Nuclear Power For Australia?

[SirRumpole]

Has anyone wondered how much lubricating oil a windfarm needs?

A wind turbine can hold up to 1,400 liters of oil, hydraulic fluid, and lubricants. Wind turbines have many parts that require lubrication, including greases, gearbox fluids, and hydraulic oils.​

That is a lot of oil that needs to be taken from the ground and converted to the correct lubricant type. And it needs to be replaced periodically.

Imagine one or more leaking into the ocean.

A wind turbine consumes how much hydraulic oil? For lubrication, each wind turbine requires 80 gallons of oil, which is not vegetable oil but a PAO synthetic oil based on crude 12,000 gallons. That oil must be replaced once a year.​

https://react-alliance.squarespace.com/s/EC-How-Much-Oil-In-A-Wind-Turbine-Gearbox_-UtilitySmarts.pdf

So what, every machine needs maintenance, steam turbines, gas turbines, wind turbines they all have their peculiarities. Saying wind turbines are worse than anything else is disingeuous.

 

[JohnDe]

So what, every machine needs maintenance, steam turbines, gas turbines, wind turbines they all have their peculiarities. Saying wind turbines are worse than anything else is disingeuous.

True, but we're talking about putting windfarms all over the country and in the ocean. Trucks and ships are going to have to travel all over the place to service those windfarms. And i have a concern about leakage into the ocean, beside he damage and destruction to the ocean floor putting in pilons and foundations, which conveniently can't be seen.

Existing power plant technology is built in one location, housed in a building with a concrete floor.

This is a map of current and under-construction wind farms. How many more to go up, and don't forget oceans.

 

[sptrawler]

There are heaps of coal and gas deposits that are still untapped, I worked on an exploration drill rig for a while in central Qld, it's the other problem of displacing agriculture and ruining the land forever.

At the end of the day, the goal is to stop using fossil fuel and use clean energy.

As @Smurf1976 has posted in the past, we already know how much fuel (energy) is burnt in Australia on a daily basis through generation, transportation, processing and manufacturing, that will have to be replaced by some form of clean energy.

This isn't rocket science, they know exactly how much is required, whether it be by renewable only, or by renewable and nuclear.

So just make both sides stump up a sum of how much of each they will require, at the moment everyone is talking "this is better than that" when in fact no one is actually saying how much of either is actually required right now, to replace what we already accurately know.

Then it would be quite simple for the general public to get their heads around the issue, rather than listening to the priesthood of each ideology give a psalm of an ideological nature.

 

[SirRumpole]

True, but we're talking about putting windfarms all over the country and in the ocean. Trucks and ships are going to have to travel all over the place to service those windfarms. And i have a concern about leakage into the ocean, beside he damage and destruction to the ocean floor putting in pilons and foundations, which conveniently can't be seen.

Existing power plant technology is built in one location, housed in a building with a concrete floor.

This is a map of current and under-construction wind farms. How many more to go up, and don't forget oceans.

View attachment 189415

Wind farms are going up all around the world with no reported problems, although something could obviously go wrong, as it could with nuclear fuel being transported by road, rail or ship and the aftermath of an accident would be much more devastating than with oil.

Remember all the fuss over that little piece of Cesium isotope that got lost in the desert? Which would you rather clean up, an oil spill or a radiation spill?

 

[sptrawler]

So what, every machine needs maintenance, steam turbines, gas turbines, wind turbines they all have their peculiarities. Saying wind turbines are worse than anything else is disingeuous.

That isn't exactly correct, wind turbines and steam turbines are very different, comparing the two would be difficult on most metrics.

But the sentiment is correct, everything mechanical requires maintenance.

Taking this as an example:
1.5% to 2%
The estimated maintenance costs for modern wind turbines are in the range of 1.5% to 2% of the original investment per annum1. For a typical wind turbine of 2-3 MW in power, the cost is in the $2-4 million dollar range, with an additional $42,000-$48,000 per year for operation and maintenance2. Most of the maintenance cost of a wind turbine will be a fixed amount each year for regular servicing, but it can be preferable to base the maintenance cost on a per kWh rate1

The fact a steam turbine can be say 500MW, that would require approx 100 wind turbines running flat out to have the same output and those 100 would require maintenance and replacement so it is a difficult one to quantify IMO.

 

[SirRumpole]

The fact a steam turbine can be say 500MW, that would require approx 100 wind turbines running flat out to have the same output and those 100 would require maintenance and replacement so it is a difficult one to quantify IMO.

And if you service one steam turbine you take out 500MW that has to be replaced with something else for the duration of the maintenance.

If you service one wind turbine at a time you only take out 3MW at a time, much easier to replace.

 

[JohnDe]

Wind farms are going up all around the world with no reported problems, although something could obviously go wrong, as could with nuclear fuel being transported by road, rail ship and the aftermath would be much more devastating than with oil.

Remember all the fuss over that little piece of Cesium isotope that got lost in the desert? Which would you rather clean up, an oil spill or a radiation spill?

There has been plenty of reports of reported problems, and remember that most wind farms have no permanent Maintenace people at the site.

The Cesium had nothing to do with nuclear power station, it was a tool. You could say the same about x-rays and all the other radioactive devices used in industry and medical.

The 2011 Sunami that destroyed a nuclear power station killed 18,000 people in the region, and I believe that no one died directly from the explosion at the station.

Fukushima Daiichi Accident - World Nuclear Association

This information paper describes in detail the causes of the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi in March 2011 and the actions taken since.

world-nuclear.org

 

[sptrawler]

The Coalitions current plan is nuclear, limit renewables, gas and coal but relies massively on gas.

That gas isn't currently available.

The current renewables plan although not highlighted relies on gas shorter duration but likely require greater capacity and will require similar planning as the Coalitions proposal.

Again the required gas isn't currently available.

Cost under the renewables plan at least 1/2 if not a 1/3 of the nuclear proposal with 100% better certainty of delivery subject to allowing engineers to design and not interfered with by politician's.

All plans depend on future improvements to technology to remove the gas component.

Its beyond me how any politician no matter what side of politics cannot simply put this up.

Ok simple question, how much renewable generation and storage would be required, to replace fossil fuel currently?

 

[SirRumpole]

The Cesium had nothing to do with nuclear power station, it was a tool.

Doesn't matter. It was radioactive, even if minutely so and so precautions had to be taken.

Nuclear reactors have to be fuelled and de-fuelled using much more dangerous substances and transported to and from storage facilities.

You insinuated nuclear reactors are safer than wind farms by alluding to a minor aspect of maintenance which is ridiculous.

 

[sptrawler]

And if you service one steam turbine you take out 500MW that has to be replaced with something else for the duration of the maintenance.

If you service one wind turbine at a time you only take out 3MW at a time, much easier to replace.

Very true, but the 500MW turbine, is in a location that is easily accessed and would not require the same amount of servicing as the wind turbine as it isn't exposed to the elements as the wind turbine is.

Also as the steam turbine is an on call device its maintenance can be carried out during low seasonal demand periods, the wind turbines because of the pure number of them, would be an ongoing job, so I don't think it's easy to compare them and also I'm of the opinion there is a benefit in employing both technologies, the more options available the better the outcome IMO.

Whether it be nuclear, hydrogen or concentrated salt storage, driven steam turbines, as long as it is emission free I don't care, but having at call generation with a lot of grunt is always beneficial in a power system.

It is a bit like having a contracting business that requires using a drill 24/7, I love battery drills, but if my income depended on me drilling 24/7 I would be using a mains connected drill whenever possible and a battery operated one wherever possible.

Similar to a fencing contractor, if you are doing a backyard a battery operated post hole digger would probably be brilliant, if you put in 100's of km of farm fencing, probably a tractor rear mounted job would be the go, horses for courses, but having both available would make sense.

As long as it's clean and it works, that seems to be the issue everyone is missing, fossil fuel is the enemy, not nuclear, not renewables, not batteries.

 

[JohnDe]

Doesn't matter. It was radioactive, even if minutely so and so precautions had to be taken.

Nuclear reactors have to be fuelled and de-fuelled using much more dangerous substances and transported to and from storage facilities.

You insinuated nuclear reactors are safer than wind farms by alluding to a minor aspect of maintenance which is ridiculous.

"You insinuated nuclear reactors are safer than wind farms" Show me exactly where I said that!

While you're at it, please list all the environmental disasters over the past decade in France caused by nuclear power station waste being transported and stored.

 

[SirRumpole]

Very true, but the 500MW turbine, is in a location that is easily accessed and would not require the same amount of servicing as the wind turbine as it isn't exposed to the elements as the wind turbine is.

Also as the steam turbine is an on call device its maintenance can be carried out during low seasonal demand periods, the wind turbines because of the pure number of them, would be an ongoing job, so I don't think it's easy to compare them and also I'm of the opinion there is a benefit in employing both technologies, the more options available the better the outcome IMO.

Whether it be nuclear, hydrogen or concentrated salt storage, driven steam turbines, as long as it is emission free I don't care, but having at call generation with a lot of grunt is always beneficial in a power system.

It is a bit like having a contracting business that requires using a drill 24/7, I love battery drills, but if my income depended on me drilling 24/7 I would be using a mains connected drill whenever possible and a battery operated one wherever possible.

Similar to a fencing contractor, if you are doing a backyard a battery operated post hole digger would probably be brilliant, if you put in 100's of km of farm fencing, probably a tractor rear mounted job would be the go, horses for courses, but having both available would make sense.

The best system imo is using as many technologies as we can reasonably afford. I don't think nuclear fits that bill, but solar, wind, gas, hydro, batteries , EV's in an interconnected system run by a consumer friendly AI system preferably would be my bet. But I'm not an engineer, so feel free to disagree.

 

[JohnDe]

The evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of generating electricity. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining. The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Radiological effects on people of any radioactive releases can be avoided.

Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors - World Nuclear Association

From the outset, there has been a strong awareness of the potential hazard of both nuclear criticality and release of radioactive materials. Both engineering and operation are designed accordingly.

world-nuclear.org

 

[SirRumpole]

"You insinuated nuclear reactors are safer than wind farms" Show me exactly where I said that!

You are touting nuclear but you bring up little maintenance issues regarding wind turbines, but say nothing about the costs and dangers of nuclear refuelling and storage so I assumed you think nuclear is safer.

While you're at it, please list all the environmental disasters over the past decade in France caused by nuclear power station waste being transported and stored.

The safety factor of nuclear waste transportation means spending large amounts of money to ensure it remains so. By comparison the maintenance costs of wind turbines are minimal.

 

[JohnDe]

You are touting nuclear but you bring up little maintenance issues regarding wind turbines, but say nothing about the costs and dangers of nuclear refuelling and storage so I asumes you think nuclear is safer.


The safety factor of nuclear waste transportation means spending large amounts of money to ensure it remains so. By comparison the maintenance costs of wind turbines are minimal.

What do they say about assuming?

I have not made any assumptions, on the other hand you have.

 

[SirRumpole]

What do they say about assuming?

I have not made any assumptions, on the other hand you have.

One assumption deserves another.

 

[IFocus]

Ok simple question, how much renewable generation and storage would be required, to replace fossil fuel currently?

You know as well as I do it depends on location and the various configurations to suit its not a one size fits all.

Tasmania wont be the same as WA but then you know this.

Regardless in most situations lots of gas will be needed until a technology is developed to replace it.

 

[IFocus]

For Australia nuclear does have significant sovereign risk, we don't and cannot make the fuel.

 

[SirRumpole]

Internal Coalition unease over nuclear costings as Dutton unveils modelling

Internal debate over the nuclear modelling, and when Mr Dutton should release details, has been a source of tension within the Coalition for months.

www.abc.net.au

 

[sptrawler]

For Australia nuclear does have significant sovereign risk, we don't and cannot make the fuel.

Well we are getting the nuclear subs, so that blows that theory out of the water, so to speak.

You need to start being pragmatic, rather than a cheer leader.

With your electrical background, I would have thought you would take a less emotional and more technical stance.

If you don't have a clue how much generation and storage you require, how can you be so convinced it can be achieved successfully? You can't you are just singing from the song sheet.

I've actually being involved in this industry and I don't know so I'm not saying which way is the go, because there hasn't been enough information put forward, yet you can stand hand on heart and say renewables are the go.
Go figure, hope you don't have to apologies down the track, if your wrong.