It is really amazing that the physics of why boiling water moderates a nuclear reaction is too complex to model or clearly describe, but it DOES and it WORKS well.
So, let me get this straight; the self-declared morally superior political class here in Australia are building a pumped hydro scheme on the Snowy River that delivers 2.2 giga watts of dispatchable power, with a total of 350 giga watt hours stored power, apparently which is enough to power 3 million houses for a week (source: https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/) for a cost of AUD $12 billion (and counting!), and this is a better and cheaper solution than the BWRX-300 proposed by Estonia that is capable of delivering 2.4 terra watt hours annually for just under AUD $3 billion. Have I missed something here?
A Nuclear reactor has great advantages over oil shale for the production of electricity. 1. The fuel is compact and 18 to 24 months of fuel can be stored onsite, and when refueling is needed only a truck or two are needed to bring new fuel. 2. Once built, the power plant is like a Cathedral, it can continuing working for over 100 years, with constant maintenance. 3. It is difficult to sabotage, though not impossible. 4. In addition to point 1, Oil Shale needs pipelines and refineries to continue working. So in terms of total cost, if these are not in place already they must be built. If you do not have the refineries in country your national security can be threatened by another country who can embargo your fuel supply. 5. It is possible to build a distributed, interconnected system, based on smaller Nuclear power plants that allows the grid to be very resilient to interruption. One area having power lines go down or substations damaged would not affect the whole. The model of very large power plants sending power over high tension lines is cost effective but less resilient. 6. Whatever, you think of CO2, the amount of pollution from oil burning is MUCH MUCH more than any NPP. The air is just worse in the areas around the oil burning plants. You can live right beside a NPP and never worry about lung disease, or heavy metals.
Thank you for the good comment. I found that there are 1.3 million population and that Oil Shale is a major producer of electricity at over 90%. So, using more Oil Shale does not give greater external energy security, less pollution or a more diverse electricity supply. I find it interesting that you want to use life-cycle costs. Since Nuclear Power Plants have a life cycle that lasts up to 90 years or more, that means the cost is about 63 million a year or about 50 euros per person per year. On the other hand, the company Last Energy is offering to take full responsibility for a NPP at 20 MW each. These would be a good size fit for a small grid and would last 42 years each. The citizens would only pay for electricity used.
Based Estonia. Pragmatic af.
Sounds good!
BWR - we don't really know why it works, but it works pretty good!
Best Water Reactor
It is really amazing that the physics of why boiling water moderates a nuclear reaction is too complex to model or clearly describe, but it DOES and it WORKS well.
So, let me get this straight; the self-declared morally superior political class here in Australia are building a pumped hydro scheme on the Snowy River that delivers 2.2 giga watts of dispatchable power, with a total of 350 giga watt hours stored power, apparently which is enough to power 3 million houses for a week (source: https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/) for a cost of AUD $12 billion (and counting!), and this is a better and cheaper solution than the BWRX-300 proposed by Estonia that is capable of delivering 2.4 terra watt hours annually for just under AUD $3 billion. Have I missed something here?
Remember: energy does not have to be Carbon-free. We need more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less!
A Nuclear reactor has great advantages over oil shale for the production of electricity. 1. The fuel is compact and 18 to 24 months of fuel can be stored onsite, and when refueling is needed only a truck or two are needed to bring new fuel. 2. Once built, the power plant is like a Cathedral, it can continuing working for over 100 years, with constant maintenance. 3. It is difficult to sabotage, though not impossible. 4. In addition to point 1, Oil Shale needs pipelines and refineries to continue working. So in terms of total cost, if these are not in place already they must be built. If you do not have the refineries in country your national security can be threatened by another country who can embargo your fuel supply. 5. It is possible to build a distributed, interconnected system, based on smaller Nuclear power plants that allows the grid to be very resilient to interruption. One area having power lines go down or substations damaged would not affect the whole. The model of very large power plants sending power over high tension lines is cost effective but less resilient. 6. Whatever, you think of CO2, the amount of pollution from oil burning is MUCH MUCH more than any NPP. The air is just worse in the areas around the oil burning plants. You can live right beside a NPP and never worry about lung disease, or heavy metals.
Thank you for the good comment. I found that there are 1.3 million population and that Oil Shale is a major producer of electricity at over 90%. So, using more Oil Shale does not give greater external energy security, less pollution or a more diverse electricity supply. I find it interesting that you want to use life-cycle costs. Since Nuclear Power Plants have a life cycle that lasts up to 90 years or more, that means the cost is about 63 million a year or about 50 euros per person per year. On the other hand, the company Last Energy is offering to take full responsibility for a NPP at 20 MW each. These would be a good size fit for a small grid and would last 42 years each. The citizens would only pay for electricity used.