The Forum > Article Comments > Labor must accept nuclear fact rather than fiction > Comments
Labor must accept nuclear fact rather than fiction : Comments
By Tristan Prasser, published 6/3/2020Nuclear energy remains an inconvenient truth for the Australian Labor Party, but such a policy position is becoming increasingly untenable, particularly as the party pushes for a net-zero emissions target.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
Posted by Steve S, Friday, 6 March 2020 8:17:12 AM
| |
are the liberals out there promoting nuclear energy at the party leadership level?
I think you have to win over public opinion before you have nay hope of nuclear energy in this country. Posted by Chris Lewis, Friday, 6 March 2020 8:32:13 AM
| |
Alan B, I am interested in what u think hollywood has to say.
https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-not-the-answer-to-solve-climate-change/ Posted by Chris Lewis, Friday, 6 March 2020 8:41:28 AM
| |
The Coalition isn't noticeably into the idea of nuclear power, either.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 6 March 2020 9:06:21 AM
| |
Albo will not be getting my vote. Apart from his tribal no-nukes stand he thinks we should keep up coal exports. Perhaps in his muddled thinking he thinks pixie dust will save us. We've had the Renewable Energy Target since 2001 yet emissions are essentially flatlined so it isn't working. We need an axe to cut through the emissions impasse and I think nuclear is it. To those who disagree explain why France has about 50 grams per average kilowatt hour of electricity while Australia has 800.
FWIW I am beginning to doubt that Snowy 2 will go ahead. Some are saying that batteries will store intermittent wind and solar. Trouble is when you start costing it at over $200 per megawatt hour levelised cost. SMRs work out cheaper. Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 6 March 2020 9:19:17 AM
| |
Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/18/3575/htm "Abstract: This paper tests the validity of the FUND model’s energy impact functions, and the hypothesis that global warming of 2 °C or more above pre-industrial times would negatively impact the global economy. Empirical data of energy expenditure and average temperatures of the US states and census divisions are compared with projections using the energy impact functions with non-temperature drivers held constant at their 2010 values. The empirical data indicates that energy expenditure decreases as temperatures increase, suggesting that global warming, by itself, may reduce US energy expenditure and thereby have a positive impact on US economic growth. These findings are then compared with FUND energy impact projections for the world at 3 °C of global warming from 2000. The comparisons suggest that warming, by itself, may reduce global energy consumption. If these findings are correct, and if FUND projections for the non-energy impact sectors are valid, 3 °C of global warming from 2000 would increase global economic growth. In this case, the hypothesis is false and policies to reduce global warming are detrimental to the global economy. We recommend the FUND energy impact functions be modified and recalibrated against best available empirical data. Our analysis and conclusions warrant further investigation." Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 6 March 2020 9:44:06 AM
| |
‘What Could Have Been – If Nuclear Power Deployment Had Not Been Disrupted’
“If not for disruption by the anti-nuclear power protest movement the world could have had cheap, reliable, secure, sustainable comparatively safe electricity supply by now (Lang, 2017). The benefits for the global economy and human wellbeing could have been substantial: clean, safe, reliable power supply, 4.2 to 9.5 million lives and 69 to 174 Gt CO2 emissions avoided, and nuclear providing up to 66% of the world’s power at around 10% of its current cost. From 1954 to 1967 the cost of nuclear power plants was decreasing by around 25% per doubling of global nuclear power capacity. Then progress was disrupted. Thereafter, costs increased rapidly, by 22 to 94% per capacity doubling (except in South Korea).” Continue reading and see charts here: https://www.thegwpf.com/what-could-have-been-if-nuclear-power-deployment-had-not-been-disrupted/ Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 6 March 2020 9:55:11 AM
| |
Excerpt from opinion piece at: https://www.thegwpf.com/what-could-have-been-if-nuclear-power-deployment-had-not-been-disrupted/ :
It’s time for the developed countries to lead the world to get serious about nuclear power. Some of nuclear power’s advantages are, it: 1. is the safest way to generate electricity and always has been since the first power reactor began supplying power to the grid in 1954 (Appendix B, Note VIII) 2. is sustainable – nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited 3. provides reliable, dispatchable electricity 4. provides countries with a high level of energy security – many years of fuel supply can be stored in a small space at low cost so countries are not vulnerable to disruption of fuel supply during periods of trade or military conflicts 5. is highly flexible in small modular reactors – consider the flexibility of nuclear powered submarines and ships, as has been demonstrated over the past 60 years; also see Irwin (2017) submission to the Australian Energy Security Board on SMR technologies. 6. almost unlimited potential for cost reductions over time, if the impediments to progress are removed. Other economic benefits and policy implications are presented in Sections 3.5 and 3.6. The likely-root cause of the disruption, and the cost escalations and stalled deployment rate since about 1967 was, and still is, the activities of the anti-nuclear power protest movement (Appendix B, Note IX ). To achieve the substantial benefits available by transitioning to nuclear power requires a recognition of the disruption and its consequences, identification of its causes, and amelioration of the impediments that are slowing progress. NOTE: the link to the paper posted in first comment is wrong. The correct link is: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 6 March 2020 10:02:36 AM
| |
Well argued, evidence and science-based article! Solar panel production is accompanied by a mountain of toxic waste and considerable release of the most efficacious greenhouse gas!
Were coal and gas-fired power plants be subjected to the same rogue emissions regulations as nuclear power? Most would have to close tomorrow! Among a host of highly toxic smokestack emissions, coal-fired power stations also have been known to have spewed uranium. And fracked gas when burned gives off radon gas. But allowed to continue emitting and their radioactive emissions simply labelled, background emission only! The current production here of nuclear medicine isotopes is limited to beta particles and scrubbed radon gas. We don't produce alpha particle, bismuth 213, A tried and tested miracle cancer cure. Because we don't have an accelerator? or MSR thorium. The two methods of producing alpha particle, bismuth 213, include bombarding radium with particles in an accelerator and hugely expensive and therefore promoted by big pharma and its devotees, most of the medical fraternity? The other method ll but free and as a byproduct of MSR thorium. And given we mad it here would all but destroy the cancer industry! Millionaire medicine and billions shaved off of big pharma's profit curve. I mean we the taxpayer pay for much of the annual billions expended on often ineffective chemotherapy and even more on the palliative care dished out to patients who have had all the highly toxic and essentially ineffective chemo and are then sent home to die and in the case of brain or ovarian cancers, in numbers annually individually than the annual road toll. Many of who would experience remission in minutes, without the hair loss, or the nausea, with bismuth 213. All that prevents is manufacture here and the world's cheapest electricity are the usual recalcitrants in both political parties, who'd die in a ditch before lifting THEIR prohibition on safe, clean, cheap nuclear power And decimate the self-serving cancer industry, which exists only to collect (millions) charity for cancer research! This scandal needs exposing, as do the parasites, who wax fae on it? Alan B. Posted by Alan B., Friday, 6 March 2020 10:12:15 AM
| |
i dont get it, so many sources say that renewables is now the cheapest source of energy.
Are they lying? Are they excluding energy costs of production? i have my doubts about nuclear. if it is so good, why aren't the corrupt chinese all over it given the communist party runs the economy as it wishes. Posted by Chris Lewis, Friday, 6 March 2020 10:16:27 AM
| |
once the battery issue is solved in terms of capacity and cost, the non-renewable argument will look much weaker.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity Posted by Chris Lewis, Friday, 6 March 2020 10:33:13 AM
| |
Chris: Who knows what Hollywood thinks or believes? Particularly if that belief is the product of mountainous misinformation and huge humbug?
Sir Richard Bramston tells us about a meeting with a highly placed official from the flat earth society. And where he invited said official for a ride in one of his, low orbit rocket flights. Anyhow he accepted and they flew, the official glued to the porthole watching a round earth unfold under him. Upon landing, Sir Richard enquired, and what do you think now? Whereupon the official replied, and I paraphrase, the graphics were extremely lifelike and the special effects most realistic! And walked away beliefs intact and unchanged? When brainwashed for birth belief is inculcated into folk they will never be convinced by proof to the contrary, just take climate change and climate science as glaring examples. What we need is leadership and future vision as opposed to the cronyism and corruption that seems the self-evident playschool that currently substitutes for political leadership and informed debate in this country, to be kind! I've explained till I'm black in the face and can do no more than ask all those who want to be informed and via credible expert sources See Kirk Sorensen on google tech talks and this former NASA scientist and nuclear technologists informative explanation of Thorium and why it has to be our preferred CARBON FREE future fuel and all of the reasons why this is so! Or on the same format, Engineer Jam Petersen and his talk on MSR technology as a nuclear waste burning technology Or read, prize-winning investigative journalist and science write Richard Martin's book, Thorium, Super fuel, subtitled green energy. Or Professor (ret) Robert Hargrave's book, Thorium, cheaper than coal! TBC Alan B. Posted by Alan B., Friday, 6 March 2020 10:52:47 AM
| |
" ... why aren't the corrupt chinese all over it given the communist party runs the economy as it wishes."
Because they are smarter then the people they buy cheap coal from - us. Posted by ttbn, Friday, 6 March 2020 10:58:55 AM
| |
Solar IS Nuclear....
We already have it in abundance, let`s use it more than we do. Posted by ateday, Friday, 6 March 2020 11:41:30 AM
| |
let`s use it more than we do.
ateday, You tell us how & we'll do it ! Show us the plan ! Posted by individual, Friday, 6 March 2020 11:47:17 AM
| |
WEB HYPERLINKS
Everyone - your web links don’t work because the ‘s’ needs to be removed from the https part of the link, for example www.https:// needs to be www.http:// If you don’t do this the hyperlink doesn’t work when posting Cheers Galen Posted by Galen, Friday, 6 March 2020 12:37:58 PM
| |
Chris Lewis nuclear is only third cheapest to No 1 coal, & No 2 gas. Of course it is far far cheaper than wind or solar, so much better if you believe the scam that CO2 is heating the planet, which obviously the Chinese don't.
Our problem in the west is all the people living sardine like in little boxes in major cities. Poorly educated they have nothing to do in their leisure time but eat & look for entertainment, & such safe easy lives they are looking for some problem to worry about. Global warmists have taken advantage of their empty lives, to promote their scam. This is why the difference in response between city & country in Oz, & in the coastal cities left & right, & the fly over states in the US. These city folk are so disconnected from the real world that I'm sure many of them actually believe milk is manufactured in factories. I'll bet SR can even tell us which factories. Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 6 March 2020 5:05:33 PM
| |
AlanB, thorium possibility is quite interesting.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Saturday, 7 March 2020 9:20:51 AM
| |
Whether humans cause global warming or not, world is going to have to adapt as indicated by the approach that insurance companies will take with regard to not insuring new areas of risk.
that we can all agree on. Posted by Chris Lewis, Saturday, 7 March 2020 9:23:02 AM
| |
Hasbeen: Coal (@ 3 cents PKWH [not here]) is cheaper than, wait for it, Genius, CONVENTIONAL NUCLEAR POWER! As is gas. ( 5 cents PKWH, [not here])
A conventional 350 MW, light water reactor will need 2551 tons of fuel, over 30 years. And that even before it goes through the expensive enrichment/ceramic pelletising, is as rare as platinum. And produce as much as 2550 tons of nuclear waste. Of course, ROM coal is going to be cheaper than that? If you exclude the cost of not decarbonising our economy as a global community! The trillion it could cost today? Would be four trillion twenty years from now! And that's just here! MSR thorium as a FUJI 359 MW rejigged for fluoride salt, not sodium, will require just a single ton of thorium over 30 years, and extrapolating from Oak Ridge's consumption, of four times more abundant Thorium from which it will produce around 1% as waste. Waste which still has an end-use as long life space batteries. Thorium needs only to be smelted as the metal MSR expands as it acquires more heat via the reaction, thereby automatically slowing the reaction and cooling. Whereupon the nuclei draw closer speeding the reaction/heat production. without any human intervention or observation. And given the boiling point of fluoride is 1400C. And the hottest MSR is 1200C, it does not need to operate at any pressure other than the ambient! Shuts itself down automatically with loss of power for any reason! Hence the walkaway safety! We know this from the notes of Alvin Weinberg, the inventor and patent holder of the first CONVENTIONAL NUCLEAR REACTOR. who got it immediately when he was asked to head up the experimental MSR thorium at Oak Ridge, which ran between the 50s and the70s, without accident or incident! Yes, I know as soon as one of these carbon-free power sources is up and running coal however cheap, will be priced out of the market! As for the jobs? The mining robots they're replacing people with can be deployed elsewhere! Alan B. Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 7 March 2020 10:47:54 AM
| |
Alan if it can be actually proved that CO2 has any effect on the planet temperature, & does not actually cool the planet in higher concentrations, I believe that we will shortly be burning the low grade non economic seams of coal, in situ underground top increase the percentage in the atmosphere.
There is absolutely no reason to destroy the best form of civilisation yet devised to "decarbonise" the planet. Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 7 March 2020 11:00:20 AM
| |
It's about time the troglobites looked at the facts and through eyes that see the better safety record and huge economic advantageous o MSR thorium and burning nuclear waste as a paid-for in annual billions, service, where nuclear waste simply becomes unspent fuel that will keep the lights of for as long as planet earth remains habitable. And for the world's safest repository, us, for virtually free!
Burning itas fuel or MSR's until the still available energy potential is completely depleted, will reduce the half-life to just 300 years and a worthy goal in its own right! On one other point, a well known recalcitrant has suggested, if we produced enough coal dust and pollution in the atmosphere we'd coo the planet? At least I thought that was his/her rationale? However, given the likely death toll from that insanity? I think we'd achieve a similar outcome, via a shorter-lived, nuclear winter and a lower death toll? Radioactive ground can be cleaned up and reclaimed for agriculture with a few crops of robotically sown and harvested hemp! Alan B. Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 8 March 2020 12:00:19 PM
| |
Energy exports and the hydrogen economy?
Firstly, given absolute control and my druthers! I could double the kilojoules of hydrogen production via electrolysis for the same energy input! And under my patent! [Tick, tick, tick, time is of the essence!. You've wasted far too much of it already on patently puerile, political points scoring, and I don't grow any younger!] Albeit, to be economic and compete freely on the world market that energy source has to be nuclear waste burning, MSR technology! From which given a sizable domestic surplus, we could export to anywhere there was a market as carbon-free power vis undersea graphene cored cables. Graphene is both a superconductor and the strongest material on the planet! Reportedly, 200 times stronger than steel. Money earned in annual billions for becoming the world's safest repository for its nuclear waste would pay for all the above and more. And the income from the energy sales would do no harm to our energy export-oriented economy. Where we would be the price-makers, indefinitely Neither would liquified hydrogen that cost less by far than petrol! But only if Australian nuclear waste burning MSR's are the energy generation source! Nothing else comes close or is doable! And a massive export income earner for a long a is possible to foresee (MONEY HAS NEVER BEEN CHEAPER, NOR MORE AVAILABLE!) It's a once-only one-time chance and that window grows smaller daily as virtually useless politicians blameshift and endless, eternally prevaricate and to the point where the hot air coming out of Canberra, if harnessed in hot air turbines? Would alone, power the entire nation!? Alan B. Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 8 March 2020 12:39:44 PM
| |
Chris Lewis, Just to clarify, as it appears you are not yet aware of the facts Surrounding GW.
To put it simply, the planet has been cycling from hot to cold since it was formed. It's temperature cycles run in hundreds of years. Right now we are in a heating cycle, which it has been for many years. It happens too slow to be noticed. So when the planet heats up the oceans give off CO2, when it cools down it takes it back. There's been a couple of know-nothing know-all idiots who won't accept the science, and like the science, of rain, it too like CO2 comes from a warming body of water. So you see Chris, FIRST you get the heating/warming, THEN you get the release of CO2. Not the other way round. That was the jist of the "big con"! What these bastards did was take a truth and attach a lie to it so as to make it more frightening, in doing so they can much easier push their "trust me" lie. So don't be taken in by the sheeple, who are always looking for the next tragedy to worship and follow. Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 9 March 2020 4:34:53 PM
| |
Nuclear would be great but for the catastrophic disasters every 20 years, eg. see The Diplomat (paysite): http://thediplomat.com/2020/03/japans-3-11-recovery-stalled-by-fukushima-decommissioning-delays/ 13 March 2020
"Japan’s 3/11 Recovery Stalled by Fukushima Decommissioning Delays Delays in dismantling the disaster-stricken nuclear power complex cast doubt on whether recovery goals will move forward according to schedule The ultimate goal of removing all debris is expected to take anywhere between 30 to 40 years, but progress has been slower than originally planned. So far just one-fourth of decommission work has been completed, drawing attention to work that has not yet begun. ...the latest timetable for debris removal has been pushed back five years, citing the need for additional safety precautions. Previously, the process of removing spent fuel was scheduled from 2021 to 2024. But work on reactor two looks more likely to start in 2025 and last until 2027, followed by reactor one work commencing sometime between March 2028 and March 2029. ...It’s estimated that reactor two alone contains 237 metric tons of debris while reactors one and three contain a combined 880 tons. The complexity of debris removal requires developing specialized technology that does not yet exist. Also plaguing decommissioning efforts is the battle over how to safely dispose of 1 million tons of contaminated water that were used to cool nuclear fuel. Currently, huge tanks on the premises store the polluted runoff, which could fill 400 Olympic swimming pools, but space is expected to run out by mid-2022. On average 170 tons of contaminated water is produced to cool fuel in nuclear reactors. Without constant cooling, nuclear fuel risks melting from its own heat in a process called decay heat. With two years needed to prepare a disposal method, time is running out for a final decision. Government proposals to slowly release contaminated water into the ocean has sparked fierce backlash from locals and the agriculture and fishing industries, who argue traces of radioactive materials such as tritium still found in “treated” water could further harm a region still struggling to restore its international reputation..." Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 14 March 2020 8:57:08 AM
| |
VERY SIGNIFICANT NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP GO AHEAD RULING
The Canberra Times, March 13, 2020 reports http://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6677900/court-rules-against-bid-to-stop-nuke-dump/?cs=14231 "Court rules against bid to stop nuke dump" Kimba [in South Australia] has been chosen to host a dump for Australia's low to medium-level nuclear waste. Native title holders on South Australia's Eyre Peninsula have lost a court bid in their continuing fight to stop the federal government establishing a nuclear waste dump near Kimba. The government recently named a site on a farming property as the location for the dump which will take Australia's low to medium-level nuclear waste material. The government's decision was informed in part by a ballot of local residents which supported the proposal. But the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation [BDAC], the native title holders of the region, argued that their 200-strong community had been unfairly excluded from the ballot on their basis of the Aborgininality. They appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court against a single judge's decision to uphold the District Council of Kimba's earlier move. But the full court dismissed their appeal on Friday. "It is not correct to say that BDAC's members were excluded from the ballot," the court ruled. "Membership of BDAC was not a characteristic that disqualified any person from the franchise. Rather, the effect of the resolutions was that possession of native title rights and interests was not included among the various qualifying criteria." MORE TO FOLLOW Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 15 March 2020 6:37:18 PM
| |
FROM ABOVE
The Canberra Times, March 13, 2020 reports http://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6677900/court-rules-against-bid-to-stop-nuke-dump/?cs=14231 "The court found the original decision by a single judge was correct in that it concluded that anyone who fulfilled one of 14 criteria could take part in the vote, irrespective of a person's race. "Similarly, the classes of persons who were excluded from the franchise included persons who were Aboriginal and persons who were not," the appeal judges said. In his argument, counsel for the Barngarla, Daniel O'Gorman SC, had told the court that their request to take part in the ballot should have been granted. "This was a ballot of the community, the Kimba community. They are the native title holders of the land surrounding the sites in question," he said. "Therefore, we submit, they clearly had an interest in the ballot, they clearly had an interest in the dump and whether it goes ahead or not. "Their mere standing as native title holders, warranted them being included as part of the community." The ballot ultimately returned about 62 per cent support for the dump, which then Resources Minister Matt Canavan accepted as broad community backing. Those still opposed to the dump going ahead include some locals, environmental groups as well as indigenous communities. Legislation to allow construction of the waste facility is before the federal parliament. The underpinning laws allow for acquisition of land for the facility as well as a $20 million payment for the community to help establish and maintain the site, which is expected to operate for at least 100 years. Australian Associated Press" ENDS PETE COMMENT:The Federal Court decision may possibly be appealed at the High Court. Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 15 March 2020 6:39:31 PM
|
Much as I might learn to love the fission, the real weakness in Net Zero 2050 is not the energy mix. It's Garnaut's pivot that, with markets, we could coax Australia’s soils and forests to reabsorb 1,000 Mt GHG a year. That's 2x our physical emissions.
As things stand, landscapes can't reabsorb anywhere near 1x earth's vastly increased emissions. That's why we have rising CO2 and temperatures in the first place