Base load power

[Peter Ward]

This is going to be hard to keep apolitical. Amid all the politik speak, I see that no new coal fired power plants are likely to be built in oz, and existing plants (like Latrobe ) will be shut down witin a decade.....begging the question with a rising population, where will the people of Oz get their electricity from?? Hot dry rocks? Gen V thorium nuke? ( yes Virginia, clean safe nuclear power, that you can't make bombs from does exist....it's just that they wanted to take the uranium option in the 1950's to, well, make bombs) Thermal solar? Funny I don't recall reading about any of these base load plants being constructed to date.....but would be interested to know if any progress is being made in these or other areas in Oz.

[multiweb (Marc)]

A couple of Nuclear plants would be the greenest and the best long term solution.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by multiweb

A couple of Nuclear plants would be the greenest and the best long term solution.

Id agree...thorium based. Oz could be a world leader, but would need to start now. I suspect the greens would scuttle any such plans regardless of the science.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

A couple of Nuclear plants would be the greenest and the best long term solution.

I agree, thorium powered plants....much, much safer than the ones working now. The reason why they don't use them now is as Peter mentioned. They criminally risked the safety of the public in order to obtain fissile materials for bombs from nuclear plant designs they knew were possibly dangerous if an accident happened. But the pollies and the military didn't care all that much about it and accepted it as a "necessary and acceptable" risk.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Id agree...thorium based. Oz could be a world leader, but would need to start now. I suspect the greens would scuttle any such plans regardless of the science.

That's a given. Their philosophy would be to go back to using two sticks and a flint for our power needs. It's what happens when you have people with no real social conscience or any understanding of anything that matters. They thrive on sensationalist nonsense, misinformation and double speak.

If you retire the old technology, you need new technology to replace it. If you don't, then what do you do. I doubt any of them would have the answer to that one, except more of what I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by renormalised

That's a given. Their philosophy would be to go back to using two sticks and a flint for our power needs. It's what happens when you have people with no real social conscience or any understanding of anything that matters. They thrive on sensationalist nonsense, misinformation and double speak.

If you retire the old technology, you need new technology to replace it. If you don't, then what do you do. I doubt any of them would have the answer to that one, except more of what I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

I must admit I when after I typed that... Apolitical yep.

[renormalised (Carl)]

It's impossible to keep it out Peter, so why do so. Just have to be clever in how we present it...keep it within the context of the post.

[CDKPhil]

Now we have a carbon tax, the government should be able to afford some public owned nuclear plants.

cheers
Phil

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

It's impossible to keep it out Peter, so why do so. Just have to be clever in how we present it...keep it within the context of the post.

I agree. You need the greens. No greens and polluters would run amock. But people have to realise that nuclear is a clean source of energy. It can be dangerous if mismanaged or not looked after but it is by far the least polluting for the environment.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by CDKPhil

Now we have a carbon tax, the government should be able to afford some public owned nuclear plants.

cheers
Phil

I'm afraid it would cost a lot more than that. It's a very long term project but something that pays dividends down the road.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CDKPhil

Now we have a carbon tax, the government should be able to afford some public owned nuclear plants.

cheers
Phil

That money will go nowhere near paying to build any new plants or going into research, despite what they might say. Ultimately, it will go into paying for our debt and to line their pockets. The only way to make them put the money into the research and into building anything is to hit them where it hurts....at the vote. However, the Australian public has been too brainwashed by all the nonsense that went on about nuclear power and such during the 60's to the early 90's to be smart enough to see that we need to change. Too much sensationalist claptrap and scaremongering has made everyone jumpy and nervous and very few actually know anything about the subject. Enough to at least make a reasonably rational decision about it. But "nuclear politics" was never about rationality and logic.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

I agree. You need the greens. No greens and polluters would run amock. But people have to realise that nuclear is a clean source of energy. It can be dangerous if mismanaged or not looked after but it is by far the least polluting for the environment.

They run amok anyway, Marc, despite the Greens. All they can do is make some noise and hope people listen.

Most of the time, the average person wont do a thing unless it impinges upon their own home, their security (personal and family) and their bank balance. Outside of that, it might as well be in the next galaxy...out of sight, out of mind. But that's the problem, you can't ignore it.

It's probably the case that nuclear power will never gain a foothold here, simply because the Australian public have been conned into believing it's completely unsafe on all counts. What are you to believe when you've been led down the garden path by people with their own dubious agendas and who rely on being very selective with the facts. Then throw in some misinformation and sensationalism to spice things up. Much like snake oil salesmen or TV shopping marketeers.

[DJDD]

this thread can be apolitical.
simply discuss the science and don't discuss political parties.
for example:

- is there evidence out there (ilot plant, large scale, papers) that give options for base load and what are they (nuclear, coal, gas, renewables)

- research dollars and subsidies, again our major parties have subsidised all types of power generation and research to different degrees then just say whether you think more or less money will help/hinder a technology. don't worry about wther it would happen because of a political party's views.


it really is not that hard to stay apolitical.

in fact, a recent thread did that for most of its life...
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=73194

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by CDKPhil

Now we have a carbon tax, the government should be able to afford some public owned nuclear plants.

cheers
Phil

Reality check has everyone forgotten what is still happening in Japan

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

Reality check has everyone forgotten what is still happening in Japan

No valid argument here. No nuclear plant of power generation plant from any kind would survive a tsunami of this amplitude.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

No valid argument here. No nuclear plant of power generation plant from any kind would survive a tsunami of this amplitude.

That my friend is exactly my point

[AstralTraveller (David)]

There has been plenty of exploratory/preperative work on hot dry rock, at least those in the ne of S.A., and I believe a plant may be technically viable. It seem to me the two biggest obstacles are the distribution grid, we would need 1000s of km of new power lines, and the water supply. Sure there is plenty of water up there now but most of the time it's like a dead dingoes donger. Of course, if they closed Olympic Dam that would free up some artesian supplies ....

Sad to say but I don't know enough about thorium reactors to comment, my fault I know but I'm far from alone there. The trouble is that people have been lied to over nuclear power for a long time and they know they have been lied to. So even if thorium reactors really are the panacea there will need to be one of the most effective publicity/eduaction programs ever to get the idea accepted. Especially so in the light of this research. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...11/3265013.htm

My apolitical contribution to this completely apolitical thread.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Yes, there's plenty of science and research out there. However, unless you stay strictly within the bounds of the science and engineering, the sociopolitical ramifications will always crop up. People have opinions and they will express them, in whatever way, shape or form. The reason why this happens is that even if you list all the research and such that's been done, most people don't have the necessary background to understand much of it, so they fall back on what they know best and/or they will come at it from a political bent. Those that do understand it but also have a political bent themselves, will come from both angles.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

There has been plenty of exploratory/preperative work on hot dry rock, at least those in the ne of S.A., and I believe a plant may be technically viable. It seem to me the two biggest obstacles are the distribution grid, we would need 1000s of km of new power lines, and the water supply. Sure there is plenty of water up there now but most of the time it's like a dead dingoes donger. Of course, if they closed Olympic Dam that would free up some artesian supplies ....

Sad to say but I don't know enough about thorium reactors to comment, my fault I know but I'm far from alone there. The trouble is that people have been lied to over nuclear power for a long time and they know they have been lied to. So even if thorium reactors really are the panacea there will need to be one of the most effective publicity/eduaction programs ever to get the idea accepted. Especially so in the light of this research. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...11/3265013.htm

My apolitical contribution to this completely apolitical thread.

The experimental station that is operational is I believe self sufficient in water as it is a closed system the steam created from pumping the water down into the hot rocks is recondensed back to water.

[renormalised (Carl)]

David (and others)...here you go....

Thorium Fuel Cycle