ENERGY: Why Toxic COAL sux (Corrolaries: Why New NuClear’ll Rock & Th-fueled MSR’s will Really Rock)

IVI on 03/07/2018 - 05:48
Last edited 03/07/2018 - 08:58 by 1 other user

Did you know, According to Physicist Carlo Rubbia:

  • Just 200 mt of Raw Uranium can be used to
    make the Same amount of power as 3,000,000 mt of toxic Coal.

It’s true.

You gotta believe many more workplace injuries & deaths
will occur mining

  • 3,000,000 mt of Coal -vs- doing the same to get
  • only 200 mt of Uranium, -vs- (in near future)
  • ..a mere 1 mt of Thorium (more abundant than U)

So, AU has BANNED use of Nuclear Energy back in 1999

I suspect Big Coal & - in SA, at least - UK Atomic Bomb testing, &
overreactions arising out of Fukushima (tsunami-caused disaster)
contributing factors to AU’s BAN on Nuclear.

Is Coal “so bad”…? If you buy-into Climate Change, of course.

But - just before Ontario, Canada pivoted to Nuclear - it was
the Cost of Providing Health & Medica Services, that moved
the gov’t of the day to pivot to Nuclear.

In 2016, Springer published “Thorium - Energy for the World”
(a costly conference procedings, full of Scientific conf.papers)

introduction

Home & Garden

Comments

  • whooah1979 on 03/07/2018 - 05:52
    +17

    Did you just wake up and decide to start senseless topics?

    • bobbified on 03/07/2018 - 08:28
      +8

      OP sounds like a uni student coming out of his/her first lecture!

      • HighAndDry on 03/07/2018 - 09:37
        +1

        Oh that would make perfect sense. How do we turn out unis into institutions of learning again instead of institutions of apparently brainwashing?

      • Scrooge McDuck on 03/07/2018 - 22:13
        +1

        OP sounds like a uni student coming out of his/her first lecture!

        CRAP1001: Introduction to Clickbait Journalism

        • Euphemistic on 04/07/2018 - 09:28

          CRAP1002: Adding links to your Clickbait Journalism has only just commenced for this semester so they haven't covered that yet.

  • Davo1111 on 03/07/2018 - 06:20
    +2

    When i saw CAPS and the word "sux", i knew it would be a ridiculous post.

    • IVI on 05/07/2018 - 12:29

      France & Ontario enjoy Cleanee Air &
      Revenues from selling their Excess Electricity.

      Why do you want AU to miss out on those benefits?

      Do u work in mining? Coal transport? ;-/

  • mbck on 03/07/2018 - 06:41

    Alrite let's put the waste in your backyard thumbs up

  • mskeggs on 03/07/2018 - 06:49

    Why would you spend billions building new nuclear power when you can get a cheaper result with renewables and storage with none of the dangers?

    • Skramit on 03/07/2018 - 09:36
      -5

      Because when the wind doesn't blow and it's night time, you're stuffed.

      • mskeggs on 03/07/2018 - 09:49

        you can get a cheaper result with renewables and storage

        Australia is large enough that there is small correlation between wind, i.e. it is blowing somewhere at any given time enough to power the load required after dark. But even if you are worried that is not enough, why not pumped hydro and battery storage?

        • Skramit on 03/07/2018 - 09:52
          -1

          Because batteries are a dud investment with current technology. Have to be replaced too often and discharge too quickly when used.

          Pumped hydro is a good idea.

          I don't want wind turbines all over the country "just in case" it's not blowing somewhere else. Stupid.

          Build nuclear - clean, safe and cheap for us given we already have the uranium.

        • mskeggs on 03/07/2018 - 10:53
          +1

          @Skramit:

          Build nuclear - clean, safe and cheap

          Even the laziest, most cusory look at the numbers shows nuclear is ruinously expensive.
          The two new reactors in the UK at Hinkley Point are going to cost over £19bn. (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40479053)
          This will produce 3200MW of power, about the size of Loy Yang A+B in Victoria.
          The largest windfarm in NSW so far is the Liverpool Range Wind Farm, expected to cost $0.64bn for 1000MW.
          (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-03/nsw-wind-farm-gets-go-…)
          So around $2bn to produce 3200MW. Even if you had to build three separate wind farms that size in different places to ensure there was enough wind blowing, it is still only $6bn. If you want the belt and braces approach then you can add the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro scheme, which will cost somewhere between $2bn and $4.5bn for 2000MW of capacity backed by 350MWh of storage. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-20/snowy-hydro-2.0-could-actually-cost-as-much-as-$4.5b/9277368)

          So even with an extremely conservative, worst case scenario, you can produce renewable power for $10.5bn versus £19bn ($34bn!).

          This doesn't answer your concern about wind turbine proliferation, but surely you can agree it will be easier to find wind turbine sites than a spot to host a pair of nuclear reactors?
          And add to that the need to handle fuel waste, where we have no agreement yet on where that will be stored, with people in even quite remote areas very opposed. Renewables produce no waste from operations, and are massively easier to remediate at the end of their lives.

          It's a bit like saying we should drive an FJ Holden with no seatbelts because we have it in the shed, even though it will cost $30k to get it passing rego, when we could buy a new Camry for $10k with improved safety, running costs etc.

        • Skramit on 03/07/2018 - 10:55
          -4

          @mskeggs:

          My first choice is to keep the coal plants open. But since our governments have no balls and refuse to go with the best, cheapest option due to Greenie pressures, I would go nuclear next best for reliability.

        • Baysew on 03/07/2018 - 10:58

          @Skramit:

          and cheap for us given we already have the uranium.

          We already have plenty of Gas yet the pricing and availability not really working out to our advantage, local uranium would most likely be the same.

        • mskeggs on 03/07/2018 - 11:05

          @Skramit:

          It is hard to understand how you can conclude nuclear is more reliable. On a dollar for dolar basis, renewables could produce more than triple the energy 100% of the time without interruption. Or the same amount of energy without interruption for a 1/3 of the cost.
          And do remember that nuclear power plants need operational maintenance etc. too. With massive reactors, repairs can sideline 50% or 100% of the capacity, while repairs to one of 800 turbines just off-lines <1% of capacity.

          There is no reliability argument for nuclear either.

        • Skramit on 03/07/2018 - 11:09
          -4

          @mskeggs:

          renewables could produce more than triple the energy 100% of the time without interruption.

          Which renewables? Certainly not wind or solar as South Australia has proven. Very unreliable.

          If we build more dams I would be all for hydro. But it seems governments are allergic to building new dams at the moment.

        • HighAndDry on 03/07/2018 - 11:25

          There's always going to be a need for a consistent source of baseline energy production - it's not a convenience thing at that point, it's a strategic thing. Renewables are just not able to meet those requirements, even with battery back-up (because batteries run flat).

          You can maybe decrease that backup baseline capacity as the reliability and historical consistence of your renewables increase of course, but it's never going to go down to 0%, because again, for strategic purposes, you need that ultimate fallback.

          Think of it as the diesel generator in the basement, but for the whole country.

    • IVI on 05/07/2018 - 12:34

      In past, Ontario did it to cut Medical costs deemed to arise from Coal pollution.

      Want to "enjoy" toxens in Coal pollution, you can find Coal Power Plants (eg, "the World's worst") in Victoria, & similar CPP's in Qld.

      Go look em up in app "Electricity Map" or their web site.

    • IVI on 24/07/2018 - 11:17

      Another Aussie, who's never "Done the Maths" on Renewables, eh? ;-)

      Well, a Stanford Professor - Mark Z Jacobson - proposed a Renewables plan:

      • [ 100% W W S ] (without the extra spaces…): "100% Wind Water Sunlight"

      Lotsa fine minds "Did the Maths" in Jacobson's plan… here's 2 authors' results:

      In an nutshell, to replace all the Solar PV panels, that would be need replacing,
      say, every 40 years would occupy -most- people's time (a costly jobs program).

      Don't forget to add the cost of wind generator maintenance… etc. etc.

      PS In case you don't have time to read the RoadmapToNowhere report (in their
      Free PDF)… view the authors' summary in a 24-min. YouTube video:

      • "Mark Z. Jacobson's 100% Renewables (100% WWS)
        Roadmap to Nowhere by Conley & Maloney @ TEAC8"

      (A talk given at the 8th Thorium Energy Alliance Conference)

      You -won't- hear much (if anything) about Molten Salt Reactors or Thorium fuel on TV or from ABC or SBS, in AU, where Nuclear Energy is BANNED, & has been, since 1999.

      However, Queensland Coal-Miners getting Black Lung disease IS to be found on ABC's site; it's yet another cost to add to the Cost of Toxic Coal, that Aussies are forced to pay, due to most Aussies' ignorance of the trade-offer from Nuclear Energy…

      …not to mention the MUCH better cost-effectiveness - coming ~2025 - from Safe Small Liquid-Fuel Molten Salt Reactors (eg, IMSR, LFTR, SSR, Thorcon, WAMSR, etc.).

      When we see it happening, we'll want to buy-in… the longer AU is blinded by our People's ignorance of the full story of Nuclear (past & near-future), the longer it'll take us to Push our Coal-bound Law-Makers to End the 1999 BAN on Nuclear Energy use here.

      Meanwhile, does any one here happen to live near enough to any of AU's Toxic Coal Power Stations, eg, to get some photos of the waste (a.k.a. tailings) from its operation?

      PS Jacobson sued some of his critics, ie, rather than try to rebut them,
      as most other academics tend to do, on Science & Climate Change topics.

      After many lined-up to sign a public petition suggesting is was a mistake
      Not to "Argue Back" rather than take legal action to quiet critics,
      Jacobson withdrew his law-suit.

      • mskeggs on 24/07/2018 - 17:55

        I won’t be rude about it, but the very first chapter of the crank site you linked to lists solar costs at $2usd per watt.
        I can install residential size systems for a third of that, utility scale for a pittance.

        The case for nuclear relies upon imaginary new technologies being available. The real world nuclear projects cost in the order of 3 times what renewables cost.

        Your link takes it as self evident that renewables require maintenance that far exceeds nuclear, but this is demonstrably untrue.

        The link makes a big deal out of the surface area needed for PV, as if this is a constraint, and quotes figures for replacing electricity, transport fuels and all other energy use. This is a big job, but obviously means the current massive fossil fuel industry could be repurposed.

        Add in plenty of scary numbers (billions and trillions) while conveniently forgetting the USA spends 3/4billion every day just on oil.

        The economics of renewables are more marginal in the USA, where they have super cheap coal and gas, and the most populated parts further north for a dark winter, but in Australia the numbers truly are quite easy to model to show a strong case.

        And without the health impact of coal or the risks of nuclear.

  • Nugs on 03/07/2018 - 06:54
    +1

    where's the bargain?

    • bobbified on 03/07/2018 - 08:30

      It's an opportunity to sell those spare nuclear rods in the basement…

    • IVI on 05/07/2018 - 12:40

      Not Where… When:

      Liquid Fuel (ie, No costly+wasteful Fuel-Rods)
      Molten Salt Reactors are coming, expected ~2025

      YouTube is your Tutor:

      "MacDiarmid Economy Club" &

      "Pedersen TEDxCopenhagen"

      "Sorensen TEDxYYC"

      app Thorium"

      Site: ThoriumRemix.com

      Book: "Thorium - Energy for the World" (Springer 2016)

  • altomic on 03/07/2018 - 08:47
    +6

    I dug this Nuclear Plant saftery report from the internet. IT IS VERY CONCERNING AND FURTHER HIGHLIGHTS WHY AUSTRALIA SHOULD NOT GO NUCLEAR.

    A surprise inspection found 342 violations with an estimated $56 million required to bring the plant up to code, money which the Owner refused to spend. Notable safety violations that have been seen include luminous rats in the bowels of the plant, pipes and drums leaking radioactive waste, the disposal of waste in a children's playground, plutonium used as a paperweight, cracked cooling towers (fixed in one episode using a piece of chewing gum), skeletons in the basement, dangerously high Geiger counter readings around the perimeter of the plant, flashing red alert signs being ignored by employees, the creation of a mutant subspecies of three-eyed fish and a horrific giant spider. The Emergency Exits are simply painted on.

    The core of the reactor is a Fissionator 1952 Slow-Fission Reactor. The plant has come close to meltdowns multiple times, but has always avoided catastrophe, often due to blind luck (and in one case, a dog employee briefly waking up to avert the meltdown during a particularly lazy day).

    Security is also shown to be lax, as a ten-year-old spy from Albania disguised as a foreign exchange student named Adil took pictures and got information of the plant simply by asking a worker for a tour. Numerous times, the people have been able to break in easily, on many occasions shown to have keys hidden under fake rocks (on one occasion one even being shown inside)."

    • [Deactivated] on 03/07/2018 - 09:02
      +1

      And I take it on good authority the owner of said power plant has also been ordered to remove a council unapproved structure from his property. It was found that said property was erected out of malice and cast a long shadow over the town at certain hours.

      Compliance of the alleged owner can best be described as reluctant.

    • Skramit on 03/07/2018 - 09:37
      -2

      lol if you read it on the internet it must be true

      • HighAndDry on 03/07/2018 - 11:15
        +1

        whoooooooosh

      • IVI on 05/07/2018 - 13:01

        Dunno about that…

        But if you rely on Science & Scientists, you might get a clue.

    • IVI on 05/07/2018 - 13:06

      From ~2025, Safe, Small, Green, & Cheap MSR's
      will be All-In-One (sealed cores, made in factories)

      So, anything you know about "Fukushima era" NPPs, will soon be Obsolete.

      Better get updating, or you'll be left behind.

      "Know New MSR Nukes"

      Canada's IMSR

      MIT-based WAMSR (from a Woman-like start-up co.)

      UK's SSL

      etc.

    • IVI on 05/07/2018 - 13:09

      So, what do you know about toxic Coal, mate?

      • Skramit on 05/07/2018 - 16:24

        Its perfectly safe.

  • retiredfeline on 03/07/2018 - 11:54
    +1

    OP shot their cred to bits with the GST nonsense post.

    • payton on 03/07/2018 - 18:48

      OP was already a lunatic fringe way before then

      • IVI on 05/07/2018 - 12:59

        Like Renewable Energy?

        Maybe see: RoadmapToNowhere.com

        Falacy ad Hominum (insulting the writer, rather than Debating them), says more about you, than me.

        AU has ostriches, but Humans can do more than bury their heads.

        • payton on 05/07/2018 - 13:51

          maybe learn to write posts like a normal human being rather than frothing

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join