Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Originally Posted by Warb

There is no such thing as an independent anything anymore (if there ever was!). All reporting, all research, and everything else is driven by some person or group with an axe to grind. It takes a very brave (and financially suicidal) person to come to a conclusion that is at odds with that of their major sponsor!

.science study.jpg.

Just going back to the Jervis Bay NPP thought bubble for a moment: yer wouldn't believe it, but I've just been made aware that the father of one of my old school mates was the Chief Engineer (not Physicist) for that site. This came up in a Facebook post he put up a day or two ago. He has some interesting observations to make about nuclear power. I made the comment that his Dad inadvertently made the world's most indestructible car park, which is probably at least ten times thicker than required.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Centre for Independent Studies - Wikipedia "Independent". Hmmm...

They don't actually say they are the Independent Centre for studies.
That means their name could just imply that each study they do is independent of any other studies that they do. Pardon me for being a cynic.

Originally Posted by Warb

There is no such thing as an independent anything anymore (if there ever was!). All reporting, all research, and everything else is driven by some person or group with an axe to grind. It takes a very brave (and financially suicidal) person to come to a conclusion that is at odds with that of their major sponsor!

In terms of influencing of outcomes by sponsors it depends what sort of research and who's funding it.

When I did research on natural nuclear reactors in the 1980's funded by the Uni and the ARC (Australian Research Council) there was zero influence to "toe any sort of prescribed line" and I was able to publish whatever conclusions I deemed appropriate.

From 1988 to 1990 my USA boss was funded by NASA so that I could to undertake research on the isotope patterns of Mg, Ca, Ti, Cr, Ni, Fe and Zn in small grains found in meteorites that predated the formation of the solar system. The results had implications in the formation of these elements during early stage supernovae events. NASA didn't give two hoots what the results were. Over the years my USA boss obtained millions of $$ from NASA again with no assumptions on what the results were. Apart from something like SETI which can have religious implications, most astronomical and fundamental particle research is usually untethered.

During my 30 odd years in research I never felt under any pressure to meet the expectations of the Funding agencies that supported my research. There still are lots of other "forces" involved like the desire to "being first", or scientists looking for support for pre-existing positions etc but these are rarely forces pushed by fundamental science funding agencies.

Even today the ARC does not apply this sort of pressure in the fundamental research space. They do exert subtle pressure by favouring funding towards more of some kinds research that others but what is done with results is up to the researcher and I have yet to hear of anyone that lost out on subsequent ARC finding because they came out with a certain result.

For many years I was on an International Science Panel to "vet" research related to the claimed discoveries of new elements (atomic numbers 111 - 118) which was extremely interesting. This type of research has a major "to be the first" force component because this then dictates "the right to propose new element names". This turned out to be as much of an exercise in international relations as science. But just like the Russians at the space station all decisions were arrived at quite amicably and as fairly as possible.

I'm not saying bias doesn't happen and I know of a some very interesting cases but it a bit of a stretch to say that it applies to all research.

Originally Posted by BobL

I'm not saying bias doesn't happen and I know of a some very interesting cases but it a bit of a stretch to say that it applies to all research.

Of course not all research is impacted, but my take on it is that the possibility of a bias being injected into the result is in direct proportion to how much money someone stands to make from a favourable outcome.

I was giving an intelligence briefing to Prime Minister and Cabinet once when the Prime Minister asked a very pertinent question to which I could have taken hours to respond, or give him the short answer. "In short, Prime Minister, the answer is 'money'. The answer is always 'money'. If you ever think the answer isn't 'money', you didn't really understand the question." My bosses were trying to crawl away out of sight thinking I had overstepped my mark and were obviously trying to disassociate themselves from me, until the Prime Minister told me that was possibly the best answer he ever got to a question. Always follow the money trail.

Originally Posted by BobL

I'm not saying bias doesn't happen and I know of a some very interesting cases but it a bit of a stretch to say that it applies to all research.

I have no doubt that there is indeed esoteric research that has few external influences, though I'd be tempted to suggest that even that is changing - it is no doubt far easier to get sponsorship or publicity for research (or most other things) if you link it, for example, to climate change.

Your statement

Originally Posted by BobL

In terms of influencing of outcomes by sponsors it depends what sort of research and who's funding it.

is entirely correct. Esoteric research solely for the sake of knowledge is likely to be relatively unbiased, as long as nobody stands to gain or lose money, standing, reputation or anything else!

Since the concept that "you can't argue with the science" has been forced upon us, the ability of scientists to profit by declaring the desired results has increased greatly. This also means that the temptation to declare such results has also increased!

Originally Posted by Warb

Since the concept that "you can't argue with the science" has been forced upon us, the ability of scientists to profit by declaring the desired results has increased greatly. This also means that the temptation to declare such results has also increased!

I wonder how the statement "You can't argue with the science" ever got legs.

Arguing with the science is exactly how you DO science.

[QUOTE=MartinCH;2332467Assuming batteries to reach the projected price level the increase in battery installations will possibly to an oversupply position with some interesting effects on competing technologies. [/QUOTE]

Interesting analysis and supposition, Martin.

The price of lithium batteries has dropped by over 80% in real terms over the past ten years.



And the price of lithium metal has returned to its "normal range" after spiking in 2022-2023 (Chinese prices).
Source: Trading Economics



Who knows how well focused is your crystal ball?

Various public figures and assorted vested entities keep banging on about nuclear power so reluctantly I keep posting information so that readers of this thread can make their own decisions.

Technically, nuclear power is not renewable, although to all intent and purpose is not carbon emitting.

America is often quoted for their nuclear component. There are 55 Power plants in the US and a total of 93 reactors. Only six reactors have come online since 1990. The last one built was in 2006, Watts Bar (Tennessee) and the second last one was Commanche Peak (Texas) in 1993. They have not found favour in recent times, although the push to eliminate the thermal stations has renewed interest.

US Nuclear Power plants.png



World Nuclear stations.jpg

The main advantages for nuclear power being promoted, for the moment to the exclusion of all else, is the small amount of space they take up and the small amount of waste product resulting from their fuel usage. They are also suggesting that they can be located on the sites of thermal stations as those plants are retired. The advantage being that the infrastructure of transformers and transmission lines already exists.

They are not, so far, mentioning the startup costs or the acceptance likelihood by society.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

They are not, so far, mentioning the startup costs or the acceptance likelihood by society.

...or the decommissioning costs (which I'm sure will be conveniently ignored until it can't). It's just more noise in the climate wars, holding everything up unnecessarily.

I would have thought that siting anything (nuke or otherwise) on an old thermal station site would have slowed the whole process down by the amount of time it takes to decommission the old site and prepare it for re-use. Another 2-3 years onto the timeline perhaps?

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

...or the decommissioning costs (which I'm sure will be conveniently ignored until it can't). It's just more noise in the climate wars, holding everything up unnecessarily.

I would have thought that siting anything (nuke or otherwise) on an old thermal station site would have slowed the whole process down by the amount of time it takes to decommission the old site and prepare it for re-use. Another 2-3 years onto the timeline perhaps?

FF

Good point.

Regards
Paul

Just being pedantic but everything is nuclear powered - solar, hydrogen, biomass and wind power are the result of nuclear processes on the sun. The heat for geothermal comes from ongoing nuclear decay inside the earth. Even the fuel in man made nuclear reactors is made during super rapid nuclear explosions in ancient supernovae.

Also Let's not pretend "current" Nuclear power is CO2 free.
The entire cycle including mining, transport, building, ongoing maintenance, decommissioning and projected waste containment of current nuclear tech using ICE vehicles and conventional construction produces as much as as between a quarter and one third that of coal fired plants. Few people realise this
Much of this can be overcome using electric vehicles, and low CO2 emitting concrete and green metal production but aside from perhaps electric mining vehicles the rest need significant serious development.
Same applies but to a lesser extent to renewables production as there's less need for waste containment.

I'll admit this is from an anti-nuke website but it shows what sorts of CO2 production are involved in current nuclear power tech which the pro-nuclear lobby don't like to talk about it.
CO2 emissions of nuclear power: the whole picture | Wise International

Originally Posted by BobL

Just being pedantic but everything is nuclear powered - solar, hydrogen, biomass and wind power are the result of nuclear processes on the sun. The heat for geothermal comes from ongoing nuclear decay inside the earth. Even the fuel in man made nuclear reactors is made during super rapid nuclear explosions in ancient supernovae.

Yebbut at least we don't have to worry about the waste or decomm costs

Originally Posted by BobL

Also Let's not pretend "current" Nuclear power is CO2 free.

Indeed Bob. I was going to make a very similar point about the construction of of a nuke plant being very far from a green process, remembering that "nett" zero is the goal. It is why I am not particularly fazed about having to continue with some kind of gas fired power plants for base load capacity until we get things sorted out...as long as we are nett zero, or close as dammit, it doesn't matter. Yes, it would be even better to be below zero, but balancing the books is a great start.

Originally Posted by BobL

I'll admit this is from an anti-nuke website but it shows what sorts of CO2 production are involved in current nuclear power tech which the pro-nuclear lobby don't like to talk about it.
CO2 emissions of nuclear power: the whole picture | Wise International

Thanks Bob

That is an extremely good link and I recommend it as well. It was you who alerted me to the cost of de-commissioning a nuke some while back and something I now look for during discussions is whether that aspect is mentioned and if there is any provision in such proposals for the cleanup.

Talking of clean ups, typically the storyline regarding safety is that there have only been two major incidents (Chernobyl and Fukashima), but they conveniently ignore the Three Mile Island debacle, which was seconds away from being the worst ever catastrophe. The "clean up" there took about twelve years and cost nearly a billion dollars (I am going from memory on that so I stand to be corrected if I have it wrong). It is not considered one of the worst disasters.

I am struggling to imagine the enormity of the cleanup of contaminated material at the end of a reactor's life even in a plant that has operated satisfactorily.

Regards
Paul