Fester,

Your concerns about renewable energy's intermittency are valid. However, the notion that we need around eight times the average demand in generating capacity for renewables is likely an overestimation. With advancements in grid management, smart technologies, and a diversified mix of renewable sources, managing variability is becoming more feasible.

Indeed, storage is a crucial factor for renewables. However, the rapid improvements in battery technology and strategies like demand response are enhancing the viability of renewables. While extensive storage is a challenge, the actual storage needs vary and are often less than several days of backup.

Comparing the long-term costs of nuclear with renewable energy is complex. Nuclear plants have substantial initial capital and decommissioning costs, whereas the capital costs of renewables are decreasing, making them more competitive over their lifecycle. I recognise that nuclear technology, like renewables, is advancing. However, we need to be realistic about the current feasibility, costs, and deployment timelines of these advancements, which entail high up-front capital costs, lengthy development and deployment timelines, and the need for further cost and economic studies.

The management of nuclear waste is a significant challenge, and while reprocessing used fuel is promising, it's still a developing field with its challenges, including proliferation risks. While the physical volume of nuclear waste is relatively small, the long-term management of its radioactivity and the search for permanent, safe storage solutions are significant challenges. These issues are widely acknowledged in scientific and policy discussions, beyond the scope of anti-nuclear advocacy.

Renewable energy technologies also face challenges, including waste management. However, the potential for significant advances in renewables, similar to nuclear, should not be underestimated. For example, the waste management challenges in renewables are more about material recovery and recycling, whereas nuclear waste management is primarily concerned with long-term containment of radioactivity.

Regarding your reference to the ABC News article, the decision to abandon pumped hydro in Western Australia was based on a feasibility study that highlighted environmental and logistical challenges. The "commercial in confidence" nature of the report is standard practice and doesn't suggest a conspiracy.

Syoksyo,
There is virtually no waste from Thorium powered reactors and what there is has decayed in 300 years.

Hi Syoksya,

"the report is standard practice and doesn't suggest a conspiracy"

Hmmm, not a conspiracy, but not transparent either.

You seem to think substantial reductions in cost for dispatchable wind and solar are possible and will make all the difference, so here is a question for you.

Just say the daily demand for power in Australia is one unit and you want to provide the power with a dispatchable wind and solar system. How many units of wind, solar and energy storage would you need? Note that if you say one unit for each, your system is twice the cost of long term nuclear plus the cost of storage. Even if the solar cost falls to zero, the cost of nuclear is still cheaper by the cost of storage. So what are your estimates for the number of units of wind, solar and storage?

" the long-term management of its radioactivity and the search for permanent, safe storage solutions are significant challenges"

Much of it is political, e.g.:

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx

"The largest Tenorm (technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials) waste stream is coal ash, with around 280 million tonnes arising globally each year, carrying uranium-238 and all its non-gaseous decay products, as well as thorium-232 and its progeny. This ash is usually just buried, or may be used as a constituent in building materials. As such, the same radionuclide, at the same concentration, may be sent to deep disposal if from the nuclear industry, or released for use in building materials if in the form of fly ash from the coal industry."

Interesting comments from Fester. Small Modular Nuclear seems to have two main advantages over renewables 1. Storage 2. Can be located near the user hence reducing/ removing last mile problem of energy distribution. It's not so easy to move a dam. The big problem of renewables is that many alternatives are their own storage medium- eg. Nuclear and Hydrocarbons. In the future it may be possible to mine hydrocarbons from the atmosphere. But it's a difficult to ask investors to commit capital to half baked technology. The only way to drive the investment seems to be to use government taxation and incentives- where the public doesn't have a choice- or potentially distorting the energy and other markets- this translates to political risk. It's hard to beat the raw energy density of nuclear but of course additional infrastructure is required. It seems that renewables investors know that consumers seek the lowest price point of their energy- and source is low on their list of priorities- that is why investors focus on manipulating legal means to establish a basis for their industry. Thorium hasn't been used broadly but the principle appears to be well established.

In future there may be some method for converting spent nuclear fuel rods into unspent rods in a type of rechargeable nuclear battery- maybe it could use renewable energy. In a sense nuclear energy already powers stars throughout the universe so it would be useful for humanity to gain a better grasp of this pervasive technology.

VK3AUU,

While thorium reactors, which operate on a thorium-232 to uranium-233 cycle, are indeed more efficient in some ways compared to traditional uranium reactors, they don't entirely eliminate radioactive waste.

The assertion that all waste from thorium reactors decays within 300 years isn't accurate. A significant byproduct of these reactors is uranium-233, which has a half-life of about 160,000 years – far exceeding 300 years. There are also other isotopes produced in the thorium fuel cycle, like protactinium-233 and thorium-228, with longer half-lives that need to be considered.

While it's true that thorium reactors may produce a lower volume of long-lived radioactive waste, it's misleading to suggest there is 'virtually no waste'. All nuclear reactors, including those based on thorium, generate radioactive waste that needs to be managed.

It's also crucial to note that the technology for thorium reactors is still not fully mature or widely implemented. This means our understanding of their long-term waste profile is not complete. They do hold potential for reducing the volume and longevity of radioactive waste, but they don't completely eliminate it, and certainly not to the extent of decaying within 300 years.