Another pointless page of misinformation

[bazzy]

I was looking at the mornings news articles and I came across this little gem,



upon reading it there is no new information there. the corium under the reactor was found over 30 years ago. the article also states that it is still melting through the floor. this is also garbage. it solidified decades ago, the nuclear fuel that forms it has long since depleted and can no longer produce enough energy to heat it.

Additionally the way the exclusion zone is depicted in the article indicates there are high levels of radiation throughout the exclusion zone, enough to cause "mutations" in wildlife and again this simply is not factual. the majority of the exclusion zone has radiation levels no higher than normal background radiation. you would be being hit with more radiation sitting at your computer reading this post. that being said areas like the red forest did absorb a lot of radiation its not enough to effect local wildlife in any meaningful way.

This article is clearly designed to sour the debate currently going on about the push for nuclear here in Australia and to drive up fear against it. The reality is nuclear is not only a good option to solve our base load power it is also the safest form of electricity generation. it produces no c02 and even the nuclear waist can be repurposed now.

I saw the article that ABC did on nuclear where they had the elderly lady talking about how this will negatively effect future generations here in Australia if we go nuclear, why? because they tested nuclear bombs in the outback during the war, i mean what logic is that? they tested nuclear bombs so nuclear power is bad, they don't even work the same way.

I just don't get what all the fear is about. if nuclear power is managed properly it is safe.

[enf]

.................................

I just don't get what all the fear is about. if nuclear power is managed properly it is safe.

Because a bomb was dropped once....er twice. A couple of reactors have failed and caused problems. The stupids can't get that out of their heads and the green religious fuel that with lies and exaggeration.

Also, many have thrown their investments into the unreliables. Less reliable power, more cost to the consumer.



Probably paywalled...

Alinta chief executive Jeff Dimery warns power prices will rise in the future

Dan Jervis-Bardy
The West Australian
Wed, 10 April 2024 3:05PM
Comments
Dan Jervis-Bardy
The boss of one of the nation’s biggest energy companies says Australians will be paying more for power in the future, in a sobering message to households already struggling with sky-high bills.

Alinta Energy chief executive and managing director Jeff Dimery said the rising cost of capital, labour and transmission meant consumers would be slugged more for electricity.

But he isn’t even contemplating nuclear as a possible solution, comparing the pursuit of the energy source to “looking for unicorns in the garden”.

The energy industry veteran used a speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday to deliver some “truths” on the monumental task of transitioning Australia’s energy grid to renewables.

In a blunt message, Mr Dimery said without “significant changes” Australia would struggle to reach its net zero by 2050 target.

He said “modest” retail margins and rising project costs were major barriers to large-scale investment in green energy projects.

As one example, Mr Dimery said replacing Alinta’s Loy Yang B coal-fired power station in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley with pumped hydro and offshore wind would cost roughly $10 billion – $2 billion more than was estimated just two years ago.

But his most sobering message was for households, which have been struggling with high power bills ever since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 sent global energy prices soaring.

“Australians will have to pay more for energy in the future,” Mr Dimery said.

“We will spend more as a percentage of GDP on energy, energy services and energy infrastructure.

“Whether we pay through the tax base or pay the large upfront cost of an EV, or batteries and solar, or we are paying more for electricity from the grid – we will all pay more in aggregate.

“We need to be honest about that, and I don’t think the average Australian is prepared for that reality.”

Mr Dimery said while households might be paying more for electricity, they could save on petrol by switching to an electric car.

The warning of more energy price pain is a blow to the Federal Government, which went to the last election promising a $275 reduction in power bills by 2025.

Mr Dimery also waded into the nuclear debate as the federal Opposition prepares to unveil its policy for the controversial energy source within weeks.

The Coalition will identify around half a dozen retiring coal-fired power stations as candidates to be replaced with nuclear generators.

Loy Yang B, which is scheduled for closure in 2047, is one of three remaining coal-fired power plants in the Latrobe Valley.

Mr Dimery said Alinta had not turned its mind to the possibility of nuclear power given it remains banned in Australia.

He suggested that exploring the option while the John Howard-era nuclear moratorium was in place was like “looking for unicorns in the garden”.

“You could imagine our shareholders and our board wouldn’t be too impressed if the management team was sitting around contemplating building power stations that are not legal,” he said.

“It wouldn’t be a great use of our time.”

[bazzy]

Because a bomb was dropped once....er twice. A couple of reactors have failed and caused problems. The stupids can't get that out of their heads and the green religious fuel that with lies and exaggeration.

Also, many have thrown their investments into the unreliables. Less reliable power, more cost to the consumer.



Probably paywalled...



“You could imagine our shareholders and our board wouldn’t be too impressed if the management team was sitting around contemplating building power stations that are not legal,” he said.

“It wouldn’t be a great use of our time.”

I wouldn't put much trust in a company who has invested interest in coal power. I also note that in recent power price increases Alinta has seen the biggest increases.
Simply put coal power needs to retire. it is too dirty and the price of fuel is to volatile to have our grid rely on it.

I absolutely don't agree with the laws making nuclear power illegal in Australia. they are based on ignorance and fear and Australians suffer financially as a result.

[enf]

I wouldn't put much trust in a company who has invested interest in coal power. I also note that in recent power price increases Alinta has seen the biggest increases.
Simply put coal power needs to retire. it is too dirty and the price of fuel is to volatile to have our grid rely on it.

I absolutely don't agree with the laws making nuclear power illegal in Australia. they are based on ignorance and fear and Australians suffer financially as a result.

The trouble is not so much with what we're doing, but the WAY we are doing it. It will be more expensive regardless. Large infrastructure changes ahould involve parallel running until the new system can prove it can handle it. WE are operating in a panic and a totally unjustifiable one in my view. People are already suffering with anaffordable power bills, and going helter skelter will worsen that tenfold IMHO.

The very people this government says they care about are getting screwed. They were told lies about power prices which they wanted to believe, but now know were just that. Lies.

[lsemmens]

I absolutely don't agree with the laws making nuclear power illegal in Australia. they are based on ignorance and fear and Australians suffer financially as a result.

Agreed 100%. Even if there were risks with nuclear (minimal at best) generation and waste we have plenty of room in our back yard to isolate said 'risk' and given that we are politically and geologically stable the risks associated with external influences (i.e. terrorist/tsunami) are non existent! I hear you say, " but! a Tsunami might hit Aust." PNG protect the north coast, the Great Barrier reef minimise effects in QLD, The height of the cliffs of the Bight protect much of SA/WA and, in SA you could easily use either the tip of St Vincent Gulf or Spence Gulf as a place fro a plant. Even Sictoria and the North of Taswegia are pretty much protected too! It's only NSW that is really at risk, and even Sydney Harbour could provide some protection too.

[Uncle Fester]

I am not against Nuclear Power per se, but here in Australia it will remain a pipe dream.
As long as Kleinfuehrer Dutton holds the LNP they will not get elected next time either so it would take many years before Nuclear could even land on the table, then many years of bureaucratic approvals and planning followed by the immense cost and slow grinding the way things are constructed here in Australia, *cough* nuclear subs *cough*.
Just forget it.

While all our pollies are sleeping on their hands regarding renewable energy the industry is still going full steam ahead.
Our first electrolyser factory has just started production 4 days ago:


...and we in Australia are also the masters of VRFBs, just one of our local companies claims they will be producing 8000MWh(basically a medium sized nuclear reactor) worth of stationary batteries per year:

Others like Redflow will be selling very soon for residential.

...who the hell needs nuclear.

[wotnot]

California is about half the size of NSW, and has a population of of around 39.5million. They have one remaining operational nuclear powerstation ~ it employs two 1100MW G.E. PWR reactors, which provides 6% of their power grid requirements, or roughly enough power for 3.25million households. By those numbers and given AU's demographic scatter....you'd need at least that (plus redundancy) for every capitol city in Australia, (and you've probably got a snowball's chance in hell getting one built in Tassie =) Nowadays, any company who would build such units (seems to take around 6years in the rest of the world to build one, so double that for downunder =), has to front the money for construction of the plant, fuel/waste processing facilities have to exist, and they're responsible for safe proper operations of the plant when in service, and now they're also liable for decommissioning the plant when it reaches end of life....and that's very expensive and takes considerable time....and on top of that, some new technology might come along that usurps the supposed benefits of nuclear power generation...and your project's shot in the foot, before it's even completed....

Somehow, the 'traditional' nuclear power plant model doesn't fit the AU reality ~ if someone perfected and proved to be safe & viable, then maybe ...but as it stands, I think both the anti/pro nuclear camps are debating a moot point ; it's not economically viable to build the things in the first place, with the small demographic footprints we have down here...especially if what you have to sell is cheap... doesn't look like a 'good' business model to me, even if they were legal =)

[lsemmens]

I haven't read it all, but the Conclusions and recommendations are worth a look: .

AEMO = Australian Energy Market Operator

[bazzy]

California is about half the size of NSW, and has a population of of around 39.5million. They have one remaining operational nuclear powerstation ~ it employs two 1100MW G.E. PWR reactors, which provides 6% of their power grid requirements, or roughly enough power for 3.25million households. By those numbers and given AU's demographic scatter....you'd need at least that (plus redundancy) for every capitol city in Australia, (and you've probably got a snowball's chance in hell getting one built in Tassie =) Nowadays, any company who would build such units (seems to take around 6years in the rest of the world to build one, so double that for downunder =), has to front the money for construction of the plant, fuel/waste processing facilities have to exist, and they're responsible for safe proper operations of the plant when in service, and now they're also liable for decommissioning the plant when it reaches end of life....and that's very expensive and takes considerable time....and on top of that, some new technology might come along that usurps the supposed benefits of nuclear power generation...and your project's shot in the foot, before it's even completed....

Somehow, the 'traditional' nuclear power plant model doesn't fit the AU reality ~ if someone perfected and proved to be safe & viable, then maybe ...but as it stands, I think both the anti/pro nuclear camps are debating a moot point ; it's not economically viable to build the things in the first place, with the small demographic footprints we have down here...especially if what you have to sell is cheap... doesn't look like a 'good' business model to me, even if they were legal =)

the flaw in looking at the economics that way is the "economical option" is to leave the power plants running that burn fossil fuel. this is unacceptable and should not be even a factor for consideration. and kicking nuclear into the future for debate all the time is not dealing with the issue.

I say we set an end date. lets say all power coal and gas power plants to be shut down by 2040. put that into law then discuss nuclear. i bet the "economics" issues will evaporate. cant make any money if there is no electricity to sell.

Batteries are one thing but all it takes is for there to be a rain band stretching across multiple states to then run down the stored battery power causing blackouts across entire states. for example SE Queensland had like a week of rain, the solar production across SE qld would have been next to nothing, having that much power generation exit the grid reduces the amount of available power to charge the battery banks. now if we are charging based on generation suddenly power costs go through the roof and you end up needing to get a second mortgage to turn on the lights.

There needs to be stable base load generation and having our population spread out like it is makes no more difference to nuclear than it did to coal and gas and as for Tassie if they don't want it they don't have to have it. just pass a federal law that outlaws power generation that directly contributes to climate change and they can have rolling blackouts, then have another tally as to if they want to build a nuclear plant. or even better power can be sold to them from victoria.

as for decommissioning of nuclear power plants, it really isnt that bigger undertaking any more so than any other decommissioning process for other power plants. is it more specialized? yes but that is not something that even would need consideration for at least 50 years and with the growth of our population and the rate our nation is growing we will be commissioning more not decommissioning them.

anyway as i was saying the perception that they are uneconomical is based on leaving the current power production infrastructure running aka coal and gas and that simply is not to happen regardless of the cost

[Uncle Fester]

Batteries are one thing but all it takes is for there to be a rain band stretching across multiple states ...

...errr the electrolysers are not batteries.
They are converting the solar energy back to it's source : Hydrogen, which you can store as much and as long as you like.
You can recombine it back to water, with so much energy that it can send you to the moon and beyond or just use it slowly to generate electricity in fuel cells or convert it to Ammonia for easy transport to where ever you need it.
This not some future vision, it just started happening right now, a week ago and in ten years from now Australia could be making enough for all it's needs.

Also this is a very vast country, just because it rains in QLD and NSW, doesn't mean it rains everywhere elsewhere for weeks on end.
The whole world is jealous how much sun we have available here.
The ever-grey and rainy UK for example has no choice than to use Nuclear, which they already have in place.