This thread is to discuss future energy solutions and policies including the relationship between energy and national security.
Hydro works if there’s enough mountains and rain or snow but we are not Norway.On Morrison says nuclear on the table if the economic study stacks up, but does not think it is when compared to hydro power
not sure how it go going alone if they would have the numbers
Scott Morrison: 'No issue' with nuclear power but it doesn't stack up
Do they have a cable from Tasmania to the mainland? In NZ we have one going from the South Island (where most hydro production is) to the North Island (where most population is). Moer than once us South Islanders have wanted to cut the cable and let the north drift away Hydro accounts for more than half of NZ's electricity generation requirements and would be larger but for resistance to more drowned valleys etc.Hydro works if there’s enough mountains and rain or snow but we are not Norway.
Currently, Snowy hydro produces between 15% x 20% of the national energy markets needs. Tasmania hydro can boost this figure to what, 40%? I don’t know but it still leaves around 60 % of requirements being met by coal well into the future.
I think that, particularly in Australia's case, fission based nuclear electricity generation will have to happen because demand is far outstripping supply and the burning of carbon based fuels to provide generating capability will prove to be unsustainable, both politically and economically. I think that environmentally, nuclear fission based electricity generation is more sustainable than carbon fuel based electricity generation, because even given the half life of the radioactive materials, they would have significant less impact upon the planet than a wholesale planetary wide climate change event that has the potential to be an extinction level event. The green lefties don't see that because their dialectal political construct is unable to comprehend micro, meso and macro temporal and spatial scales simultaneously, if at all, and that comprehension is what is absolutely necessary to understanding what we face, not some PC political rhetoric. BTW that applies to both sides of the CC debate.The only way this can be replaced is by low emission coal or by nuclear given today’s technology.
Most of the advocates for renewables always concentrate on how their personal power requirements can be replaced and for that solar and wind is a no brainer but over 60% of the national consumption is used by industry, one alu smelter, Tomago in NSW uses 30% of the states power, how does that get replaced when the power is needed 24/7?
It’s all very well to feel righteous by filling ones roof with solar panels as the green left would have us but it simply fails to understand, and offers no solution to the national energy reduction problem.
They are useful for stabilizing very short term fluctuations that are measured in seconds or minutes. It gives the diesel/natural gas generators time to ramp up. Without it, they will have to be "hot but idle", which costs quite a bit.Where do large battery plants like Tesla,s come into the equation ? ,
The article mentions how nuclear power has kept energy prices for Canadians much lower than rates in Australia. If one is talking about overall Canadian rates, that may be true but that is not all due to nuclear. Hydro generation in BC and Quebec is massive. Significant hydro generation is present in Manitoba and Labrador as well. Ontario is the nuclear centre in Canada and rates here suck, largely because the former Wynne government subsidized windmill and solar farm operators. They get paid up to 10 times more for their power compared to OPG's nuclear produced power. Cancelling two NG plants and paying over a billion in cancellation penalties didn't help either.Well a journalist against nuclear power is now saying maybe viable for Australia, when you really look into it it does stack up.
Is it time for a nuclear power station in Australia?
What's your take on the fast neutron reactors that Russia is banking on for their 4th gen powerplants? Also how viable do you think reprocessing nuclear waste back into fuel is?By the way, while I am not well versed in Australian politics, I do try to keep up with nuclear energy tech and I can help answer questions about the tech itself. I don't claim expertise, but I do notice that a lot of people's knowledge about nuclear energy is kinda stuck in the sixties-eighties. The tech has advanced significantly. Due to its nature the pace of technological progress can feel slow but there are significant advances between 2nd generation nuclear power plants of the '60-80s and the 3rd generation of today and the 4th generation that is being developed.
Err, don't ask me about nuclear weapons though. That one I don't know much.
You mean the sodium-cooled BN-800? That one is operating commercially at full power. If you mean the BREST OD-300 or the BN-1200, those are delayed because Russia is short on money and has chosen to focus on the more mature (and conventional) VVER family. Russia is saying that they'll use the time to test various improvements on the BN-800 to be applied at the BN-1200 in the future, but well, given the postponement and scale-down of the Su-57 and Armata and a refocus on Su-35 and T-90M, I suspect it's really about money.What's your take on the fast neutron reactors that Russia is banking on for their 4th gen powerplants? Also how viable do you think reprocessing nuclear waste back into fuel is?
Meanwhile Russia has no problem with reprocessing. France also uses reprocessing though not as much as Russia.Over the last 50 years the principal reason for reprocessing used fuel has been to recover unused plutonium, along with less immediately useful unused uranium, in the used fuel elements and thereby close the fuel cycle, gaining some 25% to 30% more energy from the original uranium in the process. This contributes to national energy security. A secondary reason is to reduce the volume of material to be disposed of as high-level waste to about one-fifth. In addition, the level of radioactivity in the waste from reprocessing is much smaller and after about 100 years falls much more rapidly than in used fuel itself.
- World Nuclear Association's Information Library on Nuclear Power Economics.Doubling the uranium price (say from $25 to $50 per lb U3O8) takes the fuel cost up from 0.50 to 0.62 US c/kWh, an increase of one quarter, and the expected cost of generation of the best US plants from 1.3 c/kWh to 1.42 c/kWh (an increase of almost 10%). So while there is some impact, it is minor, especially by comparison with the impact of gas prices on the economics of gas generating plants. In these, 90% of the marginal costs can be fuel. Only if uranium prices rise to above $100 per lb U3O8 ($260 /kgU), and stay there for a prolonged period (which seems very unlikely), will the impact on nuclear generating costs be considerable.
To justify that you would need them in numbers at least 1 per Brigade combat team so as to have one maneuver with a large fleet of EV vehicles. I just don’t think that’s realistic.This link is a summary of Project Pele, a transportable 1-5 MW nuclear reactor. Prototype reactors might happen in 1-2 years. Could be a real driver for more military electric vehicles.
Project Pele is one potentially revolutionary, albeit controversial, answer to the military's growing battlefield energy requirements.www.thedrive.com
Yes, hybrid is a realistic solution, both commercially and for the military until really efficient batteries become available. Even then, both markets, especially military, need the back up that an internal combustion engine can provide. Still waiting for LM’s compact fusion reactor that will solve everything…guessing that could be awhile.To justify that you would need them in numbers at least 1 per Brigade combat team so as to have one maneuver with a large fleet of EV vehicles. I just don’t think that’s realistic.
Don’t get me wrong this has a lot of potential. FOBS, Humanitarian missions.
EVs in the military do have potential don’t get me wrong but in general I still think Hybrid are the best bets. For short trip light scout or UGV even SF vehicle EV have the best potential.
Germany started deploying methanol fuel cells for mobile forward electricity generation ten years ago. 75-80% weight saving compared to batteries and no signature in operation unlike a diesel genset.Advanced militaries can supplement it with solar panels and lithium batteries, both of which are bulky are require lots of flights and trucking to deliver to a forward base.
You may want to look up the term "decay heat".Leaving would also be a lot simpler. Turn it off, load it up, and fly away.
Tesla Semi is fine for short to medium runs. Especially in well developed countries with an established grid or ability to mount Megachargers. The main issue with military operations is that the Semi or any other are mixed operations. Long haul or outsized cargo which this far half if not third EV range projections. This is as EVs are far more susceptible to issues of Aerodynamic drag than ICE vehicles which can power on through. Farther For military operations which can be spread over huge swaths of range. Having an onboard power system just makes more sense. Looking at current technology levels in EV given the range issues pure EV right now might be a option for short range raiding type operations and needs. Special ops motorcycles, Quad ATV, small to medium UGV and UAS. In developed grids or established bases support vehicles not meant for the front line.Re: nuclear microreactors such as Project Pele
While powering a fleet of battery electric military vehicles is a possible use for a nuclear power microplant, that's pretty far in the future. The more immediate case is to hasten and simplify the deployment of a forward operating base. One C-17 flight and it's ready. Need a forward radar base? Same.
Current military microgrids are mostly diesel gensets which require continuous bulk shipment of diesel fuel.. Advanced militaries can supplement it with solar panels and lithium batteries, both of which are bulky are require lots of flights and trucking to deliver to a forward base. Any military would love to be able to replace all those with just one nuclear microreactor. Leaving would also be a lot simpler. Turn it off, load it up, and fly away.
They may end up deciding to fly the fuel separately from the reactor as safety precaution, but even so that's just two flights.
While this doesn't yet eliminate the need for fuel for vehicles, it will cut the demand significantly.
PS: Just to illustrate the kind of power that battery electric vehicles need, a few years back Tesla proposed a Tesla Megacharger than charge a Tesla Semi in 30 minutes for an expected range of 400 miles. The power requirement for that is expected to exceed 1 megawatt.