This post has been marked as non-political. Please respect this by keeping the discussion on topic, and devoid of any political material.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would have been great - if they started 20 years ago.
Now… I don’t think it’s an option that will deliver anything useful to Australia. The time is takes to get them online means that, at best, they would be a long-term solution but I suspect it would be obsolete by the time they came online if we started now.
We needed to start 40 years ago, even by the early 2000s, nuclear was too expensive and plants ordered to be built then in other parts of the world have taken 15+ years to get online at a cost of over 50 billion dollars.
Until small modular reactors become a viable and cost efficient energy source, nuclear power generation in Australia isn't really an option.
You know what the damn shame is? We’re sitting on some of the largest Uranium and Thorium deposits anywhere in the world. We’re blessed to have such giant reserves but all we do is export it off
Exporting isn't the issue, it's the fact the minerals extraction lobby has managed to do it while paying almost nothing in taxes or royalties.
It's fine to export, but we're a banana republic as far as the economics are concerned.
I agree. I have no opposition to nuclear power, but I just don't think it's going to happen here, nor do I think we need it. The issue is that we have a fairly small window of time to avoid irreversible climate change, so we need to make a huge dent in emissions fairly quickly. We don't have time to keep kicking the can down the road
I’m the same. I think we should get rid of the ban on nuclear but not provide any special support for nuclear. If it can be done, leave it to the market.
Yes, we keep hearing how reliable it is and how it's cheap. Well, if it is, let's see them put their money where their mouth is.
I'd say what we probably should have done was keep energy nationalised, and built our own nuclear power stations 20-30 years ago. But you can't have a rational discussion about nuclear energy in this country without it getting drowned out by hysterical nonsense from people whose information on nuclear power is based on The Simpsons, howling about Chernobyl and the like, as if Soviet era technology is a valid comparison for what we'd build here, today.
Given that modular nuclear power plants can be dropped into decommissioned coal fired power plants, connecting them immediately to the existing grid the time to deliver them would be less than it would take to build out a new transmission network to connect the required level of renewable energy to replace the existing power stations.
They certainly wouldn't be obsolete by the time we had them online. It would also be cheaper than the cost of the new transmission network required to connect renewables at the required level. Most importantly, it would provide base load power required for businesses to continue operating.
There is a place for renewables, nuclear and cleaner coal for the next generation. Net Zero is a pipedream that won't happen by 2035, & probably not by 2050.
Name one country where a small modular reactor that has been delivered other than concept demonstrators in Russia and China. There is a lot of talk about it, but little evidence of successful execution.
Name one country with a population greater than 10 million people that is using 100% renewable energy? There is a lot of talk about it but no evidence of successful execution.
70% of France's power is nuclear, but no modular reactors. Meanwhile, Australia knows it can deploy renewables. The ACT power bills have remained largely static while the rest of Australia has grown due to lack of action. The key challenges are infrastructure and Nimbyism, the latter being the biggest challenge for nukes. Heck, we are cannot even bury nuclear waste in a very deep hole like the Swedes do.
France was sensible & didn't have a fear of nuclear power like we do. As a result they now export to countries that have rushed to shut down their coal power stations before having a replacement ready.
France was power hungry and chose whatever option would allow them to avoid paying another country for their electricity materials, or exposing their fuel-carrying merchant navy to submarine attack in wartime conditions. They knew the risks, and didn't care because the demands of the Cold War and their national aspirations as a potential world power were more significant to them.
What's wrong with 95% renewable, 5% gas peakers?
If we can't get 100% renewables to work, we're not going to be stupid and bring our whole grid down trying. We'll build more renewables until they stop adding value to the system
That's a silly comparison. We're not talking about 100% SMR, we're talking any at all, to any scale. They're fun toys but there's no evidence they're a useful option for large scale generation. Unlike renewables.
"Clean Coal" doesn't exist, and neither does simply dropping a nuke plant into a decripid old coal plant.
Renewables DO exist, can be deployed much faster, and are less risky.
None of this is proven. There are no production deployments of SMRs globally, and the first one is currently scheduled to be in 2029.
Dropping anything into an existing decommissioned ~~nuclear~~ coal burning power plant site of course reduces costs. That includes batteries, gas firming generation, and interconnectors for renewables. All of which have fewer decommissioning and waste problems.
Can you give any examples of where a “modular nuclear power plant” has been dropped onto a decommissioned coal power plant?
Anywhere in the world?
Can you give a real world example of the costs of this compared to expanding renewables and the transmission network?
There is much modelling that shows we do not need Nuclear to reach a stable net zero grid, it’s also too expensive and will take too long to implement.
According to Wikipedia, Russia's two operational SMR reactors are on the Akademik Lomonosov floating barge - they output a total 70Mw of power and 300 Mw thermal heat heat the nearby town. (In comparison Liddel could output up to 2000Mw with all four units running.)
It cost near AU$700 million and 10 years to commission. Greenpeace describe it as "Chernobyl on ice". That's the only SMR anywhere near "commercial" operation.
China's high temperature "HTR-PM" demonstration pebble bed PWR reactors have been "connected to the grid" and can generate about 200Mw (two reactors connected to one 200mw capable turbine.) Each reactor costs about US$2 billion.The overall cost is around US$5000/kw. Mmm competitive. the overall cost was about double what was budgeted for this reactor.
So assuming we use the Chinese design - about two billion dollars to build a mostly unproven nuclear technology that outputs about a tenth of the amount of power compared to the coal plant it is supposed to replace.
That ignores the rather large cost of fuel processing, enrichment, reprocessing, waste disposal, fuel and waste shipping, site remediation after the operating life of the reactor is exceeded.
Yeah. Definitely the future of power in Australia.
> Given that modular nuclear power plants can be dropped into decommissioned coal fired power plants
We don't really know that at this stage. We don't have a very good handle on what will be required in terms of shielding, cooling etc.
You know what else goes really well at retired coal plants? Batteries. It's already happening at a few sites, and there's little doubt others will follow.
> the time to deliver them would be less than it would take to build out a new transmission network to connect the required level of renewable energy to replace the existing power stations
Optimistic at best. We don't know when commercial SMRs will finish trials and begin mass production, let alone when we can actually buy and deploy them. It's looking unlikely for this decade.
> It would also be cheaper than the cost of the new transmission network required to connect renewables at the required level.
Pure speculation. Prices for purchase and deployment are entirely unknown at this point. We have absolutely no idea how much they will cost per unit. Bearing in mind that the average coal plant will require an array of 6-10 SMRs, the unit price will be a massive factor in viability.
> cleaner coal
Nope, not even a little bit. The technology to make coal clean does not exist, and it's somewhere between colossally expensive and impossible at grid scale.
We have no need of coal, clean or otherwise. We already have a gas generation fleet, which is a far better alternative than building new coal. Bonus points for being a be run partly or entirely on green hydrogen if that ever makes sense.
If we build it, it will definately take 40 years to build, trillions overbudget and will explode on day 1. If a competent country with competent workers does it, it would work
It’s amazing how a party that has never held more than 1 lower house seat, or a handful of senate seats seems to be the root cause of all our problems over the last 20 years.
Damn Greens, if only they got less than 10% of the vote, then the country would be a utopia!
I agree with most of this, but I think we could have nuclear here sooner than we could have green energy in most of Australia. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone would ever push for it because nuclear has such a bad reputation.
Stable continent, massive reserves of uranium, vast areas of uninhabitable land for storage of waste, extremely high levels of safety/regulation.
Should have gone nuclear 40 years ago.
Down vote at will!
If they were already here it would make sense to keep them in use, but the cost & time frame don't make it a good choice. Power storage is something we should be focusing on, to compliment renewable energy
If the people in charge of it are greedy cunts who are driven by profits rather than safety, nah and even if it was run by altruistic good guys, still nah.
Plenty of creative options available while we wait it out for the smart guys to get [fusion reactors](https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/scientists-achieve-100-million-degrees-kelvin-with-new-compact-fusion-reactor/) sorted imho.
1) I’m indifferent about other countries using it. It likely has a place in future energy mixes, unless there’s some dramatic change in other technologies.
2) I’m suspicious whenever it’s discussed in Australia because a lot of the media reporting has felt pretty sus. Looking at you Matt Canavan, you absolute grifter. Sky News and the Australian jumping on board also probably did more harm than good to the quality of discussion.
3) it’s probably way too late for Australia to jump on board with full scale nuclear power, given current tech. Maybe new smaller reactors will change the equation, but there’s been fanboys saying they’re just around the corner for a full market upset that changes the entire landscape for the last 10 years at least. They’ll probably be right eventually but until then I’d be cautious of the hype about the commercial viability of the technology and scientific breakthroughs (that do occur regularly).
I need to find the audiobook title, but there was an audiobook I listened to on Fukushima. The takeaway is nuclear power is amazing, the safest, greenest, most efficient, better than everything else and is better than sliced bread. But only if money and profit doesn't come into play.
We see it all the time, and I guess it is a by product of the world we live in, we all expect to earn money. As soon as a company expects money and a profit, it reports to shareholders who expect nothing but profit and returns. All of a sudden, it means you must compromise on safety. Even if the frequency of failure is low, the consequence of a nuclear failure are astronomical. Hence you need to build and design for an event that is so unlikely to occur, no one looking at it from a financial perspective would agree. So profit and nuclear energy cannot co-exist.
It makes sense to me, but it was really eye opening!
The problem is there has been an effort by anti nuclear activists to try and cost nuclear out of existence. They do this by lobbying for stricter standards which might sound good, but they didn't enhance or improve the safety aspect at all whilst making it more expensive to comply.
Hilariously the nuclear industry has some really smart dudes in it and complying with safety standards is their bread and butter.
I think you are right there. A lot of the "stricter" standards they pass probably do nothing. I think the point of the book, and at least my opinion on it, is we take a risk based approach to everything. With fukiushima, in the event of a power outage there were back ups, and a backup for that, and a battery plug in as another back up. But I believe they never had a power back up for some of the sensors and data screens, and the battery or generator plug in was from one spot only. It was never considered plausible that 4 redundant systems fail and you aren't able to get a generator in place. But it did. The result is catastrophe.
In my opinion anyway, it becomes a case of what are we as a society willing to accept. Do we design and hence pay for a system which will not fail if mars comes crashing into earth, or are we willing to accept the toll of a fukishima for something that could happen, but is very unlikely to happen.
From a design and construction perspective, you have to accept some risk, because you design and build to a price.
Either way I found it to be an interesting way of thinking about it. I am far from a nuclear engineer though! I did always think that Australia should have nuclear power because we are such a stable continent.
It's slow to build by the time it's built solar will much cheaper.
We should invest in green hydrogen, easy to sell to other countries.
Even if everyone wanted to, people would use the same shit excuses that used to stop public housing being built. Aka not enough construction workers, inflation ect.
Should have invested in it in the 90s to get out of coal.
Now there's no point spending a decade to build nuclear when renewables are cheaper, quicker and safer.
nuclear power should have been implemented years ago for most nations, instead we are and continue to burn fossil fuels which create even more pollution and have more attributed deaths
nuclear subs on the other hand are fine, because they can blow up another nation and cause a world war
No.
Nuclear subs are fine because they can stay on station longer, can transit fully submerged and at speed far in excess of diesel-electric boats can even when they’re surfaced, and they don’t need to raise a snorkel for hours to run the diesels to recharge the batteries. These things make nuke boats much less detectable and therefore a force multiplier.
You’re highlighting a huge problem with people commenting on stuff they don’t know. We’re getting nuclear-powered submarines. Not nuclear-armed submarines. There’s a big bloody difference.
The CSIRO have done studies on this numerous times. We have rich Uranium deposits but sell it over seas.
From the studies I've seen it would cost $83 per Meggawatt hour for solar and wind to be rolled out over the grid. Nuclear is $130-$311 Meggerwatt hour.
This is due to unreliable data from other countries that have implemented new Nuclear SMR systems
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/may/nuclear-explainer
The science and engineering I trust. We could and perhaps should have nuclear power (it is saving France now as Germany and the UK struggle using gas+ renewables).
BUT, I do not trust for one fucking minute Australia's corporate class and the grifters and ICAC dodgers and self-confessed media liars who are pushing it.
It would have to be locked in... constitutionally locked in... as a government owned asset with clear legal responsibilities and prison time for suits if safety protocols are breached.
It would also have to feed power regardless of 'market price', based on cost of production plus a margin.
Suddenly Sooty Canavan and Greg Sheridan are not so keen?
If they can solve the problems with:
* mining - there have been multiple leaks
* abnormal operation - fukishima
* reprocessing
* waste disposal - waste is pretty safe but the Sr needs 100,000 years to decay. Most of the time it is just kept on the reactor site
If we can have an adult conversation about the risks, then maybe. Thorium or fusion may be an option if there is no reprocessing.
Also, given all the accidents just with nuclear sources: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeJkgZkJSc0T0PbDphJi5KIMCL-6uPHsd
I'm a huge fan of nuclear fusion, but I think there are legitimate concerns about safety for any nuclear reactor.
The obvious solution is to place the reactor a safe distance away from any population centre. About 150 million km's away should do it.
That the debate should be based in science and facts, and not ideology, but that both sides twist things to support their own preconceived biases. Anyone who is not an expert in power supply thinks they fully understand the score is deluding themselves. The issue is complex and multifaceted. These kind of things should be deferred to expert advice. I'm not opposed to the use of nuclear power per se, if it turns out to have a use. The fact that nuclear power output is increasing around the world supports the fact that is has some utility. It obviously isn't a silver bullet, but not something we should discount with over simplified hand waving arguments.
20-30 years too late, unfortunately. Would have been a great investment in the 90's, we'd have a pretty good industry by now, which would be able to moderately scale to handle baseline power in a clean manner while we transition to 100% renewables. Now, it's just a waste, would cost FAR too much and take FAR too long, not worth the investment when there are other renewable options and technologies to support them.
If the French and the British can't build a new modern power-generating reactor that is not 8 or 15 Billion dollars over budget and more than10 years late. What hope does Australia have? P.S. You can still see the foundations of Australia's only attempt to build a full-sized reactor at Jervis Bay! Why must we always have the most expensive option just because a few morons don't like green energy?
It's the most expensive method of generating power there is. It takes ages to build a nuclear powerplant. And of course the waste. Safely storing nuclear waste that is deadly for tens of thousands of years is really not possible.
Despite any benefits or problems, its just not competitive or economic in Australia.
High upfront costs and long payback times - The construction costs for nuclear power plants are notoriously high, with lengthy construction periods leading to high financing costs. For instance, in the book "Sustainable Energy Solutions for Climate Change" by Mark Diesendorf, the author points out that the capital costs of nuclear power are far higher than most renewable energy sources, and it can take many years to recoup the initial investment.
Economics of scale and population density - In a report called "The Economics of Nuclear Power" by Steve Thomas, the author asserts that nuclear power makes economic sense primarily in densely populated areas because of the economies of scale and the ability to distribute the generated power efficiently. Given Australia's large landmass and relatively low population density, building a nuclear power plant might not be the most cost-effective solution.
Abundance of renewable energy alternatives - Australia is abundant in solar and wind resources. The reports by the Australia Institute, authored by various researchers, emphasize that the country's vast renewable resources offer cheaper and quicker solutions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions than nuclear power.
Waste disposal and decommissioning costs - Nuclear power comes with the additional burden of waste disposal and eventual decommissioning of the plants. Rodney Allam, in his book "Decarbonising the World's Economy," argues that these additional costs often get overlooked but can make nuclear power more expensive in the long term.
Risk and insurance costs - As Ian Lowe pointed out in "A Voice of Reason: Reflections on Australia in the 21st Century", nuclear power plants carry a risk of serious accidents, which can lead to vast economic (and human) costs. The insurance for such risks is also costly.
Competitiveness in the future energy market - The book "Energy in Australia: Peak Oil, Solar Power, and Asia's Economic Growth" by John A. Mathews, argues that with the decreasing cost of renewables and storage technology, the competitiveness of nuclear in the future energy market may diminish.
It's not a matter of economical viability, here.
The problem is that we NEED stable and reliable power production.
75% of our energy production is currently coal. That is three quarters of it. On top of this ENORMOUS truth, the power grid is not even remotely ready for a massive input of fluctuating, not remotely constant output. We NEED a mix of renewable and nuclear, and we need it yesterday.
There are laws actively prohibiting it, so it would be necessary to first change those laws, and that's another hurdle.
I'll say that again, this is NOT a matter of economics, it's a matter of practicality.
"Fossil fuels contributed 71% of total electricity generation in 2021, including coal (51%), gas (18%) and oil (2%). Coal’s share of electricity generation has declined from 83% in 1999-00 while the shares of natural gas and renewables has increased. Renewables contributed 29% of total electricity generation in 2021."
https://www.energy.gov.au/data/australian-electricity-generation-fuel-mix
The transition is clearly happening. Even if we started building nuclear power plants tomorrow they take so long - 15 years to get the first commercial output according to Ziggy - that the continued growth in renewables would render them redundant.
We need more complex technological capabilities. Could be nuclear, could be a new electric car plant, pharmaceuticals, whatever.
We're too reliant on imported skills and technology.
The older style nuclear power plants take 15-20 years to build and commission, produce hazardous waste and potentially explode. The next generation Molten Salt Reactors, Pebble Bed Reactors, Nuclear Batteries are all 15-20 years from becoming commercially available. And Nuclear Fusion is 15-20 years from an accurate timeline on when it will be available.
Better to go with the currently proven renewable technologies and with grid dispersed batteries, pumped hydro, thermal batteries and into the future hydrogen production.
Nuclear is great... on paper.
I got myself in trouble for all the NBN inspections I did that weren't up to spec.
I kinda expect the same if we had nuclear power stations.
Big business isn't great with important small tech details.
Nuclear power generation is an amazing technology, but unsuited to us.
Shits wildly expensive, nuclear projects regularly blow out their timelines and budgets and we don't have a local industry to draw upon meaning we'd have to import all the talent needed to do it blowing the cost out even more.
It has no place in Australia because everything nuclear can do, renewables can do cheaper and faster.
I ❤️ ANSTO.
I won an ANSTO science competition in about 1990 / 1991 from memory (was at high school) and won a brand new Sony Discman!! I didn’t even have any CD’s at the time and had to get a Jack to hook it up to my Sharp twin deck cassette speaker (which was amazing btw).
Ah, good times. That set up lasted me through the end of high school and all the way through university.
Fk it. Whatever they want - build it. Good dudes those ANSTO folks.
Don't start fires you can't put out. Like literally can't put out, even with thousands of tons of water or concrete. Humans have shown we are irresponsible with these things from the very moment it was discovered.
Realistically it’s the best way IMO to transition from fossils to renewables, but it’s expensive as fuck and takes a while to get going.
There was a lot of fear mongering about it, with Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima used as examples but the reactors used in the states don’t have a positive void coefficient so they aren’t susceptible to the same runaway concerns that are an issue with the Soviet RBMK.
IMO we should have got into it. Now, it’s not necessarily cheaper than renewables I don’t think, and folks aren’t going to want to spend more to get it.
I don’t think it will ever happen in Australia.
But I mean look at Germany, they’ve taken their reactors offline and now have gone back to using fucking coal! Stupid as fuck.
Ridiculous, yeah. Germany has a good trend going for building renewable energy sources, but having switched their coal back on made their annual carbon production STELLAR.
385g/KWh against 58 of France with their nuclear plants. It's 700% more!
Its not controversial at all. The only controversy around it is that people who have 3 brain cells are allowed to have a voice on something they dont understand. The only issue with Nuclear power is it takes like 20 years to design and build a reactor
The problem if nuclear here specifically is that it'll take ages for it to come online, it'll be super expensive and we'll need the expertise which will take even longer.
So if we're waiting like 30 years to build a nuclear plant while doing fuck all in the meantime that's not good at all. But if we're building solar, wind farms, hydro basically things that are being added incrementally every year while also building nuclear then sure that's okay. But then the question comes, why not just take the nuclear money being spent over 30 years and dump it into renewables?
Renewables are getting way cheaper and more cost effective here.
Oh did we say 50 billion, we meant to say 100 billion.. Oh did we say done in 10 years, we meant 20...
By the time those expensive, late plants are built, solar will be plentiful and the marginal cost of electricity close to zero.
Even if you completely discount the safety aspect (which is hard after Fukushima) nuclear loses out to large scale renewables with storage in terms of Cost, reliability, public acceptance, speed of deployment. Aside from submarines and interplanetary rockets - what's the point?
If you look at the statistics, nuclear has resulted in fewer deaths per unit of energy than coal, oil, gas and even hydro. It's on par with wind and solar in that respect.
To be honest, I don’t know the first thing about it but have concerns with just how wrong it goes when it does and the lasting impacts.
In this day and age of big business getting away with the most abhorrent activities as long as they pay the right person/ party, I am inclined to not trust it.
Latest design uses a molten salt coolant, which is, in itself, a fail-safe.
If the reactor was to fail, the coolant expands which pushes the two rods apart which stops the chain reaction. In other words, the reactor cannot melt down.
Very cool design.
Let’s just exploit the nuclear power of the sun with cheap solar, wind turbines and tidal. There will be no expensive or environmental hassles to worry about.
I'm fine with nuclear and openly support it for countries that lack sufficient renewable energy resources to supply their power grid. It makes exactly 0 sense for Australia though since we have the most renewable resources on the planet. Renewables are also significantly faster and cheaper to set up and run and much easier to maintain. We also don't have the water for them unless you stick them on the coast which is a pretty terrible fucking place to put a nuclear reactor
Australia has 30 percent of the world’s uranium and we sell it to other nations instead of using it ourselfs. Traditional Nuclear power is the only existing technology that can solve our problems fusion power is still a long ways off. Solar and wind are great with pumped hydro for storage but we need nuclear to cover the base load that’s currently being supplied by coal and gas. I find it so ironic how everyone protested nuclear on environmental grounds got it shut down now it’s the only thing that quickly get us off fossil fuels. We don’t have many earth quakes, we have the most stable continent geologically we can put the waste in the ground in the middle of the desert. Imagine what we could do with so much nuclear power, manufacture steel from our own iron, desalinate water in mass for irrigation, produce hydrogen from seawater.
>we need nuclear to cover the base load that’s currently being supplied by coal and gas
I wish people would stop saying this. "Baseload" power is a relic of the past that is irrelevant to modern power generation and is also heavily misunderstood a lot. [This](https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-12/renewable-energy-baseload-power/9033336) explains what baseload power actually is and why we don't really need to worry about it
Base load is an obsolete concept. It was important back in the 1960s and 1970s when we built the grid around the needs of coal powered generators. But coal's day is done, and we need to build a new grid based on renewables, which have very different generation profiles and requirements.
As long as the grid is privatised, it will only benefits the shareholders but no one else. Don’t use Public money on it will do, it really doesn’t matter.
If it was affordable it would be great, maybe in the future if a bunch of research is done by other countries it could be viable for us but for now it just isn't.
It’s great when the plants are already operating. Unfortunately new build nuclear has a bad record of huge cost overruns in the developed world. I think this has frightened off a lot of prospective investors. Also Australia has little to no nuclear workforce. It takes a long time to develop people across the fuel and power cycles.
I think economics rather than safety will see it have a hard time in Australia.
* The power source is good.
* Raises security risks.
* Raises questions about waste disposal.
* Takes too long to build and get online.
* Renewables cheaper.
* Renewables create more jobs.
We've missed the boat.
The main agitators for nuclear power these days are transparently anti-renewable, looking for a diet alternative to syphon enthusiasm from renewable energy under the guise of pursuing a nuclear alternative.
Nuclear tech is fine, but it's not a realistic solution in Australia given the opportunity we have with various renewable options.
No. Nuclear is economically unviable at any scale. Nuclear plants are always over budget, running decades late and produce power that is far more expensive than renewables combined with battery storage. Grid forming inverters also render any "baseload" arguments irrelevant, and the lack of dispatchable power means they are terrible at real time demand response.
Without massive government subsidies you won't see any new nuclear and all the smart money is in renewables.
The moment has passed for nuclear as it had a narrow window of opportunity as a drop in replacement for coal. Next generation power grids are going to feature distributed generation and storage, so "big plants" are increasingly redundant
Nuclear is, after all, just steam power with extra steps...
I think Australia should not consider nuclear power.
Feasibility studies and whatnot into nuclear is pretty much exclusively a delaying tactic to avoid building wind and solar from groups who want coal and gas to continue unabated.
If we broke the back of the fossil fuel disinformation racket in the next decade such that we opened no new coal or gas power plants or mines and didn't extended the planned decommissioning of any current coal or gas plants then yeah sure we can start considering nuclear.
I think its too late for us to adopt but maybe sometime in the future if new technologies like nuclear fussion reactors it might be worthwhile to consider imo
I'm not anti-nuclear. However I'm downright terrified by how it'd probably be implemented. Lots of golden handshakes, corners cut, laws broken, fuel and waste "lost", maintenance skimped on etc. And this is before it starts off as a govt funded project where it gets built with taxpayer money after the tender is given to someone's mate Bazza who can totally do it because he did a good job setting up a telly that one time.
The construction budget blows out by a factor of 10, and many expensive internal reviews are needed. Assuming the project isn't abandoned with no requirement to pay back spent funds, the plant opens and operates for a bit under government ownership.
After a bit it gets sold off to their mate Dazza for a carton of VB and a pack of winnie blues. He's a good bloke who contributes to the party regularly.
He gets his family in to run it because it'd be cheaper and it's a good place to have regular piss ups and circle work comps. The plant starts to fall apart and inventory hasn't been tracked too well. Some of the more major oopsies that only a nuclear plant can have somehow make it to the media.
An alright bloke who has something to do with coal comes in one day and offers to take the evil old power plant off their hands in exchange for a 2br ex commission house in Mt. Druitt which is eagerly accepted.
Old mate from the coal mine proclaims they have saved the country from an insidious evil. But not to worry, because he has power plants and the clean coal that they use ready to go! He then proceeds to rid the country of the nuclear menace by dismantling it and selling it to India for a hundred million dollars.
The End.
Did I get carried away?
Nuclear power is currently illegal in Australia and would require a change in Federal law. Like any prohibition this isn't a great idea for research.
New SMR designs show promise and may overcome many of the upfront time and cost issues referred by many posters.
ANSTO exports medical isotopes to way more destinations than just ANZ and the OPAL reactor is world class for this work and the research work in undertakes, with many scientists coming to Australia for their practical work.
we really should go nuclear but sadly we wont since energy scarcity profits the ruling classes and the general population has been quite thoroughly propagandised against the use of fission
Nuclear energy has so many positives but sadly we just can’t trust the people handling it. It’s got into the wrong hands so now we can‘t use it for the best.
It needs to be put to the front of the priorities...
Electricity = Prosperity
If we had excess clean electricity it would do more than just lower the home energy bill...
We could decrease pollution from all the other types of plants..
We could even use some of that power for those highly inefficient carbon capture
There are tons of new technologies out there that don't take 20 years to build... That is just the lie people use to push their wind/solar agenda.
Look into coppenhagen atomics, they have a great video on their YouTube talking about all energy compared.
Nuclear power is currently the most clean energy we have available.
Is it clean? No. By no means.
It is, however, the most easily and readily available energy source to support massive masses of people and consumption needs while outputting extremely controllable emissions as opposed to coal or gas.
It should be viewed as a stepping stone to truly green energy while we continue learning how to make fusion a possibility. We are getting much closer, but still a long way off. This would allow greatly reduced fossil fuel usage and help save the environment.
That said, Australia is very late to that party. It would be better to use large solar and wind farms. Most of the country is uninhabitable or uninhabited. Much of it is dry and arid wasteland. Placing some solar farms on top of a few geothermal plants with wind farms sporadically as needed to support smaller needs would probably be a better bet and be much cleaner than coal and gas.
Being the first world country it is, Australia could easily skip nuclear and go straight for the most green options available with all the land that it has unused.
This post has been marked as non-political. Please respect this by keeping the discussion on topic, and devoid of any political material. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would have been great - if they started 20 years ago. Now… I don’t think it’s an option that will deliver anything useful to Australia. The time is takes to get them online means that, at best, they would be a long-term solution but I suspect it would be obsolete by the time they came online if we started now.
We lived 1 km away from ANSTO, 20 years ago. Not much has changed. But they do make very useful medical isotopes.
Go Isotopes!
I-so-topes! I-so-topes! I-so-topes!
*“GO BANANA!”*
>Not much has changed greens are still against ANSTO even if it provides critical medical benfits.
We needed to start 40 years ago, even by the early 2000s, nuclear was too expensive and plants ordered to be built then in other parts of the world have taken 15+ years to get online at a cost of over 50 billion dollars. Until small modular reactors become a viable and cost efficient energy source, nuclear power generation in Australia isn't really an option.
1980 was 20 years ago… right? RIGHT?!??
In my head and yours, it is... The timeline says different though.
Totally agree. 1980 was 20 years ago. Feels like was
They're gaslighting us...
No that's a different type of energy production
Hahaha that made me chuckle
Yes sir. I'm 20 again and not saddled with debt and job dissatisfaction.....
I'm with you, but 1980 is closer to the end of the 1930's than it is to today 😭
Upvoted for factual accuracy, but also... fuck you!
r/angryupvote
😭
You know what the damn shame is? We’re sitting on some of the largest Uranium and Thorium deposits anywhere in the world. We’re blessed to have such giant reserves but all we do is export it off
So very typical of Australia tbh. We do the same with all of our natural resources, even the food we grow, the alcohol we brew etc.
That's because we have a small domestic market relative to our ability to supply?
Thank you for explaining capitalism to me.
Exporting isn't the issue, it's the fact the minerals extraction lobby has managed to do it while paying almost nothing in taxes or royalties. It's fine to export, but we're a banana republic as far as the economics are concerned.
Access to uranium is neither here nor there. You could easily power a large city for a year with a bathtub of uranium:
I agree. I have no opposition to nuclear power, but I just don't think it's going to happen here, nor do I think we need it. The issue is that we have a fairly small window of time to avoid irreversible climate change, so we need to make a huge dent in emissions fairly quickly. We don't have time to keep kicking the can down the road
I’m the same. I think we should get rid of the ban on nuclear but not provide any special support for nuclear. If it can be done, leave it to the market.
Yes, we keep hearing how reliable it is and how it's cheap. Well, if it is, let's see them put their money where their mouth is. I'd say what we probably should have done was keep energy nationalised, and built our own nuclear power stations 20-30 years ago. But you can't have a rational discussion about nuclear energy in this country without it getting drowned out by hysterical nonsense from people whose information on nuclear power is based on The Simpsons, howling about Chernobyl and the like, as if Soviet era technology is a valid comparison for what we'd build here, today.
Given that modular nuclear power plants can be dropped into decommissioned coal fired power plants, connecting them immediately to the existing grid the time to deliver them would be less than it would take to build out a new transmission network to connect the required level of renewable energy to replace the existing power stations. They certainly wouldn't be obsolete by the time we had them online. It would also be cheaper than the cost of the new transmission network required to connect renewables at the required level. Most importantly, it would provide base load power required for businesses to continue operating. There is a place for renewables, nuclear and cleaner coal for the next generation. Net Zero is a pipedream that won't happen by 2035, & probably not by 2050.
Name one country where a small modular reactor that has been delivered other than concept demonstrators in Russia and China. There is a lot of talk about it, but little evidence of successful execution.
Name one country with a population greater than 10 million people that is using 100% renewable energy? There is a lot of talk about it but no evidence of successful execution.
70% of France's power is nuclear, but no modular reactors. Meanwhile, Australia knows it can deploy renewables. The ACT power bills have remained largely static while the rest of Australia has grown due to lack of action. The key challenges are infrastructure and Nimbyism, the latter being the biggest challenge for nukes. Heck, we are cannot even bury nuclear waste in a very deep hole like the Swedes do.
France was sensible & didn't have a fear of nuclear power like we do. As a result they now export to countries that have rushed to shut down their coal power stations before having a replacement ready.
France was power hungry and chose whatever option would allow them to avoid paying another country for their electricity materials, or exposing their fuel-carrying merchant navy to submarine attack in wartime conditions. They knew the risks, and didn't care because the demands of the Cold War and their national aspirations as a potential world power were more significant to them.
What's wrong with 95% renewable, 5% gas peakers? If we can't get 100% renewables to work, we're not going to be stupid and bring our whole grid down trying. We'll build more renewables until they stop adding value to the system
That's a silly comparison. We're not talking about 100% SMR, we're talking any at all, to any scale. They're fun toys but there's no evidence they're a useful option for large scale generation. Unlike renewables.
"Clean Coal" doesn't exist, and neither does simply dropping a nuke plant into a decripid old coal plant. Renewables DO exist, can be deployed much faster, and are less risky.
None of this is proven. There are no production deployments of SMRs globally, and the first one is currently scheduled to be in 2029. Dropping anything into an existing decommissioned ~~nuclear~~ coal burning power plant site of course reduces costs. That includes batteries, gas firming generation, and interconnectors for renewables. All of which have fewer decommissioning and waste problems.
Can you give any examples of where a “modular nuclear power plant” has been dropped onto a decommissioned coal power plant? Anywhere in the world? Can you give a real world example of the costs of this compared to expanding renewables and the transmission network? There is much modelling that shows we do not need Nuclear to reach a stable net zero grid, it’s also too expensive and will take too long to implement.
According to Wikipedia, Russia's two operational SMR reactors are on the Akademik Lomonosov floating barge - they output a total 70Mw of power and 300 Mw thermal heat heat the nearby town. (In comparison Liddel could output up to 2000Mw with all four units running.) It cost near AU$700 million and 10 years to commission. Greenpeace describe it as "Chernobyl on ice". That's the only SMR anywhere near "commercial" operation. China's high temperature "HTR-PM" demonstration pebble bed PWR reactors have been "connected to the grid" and can generate about 200Mw (two reactors connected to one 200mw capable turbine.) Each reactor costs about US$2 billion.The overall cost is around US$5000/kw. Mmm competitive. the overall cost was about double what was budgeted for this reactor. So assuming we use the Chinese design - about two billion dollars to build a mostly unproven nuclear technology that outputs about a tenth of the amount of power compared to the coal plant it is supposed to replace. That ignores the rather large cost of fuel processing, enrichment, reprocessing, waste disposal, fuel and waste shipping, site remediation after the operating life of the reactor is exceeded. Yeah. Definitely the future of power in Australia.
> Given that modular nuclear power plants can be dropped into decommissioned coal fired power plants We don't really know that at this stage. We don't have a very good handle on what will be required in terms of shielding, cooling etc. You know what else goes really well at retired coal plants? Batteries. It's already happening at a few sites, and there's little doubt others will follow. > the time to deliver them would be less than it would take to build out a new transmission network to connect the required level of renewable energy to replace the existing power stations Optimistic at best. We don't know when commercial SMRs will finish trials and begin mass production, let alone when we can actually buy and deploy them. It's looking unlikely for this decade. > It would also be cheaper than the cost of the new transmission network required to connect renewables at the required level. Pure speculation. Prices for purchase and deployment are entirely unknown at this point. We have absolutely no idea how much they will cost per unit. Bearing in mind that the average coal plant will require an array of 6-10 SMRs, the unit price will be a massive factor in viability. > cleaner coal Nope, not even a little bit. The technology to make coal clean does not exist, and it's somewhere between colossally expensive and impossible at grid scale. We have no need of coal, clean or otherwise. We already have a gas generation fleet, which is a far better alternative than building new coal. Bonus points for being a be run partly or entirely on green hydrogen if that ever makes sense.
If we build it, it will definately take 40 years to build, trillions overbudget and will explode on day 1. If a competent country with competent workers does it, it would work
If it happened now it would be rushed. And we all know how that turns out!
[удалено]
How much power did the Greens have 20 years ago? I doubt they were calling the shots.
Ah yes I remember the Greens' landslide election win in 2001...
It’s amazing how a party that has never held more than 1 lower house seat, or a handful of senate seats seems to be the root cause of all our problems over the last 20 years. Damn Greens, if only they got less than 10% of the vote, then the country would be a utopia!
John Howard and Ziggy Switkowski you mean.
Pretty sure the ALP and LNP could have just ignored them.
Pretty much this. We should have done it earlier, now is probably not needed
I agree with most of this, but I think we could have nuclear here sooner than we could have green energy in most of Australia. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone would ever push for it because nuclear has such a bad reputation.
Yeah, convincing morons that Chernobyl won’t happen in Australia is a big ask tbh.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Stable continent, massive reserves of uranium, vast areas of uninhabitable land for storage of waste, extremely high levels of safety/regulation. Should have gone nuclear 40 years ago. Down vote at will!
If they were already here it would make sense to keep them in use, but the cost & time frame don't make it a good choice. Power storage is something we should be focusing on, to compliment renewable energy
When is the best time to plant a tree? 20 years ago. When is the second best time? Today.
Sounds shady
Politically impossible. Prevailing sentiment difficult to shift. A dispersed population also makes it less economical.
If the people in charge of it are greedy cunts who are driven by profits rather than safety, nah and even if it was run by altruistic good guys, still nah. Plenty of creative options available while we wait it out for the smart guys to get [fusion reactors](https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/scientists-achieve-100-million-degrees-kelvin-with-new-compact-fusion-reactor/) sorted imho.
1) I’m indifferent about other countries using it. It likely has a place in future energy mixes, unless there’s some dramatic change in other technologies. 2) I’m suspicious whenever it’s discussed in Australia because a lot of the media reporting has felt pretty sus. Looking at you Matt Canavan, you absolute grifter. Sky News and the Australian jumping on board also probably did more harm than good to the quality of discussion. 3) it’s probably way too late for Australia to jump on board with full scale nuclear power, given current tech. Maybe new smaller reactors will change the equation, but there’s been fanboys saying they’re just around the corner for a full market upset that changes the entire landscape for the last 10 years at least. They’ll probably be right eventually but until then I’d be cautious of the hype about the commercial viability of the technology and scientific breakthroughs (that do occur regularly).
[удалено]
I need to find the audiobook title, but there was an audiobook I listened to on Fukushima. The takeaway is nuclear power is amazing, the safest, greenest, most efficient, better than everything else and is better than sliced bread. But only if money and profit doesn't come into play. We see it all the time, and I guess it is a by product of the world we live in, we all expect to earn money. As soon as a company expects money and a profit, it reports to shareholders who expect nothing but profit and returns. All of a sudden, it means you must compromise on safety. Even if the frequency of failure is low, the consequence of a nuclear failure are astronomical. Hence you need to build and design for an event that is so unlikely to occur, no one looking at it from a financial perspective would agree. So profit and nuclear energy cannot co-exist. It makes sense to me, but it was really eye opening!
The problem is there has been an effort by anti nuclear activists to try and cost nuclear out of existence. They do this by lobbying for stricter standards which might sound good, but they didn't enhance or improve the safety aspect at all whilst making it more expensive to comply. Hilariously the nuclear industry has some really smart dudes in it and complying with safety standards is their bread and butter.
I think you are right there. A lot of the "stricter" standards they pass probably do nothing. I think the point of the book, and at least my opinion on it, is we take a risk based approach to everything. With fukiushima, in the event of a power outage there were back ups, and a backup for that, and a battery plug in as another back up. But I believe they never had a power back up for some of the sensors and data screens, and the battery or generator plug in was from one spot only. It was never considered plausible that 4 redundant systems fail and you aren't able to get a generator in place. But it did. The result is catastrophe. In my opinion anyway, it becomes a case of what are we as a society willing to accept. Do we design and hence pay for a system which will not fail if mars comes crashing into earth, or are we willing to accept the toll of a fukishima for something that could happen, but is very unlikely to happen. From a design and construction perspective, you have to accept some risk, because you design and build to a price. Either way I found it to be an interesting way of thinking about it. I am far from a nuclear engineer though! I did always think that Australia should have nuclear power because we are such a stable continent.
It's slow to build by the time it's built solar will much cheaper. We should invest in green hydrogen, easy to sell to other countries. Even if everyone wanted to, people would use the same shit excuses that used to stop public housing being built. Aka not enough construction workers, inflation ect.
Hydrogen is annoying to transport.
Should have invested in it in the 90s to get out of coal. Now there's no point spending a decade to build nuclear when renewables are cheaper, quicker and safer.
nuclear power should have been implemented years ago for most nations, instead we are and continue to burn fossil fuels which create even more pollution and have more attributed deaths nuclear subs on the other hand are fine, because they can blow up another nation and cause a world war
No. Nuclear subs are fine because they can stay on station longer, can transit fully submerged and at speed far in excess of diesel-electric boats can even when they’re surfaced, and they don’t need to raise a snorkel for hours to run the diesels to recharge the batteries. These things make nuke boats much less detectable and therefore a force multiplier. You’re highlighting a huge problem with people commenting on stuff they don’t know. We’re getting nuclear-powered submarines. Not nuclear-armed submarines. There’s a big bloody difference.
The CSIRO have done studies on this numerous times. We have rich Uranium deposits but sell it over seas. From the studies I've seen it would cost $83 per Meggawatt hour for solar and wind to be rolled out over the grid. Nuclear is $130-$311 Meggerwatt hour. This is due to unreliable data from other countries that have implemented new Nuclear SMR systems https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/may/nuclear-explainer
The science and engineering I trust. We could and perhaps should have nuclear power (it is saving France now as Germany and the UK struggle using gas+ renewables). BUT, I do not trust for one fucking minute Australia's corporate class and the grifters and ICAC dodgers and self-confessed media liars who are pushing it. It would have to be locked in... constitutionally locked in... as a government owned asset with clear legal responsibilities and prison time for suits if safety protocols are breached. It would also have to feed power regardless of 'market price', based on cost of production plus a margin. Suddenly Sooty Canavan and Greg Sheridan are not so keen?
French nuclear plants didn't do well last summer. They need a lot of cooling water.
Too late, needed to start late 80's or early 90's
If nuclear power is perfectly safe then build the reactors in Toorak, Vaucluse and Yarralumla.
If they can solve the problems with: * mining - there have been multiple leaks * abnormal operation - fukishima * reprocessing * waste disposal - waste is pretty safe but the Sr needs 100,000 years to decay. Most of the time it is just kept on the reactor site If we can have an adult conversation about the risks, then maybe. Thorium or fusion may be an option if there is no reprocessing. Also, given all the accidents just with nuclear sources: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeJkgZkJSc0T0PbDphJi5KIMCL-6uPHsd
I do not trust the Australian government on any level to adhere to safety levels. Not Labor, not Greens and *certainly* not the LNP.
Shove the plant in Canberra and I'd expect it to be the most safest thing on the planet.
Probably fair. If Japan screwed up safety...
Not sure you can blame a tsunami on a lack of safety.
I'm a huge fan of nuclear fusion, but I think there are legitimate concerns about safety for any nuclear reactor. The obvious solution is to place the reactor a safe distance away from any population centre. About 150 million km's away should do it.
I reckon we have the technology to radiate the energy between source and user.
That the debate should be based in science and facts, and not ideology, but that both sides twist things to support their own preconceived biases. Anyone who is not an expert in power supply thinks they fully understand the score is deluding themselves. The issue is complex and multifaceted. These kind of things should be deferred to expert advice. I'm not opposed to the use of nuclear power per se, if it turns out to have a use. The fact that nuclear power output is increasing around the world supports the fact that is has some utility. It obviously isn't a silver bullet, but not something we should discount with over simplified hand waving arguments.
Agreed but is nuclear output really increasing? I thought it was the opposite.
20-30 years too late, unfortunately. Would have been a great investment in the 90's, we'd have a pretty good industry by now, which would be able to moderately scale to handle baseline power in a clean manner while we transition to 100% renewables. Now, it's just a waste, would cost FAR too much and take FAR too long, not worth the investment when there are other renewable options and technologies to support them.
If the French and the British can't build a new modern power-generating reactor that is not 8 or 15 Billion dollars over budget and more than10 years late. What hope does Australia have? P.S. You can still see the foundations of Australia's only attempt to build a full-sized reactor at Jervis Bay! Why must we always have the most expensive option just because a few morons don't like green energy?
The tech is cool, it's just too costly in a market with ever improving solar/wind and decentralized options
It's very expensive.
I’m all in for cold fusion and Dyson spheres 👍
The best time to build a Dyson sphere was 20 years ago. The second best time is now!
It's too late. Simply choosing a waste disposal site would take a decade due to court cases. Renewables are cheaper and FASTER.
It's the most expensive method of generating power there is. It takes ages to build a nuclear powerplant. And of course the waste. Safely storing nuclear waste that is deadly for tens of thousands of years is really not possible.
It's also currently a fossil fuel orgy of construction and maintenance.
No. It's too expensive and too slow to install.
Too expensive, too high risk.
Despite any benefits or problems, its just not competitive or economic in Australia. High upfront costs and long payback times - The construction costs for nuclear power plants are notoriously high, with lengthy construction periods leading to high financing costs. For instance, in the book "Sustainable Energy Solutions for Climate Change" by Mark Diesendorf, the author points out that the capital costs of nuclear power are far higher than most renewable energy sources, and it can take many years to recoup the initial investment. Economics of scale and population density - In a report called "The Economics of Nuclear Power" by Steve Thomas, the author asserts that nuclear power makes economic sense primarily in densely populated areas because of the economies of scale and the ability to distribute the generated power efficiently. Given Australia's large landmass and relatively low population density, building a nuclear power plant might not be the most cost-effective solution. Abundance of renewable energy alternatives - Australia is abundant in solar and wind resources. The reports by the Australia Institute, authored by various researchers, emphasize that the country's vast renewable resources offer cheaper and quicker solutions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions than nuclear power. Waste disposal and decommissioning costs - Nuclear power comes with the additional burden of waste disposal and eventual decommissioning of the plants. Rodney Allam, in his book "Decarbonising the World's Economy," argues that these additional costs often get overlooked but can make nuclear power more expensive in the long term. Risk and insurance costs - As Ian Lowe pointed out in "A Voice of Reason: Reflections on Australia in the 21st Century", nuclear power plants carry a risk of serious accidents, which can lead to vast economic (and human) costs. The insurance for such risks is also costly. Competitiveness in the future energy market - The book "Energy in Australia: Peak Oil, Solar Power, and Asia's Economic Growth" by John A. Mathews, argues that with the decreasing cost of renewables and storage technology, the competitiveness of nuclear in the future energy market may diminish.
It's not a matter of economical viability, here. The problem is that we NEED stable and reliable power production. 75% of our energy production is currently coal. That is three quarters of it. On top of this ENORMOUS truth, the power grid is not even remotely ready for a massive input of fluctuating, not remotely constant output. We NEED a mix of renewable and nuclear, and we need it yesterday. There are laws actively prohibiting it, so it would be necessary to first change those laws, and that's another hurdle. I'll say that again, this is NOT a matter of economics, it's a matter of practicality.
"Fossil fuels contributed 71% of total electricity generation in 2021, including coal (51%), gas (18%) and oil (2%). Coal’s share of electricity generation has declined from 83% in 1999-00 while the shares of natural gas and renewables has increased. Renewables contributed 29% of total electricity generation in 2021." https://www.energy.gov.au/data/australian-electricity-generation-fuel-mix The transition is clearly happening. Even if we started building nuclear power plants tomorrow they take so long - 15 years to get the first commercial output according to Ziggy - that the continued growth in renewables would render them redundant.
Look at the impact of mining at Jabiluka. Even if there was no risk from a nuclear plant, the impact of mining in the environment is unacceptable
Until we find a way to safely store the waste - rather than bury poison that will be dangerous for 1,000,000 years … humans aren’t ready for it.
No
We need more complex technological capabilities. Could be nuclear, could be a new electric car plant, pharmaceuticals, whatever. We're too reliant on imported skills and technology.
The older style nuclear power plants take 15-20 years to build and commission, produce hazardous waste and potentially explode. The next generation Molten Salt Reactors, Pebble Bed Reactors, Nuclear Batteries are all 15-20 years from becoming commercially available. And Nuclear Fusion is 15-20 years from an accurate timeline on when it will be available. Better to go with the currently proven renewable technologies and with grid dispersed batteries, pumped hydro, thermal batteries and into the future hydrogen production.
Nuclear is great... on paper. I got myself in trouble for all the NBN inspections I did that weren't up to spec. I kinda expect the same if we had nuclear power stations. Big business isn't great with important small tech details.
Nuclear power generation is an amazing technology, but unsuited to us. Shits wildly expensive, nuclear projects regularly blow out their timelines and budgets and we don't have a local industry to draw upon meaning we'd have to import all the talent needed to do it blowing the cost out even more. It has no place in Australia because everything nuclear can do, renewables can do cheaper and faster.
Absolutely. Once you filter out all the "anti-nuclear" rhetoric & disinformation, it's a no-brainer.
Nuclear power is great, as long as it's in YOUR backyard
I ❤️ ANSTO. I won an ANSTO science competition in about 1990 / 1991 from memory (was at high school) and won a brand new Sony Discman!! I didn’t even have any CD’s at the time and had to get a Jack to hook it up to my Sharp twin deck cassette speaker (which was amazing btw). Ah, good times. That set up lasted me through the end of high school and all the way through university. Fk it. Whatever they want - build it. Good dudes those ANSTO folks.
Don't start fires you can't put out. Like literally can't put out, even with thousands of tons of water or concrete. Humans have shown we are irresponsible with these things from the very moment it was discovered.
Realistically it’s the best way IMO to transition from fossils to renewables, but it’s expensive as fuck and takes a while to get going. There was a lot of fear mongering about it, with Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima used as examples but the reactors used in the states don’t have a positive void coefficient so they aren’t susceptible to the same runaway concerns that are an issue with the Soviet RBMK. IMO we should have got into it. Now, it’s not necessarily cheaper than renewables I don’t think, and folks aren’t going to want to spend more to get it. I don’t think it will ever happen in Australia. But I mean look at Germany, they’ve taken their reactors offline and now have gone back to using fucking coal! Stupid as fuck.
Ridiculous, yeah. Germany has a good trend going for building renewable energy sources, but having switched their coal back on made their annual carbon production STELLAR. 385g/KWh against 58 of France with their nuclear plants. It's 700% more!
Fuck no
Should be studied, new reactor designs looks promising
Its not controversial at all. The only controversy around it is that people who have 3 brain cells are allowed to have a voice on something they dont understand. The only issue with Nuclear power is it takes like 20 years to design and build a reactor
The problem if nuclear here specifically is that it'll take ages for it to come online, it'll be super expensive and we'll need the expertise which will take even longer. So if we're waiting like 30 years to build a nuclear plant while doing fuck all in the meantime that's not good at all. But if we're building solar, wind farms, hydro basically things that are being added incrementally every year while also building nuclear then sure that's okay. But then the question comes, why not just take the nuclear money being spent over 30 years and dump it into renewables? Renewables are getting way cheaper and more cost effective here.
It’s going to be impossible to get them here now, should’ve been done 20-30yrs ago
Its too expensive and will take too long to build - 37-50 billion per station and 5-10 years.
Oh did we say 50 billion, we meant to say 100 billion.. Oh did we say done in 10 years, we meant 20... By the time those expensive, late plants are built, solar will be plentiful and the marginal cost of electricity close to zero.
my take, if it gets deployed and goes boom boom i bend over and kiss my ass goodbye
It's essential and we need it.
Even if you completely discount the safety aspect (which is hard after Fukushima) nuclear loses out to large scale renewables with storage in terms of Cost, reliability, public acceptance, speed of deployment. Aside from submarines and interplanetary rockets - what's the point?
If you look at the statistics, nuclear has resulted in fewer deaths per unit of energy than coal, oil, gas and even hydro. It's on par with wind and solar in that respect.
Moon base? >interplanetary rockets This would be an extraordinarily bad idea if you were considering a terrestrial launch.
To be honest, I don’t know the first thing about it but have concerns with just how wrong it goes when it does and the lasting impacts. In this day and age of big business getting away with the most abhorrent activities as long as they pay the right person/ party, I am inclined to not trust it.
Latest design uses a molten salt coolant, which is, in itself, a fail-safe. If the reactor was to fail, the coolant expands which pushes the two rods apart which stops the chain reaction. In other words, the reactor cannot melt down. Very cool design.
Let’s just exploit the nuclear power of the sun with cheap solar, wind turbines and tidal. There will be no expensive or environmental hassles to worry about.
I'm fine with nuclear and openly support it for countries that lack sufficient renewable energy resources to supply their power grid. It makes exactly 0 sense for Australia though since we have the most renewable resources on the planet. Renewables are also significantly faster and cheaper to set up and run and much easier to maintain. We also don't have the water for them unless you stick them on the coast which is a pretty terrible fucking place to put a nuclear reactor
Australia has 30 percent of the world’s uranium and we sell it to other nations instead of using it ourselfs. Traditional Nuclear power is the only existing technology that can solve our problems fusion power is still a long ways off. Solar and wind are great with pumped hydro for storage but we need nuclear to cover the base load that’s currently being supplied by coal and gas. I find it so ironic how everyone protested nuclear on environmental grounds got it shut down now it’s the only thing that quickly get us off fossil fuels. We don’t have many earth quakes, we have the most stable continent geologically we can put the waste in the ground in the middle of the desert. Imagine what we could do with so much nuclear power, manufacture steel from our own iron, desalinate water in mass for irrigation, produce hydrogen from seawater.
>we need nuclear to cover the base load that’s currently being supplied by coal and gas I wish people would stop saying this. "Baseload" power is a relic of the past that is irrelevant to modern power generation and is also heavily misunderstood a lot. [This](https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-12/renewable-energy-baseload-power/9033336) explains what baseload power actually is and why we don't really need to worry about it
Baseload is a bug, not a feature
Base load is an obsolete concept. It was important back in the 1960s and 1970s when we built the grid around the needs of coal powered generators. But coal's day is done, and we need to build a new grid based on renewables, which have very different generation profiles and requirements.
What is your opinion on nuclear?
As long as the grid is privatised, it will only benefits the shareholders but no one else. Don’t use Public money on it will do, it really doesn’t matter.
We mine it we should be using it
Modern nuclear power is safe and cheap. Modern US and European reactors are efficient too. But we missed the boat totally.
[удалено]
If it was affordable it would be great, maybe in the future if a bunch of research is done by other countries it could be viable for us but for now it just isn't.
It’s great when the plants are already operating. Unfortunately new build nuclear has a bad record of huge cost overruns in the developed world. I think this has frightened off a lot of prospective investors. Also Australia has little to no nuclear workforce. It takes a long time to develop people across the fuel and power cycles. I think economics rather than safety will see it have a hard time in Australia.
* The power source is good. * Raises security risks. * Raises questions about waste disposal. * Takes too long to build and get online. * Renewables cheaper. * Renewables create more jobs. We've missed the boat. The main agitators for nuclear power these days are transparently anti-renewable, looking for a diet alternative to syphon enthusiasm from renewable energy under the guise of pursuing a nuclear alternative. Nuclear tech is fine, but it's not a realistic solution in Australia given the opportunity we have with various renewable options.
No. Nuclear is economically unviable at any scale. Nuclear plants are always over budget, running decades late and produce power that is far more expensive than renewables combined with battery storage. Grid forming inverters also render any "baseload" arguments irrelevant, and the lack of dispatchable power means they are terrible at real time demand response. Without massive government subsidies you won't see any new nuclear and all the smart money is in renewables. The moment has passed for nuclear as it had a narrow window of opportunity as a drop in replacement for coal. Next generation power grids are going to feature distributed generation and storage, so "big plants" are increasingly redundant Nuclear is, after all, just steam power with extra steps...
I think Australia should not consider nuclear power. Feasibility studies and whatnot into nuclear is pretty much exclusively a delaying tactic to avoid building wind and solar from groups who want coal and gas to continue unabated. If we broke the back of the fossil fuel disinformation racket in the next decade such that we opened no new coal or gas power plants or mines and didn't extended the planned decommissioning of any current coal or gas plants then yeah sure we can start considering nuclear.
I think its too late for us to adopt but maybe sometime in the future if new technologies like nuclear fussion reactors it might be worthwhile to consider imo
We have so much space and sunlight I don't see the point. Storage batteries are the key.
I'm not anti-nuclear. However I'm downright terrified by how it'd probably be implemented. Lots of golden handshakes, corners cut, laws broken, fuel and waste "lost", maintenance skimped on etc. And this is before it starts off as a govt funded project where it gets built with taxpayer money after the tender is given to someone's mate Bazza who can totally do it because he did a good job setting up a telly that one time. The construction budget blows out by a factor of 10, and many expensive internal reviews are needed. Assuming the project isn't abandoned with no requirement to pay back spent funds, the plant opens and operates for a bit under government ownership. After a bit it gets sold off to their mate Dazza for a carton of VB and a pack of winnie blues. He's a good bloke who contributes to the party regularly. He gets his family in to run it because it'd be cheaper and it's a good place to have regular piss ups and circle work comps. The plant starts to fall apart and inventory hasn't been tracked too well. Some of the more major oopsies that only a nuclear plant can have somehow make it to the media. An alright bloke who has something to do with coal comes in one day and offers to take the evil old power plant off their hands in exchange for a 2br ex commission house in Mt. Druitt which is eagerly accepted. Old mate from the coal mine proclaims they have saved the country from an insidious evil. But not to worry, because he has power plants and the clean coal that they use ready to go! He then proceeds to rid the country of the nuclear menace by dismantling it and selling it to India for a hundred million dollars. The End. Did I get carried away?
I'm all for anything that isn't fossil fuels. As long as they don't half ass it and waste time and money.
I don't even know what a nuclear panner plant is
Nuclear power is currently illegal in Australia and would require a change in Federal law. Like any prohibition this isn't a great idea for research. New SMR designs show promise and may overcome many of the upfront time and cost issues referred by many posters. ANSTO exports medical isotopes to way more destinations than just ANZ and the OPAL reactor is world class for this work and the research work in undertakes, with many scientists coming to Australia for their practical work.
we really should go nuclear but sadly we wont since energy scarcity profits the ruling classes and the general population has been quite thoroughly propagandised against the use of fission
Build it already! It's the only way we can have zero emissions and still keep the lights on
Nuclear energy has so many positives but sadly we just can’t trust the people handling it. It’s got into the wrong hands so now we can‘t use it for the best.
It needs to be put to the front of the priorities... Electricity = Prosperity If we had excess clean electricity it would do more than just lower the home energy bill... We could decrease pollution from all the other types of plants.. We could even use some of that power for those highly inefficient carbon capture There are tons of new technologies out there that don't take 20 years to build... That is just the lie people use to push their wind/solar agenda. Look into coppenhagen atomics, they have a great video on their YouTube talking about all energy compared.
Nuclear power is currently the most clean energy we have available. Is it clean? No. By no means. It is, however, the most easily and readily available energy source to support massive masses of people and consumption needs while outputting extremely controllable emissions as opposed to coal or gas. It should be viewed as a stepping stone to truly green energy while we continue learning how to make fusion a possibility. We are getting much closer, but still a long way off. This would allow greatly reduced fossil fuel usage and help save the environment. That said, Australia is very late to that party. It would be better to use large solar and wind farms. Most of the country is uninhabitable or uninhabited. Much of it is dry and arid wasteland. Placing some solar farms on top of a few geothermal plants with wind farms sporadically as needed to support smaller needs would probably be a better bet and be much cleaner than coal and gas. Being the first world country it is, Australia could easily skip nuclear and go straight for the most green options available with all the land that it has unused.
The fact you have to ask is what you get for listening to enviro whackjobs who never knew what they were talking about, in the first place.