Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dr Caroline Wright on July 18, 2012 at 3:44pm

I wonder if Gina would have enough money to invest in the construction of a nuclear power plant in Australia.

How long would it take to build and be operational? What would be the financial return to the investors once it is operational?

I might buy some shares myself!!

Fond regards

Caroline

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on July 18, 2012 at 5:52pm

Gina is presently earning about $50 million a day. When that was published I thought about a gas fired plant 2 years to build and 5 days to pay for it but unless the efficiency drop from distance of transmission lines to the grid was taken into account it would not be practical. But those big tankers presently delivering to China and India for peanuts could deliver to the present power stations in our capital cities even if the cost were higher to do so. The gas is in the top ten of our strategic materials and it is time we stopped giving it away because it will not last forever. Time then for nuclear.

It would need the coal fired boilers producing the steam at present converted to gas. No other changes except the construction of storage facilities. From my view the less costly of all alternatives and the less time to convert.

Great thinking Caroline! and we need thinkers instead of that other lot.

Cheers from Bob

Dr Caroline Wright said:

I wonder if Gina would have enough money to invest in the construction of a nuclear power plant in Australia.

How long would it take to build and be operational? What would be the financial return to the investors once it is operational?

I might buy some shares myself!!

Fond regards

Caroline

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr Caroline Wright on July 18, 2012 at 7:33pm

Should I start saving to buy some shares now or leave it for a while???

Fond regards

Caroline

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr Caroline Wright on July 19, 2012 at 10:20am

One thing either you, Bob, or Stephen or someone else might be able to answer is something I have been thinking about, sort of in the back of mind, is this: Once the uranium rods have reached their half-life do we have the knowledge and technology to recharge, or bombard may be a better word, these rods so that they can continue to be used for energy production. If we could manage this transformation we would very much reduce the need to store radio-active waste which seems to be a bone-of-contention for many Australians.

Unfortunately I do not have the background information or understanding to know if this is a feasibility.

Fond regards

Caroline

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on July 19, 2012 at 11:03am

We do have the knowledge Caroline and  the deep natural depositories in the outback that are stable geological "vaults" that would earn millions in annual rents. Not unlike the depository in New Mexico. If not already, there will be a safe way to re process or to otherwise render it inert or less harmful.The rest is politics and " descendants of "The Earth is Flat" people. Can everyone be trusted? The latter would be as good a reason as any for the status quo.

Cheers

Dr Caroline Wright said:

One thing either you, Bob, or Stephen or someone else might be able to answer is something I have been thinking about, sort of in the back of mind, is this: Once the uranium rods have reached their half-life do we have the knowledge and technology to recharge, or bombard may be a better word, these rods so that they can continue to be used for energy production. If we could manage this transformation we would very much reduce the need to store radio-active waste which seems to be a bone-of-contention for many Australians.

Unfortunately I do not have the background information or understanding to know if this is a feasibility.

Fond regards

Caroline

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr Caroline Wright on July 19, 2012 at 1:26pm

Bob and Stephen and Alan you are all a valuable wealth of information. Your minds must be very busy with all that information you all have. I hope you have lots of little drawers and compartments in your brains to keep this information stored in the right places so that it never gets mixed up.

Thanks Stephen re information on Rosewood which sounds like it might be a bit of a bother. If I was to find some would it be advantageous to utilise it straight away then coat it with lacquer?

Thanks Bob for always taking the time to reply to my questions.

Fond regards

Caroline

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff Hutcho on July 19, 2012 at 3:24pm

Bob,

It is interesting that Prof. Barry Brook has come up supporting nuclear power. Possibly because he believes that nuclear would be a cleaner option than burning carbon (coal, gas, oil) for power.

This the same Barry Brook who has been seen on "Supreme Master TV" urging a vegetarian diet, to decrease meat consumption and the associated methane threat from cow burps.

-

But there is another direction coming up - thorium reactors-

http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php/

100MW is the output of in excess of 50x wind turbines

Australia has approx 19% of the planets thorium, in minerals and beach sands (monazite), which has been treated as a waste material, mostly being used as the active element in gas mantels. Thorium is mildly radio active and requires bombardment to allow it's use in reactors.

With establishment of larger thorium reactors, these can be used to dispose of nuclear waste from conventional nuclear reactors as part of the fuel cycle, and the spent fuel also becomes less available for weapons use.

Jeff

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on July 19, 2012 at 4:21pm

...but Gina could build a 600 Mw gas fired power station of her own to energize an arc furnace bank to process her mineral ores into metal as distinct from just the energy which on its own is a victim of distance to the grid.

But not so for the energy to produce metal ingots and billets. "2 years to build it and 5 days to pay for it" could be extended to 20 years life, $20 million a year profit from a 10 fold value added income to pay for 1000 jobs to operate it. For Gina, it would mean an illuminated address. Something that she might not otherwise be ever likely to receive for she could buy everything else.

Eureka Bob

Bob Stewart said:

Gina is presently earning about $50 million a day. When that was published I thought about a gas fired plant 2 years to build and 5 days to pay for it but unless the efficiency drop from distance of transmission lines to the grid was taken into account it would not be practical. But those big tankers presently delivering to China and India for peanuts could deliver to the present power stations in our capital cities even if the cost were higher to do so. The gas is in the top ten of our strategic materials and it is time we stopped giving it away because it will not last forever. Time then for nuclear.

It would need the coal fired boilers producing the steam at present converted to gas. No other changes except the construction of storage facilities. From my view the less costly of all alternatives and the less time to convert.

Great thinking Caroline! and we need thinkers instead of that other lot.

Cheers from Bob

Dr Caroline Wright said:

I wonder if Gina would have enough money to invest in the construction of a nuclear power plant in Australia.

How long would it take to build and be operational? What would be the financial return to the investors once it is operational?

I might buy some shares myself!!

Fond regards

Caroline

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr Caroline Wright on July 19, 2012 at 8:25pm

Re as 'you or Jan said the other day' I think that Jan on this occasion joined in with you three so that left Moi!! All by myself. alone, solitary, and feeling very dumb about the obvious shape of O-Rings.

Fond regards

Caroline

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr Caroline Wright on July 19, 2012 at 10:32pm

Are you feeling cold Alan??

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Cox on July 19, 2012 at 11:01pm

While Thorium has some advantages Al there are far more options in Nuclear Fuels than many realise.

In particular I like some of the Metal fuel variants such as TRIGA Fuel which is a Nuclear Fuel variant that combines the benefits of when the core temperature increases the nuclear reaction actually decreases so it needs to be cooled to actually work as intended.

The hotter the core becomes the lower the Nuclear reaction basically means none of the Infamous "China Syndrome" as in the movie where the theorey was an uncontrolled reaction would continue to melt it's way down to the centre of the earths core hence the common term Nuclear Melt Down.

Another of my Favorites is a Nuclear Fuel known as Metallic Actinide a fuel used in Fast Neutron Reactors which functions by the Fuel (Either Uranium or Plutonium) capturing Neutrons being a Metallic either plate or Alloy type fuel as it gets hotter Neutrons tend to escape and miss capture in the Fuel rods so it is inherantly safe and self regulating due to increased Neutron leakage controlling the potential of catastrophic Meltdowns.

 

There are Metallic alloy Fuels,variants of Rod Metal and Oxide Fuels,Ceramic Fuels,Soluble Fuels that are Sodium based the list of Fuel types and variations in Design is far wider than many realise there are CANDU,PWR,BWR,MAGNOX,QUADRISO,CERMET SODIUM BUNDLED RMBK the range of Fuel types is far greater than even some specialists know as so many get Tunnel vision in their particular narrow segment of the Industry.

Then there are the Different types of Reactors,The Fast Breeders that can use and enrich spent fuel rods as Caroline referred to Liquid Fuel Reactors,Oxide Rod Reactors,Metallic Plate Fuel Reactors,Neutron Reactors there are so many it would take a couple of full pages of Just Grounds to cover the basics let alone some of the Research Variants.

 

Suffice to say however there are a number of relativly safe variants available,And with some of the Metallic Fuel variants the Radioactive half life of spent Fuel drops to only a couple of Hundred years instead of up to 25,000 years with some elements.

 

Those people against Nuclear Energy are still stuck in the Stone Ages and the ones concerned with Fallout and Terrorist potential and Atomic weapons need to realise there are many far greater dangers in this world in what seem to be common safe materials and processes as Bob has pointed out at the top of this discussion.

 

I might add that one of the worst offenders when it comes to Heavy Metal enviromental damage that is a common possibility with Gold Mining is none other than that Holier than thou Greeny Labor synchophant lately keeping a low profile Professor Ross Garnaut.

Some may remember him being in charge of the BHP OK Tedi gold mine in Papua that dumped massive ammounts of Mercury and other Toxins into the Local Rivers giving a great number of Natives downstream Mercury Poisoning,Currently he is CEO and Enviromental Director of the LIHIR Gold Mine that so many Australians have their Super in through Organisations such as the Commonwealth bank.

 

There is an Industry Organisation based in London which is generally the place where all the Worlds mining companies centre themselves in,That group has a standard for Enviromental Behaviour known as the "London Accord" especially applicable when either River or Offshore waste disposal is a part of the Mines Operational System.

LIHIR GOLD is continually exposed as ignoring those guidelines and has been probably the worst example in modern days when it comes to Enviromental Compliance by it's own Industry Body,When your own mates hold you in Contempt then you really are bad. Shame you Charlatan Enviromentalist Ross Garnaut.

 

I have a number of Documents on this and it makes interesting reading when you compare Company Disclosure on the Australian and PNG Stock Exchanges with the Equivalent documentation available on the American Securities and Exchange Commission site.

Reading the different appraisals of the Company and it's operating Enviroment on the US site where full disclosure is required for any company that has American Investors makes you realise this company is far from a sound investment,Add in the literally Hundreds of Millions of Australian Taxpayers dollars that was thrown at this Company which was then sold for a song with minimal debt to the group Garnaut works for smells to high heaven as it took place under the Labor Government of Paul Keating.

Garnaut in case you are unaware has been a Labor lapdog since Whitlam  hence why he was Picked by Rudd for that role as Warmista Propagandist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Cox on July 19, 2012 at 11:38pm

Some of my mates in the Industry seriously worry about some of what the French are up to regarding pushing the limits of Nuclear,Many of the Fuels were investigated in the 60's and 70's and a number of variants are in use already though in classified Installations or Naval Vessels.

NASA is trying some very usefull ideas for long range space flight power sources as Solar has it's limits,Though it can seem daunting at times with all the Emails I get from that organisation sorting it all out.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page