15 Apr 2023 The last 3 Nuclear power stations in Germany have been shut down. Original target for this 2036. The cleanup of the toxic consequential legecy products left from those power stations can now start. I'm wondering if Australia is smart enough to acknowledge the impact of the failed Nuclear experiment in Germany and set in place a policy for future power generation that ignores any argument for Nuclear and to get some ideas from the thinking in Germany for where they go now.
I'm currently costing a 25 x 30 metre shed in the back yard with a Solar Farm roof and a battery. I could be self sufficient in power befor Xmas.
Mein said
12:26 AM Apr 27, 2023
"As of 2022, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported there were 422 nuclear power reactors in operation in 32 countries around the world, and 57 nuclear power reactors under construction."
deverall11 said
09:34 AM Apr 27, 2023
Good post Iza. I fail to understand the basic fact that until such time we can deal effectively with not
only the consequences of a possible disaster (Fukushima/Chernobyl etc...) but also the disposal of
spent nuclear fuel, this has to be HANDS OFF.
Even if, for argument sake, we were to put spent nuclear fuel aboard a spacecraft and send this into
oblivion, the cost and the risks associated (latest Elon Musk failure) does not make this for consideration.
Unlike EVs whereby experimentation/testing, such as E-Formula, will lead to a viable solution, this is NOT.
Gundog said
10:20 AM Apr 27, 2023
The alternative to the 3 stations their shutting down Germany will replacement power will come from coal and gas, until they build more wind and solar.
Duh.
Don't ya just love the greens
Izabarack said
11:10 AM Apr 27, 2023
Gundog wrote:
The alternative to the 3 stations their shutting down Germany will replacement power will come from coal and gas, until they build more wind and solar.
Is there a question in there somewhere?
Germany has just shut down the LAST three nuclear power stations in operation there. Alternative sources of power generation are already in place.
The lesson for Australia is simply to avoid all the problems associated with building, running, maintaining, protecting (Terror Attacks), toxic waste disposal, and final decommissioning, and skip ahead to sustainable power generation, more distributed and accessible, and taking advantage of technological advantages. Technological advantages are a concrete way forward and cultural change also has enormous potential. My Great Grandkids are already power use conscious and aware of how they can (and do) control their use of energy. The other end of the generations are dying out and their solutions are dying out, too. Nuclear power for power generation belongs to a long ago time when the adults in the room had no thought to what they were leaving for their children to deal with.
-- Edited by Izabarack on Thursday 27th of April 2023 11:12:11 AM
peter67 said
11:50 AM Apr 27, 2023
Gundog wrote:
The alternative to the 3 stations their shutting down Germany will replacement power will come from coal and gas, until they build more wind and solar.
Duh.
Don't ya just love the greens
Yup! wait till they start bleating about blackouts in winter, the Frauleins will be freezing their fritters off. Maybe they can all immigrate to South Australia, reliable green power there I hear. Until then I suppose they will have to be happy with gas and coal power in place of nuclear, it makes PC sense?
Greg 1 said
02:55 PM Apr 27, 2023
Chernobyl and Fukoshima were very old plants and very old technology. The German plants are of a similar era.
Modern nuclear reactors are a far cry than those old plants and are usually smaller, use much less fuel, generate very small quantities of waste and the radioactive fuel lasts longer.
A reactor to drive a medium country town can be about the size of half a dozen seatainers and a ball of fuel about the size of your fist can generate enough power for an estimated 10 years.
Australia really needs to look at nuclear technology. Modern plants are clean power sources that can supply base load power that wind and solar cannot.
We also have some of the world's largest uranium deposits in the world.
Modern nuclear is a no brainer. We just have this pathological fear of the technology because of weapons and these old dirty plants of a bygone era.
We need to see past that and use what we have in abundance. The rest of the world is doing so. We really need to keep up.
deverall11 said
03:05 PM Apr 27, 2023
Greg 1 wrote:
Chernobyl and Fukoshima were very old plants and very old technology. The German plants are of a similar era. Modern nuclear reactors are a far cry than those old plants and are usually smaller, use much less fuel, generate very small quantities of waste and the radioactive fuel lasts longer. A reactor to drive a medium country town can be about the size of half a dozen seatainers and a ball of fuel about the size of your fist can generate enough power for an estimated 10 years. Australia really needs to look at nuclear technology. Modern plants are clean power sources that can supply base load power that wind and solar cannot. We also have some of the world's largest uranium deposits in the world. Modern nuclear is a no brainer. We just have this pathological fear of the technology because of weapons and these old dirty plants of a bygone era. We need to see past that and use what we have in abundance. The rest of the world is doing so. We really need to keep up.
Old technology or not, if and when the proverbial hit the fan nuclear material is on the loose.
This proverbial can be in the form of a natural disaster or a man made such as a terrorist attack. No matter how you look
at it, uncontrolled nuclear material spells disaster. Yes we have an abundance of nuclear fuel and yes it is very efficient
until it gets out of control.
Let me ask you this question: Would you be happy to set up camp near a nuclear reactor or a nuclear waste disposal site?
Bet the answer is a resounding NO but new nuclear plant are 'safe'. Give me a break.
Gundog said
04:50 PM Apr 27, 2023
deverall11 wrote:
Greg 1 wrote:
Chernobyl and Fukoshima were very old plants and very old technology. The German plants are of a similar era. Modern nuclear reactors are a far cry than those old plants and are usually smaller, use much less fuel, generate very small quantities of waste and the radioactive fuel lasts longer. A reactor to drive a medium country town can be about the size of half a dozen seatainers and a ball of fuel about the size of your fist can generate enough power for an estimated 10 years. Australia really needs to look at nuclear technology. Modern plants are clean power sources that can supply base load power that wind and solar cannot. We also have some of the world's largest uranium deposits in the world. Modern nuclear is a no brainer. We just have this pathological fear of the technology because of weapons and these old dirty plants of a bygone era. We need to see past that and use what we have in abundance. The rest of the world is doing so. We really need to keep up.
Old technology or not, if and when the proverbial hit the fan nuclear material is on the loose.
This proverbial can be in the form of a natural disaster or a man made such as a terrorist attack. No matter how you look
at it, uncontrolled nuclear material spells disaster. Yes we have an abundance of nuclear fuel and yes it is very efficient
until it gets out of control.
Let me ask you this question: Would you be happy to set up camp near a nuclear reactor or a nuclear waste disposal site?
Bet the answer is a resounding NO but new nuclear plant are 'safe'. Give me a break.
Thousands of work and sleep near nuclear reactors 24/7 365 days they don't glow in dark.
We will have subs powered by nukes.
And yes I would be very happy to camp near nuclear power station. Oh we have nuclear reactor in surburban Sydney since 1958 no issues there.
Chernobyl was not an accident, but an design flaw and operational error, Fukushima was damaged by a tsunami, no one was actually killed by the radiation because the safety measures worked but the tsunami kill thousands.
deverall11 said
09:39 PM Apr 27, 2023
Gundog wrote:
........
And yes I would be very happy to camp near nuclear power station. Oh we have nuclear reactor in surburban Sydney since 1958 no issues there.
Chernobyl was not an accident, but an design flaw and operational error, Fukushima was damaged by a tsunami, no one was actually killed by the radiation because the safety measures worked but the tsunami kill thousands.
Can't really compare the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights to Chernobyl or Fukushima. You do not need to have loss of human life
for to not be a catastrophe.
Perhaps you would like to explain to those residents of Chernobyl and Fukushima that the reason why they were displaced was
a design flaw or a tsunami but carry on as if nothing happened.
Do you not think the fact that Chernobyl is a no-go zone to be significant??????
Do you not think that all those farmers who list everything in Fukushima insignificant???
How would you be if you were displaced by a few kms from where you live now because a nuclear reactor spilled its guts next door?
Just a small inconvenience- should be able to go back next week.? She'll be right mate?????????
msg said
09:41 PM Apr 27, 2023
Its not the reactor so much as the waste. You just cannot store the stuff safely. and, it would seem that if we were to supply the raw materials we would have to take back the waste. Central Australia would become a no go zone very quickly. No thank you.
Greg 1 said
02:03 AM Apr 28, 2023
That depends entirely on how the waste facility is designed.
Perhaps a very deep bore hole in the desert with the spent fuel placed down the hole in a concrete sarcophagus is one way given the smal qualities involved in modern reactors.
You are all thinking of technology designed in the 50's. 2023 technology is far in advance of that and maybe some money needs to be poured into the technology in this country.
Cuppa said
07:50 AM Apr 28, 2023
Greg 1 wrote:
You are all thinking of technology designed in the 50's. 2023 technology is far in advance of that and maybe some money needs to be poured into the technology in this country.
I have never been pro nuclear.
As I understand it the lead time in commissioning & then building a single nuclear power station (not including all the political manouvering time to make this possible) is quite lengthy. I suppose the reason it is being talked about is to provide greenhouse gas free power generation as a means of mitigating global warming. I question whether there is sufficient time in which to achieve this.
Also, as I understand it, when whole of life, & storage of waste is included in the sums, nuclear power is hugely more expensive compared to any alternative.
'Small Modular Reactors' (SMR's) according to some may bring the price of nuclear generation down, small factory built nuclear generators, intended to be shipped to their working location once built, but as yet they don't exist & their use remains a hypothetical possibility at best still many years off.
A friend of mine with one of the best analytical minds I have encountered just 3 or 4 years ago was arguing, similarly to you, how much more sophisticated & safe modern nuclear power generation design was. He described how modern reactors would work & explained how this made them safer. Much of it was above my head, but my respect for his ability to understand what he was talking about had me thinking 'maybe'. But whilst understanding that catastrophic risk was reduced I couldn't get past the possibilities of human infallibility nor indeed unforeseen natural disaster. No non nuclear power generation carries that same risk. Interestingly over the past few years my friend has reviewed his thinking & now considers that renewables are a far more pragmatic option & feels that we should be increasing our renewable power generation far more quickly than we are.
-- Edited by Cuppa on Friday 28th of April 2023 07:55:20 AM
peter67 said
10:49 AM Apr 28, 2023
msg wrote:
Its not the reactor so much as the waste. You just cannot store the stuff safely. and, it would seem that if we were to supply the raw materials we would have to take back the waste. Central Australia would become a no go zone very quickly. No thank you.
Good thinking about endangering central Australia with stinking nuclear waste, let's bury it all in Tasmania to protect the mainland.
mixo said
11:59 AM Apr 28, 2023
you guys belong in the '70 and '80's.
The nuclear industry has moved on like some people have said so far.
Stop using fear to bolster your argument.
The new way of storing waste is onsite, because the waste is much less than what it was and it can be recycled and used again.
People need to do more research and find both sides of the stop the fear-mongering.
mixo
Whenarewethere said
12:08 PM Apr 28, 2023
My other half's parents lived at Lake Constance, which borders Germany, Switzerland & Austria. Her parents grew a lot of home vegetables & fruit.
When Chernobyl went up all the food had to be disposed as required by the State.
It was not a fun time.
dogbox said
01:22 PM Apr 28, 2023
we could build a few dams, we will be short of water shortly if the population keeps growing. power and water two problems solved in one hit plus it could also incorporate some flood mitigation as well, with irrigation thrown in to feed the masses.
-- Edited by dogbox on Friday 28th of April 2023 01:26:08 PM
Aussie1 said
01:28 PM Apr 28, 2023
mixo wrote:
you guys belong in the '70 and '80's.
The nuclear industry has moved on like some people have said so far.
Stop using fear to bolster your argument.
The new way of storing waste is onsite, because the waste is much less than what it was and it can be recycled and used again.
People need to do more research and find both sides of the stop the fear-mongering.
mixo
At last, a good common-sense statement. Well put in my opinion. I do fear though, some of the forums "self appointed experts" will rise to occasion with wonderful "research" comments to further instill fear and panic.
Southern Cruizer said
02:04 PM Apr 28, 2023
Aussie1 wrote:
mixo wrote:
you guys belong in the '70 and '80's.
The nuclear industry has moved on like some people have said so far.
Stop using fear to bolster your argument.
The new way of storing waste is onsite, because the waste is much less than what it was and it can be recycled and used again.
People need to do more research and find both sides of the stop the fear-mongering.
mixo
At last, a good common-sense statement. Well put in my opinion. I do fear though, some of the forums "self appointed experts" will rise to occasion with wonderful "research" comments to further instill fear and panic.
Well said Aussie1, couldn't agree more
Cuppa said
02:05 PM Apr 28, 2023
Some bedtime reading for you. Does sharing make me a 'self appointed expert'? Probably not - it might if I were able to get my head around it all. I was however unable to reach a point of understanding as to where the Australian experts believe we are headed as far as power generation goes before my eyes glazed over. I don't think they are taking a partisan approach . Just an appraisal of all options.
I'm willing to bet that whatever the stance of any poster on this thread that there are no nuclear experts here & that comments in favour of nuclear or non nuclear are far from scientifically based. All posted to date are the synthesised headlines . The tip of the iceberg. Pre-existing bias & which headlines fit best with that plays a large role whether for or against. No purpose whatsoever in taking sides & arguing the toss here.
Maybe an opportunity for anyone who wants to to learn a bit more about what those who know more than us think?
For the thread - I predict the side taking will continue for as long as the thread remains active which will all be a bit pointless.
-- Edited by Cuppa on Friday 28th of April 2023 02:12:13 PM
Gundog said
02:07 PM Apr 28, 2023
So what if the crazies incharge have decided to 86 nuke power generation, there only reply is more intermitant power sources.
The same lunacy has infected our government, shut the coal power station and build a battery on its site, a battery wherever it is cannot make power. In this madness we see prime agricultural being used for solar farms, then we have massive wind farms that are destroying forests to build the towers, bulldozing big pads for tower along with access roads, and when it all complete all you get big ugly wind turbines of intermittant power generation. But we dont these things near cities where the power is needed, the city slicker wouldnt want one in their backyard.
When these monstrosities are completed we need big high tension towers to carry the wires to bring the electricity to the city, again crossing prime land and if you own it bad luck we gunna put it there because you dont matter "its for the greater good" that dosnt matter because its only a trillion dollars that you have to pay for.
Here's an idea before we approve another solar or wind farm, we actually pass a law that every home will have solar panels mounted on the roof, paid for by the govt/energy companies. The infastructure is there to move the energy into the grid. A smart person would develop a way to construct the whole roof from solar panels.
And then government sould task the CSIRO to develop semi clear solar panel the could replace windows in high rise buildings.
Oh if you want to read about the failure of the RBMK-1000 nuclear reactor at Chernobyl....... https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_28271/chernobyl-chapter-i-the-site-and-accident-sequence#:~:text=The%20Chernobyl%20Power%20Complex%2C%20lying,completed%20in%201983%20(IA86).
-- Edited by Gundog on Friday 28th of April 2023 02:11:52 PM
msg said
02:08 PM Apr 28, 2023
peter67 wrote:
msg wrote:
Its not the reactor so much as the waste. You just cannot store the stuff safely. and, it would seem that if we were to supply the raw materials we would have to take back the waste. Central Australia would become a no go zone very quickly. No thank you.
Good thinking about endangering central Australia with stinking nuclear waste, let's bury it all in Tasmania to protect the mainland.
If the waste can be stored as safely as Greg 1 intimates, then this should not be an issue In fact every householder in Australia could have a small waste dump in their back yard. Not a problem.
Gundog said
02:27 PM Apr 28, 2023
msg wrote:
peter67 wrote:
msg wrote:
Its not the reactor so much as the waste. You just cannot store the stuff safely. and, it would seem that if we were to supply the raw materials we would have to take back the waste. Central Australia would become a no go zone very quickly. No thank you.
Good thinking about endangering central Australia with stinking nuclear waste, let's bury it all in Tasmania to protect the mainland.
If the waste can be stored as safely as Greg 1 intimates, then this should not be an issue In fact every householder in Australia could have a small waste dump in their back yard. Not a problem.
Pinkawillinie SA 5641 here is the site approxiamatly 30k west of kimba still to be constructed.
dogbox said
02:43 PM Apr 28, 2023
anyone have any idea how much a nuclear power plant like the one that will be used in our new submarines costs, an how much power they can generate
RickJ said
05:25 PM Apr 28, 2023
dogbox wrote:
anyone have any idea how much a nuclear power plant like the one that will be used in our new submarines costs, an how much power they can generate
Hi dogbox
I cant give you the info you asked for but I do remember reading somewhere that the Fuel Rods used to run the subs last 30 years.
I find that extraordinary.
Maybe someone might confirm or correct that bit of info if they do have the knowledge of your questions.
Tony Bev said
09:48 PM Apr 28, 2023
My opinion is that
The elephant in the room, regarding Nuclear Fission power stations, is that mankind can not be trusted, to do the right thing
Whenever a Nuclear Fission power station is damaged, (regardless of how it got damaged), the consequences bite us in the bum, for a long time, at a great monetary cost
The waste is not safe for many years, so has to be looked after for many years, at a great monetary cost
From what I read, and have no way of knowing if it is true or false, Nuclear Fusion power stations are much safer
It appears that an Israeli mob say that they can make Nuclear Fusion, work
15 Apr 2023 The last 3 Nuclear power stations in Germany have been shut down. Original target for this 2036. The cleanup of the toxic consequential legecy products left from those power stations can now start. I'm wondering if Australia is smart enough to acknowledge the impact of the failed Nuclear experiment in Germany and set in place a policy for future power generation that ignores any argument for Nuclear and to get some ideas from the thinking in Germany for where they go now.
I'm currently costing a 25 x 30 metre shed in the back yard with a Solar Farm roof and a battery. I could be self sufficient in power befor Xmas.
"As of 2022, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported there were 422 nuclear power reactors in operation in 32 countries around the world, and 57 nuclear power reactors under construction."
only the consequences of a possible disaster (Fukushima/Chernobyl etc...) but also the disposal of
spent nuclear fuel, this has to be HANDS OFF.
Even if, for argument sake, we were to put spent nuclear fuel aboard a spacecraft and send this into
oblivion, the cost and the risks associated (latest Elon Musk failure) does not make this for consideration.
Unlike EVs whereby experimentation/testing, such as E-Formula, will lead to a viable solution, this is NOT.
The alternative to the 3 stations their shutting down Germany will replacement power will come from coal and gas, until they build more wind and solar.
Duh.
Don't ya just love the greens
Is there a question in there somewhere?
Germany has just shut down the LAST three nuclear power stations in operation there. Alternative sources of power generation are already in place.
The lesson for Australia is simply to avoid all the problems associated with building, running, maintaining, protecting (Terror Attacks), toxic waste disposal, and final decommissioning, and skip ahead to sustainable power generation, more distributed and accessible, and taking advantage of technological advantages. Technological advantages are a concrete way forward and cultural change also has enormous potential. My Great Grandkids are already power use conscious and aware of how they can (and do) control their use of energy. The other end of the generations are dying out and their solutions are dying out, too. Nuclear power for power generation belongs to a long ago time when the adults in the room had no thought to what they were leaving for their children to deal with.
-- Edited by Izabarack on Thursday 27th of April 2023 11:12:11 AM
Yup! wait till they start bleating about blackouts in winter, the Frauleins will be freezing their fritters off. Maybe they can all immigrate to South Australia, reliable green power there I hear. Until then I suppose they will have to be happy with gas and coal power in place of nuclear, it makes PC sense?
Old technology or not, if and when the proverbial hit the fan nuclear material is on the loose.
This proverbial can be in the form of a natural disaster or a man made such as a terrorist attack. No matter how you look
at it, uncontrolled nuclear material spells disaster. Yes we have an abundance of nuclear fuel and yes it is very efficient
until it gets out of control.
Let me ask you this question: Would you be happy to set up camp near a nuclear reactor or a nuclear waste disposal site?
Bet the answer is a resounding NO but new nuclear plant are 'safe'. Give me a break.
Thousands of work and sleep near nuclear reactors 24/7 365 days they don't glow in dark.
We will have subs powered by nukes.
And yes I would be very happy to camp near nuclear power station. Oh we have nuclear reactor in surburban Sydney since 1958 no issues there.
Chernobyl was not an accident, but an design flaw and operational error, Fukushima was damaged by a tsunami, no one was actually killed by the radiation because the safety measures worked but the tsunami kill thousands.
Can't really compare the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights to Chernobyl or Fukushima. You do not need to have loss of human life
for to not be a catastrophe.
Perhaps you would like to explain to those residents of Chernobyl and Fukushima that the reason why they were displaced was
a design flaw or a tsunami but carry on as if nothing happened.
Do you not think the fact that Chernobyl is a no-go zone to be significant??????
Do you not think that all those farmers who list everything in Fukushima insignificant???
How would you be if you were displaced by a few kms from where you live now because a nuclear reactor spilled its guts next door?
Just a small inconvenience- should be able to go back next week.? She'll be right mate?????????
I have never been pro nuclear.
As I understand it the lead time in commissioning & then building a single nuclear power station (not including all the political manouvering time to make this possible) is quite lengthy. I suppose the reason it is being talked about is to provide greenhouse gas free power generation as a means of mitigating global warming. I question whether there is sufficient time in which to achieve this.
Also, as I understand it, when whole of life, & storage of waste is included in the sums, nuclear power is hugely more expensive compared to any alternative.
'Small Modular Reactors' (SMR's) according to some may bring the price of nuclear generation down, small factory built nuclear generators, intended to be shipped to their working location once built, but as yet they don't exist & their use remains a hypothetical possibility at best still many years off.
A friend of mine with one of the best analytical minds I have encountered just 3 or 4 years ago was arguing, similarly to you, how much more sophisticated & safe modern nuclear power generation design was. He described how modern reactors would work & explained how this made them safer. Much of it was above my head, but my respect for his ability to understand what he was talking about had me thinking 'maybe'. But whilst understanding that catastrophic risk was reduced I couldn't get past the possibilities of human infallibility nor indeed unforeseen natural disaster. No non nuclear power generation carries that same risk. Interestingly over the past few years my friend has reviewed his thinking & now considers that renewables are a far more pragmatic option & feels that we should be increasing our renewable power generation far more quickly than we are.
-- Edited by Cuppa on Friday 28th of April 2023 07:55:20 AM
Good thinking about endangering central Australia with stinking nuclear waste, let's bury it all in Tasmania to protect the mainland.
The nuclear industry has moved on like some people have said so far.
Stop using fear to bolster your argument.
The new way of storing waste is onsite, because the waste is much less than what it was and it can be recycled and used again.
People need to do more research and find both sides of the stop the fear-mongering.
mixo
My other half's parents lived at Lake Constance, which borders Germany, Switzerland & Austria. Her parents grew a lot of home vegetables & fruit.
When Chernobyl went up all the food had to be disposed as required by the State.
It was not a fun time.
-- Edited by dogbox on Friday 28th of April 2023 01:26:08 PM
At last, a good common-sense statement. Well put in my opinion. I do fear though, some of the forums "self appointed experts" will rise to occasion with wonderful "research" comments to further instill fear and panic.
Well said Aussie1, couldn't agree more
Some bedtime reading for you. Does sharing make me a 'self appointed expert'? Probably not - it might if I were able to get my head around it all. I was however unable to reach a point of understanding as to where the Australian experts believe we are headed as far as power generation goes before my eyes glazed over. I don't think they are taking a partisan approach . Just an appraisal of all options.
www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/Inputs-Assumptions-Methodologies/2019/CSIRO-GenCost2019-20_DraftforReview.pdf
I'm willing to bet that whatever the stance of any poster on this thread that there are no nuclear experts here & that comments in favour of nuclear or non nuclear are far from scientifically based. All posted to date are the synthesised headlines . The tip of the iceberg. Pre-existing bias & which headlines fit best with that plays a large role whether for or against. No purpose whatsoever in taking sides & arguing the toss here.
Maybe an opportunity for anyone who wants to to learn a bit more about what those who know more than us think?
For the thread - I predict the side taking will continue for as long as the thread remains active which will all be a bit pointless.
-- Edited by Cuppa on Friday 28th of April 2023 02:12:13 PM
So what if the crazies incharge have decided to 86 nuke power generation, there only reply is more intermitant power sources.
The same lunacy has infected our government, shut the coal power station and build a battery on its site, a battery wherever it is cannot make power. In this madness we see prime agricultural being used for solar farms, then we have massive wind farms that are destroying forests to build the towers, bulldozing big pads for tower along with access roads, and when it all complete all you get big ugly wind turbines of intermittant power generation. But we dont these things near cities where the power is needed, the city slicker wouldnt want one in their backyard.
When these monstrosities are completed we need big high tension towers to carry the wires to bring the electricity to the city, again crossing prime land and if you own it bad luck we gunna put it there because you dont matter "its for the greater good" that dosnt matter because its only a trillion dollars that you have to pay for.
Here's an idea before we approve another solar or wind farm, we actually pass a law that every home will have solar panels mounted on the roof, paid for by the govt/energy companies. The infastructure is there to move the energy into the grid. A smart person would develop a way to construct the whole roof from solar panels.
And then government sould task the CSIRO to develop semi clear solar panel the could replace windows in high rise buildings.
Oh if you want to read about the failure of the RBMK-1000 nuclear reactor at Chernobyl....... https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_28271/chernobyl-chapter-i-the-site-and-accident-sequence#:~:text=The%20Chernobyl%20Power%20Complex%2C%20lying,completed%20in%201983%20(IA86).
-- Edited by Gundog on Friday 28th of April 2023 02:11:52 PM
If the waste can be stored as safely as Greg 1 intimates, then this should not be an issue In fact every householder in Australia could have a small waste dump in their back yard. Not a problem.
Pinkawillinie SA 5641 here is the site approxiamatly 30k west of kimba still to be constructed.
Hi dogbox
I cant give you the info you asked for but I do remember reading somewhere that the Fuel Rods used to run the subs last 30 years.
I find that extraordinary.
Maybe someone might confirm or correct that bit of info if they do have the knowledge of your questions.
My opinion is that
The elephant in the room, regarding Nuclear Fission power stations, is that mankind can not be trusted, to do the right thing
Whenever a Nuclear Fission power station is damaged, (regardless of how it got damaged), the consequences bite us in the bum, for a long time, at a great monetary cost
The waste is not safe for many years, so has to be looked after for many years, at a great monetary cost
From what I read, and have no way of knowing if it is true or false, Nuclear Fusion power stations are much safer
It appears that an Israeli mob say that they can make Nuclear Fusion, work
Link to website below
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65123116