Small nuclear reactors come with big price tag: report

Small nuclear reactors come with big price tag: report
“Dr Ziggy Switkowski, the former head of the Australian Nuclear Scientific and Technology Organisation who chaired a federal review of nuclear power in 2006, told the Federal Parliamentary inquiry “on paper, they look terrific” but also flagged that we won’t know the potential for SMRs “until the SMRs are deployed in quantity, and that’s unlikely to happen for another 10 or so years”. Even that timeframe now looks optimistic.
SMRs are expensive too. In 2019 the Rolls Royce company proposed a 440MW plant with a reported price tag of $2.7 billion for Australia!!!!”
“Too late, too expensive, too risky and too uncertain. That, in a nutshell, describes NuScale’s planned small modular reactor (SMR) project, which has been in development since 2000 and will not begin commercial operations before 2029, if ever.”[i]
https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/small-nuclear-reactors-come-with-big-price-tag-report/

Small nuclear reactors, huge costs
https://reneweconomy.com.au/small-nuclear-reactors-huge-costs/

I agree, forget about small & expensive nuclear powered reactors. If our government decided to go nuclear reactors, (just like they have on our future nuclear powered submarines) then we must build them bigger, better & safer than that of Ukraine. For we are "Australia" one of the greatest continents in the world.
I wouldn't worry to much about the costs of such a large nuclear powered reactor/s (capable of powering the whole of Australia for the next 100 years) for all our government has to do, is pull another "Harry Houdini" & Voila  another trillion dollars appears magically out of nowhere (just like it did for the covid-19 caper)
Written & spoken by me & not the "dishonourable" politicians of today

Kon

Yes the Gov seemed to have acquired a goodly sum of dollars to combat Covid-19.......Maybe they just printed of a bit extra aye?

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview202122/Covid-19HealthResponse

https://www.rba.gov.au/qa/gold-verification.html

Unless I am reading this gold audit incorrectly, Australia does not appear to have a lot of gold in the bank??
at approx 6.8 billion.....

We're one of the highest taxing nations per capita in the world Adrian & what they say & what we've actually got in reserve to lay our hands on, are two different things altogether.
Besides we the average tax paying consumer, are the last to be told of the truth. This is government/politicians we're dealing with, serpents of old, not an honest bone in their body, masters in the art of division, confusion & deception etc, etc, need I say more?

Kon

Australia does not rate a mention in the worlds top 52 gold reserves by country listing at 6.8 billion dollars.....Like that is tea bag money.   I guess that is to be expected because our population is microscopic compared to almost all other countries on that list. .....A bit like our carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas levels.  

https://www.advratings.com/finance/gold-reserves-by-country

adrian ss wrote:  I guess  that is to be expected because our population is microscopic compared to almost all other countries on that list. .....A bit like our carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas levels.  

But Australia is one of the highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases!

I think maybe "They" (whoever They are)  are including green house gasses theoretically emitted by coal gas and oil that we have exported other to countries that are creating the emissions from our oil, coal and gas. exports. These emissions are not created in Australia but are being used to create a false GHG emission total for Australia.

You only have to go outside and smell the roses; Our air is squeaky clean

adrian ss wrote:I think maybe "They" (whoever They are)  are including green house gasses theoretically emitted by coal gas and oil that we have exported other to countries that are creating  the emissions from our oil, coal and gas. exports. These emissions are not created in Australia but are being used to create a false GHG emission total for Australia.
 
    You only have to go outside and smell the roses; Our air is squeaky clean

That is not correct! Our emissions are from coal fired power stations, coal production, LNG production and the transport sector and agriculture etc!
Our air is NOT squeaky clean as far as C02 and CH4 levels neither of which can be smelled!

Maybe have a read of this.

Which story you believe is open to interpretation.
My interpretation is that Australia's total GHG Emission is near to 1.2%, not 5% as the pro Man Made climate change advocates would have us believe.

adrian ss wrote:Maybe have a read of this.

Which story you believe is open to interpretation.
My interpretation is that Australia's total GHG Emission is near to 1.2%, not 5% as the pro Man Made climate change advocates would have us believe.

https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/publications/national-greenhouse-gas-inventory-quarterly-update-march-2022
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1015187/australia-yearly-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-source/

adrian ss wrote:Maybe have a read of this.


My interpretation is that Australia's total GHG Emission is near to 1.2%, not 5% as the pro Man Made climate change advocates would have us believe.

You are correct! What is important is that their are many small emitters like Australia and cumulatively they add to a very significant % of total emissions.If developed countries like Australia do nothing to reduce emissions then how can we expect other developing countries to reduce their emissions?

I have Radiation, Radon detectors and air qual testers ticking over continuously.

Background radiation is fairly average at approx 18 u/Sv

The CO2 monitor is not Lab quality but gives a reasonable ballpark figure and is quite sensitive to small and sudden changes in CO2.
It is Currently displaying 809 ppm...A bit high ish. I have seen it reading 1800ppm at other times.

The other instrument is a multi gas detector that is less responsive than the CO2 specific instrument but does read within 55 ppm of this instrument....Like I said, not lab qual.
The current readings on this tester are at 15:55: are:

CO =138 ppm.  A tad high   .....Carbon Monoxide
CO2 = 820 ppm.  Also somewhat high   Carbon Dioxide.
HCHO = 0.019 mg/ cubic mtr.... Formaldehyde compounds....Is OK......Do not want this to be high.
AQI = 2 - 4 ....Is OK.
TVOC = 0.2 mg/ cubic mtr....Is OK

adrian ss wrote:I have Radiation, Radon detectors and air qual testers ticking over continuously.

Background radiation is fairly average at approx 18 u/Sv

The CO2 monitor is not Lab quality but gives a reasonable ballpark figure and is quite sensitive to small and sudden changes in CO2.
It is Currently displaying 809 ppm...A bit high ish. I have seen it reading 1800ppm at other times.

The other instrument is a multi gas detector that is less responsive than the CO2 specific instrument but does read within 55 ppm of this instrument....Like I said, not lab qual.
The current readings on this tester are:

CO =138 ppm.  A tad high   .....Carbon Monoxide
CO2 = 820 ppm.  Also somewhat high   Carbon Dioxide.
HCHO = 0.019 mg/ cubic mtr.... Formaldehyde compounds....Is OK......Do not want this to be high.
AQI = 2 - 4 ....Is OK.
TVOC = 0.2 mg/ cubic mtr....Is OK

https://capegrim.csiro.au/

Thanks for that link.
The CO2 readings at  my location vary considerably throughout the day.
Reading at 17:55 is 432 ppm to 449 ppm.
A rough daily average would be 455 ppm.....The monitor is outside in still air. at 23Deg C and 45% humidity.

It is interesting that CO2 levels are considered to be good between 0 and 799 ppm....So I guess we have a way to go yet?
Just because the CO2 levels were around 250 ppm a couple of hundred years ago does not mean that 415 ppm today is bad, it just means the levels have changed a bit.
The Earth has been here for a few billion years. Things change and always will and we have to change with them.
The only reason we are here today is because the Earth environments changed to conditions that allowed us to evolve. The planet environment will continue to change naturally and we either adapt or we pass away into oblivion along with the animals that have gone before us.

adrian ss wrote:
    Just because the CO2 levels were around 250 ppm a couple of hundred years ago does not mean that 415 ppm today  is bad, it just means  that levels  have changed a bit.

CO2 levels over 800,000 years have varied from 180ppm (ice age) to 280 ppm to a warmer more temperate climate.ie 100 ppm is the difference between an ice age and a warmer more temperate climate. Since the start of the industrial revolution we have added over 120ppm CO2!!!! The last time CO2 levels were this high  homo sapiens did not exist!!!!!Sea levels were also much higher.