Nuclear Power fail for Australia

[Sparty]

Five reasons why nuclear power is not the right solution for Australia: Summary of AFR's article: https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-an...0230827-p5dzqa

1. Cost:

Nuclear power is the most expensive form of energy, according to multiple independent studies like GenCost by CSIRO and AEMO.

Renewables (including storage) are already cheaper than nuclear by several multiples.

Costs of emerging technologies like small modular reactors (SMRs) are uncertain and likely high.

2. Unproven Technology:

No commercial SMRs exist globally, with only two demonstration plants (one in Russia and one in China).

Ontario's plans for SMRs lack cost estimates and environmental approvals, making them unreliable for large-scale deployment.

3. Slow Deployment:

Building nuclear power plants takes a long time, making them unsuitable for meeting Australia's immediate emissions reduction goals.

Achieving a nuclear plant by the early or mid-2030s is highly unlikely.

4. Lack of Flexibility:

Nuclear power is not a flexible energy source as it cannot easily be turned on and off, unlike gas-fired power stations which can adapt to fluctuations in renewable energy supply.

5. Nuclear Waste:

Even SMRs would generate significant nuclear waste, increasing overall waste management burden.

Stanford University study finds SMRs could double or triple the volume of nuclear waste needing disposal.

Conclusion:

Australia has a comparative advantage in renewable energy, the cheapest and fastest-deployable option.

Choosing nuclear power would be costly, slow, and unnecessary.

After years of climate inaction, Australia needs to focus on proven, cost-effective solutions like renewables, not distractions like nuclear.

These are the five main points addressed in the AFR's article published article, though it delves deeper into each point with additional arguments and evidence.

[Sparty]

I asked Bard.Google is this correct? There is no commercial SMR operating anywhere in the world. There are two demonstration plants: one floating around on a barge in Russia and one in China.

Bard's answer: mostly correct. As of today, January 12, 2024, there are indeed no commercially operating SMRs in the world. However, your statement about demonstration plants needs a slight clarification.

Russia: The Akademik Lomonosov, the world's first floating nuclear power plant, began operating in May 2020. It utilizes two 35 MW(e) reactor modules, which can be considered SMRs due to their size and modularity. However, it's important to note that the Akademik Lomonosov itself is not classified as a single SMR, but rather a mobile nuclear power plant equipped with SMR modules.

China: There are currently two high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) demonstration plants under construction in China, each with a planned capacity of 200 MW(e). These are indeed SMR designs, but they are not yet operational.

Therefore, while there are no full-fledged commercial SMRs operating anywhere yet, there are operational SMR modules in the Akademik Lomonosov and SMR demonstration plants under construction in China.

[Sparty]

Cost: While the high upfront cost of nuclear power projects is undeniable, proponents argue that long-term operating costs can be lower than renewables when factoring in fuel and maintenance. Additionally, potential cost reductions and economies of scale with SMRs could improve their competitiveness in the future.

Technology: While commercial SMRs are still in early stages, significant research and development efforts are underway, and some argue that focusing on advancements and demonstration projects could accelerate their deployment timeline.

Deployment Timeline: Nuclear power plants may take longer to build than some renewables, but supporters note that their baseload generation capacity can provide consistent and reliable power, vital for grid stability and industrial applications. Additionally, modularity of SMRs could potentially shorten construction times compared to traditional large reactors.

Flexibility: Some argue that nuclear power can be made more flexible through technological advancements in reactor design and integration with storage technologies. Additionally, its baseload capacity can provide stability for grids with highly variable renewable energy sources.
Waste Management: While nuclear waste generation remains a concern, proponents emphasize advancements in reprocessing and recycling technologies that could significantly reduce the waste volume and long-term storage burden. Additionally, SMRs may produce less waste per unit of energy than traditional reactors.

Additional Perspectives:

Geopolitical considerations: Some argue that nuclear power could enhance Australia's energy independence and reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels, particularly with advancements in domestic uranium enrichment capabilities.

Public perception: The AFR article highlights concerns about safety and waste disposal. However, there are ongoing efforts to improve public understanding of nuclear technology and address these concerns through transparency and community engagement.

Role in a diverse energy mix: Proponents argue that nuclear power could complement a renewable energy-based future by providing reliable baseload power and supporting grid stability, particularly in regions with limited renewable resource potential.

[Sparty]

https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/Art...lear-explainer

[Sparty]

Summary of article written by Alan Kohler argues that the current debate about nuclear power in Australia is a distraction from the more important issue of transitioning to renewable energy.

Key points:

Ban on nuclear power: Australia currently has a ban on nuclear power, despite being a major uranium producer and having no immediate plans to build any nuclear power plants.

Political debate: The main political parties disagree on the ban, with the Coalition advocating for its removal and Labor opposing it. However, the article suggests this is mainly for political differentiation rather than significant policy differences.

Focus on small modular reactors (SMRs): The current debate focuses on SMRs, small and supposedly safer reactors, but their economic viability and contribution to clean energy remain uncertain.

Renewables as the priority: The article argues that the focus should be on developing renewable energy sources like solar and wind, which are already cheaper and more promising.

Removing the ban as a solution: Removing the ban would remove the distraction and allow politicians to focus on real issues like promoting renewable energy. The private sector would then decide whether or not to build nuclear plants based on economic feasibility.

Overall, the article suggests that the current debate about nuclear power in Australia is unproductive and hinders progress towards a clean energy future. It argues for focusing on developing proven renewable energy sources and removing the ban as a way to move forward.

Read full article: https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/opini...-nuclear-power

[Sparty]

Big investors with a lot of money to manage (over $37 trillion!) are more interested in renewable energy and other climate solutions than nuclear power.
In a survey, less than 10% of these investors said they wanted to invest in new nuclear technology.

Here's why investors aren't crazy about nuclear:

It's expensive to build nuclear power plants.
There are newer, better climate solutions available.
Investors are becoming more confident in Australia's plans to tackle climate change, but they want the government to set clear goals for getting rid of coal, oil and gas.

Australia's main electricity companies also aren't interested in nuclear power for at least the next 10 years.

The most popular climate solutions for investors are:

Renewable energy (like solar and wind power)
Protecting nature (like planting trees)
Storing energy
Making transportation cleaner (like electric cars)
Developing new materials that are better for the environment
Investors are also happy that the Australian government is putting money towards a clean energy future, like hydrogen power. They want the government to keep making clear plans and taking action on climate change.

Read: https://www.theguardian.com/australi...alian-ventures