ozopenletter.com

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Registered Members:-
If you are having difficulty logging in, contact Administration    ozopenletter-1@hotmail.com

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Nuclear Energy  (Read 1347 times)

Poddy

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 4681
  • *Admin, Mod, Member
Nuclear Energy
« on: November 27, 2015, 05:43:24 PM »

Nuclear energy generation is the only form of power generation that can replace power generation by fossil fuels.
Humanity's want (as opposed to need) for an ever increasing demand for energy, therefor power, and I do not mean motive power, I mean the power to control.
If you have energy generation in your grasp you have those who want energy by the short and curlies.
Australia has an abundance of uranium and could therefore be either a powerful nation or a just another victim to be robbed of its resources. The future 'Middle East".
Consider China, buying up our country in an attempt to conquer Australia and its resources from within, Trojan Horse style.
The United States is also doing the same thing only more blatantly they are building military bases in our country and we let them do that.
Nuclear energy generation has been demonised, now apply some thought to that bit of brainwashing, who has demonised it, why those who have and those who want control over it of course.
Wake up people, wake up Australians before it is too late to do anything about it
Logged
I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

Frownland

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 2575
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2015, 06:37:33 PM »

 the opening line is false .  sulfur ion batteries have approximately four times the energy density of the lithium-ion batteries currently found in electric cars and promise to have the same results in applications that would use say the ''tesla power wall ''. the technology is there , and if we had good governance we'd be spending more money building them here instead of paying places like hazlewood to produce dirty electricity (twice) . Twice because we pay our electricity bills and a carbon tax (remembering the current govt pay the polluter rather than charge them). This money comes out of general revenue which is mostly tax receipts . a carbon tax  :)
How long will it take to get a large nuclear power plant up and running anyway ?  quite a long time i would imagine, so it requires consensus .. is that likely ? i can see the first PM to do it leaving office inside a year .
Logged

Poddy

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 4681
  • *Admin, Mod, Member
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2015, 06:56:07 PM »

Frownie, may I bring to your attention a fundamental scientific fact? Batteries do NOT generate energy in fact they are used for storage and in fact they also consume some of the energy that they store in varying degrees according to their chemical composition.
Equating a battery with energy generation is flawed and shows a lack of understanding of basic science.

how long will it take to get a nuclear power plant operational? probably less time and cost than the  NBN White Elephant



Logged
I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

Frownland

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 2575
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2015, 07:00:41 PM »

 rubbish , i suggest you take up reading again . baseload can be supplied by solar/wind etc and emerging battery technology can store it .  the tech is here , the will isn't .
Logged

Poddy

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 4681
  • *Admin, Mod, Member
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #4 on: November 28, 2015, 03:53:50 PM »

What do you define as 'baseload?"
Logged
I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

Frownland

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 2575
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #5 on: November 28, 2015, 04:35:06 PM »

  i use the term baseload in it's usual application.
Logged

Poddy

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 4681
  • *Admin, Mod, Member
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #6 on: November 28, 2015, 04:54:33 PM »

"baseload" is not a quantifiable term it has to be applied to a certain circumstance such as the baseload of my energy requirements is 10kWh per day.
The term base load is applied loosely but not quantified.

You have used "baseload" in a meaningless fashion so how would you like to quantify  the baseload that you ere referring to?
Logged
I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

Poddy

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 4681
  • *Admin, Mod, Member
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #7 on: November 28, 2015, 06:53:56 PM »

How about we do some simple math on my "baseload" energy requirements.

I require 10kWh per day, to supply that I would need :-

38 X 200 Watt Photo Voltaic panels               @ $7,980  48.152 square metres

1.28 Cubic metres of energy storage             @ $9,185

8 Hours of direct sunlight                             @ A whole lot of luck
                                                                __________________
                                                                    $17,165
                                                                __________________

My requirements are about half of an average house hold and I live in a community of about 1,500 households

so if we extrapolate  my requirements to encompass the small rural community I live in we would have to multiply my requirements by 3,000

let us put aside the cost for now and instead have a look at the area that the required PV cells would have to cover and the volume of the energy storage batteries

Energy storage volume = 3840 cubic metres or 3.84 Km of storage 1 metre wide and 1 metre high.
P.V. Panel area            = 144,456.24 square metres or180.12 Km 0.808 metres wide

Now let have a look at the cost $17,165 X 3,000 = $51,495,000

In the above only households have been included.
Logged
I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

Cheers

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 3747
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #8 on: November 28, 2015, 07:06:53 PM »

is base load anything like mother load?
Logged
"Some people go their whole lives without ever really living for a minute."

Frownland

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 2575
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #9 on: November 28, 2015, 07:26:20 PM »

 cherry -picking and unverifiable . that is a fail poddy. when you have something let me know.
Logged

iapetus_rocks

  • Active
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2015, 07:42:13 PM »

Poddy, didn't you read my post on the other thread about nuclear power?

Why have another thread about it? it's distracting and redundant. Just in case you didn't read it, here it is again, complete with a link to a news article re what Morocco is doing as an alternative.



Yes, people don't seem to understand that nuclear power generators evolve a lot of heat and therefore these plants need to be built close to a large and easily accessible source of water, like the sea or very big rivers.

So, we can't build them far away from cities, like out in the desert. They also need to be built close to cities so as not to have to send the electricity down hundreds of kilometers of cables. And it's not as if if there is a problem with them and they fail, they are only going to generate a bit of flame and some sooty black smoke ruining your washing.

It is not unknown for nuclear power plants to fail and when they do, they often fail catastrophically.

We have examples of this in Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and short cuddleushima. These were not minor events and had major consequences for the people living near them and in some case, for people living far away.

Nuclear power plants come with unavoidable risks attatched and these risks are of a very serious degree of magnitude.

So, what do we want? What risks are we prepared to take? How much risk is acceptable? (and I haven't even mentioned the risks and problems of storage of the nuclear waste generated)

We live in a country blessed with free energy from the sun and we could develop that technology which is just about completely risk-free. But then there would be no profits for the big mining companies and no minerals resources tax for govt and no jobs for miners.

So, do we concentrate on the short term profits from nuclear power and be damned with the risks or do we do something else?

Maybe something like Morocco has done and is doing?

Moroccan solar plant to bring energy to a million people.

A giant plant using energy from the Sun to power a Moroccan city at night will open next month.

"The solar thermal plant at Ouarzazate will harness the Sun's warmth to melt salt, which will hold its heat to power a steam turbine in the evening.

The first phase will generate for three hours after dark; the last stage aims to supply power 20 hours a day.

It is part of Morocco's pledge to get 42% of its electricity generation from renewables by 2020.

The UN has praised Morocco for the level of its ambition. The UK, a much richer country, is aiming for 30% by the same date.

The Saudi-built Ouarzazate solar thermal plant will be one of the world's biggest when it is complete. The mirrors will cover the same area as the country's capital, Rabat."
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34883224




We have plenty of land and plenty of sunshine. Why aren't we using it more effectively? Why are we more concerned for short term profits for a few rather than the long term benefits for all of cheap, clean, risk-free power?






Logged

Frownland

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 2575
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #11 on: November 28, 2015, 07:48:50 PM »

''We have plenty of land and plenty of sunshine. Why aren't we using it more effectively? Why are we more concerned for short term profits for a few rather than the long term benefits for all of cheap, clean, risk-free power?''

 our govt is captive to vested interests . the supposed ''moderate'' turnbull is in reality a gutless captive of the  hard right. this has been proven by his sudden acquisition of a new position with 14 reverse gears.
Logged

iapetus_rocks

  • Active
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #12 on: November 28, 2015, 07:57:31 PM »

Yes, Turnbull has more front than Meyers. He's just another right wing pollie, beholden to his paymasters in big business. hey, he even is big business, himself.

Look at the LNP policies. they haven't changed much since Abbott was PM. and they won't. Turnbull is more dangerous than Abbott, because he is smarter and presents better, but the substance of what he presents is the same.


and to Poddy; there are other ways to derive energy from the sun beside using solar panels to generate electricity directly. Look at what Mexico is doing to achieve that base load supply.
Logged

Poddy

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 4681
  • *Admin, Mod, Member
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2015, 08:02:28 PM »

Yes Rocks, I read it, in fact I read everything put on the forum :)

The reason for this thread is to bring it into a more suitable category where it can become a more ongoing discussion

Solar energy can supplement conventional sources but it can not replace the worlds "baseload" to use Frownie's terminology.

Yes there are risks associated with nuclear energy generation just as there are risks with motor vehicle transport an in fact every means of transport. the casualties in that area by far outnumber those of nuclear accidents.

The fact is, when fossil fuels have been depleted there will be no alternative but to use nuclear energy generation. If Australia does not
develop its nuclear capability then we will become the future middle east and have 'democracy' imposed un us as it is being enforced in the middle eastern countries

Frownie do some basic math, you are for ever quoting intangible and non quantifiable mantra, get some credibility and support what you say with fact:)
Logged
I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

Frownland

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 2575
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2015, 08:06:54 PM »

 you haven't posted one thing of merit here . you are the OP , provide some facts . not little equations that have no veracity apart from the interior of your own imagination. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.231 seconds with 22 queries.