I suspect there are more unobvious costs to wind and solar than we realise. I read that one solar farm loses 15% of its revenue to frequency correction fees (FCAS) under the causer pays rule. If the LGC subsidy currently about $28 per MWh that renewable operators get is paid by coal and gas generators then we're paying twice for backup. Since transmission is supposed to be about 40% of electricity bills then new power lines will greatly add to them. Snowy 2 requires the $5n Hume Link so it should be included in the all up cost, say $12 + 5 = $17bn.

That pales compared to the cost of enough electrochemical batteries. My home battery cost $13.5k. For say 3 weeks energy storage for the whole of Australia the cost would be trillions, a lot more than 7 nukes. CSIRO say SMRs could cost over $600 per MWh of electricity. General Electric say their model will cost the same to run as combined cycle gas fired, say about A$150 max. The gubmint's cocksureness is like the rest of us being forced to travel in a bus with a drunk driver.

Charles Hemmings in wrong on a number of counts.

Firstly, the claim that renewables are unviable without subsidies and cost more than fossil fuels is incorrect. Over the past decade, solar and wind energy costs have dropped significantly. According to the IRENA, the cost of solar photovoltaic electricity fell by 82% from 2010 to 2019, and onshore wind by 39%. Renewables are now the most affordable new power generation option in many regions, even without subsidies.

While solar and wind power are intermittent, modern solutions like energy storage, demand response, and grid interconnectivity mitigate these issues. Advances in battery storage technology enable the storage of excess energy for use when production is low. Additionally, using a diverse mix of energy sources and spreading them geographically reduces the impact of intermittency.

The article's dismissal of the link between extreme weather events and human activities ignores clear scientific consensus. Human activities, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, are major drivers of climate change. The IPCC has provided extensive evidence of how human activities contribute to global warming, increased extreme weather events, and long-term climate shifts.

Arguing that only dispatchable sources like fossil fuels and nuclear power are essential overlooks renewables' potential when combined with modern technologies. While dispatchable sources currently play a critical role, renewable energy, together with storage solutions, grid enhancements, and smart technologies, can provide reliable and sustainable power. Countries like Germany and Denmark have successfully integrated high levels of renewables into their grids, proving this system's feasibility.

Criticising the LCOE for renewables due to intermittency is flawed. Renewables often become more cost-effective over their lifetime compared to fossil fuels when considering lower operational costs and rapid technological advancements. Additionally, the environmental and health costs associated with fossil fuels make renewables even more economically attractive.

While nuclear power can be part of a low-carbon energy mix, it comes with challenges like high capital costs, long development times, and issues related to waste disposal and safety. Renewable energy, combined with storage, efficiency improvements, and demand management, offers a more flexible and rapidly deployable solution. Transitioning to renewable energy is economically and environmentally beneficial.

Demand management is another hidden cost of a fickle energy supply. A couple of years ago a foundry was to be paid $8,750 per MWh to forego electricity use. Households are told they will get a bill credit if they refrain from aircon use on hot afternoons. If taken to the limit this could have a high economic and human cost eg all the aircon you want at 35C but not 45C.

Pundits say the limit of demand management is 15% of consumption. A couple of years ago Australia consumed 271 TWh of which 15% is over 40 TWh. To take a conservative figure suppose compensated demand reduction cost an average of 80c per kWh or $800 per MWh. That 40 TWh foregone would add $32bn to power bills. For that price you could buy several SMRs without the social and economic disruption. It's like WW2 rationing only just for electricity.

Creating a power grid with wind and solar will require the destruction of an area the size of Tasmania, which make it neither fast, cheap, nor environmentally friendly compared to nuclear. Also, renewables entail a substantial overbuild, with a transmission grid, generators and storage capable of carrying or supplying multiples of the average power demand. Maintaining such a large infrastructure is not cheap.

Technological change may improve the economics of renewables as it would for nuclear, but according to Idel:

"the effects of a substantial decrease in storage costs are examined,
which would heavily benefit intermittent generation and is used by proponents of renewables to
economically justify a faster transition and a higher share of renewables.5 However, even a storage
cost reduction of 90% would not make wind or solar PV competitive on a LFSCOE basis."

https://iaee2021online.org/download/contribution/fullpaper/1145/1145%5C_fullpaper%5C_20210326%5C_222336.pdf

Perhaps the biggest detraction of renewables is that their adoption has not brought competitive power prices, as has the adoption of nuclear power. Some positive real world examples would help renewables greatly.

Now that the Coalition has a policies, at last, not only on energy but also on cost of living, immigration and housing, there will be clear cut differences between the parties for voters to chose at the next election.

Charles, you haven't told us anything that we don't already know and you didn't really offer us much in the way of viable solutions.

I received a Diploma of Applied Chemistry from Swinburne Technical School in 1960 before it became a university. In 1966 I became Chief Chemist at Rum Jungle uranium mine so I know a good deal about the nuclear fuel cycle. 

I also know about a company called Copenhagen Atomics which saw light in 2014. They have been methodically developing a Nuclear Reactor using Thorium as the fuel instead of Uranium. I suggest you educate yourselves how this new technology works as it is far superior to using Uranium, producing far less hazardous waste which has to be stored only about 300 years.

David

Labor’s bestie, Communist China wants Australia, and indeed all Western countries, to embrace a 100 per cent renewables, to make them dependent on China for windmills a solar panels; while China itself continues to build coal-powered generators , plus 27 more nuclear reactors on top of its 56 existing ones.

David,

As you've studied chemistry, the question I'd ask you relating to Copenhagen Atomics is could any of the actinides make the salt corrosive? The high purity salt they tested worked well, but a fission reaction might change it.

That is a good question. I think they might have run some quite long term tests to see what happens there. I will have to do some more reading.

I did find this summary of a workshop last year hosted by Argonne National Laboratory:

https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2024/02/187645.pdf

Looking through the summary, oxygen and water are known to cause corrosion, but the effect of the actinides is largely unknown. Good to see active research and a plan to define and solve problems. The Chinese are testing an MSR, so they might be further ahead.

Again, all the w/s proponents just mention storage in passing.
Either they do not think it through, or want to just skim over because
it is too hard.
Take a night from say 5pm in summer, it is a hot day and aircons are flat out.
No wind all night, it is common, and the batteries are flat
next morning and hopefully the wind starts up and the sun shines.
Where will you get the energy to recharge the batteries in six hours ?
Oh dear, cannot get it from the grid, the amount you need is about
3 or 4 times what is available if you could use the grid.
No, you need wind and solar 3 to 4 times bigger than you already have.
Dear me, what if the next day is not sunny but also windless.
By 5pm that day the batteries will be flat and no wind.
So batteries with a storage for a long cold windless night need to
be one day capacity times the number of still windless nights so may
or may not be expected and the charging solar and wind need to be
that many times bigger.
I think you may now realise that bacup batteries might be a waste of money.
This is the real world and why solar and wind alone are impossible.

To summarise, trying to power Australia with wind and solar will entail:

-destroying a land area the size of Tasmania which will impact greatly on vulnerable native flora and fauna.

-building and maintaining wind and solar generation to produce six to eight times the average power demand.

-building and maintaining a storage system capable of handling a power input of at least six times the average power demand.

-building and maintaining a grid capable of handling six to eight times the average power of a grid powered by dispatchable sources.

-building and maintaining control systems to handle a highly variable power input.

-compromising Australia's energy security by being completely reliant on a foreign power for our generating infrastructure.

So however you look at it, pursuing wind and solar, as well as compromising our national security, is far more expensive and environmentally destructive than the nuclear option. It is no coincidence that the real world shows the adoption of nuclear to be an economic benefit whereas the adoption of wind and solar brings on an economic decline.

Remove the ban!

Fester,

The claim that renewable energy would destroy a land area the size of Tasmania and greatly impact native flora and fauna is exaggerated. Realistically, solar energy would require only about 0.1% to 0.3% of Australia’s land, much smaller than Tasmania (http://pv-map.apvi.org.au/optimalsites). Wind farms often coexist with agricultural land, minimising the actual area used. Many projects are placed on degraded land, and techniques like agrivoltaics help reduce environmental impact (http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/resources/technologies/wind-energy).

The assertion that we need to build renewable energy capacity six to eight times greater than average demand is overstated. While some overcapacity is necessary, effective grid management, including demand response and diverse energy sources, mitigates the need for excessive overbuilding (http://www.energynetworks.com.au/projects/modern-grid).

In terms of storage, the claim that a system capable of handling six times the average power demand is needed is inaccurate. Advances in battery technology and pumped hydro support grid stability effectively, without requiring such massive capacity (http://arena.gov.au/projects/large-scale-battery-storage-guide).

Upgrading the grid to handle variable power inputs does require investment, but this also modernises our infrastructure, making it more resilient and efficient. Smart grid technologies enhance overall efficiency and manage variability effectively (http://www.csiro.au/en/work-with-us/industries/energy/our-energy-future).

Concerns about energy security due to reliance on foreign infrastructure are misleading. Diversifying energy sources and local manufacturing of renewable components boost energy security and reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, mitigating geopolitical risks (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/332201085_Energy_Security_in_Australia).

The notion that renewables are more expensive and environmentally destructive than nuclear power is incorrect. Renewable costs have dropped significantly, often being cheaper than nuclear. While nuclear has low emissions, it faces challenges like long build times and waste management. Renewables offer substantial environmental benefits, including lower emissions and less habitat destruction (http://about.bnef.com/blog/behind-the-numbers, http://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-environment-outlook-6).

Transitioning to renewable energy provides substantial environmental, economic, and security benefits.

Critics make some telling points about the capital cost and slow arrival of nuclear. Then they're off with the fairies on several side issues. First is the bizarre findings of the GenCost study. If a generator needed $641 per MWh of electricity they wouldn't get any business. Upthread I gave the example of costings for the General Electric SMR but it seems CSIRO knows more than the manufacturer. Apparently if you disagree with CSIRO you are anti-science.

Next is waste disposal an issue which is non urgent and largely a beat up. Uranium comes out of holes in the ground in the outback and the fission products can go back there until needed for reprocessing. Some quite nasty stuff is in a shed on the outskirts of Sydney but somehow we're coping.

Other petulant howlers include that battery banks will have to be dismantled for nuclear. We'll need both and more in an all-of-the-above effort to double electricity output. The all renewables cohort needs to have excuses ready when we fall vastly short of 82% by 2030 and big industry threatens to leave.

John Daysh says that subsidies have not been important re renewables. I ask, if renewables are so good, why do they need subsidies. Does he know that in 2023 China accounted for 56% of coal emissions? Why did they do it? Because it was cheaper. When reality is too hard to bear, a lot of people make their own reality. Another one of John's make believe reality is storage. The fact is that, for the moment, at least, there is NO satisfactory large-scale storage for electricity. If there was, they would be bragging about it. John should get away from ideology and look at fact.

John Daysh says there are modern ways to overcome the intermittency of 'renewables". None of his explanations have anything to do with the present, just a future fantasy. The inconvenient truth is that intermittency not only means unreliability but also cost, big cost. Why don't people understand that?

Contrary to what John Daysh says, LCOE is invalid for comparing dispatchables with renewables. He should re-read the paper where the author gives a quantitative example.

Chuckles,

Subsidies for renewables are common as part of the transition to cleaner energy, similar to how fossil fuels have historically been subsidised. Renewable energy costs have dropped significantly, making them increasingly competitive without subsidies.

Regarding China, their coal use does contribute significantly to emissions, but they are also the largest investor in renewable energy, recognising its long-term benefits.

On storage, there are indeed advancements in large-scale solutions, such as grid-scale batteries and pumped hydro, which are proving effective in various locations. These technologies are improving rapidly, addressing the intermittency issue of renewables.

The concern about intermittency and reliability is valid, but modern grid management and diverse energy sources effectively mitigate these challenges. Intermittency doesn't equate to unreliability when properly managed, and the costs of renewables are decreasing, making them economically viable.

Finally, while LCOE isn't perfect, it remains a useful metric. It's important to consider all costs and benefits when comparing energy sources, including environmental and health impacts. Overall, the shift to renewables is a strategic move toward a more sustainable energy future.

The other thing that seems to have evaded the renewables devotees, is that both wind and solar have a very limited useful lifespan, perhaps as short as 20 years, so by the time that 2030 comes around, a lot of roof top solar and also early wind turbines will need replacing.
David

John,

I checked the required area for 100% wind and solar and it isn't the size of Tasmania. It's several times the size, and that's just for solar (source: Net Zero Australia).

Overbuild relates to the low capacity factor, day to day and seasonal variability of wind and solar, as well as cost optimisation as a degree of overbuild is greater than storage. This study suggested an overbuild of 25-43% for California (equating to 5-6 times average demand for solar):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148121009599

I would suggest that you need a bit more than this to cope with natural events like storms and bushfires.

"In terms of storage, the claim that a system capable of handling six times the average power demand is needed is inaccurate. Advances in battery technology and pumped hydro support grid stability effectively, without requiring such massive capacity "

If your solar and wind were generating at full output, that would equate to at least six times the average power demand. To carry the power output the grid would need to carry all the power and your batteries and pumped hydro would need to cope with a power input of about five times the average demand. The problem relates to making dispatchable power from intermittent, low capacity sources.

"Upgrading the grid to handle variable power inputs does require investment, but this also modernises our infrastructure, making it more resilient and efficient."

Yes, and at least double the cost.

"Concerns about energy security due to reliance on foreign infrastructure are misleading. Diversifying energy sources and local manufacturing of renewable components boost energy security and reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, mitigating geopolitical risks "

That's what the Germans thought before Putin invaded Ukraine. Developing nuclear would give Australians generating infrastructure lasting well over half a century as well as the possibility of developing a nuclear fuel industry with our abundant uranium resources.

"The notion that renewables are more expensive and environmentally destructive than nuclear power is incorrect. Renewable costs have dropped significantly, often being cheaper than nuclear. While nuclear has low emissions, it faces challenges like long build times and waste management. Renewables offer substantial environmental benefits, including lower emissions and less habitat destruction"

The renewable rollout will be incredibly destructive for Australia's flora and fauna due primarily to the enormous area and sensitive habitats involved. What flora and fauna are threatened by nuclear power or have ever been harmed by nuclear power? Chernobyl has left a legacy of a pristine natural reserve, and modern reactor designs have passive safety features that prevent meltdowns. Are you referring to three eyed fish or three eyed koalas? With wind and solar you will have no end of environmental destruction with plenty of dead koalas, dead fish and dead birds.

Fester,

The claim that solar and wind farms would require several times the size of Tasmania is a gross overestimation. The land area needed for large-scale solar and wind projects is much less than often claimed. In reality, a significant portion of land within a wind farm can still be used for agriculture or other purposes, effectively reducing the overall footprint. More details can be found at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf.

Regarding the comparison to Tasmania, which covers about 68,400 square kilometers, claims of needing areas twice this size lack context. The actual footprint of infrastructure like solar panels or turbine bases is relatively small, with much of the surrounding land remaining usable. Utilizing rooftops and previously disturbed lands, such as brownfields, greatly minimizes the need for new land and mitigates environmental concerns. More information is available at http://www.brookings.edu/research/renewables-land-use-and-local-opposition-in-the-united-states.

Minimising the space required this is manageable through smart planning and technology. Much of the land is dual-use, and strategic site selection helps balance land use impacts. It’s important to consider these factors rather than relying on broad estimates that don’t accurately reflect practical implementation.

Overbuilding renewable capacity is a strategy to manage supply and demand fluctuations. While some overcapacity is necessary, advancements in battery technology and pumped hydro storage help manage these fluctuations effectively, reducing the need for excessive capacity (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148121009599.)

Upgrading the grid involves costs but also modernizes our infrastructure, making it more resilient and efficient. These investments are essential for any modern energy system and offer long-term benefits (http://www.brookings.edu/research/renewables-land-use-and-local-opposition-in-the-united-states).

Germany's challenges with gas imports highlight the importance of energy diversification. By investing in renewables, countries can enhance energy security and reduce reliance on imports. Local production of renewable components further strengthens this security. (http://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2022)

Concerns about the environmental impact of renewables are valid, but overall, they tend to have lower emissions and less habitat destruction compared to other energy sources. Nuclear energy, while beneficial, also involves waste management challenges and high upfront costs. Incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima highlight potential risks, though modern designs are safer. (http://www.ipcc.ch/sr15)

VK3AUU,

Your point hasn't been lost on anyone. I've addressed it several times on this forum and there are many feasibility reports that address the issue, too.

Comparing the lifespans of energy sources involves considering several factors beyond just lifespan. For wind and solar, the lifespan is around 20-30 years for solar panels and 20-25 years for wind turbines. When replacements are needed, advancements in technology mean that newer systems are often more efficient, reducing costs over time. Additionally, materials such as metals and glass can be recycled, minimising environmental impact. While initial costs are lower, maintenance and gradual upgrades are part of their lifecycle, allowing continuous improvement in efficiency.

In contrast, nuclear plants have a longer lifespan of 40-60 years but require substantial investments in maintenance and upgrades, including replacing reactor components and cooling systems. These processes involve high costs and strict safety regulations. Maintenance and upgrades also generate radioactive waste, which requires careful long-term management. Furthermore, the mining and processing of uranium have environmental impacts that need to be considered.

Nuclear waste management poses significant environmental and financial challenges. Decommissioning nuclear plants at the end of their lifecycle involves complex and costly processes, including dismantling structures and managing radioactive materials safely. Additionally, nuclear power plants have high upfront construction costs, often taking years to complete, which can be much higher than the combined installation and replacement costs of renewable energy sources over their lifetimes. Operational costs, including fuel, security, and waste management, add to the overall expense of nuclear power.

Renewable energy sources benefit from rapid technological improvements, driving down costs and increasing efficiency. Replacement systems often outperform older ones, providing better returns on investment. The shorter construction and deployment times of renewables enable faster adaptation to technological changes and energy needs.

While nuclear power offers longevity and stable energy output, it comes with high costs for maintenance, upgrades, and waste management. In contrast, renewables like wind and solar, despite their shorter lifespans, allow for quicker technological adaptation and have lower environmental risks. This flexibility can outweigh the benefits of nuclear's longer operational life in many scenarios.

When Copenhagen Atomics get their equipment up and running in a few years time all your ideas will have to change. No waste, lower running costs, lower construction costs.
David

VK3AUU,
At this stage I can't see it happen any other way happening in Europe. Australia is or rather will be a different scenario if Labor gets re-elected as their indoctrination tactics & record immigration create a demographic that'll be uncontrollable. If the Coalition gets in we have a slight chance of some positive things happening in regard to enlightening the masses & foster a more realistic/sane mentality.
The contamination of the gene pool by the Greens is probably the greatest threat this Nation has been afflicted with. Only conservative mentality can sort that mess. The use of nuclear energy can help restore the focus in this Nation !
Oh and, a Flat tax !

Let's take a deep breath here.

99.9% of us know only what we are by told by the media, the political class and ideologues - all liars to a man. What we say here means diddle-squat. Nobody in charge gives a damn about what we think. Why? Because we keep voting for the same people; most of us, tongues between teeth, faithfully copying out Liberal, Labor, Greens, and now those absurd Teals' how-to-vote-cards.

You want change? Get off your arses and get elected. Or at least vote intelligently.

John,

"Incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima highlight potential risks"
Are incidents like Chernobyl(46 deaths) or Fukushima(0 deaths, >20,000 deaths from the tsunami) commonplace? You haven't presented evidence of ecological harm from the nuclear industry, so I'm guessing there isn't any. The "Red Forest" was the most contaminated site following Chernobyl, yet according to Wikipedia:

"it has proved to be an astonishingly fertile habitat for many endangered species. The evacuation of the area surrounding the nuclear reactor has created a lush and unique wildlife refuge."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest

If you want to see landscape resembling a post-nuclear apocalypse in films and tv series, Mike Moore shows many examples from renewables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

The destruction of trees thousands of years old along with the devastation of their habitats by the renewable energy industry is commonplace and ongoing. With nuclear power you get none of this damage.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-05-31/solar-project-to-destroy-thousands-of-joshua-trees

"The claim that solar and wind farms would require several times the size of Tasmania is a gross overestimation."

It isn't my claim. It comes from research by Net Zero Australia, a collaboration of the University of Melbourne, the University of Queensland, Princeton University and international management consultancy Nous Group. They obtain their raw data from the renewable energy industry.

"While some overcapacity is necessary, advancements in battery technology and pumped hydro storage help manage these fluctuations effectively, reducing the need for excessive capacity"

I linked the full paper, indicating a 25-43% renewable overbuild. For the Australian grid that amounts to 10 to 20 ap1000 nuclear reactors running 24/7/365 for no purpose. Is it any wonder that wind and solar are so bad economically?

You paint an optimistic picture of net zero with wind and solar, yet you provide no real world examples or cost estimates. Nor do you acknowledge the environmental impacts of wind and solar, such as the area of land affected, instead insisting that it is good for the environment. And your frequent suggestions of environmental harm from nuclear without providing evidence is dishonest.

All waffle and no substance John.

Keeping it simple: no one has successful implemented an all-renewable grid. Some dispatchable power is essential for reliability. Intemittency by nature, involves many extra costs to incorporate it into the grid. German and French experience would suggest nuclear is cheaper that renewables. Germany and Denmark have the highest electricity consumer costs in the EU and the highest % of renewables. France is 60% nuclear and does not have the highest costs in the EU and exports to Germany when the sunbeams and not there and there is no breeze. This full-scale experience has more validity than all the other arguments that can be presented.

Fester,

You write, "All waffle and no substance John."

You are so right. And like most waffle, it is second or third hand, copied from Google or some other Leftist, activist machine.

The idea is of for people to freely express their opinions, not someone else's or some organisation's.

You can tell when posts are not original opinions by the stilted way they are expressed.

Fester,

I provide real-world examples and/or cost estimates every time I clarify a real-world situation that has been misrepresented. A comparison between California and Ontario was my most recent. No waffle required.

You provided no link to the claim that an area several times the size of Tasmania, so I have a more general response based on the information that I linked to, which explained why the idea - regardless of who it is from - is incorrect. I would be happy to respond to any links you could provide.

Speaking of links, there were a number of misleading claims in the Michael Moore documentary you linked to.

1. Advancements in battery storage, grid management, and diversified energy sources have significantly mitigated issues with intermittency. Many regions now successfully integrate high levels of renewables, greatly reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

2. The lifecycle emissions of renewable energy technologies are substantially lower than those of fossil fuels. Additionally, recycling programs and advances in materials are further reducing their environmental footprint.

3. Regarding biomass and biofuels, sustainable biomass practices and the development of second-generation biofuels can significantly minimise their environmental impact. These energy sources are part of a broader mix of renewable solutions, not standalone answers.

4. The claim that overpopulation is the primary issue leading to excessive resource consumption is also addressed. Population control is a complex and often controversial topic. Rather than drastic population reduction, solutions focus on sustainable development, efficient resource use, and equitable distribution of resources.

5. The assertion that renewable technologies are deeply dependent on fossil fuel industries. While the transition away from fossil fuels is indeed gradual, it involves reducing dependency through technological and infrastructural advancements. The key to a sustainable future lies in balancing energy needs, technological progress, and environmental considerations, rather than dismissing the potential of renewable energy sources altogether.

As for Chernobyl, it must be noted that the wildlife sanctuary left behind by the disaster is the result of a lack of humans, not radioactivity. It's a testament to wildlife resilience despite the resulting health issues, not to the benefits of nuclear disasters.

John

"I provide real-world examples and/or cost estimates every time I clarify a real-world situation that has been misrepresented. A comparison between California and Ontario was my most recent. No waffle required."

In 2023, California derived ~34% of its power from wind and solar, not 100%, so it is not an example of a wind and solar system, but I'd accept 75%.

https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA

As for Ontario,

"In 2019, about 92% of electricity in Ontario was produced from zero-carbon sources: 59% from nuclear, 24% from hydroelectricity, 8% from wind, and 1% from solar. The remainder is primarily from natural gas and some biomass."

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-ontario.html

So yes it is waffle and even at about 40% renewables Californians have the most expensive power on the mainland and half the cost of Ontario which produces over twice the percentage of zero carbon energy.

"You provided no link to the claim that an area several times the size of Tasmania"

Not a link, but from research by Net Zero Australia. If you want a link, the IPA suggests an area nearly 17 times the area of Tasmania would be affected, although I would estimate five to eight times the area. That would be an ecological catastrophe and impossibly expensive.

https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/ipa-research-one-third-of-prime-agricultural-land-sacrificed-for-net-zero-pipe-dream

"As for Chernobyl, it must be noted that the wildlife sanctuary left behind by the disaster is the result of a lack of humans, not radioactivity."

Exactly, so how is nuclear so harmful to the environment in light of current safety standards?

Fester,

Again, California and Ontario’s energy systems differ significantly. Ontario relies on nuclear (60%) and hydroelectric (24%) power, providing consistent energy but facing challenges like nuclear waste disposal and plant decommissioning. Its legacy reactors, while efficient, require careful management over time. California, in contrast, utilises a broader mix, including solar (15%) and wind (7%), which reduce carbon emissions despite their intermittency.

California’s abundant sunlight supports its solar power strategy, while Ontario benefits from reliable hydroelectric resources. These geographical factors shape their energy policies.

California has invested heavily in battery storage and grid management to address renewable energy's intermittency, driven by mandates aiming for 60% renewable energy by 2030. These efforts, along with ambitious targets, contribute to higher electricity prices, about 20 cents per kWh, but support long-term climate goals by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Ontario's nuclear infrastructure offers low-emission energy without the same immediate costs, averaging about 13 cents per kWh. However, it faces long-term challenges with waste management. California’s renewable focus aligns with broader environmental objectives, resulting in significant emissions reductions and positioning it as a leader in clean energy innovation.

As for the IPA article, it relies on worst-case scenarios and ignores technological advancements and the potential synergy between agriculture and renewable energy.

Firstly, it exaggerates the land needed for renewable energy in Australia. Technologies like agrivoltaics can improve land efficiency, and studies show that less than 0.1% of Australia’s land could meet all electricity demands with solar panels (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303344). The AEMO projects energy demand growth at about 1.3% annually (http://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/major-publications/integrated-system-plan-isp), significantly lower than the article’s claim of 4.25%.

Advancements in solar panel efficiency and combined wind-solar farms reduce land requirements (http://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2020.00142/full). Renewable projects bring economic benefits, creating jobs and providing steady income for landowners (http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/1/3). In 2022, such projects created over 25,000 jobs, with farmers earning significant income from land leases.

Additionally, exporting clean energy, like hydrogen, offers substantial economic potential, positioning Australia as a future leader in the global energy market. The National Hydrogen Strategy estimates an annual market potential of AUD 11 billion (http://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/australias-national-hydrogen-strategy). Overall, renewable energy presents both environmental and economic opportunities for Australia.

To answer your question, Fester:

Accidents can still happen due to human error or natural disasters like earthquakes, as seen with Fukushima. There's also the threat of terrorism, which could lead to catastrophic contamination. Waste management remains a big challenge since spent nuclear fuel stays hazardous for thousands of years, and finding secure storage for this waste is difficult. Leaks from storage sites could contaminate soil and groundwater, causing serious environmental issues.

Uranium mining significantly impacts the environment. It destroys habitats and ecosystems, and the chemicals used can pollute water supplies. The dust and emissions from mining also contribute to air pollution. Additionally, uranium is a finite resource, which raises concerns about depletion. As high-quality uranium becomes scarce, mining must expand, leading to more habitat destruction and environmental degradation. Extracting from lower-grade ores requires more energy and resources, increasing pollution and waste generation, further harming ecosystems.

In practice, nuclear energy still causes harm. We have large amounts of radioactive waste stored without permanent solutions, and some storage facilities have leaked, leading to contamination. Nuclear plants also use a lot of water for cooling, which heats up local water bodies and affects aquatic life.

Uranium mining and processing continue to damage the environment, with radioactive waste from processing spreading contamination if not managed well. Nuclear plants release small amounts of radiation during normal operations, which can affect nearby communities over time. Moreover, past accidents, like Chernobyl, remind us of the long-term environmental consequences of nuclear energy.

Fester in particular, but others as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMv5c32XXoE

A talk by one of the principals of Copenhagen Atomics.

David

VK3AUU,

Thanks for the link to the talk. I was particularly excited by the "Safety of Nuclear" segment, but felt let down by the extent to which Thomas Jam Pedersen dismissed the safety concerns rather than tackling them head-on. An example being how he refers to the idea of making nuclear energy safer as a "hoax" and claims that nuclear power is not dangerous without addressing the complexities of radiation risks and waste management.

While modern nuclear energy is safer than commonly perceived, dismissing concerns outright may undermine public trust. Additionally, the discussion on waste management and cost comparisons to other energy sources appears overly optimistic, without considering deployment challenges and regulatory approvals.

Pederson interestingly points out that a small amount of thorium could provide a lifetime of energy, but this oversimplifies the current technological challenges and readiness of thorium reactors.

Criticism of conventional uranium reactors is prominent, with claims that thorium and molten salt reactors offer significant advantages. However, the complexities of transitioning to thorium, including technological and regulatory hurdles, are not fully addressed by Pederson.

The comparison to renewables focuses on cost and speed of deployment, presenting thorium as a cost-effective alternative. However, he overlooks the complementary role of renewables in a diversified energy grid.

Overall, the talk presents good reason to be excited by the prospect of thorium reactors, but downplays significant challenges in technology development, regulatory processes, safety concerns, and waste management. While thorium has potential, realising this potential requires overcoming substantial practical and political obstacles, which are unfortunately ignored or glossed-over by Pederson.

John,

No , as usual you don't answer the question. I asked you provide evidence of the harm being done by the nuclear industry. You provide hypotheticals and untruths, backed by no evidence. e.g. "Nuclear plants release small amounts of radiation during normal operations, which can affect nearby communities over time." Where has this happened? Complete BS. No problems finding harm from renewables though, even in Tassie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhQzNrB-i8g

As for running out of Uranium, that might take a bit longer than you think, not least because higher Uranium prices make waste reprocessing economic (current reactors only use a small fraction of the contained energy of the fuel), and there is always granite (each tonne contains fissionable material with the energy equivalent of about 5 tonnes of coal) or even seawater:

https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/promising-material-provides-a-simple-effective-method-capable-of-extracting-uranium-from

Gosh, imagine all the harm being done to sea life by the wicked uranium in the water. Albo had better ban surfing.

David,

Thank you for the link. It might be a workable idea, but nuclear is not easy as this physicist explains:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCpVTO_BHto

I'm always wary of the sales pitch, especially the wind and solar sales pitch.

Fester,

If I list for you 17 ways in which nuclear energy is bad for the environment, and you (erroneously) find fault with two of them, it is dishonest to then pretend that I haven't answered your question. Let alone act as if not answering your questions was a habit of mine.

Yes, nuclear power plants release small amounts of radiation during normal operations, which can affect nearby communities over time. Cumulative radiation exposure, even at low levels, can increase health risks, particularly cancer and leukaemia, as indicated by studies like the KiKK study in Germany (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696975/).

Radioactive materials can also contaminate the environment, entering the food chain and potentially causing long-term biological effects (http://www.epa.gov/radiation/environmental-radiation-protection-standards-nuclear-power-operations-40-cfr-part-190). Radiation exposure can lead to genetic and teratogenic effects, impacting fetal development and increasing the risk of congenital abnormalities. Additionally, the presence of a nuclear power plant can cause psychological stress and anxiety among residents.

As for uranium depletion, this is still an environmental concern regardless of how far off it is.

Nevertheless, while waste reprocessing and breeder reactors hold promise, they are expensive and not widely implemented due to technical and safety issues. Economically, extracting uranium from unconventional sources like granite or seawater is costly and often not feasible without significant subsidies, and fluctuating uranium prices can deter investment.

Environmental impacts are significant. Increased mining for lower-grade ores leads to habitat destruction, pollution, and higher energy use. Reprocessing and breeder reactors produce radioactive waste, posing long-term safety challenges. Moreover, developing new technologies takes time, prolonging reliance on traditional mining with its environmental harms.

Given the urgency of climate change, immediate and sustainable solutions are crucial. Investing in renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and hydroelectric power, which are advancing rapidly and becoming more cost-effective, offers a more sustainable path. Improving energy efficiency and reducing consumption can also lower the demand for nuclear power and uranium. Immediate action is essential to tackle current environmental challenges and ensure a stable energy future.

Was there anything else you’d like me to expand on?

Mr Daysh like all other believers in the immaculate holiness of weather dependent intermittents, refuses to accept the real limitations. These limitations conflict with their predetermined, quasi-religious, clean, green, "cheapest form of energy" ideology, which has no foundation.

Chuckles,

I have addressed the weather-dependency and intermittency limitations of renewables here more times than I care to count. So, your claim that my position is quasi-religious and has no foundation and is out of line.

Yes, weather-dependency and intermittency are challenges for solar and wind power, but significant progress is being made with technologies like energy storage systems, smart grids, and diversified energy portfolios to address these issues. Advances in battery storage technology allow excess energy generated during peak production times to be stored and used when production is low, smoothing out supply fluctuations (http://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2023/full-speed-ahead-modeling-faster-future-lithium-ion-batteries.html). Smart grids, using advanced digital technology, manage and distribute energy more efficiently, balancing supply and demand in real-time (http://www.energy.gov/oe/activities/technology-development/grid-modernization-and-smart-grid).

Studies and market analyses show that the cost of renewable energy has dropped significantly over the past decade. For example, the IRENA reports that the cost of electricity from solar photovoltaics fell by 82% between 2010 and 2019 (http://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019). In many areas, solar and wind power are now among the most cost-effective energy sources. A study from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that in the U.S., the cost of wind energy has decreased by 70% over the past decade (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421509004133).

My support for renewables is based on empirical evidence and scientific research, not ideology. A balanced energy strategy that includes a mix of renewable sources, energy efficiency measures, and technological innovations is essential. This approach addresses the limitations of any single energy source and enhances energy security and resilience. For example, integrating geothermal energy, which provides a stable and continuous energy supply, can complement the intermittent nature of solar and wind (http://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-basics). Further to this, hydropower, which can be adjusted to meet demand, further strengthens the reliability of a renewable energy grid (http://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/hydroelectric-power-how-it-works).

On another note, if you're Charles Hemmings, then that would make you the second author on this forum who felt compelled to join the Comments section in order to hurl mud when their claims were challenged. What kind of place is this? Apparently I have found my way into an echo chamber of sorts and it's rubbing some the wrong way.

Yes you have addressed the issue of intermittency by saying dismissively that it will be solved, unbounded optimism, close, possibly to fantasyland. So you haven't really accepted it as a very major limitation. You have just made light of it. Saying you seem led by ideology rather than technology and economics is hardly slinging mud. You are just annoyed that your point of view is questioned.
The same unbounded optimism applies to battery storage. No problem, we will solve it eventually you believe. We can only employ current technology in the here and now. Looking at the issues with rose coloured glasses is not helpful.
El fin.

Chuckles,

No, I have not said that the issue of intermittency will be resolved; let alone “dismissively”.

What I have done is given real-world examples of how the issue of intermittency has greatly improved, and why we can expect it to continue to improve. But perhaps you can tell me why all technological advancement in this particular area will suddenly stop for good, despite the investment in it and the need for it? No?

I agree that it would not be mud-slinging if you were to say that I “seem led by ideology rather than technology and economics is hardly slinging mud,” but that’s not quite what you said. What you had actually said left a lot more room for insinuation.

I can assure you that I never get annoyed with someone questioning my point of view. In fact, earlier in this very discussion thread I invited it.

As for your take on my comments regarding advancements in battery storage, my second paragraph above also applies. No rose-coloured classes required; just a basic understanding of needs, technology, and a bit of economics.

Dear John

The intermittency is the critical weakness of 'renewables', it is not a trivial matter that can be dealt with in the future. I have seen nothing that suggests we have ameliorated this enormous limitation in any cost-effective way. Intermittency means redundancy or reduced capacity utilisation factor (costs), battery storage (costs) and the costs of incorporating said 'renewables' into an electricity utility. Also reduced reliability of electricity 24/7. In other words, perhaps unafforable in the here and now.

Just saying these problems will be resolved in the future is just pie in the sky. We have to deal with the present.

And yes, what I said about Ideology can be interpreted in a few ways I suppose. Ideology tends to make you ignore real facts, though, in general.

I am pleased that you do read what others write, as I do. When you use the writings of others to support your position, you have to consider what their vested interests are, though.

Believing what anyone who works in a gov. dependent organization says is dodgy. The best diplomat I have seen in all this is Westerman of AEMO. He and his people know the reality, in detail, better than you or me, perhaps. He is a consumate diplomat. AEMO do a wonderful job to keep the lights on, but, for those of us who have background, the picture needs more than that to convince us that we are on the right track.

Maybe I am naive, but I find world experience more convincing than the ravings of any academic or other creature with a vested interest

First point I will make is that coal fired pwr stations are more
radioactive than nuclear stations. The villain is the slag heap.
Regarding waste, a big part of the solution is to build two special
nuclear pwr stations.
You put the waste into the first and pull a lot more energy out and
when it is exhausted for that special reactor you put its waste into
the second reactor and get even more energy out. Leaving very low
activity waste.
Then you collect lots of money from other countries that are only
too willing to pay you to deplete their waste while generating electricity.
A real money for ja

Bazz,

For me it is the enormous amount of environmental damage from wind and solar compared to nuclear. As Dick Smith explains, powering a grid solely with wind and solar is enormously costly and probably not even feasible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TchHz0_hmY

And Senator Fawcett discusses OECD modelling which shows that Australia will face exponential rises in electricity costs with the pursuit of wind and solar, all avoidable with nuclear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXsJItT_vTk