Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread (Read 138141 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #765 –
Quote from: LP – on
Isn't that the Welsh site they are now planning to recommission with twin SMRs, a project considered critical to the UK meeting it's carbon emission reduction targets?

Don't mention the war! ;)

Like many announcements made by Boris Johnson, his statement that his Government was looking to build a single SMR at Trawsfynydd was kyboshed by the Sunak Government because the site is too small.

The 100 year decommissioning process is continuing … and that’s one of the reasons power companies like AGL will not invest in new nuclear power plants.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #766 –
Quote from: DJC – on
Like many announcements made by Boris Johnson, his statement that his Government was looking to build a single SMR at Trawsfynydd was kyboshed by the Sunak Government because the site is too small.

The 100 year decommissioning process is continuing … and that’s one of the reasons power companies like AGL will not invest in new nuclear power plants.
Not sure where you get that info, very odd claims, one group claiming the site is too contaminated to work on, while the other says it can be rebuilt within 5 - 7 years. Despite what you've read, the UK, Germany, and several other major players now see nuclear as the only hope of approaching anywhere near the carbon reduction targets in time and in a sustainable fashion.

I hope you're not putting too much stock in reports from the likes of AGL, you do know the "G" in AGL stands for "Gas"?

Big Coal and Gas have placed a bet, they are betting SolarPV and other renewable alternatives are going to fail to meet demand and reductions targets in the short to medium term. It'll get even worse if subsidies are removed due to economic pressures. The media report closures and decommissioning of traditional generation like coal and gas, when in reality it's actually being mothballed. It won't take much of an energy crisis over winter or summer for the politicians to beg those suppliers for energy at any price. Good news for your superannuation fund, bad news for the planet.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #767 –
Quote from: LP – on
Not sure where you get that info, very odd claims, one group claiming the site is too contaminated to work on, while the other says it can be rebuilt within 5 - 7 years. Despite what you've read, the UK, Germany, and several other major players now see nuclear as the only hope of approaching anywhere near the carbon reduction targets in time and in a sustainable fashion.

I hope you're not putting too much stock in reports from the likes of AGL, you do know the "G" in AGL stands for "Gas"?

Big Coal and Gas have placed a bet, they are betting SolarPV and other renewable alternatives are going to fail to meet demand and reductions targets in the short to medium term. It'll get even worse if subsidies are removed due to economic pressures. The media report closures and decommissioning of traditional generation like coal and gas, when in reality it's actually being mothballed. It won't take much of an energy crisis over winter or summer for the politicians to beg those suppliers for energy at any price. Good news for your superannuation fund, bad news for the planet.

You need to keep up LP.  The Sunak Government's decision to back away from Boris's announcement caused consternation among Welsh politicians who were hoping that Trawsfynydd could be revived.  Sunak still intends to build SMRs, but not at that location, and that means that Magnox will continue the decommissioning works at Trawsfynydd. They are hoping to have the site returned to its pre-nuclear state in the 2080s with the major obstacle being the reactor cores that are too radioactive and will continue to be so for many decades to come.

UK Labour is committed to nuclear power (and nuclear weapons) and supports the construction of SMRs.

Germany shut down its last three nuclear power plants in April 2023.  While it's possible that those reactors could be re-started, the government has made it clear that is not an option.  Of course, some of the opposition parties hold different views, but they are unlikely to win government in the foreseeable future.

Nuclear power is certainly part of the future energy mix for those countries where it is an established industry.  It's simply too late and too expensive to be a viable option for our future energy needs unless fusion becomes a realistic proposition.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #768 –
Quote from: DJC – on
Nuclear power is certainly part of the future energy mix for those countries where it is an established industry.  It's simply too late and too expensive to be a viable option for our future energy needs unless fusion becomes a realistic proposition.
So writing "unless fusion becomes a realistic proposition" suggests you're happy with a technology that will cost at least an order of magnitude more than fission, because you wrote "too expensive" for fission and "too late", so did you mean "too dangerous"?

Fusion will be more expensive and much much later but it's OK as a realistic proposition, the logic seems inconsistent?
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #769 –
Not sure the cost benefit analysis is right here either.  Nuclear power may be expensive to build, but once built, it only requires maintenance (and fuel).  The renewables are not a similar level of one and done by contrast.  They all degrade over time, and with their degradation their ability to produce power does too but in Nuclears case, the power generation component is only impacted when the site needs to be closed for maintenance.

I have a few issues with Nuclear.   Effectively it fails the would I want one near me test and does have problems I would like to see overcome from a waste perspective.  Solar, and turbines are less of an issue in that regard although I really dislike seeing a bunch of windmills everywhere littered across the landscape and I do get concerned about the disposal and replacement timelines.  I would prefer to get the worst case scenario out of these and how they are going to perform rather than the best.

All that being said, not really sure why we are hell bent in turning off stuff we have been using to generate power for a long time.  There seems to be this big bang to make everyone move off the dirty old power generation (early) because of the climate emergency and whilst I agree we need to do things to rectify it, there has been action taken for quite some time already to improve these things and whilst we shouldnt be complacent, I wonder how we measure our ability to put the breaks on things and question how you quantify what the last 20 to 30 years of technological advancement has achieved to right some historic wrongs and how we can quantify whether or not it has made a big enough difference.  The old tech that was way more terrible for the environment producing lots of CFC's etc, than the current appliances and stuff we use.  I sometimes wonder why we dont focus more on the cheap one time use throw away items that are filling our land fill quicker than ever before rather than the old mantra of buying something and using it for a longer period of time too.  we pollute differently but just as badly in some ways in that regard.



"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #770 –
The whole renewables push loses credibility when it rejects low carbon or no carbon alternatives to their preferred option, we should be making use of all available technologies because we won't ever make the cut with just one or two. Demand for suitable solutions exceeds supply tenfold and the situation isn't changing.

The arbitrary rejection of competing or complimentary carbon reduction options is just a tell that for some it's partially or fully about money not the environment.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #771 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
I have a few issues with Nuclear.  Effectively it fails the would I want one near me test and does have problems I would like to see overcome from a waste perspective.  Solar, and turbines are less of an issue in that regard although I really dislike seeing a bunch of windmills everywhere littered across the landscape and I do get concerned about the disposal and replacement timelines.  I would prefer to get the worst case scenario out of these and how they are going to perform rather than the best.

Name me one type of technology, green or otherwise, that people DO want to have near them.

Coal, wind, solar, nuclear.....there are issues with all of them, no matter where they are.

To borrow from Star Trek - "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."

Some people might be put out, sure, the rest of the state, country, planet can thank them for it later.

Nuclear is the way. I've been saying it for decades.
It just needs some better PR and less opposition from people who make decisions, but have large conflict of interests. That is, people who get their pockets lined by opposing it.


People who baulk at the costs need to think long term.
What kind of costs will there be if we DONT do anything to help this planet sooner rather than later.
Costs now, will be less than the cost of doing nothing.
Just make it happen. Yesterday.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #772 –
Quote from: LP – on
The whole renewables push loses credibility when it rejects low carbon or no carbon alternatives to their preferred option, we should be making use of all available technologies because we won't ever make the cut with just one or two. Demand for suitable solutions exceeds supply tenfold and the situation isn't changing.

The arbitrary rejection of competing or complimentary carbon reduction options is just a tell that for some it's partially or fully about money not the environment.

Missing the point again LP.

Apart from the economics that means that private sector won’t go near nuclear and taxpayers will foot the bill, it’s the timeframe that is critical.  It’s simply not possible for us to build nuclear reactors in time to reach emissions targets.  The long planning and construction time will mean ongoing use of fossil fuel and that’s the real agenda behind Dutton’s scheme.

Let’s look at Loy Yang as one of Dutton’s proposed nuclear power plants.  AGL has made it clear that the site is not available for a nuclear power plant, Victorian legislation prohibits nuclear power, it’s in an earthquake prone area and it’s close to population centres like Traralgon.  If the Victorian parliament could be persuaded to repeal its nuclear ban, the environmental effects and planning processes would take many years to complete and with no guarantee of a favourable outcome.  That’s if the site meets the technical requirements, particularly water supply.

AGL invested heavily in reducing the Loy Yang plants’ water consumption because of competing demands and lower rainfall.  The Yallourn Weir would struggle to meet demand and that’s why few nuclear plants are inland.  Trawsfynydd was an exception.

The high flux reactor at Lucas Heights began operating in 1958 and the OPAL reactor took over in 2007.  What do we do with the relatively modest nuclear waste?  The Coalition’s plan for the nuclear waste produced by its seven plants is to store it onsite for the life of the reactor.  Presumably, it will become someone else’s problem then.

Putting environmental issues to one side, timeframes and costs for nuclear power generation are prohibitive.  Look at the delays and cost blowouts for the US Vogtle nuclear power plant expansion and the UK’s Hinkley Point C plant.  The latter is now not expected to come online until 2031 at a cost of $63bn.

We’ve missed the nuclear bus and the way forward is renewables supplemented by lower emissions fossil fuel.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #773 –
Quote from: DJC – on
Missing the point again LP.

Apart from the economics that means that private sector won’t go near nuclear and taxpayers will foot the bill, it’s the timeframe that is critical.  It’s simply not possible for us to build nuclear reactors in time to reach emissions targets.
Nope, it will be faster to meet total baseline demand by nuclear than it will be struggling to get there via SolarPV, Wind or other renewables. Claims to the counter are just fear mongering.

Further, counter to many claims, the cost of renewable energy is rising not falling, up 2% last year despite good domestic uptake, it's increasing because supply cannot meet demand. We kept hearing that the more renewables we install the cheaper it will get, tell that to the market! Just this week all the major energy players are revising feed in tariffs down not up, it's now harder to justify the outlay of homeowner installs than it's ever been!

Pretty odd for so many socialists who lauded the return of the SEC to be arguing against government funded public infrastructure, this is if it's nuclear. By the way, the SEC or it's equivalent is needed simply because SolarPV and Wind refuse to pay for the infrastructure that delivers energy to the grid, they only want to profit off it without any responsibility for building or maintenance. So you don't hear the same people complaining about that, I suppose they have shares!

And the batteries, who pays for that, given we need a 5000% increase in investment just for residential to be covered 24x7!

On the various claims by states, the constitutional lawyers have already kyboshed such claims that the Federal policies can be blocked by states, it's political dribble not legal fact. They have already confirmed this week the Feds have the power to declare such locations as Loy Yang as sites of National importance and as such secure domain over them. In any case, it's a a source of dollars for the states so you can expect them to fold like accordions.

Alarmism regarding handling and storage of nuclear waste is really a 60s and 70s holdover, it's a function of the media making the world a meaner place and very old news. Not only are there modern solutions, countries that are free of such public paranoia are now making big money from storage and recycling of nuclear waste.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"
 

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #774 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
The renewables are not a similar level of one and done by contrast.  They all degrade over time, and with their degradation their ability to produce power does too but in Nuclears case, the power generation component is only impacted when the site needs to be closed for maintenance.
Actually this is a very big deal largely ignored by the renewable boosters.

R&D into making SolarPV, Wind and Solar Thermal last longer is big business, there are several multimillion dollars companies in Australia trying to solve the problems.

At the moment SolarPV and Solar Thermal are plagued by higher than expected labour costs, because they need so much maintenance, ground plane installs basically have crews and manual labourers continuously patrolling arrays of panels cleaning, it's a bit like the Sydney Harbour Bridge, they get to the end and start all over again. So guess what, they are shying away from building in the sunny desert locations because dust is turning out to be too much of a problem, not only cleaning but on the wind dust and sand act like mild grit blasting, so they want to build ground plane installations over dairy farms or in the wheat belt!

Secondly, the longevity of the panels and mirrors is a big hurdle for commercial investment, without access to subsidies the commercial arrays wouldn't get built, and without more subsidies they won't be maintained. It's a big reason why there are companies specialising on building only before quickly offloading the assets. My understanding this was a point of contention between Cannon-Brookes and Twiggy Forrest over the future of the investments in the north.

The situation with wind is even worse, I have two friends now fulltime employed replacing redundant Wind generators, these are systems that have only been built this century and they are already replacing them. Even worse, the way they were built and the materials used means they can't be recycled at this time, and there is no domestic recycling solution in the works at this stage, so the obsolete hardware will eventually have to be shipped offshore. I bet that's not in the environmental cost analysis! ;)
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #775 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Name me one type of technology, green or otherwise, that people DO want to have near them.

Coal, wind, solar, nuclear.....there are issues with all of them, no matter where they are.

To borrow from Star Trek - "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."

Some people might be put out, sure, the rest of the state, country, planet can thank them for it later.

Nuclear is the way. I've been saying it for decades.
It just needs some better PR and less opposition from people who make decisions, but have large conflict of interests. That is, people who get their pockets lined by opposing it.


People who baulk at the costs need to think long term.
What kind of costs will there be if we DONT do anything to help this planet sooner rather than later.
Costs now, will be less than the cost of doing nothing.
Just make it happen. Yesterday.

I've got no issues with hydroelectric, solar and wind. Wind just looks bad.

If our open air car parks had covers full of solar panels everyone would benefit.

Some people don't even want to be near transmission lines let alone coal and nuclear plants. 
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #776 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
I've got no issues with hydroelectric, solar and wind. Wind just looks bad.

If our open air car parks had covers full of solar panels everyone would benefit.

Some people don't even want to be near transmission lines let alone coal and nuclear plants.

You answered my question at the end.
Doesn't matter what it is people don't want to be near it.....so make a decision and go with it.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #777 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
You answered my question at the end.
Doesn't matter what it is people don't want to be near it.....so make a decision and go with it.
No it didn't.  Most people would rather be near a solar farm, followed by a windmill.  You wouldn't want a nuclear plant near you.  No one would.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #778 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
No it didn't.  Most people would rather be near a solar farm, followed by a windmill.  You wouldn't want a nuclear plant near you.  No one would.

Try and get anything built anywhere and people are against it.
Hell, we are no longer at our home ground because we were not able to redevelop it because people didn't want to live near unsightly light towers at PP and kept vetoing it.

Now people may feel more strongly against nuclear power, but that's beside the point. The binary, yes/no is what's looked at in these scenarios.

Find a spot out bush somewhere, no shortage of land in Australia, and get it done. Buy up surrounding bush properties if you must, but get it done.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #779 –
The UK's flagship Hinkley nuclear power plant was announced in 2007 with an estimated completion date of 10 years, and a cost of £9 billion.

The latest estimated completion date is 2031, and the cost has blown out to £92.5 billion (I quoted an outdated figure previously) and the UK has extensive experience in nuclear power.

RAN personnel recently departed for up to four years training in operating nuclear submarines in the USA. When and where are we going to train the folk who will operate our seven power stations?

It really is pie in the sky.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!