Small nuclear towers several stories high and 100 meters wide are being considered as an option to replace coal as Australia's energy plans for the future are reviewed. The design is based on nuclear plants used in submarines but with the prime minister of Australia labelling the idea as being 'loopy' it may not get off the ground.
Dr Ziggy Switkowski, former chair of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, told a parliamentary inquiry hearing on August 29 in Sydney that small modular reactors could have a role in powering small towns with populations of about 100,000 to support mining sites and desalination plants.
"On paper, they look terrific," Dr Switkowski said. "They are small and they can be built subsurface. They can be gas cooled, so the demand for water cooling is reduced.
"The nuclear fuel rods are designed as a nuclear battery that needs to be replaced perhaps only every 10 years or so, and the level of radioactive by-product is low."
Dr Switkowski said the capital cost was much lower than the cost of large-scale nuclear.
"All of that, to me, is irresistibly attractive. And the technology starts with proven applications such as nuclear submarines, although obviously there are differences to that," he said.
However, Dr Switkowski said it could take five to 10 years for enough reactors to be rolled out so Australia can assess their feasibility and whether it can make them work.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 15 2019, @08:47AM (8 children)
The aussies lost the great emu war and now think they can pull this off?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 15 2019, @10:53AM (6 children)
Emu War II will be decisive. Aussies will be replaced by emus, dingos, snakes, spiders, crocodiles, etc.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pav on Sunday September 15 2019, @12:53PM (3 children)
Speaking of aggressive birds - it's just coming into magpie season. These birds are corvids and have sharp beaks and claws. I've had injuries ie. bleeding scalp and ears, and unfortunately every year people also get eye injuries. Eye injuries are less common, probably because magpies generally won't attack if you look at them. Still, people have lost eyes. This year someone has put up a web app where people can geolocate attacks and injuries [magpiealert.com]. This is useful information as the birds keep a territory ~100-150 metres across.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 15 2019, @05:57PM (1 child)
This is what happens when you take pellet guns away from the children.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Monday September 16 2019, @05:30AM
But they didn't [nsw.gov.au].
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday September 16 2019, @05:32AM
And, in this morning's news, a cyclist in NSW died [smh.com.au] (head injuries from hitting fence post) after being swooped.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 15 2019, @04:45PM (1 child)
We're going to build a fence, and we'll make the emus pay for it!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday September 15 2019, @11:34PM
Dingo didn't pay [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 15 2019, @01:11PM
You think that's bad, you should see how our government handles the internet.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 15 2019, @01:34PM (5 children)
That reactor design was for a situation where there was unlimited cooling water and released radiation easily diluted.
Time has proven (see Chernobyl and Fukshima and countless near misses) that using it for commercial power is not a good idea because (especially with humans around) stuff eventually happens, and when it does the mess is ugly.
That said, without the submarine constraint of space, there is no reason that the nuclear industry couldn't find a design that is passive, walkaway safe.
Except that they seem to choose not to.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday September 15 2019, @07:56PM (4 children)
The same seems to be true of coal, gas, and oil.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday September 16 2019, @03:29PM (3 children)
The worst possible disaster of a coal, gas or oil fueled plant is far less than that of a nuclear plant.
If not, please specify.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday September 16 2019, @05:38PM (2 children)
Have you somehow missed the whole global warming thing?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday September 16 2019, @06:21PM (1 child)
Doh! I was thinking short term.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday September 17 2019, @03:42AM
Along those lines, there's Centralia [wikipedia.org]. One town already razed and only 7 residents in Centralia itself. Their homes will be razed once they pass away. The "town" doesn't even have a ZIP code anymore.
That was fairly "slow burning" as well. The fire seems to have started in 1962 and defied efforts to put it out ever since.
(Score: 5, Informative) by anotherblackhat on Sunday September 15 2019, @03:56PM (4 children)
NuScale proposes a LWR, only smaller.
So it's still a high pressure steam reactor that requires active cooling to not explode.
Seaborg [seaborg.co] proposes a Compact Molten Salt Reactor (CMSR).
No pressure, no danger of a exploding, walk away safe design, and it fits in an ISO standard shipping container.
It uses uranium and a special salt.
That uranium can be U-238, which is 100 times more abundant than U-235.
And it can also reprocess existing nuclear waste.
Moltex [moltexenergy.com] proposes a Stable Salt Reactor (SSR).
No pressure, no danger of a exploding, walk away safe design.
They have a design that uses thorium, which is even more abundant than U-238
Flibe Energy [flibe-energy.com]Proposes a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR; often pronounced lifter).
No pressure, no danger of a exploding, walk away safe design.
It uses FLiBe for the salt.
There are dozens of others - any molten salt reactor would be a better design choice.
(Score: 3, Informative) by zeigerpuppy on Sunday September 15 2019, @09:22PM (1 child)
Nice summary of some alternative reactor designs.
The probkem here though is that Australian realky doesn't need nuclear.
The nuclear fuel cycle, even with mokten salt designs involves huge materials hamdling costs for reprocessing and long term storage.
Australian is much better off pursuing large scale solar thermal for the majority of base load.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 16 2019, @12:11PM
We need nuclear. The US can't or won't defend us. We need to be able to defend ourselves.
(Score: 2) by caffeine on Monday September 16 2019, @12:52AM (1 child)
You left out the most important factor in choosing a design, how much each company donates to the Liberal Party.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday September 16 2019, @12:58AM
Clearly, not enough. Proof:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 15 2019, @04:11PM (2 children)
You have to think of the energy monopolies that pay big money to these politicians to keep abundance off the table. What will happen to them? Their children would have to go to public school. The horror!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 15 2019, @06:08PM (1 child)
Trump is going to uncork the arctic and antarctic. The oil, coal, and gas will flow leading to a new golden age for humanity. Imagine what would get done if gas was 5 cents per gallon and the middle east became geopolitically irrelevant.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 15 2019, @10:13PM
More cars on more freeways. Hotter Summers. Plastic wrappers everywhere. It will be heaven on earth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 15 2019, @06:59PM (4 children)
Do Australians not fear nuclear energy? Would be nice to see a chart:
Fear of nuclear energy by country
(Score: 3, Informative) by Mykl on Sunday September 15 2019, @09:36PM (1 child)
Yes, we do - irrationally so.
We have some of the world's largest Uranium supplies, but use practically none of it ourselves. Environmental movements here in the 70's effectively shut down any chance of commercial nuclear power. There is one reactor in Australia - Lucas Heights - used for medical purposes.
The tragedy is that these same environmental groups have let perfect become the enemy of good. Because we can't build nuclear, much of Australia's energy has come from brown coal, and we are one of the highest carbon emitters per-capita in the world. We are improving on renewables, but still have a long way to go. And the brown coal is still being burned.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday September 16 2019, @05:41AM
Added a detail.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/langsdorf2/ [stanford.edu]
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday September 16 2019, @05:36AM
No. We fear the crazy lunatics (throughout the world) who currently manage that sort of infrastructure.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday September 16 2019, @01:11PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh4qYTeqn8o [youtube.com]
We've been splitting atoms for yonks.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 4, Informative) by corey on Sunday September 15 2019, @09:22PM (2 children)
This is something Ziggy has been touting a while. There's heaps of push back against nuclear power in this country, including the current government. The summary heading is very misrepresenting of the news, Australia is not going nuclear any time soon.
Just like high speed rail.
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Monday September 16 2019, @06:59AM (1 child)
Besides, Australia couldn't 'go nuclear' with any one of the small scale reactor designs as they are all at the prototype or conceptual stage. No problem, Australia has no need for nuclear and all its problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 16 2019, @08:47AM
No worries. Australia can do nuclear after Iraq and Iran. Reckon they'll be allowed?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday September 16 2019, @03:31PM
Two problems with nuclear power
0. What to do with nuclear waste? (and I'll lump in decomissioning)
1. Human beings, or more specifically Managers. (cut costs, safety costs too much, etc.)
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.