Page 3 of 4

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:55 pm
by CLP
wobblysauce wrote:Still going to get voted down from the Anti-Nuke/Pro-Miner group.
Why would the Pro-Miner group vote it down?

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:16 pm
by ysu
Durrie wrote:
wobblysauce wrote:Still going to get voted down from the Anti-Nuke/Pro-Miner group.
Does such a group exist?
The whole liberal party for starters...:) They are hand-in-hand with the miners.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:06 am
by Durrie
I'm just confused about the combination of Anti-Nuke/Pro-Miner.

You're familiar with the three mines policy and whose it was aren't you?

Uranium has to be mined (and we have the biggest known reserves in this country), so....

To be anti-Nuke, you'd necessarily also have to be anti-mining.

Perhaps it's just sloppy use of language that is the issue.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:16 am
by norbs
Durrie wrote: Perhaps it's just sloppy use of language that is the issue.

From Wobbles? Surely not. :p

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:40 am
by wobblysauce
Durrie, Indeed.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:32 pm
by J.D.
I doubt if the mining industry would have much to do with it so if anything, they'd probably be against it.

The amount of deuterium used in a tokamak is very small.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:45 am
by Durrie
Yeah, I can't conceive of a group that would be anti-fusion, if - when - they get it to work in full scale.

The manifesto of such a group would have to read with the same credibility as Scientology, or perhaps, Joseph Smith's translation of the golden plates.

Either way, they still have to build the tomahawks and the rest of the structures out of something, and all of that requires mining. I don't think cardboard is going to work.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:18 pm
by ysu
There are anti-nuclear groups, and I'm pretty sure they are about as intelligent as the Scientology folk - and those are numerous too...Plus your average joe will only know one thing; nuclear - bad; NIMBY. That's about it.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:16 pm
by J.D.
I don't think there are many anti-nuclear groups who are opposed to fusion. The amount of radioactivity in them is very small and if the thing stops working well, that's it: it stops. Even the worst case scenario of an explosion (unlikely) wouldn't leave a lot of radiation around and it would be eliminated in a few days.

That's where I came from but in recent years I have softened my stance. New nuclear fission reactors are pretty safe. The waste disposal is still a problem. There was one kind of reactor Montey was talking about which was significantly different in this regard.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:30 pm
by wobblysauce
Like the ones that have a freeze plug, power stops, plug melts and drains into a storage containment.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:51 am
by J.D.
It was LFTR but the shine seems to have gone off it. Apparently the lead time for it is about 50 years, which probably explains why countries and large corporations are backing fusion instead.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 11:50 am
by Montey
The shine is not off LFTR, the difference is that the advocates have now moved to commercial research, moving towards commercial production and as a result they are now holding their cards closer to their chests.

China is still investing -very- heavily in LFTR, with US companies (like Flibe Energy) also seeking paths to commercialisation. There are also Indian and European organisations investing heavily in the required research.

Whilst LFTR is still a little way off, it is still much closer than commercial fusion. Fusion research, at best, is to the point of energy neutrality; that is to say it can produce as much energy as it takes to operate it. The problem is that the science is still a long way from being able to scale things to commercial production.

The only scientific barrier between LFTR and full commercial production is the materials science around radioactive salts. We have good, affordable, materials to contain radiation but they are subject to salt corrosion; and we have good, affordable materials to prevent salt corrosion but they can't cope with radiation. We also have good materials that are resistant to salt corrosion and radiation, but they are expensive to produce. So the science research being done is trying to find a way to contain the radiation in a highly saline environment (liquid salt is the most efficient heat transfer material). Once they have that puzzle cracked it is full steam ahead for first commercial test plants.

It is also worth mentioning that where Fusion has -never- had energy production that exceeds its own energy cost and currently has no path to achieve this, LFTR has already achieved both and did so in the 1960's.

I would love us to get somewhere with Fusion. But Fusion is a technology for the 2100's. LFTR is the energy production we should have had in the 19060's and is the right path forward until we achieve Fusion (and lock down that there are no as yet unknown issues).

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 12:06 pm
by wobblysauce
I would love us to get somewhere with Fusion. But Fusion is a technology for the 2100's. LFTR is the energy production we should have had in the 19060's and is the right path forward until we achieve Fusion (and lock down that there are no as yet unknown issues).
Monty, In the 19060's :vibes:

But yes, LFTR would be the way to go.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 12:27 pm
by ysu
Montey I think your information is a bit outdated.
As I recall fusion is no longer energy neutral; IIRC the laser-solution was able to generate extra energy last time I heard. Not too much but it was another step in the right direction.
I can't quote the source, sorry. It was a documentary on telly I think.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 12:38 pm
by Montey
ysu wrote:Montey I think your information is a bit outdated.
As I recall fusion is no longer energy neutral; IIRC the laser-solution was able to generate extra energy last time I heard. Not too much but it was another step in the right direction.
I can't quote the source, sorry. It was a documentary on telly I think.
Yes, your correct, but the excess was insignificant. Yes, it was significant in that it was the first time an excess of any amount was achieved, but the excess was so minute as to be consequentially insignificant.

The highest detail LFTR explanation comes from the following YouTube (DVD) video.



The above video blends the scientific explanation, along with the politics, debunking of the anti-nuke lobby and other things. But if you can slog it through (in stages) 140 minutes it is very thorough.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:08 pm
by norbs
Thanks guys, this is super interesting stuff I knew nothing about.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:22 pm
by wobblysauce
Lots of people do not follow science things.. but who is dating who on the other side of the world, having no real impact on life is like that.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:50 am
by Brett_S
The Kardashians need to start talking about Thorium!

I'm about 2/3rd the way through the video - Kirk Sorensen is very good a explaining the science behind current plants and the advantages of Thorium. I didn't know a lot about either to start with.

But the cost of building a test plant and a commercial plant is unknown (I think he said around a billion for both). Without that the governments of the world are probably wary of the technology. Assuming they even know there is another option.

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:00 am
by Montey
If I had a choice between 2 billion to achieve LFTR or 30 billion for NBN I'd take LFTR.

If Australia perfected LFTR we would become the new energy supplier to the world. With 1/3rd of the known easily accessible global supply of Thorium Australia would rake in the cash if we were supplying the fuel & the technology.

Re:

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:09 am
by norbs
Montey wrote:If I had a choice between 2 billion to achieve LFTR or 30 billion for NBN I'd take LFTR.

If Australia perfected LFTR we would become the new energy supplier to the world. With 1/3rd of the known easily accessible global supply of Thorium Australia would rake in the cash if we were supplying the fuel & the technology.
I agree totally Montey. 2 billion for a game changer is a no brainer. Fuck, 50 billion and I would still be on board.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 12:47 pm
by Brett_S
Having finished watching the video I am convinced that this is the way forward. There would be so many things we could do with the outputs and not only the increase in energy production.

Since China now leads the world on this technology I can see everyone becoming dependent on them for our future energy needs...

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:30 pm
by wobblysauce
That it is small change for a power that has long term effects.

China is still building Coal fired power plants like crazy.. well little less then a few years ago, but still a lot compared to other country's.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:00 pm
by Montey
China currently has an insatiable demand for energy, so they have to build cheap and fast right now, which means coal. But they realise, from their own brown-out pollution experiences that coal fired energy is not a sustainable solution, given the number they are having to deploy. Their interest in atomic energy is so they can have all the energy they need to continue their development, but without the brown sky.

To borrow a line from Sorensen, every major developmental leap in human history has been triggered/accompanied by an increase in cheaper and more available energy.

Wood (Cooking meat) -> Coal (Industrial Revolution, sanitation, railways & steam ships) -> Coke (Higher quality steel, etc...) -> Oil (Mass international transportation, international freight) -> Gas -> Uranium/Plutonium (Ubiquitous telecommunications) -> ???

It's one of the things that make me most angry about the "environmental" movement. Most environmentalists have an apoplectic fit if anyone tries to mention nuclear energy (NIMBY, won't someone think of the children), with their preferred option being to use other "renewable" sources and conservation. But conservation is to go against the above experience of human advancement being tied to increases in energy production. They want to deliberately hold back human development. "I'm sorry poor little Ugandan girl, your country can't have electricity in every house, you can't have mass production, you can't have a sewer system, you can't have mass transit, and you can't have a national telecommunications infrastructure because coal is too dirty (it's killing polar bears) and nuclear is too icky (it's killing... well.... it could kill something)".

I often equate anti-nuke environmental conservatives with the Amish. They have picked a particular point in history and decided that was the "perfect" time and don't want humanity to advance beyond that point.

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 11:30 am
by wobblysauce

Re: Nuclear Energy for Australia

Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 12:16 am
by J.D.
Montey wrote:It's one of the things that make me most angry about the "environmental" movement. Most environmentalists have an apoplectic fit if anyone tries to mention nuclear energy (NIMBY, won't someone think of the children), with their preferred option being to use other "renewable" sources and conservation.
This is becoming a bit tired. When was the last time anyone argued about this?

NIMBYism is another matter entirely and has little or nothing to do with environmental groups.
They want to deliberately hold back human development. "I'm sorry poor little Ugandan girl, your country can't have electricity in every house, you can't have mass production, you can't have a sewer system, you can't have mass transit, and you can't have a national telecommunications infrastructure because coal is too dirty (it's killing polar bears) and nuclear is too icky (it's killing... well.... it could kill something)".
If you judge it by that pejorative term of reference then you can make it whatever you like.

Environmentalists aren't against progress. They are against unsustainable change. You don't have to look very far to find that information.
I often equate anti-nuke environmental conservatives with the Amish. They have picked a particular point in history and decided that was the "perfect" time and don't want humanity to advance beyond that point.
I think you've got them confused with the Wahhabists...