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writes: I solely ever did my homework when there was washing as much as be finished (“Coalition delivers the identical outdated drained nuclear speaking factors at COP28”). Generally we select one thing to keep away from having to decide on one thing else. The nuclear “debate” makes me suppose {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 permits conservative politicians to not have to deal with the actual and speedy dialog lest they seem to supply even veiled help to the opposite guys.
It’s clearly daft {that a} nation chock filled with solar and wind doesn’t totally exploit this renewable useful resource. Coalition politicians would quite attend a nuclear convention with half a dozen nations, dodgy media and dry sausage rolls than try to make Australia the knowledgeable within the expertise, manufacture and storage of renewable power. As W.H. Auden wrote: “We’d quite be ruined than modified. We’d quite 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 very best mixture of sources will probably be. To cross any off the checklist 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 will probably be required, nor how a lot of the present community is likely to be 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 each one the nuclear issues are true, regardless of that the fossil-fuel business 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 once they have by no means even begun. Had we begun 50 years in the past (as we must always should shut down coal and gasoline) we’d now be cruising — maybe.
The $387 billion price quoted for one sort of reactor must be measured in opposition to all different choices and mixtures, with a worth for reliability included. The pure gasoline (methane) business 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 most important business on this planet, prices an awesome deal and we’re ready to pay for the very best set-up offering we all know it is the very best. Lowering the checklist of starters based on who has the very best lobbyists is ridiculous. However then, isn’t that what we at all times do? A combination of energy sources could possibly be the way in which 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 handle many however not all long-term nuclear waste issues. The waste will probably be round for a whole bunch 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” (suppose Chernobyl) and terrorist goal dangers.
However, thorium-based nuclear reactors eat conventional nuclear waste and can’t soften down. They require a neutron generator to provide the neutrons required for the fission course of. If some pure or man-made catastrophe damages the ability provide (suppose Fukushima) the nuclear fission course of stops and unintended meltdown is unattainable. From an environmental perspective, these reactors are wonderful as they can not explode and spew radioactive waste into the surroundings 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 at present 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 identified usable provide of Th is bigger than U.
There’s 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’s additionally the requirement that for any nuclear choice to be commercially viable it is going to require vital subsidies that economists say will be provided provided that a carbon tax is launched.
Ian Kemp writes: To me it’s crystal clear why the Liberals need nuclear energy, the truth is the identical causes Charlie Lewis talked about:
- It’s vastly costly and will be delivered solely by huge personal companies — future Liberal donors!
- Constructing the vegetation takes ages and prices at all times overrun — Liberal donors for many years!
- It must be taxpayer-funded, ideally through new taxation — Liberal donors paid from taxes!
What’s to not love?
Roger Clifton writes: Nuclear offers the one real looking counter to the rising affect of gasoline. Renewables followers consider 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 totally however (aside from Andrew Forrest) no one is making the trouble to retailer that a lot power — it’s simply too simple to invoke gasoline backup as an alternative. If any anti-fossil vigilante notices the growing gasoline utilization, they don’t make bother — in any case, what else could possibly be used for backup? Properly nuclear energy stations with warmth shops may do the job.
Positive Australia may look forward to different nations to make nuclear electrical energy low cost and speedy to put in, however within the meantime we’d like that nuclear choice to point out Large Fuel that its future is proscribed right here.
Peter Barry writes: There’s nothing flawed with nuclear energy. Trendy reactors are comparatively protected and a whole bunch operate successfully around the globe. The issues lie of their big capital price, infinite delays in development, particularly in Australia, and recruitment and coaching of personnel. Add to this the transport and long-term storage of assorted ranges of radioactive waste, together with decommissioned parts.
The modular reactor idea is fanciful. Even when proved to be possible and dependable expertise, banks of those reactors may change just one or two present coal-fired energy stations. Additionally they undergo from the identical adverse elements as normal reactors.
The comparative price of wind and photo voltaic remains to be falling. These power strategies draw on the nuclear reactions safely locked away deep contained in the solar. There actually is not 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 convey 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 method on repealing the nuclear prohibitions. However whereas it’s in opposition, it’s not that simple. Nuclear energy stations can’t be constructed anyplace in Australia — they’re banned in each state and territory. Nonetheless, you possibly can depend on the Coalition to maintain up the marketing campaign. It actually doesn’t have any insurance policies, except you depend 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 in addition taken up by company media. Certainly the Atlas Community advises its many related suppose tanks and company fronts, and right-wing politicians, to undertake this very profitable type.
In essence the theme is to continually repeat one or two easy, however quite obscure phrases and sentences. It did it with big success in Australia’s latest referendum on the Voice to Parliament — with the important thing phrase “If you happen to don’t know, vote NO!”
I’m predicting the highest pro-nuclear phrase will probably 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 eternally poisonous waste drawback. Nuclear energy will probably be simply “a part of the clear power answer”.
Alas it doesn’t matter if it’s probably not wise. Because the Atlas Community has proved, the tactic works.
