With an energy crisis hitting the Northern Hemisphere and China streaking ahead, an atomic renaissance is brewing.
The UK is putting more into new nuclear power. France has flipped from shrinking nukes to growing them. The Netherlands had changed its tune. The EU has quietly drafted rules allowing nuclear power to count as “green”.
There are 443 Nuclear Power plants in the world. Another 54 plants are under construction, and more than a third of those are in China. Right now China has about half the capacity of the USA, but within five or ten years China will be the largest nuclear power in the world.
The Green energy experiment is failing to produce cheap reliable energy.
Australia has one third of the world’s known uranium, but has no nuclear power. Why don’t the Coalition do something a tiny bit brave and do what 32 other countries already do.
There is no reason under the sun that the nation with the world’s uranium and the most stable tectonic plates on Earth shouldn’t go nuclear. We’re getting the subs, why not the power?
Nuclear Ban Has To Go
Adam Creighton, The Australian
It should be obvious nuclear is no longer toxic for other democracies yet Australia, alone among G20 nations, maintains an outright ban despite sitting on one of the largest uranium reserves.
France late last year reversed a decision to cut its dependence on nuclear energy from 75 per cent to 50 per cent, announcing €30bn ($47.7bn) for six new reactors. The EU looks set to designate gas and nuclear power as “green energy”.
The Netherlands has allocated €500m to extend and upgrade nuclear capacity to 2025. “Nuclear energy can complement solar, wind and geothermal energy in the energy mix, and can be used to produce hydrogen,” the Dutch government said in December. “It also makes us less dependent on gas imports.”
Germany’s decision to phase out its nuclear reactors is looking increasingly foolish, tying its hands in a looming showdown between NATO and Russia over Ukraine’s future.
Nuclear power is great but it should be chosen (or not) based upon free market economic decisions.
Coal or gas may or may not be cheaper than nuclear depending on local economic circumstances.
For example, a nuclear power plant in Australia’s Outback would be more economic than coal in the same location. A nuclear power plant built next to an open cut coal mine would likely not be cheaper than coal.
The decision to use nuclear should NOT be because it is the only reliable permitted power source outside of coal, gas and properly engineered hydro (not Snowy Hydro 2).
Coal and gas should not be banned or taxed or regulated out of existence in the first place.
Coal, gas, nuclear and properly engineered hydro are the only cheap and reliable power sources and all are vital for our civilisation and well being.
552
Nuclear should not only be based on cost but have an element of strategy involved in its selection. Balance is important as well as ongoing expertise gained (in light of the nuclear subs program). I guess we are stuck with the solar and wind for a while.
60
As long as you can dump the waste into the environment for free, it makes economic sense
147
No one “dumps the waste in the environment” Peter. It is securely stored in proper repositories.
Also, it’s a shame that with civilian reactors waste is buried with 99% of its original energy contebt.
That energy could be liberated in breeder reactors eventually leaving a much less radioactive waste product. But Leftists don’t like breeder reactors either.
Incidentally, what is civilisation going to do for cheap reliable energy without coal, gas and nuclear? And even if you accept hydro power, that is fully exploited in most places except Tibet but those wonderful friends of the Left, the Chicomms are making sure of that.
320
Chernobyl, Fukushima, are your poster boys, but I’m really talking the waste produced by the mining of the feedstock, the waste heat, the degradation of cooling water, but hey who cares, certainly not me
09
“As long as you can dump the waste into the environment for free, it makes economic sense”
Yes, wind and solar get away with it, scot-free, for basically their whole short life time.
Toxic mess in their manufacture ignored.
Destruction of forests and other pristine environments.
They even get subsidies to help them appear to make economic sense.
411
Not to mention the massive after-life pollution of solar panels, and the leaving of huge lumps of concrete in the ground, and the tip space required for the burial of old turbine blades.
Wind and solar do magnitudes more damage to the environment than coal or nuclear will ever do.
360
Let’s not forget the pre-life pollution of PV cells.
PF speaks of “degradation of cooling water”. Semiconductor grade silicon uses a LOT of water.
40
Maralinga
Site Nuclear Power Station near Port Augusta (ugly area) – 270 Kms to Olympic Roxby Downs Uranium Mine, 867 Km to Maralinga to dump waste
70
In France, they have built Reprocessing Plants next to each reactor.
When a fuel rod gets to a point where it is not producing atomic reactions (typically only half the fuel in the rod has been used), the rod comes out and goes to the reprocessing plant, where the nuclear reaction contaminants are stripped out of the rod and the rod is refilled. The amount of waste is **significantly** reduced, which is why France does not have a nuclear Waste problem.
Compare this to Australia: we have 1 nuclear plant (which produces nuclear **MEDICINE** only), but when a fuel rod reaches the same point, it is entirely removed and put into a waste container. Typically half the fuel in that rod is unused. This is just wasteful and useless.
If we built a reprocessing plant next to the Nuclear power station, we would more then half the waste. And as others have said, we are a stable tectonic island, PLUS, we have geological areas where there is massive amounts of granite (which is needed for Nuclear waste).
150
Funny that you never hear waste arguments about chemical industry toxins that don’t have a half live and keep forever toxic.
00
Locked behind a paywall for me, but I think it is more interesting that they are also designating gas as a green energy. Nuclear obviously doesnt emit ghg’s, but gas does. Including gas seems like someone has finally had a reality check on the intermittent nature of renewable energy.
350
So now we’re into full ‘Never Mind’ politics.
Nuclear is bad … wait, never mind.
Two weeks to flatten the curve … never mind.
Vaccines will return us to normal … never mind.
20 years in Afghanistan … never mind.
The ice caps are melting … never mind.
Children born today will never see snow … never mind.
Vaccine mandates … never mind.
Hunters laptop … never mind.
Australia and NZ will be the last to ‘Never Mind’.
And the Media … “I must leave you now for there they go, and we are their leaders.”
And in the words of the late, great Yogi Berra, the sage of modern politics, “I never said any of those things I said.”
350
Yogi Berra rocks. Who cares if he or Murphy coined the quotes.
Without him we would never have had Yogi Bear.
Smarter than the average bear Bobo!
120
You’re right.
After all, 90% of it is half mental.
110
The following quote applies extremely well to the current crop of leaders, state and federal. It’s no wonder our society is in a death spiral.
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”
Thomas Sowell
530
A great quote. A great man.
280
You’re correct Jo and I’ve followed him for years after an introduction from the Bolter and Nat Civic Council’s News Weekly years ago.
There are some great interviews on Youtube with Thomas and he’s still going strong.
90
Yes it’s a great quote and in fact could be modified as follows to be even more to the point
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who not only pay no price for being wrong but are massively rewarded financially for the rest of their lives.”
50
Thomas Sowell is an excellent economist. I strongly recommend his books and his talks and interviews on YouTube (or better yet, on free speech video platforms). He trained under Milton Friedman. Even though Thomas was Leftist at the time, conservatives don’t cancel people for alternative opinions.
He is particularly hated by the Left because he is black and conservative and doesn’t subscribe to the Leftist mentality that black people should be welfare slaves.
180
Western democracies in a nut shell
30
LOL………He also said “Deja Vu all over again”………………
10
Also …
“You can observe a lot just by watching.”
“No one go’s there anymore, it’s too crowded.”
Yogi was Zen.
20
Oh my, fun facts from DFAT:
(UOC = Uranium Ore Concentrates)
Total Australian UOC exports 2018–19 -------------------------------- 7,571 tonnesValue Australian UOC exports ---------------------------------------- $734 million
Australian exports as percentage of world uranium requirements4 ----- 9.6%
Number of reactors (GWe) these exports could power5 ----------------- 39
Power generated by these exports ------------------------------------ 253 TWh
Expressed as percentage of total Australian electricity production6 - 97%
See that last line? We export as much uraniun as we would need to power 97% of Aus.
And how can any federal government claim it’s bad but also sell $700+ million worth? We need to pick a lane.
320
Apart from the fact that Australia doesn’t use this product, we should also be fully processing it in Australia.
Australia exports yellowcake only, the most basic form of processing, not much beyond digging the rock out of the ground.
Sadly, Australia is too terrified to go to the next levels of making uranium metal or fuel rods.
It is a good sign that Australia will get nuclear subs but are politicians really serious about this? It might take decades by which time it will be too late. I wouldn’t be surprised if the project takes as long and is as expensive as the disastrous Turnbull project.
170
The whole of the US fleet of Nuclear power plants operate at a Capacity Factor of 89% on a year round basis.
So, let’s do the theoretical exercise (you know ….. modeling!!!) here and construct a standard sized Nuclear power plant of two reactors, each operating a 1300MW turbine/generator Unit, so then, we have a Nameplate of 2600MW. Using that CF of 89%, that single plant will deliver 20,300GWH across a year.
Now compare that with one of the largest wind plants in Australia, Macarthur Wind in Victoria. A similar plant of this size will have a Nameplate of 420MW. It will operate at the average CF for wind of 30%. (In real life Macarthur is perhaps one of the worst performing wind plants in Australia, and is only operating at around 25/26% each year, and falling) So the yearly output from a Macarthur sized plant (at 30%) is 1100GWH.
So, to equal the power delivery from the Nuke, you will need ….. 18.5 Macarthur sized wind plants.
That’s the exercise.
However, here in Australia, the current total power delivery from EVERY wind plant in the Country over the last 12 Months (to yesterday) was 23145GWH.
Now read again the power delivery from that ONE nuke I mentioned above. Umm, the Nuke delivers 88% of the power of every wind plant in Australia.
But, after all, that’s only modeling, isn’t it?
Tony.
400
Have you tried allowing the wind plants to self identity as nuclear plants?
221
Nice one, Centurion!
60
That’s giving LGBT politics a whole new slant 😀
Wot about Solar, then?
50
Solar plants. Some solar panels do come in dark green.
00
Yes there will have to be a lot of windmills. I often think about it as I drive in tableland country. Question is do people oppose that ? Farmers seem to be have a level of enthusiasm ?
20
Ironically I stopped supporting the Liberals when Morrison committed to nett zero and refused to make nuclear energy an issue at the election. I’ve now joined the Liberal Democrats and will be a candidate in Goldstein where Zoe Daniel is running as a climate independent. The Lib Dems energy policy pushes for the removal of the ban on nuclear energy , as well as no RET , no subsidies and no net zero target. So whilst I have been a poster on this web site for probably 10 years so people know my sentiment toward the alarmist green ideology I can see that a pragmatic approach to fighting climate change hysteria is to say that you can’t be serious about net zero if you don’t have nuclear in the mix. The major parties solution is to rely on technologies such as hydrogen or battery storage who despite trillions of dollars being spent provide no practical , affordable solution.
Nuclear is the only emissions free base load solution.
As with the last 3 or 4 elections if the parties make climate change policy an issue they will lose votes not to each other but to one of the three minor parties UAP, One Nation or Lib Dems.
310
You stopped supporting the libs over nuclear policy.
Enjoy Rudd/Gillard Mk II.
Work to change the leader, not the party.
64
No need. Enjoy Turnbull Mk II right now.
100
I think the political solution is to have a referendum on nuclear first.
– Easy to get past the senate, as opponents would be seen as anti-democratic.
– NIMBYism on siting of nuclear plants is dealt with, by saying up front that no nuke would be sited in a community which votes against it in the national referendum. So called “local opposition” would just get painted as out-of-touch with their neighbours.
– Once it passes, the result becomes like the Brexit result – poisonous for a politician to oppose as they would be seen as anti-democratic.
110
Australians are ill educated on the need for nuclear power thanks to so much propaganda against nuclear being shoved down our throats for decades. So, a referendum is unlikely to work. No, true leadership is the only way. Of course we don’t have true leadership and we are unlikely to get it any time soon so we are just dreaming here. Neither major party is willing to stick their necks out proposing the use of nuclear power and risk losing an election. In essence we are a very childish nation when it comes to nuclear power when compared to other nations, even including Pakistan, India, Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary, Brazil, etc. who are building new ones as we speak.
190
Nuclear is CO2 free, but I am still concerned about the way it is dealt WRT nuclear waste. Going to bury it or drop it in the Mariana Trench?? Until a safe method of disposing of nuclear waste is devised, I am against nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels.
427
Seriously? The waste from producing the energy someone uses in their entire lifetime from nuclear would fit in a coke can.
If you are going to be worried about hazardous waste, worry about the chemical toxic waste we are producing – a lot more of it, and more damaging to the environment when it leaks.
And note that producing/disposing of solar cells is responsible for some of that toxic waste.
321
You make a valid point about the large amounts of toxic chemical wastes we produce. It doesn’t matter what type of waste we are talking about; they all need to be handled appropriately, and they can be. Nuclear waste is not exception. So, the excuse some use that nuclear waste is too dangerous is so childish it’s not funny.
170
Well many, most, places and things don’t need an alternative to fossil fuels. The whole thing is about the faulty premise that co2 needs to be mitigated.
212
Tell that to our PM. It will fall on death ears. I’d be happy if he grew up and had the courage to announce that he would allow nuclear power here even if the only reason is to reduce our CO2 emissions in spite of the fact as you say it’s a faulty premise. Australia needs to grow up at some stage.
140
Waste?
What waste?
We’re talking about modern nuclear reactors, 21st Century Liquid Fuel ones, not 1940/50/60 Hunks of Junk.
Those old clunkers should be modernised ASAP.
50
CHRIS: if you are worried about nuclear waste, you need to read up on LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors) — the ones which burn the wasted Uranium from the conventional water-cooled reactors.
Watch and listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8%5D
— this is from 2008 so you need to get up to date!
30
CHRIS, there is no technical nuclear waste disposal problem that hasn’t already been solved and implemented.
There is only the political problem based on lies and propaganda that there is a genuine nuclear waste disposal problem.
In any case, as I mentioned elsewhere, waste from civilian nuclear reactors is not waste in any case as it is buried with 99% of its original energy remaining.
It should be reprocessed and used in breeder reactors to extract that remaining energy.
Also, Australia could make a fortune by offering nuclear waste disposal site(s) for the world. We could exploit the ignorance of the rest of the world based on the falsehood that it is hard to dispose of and there is no technology or suitable sites to do so. OF course, if the waste hasn’t already been through a breeder reactor to extract it’s remaining energy, it should be buried in a way that future, wiser generations could retrieve it and use it for energy.
80
“Also, Australia could make a fortune by offering nuclear waste disposal site(s) for the world. We could exploit the ignorance of the rest of the world based on the falsehood that it is hard to dispose of and there is no technology or suitable sites to do so. OF course, if the waste hasn’t already been through a breeder reactor to extract it’s remaining energy, it should be buried in a way that future, wiser generations could retrieve it and use it for energy.”
Absolutely the best and smartest comment on nuclear I’ve seen for ages. !
80
With the emergence of far more efficient Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs), there is now the opportunity to extract the approximately 96% un-fissioned uranium pellets from previously-used Light Water Reactor (LWR) fuel rods. This un-fissioned uranium is fuel for the far more efficient MSR technology. Any small REAL waste after this would be very low-level, short-life that you could dig into your garden bed very safely!
Eating a banana would probably be more risky – and yes! They are are radioactive ….
50
SYNROC was going to be one way of dealing with the radioactive waste………………..But this seems to have died a death…….
This is one way to go with Nuclear Energy for electricity generation……………..
https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/
20
The Australian ban on nuclear is yet another example of how powerful fear driven by ignorance is at manipulating people into willfully acting against their own best interests.
360
Yes the fear extends to nuclear weapons. We have countries like Pakistan and India with nuclear weapons yet we are manipulated to fear such weaponry in a very childish manner. We need to grow up as a nation in many ways.
70
Just realised what you have stated is the best factual statement I’ve seen for a long time. Concise yet jam packed with a lot of truth and food for thought.
170
The Australian ban on nuclear seems based on nuclear technology as it was in the 1970s and early 80s. Like with everything else, nuclear technology has greatly advanced over the 40 years since then.
100
There is a formula: FEAR + IGNORANCE = STUPIDITY!
It’s been relevant since the time of cave-men …..
30
Background reading on Nukes:
This is a producing facility and has been for years. 20 km north of Richland, WA.
https://www.energy-northwest.com/energyprojects/Columbia/Pages/default.aspx
See with Google Earth: 46.47143, -119.3329
Interesting history about poor planning and finance is at the following link. It concerns an attempt in Washington State that failed. The initials are WPPSS, but locals call it Whoops!
https://www.historylink.org/File/5482
The output of the Columbia Generating Station, and other electric sources, is shown at the following link (in 5 minute updates).
https://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx
The site now uses “ VER ” for wind and some solar – – variable energy resources. This source was near Zero for much of the last 2 weeks, but the wind started to blow about midnight of Jan 30.
40
Return the waste to our local star. But, first:
1. Island nations [those blessed with uranium] produce fuel rods, shipped to
2. . . . another set of island nations, which install, in Earth’s green maritime fleet,
3. . . . Small Modular Reactors (SMRs),
4. . . . which industrialized nations assemble.
These vessels, while docked, power local grids.
Other developed nations rocket spent rods Home, whence all our substance comes.
40
So Nuclear is popilar again. I figured (quietly and to myself, last year, when the GSM was announced and that we might — and that was my operative word: might — see a nuclear revival. Now Australia and New Zealand need to see the lights of day. We mignt have to wait anothe two or three winters for the pennies to drop.
The weather will worsen and worsen. We’ll have to see what this year’a Southern Hemisphere winter will be like. .
But we’ll entertain it eventually.
110
I hate these new versions of my web browsers. They have started deciding for themselves when a post is to go up. I’ll know I have to give up when they start writing for me instead of just mis-spelling them.
100
Nuclear is just …well…sensible.
Therefore the Left will try and stop it.
190
There already is a group formally promoting nuclear energy in Australia:
https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/
“The Australian Nuclear Association Inc (ANA) is an independent incorporated scientific institution made up of people from the professions, business, government and universities with an interest in nuclear topics. The ANA promotes the knowledge and practice of the peaceful, safe and effective use of nuclear science and technology and provides a forum for the presentation, exchange and dissemination of information in the field of nuclear science and technology.
The Australian Nuclear Association supports the use of nuclear science and technology in Australia, including: nuclear techniques in research, industry and medicine; research reactors as a source of neutrons for research and production of radioisotopes; and nuclear power plants to produce electricity.” [my bold]
70
Perhaps surprisingly, one organisation supporting nuclear energy is the CFMEU!
http://www.energypolicyinstitute.com.au/images/2-20__Geoff_Dyke_PP.pdf
30
Australia has had two attempts at nuclear power reactors in the past.
1) Jervis Bay NSW for a civilian power reactor that could also produce weapons grade plutonium in case Australia wanted to make nuclear weapons. Cancelled by PM McMahon in 1971 but they did start the foundations.
2) French Island in Vicdanistan. The State Electricity Commission applied for 400 acres of land there in 1967 for a reactor site.
Australia became too scared and timid of big projects after that, the Snowy Hydro Project was almost finished by then.
70
The most TOXIC and environmentally disastrous so called energies are S & W and we should stop using these ASAP. And ditto stupid EVs as well.
Nuclear is certainly the way to go but we’ll have to have a big fight with our left wing donkeys before we can start to introduce this valuable energy source.
But in the meantime we should be building the latest and cleanest Coal and Gas power stns to fill the gap.
BASE-LOAD power is the only intelligent way forward and anything else is a WASTE of billions of $ forever.
150
Just to add to the above. S & W last for about 20 years and then must be buried in landfill and then more TOXICITY is AGAIN built to ruin our landscape above and below the ground, for another 20 years.
BTW I think the 20 year replacement is too generous, because both S & W start to deteriorate within 5 to 10 years. Offshore wind particularly.
But will we ever wake up to these unreliable, TOXIC disasters that are ignorantly called clean energy?
100
Leftists endlessly repeat their mantra that the unreliables are now so cheap that they will put reliable power producers (coal, gas and nuclear) out of business but never produce actual evidence of this. And no politicians or members of the misleadea ever question it.
If unreliables were genuinely cheaper, free market forces would have ensured reliable power investors would have moved to them ages ago.
The only reason reliable power producers are at risk of going out of business is because of excessive government taxes and regulations designed to punish them and drive them out of business as has happened in Australia and is still happening
100
If nuclear power was afforded the same subsidies and other benefits as renewables, the nuclear option would be by far the better solution for those who make-believe that reducing our emissions is our number one goal. So much for honesty, credibility and integrity of both major parties wrt the climate change agenda. Both are totally delinquent in all three departments.
70
Part of me says, “let the Left have their way”. Let them utterly destroy all reliable power. Let them have their solar, wind and Big Battery fantasy.
It will take the suffering of an energy starved world to make people understand the destructive intent of the Left. That would not be a good time to be a Leftist. That time may well come.
Already, the Left are keeping Africa in extended poverty by not allowing, or funding, reliable coal or gas power stations.
Children aren’t getting fully educated in Africa because of lack of light at night to see to do homework, vaccines and food can’t be stored due to lack of refrigeration and people, women in particular, die of respiratory diseases due to inhaling smoke from wood or dung cooking fires. (There are some modest projects for solar powered lights to provide a study light for children at night but that is not enough.)
130
David your valid points about Africa just proves why I’m correct about their so called EXISTENTIAL threat.
Even with the Elite’s penalties handed to them African countries have added over 1,000 million people in just the last 50 years from 363 mil in 1970 to 1370 mil in 2021.
Yet they’ve also increased their Life expectancy from 46.5 to 64. Incredible achievement and conclusively proves that our poorest continent has had no ongoing problems from their so called climate crisis or emergencies or EXT threats or ……
Clearly with more education for young girls we should see a fall in early pregnancies etc, but unfortunately this will take some time. But the incredible increase in live births and then the survival of more infants is the first time in human history that we’ve seen this modern miracle.
Africa is the poorest continent yet we’ve been shown that their so called EXT threat is bogus and in fact the data shows the reverse is true.
60
If children in Africa were to be educated who would mine the lithium needed for the elite’s Teslas?
30
“socialism is when the government partners with private corporations”. Like Mussolini and Hitler. Or the Democrats with Silicon Valley and Pfizer and the CCP.
It’s amazing that the internet is full of denial, especially media like the Washington Post who deny that the NAZIs and the Fascists were socialists at all but dreaded conservatives, right wingers.
Across the internet it seems that the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei which followed the ideology of der Nationalsozialismus was not socialist at all?
We are in a world of denial. AntiFA, Anti Fascist is obviously violent fascism complete with blackshirts. BLM or anti racism is really extreme racism and destroys the inner city and black lives. Government funded abortion targets the poor black communities most. The 6th Jan 2021 march on Washington was labelled a murderous riot and violent insurrection when the only death was an unarmed protester a triple term of duty veteran but the many months of actual murder, arson and anarchy in Portland were reported as ‘mostly peaceful’.
And as for Critical Race Theory, it’s hard to understand the White Privilege of the Irish or the Scots or the Italians or the Slavs or the Serfs of Russia. And slavery was endemic for all of human history, before the industrial revolution. Even the Jews were slaves in Babylon and Egypt and persecuted and slaughtered for most of their history and now we have BLM?
Plus the Greens are the privileged few demanding democratic Western societies self destruct when democracy and cheap power have dragged the world so quickly out of poverty.
The extreme socialist media no longer represent anyone but themselves. At least Twitter is allowing the truth out, likely because there is just too much to ban.
Go Truckers! Just Go Trudeau!
90
Six days before the Chernobyl disaster (which would not have happened in a properly designed and managed Western plant), which killed fewer than 100 people, the Kantale Dam in Sri Lanka collapsed killing 120-180 people.
And yet everyone has heard of Chernobyl but almost no one has heard of the Kantale Dam collapse….
110
It seems that our nearest neighbour, Indonesia, and its nuclear power program is totally ignored in Australia.
They have been working for some years towards a small fleet of 500MW molten salt reactors with a total capacity of 3.5GW.
The project is getting underway in a big way now with the engineering architects now contracted (EAI – Spain), site selection
completed and the first cold (non-radioactive) engineering test facility to start construction this year. The project timeline
had the first reactor on line in 2026 but that might be delayed because of the Covid disruptions in Indonesia.
Thorcon – the company doing the nuclear engineering – say that their verified cost estimate is $1.2 Billion per GW installed with
export electricity cost of 3c/KWhr at the plant fence. (www.thorconpower.com)
It would seem that Australia and Australians have become too stupid to look over the border and see what our neighbours are up to.
I guess the alphabet community and pronouns along with following WEF orders rate much higher in our leaders’ minds than being smart.
160
Australia could be importing cheap nuclear power from Indonesia. So could Singapore.
Instead, Australia invests in bizarre projects like a monstrous solar subsidy farm (with Big Batteries) to export power to Singapore via a 5000km undersea cable.
The insanity of this project defies belief. I would like to know who and how money is made from this.
130
That’s why I have little faith in our leadership.
Mr. Morrison is our nominal leader; nominally he pushes back at the dogma of the WEF and UNIPCCC , but he calmly accepts the massive spread of Renewable Energy projects that do us no good and damage our nation.
Is that two faced.
80
How many years from initial decision making to first sod turned?? If it’s in Australia add about 10 years to that process at least.
30
Good question – I’m fairly sure the first approach by Thorcon to the Indonesians was around 2014.
The Indonesians were considering nuclear power options at that time because their coal reserves are fairly limited
and they wanted to increase Indonesia’s generating capacity.
Thorcon had an advantage in that one of their senior project engineers was Indonesian and had worked in the power industry in
Indonesia. Apparently Indonesia has a fairly byzantine administrative structure so it takes a while to work through the
structure and processes to make a project happen.
20
Just to add to the African future population etc I should’ve said that Africa also has the youngest average age of any continent.
That age in Africa is about 20 and in Australia is about 37 and Japan about 46. So another reason why more live births and survival of infants will place Africa under even more stress for many decades into the future.
Remember this is the first time in Human history that we’ve experienced this very recent problem. Just look up the DATA from 1900 to the present and work it out for yourselves.
60
“The insanity of this project defies belief. I would like to know who and how money is made from this.”
The sole profit would be from subsidies, lots of them.
40
Nuclear power is a complex thing to implement if one wishes to minimize wastes and maximize grid stability.
The original U power reactors were based on the Military reactor designs. In fact, the Pu byproduct was intended, by design, to be recovered for weapons production.
Newer Gen IV through Gen VI reactors minimize Pu production.
Nuke reactors have a minimum stable load requirement, usually 25% to 30% of rated max power. They cannot “turn down” below that output and remain stable. So, for a 1000 MW reactor, one may not operate the reactor without at Least a 250-300 MW load. Reactors “like” to be run at 50-90% load. Therefore, a grid must plan for Baseload plus peaking. Nukes for baseload and coal/gas for peaking. Building a lot of 1000 MW reactors doesn’t solve the loading problem. A mix of generation is needed to do that efficiently. And, one may need a gas/coal plant to support a nuke plant black restart scenario. Or, several 2 to 4 MW diesel gensets with air starters to provide restart capability. The point is the entire generation base cannot and should not be nuclear. It has to be a mix of generation types. A bit more on that is at: https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/reactor-operation/reactor-startup/
In 1970, the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty placed restrictions on the production and handling of fissile U and Pu reprocessing. See: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx
Using a well designed, cascade, reactor system that can burn U, then MOX, and then Thorium fuels, with a tailored reprocessing system, can minimize any Pu wastes, U mining, and maximize power generation.
Thorium reactors can “burn” U, Pu, and MOX, fuels as the trigger rod in a Th reactor, thereby destroying the U and Pu in the process. It has to be a “Planned” system of generation and reprocessing if one wishes to minimize wastes and maximize generation.
But it can be done. We have the technology to do it.
90
“But it can be done. We have the technology to do it.”
Unlike the other “renewable” energy sources, and energy storage, where the technology will be available at some time in the future.
50
Yes. Closed fuel cycles are very much worth consideration.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PAN….82.1131M/abstract
https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power-plant/nuclear-fuel/nuclear-fuel-cycle/closed-fuel-cycle/
Before embarking on a nuclear renaissance, the entire fuel and reprocessing cycle must be considered.
Otherwise, we just get more of what we don’t want.
20
I should update the pop data for Africa to 2022 and that amazing pop trend continues.
In 2021 Africa’s pop was about 1370 mil and in just the last 12 months that has increased to 1400+ million. And just that increase is well over Australia’s pop of about 26 million.
Here’s the link from Macrotrends, using UN data.
Never forget that the entire Human population was just 1 billion in 1810 and YET Africa has added more than 1 billion since 1970 and life expectancy today for Africans is about 64 compared to under 40 for all Humans in 1810. THINK about it.
And today fossil fuels supply over 80% of TOTAL global energy for over 7.8 billion people.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFR/africa/population
30
It’s definitely one of those subjects where a referendum type process is needed. You cant trust the politicians to accurately represent their constituents views. Morning teas with voters, focus groups and polling doesn’t do it accurately. We need this to at least overturn the actual legislation that prohibits large scale nuclear reactors. After at least 20 years of the Simpsons TV series, the perceived fear of nuclear which is enshrined in older generations wont affect anyone under 30yo. Hence, that younger generation may think nuclear is OK. That’s the first step. Personally, I think we have missed the boat on nuclear because the timelines to actually build a nuclear reactor would be too long. Crikey- look at the submarine debacle!!! Better to just upgrade/ expand our coal generation fleets to the Super/ Ultracritical type plants like the Chinese are building. HELE plants without the sequestration process would be great.
40
Even I was surprised about the lack of opposition when the Australian Government announced the purchase of nuclear powered submarines.
Not a single Green or Leftist committed suicide.
Perhaps politicians have miscalculated the terror Australians have for anything with “nuclear” in the name?*
If a politician could offer cheap, reliable electricity from nuclear power, it might be a vote winner.
*On the other hand, I was horrified years ago by the official name change of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance medical imaging to simply Magnetic Resonance imaging. Those in power thought the Sheeple would refuse to do NMRi scans for fear of becoming radioactive, or something…. No one seemed to understand that the process involved perturbation of nuclear spins rather than emission of ionising radiation.
80
They’ve been too busy being “mask Karens” or lining up for a test to see if they had covid19 (even though they felt fine and had at least 2 injections).
They forgot all about demonising nuclear power.
40
I’ve assembled something to introduce (Gently!) the idea of nuclear energy to the public, most of whom have absolutely no idea about it, and have been terrified by movies, such as “The China Syndrome” and “Chernobyl”.
The biggest problem perhaps is trying to get information ‘out there’ without ‘blowing brains’, especially where the average attention span for anything even slightly technical is about five seconds!
So, perhaps take a look at this, and let me know what you think: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/media/SaveThePlanet.pdf. Constructive criticism will be appreciated!
50
Some very good slides. A lot to take in as a continuous stream.
Please consider breaking the slides into groups with a common theme. Otherwise it seems disjointed.
Nuclear energy is a complex issue. The basic ideas are simple. Fission makes heat, heat makes steam, steam makes electricity. But. The various fuel cycles are complex depending upon how the wastes are treated. That’s the hard part. Most people “glaze over” when going from U238 to Pu239 to MOX to Th232 seed and bed, etc. and how the fuels, wastes, contamination, are dealt with.
Might be reasonable to deal with nuclear energy as a set of “separate fuel cycle options” as a basic example and then as “cascaded, integrated, well designed, options” that extract maximum energy while minimizing wastes.
The reprocessing loop is critical to waste minimization. No single fuel cycle minimizes waste. It takes several fuel cycles that use the waste from the prior reactions to generate power and less waste at the next step. Th is possibly the cleanest overall cycle, but it can be integrated with the U and Pu / Mox cycles. The U cycle only has enough fuel for 1000 yrs or so (global resources vs demand) . A cascaded fuel cycle could last for maybe 30,000 yrs or more. Most of the fuel cycles were worked out at Oak Ridge TN in the 1950-1960 timeframe. It isn’t magic.
30
When U fuel is “spent” in a reactor, it has some 96% energy content remaining. It is the contaminants that poison future use of the fuel.
A good article on this is : Closed Fuel Cycle
https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power-plant/nuclear-fuel/nuclear-fuel-cycle/closed-fuel-cycle/
The big issue is to avoid the transuranic waste series if possible, to minimize wastes. Some marriage of the U and Pu cyles with a Th cycle would do that. The transuranics are active for up to 250,000 yrs. The Th and non transuranic cycles are maybe 30 to 100 yr half lives. Th232, U235, U238, Pu239. After 232, the management of wastes becomes problematic.
20
Yet European countries like France and Britain have been managing nuclear waste successfully for about half a century, right?
20
That’s why I’ve broken it up into sections. The link that I’ve provided (www.galileomovement.com.au/media/SaveThePlanet.pdf) is only to get a viewer started on the way to discovering about nuclear energy – about which most people not only know nothing, but have been terrified by received propaganda. So it’s very much a “softly, softly catchee monkey” in the first instance. We mustn’t frighten the natives now!
There are optional side sections: One is about REAL science about the climate; a follow-up give access to verifiable history as distinct from ‘fairy stories’ promoted by alarmists; and another section provides enlightenment about the political manipulations that have been behind the ‘climate change’ fraud. But these all lead on to the introduction to nuclear. (And even that is broken into two parts, with the second part for the brave where they can get into the technicalities – and even then, the first part of this section is via a number of excellent movies.)
The major problem is, as I’ve pointed out above: “The biggest problem perhaps is trying to get information ‘out there’ without ‘blowing brains’, especially where the average attention span for anything even slightly technical is about five seconds!”
Perhaps get in touch Lance? My email address is at the bottom of each page ….
And thank you for that excellent ‘nuclear-power’ link.
10
Michael is absolutely right with his communication technique of gently leading people out of the fog, one little point at a time.
We must RedPill the nation, but after years of propaganda, it’s a long job done in many small stages.
Chip chip away…
10
Hwh: from Babylon Bee:
Biden beats out Brussels Sprouts as America’s Least Favourite Vegetable.
Interesting… 😀
60
Funny, Ronald Reagan once said he had always hated Broccoli and that now that he was US president, he wasn’t going to eat it. There’s a theme emerging here.
20
No, that was Bush the first.
20
A different poll from Americans. Most favorite : Corn. Least favorite: Turnip
https://www.wdrb.com/wdrb-in-the-morning/poll-reveals-americans-favorite—-and-most-hated—-vegetables/article_dbd3d154-9298-11e9-b17e-0be215e5dd4e.html
So, in context, Americans see Biden as less favorable than a Turnip. All vegetables being considered.
30
“We’re getting the subs, why not the power?”
Ausstralians aren’t allowed to have power. The US will keep control of the subs, as well as everything else.
10
Just a blast from the past (2019):
Out of the mouths of…………………..
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/11/12/democrat-mazie-hirono-we-should-believe-in-climate-change-as-if-its-a-religion-not-a-science-n2556346
General drift:
“…These are times that call for us to do those things that we believe in, and to march, and not just to march, cause that’s important to show solidarity, but then to do those things such as voter registration, get people out to vote, so that we can have people here who are truly committed to human rights, environmental rights — climate change…believe in climate change as though it’s a religion, it’s not a science– and all the things that need to be done, and there is a lot,” Sen. Hirono told the crowd.”
An HONEST eco-nazi?
10
Look into Seaborg.co float working MSR power barges into each of your ports.
The least impacting energy source on nature:
https://businessdevelopmentinternational.biz/seaborg-co/
Seaborg deep dive: https://webcast.ec.europa.eu/deep-dive-on-floating-nuclear-reactors
Example of power barges vs. Wind
An alternate to California’s proposed 4.2 GW offshore wind project:
4.2 GWs = roughly 680 6MW turbines or 252 17MW turbines
• Miles offshore with expensive undersea power network
• No thermal use for industry
• Radar Interference is a security threat
• Intermittent low-density Energy
vs
21 Seaborg 200 MW CMSR power barges or 5 GW CMSR power barges
• Float them into any sea or river port near the local grid
• 24-year return to the shipyard for recycling
• Thermal Industrial and Desalination use
• The least impacting energy source on nature
• 24/7/365 Energy inexpensive as Coal
10
So many people in Australia are totally ignorant of the rapid advances being made in nuclear energy – both fission and fusion. Your average citizen is terrified of it!
Perhaps take a look at this ‘introduction to an introduction’ that I’ve assembled as a way to start (gently) to introduce people to the concept, but without ‘blowing their brains’ with any information that is even slightly technical in the first instance: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/media/SaveThePlanet.pdf. (We mustn’t frighten the natives now!)
And I’d be most interested in your feed-back/suggestions/constructive criticism ….
10
Come off it, Michael Spencer. Nuclear energy has been with us for nearly 80 years. Is it safe and clean for future energy outputs? Perhaps… but how about waste?? What you going to do with nuclear waste? Bury it? Drown it? Understand the “New Way” of society in the 21st Century and beyond. Want to help the “have nots” have an equivalent way of life to the “haves”? Nuclear is NOT the way… nor is so-called “renewable energy”. A proper balance of ALL energy sources (including coal + oil + gas) is the only answer. Also, Michael, don’t like your criticism of the average person WRT to Science and Technology. Trying to be superior? Leave out of it.
01