When i was living in Antwerp I could see the nuclear power station from my balcony on a clear day. As the crow flies it was only around 12km away.
1 Like
The primary issue with nuclear is cost. It costs too much.
The secondary issue is time. It will take too long to get it done.
A single functioning plant might be 10 years away. Consider the ground renewables have made in the past 10 years, and consider if thereâs even half as much progress again, why we would ever bother talking about nuclear.
2 Likes
Why even bother talking about it now. Start talking about how to store renewable energy. Pumped hydro and the like.
Nuclear is a fucking mirage for us. Super expensive to establish and a multi-decade implementation for expensive power until it gets cheaper a couple of decades after itâs online. On top of that you have the worst case possible for failures or disasters, and waste that you have to store and monitor for a fucking millennia.
Starting a nuclear power programme now makes no sense at all.
7 Likes
Yeah but thereâs widespread opposition to uranium mining anywhere, so we currently have a âno new minesâ policy in place (sort of). A lot of this argument is preparing the ground for turning over that policy, using our potential (unlikely) future domestic use as the justification. The Libs and Nats donât have any mates ready to stump up cash to build nuclear plants, but they do have mates very excited to dig up and sell uraniumâŠ
Plus, as pointed out, weâve allowed the international spike in gas prices to drive up domestic prices for no good reason, why wouldnât the same happen for uranium?
1 Like
There are several projects underway at varying stages of completeness - borumba in qld is being transacted at the moment for design/construction. Tarraleah and Cethana in Tasmania are underway.
Pumped hydro is a very challenging market, much like dams, the talent to design them isnât just sitting on a shelf (compared to say a road or railway). There are huge constraints around the labour to get it done - before you even look at the sites which are also usually remote.
1 Like
The amount of usually reasonable people I know that forget about the nuclear waste is absolutely mind-blowing.
1 Like
Itâs not the size thatâs the problem, itâs the cost of storing it safely. Ex:
In fairness the American system is so convoluted, outdated and geared on money making, itâs always going to be way more expensive than it should be. The biggest advantage on your nuclear is the relatively smaller footprint and smaller carbon output vs the other traditional forces. While I donât have the data to prove it, but I would assume you would need significantly more space to be able to produce the same amount of power out renewables, that you would out of nuclear?
You also forget about the inevitable destruction of ecosystems from the dams associated with them as well.
Yeah thatâs all considered in the feasibility stageâŠ
1 Like
Space is definitely something Australia is short on.
Yes I know you still have to build in transmission lines, but still
1 Like
Thereâs lots of potential for using old mines or coal plants for pumped hydro. Theyâll have the infrastructure in place already in most cases, ie cooling ponds & transmission lines, and the enviro damage has already been done. This is almost operational at Kidstone mine in Queensland AFAIK.
Nuclear takes so long to build, even compared to a project with massive blowouts like Snowy 2.0 itâs so slow it means we need a bridging fuel once coal plants retire. This is no doubt a delaying tactic to do the east coast gas cartel a favour and keep us burning gas for electricity too.
Space isnât such an issue when you donât need to clear the majority of the land (wind), you can integrate it with conventional agriculture to boost the productivity of both (wind and solar), or you can use the ocean with minimal environmental impact (offshore wind). The argument for nuclear isnât space, itâs dispatchability, which is why we should compare it to the feasibility of green hydrogen or storage.
1 Like
Especially when itâs grazing land - the panels help grass grow better and give the sheepies some shade. Everyone wins (except people who have visceral reactions to the very sight of renewables).
2 Likes
Absolutely, everything is a challenge & there are no easy answers. But everything youâve mentioned there is also present in the equation for nuclear. At least we have experience with hydro projects - we have snowy 2 under construction right now.
Uranium mining aint exactly habitat friendly.
Iâm sure theyâll return it as they found it after theyâve plundered the wealth.
5 Likes
I donât disagree - I think youâd have more interest in nuclear though. I get the feeling it would be a PPP style contract and the govt would not want to operate them themselves - which means the public get screwed in the long run.
You donât see these contracts for hydro, and most private developers donât pursue them due to the upfront cost and ongoing operational costs as well as the fact that if youâre using it as a battery there isnât ongoing creation of power (income) by feeding the grind constantly like solar/wind.
The NSW public will cover the cost of snowy hydro 2.0 and the Hume link to connect it to the grid. While it will provide huge redundancy to the network, itâs an obscene amount of money being spent on both projects.
And the Australian system? The exact same ideological commitment to public-private partnerships but capital is even more concentrated here, reducing competition and making the taxpayer get slugged with even higher bills along the way, before the private company inevitably hands the thing back to the government once theyâve extracted all the value they can from the contract. Plus higher wage costs here in general compared to the US, mean long term storage of nuclear waste here would only be more expensive.
2 Likes
I treat the whole nuclear thing as a 2-3 year recurring discussion for the coalition to try and wedge Labor on energy prices and spruik economic benefits promised by the minerals council et al
I give it almost zero chance of getting up, given progress with renewables and the way we milk coal and gas exports (not for national benefit, mind)
The timeline to get a regulatory model alone would be multiple terms of parliament creating plenty of chances to sink it, and thats a first step before any plant is planned let alone built.
1 Like
The issue isnât the nuclear (which I agree is unlikely to ever happen), itâs the extra coal and gas we have to burn (and pay for) while we âhave the conversationâ
1 Like