Nicola McKay writes: I solely ever did my homework when there was washing as much as be finished (“Coalition delivers the identical outdated drained nuclear speaking factors at COP28”). Typically we select one thing to keep away from having to decide on one thing else. The nuclear “debate” makes me assume {that a} Coalition mouth would ulcerate, dry out and clamp shut if the dreaded phrases “photo voltaic” or “batteries” or, much more dire, “wind turbine” ever slipped from it.
I believe the requires the nuclear debate are the “Hey, look over there!” that enables conservative politicians to not have to handle the actual and quick dialog lest they seem to supply even veiled assist to the opposite guys.
It’s clearly daft {that a} nation chock stuffed with solar and wind doesn’t totally exploit this renewable useful resource. Coalition politicians would slightly attend a nuclear convention with half a dozen international locations, dodgy media and dry sausage rolls than try and make Australia the professional within the know-how, manufacture and storage of renewable power. As W.H. Auden wrote: “We’d slightly be ruined than modified. We’d slightly die, in our dread, than climb the cross of the second and let our illusions die.”
David Sales space writes: Treating the difficulty of nuclear power with derision solely cements it as a non-starter. Till all choices of electrical energy technology are forensically examined no one is aware of what the most effective mixture of sources might be. To cross any off the record at this early stage is silly.
We don’t but even know the way a lot electrical energy we’ll want in, say, 2050. We don’t but know what transmission infrastructure might be required, nor how a lot of the prevailing community is perhaps redundant. If storage turns into low cost sufficient, how will that have an effect on technology? And what if it doesn’t? Charlie Lewis assumes that every one the nuclear issues are true, regardless of that the fossil-fuel trade has promulgated most of them to retain market share, beginning a long time in the past with the radiation scare marketing campaign. He refers back to the lead time of constructing reactors when the apparent drawback of deadlines kicks in after they have by no means even begun. Had we begun 50 years in the past (as we should always must shut down coal and gasoline) we might now be cruising — maybe.
The $387 billion price quoted for one sort of reactor must be measured towards all different choices and combos, with a price for reliability included. The pure gasoline (methane) trade is main the federal government by the nostril, however is as polluting as coal, as satellite tv for pc measurements of methane launch will quickly present.
Electrical energy technology is the largest trade on this planet, prices a terrific deal and we’re ready to pay for the most effective set-up offering we all know it is the most effective. Decreasing the record of starters in line with who has the most effective lobbyists is ridiculous. However then, isn’t that what we all the time do? A combination of energy sources may very well be the best way to go, together with these we all know to work.
Kerry Hennessy writes: I’m not a uranium-based nuclear fan if in-built isolation. If fast-breeder reactors are constructed it is going to tackle many however not all long-term nuclear waste issues. The waste might be round for a whole lot of years (and that beats 1000’s) and passing off our issues to the subsequent 20 generations is, in my opinion, unacceptable. U-based nuclear additionally poses “meltdown” (assume Chernobyl) and terrorist goal dangers.
Alternatively, thorium-based nuclear reactors eat conventional nuclear waste and can’t soften down. They require a neutron generator to produce the neutrons required for the fission course of. If some pure or man-made catastrophe damages the ability provide (assume Fukushima) the nuclear fission course of stops and unintended meltdown is unattainable. From an environmental viewpoint, these reactors are glorious as they can not explode and spew radioactive waste into the atmosphere and would permit the present shares of radioactive waste to be eliminated.
The primary drawback with thorium fission reactors is the development price and timeline, which is presently 20-30 years. There are additionally mining points, as in any mining enterprise, plus the added hazard of coping with a radioactive product. On the upside, the recognized usable provide of Th is larger than U.
There may be additionally the potential for fusion reactors, just like the JT-60SA experimental fusion energy facility in Japan. Whereas its potential is thrilling it’s removed from commercially viable. There may be additionally the requirement that for any nuclear choice to be commercially viable it is going to require important subsidies that economists say could be provided provided that a carbon tax is launched.
Ian Kemp writes: To me it’s crystal clear why the Liberals need nuclear energy, actually the identical causes Charlie Lewis talked about:
- It’s massively costly and could be delivered solely by huge personal firms — future Liberal donors!
- Constructing the vegetation takes ages and prices all the time overrun — Liberal donors for many years!
- It needs to be taxpayer-funded, ideally by way of new taxation — Liberal donors paid from taxes!
What’s to not love?
Roger Clifton writes: Nuclear offers the one life like counter to the rising affect of gasoline. Renewables followers imagine renewables can change coal, however they’re deluded. It’s gasoline that’s changing coal, throughout the nation.
In precept, renewables with grid-sized power storage may change gasoline fully however (other than Andrew Forrest) no one is making the hassle to retailer that a lot power — it’s simply too straightforward to invoke gasoline backup as a substitute. If any anti-fossil vigilante notices the rising gasoline utilization, they don’t make bother — in spite of everything, what else may very well be used for backup? Effectively nuclear energy stations with warmth shops may do the job.
Positive Australia may look forward to different international locations to make nuclear electrical energy low cost and fast to put in, however within the meantime we want that nuclear possibility to indicate Massive Fuel that its future is proscribed right here.
Peter Barry writes: There may be nothing flawed with nuclear energy. Trendy reactors are comparatively protected and a whole lot operate successfully world wide. The issues lie of their large capital price, countless delays in building, particularly in Australia, and recruitment and coaching of personnel. Add to this the transport and long-term storage of varied ranges of radioactive waste, together with decommissioned elements.
The modular reactor idea is fanciful. Even when proved to be possible and dependable know-how, banks of those reactors may change just one or two present coal-fired energy stations. In addition they endure from the identical adverse points as commonplace reactors.
The comparative price of wind and photo voltaic continues to be falling. These power strategies draw on the nuclear reactions safely locked away deep contained in the solar. There actually isn’t any contest.
Noel Wauchope writes: Charlie Lewis’ article is a welcome perception into the Coalition’s present regurgitation of its promotion of nuclear energy. Sure certainly, it may by no means carry itself to confess {that a} carbon tax could be the logical accompaniment. However because the nuclear foyer is completely in league with the fossil gas foyer, that’s clearly a no-no.
Ought to the Coalition be reelected, I reckon it is going to get its approach on repealing the nuclear prohibitions. However whereas it’s in opposition, it’s not that straightforward. Nuclear energy stations can’t be constructed wherever in Australia — they’re banned in each state and territory. However, you may rely on the Coalition to maintain up the marketing campaign. It actually doesn’t have any insurance policies, except you rely being adverse as a coverage.
The scary factor is that the Coalition is now adept on the type of language strategies described by George Orwell. The trendy “Newspeak” is facilitated by social media, and likewise taken up by company media. Certainly the Atlas Community advises its many related assume tanks and company fronts, and right-wing politicians, to undertake this very profitable fashion.
In essence the theme is to always repeat one or two easy, however slightly imprecise phrases and sentences. It did it with large success in Australia’s latest referendum on the Voice to Parliament — with the important thing phrase “When you don’t know, vote NO!”
I’m predicting the highest pro-nuclear phrase might be “a part of the power combine” — carrying a reassuring feeling that nuclear energy will simply merge quietly right into a benign power soup of oil, gasoline, coal, wind, photo voltaic and hydropower. Australians will hardly discover the obscene prices of nuclear, its well being and environmental hazards, its security, proliferation and terrorism dangers, its without end poisonous waste drawback. Nuclear energy might be simply “a part of the clear power resolution”.
Alas it doesn’t matter if it’s probably not wise. Because the Atlas Community has proved, the strategy works.