Mikko2,

Thanks for your reply. It's true that the U.S. has bipartisan support for nuclear energy, reflecting its role in a balanced energy mix. However, it's important to consider the broader context.

While nuclear energy has a strong safety record today, past incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima highlight the potential risks. The management of radioactive waste also remains a challenge.

Regarding fatalities, it’s crucial to compare overall impacts. Fossil fuels still cause far more deaths annually due to air pollution than renewable technologies or nuclear power combined. While incidents with lithium batteries are serious, they are relatively rare and ongoing improvements in safety standards are addressing these issues.

Renewables, nuclear, and improved safety measures all play a role in a sustainable energy future. Misinformation from any side undermines informed discourse. Let's focus on a balanced discussion based on facts.

I have just come across this article and feel the need to counteract some of what John Daysh is claiming. It is only showing his love for renewables and dislike for Nuclear – not really correcting facts.
If PM Albanese and Chris Bowen etc. were so sure that NUCLEAR is not acceptable, why won’t they move to UNLOCK THE BAN ON NUCLEAR SO A PROPER DISCUSSION CAN BE HELD?
Australia is THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE G20 GROUP with a BAN ON NUCLEAR. I am annoyed that John Howard was the PM when that ban was put in place. These politicians are long gone when the rest of us are still here to contend with their decisions.
If wind and solar are so good, John Dasch, why have all power charges risen exponentially?
After initial setup of a small Nuclear Reactor, that lasts for 80 to 100 years – a one-time setup cost. Wind and Solar have initial costs then every 15 to 20 years have to be replaced PLUS dumping grounds found for the waste.
Why do you only worry about “nuclear waste” when it has been proven to be working in the other 51 countries who are investing in SMRs?
Australia is going to become a wasteland full of turbine blades and DANGEROUS SOLAR panels.
Radioactive waste is MINISCULE in comparison with wind and solar.
ENERGY FOOTPRINTS: The land use of biomass, hydro, wind and solar are between one and three orders of magnitude GREATER than Nuclear.
https://onewomanjourney.com.au/tag/energy-footprints/

Past Accidents: Yes – half a century ago – fifty years – do you think changes haven’t been made over those decades? The anti-nuclear group always bring up Chernobyl and Fukushima. There are 7,000 workers in CHERNOBYL. 4,000 live in the inner exclusion zone at least half of the time. About 70,000 tourists visit the inner zone each year. FUKUSHIMA – most died from the earthquake and tsunami – NONE died from the NUCLEAR accident. https://onewomanjourney.com.au/2022/03/21/f-nuclear-accidents/

OK - Lets stick to facts - like historically the current tiny level of atmospheric CO2 at about 420 parts per million is very low and has been more than 10 times higher in the past, when plants and animals and coral reefs thrived; that it is an essential plant food and if it drops to around 200 ppm life would be unsustainable; that ancient ice cores prove increases in temperature have always preceded rises in CO2 by up to thousands of years; that water vapour is a much more potent and prevalent greenhouse gas than CO2 could ever be (tax the clouds?); that the theory anthropogenic CO2 drives climate change is a hypothesis based on faulty computer modelling which has never and can never be proven; in an era of so called "global boiling" extreme cold weather is responsible for more deaths than any hot weather; that a bad hail storm can wipe out a big solar farm in minutes (as has happened recently in Texas https://www.youtube.com/watch?) - imagine what a cyclone will do to huge wind turbines on mountain ranges and out to sea; that the energy used in producing solar panels, wind turbines, concrete for their bases, mining and refining of rare earths using child and slave labour mean they will never achieve a positive effect on emissions in their relatively short lifetimes; that old buried wind panel blades break down and leach PBAs into the soil and waterways https://docs.wind-watch.org/Bisphenol-A-Pollution-Wind-Turbines.pdf; they also regularly catch on fire as one did in Victoria yesterday when they are not slicing raptors and bats https://www.windpowerengineering.com/the-true-cost-of-wind-turbine-fires-and-protection/. That's just for starters ...

Farnortherner,

I have already addressed many of your comments here, but will again do so in reply to you.

While nuclear reactors can last 80 years or more, the upfront costs are high, often leading to budget overruns and lengthy construction times. In contrast, renewable energy, especially solar and wind, has seen significant cost reductions over the past decade, making it more economically viable. Additionally, the operational and maintenance costs of renewables are lower than those of nuclear plants.

Nuclear waste, although small in volume, remains hazardous for thousands of years and requires secure long-term storage. In comparison, renewable energy technologies are advancing in recycling capabilities. For instance, solar panels and wind turbine blades are increasingly being recycled, with new technologies improving efficiency. Companies are developing methods to recover valuable materials from old panels, and turbine blades are being repurposed for construction.

While renewable projects require land, careful site selection and environmental impact assessments help minimise ecological damage. When considering their entire lifecycle, renewables have a smaller environmental footprint compared to fossil fuels and nuclear energy. They significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, contributing to better overall environmental health. Moreover, advancements in energy storage and grid management are addressing concerns about intermittency, making renewables more reliable.

The safety of nuclear energy has improved over the decades with modern reactors featuring passive safety designs. However, the potential risks of nuclear accidents, although low in probability, can be catastrophic. Incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima remind us of the severe consequences of failures. Public concerns about radioactive waste and potential accidents continue to shape perceptions of nuclear energy.

So, while nuclear energy can be part of a balanced energy strategy, it's crucial to consider economic, environmental, and safety factors. Renewables offer a sustainable path forward, with ongoing advancements in technology and recycling enhancing their viability.

Did you even check out the links to Chernobyl and Fukushima? Give me a break with your prepared anti-nuclear comments. I have to go out this morning so I will check back later to see what else is happening.
You didn’t answer why the leftists are not supportive of unblocking discussion on Nuclear so that the truth can be told in parliament as well.
Chris Bowen makes a fool of himself every time he opens his mouth regarding Nuclear and it seems you may be believing him. He has been sent the links to the facts about Nuclear – from a SCIENTIST – but he is totally ignorant of facts.

Mikko2,

CO2 levels have been higher in the past, but today's rapid increase is driven by human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation, occurring over decades rather than millions of years. Historically, high CO2 levels often led to mass extinctions, indicating significant risks.

While CO2 is essential for plants, excessive levels contribute to severe weather, ocean acidification, and rising sea levels, which harm biodiversity and agriculture, outweighing short-term benefits to plant growth.

Previously, temperature increases preceded CO2 rises, but now human activities are the primary cause of warming, with CO2 as a major factor, supported by extensive research, including ice core data and atmospheric studies.

Water vapor, a powerful greenhouse gas, acts as a feedback mechanism. As CO2 levels rise, they cause warming, which increases water vapor, amplifying the effect. Thus, controlling CO2 emissions is crucial for managing climate change.

The concept that human-produced CO2 drives climate change is backed by decades of research and observational data, such as rising global temperatures and melting ice caps. Most climate scientists agree that human activities influence climate change.

Although cold weather can be deadly, heat-related illnesses and deaths are rising due to increasing global temperatures, with climate change making heatwaves more frequent and intense, posing serious health risks.

Renewable energy systems can be designed to withstand extreme weather. Solar panels can be reinforced, and wind turbines can be equipped with technologies to reduce storm damage. Using a mix of energy sources and battery storage helps minimize severe weather impacts on renewables.

Overall emissions from renewables are much lower than fossil fuels. Manufacturing processes are improving, focusing on ethical material sourcing. While building renewables requires energy, their environmental impact is much smaller compared to fossil fuels.

Recycling technologies for wind turbine blades are improving, facilitating repurposing. Ongoing research aims to develop more sustainable materials, with wind energy's environmental benefits, such as reducing carbon emissions, outweighing waste-related challenges.