South Australian Government launches Nuclear Energy Royal Commission

 
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
There is a fixation amongst some posters, as exemplified here by Bogong. Could somebody please explain to me what it is about sipping a latte, which appears to convey a degree of opprobrium to these writers? Why not Twinings-sipping? Why not short black sipping? If sipping a latte is the way to identify a trendy, I must have seen tens of thousands of them, and they appear inoffensive to me.

And, whilst we're at it, what are the figures used by Bogong to justify his remark that inner city trendies "tend to be against everything." It must have been a very time-consuming survey to come up with this information.
"Valvegear"
Anne Moron not sic didn't get where she was by advancing the City of Adelaide and the wider trendy latte sipping areas of 'five, double oh, six'.

Sponsored advertisement

  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
I certainly did notice that it seemed like nothing more than the usual scandal management tactics - see my previous post with my theory on which three scandals correspond to the last week's big three announcements.

The 'actual timezone' for SA is debatable - Adelaide is right on halfway between UTC+9 and UTC+9.5, so it would come down to whether more people live to to the east of Adelaide's longitude (i.e. closer to the current timezone of UTC+9.5) than the west (closer to UTC+9).

Ideally, the whole of Australia would be on the central time zone of UTC+9, halfway between eastern time and western time, and shift to UTC+10 (the current eastern time) for daylight saving during summer. If China can cope with one time zone for the whole country, so can a physically smaller country like Australia!
"justapassenger"
UTC+9.5 is a time zone that runs through western victoria, UTC+10 is centred approximately on Ceduna, which whilst perhaps not the centre of the population is certainly close enough to the geographical centre.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
The Commissioner has been selected - former Governor Kevin Scarce: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/former-governor-kevin-scarce-to-lead-royal-commission-into-expansion-of-sa-nuclear-industry/story-fni6uma6-1227213391301?nk=7a2f61b69307b9bfe3311ea1a0ae7696
"LancedDendrite"
He's quite pro nuclear, has been for at least a few months. I would have preferred to see the Commission headed by a former judge or an eminent scientist (preferably physicist) though.
  Groundrelay Chief Commissioner

Location: Surrounded by Trolls!
...I don't need to point out that there are several Adelaide suburbs that are full of the same privileged, self righteous types who believe that anyone who dares to have a different opinion to them is not only wrong, but deserves to be vilified and chased out of any discussion.

*rant ends*
Bogong
He who is without sin... Rolling Eyes

Taking tea with the Toorak Tories perhaps?
  Graham4405 Minister for Railways

Location: Dalby Qld
UTC+10 is centred approximately on Ceduna
Aaron
I don't think so...
  62440 Chief Commissioner

Looking at the above, the time zone thing is a distraction here! I recently did work in Adelaide on a project run from Melbourne and my drafter was in Manchester! Worked out well as I could do a concept design one day, get it drafted overnight and deliver it to the client next day! We coped with times.
I would have thought that Roxby would be a good depository, it has some very deep holes in stable geology and is secure. Woomera is Crown land which helps but if SA is happy, Roxby would work. Storing waste would bring in megabucks, so what if it lasts forever, if it is 2 km underground.
Port Augusta is an obvious area for a power station as the power distribution is there, there is a military airport, Cultana is Crown land, there is plenty of water and no houses for a long stretch of the coast. It has access to railways and highways and there is a secure port at Whyalla.
  simont141 Chief Commissioner

Location: Adelaide
He's quite pro nuclear, has been for at least a few months. I would have preferred to see the Commission headed by a former judge or an eminent scientist (preferably physicist) though.
Aaron
I trust he and the commission will be looking beyond thermal/LWR (assuming they seriously look at power generation rather than just mining/storage). There are existing and emerging technologies out there that provide exciting opportunities.
  Graham4405 Minister for Railways

Location: Dalby Qld
Looking at the above, the time zone thing is a distraction here! I recently did work in Adelaide on a project run from Melbourne and my drafter was in Manchester! Worked out well as I could do a concept design one day, get it drafted overnight and deliver it to the client next day! We coped with times.
62440
Absolutely. In my job I have to deal with people in different time zones too. It's not that hard...
  NSWGR8022 Chief Train Controller

Location: From the lands of Journalism and Free Speech
Thorum a safer option?

THINK nuclear energy without the threat of a meltdown (such as Fukushima) or a power station blowing up (as at Chernobyl) and using a fuel that would be beyond the abilities of terrorists to use for nuclear weapons.

That is the promise of thorium, the other radioactive mineral, which is far more abundant than uranium in the earth's crust and far less radioactive.
It holds huge promise for India, a country dependent on importing uranium to fuel its nuclear reactors (20 existing plants, with six more under construction). And it holds huge promise for Australia.
While India has 30 per cent of the world's thorium, Australia holds slightly more.
An experimental thorium reactor will be built by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Mumbai, while China's Academy of Sciences is also planning one.
Thorium reactors have a passive cooling system that operates naturally if the reactor shuts down. Advocates say none of the various situations at Chernobyl in Ukraine, Three Mile Island in the US or Japan's Fukushima would render a thorium reactor dangerous.
Already in everyday use, thorium -- a silvery white metal frequently found with the rare earth minerals -- is used in light bulb elements, lantern mantles, arc-light lamps and welding electrodes.
But for nuclear powers thorium lacks the one essential ingredient: it cannot, as does uranium when refined into plutonium, produce a mushroom cloud.
A report produced in 2006 by the House of Representatives' industry and resources committee, Australia's Uranium: Greenhouse Friendly Fuel, included a section on thorium. The figures provided by Geoscience Australia estimated Australia had at least 300,000 tonnes of the mineral, more than the US and Canada combined. More recent estimates have Australia with 485,000 tonnes and India 319,000 tonnes.
As the committee reported, there is minimal waste from using thorium: most of it is consumed in a reactor, unlike uranium. This means thorium could contain about 40 times the amount of energy per unit of uranium. And its waste lasts for hundreds of years, not thousands as does the waste from uranium.
Thorium was discovered as long ago as 1828.
Until now, though, there has always been plenty of everything else that can produce electric power. Now that the developing world's demand for power is expanding so rapidly and there may no longer be plenty of everything else, thorium's day may be near.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/thorium-a-safer-option/story-e6frg6z6-1226196049591?nk=16a7439cd05c0dde0940f97dc68bfa36
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
If the hype is real, then this could be the game changer to walk away from more toxic nuclear and coal/oil/gas fired power. However how cheap is it or is it not?
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
I don't think so...
Graham4405
Sorry, cut and paste from two posts ending up out of sync. UTC+9 is SA's natural timezone and that is centred somewhere over Ceduna/Port Lincoln.
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
8022, in theory thorium is a great concept, but major nuclear companies, universities and research institutes have been working on the concept for 40 odd years. Yet not a single commercial reactor has been built or is planned to be built. There is no way South Australia could afford the mega squillions to be the first to get one going.

What the state needs is a relatively simple "off the shelf" nuclear generator from a trusted western (not Chinese) company, whacked in the north of the state, say within 200 km of Port Augusta. That is the only way it would have a chance of being both affordable and "politically possible".
  David Zhang Beginner

Location: Shanghai, China
8022, in theory thorium is a great concept, but major nuclear companies, universities and research institutes have been working on the concept for 40 odd years. Yet not a single commercial reactor has been built or is planned to be built. There is no way South Australia could afford the mega squillions to be the first to get one going.

What the state needs is a relatively simple "off the shelf" nuclear generator from a trusted western (not Chinese) company, whacked in the north of the state, say within 200 km of Port Augusta. That is the only way it would have a chance of being both affordable and "politically possible".
Bogong

What is wrong with Chinese Technology?  We copy everyfing correctry!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_nuclear_reactor
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
What is wrong with Chinese Technology?  We copy everything correctry!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_nuclear_reactor
David Zhang
There is nothing wrong with the quality of modern Chinese technology, it's just that the public is slow to change their minds and they still think of Chinese stuff as poor quality and second rate (as it may have been 30 years ago).

To get this reactor built it has to be both affordable and "politically possible". Many years ago there was a bunch of noisy anti-nuclear protesters and while they are elderly now, they could train up younger people to make things difficult for the South Australian government.

Protests are likely to be louder and more damaging to the project if the public is concerned about safety and the anti nuclear protesters are more likely to get the public worried about safety if a Chinese company won the contract than if a French, American, British or even Korean company did.

So while a Chinese company might offer a well priced and affordable contract for a nuclear power station, it would be less "politically possible" for the project to go ahead.

That's the disadvantage of living in a democracy where free speech is guaranteed (except where race and religion are concerned).
  Pressman Spirit of the Vine

Location: Wherever the Tin Chook or Qantas takes me
In relation to the Time Zone issue (this thread has become bi-subjective {is that a real word?})
One thing mentioned on radio here the other day was that changing SA to EST would be beneficial for International Business communications.

This is somewhat a furphy!

GMT +10 (EST)= Brisbane, Sydney, Cantberra, Melbonk and Hobart
GMT +9.5 (CST)= Adelaide and Darwin
GMT +9 (True CST) = Tokyo
GMT +8 (WST) = Perth, Manilla, Taipei, Beijing

So going by that both SA and the Eastern States should be changing to True CST or WST to gain the proper business benefit on International communications with our region.
Somehow I can't see that happening anytime soon Wink
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
anti nuclear protesters are more likely to get the public worried about safety if a Chinese company won the contract than if a French, American, British or even Korean company did.
"Bogong"
The French, Yanks and Brits have all had quite serious nuclear accidents occur in their nuclear facilities... Someone needs to tell the greenies that the Chinese have never had such an occurrence with their technology. Mind you, in terms of a modern reactor the events experienced in those countries could not happen, and the Brits wouldn't even have had their facility built.
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Okay, I vote for SA to be put on whatever timezone that results in my calls to corporations NOT being conveniently routed to India...
  simont141 Chief Commissioner

Location: Adelaide
8022, in theory thorium is a great concept, but major nuclear companies, universities and research institutes have been working on the concept for 40 odd years. Yet not a single commercial reactor has been built or is planned to be built. There is no way South Australia could afford the mega squillions to be the first to get one going.

What the state needs is a relatively simple "off the shelf" nuclear generator from a trusted western (not Chinese) company, whacked in the north of the state, say within 200 km of Port Augusta. That is the only way it would have a chance of being both affordable and "politically possible".
Bogong
A few fast breeder reactors have been though, as opposed to a thorium thermal breeder reactor. One design of fast breeder reactor (and not commercialised ...yet), the Integral Fast Reactor (Q&A sheet here) has the benefit of being designed to burn material from older generation plants as well as from weapons. While an IFR does need an enriched source of uranium, or plutonium (around 10 tonnes fissile actinides), to start a reaction, it can be fuelled with depleted uranium (238), i.e. waste from older  plants. As the name breeder suggests - it creates more fissile material than it consumes hence efficiency of over 99% rather than less than 1% of a LWR, in terms of U-238 used.

So for one year at a 1GWe fast breeder reactor such as an IFR, 1 tonne of U-235 would be needed (in metallic fuel form). An LWR/thermal reactor needs about 25 tonnes of U-235, which leaves behind upwards of 200 tonnes of waste of U-238.

Waste from a LWR/thermal reactor includes U-238, Pu, fission products and some actinides. A fast breeder will burn anything from Thorium up once operating. The waste from a 1GWe fast breeder/IFR would be about 1 tonne/year with a half-life of 90 years and has the benefit of removing Pu from the waste stream.

This peer reviewed paper discusses commercialisation of this, including using the funds from taking other countries waste (our potential fuel), to support commercialisation and operation.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
He's quite pro nuclear, has been for at least a few months. I would have preferred to see the Commission headed by a former judge or an eminent scientist (preferably physicist) though.
Aaron
Is a former Governor too eminent for your tastes? You don't need the Commissioner to be a scientist, the Royal Commission will get to question plenty of very good scientists during its lifetime.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The French, Yanks and Brits have all had quite serious nuclear accidents occur in their nuclear facilities... Someone needs to tell the greenies that the Chinese have never had such an occurrence with their technology. Mind you, in terms of a modern reactor the events experienced in those countries could not happen, and the Brits wouldn't even have had their facility built.
the French, Yanks and Brits all suffered major airline crashes in the 50's to 70's as the technology was refined and bedded in. Yet we still quiet happily get on one of their planes today and head off. What if a Chinese version of the A380 was to land in Sydney for your next trip OS, would you get on it?

Everyone think Chinese is cheap because they bid ridiculously low prices. However when you get into the detail of many major projects the final costs are rarely so cheap after the owner was forced to bail out the project and as for local (non-Chinese) content and jobs (non-Chinese) during construction, forget it. If they were to build a reactor in Australia, the Aussies would be lucky to work security. Even the delivery trucks from the port would be Chinese, they would probably ship in and mix their own cement on site.

In my industry the Chinese were awarded a fume treatment plant in British Columbia to a Rio Tinto site. I don't work for Rio and my current site uses Norwegian technology.  Big screw up! Eventually they sacked the Chinese 75% mid construction and kicked them off site and have now formed a site team to finish, correct and upgrade the technology. The project is delayed 5mths because of the Chinese.

The BS Waratah train Project is also typical. The Chinese solution can work, but you really need to go into the project and their contract with your eyes wide open with people very experienced in dealing with them. Once you have done all this you may as well just do the project with less risk and go Western or for Nuc power, Sth Korean is ok.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The French, Yanks and Brits have all had quite serious nuclear accidents occur in their nuclear facilities... Someone needs to tell the greenies that the Chinese have never had such an occurrence with their technology. Mind you, in terms of a modern reactor the events experienced in those countries could not happen, and the Brits wouldn't even have had their facility built.
the French, Yanks and Brits all suffered major airline crashes in the 50's to 70's as the technology was refined and bedded in. Yet we still quiet happily get on one of their planes today and head off. What if a Chinese version of the A380 was to land in Sydney for your next trip OS, would you get on it?

Everyone think Chinese is cheap because they bid ridiculously low prices. However when you get into the detail of many major projects the final costs are rarely so cheap after the owner was forced to bail out the project and as for local (non-Chinese) content and jobs (non-Chinese) during construction, forget it. If they were to build a reactor in Australia, the Aussies would be lucky to work security. Even the delivery trucks from the port would be Chinese, they would probably ship in and mix their own cement on site.

In my industry the Chinese were awarded a fume treatment plant in British Columbia to a Rio Tinto site. I don't work for Rio and my current site uses Norwegian technology.  Big screw up! Eventually they sacked the Chinese 75% mid construction and kicked them off site and have now formed a site team to finish, correct and upgrade the technology. The project is delayed 5mths because of the Chinese.

The BS Waratah train Project is also typical. The Chinese solution can work, but you really need to go into the project and their contract with your eyes wide open with people very experienced in dealing with them. Once you have done all this you may as well just do the project with less risk and go Western or for Nuc power, Sth Korean is ok.
  simont141 Chief Commissioner

Location: Adelaide
Once you have done all this you may as well just do the project with less risk and go Western or for Nuc power, Sth Korean is ok.
Depends on the technology. Russia and India are leading the way with the commercialisation of next generation fast breeder reactors after the US inexplicably canned their program (EBR-II through Argonne National Laboratory) in 1994.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Depends on the technology. Russia and India are leading the way with the commercialisation of next generation fast breeder reactors after the US inexplicably canned their program (EBR-II through Argonne National Laboratory) in 1994.
simont141
Is Russia exporting? Or even India? The UAE bought Sth Korean, not sure what some of the other GCC states plan to do.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
Is Russia exporting? Or even India? The UAE bought Sth Korean, not sure what some of the other GCC states plan to do.
RTT_Rules
Russia is building all over the world - Egypt, Turkey, Belarus, India, Iran, China, Jordan, Vietnam... There's negotiations for a new Russian-designed reactor for Finland (who have a pair of older Russian Pressurised Water Reactors operating at present), too. Their export reactors are decent enough; their current offering, the VVER-1200/AES-2006 is resistant to Fukushima-type events - it shuts down and removes decay heat from the reactor core without any external power for up to 72 hours.

Of course, there are significant political issues with buying anything Russian for Australia but there are plenty of good off-the-shelf nuclear reactor designs from other countries/vendors should we go down that path. Personally, I'm a fan of the Canadian Enhanced CANDU 6 reactor.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.