+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread (/thread-4986.html)
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - dodge - 06-25-2024
Nuclear needed to be actioned a long time ago (if it is going to happen)
- There is commentary that the proposal will deliver 4% of our power. Does this justify the investment?
- Need water for plants (1,514L and 2,725L litres of water per MWh although a lot is recylced through the plant)
- Coal power will be gone by the time nuclear will be ready, so need to be ready to replace that energy with a non nuclear solution.
- There is going to be years of site suitability and type of generator etc discussion
- Talk of complementing renewables, but to get the best value, would need to run at 100%. It isn't a Victorian Salinty plant (that's never been used?)
- There will be a lot of debate about the sites proposed - state forest WA, Perisher, Latrobe Valley, port augusta etc
- I do hope the 'three eyed fish' from Simpsons doesn't come out - I think they're past that
- I also hope no politician talks about cheap energy. Just 'install' the best mix for our country.
Hopefully there will be more detail released and hopefully there can be sensible debate about which option. This should be bipartisan, but given the the parliamentary state is to oppose each other and be beligerent, it is doubtful that it will happen.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - LP - 06-25-2024
(06-25-2024, 12:31 PM)DJC date Wrote:It really is pie in the sky.And yet nuclear is guaranteed to deliver base load to 100% of the grid, in that regard it's very real as opposed to the solar, wind, battery fantasy.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - LP - 06-25-2024
(06-25-2024, 02:08 PM)dodge date Wrote:- Need water for plants (1,514L and 2,725L litres of water per MWh although a lot is recylced through the plant)[member=181]dodge[/member] As distinct from alarmists and crackpots, real world engineers will tell you there is a very good reason that in a country like Australia nuclear is best paired with desalination plants, you solve two problems in one hit!
The nuclear plant needs water, as do coal, gas, geothermal or solar thermal facilities, but when coupled with a desalination plant the site makes more water than it uses. You're actually getting two services for the operating costs, energy and fresh water. Not building nuclear and desalination pairs is almost negligent management.
Further, modern desalination plants can be structured in such a way that they produce hydrogen as a by-product, in many older desalination plants hydrogen is an unwanted by-product that burnt off or disposed of by other means. In fairness it's not just hydrogen that is a valuable by-product, there are many trace elements that come out of the desalination process that make it a valuable exercise.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - dodge - 06-25-2024
I'm not sure the Aust political landscape is smart enough to do that, LP.
Would the costings of a nuclear plant include desalination?
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - LP - 06-25-2024
(06-25-2024, 10:18 PM)dodge date Wrote:I'm not sure the Aust political landscape is smart enough to do that, LP.Partially, there is a lot of overlap, much of the nuclear cost is bureaucracy, compliance and licensing, the direct material cost is not all that much more than a conventional coal or gas fire power station. In some of the proposed locations desalination already exists, so you just create the necessary grid connections. But the closer together the better, as this avoids energy loss through the grid.
Would the costings of a nuclear plant include desalination?
In the detail is the evil of the politics, because even if they go ahead opponents will try and drive the cost up to the tax payer, it's a mean vindictive way to behave but that is what they do behave. Even in the absence of a viable alternative. Oddly, they hurt themselves because ultimately taxes rise for the protestors as much as they do everybody else! A great example is the inflated cost of wind power due to compliance and compensation costs, by the way the same applies to 5G!
Long long term, the same fission sites would become the ideal location to repurpose for fusion given they need pretty much the same resources, water, heavy water, hydrogen, deuterium, etc., etc., but fusion is a wish not an eventuality.
Unfortunately, much of the debate is insular and fragmented, when it should really be broad and inclusive.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - DJC - 06-25-2024
(06-25-2024, 02:08 PM)dodge link Wrote:Nuclear needed to be actioned a long time ago (if it is going to happen)
- There is commentary that the proposal will deliver 4% of our power. Does this justify the investment?
- Need water for plants (1,514L and 2,725L litres of water per MWh although a lot is recylced through the plant)
- Coal power will be gone by the time nuclear will be ready, so need to be ready to replace that energy with a non nuclear solution.
- There is going to be years of site suitability and type of generator etc discussion
- Talk of complementing renewables, but to get the best value, would need to run at 100%. It isn't a Victorian Salinty plant (that's never been used?)
- There will be a lot of debate about the sites proposed - state forest WA, Perisher, Latrobe Valley, port augusta etc
- I do hope the 'three eyed fish' from Simpsons doesn't come out - I think they're past that
- I also hope no politician talks about cheap energy. Just 'install' the best mix for our country.
Hopefully there will be more detail released and hopefully there can be sensible debate about which option. This should be bipartisan, but given the the parliamentary state is to oppose each other and be beligerent, it is doubtful that it will happen.
The timing is the key.
90% of our coal powered power plants will be decommissioned by 2035 and there’s no way that we could have nuclear power stations operating by then, even if the obstacles to construction could be overcome.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - LP - 06-26-2024
(06-25-2024, 11:23 PM)DJC date Wrote:The timing is the key.It won't happen, it's an arbitrary target / assertion that is largely completely ignorant of the global supply chain for renewables and batteries, demand is already exceeding supply and in the short term global supply is actually falling. Due to war, politics and economic profiteering by governments. When the world needs a tenfold increase, it's getting less.
90% of our coal powered power plants will be decommissioned by 2035 and there’s no way that we could have nuclear power stations operating by then, even if the obstacles to construction could be overcome.
This global shortfall is the primary reason for a push for countries like Australia and the USA to further open up resource mining, which is ironically being opposed by many of the same groups that push renewables. The take a NIBMY position, wanting SolarPV and Wind, but only if the materials mining is NIMBY.
Some may even argue, the best way for tiny little trivially polluting Australia to assist global carbon reduction targets in to not need or restrict any of the critical resources itself.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - Macca37 - 06-26-2024
I do not recall any large scale project, state or federal, which has been delivered on time and within budget.
The majority of our federal politicians do not have the will, experience or intellect to enable a successful transition to renewable energy.
Pick 2030, 2035 or 2050, our shortsighted politicians will still be bickering from their entrenched positions while the public will be enduring massive power blackouts.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - LP - 06-26-2024
(06-26-2024, 01:30 AM)Macca37 date Wrote:I do not recall any large scale project, state or federal, which has been delivered on time and within budget.That applies to all projects.
I don't have a problem with renewable policies, but I have a huge problem with blatant lies, like Tanya Plibersek claiming Australia's energy market can become renewable dominated with just $120B of investment as an alternative to nuclear or other technologies like hydrogen, gas or geothermal.
It's an absurdly low claim deliberately made to make any alternatives look worse, and you can do the basic math yourself and know how far off that $120B claim really is, it's a number pulled out of someone's ar5e!
FWIW, $120B won't even get residential across the target line, and residential is only 10% of the domestic energy market! $120B sounds a lot, but it's only about $11,000 per house, which would be a disaster when the sun doesn't shine!
Part of the problem in this debate, too much of the media has taken a position rather than being analytical and impartial, they all think they are informed editors who hold an opinion that matters.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - LP - 06-26-2024
On the costs, I read the other day part of the renewables claim for base load was to put distributed batteries / super capacitors on the grid down streets on power poles and underground. What's the cost?
The devices proposed are expected to cost about the same as a small car delivering about 20kva, which is enough to power roughly five houses overnight assuming they aren't running air-conditioning, ovens, dryers, etc., etc.. So the plan is to have smart devices the utilities companies can switch off to "Shed load".
So let's do the sums, there are roughly 11,000,000 homes, if we assume the cost of one small car per five houses for 24x7 energy, that's $44B just for the batteries/capacitors. (I'm being generous there and assuming the small car is $20K and not average which is roughly $25k.) $44B for a energy supply that let's you have a few lights on and perhaps some internet. Hopefully you didn't buy into disconnecting the gas and switching your heating over to heat pumps, I suppose if you did then look on the bright side and know you can't win them all! I might have to invest in diesel generators! :o
But what's that I hear, Tesla power walls can service a home 24x7 and only cost $16K. So home by home, $16K x 11,000,000 is $176B, Elon might be able to afford to father a few more children! Let's not get into what Tesla thinks is your energy requirement for baseload, or that small car cost per five houses sails over the horizon!
Now there are certainly energy storage devices that can service more homes, but the device cost is basically a function of energy capacity, as you increase the capacity to service more homes using less devices the cost per device increases. Even if you do this with less devices, that comes at a social cost, because now you have more people that have 24x7 power dependant on other homes in the street doing the right thing.
I may have to turn off my grow lights, or smoke all that weed before it gets mouldy! ;D