Have we grown out of the nuclear power argument?

There seems to be a push on to start up nuclear power stations in Australia, but is there even any appetite for it apart from a small bunch of lobbyists?

Australia has the highest uptake of solar power in the world with about 30 per cent of houses having solar panels for about three million systems.

So it’s millions of households versus a handful of nuclear enthusiasts.

While nuclear energy can be a steady, reliable source of power, power plants take time to establish – up to 10 years – and no one has a solution for the waste apart from burying it in the ground.

And let’s not forget the accidents. Chernobyl was the big one, but there was also the Japanese Fukushima disaster following the 2011 tsunami. Not exactly an accident, but not a great outcome either.

Sure, solar power and panels also consume resources in their construction and don’t last forever, but surely it’s a safer option than nuclear power?

Time to move on from the nuclear argument?  

 

11 comments

Definitely the nuclear option isn't really an option as it has so many drawbacks. Disposal of spent fuel and the shutting down of nuclear plant, once it has reached the end of its life, is a major issue as it has to be made safe which is a significant cost over a long period of time.

In Australia we are sitting pretty with solar, wind and tidal power there for the taking. just because one political party locked itself out of the renewable debate doesn't mean they are correct. At the moment they have retreated back into the cave with the rest of the troglodytes. At leas that will give them the chance to take a good hard look at themselves, if they have the courage.

People forget that we have had a nuclear reactor operating in suburban Australia since 1957..

When talking about the two problems with accidents Japan's was due to a seismic event, and Chernobyl was due to carelessness.

I noticed that the hundreds of plants that have operated successfully in the around the world are not mentioned.

Sure there is always going to be the waste disposal issue in to which an ideal location in Wittenoom

 

Even solar and wind have disposal issues and batteries are even more so. 

We must have a balanced sensible reasoned attitude to all energy generation and and storage. 

The Australian people have long outgrown this ridiculous argument against nuclear power. Well, all except Mr Bowen and Mr Albanese who are fixated on power sources that simply cannot cope with the demands placed on it both now and in the future. Even a cursory look overseas gives more than enough evidence of the stupidity of their stance against the nuclear option. In Europe, even the Greens have conceded that nuclear power is in fact a green power source. It's long past time for Australia to grow up.

We have a massive environmental issue looming from solar panels. Given they have a life of (on average) ten years we are coming up to the point where the early adopters will have to replace their systems. How are these panels going to be disposed of - and don't forget they will continue to need to be replaced in perpetuity? And this does not even consider the environmental consequences of their manufacture in the first place - in China - where they are busy building even more coal-fired electricity plants. Seems Australia has no conscience about buying both solar panels and wind turbines from China whilst preaching to the Australian people about putting up, shutting up and paying up for the privilege of turning the lights and heating on powered by these 'renewable' energy sources.

And frankly, if nuclear power is such a bad thing, why is there no talk about sealing up the uranium mines and stopping exporting all uranium to countries more advanced than Australia? What will happen to nuclear medicine? What about the new you-bewt nuclear-powered submarines that are critical to Australia's defence? 

This government (and in fact all governments) cannot be so stupid as to demonise fossil fuels and vow to close all coal mines and gas fields and at the same time continue to export uranium. So where does that leave us and the increasing power bills - power bills that affect everything not just the individual household?

 

Disposal or storage of waste is not an issue. All MP's and Senators that back a Nuclear proposal will have the waste proportionately stored in their electorate starting with Dixon as that's Duttons seat. 

All arguments against nuclear power will be lost when the world runs out of resources.

We shall have no option but to accept what is available, albeit at great cost.

The major problem about nuclear as I see it is a large amount of imbedded prejudice that was created by a co-ordinated antinuclear campaign paid for by the old Soviet Union from the 1950's to the 1980's.

Every point of opposition can be shown to have little to no relevance today.

One hanging on (and a mentioned by others here) is that of perpetual toxic waste.  This was a political construct created by the anti-nuclear activists. Under pressure from the Soviets in the AEC, most countries around the world signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the late 1950's and early 1960's.  Essentially it prohibited any signatory from reprocessing and recycling their exhausted atomic fuel rods.  These can be recycled almost an infinite number off times and leave no appreciable waste.

France did not sign this agreement and have fueled their nuclear plants largely from recycled waste (approximately 70% of France's power comes from nuclear.  Which is also sold into the EU Grid as zero emissions power 24 hours a day.)

There are over 440 nuclear power stations operating around the world at present with at least another 200 planned.  Many of the operating ones have been producing power for 30 or more years.  They have a dispatch rate of over 90%.  Compare this with wind and solar which each have dispatches of approximately 33%.  (With solar we have a good idea about when that 33% happens, with wind, they can go for days with a negative dispatch capacity.)  No increase in the either the numbers or the sizes of these forms can overcome that rate.

Extremely expensive forms of storage are needed to make up for the shortfall in output and all have a loss of around 20%.  Pumped hydro is promoted as an option for storage, but the environmental cost of sufficient stores (top and bottom reservoirs) is not included.

For any storage system to work,  cheap excess power must be available to push into the storage medium.  (Using Government research grants, the idea of pumping the empty mine shafts below Broken Hill with compressed air is presently giving some researchers a good quality of life with no certain outcome for the Grid.)

Wind farms are contractually limited in their life time.  One large one in SE Qld is limited to 20 years, after which all of the over 120 turbines must be deconstructed and the site remediated at the cost of and by the owner of the land on which they stand.  Another SE Qld one of 180 turbines presently under construction has no plan beyond one market of 10 years.

None of turbine blades on any of the Australian wind turbines can be recycled and can only be discarded by reducing in size and placing in landfill.

The ~100 tonne generator pods contain a multitude of metals (and plastics and oils), but the metal industry are fairly clear that it is not economically viable to recover these metals from the devices and they too will go to landfill.

Solar panels also have a mixed future.  There is no certainty on their recyclability as it appears that the main companies claiming to do so are working with Government research grants and no buyers for the separated out sub materials.  Whilst many are sold with a guarantee of around 30 years, the Australian environment is far harsher than anywhere else around the world and many will be removed from service before their time is reached.

With the push to remove reliable and safe coal fired power stations from generation in Australia, there is a great risk that the power will not be present in the Grid to keep both our lights, stoves and heaters on as well as industry and commerce functioning unless another source is connected before the net zero target date.

As demonstrated from use around the world, nuclear is safe and reliable and whilst seemingly expensive to implement, in the long run, it has life spans over double most of the renewable systems with an overall clean future.

It's interesting how the use of the English language can produce a negative or positive result depending on the way it is used.  The first sentence "There seems to be a push on to start up nuclear power stations in Australia, but is there even any appetite for it apart from a small bunch of lobbyists? " is very emotive and it would be OK if only it were true. We are asked a question which is then supported by a lot of information supporting the negative response that the writer would like.

The Institute of Public Affairs is said to be an independent, non-profit public policy think tank, dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom and they commissioned a survey on this particular subject. The poll undertaken in April, with data collected by research and marketing firm Dynata, asked over 1,000 Australians whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: “Australia should build nuclear power plants to supply electricity and reduce carbon emissions”:  53% agree. 24% neither agree nor disagree and 23% disagree. These are ordinary people, not a "a small bunch of lobbyists".

More information about how clever solar panels are and how many households have taken up the use of them doesn't take into consideration the amounts paid by various governments to subsidise solar panels. If those subsidies weren't in place, it would be interesting to see how many households would be involved. Solar panels have a life and also require regular cleaning to make them work at an optimum level. Replacement and cleaning are costs not factored in by the zealots who believe that Australia can work with just wind and solar. It's also of interest that the MP's known collectively as "The Teals" were asked about how many solar panels they had and what type of car they drove and even though they expound the use of renewable energy, none had both solar panels and EV's. 

Yes Horace the Teals - they of the "do as I say not as I do" school of politics. 

Ten year lead times, expensive energy, problems with an everlasting waste product (Australia has struggled to store waste from Lucas Heights in outback SA).  The list goes on.  Hands up for those that want the radioactive waste in their city or town?

And hands up for those who want a wind turbine in their backyard and dead solar panels in their vege patch!

Those advocating France as a nuclear power model should do a bit of research on the subject before jumping to conclusions and suggesting that nuclear is the answer and they  should explain why according to UN statistics, France's nuclear electricity prices are 29.5% high than Australia's non-nuclear prices. In fact they are higher than even neighbouring  Netherlands power prices which had no nuclear or hydro power and virtually no coal.

The article below regarding a major French supermarket chain states that they will be dimming lights at their 400 stores because of power shortages in part due to 56 yes 56 nuclear power plant outages. And we were lead to believe that nuclear power was super reliable and just went on and on for years.

I recall camping in Europe where in the area was a grotesque derelict monstrosity of a network of buildings. Signs along the perimeter Barrier fence kilometres out from the complex warned that entry into the area over the the next 500 years would result in death. So nuclear is safe and clean with no clean-up or disposal issues. Dream on!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-04/french-power-prices-rise-to-13-year-high-on-monday-cold-snap

I don't know why everyone is so against nuclear power. But don't worry, we can't afford it anyway.

affordability is a big part of why so many investors and lenders are against nuclear energy

Maybe we should set aside personal prejudices formed years ago without the advantage of hindsight.

Has anybody who has actually looked at this form of energy l9gically and from a position of knowledge been able to say that it is a viable long term solution that will be cost effective and practical.

Who has the figures in relation to the cost of buying the land, getting the locals onside, building, commissioning and maintaining such a facility?  Who can tell us how this stacks up against other sustainable power sources.

We see an awful lot of rhetoric about everyone knows, or it is plain to see, but very little in the way of this is how much it will cost to build and maintain, or this is how much a kWh of nuclear produced power will cost against the cost of tidal or solar power.

Yes, let's have the discussion yet again, but let's have some facts rather than three word slogans and pretty animated publicity campaigns.

Maybe get the Minister for Everything to have a go at it, he'll be looking for a new job soon. No, sorry, that would just mean more slogans and 70's advertising redrafts.

11 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment