It’s difficult to make sense of Mr Hemmings’ letter as he seems to wander Trump-like all over the place (All renewable grid a fantasy, CCN 479), but I shall do my best.
Again he uses the old canard of wind and sun not being available 24 hours/day, justifying it by an alleged lack of suitable battery technology; is he so convinced that the technology will not improve that research is not necessary?
I assume that he’s never heard of Chinese EV manufacturer BYD, whose vehicles are eating Tesla’s lunch?
He also seems to not have heard that Europe has been closing its nuclear reactors; why?
Because of their expense; imagine that!
Geothermal power is another possibility; pump water deep underground and harness the steam coming back up.
And finally, if he wants to pursue his nuclear fantasy then consider thorium reactors; they have no dangerous byproducts.
Nuclear power is as dead as Peter Dutton’s policies; get over it.
Email, March 24
Dave Horsfall, North Gosford
Go Nuclear,
Look at the new 1000KW BYD charging, if we had a whole fleet of these cars, how are we supposed to power them at night with our current infrastructure… or in a heatwave, add thousands of these charging at the same time, with all the air conditioners on. Give us a cloudy week and we up the creek, we need a better solution that relying on clear skies, and wind.
I can understand why the idea of nuclear has appeal to many. However, with how many experts have denounced the plan, I have little confidence in its viability. After all, these are people whose reputations are on the line if they’re giving dodgy advice, and there’s a LOT of them
For more information, search ofr article from Juice Media or The Guardian.
Also, I should say: when we consider nuclear power plans, we should also consider other renewable energy sources. Think of them all like a toolbox: sure, you can use a pair of pliers to turn a screw, but it’ll work much better if you use a screwdriver.
Everything has a place and a time, and we need to identify not just what works, but what works BEST
And If lots of EV’s had v2g (vehicle to grid), they might put power back in the grid when needed. That would spoil the need for coal and nuclear.
It is worth considering all ways to maintain a constant power supply. It is also scary to think of multiple reactors in Australia possibly having problems where they may pose a danger to the country. If there is a leak of radiation, or an explosion, the wind will carry the product across our county effecting everything. It has happened in other countries and all those effects can be been in documentaries, so its important that we are aware of the results of those accidents. Please also consider the amount of water that is needed to keep the reactor temperature down and the waste products that need to be addressed. Water is essential to all life forms, including the earth, so look at the amount of water that the government has permitted to be used for mining in WA, the result of that decision has dramatically reduced the water levels in the rivers and will risk the life of our native animals, the lack of water for the people and the death of lively hood of people who rely on the river flows. Nuclear reactors placed in various areas in Australia is scary, if things go wrong, then who will save Australia?
Nuclear power works, but it’s extremely expensive to build, and takes decades to build. Once built it provides extremely high amounts of stable 24/7 power, with effectively zero pollution, and assuming it’s not built with zero safety standards and with technology from the 60s, it’s essentially 100% safe, with the worst case scenario of failure being that it turns off due to no reactivity due to the way modern reactors are built to make leaks, explosions, and other dangerous failures impossible. In fact currently only a few years of coal related deaths is significantly higher than every single nuclear incident that has ever happened combined, and coal also puts out radioactive material too so it’s basically just nuclear but worse.
Problem is that by going all in on nuclear, we essentially stop building renewables, which means we fall back onto things like oil, gas, and coal, which basically means any plans to build nuclear right now from Dutton is basically just him ensuring the C02 driving industries that pollute both locally and globally are locked in for another 50 years.
Once we have renewables locked in then we can consider nuclear, but until then going nuclear is the same thing as abandoning renewables.
those comments are against the grain & common sense. count the number of nuclear power plants across the world,.it’s cheaper & sustainable unlike your sole destroying cross country poles wires wind farms which simply will not power the nation.where do you come from.?!!