Nuclear power

Services
236

Is this a serious attempt to sway enough opinion to actually use nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuel or is it an academic exercise in brandishing conflicting studies at 20 paces?

I do not want to go down the rabbit hole of whether nuclear is cleaner. I don’t have the expertise to judge competing claims (and there are many) and I don’t want to spend the time acquiring it. I do not believe there is any future in following the nuclear option now. Here is why.

  • The essential aim is to stop burning fossil fuel ASAP.
  • We have delayed too long already, largely because vested interests have muddied the waters successfully.
  • Regardless of the risks, whatever they may be, idea of widespread use of nuclear produces visceral loathing in most people. John Howard tried to say (as you seem to be doing) that it was a conversation we need to be having. He pulled his head in right quick.
  • No amount of iron clad peer reviewed studies, assuming they favour nuclear, will change that emotional reaction quickly.
  • No politician will take it on and put their career on the line for it. The left will align with the right against it!
  • If we try to replace fossil fuel with nuclear it will play right into the hands of the coal and oil lobby because we will get policy paralysis.

Therefore at this time we should go with the solution, wind and solar with a smattering of tide, geothermal and hydro, that has a chance of getting the job done. It may not be perfect but it is doable. So let’s do it and leave the nuclear debate alone for this generation. This is a case where an acceptable solution in time is far superior to any other solution too late.

3 Likes
237

I only hold opinions that are backed by evidence. Show me evidence against an opinion I have and I will change it - we should all be this honest. You may easily dismiss all evidence that flies against your bias, but that doesn’t stop reality from being reality. Your questions have been answered, but you choose not to consider them - let alone accept them.

You have taken a step in the right direction by admitting you don’t have the expertise to judge - which is why you should let the evidence judge for you. You did however take a step back in the wrong direction when, after admitting you don’t know, you instead offer a claim that is widely discredited by the evidence.

While the majority of the rhetoric in your latest post has already been answered, I will address a couple of the most obvious points again, for the onlookers.

Which is why we need nuclear power
image

This is the funny thing: the fossil fuel industry has invested a lot of money into anti-nuclear, pro-solar advertising because that’s what will keep them in business. Every renewable energy plant depends on its gas pipeline to provide energy in peak times and when the energy simply isn’t available. The fossil fuel industry is very smart, it knows this, and so it drives this anti-nuclear sentiment for its own purposes.

The solartopia dream driven by the partnering of fossil fuel companies and environmental activists is not the safest option for humans or the environment. For example, the 280 MW Solana solar plant in Gila Bend, Az cost $US1.45 Billion to build (2011 dollars). It operates at 75% and serves only 55,250 homes. APS (the energy provider) alone has 2.7M customers. The requirement for 50% of power to come from solar would require APS to spend in the neighborhood of $33 Billion on solar infrastructure (based on Solana’s 2011 cost and output). Solar is far from free. It also burns gas and has exceeded its environmental permits for the amount it can use. That’s right. A renewable energy plant has broken its environmental regulations. I won’t even go into detail about the amount of toxic mining that you require to provide all of these panels.

Professor Mark Jacobsen, Stanford University, developed an aggressive plan to convert the entire USA to 100% wind, water and solar in 35 years. This is what you are calling for, right? The photovoltaic portion of this plan requires the use of about 18 billion square meters of panels. Assuming an economical service life for photovoltaic solar panels of 40 years (which is very generous), they would need replacement at that time. To just maintain the same amount of electricity generation (no growth) will require the replacement of about 1.23 million square meters of panels every day, rain or shine, forever. But remember, the population is growing and so is our per capita usage of energy. A solar panel does not last forever. It needs maintenance. They need to be cleaned, and after some years replaced. That is not being fixed there ‘once’. This is not the most environmentally friendly solution we have.

This is not to say solar does not also have a place in a clean energy grid, it is just that nuclear is the best option at this point in time if we actually want to lower our carbon emissions for the sake of our children and their children.

238

Tell me about how you will mount a political campaign to get nuclear accepted and why you think it will succeed within the time frame we have. Note I didn’t ask how quickly nuclear could be implemented once agreement was reached and resources made available, I want to know how we get to that starting point.

2 Likes
239

The evidence indicates to me that your opinion on the meaning of the word opinion is not evidence based, in my opinion :wink: or maybe not, if you reject my evidence …

Personally, in the short term, I’d feel a little happier if the nearest nuke was around 500 light seconds away and I just catch it with some fancy panels on the roof.

Ultimately, if you look at the big picture, in the long term we’re probably all screwed anyway.

“Greg, you missed the stop sign …”

3 Likes
240

So you agree with the evidence, then? Don’t move the goalposts*. Don’t hide behind politics when you’ve been shown to be wrong. If you accept the evidence, then we can move onto your politics. We need to get the basics down first :slight_smile:

*Moving the goalposts: changing the topic when proven wrong
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving_the_Goalposts

241

I am not moving the goalposts, I refused to accept your criteria right from the start, you don’t get to determine the scope or subject matter of this thread. The reason that I will not concede is not that I cannot refute your evidence (I haven’t tried to) but because it is irrelevant. It is because there is nothing to be gained going down that path whether you are right or wrong.

You are refusing to accept that it takes more than a rational position to get action in a democracy. It is only in academia where facts and figures and citations are likely to determine the outcome. In the real world these may help sway opinion but, as we have seen so abundantly with the climate change debate, science and the scientific way of thinking can be, and has been, defeated when it comes to decision making.

If you insist that the only way to make this decision is on purely rational and scientific grounds with no consideration of the chance of getting any action in the political sphere then you are stuck in the mindset of climate scientists of decades ago and we can see where that led to - thirty years of wasted opportunities and frustration. I want action now and I know that that attitude doesn’t get any.

I have made my position clear so that’s enough from me.

2 Likes
242

There is a lot of information from varied sources from governmental reports to academic journals to blogs and research projects and everything in between.

It is probably beyond the scope of the forum to identify any one as being the only authoritative source or group of sources where everyone will be accepting, and as nuclear is indeed off the table in Australia at the present time I’ll close off this thread.

Thanks all for your contributions and voluminous citations, references, and links.

4 Likes
244

Seeing this:

rang a bell. I’d seen something similar while reading through this forum.

There are many reasons for getting involved in improving the lot of our neighbours.

  • The more comfortable they are, the more secure we are.
  • If Indonesia (for example) is pleasant enough, then there’s less incentive for asylum-seekers to set sail for Australia.
  • It’s good karma. :angel:

Are we up for it?

Continuing the discussion from Nuclear power:

1 Like
245

We’re already doing (part of) our bit, it seems. It’s piecemeal and reactive, but it’s something. Now, if only we could coordinate and expand.


Australia is paying for fibre optics to the Solomons, largely to preempt China. The “challenge” is one way to leverage that investment.

1 Like
246

If the nuclear lobby gets their way, our power bills will go through the roof. Nuclear power is expensive and getting more so.

247

The new chair of the Minerals Council is calling for nuclear power to be considered.

1 Like
248

How many times …?

1 Like
249

To a kid with a hammer everything is a nail, when all you know is how to dig the solution to all problems is more digging. At least they have stopped with the clean coal nonsense.

1 Like
250

Renew Economy have recently posted an article by a German think tank about nuclear generation and plants that have been built since 1951.

They found that the average 1,000 MW plant had an average economic loss of 4.8 billion euros ($7.7 billion AUD).

“Even in the best case, the net present value was approximately minus 1.5 billion euros ($2.4 billion AUD). The authors included conservative assumptions with high electricity prices, low capital costs, and specific investment. Considering all assumptions regarding the uncertain parameters, nuclear energy is never profitable.”

The report also stated that “large state subsidies” were used to make the projects viable.

The report can be downloaded here:

To read the Renew Economy article see:

4 Likes