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.