With nuclear fusion not that long away, why would you propose to build nuclear fission plants?
Surely, you would use renewables backed with gas and hydro until fusion became available?
Collo.
Peter_n_Margaret said
06:47 PM May 1, 2025
Dream on.
How many decades is it now? Don't even have a prototype yet.
Cheers,
Peter
Bicyclecamper said
10:55 AM May 3, 2025
Thorium/Salt reactor power plants are the only way to go, less waste issues, within 150 years the waste is safe.
-- Edited by Bicyclecamper on Saturday 3rd of May 2025 10:56:49 AM
Bicyclecamper said
12:15 AM May 6, 2025
Finally nuclear is dead for good.
dogbox said
09:21 AM May 6, 2025
Bicyclecamper wrote:
Finally nuclear is dead for good.
with so many counties using nuclear power for their electrical power needs it is not dead, just not available in this country.
if people think wind farms and solar are the answer they should look at the damage these things do to the environment for a very limited life span.
we think we can save the world by banning nuclear power, and coal fired power stations while the rest of the world burns our coal(and gas) by the ship load
Ineedabiggerboat said
12:44 PM May 6, 2025
From Rand Corp
Exponential growth in AI computation is driving unprecedented power demands that could overwhelm existing infrastructure
Global AI data center power demand could reach 68 GW by 2027 and 327 GW by 2030, compared with total global data center capacity of just 88 GW in 2022.
Individual AI training runs could require up to 1 GW in a single location by 2028 and 8 GW by 2030, although decentralized training algorithms could distribute this power requirement across locations.
What this means is that Australia will be left behind in the AI space. This will affect industry and defence.
The scare campaign against nuclear is silly. 19 out of 20 of the worlds top developing countries are using nuclear. Why is that?
Peter_n_Margaret said
01:31 PM May 6, 2025
You can argue all you like, but it will never happen.
NIMBY will ensure that.
Since 1970 there has been attempts to establish a National depository for LOW LEVEL waste (line smoke detectors and medical stuff).
55 years later, we still have not got one.
Cheers,
Peter
dogbox said
01:31 PM May 6, 2025
Ineedabiggerboat wrote:
From Rand Corp Exponential growth in AI computation is driving unprecedented power demands that could overwhelm existing infrastructure
Global AI data center power demand could reach 68 GW by 2027 and 327 GW by 2030, compared with total global data center capacity of just 88 GW in 2022. Individual AI training runs could require up to 1 GW in a single location by 2028 and 8 GW by 2030, although decentralized training algorithms could distribute this power requirement across locations.
What this means is that Australia will be left behind in the AI space. This will affect industry and defence.
The scare campaign against nuclear is silly. 19 out of 20 of the worlds top developing countries are using nuclear. Why is that?
this country also put a stop to major hydro power, when/where was the last major dam built? over in the ord river maybe?
we put up with floods an droughts if we were to control the water we have we would have plenty an reduce the damage done by flooding and produce electricity at same time.
our need for electricity will only increase, maybe faster than we can produce it
Are We Lost said
01:31 PM May 6, 2025
Australia is the odd one out. It's a wonder that all those other countries don't realise that the sky is falling.
Peter_n_Margaret said
01:37 PM May 6, 2025
Germany had 17 nuclear power stations.
They decided in 2000 to shut them. Successive governments have agreed. The last closed in 2023.
Cheers,
Peter
Are We Lost said
02:28 PM May 6, 2025
Peter, you cherry picked one country that aligns with your agenda. I did not need to cherry pick.
"About 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power programmes."
See the table in that link for the list of 65 nuclear reactors under construction, and 85 planned or proposed. They are on top of the 440 already in use.
Peter_n_Margaret said
02:28 PM May 6, 2025
dogbox wrote:
this country also put a stop to major hydro power, when/where was the last major dam built? over in the ord river maybe?
You have not heard of Snowy 2?
The Snowy 2.0 project in the Snowy Mountains is making steady progress, with recent updates highlighting tunnel construction and power station cavern excavation. The project is on track for completion in December 2028, with first power expected in the second half of 2027.
Cheers,
Peter
Peter_n_Margaret said
02:33 PM May 6, 2025
Are We Lost wrote:
Peter, you cherry picked one country that aligns with your agenda. I did not need to cherry pick.
"About 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power programmes."
See the table in that link for the list of 65 nuclear reactors under construction, and 85 planned or proposed. They are on top of the 440 already in use.
How many of that 66 are in developed western countries?
No need to cherry pick them :)
Cheers,
Peter
dogbox said
04:39 PM May 6, 2025
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
dogbox wrote:
this country also put a stop to major hydro power, when/where was the last major dam built? over in the ord river maybe?
You have not heard of Snowy 2?
The Snowy 2.0 project in the Snowy Mountains is making steady progress, with recent updates highlighting tunnel construction and power station cavern excavation. The project is on track for completion in December 2028, with first power expected in the second half of 2027.
Cheers,
Peter
yes funny enough i had heard of the snowy but considered it an upgrade/rebuilt/addition to existing infrastructure like if they updated/refurbished an old out dated coal fired power station our needs could be growing faster than the new supply is being created.
Peter_n_Margaret said
05:09 PM May 6, 2025
The real value of Snowy 2 is to store excess solar generated energy for later use (350,000mWh, although its generation capacity is also significant (2,200mW).
Rooftop solar is NEW generation capacity. Ours at home is now just over 10 years old. We have no battery. Our bills for the last 10 years are about ZERO.
Rooftop solar now accounts for 11.2 per cent of Australias electricity supply, according to the Clean Energy Councils new Rooftop Solar and Storage Report, published today.
The sheer scale and pace of rooftop solar in Australia is unparalleled anywhere else in the world, due to an abundance of sunshine and the inherent benefits including lower energy bills and feed-in tariffs, he said.
Last year saw 2.9 GW of new capacity installed from 314,507 units, marking the second-biggest year for the uptake of rooftop solar, solidifying its position as the second-largest source of renewable generation and the fourth-largest source of all electricity generation in Australia.
More than three million Australians understand that their rooftop solar systems are providing them with substantial savings, greater value and peace of mind.
The recent announcement by the Federal Government of the $1 billion Solar Sunshot manufacturing support program is a positive sign for future progress, as we leverage world-leading research and innovation to make more solar products right here in Australia.
Fifty-seven thousand behind-the-meter batteries were also installed in 2023. When combined with the future uptake of behind-the-meter batteries, households have even more to gain, all the while supporting Australias timely transition to a renewable energy future.
It is clear that now is the time to back home batteries, build on their growing popularity among households and write the next chapter of Australias solar success story, Hristodoulidis said.
This is why the Clean Energy Council has led calls for a national Home Battery Saver Program of up to $6500 per household to provide more Australians with cost-of-living relief and the added flexibility of storing, using and trading lower-cost electricity generated at home, tailored to their needs.
Key statistics from the Rooftop Solar and Storage H2 2023 Report:
Collectively, rooftop solar is now the second largest source of renewable electricity generation in Australia (behind wind energy generation), and the fourth largest source of electricity generation, providing approximately 11.2 per cent of the countrys power supply. 2023 saw rooftop photovoltaic (PV) installations surpassed a total of 20 GW installed capacity in Australia. With 970 MW of new rooftop solar systems installed in 2023, New South Wales broke the record for the highest annual installed capacity of any state ever recorded. The total number of rooftop solar installations in Queensland surpassed the one million mark, the first state to do so. Fifty-seven thousand behind-the-meter batteries were installed in 2023.
Cheers,
Peter
Are We Lost said
12:59 AM May 7, 2025
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
How many of that 66 are in developed western countries?
Why do they have to be western countries. I asked Copilot for a list based on GDP. In order of GDP 8 out of the top 10 have nuclear or are building/planning them, and 15 out of the top 20. By population the numbers are higher.
I don't claim to be a nuclear scientist with inside information, and I doubt anyone here could offer expert opinion. I just made the point that the leaders of many other countries, and the largest countries seem to think nuclear is a better option.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Wednesday 7th of May 2025 01:03:15 AM
Peter_n_Margaret said
09:18 AM May 7, 2025
I think that the result of the election says quite clearly that the Australian voting population does not want nuclear power.
Too slow, too expensive, too much risk.
For less than the cost of nuclear, every single house in Australia could have solar and batteries. Just getting rid of Germanies old nuclear reactors is costing many many billions.
Besides, as I said before......
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
You can argue all you like, but it will never happen. NIMBY will ensure that. Since 1970 there has been attempts to establish a National depository for LOW LEVEL waste (like smoke detectors and medical stuff). 55 years later, we still have not got one. Cheers, Peter
Cheers,
Peter
dogbox said
09:55 AM May 7, 2025
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
I think that the result of the election says quite clearly that the Australian voting population does not want nuclear power.
Too slow, too expensive, too much risk.
For less than the cost of nuclear, every single house in Australia could have solar and batteries. Just getting rid of Germanies old nuclear reactors is costing many many billions.
Besides, as I said before......
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
You can argue all you like, but it will never happen. NIMBY will ensure that. Since 1970 there has been attempts to establish a National depository for LOW LEVEL waste (like smoke detectors and medical stuff). 55 years later, we still have not got one. Cheers, Peter
Cheers,
Peter
one question i would ask " what do we do with the renewable infrastructure/material at the end of it's life" some of it is getting to end of life already and seem to be causing some issues as to disposal. due to the large amounts that we will acquire in the near future how big of a problem will we have?
Ineedabiggerboat said
09:59 AM May 7, 2025
The election was not about nuclear energy. To Australias detriment, voters went with what's in it for me rather than whats best for our long term prospects.
Peter_n_Margaret said
10:27 AM May 7, 2025
dogbox wrote:
one question i would ask " what do we do with the renewable infrastructure/material at the end of it's life" some of it is getting to end of life already and seem to be causing some issues as to disposal. due to the large amounts that we will acquire in the near future how big of a problem will we have?
Starting to happen slowly. There is a recycler in Adelaide. Aluminium and copper are easy, glass next. Will happen more as volumes increase.
Easier than "recycling" an old coal mine or nuclear waste.
Cheers,
Peter
Cupie said
11:04 AM May 7, 2025
I'm with you Peter
Peter_n_Margaret said
01:39 PM May 7, 2025
Are We Lost wrote:
Why do they have to be western countries.
The populations of the others often have no say in what happens in/to their country.
Cheers,
Peter
Ineedabiggerboat said
01:44 PM May 7, 2025
Yep, its always better to have issues decided by governments whose only motive is to get reelected, not make smart/tough decisions.
Not!
Peter_n_Margaret said
02:32 PM May 7, 2025
Ineedabiggerboat wrote:
Yep, its always better to have issues decided by governments whose only motive is to get reelected, not make smart/tough decisions. Not!
You are welcome to leave. I will stay here.
Nuclear makes no economic sense anymore. What was the cost of 7 nuclear power stations? $600 billion? $200 billion?
There are 10.8 million houses in Australia. If EVERY one was given $10,000 to add or increase solar AND a battery, that would cost $108 billion. End of power supply issues and installation could start NOW, not 20 years from now. Add another $50 billion for world class battery and panel manufacturing and recycle facilities and we would be streets ahead for a very long time. We have the raw materials.
Cheers,
Peter.
Plain Truth said
03:15 PM May 7, 2025
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
You can argue all you like, but it will never happen. NIMBY will ensure that. Since 1970 there has been attempts to establish a National depository for LOW LEVEL waste (line smoke detectors and medical stuff). 55 years later, we still have not got one. Cheers, Peter
Peter what are the sources for your numbers/costs/timeframes AND what is the useful life of what you propose.
rmoor said
03:32 PM May 7, 2025
I was sceptical of the nuclear plan.
40 years was too way off and I am not a fan of nuclear waste.
One fear that is surfacing locally is that only about 38 Billion has so far been spent on a projected total cost of renewables of 600+ Billion.
If only about 10 % of our local landscape in our region is covered by solar and wind, then we are in great fear of all our prime farming paddocks just becoming a futuristic eyesore.
There have been community meetings opposing a new one to be built on the Windora side of Geurie NSW on prime farming land.
Local communities are starting to rise up against these eyesores now dotting our landscape.
The problem is, and there is no government direction or legislation on this other than go at breakneck speed to build these ugly things.
It is probably an opportunity for a full season of "Utopia".
The major issue is these overseas countries teams that build these things just blow in, build one and rack off overseas again with millions in profits from our taxpayers and electricity users dollars.
They have NO CONCERNS whatsover about the local residents, the countryside, the ecology or ruining our first class grazing and cropping paddocks.
They don't build these things on rotten, rocky, non arable lands, they build them on soft loamy paddocks because they are too lazy and too profit focussed to build them on non-prime lands where they SHOULD be built.
Mind you, there are some benefits for those farmers who pick up the usual 18 grand per annum for each wind turbine on their land, assisting cash flow in drought times.
But is also doesn't take into consideration the degradation of our once great rural lands and what happens, and the huge costs involved when these things hit their effective life of about 25 years. Then they will have to renew the renewables again.
One wonders what the Grey Nomads of the future will think when their nice country drive to our region and others is not lined by paddocks, cattle grazing and eucalyptus trees, but a never ending line of ugly shining glass structures?
dogbox said
04:29 PM May 7, 2025
only have to drive the Hume highway around Goulburn to look into the future
Commonwealths timeline is audacious: With over $2 billion raised in private capital, its goal is to build the worlds first fusion-fueled power plant by the early 2030s in Virginia.
With nuclear fusion not that long away, why would you propose to build nuclear fission plants?
Surely, you would use renewables backed with gas and hydro until fusion became available?
Collo.
How many decades is it now? Don't even have a prototype yet.
Cheers,
Peter
Thorium/Salt reactor power plants are the only way to go, less waste issues, within 150 years the waste is safe.
-- Edited by Bicyclecamper on Saturday 3rd of May 2025 10:56:49 AM
with so many counties using nuclear power for their electrical power needs it is not dead, just not available in this country.
if people think wind farms and solar are the answer they should look at the damage these things do to the environment for a very limited life span.
we think we can save the world by banning nuclear power, and coal fired power stations while the rest of the world burns our coal(and gas) by the ship load
NIMBY will ensure that.
Since 1970 there has been attempts to establish a National depository for LOW LEVEL waste (line smoke detectors and medical stuff).
55 years later, we still have not got one.
Cheers,
Peter
this country also put a stop to major hydro power, when/where was the last major dam built? over in the ord river maybe?
we put up with floods an droughts if we were to control the water we have we would have plenty an reduce the damage done by flooding and produce electricity at same time.
our need for electricity will only increase, maybe faster than we can produce it
They decided in 2000 to shut them. Successive governments have agreed. The last closed in 2023.
Cheers,
Peter
Peter, you cherry picked one country that aligns with your agenda. I did not need to cherry pick.
Plans for nuclear reactors worldwide
"About 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power programmes."
See the table in that link for the list of 65 nuclear reactors under construction, and 85 planned or proposed. They are on top of the 440 already in use.
You have not heard of Snowy 2?
Cheers,
Peter
How many of that 66 are in developed western countries?
No need to cherry pick them :)
Cheers,
Peter
yes funny enough i had heard of the snowy but considered it an upgrade/rebuilt/addition to existing infrastructure like if they updated/refurbished an old out dated coal fired power station our needs could be growing faster than the new supply is being created.
The real value of Snowy 2 is to store excess solar generated energy for later use (350,000mWh, although its generation capacity is also significant (2,200mW).
Rooftop solar is NEW generation capacity. Ours at home is now just over 10 years old. We have no battery. Our bills for the last 10 years are about ZERO.
Cheers,
Peter
Why do they have to be western countries. I asked Copilot for a list based on GDP. In order of GDP 8 out of the top 10 have nuclear or are building/planning them, and 15 out of the top 20. By population the numbers are higher.
I don't claim to be a nuclear scientist with inside information, and I doubt anyone here could offer expert opinion. I just made the point that the leaders of many other countries, and the largest countries seem to think nuclear is a better option.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Wednesday 7th of May 2025 01:03:15 AM
Cheers,
Peter
one question i would ask " what do we do with the renewable infrastructure/material at the end of it's life" some of it is getting to end of life already and seem to be causing some issues as to disposal. due to the large amounts that we will acquire in the near future how big of a problem will we have?
Starting to happen slowly. There is a recycler in Adelaide. Aluminium and copper are easy, glass next. Will happen more as volumes increase.
Easier than "recycling" an old coal mine or nuclear waste.
Cheers,
Peter
I'm with you Peter
The populations of the others often have no say in what happens in/to their country.
Cheers,
Peter
You are welcome to leave. I will stay here.
Nuclear makes no economic sense anymore. What was the cost of 7 nuclear power stations? $600 billion? $200 billion?
There are 10.8 million houses in Australia. If EVERY one was given $10,000 to add or increase solar AND a battery, that would cost $108 billion. End of power supply issues and installation could start NOW, not 20 years from now. Add another $50 billion for world class battery and panel manufacturing and recycle facilities and we would be streets ahead for a very long time. We have the raw materials.
Cheers,
Peter.
40 years was too way off and I am not a fan of nuclear waste.
One fear that is surfacing locally is that only about 38 Billion has so far been spent on a projected total cost of renewables of 600+ Billion.
If only about 10 % of our local landscape in our region is covered by solar and wind, then we are in great fear of all our prime farming paddocks just becoming a futuristic eyesore.
There have been community meetings opposing a new one to be built on the Windora side of Geurie NSW on prime farming land.
Local communities are starting to rise up against these eyesores now dotting our landscape.
The problem is, and there is no government direction or legislation on this other than go at breakneck speed to build these ugly things.
It is probably an opportunity for a full season of "Utopia".
The major issue is these overseas countries teams that build these things just blow in, build one and rack off overseas again with millions in profits from our taxpayers and electricity users dollars.
They have NO CONCERNS whatsover about the local residents, the countryside, the ecology or ruining our first class grazing and cropping paddocks.
They don't build these things on rotten, rocky, non arable lands, they build them on soft loamy paddocks because they are too lazy and too profit focussed to build them on non-prime lands where they SHOULD be built.
Mind you, there are some benefits for those farmers who pick up the usual 18 grand per annum for each wind turbine on their land, assisting cash flow in drought times.
But is also doesn't take into consideration the degradation of our once great rural lands and what happens, and the huge costs involved when these things hit their effective life of about 25 years. Then they will have to renew the renewables again.
One wonders what the Grey Nomads of the future will think when their nice country drive to our region and others is not lined by paddocks, cattle grazing and eucalyptus trees, but a never ending line of ugly shining glass structures?
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/06/climate/nuclear-fusion-commonwealth-tokamak-breakthrough
Commonwealths timeline is audacious: With over $2 billion raised in private capital, its goal is to build the worlds first fusion-fueled power plant by the early 2030s in Virginia.
Cheers,
Peter