The Coalition is a fan of quoting the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation's optimism on nuclear timelines compared to the CSIRO. But do the numbers add up?
Nuclear proponents, Including Dr Alan Finkle (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/22/heres-why-there-is-no-nuclear-option-for-australia-to-reach-net-zero) often state the safety record is comparable to that of wind and solar in terms of deaths per unit of energy produced. What they don’t mention is the cost of making nuclear safe. Arguments that fewer safety measures are needed founder on the fact you can't test to failure and therefore we can't know the precise level of safety margins needed. Add to this the high consequences of getting risk analysis wrong and no-one in the free world are prepared to fully accept those risks.
I also had a look at the ANSTO website recently and was disappointed to find cut-and-paste content in the nuclear power section which could have come from the industry lobby. There was no detailed description informing the public on the state of the art in Nuclear power technology, no detailed lists of various reactor technologies the number of producing reactors and prototypes etc.
The notion that we MUST be able to get usable energy out a substance tens of thousands times the energy density of coal is highly compelling, so it’s no wonder people keep trying. The problem is nearly all technological development depends on trial and error, but with reactor technology error can kill you. You can’t “fail upwards” Elon Musk style.
Before you even build a prototype, you have to have your have an orders of magnitude higher degree of certainty of the probability for failure than for any other technology, and for every aspect of the system because you can’t know how a design will function until it’s functioning. New, previously unknown potential points of failure can then crop up when you are building the prototype, running the prototype, building the working reactor and running the working reactor.
Faults or malfunctions in an active reactor core can’t be directly repaired so you have to make sure nothing goes wrong before you load up the fuel, and if something does go wrong, hope that it is the kind of problem remote repair systems are designed to cope with, that it will resolve itself, that, if all else fails, it won’t result in a leak or explosion and the reactor can be shutdown and decommissioned safely. All of this means a precautionary principle must be applied to design and construction simply due to the fact you can’t test a reactor to failure, at least, not on purpose.
On the bit about the Howard government, I’m hearing argument that we shouldn’t be held back by older decisions and that we need to have another conversation. My counter argument is that the facts haven’t changed so what would form the basis of this conversation. The response was something along the lines of free speech on which further discussion became pointless.
Wow. You did a great job tracking the Coalition's claim back to its underwhelming source. I'll climb on board the nuclear bandwagon if the numbers stack up but for now they very clearly don't.
Backing down with a lot of climate activist blaming seems inevitable. Almost like they've done that before. O'Brian might really believe that nuclear is better than renewables for emissions reductions but it is clear that the LNP party room believes fossil fuels are better than either. How long does a nuclear plant take to build when you DON'T want to reduce fossil fuel use and saving fossil fuels from renewable energy is more important than emissions reductions?
I am cynical enough to think Dutton expected and hoped for a lot LESS mature debate about it from energy experts, economists, scientists and (yes) climate activists (who are not all green-left) and a lot more media focus on the most unreasonable anti-nuclear extremists.
I just don't understand the policy significance of being "optimistic" or "pessimistic" about any specific CO2 avoiding technology. Tax CO2 emissions, regulate each technnology appropriately, research lots of alternatives, and let the decisions about investments be made for specific places and times be determined by cost benefit analysis.
Unfortunately, carbon taxes are off the agenda in Australia. I pushed a "grand bargain" of removing the ban on nuclear and imposing a carbon price, and the nuclear fans weren't interested. So leaving it to the market is not an option
Put it in the cost benefit analysis and turn the crank. Or better still, tax the net CO2 emissions and the Financial analysis will give us he answer. I'm talking about regulation, not characterization.
Nuclear proponents, Including Dr Alan Finkle (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/22/heres-why-there-is-no-nuclear-option-for-australia-to-reach-net-zero) often state the safety record is comparable to that of wind and solar in terms of deaths per unit of energy produced. What they don’t mention is the cost of making nuclear safe. Arguments that fewer safety measures are needed founder on the fact you can't test to failure and therefore we can't know the precise level of safety margins needed. Add to this the high consequences of getting risk analysis wrong and no-one in the free world are prepared to fully accept those risks.
I also had a look at the ANSTO website recently and was disappointed to find cut-and-paste content in the nuclear power section which could have come from the industry lobby. There was no detailed description informing the public on the state of the art in Nuclear power technology, no detailed lists of various reactor technologies the number of producing reactors and prototypes etc.
The notion that we MUST be able to get usable energy out a substance tens of thousands times the energy density of coal is highly compelling, so it’s no wonder people keep trying. The problem is nearly all technological development depends on trial and error, but with reactor technology error can kill you. You can’t “fail upwards” Elon Musk style.
Before you even build a prototype, you have to have your have an orders of magnitude higher degree of certainty of the probability for failure than for any other technology, and for every aspect of the system because you can’t know how a design will function until it’s functioning. New, previously unknown potential points of failure can then crop up when you are building the prototype, running the prototype, building the working reactor and running the working reactor.
Faults or malfunctions in an active reactor core can’t be directly repaired so you have to make sure nothing goes wrong before you load up the fuel, and if something does go wrong, hope that it is the kind of problem remote repair systems are designed to cope with, that it will resolve itself, that, if all else fails, it won’t result in a leak or explosion and the reactor can be shutdown and decommissioned safely. All of this means a precautionary principle must be applied to design and construction simply due to the fact you can’t test a reactor to failure, at least, not on purpose.
yes = thirteen years after the March 2011 meltdowns, and TEPCO have only a few dodgy drone photos to show for their "cleanup" of the molten cores.
And TEPCO are pouring liquid nuclear pollution into the Pacific, a criminal action.
Remember Barry Brook's bombastic boasting in March 2011?
Fraud is central to the nuclear energy business model.
On the bit about the Howard government, I’m hearing argument that we shouldn’t be held back by older decisions and that we need to have another conversation. My counter argument is that the facts haven’t changed so what would form the basis of this conversation. The response was something along the lines of free speech on which further discussion became pointless.
Wow. You did a great job tracking the Coalition's claim back to its underwhelming source. I'll climb on board the nuclear bandwagon if the numbers stack up but for now they very clearly don't.
Backing down with a lot of climate activist blaming seems inevitable. Almost like they've done that before. O'Brian might really believe that nuclear is better than renewables for emissions reductions but it is clear that the LNP party room believes fossil fuels are better than either. How long does a nuclear plant take to build when you DON'T want to reduce fossil fuel use and saving fossil fuels from renewable energy is more important than emissions reductions?
I am cynical enough to think Dutton expected and hoped for a lot LESS mature debate about it from energy experts, economists, scientists and (yes) climate activists (who are not all green-left) and a lot more media focus on the most unreasonable anti-nuclear extremists.
yes, why do our media not cover the extremely nasty health effects of nuclear pollution?
Is it because extremely nasty pro nuclear fanatics are in control of our mainstream media?
I just don't understand the policy significance of being "optimistic" or "pessimistic" about any specific CO2 avoiding technology. Tax CO2 emissions, regulate each technnology appropriately, research lots of alternatives, and let the decisions about investments be made for specific places and times be determined by cost benefit analysis.
Unfortunately, carbon taxes are off the agenda in Australia. I pushed a "grand bargain" of removing the ban on nuclear and imposing a carbon price, and the nuclear fans weren't interested. So leaving it to the market is not an option
It should not be off the agenda of bloggers ( or whatever Substackers are). And why bargain for removing the nuclear ban. They are both good.
why do you call nuclear "CO2 avoiding technology"?
As well as a huge upfront carbon footprint, the lifetime carbon footprint of nuclear is comparable to fossil fuels.
Put it in the cost benefit analysis and turn the crank. Or better still, tax the net CO2 emissions and the Financial analysis will give us he answer. I'm talking about regulation, not characterization.
tax the actual CO2 emissions, not the confected estimates provided by the polluters.
ANSTO are part of the international nuclear gang, and fraud is central to their business model.