The Honourable Wayne Swan MP, Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia, delivered the first budget for the new Labor government tonight.
The listed major new iniatives in the environmental area include:
$14 million for the ‘National Urban Water and Desalination Plan’;
$ 108 million for a ‘Solar Australia Program’; and
$ 34.8 million for a national clean coal fund.
In the lead up to the federal election last year, Labor promised $1 billion for the National Urban Water and Desalination Plan to help secure the water supplies of Australia’s major cities with centres of excellence in desalination in Perth and a centre of excellence in water recycling in Brisbane—acknowledging these cities as leaders in these respective fields.
Given the election promise, the allocation for desalination for next year is very modest.
I wrote about Labor’s proposed water policy in the March IPA Review:
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?pubid=801
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Looks like we have to consider nuclear … it will be essential for the next phase of the green revolution … ultimately the solution is population regulation but since noone seems willing to look at that argument looks like bandaid measures to keep fighting against resource shortages. Food insecure nations will have to look at the option first. Desalinated water for agricultural output. Food prices going much much higher folks …
“ultimately the solution is population regulation”
That, of course, is a ‘solution’ that creates its own problems.
On my bicycle trip up the Ganges valley in 1979 I had the pleasure of having dinner with the Catholic Bishop of Bengal who reflected that television had done more to limit the Indian birth rate than any of Indirah Gandhi’s forced sterilisation programs.
The only effective population program is stable, honest and competent government that enshrines and protects property rights, encourages productivity and thrift, and the proper functioning of free markets. But I wonder how long this will take to sink into the collective wit of contemporary Australians who continue to support governments that think they can get along fine without these core values.
I think Aaron has partially hit on the answer. A fleet of nuclear power plants could provide electricity at a relatively cheap rate that is not subject to the whims of an OPEC cartel or government dreams of a carbon tax. Standard designs (like the French have) would bring down the cost a little.
The spent fuel could be stored on-site for the life of the plant. Then, the government could designate a consolidation site that would STORE the spent fuel until everyone realizes that we actually can use the plutonium and uranium that is in it.
Population control imposed by government is not the answer in free societies. Australia is free, right? Proteus and Ian handled the results of that fiasco quite well.
http://depriest-mpu.blogspot.com/2008/04/other-things-on-my-mind.html
http://depriest-mpu.blogspot.com/2008/04/let-them-eat-coal.html
Cheers!
from http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/13/2243710.htm
“Another $400 million has been brought forward to speed up water buybacks and infrastructure projects in the Murray-Darling Basin.
The Bureau of Meteorology has missed out on $5 million of funding due to delays in establishing its water functions under the Water Act 2007.
Also, a total of $71 million has been deferred due to delays in establishing the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.”
Aaron – “Looks like we have to consider nuclear … it will be essential for the next phase of the green revolution ”
Not even close. Large scale solar thermal with thermal storage and wind with storage is an answer that does not require leaving waste around the place.
2 current problems with a rapid nuclear build up:
Steel forgings:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&refer=home&sid=aaVMzCTMz3ms
“Utilities that won’t need the equipment for years are making $100 million down payments now on components Japan Steel makes from 600-ton ingots. Each year the Tokyo-based company can turn out just four of the steel forgings that contain the radioactivity in a nuclear reactor. Even after it doubles capacity in the next two years, there won’t be enough production to meet building plans.
“If there are 50 to 100 reactors or more to be built, there will be a real shortage and real delays in deliveries, so it’s a good hedge to get in line now,” said Ron Pitts, senior vice president for nuclear operations at the construction and engineering company Fluor Corp. in Irving, Texas.
Pitts estimated the cost of heavy forgings, including reactor containment vessels, steam generators and pressurizers, at $300 million to $350 million for each generating unit. Japan Steel wouldn’t comment on the size of the down payment, which Pitts estimated at $100 million. ”
and massive cost escalations:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055252677483933.html
“A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates.”
Solar thermal and wind do not have the same problems and with the massive increase in nuclear they all become more competitive as the price differntial drops. David Mill solar thermal already is cost competitive with nuclear, is available 24X7 as it has thermal storage and has none of the current regulatory. labour or material bottlenecks of nuclear.
To Ian Mott.
Between 1952 and 2007 the population of Algeria increased from 6 million to 32 million. The birthrate per woman in 1976 was 7.5 children. It has now slowed to 1.7 child per woman.
Stable government can hardly credit the decline in birthrate in Algeria to what you have mentioned.
The Birthrate in Gaza has also decreased from 6 to 1.9 also.
On the programs above. I wonder how far the 14 million dollars for desalinization plants is going to go considering it is supposed to be costing 3 Billion dollars for the plant in Gippsland Victoria Plus a billion to operate it.
The mass production of nuclear plants in both France and China have produced MASSIVE cost savings. Ender is quoting the US cost of a failed project. The US costs are not a good indicator of the market because the US continues with the practice of reinventing the wheel every time they build a plant. The cost of Chinese plants is down to about $1 billion each.
Ender is fully aware of this fact as he has been told before but, typically, chose to use the projected costings of a single project that didn’t even get up instead of the actual costings of many projects that did.
His level of respect for other readers of this blog is so low that he no longer respects our right to form opinions based on all relevant information.
Beano, I was wondering the same.
I believe the Tugun desal is costing $300,000 a day, sitting doing nothing.
Jen, has the Qld govt costed the job of raising the Wyvenhoe wall 15m as they are currently doing with the Hinze?
I understand in both cases it will treble capacity [when it rains].
It seems like far and away the best medium term solution.
Just in case the readers of this blog cannot actually read, the Bloomberg article specifically mentions that this is cost estimates for NEW projects:
“The latest projections follow months of tough negotiations between utility companies and key suppliers, and suggest efforts to control costs are proving elusive. Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators — NRG Energy Inc., Progress Energy Inc., Exelon Corp., Southern Co. and FPL Group Inc. — “have blown by our highest estimate” of costs computed just eight months ago, said Jim Hempstead, a senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service credit-rating agency in New York.”
Also one of the new generation reactors the AP1000 that is a pressurised light water reactor favoured by the US, to be completely safe HAS to have the containment vessel built from a one piece forging hence the bottleneck. You can weld together 2 smaller forgings however to maintian the high passive safety claims for this design the welds increase the chances of failure. And of course welds of this critical nature just leads you to another bottleneck:
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3780
“There is a tsunami of new nuclear plant applications,” says Dr. Harold McFarlane, president of the American Nuclear Society. The revival is coming after so many years of inactivity that McFarlane notes there are now fewer than 200 nuclear-qualified welders in the U.S.”
So I do not insult any more readers of this blog please consider this:
http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/0578Discussion1.html
“Let’s review the last point first. The Russian VVER-1000 – similar to the reactors now being built in Tianwan in China and Kudankulam in India – represent what the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) refers to as Generation III reactor. Nineteen reactors representing three older models of this design operate in Russia and the Ukraine, some completed only recently, and the accumulated reactor-years of operational experience are yet limited. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Council (NRC) is now licensing the more advanced ‘Passive Safety’ reactor designs – the Westinghouse AP-1000 and the General Electric ESBWR which might become commercially available by 2006 and 2008, respectively. Both of these are referred to as Generation III+ reactors, and are designed to higher safety standards than do the older Generation III reactors. A generation III reactor like a VVER-1000 would not currently be licensable in the U.S. The French EPR and the South Korean KSNP+ reactor, as well as the more advanced A-1400 Korean design, all represent equivalent Generation III+ reactors. This being the case, why would the DPRK – assuming it has got some leeway in choosing which reactor type to accept – opt for a second class rather than first class reactor design? Would we want the DPRK nuclear plant operators, given their limited operational experience, to operate a less than fully modern and automated reactor?”
So you get what you pay for. The nuclear industry has enough problems without adding older crappy reactors to the mix. Most of the nuclear renaissance is concerning the GEN III+ and the GEN IV reactors that are much safer than the old ones.
I apologise for insulting you all with real facts about the nuclear industy. Now let us return to the nuclear industry schills that are peddling 1 billion dollar reactors that could not be licensed.
Ian, I also understand that Vattenfall, who produce a lot of Sweden’s power from just about every known source claim that nuclear, even including the cost of decommissioning, is the cheapest and amongst the least CO2 producing.
Ender, did you read about the boy scout from Chicago who built his own Gen 4 reactor in a lead lined tool box using gas mantles and used smoke detectors for fissile material?
Didn’t cost much but produced neutrons.
Here is an interesting comparison of Antarctic sea ice for April 28 years ago and Antarctic sea ice for April of 08. Frightening, isn’t it.
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.69
Ender: “Just in case the readers of this blog cannot actually read, the Bloomberg article specifically mentions that this is cost estimates for NEW projects:”
In that case the solution is simple get the Chinese to build our reactors. A nice by-product of using saline coolant in the reactor is desalinated water. Much of the so called problematic waste by the way is fissile material that can be used to fuel reactors.
“handled the results of that fiasco quite well.
“-Russ.
Fiasco? Imposed population control is not the answer, but people can have foresight into resource use and feeding and housing an ever-growing world population. Now that many live longer and consume more thankfully some individuals are making choices not to reproduce. Those that think the world can keep on supporting population growth and all that accompanies it are seriously deluded.
“His level of respect for other readers of this blog is so low that he no longer respects our right to form opinions based on all relevant information.” – Ian Mott
Very, very funny. The pot calling the kettle black.
Ender writes to those who cannot read.
rog – “Ender writes to those who cannot read.’
No certain people don’t read links.
Jan Pompe – “In that case the solution is simple get the Chinese to build our reactors”
Sure Jan so we get reactors that the US would not license – that sounds like a good plan. All of this instead of getting David Mills back to build some solar thermal plants that will do the same job for about the same price and they will never melt down.
“A nice by-product of using saline coolant in the reactor is desalinated water”
Right so you want cut price reactors and then want to circulate hot salty water in them – another cunning plan Jan. I think they should last at least until the last Chinese construction worker leaves and the warranty has expired or a jelly fish get stuck in the intake pipes.
“Much of the so called problematic waste by the way is fissile material that can be used to fuel reactors.”
Hang on – that would be CANDUs – this is not a cheap chinese design
BTW the US Department of Energy reckons that 20% of the US power could be supplied by wind by 2030.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/12/174046/270
I thought this was also relevant:
“This would require 300,000 MW of wind, delivering electricity for about 6 to 8.5 cents per kilowatt hour, unsubsidized (i.e., no federal tax credit) and including the cost of transmission to access existing power lines within 500 miles of wind resource (new nuclear is currently about 15 cents/kwh).”
Hmm sun and wind – pity Australia does not have any sun or wind or open sunny and/or windy places – oh hang on it does 🙂
Ender:”ure Jan so we get reactors that the US would not license – that sounds like a good plan. All of this instead of getting David Mills back to build some solar thermal plants that will do the same job for about the same price and they will never melt down.”
You are putting your ignorance on display again. A nuclear reactor is a handy little toy to dope the silicon that goes into making the solar cells (and just about every other electronic silicon based electronic device you’d car to name) .
HIFAR earned about $2.5 M annually doing that.
Ender: “Hmm sun and wind – pity Australia does not have any sun or wind or open sunny and/or windy places – oh hang on it does :-)”
You are right it does it also has plenty of iron ore and coal to turn into coke to smelt it and run another furnace to burn of the excess carbon so the soft Iron cores for the generators can be manufactured from it. Saving exactly how much fossil fuel do you think – don’t forget the oil that goes into making the composites those huge vanes are made of.
Jan – “You are putting your ignorance on display again”
Yes and your point is ….? How does OPAL, a small research reactor optimised for high neutron flux, compare to a 1 GW power reactor? Even I can cope with the thought of the amount of waste that OPAL produces. So we need one reactor. Your straw man is getting eaten.
Also not all doped silicon is produced by Neutron Transmutation Doping. This is only required for high power devices where the purity of the silicon is paramount. All other doping is done by diffusion or Ion implantation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_implantation
Straw man dead …..
Jan Pompe – “You are right it does it also has plenty of iron ore and coal to turn into coke to smelt it and run another furnace to burn of the excess carbon so the soft Iron cores for the generators can be manufactured from it.”
And the energy payback time of wind is less than 6 months.
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/enpaybk.htm
straw man buried……
Ender, have you had a butchers hook at the solar thermal plant they are building at Windorah?
At a cost of $40,000 per head of population?
With no energy storage?
They still have to keep the old diesel rattler going as the solar only works through the warmer part of the day when no one’s home and the reflectors get very dirty very quickly and lose efficiency.
Has David Mills built one of these plants with storage yet and if so, how does it stack up?
The link for that solar plant at Windorah. [and it’s a concentrated solar PV, not solar thermal, as I assumed because of the reflectors]
The point though is that it is about as handy as tits on a bull and costs the earth.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/26/1989070.htm
spangled drongo – “Has David Mills built one of these plants with storage yet and if so, how does it stack up?”
Looks like the plant at Windoora is a bit experimental – I think rooftop solar with batteries might have been better.
If you are interested here is a link for Ausra
http://www.ausra.com/
I heard him in an interview – he has a contract to build one however he is waiting in line for the steam turbine. There is huge demand for these and a long waiting list.
Ender
Your enthusiasm is commendable, but it’s impairing your reasoning.
Some of those links lead to ideas espoused by someone before, and linked back again, forming a circle.
Makes it sound convincing until you realise you heard it somewhere before.
Johnathan Wilkes – “Some of those links lead to ideas espoused by someone before, and linked back again, forming a circle.”
This is all you have? Damn those pesky facts, they really ruin a good nuclear argument.
Ender: http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/enpaybk.htm
First of all I’m impressed with the improvements in efficiency however you need to learn what “strawman” is. Since I did not misrepresent you (i.e. put wrods in your mouth there is no strawman. There is however a red herring (an irrelevant trail. The head post is about desalination and try as I might to find it there is no metnion of any desalinated water as a by-product of wind power.
Ender, if you recall I gave some very good reasons, including links in favor of nuclear power in the past, but you did not listen then, so I only wanted to alert you to the fact, that a reliance on incestuous info is not a good idea!
Roger Grace,
If you think that population control efforts (i.e., eugenics in the 1910-1940’s and infanticide due to a one child policy in recent years in China) have not been problematic, I don’t know what to tell you. The only way that birth rates will come down is for people to voluntarily choose it.
Ender,
In addition, I reiterate the view of many reputable people, scientists and others; “the only obstacle in the way of safe storage of nuclear waste is POLITICS”.
In other words, “Public opinion, public stupidity”
(can’t quote who said it)
Well recognised through the ages.
And we know how easily the public can be swayed.
Quiet, sane arguments mean little against shrill doomsday preaching opposition!
“If you think that population control efforts (i.e., eugenics in the 1910-1940’s and infanticide due to a one child policy in recent years in China) have not been problematic, I don’t know what to tell you. The only way that birth rates will come down is for people to voluntarily choose it.” – Russ.
Did you read what I wrote Russ? I wrote “Imposed population control is not the answer” and “Now that many live longer and consume more thankfully some individuals are making choices not to reproduce.”
Maybe you can try reading what has been written first before reaching for your big stick.
Johnathan Wilkes – “In addition, I reiterate the view of many reputable people, scientists and others; “the only obstacle in the way of safe storage of nuclear waste is POLITICS”.”
Well that is really good. So Yucca mountian should be open in a couple of days and we can overlook the inconvenient and unexpected leaching of radionucleides as long as we get the politics right. Basically we should just build the dumps and damn the people that do not want them. Or we could arrange the politics so the people could not object like China – would that be OK?
I also agree with you. There is no nuclear waste problem. We can just store it in above ground waste dumps until we are dead. It then becomes a problem for someone else and is therefore only a political problem to keep the waste dumps secure long enough for you and I to have a long and happy life. We can then die secure in the knowledge that the nuclear waste ceases to be a problem. This is BTW the way it is managed at the moment. Only the Swedes are doing a reasonable job and that is costing them upward of 12 billion dollars.
Hold on, Ender. Your quote did not explain why the process of mass production, as applied by the French Gen III+, and the Chinese Gen III, cannot deliver similar savings when applied to Gen IV reactors.
You have provided links to a once off project that obviously has very high costings because all of the development R&D etc is carried by one plant.
And given the amount of politicisation of US approvals process, the suggestion that perfectly good reactors couldn’t get certified in the US is revealed as a big red herring.
The simple facts are that the Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis and many other nations have the luxury of being able to sort the bull$hit from the reality when they implement their nuclear programs. And the further into the deep hole the US economy falls, the more likely it is that the bull$hit in the certification process will be stripped away.
And what a stupid beat up about only being able to forge two reactor cores in a year. If they have orders for more cores then either they, or a competitor, will commission an extra forging facility. It is how business responds to an expanding market. A rudiment that you appear to be completely ignorant of.
Do we actually need a national urban water and desalination plan? The supply of potable water in urban areas is an inherently local problem, because transferring water over large distances is prohibitively expensive.
The optimum solution in each place depends on the circumstances.
I also see no role for the federal government in funding water supply projects, which should be paid for by the people who are going to be using the water.
Ender,
I think it’s quite useless to discuss anything with you.
“Basically we should just build the dumps and damn the people that do not want them”
Precisely my argument, people do not want them, because the scare tactics dished up to them.
Politician’s only concern is the next election, they are the ones who don’t think even ten years ahead let alone a hundred.
Where did I say build storage just about anywhere?
Don’t verbal me Ender!
There are very many safe and stable geological formations, which could be utilised for a fraction of the cost you are quoting.
But never mind, I give up.
Luke has a nasty streak to him that’s why I ignore him, at least you are civilised.
Johnathan – “There are very many safe and stable geological formations, which could be utilised for a fraction of the cost you are quoting.”
Thats what most people think until they actually start to do it. Yucca Mountain was supposed to open 5 years ago. By the time it does it will be filled up 2 times over. I am not quoting a cost that is what the Swedes have spent:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3X-4HDX6VN-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=06c7352d59b5f7201a07448bb1d63f5f
“The cost of the Swedish nuclear waste program
Esbjörn SegelodE-mail The Corresponding Author
Mälardalen University, P.O. Box 325, SE-631 05 Eskilstuna, Sweden
Available online 27 October 2005.
Abstract
The nuclear waste programs, which nuclear power countries are implementing today, are extremely long-term and some of the largest construction projects ever undertaken. Sweden has 12 nuclear power plants and the Swedish nuclear waste program is estimated to cost about 80 thousand million SEK or approximately nine thousand million euro. A fiscal act passed in 1981 regulated the financing system and responsibilities with respect to nuclear waste. According to this Act SKB, a company owned by the operators of nuclear power plants, must estimate the cost of the project each year and, based on this, the annual fee which must be put aside to cover any future payments. The first estimate was delivered in 1982. According to the latest of these reports about two-thirds of the work still remains undone. The purpose of this paper is to review the cost development of the Swedish nuclear waste program through the 23 annual cost estimates which SKB has produced. Based on earlier empirical studies it identifies some factors which may cause future cost escalation. The estimated cost of the program is about the same today as in 1982 although cost has escalated since 1996. Substantial uncertainties remain to be eliminated, at the same time as there are factors which should help the program not to escalate such as no shortage of funds or time to plan, and the possibility of exploiting future technical innovations to lower the handling costs.
Keywords: Cost escalation; Nuclear waste; Radioactive waste management”
Buy the paper by all means and read how the costs escalate. You cannot glibly assert that it would be easy when the examples of attempts to bury waste geologically have been cost nightmares.
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/loux05.htm
“What the State’s study found, when compared to what DOE would have the country believe about program costs, is truly astounding. The bottom line is that the total cost of the federal high-level waste program is at least $53.9 billion. Assuming that all currently operating commercial nuclear power reactors operate and generate fee revenues for their full licensed lifetimes – an assumption that is conservative in the extreme given the likelihood that high operating costs and cutbacks due to electric deregulation will cause many reactors (by some estimates more than 40 of the 100 functioning reactors) to be shut down well before their licenses expire – the Nuclear Waste Fund will generate at most $28.1 billion.
Despite the clear intent of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1983 that the generators of spent fuel and high-level waste should pay fully for the cost of managing and disposing of the waste, the American taxpayer will be on the hook for a whopping $25.8 billion or more if this federal program goes forward.”
Ender is just flogging his usual line. The french plants are all fully funded and costed within current electricity prices. Note how the swedish report recognised that some of the unknowns were also likely to reduce future costs but the word “cost de-escalation” did not make it into the key words beside “cost escalation”.
Funny that. The anti-nuclear trolls are quite capable of extrapolation to extremes when it comes to future cost increases but are as tight as a fishes backside when it comes to future savings and cost reductions.
Just for people that cannot read links:
:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055252677483933.html
“New Wave of Nuclear Plants Faces High Costs
By Rebecca Smith
Word Count: 931 | Companies Featured in This Article: Progress Energy, Exelon, Southern, FPL Group, Toshiba , General Electric, Public Service Enterprise Group
A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates.
Nuclear power is regaining favor as an alternative to other sources of power generation, such as coal-fired plants, which have fallen out of favor because they are major polluters. But the high cost could lead to sharply higher electricity bills for consumers and inevitably reignite debate about the nuclear industry’s suitability to meet growing energy needs.
Nuclear plants haven’t been built in meaningful …”
The article appeared in the WSJ and is about the new generation of plants that are being costed now. All the components are much more expensive now and this is escalating the cost.
BTW again posting this because people don’t read links. This is at the end of the steel forging link.
“The Japan Steel factory’s rusting, corrugated-metal warehouses, blackened by soot, belie the precision and patience required to fashion a 600-ton steel ingot into a tube with walls 30 centimeters (12 inches) thick. Blue-clad workers, some wearing balaclavas to keep warm, draw on knowledge built up when Japan Steel made the 18-inch gun barrel — the world’s largest at the time — for the World War II battleship Yamato. A 1945 attack on the Muroran plant killed more than 200 workers.
“Our accumulated technology for cannon barrels helped us make this technical breakthrough in forging,” plant manager Sato said.
The company’s basic product, steel of the highest quality, has the same enduring appeal as the samurai swords still fashioned in limited quantities by craftsmen at the plant.
15,000 Tons
To make the 600-ton ingot, workers heat steel scrap in an electric furnace to as high as 2,000 degrees Celsius (3,600 degrees Fahrenheit). Then they fill each of five giant ladles with 120 tons of the orange-hot molten metal. Argon gas is injected to eliminate impurities, and manganese, chromium and nickel are added to make the steel harder.
The mixture is poured into a blackened casing to form ingots 4.2 meters wide in the rough shape of a cylinder. Five times over three weeks, the ingots are pressed, reheated and re-pressed under 15,000 tons applied by a machine that rotates them gradually, making the floor tremble as it works.
The heavy forging is needed to make the steel uniformly strong by aligning the crystal lattices of atoms that make up the metal, known as the grain. In a casting, they would be jumbled.
`More Art Than Science’
“What they do is an art more than a science, and that’s why they’re the critical path,” said Steven Hucik, senior vice president for nuclear plant projects at GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy in Wilmington, North Carolina. His company has already reserved sufficient capacity at Japan Steel’s plant to cover its first wave of new reactors, he said.
Japan Steel’s most prized products also include samurai swords, with price tags of about 1 million yen.
They’re made in a traditional Japanese wooden hut, up a steep hill from the rest of the Muroran factory. It’s decorated with white zigzag papers called “shide” used in Shinto shrines, creating a sense of sanctity in the workshop.
Inside, as the factory clangs and hisses below, Tanetada Horii hand-forges broad swords from 1 kilogram (2.2 pound) lumps of Tamahagane steel.
“Making a sword emanating peculiar beauty from the dull substance of stone-like Tamahagane steel is bliss,” he said.
CEO Nagata says the process goes to the company’s heart.
“Samurai swords contain the essence of steelmaking technology,” he said. “We’ve inherited this technology and we don’t want it to spill outside of Japan.” ”
Sure you could just setup and be putting out 600 ton forgings in a couple of decades. Unless of course you could entice one of the steelmakers however I would guess that they lock these people up at night to prevent them from being poached.
And the point of this off-topic waddle about how they make $10,000 (1 million Yen) swords was?
Was there anything in this little travelogue that would indicate that a Japanese Steel maker would be unwilling to duplicate a minor steel forging unit?
Does Ender have the faintest idea about the how long it would take to set up such a unit? Clearly not. We are not talking about a new blast furnace from scratch. We are talking about a subsidiary forging unit. These guys could do it blindfolded.
Yes, Motty, don’t forget that the making of large gun barrels was not a technology restricted to the Japanese. The Germans made them for the Bismark, The Brits made them for the Prince of Wales, The Americans made them for the Missouri, and the French made them for the Richelieu.
To imply that this kind of technology is limited to the Japanese, and that other steel makers are incapable of adapting the same technology to make single forge reactor cores is a bit rich. This know-how has only been around for the best part of 100 years.
Tom Melville – “To imply that this kind of technology is limited to the Japanese, and that other steel makers are incapable of adapting the same technology to make single forge reactor cores is a bit rich. This know-how has only been around for the best part of 100 years.”
I am not saying anything of the sort. Obviously the others have let this knowledge lapse and once lost is very difficult to get back. Of course all these could do it however who is going to spend the money to do it. Remember without a military contract are investors going to wait for 5 or 10 years for people to re-invent the techniques to forge flawless reactor vessels. What if they never get it? As the article says it is more of an art than a science and the people are critical.
The point is that a quick rollout of nuclear power is not going to happen in time for it to make a real difference to CO2 levels.
Wind and solar can be rolled out much much faster without the same bottlenecks as the technology involved is much less fail safe and less critical. Not wasting the money on a nuclear pipe dream and channeling it into wind and solar thermal will result in larger reductions in CO2 and not create waste for someone else.
Ender, the only bottleneck is the one in your mind. Tom has a very good point. Do you seriously believe, given all the advances in metalic alloys over the past fifty years, that the metalurgical industry has forgotten how to forge large pressure vessels?
Do you seriously believe that the modern armour on US, British, French German and Russian tanks could have been developed by people who have forgotten how to forge high quality steel?
By people who would need 5 to 10 years to resurect 50 year old technology?
I knew you were illinformed, and I knew you were delusional, but I had no idea you were capable of such breathtaking ignorance. The lengths that you will go to reinforce your prejudices is truly amazing.