-
@Hooroo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@NTA said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
remove sovereign risk from governments changing their minds and reduce the ridiculous regulatory burden only nuclear has to put up with
Why does nuclear have this "ridiculous" regulatory burden? Because, done wrong, its dangerous.
Twaddle. It's the safest form of energy generation per MW yet developed and implemented.
Even the poster boys of nuclear - Korea - are having their chickens come home to roost:
Corruption isn't surprising; it's South Korea. And despite a third generation design and these associated scandals, their reactors haven't Chernobyled either.
People are adverse to nuclear because they're ignorant and ignorance breeds fear. People hear nuclear and think of bombs or Chernobyl. Nuclear plants can't turn into nuclear bombs. It's literally impossible as anyone with an ounce of physics will know. Chernobyl is an outlier with no equal; a knowingly terrible design built poorly run by idiots.
Even the worst modern case was Fukushima with no deaths as a result of complete loss of cooling functionality and subsequent meltdown.
Comparing them to generation four reactors is like comparing an Edsel to a Veyron. They use almost all their fuel, can't meltdown by design and take up hardly any landspace in comparison to windfarms or solar farms. They also have an amazing capacity factor which renewables will never achieve.
I know sweet FA about Nuclear energy so always enjoy reading things like this.
What about "waste"? Is that still an issue? Was it ever and issue in the first place?
Waste isn't a concern with fourth generation reactors. But it was a minor concern with existing gen 3:
Around 5-10 m3 of high-level liquid waste is produced per tonne of fuel reprocessed, depending on the fuel and the reprocessing flowscheme. The waste is treated to remove any remaining organic solvents and eventually is concentrated by evaporation to around 5-15 per cent of its initial volume for storage in specially designed waste tanks. The eventual result of reprocessing light-water reactor (LWR) fuels is around 15 m3 of stored high-level liquid waste for each 1000 MW(e) generated annually. - IAEA Bulletin Vol 21 No 4.
Currently only about one per cent is reusable fuel (unless we use breeder reactors). The vast majority (~93%) is U-238 which can safely be put back into the ground as natural uranium. Then there's about ~4.6% fission product which decays down to background radiation within ~300 years.
That leaves about 0.01% of highly radioactive byproduct (transuranics). This stuff can be placed in synrock and shoved deep underground in the world's most stable geological country (Australia) where no one lives anyway.
If we did use breeder reactors with U-238, there's enough energy on earth for us to make it until the sun shits itself.
-
On cost, its also that it is hard to remember a nuclear plant being built anywhere near on time or budget. Added to the fact that to go from a standing start here in Oz you'd be looking at 8yrs minimum for approvals and construction. And despite the safety reality (I agree with you here @antipodean ), can you imagine the way false/misleading information would be disseminated by those with a vested interest?
I just think the time for large-scale nuclear was probably 10-20yrs ago
-
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@NTA said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
(Again I repeat my support for nuclear in some form - particularly as we'll need it for other uses rather than a commercially sustainable consumer grid. But really that ship sailed in the 1970s in terms of widespread management of supply-driven infrastructure and would barely be 50% of a demand-driven future state).
I'll do likewise then: I support renewables where they make sense, but implementation in the grid above ~30% they become exponentially expensive.
That figure depends entirely on the grid to which they're connected - delivery infrastructure will turn out to be the most expensive part of the operation as solar and wind prices drop, which is why they're trying to turn locations like Liddell into a renewables park; The HVDC is already there.
Nuclear also cannot 100% power a demand-driven grid. It simply isn't flexible enough unless you build thousands of sub-MW reactors and cycle them on and off.
EDIT: ideally the balance comes down somewhere in between - nuclear 20-30% at "baseload" with minor ramping capability under SMR. Solar on both sides of the meter is going to cut a lot of daytime generation need, and wind - particularly offshore - is the lion's share. Storage fills the gaps, including grid scale but also mobility resources like vehicles.
200% renewables is easier to work than 100% according to one report I've seen - overcapacity can be used for production of transportable energy like hydrogen.
-
@NTA That's why I advocate for a mix of energy generation. But unlike some I don't categorically rule it out. In fact with the minor amount of physics and economics I know*, I openly advocate for it.
Well aware that I may well be suffering a Dunning-Kruger illusion. I'm not a nuclear physicist.
-
@NTA said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
EDIT: ideally the balance comes down somewhere in between - nuclear 20-30% at "baseload" with minor ramping capability under SMR. Solar on both sides of the meter is going to cut a lot of daytime generation need, and wind - particularly offshore - is the lion's share. Storage fills the gaps, including grid scale but also mobility resources like vehicles.
200% renewables is easier to work than 100% according to one report I've seen - overcapacity can be used for production of transportable energy like hydrogen.Exponentially more expensive. We only have to look at Germany to see this.
Nuclear/ hydro needs to be in the vicinity of 70%. Renewables/ gas can fill in the remainder.
-
@voodoo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
On cost, its also that it is hard to remember a nuclear plant being built anywhere near on time or budget. Added to the fact that to go from a standing start here in Oz you'd be looking at 8yrs minimum for approvals and construction. And despite the safety reality (I agree with you here @antipodean ), can you imagine the way false/misleading information would be disseminated by those with a vested interest?
I just think the time for large-scale nuclear was probably 10-20yrs ago
Probably because they're often bespoke. Which is the fault of both the customer and the contractor - who is operating on cost-plus so they have a vested interest in stretching it out (unless the customer puts in the appropriate penalty clauses).
But the real issue for me: nuclear isn't getting any faster or cheaper to build, despite 60 years of it being generally understood. Its not getting any easier to manage, and short of SMR < 500kW becoming commonplace, it isn't going to move toward a robust distributed model in the same way other sources can for the associated benefits.
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@NTA That's why I advocate for a mix of energy generation. But unlike some I don't categorically rule it out. In fact with the minor amount of physics and economics I know*, I openly advocate for it.
Well aware that I may well be suffering a Dunning-Kruger illusion. I'm not a nuclear physicist.
I'm not against any tech that is low emission, understanding the reality that fossil fuels are in the Australian market for the next decade at least so we need to start running to the available alternatives.
Unfortunately the privatisation of certain parts of the grid, and the vested political interest in particular industries, will hamstring any real decision making under any federal government until something shakes loose the lobby shackle.
I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll only get nuclear at a critical point when all else is looking shit house.
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Exponentially more expensive. We only have to look at Germany to see this.
Germany planned their transition decades ago. Renewables have changed a lot since then. The assumption that this is the only outcome everywhere due to the path they took is an assumption that doesn't work everywhere.
Nuclear/ hydro needs to be in the vicinity of 70%. Renewables/ gas can fill in the remainder.
Can only think Canada fits this kind of number. And you can't have high penetration hydro without water.
-
@NTA said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@voodoo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
On cost, its also that it is hard to remember a nuclear plant being built anywhere near on time or budget. Added to the fact that to go from a standing start here in Oz you'd be looking at 8yrs minimum for approvals and construction. And despite the safety reality (I agree with you here @antipodean ), can you imagine the way false/misleading information would be disseminated by those with a vested interest?
I just think the time for large-scale nuclear was probably 10-20yrs ago
Probably because they're often bespoke. Which is the fault of both the customer and the contractor - who is operating on cost-plus so they have a vested interest in stretching it out (unless the customer puts in the appropriate penalty clauses).
No private lender is going to provide finance to a multi-billion plant here on a cost-plus basis, in fact even the CEFC wouldn't touch that. I don't have any knowledge of those that are currently being built around the world though
-
@voodoo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@NTA said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@voodoo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
On cost, its also that it is hard to remember a nuclear plant being built anywhere near on time or budget. Added to the fact that to go from a standing start here in Oz you'd be looking at 8yrs minimum for approvals and construction. And despite the safety reality (I agree with you here @antipodean ), can you imagine the way false/misleading information would be disseminated by those with a vested interest?
I just think the time for large-scale nuclear was probably 10-20yrs ago
Probably because they're often bespoke. Which is the fault of both the customer and the contractor - who is operating on cost-plus so they have a vested interest in stretching it out (unless the customer puts in the appropriate penalty clauses).
No private lender is going to provide finance to a multi-billion plant here on a cost-plus basis, in fact even the CEFC wouldn't touch that. I don't have any knowledge of those that are currently being built around the world though
Biggest sector of nuclear energy at the moment is decommissioning
-
@NTA said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Exponentially more expensive. We only have to look at Germany to see this.
Germany planned their transition decades ago. Renewables have changed a lot since then. The assumption that this is the only outcome everywhere due to the path they took is an assumption that doesn't work everywhere.
Ze Germans have approximately 60GW of installed wind capacity. Add 47 GW of solar.
This was Germany in comparison to France less than an hour ago:
Note the difference in carbon intensity.
The Energiewende now enters the next stage of wind/solar integration where substantial grid expansion is required to balance variable renewables. Currently, Germany is falling behind with this task, leading to rapidly increasing grid stabilization costs.
This will be an interesting test for the Energiewende given the complexity and scale. Up to this point, the modular nature of wind/solar power made their expansion attractively simple. From this point onward, however, continued expansion will require large and complex national and international grid expansion projects. - https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/tracking-energiewende-performance
Replacing 1000MW (for argument's sake) is cheaper with renewables, but then you have to add the capacity factor and network upgrades to that cost. One only has to look at Germany and the predicted cost of Energiewende by 2025 is over €520 billion (or ~850 billion dollarydoos). Hardly cheap and the only reason Germany can afford it is because they're beneficiaries of the EU.
Another important aspect to note is the level of subsidy required - they're currently paying 50% more than the European average according to that article.
Imagine if they spent that on fourth generation reactors instead - they'd power the EU.
Nuclear/ hydro needs to be in the vicinity of 70%. Renewables/ gas can fill in the remainder.
Can only think Canada fits this kind of number. And you can't have high penetration hydro without water.
Norway is practically all hydro, Sweden is hydro and nuclear, Ontario is nuclear and hydro, Yukon is hydro, Washington (State) is hydro and nuclear, Uruguay is wind and hydro, the South Island is basically hydro.
Moral of the story is do what's best for your region.
-
Closer to home, this is South Australia doing its bit:
We don't have large scale hydro in this country and what little we do have is best utilised as storage. Keeping in mind the continent is drought stricken.
South Australia has an abundance of sunshine (when it's not cloudy) and a fair bit of wind, but even then they're burning gas like it's going out of fashion to keep the lights on.
Even in Tasmania where there's good sites for some wind farms, the former leader of the Greens is busy trying to prevent installation in the world's biggest case of NIMBY hypocrisy. Proof these pricks don't believe their own placards.
-
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Note the difference in carbon intensity.
Two reasons: France has a lot of nuclear, and all the coal in Germany is lignite (brown coal) with a bigger carbon intensity than the regular stuff.
Yet, despite this, and the cost factors you're talking about, France is planning transition to renewables as it's nuclear fleet ages.
-
@NTA said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Note the difference in carbon intensity.
Two reasons: France has a lot of nuclear, and all the coal in Germany is lignite (brown coal) with a bigger carbon intensity than the regular stuff.
Yet, despite this, and the cost factors you're talking about, France is planning transition to renewables as it's nuclear fleet ages.
Because Macron is a virtue signalling moron.
-
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@NTA said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Note the difference in carbon intensity.
Two reasons: France has a lot of nuclear, and all the coal in Germany is lignite (brown coal) with a bigger carbon intensity than the regular stuff.
Yet, despite this, and the cost factors you're talking about, France is planning transition to renewables as it's nuclear fleet ages.
Because Macron is a virtue signalling moron.
Oversimplifying it a bit I'm not sure his influence overrides every single financial hurdle by default.
France is regularly held up by the nukebois as a shining example, so why not maintain that low carbon intensity? Why aren't they a world leader in nuclear R&D given their long history? Whether it's their Gen 4 reactor?
Cost of running and developing nuclear is a big factor. They only really got into it after the oil crisis in the 70s, after all. That won't be as a big an issue going forward.
-
@NTA said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@NTA said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Note the difference in carbon intensity.
Two reasons: France has a lot of nuclear, and all the coal in Germany is lignite (brown coal) with a bigger carbon intensity than the regular stuff.
Yet, despite this, and the cost factors you're talking about, France is planning transition to renewables as it's nuclear fleet ages.
Because Macron is a virtue signalling moron.
Oversimplifying it a bit I'm not sure his influence overrides every single financial hurdle by default.
France is regularly held up by the nukebois as a shining example, so why not maintain that low carbon intensity? Why aren't they a world leader in nuclear R&D given their long history? Whether it's their Gen 4 reactor?
Cost of running and developing nuclear is a big factor. They only really got into it after the oil crisis in the 70s, after all. That won't be as a big an issue going forward.
Because all available evidence points to the benefits. You only have to look at their neighbour to contrast.
-
Extinction Rebellion trying to block London City airport today. Some bloke got up as a plane was about to take off and walked up and down the aisle preventing it.
Others have glued themselves to the airport. I always wonder the same questions for activists who do this sort of thing. What do you do when you inevitably need to take a shit?
-
@MajorRage said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Extinction Rebellion trying to block London City airport today. Some bloke got up as a plane was about to take off and walked up and down the aisle preventing it.
Others have glued themselves to the airport. I always wonder the same questions for activists who do this sort of thing. What do you do when you inevitably need to take a shit?
-
kale is a great diuretic so I'm sure they are well blocked up
-
they've probably shit themselves numerous times at music festivals
-
-
The girl who cries wolf: “Alarmist language works.”
-
@MajorRage said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Extinction Rebellion trying to block London City airport today. Some bloke got up as a plane was about to take off and walked up and down the aisle preventing it.
Others have glued themselves to the airport. I always wonder the same questions for activists who do this sort of thing. What do you do when you inevitably need to take a shit?
It’s a false flag from the oil companies to make us completely despise climate activists.
That’s the only way I can possibly make sense of putting up the likes of Greta and these turds as the public image of their movement. They’ve put a lot of work into it , the arseclowns who glued themselves to the bank in Wellington had perfected their soyfaces well in advance.
-
@jegga said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
It’s a false flag from the oil companies to make us completely despise climate activists.
That’s the only way I can possibly make sense of putting up the likes of Greta and these turds as the public image of their movement.
Its a good theory, but I guess we forget how controversial protests in the Vietnam era or Civil Rights - even Suffragettes over a centruy ago - were to the mainstream in their time.
Now they are ennobled because their cause is seen as just.
Will we look back in 20-30 years and say the climate protesters were equally justified?
As an aside: went to see Billy Elliot The Musical here in Sydney last night. Great production, talented kids. But the overriding thing for me was the portrayal of Thatcher-era mining protest. A year on strike is pretty fucking hardcore, and the government of the time was highly abrasive.
Climate Change