Ok, First up as far as the van is concerned we enjoy Solar power for bush Camping. Of course 240 w when necessary.

But what is your preference re future power supply?

Do you want:-

Solar & wind.

Normal power stations ( old system)

Nucular.

Plus the other alternatives.

 There are always lots of pros and cons on this subject.

My preference is for Nucular. After all many other countries rely mainly on Nucular and don't seem to have a problem.

The Big Plus is it is harvested in our own backyard.

Jay&Dee

Bought 12v adaptors for camera etc, so don't need 230v. For cooking use a metho stove.

Whenarewethere wrote:

---

Bought 12v adaptors for camera etc, so don't need 230v. For cooking use a metho stove.

 

---

 Woo!!!!  I remember having a small metho stove when I was a teenager on a fishing trip for Yellow Belly in my outback town.

The coal and gas resources have been a blessing to our country due to the ROYALTIES that the said Governments gain.

Going forward, you will be able to feel somebody's hand in your back pocket, to cover the lost revenue.

 we currently have solar panels on the house roof with the 50 cents rebate on what is going into the grid.

But still for Nucular in the future. At my age, I will not witness this happening.

Jay&Dee

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

---

We have been arguing for over 20 years about where to put a low level nuclear dump for medical waste and expired smoke detectors. Zero progress so far. NIMBY.

Getting any agreement on where to put a nuclear power station will never happen, even if the population agreed that it was a good idea, which they will not.

---

  Agree.   Does anybody who is answering yes to this volunteering for it to be next to their house.    NIMBY would definitely be my reaction to any suggestion, and they can't be a long way from where the power is needed before anybody suggests building them in the middle of nowhere.     

Nuclear fusion is the hope for the future, although it is probably a few decades away. However, having said that, the advances are coming on very quickly.

In the meantime, renewables will be the main way to go. Can they supply 24 hour reliable supply? I don't know. Probably need gas or coal in the mix for awhile.

I don't think a current style nuclear plant would work as no one will want it in the backyard...too long to build....too expensive...uses a lot of water.

We are lucky that we live in a off grid house. Works very well and something that more people should investigate.

Collo.

If they are going nuclear, they should do Thorium, 1000% safer, otherwise Wind, wave, thermal volcanic steam and solar. Northern NSW, has the best thermal steam, available to set up a considerable sized thermal steam power plant to supply 50% of NSW power for generations.

Greg 1 wrote:

---

Nuclear for me as well. Set them up on the existing coal fired power station sites. Don't need to build thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines with more destruction of surrounding vegetation. Wouldn't worry me to have a new generation plant just down the road. The safety record for nuclear is second to none and the modern plants are a far cry from the old 50's era Chernobyl and Fukashima plants. CSIRO costings are very flawed. They don't take into account the lifespan of renewables vs nuclear. Renewables have to be replaced or certainly major replacements of upto 4 times in the life cycle of a nuclear plant. So capital outlay ends up slightly in favour of nuclear. Waste from a nuclear plant can be reprocessed so there is only small amounts of waste and they could be ceased in concrete very deep underground. There are already designs of facilities to do just that. We sit on some of the world's largest uranium deposits so why not use them. Many countries in the world are running reactors and building more. We really need to get over this pathological fear of nuclear. Clean green power 24/7 365 days of the year. Time to build ,10 years maximum as shown by one's recently built in the UAE and China. If they can do it so can we.

---

X2   

And we should also capitalise on our large resources of uranium when exporting, much like oil rich countries have done to us for many years i.e. dictate the price to our advantage.   

If we can go off grid when we travel then we should be able to convert that (or similar) technology to our homes.  My thoughts are we should do away with the power grids. Though it wouldn't work for large power users like apartment buildings, business that uses power to operate large machinery.   As usual with the grid system, the domestic users are subsidising large profit taking companies.   

Greg 1 wrote:

---

Nuclear for me as well. Set them up on the existing coal fired power station sites. Don't need to build thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines with more destruction of surrounding vegetation. Wouldn't worry me to have a new generation plant just down the road. The safety record for nuclear is second to none and the modern plants are a far cry from the old 50's era Chernobyl and Fukashima plants. CSIRO costings are very flawed. They don't take into account the lifespan of renewables vs nuclear. Renewables have to be replaced or certainly major replacements of upto 4 times in the life cycle of a nuclear plant. So capital outlay ends up slightly in favour of nuclear. Waste from a nuclear plant can be reprocessed so there is only small amounts of waste and they could be ceased in concrete very deep underground. There are already designs of facilities to do just that. We sit on some of the world's largest uranium deposits so why not use them. Many countries in the world are running reactors and building more. We really need to get over this pathological fear of nuclear. Clean green power 24/7 365 days of the year. Time to build ,10 years maximum as shown by one's recently built in the UAE and China. If they can do it so can we.

---

 A well put argument for nuclear. The snowy hydro scheme is in deep doo doo with many extra billions in cost blowouts and delays. The predicted hydro power generation figures are said to be VERY optimistic, perhaps it would have been cheaper to go nuclear from the get go.

JayDee wrote:

---

 

But still for Nucular in the future. At my age, I will not witness this happening.

 

Jay&Dee

---

No  to Nuclear from me ...  I listen to the scientists.  

Experts agree that nuclear is too expensive, too slow to build and too risky.

The CSIRO recently found that building a single nuclear power plant would cost at least $8.5 billion dollars and take 15 years.

CSIRO's figures also show that small modular reactors could cost up to eight times more than renewables with transmission and storage.

Remember the furore when Bribie Island was designated as a very suitable site for a Nuclear facility?  IMHO it'll take us at least a decade to get community approval for even one site, and then there is the issue of transporting & storing 'waste' material.  (After all this time Kimba SA as a site has been dumped!)

When proposing the siting of reactors on decommissioned Coal fired stations sites (close to existing power transmission lines  ... conveniently ignoring of course the almost certainly needed capacity upgrades), just think for a minute on the issue of the high water demands of Nuclear reactors  .. far more required for Nuclear. 

Former Australian Climate Change Commissioner Prof. Tim Flannery states: "Coal-fired power plants have large water requirements for cooling and steam generation, but these are dwarfed by the water needs of nuclear power. Some nuclear power plants can use seawater for cooling, but problems emerge when they are situated on bays and gulfs, for there the warm discharge water can accumulate and have a large impact on the local marine ecology." 

 The Opposition's latest Nuclear option is just anther election tactic  .. It'll never be seen in Au in my lifetime as well.

Cupie wrote:

---

Former Australian Climate Change Commissioner Prof. Tim Flannery states:  ..........

 

---

 Surely you would not believe a word of any predictions Tim Flannery made. In 2006 he was in favour of nuclear power spefically in relation to addressing climate change. He reversed his position the next year, no doubt to appease his political allies.

He made numerous outrageous predictions, including:

2006: (there may be) no Arctic icecap in Summer in the next five to 15 years

2006: we have just a decade to avert a 25-metre rise of the sea

2008: sulphur could be dispersed into the atmosphere to help block the sun leading to global dimming.

These are just some of his clangers. Plenty of others online. By the way, his scientific qualifiactions were for Paleontology, and nothing to do with climate or weather.

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

---

Paleontology is exactly the result of climate and weather.
Cheers,
Peter

---

From Wikipedia: The simplest definition of "paleontology" is "the study of ancient life". Very little about making future predictions. I can't see how Paleontology has any relevance to the current discussion.

But you missed the point ... the ridiculous predictions made by Tim Flannery show that he has no credibility.

Are We Lost wrote:

---

Cupie wrote:

---

Former Australian Climate Change Commissioner Prof. Tim Flannery states:  ..........

 

---

 Surely you would not believe a word of any predictions Tim Flannery made. In 2006 he was in favour of nuclear power spefically in relation to addressing climate change. He reversed his position the next year, no doubt to appease his political allies.

He made numerous outrageous predictions, including:

2006: (there may be) no Arctic icecap in Summer in the next five to 15 years

2006: we have just a decade to avert a 25-metre rise of the sea

2008: sulphur could be dispersed into the atmosphere to help block the sun leading to global dimming.

These are just some of his clangers. Plenty of others online. By the way, his scientific qualifiactions were for Paleontology, and nothing to do with climate or weather.

---

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeNDSeknn_c

I note the pile on to advance arguments ad Hominem attacking Prof Tim Flannery, fallaciously arguing that because some of his other 'predictions'/ conclusions were seen as incorrect then everything he says is wrong & in particular the quoted comment in relation to Nuclear generation water usage.

Perhaps this source is also incorrect  ..  remember, I was attempting to point out the need to provide additional water supply & storage at Nuclear reactor sites.

As freshwater resources become scarcer, the nexus between water and energy becomes magnified. Thermoelectric power plants, including nuclear plants, make up 40% of freshwater usage in the US. The high water requirements mean that the operations of these power plants are susceptible to heat waves and droughts. If the temperature of a water body is already high, environmental regulations do not allow for further discharges of high temperature water above a certain threshold. Furthermore, if water levels in a body of water drop too low, the power plant may not be able to intake enough water. [3] In the hot, dry summer of 2006, several nuclear plants across Europe stopped operations due to restricted water availability. [4] In August 2012, a nuclear reactor at Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Connecticut shut down after the seawater used for cooling became too warm. Other nuclear plants, including the Braidwood Generating Station in Chicago, were only able to continue operations with a high temperature cooling water after receiving special permission from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. [5]

Climate change is predicted to have significant impacts on freshwater river flow levels and temperature. Under future climate scenarios for 2031-2060, nuclear and coal power generating capacities during summers are predicted to decrease by 4.4%-16% in the U.S. and 6.3%-19% in Europe due to a lack of cooling water. [3] To adapt to a warmer climate and scarcer freshwater resources, strategies could focus on siting plants near coasts and increasing the thermal efficiency of power plants.

© Safiyyah Abdul-Khabir. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.

I was going to attach another paper on the subject by Frends of The Earth, but I suspect just the name of this group would inflame some and especially because the paper also quotes Tim Flannery..  So I'll let you find it on the net if you so desire & withdraw from the conversation on that note .

Have a nice day  LOL

Nuclear would be cost prohibitive and the cost of building it would no doubt increase three fold over the life of the build.  Just look at the ballooning cost of building Metronet in Perth WA!

Greg 1 wrote:

---

Tim Flanery must be the most discredited so called scientist in the country. The man is quite frankly a joke. The CSIRO report on nuclear has been very much discredited by the actual people who know nuclear back to front. That is those who work for the governments own nuclear industry, ANSTO along with other leading nuclear scientists from leading universities. The CSIRO does not have the actual experience in this field and their study has been shown to be very flawed by several emminent people in the nuclear field, but Bowen is clinging to that report for all it's worth because it suits his political agenda. A more stupid politician you could not find although he has a lot of competition in that department at the moment. Montreal Canada is a good example of a place where nuclear is really working and they are attracting industry there because of the reliable power supply. There are some you tube videos of that if you want to do some research. There are other interviews with local nuclear scientists concerning the CSIRO and why their report is flawed. We are being led down a crazy path because of political ideology, not by what is best for the nation as a whole. Industry wants reliable power 24/7 365 days of the year. Solar and wind cannot guarantee that.

 

X2

Opponents of Nuclear need to wake up. It will happen in Australia. 

---

Yes follow the money,A lot of it is tax payers money.

BarneyBDB wrote:

---

Anyone notice the name of Australia's foreign affairs minister????

---

 What an absolutely racist statement based on complete ignorance, if a name isn't something like yours then she must be Chinese?   Penny Wong is not Chinese, she is Australian, her mothers family have been in Australia for almost 200 years, her fathers family are Malaysian not Chinese.