-Filter Forums-
Loading posts...

Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Sc

Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby sci_fi » Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:53 pm

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... on/6273854

.........More countries in our region are considering nuclear power as economic development enhances their standard of living. Australia will appear more regressive for each additional year we shun nuclear, especially as the only OECD country to do so in legislation. We also risk relinquishing any stabilising and guiding influence we might have among our neighbours. We have a window of opportunity to be the leaders in an endeavour that will decarbonise our electricity supply and power our future.

I think its crunch time for us.

Really, its a lay down messaire.......aint it?
sci_fi
 
Posts: 37

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby roughbarked » Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:09 am

Fukishima is not going away.
roughbarked
 
Posts: 882
Images: 2

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby sci_fi » Thu Mar 05, 2015 10:48 pm

The Morwell situation and the hysteria about greenhouse gases also continues.

I believe that it was a water pump problem that caused Fukishima. The backup water pump failed.

If the debate is so anti coal then I feel that Nuclear is a lay down misere.

If the big drought arrives then the Wonthaggi de-salination plant will suck huge amounts of power.

D Day is approaching. I cannot see another option on the horizon.

We must have this talk I'm afraid. Sticking heads in sand and hoping it goes away is not an option.

Comments welcome.
sci_fi
 
Posts: 37

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby Helix » Thu Mar 05, 2015 11:02 pm

"hysteria about greenhouse gases"?

Dearie me.

What about solar, wind and hydrothermal?
At the fringes of civilisation
Helix
 
Posts: 969
Images: 17

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby nut » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:24 pm

sci_fi wrote:...I believe that it was a water pump problem that caused Fukishima. The backup water pump failed....


I thought it was the earthquake and subsequent tidal wave.
nut
 
Posts: 255
Images: 45

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby nut » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:27 pm

It is still the same problem now as before: nuclear is not clean energy. If fusion ever gets up and running then maybe but until then there continues to be the problem of radiation.
nut
 
Posts: 255
Images: 45

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby fsm » Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:04 pm

I don't think we need to go nuclear. We should be developing baseload solar.

World’s First Baseload Solar Farm Now Operating
Two + two equals fish.
User avatar
fsm
 
Posts: 463
Images: 146
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby nut » Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:15 pm

fsm wrote:I don't think we need to go nuclear. We should be developing baseload solar.

World’s First Baseload Solar Farm Now Operating


"... reliable electricity production for 6,500 hours a year..."

That's quite a bit short of a full year.
nut
 
Posts: 255
Images: 45

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby Grasshopper » Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:14 am

If they haven't yet learnt that Nuclear is a very unsafe and dangerous way of boiling water --after Chernobyl and Fukushima etc etc then they are slow learners nuclear waste and radiation pollution is around forever it does NOT go away
Grasshopper
 
Posts: 44
Images: 0

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby fsm » Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:19 am

"It cannot be an option for Australia to sit on the sidelines and wait for the technologies and supporting industries to develop elsewhere in the world. We should embrace the natural advantages we have here in solar resources (good sites in Australia would yield 25 per cent more solar thermal power than equivalents in Spain), and play a leading role in developing the technologies and a strong local capacity."

The dawn of baseload solar energy
Two + two equals fish.
User avatar
fsm
 
Posts: 463
Images: 146
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Blog: View Blog (1)


Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby nut » Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:34 pm

Solar is no good for base load.
nut
 
Posts: 255
Images: 45

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby Teleost » Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:19 pm

This was discussed a number of times on the old SSSF.

There were some very good arguments as why nooncular was the best bang for buck. A few years ago I was fairly well convinced that it was the best option. Over the past couple of years though, a lot of advances in efficiency of devices and generation capacity have made me think looking harder at how we use energy, refinement of current technology (eg photovoltaics) and novel generation methods is where we really need to be looking for answers.

When you see things like these being developed http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18781878 http://www.gizmag.com/orange-and-gotwind-announce-sound-charge-device-charging-tshirt/18994/you start thinking about other ways we could be harvesting small amounts energy for small jobs.

Then there's the changing nature of the electricity business itself. I was listening to an interview or a TED talk a few weeks ago (I wish I could remember what show or who) where the speaker suggested that right now we're on the edge of a slippery slope for public electricity networks. He suggested that with more people moving to solar, the electricity companies are having their revenues reduced, passing along the shortfall to their customers via higher prices and charges. As solar becomes more affordable and available, more will pick it up and reduce the number of subscribers, increasing electricity prices. It results in a negative feedback loop where eventually it becomes too expensive NOT to have solar.

It may be a bit of an over the top prediction, but I think the old models of electricity generation and distribution are going to change as more alternatives become available. We use electricity very differently now to the way we did when the current infrastructure was established. If we can keep some scientists in this country and feed them more than 2 minute noodles and a giant HECS/HELP debt as a graduation gift we may be able to think/engineer a viable alternative to noocular.

We could always turn the air conditioning off and go to bed when it gets dark but that will always end in tears.
User avatar
Teleost
 
Posts: 446
Images: 12

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby roughbarked » Sat Mar 14, 2015 12:42 am

liked your post Teleost. :)

I thought this video was worth downloading. I can't download all of Catalyst but apart from the stuff about birds the solar research going on in Australia loks awesome. http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/catalyst ... _16_06.mp4

There are a growing number of people seeting up their places to go off grid.
roughbarked
 
Posts: 882
Images: 2

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby sci_fi » Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:34 am

The families in SA are paying big time for their power.
Everyone is for the renewables....but....we need base load power stations to run industry and make our communities "liveable".
It was only a matter of time before SA got caught with their pants down.
That island down south of Victoria whose name eludes me at the moment ran out of hydro and the cable to "Australia" broke and voila....no power.
We still need to have this discussion. It is not going away.
Solar is great while the sun shines. Wind is great when the wind blows.
sci_fi
 
Posts: 37

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby Helix » Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:32 am

First we (ie South Australia) needs power lines that don't collapse under high winds. Because that was the problem, not renewable energy.
At the fringes of civilisation
Helix
 
Posts: 969
Images: 17

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby *jj* » Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:54 am

:)
There have been some great jokes about the assumptions that the SAStorm probs were because of the renewables (and equally NOT funny jokes about our prices and their causes).

People seem to think that coal or nuclear generated power don't need transmission lines.

REALLY interesting engineering questions to be asked about building codes, wind terrains categories etc ... the Institution of Engineers has been very quiet.

This is my last power bill where my solar contribution to the grid earns any rebate ... even so I'm glad to have it and am looking at going off grid.
(It's unlikely because I probably will not live long enough to make it worthwhile, but I'm sooo tempted :))
*jj*
 
Posts: 263
Images: 0

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby sci_fi » Mon Oct 10, 2016 9:51 pm

Thanks for the contributions. The concrete footings in the pic (below) look about the same of my 5mx5m shed!
There are precedents to loss of power going back to Niagara in US in 1960's and subsequent shut downs of the distn system.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-29/r ... section=sa
The steel structures that bent look fairly flimsy to my amateur eye. Engineers can only produce a solution in line with their briefs and budgets, so it is hard to put it back on the engineers. Helix, your comment is valid.

The $ cost of this electricity interruption is mounting.
sci_fi
 
Posts: 37

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby *jj* » Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:59 am

The cost is already enormous, isn't it.

And yes, that is why I am waiting on the IEAust to step up.
And why I am waiting on the release of the specs / building codes etc

I mostly wonder if this will rejig their ideas of frequencies and how they'll address their wind codes in particular

It's a cost / benefit analysis, of course and I suspect the costs have crept up without anyone expecting this degree of damage.

That the wind followed the same (similar) line of the transmission towers shouldn't surprise anyone, given both are terrain affected.

It's a fascinating development though, I'm enjoying it (the subject) despite the awfulness.
*jj*
 
Posts: 263
Images: 0

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby *jj* » Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:06 pm

*jj*
 
Posts: 263
Images: 0

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby roughbarked » Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:55 pm

*jj* wrote:The cost is already enormous, isn't it.

And yes, that is why I am waiting on the IEAust to step up.
And why I am waiting on the release of the specs / building codes etc

I mostly wonder if this will rejig their ideas of frequencies and how they'll address their wind codes in particular

It's a cost / benefit analysis, of course and I suspect the costs have crept up without anyone expecting this degree of damage.

That the wind followed the same (similar) line of the transmission towers shouldn't surprise anyone, given both are terrain affected.

It's a fascinating development though, I'm enjoying it (the subject) despite the awfulness.

I'm not sure that many missed it but the wind striking the lines at
horizontal creates horrific drag. The towers couldn't, weren't designed for such an onslaught on the weight of the cables.
It would have been a different scenario if the wind had blown along the wires.
roughbarked
 
Posts: 882
Images: 2

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby Helix » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:21 pm

*jj* wrote:I don't know if this will work ...

https://twitter.com/Smithwatcher/status ... 1085410304



It works!

That's a bloody good smackdown.
At the fringes of civilisation
Helix
 
Posts: 969
Images: 17

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby sci_fi » Sun Oct 16, 2016 9:44 pm

Good astute comment Roughie.
The weight of cables is very significant.
I see Ausnet have just put metre long curly bits of plastic (?) near certain poles to stop "vibration" on high wind days.
I do not know how these work but if any one has suggestions then I am interested.
If this country is to maintain its standard of living then our industries must have a secure and reliable power source.
It's not that complicated.
sci_fi
 
Posts: 37

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby roughbarked » Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:21 pm

There can be ways to reduce the horiffic drag scenario. Otherwise the wires we have, wouldn't have lasted all this time.
roughbarked
 
Posts: 882
Images: 2

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby roughbarked » Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:25 pm

As to can we afford not to go nuclear. First question, do we have the resources?
roughbarked
 
Posts: 882
Images: 2

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby *jj* » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:06 am

Good Morning;
I'm no engineer but I'd wager those loads, fall into the very well known "known known" category.

Both the dynamic (is "live" the proper word?) loads and the dead would be able to be (routinely ARE) calculated by student engineers.

The physics is high school physics that you, too, probably did in High School around loads and distances from fulcrums and blahblahblah ... :)

Even I did some of that way back then, though hopelessly out of my depth.

Every engineer over a certain age would have the slide rule used long ago and the hard copy tables in the Standards documents in a drawer somewhere and the rest would have access to them online.

What I am surprised about is that none have spoken publicly about it.



I can only assume it is a litigation issue.

The "unknowns" would seem to me to be
1.
Did the design meet the codes? (ie the known knowns)

2.
Did the (wind) conditions on the day exceed those codes?

3.
When were the codes last updated or are they considered set for all time?
cheers
:)
*jj*
 
Posts: 263
Images: 0

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby *jj* » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:19 am

And since this thread is really about nuclear energy, I'll come back to it.

It seems to me we do have the resources.

What we lack is the will.

I am in favour of SA accepting the storage of the waste, but not on indigenous peoples' land, especially not the land of the people of the Flinders Ranges.

They have lost enough to coal for starters, to say nothing of farming.

The deal struck with the current owners of the proposed land sounds dodgy to me as well.

Having said that, and also accepting that all land is in some ways indigenous land, I'd put it in Central Adelaide as it is so safe.

Parliament House would be a good start ; the casino precinct perhaps? the Adelaide Oval?

If we are to have nuclear power generation I'd put that there too.
That way the wires needed to deliver the power would not be such a huge infrastructure investment distance-wise (!) .
*jj*
 
Posts: 263
Images: 0

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby roughbarked » Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:06 am

*jj* wrote:And since this thread is really about nuclear energy, I'll come back to it.

It seems to me we do have the resources.

What we lack is the will.

I am in favour of SA accepting the storage of the waste, but not on indigenous peoples' land, especially not the land of the people of the Flinders Ranges.

They have lost enough to coal for starters, to say nothing of farming.

The deal struck with the current owners of the proposed land sounds dodgy to me as well.

Having said that, and also accepting that all land is in some ways indigenous land, I'd put it in Central Adelaide as it is so safe.

Parliament House would be a good start ; the casino precinct perhaps? the Adelaide Oval?

If we are to have nuclear power generation I'd put that there too.
That way the wires needed to deliver the power would not be such a huge infrastructure investment distance-wise (!) .

:)
I heartily concur.
roughbarked
 
Posts: 882
Images: 2

Re: Nuclear:Can we afford not to?

Postby *jj* » Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:32 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxHKsaG6Guc
Discussion re nuclear at around 34minutes.

Hayhoe is one of my favourite people.


"Published on Oct 3, 2016

On Monday, DiCaprio and Obama were joined by climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe from Texas Tech University. DiCaprio, who took on the role of interviewer for the evening, began by thanking Obama for his “extraordinary leadership” on environmental issues. “If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts,” the actor said, noting that anyone who doesn’t agree with the settled science “should not hold public office.” That comment, a clear dig at candidates like at Donald Trump who has called climate change a hoax perpetrated by China, was met with loud cheers from the crowd in attendance.
In turn, Obama told DiCaprio that he is “very proud” of his administration’s record on climate action, citing last year’s Paris agreement as an example of the progress being made. But he also admitted that even if every country held up their end of the bargain, it wouldn’t be enough. "Climate change is happening at a faster rate than what was predicted even 5 years ago,” the president said, adding that we’re in a “race against time.” While the idea of a carbon tax also got a big ovation from attendees, the president admitted the likelihood of any “immediate” action in that area is still a “ways away.”
*jj*
 
Posts: 263
Images: 0


Return to Science

cron