Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Originally Posted by TermiMonster

All true, as long as you can outsource all manufacturing to some 'friendly' nation.

Hi TM

I'm not quite sure that I get the drift of your comment and whether you are for or against the nukes. Perhaps you could clarify.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by doug3030

Looks pretty simple in this Navy training image. What could possibly go wrong?

nuclearsub.jpg

Doug

I like the sentiment.

One of the issues that occurs to me regarding nuke subs is that their strength is to remain beneath the ocean for extended periods of time, up to a year if I have understood the promotional blurb correctly. I wonder what effect this has on the crew being stuck in a tin box under the sea for such a period of time. Do they finally surface undamaged as well-balanced citizens?

However, your cartoon is very pertinent as where a conventional power station might have a safety system in place to minimise the chances of an accident, the nukes will have three systems: Firstly, this comes at a very heavy cost and secondly, it does not always work. Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island are three highly publicised events that demonstrate the consequences of a failure.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

One of the issues that occurs to me regarding nuke subs is that their strength is to remain beneath the ocean for extended periods of time, up to a year if I have understood the promotional blurb correctly. I wonder what effect this has on the crew being stuck in a tin box under the sea for such a period of time. Do they finally surface undamaged as well-balanced citizens?

The limiting factor is the crew - more specifically their need to eat and their mental resilience.

And who exactly said that submariners were "well-balanced citizens? in the first place?

(Before anyone gets too critical of that comment, I have spent a little time on submarineswhile in the Army, not a qualified submariner but my skills in other fields were needed once or twice)

T1750116-Nuclear_fuel_pellets.jpg

Nuclear fuel pellets - Science Photo Library

Nuclear fuel pellets. Gloved hands holding life- sized models of nuclear fuel pellets with their injection rod. Each pellet can produce the same amount of energy as 3 tons of coal. The pellets are designed for use in fast breeder nuclear reactors. These use fuel containing fissile uranium and plutonium, surrounded by a core of non-fissile uranium-238. During the reaction, neutrons are formed that collide with the U-238 to form fissile plutonium-239. The reaction generates more plutonium than it consumes

This gloved hand holds life-sized models of nuclear fuel pellets with their injection rod. Each pellet can produce the same energy as 3 tons of coal, so this handful equals ~60 tons of coal or ~28,000 m³ of gas or ~34,000 liters of oil

We need mega-projects for solar, battery, CAES and phase out coal. There is no future in it.

edit - I wanted to add this to the reading pile. Getting a nuker up and running is no trivial task. This one just commissioned took 18 YEARS: 14 years late, Finland?s new reactor, Olkiluoto 3, starts generating power - Global Construction Review

In contrast, this project can literally start generating next Tuesday if they get the damned agreement done: Mike Cannon-Brookes Archives - RenewEconomy

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Graeme

I think the percentage relates to the individual state generation...

Agreed Paul, but these percentages still show how far individual states have already moved toward meeting their own energy demand with renewables.

Cheers
Yvan

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

... However, your cartoon is very pertinent as where a conventional power station might have a safety system in place to minimise the chances of an accident, the nukes will have three systems: ...

There are also major safety issues with military nuclear submarines: how do you defend yourself against one?

Let us consider a very unlikely scenario. A hostile nuclear sub surfaces off Pinchgut Island in Sydney Harbour and uses its torpedoes to leisurely take out most of the Australian Navy, all neatly lined up a Garden Island and, for good measure, a cruise ship at Circular Quay. Simultaneously its deck guns and rockets are firing at selected targets around the city. Sitting ducks.

Coincidentally, a squadron of fully armed RAAF F35 Lightnings are flying overhead. Do they attack the sub?

Is it a good idea to blow the bejesus out of a nuclear reactor in the middle of a city of 5 million souls? How far upwind does a nuclear ship have to be before you can neutrallise it?

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Let us consider a very unlikely scenario. A hostile nuclear sub surfaces off Pinchgut Island in Sydney Harbour and uses its torpedoes to leisurely take out most of the Australian Navy, all neatly lined up a Garden Island and, for good measure, a cruise ship at Circular Quay. Simultaneously its deck guns and rockets are firing at selected targets around the city. Sitting ducks.

That is indeed a very unlikely scanario, as you pointed out. There are many ways for a nuclear submarine to attempt the mission you described without either surfacing or coming into Australian Waters. That might be a good plot for a movie.

Hmmm... The sub thing is a little bit off topic, but let's run with it for a brief moment, despite the fact it is starting to be reminiscent of a Geoffrey Robertson hypothetical. Graeme's point, I think, is similar to the dilemma of whether to shoot a man in front of you who has just removed the pin from a hand grenade. Is it going to end well for you? The blast from a nuclear explosion has three rings of devastation. The first is where everything is vapourised, moving away from the blast centre the second ring sees everything annihilated and the last is where the radiation effects total you about a week later!

However, a submarine is not a bomb as such, but exposure of the nuclear core would result in a meltdown and the extensive release of heat and of course the insidious subsequent radiation. A similar situation to the Chernobyl and Fukushima catastrophes, albeit on a slightly smaller scale, although admittedly without the immediate means of containing the contamination: Or would the ocean quench the heat emitted merely (sic) leaving a contaminated sea and beach for quite a long time?

Regards
Paul

Just by chance I heard a repeat of an ABC Radio National broadcast from Monday. Click on the link below and go to Rear Vision programme: The AUKUS subs and the nuclear waste we've never stored:

ABC Search

Quite enlightening! Lots of information presented in a non-dramatic manner. I took a couple of aspects from the programe in particular. Firstly, the subs use high level enrichment fuel (weapons grade). power station enrichment of uranium is 4% to 7%: Weapons grade is greater than 97%. Secondly, no country in the world has yet stored high level nuclear waste long term successfully. Thirdly, (yea, I said a couple ) nobody wants a waste facility in the backyard in Oz so that means putting any such facility in remote regions and the indigenous population says "No!" It seems they are much aggrieved since the British attempted to blow them up at several locations including Maralinga. Fourthly, we have agreed to dispose of our own atomic waste (not much option I suspect). Fifthly, there are costs regarding regulation, safety and other aspects that are not included in the current cost blowout.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Déjà vu, California, all over again.

Shall we consider one scenario:

AGL closes Liddel on schedule; the Greenies applaud, all that nasty coal fire pollution removed from the atmosphere, and 900 MW electricity removed from the supply chain.

But, as Paul says, little effective planning has occured to replace that 900MW. Peak hour wholesale electricity prices will soar due to "market forces". Electricity demand in the short to medium term is notoriously inelastic - people do not switch off the lights when prices rise.

And AGL will be ready to supply a reduced amount of electricity from their other plants at substantially higher prices. It is all due to "market forces". AGL would not manipulate the market.

Surely AGL would not be that cynical?

Surely I am not being cynical?

Surely, our politicians could not be that stupid?

All the other generators are really hanging out for liddle's closure. I think there is going to be some dollars to be made

Originally Posted by woodPixel

T1750116-Nuclear_fuel_pellets.jpg

Are they the Subs from "Fantastic Voyage"?

CATL unveils battery that may power electric airplanes and 1000km-range EVs - ABC News

I particularly like:
"Battery design has been likened to a gold rush..."

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

CATL unveils battery that may power electric airplanes and 1000km-range EVs - ABC News

I particularly like:
"Battery design has been likened to a gold rush..."

Just about to post this.

Invest in Lithium?

the biggest sentance i took away from that article

Unfortunately, the company has not released many other details, including what this battery would cost, how many times it can be recharged, or how much power it can produce (how fast the stored energy can be used).