

this looks like a failed SMR


It probably started its life as a 50MW SMR but couldn't get the economics right, so it grew to 200 to 500MW (without looking). to get the economies of scale.


Terra Power "had" the best technology but required mass markets and the Trump ban on nuclear technology sharing with China meant they were doomed.

Rolls Royce is an example of the failed small, so let's get big as per above.

China has a few interesting reactor concepts.

Russia was first but I'd rather work in Chernobyl than work near their SMRs (two are commissioned)

Chalk River is the concept I like, everything is manufactured with 3D printing, remote operation, demand responsive, modular, scalable, fail safe and affordable.



The Navy will have 12 reactors, the army wants 10+ and snowy river is talking 2 dozen or more. BHP will be my punt on the first owner or recipient of the power.

 

[Power Raid]

There are 3 great hopes for supporting renewable power. Nuclear and Hydro being two that currently work.

The other is Green Hydrogen.

The problem with Green Hydrogen from electrolysis (which is all but 2 projects in Australia) is they are DANGEROUS. Electrolysis means PFAS (forever chemicals related to cancer, diabetes, foetal mortality etc).

They are associated with ammonia which destroys marine environments.

They don't work with Green Energy and thus fail in their mandate.

The hydrogen hubs are a complete disaster and thus why FMG, Origin etc all all stepping away. That's $4B-8B of tax payer money wasted into programs that will have a disastrous health and environmental outcome.

Green hydrogen without electrolysis will work though.

 

[QuietB]

this looks like a failed SMR


It probably started its life as a 50MW SMR but couldn't get the economics right, so it grew to 200 to 500MW (without looking). to get the economies of scale.


Terra Power "had" the best technology but required mass markets and the Trump ban on nuclear technology sharing with China meant they were doomed.

Rolls Royce is an example of the failed small, so let's get big as per above.

China has a few interesting reactor concepts.

Russia was first but I'd rather work in Chernobyl than work near their SMRs (two are commissioned)

Chalk River is the concept I like, everything is manufactured with 3D printing, remote operation, demand responsive, modular, scalable, fail safe and affordable.



The Navy will have 12 reactors, the army wants 10+ and snowy river is talking 2 dozen or more. BHP will be my punt on the first owner or recipient of the power.

Hmmm, so just to be clear, we cannot continue to invest billions in renewables because it is unproven technology that has not worked yet, so we should instead invest billions in SMR's which are also unproven technology.

Australia does not have a lot of time to resolve this. And Australia certainly does not have time to wait.

 

[Gough]

Hmmm, so just to be clear, we cannot continue to invest billions in renewables because it is unproven technology that has not worked yet, so we should instead invest billions in SMR's which are also unproven technology.

Australia does not have a lot of time to resolve this. And Australia certainly does not have time to wait.

As much as anything I think this nuclear "debate" is about destabilising investment in new renewables projects going forward. Gina Rinehart is happy wrap herself in the flag and live out her sporting fantasies vicariously through the swimming team but she's equally happy to sabotage a sustainable future for the country if there's no money in it for her.

 

[E Shed]

Michael Kean said yesterday no one , even the Libs out there pitching it believes this is anything more than a blatant bid to prolong the use of fossil fuels or that a nuclear reactor will ever be built in Australia.

 

[Sphynx]

Michael Kean said yesterday no one , even the Libs out there pitching it believes this is anything more than a blatant bid to prolong the use of fossil fuels or that a nuclear reactor will ever be built in Australia.

A nuclear reactor has already been built in Australia and has been operational for nearing 20 years.

It's nowhere as big as a 1,600mW commercial power reactor, but it still requires strict management of nuclear waste like spent fuel rods and light water from cooling pools etc.

We are literally in the process of building a new Nuclear Waste containment facility in South Australia to manage the increased waste capacity generated from it since it was built.

We are also going to have to invest heavily in the industry also if we eventually do get these Submarines.

There's added benefits to an expanded sovereign nuclear industry outside of simply power generation in regards to sovereign defence manufacturing, health, research etc.

 

[Not Important]

well, at the very least, a propagandist rather than a journo. a lot of ‘em at rupes diarrhea factory

 

[Power Raid]

Hmmm, so just to be clear, we cannot continue to invest billions in renewables because it is unproven technology that has not worked yet, so we should instead invest billions in SMR's which are also unproven technology.

Australia does not have a lot of time to resolve this. And Australia certainly does not have time to wait.

No, wrong understanding of my position

We should invest in renewables but we know renewables are ineffective at delivering low CO2 per kWh unless back up by hydro or nuclear. Haste alone doesn't work based on this simple fact.

Nuclear is a proven technology but my preference is to wait on the next Gen reactors (2028), as they will meet our needs better than current Gen. Given reactors last 40 years for MMRs, whilst SMR and Gen 3.5 are 80 years, 4 years is a small wait rather than living 76 years with the wrong technology.

Planning now does make sense though, as this will take 3 to 7 years alone. Part of this planning though is understanding if adding renewables to the grid increases over all CO2 per kWh as we see globally. This will help shape our overall investment decisions.