Keeping radiation in context.

[joanmc]

A lot of nuclear advocates say that the problems with the reactor in Japan are because it is old, that the science has come a long way it is sooo much safer, efficient etc etc these days. All I am saying is why can't that be applied to other technologies and in 20 years they will be safer, more efficient, cheaper blah blah. If no one tried to find better ways to do things we would all still be using candles and riding horses. I don't think that nuclear is the holy grail of power supply. JUST MY OPINION, please do not read anything else into it.

starting to think I mustn't be writing english......

 

[Perp]

cause an untold number of cancers.

On the day Hiroshima was bombed, there were about 350,000 people in the city. Approximately one-third of those, a bit over 100,000, died in the blast, or of radiation poisoning within the first few days and weeks after the blast.

Another 15,000 or so died Sep-Dec '45, also of radiation poisoning, but by Jan 1946 - 5 months after the blast - the inhabitants of Hiroshima were more likely to die of natural causes than for reasons related to the bombing.

The estimated total number of cancer deaths amongst the population of Hiroshima from 1946 onwards, above the rate which would have been expected without the bomb, is approximately 300. (And obviously for those 300, that's awful.)

But given that these 300 cancers were caused by radiation of *much* higher levels than that present at Fukushima, the number of cancers caused by Fukushima would be exponentially fewer than 300, perhaps 10 or 20 over the next 50 years.

Compared to the (average) 5,000 deaths which happen every year in Chinese coal mines, nuclear power's looking pretty darned safe to me. (I don't have statistics for fatalities in the rest of the world, but it must be near 10,000.)

 

[joanmc]

Just so i understand you are all saying that the ONLY viable way to produce power is nuclear, there are no negatives attached to it and all other technologies are a total waste of time and should be scrapped?

Because I have said: that I accept that coal and nuclear are the main sources at the moment,
I would use these sources ( I like the lights to come on too)
I think we can do better, safer and cheaper
It would take time and research.

 

[The Y-man]

BTW. I'm reading today that things are indeed becoming grim in Fukushima and I am not indifferent to Japan's suffering.

Thoughts go out for the workers there still trying to bring the situation under control...... reports coming out that they are essentially working straight through in the facility a week at a time, sleeping in the meeting rooms and corridors, and eating 2 prepacked "meals" a day (crackers in the morning, packaged rice in the evening) due to difficulty getting supplies in....and no showers either.....

Would have thought they would have rotated out more often, but I guess there wouldn't exactly be a queue of volunteers eager to go in....

The Y-man

 

[Perp]

Just so i understand you are all saying that the ONLY viable way to produce power is nuclear, there are no negatives attached to it and all other technologies are a total waste of time and should be scrapped?

I didn't say anything like that, but I do think that people (including myself) are not very good at rationally analysing statistics. Some risks are under-estimated, and others over-estimated, and as a result, we don't always choose the optimal outcome. If you were concerned with getting your energy with minimum cost to human life, below some reasonable expense threshold, then nuclear would clearly be the rational choice.

But I would love to see other technologies, which are even safer, developed.

Solar energy is all nuclear energy, too; the reaction's just happening a lot further away.

 

[joanmc]

Perp, all i have said through this whole thread is that nuclear isn't MY first choice for power, I understand others are very happy with it and they are welcome to their opinion. Apparently I am not. I have consistently said I would like to see other technologies developed, but at the moment coal and nuclear seem to be our only choices. I still don't understand why I my opinion is being denigrated. I am really thinking I am not expressing myself well.

 

[Perp]

I still don't understand why I my opinion is being denigrated.

I think what you said at post 43 was perfectly reasonable and clear.

I'm not sure who you think is denigrating your opinion; I'm certainly not intending to.

I responded to what you said about "untold cancers" because the thread is about "keeping radiation in context", and it seemed appropriate to state what the cancer risk really is, but that doesn't mean that I don't respect your opinion.

 

[HiEquity]

Sigh....

I will say it all again, just in case it was missed the five previous times:

- In a typical Australian solar resource, energy payback occurs within 12 months, particularly for thin film panels. In Europe it can take 2 years but their electricity is more than twice as expensive as ours, which gives you some idea about their motivations.
- In a typical Australian wind resource, energy payback occurs within 3 months. In Europe it can take 6 months as their wind turbines produce half as much electricity as ours.
- There are far more wind turbines on the market that don't use rare earths than those that do. The efficiency difference between the two is around two - three per cent. Manufacturers are going that way to chase very small improvements and gain a competitive edge. If there was ever a problem with rare earths, they would just go back to DFIG and synchronous generator technologies, which have proven themselves over decades and around 200GW of installed wind turbines around the world.
- In an Australian context, nuclear costs significantly more than wind and is comparable with solar (including thermal storage if anyone feels like playing the irrelevant "baseload" card). And that is when there is a govt loan guarantee sitting behind it (without which a nuclear reactor has never been built anywhere in the world), reducing the cost of capital for a very capital intensive technology. Renewable energy costs (another capital intensive technology) are based on private capital costs, not govt guaranteed capital costs. And they still beat nuclear in Australia - the current debate is a complete political bum steer around the real issue, which is why there aren't any actual nuclear industry developers in the ear of any politicians advocating for it. Govt financial support for nuclear (a requirement for anything at all to happen for that industry) only makes sense in jurisdictions with much higher electricity prices than our own.

I hope that clears a few things up. It would be great if we could at least stick to some facts...

 

[Perp]

I will say it all again, just in case it was missed the five previous times

Obviously I did...

I didn't know those facts about cost; I'm not "pro-nuclear", but rather "anti-unscientific hysteria" of any kind, in this case about the potential risks of nuclear accident.

Wow, so for those of us who've missed this debate before, HiEquity, why, if wind is inexpensive and environmentally friendly, is there any debate? Why don't the politicians 100% embrace it? I'm guessing it's to do with the power and influence of companies who've invested in coal, but if wind energy is truly cheaper, why wouldn't those companies simply switch to producing wind energy?

 

[topcropper]

. I still don't understand why I my opinion is being denigrated. I am really thinking I am not expressing myself well.

Denigrated?

Gee's, I like a ding dong nasty argument, so I went back to find it. Nope, all I read is people expressing their well argued opinions including yourself.

Where has anyone denigrated what you are saying or even said anything nasty?


See ya's.

 

[topcropper]

, but if wind energy is truly cheaper, why wouldn't those companies simply switch to producing wind energy?

But it's not cheaper, and I'm sure HE didn't say it was.

Isn't the main problem with wind, when there aint no wind blowing?


See ya's.

 

[Perp]

In an Australian context, nuclear costs significantly more than wind

But it's not cheaper, and I'm sure HE didn't say it was.

OK, true, he said that wind was cheaper than nuclear, and I got confused, based on a belief I have (probably flawed) that coal was more expensive again than nuclear.

So, HiEquity, to help inject some more facts: where does the cost of coal energy sit, relative to wind and nuclear, in the Australian context?

 

[HiEquity]

Obviously I did...

I didn't know those facts about cost; I'm not "pro-nuclear", but rather "anti-unscientific hysteria" of any kind, in this case about the potential risks of nuclear accident.

Wow, so for those of us who've missed this debate before, HiEquity, why, if wind is inexpensive and environmentally friendly, is there any debate? Why don't the politicians 100% embrace it? I'm guessing it's to do with the power and influence of companies who've invested in coal, but if wind energy is truly cheaper, why wouldn't those companies simply switch to producing wind energy?

Sorry Perp, it's just I get a bit frustrated with misinformation in this sphere of work. I accept it's hard to distinguish the truth from the BS out there in internet land but the facts remain the same.

BTW, I never said wind was cheaper than coal - it isn't. It's just the cheapest form of large scale renewable energy available in Australia today. Evidence for that is in the form of all the large wind farms that have been built as a result of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) legislation. The Macarthur wind farm (450MW) is the most recent. That's bigger than a lot of coal power stations. Wind is certainly cheaper than new nuclear plant though...

The cost difference between wind and coal/gas can be seen on your electricity retailers website - they will charge you around 5c/kWh extra if you want 100% renewable energy (out of around 20c you would be currently paying - varies a bit around the nation). They buy that energy for those prepared to pay for it mainly from wind farms for around that price premium.

Some more interesting facts:
- Last year, the world built more renewable energy capacity than "conventional" energy capacity. "Renewable" is the new "conventional".
- For some years now, the world has been spending more on renewable energy investment than conventional.
- Courtesy of govt support in Germany, Spain and China, the cost of Solar PV, to take one example, has halved and then halved again over the last ten or so years. Of course similar supports in Australia would make no difference to technology prices as our market is just a drop in that ocean.
- When married up to suitable alternative generation sources (in this case diesel), wind turbines, for the last ten years or so, have been supplying some (electrically islanded) regional towns in WA with most of their electricity. When the wind blows, it's around 95% and when it doesn't it's 0% but it averages over 50%. That's possible because of the flexibility of diesel engines - gas turbines have very similar ability to follow wind output and load so similar results are achievable on big grids but only if there isn't a "baseload" generator in sight, hogging all the load overnight with no flexibility to reduce its output (like nuclear and to a lesser extent, coal).

BTW the support that exists in other jurisdictions for renewables (and nuclear) isn't down to environmental motives. It's all about energy security for them as they quite literally don't have other alternatives that aren't reliant on being imported from some dodgy trading partner. And yes, there is already considerable amounts invested in fossil stations in Australia and stranding those assets would have wide repercussions...

 

[craigb]

i was watching a programe on the chernable ? "spell" nuke site and they were talking about its meltdown and the effects after 20 or so years , the scientists, are still studying the effects in birds and insects , the common fly has metormorphised from red eyes and two wings to grey eyes and four wings , a common butterfly,s wings are now different from its pair, and still the birds get ulcers and cancers , the Russian Gov are building a shed to cover it ,constructed from steel and lead to protect it from the world it needs to be covered for 24,000 years and then its only half its potentcy content it will be another 24,000 years before its half of this again, it makes me wonder what of the russian ships and subs currently pluged in at the warfs that have been decomissioned ? i am now thinking this plutonium will kill the world ,
The guy that was in charge of the site clean up has lost a daughter and two wives from this toxicidy, very sad ,
forget the gas and oil , the nuks and coal , its time for Hydrogen fuel to be constructed to be used in our life times . or we will all die , before the carbon gets us , mee thinks.

 

[HiEquity]

So, HiEquity, to help inject some more facts: where does the cost of coal energy sit, relative to wind and nuclear, in the Australian context?

Coal is right down the bottom of all of them. That's why it's there! Coal is very energy dense and free after all - the only cost involved is in digging it up from around your feet and whacking it on the conveyor belt to the power station.

Nigh on impossible for any technology to ever compete with that, if you don't recognise the external costs, such as carbon. Relying on technology improvements to one day produce power cheaper than coal on their own, in that context, is being very optimistic in my view...

 

[topcropper]

, its time for Hydrogen fuel to be constructed to be used in our life times . or we will all die , before the carbon gets us , mee thinks.

Hydrogen is a way of storing energy. It's not a source of energy till it's taken energy to produce it.

What source of power are you proposing to make your hydrogen? Lets see, there is renewables, wind, solar, hydro. Dirty Coal, gas, nuclear? Looks like we are back to the start?


See ya's.

 

[Perp]

The cost difference between wind and coal/gas can be seen on your electricity retailers website - they will charge you around 5c/kWh extra if you want 100% renewable energy (out of around 20c you would be currently paying - varies a bit around the nation). They buy that energy for those prepared to pay for it mainly from wind farms for around that price premium.

OK, so that brings me to another point: is that 25%-ish difference the real, market difference in cost of the two? I assumed that the green energy was heavily subsidised in order to be "only" 25% more, and that really those of us choosing green energy were making a token gesture, than paying market value for that energy.

Could Australia - given time - really replace all our coal energy with wind energy by increasing the cost of energy by only 25%? If so, I'm all for it - why aren't we doing it already? I confess I thought, by the way people carry on about the cost being "prohibitive", that renewable was two or three times more expensive than coal, not 25%.

 

[Sunfish]

Perp, all i have said through this whole thread is that nuclear isn't MY first choice for power, I understand others are very happy with it and they are welcome to their opinion. Apparently I am not.

You are entitled to an opinion as we all are. But once we publish that opinion others are entitled to debate it. I hope I have not gone beyond that. I never set out to offend, merely point out impracticalities.

Australia is currently building no new power stations as far as I know. We need to start building NOW and it must be with proven base load technology not experimental. Hydro power is wonderful but you can't get a dam built today.

 

[HiEquity]

OK, so that brings me to another point: is that 25%-ish difference the real, market difference in cost of the two?

Yes - around 5c/kWh.

I assumed that the green energy was heavily subsidised in order to be "only" 25% more, and that really those of us choosing green energy were making a token gesture, than paying market value for that energy.

The Renewable Energy Target (RET) specifies that electricity retailers need to buy 40,000GWh pa from large scale renewable energy sources by 2020. That is the large scale "subsidy". There are also small scale schemes for rooftop PV etc.

If you choose renewable energy from your retailer, they have to source their RET liability PLUS the amount that you buy from them, in renewable energy. There is no double dipping going on - I can attest to that from the hoops one has to jump through...

Could Australia - given time - really replace all our coal energy with wind energy by increasing the cost of energy by only 25%? If so, I'm all for it - why aren't we doing it already? I confess I thought, by the way people carry on about the cost being "prohibitive", that renewable was two or three times more expensive than coal, not 25%.

It's a common source of confusion. Coal costs around 5-6c/kWh to generate (the power station is still a big heap of capex) and wind costs 10-11c/kWh to generate (based on private capital costs - a lot less using govt guaranteed capital of course). To each of those figures you have to add transmission and distribution network charges, retail (billing/metering) charges and GST to arrive at around 20c/kWh for coal/gas and 25c/kWh for wind for resi supply (different for the larger / business customers). Note how little the "generation" bit actually costs in the overall scheme of things - and yet everyone thinks that's mostly what they're paying for...

So wind is both 25% more expensive and double the cost of coal, depending on whether we are discussing just generation costs or the ultimate cost paid by customers.

Replacing coal with a combination of solar, wind and balancing high efficiency gas would probably increase retail tariffs around 6-7c/kWh overall because, by the time you get near the end, you are getting into some wind /solar farm sites that are either not very windy/sunny or are a long way from the transmission network (their connection charges are built into their price).

This will also be on the back of other factors that are currently increasing electricity prices nation wide, such as the "wall of wire" (where all the transmission and distribution networks built in the 60s and 70s need to be rebuilt again) and the fact that we're still catching back up to the real cost of supply courtesy of a lost decade when prices were held constant in nominal terms (real prices dropping) through chronic under investment in the core infrastructure.

That's what we're all getting in a tizz about - around 6-7c/kWh - note that even if we were paying a total of 30c/kWh for our resi electricity, that would still be well under what most of the rest of the world (esp Europe) currently pays for power...

 

[HiEquity]

Australia is currently building no new power stations as far as I know.

You may be interested in the investments being made here, here and here, all of which are under construction or have just been commissioned.

I can assure you that well over $2bn in recent projects doesn't get spent on an experiment...

Plus, for the more conventionally minded, we have this and this. Then there's always this or this, only a little further back...

No new coal plant since Kogan Creek and Bluewaters though - there is certainly a lesson in that last one...