Mr Castellari (“No thanks to nuclear” CCN 429) could very well be right.
We are very nuclear-phobic, and that is politics and we might never have any nuclear electric power even though we hope to have nuclear submarines.
Denmark and Germany are equally nuclear-phobic.
They have the highest percentage of “renewables” in their electricity generating mix and also the highest consumer electricity costs.
Germany is negotiating a deal with Nigeria, whereby Germany provides “renewables” technology in return for gas.
Gas-fired electricity produces less emission of CO2 than coal for the same output of electricity and it is dispatchable.
What is not generally well understood is that the purpose of an electricity utility is to supply electricity on demand, 24/7, reliably, affordably and now carbon-free.
An electricity utility needs to be able to adjust to ever-varying demand, continuously.
Utility output must always balance demand or the system fails.
Fossil and nuclear are adjustable, dispatchable.
Intermittent renewables cannot adjust so are not fit for electricity on demand but can be part of the generation mix.
However, incorporating intermittent renewables into the generation mix incurs significant extra financial and environmental costs that you are not told about.
This is not political, it is the factual limitations of renewables.
All attempts at 100 per cent renewables have failed worldwide.
At COP28 it was agreed that nuclear is an acceptable electricity generation method as it is carbon free.
France has more than 50 per cent nuclear and reasonable costs.
The country plans to build 14 more nuclear power plants and has abandoned attempts to cut emissions.
Vive la France!
Very sensible.
Futile attempts for net zero with 100 per cent renewables leaves Australia poorer and net zero will have an imperceptible effect on global atmospheric CO2 concentration which is the only really important metric to avoid planetary surface heating.
The choice is ours: make ourselves poorer with no imperceptible effect on “climate change” or follow the best technology (not just for submarines) incorporating both nuclear and renewables into our electricity utilities.
Think of the next generations.
This is above politics.
Email, Mar 7
Charles Hemmings, Woy Woy
I agree Australia should have developed nuclear long ago. Ideally Au should have processed yellow cake and rented out fuel rods and recovered the waste rods for internment here. As one of the most geo-stable continents on the planet burying nuclear waste here makes a lot of sense. ANSTO developed the Synroc ceramic which stabilises nuclear waste effectively way back in the 70’s. The plan would have meant that Au could have controlled the use of nuclear fuels for peaceful purposes only and in the process become a world leader (another lost opportunity burnt at the altar of never-process-anything just dig it up and ship it off in order to line the pockets of the few). Au could still implement the radioactive waste storage for the planet which could provide a world leading and very lucrative income for the country.
Dutton’s ludicrous idea to implement nuclear power nowadays is profoundly foolish.
Developing nuclear power is very expensive. How many times does this have to be said?
The ROI on nuclear power given the cost of producing power with renewables is laughable.
Development lead times and completion times would not be able to catch up with the termination of existing fossil fuel infrastructure and diverts resources to cleaner productive and storage technologies.
Tooling up and developing the workforce for nuclear power development would require decades, but would provide a workforce for nuclear attack subs that we will never see.
France’s nuclear industry is beginning to develop significant problems as the aging power stations are reaching the end of their lives and cracks in pipes have been detected that are extraordinarily expensive to fix and to decommission. But they do have some of the cheapest electric power around, however the French have been at this for a very long time and is a legacy of their colonial past which is beginning to fall apart with Russian/Chinese “disruption” in Africa.
As PM. Albanese has noted: which existing infrastructure does Dutton suggest should be redeveloped into nuclear? Dutton’s deliberate failure to clearly articulate this means he is again playing political games again with an issue that is extremely serious. I can’t imagine folks in our Hunter would be terribly impressed with having a nuclear power plant in their backyard especially given the ridiculous and selfish opposition to wind power and power infrastructure which the opposition seems to be successfully weaponising.
Dutton’s suggestion of small modular nuclear reactors doesn’t even exist anywhere outside of a laboratory or the military and again are eye wateringly expensive. Are we supposed to develop such tech with a non-existent workforce? Where are all these engineers going to come from? It would take at least 20 years to educate a viable workforce out of our existing universities, or do we try to solve that with visas too?
Decarbonising our industry with renewable technology offers so many opportunities to become a real forward looking innovative world power providing green steel, aluminium feed-stocks for Europe alone would represent a massive boost to our economy while providing well paid interesting intelligent work for our growing population with the existing tertiary curriculum.
Unlocking a hydrogen economy could provide so many benefits to the country that are incalculable. But there are fundamental physics problems with that route which could be overcome with some effort, effort that Australians a more than capable of achieving and would slow the brain drain from our shores.
The simplistic argument that nuclear is a viable choice here is profoundly uninformed and Dutton will realise this if he manages to stick around for the next election.
in Germany they have horizontal turbines in the Rhine River that ships pass over that generate Electricity so why not in our coastal rivers & habours the tide is certainly a energy to be harvested it is not rocket science